Heavy Reading

Written by Angie Deng and Ruth-Alma Turkson-Ocran

 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion can’t be authentically incorporated into curricula when faculty assign textbooks that harm those whose health they seek to protect.

 

For instance, nursing textbooks can present race as a biological risk factor in disease instead of recognizing racism, historical injustice, and social determinants of health as drivers of illness. Additionally, textbooks often depict pregnancy as an experience restricted to cisgender women. These descriptions result in a greater likelihood that our future patients will experience medical bias and mistreatment, which may lead to poor health outcomes. What’s more, it invalidates and stigmatizes the lived experiences of students from underrepresented backgrounds.

That’s why Workgroup Two: Assessing Teaching and Learning Processes and Practices of the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing’s Committee on Teaching and Learning as Pathway to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is working hard on a textbook review to improve curricula related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The Committee’s mission includes efforts to “intentionally incorporate cultural inclusion into [JHSON] pedagogy to improve all students’ success.”

   

Here’s how Workgroup Two: Assessing Teaching and Learning Processes and Practices is approaching the textbook review.

Workgroup Two is systematically evaluating how the MSN (Entry into Nursing) program’s required textbooks present and rationalize the health of underrepresented racial, ethnic, and LGBTQI+ groups—groups that historically have been marginalized in nursing education. Ruth-Alma Turkson-Ocran serves on a team examining textbook portrayals of race and ethnicity, and Angie Deng serves on a team reviewing the same of LGBTQI+ people.

The Race and Ethnicity team has tallied textbook terminology related to race and ethnicity (e.g., Black, White, Indigenous, Immigrant) and will examine how racial and ethnic health disparities are rationalized by authors. Similarly, the LGBTQI+ team has tallied textbook terminology related to LGBTQI+ identities (e.g., gay, transgender, intersex, gender-affirming) and will examine how LGBTQI+ health disparities are rationalized. The two teams have collaborated to identify the overarching themes and outcomes described below.

 

Here’s what Workgroup Two: Assessing Teaching and Learning Processes and Practices has found in their review so far.

• Most authors omit discussions regarding relationships between racism, discrimination, and health—even when they describe disparities.
• None of the textbooks have substantial information on caring for LGBTQI+ patients, despite many of these books having sections on “male” health, “female” health, and culturally informed nursing care.
• Many texts conflate or misrepresent terms such as “race” and “ethnicity;” or “transgender” and “transsexual.”
• A prominent theme across textbooks includes the portrayal of a default patient who is White, straight, and cisgender.

 

Harmful and offensive language

The workgroup tallied harmful and offensive language used to refer to underrepresented populations as well. For example, the LGBTQI+ team has recorded an instance of “gender confusion” being described as an adverse symptom of mental illness. Nurses should not be taught to view a patient questioning their gender or having a non-traditional gender identity as pathological issue.

The Race and Ethnicity team noted passages expecting students to identify African Americans as the racial group “who most likely will have HIV” or iron deficiency anemia, and claim that being African American is a risk factor for hypertension, osteoarthritis, HIV, and substance use disorders—all without citation or rationale. Racial health disparities do exist and should be recognized in textbooks. However, they should be presented with context, including how historical and ongoing inequities contribute to them. They should also be cited to help ensure that the information is factual. Unfortunately, our diverse teams have been exposed to textbook claims that directly marginalize ourselves or our community peers.

 

An effort championed by student volunteers

Concern for biased textbooks was initially raised by faculty, however  students partnered with them in the budding Workgroup Two to propose, design, and implement the project. Now, all reviewers in both teams are student volunteers, with representatives that range from the pre-licensure MSN (Entry Into Nursing) program to postdoctoral fellows. As students, we are aware of the urgent and intense interest among our peers for our curricula to better prepare us for anti-racist and LGBTQI-affirming practice. Our work is slow, but we are committed to leveraging it for meaningful, structural change.

Our ultimate goal is for all textbooks—especially those used in Johns Hopkins’ programs—to accurately represent historically marginalized groups. We aim to publicize our findings in academic journals, letters to textbook editors and publishers, and communications with Johns Hopkins School of Nursing faculty, administrators, staff, and students to drive curricular change. We have already shared our preliminary findings with some faculty to help improve their lecture content, and we will present our work at the national Association of Community Health Nursing Educators Institute conference this summer. Additionally, the Race and Ethnicity group has contributed the chapter “Strategies for implementing antiracist frameworks and critical reflection in teaching materials for health professions” to Antiracist Helping Professionals: Research, Pedagogy, and Practice, a book focused on an anti-racist pedagogy (i.e., teaching and education that overtly oppose racism).

The issues we have identified aren’t specific to one program or one school, but represent a broader challenge in health professions. Short-term, we hope to support and hold our own institution accountable for change. Long-term, we hope to contribute to a national and global cultural shift toward preparing nurses to see strengths in their patients, while recognizing and addressing deficiencies in systems, policies, structures, and culture that impact health.

 

If you are affiliated with the JHSON and interested in contributing to our efforts, please contact Meredith Klepper ([email protected], LGBTQI+ team) and/or Lea Marineau ([email protected], Race and Ethnicity team).

Race and Ethnicity reviewers: Adam Abbott, Cassidy Griffith, Sarah LaFave, Lea Marineau, and Ruth-Alma Turkson-Ocran.

LGBTQI+ reviewers: Angie Deng, Meredith Klepper, and Jessica Spinali.

Faculty mentors: Lucine Francis (Race and Ethnicity) and Kelly Bower (LGBTQI+).

Workgroup Two Co-chairs: Mona Shattell, Lucine Francis, and Cecília Tomori.

 

This blog is a part of the “Dialogues in Health Equity” series by the Health Equity Faculty Interest Group. They are committed to decreasing health disparities experienced by local and global communities by promoting social justice and health equity through nursing practice, research, education, and service.

 

Read more:

• “Tangled” Study is Overcoming Mistrust of Research Among Black Women to Reform Our Approach to Systemic Intimate Partner Violence
• Q&A With Dr. Kupiri Ackerman-Barger: Skills to Become Equity-Minded
• Admissions Talks: What Does “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” Mean to Admissions?
• Advice from Black Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioners

---

---

 

---

---