In the U.S. there are steady efforts by governmental and philanthropic organizations to increase the representation of students of colour in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). After years of mixed results, researchers and educators have started to question one size fits all notions of broadening participation. An increasing number of projects are challenging universalist assumptions by enrolling the expertise of culturally situated communities of practice in STEM lessons and the educational technologies that support them. While this research shows promising results for improving young people’s interest and performance in STEM, there has been little research on how these lessons and technologies might also benefit the communities whose expertise were originally enrolled. This paper details the design of educational technologies that bridge STEM and African American cosmetology. We report on a mixed-methods research project, conducted with a group of predominantly African American cosmetologists. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected to study their attitudes toward STEM before and after working with the technologies. Our results suggest positive changes in the cosmetologists’ attitudes. We end with a critical discussion about respecting the knowledge systems of underrepresented communities of practice in educational technology research and development.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Banks I. (2000). Hair matters: Beauty power and black women’s consciousness. New York NY: NYU Press.
2. Babbitt W. Lachney M. Bulley E. & Eglash R. (2015). Adinkra mathematics: A study of ethnocomputing in Ghana. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research 5(2) 110-135.
3. Bennett A. (2016). Ethnocompuational creativity in STEAM education: A cultural framework for generative justice. Teknokultura 13(2) 587-612.
4. Bennett A. Eglash R. Lachney M. & Babbitt W. (2016). Design agency: Diversifying computer science at the intersections of creativity and culture. In M. Raisinghani (Ed.) Revolutionizing Education through Web-Based Instruction (pp. 35–56). Hershey PA: IGI Global.
5. Cuban L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology 1980-2000. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Eglash R. Bennett A. O Donnell C. Jennings S. & Cintorino M. (2006). Culturally situated design tools: Ethnocomputing from field site to classroom. American Anthropologist 108(2) 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2006.108.2.347
7. Eglash R. (1999). African fractals: Modern computing and indigenous design. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8. Eglash R. Babbitt W. Bennett A. Bennett K. Callahan B. Davis J. Drazan J. Hathawa C. Hughes D. Krishnamoorthy M. Lachney M. Mascarenhas M. Sawyer S. & Tully K. (2017). Culturally Situated Design Tools: Generative justice as a foundation for STEM diversity. In P. Tripathi Y. Rankin & J. Thomas (Eds.) Moving Students of Color from Consumers to Producers of Technology (pp. 132–151). Hershey PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2005-4.ch007
9. Gay G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory research and practice (3rd ed.). Multicultural education series. New York NY: Teachers College Press.
10. Henderson M. (2015). The (mis) use of community of practice: Delusion confusion and instrumentalism in educational technology research. In S. Bulfin N. F. Johnson & C. Bigum (Eds.) Critical perspectives on technology and education (pp. 127–140). New York NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Lachney M. (2017). Culturally responsive computing as brokerage: Toward asset building with education-based social movements. Learning Media and Technology 42(4) 420-439.
12. Lave J. & Wenger E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Vol. 521423740). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Majors T. J. (2015). Shoptalk: Lessons in teaching from an African American hair salon. New York NY: Teacher College Press.
14. Malcom S. M. & Malcom-Piqueux L. E. (2013). Critical mass revisited: Learning lessons from research on diversity in STEM fields. Educational Researcher 42(3) 176–178.
15. Margolis J. Holme J. Estrella R. Goode J. Nao K. & Stumme S. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Race education and computing. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
16. Marx S. (2016). Qualitative Research in STEM: Studies of Equity Access and Innovation. New York NY: Routledge.
17. National Science Board (2018). Science & Engineering Indicators 2018. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved November 26 2018 from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/
18. Papert S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York NY: Basic Books.
19. Paris D. & Alim H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York NY: Teachers College Press.
20. Patel L. (2015). Countering coloniality in educational research: From ownership to answerability. Educational Studies 50(4) 357–377.
21. Pawley A. L. & Slaton A. E. (2015 June). The Power and Politics of STEM Research Design: Saving the ‘Small N’. Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Seattle Washington. doi: 10.18260/p.24901
22. Resnick M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects passion peers and play. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
23. Rosen J. H. Newsome A. & Usselman M. (2011 June). Promoting Diversity and Public School Success in First Lego League State Competitions. Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Vancouver BC. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/18880
24. Saldaña J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). Los Angeles CA: SAGE Publications.
25. Scott K. A. Sheridan K. M. & Clark K. (2015). Culturally responsive computing: A theory revisited. Learning Media and Technology 40(4) 412–436.
26. Simpson A. (2014). Mohawk interruptus: Political life across the borders of settler states. Durham NC: Duke University Press.
27. Solomon C. (1988). Computer environments for children: A reflection on theories of learning and education. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
28. Tarlo E. (2016). Entanglement: The secret lives of hair. London UK: Oneworld Publications.
29. Tuck E. & Yang K. W. (2014). R-Words: Refusing Research. In Paris D. & Winn M. T. (Eds.) Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities (pp. 223-247). Los Angeles CA: SAGE Publications.