Search for: All records

This instrumental case study examines the science identity and career goals of 16 Black and Latinx science and engineering postdoctoral scholars. Interviews were conducted and grounded by the model of science identity to understand the ways in which science identity develops over time and the influence of race/ethnicity and gender on career goals. Through deductive data analysis techniques, four themes emerged: (1) science competency is built at an early age and solidified in high school; (2) science performance is actualized but questioned in college; (3) science recognition is fostered through professional development and success; and (4) racism and sexism shape the desire to make an impact through a STEM career. Understanding how Black and Latinx postdoctoral scholars’ science identity and STEM career goals are nurtured and thwarted within educational systems can be illuminating to those training the next generation of advanced STEM professionals. If the individuals next in line to enter the professoriate are deterred, greater consideration must be given to their experiences. 

This instrumental case study examines the science identity and career goals of 16 Black and Latinx science and engineering postdoctoral scholars. Interviews were conducted and grounded by the model of science identity to understand the ways in which science identity develops over time and the influence of race/ethnicity and gender on career goals. Through deductive data analysis techniques, four themes emerged: (1) science competency is built at an early age and solidified in high school; (2) science performance is actualized but questioned in college; (3) science recognition is fostered through professional development and success; and (4) racism and sexism shape the desire to make an impact through a STEM career. Understanding how Black and Latinx postdoctoral scholars’ science identity and STEM career goals are nurtured and thwarted within educational systems can be illuminating to those training the next generation of advanced STEM professionals. If the individuals next in line to enter the professoriate are deterred, greater consideration must be given to their experiences. 

An instrumental case study (Stake, 1995) explored the messages STEM postdoctoral scholar women receive about balancing an academic career with a family. Concerningly, women with children are less likely than men with children, or women and men without children, to be offered tenure-track positions or to be promoted (Bird & Rhoton, 2021; Cech & Blair-Lory, 2019; Gregor et al., 2021; Williams & Ceci, 2012; Ysseldyk et al., 2019). This reality suggests that motherhood is in opposition to professional legitimacy in academia (Hill et al., 2014; Thébaud & Taylor, 2021). Furthermore, postdoctoral scholar mothers are more likely than their peers to cite children as their primary reason for not entering the faculty job market (NPA ADVANCE, 2011). Interviews were conducted with 22 demographically diverse STEM postdoctoral scholar women to explore how messages about balancing career and family are considered. Using inductive and deductive methods (Silverman, 1993; Stake, 1995), interview transcripts were analyzed using the ideal worker conceptual framework (Kossek et al., 2021). Two themes arose: (1) STEM postdoctoral women receive messages suggesting they must sacrifice family pursuits for an academic career, and (2) positive modeling and support for balancing career and family are vital for retaining STEM postdoctoral women in the professoriate pathway. These findings illustrate a systemic conflict for STEM postdoctoral scholar women. They describe a necessity to sacrifice family desires, yet positive modeling and support for balancing career and family send messages suggesting it is possible to plan for both. This research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP; award #1821008). 

Through an embedded, multiple-case study design, this interpretivist research paper explores the ways in which 22 engineering postdoctoral scholars describe the appeal of pursuing a career in the professoriate. Interviews, grounded by social cognitive career theory (SCCT) (Lent et al., 1994), offered an in-depth understanding of the nature, meaning, and ways in which their postdoctoral scholars’ learning experiences influence their view of the professoriate and, consequently, their career decision-making process. Data analysis strategies established by Silverman (1993) and Stake (1995) were utilized to examine the interview data, employing both inductive and deductive analysis techniques. Four themes emerged: (1) the professoriate appears daunting due to the competitive nature of the job market and the academic environment, (2) the work demands of the professoriate are contrary to the work-life balance sought, (3) possessing research autonomy in the professoriate is highly attractive, and (4) the professoriate is perceived as a calling for those who desire to teach and mentor the upcoming generation of engineers. A more nuanced understanding of the appeal of the professoriate and the career decision-making process of postdoctoral scholars may be an avenue to aid in diversifying the engineering professoriate. The preferred presentation method is a traditional lecture.