How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty Exercise An Equity Ethic To Racially Fortify and Enrich Black Students

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/358693142
How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty Exercise an Equity Ethic to

Racially Fortify and Enrich Black Students
Article in The Journal of Higher Education · February 2022

DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2022.2031704
CITATIONS READS
0 22
4 authors, including:
Ebony McGee Dara Elizabeth Naphan-Kingery

Vanderbilt University Western New Mexico University
58 PUBLICATIONS 1,222 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Exploration in Diversifying Faculty Initative View project
Explorations in Diversifying Engineering Faculty Initiative (EDEFI) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dara Elizabeth Naphan-Kingery on 20 February 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Journal of Higher Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhej20
How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty

Exercise an Equity Ethic to Racially Fortify and
Enrich Black Students
Ebony O. McGee, Dara Naphan-Kingery, Monica L. Miles & Ocheze Joseph
To cite this article: Ebony O. McGee, Dara Naphan-Kingery, Monica L. Miles & Ocheze
Joseph (2022): How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty Exercise an Equity�Ethic
to Racially Fortify and Enrich Black Students, The Journal of Higher Education, DOI:
10.1080/00221546.2022.2031704
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2022.2031704
Published online: 17 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhej20
THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2022.2031704
How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty Exercise an

Equity Ethic to Racially Fortify and Enrich Black Students
Ebony O. McGee a, Dara Naphan-Kingeryb, Monica L. Miles c
,
and Ocheze Josephd
a
Teaching and Learning, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; bSocial Sciences and Cultural
Studies, Western New Mexico University, Silver City, New Mexico, USA; cDiversity and Research
Department, Physician Assistant Education Association, Washington, DC, USA; dSchool of Education,
Howard University, Washington, DC, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

U.S. universities are fraught with institutional barriers that chal Received 2 July 2020
lenge Black faculty members’ ability to thrive in academia, while Accepted 18 January 2022
they also make attempts to broaden access and participation in KEYWORDS
fields like engineering and computing. The diversity-related ser Black/African American
vice requested of Black faculty members can negatively compli faculty; engineering;
cate their chances for tenure and promotion. This qualitative computing; diversityrelated
research centers on the narratives of 39 Black faculty members service; equity ethic; tenure
in engineering and computing, guided by the equity ethic frame and promotion
work, which we use to understand their motivations to reduce
racial inequities in their fields. We found that due to being over
burdened with service requests, Black faculty responded by
guarding their time and energy to focus instead on self-
initiated, diversity-related service. In this paper, we focus on
how these Black faculty members work to broaden participation
in their fields by mentoring Black students during critical aca
demic junctures while offering supportive anti-deficit teaching
and mentoring. We argue that their self-initiated activities are
a form of service that is critical to widening Black participation
in engineering and computing and should not be overlooked in
reviewing yearly raises or in the tenure and promotion process.
Engineers apply science and mathematics to the world to solve problems

under substantial constraints (e.g., cost, materials, and marketability).
Similarly, computer scientists work with technology that has become ubi
quitous in our postmodern society (Daugherty, 2009). As the U.S. has shifted
to an information-based economy over the past 30 years, employment
opportunities in engineering and technology have expanded,1 which have
increased by 16% and a staggering 339%, respectively (Funk & Parker, 2018).
However, the opportunity to earn the required credentials and to succeed in
these fields is significantly shaped by one’s race and its intersections with
other identities (e.g., gender; Funk & Parker, 2018). Despite calls to increase
racial diversity (Briggs, 2017; Wulf, 2002), Black engineers and computer
CONTACT Ebony O. McGee Ebomy.Mcgee@Vanderbilt.edu

© 2022 The Ohio State University
2 E. O. MCGEE ET AL.
scientists in the U.S. professoriate are distressingly underrepresented, hold

ing only 2.9% of engineering and 2.5% of computing positions (National
Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics,
2019).
Postsecondary institutions across the United States have made efforts to
promote racial diversity in STEM for at least the past 40 years (Chubin
et al., 2005), many of which have been unsuccessful for Black people in
STEM (Roy, 2019). Many initiatives have invoked the simplistic metaphor
of the “pipeline” developed in the 1970s. The pipeline metaphor was
developed in a neoliberal context that stressed international competitive
ness in STEM, in which women and racially minoritized people were seen
as an “untapped resource” (Metcalf, 2010). The metaphor describes
a homogenized, hegemonic system that transmits dominant ways of
being, thinking, and learning STEM (Vakil & Ayers, 2019) via a linear
path through education and into the STEM workforce (Metcalf, 2010).
This is misleading because it does not describe all pathways into and out
of STEM (Skrentny & Lewis, 2021), which are structurally racialized and
shaped in various ways by individuals and their intersecting identities
(Mendick et al., 2017).
Because STEM training is linked to national economic progress, failure of
these initiatives to broaden participation is attributed to certain groups
“leaking out” of cracks in the pipe (Cannady et al., 2014; Metcalf, 2010).
“Leaking out” is language that deprives those who leave of their agency and
presumes their training is a waste (Skrentny & Lewis, 2021; Turk-Bicakci &
Berger, 2014). Compared to other groups, Black STEM PhD holders are
more likely to leave, particularly Black women (Turk-Bicakci & Berger,
2014), causing researchers to ask how these “pipes” flow well for whites
and some Asian/Asian American people while failing racially minoritized
folk2 (McGee, 2020). With a more expansive understanding of pathways into
STEM that disrupts this metaphor that has reified STEM education as
singular and exclusive, we could attract and retain a more diverse STEM
labor force. To do this, we must acknowledge multiple entry points into
STEM and we must recognize how this training can be a conduit to a range
of industries, agencies, and STEM careers, (Mendick et al., 2017; Vakil &
Ayers, 2019).
Finally, advocates point to the need to address the structural integrity
of the “pipeline,” such as racialized gatekeeping mechanisms in STEM
(Cannady et al., 2014). Racist and anti-inclusive structures in STEM
education that block pathways for racially minoritized people include:
(1) the underrepresentation of racially minoritized students and faculty
in STEM (NSF, 2019); (2) unwelcoming institutional STEM climates
(Brockman, 2021; Leath & Chavous, 2018; McGee, 2020); (3) racial/ethnic
THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 3
stereotyping (McGee, 2016; McGee et al., 2020; O’Brien et al., 2015;

Robinson et al., 2015); (4) the stagnant growth of Black engineering and
computing faculty (Roy, 2019); (5) anti-Blackness in STEM (Holly, 2020;
Morton et al., 2020); (6) the “revolving door” syndrome of racially min
oritized faculty who serve as role models to racially minoritized students
(Settles et al., 2020; Zambrana et al., 2015) and (7) difficulty in developing
a sense of belongingness in these disciplines (Dasgupta, 2011; McGee
et al., 2020).
Present study
To increase the representation of Black engineers and computer scientists
in higher education, industry, government, and elsewhere, it is necessary
to understand the challenges impacting Black faculty in these fields. In
this study, we investigated the crucial role that Black engineering and
computing faculty play in increasing diversity and inclusion via strategic
negotiations throughout the stages of the research, teaching, and service
paradigms of the Academy. We interviewed 39 Black engineering and
computer science faculty about a number of issues, including their efforts
to broaden Black participation in their disciplines through diversity-
related service.
We conceptualize diversity-related service broadly to include any
engagement in interventions, policies, and practices that promote equity,
inclusion, and diversity, which includes both formally requested service, as
well as voluntary service (See, Table 2 for more detail). Black faculty
perform voluntary diversity-related work despite the extra emotional
labor (Mawhinney, 2011), showing their penchant for working toward
equity and inclusion, or their equity ethic—a principled concern for
reducing racial and other social inequities (McGee & Bentley, 2017). In
this study, we juxtapose requested diversity-related service with voluntary
diversity-related service activities, specifically anti-deficit teaching and
mentoring Black students during critical transitions.
Below, after providing some necessary statistics on Black engineering
and computing faculty and discussing research on how diversity-related
service for faculty of color can be both a barrier and an opportunity for
broadening participation, we describe the equity ethic in more detail
(McGee & Bentley, 2017). The equity ethic framework helps to explain
how racially minoritized STEM students/faculty develop a principled
concern for racial justice and the well-being of racially minoritized
people in the environments in which they work (McGee, 2020; McGee
& Bentley, 2017; Naphan-Kingery et al., 2019).
Black faculty engaging in diversity-related service

Black tenure & tenure track faculty in engineering and computing
Two-thirds of STEM workers (compared to one-third of non-STEM work

ers) have at least a 4-year degree (Funk & Parker, 2018). This means that
a vast majority of STEM workers attend institutions of higher education,
where their trajectories are impacted by the faculty who teach and mentor
them. However, white and Asian men and women constitute 91% of
engineers and 93% of computer science faculty in the U.S. (National
Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering
Statistics, 2019). Although tenure-track opportunities in both disciplines
expanded between 2009 and 2018 (Roy, 2019), this growth did not expand
representation of Black faculty in these fields. In this time, Black faculty
accounted for only 2.5% of engineering faculty on average (Roy, 2019). In
engineering, representation improved for white women and Asian3 people,
but not significantly for Black faculty, whose average growth has stag
nated. In 2017, Black people comprised 12.3% of the U.S. population, but
only 2.9% of university faculty in engineering, and 2.6% in computer
science (National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics, 2019).
Black women are further underrepresented in engineering and computing
tenured and tenure-track faculty positions (McGee et al., 2020). In engineering,
there were more than three times as many Black men as Black women in the
professoriate in 2017 (National Science Foundation, National Center for Science
and Engineering Statistics, 2019, Table 9–25), and we see similar trends for Black
women in computing. According to the 2017 Taulbee survey of 159 computer
science departments (Zweben & Bizot, 2018), there were 88 Black or African
American faculty (2% of their entire sample), 70% of whom were men. The 2018
follow-up study (Zweben & Bizot, 2019) showed a decrease to 85 Black tenured
and tenure track faculty, a trifling 1.6% of the entire sample. In 2017 specifically,
while men outnumbered women at the assistant professor level at a rate of two to
one, at the full professor level they outnumbered women at a rate of six to one;
there were only 3 Black women faculty who were full professors in the entire
sample (Zweben & Bizot, 2018). This underrepresentation of Black women in
computing departments at more senior levels can be partially explained by the
diversity-related service they perform due to their intersecting racial and gender
identities (Griffin & Reddick, 2011; Mawhinney, 2011).
Diversity-related service: The barriers and challenges

The underrepresented status of Black engineering and computing faculty
shapes the kind of service work they engage in. It is well established that
academic service simply put is — ”everything that is neither teaching, research,
nor scholarship” (Baez, 2000, p. 364)—and valued less than research and
teaching. It is no secret that faculty of color perform a disproportionate
amount of service related to diversity and inclusion (Diggs et al., 2009). This
is known as the cultural tax (Padilla, 1994), or in this case—because Black
faculty are asked to participate in additional service because of their race—the
Black tax (Griffin, 2012; Griffin & Reddick, 2011). Thus, the literature posi
tions academic service as a structural impediment to tenure and promotion
(T&P). This effect is magnified for Black faculty (Baez, 1999, 2000; Pedersen &
Minnotte, 2018; Rodriguez et al., 2015).
Some scholars point out that when Black faculty participate in certain
service requests (e.g., hiring search committees) it tokenizes them (Kanter,
1977; Settles et al., 2019) while enabling the institution to tout its “fairness”
without ensuring equitable outcomes (Padilla, 1994). Thus, institutions often
use their Black faculty (and Black students) to appear diverse (Tierney &
Bensimon, 1996; Wingfield & Wingfield, 2014) without necessarily incorpor
ating their perspectives. As such, Black faculty’s support for institutional
efforts to promote diversity and inclusion is likely to wane when their voices
are not heard and the institution is more concerned about “telling” instead of
“showing” its diversity (Wilton et al., 2020).
Due to their underrepresentation and hypervisibility (Settles et al., 2019),
Black faculty may feel they have little choice when it comes to diversity-related
service, asking themselves, “if not me, then who (McGee, 2020)?” Faculty of
color often also feel pressed to accept race-related service and are frustrated
when it does not lead to sustainable institutional change (Griffin & Reddick,
2011). Liera and Dowd (2019) found some Black faculty became frustrated
with their diversity and inclusion service when colleagues expressed deficit
perspectives of students, especially racially minoritized students.
Diversity-related service: An opportunity
Diversity service can be both a barrier to Black faculty’s progress and an

opportunity to make a difference for racially minoritized students through
their voluntary engagement in diversity-related service. Marginalized faculty
in STEM are not powerless and may intentionally engage in their own forms of
service, such as challenging normative work priorities, regardless of the con
sequences (Lewis & Simpson, 2010; O’Meara et al., 2017). Thus, their partici
pation in service is constrained and yet sometimes empowering (Hart, 2016;
O’Meara et al., 2017). Baez (2000) reframes some service as an opportunity to
engage in critical agency, resisting and redefining institutional structures to
improve experiences for students of color. It is important to note that more
self-initiated diversity work can still produce stress. In her autoethnography,
Mawhinney (2011) her commitment to care for her racially minoritized
students combined with other faculty demands produced feelings of guilt for
not doing enough and for negotiating her boundaries for self-care. Self-
initiated service can also damage the perception of Black faculty being seen
as knowledge-generators in their academic positions. For example, Black
female faculty have been described as the “maids of academe” because they
often voluntarily assume higher teaching and service loads to improve the
representation of women of color (WOC; Harley, 2008). This derogatory term
minimizes the intellectual credibility and innovation they bring to their dis
ciplines, while devaluing their producing knowledge in their fields and support
of Black students.
Diversity-related service in STEM

Research shows that racially minoritized faculty experience heightened ser
vice expectations, as do women in STEM (O’Meara et al., 2017), but the
research on this topic is limited. However, researchers have paid some
attention to WOC in STEM. For example, Corneille et al. (2019) concluded
that STEM departments are overly reliant on senior WOC faculty to mentor
their junior peers and they have higher service loads than their counterparts
because WOC are expected to represent both their race and their gender
(McGee et al., 2020; Turner & González, 2011). However, research also
shows that Black faculty express a willingness to take on service opportu
nities that allow them to reach out to, advocate for, and mentor students of
color in STEM (Griffin et al., 2010), while also performing the roles of
problem solver, mentor, role model, and counselor. These responsibilities
take a heavy emotional toll and detract from the scholarly activities valued by
research institutions—research grants and top-tier journal article placements
(Jaeger & Thornton, 2005). Wilder (2013) refereed to this as a byproduct of
the capitalistic motivation to be elite, which forms the foundation and
continued ideologies of many postsecondary institutions 2013. Research
shows that in terms of non-traditional forms of diversity service, some
Black STEM faculty have also personally funded robust research experiences
for students (e.g., upgrading research equipment and seeking partnerships
for mentees at well-financed labs; Schwartz, 2012). In the current study, we
examined how Black faculty eschewed institutional diversity-related services,
opting to capitalize on opportunities to effect change by cultivating relation
ships with Black students.
Theoretical framework
We employed the equity ethic framework to understand how and why some
Black faculty in engineering and computing departments have an equity ethic
and engage in voluntary, diversity-related service. Equity ethic is a construct
that refers to having a principled concern for racial justice and other social
justice issues, and a desire to alleviate the suffering stemming from inequities.
By saying it is a principled concern, we mean that racial justice is part of one’s
core values and behaviors (McGee & Bentley, 2017). This framework is
grounded in research on racially minoritized STEM undergraduate (Garibay,
2018; McGee & Bentley, 2017; Jackson et al., 2016; Ortiz et al., 2020), doctoral
(McGee et al., 2016; Naphan-Kingery et al., 2019) and postdoctoral scholars
(Gibbs & Griffin, 2013). In this study, we extend this framework to explain
why Black faculty in engineering and computing engage in diversity-related
service.
As shown in Figure 1, the equity ethic framework incorporates several
explanations for Black STEM faculty’s equity ethic, or their efforts to decrease
racial inequities through voluntary diversity-related service. First-hand experi
ences of racial marginalization (e.g., underrepresentation, racial microaggres
sions, and assaults) motivate Black faculty to catalyze change, improve
communities, and be the Black STEM professor many Black students never
had (McGee & Bentley, 2017; McGee et al., 2016; Naphan-Kingery et al., 2019).
Related psychological research shows that past trauma exposure, such as
racialized trauma, can lead to sustained empathic, prosocial behaviors that
directly benefit others or society (e.g., sharing, donating, volunteering, and
caretaking; Frazier et al., 2013; Piferi et al., 2006).
Second, having a collectivist cultural background predicts the development
of an equity ethic (McGee & Bentley, 2017; Naphan-Kingery et al., 2019).
Research shows that Black communities are often collectivist, as they value
contributing to the group (Carson, 2009) and prioritize the group over the
individual (Allen & Bagozzi, 2001; Chatters et al., 1994). Black utility heuristic
otherwise known as linked fate, is a framework developed by University of
Chicago professor Michael Dawson in 1994, is the sentiment among Black
people that one’s prospects are ultimately tied to the success of the race. Linked
fate recognizes that Black people prioritize the well-being of their group over
their individual interests, and consider what’s best for the group (Cox, 2019;
Dawson, 1994; Monk, 2020). Therefore, Black engineering and computing
scholars are acutely aware of their community’s needs and often gravitate
Figure 1. Decreasing inequities trough STEM: Equity ethic framework.

toward racial justice efforts and equity causes that reduce the historical and
contemporary traumas caused by environmental and technological racism
(McGee & Bentley, 2017). As such, Black engineering and computing faculty
may disrupt racial inequities because they both empathize with their students
through their own their racialized experiences, and because they see their
Black students as an extension of themselves.
As shown in Figure 1, in addition to racialized experiences and having
a collectivist background, social empathy—“the ability to deeply understand
people by perceiving or experiencing their life situations and as a result gain
insight into structural inequalities and disparities” (Segal, 2011, pp. 266–
267)—is necessary to develop an equity ethic. Social empathy requires: (a)
individual empathy, or the ability to feel what others feel and take action
(Gerdes & Segal, 2009); (b) a sociohistorical understanding of a social group;
and (c) a sense of social responsibility, all of which promotes justice-
orientated behaviors (Segal, 2011; Segal et al., 2011). As shown in
Figure 1, in the equity ethic framework, we include linked fate under social
empathy, as a form of individual empathy based on shared racialized
experiences. In sum, we argue that racialized experiences and a collectivist
background both help explain Black STEM faculty’s social empathy and
equity ethic.
This framework provides an explanatory tool for theorists and researchers
to understand how STEM students and faculty of color develop a principled
concern for justice—particularly addressing racial inequities—and for the
well-being of marginalized people.
Materials and methods

This paper focuses on data collected through qualitative, one-time inter
views with 39 Black engineering and computing faculty, tenured and tenure-
track, from 14 institutions, conducted during the 2014–2016 academic
years. This study is part of a larger three-year research project to shed
light on the barriers and opportunities facing Black engineering PhD stu
dents, postdocs, and faculty that included qualitative interviews, focus
groups, and surveys.
This research was guided by interpretivist and critical paradigms, meaning
that we intended to understand participants’ subjective experiences (Lincoln &
Guba, 1989) while working toward achieving racial justice. Our aim was to
understand, problematize, and applaud the mentoring and service-related
narratives of historically and presently marginalized people (Decuir-Gunby
& Walker-Devose, 2013). This goal was best accomplished using qualitative,
in-depth, semi-structured interviews, which shed light on how Black faculty in
engineering and computing have worked to improve racially minoritized
students’ experience, retention, and persistence.
Data collection
Participants were recruited at professional conferences with a critical mass of

our target population (e.g., National Society of Black Engineers and the
National Society of Blacks in Computing), and through the first author’s
professional networks. Participants were interviewed one time, in-person, at
these conferences, at their universities, or over the phone. The interviews
lasted 45 minutes to 2.5 hours. They were semi-structured, audio-recorded,
professionally transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo 12, a computer-assisted,
qualitative data analysis platform. The interviews focused on six areas:
(1) Their reflections on diversifying engineering/computing faculty depart

ments and their (potential) leadership in this area.
(2) Factors influencing their decisions to pursue an academic position and
why they continue to persist in their academic positions.
(3) Participants’ perspectives about the culture of their engineering and
computing departments’, and the culture in general.
(4) The barriers and opportunities they associated with being a Black
engineering/computing faculty member.
(5) Their future career trajectories.
(6) Perceptions of gaining (or seeking) tenure and the factors they asso
ciated with a successful tenure/promotion review process.
(7) The impact and experiences with race and raced-gendered stereotypes
among engineering and computing faculty members.
We reviewed the entire transcripts, but our analysis focused on questions 1

and 2.
Sample
Table 1 presents the participants’ demographic information and the charac
teristics of their institutions. All 39 participants identify as Black or African
American. Thirty-two (82%) participants are men and seven (18%) are
women.4 When interviewed, twenty-one (54%) participants were engineers,
17 (44%) were computer scientists or computer engineers, and one (2%) was
a biologist.5 When interviewed, 13 (33%) were assistant professors, 15 (39%)
were associate professors, and 11 (28%) were full professors.
The sample included faculty members from 14 U.S. postsecondary institutions.
Four (29%) are HBCUs and 10 (71%) are Historically White Institutions (HWI).
In terms of research productivity, eight (57%) are “very high research activity,”
four (29%) are “high research activity,” and two institutions (14%) had not applied
for Carnegie classification. Eight institutions (57%) are public, and six are private
(43%). Finally, 11 (79%) are non-technical schools, and three are technical (21%).
10
Table 1. Participant Characteristics

Faculty Characteristics Institution Characteristics
Pseudonym Gender Position Field U.S. Region Public or Private Technical or Non-Technical HBCU or HWIa Research Activityb #
Mills Man Full Computer Science and Electrical Engineering East Public Non-technical HWI R2 1
Epps Man Assistant Biomedical Engineering Midwest Private Non-technical HWI R1 2
Gordon Man Associate Computer Science and Engineering North Private Non-technical HWI R1 3
Robinson Man Assistant Chemical Engineering North Private Technical HWI R2 4
Mazon Man Assistant Chemistry and Materials Science North Private Technical HWI R2 4
E. O. MCGEE ET AL.
Benson Man Associate Electrical or Microelectronic Engineering North Private Technical HWI R2 4
Michaels Man Associate Industrial and Systems Engineering North Private Technical HWI R2 4
Gable Man Associate Plant Biology and Pathology North Private Technical HWI R2 4
Wright Man Full Chemistry and Microsystems Engineering North Private Technical HWI R2 4
Fasks Woman Assistant Computer Information Science and Education South Private Non-technical HBCU N/A 5
Jackson Man Assistant Mechanical Engineering South Private Non-technical HWI R1 6
Carter Man Associate Computer Science South Private Non-technical HWI R1 7
Walker Woman Assistant Civil and Architecture Engineering South Public Non-technical HBCU R2 8
Brooks Woman Associate Computer Science South Public Non-technical HBCU R2 8
Conteh Man Assistant Civil Engineering South Public Non-technical HBCU R2 8
Oberly Man Assistant Computer Science South Public Non-technical HBCU R2 8
Jahn Man Assistant Electrical Engineering South Public Non-technical HBCU R2 8
Hewey Man Assistant Material Science and Engineering South Public Non-technical HWI R1 9
Jacobs Man Full Civil Construction Environmental Engineering South Public Non-technical HWI R1 9
Higgins Man Full Electrical and Computer Engineering South Public Non-technical HWI R1 9
Evans Man Full Mechanical Engineering South Public Non-technical HWI R1 9
Simmons Woman Associate Industrial and Systems Engineering South Public Technical HBCU R2 10
Williams Woman Full Industrial and Systems Engineering South Public Technical HBCU R2 10
Lewis Man Assistant Computer Engineering South Public Technical HBCU R2 10
Henderson Man Assistant Mechanical and Chemical Engineering South Public Technical HBCU R2 10
Cooper Man Associate Computer Engineering South Public Technical HBCU R2 10
Lawson Man Associate Electrical and Computer Engineering South Public Technical HBCU R2 10
Clark Woman Associate Manufacturing Engineering South P ublic Technical HWI R1 11
Lowry Man Associate Aerospace Engineering South Public Technical HWI R1 11
Perkins Man Associate Biomedical Engineering South Public Technical HWI R1 11
Rhodes Man Associate Computer Science South Public Technical HWI R1 11
Campbell Man Associate Mechanical Engineering South Public Technical HWI R1 11
Gray Man Full Mechanical Engineering South Public Technical HWI R1 11
(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
Faculty Characteristics Institution Characteristics
Pseudonym Gender Position Field U.S. Region Public or Private Technical or Non-Technical HBCU or HWIa Research Activityb #
Kinsey Man Associate Electrical and Computer Engineering West Public Non-technical HBCU N/A 12
Franks Man Full Electrical and Computer Engineering West Public Non-technical HBCU N/A 12
Smith Man Full Electrical Engineering West Public Non-technical HBCU N/A 12
Appleton Woman Full Electrical and Computer Engineering West Public Non-technical HWI R1 13
Davis Man Assistant Computer Science West Public Non-technical HWI R1 13
Sanchez Man Full Analog Engineering West Public Non-technical HWI R1 14
a
HBCU = Historically Black College or University; HWI = Historically White Institution
b
R1 = Very High Research Activity; R2 = High Research Activity; N/A = Did not apply for designation (http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu
THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION
11
Analysis
woman who were postdoctoral researchers. The team met biweekly, then
monthly, and then periodically for roughly 15 months during the coding
process. The coding involved simultaneous inductive and deductive reasoning,
as we were interested in exploring how our theoretical model fared within this
sample of engineering and computing faculty. We also explored emergent
themes related to how participants expressed an equity ethic. We analyzed the
transcripts using thematic analysis, a method for identifying, analyzing, orga
nizing, interpreting, and reporting data patterns (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We
determined codes a priori using definitions from previous research on the
equity ethic, which we adapted into a coding architecture (Boyatzis, 1998;
Braun & Clarke, 2006; Naphan-Kingery et al., 2019; see, Table 2).
We first reviewed the transcripts and applied the coding architecture to
the participants’ narratives whenever they spoke about racialized experi
ences, their collectivist background, social empathy, and the equity ethic.
Examples of the respondents’ equity ethic were coded inductively based
on our definition of equity ethic: A principled concern for justice and for
the well-being of people who are suffering from various inequities, parti
cularly racial inequities. See, Table 2 for our coding architecture and
definitions. In this study we focused on these two manifestations of
Black faculty’s equity ethic, how 1) they sought out and mentored Black
students or students of color in their own or other departments, and how
(2) they tried to rectify the undereducation some Black students received
as a result of an unequitable educational system and provide them with
Table 2. Coding architecture.

1. Racialized experiences Describes personally experiencing and suffering from inequity (e.g., in the
form of tokenism, micro-aggressions, or discrimination) on the basis of race
2. Collectivist-background Mentions coming from a collectivist, community-based culture
3. Social Empathy: The ability to understand the experiences of different people, communities, and cultures
3A. Linked Fate This is a form of racialized individual empathy. Acknowledges and responds to
the racialized conditions for Black and marginalized folks of color in STEM.
3B. Contextual understanding Expresses comprehension of the social, historical, and cultural contexts that
of racial inequity have shaped racial inequity in higher education and beyond.
3C. Social responsibility Expresses a personal duty to assist in decreasing racial inequity in higher
education and beyond.
4. Diversity-related Service: any engagement in interventions, policies, and practices that promote equity,
inclusion, and diversity.
4A. Requested Service (Black Participant describes participating in formally requested service activities (e.g.,
Tax) serving on hiring and tenure committees, administering special recruitment
programs, leading diversity efforts and professional development on
diversity and equity; Guillaume & Apodaca, 2020).
4B. Voluntary Service (Equity Participant shows a principled concern for racial and social justice, through
Ethic) voluntary service work intended to broaden participation in engineering
and computing.
We specifically focused on two emergent themes:
Anti-deficit teaching: describes not pre-judging Black students as having
a deficit and recognizing historical educational inequities.
Building academic bridges: describes mentoring students through
transitions
resources by maintaining an anti-deficit perspective (Ridgeway & McGee,

2019). To test the reliability of the codes, we compared each other’s
coding and reconciled any discrepancies (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Positionality statement
We are part of a multidisciplinary team of social scientists and engineers that

investigates the institutional, technical, social, and cultural factors that affect
decision-making, career choices, and career satisfaction for engineering and
computing doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty members
who have been marginalized by race or race-gender dynamics. We interrogate
how these factors contribute to marginalization in engineering and computing
faculty positions, with an unapologetic emphasis on Black doctoral students and
faculty, given their gross underrepresentation in these fields.
The first author has two engineering degrees and often refers to herself as
a recovering engineer, still not quite over the marginalization she ensured as
a Black woman within her largely White, male, competitive, anti-Black work
places. We all consider ourselves social scientists. Thus, our identities and lived
experiences influence our understandings of the Black faculty in this dataset. We
believe that discrimination is systemic and that it affects both students and
faculty of color, and that an equity ethic is beneficial for Black people and
other marginalized groups, but critical for saving the planet from environmental
racism and destruction. Finally, these perspectives shape our lens and how we
interpret the results.
Results
Equity ethic was demonstrated by (1) mentoring Black students through critical
transitions in their educational trajectories (e.g., beginning college, securing
internships, and applying to and entering graduate programs), and by (2)
strategic teaching to counter the oppressive structures in STEM that their
racially minoritized students must navigate. Then, we examine the relationship
of these activities with the participants’ racialized experiences and collectivist
backgrounds. Finally, in contrast with their voluntary activities that demonstrate
their equity ethic, we discuss their feelings toward the kinds of diversity-related
service that is asked of them by their departments and institutions.
Expressing an equity ethic through anti-deficit views to counter racialized

education structures
The first way that Black faculty demonstrated an equity ethic was through their
anti-deficit perspectives of Black students—they located the source of educa
tional inequalities not in the students but in institutional actors, such as
faculty, staff members, and administrators (Bensimon, 2005). Our intervie

wees were keenly aware that longstanding barriers have impeded Black stu
dents’ engineering and computing education and retention, motivating them
to help students navigate their academic programs. Dr. Oberly, an assistant
professor of computer science at an HBCU, described going the extra mile for
Black students. He felt personally and professionally responsible for remedy
ing any learning gaps:
For me it’s very important that my students succeed. I can’t even put it into words,
especially here at an HBCU. It’s important that every single student comes into my
classroom—leaves my classroom—knowing how to succeed at whatever the topic is, that
they really know it . . . and they know it well. And I feel as though it’s my responsibility to
help them achieve that as much as possible . . . I would like to say that I am very helpful,
that I’m very patient in our field. You really have to be because [for] . . . many students . . .
for example, there are many things that are just not going to click with them [Black
students] immediately. There are some things that they need much more time [to master].
The attention Dr. Oberly gives his Black students shows how much he values
reducing racial inequities in STEM and feels it is his responsibility to do so,
despite the additional time and effort it takes, and despite the conflicts with
tenure and promotion requirements that place premium value on research
grants and top tier publications. He suggested that the success of his Black
students in STEM is connected to his success and fulfillment.
Along the same lines, Dr. Jahn, an assistant professor in electrical engineer
ing who also worked at an HBCU, rallied to teach subjects like precalculus and
physics because they are gatekeeper courses, which often push certain margin
alized students out of STEM (Douglas & Attewell, 2017). He felt that this
instruction could make the difference between a student dropping out or
staying in engineering and computing:
A lot of times our African American students are not properly prepared mathemati
cally . . . some say if you got to come in doing college algebra, you probably shouldn’t be
an engineer. I don’t try to make that judgment against anybody, because you don’t know
what somebody’s capabilities really are. One of the defining differences in engineering
and technology is the calculus base. Our students tend to struggle with the calculus. They
struggle as [early] as the freshman, sophomore years doing physics. So, calculus and
physics become a problem. And the faculty don’t cater to that.
Dr. Jahn demonstrates an anti-deficit perspective by highlighting the impor

tance of not prejudging Black students and giving them the instruction and
skillset required to meet the challenges of STEM education. Dr. Jahn went on
to describe the long history of denying high-quality STEM instruction to Black
students in K-12 (McGee & Ridgeway, 2018). He called attention to Black
students’ under-preparedness as a form of marginalization, a lack of oppor
tunity to learn and participate in STEM courses rather than a lack of ability.
Despite working at an HBCU, Dr. Jahn noted that Black faculty were
underrepresented and that the non-Black faculty members in his department

did not believe Black students could learn the content if given the opportunity,
nor did they believe that they would be valuable to the discipline. Dr. Jahn’s
deliberate teaching of the gatekeeper courses shows his sense of responsibility
to properly respond to the needs of Black students and counter the negative
messages they received from their other professors.
Finally, several participants described colleagues with deficit perspectives of
racially minoritized students, including Dr. Rhodes, a computer scientist in
a HWI who said: “I have faculty members that, again, have low expectations
and have all sorts of implicit bias. And they make it very difficult.” In these
instances, Black faculty may feel additional responsibility to compensate for
these colleagues through their teaching. Dr. Carter, associate professor of
computer science at an HWI, described seeing potential in students when his
colleagues did not, and seeing them go on to succeed. He described how he felt
about one of his Black students: “I feel like I saw potential in her that other
faculty did not. Like, I think other faculty would not have said that she could be
someone who could go to a top graduate school and get a PhD . . . And I don’t
think she saw it in herself either.” Other professors may have seen a deficit in
the student, and she may have internalized those judgments, but Dr. Carter
believed in her and she went on to be a successful researcher in her field.
Expressing an equity ethic designing academic bridges for Black students

during crucial transitions
We found that Black faculty displayed an equity ethic by volunteering to
bridge mentorship gaps and support Black students long-term, during critical
transitions in their educational trajectories. They paid particular attention to
students’ transitions from high school to undergraduate education, and from
undergraduate to graduate education — serving as an bridge against structural
barriers that are upheld by racist practices that discourage Black graduates
from pursuing undergraduate or graduate STEM education, respectively.
Faculty helped their Black and other racially minoritized students adjust to
college life and shepherded them to graduate school, even helping students
find additional mentors at their graduate institutions through their own
personal networks. This was accomplished by cultivating and maintaining
relationships that exceeded departmental expectations about their mentoring
responsibilities, as they often assisted Black students who were sometimes not
in their departments or no longer at their institutions.
For example, Dr. Higgins, professor of electrical and computer engineering,
declared a specialty in making the first-year experience smoother for incoming
Black engineering students. Efforts to smooth such transitions tends to
increase retention, as Black STEM students are significantly less likely than
their white and Asian counterparts to maintain the STEM education
trajectories they had in their freshman year (Herrera & Hurtado, 2011).
Dr. Higgins offered his support to Black engineering students as soon as
they arrived at his HWI, increasing their chances of success. He explained:a
The thing that I’ve tried to do over the years, whether it was my students or not, is to
let it be known to the African American6 students that I’m available to help with
mentoring or whatever. And sometimes I’ve helped students to find an advisor other
than myself by mentoring them and suggesting things that they should do . . ..to be
successful. And sometimes I’ve served as an interim advisor to get them through the
early years . . . Other times I’ve served as their advisor myself, so I think I have an
attitude of helping people. I’ve had an impact over the years in terms of the number of
African Americans that graduate from this department, and maybe also in some . . .
other departments.
Dr. Higgins demonstrated an equity ethic through his mission that trans
cended his department’s efforts to support Black students; he provided
crucial help at strategic points in their academic journeys, including
mentoring students outside his department. He acknowledged that fewer
Black students would have graduated without his mentoring, which con
veys his sense of responsibility to broaden Black participation in
engineering.
Dr. Fasks supported Black students outside of her area of expertise, which
required expanding her knowledge to meet the needs of her engineering
students: “I was taking on [Black engineering] students who wanted to do
research in robotics. But that’s not my area. And mentoring them [and]
advising them, it’s also much more work for me, because I have to get up to
speed to some degree.” She did not strengthen her case for T&P by mentoring
students outside of her expertise, but she demonstrated her equity ethic. She
also described sustained prosocial behavior in how she maintained her rela
tionships with Black students at her HBCU after they graduate: “A lot of my
students have the kind of relationship where, even after they graduate, we still
talk. I’m still there to nurture them.”
Dr. Appleton also serves students outside her department, although her
colleagues see her efforts in a negative light. She explained:
In my department, one of the faculty members—his office was kind of across from mine
—and he said, “Why do you always have all these Black students come by your office?”
because he knew we didn’t have any in our department. And he made it sound like it was
a bad thing . . . I talked to him about how these students see me as a safe person to come
and talk to, and that’s why they’re coming by here. But I think he kind of felt like I wasn’t
doing what I should be doing in the department. [He said,] “you always have these
people coming by your office to talk to you,” and stuff like that. And it was visible,
because they were Black students . . . So, yes, sometimes I think that us doing the service
that maybe isn’t kind of serving the traditional department paradigm is one that some
times they don’t value.
Dr. Appleton’s story shows that such informal service is not only unrewarded
in the T&P process; it may be viewed negatively by colleagues who are either
too shortsighted to understand how it can broaden participation in STEM, or
who do not value this goal. Regardless, her linked fate, contextual under
standing of their struggles, and sense of responsibility in extending psycholo
gical safety to Black students outside of her department motivate her equity
ethic.
Dr. Epps, an assistant professor of biomedical engineering at an HWI, recog
nized that transitions (e.g., entering college) are precarious for Black students. He
emphasized how critical the first year in college is in shaping students’ interests
and mind-set. Therefore, he is especially attuned to encouraging and reassuring
his racially minoritized students that engineering is for them:
One thing that comes up is how to make sure minority students, they come from
different backgrounds, are able to compete. Because you have the freshman class
where you can have people with diverse backgrounds from high school, coming in
they’re trying to, you know, take the same exam, or do the same thing. And it’s not
fair, honestly . . . because some people have more preparation than others. And it turns
out that first year really defines someone’s attitude towards the rest of their education.
So, I think that’s really important too. Because if someone comes in and they feel like
they’re ostracized or they’re not at the same level as other people, they feel like, no, this is
not for me. This is for them.
Through his equity ethic, he recognized the broader context shaping Black
students’ level of preparedness when they enter college, and the injustice of
ignoring prior educational inequities while holding these students to the same
standards as more prepared students. He recognizes that disparities like this
can lead students to disengage. He went on to describe how he identifies his
struggling racially minoritized students and how he counters their uncertainty
about their belonging through one-on-one tutoring.
How did Black engineering and computing faculty develop an equity ethic?
Faculty narratives showed that racialized experiences and a collectivist back

ground of linked fate toward success promote the development of social
empathy and an equity ethic, manifesting as race-conscious teaching and
mentoring.
“Giving back” to the community

In describing their dedication to their Black students, many participants
conveyed that they provide informal mentoring to “give back” to and
strengthen their community by ensuring the success of future Black engineers
and computer scientists. However, they continued to act on their equity ethic
by serving these students, often to “pay forward” the time and energy Black
faculty members had invested in them when they were students. Dr. Gable said
he invests so heavily in his Black students because his mentor helped him to
succeed as an undergraduate at a small HBCU:a
I had this faculty member who took me under his wing and showed me and explained to
me what research is, helped me write my personal statement for graduate school, and
wrote me letters upon letters upon letters to get into graduate school. And so . . . it’s
giving back. I . . . pride myself on doing that for students . . . I’m invested in their career.
I’m invested in them, helping them prosper.
His description of his Black STEM professor “taking him under his wing”
suggests a kind of familial connection that comes from sharing a collectivist
background, and from a consciousness that he and his students have weath
ered the same storm. The protection and advocacy Dr. Gable received from his
professor inspired him to do the same for his own students, in whom he makes
great investments. He stays involved in their lives after they leave his institu
tion, even creating a Facebook group to keep in touch with his graduates. His
former mentees invite him to weddings and baby showers, which he describes
as having “a family atmosphere.” These findings extend the concept of “other-
mothering” (a practice of raising and loving displaced children during slavery
as one’s own) to describe the relationship between Black mentors and mentees
(Guiffrida, 2005; Kendricks et al., 2013). Dr. Campbell described, “because
I am a Black faculty member and I have interests in making sure that people,
um, that are my family, and that look like me, have a better opportunity than
I might have had when I was young.”
Dr. Mazon, an assistant professor of chemistry and materials science at an
HWI, discusses how he works side-by-side with his students to build strong
relationships with them: “I have a strong sense of ancestry and commitment to
my race . . . I don’t want to let anyone down who’s actually given me an
opportunity, so I continue to do what was done for me.” This kind of
reciprocity and not wanting to “let anyone down” shows his equity ethic—
which stems from his social empathy, his collectivist mentality, and sense of
personal responsibility to lift up Black students and address the inequities they
encounter in STEM academic spaces. We considered this beyond reciprocity
to a link conection between their access and the STEM success of their
students.
Inspired by their own racialized experiences

Dr. Appleton helps to illustrate that individuals develop an equity ethic from
having a collectivist background, but also because they are from
a marginalized group. She acknowledged, “I think that . . . mentoring is critical
when you are of the underrepresented group . . . I wouldn’t be here without . . .
the mentors that I had here.” She described one mentor in graduate school
“taking her under her wing.” She explained that her mentors gave her the
academic and social capital she needed to thrive as a Black woman in

a primarily white space. In turn, she helps her mentees “[have] a voice,
when your voice is marginalized” and “[survive] in an environment where
you might feel isolated.” Her mentoring is about academics but also about
strategies to persist in engineering, based on their shared, marginalized racial
identity. Her own racialized experiences in STEM spaces allowed her to
develop social empathy with her students, based on her understanding of the
historical racial inequalities in STEM. She felt it was her responsibility to fight
against these inequitable structures.
Service as a barrier: Confronting the Black tax

In contrast to engaging in the anti-deficit thinking and academic bridge
building that manifested their equity ethic, participants at HBCUs and
Historically White Institutions (HWIs) of various ranks (assistant, associate,
full professor) acknowledged that they received a disproportionate number
of requests to participate in formal diversity-related service as compared
with their white counterparts. Dr. Rhodes, associate professor of computer
science at an HWI, explained: “So all these diversity committees, there’s
a tremendous amount of effort that you got to put into those, that my
colleagues . . . don’t end up having to do, or don’t choose to do.” Similarly,
Dr. Carter, a professor of computer science at a private HWI, explained that
even if his white colleagues were asked to do service, it was rewarded more
highly in the T&P process:
It’s like the service that we do is not as valued as the kind of service . . . our white
colleagues get asked to do. Like, they get asked to be department chair and director of
undergraduate studies and this and that, the kind of things which have very clear roles
and also very clear rewards; whereas I get asked to be, you know, on this committee, or
chair . . . this initiative . . . Right? But [these are] things that don’t have quite as clear
impact in terms of the letters that people write for my promotion case, or in terms of
what my department will see as visible.
Dr. Lowry, a professor of aerospace engineering at a very high research

activity HWI, agreed, explaining that “no one else on campus is being
taxed like this. Or if they are, they get special attention.” Service is often
positioned as an expectation for Black faculty; thus, when they engage in
service they are not acknowledged or rewarded in the same way their white
counterparts are. Secondly, the type of service that their White peers engaged
in not only comes with prestige, but also significant salary increases or other
tangible benefits (like course deductions which could provide more time for
research).
Most participants conveyed that they preferred to “protect” their time and
had to “learn to say no” to some service requests initiated by their departments
and institutions, especially tasks which proved to be ineffective in diversifying
their fields. Several faculty members said they had learned over time, whether
it was from more seasoned faculty who had their interests at heart or from
personal experience, to limit their service and serve more strategically.
Dr. Gabe shared his standard response to the administration when they
request his participation in official diversity-related activities: “You know,
I would love to participate in this committee, but I’m working on a project
right now that I need to get the stuff done. So, I can’t afford the time right
now.” Dr. Fasks, an associate professor of computer information science and
education at an HWI, explained: “I get requests all the time for different things.
Now [I say,] ‘You might want to talk to someone [else]. Nope, can’t. No.’ This
gives me more time I want to focus on my research.” She noted that she
protected her time not merely to engage in research, which is valued more
highly in the T&P process, but also to invest more time in her students, which
is underappreciated in the T&P process as well. Dr. Higgins, a professor of
electrical and computer engineering at an HWI, said that he had learned to
limit his service “to those things that would also support [his] career and let
[him] mentor more students,” and advised younger Black faculty to focus on
their research.
The participants understood that, although their research activities were
more highly valued than service in the T&P process, the latter could have
a critical impact. For example, Dr. Campbell pointed out that academic service
is a unique opportunity to effect change: “I feel like the only reason that I am in
academia is to do service, because I don’t need to be in academia to do
research. I can do research anywhere. Because I feel like teaching is service . . .
reaching out is service.” Yet, the reward structure undervalued these student-
faculty relationships, as Dr. Gable expressed:
Most faculty members don’t realize that their students are their fruit. It’s not your papers,
it’s not the research dollars, it’s really the students that you mentor, advise and groom to
move on into the next generation of scholars . . .. I’ll say what good is it to be a Black
professor if you’re not helping Black students, right?
As Dr. Gable suggests, and numerous other participants reiterated, the pur
pose and responsibility of being a Black faculty member is to challenge the
status quo and to effect racial justice by producing a generation of STEM
students who represent the perspectives and ingenuity of Black people. Despite
its importance, work to increase diversity and inclusion are not prioritized in
the T&P process or in salary negotiations and raises. Dr. Appleton, a professor
of electrical and computer engineering at an HWI, recounted her service on
a tenure committee. One racially minoritized applicant who the committee
was hesitant to consider, had performed a great deal of diversity-related
service. Dr. Appleton observed, “They were really diverse in what they’ve done
and stuff like that . . . they had, I think, met the bar, but it looked different.”
Echoing Dr. Carter, and adding that their review was subjective, Dr. Appleton
suggested that departments should rearticulate what work is valued, and
should be performed and rewarded, even if it appears different from academic
norms.
These Black engineering and computing faculty desired protection from
institutional service requests (O’Meara et al., 2017) and sought greater auton
omy to support Black and other marginalized students in their own way, even
if those efforts went unrecognized. Participants’ narratives supported the
equity ethic framework. They showed that having a collectivist linked back
ground, or strong racial identity, and having suffered past racial injustice in
their field affected their social empathy, and equity ethic, impacting how they
interacted with Black students.
Discussion
Overwhelmingly, the Black faculty members in our sample engaged in a vast
amount of diversity initiatives. We found that many were asked to serve on
several diversity-related committees simultaneously, supporting research on
the “Black tax” (Griffin, 2012). As we explored what participants engaged in
beyond or outside of those institutional-related requests, we found they
established robust relationships with Black students, which often served to
retain those Black students in their departments and their fields at large.
Eighty-seven percent of the Black faculty we interviewed created opportunities
and strategies to facilitate more equitable learning experiences for Black
engineering and computing students. It is important to note that although
participants said that they supported all of their students, they offered an
additional layer of mentorship and advocacy to Black students, which inten
tionally fostered racialized support and socialization specific to these students’
needs.
These research findings show that Black faculty often engage in compre
hensive efforts to develop and provide more equitable learning opportunities
for Black engineering and computing students and other racially minoritized
students, by providing race conscious mentoring and teaching. They built
bridges for Black STEM students that helped them traverse institutional
barriers—barriers they themselves faced in their own academic journeys.
Black faculty understood and empathized with Black students in engineering
and computing, which in the 21st century is still a very white space (National
Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics,
2019). Participants expressed a keen understanding of how oppression and
anti-Blackness operate, leading them to challenge oppressive structures by
teaching and tutoring their students toward success (Bensimon, 2005).
Finally, they demonstrated their sense of responsibility to effect change, as

many participants described attending to the needs of students outside their
departments, fields, or institutions. Black faculty members embody a sense of
stewardship and “other-mothering” (Guiffrida, 2005) that includes indivi
dualized retention efforts targeting Black STEM students; they invested care
in these students even if they were not responsible for doing so. According to
Mawhinney (2011), other-mothering is a pedagogy of care that many Black
faculty use to nurture their Black students which provides much-needed
educational racial uplift. However, it is also an activity that is highly gen
dered and self-sacrificing. It is highly personal, due to the connections
between the students’ and their own trajectories. Faculty in this study
seemed most proud of their mentoring relationships with their Black stu
dents, especially as they saw the return on their investment as their students
graduated and matriculated into advanced STEM roles and employment.
Research on diversity-related service often focuses on formal initiatives, and
not on smaller scale interactions that involve “doing diversity” at a micro-level
(Porter et al., 2018). In the current study, Black faculty showed two specific
patterns of equity ethic at a micro-level: (1) anti-deficit teaching, and (2)
mentoring Black students at critical stages. Unlike more formal, recognized
efforts, these smaller scale, micro interactions are more easily overlooked, even
as they require a great deal of emotional labor (Porter et al., 2018). Supporting
the work of Baez (2000), we found that the participants engaged in informal,
self-driven activities to broaden participation of Black students in their fields,
showing critical agency to effect change in their fields. At the same time, they
were constrained by formal institutional and departmental requests for their
participation in diversity-related service (the “Black tax”). Through the close
relationships they formed with their Black students, Black faculty were able to
see more immediate progress than they did through their institutionally driven
activities that were largely out of their control. Their narratives also show how
their equity ethic is related to their collectivist background and experiences of
racialization, which predict social empathy (Segal, 2011), which is consistent
with previous research on the equity ethic (McGee, 2020; McGee & Bentley,
2017; Naphan-Kingery et al., 2019).
Implications for practice
Redefine service and rewards for service in tenure and promotion

Despite their voluntary and sometimes herculean efforts to broaden Black
students’ participation in their fields (e.g., Dr. Fasks becoming proficient in
a new engineering subfield to better mentor and support students), building
these relationships is not traditionally recognized as service to the department
or institution (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). Like Dr. Campbell, who argued
“teaching is service . . . reaching out is service,” we argue that teaching prac

tices which go above and beyond expectations are a form of retention and
should be valued accordingly.
Black faculty’s efforts to decrease racial inequities in engineering and
computing should be accompanied by policy changes that address divisive,
systemic inequities within departments and institutions (Brayboy, 2003;
Eskowitz et al., 1994; Puritty et al., 2017). The tenure and promotion
(T&P) process is a reward system for individualistic and competitive-
inspired actions and values. It masquerades as a meritocracy but is an anti-
Black process because it privileges the work of their white colleagues, and
white and mainstream funding awards and top-tier journal placements
(Flaherty, 2020).
The T&P process has been driven by academic capitalism in the U.S., in which
institutions have encouraged their faculty to engage in marketlike behaviors to
secure external funds due to declining state funds for education (Slaughter &
Leslie, 1997). Thus, while service may seem critical when presented in the
moment, it may become an afterthought when salaries and promotions are
weighed (Jaeger & Thornton, 2005). Furthermore, as Sensoy and DiAngelo
point out, “whenever diversity is an ‘add-on,’ this centers Whiteness” (Sensoy
& Diangelo, 2017, p. 563). As such, T&P committees must place greater value the
on equity-driven actions of Black faculty (Domingo et al., 2020), because their
general failure to recognize and reward diversity-related service reveals a tacit
departmental agreement that such activities are not meritorious. The devalua
tion of the work that is disproportionately done by Black women in the academy
(Griffin & Reddick, 2011) negatively influences how T&P committees gauge
their productivity and can explain the low numbers of Black women in compu
ter science who have been tenured and promoted (Zweben & Bizot, 2018, 2019).
Again, T&P committees must understand the critical importance of mentoring,
advocating, sponsoring, and creating activities that are not traditionally valued,
but which provide immense support for Black students and students of diverse
backgrounds. Participants mentioned that even that diversity-related service
requested by departments was not just undervalued on T&P committees—as
Dr. Carter explained, it appeared to be devalued in the face of other non-
diversity related forms of service.
Greater clarity on T&P criteria. Furthermore, while the number of publications

and their impact factors per year are objective measures, service activities are
often judged by more subjective criteria (e.g., one participant in this study said
her tenure conversation included personality and disposition during faculty
events), leaving room for greater discrimination. Research has shown that
racially minoritized tenure track faculty are uncertain of the T&P policies at
their institutions (Urrieta et al., 2014), suggesting departments need to establish

clear criteria about the role of diversity-related service in faculty retention,
promotion, and tenure (Domingo et al., 2020; Griffin & Reddick, 2011).
Expanding who does diversity-related service

While Black faculty are doing the remarkable work of supporting their Black
students in particular, we are troubled by the limited role of the department
and the institution in providing adequate external supports to directly chal
lenge the disparities of Black students. Our participants described an invisible
narrative perpetuated by the university that placed the responsibility of assist
ing Black students with psychosocial and academic support squarely on Black
faculty.
While Black faculty are providing race conscious mentorship to Black and
other students, they face their own host of racial disparities (Zambrana et al.,
2015). Scholars believe cultural taxation (the Black tax) is one reason why
Black scientists are 10% less likely than their white colleagues to receive
funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (Ginther et al., 2018).
Institutional leaders need to provide counter-systems to relieve Black faculty
from any and all work that is uncompensated, unacknowledged and unre
warded. If institutional leaders find themselves asking the same Black faculty
to serve over and over again on university or department committees—
particularly those established to address diversity—they should hire additional
Black faculty for the knowledge production they provide to their STEM fields
and recruit white and Asian faculty to engage in diversity service work.
The role of colleagues
Diversity-related service often occurs in a context in which Black faculty are

underrepresented in their department—and colleagues (who play an impor
tant role in the T&P process) may not understand or appreciate their equity
ethic. Some of our participants noted that their non-Black colleagues did not
see the potential in Black students the way they did, and, as Dr. Rhodes
pointed out, did not choose to assist in diversity-related service. Consistent
with other research, we found that when such resistant activities are highly
visible to dominant group members, who control the norms and expectations
of service, Black faculty can be “exposed,” “othered,” and penalized (Lewis &
Simpson, 2010; O’Meara et al., 2017).
Perhaps Black faculty would not have to bear the brunt of diversifica
tion and inclusion if colleagues from well-represented groups contributed
to these efforts. We are also troubled that the burden to serve as leaders of
diversity and equity efforts is placed on those who are most underrepre
sented in STEM, while white and Asian faculty (the exception being Asian
women faculty) are often spared from such efforts. Thus, we argue that
white STEM stakeholders—faculty, staff, and administrators—should share

responsibility for increasing equity and minimizing racialized bias on
campus. To address racism in the workplace, Livingston (2020) advocates
a 5-stage process, PRESS, an appropriate acronym given the pressing
nature of the problem. It includes many elements related to the equity
ethic framework:
(1) Problem awareness,

(2) Root-cause analysis,
(3) Empathy, or level of concern about the problem and the people it
afflicts,
(4) Strategies for addressing the problem, and
(5) Sacrifice, or willingness to invest what is necessary for strategy
implementation. [emphasis added]
Raising awareness of racial inequities in engineering and computing is

difficult because science purports to be empirical, objective, universal, inno
cent from political and racial ideologies, and focused on noncultural topics
(Miriti, 2020); colorblindness and white fragility are pervasive (Baber, 2019;
Sensoy & Diangelo, 2017). Due to these racial and cultural blinders, white
colleagues in particular may be unaware or unconcerned of racial bias or
discrimination in their department and institution, and how they have bene
fitted from it.
Therefore, a department may collectively identify and raise awareness about
racial inequities in their department. Analysis of the root causes of this issue
requires a socio-historical, contextual understanding of STEM as a non-
neutral, racialized, political system (Livingston, 2020; McGee, 2020; Segal,
2011). Social scientist colleagues could collaborate with departments to pro
vide an interdisciplinary lens into the intersections of race and STEM educa
tion by demonstrating historical and scientific evidence of racial
discrimination in STEM. Livingston (2020) argues that developing a robust
understanding of racial inequities increases empathy, or the ability to feel what
someone else feels, which should help the department generate strategies to
address the problem and decide on what sacrifices that will be necessary, if any.
Diversity-related service work would likely not be seen as so taxing or self-
sacrificing if it werecompensated.
Strengths and limitations

An important strength of this research is that it centers the narratives of
a group that is underrepresented and marginalized in engineering and
computing academic spaces. The deliberate recruitment method we used
is both a strength and a limitation. Participants were recruited at
organized conferences concerned with broadening participation in

STEM. Thus, individuals with these values are likely overrepresented in
the sample, and thus, while this gave us an in-depth look at their
experiences, it is not representative of all Black engineering and comput
ing faculty. Representative survey data could offer more systematic
statistics to show how race, gender, rank, and other characteristics
intersect to shape participation in voluntary diversity-related service.
Finally, while Black faculty in STEM are still struggling for their work
to be recognized in the T&P process (Flaherty, 2020), because these
interviews were conducted in 2014–2016, it is important to note that
while the conditions may be the same, their responses to racialized
experiences might look different today.
Implications for future research

According to Adams et al. (2006), “research must uncover the processes and
environments that promote understanding of how we can achieve and sustain
a diverse engineering community” (p. 261). To that end, future research must
explore (1) how these self-initiated and often unrecognized acts of service by
Black faculty impact faculty and student experiences and persistence in STEM;
(2) how these acts are perceived by institutional actors (e.g., colleagues,
department chairs, deans) and (3) how Black faculty’s equity ethic, demon
strated through race-based STEM innovations, is articulated in the T&P
process.
Furthermore, future research should examine how institutions and depart
ments can best make material investments and an equitable reward structure
for those who embody an equity ethic—who will invest the necessary time,
energy, and finances to reduce racial inequity and will be held accountable for
meeting those goals. Johnson (2015) in an article about linked fate and Black
voters stated, “there is no personal liberty without group liberty;” thus, exam
ining the connections between social empathy and linked fate has potential to
better our understanding of the solidarity both within and among racial
groups. Research should explore how we can apply insights from the equity
ethic framework, which is useful for understanding what motivates Black
faculty’s prosocial, self-sacrificing behaviors, to make departmental diversity-
related service more equitable.
Conclusion
Black engineering and computing faculty shoulder a great deal of the
diversity and inclusion burden, making direct contributions to the uni
versity support ecosystem, particularly for racially vulnerable Black stu
dents in STEM. While these faculty members are committed with
cultivating the next generation of Black STEM innovators, the transforma

tional strategies they employ to retain Black students often go unacknow
ledged. While these Black faculty members’ equity ethic moves them to
express altruistic values related to service, the lack of recognition and
institutional support they receive for these efforts can lead to their feeling
taxed which impacts their research and teaching goals.
Engineering and computing departments are not as innovative, creative,
or transformative as they could be because Black, Latinx, and Indigenous
people are not integral to scientific academic enterprise. However, racially
minoritized faculty who have made a commitment to train the next
generation of engineering and computing talent have to decide how
much they can (or are required to) serve, and at what cost to their own
research, scholarship and theory-building innovation, along with the
chances to be awarded T&P. The Black faculty members who participated
in this study reminded us that their efforts to value the full participation
of Black people in engineering and computing should be recognized,
validated, and rewarded in significant and material ways.
Notes
1. We use the terms technology, computer science, and computing interchangeably to refer
to jobs that apply technology to solve human problems, using computers, programming,
and software.
2. The term “racially minoritized” acknowledges a system of policies and practices that
racialize people of color, and not the passive “minority” implying some inherent (and
normalized) state-of-affairs. Instead, they are rendered minorities, by overrepresentation
of White Supremacy that actively creates a society that elevates and normalizes
a hegemonic worldview to the detriment of nonwhite people (McGee, 2020).
3. Despite increased representation, Asian STEM faculty endure racial marginalization,
while experiencing barriers to management and other leadership opportunities (E.
McGee, 2018).
4. We asked a series of demographic questions at the end of the interviews. One question
included, “what gender do you identify with, if any?”
5. We accepted all faculty members who responded to our request to be interviewed, which
yielded one life science faculty member.
6. We have used the more encompassing term “Black” instead of “African American”
because the participants are not all descendants of enslaved Africans in America. In this
section both terms “African American” and “Black” are used, depending on how the
participants self-identified.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Ebony O. McGee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0499-2620
Monica L. Miles http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0006-1842
References
Adams, R., Aldridge, D., Atman, C., Atman, C., Barker, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Bjorklund, S.,
Young, M. (2006). The research agenda for the new discipline of engineering education.
Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 257–258. https://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/engi
neering/departments/ce2p2e/pdf/0_-_Agenda_for_Engg_Ed_Research_-_JEE95-1.pdf
Allen, R. L., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). Consequences of the Black sense of self. Journal of Black
Psychology, 27(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798401027001001
Baber, L. D. (2019). Color-blind liberalism in postsecondary STEM education. In E. O. McGee
& W. H. Robinson (Eds.), Diversifying STEM: Multidisciplinary perspectives on race and
gender (pp. 19–35). Rutgers University Press.
Baez, B. (1999). Faculty of color and traditional notions of service. Thought and Action, 12,
131–138. http://199.223.128.59/assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_99Fal_16.pdf
Baez, B. (2000). Race-related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing critical agency in
academe. Higher Education, 39(3), 363–391. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003972214943
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99–111. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/he.190
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. Sage.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2003). The implementation of diversity in predominantly white colleges and
universities. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0021934703253679
Briggs, C. (2017). The policy of STEM diversity: Diversifying STEM programs in higher
education. Journal of STEM Education, 17(4), 5–7 . https://www.learntechlib.org/p/174403/
Brockman, A. J. (2021). “La Crème de la Crème”: How racial, gendered, and intersectional
social comparisons reveal inequities that affect sense of belonging in STEM. Sociological
Inquiry, 91(4), 751–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12401 .
Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., & Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline
metaphor: Is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce?
Science Education, 98(3), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21108
Carson, L. R. (2009). “I am because we are:” collectivism as a foundational characteristic of
African American college student identity and academic achievement. Social Psychology of
Education, 12(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-9090-6
Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., & Jayakody, R. (1994). Fictive kinship relations in black extended
families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25(3), 297–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/
jcfs.25.3.297
Chubin, D. E., May, G. S., & Babco, E. L. (2005). Diversifying the engineering workforce.
Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 73–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.
tb00830.x
Corneille, M., Lee, A., Allen, S., Cannady, J., & Guess, A. (2019). Barriers to the advancement of
women of color faculty in STEM. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,
38(3), 328–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2017-0199
Cox, K. (2019). Most U.S. adults feel what happens to their own racial or ethnic group affects
them personally. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/11/
linked-fate-connectedness-americans/
Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the
self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 231–246.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313
Daugherty, M. K. (2009). The “T” and “E” in STEM. In ITEEA (Ed.), The overlooked STEM
imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 18–25).
Dawson, M. (1994). Behind the Mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton
University Press.
Decuir-Gunby, J. T., & Walker-Devose, D. C. (2013). Expanding the counterstory: The
potential for critical race mixed methods studies in education. In M. Lynn & A. D. Dixson
(Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 268–279). Routledge.
Diggs, G. A., Garrison-Wade, D. F., Estrada, D., & Galindo, R. (2009). Smiling faces and
colored spaces: The experiences of faculty of color pursing tenure in the academy. The Urban
Review, 41(4), 312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11256-008-0113-y
Domingo, C. R., Gerber, N. C., Harris, D., Mamo, L., Pasion, S. G., Rebanal, R. D., &
Rosser, S. V. (2020). More service or more advancement: Institutional barriers to academic
success for women and women of color faculty at a large public comprehensive
minority-serving state university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000292
Douglas, D., & Attewell, P. (2017). School mathematics as gatekeeper. The Sociological
Quarterly, 58(4), 648–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2017.1354733
Eskowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., Neuschatz, M., Uzzi, B., & Alonzo, J. (1994). The paradox of
critical mass for women in science. Science, 266(5182), 51–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9780511541414.008
Flaherty, C. (2020, June 22). Botched. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/
2020/06/22/two-black-scholars-say-uva-denied-them-tenure-after-belittling-their-work
Frazier, P., Greer, C., Gabrielsen, S., Tennen, H., Park, C., & Tomich, P. (2013). The relation
between trauma exposure and prosocial behavior. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,
Practice, and Policy, 5(3), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027255
Funk, C. & Parker, K. (2018). Diversity in the STEM workforce varies widely across jobs. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/diversity-in-the-
stem-workforce-varies-widely-across-jobs/
Garibay, J. C. (2018). Beyond traditional measures of stem success: Long-term predictors of
social agency and conducting research for social change. Research in Higher Education, 59
(3), 349–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9470-2
Gerdes, K. E., & Segal, E. A. (2009). A social work model of empathy. Advances in Social Work,
10(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.18060/235
Gibbs Jr, K. D., & Griffin, K. A. (2013). What do I want to be with my PhD? The roles of
personal values and structural dynamics in shaping the career interests of recent biomedical
science PhD graduates. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 711–723. https://10.1187/cbe.
13-02-0021
Ginther, D. K., Basner, J., Jensen, U., Schnell, J., Kington, R., & Schaffer, W. T. (2018).
Publications as predictors of racial and ethnic differences in NIH research awards. PloS
One, 13(11), e0205929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205929
Griffin, K. A. (2012). Learning to mentor: A mixed methods study of the nature and
influence of Black professors’ socialization into their roles as mentors. Journal of the
Professoriate, 6(2), 27–58. http://caarpweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/6-2_Griffin_
p.27v2.pdf .
Griffin, K. A., Perez, D., Holmes, A. P., & Mayo, C. E. (2010). Investing in the future: The
importance of faculty mentoring in the development of students of color in STEM.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 95–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
ir.365
Griffin, K. A., & Reddick, R. J. (2011). Surveillance and sacrifice: Gender differences in the
mentoring patterns of Black professors at predominantly White research universities.
American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1032–1057. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0002831211405025
Guiffrida, D. (2005). Othermothering as a framework for understanding African American
students’ definitions of student-centered faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(6),
701–723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0041
Guillaume, R. O., & Apodaca, E. C. (2020). Early career faculty of color and T&P: The
intersection of advancement in the academy and cultural taxation. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1718084
Harley, D. A. (2008). Maids of academe: African American women faculty at predominately
white institutions. Journal of African American Studies, 12(1), 19–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s12111-007-9030-5
Hart, J. L. (2016). Dissecting a gendered organization: Implications for career trajectories for
mid-career women in STEM. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(5), 605–634. https://doi.
org/10.1353/jhe.2016.0024
Herrera, F. A., & Hurtado, S. (2011, April). Maintaining initial interests: Developing science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career aspirations among underrepre
sented racial minority students. Paper presented at the Association for Educational
Research Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Holly, J., Jr. (2020). Disentangling engineering education research’s anti-Blackness. Journal of
Engineering Education, 109(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20364
Jackson, M. C., Galvez, G., Landa, I., Buonora, P., & Thoman, D. B. (2016). Science that matters:
The importance of a cultural connection in underrepresented students’ science pursuit. CBE
—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0067
Jaeger, A. J., & Thornton, C. H. (2005). Moving toward the market and away from public
service? Effects of resource dependency and academic capitalism. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement, 10(3), 53–67. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/
jheoe/article/view/529 .
Johnson, T. R. (2015, September 7). Can the democratic party retain its hold on Black voters?
The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-changing-outlook-
for-black-voters/403975/
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life Levine, John M., and Moreland,
Richard L. In The gender gap in psychotherapy (pp. 53–78). Springer.
Kendricks, K., Nedunuri, K. V., & Arment, A. R. (2013). Minority student perceptions of the
impact of mentoring to enhance academic performance in STEM disciplines. Journal of
STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 38–46. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/
index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1783
Leath, S., & Chavous, T. (2018). Black women’s experiences of campus racial climate and
stigma at predominantly White institutions: Insights from a comparative and within-group
approach for STEM and non-STEM majors. The Journal of Negro Education, 87(2), 125–139.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7709/jnegroeducation.87.2.0125
Lewis, P., & Simpson, R. (2010). Meritocracy, difference and choice: Women’s experience of
advantage and disadvantage at work. Gender and Management: An International Journal, 25
(3), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411011036374
Liera, R., & Dowd, A. C. (2019). Faculty learning at boundaries to broker racial equity. The
Journal of Higher Education, 90(3), 462–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.
1512805
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1989). Ethics: The failure of positivist science. The Review of
Higher Education, 12(3), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1989.0017
Livingston, R. (2020) How to promote racial equity in the workplace. Harvard Business Review,
https://hbr.org/2020/09/how-to-promote-racial-equity-in-the-workplace
Mawhinney, L. (2011). Othermothering: A personal narrative exploring relationships between
Black female faculty and students. Negro Educational Review, 408(3), 213–233. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0005-2728(75)90134-6
McGee, E. O. (2016). Devalued Black and Latino racial identities: A by-product of STEM
college culture? American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1626–1662. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0002831216676572
McGee, E. (2018). “Black genius, Asian fail”: The detriment of stereotype lift and stereotype
threat in high-achieving Asian and Black STEM students. AERA Open, 4(4), 1–16. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2332858418816658
McGee, E. O. (2020). Black, Brown, Bruised: How racialized STEM education stifles innovation.
Harvard Education Press.
McGee, E. O., & Bentley, L. C. (2017). The equity ethic: Black and Latinx college students
reengineering their STEM careers toward justice. American Journal of Education, 124(1),
1–36. https://doi.org/10.1086/693954
McGee, E. O., Main, J., Miles, M. L., & Cox, M. (2020). Why do they persist? Women of color
faculty in engineering departments. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and
Engineering, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2020035632
McGee, E. O., White, D. T., Jenkins, A. T., Houston, S., Bentley, L. C., Smith, W. J., &
Robinson, W. H. (2016). Black engineering students’ motivation for PhD attainment:
Passion plus purpose. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(2), 167–193. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JME-01-2016-0007
Mendick, H., Berge, M., & Danielsson, A. (2017). A critique of the STEM pipeline: Young
people’s identities in Sweden and science education policy. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 65(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2017.1300232
Metcalf, H. (2010). Stuck in the pipeline: A critical review of STEM workforce literature.
InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6(2), 1–20. https://
escholarship.org/content/qt6zf09176/qt6zf09176.pdf
Miriti, M. N. (2020). The elephant in the room: Race and STEM diversity. BioScience, 70(3),
237–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz167
Monk, E. P., Jr. (2020). Linked fate and mental health among African Americans. Social Science
& Medicine, 266(2020), 113340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113340
Morton, T. R., Gee, D. S., & Woodson, A. N. (2020). Being vs. becoming: Transcending STEM
identity development through Afropessimism, moving toward a Black X consciousness in
STEM. The Journal of Negro Education, 88(3), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroedu
cation.88.3.0327
Naphan-Kingery, D., Ridgeway, M. L., Brockman, A., McKane, R., Botchway, P., &
McGee, E. O. (2019). Investigation of an equity ethic in engineering and computing doctoral
students. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(3), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.
20284
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2019).
Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2019. [Special
Report NSF 19-304]. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/digest
O’Brien, L. T., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., & Hammer, E. (2015). Ethnic variation in
gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation: An intersectional approach. Cultural
Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037944
O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., & Nyunt, G. (2017). Constrained choices: A view of campus service
inequality from annual faculty reports. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 672–700.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1257312
Ortiz, N. A., Morton, T. R., Miles, M. L., & Roby, R. S. (2020). What about us? Exploring the
challenges and sources of support influencing black students’ STEM identity development in
postsecondary education. The Journal of Negro Education, 88(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/
10.7709/jnegroeducation.88.3.0311
Padilla, A. M. (1994). Ethnic minority scholars, research, and mentoring: Current and future
issues. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176259
Pedersen, D. E., & Minnotte, K. L. (2018). University service in STEM departments: Gender,
perceived injustice, and consequences for faculty. Sociological Focus, 51(3), 217–237. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2018.1393607
Piferi, R., Jobe, R., & Jones, W. (2006). Giving to others during national tragedy: The effects of
altruistic and egoistic motivations on long-term giving. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 23(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506060185
Porter, K. B., Posselt, J. R., Reyes, K., Slay, K. E., & Kamimura, A. (2018). Burdens and benefits
of diversity work: Emotion management in STEM doctoral students. Studies in Graduate
and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-17-00041
Puritty, C. Strickland, L. R., Alia, E., Blonder, B., Klein, E., Kohl, M. T., McGee, E.,
Quintana, M., Ridley, R. E., Tellman, B., & Gerber, L. R. (2017, September 15). Without
inclusion, diversity initiatives may not be enough. Science, 357(6356), 1101–1102. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9054
Ridgeway, M. L., & McGee, E. O. (2018). Black mathematics educators: Researching toward
racial emancipation of Black students. The Urban Review, 50(2), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11256-018-0452-2
Robinson, W. H., McGee, Ebony, Bentley, Lydia, Houston, Stacey, Botchaway , Portia, Roy,
Ruchi. (2015, August). Racial and gendered experiences that dissuade a career in the
professoriate. In IEEE, Research in Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering,
Computing, and Technology Charlotte, NC (August 13-14) (pp. 1–5). http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/RESPECT.2015.7296500
Rodríguez, J. E., Campbell, K. M., & Pololi, L. H. (2015). Addressing disparities in academic
medicine: What of the minority tax? BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 1–5. https://10.1186/
s12909-015-0290-9
Roy, J. (2019). Engineering by the numbers. American Society for Engineering Education.
https://ira.asee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2018-Engineering-by-Numbers-
Engineering-Statistics-UPDATED-15-July-2019.pdf
Schwartz, J. (2012). Faculty as undergraduate research mentors for students of color: Taking into
account the costs. Science Education, 96(3), 527–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21004
Segal, E. A. (2011). Social empathy: A model built on empathy, contextual understanding, and
social responsibility that promotes social justice. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(3),
266–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.564040
Segal, E. A., Gerdes, K. E., Mullins, J., Wagaman, M. A., & Androff, D. (2011). Social empathy
attitudes: Do Latino students have more? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment, 21(4), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.566445
Sensoy, O. Z., & Diangelo, R. (2017). “We are all for diversity, but . . . ”: How faculty hiring
committees reproduce whiteness and practical suggestions for how they can change. Harvard
Educational Review, 87(4), 557–580. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.557
Settles, I. H., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2019). Scrutinized but not recognized:(In)
visibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 113, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.003
Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2020). Epistemic exclusion:
Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education 93(1) , 240–253. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000174
Skrentny, J. D., & Lewis, K. (2021). Beyond the “STEM pipeline”: Expertise, careers, and
lifelong learning. Minerva, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09445-6
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepre
neurial university. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tierney, W., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). T&P: Community and socialization in academe. State
University of New York Press.
Turk-Bicakci, L., & Berger, A. (2014). Leaving STEM: STEM Ph.D. Holders in Non-STEM
Careers. American Institutes of Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED545309.pdf
Turner, C. S. V., & González, J. C. (2011). Faculty women of color: The critical nexus of race
and gender. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 199–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/a0024630
Urrieta, L., Méndez, L., & Rodríguez, E. (2014). “A moving target”: A critical race analysis of
Latina/o faculty experiences, perspectives, and reflections on the tenure and promotion
process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(10), 1149–1168.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.974715
Vakil, S., & Ayers, R. (2019). The racial politics of STEM education in the USA: Interrogations
and explorations. Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(4), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.80/
13613324.2019.1592831
Wilder, C. S. (2013). Ebony and ivy: Race, slavery, and the troubled history of America’s
universities. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Wilton, L. S., Bell, A. N., Vahradyan, M., & Kaiser, C. R. (2020). Show don’t tell: Diversity
dishonesty harms racial/ethnic minorities at work. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,
46(8), 1171–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219897149
Wingfield, A. H., & Wingfield, J. H. (2014). When visibility hurts and helps: How intersections
of race and gender shape Black professional men’s experiences with tokenization. Cultural
Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(4), 483. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035761
Wulf, W. M. A. (2002). The importance of diversity in engineering Carol A. Anenberg . In
Diversity in engineering: Managing the workforce of the future (pp. 8–14). National Academy
Press. https://www.nap.edu/read/10377/chapter/4
Zambrana, R. E., Ray, R., Espino, M. M., Castro, C., Douthirt Cohen, B., & Eliason, J. (2015). “Don’t
leave us behind”: The importance of mentoring for underrepresented minority faculty. American
Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 40–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214563063
Zweben, S., & Bizot, B. (2018). 2017 CRA Taulbee Survey: Another year of record undergrad
enrollment; Doctoral degree production steady while master’s production rises again.
Computing Research Association. https://cra.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2017-
Taulbee-Survey-Report.pdf
Zweben, S., & Bizot, B. (2019). 2018 CRA Taulbee survey: Total undergrad CS enrollment rises
again, but with fewer new majors; Doctoral degree production recovers from last year’s dip.
Computing Research Association. https://cra.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2019-
Taulbee-Survey.pdf
View publication stats

How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty Exercise An Equity Ethic To Racially Fortify and Enrich Black Students

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty Exercise An Equity Ethic To Racially Fortify and Enrich Black Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty Exercise an Equity Ethic to

Article in The Journal of Higher Education · February 2022

Ebony McGee Dara Elizabeth Naphan-Kingery

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Exploration in Diversifying Faculty Initative View project

Explorations in Diversifying Engineering Faculty Initiative (EDEFI) View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhej20

How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty

Ebony O. McGee, Dara Naphan-Kingery, Monica L. Miles & Ocheze Joseph

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2022.2031704

Published online: 17 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

How Black Engineering and Computing Faculty Exercise an

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Engineers apply science and mathematics to the world to solve problems

CONTACT Ebony O. McGee Ebomy.Mcgee@Vanderbilt.edu

scientists in the U.S. professoriate are distressingly underrepresented, hold­

stereotyping (McGee, 2016; McGee et al., 2020; O’Brien et al., 2015;

Black faculty engaging in diversity-related service

Two-thirds of STEM workers (compared to one-third of non-STEM work­

Diversity-related service: The barriers and challenges

Diversity-related service: An opportunity

Diversity service can be both a barrier to Black faculty’s progress and an

Diversity-related service in STEM

Figure 1. Decreasing inequities trough STEM: Equity ethic framework.

Materials and methods

Participants were recruited at professional conferences with a critical mass of

(1) Their reflections on diversifying engineering/computing faculty depart­

We reviewed the entire transcripts, but our analysis focused on questions 1

Table 1. Participant Characteristics

Table 2. Coding architecture.

resources by maintaining an anti-deficit perspective (Ridgeway & McGee,

We are part of a multidisciplinary team of social scientists and engineers that

Expressing an equity ethic through anti-deficit views to counter racialized

faculty, staff members, and administrators (Bensimon, 2005). Our intervie­

Dr. Jahn demonstrates an anti-deficit perspective by highlighting the impor­

underrepresented and that the non-Black faculty members in his department

Expressing an equity ethic designing academic bridges for Black students

Faculty narratives showed that racialized experiences and a collectivist back­

“Giving back” to the community

Inspired by their own racialized experiences

academic and social capital she needed to thrive as a Black woman in

Service as a barrier: Confronting the Black tax

Dr. Lowry, a professor of aerospace engineering at a very high research

Finally, they demonstrated their sense of responsibility to effect change, as

Implications for practice

Redefine service and rewards for service in tenure and promotion

“teaching is service . . . reaching out is service,” we argue that teaching prac­

Greater clarity on T&P criteria. Furthermore, while the number of publications

their institutions (Urrieta et al., 2014), suggesting departments need to establish

Expanding who does diversity-related service

The role of colleagues

Diversity-related service often occurs in a context in which Black faculty are

white STEM stakeholders—faculty, staff, and administrators—should share

(1) Problem awareness,

Raising awareness of racial inequities in engineering and computing is

Strengths and limitations

organized conferences concerned with broadening participation in

scientists in the U.S. professoriate are distressingly underrepresented, hold

Two-thirds of STEM workers (compared to one-third of non-STEM work

(1) Their reflections on diversifying engineering/computing faculty depart

faculty, staff members, and administrators (Bensimon, 2005). Our intervie

Dr. Jahn demonstrates an anti-deficit perspective by highlighting the impor

Faculty narratives showed that racialized experiences and a collectivist back

“teaching is service . . . reaching out is service,” we argue that teaching prac

cultivating the next generation of Black STEM innovators, the transforma