*Striving to Excel in STEM: Insights From Underrepresented,Minoritized Graduate Students With High Academic Ability

Scholar Identity Model^™

The SIM (Whiting, 2006), which served as the theoretical framework for this study, was originally developed for and successfully applied to young, culturally diverse males. Whiting (2006) defined scholar identity as one in which culturally diverse students view themselves as academicians; studious; competent and capable; and intelligent or talented in school settings. Through role models and expert facilitation, diverse students develop self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977); future orientation (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002); willingness to make sacrifices (Dweck, 1999); internal locus of control (Rotter, 1966); self-awareness (Cooley & Ayres, 1988); value achievement more than affiliation (McClelland, 1961); academic self-confidence (Hrabrowski, 1998); race and cultural consciousness (Cross & Vandiver, 2001); and gender-related issues (Whiting, 2021). Whiting’s (2006) model also included the following four pillars: family, school, community, and mentoring. These pillars provide support to students; in the absence of the pillars, students are less likely to develop a scholar identity. Because the model applied well to young, culturally diverse men (Whiting, 2009a, 2009b), Whiting and others expanded its use to underserved youth in general populations (e.g., Whiting, 2014), including young Black and Brown women (Collins, 2018; Neal, 2015). SIM is depicted in Figure 1. Furthermore, this study employed an intersectionality ⁴ approach to analyze minoritized students’ scholar identity development by considering the influence and interlocking nature of race, gender, culture, and class.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The Scholar Identity Model.

Anti-Deficit Achievement Framework

Grounded in study with Black male students’ college experiences across the U.S. universities, Harper (2010) developed the anti-deficit achievement framework, which also served as a theoretical framework for this study in conjunction with SIM. Particularly, the anti-deficit achievement framework was developed to reframe the approach of a deficit orientation to examine the STEM achievement trajectories of students of color through the lens of anti-deficit inquiry. This framework attempted to reveal how students of color have strived to succeed in STEM by integrating various psychological and sociological theories, such as self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), cultural and social capital theories (Bourdieu, 1987), critical race theory (Yosso, 2014), and stereotype threat theory (Steele & Aronson, 1995). For example, an anti-deficit inquiry examined the strategies minoritized students employed to beat back stereotypes (e.g., counter-stereotypic imaging, Finnegan et al., 2015) rather than solely focusing on the negative effects of stereotypes on them.

To investigate the STEM talent development trajectory of students of color, Harper (2010) proposed focusing on three stages: pre-college socialization and readiness, college achievement, and post-college persistence in STEM. Familial, K-12 school, and out-of-school college preparation factors should be deliberately considered to examine students’ STEM achievement before college. In college, researchers should also investigate how these students interact with peers and faculty members and respond to racism and stereotypes in classrooms, and whether these interactions play a significant role in their persistence in STEM. In addition, how out-of-class engagement with campus activities, professional networks, and research opportunities in STEM help prepare students of color to achieve in STEM needs to be considered. As for examining post-college experiences in STEM, how key undergraduate experiences equipped students of color with competitive skillsets and psycho-social skills for STEM industries needs to be explored. Furthermore, how college agents (e.g., faculty, institution) inspire students of color for more advanced STEM education and research careers is also essential.

Harper’s framework inverted the emphasis of STEM education from what students of color needed to what students of color had, which aligned with asset-based approaches to promote the learning experience of students of color (Mejia et al., 2018). There is a growing body of literature on the educational experiences of underrepresented, minoritized college students from anti-deficit perspectives, such as Black male and female athletes in sports (e.g., Cooper, 2016; Cooper & Hawkins, 2016), Black male undergraduate students (Austin, 2017), Black males in careers (Wright, 2013), and Black students in STEM (Mahoney, 2017). Hence, the aim of this study is to explore the malleability of applying this framework to the experiences of high-achieving minoritized college women and men in STEM from diverse ethnic backgrounds, including but not limited to Black students. The intersectional analysis of students’ experience from an anti-deficit approach can lead to a deeper understanding of factors contributing to their success in STEM and reveal how they manage to respond productively to the intersecting systems of discriminations and disadvantages.

STEM Talent Development

Students’ abilities in STEM are malleable and developmental with the provision of rich and advanced learning opportunities in STEM beginning in early childhood. Tay et al. (2018) concluded young students with gifts and talents were intellectually stimulated and discovered interests in STEM in out-of-school enrichment programs. Similarly, Ihrig et al. (2018) found out-of-school programming offered rural middle school students with gifts and talents a pathway to develop creative and critical thinking skills, deal with academic challenges, and engage in challenging curricula. STEM activities related to real-world applications enhanced high school students’ STEM career aspirations (Kitchen et al., 2018) and the addition of research projects, extracurricular STEM activities, and inquiry-based learning developed STEM talents in high school (Forman et al., 2015). Cross and Frazier (2009) also found that high school students with gifts and talents in STEM valued self-improvement, responsibility, passion, and willingness to make sacrifices, which was in alignment with the components of self-efficacy, future orientation, willing to make sacrifices, and internal locus of control, in the SIM (Whiting, 2006).

Marshall et al. (2011) summarized several factors for cultivating STEM talents in K-12 settings, including learning experiences in math and science reasoning and acquiring intellectual and social skills. They described how support from trustworthy networks, such as like-minded peers who also valued and were determined in STEM education and careers, teachers, counselors, and mentors helped students form STEM identities and build self-efficacy in STEM. Moreover, students’ interest in STEM could be developed by meaningful scientific explorations, such as tinkering, experimentation, and cognitive play in a physically and psychologically safe environment. Finally, culturally responsive practices and multicultural learning including inclusive curricula, self-care, service-learning, student-initiated cultural clubs, and leadership education helped develop students’ sense of cultural belonging and heritage appreciation.

In their intervention study of STEM undergraduate disciplines, Windsor et al. (2015) found that students’ retention and performance were improved through boosting their foundational math knowledge; wide networking with peers, teachers, or faculty members in STEM; and active engagement in STEM learning communities. They found networking programs (involving networking with fellow STEM students and faculty members) most benefited women and Black students with increased performance and retention. This finding highlighted the importance of networking to support minoritized students’ success in STEM. Researchers also revealed that active engagement with mentors and more knowledgeable peers (Palmer et al., 2011), collaborative learning experiences (Jaeer et al., 2008), and research opportunities (Chang et al., 2014) increased undergraduate retention rates in STEM degree programs. In addition, Carpi et al. (2017) noted undergraduate research experiences were transformative for minoritized students’ career ambitions, increasing their professionalization and addressing false conceptions of career paths.

Mullet et al. (2017) synthesized factors that contribute to women’s talent development in STEM through a systematic review, finding talented women who succeed in university-level STEM possessed intense interest in science and math, strong pre-college academic readiness in STEM, and positive STEM identity. Positive interactions and comprehensive social support from families, peers, and mentors, together with institutional support, such as welcoming climate, flexible work schedules, and opportunities for authentic practices helped them persist and envision a STEM career. Mullet et al. (2017) also found women in STEM productively resisted the meritocratic culture in STEM through personal agency. For example, these women actively influenced others with their values rather than being influenced by the masculine-gendered norms in STEM. They also chose to work with women scientists of color to resist racist and sexist stereotypes and used others’ underestimation of them as motivation to persist in STEM.

Underrepresented, Minoritized Students in STEM

Minoritized students are severely underrepresented in STEM education and the workforce, as evidenced by the disproportionality in STEM degree recipients and STEM career occupations (NCSES, 2021). Increasing the recruitment and retention of minoritized groups in STEM requires maximizing their access to rigorous and advanced STEM education.

Gifted education and advanced placement (AP) program participation were protective factors for minoritized students to access advanced STEM education and careers, particularly for students who were dually marginalized (racially minoritized women and girls). Gifted education helped minoritized students socialize into the advanced STEM courses (Collins, Joseph, & Ford, 2020). Young, Young, and Ford (2017) found fourth-grade Black girls who had access to gifted education achieved significantly higher than Black girls who did not (d = .48, CI [0.21, 0.76]) in NAEP 2019 to 2010 mathematics and science assessments. Smith et al. (2018) found that first-generation, minoritized students, and female students who had taken AP STEM courses in high school had higher STEM grades and a greater probability of completing a STEM degree in college than their non-AP STEM peers.

However, minoritized students were substantially underrepresented in gifted education and AP courses (Gentry et al., 2019; Kettler & Hurst, 2017). For example, College Board’s (2022) AP cohort report showed that for the class of 2021 in the U.S. public schools, Black or African American AP exam takers comprised 8.1% of all AP exam takers, but only 4.6% of AP exam takers who scored 3 or greater; 25.7% of AP exam takers were Hispanic/Latino students who constituted 23.6% of students who scored 3 or higher. Structural inequities in education occur from the time children are born (Peters, 2022). At the early stages of schooling, minoritized students’ lack of access to early preparation in mathematics and science decreased their self-perception of academic ability and interest in STEM, decreased their intrinsic motivation to pursue STEM-related careers, and influenced their course choices in secondary schools (Young, Young, & Ford, 2017). Therefore, researchers (e.g., Young, Young, & Ford, 2017) have suggested nurturing minoritized students’ self-efficacy, interest, and knowledge in STEM before secondary school to prime the STEM pipeline. What is more, when minoritized students’ gift manifestations deviated from teachers’ perceived norms, those students were under-referred to gifted education and advanced STEM courses (Nicholson-Crotty et al., 2016).

Internalized negative stereotypes resulted in minoritized students hiding their giftedness (Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012). Collins, Joseph, and Ford (2020) mentioned that for gifted Black girls, underdeveloped STEM identity and talent, chilly STEM climate, stereotype threat, imposter syndrome, and dual marginalization were major barriers to their participation in advanced STEM courses. Their reluctance to participate in advanced STEM courses in secondary schools hindered their major and career choices in STEM. In addition, limited exposure to challenging and advanced math and science courses impeded Black girls’ interest and passion in STEM disciplines, even though they performed well in fundamental courses (Rollock, 2007). Cultural conflicts also occurred when minoritized students’ life-world culture ⁵ was inconsistent with the culture of school science, which caused inner conflicts, such as cognitive and cultural conflicts (Chowdhury, 2016). Exacerbating the issue, STEM high school administrators did not emphasize the recruitment of minoritized students (Forman et al., 2015). To increase representation and retention of minoritized students in advanced STEM courses, developing students’ STEM identities was significant. For example, Young, Ero-Tolliver, et al. (2017) found that science identity, compared to self-efficacy, interest, and utility, was a stronger positive predictor of Black girls’ willingness to participate in advanced high school science courses.

Leyva et al. (2021) investigated marginalized college students’ (i.e., Black and Latin men and women, White women) perceptions of undergraduate mathematics education. They found mathematics instruction was rooted in racial and gendered mechanisms. The mechanisms were characterized by instructors’ racial stereotyping toward students (e.g., lack of intelligence in mathematics, do not care about education, academic misbehaviors), which led them to provide differential supports; instructors’ explicit exclusionary actions (e.g., overemphasizing the gatekeeper role of mathematics to success in STEM, and instructors holding mathematical authority over students); and lack of within-group peer support due to the existence of racial/gender underrepresentation in mathematics. In addition, high-achieving minoritized college students frequently experienced imposter syndrome (Coleman et al., 2013), causing them to fail to actualize their talents (Majors & Billson, 1993) and to reject their STEM identity for social affiliation (Collins, 2018). Minoritized students in STEM disciplines experienced social isolation that aggravated their retention in these areas (Figueroa & Hurtado, 2013).

Racial microaggressions ⁶ also disconfirmed high-achieving minoritized college students’ STEM identities (Miles et al., 2020). In higher education settings, hierarchical microaggressions (Young et al., 2015) were common, resulting in “systemic devaluing” (Young et al., 2015, p. 61). Examples of racialized hierarchical aggression experienced by minoritized students in STEM include (a) environmental microaggressions (e.g., a lab named after a specific ethnicity), (b) microinvalidations (e.g., color-blind racism), (c) microinsults (e.g., unconsciously negative stereotypes about a certain racial group), and (d) microassults (e.g., name-calling) (Marshall et al., 2021). Lee (2022) summarized the outcomes of hierarchical microaggressions in higher education, which included withdrawing from programs, increased stress, mental and physical health problems, and disengagement. Notwithstanding these challenges, high-achieving minoritized students in STEM demonstrated resilience and saw themselves as role models for other minoritized students in predominantly White institutions (PWIs) (Aish et al., 2017). Consequently, racial battle fatigue (Smith, 2004) was aggregated, which stemmed from the navigation of negative stereotypes and biases resulting from structural racism (Eaton et al., 2020); the internalized obligation to “display a persona that countered stereotypes about Black people” (McGee & Bentley, 2017, p. 277); and the racialized stress of proving abilities to those who underestimated them (McGee & Bentley, 2017). However, expectations from faculty members, self-perceptions of preparation for advanced learning, and feelings of acceptance in STEM settings mediated minoritized students’ distress levels in graduate school (Fisher et al., 2019).

Women and girls of color, especially those who identify as Black, need to negotiate multiple marginalized identities to achieve success in STEM. Hanson (2009) found Black women possessed strong positive dispositions toward STEM. However, their dual marginalization in gifted and STEM education had multiplicative effects on the oppression and discrimination they faced in STEM (Young, Young, & Ford, 2017). Black women college students majoring in STEM reported feeling isolated and subordinated in academic settings that perpetuated their exclusion based on race and gender (Charleston et al., 2014). Besides dealing with pressures from and exclusionary practices by peers and faculty who are not Black, Black girls and women also needed to negotiate the tensions with Black peers. Leyva (2021) examined the within-group tensions among Black women in P-16 mathematics education. Leyva found that within-group tensions stemmed from the internalized racial-gendered ideologies (e.g., hierarchy of mathematics abilities) and normalized structural inequities (e.g., racial-gendered exclusions in advanced mathematics class, lack of institutional support in high-quality mathematics learning) presented in mathematics education as a White, patriarchal space. Leyva called for institutions to foster and strengthen within-group solidarity by promoting peer collaborations and creating affinity spaces.

Increasing the representation of Black girls and women in STEM requires systematic effort to challenge the racial-gendered culture of STEM. For example, Joseph et al. (2017) identified structural disruptions necessary to combat the institutional barriers that Black women and girls face. These include training culturally responsive and equity-minded school personnel, creating dynamic interactive relationships with communities, and developing resilience strategies, such as stereotype management (McGee & Martin, 2011) to develop, affirm, and strengthen Black women and girls’ mathematics identities. King (2022) called for actions to create equitable STEM learning spaces for Black girls. These actions included transforming educators’ deficit thinking toward asset-based views of Black girls in STEM; creating humanizing and authentic STEM learning communities for Black girls; and capitalizing on Black girls’ multidimensional identities to reaffirm their talents in STEM.

Context, Recruitment, and Participants

At the time of this study, all participants attended graduate school at a top-tier public research university in the Midwestern U.S. By fall of 2021, 11,613 of this university’s approximately 46,000 students were enrolled in graduate schools. The Division of Diversity and Inclusion for this university highlights that Latinx (614), Black (377), American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) (29), and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) (6) accounted for 8.8% of the total number of graduate students enrolled.

To identify essential and varying features of minoritized students’ talent development in STEM, we employed maximum variation sampling to recruit participants (Suri, 2011). After obtaining the university’s Institutional Review Board approval, a recruitment email with a statement of the inclusion and exclusion criteria was sent to all master’s and doctoral students in STEM departments. For inclusion, participants had to self-identify as (a) Black, Latinx, AIAN, or NHPI; (b) domestic U.S. high school graduates; and (c) currently enrolled in STEM disciplines. Domestic White and Asian students were excluded, as were international students, because they were not considered minoritized in STEM disciplines due to the number of enrollments (NCSES, 2021). Forty-five graduate students expressed interest in participating by submitting an online Qualtrics form. These responses were used to select a group of interview participants from diverse races and majors (e.g., mechanical Engineering, health science, and aeronautical and astronautical engineering); 27 respondents formed the participant pool. Finally, after conducting three, individual online interviews with 15 participants who were representative of the 27 respondents, the decision to cease data collection was made when informational redundancy was reached to indicate data saturation (Saunders et al., 2018). Examples of the interview questions included “Tell me about your elementary school life and experience” and “Who was primarily responsible for getting you involved in STEM?” Of the 27 potential participant pool, 10 were cisgender ⁷ men who met the inclusion criteria; however, only three men ultimately agreed to participate, which resulted in more women than men in the study.

Table 1 presents the participants’ demographic information, including their self-selected pseudonyms. To protect participants’ confidentiality, their specific program information was not revealed in this study. Due to small numbers of minoritized students in STEM majors, naming specific programs might make individual participants identifiable. Complete demographic information including narrative stories is contained in Appendix A.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Six Phases of Thematic Data Analysis in This Study.

Phases of thematic analysis	Approaches	Strategies to establish trustworthiness	Coding example
Phase 1: familiarizing with data	Verbatim transcription, accuracy checking, comprehensive reading of transcriptions	Write analytical memos, bracketing, document thoughts and notes	—
Phase 2: generating initial codes	Highlight relevant segments	Audit trail of codes generation	The data excerpt “He [the professor] asked me to join him on a project . . . I ended up presenting that project at the conference for that particular project later, which was cool, and then my sophomore year, I joined a different lab, and I started work on biomechanics, which is also really cool” was coded as an initial code rich research experience in undergraduate There are more examples of initial codes, such as research internship, family adversity, academic pressure, racisms at school, school system barrier, conflicts with teachers, cope with setbacks, early self-awareness of talent in STEM, high self-efficacy in STEM, being hard-working, and so on
Phase 3: searching for themes	Compare all initial codes, create visual presentation of potential themes and subthemes	Diagramming, researcher triangulation	The initial codes, transition difficulty, isolated in advanced class, struggling with identity, were coded as a subtheme social rejection in G/T programs
Phase 4: reviewing themes	Review data segments and themes, examine conceptual coherence	Member checks, peer debriefing	Initial codes, desire for belongingness, diversity appreciation, feel less than others, wish for cultural connections, were added into the subtheme of not relating to others culturally. The two subthemes, not relate to others culturally, and culture shock in college, were combined into one subtheme Not Relating to Others. The two subthemes, social rejection in G/T programs and being bullied because of giftedness, were combined into one subtheme, Giftedness as a Burden. The two new subthemes were combined into one theme Sense of Loneliness at Schools
Phase 5: defining themes	Assess the refined themes	Reflexive journals, researcher triangulation	The potential theme struggling at school contained subthemes, such as lack of institutional structural support, lack of emotional support, racisms at school, blind to racisms school system barrier. This potential theme was conceptually similar to the potential theme chilly atmosphere at school. Thus, we combined the two themes together and defined the new theme as Chilly Atmosphere in STEM Departments
Phase 6: reporting	Report the results	Member checks, accuracy checking	–

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Data Collection

Data were collected between July and December 2020 and included an online demographics questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire included age, gender, ethnicity, preferred pseudonym, parent/guardians’ highest level of education, undergraduate institution, and current major. Then, to gain an in-depth understanding of participants’ social-emotional experiences, we used semi-structured interview protocols (Patton, 2015) (see Appendix B), which were developed based on the literature review regarding minoritized students’ K-12 school experience, identity awareness, challenges, and supports. Each participant participated in three 45- to 60-min individual interviews that were conducted via Zoom, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. There was a 1-week gap between interviews to create time for participants to reflect on their experiences. We did not give participants prompts to reflect on, but each participant mentioned they reflected on their schooling experiences after the first interview. Each participant received a US$40 e-gift card incentive.

Data Analysis

We used Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis and an inductive approach (Patton, 2015) to explore the essence of minoritized students’ talent development processes in STEM by (1) familiarizing ourselves with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining themes, and (6) reporting the findings (see Table 2). The identified themes were bounded by the explicit meaning of data that revealed minoritized students’ talent development patterns in STEM disciplines. The significance of a theme was independent of the number of references made to it by the participants; however, referential adequacy was considered an important criterion to determine ultimate themes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Participants’ Demographic Information.

Student/pseudonym	Age	Ethnicity	Discipline	ESL	NSLP	Identified as gifted in grade	First-generation graduate student
Women
Lorean	23	Latinx	Engineering	Yes	Yes	2nd	No
Laura	23	Latinx	Engineering	No	Yes	6th	No
Anon	26	Latinx	Engineering	Yes	Yes	4th	No
Eve	26	Latinx	Science	No	Yes	–	Yes
Ella	27	Black	Engineering	No	Yes	6th	Yes
Lola	25	Black	Science	No	Yes	9th	Yes
Shila	27	Black	Science	No	Yes	6th	Yes
Ashley	27	Black	Engineering	Yes	Yes	2nd	No
Selena	25	Black	Science	No	Yes	4th	Yes
Beth	22	AIAN	Science	No	No	7th	No
Niki	41	AIAN	Science	No	Yes	9th	Yes
Men
Matt	28	Native	Engineering	No	No	3rd	No
Jack	25	Hispanic	Engineering	Yes	No	2nd	No
Austin	23	Hispanic	Engineering	No	Yes	7th	Yes
Tony	34	Hispanic	Engineering	Yes	Yes	7th	No

Note. Engineering included aeronautical/astronautical; mechanical biomedical; industrial; and materials. Science included health; medicinal chemistry/molecular pharmacology; and environmental. ESL=English as a second language; NSLP= National School Lunch Program; AIAN = American Indian and Alaska Native.

First, all interviews were transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVivo 12 for analysis. After reading the transcripts several times to gain a holistic overview of the data, we wrote two analytical memos to describe initial reflections about the data. Analytic memos were used to sympathize and empathize with the participants’ experiences and establish connections (Saldaña, 2015) between our interpretations and the participants.

Second, after developing an understanding of data, we generated initial codes using NVivo 12 by highlighting the relevant segments throughout the entire data set. Data segments indicated that the same features were tagged with initial codes, extracted, and collated within each code. For example, participants discussed their learning experience in extracurricular programs outside of schools, various gifted education programs at different grade levels, academic competitions, and participation in high-performance learning communities throughout all schooling. The type of experience generated 79 initial codes.

Third, we compared the initial codes across cases, sorted the initial codes, and formed the potential overarching themes and subthemes with visual presentations, such as mind maps, tables, and graphic organizers. Some initial codes were revised or combined. For example, some initial codes, such as “desire for belongingness,” “wish for cultural connections,” and “desire for personal attachment” were combined into the category “loneliness at school.” Some miscellaneous codes which did not fit into potential themes, such as “under-resourced school” and “learning autonomy,” were grouped and set aside.

Fourth, potential themes were refined by reviewing the extracted data within each initial code and examining the conceptual coherence among potential themes. Some initial codes were regrouped into potential themes. Fifth, data were reorganized within each theme, and a detailed analysis of each theme that comprised the narrative was created. Each analysis account was then compared to define what each theme meant, and overlapping themes were removed. We assessed the refined themes, which resulted in seven final themes. At last, member checks were employed before producing the final report (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). All participants read the established themes and analyses to check accuracy and affirmed that the themes and interpretations were accurate. Five of them provided further information to reflect feelings and experiences based on the generated themes.

Trustworthiness

Theme 1: Academic Rigor in STEM

Academic rigor refers to intellectual enrichment and academic challenges experienced by participants throughout their schooling. Participants indicated that they benefited from gifted education programs, specifically enrichment and acceleration in mathematics and science beginning in elementary grades. In addition, they believed their early involvement in undergraduate research prepared them for graduate school, and interest in mathematics and science intrinsically motivated them for advanced STEM learning.

Theme 2: Extended Support Networks

Extended support networks also influenced participants’ intellectual and socioemotional development, and continued support from families provided the basis for participants to persist in STEM. Friends from similar cultural backgrounds created an environment of belonging, and genuine care from teachers and mentors helped them mitigate academic and emotional challenges. For some participants, their faith kept them hopeful about the future.

Theme 3: Sense of Loneliness at Schools

Participants described being one of only a few minoritized students in gifted education programs: “I was the only Black kid in the advanced classes” (Shila, individual interview 1, August 3, 2020); “I was always gonna be the only woman of color in our program” (Selena, individual interview 1, August 3, 2020). Thus, being identified as gifted seemed burdensome and resulted in their social exclusion and a strong sense of loneliness.

Theme 4: Chilly Atmosphere in STEM-Related Departments

Nine participants noted that learning atmospheres in STEM departments at PWIs were chilly for minoritized undergraduate and graduate students. Discouraging messages conveyed by faculty members from both the within- and cross-racial groups impeded minoritized students’ persistence in STEM. For example, some White faculty members stereotyped minoritized women students by suggesting they were not interested in or good at STEM. Participants also viewed STEM departments as characterized by an unwelcoming climate toward minoritized students, hostile academic environments, few interpersonal interactions, and ignorance about mental wellness.

Theme 5: Imposter Syndrome Mentality

Fourteen participants reported that they often experienced imposter syndrome. Clance and Imes (1978) characterized imposter syndrome as possessing the mentality of being a phony in intellectual communities, failing to internalize their high achievement, and attributing success to temporary causes instead of demonstrated capabilities. Participants’ imposter syndrome manifested as “demotivation,” “self-doubt,” “lack of confidence,” “confusion,” “depression,” “feeling inferior,” and “heartbreaking.” In this study, participants’ imposter syndrome stemmed from others’ constant negative comments about their (the participants’) intellectual abilities; participants felt the shadow of affirmative action which resulted in feelings of self-doubt. They read the scrutiny in the gaze of some students and professors that their performance might not correspond to the acknowledged university admission standard.

Certain factors contributed to participants’ experiencing imposter syndrome. Imposter syndrome occurred among participants at the beginning of undergraduate and graduate school when faculty members and White peers suggested they were only admitted to college because of affirmative action: “I always feel I’m a number that school needed” (Tony, individual interview 2, August 3, 2020). Internalized negative stereotypes also made participants assume they were not academically prepared relative to their White peers. Austin expressed concern when starting graduate school, stating, “I’m not sure if I can live up to that reputation (of my graduate school)” (Austin, individual interview 2, July 29, 2020). In addition, previous learning experiences in highly competitive environments also decreased their self-efficacy, resulting in participants reinforcing imposter syndrome mentalities. Niki, a Native American science major who self-isolated for years in her boarding high school for gifted students because she could not culturally, socially, or economically relate to her White and Asian peers, described, “I’ve never believed that I’m probably as talented as I am” (Individual interview 2, December 8, 2020). Long-term isolation and loneliness negatively influenced her self-efficacy. Relatedly, Ella, who was burdened with racial and gendered negative stereotypes, explained the causes of her imposter syndrome:

It’s definitely hard to constantly be reminded that I am less than, and that I am not equal because of what I look like . . . If I don’t get something right away, but obviously, everyone around me who don’t (sic) look like me gets it, I will doubt my ability and think like what’s wrong with me? I will think it confirms what others said, that I am here only because of the diversity ratio. It makes me think I don’t deserve to be here because I’m not smart enough to get it. (Individual interview 2, July 23, 2020)

Dealing with imposter syndrome was a “constant battle” for participants, and they all acknowledged that talking to friends who were also experiencing imposter syndrome was helpful. Ashley explained, “If you don’t have the right community, or you don’t have the right mental checks, those things stay with you” (Individual interview 1, July 20, 2020). Furthermore, witnessing friends’ success also boosted their confidence to achieve and overcome negative feelings, as they could view similar success as a possibility for themselves.

Theme 6: Pressured Self-Proving Process

All participants indicated that they experienced constant pressure and anxiety to prove themselves as worthy students and researchers, and they felt obligated to make their families proud. Furthermore, others’ underestimation and bias propelled them to prove their abilities. They suppressed the negative stereotypes put on them by others and strived to dismantle others’ assumptions by proving their excellence in STEM. The participants’ experiences of negative stereotypes increased their mental load, which led to psychophysiological distress and burnout. The process of self-proving was full of “anxiety,” “pressure,” “struggles,” “frustration,” and “exhaustion,” which in turn exacerbated their loneliness, otherness, stereotype threats, and imposter syndrome mentality.

Under pressure to improve their family’s social status, participants constantly pushed themselves to prove their academic abilities and reassure their families who believed higher education was the key to a brighter future. In Jack’s words, “My parents always wanted me to do very well, which pressured me to prove myself” (Individual interview 1, July 10, 2020). Given their outstanding performance throughout school, participants had developed the habit of not wanting to disappoint themselves: “I was always stressed and anxious all the time because I really wanted to do well in my classes” (Anon, individual interview 1, July 18, 2020). All participants held themselves to high expectations and were self-oriented perfectionists, because they did not believe there was room for trial and error in their worlds of limited access to high-quality educational resources.

Throughout participants’ schooling, some K-12 teachers and college faculty members underestimated their intellectual abilities, which motivated them to push themselves harder to prove their academic capabilities. Lorean, who immigrated to the United States with her family to start school, explained that in her elementary school’s ESL program, “I didn’t feel like my teachers really believed in me. I felt like they gave up on me a lot quicker and made negative assumptions about me” (Individual interview 1, July 13, 2020). Lorean’s experiences exacerbated her drive to work harder and prove herself to those who undervalued her. Ella, who was told to quit engineering by a college professor because she was Black, explained,

All of the different microaggressions and professors not believing in you and things like that, you kinda carry that with you, even though it’s not like you believe it, but a lot of times when something happens, it’s in the back of your hat . . . it pushes me to go further. (Individual interview 2, July 23, 2020)

In Tony’s undergraduate school, the Dean of Engineering told him engineering was “not for him,” which made him angry at the assumption he was incapable. The experience motivated Tony to perform well in engineering, both to prove himself and to prove his dean wrong. Eve mentioned that she was always told, “When you’re a minority, you need to work twice as hard to prove yourself” (Individual interview 3, August 10, 2020). When Lola was an undergraduate, some of her Black friends dropped out of college or delayed graduation. She feared delaying graduation would exacerbate faculty’s negative views of Black women students, so that, she pushed herself harder to disprove their assumptions and prove her academic capabilities. Consequently, Lola’s anxiety was fueled in part by the incessant pressure to prove herself and challenge stereotypes of Black women.

Most participants relied on friends and mentors to cope with pressure and process their feelings; some also turned to therapy or counseling services. Participants described trying every approach to maintain a stable and healthy emotional state, such as acknowledging and reflecting on their emotions, eating healthier, and exercising. However, five participants (Shila, Selena, Lola, Niki, and Beth) mentioned that they did not know how to deal with the pressure; rather, they kept everything to themselves and struggled in silence.

Theme 7: Sense of Responsibility for Community Services

Nine participants expressed a strong sense of responsibility to serve their communities and advocate for social justice, which contributed to their primary motivations in college. Driven by these goals, they performed well with the intention of being role models, actively engaging in community service, and voicing and modeling their support for social justice. They also devoted themselves to conducting research beneficial to their communities.

Participants were especially motivated to pursue and persist in advanced STEM degrees so they could be role models for others in their communities: “It makes me wanna do it more. Because I want younger people to feel like someone has done it, I’m not the only one” (Niki, individual interview 2, December 8, 2020). Matt, who is from the Seneca tribe, expressed, “I kinda have a responsibility to make sure I have a good life . . . So other [Native people] see you do it then they feel like that they can relate” (Individual interview 2, November 16, 2020). Shila had never identified role models in her racial community, which motivated her to set herself as an example for others. Similarly, Ella said, “Most people around me were born in poverty, and they died in poverty, that the road out of it was pretty narrow, and so once I make it out, I basically do everything in my power to make something out of that opportunity and also lift others on my way up” (Individual interview 2, July 23, 2020).

Participants actively advocated by standing out and speaking up for their racial communities. Although Niki chose to hide her Native American identity in middle school to avoid racist comments from peers, emotional distress gradually led Niki to accept her identity and become a voice for her community: “It solidified the fact that, yes, this is who I am, and it’s not something that I should be embarrassed about or try to hide” (Individual interview 1, December 1, 2010). Laura explained that through all the microaggressions she experienced, she learned to actively seek leadership roles to support minoritized students and challenge social inequities: “Rather than letting racism discourage me, I instead use the anger that I feel to motivate me to take action” (Individual interview 2, July 20, 2020). Lorena, Laura, and Eve were avid volunteers for their communities and offered summer workshops for minoritized middle school students. They understood the value of out-of-school STEM enrichment activities, such as opportunities to find like-minded peers and role models, and build STEM aspirations, for young minoritized students who lack access due to financial reasons.

Participants also committed to conducting research that could improve the living environments of their under-resourced ethnically diverse communities. For instance, Shila pursued toxicology studies to improve social justice for the Black community: “The waste from industries and companies goes into communities of color” (Individual interview 1, August 3, 2020). Lola, who was from an urban Black community that lacked equity and equality, was motivated to effect change:

I was very interested in trying to figure out what I need to have as a career to be able to change the life of other people that look like me . . . I do feel some type of responsibility in doing my best to help people. And I feel like I need to have a Ph.D. to be able to be in the places and spaces that allow me to help people who look like me. (Individual interview 3, August 14, 2020)

Like Niki, Beth, who is from the Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma, once concealed her Native American heritage due to bullying from other students. However, as an undergraduate, Beth started to explore how she could incorporate her Native identity with science to serve Native American communities. With this goal, she applied for graduate school and dedicated herself to plant pathology research for her tribe,

I wanted to do something that gave back to my Nation in whatever way I could . . . I work on resistance mechanisms, so how to make plants resistant to bacteria and fungi, and that really related back to my tribe, because a lot of native farmers are in poverty, and so they can’t afford pesticides or fungicides that helped their crops. This is my calling. (Individual interview 1, December 1, 2020)

The toll of cultural taxation inside and outside of academia was not identified by participants themselves but was evidenced in the narratives of participants in this study. Cultural taxation (Padilla, 1994) was defined as the extra burden and expectations of service responsibilities placed upon faculty and staff of color to serve as ethnic representatives to address diversity-related affairs in university settings. In this study, participants undertook diversity- and social justice-related services responsibilities to advise and mentor students of color, speak up against injustices, and serve their racial communities through their talents; they knew if they did not, no one would, since they were one of few members of a minoritized group to make such achievements. The universities benefited from their presence and contributions, but did not record, notice, or compensate for their extra workload. Instead, for example, some were accused by faculty members of spending time and resources on research that only benefited their own racial communities. Participants indicated the need for more financial and administrative support from STEM departments to sustain their services.

Pillars of Support for Precollege Socialization and Readiness and College Achievement

The four pillars of the SIM were supported through family involvement, school relationships, community support, and mentoring, all of which were key to the success and persistence of participants. Our findings indicate that supports from family, friends, school, community, and mentors lay a solid foundation for STEM scholar identity development, and thus we suggest adding “friends” as a supporting pillar to the SIM. Our findings align with previous research regarding supports for talent development among underserved youth, as they reveal the following elements as key contributors to students’ talent development in STEM: sustained family support (Hébert, 2018); peer companionship (Fries-Britt et al., 2010); high-quality experiences in K-12 schools and colleges, including academic rigor in gifted programs (Hébert, 2018); strong high school preparation in STEM (Palmer et al., 2011); undergraduate research involvement in STEM (Carpi et al., 2017) and supportive educators (Hébert, 2018); involvement in STEM professional communities (Chang et al., 2014); and influential mentors (Chelberg & Bosman, 2019). These findings also resonated with Harper’s (2010) anti-deficit achievement framework. We found familial supports shaped minoritized students’ aspirations for higher education in STEM and helped them retain their motivation. In addition, supporting factors, such as participation in gifted education programs and/or AP classes, like-minded peers, caring teachers, mentors, STEM-related professional communities, and experiential opportunities in research socialized minoritized students into STEM and prepared them for advanced learning.

Characteristics of Minoritized Students’ STEM Scholar Identity

In the SIM (Whiting, 2014), self-efficacy served as the basis for minoritized students’ scholar identity. This laid the foundation for the development of other motivational and affective characteristics, such as future orientation, willingness to make sacrifices, internal locus of control, need for achievement over affiliation, and academic self-confidence.

Our findings suggest that social supports also help develop minoritized students’ self-efficacy regarding their academic abilities in STEM, which may link to increased resilience for persisting through hardships in graduate school. In predominantly White STEM learning spaces, participants had to overcome structural barriers and stereotypes that automatically presumed they were incapable or were only there because of affirmative action and diversity quotas (Laar et al., 2008). When participants held a strong sense of self-efficacy regarding their talent in STEM, they were better positioned to reject these negative views.

With aspirations for future advanced STEM achievement and careers, the participants were intrinsically motivated to commit to and persist in STEM learning, despite having been isolated in gifted programs and STEM departments throughout schooling (Miller & Orsillo, 2020). They appreciated opportunities to engage in advanced STEM courses with high-quality educators; therefore, they were willing to sacrifice their comfortability, time, and social life to engage in these opportunities. Minoritized students also developed internal locus of control, which was characterized by their resilient work ethic in advanced STEM learning (Whiting, 2006).

In addition, minoritized students expressed intense desire and need to achieve and succeed in rigorous STEM disciplines, not only to uplift their families, but also to prove their capabilities to those who undervalued them and their racial communities. They also expressed a strong need for affiliation to succeed in culturally unresponsive STEM environments. When participants experienced a sense of otherness in STEM departments (Harper, 2010), they sought affiliation and support for achievement in STEM professional communities for minoritized students.

Coupled with these developing efficacious attitudes, minoritized students deemed themselves to be capable and talented in STEM. They enjoyed the rigor and challenges associated with STEM learning and they were not deterred by negative stereotypes, underestimation, and pressure because externally, they were surrounded with the supports from the pillars in SIM, and internally, they were achievement-oriented, confident, and willing to sacrifice social comfortability for achievement. Instead, they kept moving forward with stronger work ethic and more intrinsic motivation.

From anti-deficit orientations, these characteristics and intentions drove them to persist in STEM programs despite the challenges they experienced (Harper, 2010). Minoritized students in STEM were able to thrive in predominantly White learning spaces by developing and maintaining self-efficacy in STEM. Their confidence in STEM-related tasks was cultivated and reinforced by their demonstrated competence in gifted programs, AP classes, and college achievement. It was their goals for future, intentions to make sacrifices, locus of control, need for achievement, and academic confidence that propelled them to persist and achieve (SIM, Whiting, 2014).

Race and Cultural Consciousness

In the SIM (Whiting, 2014), race and cultural consciousness intertwined to affect minoritized students’ scholar identities. Findings also revealed that minoritized students’ academic self-confidence is negatively affected by overt and covert messages from professors (Fries-Britt et al., 2010) and chilly climates within and across STEM departments (Flynn, 2016). These findings support Rainey et al.’s (2018) argument that current college systems, structures, and cultures still privilege White students. For example, engineering schools are designed around White culture in a White space, which creates barriers for minoritized students. These findings also align with Leyva et al. (2021) in that STEM classroom instructions were saturated with racial-gendered mechanisms. As a result, minoritized STEM students are dismissed by some faculty and viewed as incapable of achieving; consequently, these demoralizing messages damage minoritized students’ confidence and give rise to intensely feeling of the shadow of affirmative action.

Relative to other students in the sample, Black women students who had at least two “strikes” against them based on the identities of being a woman and Black, described more experiences with racism. Black women students undergo more challenges, such as working with unfriendly professors and experiencing social isolation in departments, compared to other racial and ethnic groups (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). This finding is consistent with many findings (e.g., Leyva, 2021; Young, Young, & Ford, 2017) that revealed Black girls or women were most marginalized in STEM when they experienced cross- and within-racial tensions. This finding can be partially explained by color-blind racism ⁹ (Bonilla-Silva, 2017). It is consistent with Collins’ (2018) assertion that color-blind racial ideologies negatively affect Black students’ STEM identities by devaluing their “cultural strengths,” “contributions,” “perception in STEM,” “hard work,” and by overlooking “systematic discrimination practices” (p. 150). Given these challenges, Black girls and women in STEM may develop reactive coping strategies to avoid situations in which they might encounter racism.

Nevertheless, the anti-deficit inquiries revealed that they also responded to deficit-laden reinforcements by looking up to the role models from their group (Fuesting & Diekman, 2017) and by self-affirmation of their abilities in STEM (Killpack & Melón, 2017). They also reappraised these negative reinforcements as a potential facilitator to their achievement in STEM by working harder.

Gender-Related Issues

In the SIM (Whiting, 2014), gender-related issues took many forms among minoritized men and women, such as gender stereotyping. Minoritized women in this study were dually marginalized in their respective STEM disciplines. They described experiencing gendered microaggressions in STEM departments, including stereotypes that suggest women do not excel in STEM and should not be outspoken.

In this study, minoritized women in STEM experienced prolonged exposure to stereotype threats. When minoritized women possess a robust STEM identity, they are more vigilant to the cues of stigmatized stereotypes in the racial-gendered STEM environment, which make them more susceptible to stereotype threats (Picho-Kiroga et al., 2021). Also, individuals cultivate their performance expectations based on their social capital resources (e.g., STEM departments) in communities (Pennington et al., 2016). When the communities were primed with racial—gendered stereotypes and low group expectations toward minoritized women, it gave rise to minoritized women’s exposures to stereotype threats, reduced self-expectations, and decreased performance (Cadinu et al., 2003). These chronic stereotype threats in academia undermined their performance and led them to disengage from STEM. This study also revealed that minoritized women experiencing stereotype threats gradually developed vigilance and avoidance strategies (Pennington et al., 2016), as evidenced in eventual unwillingness to make friends outside of their racial groups and by their developing trust issues toward White people. These findings align with Yang and Carroll (2018) who reported on the similar experiences of women faculty in STEM.

From Harper’s (2010) anti-deficit perspective, this study also revealed that minoritized women combated these stereotypes by employing strategies to promote within-group interactions and solidarities (Walton & Carr, 2012) through socializations with caring peers and mentors. They also responded to negative stereotypes by studying and actively seeking visibility and representation (Murphy et al., 2007) in STEM classrooms, leadership roles, and academic conferences. This study also found that minoritized women felt themselves or their ideas dismissed in academia, particularly, when men felt their ego or authority was threatened by high-achieving women, which was becoming a part of the department culture (Gasman et al., 2004). Minoritized women, like Eve, in this study, kept putting out their ideas and persisted in getting themselves noticed.

Findings also indicate that gender identity might be a mediating factor in minoritized students’ degrees of imposter syndrome. In this study and aligned with Peteet et al.’s (2015) findings, imposter syndrome was identified by minoritized women students in STEM higher education, especially during their transition to graduate school at a predominantly White, research-intensive university. Factors influencing imposter syndrome among minoritized women students in this sample included social alienation in graduate schools, internalized stereotype threats, and lack of talent affirmation in STEM departments. Relatedly, Peteet et al. (2015) found that affirmation and belonging were significant predictors of imposter syndrome scores among academically talented Black and Hispanic students. In this study, imposter syndrome also manifested in minoritized men students, but with less frequency and intensity. Similarly, Rosenthal et al. (2021) found that male students in medical schools expressed lower degrees of imposter syndrome than did women. We attribute these findings to the inherent privileges of men who enter STEM fields, who are not subjected to the same doubt and discrimination that women experience (Funk & Parker, 2018). For men of color in this study who are Hispanic and Native American, even though they also experience racism because of racial identity, we assume their gender identity might be a protective factor to prevent them from sexism. Whether the same conclusion could be applied to Black men needs further investigation. Even though one participant (Shila) mentioned academic bullying, it is worthy of our attention. Researchers show evidence that men lead workforce bullying in academic science. For example, Moss and Mahmoudi (2021) reported that graduate students comprised 41% of the targets of academic bullying, especially in STEM departments at the highest-ranked institutions. Women graduate students are more likely to be bullied by men at higher academic ranks (Gold et al., 2020) and even more if they are women of color in workplace (Hollis, 2018). However, this study shows that bullying still occurs in woman-to-woman relationships, as Shila’s experience with a Black woman professor indicated. This finding aligns with the emerging phenomenon that women in leadership roles act aggressively to fit into the culture of male-dominated domains (Harvey, 2018).

From Harper’s (2010) anti-deficit perspective, it was the minoritized students’ strong commitment to community services that ignited and sustained their interest and retention in higher education STEM programs. It also helped them to persist and pursue STEM careers. The young women in this study repeatedly expressed their desire to give back to their communities, to be role models for other STEM-aspiring women, and to fight tirelessly for social justice. We surmise that their drive to advocate and serve was influenced by internal and external pressures to succeed and may have helped them confront feelings of imposter syndrome. The women in this study were proud of their ethnic identities, and they put energy into advancing social justice by seeking research and leadership opportunities to eradicate inequities in health care, ecology, and the environment. This finding is consistent with Canney and Bielefeldt (2015) who found that women engineering college students demonstrated higher degrees of social responsibility than their male peers. We assume it is because of compassion. Women and men socialize into society different since infancy, thus women might be more sensitive to others’ suffering and find it easier to express compassion than men, particularly in a society where compassion was acknowledged as a feminine trait (Yarnell et al., 2019). The other possible reason, from the intersectional perspective, as this study revealed is that minoritized women experienced more stress, stereotypes, and discriminations, and they responded to these sufferings by socializing in and bonding with communities where they were protected and nurtured. Thus, they were prone to dedicate themselves to community services to help others who were suffering the same. Women participants in this study described their commitment to volunteering and frequent involvement in community services, which confirmed the argument that community services framed and facilitated their identity development (Youniss et al., 1999). Although the findings in this study do not suggest gender differences exist on the level of social responsibility, they do suggest that genders may differ in how the sense of making contribution to community is experienced and expressed. These findings align with Aish et al. (2017), who discovered that minoritized students in STEM embody empathetic and helpful role models who possess strong moral character. Important to note, however, is that sometimes participants’ devotion to social justice conflicted with their assigned research responsibilities and was discouraged by faculty. Despite this disconnect, participants understood the importance of standing firm as role models for younger minoritized students, some of whom may aspire toward STEM careers.

Gifted Education Programs

In addition to the thematic findings, 14 of 15 participants in this study were identified as having gifts and talents and had spent years of schooling in various gifted education programs. This finding is important as minoritized students have been woefully minoritized in gifted programs for decades (Peters & Engerrand, 2016). For example, recent estimates indicate that three Black students are missing from gifted programs for everyone one student identified, and these statistics are almost as dismal for Latinx and Indigenous youth (Gentry et al., 2019). The fact that these students were identified with gifts and talents and served in K-12 programs raises concerns regarding recent calls to eliminate gifted programs that are viewed as inequitable (e.g., Shapiro, 2021). Alternatively, rather than eliminate programs completely, perhaps the call could be reframed to ensure gifted programs are equitable and thus beneficial to underserved populations. Ensuring inclusive, culturally relevant K-12 programs designed for youth with gifts and talents could help improve the numbers of underserved students who pursue STEM fields, as well as address the isolation and loneliness that these students commonly experience in K-12 and higher education. In addition, increased diversity and pluralism of perspective would benefit all youth who enroll in gifted and talented programs. This finding resonated with Joseph et al. (2017) who suggested structural disruptions are needed to dismantle normalized inequities to advance diversity and inclusivity in education.

Implications

As Whiting (2006) proposed, scholar identity development requires family involvement, school relationships, community support, and active mentoring. Attention to constructs like developing efficacy, future orientation, and willingness to make sacrifices while developing internal locus of control and self-awareness can contribute to strong scholar identity development. Furthermore, sustained excellence from K-12 through graduate studies necessitates paradigm shifts, such as denoting achievement as more important than affiliation, and valuing race, cultural consciousness, and gender equity over economic productivity. Our findings provide important implications for K-12 educators and those working in higher education to recognize and support the development of STEM talents among minoritized students from the anti-deficit perspective.

Higher Education in STEM

Participants’ struggles in college reveal the need for higher education institutions to exert more effort in embracing diversity, making campus inclusive, and providing an environment that enables all students to excel. To accomplish these goals requires systemic effort among faculty members, STEM departments, and university policies. Table 4 presents the recommendations for actions in higher education to mitigate inequities in STEM based on the findings of this study.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Recommended Actions in Higher Education to Mitigate Inequities in STEM.

University agency	Recommendations
Faculty members and staff in STEM	• Training in culturally responsive practices (Gay, 2002)• Placing importance on teaching to address different learning needs• Holding high expectations for all students free from biases and stereotypes• Differentiating teaching strategies and committing to teaching as well as research (Killpack & Melón, 2017)• Designing social justice driven STEM curricula to combat the negative stereotypes (King Miller et al., 2021)• Broadening the participation of minoritized students in research activities and allocating funds for them to conduct community outreach activities• Developing tangible support for minoritized students’ individualized needs (Dewsbury, 2020)• Helping minoritized students see themselves visible and capable, and treating them with respect and dignity• Appreciating cultural identities (e.g., gender, race, sexual orientation, language, religion, and socioeconomic group)• Being mentors and role models for minoritized graduate and undergraduate students
STEM departments	• Considering community-engaged research and transformational scholarship to incentivize faculty members to engage minoritized students (Whittaker & Montgomery, 2014)• Rewarding faculty members who hold themselves accountable to high-quality, culturally responsive teaching (Baldwin, 2009)• Tying high-quality teaching to courses releases and bonus to motivate faculty members (Whittaker & Montgomery, 2014)• Creating dynamic, multi-level, and interdisciplinary STEM mentoring programs (Collins, Price, et al., 2020)• Providing mentors to help minoritized students’ as they learn to buffer inner conflicts, socialize into STEM communities, identify pronounced personal interests, and strengthen their STEM identities• Putting into place a system of mentors who advise minoritized STEM scholars to set up career goals (Montgomery, 2017) and goals outside of the academic/professional domain to attain a sustainable work-life balance that ensures their retention in the academy (Kachchaf et al., 2015)• Working with cultural centers, professional organizations for minoritized students on campus, and diversity offices to provide comprehensive and supportive networks for students• Offering workshops to discuss mental health topics, such as imposter syndrome, negative stereotypes, racism, and microaggressions• Imparting stereotype management strategies (e.g., coping skills and resilience strategies) to enable students to deal with threats to their robust STEM scholar identities (McGee & Martin, 2011), develop their “be-prepared” mindset (Ben-Zeev et al., 2017) to combat stereotype threats, and allow students to take learning risks without fear of failure (Henry et al., 2021)• Empowering minoritized students in leadership roles of student organizations and academic institutions (Palmer et al., 2011) to expand the existing capital networks• Helping them socialize into STEM through civic engagement activities (Adler & Goggin, 2005) by direct services to address community needs, advocacy, and political involvement• Building more visible accountability systems to increase equity systems (Whittaker & Montgomery, 2014) and embracing cultural diversities on campus (Brennan & Osborne, 2008)• Creating programs to facilitate minoritized students’ discovery of their existing assets and human capital to address stereotyping assumptions
University administration	• Diversifying universities’ Board of Trustees and all advisory boards• Opening campus conversations with university leaderships should be made accessible to all students• Financially and politically supporting efforts to build cross-racial coalitions and solidarity within colleges (McGee, 2018)• Decentering PWIs’ focus on Whiteness as a lens to recognize minoritized students’ oppressions and assets by repositioning their values, solutions, and actions associated with Whiteness (Schmidt, 2018)

Note. STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Briefly, faculty members, STEM departments, and university administrators should create a shared distribution of efforts to improve equity within and across departments. Incentivization and accountability are key for changing faculty culture for the better (Karalis Noel et al., 2021); there are systemic and structural issues that need to be overhauled in academia before any sustainable changes can occur. Department administrators should enhance their accountability systems. Disruptions in university power structures are needed to build an anti-deficit campus. Structural disruptions (Joseph et al., 2017) are the cornerstone to systematically support minoritized students. The changes or interruptions in university structures should be concrete and in fundamental areas of education. Doing so contributes to creating an inclusive and belonging atmosphere and reduces stereotyping and marginalization. It should be noted that while aspects of intersectionality, such as race and gender, may be more easily observable, aspects, such as socioeconomic status and sexual orientation may not be. Therefore, students encounter different kinds of stereotypes and discrimination given their diverse and intersectional identities, which require specific solutions.

Limitations

This study’s credibility was enhanced by establishing trustworthiness during each phase of thematic analysis by using multiple methods, describing the findings from a neutral perspective, and maintaining reflexivity throughout the study. When generalizing the findings, we acknowledge that transferability is left to the reader to judge applicability to other sites, students, and institutions. Since all the data were collected from students at one public, research-intensive PWI in the Midwest, the findings cannot necessarily be applied to a wide range of students and universities in the United States. Future research could prioritize gender balancing in the recruitment of participants, as the gender differences indicated in the findings might be explained by the inadequate number of men participants, especially Black men. Future research should also examine the school learning experiences of Black men in STEM to provide deeper insight into their STEM talent development processes. Last, triangulation of multiple data sources should also be employed, as in-depth interviews were the primary data source in this study. For example, faculty views were excluded from this study, which limited the study to only representing “one side of the story.” Extended findings could be unearthed through the inclusion of data collected from participants’ families, friends, mentors, academic advisors, and university leadership.