Problematizing Perceptions of STEM Potential: Differences by Cognitive Disability Status in High School and Postsecondary Educational Outcomes

BY Dara Shifrer

We need a diverse STEM workforce so that innovation and technologies meet the needs of our diverse population. Our study challenges the idea that people with neurodevelopmental disabilities lack potential or interest in careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). We use national data on more than 15,000 young adults to find that undergraduates with autism or medicated ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) are actually more likely to select a STEM major than undergraduates without neurodevelopmental disabilities.

Increasing access to STEM jobs for young adults with neurodevelopment disabilities depends not only on encouraging them to pursue STEM majors but also to enroll in college. We also find that, regardless of disability status and type, higher levels of high school achievement typically matter more than having positive attitudes towards STEM subjects, for increasing the likelihood that young adults enroll in college. But STEM-positive attitudes matter more than achievement for increasing the likelihood that students major in STEM, regardless of disability status and type. People with STEM-positive attitudes identify as a math or science person, feel efficacious in their abilities, and perceive math and science as useful for their goals. Our study suggests that adolescents with autism have more positive attitudes toward math and science than all other adolescents. In contrast, adolescents with learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia), unmedicated ADHD, or intellectual disabilities feel less positively towards math and science.

Importantly, young adults’ attitudes towards math and science may not always correspond with their actual potential, especially for people with neurodevelopmental disabilities. In the US, it’s acceptable and common to say: ‘I’m just not a math person.’ Other countries, in contrast, promote math skills as something accessible to everyone through hard work rather than something available to the select few with “natural” talent. People with neurodevelopmental disabilities may be particularly vulnerable to these stereotypes because of misunderstandings that these disabilities are indicative of low innate talent and negative stereotypes related more broadly to the word ‘disability.’ Additionally, US-STEM stereotypes may influence teacher expectations of students with neurodevelopmental disabilities’ ability to learn and perform well in STEM subjects. Teachers and faculty have the opportunity to build positive STEM attitudes through how they structure their courses and interact with students. They are also powerfully situated to combat stereotypes related to learning differences we describe as ‘disabilities’.

Counter to dominant perspectives, these neurodevelopmental disabilities are typically diagnosed on the basis of indicators that are a product of environment and subjective perception (e.g., behaviors, emotions, achievement) rather than concrete biological or neurological indicators. The subjectivities and inconsistencies inherent in diagnosing and classifying these disabilities mean that each disability group is quite heterogeneous and that the delineation between people with and without a neurodevelopmental disorder is not always entirely clear. This is good news in the sense that it provides more flexibility and individuality to people classified with a particular disability. Each person is more complex and multidimensional than any one category. Diagnosticians, educators, and parents should communicate this to children and should allow children to take ownership over how they recognize their perceptions of the world, their identity, and importantly here, their STEM potential. People can take information from a disability category that is useful, but they can question the parts that don’t resonate. These disability categories should not predetermine children’s educational and occupational trajectories.

Shifrer’s academic webpage.

Article details

Problematizing Perceptions of STEM Potential: Differences by Cognitive Disability Status in High School and Postsecondary Educational Outcomes
Dara Shifrer, Daniel Mackin Freeman
First Published: March 16, 2021
DOI: 10.1177/2378023121998116
Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World

About the Author

Featured

Daniel Mackin Freeman is a doctoral candidate in Portland State University’s Department of Sociology. He received his bachelor of fine arts from the Pacific Northwest College of Art and his master’s degree in sociology from Portland State University. With a background in the philosophy of art and social practice, his research focuses on how school structure and curricular emphases both reflect and perpetuate social inequalities.

Dara Shifrer is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Portland State University. She uses statistical and qualitative approaches to demonstrate how inequality outside of schools shapes youth’s educational outcomes, and physical and mental health (e.g., neurodevelopmental disabilities, locus of control). She also investigates interventions (e.g., teachers, school-based health centers) that reduce these inequalities. Prior to entering academia, Shifrer taught math at two middle schools at the opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. A CAREER award from the National Science Foundation supports her research on the factors that reduce disparities in adolescents’ math and science progress at the intersection of race, disability, and socioeconomic status. Shifrer is a research affiliate at Rice University’s Houston Education Research Consortium.