No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Evaluating a National Biomedical Training Program Using QuantCrit: Revealing Disparities in Research Self-efficacy for Women of Color Undergraduates
Abstract
This study demonstrates a QuantCrit approach to program evaluation. Examining participants in a national biomedical training program, we reveal differential impacts of the initiative's scholar program and broader curricula changes for Women of Color. We provide implications for program evaluation practices in STEMM equity efforts.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
National trends suggest a growing graduation gap between multiracial undergraduates and undergraduates overall. Grounded in critical multiracial theory (MultiCrit) and quantitative critical race theory (QuantCrit), this quantitative study utilized a sample of student records (N = 10,921) from a public, predominantly White university spanning 2010–2020 to examine whether self-reported or institutionally ascribed race/ethnicity categories reveal gaps in graduation odds between multiracially categorized undergraduates and their peers using binary logistic regression. Self-labeled multiracial students had higher odds of recategorization per Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) standards than a majority of comparison groups. Further, different statistically significant graduation gaps involving multiracially categorized students were found using self-reported race/ethnicity categories compared to their assigned IPEDS reporting categories. All but one statistically significant finding showed the multiracial reference group as more likely to graduate than the comparison group. Implications are outlined to reduce erasure of statistically significant graduation gaps related to multiracially categorized undergraduates resulting from IPEDS (re)categorization.
Novel approaches in higher education are needed to reverse underrepresentation of racial/ethnic groups in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM). Building on theoretical frameworks for practice in diverse learning environments, this study provides evidence for Inclusive Science as a conceptual model that reflects initiatives intended to diversify biomedical research training for undergraduates. Using multiple case study design and cross-case analysis, we analyzed data from 10 higher education sites that were awarded the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) grant funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). We identified the following dimensions of the Inclusive Science model: promoting participation of diverse researchers; introducing diversity innovations in science and research curriculum; improving campus climate for diversity; providing tangible institutional support; creating partnerships with diverse communities; and integrating students’ social identities with science identity. We illustrate each dimension of the model with examples of campus practices across BUILD sites. While many may doubt that science can be responsive to diversity, the interventions developed by these campuses illustrate how colleges and universities can actively engage in culturally responsive practices in STEMM undergraduate training that integrate trainees’ identities, knowledge of diverse communities, and create a greater awareness of the climate for diversity that affects student training and outcomes. Implications include culturally responsive strategies that many more higher education institutions can employ to support scientific career training for historically excluded groups.
Background
Students’ sense of belonging in college—an individual’s feelings of contentment, mattering, importance, and “finding one’s place” in a social setting—can influence choice of major and career trajectory. We contribute to the belongingness literature through a mixed methods intersectional study of students attending a STEM-focused public university we call Meadow State University (MSU). We assess the potential for students’ intersecting social identities to differentially influence their experiences with intersectional oppression—subjection to multiple systems of oppression due to simultaneous membership in more than one marginalized group—that, in turn, may influence their college pathways. In addition, we explore whether intersectional differences affect sense of belonging differently in STEM and non-STEM majors. We employ a mixed-methods approach, informed by critical quantitative methods and in-depth interviews. We utilize quantitative institutional data measuring college satisfaction, expressed as “willingness to return” to the same university, for over 3,000 students during two academic years (2013–14 and 2016–17). Survey data explores college satisfaction as an indicator of intersectional differences in student experiences. Then, we analyze 37 in-depth interviews, collected between 2014–2016 at the same institution, to further contextualize the intersectional variation suggested by survey results.
Results
Willingness to return is influenced by major, as well as academic, social, and campus belonging. Moreover, the extent to which these factors affected outcomes additionally varied by race/ethnicity, gender, family income, other background factors, and the ways these factors may intersect. Important components of academic belonging included faculty-student interactions, perceptions of academic support, and a privileging of STEM degree programs and students over non-STEM students and their degree programs at MSU. Faculty responsiveness and high impact practices like internships played an important role, particularly in STEM programs. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that, particularly for students of color and those subject to intersectional oppression due to multiple marginalized identities, satisfaction with academics did not always outweigh deficiencies in other areas of campus life shaping belongingness.
Conclusions
Our mixed-methods approach contributes insights into how and why students’ background, individual choices, and institutional practices concurrently—and intersectionally—influence their ability to form a sense of belonging on campus. Structural changes are required to end practices that support intersecting systems of oppression by favoring White, upper-income men as the “default” STEM students in the U.S. Our research supports growing evidence that institutions must actively build models of inclusion for underrepresented and marginalized groups that address inequitable and unjust practices, providing transformative mentoring and educational guidance that attends to intersectional oppression, in order to effectively support the next generation of women and scholars of color.
While much of the promotion for undergraduate research (UR) originates from the natural sciences, this high-impact practice should also occur in social science to prepare students for
graduate school/ the workforce and should be integrated into lower-division general education courses. Our study examines content and skills gained by students from two course-based
undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) in Introduction to Sociology courses. Pre- and post-course survey analyses, post-survey student outcomes of a CURE class compared against
students enrolled in three non-CURE Introduction to Sociology classes, and a content analysis of end-of-semester papers indicate student knowledge gain in specific topical areas,
methodological skills, and major sociology theoretical perspectives. We conclude that UR enhances research- and sociology-related knowledge.
Concerns about systemic racism at academic and research institutions have increased over the past decade. Here, we investigate data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of research in the United States, and find evidence for pervasive racial disparities. In particular, white principal investigators (PIs) are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs. Funding rates for white PIs have also been increasing relative to annual overall rates with time. Moreover, disparities occur across all disciplinary directorates within the NSF and are greater for research proposals. The distributions of average external review scores also exhibit systematic offsets based on PI race. Similar patterns have been described in other research funding bodies, suggesting that racial disparities are widespread. The prevalence and persistence of these racial disparities in funding have cascading impacts that perpetuate a cumulative advantage to white PIs across all of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) created the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) initiative to incentivize undergraduate institutions to create innovative approaches to increasing diversity in biomedical research, with the ultimate goal of diversifying the NIH‐funded research enterprise. Initiatives such as BUILD involve designing and implementing programs at multiple sites that share common objectives. Evaluation of initiatives like this often includes statistical analyses that combine data across sites to estimate the program's impact on particular outcomes. Meta‐analysis is a statistical technique for combining effect estimates from different studies to obtain a single overall effect estimate and to estimate heterogeneity across studies. However, it has not been commonly applied to evaluate the impact of a program across multiple different sites. In this chapter, we use the BUILD Scholar program—one component of the broader initiative—to demonstrate the application of meta‐analysis to combine effect estimates from different sites of a multisite initiative. We analyze three student outcomes using a typical “single‐stage” modeling approach and a meta‐analysis approach. We show how a meta‐analysis approach can provide more nuanced information about program impacts on student outcomes and thus can help support a robust evaluation.
Advancing diversity in the biomedical research workforce is critical to the ability of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to achieve its mission. The NIH Diversity Program Consortium is a unique, 10‐year program that builds upon longstanding training and research capacity‐building activities to promote workforce diversity. It was designed to rigorously evaluate approaches to enhancing diversity in the biomedical research workforce at the student, faculty, and institutional level. In this chapter we describe (a) the program's origins, (b) the consortium‐wide evaluation, including plans, measures, challenges, and solutions, and (c) how lessons learned from this program are being leveraged to strengthen NIH research‐training and capacity‐building activities and evaluation efforts.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) made a sizeable investment in developing a scientific approach to understanding how to best increase diversity in the NIH‐funded workforce by fostering inclusive excellence at a national scale through the Diversity Program Consortium (DPC). This chapter provides an overview of the context in which the consortium‐wide evaluation study has taken place to provide readers with an understanding of its level of complexity. This evaluation effort is the first large‐scale, national, systemic, longitudinal evaluation of harmonized interventions focused on undergraduate biomedical research training programs in the history of the NIH and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.
While guidance on how to design rigorous evaluation studies abounds, prescriptive guidance on how to include critical process and context measures through the construction of exposure variables is lacking. Capturing nuanced intervention dosage information within a large‐scale evaluation is particularly complex. The Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) initiative is part of the Diversity Program Consortium, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to increase participation in biomedical research careers among individuals from underrepresented groups. This chapter articulates methods employed in defining BUILD student and faculty interventions, tracking nuanced participation in multiple programs and activities, and computing the intensity of exposure. Defining standardized exposure variables (beyond simple treatment group membership) is crucial for equity‐focused impact evaluation. Both the process and resulting nuanced dosage variables can inform the design and implementation of large‐scale, diversity training program, outcome‐focused, evaluation studies.
The recent anti-racist movements in the United States have inspired a national call for more research on the experiences of racially marginalized and minoritized students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. As researchers focused on promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, we contend that STEM education must, as a discipline, grapple with how analytic approaches may not fully support equity efforts. We discuss how researchers and educational practitioners should more critically approach STEM equity analyses and why modifying our approaches matters for STEM equity goals. Engaging with equity as a process rather than a static goal, we provide a primer of reflective questions to assist researchers with framing, analysis, and interpretation of student-level data frequently used to identify disparities and assess course-level and programmatic interventions. This guidance can inform analyses conducted by campus units such as departments and programs, but also across universities and the scientific community to enhance how we understand and address systemic inequity in STEM fields.
Drawing on 12 semi-structured interviews with Black, Latina, and white graduate women who either continued or discontinued their STEM doctoral degrees, the present study examined the psychological impact of navigating marginalizing experiences in white male-dominated STEM environments. Using thematic analysis grounded in a social constructivist paradigm, researchers identified three emergent themes: 1) institutional challenges as contextual barriers, 2) impact on wellbeing and STEM persistence, and 3) contextual supports and coping. These findings indicate that challenging STEM encounters within the higher education environment contributed to increased stress, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among graduate women in STEM from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. The compound effect of these STEM stressors and their subsequent psychological toll contributed to decreased STEM persistence among participants. Study implications highlight the need for faculty and university administrators to challenge and address institutional norms that operate as contextual barriers, destigmatize discussions surrounding mental health, and adopt a “whole person” approach to supporting graduate women in STEM.
Significance
The US scientific workforce is not representative of the population. Barriers to entry and participation have been well-studied; however, few have examined the effect of these disparities on the advancement of science. Furthermore, most studies have looked at either race or gender, failing to account for the intersection of these variables. Our analysis utilizes millions of scientific papers to study the relationship between scientists and the science they produce. We find a strong relationship between the characteristics of scientists and their research topics, suggesting that diversity changes the scientific portfolio with consequences for career advancement for minoritized individuals. Science policies should consider this relationship to increase equitable participation in the scientific workforce and thereby improve the robustness of science.
Despite national calls for increasing diversity and inclusion within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), inequitable recruitment and retention strategies remain commonplace. Inherent to many strategies is a lack of specificity in attending to the needs, desires, and cultures of individuals who are minoritized at the intersections of race, gender, and class through the use of broad, sweeping classifications such as “Women of Color.” Using critical race feminism, we engaged in a meta-synthesis of recent peer-reviewed, empirical STEM education articles that used the term “Women of Color” to identify (a) how the term “Women of Color” was defined, (b) who was and was not represented by this term and (c) and how research findings accounted for the presence of WOC. We provide a critical discussion of how terminology is used and a call for specificity in equitable and justice-oriented STEM programming.
How researchers use statistical analyses shapes their research toward or away from an anti-racist agenda. In this article, we demonstrate how developmental scientists can use the QuantCrit framework to critically examine the process of conducting quantitative analyses. In particular, we focus on mixture modeling to clearly demonstrate how the integration of QuantCrit can be achieved within a statistical technique. We first summarize the tenets of QuantCrit and how it has turned the lens of critical race theory onto quantitative methodology. Second, we provide a summary of the key concepts of mixture modeling. The main section of the article is organized according to three “moments” that occur in quantitative research: (1) development of the research question(s) and identification of analysis variables; (2) decision-making about the role of race in planned analyses; and (3) interpretation of the results through a theoretical framework. We describe each moment, illustrate how researchers can use QuantCrit principles within it, and offer as examples empirical articles from adolescent research where these strategies have been implemented during mixture modeling. It is our hope that readers will identify moments in their own analyses in which these (and other) principles could be applied.
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) and inquiry-based curricula both expose students to the scientific process. CUREs additionally engage students in novel and scientifically relevant research, with the intention of providing an "authentic" research experience. However, we have little understanding of which course design elements impact students' beliefs that they are experiencing "authentic" research. We designed a study to explore introductory biology students' perceptions of research authenticity in CURE and inquiry classes. Using the Laboratory Course Assessment Survey, we found that students in CURE sections perceived higher levels of authentic research elements than students in inquiry-based sections. To identify specific factors that impact perceptions of research authenticity, we administered weekly reflection questions to CURE students. Coding of reflection responses revealed that experiences of failure, iteration, using scientific practices, and the relevant discoveries in their projects enhanced students' perceived authenticity of their research experiences. Although failure and iteration can occur in both CUREs and inquiry-based curricula, our findings indicate these experiences-in conjunction with the Relevant Discovery element of a CURE-may be particularly powerful in enhancing student perceptions of research authenticity in a CURE.
Course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) courses incorporate high-impact pedagogies that have been shown to increase undergraduate retention among underrepresented minorities and women. As part of the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity program at the University of Detroit Mercy, a CURE metagenomics course was established in the winter of 2019. Students investigated the bacterial community composition in a eutrophic cove in Lake Saint Clair (Harrison Township, MI, United States) from water samples taken in the summer and winter. The students created 16S rRNA libraries that were sequenced using next-generation sequencing technology. They used a public web-based supercomputing resource to process their raw sequencing data and web-based tools to perform advanced statistical analysis. The students discovered that the most common operational taxonomic unit, representing 31% of the prokaryotic sequences in both summer and winter samples, corresponded to an organism that belongs to a previously unidentified phylum. This result showed the students the power of metagenomics because the approach was able to detect unclassified organisms. Principal Coordinates Analysis of Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index data showed that the winter community was distinct from the summer community [Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) r = 0.59829, n = 18, and p < 0.001]. Dendrograms based on hierarchically clustered Pearson correlation coefficients of phyla were divided into a winter clade and a summer clade. The conclusion is that the winter bacterial population was fundamentally different from the summer population, even though the samples were taken from the same locations in a protected cove. Because of the small class sizes, qualitative as well as statistical methods were used to evaluate the course’s impact on student attitudes. Results from the Laboratory Course Assessment Survey showed that most of the respondents felt they were contributing to scientific knowledge and the course fostered student collaboration. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the course incorporated iteration aspects of scientific investigations, such as repeating procedures to fix problems. In summary, the metagenomics CURE course was able to add to scientific knowledge and allowed students to participate in authentic research.
The racialized structure of STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) higher education maintains gross inequities that are illustrative of structural racism, which both informs and is reinforced by discriminatory beliefs, policies, values, and distribution of resources. Thus, an examination into structural racism in STEM is needed to expose the marginalization of underrepresented groups in STEM and to improve understanding of the STEM policies, practices, and procedures that allow the foundation of racism to remain intact. I argue that, even at the top of the education hierarchy, Black STEM doctorate students and PhD degree holders consistently endure the racist residue of higher education institutions and STEM employers. Thus, this manuscript also discusses how universities institutionalize diversity mentoring programs designed mostly to fix (read “assimilate”) underrepresented students of color while ignoring or minimizing the role of the STEM departments in creating racially hostile work and educational spaces. I argue that, without a critical examination of the structural racism omnipresent in the STEM, progress in racially diversifying STEM will continue at a snail’s pace.
Metacognitive strategies have garnered significant attention within the literature as a mechanism to promote students’ ability to examine and understand the ways in which they learn. To date, the majority of studies regarding metacognition have been conducted in lecture contexts and often focus on the use of icebreaker and “exam wrapper” activities designed to enhance students’ academic success and study skills development. Conversely, there is little research available on the use of metacognitive approaches within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) laboratory contexts despite continued national efforts to reform postsecondary instruction in such environments. In this article, we present a suite of scaffolded, worksheet-based activities designed to address this need. Specifically, these activities were developed for use in an introductory biology course-based undergraduate research experience and focus on various aspects of the scientific process ranging from research design and troubleshooting to collaboration and communication to diverse audiences. While this is the case, we contend that the exercises described herein can easily be adapted for use in both lower- and upper-division courses, for majors and nonmajors alike, with minimal investment of time and resources.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) have contributed meaningfully to the education of African American professionals at the undergraduate, graduate and professional levels. With a unique history, HBCUs continue to play a vital role in post-secondary education of minority students. The present descriptive study analyzed data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and reported the number of students who completed undergraduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, referred to as STEM subjects. Comparisons were made for the period 2001 to 2009 for 2,906 institutions, including 88 HBCUs. The analysis includes a combination of public, private and private for profit, four year institutions. Results revealed that HBCUs graduated about 39 percent of students earning degrees in STEM subjects, in the study period; the number of degrees conferred by HBCUs varied by STEM areas. Public HBCUs produce more STEM graduates in the areas of computer science, engineering and engineering technology. Private HBCUs produce more STEM graduates in the areas of biomedical, mathematics and statistics and physical sciences.
Asians are typically situated at the top of the STEM educational and career hierarchy and enjoy a host of material benefits as a result. Thus, their STEM lives are often considered problem-free. This article describes the role of race-based stereotypes in shaping the experiences of high-achieving Black and Asian STEM college students. Their experiences exposed the insidious presence of anti-Black and pro-Asian sentiment, operationalized through the frameworks of stereotype threat and stereotype lift. Stereotype threat and stereotype lift situate the racialized experiences of Black and Asian students as opposites, thereby ignoring their shared marginalization and responses to being stereotyped. I argue that both racial groups endure emotional distress because each group responds to its marginalization with an unrelenting motivation to succeed that imposes significant costs. I aim to demonstrate that Black and Asian college students are burdened with being stereotyped and judged unfairly, enduring sometimes debilitating consequences even while they are praised for fulfilling or defying stereotypes. Discussion includes coalition building among racial groups of color in STEM, serving in part to co-construct racialized psycho-social coping skills, and a strategy for more equitable material outcomes for Black STEMers.
Bisexual people of color (BPOC) live with a complex intersection of identities, facing binegativity, racism, and invisibility. These issues result in a wide range of stressors that incorporate the intersecting stigmas they face in various contexts. Sexual minority research has limited applications to bisexual people, as most of the existing theories and approaches are based on research that included only lesbian and gay populations. The present study was designed to investigate the representation of BPOC in mental health research. To satisfy this objective, we extracted race/ethnicity data from a pool of quantitative studies on depression, anxiety, smoking, substance use, and suicidality that included bisexual participants, and conducted a content analysis with the resulting 324 articles. Seventy-two percent of studies reported the racial/ethnic makeup of their total sample; however, only 40% reported the number of BPOC present in the sample, and only 7% reported outcomes for BPOC separately from White participants and other sexual minority groups. Details on racial groups included, recruitment methods utilized in studies with diverse samples, and the nature of research involving racial/ethnic minority persons are presented and discussed. Results of this investigation reveal that there is marginal emphasis on people of color in bisexual research and that this representation has not seen significant progress over the last 2 decades.
In this chapter, we present a model for an entry-level lab-based undergraduate environmental chemistry course delivered simultaneously by face-to-face and distance modalities. This course frames conceptual chemistry using the theme of Alaskan Arctic environmental issues in order to increase engagement and perceived relevance of chemical principles. Synchronously delivered lectures and guided discussions along with the incorporation of peer-mentored research projects encourage the development of a learning community among students in the course. Distance students participate in the same virtual and “kitchen” lab experiments as on-campus students, thus providing an educationally equivalent curriculum to all. In mixed teams of on-campus and distance students, all students participate in research projects to allow entry-level students to explore their interests in STEM fields. Students thereby begin to build an identity as a scientist and hopefully this course will serve as a mechanism to improve recruitment and retention of students, especially from traditionally underrepresented groups, in the chemical sciences and other STEM fields of study. Responses from the first course offering communicated positive attitudes toward the course content and methods.
Background
The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Diversity Program Consortium (DPC) includes a Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC) to conduct a longitudinal evaluation of the two signature, national NIH initiatives - the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) and the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) programs - designed to promote diversity in the NIH-funded biomedical, behavioral, clinical, and social sciences research workforce. Evaluation is central to understanding the impact of the consortium activities. This article reviews the role and function of the CEC and the collaborative processes and achievements critical to establishing empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of federally-funded, quasi-experimental interventions across multiple sites. The integrated DPC evaluation is particularly significant because it is a collaboratively developed Consortium Wide Evaluation Plan and the first hypothesis-driven, large-scale systemic national longitudinal evaluation of training programs in the history of NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences.
Key highlights
To guide the longitudinal evaluation, the CEC-led literature review defined key indicators at critical training and career transition points – or Hallmarks of Success. The multidimensional, comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the DPC framed by these Hallmarks is described. This evaluation uses both established and newly developed common measures across sites, and rigorous quasi-experimental designs within novel multi-methods (qualitative and quantitative). The CEC also promotes shared learning among Consortium partners through working groups and provides technical assistance to support high-quality process and outcome evaluation internally of each program. Finally, the CEC is responsible for developing high-impact dissemination channels for best practices to inform peer institutions, NIH, and other key national and international stakeholders.
Implications
A strong longitudinal evaluation across programs allows the summative assessment of outcomes, an understanding of factors common to interventions that do and do not lead to success, and elucidates the processes developed for data collection and management. This will provide a framework for the assessment of other training programs and have national implications in transforming biomedical research training.
We appeal to critical race theory and intersectionality to examine achievement gaps at a large public university in the American southwest from 2000 to 2015. Using white, high-income women as our reference group, we report linear combinations of marginal effects for six-year graduation rates and developmental course taking across 20 distinct social locations varying according to race-ethnicity, gender, and class. We find substantial achievement gaps that remain unseen in conventional models treating such characteristics as independent. Nearly every group has a significantly lower likelihood of graduation compared to the reference group, and there is substantial variation in estimated achievement gaps. Low-income, American Indian men are approximately 45 percent less likely to graduate within six years relative to the reference group. For high income, black men this gap is approximately 30 percent. Our paper proposes a method and praxis for exploring the complex, interdependent relationship between race-ethnicity, gender, and class.
Quantitative research enjoys heightened esteem among policymakers, media, and the general public. Whereas qualitative research is frequently dismissed as subjective and impressionistic, statistics are often assumed to be objective and factual. We argue that these distinctions are wholly false; quantitative data is no less socially
constructed than any other form of research material. The first part of the paper presents a conceptual critique of the field with empirical examples that expose and challenge hidden assumptions that frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the façade of supposed quantitative objectivity. The second part of the paper draws on the tenets of Critical Race Theory (CRT) to set out some principles to guide the future use and analysis of quantitative data. These ‘QuantCrit’ ideas concern (1) the centrality of racism as a complex and deeply rooted
aspect of society that is not readily amenable to quantification; (2) numbers are not neutral and should be interrogated for their role in promoting deficit analyses that serve White racial interests; (3) categories are neither ‘natural’ nor given and so the units and forms of analysis must be critically evaluated; (4) voice and insight are vital: data cannot ‘speak for itself’ and critical analyses should be informed by the experiential knowledge of marginalized groups; (5) statistical analyses have no inherent value but can play a role in struggles for social justice.
Presents an integrative theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment. This theory states that psychological procedures, whatever their form, alter the level and strength of self-efficacy. It is hypothesized that expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Persistence in activities that are subjectively threatening but in fact relatively safe produces, through experiences of mastery, further enhancement of self-efficacy and corresponding reductions in defensive behavior. In the proposed model, expectations of personal efficacy are derived from 4 principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Factors influencing the cognitive processing of efficacy information arise from enactive, vicarious, exhortative, and emotive sources. The differential power of diverse therapeutic procedures is analyzed in terms of the postulated cognitive mechanism of operation. Findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive modes of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes. (21/2 p ref)
Previous research has shown that the Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, is an effective intervention for high-achieving underrepre-sented minority (URM) students; African-American Meyerhoff students are significantly more likely to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) PhD programs than comparison students. The first of two studies in this report extends the prior research by examining levels of PhD completion for Meyerhoff (N = 479) versus comparison sample (N = 249) students among the first 16 cohorts. Entering African-American Meyer-hoff students were 4.8 times more likely to complete STEM PhDs than comparison sample students. To enhance understanding of potential mechanisms of influence, the second study used data from the 22nd (Fall 2010) to 25th (Fall 2013) cohorts (N = 109) to test the hypothesis that perceived program benefit at the end of freshman year would mediate the relationship between sense of community at the end of Summer Bridge and science identity and research self-efficacy at the end of sophomore year. Study 2 results indicated that perceived program benefit fully mediated the relationship between sense of community and both criterion measures. The findings underscore the potential of comprehensive STEM intervention programs to enhance PhD completion, and suggest mechanisms of influence.
Purpose:
To analyze the relationship between gender, race/ethnicity, and the probability of being awarded an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Method:
The authors used data from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination grants management database for the years 2000-2006 to examine gender differences and race/ethnicity-specific gender differences in the probability of receiving an R01 Type 1 award. The authors used descriptive statistics and probit models to determine the relationship between gender, race/ethnicity, degree, investigator experience, and R01 award probability, controlling for a large set of observable characteristics.
Results:
White women PhDs and MDs were as likely as white men to receive an R01 award. Compared with white women, Asian and black women PhDs and black women MDs were significantly less likely to receive funding. Women submitted fewer grant applications, and blacks and women who were new investigators were more likely to submit only one application between 2000 and 2006.
Conclusions:
Differences by race/ethnicity explain the NIH funding gap for women of color, as white women have a slight advantage over men in receiving Type 1 awards. Findings of a lower submission rate for women and an increased likelihood that they will submit only one proposal are consistent with research showing that women avoid competition. Policies designed to address the racial and ethnic diversity of the biomedical workforce have the potential to improve funding outcomes for women of color.
Although the critical research cannon is often associated with qualitative scholars, there is a growing number of critical scholars who are refusing positivist-informed quantitative analyses. However, as a growing number of education scholars engaged in critical approaches to quantitative inquiry, instances of conflation began to surface. We understood this conflation as the interchangeable use of the terms quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit, and critical quantitative throughout the literature and even within the same chapter or article. The purpose of our systematic literature review is twofold: (a) to understand how critical approaches to quantitative inquiry emerged as a new paradigm within quantitative methods and (b) whether there is any distinction between quantitative criticalism, QuantCrit, and critical quantitative inquiries or simply interchangeable wordplay. We share how critical quantitative approaches are definite shifts within the quantitative research paradigm, highlight relevant assumptions, and share strategies and future directions for applied practice in this emergent field.
There has been a surge in the number of Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), which are degree-granting, nonprofit, postsecondary institutions that enroll at least 25% Hispanic/Latinx/e undergraduate students. Although HSI scholarship has increased dramatically since around 2010, there is still a gap in knowledge about individuals who fall within the “H” and the diversity among HSIs themselves. Using critical theory and critical methods, the articles in this special topic collection explore the complexities of the Hispanic/Latinx/e identity and the various ways that HSIs fall short of and meet the challenges of serving students at the intersections of identity. This introduction provides a brief overview of the eight articles in this collection and explains the need for this critical approach to HSI scholarship, which we call “intersectional servingness.” We outline the contributions of these eight articles and call on practitioners, scholars, policy intermediaries, funders, and federal agencies to consider the complexities of the “H” while making decisions, advancing research, implementing policies, and creating funding streams that will enhance intersectional servingness.
The number of health psychology courses offered in higher education institutions has dramatically increased over the past 30 years. Health psychology courses provide students a unique opportunity to learn about important public health issues and health disparities affecting our society from a biopsychosocial perspective. Prior research indicates that students taking these courses, many of whom are non-biology majors, often report feeling anxious about learning the underlying biological mechanisms that affect health outcomes, particularly as they relate to stress and disease. Therefore, innovative teaching strategies, such as the use of active learning approaches, are needed to promote student confidence and engagement in learning these interdisciplinary models of health. Despite rapid advancements and innovations in health technologies, few health psychology courses have integrated these technologies as a modality of active learning. This article describes the implementation of health technologies (e.g., biosensors, biofeedback equipment, wearable technologies) as an active learning modality and innovative teaching approach to promote student engagement and learning outcomes in an undergraduate health psychology course taught in the U.S. Eighty students from a minority-serving university participated in this pilot course redesign. Student responses to the use of health technologies in their course were very positive. A description of the course curriculum is provided and results from student responses and feedback are presented. Implications and recommendations for implementing these technologies and pedagogies in future health courses are also discussed, including university support for sustaining these high impact teaching practices.
NIH has acknowledged and committed to ending structural racism. The framework for NIH’s approach, summarized here, includes understanding barriers; developing robust health disparities/equity research; improving its internal culture; being transparent and accountable; and changing the extramural ecosystem so that diversity, equity, and inclusion are reflected in funded research and the biomedical workforce.
Participation in authentic research activities, particularly mentored undergraduate research experiences, at the University of Texas at El Paso has long been associated with student success measures such as graduation and matriculation to strong graduate programs in STEM. However, these opportunities typically are available to upper division students, despite evidence suggesting that the first (Freshman) year at university is determinant for individuals to complete STEM degrees. To expand the number of research opportunities and to extend them preferentially to new, entering students, we established the Freshman Year Research Intensive Sequence (FYRIS) in 2015, a course sequence consisting of a research foundations course and one or two laboratory courses redesigned by faculty into small, special topic Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs). CUREs provide authentic research experiences with similar early-, middle-, and late-term benefits to those found in traditional mentored experiences. Several of these benefits can be conceptualized as "hubs", which derive from earlier benefits, while facilitating later positive outcomes. Self-efficacy is one such hub, while retention and persistence in science enrollment represent late-phase positive outcomes. In this report, we examined self-efficacy of FYRIS participants in surveys administered at the start and end of each course to assess their confidence in conducting fundamental and specific research activities in the foundations and research driven courses, respectively. Specific items from a validated survey were used in addition to items developed for each course based on specific learning objectives. Retention was measured across three years of assessment of participants and non-participants, controlling for key scholastic characteristics. Results on retention rates after FYRIS vary depending on whether students fully or partially participated in the course-sequence. Results will be presented for three cohorts of students: 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18.
The benefits of mentored undergraduate research to student success, retention, and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have long been identified. However, many students miss out on the opportunity to engage in research often due to unfamiliarity of various research opportunities or how to approach potential research mentors. To address this, we developed a scalable online badge, Introduction to Research, that draws on aspects of the Entering Research curriculum (Branchaw, Pfund, & Rediske, 2010) to help students explore and prepare for undergraduate research in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Students in the BUILD Training Program, part of the larger STEM BUILD at UMBC Initiative, completed the badge in conjunction with a 3-week classroom-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) before the start of their second year of undergraduate study at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). We were interested in investigating how this intervention, online badge plus CURE, correlated to students engaging in undergraduate research before the end of their second year at UMBC. We did this through student self-report, comparing students who had participated in the online badge plus CURE (BTP) to those who participated in neither (Control). Our data demonstrate that students who participated in the Introduction to Research Badge and CURE entered into mentored research at a significantly higher rate than students who were exposed to neither. Further, previously validated instruments of students 'research self-efficacy and science identity were used to compare how the Introduction to Research Badge and CURE may impact these two psycho-social variables. Students who participated in the Introduction to Research Badge and CURE had significantly higher gains in research self-efficacy compared to the control group. However, no change was observed in science identity for either group. Collectively, our results suggest that students who engage in the Introduction to Research Badge in combination with a CURE engage in mentored research within a year of completion at higher levels than students who engage in neither.
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) are colleges and universities that enroll at least 25% Latinx students. Despite being recognized by the federal government since 1992, HSIs lack a historical mission to serve Latinxs. As such the idea of “servingness” has become an elusive concept. An abundance of literature centering HSIs has been published, yet there continues to be a debate about what it means to serve students. We conducted a systematic review of 148 journal articles and book chapters to better understand how researchers conceptualize the idea of servingness at HSIs. We identified four major themes used by researchers to conceptualize servingness: (1) outcomes, (2) experiences, (3) internal organizational dimensions, and (4) external influences. We also found that researchers are often unintentional in their efforts to conceptualize what it means to be an HSI. We offer a multidimensional conceptual framework of servingness to be used in research, policy, and practice.
We report results from two studies testing the Mediation Model of Research Experiences, which posits that science (or engineering) self‐efficacy and identity as a scientist (or engineer) mediate the association between support programs and students’ commitment to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers. Study 1 included 502 matriculated and recently graduated undergraduate STEM students. Structural equation modeling analyses indicated that research experience, instrumental mentoring, and involvement in a community of scientists were associated with commitment to a STEM career, mediated through science/engineering self‐efficacy and identity as a scientist/engineer. There were few interactions with ethnicity and none with gender. In Study 2, 63 undergraduate students in science/engineering support programs were surveyed with a similar instrument at the beginning and end of their programs. Pre–post analyses indicated that increases over time in community involvement were associated with increases in science/engineering self‐efficacy, and increases over time in science/engineering identity were associated with increased commitment to a STEM career. Taken together, these two studies show the importance of psychological processes such as identity and self‐efficacy in understanding the specific ways in which science/engineering support programs lead to enhanced commitment to a career in STEM among White and underrepresented minority undergraduate students.
Critical race theory (CRT) has been used in educational literature to emphasize the influence of racism on educational opportunity and the assets of students of color. Quantitative methods appear antithetical to CRT tenets according to some, but this article endeavors to show why this is not the case, based on both historical and contemporary notions. To build this argument, the author presents results from an empirical study that used data from a survey of undergraduates and measurement theory to quantify students’ community cultural wealth, a CRT framework that describes the cultural assets of communities of color. The author concludes with recommendations for incorporating quantitative methods into future CRT studies.
The era of big data provides many opportunities for conducting impactful research from both data-driven and theory-driven perspectives. However, data-driven and theory-driven research have progressed somewhat independently. In this paper, we develop a framework that articulates important differences between these two perspectives and proposes a role for information systems research at their intersection. The framework presents a set of pathways that combine the data-driven and theory-driven perspectives. From these pathways, we derive a set of challenges, and show how they can be addressed by research in information systems. By doing so, we identify an important role that information systems research can play in advancing both data-driven and theory-driven research in the era of big data.
Critical race theory (CRT) in education centers, examines, and seeks to transform the relationship that undergirds race, racism, and power. CRT scholars have applied a critical race framework to advance research methodologies, namely qualitative interventions. Informed by this work, and 15 years later, this article reconsiders the possibilities of CRT applications to quantitative methodologies through ‘QuantCrit.’ We ask the question: Can quantitative methods, long critiqued for their inability to capture the nuance of everyday experience, support and further a critical race agenda in educational research? We provide an abbreviated sketch of some of the key tenets of CRT and the enduring interdisciplinary contributions in race and quantitative studies. Second, we examine the legacy and genealogy of QuantCrit traditions across the disciplines to uncover a rich lineage of methodological possibilities for disrupting racism in research. We argue that quantitative approaches cannot be adopted for racial justice aims without an ontological reckoning that considers historical, social, political, and economic power relations. Only then can quantitative approach be re-imagined and rectified.
This literature review presents the research evidence that exists for ten intervention strategies commonly adopted by programmatic efforts striving to increase diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Also presented is empirical supportfor three model intervention programs: The Meyerhoff Program, Minority Engineering Program (MEP), and the Mathematics Workshop. The article concludes with a discussion of recommendations for future action and research in this area.