(Un)Hidden Figures: A Synthesis of Research Examining the Intersectional Experiences of Black Women and Girls in STEM Education

The Evolution of “Intersectionality”

The context of Crenshaw’s (1989, 1991) discussion of intersectionality was to confront the inadequacy of one-dimensional antiracist and antidiscriminatory discourse in addressing the sociopolitical concerns of Black women. Over time, scholars from multiple disciplines have wrestled with how to conceptualize the term intersectionality (see Cho, Crenshaw, & McCall, 2013; Cole, 2009; Collins, 2015; Collins & Bilge, 2016). Is intersectionality an experience, an analytic framework for conceptualizing problems, or a method of inquiry for scholarship and practical application? Scholars have also grappled with how to best characterize its origins (e.g., expressions of it in writing, naming of the term). Should the origins of “intersectionality” be credited to early activists who asserted in various ways within their movements that race, gender, and class are simultaneously experienced (e.g., Combahee River Collective, 1977/1995; hooks, 1981) or should its origins be attributed to the explicit coining of the term intersectionality and its legal application (see Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; J. A. Winston, 1991)?

Also, scholars have contended with how best to apply the core tenets of common conceptualizations to contexts outside of the law (see Cole, 2009; Collins, 2015). These challenges notwithstanding, scholars from the fields of psychology, sociology, and legal studies have produced seminal syntheses of the knowledge and frameworks that consider how to conceptualize and analyze the implications and meanings of multiple social statuses (e.g., Cho et al., 2013; Cole, 2009; Collins, 2015). Collins’s (2015) discussion of intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas confronts urgent questions regarding how the concept is operationalized, including its development as a field of study, an analytic strategy, and a form of critical praxis.

We conceptually define intersectionality as a theoretical and methodological approach to understanding the meaning and consequences of holding multiple co-constructing categories of social group membership. This approach is centered on an examination of power and privilege (within and across groups) as well as attention to the personal, interpersonal, and structural significance of simultaneous social group membership. In a recent keynote speech, Crenshaw (2016) rightly clarifies that her original articulation of intersectionality was a theory not of multiple identities but of how holding certain identities makes one vulnerable to discrimination and exclusion. We define identity as a person’s internal and evolving sense of self (both as an individual and as a member of various social groups). Our present discussion is concerned with social identity (e.g., racial identity, gender identity, occupational identity) and is informed by well-established psychological research on the multidimensional nature of social identity (e.g., racial salience, racial centrality, public/private racial regard, and racial ideology in the case of racial identity; see Sellers et al., 1998). Consistent with Crenshaw, our understanding of intersectionality as it relates to identity is not simply as a matter of group membership (which we all have) but as the psychological meaning of membership in oppressed groups, for example, how important is membership in one’s racial or gender group to one’s personal sense of self? What is one’s assessment of how their racial or gender group is viewed by broader society and what consequences does this assessment have for one’s personal sense of self? These considerations include the personal, interpersonal, and structural implications associated with group membership (all of which vary by group and intersection).

The Psychology of Intersectionality in STEM Education

Within education research on student outcomes, race and gender are often analyzed simply as social categories. This approach may assume that structural dynamics of race and gender are accounted for by the very practice of examining groups. However, this approach may mask important aspects of the specific psychological experiences associated with being a member of a particular racial or gender group. For example, racial and gender identity construction are important psychological processes to understand in relation to educational outcomes. Within the field of psychology, there is research that describes and explains race and gender beyond simple categorization. This framing is important since race and gender are described as central axes and privilege within scholarship on intersectionality (e.g., Cole, 2009; Collins, 2015; Crenshaw, 1989).

We define the psychology of intersectionality as the mental processes and behavioral choices associated with the meaning and consequences of holding multiple co-constructing categories of social group membership. More specifically, theoretically, the psychology of intersectionality in education explains why some students in STEM fields may have a distinctive experience related to their social identities, particularly with respect to psychological constructs and educational outcomes such as STEM achievement and perceptions of ability (i.e., self-efficacy), belonging, and stereotype threat. Educational psychologists are increasingly concerned with the theoretical and empirical relationship of identity to educational outcomes, such as motivation and persistence (Eccles, 2009; Elmore & Oyserman, 2012; Perez, Cromley, & Kaplan, 2014). The incorporation of intersectionality adds contextual meaning and depth to this area of inquiry, particularly with respect to applications in education research.

Methodologically, the psychology of intersectionality in education considers how our sampling procedures facilitate the obfuscation or illumination of student experiences across and within social groups, how our modes of inquiry allow us to apprehend the personal and social impact or meaning of intersectionality in STEM education, and the sufficiency of our analytic approaches for addressing questions of student beliefs and behaviors in STEM education. Settles and colleagues’ (Settles, 2004, 2006; Settles, Jellison, & Pratt-Hyatt, 2009) research on identity interference among Black women and women scientists is an example of a psychometric approach to ascertaining the meaning and consequences of holding multiple co-constructing categories of social group membership—particularly when one experiences difficulty enacting particular identities simultaneously. In their discussion of the future of intersectionality studies, Cho et al. (2013) address the ways that various disciplines have approached methodological standards and practices in the study of intersectionality and Cole’s (2009) approach is noted as one of the pathways taken up in the field of psychology. In the subsequent section on the methodology we used to review the literature, we explain how we used Cole’s framework, posed as three questions for conceptualizing intersectionality in the research studies, and why this approach is a particularly useful standard for intersectional inquiry in education research.

Inclusion Criteria and Screening

We originally intended to review conceptual papers and empirical studies from 1976 (the year Malcom et al. published their seminal Double Bind report) to date. However, to fully engage with the breadth of research addressing the experiences of Black women and girls in STEM education contexts and also focus our attention on the knowledge generated from this body of work, we removed the restriction on publication date and narrowed our inclusion criteria to include only publications reporting on empirical research or original analyses of secondary data with disaggregated results for Black women or girls in STEM education. We included dissertations in the first phase of our screening process, as they included valuable references; however, dissertations were ultimately screened out in the second phase of our screening.

The following questions guided phase one of our screening process:

In the first phase of screening, we worked in pairs to review the 1,290 abstracts and determine if the source would advance to a full text review. The first phase of screening resulted in 407 sources, which were distributed among our team for a review of the full text. The second phase of our process entailed a closer review of the document to reconfirm that the source met our inclusion criteria and check that the results were disaggregated such that there were data reported on Black women or girls in STEM education. The second phase of screening resulted in N = 60 sources, which were analyzed to address our research questions. Studies that investigated an all-Black and -female sample were n = 17 (28%). In the remaining studies, Black women and girls represented a subset of the sample for which results were explicitly reported.

Analytic Process

We set out to analyze the sources by first identifying a priori codes based on theory, the goals of our review, and prior literature. We incorporated emergent codes that were identified as we reviewed content patterns across the sources. Our final codebook consisted of 33 codes, which were categorized as theory (e.g., critical race theory, feminist theory, intersectionality theory), educational level/context (e.g., elementary school, middle school, high school, etc.), STEM field (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics, math, engineering, etc.), psychological construct (e.g., identity, achievement, interest, belonging, stereotype threat, etc.), and research design (e.g., program evaluation, research study, qualitative methods, quantitative methods, etc.). Additionally, we extracted the research questions, findings, and recommendations from each source to compare and contrast their contributions to the knowledge base. Throughout our analytic coding process, we collaboratively assessed the validity of our codes and our interrater reliability to ensure the accuracy and consistency of our methods.

Cole (2009) describes the importance of interdisciplinarity for advancing our understanding of intersectionality and the benefit of broad perspectives for approaching research problems and questions concerning social categories. We based our evaluation of the way intersectionality was employed with the literature using the criteria established by Cole, which are posed as three questions for conceptualizing intersectionality in the methodology used in the research process: (1) Who is included in this category? (2) What role does inequality play? (3) Where are the similarities? Cole’s framework originated from the lens of psychological research but has been cited widely and highlighted by prominent intersectionality scholars (Cho et al., 2013). We believe these three questions provide a holistic basis for assessing the potential for intersectional inquiry through one’s methodological choices and are suitable for application among a variety of research disciplines, including education research.

As we analyzed sources using the first question, we considered, does the research attend to diversity within social categories (i.e., are within-group differences among Black women and girls addressed)? For the second question, we considered, does the research address structural inequality, not just individual- or person-level characteristics? For the third question, we considered, does the researcher identify commonalities across different groups, such that the focus of the research is not limited to differences? In our analytic coding process, we established a priori codes for the demographic attributes and psychological constructs; however, we did not break down the three questions posted by Cole (2009) as codes (e.g., types of structural inequality). Instead, for that portion of our analysis, we looked for evidence to confirm whether the authors attended to these three considerations and extracted the evidence if present.

Themes Within the Literature on Black Girls and Women in STEM Education

To demonstrate how intersectional approaches have produced new knowledge concerning the education of Black women and girls in STEM, we present themes that emerged during the review of the literature. The authors referenced in this section addressed (measured, manipulated, and/or analyzed) psychological constructs within the STEM educational context uniquely influenced by intersections of race and gender. Additionally, these works present Black women and girls as unhidden figures by sampling exclusively or disaggregating data on Black girls and women in STEM education settings to facilitate the visibility of their unique educational experience. These themes include (1) identity; (2) STEM interest, confidence, and persistence; (3) achievement, ability perceptions, and attributions; and (4) socializers and support systems. The section concludes with a presentation of themes unique to specific educational levels.

Evaluating Intersectional Approaches

Although all of the studies included in our review reported on Black women and girls in STEM education, not all employed intersectionality as both a theoretical and a methodological approach. From a methodological standpoint, there was variance among the sources with respect to whether they addressed the aforementioned three questions for conceptualizing intersectionality in the research process established by Cole (2009): (1) Who is included in this category? (2) What role does inequality play? (3) Where are the similarities? Among the sources we reviewed, 22 studies (31%) addressed all three of the aforementioned questions concerning intersectionality. Of those 22, nine studies also stated an intersectional, critical race, or feminist theoretical framework as guiding their inquiry and used an intersectional approach that is aligned with the criteria Cole (2009) established. We proceed to highlight the ways those studies examined the experiences of Black women and girls in STEM education

Buck et al. (2008) used feminist, inclusive, and critical perspectives to investigate cognitive processes involved in girls selecting a science role model. They conducted focus groups with 13 eighth-grade girls that were organized by ethnic group. This method allowed for an examination of similarity and differences across the groups. For example, Caucasian and Hispanic girls agreed that race-matched science role models were not important; however, African American girls strongly expressed that science role models should be persons of color, suggesting race was more salient among Black girls. Additionally, through their interactions with science role models over the course of the study, across all ethnic groups, participants’ perceptions of who a science role model is and what scientists do changed and became less gender stereotypical. Through mixed methods, Buck et al. (2009) also explored profiles of African American girls’ attitudes toward science. Their investigation found four personality orientations that linked success in school and experiences with science to confidence and importance of science and definitions of science to value/desire. This research also uncovered commonalities among Black girls with respect to the way they define science (the majority defined science according to specific scientific content) and experience science (the majority referenced out of class experiences with science concepts).

Gholson and Martin (2014) used an intersectional frame to examine the mediating role of African American girls’ social networks in the mathematics learning environment. Their investigation explored an all-Black elementary school as a context for Black girlhood as well as identity development and interpersonal relationships among these girls in the math classroom. Two third-grade students were studied, and results indicated that throughout the academic year both girls exhibited moments of serving as a “bully” and a “model student,” depending on the circumstances. Both girls’ experiences were also contrasted by their racial socialization, their physical features (the light-skinned model student versus the dark-skinned bully), and the ways that classroom actors (other girls and the teacher) respond to them. Using a variety of data collection methods (e.g., classroom observations, field notes, audio records, interviews, classroom artifacts, formative and standardized assessment results, etc.), Gholson and Martin (2014) examine the phenomena associated with Black girls learning math, as well as the way these girls navigate their privilege, power, and social relationships in the math classroom setting.

McPherson (2014) conducted individual interviews and reviewed journal entries to examine the P–12 science learning experiences of African American women in science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate programs. Their critical framing of the study highlighted the importance of a strengths-based approach to examining African American girls’ experiences with science, and acknowledged the cultural capital that African American girls acquire both in and outside of the classroom. Results showed that African American girls acquire cultural capital and access to free-choice learning of science through traditional and informal opportunities (e.g., family role models, field trips to museums, science fairs, student organizations and clubs in primary and secondary school). However, in high school, African American female teens had fewer opportunities to engage in everyday science experiences at home than in earlier grades. Similarly, Rosa and Mensah (2016) conducted individual interviews to investigate the educational trajectories of six Black women physicists use a critical race theory framework. Despite their common professional identity, these women had very different family backgrounds, educational timelines, and personal characteristics. However, they traced their start in science to early exposure to science-related school programs and acknowledged the importance of their participation in summer research programs at the undergraduate level, which affected their career choices and provided exposure to the culture of physics. Yet these women also reported experiences of isolation in their graduate programs due to their race, particularly in study groups with peers.

Alexander and Hermann (2016) conducted individual interviews to examine the experiences of eight African American women in graduate programs in biology, chemical engineering, and agriculture. Sampling across a variety of STEM fields allowed the authors to explore within-group differences as well as commonalities shared by these African American women. Borum and Walker (2012) and Charleston et al. (2014) both used focus groups to explore the experiences of Black women in mathematics and computer science graduate programs, respectively. Borum and Walker (2012) addressed within-group differences among Black women in math PhD programs, such as varying experiences between the women who attended an HBCU versus those who attended a non-HBCU for their undergraduate degree.

These interviews revealed the range of challenging experiences each of the women faced through their intersectional lenses, including microaggressions from peers (both White women and White men) in their department, perceived inferiority of their HBCU undergraduate experience by their peers, lack of mentors, and inadequate responses from counseling services or department representatives (Alexander & Hermann, 2016). Conversely, Borum and Walker (2012) found that participants who attended an HBCU noted their positive experiences and the support they received from both faculty and peers, which encouraged them to pursue graduate study in mathematics, while those who had not attended an HBCU reported feelings of isolation, poor advising, and feeling targeted due to race or gender.

Charleston et al. (2014) explored the unique challenges that African American women experience in their respective graduate computing science environments, and how these spaces are navigated among this demographic group. In both studies, the authors’ analysis of power and privilege includes a discussion of mathematics and computer sciences as a “White male–dominated” and the reality that non-White, nonmale students have to conform to the norms or face exclusion and isolation. Charleston et al. (2014) noted that for some, racial identity was most salient and they believed they were perceived as Black first and foremost. For others, racial and gender identity were inextricably linked, and thus stereotypes of Black women were unique to those about Black people and women more broadly—a classic demonstration of intersectionality at play.

Ro and Loya (2015) measured quantitative differences in the learning outcomes (three core engineering competencies and three professional skills) of racial-ethnic–minority women and men, compared to those of White women and men in undergraduate engineering programs. Controlling for factors such as institution type (e.g., HBCU vs. PWI), their analysis explored intersectionality as interpreted by a statistical interaction between gender and race effects on learning outcomes. However, their study was framed and results were interpreted by an examination of privilege in engineering education. They found that generally, women in engineering education tended to rate their engineering learning outcomes lower than men but their professional learning outcomes higher than men. The results of their analysis also conclude that the intersection, or statistical interaction, of race and gender had more negative effects for Black women than Black men in engineering education with respect to learning outcomes. The authors note that future research is needed to explain why Black women assess their engineering abilities lower than their White peers. Our analysis of the psychological constructs associated with intersectionality in the prior literature suggests that despite their cultural assets, abilities, and motivations, there are many documented factors, on both the individual and institutional levels, which can undermine Black women’s sense of competence and belonging in STEM fields.

Research Implication 1: Reframing the “Double Bind”

The multiplicative experiences of racism and sexism that Black women in STEM have endured have been described as “double bind,” “double disadvantage,” and “double jeopardy” (Malcom et al., 1976; O’Brien et al., 2015); however, the double bind has not been examined sufficiently in terms of the interplay of personal and structural forces acted on Black women versus their response to these forces, including cultural tools and resources that must be deployed in order to survive and thrive. In addition, there are situations and settings in which, because of their gender, or race, or ability, or social class, Black women are advantaged. There are also scenarios in which power and privilege are not limited to the duality of race and gender and in which both race and gender may modulate the effects of other factors. Self-perceptions of identity are not the same among individuals within the same social identity group; there is no one universal Black identity nor is there a universal woman identity. Future research and theorizing in these areas are warranted. Researchers interested in developing such an agenda might look to the guidance Cole (2009) establishes for conceptualizing intersectionality throughout the various stages of the research process and even consider examples such as the Settles (2006) intersectional framework for the measurement of Black female identity.

Research Implication 2: Increased Integration of Intersectional Scholarship

A greater diversity of researchers and research approaches are needed to operationalize intersectional experiences of Black girls and women in STEM. Beyond the structural constructs and social categories of race and gender, psychological theories of racial identity and gender identity help explicate the meaning students derive from their membership in these social groups, including associated norms, values, collective histories, and positioning within learning contexts. This understanding has been particularly beneficial to research on issues concerning Black students and female students.

In future research, we propose the integration of three bodies of scholarship that to our knowledge have not been integrated: (1) intersectionality scholarship generated in the field of STEM education and workforce development (e.g., McGee & Martin, 2011; Ong et al., 2011; Rincón & George-Jackson, 2016; Samuelson & Litzler, 2016; Settles, 2004, 2006; Smith et al., 2014; Tate & Linn, 2005), (2) gender psychology scholarship produced in the field of psychology (e.g., Cole & Stewart, 2001; Rice, 2008; Stewart & McDermott, 2004), and (3) psychological significance of race scholarship produced in the field of psychology (e.g., Boykin, 1986; Cross, 1971, 1991; Franklin, 1999; Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, 2008; Harrell, 1999; J. M. Jones, 2003; Nobles, 1991; Sellers et al., 1998; Steele, 1997; Sue et al., 2007; C. E. Winston et al., 2004; C. E. Winston & Winston, 2012).

Research Implication 3: Diverse and Complex Research Methods

Examining intersectional experiences is extremely complex, and thus requires research methods that can capture the complexity. Often, that includes the use of multiple and mixed methods, which together can provide more robust information than singular approaches. In addition, qualitative research is particularly suited to examine intersectional experiences given the nuanced and phenomenological nature of intersectionality. The Society of Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (2017), a section of Division 5 of the American Psychological Association, emphasizes that qualitative inquiry includes “topics such as philosophies of science (e.g., ontology and epistemology), methodologies, methods of data collection/generation, methods of data analysis, criteria for evaluating quality, ethics, reflexivity, and forms of knowledge mobilization and dissemination.” Greater development and use of qualitative research (worldviews and methods of inquiry) would benefit the knowledge base as well as exploring ways to implement quantitative methods with the lens of intersectionality.

Practice Implication 1: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Curriculum

The thematic focus in the literature on STEM learning environment suggests that pedagogical approaches and teacher education program training are important areas of intervention. There is an encouragement for educators to incorporate more culturally relevant strategies and innovative pedagogical approaches into STEM education (Barr et al., 2010; Chambers et al., 2016; Rankin & Thomas, 2016). Chambers et al. (2016) recommend placing greater attention on racial and gendered aspects of culturally relevant pedagogical techniques in teacher and counselor education programs, as well as teacher professional development. In addition to exposure to new pedagogical techniques, Alexander and Hermann (2016) noted that educators, particularly at the higher education level, should receive training on cultural responsiveness and effective mentoring processes. We believe that attending to these areas of curriculum and instruction will ensure that learning environments are shaped in a way that leverage identity as a cultural asset with cultural integrity (see Boykin, 2010) in STEM education.

Practice Implication 2: Attending to the Psychological Needs

In addition to mentoring opportunities and academic support, resources must be provided to address the psychosocial and emotional needs of Black women and girls in STEM (Alexander & Hermann, 2016). Black women in higher education STEM settings have reported experiencing negative social climates in their STEM departments (Rincón & George-Jackson, 2016). To mitigate these experiences, educational institutions should make efforts to minimize feelings of isolation, promote inclusive learning environments, offer student support groups, as well as foster connections within STEM programs and departments (Borum & Walker, 2012; Charleston et al., 2014; Herzig, 2010; Joseph, 2012; Rosa & Mensah, 2016). Throughout the educational pipeline, counseling resources should be available to students who are having difficulty navigating the social aspects of their educational environments. Additionally, professional staff and educational leadership must prioritize the well-being of their students, which can facilitate more positive educational outcomes.