探索NSF资助的评估者和主要研究者对多样性、公平性和包容性的定义和衡量

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY American Journal of Evaluation Pub Date : 2022-11-30 DOI:10.1177/10982140221108662
A. Boyce, Tiffany L. S. Tovey, Onyinyechukwu Onwuka, J. R. Moller, Tyler Clark, Aundrea Smith
{"title":"探索NSF资助的评估者和主要研究者对多样性、公平性和包容性的定义和衡量","authors":"A. Boyce, Tiffany L. S. Tovey, Onyinyechukwu Onwuka, J. R. Moller, Tyler Clark, Aundrea Smith","doi":"10.1177/10982140221108662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"More evaluators have anchored their work in equity-focused, culturally responsive, and social justice ideals. Although we have a sense of approaches that guide evaluators as to how they should attend to culture, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), we have not yet established an empirical understanding of how evaluators measure DEI. In this article, we report an examination of how evaluators and principal investigators (PIs) funded by the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program define and measure DEI within their projects. Evaluators gathered the most evidence related to diversity and less evidence related to equity and inclusion. On average, PIs’ projects engaged in activities designed to increase DEI, with the highest focus on diversity. We believe there continues to be room for improvement and implore the movement of engagement with these important topics from the margins to the center of our field's education, theory, and practice.","PeriodicalId":51449,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring NSF-Funded Evaluators’ and Principal Investigators’ Definitions and Measurement of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion\",\"authors\":\"A. Boyce, Tiffany L. S. Tovey, Onyinyechukwu Onwuka, J. R. Moller, Tyler Clark, Aundrea Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10982140221108662\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"More evaluators have anchored their work in equity-focused, culturally responsive, and social justice ideals. Although we have a sense of approaches that guide evaluators as to how they should attend to culture, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), we have not yet established an empirical understanding of how evaluators measure DEI. In this article, we report an examination of how evaluators and principal investigators (PIs) funded by the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program define and measure DEI within their projects. Evaluators gathered the most evidence related to diversity and less evidence related to equity and inclusion. On average, PIs’ projects engaged in activities designed to increase DEI, with the highest focus on diversity. We believe there continues to be room for improvement and implore the movement of engagement with these important topics from the margins to the center of our field's education, theory, and practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Evaluation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140221108662\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140221108662","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的评估人员将他们的工作定位在以公平为中心、文化响应和社会正义的理想中。尽管我们有一些方法可以指导评估人员如何关注文化、多样性、公平和包容(DEI),但我们还没有建立评估人员如何衡量DEI的经验理解。在本文中,我们报告了由国家科学基金会高级技术教育(ATE)项目资助的评估者和主要研究者(pi)如何在他们的项目中定义和测量DEI。评估人员收集的与多样性有关的证据最多,与公平和包容有关的证据较少。平均而言,私人投资机构的项目从事旨在增加DEI的活动,最注重多样性。我们相信仍有改进的空间,并恳请参与这些重要主题的运动,从边缘到我们领域教育,理论和实践的中心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Exploring NSF-Funded Evaluators’ and Principal Investigators’ Definitions and Measurement of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
More evaluators have anchored their work in equity-focused, culturally responsive, and social justice ideals. Although we have a sense of approaches that guide evaluators as to how they should attend to culture, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), we have not yet established an empirical understanding of how evaluators measure DEI. In this article, we report an examination of how evaluators and principal investigators (PIs) funded by the National Science Foundation's Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program define and measure DEI within their projects. Evaluators gathered the most evidence related to diversity and less evidence related to equity and inclusion. On average, PIs’ projects engaged in activities designed to increase DEI, with the highest focus on diversity. We believe there continues to be room for improvement and implore the movement of engagement with these important topics from the margins to the center of our field's education, theory, and practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Evaluation
American Journal of Evaluation SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Evaluation (AJE) publishes original papers about the methods, theory, practice, and findings of evaluation. The general goal of AJE is to present the best work in and about evaluation, in order to improve the knowledge base and practice of its readers. Because the field of evaluation is diverse, with different intellectual traditions, approaches to practice, and domains of application, the papers published in AJE will reflect this diversity. Nevertheless, preference is given to papers that are likely to be of interest to a wide range of evaluators and that are written to be accessible to most readers.
期刊最新文献
The Garden of Evaluation Approaches From the Section Editors: Teaching & Learning Section Vision: Innovate, Evaluate, Disseminate From the Co-Editors: Evolving Evaluation Theory, Methods, and Practice Application of Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis as a Methodological Framework in Academic–Clinical Partnership Evaluation A Protocol for Participatory Data Use
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1