Search for: All records

This analysis reveals the informal instrumental and socio-emotional support that non-traditional (e.g. Latinx, Black, Indigenous, lower-income, and first-generation) college students receive from family members to combat experiences of marginalization and contribute towards their self-efficacy. Family support can be particularly important for underrepresented undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) students who have been shown to have higher risks of dropping out of their program and experience lower levels of success indicators (e.g. sense of belonging, self-concept, and STEM identity) compared to their white and Asian peers. Therefore, it is important to further investigate the nuances of family support contributing to non-traditional student retention and success. Utilizing a phenomenological approach, we used open-ended questions during focus groups with community college transfer students to gain their experiences with challenges and feelings of belonging in college and STEM. This article investigates the value family support holds for students in surviving STEM challenges by extending family to include romantic partners and extended family as well as applying the funds of knowledge framework to community college transfer students. 

Although there are numerous evidence-based benefits to undergraduate research for new-majority students (students who are from traditionally underrepresented ethnicities, first-generation college students, students from lower-income families, or transfer students) (Hurtado, S. et al., 2011; Kinzie et al., 2008a; Lopatto, 2007), they are less likely to participate or stay in mentored research experiences (Finley & McNair, 2013; Haeger et al., 2015). In order to determine not only who has access to undergraduate research, but to also identify what barriers to full-inclusion exist for new-majority students, we conducted a mixed methods study at a public, Hispanic Serving Institution. We analyzed institutional data to explore who participates in research and who does not. We also specifically sampled a group of students who expressed an interest in research experiences but who never actually participated for our student survey (N=96). Additionally, we conducted five focus groups with students, staff, and faculty (N~30). We found positive results in the analysis of patterns of participation and found no significant or substantial differences between students who did or did not participate in undergraduate research in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, or first-generation status. The undergraduate researcher population did have significantly more STEM majors and Pell grant recipients. The qualitative analysis identified barriers to participation in research in the following areas: access to research opportunities, programmatic structures, research culture and norms, and campus climate. We present these findings along with descriptions of initiatives that have been successful in diversifying research participation and strategies to create more inclusive research environments.