Undergraduate research participation and STEM graduate degree aspirations among students of color

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 148, Winter 2010 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ir.364

8

Undergraduate Research Participation and STEM Graduate Degree Aspirations Among Students of Color

Terrell L. Strayhorn

Increasing the number of students who complete advanced degrees in sci-ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a com-pelling national interest. Although college science and engineering degree completion rates have improved considerably over the past few decades, significant gaps persist among women and students of color. In 2002, women earned more than 50 percent of all bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering, although major variations emerge when we disaggregate these data by field of study. For instance, women represented 75 percent of degrees in psychology, 59 percent in biological and agricultural sciences, and 55 percent in social sciences; but only 21 percent in engineering and computer science (National Science Board, 2006). Similarly, only 24 per-cent of underrepresented racial minorities (URMs: African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives) complete a bachelor’s degree in science and engineering-related fields within six years of initial enrollment, compared to 40 percent of White students (Center for Institu-tional Data Exchange and Analysis, 2000), representing a large and persis-tent racialized attainment gap.

Other national statistics show a precipitous drop in the number of students who express initial plans to major in a STEM fi eld and those who

The importance of undergraduate research experiences and the extent to which engagement in such activities influences underrepresented minority students’ graduate degree aspirations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields is the focus of this chapter.

85

This research was supported by funds provided through the CAREER Grant Program within the National Science Foundation (NSF Grant number DRL 0747304). Opinions reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agency.

86 STUDENTS OF COLOR IN STEM

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH • DOI: 10.1002/ir

subsequently choose STEM as an undergraduate major. Accordingly, one-third of all fi rst-year college students intend to study science, engineering, or some other STEM fi eld (National Science Board, 2006), with a higher proportion of Asian Pacifi c Islanders planning to study in fi elds such as social and behavioral sciences and engineering. Roughly half of all under-graduates who express initial intentions to major in STEM switch out of these fi elds within their fi rst two years of study, URMs (Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, 2000).

Gaps between URMs and their White and Asian Americans counter-parts widen at the graduate and professional education levels. Fewer than half of STEM majors go on to enter a STEM graduate program or a research or technical career. For instance, in 2004, URMs represented 18 percent of bachelor’s and only 7 percent of doctoral degree recipients in biological and behavioral sciences (National Science Board, 2006). At the doctoral level, African Americans are virtually absent in some STEM sub-fi elds such as biological sciences (less than 3 percent), computer science (0.7 percent), and astronomy (0 percent). While science and engineering employment has grown nearly 40 percent over the last decade, STEM degree production has lagged behind, especially among URMs, who repre-sent only 6 percent of the STEM workforce in general and 4.6 percent of those working in STEM fi elds with advanced degrees (Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development, 2000). Taken together, these trends suggest a serious labor market condition where the supply of scientifi cally skilled individuals, particularly URMs with graduate training, is inadequate to meet the growing demand of a knowledge-based economy.

A declining cadre of workers appropriately skilled in scientifi c research threatens U.S. global competitiveness, potentially reduces national security, and almost ensures continued exportation of highly technical jobs to countries outside the United States (Redd, 2007). The nation’s share of the total number of people with a postsecondary educa-tion fell from 31 percent in 1980 to 27 percent in 2000, whereas both China’s and India’s share doubled (National Science Board, 2006). Thus, to sustain our global and economic standing, we must strengthen the Ameri-can STEM pipeline by broadening participation among URMs, who repre-sent a reservoir of untapped talent, or what the Sullivan Commission (2004) aptly labeled, “missing persons” in science fi elds.

Broadening Participation in STEM Through Undergraduate Research

In response to these startling statistics, colleges and universities have invested significant human and fiscal resources into establishing structured research programs and activities that stimulate undergraduate students’

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH PARTICIPATION AND STEM GRADUATE DEGREE ASPIRATIONS 87


interest in pursuing advanced degrees in STEM. Government-sponsored programs, such as those provided by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and U.S. Department of Education TRIO Programs (for example, the Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program, which includes a faculty-supervised research com-ponent) support undergraduate research experiences (UGREs). Most of these programs operate under the assumption that students who partici-pate in UGREs will be more likely than their peers who do not participate to succeed in science-related majors and enroll in graduate school (George, Neale, Van Horne, and Malcom, 2001; Hu and others, 2008). Research has consistently shown that undergraduate research experiences are effective means for attracting and retaining science majors; enhancing, if not increasing, the degree aspirations of science majors; and serving as pathways to a scientific research career (Kinkead, 2003; Lopatto, 2004).

Researchers have linked student engagement in research and schol-arly activities to robust outcomes in the cognitive domain (Hu and others, 2008), including critical thinking (James, 1998), written and oral commu-nication skills (Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, and DeAntoni, 2004; Thomp-son, McNeil, Sherwood, and Stark, 2001), and academic achievement (Ishiyama, 2002), to name a few. For instance, Ishiyama studied 156 fi rst- and second-year students at Truman State University using the College Student Experiences Questionnaire and found that students who were engaged in research with faculty members reported signifi cant gains in their ability to think analytically and their capacity to learn on their own.

Another line of inquiry provides empirical support for the value of undergraduate research participation on affective development in college (for example, Hakim, 1998). Specifi cally, Hakim found that students reported increased academic functioning and self-concept after participat-ing in UGREs. The weight of evidence suggests that undergraduate students who participate in research experiences are more confi dent in their research abilities (Swager, 1997), more enthusiastic about their academic disciplines (Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, and DeAntoni, 2004), and more satisfi ed with college overall (Bauer and Bennett, 2003; Strayhorn and Terrell, 2007).

Finally, engagement in UGREs infl uences educational goals, plans, or aspirations (Nagda and others, 1998; Nnadozie, Ishiyama, and Chon, 2001), although it is less clear whether such experiences raise, enhance, or merely sustain one’s degree aspirations. Some evidence suggests that participation in undergraduate research and creative activities may bolster students’ intentions to complete a graduate degree (for example, Lopatto, 2004; Matyas and Malcom, 1991). Moreover, Russell (2006) found that engaging in UGREs yielded higher expectations to complete an advanced degree, with signifi cantly more students expressing an interest in complet-ing a Ph.D. at the end of the programs.

With few exceptions (for example, Hathaway, Nagda, and Gregerman, 2002), prior research has focused almost exclusively on White students



and UGREs at a single institution using qualitative methods (Hu and others, 2008). We know relatively little about whether and how UGREs infl uence STEM graduate degree aspirations among URMs. Furthermore, we found no studies that examine the infl uence of government-sponsored UGREs on STEM graduate degree aspirations among URMs using multi-institutional survey data. We address this gap in this chapter. In the next section, I briefl y describe the study and offer some key fi ndings.

Study Description

The study upon which I base this chapter is part of a larger research initia-tive that focuses on identifying and explaining factors that inhibit or enable students of color to navigate successfully through the STEM pipe-line across critical junctures—that is, transition experiences from high school to college, college entry to graduation, and graduation to postgrad-uate life (for example, graduate study or workforce participation). While the larger study consists of both quantitative and qualitative research, I base this chapter on the statistical analyses of survey data.

The purpose of the survey was to examine the relationship between engagement in educationally purposeful research activities and STEM graduate degree aspirations among racially/ethnically diverse students by conducting a series of descriptive and multivariate statistical analyses to estimate the net effect of UGREs on URMs’ graduate degree aspirations. Two research questions guided my analysis: Is there a statistically signifi -cant relationship between URMs’ engagement in UGREs and their STEM graduate degree aspirations? and What is the relationship between URMs’ engagement in UGREs and their STEM graduate degree aspirations, con-trolling for potentially confounding infl uences?

To explore these questions, I analyzed survey data from URMs who participated in the summer research component of the Ronald E. McNair Scholars Program at three large, research-extensive universities. I collected data in the summer 2008 term using the Survey of Summer Research Programs that I developed. The mean age of the sample was twenty-two years (SD = 4.49); 62 percent of respondents were women. Participants employed various research methodologies to conduct their studies: 39 per-cent qualitative, 38 percent quantitative, and 23 percent mixed methods. (For a more complete description of the study, see Strayhorn, in press.) In the next section, I summarize three key fi ndings that stem from my work. Then the balance of the chapter shifts to providing recommendations for future research.

Summary of Key Findings

First, I found that engagement in UGREs influenced URMs’ aspirations for graduate study. While 4 percent of survey respondents indicated that they



“still have no plans” for graduate study at the end of the summer program, 19 percent indicated that their summer experience “encouraged [them] to consider” graduate school, and 77 percent indicated “sustained or increased” graduate degree aspirations as a result of their involvement in research and creative activities. Second, although research experiences were correlated with particular approaches (for example, collecting and analyzing data and mixed methods) and learning gains in domains such as “being a researcher or faculty member” and “presenting research findings in written and oral form,” UGREs were not statistically associated with STEM graduate degree aspirations for URMs, perhaps reflecting the notion that summer experiences sustained rather than initiated students’ aspirations.

Finally, contrary to descriptive results that suggest UGREs “encour-age” or “sustain/increase” students’ aspirations to attend graduate school, multivariate analyses provided additional evidence that this relationship did not persist in the face of statistical controls, suggesting that individual attributes (for example, age, sex, and year in college) moderate this effect. Curiously, I found that students who “collected or analyzed data” during the summer (compared to those who merely conducted a literature review) had higher degree aspirations than their peers who did not engage in data collection or analysis. Also noteworthy is that “presenting research fi ndings in written and oral form” and learning about “careers in research and STEM” affected URM students’ degree aspirations, although these relationships were statistically insignifi cant. Combined, the study’s results suggest possible areas for programmatic intervention and promising direc-tions for future research.

New Directions for Future Research

In this study, I designed a survey to examine URM students’ experiences in summer research programs at three research-extensive universities. This approach was an appropriate way to explore the influence of UGREs on STEM graduate degree aspirations. Institutional researchers would likely find similar techniques useful when studying the ways that UGREs add value to students’ educational trajectories. We need pipeline studies in order to identify the outcomes that accrue from participation in UGREs.

We also need more information to better understand what program factors enable or constrain the success of URMs in STEM. How do we cre-ate institutional environments that simultaneously recognize the cultural backgrounds of URMs and nurture their scientifi c talents? To this end, researchers might consult culturally responsive educators to develop and administer campus climate surveys or conduct campus culture audits (Museus, 2007). Results may provide useful insights to guide future policy, practice, and institutional decision making.



Recall the fi ndings that providing structured opportunities for URMs to collect and analyze data could enhance STEM graduate degree aspira-tions. While useful for practice, the study’s fi ndings leave many questions unanswered, offering opportunities for additional inquiry. For example, future research might explore how other factors (for example, STEM pre-college programs, rigorous course taking) facilitate or hinder the progres-sion of URM students into the STEM pipeline. Researchers should use strategies such as interviews, observations, and case study methods (Yin, 1989), and, ideally, information they collect from various constituent groups, including students, faculty, and staff members. Indeed, future research might bring together professionals from academic and student affairs, although institutional researchers, by virtue of their position, might assume a large share of the work in designing and implementing such projects.

Scholars have provided useful frameworks that may serve as valuable heuristics for institutional researchers who are studying UGREs on their respective campuses. For example, researchers might employ Weidman’s (1989) theory of anticipatory socialization. Another useful lens for analyz-ing the role that UGREs play in shaping one’s graduate school aspirations is social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which posits that individuals form relationships with those who can provide valuable resources (for example, research experiences) in exchange for rewards and support. Although the-ories and models “cannot capture the full complexity of human beings or environments, they can serve as lenses that bring relationships and situa-tions into sharper focus” (Jacoby and Garland, 2004/2005, p. 65).

Conducting context-specifi c studies that admittedly lack generaliz-ability may help develop stronger links to actual practices in institutions. Single institution studies would permit future researchers to unpack the role that marketing, orientation, and coordination activities play in the success of UGREs. Such information should prove useful for identifying ways to improve educational practices in specifi c institutional contexts. In many ways, this recommendation responds to the call from the com-mission appointed by former U.S. Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings for data that identify effective educational interventions and strategies that hold promise for improving postsecondary education (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).

Assessment efforts to support students also could be guided by quali-tative data (this is explained in detail in Harper and Kuh, 2007). For example, in-depth one-on-one interviews or focus groups could produce the rich, thick description that typically characterizes trustworthy, qualita-tive research. Constructivist approaches like phenomenology (Polking-horne, 1989) could offer insights into how URM students make meaning of their research experiences, develop their graduate degree aspirations, and employ various strategies to navigate their way through college, which in turn should be useful to educators, theorists, and institutional



researchers alike. In addition, e-portfolios may be effi cient mechanisms for tracking student learning outcomes and progress over time (Contreras-McGavin and Kezar, 2007).

Scholars can use other approaches to advance this research. One such design may involve using preexisting survey data (for example, the College Student Experiences Questionnaire, Cooperative Institutional Research Program, or National Survey of Student Engagement) to examine student engagement in educationally enriching activities such as UGREs. Researchers could use survey data to compare students on one campus to national benchmarks or peer institutions (Pryor, and others, 2005). This is extremely useful for institutional researchers, as this approach tends to yield the kind of comparative data by which presidents, provosts, deans, and directors make critical policy decisions (Strayhorn, 2009). Finally, future research should examine the extent to which the infl uence of UGREs differs for specifi c student subpopulations.

Conclusion

Whether researchers use quantitative or qualitative methods, education scholars and institutional researchers are encouraged to select approaches that yield the data deemed necessary to answer the question asked, realiz-ing that both approaches offer concomitant advantages and disadvantages. Armed with this information, institutional researchers will be able to bet-ter understand UGREs and the institutional conditions that foster URMs’ learning and achievement in STEM, which colleges and universities can use for institutional advancement and continuous program improvement. As increasing numbers of students of color and diverse groups enroll in college, it is more important than ever before to develop a holistic under-standing of the conditions that matter for student success, especially in STEM fields.

References

Bauer, K. W., and Bennett, J. S. “Alumni Perceptions Used to Assess Undergraduate Research Experience.” Journal of Higher Education, 2003, 74(2), 210–230.

Blau, P. M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 1964.Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis. 1999-2000 Science, Math, Engi-

neering, and Technology (SMET) Retention Report. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 2000.

Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development. Land of Plenty: Diversity as America’s Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering, and Technology. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation, 2000.

Contreras-McGavin, M., and Kezar, A. J. “Using Qualitative Methods to Assess Student Learning in Higher Education.” In S. R. Harper and S. D. Museus (eds.), Using Qual-itative Methods in Institutional Assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 136. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.



George, Y. S., Neale, D. S., Van Horne, V. V., and Malcom, S. M. In Pursuit of a Diverse Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Workforce: Recommended Research Priorities to Enhance Participation by Underrepresented Minorities. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.

Hakim, T. “Soft Assessment of Undergraduate Research: Reactions and Student Per-spectives.” Council of Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 1998, 18(4), 189–192.

Harper, S. R., and Kuh, G. D. “Myths and Misconceptions About Using Qualitative Methods in Assessment.” In S. R. Harper and S. D. Museus (eds.), Using Qualitative Methods in Institutional Assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 136. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

Hathaway, R. S., Nagda, B. A., and Gregerman, S. R. “The Relationship of Under-graduate Research Participation to Graduate and Professional Education Pursuit: An Empirical Study.” Journal of College Student Development, 2002, 43(5), 614–631.

Hu, S., and others. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: Engaging College Students in Research and Creative Activities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Ishiyama, J. “Does Early Participation in Undergraduate Research Benefit Social Sci-ence and Humanities Students?” College Student Journal, 2002, 36, 380–386.

Jacoby, B., and Garland, J. “Strategies for Enhancing Commuter Student Success.” Jour-nal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 2004–2005, 6(1), 61–79.

James, P. “Progressive Development of Deep Learning Skills Through Undergraduate and Postgraduate Dissertations.” Educational Studies, 1998, 24(1), 95–105.

Kinkead, J. Valuing and Supporting Undergraduate Research. New Directions for Teach-ing and Learning, no. 93. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Lopatto, D. “Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings.” Cell Biology Education, 2004, 3(4), 270–277.

Matyas, M. L., and Malcom, S. M. Investing in Human Potential: Science and Engineering at the Crossroads. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1991.

Museus, S. D. “Using Qualitative Methods to Assess Diverse Institutional Cultures.” In S. R. Harper and S. D. Museus (eds.), Using Qualitative Methods in Institutional Assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 136. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.

Nagda, B. A., and others. “Undergraduate Student-Faculty Partnerships Affect Student Retention.” Review of Higher Education, 1998, 22(1), 55-72.

National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation, 2006.

Nnadozie, E., Ishiyama, J., and Chon, J. “Undergraduate Research Internships and Graduate School Success.” Journal of College Student Development, 2001, 42(2), 145–156.

Polkinghorne, D. E. “Phenomenological Research Methods.” In R. S. Valle and S. Halling (eds.), Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology. New York: Plenum, 1989.

Pryor, J. H., and others. The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2005. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA, 2005.

Redd, K. E. Graduate Enrollment and Degrees: 1997 to 2007. Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools, Office of Research and Policy Analysis, 2007.

Russell, S. H. Evaluation of NSF Support for Undergraduate Research Opportunities: Draft Synthesis Report (SRI Project P16346). Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, 2006.

Seymour, R., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S., and DeAntoni, T. “Establishing the Benefits of Research Experiences for Undergraduates: First Findings from a Three-year Study.” Science Education, 2004, 88(4), 493–594.



Strayhorn, T. L. “Accessing and Analyzing National Databases.” In T. J. Kowalski and T. J. Lasley II (eds.), Handbook of Data-Based Decision Making in Education. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Strayhorn, T. L. “Concerted Cultivation: Summer Research Experiences and Degree Aspirations of Undergraduate Students of Color.” Council of Undergraduate Research Quarterly, in press.

Strayhorn, T. L., and Terrell, M. C. “Mentoring and Satisfaction with College for Black Students.” Negro Educational Review, 2007, 58(1-2), 69–83.

Sullivan Commission. Missing Persons: Minorities in the Health Professions. 2004. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2008, from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media/pdf/sullivanreport.pdf.

Swager, S. L. “Faculty/Student Interaction in an Undergraduate Research Program: Task and Interpersonal Elements.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1997.

Thompson, C. J., McNeil, J. A., Sherwood, G. D., and Stark, P. L. “Using Collaborative Research to Facilitate Student Learning.” Western Journal of Nursing Research, 2001, 23(5), 504–516.

U.S. Department of Education. A Test of Leadership, Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education: A Report of the Commission Appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2006.

Weidman, J. “Undergraduate Socialization: A Conceptual Approach.” In J. C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon, 1989.

Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Method. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1989.

TERRELL L. STRAYHORN is an associate professor of higher education and stu-dent affairs at The Ohio State University.

Documents

Undergraduate research participation and STEM graduate degree aspirations among students of color