Framework for Evaluating Impacts of Broadening Participation Projects
I don't care if you think the title is boring. Well actually I do care and yes the title is boring but hey it's about broadening participation and evaluation-- two areas near and dear to our hearts here at FairerScience. Actually the Framework is quite good. I'm not saying that because I wrote part of it. Or maybe I am--I really like the five levels of access to science that broadening participation efforts need to address that Veronica Thomas, Adam Stoll and I came up with:
Having access to the benefits of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) knowledge,
Having access to STEM knowledge,
Working in STEM areas.
Generating STEM knowledge.
However, my favorite part was written by FairerScience friend Toni Clewell
...to ensure a broader application of its broadening participation mandate, NSF should review all funded programs to determine the following: Are program funds serving a representative proportion of members of underrepresented groups or institutions? Indicators to address this question might include the number and percent of participants served disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, and disability status, and number and percent of institutions awarded funding disaggregated by Carnegie classification, minority serving institution (MSI) status, and region of country. Are positive outcomes of programs (as reflected in evaluations) distributed equitably among all groups of participants or institutions, including underrepresented groups and institutions? Indicators to address this question might include the number and percent of participants showing positive outcomes by race/ethnicity, gender, and disability status, and number and percent of institutions showing positive outcomes by Carnegie classification, MSI status, and region of country.
Now those are recommendations that warm my heart on this cold snowy day.