Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution
(USC Thesis Other)
Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS FOR LOW-INCOME LATINO STUDENTS
IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS FIELDS AT
A HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTION
by
Cecilia Santiago
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2012
Copyright 2012 Cecilia Santiago
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
ii
Dedication
I dedicate my dissertation to the participants of this study. I thank them for
allowing me to learn from their experiences, successes, and challenges. I also dedicate
this work to the numerous educators who have been my institutional agents. Their
unwavering support and trust in my potential have been a constant source of inspiration
to persist, challenge myself, and have hope.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
iii
Acknowledgements
The completion of this work represents more than a personal accomplishment. It
represents a work of love, support, and faith. I could not have reached this milestone
without the encouragement of many. First, I would like to thank my family. Mamá—
you were my first teacher, who taught me to have the courage to follow my dreams and
overcome any obstacles life put in front of me. Angie—sister—I cannot thank you
enough for your support, making me laugh when I most needed it, and reminding me of
my purpose. You are wise beyond your years and always my inspiration. I look forward
witnessing all the great things you will do in life. To my husband, David—thank you for
being my number one fan. Your unconditional love, sacrifices, and support have carried
me to the finish line. To my extended family, including my in-laws, I appreciate your
understanding of my constant absences from family functions and important life events to
do school work. I promise never to go back to school again!
I am grateful for my dissertation committee, whose commitment to equity and
change has inspired me to do this work. To my chair, Dr. Kristan Venegas, thanks for
being a trailblazer for students like me and for allowing me to take ownership of this
journey. Dr. Alicia Dowd, thanks for having faith in me, challenging me to see myself as
a scholar, and opening doors so that I can continue striving to be an agent of change. Dr.
Carol Lundberg, you have been such an important part of my academic career. You
embody what this study is about—being a transformative educator. You have
empowered me do things that I never imagined doing, like pursuing a doctorate degree. I
am truly honored to have had the opportunity to collaborate and learn from each of you to
complete this work.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
iv
I am also grateful for my amazing community of friends, classmates, and
colleagues. To my best friend, Susana—it’s finally over! I value our friendship and your
constant encouragement. I cherish sharing some of my most important life moments and
accomplishments with you, including this one. I look forward to catching up on our gym
and sushi dates. Kathy, thank you for telling me to stop stressing out and keeping it
real—always! I appreciate you more than words can express. Annette, what can I say to
express my gratitude for the many laughs, heart-to-heart conversations, help, and
friendship? I am so proud of all that you have accomplished. Aba and Kristina, my
faithful writing buddies and pillars of strength—thank you. I have learned so much from
you and about what it means to be part of a collaborative, supportive, unselfish, and
compassionate group of women, whose only interest is to help each other succeed.
Although I think we have drunk way too much coffee, I would not trade our time together
for anything. Maruth and Susan—thank you for helping me cross the finish line. I also
offer my gratitude to Alicia, Cecilia, Tracy, Lori, Rebekah, Paul, Chito, Telly, Rosa,
Svetlana, Lee Ann, Rashitta, Robin, Jonathan, Peggy, Sandy, and anyone else I may have
inadvertently forgotten. I am grateful for your support and contributions to this
experience.
Throughout my academic and professional career, I have been very fortunate to
study under and work with amazing educators who have had a profound impact on me. I
specially want to acknowledge Dr. Dora Lee, Dr. Rebecca Gutierrez Keeton, Dr. Kevin
Colaner, Mr. Jeffrey Hoffman Dr. Tracy Poon Tambascia, Ms. Sunny Lee, Dr. Paula
Sheridan, Dr. John Hoffman, Dr. Estela Bensimon, Dr. Linda Fisher, Ms. Yevgeniya
Kopeleva, Mr. Kevin Collins, Dr. Gilbert Cadena, Dr. Terri Gomez, Dr. David Iyam,
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
v
Dr. Claudia Dorrington, Dr. Christina Chavez-Reyes, Ms. Marla Franco, Ms. Liz Rennick,
Ms. Megan Bell, Dr. Eric Lara, Mr. Edwin Romero, and Dr. Fernando Estrada-Lopez.
Thank you for your teachings.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the students that I have been fortunate to work
with throughout my career. Thank you for the opportunity to witness your greatness and
be a small part of your journey. Your energy, hunger to learn, optimism, and
perseverance—even in the direst of circumstances—have been the catalysts for my desire
to become a leader in education, a role model, and an institutional agent.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
vi
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Hispanic-Serving Institutions 4
Faculty as Institutional Agents at Hispanic-Serving Institutions 6
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose and Significance of the Study 9
Definitions of Key Terms 10
Overview of Theoretical Framework 11
Overview of Methodology 11
Organization of the Study 12
Chapter Two: Literature Review 14
Hispanic-Serving Institutions 16
Educational Context of Latino Students 26
Latino Persistence and Retention in College 30
Precollege and Pull Factors 33
Academic and Social Experiences 40
Institutional Agents 47
Institutional Agent Framework 47
Institutional Agent Role Types 48
Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Institutional Agents 50
Conclusion 51
Chapter Three: Methodology 53
Research Design 54
Sample and Population 55
Data Collection 59
Interviews 59
Data Analysis 62
Trustworthiness 64
Triangulation 64
Consideration of Researcher Bias 65
Rick, thick Description 66
Summary 67
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
vii
Chapter Four: Findings 68
Review of Data Collection Methods 68
Preliminary Student Survey Results 69
Participants 76
Paired Participants 80
Professor Phillip and Enrique 80
Professor Julio and Robert 89
Professor Abigail and Ileana 100
Unpaired Participants 110
Alma 110
Ruby 113
Professor Beth 118
Professor Meena 124
Professor Nataly 128
Summary 133
Motivations and Constraints 135
Approachability and Caring 135
Relationship to ‘Otherness’ 137
Operating in Contradiction 138
Conclusion 139
Chapter Five: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion 140
Review and Discussion of Findings 141
Implications for Practice and Policy 144
Hiring Practices 145
Faculty Incentive and Reward System 146
Faculty Development 148
Recommendations for Future Research 150
Significant Others 150
Empowerment Agents 151
Hispanic-Serving Institutions 151
Advice from Faculty and Students 152
Conclusion 152
References 154
Appendices
Appendix A: Preliminary Student Survey 168
Appendix B: Student Interview Protocol 172
Appendix C: CUE’s Institutional Agent Self-Assessment Inventory 177
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Faculty at Four Year Institutions 183
Appendix E: Institutional Review Board Information Sheet for Students 187
Appendix F: Institutional Review Board Information Sheet for Faculty 189
Appendix G: Institutional Agent Framework 191
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
viii
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Student characteristics from preliminary student survey 71
Table 4.2: Frequency of institutional characteristics, sorted by descending order of
frequency 75
Table 4.3: Characteristics and information of all students and institutional agents 78
Table 4.4: Professor Phillip’s institutional roles and characteristics 83
Table 4.5: Professor Julio’s institutional roles and characteristics 93
Table 4.6: Professor Abigail’s institutional roles and characteristics 103
Table 4.7: Professor Beth’s institutional roles and characteristics 119
Table 4.8: Professor Meena’s institutional roles and characteristics 125
Table 4.9: Professor Nataly’s institutional roles and characteristics 130
Table 4.10: Summary of faculty’s institutional agent roles 134
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
ix
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Institutional diversity of HSIs 20
Figure 2.2: Six-year graduation rates 24
Figure 2.3: Latino faculty and administrators 25
Figure 2.4: Nora’s model of student engagement 32
Figure 2.5: The roles of institutional agents 49
Figure 3.1: Esperanza University’s Fall 2010 STEM enrollment 55
Figure 3.2: Creswell’s six-step approach to data analysis 62
Figure 4.1: Participant pool 70
Figure 4.2: Institutional agents’ campus role 72
Figure 4.3: Pseudonyms and characteristics of paired participants 77
Figure 4.4: Pseudonyms and characteristics of unpaired participants 78
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
x
Abstract
Despite the exponential growth of Latinos during the past decade and an increase
in higher education participation, there continues to be a gap in degree attainment
compared to other ethnic and racial groups in this country. This gap is even greater for
low-income Latino students seeking a degree in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) disciplines. A proposed solution for this gap has been the
designation of funding for institutions with high Latino enrollment, known as Hispanic-
Serving Institutions (HSIs). However, little is known about the impact that these
institutions have on student outcomes and even less, on how being Hispanic-Serving
influences the practices of those who teach and lead within this context.
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the ways in which faculty,
who were nominated by students, acted as institutional agents for low-income Latino
students in STEM disciplines at Esperanza University, a four-year public Hispanic-
serving Institution. The interviews of the five students and six faculty members who
participated in this study reinforced the significance of student-faculty relationships, as
those relationships facilitate the students’ integration into the academic and social fabric
of the institution. Their stories illustrated the different forms of support that faculty offer
their students, which characterizes them as institutional agents. The results of this study
affirmed that faculty members are in a position to contribute positively and significantly
to the educational experience and success of low-income Latino students, specifically
those in high demand fields like STEM.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Higher education has had a long-standing and implicit social contract with the
public in which there is an inherent trust that the work of higher education is aimed at
serving society and contributing to the common good (Lucas, 2006). The nation’s
leaders have recognized that in order for the country to prosper and meet the demands of
a global economy, it is imperative that individuals and communities develop multifaceted
solutions to provide all students with a high-quality education (Linares & Hernandez,
2000). Members of underprivileged communities have also identified education as a
crucial element to improve their social and economic positions (Kezar, 2011; Ogbu &
Simons, 1998). A significant component of that social contract implies that one of the
primary goals of higher education is “to serve less the perpetuation of an elite class and
more the creation of a relatively classless society, with the doors of opportunity open to
all through education” (Kerr, 2001, p. 122). Some argue that higher education has not
fulfilled the responsibilities of this social contract. Instead, they assert that higher
education has contributed to the prolongation of social and economic inequities by
denying access to those who could benefit most from a postsecondary education, which
include low-income and students of color (Kezar, 2011; Swail, Reed, & Perna, 2003).
Furthermore, they attest that higher education has enacted hegemonic policies and
practices that infringe on underrepresented students’ likelihood to persist and attain a
college degree (Kezar, 2011; Swail, et al., 2003).
As the fastest growing population, the academic success of Latinos is vital to the
nation’s progress not only because they represent 16% of the total population, but also
because they account for a significant portion of the labor force (U.S. Department of
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
2
Education & White House Initiative for Educational Excellence for Hispanics, 2011, p. 2).
This population growth, however, has not translated into an increase in educational
attainment. The U.S. Department of Education and the White House Initiative on
Educational Excellence for Hispanics (2011) reported that
Only about half of all Latino students earn their high school diploma on time;
those who do complete high school are only half as likely as their peers to be
prepared for college. Only 13 percent of Latinos have a bachelor’s degree, and
just 4 percent have completed graduate or professional degree programs. Overall,
Latinos have the lowest education attainment level of any group in the U.S. (p. 1).
The appalling education attainment levels of Latinos should concern those that are
interested in ensuring that the United States remains competitive in the global economy
that currently exists. Given the rapid growth as well as the existing and potential
contributions of the Latino population, Linares and Hernandez (2000) assert that any
action taken to secure the educational achievement of Latino students will strengthen the
educational achievement of all students. Several federal and institutional initiatives, such
as the TRIO Programs, Pell Grant Program, and Puente Program (Ward, 2006), to name a
few, have attempted to address the achievement and opportunity gap that exists for
Latinos and other underrepresented students. Recently, President Obama recognized the
need to increase the capacity within and outside the educational system to make the leaps
necessary to address the Latino population growth and educational achievement gap (U.S.
Department of Education & White House Initiative for Educational Excellence for
Hispanics, 2011). He specifically acknowledged the critical role that agencies, such as
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), play in providing a pathway for Latinos to
participate in higher education. These institutions have a unique opportunity to receive
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
3
support from the federal government to improve their organizational capacity and
develop strategies to expand the educational opportunities for Latino students.
The aim of this study was to examine the ways in which perceived institutional
agents, specifically faculty, at Hispanic-Serving Institutions, are uniquely empowered or
prepared to deconstruct barriers and develop a climate that counteracts the challenges that
low-income Latino students face, specifically those students in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The study explored the ways in
which faculty members use their position within the university to stimulate
transformative learning and promote student persistence, as well as to enact policies and
practices that promote educational opportunities for Latino students (Stanton-Salazar,
1997, 2010). While there are several college impact models that explore faculty-student
relationships and the impact that these have on student persistence and engagement
(Anaya & Cole, 2001; Astin, 1984, 1993; Berger & Braxton, 1998; Cabrera, Castañeda,
Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Cabrera, Nora, Castañeda, 1993; Cole, 2007, 2010; Eimers,
2001; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Lundberg, 2010; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005, Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000; Tinto, 1993; Umbach & Wawrzynski,
2005), there is limited research that explores this relationship through a social capital lens.
Through this lens, it allows us to consider the role of faculty as that of an institutional
agent who acts on behalf of low-income Latino students “to negotiate institutional
support, in the form of highly valued resources, opportunities, privileges, and services”
(Bensimon, 2010).
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
4
As Hispanic-Serving Institutions continue to evolve, faculty will need to develop
a comprehensive understanding about what it means to serve an increasingly diverse
population within this specific institutional context, as well as recognize the role they
play in closing the achievement gap (Nuñez, Ramalho, & Cuero, 2010). For most
students that typically enroll in HSIs, access to institutional support has been rare in their
educational path (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). Consequently, faculty who teach at these
institutions have an opportunity to expand on their role as teachers and become
institutional agents in which they mobilize or provide resources and support that would
facilitate students to navigate higher education (Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Hispanic-Serving Institutions are a relatively new concept in higher education.
HSIs were formally recognized by the United States Department of Education in 1992 as
part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Laden, 2004) . Then, in
1998, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), a prominent
Latino advocacy organization, successfully lobbied for HSIs to be moved under Title V
of the Higher Education Act, which increased their federal funding and support. This
recognition has also helped HSIs develop a sense of identity, and gain political influence
and support (Laden, 2004). However, according to Contreras, Malcom, and Bensimon
(2008), this identity is complex and variable because unlike other Minority Serving
Institutions (MSIs), such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and
Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) that are driven by their missions, the defining
characteristic of HSIs is their Hispanic enrollment (Santiago, 2008).
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
5
There are various philosophies about what constitutes or deserves the designation
of a Hispanic-Serving Institution. Some believe that this designation should go beyond
enrollment and be awarded based on equitable outcomes for Latino students (Contreras,
Malcom, & Bensimon, 2008; Laden, 2004). The legislative definition simply mandates
that in order for institutions to earn the HSI designation, institutions must be accredited,
non-profit, and have a full-time equivalent Latino undergraduate enrollment of at least 25
percent. In addition, at least 50% of Latino students must be low-income and eligible for
need-based financial aid, such as Pell Grants and work-study grants (Contreras, et al.,
2008; Laden, 2004). In 2010, 293 institutions met the basic legislative definition of an
HSI (Excelencia in Education, 2011). This number continues to grow as several
institutions that have a high Latino enrollment are emerging as potential HSIs (Santiago,
2011). The role that these institutions play in providing college access and opportunity
for Latino students is significant, for HSIs represent about 10% of all institutions of
higher education, but enroll almost half of all Hispanic undergraduates (Excelencia in
Education, 2011).
One of the benefits of having the HSI designation is the eligibility to participate in
a federal grant program through the Department of Education. As stated by the
Department of Education (2011), “the Hispanic Serving Institutions Program provides
grants to assist HSIs to expand educational opportunities for, and improve the attainment
of, Hispanic students. The HSI Program grants also enable HSIs to expand and enhance
their academic offerings, program quality, and institutional stability” (para. 1). These
grants can help institutions develop their capacity by funding scientific or laboratory
equipment for teaching; construction or renovation of instructional facilities; faculty
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
6
development; educational materials; academic tutoring or counseling programs;
endowment funds; distance learning academic instruction; teacher education; and student
support services (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Despite the various resources
available to HSIs in the area of teaching, curriculum, and faculty development, there is
limited research that demonstrates the role and impact that faculty within these
institutional contexts have on Latino student outcomes and experiences (Contreras, et al.,
2008)
Faculty as Institutional Agents at Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Given the intended purpose of HSIs and the high concentration of Latino students
at these institutions, faculty members at HSIs have a unique opportunity to affect Latino
educational achievement. Faculty beliefs, practices, and values can diminish or enhance
outcomes for minority students (Bensimon, Peña, & Castillo, 2004), who “often feel that
their histories, experiences, cultures, and languages are devalued, misinterpreted, or
omitted within formal educational settings” (Delgado Bernal, 2002, p. 106). Therefore,
faculty members have the ability to counteract those feelings of estrangement by
intentionally creating a climate in which all students are able to learn and persist (Hurtado,
1992; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hurtado, Milem, & Clayton-Pederson, 1999; Hurtado &
Ponjuan, 2005). For example, faculty members can develop pedagogy and practices that
are inclusive and relevant within the institutional context (Nuñez, et al., 2010). They can
also adopt an engaged pedagogy approach, which empowers students to consider
themselves as holders and creators of knowledge and view the relevancy of their
knowledge to solve problems or create social change (hooks, 1994; Delgado Bernal,
2002). However, “despite the contemporary focus on multiculturalism in our society,
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
7
particularly in education, there is not nearly enough practical discussion of ways
classroom settings can be transformed so that the learning experience is inclusive” (hooks,
1994, p. 35). This approach to teaching requires faculty to take risks to transform the
curriculum and institutional practices, so that they do not reflect biases and reinforce
systems of domination that are deeply embedded within postsecondary institutions (hooks,
1994). When the educational environment is not conducive to an authentic exchange of
ideas and the climate dilutes the significance of diversity, this hinders the students’ sense
of self-efficacy and ultimately, their ability to capitalize on their education (Hurtado &
Ponjuan, 2005).
Statement of the Problem
While it is undeniable that there has been progress made to provide access to
higher education for low-income students and students of color, the degree attainment
rates and educational outcomes show that “socio-economic status and race still play
important roles in rationing access to opportunities” (Bowen, Kurzweil, & Tobin, 2005, p.
74). That has been the case for low-income Latino students. Although Latinos are
projected to represent nearly one-quarter of the nation’s college age population by the
year 2025 and their college going rates have improved, their graduation rates are lower
than other ethnic groups (de los Santos & Cuamea, 2010; Santiago, 2011); that is with the
exception of Native American students (Lundberg, 2007). In fact, Latinos would need to
earn 5.5 million degrees to close equity gaps and meet the nation’s degree attainment
goals set by President Barack Obama (Santiago, 2011; U.S. Department of Education &
White House Initiative for Educational Excellence for Hispanics, 2011). Their progress,
or lack thereof, through the educational pipeline could be attributed to structural and
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
8
systemic barriers that are replicated within the educational system (Bowen, et al., 2005).
These factors are magnified in STEM fields in which Latino students face unique
challenges.
Hispanic-Serving Institutions are perceived to be a viable solution to the
disparities that exist for Latinos within higher education. HSIs are often compared to
HBCUs and women’s colleges because the designation implies that the institution has a
special mission to serve low-income Latino students. For example, HBCUs and women’s
colleges are known to “produce a very large share of high-achieving individuals who rise
to positions of leadership and prominence . . . . Their positive impact is attributed to
these institutions’ special mission, sense of purpose, and strong identity as colleges for
African American students and women” (Contreras, et al., 2008, p. 72). Therefore, the
same might be expected of HSIs. However, little is known about the quality of
undergraduate education, the nature of the student experience, or the factors and
conditions that HSIs create to help their students succeed (Bridges, Kinzie, Nelson Laird,
Kuh, 2008; Contreras, et al., 2008). Moreover, there is limited research that explores the
implications for those who teach and lead in the context of an HSI (Contreras, et al.,
2008; Nuñez, et al., 2010).
While it is useful that HSIs are recognized and supported to improve the
educational conditions for Latinos, little is known about how these institutions affect
student outcomes and experiences, or how faculty at these institutions are uniquely
prepared or empowered to serve this student population (Contreras, et al., 2008). A
survey that asked presidents, chancellors, and chief executive officers of HSIs to identify
challenges facing their institutions found that one-third of the respondents were
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
9
concerned with different aspects affecting faculty on their campuses (de los Santos &
Cuamea, 2010). Namely, they were concerned with “replacing retired faculty with
adequate faculty, and the need for diverse faculty who understand and are willing to
address the needs of underserved students” (de los Santos & Cuamea, 2010). The latter
concern is particularly significant because HSIs tend to be located in urban settings and
serve students that have had inadequate schooling experiences, have competing family
and working demands, and are from working-class families (Engstrom, 2008). Therefore,
the role of the faculty becomes increasingly critical, since students may look at faculty
for mentorship, advising, and inspiration (Dayton, Gonzalez-Vasquez, Martinez, & Plum,
2004). Their position within the institution makes them responsible for teaching content,
but the students that attend these institutions depend on them to use their positions to
create experiences that promote achievement and change structures that hinder it. Thus,
the role of faculty, as institutional agents, in the success and retention of Latino students,
particularly at Hispanic-Serving Institutions, needs to be further explored.
Purpose and Significance of the Study
Historically, Hispanic-Serving Institutions were not specifically designed to
address the needs of Latinos. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that HSIs and the faculty
who teach within this context provide an environment that is conducive to learning,
student engagement, and a sense of belonging (Gasman, 2008). The purpose of this study
was to begin to do that work. I sought to identify and examine the ways in which faculty,
who have been identified as institutional agents by low-income Latino students in STEM
majors at a Hispanic-Serving Institution, make a difference in the experience and
educational outcomes of these students.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
10
As the Latino population continues to grow, the number of HSIs will also increase
and represent an important segment in higher education. This study is significant and
beneficial to educators at emerging and existing Hispanic-Serving Institutions,
specifically to those who are interested in becoming institutional agents for low-income
Latino and other underrepresented students. This study could provide insight about the
role that HSI faculty play in increasing the college enrollment and degree attainment for
Latinos by expanding their role as teachers into that of institutional agents. Furthermore,
this study could prompt educators and administrators at HSIs to examine their “academic
culture; the attitudes, values, commitments of their faculty; faculty members’ awareness
of the HSI status and the meanings they ascribe to it; and the academic outcomes HSIs
produce for Latino students” (Contreras, et al., 2008, p. 88).
Definition of Key Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
1. Hispanic-Serving Institution: According to the Title V of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended in 1998, Hispanic-Serving Institutions are accredited
and degree-granting public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education
with 25 percent or more total undergraduate Hispanic full-time equivalent student
enrollment. In addition, Hispanic-Serving Institutions that wish to apply and
receive Title V funds must also assure that at least 50 percent of their Hispanic
students are low-income individuals (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.)
2. Institutional Agent: High-status, non-kin individuals who occupy relatively high
positions within society or institutions, and who are well positioned to provide
key forms of social and institutional support (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2010)
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
11
3. Latino and Hispanic: The terms Hispanic and Latino are used interchangeably in
this study to include women and men from and with origins from the Caribbean,
Central America, Mexico, Puerto Rico, South America, Spain, and other countries
where Spanish is the primary language (de los Santos & Cuamea, 2010).
Overview of Theoretical Framework
The role of faculty in the experiences and educational outcomes of low-income
Latino students will be explored through seminal college impact theories and Stanton-
Salazar’s (1997, 2010) institutional agent framework. Several college impact theories
and models assert that faculty-student relationships have a significant impact on student
engagement, persistence, and outcomes. These theories substantiate the role that faculty
play, as institutional agents, in the outcomes of low-income Latino students. The
institutional agents framework, which derives from Bourdieu’s (1986) Social Capital
Theory, will expand on the role that faculty play in providing key forms of social and
institutional support (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2010) in the context of a Hispanic-Serving
Institution; institutions where a high number of low-income and students of color are
enrolled.
Overview of Methodology
This study was qualitative in nature and used a case study approach. This
approach enabled me to explore the role that faculty members, who were identified as
institutional agents by STEM low-income Latino students, played in the experiences and
educational outcomes of this student population within the context of a Hispanic-Serving
Institution. This approach was particularly appropriate to this study given that “the object
of study is a contemporary phenomenon in a real life context [and] the boundaries
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
12
between the phenomenon and the context are not clear” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 28).
Additionally, this approach was conducive to using multiple data sources, such as
interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts (Creswell, 2007; Schwandt, 2007).
This allowed me to develop naturalistic generalizations that educators can learn from or
apply to a population of cases (Creswell, 2007).
Creswell’s (2007) Data Collection Circle served as a guide in the research design
and inquiry process. The circle proposes seven interrelated activities to ensure that
research design is aligned with the purpose of the study. Those activities are: locating a
site or an individual, gaining access and making rapport, sampling purposefully,
collecting data, recording information, exploring field issues, and storing data (Creswell,
2007, p.117). For each of these activities, Creswell (2007) also presents general
procedures, which were followed as part of this study’s methodology. For the data
analysis component, Creswell’s (2007) six-step approach was be used. This six-step
approach involved: (1) creating and organizing files for data; (2) reading through text,
making margin notes, and forming initial codes; (3) describing the case and its context;
(4) using categorical aggregation to establish themes or patterns; (5) using direct
interpretation and developing naturalistic generalizations; and (6) presenting in-depth
picture of the case (or cases) using narrative, tables, and figures (Creswell, 2007, pp. 156-
157).
Organization of the Study
This study includes five chapters that explore the ways in which faculty, as
institutional agents, at Hispanic-Serving Institutions make a difference in the experiences
and educational outcomes of low-income Latino students majoring in STEM disciplines.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
13
Chapter one provides an overview of the issues surrounding the topic, highlights the
purpose and significance of the study, identifies the research question, and provides
definitions of terms. Chapter two reviews the key concepts in the literature pertaining to
the topic, including the history and significance of Hispanic-Serving Institutions; the
educational context of low-income Latino students; theoretical perspectives on faculty-
student relationships, and the institutional agent framework. Chapter three outlines the
methodologies used in the study. Chapter four reports the findings of the study. Lastly,
chapter five provides a conclusion grounded in the literature review and the findings as
well as presents implications for practice and future research.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
14
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The role that practitioners play in increasing student success and creating
institutional transformation should not be underestimated (Bensimon, 2007). Faculty,
staff, and administrators are responsible for creating learning experiences that contribute
to student success as well as creating environments that provide a sense of community
and belonging in which students feel comfortable to develop intellectually and socially.
The role of university and college practitioners, especially that of faculty, is of greater
significance as it relates to underrepresented students (Cole, 2007, 2010; Lundberg &
Schreiner, 2004). Given their position within the institution (Stanton-Salazar, 2010),
faculty have the ability to influence the social and academic integration of students and
campus climate as well as policies and practices—all factors that have been found to
notably influence the retention and persistence of underrepresented students, particularly
of Latino students (Arbona & Nora, 2007; Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado & Carter, 1997;
Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005; Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2006; Rendón, et al., 2000; Sólorzano,
Villalpando & Oseguera, 2005). Furthermore, faculty members have the power to disrupt
individual and institutional behaviors that perpetuate educational inequities, and widen
the opportunity for social and economic mobility for underrepresented students, such as
low-income Latino students (Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
As Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) continue to evolve and new ones
continue to emerge (Santiago & Andrade, 2010), it is imperative that educators and
practitioners within this institutional context thoroughly understand the intended purpose
of HSIs. They need to move beyond enrollment numbers and focus on student success
(Bridges, Cambridge, Kuh, & Leegwater, 2005; Contreras, et al., 2008; Malcom,
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
15
Bensimon, & Dávila, 2010). This shift is critical as a matter of accountability and
intentionality (Bensimon, 2010). Many institutions use their HSI designation to seek
federal funding, but very few actually take ownership of their identity or intentionally
make decisions, such as faculty hires, teaching approaches, campus services, and even
concert and lecture series, to represent or serve their sizeable Latino student population
(Bridges, et al., 2005; Contreras, et al., 2008; Stage & Hubbard, 2008).
Although institutional change and transformation can be a slow process, faculty,
as one of the most significant foci of a student’s college experience, can begin by
reexamining their beliefs, practices, and values to enhance the outcomes for low-income
Latino students. According to Stanton-Salazar (2010), faculty can act as institutional
agents by transmitting or negotiating the transmission of institutional support in the form
of resources, opportunities, privileges, and services on behalf of underrepresented
students. This should be a natural process if Hispanic-Serving Institutions are, indeed,
committed to facilitating social change and strive to educate leaders who will become
responsible citizens that will empower themselves and others to also effect social change
(Strayhorn & Hirt, 2008).
The following literature review will provide a synthesis of the literature available
on Hispanic-Serving Institutions, the educational context of low-income Latino students,
and the significance of faculty-student relationships on student persistence and outcomes.
The last section of this literature review will expose faculty-student relationships through
the lens of college impact theories and social capital theory, specifically through the
institutional agent framework.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
16
Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Hispanic-Serving Institutions are part of a cadre of diverse Minority-Serving
Institutions (MSIs), which include Historically Black and Tribal College and Universities.
While different socioeconomic, political, and geographic forces have shaped these
institutions into becoming distinct from one another, they share a collective mission to
educate and graduate students from underrepresented backgrounds (Baez, Gasman, &
Sotello Viernes Turners, 2008; Strayhorn & Hirt, 2008). These institutions offer an
alternative to mainstream institutions that serve a small fraction of students of color and
seek to address the appalling participation and success rates of African American, Latino,
and Native American students in higher education (Baez, Gasman, & Sotello Viernes
Turners, 2008; Cunningham & Leegwater, 2011). In particular, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions are important to expanding access for low-income Latino students and other
underrepresented students, since this student population attends these schools in larger
numbers (Baez, Gasman, & Sotello Viernes Turners, 2008).
In the 1980s, institutional leaders, specifically in Texas and New Mexico, began
to draw national attention to the high enrollment of Latinos in a concentrated group of
institutions (Santiago, 2006). This discourse resulted in the inauguration of the Hispanic
Association of College and Universities (HACU) in 1986, which “has become an
important voice for Hispanic higher education, and is the lead voice for Hispanic-Serving
Institutions. In fact, without HACU, there would likely be no HSIs” (Martinez, 2008, p.
276). Because of the efforts of organizations such as HACU, the federal government
recognized HSIs in 1992 during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA)
of 1965. This resulted in the federal government’s establishment of the Developing
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
17
Institutions Program, which included “accredited degree-granting college and
universities with Latino students accounting for 25 % or more of the undergraduate
enrollment” (Gasman, 2008) in the funding provisions previously reserved for
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities under
Title III (Gasman, 2008; Laden, 2004; Santiago, 2006). This inclusion allowed
institutions with high Latino enrollments, which have been historically underfunded, to
apply for federal funds to close the funding gap that exists between HSIs and other
postsecondary institutions (Baez, Gasman, & Sotello Viernes Turner, 2008; Hubbard &
Stage, 2009; Laden, 2001).
In 1998, during that year’s reauthorization of the HEA, Congressman Rubén
Hinojosa (D-TX) spearheaded three significant changes to the previous legislation. His
efforts resulted in a streamlined definition of HSIs; a shift of the Developing Hispanic-
Serving Institutions program into its own section of the HEA; and an increase in the
appropriation levels for the program (Santiago, 2006). The 1992 legislation stated that, in
addition to having a 25% full-time equivalent enrollment of Latinos, institutions also had
to assure that no less than 50% of its Latino students were low-income and first-
generation college students, and another 25% of its Latino students were low-income or
first-generation college students (Santiago, 2006). “It was the general consensus that
these criteria were burdensome for institutions to collect and unnecessary for identifying
institutions serving large concentration of Latinos” (Santiago, 2006, p. 7). The new
definition eliminated the first-generation stipulation and did not require institutions to
show additional proof that more than 50% of the Latino students were from low-income
backgrounds (Santiago, 2006). The purpose of the second change, which moved the
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
18
program into a separate section known as Title V, was to reiterate the importance of the
program and differentiate it from programs for other MSIs. However, some speculate
that this change was made to appease HBCU leaders who argued that HSIs were tapping
into their resources (Gasman, 2008; Martinez, 2008). The third and last change under
this reauthorization was the substantial increase in appropriations. From 1999 to 2008,
the annual appropriation increased from $28 million to $93.2 million (Bensimon, 2010).
In recent years, additional funding has been made available to HSIs to address the unique
needs of Latino students. For example, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act
(CCRAA-HSI), which is part of the Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act under
the health care reform act, has made one billion dollars available to HSIs. These funds
sought to help institutions develop articulation agreements between two-year HSIs and
four-year institutions to increase the number of Latino students in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (Malcom, et al., 2010). The significant
investment of the federal government through these programs is evidence that HSIs are
perceived to have an impact on the educational attainment and achievement of Latinos.
Despite federal legislation, that defines what constitutes a Hispanic-Serving
Institution, philosophical differences have influenced alternative definitions that are used
by other groups to meet their own purposes. This makes it challenging to reach a definite
understanding of HSIs and compile an official list (Contreras, et al., 2008). While the
U.S. Department of Education does publish an annual list, it only lists those institutions
that have been granted program funds during that fiscal year and meet the program’s
enrollment targets (Santiago, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Until 2008, the
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) had also produced a separate list that used data from the
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
19
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and included for-profit
institutions that met the 25% enrollment requirement. Currently, the OCR links to the
Department of Education’s Title V list and produces a supplemental list that uses IPEDS
data to identify non-profit public and private institutions with high Hispanic enrollment.
(OCR, n.d.). The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities also produces a list,
which identifies colleges, universities, or systems/districts with a minimum of 25% of the
total enrollment that elect to become due-paying members of their association (HACU,
n.d.). HACU offers various membership affiliations, which includes institutions that
meet the federal government definition of an HSI and other institutions that are
considered as emerging HSIs with Latino total enrollments between 10% and 24%
(HACU, n.d.). These variances make it possible for institutions to be listed on one list,
but not on another (Contreras, et al., 2008). Therefore, the HSI identity may be perceived
as unauthentic or having little impact on the educational attainment and outcomes of
Latinos, as these institutions can gain or lose their HSI designation from one year to the
next (Bensimon, 2010; Contreras, et al., 2008; Gasman, 2008).
Hispanic-Serving Institutions represent approximately 10% of institutions of
higher education and enroll more than 54% of all of the nation’s Latino college students
(Excelencia in Education, 2011). While many HSIs are community colleges, HSIs are
also among two-year private institutions; four-year private institutions; public
comprehensive college and universities; and a few research universities (Excelencia in
Education, 2011; Malcom, et al., 2010; Santiago, 2008a). Figure 2.1 below shows the
institutional diversity among HSIs.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
20
Figure 2.1. Institutional diversity of HSIs. Adapted from Santiago (2008a)
HSIs are located across 14 states and territory with large number of institutions situated
in California, Puerto Rico, and Texas. California leads this list with 84 HSIs followed by
Puerto Rico and Texas with 51 and 43 HSIs, respectively (Bensimon, 2010). This
overrepresentation of HSIs in these states and territory is not surprising given the large
number of Latinos that reside in these regions. However, new HSIs are emerging as
Latino college enrollment is increasing, even in states that are not known for having large
Latino populations (Santiago, 2006, 2008a; Santiago & Andrade, 2010). In 2010,
Santiago and Andrade identified 176 two- and four-year emerging HSIs that reported
having Latino enrollments between 15% and 24%.
Another important characteristic of HSIs is their concentration in urban cities,
which accounts for the diversity of their student bodies and institutional selectivity
(Santiago, 2006). In the fall of 2001, HSIs enrolled 10.7% of the nation’s Black students,
54.2% of the nation’s Hispanic students, 11.2% of the nation’s Native American and
Alaska Native students, and 16.3% of the nation’s Asian Pacific Islander students
127
10
137
57
71
128
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Public, 2-year
Private, not-for-profit
Total, 2-year
Public, 4-year or above
Private, not-for-profit, 4-year or above
Total, 4-year or above
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
21
(Mercer & Stedman, 2008). Data shows that a substantial number of students who enroll
in HSIs, as well as in other MSIs, come from educationally disadvantaged, low-income
backgrounds, and/or are first-generation college students (Cunningham & Leegwater,
2011; Mercer & Stedman, 2008). This racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity could
be attributed to the alignment between the institutional characteristics of HSIs and Latino
student priorities and needs (Santiago, 2008b). In a study that explored the reasons why
Latinos enroll at HSIs, Santiago (2007) found that students at HSIs identified low college
costs, proximity to where they lived, and an approachable campus as their priorities in
choosing a college. Given these findings, it is not surprising that the majority of HSIs are
community colleges and not highly selective colleges and universities (Flores & Morfín,
2008). Santiago (2007) states that, “this characterization of HSIs as non-selective should
not be taken to mean that HSIs are not quality institutions of higher education” (p. 11).
Instead, their open admissions philosophy and focus on community development and
academic preparation should allow HSIs to be uniquely positioned to serve the needs of
Latino students (Cunningham & Leegwater, 2011; Flores & Morfín, 2008; Santiago,
2007).
HSIs and other MSIs are more likely to offer a wide range of services and
programs to their students. These offerings may include distance learning opportunities,
remedial services, adult basic education, weekend/evening courses, and on-campus day
care (Cunningham & Leegwater, 2011). While the institution’s HSI designation may not
have been a significant factor in the students’ college choice initially, the distinct
programs and services may have influenced them to matriculate (Cunningham &
Leegwater, 2011; Santiago, 2007). Many of these offerings are a reflection of an
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
22
institution’s efforts to respond to the needs of the students that typically attend HSIs—
students who are more likely to need various support structures on campus to help them
persist (Cunningham & Leegwater, 2011).
While there is some literature that has assessed campus climate and student
engagement at HSIs (Bridges, et al., 2005; Bridges, et al., 2008; Strayhorn & Hirt, 2008),
there is a gap in the literature in regards to the added-value that HSIs has on outcomes
like graduation rates and representations in high-demand fields (Bensimon, 2010;
Contreras, et al., 2008; Malcom, et al., 2010). One of the few forms of accountability for
those institutions that receive Title V funds is through the U.S. Department of Education.
The U.S. Department of Education (2010) requires institutions to measure the impact or
effectiveness of Title V funds by assessing:
• The number of full-time degree-granting undergraduate students enrolled at HSIs.
• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students who
were in their first year of postsecondary enrollment in the previous year and are
enrolled in the current year at the same four- or two-year HSI.
• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students
enrolled at four-year HSIs who graduate within six years of enrollment.
• The percentage of first-time, full-time degree-seeking undergraduate students
enrolled at two-year HSIs who graduate within three years of enrollment.
Bensimon (2010) argues that these outcome measures do not capture or identify the
“direct benefits to [Latinos] from Title V funding, cohort level data to assess continuous
progress through milestones, [and] success goals and benchmarks, particularly to close
gaps” (p.18). The benchmarking method is the “process of evaluating institutional
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
23
performance data in order to understand the relationship between educational practices
and student outcomes” (Malcom, et al., 2010, p. 6). Bensimon (2010), Contreras, et al.
(2008), and Malcom, et al. (2010) have proposed benchmarking as a viable approach to
help HSIs better understand the ways in which they serve Latinos, beyond providing
access.
Understanding the relationship between the educational practices of faculty and
student outcomes can assist to illustrate the ways in which educators at HSIs are helping
these institutions meet their implied mission (Malcom, et al, 2010). “Hispanic-Serving
Institutions grant a significant number of certificates and degrees in high-demand fields,
like allied health, science, and other technical fields, to Latino students” (Malcom, et al.,
p.3). Data demonstrates that HSIs create a pathway for Latino students to consider a
post-baccalaureate degree (Solórzano, 1995). The National Science Foundation (2009)
reported that, between 2003 and 2007, nearly 40% of Latino STEM Ph.D. recipients
completed their undergraduate degree at an HSI. Despite these accomplishments, HSIs
still fall behind in six-year graduation rates and percentages of conferred degrees to
Latino students (Bensimon, 2010; Contreras, et al., 2008; Malcom, et al., 2010). Figure
2.2, adapted from Bensimon (2010), shows the inequitable six-year graduation rates that
exist between Latino, White, and Asian students at public and private HSIs, emerging
HSIs, and non-HSIs. This illustration reiterates the importance of assessment and
accountability, both at the individual and organizational level, as it relates to the assumed
mission and purpose of HSIs.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
24
Figure 2.2. Six-year graduation rates at public and private 4-year non-HSIs, emerging HSIs, and HSIs by
race. Adapted from Bensimon (2010).
The ethnic diversity of the faculty and administrators across the nation’s HSIs is a
notable characteristic. Bensimon (2010) gathered data from IPEDS, which noted that
Latino faculty and administrators were represented in larger percentages compared to
non-HSIs. Figure 2.3 shows a comparison of the distribution of faculty and
administrations at 4-year non-HSIs, emerging HSIs, and HSIs. Perhaps the high
representation of Latino faculty and administrators plays an important role in the
experience and educational outcomes of Latino students enrolled at HSIs; many students
of color previously have not had many positive role models that share their same cultural
heritage and experiences in an educational context (Castellanos & Gloria, 2007).
39%
47%
39%
51%
31%
44%
47%
57%
47%
54%
34%
49%
44%
56%
51%
55%
36%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Public Non-
HSIs
Private Non-
HSIs
Public Emerging
HSIs
Private
Emerging HSIs
Public HSIs Private HSIs
Latino
White
Asian
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
25
Figure 2.3. Latino Faculty and Administrators at 4-year Non-HSIs, Emerging HSIs, and HSIs. Adapted
from Bensimon (2010, March)
In a qualitative study that explored the perceptions of students and administrators
within an HSI context, Dayton, Gonzalez-Vasquez, Martinez, and Plum (2004) found that
while the role of Latino faculty and staff differed from campus to campus, whatever the
role was, it was an important one. At some campuses, Latino faculty and staff “served as
consultants and representatives of the campus conscience….The personal insights that
Latino faculty and staff offer were essential in ensuring campus sensitivity, empathy, and
responsiveness to the needs or concerns of Latino students” (Dayton, et al., 2004, p. 34).
At other campuses, this same study found that Latino faculty and staff are perceived to be
essential in helping students become successful in their educational endeavors, as they
oftentimes could relate to the cultural and educational experiences of low-income Latino
students (Dayton, et al., 2004). The presence of Latino faculty at their campus “conveyed
a sense of comfort, empowerment, ethic of caring, equality, and importance of
communication” (Dayton, et al., 2004, p. 35). Other students shared a similar perspective
2.6%
2.5%
2.2%
3.1%
3.0%
8.0%
6.7%
6.1%
8.3%
16.7%
14.3%
12.9%
12.1%
15.3%
26.4%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%
Latino Faculty
Latino Tenure-Track Faculty
Latino Tenured Faculty
Latino Newly Hired Faculty
Latino Administrators
HSIs
Emerging HSIs
Non-HSIs
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
26
by stating that, “Latino faculty and staff had a strong impact on their motivation to
succeed in college” (Dayton, et al., 2004, p. 35). Other Latino students asserted that
having faculty and staff that genuinely cared about them, were interested in their success,
and treated them fairly mattered more than the faculty’s race or ethnicity (Dayton, et al.,
2004).
There are numerous reasons why HSIs have the potential to make positive strides
in closing the opportunity and achievement gaps that exist for low-income Latino
students. For example, the federal government has invested millions of dollars to help
HSIs build their capacity to serve this and other diverse student populations. The
structural diversity that exists within these institutions offers an opportunity for
institutions to embrace their implied mission by enacting policies, curriculum, and
practices that reflect and address the needs of Latino and other underrepresented students
(Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, & Allen, 2011). Finally, those who teach and lead
within a context of an HSI have the prospect to use their social capital and empower
students by providing opportunities that will promote hope, possibility, self-esteem, and
self-worth (Bensimon, 2007; Duncan-Andrade, 2009; Nuñez, et al., 2010; Stanton-
Salazar, 2010).
Educational Context of Latino students
Latinos account for approximately 50.5 million people or 16.3% of the U.S.
population (HACU, 2011); however, in comparison to other racial and ethnic groups,
with the exception of Native Americans, Latinos have the lowest educational attainment
rates (Lundberg, 2007). Latinos have the lowest educational attainment rates (Santiago,
2011; U.S. Department of Education & White House Initiative on Educational Excellence
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
27
for Hispanics, 2011). According to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Education
and the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence of Hispanics (2011), “only
13% of Latinos have a bachelor’s degree, and only 4% have completed graduate or
professional degree programs” (p. 2). Closing the college attainment gaps that exist for
Latino students and other underrepresented student groups, including low-income
students, has become a national imperative because our nation’s economic sustainability
and progress depends on the educational achievement of these students (Kelly, Schneider,
& Carey, 2010; U.S. Department of Education & White House Initiative on Educational
Excellence for Hispanics, 2011). However, some argue that in order to make substantial
progress in closing the opportunity and achievement gap, the nation’s theory of change
needs to be founded on the principles of democracy and social justice, not solely driven
by an economic agenda (Bensimon, 2007; Malcom, et al., 2010; Santiago, 2011).
It is undeniable that Latinos have gained greater access into higher education over
the past two decades. However, this access and progress is not reflective of the
population’s growth or desire to participate in higher education. According to
Castellanos, Gloria, and Kamimura (2006), over the last 20 years, there has only been a
mere 7% increase in academic progress for Latinos. This perceived progress is greatly
due to the high percentage of Latino students (49%) that choose to attend community
colleges (Castellanos, Gloria, & Kamimura, 2006; Dowd, 2011; Malcom, 2008; Santiago,
2011). This assumption can be confirmed, as data shows that there has not been a
substantial increase in Latino enrollment at 4-year universities over time (Castellanos &
Gloria, 2007; Santiago, 2011). Sólorzano, Villalpando, and Oseguera (2005) depict the
severity of the leak in the educational pipeline for Latinos by presenting evidence that
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
28
shows that out of 100 Latino elementary students, only 21 will go to college, 8 will earn a
graduate degree, and less than 0.2% will earn a doctoral degree.
The underrepresentation of Latinos in higher education is even more apparent in
STEM-related fields (Cole & Espinosa, 2008; Crisp, Nora, Taggart, 2009; Dowd,
Malcom, & Bensimon, 2009; Dowd, 2010; Hurtado, Cabrera, Lin, Arellano, & Espinosa,
2009; Malcom; 2008; Malcom; Dowd, & Yu, 2010; Stanton-Salazar, Macias, Bensimon,
& Dowd, 2010; National Science Foundation, 2009). According to Dowd, Malcom, and
Bensimon (2009), who analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics;
the National Science Foundation; and the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2006, Latinos
comprised 19% of the college-aged population, but were only awarded 8% of the
bachelor’s degrees, 3.5% of master’s degrees, and 4.4% of doctorates in STEM fields.
This means that, approximately, for every 100 undergraduate degrees awarded to Latino
students, only one of those degrees will be in a STEM-related field. This may explain
why Latinos only represent 5.4% of the entire STEM workforce.
While some will argue that one of the reasons why Latinos are not well
represented in STEM-related fields is because they are not interested in these fields,
Latinos are, in fact, interested in these STEM-related fields (Dowd, et al., 2009).
According to data obtained from a National Science Board freshman survey given in
2010, “more than one third of incoming Latino freshman declared an intent to enroll in a
STEM-related field when they entered college” (Stanton-Salazar, et al., 2010, p. 7).
Unfortunately, this intent has not materialized or translated into improved completion and
degree attainment rates. For example, “in 2008, only 16% of Latino students, who started
college in a STEM major, completed a STEM degree in 4 years compared to 25% of
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
29
White students and 32% of Asian American students” (Stanton-Salazar, et al., 2010, p. 7).
This data implies that there may be numerous factors impeding Latino students from
entering and succeeding in STEM-related fields. These factors may include institutional
commitment to recruiting Latino students, capacity to address the academic under-
preparedness of Latino students in STEM-related coursework, and the number of
opportunities institutions offer to these students to conduct research along faculty
members and peers (Anaya & Cole; 2001, 2003; Cole, 2007; Cole & Espinoza, 2008;
Crisp, et al., 2009; Hurtado, et al., 2009).
Much of the research that attempts to explain the dismal academic attainment of
Latinos, both, in K-12 and postsecondary education is framed around a deficit perspective
(Castellanos & Gloria, 2007; Nora, et al., 2006). This perspective could lead to
misguided program and policy efforts that are based on inaccurate information and
stereotypes (Santiago, 2011). Latinos, as a community, face many complex and
interrelated societal challenges to college attendance. These challenges include poverty,
racism, immigration, language acquisition, and inequitable educational opportunities, to
name a few. While these are significant challenges that should be considered as part of
the equation to find comprehensive solutions, it is important to move away from those
models that use these factors to blame students or question the students’ capacities
(Bensimon; 2007; Hurtado, et al., 2011; Kezar, 2011; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2010;
Rendón, et al., 2000; Santiago, 2011). To begin developing viable solutions, it is
imperative to examine the ways in which individual practices, school/university climates,
teacher/faculty-student interactions, policies, and programs perpetuate or disrupt
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
30
inequities (Bensimon; 2007; Hurtado, et al., 2011; Kezar, 2011; Stanton-Salazar, 1997,
2010; Rendón, et al., 2000).
Latino Persistence and Retention in College
Vincent Tinto’s (1975, 1987) student integration model is one of the most widely
used models to explain why students leave college without obtaining a degree (Cabrera,
Nora, & Castañeda, 1992; Metz, 2002). Tinto’s theory asserts that retention is based on
how well a student becomes academically and socially integrated on campus (Chaves,
2006; Metz, 2002; Tinto, 1987). In his original theory (Tinto, 1973), he cited six specific
factors that contributed to the academic and social integration of students:
(1) pre-entry attributes (prior schooling and family background); (2) goals and
commitment (the student’s individual aspiration and institutional goals); (3)
experience at the institution (academic and faculty peer interactions); (4) external
commitments while at the institution; (5) integration both academic and socially;
and (6) outcome (departure decision—graduate, transfer, dropout) (Metz, 2002,
p.3)
He later revised his theory and included environmental variables as factors that also
contribute to a student’s decision to leave college. This revision validated that
institutional climate plays a significant role in a student’s decision to stay or depart from
college. According to Tinto (1975), students depart from an institution because their
expectations, attributes, skills, and backgrounds are not always a fit with the institution’s
academic and social systems.
Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) work on retention has been seminal in understanding
the complex factors that affect student retention. However, it was not until 1993 that he
revised his theory to elaborate on the importance of designing inclusive environments for
underrepresented students and included student finances as key components in the
adjustment of the student to college (St. John, Cabrera, Nora, & Asker, 2000). This was
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
31
an important revision, as it took into account systemic barriers and challenged paradigms
that usually ignore the contextual view of minority student lives and their educational
experiences (Rendón, et al., 2000). This revision has created a springboard for other
scholars to expand on his model or contest it with alternative ones that seek to better
explain the impact that class as well as financial need and aid have on student outcomes
like academic achievement, educational commitments, student engagement, and
persistence to graduation (Cabrera, et al., 1992; Dowd, 2011; Engle & O’Brien, 2007;
Engle & Tinto, 2008; Hu, 2010; Kezar 2011; Nora 2002, 2003a; Nora, et al., 2006;
Rendón, et al., 2000; St. John, et al., 2000).
One of the expanded and most renowned models to emerge from the work of
Tinto, as well as other scholars, is Nora’s (2003a) Model of Student Engagement. This
model attempts to explain the array of factors that affect student retention, specifically for
Latino and other underrepresented students. Nora’s (1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1996,
1997, 2000, 2002) previous research informed his Student Engagement Model by
identifying numerous factors that influence Latino student persistence. These factors
include
• educational goal commitments
• financial assistance
• social integration or experiences
• institutional commitments (or institutional fit)
• environmental pull factors
• perceptions of prejudice and discrimination
• academic performance
• support and encouragement by parents
• academic and intellectual development while in college
• pre-college psychosocial experiences
• attitudes related to remediation
• mentoring experiences
• student resilience
• spirituality on the part of the students (Nora, 2003a, p. 56)
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
32
In his model, as shown in figure 2.4, he groups these factors into six components: (1)
precollege factors and pull factors; (2) sense of purpose and institutional allegiance; (3)
academic experiences and social experiences; (4) cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes;
(5) goal determination/institutional allegiance; and (6) persistence. This model
emphasizes the unique interaction between the student and the institution and theorizes
about the relationship between all of these variables in the students’ persistence and
degree attainment (Crisp, et al., 2009). Nora’s (2003a) model serves as a framework to
explore the challenges this student population faces in their pursuit of a postsecondary
education and can prompt institutions and individuals to assess the ways in which they
may assist in deconstructing those barriers (Crisp, et al., 2009; Hernandez & Lopez;
2004).
Figure 2.4. Nora (2003a) Model of Student Engagement
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
33
Several others scholars have researched the personal, social, and environmental
variables that Nora (2003a) describes, both independently and in relation to one another
(Castellanos & Gloria, 2007; Crisp, Nora & Taggart, 2009; Gloria, Castellanos, Lopez, &
Rosales, 2005; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004; Hurtado, 1992; Hurtado & Carter, 1997;
Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005). Across studies, the most salient variables that have been
found to influence Latino student persistence are related to the students’ precollege and
pull factors in addition to their academic and social experiences at the postsecondary
institution. The exploration of these and other elements within the university context is
essential to accurately understand the educational experiences of Latino students
(Castellanos & Gloria, 2007).
Precollege and Pull Factors
Precollege and pull factors are those variables that students bring to college and
environmental factors that influence their engagement with the institution (Nora, 2003a,
2003b). Pre-college factors may include variables like the students’ academic
preparedness, academic self-concept, financial assistance and need, and family support
(Arbona & Nora, 2007; Nora, 2003a). Pull factors are those environmental variables that
either pull students away or draw them in to the academic and social campus
environments. According to Crisp, Nora, and Taggart (2009),
these pull factors are thought to be related to students’ attitudes and ability to
remain in college and center on variables outside of university life, such as having
to work-off campus, attending to family responsibilities, dealing with financial
concerns, or attending campus part-time (p. 927)
Collectively, these various factors influence a student’s college choice as well as his or
her perceptions and behaviors, which influence their adjustment, transition, and
engagement with the institution (Arbona & Nora, 2007; Nora, 2003a, 2003b).
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
34
Pre-college schooling experiences. According to a report by the Pew Hispanic
Center, low-income Latino students are disproportionately enrolled at disadvantaged,
low-achieving K-12 schools (Fry, 2005). In California, for example, “nearly 40 percent
of Hispanics attend large, relatively disadvantaged schools, in comparison with 8 percent
of Whites and 30 percent of Blacks” (Fry, 2005, p. ii). These schools have fewer
instructional resources, including high teacher-student ratios, which are known to have a
significant impact on student performance and achievement. Fry (2005) argues that, “the
effects of these structural characteristics on achievement appear to be greater in schools
with higher concentrations of low socioeconomic status students” (p. i). Swail, Cabrera,
and Lee (2004) supported Fry’s argument, as they discovered that nearly 59 percent of
Latino students were not academically prepared for a postsecondary education, compared
to 41 percent of White students and 32 percent of Asian American students. Swail, et al.
(2004) also found that high school coursework completed by Latino students tends to be
less rigorous than the coursework completed by their peers. For example, over 58% of
Latino students finished their math sequence with geometry, as compared to 41% of
White students and 44% of all students. Oftentimes, this is due to academic tracking
where Latino students are placed into lower academic tracks throughout their secondary
schooling. In turn, this has negative consequences on both college enrollment and degree
completion. Studies have demonstrated that the quality and rigor of their high school
curriculum are the strongest predictors of bachelor degree attainment and of transfer to a
four-year college among community college students (Adelman, 1999; Arbona & Nora;
2007; Hoachlander, Sikora, Horn, & Carroll, 2003; Swail, Cabrera, & Lee, 2004;
Warburton, Bugarin, & Nuñez, 2001).
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
35
For Latino students interested in STEM fields, these pre-college factors
particularly play a significant role in their decision to pursue and obtain a degree in those
fields. Although scholars have found that grade point averages (GPA) and SAT scores
are not strong predictors of retention or student outcomes for Latino students (Gandara &
Lopez, 1998; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004; Hurtado & Carter, 1997), a strong interest in
STEM fields and a high GPA and SAT mathematics score are associated with the
persistence of undergraduate STEM students (Bonus-Hammarth, 2000). While Latinos
have demonstrated an interest in these fields (National Science Foundation, 2009), their
limited access to college preparatory courses in high school, including advanced
placement, science, and mathematics classes places them at a disadvantage (Contreras,
2005; Crisp, et al., 2009). Similarly, their lower GPAs compared to their White
counterparts limit their college choices and decreases their likelihood to be retained in
STEM fields (Cole & Espinoza, 2008).
Academic self-concept and self-efficacy. Academic self-concept and efficacy
has been found to be a strong predictor of academic success and persistence, especially
for Latino and other underrepresented students (Astin, 1993; Cavazos, Jr., Johnson, Scott-
Sparrow, 2010; Hernandez, 2000; Hernandez & Lopez, 2004). In a study that examined
the academic non-persistence decisions of Latino undergraduates, Gloria, Castillo, Lopez,
and Rosales (2005) found that Latino students who had high self-efficacy and positive
sense of self were more likely to enroll and graduate from college. Similarly, Rodriguez
(1996) found that academic self-concept was significantly related to GPA and that
Mexican American high school students with the same academic background were more
likely to achieve higher grades if they had greater confidence in their academic abilities.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
36
However, many low-income Latino students have had to overcome a plethora of
challenges, including negative experiences with educators throughout their educational
pathway, that have chipped away at their confidence to succeed academically (Cavazos,
Johnson, & Scott Sparrow, 2010). Latino students have often felt that educators in K-12
and higher education settings have had low expectations of them, have not believed in
their potential to pursue higher education, and have held stereotypical and deficit views
of them (Cavazos, Cavazos, Hinojosa, & Silva, 2009; Davidson-Aviles, Guerrero,
Barajas-Howarth, & Thomas, 1999; Martinez, DeGarmo, & Eddy, 2004). Consequently,
this has negatively affected their academic self-concept and efficacy as well as their
likelihood to persist. Rendón (1994) argues that because educators have a significant
influence on the students’ perceptions of themselves, it is important that university
personnel and educators, especially faculty, help students’ view themselves as creators of
knowledge and believe in their potential to succeed by validating who they are, their
experiences, and offering meaningful interactions, both in and outside of the classroom.
These practices could reduce feelings of inadequacy and increase their sense of belonging
(Rendón, 1994).
Finances. Integrating students into the academic fabric of the institutions has
been posed as one of the most significant predictors of student retention and persistence
(Astin, 1993; Tinto, 1993). Yet, for many low-income Latino students this integration is
not seamless. As mentioned previously, the challenges that low-income Latino students
face are numerous, complex, and overwhelming. Frequently, the students’
socioeconomic status affects their access to a quality K-12 education, which puts them at
a disadvantage when applying to college. Low-income students are less likely than their
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
37
high-income counterparts to have access to rigorous courses (honors and Advanced
Placement), preparation programs for college entrance exams, and information about how
to finance a college education (Bowen, Kurzweil, & Tobin, 2005; Engle & O’Brien,
2007; Kezar, 2011; Santiago & Cunningham, 2005; Tierney, Venegas, De La Rosa,
2006). While students’ academic preparation has been shown to be one of the strongest
predictors for student success (Astin, 1993), research also shows that for low-income
students, finances play an important role in whether they stay in college or not (St. John,
et al., 2000; Tinto, 1993). However, low-income students many times “do not have an
understanding of the financial obligation to attend college—often choosing not to go to
college because they are unable to navigate the financial aid system” (Kezar, 2011) or are
not able to compete for merit based scholarships (Bowen, et al., 2005). For those low-
income students who do matriculate in college, they often drop out because they are
misinformed about or are overwhelmed by the financial responsibilities and intricacies of
the processes involved with financial aid (Bowen, et al., 2005; Kezar, 2011; Tierney, et
al., 2005).
Cabrera, Nora, and Castañeda (1992) recognize that low-income students are less
likely to be engaged in the academic and social experiences that foster the integration of
students into the institutions. Engle and Tinto (2008) cite that low-income and first-
generation students, as many Latino students are, delay their involvement in co-curricular
activities and campus life because they tend to believe that their first priority is to adjust
to the academic rigors of college. Pascarella and Terenzini’s (2005) analysis of the
literature show that this lack of engagement during their transition into college is
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
38
essential and a great loss, as research shows that underprivileged and underrepresented
students benefit most from these activities.
Adjusting to college is not the only factor that prevents low-income Latino
students from participating in academic and social activities. Low-income and students
of color tend to “take fewer classes each semester as they balance multiple obligations,
and frequently stop out as family circumstances—such as changes in jobs, finances, and
health—dictate” (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Choy and associates (2000, 2003) found that
low-income students tend to work more than 20 hours per week to pay for their education
and help support their families. Sedlacek, Longerbeam, and Alatorre (2004) found that
Latino college students were more likely to work, work longer hours, and drop out of
school for financial reasons than non-Latinos. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) attest to
the negative impact that working over 20 hours per week has on persistence; their meta-
analysis of the research on this topic shows that students who work for up to 20 hours a
week actually have higher persistence rates, but has the opposite effect if they work in
excess of those hours.
The need to work to contribute to their households as well as access to federal,
state, and institutional financial aid are also important factors in the students’ major
choice (Crisp, et al., 2005). For example, Barton (2003) as well as Frenske, Porter, and
DuBrock (2000) found that because STEM degrees often take longer to complete than
other college majors, financial aid weighed heavily on the students’ decision to complete
a STEM degree. Grants have been positively associated with retention; however,
research shows that in 2003-2004, “the average loan amounts Latinos received ($5,620)
were higher than the grant amounts they received ($3,810)” (Santiago & Cunningham,
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
39
2005). This is significant because Malcom and Dowd (2008) indicated that among
STEM Latino bachelor’s degree holders, higher levels of debt could negatively affect
these students’ decision to pursue a graduate and professional degree. Research shows
that low-income and African American and Latino families have an aversion to
borrowing money. This could pose a substantial challenge to choosing and completing a
STEM degree and it should not be underestimated when developing interventions to
widen the education pipeline for underrepresented students (Crisp, et al., 2009).
Many institutions, specifically prestigious college and universities, follow a
traditional structural model in which there is minimal flexibility for students to attend
part-time or take classes during alternative business hours. Due to the lack of resources
or perceptions about access to financial aid, low-income students choose to enroll at two-
year institutions (Choy, et al., 2003; Choy & Bobbit, 2000; Engle & Tinto, 2008; Kezar,
2011; Santiago & Cunningham, 2005). This decision has many implications on whether
students obtain a bachelor’s degree or not. While some community colleges are making
positive strides to improve transfer rates, these colleges, because of their of open access
mission, have not emphasized the transfer curriculum or process to their students (Dowd,
2011). While the mission of community colleges is to make college affordable and
reachable, these colleges tend to lack the institutional components that facilitate the
attainment of a degree. For example, “institutions that have high graduation rates for
low-incomes students maintain close personal contact with students, create supportive
campus communities, maintain a focus on undergraduate education, and create a campus
culture focused on retention and graduation” (Kezar, 2011). Given the transitory nature
of students at community colleges and the perceptions that students that attend the
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
40
colleges are less deserving of a quality education, these types of interactions,
environments, and engaged pedagogy are often absent (Hubbard & Stage, 2009);
consequently, affecting the students’ academic and social integration.
At a glance, the odds for success for low-income Latino students may seem slim
due to the staggering obstacles that they face. However, the opportunity for low-income
Latino students to succeed greatly depends on recognizing and reexamining current
practices, policies, and beliefs that hinder such success (Kezar, 2011). In the context of
HSIs, where a high concentration of low-income Latinos attend, these institutions have an
opportunity to develop relevant strategies to address the needs these students and close
the achievement gap. Higher education retention research provides insightful
information that might help university personnel create sustainable change that might
increase the likelihood for these students to obtain a baccalaureate and other advanced
degrees.
Academic and Social Experiences
As previously mentioned, Nora’s model (1993a, 1993b) proposes that the
integration of students into the institutions’ academic and social environments is vital to
the retention and persistence of all students (Nora, 1987, 1993a, 1993b; Nora, Attinasi, &
Matonak, 1980; Nora & Rendón, 1990; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella, Smart, & Ethington,
1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1980, 2005; Tinto, 1993). This integration occurs by
way of providing students with various academic and social experiences that help
students feel motivated, supported, and valued in their educational efforts (Rendón, 1994).
Nora (1993b) developed a concise definition of these factors using various studies and
research on this topic:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
41
Academic Integration: The development of a strong affiliation with the college
academic environment both in the classroom and outside of class. Includes
interactions with faculty, academic staff, and peers but of an academic nature (e.g.,
peer tutoring, study groups) (p.235).
Social Integration: The development of a strong affiliation with the college social
environment in the class and outside of the class. Includes interactions with
faculty, academic staff, and peers but of a social nature (e.g., peer group
interactions, informal contact with faculty, involvement in organizations) (p. 237).
Nora’s (1993a, 1993b) definitions suggest that faculty members are at the center of
facilitating the academic and social integrations of students. They have the ability to
“become designers of environments and tasks that foster student discovery and
construction of meaning rather than predominantly transmitters of knowledge” (Maki,
2010, p. 10). Author bell hooks (1994) expands on that notion by stating that the role of
a faculty member, especially those who teach in a multicultural environment, is to rethink
ways of knowing and deconstruct traditional epistemologies. She asserts that faculty
members can also transform their classrooms and the institution into learning
communities in which education is a practice of freedom and liberate students from the
oppression they have experienced in the past.
Faculty-Student relationships. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), in their meta-
analysis of the literature on faculty-student interactions, found that student contact with
faculty members promotes student persistence, educational aspirations, and degree
completion. Particularly for students of color, faculty-student interactions are significant
in various measures of student development, satisfaction in college, and cognitive and
non-cognitive outcomes for all students (Astin, 1993; Anaya & Cole, 2001; Hernandez,
2000; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005;
Rendón, 1994; Tinto 1993). According to Chang (2005), “the reasons for such potent
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
42
influence are better understood when considering the multiple roles faculty members
assume in relation to their students. They serve as instructors, role models, employers,
advisors, and sources of support and guidance” (p. 770). Additionally, faculty members
are also leaders within the institutions; they have an opportunity to participate in shared
governance and policy committees that directly affect students and organizational
effectiveness. Whatever roles and responsibilities faculty personify, they can be a
powerful force in the development of young people as well as institutional and societal
transformation (Astin & Astin, 2000).
Despite the known benefits of faculty-student relationships, several studies show
that for underrepresented students, these relationships do not always emerge naturally,
occur with high frequency, or are satisfactory (Anaya & Cole, 2003: Hurtado & Carter,
1997; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004). Laden (2004) suggests that the power influences on
the production of knowledge is one of the salient causes. “For example, faculty-student
power dynamics may lead low-income college students and students of color to think
they are perceived as ‘unworthy’ of being there or taking up classroom space that would
better benefit higher achieving students; of not meriting faculty attention; of feeling
marginalized or even invisible in the classroom” (Laden, 2004, p. 183). These sentiments
and perspectives are strongly influenced by the students’ worldviews and history of social
stratification (Hurtado, 1994; Laden, 2004). These feelings also derive from their
experiences, or lack thereof, with faculty, peers, and administrators in and outside of the
classroom, which also lead them to view the campus climate as unwelcoming,
invalidating, and culturally irrelevant (Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Cole, 2010; Hurtado,
1994; Lundberg, 2010). Nora and Cabrera (1996) as well as Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
43
(1996) assert that these experiences and perceptions can have negative implications on
the persistence of Latino college students because it could dissuade them from engaging
in activities that would benefit them; activities that include conducting research and
forging mentoring relationships with faculty members. The consequences of not having
experiences like those aforementioned may have a significant impact in their likelihood
to persist and have a fulfilling college experience.
Faculty and Institutional Context. With the exception of small and selective
liberal arts colleges, most faculty-student interactions and relationships occur in a formal
classroom setting (Haro, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). That finding is not
surprising given that, generally, faculty at urban and/or regional universities are
overworked and faced with enrollments that are expanding faster than the resources to
support such growth (Haro, 2004). These institutional conditions, consequently, limit
faculty from engaging students outside of the classroom and make their practices in the
classroom even that more important.
The institutional environment (e.g., resources, mission, student body composition)
influences faculty roles and expectations (i.e., faculty norms–educational practices,
behaviors, and productivity), which have an impact on student persistence (Umbach &
Wawrzynski, 2005). Stage and Hubbard (2008) argue that it is critical to examine the
institutional context of HSIs and working conditions of faculty at these institutions to
understand the ways in which these dynamics affect the campus environment and the
student experience. Using a large data set from the National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty, Stage and Hubbard (2008) found that HSI faculty preferred to spend more time
teaching undergraduates compared to faculty at other MSIs and Predominately White
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
44
Institutions (PWIs). This particular finding is positive and reassuring because another
considerable finding from this study indicated that faculty across institutional types,
specifically at undergraduate serving institutions, prefer not to teach undergraduates. Yet,
Stage and Hubbard (2008) found that HSI faculty members “were significantly less
satisfied with their authority to decide their course content than faculty from
predominantly White institutions” (Stage & Hubbard, 2008, p. 242). Hubbard (2005)
argues that an instructor’s positive perception of the institution’s instructional
environment enhances the variety of instructional practices in the undergraduate
classroom. Therefore, these two findings may indicate that HSI faculty may not be
capitalizing on their interest to teach students because they are restricted on the course
content, which may be a missed opportunity to be culturally relevant and validating.
Understanding how faculty attitudes, opinions about students, and/or the HSI
designation may affect the learning environments and interaction opportunities they
create for students in or outside of the classroom is critical (Stage & Hubbard, 2008).
This understanding will help institutions, especially those whose mission is to serve low-
income Latino students, implement strategies that will benefit Latino student persistence,
especially in disciplines like STEM where there exists a wider opportunity gap (Haro,
2004). Haro (2004) suggest several strategies that are interrelated and include finding
role models, improving campus climate, and developing academic-based support and
opportunities. Faculty, given their position within the institution, could contribute to
ensuring that these strategies are in place and positively impact student success.
Mentorship. One of the most significant roles a faculty member can take is that
of a mentor. Parker-Redmond (1990) noted that effective mentoring is more than
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
45
transferring and teaching academic skills, attitudes, and behavior; it requires a level of
interaction that is based on trust and communication that results in a psychological
comfort that empowers a student with the knowledge and confidence to grow
academically and socially. Santos and Reigadas (2002) found that, “for
[underrepresented students], faculty mentors serve as role models and offer information
and contacts that mentees many not have available in their social milieu” (p. 41). In a
qualitative study that analyzed the factors that contributed to the academic success of
Latino students at a selective institution, Arellano and Padilla (1996) presented evidence
that the students who persisted and had a strong sense of belonging relied on influential
individuals, such as faculty, to help them transition, make academic decisions, and role
model behaviors. One of the reasons why these non-kin influential individuals are
meaningful to student persistence is because the academic world for many Latino
students, as well as for other underrepresented students, is an unfamiliar territory; they
tend to be the first person in their families to attend a post-secondary institution (Bridges
et al, 2008; Santiago, 2011). Their first-generation status commonly brings challenges
that include academic underpreparedness and experiences with racism, as well as
messages that create tensions between their cultural orientation, familial obligations, and
educational aspirations (Bridges et al., 2008). Moreover, their inexperience with the
intricacies and complexities of higher education affects the type of social and academic
decisions they make while in college, which affects their likelihood to persist (Pascarella
et al., 2004).
For low-income Latino STEM students, faculty members are integral to
supporting the students’ interest in their major and providing unique academic
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
46
opportunities that will not only help them obtain an undergraduate degree, but that will
also make them competitive for graduate school and career opportunities (Hurtado, et al.,
2009). Their mentorship could help students develop competencies needed in STEM
fields, foster their scientific self-efficacy, and introduce them to the culture of science
(Dowd, 2010; Hurtado, et al., 2009). Lewis (2003) argues that despite the known
importance of mentorship, much of the literature that attempts to explain the
underrepresentation of minority students in science has disregarded that “science career
attainment is a social process, and the desire of an aspirant is only one factor in this
process. An aspiring scientist relies on the judgment and invitation of practicing scientist
through every phase of the educational and career process” (p. 371). This validates the
need for faculty that can forge meaningful relationships and be positive mentors for
underrepresented students in STEM disciplines.
Some institutions have developed faculty-based mentoring programs and designed
learning communities in which faculty-student interactions are structured and students
have an opportunity to engage in scientific study outside of the classroom (Cole &
Espinoza, 2008; Dowd, 2010; Hurtado, et al., 2009; Santos & Reigadas, 2002). These
interventions are important because they reduce the difficulties students face and help
them navigate college by providing students with information and extra support (Dowd,
2010). However, the racial stigma and discrimination create significant barriers to the
participation of underrepresented students in STEM (Dowd, 2010). To make
transformational change, Dowd (2010) recommends that institutions become informed
about their racial campus climate, especially in the learning environments led by faculty,
as these environments can inhibit the development of effective and meaningful faculty-
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
47
student relationships, which, as previously noted, have a significant impact on student
outcomes and success.
Institutional Agents
College impact theories and models, including Nora’s (2003a) Model of Student
Engagement, are beneficial to understanding factors that may affect a student’s likelihood
to persist and attain a post-secondary education. However, these theories and models
continue to reinforce deficit approaches; place the entire onus on the student to navigate
the complicated and oftentimes oppressive structures of higher education; and negate any
practitioner and institutional responsibility in designing educational environments that
foster success and validation. Despite the shortcoming of these theories, they validate the
importance of faculty-student relationships and emphasize the need for faculty to expand
their roles to that of institutional agents.
The following section of this literature review presents Stanton-Salazar’s (1997,
2010) institutional agent framework as the guiding theoretical foundation for this study.
First, I will define and outline the underpinnings of this framework, which are grounded
on principles of social justice, empowerment, and equity. Then, I will explain how this
framework presents concepts that are applicable to the context of HSIs and necessary to
address the needs of low-income Latino students in STEM disciplines.
Institutional Agent Framework
Stanton-Salazar’s (2010) institutional agent framework explains how and why
individuals who are recognized as institutional agents use “his or her position, status and
authority; or exercise key forms of power, and/or uses his or her reputation, in a strategic
and supportive fashion” (Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 11). The institutional agent
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
48
framework, which is based on an explicit social justice and equity platform, defines
institutional agents as those “who occupy relatively high positions in the multiple
dimensional stratification system, and who are well positioned to provide key forms of
social and institutional support” (Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p.1). Based on that definition,
faculty members could be automatically perceived as institutional agents, as they are one
of the most powerful and influential bodies at the various levels of a college or university
structure.
The institutional agent framework recognizes that underrepresented students do
not possess the human, social, and cultural capital that can facilitate their social mobility.
Therefore, students depend on non-kin institutional agents that can contribute to their
development of such capital. As characterized by Stanton-Salazar (2010), institutional
agents fulfill multiple roles and understand the different cultural spheres that students live
in and experience. While the institutional agent framework shares characteristics of a
mentoring relationship, the institutional agent goes beyond providing psychological,
interpersonal, and career development support. Institutional agents seek and work
towards “long-term structural changes that will better meet the educational needs of low-
income racialized students” (Stanton-Salazar, et al., 2010). Institutional agents are
critical to the success of low-income Latino students, specifically those students pursuing
a STEM degree, given the staggering and complex challenges they face.
Institutional Agent Role Types
Stanton-Salazar (2010) groups the different institutional agent types into four
classifications: (a) direct support; (b) integrative support; (c) system developer; and (d)
support linkage and networking support (see figure 2.5). Under each category, there are
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
49
descriptions of the array of activities an institutional may engage in to provide students
with support. For example, if a faculty member acts as a resource agent by providing
personal and positional resources to students, that faculty member is providing direct
support to his or her students (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). If a faculty member is supporting
students by mobilizing institutional resources and advocating on behalf of students at the
system level, he or she is more likely to be enacting the role of an institutional agent that
provides integrative support, system linkage and network support and is a system
developer.
Figure 2.5: The roles of institutional Agents by R. Stanton-Salazar (2010).
Stanton-Salazar (2010) recognizes that “positive interactions between a student
and a number of teachers may have positive consequences with regards to feelings of
inclusion, but this may not translate into seeking of key forms of support from school
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
50
personnel” (p.7). That is one of the ways that institutional agents differ from faculty
who have good relationships with students. Institutional agents are action oriented and
their social consciousness motivates them to take action to deconstruct the academic,
social, and structural barriers that interfere with the success of low-income Latino
students.
Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Institutional Agents
HSIs are perceived to be a viable solution to closing the opportunity and
achievement gap that exists for low-income Latino students. While the creation of these
institutions was reactionary rather than intentional, these institutions have become an
integral sector in American higher education. According to Stayhorn and Hirt (2008), the
missions of HSIs extend beyond educating larger number of underrepresented students;
they fulfill a critical social-justice function in the United States. They claim that these
institutions have the ability and predisposition to: (1) reconceptualize power imbalances
so that these imbalances are reduced and removed; (2) create societal change and serve
the common good; (3) empower the disempowered by promoting individual success,
liberty, tolerance, and freedom; (4) foster cultural maintenance and critique; (5) ensure
equal opportunity to higher education; and (6) instill social justice-oriented democratic
values, such as the common good civility, global citizenship, community, and social
responsibility (Stayhorn & Hirt, 2008). However, little is known about the ways in which
these social justice notions are embraced or are reflected in the practices of faculty, staff,
and administrators at these institutions (Stayhorn & Hirt, 2008). This is significant
because educators at HSIs who embrace these predispositions or reject a deficit
perspective that traditional college impact theories present have the potential to make
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
51
greater impact on low-income Latino students, especially in STEM fields where they are
disproportionally underrepresented. Of equal importance, embracing notions of social
justice and empowerment could allow institutional agents at HSIs to have a rippling
effect in closing educational and opportunity gaps in this student population, as they can
empower students to create change and become institutional agents themselves.
Conclusion
A post-secondary education represents the opportunity to improve one’s quality of
life, gain social mobility, and contribute to the nation’s economic vitality and progress.
Yet, for many, a college degree is practically inaccessible and inequitable due to socio-
economic and other structural barriers. That is the case for low-income Latino students.
Despite the exponential growth of Latinos during the past decade and an increase in
higher education participation, there continues to be a gap in degree attainment compared
to other ethnic and racial groups in this country. This gap is even greater for low-income
Latino students seeking a degree in STEM fields. A proposed solution for this gap has
been the designation of funding for institutions with high Latino enrollment, known as
Hispanic-Serving Institutions. However, little is known about the impact that these
institutions have on student outcomes and even less, on how being Hispanic-serving
influences the practices of those who teach and lead within this context.
Faculty members, as the core of an institution’s academic and student life, have
an unprecedented influence on student success. College impact theories, such as Tinto’s
(1975) student integration model and Nora’s (1993a) student engagement model, validate
that faculty-student relationships are critical to the social and academic integration of all
students, specifically for underrepresented students. Nonetheless, studies have shown
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
52
that, for underrepresented students, these relationships do not form organically, are
complex, and at times, anticlimactic. While these theories and models are significant and
contribute to the understanding of the factors that may influence a student’s decisions to
leave an institution without obtaining a college degree, they tend to focus on the students’
behavior and predispositions. They place a greater responsibility on the student to
integrate and less responsibility on the institution and individuals to see their role as
advocates and social capital brokers.
Stanton-Salazar’s institutional agent framework is a critique (2007, 2010) of
college impact theories. Although the institutional agent framework aligns with the
findings of college impact theories that outline the importance and influence of non-kin
individuals like faculty members on students, the institutional agent framework expands
on the significance of these individuals. Because of its sociological and social justice
orientation, the institutional agent framework emphasizes action, critical consciousness,
and empowerment as its pillars. These values if coupled with the intended purpose of
Hispanic-Serving Institutions may be a viable formula to continue widening the
educational pipeline, but more importantly, transforming lives through empowerment.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
53
Chapter Three: Methodology
Low-income Latino students face numerous challenges throughout their
educational careers (Castellanos, et al., 2006; Santiago, 2011; Sólorzano, et al., 2005; U.S.
Department of Education & White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for
Hispanics, 2011). However, Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and institutional agents
have the potential and position to deconstruct those barriers that hinder these students.
As noted in previous chapters, HSIs play a significant role in providing access to higher
education for low-income Latino students; over half of Latino students are enrolled in
HSIs across the nation (Excelencia in Education, 2011). Yet, little is known about the
ways in which faculty and staff members at these institutions address the student needs.
Although there is emerging research that attempts to understand the role that institutional
agents play in addressing the inequities in postsecondary education, the majority of the
literature does not focus on faculty and the significance of institutional context or ethos of
Minority-Serving Institutions, like HSIs. This gap is even greater when looking at the
inequitable representation and outcomes that exist for low-income Latino students in
STEM fields.
The purpose of this study was multilayered. The study examined the ways that
institutional agents at an HSI used their positions to stimulate transformative learning and
promote student persistence for low-income Latino students in STEM disciplines. A
second goal of this study was to determine if the institution’s designation as an HSI had
any influence on the practices that provided educational opportunities and empowerment
to these students. The following research question guided this study:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
54
• How do faculty members influence the experience and educational outcomes of
low-income Latino students in STEM fields at a Hispanic-Serving Institution?
This chapter focuses on the research design and methodology of this study. First,
I present a rationale for the study design. Second, I provide details of the setting,
participants, data collection, and data analysis procedures. Lastly, the chapter concludes
with identification of any bias or background influence, limitations concerning the study,
and strategies that I utilized to ensure the trustworthiness of data collection and analysis.
Research Design
Given the complexity of the issues at hand and the intent to capture the rich
stories and experiences of faculty members identified as institutional agents by low-
income Latino students in STEM disciplines, a qualitative research design is the most
logical. Qualitative research, as described by Patton (1985), is
an effort to understand situations in their uniqueness as part of a particular context
and the interactions there. This understanding is an end in itself, so that it is not
attempting to predict what may happen in the future necessarily, but to understand
the nature of that setting—what it means for participants to be in that setting, what
their lives are like, what’s going on for them, what their meanings are, what the
world looks like in that particular setting—and in the analysis to be able to
communicate that faithfully to others who are interested in that setting. (p.1)
Qualitative inquiry takes on a holistic approach in which it provides a depth of
understanding that can reveal how an array of factors intersect and interact with one
another without disrupting the natural setting (Merriam, 2001).
This study employed a case study approach in design and implementation.
According to Yin (2002), a case study approach is preferred when the object of the study
is a contemporary phenomenon in a real-life context, when boundaries between the
phenomenon and the context are not clear, and when it is desired to use multiple sources
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
55
of evidence. Since HSIs are a relatively new concept in higher education, there is limited
research about them, and of those who teach, lead, and study within this context.
Therefore, a case study will allow knowledge to emerge by understanding the issues
intrinsic to the case itself and induce insights about the possible influence of the
institutional context on individual practices, and vice versa (Merriam, 2001; Schwandt,
2007).
Sample and Population
The participants for the study were identified through purposeful sampling.
According to Patton (2002), “purposeful sampling focuses on selecting information-rich
cases whose study will illuminate the questions under the study” (p. 230). Purposeful
sampling begins with the selection of the institution. Given the scope of this study, a
public, four-year HSI in one of the four California higher education systems with a high
concentration of Latinos enrolled in STEM disciplines was selected. Figure 3.1 shows
racial/ethnic distribution of students enrolled in STEM disciplines in the fall of 2010 at
this institution. It illustrates that Latino students were enrolled at higher percentages than
their Asian and White counterparts.
Figure 3.1. Esperanza University’s Fall 2010 STEM Enrollment. C. Coleman (personal communication,
Jul 25, 2011)
Black/African
American
3%
American Indian/
Alaskan Native
0%
Asian
25%
Hispanic/
Latino
29%
Unknown
7%
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander
0%
Non-Resident Alien
6%
Two or More
Races
3%
White
27%
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
56
The university in this study was named pseudonymously Esperanza University (EU).
Esperanza University has been recognized by various entities for awarding a large
number of degrees to underrepresented students in STEM and demonstrating a strong
commitment to widening the pipeline in those fields. For example, in past years, EU was
recognized for graduating a large number of underrepresented minority engineers in
California and as one of the top 10 universities in the country for conferring master’s
degrees to minority students in the agricultural sciences (Black Issues in Higher
Education, 2006). In 2009, the Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education listed EU in the
top 30 colleges for awarding baccalaureate degrees to Hispanics. The institution has
implemented numerous ambitious programs to increase the recruitment and retention of
underrepresented students in STEM. Faculty members across STEM disciplines lead the
majority of these programs, which are funded by grants from entities like the National
Science Foundation and the Department of Education.
Continuing along with the principles of purposeful sampling, the institution was
asked to provide a list of STEM Latino students in their junior and senior year who meet
Pell Grant eligibility. However, I gave preference to interviewing seniors first because
they would have had more time at the institution and opportunities to interact with faculty.
This strategy assisted with the identification of 619 low-income Latino students in STEM
whose class standing indicates that they have a greater probability to graduate with
STEM degrees. Class standing criterion also allowed transfer students to be included in
this study, since they would have enough units to be included in the list provided by the
institution. Additionally, those senior transfer students that responded to the invitation to
participate in the study would had a longer relationship with EU and could have possibly
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
57
identified an institutional agent there, as opposed to one at their former institution(s).
Once the list of students was obtained from the Office of Financial Aid, a campus liaison
emailed the students to invite them to participate in the study by completing a preliminary
student survey (see Appendix A), which ensured that they met the criteria and asked to
identify an institutional agent. From the list of students who met the criteria and has an
interest in participating in the study, five students agreed to participate in a life history
interview, which yielded six faculty interviews.
The students’ participation had two purposes. First, the students were asked to
participate in a life history interview to help contextualize the challenges and resiliency
they have experienced throughout their educational journeys. Their life histories clarified
the significant role an institutional agent played in the students’ lives given their personal
experiences (Creswell, 2007). The researcher used an adapted life history interview
protocol developed by the University of Southern California’s Center for Urban
Education (CUE) (see Appendix B). This protocol was developed for a study that
explored the role of institutional agents in empowering non-traditional students to
successfully transition to college and develop a collegiate identity (Pak, Bensimon, &
Dowd, in press). Second, students were asked to identify faculty they perceive to have
been instrumental in supporting their higher education trajectory. This approach is
known as snowball sampling, which asks people to identify or recommend others who
they perceive to know a lot about a particular issue (Patton, 2002). The students and their
life histories were instrumental to guiding the direction of the study and providing
supplemental data that answered the research question.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
58
Once the students identified a faculty who they perceive as an institutional agent,
I contacted the faculty to ask them to participate in the study. Although the study focused
on STEM students, the study did not exclude faculty that were not in STEM-related
disciplines. I recognized that there might be faculty in other disciplines who have been
influential in the students’ persistence and have helped students develop mechanisms to
overcome the challenges students face in their STEM studies. From the pool of identified
faculty, I asked faculty members to complete an Institutional Agent Assessment
developed by CUE (see Appendix C). They were asked to complete this assessment tool
before their interview. This self-assessment tool was intended to help faculty participants
identify their actions within the framework of being an institutional agent. It was also
intended to help them quantify their actions and behaviors within that framework as well
as note any obstacles they may face when acting as institutional agent (CUE, 2010).
Then, they were asked to participate in structured interviews using an adaptation of a
protocol developed by CUE for a comparable study that sought to understand the ways in
which administrators, counselors, and faculty can help Latino community college
students navigate transfer pathways to obtain a bachelor’s degree in STEM (see
Appendix D). At the end of this study, all the faculty members involved in the study
were from STEM disciplines and were primarily tenured faculty, were associated with a
retention program for underrepresented students in STEM, and had been affiliated with
EU for many years.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
59
Data Collection
A qualitative research design and case study approach enables the researcher to
capture people’s opinions, feelings, perceptions, and experiences through an array of
methods (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2001; Patton, 2002). According to Creswell (2007),
“the data collection on case study research is typically extensive, drawing from multiple
sources of information, such as observations, interviews, documents, and audiovisual
materials” (p. 75). This study’s primary data collection method was interviews. It also
used the data gathered from the preliminary student survey and CUE’s Institutional Agent
Assessment to substantiate and contextualize the findings.
Interviews
Patton (2002) suggests that the purpose of interviewing is to gain access into
another person’s perspective. He states that, “qualitative interviewing begins with the
assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to make
explicit” (p. 341). Patton (2002) describes three types of interviews used in qualitative
research: informal conversational interview, the standardized open-ended interview, and
the general interview guide approach. “These three approaches to the design of the
interview differ in the extent to which interview questions are determined and
standardized before the interview occurs” (p. 342). This study used a standardized open-
ended interview approach, which “consists of a set of questions carefully worded and
arranged with the intention of taking each respondent through the same sequence and
asking each respondent the same questions with essentially the same words” (p. 342).
My decision to use this approach was based on the recognition that the students’ and
faculty’s time is limited. Therefore, the interview needed to be highly focused, so that
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
60
their time was used efficiently (Patton, 2002). Although this approach limits the
interviewer from deviating from the interview guide or pursue topics that were not
anticipated, the benefits outweigh the limitations. For example, a standardized open-
ended interview approach will facilitate the data analysis process, as the participants’
responses will be easy to find and compare (Patton, 2002).
Merriam (2001) and Patton (2002) assert that in addition to the researchers’
interviewing skills, their ability to develop rapport and trust with the participants is
integral to collecting quality data and achieving an in-depth interview. The transparency
and authenticity of the interviewer-participant relationship could be established through:
(1) clearly and honestly stating the motives and intentions of the study; (2) following
standards of confidentiality; (3) ensuring that their voice transcends throughout the
interview; and, (4) distinctly explaining the time commitment and respecting their time
limitations and mobility (Merriam, 2001). Another significant component to establishing
rapport and trust is the researcher’s efforts to establish neutrality. According to Patton
(2002), “neutrality means that the person being interviewed can tell [the researcher]
anything without engendering either [his or her] favor or disfavor with regard to the
content of [the participant’s] response” (p. 365). Patton (2002) clarifies that being neutral
does not mean that the researcher does not respect or care about the people being
interviewed. He states, “rapport is a stance vis-à-vis the person being interviewed.
Neutrality is stance vis-à-vis the content of what the person says” (p. 365). Gaining
neutrality is particularly important when interviewing faculty members since they may be
engaging in nonconventional practices to assist their students navigate the organization’s
structures and obstacles.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
61
Process. I collected the life histories of five Latino STEM students. I
interviewed six faculty members who were identified as institutional agents by those
students. I contacted the participants via email or telephone to invite them to participate
in the study. I began by introducing myself, explaining the purpose of the study, and
detailing any risks. Each life history and institutional agent interview took at least one
hour to complete. The interviews took place in a location that was comfortable and
convenient for the participants. Identities were kept confidential by assigning
pseudonyms to the participants as well as the institution they are affiliated with.
Before beginning the interview with each participant, I introduced myself as well
as the purpose of my study. Then, I explained that my dissertation research study sought
to identify ways that faculty, specifically at Hispanic-Serving Institutions, help or
empower low-income Latino students in STEM disciplines. I explained that the
interview would last approximately one and a half hours, but that there might be a need to
conduct a follow up interview. I requested permission to audio record the conversation
and use a digital tape recorder. Then, I had the participant review the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) information form (see Appendices E and F). I explained the steps
the researcher would take to ensure confidentiality and protect the data that was collected.
Each participant selected a pseudonym or allowed me to select one for them. Once those
steps were taken, the interview began. These procedures were followed with each
participant.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
62
Data Analysis
This study’s data analysis process was guided by Creswell’s (2007) six-step
approach that is specific to analyzing data from a qualitative case study approach. The
six-step approach, illustrated in figure 3.2, guided the researcher step by step on how to
manage, prepare, describe, classify, interpret, and represent data. The first step was to
organize the data collected from the interviews and documents. This step was primordial
because data analysis in case studies requires a great deal of organization since data
emerges from an array of sources that “may present disparate, incompatible, even
apparently contradictory information” (Merriam, 2001, p. 193). As part of the
organization strategy and to ensure the participants’ confidentiality, a password protected
computer file for each participant was created and saved on a computer only accessible to
me. The data collected through the survey and self-assessment inventory was stored in a
file folder and secured in a locked file cabinet.
Figure 3.2. Creswell’s Six-step Approach to Data Analysis. Adapted from Creswell, J.W. (2007).
Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Step 1: Data
Managing
Create and organize
files for data
Step 2: Reading &
Memoing
Read through text, make
margin notes, form initial
codes
Step 3: Describing
Describe the case and
context
Step 4: Classifying
Use catergorical
aggregation to establish
themes or patterns
Step 5: Interpreting
Use direct interpretations
and develop naturalistic
generalizations
Step 6: Representing &
Visualizing
Present in-depth picture of
the case using narrative,
tables, and figures
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
63
After the data was systematically organized, the interview transcriptions as well
as the results from the preliminary student survey, and self-assessment inventory were
reviewed in their entirety several times to begin making sense and piecing all the parts of
the story together. Creswell (2007) suggests that the researcher reads through the text,
make margin notes, and form initial codes. This process allowed me to reflect on the
larger thoughts presented in the data and form initial categories.
The third, fourth, and fifth steps are closely interrelated and at the heart of
qualitative analysis (Creswell, 2007). Creswell (2007) states that, “here researchers
describe in detail, develop themes or dimensions through some classification system, and
provide an interpretation in light of their own view or views of perspectives in the
literature” (p. 151). The description, classification, and interpretation of data come in
way of developing themes or codes. This study used Stanton-Salazar’s (2010)
Institutional Agents classification matrix (see Appendix G), which describes the different
types of institutional and empowerment agents that may exist. The matrix was used to
create codes that served to categorize the faculty responses into one of the institutional
agent types that Stanton-Salazar (2010) presents. For example, if a faculty member said
anything that alluded to him or her helping students gather information, assess problems
and possible solutions in a collaborative manner, or promote and guide effective
decision-making, this response was coded as offering support in a role of an advisor.
Although the students’ life histories had the primary purpose to provide context
and validate the important role institutional agents may play in their lives, the data
collected from the interviews was also coded. The student voice and perspective was
important to consider, as the role of any institutional agent needs to be grounded on the
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
64
needs and experiences of these students and not on false presumptions. By understanding
the needs and experiences of students, educators can enhance or change their practices to
address the opportunity and achievement gap for underrepresented STEM students. Their
stories illustrated the significance that institutional agents, particularly faculty, have in
their lives and educational journey.
Trustworthiness
Producing knowledge in an ethical matter requires diligence on behalf of the
researcher. Trustworthiness is essential to ensuring that the findings can be trusted and
applied to find solutions to real world problems (Merriam, 2001). Although the steps to
reach trustworthiness in qualitative research are not as succinct as in quantitative research,
qualitative research offers several strategies to achieve those results. These strategies
include triangulation, the consideration of research bias, member checks, and providing
thick and description (Merriam, 2001). This study will use three strategies to produce
trustworthy knowledge in an ethical matter.
Triangulation
Triangulation is the use of multiple data sources to test for consistency and
overcome any skepticism surrounding qualitative research (Patton, 2002). In utilizing
and analyzing multiple and varying sources of information, data collection can provide
different perspectives to the same issue. The use of multiple sources in the data
collection process can create a clearer and greater representation of the study (Creswell,
1998; Merriam, 2001; Patton, 2002). This study utilized the preliminary student survey,
students’ life histories, CUE’s Institutional Agent Assessment, and faculty interviews for
triangulation.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
65
Consideration Researcher Bias
The researcher, especially in qualitative research, is the principal instrument in the
investigation (Patton, 2002). His or her experiences, training, and perspectives influence
the inquiry at many levels, including their motivation to undertake the study and
approach to the data collection and interpretation (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2001; Patton,
2002). This study is not the exception. I acknowledge that my personal and professional
experiences, worldview, and values cannot be entirely separated from this study. I
expected that my identity as a low-income, Latina college graduate who attended a
Hispanic-Serving Institution would lead me to share some of the students’ life stories and
approve of the faculty efforts to support students.
Although my experience and knowledge about STEM education is limited, I do
have some personal and professional experience that informed my perspective in this
study. As an undergraduate student, I intended to major in a science discipline. In fact,
one of the factors that influenced me to pick my undergraduate college was the offering
of a particular science-based major. However, when I matriculated in the college, I
realized that, even though I had attended a science, mathematics, and technology magnet
high school, my K-12 education had not prepared me to undertake the rigors of a STEM-
based education. Soon after I arrived to college, I changed my major to a social science
based major. Furthermore, my entire career has been dedicated to increasing the access
and retention of underrepresented students in higher education. While I may have not
been directly involved in an institution’s efforts to close the opportunity and achievement
gaps in STEM fields for underrepresented students, my professional role has provided
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
66
with an opportunity to learn about the students’ experiences and motivated me to learn
about the obstacles and opportunities in STEM education.
The majority of my professional experience has been at HSIs and I have had a
supporting role in the Title V grants awarded to those institutions. This experience has
been pivotal in my interest to explore how the HSI designation and presumed mission
may influence the organizational culture, specifically individual practices. One of my
latest professional experiences was as a faculty member at a two-year, private HSI that is
perceived to have strong STEM programs. There, I taught developmental reading and
writing, which allowed me to be involved in various discussions with faculty across
disciplines about remedial education and student issues. The deficit-based and
complacent undertone of those discussions was appalling to me, but it was even more
appalling that no one took responsibility for the role they played in student success. This
led me to reflect and question how was it that educators could be indifferent and
demeaning towards a group of students that depended on them to learn and improve their
chances to have a better life. I also questioned how could an institution be negligent and
a bystander to the students’ needs when they were receiving federal money to serve the
needs of low-income Latino students.
Rich, thick description
A rich, thick description of the site, participants, and documentary data will be
presented in Chapter 4. Providing a thick description is not simply a matter of providing
abundant detail. According to Schwandt (2007), “to thickly describe social action is
actually to begin to interpret it by recording the circumstances, meanings, intentions,
strategies, motivations, and so on that characterize a particular episode” (p. 296). This
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
67
type of description enables the reader to determine whether findings can be generalized
and transferred to their setting (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 2001).
Each of these efforts was intended to provide an opportunity ensure
trustworthiness in the ways in which data was collected and then, interpreted. Thus,
confirming the significance of the study. The findings of this study will provide key
insights into how faculty members influence the experience and educational outcomes of
low-income Latino students in STEM fields at a Hispanic-Serving Institution.
Summary
This chapter proposed the research design and methodology for this study. I
presented a rationale for the study design as well as provided details of the setting,
participants, data collection, and data analysis procedures. The chapter concluded with
identification of any bias or background influence, limitations concerning the study, and
strategies that I utilized to ensure the trustworthiness of data collection and analysis.
Chapter four will report the findings of the study. Lastly, chapter five will provide a
conclusion grounded in the literature review and the findings as well as provide
implications for practice and future research.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
68
Chapter 4: Findings
Chapter four presents the findings of this study. As noted, the goal of this study
was to identify the ways in which faculty act as institutional agents for low-income
Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields at a
Hispanic-serving Institution (HSI). The chapter presents the findings of this study by
describing and interpreting data collected through a preliminary student survey as well as
the student and faculty interviews.
The first section provides a brief review of the data collection methods and
precedes the presentation of pertinent descriptive data collected through the preliminary
student survey. Then, I introduce the six institutional agents and five students that
participated in the study. I first present the data related to the three institutional agent-
student pairs and then, unpaired student and two institutional agents. Finally, Stanton-
Salazar’s (2010) Institutional Agent framework guides the presentation of the themes that
emerged through my data analysis.
Review of Data Collection Methods
As noted in chapter three, this study used a purposeful sampling method to
identify the students as well as the faculty institutional agents. To identify the students, I
obtained the help of a campus liaison at Esperanza University to access a list of students
who met the following criteria: (a) self-identified as Latino; (b) had junior or senior class
standing; (c) declared a major in a STEM field; and (d) received or were eligible to
receive a Pell Grant and/or work-study award. Since a report with this information did
not exist, the campus liaison and I consulted with EU’s Director of Financial Aid to
request the report and determine the eligibility requirements to receive Pell Grants and/or
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
69
work-study at EU. The report provided a list of students who met the ethnic
identification, major, and class standing criteria and had an Estimated Family
Contribution (EFC) of $100 or less, as calculated by the federal government through the
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). FinAid (2012), an online financial
aid resource site, explains that:
The EFC is the amount of money a family is expected to contribute to their
student’s education. The EFC is subtracted from the school's Cost of Attendance
(COA), also known as the "student budget", to determine a student’s financial
need: Financial Need = COA - EFC. The student budget includes tuition, fees,
room and board, books and supplies, travel, and personal and incidental expenses
(para. 2).
The lower the EFC, the higher the students’ financial need; students with low EFCs are
eligible for financial aid programs like Pell Grants and work-study awards. This query
produced a list of 619 email addresses that corresponded to low-income Latino students
in STEM fields with junior or senior class standing. These students were sent an email
by the campus liaison, a well-respected senior student affairs administrator, to invite them
to complete the preliminary survey (Appendix A).
Preliminary Student Survey Results
The preliminary student survey was critical to the snowball sampling method of
this study. It facilitated the collection of descriptive data, invited students to participate
in an interview, and generated nominations of faculty institutional agents. Figure 4.1
illustrates its function and effect in narrowing down the participant pool for the study. It
begins by explaining the narrowing of the student pool from 619 to 90, 90 to 43, then,
from 43 to 13, which ultimately yielded five student interviews.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
70
The figure illustrates the same process for the institutional agent group; it indicates how I
began with 13 Institutional Agent nominations from students, of which 12 were of faculty
members and two were duplicate nominations. This resulted in six out of 10 possible
faculty interviews.
Figure 4.1: Participant Pool
The response rate for the survey was 14.5% (n=90). It captured students’
characteristics and other valuable information that will be presented throughout this
chapter. Table 4.1 presents a snapshot of the demographics of the students that
completed the survey. As the table shows, the majority of the students who responded
were seniors (58%), followed by juniors (37%). Although I had requested a list of
students who met junior or senior class standing, there were also a small percentage of
students who indicated that they were freshmen or sophomores. While females
comprised the majority of the student interviewees (3 out of 5), approximately one-third
of the survey participants were female—not surprising given that women are
underrepresented in STEM fields (Shapiro & Sax, 2011).
Students
90 out of 619
students completed
preliminary student
survey
43 out of 90
students could
identify an IA at
EU
13 out of 43
students provided
IA's name and
indicated interest in
being interviewed
5 out of 13 students
were interviewed
Institutional
Agents
13 IAs nominations
were received
12 nominations
were faculty and 2
were duplicate
nominations
6 out of 10 IAs
were interviewed
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
71
Table 4.1: Student characteristics from completed preliminary student surveys
Class Standing Gender First-generation Transfer Student
Freshman 1% Female 32% Yes 89% Yes 53%
Sophomore 4% Male 68% No 11% No 47%
Junior 37%
Senior 58%
The table also indicates that of those students that responded, 89% percent are first-
generation college students and 53% transferred to EU. These percentages reflect what
the literature has found to be the educational characteristics of the Latino student
population ((Bridges et al, 2008; Santiago, 2011).
Besides asking for demographic information, the survey asked students if they
could identify an individual who met the provided definition of an institutional agent
(Appendix A: Question 14). Out of the 90 survey respondents, 43 students stated that
they could identify an institutional agent and 22 of those students, or 51%, identified that
institutional agent as a faculty member. However, a few students misclassified a couple
of faculty institutional agents as academic or research advisers. This misclassification
could be because of the nature and setting of their relationship. For example, one student
did not have class with his institutional agent, but was involved in a research project with
him, so he classified the faculty member as an advisor. Figure 4.2 shows the distribution
of the institutional agents’ role on campus based on students’ understanding of the
definition that was provided to them.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
72
Figure 4.2: Institutional Agents’ Campus Role according to students
For those students who indicated that they could not identify an institutional agent,
the survey provided a space to explain why they had not been able to name an
institutional agent at EU. While many students simply said that no one really stood out
for them, others provided elaborate reasons. For example, one student said:
I don’t really have anyone who has guided me or introduced me into available
resources at school. I know a few professors by their name because of the
student/teacher relationship. That is the only way I know an institutional agent.
However, none of my professors have really guided me. I have been going
through this venture alone. I don’t blame anyone, as I am busy with work and
school. I have rent to pay and need to help out at home. I wish I could have spare
time to join clubs and get involved with the campus but I need to help my parents.
Overall I did not develop any solid relationship.
Another student said:
I feel like there really has not been an individual who has shown genuine concern
or helpfulness to my advancement in higher education. Yes, I have clubs on
campus and resources that contribute to a positive college experience but not an
individual.
51%
28%
2%
2%
5%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Teacher/Instructor/Faculty Member
Academic Adviser/Counselor
Administrator (a staff member who is neither a faculty
member or counselor)
Peer
Other
Don't Know
Institutional Agents' Role
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
73
Similarly, two additional students mentioned the presence of other types of support,
including that of peers and student organizations, but not of an identifiable institutional
agent. The first student mentioned:
I feel like there has not been a particular person that has served as an institutional
agent. There are definitely programs, clubs, and workshops that enhance student's
success but a specific person that stands out to me does not come to mind.
The second student stated:
I don't feel like a person has taken an interest in my educational success. I've met
with advisors, but that has been because I had to. The MEP program at [EU] has
helped me a little but that is because of the camaraderie of the students in the
program and not to any particular administrator in the program. It also seems that
if one's GPA is not at a certain level, administrators are reluctant to help.
The statements above reflect Stanton-Salazar’s (2010) assertions that students from
working-class backgrounds do not have the same level of engagement with individuals
that can transmit or use their social capital to benefit their academic and socio-economic
mobility. The student’s statement regarding administrators being reluctant to help if
students do not have a certain grade point average also coincides with Stanton-Salazar’s
(2010) explanation that institutional agents can be “gate-keeping agents” too. Gate-
keeping agents, according to Stanton-Salazar (2010), consciously or unconsciously, “are
oriented toward rendering services and providing institutional support to those privileged
by class or race, to those who exhibit the dominant cultural discourse (i.e., cultural
capital), and to those who demonstrate institutionalized symbols of merit and ability”
(Stanton-Salazar, 2010). Further, the results indicate the respondents understood the
meaning of institutional agents, as defined in the materials provided to them. Perhaps,
they also understood the significance of the absence of an IA in their college and
academic experience at Esperanza University.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
74
Thirty-nine out of the 43 students that said they could identify an institutional
agent on the preliminary survey indicated different ways that their respective institutional
agent exemplifies the characteristics of an institutional agent. Figure 4.3 shows 26
statements that address some the ways in which institutional agents may use “[their]
position, status and authority; or exercise key forms of power, and/or [use their]
reputation, in a strategic and supportive fashion” (Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 11). The
students were asked to check all the statements that were true about their institutional
agent based on their relationship, experiences, and knowledge. Figure 4.3 shows the
prevalence of each of the IA attributes personified by the students’ nominees. One of the
most salient results is that 82% of the students affirmed that their institutional agent
knows what campus resources are available for students. Other prevalent statements
were those related to institutional agents assisting students to access pertinent information
and making themselves available beyond office or business hours. Sixty-four percent of
the students stated that their institutional agents help them get needed information and
62% said that their institutional agents make themselves available beyond office or
business hours. The statements that were not as predominant were related to actions that
are usually not visible to students and may focus on changing structures and policies. For
example, only 41% of the students said that their institutional agents are part of
committees or other groups whose goals are to improve the educational experience of
students. Similarly, only 38% of the students were aware that their institutional agents
develop relationships with important and influential people and 36% believed that their
institutional agent advocates on their behalf.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
75
Table 4.2: Frequency of Institutional Agent characteristics, sorted by descending order of frequency
Survey Question: Thinking of the institutional agent you identified
above, check the box for each statement that is true about him or her.
Answer the question to the best of your knowledge.
# of
Responses
%
Knows what campus resources are available for students 32 82%
Helps you get needed information 25 64%
He or she makes an effort to interact and engage students 25 64%
Makes him or herself available beyond office or business hours 24 62%
Knows and shares strategies about how to navigate college 23 59%
Provides you with advice when you have had a problem and helped
you develop a solution
23 59%
Helps you believe in yourself and your potential 23 59%
Helps you make effective decisions 22 56%
Helps you identify people that may be able to provide support,
resources, and opportunities
22 56%
Encourages you to participate in on and off-campus social and
academic activities
21 54%
He or she is a visible resource for campus 21 54%
He or she values diversity, social justice, and/or equity 21 54%
Is a role model 20 51%
Guides or prepares you for a new or unfamiliar environment,
situation, or event
20 51%
Empowers you to be a leader and make a difference in your
communities
19 49%
You perceive him or her to be a leader on campus 18 46%
Teaches you how to build relationships and make connections with
other people that may be able to It is important to note that provide
support, resources, and opportunities
18 46%
Introduces you to people on campus that may be able to provide
support, resources, and opportunities
17 44%
Involves you in activities (i.e., programs, events, meetings, etc.) that
gives you access to people that may be able to provide support,
resources, and opportunities.
17 44%
Has he or she collaborates with others to provide you with support,
resources, and opportunities
17 44%
He or she is part of committees or other groups whose goals are to
improve the educational experience of students
16 41%
Advocates for programs and policies that could support and benefit
you
16 41%
Explains how certain policies or programs could benefit or hinder
your success
16 41%
Develops relationships with important and influential people 15 38%
Advocates on your behalf 14 36%
Makes sure you utilize resources effectively 14 36%
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
76
The preliminary student survey collected key descriptive data, which described the
experiences of many low-income Latino students in STEM and non-STEM related fields.
For example, the results support the fact that a great proportion of low-income Latino
students are first-generation and that they are most likely to gain access into higher
education through a two-year institution. The survey findings supported Stanton-
Salazar’s (2010) argument that many underrepresented and underprivileged students do
not have access to well-positioned, non-kin individuals that can provide key forms of
social and institutional support, as over half of the students surveyed could not identify
such individual. The survey was not explicitly designed to draw correlations, yet the
findings do present an opportunity to understand and make inferences about what the
experiences of this student population may be at institutions like EU.
Participants
At the core of this study are the stories and experiences of the students who have
had to overcome a plethora of challenges throughout their educational pathway. Equally
important are the stories and actions of those institutional agents who work diligently
towards creating inclusive learning environments and deconstructing systemic inequities.
The following section will introduce the five students and six faculty members who
participated in this study. Although this study set out to interview students along with
their institutional agents, there were instances where this was not possible because of the
students’ or faculty members’ disinterest or inability to participate in the study. At the
end, there were three student-institutional agent pairs, and two unpaired student and three
unpaired faculty interviews. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 illustrate the relationship among the
paired participants and characteristics of both the unpaired and paired participants.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
77
Table 4.3 also lists those 11 participants. The shaded cells indicate those individuals that
were interviewed. The first column identifies the student by a pseudonym. The second
column presents each of the students’ significant characteristics to the study and its
criteria, also represented in Figure 4.3. The third column identifies each of the students’
institutional agent nomination by a pseudonym as well. Finally, the fourth and last
column lists the institutional agents’ title(s), other descriptive information, and their
college affiliation. Additionally, at the end of the table in the last row, I provide a
summary of the student and faculty participants’ characteristics. It is important to note
that, even if the student nominator or faculty nominee were not interviewed, Table 4.3
still provides their information, as that information is important to provide a context of
this study.
Figure 4.3: Pseudonyms and characteristics of paired participants
Paired
Participants
Enrique
Professor Phillip
Male; African-American;
First-generation; Lecturer,
College of Enginnering
Male; First-generation;
Junior; Mechanical
Engineering Major
Ileana
Professor Abigail
Female; White-Jewish;
Professor, College of
Science
Female; First-generation;
Junior; Zoology Major
Robert
Professor Julio
Male; Latino; Professor,
College of Enginnering
Male; First-generation;
Transfer; Senior;
Mechanical Engineering
Major
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
78
Figure 4.4: Pseudonyms and characteristics of unpaired participants
Table 4.3: Characteristics and information of all students and Institutional Agents
Unpaired
Student
Participants
Alma
Female; First-
generation;
Junior; Food
Marketing &
Agribusiness
Major
Ruby
Female; First-
generation,
Transfer; Junior;
Civil
Engineering
Major
Unpaired Faculty
Participants
Professor Meena
Female; Indian;
Assistant
Professor,
College of
Engineering
Professor Nataly
Female; Biracial;
Professor,
College of
Science
Professor Beth
Female; White,
First-generation;
Professor,
College of
Science
Student's Name
(Pseudonym)
Characteristics
Institutional Agents
(Pseudonym)
Campus Role
Enrique • Male
• First-generation
• Junior
• Mechanical
Engineering Major
Professor Phillip • Male
• African American
• First-generation
• Lecturer, College of
Engineering
• Director, STEM
Support Program
Alma • Female
• First-generation
• Junior
• Food Marketing &
Agribusiness Major
Professor Joe • Male
• White
• Assistant Professor,
College of
Agriculture
Christina • Female
• First-generation
• Transfer Student
• Senior
• Civil Engineering
Major
Professor Phillip • Male
• African American
• Adjunct Professor,
College of
Engineering
Dolores • Female
• First-generation
• Junior
• Plant Science Major
Professor Beth • Female
• White
• Professor, College
of Science
• Director, STEM
Support Program
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
79
Table 4.3: (continued)
Student's Name
(Pseudonym)
Characteristics
Institutional Agents
(Pseudonym)
Campus Role
Ruby • Female
• First-generation
• Transfer Student
• Junior
• Civil Engineering
Major
Professor Francisco • Male
• Latino
• First-generation
• Assistant Professor,
College of
Engineering
Ileana • Female
• First-generation
• Junior
• Zoology Major
Professor Abigail • Female
• White—Jewish
• Professor, College
of Science
Joseph • Male
• First-generation
• Transfer Student
• Civil Engineering
Major
Professor Meena • Female
• Indian
• Assistant Professor,
College of
Engineering
Maria • Female
• First-generation
• Biotechnology
Major
Professor Nataly • Female
• Biracial (White and
Latino)
• Professor, College
of Science
• Coordinator of
STEM Program
Robert • Male
• First-generation
• Transfer Student
• Senior
• Mechanical
Engineering Major
Professor Julio • Male
• Latino
• Professor, College
of Engineering
Angela • Female
• First-generation
• Senior
• Biology Major
Professor Beth • Female
• First-generation
• White
• Professor, College
of Science
STUDENT PARTICIPANT SUMMARY
• 2 male and 3 females students
• 5 first-generation college
• 4 Juniors and 1 senior
• 3 Engineering majors
FACULTY PARTICIPANT SUMMARY
• 2 male and 4 female faculty
• 2 first-generation college graduates
• 1 lecturer and 5 in tenured or tenure-track
positions
• 4 faculty of color
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
80
Paired Participants
Professor Phillip and Enrique
Professor Phillip is an African-American adjunct faculty member and director of a
support program that focuses on broadening underrepresented students’ participation in
engineering. He is a first-generation college graduate with degrees in non-STEM fields.
He earned a bachelor’s degree in American Literature and a master’s degree in student
personnel administration, from very prestigious universities in the east coast. He has
close to 30 years of experience in leading engineering-focused support programs for
underrepresented students. Professor Phillip has been at EU since 2005, and held a very
similar role at one of EU’s sister institutions for many years.
The student who nominated Phillip as an institutional agent, Enrique, is a junior
majoring in mechanical engineering. Enrique grew up in a predominately Latino
community and attended impoverished schools in the same neighborhood. Neither of his
parents attended college. In fact, his parents did not complete elementary school because
the harsh economic conditions in their country of origin forced them to work instead.
Enrique depends on financial aid to pay his tuition and cover living expenses, since he
has made the choice not to work and focus on his academics. Although he states that his
financial aid covers the bare necessities, he avoids borrowing student loans and does not
have time to apply for scholarships. This preference to avoid student or family loans is
common for Latino students in STEM (Santiago & Cunningham, 2005).
Enrique shared that there were several pivotal personal and educational moments
that have shaped his college experience, beginning from his decision to go to college.
Although he never thought of college as an unattainable goal and felt that his teachers
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
81
always expected him to go to college, his parents got divorced and his mother left the
home when he was in high school. This event made him unsure if he was going to be
able to go to college. He explained:
When it first happened, I didn’t know what was going to happen once I graduated
from high school, if things were going to be stable enough to go to college, or if I
was going to have to not go for college for a while.
He also experienced some cultural and spiritual dissonance. His father, while supportive
of Enrique now, had fears of how college would influence his son’s spiritual beliefs and
values. Enrique described this dissonance:
Originally, he was like I don’t want you to go to college. Not so much that he
didn’t want me to learn more, but in our family, we have faith like religion and
God above all other things and he was like I know that in college it gets crazy.
He was worried that by being there, I might be influenced in a negative way and
that I would go down the wrong path….he’d say to be careful because if you get a
degree in engineering, you’re going to be making a lot of money and usually
money corrupts people. Even though I understand that he didn’t want me to go in
a caring way, it was just weird the situation I was in with my dad.
Enrique also explains that this tension made him decide to attend college in California.
He had an opportunity to study in a liberal arts college in the east coast, but decided to
stay close to home to compromise with his father’s expectations.
When he got to EU, one of the first people he met was Professor Phillip. Enrique
recalls that his relationship with Phillip was a bit awkward at first because he perceived
Professor Phillip to be stern. In retrospect, Enrique recognizes that this awkwardness was
because he did not understand that Professor Phillip had different expectations of him
than what he was used to, and was pushing him to understand that he was not in high
school anymore. Professor Phillip required Enrique to take himself seriously and develop
his new identity as an engineering student. Enrique recalled:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
82
For his class, they were one-unit classes, but he would give us all these
assignments and the workload was not [that] of a one-unit class. At that time, I
think everybody in the class pretty much said that he was expecting too much.
We would tell [Phillip], “this is a lot of for a one-unit class and we have other
classes.” He would always come out with, “you’re an engineering student, and
this is your life.”
When asked about his relationship with Professor Phillip. Enrique stated:
He’s a big influence….Among us we respect him a lot and so sometimes it’s a
little intimidating to go to him, but he has made it clear and we understand that
he’ll be there and do whatever he can to help us.
Enrique’s statements demonstrate that Professor Phillip offered challenges and growth
opportunities, but also supported him to meet those challenges. His stern persona and
high expectations, as many STEM faculty may be perceived to have, does not undermine
his commitment and approachability to students.
In the preliminary student survey, Enrique indicated that Professor Phillip
exemplified 19 out of the 26 institutional agent characteristics that were listed. These
characteristics corresponded to the 14 roles within the four types of support Stanton-
Salazar (2010) states IAs can offer and were inclusive of the characteristics that define an
IA as an Empowerment Agent as well. Based on Enrique’s preliminary student survey
responses, Professor Phillip has provided direct, integrative, and system linkage support,
and is a system developer. The interviews supported these findings and revealed that
Professor Phillip has also acted as an empowerment agent. These findings are illustrated
in Table 4.4. The checked boxes specify the roles that Professor Phillip enacted within
each of the support categories. As mentioned in chapter two, empowerment agents share
institutional agent attributes. However, empowerment agents distinguish themselves by
their social justice oriented actions and ideologies (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). To make that
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
83
distinction, the roles of an empowerment agent are expanded in Table 4.4, and
subsequently, in similar tables that correspond to the institutional agents in this study.
Table 4.4: Professor Phillip’s Institutional Agent Roles and Characteristics
Direct Support Integrative Support System Developer
þResource Agent
þKnowledge Agent
þAdvisor
þAdvocate
þNetworking Coach
þIntegrative Agent
þCultural Guide
þProgram Developer
þLobbyist
þPolitical Advocate
System Linkage & Network Support Empowerment Agent
þRecruiter
þBridging Agent
þInstitutional Broker
þCoordinator
þAccesses or provides resources or
knowledge pertinent to navigating the
system
þDecodes the system
þQuestions the system and envisions an
alternative system
þTeaches students to question the system
and envision an alternative system
þEngages students in changing some key
aspects of the system
þIs in a position of power/authority
direct support. Professor Phillip fulfilled every role within the direct support
category, which involves interacting directly with students and providing them with
direct support. One example of how he provides direct support is his extended
availability to students. Professor Phillip is known to stay beyond regular business hours
to support students. In his interview, Professor Phillip recognized that staying beyond
business hours is sometimes necessary to keep up with the amount of work he has to do
to ensure that students receive a quality education. When Enrique was asked about
Professor Phillip’s availability and approachability to students, he stated:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
84
I think his office hours are 24/7. We’re not going to call him either, but we know
that we can expect a prompt response. He spends his time in his office and his
door is wide open. He would tell us that he leaves it like that on purpose. He has
said to walk in and not to worry about what he’s doing, to just walk in.
Whether students take advantage of Professor Phillip’s extended availability is unknown.
However, research on the factors that positively influence Latino students’ sense of
belonging show that the perception of support is more significant for students than the
frequency in which they access those support systems (Cole, 2007; Cole & Espinoza,
2008; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005).
Professor Phillip provided direct support by teaching students how to network
with others. This type of support is particularly important for STEM students because
those who can access and become affiliated with STEM academic and professional
societies or associations will most likely have opportunities that otherwise would not be
available to other students (Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005). Professor Phillip recognizes that
being a networking coach is critical because many students do not have the social capital
or experience to interact with STEM professionals nor have role models that can teach
them this skill at home. Enrique seemed to see the value in Professor Phillip’s emphasis
on teaching students how to network with key people on and off-campus. He explained
Professor Phillip’s approach to teaching students this skill:
We have to do mock interview with each other. He was teaching us what he calls
an elevator speech, where you introduce yourself in 30 seconds or less. He would
push us to go to engineer [events] and bring back five business cards from there.
That would teach us to be open.
Related to networking, Professor Phillip simultaneously enacted the role of an
advocate. He recognizes the important assets and life experiences his students bring to
the institution and to the field of engineering. During his interview, he explained that he
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
85
notices his students’ strong work ethic, desire to contribute to the field, and improve the
socio-economic conditions of their families. This asset-mindedness is noticeable and
drives actions that support student success; Enrique explains:
When we are presented to people he’ll always mention our best attributes and
things…whatever he knows that’s good about us, he’ll try to bring it out and
make us look really good. In terms of letters of recommendations, he’ll tell us to
write the letter yourself first and send it to him and he’ll look it over and check
and add things. He says that you know yourself the best.
This validation and appreciation of the diverse cultural and social capital students bring
to the institution and to STEM is an essential attribute of institutional agents. It is also a
significant distinction from other theories and frameworks that oftentimes ignore the life
experiences and worldviews of students, or see these as detriments to their success, as
they may not fit with the traditional paradigms of student success.
integrative support. As it was mentioned previously, one of the strongest
predictors of success for STEM students is their integration into and identification with
their discipline’s cultural spheres. Given that many low-income Latino STEM students
are first-generation students, they have the double challenge to integrate themselves into
their new worlds concurrently. Professor Phillip’s job as director of an engineering
support program for underrepresented students positions him to act as integrative agent
and cultural guide. Enrique’s story depicts the challenges that students like him face, as
they enter an unfamiliar sphere:
When I got [to Esperanza University], people had actually done stuff related to
[engineering]. For example, I remember one guy said he was taking things apart
and putting them back together…it wasn’t an isolated case…there were a lot of
people who already had experience. In mechanical engineering, where some of us
are to magically know about cars…I am not saying I don’t know anything, but I
don’t know much as a lot of other students, so something they relate things back
to cars and I’d be like, “I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
86
I wasn’t going to start talking about things I didn’t know. I just stayed quiet and
tried to learn how engineers were and kind of picked up from there.
To counteract students’ inexperience with engineering and develop a level playing field,
Professor Phillip arranges to have alumni, industry partners, and faculty meet with
students and interact with them in a safe environment. He also arranges for students
attend engineering conferences and field trips, so that they have an opportunity to
experience, interact with others in the engineering field, and become familiar with the
engineering culture. Enrique’s example about Professor Phillip’s elevator speech
exercise shows that Professor Phillip is intentional about guiding students through new
social situation in a particular sphere. As it has been demonstrated through his actions,
Professor Phillip challenges his students, but offers support in doing so.
system developer. Enrique identified Professor Phillip as a system developer,
and more specifically as a program developer. Enrique has observed Professor Phillip
“develop programs that embed students in a system of agents, resources, and
opportunities.” In fact, the program that Professor Phillip directs is charged to do just
that. The interview with Professor Phillip, however, revealed that he is also a political
advocate. This is a new role for him; he explains:
I’ve just joined the California Faculty Association (CFA). Our president was on
campus and he was really straightforward about CFA and [Academic
Professionals of California (APC)], if we really want to have an impact, we’ve got
to move to a social justice agenda and it hasn’t been a social justice agenda. It’s
been about just faculty protection and it’s not, hasn’t been translated to a social
justice agenda or that level of impact upon our communities, but…and maybe it is
possible, maybe that is the next wave, what is really going to take place. You
know, always being optimistic and the only way to look at life is maybe that’s
where we’re moving, so eventually.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
87
While his level of involvement with the faculty union is still evolving, his views seem to
align with the vision and goals of the union. This may propel him to take on an active
role and move the social justice agenda forward.
Professor Phillips is a system developer because of his role as a lobbyist. He
actively lobbies for organizational resources to be directed towards his program. He is
the principal investigator for a couple of federal grants that support his program directly.
Recently, he applied and received a competitive institutional grant that has helped expand
his program to serve more students. He identifies this role as critical to the success of his
program. He recognizes the contemporary political and economic climate of public
higher education in California; therefore, taking on this role is not optional for him.
system linkage and networking support. Professor Phillip was mentioned
several times by the other institutional agents in this study as collaborative partner. This
signals to his expansive network, which facilitates his role as a bridging agent and
institutional broker. Professor Phillips is aware of campus culture as well as its structures,
resources, and power dynamics. Although he fulfills all the characteristics within the
system linkage and networking support category, one of his strongest roles is that of a
coordinator. Perhaps that is because of his position within the university, but the
following statement shows that he is keen to the needs of the students and will take
necessary actions to address those needs.
Given my experience more than anything else with students….what I perceive
they need is the ability to go somewhere and get their needs met as opposed to
encountering bureaucracy and bureaucracy after bureaucracy. Too many students
of color, too many Latino students, shut down when they [go] up against that
consistent bureaucracy and I just feel the need that I want to serve them—serve a
different role in that regard.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
88
He attributes being able to coordinate initiatives to address the issues that unrepresented
engineering students face to his position in the university, specifically within the college
of engineering. He recognized that his work impacts only a small proportion of the
students at EU; however, he sees the value in that. He explains:
My particular benefit is that I work in a structure. I think the structure of being a
college-based equity program as opposed to a university-wide equity program
enables me to work a little bit differently than other student personnel
administrators because it’s college-based. The college-based emphasis really
allows us to address much more effectively, where the students are coming from.
However, coordinating efforts to support students within and across department does not
come easy. Professor Phillip encounters resistance from colleagues in other academic
departments and from faculty within his own college. He explains:
I know that there are faculty, engineering faculty, who don’t believe that
supporting our students in the mode and manner in we do is appropriate….Faculty
believe you throw everybody into 50 feet of water and those who can swim,
maybe they can be engineers. Those who drown, they don’t belong in
engineering.
empowerment agent. Professor Phillip’s role as an empowerment agent truly
emerged through the interview process. As a professor of color as well as his life and
professional experiences in STEM-related equity programs at diverse institutions made
him be reflective of the inequities in higher education. The following statement affirms
his awareness:
I live in South Central Los Angeles and there are professionals with college
degrees in our communities, but you wouldn’t think that when you go to our
communities. After all this time, there hasn’t been seemingly a critical mass of
influence that directs our young people—red, black, brown—to go to college and
to me, that’s ongoing awareness and motivation, I think with the clarity that
there’s still so much work to be done to develop the critical mass of influence on
our young people so [attending college] becomes automatic.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
89
In a reflective manner, in the following statement, Professor describes his willingness to
do more to solve the inequities in higher education.
I’m really willing to grapple with this issue around the meaningfulness of the kind
of work I do and its impact. I’m really wanting to move in a different direction
around these kind of issues and things have sort of come together just
recently….If we want to improve the retention and graduate of college students,
all we have to do is bring more students who come from a higher level of
income….that’s what we are doing and we’re not looking at who we’re not
admitting and who’s not being accepted and I think as I’m looking at that over the
past years. I didn’t get into this business to help students who are going to…who
are reasonably going to be able to succeed. I’m in this business to help those who
probably wouldn’t be able to success without the leg up that we’re giving them
and we’re serving those students less and less.
Just as Stanton-Salazar (2010) typifies an empowerment agent, Professor Phillip
questions the system and envisions an alternative system. During his interview, he also
provided examples of how he teaches and/or supports students in changing some key
aspects of the system. For example, in collaboration with another faculty and a group of
students who have reflected on the need to increase the number of Latinos and other
underrepresented students in STEM fields, Professor Phillip designed a service-learning
class. This class entails a partnership with a local urban high school where EU students
go to the high school to develop the high school students’ interest in STEM fields and
tutor students in math and science courses that are typically gate-keeping classes.
Professor Julio and Robert
Professor Julio is a tenured professor in engineering. He was born in Mexico and
attended school there until high school. He, then, immigrated to the United States and
attended community college in California not knowing what he wanted to study. He
mentioned that when he started at the community college he did not even know that
doctorates existed. However, his family had instilled in him the value of education. His
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
90
mother earned a bachelor’s degree in liberal studies in Mexico and then, a teaching
master’s in education through an extension program from an American University in
Mexico. He is unsure of his father’s level of education. He knows that his father
finished junior high, but beyond that, he does not know if he completed high school or
college. He explains:
Let me explain it to you this way. He definitely finished junior high. I think he
might have finished high school. He came to the United States as to work as a
fisherman and he was using an assumed name. But at the same time, he was
taking classes at UC Berkeley. Whether or not he got a degree, I don’t know. We
always assumed he had a degree because technically speaking he was competent
and he had received formal education and he behaved as a degreed engineer in his
demeanor and his peer group, etc. The assumption that he was a degreed engineer
was definitely a valid one. But whether or not he was, I don’t know. The culture
of college and education all that was definitely there, as if he had been one.
After three years at the community college, Professor Julio transferred to a highly
selective public four-year institution nearby to complete his bachelor’s degree in
engineering; he was there for an additional three years. Then, he attended a renowned
public research institution in the east coast where he completed his master’s degree and
the course work for his dissertation. He took a couple of years off to work and then, went
back to finish his dissertation. When he completed his doctorate, he returned to
California to teach at Esperanza University where he has been at for 12 years.
Currently, Professor Julio is not teaching because he has taken a leadership role in
a very important committee that is responsible for developing and implementing a plan to
raise the freshman and transfer six-year graduation rates in the top quartile of EU’s
institutional peer group. This committee is also charged to halve EU’s achievement gap
between under-represented minority (URM) students and non-URM students by 2015.
As coordinator of the committee, he leads the efforts to identify and support units and
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
91
departments to address identified concerns. In collaboration with EU’s provost, his direct
report, Professor Julio coordinates the collection and analysis of data to measure progress,
is the liaison with the Chancellor's Office, and provides periodic reports to the campus
and to the Chancellor’s Office. His involvement in this committee resulted from his
desire to take on an administrative position and a break from teaching. He explains:
I wanted to explore [being an administrator]. I was burned out from teaching. As
you know the teaching loads here are quite heavy, so I wanted to take a break
from that a little bit. Student success is one of the things that really interest me
and this was an opportunity to have an impact in that area. It really was a
combination of those things.
Professor Julio’s leadership in and outside of the classroom as well as commitment to
student success has not gone unnoticed by Robert, one of his students. Robert nominated
Professor Julio as his institutional agent. Robert is a 26-year old senior majoring in
Mechanical Engineering, who transferred to EU after spending five years at a community
college. He has been at EU for the past three years and hopes to graduate within the next
year. Robert is also a first-generation college student. His parents did not attend college,
but did complete some high school in their country of origin, Mexico. As a non-
traditionally aged and financially independent student, Robert solely depends on the
financial aid he receives from the state and federal government. He is not employed
because he says that a job would interfere with his studies, as his major is extremely
demanding. However, he does recognize that not working has created some tensions. He
explains:
We are raised to think that you have to work. Like education, yeah, that’s cool,
but it’s almost like my dad was encouraging me to get my education and at the
same time there was a big emphasis on having to work hard to earn your own
money. You kind of don’t want to upset your parents, you know, you say, ‘Well,
I’ll do the right thing, but then you start realizing it’s not…there are other ways of
being successful than just working hard in a job.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
92
Although his father and family would be willing to tap into the little financial resources
they have, Robert prefers to take out student loans because his father is close to
retirement and is paying for his younger sister’s college education.
Robert’s pathway to higher education has not been straightforward. He
mentioned that in elementary school he felt nurtured and challenged to think about what
he wanted to be when he grew up. However, his parents’ decision to enroll him in a
school where there were not many children or teachers that looked like him had a long-
lasting impact on him. He explained:
You know, elementary school, I had a lot of praise from my teachers for being a
little more advanced that the other kids, which was cool, but my…well, my
parents were well intentioned and they put me in a school, mainly Caucasian
school, with advanced programs, but I stumbled and fell. I think that a lot of it
might have to do with my intelligence, but a lot of it had to do with the culture
because when I got to the school, I didn’t have a lot of people to relate to and I
almost felt alienated like, “what am I doing here?” I guess at that age, you don’t
really understand what going on. Now as an adult, I look back and like, “wow,
now I know why I didn’t do as well in middle school and in high school as
I did in elementary or college now.
Robert’s statement reflects the reality that students from underprivileged communities
may not have access to a quality education in their own neighborhood. In this case, and
in an attempt to provide Robert with a better education, his parents enrolled him in a
school that provided an array of educational opportunities, but the environment was not
inclusive or representative of Robert’s cultural experiences. Those experiences, along
with the ones at the community college where he felt discouraged by counselors, have
deeply influenced his worldview about his place in college and the role that Professor
Julio has played in counteracting those experiences.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
93
In the preliminary student survey, Robert indicated that Professor Julio performed
13 out of the 26 institutional agent actions that were listed. Based on those indicators as
well as Professor Julio and Robert’s interviews, Professor Julio provided direct,
integrative, and system linkage and network support. Professor Julio is also a system
developer. He fulfilled multiple roles within each of the support categories. Professor
Julio also exemplified characteristics of an empowerment agent. Derived from the
analysis of the survey and interviews, table 4.5 illustrates Professor Julio’s institutional
agent roles and characteristics.
Table 4.5: Professor Julio’s Institutional Agent Roles and Characteristics
Direct Support Integrative Support System Developer
þResource Agent
þKnowledge Agent
þAdvisor
þAdvocate
þNetworking Coach
þIntegrative Agent
Cultural Guide
þProgram Developer
þLobbyist
Political Advocate
System Linkage & Network Support Empowerment Agent
Recruiter
þBridging Agent
þInstitutional Broker
þCoordinator
þAccesses or provides resources or
knowledge pertinent to navigating the
system
þDecodes the system
þQuestions the system and envisions an
alternative system
Teaches students to question the
system and envision an alternative
system
Engages students in changing some
key aspects of the system
þIs in a position of power/authority
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
94
direct support. One of the unique aspects of Professor Julio and Robert’s
relationship is that Robert is an engineering student in a different department within the
college. According to Robert, it is uncommon that a professor in a different department
would offer support the way Professor Julio has. One example of how Professor Julio
has supported him is by advising him on graduate school education and writing letters of
recommendations on his behalf. These actions demonstrate that Professor Julio is a
resource agent. By writing a letters of recommendation for Robert, Professor Julio is an
advocate and validates Robert’s identity as an engineer as well as his potential to
contribute to the field. During his interview, Professor Julio did not mention that he has
helped students get into graduate school. However, many of the other institutional agents
in this study mentioned that encouraging students to go to graduate school is vital,
especially in STEM fields because a bachelor’s degree in these fields will not provide the
same career and socio-economic mobility as a graduate degree. Robert agreed with this
and expressed his desire for the institution to do more to promote graduate school:
You know, I think [EU] does a great job because all of the professors individually
aren’t as bad. The programs themselves prepare all students for being useful in
the field, so they also seems to cater to Hispanics, but I think there should
probably be more emphasis on going to graduate school and going for maybe
higher education because I feel like that isn’t encouraged. I feel like they prepare
us to be workhorses in the industry and a lot of the industry love [EU] students
because we are well prepared and they prefer [us] over a lot of other universities,
but I feel like we become just that, technicians. You’re always a technician when
you have a bachelor’s degree. You want to become someone more important; you
have to.
Robert emphasizes the significance of Professor’s Julio’s encouragement and support of
his goal to attend graduate school:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
95
He’s an overall helpful individual, very attentive to everything. So yeah…he
inspired me because he’s an inspiration because you see that he’s a Latino who
has a Ph.D.…maybe I can do it too….He’s been very supportive about me
wanting to go to grad school and wanting to get a higher education….I feel like I
am almost following in his footsteps because we share a heritage and language.
So, I figure that’s one of the reasons he supports me going to grad school. He
also believes in my potential.
The attentiveness that Robert describes is intentional, Professor Julio states:
I try to make it as friendly as possible when I take roll the first day of class to
make it a point to pronounce the names that would be pronounced in Spanish.
Some students pick up on that and some students say oh that white boy [his last
name is not very common in the Latino community] is kind of funny. I get
everything and I work with MEP mainly through a summer bridge
program….I’ve been teaching in that for 12 years, pretty much since the first
summer that I was here. During the academic year, I am very much involved with
MEP. I pay particular attention to our Hispanic students; I mean a little more
attention but not necessarily a huge amount. More than anything just raising the
awareness to the fact of the inequities….So just to become aware of all those
issues, basically, so that story doesn’t repeat.
His desire to be aware of the student issues extends beyond the Latino student
population. He has led a federally funded grant to expand the participation of women in
STEM fields. He also stated that he recently attended the Safe Zone Ally training, which
makes him part of a network of people at EU that
learn about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics and
terminology, receive resources and referral info, interact with a panel of LGBT
students, and discuss ways of being an Ally. After attending, participants choose
to sign a contract promising to be a safe space, and receive a Safe Zone Ally
placard to display outside their office or residence hall room or a button to display
on their backpacks (EU Website).
He reflected and said that taking on the initiative to be involved with those two activities
has created a lot of more personal awareness and allows him to serve his students better.
Professor Julio describes that experience:
I just got training about a month ago for LGBT students. It’s more that I am
really interested in student success. I want them to do well. I’ve come to realize
that a lot of it is realizing the barriers that they have that I didn’t even know
existed.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
96
Based on Robert’s description of Professor Julio’s characteristics and behavior, Professor
Julio does a good job at understanding and helping his students.
Professor Julio has also acted as a networking coach and knowledge agent. As a
networking coach, he has encouraged Robert to take part of events, groups, and meetings
that will position Robert to expand his support network and career opportunities. Robert
recognizes Professor Julio’s expansive network and the benefits that being part of such
networks would have on his engineering career. Robert explains:
He’s invited me to club meetings, where he was the president of [an engineering
society]. For engineers, it’s more of what society you belong to and what
connections you have available to you….He’s well connected to the community.
In relation to Professor Julio’s role as a knowledge agent, Robert explains that Professor
Julio has shared strategies about how to navigate college:
I guess it’s different in engineering because our curriculum is spelled out, so
everybody has to take the same classes and it’s obvious what you have to do to
graduate so it’s less like showing us how to graduate and more how do you get
job experience? Where are you going to get job experience? Where do you go
after college? Where are you going to get a job? So he’s providing me with
that….and it’s a little different because he’s with a different department than mine.
So, my job opportunities are somewhere else, but nonetheless, he’s always been
consistent in telling me to get involved in clubs because that looks good to
employers, getting hands-on experience, that looks good to employers, so he’s
emphasizes what it takes to get hired.
integrative support. According to studies that address the underrepresentation of
Latinos and underrepresented students in STEM fields, one of the best practices is to
provide integrative support by designing structured research opportunities. Robert
explained the impact that participating in a research project had on him:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
97
I participated in a research project. That’s a big deal for engineering students,
specially as an undergrad because it’s rare for an undergrad to get research
experience, so I felt like he gave me a leg up compared to most students, so he
gave me the opportunity to stand out and I think that’s important and it was
nothing we had planned out. I needed to add a class and I just went to the office
and said, “can I add your class?” He said, “under the conditions that you can
work on one of our research projects.” Dude, that’s a win-win, you know what I
am saying?
Opportunities like these are limited. Although this opportunity was not intentionally
designed for Robert, it made an important impact on Robert’s interest to pursue a
graduate education and to continue developing his identity as an engineer. Robert’s
research experience brought other opportunities. Robert was selected to participate in a
highly selective NASA academy. Even though participating in this academy also
heightened the underrepresentation of Latinos in engineering, Robert identified this as the
best experiences of his college, personal, and engineer life. He explained:
Yeah, that was probably when I knew I had to finally overcome my fear of being
capable, so to know that you can get to that level is just…you know, when they
told me, I couldn’t believe it. I had to read the letter three times. Something
happened to me that’s unbelievable, so I think that day will always stick in my
mind, you know, and the academy experience was another thing because I was the
only Hispanic there and they’re your mentors, so it’s kind of like why aren’t there
more Hispanics here, so it’s more concerning to me now.
He hopes that this opportunity will allow him to obtain a job after graduation and make
him competitive for graduate school.
system developer. Professor Julio’s position as the coordinator of the retention
and graduation committee inevitably facilitates his actions as a system developer. He is
responsible for developing programs or interventions that support student success to meet
the goals of the campus initiative. Through the analysis of the survey and interviews, he
also fulfilled characteristics of a lobbyist, as he had the authority and power to redirect
institutional resources to address the gaps identified through the committee’s work. His
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
98
interview did not provide examples that exemplified him as a political advocate.
However, given the current political and economic conditions of public education and his
position within the university, the committee he leads could act as a “political action
group that advocates for social policies and institutional resources that would benefit
targeted groups of students” (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). Professor Julio’s statement below
encapsulates the ways in which he acts as a system developer.
In the [committee I coordinate] what we’re trying to do—because of course we
have all the other issues and you cannot favor certain ethnicities and all that kind
of stuff—We have been trying to select things that impact [all] students but that
are proven to impact the gap students more. So for instance, right now we’re
doing an exploration of learning communities…learning communities are good
for everybody but you can also tailor learning communities to gap students so
they get an extra push. We’re looking at early intervention, everybody benefits
from that, and gap students benefit more. Things that build community,
traditional students benefit but the typical gap student with a household that has
no college culture, they benefit more. That’s what we’re trying to do. Our efforts
tend to be a longer term to change the system so they haven’t yielded any fruit yet.
Professor Julio’s statement also demonstrates the climate in which he operates as a
system developer. It seems like the current socio-political climate may deter him to
directly address racial and ethnic inequities at EU. On the other hand, it seems like
Professor Julio understands how to negotiate with that climate and be strategic about his
work within its conditions.
system linkage and network support. Several examples have already been
presented that affirm that Professor Julio offers linkage and network support to his
students. As part of his position as the coordinator for the graduation initiative at EU,
that system linkage and network support extends to the faculty he works with. Although
he works with people who occupy high status position within the university, he may be
perceived to have a broader network, greater institutional knowledge, and access to other
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
99
leaders who have more power and authority (i.e., provost, president, chancellor, etc.).
During his interview, he paused to recruit a faculty that was passing by to participate in a
learning community and curriculum design meeting. He explained that it was important
for this faculty to be part of this meeting because this particular faculty member taught
one of the gatekeeper courses in engineering. This example also defines him as a
bridging agent, institutional broker, and coordinator.
empowerment agent. Professor Julio’s high level of social consciousness was
evident through his interview. Although he did not teach or engage students in
questioning the system, he was one of the most vocal and reflective institutional agents in
this study. He spoke openly about the educational inequities for Latino students and the
importance of having practitioners who are effective and care about the students. His
role as an empowerment agent is evolving and not action-oriented, however; he fits the
characteristics of an empowerment agent because of his high level of awareness as well
as his willingness to change his and others people’s assumptions, behaviors, and practices.
The following is an example of his reflections about who he thinks is responsible for the
success of students:
There are two sides to that coin. One is that there are advisors that are ineffective
whether because they don’t care, they don’t want to do it, etc. Sadly that happens.
Sometimes it’s because they care, they’re just ineffective….Here are at [EU], we
have advisors; we have departments that rely solely one person to be the sole
advisor for the students’ college career. What if the advisor is ineffective for
whatever reason? Maybe they never were in a quarter system, that’s the problem.
They might not be familiar with public school or they’re not familiar with our
student populations. Those are problems; those are barriers. We have other
colleges where you have staff advisors that advise under policies and procedures
and where you have academic advisors, which are the faculty who advise in
career and mentoring types of issues, course selections, and those types of things.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
100
Professor Julio also recognizes the unique issues within the STEM culture that may
hinder student success. He explains:
We have discouraging people. We’ve covered students’ lack of coping
mechanisms, getting lost, not having a sense of belonging and I think those are
major factors. We have also a minor factor, which is the faculty member who
says in the first year, “look to the right of you, only one of you will be here.”
Thankfully, we have less and less of those people. It still happens and the attitude
is still there.
Professor Julio’s leadership in the committee has provided him with a greater level of
awareness and encouraged him to be open to alternative ways to address student success,
including looking at his practices and impact on students.
Professor Abigail and Ileana
Professor Abigail is a tenured professor in the college of science. She has been at
EU for 38 years. She has had an array of administrative duties during her tenure at EU,
but she has never held those duties on a full-time basis. In addition to her teaching load,
she is the director for several federally funded STEM-related grants. She is also affiliated
with a structured-research program for underrepresented students, where she is a
workshop facilitator and mentor. She is well known for her research in the biotechnology
field and serves as a consultant in that industry. Professor Abigail’s father was also a
scientist, and her mother earned a degree in fine arts. She attributes her academic journey
and success to her cultural background:
I’m also Jewish and when you’re born Jewish they ask you not where you’re
going to college, but where you’re going to graduate school. I mean, it’s a reality,
really a big push.
Professor Abigail’s professional aspirations and achievements were also propelled by her
desire to close opportunity gaps for women in the sciences.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
101
Ileana, the student who nominated Professor Abigail, is a junior majoring in
zoology. She hopes to earn a Ph.D. in wildlife zoology to help with the conservation of
endangered species by developing conservation policies. Her involvement with the same
program that Professor Abigail is affiliated with has inspired her to be interested in
research and a graduate degree. Her latest research project focused on studying slugs and
their genetic diversity. This particular program provides a small stipend to conduct
research, which Ileana said helps supplement her financial aid award.
Ileana’s biggest challenges are financial and the tension between her academic
aspirations and family expectations, which are in many ways interrelated. Ileana cannot
afford to live on-campus and has to commute a long distance to attend EU. However, her
choice to commute also has a lot to do with her father’s cultural and gender expectations.
Ileana is not allowed to drive. Her mother drives her to EU and picks up her when she is
done with classes. Although this arrangement was made to save the family money and
conform to family norms, it limits Ileana from fully integrating into campus and taking
full advantage of the benefits that the structured research program offers. She explains
how this limitation affects her:
I don’t really have…like I’ve gone into some clubs like there’s the zoology club
and other things that sometimes I go and they are always saying to go to different
events. They do charity stuff, but I don’t really do that kind of stuff because my
dad is a little bit stricter. For the zoology club at [EU], they do trips and they go
see wild life and all that…and they do overnight trips and weekends. I would
want to do that, but my dad would never let me go. All that stuff I think I miss
out, so right now I’m just waiting it out until I go off to graduate school where I
can have more choice of what I want to do.
Her father’s apprehension may be due to his inexperience with the education system in
the United States and his perspectives on gender roles. Both of Ileana’s parents
emigrated from El Salvador and have a second grade level education. The American
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
102
education system, therefore, is in a very different cultural sphere than what they have
experienced. Ileana said that she has tried to explain to her dad the amount of work she
needs to do as a zoology major. She explains the challenges in that:
He doesn’t understand how much work needs to be put in homework. They tell
me to go to sleep at 10 p.m., but I have to finish if I want to get a good grade.
They don’t understand all the stuff like that. If I want to explain what kind of
work I do, the research, I have to explain more the biological terms, but they don’t
even understand it, so I have to first explain my knowledge of it in Spanish, but
it’s not always going to translate exactly.
She added:
If I were to stay at school to study, he doesn’t want me to stay at school past 7
p.m. I have to be back at home by 8 p.m. and I can’t really do work at home. A
lot of times when I am at home and I can’t do my work because a lot of times they
are telling me to go help them…like do housework, which I understand and I’m
not saying that I don’t help but sometimes during finals and things like that I have
to juggle the [research program] and do all my homework and different
assignments they need me to do. At the house, my dad has a trucking company
and each load that he does, I need to fill out all this paperwork like how many
miles he traveled, how many gallons of gas and all these other people he has to
maintain for the company and I do all that too. Also, clean his truck and it is a lot
to juggle.
Ileana’s brother is also a student at EU. She recognizes that the expectations are different
for her brothers, so she thinks that her father is overprotective and unsupportive because
she is a woman. Her father had an expectation that she would become a nurse and not a
zoologist, so that may contribute to his level of support as well. She explains:
I just do it because nobody else will. I have other brothers that could help him do
other stuff like that, but I’m the only one always does things. If my dad were to
ask my brothers to do something, they would do it wrong or they might leave it to
the last second and procrastinate. I’m really not like that. I like to get things done
and that’s how I’ve always been. He sees that, so he tells me to do all his stuff
because he has more confidence in me. I get mad sometimes because I am not the
only one living there and they should help too. I get stuck doing everything.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
103
Ileana’s frustration was evident during the interview, yet her desire to persist was too.
She talked about her passion for saving animals and desires to continue her education
despite the challenges she currently faces and the ones she anticipates she will face.
In the preliminary student survey, Ileana indicated that Professor Abigail
characterizes 26 out of the 26 institutional agent actions that were listed on the survey.
Based on those indicators as well as the interviews, Professor Abigail provided direct,
integrative, and system linkage and network support. Professor Abigail is also a system
developer and exemplified a few of the characteristics of an empowerment agent. Table
4.6 illustrates Professor Abigail’s institutional agent roles and characteristics.
Table 4.6: Professor Abigail’s Institutional Agent Roles and Characteristics
Direct Support Integrative Support System Developer
þResource Agent
þKnowledge Agent
þAdvisor
þAdvocate
þNetworking Coach
þIntegrative Agent
þCultural Guide
þProgram Developer
þLobbyist
Political Advocate
System Linkage & Network Support Empowerment Agent
þRecruiter
þBridging Agent
þInstitutional Broker
þCoordinator
þAccesses or provides resources or
knowledge pertinent to navigating the
system
þDecodes the system
Questions the system and envisions an
alternative system
Teaches students to question the
system and envision an alternative
system
Engages students in changing some
key aspects of the system
þIs in a position of power/authority
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
104
direct support. Ileana described her undergraduate research experience as one of
the best experiences at EU because it has given her the opportunity to be advised and
have a relationship with faculty, especially with Professor Abigail. Ileana understands
that being part of an undergraduate research program is a unique opportunity:
Now I am actually experiencing what I would be doing if I work and choose this
career and getting a head start because a lot of other people might not have this
opportunity. It’s not going to hit me so hard that I’m not going to cry from all the
work that you have to do. You get help from the professors. Some professors
don’t want to talk with students, but the professors in the program…you could
talk to them. They’re really nice and funny. They’re not so…I don’t know what
to call it…they’re not like so serious…It makes it easier to be able to ask them
questions that even I think is a stupid question. If you ask, they don’t look at it
like that, they’re just happy to answer it.
The accessibility to faculty provides an array of opportunities to receive direct support
from Professor Abigail and other faculty as well. This program seems that have a strong
focus on fostering faculty-student relationships.
One of the ways that institutional agents in this study have consistently offered
direct support is by writing letters of recommendations. Professor Abigail also offered
Ileana this type of support, which is illustrated in the comment below.
[Professor Abigail] teaches on the classes in the [undergraduate research
programs]…. when you talk to her she’s really nice and friendly and you can see
that she enjoys what she does. She’s always happy. Even though she says she
just got off the plan, she has to go teach a class, and in 30 minutes she’s going to
take a plane to this meeting, conference, all the thing she has to do…I asked her if
she could write a letter of recommendation, but I know she’s like really
busy…she said yes, she was happy to write it. I really appreciated that and I
admire that with all the work she does, she still has time to do that for me.
Ileana perceived Professor Abigail’s willingness to write a letter of recommendation on
her behalf as advocacy.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
105
When I asked her to write a letter of recommendation, I thought she was my
advocate. She believes in me. If she agreed to recommend me to other people it
is because she knows what kind of person I am. I feel like she knows me; she has
that confidence to recommend me to somebody else.
Professor Abigail has also provided direct support by serving as an advisor and
resource agent. In addition, she has made Ileana feel like she matters and cares about her.
Ileana provided the following example:
I tell [Professor Abigail] that I want a scholarship and that I’m applying to several
others right now and she tell me that she’s proud of what I’m doing and she even
tells me that she’s always happy to know what’s going on in my life. I can tell
her anything. She’s told me that before and that kind of gives me the confidence
that I can always have somebody there for me if I need anything. It makes me
feel that if I keep going in this direction towards a Ph.D., I am going to hit a point
where it is confusing and not have any support. But, I feel like with her, I can
always have the support and I will be able to overcome anything.
integrative support. Ileana credits the undergraduate research program for her
success as a zoology major. While she did not pinpoint Professor Abigail as the person
that provided integrative support, Professor Abigail’s interview revealed that she was one
of the faculty members responsible for designing the aspects of the program that provided
this type of support. Professor Abigail stressed the importance of providing students with
the tools necessary to communicate as scientists and compete in very demanding fields.
That is one of the reasons that she facilitated a series of grant and scientific writing
workshops. Ileana described the significance of these workshops:
There are two classes every quarter that we have to take and that have to do with
the research program, so they decide what they’re going to do in those classes.
This quarter it’s been about grant writing. They help you write grants and
manuscripts and how to make a poster. This spring quarter, one of the classes is
going to be grant writing and every other day they might do grants and journal
club, which is where the teacher takes a scientific journal and then we do teams
where one does the pros and another does the cons; we discuss the paper. I’m
going to have to read papers for my major and you do have to get used to it. It
was hard to understand because the language and just how they set up different
diagrams and it’s hard to understand at first. I really like that because I’m getting
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
106
exposed to it now and I have more time to read more journals and be able to
understand them better. Also, they have another class for GRE, so we’re going to
get help and practice taking the GRE; practice on the different questions, the
vocabulary, and all that.
Professor Abigail proclaims herself to be an academic mother. She realizes that
many of her students are first-generation students and may not have the academic
guidance or support they need at home. She takes on the responsibility to help students
understand the STEM culture and facilitates their integration by taking them to
conferences to present. She explains:
I drive my students to meeting and I demand that they go to meeting and present
their posters –which they put their posters together. We have a symposium here
on the campus that we have for them, that we encourage them to go and then we
demand that they go to other ones and just keep getting them out there and of
course they’re a nervous wreck about presenting their material and they do it
again. And, now I am trying to get a culture where students who have been
successful come back and they tell the students they can make it…in addition to
role-modeling, in addition to setting the standards high and telling them that they
can do it, it’s also being personal. When I see a problem, bringing them aside to
talk to them and I they sort of trust me. I’m sort of like an academic mother.
The statement above demonstrates that she is attuned to what students need to succeed
and understand how she can facilitate students’ access to high-impact opportunities.
Once again, she demonstrates that she cares about their academic and personal well-being.
system developer. Professor Abigail has written, contributed, and received many
competitive STEM-related grants that she includes students in. She is also a faculty lead
for a system-wide initiative to gain support and funding for interdisciplinary
undergraduate research. She emphasized the importance of providing research
opportunities for underrepresented students; every time she has a grant, she makes sure
there are components that will benefit students directly. She is aware that students need
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
107
to work to sustain themselves and their families. She suggested the following to help
students earn money would benefit from a high-impact program:
Give [faculty] more money for research and help pay the students, so that they
can work in the labs and they don’t have to work a billion hours outside the lab. I
mean it’s great that they that during the summer, but during the academic year,
they’re back in the same situation again. It doesn’t help, so they need support
throughout the year, they need some financial support; they need to get paid to do
research. They need to get paid to do it and for the faculty, give them a little bit
of summer salary and give them some release time to do research and a little of
supply money…and you’re golden…and I am not talking a lot of supply money.
I’m talking somewhere between $25,000 for supply money per student per year.
It’s amazing. You give them some release time so they have maybe a third
release time or something like that. You know…quarter release time and you pay
the students to work in the lab…then they’re willing to do it, but then you gotta be
careful. You make sure that you pick faculty that care because you don’t want to
pick a faculty person who’s going to do it just for the money or for the support on
their research. You don’t want that, it’s not enough.
Professor Abigail provides practical recommendations and affirms the notion that
compensatory programs, while beneficial and influential on student success, are not
enough to close equity gaps (Bensimon & Dowd, 2012). The practitioners working with
student populations such as low-income Latino students need to be intentional and
committed.
system linkage and networking support. Ileana says that being part of the
structured research program has motivated her and made her believe in her potential.
Professor Abigail has been responsible for arranging workshops and discussions with
alumni and other scientists, which has contributed to Ileana’s motivation and increased
self-efficacy. Ileana describes her experience and the impact these interactions have had:
In the program, they have people come talk to us. They have seminars and they
have people who are working on their PhDs come and give seminars and talk
about their paper and their research and they talk about what made them go to
college and choose their major and more of their life. They talk about how they
remember not liking some classes in college and having trouble doing their
homework and maybe they’re bad at math or something like that, but they kept
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
108
working at it. They found something that was interesting to them, they pursued
that, and they found by networking and whatever connections they were able to
refine more of what they liked. They liked biology but then they kept talking to
different people and found out what they really liked, their niche, and I guess that
has helped me. I’ve always been bad at math and I’ve had a lot of trouble with
that and just hearing them after they’re done with the presentation and hearing all
the complicated terms and research and all these things that I never heard
about…after hearing them say that they had trouble getting to that point, it makes
them more real and something that I could do because it makes it like if you were
to just see their presentation and I would think that doing what they do is hard…I
would also think that I would never be able to do it. When they talked to you
about their lives and how they got to where they are today, it makes it more real
for you and you could connect with them more.
Ileana’s statement illustrates Professor Abigail’s role as a bridging agent in which she
introduces students to other institutional agents or role models.
Professor Abigail also acts as a coordinator when she assesses her students’ needs
and identifies resources to address those needs. Professor Abigail was specifically
attuned to the family tensions that many Latinos experienced. In fact, in the statement
below, she described some of the challenges that Ileana faces with her family.
I’ve had many Hispanic students both in my regular classes and also as my
research students and they face a lot more challenges than a lot of people. What I
see in the Hispanic population is not so much societal prejudice as I see the
problems in the families and the families don’t come from an educated
background. They don’t understand how much time it takes to be successful in
the STEM discipline and how much you have to work at it and how many hours
you have to put in and I hear it all the time. My students tell me, “well, my
parents are complaining that I’m always studying and doing this, “ and then we’ll
give them assignments and then they’ll come and they’ll say, “well, my
grandmother or my aunt asked me to help her move and my third/fourth cousin
needs…my parents want me to take care of them.” And, so they have to meet
those demands because the family expects that.
Professor Abigail has identified pull factors that students may face while they are
pursuing their degrees. As she explains, these pull factors become magnified when a
student is pursuing a degree in a STEM discipline because of the demands of those
disciplines. Later during the interview, Professor Abigail asked a reflective question
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
109
about how she can help mitigate the effects of this particular pull factor. She questioned
whether it would helpful to determine how the families perceive her as a faculty member.
In that reflective process, she stated:
I worry parents are intimidated by us, they’re afraid of us. They don’t understand
the sciences. They don’t know what their child is going to do when they get out.
They don’t know how to guide them.
She continued:
I think one of the biggest pieces that’s missing is we need to get parents involved.
We have to get parents involved and, you know, we invite them to some things,
but we need to be intentional.
While Professor Abigail did not immediately see the positive in the family values in the
Latino community, her reflection could open doors for alternative strategies that can
support students negotiate their pull factors. This reflective thinking is part of assessing
the students’ needs and seeing her function in addressing those needs.
empowerment agent. Ileana stated that she felt empowered by Professor Abigail
to continue with her education. She stated:
She’s a leader and when walks in she’s very outgoing and she’s confident in
herself. Everything that she does you can feel her vibes and you kind of see a
person like that and you kind of get the feeling that you can keep going in what
you’re doing and get a Ph.D. and be able to go through and not come out at the
end being all grumpy and serious.
Professor Abigail’s actions, behaviors, and demeanor cultivate the “construction of
interpersonal trust, solidarity, and shared meaning” (Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 26), which
is the basis of empowerment. Another significant component of empowerment,
according to Stanton-Salazar (2010) is teaching and engaging with students to change the
structures that create inequities. In Professor Abigail’s case, her interviews did not
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
110
provide evidence that necessarily does those things intentionally, but students may feel
inspired to create change on their own because of her actions.
Unpaired Participants
The following section presents the stories of the unpaired participants of this
study. Their stories support the findings based on the paired participants’ interviews.
Alma
Alma is a junior majoring in food marketing and agribusiness. She is a first-
generation college student who grew up in a single-mother household. She was accepted
into EU’s highly impacted pre-veterinary program. However, she switched her major to
food marketing and agribusiness because she felt intimidated by the coursework and the
expectation that she would have to pursue a doctorate degree to advance in the field.
Having to attend graduate school, she felt, was not a wise choice because of the cost of
graduate school. In relation to this, she said:
Yeah, I really just don’t—it’s too expensive definitely. I felt like I was set for
disaster kind of thing, even if I tried. The fact that I can’t afford it. The fact that I
knew that it was to take so long for me to be successful. I’m kind of like the
person who needs it now, I guess. I need to see some kind of results soon and I
felt like eight years was a little too long.
This sense of urgency to be successful was in part due to her financial obligations to her
family and her desire to help them improve their quality of life. She currently works
more than 20 hours to contribute to the household, which she explained has not interfered
with her studies. However, she did mention that she was struggling academically, which
may be related to the number of hours she has to work.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
111
For Alma, her financial situation has been a constant factor that has challenged
her throughout her entire college experience. When she was asked about the things that
influenced or hindered her decision to go to college, she said:
Yes, multiple things. I had a boyfriend so that mattered. Financial was
something that I didn’t want to think about. For one, you’re always told not to
think about it, but in my situation of course I’m going to. I can’t just borrow and
borrow. I’m not raised like that to just borrow. That’s not okay with my mom
and she couldn’t afford it, so I knew that financial aid was going to take a lot.
That was a factor and also if I could do it. I didn’t want to start something that I
couldn’t finish. So, the question came up…should I even go? I don’t want to
embarrass myself like that.
The impact that these factors have had on Alma was evident, as she became very
emotional when she spoke about them.
Alma changed her major for other reasons as well. She saw how she could
influence the field of food marketing and agribusiness to better her community and
family. She explained:
My mom is diabetic. She tends to be very healthy and eats certain things and it’s
easier to understand it so I know how I can definitely answer her questions. I can
help her in that aspect. I always help her make better decisions with fast food
because I’m so into that right now. At home, directly, that’s how food marketing
helps and right now my school education helps. I won’t let my mom have certain
things or she won’t buy certain things. I learned ultimately from her because
she’s very knowledgeable. I definitely can help her out when it comes to nutrition
and what we eat at home.
For underrepresented students in STEM, research shows that they are most likely to
persist when they see the connection and applicability of their disciplines to solve real
world problems (Hurtado, et al., 2011).
Alma explained that another reason she changed her major was because she was
not doing well in her classes. She did not fail any classes, but she knew she would once
classes became more challenging. Professor Joe, the institutional agent she nominated,
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
112
was instrumental in her decision to change her major. After he assessed her interests and
strengths, he helped her determine that she was more interested in the business side of
agriculture. She explained:
The animal interaction or animal science, I didn’t know the roots of it and I didn’t
know how much in depth we went into it. That wasn’t what I wanted to do. I
took a variety of classes and agricultural business really caught my attention.
[Professor Joe] listened to me. He definitely made it clear that what I described
wasn’t animal science. I was definitely a business major where needed to see
money, the business. I couldn’t do the animal field and my heart wasn’t it.
In this example, Professor Joe provided direct support by being an advisor, resource
agent, and knowledge agent. Instead of discouraging Alma from switching to a non-
STEM major, he directed her to a different STEM major that could capitalize on her
strengths and interests. Many times when faculty see a struggling student in STEM, they
see it as part of the weeding out process; Professor Joe did not see it that way.
In the preliminary student survey, Alma said that Professor Joe characterized
eight out of the 26 institutional agent actions listed. All, but one, of the characteristics
she checked off corresponded to the direct support category. Because Professor Joe was
not able to participate in the study, there was limited information about whether he
provided other types of support. However, his teaching philosophy that is posted on his
faculty webpage embodied many of the characteristics that Alma described about
Professor Joe. The statement, which is shown below, had elements that were validating,
encouraging, and defined high expectations.
1. All students can learn.
2. The college experience and courses in particular, should be learning-centered.
3. The educator should strive to inspire students to pursue knowledge related to the
course on their own, like lighting a fire. This goal is contrasted to merely
transmitting information. Students are expected to have an open, receptive, and
inquisitive attitude regarding their education.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
113
4. Students have a variety of learning styles (e.g., visual, auditory, and kinesthetic).
As an instructor, I endeavor to ascertain what method(s) of instruction are best
suited to the learning styles of students in each class. Then, I adjust presentation
methods and other course variables so that students learn as much and as
effectively as practicable. Further, many students have relevant knowledge and
experiences related to course material. I seek to draw out that knowledge and
experience to enrich the learning of everyone involved in the course.
5. Applied, action-oriented learning is a very useful form of education. At the same
time, educational content should be founded in theory.
6. Students' growth, in addition to their achievement, should be rewarded.
7. Diversity enhances the learning process. The areas that differences may be
manifest include, but are not limited to, the following: gender, age,
race/color/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, physical disability, and economic
status. Students and faculty should interact with each other in an atmosphere of
mutual respect, with appreciation for individual differences.
Alma believes that Professor Joe is not aware of the impact that he has had on her
and many students. This assumption may be true. Institutional agent-type behaviors and
actions are oftentimes deeply embedded in the practitioner’s praxis and they may be
unaware of the type of impact they are making on their students’ lives (Pendakur, 2010).
Ruby
Ruby is a first-generation college student. Her parents’ educational background is
very similar to the other students’ parents in this study. Both her parents attended school
in Mexico and dropped out to help their respective families financially. Her father
dropped out of school in elementary and her mother dropped out in middle school.
Because they did not have an opportunity to go to school and have had limited
occupational opportunities because of it, her father, in particular, has instilled the
importance of an education.
My parents didn’t have an education and seeing how important it is especially in a
country like this. Most Hispanics when they come to this country, all they think
about is working physically. They forget about the intellectual part. My dad
knew from the beginning that this country wasn’t founded on people working
physically hard, but on intellects that used their wisdom and knowledge to create
this country. He has always motivated us to keep going. We didn’t have a choice,
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
114
which I don’t mind. He really instilled in us those values. [He told us], “right
after high school, you’re going to college!” It was kind of something that I
already knew I was going to do. I made a goal for myself as well just because my
parents told me, but it was something for me as well.
Ruby’s example about her father’s encouragement counteracts the deficit-minded
perspective that Latino families are not interested in the academic success of their
children. While it is true that there are cultural differences and values that may create
challenges for Latino students in STEM, the parents’ desire to see their children succeed
can be capitalized to engage them in conversations about the diverse career possibilities
and economic benefits that a STEM degree could facilitate.
Related to family and cultural tensions, Ruby, like Enrique who was introduced
earlier in this chapter, experienced spiritual dissonance when she decided to major in a
STEM discipline. She explains:
I was raised in a Christian family. However, in college, I learned how to question
them not so much to go against it, but to understand where I really come from and
what I really believe. I am still struggling to pin point what I really believe and
what my parents believe that I feel I should believe….I’m more of a logical
person and seeing things physically.
She continues to explain the tension between her spiritual and scientific identity:
It’s kind of clashed along with me; I’ve never questioned it before. It was more
like go with the flow; go with the flow of what I’ve been taught since I was little.
Now, school interferes with going to church. I’m going to school more than I go
to church. One of the majors I wanted to do was physics, but because of all the
logic and it could go against what I thought, I believed or what I shown to believe
in, I put it to the side. Eventually, it was engineering that I wanted to do, but I
was able to see how physics was so logical and then you have something that is
totally on the other side that you’re going to cash in one way or another. That was
a scary thought.
The exploration and questioning of her spirituality is common among college students.
However, two students in this study mentioned it as a challenge in their pursuit of a
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
115
STEM degree. Therefore, it might be worthwhile exploring this topic more to understand
the role that spirituality and religion plays in the experiences of Latinos in STEM, if any.
Ruby is a junior, majoring in civil engineering. She spent three years at a local
community college before transferring to EU. Ruby wanted to attend EU as a freshman,
but her older sister was attending a private college and her parents could not afford to
help them both financially. In retrospect, she believes this was the best thing. She
elaborated on that situation and the impact that it had in her decision to major in civil
engineering:
I had to go to community college because my sister went to private school. It was
very expensive and so my parents had me go to a community college, which I am
kind of thankful for because there I was kind of able to expose myself to different
major and finally came up with civil engineering, which was great. I wanted to
do something to do with design and mathematics and physics and I thought
architecture would be it, but when I went into it, it was more designed based and
less physics and math. I found engineering and realized there were a lot of
engineering fields, so I picked civil engineering.
The example above demonstrates the important role that community colleges can play to
broadening the participation of underrepresented students in STEM fields. This is
specifically relevant to broadening the participation of Latinos, as this student population
enrolls in community college at higher rates than other student populations.
Like many other students in this study, Ruby has made the choice not to work in
order to focus on the demands of her major. She said that she was very excited that for
the first time in her college career she would be able to receive financial aid, which
includes a Pell grant, two scholarships, and a loan. At the community college, she was
not eligible to receive any financial assistance and had to pay tuition out of her pocket or
with scholarships. She acknowledges that the financial help she receives is not enough,
but sees it as an investment in her future.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
116
Ruby nominated Professor Francisco as her institutional agent. She indicated in
her survey that Professor Francisco had enacted five out of the 26 institutional agent
characteristics. All of the five characteristics were related to direct support type actions.
She said that Professor Francisco:
• Knows and shares strategies about how to navigate college
• Is a role model
• Makes sure she utilizes resources effectively
• Helps her believe in herself and her potential
• Empowers her to be a leader and make a difference in her community
Ruby expanded on her relationship with Professor Francisco:
I only had [Professor Francisco] for one class—introduction to civil
engineering—but what I really liked was how we motivated us. Sometimes even
though you know what you’re going to do and you know you’re going to do it,
you still need to see someone who’s done it before to kind of have the
encouragement to do it. To see…to hear him tell us that the first-generation
student as well and he went all the way to Ph.D., which is amazing. That was
very inspiration for me. I kind of always keep that in my head. I think as
Hispanics as I said before, most parents look at the economic and it’s all about
working hard and work hard but in the end you don’t gain that wisdom that you
could or that education you could have gained. I’m really amazed at him, so I
always think about him. For me, that’s probably one of the things that have stood
out at [EU].
Although Ruby has not been at EU for a long time and has only taken one class with
Professor Francisco, she has received his direct support, as he has demonstrated to be a
resource agent who utilizes his personal story as a personal resource for students.
Professor Francisco in a tenure-track professor in the college of engineering. He
is also a first-generation college graduate. Several of the other institutional agents in this
study mentioned Professor Francisco and identified him as an exemplar of a faculty who
inspires students and offers personal and institutional resources to help them succeed. He
is recognized at EU as a role model for students, especially for Latino students in
engineering. Unfortunately, Professor Francisco was not available to participate in this
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
117
study. He responded to the multiple requests to participate in the study by saying that he
wish he had the time to participate, but was simply too busy to be part of the study.
Although he was not able to participate, Ruby’s account of the impact he had on her
personally is compelling and illustrates one of the ways he acts as an institutional agent.
For Ruby, being able to relate to Professor Francisco culturally was important.
Many underrepresented students do not have academic role models that they could
interact with on a very personal level, therefore, seeing them as role models and an
inspiration. She explains:
There are always going to be those professors who motivate you, but it’s different
when they don’t come from the same background that you do and just knowing
that he did and went through the same that you’re going through, even more he
went through a Ph.D. and you haven’t even been there yet; you’re not even close.
That was really inspiration and also putting things into perspective, stepping aside
from the civil engineering. I’m a person and you’re a person, so let’s talk person
to person. I don’t have to be your professor this whole time. Just tell me and
think like that. For me that was really important.
She added:
I think for me, professors are really important that they don’t just teach material,
but they apply it to real life and they see you as student to a point where they care
about you’re learning. Not only that, but that they’re open to hearing from you
about things having to do with school and also in your personal life or anything
and just knowing that they’re there for you. I think it’s really important.
[Professor Francisco] was really open to it. I want to feel like my professor really
cares about me passing this class. It’s not just, “I am going give you information
and do what you can with it.” It’s more like, “this is the information, this is how
you’re going to apply it, and I want you to pass so please just feel free if you have
any questions about anything—come to me.” That class was just an introduction
class, so it wasn’t hard or anything, but just knowing that he was available in case
you had any other questions about anything—it was great. It’s important that
professors are like that and are open to you in anything you might need. For me,
that was really important.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
118
In the statement below, Ruby explained how Professor Francisco has showed her
to use resources effectively and provided her with tools that will serve her well in her
career.
He provided us with every tool that we could ever need. In his power point
presentation, he explained what we needed for the professional engineers (P.E.)
license—what you need, what courses you should take, what you will be tested on
and you can do afterward with your P.E. He provided us with those tools, even
for freshmen and transfers. He gave us all the tools available around campus and
everything. He told us about the computer labs. He didn’t just give us a map and
say go for it. He described every resource the campus has for us and so that was
great. I didn’t know and I didn’t learn that even in transfer orientation. I was
very thankful.
The example above illustrates that Professor Francisco is interested in preparing his
students for success in and out of the engineering field. By introducing them to the P.E.
license requirements, he set high expectations early on in the curriculum and provided a
road map for them to follow, so they can pass the license exam before graduating.
Additionally, by explaining the diverse campus resources in class, he lets students know
that there are others on campus that care about their success. Given the many demands
that Professor Francisco has, especially as an untenured professor, encouraging students
to seek others when he is not available seems to be a strategic and collaborative form of
supporting students.
Professor Beth
Professor Beth was one of two institutional agents that were nominated twice.
The first student who nominated her indicated that she exemplified six out of the 26
institutional agent actions listed on the survey. All of the actions that the first student
marked were related to direct support. On the other hand, the second student that
nominated her indicated that she had enacted 26 out of the 26 institutional agent actions.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
119
Since the students that nominated Professor Beth were not available to participate in the
study, it is difficult to say why there is a difference on their perceptions of the support
they have received from her. Based on Professor Beth’s interview and the students’
nomination, she is a system developer and offers direct support; integrative support;
system linkage and network support. She also embodies empowerment agent
characteristics. Table 4.7 shows the types of support she provides for her students.
Table 4.7: Professor Beth’s Institutional Agent Roles and Characteristics
Direct Support Integrative Support System Developer
þResource Agent
þKnowledge Agent
þAdvisor
þAdvocate
þNetworking Coach
þIntegrative Agent
þCultural Guide
þProgram Developer
þLobbyist
Political Advocate
System Linkage & Network Support Empowerment Agent
þRecruiter
þBridging Agent
þInstitutional Broker
þCoordinator
þAccesses or provides resources or
knowledge pertinent to navigating the
system
þDecodes the system
þQuestions the system and envisions an
alternative system
Teaches students to question the
system and envision an alternative
system
Engages students in changing some
key aspects of the system
þIs in a position of power/authority
Professor Beth has been at EU for 24 years. She is a faculty member and the
director of a program that supports underrepresented students in the college of science.
She is a first-generation college graduate. Although she says that her first-generation
college graduate experience allows her to relate to her students, she recognizes that she
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
120
grew up in a privileged home and had access to a high quality private education. Her
motivation to do the work that she does is because she personally understands the
challenges her students face. She elaborates on her motivations:
Their success motivates me and I think…I feel like my experience before I took
over, just as a regular faculty member, there are a lot of people who don’t have
any respect for students who are different than what they expect. You
know…they expect people who come to college and know what it’s all about and
are like them and they, to some extent, put down students who are not like them.
They notice in their classes who doesn’t do well, and so they stereotype because I
think that’s true, even as a faculty member, I noticed that there was a discrepancy
in grades. I also knew because I worked with the previous director that things like
the workshops really helped, so I got to know students who were not the A
students in the class, but were maybe C students, but you can see how people
grow and that was what I wanted to do. This was my way to help people grow
into what they can be and instead of just saying, “Oh, you got a C in my class or a
D in my class and I’m not going to worry about you or think about you”. There
are faculty who will not pay attention to anybody unless they’re A or B students,
and so if a student goes and asks a faculty member for a letter and you didn’t get
an A or a B, you might not get that letter. They pass over the 2.7 to 3.0 GPA
people, you know, even for research programs. They want the very best in their
lab and I think sometimes you miss somebody who is potentially really very good.
I think that…you know, that’s part of what I wanted to try to change.
She talked about her own college experience to talk about the importance of her work:
I never had a mentor; I never had anybody tell me, “This is what you should do to
prepare for graduate school.” I mean, it wasn’t until, you know, I was getting to
graduate and I was actually doing research for somebody who was like,”What are
you going to do?” And so it was like, “Oh, maybe you should apply to graduate
school,” and then they told me which graduate schools to apply to, but I never had
anybody actually even help me how to study…how to network. I never learned
how to network until I went to graduate school, I think you know, those are the
things I know I missed, and I think would have been helpful. I would have been
able to do better or to…you know, you have…I don’t know, do things different,
but I was very fortunate, I had a major professor who cared because a lot them
don’t take women. He was one of the few who took women and he had had two,
only two women other than me.
During her interview, it was evident that she drew from her personal experiences and
professional knowledge to best support her students. She did not want students to miss
opportunities that would increase their likelihood to advance science and their lives. For
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
121
that, a few years ago, the White House recognized her. She received a presidential award
that recognized her as an exemplary mentor to underrepresented students and innovator in
science education.
direct support. Professor Beth’s primary responsibility as director of the equity-
based program is to provide direct support to students. The students involved with her
program go to her when they’re faced with challenges, whether those challenges are
academic or personal. Professor Beth, more than any other institutional agent in this
study, focused on providing support that encourages and prepares students to pursue a
graduate degree. Through her program, she provides resources to prepare students for
graduate school and the entrance exams associated with admissions into graduate school.
During the interview, she showed me an alumni directory that listed many of the students
that have gone on onto graduate school and great careers. This book is available to
students as well, so they can be reminded that they can also achieve their goals.
Like many of the other institutional agents in this study, she has written numerous
letters of recommendation for summer research programs and graduate programs. I
found a news release about Professor Beth’s presidential award. In that press release one
of her former students said:
[Professor Beth] played a crucial role in my preparation and acceptance to
medical school…Now that I look back, I can honestly say that without her
mentoring and guidance I might not have had this opportunity. I was the first in
my family to attend college, so when I decided to become a physician I had no
one to turn to for support and guidance except [Professor Beth].
That testimony demonstrates the magnitude of Professor Beth’s advocacy, knowledge,
resources, and advice on student success and persistence.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
122
integrative support. Professor Beth also provided integrative support to students.
She introduced her students to network and professional communities related to their
disciplines. She also encourages her students to leave their neighborhood and experience
living away from their families. She understands that sometimes this is a big challenge,
but she tries nonetheless. She believes in the importance of exposing students to different
things, since many of them have not have the resources or social capital to experience
them on their own. She explains how she provides integrative support:
What I want to do is for them is to find out when you graduate, this is the world
you’re going to be in, this is the professional work, so that’s why I bring alumni,
so they can talk about what was it like to go through graduate school, what’s it
like as a physician, as a research scientist, what are the demands of those careers.
That’s why I write letters. I am really big on some of the research program that
are out of state…go to the Midwest, go to the east coast and …because that’s
going to be their network. So that’s what I feel part of my role is to show them—
“This is where you’re going to be, and so now you’ve gotta get ready for the
world,” and the best way I think are the summer programs and people who do
research here, so we have them do research here. I have some research program
and I want them to go to regional and national conferences. Again, to see, “oh my
goodness, there are people like me. Not a whole bunch, but there are a few,” and
other students give poster and stuff. I want them to go whether or not they’re
presenting.
system developer. Professor Beth is a system developer who uses her status and
program’s data to lobby support and resources for students. She has expanded several
components of her program by rallying support from her college’s dean, other faculty,
and external funders. Recently, she was able to expand the mentorship and research
components of the program. In addition, she was able to develop a first-year experience
program in which students take classes as a cohort. She explains her role as a system
developer:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
123
We’re very fortunate that we have a lot of faculty support, you know, because
they see how well our students can do in their classes because we always involve
whoever is teaching a particular course in our academic excellence workshop.
We make sure our facilitators are talking to the instructor about the worksheets,
about how the class is doing, how the workshops are doing, and so have a lot of
support from faculty and I think that’s a bonus, plus faculty come in and out.
They walk through the area and they talk to the students. I have faculty come to
our first-year experience course so they get to know faculty and I think that has
been a huge support. And, we have the space because of the dean, so we have a
lot of support and I think part of it is because I’m able to show certain data that
we really do make a difference.
system linkage and network support. Professor Beth assesses the needs of her
students continuously. In recent years, she has noticed that students are not adequately
prepared to write research papers or communicate effectively. To attempt to solve this
issue, she has used her network and position within the university to collaborate with the
English department. She talked about her concerns and progress related to this matter:
I’ve talked with the English and Foreign Language department. We’ve not come
up with the real solution other than, “well, you gotta make them read and write.
Well, how do you do that if they’re not doing it in class? And, once people finish
their general education courses, they’re not going to be doing a lot of writing.
They’ll be doing some lab report, but not like a lot of research and writing in the
STEM field. So, that’s kind of an issue. And, I do believe we have inequities in
technology, that’s why we have computers here and we have a printer because
some people don’t have that at home.
For that reason, she has been intentional in incorporating more writing and reading
assignments into her curriculum. She also ensures that she works with others in the
college of science to make computer labs and free printing available for her students.
Despite the amount of work it takes to write and manage a grant, Professor Beth
recently wrote a faculty development grant to encourage faculty to become effective
mentors for transfer students in STEM. She explained:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
124
Like I got a really small transfer student grant and so I brought in a different
biology faculty, a different chemistry faculty, and a different physics faculty to be
part of that, in addition to the ones I already worked with. I think then they begin
to see some of the things we do and some of the positive aspects and they get to
know students and I think just people doing more…I encourage them to do more
project-based projects and make connections with students, that’s when they get
to know students or be a club advisor, you know.
In addition to being an example of a program developer, this action demonstrates how
she is a bridging agent between other faculty and students.
empowerment agent. While her interview shows that she is strategic and
intentional in her approaches, it was not obvious if she engaged and taught students how
to question an alternative system. Professor Beth seemed deeply concerned and
committed to closing equity gaps for underrepresented students in STEM fields. She is
aware of the inequities that exists and is willing to take action to remediate those on a
programmatic level.
Professor Meena
Professor Meena is a tenure-track faculty member in the college of engineering.
She comes from a lineage of engineers and a highly educated family. She has been at EU
since 2009 and this is her first teaching position after graduate school. She chose to work
at EU because of its diversity. She explained that she wanted to work at a school where
she could make a difference in students’ lives. She was extremely surprised that she had
been nominated to participate in this study. She could not identify what she had done to
merit this nomination. She explained:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
125
I don’t know what I personally have done. Yeah, I am not of Hispanic origin.
My family is of Indian descent, so it’s not that I have a personal connection to
them. So, how would I relate to my Latino students?
She continued:
So, I would tell you, I don’t think I single out a student per se. If they’re willing
to come to me, I am going to give them everything I can, so I’m going to be just
as motivational regardless of their backgrounds…I treat everyone the same.
Professor Meena’s statements are not uncommon. Many faculty in this study talked from
a pluralistic point of view and many, to some degree, were apprehensive of speaking
about racial/ethnic inequities. Her perspective may also be influenced by her perceptions
that the campus does not have equity issues because there is a critical mass of Latino
students in her classes and on campus.
Joseph, the student that nominated Professor Meena, is a senior transfer student
who is majoring in civil engineering. He is also a first-generation college student.
Regrettably, Joseph was unable to participate in this study. However, in his preliminary
student survey, he indicated that Professor Meena had performed 14 out of the 26
institutional agent behaviors and actions listed on the survey. Table 4.8 illustrates the
type of support that corresponded to those indicators. Based on the survey and her
interview, Professor Meena provided direct and integrative support.
Table 4.8: Professor Meena’s Institutional Agent Roles and Characteristics
Direct Support Integrative Support System Developer
þResource Agent
þKnowledge Agent
þAdvisor
þAdvocate
Networking Coach
þIntegrative Agent
Cultural Guide
Program Developer
Lobbyist
Political Advocate
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
126
Table 4.8: (continued)
direct support. Although Professor Meena is available to meet with students,
during her interview, she confessed that she keeps her door closed to work on her
research and publications. At this point, her main way of providing direct support is by
writing letters of recommendation and referring students to other resources on campus, as
they need them. She also advises students on the different research opportunities they
can apply to for the summer and throughout the year, especially the ones that are on
campus.
integrative support. Professor Meena, like many other institutional agents in
this study, placed a great value on research opportunities. One of the strategies that
Professor Meena has used to encourage her student to take advantage of these
opportunities is to incorporate researching them in her class. She also makes writing a
letter of interest for summer program part of her class. Professor Meena was, then, able
to provide them with feedback and help them improve their letter in class instead of
System Linkage & Network Support Empowerment Agent
Recruiter
Bridging Agent
Institutional Broker
Coordinator
Accesses or provides resources or
knowledge pertinent to navigating the
system
Decodes the system
Questions the system and envisions an
alternative system
Teaches students to question the
system and envision an alternative
system
Engages students in changing some
key aspects of the system
Is in a position of power/authority
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
127
outside of class. This exercise also signaled that she had high expectations for students
and that she cared about their success.
Professor Meena’s interview was unique because she provided information about
the challenges she faces as an untenured faculty member. She was very candid about the
structural challenges and how she has attempted to be part of committees that align with
her commitment to student success. She explains:
Mentoring and advising is not valued in the tenure process. It depends on who’s
evaluating, so I’m the chair of our advising committee in our department and our
admissions, so the two committees I get totally involved in personally and that’s
what I care about personally. I want to get the best students and then I want to
give them the best advice to make sure they succeed. I don’t worry about the
other stuff because I can’t worry about everything, so I picked things I wanted to
worry about and I took ownership of it, but I can tell you when it comes to
advising, some faculty look at it as, “Aren’t you just supposed to do that?” What
do you do? What kind of advise do you give? Very few faculty really give
advice. A few do, a few don’t. Some care, some don’t. So that’s what I would
tell you there is that…it is very interesting in that sense. It’s not valued by our
college anymore, right. So they’ve hired an advising coordinator. However, how
is this one woman is going to handle 4000 engineering students? There’s no way.
They want her to…she was telling me today they want her to see all the freshmen.
That is going to take up her whole time. What kind of advice is she going to be
able to provide? They want her to see everyone who’s in trouble…I mean,
they’re very close to being disqualified. I think a 2.2 is in trouble now. I think
they’re in a little trouble. I mean, who wants to hire them? I mean, our dean is
more worried about money, “So how much money are you bringing in?” If I can
bring in a million dollars…I can do nothing. I can sit on my butt, I can get
poor…I mean, I can get decent teaching evaluations, and I could be done.
She continues:
I mean, it’s turning into that, USC, UCLA, I think it’s state budget driven. I think
if you talk to faculty members, you would hear from them it’s not the same school
and it’s not the same school I signed up for three years ago and I was telling one
of my colleagues, I go, “What would not make you go to UCLA right now?”
Because I teach 12 units and I research or try and do research, and I write papers
and then advise students. I can go to USC or UCLA, I teach four units a quarter, I
have 15 graduate students to do my research for me, all I have to worry about is
bringing in money to make sure they’re fed and they can do their work. If you’re
now telling me I’ve got to do all this research and all this teaching on top of being
a great advisor and mentor to my students, what’s going to give, what’s going
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
128
to…something’s going to lose out on…and so the courses haven’t been improved
in a year and a half, I haven’t touched it. You know.
Professor Meena’s statements illustrate the reality that many faculty face. How do they
do it all? Professor Meena values and would like to be a great advisor, but she cannot
dedicate her time to advising students when it is not valued and will not give her tenure.
Professor Nataly
Professor Nataly is a professor in the college of science. She is also a coordinator
for an undergraduate and graduate research program that focuses on supporting
underrepresented students in their pursuit of a STEM graduate degree. She explained the
purpose of the research program and her role in it:
The [program], as you may be aware, is a bridge to our Ph.D. program. All of our
student not only are encouraged, but also required to go into a Ph.D. program
when they come into our program. I should rephrase that. We have three
categories. We have the invitational students who are considering research and
perhaps a Ph.D. This way we give them an avenue of getting into a lab and
explore science at the very beginning of research level. Then, we have the
intensive undergraduate students, which are maybe senior students who do know
that they want to go into a Ph.D. program and now have to be exposed to intense
research and learn about the GRE, learn about how to make posters, how to go to
meetings, they learn about Ph.D. programs, how to apply to Ph.D., and they take
their GREs. They are subjected to a tremendous amount of information, which I
think is absolutely great. All of these things are essential for them to move on.
Then, we have the graduate intensive program and these are grad students in our
master’s programs here who perhaps were not sure they wanted to go into a Ph.D.,
but at this stage now their doing the master’s program and they will be so much
better prepared when they get into their Ph.D. At the master’s level they have to
write a thesis and they have to defend their thesis. So when they get to the Ph.D.
program, they already know what they’re dealing with.
She explains her role:
My role in all of this is that I’m the graduate coordinator so I talk to our grad
students to see if they’re having or issues and what those issues are to see if we
can resolve them somehow. Basically, it’s a lot of listening.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
129
Although her roles as an advisor, knowledge agent, and resource agent are
attached to her job responsibilities, she demonstrated passion and was excited to share the
many things that she has been able to accomplish through this program. Professor Nataly,
as a first-generation Latina college undergraduate, was involved in a program similar to
the one that she coordinates. She credits that program to her success as a scientist and
educator. Professor Nataly explains her motivation to support Latino and other
underrepresented students:
I grew up in Mexico City so I grew up bilingual and bicultural. I know where a
lot of these kids are coming from. I grew up in a single parent home which was
my mother so you know where a lot of these kids are coming from and you know
that they need a lot of extra help. I try to help them by talking to them and by
listening to them and just telling them a little bit about myself and see if that helps.
I think it might help some of them seeing a woman with a family with young
children being in my position that they can achieve the same thing. I think it
might help some of them to see that. I’ve had some students say wow, so you
have a family, you’re a woman, and you’re here and you could do this so it means
that I could do it too. I’ve had some actually say that, so I know that some of
them are getting some of that.
An institutional agent does not need to share the same socio-economic or cultural
background to be effective. However, research shows that students feel more
comfortable approaching faculty who may understand them better because of their shared
background and experiences (Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005).
Maria, the student who nominated Professor Nataly, was not able to participate in
this study. However, in her survey she indicated that Professor Nataly had performed all
26 institutional agent-type actions and behaviors listed. Based on the survey and
Professor Nataly’s interview, she offers her students direct support, integrative support,
and system linkage and networking support. She also possesses many characteristics of
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
130
an empowerment agent. Table 4.9 illustrates the roles that she enacts within each support
category.
Table 4.9: Professor Nataly’s Institutional Agent Roles and Characteristics
Direct Support Integrative Support System Developer
þResource Agent
þKnowledge Agent
þAdvisor
Advocate
Networking Coach
þIntegrative Agent
þCultural Guide
Program Developer
Lobbyist
Political Advocate
System Linkage & Network Support Empowerment Agent
þRecruiter
Bridging Agent
Institutional Broker
þCoordinator
þAccesses or provides resources or
knowledge pertinent to navigating the
system
þDecodes the system
þQuestions the system and envisions an
alternative system
Teaches students to question the
system and envision an alternative
system
Engages students in changing some
key aspects of the system
þIs in a position of power/authority
direct support. Professor Nancy, like many of the other institutional agents in
this study, provides direct support to her students. The example below provides an
example of the challenges her students face and the approach she takes to advise them.
I work with students directly. A lot of students come as advisees. They’re having
problems with their classes; they have a lot on their plate, and they can’t manage
their classes and their family life. I had one particular student who was very
young single mother who was struggling through her biology classes and we
talked and what ended up happening is that I told her to give [herself] another
chance before—she was going to switch majors to something that was easier,
psychology—but I thought she was a quite bright young lady, so I asked her to
give it just another shot to try now that her situation had improved. Give it
another shot in biology if that’s what she really wanted to do. One of the first
things that I ask my students is, or the students that come see me, is what do you
want to do? What makes you happy?
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
131
The encouragement and advice that Professor Nataly provides is important because she
sees her students’ life circumstances as a challenge, but not as detriment to her success.
Through her approach, she also communicated that she trusts her students’ ability to
succeed as well as her genuine concern and support for what is in their best interest.
integrative support. Professor Nataly, as others have already stated throughout
this study, understands the importance of developing students’ scientific identify and
prepare them for post-baccalaureate education. Providing integrative support allows
students to gain valuable academic and professional experiences that will make the
competitive for graduate school and career opportunities. She explains how she provides
this type of support:
During the academic year the kids do their research, they do a GRE workshop and
they do poster presentations. I teach them how to write a manuscript, that’s one
of my roles here during the academic year. During the summer, I give them a
Ph.D. application workshop: how to look for Ph.D. programs, how to apply for
Ph.D. programs, and what do they need to apply for Ph.D. program. I get former
students either from the [program] or former Cal Poly students who went through
the same situation who are now in Ph.D. programs, so that they can tell them
about their stories. There’s one young lady who came, she has two children, and
she’s now at the City of Hope working on her Ph.D. and she came and gave a talk,
she said with one baby and another child and she’s going through that Ph.D. and
she gave that talk and it was just really tremendous for my students to hear. This
was especially meaningful for the women in the room because they sometimes
have different cultural expectations.
These actions consequently makes her a cultural guide, as these experiences provide
students with the tools and funds of knowledge necessary to participate in an unfamiliar
cultural realm, such as graduate school in a STEM discipline.
system linkage and networking support. Professor Nataly’s position as the
graduate coordinator for the structured research program allows her to recruit
underrepresented students into the program, which facilitates her to enact the role of a
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
132
recruiter. She stated that Latino students make up 80% to 90% of the students enrolled in
the program. She asserts that the high percentage is a mere reflection of the institution’s
enrollment, as Latino students represent the majority of students and are the largest ethnic
minority at the institution. Although her program is considered a high impact program,
she recognizes its limitations. The program has limited space and it targets students who
have a 3.0 grade point average. As a coordinator, she has assessed the needs of the
students and understands the challenges that they face, which also limit their eligibility to
participate in programs like hers. She explains:
I think that a lot of our students as you have a wide range of backgrounds, and I’m
not talking cultural backgrounds. I’m talking academic backgrounds. Some have
come from very poor high schools, some have come from better high schools, and
of course, the ones that come from the better high schools are going to do well in
our classes. That is seen repeatedly. Unfortunately, a lot of our Latino students
do not have the background. They may have all the intellectual ability, but they
don’t have the background so it’s going to take them a little while to catch up.
That may translate to taking those remedial courses and that just puts them a little
bit behind. In my opinion that’s okay as long as they have the intellectual ability
and eventually catch up, but that’s mostly for English and math. What do you do
about science, about biology, and chemistry courses?
Although the assessment of her students has not resulted in structural changes she has
attempted to make changes in her classroom to address those concerns. The following
example not only shows the complexities that result from a desire to address the issues, it
also shows her reflectiveness and willingness to persist at supporting her students.
In a quarter system, as you know, they have to get on the train and go at the same
speed as the train and get off ten weeks later and that’s the way we all feel. I
think that somehow in our courses we have to consider all those students and give
them the opportunity to get up to speed. How do we do that without leaving all
the other guys? Well not leaving them, but you either leave some behind or you
just disregard the other ones. I think that’s something that we struggle with….I
frankly don’t know how to address it other than just being repetitious in class;
quizzing them, being repetitious, even if it sounds dumb just repeating and
quizzing them on that. Unfortunately, then you have the students who always
answer and they are the ones that already know. I went to a workshop last
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
133
December and they talked about active teaching or active learning so I try to
implement some of that but I don’t think it was very effective. I have to improve
my methodology.
empowerment agent. Professor Nataly is aware of the issues and believes that
there is a lot of work to do to improve the quality of education for all students. While the
interview did not reveal that she has been engaged in actions to change structures or
policies, her awareness of the issues and the support she offers the students through the
structured research program indicates that she fulfills the characteristics of an
empowerment agent.
Summary
The previous section presented concrete examples of the different ways that faculty
institutional agents support their students and the impact that their support has had on the
students’ personal and academic experiences. It also illustrated that institutional agents
can fulfill multiple roles simultaneously or independently. All the institutional agents
provided different types and levels of support, which depended on the needs of their
students, their position within the structure of the university, and personal motivations
and ideologies. Table 4.10 illustrates the different types of support the institutional
agents in this study provided. It is important to note that while institutional agents may
have provided the same types of support, they might have enacted different roles within
each of the support categories and furthermore, performed those roles in very distinct
manners.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
134
Table 4.10: Summary of faculty’s institutional agent roles
In regards to the empowerment agent role, many of the institutional agents were
classified as empowerment agents because of their positions at EU and understanding of
the inequitable educational conditions that Latinos and other underrepresented students
have faced. For the most part, the institutional agents in the study demonstrated that they
empowered students with an array of institutional support. However, it was unclear
whether most of them were willing to not participate in practices and policies that
contribute to the educational inequities and barriers that the students experience. While
they may be effective in their roles as institutional agents, if they are not willing to utilize
their awareness and social consciousness to change oppressive structures, they are
inadvertently promoting the status quo (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). The role of
empowerment agents in STEM fields is significant because of the intricacies and
complexities of these fields. One of the tenets of empowerment agents relates to
decoding the system. Decoding the system in STEM is because it entails helping students
develop “an awareness of what resources and funds of knowledge are needed to achieve
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
135
within the system at a precise moment in time, while envisioning a different social order,
combined with understanding of what structures ultimately need to be dismantled”
(Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 27). Further, it provides students with the knowledge and
coping skills necessary to engage with people and networks that may reject their
participation in such highly coveted fields such as STEM (Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
Motivations and Constraints
This section presents the motivations and constraints that the institutional agents
in this study experienced. The faculty were motivated to act as institutional agents by
their concern for their students’ success, as well as by their personal experiences in
STEM fields and education. This study found that the institutional agents’
approachability and expressions of care were critical to the student-institutional agent
relationship, for both the students and faculty. Caring was the impetus for supporting
students, but the institutional agents’ relationship to otherness, or having experiences of
being an “outsider” in a STEM field, was also instrumental to developing trust with
students and having a critical consciousness. Despite caring for students and their
knowledge about the inequities that exist, many of the institutional agents operated in
contradiction; they talked about their work with students without acknowledging the
structural inequities that contributed to the underrepresentation of low-income Latinos in
STEM at EU.
Approachability and Caring
Faculty behaviors and actions give student cues about their approachability.
Those same cues also lead students to determine if the faculty cares about them as
individuals and students. In this study, the most salient theme that emerged from all of
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
136
the interviews was the concept of caring. When the students were asked why they had
nominated their faculty institutional agent, every single student answered that because
their faculty cared about them and their success. Similarly, when faculty were asked
about what made them effective institutional agents, they responded with a similar
answer—because they cared. Rendón and Muñoz (2011) affirmed that “simple actions
such as calling students by name, expressing concern, and offering assistance can go a
long way toward building caring, validating relationships with students” (p.25). Those
simple gestures and actions have made a profound impact on students and have become
the gateway for institutional agents to use their social capital to benefit students.
Caring about students may not necessarily translate into social justice oriented or
socially conscious behavior and actions. However, caring about students may be the
vehicle for faculty to reflect on their practices, and explore how they can become the best
teacher and change agent for students.
There are perceived and real costs to caring. One of the institutional agents
expressed that in STEM fields caring is looked down upon because it is in juxtaposition
with the culture of rigor and weeding out the weak that is so deeply embedded in these
fields. He elaborated:
The least caring college in the university is engineering and it’s not that faculty
don’t care, they don’t even think to care…there are faculty there who think to care
is wrong to convey that that care, you know, “you’ve gotta be strong. I’ve just
got to treat you like a non-person. That will hopefully motivate the engineer in
you,” but for as many folks who might be motivated with that, there are many that
get [discouraged].
In contrast, another faculty member stated the following:
I love my students as corny as that sounds, but I really love them. If I see a kid
that is genuine about their intentions, comes to me, and says, “I’m lost”, or
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
137
something like that I just feel for them. I’m like let’s see if we can get you found.
If I can’t help you let’s just talk a little bit. I just care about them.
Stanton-Salazar (2001) would consider this caring relationship as bonding and integration,
which he describes as follows:
When such bonding between agent and student becomes a defining characteristic
of the school community as whole, students experience a certain “we-ness,” a
collective identity that is highly constant with increased effort, engagement, and
academic achievement. In sum: school personnel treat students in a caring
manner, creating conditions for “bonding”; in turn, students come to identify with,
and conform to, the established order; now integrated, students experience a
heightened degree of motivation and make the necessary efforts to meet academic
demands (p. 13).
In other words, if students know that there is someone who cares about them, will support
them, and have high expectations of them; they will rise to challenge and be motivated to
succeed.
The real cost of caring according to a few of the faculty is burnout, hopelessness,
and frustration. Faculty are being asked to teach higher course loads, do more research,
be better advisors; however, at the same time, resources have become scarce. They also
feel that students are coming to college with more complex challenges that are beyond
their “pay grade.”
Relationship to ‘Otherness’
All of the institutional agents in this study had experiences that had made them an
“outsider” or an “other” in education and/or in a STEM discipline. Four out of the six
institutional agents in this study are women; they spoke candidly about their experiences
as women in fields that are traditionally dominated by males. The two male faculty in the
study are men of color and had also experienced some of the challenges that their
students face. The institutional agents’ insights about what it feels to be an “outsider” in
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
138
academia creates a common ground in which students can feel comfortable being
themselves, share their challenges, and trust that their institutional agents will truly
understand them. Although studies have shown that the race or ethnicity of an
institutional agent becomes less important when this person shows genuine interest in the
students’ success, the students in this study explained the importance of relating to their
institutional agent’s cultural and socio-economic background.
Operating in Contradiction
The institutional agents in this study had good intentions and acted in good faith.
The students and faculty interviews revealed that most of the faculty members were
compassionate and provided remarkable levels of direct support. They understood, or
tried to understand, the complex challenges that students faced and were willing to
support them to overcome those challenges. However, they explicitly stated that they
chose not differentiate their practices to address the students’ needs and deconstruct the
unique barriers they faced. With the exception of Professors Phillip and Julio, the
institutional agents acted in color blindness, which according to Bensimon, et al. (2012),
prevents institutions from creating a Hispanic-serving culture by discouraging monitoring
or acknowledgement of Latino student participation and performance in STEM.
Esperanza University’s large number of Latinos in STEM fields perhaps inhibits faculty
from developing a consciousness about racial and ethnic educational disparities. This
perspective also prohibits faculty from engaging in institutional or empowerment agent
behaviors and actions, as their color-blind lens does not allow them to identify the
problem, nor view themselves as contributors to the problem or solution.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
139
Similarly, several faculty made statements about the reasons why so many Latino
students did not succeed in STEM that aligned with traditional college impact theories
that suggest that in order for students to succeed, they must disaffiliate with their ways of
knowing and world perspectives to join the culture of STEM and the traditional college
life. Throughout the interviews, the institutional agents blamed the families for the
students’ motivation and interest in succeeding. While it is true that there are challenges
created by the difference in cultural and familial expectations, there was a deficit tone to
these accusations or assumptions. They did not validate the capital that students brought
with them nor acknowledged the opportunities to develop structures and programs that
would help to dispel or deeply understand the root of those challenges.
Conclusion
The findings of this study indicate that the support that institutional agents offered
had positive effects on the experiences and educational outcomes of their students. This
case study contributes to the literature that asserts the importance of faculty-student
relationships on student persistence. Further, it contributes to Stanton-Salazar’s (2010)
institutional agent framework by explaining how and why these faculty members use
their position, authority, and social capital to deconstruct barriers and develop a climate
that counteracts the challenges that low-income Latino students in STEM fields face.
In the next and final chapter, I will discuss and present my analysis of the findings.
I also will present possible implications for practice and recommend potential directions
for future research. Lastly, I will share advice and words of wisdom for educators who
wish to make an impact as institutional agents from the faculty and students in this study.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
140
Chapter 5: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion
Despite the gains in access into higher education for Latinos, a gap in college
completion rates still exists for this student population. This gap is even greater for
Latinos in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines (STEM).
During 2009-2010 academic year, Latinos earned 8% of the bachelor’s degrees in STEM
(Santiago & Soliz, 2012). The underrepresentation of Latinos in STEM disciplines
threatens the likelihood that the United States will be able to remain competitive in the
global economy and that it will be able to fulfill the labor demands in those fields
(Carnavele, Smith, & Melton, 2011). For those reasons, Bensimon and Dowd (2012)
suggest that “institutions of higher education—and particularly Hispanic-Serving
Institutions (HSIs)—will need to develop concrete policies and practices aimed at
increasing STEM degree attainment” (pg. 2) for Latino students. Those practices include
exploring how institutional agents, particularly faculty, play a role in increasing the
persistence and degree attainment of low-income Latinos in STEM.
This study identified the ways in which faculty act as institutional agents for low-
income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
disciplines at Esperanza University, a Hispanic-serving Institution (HSI). The stories of
the five students and six faculty institutional agents who participated in this study
reinforce the significance of student-faculty relationships, as those relationships facilitate
the students’ integration into the academic and social fabric of the institution. Their
stories illustrate the different forms of support that faculty offer their students, which
characterizes them as institutional agents. The results of this study affirm that faculty
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
141
members are in a position to contribute positively and significantly to the educational
experience and success of underrepresented and marginalized students.
The following chapter reviews and discusses the findings that resulted from the
analysis of a preliminary student survey, student and faculty interviews, and the Center
for Urban Education’s (CUE) Institutional Agent Self-Assessment Inventory. This
chapter concludes with a consideration of possible implications for practice and future
research.
Review and Discussion of Findings
The preliminary student survey results provided a snapshot of the experiences of
low-income Latino students in STEM majors at Esperanza University. The survey results
revealed that many low-income Latino students could not identify an institutional agent at
the institution. This finding aligns with Stanton-Salazar’s (2010) notion that many
underrepresented and underprivileged youth oftentimes do not have a non-kin individual
that can access and offer support, social capital, or guidance. The survey provided
valuable information about which types of support the students receive from their
institutional agents. Students were more likely to identify actions and behaviors related
to direct support. This may be because some of the actions related to changing structures,
creating programs, or political advocacy may not be visible to students.
The student interviews contextualized the significance of the institutional agents’
roles and forms of support they offer to students. The students’ life histories not only
illustrated the circumstances and challenges they faced; they magnified the impact that
the institutional agents had on their personal and academic lives. For most students, their
faculty institutional agent served as a role model and reminder that they, too, could
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
142
overcome challenges, since many faculty members had to overcome similar changes in
their higher education path. Through the student interviews, I was able to collect
concrete examples about the different ways faculty provided support. As STEM students,
one of the most significant ways that a faculty could act as an institutional agent was by
exposing and embedding students into the STEM culture. The students relied on their
institutional agents’ extensive network, knowledge, and resources to connect them to
high-impact programs and resources, such as summer research, academic support, and
mentoring experiences.
The interviews with the faculty allowed me to categorize the types of support and
roles each of the faculty institutional agents enacted. In chapter 4, figure 4.10 presented a
summary of the types of support the institutional agents in this study provided to their
students. Although several institutional agents fulfilled the same supportive roles, this
study found that the support differed in delivery and scope. The level and support
sometimes depended on the faculty members’ own social capital and position within the
university structure, specifically within their academic and discipline structure. For
example, Professor Julio, who was a seasoned and tenured professor, was able to take on
an administrative and leadership position that afforded him the opportunity to use his
social capital to impact macro-level changes that would close equity gaps. Professor Julio
would have likely not been able to assume such leadership position if he did not have
tenure, respect from faculty and administration, or have an interest in creating change.
Professor Meena’s experience as an institutional agent also substantiates this finding. As
a junior and untenured faculty member, she did not perceive herself to have the ability to
be an institutional agent and make a difference in low-income Latino students. However,
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
143
she did find ways to provide some direct support to students by advising them and being
involved in committees that would provide her with opportunities to build her request for
tenure proposal and at the same time, help develop policies that facilitate student success.
The interviews also depicted the institutional agents’ motivations, ideologies, and
constraints that influenced how and to what extent they support students. The
institutional agents’ care and concern for their students was evident throughout the
interviews. Caring was the catalyst for the actions and behaviors of the faculty in this
study. By caring, the faculty provided cues, which made their students feel comfortable,
safe, and like they belonged. The institutional agents’ experience and relationship to
being an outsider or other in academia was also an important motivation for their desire
to support students. This study found that despite these motivations, it was challenging
or almost impossible to create substantial systematic change by themselves. Faculty
would need institutional and peer support to make inroads to closing equity gaps.
Moreover, faculty would need to become more conscious and intentional about
discussing racial and ethnic equity gaps within the context of an HSI. While Esperanza
University provides access to students, this same access can mask gaps and may
undermine the potential the university has to graduate more low-income Latino students
with a STEM degree.
Although the Institutional Agent Self-Assessment Inventory was employed, it did
not yield data that could help answer the research question posed by this study. In many
cases, the institutional agents refused to complete it because they felt that it was
irrelevant or redundant. For example, one faculty member said:
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
144
I didn’t complete the survey because I felt it was redundant that I was answering
with the same answers every time and I was giving the same answer. To me it
really held me back from doing it. I think for me, maybe this would work if you
were interviewing the ordinary faculty member who doesn’t always interact, but
for me, I think I was not helpful because it is a frequent thing, but it also is very
hard to distinguish, “OK, I do this for Latino students,” but I do it for everybody,
so it isn’t just Latino students.
The other faculty members had similar concerns and comments. For those reasons, the
limited data gathered through that tool was not included in the study’s findings and
discussions.
I would argue that the design of the tool was not the only reason why the
institutional agents did not complete the inventory. I believe that the apathy to the tool
was due to their discomfort to discuss race and/or identify the ways in which they
differentiate their practices to meet the needs of Latino students. The tool explicitly
asked institutional agents to engage in those discussions, which they responded by saying
that they did interacted with all of their students in the same manner. If faculty had taken
into account their Hispanic-Serving Institution context and propositions, perhaps they
would have felt more comfortable in responding.
Implications for Practice and Policy
An underlying goal of this study was to highlight exemplary institutional agents,
so that aspiring institutional agents, especially those at institutions like Esperanza
University, can learn from their practices, challenges, and motivations. Related to that
goal, this study also found that (1) educators and practitioners have a genuine interest in
supporting students and contributing to their learning; and, (2) there are structural barriers
that hinder the cultivation and capacity of institutional agents. The following section
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
145
presents several implications for practice and policy that can facilitate the development of
institutional agents.
Hiring Practices
Some literature has suggested that for Latino students the faculty’s racial or ethnic
background is not as important as the faculty members’ genuine interest and concern for
their success (Dayton, et al., 2004). However, the students in this study expressed that
knowing that they shared certain socio-economic or educational experiences with their
institutional agents inspired them to believe in themselves and their potential. Two out of
the six institutional agents in this study identified themselves as Latino or from a
Hispanic heritage. All of the institutional agents, as mentioned previously, had
experienced being an atypical member in their respective fields, which made them be
attuned to their students’ needs and experiences. This assertion leads to the
recommendation that greater efforts should be made to diversify the faculty at institutions
like HSIs through effective hiring strategies.
Several scholars (Smith, 2000; Smith, Turner, Osei-Kofi, Richards, 2004; Tuitt,
Danowitz Sagaria, & Turner, 2007; Umbach, 2006) have written about the need to
improve hiring strategies that will attract and retain faculty of color. The current hiring
practices are not proactive and are based on myths that impede the search process for
faculty of color. For example, in a study about how the job market treated a group of
Ph.D. graduates who had received prestigious Ford, Mellon, and Spencer Foundation
fellowships, Smith (2000) found that the widely accepted notion that the scarcity of
faculty of color in the sciences represents that those who are available are in high demand
is a myth. The scientists in her sample, all whom were persons of color, were pursuing
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
146
postdoctoral study. “Only 16 percent had held faculty positions. None of those doing
postdoctoral work had been sought out by colleges or universities. Indeed, many worried
about finding permanent jobs; others had already left academe for industry because of
their inability to find faculty positions” (pg. 2). Therefore, the concern about the scarcity
of faculty in the pipeline should not be the basis for institutions to avoid looking at their
recruitment and hiring processes, specially as research shows that recruiting
underrepresented faculty members has positive implications on student outcomes and
sense of belonging (Smith, 2000; Umbach, 2006).
Faculty Incentive and Reward System
The faculty incentive and reward system was one of the factors that the faculty in
this study identified as a challenge to being an institutional agent, especially for Professor
Meena who is an untenured junior faculty member. The current system at EU does not
prioritize, incentivize, or reward faculty for engaging students. This is despite the fact
that EU is part of a system that promotes itself as a student- and teaching-centered system.
There may be additional challenges for faculty in STEM disciplines. Those disciplines
may have a greater focus on maintaining their scientific identity by innovating, producing
research, and keeping up with technological advances related to their disciplines. This
expectation may also be heightened at institutions that feel pressured to mimic research
institutions to raise their prestige, and attract the best students and faculty as well as
external funding (O’Meara & Braskamp, 2005). These expectations limit STEM faculty
from spending more time advising, counseling, or interacting with students outside of the
classroom.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
147
To address this issue, I would suggest that institutions and academia reconsider or
redefine scholarship, service, and teaching for faculty members’ tenure and/or promotion.
I recognize that the tenure process is fundamental to the American professoriate culture;
therefore, it would be unrealistic to suggest dismissing it. In a study that examined how
different institutions aligned faculty reward systems and development to promote faculty
and student growth, O’Meara and Braskamp (2005) suggested that there be multiple ways
in which faculty work could be “counted” and rewarded. In this same study, the authors
found that campuses that had initiated this change and encouraged multiple forms of
scholarships were more likely to:
• Report an increase of faculty involvement in the scholarship of engagement,
the scholarship of teaching and learning, the scholarship of integration, and
service-learning.
• Report an increase in overall faculty satisfaction with roles and rewards.
• Report a higher percentage of tenure and promotion cases that emphasizes
their work in teaching and engagement scholarship.
• Report an increase in congruence between faculty priorities and institutional
mission.
These findings are important because these factors could increase the frequency and
quality of faculty-student interactions, which based on the findings of this study, could
positively influence student learning and development.
In relation to O’Meara and Braskamp’s (2005) findings about developing
congruency between faculty priorities and institutional mission is particularly relevant to
Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Hispanic-Serving Institutions require directed and
strategic efforts to fulfill their perceived mission. Therefore, it would be worthwhile
exploring how the current faculty reward and incentive structure aligns with the assumed
mission of Esperanza University to increase the retention and graduation rates of Latino
students.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
148
Faculty Development
In higher education, faculty may have entered their careers with minimal, if any,
professional training or experience as teachers. Faculty are trained to be experts in their
fields, which is important, but that expertise may not translate into effective teaching or
understanding student development. Gardiner (2000) explained that, “the lack of
professional training was perhaps understandable as long as relatively little was known
about how learning occurs, how college students develop, and what the effects of the
college experiences are on that development” (para. 2). He argues that neither relying on
that little knowledge is enough nor effective to teach the growing diverse student bodies
and “to produce the complex kinds of student outcomes required today by employers and
for effective citizenship” (para. 5).
I am not suggesting that the issues presented in this study could be resolved by
mandating faculty to attend a one-day cultural sensitivity or pedagogy training, although
it may helpful. The suggestion I am making is that the faculty development that is
established is intentional and sustainable. One of the ways that this could be
accomplished is by developing a network of faculty members who are interested in
closing equity gaps. This network of faculty would form a coalition to develop
professional development opportunities created and facilitated by them for other faculty
groups. Perhaps there may be better reception to engaging in faculty development if it is
not coming as a mandate, but instead grounded on the concept of life-long learning and
student-centeredness.
Many times the resistance to engage in professional development that provides
opportunities to address inequitable outcomes is due to feeling inadequate, unprepared, or
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
149
unknowledgeable to be able to contribute to the conversations or solutions. Therefore,
using institutional data make to understand where the gaps exists would be a tool to help
faculty develop a plan to explore the reasons why those gaps exists. This process could
include assessments of their teaching practices and interactions with students.
The implementation of this recommendation, however, is challenging because of
the systemic barriers associated with it. The current economic and political conditions of
public education in California are two of the principal challenges. The budget cuts to
education have overstretched faculty members. For example, they are being asked to
teach more classes or teach the same amount of classes with more students. These
working conditions have prompted the faculty union, which is one of the strongest in
California, to encourage faculty to keep their work within the boundaries of their
agreement with the university system. Therefore, faculty are resistant to do more than
what they are required to do. One of the institutional agents explains this challenge:
We’ve had a problem in that every time we suggest faculty development, we can’t
mandate it for many reasons, mainly contractual. Our faculty needs it for no other
reason but just to keep up with technology and other things. The problem is that
every time we do that we get the same people. That’s the key. We do have a real
problem in that we do have – and with all the budget problems – we have less
faculty to carry the load so everybody is now doing more administrative work;
more of this, more of that so there’s less time to do those other types of things that
are necessary and useful but the way the structure as evolved, we just don’t have
the time. The main thing that we do with this project is we provide the time. That
really is it, it’s not even that much time. Every time I see one of my colleagues in
physics, he just says thank you for giving us the time because that’s exactly what
we needed.
At the same time when low-income Latinos would benefit from the support and actions
of institutional agents, the economic and political climate limits the capacity and
development of existing and potential institutional agents.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
150
Recommendations for Future Research
The support that institutional agents offered had positive effects on their students’
experiences and educational outcomes. This case study was able to assert the importance
of faculty-student relationships on student persistence. Further, it contributed to Stanton-
Salazar’s (2010) institutional agent framework by explaining how and why these faculty
members use their position, authority, and social capital to deconstruct barriers and
develop a climate that counteracts the challenges that low-income Latino students in
STEM fields face. The following recommendations for future research would continue
building on the findings and purpose of this study.
Significant Others
This study adds to the existing literature that affirms that institutional agents, role
models, or “significant others” have a positive influence on the educational experience
and outcomes of marginalized or underrepresented students. Stanton-Salazar’s (2010)
Institutional Framework is founded on a strong sociological perspective that can be
informed and strengthen by theories and perspectives from other disciplines that also
explore the roles of "significant others” in student experiences and outcomes. A few of
these theories and frameworks that can strengthen the institutional agent framework
include:
a. Rendón’s (1994) Validation Theory
b. Valenzuela’s (1999) Politics of Caring
c. Espinoza’s (2011) Pivotal Moments
These theories may be particularly informative and relevant as institutional agents are
providing integrative and direct support. These theories and frameworks acknowledge
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
151
and recognize the systemic inequities; however, they focus on teaching or empowering
students to navigate those inequities instead of deconstructing them.
Empowerment Agents
The notion of empowerment agents needs to be further developed. Empowering
students can also be another strategy when there is a high risk involved or a high cost of
caring. Those who provide direct support can ensure that students are equipped to
navigate the system and eventually deconstruct the system when the students have gained
their own social capital. It would also be interesting to explore the actions and behaviors
of empowerment agents differ or adapt throughout the institutional hierarchy.
Several of those students who could not identify an Institutional Agent at
Esperanza University mentioned that peers and student organizations offered them
support. While there is vast literature on the positive influence of peers and student
organizations on student engagement and other outcomes, there may opportunities to
understand how these groups can enact the roles of institutional agents in the absence of
eligible institutional agents at a college or university.
Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Several researchers have included studying Hispanic-Serving Institutions into
their research agenda. In relation to this study, it would be important to: (1) gain a better
understanding of the experiences of faculty at HSIs, and (2) identify the strategies that
institutional leaders at HSIs implement to recruit, hire, and retain faculty who have
demonstrated a commitment to equity issues in and outside of the classroom.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
152
Advice from Faculty and Students
As part of the interview with students and faculty, I asked them to provide advice
to faculty who work with low-income Latino students in STEM fields and wish to make
an impact as institutional agents. Their advice is compelling and simple. The following
is a summary of their advice.
Advice from Students to Faculty
• Do not give up on students so easily and quickly.
• Remember the reason why you became a faculty member or a teacher, especially
during difficult times.
• Let your students surprise you by not buying into stereotypes and assumptions
about who they are and/or their abilities.
• Be friendly and be open-minded about different views and different cultures.
Advice from Faculty to Faculty
• Be proactive about outreaching to students who may be struggling or may not fit
the typical STEM student characteristics. This approach takes a lot of self-
reflection and intentionality, but it can make a difference.
• Really care about the person, care about each one of the people, and just try to
learn. If they are not from this culture, just try to learn about them. You should
show that that you care and be approachable.
Conclusion
For many underrepresented students, like low-income Latino students, higher
education is perceived to be one of the ways for them to have a better personal and
professional outlook. Although Latinos have gained access into higher education, more
can be done to provide greater access and broaden their participation and success in high
demand STEM fields. Although low-income Latino students face many challenges in
their pre-college life, once they get to the institution, faculty are critical to the students’
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
153
success. Knowing the importance of faculty and using Stanton-Salazar’s (2010)
institutional agent framework, this study examined the ways in which faculty members
enact the roles of an institutional agent and provide support to their students. The
findings reinforce the significance of faculty-student relationships and demonstrate how
faculty could use their positions within the university to stimulate transformative
experiences in and outside of the classroom that promote student success and equity.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
154
References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns,
and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/toolbox.html.
Anaya, G., & Cole, D. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of
student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student
Development, 42, 3-14.
Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2003). Activity faculty involvement: Maximizing student
achievement efforts. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the
minority: Expanding representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators, and
students in higher education (pp. 95-108). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, Inc.
Arbona, C., & Nora, A. (2007). The influence of academic and environmental factors on
Hispanic college degree attainment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(3), 247–
269.
Arellano, A. R., & Padilla, A. M. (1996). Academic invulnerability among a select group
of Latino university students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(4),
485-507.
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A.W., & Astin, H.S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education
in social change. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.
Baez, B., Gasman. M., & Sotello Viernes Turner, C. (2008). On Minority-Serving
Institutions. In M. Gasman, B. Baez & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding
Minority-Serving Institutions (pp. 3-27). New York, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Barton, P.E. (2003). Hispanics in science and engineering: A matter of assistance and
persistence. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Bensimon, E.M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in
the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-
469.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
155
Bensimon, E.M. (2010). Can research help us develop equity-minded faculty?
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from www.cce.umn.edu/Documents/CPE.../KOF-
2010-Estela-Bensimon.pdf.
Bensimon, E. M., Peña, E. V., & Castillo, C. (2004, November). The cognitive frames
which institutional actors interpret inequality in educational outcomes among
Black and Hispanic college students. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Kansas City, MO.
Berger, J.B., & Braxton, J.M. (1998). Revising Tinto’s Interactionalist Theory of Student
Departure through theory elaboration: Examining the role of organizational
attributes in the persistence process. Research in Higher Education, 39(2), 103-
119.
Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for science,
mathematics, and engineering majors. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 92-
111.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, NY:
Greenwood Press.
Bowen, W.G., Kurzweil, M.A., & Tobin, E.M. (2005). Equity and excellence in
American higher education. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Bridges, B. K., Cambridge, B., Kuh, G. D., & Leegwater, L. H. (2005). Student
engagement at Minority-Serving institutions: Emerging lessons from the BEAMS
project. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2005(125), 25-43. doi:
10.1002/ir.137
Bridges, B.K., Kinzie, J., Nelson Laird, T.F., & Kuh, G.D. (2008). Student engagement
and student success at Historically Black and Hispanic-Serving Institutions. In M.
Gasman, B. Baez & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding Minority-Serving
Institutions (pp. 217-236). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Cabrera, A.F., Castañeda, M.B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence
between two theories of college persistence. The Journal of Higher Education,
62(2), 143-164.
Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., & Castañeda, M.B. (1992). The role of finances in the
persistence process: A structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5),
571-593.
Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., & Castañeda, M.B. (1993). College persistence: Structural
equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. The Journal
of Higher Education, 64(2), 123-139.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
156
Castellanos, J., & Gloria, A.M. (2007). Research considerations and theoretical
application for best practices in higher education: Latina/os achieving success.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6, 378. doi: 10.1177/1538192707305347.
Castellanos, J., & Jones, L. (2003). Latina/o undergraduate experiences in American
higher education. In J. Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The majority in the
minority: Expanding representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators, and
students in higher education (pp. 1-13). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, Inc.
Castellanos, J., Gloria, A. M., & Kamimura, M. (Eds.). (2006). The Latina/o pathway to
the PhD: Abriendo caminos. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Cavazos, J., Cavazos, A. G., Hinojosa, M., & Silva, M. (2009). Dispelling seven myths
concerning Latina/o students: A call to action for school counselors. Journal of
College Counseling, 7(8). Retrieved from
http://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v7n8.pdf.
Cavazos, J., Johnson, M.B., & Scott Sparrow, G. (2010). Overcoming personal and
academic challenges: Perspectives from Latina/o college students. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 9(4), 304-316.
Center for Urban Education (CUE). (2010). STEM Toolkit-SAIs. Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California. http://cue.usc.edu.
Chang, J. C. (2005). Faculty-student interaction at the community college: A focus on
students of color. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 769-802.
Chaves, C. (2006). Involvement, development, and retention: Theoretical foundations
and potential extensions for adult community college students. Community
College Review,34, 139-152).
Choy, S. P & Bobbit, L. (2000). Low-income students: Who they are and how they pay
for their education (NCES 2000–169). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Choy, S. P., Berker, A. M., & Carroll, C. D. (2003). How families of low- and middle-
income undergraduates pay for college: Full-Time Dependent Students in 1999–
2000 (NCES 2003–162). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty
contact and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3),
249-281.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
157
Cole, D. (2010). The effect of student-faculty interactions on minority students’ college
grades: Differences between aggregated and disaggregated data. The Journal of
the Professoriate, 3(2), 137-160.
Cole, D. & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of
College Student Development, 49(4), 285-300.
Contreras, F. E. (2005). Access, achievement, and social capital: Standardized exams and
the Latino college-bound population. Journal of Hispanic Higher, 4(3). 197-214.
doi: 10.1177/1538192705276546.
Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2008). Hispanic-Serving
Institutions: Closeted identity and the production of equitable outcomes for
Latino/a students. In M. Gasman, B. Baez & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.),
Understanding Minority-Serving Institutions (pp. 71-90). New York, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crisp, G., Nora, A., & Taggart, A. (2009). Student characteristics, pre-college, college,
and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM
degree: An analysis of students attending a Hispanic Serving Institution.
American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 924-942.
Cunningham, A., & Leegwater, L. (2011). Minority Serving Institutions--What can we
learn? In A. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher
education: An examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Davidson-Aviles, R. M., Guerrero, M. P., Barajas-Howarth, H., & Thomas, G. (1999).
Perceptions of Chicano/Latino students who have dropped out of school. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 77, 465-473.
Dayton, B., Gonzalez-Vasquez, N., Martinez, C. R., & Plum, C. (2004). Hispanic-
serving Institutions through the eyes of students and administrators. In A. M.
Ortiz (Ed.), Addressing the unique needs of Latino American students: New
directions for student services (Vol. 105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
De Los Santos Jr., A.G., & Cuamea, K.M. (2010). Challenges facing Hispanic-serving
Institutions in the first decade of the 21st century. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 9(2), 90-107. doi: 10.1080/15348431003617798.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
158
Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). Critical Race Theory, Latino Critical Theory, and Critical
Raced Gender Epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and
creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8. doi:
10.1177/107780040200800107.
Dowd, A. C. (2011). Improving transfer access for low-income community college
students. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving low-income students in
higher education: An examination of institutional policies, practices and culture
(pp. 217-231). New York: Routledge.
Dowd, A.C., Malcom, L.E., & Bensimon, E.M. (2009). Benchmarking the Success of
Latino and Latina Students in STEM to Achieve National Graduation Goals. Los
Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses
in concrete. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 181-194.
Eimers, M.T. (2001). The impact of student experiences on progress in college: An
examination of minority and nonminority differences. NASPA Journal, 38(3),
386-409.
Engle, J. & O’Brien, C. (2007). Demography is not destiny: Increasing the graduation
rates of low-income college students at large public universities. Retrieved from
The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education website:
http://www.pellinstitute.org/files/files-demography_is_not_destiny.pdf.
Engle, J. & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access college success for low-income,
first-generation students. Retrieved from The Pell Institute for the Study of
Opportunity in Higher Education website:
http://www.pellinstitute.org/files/COE_MovingBeyondReport_Final.pdf.
Engstrom, C.M. (2008). Curricular learning communities and unprepared students: How
faculty can provide a foundation for success. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), The role of
the classroom in college student persistence (Vol. 115, pp. 5-19). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Excelencia in Education. (n.d). Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Retrieved from
http://www.edexcelencia.org/research/hsi.
Excelencia in Education. (2011). Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): 2009-10 factsheet.
Retrieved from http://edexcelencia.org/research/hsi.
Flores, S. M., & Morfín, O. J. (2008). Another side of the percent plan story: Latino
enrollment in the Hispanic-Serving Institutions Sector in California and Texas. In
M. Gasman, B. Baez & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding Minority-Serving
Institutions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
159
Frenske, R.H., Porter, J.D., & DuBrock, C.P. (2000). Tracking financial aid and
persistence of women, minority, and needy students in science, engineering, and
mathematics. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 67.
Fry, R. (2005). The high schools Hispanics attend: Size and other key characteristics.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=54.
Gandara, P., & Lopez, E. (1998). Latino students and college entrance exams: How much
do they really count? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20, 17-38.
Gasman, M. (2008). Minority-Serving Institutions: A historical backdrop. In M.
Gasman, B. Baez & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding Minority-Serving
Institutions (pp. 18-27). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Gloria, A. M., Castellanos, J., Lopez, A. G., & Rosales, R. (2005). An examination of
academic nonpersistence decisions of Latino undergraduates. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 27, 202-223.
Haro, R. (2004). Programs and strategies to increase Latino students’ educational
attainment. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 205-222.
Hernandez, J. C. (2000). Understanding the retention of Latino college students. Journal
of College Student Development, 41, 575-588.
Hernandez, J. C. & Lopez, M. A. (2004). Leaking pipeline: Issues impacting Latino/a
college student retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 37-60.
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU). (2011). Fact sheet:
Hispanic higher education and HSIs. Retrieved from
http://www.hacu.net/hacu/HSI_Fact_Sheet.asp?SnID=2.
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU). (n.d.). Hispanic-serving
Institutions definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.hacu.net/hacu/HSI_Definition.asp?SnID=1441487693.
Hoachlander, G., Sikora, A. C., Horn, L., & Carroll, C. D. (2003). Community college
students: Goals, academic preparation, and outcomes (NCES 2003-164).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003164.
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New
York, NY: Routledge.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
160
Hu, S. (2010). Scholarship awards, college choice, and student engagement in college
activities. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 151-162.
Hubbard, S.M. (2005). Identifying factors that influence instructional alternatives in the
undergraduate math and science disciplines. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.
Hubbard, S.M., & Stage, F. K. (2009). Attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of faculty
at Hispanic Serving and Predominantly Black Institutions. The Journal of Higher
Education, 80(3), 270-289.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Context of conflict. The Journal of
Higher Education, 63(5), 539-569.
Hurtado, S. (1994). The institutional climate for talented Latino students. Research in
Higher Education, 35(1), 21-41.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F., Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college:
Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in
Higher Education, 37, 135-157.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the
campus racial climate on Latino college students' sense of belonging. Sociology
of Education, 70(4), 324-345.
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4, 235-251. doi:
10.1177/1538192705276548
Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N.L., Lin, M.H., Arellano, L., & Espinosa, L.L. (2009).
Diversifying science: Underrepresented student experiences in structured research
programs. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 189-214.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., & Clayton-Pedersen, A. (1999). Enacting diverse learning
environments: improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher
education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, 26(8), 1-116.
Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Tran, M. C., Newman, C. B., Chang, M. J., & Velasco, P.
(2011). “We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with
faculty in different college contexts. The Society for the Psychological Study of
Social Sciences, 67(3), 553-579.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (2011). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. In S.
R. Harper & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Racial & ethnic diversity in higher education (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 254-268). Boston, MA: Pearson.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
161
Kelly, A., Schneider, M., & Carey, K. (2010). Rising to the challenge: Hispanic college
graduation rates as a national priority. Retrieved from the American Enterprise
Institute website: http://www.aei.org/paper/100093.
Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kezar, A. (Ed.). (2011). Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher
education: An examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The
Review of Higher Education, 24, 309-332.
Laden, B. V. (2001). Hispanic-Serving Institutions: Myths and realities. Peabody
Journal of Education, 76(1), 73-92.
Laden, B. V. (2004). Hispanic-Serving Institutions: What are they? Where are they?
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 181-198. doi:
10.1080/10668920490256381.
Lewis, B.F. (2003). A critique of the literature on the underrepresentation of African
Americans in science: Directions for future research. Journal of Women and
Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9, 361-373.
Linares, G., & Hernandez, S. (2000). Creating the will: Hispanics achieving educational
excellence. Washington, DC: President's Advisory Commission on Educational
for Hispanic Americans.
Lucas, C. J. (2006). American higher education: A history (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Lundberg, C.A. (2007). Student involvement and institutional commitment to diversity as
predictors of Native American student learning. Journal of College Student
Development, 48(4), 405-416.
Lundberg, C.A. (2010). Institutional commitment to diversity, college involvement, and
faculty relationships as predictors of learning for students of color. The Journal
of the Professoriate, 3(2), 50-74.
Lundberg, C.A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student
interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity.
Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549-565. doi:
10.1353/csd/2004.0061
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
162
Maki, P.L. (2010). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the
institution. Herndon,VA: Stylus.
Malcom L.E., Dowd, A.C., & Yu, T. (2010). Tapping HSI-STEM Funds to Improve
Latina and Latino Access to the STEM Professions. Los Angeles, CA: University
of Southern California.
Malcom, L. E. (2008, November). Multiple pathways to STEM: Examining state
differences in community college attendance among Latino STEM bachelor’s
degree holders. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of
Higher Education, Jacksonville, FL.
Malcom, L. E., & Dowd, A. C. (2008, November). The effect of indebtedness on
graduate school enrollment of Latino STEM baccalaureates: A propensity score
matching analysis. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Jacksonville, FL.
Malcom, L. E., Bensimon, E. M., & Dávila, B. (2010). (Re)constructing Hispanic-
serving Institutions: Moving beyond numbers toward student success. Education
Policy and Practices Perspectives, 6. Iowa State University: Department of
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.
Martinez, C. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Eddy, J. M. (2004). Promoting academic success
among Latino youths. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 126-151.
Martinez, D. (2008). Coalition formation among Minority-Serving Institutions. In M.
Gasman, B. Baez & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding Minority-Serving
Institutions (pp. 269-291). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Mercer, C.J., & Stedman, J.B. (2008). Minority-Serving Institutions: Selected
institutional and student characteristics. In M. Gasman, B. Baez & C. S. V.
Turner (Eds.), Understanding Minority-Serving Institutions (pp. 28-42). New
York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Merriam, S.B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education:
Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Metz, G.W. (2002, October). Challenges and changes to Tinto’s persistence theory.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research
Association, Columbus, OH.
National Science Foundation. (2009). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering (NSF 09–305). Arlington, VA.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
163
Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A structural
model. Research in Higher Education, 26(1), 31-58.
Nora, A. (2002). A theoretical and practical view of student adjustment and academic
achievement. In W.G. Tierney & L.S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to
college: Extending possibilities for all students. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Nora, A. (2003a). Access to higher education for Hispanic students: Real or illusory? In J.
Castellanos & L. Jones (Eds.), The Majority in the Minority: Expanding the
representation of Latina/o faculty, administrators and students in higher
education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Nora, A. (2003b). Two-year college and minority students’ educational aspirations: Help
or hindrance? Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 9, 212-247.
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and
discrimination on the adjustment of minority. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2),
119-148
Nora, A., & Rendón, L. I. (1990). Determinants of predisposition to transfer among
community college students: A structural model. Research in Higher Education,
31(3), 235-255.
Nora, A., Attinasi, L. C., & Matonak, A. (1990). Testing qualitative indicators of
precollege factors in Tinto’s attrition model: A community college student
population. Review of Higher Education, 13(3), 337-356.
Nora, A., Barlow, L., & Crisp, G. (2006). An assessment of Hispanic students in four-
year institutions in higher education. In J. Castellanos, A.M. Gloria, & M.
Kamimura (Eds.), The Latina/o pathway to the Ph.D.: Abriendo caminos (pp. 55-
77). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Nuñez, A. M., Ramalho, E. M., & Cuero, K. K. (2010). Pedagogy for equity: Teaching
in a Hispanic-Serving Institution. Innovative Higher Education, 35, 177-190.
Office for Civil Rights. (n.d.). Institutions with High Hispanic Enrollment from IPEDS
Spring 2007 survey. Retrieved from:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst-list-hisp-tab.html
Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural
ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
O’Meara, K., & Braskamp, L. (2005). Aligning faculty reward systems and development
to promote faculty and student growth. NASPA Journal, 42(2), 223-240.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
164
Parker-Redmond, S. (1990). Mentoring and cultural diversity in academic settings.
American Behavioral Scientist, 34(2), 188-200.
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review
of Educational Research, 50(4), 545-595.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Interaction effects in Spady’s and Tinto’s
conceptual models of college dropouts. Sociology of Education, 52, 97-210.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshmen persistence & voluntary
dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51(1),
60-75.
Pascarella, E. T., Smart, J., & Ethington, C. (1986). Long-term persistence of two year
college students. Research in Higher Education, 24(1), 47-71.
Patton, M.Q. (1985, April). Quality in qualitative research: Methodological principles
and recent developments. Invited address to Division J of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oak, CA:
Sage Publications.
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of
learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33-51.
Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study
of minority student retention in higher education. In J.M. Braxton (Ed.),
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 127-156). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Rendón, L. I., & Muñoz, S.M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical
foundations, applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 5(2),
12-33.
Rodriguez, N. (1996). Predicting the academic success of Mexican American and White
college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 329-342.
Santiago, D. A. (2006). Inventing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): The basics.
Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Retrieved from
http://www.edexcelencia.org/research/facts-inventing-hispanic-serving-
institutions-hsis-basics.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
165
Santiago, D.A. (2007). Choosing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): A Closer Look at
Latino Students’ College Choices. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education.
Retrieved from http://edexcelencia.org/research/choosing-hispanic-serving-
institutions-hsis-closer-look-latino-students%E2%80%99-college-choices.
Santiago, D. A. (2008). Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). Washington, DC:
Excelencia in Education. Retrieved from
http://www.edexcelencia.org/research/hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis.
Santiago, D. A. (2008). Modeling Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): Campus
practices that work for Latino students. Washington, DC: Excelencia in
Education.
Santiago, D. A. (2011). Roadmap for ensuring America’s future by increasing Latino
college completion. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Retrieved from
www.EdExcelencia.org/initiatives/EAF/Roadmap.
Santiago, D. A., & Andrade, S. J. (2010). Emerging Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs):
Serving Latino students. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education. Retrieved
from http://www.edexcelencia.org/research/emerging-hispanic-serving-
institutions-hsis-serving-latino-students.
Santiago, D. A., & Cunningham, A. F. (2005). How Latino students pay for college.
Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education & Institute for Higher Education
Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ihep.org/Publications/publications-
detail.cfm?id=45.
Santiago, D.A. (2007). Choosing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs): A Closer Look at
Latino Students’ College Choices. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education.
Retrieved from http://edexcelencia.org/research/choosing-hispanic-serving-
institutions-hsis-closer-look-latino-students%E2%80%99-college-choices.
Santos, S.J., & Reigada, E.T. (2002). Latinos in higher education: An evaluation of a
university faculty mentoring program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
1(1), 40-50.
Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Sedlacek, W. E., Longerbeam, S. L., & Alatorre, H. A. (2004). In their own voices:
Latino student retention. NASPA Journal, 41(3), 538-550.
Shapiro, C.A., & Sax, L.J. (2011). Major selection and persistence for women in STEM.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 152, 5-18.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
166
Smith, D. G. (2000). How to diversify the faculty. Academe Online. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2000/SO/Feat/smit.htm.
Smith, D. G. (2004). Interrupting the usual: Successful strategies for hiring diverse
faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(2), 133-160.
Sólorzano, D. G., Villalpando, O., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Educational inequities and
Latina/o undergraduate students in the United States: A critical race analysis of
their educational progress. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4, 272-294.
St. John, E.P., Cabrera, A.E., Nora, A., & Asker, E.H. (2000). Economic influences on
persistence reconsidered: How can finance research inform the
reconceptualization of persistence models? In J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the
student departure puzzle (pp. 29-47). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Stage, F. K., & Hubbard, S. (2008). Teaching Latino, African American, and Native
American undergraduates. In M. Gasman, B. Baez & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.),
Understanding Minority-Serving Institutions. New York, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review,
67(1), 1-40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2010). A social capital framework for the institutional agents and
their role in their empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth &
Society, 1-44. doi: 10.1177/0044118X10382877.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., Macias, R. M., Bensimon, E. M., & Dowd, A. C. (2010,
November). The role of institutional agents in providing institutional support to
Latino students in STEM. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education, Indianapolis, IN.
Stayhorn, T.L., & Hirt, J.B. (2008). Social justice at Historically Black and Hispanic-
serving Institutions: Mission statements and administrative voices. In M. Gasman,
B. Baez & C. S. V. Turner (Eds.), Understanding Minority-Serving Institutions.
New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
Swail, W. S., Cabrera, A. F., & Lee, C. (2004). Latino youth and the pathway to college.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=31.
Swail, W. S., Reed, K. E., & Perna, L. W. (2003). Retaining minority students in higher
education: A framework for success (Vol. 30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
167
Tierney, W.G., Venegas, K.M., & De La Rosa, M.L. (2006). Financial aid and access to
college: The public policy challenges. The American Behavioral Scientist,
49(12), 1601-1603.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. doi:
10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tuitt, F. A., Danowitz Sagaria, M. A., & Sotello Viernes Turner, C. (2007). Signals and
strategies in hiring faculty of color (pp.497-537). In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher
Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. XXII. New York, NY:
Springer.
U.S. Department of Education & White House Initiative for Educational Excellence for
Hispanics. (2011). Winning the future: Improving education for the Latino
community. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education & White House
Initiative for Educational Excellence for Hispanics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011, June). Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Program -- Title V. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/index.html.
Umbach, P. D. (2006). The contribution of faculty of color to undergraduate education.
Research in Higher Education, 47(3), 317-345.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college
faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2).
doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-1598-1.
Warburton, E., Bugarin, R., & Nuñez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic
preparation and postsecondary success of first-generation students (NCES 2001-
153). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001153.
Ward, N. L. (2006). Improving equity and access for low-income and minority youth
into institutions of higher education. Urban Education, 41, 50-70. doi:
10.1177/004208590528225
Yin, R.K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
168
Appendix A
Preliminary Student Survey
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and assisting me to complete my
dissertation! The survey should take 5 to 10 minutes to complete.
As I mentioned in my introduction email, my research focuses on identifying the ways in
which educators at Hispanic-Serving Institutions influence the experience and
educational outcomes of students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) fields.
In addition to asking basic demographic information, this survey asks you to identify and
provide the contact information for someone at [EU] that has supported you and
contributed to your success. For the purpose of this study, the identified person will be
called an "institutional agent" throughout the survey. Your responses and nomination
will allow me to learn about the institutional agent's practices, motivations, and
challenges.
1. What is your class standing?
• Freshman
• Sophomore
• Junior
• Senior
2. What is your major? ________________
3. What is your gender?
• Male
• Female
• Transgender
4. How do you identify racially and/or ethnically? (select all that apply)
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Asian
• Black or African American
• Hispanic or Latino
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
• White
5. Did you transfer to Cal Poly Pomona from a community college or another
university?
• Yes (If students selected this answer, they would be directed to question six)
• No
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
169
6. What community college or university did you transfer from? _______________
7. Are a first-generation college student (i.e., students whose parents have not earned a
bachelor's degree in the United States)?
• Yes
• No
• Don't Know
8. Do you receive federal and/or state financial aid?
• Yes
• No
• Don't Know
9. Do you receive a Pell Grant and/or Work-Study award?
• Yes
• No
• Don't Know
10. An institutional Agent is defined as someone that provides students with support,
resources, opportunities, privileges, and services that contribute to student success.
Can you identify an Institutional Agent at Cal Poly Pomona that has supported you?
• Yes (If students selected this response, they would be directed to question 12)
• No (If students selected this response, they would be directed to question 11 and
the survey ended)
11. Is there a reason why you have declined to name someone at Cal Poly Pomona as an
Institutional Agent?
12. I would like to interview the person that you identified to learn about their practices,
motivation, and challenges. Would you like to nominate this person to participate in
my study? If so, please provide their contact information below.
• Name _______________________
• Email Address ________________
• Phone Number ________________
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
170
13. What is the role of this person at the university?
• Teacher/Instructor/Faculty Member
• Academic Adviser/Counselor
• Administrator (A staff member who is neither a faculty member or counselor)
• Peer
• Other (please explain)
• Don't Know
14. Thinking of the institutional agent you identified above, check the box for each
statement that is true about him or her. Answer this question to the best of your
knowledge.
• Knows what campus resources that are available for students
• You perceive him or her to be a leader on campus
• Makes him or herself available beyond office or business hours
• Knows and shares strategies about how to navigate college
• Introduces you to people on campus that may be able to provide support,
resources, and opportunities
• Teaches you how to build relationships and make connections with other people
that may be able to provide support, resources, and opportunities
• Is a role model
• Develops relationships with important and influential people
• Helps you make effective decisions
• Helps you get needed information
• Provides you with advice when you have had a problem and helped you develop a
solution
• Advocates on your behalf
• Encourages you to participate in on and off-campus social and academic activities
• Guides or prepares you for a new or unfamiliar environment, situation, or event
• Helps you identify people that may be able to provide support, resources, and
opportunities
• Involves you in activities (i.e., programs, events, meetings, etc.) that gives you
access to people that may be able to provide support, resources, and opportunities
• He or she is part of committees or other groups whose goals are to improve the
educational experience of students
• Advocates for programs and policies that could benefit you
• He or she is a visible resource for the campus
• He or she makes an effort to interact and engage students
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
171
• Has he or she collaborates with others to provide you with support, resources, and
opportunities
• Makes sure you utilize resources effectively
• He or she values diversity, social justice, and/or equity
• Explains how certain policies or programs could benefit or hinder your success
• Helps you believe in yourself and your potential
• Empowers you to be a leader and make a difference in your communities
15. Would you be willing to participate in an interview to share your experiences as a
STEM student and share more about how the person you identified as an institutional
agent has supported you?
• Yes (If students selected this response, they were directed to question 16)
• No (If students selected this response, the survey ended)
16. Please enter your contact information below. I will contact you to schedule a
convenient time for an hour to hour and half interview.
• Name
• Email Address
• Preferred Telephone Number (with area code)
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
172
Appendix B
Student Interview Protocol
Institution: ____________________________________________________________
Respondent (Title and Name): _____________________________________________
Age: __________ Gender: __________ Ethnicity: ______________________
Transfer Student: ____ Yes ____ No Community College: ____________________
Interviewer: __________________________ Date: ___________________________
Other Topics Discussed: __________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Post Interview Comments: ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Introductory Protocol
To facilitate our note-taking, we would like to audio tape our conversations today. For
your information, only researchers on the project will have access to the tapes. The
tapes will be eventually destroyed after they are transcribed. We’ll need you to review the
information sheet on the study. Essentially, this document states that: (1) we will keep
confidential any information that you share with us, (2) your participation is voluntary
and you may stop the interview at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do not
intend to inflict any harm. Thank you for agreeing to participate.
The interview will last no more than one hour. During this time, we have several
questions that we would like to cover. If we start to run short on time, I may need to
interrupt you in order to get your responses to all the questions I’d like to ask.
Introduction
You have been selected to speak with me today based on your survey responses and
because you have been identified as someone who may be able to help me better
understand programs, policies and practices that promote Latina/o participation in the
STEM fields on this campus. I am focusing on two areas: first, I am exploring the factors
affecting the success of Latino students in STEM and the influence of faculty such
success. Second, I am identifying the ways in which Hispanic-Serving Institutions foster
Latina/o participation in STEM fields.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
173
Background
Information
What is your parents’ educational background?
Which institutions have you attended since high school?
Transfer Student Question: When did you transfer?
What type of financial assistance did you receive [at each
institution]?
How long have you been attending the present school (i.e., where
are you in the program)?
Transfer Student Question: How long were you at the
[community college]?
What is your major?
Has this always been your major?
If not, what was your first declared major?
Personal College
Journey
Let’s begin by thinking of your college journey as if it were a
book.
If you were to look at your college journey as a book, how would
you divide it into chapters?
A1. What would be your first chapter?
• How would you describe this chapter?
• What title would you give it?
A2. What about the next chapter?
• Could you give a title to this chapter?
(Continue in this manner until all the chapters are discussed)
Memory
B1. Looking back, which of these memories were significant in
your decision to go to college?
• Did anything hinder your decision?
B2. Do you have an important memory as college student?
• What kind of impact did this have on you?
B3. Transfer Student Question: What about an important memory
at the time of your transfer?
• What kind of impact did this have on you?
B4. Transfer Student Question: Looking back, which of these
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
174
memories were significant in your decision to transfer to the 4-
year university?
• When did you realize you could?
• How did you know?
• Did anything hinder your decision?
B5. Looking back, which of these memories were significant in
your decision to major in [STEM]?
• When did you realize you could?
• How did you know?
• Did anything hinder your decision?
Educational
Transitions
C1. Transfer Student Question: Let’s continue with these
educational transitions. What would you describe as the greatest
experience at the community college?
C2. Transfer Student Question And what about the worst
experience at the community college?
C3. Transfer Student Question What would you describe as the
greatest experience at the transfer institution?
C4. And what about the worst experience at the current
institution?
C5. What would you describe as the most wonderful experience
as a [STEM] major?
C6. And what about the worst experience as a [STEM] major?
Significant People
D1. What I would like you to do now is to discuss whom you
regard as the three most significant people during these
educational transitions [at the community college, at the transfer
institution and as a college student, and STEM major].
• How did they influence you?
• Did you have any family members who played a key role
in your decision to go to the community college? College?
Transfer? Major in [STEM]?
• Were there any teachers/school counselors who played a
critical role in your decision to go to the college?
Transfer? Major in [STEM]?
• Are there any other people in your life who played an
instrumental role in your decisions?
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
175
D2. Are there people at this institution you feel you can turn to
for assistance?
• What is your relationship like?
D3. Are there people in your major you feel you can turn to for
assistance?
• What is your relationship like?
Stress and
Problems
E1. Could you describe two areas of your life in which you are
currently experiencing stress, conflict, or a problem?
• How are you dealing with this?
E2. What was it like when you first enrolled in college?
• What barriers did you have to overcome?
• What helped you overcome these obstacles?
• Who helped you overcome these obstacles?
• How did they help you?
E3. Transfer Student Question: What was it like when you first
transferred from the community college to the 4-year
university?
• What barriers did you have to overcome?
• What helped you overcome these obstacles?
• Who helped you overcome these obstacles?
• How did they help you?
E3. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter in terms of
adjusting to the 4-year institution?
• Did you experience any difficulties with “fitting in” to the
student culture at this institution?
• Did you feel prepared? Or, did you experience culture
shock?
• How did you adjust? What was helpful in your
adjustment?
• Did any individual/program play an instrumental role in
helping you transition smoothly?
• Did you receive any support or assistance to help you with
the transfer and the transition?
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
176
E4. What difficulties, if any, did you encounter in terms of
majoring in [STEM]?
• Did you experience any difficulties with “fitting in” to the
student culture in this field?
• Did you feel prepared? Or, did you experience culture
shock?
• How did you adjust? What was helpful in your
adjustment?
• Did any individual/program play an instrumental role in
helping you transition smoothly?
• Did you receive any special support or assistance to help
you with the transition?
Future Script
F1. Can you describe for me your outlook for the future?
• What are your short-term goals?
• What will it mean to you to accomplish/reach that goal?
• Do you have any plans or dreams for the future?
• Do you have any plans as to how you could achieve them?
Concluding
Questions
G1. We will be developing some “promising practices” to share
with other institutions with regard to Latina/o participation in
STEM fields. We’re interested in any suggestions you may have
in this area.
• Transfer Student Question: For the community college
where you transferred from, what recommendations, if
any, would you make to improve the transfer process?
• For the present institution you are attending, what
recommendations, if any, would you make to improve the
transfer process?
• Transfer Student Question: If you could give any advice to
students who are thinking about transferring, what would
you tell them?
• If you could give any advice to students who are thinking
about majoring in [STEM], what would you tell them?
G2. Is there anything else you would like to add about your
experiences as a student majoring in [STEM]?
G3. Are there any questions I should have asked but didn’t?
We’ve completed our list of questions. Thank you for your time.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
177
Appendix C
CUE’s Institutional Agent Self-Assessment Inventory
Name:_________________________
Title:___________________________
Institution:____________________
Recommended respondents include instructors, program administrators and counselors.
Utilizing the concept of “transfer agents,” developed by Bensimon and Dowd based on
Ricardo Stanton-Salazar’s sociological depiction of institutional agents, CUE set out to
understand the ways in which administrators, counselors, and faculty can help Latina and
Latino community college students navigate transfer pathways to obtain a bachelor’s
degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM). This tool draws on
that theoretical framework. While this study does not focus on “transfer agents,” it still
draws on the same theoretical framework.
This self assessment tool is designed to help you identify your actions within the
framework of being an institutional agent. Answer each question by ranking the
frequency of that action and note any comments or obstacles you face when taking that
action, based on your understanding of institutional agents.
Over the past semester…
Statement Frequency
Never Sometimes Frequently
1. …I’ve been actively involved in helping a
significant number of students assess problems,
gather information, and make appropriate decisions
related to their success within the institution and
within the educational system.
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
178
Statement Frequency
Never Sometimes Frequently
2. …I’ve been actively involved in providing a significant number of students with forms of knowledge
and information essential to (1) effectively navigating through the educational system, and to (2)
overcoming the obstacles and challenges commonly experienced by students.
[Answer in regards to the following forms of knowledge and information]: (a) thru (d)
(a) Knowledge of computer literacy, study skills,
test-taking skills, time management skills;
decision-making skills
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
(b) Knowledge of how educational bureaucracies
operate—
e.g., chains of command, identification of key
agents in authority and of key gate-keepers
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
(c) Knowledge of those resources accessible
from different faculty, staff, administrative
offices, service providers, and academic units
within my institution.
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
179
Statement Frequency
Never Sometimes Frequently
(d) Knowledge about job and educational
opportunities--including requisites and barriers to
entrée into labor markets and industries;
knowledge of how to fulfill requisites and how to
overcome barriers into labor markets and
industries
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
3.1 …I’ve been actively helping students
develop their networking skills; for example,
how to approach, seek help, and access resources
from various faculty members, university
personnel, authority figures, and gate-keepers.
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
3.2. … I’ve been actively helping my students
develop their networking skills--for example,
how to build long-term supportive relationships
with faculty members and other university
personnel (including office staff).
1
2
3
4
5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
180
Statement Frequency
Never Sometimes Frequently
3.3. … I’ve been actively helping my students
develop their networking skills--for example, how
to build supportive/cooperative relationships with
peers who are well integrated within the academic
and extracurricular circles of the
[college/university].
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
4. …I’ve actively advocated on behalf of my
students, for the purpose of promoting their interests
within the college/university. I’ve acted to intercede
and defend the rights of my students to have access
to key forms of resources and opportunities
necessary for their success within the
college/university.
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
5.1. …for a significant number of my students, I’ve
actively served as a human “bridge” to key faculty
members, college/university personnel, authority
figures, and gate-keepers who I know are
supportive of students.
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
5.2 …for a significant number of my students, I’ve
actively served as a human “bridge” to exclusive
social networks and organizations—both within and
1 2 3 4 5
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
181
Statement Frequency
Never Sometimes Frequently
outside of the college/university.
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
6. …for a significant number of my students, I’ve
actively assumed the role of intermediary or broker,
connecting students to key personnel and to existing
services and programs on campus, while overseeing
the process. In this role, I’ve also helped my
students negotiate agreements with key personnel,
and helped them access highly valuable institutional
resources.
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
7. …for a significant number of my students, I’ve
introduced them to important institutional contexts
and distinctive sociocultural worlds—either within
or outside the college/university. I’ve explained to
my students why participating in these contexts or
worlds is important, who are the key people in these
contexts, and the special ways those on the “inside”
communicate and exchange resources.
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
182
Statement Frequency
Never Sometimes Frequently
8. …for a significant number of my students, I’ve
provided them with both emotional and social
support. When my students are faced with major
stressors and life challenges, I’ve listened
compassionately to them. I’ve tried to be
supportive, helping them re-interpret their
circumstances in ways that reduce uncertainty and
that enhance their sense of personal control.
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
9. Much of learning comes from observation of
exemplary role models rather than from overt, trial-
and-error behavior. For a significant number of my
students, I’ve consciously modeled behaviors
associated with success in the educational system.
Specifically, with regard to obstacles to academic
success, I’ve modeled positive help-seeking
behaviors and problem-solving strategies that
involve the reliance on resources possessed by
‘supportive others’.
1 2 3 4 5
How do you do this?
What are the challenges?
To what extent have you done this specifically for
Latina/o students?
Center for Urban Education. (2010). STEM Toolkit-SAIs. Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California. http://cue.usc.edu
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
183
Appendix D
Interview Protocol for Faculty at Four-Year Institutions
Institution: ____________________________________________________________
Respondent (Title and Name): _____________________________________________
Interviewer: __________________________ Date: ___________________________
Other Topics Discussed: __________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Documents Obtained: ____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Post Interview Comments or Leads: _________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Introductory Protocol
To facilitate our note-taking, we would like to audio tape our conversations today. For
your information, only researchers on the project will have access to the tapes. The
tapes will be eventually destroyed after they are transcribed. Please review the
information sheet on the study. Essentially, this document states that: (1) we will keep
confidential any information that you share with us, (2) your participation is voluntary
and you may stop the interview at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do not
intend to inflict any harm. Thank you for agreeing to participate.
The interview will last no more than one hour. During this time, we have several
questions that we would like to cover. If we start to run short on time, I may need to
interrupt you in order to get your responses to all the questions I’d like to ask.
Introduction
You have been selected to speak with us today because you have been identified as
someone who may be able to help us better understand programs, policies and practices
that promote Latina/o participation in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
(STEM) fields on this campus. I am focusing on two areas: first, I am exploring the
factors affecting the success of low-income Latina/o students. Second, we’re identifying
how Hispanic-Serving Institutions foster Latina/o participation in STEM fields.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
184
Background
Information
A1. How long have you been in your present position? _____
A2. How long have you been at this institution? ______
A3. What is your educational background?
A4. What is your parents’ educational background?
Personal
Experience in
Working Directly
with Latina/o
Students in STEM
Fields
B1. Briefly describe your role or experience (committee,
classroom, etc.) as it relates to Latina/o students in STEM fields.
• How are you involved in Latina/o students in STEM fields
here?
• How did you get involved?
• What motivates you to be involved with Latina/o students
in STEM fields? [intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation]
B2. Given the past six months, can you talk about five students
who you have helped in particular ways [adjustment to the
institution]?
• Are any of these students Latina/o? Transfer students?
STEM majors?
• Describe the steps that you took to help these students.
Successes, Barriers,
and Resistance
C1. Based on your knowledge of the academic culture at this
institution, what would a Latina/o student in STEM need to know
in order to succeed?
• How do these students learn what they need to know?
C2. Do Latina/o students in STEM arrive at your institution with
the academic skills they need to succeed?
C3. Do Latina/o students in STEM arrive at your institution with
the navigational skills they need to succeed? [Navigational
skills = funds of knowledge about how to navigate the
university]
[Transition to Programs, Practices and Policies]
C4. Please describe specific programs or practices at this
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
185
institution that are aimed at recruiting, enrolling, and
supporting Latina/o students in STEM fields.
• How did these programs/practices develop?
• Who on this campus is an advocate for STEM
programs/practices? [Institutional champion?
Decision-makers?]
• Tell me about the purpose of these programs. What’s
their intended outcome?
• How effective are they in meeting their goals? Which
ones have not been as effective?
• Can you identify any barriers that may hinder high-
achieving, Latina/o students from pursuing STEM
fields at your institution?
• What steps, if any, have been taken in order to address
concerns?
C5. Are there any new or anticipated initiatives related to Latina/o
students in STEM fields that we have not yet discussed?
C6. In your efforts to promote the success of Latinas/os in STEM,
is there anyone you have had to engage who was problematic?
• If yes, tell me how you handled the situation.
[Connection to Community Colleges]
C7. Many colleges are concerned with the diversity of their
student body. Have people in your institution discussed
community college transfer in relation to your institution’s
goals for diversity?
• If yes, what are the ways in which this issue relates to the
institution’s diversity goals?
C8. If your institution wanted to increase the participation of
Latina/o students in STEM fields, what would need to be
done?
C9. In the effort to increase Latina/o participation in STEM, who
are the people on this campus that can make things happen?
• What is your relationship to them? [networks]
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
186
Faculty Roles
D1. Think of faculty [like yourself] who are particularly involved
in increasing/facilitating Latina/o participation in STEM fields.
What makes them particularly effective at helping students?
[Networks]
D2. Generally, how would faculty react to the idea of increasing
efforts to recruit more Latina/o students [from community
colleges]?
D3. Are there academic departments that have joint initiatives
with community colleges? [Probe for the history]
• How did these initiatives come about?
Concluding
Questions
We will be developing some "promising practices" to share with
other institutions with regard to Latina/o participation in STEM
fields.
E1. What does your college do that would merit replicating at
other institutions? We're interested in any suggestions you may
have in this area.
We've completed our list of questions.
E2. Is there anything else that you would like to add about your
experiences with STEM programs, practices, and policies at
________, or about Latina/o STEM students?
E3. Are there any questions I should have asked but didn’t?
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
187
Appendix E
Institutional Review Board Information Sheet for Students
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH
Faculty as Institutional Agents for low-income Latino students in STEM fields at an HSI.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of my study is to explore how institutional agents, specifically faculty
members, influence the experience and educational outcomes of low-income Latino
students in STEM fields at a Hispanic-Serving Institution.
Your relationship with your employer or educational institution will not be affected,
whether or not you participate in this study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in the study, you will be asked that you complete a 5-10 minute
survey that asks basic demographic information and about someone at [Esperanza
University] that has supported you and contributed to your success.
At the end of the survey, you may be asked if you would be willing to participate in an
interview to share your experiences as a STEM student and more about how the person
you identified has supported you. The interview will last no more than one and a half
hours. During the interview, you will be asked questions about your family background
and personal college journey. You will also be asked to recall and identify any challenges
that you have faced in college, strategies you have used to overcome those challenges,
and expand on the ways the person you identified as an institutional agent that has
supported you. The interview will be audio taped with your permission. If you agree to
continue your participation beyond the survey, you will be asked to provide your name,
email, and phone number, so that the principal investigator can arrange a good time for
an interview.
If you do not want to be audio taped, you can continue with your participation in the
study.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose at your discretion to opt
out of the study at any time and/or for any reason.
CONFIDENTIALITY
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
188
There will be some identifiable information obtained in connection with this study.
However, your name, email address, phone number, or other identifiable information will
not be linked to your responses and pseudonyms will be used for the institution and
participant. Any paper files will be stored and locked in a file cabinet at the PI’s place of
residence. Any electronic files, including the digitally recorded interviews and transcripts,
will be stored in a password-protected file on the PI’s computer.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects.
The data will be maintained for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Ms. Cecilia Santiago
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
E-Mail: santiagc@usc.edu
Phone: (323) 377-2844
Faculty Dissertation Chair: Dr. Kristan M. Venegas
Associate Professor of Clinical Education
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
E-Mail: kristanv@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall,
Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
189
Appendix F
Institutional Review Board Information Sheet for Faculty
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH
Faculty as Institutional Agents for low-income Latino students in STEM fields at an HSI.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of my study is to explore how institutional agents, specifically faculty
members, influence the experience and educational outcomes of low-income Latino
students in STEM fields at a Hispanic-Serving Institution.
Your relationship with your employer or educational institution will not be affected,
whether or not you participate in this study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in the study, you will be asked to complete an Institutional
Agent Self Assessment Inventory, which asks you to identify and quantify actions that are
known to foster student success. The inventory will take approximately 30 minutes to
complete. Then, you will be asked to participate in an interview that will last no more
than one and a half hours and that will be audio taped with your permission. The
interview will ask questions related to your experience as a faculty member at [Esperanza
University], specifically about your role in supporting Latino students in STEM
disciplines. You will also be asked questions about your motivation and strategies to
support students as well as any challenges you face while supporting them.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose at your discretion to opt
out of the study at any time and/or for any reason.
CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be some identifiable information obtained in connection with this study, such
as name and title. However, your name, contact information, title, or other identifiable
information will not be linked to your responses and pseudonyms will be used for the
institution and participant. Any paper files will be stored and locked in a file cabinet at
the PI’s place of residence. Any electronic files, including the digitally recorded
interviews and transcripts, will be stored in a password-protected file on the PI’s
computer.
The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
190
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects.
The data will be maintained for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Ms. Cecilia Santiago
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
E-Mail: santiagc@usc.edu
Phone: (323) 377-2844
Faculty Dissertation Chair: Dr. Kristan M. Venegas
Associate Professor of Clinical Education
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
E-Mail: kristanv@usc.edu
Phone: (213) 740-0507
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall,
Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS
191
Appendix G
Institutional Agents Framework
Institutional
Agent
Direct
Support
Resource
Agent
•provides
personal
and
positional
resources
to
students
Knowledge
Agent
•knows
“the
system”
•accesses
or
provides
knowledge
pertinent
to
navigating
the
system
Advisor
•helps
students
gather
information
•assesses
problems
and
possible
solutions
in
a
collaborative
manner
•promotes
&
guides
effective
decision
making
Advocate
•promotes
and
protects
the
interests
of
“their”
students
Networking
Coach
•teaches
students
how
to
network
with
key
institutional
agents
•models
appropriate
networking
behavior
•develops
relationships
with
important
and
influential
people
Integrative
Support
Integrative
Agent
•coordinates
students’
integration
and
participation
in
networks
and
professional
venues
(professional
associations,
department,
school,
etc.)
Cultural
Guide
•guides
students
through
new
social
situations
in
a
particular
cultural
sphere
•teaches
students
to
identify
and
interact
with
key
people
in
cultural
sphere
System
Linkage
&
Networking
Support
Recruiter
•actively
recruits
students
into
program,
department,
etc.
Bridging
Agent
•introduces
students
to
institutional
agents
•has
a
strong
social
network
•knows
what
key
players
do
Institutional
Broker
•negotiates
introductions
and
agreements
between
two
or
more
parties
•knows
what
resources
are
available
and
who
controls
or
possesses
them
Coordinator
•assesses
student’s
needs
•identifies
resources
to
address
need
•provides
or
accesses
institutional
resources
on
behalf
of
students
•ensures
students
utilizes
resources
System
Developer
Program
Developer
•develops
program
that
embeds
students
in
a
system
of
agents,
resources,
and
opportunities
Lobbyist
•lobbies
for
organizational
resources
to
be
directed
toward
recruiting
and
supporting
Political
Advocate
•joins
political
action
group
that
advocates
for
social
policies
and
institutional
resources
that
would
benefits
targeted
groups
of
students
The
roles
of
Institutional
Agents
are
each
manifested
through
a
specific
set
of
actions…
Stanton-‐Salazar,
R.
D.
(2010)
A
social
capital
framework
for
the
study
of
institutional
agents
&
their
role
in
the
empowerment
of
low-‐status
students
&
youth.Youth
&
Society.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Despite the exponential growth of Latinos during the past decade and an increase in higher education participation, there continues to be a gap in degree attainment compared to other ethnic and racial groups in this country. This gap is even greater for low-income Latino students seeking a degree in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. A proposed solution for this gap has been the designation of funding for institutions with high Latino enrollment, known as Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). However, little is known about the impact that these institutions have on student outcomes and even less, on how being Hispanic-Serving influences the practices of those who teach and lead within this context. ❧ The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the ways in which faculty, who were nominated by students, acted as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in STEM disciplines at Esperanza University, a four-year public Hispanic-serving Institution. The interviews of the five students and six faculty members who participated in this study reinforced the significance of student-faculty relationships, as those relationships facilitate the students’ integration into the academic and social fabric of the institution. Their stories illustrated the different forms of support that faculty offer their students, which characterizes them as institutional agents. The results of this study affirmed that faculty members are in a position to contribute positively and significantly to the educational experience and success of low-income Latino students, specifically those in high demand fields like STEM.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges
PDF
Institutional agents' impact on tranfser student success through the avenue of social capital
PDF
The manifestation of social capital within the mathematics, engineering, and science achievement (MESA) program
PDF
The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway
PDF
How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?
PDF
The search for transformative agents: the counter-institutional positioning of faculty and staff at an elite university
PDF
Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities
PDF
Peers as institutional agents: acquiring social capital through peer interactions
PDF
Non-academic factors affecting sense of belonging in first year commuter students at a four-year Hispanic serving institution
PDF
Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university
PDF
Four year college access for undocumented Latino students
PDF
Embedding and embodying a Hispanic-serving consciousness: a phenomenological case study of faculty hiring experiences
PDF
Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent
PDF
Addressing the underrepresentation of women in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math: a focus on African American and Hispanic women in community college and university programs
PDF
Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students
PDF
Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students
PDF
The impact of student-faculty interaction on undergraduate international students' academic outcome
PDF
Capacity building for STEM faculty and leaders: supporting university students with ADHD in earning STEM degrees
PDF
Assessing persistence for low-income students at community colleges: the impact of student-parent relationships
PDF
"God has my back": the role of faith-based institutions in preparing African-American students for college success
Asset Metadata
Creator
Santiago, Cecilia
(author)
Core Title
Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
11/21/2012
Defense Date
09/18/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
faculty,Hispanic-serving institutions,institutional agents,Latinos,OAI-PMH Harvest,social capital,STEM
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Venegas, Kristan M. (
committee chair
), Dowd, Alicia C. (
committee member
), Lundberg, Carol (
committee member
)
Creator Email
cecy_santiago@yahoo.com,santiagc@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-113497
Unique identifier
UC11289994
Identifier
usctheses-c3-113497 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SantiagoCe-1328.pdf
Dmrecord
113497
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Santiago, Cecilia
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
faculty
Hispanic-serving institutions
institutional agents
social capital
STEM