Transcript “We Do Science Here”: Underrepresented Students in Difference College Contexts

“We Do Science Here”:
Underrepresented Students in
Difference College Contexts
Sylvia Hurtado, Minh Tran, Kevin Eagan, Christopher Newman, & Paolo Velasco
University of California, Los Angeles
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum
Atlanta, Georgia – June 1, 2009
Introduction

Promoting Diversity: Access and Engagement in
Biomedical and Behavioral Science Research
Preparation
 UCLA Higher Education Research Institute
 A national study sponsored by the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation
(NSF)
 Purpose: to examine underrepresented student
access to resources and forms of engagement that
result in outcomes (skills, dispositions, and behaviors)
necessary for a research career in the biomedical and
behavioral sciences.
Overview







Background
Previous Research
Conceptual Framework
Methods
Results
Discussion
Implications
Background

In 2002, only 17% of scientists and engineers in the
United States were people of color with only 6% of
this population comprising underrepresented
minorities (NSF, 2002)

URM students’ STEM completion rate: 26%

White/Asian American STEM completion rate: 46%

Priority: develop, recruit, and retain top STEM
students to maintain U.S. global economic
competitiveness (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and
Public Policy, 2007)
Previous Research

Benefits of student-faculty interaction (Astin, 1993; Pascarelle &
Terenzini, 2005)


Student background factors – not all types of students have
frequent faculty interactions (Cole, 2007; Kuh & Hu, 2001)
College experiences that influence interaction include
difference by major, year in school, academic performance,
accessibility cues, and types of institution (HBCUs & HSI)
(Cole, 2007)


Department practices and values that discourage students at
PWIs (Johnson, 2007)
STEM degree attainments at HBCUs/HSIs may be largely
due to faculty interaction (Nelson Laird et al., 2007; Allen, 1992)
Conceptual Framework
(Carlone & Johnson, 2007)
Performance
Social performances
of relevant scientific
practices
Recognition
Science
Identity
Recognizing oneself
and getting recognized
by others as a
“science person”
Competence
Knowledge and
understanding of science
content
Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Identities
Conceptual Framework

Science Identification (Carlone and Johnson, 2007)

Academic Tribes and Culture (Becher, 1989)
 Culture of Science as a source of “disruption”
▪ Folklore, myths, and legends
▪ Socialization
▪ Normalization – “This is how science is done!”
Methods
Mixed Methods

Sequential (Creswell, 2003)
 Phase 1: quantitative longitudinal study of
students from over 115 higher education
institutions
 Phase 2: qualitative five-campus case study

Advantages
 Provides broader perspectives and more detail to
examine and interpret quantitative results
Qualitative Methods
Data & Sample




5 campuses: 1 HBCU, 2 HSIs, & 2 PWIs
Semi-structured interview protocol
17 faculty & staff interviews
Focus group participants: 71 students, purposefully
recruited from undergraduate research programs
 60% female/40% male
 56% Latina/o, 18% Black, 13% Asian American, 8%
multiracial, 2.5% American Indian, & 2.5% White
 70% were biology, biochemistry, or chemistry majors
Qualitative Methods
Qualitative Analysis
Coded transcriptions using NVivo® software to
identify emergent themes (Bazely, 2007)
 Acceptable inter-coder reliability levels between
75%-85% (Miles & Huberman, 1994)
 Cross-case analyses to tease out the contextual
differences (Miles & Huberman, 1994)

Quantitative Methods
Data and sample
 2004 Freshman Survey and 2005 Your First
College Year (YFCY) Survey
 Final analytic sample: 3,003 students across
117 institutions
Quantitative Methods
Variables

DV: Faculty interactions: frequency of interaction with faculty
during office hours; interaction with faculty outside of class or office
hours; getting advice about their educational program; received
emotional support from faculty (alpha = 0.68)

IVs:
 Demographic characteristics (race, gender, SES)
 Prior academic preparation (HS GPA, summer research program)
 College experiences (e.g., research participation, feeling
intimidated by faculty, participation in academic clubs)
 Institutional characteristics (size, selectivity, normative contexts)
Quantitative Methods
Analysis
 Principal axis factoring (factor analysis)
 Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)
Limitations
 Not a representative sample
 Low survey response rate
 Analysis of secondary data
 Purposeful sampling for focus groups
 Data were collected at different time points
in students’ undergraduate career
Results: Predicting Interactions with Faculty
Outside of Class (Quantitative)

Effect of being Black/African American (-)
 HBCU (+)
 Selectivity (+)
 Size (+)

Effect of participation in academic club (+)
 Aggregated science commitment (+)
 Aggregated feeling that faculty treat students like
numbers (+)
 Research expenditures (-)

Work on a professor’s research project (+)
 Research expenditures (+)
Results: Predicting Interactions with Faculty
Outside of Class (Quantitative)

Institutional effects
 Selectivity (-)
 Size (-)
 Feeling that faculty treat students like numbers (-)

Individual effects
 Opinion: faculty interested in students’ personal/academic
problems (+)
 Frequency: Received negative feedback on academic work
(+)
 Participated in academic enrichment program for minority
students (+)
 Success at managing the academic environment (+)
Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student
Experiences (Qualitative)
Themes
 Faculty Support
 Large impersonal science environments
 Lack of institutional reward structures

Competitive Environments
 Cutthroat competition facilitated in part by faculty and
gatekeeper courses

Faculty Approachability
 Reluctance to approach faculty and faculty cues denoting
inaccessibility
 Underrepresentation of minority faculty
Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student
Experiences (Qualitative)
Faculty Support
Student A (PWI): That seems to happen when you have
really good professors that are doing other things
besides teaching, like doing world-renowned research.
They tend to not care about the other responsibilities
that come along with that.
 Student B (HSI): They treat you as a whole person
rather than just what you have to offer academically,
and that made a big difference for me, just knowing
that they’re real people too and you can go to them
outside of academics, and then that in turn, the advice
that they give you, benefits you academically because,
you know, they push in the right direction.

Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student
Experiences (Qualitative)
Faculty Support
Faculty Director A (PWI): It’s a challenge to bring more
new faculty on and because there are no tenure perk
points. It’s “I’ve got to publish and I’ve got to do other
things, I gotta serve on this committee, I don’t get any
points if I [help you], so no.”
 Faculty Director B (HSI): I haven’t wanted to run one of
these big programs because nationally all my friends
who got into this, their scientific careers went down the
tubes … I mean, they don’t get papers now… they can’t
focus on things because it’s too much, so I really was
reluctant to do this.”

Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student
Experiences (Qualitative)
Competitive/Collaborative Environments



Student D (HSI): I think one way [my professor] seeks to
motivate us is to kind of be like, “Don’t you want to be better
than so-and-so.”
Student E (PWI): It’s not in your nature to learn like that I don’t
think. It puts too much pressure on your when you’re not trying
to understand the material because you like it, you’re trying
just to ace the class, so it’s not that desire to learn, but the
desire to get a better grade.
Student F (HBCU): It’s not a competition in the sense, “Oh, I
need to outdo you,” but ... I see my friends constantly studying,
and let’s just say if I see them make a higher grade than I made
on my test and I knew I could have studied more, then I’m like,
“OK, I need to get my stuff together.”
Results: Cross Case Comparison of Student
Experiences (Qualitative)
Faculty Approachability




Student G (PWI): I think it’s hard to ask for help ... all my
professors are either White or Asian and it’s kind of hard for me
sometimes, but just recently I started to talking to a few of my
professors when I didn’t understand something, but it took me
two years to finally do it. It’s intimidating.
Student H (HBCU): I was able to see professors that were African
American, bio-chemistry Ph.D. professors, people that look like
me, which motivated me to say, “OK, I can do this.”
Student I (PWI): Once you get past that reluctance they are like
definitely willing to help. It’s just that hurdle you have to get over
of being afraid to really ask.
Student J (HBCU): If [faculty] hear you say you want to grad
school, that’s when they really start pushing and really want you
to do well and really give you all the resources that you need to
do well.
Discussion

Frequency of student-faculty interactions
affected by 2 main factors:
 Structural characteristics of institutions
 Peer normative contexts

Institutional differences related to faculty
interactions for Black students
Discussion
Structural characteristics of institutions
 Size: Undergraduates have to contend with their
peers and graduate students for faculty time
 Selectivity: More competitive environments
facilitated by science faculty
 Sense of competition felt among students and
encouraged by faculty corresponds to theory on
students’ development of science identity (Carlone
and Johnson, 2007) as well as disciplinary culture
perpetuated by tradition and socialization (Becher,
1989)
Discussion
Peer normative contexts
 Students’ sense that faculty treat them like
numbers in a book significantly depressed
faculty interaction.
 Findings may be due to…
 Faculty cues signifying level of approachability
 Overall ethic of caring for both students’ personal
and academic lives
Discussion
Black Students & HBCUs
 Tended to interact with faculty significantly less
frequently than their White peers at PWIs
 Students enrolled at an HBCU felt more confident in
themselves and in their interactions with faculty
because professors looked like them.
 Finding supports prior work that concluded HBCUs
promote stronger connections between Black
students and faculty (Allen, 1992; Laird et al., 2007).
Conclusions and Implications
Provide opportunities and resources that facilitate
meaningful connections between students and
faculty to counteract large, impersonal
environments.
 Lack of tangible incentives in institutional reward
structures for faculty participation and
administration of undergraduate research
programs.
 Provosts/Deans need to find ways to recognize the
work of faculty who devote time and effort to
undergraduate research programs

Questions
Faculty and Co-PIs:
Sylvia Hurtado
Mitchell Chang
Administrative Staff:
Aaron Pearl
Graduate Research Assistants:
Kevin Eagan
Jessica Sharkness
Lorelle Espinsoa
Minh Tran
Christopher Newman
Paolo Velasco
Papers and reports are available for download
from project website:
http://heri.ucla.edu/nih
Project e-mail: [email protected]
Acknowledgments: This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General
Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05 as well as the
National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076. This independent research and the views
expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors.