Moving toward belonging in a physics department: What changes are possible with and without a paradigm shift?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Belonging in a discipline or department is an important aspect of people’s persistence in that discipline or department, especially for undergraduate students. Previous research has shown that increasing student feelings of belonging in a department benefits all students and is even more valuable for women, racialized people, and other underrepresented groups. However, helping students to develop feelings of belonging can be difficult and complex. This article presents data from a larger, primarily qualitative case study that was conducted at a research-based university in Canada. It examines how a group of faculty, staff, and students worked toward building community and cultivating belonging in their physics department. The aspects of this process that the professor and student participants experienced, and the challenges and rewards encountered, are described and explained here. Some of the strategies that professor participants undertook were relatively easily accomplished using what we describe here as a “classical” paradigm; the analogy is to the traditional physics culture. One example of a strategy employed under the classical paradigm is hosting a mentoring program for physics majors. Other strategies were quite challenging for many professor participants and required a paradigm shift toward more progressive views, which, following the analogy, we call a “quantum” paradigm. An example is believing and behaving as though students with B grades belong and can succeed in physics. We suggest that the paradigm shift from classical (traditional thinking) to quantum (progressive) is an important barrier that members of the physics community must recognize and overcome to fully address student participation and experiences in physics, although some changes were still possible without making the paradigm shift. The study found a new difference between feeling welcome and feeling a sense of belonging among students, as well as a similar difference among faculty members. We present possible steps that physics faculty and staff may consider along the road to recruitment and retention in physics, which are notable for departments and instructors interested in improving student outcomes, departmental sustainability, and equity, diversity, and inclusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".