Earlier this fall, leaders in two scientific professions made bold and urgent statements about the need for systemic change in their fields. The American Psychological Association adopted a resolution apologizing for its role in systemic racism, recognizing that it had been “complicit in contributing to systemic inequities” and committing to ”immediate actions of remedy and repair, in addition to long-term actions.”
The Astro2020 Decadal Survey--a systematic assessment of priorities for the next decade--was also released last month. For the first time, astronomy assessed not only the field’s intellectual progress but also the state of the profession. It offered a comprehensive and integrated set of actions for overcoming “a systemic failure of the Profession to attract, retain, and advance diverse talent.” 
Dr. Julie Posselt
From our vantage points as a leading scholar of equity in science and as the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s program director for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in STEM higher education, these ambitious visions for systemic change are promising. Without systemic change, efforts to remedy racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination in the STEM fields will continue to occur at the margins, reinforcing the status quo. This is particularly true in STEM graduate education, where the next generation of scientists is socialized to norms, practices, and networks of knowledge production.
For the last year, we have been exploring the landscapes of research and funding for DEI in STEM graduate education. Alongside a funding review carried out by Higher Ed Insight, a team from USC’s Pullias Center for Higher Education--under one of the author’s direction--carried out a systematic review of recent research on what facilitates access to and success in STEM graduate education for racially minoritized students, considering intersections with gender and other identities.
What does the research say?
The research review revealed that scholars have published much more on the causes and consequences of inequalities than on efforts to reduce them. Among such efforts, we saw three broad patterns in “what works.” First, some interventions that serve individuals have been effective in facilitating the transition from undergraduate to graduate education for select students. Second, structures of support (e.g., funding, mentoring) are critical, as they smooth the often precarious pathways into and through graduate education. A third pattern indicated the value of institutional change efforts that reorient organizational policy and standard practice. Such efforts are promising for overcoming institutionalized racism and for culture change. Yet, alone they are insufficient for such change to occur.
