Underrepresented First-Generation,Low-Income College Students’ Pursuit of a Graduate Education

Abstract

Access to and success in higher education significantly impact occupational stability and mental wellness in the United States, with higher levels of education contributing to increased employability and wellness. Underrepresented first-generation, low-income (UFGLI) college students face particular challenges in attaining higher levels of education, which poses a problem of inequality in their pursuit of educational and career goals. This study investigated the influence of graduate school self-efficacy, self-efficacy for coping with barriers, and family influence on UFGLI students’ pursuit of graduate school. Only one subconstruct of graduate school self-efficacy (research self-efficacy) and family influences (family values) was found to be predictive of students’ pursuit of graduate school. We discuss these findings and provide recommendations for research and practice.

Keywords

first-generation college students low-income college students career barriers graduate school career development

Access to and success in higher education significantly impact occupational stability and mental wellness in the United States. Higher education gives individuals the opportunity and social capital needed to choose occupations that are congruent with personal values, interests, life goals, and financial needs (Blustein, 2006). Such congruence and workplace experiences also have a direct impact on mental health and overall wellness (Erford & Crockett, 2012; Lent et al., 2011; Ojeda, Flores, & Navarro, 2011; Zunker, 2008). Education beyond high school also serves as buffer against the specter of unemployment, with increasing levels of education leading to lower levels of unemployment. While the overall unemployment rate in 2012 was 8.1%, this masks the disparities in unemployment rates for those who completed a high school diploma (8.3%), some college (7.7%), a bachelor’s degree (4.5%), a master’s degree (3.5%), a professional degree (2.1%), and those who completed a doctoral degree (2.5%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). This disparity is of particular concern, given the negative mental health consequences that are associated with the experience of unemployment (Paul & Moser, 2009).

Given the importance of access to higher education in regard to career development and employment stability, it is necessary to consider factors that affect one’s ability to attain increasing levels of higher education. These considerations are particularly important to consider for populations that face significant barriers and challenges in such pursuits. There are myriad factors that influence the barriers one will encounter in pursuit of higher education, but there are particular ones that have a significant impact. Specifically, racial/ethnic identity (Ojeda et al., 2011; Owens, Lacey, Rawls, & Holbert-Quince, 2010; Wei, Ku, & Liao, 2011), family income (Cooter et al., 2004; Engle & Tinto, 2008), and parental education (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Owens et al., 2010; Seay, Lifton, Wuensch, Bradshaw, & McDowelle, 2008; Whiston & Keller, 2004) have a significant impact on success in college and subsequent career development experiences. Students who are of unrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds, are the first in their family to complete a 4-year college degree, and come from low-income backgrounds (underrepresented first-generation, low-income [UFGLI] college students) face confounded challenges at the intersection of these three factors. While research has been conducted about these three factors in terms of educational and career pursuits, little research has been conducted specifically about UFGLI students’ pursuit of graduate school. This gap in the literature is problematic, given the previously described connection between higher levels of education, unemployment, and access to career opportunities (Blustein, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Further, such disparities are known to lead to poor mental health outcomes (Erford & Crockett, 2012; Lent et al., 2011; Ojeda et al., 2011; Zunker, 2008). As such, in this study, we focused on UFGLI students who possessed particular, intersecting characteristics that are associated with significant barriers to success—students possessing an identity that is underrepresented in college settings (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities), being the first in one’s family to attend college, and coming from a family that earns a low income. We sought to understand how these factors were related to UFGLI college students’ pursuit of a graduate education.

Underrepresented, First-Generation, Low-Income College Students and Graduate School

College students who possess identities that are underrepresented in their college settings face unique career development challenges (e.g., Fouad et al., 2008; Guiffrida & Douthit, 2010; Juntunen et al., 2001). Challenges are compounded when such students’ parents have not attended and/or completed college (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Mehta, Newbold, & O’Rourke, 2011), and when their parents have a low-monetary income (Arnold, Fleming, DeAnda, Castleman, & Wartman, 2009; Engle & Tinto, 2008). Students with these intersecting identities complete college at much lower rates than their counterparts (Engle & Tinto, 2008) and lack structural and sociopolitical supports that are necessary to prepare for entry to and success in graduate studies (Gallardo, 2009; Mamiseishvili, 2010; Owens et al., 2010; Parks-Yancy, 2012). While there is little literature that specifically addresses challenges faced by UFGLI college students’ pursuit of graduate school before being admitted, it seems logical that there are also significant challenges for these students in such pursuits. For example, UFGLI students may have difficulty accessing faculty mentors and/or gaining access to research experience, both of which are supportive of being admitted to graduate school (Williams, 2005; Wilson & Gibson, 2011). The importance of these unique experiences and challenges has been recognized and addressed through national initiatives such as the Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement Program, which helps to prepare UFGLI college students in their pursuit of a graduate degree. Some research has been conducted in the context of the McNair program in terms of tracking students’ entry and success in graduate school (Wilson & Gibson, 2011) and their perceptions of being mentored toward graduate studies by faculty (Ishiyama, 2007; Lam, Ugweje, & Ruby, 2003), but there is no research on factors that contribute to UFGLI students’ pursuit of graduate school. Specifically, there is a dearth of research about factors that influence behaviors and intentions that increase a student’s likelihood of successfully enrolling in a graduate degree program (e.g., studying for the Graduate Record Examination [GRE] or seeking out faculty mentors). This is particularly important given recent calls to focus career development research on issues of agency and intentionality (Richardson, 2012), especially for individuals who experience structural discrimination (Blustein, 2006). In other words, it is important to understand how such populations, such as UFGLI students, use their own personal agency and power in pursuit of career goals. Further, because of the internal and structural barriers faced by such marginalized populations, it is important to investigate psychological and contextual factors that impact their intentionality. In pursuit of this goal, we employed a particular theoretical framework to guide the current study.

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT)

SCCT (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) is based on Bandura’s (1986) general social cognitive theory and takes into account an individual’s personal agency and contextual influences on their career development. SCCT provides a useful structure for investigating UFGLI students’ intentions and behaviors related to their pursuit of graduate school. Specifically, by using SCCT as a frame, we were able to investigate how important internal factors (self-efficacy for graduate studies, perceptions of career/educational barriers, and coping efficacy for overcoming such barriers) and contextual/external factors (family influence) impact their pursuit of graduate school. Before outlining our hypotheses and methods, we turn first to summarizing what is known about these factors in relation to UFGLI students’ career and educational development.

Graduate School Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy beliefs (a central component of SCCT) are believed to be a central component of one’s career developmental process. These beliefs are, in short, an individual’s estimation about her or his ability to perform particular skills or constellations of skills. In other words, self-efficacy “is not a unitary or global trait, like self-esteem.… Rather, self-efficacy is conceived as a dynamic set of self-beliefs that are linked to particular performance domains and activities” (Lent et al., 2005, p. 104). The SCCT model, and self-efficacy in particular, has been shown to be predictive of college students’ career development process (e.g., Betz & Voyten, 1997; Diegelman & Subich, 2001; Feldt & Woelfel, 2009). Because the pursuit of graduate school has large overlap with the pursuit of a particular career path, self-efficacy beliefs will likely have an impact on such pursuits.

Given that self-efficacy is domain-specific in nature, we must consider self-efficacy as it pertains to graduate studies. Williams (2005) proposed three domains that make up self-efficacy for graduate studies—academic, research, and social self-efficacy. Academic self-efficacy refers to a student’s belief in his or her ability to successfully execute course-based activities and assignments and is founded in one’s belief about performance ability in an academic environment (Jackson, 2002; Zimmerman, 1995). Research self-efficacy is a student’s belief about his or her competence in completing research-related activities (e.g., data analysis, research integration, data collection, and technical writing; gBetz, 1989; Forester, Kahn, & Hesson-McInnis, 2004). Social self-efficacy in relation to graduate school refers to a student’s belief in his or her ability to build meaningful, productive social relationships with faculty mentors, advisors, and peers in a graduate program environment (Williams, 2005). While academic (Poyrazli, Arbona, Nora, McPherson, & Pisecco, 2002), research (Gelso et al., 1988; Gelso & Lent, 2000), and social self-efficacy (Ellis, 2001; Overall, Deane, & Peterson, 2011) are important to success in graduate school for students once admitted to a graduate program, there is little research about these constructs in relation to UFGLI students’ pursuit of graduate school before being admitted to a program.

Perceived Barriers and Coping Efficacy

Bandura (1997) also proposed the idea of coping efficacy, or the beliefs one has about his or her ability to cope with difficult, complex circumstances. Such beliefs also fit within the larger model of SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) in that they serve as an internal representation of one’s belief in their ability to overcome contextual barriers that may impede their educational and career goals. While conceptually related to self-efficacy beliefs, coping efficacy is a distinct construct in that they are beliefs about one’s ability to overcome perceived barriers on one’s career path (e.g., coping with sexism as a woman in the engineering field), rather than to perform “normal” tasks within a particular occupation (e.g., performing mathematical tasks as an engineer; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000). Specifically, positive coping efficacy beliefs are believed to serve as a supporting factor when individuals from marginalized backgrounds experience career development challenges (Hackett & Byars, 1996). Research has highlighted the importance of understanding these beliefs, given disparity found between ethnic/racial groups in their confidence to overcome perceived career barriers (Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001).

UFGLI students who are pursuing graduate studies have been found to experience barriers and challenges such as marginalization and prejudice based on personal identities (e.g., gender and racial/ethnic identity; Gardner & Holley, 2011; Leyva, 2011; Wilson & Gibson, 2011), financial difficulties (Seay et al., 2008; Wilson & Gibson, 2011), and lack of support from social networks (Leyva, 2011; Seay et al., 2008; Wilson & Gibson, 2011). While there is no research that has investigated the coping efficacy of UFGLI students, the fact that these barriers will likely be a part of their experience of graduate school necessitates that UFGLI students believe that they have the ability to cope with such challenges. Further, it is important to learn more about UFGLI students’ sense of agency and power in the face of such barriers (Richardson, 2012), and how this agency is connected to their intentions and behaviors in pursuit of graduate studies.

Family Influence

The influence of family on the career development process, including the pursuit of higher education, has been well established (Whiston & Keller, 2004). While family influence has an effect on the career development of the general population, it is believed to vary in quality and intensity across cultural backgrounds and identities (Fouad & Kantamneni, 2008). Family influence has also been shown to be an important factor in the career and educational development of UFGLI graduate students. As undergraduates, some first-generation college students have expressed a desire to honor their families through their educational and career pursuits (Khanh, 2002). In contrast, once in graduate school, some UFGLI students experienced a pronounced dissonance between family expectations and the expectations they experience within graduate school (Gardner & Holley, 2011; Leyva, 2011). Studying family influence for UFGLI students is particularly important, given that the source of their difference from traditional students is closely connected to their experience of their family. In other words, being a UFGLI college student is another way of describing the familial context from which a student comes in pursuit of higher education. Further, past research shows conflicting results about what impact family influence has on their career and educational development. By investigating this construct, we are seeking clarity on this issue by tapping into what might be considered a primary source of what makes these students unique in their pursuit of graduate studies.

Current Study and Hypotheses

Given the importance of self-efficacy, perception of career barriers, coping efficacy, and family influence in regard to FGLI students’ career development and experience of graduate school, we will examine the extent to which these factors also predict their initial pursuit of graduate school. It is our hypothesis that these factors will predict, to a significant degree, FGLI students’ intentions to successfully pursue graduate studies. Specifically, in the context of a regression model analysis, we hypothesize that as self-efficacy and coping efficacy increase, so will UFGLI students’ intentions and behaviors in pursuit of graduate school. We also hypothesize that perception of barriers will predict lower intentionality and behaviors by this population. In terms of family influence, we refrain from hypothesizing due to the conflicting information in the literature in regard to its impact on UFGLI students’ career and educational development. We now turn to a description of our methods for testing these hypotheses.

Methods

Population

After receiving institutional review board approval, participants were recruited via e-mail to complete an online survey, which was sent to participants of The Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program. The McNair program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education and was created to help UFGLI students prepare for graduate study. To qualify for McNair, participants must be full-time undergraduates who are considered low income as determined by the U.S. Department of Education and have parents who have not completed a 4-year college degree. Students may be considered eligible for the program as well if they are a member of a group typically underrepresented in graduate study (e.g., African American students). Students in this program are offered the opportunity to participate in activities such as research internships supervised by faculty mentors, academic advising and personal counseling, preparation for the GRE, tutoring, funding for travel to attend and present research at academic discipline-related conferences, and graduate school campus visits. For this study, the electronic survey was sent to 158 McNair Scholars Program directors at institutions across the United States and Puerto Rico. These directors were asked to share this survey with students in their programs.

One hundred and seventy participants completed the survey. In terms of gender, 73.7% identified as female, 25.7% identified as male, and 1 individual identified as transgender. Consistent with the way in which the McNair program collects data, participants were asked to identify themselves in regard to both race and ethnicity. In terms of ethnicity, 36% identified as Hispanic or Latino/Latina, and the remaining 64% identified as Non-Hispanic or Latino/a. In regard to race, 37.4% of the participants identified as White, 27.7% as Black/African American, 3.2% identified as Asian American, 2.6% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 2.6% Native American/Alaskan Native, and 16% as other. Students ranged from 19 to 59 years of age (M = 24.20, SD = 6.68). Most (41%) of the students were juniors, 29% were seniors, 28% were sophomores, and 2% were freshman. Many of the students’ highest degree goals was to attain a doctorate (70%), 12% to attained a master’s, 11% to attained a professional degree, 6% to attain multiple degrees, and 1% other. In terms of their subjective perception of their families’ social class (i.e., participants were asked to categorize themselves into one of the following groups), 27.6% identified as coming from a poor family, 48.2% as working class, 19.4% as middle class, 4.1% as upper-middle class, and 1 person identified as upper class.

Instrumentation

Five assessment instruments were administered in the study. These measures were the Graduate Education Self Efficacy (GESES; Williams, 2005), Family Influence Scale (FIS; Fouad et al., 2010), Perception of Barriers (POB; Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001), Coping with Barriers (CWB; Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001), and Indicators of Intent to Attend Graduate School (IIAGS).

Graduate Education Self-Efficacy Scale

The GESES (Williams, 2005) was an instrument designed to elicit data from participants about their perceived levels of academic, research, and social self-efficacy. The 50 items are grouped into three subscales: 15 items measuring individuals’ academic self-efficacy (e.g., [rating confidence in ability to] “graduate from your current institution with high grades”), 20 items measuring research self-efficacy (e.g., [rating confidence in ability to] “Identify areas of needed research based on reading the literature”), and 15 items measuring social self-efficacy (e.g., [rating confidence in ability to] “Be involved in group activities with other students”). Participants were asked to indicate on a 10-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (Not at all confident) to 10 (Completely confident). In the development of the GESES, Williams (2005) took steps to ensure the content and construct validity of the scale by eliciting feedback from a panel of experts on the subject of UFGLI students’ educational and career development. Further support for construct validity was found by Williams through an exploratory factor analysis, with the three intended subscales emerging from the items. Williams also found acceptable reliability levels for the three subscales. (α = .89 for academic self-efficacy, α = .96 for research self-efficacy, and α = .92 for social self-efficacy). Reliabilities for the scales for this study were α = .93 (academic self-efficacy), α = 98 (research self-efficacy), and α = 96 (social self-efficacy).

Family Influence Scale

The FIS (Fouad et al., 2010) was designed to assess perceptions concerning four domains of family influences. The 27 items are grouped into four subscales: 8 items measuring information (e.g., “My family shared information with me about how to obtain a job”), 6 items measuring financial (e.g., “Because my family supports me financially, I can focus on my career development”), 5 items measuring expectations (e.g., “My family expects me to make career decisions so that I do not shame them”), and 8 items measuring values (e.g., “My family expects my career to match our family’s values/beliefs”). Using a 6-point Likert-type scale, participants were asked to indicate the amount (1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree) they agree with the presented statements concerning the familial influence in their educational and career development. Fouad et al. (2010) found good convergent validity for the scale. All four subscales of the FIS were positively correlated with other parental support measures. Past research has found sufficient reliability for the scale, where α = .89 (information), α = .82 (financial), α = .82 (expectations), and α = .75 (values and beliefs; Liu, 2013). Reliabilities for the scales for this study were .94 (information), .89 (financial), .87 (expectations), and .87 (values and beliefs).

Perception of Barriers Scale

The POB (Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001) was designed to assess the perceived barriers in education and career. The 32 items are grouped into two subscales: 11 items measuring education barriers (e.g., “Money problems are currently a barrier to my educational aspirations”) and 21 items measuring career barriers (e.g., “In my future career, I will probably be treated differently because of my ethnic/racial background”). The POB scale uses a Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Elevated scores reveal increased perceptions of barriers. The POB subscales were investigated for construct validity, and items were revised, added, or eliminated to increase validity (Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001; McWhirter, 1997). Reliabilities for the scales for this study were .90 (education) and .91 (career).

Coping with Barriers

The CWB (Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001) was adapted from the POB to assess an individual’s perceived ability to cope with the career and educational barriers and targets the same constructs used in the POB. It is comprised of 17 items, grouped into two subscales: 7 items measuring coping in education (e.g., “Not fitting in at college”) and 10 items measuring coping in career (e.g., “Discrimination due to my gender”). Likert-type item responses to the statements range from 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (highly confident). Respondents rated their degree of confidence to overcome potential educational and career barriers. The CWB was closely aligned with the items and constructs of the POB and was subject to parallel investigations and revisions to increase construct validity (Luzzo & McWhirter, 2001). Past research has also found sufficient reliability for the scale (α = .99 for education, and α = .98 for career; Raque-Bogdan, Klingaman, Martin, & Lucas, 2013). Reliabilities for the scales for this study were .89 (education) and .93 (career).

Indicators of Intent to Attend Graduate School

The IIAGS instrument was developed for this study and was designed to assess behavioral indicators that a student is in successful pursuit of graduate school. This instrument was created in order to investigate UFGLI students’ agency and intentionality in pursuing graduate school in way that increases their likelihood of success. As mentioned earlier, this is an important factor to understand, given the need to study marginalized populations’ personal agency and power in pursuit of their educational and career goals (Blustein, 2006; Richardson, 2012). The instrument was developed in two stages. First, a panel of experts (two career-focused scholars/researchers and four senior staff members from two different McNair programs) developed a list of behaviors that would indicate a student is on a potentially successful path to graduate school (e.g., “How likely is it that you will attend an information session about a graduate school of interest to you”). This initial list of items was then sent to McNair directors and senior staff around the United States. Seven of these staff reviewed the items and made suggestions for revisions and additions to the list. This process resulted in a final list of 16 items. Likert-type responses to the items range from 1 (I will not do this) to 6 (I am doing or have already done this). Reliability for the scale for the present study was .93.

Analysis

Means, standard deviations, and correlations were calculated for the study variables and are described in Table 1. Because the relatively small sample size of 170 precluded a more rigorous path analysis, the data were subjected to a hierarchical regression analysis in order to determine the amount of variance accounted for in the outcome variable (IIAGS) by the hypothesized predictor variables (GESES, POW, CWB, and FIS). Specifically, the predictor variables were entered into the regression from most distal/external (FIS) to the most proximal (GESES, POB, and CWB) influences on career development. This was done in order to understand how proximal factors (e.g., self-efficacy) are predictive of intentionality when analyzed in context of UFGLI students’ contextual influences (e.g., family influence). This is important because it is crucial to understand UFGLI students’ proximal factors/influences in light of their unique contextual background. Relatedly, in order to account for contextual and cultural influences on participants’ responses, race/ethnicity, gender, and social class were entered as the first step in the regression model.

Table 1.

Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
GESES-Academic	1
GESES-Research	.77**	1
GESES-Social	.70**	.70**	1
FIS-Information	.20*	.17*	.24**	1
FIS-Financial	.01	−.02	−.03	.51**	1
FIS-Expectations	.10	.14	.11	.16*	.17*	1
FIS-Values	.19*	.24**	.23**	.33**	.13	.55**	1
POB-Career	−.07	−.03	−.02	−.11	−.03	.28**	.14	1
POB-Education	−.26**	−.15	−.25**	−.05	−.02	.39**	.27**	.45**	1
CWB-Career	.32**	.28**	.36**	.14	−.03	−.11	.08	−.27**	−.26**	1
CWB-Education	.48**	.42**	.41**	.15	.02	−.11	.10	−.17*	−.27**	.62**	1
IIAGS	.22**	.24**	.20*	.07	−.01	−.25**	−.19*	−.11	−.26**	.10	.15	1
M	8.39	8.50	8.57	2.99	2.66	2.16	2.37	2.82	2.38	4.12	4.07	5.16
SD	1.21	1.42	1.44	1.09	1.31	1.01	1.24	.85	.71	.66	.73	.80

Note. GESES = Graduate Education Self-Efficacy Scale; FIS = Family Influence Scale; POB = Perception of Barriers Scale; CWB = Coping with Barriers; IIAGS = Indicators of Intent to Attend Graduate School.

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

Results

The results of the hierarchical regression analysis can be found in Table 2. The predictor variables were entered in five steps: (1) race/ethnicity, gender, and social class (dummy variables were created for these), (2) FIS, (3) GESES, (4) POB, and (5) CWB, respectively. In the first step, race/ethnicity, gender, and social class accounted for only 2% of the variance, and this model was not a significant predictor. When family influence was introduced in the second step, an additional 8% of the variance was accounted for, with a significant change in variance (p = .30). A large, statistically significant jump in variance accounted for was found when graduate school self-efficacy was entered in the third step (additional 14% variance explained), where there was significant change in variance (p = .00), and the model was significant overall (p = .00). Very little additional variance was explained in the fourth (1%) and fifth (1%) steps when including perception of barriers and perceived efficacy in coping with barriers, respectively. The final model was found to be significant (p = .00), and accounted for 26% of the total variance in intentions to pursue graduate school, with the FIS values (β = −.24, p = .037) and GESES-Research (β = .37, p = .004) subscales showing significant contribution to this variation. In other words, the whole model seemed to predict 26% of the variability in students’ pursuit of graduate school and was statistically significant. More specifically, when students reported that their family’s values influenced their career development, there was a reduction in their pursuit of graduate school. Additionally, when students reported a high level of graduate education research self-efficacy, there was an increase in their pursuit of graduate studies.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Intent to Pursue Graduate Studies.

Step	Variables	B	SE B	β	R ²Change	R ²	F Change	F
1	Social class	−.03	.08	−.04	.02	.02	1.03	1.03
	Gender	−.22	.14	−.14
	Race	.05	.06	.08
2	Social class	−.06	.09	−.07	.08*	.11	2.78*	2.05
	Gender	−.21	.14	−.13
	Race	.05	.05	.08
	FIS-Expectations	−.13	.08	−.18
	FIS-Information	.14	.07	.21
	FIS-Financial	−.04	.06	−.07
	FIS-Values	−.07	.07	−.13
3	Social class	−.01	.08	−.01	.14**	.25	7.17**	3.81**
	Gender	−.18	.14	−.12
	Race	.04	.05	.07
	FIS-Expectations	−.12	.07	−.16
	FIS-Information	.12	.07	.19
	FIS-Financial	−.03	.06	−.06
	FIS-Values	−.13	.06	−.23*
	GESES-Research	.23	.08	.38**
	GESES-Social	.10	.07	.16
	GESES-Academic	−.09	.10	−.13
4	Social class	−.02	.08	−.03	.01	.26	.60	3.25**
	Gender	−.17	.15	−.11
	Race	.05	.05	.07
	FIS-Expectations	−.09	.08	−.13
	FIS-Information	.12	.07	.19
	FIS-Financial	−.03	.06	−.06
	FIS-Values	−.13	.06	−.22*
	GESES-Research	.23	.08	.38**
	GESES-Social	.08	.07	.14
	GESES-Academic	−.10	.10	−.14
	POB-Career	.02	.09	.02
	POB-Education	−.11	.11	−.11
5	Social class	−.01	.08	−.02	.01	.26	.60	2.85**
	Gender	−.17	.15	−.11
	Race	.04	.05	.07
	FIS-Expectations	−.08	.08	−.11
	FIS-Information	.13	.07	.19
	FIS-Financial	−.03	.06	−.06
	FIS-Values	−.14	.07	−.24*
	GESES-Research	.22	.08	.37**
	GESES-Social	.08	.07	.13
	GESES-Academic	−.10	.10	−.15
	POB-Career	.02	.09	.02
	POB-Education	−.10	.11	−.11
	CWB-Career	−.07	.13	−.06
	CWB-Education	.13	.12	.12

Note. GESES = Graduate Education Self-Efficacy Scale; FIS = Family Influence Scale; POB = Perception of Barriers Scale; CWB = Coping with Barriers.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

Our hypothesis that self-efficacy for attending graduate school would influence UFGLI students’ pursuit of graduate school was partially supported. Specifically, we found that when students’ self-efficacy for conducting graduate-level research increased, so did their active pursuit of graduate school. Graduate school is a time when students become immersed in research. They read research articles, conduct research projects, and write research articles in an effort to be successful in their graduate programs. Consequently, this finding is not entirely surprising. If one did not feel capable in the area of research, it seems less likely one would pursue such a path. This finding is also consistent with recent research showing the importance of research self-efficacy to students’ pursuit of postbachelors research-focused careers (Adedokun, Bessenbacher, Parker, Kirkham, & Burgess, 2013). We did not find, however, that graduate-related academic or social self-efficacy had a significant impact on students’ pursuit of graduate school. It may be possible that, given respondents’ successful entry into and continued pursuit of undergraduate studies, their confidence in their academic abilities had little bearing on their pursuit of a graduate degree. In terms of social-self efficacy, despite research which shows the importance of social relationships to success in graduate school (Overall et al., 2011), the respondents in this study did not seem to make the connection between effective social skills needed in graduate school and their intentions to pursue graduate school. It may be that the respondents had high social self-efficacy in other domains that were not tapped by the items on the survey. In any case, more research is needed to clarify this further. However, given the importance of social self-efficacy in the pursuit of graduate school, support programs for UFGLI students who are pursuing graduate school (e.g., McNair) should consider explicitly discussing the need for networking and other social skills that are necessary to enrollment and success in graduate school.

We found partial support for our hypothesis that career-related family influence has a significant impact on UFGLI students’ pursuit of a graduate degree. Specifically, we found that, as the level of influence coming from students’ family career values increased, their active pursuit of graduate school decreased. In other words, our analysis seems to indicate that there is something about UFGLI students’ family values that is inversely related to their intentional pursuit of graduate studies. This may be connected with previous research about this population that suggests they desire to honor their families through their career and educational aspirations (Khanh, 2002), as well as to research that highlights their struggles with pursuit of a career track that requires a shift in values (Gardner & Holley, 2011; Leyva, 2011). Due to the conflicting, unclear nature of such findings, care should be taken in interpreting these results, as it may be easy to pathologize the influence of family values on students’ successful pursuit of a graduate degree. Even so, some speculation and reflection may provide useful directions for future research. As we pointed out earlier, gaining an understanding of UFGLI students’ power and agency in pursuit of their career goals is crucial, given the systemic discrimination and barriers they face in pursuit of such goals (Blustein, 2006; Richardson, 2012). So, these findings suggest that there may be some conflict or opposing nature to the UFGLI students’ family values and their intentional pursuit of a graduate education. The details of this conflict are not at all clear in our findings, but future research might more closely investigate how UFGLI students’ personal agency and intentionality to attend graduate school is related to the values that are communicated by their families.

We did not find support for our hypothesis that perception of and self-efficacy for coping with career and educational barriers would influence UFGLI students’ pursuit of graduate school. While it is not clear why this was the case, some speculation may be of use. Those who responded to this study were participants in a support program intended to aid them in pursuing a graduate education. As such, it may be that, because they had already made choices leading them toward a graduate degree, these students had already identified barriers and decided that they would be able to perceive such barriers on their career and education path.

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study was the nature of the sample. Participants of the McNair program represent students who have actively engaged in a support network in pursuit of graduate school. This limits generalization of our results beyond such students. Further, our results are limited given the voluntary, nonrandom recruiting procedures. As such, these results must be interpreted in light of this fact. While we controlled for race/ethnicity, social class, and gender, the demographic makeup of our sample may have also skewed our findings. We developed the IIAGS for this study, which is also a limitation, given the lack of a norming process to evaluate the psychometrics of this instrument.

Implications

Two primary implications emerge from this study in relation to UFGLI students’ intentions and agency in pursuit of a graduate degree. First, UFGLI students’ perceived ability to conduct graduate-level research is a significant predictor of their active pursuit of graduate school. This finding is not surprising but provides support for ongoing efforts (such as McNair scholars and other undergraduate research programs) to engage this population in experiences that increase their sense of confidence for conducting research. In terms of career assessment, a richer picture of a UFGLI students’ career development may be created if research self-efficacy was assessed alongside their career and education interests/aspirations. Such assessment could provide career counselors and student support staff with a more nuanced understanding of students’ aspirations and current behaviors. For example, imagine a student in career counseling who has low research self-efficacy and shows an interest in biomedical-related careers. By assessing these two factors in tandem, the counselor could be more attuned to the student’s potential foreclosure on graduate-level biomed careers and/or their ineffective pursuit of such careers. Future research on this subject might follow UFGLI students from undergraduate to graduate school in an effort to see the influence of graduate school self-efficacy on pursuit of, admittance to, and success in graduate school, as well as shifting choices/interests about careers after graduate school.

It also seems that UFGLI students’ family values significantly impact their pursuit of graduate school. Specifically, it seems that the more students’ family values influence their career path, the less likely they are to actively pursue graduate education. In terms of programming and practice, this finding suggests that UFGLI students’ families should be more systematically included in programs that support their pursuit of graduate school. Although we found many aspects of family influence (i.e., expectations, information, and financial support) do not impeded students’ pursuit of graduate school, family values held by students do seem to impede them. As such, bringing families “into the loop” may provide students with a method for integrating family values with the values necessary for successful entry and success in graduate studies. This may provide further benefit, as students leave graduate school and enter professional contexts where an integrated value system will be needed for effective, healthy acculturation to a graduate-level career field. Including families in programming also mitigates the possibility for minimizing students’ culture of origin in favor of assimilating into cultures associated with graduate-level degrees and careers (Tate, Williams, & Harden, 2013). Further, due to the lack of clarity on how family values influence UFGLI students’ pursuit of a graduate-level career, advisors and counselors should note the critical importance of clarifying this further with students. While family values may be an important support for some students, they may be a barrier for other students, particularly for those who place a higher premium on making their own autonomous decisions (Swanson & Fouad, 2014). Future research in this area might look in a more nuanced fashion at how family values influence UFGLI students’ pursuit of graduate school, as the instrument used in this study measured this construct in a general, global fashion (e.g., “My family expects my career to match our family’s values/beliefs).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adedokun

O. A.

Bessenbacher

A. B.

Parker

L. C.

Kirkham

L. L.

Burgess

W. D.

(2013). Research skills and STEM undergraduate students’ aspirations for research careers: Mediating effects of research self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 50, 940–951.

Arnold

Fleming

DeAnda

Castleman

Wartman

(2009). The summer flood: The invisible gap among low-income students. Thought & Action, 25, 23–34.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Betz

N. E.

(1989). The null environment and women's career development. The Counseling Psychologist, 17, 136–144.

Betz

N. E.

Voyten

(1997). Efficacy and outcome expectations influence career exploration and decidedness. Career Development Quarterly, 46, 179–189.

Blustein

D. L.

(2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and public policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cooter

Erdmann

J. B.

Gonnella

J. S.

Callahan

C. A.

Hojat

Gang

(2004). Economic diversity in medical education. Evaluation & The Health Professions, 27, 252–264.

Diegelman

N. M.

Subich

(2001). Academic and vocational interests as a function of outcome expectancies in social cognitive career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 394–405.

10.

Ellis

E. M.

(2001). The impact of race and gender on graduate school socialization, satisfaction with doctoral study, and commitment to degree completion. Western Journal of Black Studies, 25, 30–45.

11.

Engle

Tinto

(2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first generation students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.

12.

Erford

B. T.

Crockett

S. A.

(2012). Practice and research in career counseling and development—2011. Career Development Quarterly, 60, 290–332.

13.

Feldt

Woelfel

(2009). Five-factor personality domains, self-efficacy, career-outcome expectations, and career indecision. College Student Journal, 43, 429–437.

14.

Forester

Kahn

J. H.

Hesson-McInnis

M. S.

(2004). Factor structures of three measures of research self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 3–16.

15.

Fouad

N. A.

Cotter

E. W.

Fitzpatrick

M. E.

Kantamneni

Carter

Bernfeld

(2010). Development and validation of the family influence scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 276–291.

16.

Fouad

N. A.

Kantamneni

(2008). Contextual factors in vocational psychology: Intersections of individual, group, and societal dimensions. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed, pp. 408–425). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

17.

Fouad

N. A.

Kantamneni

Smothers

M. K.

Chen

Y. L.

Fitzpatrick

M. E.

Guillen

Terry

(2008). Asian American career development: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 43–59.

18.

Gallardo

G. E.

(2009). Fostering a new generation of researchers and graduate scholars: The Ronald E. McNair postbaccalaureate achievement program. Black Collegian, 39, 64–71.

19.

Gardner

S. K.

Holley

K. A.

(2011). “Those invisible barriers are real”: The progression of first-generation students through doctoral education. Equity & Excellence In Education, 44, 77–92. doi:10.1080/10665684.2011.529791

20.

Gelso

C. J.

Betz

N. E.

Friedlander

M. L.

Helms

J. E.

Hill

C. E.

Patton

M. J.

… Wampold

B. E.

(1988). Research in counseling psychology: Prospects and recommendations. The Counseling Psychologist, 16, 385–406.

21.

Gelso

C. J.

Lent

R. W.

(2000). Scientific training and scholarly productivity: The person, the training environment, and their interaction. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 109–139). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

22.

Guiffrida

D. A.

Douthit

K. Z.

(2010). The Black student experience at predominantly White colleges: Implications for school and college counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 311–318.

23.

Hackett

Byars

A. M.

(1996). Social cognitive theory and the development of African American women. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 322–340.

24.

Ishiyama

(2007). Expectations and perceptions of undergraduate research mentoring: Comparing first generation, low income white/Caucasian and African American students. College Student Journal, 41, 540–549.

25.

Jackson

(2002). Enhancing self-efficacy and learning performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 243–254.

26.

Juntunen

C. L

Barraclough

D. J.

Broneck

C. M.

Morin

P. M.

Seibel

G. A

Winrow

S. A.

(2001). Native American perspectives on the career journey. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 274–285.

27.

Khanh

V. T. B.

(2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing education, and first-year experiences. College Student Journal, 36, 3–9.

28.

Lam

P. C.

Ugweje

Ruby

M. P.

(2003). An assessment of the effectiveness of the McNair Program at the University of Akron. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9, 103–117.

29.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

30.

Lent

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.

31.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Sheu

Schmidt

Brenner

B. R.

Gloster

C. S.

… Treistman

(2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for women and students at historically Black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 84–92.

32.

Lent

R. W.

Nota

Soresi

Ginevra

Duffy

R. D.

Brown

S. D.

(2011). Predicting the job and life satisfaction of Italian teachers: Test of a social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 91–97. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.006

33.

Leyva

(2011). First-generation Latina graduate students: Balancing professional identity development with traditional family roles. New Directions For Teaching & Learning, 2011, 21–31. doi:10.1002/tl.454

34.

Liu

(2013). A social cognitive examination of East Asian American career development: Contextual factors influencing career choice. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 74, 2013.

35.

Luzzo

McWhirter

(2001). Sex and ethnic differences in the perception of educational and career-related barriers and levels of coping efficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 61–67.

36.

Mamiseishvili

(2010). Effects of employment on persistence of low-income, first-generation college students. College Student Affairs Journal, 29, 65–74.

37.

McWhirter

E. H.

(1997). Perceived barriers to education and career: Ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 124–140. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1995.1536

38.

Mehta

S. S.

Newbold

J. J.

O’Rourke

M. A.

(2011). Why do first-generation students fail?. College Student Journal, 45, 20–35.

39.

Ojeda

Flores

L. Y.

Navarro

R. L.

(2011). Social cognitive predictors of Mexican American College students’ academic and life satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 61–71.

40.

Overall

N. C.

Deane

K. L.

Peterson

E. R.

(2011). Promoting doctoral students’ self-efficacy: Combining academic guidance with autonomy support. Higher Education Research & Development, 30, 791–805.

41.

Owens

Lacey

Rawls

Holbert-Quince

(2010). First-generation African American male college students: Implications for career counselors. Career Development Quarterly, 58, 291–300.

42.

Parks-Yancy

(2012). Interactions into opportunities: Career management for low-income, first-generation African American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 53, 510–523.

43.

Paul

K. I.

Moser

(2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational behavior, 74(3), 264–282.

44.

Poyrazli

Arbona

Nora

McPherson

Pisecco

(2002). Relation between assertiveness, academic self-efficacy, and psychosocial adjustment among international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 632–642.

45.

Raque-Bogdan

T. L.

Klingaman

E. A.

Martin

H. M.

Lucas

M. S.

(2013). Career-related parent support and career barriers: An investigation of contextual variables. Career Development Quarterly, 61, 339–353. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2013.00060.x

46.

Richardson

M. S.

(2012). Counseling for work and relationship. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 190–242. doi:10.1177/0011000011406452.

47.

Seay

S. E.

Lifton

D. E.

Wuensch

K. L.

Bradshaw

L. K.

McDowelle

J. O.

(2008). First-generation graduate students and attrition risks. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 56, 11–25.

48.

Swanson

J. L.

Fouad

N. A.

(2014). Career theory and practice: Learning through case studies (3rd Edition). Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.

49.

Tate

K. A.

Williams

Harden

(2013). Finding purpose in pain: Using Logotherapy as a method for addressing survivor guilt in first generation college students. Journal of College Counseling, 16, 79–92.

50.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Current population survey. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/cps

51.

Wei

Liao

(2011). Minority stress and college persistence attitudes among African American, Asian American, and Latino students: Perception of university environment as a mediator. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 195–203.

52.

Whiston

S. C.

Keller

B. K.

(2004). Expanding research concerning family influences on career development: Cultivating a number of brown spots. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 612–617.

53.

Williams

E. G.

(2005). Academic, research, and social self-efficacy among African American pre-McNair scholar participants and African American post-McNair scholar participants. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 65.

54.

Wilson

Gibson

(2011). Graduate school learning curve: McNair Scholars’ postbaccalaureate transitions. Equit & Excellence in Education, 44, 153–168.

55.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In Bandura

(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202–231). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

56.

Zunker

V. G.

(2008). Career, work, and mental health: Integrating career and personal counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.