A class syllabus is so much more than simply a logistical document used to organize a course. It reflects the instructor's teaching style and shapes the learning environment for the student (DiYanni and Borst, 2020). Syllabi also function as contracts that guide students' learning experiences and serve as legal documents and enforceable agreements that outline academic norms and expectations along with students' rights and responsibilities (Soonpaa, 2018). Instructors have the academic freedom to design syllabi that meet educational standards set by the university and accreditation institutions, while also incorporating elements like inclusivity statements, grading scales, and course outlines (Hess and Whittington, 2003). Scholars have noted that students who read a multidimensional syllabus are “more likely to feel that course strategies have been designed to help them reach their goals, rather than merely as busywork or, worse, to torture them” (Littlefield, 1999, as cited in Slattery and Carlson, 2005, p. 159). The syllabus has become more than a tool to simply share course deadlines, exams, and required readings, it has become an extension of inclusivity.

Contrary to the common assumption that course syllabi are static documents that students do not engage with, students report reading and referring to syllabi throughout a course; they also recognize that incorporating inclusive language helps facilitate a more welcoming classroom environment (Bernardi et al., 2024). The language and tone used in syllabi significantly impact classroom experiences. An abrasive, punitive, or inflexible tone, along with a strict emphasis on course policies, can lead to negative outcomes for students and create spaces of “unbelonging” (Singham, 2005; Harnish and Bridges, 2011). To counter this, many instructors are adopting “trauma-informed” pedagogical approaches that prioritize sensitivity and flexibility to move away from punitive language (Munro, 2022; Thomas et al., 2019). These changes help create positive student-instructor relationships and encourage environments where students develop a sense of belonging and can obtain academic success (Gin et al., 2021, p. 224; Maimon et al., 2021).

An effective syllabus conveys the instructor's enthusiasm for teaching and invites students to engage more deeply with the course material (Chen et al., 2023, p. 23). Additionally, some instructors are beginning to include inclusivity statements, pronouns, land acknowledgments, accessibility statements, and content warnings to create inclusive and supportive learning environments for students (Maimon et al., 2021; Chaney et al., 2016). These strategies have been shown to improve retention and success for students with stigmatized identities (Maimon et al., 2021). However, if an instructor does not genuinely value or understand the messages sent by these pedagogical tools, including them in course materials can be misleading. Authenticity in teaching practices is important to students; they are more likely to engage and feel supported in environments where the instructor's stated values align with their actions (Bartlett, 2023; Bernardi et al., 2024). Essentially, faculty should understand what signals are being sent to students when adding inclusive content on syllabi and should avoid using such tools if not prepared to stand by them; this will avoid further undermining students' trust in the instructor and the classroom environment (Bernardi et al., 2024, p. 9).

An instructor's identities—such as their gender, race, ethnicity, class, (dis)ability, religion, nationality, status as a first-generation college student, etc.—can influence the way they teach and in turn their syllabi design. Educators from diverse or marginalized backgrounds often bring unique perspectives to their teaching, and their own experiences may increase their ability to understand the needs of a varied student body. For example, Ladson-Billings (1995) discusses how teachers of color may draw upon their cultural experiences to create more inclusive and culturally responsive curricula. Additionally, instructors who are first-generation college graduates may be particularly attuned to the challenges faced by students who are navigating higher education without a familial model and may choose to include specific resources on a syllabus to address these issues (Jehangir, 2010). Research also supports the notion that an instructor's gender impacts the inclusivity of their university classroom. For instance, women instructors are more open to incorporating inclusive classroom policies and practices compared to their male counterparts (Boyle et al., 2013; Álvarez and Buenestado, 2015; Avramidis and Norwich, 2002; Wray et al., 2022). However, studies also observed that men instructors become more prone to implementing inclusive educational practices in their classes when they receive proper training (Emmers et al., 2020; Llorent and Alamo, 2016).

Our study examines how instructors' rank and disciplinary field, along with gender, influence syllabi design strategies, expanding the existing research on inclusive classroom environments. While previous studies have shown that the gender identity of an instructor can play a role in creating inclusivity, there is limited research on how characteristics beyond gender impact this dynamic. For instance, Maimon et al. (2021) found that the use of Identity Safety Cues (ISCs) on syllabi fostered a greater sense of belonging and a more positive impression of the instructor among students, regardless of whether the instructor was a White man or a White woman. Their findings suggest that the use of ISCs has a more significant effect on student perceptions than the instructor's gender alone (Maimon et al., 2021). We build on the existing literature by examining how instructors' rank and field influence their syllabi design strategies along with gender.

This study tests who is utilizing Identity Safety Cues on their syllabi, with a dataset which includes faculty from various ethnic and racial backgrounds along with other intersecting identities, not simply White women and men. We examine how an instructor's rank and field of study, along with gender, influenced their use of ISCs on syllabi. Our primary objective was to determine the characteristics of faculty more likely to use Identity Safety Cues in their classrooms.

STEM's reliance on empirical methods is often equated with objectivity, but this view ignores the influence of structural biases. The idea of objectivity in STEM assumes that the identity of the instructor or author of a textbook is irrelevant. However, this perspective overlooks how teaching methods, course materials, and examples shape the curriculum and students' understanding of the discipline (González-Castellano et al., 2021). By excluding diverse views and privileging canonical texts, STEM education can perpetuate systemic biases and reinforce existing power structures (Levya et al., 2022).

Research highlights how STEM curricula are neither neutral nor detached from sociocultural contexts. For instance, large datasets commonly used in statistics and machine learning courses often embed and perpetuate societal inequalities, reinforcing stereotypes related to gender, race, and other identities (Angwin et al., 2016; Buolamwini and Gebru, 2018; Caliskan et al., 2017; Bolukbasi et al., 2016). Textbooks and syllabi reflect the values of instructors and institutions, influencing both the framing of content and the inclusivity of the classroom (Parson, 2016). Thoughtfully designed syllabi can serve as tools to promote equity in STEM, especially for students from marginalized backgrounds (Calabrese Barton and Tan, 2019; Gutiérrez, 2018).

Critically examining STEM education requires addressing not only what is taught but also how it is taught. Faculty's decisions about syllabi design—such as including course materials written by authors from diverse backgrounds and signaling a commitment to equity—play a crucial role in reshaping traditional power dynamics and creating a more just academic environment (Harding, 1992; Prescod-Weinstein, 2020). By recognizing that scientific knowledge is influenced by dominant cultural perspectives, educators can better align their teaching with the needs of all students, fostering inclusivity and social change in a historically exclusionary field (Calabrese Barton and Tan, 2019).

Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) is a private four-year research university in Worcester, Massachusetts (U.S.A.), that primarily focuses on STEM disciplines.¹ The university serves undergraduate and graduate populations of just over 5,000 and 1,500 students, respectively (WPI Institutional Research, 2024). WPI's student demographics share many characteristics with peer institutions. In the Fall of 2023, WPI's undergraduate enrollment was approximately 5,300 students, with 65% identifying as male and 63.5% as White. Less than 3% of students identified as Black or African American, and < 9% as Hispanic or Latinx (WPI Institutional Research, 2024). The gender ratio at WPI has seen significant fluctuations in the past few years. For instance, while the ratio of women to men in the undergraduate class of 2025 was closer to parity with 43% of 1^st-year students identifying as women, this percentage dropped to about 30% for the class of 2027 (WPI Institutional Research, 2024).²

Gender discrepancies persist across disciplines and degree programs on campus, reflecting broader trends within STEM fields. The most popular majors, such as Computer Science and Mechanical Engineering, exhibit a male-to-female ratio of approximately 3:1. In contrast, Biomedical Engineering—the third most popular major—is an exception, with almost twice as many women as men (WPI Institutional Research, 2024). We believe instructors play a crucial role in fostering a culture of inclusivity in the classroom and view the syllabus as an accessible tool to reach such goals.

We gathered 163 syllabi from introductory level courses by soliciting volunteer participation from all faculty at WPI. We chose to focus on introductory courses because they constitute the majority of classes 1^st-year and sophomore students enroll in regardless of their major; additionally, these courses often serve as “weed out” classes, gatekeeping students' advancement in their chosen majors. We began this project in 2021 and gathered syllabi from six academic years, from 2016–2017 to 2021–2022. We are cognizant of the fact that many faculty updated their syllabi to adjust learning priorities amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and other societal shifts starting in the Spring of the 2019–2020 academic year. While our goal was not to focus specifically on these changes, they inevitably impacted our dataset. We label “pre-COVID-19” the syllabi for courses between 2016 and 2019, as well as courses in C-term (January to March) 2020.³ Similarly, we use the “COVID-19” label when considering all syllabi in our dataset from D-term 2020 forward.⁴

To represent student enrollment proportionally, we collected syllabi based on the number of students each department served in 1,000- and 2,000-level courses. We used enrollment numbers for the academic year 2020–2021—the most recent year for which enrollment data was available when we started this research (WPI Institutional Research, 2024). WPI has 18 departments and 21 programs distributed among the School of Arts & Sciences, the School of Engineering, the Business School, and the Global School. Our data comprises syllabi from all four schools, 14 departments, and 1 program, as reported in Table 1 of Bernardi et al. (2024). Some departments in the School of Engineering and most programs do not offer 1,000- and 2,000-level courses and therefore are absent from the dataset. We also excluded syllabi from special interest or non-departmental programs, such as Physical Education, Military Science (Army Reverse Officers' Training Corps, ROTC), and Air Force Aerospace Studies (Air Force Reverse Officers' Training Corps, AFROTC).

We note that a few syllabi in our dataset (n = 6 of 163) were designed by multiple instructors who co-taught a course. The goal of this study is to relate faculty demographics to syllabi inclusivity, so these instructors were considered separately and treated as if they each had submitted their own syllabus. This choice accounts for the actual number of instructors in the dataset (n = 169) by generating an artificial increase in the number of syllabi from 163 to 169.

An interdisciplinary group of six WPI faculty members analyzed the syllabi dataset in 2022. To maintain the anonymity of instructors who voluntarily shared their syllabi, a student worker de-identified the files labeling them by the department code and a number; e.g., CH2 was the name assigned to the 2^nd syllabus submitted from the Department of Chemistry (CH). Then, the syllabi were anonymized, and their metadata was saved to a separate spreadsheet.

Syllabi were scored with 0 or 1 depending on whether they listed each of the three Identity Safety Cues (ISCs) of interest: instructor pronouns, inclusivity statements, and materials written by women and gender minority authors. For detailed information on how the faculty analyzed the syllabi, see Bernardi et al. (2024); Appendix 1 contains the custom-made rubric used to score each syllabus in the dataset. While our rubric allows for a broad analysis of syllabi content, we continue to focus on these three ISCs as valuable signals of faculty's inclusive teaching practices. We consider three demographic axes: gender, rank, and field, and study their influence on syllabi design as described in the sections below.

In our analysis we used both descriptive and predictive statistics to understand syllabi content and how it relates to faculty demographics. Descriptive statistics provide a clear summary of the inclusivity features of the 169 syllabi collected (see Results Sections 4.1–4.3). To understand the influence of faculty demographics on the design of their course syllabi, we calculated measures of central tendency and variability and identified general patterns in the syllabi at our disposal.

We used a predictive classification tree algorithm to identify the demographic factors that are most important and influence certain inclusivity outcomes. This approach is ideal for handling categorical and binary data and produced the most accurate predictions for our dataset. Basic linear regression and logistic regression do not work well when comparing different categorical data such as the variables “Instructor” and “MATH.” Although we did consider more complex models, like random forests or boosted models, these algorithms are typically designed for large datasets, and with only 169 data points, an overly complex model is unnecessary. Classification trees achieved the highest prediction accuracy for our data, and they are more intuitive and easier to interpret, making them ideal for our analysis.

We build classification trees to predict what faculty demographic characteristics influence the most whether a syllabus includes a specific Identity Safety Cue (ISC). We predict the binary outcome of whether syllabi do or do not include a certain ISC (y variable), and consider each field, gender, and rank as a separate (x) variable, rather than grouping them within the three demographic axes.

For our dataset, at each node the tree algorithm evaluates all possible variables among the gender, rank, and field options (always categorical or binary). The variable that provides the highest information gain and enhances the model outcomes is selected; then, the data is split into two branches, with one branch representing data which contains the selected variable, and the other representing data that does not. The process continues with further splits along each branch until the model is ready to make a prediction about whether the data contains the selected y variable or not, with the best possible accuracy. Classification trees were produced using the R statistical package rpart which provides advanced tools for precise analyses and reliable results (Therneau and Atkinson, 2022). Further details about the implementation and analysis of our classification tree algorithm are provided in Supplementary Material 2.

We first investigated how the gender of instructors affects the inclusion of our three Identity Safety Clues of interest on course syllabi; here, we maintain the binary gender distinction discussed in Section 3.3.1. Figure 3 shows a treemap chart representing syllabi ISC content based on faculty gender; to improve readability, we label pronouns as P, inclusivity statements as IS, and materials written by women and gender minority authors as GMA. The area of each color-coded column is meant to underline the difference in sample size by gender; our dataset includes about 2.5 as many syllabi authored by men (n = 123, red) compared to syllabi written by women (n = 46, purple). The size of individual boxes is matched to the percentage of syllabi that contains the specific ISC(s) for each gender. That is, for example, the largest box in Figure 3 is red and labeled as “None 67.5%” to indicate that 67.5% of the syllabi in our dataset authored by men (83 of 123) do not include any of the ISCs of interest. Interestingly, the corresponding percentage for women instructor is 23.9% (11 of 46 syllabi). Only 0.8% of syllabi authored by men (1 of 123) include all ISCs while the percentage (and number) is much larger for women instructors (17.4%, 8 of 46).

Inclusivity statements are the most used ISC across all instructors (appearing alone or in combination with other ISCs in 24.4% of syllabi authored by men and 58.7% authored by women), followed by the use of course materials produced by women and gender minority authors (13% for syllabi written by men and 39.1% for syllabi written by women), and finally pronouns (4% and 23.9% for syllabi created by men and women, respectively). Notably, all syllabi authored by women which include pronouns also include inclusivity statements (“P & IS 6.5%”) while the same is not true for men. Overall, the visualization in Figure 3 shows how in our dataset women instructors are using Identity Safety Cues more frequently than men.

Next, we considered how faculty rank influences the inclusion of pronouns, inclusivity statements, and materials produced by women and gender minority authors on course syllabi; here we use the rank categorization introduced in Section 3.3.2. Figure 4 is a four-column stacked bar chart representing syllabi ISC content organized by faculty rank. Left to right, we first show the overall percentage of syllabi in our dataset authored by faculty with each rank. Of the n = 169 syllabi, 67 (39.7%) were written by faculty within the instructor category, which includes all fixed term faculty on campus. The remaining syllabi are distributed among assistant professors (19 syllabi, 11.2%), associate professors (45 syllabi, 26.6%), and professors (38 syllabi, 22.5%), each category including both teaching stream and dual-mission faculty.

Then, we consider one at a time the syllabi presenting each of the ISCs, alone or in combination, and show the percentages of those syllabi authored by faculty in each rank category; the second, third, and fourth columns of Figure 4 represent syllabi with women and gender minority authors, inclusivity statements, and pronouns, respectively. Our dataset includes n = 34 syllabi enlisting materials produced by women and gender minority authors (second column). A little less than half of these were written by instructors (44.1%, 15 syllabi), followed by professors (26.5%, 9 syllabi), and lastly by assistant and associate professors (with 14.7% each, 5 syllabi). Of the n = 57 syllabi which incorporate inclusivity statements (third column), about one quarter were created by professors (24.6%, 14 syllabi) and 45.6% by instructors (26 syllabi). Our dataset includes only n = 16 syllabi with pronouns (fourth column) over half of which were authored by faculty in the instructor category (56.2%, 9 syllabi).

Finally, our dataset also contains 94 (of 169) syllabi with no ISCs, not represented in the last three columns of Figure 4; of these, 37 were created by instructors, 8 by assistant professors, 31 by associate professors, and 18 by professors (for a summary of this data, see Supplementary Table 3). As such, the syllabi with no ISCs account for 55.2% of those written by instructors (37 of 67), 42.1% of those created by assistant professors (8 of 19), 68.9% by associate professors (31 of 45), and 47.4% of those produced by professors (18 of 38). Assistant professors use the most Identity Safety Cues overall, with 57.9% of their syllabi including at least one ISC. Professors follow, with 52.6% of syllabi having at least one ISC. Further behind are instructors and associate professors, whose syllabi include at least one ISC < 50% of the time (44.8% and 31.1%, respectively).

Lastly, we were interested in understanding how faculty from different academic fields handle the inclusion of Identity Safety Cues in course syllabi. We based our analysis on the field breakdown introduced in Section 3.3.3, which groups syllabi in our dataset in 6 fields: Engineering, Humanities & Arts, Mathematical Sciences, Sciences, Social Sciences, and Technology, as visualized in Figure 2. Specifically, in Figure 5 we consider the number of syllabi with each ISC by field. We feature three histograms side by side showing syllabi with materials authored by women and gender minority authors (left), inclusivity statements (center), and pronouns (right), alone or in combination. Each histogram bar represents one field, and its height matches the number of syllabi from that field appearing in our dataset (also listed in the legend). The filled-in coloring, and corresponding numerical label, indicate how many of the syllabi in each field include the ISC in question. Bars are color-coded based on the field to match Figure 2.

We can see that of the Engineering syllabi collected (portrayed in blue as the first bar on the left in each histogram), 5 include materials written by women and gender minority authors (left), 7 include inclusivity statements (center), and 0 include pronouns (right). Here, as in Figure 4, we simply bin each syllabus which includes an ISC in the corresponding histogram regardless of whether it includes other ISCs. As such, due to Identity Safety Cues overlap, it is possible that the number of syllabi with no ISCs is higher than it appears in this visualization. We report the number of syllabi with no ISCs by field in Supplementary Table 4.

Identity Safety Cues are used most frequently in the Humanities & Arts, where approximately 46% of syllabi include materials written by women and gender minority scholars, almost 63% have inclusivity statements, and about 29% have pronouns. The field where ISCs appear the least is Technology, where 0 syllabi include materials produced by women and gender minority authors or pronouns, and only about 17% have inclusivity statements. Inclusivity statements are the only ISC employed in at least one syllabus in each field.

We take a closer look at the two fields with the highest number of syllabi in our dataset, Mathematical Sciences (n = 38) and Humanities & Arts (n = 35). Recall that we collected syllabi to match student enrollment data (as described in Section 3.2), so these two fields count the largest number of syllabi because the corresponding departments serve the largest number of students in their first and sophomore years on WPI campus. The upset plots in Figure 6 provide a detailed look at syllabi content in Mathematical Sciences (MATH), Figure 6A, and Humanities & Arts (HUA), Figure 6B. On the right of each figure, the large histogram bars showcase the number of syllabi that present each Identity Safety Cue, using the same shorthand labels as in Figure 3: P for pronouns, IS for inclusivity statements, and GMA for materials written by women and gender minority authors. The filled-in dots below the histogram bars indicate which ISC (or combination thereof) is being considered in each bar. That is, for example, the leftmost bar counts how many syllabi contain all three ISCs; this is represented below the bar by connecting the filled-in dots for each ISC. Zero syllabi include all ISCs for Mathematical Sciences (Figure 6A) while 8 do for Humanities & Arts (Figure 6B).

Continuing left to right, we identify how many syllabi include both inclusivity statements and pronouns (2 for MATH and 1 for HUA), pronouns and gender minority authors (0 for both fields), and gender minority authors and inclusivity statements (2 and 4 for MATH and HUA, respectively). Next, we consider one ISC at a time; 0 syllabi in Mathematical Sciences (Figure 6A) and 1 in Humanities & Arts (Figure 6B) include only pronouns as an ISC. Looking exclusively at inclusivity statements, we count 8 syllabi in MATH and 9 in HUA in this group. Then, 3 syllabi in Mathematical Sciences and 4 in Humanities & Arts include only materials authored by women and gender minority authors. Finally, we report that 23 Mathematical Sciences syllabi have no Identity Safety Cues, as opposed to 8 Humanities & Arts syllabi (Figures 6A, B, respectively).

The total number of syllabi which include each of the ISCs is visualized in the summary horizontal bar graph shown on the left of each upset plot. Each ISC is listed on a separate row and the corresponding horizontal bar on the left counts the total number of syllabi that include that ISC (or no ISCs for the first row). For example, the fourth row in Figure 6B shows how many Humanities & Arts syllabi include pronouns (P): 8 have all ISCs, 1 has inclusivity statements and pronouns, 0 include pronouns and materials authored by women and gender minority scholars, and 1 has pronouns only, for a total of 10 syllabi with pronouns. It is clear from this deeper dive into the characteristics of syllabi in these two fields, that faculty in the Humanities & Arts tend to use more ISCs than those in the Mathematical Sciences, with almost twice as many syllabi (27 of 35, approximately 80%) which include at least one ISC in HUA compared to MATH (only 15 of 38, approximately 40%). For both fields, inclusivity statements are the most used ISC, appearing alone or in combination with others in 12 of the 15 syllabi which include at least one ISC for Mathematical Sciences and in 22 of 27 syllabi for Humanities & Arts. Similarly, for both fields the least common ISC is pronouns, which appear only on 2 syllabi for MATH and 10 syllabi for HUA. It is worth noting that our entire dataset (n = 169) contains a total of 16 syllabi with pronouns, 10 of which belong to HUA faculty.

The descriptive statistics results in Sections 4.1–4.3 provide a better understanding of our dataset by faculty gender, rank, and field. Next, we build classification trees to identify important predictors linking to the likelihood of different Identity Safety Cues appearing on syllabi with a high degree of accuracy. Specifically, the following sections detail the results of our classification tree analysis capturing the influence of faculty demographics on the presence of pronouns (4.4.1), inclusivity statements (4.4.2), and materials written by women and gender minority authors on course syllabi (4.4.3). Additionally, we build a tree to investigate the most influential factors for syllabi to present at least one ISC, regardless of which one (Section 4.4.4). Each model's accuracy and key influencing factors are highlighted through tabled information gain values computed for each variable considered.

Women in academia, especially in STEM fields, have historically faced significant challenges and discrimination due to stereotypes and implicit biases especially in the areas of compensation, recognition for scholarly work, and institutional dynamics (Charlesworth and Banaji, 2019; Gruber et al., 2020; Casad et al., 2021). Because so many women faculty personally experienced discrimination (Kube et al., 2024), they could be particularly motivated to create inclusive classroom environments where all students feel supported and valued (Darchuck, 2024). By including ISCs on their syllabi, women may be trying to explicitly signal that their courses are safe spaces for students from historically marginalized groups.

Women faculty participate in service activities at higher rates than their male colleagues, often carrying out service responsibilities tied to their identities such as gender, race, and sexual orientation (Guarino and Borden, 2017; Mitchell and Hesli, 2013; Porter, 2007; Pyke, 2011; Joseph and Hirshfield, 2011; Gruber et al., 2020). As part of these service activities, women may participate in communities of practice, professional development trainings, and mentoring programs (Ortiz-Martínez et al., 2023, p. 12). The exposure to these opportunities could translate into gaining skills in inclusive pedagogical practices. For example, a woman of color computational physicist might be approached to participate in developing curricula for marginalized students who are beginning their 1^st-year majoring in physics at her institution. This is outside of her field of expertise, but on this committee, she learns pedagogical strategies that facilitate inclusivity in the classroom and may choose to implement them in her own teaching and syllabi design.

Another important consideration that arises from our analysis is that women faculty in STEM fields tend to use content produced by women and gender minority authors more frequently than their men counterparts. Other studies such as Harris et al. (2020) produced similar results showing that female faculty in STEM subjects used materials written by women authors more often in their courses (p. 7). This is notable because, despite there being limited books and scholarship authored by women and gender minority authors in STEM (Xiang et al., 2024; Wood et al., 2020; Simpson et al., 2021; Becker and Nilsson, 2021; Pienta and Smith, 2012), women STEM faculty are seeking to integrate authors' gender diversity into their curriculum (Harris et al., 2020). This practice is often more challenging in STEM classrooms compared to the Humanities and Social Sciences because of the prevailing belief that STEM subjects are purely objective and therefore the gender of textbooks' authors does not matter (Bowen, 2021).

However, research shows that even in STEM subjects, objectivity is relative because instructors and researchers are people carrying their own biases which impact their teaching practices (Kube et al., 2024). Any research question inherently carries some bias because focusing on one question means others are left out. Additionally, the meaning of research results can vary depending on who is interpreting them (Jasanoff, 2009, p. 269). Furthermore, STEM textbooks often use examples only involving male characters and focused on traditionally male activities, thus perpetuating biases, stereotypes, and the dominant narrative that only men belong in STEM (O'Leary et al., 2020; Kuchynka et al., 2022; Harbin et al., 2019).

In summary, syllabi signal faculty commitment to inclusive teaching practices. Our findings suggest that both gender and academic field significantly influence the use of ISCs in course syllabi. Notably, men and faculty in non-HUA fields consistently show lower implementation rates, indicating substantial room for growth in creating welcoming academic spaces for students. The following section explores the role of faculty's fields of study in greater depth, highlighting how the Humanities & Arts disciplines play a pivotal role in promoting inclusivity with their use of Identity Safety Cues.

Our study revealed that faculty in the Humanities & Arts (HUA) at WPI, regardless of gender and rank, are most likely to include at least one Identity Safety Cue (ISC) on their syllabi; approximately 77% of them do (27 of 35), as shown in Figures 5, 6B, and 10. Only 16 of the 169 syllabi in our dataset contain pronouns; 10 of these are for HUA courses (62.5%, Figures 5, 6B, and 7). Inclusivity statements are the only ISC that appears in at least one syllabus in each field (Figures 5 and 8). Yet, once again, HUA is the field that counts the most syllabi with inclusivity statements, with 22 out of 57 syllabi (about 39%, Figures 5 and 6B). Thirty-four syllabi in our dataset contain materials written by women and gender minority authors, 16 of which are HUA syllabi (47%, Figures 5, 6B, and 9).

Interestingly, men in HUA are more likely to incorporate at least one ISC on their course syllabi compared to men in all other disciplines (Figure 11). Also, women and men with the rank of instructor and men with the rank of professor are the most likely groups to incorporate materials written by women and gender minority authors in their courses (Figure 9). The changing composition of faculty bodies toward a smaller number of tenure-track positions has led to an increase in instructors hired in contingent roles (Spinrad and Relles, 2022; Maxey and Kezar, 2015). As such, instructors may be more flexible in their syllabi design and more open to incorporating less traditional course materials to engage students and stay relevant in their fields as they look for permanent positions. Instructors may also be more up to date on current trends in academia and society as they often are hired after recently completing graduate school. Finally, research indicates that students hope for more inclusive classroom environments regardless of their major and gender (Bernardi et al., 2024); faculty at the instructor rank might try to shape their courses to be more inclusive to receive positive course evaluations and remain competitive in their contingent positions.

Thanks to their seniority and established positions, men professors might feel more comfortable introducing diverse perspectives without fear of repercussions. Tierney and Bensimon (1996) discuss how tenure can provide the security needed for faculty to pursue diverse and potentially controversial academic interests. This may extend to non-traditional teaching practices: tenure provides the academic freedom to explore and promote a wider range of scholarship in one's course.

Generally, faculty in HUA disciplines such as literature, gender studies, history, Africana studies, art, philosophy, etc. are often more attuned to the importance of including diverse perspectives and challenging dominant narratives compared to those in STEM (Sensoy and DiAngelo, 2017, p. 6). Additionally, HUA disciplines often have more readily available course materials produced by women and gender minority authors compared to STEM, making it easier for all faculty to incorporate such scholarship into their course materials (Phillips, 2024; Kuchynka et al., 2022). Lastly, faculty in HUA fields often share a commitment to social justice and equity, which promotes the inclusion of a wider spectrum of voices in their courses (Gannon, 2020).

Removing HUA as a variable when considering the inclusion of materials written by women and gender minority authors on syllabi (Figure 10) allowed us to better understand the mechanisms at play in other fields. In STEM and the Social Sciences, where gender minority authored texts are less frequently utilized, faculty gender and rank emerged as important predictors of who would employ these course resources. As previously mentioned, senior faculty may have more autonomy or resources to incorporate diverse materials in their courses. Instructors who are not on the tenure track may have less at stake when including a variety of authors, even in fields where such scholarship is less prevalent. Overall, women faculty in STEM select materials written by women and gender minority authors for their syllabi more often than men do. The findings point to structural differences between the Humanities and other fields, highlighting how STEM and Social Science disciplines may need more targeted efforts to increase the representation of gender minority authors in course content.

When focusing on the use of Identity Safety Cues in STEM and the Social Sciences, our study identifies general trends and some differences in how inclusive practices are adopted across fields. It seems that, overall, being in a STEM field has a significant negative impact on the likelihood of having any ISCs on course syllabi. When considering the presence of at least one ISC, the best performing STEM field is Engineering where 12 of 24 syllabi spanning four Engineering (ENG) disciplines, each have exactly one ISC. However, no ENG syllabi have pronouns and none present more than one ISC. When taking a closer look to more granular results, faculty gender and field together often work as a guiding force toward the inclusion (or exclusion) of ISCs on syllabi while rank is a less influential factor. For example, women faculty in the field of Mathematical Sciences at WPI are more likely to include pronouns on their syllabi compared to women in all other STEM and Social Sciences fields (Figure 7). While encouraging to see, the sample size for this specific subgroup is quite small (only 3 of the 38 MATH syllabi in our dataset were written by women, and 2 of 3 include pronouns) so making general statements is challenging. This unusual result may be due to the changing culture in Mathematical Sciences at WPI, the personal commitment to inclusivity of specific faculty, or the influence of gender diversity initiatives within the mathematics community at large.

This happens again when considering the TECH field (i.e., Computer Science and Data Science). In general, TECH includes the smallest number of ISCs: only 3 out of 18 syllabi have inclusivity statements while no pronouns or materials written by women and gender minority authors are used. This is visible, for example, in Figure 11 where on the left side of the tree, TECH is the first branch to split off and 14 of 15 syllabi written by men are predicted not to include any ISCs. In contrast, women in TECH do much better, with 2 out of 3 syllabi including at least one ISC (this fact is not explicitly reported in the tree since TECH appears in aggregate with other fields on the right side of the tree).

Our analysis further indicates that faculty in the Social Sciences include ISCs on their syllabi much less often than faculty in the Humanities & Arts (Figure 5). Considering the gender parity in baccalaureate as well as doctoral degrees awarded in the Social Sciences in the U.S.A. (Casad et al., 2021), one would expect these disciplines to have high ISC usage on syllabi given the demonstrated strong influence of gender on inclusivity. However, while some subjects like psychology and sociology have more than 50% women graduates (over 70% for psychology), others, such as economics, business, and political science, have significant underrepresentation of women among doctoral degree recipients and faculty (Gruber et al., 2020; Casad et al., 2021; Lundberg and Stearns, 2019).

All students at WPI must take six courses in the Humanities & Arts to graduate (Cohen, 1977); 27 of the 35 HUA syllabi in our dataset contain at least one ISC, which shows that many of our students are being exposed to at least some equity-focused pedagogical practices in those classes. Nonetheless, more STEM and Social Sciences faculty should be incorporating ISCs in their courses to help create a welcoming environment for all students that extends beyond the Humanities & Arts disciplines.

The infrequent use of ISCs in most fields is in sharp contrast with students' needs and expectations (Bernardi et al., 2024). We underline the importance of taking an inclusive approach in syllabi design across all disciplines, starting with a more widespread inclusion of pronouns, materials written by women and gender minority authors, and inclusivity statements. The implications of these findings lie in the need to promote equity and inclusion in STEM education. STEM fields have traditionally been less open to change, not inclusive of people's lived experiences, and intolerant toward differences, often perpetuating environments that marginalize underrepresented groups. Studies show that building a supportive environment in STEM courses for all students is beneficial for everyone, but can have a particularly positive impact on those from historically marginalized groups, such as women and people of color, who typically have higher attrition rates (Hughes, 2018; Funk and Parker, 2018; Stout and Wright, 2016; Chang et al., 2014; Ashford et al., 2017; Maimon et al., 2021; Savaria and Monteiro, 2017). Using Identity Safety Cues in STEM courses can help break down barriers that might prevent students from fully engaging in their education.

While this study provides valuable insights into the use of Identity Safety Cues (ISCs) in university syllabi, some limitations must be acknowledged. First, the dataset contains 169 syllabi exclusively from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This may limit the generalizability of the findings to other universities that are not STEM-focused or that have different faculty demographics. Second, the study relies on the analysis of syllabi which may not fully capture the inclusive practices faculty employ in their classes. For example, instructors may use groundbreakingly inclusive strategies in their teaching without mentioning them in their syllabi. Third, we consider the inclusion of three specific ISCs—pronouns, inclusivity statements, and course materials written by women and gender minority authors—as indicators of inclusive teaching practices. Although these aspects of course syllabi are important to students and signal the inclusivity of a faculty's teaching approach, there are many other possible markers for inclusivity we are not considering. Fourth, there is a potential for bias in the self-selection of syllabi submitted to the study. Instructors who are more aware of and committed to inclusivity may be more likely to submit their syllabi for analysis, potentially skewing the results. Finally, the study does not account for the varying levels of training and support faculty receive in implementing inclusive practices, which could influence the use of ISCs. Nonetheless, this study provides valuable insights into inclusivity at a STEM university.