More Like this

1. Postdocs as Key to Faculty Diversity: A Structured and Collaborative Approach for Research Universities

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759263  

   Patt, Colette; Eppig, Andrew; Richards, Mark A. (April 2022, Frontiers in Psychology)

   Over the past 50 years the diversity of higher education faculty in the mathematical, physical, computer, and engineering sciences (MPCES) has advanced very little at 4-year universities in the United States. This is despite laws and policies such as affirmative action, interventions by universities, and enormous financial investment by federal agencies to diversify science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) career pathways into academia. Data comparing the fraction of underrepresented minority (URM) postdoctoral scholars to the fraction of faculty at these institutions offer a straightforward empirical explanation for this state of affairs. URM postdoc appointments lag significantly behind progress in terms of both undergraduate and Ph.D.-level STEM student populations. Indeed, URM postdoc appointments lag well-behind faculty diversity itself in the MPCES fields, most of which draw their faculty heavily from the postdoctoral ranks, particularly at research-intensive (R1) universities. Thus, a sea-change in how postdocs are recruited, how their careers are developed, and how they are identified as potential faculty is required in order to diversify the nation’s faculty, and particularly the R1 MPCES professoriate. Our research shows that both Ph.D. students and postdocs benefit from intentional structure at various levels of their respective “apprentice” experiences, a factor that we believe has been neglected. Several key structural approaches are highly effective in these regards: (1) A collaborative approach in which leading research universities collectively identify outstanding URM candidates; (2) Faculty engagement in recruiting and supporting these postdocs; (3) Inter-institutional exchange programs to heighten the visibility and broaden the professional experiences of these postdocs; (4) Community-building activities that create a sense of belonging and encourage continuing in academia for each cohort; and (5) Continuing research based on outcomes and new experimental approaches. The California Alliance, consisting of UC Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, and Stanford, has been engaged in such a program for almost a decade now, with most of the California Alliance URM postdocs now in tenure track positions or on the path toward careers as faculty at research intensive (R1) institutions. If this approach was brought to scale by involving the top 25 or so URM Ph.D.-producing R1 institutions in the MPCES fields, about 40% of the national URM postdoctoral population in these fields could be affected. Although this impact would fall short of bringing URM MPCES faculty ranks up to full representation of the United States population as a whole, it would vastly improve the outlook for URM students and their aspirations to take on leadership roles as scientists and engineers. 

   more » « less
2. Diversifying the genomic data science research community

   https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.276496.121  

   The Genomic Data Science Community Network (July 2022, Genome Research)

   Over the past 20 years, the explosion of genomic data collection and the cloud computing revolution have made computational and data science research accessible to anyone with a web browser and an internet connection. However, students at institutions with limited resources have received relatively little exposure to curricula or professional development opportunities that lead to careers in genomic data science. To broaden participation in genomics research, the scientific community needs to support these programs in local education and research at underserved institutions (UIs). These include community colleges, historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges and universities that support ethnically, racially, and socioeconomically underrepresented students in the United States. We have formed the Genomic Data Science Community Network to support students, faculty, and their networks to identify opportunities and broaden access to genomic data science. These opportunities include expanding access to infrastructure and data, providing UI faculty development opportunities, strengthening collaborations among faculty, recognizing UI teaching and research excellence, fostering student awareness, developing modular and open-source resources, expanding course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), building curriculum, supporting student professional development and research, and removing financial barriers through funding programs and collaborator support. 

   more » « less
3. Faculty Perceptions of STEM Student and Faculty Experiences During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study (WIP).

   Lamssali, Mehdi; Nicholas, Olivia; Ferguson, Alesia; Ofori-Boadu, Andrea; White, Angela (July 2021, ASEE annual conference exposition)

   Miller, Eva (Ed.)

   The recent outbreak of COVID-19, considered as being a lethal pandemic by the World Health Organization, has caused profound changes in the educational system within the U.S and across the world. Overnight, universities and their educators had to switch to a largely online teaching format, which challenged their capacity to deliver learning content effectively to STEM students. Students were forced to adapt to a new learning environment in the midst of challenges in their own lives due to the COVID-19 effects on society and professional expectations. The main purpose of this paper is to investigate faculty perceptions of STEM student experiences during COVID-19. Through a qualitative methodology consisting of one-hour zoom interviews administered to 32 STEM faculty members from six U.S. Universities nationwide, faculty narratives regarding student and faculty experiences during COVID-19 were obtained. The qualitative research approach involved identifying common themes across faculty experiences and views in these narratives. Some of the categories of emerging themes associated with faculty perceptions on student and faculty experiences included: student struggles and challenges, student cheating and the online environment, faculty and student adaptability, faculty and student needs and support, and university resources and support. Best practices to facilitate online teaching and learning employed by STEM faculty were also discussed. Key findings revealed that students and faculty had both positive and negative experiences during COVID-19. Additionally, there was a greater need for consistent policies to improve the online student learning experiences. Recommendations to improve STEM student experiences include increased institutional resources and collaboration between faculty and the university administrators to provide a coherent online learning environment. Preliminary findings also provide insights to enhance institutional adaptability and resilience for improving STEM student experiences during future pandemics. Future research should continue to explore institutional adaptation strategies that enhance STEM student learning during pandemics. 

   more » « less
4. Faculty Views of Undergraduate Intellectual Property Policies and Practices

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34665  

   Yi, Soohyun; Duval-Couetil, Nathalie (June 2020, 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings)

   Given that undergraduate engineering students are becoming more involved in research and entrepreneurial activities that can lead to the generation of intellectual property (IP), this study investigates faculty attitudes related to IP policies and practices associated with educating and guiding undergraduate students. We surveyed a sample of 143 faculty members from both engineering and entrepreneurship education to examine: (a) the extent and nature of faculty involvement in undergraduate IP; (b) issues confronting faculty as they relate to undergraduate IP; (c) ways to catalyze undergraduate involvement in the generation of IP; (d) indicators of success; (e) future changes; and (f) best practices. We found that the majority of faculty members who were involved in undergraduate IP perceived that unclear policies, a lack of information, and unclear ownership of inventions were the most significant obstacles when guiding and teaching students. Furthermore, unwritten policies, biased ownership of information toward universities, lack of legal assistance for undergraduate students placed undergraduate students in a gray area where legal policies were not sufficient. Faculty who had previously guided students through the patent process reported greater concerns about teaching students the values and the principles of protecting intellectual property than those who did not. In terms of the role universities should play in enhancing undergraduate IP generation, most participants agreed that universities should educate students about IP protection (87%) and entrepreneurship (71%). The three most highly rated success indicators in educating undergraduate IP development were the increasing number of students involved in real world innovation and invention and entrepreneurial activities and enhancing student involvement with industry. When asked how universities could mitigate issues related to student IP, six themes emerged from participants’ open-ended responses, including: university taking no claim on student IP; early education and training about intellectual property issues; consulting assistance from TTO; creation of entrepreneurial culture or ecosystem; and access to low cost legal advice. Faculty members surveyed had strong views about where potential problems occur, and fewer recommendations on what resources should be provided. From the data, it is clear that there is still much to be accomplished to clarify the extent to which universities should be involved in managing undergraduate intellectual property. With further research and understanding, best practices for undergraduate IP generation can be applied to avoid further IP challenges for faculty, students, and academic institutions. 

   more » « less
5. Work in Progress: Faculty Perceptions of STEM Student and Faculty Experiences during the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Fall 2020 Qualitative study.

   Lamssali, Mehdi; Ferguson, Alesia; Nicholas, Olivia; Ofori-Boadu, Andrea; White, Angela (August 2022, ASEE annual conference exposition)

   Miller, Eva (Ed.)

   COVID-19 is a continuing global pandemic causing significant changes and modifications in the ways we teach and learn here in the U.S as well as around the world. Most universities, faculty members, and students modified their learning system by incorporating significant online or mixed learning methods/modes to reduce in person contact time and to reduce the spread of the virus. Universities, faculty and students were challenged as they adapted to new learning modules, strategies and approaches. This adaption started in the Spring of 2020 and has continued to date through the Spring of 2022. The main objective of this project was to investigate faculty perception of STEM student experiences and behavior during the Fall 2020 semester as compared to the Spring 2020 semester as COVID-19 impacts were prolonged. Through a qualitative methodology of zoom interviews administered to 32 STEM faculty members across six U.S. Universities nationwide and a theming scheme, the opinion and narratives of these faculty members were garnered in a round one and round two sets of interviews, in Summer 2020 and then in Spring 2021 (following the semesters of interest). Some of the main new themes that were detected in faculty interviews during the Fall 2020 semester and which reflect faculty perceptions are represented as follow: COVID-19 impact on student and faculty motivation, COVID-19 impacts on labs and experiential learning, COVID-19 impact on mental health, COVID-19 impact on STEM students' involvement in STEM experiential learning opportunities and research. Other previous themes detected and which are revisited to analyze major differences with those themes obtained during the Spring 2020 are presented and not limited to: extra efforts from professors, student cheating behavior, cheating factors and prevention, student behavioral and performance changes, student struggles and challenges, University response and efforts to the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored the differences in these themes between the semesters to look at noticed adaptations and modifications. Presented will also be recommendations to improve student and faculty motivation along with strategies to enhance the student learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. We report on common findings and suggest future strategies. 

   more » « less