The illusion of inclusion: structural and methodological gaps in biology education research.

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Candice Idlebird, Rebecca Campbell-Montalvo, Gary S McDowell, Emily Blosser, Richard Harvey, Yiwen Zha, Jana Marcette
{"title":"The illusion of inclusion: structural and methodological gaps in biology education research.","authors":"Candice Idlebird, Rebecca Campbell-Montalvo, Gary S McDowell, Emily Blosser, Richard Harvey, Yiwen Zha, Jana Marcette","doi":"10.1128/jmbe.00181-25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This integrative literature review analyzes the corpus of biology education research published in the main biology education journals of major professional societies. The goal of this analysis is to determine which approaches (including groups of focus, research methods, and settings/perspectives) from social science fields (i.e., psychology, sociology, and anthropology) are utilized in published peer-reviewed biology education research relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Scoping how social science approaches are used in this area is important to understanding whether biology education research could benefit from complementary approaches that might advance praxis. This analysis found that research informing the biology education community draws heavily from psychological perspectives that are overwhelmingly not disaggregated (78% of articles identifying a group lumped the participant together), are by far more quantitative (58% used survey, 26% grades, 20% school data) than qualitative (17% used interview, 10% observation), and did not adopt structural approaches (72%). The addition of missing contributions from social science is critical to advancing interventions to broaden STEM participation, given that merging paradigms can offer more robust, multi-level explanations for observed phenomena. This has important implications for education, biology education, biology education research, social science, and research in related STEM fields.</p>","PeriodicalId":46416,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education","volume":" ","pages":"e0018125"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00181-25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This integrative literature review analyzes the corpus of biology education research published in the main biology education journals of major professional societies. The goal of this analysis is to determine which approaches (including groups of focus, research methods, and settings/perspectives) from social science fields (i.e., psychology, sociology, and anthropology) are utilized in published peer-reviewed biology education research relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Scoping how social science approaches are used in this area is important to understanding whether biology education research could benefit from complementary approaches that might advance praxis. This analysis found that research informing the biology education community draws heavily from psychological perspectives that are overwhelmingly not disaggregated (78% of articles identifying a group lumped the participant together), are by far more quantitative (58% used survey, 26% grades, 20% school data) than qualitative (17% used interview, 10% observation), and did not adopt structural approaches (72%). The addition of missing contributions from social science is critical to advancing interventions to broaden STEM participation, given that merging paradigms can offer more robust, multi-level explanations for observed phenomena. This has important implications for education, biology education, biology education research, social science, and research in related STEM fields.

包容的错觉:生物教育研究的结构和方法差距。
本综合文献综述分析了主要专业学会的主要生物教育期刊上发表的生物教育研究语料库。本分析的目的是确定来自社会科学领域(即心理学、社会学和人类学)的哪些方法(包括焦点组、研究方法和设置/视角)被用于与多样性、公平和包容(DEI)相关的已发表的同行评审生物教育研究。界定社会科学方法在这一领域的应用,对于理解生物教育研究是否能从可能促进实践的互补方法中受益非常重要。该分析发现,告知生物教育界的研究大量从心理学角度出发,这些角度绝大多数没有分解(78%的文章将参与者集中在一起),定量(58%使用调查,26%使用成绩,20%使用学校数据)远远多于定性(17%使用访谈,10%使用观察),并且没有采用结构方法(72%)。补充社会科学缺失的贡献对于推进干预措施以扩大STEM参与至关重要,因为合并的范式可以为观察到的现象提供更强大、多层次的解释。这对教育、生物教育、生物教育研究、社会科学以及相关STEM领域的研究具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
26.30%
发文量
95
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信