A Narrative Analysis Examining Influential Factors of a Minority Research and Training Program

Introduction

National data over the past 40 years indicate a significant educational disparity among racial and ethnic groups in the United States of America. Students from Hispanic or Latino, African American, American Indian, and Pacific Islander groups are proportionately underrepresented at all higher education levels, especially in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)-related fields (National Science Board, 2014). Furthermore, the number of underrepresented minority (URM) groups that continue into STEM-related careers after graduation declines. African Americans represent only 11% of the overall workforce of all STEM jobs while the White population represents more than 70% of STEM workers (Carnevale, Smith, & Melton, 2011). With racial and ethnic minority groups predicted to make up more than half the national population by 2050, minority students are assets into which educators must tap to strengthen the STEM workforce, the vibrancy of the economy, and health care (Museus, Palmer, Davis, & Maramba, 2011). Scientific advancement depends on scientific talent; however, a lack of diversity represents a loss of talent and impedes scientific progression.

To close the educational achievement gap and build undergraduate pathways to generate a highly skilled and diverse talent pool that meets the demands of emerging STEM fields, the implementation of workforce training programs at the postsecondary level has risen. For the past 40 years, federally funded minority research and training (MRT) programs have been used across U.S. colleges and universities as a method to patch the leaking science pipeline (Schultz et al., 2011). In 2004, the U.S. federal government spent $2.8 billion on educational programs aimed at increasing the number of students in the STEM disciplines (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2005). The National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and other federal agencies provide funding for the development of science support programs serving URM students interested in pursuing a career in STEM fields.

U.S. federally funded MRT programs aimed at increasing the representation of URM in STEM disciplines utilize a broad spectrum of educational activities, training opportunities, and professional experiences designed to increase student persistence toward the completion of doctoral degrees. Program components include, but are not limited to, undergraduate research (UR), mentoring, academic and career advising, and financial support. Although the number of science-related degrees have slowly increased over the past decade, partially due to the utilization of MRT programs, this increase has not been adequate to establish an impactful representation in either academic or industry research careers.

The majority of the studies examining participation of URM students in MRT programs utilize quantitative or a mixed-methods approach, which may be influenced by the traditional scientific inquiry of researchers in STEM disciplines. The studies utilize simple descriptive statistics with surveys to measure students’ self-reported gains (Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007; Laursen, Hunter, Seymour, Thiry, & Melton, 2010; Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, & DeAntoni, 2004) and commitment to pursue a graduate level degree immediately following an MRT experience (Craney et al., 2011; Eagan et al., 2013). However, quantitative methods can be ineffective when analyzing contemporary research issues or phenomena under study (Webster & Mertova, 2007). According to Webster and Mertova (2007), quantitative methods often overlook issues that might be important for the students. For instance, studies that use graduate student attendance data to promote the value of research experiences are unable to demonstrate such research experiences, or other factors, as the cause of continuance into graduate school (Mabrouk & Peters, 2000).

Narrative inquiry, on the other hand, provides a rich framework in which researchers study how people experience and perceive the world through their stories (Webster & Mertova, 2007). Narrative analysis allows researchers to hear the multiplicity and complexity of student experiences and focuses on participants’ self-generated meanings (Esin, Fathi, & Squire, 2014). Narratives reveal information about the inner world of the storyteller and the identity, intentions, and feelings of the person telling the story (Murray & Sargeant, 2011), opening a space for researchers to analyze participant experiences related to social issues, such as social inequalities and gender relations (Esin et al., 2014). Unlike quantitative-based surveys, narrative inquiry embraces a culturally responsive approach that explores the social context and culture in which the experience took place and in which the knowledge was constructed (Webster & Mertova, 2007).

Only a few qualitative studies exist that capture participant voices when examining degree persistence of URM students in the sciences (Gibau, 2015; Hurtado, Cabrera, Lin, Arellano, & Espinosa, 2009; Johnson, Brown, Carlone, & Cuevas, 2011). Hurtado et al. (2009) examined the development of scientific career goals among URMs at various institutions and science programs and emphasized the use of student voice through the analysis of semistructured focus groups. Johnson et al. (2011) examined the experiences of three women of color who have completed advanced degrees and are currently employed in science. The study explored the pathways successful women have taken and the dynamics of inequity within and beyond science through the use of dialogue. However, neither of these two programs focuses on the influences of MRT programs.

Gibau (2015) emphasized the importance of incorporating student voices to understand the experiences of URM students and examine types of interventions that may or may not work at an institution. In the study, Gibau examined interview data from past evaluations that were conducted and transcribed by an external reviewer intended for program assessment. In contrast, this study not only examined experiences of undergraduate students during their participation in an MRT program using preexisting data from program reports but also narrative style data from interviews between the researcher and participants.

The results of the present study add to the current body of knowledge examining a MRT program and gauge its influence on advanced science degree attainment and career choice of URM students. This information provides institutions and training programs with improved supports and resources necessary to better serve URM students in STEM majors and to enrich minority representation in academic or industry research careers. The following are the questions addressed by this study: What are the experiences of students who participated in an undergraduate minority research program? Which experiences were most critical to their persistence into graduate school?

Research Design

Constructivism promotes an inquiry design focusing on meaning-making through coconstructed narrative between the researcher and participants. According to Stake (1995), case studies are effective for describing and expanding the understanding of a phenomenon and are often utilized in studying people and programs in education. The study herein utilized a multiple case study featuring extensive use of narrative to generate a thick descriptive environment (Creswell, 2014). Thus, this study provides a constructivist understanding of the multiple perspectives of students who participated in a minority research program and matriculated into graduate programs.

In postmodern constructivism, knowledge does not exist in a state pending discovery but rather is constructed by people through interactions with the world (Gordon, 2009). Therefore, learners construct their personal knowledge as a result of reflecting on their experiences. The epistemology of constructivism, the method of acquiring knowledge, is both subjective and relative. Although reality may exist separate from experience, it can only be known through experience, thus resulting in a personally unique reality. Thus, no single truth exists but rather multiple truths are constructed through personal, active experiences.

To examine the experiences of students who participated in an MRT program and matriculated into graduate programs, a multiple case study featuring extensive use of narrative was utilized. Qualitative research provides the flexibility needed for participants to retell their stories in a meaningful form through narratives rather than numbers and still to employ a systematic approach to gather empirical evidence (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). The constructivist paradigm recognizes the complex nature of multiple realities in which reality is constructed through personal, unique experiences. In qualitative research, instead of trying to capture truth and generalize and predict truth for a larger population, the researcher tries to understand how the participants’ social reality is constructed. Since qualitative interviews are natural extensions of conversations, interviewees become partners in the research rather than subjects to be tested (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).

Constructivism emphasizes the interaction between researcher and participant for the construction of meaning (Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006). With narrative research, the sharing of stories with researchers provides a way of understanding people’s interpretations of their own worlds and important life events (Murray & Sargeant, 2011). The stories shared represent participants’ meaning-making and how they select what to tell an audience, which may include societies, cultures, families, and other influential events in their life. Therefore, this study promoted an inquiry of context-focused meaning-making through coconstructed narrative between the researcher and participants.

Results

Multiple case narratives provide a rich framework in which researchers study how people experience and perceive the world through their stories (Webster & Mertova, 2007). Narratives reveal information about the inner world of the storyteller (Murray & Sargeant, 2011), open a space for researchers to analyze participant experiences related to social issues (Esin et al., 2014), and explore the social context and culture in which the experience took place and the knowledge constructed (Webster & Mertova, 2007). The cross-case analysis in this study suggested four themes that were consistent for all participants. These themes are as follows: confidence as scientists, family influence, mentoring, and belonging and inclusion.

Discussion

Participants expressed their perceptions and experiences starting with their decision to attend college, continuing throughout their undergraduate studies and their path to graduate school. The conversation style interviews explored past experiences, the core of their scientific interest, their confidence in their ability to pursue a career in science, their sense of belonging, influential individuals, and future aspirations. The interviews examined student stories and factors that influenced the students’ career and academic paths they chose. The cross-case analysis identified four common themes that addressed the following research questions: What are the experiences of students who participated in a MRT program? Which experiences were most critical to their persistence into college and matriculation into graduate school?

The emerged themes from the cross-case analysis support Lent, Brown, and Hackett’s (1994) social cognitive career theory (SCCT) and Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, and Allen’s (1998) campus racial climate model (CRCM). SCCT, based on Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and Hackett and Betz’s (1981) career self-efficacy model, suggests that the three personal tenets of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interests interact with external factors to shape a person’s career goals and actions. SCCT explores how career and academic interests mature, how career choices are developed, and how these choices are turned into action. In SCCT, career interests are shaped by self-efficacy, a measure of how successful a person believes he or she will be at completing a particular task or meeting a goal, and outcome expectations, defined as beliefs related to the consequences of performing a specific behavior (Lent et al., 1994). Self-efficacy and outcome expectations influence an individuals’ personal agency for self-directed learning, motivation, and goal setting in guiding personal behavior.

To persist in the STEM disciplines, students must believe that they are capable of successfully completing the required education and training and implementing the learned skills once in the field. The participants expressed increased confidence in their knowledge and skills in science after participating in UR experiences, as well as enhanced ability to overcome other nonscientific obstacles. Participants discussed not only enhanced knowledge in instrumentation, data acquisition, correlation of classroom concepts to real-world applications, independent thinking but also the ability to handle life challenges and barriers. Participants also shared how research provided the opportunity for them to apply classroom knowledge to laboratory experiments. Furthermore, they believed research enhanced their research skills, personal development, and relationships and facilitated a smoother transition into graduate school.

Literature suggests the positive effects of UR on the development of student attitudes and their level of competence in the scientific disciplines. Studies found UR strengthens cognitive factors, including confidence and self-efficacy (Craney et al., 2011). Parham and Austin (1994) suggested individuals are more likely to pursue careers based on how well they can adapt and be successful in a field of study. Subsequently, increased students’ confidence for science careers increases the probability that students will persist in a science major, reach degree completion, and continue into graduate programs.

However, an initial contradiction emerged with this theme. Unlike disconfirming evidence, a systematic process often utilized in data validation, inconsistencies in narratives can transform ambiguity into meaning (Watson, 2006). In this study, all participants shared feelings of confidence in their knowledge in science; half of the participants, however, shared behaviors of comparing themselves to gain self-evaluation of their abilities. Patricia stated, “I see a huge, huge difference between me and people who haven’t had an extensive research background.” Brandon claimed, “If you have any research experience under your belt, you really have a leg up on other students. It puts you ahead of people who didn’t have research experience.” He further explained, “I felt I had more experience and knowledge in application than others.” Anna shared, “My scientific knowledge on the undergraduate level was very high compared to my counterparts because I would go into a class and understand what the teacher was talking about because I could see it in real life.” The participants’ behavior of comparison may not be a contradiction of self-confidence but rather a practice of competition often adopted in educational settings. According to Noddings (2013), capitalism in a social system occurs when there are limited resources and individuals compete for those resources by surpassing others to improve one’s self as a means of social mobility. As with a capitalist economic system, America’s college and public school systems are embedded with competition (Noddings, 2013). The participants likely felt confident in their scientific knowledge and skills and express learned behaviors in a highly competitive environment.

STEM-based educational programs serve as environmental factors supporting a student’s career development, but other external factors have shown to provide a supportive effect on student career decisions. For this study, participants expressed a strong support system from peer mentors and family members, mainly their parents. According to SCCT, career development is also influenced by objective and perceived environmental factors. According to Lent, Brown, and Hackett (2000), other contextual factors impacting a student’s career decision may include perceptions of social supports, mentors, science educational programs, and family expectations. For example, supportive research mentors, classroom environments, family support, and socialization with peers all influence a student’s level of self-efficacy.

Numerous studies indicate that students who develop an informal mentorship relationship with faculty through UR experiences have significantly higher degree aspirations (Carter, 2002; Craney et al., 2011; McGee & Keller, 2007). Close mentoring relationships with faculty also positively impact academic performance, attendance, and satisfaction among student participants (Kim & Sax, 2009; Linnehan, 2001; Tenenbaum, Crosby, & Gliner, 2001). However, in this study, participants spoke of the mentoring and caring relationships they experienced in the laboratory with fellow students, not with the faculty. In fact, some students discussed that they had limited to no interactions with their research advisors. The student narratives indicated that the practice of peer mentoring was an influential factor for student success and graduate school matriculation. Peer mentoring involves the collaboration between individuals of similar age, educational background, laboratory experience, or with slightly different parameters (Edgcomb et al., 2010). The use of peer mentoring between graduate and undergraduate students to complement faculty mentoring optimizes the research experience and establishes a more accessible collaboration and support system for MRT program participants.

Previous studies also support the value of family involvement and support in a student’s college persistence (Cleaves, 2005; Russell & Atwater, 2005). Stake and Mares (2005) found that the encouragement from family, teachers, and peers of participants of a summer science program was linked to a student’s attitude toward science and their scientific abilities. Thus, Stake and Mares (2005) argued that the absence of support and involvement from significant people, such as family and friends, can reduce a student’s feeling of self-efficacy and the student will be less likely to pursue a science career. Mattanah, Brand, and Hancock (2004) found students, particularly among first-generation students, who enjoy a secure relationship with parents who are supportive of their pursuit of higher education, demonstrate higher levels of satisfaction during their college experience. Slovacek, Jacob, and Flenoury (2015) found academic interventions, such as research experiences and academic support, paired with parental support and outreach, facilitate successful college transition and degree attainment for underrepresented populations.

While involvement of support systems by mentors, family, and peers may boost a student’s feeling of self-efficacy, perceived barriers, such as socioeconomic status and poor campus climate, may create negative outcome expectations (Lent et al., 2000). Thus, according to SCCT, researchers must consider multiple aspects of the objective environment as well as how students perceive and respond to surrounding environmental factors. Since SCCT provides a broad conceptualization of persistence, exploring a theory that captures the unique experiences of URM students is imperative. Hurtado et al.’s (1998) CRCM discusses how structural and psychological dimensions of a campus influence students’ persistence into college, specifically among underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

According to Hurtado et al. (1998), a campus’ racial climate is defined with four interrelated dimensions: (a) structural diversity, (b) perceptions and attitudes between racial groups, (c) institution’s history of inclusion or exclusion, and (d) the behavioral climate. The structural diversity, the numerical representation of racial and ethnic groups on a campus, impacts the social adjustment and academic success of URM students. Greater diversity on a college campus creates more opportunities for interracial interactions and enhances college learning for all students.

However, structural diversity alone is not the only factor colleges and universities should consider in establishing a welcoming environment for URM students. Hurtado et al. (2009) also examined the psychological climate, defined as the perceptions and attitudes between racial groups and hostile behaviors students encounter, as influential factors impacting URM student persistence in college. Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005) found that Hispanic or Latino/a students who perceived a college campus climate as hostile reported a lower sense of belonging and college persistence. However, those who experienced stronger and larger numbers of interracial interactions reported a greater sense of belonging. Although none of the participants of this study shared hostile behavior, they did share incidents of racial micro aggressions and exclusion from peers and faculty on the general campus. However, participants of the MRT program also shared a sense of belonging once they joined a research laboratory. They defined their research laboratory as a welcoming environment involving graduate students from diverse backgrounds.

Participants emphasized the laboratory as a welcoming environment and a source of guidance and support. This common theme affirms that the experience of a supportive and welcoming environment in the laboratory indicates an influential factor in student persistence in their major and into advance levels of education. Researchers argue URM students lack mentoring, peer support, and encounter unwelcoming classroom climates, particularly African American students (Carnevale et al., 2011; Sasso, 2008). However, participation in research projects diminishes ethnic isolation (Gasiewski, Garcia, Herrera, Tran, & Newman, 2010; Villarejo, Barlow, Kogan, Veazey, & Sweeney, 2008). (Bauer and Bennett, 2003) found UR provides students with a rewarding learning environment promoting self-discovery, self-expression, and appreciation of artistic, cultural, and creative differences. The participants in this study expressed similar feelings of ethnic isolation but developed a sense of belonging and support within the research laboratory.

Implications for Practice

This study suggests changes necessary to the academic success of URM students in STEM disciplines, including improvements to MRT program components and campus climate, enhancing student persistence in degree attainment and matriculation into graduate programs. First, there is a continuing need for a holistic institutional change. Participants shared incidents of exclusion and microaggressions by fellow peers and faculty outside of the laboratory, especially earlier cohort participants. The fewer number of incidents of exclusion and isolation reported by later cohorts indicates an evolving change in the campus climate due to multiple university diversity initiatives that need to continue. Furthermore, universities and MRT programs should implement additional diversity efforts, particularly at the level of sensitivity training, cultural competence workshops for both students and faculty, and recruitment of diverse students, faculty, and staff. Promoting systematic changes on how institutions respond and value diversity will facilitate a welcoming and nurturing environment for the entire college community.

Student narratives revealed valued social and professional relationships with other students, particularly graduate students, during their research experiences. Participants expressed that mentoring relationships provided guidance and encouragement as they progressed through their undergraduate studies and applied to graduate programs. As principal investigators of laboratories are often absent from the laboratory, the use of peer mentoring increases mentoring accessibility from diverse students. URM students should be exposed to enriched research experiences, so research should be supported at the college level, where diverse group of students work together and collaborate on research projects.

Participants in this study expressed challenging transitions from high school to a university setting. To facilitate a smoother transition to college academic life, there is a need for programs providing incoming freshmen with academic skills and social resources needed to succeed in a college environment. Scholars need to be introduced to the structure and rigor of a research university and provided with opportunities to foster meaningful academic and social connections. This could be addressed with enhanced college or university outreach activities, fostering of programs and visits to the campus, summer bridge experiences and activities, and continuing education classes for the community.

Furthermore, participant narratives revealed early exposure to science and family influence as major motivations in college persistence and graduate school enrollment. Encouraging family involvement in a student’s academic journey offers invaluable benefits for students at all levels. Implementing community outreach activities to local K-12 children may spark interest in science and encourage college enrollment. Furthermore, encouraging parental involvement during undergraduate studies through invitations to research presentations, meetings, and laboratory tours creates an impactful supportive and motivational network for URM students.

Limitations of the Study

As with all methods of inquiry, this study has limitations. Although qualitative interviews are attractive for collecting detailed information, the primary source of data for this study relied on participant openness and accuracy. Social desirability bias, the tendency of an interviewee for presenting himself or herself in a favorable way rather than providing truthful answers, may alter validity of participant narratives (Fisher, 1993). The interviewer served as the program coordinator for the MRT program and worked with the participants while they were enrolled in the program. Thus, interviewer-participant rapport was easily reestablished. Building trust and rapport, the degree of comfort in the interactions between the researcher and research participants, enables the researcher further access in the study and determines the success in qualitative inquiry (Glesne, 2011). However, participants may have felt obligated in providing favorable narratives of the MRT program. Involvement of an external researcher may help diminish social desirability bias through increased anonymity.

Another limitation involves personal bias and subjectivities of interviewers themselves. Preexisting subjectivities of the interviewer may cognitively filter the representation of data. However, unlike the positivism paradigm, recognizing one’s subjectivity is important in qualitative research and can lead to a more passionate and personal research (Glesne, 2011).

To document personal subjectivities, create transparency in the research process, and practice critical self-reflection in this study, a reflexive journal was maintained. The journal served as a map to the evolving understanding role of the interviewer, interpreter of data via interviews, and theoretical justifications (Glesne, 2011). In addition, open-ended questions were utilized, allowing participants to freely express their experiences while minimizing any personal thoughts and previous findings by the researcher (Creswell, 2014).

Conclusion

The results from this study provide personal narratives of participants of a MRT program on their science degree attainment and persistence into graduate degree programs. Each case provided personal and unique experiences and shared commonalities with other cases. The participants expressed a sense of belonging and inclusion in their research laboratories, supportive relationships with other student researchers and MRT program staff, enhanced scientific knowledge and self-confidence from research experiences, and family support. All of these factors influenced their persistence into college, degree attainment, matriculation into a graduate program, and career path. The results of this study support SCCT and CRCM in which the involvement of support systems structural diversity and psychological climate of a campus impacts students’ sense of belonging and college persistence, specifically among underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

Based on findings, the study suggests a number of factors that are important to the academic success of URM students in the STEM disciplines, and potential improvements to institutional and MRT program activities aimed at enhancing student persistence into graduate programs. These include improvement of campus climates and diversity, utilization of peer mentoring, expanding research opportunities, and sustaining family and community involvement on campus activities. This study adds student voices to the current literature supporting MRT programs as effective intervention influencing positive outcomes for URM students pursing and achieving doctoral degrees. With this information, institutions and education programs may provide or improve support and resources needed to better serve URM students with science majors and enrich minority representation in academic or industry research careers.