Welcome to the new version of CaltechAUTHORS. Login is currently restricted to library staff. If you notice any issues, please email coda@library.caltech.edu
Published January 9, 2019 | Published + Supplemental Material
Journal Article Open

Structure and belonging: Pathways to success for underrepresented minority and women PhD students in STEM fields

Abstract

The advancement of underrepresented minority and women PhD students to elite postdoctoral and faculty positions in the STEM fields continues to lag that of majority males, despite decades of efforts to mitigate bias and increase opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds. In 2015, the National Science Foundation Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (NSF AGEP) California Alliance (Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, UCLA) conducted a wide-ranging survey of graduate students across the mathematical, physical, engineering, and computer sciences in order to identify levers to improve the success of PhD students, and, in time, improve diversity in STEM leadership positions, especially the professoriate. The survey data were interpreted via path analysis, a method that identifies significant relationships, both direct and indirect, among various factors and outcomes of interest. We investigated two important outcomes: publication rates, which largely determine a new PhD student's competitiveness in the academic marketplace, and subjective well-being. Women and minority students who perceived that they were well-prepared for their graduate courses and accepted by their colleagues (faculty and fellow students), and who experienced well-articulated and structured PhD programs, were most likely to publish at rates comparable to their male majority peers. Women PhD students experienced significantly higher levels of distress than their male peers, both majority and minority, while both women and minority student distress levels were mitigated by clearly-articulated expectations, perceiving that they were well-prepared for graduate level courses, and feeling accepted by their colleagues. It is unclear whether higher levels of distress in women students is related directly to their experiences in their STEM PhD programs. The findings suggest that mitigating factors that negatively affect diversity should not, in principle, require the investment of large resources, but rather requires attention to the local culture and structure of individual STEM PhD programs.

Additional Information

© 2019 Fisher et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Received: August 1, 2018; Accepted: December 3, 2018; Published: January 9, 2019. Data Availability Statement: All data necessary for replicating the path model are included with the paper and its Supporting Information files. The provided data is insufficient for replicating the descriptive information of this study (e.g. participation by department), as this data is potentially identifying and cannot be shared publicly. Researchers interested in investigating or replicating our descriptive statistics can contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of California, Berkeley: Office for Protection of Human Subjects, University of California, Berkeley, 1608 Fourth Street, Suite 220, Berkeley CA, 94710-5940. Phone: 510-642-7461. This research is supported by the National Science Foundation (nsf.gov) under Award Numbers 1647273, 1306595, 1306683, 1306747, 1306760 to M.A.R. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Author Contributions: Conceptualization: Aaron J. Fisher. Data curation: Andrew Eppig. Formal analysis: Aaron J. Fisher. Funding acquisition: Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, Colette Patt, Robin L. Garrell, Douglas C. Rees, Tenea W. Nelson, Mark A. Richards. Investigation: Mark A. Richards. Methodology: Aaron J. Fisher, Andrew Eppig. Project administration: Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, Colette Patt, Ira Young, Robin L. Garrell, Douglas C. Rees, Tenea W. Nelson, Mark A. Richards. Writing – original draft: Aaron J. Fisher, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton. Writing – review & editing: Aaron J. Fisher, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, Colette Patt, Ira Young, Andrew Eppig, Robin L. Garrell, Douglas C. Rees, Tenea W. Nelson, Mark A. Richards.

Attached Files

Published - journal.pone.0209279.pdf

Supplemental Material - journal.pone.0209279.s001.xlsx

Files

journal.pone.0209279.pdf
Files (485.2 kB)
Name Size Download all
md5:77c82129bced341ddceb2147cfa65be0
48.3 kB Download
md5:0926e1b25d552ac3a2648cdc0c82426f
437.0 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Created:
August 19, 2023
Modified:
October 20, 2023