Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorRios Aguilar, Ceciliaen_US
dc.contributor.authorMetcalf, Heather
dc.creatorMetcalf, Heatheren_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-18T20:38:41Z
dc.date.available2011-10-18T20:38:41Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/145744
dc.description.abstractConsiderable research, policy, and programmatic efforts have been dedicated to addressing the participation of particular populations in STEM for decades. Each of these efforts claims equity- related goals; yet, they heavily frame the problem, through pervasive STEM pipeline model discourse, in terms of national needs, workforce supply, and competitiveness. This particular framing of the problem may, indeed, be counter to equity goals, especially when paired with policy that largely relies on statistical significance and broad aggregation of data over exploring the identities and experiences of the populations targeted for equitable outcomes in that policy. In this study, I used the mixed-methods approach of critical discourse and critical quantitative analyses to understand how the pipeline model ideology has become embedded within academic discourse, research, and data surrounding STEM education and work and to provide alternatives for quantitative analysis. Using critical theory as a lens, I first conducted a critical discourse analysis of contemporary STEM workforce studies with a particular eye to pipeline ideology. Next, I used that analysis to inform logistic regression analyses of the 2006 SESTAT data. This quantitative analysis compared and contrasted different ways of thinking about identity and retention. Overall, the findings of this study show that many subjective choices are made in the construction of the large-scale datasets used to inform much national science and engineering policy and that these choices greatly influence likelihood of retention outcomes.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.subjectcritical theoryen_US
dc.subjectidentityen_US
dc.subjectpipelineen_US
dc.subjectscience policyen_US
dc.subjectSTEMen_US
dc.titleFormation and Representation: Critical Analyses of Identity, Supply, and Demand in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematicsen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeElectronic Dissertationen_US
dc.identifier.oclc752261384
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberRhoades, Garyen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberCroissant, Jenniferen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberDeil-Amen, Reginaen_US
dc.description.releaseEmbargo: Release after 10/15/2011en_US
dc.identifier.proquest11521
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineHigher Educationen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-05-27T17:40:26Z
html.description.abstractConsiderable research, policy, and programmatic efforts have been dedicated to addressing the participation of particular populations in STEM for decades. Each of these efforts claims equity- related goals; yet, they heavily frame the problem, through pervasive STEM pipeline model discourse, in terms of national needs, workforce supply, and competitiveness. This particular framing of the problem may, indeed, be counter to equity goals, especially when paired with policy that largely relies on statistical significance and broad aggregation of data over exploring the identities and experiences of the populations targeted for equitable outcomes in that policy. In this study, I used the mixed-methods approach of critical discourse and critical quantitative analyses to understand how the pipeline model ideology has become embedded within academic discourse, research, and data surrounding STEM education and work and to provide alternatives for quantitative analysis. Using critical theory as a lens, I first conducted a critical discourse analysis of contemporary STEM workforce studies with a particular eye to pipeline ideology. Next, I used that analysis to inform logistic regression analyses of the 2006 SESTAT data. This quantitative analysis compared and contrasted different ways of thinking about identity and retention. Overall, the findings of this study show that many subjective choices are made in the construction of the large-scale datasets used to inform much national science and engineering policy and that these choices greatly influence likelihood of retention outcomes.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_etd_11521_sip1_m.pdf
Size:
1.159Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record