The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06035 · v1 · pith:BHHV3RII · submitted 2026-07-07 · physics.ed-ph

Concurrent Phenomenological Analysis of STEM Career Aspirations in Underrepresented Youth: Role of Experiences and Identity

Amdad Ahmed Awsaf , Nicole Giansanti , Susan Sunbury , Remy Dou This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-08 18:29 UTCglm-5.2pith:BHHV3RIIrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification physics.ed-ph
keywords stemcareeraspirationsidentityrecognitionunderrepresentedformalindividuals
0
0 comments X

The pith

STEM identity needs more than awards

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates how recognition and misrecognition events in STEM settings shape the career aspirations of underrepresented youth. Through preliminary phenomenological interviews with five undergraduates at a Hispanic Serving Institution, the authors find that recognition (awards, teacher acknowledgment) and misrecognition (teacher indifference, favoritism) in STEM contexts carry strong emotional weight and influence career trajectories. However, two critical qualifications emerge: recognition only fosters STEM identity when accompanied by personal interest, and family support can buffer against school-based misrecognition.

Core claim

The paper's central finding is that recognition events in STEM contexts are emotionally charged and identity-shaping, but they are not sufficient on their own. A student who receives awards and certificates without intrinsic interest in STEM does not develop a STEM identity. Conversely, students who experience misrecognition from STEM teachers (particularly in mathematics) can be sustained by family recognition and support, which partially mitigates the negative effects on their STEM identity and career aspirations.

What carries the argument

The paper operates through a phenomenological interview methodology, using the theoretical framework of STEM identity precursors (recognition, interest, performance-competence) to analyze how lived experiences of recognition and misrecognition shape identity formation and career choice in underrepresented youth.

If this is right

  • STEM intervention programs that focus solely on providing recognition (awards, certificates) may fail to nurture STEM identity if they do not also cultivate genuine personal interest in STEM fields.
  • Mathematics classrooms are identified as a primary site of misrecognition, suggesting that math teacher training and classroom climate interventions could be a high-leverage point for retaining underrepresented youth in STEM pathways.
  • Family-based recognition may serve as a protective factor against school-based STEM misrecognition, pointing to family engagement as a complementary intervention strategy.
  • The distinction between general academic recognition (e.g., Principal's Honor Roll) and STEM-specific recognition appears to matter for identity formation, suggesting that recognition must be domain-specific to be identity-relevant.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If recognition without interest does not build STEM identity, then the causal pathway may be interest-first rather than recognition-first, which would challenge intervention designs that lead with achievement awards.
  • The finding that family support mitigates school misrecognition raises the question of whether students without such family support experience a compounding disadvantage that the current five-person sample may not fully capture.
  • The empty cell in the sampling matrix (Low STEM identity / STEM career aspiration) means the paper cannot speak to whether misrecognition effects differ for students who aspire to STEM careers despite low STEM identity, leaving a gap in the thematic structure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that five purposefully selected interviews can generate themes durable enough to report, even though the authors themselves describe the analysis as preliminary, recruitment is ongoing, and one of four intended participant categories has zero representation in the sample.

What would settle it

If a larger sample showed that recognition events with no accompanying personal interest still reliably produced STEM identity formation, or that family support did not meaningfully buffer school-based misrecognition, the paper's two qualifying claims would not hold.

read the original abstract

Despite numerous initiatives aimed at enhancing diversity and achieving equity in the STEM workforce, racially and ethnically minoritized individuals remain underrepresented in STEM disciplines and the STEM workforce. While many factors influence STEM identity (i.e., seeing oneself as a STEM person), it strongly correlates with individuals' future STEM career choices. This phenomenological qualitative study explores the impact of formal or informal STEM-related recognition that influences minority youths' aspirations to pursue a STEM career. Results indicate that though misrecognition negatively impacts one's motivation to study STEM areas, lack of recognition in formal schooling contexts was sometimes mitigated by recognition and support from family. The study suggests providing targeted interventions to facilitate underrepresented youths' achievements in STEM to foster a strong STEM identity and STEM career aspirations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents preliminary phenomenological findings from an ongoing interview study examining how recognition and misrecognition events in STEM contexts shape the STEM identity and career aspirations of underrepresented youth. Five participants were purposefully selected from a Hispanic Serving Institution based on their STEM identity scores and career aspirations. The authors identify two thematic categories: (1) the nature and scope of recognition/misrecognition events, and (2) how participants associate these events with STEM identity and career choice. The theoretical framework draws on Hazari et al. (2010) and Dou and Cian (2022), situating recognition as a key precursor to STEM identity alongside interest and performance-competence. The manuscript is explicitly framed as a conference proposal reporting preliminary analyses aimed at refining the interview protocol and testing theme durability.

Significance. The study addresses a well-motivated question: how recognition and misrecognition events specifically shape STEM identity development among minoritized youth. The theoretical grounding in the Hazari et al. (2010) and Dou and Cian (2022) frameworks is appropriate and the research questions are clearly stated. The concurrent analysis approach, in which data collection and analysis proceed simultaneously, is a legitimate qualitative methodology. The authors are transparent about the preliminary nature of the work and the incomplete sample. The topic is relevant to the NARST audience and the journal's scope.

major comments (2)
  1. The third headline claim — that family support can mitigate school-based misrecognition — appears in the abstract ('lack of recognition in formal schooling contexts was sometimes mitigated by recognition and support from family') and is restated in the Contribution & Implications section. However, in the Analyses and Findings section, this claim is supported by only a single sentence ('However, this lack of recognition in formal schooling contexts was, in some cases, mitigated by recognition and support from family') with no interview excerpt, participant pseudonym, or descriptive evidence. By contrast, claims 1 and 2 are backed by specific participant narratives (Mercy, Sam, Jessica). One of the three findings the paper advertises is currently unsupported by presented data. The authors should either provide supporting evidence from the interviews or reframe this as an emerging theme to探
  2. Table 1 shows that one of four sampling cells (Low STEM identity / STEM career aspiration) is entirely empty, with zero participants. The paper's thematic structure rests on three of four intended participant categories. While the authors transparently acknowledge that recruitment is ongoing and the analysis is preliminary, the abstract and Contribution section present findings without this qualification. The abstract in particular states results as established findings rather than preliminary observations from an incomplete sample. The framing of the findings throughout should consistently reflect the incomplete sampling status.
minor comments (7)
  1. No inter-rater reliability metrics are reported for the coding process. The authors describe regular meetings between the first and second authors with input from the fourth author, but no Cohen's kappa, percent agreement, or other credibility indicator is provided. Adding such a metric or a more detailed description of the consensus process would strengthen credibility.
  2. The paper references 'concurrent analysis' (Snowden & Martin, 2011) as a methodology but does not elaborate on how this approach specifically informs the thematic claims beyond noting that data collection and analysis proceeded simultaneously.
  3. Claim 2 (recognition is only meaningful with personal interest) rests on a single case (Jessica). While this is thin, it is at least evidenced. The authors should note this limitation explicitly.
  4. Page 4: 'carer persistence' should read 'career persistence.'
  5. Page 3: 'classicism' should likely be 'classism.'
  6. The transition from the description of Mercy's misrecognition experience to the sentence about family mitigation is abrupt. A clearer transition or a separate paragraph would help readers follow the argument.
  7. The suggested citation lists only four of six authors. This should be consistent.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive reading of our manuscript. Both major comments identify legitimate gaps between the evidence presented and the strength of the claims made in the abstract and Contribution section. We agree with both points and will revise accordingly: (1) the family-mitigation claim will either be supported with interview evidence or reframed as an emerging theme, and (2) the framing throughout will be made consistent with the preliminary and incomplete sampling status of the study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The third headline claim — that family support can mitigate school-based misrecognition — appears in the abstract and Contribution & Implications section, but in the Analyses and Findings section it is supported by only a single sentence with no interview excerpt, participant pseudonym, or descriptive evidence. Claims 1 and 2 are backed by specific participant narratives. One of the three findings the paper advertises is currently unsupported by presented data. The authors should either provide supporting evidence from the interviews or reframe this as an emerging theme.

    Authors: The referee is correct. The family-mitigation claim is presently asserted without the evidentiary backing that supports our other two themes. On review, the interview transcripts do contain material relevant to family support — for instance, Mercy discusses her family's encouragement during periods when she felt unsupported by her math teachers — but we did not include this excerpt or any descriptive elaboration in the findings section. This was an oversight in our drafting process. We will address this in one of two ways in the revised manuscript. If the existing interview data sufficiently substantiate the claim, we will add the relevant participant excerpt (with pseudonym and context) to the Analyses and Findings section, bringing the evidentiary standard in line with that used for claims 1 and 2. If, upon closer examination, the evidence is thinner than a fully supported theme requires, we will reframe the family-mitigation point explicitly as an emerging theme — consistent with the preliminary nature of the analysis — rather than presenting it as an established finding in the abstract and Contribution section. In either case, the abstract and Contribution & Implications section will be adjusted so that the claim's framing matches the evidence actually presented. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Table 1 shows that one of four sampling cells (Low STEM identity / STEM career aspiration) is entirely empty, with zero participants. The paper's thematic structure rests on three of four intended participant categories. While the authors transparently acknowledge that recruitment is ongoing and the analysis is preliminary, the abstract and Contribution section present findings without this qualification. The abstract in particular states results as established findings rather than preliminary observations from an incomplete sample. The framing of the findings throughout should consistently reflect the incomplete sampling status.

    Authors: We agree. The body of the manuscript is transparent about the incomplete sample — noting that recruitment is ongoing, that we plan to interview 8–12 participants per group, and that these analyses are preliminary — but the abstract and Contribution & Implications section do not carry this qualification forward. This creates an inconsistency the referee rightly identifies. We will revise the abstract to explicitly characterize the results as preliminary findings from an incomplete sample, and we will add a note in the Contribution & Implications section acknowledging the empty sampling cell and its implications for the generalizability of the themes. Specifically, the absence of any Low STEM identity / STEM career aspiration participants means our themes currently reflect only three of the four intended participant categories, and the revised manuscript will state this limitation directly rather than presenting findings as though they span the full sampling framework. We appreciate the referee flagging this. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; self-citations provide theoretical framing but findings derive from independent interview data

full rationale

This is a qualitative phenomenological conference proposal. There is no mathematical derivation chain, no fitted parameters, and no equations that could reduce to inputs by construction. The theoretical framework (recognition, interest, performance-competence as precursors to STEM identity) is drawn from Hazari et al. (2010), an external citation, and extended by Dou & Cian (2021, 2022), which are self-citations since Dou is an author on this paper. However, these self-citations provide an interpretive lens for coding interview data, not a computational input that determines the output. The findings (e.g., Mercy's misrecognition by math teachers, Jessica's recognition without personal interest) come from participant narratives collected through semi-structured interviews, which are independent of the cited framework. The framework does not define the findings into existence: interviewees describe their own lived experiences, and the authors interpret them using the framework's categories. The claim about family support mitigating misrecognition (appearing in the abstract and conclusions) is arguably unsupported by presented evidence, but that is a correctness/evidence-gap concern, not a circularity concern. The self-citations are standard in building on one's own prior theoretical work and do not create a situation where the central claim reduces to a self-citation chain. Score 1 reflects the presence of self-citations that are not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters (it is qualitative), no new mathematical entities, and no invented constructs. The axioms are standard domain assumptions in STEM education research, plus one ad-hoc assumption that five interviews suffice for preliminary thematic reporting. The framework is borrowed from prior literature, not invented here.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption STEM identity is a meaningful construct that causally influences STEM career aspirations
    Invoked throughout the 'Subject/Problem' section; the entire study assumes this relationship, citing Dou et al. (2019) and Chen et al. (2024). This is standard in the field but is an untested background assumption within this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Phenomenological interviews with five participants can yield themes durable enough to report
    The paper reports findings from five interviews while acknowledging recruitment is ongoing and the analysis is preliminary (Research Design/Procedure section). The assumption that five interviews generate reportable themes is not justified by saturation criteria or other qualitative adequacy indicators.
  • domain assumption The recognition/misrecognition framework (Hazari et al. 2010; Dou & Cian 2022) is the correct lens for analyzing STEM identity formation
    The coding framework is 'aligned with our research questions and theoretical frameworks' (Research Design/Procedure). The theoretical framework is assumed rather than tested against alternatives.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 10339 in / 2403 out tokens · 354284 ms · 2026-07-08T18:29:59.222533+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    STEM person

    Avraamidou, L. (2022). Identities in/out of physics and the politics of recognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(1), 58–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21721 Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching...

    work page doi:10.1002/tea.21721 2022

  2. [2]

    Rodriguez, S., Cunningham, K., & Jordan, A. (2019). STEM Identity Development for Latinas: The Role of Self- and Outside Recognition. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 18(3), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717739958 Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. SAGE. Russo‐Tait, T. (2022). Color‐blind or racial...

    work page doi:10.1177/1538192717739958 2019

  3. [3]

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284945 Schmidt, J., Geith, C., Håklev, S., & Thierstein, J

    PloS one, 18(4), e0284945. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284945 Schmidt, J., Geith, C., Håklev, S., & Thierstein, J. (2009). Peer-to-peer recognition of Learning in Open Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284945 2009

  4. [4]

    Simpson, A., & Bouhafa, Y

    https://doi.org/10.19173/IRRODL.V10I5.641. Simpson, A., & Bouhafa, Y. (2020). Youths’ and Adults’ Identity in STEM: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00034-y Snowden, A., & Martin, C. R. (2011). Concurrent analysis: towards generalisable qualitative research. Journal of C...

    work page doi:10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.641 2020

  5. [5]

    T., Murray, Ó

    https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1167 Wong, B., Chiu, Y. T., Murray, Ó. M., & Horsburgh, J. (2022). End of the road? The career intentions of under-represented STEM students in higher education. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00366-8

    work page doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1167 2022