Desiree Forsythe, Sheila S. Jaswal, Bryan Dewsbury, and Susannah McGowan
Introduction
To understand why this Research Topic exists, it is important to recall the original goal from our call for proposals: to reorient STEM researchers and practitioners to reconsider the actual purpose of the practice of teaching and learning. Bryan Dewsbury often invokes us in his writing and talks to understand our why. As educators, we wish to provide insights, practices, and proposed theories to reflect on our WHY in STEM education—from one instructor’s empathetic approach to understanding the undergraduate student experience in gateway courses to the cultural initiation ceremonies at the disciplinary level. These components of humanism and the lens in which we see the human experience throughout a STEM ecosystem serve to bring humanistic thinking to the pedagogical praxis within
STEM. We see this Research Topic as grounded in futures-oriented thinking, proactive scholarship, and equity-minded inclusive practices that will drive new conversations in STEM education toward feasible, meaningful ways to codify equity-minded higher education STEM ecosystems.
The root of this Research Topic is inspired by thought leaders from Septima Clarke (Charron, 2012), Horton (1990), Woodson (1919), Freire (2017), and Givens (2021), to name a few, for whom the process of education was never meant to be untethered from broader questions of social progress and justice. The core “why” of higher education centers on the cultivation of an individual’s intellectual growth, socialization, and wellbeing. Yet, a brief reflection on the history of higher education shows that it has not provided this cultivation to all students. Higher education was once reserved for white men and, while access has steadily increased over time, students who hold marginalized identities continue
to experience harm. The double standards associated with this type of thinking were aggressively pointed out by influential educators listed above who famously worked with marginalized populations.
Within higher education, STEM education undertook its own unique trajectory. STEM research became a formidable and lucrative enterprise for many higher education institutions. Scientists amassed significant financial, social, and political power within and outside of their institutions, becoming gatekeepers to complex knowledge. With this power also came the opportunity to train and educate promising students. It is thus surprising and unfortunate that teaching was (and still is) typically seen as the undesirable responsibility of an individual faculty member. In the US, there were consequences to this divide between research and teaching. American institutions of higher education are still reflective of broader social racial dynamics, and these dynamics have consequences in the classroom. The overall climate around teaching is improving but there is still evidence of instructors and institutions taking a “deficit-minded” view of students, who are asked to burden the proof of ability, in spite of significant social barriers and experiences of marginalization.