ArticleCBE life sciences education2020
Disciplinary Bias, Money Matters, and Persistence: Deans' Perspectives on Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES).
Article in CBE life sciences education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Instructional Influencers: Teaching Professors as Potential Departmental Change Agents in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.CBE life sciences education · 2024Article
- Article
- Differentiation, adaptation, and perseverance: Maturing conceptualizations of education-focused science faculty in the United States.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Understanding STEM academics' responses and resilience to educational reform of academic roles in higher education.International journal of STEM education · 2022Article
- Predicting implementation of active learning by tenure-track teaching faculty using robust cluster analysis.International journal of STEM education · 2022Article
- Look Who's Talking: Teaching and Discourse Practices across Discipline, Position, Experience, and Class Size in STEM College Classrooms.Bioscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The phenomenon of embedding Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES) in science departments is well documented. However, the perspectives of academic leaders have not been systematically studied. To investigate these perspectives, we conducted an interview study of college of science deans in the California State University system, which offers a defined higher education context in which to sample across a range of institution types and cultures. While deans were aware of and positive about SFES as potential change agents, most deans also evidenced casual bias against science education efforts and experts. Deans mentioned that education reform efforts by SFES were primarily driven by external policy and funding mandates, causing concern that support for such positions and scholarly work could evaporate if external pressures recede. The majority of deans stated that the SFES phenomenon had persisted over the last decade and continued to grow. Findings reported here document tacit assumptions that science education efforts may not count as science and reveal a lack of cultural integration of science education efforts into the sciences in higher education. Such findings should give biology educators, reformers, and researchers pause, as well as fresh incentive to engage more fully and regularly with administrators about their work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.