Search

This paper introduces the concept of contextual mitigating factors (CMFs) as a theoretical construct to help understand how Latinas who demonstrated success in STEM pipelines navigated the fluidly and dynamically shifting socio-historical-political contexts in which they found themselves. Further, understanding the ways in which CMFs contribute to the development of circumstances within fluid social fields is essential to understand the factors which Latinas both experience and create in their social interactions. We framed the development of CMFs within discussions of social place (Bourdieu and Wacquant in An invitation to reflexive sociology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992), social field (Swartz in Culture and power: the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1997), and dynamic space (Tobin in Keynote address at 8th international congress on science teaching and learning, Barcelona, Spain, 2009). Given that CMFs appear as the result of social interactions within contextualized spaces, acknowledging the importance of place, be it physical or metaphorical, is essential in framing discussions on the sense-making of the participants’ STEM successes. In accounting for our participants’ positionalities and the materiality of their contextual experiences, we use CMFs as a theoretical underpinning to guide our methodological approach which we identify as CMF analysis. In each case, CMF analysis is used to explore how positionalities and experiences reflexively shaped each other, all while contributing to individual and social personhoods. Furthermore, the use of CMFs, by placing importance on both context and history, allowed us to discern not only the similarities of our participants’ sociocultural, -economical, -historical and -political navigations toward success, but also the substantive differences between them. In presenting our discussion of CMFs, we present two of sixty case studies focusing on Latinas’ successes in STEM fields using the intrinsic case study method (Stake, in: Denzin, Lincoln (eds) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edn, pp 443–466, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, 2005). This was the most appropriate method in analyzing our participants’ experiences, because this allowed our participants to tell their stories of becoming and being successful in pursuing STEM pathways. Marrying this framework with intrinsic case study method provided internal consistency to the study. Ultimately, we want other researchers to see the benefits associated with CMF analysis, namely the provision of an additive framework in understanding the lived experiences of minority groups. By accounting for the role macro-, meso-, and microgenic CMFs play in the minority students’ educational experiences, educators at all levels may play a substantively larger role in helping sustain their agency as learners.

In this paper we introduce the concept of contextual mitigating factors (CMFs) as an analytical tool for interrogating the contextual landscapes that situate one’s research. While we understand that much work has been done on the importance of identifying context in research programs, we continue to stress the importance of developing contextually rich and useful descriptions. The importance of developing contextually rich descriptions that are inclusive of CMFs in the research process to include research designs is underscored in this paper. In using the term context, we are referring to the conglomerate of CMFs that situate, define and occupy complex systems of multiple spaces that create, shape, and continuously modify, contextual landscapes. Complex systems thinking is our basis for understanding that CMFs are a continuous set of socio-historical-political contextual constructs, fluid and dynamic, simultaneously interweaving socially constructed places together. By doing so, we stress that conceptually it is important for a researcher to understand that context is positioned and, as such, all phenomena studied are situated. In order to fully grasp how data presented have been positioned, we underscore the importance of the development of radical doubt (RD) which leads to tactical understanding (TU) by both researchers and consumers of research. Commensurate to the development of RD and TU is understanding how both the researcher and consumer of research have been positioned by their ontological, epistemological and axiological frameworks. Through several examples we demonstrate how CMF analysis as a tool can contribute to researchers abilities to further enhance their analysis of the complexity of socio-educational phenomena such as the science, technology, engineering and mathematics intervention pipelines. Accordingly, we present CMF analysis as a framework with the intent of adding to existing methodologies as opposed to CMF analysis as an exclusive research pathway. We conclude by discussing implications for sponsoring agencies by drawing attention to the potential impact of CMF analysis on evaluating research designs.

This article highlights how the preservation of heritage languages is essential in the construction of three Georgia Latina participants’ cultural identities and the creation of support networks that allow them to develop resiliency and achieve academically. We conceptualize resiliency as a strategy developed by the Latina participants using contextually mitigating factors during their STEM education. The findings presented in this manuscript are part of a larger, ongoing study of Latina resiliency and their paths to success in STEM fields in two states: Georgia and Texas. Following James Spradley’s guidelines, data were collected via three separate semi-structured interviews with each participant. Intrinsic, multiple case studies were used to find both commonalities and differences, as well as to deepen our understanding of the role of the participants’ heritage language in their development of resiliency in each particular case. The findings presented here were not part of a preconceived research hypothesis, but rather a theme that emerged while analyzing data collected in the state of Georgia. Georgia is not home to a long-established Hispanic/Latino population, but rather is part of the New Latino Diaspora (Wortham, Murillo and Hamann in Education in the new Latino diaspora: policy and the politics of identity. Ablex Publishing, New York, 2002), and therefore local natives do not necessarily perceive Latino immigrants and the Spanish language either as long-standing or permanent features of the state. In fact, in response to the growing diversity of the state during the past generation, Georgia has implemented multiple educational policies hostile toward immigrants and linguistic diversity (Beck and Allexsaht-Snider in Education in the new Latino diaspora: policy and the politics of identity. Ablex Press, Westport, 2002). Our findings suggest that the Latina participants’ heritage languages allow them to engage in cultural traditions, encouraged by their families, that are central to their heritage and identity and, thereby provide a medium for the development of the resiliency they need for academic success. The Spanish language allows them to maintain communication with their families and communities, enabling them to participate in a set of interactions and relationships. These, in turn, form the support networks needed to enact resilience in overcoming obstacles to pursuing their interest in STEM—an interest seen by society as incongruous with their gender and ethnicity.

It is important that the reader understands that not only Rene and I, but each author in this series, have a unique set of circumstances that represent a dialectic relationship between themselves—each author in this series and you, the reader. Some may say, ‘‘Well, of course, that is obvious!’’ But how does this apparent dialectic manifest itself in education research? The uniqueness of an individual, and zer/her/his unearthing the complexity of teaching and learning, is not necessarily a trademark of education research. We would argue that clumping students for the sake of large data sets is the norm and that when one amasses actors in education, the norm is also to lose the individual. What we have tried to do in this special issue through all of the authors is to champion the value of diversity in research perspectives that honors the plurality of our subjects. In other words, we decry the use of any methodology that forsakes identity for the sake of persuasion. The methodological challenge is to ask: How does one capture difference and maintain individuality and at the same time present a clear picture that may give rise to new anti hegemonic practices and opportunities? This is a question, which creates a dialectic between epistemological, ontological, and axiological frames of mind. Struggling to be who we are while, at the same time, trying to fit in and be recognized, as an important part of the whole, should always be made explicit when writing about underrepresented populations. We have focused on particular groups, such as Latinas/os/ Hispanics/Chicanas/os/, and Mexican Americans, yet they belong to the larger whole, namely La Raza. We believe this distinction to be important, because Rene and I are the two editors of this special edition. He is Puerto Rican, and I am Nicaraguan. Nonetheless, I prefer to be called Latino, and Rene also identifies as Latino first and then as Puerto Rican in the spirit of Latin America solidarity. In terms of being Latin@, we have some

The vignette we use as the introduction works to define and distinguish the concepts of de jure and de facto pedagogical actions, especially as related to Latin@ education and its relationship with STEM fields. The authors assert that de jure educational policies, which are often legal guidelines that mandate minimum levels of compliance, unfortunately become translated to mean the normative way to implement educational practice. Hence, going above and beyond the call of duty to educate Latin@ children and youth through culturally meaningful STEM practices while respecting, affirming, and utilizing decolonizing ways of viewing science and math is not viewed as standard. Thus, it is imperative that STEM educators who work with Latin@ learners demand that de jure education guidelines translated as de facto pedagogical actions are not enough. On the contrary, de jure and de facto ways of teaching and learning should always consist of a counterhegemonic normative.

Teaching is a very complex endeavor. Embedded within this complex environment are issues of power, culture, ethnicity, and race. When teachers and students come together, in the classroom, some of these issues become visible and others remain invisible. Attempting to make influences on teaching and learning visible is one of the steps toward developing a practice framed by conscientizacao. Ms. Cook, the teacher of this story, is empowering herself and her students; through critical reflection that serves to deneutralize educational acts by recognizing they are embedded in issues of culture, ethnicity, politics, power, and, race. Classroom based research must be more inclusive and indeed cognizant of the mediating macrostructures that teachers deal with everyday. For example, Goldberg and Muir Welsh describe some of the students as being Latinos. In doing so, they adopts a third person as opposed to a first person view of these students. A first person view can acknowledge a dialectical relationship between race and ethnicity.

Beliefs and attitudes resulting from the unique life experiences of teachers frame interactions with learners promoting gender equity or inequity and the reproduction of social views about knowledge and power as related to gender. This study examines the enactment of a female science teacher’s pedagogy (Laura), seeking to understand the implications of her beliefs and attitudes, as framed by her interpretations and daily manifestations, as she interacts with students. Distinct influences inform the conceptual framework of this study: (a) the social organization of society at large, governed by understood and unspoken patriarchy, present both academically and socially; (b) the devaluing of women as “knowers” of scientific knowledge as defined by a western and male view of science; (c) the marginalization or “feminization” of education and pedagogical knowledge. The findings reflect tensions between attitudes and beliefs and actual teacher practice suggesting the need for awareness within existing or new teachers about their positions as social agents and the sociological implications related to issues of gender within which we live and work, inclusive of science teaching and learning.