University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Influence of mentorship on career development for underrepresented minoritized students in STEM undergraduate research experiences

(USC Thesis Other)

Influence of mentorship on career development for underrepresented minoritized students in STEM undergraduate research experiences

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Influence of Mentorship on Career Development for Underrepresented Minoritized
Students in STEM Undergraduate Research Experiences
Andy Jones-Liang
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Andy Jones-Liang 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Andy Jones-Liang certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Anthony Maddox
Esther C. Kim
Eric Canny, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study examined the undergraduate research experiences of recent engineering bachelor’s
degree earners from underrepresented minoritized (URM) backgrounds and the ways in which
mentorship during their research experiences influenced their outlooks on career pathways in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Existing literature have documented
the positive correlation between undergraduate research experiences (UREs) and commitment to
STEM career pathways for students from underrepresented minoritized backgrounds. However,
less is known about the mentoring process and other environmental factors in research
experiences that influence URM students’ long-term commitment to STEM careers. Through
interviews with 9 alumni from URM backgrounds, who have graduated from the same R1
university and participated in undergraduate research, this qualitative study found several factors
influencing URE outcomes and STEM career choices. These findings include initial exposure
and access to research opportunities, organizational culture within lab environments, visibility of
marginalized identities in research spaces, structure of onboarding and training, the role of
graduate students and faculty as mentors, the expansion of career options through transferrable
skillsets, and clarifying perspectives towards graduate studies. This study contributes to a
growing body of literature on the significance of undergraduate research experiences for
individuals from historically marginalized backgrounds, as part of ongoing national efforts to
increase and sustain diversity within the STEM workforce.

v
Dedication
To my family. 媽媽, 爸爸, Eva, thank you for your endless support and shaping me to who I am
today. In the loving memory of my mother-in-law, Stephanie, who taught me what it means to
truly lead life with warmth, grace, and kindness.
To my dear friends who supported me along this journey, thank you for your uplifting words and
encouragement.
And finally, to my husband, Nick. To fully express my love for you is another dissertation all on
its own. This would not be possible without you. Through all the ups and downs, you have been
my ride-or-die and my biggest cheerleader. Thank you for reminding me that I deserve to
celebrate every win. You are my ever-steady foundation. This one’s for you.

vi
Acknowledgments
First, to the participants of this study, thank you for sharing your stories. You spoke with
such candidness that gave tremendous depth and nuance to the findings of this study. I am
inspired by your passion not only as scientists, but as individuals who are eager to make a
difference in this world. I am excited to see the future of STEM with all of you leading the way.
Second, a big thank you to my advisor and dissertation committee chair, Dr. Eric Canny,
for being a consistently calming presence throughout this writing process. There were so many
points I felt like giving up, but your tactical mindset and gentle encouragement throughout that
was critical to my success. To my dissertation committee members, Dr. Esther Kim and Dr.
Anthony Maddox. Dr. Kim, your inquiry methods class taught me to dig deeper as a qualitative
researcher, knowing that there are layers of nuance to each story. Dr. Maddox, your experience
and insight as a STEM educator was a much-needed perspective that helped make this study as
robust as possible in its diversity of participant voices and experiences.
To my EdD cohort, this ragtag group of part-timers with full hearts, thank you for your
words of encouragement throughout this very long journey. Special thanks to Matt Stevens,
whose kindness and generosity epitomizes the meaning of a superstar colleague.
In my quest to understand other people’s career trajectories, this experience gave me an
opportunity to reflect deeply on my own path. What I learned is that the process of finding one’s
purpose is rarely linear and never achieved alone. This Ed.D. journey certainly proved the power
of mentorship and how much you can grow when surrounded by the right people. To my friends,
colleagues, and teachers, thank you for everything.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework.................................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Historical Perspectives of Undergraduate Research in the United States......................... 13
Measuring Undergraduate Research Outcomes for URM Students................................. 18
Conceptualization of Mentorship in STEM Research Experiences.................................. 23
Mentorship Roles and Structures in STEM URE Settings............................................... 29
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 34
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 36
Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 36
Overview of Design ......................................................................................................... 37
Research Setting ............................................................................................................... 37
The Researcher ................................................................................................................. 38

viii
Data Sources and Instrumentation .................................................................................... 40
Participants ....................................................................................................................... 40
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 41
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 42
Validity and Reliability .................................................................................................... 43
Ethics ................................................................................................................................ 44
Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Themes ......................................................................... 45
Participants........................................................................................................................ 45
Participant Profiles ........................................................................................................... 47
Themes ............................................................................................................................. 49
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 80
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 81
Revisiting Social Cognitive Career Theory ..................................................................... 81
Discussion of Findings ..................................................................................................... 84
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 90
Limitations and Delimitations .......................................................................................... 94
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 95
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 96
References..................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendix A: Information Sheet for Exempt Research............................................................... 115
Appendix B: Email Message to Alumni for Participation ......................................................... 117
Appendix C: Pre-Qualification Survey ...................................................................................... 119
Appendix D: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................ 121
Appendix E: Follow Up Email to Participants .......................................................................... 124

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Demographics Summary ............................................................................. 46
Table 2: Emergent Themes from Data ......................................................................................... 50

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Integration of SCCT's models of career-related interest development and
choice-making................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2: Mediation model of the effects of science support experiences.................................... 27
Figure 3: Application of SCCT within context of undergraduate research experience................ 83

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
This study investigated the influence of undergraduate research experiences on students
from underrepresented minoritized (URM) backgrounds, and the ways in which mentorship
during their research experiences can shape their commitment to career pathways in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Over the past four decades, there have been
substantial and focused efforts within higher education to increase the diversity of individuals in
STEM education. Among these efforts, undergraduate research experiences (UREs) have been
documented to successfully help students from underrepresented minoritized (URM)
backgrounds to pursue STEM career pathways (Hunter et al., 2007; Thiry et al., 2011). Students
who participated in UREs reported greater increases in certain skill sets compared to those who
did not participate in research activities, including abilities to acquire information independently,
understand scientific findings, analyze literature critically, speak effectively, act as a leader, and
articulate clear career goals (Bauer & Bennett, 2003). Ultimately, science self-efficacy, defined
as the belief in one’s ability to conduct scientific tasks, and science identity, defined as the
perception of self as a scientist, are two important mediating factors that affect a student’s
decision to persist in STEM-based careers (Adedokun et al., 2013; Byars-Winston & Rogers,
2019). Given the correlation between UREs and long-term commitment to STEM careers, it is
critical to understand the structures, mechanisms and stakeholders involved that create positive
and impactful research experiences for URM students.
Existing literature indicates that mentorship is an important component in UREs that
contribute to the development of URM undergraduate students as career scientists (Dolan &
Johnson, 2010; Thiry & Laursen, 2011; Zydney et al., 2002). However, less is known about the
specific process of mentoring in a research capacity and how that may ultimately affect career

2
decisions for undergraduate students. While faculty traditionally function as the primary research
mentor for undergraduate students, large research institutions also rely heavily on graduate
students as direct mentors to undergraduate students in research capacities (Thiry & Laursen,
2011; Wood, 2003). While some recent studies have examined the impact of faculty mentorship
on undergraduate students, fewer focus on the relationships between URM undergraduate
students and graduate student mentors (Dolan & Johnson, 2010; Byars-Winston et al., 2015;
Atkins et al., 2020). Most graduate students do not receive formal pedagogical training
specifically as mentors to undergraduate students within the URE context, yet their involvement
can often significantly shape the outcome of the undergraduate students’ research experience.
Therefore, exploring the nuances of the mentor-mentee dynamics can contribute to the larger
body of research on the STEM career choices of URM students who have participated in guided
research experiences.
Background of the Problem
Traditionally, as principal investigators of a research group, faculty members are often
the primary mentor for undergraduate student researchers. In large research institutions,
however, it is often not possible for a singular faculty member to directly oversee all
undergraduate students. Thus, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers also take on
mentorship and supervision of undergraduate students (Wood, 2003). Mentorship structures
within these research settings can involve mentoring triads, or three-way interactions between
faculty, graduate and undergraduate students (Aikens et al., 2016). In most URE structures,
faculty provide managerial oversight, while graduate students are expected to provide direct and
frequent hands-on training for the undergraduates (Crede & Boreego, 2012). In a study of two
research institutions, Thiry and Laursen (2011) found that undergraduate students were twice as

3
likely to be mentored by graduate students or postdoctoral researchers than they were to receive
direct mentorship from principal investigators. Undergraduate students have recognized the
positive aspects of mentorship provided by graduate students, including their ability to nurture
independence, build trust and respect, and provide learning gains (Mabrouk & Remijan, 2023).
However, existing studies on this topic are limited to small sample sizes, and not much is known
on the specific needs and challenges faced by URM students paired with graduate student
mentors (Dolan & Johnson, 2010; Morales et al., 2017). Despite the prevalence of graduate
students as mentors for undergraduates, there are few established training programs that
adequately prepare graduate students as effective mentors in a research environment (Pfund et
al., 2006). Further perspectives are needed from URM students about their experiences with
graduate student mentors to provide formalized evidence-based training across URE programs.
Statement of the Problem
While existing studies focus on the learning outcomes of UREs, less is known about the
process of mentorship that occurs during UREs that influence the career choice outcomes for its
undergraduate participants. Furthermore, graduate students occupy a unique role in the research
space, as they are both simultaneously mentoring undergraduate students while also being
mentored by their faculty or principal investigator (Aikens et al, 2016). Within the context of the
research environment, graduate students can also play a crucial role in shaping the research
experiences of undergraduate students (Dolan & Johnson, 2010). Further investigation is needed
to understand how undergraduate URM students perceive the impacts of their graduate student
mentors and faculty mentors on their research self-efficacy, identity development as scientists,
and decision to persist in STEM-related careers.

4
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of recent alumni who participated
in STEM research as undergraduate students, and how they perceive the influence of mentorship
from faculty and graduate students on the formation of their own career choices. The study aims
to identify alumni from URM backgrounds who have earned their bachelor’s degree in STEM
within the past 3 years, participated in mentored research experiences as an undergraduate
student, and are currently pursuing STEM careers. Interviewing alumni ensures that participants
are removed enough from their undergraduate years and able to reflect on their trajectory, but not
so far removed that it would be difficult to recall experiences with depth and accuracy. The study
is guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the experiences of alumni from URM backgrounds who participated in
STEM research as undergraduate students?
2. How do URM alumni characterize successful mentorship experiences in STEM
undergraduate research settings?
3. How do URM alumni perceive the influence of research mentorship in the
development of their self-efficacy, science identity, and career choices within the
STEM field?
Significance of the Study
Ultimately, undergoing research experiences may have significant implications for
undergraduate students seeking future careers in STEM fields, particularly for students from
URM backgrounds. The biannual report on Diversity and STEM from the National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics (2023) shows that minoritized students are still vastly
underrepresented in the attainment of bachelor’s degrees and above. For example, bachelor's

5
degree attainment in engineering remained stagnant for Black students between 2011 - 2020,
representing only 5% of the total population. Ultimately, Black and Hispanic/Latinx students are
statistically more likely to switch out of STEM majors compared to White students (RiegleCrumb, King, & Irizarry, 2019). Disparities are further pronounced at the masters and doctoral
degree level, with Hispanic/Latinx students least represented in computer science and
mathematics (11% masters and 9% doctorate), and Black students with low representation in
engineering (5.7% masters and 5.6% doctorate) (NCSES, 2023).When examining workforce
numbers, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native STEM workers with
postsecondary degrees are still largely underrepresented compared to those who receive
certification and technical training; and relatedly, workers from these racial demographics
receive lower wages and compensation compared to their White and Asian counterparts
(NCSES, 2023).
Existing literature demonstrates that research opportunities for undergraduate students
can affirm their identity as scientists. The intellectual, professional, and personal growth through
UREs can ultimately pipeline them towards significant career opportunities in STEM fields.
Thus, the roles and functions of mentorship are key to understanding how UREs function as a
significant contributor to the future diversity of the STEM workforce in the United States.
Overview of Theoretical Framework
Based on Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, the social cognitive career theory was
developed by Lent, Brown and Hackett (1994) to focus on one’s agency as it pertains to their
career development decisions. The framework adopts three socio-cognitive mechanisms taken
from Bandura (1989): self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goal representations.

6
• Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief in their ability to achieve a goal or set
of goals. Self-efficacy is a dynamic process that can change based on other social or
contextual factors. In the context of SCCT, the career decision-making self-efficacy
(CDMSE) can be used to specifically measure an individual’s perception of ability as a
determinant for their career exploration decisions (Betz, Klein & Taylor, 1996).
• Outcome Expectations: While self-efficacy helps to assess one’s own abilities, outcome
expectation examines the results of one’s behaviors, should they choose to engage in a
specific task. Outcome expectations can also be linked to motivation or behavior, and in
the context of career decisions, may involve factors such as work-life balance, support
from family, or organizational culture.
• Goals: From the socio-cognitive perspective, goal setting is a way in which an individual
can take control of their own decision-making process, rather than relying on external
forces to reinforce their behavior. It acknowledges the process of self-regulation, which
can be connected to prior knowledge to determine future actions. Career goals,
specifically, are tied to an individual’s strategic planning, commitment, and continuous
learning. In the context of SCCT, goal instability refers to the lack of specific goal
orientation, while goal directedness is the maturity of one’s self-direction and self-esteem
(Joslyn, 2015).
Using these three socio-cognitive mechanisms, Lent et al. (1994) created the model of
SSCT that starts with the interactions of self-efficacy and outcome expectations, which results in
the formation of vocational interests (See Figure 1). Interests can then be solidified through the
attainment of specific goals through select activities and practices, and over the span of one’s
life, the continuous attainment of goals and refinement of skill sets will determine one’s career

7
pathways. Throughout this process, SCCT also identifies personal values and aptitude as
important factors to consider alongside self-efficacy and outcome beliefs. It is important to note
that aptitude is the formal assessment of one’s abilities, such as standardized testing, versus selfefficacy, which is based on one’s own perception of abilities.
Lent et al. (1994) also detail several propositions based on the SCCT model. They predict
positive correlations between high self-efficacy and high outcome expectations in the
determination of one’s vocational interests. There are also positive relationships between
outcome expectations and goal formation. As such, people will tend to pursue occupations that
are consistent with their own assessments of ability, interests, and performance. There is a
hypothesis from the authors that these factors tend to stabilize for individuals by early adulthood,
and that vocational interests can change if there are shifts in self-efficacy and outcome
expectations.
Within the SCCT model, contextual influences are the supports, opportunities and
barriers created by the environment and are dependent on how the individual perceives it.
Broken down into two subcategories: (1) Distal, background contextual influences, which
precede the learning experience and (2) Proximal influences, which occur during learning
experiences and include factors such as networks of support, institutional climate, policies, and
biases (Lent et al., 1994).
While the SCCT model provides a general framework for career development, the
authors acknowledge that additional investigation is required to examine specific barriers that
women and people of color (Lent et al., 1994). Factors such as employer bias, lack of
representation in certain professional fields, were not factored into the original SCCT model, as
the model assumes the process of self-efficacy and outcome expectations exist purely within the

8
control of the individual. Since its original creation, the model has undergone several iterations
in consideration of diverse populations and additional variables within career lifespans (Lent &
Brown, 2006a). Later models also included dimensions of job satisfaction and well-being at
work and career self-management (Lent & Brown, 2006a; 2013).
SCCT can be used as a framework to situate undergraduate students within the research
context. The model can be used to measure their research self-efficacy and outcome
expectations, which become mediators for their commitment to STEM careers. In this case, the
graduate mentors fall under the category of proximal influence and become part of their support
network throughout their vocational formation process.
Figure 1
Integration of SCCT's models of career-related interest development and choice-making
Note: From “Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest,
Choice, and Performance,” by R.W. Lent, S.D. Brown, & G. Hackett, 1994, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 45(1), p.93. Copyright 1993 by R.W. Lent, S.D. Brown, & G. Hackett.

9
Definition of Terms
This study examined the experiences of URM undergraduate students in STEM
disciplines who receive mentoring from graduate students in a research setting. Below are terms
that warrant definition for the purpose of this study.
• Background contextual affordances is a component of the social cognitive career
theory that refers to the environmental resources or deficits, such as social class, that
influence an individual’s learning experience (Lent et al., 1994).
• Choice actions is a component of the social cognitive career theory and refers to the
steps that an individual takes towards the fulfillment of a particular goal (Lent et al.,
1994).
• Choice goals is a component of the social cognitive career theory and refers to the
individual’s level of determination to engage in a particular activity or affect a future
outcome (Bandura, 1986; Lent et al., 1994).
• First-generation college students are defined as individuals whose parents both have
not completed baccalaureate degrees, or an individual who resides with or receives
primary support from only one parent who does not have a baccalaureate degree
(Higher Education Act of 1965).
• Interest is a component of the social cognitive career theory and refers to the
individual’s “patterns of likes, dislikes, and indifferences regarding career-relevant
activities and occupations” (Lent et al., 1994, p. 88).
• Learning experiences are the experiential sources that are the “key mediators of
person and contextual influences on academic and career development” (Lent &
Brown, 2019, p.6).

10
• Mentorship is defined as a relationship between a more experienced guide (mentor)
and a less experienced learner (protege), in which the mentor provides knowledge or
counsel to support the protege’s personal and professional growth (Johnson, 2015).
• Navigational capital is a component of Yosso’s model of community cultural wealth
and refers to the “skills of maneuvering through social institutions.” (Yosso, 2005,
p.80)
• Performance domains and attainments are components of the social cognitive career
theory that refer to the level of success in which an individual attains their educational
or occupational pursuits and their continued persistence in facing obstacles related to
those pursuits (Lent & Brown, 2019).
• Person inputs refers to the individual’s dimensions of identity that influence the ways
in which they navigate a social learning environment (Lent et al., 1994)
• Research I institutions refer to a category of institutions with the highest level of
research activity, defined as doctoral institution awarding at least 20
research/scholarship doctoral degrees and had at least $5 million in total research
expenditures, based on the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education
(n.d.)
• Research position is a fixed-term participation within an established research
laboratory or research group, either on a voluntary or paid basis, under guided
supervision from a faculty or graduate student.
• Science identity is related to the act of doing science, as well as the perception of
one’s present and future self as it relates to science (Brickhouse, Lowery, & Schultz,
2000).

11
• Self-efficacy is an individual’s judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute
courses of action required to attain designated types of performances (Bandura, 1997,
p. 391)
• Outcome expectations is a component of the social cognitive career theory and refers
to the results of one’s behaviors, should they choose to engage in a specific task (Lent
et al., 1994)
• Resistant capital is a component of Yosso’s model of community cultural wealth and
refers to the “knowledges and skills fostered through oppositional behavior that
challenges inequality.” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80).
• Social capital refers to the networks of relationships that help facilitate access to
resources for upward mobility (Bourdieu, 1986; Yosso, 2005).
• Undergraduate research experience (URE) is defined as “a mentored investigation or
creative inquiry conducted by undergraduates that seeks to make a scholarly or
artistic contribution to knowledge.” (Council on Undergraduate Research, n.d.).
• Underrepresented minoritized (URM) students refer to individuals from racial or
ethnic backgrounds who have a smaller percentage of representation in STEM
employment or education compared to their representation in the overall U.S.
population. in the context of STEM employment and education (National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics, 2023). This includes students who identify as
Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and American Indians or Alaska
Natives. The term “minoritized” (action) is used in place of “minority” (noun) to
address systems of power, in which members of dominant groups can oppress, or
minoritize, those belonging to subordinate groups (Benitez, 2010; Stewart, 2013).

12
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One provides an
introduction of the study and its research questions, including the purpose and significance of the
study. Chapter Two highlights the relevant literature and the conceptual framework for the study.
Chapter Three details the research methodology. Chapter Four provides the results and findings.
Chapter Five details the proposed recommendations.

13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review provides insight into the history, structures, and effects of
undergraduate research experiences for URM students, as well as the role and effects of mentors
who contribute to these experiences. The chapter begins by tracing the twentieth and twenty-first
century growth of undergraduate research programs and research-based curricula in American
higher education, as well as efforts to increase STEM participation for URM students. Then, the
chapter reviews literature from the past two decades on the positive effects of undergraduate
research for URM students, noting the shift in literature to further explore the psychological
processes of self-efficacy and science identity that occur during UREs. The concept of
mentorship is established before outlining the positive effects of mentorship for URM students in
research settings. The chapter concludes by characterizing the roles of faculty and graduate
students as research mentors, while also contextualizing the challenges they face within an
institutional context. Undergraduate research is still a growing field of study in higher education,
and the literature review highlights the need for further exploration on the specific processes
within URE that inform STEM career persistence for URM students, especially the role of
graduate students as research mentors.
Historical Perspective of Undergraduate Research in the United States
Within the larger historical context of U.S. higher education, the prioritization and
formalization of research activities at the undergraduate level is a relatively recent phenomenon.
The influence of the “Germanic Ideal” in the nineteenth century shifted American higher
education from small teaching colleges to the establishment of university systems focused on
research (Lucas, 2016). During this time, the Morrill Act of 1862 allowed for the creation of
land-grant colleges that accelerated the expansion of federally funded public universities for

14
agricultural and mechanical studies, paving the way for engineering education in the United
States. This is followed by the Second Morrill Act of 1890, which further expanded educational
opportunities for African-Americans with the establishment of historically Black colleges and
universities (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). These events led to increased opportunities for scientific
research and professional degree attainment at the university level, which created an alternative
to the classical liberal arts approach to higher education.
Landmark pieces of legislation passed between the 1940s and 1960s, including the
Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill) and the Higher Education Act of 1965, led to
the diversification of student demographics in U.S. higher institutions. The 1946 Truman
Commission helped pave the way for the passing of the Higher Education Act, which
underscored the nation’s need to address glaring inequalities among higher education attainment
between groups in the United States (Thelin, 2004). The number of students enrolled in higher
education grew from over 2 million in 1945 to over 11 million in 1975, and the number of
degrees conferred increased tenfold (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). With a rapid surge in college
enrollment among the general population, more scrutiny was placed upon the need to provide
access to groups traditionally kept out of higher education.
The emphasis on research, innovation, and scientific advancement within the American
higher education system continued into the twentieth century. However, until the post-WWII era,
scholarly research was largely reserved at the graduate level (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). The first
instance of a formalized undergraduate research program did not occur until 1969, with the
founding of the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) (Kinkead, 2012). Other key events in the following two decades
continue to highlight investment in undergraduate research opportunities. The formation of the

15
Council of Undergraduate Research (CUR) in 1978 established an official national organization
for faculty and administrators to focus on the development of undergraduate research across
colleges and universities. (Kinkead, 2012). The expansion of research to the undergraduate level
was also set within a larger context of American educational reform throughout the Cold War.
There was growing recognition of the need for the United States to bolster the education of its
workforce to remain economically and technologically competitive against other nations (Katkin,
2003). The publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in
Education pointed to the decline of American students’ test scores and overall academic
achievement as high-risk indicators for the United States’ role as a global superpower. Around
this time, the National Science Foundation (NSF) began its Research Experiences for
Undergraduates (REU) program in 1986 as part of their larger mission to support research that
“is a primary driver of the U.S. economy, enhances the nation's security, [and] advances
knowledge to sustain global leadership” (About NSF, n.d.). The NSF Committee on Equal
Opportunities in Science and Engineering (2011) have since continued to emphasize the
necessity of broadening participation in STEM for the United States to remain innovatively and
economically competitive on the global stage.
However, while research has been acknowledged as an important factor to undergraduate
student learning, inquiry-based curricula was still not widely standardized or implemented across
all universities. The Boyer Commission report of 1998 was a direct response and critique to the
lack of research-based curricula for undergraduate students (Wood, 2003). The report,
Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities,
provides ten specific recommendations on how to structure undergraduate curriculum that
promotes inquiry-based learning:

16
• making research-based learning the standard
• constructing an inquiry-based freshman year
• building on the freshman foundation
• removing barrier to interdisciplinary education
• linking communication skills and coursework
• using information technology creatively
• culminating with a capstone experience
• educating graduate students as apprentice teachers
• changing faculty reward systems
• cultivating a sense of community (Kenny, 1998)
While the report was lauded for its stance on the urgency of undergraduate researchbased curriculum, others critiqued the recommendations as impractical given the workload
demands already placed on faculty to produce research for higher education institutions (Katkin,
2003). Regardless, the culture of academia in the modern era has fully transformed to emphasize
knowledge creation for undergraduate students, in contrast to the traditional pedagogical
approach of knowledge reproduction.
Formalized undergraduate research programs have existed in various forms over the past
four decades, though their functions and structures vary widely across higher education
institutions. While some are structured with external funding sources, administrative support, and
formalized program components, others exist as informal mentorship relationships between
faculty and students (Seeling & Choudhary, 2016). Traditionally, undergraduate students at fouryear research institutions access research experiences in several ways. They can apply to work in
a lab as an assistant to a faculty member, either on a volunteer or paid basis. They can also

17
pursue research guided by faculty as part of an honors thesis or capstone project. Alternatively,
students may choose to participate in structured, short-term, cohort-based programs. In many
cases, undergraduate students are also trained by graduate and postdoctoral students, and they
participate in basic laboratory training courses before taking on additional research
responsibilities (Seeling & Choudhary, 2016). Undergraduate students’ research experiences can
also culminate in publishing or presenting at national conferences, adding to their professional
and academic development.
While traditional models of undergraduate research require students to seek out faculty
mentorship, newer approaches seek to embed research into existing curriculum and pedagogy,
especially based on recommendation from the Boyer Commission report. Course-based
undergraduate research experiences (CURE) allow greater access and inclusion for students who
might not otherwise be aware of such opportunities or seek them out on their own (Bangera &
Brownell, 2014). A case study at Moreno Valley College, a two-year institution, demonstrates
the efficacy of integrating laboratory research into introductory biology and chemistry courses by
using the college’s natural environment to conduct studies on conditions and migratory patterns
of local birds (Werner-Fraczek, 2020). Similarly, Olson-McBride et al. (2016) examine the
effectiveness of a course-based undergraduate research experience targeted towards at-risk firstyear students. Because research methods and inquiry-based curriculum were implemented into
existing bridge courses, the teaching load and cost disruptions were minimal to the university.
Regardless of approach, higher education institutions recognize the importance of creating
opportunities for research exposure at the undergraduate level. The following section will
provide additional historical context and case studies on efforts to diversify STEM undergraduate
research participation within the U.S. higher education.

18
Measuring Undergraduate Research Outcomes for URM Students
When looking at the outcomes of undergraduate research experiences, it is important to
distinguish the varying measures of student success across existing literature, particularly the
differentiation between academic and career-based outcomes. There is a substantial body of
literature documenting the positive effects on URE for students of color across several learning
metrics, including increased academic performance, retention, sense of belonging, self-efficacy,
science identity, career-based knowledge, and commitment to graduate education (Kuh, 2008;
Tukibayeva, 2014; Bowman & Holmes, 2018; Carpi et al., 2017; Bauer & Bennett, 2003). From
an academic standpoint, undergraduate research experiences (URE) consistently prove to be one
of the most beneficial and impactful educational practices, especially for students of color. URE
is a significant and positive predictor for students attaining liberal education learning outcomes,
including critical thinking, moral reasoning, commitment to lifelong learning, intercultural
effectiveness, and socially responsible leadership (Kilgo et al., 2014). Developmental benefits
are even more pronounced when students begin their undergraduate research experience as first
year students. First-year undergraduate research has shown to generate positive correlations with
fourth-year GPA, as well as social benefits, including stronger faculty mentorship and
satisfaction with overall college experience (Bowman & Holmes, 2018). Data shows that
participation in a research-based curriculum for first-year at-risk students increased their
likelihood to participate in future research opportunities (Olson-McBride et al., 2016). Research
courses with team-based projects, support networks, and course deliverables such as publishable
results yielded growth for students’ commitment to research (Duboue et al., 2022).
However, while UREs provide general developmental benefits for URM students,
findings do not suggest a direct cause and effect between participation in undergraduate research

19
programs and career decision outcomes for URM students. A study by Bauer and Bennett (2003)
showed that students who participate in undergraduate research are twice as likely to pursue
doctoral study compared to students with no research experience, which suggests that
undergraduate research experiences could help clarify future career trajectories as part of the
students’ development. However, the study was based on a survey of alumni from a single
institution, and the data was not disaggregated by race/ethnicity. When looking at examples of
STEM research programs aimed at increasing graduate degree attainment of URM students,
assessments of program outcomes have varied greatly. Federal entities such as the National
Science Foundation (NSF) play a major role in supporting undergraduate research programs for
URM students through its Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) programs. The REU
program model typically consists of a 10-week summer intensive curriculum, where students
work on existing research under faculty guidance that culminates with a poster presentation to
discuss findings (About NSF, n.d.). Critics of the REU model state that short-term curriculum
may hinder comprehensive learning outcomes, but studies generally show increased gains in
research knowledge and capacity (Follmer et al., 2017; Byars-Winston et al., 2015).
Similarly, other federal TRIO programs like the McNair Scholars prepare first-generation
students and students of color for doctoral studies through involvement in undergraduate
research. Previous studies generally indicate positive outcomes for McNair participants,
including social and academic integration and enrollment in graduate degree programs (Gittens,
2014). However, studies have been limited to single-institution samples and lack longitudinal
tracking, and there is insufficient data on the number of McNair Scholars alumni who have
ultimately completed doctoral programs (Gittens, 2014; Bell, 2012). Similarly, the Mellon Mays
Undergraduate Fellowships Program (MMUF) aims to increase the number of underrepresented

20
and minoritized students in their pursuit of PhDs and careers in academia. While MMUF alumni
attribute their personal and professional growth through participation in the program, a study
from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows no substantive evidence that MMUF
increased production of PhD students (Prenovitz et al., 2016). This report was critiqued for its
limited scope of study, as it only examined the number of PhD outcomes versus the holistic longterm developmental benefits for student participants (Abdul-Alim, 2015). Nonetheless, the report
points out that 67% of respondents indicate that they would have pursued PhD programs
regardless of their participation in MMUF (Prenovitz et al., 2016).
Lastly, the Meyerhoff Scholars Program is another well-cited example of utilizing
research experiences to increase the persistence of URM students in STEM fields. Founded in
1988, the Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
(UMBC) was created to increase the number of African American students pursuing STEM
PhDs. The cohort-based program involves multi-year comprehensive support components,
including financial aid, study groups, community meetings, designated advisors and mentors,
tutoring services, and summer research opportunities (Gordon & Bridglass, 2004; Maton et al.,
2012). Data from the first 16 cohorts between 1986 - 1994 showed participants were five times
more likely to enter PhD programs compared to students who were accepted into the Meyerhoff
program but declined to attend other institutions (Maton & Hrabowski, 2004). Later phases of
research focused on understanding how perception of program benefits from participants served
as a mediator between their sense of community, research self-efficacy and science identity
(Maton et al., 2016). Thematically, these cited examples underscore that while there are positive
relationships between undergraduate research programs and career decision outcomes for URM
students, a direct model of cause and effect is not firmly established.

21
Studies on positive development outcomes of URE for URM students sit in tension with national
statistics on graduate degree attainment rates for students from URM backgrounds. AfricanAmerican, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American and Pacific Islander students represent less than
20% of those awarded doctoral degrees (Hoffer et al., 2006). National data on race/ethnicity of
full-time and part-time college faculty show that less than 3% are Black/African-American,
Hispanic/Latinx, or Native American (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023).
Addressing the “leaky” pipeline of retaining URM students from postsecondary education to
enter the STEM workforce has been an ongoing issue in U.S. higher education for the past four
decades (Allen-Ramdial & Campbell, 2014). This is especially imperative given the vast amount
of federally funded initiatives and institutional efforts to create STEM research programs for
URM students over the last four decades. What warrants further investigation are the specific
functions, mechanics and processes within the undergraduate experience that lead to URM
students committing to a postgraduate career in STEM. Thus, more recent phases of education
research on URE impacts on URM students have begun to identify specific psychological
processes that serve as mediators between science support activities and decisions to commit to
STEM careers (Chemers et al., 2011; Syed et al., 2019; Byars-Winston & Rogers, 2019). The
following sections define two major psychological processes in further detail.
Self-efficacy
Based on Alfred Bandura’s (1997) seminal work, self-efficacy is defined as “people’s
judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain
designated types of performances” (p. 391) Self-efficacy is a dynamic process that can change
based on social, environmental and contextual factors. Bandura (1997) cites four sources of selfefficacy:

22
• Mastery experiences: Seeing scaffolded measures of success
• Vicarious experiences: Seeing others like ourselves succeed
• Verbal persuasion: receiving encouragement and affirmation as feedback
• Physiological and affective states: managing negative emotions
Within the context of undergraduate research, self-efficacy is a useful measure and
predictor of long-term commitment to a STEM career pathway. Research confirms a mediation
model, in which science support activities (e.g. guided research experiences) affect commitment
to science career, which is mediated by science self-efficacy and identity as a scientist (Chemers
et al., 2011; Byars-Winston & Rogers, 2019; Adedokun et al, 2013). Carpi et al. (2017) showed
female students involved in science support activities experienced higher gains in self-efficacy,
and Black and Hispanic students had a higher rate of shift in their career intentions to include
graduate school compared to their White and Asian counterparts. Lopatto (2007) attributes selfefficacy as the bridge between research experience and identity as a scientist. In their survey of
251 undergraduate participants surveyed over three time periods over two years, Lopatto (2007)
found that involvement in STEM research improves science self-efficacy, which leads to one’s
identity development as a scientist.
Science identity
Science identity is the perception of an individual as a scientist, or a “science person”
(Aschbacher et al., 2010; Hazari et al., 2013). Science identity is related to the act of doing
science, as well as the perception of one’s present and future self as it relates to science.
Brickhouse et al., 2000). Science identity does not form in a vacuum and is instead informed by
environmental contexts and socializers (e.g. teachers, family members, peers), who can reinforce
or inhibit the science identity formation for individuals (Aschbacher et al., 2010). This is aligned

23
with situated learning theory by Lave and Wenger (1991), which that learning takes place in a
social context and interactions within communities of practice. Science identity is thus formed by
culture and meaning produced in these communities of practice.
Science identity is also continuously negotiated and defined by those who hold power
within a particular environment. Carlone (2004) also acknowledged how science in schools can
reinforce a narrow construct of what “good” science is and who does it. This study was done in
the context of a physics course designed with real-world applications in mind and inquiry-based
curriculum. Even though some girls in the class outperformed male counterparts, they were seen
as having interest and good students, but the males were still seen as having raw talent for
science. Women of color in STEM make bids for recognition to form their science identity, but
the study recognized that this model is problematic if recognition hinges on an audience that
does not look like them (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). Likewise, a separate study showed that
Hispanic females have the lowest level of self-perception as scientists. (Hazari et al.,
2013). Science identity is strongly tied to future determination of graduate school and career
choices (Merolla & Serpe, 2013). The literature offers critique on who is considered to be a
scientist or science person within the community of practice.
Conceptualization of Mentorship in STEM Research
Research on mentorship originated in the workplace environment with Kathy Kram’s
1983 publication, Mentoring at Work, which established a theoretical construct around
mentorship. Since then, research on mentorship has been expanded into academia and the
foundational concepts around mentorship have been applied to STEM learning environments.
Broadly defined, the concept of mentorship is a relationship between a more experienced guide
(mentor) and a less experienced learner (protege), in which the mentor provides knowledge or

24
counsel to support the protege’s personal and professional growth (Johnson, 2015). Mentorship
dynamics can be either formal or informal and can be short-term or long-term depending on the
nature and purpose of the relationship (Kram, 1983; Hernandez et al., 2017). Kram (1983) also
categorizes mentorship into four distinct phases:
• Initiation: initial contact between mentor and protege with expectation setting
• Cultivation: mentors provide the highest level of instrumental and socioemotional
support
• Separation, protégé become more independent and may seek distance from mentor.
• Redefinition, mentors and protégés may transition to more peer-like interactions, or if
circumstances change, the relationship may terminate.
The functionalities of mentorship are often categorized into two primary functions:
instrumental and socioemotional. Most mentoring relationships begin with the instrumental
dimension, also referred to as the career function of mentorship, with a focus on learning
essential tasks, goal setting and exploration of professional aspirations. The instrumental
function of mentorship can be characterized by helping the protégés move up the organizational
ladder, and growth is often measured by their ability to obtain career-related skillsets (Kram
1983; Chemers et al., 2011; Robnett et al., 2019). The other aspect of mentorship involves
socioemotional or psychological support and is focused on the personal growth and identity of
the protégés. Often, this dimension of mentoring involves emotional development tying into
personal identity development and goes beyond conversations about daily functions of the work
environment. Socioemotional support can involve a deeper alignment of personal values between
mentor and protégés, in which the mentors offer role modeling of their behaviors, beliefs or
attitudes (Kram, 1983; Eby et al. 2013, Hernandez et al. 2017, Syed et al. 2011). While functions

25
may vary during different phases of the relationship, most start off with career function and then
move into more psychosocial with more time spent (Kram, 1983). However, both functions are
needed for effective mentorship. Without instrumental support, the relationship cannot be
categorized within the concept of mentorship, given that the purpose of the relationship should
tie to the protégés’ growth in the profession. Conversely, without socioemotional dimension, the
relationship can only remain at a transactional level, and the provision of meaningful
psychological and emotional development can provide more depth to the protégés’ overall
personal development.
Newer perspectives in mentoring research emerged in the last two decades to take
environmental context into consideration. This shift acknowledges developmental networks that
affect mentoring relationships, including organizational structures and individual inputs prior to
mentorship (Higgins & Kram, 2001). There has also been a shift from the term mentorship to
mentoring relationships, and that the relationship is not a unilateral top-down approach from
mentor to protégé, but rather a bidirectional and reciprocating relationship between both parties
(Byars-Winston et al, 2015). By situating mentorship within a larger learning environment and
social networks, it also expands the concept of mentorship beyond a one-to-one relationship. An
individual can receive different aspects of mentoring through a connected network, which can be
made up of multiple sources of mentorship, including peer networks of support.
Eby et al. (2013) divided the mentorship process into 3 phases: antecedents (inputs),
correlates (process), and consequences (outcomes). The strongest factors of protege perception
of mentorship effectiveness are shared values and personality traits with mentors, and greater
instrumental support (IS) and relationship quality resulted in higher social capital. The findings
showed that great instrumental support leads to higher satisfaction, and great psychological

26
support relates to stronger affiliation (sense of belonging). The development of these processoriented models is important to understand how specific variables within the mentorship process
interact with one another, especially when looking at a diversifying population of students with
varying instrumental and socioemotional needs.
Mediating Model of Research Experiences
By conceptualizing mentorship into distinct psychological dimensions, later studies were
able to translate the instrumental and socioemotional functions of mentorship into measurable
factors in relationship to science programs and outcomes of career commitment. As shown in
Figure 2, Chemers et al. (2011) developed a mediating model of research experience (MMRE)
that shows the effects of science support experiences on student participants’ commitment to a
science career. The mediation model demonstrates that if students participate in a science support
program, it will affect their psychological processes (self-efficacy and science identity), which in
turn will affect student commitment to science careers. In their quantitative survey of over 600
undergraduates and postgraduates from majority URM backgrounds, Chemers et al. (2011)
tested the mediation model by creating survey scales measuring self-efficacy in science (e.g.,
ability to use science language and terms, knowledge of publishing a scientific paper). Their
research confirmed the mediation model—science support activities affect commitment to
science career, which is mediated by science self-efficacy and identity as a scientist.

27
Figure 2
Mediation model of the effects of science support experiences
Note: From “The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among
underrepresented minority students” by M.M. Chemers, E.L. Zurbriggen, M. Syed, B.K. Goza &
S. Bearman, 2011, Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), p. 471. Copyright by Chemers et al., 2010.
Additional empirical testing from other studies also affirmed the validity of the MMRE
and underscore the importance of self-efficacy and science identity as psychological processes
that can predict students’ STEM career commitment. (Syed et al., 2019). However, existing
literature recommends that additional studies will be needed to understand specific mentoring
behaviors, motivations and experiences that may help to develop a fuller picture on its effects on
student’s self-efficacy and science identity.

28
Effects of Mentorship for URM Students in STEM Research
Mentorship is one of the most crucial components in determining the learning outcomes
and professional development of students who participate in undergraduate research experiences.
Within the context of STEM research environments, mentoring is especially highly impactful for
URM students and relates directly to their self-efficacy, formation of science identity, and
affirmation of a career pathway in STEM (Thiry & Laursen, 2011; Summers & Hrabowski,
2006; Zydney et al., 2002). While there are multiple avenues for mentorship, students involved
in research activities had more access to mentors and built stronger mentoring relationships
overall, which in turn provided positive social support, increased social capital, and a sense of
belonging (Atkins et al., 2020).
Estrada et al. (2018) offered one of the first longitudinal studies on whether URM
students integrate into STEM professional communities based on factors of research and
mentorship experiences and the extent to which their social experience matters. Students with
quality research mentors experienced more social integration into STEM communities, and
predicted overall science self-efficacy, identity and values. Findings from Estrada et al. (2018)
specifically confirmed that science identity will predict STEM career choices (positive or
negative) 4 years after undergraduate degree attainment. Another study focused on AfricanAmerican students in engineering validated the significance of informal mentoring spaces for
URM STEM students and how peer mentorship builds resilience and multilateral directions of
support that increase overall resilience, build communities of practice and increase social capital
(Tuladhar et al., 2021) When mentoring URM students, some studies also highlighted the
importance of utilizing local cultural knowledge and community-based mentoring to yield
positive results (Washington & Mondisa, 2021; Zorec, 2022).

29
There are mixed results when looking at specifically matching mentors and proteges
based on similar demographic backgrounds, largely due to the variance of study samples and
mentorship structures across professional fields (Allen et al., 2005, Ortiz-Walters & Gilson,
2005). While shared demographic similarities between mentor and protégé can serve as a
positive, it is not a direct predictor of mentorship quality or outcomes. Rather, mentorship
components like building trust, shared values, and time spent are much higher correlations for
positive mentorship outcomes (Pfund et al., 2014; Hernandez et al., 2017) A quantitative study
of over 400 undergraduate Hispanic students showed that psychological support, shared
similarities, and time spent are highest correlations with positive mentorship outcomes, and
students who supported in co-authoring publications said the experience affirmed their
commitment to a STEM career (Pedersen et al., 2022).
Ultimately, the protege’s perception of mentor’s effectiveness is still the strongest
predictor of their own science identity and self-efficacy. Bryar-Winston et al. (2015) conducted a
test of the expanded SCCT model with biology undergraduate mentees and found that the
students’ perceptions of their mentors' effectiveness strongly shaped their beliefs in their own
research skills and career knowledge and served as the strongest predictor of their research selfefficacy beliefs.
Mentorship Roles and Structures in STEM URE Settings
In the context of STEM research, formal and informal mentorship occur within
laboratory settings, with faculty or principal investigators as mentors, and graduate and
undergraduate students as mentees. At large research institutions, graduate students and
postdoctoral researchers can also serve in mentorship capacities for undergraduates, and they
often act as intermediaries between faculty and undergraduates (Dolan & Johnson, 2010;

30
DeAngelo et al., 2016; Ceyhan & Tillotson, 2020). Aikens et al. (2015) examined various
permutations of triad mentorship structures between undergraduate students, postgraduate
researchers, and faculty members. Their findings indicated that a “closed” triad, in which the
undergraduate student had direct relationships with both postgraduate and faculty mentors,
derived the highest gains in learning outcomes. The study also validated the positive impact that
postgraduate mentors had on the undergraduates’ research experiences, especially providing
socioemotional resources and support; however, having only undergraduate-graduate dyads was
not sufficient for positive outcomes, and faculty still played a significant role in the process.
There is also emerging research on the prevalence of undergraduate researchers having
more than one mentor and the types of support they receive from multi-mentor teams. A study
from Bradley et al., (2017) looked at four research institutions, and asked students who they
consider mentors in their research networks. Faculty and postgraduate students were ranked
highest as those in mentorship roles, with them offering the most informational support. The
study confirmed the notion that undergraduate student researchers perform better when there is a
team of mentorship support beyond just faculty and moves from mentor-mentee dyad to multirelationships within a network.
Faculty as Undergraduate Research Mentors
Faculty mentorship is a pivotal factor for students' overall development as a scientist. In a
study of life science undergraduate students in dyads or triad mentorship models, students with
direct faculty interactions showed higher levels of science self-efficacy, scientific identity, and
scholarly productivity, compared to those in a triad structure that lacked direct faculty interaction
(Joshi et al., 2019). However, while undergraduates receive benefits from faculty mentorship, the
motivation from faculty to engage in mentoring varies widely and is largely influenced by their

31
perceived cost-benefit of time and resources (Morales et al., 2017). Some faculty are intrinsically
motivated to mentor undergraduate students out of desire to prepare and influence career
trajectories of students (Zydney et al., 2002). Faculty members who design research experiences
with undergraduate students in mind perceive a much larger outcome of “higher order skills,”
and those who prioritize increasing diversity within academia are more likely to serve as mentors
for underrepresented students (Morales et al., 2017). Lastly, faculty involved with undergraduate
student mentoring are more likely to be early to mid-career faculty versus tenured faculty
members, since mentorship is often considered as part of their service requirements for tenure
consideration (Morales et al., 2017).
The organizational culture and environment can significantly affect the motivations and
ability for faculty to directly mentor undergraduate students in a research environment. Often,
faculty who engage in mentoring students within URE take on additional roles beyond their
primary responsibilities of teaching, publishing, and other administrative duties. DeAngelo et al.
(2016) described this as “organizational citizen behavior” or “extra-role behavior,” in which an
individual’s behavior is not formally or explicitly recognized by the organization. Given the
time-consuming nature of personalized mentorship, faculty would require substantial incentives,
increased resources, and a supportive institutional culture to participate in intensive
undergraduate research training programs (Morales et al., 2017; DeAngelo et al., 2016). Overall,
depending on the values and priorities of the institution, mentorship of undergraduate students
within research may be perceived as more of a social good, rather than a job requirement for
research-based faculty members.

32
Graduate Students as Undergraduate Research Mentors
There is limited literature about the specific roles and functions of graduate student
mentors within the URE context. Dolan and Johnson (2010) examined both positive and negative
effects of graduate students as mentors to undergraduates. Graduate student mentors provide
instrumental support to undergraduate students, especially teaching technical skill sets related to
research. Faculty also noted the ability for postgraduate students to develop managerial skills as
mentors, while also easing their workload of recruiting and supervising undergraduates for
research projects (Dolan & Johnson, 2010). Graduate students can develop closer relationships
with undergraduates compared to faculty, given that graduate students have more recent
experiences as undergraduates and can better relate on a peer level. However, postgraduates can
also negatively affect the mentoring experience by reinforcing hierarchy in the lab environment
or placing unrealistic expectations on the output of undergraduate researchers. (Dolan &
Johnson, 2010; Morales et al., 2017).
Most graduate students do not receive formal mentorship training as part of their
education. In a survey of over 500 STEM academics, Hund et al. (2018) found that 69% of
respondents reported to have received no formal mentorship training during their career.
Postgraduates who are not formally trained as mentors can yield varying outcomes for
undergraduate students. Mabrouk & Remijan (2023) conducted a longitudinal study of
undergraduate students who participated in an REU for biochemistry between 2014 - 2016,
characterizing what they thought were positive and negative traits for graduate student mentors.
Among the highest rated traits were nurturing independence, building trust and respect, forming
partnership and benchmarking / feedback. On the other hand, negative traits included
dependence, lack of trust or respect, and poor communication (Mabrouk & Remijan, 2023).

33
Mentoring undergraduate students in the research setting is often an added-on responsibility for
graduate students assigned by their principal investigators, which in turn may influence their
overall motivation and effectiveness with mentorship.
Without clearly defined roles, graduate students face multiple barriers that may affect
their ability to mentor, including attrition from degree attainment. Zerbe et al. (2023) showed
multiple factors of attrition are shown to impact a student's decision to depart. This includes the
hidden curriculum of graduate studies, including how to manage up with their principal
investigators. Additionally, graduate students experience mental health struggles and face
challenges finding a sense of belonging. Graduate students are six times more likely to
experience anxiety and depression compared to the general population, and the effects are even
more pronounced among students from historically minoritized backgrounds (Evans et al., 2018).
While this study did not investigate the mentoring experience from the perspective of graduate
students, these factors are important to keep in mind as background contextual influences which
may affect how graduate students show up as mentors to undergraduate students in the research
space.
Finally, it is important to note that the challenges faced by graduate students as research
mentors are situated within a larger debate on their role categorization as student versus
employee. According to an analysis of National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data by
the American Association of University Professors, the number of nonmedical graduate student
workers at public and private institutions increased by 44% between 2002 to 2021, compared to
only a 19% increase of full-time and part-time instructional faculty within the same time frame
(Colby, 2023). Doctoral students especially experience oscillating roles within academia as
research assistants, teaching assistants, and novice researchers (Jazvac-Martek, 2009). The

34
increase of job responsibilities is also set against a backdrop of nationwide unionization efforts
as a result of a 2016 ruling from the National Labor Relations Board ruling in favor of graduate
students’ collective bargaining rights at private institutions (The Trustees of Columbia
University in the City of New York, 2016). While there has been a steady increase in
unionization efforts over the last decade, between 2022 to 2023 alone, student worker bargaining
units saw a 56 percent increase across U.S. higher education institutions (Herbert et. al, 2023).
The national movement towards unionization calls into question the roles and functions of the
graduate student within higher education. Given that mentorship often occurs informally,
institutions may also need to further clarify and define the capacities in which graduate students
serve as supervisors to undergraduate students within formal research settings, along with
potential increase in compensation for taking these additional duties.
Conclusion
This literature review examined the history of undergraduate research within U.S. higher
education, the effects of undergraduate research for underrepresented minoritized students, and
the roles of faculty and graduate students as mentors in research capacities. The study utilized the
social cognitive career theory as the theoretical underpinning to explore the ways in which
mentorship can influence the career decisions of undergraduate research participants. While there
has been a substantive body of work around the effects of undergraduate research experiences on
students -- particularly correlations between research, self-efficacy, and career decisions -- there
are still unknowns around the mechanisms and moderating effects of mentorship within this
process. In particular, the interactions between graduate and undergraduate students within the
research environment deserves further exploration, along with other contextual influences that
may occur for undergraduate students to shape their overall journey as researchers and career

35
scientists. Based on these gaps addressed in the literature reviews, the following chapters provide
details on the study’s methodologies, present original data, and conduct an analysis of the
findings.

36
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study examined the research experiences of former undergraduate students from
underrepresented minoritized (URM) backgrounds. This included gaining a more nuanced
understanding of URM students’ overall undergraduate research experience, along with their
perception of how the mentorship experience has impacted their identity as scientist and
commitment to career pathways in STEM. This chapter begins with a review of the research
questions, followed by an overview and justification of the qualitative research methodology that
was utilized. This is followed by an overview of the research setting and participants sampled for
the study. Given that the researcher is the instrument for qualitative inquiry, a section is provided
about the researcher’s background and positionality within the context of the institutional
organization (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Lastly, sections related to data procedures and protocol
are outlined, including instrumentation, data collection, data analysis, validity and reliability,
ethics, limitations, and delimitations.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the experiences of alumni from URM backgrounds who participated in
STEM research as undergraduate students?
2. How do URM alumni characterize successful mentorship experiences in STEM
undergraduate research settings?
3. How do URM alumni perceive the influence of research mentorship in the
development of their self-efficacy, science identity, and career choices within the
STEM field?

37
Overview of Design
This study was a qualitative case study, which focuses on the “in-depth description and
analysis of a bounded system” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 37). In this instance, the bounded
system can be defined as the network of research laboratories situated within the university. This
includes the physical labs and the network of people who actively engage in these research
spaces. This study focused on the experiences of recent participants of undergraduate research to
develop a deeper understanding of how they perceived the impacts of their research experience
on the formation of their career decisions. Qualitative methods were appropriate for this study,
since the research questions focus on how individuals interpret and make meaning of the world
around them (Maxwell, 2013).
Qualitative studies align with a constructivist paradigm, which acknowledges the
existence of multiple realities and derives understanding through participants’ perspectives
within a specific context (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). For this study, it was critical to
understand how participants derived meaning from mentorship based on the construction of their
worldview, and how mentorship approaches related to their personal values and identities. Thus,
interviews allowed for the generation of rich, thick descriptions and narratives of specific,
contextualized experiences that provide deeper dimensions of understanding (Maxwell, 2013).
Research Setting
Langford University is a large private, highly selective 4-year institution located in the
western region of the United States. Langford is also categorized as a predominantly white
institution (PWI). According to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education,
Langford University is categorized as a Research 1 (R1) institution among Doctoral Universities
with very high research activity. With over 100 research centers and institutes, Langford

38
supports a robust ecosystem of research and development through private and public funding,
including federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation.
Within Langford, the school of engineering is prominent for its infrastructure for research
and innovation. At the time of the study, the school’s most recent class of undergraduates
included a higher proportion of URM students compared to the national average. The school
consists of several engineering major departments, each with its own network of research labs,
and undergraduate students receive opportunities to participate in research. The school of
engineering has a centralized research program that offers stipend support to undergraduate
students for research engagement, and most undergraduate researchers are overseen by a
combination of PhD students and faculty members.
The site selection to address the research questions was appropriate, given that the school
of engineering operates within a well-resourced Research I institution that offers ample
opportunities for undergraduate research with consistent involvement from faculty and graduate
student mentors. The site provides funding support and structured programs that allow
undergraduate students to engage in guided research. This allows for the possibility to identify a
healthy sample of URM students who have participated in these types of research programs.
The Researcher
I am a staff member at the university working as an administrator of an undergraduate
research program within the school of engineering. I have worked in higher education
administration for over a decade. My role specifically works with undergraduate students
seeking research opportunities. I also work with graduate students who provide mentorship and
guidance for undergraduate students in this research program.

39
I am a queer, Asian-American cisgender male who also attended graduate studies and
works full time with STEM students. My professional background in nonprofit and higher
education settings have always been student-centered, with specific focus on historically
minoritized student populations. I also received my master’s degree in higher education and
student affairs. I do not have a background as a researcher prior to the pursuit of my doctoral
degree, nor did I study a STEM field in my undergraduate or graduate degrees. Therefore, I am
more removed from the actual experience of a STEM research environment, which allowed for
objectivity when seeking to understand the experiences of the study participants.
The purpose of the undergraduate research program I manage is to help expand access to
research opportunities for URM students in the engineering school. My role as program manager
involves administrative support for students to be matched with research lab positions. I facilitate
the application process, which involves promoting the program for students to apply. Once
students submit their applications, I forward the applications to the principal investigators
recruiting undergraduates for their labs. Ultimately, faculty make the decision about who they
select for their labs, and I serve as a neutral third party in charge of the administrative aspects of
this process. Once students are selected for the program, I set up onboarding, organize monthly
professional development workshops, and process stipend funds for the students. I also manage
funds distributed to PhD students who mentor undergraduate students. Given that I have some
positionality within the research space in the School of Engineering, I would not be able to
directly interview any current students participating in this research program. However, this was
not an issue for the study's purpose, since my sample consisted of recent alumni from the school
of engineering who were no longer enrolled students at the university.

40
Data Sources and Instrumentation
Two survey instruments were utilized for this study: pre-qualification surveys and
interviews. A pre-qualification survey was used to identify participants who meet the sampling
criteria. This included basic demographic information, along with a baseline understanding of
their experience as recent undergraduate students who participated in guided research
experiences. From the survey respondents, I determined those who meet all the sampling criteria,
and those selected participated in a one-time semi-structured interview that asked them to reflect
upon their experiences as recent undergraduate researchers. To align with the research questions,
the interview questions also allowed participants to identify their own perspectives on mentoring
and how their experience with mentors in a research environment informed their career
decisions.
Participants
This case study focused on the career choices of recent alumni from URM backgrounds
who participated in STEM undergraduate research under the guidance of faculty and graduate
student mentors. The sample of participants met the following criteria. First, participants must be
alumni from URM backgrounds. Second, they must have recently completed their undergraduate
engineering degree from Langford University, defined as alumni who have received their
bachelor’s degree within the last 1 - 3 years. Because the study asks participants to provide
accounts of their experiences from memory, interviewing those who have recently graduated will
ensure more accurate recollection of those experiences, compared to those who are further
removed from their undergraduate years. Third, participants must have engaged in undergraduate
research for at least one academic year and received consistent mentorship from both faculty and
graduate students. Given that the participants must fall within these specific set of characteristics,

41
I used purposeful sampling, or criterion-based selection, to ensure that the selection of
participants would generate a deep understanding of information-rich cases (Merrian & Tisdell,
p. 97). Purposeful sampling also ensured that the participants selected adequately reflected the
typical experiences of those with the bounded system (Maxwell, 2013). The intended goal was to
recruit 10 recent alumni from the engineering school that met the criteria of the study, and the
result was a sample of 9 total participants.
Data Collection
First, I created a pre-qualification survey that was sent out to recent alumni of the school
of engineering to identify those who meet the sampling criteria. Email invitations with digital
flyers to participate in the study were sent through email listservs by student affairs staff who
focus on diversity programs within school (Appendix B). Additional purposeful and snowball
sampling strategies were also utilized. I also identified participants by finding recent alumni
through LinkedIn, a professional social media platform. I directly messaged potential candidates
if they mentioned research experience as undergraduate students in their professional profiles.
When candidates responded, I then referred them to complete the initial pre-qualification survey.
The pre-qualification survey consisted of an eligibility survey that asked students to identify their
current employment or graduate school status, along with other basic demographic questions,
including gender and race/ethnicity. Demographic information was only used to determine
eligibility and to select a diverse pool of candidates to participate in the interview process.
Demographic data was not utilized for respondents who are not selected move forward in the
interview process, and all collected demographic data was destroyed after interview participants
had been confirmed (Appendix C).

42
Respondents who met all the sampling criteria received a follow-up email to confirm
their availability and willingness to participate in a one-time 60-minute one-on-one interview. I
offered a $25 gift card to each person who participated in the interview. Interviews were
conducted remotely through video conferencing to ensure flexibility of the participants’
locations, given that not all alumni remained in the same geographic area as the university after
graduation. The purpose of the interview was to gather in-depth descriptions of their
undergraduate research experience to address the study’s research questions. A semi-structured
interview process allowed for open-ended responses and the exploration of the participants’
worldviews, along with the ability to deviate with flexibility or ask clarifying questions (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2011). The interview began by asking participants to talk about their upbringing,
interest in STEM, and preparation for college. Then, participants were asked to broadly reflect
on their research experiences as undergraduates, along with their perception of successful
mentor-mentee relationships within the research context. The interview focused on their
relationship with both faculty and graduate student mentors and explored ways in which their
mentors have influenced their research experiences. Questions were also designed to reflect
components of social cognitive career theory and understand mentorship as a contextual
influence on students’ self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and how that shaped goals and
actions related to STEM career choices (Appendix D).
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed after all interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed as raw
data. All recorded data, including transcriptions and written observations, were reviewed closely
to ensure accurate representation of the participants’ experiences and reflections. A cleaned copy

43
of the transcript was also sent to participants for review to ensure that the data accurately
represented their intended responses to the interview questions (Appendix E).
A priori codes were developed prior to the study based on the established research
questions and theoretical framework of this study. Specifically, the codes sought to broadly
categorize participant responses as they aligned with SCCT, narrowing in on data points related
to self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and contextual influences related to the participants’
experiences with their research mentors. After data had been collected, the next iteration
involved identifying patterns through open and axial coding methods (Creswell & Poth, 2016).
Open and axial coding processes were conducted through Dedoose, a web-based data analysis
software, to allow for the emergence of new categories. These categories were used to create
main themes that tie into the main purpose of the study and the theoretical framework (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2011).
Validity and Reliability
Several strategies were implemented to ensure the validity and reliability of this study, so
that findings can be deemed truthful and accurate to the extent that it would be possible within
qualitative research. In experimental research designs, internal validity measures the researcher’s
confidence in finding causality between independent and dependent variables, while external
validity relates to the generalization of the study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). In qualitative
studies, however, the concept of validity has been largely debated, given that the constructivist
approach opposes the idea of an objective truth (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013)
defines validity in qualitative research as “correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion,
explanation, interpretation, or other sort of account.” (p.122). The term “reliability” is applied to
internal validity for qualitative studies, which ensures the extent to which the study’s findings

44
can be replicated. (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Strategies to ensure internal validity and reliability
included triangulation, member checking, and adequate engagement in rich data (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation was implemented by cross-checking pre-qualification
responses with participants’ interview data. Member checks, or respondent validation, occurred
during the interview process, the preliminary data collection, and the data verification phase by
sending cleaned transcripts to participants for review, which preempted researcher bias or
misinterpretation. Lastly, this study collected verbatim responses and transcribed interview data
to ensure the collection of rich, thick descriptions for analysis (Maxwell, 2013).
Ethics
When working with human subjects, it is important to approach the subjects with respect
to ensure that there is a trustworthy relationship between the researcher and its study participants.
Participants received interview questions ahead of time to review to help ensure trust between
the subjects and interviewer. There was informed consent, so participants understood the purpose
of the study, expected types of activities, the voluntary nature of the study, and their ability to
withdraw from participation at any time without penalty (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). As the
researcher, I also received verbal permission from the participants to video record their interview
prior to starting the interview protocol. To ensure confidentiality, I created pseudonyms for each
participant and reviewed the data to ensure no other sensitive information was included that
could comprise the participants’ identities. The participants were sent a copy of their transcribed
data to ensure that all the recorded information is accurate prior to the start of data analysis.
Throughout the study, all data was stored online through a password-protected drive to ensure
that nothing will be accessible to the public. All data, including audio recordings and written
notes, were destroyed after data has been analyzed and synthesized.

45
Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Themes
This chapter provides an overview of the study’s participants and themes related to their
experience with undergraduate research, mentorship, and career decisions. The qualitative data
resulted in six emergent themes: (1) Pathways into undergraduate research, (2) Navigating the
organizational culture of research environments, (3) Marginalized identities in STEM research
spaces, (4) Structure of onboarding and training, (5) Socioemotional mentorship as critical
component for long-term success, and (6) Research as a function for expanding career outlooks.
The study’s three research questions are:
1. What are the experiences of alumni from URM backgrounds who participated in
STEM research as undergraduate students?
2. How do URM alumni characterize successful mentorship experiences in STEM
undergraduate research settings?
3. How do URM alumni perceive the influence of research mentorship in the
development of their self-efficacy, science identity, and career choices within the
STEM field?
Participants
This study included nine participants who met the study criteria. All of whom graduated
from Langford University within the last three years with an engineering bachelor’s degree at the
time of the study, identifies as a person with a racial/ethnic identity that is underrepresented
within STEM, and participated in mentor-guided research for at least one academic year. Semistructured interviews were conducted virtually with the nine participants, each lasting 45 minutes
to an hour. Each participant was interviewed once by the researcher. Pseudonyms were used for

46
the participants, along with the names of any research labs or mentors they mentioned, to ensure
the confidentiality of their identities.
Table 1
Participant Demographics Summary
Pseudonym Year of
Graduation
Major Gender Race/Ethnicity
Daisy 2022 Electrical Engineering Female Hispanic/Latinx
Eddie 2023 Mechanical Engineering Male Hispanic/Latinx
Jamie 2022 Chemical Engineering Female Hispanic/Latinx
John 2021 Chemical Engineering Male Hispanic/Latinx / White
Kim 2022 Biomedical Engineering Female Black/African-American
Kylie 2022 Mechanical Engineering Female Black/African-American
Michael 2022 Biomedical Engineering Male Black/African-American
Luis 2023 Environmental Engineering Male Hispanic/Latinx
Rhonda 2021 Aerospace Engineering Female Hispanic/Latinx
Participants also reported holding between one to four separate research positions
throughout their time as an undergraduate student. For this study, a research position is defined
as short-term participation within an established research laboratory or research group, either on
a voluntary or paid basis, under guided supervision from a faculty or graduate student. A
common theme is that all participants began their first research position in-person before the
onset of COVID-19 before transitioning to remote work. When looking at post-graduate plans,
five of the nine participants have either completed or are currently in progress of pursuing a
STEM graduate-level degree, with three having received master’s degrees and two in current
pursuit of a PhD. Three participants are currently employed in the engineering industry, and one
has pivoted away from a STEM career role entirely.

47
Participant Profiles
Daisy identifies as Latina and queer, and she acknowledged the saliency of her
intersectional identities as part of her research experience. Daisy also mentioned financial stress
as a significant factor in her college experience. She expressed negative sentiments towards her
research experience but remained with her lab for three years as a source of income. She is
currently employed as an engineer for a major aerospace company.
Eddie is a first-generation college student who participated in two different research labs
as an undergraduate student. He expressed positive sentiments about both research experiences,
citing the impactful mentorship he received from the graduate students who supervised him. He
is currently pursuing his master’s degree in petroleum engineering and aims to secure a public
sector job upon graduation.
Jamie works as a research administrator at Langford University, working for the research
lab she was involved with as an undergraduate student. Jamie’s career goals are informed by her
desire to create impact in the field of environmental health for vulnerable communities. She
completed her Master of Public Health last year and plans to pursue a law degree afterwards to
round out her skill sets to enact change in the health policy arena.
John is currently a PhD student studying Chemical Engineering at an R1 university on
the East Coast. He was mentored directly by the faculty member, and he was with the same
research lab for all four years as an undergraduate student. He cited the impact of the faculty’s
mentorship as his reason for continuing to pursue his PhD in the same research topic.
Kim completed her master’s degree in biomedical engineering last year from an R1
university on the East Coast. She is currently working as a researcher for a national research
institution. Throughout her interview, she expressed a genuine love of research and took

48
advantage of multiple research opportunities as an undergraduate student. She received an
internship with a national research organization as a master’s student, which propelled her into
her current position in a research lab.
Kylie completed a minor in education in addition to her bachelor’s degree in mechanical
engineering. She describes her undergraduate experience as more well-rounded, as she taught
STEM subjects to elementary school students while separately engaging in undergraduate
research. Kylie plans to pivot away from a STEM position and accepted a teaching position
abroad in South Korea for the upcoming year.
Michael entered college with a specific interest in biomechanics due to his background in
athletics. He was involved in a biomechanics lab as an undergraduate researcher throughout his
time at LU. Michael described his research experience as positive but decided to enter the
workforce instead of pursuing a graduate program. He is currently working as a software
engineer for a biotech company.
Luis is a first-generation college student who transitioned from aerospace engineering to
environmental engineering during his first year at LU. He has gained four separate undergraduate
research experiences - three at LU and one at another university as part of a summer REU
program. He has applied to several PhD programs to continue research in environmental
engineering.
Rhonda had a negative experience with her undergraduate research experience due to
lack of structure and guidance. She considered leaving the engineering field at one point but
ultimately completed her bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering. During her senior year, she
was referred to an engineering position through a faculty member's recommendation, resulting in
her employment as an engineer with the Federal Aviation Administration.

49
Themes
This study yielded six emergent themes with 14 distinct subthemes (Table 2). The first
theme uncovers the many ways in which the participants gained access to undergraduate research
opportunities. Subthemes included various motivations for research pursuits, and that initial
exposure to research prior to formal matriculation is critical.
The next two themes relate to the norms and dynamics that participants observed about
their research environments. The second theme discusses the culture that the participants
observed about their research settings. Specifically, data showed that successful research
experiences included environments that allowed for open inquiry and the normalization of failure
as part of the learning process for research. Relatedly, the third theme centers around the
participants’ marginalized identities. Data indicated that visibility of other underrepresented
minoritized members within the research setting plays a key role in establishing some
participants’ own sense of belonging in the space. Additionally, some participants reported the
ways in which socialization outside of research tasks further promoted a sense of inclusion.
The next two themes explore the specific roles of faculty and graduate students as
mentors within the undergraduate research experience. The fourth theme covers the importance
of providing a scaffolded onboarding process and training structure, and data indicated that the
lack of structure can negatively impact the overall experience. The fifth theme highlights the
criticality of mentorship that participants received beyond the context of research projects and
assignments. While graduate students help undergraduates navigate institutional contexts, faculty
serve more as advocates for long-term career advancement.
The sixth and final theme explores how research serves as a function for the participants’
overall professional development and its effect on their career outlooks. Participants discuss the

50
ways in which research helped develop transferable skillsets, as well as the ways in which
research provided clarity on their perspectives towards the pursuit of graduate programs.
Table 2
Emergent Themes from Data
Themes RQ 1 RQ 2 RQ 3
Theme 1: Pathways into undergraduate research
Various motivations for pursuing research X
Initial exposure to research through summer bridge program X
“Right place, right time”: circumstantial access to research X
Theme 2: Navigating the organizational culture of research environments
“No stupid questions” - open accessibility of mentors X X
Normalizing failure as part of the research process X X
Theme 3: Marginalized identities in STEM research spaces
Visibility of other members from minoritized backgrounds X X
Fostering a sense of belonging through socialization X X
Theme 4: Structure of onboarding and training
Scaffolding assignments based on student’s interests and capabilities X X
Negative impacts from lack of structure and guidance X X
Theme 5: Mentorship beyond the scope of research projects
Graduate students as navigators and context setters X X
Faculty as advocates for student’s career progression X X
Negative impacts from absence of socioemotional support X X
Theme 6: Research as a function for expanding career outlooks
Gaining transferable skillsets X
Clarifying perspectives towards graduate studies X

51
Overall, the six emergent themes addressed all three components of the study’s research
questions. The data corresponded with the variables within the framework of the social cognitive
career theory and contributed to greater understanding of the undergraduate research experiences
of underrepresented minoritized students in engineering fields.
Theme 1: Pathways Into Undergraduate Research
The first theme delves into the participants’ initial motivations and knowledge base
around research prior to the start of their first year as undergraduate students. All the participants
reported having strong interest in the sciences growing up, and their interest in pursuing
engineering was solidified during their time in high school. All participants were high-achieving
students in high school with strong academic preparation that led to their acceptance into the
engineering school at Langford University. It is important to acknowledge that the participants
all possessed intrinsic desire to succeed in their field of study, as this plays an important role in
the formation of their motivations to pursue research as part of their college experience.
Various Motivations for Pursuing Research
Motivations for research involvement varied among participants, including financial
incentives, professional advancement, and intellectual curiosity. Three of the participants
received external messages about the importance of research as part of their undergraduate
experience, which was communicated to them during the college admissions process by teachers
or peers. John recalled that as he was applying to colleges, undergraduate research was brought
up frequently as a “selling point” to get “hands-on exposure to science.” While he did not know
what research would look like on a practical level, he knew that he received enough messages of
its importance that he intentionally sought out opportunities during his freshman year. Through

52
his involvement, however, John also then developed an appreciation for the research experience,
which he described as “internally fulfilling.”
On the other hand, two participants cited financial incentives and professional
advancement as their motivations for accessing research opportunities. Rhonda simply described
her research experience as a “resume booster,” although she did not enjoy the research process
overall. Meanwhile, for Daisy, the motivation for research involvement started with professional
and financial motivations, though these sentiments evolved as she gained experience. As a lowincome student, Daisy initially sought out paid positions, and she was able to secure a research
internship with at the local children’s hospital that partnered with LU to hire undergraduate
students. However, beyond the incentive of financial support, Daisy immediately recognized the
real-world applicability of the work, which fueled her curiosity pursue additional research
opportunities later:
We ended up creating some app that can predict when certain anemic patients are
experiencing pain. And I was like, Oh, my God, this is amazing, I'm anemic. This would
be great to know if I'm gonna faint in a couple of hours or something. So seeing the
applicability to real people, real scenarios -- that's what kind of motivated me. This was
like a little bug, like, I have this passion for helping people. And if I'm able to use the
fundamentals that I'm learning, then this is something I wanna keep exploring.]
One other participant, Jamie, cited intrinsic motivations for their initial foray into
research, with the understanding that research could help them explore various career pathways.
Before making the switch from petroleum engineering to chemical engineering, Jamie attended a
seminar talk given by a faculty member from the school of pharmacy. She was interested in the
subject matter and wanted to see how research would fit into her undergraduate career. While she
only stayed for a semester once she realized the research did not align with her interests, she
credited that experience as her “first exposure to the world of research.” The initial exposure was
sufficient for her to seek research opportunities throughout her undergraduate career.

53
Initial Exposure to Research Through Summer Bridge Program
Four participants — Eddie, Daisy, Luis, and Kylie — gained initial research exposure
through a formalized summer bridge program that sparked their long-term curiosity in
undergraduate research. Upon admission to the school of engineering at Langford University,
students from racially minoritized backgrounds in STEM were invited to participate in a fourweek summer bridge program prior to their freshman year, in which they were able to job
shadow a PhD student in a research setting. Beyond the research component, the program
included residential housing, preview math courses, and community activities to acclimate
students to campus and find a sense of belong at the university as part of their transition from
high school to college.
Eddie, Daisy and Luis, all first-generation college students, acknowledged the
community-building aspect of the program that gave them an immediate sense of belonging at
the university. Eddie remembered receiving a handwritten note from the program director
inviting him to join the summer bridge program and said, “That was really touching knowing
that they took the time to personalize this message … that there was an opportunity to have kind
of an almost simulated college experience.” Daisy also shared that it was through this program
that she found her community of support and made many close friends, and that this community
provided a steady foundation that contributed to their persistence in completing their bachelor’s
degree.
While participants who were involved with the summer bridge program did not have
enough time to explore an in-depth research topic, the initial exposure to a research environment
was often the impetus for them to continue exploring other long-term research opportunities once
they matriculated to the university. However, three of the four summer bridge participants still

54
needed to secure their first formal undergraduate research position through self-initiated outreach
to faculty members. Eddie was the only participant who remained in the same research lab that
he was introduced to during the summer bridge program, and he continued working there
throughout his freshman year of college.
“Right place, right time”: circumstantial access to research
Regardless of how participants gained initial exposure to the idea of research, their
pursuit in securing their first research position was not necessarily a direct path. Kylie recalled
that while her participation in the summer bridge program generated her interest in research, she
delayed in pursuing another research opportunity during her freshman year to adjust to college.
She noted that her desire for research involvement never left and grew stronger after her first
year, but she did not know how to secure another research position. She had reached out to the
principal investigator of the lab she was a part of during the summer bridge program but did not
receive a response. Her desire to seek out research coincided with a meeting with the then-vice
provost of the university, who was introduced to her by way of another peer in her role as an
orientation advisor. When recounting her initial meeting with the Vice Provost, Kylie said:
I was meeting with her because I didn't really know what I wanted to do... And then I
think the second time I met with her, she was like, you need to just make a decision. Do
you want to do research? I was like, sure. She's like, do you want to be in my lab? I was
like, yes. So yeah, it was really interesting how that happened. I didn't email a bunch of
professors. I know some people do that. But it was kind of natural how it happened, how
I met her, and then she asked me to be in her lab.
Kylie acknowledged that her meeting with the vice provost was largely due to being in
the right place at the right time. However, it is important to note that her intrinsic motivation to
seek out research was still shaped by the summer bridge experience, which led her to be open to
research opportunities in other spaces as she navigated her college experience.

55
For the five other alumni who did not participate in the summer bridge program, their
access to undergraduate research experiences also did not follow a set linear pathway. Michael
shared a story about a circumstantial meeting with a faculty member that led to his research
position. He attended a career event hosted by an athletics company, during which he met the
faculty member in the room who was working in the field of biomechanics.
I remember just going up and introducing myself and saying that I was interested in in the
work that she was doing in her lab and she was very receptive. I was actually surprised by
it. I didn't know that it was as easy as just going up to a professor and saying, Hi! My
name is Michael, and I'm interested in the work that you're doing. And she just said, it's
great to meet you. We're actually looking for people that are interested in doing some
work. Why don't you come by our office?
Michael went to the faculty’s lab the next day, learned more about the ongoing research
projects, and was on boarded by PhD students the following week. He remarked that he was
surprised by the ease he was able to join and the quickness of the entire process. While Michael’s
access to research echoes Kylie’s circumstance, other participants noted that they were more
proactive in their search for research positions. Kim and John recounted sending cold emails to
faculty members inquiring about open research positions. In both of their cases, they received
responses in a short timeframe and were quickly accepted into their respective research labs.
Similarly, Rhonda found her research lab through an email from her academic department that
let students know about the lab’s open positions for undergraduate students. She was able to
apply through a simple inquiry form and was accepted as a researcher soon after.
Regardless of motivations and the process in which they join research labs, two patterns
emerge: First, all participants received knowledge about the existence of research opportunities
prior to the start of their freshman year. This knowledge of research opportunities at the
university was gained either through the formal summer bridge program or other external
messages from the university. It was only through this initial knowledge that they were then able

56
to pursue other research opportunities once they matriculated to the university. Second, securing
research opportunities was largely a self-driven process. Participants navigated the process on
their own, through a mix of informal communications and chance meetings with faculty who
were able to grant them research positions. These two elements are important to consider as part
of their background contextual affordances, as it affects the ways in which they then navigate
their research experiences once they transition into these new learning environments.
Theme 2: Navigating the organizational culture of research environments
When describing the organizational culture of their research environments, seven
participants cited two critical factors that contributed to the degree of success related to their
perceived learning outcomes: (1) the accessibility of their mentors that allowed them to ask
questions, and (2) normalizing failure as part of the research experience.
“No Stupid Questions”: Open Accessibility of Mentors
At the start of their onboarding process in the research labs, five participants described
feelings of imposter syndrome. All the participants described the degree of accessibility they had
to their mentors as critical to their ongoing success in research. Participants who felt they had
successful learning experiences said they received explicit messages from research mentors that
they should ask as many questions as they needed to feel comfortable with the research topics at
hand. John recalled feeling “kind of shy” the first time he met with the faculty member in a oneon-one meeting. He described the faculty member as “kind and friendly,” and acknowledged that
the feeling of shyness and intimidation stemmed entirely from his own insecurities, as he was
“pretty much fresh out of high school” without much base knowledge of the research area.
However, the faculty mentor took the time to explain complex concepts and provided space for
him to ask questions. When asked what he would describe as the most important characteristics

57
in a mentor, John emphasized the role of the mentor can make a tremendous difference in the
undergraduate student’s experience and that they may even need to “over-encourage” students to
reach out at first:
I think, especially as an undergraduate, I was concerned of like sounding stupid, which,
like is a silly thing to be concerned of, but I think a lot of people do feel that way. So I
think, being aware of that as a mentor, just encouraging students to ask questions and
making it like a safe space… being aware of the fact that undergraduates are not going to
want to reach out to you, even if you tell them they can.
Jamie echoed John’s sentiments and described her first research experience as an open
and supportive environment where she was able to ask questions. She went a step further and
made the correlation between how she received research mentorship and how she currently
operates as a mentor. As a current research administrator, Jamie has adopted that approach in her
mentorship towards other undergraduate and high school students. She said, “I want to be able to
give that grace to other people who may look to my experiences as something they can learn
from.” She emphasized that the mentors encouraged her curiosity and ambitions, and they were
very understanding when she wanted to explore additional research opportunities beyond their
initial lab experience.
Michael also described his research group as welcoming, though he was still aware of the
different dynamics he had with the faculty and the graduate students. He noted that while the
faculty was friendly, she was the head of the lab and often busy with other responsibilities. He
understood that he was able to ask questions to the PhD students, with whom “the dynamic feels
a bit different.” Michael further explained that his dynamics with the PhD students provided a
level of accessibility, not only in terms of their proximity in age, but also their shared interest in
sports. Given that all the researchers in the lab were working in biomechanics, he knew that
interest in sports was a baseline connection point he would have with others beyond task-based

58
conversations about the research project itself. When asked what makes for a successful mentor,
Michael shared similar sentiments as John, and described the importance of creating a
welcoming environment where people can not only ask questions, but also “make changes or
offer insight if there’s something that they're aware of that they can bring to a project.” The
feeling of being able to provide input and contribute to the research group can also have a
powerful effect on the student.
Kim echoed Michael’s sentiments, recalling that she did “act a little more timid around
the PIs,” because they were “really smart people at the heads of their labs.” She also expressed
feeling some more comfort approaching the graduate students as her first point of contact, as
they were her direct mentors with whom she interacted on a daily basis.
Kylie recalled joining her very first lab meeting as “very overwhelming.” She
remembered being the only undergraduate student in the room among the team of PhD students
and trying to understand a research presentation that included highly technical research jargon.
She recalled feeling “confused and overwhelmed,” but later the faculty pulled her aside and said,
“It's okay. You don't know now, but soon you'll be an expert. It'll be fine, but just keep coming
back.” The faculty also provided her with books and other resources to read through, so she can
familiarize herself with the material.
Conversely, Rhonda recounts her inability to ask questions to the graduate students in her
research group. In her group, the faculty member was removed from the day-to-day supervision
of the students, and two PhD students serves as the main project managers. When describing her
interactions with the PhD students, Rhonda recalled their lack of willingness to engage with her
questions. “They’d almost get annoyed by the amount of questions we would have to ask them,”
she said, “because, you know, obviously they're busy, too. “But, if you don't really know what

59
you're supposed to be doing, then obviously you have to ask them, so I feel like sometimes they
can be a little short tempered.” This resulted in Rhonda feeling that she had to figure out as much
on her own as possible before having to approach the PhD students. Additionally, Rhonda
pointed to a larger observation about the culture of the research lab, in which the graduate
students prioritized their own responsibilities and project duties, while assisting undergraduate
students felt more like an “afterthought.” When asked what she wished her mentors had done
differently, Rhonda shared similar commentary that “being open and willing to help” is the
greatest factor in an undergraduate student’s sustained interest and growth within the research
environment. She had hoped for a level of understanding that undergraduates coming into a new
research environment will not have the same level of knowledge and that the graduate students
should not be upset at them for asking questions.
Normalizing failure as part of the research process
Six participants described a successful research group culture as one that normalizes
failure as part of the learning process. Luis described his top priority for a research environment,
as “one where it's all right to make mistakes.” He contrasted his experience between two separate
research experiences. In his sophomore year, he joined a materials science lab where the group
was strict on making mistakes. “Everything had to be perfect,” he recalled, and he cited a
specific incident where his supervisor was upset at him for making an error in a lab procedure,
even though the initial instructions Luis received were unclear. In the following summer, he
participated in a different research lab at another institution, where the culture was markedly
different. During that research experience, he observed a PhD student making a mistake while
demonstrating a procedure. Luis remembered how casually the PhD student reacted to his own
error, essentially shrugging it off and saying “Eh, it’s okay.” This specific incident was

60
indicative of the larger organizational culture, where he “had more room for error.” The freedom
to make mistakes, said Luis, allowed him to see “how the mistakes affect the outcome of a
particular thing,” and allowed him to deepen in learning experience in the process.
Kim also received messages from her mentors that making mistakes is an integral part of
the scientific process. In her first research experience, when she had doubts in her abilities to
carry out an experiment, her mentor would say, “It's okay. Research is all about messing up and
trying again. It's not a big deal.” Like Luis, Kim was also put at ease when a PhD student shared
a time when they made an error in their research experiment. “It really put into perspective, like,
oh, okay, we're all people,” she said. “We all mess things up. So it's okay. Just as long as we try
the next time again.” This sentiment extended to her second research experience, which she
described as highly difficult given the technicality of the subject matter, in addition to having to
engage virtually due to COVID restrictions. At the end of that academic year, when students
were required to present their findings, she felt like she did not have sufficient data to share. Her
PhD mentor encouraged her to “just have fun” at the session and that “it’s not a super big deal” if
she did not have results, and to use this more as a learning experience.
The six participants’ anecdotes highlight the importance of research mentors setting the
tone and reinforcing culture norms set within the organizational culture -- one that requires a safe
and welcoming learning environment for newcomers. There were explicit messages that the
students receive that normalized the lack of knowledge at the beginning, encouraged open
questions and embraced failure as part of the learning process. However, the establishment of
these cultural norms is only a piece of the overall puzzle. In the next section, participants
described the level of structural organization that was also required to ensure their ability to
develop technical knowledge in a scaffolded and methodical manner.

61
Theme 3: Marginalized Identities in Research Spaces
Five interview subjects reported awareness of their own intersectional identities as it relates to
their research environments. This includes discussions around the participants’ interactions with
other lab members from minoritized backgrounds, along with socialization with lab members
outside of the research environment that informed the participants’ overall sense of belonging.
Visibility of Other Members From Minoritized Backgrounds
Three participants, Kylie, Michael, and Daisy specifically mentioned the presence of
other research group members from minoritized backgrounds. Kylie, who cited initial feelings of
intimidation going into her first lab group meeting, noticed the gender parity of the research
team. Initially, Kylie described the room as “female dominated,” but then quickly corrected
herself to say that “it was probably half and half, but in engineering, that feels more femaledominated because normally it's like one or two [women].” When asked during the interview if
she was immediately aware of the gender parity in the room, Kylie said, “I definitely clocked it
because, I feel like I definitely just felt more familiar.” She then stated that the principal
investigator, also a woman of color, went so far as to call out the diversity in the room. “[She]
would just say it,” Kylie recalled. “She's like, yeah, they say I only let women into my lab or
something, like she would joke around about things like this.” The explicit acknowledgement of
the gender makeup of the team indicates that the faculty had established a culture in which
diversity was prioritized as a core value.
Michael, who identifies as African-American, recalled a positive experience connecting a
black graduate student on his research team. This was the graduate student who he first met at
the career event that led him to joining the biomechanics lab. Michael described the graduate
student as a role model, and a big reason why he remained in the research lab and expanded his

62
personal involvement in the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE). When asked if racial
identity was ever a direct topic of conversation, Michael said, “I think that it was subconsciously,
when you're navigating of places that are predominantly white whenever there's someone that
you're able to connect with that is black as well, that was also helpful.”
Daisy, on the other hand, had a turbulent experience in negotiating her identities in the
research environment. At the time, she was the only Latina in the research group. Additionally,
Daisy mentioned the invisible identity of socioeconomic status, and that the other group
members did not understand why she had to take on an additional part-time job. She also recalled
an incident of microaggression from her graduate student mentor, who questioned her ability to
commit to the research based on her gender and socioeconomic background. He advised her to
drop out of the group if she is unable to handle her other responsibilities. The graduate student
said he shared this comment out of concern “as a friend,” though the result of that remark made
Daisy feel further invalidated. It was not until her senior year that she began to see incoming
graduate students of color, along with a student who is gender nonconforming. Daisy said it was
“very affirming” to see other people with shared identities as hers who possess the ability to
navigate “these highly academic spaces.” When referring to the gender nonconforming student,
Daisy admired seeing someone “just being able to present themselves fully without having to
hide.” Although Daisy was already on her way out of the research lab at this point, the visibility
of people of marginalized identities in the research space was “very beautiful to watch,” and it
helped her appreciate the significance of maintaining one’s authenticity. Daisy further
acknowledged the research experience as a form of preparation on navigating professional spaces
as a minoritized person, particularly within her current job within the aerospace sector.

63
Fostering a Sense of Belonging Through Socialization
Beyond the visibility of underrepresented minoritized members within their research
groups, two participants also acknowledged the importance of socialization outside of the scope
of their work that helped foster a sense of belonging. Kim discussed the implicit ways of
inclusion that were reinforced by her research lab through informal lunches and social events,
including birthday celebrations. She credits this socialization as the reason for her strong sense of
belonging in her research lab. When asked if her racial identity as a Black woman ever came in
the research space, she said that while it did not come up explicitly, her general acceptance in her
research space motivated her to promote research involvement for other students of color. After
her undergraduate degree, Kim pursued her master’s degree at a different institution, where she
served as a student ambassador to help encourage other students from minoritized backgrounds
to get involved in STEM research.
When asked about his intersectional identities within research spaces, Eddie summarized
it as “interesting” to be able to go into things “with eyes wide open.” As a Latino first-generation
college student, he said, he did not have other peers or family members to look to for navigating
academia. However, he cited the summer bridge program as a critical juncture that provided him
with a strong sense of belonging.
I think being an underrepresented student can initially feel like there's maybe a couple
more roadblocks in your path. But if you are given a community and a good jumping off
point, like what the [summer bridge program] provided me, I think it makes you that
much more voracious in wanting to do something like research, but also encouraged and
a little bit more confident as well.
In thinking about his sense of belonging at the university, Eddie also credits his positive outlook
as a reason for his ability to succeed not only in research, but throughout his entire academic
journey. “I guess what made these opportunities so productive was saying, well, okay, I haven't

64
done this in the past, but I pretty sure I could do well if I give it a shot.” Coupled with
understanding his support systems at the university, Eddie thrived in his research environment
and continued his educational pursuit with a master’s degree. These perspectives show the
positive impact that can result in the intentional creation of inclusive spaces for learning.
Theme 4: Structure of Onboarding and Training
All participants noted that the ways in which they were onboarded in the first few months
of starting a new research position played an important factor in their investment in the research.
The findings below showcase the importance of instrumental mentoring, which involves tactical
guidance for students to accomplish a specific set of goals related to the research tasks at hand.
The quality of instruction that a student receives from their mentors can dictate their long-term
success within the research lab.
Scaffolding Assignments Based on Interests and Capabilities
Participants that have a positive experience quickly understood the overall goals of the
research project and the roles that they play in it. If the tasks are manageable and within their
abilities, they can quickly measure their progress and continue to make more contributions, but
this also requires the mentor to accurately assess the student’s abilities. For his onboarding
process with the biokinetics lab, Michael appreciated his ability to jump in quickly due to the
accessible nature of the project. The lab was measuring the movements of runners, and on his
first day, he was able to help handle a camera to record an athlete’s movements on the track. “It
was easy,” he said, “just to handle a camera or to help set up equipment and break it down and
bring it back to the lab.” While it was very basic tasks, he recognized that it was an easy way to
get introduced without needing “a ton of background knowledge.” From there, he was able to
take on additional responsibilities, primarily learning how to conduct calculations of the athlete’s

65
movements based on the video footage. Michael participated in-person for a few months at the
start of 2020, before COVID forced the team to transition to remote work. He noted, however,
that the faculty mentor was able to pivot and still identify other tasks for undergraduates to
complete. Michael ended up learning a programming language, which he was able to then use to
create calculations of the athlete’s movements, based off of the video footage he had assisted in
capturing months prior.
Eddie credited the summer bridge program as a way for him to get acclimated with the
research environment. He recalled the initial onboarding stage as “information overload,” but
that it was a great learning experience in being able to observe the research process directly from
the PhD students in the lab. He remembered being able to assist in simple lab procedures, along
with being assigned readings in order to become more familiar with the research subject matter
overall. Due to disruptions from COVID, his first research experience concluded after his first
academic year. However, he was able to identify another research opportunity once students
were able to return to campus. In his second experience, he also recalled the PhD student’s
ability to scaffold information in an accessible manner:
She's willing not only to give you hands on instructions, but she'll also give you a
guideline of, ‘Okay, it's really good if you maybe read this paper, understand a little bit
better.’ But she's also was able to give a better explanation of what she's working on,
whether it's an electrical component or something, and not leave you in the dark, but also
willing to challenge you a little bit in terms of questions.
Eddie cited difficulty in getting back into the cadence of in-person learning, but that the
ability of his graduate student mentor to lay out a feasible structure in his learning process
allowed him to not only gain confidence, but also fueled his interest in the work and desire to
take on additional responsibilities. He recalled wanting to take time during his winter break to

66
further dive into his assignments and developing passion and curiosity for the research over
time.
Negative Impacts From Lack of Structure and Guidance
Daisy and Rhonda, on the other hand, experienced a lack of structure or goals in their
research experience, which was ultimately detrimental to their overall sentiment towards
research in general. In her experience, Rhonda received little to no guidance from the PhD
students. When she first began the research experience in an aerospace lab, she was tasked to
build and test various satellite prototypes. However, there were no specific procedures or
protocols, nor was she aware of the parameters to which the end-products must adhere. Rhonda
recalled the frustration she and other undergraduate students in the lab faced during this process.
I understand that we're engineers and we need to come up with the answers. But not even
knowing the question is a problem for me. Going in, the only thing that we knew was that
we're building a satellite, and we didn't really know much more beyond that, so there was
just no clear guidance on what we were supposed to be doing.
Rhonda recalled needing to figure out procedures on her own, and it was not until towards the
end of the year that certain parameters of her research tasks became defined. At that stage,
however, Rhonda, had already made the decision not to return to the lab in the following
academic year.
Daisy faced similar challenges in her research experience because of inconsistency in her
assigned mentors. She had a negative perception of her first assigned graduate student mentor.
“He would shoot down a lot of my questions or try to belittle me and make it evident that I didn't
know anything which, like I didn't,” said Daisy. Already facing imposter syndrome, Daisy did
not understand if she had done something wrong to incur this type of response from the graduate
student. She noted, however, that this graduate student departed from the research group shortly
after, as other team members also expressed dissatisfaction with his overall conduct. Later, she

67
was assigned to work with another graduate student with whom she established a friendly
relationship, but it was casual to the point where she was not getting substantive work done.
When asked what she would have hoped for in a research mentor, she described someone who is
“able to see the individual, see their capacity and be understanding of where this fits into their
life.” Even if a mentor is working with a student with no prior research experience, said Daisy, it
should be their responsibility to assess the student’s skill sets and plan assigned research tasks
accordingly.
When asked to reflect on what she would have liked to have happened differently, Daisy
described how she would have approached working with a new undergraduate student had she
been in the position as a graduate student mentor:
I would walk through how you would apply what you learned in class to the actual
experiment that we're working on and hone in on those skills and build off of that…Like,
if you're really good at Matlab, I'm gonna put you on a project that is gonna utilize those
skills. So you're getting some experience while also introducing you very slowly to some
of the concepts that we're working on and building off of them.
By the end of her senior year, Daisy felt like she had not been given the opportunity to make a
significant impact within the research group. In a last-ditch effort to do so, she tried to work with
another graduate student, only for that student to depart from the research group as well. She
cited the lack of consistent guidance from the research group as the reason why she did not end
up pursuing a PhD, since she was never given the opportunity to fully be invested in the process.
For both Daisy and Rhonda, the lack of structure and intentional guidance during their research
experiences deterred their motivation to continue towards research-oriented career pathways
after graduation.

68
Theme 5: Mentorship Beyond the Scope of Research Projects
The seven participants who received structured guidance also discussed the broader
impacts of mentorship from graduate students and faculty members outside the immediate scope
of research-related assignments. Socioemotional support and instrumental mentorship related to
career guidance were both critical components that deepened mentor-mentee relationships
beyond the transactional day-to-day project-based guidance. Graduate student mentors and
faculty mentors both play critical roles in increasing the participants’ social and navigational
capital, while enhancing their overall professional development. Conversely, the lack of
mentoring support beyond daily research guidance has just as significant of an impact on
students’ long-term involvement in research, which echoes findings from the prior section on the
negative impacts from a lack of structure in technical guidance.
Graduate Students as Navigators and Context Setters
Graduate student mentors can also play key roles in helping undergraduate students set
context and navigate academic spaces. Eddie pointed to his graduate student mentors as
important figures who helped him navigate university life. During the summer bridge experience
as an incoming freshman, he was able to talk with his graduate student mentor about his
experiences transitioning into college. While their primary interactions were based around the
research tasks at hand, they also had conversations about accessing various campus resources.
Then, as a junior, Eddie identifies a separate research opportunity and was paired with his second
graduate student mentor, who helped him reacclimate to campus life upon returning to in-person
learning after the COVID shutdown period. In particular, the second mentor helped him get
“back into the flow of studying,” while also providing advice on living off-campus and
commuting.

69
Kylie also credited her graduate student mentor with helping her gain a better
understanding of the research environment. As another participant of the summer bridge
program, Kylie remembered being in the lab and meeting twice a week with her assigned
graduate student. “It was really interesting because I had no idea kind of what being in research
with a grad student in STEM was like,” she said. “So sometimes, with the downtime, I would
just ask her things about college in general, why she's doing this, how she got into what she was
studying.” It also gave her additional insight into graduate student life compared to
undergraduates, like “how they don't really have classes and they're mostly in the lab all the
time.” The presence of the graduate student gave her a firsthand insight into the day-to-day
workings of a research lab, which was enough to propel her to continue with research after the
duration of the summer bridge program.
Beyond helping to navigate the immediate research environment, some graduate student
mentors also serve as a connector for undergraduate students to other social communities.
Michael credited his graduate student mentor for his increased connection to other black
engineering students through the National Society for Black Engineers (NSBE). “I really
appreciate it,” he said, “because NSBE was something that I wasn't hugely involved with at the
time. but in staying in contact with NSBE and all the different people that I was able to meet
actually helped me out going forward.” This connection was made at a critical time prior to the
onset of COVID-19. Michael reflected that had it not been for guidance he received from the
graduate student, he would not have stayed engaged with NSBE or the research lab itself once
his college experience shifted to remote learning. While the graduate student completed his
master’s degree the following year and departed from the research group, the initial connection

70
was impactful enough to help Michael commit to the lab for the remainder of his undergraduate
years at the university.
Faculty as Advocates for Student’s Career Progression
Due to their high positionality within the institutional context, faculty had significant
impact on four participants in terms of the advocacy of their growth beyond the research project.
The ones that felt like they really had an impactful experience are those who had faculty mentors
who were actively looking out for their best interests, which includes connecting them to their
colleagues or networks, or recommending them for opportunities beyond the scope of the
research project.
Michael, Luis, John, and Jamie all cited examples of faculty mentors providing them with
access to additional opportunities outside of the research. Michael recalled the faculty
conducting multiple check-ins with him to ask him about his interests and goals. While there
were multiple projects occurring in the lab, she was intentional about where he was placed. If
one does not have a mentor looking out for their best interests, Miichael said, a student may be
stuck on a project without opportunities for growth that discourages them from the research
altogether. “But if someone is actively looking for those things for you or actively asking what
you're interested in,” he concludes, “making those changes can be a lot easier.” The faculty went
a step further and connected Michael to other professional contacts via email or LinkedIn, so that
he was able to continue expanding his network throughout his involvement at the research lab.
Luis also credited the faculty mentor from his first research experience as the reason why
he is currently pursuing a PhD. Luis started with an environmental engineering research lab in
his sophomore year, where he conducted a substantive literature review through direct guidance
from his faculty mentor. Through that experience, Luis wanted to continue research on the topic

71
of carbon capture. His faculty mentor connected him with a professional contact, a faculty at
another institution who leads a materials science lab related to his topic of interest. After an
initial conversation, Luis was hired by that faculty to work at the research lab through the
Summer Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program. That research experience
then led to his current pursuit of his PhD pathway in the very same research topic.
John also cited his relationship with his faculty as one that is beyond being a “technical
mentor,” but as someone who fully supported his professional and academic goals. When he
expressed interest in applying to PhD programs, the faculty wrote all his letters of
recommendation with great enthusiasm. He compared this to the experience that some of his
peers faced with requesting letters from their research advisors in other engineering departments.
“Some advisors were like either unwilling or very reluctant to write them letters for certain
schools, saying like, ‘Oh, you're not going to get in there,’” he recalled. John ended up receiving
acceptances to multiple graduate programs at highly selective institutions. He stated that his
faculty mentor “never told [him] to shoot lower.” Upon reflection of his faculty mentor’s
unwavering support during our interview, he realized it was “rather impactful” to his selfefficacy and ambitions.
Jamie provided a prominent example of a faculty member using his positionality to
advocate for her professional growth. Jamie said that her faculty mentor recommended her for a
competitive undergraduate teaching assistant position for a pilot seminar course. After her initial
interview for the position, she was not accepted. However, she then received an email of support
from her faculty mentor and was then reconsidered for the position afterwards. It is important to
note that Jamie’s faculty mentor is a tenured professor with close ties to administrative leaders at
the school. “It became for me an understanding that when you have mentors who are able to

72
harness their connections for the benefits of their mentees, that can be a really powerful stepping
stone and open a lot of doors,” said Jamie. She was initially shocked at her mentor’s ability to
have so much sway, but she also recognized the power a mentor can possess in helping their
students advance to their next career steps. This would not have been the case for Jamie had the
faculty not already seen her potential and capacity through her research engagements.
Negative Impacts from Absence of Mentorship
For one participant in particular, the absence of broader mentorship beyond the scope of
research projects is equally as impactful. Daisy, who had expressed an overall negative sentiment
towards her research experience, wished she had someone to advocate for her. When asked why
she remained with the lab for nearly three years, Daisy first cited the need for financial support,
given that she was receiving a stipend for her research participation. Beyond the financial need,
however, Daisy did not have a reference point to understand whether her experience was out of
the ordinary. “Part of it is that I just didn't know what I was doing,” she said. Despite receiving
emotional support from peers, family, and certain advisors within the university, she did not have
a figure to advocate for her specifically within the research space. “I didn’t have a mentor to be
able to say like, ‘Hey what you're going through is not something you should have to go through,
and you're allowed to leave.’”
This was coupled with her mentality of resilience that was instilled by her mother
throughout her upbringing. “If you just like work hard enough, or if you deal with all the bad
stuff eventually, good will come,” she said. “So, I kind of had that mentality too that like, if I just
stuck through this like, maybe there will be something that I can get out of this.” Daisy realized
this mindset was further reinforced by other faculty or staff at the university when she brought
her struggles. “They just kind of accepted it for me,” she said, “and I feel like I never really had

73
anyone to push me to leave or explore other things.” It was not until after she completed her
undergraduate degree that Daisy realized she could have explored other research labs, rather than
remaining within an environment that ultimately did not provide a sense of fulfillment or
alignment with her own professional goals. Like the prior section on the lack of intentional
structure, the findings indicate that the lack of socioemotional support can also prove detrimental
to the student’s continued persistence within research.
Theme 6: Research as a Function for Expanding Career Outlooks
The final theme discusses the ways in which participants have gained new perspectives
on their own career decisions because of their undergraduate research involvement. Participants
discussed the ways in which research had helped them gain useful technical skillsets that they
were able to apply to other employment opportunities. Additionally, their time spent within the
research environment allowed them to gain insight into a career in academia, which helped them
evaluate their values as it relates to their reasons and motivations for pursuing pathways towards
research-based graduate degrees.
Gaining Transferable Skill Sets
Two participants reported that the skills they learned from research proved valuable and
transferable to other job prospects. Michael talked about his motivation to join an online coding
bootcamp program shortly after his participation in the biomechanics research lab, when he
realized a limitation in his technical skillsets. In the transition from in-person research activities
to remote learning, Michael pivoted from fieldwork to data analysis and calculations. He realized
that the data component of the research required a substantial amount of coding in R and Python
to perform specific calculations. Wanting to increase his level of contribution to the research
team, Michael identified a virtual coding bootcamp the following summer through his NSBE

74
resources. This experience paid off dividends. After that summer, Michael recalled seeing a
marked improvement in his ability to turn around calculation tasks assigned to him, which led to
an increase in his overall responsibilities within the research group. Later, when he began his
full-time job search, his coding knowledge prepared him well for technical interviews. He said
that the coding bootcamp was something he kept “reaching back on” during his job interviews,
and that had it not been for his involvement with research, he would not have developed those
skillsets to the extent that he had. “I wasn't necessarily thinking like, oh, I just need to build up
my coding background just for coding’s sake, and it wasn't necessarily tied to what I was doing
for my classes,” Michael said, “but it was something that actually ended up helping me a ton
both in school and in getting a job.”
As someone who currently works as a researcher, Kim mentioned the importance of
gaining foundational wet lab techniques during her first undergraduate research experience. “It
was very eye opening,” she said. “I learned a lot, like, more than I ever did in the classroom. I
was able to just use a lot of techniques. I learned how to do a Western blot, and I never would
have known how to do that, because we don't really do that during class, even during class labs.”
The hands-on dimension of her research experience was helpful in not only honing her technical
skillets, but it also fortified her continued interest in the scientific research process.
Four participants also discussed the ways in which research helped improve their ability
to communicate effectively to a broad audience. Jamie spoke of her experience with an
environmental health research fellowship program, which included monthly professional
development seminars. Through these seminars, Jamie learned how to use statistical software to
create infographics for her research presentations. “It was a really a supportive experience
because I got to see all of the different ways that you can communicate research and the results

75
of research to an outward facing audience,” she said. She contrasted this with her prior research
experience, where she helped to write a paper that was housed within the academic community
but did not go past the completion of a manuscript. With environmental health research, she was
able to see for the first time how to “turn the research outward facing and learn how to
communicate scientific research to the public.” She still works in the same environmental health
research lab to this day as a staff administrator. Likewise, Eddie spoke about benefits to his own
interpersonal communication because of his undergraduate research experiences, especially
when he had the opportunity to present his work at various poster sessions. Beyond those
experiences of presenting, Eddie reflected that the personal gains he received through research
gave him “a sense of pride” in his development as a student, along with a “sense of agency and
capacity” that allowed him to see his future as a working professional within the STEM field.
These examples highlight the importance of understanding research experiences as technical
building blocks, which can inform how a student would move forward in their overall career
pathway development.
Clarifying Perspectives Towards Graduate Studies
When asked about how their research experiences ultimately impacted their career
decisions, all participants described the process of clarifying their professional pathways,
especially in their consideration of pursuing graduate degrees or a career in academia. There is
no direct correlation between participation in undergraduate research and a commitment to
pursue graduate studies. Four participants did not pursue a master’s or PhD. However,
participants still made a connection between their research experience and how that has played a
role in their career decisions.

76
Part of the clarifying process was observing the day-to-day of graduate student life in a
research environment, and it served as a factor in a student’s decision whether to pursue a
graduate degree. Kim, Luis and John made direct connections between their undergraduate
research experiences to their subsequent pursuits of graduate degree programs. Kim remembered
feeling worried about missing out on industry experience if she decided to pursue a graduate
degree immediately after her undergraduate degree. However, in her observation of the graduate
students in her lab, she did note that they seemed to enjoy their experience, and that partly played
a motivated factor in her own consideration of pursuing a PhD program down the
line. Similarly, Luis gained knowledge about PhD applications processes through his REU
experience. By asking faculty and graduate student mentors for advice, Luis was able to make
informed decisions about which PhD program would be most suited to his research interests.
The remaining participants, on the other hand, all touched on their observations of
graduate student life and academic culture that discouraged them from pursuing PhDs or
traditional academia pathways. Daisy noted that the “political dynamics” of the research lab
setting made her keenly aware that academia would not be a right fit for her. In addition, she
noticed that lack of work-life balance for the graduate students in her research lab:
Watching these students, like the pace of them, being in the lab from 6 am to about
midnight sometimes… that was just a common thing. They would sleep at the lab. There
was a shower. They could stay there… so that made me realize that I value too much of
my personal life to be in a doctorate setting.
When interacting with students who were not directly mentoring her, she also noted how hard
they were working on their dissertations. Given the competitive nature of the research group to
get publications, Daisy described how some graduate students ended up having to drop from
their PhD program if their research was not approved by the faculty. “I think seeing people leave

77
the lab group so much and struggle so much, even though they like be there all day and all night,
informed my decision that maybe a PhD wasn't for me,” she said.
Others spoke about how exposure to research as undergraduate students helped illuminate
the realities of life in academia. Eddie talked about his research experience as his initial
exposure to how much investment the PhD students were putting into their dissertations. He
observed the high level of time commitment, along with the understanding the research can
become “almost kind of your life’s work,” with the intent of “producing something that is unique
and novel to the particular community you choose to be a part of.” Jamie shared a similar
experience of speaking with doctoral students in her first research lab, where she also quickly
gained understanding that research is a long-term process.
I remember that the student was in his sixth year of his PhD, and I was like, ‘Wow, that's
a long investment to make into a research project. ‘And that helped me understand that
research is not a short-term ‘let's get this done’ process, and that helped me contextualize
the timeframe that it takes to get everything done. From the pre-approval to IRB to the
actual testing, and then analysis of results and then sharing results.
Jamie was appreciative that this first undergraduate research experience helped contextualize the
full research cycle, and she was able to better understand the process and infrastructures
surrounding scientific research. Like Eddie and Daisy’s experiences, Michael observed the dayto-day workings of a research environment through his graduate student mentors and discovered
the slow nature of research. The conversations he had with both faculty and graduate student
mentors allowed him to think about career pathways not just in abstract terms but was able to see
people in that position going through the steps and decide for himself if he wanted to follow a
similar pathway. Michael also recalled receiving advice from his faculty mentor about
intentionality when choosing to pursue a graduate degree. His mentor wanted to make sure he
was pursuing graduate studies “not just so that you can add letters at the end of your name,” but

78
that it was because he was working towards something that truly aligned with his academic
interests.
Kylie also knew that she did not want to follow the traditional industry route laid out by
the engineering school, so she explored research to understand if graduate school would be a
better fit after her undergraduate degree. She remembered having multiple conversations with the
graduate students in her research lab. Kylie wondered what would have happened if she had not
been involved in research as an undergraduate student, and that perhaps she would have just
jumped into a graduate program. By her senior year, Kylie also recognized that she was feeling
burned out from academics, and that she needed a break from school after graduation. She did
not regret this decision, since she learned from conversations with graduate students that it was
not uncommon for people to take gap years between undergraduate and graduate degrees. “I did
find out in asking them all these questions even though I decided not to go right into [grad
school], it's still possible for me to go back if I ever feel like I wanted to,” said Kylie. She also
asked in-depth questions about the graduate students’ journeys during their gap years and
reasons for their return to school for a graduate program. “I mean, it's probably easier if you do it
right after you graduate,” she acknowledged, “but you can always go back.” Kylie was
appreciative that she gained a detailed understanding of the graduate school application process
and took comfort in the knowledge that the option would always be on the table.
Lastly, for the five participants who went on to attain graduate degrees, or are in the
process of attaining one, their post-undergraduate experiences continued to provide them with
more clarity in terms of how academia aligns with their own values. Despite his current pursuit
of a PhD, John still expressed ambivalence about committing to a long-term traditional career
path with academia due to the political nature of the environment. “I think it'd be really cool to

79
continue doing research,” he said, “but I've heard from professors that there's just so much red
tape in getting tenure. It's like a rather brutal process. And at the end of the day. You don't really
even get to do as much research as you'd have liked.” He knows that he would continue to work
as an engineering researcher in some other capacity, such as positions through national research
labs, or corporate research and development.
Jamie, who recently completed her master’s degree in public health, also realized within
the last year that a doctorate degree was not necessary for her goals of working in community
health. In speaking with a postdoc fellow in her lab, she learned that while a doctorate would
allow her to conduct more in-depth research, she personally felt that she has gained “enough
based knowledge to pursue the actions that are needed” to enact change. Jamie is guided by a
clear sense of what she needs to get out of her education and work experiences. She also
mentioned current restrictions in her ability to engage in advocacy work as a staff member in a
federally funded lab, another factor that has led to her reconsider her long-term position within
academia. “As much as I enjoy working within this atmosphere,” she said, “I also realize there's
limitations on my ability to use my knowledge for public benefit.” While acknowledging the
importance of academic research, she has also recognized the limitations of the existing system.
As a next step, Jamie has decided to pursue her law degree, so that she is able round out her skill
sets to pursue a career with health policy work.
As illustrated in the examples above, research experiences can serve as foundation for
participants to springboard into the next stages of their professional development, whether it was
through the accumulation of transferable skills or through their interaction with mentors that
helped inform their overall career trajectory. However, it is important to recognize that the
participants’ perceptions on their career outlooks will continue to shift. The data presented only

80
captured a snapshot of the participants’ employment during a moment in time early in their
career. As summarized by Kylie, when it comes to the idea of “career,” she felt that many of her
peers felt the need to have their professional goals clearly defined right after college. However,
she took a different approach, knowing that she could always change course if she needed. She
concluded with this sentiment: “I don't know, but I know that I'll figure it out, and I know that
it'll be okay." With the future still largely unknown, the study participants all acknowledged that
their careers would undergo many more phases of transition down the road.
Conclusion
This chapter presented qualitative data on the undergraduate research experiences of nine
alumni from underrepresented minoritized backgrounds with bachelor’s degrees in engineering
from a single private, four-year institution. The data in this section addressed the study’s research
questions around their overall experiences and sentiments towards undergraduate research, their
characterization of their research mentors, and the ways in which mentorship influenced the
ways in which they navigated their own post-graduate career choices. Based on the data, the
chapter also introduced emergent themes that described the following: the conditions in which
participants were able to access research experiences as undergraduates, the organizational
culture that shaped the participants’ learning experiences and sense of belonging, the mentoring
functions of faculty and graduate students, and the gains from undergraduate research
experiences, including technical skillsets and perceptions around graduate studies. The following
chapter will situate the data within social cognitive career theory, provide discussion and analysis
of key findings, and offer recommendations for future practice and research.

81
Chapter Five: Discussion
The participants’ experiences align with existing literature about the benefits and
challenges faced by undergraduate students from minoritized backgrounds in STEM research
experiences. Participants cite their gaining of technical skill sets and a better understanding of
overall career goals based on their research experience, which echo findings from prior literature
about the beneficial outcomes of undergraduate research (Bauer & Bennett, 2003; Bowman &
Holmes, 2018). The study findings also uncovered benefits and challenges within undergraduate
research experience related to the quality of mentorship received from both PhD student mentors
and faculty members (Dolan & Johnson, 2010; DeAngelo et al, 2016; Robnett et. al, 2018). This
chapter revisits social cognitive career theory with an application of the study’s data, discusses
key findings based on patterns that emerged from the interview data, offers recommendations for
practice, discusses limitations and delimitations, and provides directions for future research.
Revisiting Social Cognitive Career Theory
The qualitative data collected in this study validate the use of social cognitive career
theory (SCCT) within the context of undergraduate research experiences and career choice
pathways. The SCCT model allows for the examination of dynamic relationships between the
individual’s self-efficacy and outcome expectations within a learning environment that can
inform their goals and actions towards career decisions (Lent et al., 1994). The following
sections situate the study’s data within the components and processes of social cognitive career
theory (Figure 3):
Person Inputs and Background Contextual Affordances: The study’s participants all
mentioned aspects of their identity and upbringing that contributed to their pursuit of research at
the university level. Inputs included predisposition and interest in STEM prior to entering

82
college, race/ethnicity, gender, and status as first-generation college students. Other input factors
include their level of preparation for college, including their access to resources such as the
availability of AP/IB courses or SAT/ACT prep courses. Background contextual affordances
included community support, including encouragement from family, peers, and teachers.
Self-efficacy: As students participated in research, they reported varying levels of selfefficacy, defined as the perception of their own ability to carry out research tasks. All
participants reported low levels of self-efficacy at the start of their research experiences, which
were then influenced by the guidance from research mentors. Students start by observing basic
tasks and emulating behaviors modeled by their research mentors, which results in various levels
of feedback, all which align with the sources of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Outcome expectations: Outcome expectation examines the results of one’s behaviors,
should they choose to engage in a specific task (Lent, Brown & Hackett, 1994). Students perform
assigned tasks with the understanding that they will gain specific skill sets, such as the ability to
conduct laboratory procedures or communicate research findings. For participants that observed
positive outcomes, such as validation from mentors or witnessing progress in their research, they
will likely continue their engagement. They may also begin to connect their work to other
positive outcomes, such as professional development or readiness for graduate programs.
Interests, Choice Goals and Choice Actions: Self-efficacy and outcome expectations
contribute to the develop of one’s interest in continued engagement with a particular activity,
which can then lead to the formation of goals and actions towards specific long-term career
outcomes (Lent, Brown & Hackett, 1994). Within the context of this study, participants
evaluated their interest in the research process overall, as well as the specific topics of research.
While some found the certain research topics interesting, they did not necessarily enjoy the

83
process of research. Choice goals and actions were formed because of their interests in research,
which led participants to evaluate research aligned with their overall career goals.
Contextual Influences (Environmental Supports and Barriers): Faculty and mentors
are main contributors of the contextual influences during the learning experience, but other
factors include financial stressors, academic responsibilities, and the culture of the learning
environment. Additionally, the individuals in the study are situated within the university system
as the larger contextual influence, in which students must navigate various structural variables in
their attempt to secure new research experiences.
Figure 3
Application of SCCT within context of undergraduate research experiences
Note: Texts in italicized red indicate components of the undergraduate research experience
placed within the SCCT framework. Adapted from “Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory
of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance,” by R.W. Lent, S.D. Brown, & G.
Hackett, 1994, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), p.93. Copyright 1993 by R.W. Lent, S.D.
Brown, & G. Hackett.
Student Inputs
- Interest in
STEM
- Gender
- Race/ethnicity
- 1st gen status
- College
preparation
Background
Contextual
Affordances
- Family/peers
- Community
support
Learning
Experiences
-UG
Research
Experience
Self-efficacy
Expectations
-Tasks
- Feedback
Outcome
Expectations
- Skillsets
- Validation
Contextual Influences
Proximal to Choice Behavior
Mentors, organizational culture
STEM
career
formation

84
Discussion of Findings
The study produced four key findings related to the process of undergraduate research,
particularly regarding the contextual influences that affect the quality of the research experience
for URM students. The four findings include: (1) Cultural capital is critical to URM students’
success in research, (2) Culture of research environment as mediating effects on student’s
success in research, (3) Both instrumental and socioemotional mentoring are needed, and (4)
Commitment to STEM is not a direct commitment to research careers. These findings uncover
nuances around the interactions between students and mentors, as well as the direct and indirect
role of research on the effects of career choice formations.
Forms of Capital are Critical to URM Students’ Success in Research
Various forms of capital play an important role in the student’s ability to pursue research
opportunities within the institutional structure. For this finding, Yosso’s model of community
cultural wealth (2005) also informs the personal inputs variable of the social cognitive career
theory, particularly when acknowledging the “individual agency within institutional constraints.”
(p. 80). Participants’ experiences can be examined through an asset-based approach by first
acknowledging the inherent strengths of individuals to identify resources within a complex
system to secure growth opportunities (Denton & Barrego, 2021). Upon entering their first year
of college, students bring in forms of capital that enable them to successfully pursue research
during a period of academic and social transition. Students came into the college environment
with built-in family support and aspirations for academic and professional success. They built up
social and navigational capital by identifying social communities on campus and learned how to
maneuver academic spaces.

85
The participants’ entry into undergraduate research was predicated upon their knowledge
of existing opportunities within the university. Some participants, like Luis and John, indicated
that they had a vague notion that research involvement was possible for undergraduates, but did
not know about the specific mechanisms in which they would be able to access those
opportunities. Four participants in this study participated in the summer bridge program within
the engineering school that allowed them to gain initial exposure to research. However, while the
initial exposure was impactful, they still needed to identify subsequent research opportunities on
their own. At one point, all study participants sought out research opportunities through cold
emailing, submitting applications, or encountering faculty members through circumstantial
meetings. Research experiences also varied in terms of duration and involvement for each
undergraduate student. All students were able to identify their first research experience within
their first year as an undergraduate student. Eight students participated in research over multiple
undergraduate years. Four students gained experiences in more than one research lab, while the
other four remained with the same research lab throughout their time at university. Only one
student, Rhonda, had a singular research experience within one academic year. Also of note was
the disruption that COVID-19 had on all the participants’ learning experiences. All of them
started their first research experience in person, in which they were able to form relationships
and gain solid foundations, which likely accounted for their continuation with research even
when learning shifted to a virtual setting. This speaks to the motivation of the participants to gain
research experience, and many of them spoke about their determination and persistence in
identifying these opportunities despite facing hurdles.
Some participants, such as Jamie, also demonstrated resistant capital, given her desire to
pursue research is tied to her desire to advocate for vulnerable communities. Then, once students

86
are plugged into a research experience, they can continue to build capital through the
connections they form with faculty and graduate students. In particular, the research experiences
facilitate the increase of social and navigational capital for students as they learn about research
as a system. The research experiences then allow them to gain additional access points to other
professional opportunities, such as conferences, summer internships, or graduate programs.
These forms of capital are important factors when considering the personal inputs of the students
prior to the start of their journey into undergraduate research.
Culture of Research Environment Has Mediating Effects on Student’s Success
All participants described the culture of their learning environments as a prominent factor
related to the success of their research experiences. Culture can be defined as a “shared product
of learning,” and those who expressed satisfaction with their research experiences spoke about
their feelings of integration within the research group (Edmonson, 2012; Schein, 2016). For
students who expressed positive experiences with research, they drew on a common theme of
observing a culture that values inquiry and collaboration. This contrasts with negative sentiments
of research experiences, which were tied to cultures that value hierarchy and prioritized taskbased deliverables over learning outcomes.
The way participants experience the initial onboarding process is critical to their overall
success in the research group. Participants all spoke about the onboarding process of observing
processes and receiving various degrees of training and instruction from their assigned
supervisors. The socialization and acculturation process provides “shared cognitive frames that
guide the perceptions, thoughts, and language used by the members of a group and are taught to
new members'' (Schein, 2013). Seven out of the nine participants mentioned that they were
highly encouraged to ask questions and that their research mentors were readily available to meet

87
with them. Some will also participate in social activities with other members of the lab, and that
is the norm also set by the group about building connections and forming a sense of community.
Two participants, Daisy and Rhonda, had negative experiences with the onboarding process and
were not socialized into the group, and both eventually left the research environment.
Observations of organizational culture are also related to the individual’s sense of
belonging. For example, Daisy, Kylie, and Michael mentioned that the presence of other
members from minoritized backgrounds has a positive effect on their sense of belonging within
the research lab. For some participants, their intersectional identities had higher saliency within
the research environment. For others, the sense of belonging was derived from other member
behaviors, such as informal socialization outside of project-based tasks or having conversations
about non-research related topics.
Students also quickly receive implicit and explicit messages about the beliefs and values
of the group, along with understanding the assumptions of how their membership is perceived
within the group dynamic (Schein, 2016). Participants all spoke about their level of ability to ask
questions and the approachability of their mentors and other research group members. These are
then connected with their understanding of the cultural norms, and how the espoused belief and
values align with observed behaviors from group member interactions. For example, some
participants noted that making mistakes was normalized as part of the learning process, which in
turn gave them a safe space that encouraged learning through trial and error. Participants also
spoke about the underlying assumptions within the culture as it relates to their role and
functionality as undergraduate students within the research environment, which can be a mix of
their productivity as project contributors, as well as their role as learners who are there to gain
knowledge and experience.

88
Instrumental and Socioemotional Mentoring Roles of Faculty and Graduate Students
In alignment with Robnett (2018), the study’s findings demonstrate the importance of
both instrumental and socioemotional mentoring in the research process. Instrumental mentoring
ties into the student’s self-efficacy and outcome expectations as it relates to their development of
the individual’s technical skillsets. Participants that received scaffolded, intentional assignments
built on their existing knowledge reported positive outcomes and continued pursuit of research,
as they understood their value contributing to the group (Eby et al., 2013). Scaffolding
assignments also assisted participants’ overall learning process and knowledge building
(Bandura, 1997). For students who remain in a research-related career, including John, Jamie,
Kim, and Luis, they all cited experiences where their research mentors checked in on their level
of understanding, and assigned them tasks according to their ability to meet those challenges. On
the other hand, Daisy and Rhonda, who reported lack of guidance and support in their learning,
ended up leaving research altogether.
Additionally, instrumental mentoring also relates to the guidance of an individual’s
career progression. Due to their positionality, faculty tend to have better abilities to advocate for
students’ professional development. For example, Jamie, Luis and John all cited instances in
which their faculty mentors utilized their own networks to support the advancement of the
students’ career trajectories. This type of relationship is especially prominent for
underrepresented students in STEM in helping them solidify their science identity and
commitment to STEM careers (Atkins et al., 2020).
However, instrumental mentoring is just half of the equation. Socioemotional mentoring
takes the learning experience beyond the scope of the research tasks at hand. Trust built between
mentors and mentees is critical. Participants cited receiving socioemotional mentorship from

89
both faculty and graduate students, though their functions within socioemotional support tend to
differ slightly. On the other hand, graduate students tended to act as connectors and navigators,
as they help students contextualize organizational and institutional structures. Participants
reported varying levels of engagement with graduate students on a socioemotional dimension.
Those who received socioemotional support reported that graduate students played a critical role
in instilling their confidence in their research, while also serving as a role model that gave them a
glimpse into their future career possibilities. Regardless of their position as faculty or graduate
student, the impact of socioemotional mentorship had tremendous effects in shaping the
participants’ outlooks on their own career trajectories within research and engineering.
Commitment to STEM is Not a Direct Commitment to Research Careers
Of the nine participants in this study, eight were working in a STEM-related job position
or in a STEM-related graduate degree program at the time of interview. Even the participants
who did not gain positive research experiences still are within the STEM field but found
meaning in science through other pathways. For example, Rhonda credited her student design
team as the reason why she remained in engineering, despite wanting to leave engineering at one
point during her college career. Participants expressed their commitment to a career that is
related to their interests in science and engineering, but their visions of how that will manifest
varied greatly. Some participants, like Michael and Rhonda, plan to remain in more technical
roles within the industry. Others have decided to use their scientific knowledge to apply to other
fields of interest, like Jamie, who wants to use her chemical engineering background to shift into
health policy. All the participants spoke about their internal values as part of their career choice
process, such as work-life balance or making meaningful societal contributions. Values also
played an important role in the participants’ decisions to pursue graduate degrees. For

90
participants like Eddie and Kylie, while they built positive research experiences, they recognized
that pursuing a PhD is not the right fit for them based on their observation of graduate student
life within the research environment. The advice they received from faculty and grad students
gave them context for thinking about their goals as it relates to pursuing a PhD.
When examining these results within the SCCT framework, while self-efficacy and
outcome expectations are important, there is an emphasis on the role of contextual influences in
the formation of their choice goals. For participants with positive self-efficacy and outcome
expectations in research, they still may or may not decide to pursue a career in research or
academia, which had more to do with their evaluation of factors such as job satisfaction and
work-life balance. Students can understand the systems and structures around academia and how
that fits into their own life. This adds more nuance to previous literature around the mediating
effects of self-efficacy on career choice decisions, which found research self-efficacy and a
positive predictor for career aspirations in research (Adedokun et al., 2013). While positive
research experiences can have a mediating effect on students’ desires to pursue a research career,
there is a caution against a direct correlation of cause and effect. Contextual influences, such as
work environment, perceived cultural values, and mentoring relationships all serve as critical
factors to consider as part of the career choice formation process.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the study’s findings, there are three key recommendations for practice: (1)
Centralize access points for research opportunities, (2) providing mentorship training for
graduate students, and (3) fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion in research environments.
The three recommendations address the need for supporting undergraduate students across all
stages of their development as researchers, while also acknowledging the roles of multiple

91
institutional stakeholders. The implementation of all three practices in a research setting would
provide a holistic approach to addressing the intentional development of students as future
professionals within the engineering practice.
Centralize Access for Research Opportunities
Universities should consider centralized access points that can reduce institutional
barriers for students to access research opportunities. While the summer bridge program served
as an important piece for initial exposure to research, the study’s participants identified
subsequent research opportunities through their own means. Rather than relying on circumstance
or chance opportunities, flagship programs can help facilitate the match between students and
faculty throughout the academic year as an effort to help students build on their own forms of
social and navigational capital (Yosso, 2008). Programs such as the Meyerhoff Scholars Program
are examples of this type of intentional recruitment and development of undergraduate
researchers that allows students to explore their research interests in a guided manner (Maton &
Hrabowski, 2004). Centralization of research opportunities can also occur through the
establishment of STEM education centers within higher education institutions. Findings show
that STEM education centers can integrate research activities, facilitate communication, increase
cross-functional programmatic partnerships, and share resources across departments within an
organizational network (Carlisle & Weaver, 2018).
Beyond the creation of centralized access points, however, institutions should also
consider inclusive recruitment strategies that help broaden participation of URM students in
STEM research programs. Haschenburger et al. (2022) examined the benefits of an invitational
recruitment approach in a case study of a Geoscience Pathways program at the University of
Texas at San Antonio. Rather than placing the onus on students to apply for a program

92
opportunity, an invitational approach placed the responsibility on program managers and staff
members to identify potential students and directly ask them to participate. Findings from this
study showed that an invitational recruitment strategy decreased the frequency of students selfselecting out of participation due to low self-efficacy or lack of knowledge around the
application process. Therefore, program administrators should evaluate their recruitment
approaches to ensure that they are also reducing any structural or self-imposed barriers that URM
students may encounter on their way to securing beneficial learning opportunities.
The creation of a centralized research access program will require alignment of
institutional culture and climate to ensure a coordination of committed resources (Allen-Ramdial
& Campbell, 2014). This includes partnerships between faculty and administrators, as well as the
dedication of financial resources, such as research fellowships or stipends, that can be awarded to
students for participating in undergraduate research. This could also involve creating specific
funding sources for URE students to attend or present at professional conferences. The
designation of a faculty director or faculty committee may help advocate for the need to increase
undergraduate research resources to university leadership. Alternatively, universities can include
course-based research experiences as a requirement of the undergraduate curriculum for all
students (Bangera & Brownell, 2014). Required coursework can ensure that there are avenues for
students to showcase their cumulative research projects that allow them to connect their
learnings to their overall goals.
Provide Mentorship Training for Graduate Students
Graduate students serve as key contextual influences within the undergraduate
researcher’s development, and thus should receive training and support in their own development
as effective mentors (Pfund et al., 2014). As part of their mentorship training, graduate students

93
also learn about ways to increase professionalization opportunities through socialization with
other university stakeholders, such as career advisors or graduate school advisors (Liddel et al.,
2014). In turn, their expanded networks would allow them to serve as touchpoints for
undergraduate students throughout their research experience. Additionally, graduate students can
assist undergraduate researchers in the compilation of their research portfolios to help with their
professional identify development (Eliot & Turns, 2011). This is in line with the students who
mentioned gaining transferable skill sets as part of their research experience, which they can
apply to other aspects of their career search. Career pathway explorations must be ongoing
discussions and checkpoints, with the intent of providing exposure to multiple pathways.
Established programs like Entering Mentoring build on providing training for graduate
students as mentors for undergraduates within research contexts (Pfund et al., 2014). Training
components include setting expectations, creating research training timelines, addressing issues
of diversity and inclusion, troubleshooting communication issues, and development managerial
skillsets (Pfund et al., 2014). A structured training series is also helpful in having graduate
students with professional development in their own capability as mentors. Faculty and staff can
conduct assessments of students’ progress and create a culture of feedback (Clark & Estes,
2004).
Create Institutional Incentives and Accountability for DEI in Research Environments
Institutions should prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as part of their
measure of success within their research labs and centers. The availability of funding,
particularly funding allocated to the recruitment and training of URM students, can incentivize
faculty to take on projects that would benefit from student assistance (Zvobgo et al., 2023).
External sources can also serve as additional financial incentives to support students from URM

94
backgrounds. For example, the National Science Foundation allocates funding for proposals that
include strategies for broadening participation in STEM (James & Singer, 2016).
Beyond financial incentives, institutions can also create ways to measure research
engagements from its undergraduate student population and ensure that the diversity of the
students is reflected in the research labs. Use of equity scorecards, such as gender and racial
equity indicators, can be used to measure parity between the number of URM students within
undergraduate research and the general student population (Harper & Simmons, 2019).
Having clear visions, goals, and ways to measure progress will ensure work process
changes are aligned with organizational goals, and that everyone is involved with the planning
and progress (Clark & Estes, Ch 6). When looking at internal accountability, colleges and
universities must take into consideration how they are fostering inclusive research environments
across all units. The implementation of institutional-wide training on diversity, equity and
inclusion topics and culturally relevant pedagogy should extend beyond classroom engagements
and specifically consider the context of mentoring undergraduates in research capacities (McGill
et al., 2021; Naiknavare & Maisel, 2022). More importantly, the principal investigators of the
research lab often set the tone and practices of inclusion within their research environments.
Formal discussions around DEI, led by trained facilitators, can be incorporated into the research
experience, so that undergraduate students are also actively participating in dialogue around the
fostering of inclusive learning environments (Sugerman et al. 2024). This aligns with Holovino
(2008) on multicultural organization development (MCOD), in which the group members take an
active and systemic approach to diversify the organization with members representing
backgrounds and perspectives.

95
Limitations and Delimitations
Several limitations existed for this study. First, this study had a small sample size of nine
participants, whose experiences are rooted in a specific institutional context. All participants
experienced mentorship and undergraduate research at a private, four-year, predominantly white
institution (PWI) with a Research 1 categorization, indicating high levels of research activity and
funding resources. As such, the information gathered from this study may not be transferable to
students in another institutional context, such as those at minority-serving institutions (MSI) or
two-year institutions. The study also faced time constraints, as these are designed as one-time
interviews, instead of multiple touchpoints with the participants. Longitudinal studies that track
participants from their undergraduate experiences to their postgraduate careers would generate
richer data regarding changes in their career choices over time. Additionally, the study relied on
the participants’ ability to recall details from the recent past, so there may also be varying
degrees of accuracy in the recollection of those experiences.
The study had several delimitations. First, this study did not collect interview data from
the perspectives of faculty or graduate students who served as mentors. Because the study was
confined to the perceptions of the undergraduate research participants, their accounts may differ
from the perceptions of mentors regarding their progress throughout their research experiences.
The study also sought out alumni from URM backgrounds who are currently still in a STEMrelated career path, which can either be in the form of a graduate degree or employment in a
STEM job position. The study did not focus on URE participants who have left the STEM field
completely, though those insights could also yield different results.

96
Recommendations for Future Research
This study sought to provide a more nuanced examination of the different elements
within undergraduate research experience that affect career choices of students from URM
backgrounds. The conceptual framework, findings, and recommendations from this study can be
utilized at other four-year institutions with undergraduate engineering programs to evaluate the
effectiveness of its research environments and programs in support of underrepresented students.
There are several recommendations for future research that can add further complexity and
nuance to the effects of research mentorship on STEM career choices.
First, future studies can incorporate the experiences and perspectives of mentors,
particularly graduate students in mentorship roles, so that we can understand the intentionality of
mentors’ approaches in working with undergraduate researchers. Qualitative data between
mentors and mentees can be compared to understand differences in the perception of how
research impacts the individual’s future career decisions. Second, a longitudinal mixed methods
version of this study can be used to track the growth and development of students’ career
choices. Large amounts of SCCT validations have been done through quantitative methods, but
there have been limited in qualitative data or mixed methods (Pan and Sun, 2018; Wang et al
2022). Specifically, future research should track students who participated in undergraduate
research that went on to pursue graduate degrees and understand the factors that push them
towards pursuing professional pathways in academia. Lastly, there deserves further examination
of how personal values fit into existing SCCT model in the context of STEM research career
pathways. This may also involve a systematic understanding of the attitudes and perceptions
around careers for the next generation of graduates entering the workforce, and how that plays

97
into their overall conception of how they think about research experiences as it relates to their
career choices.
Conclusion
The findings discussed in this study may have implications for faculty, administrators,
graduate students, and other practitioners working in a research capacity within a university
setting. The recommendations of practice provided in this study can serve as a starting point to
consider ways in which institutions can create inclusive research environments that are
conducive to the personal and professional growth of URM students in the STEM field. From
this study’s finding, there is not a singular factor that charts the student’s career choices, but
rather, it is understanding the confluence of factors that are at play in shaping the student’s
understanding of the choices that lie ahead of them. This involves the intentional curation of
structured program, as well as matching students with the right mentors who can advocate for
their long-term professional growth. Ultimately, this will increase buy-in not only from faculty
and administrators leading research experiences, but also institutional leaders who recognize the
value of pipelining underrepresented undergraduate students into research opportunities early in
their college experiences.
The call for diversity within the STEM workforce is not a new one. Especially within
academia, the numbers remain starkly disparate when examining Black and Latinx/Hispanic PhD
earners compared to their White and Asian counterparts (National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics, 2023). However, as this study demonstrates, retaining URM students
within academic career pathways is not the result of any singular factor. To increase the diversity
of STEM graduate students and those who pursue academic careers in research or teaching,
practitioners and educational policymakers must also examine the state of academia. This

98
includes identifying solutions focused on not only creating initial access points, but rather,
creating and fostering inclusive learning environments that can lead to fulfilling careers.
This study was produced against the backdrop of a rapidly shifting job market within the
U.S., along with uncertainty and new attitudes towards the idea of work and career for the next
generation. Ascribing purpose and meaning to our work can be critical to our overall satisfaction
and well-being. However, career pathways are rarely linear, and priorities and values are ever
shifting. This study offers a glimpse into the ways in which research can play a role in career
choice formation. The voices in this study are individuals who are still in the early stages of their
career, and their professional trajectories will undergo many more changes in the coming years.
No matter the stage in their professional development, mentors will play a key role in supporting
their journey. This study highlights the importance of mentorship from faculty and graduate
students within research spaces, so that they can continue to support the career development for
URM students, in our hope to broaden the diversity of our future STEM leaders.

99
References
Abdul-Alim, J. (2015, August 17). Study strikes at core of Mellon Mays Undergraduate
Fellowship Program. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education.
https://diverseeducation.com/article/77295/
Adedokun, O.A., Bessenbacher, A. B., Parker, L. C., Kirkham, L. L., & Burgess, W. D. (2013).
Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research
careers: Mediating effects of research self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 50(8), 940–951. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21102
Aikens, M. L., Sadselia, S., Watkins, K., Evans, M., Eby, L. T., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). A social
capital perspective on the mentoring of undergraduate life science researchers: An
empirical study of undergraduate–postgraduate–faculty triads. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0208
Allen, W. (1992). The color of success: African-American college students’ outcomes at
predominantly white and historically black public universities. Harvard Educational
Review, 62(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.1.wv5627665007v701
Allen, T. D., Day, R., & Lentz, E. (2005). The role of interpersonal comfort in mentoring
relationships. Journal of Career Development, 31(3), 155–169.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10871-004-2224-3
Allen-Ramdial, S.-A.A., & Campbell, A.G. (2014). Reimagining the Pipeline: Advancing STEM
Diversity, Persistence, and Success. Bioscience, 64(7), 612–618.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu076
Aschbacher, P.R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities,

100
participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20353
Atkins, K., Dougan, B. M., Dromgold-Sermon, M. S., Potter, H., Sathy, V., & Panter, A. T.
(2020). “Looking at myself in the future'': How mentoring shapes scientific identity for
STEM students from underrepresented groups. International Journal of STEM
Education, 7(1), 42–42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00242-3
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences can
make scientific research more inclusive. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 602–606.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099
Bauer, K. W., & Bennett, J. S. (2003). Alumni perceptions used to assess undergraduate research
experience. The Journal of Higher Education (Columbus), 74(2), 210-230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2003.11777197
Benitez, M., Jr. (2010). Resituating culture centers within a social justice framework: Is there
room for examining whiteness? In L.D. Patton (Eds.), Culture centers in higher
education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice (1st ed., pp. 119–134).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003443971-9
Bowman, N. & Holmes, J. (2018). Getting off to a good start? First-year undergraduate
research experiences and student outcomes. Higher Education, 76(1), 17–33.
https://doi.or/10.1007/s10734-017-0191-4
Boyer, E.L. (1998). The Boyer Commission on educating undergraduates in the research
university, reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's research
universities. Stony Brook.

101
Bradley, E. D., Bata, M., Gibbon, H. M. F., Ketcham, C. J., Nicholson, B. A., Pollock, M., &
Dolan, E. (2017). The structure of mentoring in undergraduate research: Multi-mentor
models. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 1(2), 35–42.
https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/1/2/12
Brickhouse, N.W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282 – 295. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-
2736(200103)38:3<282::AID-TEA1006>3.0.CO;2-0
Brickhouse, Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The
construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5),
441–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200005)37:53.0.CO;2-3
Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J., Pfund, C., Leverett, P., & Newton, J. (2015). Culturally diverse
undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research
mentoring relationships. International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2533–2554.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1085133
Byars-Winston, A., & Rogers, J. G. (2019). Testing intersectionality of race/ethnicity × gender in
a social-cognitive career theory model with science identity. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 66(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000309
Carlisle, D. L., & Weaver, G. C. (2018). STEM education centers: catalyzing the improvement
of undergraduate STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 47–
21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0143-2
Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access,
participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392–414.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20006

102
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.). About Carnegie
Classification. Retrieved April 6, 2024, from https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/
Carpi, A., Ronan, D. M., Falconer, H. M., & Lents, N. H. (2017). Cultivating minority scientists:
Undergraduate research increases self‐efficacy and career ambitions for underrepresented
students in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 169–194.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21341
Ceyhan, G. D., & Tillotson, J. W. (2020). Mentoring structures and the types of support provided
to early-year undergraduate researchers. CBE Life Sciences Education, 19(3), ar26-14.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-09-0183
Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of
efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority
students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4560.2011.01710.x
Cohen, A. M., & Kisker, C.B. (2010). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence
and growth of the contemporary system (2nd ed). Jossey Bass.
Colby, G. (2023, May 3). Data Snapshot: Tenure and contingency in US higher education.
AAUP. https://www.aaup.org/article/data-snapshot-tenure-and-contingency-us-highereducation
Council on Undergraduate Research (n.d.). Council on Undergraduate Research Issues: Updated
Definition of Undergraduate Research. Retrieved April 6, 2024, from
https://www.cur.org/council-on-undergraduate-research-issues-updated-definition-ofundergraduate-research/
Crede, E., & Borrego, M. (2012). Learning in graduate engineering research groups of various

103
sizes. Journal of Engineering Education (Washington, D.C.), 101(3), 565–589.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00062.x
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Sage Publications.
DeAngelo, L., Mason, J., & Winters, D. (2016). Faculty engagement in mentoring undergraduate
students: How institutional environments regulate and promote extra-role behavior.
Innovative Higher Education, 41(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9350
Denton, M., & Borrego, M. (2021). Navigational capital of Latinx engineering transfer students:
A qualitative study. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 27(2),
61–86. https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2020035154
Dolan, E. L., & Johnson, D. (2010). The undergraduate–postgraduate–faculty triad: Unique
functions and tensions associated with undergraduate research experiences at research
universities. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 543–553.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0052
Duboue, E. R., Kowalko, J. E., & Keene, A. C. (2022). Course‐based undergraduate research
experiences (CURES) as a pathway to diversify science. Evolution & Development,
24(5), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/ede.12410
Eby, L. T. de T., Allen, T. D., Hoffman, B. J., Baranik, L. E., Sauer, J. B., Baldwin, S., Morrison,
M. A., Kinkade, K. M., Maher, C. P., Curtis, S., & Evans, S. C. (2013). An
interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences
of protégé perceptions of mentoring. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 441–476.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029279
Eliot, M., & Turns, J. (2011). Constructing professional portfolios: Sense-making and

104
professional identity development for engineering undergraduates. Journal of
Engineering Education (Washington, D.C.), 100(4), 630–654.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00030.x
Estrada, M., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2018). A longitudinal study of how quality
mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM
careers. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar9–. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-
0066
Evans, T. M., Bira, L., Gastelum, J.B., Weiss, L.T., & Vanderford, N.L. (2018). Evidence for a
mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology, 36(3), 282–284.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4089
Follmer, D. J., Zappe, S., Gomez, E., & Kumar, M. (2017). Student outcomes from
undergraduate research programs: Comparing models of research experiences for
undergraduates (REUs). Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 1(1), 20–
27. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/1/1/5
Ghee, M., Keels, M., Collins, D., Neal-Spence, C., & Baker, E. (2016). Fine-tuning summer
research programs to promote underrepresented students’ persistence in the STEM
pathway. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar28–. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-
0046
Gittens, C. (2014). The McNair Program as a socializing influence on doctoral degree
attainment. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(3), 368–379.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2014.913450
Gordon, E. W., & Bridglass, B. L. (2004). Creating excellence and increasing ethnic minority

105
leadership in science, engineering, mathematics and technology: A study of the
Meyerhoff Scholars program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore
County. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Harper, S. R., & Simmons, I. (2019). Black students at public colleges and universities: A 50-
state report card. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Race and Equity
Center.
Haschenburger, J. K., Gray, W., Godet, A., Suarez, M. B., & Núñez, A.-M. (2022). Recruiting
all the talent into undergraduate STEM student success programs using an invitational
approach. Journal of Geoscience Education, 70(3), 306–322.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2021.1918971
Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2013). The science identity of college students:
Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 42(5), 82–91.
Herbert, W., Apkarian, J., & Naald, J. van der. (2023, October 21). The 2022-23 upsurge of union
organizing and strikes in higher education. LAWCHA.
https://lawcha.org/2023/10/21/the-2022-23-upsurge-of-union-organizing-and-strikes-inhigher-education/
Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., & Schultz, P. W. (2017). Mentor qualities that
matter: The importance of perceived (not demographic) similarity. Journal of
Experimental Education, 85(3), 450–468.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405
Higher education act of 1965 section-by-section analysis. (1965). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

106
Hoffer, T. B., Welch, V., Jr., Webber, K., Williams, K., Lisek, B., Hess, M., Loew, D., &
Guzman-Barron, I. (2006). Doctorate recipients from United States universities:
Summary report 2005. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.
Hund, A. K., Churchill, A. C., Faist, A. M., Havrilla, C. A., Love Stowell, S. M., McCreery, H.
F., Ng, J., Pinzone, C. A., & Scordato, E. S. C. (2018). Transforming mentorship in
STEM by training scientists to be better leaders. Ecology and Evolution, 8(20), 9962–
9974. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4527
Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of
undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development.
Science Education, 91(1), 36–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173
Jazvac-Martek, M. (2009). Oscillating role identities: The academic experiences of education
doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 253–264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903068862
Johnson, W. B. (2015). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. Routledge.
Joshi, M., Aikens, M.L., & Dolan, E.L. (2019). Direct ties to a faculty mentor related to positive
outcomes for undergraduate researchers. Bioscience, 69(5), 389–397.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz039
Katkin, W. (2003). The Boyer Commission Report and its impact on undergraduate research.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003(93), 19–38.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.86
Kenny, R. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research
universities. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research
University. Stony Brook.

107
Kilgo, C, Ezell Sheets, J, Pascarella, E. (2014). The link between high-impact practices and
student learning: some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69(4), 509–525.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9788-z
Kinkead, J. (2012). What’s in a name? A brief history of undergraduate research. Council on
Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 33(1), 20-29.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the Mentor Relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4),
608–625. https://doi.org/10.5465/255910
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Scott Foresman
Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,
and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press
Lee, Collins, J. D., Harwood, S. A., Mendenhall, R., & Huntt, M. B. (2020). “If you aren’t
White, Asian or Indian, you aren’t an engineer”: Racial microaggressions in STEM
education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00241-4
Lent, R.W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of
career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2019). Social cognitive career theory at 25: Empirical status of the
interest, choice, and performance models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103316-.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.06.004
Lent, R.W., & Brown, S.D. (2013). Understanding and facilitating career development in the

108
21st century. In S.D. Brown, & R.W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling:
Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Liddell, D. L., Wilson, M. E., Pasquesi, K., Hirschy, A. S., & Boyle, K. M. (2014). Development
of professional identity through socialization in graduate school. Journal of Student
Affairs Research and Practice, 51(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0006
Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and
active learning. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297–306
Lucas, C. (2016). American Higher Education: A History (2nd ed). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Mabrouk, P.A., & Remijan, M.G. (2023). Critical traits of graduate student mentors affecting
students’ science identity development in an NSF-funded research experiences for
undergraduates (REU) program. Mentoring & Tutoring, 31(1), 103–121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2023.2164988
Maton, K.I, Hrabowski F. A.III, & Schmitt, C. L .(2000). African American college students
excelling in the sciences: College and postcollege outcomes in the Meyerhoff Scholars
Program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 629–654.
Maton, K. I., & Hrabowski, F. A. (2004). Increasing the number of African American PhDs in
the sciences and engineering: A strengths-based approach. The American Psychologist,
59(6), 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.6.547
Maton, K. I., Pollard, S. A., McDougall Weise, T. V., & Hrabowski, F. A. (2012). Meyerhoff
Scholars Program: A strengths‐based, institution‐wide approach to increasing diversity in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The Mount Sinai Journal of
Medicine, 79(5), 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/msj.21341

109
Maton, K. I., Beason, T. S., Godsay, S., Sto. Domingo, M. R., Bailey, T. C., Sun, S., &
Hrabowski, F. A. (2016). Outcomes and processes in the Meyerhoff Scholars Program:
STEM PhD completion, sense of community, perceived program benefit, science identity,
and research self-efficacy. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar48–.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0062
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
McGill, B. M., Foster, M. J., Pruitt, A. N., Thomas, S. G., Arsenault, E. R., Hanschu, J.,
Wahwahsuck, K., Cortez, E., Zarek, K., Loecke, T. D., & Burgin, A. J. (2021). You are
welcome here: A practical guide to diversity, equity, and inclusion for undergraduates
embarking on an ecological research experience. Ecology and Evolution, 11(8), 3636–
3645. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7321
Mondisa, J-L., (2021). Examining the academic and professional experiences of African
American STEM PhD mentors. The Journal of Negro Education, 90(1), 108–122.
Morales, D. X., Grineski, S. E., & Collins, T. W. (2017). Faculty motivation to mentor students
through undergraduate research programs: A study of enabling and constraining factors.
Research in Higher Education, 58(5), 520–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-
9435-x
Mosyjowski, & Daly, S. R. (2020). Investigating the ways prior experience informs the research
approaches of returning and direct-pathway students in engineering PhD programs.
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 11(2), 197–213.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-08-2019-0072

110
Naiknavare, R., & Maisel, K. (2022). Discussion-based DEI education to help create inclusive
and open BME research lab environments. Biomedical Engineering Education, 2(2),
189–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-022-00074-3
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women,
Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023. Special Report NSF 23-315. National
Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd
National Center for Education Statistics (2023). Characteristics of postsecondary
faculty. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csc
Olson-McBride, L., Hassemer, H., & Hoepner, J. (2016). Broadening participation: Engaging
academically at-risk freshmen in undergraduate research. Council on Undergraduate
Research Quarterly, 37(1), 4 - 10. https://doi.org/10.18833/curq/37/1/3
Ong, M., Jaumot-Pascual, N., & Ko, L. T. (2020). Research literature on women of color in
undergraduate engineering education: A systematic thematic synthesis. Journal of
Engineering Education, 109(3), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20345
Ortiz-Walters, R., & Gilson, L. L. (2005). Mentoring in academia: An examination of the
experiences of protégés of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 459–475.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.09.004
Page, M. C., Abramson, C. I., & Jacobs-Lawson, J. M. (2004). The National Science Foundation
research experiences for undergraduate programs: Experiences and recommendations.
Teaching of Psychology, 31(4), 241–247. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3104_3
Pedersen, R. M., Ferguson, C. F., Estrada, M., Wesley Schultz, P., Woodcock, A., & Hernandez,

111
P. R. (2022). Similarity and contact frequency promote mentorship quality among
Hispanic undergraduates in STEM. CBE Life Sciences Education, 21(2), ar27–ar27.
https://doi.org/10.1187/CBE.21-10-0305
Pfund, C., Pribbenow, C., Branchaw, J., Lauffer, S., & Handelsman, J. (2006). Professional skills
–The merits of training mentors. Science (American Association for the Advancement of
Science), 311(5760), 473–474. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123806
Pfund, C., Branchaw, J., Handelsman, J. (2014). Entering Mentoring. W.H. Freeman.
Prenovitz, S. J., Cohen, G. R., Ehrenberg, R. G., & Jakubson, G. H. (2016). An evaluation of the
Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowship’s effect on PhD production at non-UNCF
institutions. Economics of Education Review, 53, 284–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.04.005
Riegle-Crumb, King, B., & Irizarry, Y. (2019). Does STEM stand out? Examining racial/ethnic
gaps in persistence across postsecondary fields. Educational Researcher, 48(3), 133–144.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19831006
Robnett, Nelson, P. A., Zurbriggen, E. L., Crosby, F. J., & Chemers, M. M. (2018). Research
mentoring and scientist identity: insights from undergraduates and their mentors.
International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 41–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-
018-0139-y
Robnett, R. D., Nelson, P. A., Zurbriggen, E. L., Crosby, F. J., & Chemers, M. M. (2019). The
form and function of STEM research mentoring: A mixed-methods analysis focusing on
ethnically diverse undergraduates and their mentors. Emerging Adulthood, 7(3), 180–193.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818758734
Seeling, J. M., & Choudhary, M. (2016). Professional practices in undergraduate research

112
programs. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(2), 246–251.
https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i2.982
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
https://doi.org/10.1037//00223514.69.5.797
Stewart. (2013). Racially minoritized students at U.S. four-year institutions. The Journal of
Negro Education, 82(2), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.2.0184
Sugerman, G. P., Chasen, A., Kalkunte, N., Bakka, B., Borrego, M., Suggs, L. J., & Markey, M.
K. (2024). Engaging undergraduates in an REU site in conversations about diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Biomedical Engineering Education, 4(1), 137–144.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43683-023-00113-7
Summers, M. F., & Hrabowski, F. A. (2006). Preparing minority scientists and engineers. Science
(American Association for the Advancement of Science), 311(5769), 1870–1871.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1125257
Syed, M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Chemers, M. M., Goza, B. K., Bearman, S., Crosby, F. J., Shaw, J.
M., Hunter, L., & Morgan, E. M. (2019). The role of self‐efficacy and identity in
mediating the effects of STEM support experiences. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 19(1), 7–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12170
Thelin, J.R. (2004). A history of American higher education. The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., & Hunter, A. B. (2011). What experiences help students become

113
scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources of personal and
professional gains for STEM undergraduates. Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 357–
388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2011.11777209
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, 02-RC-143012, N.L.R.B-UBD,
(2016). https://www.nlrb.gov/case/02-RC-143012
Tukibayeva, G. (2014). High‐impact practices and the first‐year student. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2013(160), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20059
Tuladhar, A., Queener, C., Mondisa, J.-L., & Okwudire, C. (2021). Informal community spaces,
mentoring and representation: unpacking factors that influence African American
engineering undergraduates. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in
Education, 10(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-06-2020-0032
Wang, D., Liu, X., & Deng, H. (2022). The perspectives of social cognitive career theory
approach in current times. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1023994–1023994.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1023994
Washington, V., & Mondisa, J. (2021). A need for engagement opportunities and personal
connections: Understanding the social community outcomes of engineering
undergraduates in a mentoring program. Journal of Engineering Education (Washington,
D.C.), 110(4), 902–924. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20422
Werner-Fraczek, J. (2020). Flying with swallows: A model of undergraduate research
programs. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 3(4), 15–25.
https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/3/4/5
Wood, W. B. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in the life sciences at large research

114
universities: A perspective on the Boyer Commission Report. Cell Biology Education,
2(2), 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03-02-0004
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Zydney, Bennett, J. S., Shahid, A., & Bauer, K. (2002). Faculty Perspectives Regarding the
Undergraduate Research Experience in Science and Engineering. Journal of Engineering
Education (Washington, D.C.), 91(3), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2002.tb00706.x
Zerbe, E., Sallai, G., & Berdanier, C.G P. (2023). Surviving, thriving, departing, and the hidden
competencies of engineering graduate school. Journal of Engineering Education
(Washington, D.C.), 112(1), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20498
Zorec, K. (2024). “We’re all for the same mission”: Faculty mentoring Native Hawaiian
undergraduates in STEM research. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 17(1), 40–
53. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000387
Zvobgo, K., Pickering, P. M., Settle, J. E., & Tierney, M. J. (2023). Creating new knowledge
with undergraduate students: Institutional incentives and faculty agency. PS, Political
Science & Politics, 56(4), 512–518. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909652300001X

115
Appendix A: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
STUDY TITLE: Effects of Graduate Student Mentors on Career Choice Outcomes for
Underrepresented Minoritized Students in STEM Undergraduate Research Experiences
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Andy Jones-Liang
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
This study aims to investigate the effects of undergraduate research experiences on students from
underrepresented minoritized (URM) backgrounds, and the ways in which mentorship they
received during their research experiences affect their commitment to career pathways in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
The PI hopes to understand the specific processes and characteristics of mentorship from
graduate students that affect the undergraduate students’ overall development as a researcher and
their post-graduate career decisions.
You are invited as a possible participant because you are an alumnus of STEM field at USC
(graduating between 2019–23) and have insights on mentored research experiences as an
undergraduate student.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you would like to be involved, you will be asked to participate in a one-time interview of
approximately one hour, conducted virtually, addressing your experience with undergraduate
research and the impact that your research mentors have had on your personal and professional
development. The questions will also focus on mentorship you received specifically from
graduate students.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The PI and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access
the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of
research subjects.
The PI will record the interviews and request permission to record prior to the beginning of the
interview while also ensuring that all testimony will be anonymized to preserve your
confidentiality. You will have the option to end the interview at any time.
The PI will share the transcript with you to give you an opportunity to correct or clarify any
passages.

116
The PI will follow USC guidelines in saving and archiving files with password protection and
will save the file for three years, under password protection via a password-protected computer
and account.
Findings will be shared in the PI’s dissertation and reviewed by the PI’s dissertation committee.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Andy Jones-Liang,
__________________,(909) 525-8705
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at ________________ or email
irb@_____________.

117
Appendix B: Email Message to Alumni for Participation
Subject Line: Seeking Participants for Research Study: ____ Alums with Undergrad Research
Experience
Hello,
My name is Andy Jones-Liang, and I am a doctoral student at _______________________.
I am conducting a research study on the ways in which undergraduate engineering research
experiences shape career decisions for students from underrepresented racial and ethnic
backgrounds, and how graduate student mentors play a role in that process.
I am recruiting individuals who meet these criteria:
1. You are a recent graduate from ___ who received your bachelor’s degree in an
engineering discipline within the last 1 - 3 years.
2. You identify as an individual from a racial or ethnic background considered historically
underrepresented in STEM fields, including African/American, Hispanic/Latino, and/or
American Indian/Alaskan Native.
3. You have engaged in engineering research as an undergraduate student for at least one
academic year with supervision from faculty and graduate students.
4. You are over 18 years old.
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
1. Complete an online survey for 5 minutes. This is a pre-qualification screening survey to
ensure that you meet the eligibility criteria for this study.

118
2. If selected, participate in a one-time 1:1 online interview over Zoom for 45-60 minutes.
This interview will consist of questions related to your undergraduate research
experience, experience with graduate student mentors, and your career decisions.
3. Review your interview transcript via email for 10-15 minutes. A cleaned transcript will
be sent to you to confirm the accuracy of your statements prior to data analysis.
During these activities, you will be asked questions about:
• Demographic questions such as your gender, racial/ethnic background, graduation date,
and field of undergraduate study.
• Your experiences with undergraduate research and the mentorship you received from
faculty and graduate students.
• Your overall career trajectory.
If selected to participate in the interview, participants in this study will receive a $25 Amazon
gift card via email after the interview.
If you are interested in participating in this study, please click this link for the pre-qualification
survey: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. If you have questions, please contact me at xxxxxx@usc.edu.
Thank you!

119
Appendix C: Pre-Qualification Survey
Please answer the following questions.
I received my bachelor’s degree from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
• Yes
• No
If response is “No,” survey will end.
Year of Graduation
• 2022
• 2021
• 2020
• 2019 or prior
If response is “2019 or prior” survey will end.
Please describe your current position:
• I am pursuing a master’s degree in a STEM field.
• I am pursuing a PhD in a STEM field.
• I am pursuing a graduate degree in a non-STEM field.
• I am employed in a STEM-related job position.
• I am employed in a non-STEM related job position.
• None of the above
If response is none of the above, survey will end.
Race/Ethnicity
• American Indian or Alaskan Native
• Asian
• Black / African American
• Hispanic or Latinx
• Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
• White
• Two or More Races (Please specify) _______________
If response is Asian or White, survey will end.
Select the engineering field most closely associated with your undergraduate major:
• Aerospace Engineering
• Astronautical Engineering
• Biomedical Engineering
• Chemical Engineering
• Civil Engineering

120
• Computer Science
• Computer Engineering
• Electrical Engineering
• Environmental Engineering
• Industrial and Systems Engineering
• Mechanical Engineering
• Other: ________________
Answer yes or no:
• I was involved in research as an undergraduate student for at least one year (two
semesters)
• I received research mentorship from a faculty member.
• I received research mentorship from a graduate student.
On average, how many hours a week did you engage in research?
On average, how many hours a week did you interact with your research mentors?
• Faculty
• Graduate Student
Answer yes or no:
• Participating in research as an undergraduate student was an important factor in my
decision to continue in a STEM-related career pathway.
• My research mentors had a significant influence on my post-graduate plans.
Please indicate one of the following:
• (A) I’m willing to be interviewed for this study
• (B) I might want to participate but would like more information [please use following
space to share your questions or comments and I will follow up with you]
• (C) Other than providing responses on this form, I choose not to participate in an
interview.
If participant indicated C:
Thank you for participating in this survey. Other than the information above, this form has not
captured any identifying information such as name, email address, or IP address.
If participant indicated A or B
Please provide your name, email address and availability for an interview:
• Name
• Email
• Availability
Thank you for your participation and for indicating your interest or possible interested in being
interviewed. You will be contacted shortly. Please note your identity will be kept confidential
and that the interview will be conducted on Zoom and last approximately one hour.

121
Appendix D: Interview Protocol
At the beginning of the interview, I will read the following statement:
Thank you for agreeing to speak with me today. If it is OK with you, I would like to audio
and video record our conversation to document your answers as accurately as possible, but I
want to assure you that your comments will be confidential. Pseudonyms will be used for you
and any other individual you mention in your interview.
My goal for this study is to explore your experiences as an underrepresented student in
STEM who participated in undergraduate research. I am going to ask questions related to your
overall research experience, your experience with graduate students and faculty as research
mentors, and how research has informed your academic and professional goals.
I welcome your candor; I understand that my questions might lead you to share concerns
or criticisms of individuals or units at the university. You will also have the option to not answer
any questions or to stop the interview if you wish.
Background and Research Experiences
1) Please confirm your name, year of graduation from undergraduate degree, and your
undergraduate major.
2) Tell me about your background and upbringing.
3) How was your college experience? How did it compare to your high school experience?
4) What was your undergraduate research experiences like at XXX?
a) How did you find out about the research opportunities?
b) What did you work on?
c) What role did research play as part of your overall college experience?

122
Experience with Research Mentors
“The next series of questions will focus on your experience with research mentors.”
5) How did you interact with your mentors during your undergraduate research experience?
a) How frequently did you interact with faculty versus graduate students as your research
mentors?
b) What were the norms and expectations set between you and your research mentors, if
any?
c) How did the dynamics between you and your mentors change over time, if at all?
6) What differences did you notice between faculty and graduate students as your research
mentors, if any?
7) What role did your graduate student mentor play throughout your experience with
undergraduate research?
a) What types of support did the graduate student mentor provide during your research
experience?
8) In general, what do you characterize as successful qualities in a research mentor?
a) To what extent did the graduate student mentor meet those qualities?
Science Identity, Self-Efficacy, and Career Decisions
9) How did you feel about your capabilities to do research in your first year?
10) How did your research mentors affect your belief in your own abilities to carry out research
tasks independently, if at all?
11) How did you research mentors affect the way you think about yourself as a researcher, if at
all?

123
12) How have aspects of your identity shaped your journey as a researcher in the STEM field?
13) What aspects of your undergraduate research experience informed your current career
trajectory?
14) To what extent did your graduate student research mentor influence the following?
a) Your belief in your ability to do research.
b) Your identity as a scientist.
c) Your sense of belonging in the scientific community.
d) Your decision to continue with a STEM career.
15) Was there anything we haven’t touched on that you believe would be important for me to
know in terms of how the research experience impacted your career pathway?
Closing
Thank you very much for your time and your candor throughout this interview. I will
review the recording and send you a follow-up email with the transcript of our conversation, so
that you can review the contents for accuracy. I will also provide you with the $25 gift card as an
appreciate for your time. Thank you again!

124
Appendix E: Follow Up Email to Interview Participants
Subject: Please review: Interview Transcript for dissertation study
Hi [Name],
Thanks again for speaking with me last week about your undergraduate research
experience. As promised, I wanted to share with you a copy of the transcript from our
conversation, which you can find attached.
Please read through it and let me know if everything looks accurate. You are welcome to
make any comments if you wanted to add any clarifications or corrections. Do not worry about
syntax or grammatical errors, as I want to preserve the conversation as it is said verbatim.
Moving forward, I will be sure to anonymize any mentions of specific names or places as
part of the data analysis.
I will also send you a $25 Amazon gift card as a thank you for your participation. Let me
know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Independent research internship experiences of underrepresented minorities in biological sciences: an interview case study

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

Impact of participation in STEM organizations and authentic learning experiences on women of color engineering students

PDF

Retaining racially minoritized students in community college STEM programs

PDF

Learning environment impact on women undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…

PDF

Evaluating the problem of college students graduating into underemployment and unemployment

PDF

Teaching well-being alongside academic studies in an undergraduate for-credit mindfulness course

PDF

Coloring the pipeline: an analysis of the NASPA Undergraduate Fellows program as a path for underrepresented students into student affairs

PDF

Counselors and teachers’ perceptions of underrepresentation of female secondary students in STEM

PDF

Understanding barriers and resiliency: experiences from Latina leaders in local government

PDF

The effects of math anxiety and low self-efficacy on students’ attitudes and interest in STEM

PDF

Unconscious name bias in workplace recruitment and hiring toward individuals with an ethnic name

PDF

An examination of ethnic minority physician representation in clinical medicine to reduce health disparities among minoritized groups

PDF

An online strategic career planning and leadership development curriculum for women in upper-division undergraduate and graduate programs

PDF

Enhancing a culture of research support for first-generation PhD students in social science fields

PDF

Growing international student enrollment from developing markets

PDF

A phenomenological study on cultural taxation and racially minoritized students in graduate postsecondary education

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

PDF

First-generation professionals: career transition and success

Asset Metadata

Creator Jones-Liang, Andy En-Hwei (author)

Core Title Influence of mentorship on career development for underrepresented minoritized students in STEM undergraduate research experiences

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 05/09/2024

Defense Date 04/19/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag career development,mentorship,minoritized students,OAI-PMH Harvest,social cognitive career theory,STEM education,undergraduate research

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Canny, Eric (committee chair), Kim, Esther (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email andyeliang@gmail.com,eliang@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113925198

Unique identifier UC113925198

Identifier etd-JonesLiang-12900.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-JonesLiang-12900

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Jones-Liang, Andy En-Hwei

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240509-usctheses-batch-1149 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu