Background: Extensive research has documented the importance of faculty advisors for graduate students’ experiences and outcomes. Recent research has begun to provide more nuanced accounts illuminating different dimensions of advisor support as well as attending to inequalities in students’ experiences with advisors.Purpose: We extend the research on graduate student advisor relationships in two important ways. First, building on the concept of social capital, and in particular the work on institutional agents, we illuminate specific benefits associated with student-advisor relationships. Second, we advance prior work on inequality in advisor relationships by examining students’ experiences at the intersection of race and gender. Research Design: To illuminate the nuances of graduate students’ experiences with advisors, this study included interviews with 79 students pursuing PhD’s in biological sciences. Thematic coding revealed several important dimensions of benefits associated with advisor relationships. Corresponding codes were grouped into three categories, describing three groups of students with notably different experiences with advisors. Findings: The data revealed three distinct student-advisor relationship profiles which we term scholars, subordinates, and marginals. The three groups had vastly different experiences with access to knowledge and resources, access to networks, and cultivation of independence. Moreover, the distribution across these three groups was highly unequal with unique patterns observed at the intersection of race and gender. White men benefited from both racial and gender privilege and were notably overrepresented in the scholars group while White women and racial/ethnic minority (REM) students were more likely to be socialized as subordinates. REM men had the least favorable experiences with the majority of them being in the marginal category, along with a substantial proportion of White and REM women. Notably, even experiences of negative relationships with advisors were gendered and raced: REM men’s negative relationships with advisors were characterized by “benign neglect” while women primarily experienced conflictual relationships Conclusion and Recommendations: The findings illuminate important consequences of student-advisor relationships and pronounced inequalities in who has access to benefits accrued through those relationships. Creating more equitable experiences will necessitate substantial attention to improving mentoring and eliminating gender and racial/ethnic inequalities in faculty support. 
                        more » 
                        « less   
                    
                            
                            Balancing Research and Service in Academia: Gender, Race, and Laboratory Tasks
                        
                    
    
            Our study highlights specific ways in which race and gender create inequality in the workplace. Using in-depth interviews with 67 biology PhD students, we show how engagement with research and service varies by both gender and race. By considering the intersection between gender and race, we find not only that women biology graduate students do more service than men, but also that racial and ethnic minority men do more service than white men. White men benefit from a combination of racial and gender privilege, which places them in the most advantaged position with respect to protected research time and opportunities to build collaborations and networks beyond their labs. Racial/ethnic minority women emerge as uniquely disadvantaged in terms of their experiences relative to other groups. These findings illuminate how gendered organizations are also racialized, producing distinct experiences for women and men from different racial groups, and thus contribute to theorizing the intersectional nature of inequality in the workplace. 
        more » 
        « less   
        
    
                            - Award ID(s):
- 1760894
- PAR ID:
- 10147630
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Gender & Society
- Volume:
- 34
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 0891-2432
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 131 to 152
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
- 
            
- 
            Despite the rapid expansion of higher education, many young adults still enter the labor market without a college education. However, little research has focused on racial/ethnic earnings disadvantages faced by non-college-educated youth. We analyze the restricted-use data from the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 to examine racial/ethnic earnings disparities among non-college-educated young men and women in their early 20s as of 2016, accounting for differences in premarket factors and occupation with an extensive set of controls. Results suggest striking earnings disadvantages for Black men relative to white, Latinx, and Asian men. Compared to white men, Latinx and Asian men do not earn significantly less, yet their earnings likely differ substantially by ethnic origin. While racial/ethnic earnings gaps are less prominent among women than men, women of all racial/ethnic groups have earnings disadvantages compared to white men. The results call for future studies into the heterogeneity within racial/ethnic groups and the intersectionality of race/ethnicity and gender among non-college-educated young adults.more » « less
- 
            Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine how doctoral students in the biological sciences understand their research skill development and explore potential racial/ethnic and gender inequalities in the scientific learning process. Design/methodology/approach Based on interviews with 87 doctoral students in the biological sciences, this study explores how doctoral students describe development of their research skills. More specifically, a constructivist grounded theory approach is employed to understand how doctoral students make meaning of their research skill development process and how that may vary by gender and race/ethnicity. Findings The findings reveal two emergent groups, “technicians” who focus on discrete tasks and data collection, and “interpreters” who combine technical expertise with attention to the larger scientific field. Although both groups are developing important skills, “interpreters” have a broader range of skills that support successful scholarly careers in science. Notably, white men are overrepresented among the “interpreters,” whereas white women and students from minoritized racial/ethnic groups are concentrated among the “technicians.” Originality/value While prior literature provides valuable insights into the inequalities across various aspects of doctoral socialization, scholars have rarely attended to examining inequalities in research skill development. This study provides new insights into the process of scientific learning in graduate school. Findings reveal that research skill development is not a uniform experience, and that doctoral education fosters different kinds of learning that vary by gender and race/ethnicity.more » « less
- 
            null (Ed.)A pilot inventory to develop measures of bias and discrimination experienced by engineering doctoral students asked if they have been treated unfairly by their primary advisor, secondary advisor, and other faculty. Analyses of pilot data (n = 250) revealed Women, Students of Color, and sexual minorities perceived experiences of unfair treatment in intricate patterns. Post hoc analyses show that Women experience more incidences of unfair treatment than men. Race/ethnicity identity groups report a different number of unfair treatment incidences, with Students of Color generally reporting more experiences than white students. Being a sexual minority contributed to reporting more incidences of unfair treatment. Unfair treatment from faculty significantly predicted students changing and considering changing research labs when controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and sexuality. Unfair treatment from faculty significantly impacted engineering identity when controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, lab changers, and change considerers. Analyses of pilot data demonstrated the negative impact of unfair treatment on students and their development as engineers.more » « less
- 
            Abstract This paper estimates the long-run impacts of banning affirmative action on men and women from under-represented minority (URM) racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Using data from the US Census and American Community Survey, we use a difference-in-differences framework to compare the college degree completion, graduate degree completion, earnings, and employment of URM individuals to non-URM individuals before and after affirmative action bans went into effect across several US states. We also employ event study analyses and alternative estimators to confirm the validity of our approach and discuss the generalizability of the findings. Results suggest that banning affirmative action results in a decline in URM women’s college degree completion, earnings, and employment relative to non-Hispanic White women, driven largely by impacts on Hispanic women. Thus, affirmative action bans resulted in an increase in racial/ethnic disparities in both college degree completion and earnings among women. Effects on URM men are more ambiguous and indicate significant heterogeneity across states, with some estimates pointing to a possible positive impact on labour market outcomes of Black men. These results suggest that the relative magnitude of college quality versus mismatch effects vary for URM men and women and highlight the importance of disaggregating results by gender, race, and ethnicity. We conclude by discussing how our results compare with others in the literature and directions for future research.more » « less
 An official website of the United States government
An official website of the United States government 
				
			 
					 
					
 
                                    