Imogen Coe: 0:03

We want scientists who have inherent humanity. I want you to be upset and angry about things, but I want you to be able to recognize that and hold it, and then use it to inform the set of data. Maybe the data you're getting don't match your personal beliefs, but you should be able to recognize that. Scientists are open-minded and sometimes they will change their beliefs, on the basis of new data that comes in. That's the most effective, scientist. We are all math people from the moment we are born. It is our job to figure out and, understand the world around us. So, it's just a question of nurturing that math person somewhere deep down inside and helping that person thrive.

Vanessa Vakharia: 0:48

Hi guys, it's Vanessa, and I just wanna say, I hope you are all managing with your lives and electronics through this absolutely wild Mercury retrograde. And I know you're probably rolling your eyes into the back of your head, but I also know that you've probably perked up a little and are thinking, wow, you know, my communication has been a little wack lately and my technology has been acting a little weird all I can say is hashtag mercury. Okay. Back to today's podcast, because I can guarantee that my guest is listening to this intro being like, oh my God. I cannot believe Vanessa decided to introduce my interview by talking about astrology. But to be fair, the fact that she accepts me for all that I am is a perfect reflection of our conversation today about who has and has not been allowed to participate in math and science historically. Dr. Imogen Coe has been an incredible mentor to me over the last decade, a big inspiration in how to fight for making math education a welcoming space for all. I first had her on Math Therapy in 2020. She was one of my first guests ever, and I had her on to talk about how and why STEM fields have traditionally had so many systemic barriers for so many, and how people in positions of privilege can and must do something to change the status quo. The link to that episode is in the show notes if you wanna catch up on it. Today we dive a bit deeper into the psychology of our collective relationship to math and science, by exploring the concept of identity. Imogen explains how cultural stereotypes and the media can shape our math identities far more than our actual abilities, and why a strong self-identity in math and science is so important in developing critical thinking skills. But as you'll find out, Imogen is not one to sit around. I love her the most because she gives no fucks and gets shit done. So this episode is also full of ways we can fix the system so that everyone sees themselves as capable of learning math and science. As always, text the podcast. If you're listening to it and you hear something juicy and you wanna chime in, shoot us a text. The link to that is in our show notes. Heads up, by the way, when you text us, we cannot see who the text is coming from and we can't respond. So if you want a response, tell us your name and like your email address or Instagram handle, something so that we can contact you back. And as always, share this episode. If something in it makes you go, oh my God, share it with the person who needs to hear it. All right, meet Dr. Imogen Coe. I think I'm gonna start by just asking you, when we talk about math identity or science identity what is that?

Imogen Coe: 3:14

So what is science identity? Well, it's the ability to see yourself as a scientist, or as somebody who's, who does math, and we have all of these kind of societal expectations around who does what and who we expect to do what or, you know, maybe what a scientist looks like and that kind of thing. And so those science identities are these kind of characteristics that we have arbitrarily assigned to what a scientist is, how they behave, particularly the characteristics that they have. And the problem is that there are lots of people out there who feel like you know, I don't identify as a scientist because I'm not something that, you know, we've arbitrarily decided. And I see this quite a lot in science students, particularly those science students, maybe from diverse backgrounds or from historically kind of marginalized communities. They just don't identify as a scientist because they're not something. And it's problematic because we're all scientists at birth. We're all curious. All you have to be is curious and interested, you know, like you've been saying so powerfully for such a long time. We, we all start off loving math. and then it kind of gets, you know, beaten out of us or the, the stereotypes around who's good at math, that kind of thing really get in the way. And so, you know, we're losing talent.

Vanessa Vakharia: 4:33

Okay. I love how you put this. So basically what you're saying is I mean, obviously I'm gonna simplify it a bit, but math or science identity is someone's ability to identify, essentially as being a mathematician or a doer of math, or a doer of science, or a scientist.

Imogen Coe: 4:49

Right, right.

Vanessa Vakharia: 4:50

are math identity and science identity two different things?

Imogen Coe: 4:54

I think they're very much overlapping. I mean, math is a language of science, right? So I think they're very much overlapping and we see very strong gender stereotypes around math identity. I think around science identity, we, we still see that, but we also see other kinds of stereotypes, coming in with, with science identity. Which are things like you can't be a scientist if you have an emotionally rich life. You can't be a scientist if you're artistic. You can't be a scientist if you know, if you're not, unemotional and logical and analytical and all of these kinds of things, which a lot of people would say, oh, I'm not, you know, I'm not scientific because I'm, I'm emotional and I'm, you know, artistic. And in fact, all of those things are things that you can be, and you should be as a scientist, it makes you a better scientist. So I think math identity, very strongly, gender stereotyped. Science identity overlaps with that, obviously. But, it, it, it has other components as well. So they're very similar, but I think, you know, slightly different.

Vanessa Vakharia: 5:57

And that makes sense because there are two sort of different things, but what you're making me think right now is because they're overlapping, and I love how you just kind of, you know, casually throughout math is the language of science, especially in, you know, many of the sciences that require more math, like let's say physics or even chemistry, what I'm guessing happens here is if somebody has, let's call it a weak math identity, like they don't identify as being a doer of math or being good at math or being a mathematician, they sort of then, implicitly have a weaker science identity when it comes to the sciences that, you know, like let's say physics or chemistry, which means they're not only now not feeling like they don't belong to the world of math, but they're gonna write off any of those sciences as well. Is that correct?

Imogen Coe: 6:40

I think that's a really good observation. I actually hadn't kind of thought about that, but Absolutely. Because math is foundational. It's, it's a, you know, it's a language. It's at the basis of many, many things in the sciences. And so if you're already starting to doubt your reason or your, you know, your justification for being there, it's, it's only gonna be compounded in terms of going on and doing more science. It may be why we see, you know, more, diversity in, for instance, the life sciences because it's, they're less math heavy. They're, you know, the belief is that they're less math heavy. They're, they're really not in many ways, but there's, you can avoid math and, and still go do biology, that kind of thing. So, it's really about, you know, representation and, and seeing yourself as being somebody who belongs in that space. And it always makes me cross when, I get angry, when people feel like I don't, you know, or people tell me, students tell me, you know, I don't feel like I can do that. I don't feel like I belong.

Vanessa Vakharia: 7:38

Well, okay,

Imogen Coe: 7:39

On the basis of nothing. On the basis of,

Vanessa Vakharia: 7:41

of

Imogen Coe: 7:41

you know? Yeah.

Vanessa Vakharia: 7:43

Oh, so we're gonna get to that in a second, but, okay. Oh my God, my mind is like firing on all these cylinders now because I'm thinking two thoughts. I, you know, the thing we're kind of not saying here, but that I think we're both getting at is if you don't feel like you belong in these spaces, you won't enter them. Which means you won't enter like post-secondary programs, you know, that are about those things. And then in the actual field of, let's say like anything requiring math and science, whether it's medicine or being an engineer, not, you're gonna see less and less representation by those people who have those weak identities. Do you have any idea of the numbers, you know how it's kind of like you, you, there's all those stats that are like, you know, if you look at engineering programs across Canada or across America, there's X percentage of women kind of thing. Do you have any idea? If you don't, it's okay. I was just wondering if you, off the top of your head, knew anything like that.

Imogen Coe: 8:32

Well, the standard, the, the very commonly quoted statistic for engineering in Canada is it's around about 22% or 20%, something like that, which hasn't really changed in, you know, decades. In the other disciplines it varies hugely. So in the life sciences, we might actually see, in terms of gender, we might actually see more female students, you know, 60 40 maybe. But in terms of things like physics and chemistry, you'll see the proportions shift. And you see the proportions shift also, you know, from high school to, to first year to to final year to graduate level. And so there's, there's a lot of, um, you know, I, I, I kind of wish people would be a bit more specific about exactly what they're talking about when they, when they point to statistics of representation or like overrepresentation or underrepresentation. What are we talking about? Are we talking about math? Are we talking about physics? Are we talking about engineering? And I think the other thing to, we really need to be mindful of is the fact that the. overrepresented or the, you know, the dominant demographic that's in those spaces and moving through those spaces will carry with it often the stereotypes and the, the cultural influences, which means that it's not just my sense of belonging should I be there? It's like, well, I can be tough and I can be inspired and I can like, you know, get over my imposter syndrome and all of that nonsense that we tell, you know, women in particular, um, but, and you can be, you can power through, but you're still going into a culture and a context where it just is exhausting. And both you and I have seen this. It's like, and I've heard from, you know, young women in engineering programs that, you know, it's exhausting, continually having to put up with the little belittlement about should you be here? Do you really belong? Like, you know, did your boyfriend do your homework for you? Or, um, I had a wonderful, you know, wonderful, uh, student one time who was, um, very, very talented, black, African Canadian, um, and he said he just got tired of the TAs continually, um, being surprised when they handed back assignments and he got an A plus. It's like, can you imagine what that's like over and over again? It's like, wow, just being surprised, just little tiny things like that, but over and over and over and over again, it just keeps telling you, you don't belong. Like, what are you doing here? So, so the statistics are really useful and they're important, but we also wanna make sure that they're, they're, they're used in context. Particularly when we're talking about interventions.

Vanessa Vakharia: 11:01

So first of all, that story makes me so upset and I've heard so many stories like that, and I think it's really actually important to take a beat and, um, talk about that because, know, this has happened to me my whole life and I just only recently started talking about it in presentations because was getting pretty like, bullied online by a male math educator. And everything surrounding it was about, it was so like, girl coded, like the idea of like, you know, I say the word like, and I, I say "you guys" and I, you know, this, that, and I thought it's, it's not like it's making me question my ability. Which a lot of people might think, oh gosh, you know, that really gets in into your math identity that way. Wasn't that. It was just so tiring and so annoying. And now it's not gonna take away from my work or, you know, I'm not gonna back out. But I could totally, if, if I did decide to be like, you know what? Fuck this. Like, I'm so over, every time I post something, every time I say something, someone, you know, this guy or other people have to comment about it or be surprised, I think it's a totally reasonable thing to do to opt out. And I actually wanna say that to anyone who's listening who's like, yeah, I'm so tired. You know what? Quitting is not failure. I just, please don't, I'm not saying, you know, everyone get out of here who's, you know, underrepresented. But I do think, like, it takes a toll on our nervous systems. It takes a toll on our health. And you know, it's a, it's a very reasonable and admirable thing to do, I think, to be like, you know what? This is unhealthy for me. I'm gonna take a beat. I'm gonna get outta here. And in the meantime, it's up to the rest of us to be doing the work to make these exactly what you said, these interventions, to create interventions and to, take it upon us to make these spaces more, safe and welcoming so that this doesn't happen.

Imogen Coe: 12:45

Absolutely. And that's how you can use your privilege, right? Going back to what we talked about, you know, the last time, using your privilege, like I, you know, I am in this space. I can, people have mispronounced my name my entire life. Um, you know, and, and yeah, all the time. and so I know what that, you know, I know what that's like. I, you know, I'm an immigrant. I'm a former international student, so two groups that have been vilified. So I get that, you know, but I, but I look like this and I sound like this, right? So, so that's huge privilege. And I can, I can stay in the space. I, I have a little bit of lived experience of what it's like to always be told that you don't quite fit in. But I'm here and my job, my responsibility is to try and change things. So, I think I totally get why people say I've had it. I've, I've seen it so many times, and I've heard from so many, often, young women, students with disabilities, um, students from the queer community. And going back to this, you know, idiot who bullied you online, like, why can't somebody in math education say "like"? Like, where is it written? So this is another thing about the math identity and the science identity, is that you have to be serious, and you have to talk in a certain way, and you're only allowed to do that. And there's no basis in that. There's no, there's no evidence that that is the only way to do things. You know, it's like if you're a scientist, you have to be a tall, you know, white guy wearing a lab coat and you can't be like a, like a short fat, like, you know, old woman or something. Um, like, but who decided that there's, there is no, like a scientist, the thing that drives me the nuts the most is as scientists and mathematicians, we are supposed to be analytical and we are supposed to study things and collect evidence and get data, and then we're supposed to use that and be really rigorous about it and analytical about it to inform what we do next. So when you say to someone, but there's no evidence, there's no research, there's no basis for that. Like then like, so why are we hanging on to these sort of, these arbitrary ideas. It's like that's the most unscientific, that's the most unmathematical component. So by suggesting, and I say this to people, I say this to my talks all the time, if you can't see the value and the evidence and the data in support of diversity in the way it drives innovation and the way it enriches our questions and the way it powers our curiosity, if you can't see that on all of the evidence and the data, as a scientist, you're a really crappy scientist. It's like, ooh, you know, and then people get offended. It's like, well, that's what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to be analytical, right? You can be emotional. You should be emotional, but you can be analytical. It's like asking lawyers to, you know, a defense lawyer will defend like the worst serial killer. But that's the job, right? There's a set of skills there that that's your job, but that doesn't mean that you go home and you, you know, you beat up on kittens.

Vanessa Vakharia: 15:54

This metaphor!

Imogen Coe: 15:55

So, so it, it just, it makes me, makes me angry, 'cause it's like the people that do the bullying are the people who are the least self-aware in terms of what, what they claim they are, right. I'm analytical, but you're not being analytical.

Vanessa Vakharia: 16:12

This is such a good point, that actually being like, oh, someone who says like, can't possibly be good at math, that's actually an entirely emotional decision. You're right, it is not a logical evidence-based decision that's just like an emotional, like, I don't like it. Like it's making me uncomfortable. So like that's, that's such a good way to put it, to be like, so you're literally the opposite of what a quote unquote mathematician or scientist would do. You're not looking at any evidence. You're making an emotional, completely subjective decision about, so that's the first thing. Now, something else you've said, you keep saying we've arbitrarily decided what a scientist should be or what a mathematician should be. Wanna unpack that a little when you say that.'Cause at the very beginning, we started this conversation by saying math identity, you know, is the idea of identifying as someone who is good at math, belongs to the world of math, but you said arbitrarily decides. Tell me about that. Like is it entirely arbitrary or are there some themes, or where does it come from?

Imogen Coe: 17:11

Yeah, that's a really good point. And maybe arbitrary is not the right word, but I, I mean, because the background to where these stereotypes come from is established and we can trace it back to being who had control, who had power, who controlled resources, who controlled access to education, all of that kind of thing. And so, you know, we can go back to patriarchy, we can go back to white supremacy and we can go back to, all of these things, that said, it is this group that gets to control the narrative, and they happen to all look like this, or have these characteristics. You know, it may not even be the way they look. It could be it's from much higher socioeconomic sectors, they're people who, you know, could afford to, um, to go to university or whatever. And so those pe, those are the people that we have ended up deciding are the representatives of what it looks like to be a scientist or what it looks like to be a mathematician. The basis of that being what a mathematician looks like or what a scientist looks like is in the sense arbitrary because in a different parallel universe, it could have been another group, right? So there's no basis on which we can say, this is the group of individuals who have the, the talent. And we know, I mean, people have been looking for math genes. I remember somebody, a father trying to convince me that there was a math gene and you know, and there's a pink gene for the girls like, like pink, you know, all nonsense. There's none of, none of this. And so the fact that a certain set of characteristics has been defined as, you know, that's what being math mathematical means, being unemotional and logical and all this kind of stuff, and that, that's assigned to a certain group, is historical, but it's also arbitrary in the sense that there's no rationale, there's no evidence or data for it except the historical narrative

Vanessa Vakharia: 19:04

Yeah, this is a major point. Because I completely, now it's all coalescing in my mind. I love how you just put that, but I wanna make sure I understand. You're kind, you're saying that the only reason we think this, like the only reason we think for example, that a mathematician has like spiky white hair everywhere and like glasses and a pocket protector is because it historically, that is what we have seen in media. Historically, those are the people who have been in math classrooms, for example, or in labs. But there is no actual evidence saying, Hey, guess what? People who wear pocket protectors with white hair are actually better at math. There's, there's no actual causa, could we say that? Maybe there's no causation vibe there going on. It's not like we've been like if you are born a white male that causes you to be better, am, am I getting that right?

Imogen Coe: 19:59

Well, there's no, yeah, so that you could say there's no genetic basis. there's no one group that has a, you know, has the market cornered on those attributes. They're distributed throughout humanity as far as we can tell. And there's been a lot of debate about this. So, the fact that those people end up being the ones who, you know, we see more of, they're in media, they're in marketing, they're in, they can, they control the narrative, is a consequence of other factors. So cultural factors, you know, power structures, all of those kinds of things. So

Vanessa Vakharia: 20:32

Is this like when teachers try to teach kids about the, the difference between correlation and causation, and they do something like, when you wear shorts, you're more likely to eat ice cream. Right? And you're like, what? So do, does somebody wearing shorts cause them to desire ice cream? But it's no, the factor is when you're wearing shorts, it's probably 'cause it's hot outside, and it's the heat, So is it like that?

Imogen Coe: 20:58

Yes.

Vanessa Vakharia: 20:58

It's like there's this other factor altogether.

Imogen Coe: 21:01

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. So I think, yeah. Um,

Vanessa Vakharia: 21:05

Okay.

Imogen Coe: 21:05

Yeah, correlation and causation. So that there are, you know, the astrophysics is predominantly dominated by, you know, men, particularly white men. Therefore, white men are clearly more skilled at going into astrophysics. Yeah. That's right. There's all these other factors, and yet what happens with that, those kinds of observations is that people do draw a correlative kind of relationship and say, oh, well we must encourage the girls and the, the people from other, other kind of demo to, to try harder, right. It's a deficit based paradigm. It's a, it's like, oh, these people have something, and these people are lacking something, and if we could just get them to fix themselves, then, you know. And that's one of the things that drives me nuts about so many of the interventions, so, so many of the programs we have, it's, it's all based on this kind of deficit as opposed to, oh look, there's a whole bunch of assets over here. These people have all this talent, genius and brilliant. There's assets over there and you know, there's a certain amount of mediocrity over here, so we really need to be looking at the assets we have here and figuring out how to kind of bring them more into the math world or into the science world. It's assets that we are missing, it's not because they have deficits. And I, I get really cross with this kind of like, oh, let's inspire little girls. Little girls are fucking awesome. Little girls are curious and in incredibly engaged and have all sorts of talents, and, and then we tell them, oh, you have to be inspired. It's like, no, you, you need everybody else to get outta the way and stop with the stereotyping and the, you know, the deficit models.

Vanessa Vakharia: 22:45

So this kind of actually ties into what you were saying about, part of using your privilege or using an a position you're in to engage in some type of, of these interventions to play a role in changing the entire landscape in helping those, In creating a space and environment where everybody can identify with being a or a scientist. What are some, like, let's say you're a teacher in a school, are there some things that could be done? Like what, is there any intervention you love or any sort of strategy or any sort of perspective.

Imogen Coe: 23:19

Uh, well, you are the expert, so, so I would,

Vanessa Vakharia: 23:22

I see what you did there

Imogen Coe: 23:24

I can tell you that, I can tell you my experience, Teach a fourth year upper level critical thinking in biomedical sciences course and in that course. So these are biomedical science students kind of at the end of the program. I say, we're not talking, we're not dealing with content, we're dealing with process. So it's actually a lot more like math in the sense that we're not, like, I'm not, I don't want you to memorize stuff. I want you to think about how you think about things. So the metacognition. And I have found, when I have explicitly said, there's nothing wrong with being emotional, artistic, in fact, you should be, because when you have, when you can identify those components in yourself, in your characteristics, it can make you a better scientist, it can make you a more effective scientist.'cause then you will know, oh, that response I'm having is influenced by my bias, or it's influenced by my emotional state, and therefore I have to think a bit bit more carefully about being analytical. And I have had, so, you know, we talk about, you know, here are your emotions, so you should be upset about some of the things that are happening as they relate to, you know, vaccinations and, the anti-vax movement, you, you should be upset and angry about that and hold those. But you can also say what is the evidence and what is the data and what does the science tell us, right? So you can hold both of these things at the same time. And I think a lot of science students and a lot of math students are not actually explicitly told It's okay to have a rich emotional life. You should. You should be artistic, do music, do sports, do all of these other things, and find ways, and we'll help you find ways to take those skills and learn to make them, make you a better mathematician or a better scientist. So one of the things I do with the critical thinking is to say, the first thing to do is a self-reflection exercise. You know, where, what's your cultural background? What are the messages you got growing up? Where they things, and I have a lot of students will write, I was told that, you know, girls don't go into engineering or girls, you know, girls because we have a very rich, diverse cultural background. And then, for that reason I tend not to, for instance, speak up in class, or I'm more con, I'm more worried about, getting something wrong. And so, okay, well that's, that's all fine. That's that's really good,'cause you've been reflective. Now let's be reflexive. How might that impact your ability to be a good scientist? Well, it might impact your ability to be a good scientist because if somebody comes with some really like dodgy looking data from the lab, you might be able you, you know, you might not say anything, right? And so the ability to really know yourself and how you think actually makes you a better scientist. And one of the things I think is really interesting is how our kind of characterization of science identity kind of misses out on that whole piece, which is. How to be the best scientist, which is by knowing how you think and how you feel and where you come from. And I think, I think that that piece it kind of gives, it gives people license to be themselves. And I've actually had feedback from students that said, you know, you're, the first time a professor's actually said this, I've always worried about this. And it's like, well, you know, worry, you can worry about it, but at least you're, you can identify. Your own way of thinking or being, and then you can think about how that might impact your ability to do something that you wanna do as a scientist or a mathematician or in healthcare or something like that. And that makes you a better, a much, much better one of those people, you have a set of skills that you know and you have some sense of how you think about things, that you can apply much, much better, much more calibrated, effectively calibrated. I mean, we want scientists who have inherent humanity. I want you to be upset and angry about things, but I want you to be able to recognize that and hold it, and then use it to inform, analytically the set of data. Maybe the data you're getting don't match your personal beliefs, but you should be able to recognize that and say, okay, this doesn't align with my beliefs, but this is what the data say. And scientists are open-minded and sometimes they will change their beliefs, will change their minds on the basis of new data that comes in. That's the most effective, successful scientist.

Vanessa Vakharia: 27:53

Oh my God. Like if I could drop the mic without David actually murdering me. So many things, like, again, just another, there's so many things I'm thinking here. Like first of all, I always say with math therapy, my number one like quote unquote intervention is simply to ask a student or a person, you know, anyone who does not identify as being good at math is to say. Have you ever had like a, an icky, like negative experience with math? Just that question of getting them to reflect exactly like what you're talking about. Right. Once they start reflecting, they start thinking, oh, how have my experiences shaped the way I'm showing up here today? not telling them, they're reflecting on it. And then all of a sudden, you're right. Like maybe that helps them go, oh, you know what? That kind of explains why I feel X, Y, and Z, or that explains why I shut down when I'm faced with a math problem. Now there's two pieces. You're kind of saying like maybe that shows them their bias or. limiting beliefs, but maybe it also shows them some strengths. Like, you know what, even though I did feel like shit that whole time, I still am able to help a friend out with a math problem. It's just harder for, you know what I mean? So now you're identifying, like a scientist, you're kind of like, okay, me not being able to speak up because I feel like I don't belong here. That could be a quote unquote weakness, you know, maybe I won't say something when I've got dodgy evidence, but maybe that makes me a really great listener.

Imogen Coe: 29:17

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I, I think that's it. And I think sometimes what I'll do is I'll say the fact that you are reflecting and you're identifying these things is just like collecting data. Right. You're collecting these data points, and you're gonna analyze them and interpret them, and you're gonna use them to kind of direct your thinking going forward. And the really interesting thing is that the people who've just kind of sailed through life with all the privilege and have just, you know, that they haven't had things that get in the way because of the way they speak, or you know, the background they come from, they don't have necessarily that skillset. They haven't been challenged in those ways, so they don't necessarily, they haven't necessarily learned the skills to actually collect all of these data. So I kind of try and put it in scientific terms so that, you know, you, you, you are a scientist, you are a mathematician because look at you, you're collecting data. I have this bias, I got these messages, and then you put it together and you integrate it, and you synthesize and you say, oh, okay, now I understand that that means this. Which means that I can identify maybe when, when my friend is afraid to speak up or is afraid to challenge. Because I've collected data and I synthesize it, and now I can, I can see it and I can help create something better. I can, I can pull more information out of them. So it, it's, it, yeah, their, their strengths because it's about seeing yourself as kind of, you know, the study animal, you're kind of, you know, you're kind of the lab rat. You're collecting data on yourself and the more we know ourselves always, the better we are gonna do. Right.

Vanessa Vakharia: 30:49

Who said, no thyself. Wasn't it someone very important?

Imogen Coe: 30:53

I'm sure. Probably, yes.

Vanessa Vakharia: 30:54

Who was it? Some man. Okay. Anyways, the point is I, but now I'm like, so for teachers listening, this is such a great thing to do. This is just, I think this is a great like little foray into being like an intervention doesn't need to look huge. It doesn't need to look like, and now I'm gonna start like a cheerleading robotics team like that's cool too, actually, I would love to see a cheerleading robotics team, but it can be like, I feel like resistance and revolution can be in the small things. Not that this is a small thing, but this is a a little step asking a question, like, I love the way you've laid out that activity. It has to do with asking and I love the way you then actually even like amped it up by being like, we're kind of doing a science experiment. This is math, right? Collecting data, that is math. And that's how the two are so adjacent. You know what I love though, that we haven't even like said, you're kind of, oh my God, this all ties in, this is gonna be the perfect, like wrap up to everything. Because given obviously everything that's going on with how hard it is to talk about diversity. You are, this exercise is talking about diversity without talking about diversity. Because we always think about EDI in terms of like, you know, very large obvious metrics like gender or ethnicity or whatever. But diversity is really just about having like different people in the room, people with different skill sets, different ways of thinking, different life experience. Like that's what. You know that that's what makes, math and science so rich is having all these different people in the room. So when you do an activity, like what you're doing, you're not using the word, but you're basically saying like, where did you come from? Where, like, what makes you different? Like what's your vibe? Like, it's like a vibe check. And, and what you're doing is getting people to reflect on how their experience might have resulted in a different math or science identity than the person next to them. And I think, that's actually so great because when we talk about all the pushback, it's like, here's a way to do something without wading too far in the deep end if you're not comfortable and, and being safe to still do, you know, everyone is in different schools at different boards where there are different like rules and different limitations. And I think this allows teachers to, embrace their students and help them reflect on their life path and what brought them to this moment while helping them rewrite their math stories in a way that's, PC I guess, for lack of a better term.

Imogen Coe: 33:16

Well, it's in a, in a way that's actually really effective and, and constructive. There's so much sort of noise and stuff about EDI or DEI and, and I think what we're talking about is fundamental humanity. It's like, let's get back to fundamental humanity and what makes people tick and what, like this asset model, which is like, what are we missing? Well, we're missing some voices. We're missing some ideas. We're missing some, and like, you know, and, and, and finding ways to draw them out so that we can make sure everybody's in the room or we create a new room or, you know. because we all benefit from that and we will all, and again, you know, back to the data and evidence, there's overwhelming data and evidence that that is the case. and so if we wanna solve some of these big challenges in the world, we kind of need all of those assets to be contributing.

Vanessa Vakharia: 34:05

Okay. The funniest thing about this is when I brought you on, gonna ask you, remember we were talking and you were like, oh, I have this book about actually like this science behind how science identity and math identity are formed. And that's, I was like gonna, I thought our whole interview was gonna be about that and I haven't even asked you about it, so can I have a little bit of like, I have a little

Imogen Coe: 34:24

I haven't read. I haven't read it yet, so I.

Vanessa Vakharia: 34:26

oh, that's good. Okay, good. Is there anyone you know, I am curious a bit about, kind of what we've talked about, the idea of math identity, and we talk a lot about in math education is we get these quote unquote arbitrary ideas of what it means to belong from basically stereotypes. Right? But that's something we talk about a lot. But I am curious if there is another little science piece. Is there anything you can share about the science of how our math or science identity is, is created, given that you haven't read the book?

Imogen Coe: 34:58

Oh, well I haven't read this book. I mean, there's a ton of research that's been done particularly, in the US mu, much less so in Canada. but yeah, I mean I think there, there's clear evidence that if people don't see themselves represented, so that's a big deal, representation really does matter because, it, and it's not the only thing, but it's one thing. Like there's some really interesting science, uh, really, really interesting study that said, young black women, would persist, more effectively, more successfully in STEM programming, if they came from strong religious faith-based communities.

Vanessa Vakharia: 35:29

Oh.

Imogen Coe: 35:29

Which kind of makes sense, right? Really if you're, if it, if you, if you are challenged. Well, I mean, because, because STEM pathways are not always friendly for people from what we would call racialized backgrounds. and we've seen that. It's like my, my student who, who I've, I've had people tell me like, you know, are you on the varsity basketball team because you're a tall black guy? But if you have a strong community around you, you are more likely to be able to persist and be successful in a STEM pathway. But a STEM identity would say, oh, you can't possibly be religious or spiritual, or whatever, because that's not analytical and logical and all of that kind of thing. Right. So, um, so there's some of that. There's some research around language, the way we talk about science and math. and we don't talk about it as being creative and, beautiful and, all of those kinds of things. We use very specific language, which kind of narrows the, um, the, the sense of, of whether you identify with that area or not. So there's been a lot of research, particularly kind of at the high school post-secondary level about who goes in that direction and who stays and persists in those. And, a lot of it relates to does the science identity overlap with the values that the individuals have? You know, it's very, science can be presented as very individualistic. You know, pe people that come from collectivist kinds of backgrounds might say, well, hmm, you have to be the lone genius working all night in the lab. You know, which doesn't happen anywhere. Um, so

Vanessa Vakharia: 37:05

isn't it literally about collaboration

Imogen Coe: 37:08

Yeah. You know, more so than ever.

Vanessa Vakharia: 37:11

Math is for sure portrayed as a solo sport. Like it's like,

Imogen Coe: 37:14

Yeah.

Vanessa Vakharia: 37:15

I mean this is a great, I think, way to wrap up because if you're listening to this and you're anyone, there are so many things that are in our control, the way we talk about math and science, the idea of representation. There are so many incredible educators who really make it a point to talk about, you know, mathematicians, to put posters up on their wall, to like, you know, it's one of my favorite activities to create a wall where you're, you're, you're seeing so many different representations of mathematicians, and not only that, like bringing speakers in, having students research their favorite mathematician, broadening the term of mathematicians. So like. Ariana Grande is in there because she always talks about how she loves math. You know, a mathematician doesn't mean they're only doing a certain type of math. So I think what you're saying here is really impactful for educators. There's a lot we can't control and that feels shitty and that feels hard, but there, we gotta focus on the things we can control.

Imogen Coe: 38:06

Yeah.

Vanessa Vakharia: 38:06

Helping our students access different representations of mathematicians and scientists. Making sure our environments are warm and welcoming, and stereotypes aren't being reinforced. We can at least start there. So, oh my gosh. I mean, I have so many pages of more questions. We need a whole series. gonna wrap up with the two final questions that I always ask everyone. And now you have a bit of an unfair advantage because you had these questions four years ago, but let's see. Maybe you don't remember what they are. You probably

Imogen Coe: 38:35

don't remember.

Vanessa Vakharia: 38:36

Okay, good. Okay. Question number one is what, if you could pick one thing you'd like to see change about the way math is taught in schools, what would it be?

Imogen Coe: 38:43

I wonder how I answered that last time.

Vanessa Vakharia: 38:45

but I love that you can't remember. I wonder if it'll be the same or different.

Imogen Coe: 38:49

I, well, and it may have changed because, you know, I think I would really like math to be taught like in the creative industries or as an art or I would like, you know, math and music or, I, I would just like it to be kinda liberated from this rather dry, you know, stereotype that I think I, I think it has, I mean, I haven't taken math in a long time, but, I mean it's, it's a, a beautiful language, right? And so I, I think just to have it represented as a creative art.

Vanessa Vakharia: 39:20

I love that. I do not think that was your answer last time. Like I'll go listen, but I feel like I would have remembered that one. Okay. And finally, what if someone listened to this whole podcast episode and they were like, cool, yeah, math identity. I get it. Like I get that it might have been shaped by this and that, but I just like don't think I'm a math person. What would your response be?

Imogen Coe: 39:38

I think we are all math people from the moment we are born. It is our job to figure out and, and to understand the world around us. So, if you're not a math person, you're not a, you're not a human being. And you are a human being. You're an amazing human being with like, you know, full rich inner life. And, it's just a question of nurturing that math person somewhere deep down inside and, and helping that person thrive, survive and thrive. We all start out as math people and it's sad that it kind of, you know, it gets scared out of too many of us.

Vanessa Vakharia: 40:12

Oh my God, it's always such a pleasure. Is there, where, where should people find you? What do you want them to go do to, to troll you on the internet and

Imogen Coe: 40:20

Oh, well, they can troll me on the internet. I'm just, google my name. I'm on LinkedIn, Instagram, um, you know, and you can track me down through the university, Toronto Metropolitan University. So always happy to talk about these things and, and we, you're right, we could do a whole series.

Vanessa Vakharia: 40:36

I'm so glad, because this was such a good conversation.

Imogen Coe: 40:40

Well, you always bring the best questions and raise really good points. And I always learn something. So I love these sessions. I always love.

Vanessa Vakharia: 40:49

Love us. Oh my God, I can't believe I actually get to call Dr. Imogen Co. My friend. She's so cool, and honestly, I would not be the person I am today without her. I'm usually just ranting and outer processing and half making sense, and she's just calmly like, well, the system's broken because X, Y, and Z, and we know how to fix it, so let's just get on with it. I loved how this convo was like grounded in identity, you know, like in the fundamental way that we look at ourselves because math and science aren't just skills or abilities that we learn from teachers in textbooks. Society and culture have shaped them into things that we've come to define ourselves around. And for so many, if we don't see ourselves as the kind, I'm using air quotes, like the kind of person that can do math or science that has so many domino effects on the way we look at our entire selves. So if we get more kids to grow up feeling like they belong in STEM fields in whatever ways they want, we're setting them up for rich full lives where they can be whatever they want. Okay, guys, , you can text the podcast by hitting the link in the show notes and remember. We don't see your name. We don't get your contact info. We just see where you're from. Like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah from Austin, Texas. So if you want a response or you want to let us know who you are, put that information in your text. We're actually doing a mailbag episode in a couple of weeks where we will be reading out some of the texts, so send us your thoughts. And please share the episode. If anything struck you, send it to the person who needs to hear it. Okay. You can also contact me on Instagram at the Math Guru. You can email me, vanessa@themathguru.ca. And I am your host, Vanessa Vakharia. And this podcast is produced by David Kochberg, and the music you're listening to is by me and David's band, Goodnight Sunrise. And we just released a new song last week. It's called Over You. You should go listen to it. All right, you're the best. You rock. And we will see you next week.