I was scared and excited to do the work: rehumanizing mathematics through lesson study at a Latine-serving institution

RM (Gutiérrez, 2018) draws from the tradition of sociopolitical mathematics education (Gutiérrez, 2010/2013) that emphasizes identity and power. RM includes 8 dimensions of learning (participation/positioning, cultures/our stories-their stories, windows/mirrors, living practice/futures, bodies/emotions, broadening mathematics, creation, and ownership/stewardship). Each dimension requires the educator; first consider what is the typical narrative about mathematics presented to students in schools. For example, for Bodies/Emotions, a typical message students receive is you do not need your body to do mathematics; you only need your mind. After identifying this kind of harmful narrative, educators flip it to create a counter narrative that is healthier (e.g. your body serves as an important resource for gesture, movements, and intuition). For example, in a lesson on mathematical induction, rather than having students watch their instructor draw a network with vertices and edges on the board, in one LS team, groups of students “physically became the network” and acted out the inductive steps. By engaging their bodies—instead of just following a standard algorithm—students extracted deeper meaning from the lesson and were able to “feel their argument” in a more convincing manner.

Using the RM framework, educators need support to understand how systems of oppression (e.g. white supremacy, cisheteropatriarchy, ableism) operate through mathematics (See, for example, Leyva et al., 2021; Moore, 2021; Yeh, 2023) so they can dismantle university/college practices and policies that continue to sort/categorize/divide students and create healthier conditions that center the needs of queer Indigenous, Black, and students of Color (Gutiérrez et al., 2023). We note that the supremacy of deductive logic is being addressed in the induction example above by affirming a body/mind/spirit connection that is important for many Indigenous peoples.

These dimensions are not a set of prescribed practices but a theoretical framework and mapping space for educators to frame and reflect on their practice. Queer Indigenous, Black, and students of Color are centered in this framework to address reparations for the damage they have experienced in traditional mathematics classrooms. See Figure 1.

Empirical studies on RM in college/university settings have shown that Latine STEM majors experience mathematics in dehumanizing ways (Cervantes, 2021; Leyva et al., 2021); show decreased achievement gaps when their professors utilize RM (MacArthur, 2022); support Latina women during exams (MacArthur, 2023); and demonstrate how relationality and care are important components of RM (MacArthur et al., 2025). Importantly, these studies focus upon students; how they envisioned RM; and how they experienced instructors’ attempts to rehumanize mathematics. However, we still know little about how mathematicians might make sense of the RM framework or how they can be supported to rehumanize mathematics. An exception is a study of one mathematics professor in India and how he conceived of his roles and responsibilities around the dimension of creation when supported to learn more about the concept (Chhikara and Gutiérrez, 2025). The results of the current study are significant for helping further flesh out our understanding of RM in practice.

LS is an inquiry cycle that supports teachers to experiment, observe, and improve. In addition to instructional improvement, LS develops classroom observation skills, de-privatizes teaching, builds community among instructors, and develops collaborative reflection practice (Perry and Lewis, 2009; Huang et al., 2017a). A widespread practice in Japan, LS’s adoption in the United States gained traction in mathematics education in the late 1990s (Stigler and Hiebert, 2009). Researchers informing our LS implementation include Catherine Lewis and collaborators (Lewis, 2004; Lewis et al., 2019; Lewis and Perry, 2017; lessonresearch.net) and Akihiko Takahashi (2015; Takahashi and McDougal, 2016; lsalliance.org). We acknowledge the important international work by Huang et al. (2017b, 2019), as well as others who, in an exhaustive review, have found that Chinese Lesson Study (CLS) is a deliberate practice for developing instructional expertise; a research methodology for linking research and practice; and an improvement science for instruction and school improvement system wide. In addition to the theorization of CLS, researchers offer adaptations of CLS outside of China such as the USA and Italy (Huang et al., 2017a). See Figure 2 for a graphic illustrating the LS cycle.

Empirical results on LS demonstrate positive influence on teacher and student learning (Lewis and Perry, 2017; Saxe et al., 2001; Vermunt et al., 2019), institutions and systems (Dudley et al., 2019), and student mathematics achievement and attitudes (Aykan, 2024). While LS has gained substantial traction in K–12 mathematics in the US, relatively few adoptions in higher education are documented. Thus, understanding how university mathematicians made sense of a LS model for learning about RM is important.

This study was conducted at a Latine Serving Institution (HSI) that was predominantly white but becoming increasingly more racially/ethnically diverse. In fall (2023), Latine students comprised 40.6% of all students; white students were 41.6% of the student body. The institution is a public, midsize, primarily residential US university on the West Coast offering mostly undergraduate degrees. The current student population is between 5,000 and 6,000 students.

The Department of Mathematics and Statistics (“the Department”) offers programs in mathematics and statistics in addition to many service courses for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) majors and the General Education (GE) mission of the University. All incoming first-year students are required to take a GE math course. Thus, the Department is part of just about every student’s education at the University. With 20 faculty members, about half of whom are tenure-track and half are lecturers (non-permanent status), the Department has an even gender split but is overwhelmingly white (over 80%). Many faculties in the Department have engaged in at least four LS cycles over the previous 15 years, led by department members with extensive experience leading K–12 LS. The courses for the previous lesson studies were Math for Elementary Teachers, Elementary Statistics, Calculus I, and Real Analysis.

The Department has a long-standing commitment to equitable teaching and learning practices. After several years of individual faculty attending equity workshops, practicing several rounds of LS, and ad-hoc efforts to support students of color, the Department applied for and was awarded a National Science Foundation-HSI grant to achieve larger culture change and a learning environment that is truly “Hispanic” (Latine) serving. The program was piloted in the Department and field-tested in five other university STEM departments. Key components include student-centered professional development (PD) workshops on equity, rehumanizing STEM, culturally responsive pedagogy, LS, and collegial collaboration to remove institutional barriers for student success.

Faculty were invited to learn about each piece of the framework through a variety of PD sessions. In Spring (2022), 26 faculty members (20 from the Department and partners from other STEM departments) participated in 4 LS groups: two in elementary statistics, one in calculus, and one in a bridge proof writing course (entry to the upper-division math major courses). Participants were introduced to the RM framework and the 8 dimensions in a 3-day workshop in January 2022, where they responded anonymously to discussion prompts on Padlets about their developing understanding of the RM dimensions. Each LS team began planning its lesson by selecting one to two focus dimensions (e.g. windows/mirrors, bodies/emotions), and writing briefly about the typical narrative around that dimension in mathematics, the counter-narrative that was their goal, evidence to try to see/hear/learn from students, thoughts about how to choose focal students, strengths/expertise/sensibilities in the LS team, and possible challenges and plans to address those. Teams then chose their lesson to (re)design, in the context of this RM pre-work.

The LS cycle is commonly defined by four phases: study, plan, do/test, reflect (and repeat) (Lewis et al., 2019). While we followed each of these phases, the details of each phase were unique because we incorporated Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, the goals of RM, and focused on Latine students. We also followed a lesson plan format guide developed by the California Action Network for Mathematics Excellence and Equity (CANMEE; https://cmpso.org/canmee/) and a planning/reflection guide on RM created by Rochelle. LS teams were supported by facilitators who had experienced at least one previous LS cycle and who met weekly with the LS coordinator. The first author served as equity commentator for most of the teams, giving feedback at a mid-planning stage on the teams’ efforts to implement a dimension. At the end of the semester, all LS teams presented their evidence and findings to the entire project in an on-campus mini-conference.

In early 2023, 13 participants responded to a survey about their experiences with RM in the context of LS. Survey questions included: “How would you describe RM to someone in a different math/science department?” and “What, if anything, about the LS process influenced how you understood or made sense of the 8 dimensions of RM?”

At the time of the survey, most of the participants were starting a second round of LS. During spring of 2023, three of the 13 participants were interviewed to share their experiences and understandings in more depth. Interviews lasted 60–90 min. Prompts included: definitions and impressions of RM, the process of RM through LS, evidence collected from students, identity, advice for others, additional information for participants to include, and choice of pseudonym.

Google survey questions were distributed by email to all past participants in the PD workshop on RM, and their responses were collected electronically and anonymized prior to analysis. To protect anonymity, individuals were assigned a randomly selected ID number and an ID key was created so they could be identified later if necessary.

Analysis of survey results was conducted by the four members of the research team under the leadership of the first author, who is external to the Department. This team met weekly via Zoom to collectively review individual analyses and come to a consensus, which was important for ensure interrater reliability in coding and analysis. We began by individually coding survey results inductively and focusing on patterns that arose (Saldaña, 2012). At this phase, some codes included: identity, evaluation of RM, mathematics content, and challenges during LS. After this initial review, we collectively decided on categories for deductive coding of survey responses, such as understanding of RM, expectations of RM, excitement, and resistance. Subsequent meetings included creating a Google document to record salient quotes from the data, where we collectively agreed on how to code each response. For example, while we identified a range of instructors’ opinions of RM, we decided to break this larger category into “understanding of RM,” “expectations of RM,” and “enthusiasm for RM.” Being able to parse whether an instructor had proper understanding of RM was important for any claims we could make about their expectations or their enthusiasm for RM.

After two rounds of deductive coding and discussion, we identified three individuals whose responses varied along identity (gender, race, role of instructor) and evaluations of RM (excitement vs. resistance), which made them good candidates for a follow-up interview. After selecting these de-identified candidates, the first author received the ID key so that she could contact all three and conduct recorded Zoom interviews. The first author analyzed the data collected during the interviews and research team members met to discuss the findings, using the same process as before. We offer general findings about how the participants understood and embraced the concept of RM through LS and then home in on the meaning that one instructor made of LS in RM with a focus on Latine students.

Participants entered the project with varied but mostly vague ideas about what rehumanizing might mean. Survey responses reflected definitions that included such things as connecting math to students’ lives outside of the classroom and building relationships between students and instructors. Participants reported they “understood the term RM in a conceptual sense, but not in a practical way.”

After workshops and one or two LS cycles, participants had more detailed descriptions that involved multiple dimensions and connections between them.

As a result of planning a lesson and reflecting with others, this instructor has a more integrated view of RM, connecting participation/positioning (“voice their own ways of knowing and doing”) with cultures/our/their stories (“recognizing cultural contributions that aren’t Eurocentric”) and creation (“helping them to see that they are creators of mathematics”).

Discussing how LS influenced their understanding of RM dimensions, participants cited “trying to figure out how to craft a lesson that was supported and driven by the dimension also made the fundamentals and nuances more clear.” Feedback from the first author was credited repeatedly as “… the most instructive part of the LS.” Few comments focused on the impact of observing the lesson or learning from others’ observation; most participants’ responses addressed the study/plan phase.

Finally, in response to the survey’s “advice to a colleague” question, participants exhibited conviction about the connection between RM and LS. Common themes included the importance of collaboration in understanding RM dimensions, the value of several colleagues observing a class to understand students’ responses to instructional choices, and the importance of building trust among colleagues to support difficult conversations.

In both quotes, instructors see synergy between LS and RM, where RM ensures “grain sizes that are manageable” and equity is not “being tacked at the end” while LS supports “reconnecting with colleagues about things that really matter”.

While participants exhibited varying degrees of expertise in the RM dimensions, their understanding became more nuanced, and they suggested LS helped make the RM framework more tangible and actionable. In the next section, we feature Zarai who was the only Latina faculty member in the department.

Zarai identifies as a Panamanian, non-binary, Afro-Latina woman and lover of nature. She grew up in a household where fiber arts and playing games were important and where she learned to do mathematics. She has been a professor of mathematics for sixteen years, five of those in the Department. Deeply committed to equity and a member of the group leading this work, Zarai experienced RM through LS uniquely because of her identities.

Zarai’s intersectional identities are key to both who she is, how adept she is at RM, and the meaning she is making of LS with a RM focus. Three themes arose in her responses to the Google survey and interview: 1) Questioning mathematics and centering the most vulnerable, 2) Women of Color doing the work, and 3) Exhausted from fighting.

RM involves moving beyond traditional university work of diversity/equity/belonging to question the nature of mathematics while centering queer Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) people (Gutiérrez, 2018). Yet not all members of the department began (or ended) with that expectation. Some still viewed rehumanizing in a generic sense (e.g. we’re all humans; putting humanity back into mathematics) or focused on motivating students by changing the curriculum (e.g. offering more concrete applications of mathematics). And, while one person routinely expressed negative views about the RM process, most faculty members reported positive views.

Zarai was the only member in her department who expressed both strongly positive and negative views, due to the collaborative work of LS. Previous departmental work on diversity/equity/belonging allowed faculty to focus on their own classrooms and student interactions. With LS, Zarai could not do this work alone or on her own terms; she needed to work with colleagues to plan for teaching, center BIPOC women like herself, defer to colleagues whose classrooms were featured, and debrief with them. Her Google form responses highlighted the tension between being both excited and scared about initiating this work with colleagues.

On the one hand, the work of RM was the perfect next step for her department; faculty had already engaged in foundational work to center students, something few mathematics departments could report. Yet, Zarai’s hesitation was grounded in her deeper understanding about how people had received RM in other spaces. Having taken workshops with the first author, she knew the kind of risks it took to question mathematics, especially as a Black or Brown woman. She had attended a workshop in 2018 at the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics where Rochelle had shared her experience being attacked nationally by the alt-right for linking mathematics and whiteness as well as a workshop on Activism for Mathematicians at MathFest in 2019 where Rochelle introduced strategies for creative insubordination and risk taking. Zarai’s comment highlights how the collective work of LS leads to learning how your colleagues “were actually thinking and feeling.”

Zarai was hopeful because her department had already undergone extensive equity training. But she also presumed RM would not be received well by all her colleagues, as some might not agree with changing mathematics or focusing specifically on Brown students. Her interview underscored this worry and how it might lead to difficult relationships with Department members, something that occurred for a short period of time with one member.

As Zarai feared, some people showed their true selves and were not interested in engaging in the work (“I’m not even going to start this conversation”), which was reflected in Google form responses and disengagement during LS meetings. But others stepped up and deepened their commitment. When she says, “this type of work is different because you’re specifically trying to uplift the most vulnerable,” she is highlighting the fact that with most PD, when everyone is private about their teaching, people can be safe or make claims about their practice and there is no big “reveal.” She knew Rochelle was another Latina deeply committed to holding people accountable for centering queer Latine women/femme students, especially those with Indigenous backgrounds and that might make some of her “colleagues uncomfortable.” Moreover, this LS work (i.e. collectively deciding upon a dimension of RM, planning for instruction, thinking about the evidence to collect from students, and which students), reveals how people are engaging with the definition of RM and its core dimensions.

Zarai further elaborates in her interview how grateful she was that people who had signed up to do this work did it, which seems a fairly low bar for others. But she recognizes her unique role as a faculty member of Color, who carries an extra burden, and is happy when others help share the load.

By centering her own experiences as an AfroLatina who constantly thinks about these issues, who “think[s] about the wrongs that were done to you over your career,” we hear how personal the work is. Thus, having her colleagues agree to do the work, even when “it doesn’t directly affect [them]” is affirming. Other members of the department are unlikely experiencing LS in this same manner, where seeing colleagues meaningfully engaged (or not) reflects oneself.

Similarly, colleagues who reject the RM work are possibly rejecting her as a person. With no other Latinas in her department (and only one other Latine), the work of centering Latine students, even in a “Hispanic”-serving institution, is deeply personal and political work that must constantly be negotiated with others. Zarai explains further how even though the work is tiresome, unlike her colleagues, she cannot simply walk away from it.

While some colleagues in her department have been engaged in diversity/equity/belonging work for some time, she sees their work as a “choice.” Thus, they can also choose what not to engage with—“whiteness.” While other faculty suggested the whole department needed additional training around RM, Zarai was adamant the work needed to be more personal (e.g. introspective) and should involve white faculty digging deeply into their whiteness with each other.

The deeply personal and philosophical nature of this work arises again when Zarai articulates her definition of RM. Whereas others defined RM on the Google form in pedagogical ways (e.g. “Consider perspectives that might not have been considered in curriculum,” “making more meaningful connections with the material”), Zarai referred to RM as “restorative.”

The idea of mathematics being restorative was presented at the workshop, specifically that RM seeks to “return to full presence that [mathematics] which tends to get erased through the process of schooling” (Gutiérrez, 2018, p. 4). However, Zarai was the only one who referred to it in this manner, as if it could be restorative to her in a concrete sense, not just a theoretical one. When she said, “bring it down to the people who create and use math on the day-to-day,” she is perhaps thinking of her own family, as she recognized her mother and others are “doing mathematics” through fiber arts, sewing, etc., but she would never expect family members to hurry over or be excited about a mathematical proof she had written. The emphasis on “restorative” is also consistent with her language of “take it out of the ivory tower of imagined objectivity,” which could be mathematics departments like the one in which she works and recognize that “objectivity” is a myth.

This idea of restoring something that has been erased was also highlighted when Zarai explained how she thought of mathematics in her family.

Zarai was the only faculty member to talk about ancestors and the work of moving beyond the “cult of paper and books.” The notion of our culture being “stuck on books” and the “written word” arises again later in this article when Zarai seeks to convince colleagues of a “woven” proof in place of a “written” one.

When asked about their identities and how those related to the work of RM, most Department members focused on hobbies (e.g. “backpacker bicyclist,” “enjoy theater, music, arts/crafts”), personality traits (e.g. “curious,” “outdoorsy,” “practical”), themselves as mathematicians, and expertise they had (e.g. “I have a lot of experience designing K-16 curriculum and working in K16 math education in traditional and non-traditional ways”) as resources for this work. Others reported on gender, though to a lesser degree (“I’m cisgendered”). Some even suggested that attending to identity was not comfortable, saying, “I have huge problems answering any questions about identity, but I’ll try.” Many faculty members had difficulty in identifying any connection between their identities and the RM work. However, Zarai immediately homed in on the intersection of race and gender to explain how she was uniquely positioned to not only to do the work but could not imagine a future where she was not deeply engaged.

Her position as a woman of color allows her to call out mathematics for what she referred to earlier as an “ivory tower of imagined objectivity.” She elaborates upon this position in her Google form.

Whereas others might feel threatened to challenge mathematics, a key component of RM, Zarai is comfortable because she does not lose anything, including her identity, in the process. Challenging mathematics and doing deeply personal work was underscored in her explanation of why her group did the opposite of other groups who, when choosing a RM dimension for their lesson, “pick[ed] something that’s easy, because they don’t want to work that hard.” Her group picked the RM dimension “that was the most challenging:” body and emotions in a proofs class.

Later in the interview, she recounted trying to engage colleagues in her LS group to rethink the notion of proof, which was encouraged by the RM process.

Zarai could challenge the idea of a written proof because it did not define her; she did not see it as what she had always done. She could explain why it might be harder for others who benefit from the system to want to protect it. And, while her ability to radically dream about other forms of proof (“a woven proof”) would be welcomed, even required, in RM, her LS group made her defend “is it even math?” She described the situation as “really heated” even though she had “come prepared to have that discussion,” “had read up about alternatives to proof writing” and suggested it should have been enough to recount history “it wasn’t always this way, even if you just want to stick with Europeans and Greeks.” Although Zarai came with a wealth of experience and knowledge that could help her group and Department embrace RM, her comments reflect feeling alone or discounted.

Feeling like she had no choice about engaging in the work, Zarai was tired. That a few colleagues stepped up to do the work gave her some hope. However, it did not stop the work from coming.

It is interesting to listen to the many tensions that Zarai faces in doing this work. At the outset, she mentioned that she was both excited and scared to begin the RM work with colleagues. Now, we hear she is both motivated by her identity and her students to keep doing the work while also being exhausted and disheartened that her colleagues are not doing more. Her tensions and how she negotiates them raise questions for how others in the Department are making sense of the RM work, especially through a very public and community-focused process like LS. Do other faculty experience the push and pull of their identities when planning for lessons, engaging in LS meetings, and/or debriefing the lessons?

When asked what advice they would give to others engaged in the process of LS with a RM focus, the Department tended to focus upon processes (“Work together as a group and talk”) and perspectives (e.g. “Approach it with curiosity and enthusiasm!” “Lesson study is amazing. Alone, you can’t see everything you’re doing and every reaction your students are having.” “Get feedback from Rochelle”). However, Zarai emphasized not losing track of the meaning of RM (e.g. challenging mathematics, centering the most vulnerable), remembering their passion, and ensuring change.

The integrity of RM and creating real change is consistent with Zarai’s emphasis on the personal and political. No real change means no change for people like her, which feels untenable.

The goal of the NSF grant was always to learn from the mathematics and statistics department to extend to other departments in the sciences so that more Latine students would have more rehumanizing STEM experiences. However, Zarai found herself in an awkward position when she was tasked with facilitating LS groups in science departments. She had attended workshops and had read literature about RM, making her somewhat of an expert within her department. However, in other departments, that expertise was not always valued. She, along with other mathematics faculty tasked with leading LS groups in various science departments, participated in a second version of the 3-day workshop, this time with a focus on Rehumanizing STEM. She reports fighting against science faculty when she was simply underscoring claims/information from the Rehumanizing STEM workshop they had attended just two months earlier.

Fighting against others in this LS group is reminiscent of her first group (mathematics) who did not want to entertain her alternative notions of proof. In both situations, she has much to offer the group in terms of expertise around LS, RM, and alternative proofs, information the first author (as the outside expert) would have reiterated. Yet, her group discounted this expertise, leaving her feeling like she could not facilitate LS with integrity. Moreover, her explanation of “I’m just repeating what was said” and “I’m trying to get you to do what you said you would do” echoes her earlier statements about being grateful that her “colleagues,” who signed up to do the work, “are actually doing the work.” It raises questions about whether other faculty are grateful that colleagues are doing the work or whether they feel they can be effective LS facilitators in their assigned science groups. Were other women in the department discounted in similar ways?

We learn from Zarai that while LS is a professional process that engages faculty who share common teaching, a RM focus makes it more political and personal. This work is not a set of steps or training she can step away from, give less of herself, or ignore how her colleagues are engaged/committed. This is a process that has the potential to restore her and others (e.g. her family, those who create mathematics on the day-to-day) to a fuller sense of self, to be affirmed and to rest from the fight. As such, it makes sense that engaging with RM during LS was a highly personal endeavor that elicited both excitement and fear.

This study examined the meanings that faculty members in a mathematics and statistics department in a “Hispanic-” (Latine) serving institution made of the work of RM through LS. The department is atypical because they are highly committed faculty who have already invested in equity/diversity/belonging for their Latine students. LS moved this work to more overtly collective and public spaces. Thus, some members were energized and supported to continue to grow (e.g. learned how to do LS better in the second cycle, better understood the value of an outside expert to consult with the faculty, were made more aware of their privileges in society and the assumptions they might make about learning mathematics) so that they could better support their Latine students in mathematics. However, we also witnessed a range of responses about the meaning of RM, and not all faculty viewed the 8 dimensions as useful. Moreover, being prompted to reflect on one’s intersectional identities in relation to RM seemed insufficient for supporting those who needed additional work around whiteness. Overall, however, LS supported learning the RM dimensions, partly through requiring LS groups to choose one dimension to focus upon. That is, LS helped members of the department recognize what they knew and did not know about RM. Moreover, because RM is a conceptual framework, not a set of prescribed practices, LS aided faculty to exert their collective agency around how to implement the ideas in ways that were appropriate for their specific courses/goals.

This study also examined the case of one faculty member. A case study, by its nature, is not generalizable (Yin, 2017). It presents a phenomenon: in this case, Zarai was the only Latina faculty member in a department engaged in RM through LS. Yet, we learn many things through Zarai’s experiences and the meanings she made of them. By focusing on context (working in a department that is already deeply engaged in the work of equity) and identity (being an AfroLatina who constantly thinks about the work), we see how learning the RM dimensions (in her case “body and emotions” in a proofs class) is not only a professional activity that requires cognitive work, it is highly personal and political activity that involves her sense of self and commitments to her home and students like her.

Zarai’s emphasis on learning the RM dimensions and wanting to apply them with integrity during LS were important because doing so meant she could gain support for her ongoing work and because she was tired from doing it alone. Although some of the previously reviewed mathematics education research studies focus on identity in relation to K-12 students learning mathematical concepts, this study centered the learning of RM and the kinds of navigational work required by women of Color like Zarai. Her deeply racialized and gendered experiences are important to understand, as many initiatives where departments seek to deepen their conceptualizations and practices around equity/justice/restoration unknowingly perpetuate the idea that the work is being experienced in the same ways by all members or will be similarly implemented. Individual faculty members sitting in meetings or PD spaces might leave thinking other people processed the session in the same ways. Yet, intersectional identities, along with power dynamics, are always at play. In Zarai’s case, we see how her context and identities led to the tensions she experienced around being both “excited and scared to do the work” with colleagues.

There are various limitations to this study. For example, participants were surveyed and interviewed one year after they received RM PD and about 8 months after their first LS cycle. Therefore, they were looking back at and remembering work that was not recent. To address this issue, we returned to Padlet responses that were offered during the initial RM workshop and, during interviews, prompted participants with documents they had created in the LS cycle (e.g. CANMEE forms, RM: Mapping Our Practice worksheets, and RM/STEM Focus on LS table) to jog their memories. In addition, all but the first author are members of the department under study. Thus, several members of the research team had additional background on, and relationships with, faculty members that sometimes influenced their interpretation of raw data. We attempted to ameliorate the biases by allowing the first author to conduct interviews and lead analyses.

The study results are significant for fleshing out our understanding of RM in practice with university mathematicians. This study raises several issues for researchers studying RM/STEM in other spaces, such as the role of context and students. Because this department already possessed equity/diversity/belonging expertise, participants were somewhat eager to be studied. How might departments that lack a critical mass of committed or expert faculty be encouraged to engage in this work and/or be the focus of a study? How could honesty and vulnerability be encouraged for faculty who see themselves as experts in mathematics but perhaps not in RM? This study used Google survey responses and interviews, which relied upon self-reporting of planning meetings and teaching. These data might not have accurately captured LS in action. To make claims about teaching and/or the full LS cycle, future studies might collect classroom observations and video recordings of lessons or lesson planning meetings. Moreover, data should be collected from students to verify claims that they felt the work was rehumanizing for their learning.

For professional developers of mathematics, understanding the range of responses that faculty members had around a single activity (e.g. a PD workshop in RM, a LS planning meeting) might support them to develop opportunities for participants to pause and reflect on their own identities or the meanings they are making of an activity. Moreover, those pauses and reflections might influence the collective meanings or lessons that departments extract from a PD session. Future PD sessions might collect data from participants to better understand such pauses and reflections as formative assessments for ongoing PD. A persistent PD issue is ownership by participants and sustainability of the ideas/practices. Structuring these reflections and offering opportunities for participants to share the meanings they are making might lead to more empathy and more sustained departmental efforts after the professional developer leaves. That is, shared meanings and commitments could lead to department members continuing to check in with others, build upon that empathy, and/or maintain practices that support their collective reflections and actions towards RM. While we do not offer specific recommendations for how other departments can create a safe space or what processes they can use to attend to challenging collaborations (Mynott, 2022), we note the consequences for faculty who have to negotiate these pedagogical practices that involve identity work and power dynamics. As we continue with this work, we imagine incorporating more explicit supports for collaboration.

For mathematicians and scientists interested in Rehumanizing STEM, case studies of faculty members with different backgrounds and different meanings made of the experience might prompt them to consider how context and identities play out locally. Understanding how others who share your identities or context make sense of such activities could be edifying for individuals who resonate with those perspectives and emotions and/or learn from the different meanings that people experience. In fact, reading such cases could help individuals identify strategies for navigating the political and personal aspects of this work. For those who do not share identities with those featured in case studies, the perspectives offered can highlight why colleagues might experience intense emotions around justice-oriented work and catalyze greater empathy towards those individuals and increased collective commitment. Moreover, understanding the groundwork this department underwent (e.g. LS cycles focused on other topics, PD sessions focused on equity and belonging) before starting the RM work, could help other faculty members identify similarly necessary work that could strengthen the collective commitment and integrity of RM in lessons in their departments.

This study highlighted the value of introducing LS as a means for examining the learning and meaning making that faculty members underwent while in the RM process. It helped both researchers/PD team members and individual faculty members learn. The emphasis on collective work with cycles of teaching lends itself to deepening the meanings and commitments that people make to a topic, in this case RM. Longitudinal studies that follow these faculty members over several years would further expand our understanding of RM in practice and the role of context and identities. With more examples of how RM plays out for different people, in different contexts, over time, our field is better poised to understand and highlight the complexity of work in mathematics that moves beyond traditional notions of equity, diversity, and inclusion towards a version that better addresses our humanity and healing.