In the United States, persistence for women and ethnic minorities in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers is strongly impacted by affective factors such as science identity, agency, and sense of belonging. Policies aimed at increasing the diversity of the national STEM student population and workforce have recently focused on fostering inclusive learning environments that can positively impact the experiences of underrepresented minorities (URMs) in STEM, thus increasing their retention. While research on inclusion in STEM in higher education is relatively new, inclusion research has a rich history in several other disciplines. These fields have developed theoretical frameworks and validated instruments to conceptualize and assess inclusion. Self-determination theory (SDT) is a well-established theoretical framework in educational psychology that states that ones’ internal motivation is strongly correlated with the satisfaction of three specific psychological needs: autonomy, competency, and relatedness. In this paper, we introduce SDT and discuss how it relates to inclusion and to ongoing efforts to increase retention of STEM URM students in higher education environments. We argue that grounding inclusion initiatives in the SDT framework increases our understanding of the mechanisms mediating their impact, thus facilitating their reproducibility and generalizability. Finally, we describe how this theoretical framework has been adapted by the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology to define and assess inclusion in the workplace as an example of how STEM education researchers can use this framework to promote and assess inclusion in their fields.

The demonstrated gap between skills needed and skills learned within a college education places both undergraduates seeking gainful employment and the employers seeking highly skilled workers at a disadvantage. Recent and up-and-coming college graduates should possess 21st century skills (i.e., communication, collaboration, problem solving), skills that employers deem necessary for the workplace. Research shows that the development of this skillset can help narrow the gap in producing highly skilled graduates for the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce.

In contrast to efforts focusing on improving inclusion in STEM classrooms from kindergarten through undergraduate (K–16), efforts to improve inclusion in scientific meetings and conferences, important hubs of STEM culture, are more recent. Markers of inclusion that are sometimes overlooked at these events can include the composition of panels, how workshops are run, the affordability of conferences, and various other mechanisms that maintain pre-existing hierarchies and norms that limit the participation of early-career researchers and individuals of minoritized cultural, linguistic, and economic backgrounds. The Inclusive Environments and Metrics in Biology Education and Research (iEMBER) network coordinates efforts of researchers from many fields interested in diversity and inclusion in biology education. Given the concerns regarding inclusion at professional meetings, iEMBER has developed and implemented several practices in planning and executing our meetings to make them more inclusive. In this report, we share our experiences developing inclusive meetings on biology education research and discuss the outcomes of such efforts. Specifically, we present our approach to planning and executing the iEMBER 2019 conference and the National Association of Biology Teachers iEMBER 2019 workshop. This report adds to the growing body of resources on inclusive meetings, provides readers with an account of how such an attempt at implementation might unfold, and complements existing theories and work relating to the importance and functioning of such meetings in terms of representation in STEM.

The Inclusive Environments and Metrics in Biology Education and Research (iEMBER) network is a newly forming national community of practice that engages diversity, equity, and inclusion stakeholders in interdisciplinary collaborative projects. iEMBER was initiated with incubator funding from the National Science Foundation program for Research Coordination Networks in Undergraduate Biology Education. In June 2017, biology education researchers, social scientists, biologists, and program and policy administrators, all with interests in diversity, equity, and inclusion, met to lay the foundation for the iEMBER network. iEMBER provides a distinct forum to coordinate efforts through networking, professional development, and the initiation of collaborative research. iEMBER advances science, technology, engineering, and mathematics reform focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion through the initiation of research teams at the iEMBER biennial conference and outreach efforts at discipline-specific meetings and conferences. The focus of iEMBER is on understanding how to create inclusive, supportive, and engaging environments to foster the success of all biology students and trainees. This report focuses on the structure of the iEMBER network, two takeaways that emerged from the 2017 conference (interdisciplinary networking/collaboration and intradisciplinary broadening participation strategies), and ways for prospective members to engage in ongoing dialogue and future events. Learn more at http://iember.org .

The 2011 Vision & Change report outlined several recommendations for transforming undergraduate biology education, sparking multiple pedagogical reform efforts. Among these was the Promoting Active Learning and Mentoring (PALM) network, an NSF-funded program that provided mentorship and training to instructors on implementing active learning in the classroom. Here, we provide a perspective on how members of the biology education community in PALM view the recommendations of Vision & Change , drawing upon our experiences both as members of PALM and as leaders of an associated project funded by another NSF grant that hosted PALM alumni at various conferences. These efforts have allowed us to gain insight into how our alumni think of Vision & Change , including how they interpret its recommendations, the challenges and opportunities that they view for implementing these recommendations, and the areas they see as critical to be addressed in future national reports for supporting undergraduate biology education. We synthesize these voices here, providing perspectives from a diverse group of biology instructors on what they think about Vision & Change , and provide recommendations for the biology education community based upon these PALM community voices.