University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How is an undergraduate engineering program uniquely positioned to create a diverse workforce through the recruitment of African American students? A faculty perspective

(USC Thesis Other)

How is an undergraduate engineering program uniquely positioned to create a diverse workforce through the recruitment of African American students? A faculty perspective

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

HOW IS AN UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING PROGRAM UNIQUELY
POSITIONED TO CREATE A DIVERSE WORKFORCE THROUGH THE
RECRUITMENT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS?
A FACULTY PERSPECTIVE

by

Donna M. Buchanan

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Donna M. Buchanan
ii
DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to students with the aptitude and the desire to become
scientists and engineers. America’s future relies on your brilliance. Believe that all things
are possible and continue to work hard to achieve your goals.
To my own children, Adria, William and Christopher, you are the best and the
brightest, always, always, keep moving in the direction of your dreams.
To those who came before me, whose commitment to, and sacrifices for, equal
access paved the way for my own achievement – it is an honor to walk down the path that
you forged.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

An endeavor such as this one is not a solitary undertaking and my gratitude to
others is deep and widespread. First, I honor God from whom all blessings flow, the
source of my strength and the strength of my life.
I am grateful to my parents, Louis and Florence Antoine for their unconditional
belief in me. Thank you to my husband, William Buchanan, Jr. and my children, Adria,
Willliam and Christopher for your love, support and patience. My village of siblings,
extended family, and friends too numerous to mention, I appreciate your collective
encouragement, your prayers and the many other ways in which you helped me to realize
my dream.
Melora Sundt, Ph.D, Denzil Suite, Ph.D, and Gisele Ragusa, Ph.D, I appreciate
your wisdom, guidance and support during this arduous journey. So many colleagues in
the Ed.D program – Dr. Sharoni Little, Dr. Frank Chang, Dr. Sam Kim, Dr. Marcelo
Vaszquez, and Dr. Patty Schmolze – helped and inspired me.
Very special thanks to Cathy Trotter, Pam Bridges, Sherwin and Diane Bouchet,
Erma Elzy-Jones, Lori White, Ph.D., Erica O'Neal Howard, Ph.D., Mrs. Curtis, Valerie
Sneed, Meredythe Mann, Bill Macias, Dr. Leticia Bustillos, N. Copeland, Usher Board
#1, John Welsh, Chuck O’Regan, the FMS staff, Dr. Mary Campbell, Dr. Pearl Hilliard,
John Zivi and Joyce Fernandez.
This research would not have been possible without the participants whose
thoughts and voices inform this study. Thank you for your time and dedication.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1

Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 5
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose and Significance of the Study 15
Theoretical Foundations 18
Limitations 22
Delimitations 23
Assumptions 24
Definition of Terms 25
Organization of the Dissertation 28

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 29

Introduction 29
Research Questions 31
Theoretical Frameworks 31
Overview of Education in Context of Critical Race Theory 34
Factors Influencing Recruitment 37
Analysis 63

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 65

Introduction 65
Research Questions 65
Conceptual Framework 66
Research Methods 66
Data Collection 67
Sample and Population 72
Site for the Study 74
Analysis of the Data 77
v
Background of the Researcher 80
Ethical Considerations 81
Limitations

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS 83

Introduction 83
Interview Settings 84
Theoretical Constructs 85
Data Presentation 86
Overview of Findings 86
Challenges as Understood by Faculty – Review of Themes 114
Faculty Recommendations 117
Analysis of Challenges and Recommendations 125
Analysis of Challenges and Recommendations in context of CRT 134

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 146

Introduction 146
Recommendations 149
Implications for Practice 155
Recommendations for Future Research 156
Concluding Reflections 157

APPENDICES
Appendix A: BEP Mission Statement 166
Appendix B: BEP Diversity Statement 168
Appendix C: American Competitiveness Initiative 169

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Percentage of Undergraduate Engineering Baccalaureate Degrees
Awarded by Race of Recipients, 2000
6

Table 2: Percentage of Engineering Baccalaureate Degrees Awarded by Race of
Recipients, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005
7

Table 3: Study Participants 74

Table 4: Number of admitted undergraduates in BMEP by race, fall 2006 75

Table 5: Competing paradigms of faculty 126

Table 6: Differentiation of the professoriate 128

Table 7: Differentiation of the professoriate in leading research universities 128

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Percentage of students graduating from college by race, compared to
college-aged representation and enrollment figures
4

Figure 2: Percentage of students enrolled in the UARE School of Engineering and
the Biomendical Engineering Program, 2007
13

Figure 3: Theoretical Framework 21

viii

ABSTRACT

America’s diminishing global competitiveness in the STEM (science, technology,
engineering and math) fields is due in part, to a dwindling workforce. Increased
representation of historically underrepresented minorities (URMs) through undergraduate
education is one means of addressing the “quiet crisis” (Friedman, 2006). Faculty from a
prominent research institution (UARE) were interviewed (n=8, 4 from the Biomedical
Engineering Program – BEP and 4 from a science-related unit) to better understand the
challenges and solutions to increasing URMs, specifically African Americans. The two
challenges cited most by BEP faculty were (1) program less competitive than more
prestigious institutions (75%) and, (2) student-related challenges (75%). Collectively, the
two top challenges stated by 7 of 8 (88%) of faculty across both academic units were (1)
student-related, and (2) faculty lack of institutional support. There was no consensus
amongst the BEP faculty on recommendations and the most prevalent responses related
to increasing institutional support: (1) Need help finding students (50%), (2) Increase
outside grants to support diversity recruitment in labs (50%). Combining the findings
across both units, the need for better recruiting (50%) was mentioned but the proposed
methods varied considerably. Overall, the nature of the challenges and recommendations
indicate faculty perception of external locus of control. From a constructivist framework
the faculty perspectives are inherently credible. From a Critical Race Theory framework
the faculty perspectives appear limited and therefore insufficient to address the under
ix
representation. The research paradigm and lack of knowledge about how to engage in
better recruitment are also constraints to improving access.
It is recommended that BEP stakeholders work to: increase their knowledge about
CRT and effective recruitment techniques; engage in proactive dialogue around the
diversity mission and leverage the mission more strategically throughout the existing
outreach programs; address the research paradigm that discourages faculty from
participating in broader conversations and actions. Further research is needed to (1) better
understand whether these faculty views are unique to UARE, the academic discipline or
the particular cluster of units at UARE and (2) compare URM student perspectives to
faculty perspectives to determine what factors are considered by students who accept and
those who decline acceptance.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Introduction
Now more than ever, the nation must cultivate the scientific and technical
talents of all its citizens, not just those from groups that have traditionally
worked in STEM fields.
- May and Churbin, 2003, p.1

America’s long-term economic stability and global competitiveness rely on a
workforce that can conduct cutting edge scientific research, create new products and
processes (Martin, 2006), maintain technological competitiveness, and sustain
knowledge transfer from generation to generation. For these reasons, STEM
(science, technology, engineering and math) industries are critical to America’s
global prominence in medical breakthroughs, contributions to science, and advances
in information technology (Kemnitzer, 2005). Yet, the concomitant impact of a
shrinking labor pool, outsourcing of technical jobs to foreign countries, and steady
decline in knowledge transfer, have contributed to a looming “quiet crisis”
(Friedman, 2006) that threatens the country’s competitive edge in the continuous
development of knowledge and breakthroughs in science and engineering.
Countries like China and India are producing STEM talent at far greater rates
than America (Kemnitzer, 2005) and CEOs of the fastest domestic growing science
and technology companies are concerned about international companies gaining a
competitive advantage from importing top STEM talent (Rogers, 2006). American
STEM industries have historically had a scarcity of postsecondary graduates to begin
with (Martin, 2006). However, those industries will be particularly impacted by the
impending labor shortage resulting from the cohort of baby-boomers retiring from
2
the US labor force by the thousands beginning in the next few years (Rogers, 2006;
Friedman, 2006; Martin, 2006), the “declining scientific literacy” (Daemplfe 2004-
2005, p.38) of the undergraduate students matriculating into college, the dramatic
decline in interest in engineering by Whites (Kemnitzer, 2005), and the exportation
of talent to other countries (Rogers, 2006).
The STEM labor shortage would, according to May and Chubin (2003),
“largely be filled if underrepresented groups (including minorities, persons with
disabilities and women) were utilized in parity with their percentages in the total
workforce population” (p. 1). As an example, engineering is the second largest
profession in the United States (following teaching), employing nearly 1.5 million
people (NSF, 2005). Engineering experienced significant growth during the end of
the 20
th
century due to advancements in space and defense technology along with the
addition of new fields such as bioengineering and nano-manufacturing, (NSF, 2005)
resulting in more jobs.
While demand for an increase in engineers has occurred, the number of
Whites interested in engineering has decreased (Kemintzer, 2005) and the number of
people of color in the field has not increased in parity with their representation in the
population, thus the term underrepresented minority (URM). Specifically,
underrepresented minority in this context refers to African Americans, Hispanics and
Native Americans. At roughly 4.3% of the population (U.S. Census, 2005), Asians
are considered an ethnic minority in the United States but they are not
underrepresented minorities in postsecondary STEM fields. Astone and Nunez-
3
Wormack (1990) postulated that Asians were aggressively targeted by some schools
for recruitment in the 80’s as a result of a “stereotype” (p.13) that Asian students are
predisposed for achievement in math and science.
Astone and Nunez-Wormack (1990) also cautioned against grouping all
minorities together into one category (as in URM), asserting that practically
speaking, each race has differing experiences in America, historically, culturally, and
socially. In fact, some Asian groups like Filipinos, are not included in the
overrepresented group (Astone and Nunez-Wormack). Due to the complexity of
exploring all URMs, the primary focus of this research will be on the experience of
one demographic, African-Americans.
African Americans represent 12% of the U.S. population, 10% of the
workforce (US Census Bureau, 2006) and only 5.6 % of the science and engineering
jobs (Engineering Workforce Commission, 2005). For African Americans to achieve
equity in engineering means almost doubling their current numbers. Figure 1 shows
that although African Americans actually achieved parity in undergraduate
enrollment in 2000, graduation rates were far less than Asians and Whites. Further,
Whites were still significantly overrepresented.

4
Figure 1: Percentage of students graduating from postsecondary undergraduate engineering
programs, by race, compared to college-aged representation and enrollment figures.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1
Asian African American White
11% 11% 11% 10%
73%
9%
18-24 18-24
18-24
Enrolled
Enrolled
Enrolled
Graduates
Graduates
Graduates
6%
67%
13%

Note: U.S. Census Bureau; 2000. Engineering Workforce Commission, Engineering &
Technology Enrollments: Fall 2005 (Washington, DC, 2006). Table B.9. Undergraduate
enrollment by sex, race, (1995-2005).

African Americans comprised 11% of the 18-24 year olds, 10% of the
undergraduates enrolled in engineering and only 6% of engineering bachelor
degrees. Asian Americans, like African Americans, represented 11% of the 18-24
years olds but had almost twice as many undergraduate engineering degree recipients
at 13%.
Whites had fewer 18-24 year olds (9%) than African Americans (and Asians)
but comprised 73% of the undergraduate engineering student population and
received 67% of the degrees, which represents more than ten times as many degrees
than African Americans.
With the exception of Native Americans, African Americans received the
fewest bachelor’s degrees in engineering awarded in 2005 (NSF, 2007). African
5
Americans even received fewer undergraduate degrees in engineering than have
foreign nationals (NSF, 2007). Reichert (1977) postulated the disparity might exist
because higher education institutions began targeting more international students due
to pressure to be more inclusive. Climbing enrollment in STEM fields of foreign
national students is particularly interesting in light of export control laws and
national security measures which apply to the university setting relative to
foreigners’ access to scientific research discoveries, products and ideas.
Background of the Problem
Arguments have been made that African-Americans, Hispanics and Native
Americans are underrepresented because they lack interest in, or lack the secondary
academic preparation to prepare them for, the rigors of STEM field scholarship.
Hurtado, Cerna, Chang, Saenz, Lopez, Mosqueda, Oseguera, Chang, and Korn
(2006) counter the lack of interest theory by reporting the results of national data
which points to a “promising pool” (p. 1) of URM students who are indeed very
interested in the sciences.
Some of the literature does support the assertion that URMs, are often less
academically prepared than their White counterparts for STEM field postsecondary
education. Contributing factors to disparities in academic preparation may arise from
socio-economic or political issues (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado and Gurin, 2002; NACME,
2006). Enrollment trends are also impacted by many factors. For example, the U.S.
Supreme Court’s recent reversal of affirmative action in higher education student
6
recruitment is expected to have a devastating impact on admissions numbers for
historically underrepresented populations (Gurin et al, 2002).
The data, as shown in table 1, shows the under representation of African-
Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans as compared to their respective
representation in the 18-25 year old demographic
Table 1
Percentage of Undergraduate Engineering Baccalaureate Degrees Awarded by Race of Recipients,
2000

Total

White
Asian
American
African-
American

Hispanic
Native
American
Foreign
National
18-25 year-olds 9.6 9.0 11.0 11.0 13.0 12.0 N/A
Undergraduates
Awarded
Bachelor’s
Degrees
(Percentages)

5.0 67.0 13.0 6.0 5.0 .05 7.0
Undergraduates
Awarded
Bachelor’s
Degrees

64,000 43,000 7,000 3,000 4,000 >1,000 5,000
Note: U.S. Census, 2000. Rounded to the nearest thousand. Calculated from Table B-9 and C-8.
Engineering Workforce 1990-2005. Commission, Website, 2006. Engineering and Technology
Degrees, 2005. (Washington, D.C., 2005).

There is widespread agreement that any student with the desire and ability to
succeed in STEM fields should have the opportunity to pursue a postsecondary
education (Commission on Higher Education, 2006; Friedman, 2006; Martin, 2006).
However, not all students may have an equal opportunity (NSF, 2000; Roithmayr,
2000). At the K-12 level, fewer than 4% of minority students complete the
prerequisite math and science classes necessary for acceptance into engineering
programs, have little access to technology and are often taught math and science
courses with curriculum that is not standards-based and by teachers who lack the
7
proper credentials (Vanguard Report of the National Action Council for Minorities in
Engineering, Inc., 2006).
Access to higher education for African Americans, for example, is hindered
by several issues, including college admissions practices that are said to favor Whites
(Dervarics, 2006; Green, 2004; Roithmayr, 2000). Roithmayr (2000) argued that
historically, Whites created a monopoly by using the legal system and informal
practices that ultimately created systemic institutionalized disenfranchisement from
postsecondary education for people of color and thus leading to the over-
representation of Whites in STEM fields.
Table 2 suggests that although there has been a steady decline in
undergraduate engineering Bachelor’s degrees awarded to Whites over the last
decade, at 68% of the Baccalaureate degrees awarded in 2005, they still remain
significantly overrepresented in the degrees awarded.
Table 2
Percentage of engineering baccalaureate degrees awarded by race and recipients, 1990,
1995, 2000, 2005

All
Students

White
Asian
American
African-
American

Hispanic
Native
American
Foreign
National
1990 66,000 76.0 9.0 3.0 4.0 .02 8.0
1995 65,000 71.0 11.0 5.0 5.0 .04 8.0
2000 63,600 68.0 12.0 5.0 6.0 .05 8.0
2005 76,000 68.0 13.0 5.0 6.0 .05 7.0
Note: Rounded to the nearest thousand. Engineering Workforce Commission, Engineering and
Technology Degrees, 2005. (Washington, D.C., 2005).

African Americans have not seen an increase in undergraduate engineering
degrees awarded by percentage over the last 10 years and remain at 5% of the
undergraduate degrees awarded (see Table 2). Without equitable access to the
education necessary for the STEM field workforce, African Americans are
8
prohibited from contributing to the representation needed to help fill the labor
shortage.
Concern about the “quiet crisis” and equity of access to the STEM workforce
has prompted the federal government and academia to respond. In February 2006,
President George W. Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI), earmarking $137 billion to increase federal research and development, some
of which are in biomedical research. A primary component of the ACI is focused on
developing a well-educated and skilled workforce and proposes postsecondary
institutional reform. Yet, a component of this effort includes immigration reform as a
means of attracting workers from other countries (see Appendix A). Leveraging an
international workforce seems contrary to increasing the participation of America’s
domestic capabilities, particularly considering government contracts to US defense
companies require American citizens to do the work (NACME, 2008).
The National Council of Minority Engineers (NACME, 2008) reinforced the
importance of national policy on ensuring a domestic STEM workforce:
Although outsourcing and offshoring may be here to stay, depending on
foreign countries to fill our requirements is not a long-term and tenable
practice. Exporting jobs and importing talent is not sound national policy.
Certainly we need to develop a more rational set of immigration policies for
those wishing to study and work in science and engineering in this country,
but perhaps even more important is the need to increase opportunities for
native-born or naturalized students to prepare for and study these disciplines.
(p. 5)

In 2006, United States Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings convened
19 national leaders to form the Commission on Higher Education charged with
examining the competitiveness issue (Commission of Higher Education, 2006). The
9
Commission’s 2006 report recommended drastic improvements in postsecondary
education including increased access for nontraditional and underserved students,
innovation of math and science curricula, and increased government investment in
educational resources in engineering and medicine (Pluviose, 2006).
As a result of these recent efforts and the Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunity Act passed by Congress in 1980, (hereafter referred to as SEEOA), the
National Science Foundation (NSF) has possibly invested the most resources to
diversity in the STEM fields. Among other things, the SEEOA required: the creation
of a joint NSF-Secretary of Education science education program plan; consideration
of female and minority scientists as nominees for the National Science Board; men
and women to have equal opportunity in education, training and employment in
STEM fields; NSF-initiated research at minority institutions; and an NSF proposal
identifying ways to promote minority participation in such fields.
National Science Foundation
The NSF, an independent federal agency formed by Congress in 1950, cited
the lack of diversity within the engineering profession as the second of their top five
concerns in their 2005 strategic plan (NSF, 2005). The NSF’s Engineering
Workforce Task Group, established in 2005, concluded that increasing
underrepresented minorities in engineering means overhauling the culture of
engineering and the academic systems that are barriers for underrepresented minority
(URM) academic access and career preparation (Kemnitzer, 2005). For those
10
reasons, the NSF attaches to their scientific research grants the stipulation that grant
recipients work to increase URMs in the STEM fields.
With an annual budget of almost $6 billion, the NSF represents
approximately 20% of all federally supported basic research conducted by American
higher education institutions. In 2005, the NSF made more than 10,000 new research
and education project awards of which over 96% were distributed through a
competitive merit review process that included diversity as one of the criterion (NSF,
2005). In addition, the NSF funding from the ACI initiative was expected to support
as many as 500 more research grants in 2007 and sponsor over 6,400 more scientists,
students, post-doctoral fellows, and technicians (ACI, 2006). One NSF grantee is the
subject of this study, the biomedical scientific laboratory at the University of
Academic and Research Excellence (UARE).
1

The UARE Biomedical Engineering Program
The UARE Biomedical Program (BEP), operates within a cluster of NSF
local research institution partners, which receive scientific research grants. One
condition attached to the research grants is that the BEP must increase
underrepresented minorities in both outreach and educational programs as a means of
contributing to the national effort to eliminate the STEM field workforce crisis.

1
The University of Academic Research Excellence and the BEP (Biomedical Engineering Program)
are pseudonyms to protect the real names of the institution and individuals in this study. Similarly, the
titles of some related documents have also been changed to protect privacy of the institution.

11
The Biomedical Engineering Program’s mission is to:
1. Develop implantable microelectronic devices to treat blindness, paralysis and
central nervous system disorders;
2. Integrate the efforts of multidisciplinary research groups at partner research
institution;
3. Provide research for industrial partners, along with providing BEP students
mentoring and job opportunities with industrial partners; and
4. Increase underrepresented minorities in both the outreach as well as
educational programs; and disseminate information about emerging
technologies to the general public.
The UARE BEP catalog states that it is “uniquely positioned to accomplish
the National Science Foundation (NSF) goal of creating a diverse workforce for the
near and distant future” (Biomedical website catalog, 2006). The BEP has a
diversity initiative that includes increasing the diversity of faculty, students
(undergraduate and graduate) participating in BEP research and education programs
and students recruited to undergraduate and graduate programs in biomedical
engineering. However, the BEP has not yet achieved parity in enrollment or retention
of domestic URMs.
The initiative intends to attract more underrepresented minority faculty and
reported that the BEP “interviewed four potential candidates (3 Hispanic and 1
woman) in 2006” but did not publish the outcome. Based on current faculty
demographics, the Hispanics were apparently not hired.
12
The BEP diversity initiative also “seeks to increase the available pool of
undergraduate students by recruiting and training diverse populations of students
from K-12 to undergraduate to graduate levels.” In particular, the BEP plan states
that it has “implemented aggressive recruitment initiatives at the undergraduate level
by increasing nationwide awareness of BEP summer programs through the website,
flyer dissemination, and seminars.” Whether or not the BEP has actually increased
enrollment of URMs to its summer programs that effort has not translated into
increased enrollment in its academic programs.
In 2006, African Americans represented 3.8% of the University’s
undergraduate engineering school and .02% of BEP. In context, Hispanics represent
11% of BEP engineering students and 0% of the BEP; American Indians represent
.45% and .02% in BEP. With the exception of Whites and Asians, all ethnic
minorities are under-represented at the University, although the numbers are higher
than other similar institutions. It should be noted that Non-Resident (International
students) comprised a significantly higher proportion of all BEP students than any
domestic race.

13
Figure 2
Percentage of Students Enrolled in the UARE School of Engineering and the Biomedical
Engineering Program, 2007

Note: UARE BEP, 2007.

Given the above data, it is clear that the pathway to the STEM workforce is
somehow obstructed for historically underrepresented minorities, particularly
African Americans (Kemintzer, 2005), at UARE’s Biomedical Engineering Program.
This research will examine from the perspective of faculty why the
underepresentation of undergraduate African American engineering students persists,
despite the program’s efforts to improve access.
Statement of the Problem
The issue of underrepresented minorities’ access to STEM fields has major
long-term implications for the financial and technological security of the United
States (Friedman, 2006; Martin, 2006; Rogers, 2006). Astone and Nunez-Wormack
(1990) maintain that underrepresentation cannot be resolved through any single
endeavor though higher educational institutions do have some measure of control
over improving parity for URMs. Diversity recruitment efforts have to be an
14
institutional priority and needs to involve all stakeholders, including faculty, in the
creation of specific goals to do so. Astone and Nunez-Wormack say:
As an institutionwide problem, it requires institutionwide attention,
leadership, and solutions. Academic leaders must get all faculty involved in
the process...The entire college community must become intellectually as
well as morally sensitive to the importance of ensuring the diversity of the
institution (p. xvi).

The role of faculty in all student-related academic outcomes is also reinforced by
other authors like Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson and Allen (1998) and
Bensimon (2007) who assert that it is essential for faculty to gain awareness of the
impact of their biases on student outcomes.
The UARE BEP puts forward the notion that the program is well poised to
create a diverse STEM workforce for the near future. As it relates to domestic ethnic
minorities (African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans), that it is not yet
the reality, despite the mission and programs designed to accomplish that goal. The
BEP is reflective of a larger national problem of access in terms of the efforts to
expand the demographics of their undergraduate population.
Missing from the current literature is a dialogue about how faculty perceive
the problem of disparity in representation of students of color and what role faculty
perception, their frame of reference of the issues combined with their sense of locus
of control, may play in the successful recruitment of undergraduate African
American students.
In light of the national urgency of this matter, I will examine UARE science-
related faculty’s perspective on recruitment of African American undergraduate
15
students. Exploration of faculty perception may help shed light on whether there may
be something unique about this specific culture, or engineering as a discipline, that
influences the successful recruitment of African American undergraduate
engineering students.
Purpose and Significance of the Study
There is an abundance of research and literature that explores both the
retention of URMs in general, and of African Americans specifically, in
postsecondary institutions and within the STEM disciplines in such institutions, with
good reason. It is essential to understand the factors that impact a student’s
retention/attrition because once students are in undergraduate programs, ensuring
they graduate becomes paramount. However, unless URMs are actually enrolled in
undergraduate institutions, retention and attrition are moot issues.
There is a shortage of studies that examine faculty perspectives on why the
pathway to undergraduate institutions is blocked for African Americans and other
URMs, and the extent to which faculty in general perceive that undergraduate
recruitment of URMs is within their locus of control or influence. This study will
help fill that gap by exploring faculty perceptions and level of awareness about
access. Examining the salience of the discourse amongst faculty, investigating their
explanations for the numbers, and gaining insight on their recommendations will
shed light on faculty potential to impact student racial diversity in their program.
Therefore this study will analyze how the UARE Biomedical Engineering Program is
poised to support diversity from a faculty perspective. The purpose is to gain an
16
understanding about how faculty define and think about the issue of
underrepresentation from there own collective worldview, if one can be identified.
Examining the organizational culture relative to faculty impact and perceptions may
assist the BEP stakeholders to understand how to shape the capacity of their
organization to maximize recruitment of African Americans.
Perhaps most importantly, enabling faculty to reflect upon and articulate their
own perception of the issues may be more illuminating to them than relying solely
on one framework by which to assess the problems of access. The literature suggests
that how an issue is conceptualized and defined has direct influence on the approach
and range of solutions considered to solve it (Patton, 2002). This study will compare
the responses of BEP faculty to another similar academic discipline within the same
university.
Quantitatively, an equity index (Hao, 2002), similar to the one used by
Bensimon, Hao & Bustillos (2006), of enrollment figures indicates there is an under
representation of African Americans in the biomedical engineering program at
UARE. Beyond that, what is not known is why that may be, or what the faculty
perception is of why that may be, which is why a qualitative methodological
approach is being employed.
The primary audience of this study is practitioners in the field, like
engineering faculty and administrators, who are interested in positively impacting
access to undergraduate engineering education for African American students. While
the knowledge gained from these research results relates exclusively to the particular
17
site under study, it is hoped that the themes that emerge will prompt practitioners to
look more closely or perhaps from a different viewpoint to assess their own
perceptions and organizational climate around the issues of equal access.
Research Questions
Research questions posed in this study are:
1. What are faculty’s perceptions about why the numbers are so low nationally
for URMs, specifically African Americans in undergraduate engineering
programs?
2. How do faculty explain the URM numbers in the UARE BEP?
2

3. To whom do faculty assign the responsibility (leadership and
implementation) for recruitment?
4. What are their recommendations for increasing the numbers? And to what
extent are their explanations and recommendations related to
a. Perception of student deficiencies;
b. Perception of program /institution deficiencies; or
c. Perception of the climate in the profession in general?
A fundamental assumption of this study is that faculty members in any
academic organization impact organizational culture, policies and
practices/procedures relative to students, whether by omission or commission,
intentionally or unintentionally (Lucas, 2006). Therefore, faculty members ultimately
have the capacity to serve as “agents of change” at those same institutions

2
The University of Academic Research Excellence and the BEP (Biomedical Engineering Program)
are pseudonyms to protect the real names of the institution and people involved. Similarly, the titles of
some related documents have also been changed to protect privacy of the institution.
18
(Bensimon, 2004). The research will compare the biomedical engineering faculty
responses to those of faculty from another science-related academic department at
the same institution. This is done with the intent to explore the degree to which the
perceptions of BEP faculty transcend their particular department and culture.
Theoretical Foundations
Constructionism argues an individual’s perception is perceived, not concrete
and objective (Patton, 2002). Constructivism emerges from the work of Piaget and
theorizes that people construct knowledge about reality based on context, which is
informed by individual past experiences and values (Patton, 2002). Both of these
related constructs, along with Critical Race Theory, (CRT) serve as the theoretical
foundation of this research. The focus here is not on describing “how” one constructs
knowledge but rather to acknowledge that one’s perspective is based upon one’s own
particular experience of the world. I will explore the world-view of the participant’s
relative to the underrepresentation of students of color, based upon their perspective
as research faculty members in an engineering department at a research university.
Knowing more about how a specific group of faculty understand the needs
and challenges of increasing African American students and comparing those views
with best practices in the field and with the faculty views of another science-related
academic department within the same university may help the BEP better strategize
to increase diversity. While the results cannot be extrapolated to other institutions,
they may nonetheless provide insight to other engineering programs nationally that
aspire to address the impending STEM field workforce crisis.
19
Employing constructivist and constructionist approaches to understanding
faculty perspectives requires me to suspend any pre-conceived notions about how the
participants should view reality, based on my own experiences and interpretation of
the world. It requires that I consider with integrity the possibility of an equally
credible alternate perspective and reality. I cannot provide a framework for
describing the faculty’s collective paradigm, to the extent that there is one, until I
analyze the findings.
Yet, I do have my own view of the world, based on CRT that frames my
understanding of the problem of underrepresentation and that guides the choice of
literature that I find most salient to contextualize underrepresentation. Critical Race
Theory is used in the literature to analyze social, political, legal and academic equity
issues. CRT emerges from legal theory and has five tenants designed to challenge
traditional research methodology and help situate educational issues historically.
In terms of the tenants, CRT separates discourse on race, gender, and class;
challenges dominant deficit ideology; relies on the stories of people of color to give
voice to their experience of oppression; identifies liberatory education as one aspect
of socio-political liberation for people of color; and promotes better understanding of
oppression by utilizing cross-disciplinary knowledge from law, women and ethnic
studies, sociology and history (Solórzano and Yosso, 2002).
CRT’s underlying assumption is that examining racism is inextricably related
to understanding and therefore addressing equity issues in academia and the
workforce, for instance. Few can argue that as members of groups that are not
20
characterized to be members of the dominant culture in the United States, people of
color have historically been discriminated against in many ways (Adams, Blumfeld,
Castañeda, Hackman, Peters & Zúñiga 2000; Bensimon, 2004; Green, 2004;
Solórzano and Yosso, 2002). In fact, there exists a plethora of research in the
literature providing systematic approaches for addressing racism, some of which
involve anti-bias training for educators (Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997), systemic
institutional change (Bensimon, 2004; Kezar, 2005), legal redress (Green, 2004), K-
12 school reform (Kozol, 2001) and the re-socialization of URMs to increase their
social capital (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Yet, the problem of access along racial lines
for URMs remains prevalent.
Critical Race Theory has been used in the literature (Adams, et al, 2000;
Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) as an appropriate framework for contextualizing the
problem of URM access to education and employment opportunities historically, yet
it may not be sufficient to fully explain the breadth and depth of the phenomenon as
it exists today. Further, even if my own experience of the world and in my own
interpretation of the literature leads me to see CRT as the most relevant construct to
analyze the current state of affairs, it is not necessarily the theoretical framework
used by the faculty under study to understand the issue today.
If that is the case, CRT has limited utility as a framework for understanding
the problem and exploring solutions and may therefore be insufficient to help impact
the change needed to address inequitable access. Rather than impose my own
framework and theory to the problem, constructivism and constructionism demand
21
that as a researcher, I attempt to determine from the point of view of the participants,
their own perspective. The diagram below is a visual representation of theoretical
frameworks employed in this research
Figure 3
Theoretical Framework

However, examining faculty perception through CRT is contrary to its
intended purpose. Critical Race Theory is a legitimate and necessary vehicle for
shifting the center of mainstream discourse by considering the perspective, typically
through their own stories, of the people most impacted by discriminatory practices. It
is a way of seeing, feeling and hearing viewpoints and the people who hold them. It
22
is a way to represent viewpoints that have historically been absent from credible
academic enterprises. It is a rather perilous precedent to distort such an inherently
valuable conduit by returning the focus back onto the voices of faculty, most of
whom are not people of color, and all of whom belong to a profession that has
historically generated and greatly influenced what is considered to be the truth about
reality (Lucas, 2006). Yet, it would be an incomplete analysis to ignore the social
and political factors that have impacted the access of people of color.
Limitations
The nature of scientific inquiry is to be objective (Patton, 2002). This study,
while addressing the question of recruitment, involves gaining the perspective of
faculty members ultimately about race-related disenfranchisement – a historically
sensitive topic in America. Given the nature of human beings, it is virtually
impossible to determine to what extent the interaction between me as the researcher,
who is an African American female, and the participants, none of whom are African
American, is influenced by race or race-related experiences and perceptions, and
how that dynamic potentially alters the reliability of the data. Seidman (1998)
articulated that the historic existence of racism in America creates particular
obstacles for African Americans and Whites to interview each other; thus awareness
and care must be utilized to overcome those obstacles. The same is true, according to
Seidman, with respect to gender, age, class hierarchy and status.
Similarly, the notion of who has agency to name, define, and discuss a
problem of social significance is a challenge and potential barrier to healthy,
23
constructive discourse on the subject. Based on Critical Race Theory, as an African
American female who is not an engineer my credibility may be questioned, my
motives suspected, and my ability to be “objective” may be scrutinized closely.
Additionally, the limited availability of data on the specific subject of African
American undergraduate recruitment into a Biomedical engineering program is a
constraint requiring the researcher to extrapolate conclusions that might otherwise be
more explicit in subjects where the literature is abundant.
Delimitations
One approach in examining the topic of race-related disenfranchisement from
the CRT perspective would be to examine the participants’ espoused theories and
theories in use
3
(Argyris and Schön, 1974), in context of their racial identity
development. Cross (1991) and Helms (1990) among others, postulated personal
identity factors (e.g. self-esteem, self worth, personality traits) combined with one’s
reference group orientation (race awareness, racial attitudes, racial self identification)
can connect in various human developmental stages in a way that impacts a person’s
perceptions of and interactions with others. Because the limited contact between the
interviewer and the participants in this study does not lend itself to that depth of
analysis, the participants’ words or described actions will be used only to consider a
participant’s comments as “equity-minded” or “deficit-minded” (Bensimon, 2007, p.
446).

3
To be discussed in more detail in chapter 2.
24
The primary avenue of undergraduate recruitment for the BME’s traditional
high school route into college. Therefore, one important potential avenue for
improving the pipeline for undergraduate URM recruitment, transfer from
community college, will not be explored in this research.
Assumptions
A fundamental assumption of this study is faculty members in any academic
organization impact organizational culture, policies and practices/procedures relative
to student outcomes, whether by omission or commission, or intentionally or
unintentionally. Therefore, faculty members ultimately have the capacity to serve as
agents of change at those same institutions.
CRT appears to be a legitimate framework for situating the phenomenon of
limited access of undergraduate African American students to STEM fields (as
discussed in chapter 2), but it is not the only explanation as to why the problem
persists. As a diversity trainer and former graduate student and as former Visiting
Faculty and Adjunct Professor of Human Development in the Distance Learning
Program at a college that specializes in anti-bias curriculum, I have over 10 years of
experience with transformative education. My experience has led me to conclude
that it is profoundly difficult to gain consensus around issues of power, privilege and
disenfranchisement as dictated by CRT. It can take more time than a program usually
has to approach a problem solely from one angle.
In order to effectively engage someone else in problem-solving, one must
first understand how the other perceives the issue, to what extent the issue is
25
important to them, and what factors may contribute to their motivation for taking
ownership of the issue in a way that impacts change. Therefore, to impact
organizational change, sometimes one has to find other common pedagogical or
philosophical frameworks to engage a diverse audience in the effort, which is why
this research seeks to gain the perspective of the faculty interviewed.
Another fundamental assumption is African American students, their
families, and their communities have an obligation to ensure that any student who
wants to succeed in a STEM field has the preparation and support to do so (Kunjufu,
1995; DuBois 1920/1999). However, that responsibility is not the focus of this
research.
Definition of Terms
Underrepresented Minority (URM) – As used in this study, URMs are racial groups
(African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and Native Americans) that have
historically been underrepresented in higher educational institutions as a
result, in part, of historic and present institutional and structural
discriminatory practices. While Asians are also ethnic minorities, they are not
underrepresented in STEM fields and therefore are not included in the term
URM, as used in this research.
Affirmative Action – a legal effort to provide increased access opportunities for
women and ethnic minorities to overcome past patterns of discrimination
(Grolier electronic Library, 1996). As discussed in chapter 2, the current legal
26
status of affirmative action has a significant impact on institutional
recruitment practices relative to race.
Constructionism – A fundamental concept in this research which postulates an
individual’s perception is subjective and therefore deserving of consideration
as a valid perspective (Patton, 2002).
Constructivism – The theory that people construct knowledge about reality based on
context, which is informed by individual past experiences and values (Patton,
2002). The goal of this research is to find an appropriate balance between the
three frameworks of constuctionism/constructivism and Critical Race Theory.
Critical Race Theory – Critical Race Theory challenges traditional research
methodology and helps situate educational issues historically by (1)
separating discourse on race, gender, and class; (2) challenging dominant
deficit ideology; (3) relying on the stories told from people of color to give
voice to their experience of oppression; (4) working for liberatory education
as one aspect of socio-political liberation for people of color; and (5) gaining
better understanding by utilizing cross-disciplinary knowledge from law,
women and ethnic studies, sociology and history (Solórzano and Yosso,
2002).
Deficit-minded individuals and deficit ideology – attribute inequality to the student,
as opposed to equity- minded individuals who are critically conscious of the
existence and outcomes of institutionalized discriminatory practices against
people of color and attribute inequality to organizational barriers, (Bensimon,
27
2007). In this research, rather than attempt to label the participants from a
racial identity development standpoint which would not be an uncommon
means of understanding their perspectives relative to race and under
representation, it is more appropriate, based on the limited contact with the
study participants to assess their statements based on the criteria for deficit-
minded and equity-minded.
Equity- minded individuals – according to Bensimon (2007), are critically conscious
of the existence and outcomes of institutionalized discriminatory practices
against people of color and attribute inequality to organizational barriers,
including those that faculty are responsible for contributing to.
Hermeneutics – The theory that suggests nothing can be interpreted free of some
perspective. This research will attempt to understand the challenges
associated with recruitment of URMs from the perspective of the faculty to
allow their collective paradigm to emerge and from the perspective of the
researcher through the lens of Critical Race Theory.
Locus of control – the concept of "self as agent" capable of positively affecting one’s
environment. – The issue of locus of control may be fundamental to faculty’s
responsiveness to under representation. This study will attempt to gain an
understanding of faculty’s sense of locus of control.

28
Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the
overview for the study. Chapter 2 is the literature review, which provides a review of
the research questions and the theoretical frameworks, explores the literature
regarding the issue of access to higher education for people of color historically, and
highlights factors influencing recruitment. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology used
for data collection and analysis, and discusses the study population. Chapter 4
presents the findings of the data collection reported by the themes that emerged from
the interviews and then by research question. Chapter 4 then presents an analysis of
the findings from a constructionist perspective and also from a Critical Race Theory
perspective. Chapter 5 presents an overview, conclusion, recommendations and
implications for practice.

29
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Access to undergraduate education for underrepresented minorities (URMs)
is the extent to which they are able to enter a postsecondary institution and take
advantage of its programs and resources (Bensimon, 2005). The literature on URMs’
access to higher education in general, and STEM (science, technology, engineering
and math) fields specifically, is rich with research postulating that access is related
to: (a) preparation of the URMs in high school (Hurtado, 1977; Hurtado, 1998;
Jones, Yonezwa, Ballesteros & Meham, 2002; Worsnop, 1996); (b) organizational
barriers (Bensimon, 2004; Kezar, 2005; Reichert, 1977; Seymour, 2001); and/or (c)
social political barriers (Green, 2004; Jones et al, 2002; Seymour, 2001; Worsnop,
1996 ).
To some extent, all of the above presuppositions are correct. Without better
preparation of URMs, even the best recruitment efforts will not garner much yield.
Without the necessary social political climate and organizational motivation for
equal access, URMs are disenfranchised from the prospect of postsecondary
education (Jones et al, 2002; Worsnop 1996). Whatever the reasons, it is generally
agreed that African Americans do not have equal access to higher education
(Bensimon 2004; Hurtado, 1998; Kezar, 2005; Seymour, 2001). Missing from
mainstream literature, however, is a dialogue about the role of faculty in URM’s
access to undergraduate education, as well as the role their perceptions about the
30
issue and their sense of locus of control play in undergraduate African American
recruitment.
Locus of control is the concept of "self as agent" and relates to one’s
perception of his/her capacity to positively affect one’s environment (McCombs,
1991). The practitioner’s sense of locus of control is impacted by the extent to which
they view a problem from the perspective of their own practices or institutional
practices, and whether they perceive the problem as having a solution, or even
needing a solution (Bensimon, 2007). The common perception of inequality,
according to Bensimon, is that it cannot be solved, and therefore to be avoided or
even discounted as being a problem. Faculty’s sense of locus of control over
inequality can be empowered by positioning the possibility of change as one that
faculty can directly impact. Although Bensimon was referring to equity in student
learning outcomes, it is the premise of this research that the same theory applies to
any form of academic institutional inequity that a faculty member could conceivably
have an impact on.
This study examines the perceptions of faculty related to the challenge of
recruiting African American undergraduate students into a biomedical engineering
major within a private research university. Those perceptions will be compared with
not only their “theories in practice” (Argyris and Schön, 1974), but compared also
with the perceptions of faculty in a science-related department at the same institution
to explore what differences and similarities exist. Perception of locus of control will
31
be a fundamental concept by which to understand their thinking and actions about
recruitment.
Research Questions
This study poses the following research questions:
1. What are faculty’s perceptions about why the numbers are so low nationally
for URMs, specifically African Americans in undergraduate engineering
programs?
2. How do faculty explain the URM numbers in the UARE BEP?
3. To whom do faculty assign the responsibility (leadership and
implementation) for recruitment?
4. What are their recommendations for increasing the numbers? And to what
extent are their explanations and recommendations related to
a. Perception of student deficiencies;
b. Perception of program /institution deficiencies; or
c. Perception of the climate in the profession in general?
Theoretical Frameworks
Patton (2002) observed that “nothing can be interpreted free of some
perspective, so the first priority is to capture the perspective and elucidate the context
of the people being studied” (p. 129). As such, the role of faculty perception is being
explored because perception guides behavior (Patton, 2002). I want to understand
faculty behavior, I have to understand their perception. Relative to this research, the
notion of “perception” is framed by three important and interconnected philosophical
32
concepts: constructivism, constructionism, and critical race theory. I want to begin
this discussion by asserting that the constructs of constructivism and constructionism
are overlapping and often used interchangeably (Patton, 2002) because they are so
“difficult to distinguish and easy to confuse” (Crotty as cited in Patton, 2002), even
in the literature.
Constructivism
Constructivism suggests that one’s reality is based on context, which is
informed by individual past experiences and values, and shaped by their cultures
(Patton, 2002). The way in which reality is perceived will dictate a person’s
response to reality, as defined by Thomas’s theorem: “What is defined or perceived
by people as real is real in its consequences” (Thomas & Thomas, 1928 as cited in
Patton, 2002, p. 96).
Constructivism emerged from the field of early childhood education as early
as the late 1800’s when a school teacher, Francis Parker, took students on local field
trips to study geography (Windschitl, 2002) rather than having them learn from
schoolbooks. The purpose was to enable them to create first hand knowledge on their
own by building on preexisting knowledge. Any quick perusal of K-12 literature will
reveal the wide use of the constructivist approach in teaching all disciplines. The
relationship to this research is not to understand so much how each faculty member
constructs their knowledge but to acknowledge that their may be a collective
worldview based on their discipline, or school culture that informs their thinking
about underrepresentation.
33
When I speak of faculty’s perspectives then, I attempt to consider how their
world-views, shaped by the environment, guide their constructed reality. In this case,
the environment is the organizational culture of the biomedical engineering program
combined with larger societal influences. In order to have a dialogue with them
about solutions to the problems they pose (or do not pose) one has to first understand
what their world-view is. Constructivism therefore is about context; it is the lens for
considering to what extent the discipline of engineering and its values and culture
influence faculty perception about who can become an engineer and how engineers
should be recruited.
Constructionism
Constructionism implies that an individual’s perception or social construction
is subjective (Patton, 2002). Therefore, constructionism demands a value-neutral
stance when examining perspectives. In other words, perspectives are neither right
nor wrong, good or bad, they just are. After analyzing the data based on faculty
perspective, I will then explore the data based on my own theoretical perspective
which is rooted in Critical Race Theory.
Critical Race Theory
Critical Race Theory (CRT) challenges traditional research methodology and
helps situate educational issues historically by (a) separating discourse on race,
gender, and class; (b) challenging dominant deficit ideology; (c) relying on the
stories told from people of color to give voice to their experience of oppression; (d)
working for liberatory education as one aspect of socio-political liberation for people
34
of color; and (e) gaining a better understanding by utilizing cross-disciplinary
knowledge from law, women and ethnic studies, sociology and history (Solórzano
and Yosso, 2002).
The question that emerges from critical race theory is: “What are the
consequences of faculty constructions for their behaviors and for those with whom
they interact” (Patton, 2002, p. 96). Traditionally, educational research either
marginalized or ignored the concerns of people of color, addressed those concerns
from a deficit perspective, or suggested racial concerns could be analyzed through
other demographics like socio-economic class and gender (Parker and Lynn, 2002).
An Overview of the Historical Experience of African Americans relative to
Education, in the context of Critical Race Theory
African Americans have a definitive history of academic, social, political and
economic disenfranchisement in America stemming from a mainstream
philosophical notion of racial inferiority (Cross, 2000; Roithmayer, 2000). The
prevailing view from the dominant culture’s scientific and religious literature was
that people of African descent were intellectually and morally deficient (Cross, 2000;
Dubois, 1920/1999; Roithmayer, 2000; West, 1982). As a result, from 1636 when
higher education was established in the United States until 1823 – a span of almost
200 years, no Black people, as they were referred to then, were awarded degrees
(Cross, 2000). This was presumably so because they did not have access to
postsecondary educational institutions.
35
Between 1865-1900, 390 Blacks received diplomas from traditionally white
institutions (Cross, 2000), yet in 1950, 90% of Blacks were educated in traditionally
black colleges (Astone and Nunez-Wormack, 1990). By 1954, Blacks made up only
one percent of freshmen at predominately white colleges, which did not change to
above 2%. It was not until the late 1960’s that the numbers of African Americans
increased in postsecondary settings. The increase was due in part to, the post-WWII
influx of American Veterans resulting from the G.I. Bill (Cross, 2000) and, the
political activism that led to the passage of Brown v. Board of Education which made
racial segregation in schools illegal (Astone and Nunez-Wormack, 1990). In the late
1960’s financial aid became available to the general population as a result of the
Economic Opportunity Act of Higher Education Amendment of 1968. As a result of
these events and policies, by 1964, 114,000 Blacks were in white schools (Astone
and Nunez-Wormack, 1990).
Although the 1960’s opened doors to African Americans, they remain
underrepresented relative to their numbers in the population. It will be important to
consider, to the extent possible, what factors continue to negatively impact the
recruitment of African Americans into undergraduate institutions. Of course, as
discussed above, there are many mitigating factors that impact recruitment and
enrollment of African American undergraduate students in postsecondary
institutions. Obtaining faculty perspective is important, but is often not considered,
as a means of gaining additional insight into the issue of undergraduate African
Americans to a BEP. The findings will be analyzed from the Constructionist
36
perspective first, and then through the CRT framework as a means of considering the
historical institutionalized dynamics of discrimination.
As a researcher, I chose critical race theory as a theoretic framework because
it is the one construct that affirms my own view of the world, which is based on my
experience of the world. My experience in the world has been impacted by my
gender, race, socio-economic status, and environment, as well as my level of
education, political and religious persuasion etc. Another person, with vastly
different demographics and experiences may possibly, yet legitimately have chosen
an entirely different framework to explore this phenomenon.
Caution must be used when conducting an analysis from a CRT perspective.
It is counterproductive, if not dangerous, to presume that a participant’s individual
perspective can be fully examined in the context of CRT based on the limited
exposure of the researcher to the participants in this study. Some CRT theorist may
view such caution as an attempt to excuse those who may have the power to impact
change. However, the goal of this research is not to assign blame or accusations to
individuals but to examine how faculty, as potential agents of change conceptualize
their level of engagement and possibly impact the process of recruitment. I will
compare the faculty perception to the literature.
Through the literature, I will explore many factors that influence the
recruitment of African Americans into undergraduate STEM field programs,
particularly engineering programs. Given the historical social and political climate
around race in the United States and its role in who gains access to higher education,
37
the construct of race cannot be ignored (Cross, 2000; West, 1994; Woodson,
1933/1990). Speculation suggests, for example, that the gap between projected need
for additional labor and a practical solution of greater inclusion of URM’s has to do
with the dominant perception that STEM fields are the domains of White men
(Leslie et al, 1998; Rogers, 2006).
The analysis of impact of perception related to race then will be based on (a)
the overall social-political climate of the larger society; (b) to some degree the
department’s milieu; and (c) on individual perspective or actions to the extent their
discourse can be distinguished as “equity-minded” or “deficit-minded” (Bensimon,
2007, p. 446). Equity-minded individuals, according to Bensimon, are critically
conscious of the existence and outcomes of institutionalized discriminatory practices
against people of color and attribute inequality to organizational barriers, including
those that faculty are responsible for contributing to. On the other hand, deficit-
minded individuals attribute inequality to the student’s own deficiencies.
Based on constructionism the equity-minded and deficit-minded perspectives
are not inherently good or bad (Patton, 2002), but the extent to which a person has
been exposed to and has embraced the discourse of equity will likely determine their
propensity to become an agent of change around academic access (Bensimon, 2007).

Factors Influencing Recruitment
Recruitment is a complex process with many dynamics influencing the
outcome. Included among those dynamics are affirmative action, student
38
preparedness (which includes K-12 preparation and pathway programs), and
organizational barriers (which includes, institutional climate, costs, faculty
motivation, faculty knowledge and structural organizational barriers). Yet it is
affirmative action, which has arguably had the most profound legislative impact on
college access for URMs (NACME, 2008; Green 2004; Cross, 2000).
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action, a legal effort to provide increased employment
opportunities for women and ethnic minorities to overcome past patterns of
discrimination (Grolier electronic Library, 1996) had been a remedy used in higher
education to offset the damage of institutionalized racism and sexism. Roithmayr
(2000) argued, for instance, that Whites historically created a monopoly in access to
education by using the legal system, informal practices, and other anticompetitive
behavior in law school admissions. Some of those practices became ensconced in
industry practice creating disproportionate favoritism toward Whites, including Jim
Crow segregation laws, adopting admissions standards that were biased, and by
moving legal education to the university setting away from the alternative forms of
legal education that served people of color. Roithmayr (2000) asserted that founders
of admissions testing, a primary tool for selecting students even today, were
members of a political movement to institutionalize racism based on claims of
genetic inferiority
Affirmative action, formalized in The Higher Education Amendment of 1968
(Astone and Nunez-Wormack, 1990) and The Equal Employment Opportunity Act
39
of 1972, was a legal response to such anticompetitive/discriminatory practices. This
act mandated federal contractors, state and local governments and institutions
(including universities) to take “affirmative action” so as to increase the proportions
of their female and minority employees until they became equal to the proportions
existing in the available labor market (Grolier electronic Library, 1996).
During the peak of the affirmative action era institutions began using a
broader combination of admissions criteria to admit students, such as class rank, high
school grades, SAT scores and letters or recommendation (Astone and Nunez-
Wormack, 1990). Affirmative action plans were in existence for roughly 10 years
(Solórzano and Yasso, 2002) until the Supreme Court ruled in the first Bakke
majority decision in 1978 that racial quotas could not be used, but that race could be
considered as a factor of university admission (Cross, 2000; Solórzano and Yasso,
2002). The wording of the decision created ambivalence for institutions because
some interpretations suggested the remedy argument was no longer justified (Cross,
2000). As a result, the enrollment of African Americans declined steadily to pre-
1969 levels (Astone and Nunez-Wormack, 1990).
Interestingly, as noted above, as a result of the G.I. Bill, Blacks experienced a
100% increase in enrollment, by default as soldiers. On the face of it, the Bills could
conceivably be considered a form of affirmative action for American veterans, since
they target a specific audience for preferential treatment, but it has not been legally
contested as such.
40
Opponents of affirmative action argue that all race-based decisions are
unconstitutional and therefore race must be disregarded in admissions decisions
(D’Souza, 1991; Green 2004). Additionally, they note that remedies to make up for
past injustices have already been provided, thus absolving those in the present from
having to redress injustices suffered in the past (Green 2004). D’Souza and Green
further state that quotas are a counterproductive form of reverse discrimination
against white people, and that reduced admissions standards for people of color
disadvantage more qualified Whites.
Finally, opponents suggest that affirmative action remedies stigmatize the
recipients because they can never be certain of their ability to compete fairly or the
majority culture’s perception of them (Cross, 2000). Opponents further theorize the
United States is a meritocracy and “the colorblind market will produce the most
efficient outcome, because it distributes opportunities and resources exclusively on
the basis of ability” (Roithmayr, 2000, p. 730). In other words, racism is inefficient
and will therefore disappear out of economic necessity.
Proponents of affirmative action argue that the minority recruiting efforts of
prestigious, historically white colleges are still necessary (Cross, 2000; Green 2004,
Hurtado & Navia, 1977). Without it, they suggest, the admissions process still
favors Whites by default (Dervarics, 2006; Green, 2004; Hurtado, et al, 1998;
Hurtado & Navia, 1977; Roithmayr, 2000). As an example, Roitmayr’s suggested
current admissions standards are not race-neutral but rather, discrimination is locked-
into institutions as a result of earlier “anticompetitive” (p. 734) conduct by
41
Whites. In other words, what appears to be race-neutral is not so because of factors
(like admissions testing) that are rooted in racism but no longer appear to be so.
Hurtado et al (1998) reported that postsecondary institutions’ initial responses to
desegregation laws has a propensity to impact the culture of the institution in such a
way as to impact the long-term level of commitment to and attention to the level of
recruitment and support of students of color.
Further, Roitmayr (2000) dispelled the argument of meritocracy suggesting,
“There is no guarantee that professional standards in law school admissions produce
applicants who are the most efficient legal problem-solvers or even the best law
students” (p. 734). Parker and Lynn (2002) further suggested:
Concepts such as color-blind interpretations of the law or meritocracy are
“unmasked” by critical race theorists to be precursors for White, European
American hegemonic control of the social and structural arrangements in
U.S. society. In this regard, the critical race theorists have developed a body
of legal scholarship and alternative and intersecting paradigms based on the
perspectives of ‘outsider’ groups who experience racism and sexism in
multiple ways. (p.9).

Cross (2000) argued there are race-related affirmative action-type
interventions, having nothing to do with quotas or standards, which have a minimal
impact on white students. For instance, to expand the pathways of people of color,
colleges like Duke, Cornell, MIT and Johns Hopkins purchase mailing lists of high
performing black students and support SAT prep classes for students. Those
institutions host recruiting weekends, summer bridge programs, and internships for
admitted historically disenfranchised students. However, admittance is still based on
merit according to Cross (2000) who maintained, “In no sense are the programs
42
insulting to Whites. Nor do they favor admission of Blacks over better-qualified
Whites” (p. 6). Yet, recent legal decisions concerning affirmative action could render
these programs illegal (Cross, 2000). For all intents and purposes, affirmative action
based on race, has been abolished in many states, including the one where the BEP is
located. Practices that may be considered non race-related affirmative action like
legacy admissions, sports recruitment, and VA admissions remain legal and
uncontested and perpetuate the hegemonic supremacy of some groups at the expense
of others.
The overt opposition to desegregation that was evident for years has given
way to more subtle forms of denying Blacks and other children of color equal access
to resources. And overt racial epithets have given way to code words such as
disadvantaged, at-risk, unqualified, illegal alien, uneducable, and lack of motivation
(Solórzano, 1997; Solórzano and Yosso, 2002).
URM’s lack of interest in STEM fields
The National Institute of Health’s (NIH) funded project, Promoting
Diversity: Access and Engagement in Biomedical and Behavioral Research Careers,
reported data from the University of California, Los Angeles Higher Education
Research Institute (HERI) Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s (CIRP)
4

annual Student Information Form (SIF). Some 424,808 students at 720 colleges
completed the survey in (year) that determined characteristics of college freshmen
interested in the biomedical and behavioral sciences to “understand the aspirations,

4
CIRP is a national survey of freshmen college students.
43
preparation, and college experiences of underrepresented students to perhaps reduce
the racial/ethnic disparity of their representation among college faculty, research
scientists, and heath care professionals in biomedical and behavioral science
research.” (p.1).
Of the 2004 entering national cohort of students who “aspire to majors in the
biological and behavioral sciences,” URM’s indicated more interest in making an
impact in fields like biological sciences, biochemistry, biophysics and psychology,
but are not as interested in scientific research. African American females are far less
likely than White males to select science/engineering as their first choice of majors
(Leslie et al., 1998). It is therefore important for programs to become aware of, and
better leverage, available data regarding the characteristics and interests of the
potential STEM students in the pipeline.
Limited Student Preparedness
Many students of color are first-generation college students which makes it
more likely that they will need to take remedial courses and have lower grades than
students whose parents went to college (Misra & McMahon, 2006). Compared to
their Asian and White peers, URMs take fewer years of high school math and
science (CIRP, year)
Social Capital as Means to Access. According to Bennett (2001) researchers
in the last 30 years have documented how minority students have generally had a
difficult time adjusting socially and academically at predominantly white colleges.
This difficulty may be due in large part to their lack of mastered academic subjects
44
or accessing cultural resources in their own communities that do not help them to
successfully decode the environment in a predominantly white environment. This,
clearly, can negatively impact their access to college (Stanton-Salazar, 1977).
The significant increase in enrollment was a double-edged sword for African
Americans during the affirmative action years. According to Astone and Nunez-
Womack (1990) half of over 1,000 institutions polled in the late 1960’s did not
provide additional support programs to assist students with their transition into the
environment so African Americans were expected to blend into the existing culture
of those institutions.
An important factor in mitigating access and adjustment challenges is the
transmission of social capital, which includes, but is not limited to the following:
1. Information about school programs;
2. Academic tutoring and mentoring;
3. Assistance with career decision-making; and
4. College admission as well as advocacy to overcome barriers like gatekeepers
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Acquiring social capital primarily centers on “instrumental or supportive
relationships with institutional agents” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 7). However, social
capital is possibly most difficult to attain by those who may need it most, what
Stanton-Salazar refers to as “low-status” children (p. 6). For these individuals, whose
cultural capital is furthest from the practices of Whites (Roithmayr, 2000), acquiring
social capital rests on their ability to successfully navigate relationships in a power
45
relationship, which in itself requires some degree of social capital (Stanton-Salazar,
1997).
URM’s, according to Roithmayr (2000) must make social, economic and
emotional investments to acquire social capital like “tuition or relocation expenses to
move to a white neighborhood and attend a predominately white school” (p. 737).
Students must also adopt the “discourse” and “funds of knowledge” (Stanton-Salazar
(1997, p.11) of the dominant culture which is often an uncomfortable position for
students who are culturally and socio-economically outside of the mainstream
culture (Stanton-Salazar).
Woodson (1933/1990), in his seminal work, considered the adoption of
white standards to be the mis-education of the Negro, and far more destructive than
Stanton-Salazar posits. He said, “The chief difficulty with the education of the
Negro is that it has been largely imitation resulting in the enslavement of his mind”
(p.135). Woodson went on to elaborate further by saying that the Mis-education of
the Negro came as a result of being exposed to educational pedagogy that was not
culturally relevant:
They [The Negro] have been permitted in some places to come into the
public schools to see how others educate themselves. The program for the
uplift of the Negro must be based upon scientific study of the Negro from
within to develop in him the power to do for himself…to elevate him to the
level of others. (p.135)

For African Americans to be required to forfeit their own cultural identity to gain
access seems an untenable burden. Given the choice, some may chose to reject social
capital altogether (Collins,1998). According to Collins, domination operates by
46
seducing, pressuring, or forcing African Americans and members of subordinated
groups to replace individual and cultural ways of knowing with the dominant group's
specialized thought.
Alternately, some contemporary educators believe that in order for
institutions to be effective in attracting and educating African American students, the
culture has to be one that affirms the identify, values, learning styles and
accomplishments of African Americans and not just demand assimilation into the
Eurocentric mainstream culture (Akbar, 1998; Hale, 1986; Hilliard, 1990; Kunjufu,
1995). Despite the inequities in secondary education for URMs that disadvantage
them in the academic arena, Hurtado (2006) maintains there is a ‘promising pool’ of
first-year URM students with strong academic interest in the sciences” (p.1) as will
be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
Pathway Programs. In some ways, the pathway programs are an attempt at
transmitting social capital and are designed to create an inclusive, diversity-friendly
institutional climate. Access or Pathway programs are needed as a result of the
widely held belief that college admissions policies, said to typically favor Whites,
are a huge barrier for African Americans (Dervarics, 2006; Green, 2004; Hurtado, et
al, 1998; Hurtado & Navia, 1977). Four general goals of pathway programs related
to access are:
1. To increase the enrollment of minority students in higher education;
2. To offer remedial courses and tutorial support for under-prepared minority
students;
47
3. To assist in meeting the financial, academic, and sociocultural needs of
minority students, and
4. To offer academic advice and counseling on issues related to culture (Ibarra,
2001 cited in Bensimon, 2005, pp. 236-237). Examples of specific pathway
programs will be discussed later in this chapter.
Organizational Barriers
The difference between the desired goal of equity in undergraduate
recruitment of African-Americans and the reality is called a performance gap (Clark
and Estes, 2002). Three primary causes of performance gaps are: (a) lack of
knowledge; (b) lack of motivation to achieve the goal, and (c) organizational barriers
(Clark and Estes, 2002). All three of these factors must be in place and aligned with
each other for successful goal achievement to occur (Clark and Estes, 2002). Since
organizational barriers are the most global of the three factors, I will begin there.
Organizational culture. Organizational culture, according to Clark and Estes
(2002) is “the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes learned as people
develop over time in our work environments” (p. 108). Roithmayr (2000) posited
that mainstream organizational recruitment practices unconsciously perpetuate the
institutional values and culture according to the ASA attraction-selection-attrition
model. The model suggests organizations tend to attract people according to the
existing culture, then people are selected to join based on their compatibility with the
existing culture. People then either fully assimilate or they leave voluntarily or
48
involuntarily. Because much of the process is unconscious, change therefore, is
predicated upon making that process visible (Bensimon, 2004; 2007).
Solórzano and Yosso (2002) have argued more directly the concept of a
“tipping point,” suggesting Whites become threatened as the numerical diversity of
people of color exceeds what can comfortably be absorbed into the culture. They
say:
The tipping point is not merely a numerical threat for Whites, but rather it is a
threat that the numerical diversity they tolerated will turn into pluralism. A
pluralism that can shape a campus racial climate so students of color are not
just tolerated, but their experiences, histories, and contributions are
incorporated as valuable assets into the curriculum and pedagogy of the
university and as an integral part of the campus. (p.9).

Solórzano and Yosso, citing communities in California where the number of
people of color dramatically increased, noted how “white flight” drastically
decreased K-12 public school enrollment of Whites, and subsequently the state’s per-
pupil expenditures. As a result, “California moved from 5th nationally in educational
funding and quality to 41st during the time period that the numbers of students of
color were increasing dramatically in the public schools” (California State
Department of Education, 2001; Martinez, 2001). Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-
Pedersen, & Allen (1998) theorized the phenomenon another way by suggesting that
increases in URM enrollment due to flexible admissions programs, create the
perception of limited opportunity for Whites and causes angst in the culture.
Nevertheless, engineering culture is asserted to be out of touch with the
values and learning styles of students in general (Kemnitzer, 2005; MacGuire &
Halpin, 1995). MacGuire and Halpin (1995) conducted a qualitative study of the
49
engineering program at Auburn University in Alabama, which had a drop out rate of
50%. Twenty-four students across race (African American and Caucasian), sex
(female and males) and persistence (those who persisted and those who did not) in a
pre-engineering program were individually interviewed to gain their perspectives on
which factors contributed to their respective decision to persist or to drop out. Only
ten percent of the participants were African-American, which negatively impacts the
reliability of the study relative to that population.
The study found both persisters and non-persisters in the engineering
programs were faced with similar transition issues encountered by college freshmen
but compounded by an academic program that was particularly rigorous. Both
groups reported: (a) a general lack of adequate coping mechanisms and self
management skills; (b) naïveté about expectations regarding the rigors of the
program; (c) lack of awareness about the day to day work of engineers; (d)
incongruence between the student’s and the institution’s goals; (e) large class sizes;
(f) student’s difficulty admitting to themselves the need for help and their subsequent
unwillingness to ask for it; and (g) feelings of isolation and inferiority compared to
those who were perceived to be succeeding.
The two attributes either created the impetus to work harder or drop out. It
was postulated that study skills from high school were no longer sufficient for
college-level work. Even when resources were available for students, it was
difficulty for them to admit to themselves that they needed help. The intention to
become an engineer was a primary factor in persistence as “8 of 12 of the students
50
who entered with the intention remained, while only 4 of 23 who said they would
‘try it’ remained” (MacGuire and Halpin, 1995, p. 30).
The two most common themes emerging from African Americans in the
MacGuire and Halpin (1995) study were balancing work and study and feelings of
isolation on campus. Student recommendations to mitigate the factors contributing to
lack of persistence were to have undergraduate student speakers go to high schools to
talk more about their experiences, for colleges to provide mentors to students and to
offer small group experiences for freshman students.
Acker, Jon, Hughes & Fendley (2002) examined factors that led to attrition
from the University of Alabama’s college of engineering program. In addition to
and related with academic preparation, they examined psychosocial variables like
“clear cut goals and self concept” (p. 6). The quantitative survey of current and
former students in the program (n=88) asked respondents to list identifying factors
that led to them to leaving engineering. The study indicated factors affecting
persistence relative to climate were: (a) student's sense of belonging within the
college and university; (b) amount of academic workload; (c) types of courses taken;
and (d) involvement in extracurricular activities (Acker et al., 2002). The nature of
the study focused primarily on the psychosocial variables of the students as opposed
to organizational climate issues. In the open-ended section of the questionnaire were
asked to offer advice for improving enrollment and persistence in the engineering
program. The respondents (n=28) overwhelmingly raised issues related to faculty
(engagement with students, accents, academic instruction). The results of both
51
studies were very similar, and while they cannot be generalized, they offer a useful
perspective from which to explore this topic.
The culture of engineering is also said to be out of sync specifically with the
culture and values of minorities (Derlin & McShannon, 2000; Kemnitzer, 2005;
NSF, 2005). As an example, in a study of three engineering schools in New Mexico,
Derlin & McShannon (2000) discovered that learning styles and not just academic
ability are a factor in attrition. Derlin and Shannon studied 515 undergraduates from
engineering programs using a six-factor model of interactive learning styles. They
found the traditional engineering program best served the learning styles of white
males for whom learning by themselves was most valued, as opposed to minorities
who reported that learning with other students contributed most to their learning
style. In doing so, these programs failed to meet the needs of those with the highest
attrition rate nationally, minorities and freshmen. Collaboration, which may also
reduce feelings of isolation, is an important African American cultural value (Akbar,
1998; Derlin & McShannon, 2000; Hilliard, 1976) yet is seemingly discounted.
The Engineering Workforce study conducted by Kemintzner (2005) reported
on issues that minorities identified as negatively impacting their academic, social,
and career successes. These included: “(1) dealing with prejudice, (2) being treated
differently by faculty, (3) experiencing isolation and intimidation, (4) inadequate
preparation from high school, (5) few social activities for them, and (6) having few
role models” (p. 13). African Americans and other minority students at
52
predominantly white institutions often express feelings of isolation as a result of a
real or perceived chilly climate.
In the MacGuire et al (1995) study, eight of the 10 students who worked
regular part-time jobs and who were African Americans revealed navigating both
work and study was the most salient issue for them. However, they also reported that
another key challenge for them was the heightened feelings of isolation and sense of
not belonging in what was, for many, their first time in a predominately white
educational setting. Hurtado et al (1998) postulated that one of the most essential
factors in countering the above dynamic is for organizational attitudinal changes to
occur which enable those historically disenfranchised populations to feel embraced
and welcomed at the institution.
Reichert (1997) analyzed a six-year NSF longitudinal study of 6,290 high
ability students. He found the best predictors of persistence in science and
engineering (S/E) to be the nature of the college environment, including recruitment
and retention efforts. Blacks in science and engineering with equal SAT and early
college GPA persisted at a slightly higher rate (53%) than did Whites (52%) when
they have the interest and opportunity. Reichert then sampled 13 engineering
schools with excellent minority retention rates of 50%+ freshmen. The schools
shared the following characteristics: (a) sincere commitment; (b) some element of
academic support; (c) all but one had a minority engineering society; and (d) eight
had bridge programs and minority scholarships. Interestingly, traditionally white
53
institutions (TWI) overall did a better job of graduating URM’s than Hispanic
Serving Institutions (HSI) or Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU).
Daempfle (2003), in a meta-analysis of the literature, determined that there
were no discernable differences in the attributes, character or ability of students who
persisted in science, math and engineering (SME) programs compared to those who
did not persist. Instead, “differing high school and college faculty expectations for
entering science, math and engineering undergraduates, and other epistemological
considerations” (p. 50) were factors. This seems to suggest that the problem is rooted
primarily in external factors, such as institutional and instructor expectations of
students, instructor teaching style, and course content.
Organizationally, it is also important to understand what other competing
demands may be diverting attention and resources from the issue of equal access. For
example, the paradigm of “publish or perish” (Lucas, 2006, p.304), which means
conducting research as the fundamental enterprise and primary source of grants for
faculty at a research institution versus educating students may be a factor. At
teaching institutions, educating undergraduate students is a primary function of
faculty as opposed to conducting research and publishing articles in academic
journals (Lucas, 2006).
In terms of institutional culture, other theorists postulate that sometimes,
despite the best efforts of educators to create environments that maximize learning,
that learning is frequently compromised because racism, violence, harassment,
sexism and homophobia are often tolerated by the institution (Palmer 1993, as cited
54
in Wilson & Wolf-Wendel, 2005). Despite the cause, Ramaley 2005) theorized that
four conditions must exist to effectively impact and sustain organizational change:
There must be a compelling case for systemic or transformational change to
be made and a clarity of purpose must be present. There must also be
significant scale, in other words a project must be large enough to have an
impact and must be a conducive campus environment. There must be an
understanding of the change process (p. 179).

Knowledge. The department’s capacity for change is predicated upon the
extent to which it is, or can become, a learning organization with the internal
motivation to improve recruitment outcomes for African American students (Kezar,
2005). A learning organization learns from past history and best practices of others,
engages in systematic problem-solving and experimentation with new approaches,
and ultimately has the ability to transfer knowledge quickly and efficiently
throughout the organization (Kezar 2005). The question is, “Do faculty currently
know what they need to know, in order to accomplish the goal at hand?” This study
is not about measuring knowledge and motivation but gleaning from responses a
glimpse into those dynamics.
Yet, how might other competing demands impact capacity for change? Little
is known about the epistemology that informs faculty practices because it is not
assessed by researchers (Bensimon, 2007). Bensimon theorized about how faculty
knowledge impacts change:
I do not think it is possible to achieve the ideals of access and equity without
examining the funds of knowledge that practitioners have internalized about
teaching minority students, nor do I think generalized knowledge can
improve access and equity at the institutional level. (p. 451)

55
Bensimon further said:
I entertain the idea that institutions have difficulties in producing equitable
educational outcomes partly because practitioners lack the specialized
knowledge and expertise to recognize the racialized nature of the collegiate
experience for African American and Latina/o students and adjust their
practices accordingly. Most of all, lack of specialized knowledge about the
conditions that structure the collegiate experience of minority students makes
it difficult for practitioners to consider that their everyday actions and
responses could be implicated in producing inequalities. (p. 447)

There are a number of challenges related to illuminating faculty awareness
about culture and process in STEM fields particularly. First, STEM field faculty
members are by and large, scientists. Much of educational reform research is
conducted outside the discipline of science and therefore lacks credibility in the eyes
of scientists (Bensimon, 2007; Seymour 2001). Secondly, educational reform
research methodology is generally considered suspect in the eyes of scientists
because quantitative studies are most associated in science with rigorous
methodology and valid findings (Bensimon, 2007; Patton, 2002; Seymour, 2001).
However, when studying human phenomenon like student success and access
“quantitative studies fail to capture the context of the human experience” (Bensimon,
2007 p. 448), which is why qualitative studies or a combination of both are common
in educational research.
A case in point is found in Seymour’s experience with the Consortia for the
Reform of Undergraduate Pedagogy in chemistry (2001). As a co-evaluator,
Seymour spent 5 years tracking a faculty group’s learning and assessment processes
for shifting from a teacher centered to a learner-centered teaching approach.
Seymour reported:
56
There is some evidence that faculty do not respond to written accounts of
positive findings for pedagogical experiments as they would to reports of
research within their disciplines…the research prestige both of the institution
and of the presenter, proved more persuasive than either the published
evidence of the positive findings for a classroom innovation or a videotaped
demonstration of its practicality, merits, and good reception by students” (p.
92).
For example, the Principal Investigator of the Consortium studied by
Seymour (2001) utilized an interactive approach to teaching a subject rather
than employ the previous lecture approach to undergraduate teaching but was
described by the other faculty as “lacking rigor despite his dropout rate of
almost nil, compared to 30% traditionally” (p. 92) Seymour found the faculty
in general were “unable to make the paradigm-shift from teaching to
learning” (p. 97).
Improving the quality of education for students of color in these fields
depends on shifts at the departmental level where, according to Seymour,
“the criteria by which departments judge faculty as teachers [must transcend
the] primacy of [the] research model” (p. 96). In order for STEM faculty to
understand the necessity for change and the dynamics that undermine change
efforts, it is speculated they need to become the researchers themselves
(Bensimon, 2007; Seymour, 2001).
Bensimon ( 2007), a proponent of a methodology that places the
practitioner in the research mode, has said that it is when practitioners are able to
gain their own insight into the impact of unconscious bias and institutional culture on
educational outcomes of students of color do they acquire knowledge. It is then,
57
according to Bensimon, that they are more likely to be inspired to act on that
knowledge.
Motivation. Given, adequate knowledge about the inequity of recruitment and
the solutions to the problem, transformation of the department culture requires
faculty to perceive the locus of control for change as residing within themselves. The
practitioner-as researcher model (Bensimon, 2007) not only provides knowledge but
anticipates that accompanying the knowledge is an increased desire to solve the
problem. Seymour (2001), in contrast, concluded that motivation has to be sparked
through a formal reward system since a shift in values and social behavior is “often
unaffected by available evidence” (p. 99). Seymour asserted:
Finding the means to leverage relevant shifts in departmental values and
practices is the critical factor in determining whether the efforts of faculty –
as individuals and groups – and of their institutions, will be able to improve
the quality of SMET education, or achieve the wider goal of science-for-all.
(p. 96)

Seymour also illuminated additional challenges to culture change in STEM fields,
which include traditional departmental values that emphasize the primacy of research
over teaching, a primary loyalty to the discipline over the institution, and a duty as
teachers to “cover” collectively approved segments of cannon.
One may have to look to other disciplines for models of inclusive cultures
and practices to determine how they were created and if the BEP can benefit from
that example. One such model comes from the business school at California State
University Chico (CSUC) that has significantly increased the diversity of its
undergraduates in spite of a California state law, Proposition 227, which has banned
58
the consideration of race in admissions practices. A quantitative study revealed the
number of students of color almost doubled in 8 years from fall 1997 to fall 2005.
Over the same period there was a 164% increase for African Americans (Misru and
McMahon, 2006). A direct correlation was not proven but several factors were
reported to influence the increase and are articulated below.
The model considers the challenges of creating and maintaining a diverse
student population. These include:
1. Social infrastructure needs must be addressed, like attention to housing that
meets the needs of a variety of students;
2. Recognition that environments with a small minority population leads to,
among other things, lack of anonymity so student’s mistakes are more public,
the reduced availability of dating and social companions for those who prefer
to date within their own race, the general lack of role models;
3. The pressures of financial responsibilities;
4. Recognition that the survival skills that got students to college may not be
appropriate at college; and
5. Acknowledgment of the internal dialogue that often plagues URM’s around
whether or not their race is impacting how they are perceived and treated
(Misra and McMahon, 2006).
As a result of collective dialogue with key stakeholders at CSU Chico, the
Business Resource Center (BRC) was created. The center’s creation was predicated
upon the direction from strong leadership from the top, not faculty, who were
59
politically astute and poised to collaborate across the campus. The BRC’s success is
related to a multicultural rather than an ethnocentric approach, meaning, services are
extended to all students and therefore do not stigmatize URMs. While faculty did not
create the program they were an integral part of its success, as increased
interpersonal interactions between faculty and students through off-campus activities
like bowling and hiking (Misra and McMahon, 2006) were fundamental to the
program.
The BRC is reported to have created a welcoming environment for students
by providing student mentoring, assistance to students in getting to know other
students, reevaluated financial aid programs, and help to students to honestly address
issues like isolation, integrity, self doubt, and academic achievement. The
cornerstone of the model was reported said to be the relationships cultivated with
select high schools and the favorable word of mouth communications from past
students (Misra and McMahon, 2006) but no data were presented to support that
assertion.
In the case of CSU Chico, it was the administrators, not faculty who
perceived the locus of control for access to be residing within themselves as
evidenced by the fact that the past Associate Dean of the department was the one
who initiated the program. Despite the real and perceived barriers to preparation of
URMs and the limited pool of URM’s, despite the social political climate, legal
impediments, student financial obstacles and organizational challenges, the school
60
was able to make a significant impact in the recruitment of African American
business students.
There are alternative selection criteria that one program has employed to
successfully recruit URMs (NACME Vanguard Report, 2006), and like the above
model, are not driven by faculty. The National Action Council for Minorities in
Engineering, Incorporated was established in 1974 to “support middle-school-to-
workplace strategies of value in expanding the diversity of the nation’s technical,
science, and engineering workforce” (p. 1).
NACME selected 367 (60% were African-American) URMs for their
Vanguard Scholar Program who ordinarily would not have qualified for
undergraduate engineering programs and provided them with academic, financial
and mentoring support. These were untraditional engineering students in that they
either attended schools outside university-targeted communities, their SAT or ACT
scores were non competitive, or they were not familiar with engineering as a career
opportunity for them. Vanguard scholars compared to non Vanguard Scholars had
median SAT scores that were 131 points lower, SAT math scores 71 points lower,
High School GPA were 3 percentage points lower and earned .7 and 1.1 fewer
course credits in math and science respectively (NAMCE, 2006).
The students were assessed, selected then admitted into 12 Vanguard partner
Institutions.
5
The assessment was an eight-hour case study conducted “by NACME

5
Clark University, Drexel University, Howard University, Lehigh University, New Jersey Institute of
Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rice University, Rochester Institute of Technology,
Temple University, Texas A&M University, Polytechnic University and the University of Colorado at
Boulder.
61
instructors who were young PhDs from university communities” (NAMCE, 2006, p.
8) who observed student interest in engineering, team leadership qualities, academic
expectations and demonstrated commitment to hard work. Students were provided
with opportunities to “think outside the box,” and exposed to real-time engineering
challenges then evaluated for their mastery of fundamental math skills.
Intense personal interviews were conducted. The process was designed to
assess the students abilities related to those competencies that have been found to be
most critical to success in “rigorous long-term academic study” (NAMCE, 2006, p.
8). Some of those competencies used were “bounding the problem, developing a
common understanding of what is being asked, setting up routine tasks, mapping
solutions and testing those solutions” (p. 8). The assessment results were utilized to
strengthen the program’s curriculum.
Cohorts of ten students were selected to enroll in engineering degree
programs offered by one of NACME’s 12 partner institutions. The participants were
provided with a twelve-day immersion training programs prior to the freshman year
and another two day intensive between fall and spring semesters of freshman year.
During the intensives, students worked on trigonometry, calculus, physics, problem-
solving and complex analyses.
Program results were provided by seven of the 12 Partner Institutions (58%)
which accounted for 294 of the 367 (80%) of the Vanguard Scholars (NACME,
2006). To date, 120 (64%) Vanguard Scholars had attained engineering degrees.
However, 116 were still actively enrolled in their engineering programs with the
62
expectation of graduating in the next few years. The retention rates for Vanguard
Scholars from year to year exceeded those of non-Vanguard Scholars by at least 13
percentage points.
The average 4-year graduation rates of minority Vanguard Scholars and
minority non-Vanguard Scholars were comparable. On average, the 4-year
graduation rates of non-Vanguard Scholars, in general, exceeded that of Vanguard
Scholars by 13%. The 5-year and 6-year graduation rates of minority Vanguard
Scholars exceeded those of minority non-Vanguard Scholars by at least 10
percentage points.
While the Vanguard Scholars did not outperform the general population of
non-Vanguard Scholars, the results confirm an important theory, that given the
support and the financial assistance, African Americans can excel in engineering,
even those who might not possess the typical academic background ordinarily
ascribed to engineers. The program successfully demonstrated non-traditional
recruiting methods, enhanced by retention strategies that work well, to further
diversify the engineering field.
It will be important to explore faculty perception of what impact the
organizational climate at the biomedical department may have on acceptance rates. It
is essential, then, to assess the extent to which the biomedical engineering faculty are
aware of these issues of equity and are engaging in their own dialogue around what
an inviting culture looks like from the perspective of URMs.

63
Cost
College costs are continuing to rise at a higher rate than the Consumer Price
Index Cost and are becoming the second biggest issue for access, following actual
acceptance to an institution (Worsnop, 1996). More families than ever are
supplementing college savings with grants and loans and research demonstrates that
the complexity of financing may lead students to “exit the pipeline early” because of
these issues. As such, addressing any and all issues related to finance “makes a
difference in recruitment and retention…” (St. John, 2000, p. 72). However, this
issue has only become exacerbated over time and negatively affects access and
opportunity. As St. John observes:
While for a brief period in the 1960’s and 1970’s there was sufficient aid to
promote equal opportunity, federal student aid is no longer adequate for this
purpose... Each year, as aid packages change due to federal, state, and
institutional aid policies, students are faced with new choices about whether
to enroll, where to attend, and whether to continue enrollment and
persistence. (p.72)

Schools need to monitor those dynamics and adjust their student financing options
accordingly to ensure access, opportunity, and completion.
Analysis
The literature is clear that a national crisis exists in the science, technology
engineering, and math fields requiring the significant expansion of the pool of talent
in those professions. It is also clear that people of color have a disparate rate of
access to the very undergraduate education that can prepare them for those careers.
For African-Americans, specifically, there are many mitigating factors that
contribute to their successful recruitment into undergraduate STEM programs in
64
general and engineering specifically. Among those factors are historical social-
political challenges, discrimination, organizational climate including inequitable
recruitment practices, a “chilly climate” and the cost of college tuition, as well as
interest and ability.
Several programs around the country, with varying degrees of success, have
been implemented to alleviate inequality. It seems reasonable and practical that one
of our nation’s greatest priorities at this critical juncture should be to evaluate the
manner in which old paradigms and practices may be collectively self-defeating by
contributing to the crisis. What has not been considered to any large degree is the
impact faculty perception of the issue has on the outcomes for URMs and African
American students specifically.
Using Critical Race Theory as one theoretical framework, it is possible that
the extent to which faculty perceive the problem from the perspective of equity or a
deficit-model may have an impact on their ability to be effective. Further, faculty
knowledge about the issues, level of motivation, and perception of locus of control
may contribute to their ability to have a positive impact. For those faculty members
who are likely to adopt new practices and paradigms based on best practices, the case
studies presented disclose many practical approaches to consider when strategizing
ways of increasing URM’s in the undergraduate Biomedical Engineering Program.
The next chapter describes the methodology used, and the population studied to
conduct this research.
65
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this applied research study is to explore the perception of
faculty related to the challenge of recruiting African American undergraduate
students into a biomedical engineering major within a private research university –
The University of Academic and Research Excellence’s (UARE) Biomedical
Engineering Program (BEP). The nature of applied research, according to Patton
(2002) is to illuminate a societal concern in an attempt to understand how to deal
with it.
Knowing more about how faculty understand the needs and challenges
related to increasing African American students and comparing those views with
both the best practices in the field, and other faculty, may help the BEP better
strategize to increase diversity. While the results are not generalizable, they may still
provide insight for practitioners like faculty and administrators working in other
biomedical engineering programs nationally to improve access for African American
undergraduates.
Research Questions
The research questions guiding this study are as follows:
1. What are faculty’s perceptions about why the numbers are so low nationally
for URMs, specifically African Americans in undergraduate engineering
programs?
2. How do faculty explain the URM numbers in the UARE BEP?
66
3. To whom do faculty assign the responsibility (leadership and
implementation) for recruitment?
4. What are their recommendations for increasing the numbers? And to what
extent are their explanations and recommendations related to
a. Perception of student deficiencies;
b. Perception of program /institution deficiencies; or
c. Perception of the climate in the profession in general?
Conceptual Framework
Three important and intertwining philosophical concepts serve as the
intellectual framework of this research: constructivism, constructionism, and Critical
Race Theory. Constructionism implies that people do not create reality; rather, they
construct knowledge about reality based on environment, culture and individual
experiences(Patton, 2002). Constructivism suggests that each individual’s perception
is subjective and therefore valid (Patton). In this case, the questions posed by these
frameworks have been applied to faculty: “How have the people in this setting
constructed reality? What are their reported perceptions, ‘truths,’ explanations,
beliefs, and worldview? What are the consequences of their constructions for their
behaviors and for those with whom they interact?” (Patton, 2002, p. 132). At the
same time, the same constructivist questions must be posed of the researcher given
“that nothing can be interpreted free of some perspective” (Patton, p.129). These
constructs formed the basis of the research questions.

67
Research Methods
A qualitative interview methodology was used to interview faculty because
its focus is on meaning and explanation (McEwan and McEwan, 2003) to add deeper
understanding to the statistical data. Statistical data generally describes what is
happening and qualitative methodology generally probes deeper to answer the why of
what is happening. These results cannot be extrapolated to other populations;
however, practitioners in K-12 and higher education may discover the findings to be
useful in informing their practice in such a way to create and sustain the kind of
transformation called for in the 21
st
century.
Data Collection
Research design strategies
This study is part of a collaborative research project to assess several aspects
of the BEP, including:
1. To determine what factors impact the program’s ability to increase and retain
the number of females and underrepresented minority undergraduate and
graduate students;
2. To explore the impact of their local high school pipeline program on their
recruitment effort;
3. To explore the effectiveness of their interdisciplinary collaborative approach
to research; and
4. To assess the academic impact of their curricular program.
68
Seven investigators were responsible for researching one topic, each employing a
variety of different methodological approaches.
The study was planned around three fundamental design strategies of
qualitative inquiry: naturalistic inquiry, emergent design flexibility and, purposeful
sampling (Patton, 2000). Naturalistic inquiry examines the subject in its natural
setting, as compared with experimental scientific research that occurs in a laboratory
setting and/or involves the artificial manipulation of the variables (Patton, 2002). As
opposed to ethnographies, in the most well-known qualitative research “the emphasis
in a naturalistic inquiry is not concerned with defining and explaining a culture so
much as ‘studying’ human action in some setting that is not contrived…by the
inquirer” (McEwan and McEwan, 2003, p.77). Participants were interviewed in their
own setting without predetermined speculation about the findings or outcome of the
interviews (Patton, 2002).
Explanation and interpretation of meaning
As discussed in more detail in chapter 1, although critical race theory is the
theoretical lens by which I have come to understand the phenomenon under study it
does not necessarily frame the way in which the participants perceive the
phenomenon. Therefore, to aid in the analysis, I used the literature to create a metric
of relevant general themes and plugged in the words of the participants related to that
theme. Separately, I also used key words used by the participants to inform the
creation of additional matrix measures that were unrelated to the literature.

69
Interviews
Unlike other forms of scientific inquiry, where the subject may be germs in a
Petri dish, the subjects under study are capable of constructing meaning from their
existence and expressing their thoughts (Seidman, 1998). Logic dictates that
carefully observing a human subject may only provide a researcher with a sense of
what the subject is doing but can never fully explain the context of why the subject is
behaving in a certain way (Seidman).
According to Seidman (1998) the words of the participants give us a direct
window into their consciousness and their consciousness gives us access to their
concrete experience. The personal faculty perspectives may provide some context for
the policies, policy implementation and practices that create the culture of the BEP.
In emergent research designs the line of inquiry can follow the flow of the
participant responses to the extent that the general research question is being
addressed rather than being dictated by a stringent research design.
This study therefore employed elements of both topical and cultural
interviewing (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). Topical interviews seek out explanations of a
phenomenon and cultural interviewing seeks to elicit stories that the interviewer
listens to with the intent of exploring “shared” cultural lessons (Rubin and Rubin,
1995, p. 29). In cultural interviewing the “ownership,” expressions and
understanding that were heard, “belong” to the participants. As such, the research is
presented through the words of the participants. In preparing a cultural report, the
researcher is “like a photographer, making choices about what frame within the
70
picture, but reproducing exactly what was there” (Rubin and Rubin, 1995, p. 30). In
contrast, a topical study is often based on the interpretations of the researcher (Rubin
and Rubin, 1995).
One-hour interviews were conducted with two sets of faculty: one from the
biomedical engineering program and one from a science-related program in the same
institution. To prevent the same potential faculty participants in the BEP from being
inundated with interview requests, two researchers conducted the interviews used in
this study. Each interview was conducted in a semi-structured format, averaged one
hour in length, and conducted in a location convenient for the participant. All
participants chose their offices for their interviews. I personally interviewed all but
one participant in the BEP and all of the comparison faculty participants. The study
protocol included questions from some of the other studies conducted and the audio-
tapes and the transcripts were shared amongst four researchers. Though all of the
questions were not relevant for the comparison faculty, the interview protocol was
altered as little as possible.
Open-ended questions were used as a means of having the participants share
their perspectives on the department’s history and dynamics as well as their
expectations, experiences, concerns and responsibilities across a few topics (Seidman
1998). I combined a general interview-guide approach with a conversational style
(Patton 2002). An interview guide consists of predetermined questions in logical
sequence and wording “which serves as a basic checklist during the interview to
make sure that all relevant topics are covered” (Patton, 2002, p. 342). The follow-up
71
questions emerged conversationally in the context of the participant’s previous
responses in the interview.
The ultimate goal of the questions posed, particular those guiding this study,
is to determine what their recommendations are for increasing the numbers of
African Americans in the BEP. Moreover, these questions facilitate the exploration
into their beliefs and understanding of the issues and to the extent their explanations
and recommendations are related to student deficiencies, program/institution
deficiencies; or the climate in the profession in general. These perspectives provide a
context for the policies and practices that create the culture of the BEP.
Instrumentation
In qualitative inquiry the investigator is considered the instrumentation
(Patton, 2002) and therefore the skill, competence and rigor of the researcher
determines the credibility of the research. The criteria to judge the quality of findings
of traditional basic research as opposed to applied research may differ to some
degree according to Patton, as traditional research criteria is based on rigor, validity,
reliability and generalizability, whereas evaluative research is judged primarily on
utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. Yet, it has been argued that all empirical
research is “inherently flawed” (Galvan, 2006, p.1) to some degree because there is
no perfect measurement instrument and because researchers are typically measuring
only one aspect of a phenomena.

72
Sample and Population
A purposeful, stratified sample population of faculty at UARE was
interviewed. In a study about recruitment it is common practice to gain the student
perspective; however, there remains a dearth of insight from the faculty perspective
on the topic and the purpose of this study is to help fill that void. In this qualitative
case study sample, sizes can be small because the results cannot be generalizable
beyond this setting because the purpose is depth of information. The first population
of faculty was interviewed based on their affiliation with the BEP. All seven faculty
members were invited to participate in the study with the belief that they share a
common environment within the BEP and thus will be most likely to shed light on
that organizational culture in terms of what is most important to know from the
faculty perspective.
As part of the collaborative research team, I was able to meet on a monthly
basis with a key faculty administrator of the engineering unit under study, whom I
will call Dr. Lee. The meetings were to exchange relevant information regarding the
study between the research team and the UARE research center. It was an
opportunity to ask questions that emerged during the pre-data collection phase of the
study. These meetings, where field notes were collected, provided background
information used to formulate the interview questions.
During a regularly scheduled faculty meeting, faculty were encourage by Dr.
Lee to participate in this study. I followed up two days later with an email to all
seven prospective participants requesting their participation, detailing the purpose
73
and scope of the research, and informing them I would be in touch over the next
several days. Two days after sending the email, I phoned each of the faculty
members to request their participation and to schedule interviews. All but one faculty
member responded to the contacts. Two of the six who responded did not get
interviewed due to scheduling challenges. In the end, one female and four males
were interviewed. The female was Asian, one male was White and two were Asian.
Only one faculty member spoke of being an immigrant to the United States.
The second population of faculty was invited to participate based on their
affiliation with a science-related department at the same institution. Institutional
informants of the science-related department identified eight faculty members
perceived to be interested in the issues of student equity. Seven of the eight faculty
responded to either the first or second request for participation. Timing challenges
prevented two from participating, one declined when more information was provided
about the specific questions, and four were interviewed. Two females and two males
participated. One female self-identified as White and one male self-identified as
Latino. The other 2 males were categorized based on visual observation and process
of elimination based on the demographic information received from informants.
The chart below shows the demographic breakdown of the eight study
participants. Out of the eight, only one underrepresented minority (Latino) was
interviewed. Males comprised 62.5% of the interview population and females 37.5%.
At least 50% of the faculty interviewed were tenured or tenure-track.

74

Table 3
Study Participants

African-
American Hispanic
Native
American Asian White Gender
M F M F M F M F M F M F
BEP 1 1 2* 3 1
Non-BEP 1 1 2 2 2

Total 1 1 1 3 2 5 3
Total % 12.5 25 62.5 62.5 37.5
Note: * One Foreign National

It should be noted that there were no URM faculty members in the general
faculty population of the BEP. There were two Latinos and no African American or
Native American faculty members represented in the comparison general faculty
population of the science-related unit.
Conventionally, pseudonyms would also be used to protect the identity of the
participants. In this case, the diversity of demographics around race, ethnicity and
gender are limited in each setting and therefore, pseudonyms and other overall
background and demographic information could compromise confidentiality.
Therefore, the numbers, 1-4 will be used to identify the BEP faculty and numbers 5-
8 will be used to identify the science-related unit. The priority to protect study
informants took precedence over any perception of depersonalization of the
participants that may occur as a result of the use of numbers.
Site for the Study
UARE is a private research university located in the western United States
with 33,000 students (divided evenly between undergraduate and graduate students)
75
and 3,200 full time faculty (UARE website). The institution is governed by a Board
of Trustees and accountable to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC) for accreditation. Funding for the university is provided primarily through
tuition, federal research grants, and private donations. Like other research
universities, UARE continues to expand its entrepreneurial revenue stream, one
source of which is the commercialization of medical and scientific research.
However, a major source of research funding is still provided through the
government’s NSF research grants.
African Americans represent 3.8% of the University’s undergraduate
engineering school and .02% of BEP. In context, Hispanics represent 11% of
Biomedical Engineering Program students and 0% of the BEP; American Indians
represent .45% and .02% in BEP (see Table 5). With the exception of Whites and
Asians, all ethnic minorities are under-represented at the University, although the
numbers are higher than other similar institutions. It should be noted that Non-
Resident (International students) comprises a significantly higher proportion of all
BEP students than any domestic race.
Table 4
Number of admitted undergraduates in BMEP by race, fall 2006
All
Total
UG White
Asian
American
African
American Hispanic
Native
American
Foreign
National
# % # % # % # % # % # %
2005 108 45 12 27 13 29 1 .2 0 0 1 .2 16 36
Note: UARE BEP, 2006. Number rounded to the nearest thousand. The race of 1 student is unknown.
1 Native Hawaiian

The UARE BEP, which operates within a cluster of National Science
Foundation (NSF) local research institution partners, is the unit of analysis of this
76
study. The BEP’s mission is to develop implantable microelectronic devices to treat
blindness, paralysis and central nervous system disorders; integrate the efforts of
multidisciplinary research groups at partner research institutions; provide research
for industrial partners, along with providing BEP students mentoring and job
opportunities with industrial partners; increase underrepresented minorities in both
the outreach as well as educational programs; and disseminate information about
emerging technologies to the general public.
The BEP catalog states that it is “uniquely positioned to accomplish the
National Science Foundation (NSF) goal of creating a diverse workforce for the near
and distant future” (BEP website). The diversity initiative includes increasing the
diversity of faculty, students (undergraduate and graduate) participating in BEP
research and education programs, and students recruited to undergraduate and
graduate programs in biomedical engineering. To attract more underrepresented
minority faculty, the BEP interviewed four potential candidates (3 Hispanic and 1
woman) in 2006 but did not publish the outcome.
The BEP seeks to increase the available pool of undergraduate students by
recruiting and training diverse populations of students from K-12 to undergraduate to
graduate levels. In particular, the BEP has implemented aggressive recruitment
initiatives at the undergraduate level by increasing nationwide awareness of BEP
summer programs through its website, flyer dissemination, and seminars.
In addition, BEP has stated that it made a dramatic impact in increasing
undergraduate research participation by working closely with diversity and student
77
organizations as well as securing research funding for undergraduate researchers
from multiple sources, including the Merit Scholar Program, WiSE Undergraduate
Research Grants, McNair Scholars Program, REU, and TCUP REU. The two
undergraduate programs aimed at increasing diversity at the BEP are the Research
Experience for Undergraduates (REU) and the Tribal Colleges and Universities
Program (TCUP). REU is an 8-week summer program designed to increase the
diversity of the scientific and engineering workforce by including all members of
society, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, in all aspects of the centers’
activities. Students receive a $3,200 stipend for the 8-week program, paid housing in
University dorms, travel support, personal mentoring by the University’s researchers
and graduate students, and research experience. Similarly, TCUP is a 2-week
summer program with the same benefits.
Analysis of the Data
Within 1 week of the first set of interviews I transcribed verbatim all but one
tape, which was transcribed by a member of the research team. Nonverbal responses
like pauses, laughter, and raised or lowered voices were noted. I listened to the tape
that I did not transcribe while reading the transcript to check for accuracy. All of the
tapes were reviewed several times, in part and in full, to review inflection. In depth
analysis took place after all of the interviews were conducted. All of the transcripts
were then used to identify key words, concepts, and themes. Analysis took place
prior to the second set of interviews discussed below.
78
Within 1 week of the second set of interviews, all tapes were transcribed by a
professional transcriber, who signed a statement of anonymity. The tapes were
likewise transcribed verbatim in their entirety. Transcripts were used to identify key
words, concepts, and themes. The tapes were reviewed several times, in part and in
full, to review inflection. In depth analysis took place after all of the interviews were
conducted. The second set of analyses took place after the second set of faculty
interviewed.
Each transcript was read in its entirety several times. Words and themes were
highlighted in yellow based on concepts that seemed to summarize the overall
sentiment of the interview. Sections were highlighted in green that were interpreted
as “equity-minded” or “deficit-minded” language, meaning the extent to which the
participant’s explanations and recommendations for increasing the numbers are
related to (a) student deficiencies; (b) program /institution deficiencies; or (c) the
climate in the profession in general.
Words or explanations that could represent whether the participant was
speaking from an internal or external locus of control were circled. Then lain side by
side all transcripts were analyzed together one question at a time. The first question
and responses were read for all the interviews and key words themes and concepts
were highlighted in yellow on each transcript. Similar themes appearing in more
than one transcript were underlined.
The words, themes and concepts were listed in a grid on a separate metric
template. The template also included a column to list the difference between the
79
espoused theories of the organization and theories in use of the faculty. To what
extent is faculty aware of their perceptions? And to whom do they assign the
responsibility for recruitment? The same process continued for the remainder of the
questions and responses. This system was utilized consistent with Seidman’s (1998)
warning against creating theoretical framework-based matrices then imposing the
participant’s words into the metric rather than allowing the words of the participants
to inform the researcher of the theory at play.
My research proposal indicated that a systematic analysis of the collected
data would involve disaggregating data by academic unit first, then by race, gender
and national origin, to explore the discourse and patterns around the sensitizing
concepts of locus of control and equity-minded and deficit-minded perception.
Because the interview population included only one female and one faculty member
who self-identified as an immigrant, protecting the identity of the participants was
more difficult and therefore the data will be reported primarily according to
academic unit.
Conclusions were induced from the patterns and themes that emerged. This
approach is based on a holistic perspective with the understanding that there are
complex interdependent variables and dynamics that “cannot be meaningfully
reduced to a few discrete variables and linear, cause-effect relationships” (Patton,
2002, p.41). Although this is not a gap analysis and the knowledge and level of
motivation have not been measured, the basic elements of the gap analysis process –
knowledge, motivation and organizational barriers (Clark and Estes, 2002) will be
80
used as an outline to frame the final analysis in chapter five. To enhance reliability of
the results, I will attempt to expose my own perspective and biases as a researcher.
Background of the Researcher
I am an African American woman. That is how I describe myself and that
those are the constructs from which I view the world. There is no question that my
experiences with both subtle and overt racial and gender discrimination in many of
the educational institutions that I have encountered color the way I perceive the
subject of underrepresentation or people of color. It is why I chose to conduct this
study. I feel a sense of personal investment in the discourse and action involved in
brining about greater parity in access for those who have historically been denied
that access.
I join the ranks of those who come before me and those who stand beside me,
who understand that access to education has economic and political consequences
that are bigger than any one student. Education changes families and communities.
And in this case, the very future of America’s STEM fields rely on expanding the
access to education for the nation’s people of color and others historically
underrepresented.
Critical Race Theory is the one paradigm that gives voice to my own
experiences and my understanding of the issues of power and privilege inherent in
hegemony and discrimination. I have a predisposition that views under-
representation from the perspective of where there is a will there is a way and
therefore, if disparity remains, there must be no will to address it. I recognize the
81
need to temporarily suspend my view of the world long enough to consider the
viewpoint of the participants in this study. It makes sense to me that if I want to be
part of the solution, I have to understand the problem from more than my own
vantage point.
Ethical Considerations
Written consent was obtained by each participant at the beginning of each
interview and addressed the following issues:
1. Whose interests are served by this study?
2. How does the participant benefit?
3. What do they risk by participating?
4. What kind of reciprocity is involved?
Interviews were transcribed and portions deleted to protect the confidentiality of the
center and the identification of the participant using pseudonyms.
Limitations
Although naturalistic inquiry is much less structured than an experiment with
intentional interventions, Patton (2002) asserted it is still important to recognize that
the very presence of the researcher, whether asking questions or observing an event
can be considered obtrusive to the natural environment and therefore have some
impact on the data collection process.
According to Seidman, (1998) inherent in this method of study is the
possibility that the researcher will impose his or her own values on the content of the
responses and that the researcher will make assumptions about the participants’
82
actions, validity or value of their stories. It is possible that the researcher will assume
that he or she understands the participant perfectly when that is not entirely ever
possible.
While I have done my best not to impose my values on the content of the
responses or make assumptions about the participants, it is critical to establish that as
a researcher on this project, my values are inextricably fundamental to this process. It
is precisely my values that have led me to conduct this research. I do not pretend to
be a casual, objective observer of an external phenomenon. It is the sum of my
personal experiences that create the historical basis for my interest and it is my
personal goals that are the driving force of this study.

83
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS

Introduction
Eight faculty at the University of Academic and Research Excellence
(UARE
6
) were interviewed to gain insight into their perceptions about the successful
recruitment of African American undergraduate students into their STEM (Science,
technology, engineering and mathematics)-field program. The data from these
interviews were used to address the following research questions:
1. What are faculty’s perceptions about why the numbers are so low nationally
for URMs, specifically African Americans in undergraduate engineering
programs?
2. How do faculty explain the URM numbers in the UARE BEP
7
?
3. To whom do faculty assign the responsibility (leadership and
implementation) for recruitment?
4. What are their recommendations for increasing the numbers? And to what
extent are their explanations and recommendations related to
a. Perception of student deficiencies;
b. Perception of program /institution deficiencies; or
c. Perception of the climate in the profession in general?
A description of the participants will be presented followed by a brief
overview of the theoretical constructs. The UARE Biomedical Engineering Program
(BEP) findings will be reported by emerging themes and compared to the faculty

6
Pseudonym.
7
Pseudonym-Biomedical Engineering Program
84
responses from a science-related unit at the same institution. The chapter will end
with a summary of the key findings that will be analyzed from a constructivist point
of view and then from a critical race theory perspective.
Numbers 1-4 will be used to identify the BEP faculty and numbers 5-8 will
be used to identify faculty from the science-related unit, rather than using
pseudonyms to protect the identity of the participants. The diversity of demographics
around race, ethnicity and gender were limited in each setting so using pseudonyms
would have compromised the participants’ identity.
In the faculty universe population of the BEP, there are no faculty of color.
There were two Latinos and no African American or Native American faculty
members represented in the comparison universe population of the science-related
unit. Of the total interview population of eight, four from the BEP and four from the
science-related comparison group, 62.5% were White, 25% Asian and 12.5% Latino.
Only 1 underrepresented minority (Latino) was interviewed and that faculty member
was in the comparison group. Females comprised 37.5% of the interview population.
At least 50% of the faculty interviewed were tenured or tenure-track.
Interview settings and tone
All of the faculty chose to be interviewed in their respective offices. The
faculty offices were located all over the campus – some inside labs, some next to the
labs and some very removed. The BEP faculty offices were relatively sparse
compared to the faculty offices in the science-related unit, many of which contained
walls of books or other academic accoutrements and personal items like photos.
85
Overall, the tone of the interviews could be characterized as engaged. Engagement
manifested through questions appearing to be pondered, the leisurely pace of the
interviews, appearance of genuine honesty in the ease of responses, and
acknowledgement of topics faculty could not answer. Although engaged by all
appearances, only one BEP faculty member’s demeanor, gestures, responses and
tone changed during certain parts of the interview which seemed to indicate a
discomfort with the topic at those given moments, that was not acknowledged
verbally. This change will be noted and explored in the relevant discussion below.
Theoretical constructs
Since the theoretical framework in this research study is rooted in
constructivism, an understanding that a person’s worldview is shaped by personal
and environmental influences, the construct by which the findings are analyzed had
to emerge from the interviews themselves, and not from a preconceived notion of
how to contextualize the participants’ perspectives. A single, dominant worldview
did emerge clearly and consistently in all of the interviews and the presentation in
this chapter will trace its emergence. True to constructionism and constructivism,
which acknowledge the inherent value of divergent perspectives about reality, the
evidence for this world view will stand on its own in this chapter without critique, so
that the collective voices of the participants can be heard clearly and their
recommendations and challenges can be considered in the context of their own
paradigm and not that of mine, the researcher. The emerging themes will then be
analyzed in the context of the literature and again, the benefits and limitations of the
86
themes will be explored at the end of chapter 4 in the context of Critical Race Theory
(CRT). CRT acknowledges the race-related dynamics of power and privilege in the
social, academic, legal, political and economic disenfranchisement of people of
color.
Overview of the Findings
The themes evolving from the interview questions center on:
1. Participants’ identification with the role of researcher, to the exclusion of
other roles
2. Low salience of undergraduates students in researcher paradigm
3. Low salience of African American access as an issue
4. External locus of control
5. Lack of critical awareness
6. Ambiguity and incongruity in student perception.
Data Presentation
Researcher as an identity-paradigm
Faculty at research universities typically have 3 roles: teaching and advising,
research and publishing, and service (Altbach, Berdahl, & Gumport, 2005). The
clearest, most consistent theme that emerged throughout the BEP interviews and
supported strongly by the science-related faculty interviewed was what I will call
the “researcher paradigm.” A paradigm is a set of assumptions, concepts, values and
practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares
them, especially in an intellectual discipline (American Heritage Dictionary, year).
87
The research paradigm for these faculty paradigm appeared to be less a job
description and more of an identity in terms of how research-active faculty view
themselves, how they orient themselves to the environment around them and as a
frame of reference for the issue of recruitment.
All of the BEP faculty are research-active, and two of the four science-related
faculty are still research-active. The other two have transitioned out of research and
are therefore more focused on the academics of teaching and advising. All of the
BEP faculty referred to themselves and their colleagues as researchers, as illustrated
by this statement, from faculty #1, “We are researchers first, and faculty second.
Early on in each interview all four BEP participants described researchers as
independent thinkers. While researchers were said to be independent thinkers, two
participants suggested researchers are also “open minded.” Characterized by a laugh
or smile, they were all light-heartedly self-deprecating, such as when participant #4
said, “As researchers we think we know everything,” and when participant #2 said,
“We are stubborn.”
Although the focus of this research is on the BEP, it was the non-BEP
participants, even those who were no longer research-active, (at least 2 of the 4 were
not receiving major grants to conduct research) who most clearly articulated a
universal portrayal of the research paradigm and its impact on education and
recruitment. Therefore, I will begin with the passages from the science-related
faculty which most clearly articulates the overall sentiment of all the professors. For
example, participant #6 said:
88
You know, I think for faculty that are on this research profile and they’re in
the middle of this productive research period of their career, I don’t think that
there’s much that the university could realistically reward them with for
activities having to do with teaching, undergraduate teaching or advising or
recruitment that would make much difference to them, you know. Nothing
much that would compare with the national and international prestige they
get and the huge budgets that they have total control over and the people that
they’re supervising and it’s a big operation, you know.

Another science-related participant, professor #5, described the duties of the
researchers in the following statement:
I don’t want to sound like I’m whining. The problem for research-active
faculty is they already have three jobs. One is research and if you’re a
research-active faculty member that’s really your top job. A second is
teaching. And what we vaguely call service administration. At the end of the
day, most people I know would kill for another hour and haven’t been able to
do justice to any of those three jobs as far as they’re concerned, which I know
sounds bad, but realistically that’s true, that’s the reality.

The distinction between the two paradigms is significant and the implications
are far-reaching because the participants frame them as largely mutually exclusive in
terms of focus, activities and values. On one hand, professor #8 described the
research paradigm’s priorities:
Most faculty are too busy doing their own work and advising can take time. I
mean, everything…to do anything takes time. If they want to publish and
publishing is a way that they can get recognized, then they have to do so at
the expense of everything else that is going on.

And, professor #6 described the teaching/professor role as undervalued at a research
institution for research-active faculty:
I think among the faculty like myself that have moved on from that phase of
our career, I think there are things you can do. In general, these types of
activities are undervalued at a research institution. They’re not really
rewarded. You have to be extraordinarily good at this [pause] I mean,
teaching awards and things before anybody notices.

89
In the ways described above, the “researcher” perspective seems to have
influenced the degree of salience around, and perception of locus of control over, the
under-representation of undergraduate minority students. Research faculty focus on
under-representation is virtually non-existent because of competing demands, which
were mentioned by BEP faculty but again best described by non-BEP participant #6:
You know, the way things work in the college is that those initiatives come
from the college deans and the deans get together and decide it’s something
they want to do and it doesn’t normally come from departments. You know,
we’re so busy doing what we do that we don’t have time for this deep-
thinking.

Beyond the UARE, the literature strongly supports the scope and magnitude of this
world-view. For example:
American professors spent a median 18.7 hours a week in activities relating
to teaching. On average, professors spend 13.1 hours per week in direct
instructional activity, with those in research universities spending 11.4 hours
and those in other four-year institutions teaching 13.8 per week. Not
surprisingly, professors in research universities reported publishing six or
more journal articles in the past three years compared to 31 percent of faculty
working elsewhere. (Altbach, Berdhal & Gumport, 2005, P.299)

Research and publishing require a different type and level of time commitment to
students and teaching than the responsibilities of non research-active faculty. The
premium on the value of research versus teaching appears to change based on the
political landscape, according to Altbach, et al. (2005). The level of expectation
around research faculty involvement in recruitment and academic endeavors must
realistically consider the institution and profession-wide constraints inherent in the
role of researchers.

90
Low salience of undergraduate students in researcher paradigm
The second implication of the researcher paradigm is faculty focus on
graduate students as opposed to undergraduates, as suggested by professor #1 who
said, “Most of the emphasis is on graduate students.” From the point of view of
researchers, graduate students are most relevant to their day-to-day work. Professor
#3 noted, “In general, the kind of research we are doing is more involved with people
who will stay for a longer time, like research students, graduate students: master’s
and PhD’s, so our experience is with them.”
Graduate students, for instance, work side-by-side with the researchers in the
lab and are often selected to attend the program through a competitive process based
on their interest and ability to contribute to the faculty members’ specific area of
research. Even the BEP approach to mentoring, as described by professor #2, may be
practical but it reduces undergraduate proximity to the researchers. He said, “Faculty
mentor graduate students and graduates mentor undergraduates, so that is how we
can sustain the whole chain.” The span of faculty proximity to undergraduates may
contribute to the apparent low salience of undergraduate issues as described below.
As the outside funding dwindles for research, external stakeholders have
begun to apply more pressure on institutions for accountability in teaching and
student academic outcomes (Altbach, Berdhal & Gumport, 2005). And yet, in some
cases, graduate students are also expected to play a more active role in teaching
undergraduates. In some situations, graduate students are expected to play a more
91
active role in research, which may not necessarily contribute to improved
accountability for faculty.
Low salience of the topic of diversity and access in faculty discussion
For all but one of the BEP faculty, there was a conspicuous absence of
dialogue around faculty discourse on the subject of under representation which
seems surprising particularly given the NSF imperative to increase URM
representation. The one participant, professor #1, who did discuss the faculty
discourse, suggested that on the occasions that it does occur, it is hampered by NSF
bureaucracy:
When you get faculty together to discuss these issues instead of them being in
a good mood to do the right thing, they are mostly bitching about this stuff
and by association unfortunately the whole notion of the students as being the
people whom we are supposed to be helping as somehow the cause of a great
deal of grief. We know that is not true but instead of having a session of
where we are honestly trying to do the right things we are mostly griping and
getting harassed by the numbers and inappropriate classifications that make
no sense.

Professor #1 provided an example of “inappropriate classifications”:
So one of the unfortunate things about the way the NSF has set about fixing
this problem or getting us to fix it, is that it has become a very bureaucratic
numbers game and you get faculty together and they have a lot of distractions
and they try to do the right thing but all they get is this endless crap about the
NSF wants us to slice people based on distinctions that are increasingly
offensive even, to some. Getting students to self report their ethnic identity
increasingly, and wonderfully I think, they have mixed identities. Chopping
apart if they are females and mixed identities do they get to count once. I had
a problem with my two African students who didn’t get to count as African
Americans now they changed the rule so they have a different classification.

Clearly, by Participant #1’s account, the dialogue is not especially
productive. For the science-related faculty, collective dialogue around diversity is
92
not occurring at all, as articulated passionately by participant #6: “Oh, my God, no, it
has never been part of the faculty dialogue.” Participant #5 explained that faculty
have few meetings and when they do meet nothing other than research is formally
discussed amongst faculty in the science-related unit:
We operate as separate departments in many ways, so we don’t even have
department-wide faculty meetings very often. Undergraduate teaching is the
only area that we collaborate informally. So when we get together, or if we
get together as a department, or certainly when our sections get together, it’s
only [pause] it’s all about research. It’s about research 99.5% of the time.

These findings suggest there is low salience around the topic of equal access
of URMs in the academic units researched at UARE, and on the rare occasion when
it is discussed in the BEP, those discussions are tempered by resentment about
spending time dissecting racial profiles, according to one professor. These findings
also suggest that in the research paradigm, research may virtually be the only topic
discussed amongst research-active faculty. One might reasonably speculate then, that
any topic outside research may produce frustration for these faculty which may not
necessarily lend to positive outcomes for prospective undergraduate
underrepresented students.
Incongruity related to under representation of URMs
Similar to the tone of the discussion above – and perhaps related – there
appeared to be a high degree of incongruity and vagueness, and to some extent, what
might be described as discomfort, around the questions of why URMs are
underrepresented in STEM fields nationally and in STEM fields at UARE BEP.
While each BEP professor responded to the question about the numbers, three out of
93
four of them did not answer the question directly relative to URMs, but some may
have alluded to the answer later in the interview. Instead, they discussed students in
general, by making vague statements about the under-preparedness of students these
days, and by saying that students do not have a good understanding of what
engineering is all about.
For example, Professor #2, who ultimately reflected on URM undergraduate
access specifically, appeared to be a little tentative, in that the response was wrapped
in an observation about students at UARE in general:
Well first of all, I mean, I am talking undergraduates because undergraduates,
most of our students are domestic students and most of are graduates are
international. As a whole the quality of our students at UARE has increased
a lot more because of our university President’s attempt to increase quality so
the applicant pool has increased in quality over the years. I think affirmative
action has worked in general although it was set back, and so on, but in
general people are more aware of what they are capable of and their are
incentives to attract URM students to our program so I think that those things
made a difference.

There appeared to be some incongruity in the responses of Professor #7 from
the science-related unit (SRU) as reflected in two different statements:
I have to tell you that I think a bias that I have that many faculty have [pause]
and this is I think what frightens us a little bit [pause] the real problems in the
pipeline don’t start when kids are in college, right. They start much earlier, so
if we were really in this for the long-run, we’d go out to elementary schools
and middle schools and start programs and be doing it year in and year out
and [pause] I mean, in the long-run, that’s going to have a much bigger
affect. It’s distressing at some level that we live in a city that is, that has a
majority Hispanic population and we have what…two, three maybe Hispanic
students in our graduate program out of a total of whatever it is, 80 or 90.
That’s pretty bad.

Later, Professor #7, the only person to mention the awkward nature of the question,
gave an alternate explanation to the one previously given, above:
94
It’s just so awkward. I do feel that if we [incomplete sentence] so to my mind
this is a class issue not a race issue. Like a huge percentage is this class issue
of which race is a complicated factor. And so I feel that if UARE wants to
take students, wants to take disadvantaged students of whatever background,
we do have a responsibility to those students {incomplete sentence] or to
mentor them.

The incongruity surfaced as Professor #7 first described the under
representation of Hispanics relative to their proportion in the general population,
which alludes to a race-related issue, yet the second statement described
underrpresentation definitively as a class issue.
The issue of incongruity around the discussion of African American students
surfaced again in one statement from Professor #6, a science-related faculty who
acknowledged the increase in minority academic preparation of URM students in his
lab on one hand, and on the other hand wondered out loud whether African
American students in his classes are athletes. There is no clear reason for why the
distinction was being made.
Now for example, I just recently took two new students in my lab, but prior
to those two coming, the three students I had in my lab, one was Mexican
American, one was Honduran American, and one was African
American...They’re all heading for graduate school and medical school and
they’re brilliant and high achieving students, and there are more and more of
those... African Americans, if anything there’s fewer. I mean, it’s really sad
that in my classes…very, very few African Americans in my classes, and it’s
hard to say because some of my classes are so big that I don’t really get a
chance to get to know, but from kind of the look of the students, you can sort
of tell when a student’s an athlete and when they’re not because they sort of
look more fit than other people, and [pause] I could tell you [pause] it’s not
that I really pay that much attention, but of the African American students
that I can sort of picture in my mind in my intro course right now, they’re
unusually tall and robust and athletic looking, so it’s making suspect that they
may be athletics, you know. I mean, from all different sports, and I don’t
know how many football players or baseball players or basketball players,
95
but I do have everything else in the classes. So I don’t know. If anything,
there’s fewer than there used to be.

While there is some language indicating a belief in student’s potential for
excellence and their high academic accomplishments, there were many more
instances that described students from a place of deficit. It is difficult to discern
whether the participants chose not to respond directly to the question relative to race
or simply did not know how to respond. Ultimately, the explanations that faculty
provided throughout the interviews rested primarily on causes external to faculty’s
perceived locus of control, as discussed in the next section.
External Locus of Control over Underrepresentation – Recruitment
With a centralized recruiting office for undergraduates, it is not unreasonable
that faculty might not perceive themselves as having any locus of control over
recruitment, as professor #2 suggested: “Okay, for first of all, BEP itself does not
have much control over the undergraduate recruiting.” Professor #6, in the science-
related unit echoed that sentiment and stated:
No, no, and you may know, generically the faculty here are very uninvolved
with undergraduate recruitment. That pretty much comes under the province
of the [pause] the admissions committee, etc., and they sometimes contact
individual faculty to see if they’ll do a [incomplete sentence] I guess it’s
[pause] you know, parents weekend or sometimes orientation, although I
guess at that point they’ve already committed, right?

Regarding recruitment and other related activities, the same faculty member
made a distinction between research and non-research faculty:
By and large, that’s mostly staff-run and whatever…associate deans and
things like that, and if faculty are involved, first of all…well, faculty aren’t
involved with any kind of undergraduate recruitment, including under-
represented minority recruitment and if faculty are involved, they are never
96
research-active faculty. They are always non-research-active because they
have more time to do things like that.

Science-related professor #6, discussed requests for involvement in recruitment and
academic support related activities:
I don’t. It’s not that I don’t get asked, I do, but [pause] particularly by the
college to do scholarship interviews and things like that. It’s usually the high-
end students that they ask me to participate in [did not complete the thought].
No, I don’t really participate or help with outreach really.

However, two BEP faculty members believe faculty should have a role in
recruitment, including professor #4, who said:
We do have an established office that is aimed at diversity recruitment.
However, I think it is the responsibility of all of the faculty members to
ensure that we are diverse... It has to be done by everyone. Overall, the center
has done a good job but I know we can do a lot better. Again, students self-
select to come here but we can definitely go out and ensure that other
students that are outside of our magnet program are aware of what we offer
here. I know that there are bright students all over the city and we can do
more to try and attract them to our program.

The other was faculty member #1 in the BEP who talked of personally recruiting
students for the lab there:
I have gone to a few meetings of the Black Student Engineering Society just
to let them know what we are doing and in fact each of those have produced
someone who has wound up working in the laboratories. We have been much
less successful at identifying minorities and graduate students I am not sure if
that is the pipeline effect or that they have not come to us yet because they
are in a great deal of demand I am sure that is much more likely the case. I
have certainly talked to a number of students who contemplated going here
and went places who could provide a greater fellowship or higher profile.

By and large however, recruitment of students into the BEP labs or the other
programs was reported to occur by chance in that faculty are primarily passive
players in the process, as articulated by several faculty, including professor #3:
97
Sometimes we are passively waiting for students to come indicate interest in
the labs but that won’t necessarily bring us the underrepresented minorities.
The pool can also be limited. The program says we want to make you meet
quotas
8
, which is good, on the other hand, if our hands are tied we can’t do
much.

Professor #4 reiterated the same point saying, “There are a lot of students that self-
select to come to the program and I accidentally get diversity that way.” Participant
#2 said, “Because we do have limited space, so it is word of mouth mainly.”
Participant #2 went on to say:
Often from their own initiative they just knock on the door and ask us and
other way is they hear a talk that one of us has given or they may hear from a
graduate student so in a sense a lot of us don’t advertise that we want them to
come to the lab.

What is not clear from the interviews is whether the sense of faculty initiative in lab
recruitment is due to the research paradigm, a general lack of focus or undergrads or
a possible bias against undergraduates or URMs in their lab. The other external
explanations given for under representation were student-related and institution-
related challenges, as discussed in the next section.
External Locus of Control over Underrepresentation – Student-Related
In each case below, when more than one possible explanation was available,
the faculty suggested that someone beside themselves as faculty members has
responsibility for the underrepresentation. The absence of URMs in the BEP
program was attributed to external causes that fit into two categories: (a) student-
related deficit, and (b) institutional challenges.

8
It should be noted that neither the UARE, the BEP are on a “quota” system.
Professor #3 was the only faculty member in the entire sample population to use the
term.
98
Student related deficit. Student-related explanations for under representation
had to do with the student’s lack of interest, preparation, motivation, awareness, or
support. For example, Professor #2 suggested URMs are not interested:
We do have several URMs in the program but the number of people in the
BEP program and courses/research I believe are much smaller. As it happens
we have not had that many minorities interested in the BEP.

Another BEP faculty said students are not familiar with engineering:
In undergraduate they have no idea what engineering is about they don’t tell
you about that in high school so I guess they kind of learn it as they go along.
If you track undergraduates during the years that they are here they get a
different perception, they get a better understanding of what engineering is.
And also it depends on the field of engineering too.

Professor #1 in the BEP was a little more direct about student’s lack of familiarity:
I think our students are more to blame than our faculty [for lack of
understanding of engineering as a profession] they often wandered into
engineering because their father was an engineer or because their English
skills weren’t very good or because they did okay in math and what the hell it
must be engineering.

When asked what could be done to ensure that incoming students are more
informed about the discipline of engineering, Professor #1 said:
It is distressingly few students who have spent any time in hobbies or jobs
building stuff. It used to be that engineers tinkered with their cars or built
remote control airplanes or they hobbies that involved a lot of engineering
skills radio operators were the big thing when I was growing up.

The BEP faculty did not proffer interventions that required action on the part
of the UARE, BEP, or the faculty themselves, as illuminated in one last example
from Professor #2 who said the students’ competitiveness works against them:
There is a conscious effort to take in more minorities and increase the pool
but the kids are very competitive and that in itself causes a lot of people to be
put off by that kind of competition.
99
There appears to be a double-edged sword here for students. They are expected by
the faculty to be proactive enough to find the BEP and figure out how to get in but
not appear to be “too competitive.” In the science-related unit, Professor #8 attributes
the underrepresentation to lack of support:
But again, I think one of the things that have to be done in the under-served
areas that they have teachers there, who have more sympathy to the students
and have more respect for the students. You don’t have to be a genius to do
this and the fact is that you believe that you can get to where you want to go,
so somebody has to encourage you to, and that’s not at the university level.
That’s before they get here.

This professor was also very clear and deliberate in the assertion that the UARE
faculty are not responsible for impacting prospective students. Along with student-
centered challenges to URM representation there were institutional structural
challenges thought to be responsible for underrepresentation. Even when institutional
factors were identified as possible explanations for under representation, they still
were those that faculty perceived they did not have control over.
Institutional challenges. Institutional competitiveness and tuition are two
institutional factors identified by faculty as contributing to the under representation
of URM’s in the BEP. The assertions about competitiveness made by Professor #2
were supported by at least two other BEP professors:
Other schools are more prestigious and provide more funding to students.
While other prestigious programs may boast larger programs, we are fairly
small compared to them in that we don’t have all of the areas of discipline,
only specific ones. As a result, I think we can do more in terms of making
what we have a little more attractive.

By comparison, none of the science-related faculty mentioned institutional
competitiveness as a challenge. The dialogue about the reputation of the institution
100
as a negative factor in the under-representation of students of color is particularly
interesting in light of the reported increase in student academic standing over the
years, as reported by Professor# 2 earlier.
Professor #2 was also the only one in the BEP to mention tuition saying,
“Tuition can be a problem for a lot of students and we are continuing to try to do
more in that area.” And tuition was also mentioned by science-related faculty #8,
but overall it was not as strong of a theme as reputation:
We don’t get any money from the state directly, and so that makes a
difference in terms of that scholarships are important for students. That
would help them come here, but again, people from a disadvantaged
circumstance. They may be able to get scholarship money and that’s going to
be crucial.

With the exception of faculty lack of knowledge about recruitment as expressed
below, faculty discourse from the BEP science-related units centered on a variety of
explanations that placed the onus for underrepresentation squarely on URMs and
their families or communities.
Internal Locus of Control – Lack of knowledge about recruiting
The stated lack of knowledge about how to pursue the goal of increasing
minorities was clearly articulated in many ways across both academic units with
many of the faculty making statements like, “I don’t know. I don’t know how to fix
it.” Another said, “We don’t know where to find them.” And still another faculty
member said, “One area we might need some help is to find students.” Professor #3
observed, for example:
I think that BME is doing a good job at trying to meet the quotas but if we
don’t know where to find the students or there is not enough departments
101
then we can’t do much; for example, if there are groups to help women
students or students of color, they can ask the students to go to the labs for
the program and encourage them. If I hire this [did not complete sentence], I
am not really risking a lot of things if he fails for example. What is important
is to give the students a chance. Usually, that fair chance is provided to
everyone bit if you want to push a certain group that have been at a
disadvantage then you need extra components to help out. I think that would
help a lot.

Not only was there a sense that faculty were unaware of how to recruit and
where to find URMs but they gave an equally strong indication of a lack of critical
awareness about the perceptions of those African American undergraduates who are
already students in their environment.
Lack of Critical Awareness about African American Perception of Climate
One issue that was consistent in all but two of the eight interviews was a
voluntary acknowledgement of faculty’s lack of awareness about URM or African
American perception of the culture at UARE. As an example, Professor #2 said,
Related to African-Americans- [short pause] I think I am sure they would feel
they were much in the minority around here (both laughing) but now we have
this diversity center set up now they have somewhere they can go to relate to
for other minorities as well but um in general I don’t feel, but because I don’t
know them that closely maybe but I don’t think the divisions are between the
minorities and the non minorities- I see the difference being the domestic
versus the international, different cultures and so on. I see the minorities
working with non-minority students. I don’t see that difference in terms of
[did not complete the thought] of course that is what I think.

Professor #2’s reliance on the diversity center, rather than faculty action to make
students feel comfortable points to a perception of external locus of control over
organizational climate. And, although Professor #3 below did not proclaim being
unaware of the perception of URMs as Professor #2 did, like Professor #2, he/she did
102
not address the question from the student’s point of view but from his/her own
perspective:
Yes, interestingly, I don’t see much difference really here (in the U.S.) from
there (my country). It has been my own experience that what you make
available to the student. If you put them in a disadvantaged position, you
can’t expect much.

Professor #1 also spoke from an egocentric rather than student perspective, and
reacted with a slightly raised tone of voice to a follow-up question about whether
there could be something other than “less prestige” and “less funding” that impacts
low African American enrollment:
If you are fishing for whether they would find this campus or this community
as comfortable as elsewhere I think it is probably the reverse. I think we have
an advantage or should because it is such a multicultural community by
nature to start with.

In another part of the interview, professor #1 observed that cultural barriers are self-
imposed:
Obviously they are still an underrepresented minority to the extent that we
have students here who need to identify ethnically with people they are going
to feel uncomfortable…Interestingly two of the students I have had two of
the Black students I have had in my laboratory are both African-American,
born in Africa…I think they found it easier of course they already expected to
somewhat [adjust] to a new culture because they moved to the West so I
think there is no question that there is a sense of cultural barriers I think that’s
more self-imposed than real.

I never mentioned the words racism or prejudice in the interviews, yet
Professor #1 was inclined to volunteer that from her/his point of view, faculty are not
prejudiced and therefore bias is not a factor in the underrepresentation of African
Americans:
103
I don’t think that faculty are prejudiced, I would hope our undergraduate
students are not prejudiced we have an extremely heterogeneous population
my graduate students that I have experienced here it looks like the UN if you
have a map out there with pins in it they come from every culture in the
world. So thy are all here in the melting pot so I think our biggest problem is
in fact finding qualified students and I put emphasis on qualified because I
think it is unfair to the student to put them in situations where they are going
to fail and think you are doing them a favor.

In terms of the heterogeneity of the population, I want to elaborate on a section of
another statement made by Professor #1 said that was quoted earlier, “I had a
problem with my two African students who didn’t get to count as African Americans
now they changed the rule so they have a different classification.” To which I
replied, “African?” and Participant #1 replied, “Yes African.” Professor #1’s
statement ignores the distinction between domestic minority and international
diversity as if they are interchangeable.
The science-related faculty freely admitted to not knowing how URMs
perceive the culture, as indicated by professor #6:
I mean, it’s really sad that in my classes, very, very few African Americans in
my classes, and it’s hard to say because some of my classes are so big that I
don’t really get a chance to get to know them.

However, unlike the BEP faculty, the language used by the science-related faculty in
the excerpts below, expressed interest and concern about how African Americans
and other URMs perceive the culture of UARE, “It is distressing…” “I fear they
don’t feel comfortable…” “I also worry…” “I would really like to know what the
students think” (some of the full excerpts will be explored below). Professor #7
indicated a desire to get to know what students think:
104
I would really like to know what the students think. I mean, I would like to
know the students think. So here’s my worry. I can tell you my worry and it’s
a straight out worry that I-I don’t know if it’s worry too and, as I say, I feel a
little uncomfortable for telling you this since we are racially diverse, but
here’s my worry, that there are no [pause] in the biological sciences there are
no black faculty. That’s not true across the - there are black faculty in other
departments but there are no black faculty involved with classes. I don’t want
to stereotype either faculty, but my worry is that because [pause] well, just
faculty have lower expectations. Faculty obviously will [did not complete
thought] who knows where it stops? Do faculty have lower expectations of
their underrepresented minorities or do the underrepresented minority student
worry that that is the perception of them?

Professor #6 commented on the level of comfort of African Americans and
Hispanics:
I fear that they don’t feel comfortable, you know. I fear that they don’t
because, number one, there are very few faculty that look anything like them
or that have similar cultural backgrounds. I mean, there are no African
Americans on faculty in our department. There’s only… Even Hispanics in
the sciences and engineering are pretty sparse for all kinds of reasons,
but…so I don’t know how comfortable that would make them feel. I don’t
know how the neighborhood makes them feel. I worry that they don’t feel as
welcomed as they could, in part because of L.A. being a big sort of scary
diverse place where they may nor may not feel like they fit in. I also worry
because our faculty…and this is true of the natural science departments in
general are very research-oriented, so we’re a research university and all the
faculty in all the departments and schools must engage in research and
scholar activities.

Professor #8 talked about being able to increase enrollment numbers of African
Americans by having them visit the campus:
You get to see people from disadvantaged communities here, Asian, a lot of
Asian, a lot of black students here, students of color, and then they see them
interacting with other here on campus and that probably is a way for them to
visiting campus, seeing what goes on, on campus.

In response to the follow-up question, “So what I am hearing you say is
there’s something important about being able to see people who look like themselves
105
here and interacting with other people and feel comfortable in the environment?”
Professor #8 replied, “Absolutely, yeah, and not being isolated.” Again, the science-
related faculty discourse seemed to indicate a degree of compassion for URM’s even
though they were not fully cognizant of what URM students think or feel.
Professor # 7 discussed not knowing what African Americans may think:
With the black students [pause] I’ve just never been close enough to them to
know. I just don’t know. As I say, the African American…I can’t [did not
complete sentence]. So white people are so oblivious to this, so I can’t put
myself in those students’ shoes and know is it better? I mean, this is a
generation later, is it better for these students?

Professor #6 revealed not really having thought about it the issue of under-
representation:
You know, I never really thought about it. I don’t know. What do I attribute it
to? I’m so far from being an expert in the sociological forces at work here it
would just be my own speculation. I don’t know. I don’t know.

Interestingly, compared to the level of awareness or sensitivity to the perceptions of
African American students, all of the BEP faculty members were able to demonstrate
the capacity for critical awareness relative to females. There appeared to be a greater
level of comfort, or perhaps willingness, to make distinctions based upon gender, as
demonstrated by the fact that all of the BEP professors answered the question about
female representation directly.
In fact, Professor #2 was able to offer exact percentages of female
representation in the BEP as compared to the field:
Well the Biomedical field in general across the country we have always had
much larger proportion in females versus the other fields we have about 45%
which is very large compared to the other fields.

106
In response to the question, “Why do you think that is?” Professor #2 replied with a
laugh: “Well I think females are more interested in biology things that deal more
with humans whereas the guys are more into machines, (both laugh—that may
explain it) that seems to be it.”
Females’ attraction to the human element of biomedicine was indeed a
consistent theme throughout the interviews, as articulated by Professor #4:
I would say that in engineering, both environmental and biomedical tend to
attract more females because students can see a direct benefit of that field to
them personally; it’s more of the human component that’s important to them.
That’s my feeling. The other thing that I have heard over and over again and
from experience is that what keeps women in engineering is that no one ever
tells them that they can’t do it. No one ever says that you’re not as good as
your male counterparts. If it’s in their minds that they are just as good as
anyone else in accomplishing their career and academic goals, they are more
likely to persist; that has been my observation.

Professor #1 also made the distinction between male and female interests and
abilities when he said:
It certainly offers a variety of ways of participating I think women tend to be
more interested in things that interact with people things that help them help
people with disabilities pause so we have training programs that cater
particularly to some of the non technical aspects of engineering, regulatory
science and I think all of those are opportunities to look at problems broadly
as opposed to high expertise for a narrow parts of a problem, which in my
experience tend to me more of a male characteristic.

Professor #1 had a sense of how women’s self-perception impacts their
representation in the field:
Biomedical has always been in the forefront of having substantial numbers of
women it has changed somewhat, increasingly the women see themselves as
fully equal and interested in the same range of careers whereas years ago they
were all little more tentative.

107
At the same time, Professor # 1 also provided insight on the impact
underrepresentation has in the organizational culture over the long-term:
I know its probably more a factor with women you find women in
laboratories with women or already run by women and that’s the fact that we
had graduate students who did well and at the moment don’t happen to have
any because when you lose that culture it is hard to get it back and I am
particularly sensitive to this because (response would reveal identity)… and I
know to maintain a culture that women feel comfortable working in is
probably more difficult than for minorities. I am not sure if that is the
pipeline effect or that they have not come because they are in a great deal of
demand. I am sure that is much more likely the case.

When asked about the underrepresentation of minorities in the BEP, Professor #1
said, “Not women? They are important too.”
BEP Professors appeared to be much more confident in their understanding
of female representation, as compared to URM, as discerned by the directness, speed
of their responses, and depth of their answers. It appeared that they had spent some
measure of time previously thinking about the topic.
Perceptions about students in general, and URMs in particular
Two different BEP faculty members had divergent perspectives on the
benefits of access opportunity, from an equity-perspective. Professor #3 said:
Even here,[in the U.S.] I have worked with both male and female and
underrepresented minorities and I haven’t seen a difference; if they’re
basically given the same opportunities, they all do well… Not every student
is appropriate for the type of research that we are doing but that difference
does not come from color or the national origin of someone; some people are
better than the others; it has nothing to do with sex or color.

And the other, professor #1, from a deficit perspective:
So they’re are all here in the melting pot so I think our biggest problem is in
fact finding qualified students and I put emphasis on qualified because I think
108
it is unfair to students to put them in situations where they are going to fail
and think you are doing them a favor.

Again, although the focus of this research is on BEP faculty, the science-
related faculty serving as a comparison group had much more to say about their
perception of students. Professor #6 acknowledged the high intellectual caliber of
students but suggested they are faced with challenges that seem to be a detriment: “I
would say so, yeah. Yeah, the ones that are here are definitely very needy with all
kinds of [incomplete sentence] almost all of them come very bright, but they’re not
really prepared to succeed.” Professor #6 went on to say:
The other thing that I’ve noticed in my very unscientific observations is that
the students who do better here seem to be the ones that [incomplete
sentence] and they take advantage of the resources we have to offer are the
ones that are better connected with their families, that have strong family
connections, that their mom and dad are still together and they live at home
and they’re both very supportive, or at least one parent that they’re in close
touch with all the time or some other family member. You know, siblings
that they get very…they feel close to and involved with and they bounce
ideas off them and get advice from someone. I don’t know, I think that
helps. I think that helps, you know. That connection helps. (Professor #6)

By far, Professor #7 had the most to say about students and was the only
professor who elaborated on student distinctions based on race and other
demographics like socioeconomic class:
I don’t know, so some of the students, just in general talking to-you know,
it’s totally anecdotal that the students that I think have done well tend to
come from the sort of environments that you would stereotypically anticipate,
academic parents, folks with parents from the upper-middle class and they’re
producing daughters that are [pause] and we’re educating them and they’re
doing great.

109
Professor #7 provided many examples of URM students he/she encountered over
recent years, as described below, and suggested that they have performed in the mid-
ranges. One, in general lacked confidence.
I have had a fair number of under-represented minorities in my classes. A fair
number, I don’t know what the current number would be the percentage in
which minorities are grouping themselves in the population. I’m talking 10
maybe over four years, maybe, and those students have not…and I’m
thinking Hispanics and African Americans…those students, I don’t think
they’re not striving, but they are at best in the middle of the class and I don’t
know, again, I don’t know what to make of this, but I’m just remembering a
student last year. I thought she was a good student, but she seemed to greatly
lack confidence. She studied, but got…I don’t know, didn’t trust herself, got
confused on the exams. Do I know what her background was? No, I don’t.

Another example of a URM student lacking confidence was provided Professor #7:
This is an undergraduate, right. He was interviewing with me as a graduate
student. He was the first in his family to go to college. I don’t know why, he
just really struggled in his first year. I think it was…my guess is that he’s
quite angry. Again, this is my perception, which I worry at various times
[pause] what I’m trying to say, but you come into a situation where there’s so
much wealth around you that has to, I can imagine that would make you
angry. But anyway, he didn’t do well, then at last he blossomed and he got
his degree and he did better in his classes. He didn’t do a 100% better, but he
did much better in his classes. I’m mentoring him, he’s not an easy, he’s
difficult. He wasn’t able to articulate, well, he just -he seems withdrawn, just
sitting there, he seemed withdrawn, he wasn’t a more confident -I’ve seen
this with other students to, but a more confident student comes into the
interview, sits down, and whether they like what you’re saying or not, they’re
engaged. He wasn’t able to articulate what his goals for graduate study, but
when we started to talk about my work, my work interested him and, again,
he…we only had a half an hour, but he began to unfurl a little bit, so to ask
some questions and by the end of the meeting, he said this is most interesting.
At the end, I felt quite differently.

Professor #7 provided an example of a URM student who did well in his/her class
but not in others, as a result of a lack of discipline and being perceived as “anti-
American,” and “antagonistic” by other professors:
110
We had a URM student last year. He was excellent; he was one of my best
students. His problem was just discipline, he just didn’t want to study. I don’t
know why. He came from a different country. He was very proud of [his
country]. He rubbed a lot of faculty up the wrong way when he first came
here because he was quite anti-American. So he just came in and just
espoused anti- American stuff; anti-war, anti the administration. He came in
with a lot of negativity and told the professors in his earlier classes and didn’t
do well and didn’t excel. I quite like students that are -students that challenge
how you think, I don’t mind being wrong, again, this is my perception, I may
be wrong -so I liked him. Yeah, he was just kind of thorn in your side. Like
he had lots of questions, sometimes I couldn’t answer the questions. Over
time we came to have a good dialogue and he did really well in the class. I
was shocked to subsequently find out that he had done so poorly in earlier
classes in part because professors really did not like his antagonistic
behavior.

Another URM student was described by Professor #7 as lacking confidence and
energy.
One URM student was just sweet-natured and her questions kind of broke my
heart. She had such good questions, but somehow she wasn’t able to turn that
perception into excellence on the exam, but I knew she had it in her.

Other URM students were perceived by the same Professor as having personal
issues:
I’ve had another student, I can’t remember his name, he didn’t seem as
obviously as bright as her but he seemed like tired. Did he have a second job?
Was he [pause] are these students [pause] you know, the black…Oh, another
student a few years ago, she didn’t finish. She did OK, she ended up great in
the class I was teaching, she didn’t come to the final lecture. She had some
involved story about her grandmother dying. Now I’m saying this without
sympathy in my voice because lots of faculty,[didn’t finish sentence] were
these stories, were they real? There was a perception that she was trying to
[pause] she got of my class because she would say she was having prolonged
periods where her grandmother was in hospital. I never asked her for proof. I
came to find that she was considered a problem in other classes. My take on
this is the grandmother -the situation with her grandmother may or may not
be true, but it is the minority students seem to have more going on in their
lives, that they have more -and I don’t want to say stereotyped - more
personal issues. The student that I was talking about, she always seemed
really tired. Who isn’t at the level of the students?
111

On the contrary, Professor #7 mentioned another URM who is doing well due to
socio-economic status, stating:
We have another student, a graduate student, she’s excellent, really excellent.
Again, I don’t know what her background is. I think she comes from a
middle-class background. She doesn’t have, I would guess she doesn’t have
these issues, she’s doing really well.

Professor #6 in the same science-related unit suggests that of all URMs, Latina
students appear to be most engaged:
Of the ones that do, that take advantage of it [office hours, Q&A sessions and
advising] first of all, a shockingly low percentage do, but of the ones that do,
they’re probably 80 to 90% women and I would say that the Hispanic
women, Mexican American women, of any group, are probably among the
most likely to come in. Maybe it’s because I look familiar to them, like their
grandfather maybe their father. I’ve noticed that the female…the women
students are much more collaborative. They work better with each other.
They form study groups and they ask each other questions. I’m speculating, a
lot of speculating. I am going to say, whether it’s just the cultural thing or a
family thing or family orientation, that the Hispanic women students
are…they come well-prepared or predisposed to get help from each other and
to get help from the faculty.

Professor #8, from the science-related unit, started with an equity perspective by
affirming the inherent brilliance of students, “No matter what their race, I am
confident that everybody’s brain is the same. The ability to learn is there.” The
professor then moved to a deficit-perspective by suggesting that access to STEM
higher education is constrained for some URMs due to their lack of confidence,
which may be in part, from not having people around them like teachers and parents
who see these students as successful. The professor stated:
And they have to have some counselors who will, in high school, see them as
possible candidates for college. Part of the problem with that is that there
112
may not be that kind of contact with people who are sensitive enough and
hopeful enough to give them some sort of hope that they have an opportunity.

There is a discernable pattern of attributing student success or failure to causes
outside of the faculty. It is plausible that the distinction between researcher and
faculty severely diminishes faculty’s perception of an internal locus of control over
URM access and student academic success or failure.

URM Student Recruitment as a Means to an End
For the most part, the NSF’s diversity imperative was mentioned most by the
BEP faculty as their primary motivation for the diversity focus on the URMs. The
NSF has an education and diversity component to their research grant, unlike the
National Institute of Health (NIH) research grants, which are awarded without those
stipulations. The BEP faculty had various responses to the NSF criteria.
Although Professor #2 of the BEP said the diversity and educational focus of
the NSF creates a challenge for these researchers who are trained and focused on
research. Nevertheless, the professor also stated the NSF’s attempts to make
researchers accountable is “a laudable goal” in that it attempts to make researchers,
“responsible, not just for the research but for the next generation of researchers.”
Professor #1 indicated that her/his motivation and success at increasing
URMs in the BEP stemmed from a “combination of knowing it is a priority with the
NSF and feeling like it’s the right thing to do [which] is based on utility rather than a
moral imperative”. Professor #1 noted:
From my perspective engineering and science is damaged if the pool of
applicants is artificially constrained. Our job is to find the best and brightest
113
and there aren’t that many of them and if we start with a smaller denominator
because we scared off half of them it just makes it harder to find the best and
the brightest. So if we know that there are groups that are excluding
themselves from our pool for some reason, it behooves us to fix that.

For Professor #1 the utility approach appears to be tied directly to the researcher
paradigm:
Well, [pause] I think it is probably more effective to separate this from a
moral imperative and just think about it as a matter of utility. I am a big fan
of the economist approach to these kinds of questions. From my perspective
engineering and science is damaged if the pool of applicants is artificially
constrained. Our job is to find the best and brightest and there aren’t that
many of them and if we start with a smaller denominator because we scared
off half of them it just makes it harder to find the best and the brightest. So if
we know that there are groups that are excluding themselves from our pool
for some reason, it behooves us to fix that.

For Professor #3, the utilitarian and researcher paradigm also seem to prevail in
another response to the question of URM recruitment:
To be honest, the research and the research dollars are quite competitive and
they want to make the best use of the dollars. Therefore, if you leave people
to their own devices they would want to make the best use of them, they
usually don’t look at the color of student or whether or not it’s a man or
woman but they just want to hire the best qualified person to do the job. I
have seen efforts from BEP to encourage meeting some quotas, which is a
good thing, for the faculty and students. Departments are actively looking for
underrepresented minority faculty members; they want the qualifications but
one of the important things for them should be for the underrepresented
minorities at the department levels and in the school. We have some
undergrad students in your labs and the main reason for them to be in your
lab is that they have some merit scholarships and the university comes and
tells us we have a large number of merit students with money, all you have to
do is give them a chance to work in your lab. So it doesn’t have any load on
the research we are doing all it does is give them a chance. They may be good
or may not be good but they get a chance to work here.

Professor #3 did go on to mention the importance of giving URMs students a chance:
What is important is to give the students a chance. Usually, that fair chance is
provided to everyone bit if you want to push a certain group that have been at
114
a disadvantage then you need extra components to help out. I think that
would help a lot.

At the same time, Professor #3 acknowledged the academic strengths of URMs:
[They] are equally as smart and have the greatest chances possible and if not
they probably have a greater drive than a lot of students but at the university
level we are not doing anything to find out what matters to them.

On one hand Professor #3 suggested that left to their own devices people will
automatically work to increase representation and on the other hand incentives are
needed. Professor #3 was not taking steps, in terms of recruiting, to give those
students a chance.
Review of Themes
The findings above were presented by theme, as they emerged from my analysis
of the data. To review, the most salient themes were: (a) participants’ identification
with the role of researcher, to the exclusion of other roles; (b) low salience of
undergraduates students in researcher paradigm; (c) low salience of African
American access as an issue; (d) perception of external locus of control; (e) lack of
critical awareness; and (f) ambiguity and incongruity in student perception. What
follows next is a summary of the findings based on the research questions.
Summary of Findings Based on Research Questions
These findings will be reported by unit with BEP first and science-related faculty
results reported second. As a reminder, the research questions are:
1. What are faculty’s perceptions about why the numbers are so low nationally
for URMs, specifically African Americans in undergraduate engineering
programs?
115
2. How do faculty explain the URM numbers in the UARE BEP
9
?
3. To what extent are their explanations related to:
a. Perception of student deficiencies;
b. Perception of program /institution deficiencies; or
c. Perception of the climate in the profession in general?
Relative to the under representation of minority students at UARE, the two
challenges mentioned most by BEP faculty were equal in their response rate: the
inability to compete with programs at more prestigious institutions (75%) and
student-related challenges (75%).
BEP Student-Related Challenges
Student related challenges were any factor that involved students whether or not
those factors were within the students’ internal locus of control. Student-related
challenges like, lack of motivation, lack of preparedness, too competitive and self-
exclusion were mentioned by 75% of the BEP professors. Other explanations given
by one or two BEP faculty related to students were, scarcity of URMs in the
pipeline; lack of student interest in, or lack of knowledge about, engineering and
biomedical engineering on the part of URM high school students; and lack of student
preparation. The general tone overall reflected an underlying sense that inability to
gain access to undergraduate engineering programs was attributed to student deficit
in terms of lack of preparation of domestic students and lack of natural talent in the
field.

9
Pseudonym-Biomedical Engineering Program
116
BEP Institution-Related Challenges
Institution-related challenges had to do with issues that UARE or the BEP were
perceived to have control over. The issue mentioned most by BEP faculty was the
inability to compete with programs at more prestigious institutions (75%). Fifty
percent of the BEP faculty also mentioned organizational challenges related to not
having control over recruitment due to centralized admission, and the lack of
knowledge relative to recruitment and retention of URMs. Lack of knowledge was
placed in this category because it was often not clear whether the professors were
speaking in general or relative to faculty lack of knowledge.
BEP Profession-Related challenges
The NSF imperative was mentioned by half of the BEP faculty as a challenge
and fits most closely in the category of perception of the profession in general, in
terms of the educational goals of NSF as something the BEP has to implement
alongside actually conducting research (50%) and the NSF bureaucracy of racial
categories inhibits the genuine intention of faculty to address underrepresentation.
Science-Related Faculty Challenges
At one point or another in the interviews all of the science-related faculty
mentioned student-related issues (lack of motivation, and lack of family, teacher or
faculty support) as challenges. Three out of 4 (75%), mentioned research paradigm
challenges primarily in terms of the institutional or industry factors that value
research over teaching.

117
Summary of Challenges for BEP and Science-Related Combined
Combined challenges mentioned by 7 of 8 (88%) of faculty across both units
were student-related. Seven of eight (88%) of the professors mentioned the lack of
institutional support as a challenge, whether it is financial or programmatic. Half
(50%) expressed comments that had to do with recruitment support needed either by
the institution, the program or individual faculty members. These findings indicate
that as far as the majority of all the faculty in the study are concerned, the biggest
challenges to increasing the representation of students of color (and students, in
general) either rests on the students themselves (and stakeholders in the students’
lives outside of UARE or their respective programs) or the university or program in
terms of not providing the unit or faculty with the resources needed to recruit.
Overview of Faculty Recommendations
Up until this point, the voices of the professors in the BEP and the science-
related unit have been almost interchangeable so far as there has been a degree of
synergy between narratives from both groups as they described their cultures and
articulated the challenges of finding URMs. However, as each participant offered his
or her respective insight into solutions to increase the diversity of the UARE
programs, the recommendations varied considerably by department. There was no
consensus amongst the BEP faculty on recommendations and the two highest
number of responses related to increasing institutional support:
1. Improve recruitment- need help finding students (50%)
2. Need outside grants to support diversity recruitment in labs (50%).
118
However, the assistance in recruitment that BEP faculty recommended for the
most part did not appear to be directed at themselves as individuals or as a collective
group of faculty but rather, at the staff administrators. So, in this case, “we” seemed
to have meant “they.” The one faculty member who mentioned faculty needing help
with recruitment was referring to the “other” faculty members.
Those faculty members requesting outside grants appeared to see them as
incentives to reduce the associated risks of placing URMs in labs. One could infer
the recommendations to suggest that since the pool of students is limited, for
whatever reason, the BEP needs to do a better job finding them, and once they do,
financial incentives are needed to bring them into the university, program or lab.
Science-related Faculty Recommendations
The recommendations from the science-related faculty focused on the need to
impact the internal institutional culture. They were unanimous in their suggestions
for academic-related student programs for URMs already on campus and the need to
impact the structural challenges inherent in the research paradigm:
1. Academic-related (learning communities, advising, career counseling)
(100%).
2. Research paradigm-related changes (75%).
Half of the science-related faculty recommended better recruiting assistance and
faculty awards.
Combining the findings across both units, the highest number of
recommendations was related to the need for better recruiting (50%) but the
119
solutions varied considerably. The recommendations will be presented in a way to
answer the research question: “What are their recommendations for increasing the
numbers? And to what extent are their explanations and recommendations related to:
• Perception of student deficiencies;
• Perception of program /institution deficiencies; or
• Perception of the climate in the profession in general?”
Institution-related Recommendations
The BEP institution-related recommendations fell into two primary
categories, recommendations for assistance with recruiting and additional financial
incentives for the labs:
Recruiting. Professor #4 said in general, the BEP needs help finding students:
Overall, the Diversity center has done a good job but I know we can do a lot
better. Again, students self-select to come here but we can definitely go out
and ensure that other students that are outside of [our partner high school]
are aware of what we offer here. I know that there are bright students all over
the city and we can do more to try and attract them to our program.

Financial incentives. Professor#1’s approach is to use financial incentives:
I think the encouragement, especially if it is attached to opportunities to hire
people that we might not otherwise have an opportunity to hire, so that really
means funds, allocated funds to bring in people that we might not otherwise
have the freedom in our budgets to bringing in.

Professor # 3, from the BEP appeared to concur with Professor #1 in finding
incentives:
If there were some type of incentives to say, if you let underrepresented
minorities come and work in your lab then we are willing to support them. I
think this would encourage the researchers so that there would be some
support from both sides. It would make a lot of sense for the government or
other organizations to provide additional support so that the researcher is not
120
in a position to have to be forced basically to hire someone. Naturally, they
would want someone that does the best work. I think this would go a long
way in helping.

As did many professors from the science-related unit, like Professor #6:
Certainly the university could cough up, the money, making people feel like -
I think many of us would do these activities anyway because we sort of care
about it, we get some personal satisfaction out of it, but I think in terms of
something you take to the bank literally, that that would help, you know.

Professor #6 went on to say:

Awards, to have more awards for these activities. Awards are good,
especially if they have prizes attached to them, but…yeah, most of us would
do it anyway, but we should be encouraged to spend more time and maybe
faculty that are past the research stage of their careers, do teaching, but don’t
do much more than their minimum teaching, maybe they could be given
incentives to go beyond just kind of showing up and giving their lectures and
actually go a step beyond that, you know, sort of thing. There’s a lot of
expertise there that we could tap into.

Professor # 5 spoke about the success of getting financial support for another
initiative:

Yeah, there is help. So for example, when we started our group, I went to the
deans and I said, “We have 20 faculty, most of them have never even met
each other. If we’re going to get this group together and see if they can form
any kind of coherent entity so that we can apply for a training grant, we need
some seed money,” and they gave it to us instantly and we used it to fund a
series of dinner meetings where people gave talks. In addition, the provost’s
office hired staff to help people put together the paperwork for training
grants, which can be a bit formidable. It’s unbelievable statistics that they
want, so the provost’s office is providing staff to help with that and they’re
good.

Student support programs. None of the BEP faculty mentioned student
support programs for current university students but several of the science-related
faculty did so, as described below by Professor #6:
And then programmatically, there’s a lot of things. I was involved in the
implementation of the learning communities and the better advising of the
121
undeclared and undecided students who were a very much at-risk population
and that could work.

Professor # 5 also spoke about learning communities:

I can’t remember the name of them, but at some point for kids coming in as
freshman here, they organized them into groups of 20, or learning groups,
and I can’t remember whether they were housed in the same dorm, but they
were assigned to this -like for intro biology, which particularly back then
when they first started these was a huge number of people, they had the same
discussion section, they met once a week with an advisor. You know, that
gave them a group to interact with, something like that.

Professor #6 discussed programmatic options:

And then programmatically, there’s a lot of things -I was involved in the
implementation of the learning communities and the better advising of the
undeclared and undecided students who were a very much at-risk population
and that seemed to help a lot, a lot to do with retention.

Professor #8 recognized the benefit of offering career advising:
There has to be a way for a student who’s in a particular field to be able to
see that there is a career for him and they’re going to have to do this on their
own or use an advisor, presuming that advisors are interested have to be
pretty important. This is what they need to do to help the students.

Professor #7 recommended student mentoring and advising support:
I don’t -so I don’t know enough about the structure of the university to know
where this person resides. When I was a student, we had tutors and the tutor
was an academic, but was not in your subject, and so this was somebody that
you would go and talk about things. It would depend on how many students
we’re talking about, but minority students could sign up for such a program
and faculty members that were on a volunteer basis or if there was some
inducement -not that I mean -you know we could have teaching credits and
stuff that. Would the students want it? We don’t have minority faculty in the
sciences, could you [Did not complete sentence],if I were a minority student I
would want to talk to another minority. We just don’t have any minority
faculty.

Special programs. Professor #5 in the science-related unit was rather prolific
with recommendations and one had to do with organizational efforts:
122
Having a special program, having a sense of identity and what have you, I
was floored when I read sometime during the past year this article in the L.A.
Times saying UC Riverside has become a magnet for students. I don’t know
what happened. They got a critical mass, you know, but I thought to myself,
if we had a program and a website and just a few organized activities and a
few more resources, we could be cleaning up.

The other had to do with marketing:
I remember that one of the places that really impressed me as having some
good sites directed towards under-represented minorities was the University
of Washington, it’s amazing what having -what appearances can do, and this
is completely off topic, but I’ll tell you, but just having a group of faculty
with a name that has a few organized activities -something like that would be
so applicable to recruitment.

And yet another had to do with outreach:
If I were going to retire tomorrow and not do research or whatever, this is
something that I would be interested in. My attitude is let’s have a back PhD
Program where we start them with some good programs in high school and
they come here to college and then if they want to go here to graduate school
they can, or of course they could go somewhere else. If you enrolled at
UARE and got your -it could be biology, chemistry degree, I guess it could
be anything, then you were guaranteed admission to the UARE Medical
School. OK, that is a hugely attractive thing.

Professor #5 described a specific outreach program at the UARE:
I spoke to a few people involved in this engineering grant and it sounded
wonderful, so they had a program that I just thought was amazing. They went
out into the local high school. First of all, they had a staff member who had a
PhD, who knew something serious about the science, a non-PhD staff
member who organized all the logistics, and they had a bunch of graduate
students who actually did the teaching in the schools. The faculty members
devised some kind of a plan including an outline of what they would do when
they went out to the school, and I think maybe this was week-long -the
students went everyday for a few hours, but it was more than just showing up
for a day, and they would give them basic lectures on nerve muscle
physiology and ideas for curing muscular diseases and things like that, and so
they would get some lectures at the right level and they would also do some
labs or demonstrations and some kind of experiments, something like that.
The staff member in charge of found the graduate students, got them to the
school and back everyday. And that is something that we should strive for.
123

Professor #7 recommended conducting research, saying, “If you ask people, ‘Who
are you best students? Who are your best women? Who are you best under-
represented minorities?’ and then ask…and then backtrack and find out where those
students came from.”
Faculty-Related Recommendations

Faculty-related recommendations fell into two categories, training on how to

increase recruitment and improved commitment for student-centered pedagogy on

the part of the faculty.

Faculty development. Professor #7 articulated the need for development:
In the case of recruitment, I’m not sure whether it should be only faculty
members or only staff or some combination, but to be trained in how to do
this by people who have thought about this a lot I feel would just be like, you
know, from heaven because individual faculty are not [pause] they’re not
trained and they don’t have the time and the energy and what have you.
They’re struggling to keep their heads above water as it is. I think for some
faculty members to be attracted, I would like to do it, but I’m not sure I’m the
best person to do it, but I would like to do it because in the face of the right
student, I would like to know what I could do to give them the confidence
that they could [did not complete sentence]. I don’t know how to do that.

Student-centered courses. Professor #8 also spoke of the need for faculty
development:
There has to be a way that the courses that they’re taking are relevant to them
and what they want to do to be able to escape from their circumstances, but it
has to be taught by people by people who are enthusiastic and have an
interest in their students’ goals, but again, this is where I see the problem, is
that the faculty don’t have any kind of -well, they know their own field and
they’ll spend all of their time keeping up on what’s in their own field in order
for them to be able to recognized as authorities. So I don’t know, people to do
things that satisfy them, they have to be doing things that satisfy other people.

124
Profession-Related Recommendations

As discussed previously, the research paradigm appeared to be a significant theme
emerging from the faculty description of themselves.
Researcher paradigm. Several of the professors, including Professor #5, in
the science-related unit spoke about how to impact the necessity of impacting the
researcher paradigm and provided some examples of how to do that:
Now some of the things that could be done I think are more feasible
than others. I mean, it would be wonderful if you could change-if you could
somehow make undergraduate teaching and advising a higher priority in the
minds of our very research-oriented faculty, but that’s not going to happen,
you know. I mean, maybe you can nibble at that problem around the edges,
but not fundamentally going to change that. You basically can’t tell faculty
what to do.

Professor # 5 had another idea about the research paradigm, saying, “At the
University of Arizona, you have leverage because it’s a state school, but they got
teaching credits for doing outreach. There’s some leverage and incentive.”
And professor #5 went on to reinforce that theme:

I think if you could give them some serious relief from teaching and…if they
could conserve the time and effort they’re spending on research now and
instead asking some of them to go out to the schools, and that’s probably a
hard thing to calibrate, yes, I think there’d be a number of faculty who might
be interested in that, but it would have to be their travel time, their everything
would have to be the same. I think in Arizona they do this somewhat
generically or everybody has to do some. I could imagine that it might work
better if there would be a program that would be designed that people would
have to apply for and in reality, then it might work best if there were some
pre-organized things that they could just sign up for or there could be the
option, if you want to design a plan, something that would last for three to
five days.

Professor#7 spoke from a personal perspective on the salience of the research
paradigm:
125
But for me right now, my job, my real [pause], I’m not tenured and in order
to get tenure, I need to get research grants to do the research in the lab, and
so everything else, even my teaching is [pause] it’s not that I don’t spend
enough time on research, but that I spend any time on teaching is really after
the fact compared to my main job, which is to bring in research dollars. So if
I was to do this, it would be a detriment, and so I would appreciate it if it was
included as part of my teaching, that I was part of a program that I got credit
for or something.

The preceding section chronicled the recommendations provided by the
faculty of the BEP and the science-related about how best to approach the under
representation of URMs. Better recruiting (50%) but the other solutions varied
considerably: (a) assistance with recruiting, (b) incentives for recruiting, (c) student-
related support programs for existing students, and more student centered curriculum
(d) marketing and outreach programs, (e) conduct research, (f) faculty development,
and (g) research paradigm changes.
By and large, faculty recommendations were consistent with their reported
UARE related challenges. Primarily their recommendations indicated a perception of
external locus of control and none of their recommendations related to one of their
reported primary sources of challenge: student-related issues. What follows is an
analysis of the challenges they discussed and the recommendations they made.
Analysis of Challenges and Recommendations
A clear paradigm emerged as the perspective by which the study faculty view
the world around them. That paradigm carries with it, its own insights, values, and
beliefs about URM access as an issue. Despite their research-active status, the
paradigm of the faculty are firmly rooted in the concept of researcher as an identity.
Based on the finding, the table below details the extent to which the competing
126
paradigms of researcher and professor differ, and illustrates the potential impact of
those paradigms on undergraduate student recruitment.
Table 5
Competing paradigms of faculty
Question Paradigm Paradigm
Researcher Professor
Primary activities? Conducting research, writing
research grants, publishing
Publishing, teaching,
academic advising
Committees

Loyalty? Discipline Students, Institution

Rewards? Research grant funding,
prestige,
Self-satisfaction,
More committee work,
minimal university
recognition or merit salary
increase

Relationship to
undergraduate students?

Removed Connected
Level of salience of student
recruitment in day to day
activities?

None None to low
Level of awareness of
academic culture or student
perception of academic
culture?

None Low to medium
Perception of locus of
control over recruitment?

None -low ? Did not respond from
professor paradigm
Expressed level of
confidence in skills to
positively impact recruitment
of URMs?

Very low ? Did not respond from
professor paradigm
Potential of positively
impacting recruitment of
URM undergraduate
students?

None to very low Low to medium

Overall, the issues of undergraduate student recruitment, equal access for
URMs, (and although not the focus of this research, even undergraduate academic
success) is far removed from the consciousness of the researchers, as one professor
127
put it, “Research first, faculty second.” The literature suggests is the range of
solutions and individual considers to solve a problem is influenced by how the
individual conceptualizes and defines the issue (Patton, 2005).
There was a sense amongst several of the professors that the research
paradigm is so entrenched in the values and rewards inherent in research institutions
and intrinsic to the psyche of researchers that it is unlikely to change. Professor #6
observed:
You know, I think for faculty that are on this research profile and they’re in
the middle of this productive research period of their career, I don’t think that
there’s much that the university could realistically reward them with for
activities having to do with teaching, undergraduate teaching or advising or
recruitment that would make much difference to them, you know. Nothing
much that would compare with the national and international prestige they
get and the huge budgets that they have total control over and the people that
they’re supervising and…it’s a big operation, you know.

According to Clark (1989), “The reward system of promoting academics on
the grounds of research and published scholarship has [indeed] become more deeply
rooted in the universities, with every passing decade” (p. 5). A challenge inherent in
this reward system is sustaining it economically and supporting the institutional
mission to educate students.
Another way the faculty findings are closely linked to the literature are
illustrated in table 6. Clark (1989) asserted that the term professor cannot be easily
understood to mean the same thing depending on the discipline:

128
Table 6
Differentiation of the Professoriate

Discipline Discipline
Medical Academic Humanities Academic
Primary activities Can be found in a hospital
ward as practitioner
Teaching load 4-6 hours per
week. Doctorate granting
universities (as opposed to
research universities) have
teaching loads of 9-12 hours.
Interactions Interacts extensively with
other doctors
Interacts with large numbers
of beginning students in
lecture halls and smaller
numbers of junior and senior
students in lecture halls,
small seminars, dissertations
and consultations.
Some work can be done at
home.
Compensation and Rewards Under considerable pressure
to generate income from
patient-care revenues,
research grants.
Salary may no be guaranteed
for even tenured faculty.
Those who do not get
research grants may have
more clinical duties.

Table 7
Differentiation of the professoriate in leading research universities

Leading Research
Universities
Discipline
Primary Reference group
Institutional rewards
Peers. “A professor of
physics will say: ‘What I
value most is the presence of
the large number and diverse
collection of scientists who
are constantly doing things
that I find
stimulating.’”Institution is
prized for its reputation of
scholarship and research, and
peers are the primary
reference group.

A professor of English will
say: “His institution is a
‘first rate university…we
have a fine library, and we
have excellent teachers here,
and we have first-rate
scholars.’” Academics in this
favored site have much with
which to identify.

129
Clark (1989) said that shared values like “serving knowledge, searching for
answers, and striving for new understanding and academic norms around academic
life” (p. 7) are not as common in the professorate as in the past. Rather than look for
common values, the ideal is to find “unity in diversity” (p. 7). Clark said both types
of professors can do both “serving simultaneously their own discipline, and the
education of the young, the advancement of scholarship, and other ideals that give
meaning to the academic world” (p. 7). What remains unclear here is whether the
similarities of the faculty, particularly in terms of the researcher-as identity
paradigm, are related to the science and engineering disciplines, the academic culture
at UARE or neither.
What does appear clear, as demonstrated thus far, is that the implications of
the researcher paradigm are far-reaching. I believe that the paradigm is inextricably
intertwined with the rest of the themes: (a) low salience of undergraduate students in
researcher paradigm, (b) low salience of African American access as an issue, (c)
perceived external locus of control over recruitment, (d) lack of critical awareness,
(e) ambiguity and incongruity of student perception, and (f) racial diversity as a
means to an end.
Low salience of undergraduate students
Compared to the self-satisfaction for scientific contributions, the prestige of
world-wide or discipline-wide recognition, the financial rewards and awards to
conduct more research, and compared to the pressures from the university to obtain
grants and the “publish or perish” phenomena, all other issues for researchers pale. It
130
was clear that at UARE, there is virtually no research-faculty dialogue on academic,
student-oriented issues. At the BEP, what salience there is on the issue is generated
from the NSF funding, and even then, the discourse on the topic of under
representation is diluted by a degree of resentment for interfering with the primary
research goals of the BEP with perceived “unreasonable” expectations.
Low salience could influence the level of motivation to engage in discourse
or actions to address the problem. The literature suggests motivation has to be
sparked through a formal reward system (Seymour, 2001). Increasing diversity is so
important to the NSF that it includes diversity as a stipulation to receiving research
funding. At the BEP, the formal reward is tied to the NSF grant funding but it does
not appear to be perceived as a reward, but rather a hindrance.
Lack of critical awareness about URM perception
Low salience is characterized by the findings, which indicate that generally
speaking, URM perception and access are not topics of researcher discussion. With a
slight exception of Professor #2 who said, “They might feel like they are in the
minority,” not one BEP faculty member could articulate a sense of how African
Americans might perceive the environment in the BEP or UARE. Given the
researcher paradigm, the low salience of URM access and perception as topics of
discussion would not be surprising at the BEP except for one crucial fact: NSF
grants, a major source of their funding is tied to diversity. The times when those
discussions do take place, they are reported by Professor #1 to be constrained by a
perception that it is a distraction or that it is unreasonable.
131
In stark contrast, all the BEP faculty members interviewed appeared to be
knowledgeable about some aspect of female’s representation in STEM fields:
1. BEP representation ratio compared to national numbers (Professor #2)
2. Females’ interests in biomedical engineering as compared to males (Professor
#3 and Professor #4)
3. Theories about science-related skills and propensities of women compared to
men (Professors # 2, #3 and #4).
4. The cultural climate impact of under representation of females (Professor #1)
The implications of these findings are significant in that it is arguable that
these researchers have demonstrated the capacity to think critically about under
representation. Their assessments were very consistent with what the literature says
about female representation in the field. It is therefore reasonable to assume that
these professors had the time and inclination to gain or discuss information related to
females in such a way that it reached their individual and collective consciousness
creating enough salience to remember and clearly articulate. This is contrary to their
demonstrated ability to do the same around race.
Given the research paradigm, the low salience of undergraduate students and
African American access for research faculty, and given their perception of external
locus of control and lack of critical awareness, it is evident that the perspective that
these professors hold is limiting their range of possible solutions. The ability of
these faculty to serve as agents of change relative to changing the access that URMs
have to the BEP appears to rest heavily on the culture that supports the research
132
paradigm along with the faculty’s willingness and ability to shift their paradigms.
While they may not have direct control on immediately changing the culture, they do
have more control over their own beliefs and actions. Again, however, they will
require some shift in thinking, which poses some challenges according to the
literature as reported by the researchers highlighted next.
In terms of paradigm shifting related to academic enterprises,
Seymour (2001) found in a 5-year study that faculty in general were “unable to make
the paradigm-shift from teaching to learning” (p. 97) necessary to embrace new
teaching pedagogies. To access the ability to shift paradigms, that is understanding
the potential limitations of the researcher paradigm, faculty may need to become the
researchers themselves (Bensimon, 2007; Seymour, 2001). More specifically,
researchers focused on how the institutional and individual values and actions
impact underrepresentation. Once that knowledge is acquired, faculty will be more
likely to act on it (Bensimon, 2007). I concur with Dey and Hurtado (2005) when
they say:
Generating a commitment to institutional transformation among
administrators and faculty who refuse to examine their own attitudes and
practices that affect students remains one of the greatest challenges, made
harder by political attacks on and misunderstandings of policies designed to
ameliorate past injustices. In short, ideologies at the individual, institutional,
and social levels continue to present barriers to recognizing and meeting the
needs of today’s college students. (p. 322)

Essentially, as Altbach, Berhdahl, and Gumport (2005) suggested, the
conflict between the traditional autonomy of the scholar and demands for
accountability to a variety of internal and external constituencies is indeed one of the
133
central issues of contemporary American higher education. This appeared to be an
issue that must be addressed in the exploration of how faculty may impact the
recruitment of URMs. Based on these findings, the extent to which faculty perceive
it as an issue, perceive a sense of locus of control over the issue, and the extent to
which they invest time and effort to the problem, is related in some key way to the
institution and profession’s reinforcement of the research paradigm. These findings
will now be explored in greater depth in the context of critical race theory.
Analysis of Findings in the Context of Critical Race Theory
What follows is an attempt to respectfully bridge, the very real and valid
ideas of the faculty, who were gracious enough and courageous enough to venture
outside of their day-to-day comfort zone, to my own alternate way of analyzing the
questions at hand, in the context of CRT. I want to be clear. I understand that the
one-hour interviews with faculty members represent a snapshot in time and therefore
cannot be assumed to epitomize the full persona of the participants.
I want to also be clear that examples of statements made by individual faculty
members will be used to illuminate particular points that are indicative of the general
findings, however, this is not an analysis of any individual person but rather an
analysis of a perspective. Those perspectives will be compared with critical race
theory pedagogy.
One of the ways to illuminate those perspectives is, to the extent possible, to
place them in the context of, equity-minded or deficit-minded discourse. According
to Peña, Bensimon and Colyar (2006), equity-minded discourse is critically
134
conscious of the existence and outcomes of institutionalized discriminatory practices
against people of color and attribute inequality to organizational barriers, including
those that faculty are responsible for contributing to. In contrast, deficit-minded
individuals attribute inequality to the student’s own deficiencies (Peña, Bensimon
and Colyar, 2006). I would like to digress from the findings a minute to illuminate
the concept with similar and parallel concepts of discourse of potential and deficit
discourse, through a narrative written by an African American woman
10
about her
experience applying to a prestigious college:
In 1968, I was a high school senior planning to attend college. By virtue of
SAT scores I was both a State Scholar (one of the top students in the state)
and a National Achievement Semifinalist (a student of African American
descent). I received recruitment letters from colleges from around the
country. One of the most prestigious universities in my state sent me two
letters. The first was addressed to the State Scholar, and assured me that I
was among the best and the brightest; they were delighted to consider
offering me admission, and it would be their honor to train me for the
leadership that I would (invariably) provide for my community and my
country. This letter falls squarely into what I will call the discourse of
potential. The second letter was addressed to the National Achievement
scholar; it focused on what a wonderful university it was, how fortunate I
would be to have the chance to attend and how many remedial and
supportive programs were in place to help me when I (inevitably) ran into
difficulty at this world-class university. This letter was a perfect example of
the discourse of deficit (as cited in Fine, Weiss, Powell & Wong, 1997, p. 4).

Same student yet two different institutional paradigms. One could argue that
this incident took place over 40 years ago and has no relevance to today. One could
also argue that the spirit and intention of the National Achievement Scholar letter

10
At the time of authorship of the article, Linda C. Powell was an educator, psychotherapist,
organizational consultant and Lecturer on Education at the Graduate School of Education at Harvard
University.

135
was honorable. Whether this particular incident would occur today or not, the point
is to draw the distinction between intent and impact and to make visible the way in
which, according to Powell, “White students are supported, empowered, and
affirmed, via the discourse of potential (as though they had no deficits) and it just
feels like ‘they earned it’” (p. 57).
In contrast, according to Powell, “Black students, their families, and their
communities are burdened with the ‘rumor of inferiority’ (Howard, 1986) in a subtle
and stifling way” (as cited in Fine, Weiss, Powell & Wong, 1997, p. 4). Similarly,
Fine (1997) articulated it this way, “…I find myself trying to understand how
whiteness accrues privilege and status; gets itself surrounded by protective pillows of
resources and/or benefits of the doubt; how whiteness repels gossip and voyeurism
and instead demands dignity” (p. 57).
As described in the literature, the CRT discourse surrounding challenges in
recruitment is an important discourse. One we did not hear in any substantial way in
the faculty discussions. It was not so much an overt deficit discourse from faculty at
the BEP as it was subtle, as compared to the few examples of URMs described
below by faculty in the science-related unit. The science related unit faculty spoke
from discourses of potential and deficit that were more intensely woven throughout
their interviews, as when Professor #8 said URMs lack of confidence comes from
not having teachers and parents who see them as successful. And when Professor #7
characterized individual URM students in past classes as either lacking confidence,
being angry, being tired, having more personal issues than others and being difficult.
136
Relative to the BEP faculty perspective of African Americans and URMs, the
most prevalent theme in the findings could be characterized as either “invisibility” or
remote disinterest, at best. The lack of awareness of African-American students’
perception of the environment, the low salience of, and lack of discussion about
issues of access, the perception of external locus of control over recruitment of
undergraduate URM students, the lack of knowledge about recruiting, and the lack of
energy around recommendations, appear to converge in this environment in a way
that renders African American students invisible or inconsequential. Not one person
could speak to what it means to be an African American from the student’s
perspective to what it means to be an African American in the BEP or at UARE from
the student’s perspective, and there was no indication that BEP faculty were
interested in knowing. The existence of the diversity-center appeared to absolve
them of that responsibility as characterized in their statements.
Professor #1, for example, answered the question about what it is like for
African American students in the program but spoke from an egocentric point of
view rather than that of the student’s point of view. Placing the onus of the under-
representation of African Americans in the BEP on the students themselves,
Professor #1 said cultural barriers are self-imposed:
I think there is no question that there is a sense of cultural barriers I think
that’s more self-imposed than real, I don’t think that faculty are prejudiced, I
would hope our undergraduate students are not prejudiced. We have an
extremely heterogeneous population --my graduate students that I have
experienced here it looks like the UN if you have a map out there with pins in
it they come from every culture in the world.

137
The question of international as opposed to domestic diversity is a huge one and has
significant implications for URMs. National security for some STEM industries rely
on domestic workers (NACME, 2008), yet the American Competitiveness Initiative
primarily designed to foster representation for URMs also makes provisions for
expanding international workforce. Depending on foreign nationals to fill the
workforce gap is not a “long-term and tenable practice,” according to NACME
(2008).
In terms of whether or not faculty or students of the BEP are prejudiced or
racist is not being called into question here. However, “racism is an institutionalized
system of power” (Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997 p. 9) that also operates outside
individuals in an institution. Derman-Sparks and Phillips suggest:
Racism encompasses a web of economic, political, social, and cultural
structures, actions, and beliefs that systemize and ensure an unequal
distribution of privilege, resources, and power in favor of the dominant racial
group and at the expense of all other racial groups. (p. 9)

The discourse of critical race theory suggests that intentionality is relatively
unimportant but rather it is the impact or “outcome of individual, cultural, and
institutional policies and actions that determine the presence of racism” (p. 9). By
ignoring the possibility that the cultural barriers could stem from the faculty or the
institution, as several BEP faculty did, Professor #1 diminished the institution’s role
in change as further evidenced by this statement:
So they’re are all here in the melting pot so I think our biggest problem is in
fact finding qualified students and I put emphasis on qualified because I think
it is unfair to student to put them in situations where they are going to fail and
think you are doing them a favor.

138
This statement ignores the fact that there are no undergraduate African American
students in the BEP and the sentiment suggests that the institution is not responsible
for creating academic programs that help ensure student success. The statement
further infers that finding “qualified students” rather than “URM” students is
somehow mutually exclusive. Professor #3 appears to have little individual or
institutional investment in the success of students other than “giving them a chance,”
saying:
I think that BME is doing a good job at trying to meet the quotas but if we
don’t know where to find the students or there is not enough departments
then we can’t do much; for example, if there are groups to help women
students or students of color, they can ask the students to go to the labs for
the program and encourage them. If I hire this - I am not really risking a lot
of things if he fails for example. What is important is to give the students a
chance. Usually, that fair chance is provided to everyone bit if you want to
push a certain group that have been at a disadvantage then you need extra
components to help out. I think that would help a lot.

It is not hard to imagine how any particular group of people might respond to an
environment where they are either invisible or seen from a deficit perspective. In fact
the literature notes that some African Americans and other minority students at
predominantly white institutions often express feelings of isolation as a result of a
real or perceived “chilly climate” (MacGuire et al, 1995). Hurtado et al. (1998)
postulated that one of the most essential factors in countering the above dynamic is
for organizational attitudinal changes to occur which enable those historically
disenfranchised populations to feel embraced and welcomed at the institution.
Further, Professor #1’s sentiment that isolation is self-imposed is in contrast
to the sentiment expressed by Professor #8 in the science-related unit who
139
commented on the importance of URMs seeing diverse students on campus
interacting as having a positive impact on the desirability of an institution. In
response to the comment, “So there’s something important about being able to see
people who look like themselves here and interacting with other people and feel
comfortable in the environment?” Professor #8 remarked, “Absolutely, yeah, and not
being isolated.”
The literature and the NSF both suggest that the culture of engineering is out
of sync specifically with the culture and values of minorities (Derlin & McShannon,
2000; Kemnitzer, 2005; NSF, 2005). Cultural awareness of African American
students and sensitivity to African American students’ perception of the climate of
the institution appeared to be very low amongst BEP faculty, as mentioned earlier in
this chapter. Without an awareness of URM student perceptions of climate, and
without understanding the extent to which a prospective student’s perception of the
climate based on race-related issues is important, faculty at the BEP are unlikely to
gain a sense of internal locus of control over some of the real or perceived cultural
barriers in the environment. Fundamental to creating the cultural shifts to embrace
racial diversity is a sensitivity toward accurately referring to student’s race,
particularly if that is a demographic trait that is salient to them.
Professor #1 spoke in general about the resentment created among BEP
faculty over having to “chop apart” students’ identities. While it may indeed be
“offensive to some,” as the professor said, “to insist that people belong in one
category even when they do not,” it appears that the professor committed the same
140
offense by insisting that Africans are African American—they are not. Africans are
foreign nationals, born in Africa whereas African Americans are Americans born in
the United States and have a lineage of African descent. I draw that out because I
fear that someone who is not aware of that difference (and many other cultural
issues) may not be aware of how that lack of awareness may impact a student’s or
prospective student’s perception of the climate. It is quite possible that the collective
lack of cultural sensitivity demonstrated by the BEP professors, in general, along
with their level of motivation, has had an impact.
Two BEP faculty members alluded to NSF guidelines as their motivation for
increasing diversity. Another BEP faculty said it was important “to give students a
fair chance.” No one specifically mentioned the BEP Diversity Plan by name nor did
anyone suggest any faculty motivation for increasing URMs as being precipitated by
the unit’s mission or diversity plan. Perhaps more revealing is the absence of
dialogue related to the benefits of diversity to the university, to the BEP, to the
general student population or to the discipline of science. The most frequently cited
cause for under representation had to do with the proverbial “leak in the pipeline.”
The point is well taken that there is a very limited pool from which to draw but the
question is, of those in the pool, however small, why are they going to other
institutions or programs and not to this one? For example, last year in 2006, none of
the African Americans who were reportedly offered admission to the UARE School
of Engineering as undergraduates accepted.
141
The Engineering Workforce study (Kemintzner, 2005), identified issues
minorities in their study said negatively impacted their academic, social, and career
successes. These included the following:
1. Dealing with prejudice;
2. Being treated differently by faculty;
3. Experiencing isolation and intimidation;
4. Inadequate preparation from high school;
5. Few social activities for them; and
6. Having few role models (p.13).
African Americans and other minority students at predominantly white institutions
often express feelings of isolation as a result of a real or perceived “chilly climate” in
which one of the biggest challenges are heightened feelings of isolation and sense of
not belonging (Hurtado et al.,1998). One of the other studies in this collaborative
research project is looking at the perception of the campus climate from the
perspective of former African American students and it will be interesting to
compare the results of that study to this one and to the literature.
The efforts of the BEP to create a pipeline for future recruitment efforts
through the partnership with the local schools are commendable. Based on the
demographics of the school the BEP is currently partnered with, it is quite possible
that the current program can have an impact on the recruitment of Latino/a students,
which is a very positive step in the right direction, particularly considering the
projections forecasting the boom in that population over the next few decades.
142
However it is not probable that those efforts will garner an increase in African
American since there are very few African Americans enrolled in that school or
program.
On the other hand, international students are overrepresented in the
undergraduate student population in the UARE BEP. In fact, UARE boasts of a
consistently high number of international students compared to other research
institutions, as a result of a strategic plan to attract such students and to expand its
international influence. The UARE biomedical program’s espoused theory as it
relates to domestic minorities does not appear to have yet manifested itself in
practice. There are no domestic minorities, including African Americans, who are
equally represented in the unit relative to their representation in the general
population of the state or university. The implications of this fact are significant in
light of the American Competitiveness Initiative, and the reason for the NSF funding
in the first place – to increase domestic minority participation in the sciences.
Perceived Challenges and Recommendations by BEP Faculty
This section will address the faculty responses to the research questions,
“What are faculty’s perceptions about why the numbers are so low nationally for
URMs, specifically African Americans in undergraduate engineering programs?”
and “How do faculty explain the URM numbers in the UARE BEP? Faculty’s most
common explanations for the current shortage include their beliefs about competing
with other programs to attract the best students, and an increasing sense that students
143
are coming less prepared and less motivated. All of those factors are ones that faculty
see as outside of their control or responsibility.
At the same time the bulk of the BEP faculty recommendations are also externally
focused on the labs, grant money and financial incentives.
To their credit, some of the faculty at BEP believe one solution is greater
assistance in recruiting efforts. The assistance they requested is either to help them
“or someone else” learn how to recruit better because they don’t know how or, to
provide additional financial incentives for the prospective students or for the labs.
Several other suggestions for improving diversity were offered by those who
were interviewed and included impacting tuition for undergraduates, creating a
central resource for providing career guidance in a non-threatening way, encouraging
the engineering tradition of having engineers construct models, perhaps through
clubs, projects, and competitions, and increase faculty participation in the
recruitment and retention of URM students.
CRT compared to Constructionism
Based on the BEP faculty’s explanations for underrepresentation and the
solutions they proffered it appeared the scope and practicality of the BEP faculty
recommendations were limited by their narrow perception of the challenges. For
example, the BEP faculty request for assistance in recruiting and funding did not
include guidance on how to make the BEP a more culturally student-centered
environment, which makes sense if one does not perceive the need to do so. The
literature demonstrates that for many URMs the perceived desirability or
144
competitiveness of an institution, in some part, relies on their perception of the
culture. One of the science-related faculty members, Professor #5, alluded to the
importance of even a website that is directed at the specific audience targeted by the
program or initiative.
That the other group of challenges referred to by BEP faculty were student-
related indicates the collective reluctance to assign responsibility for improving the
low numbers of URMs to the institution or to the BEP. There are qualified URMs in
the pool and they are attending competing undergraduate BEP programs, so why are
they not choosing UARE is the question faculty need to be asking themselves in
more depth.

145
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
The literature reveals there is an impending “quiet crisis” in America’s ability
to maintain global prominence in the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) fields (Friedman, 2006; May and Chubin, 2003). The crisis is
precipitated by several factors, chief among them is a shrinking labor pool. There is
consensus in the literature that increasing the numbers of domestic, historically
underrepresented groups (including racial minorities, females, and persons with
disabilities) in the STEM field workforce is necessary to avert the crisis (Friedman,
2006; Kemnitzer, 2005; May and Chubin, 2003; Rogers, 2006).
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has invested billions of dollars to
diversify the STEM workforce. One of the ways the NSF has attempted to ensure
diversity is by attaching it as a criterion to the research grants awarded to academic
research institutions. The Biomedical Engineering Program (BEP) at the University
of Academic and Research Excellence (UARE) is one such NSF grant recipient.
The BEP marketing literature asserts that it is uniquely positioned to create a
diverse workforce. The BEPs most recent demographic data reveal that as it relates
to domestic underrepresented STEM field-minorities (African American, Hispanic
and Native American) parity has not yet been achieved. Relative to the BEP the
research questions posed in this study were:
146
1. What are faculty’s perceptions about why the numbers are so low nationally
for URM’s, specifically African Americans in undergraduate engineering
programs?
2. How do faculty explain the URM numbers, particularly African-Americans,
in the UARE BEP?
3. To whom do faculty assign the responsibility (leadership and
implementation) for recruitment?
4. What are their recommendations for increasing the numbers?
Through the literature review in chapter two, I traced the historical
explanations of the under-representation of students of color in the STEM fields, in
the context of Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts there are historic,
institutionalized explanations for under-representation. I provided examples of
programs at various institutions designed to address under representation. In chapter
four, I reported the findings based on the themes that emerged and according to
faculty responses to the research questions above. The themes were:
1. Participants’ identification with the role of researcher, to the exclusion of
other roles;
2. Low salience of undergraduates students in researcher paradigm;
3. Low salience of African American access as an issue;
4. External locus of control
5. Lack of critical awareness
6. Ambiguity and Incongruity in student perception; and,
147
7. Racial diversity as a means to an end.
True to Constructivism, an analysis of those findings was reported in the
context of the overarching theme emerging from the interviews, the “researcher as an
identity- paradigm.” The faculty findings were then compared with the literature.
Traditional educational research would have simply ended the analysis there.
According to CRT, however, to have done so would have marginalized or ignored
the concerns of people of color, addressed those concerns from a deficit perspective,
or suggested racial concerns could be analyzed through other demographics like
socio-economic class and gender (Parker and Lynn, 2002).
Therefore, at the end 4, the faculty responses were analyzed in the context of
CRT, by addressing the social political consequences of faculty perception,
behaviors, and recommendations for URM students. In a study about under-
representation based on race, the topic of race is simply unavoidable, as Bensimon
(2007) discussed below. As I reported in chapter four, the faculty dialogue around
the issue of race appeared to be uncomfortable for some, ambiguous and incongruous
for others, and admittedly stereotypical in some ways for another.
Faculty were chosen as participants in this study because there exists a gap in
the literature relative to faculty perspective on student-related issues of equitable
access. According to Bensimon (2007), little is known about the epistemology that
informs faculty practices because it is not assessed by researchers. While this
research did not formally assess faculty knowledge it does get us one step closer to
gaining understanding, from their own point of view, about how a particular set of
148
faculty think about inequitable access. Bensimon theorized about how faculty
knowledge impacts change:
I do not think it is possible to achieve the ideals of access and equity
without examining the funds of knowledge that practitioners have
internalized about teaching minority students, nor do I think generalized
knowledge can improve access and equity at the institutional level (p.451).
I entertain the idea that institutions have difficulties in producing
equitable educational outcomes partly because practitioners lack the
specialized knowledge and expertise to recognize the racialized nature of the
collegiate experience for African American and Latina/o students and adjust
their practices accordingly. Most of all, lack of specialized knowledge about
the conditions that structure the collegiate experience of minority students
makes it difficult for practitioners to consider that their everyday actions and
responses could be implicated in producing inequalities (p. 447).

Bensimon (2007) postulated that the extent to which a person has been exposed to
and has embraced the discourse of equity will likely determine their propensity to
become an agent of change around academic access.
What I grappled with in this research analysis is how to find the best balance
between illuminating particular perspectives while understanding that the unit under
study is the actual BEP. Throughout the entire research process, from situating it in a
theoretical framework, creating the research questions, conducting the interviews, to
formulating the analysis, I also grappled with how to authentically hear, and suspend
my own judgment about, the worldviews of the participants, while remaining true to
my own sense of reality. Yet still, my sense of reality is buttressed by the notion so
eloquently articulated by Jonathan Silin (1998) who says, “We must all learn to ask:
whose interests are served and whose silenced by this story? Who gains power and
who loses power in this particular version of the truth?” (p. 129).
149
Allowing the voices of the faculty to first be heard in chapter four, without
superimposing CRT onto them was my solution for honoring the tensions inherent in
opposing realities. As much as I came to understand and respect their paradigm, at
the end of the day, it does not appear to me that ultimately, the solution to
underrepresentation of African Americans and other URMs can be effective without
considering them in the context of CRT.
Recommendations
This is not a gap analysis but I will organize my recommendations based on
the constructs utilized in a gap analysis (Clark and Estes, 2002), which is used to
determine why there is a difference between a desired goal and the actual
performance. Those attributes according to Clark and Estes are: (a) lack of
motivation, (b) lack of knowledge, or (c) lack of adequate organizational structures.
All three have to be in place to attain a performance goal. The findings of this study
lead me to conclude that all three measures are related to the underrepresented
minorities at BEP.
Motivation
I would encourage all BEP stakeholders to engage in much more positive
dialogue around the diversity mission, and leverage it more strategically throughout
the programs already in place for better outcomes. That means to also explore the
value of diversity to the BEP and to the discipline of science, rather than approaching
diversity as a means to an end. Perhaps a more “utilitarian approach” to borrow the
phrase and a clue from Professor #1, to create salience in the research paradigm may
150
be to better position the value of diversity to research. Diversity of thought,
perspective and experience has global implications for solving scientific problems.
The BEP researchers, as discussed but not reported as findings in this study, are
increasingly finding that value in interdisciplinary work.
The utilitarian approach ties directly to the other major theme of URM
recruitment as a means to an end. Although one of the BEP faculty espoused the idea
of giving students a chance and another spoke of the existence of bright students all
over the city, the findings support the idea that the “actions” of faculty related to
recruitment are precipitated by either the NSF imperative and a strictly utilitarian
perspective
Further, the utilitarian approach in a research paradigm may have more
salience than a moral imperative, which may or may not explain Professor#1’s
specific reference against responding from such an imperative. To the extent that
researchers are guided by a moral imperative, one might imagine the imperative to
be centered on creating scientific knowledge and discoveries that improve the human
condition by relieving human suffering. There is no evidence presented that these
faculty will spend time and energy away from research based solely on a moral
imperative argument.
One means of impacting the pipeline of African Americans and other URMs
that faculty have within their immediate and direct control is to serve as mentors or
in any other capacity that enables them to enhance the social capital of students of
color in the community. The literature has provided the many ways in which the role
151
of faculty has a significant influence on student outcomes and may play an important
role in the ability of prospective students to become inspired and equipped enough to
succeed in STEM fields. Stanton-Salazar (1997) suggested there are several forms
of institutional support that involve (1) introducing students to mainstream
organizational discourse that enable them to “decode the system” (p.13), (2) serving
as a bridge to organizational gatekeepers, (3) advocating for students, (4) serving as a
mentor by role modeling expected behavior, (5) providing emotional and moral
support and (6) providing honest feedback and guidance.
In terms of institutional efforts, the BEP administrators should consult
business and educational resources to enhance the diversity plan in such a way that
ensures that it is more specific, measurable, action oriented, realistic, and time-
sensitive.
Organizational support
One of the most significant contributing factors to increased enrollment of
underrepresented minorities (and women) in the past has been affirmative action.
Affirmative action is no longer an option for UARE as legislation prohibiting it as
been passed in the state in which UARE is located. Although UARE is a private
institution, it receives federal funding and must therefore comply with federal
legislation relative to affirmative action to continue receiving such funding.
Some pathway programs, as described in the literature have had a margin of
success in increasing the enrollment and retention of students of color. Further,
evidence was presented in chapter two that demonstrated no discernable difference in
152
students who persisted and those who did not in engineering. It is therefore
reasonable to speculate that a conducive campus environment plays a key role in
improving representation.
Ramaley (2005) theorized that four conditions must exist to effectively
impact and sustain organizational change:
1. A compelling case for systemic or transformational change must be made;
2. There must be clarity of purpose;
3. There must be significant scale (project must be large enough to have an
impact; and
4. There must be a conducive campus environment.
5. There must be an understanding of the change process (p.179).
Clearly, a significant hindrance to research faculty’s involvement in impacting
underrepresentation at the BEP stems in part from not having a compelling case for
change, no clarity of purpose and a research paradigm that is deeply entrenched in
the reward system of the university, academia and the science and engineering
disciplines. Any recommendations that do not consider those factors are unlikely to
have an impact on change. As discussed in the findings and analysis in chapter four,
this particular phenomenon is not a race issue, but rather a much larger and systemic
challenge that impacts STEM field faculty, students and prospective students
disproportionately due to the research orientation of those fields.
Unless and until, institutions find a way to address the “publish or perish”
paradigm that inherently discourages faculty from participating in broader academic
153
conversations, the potential for widespread, systemic change is low. Again, not just
on the question of under representation in enrollment but all academic student-
related issues. As more and more pressure is placed on higher education institutions
for greater accountability in student outcomes, the necessity to engage faculty in the
discourse will become increasingly more important.
For the NSF, it may be worthwhile to either consider restructuring their
diversity-related research grant dissemination process by either adopting a model
that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation uses in their grants to K-12 schools. A
condition of receiving grants from the foundation is to work with a coach or
facilitator assigned to each site whose job it is to provide tools and support not
inherent in the environment. The BEP may want to propose this to the NSF, or adopt
a similar program where the resource could be shared with their BEP research
partners.
At the BEP, a partnership with the School of Education and/or the School of
Business might be useful. Or, the resource could be non-research active faculty who
are specially trained and partner across disciplines. The extent to which possible, the
prevailing research culture needs to be examined for any opportunities that may exist
to bring faculty closer to active participation in this process. The science-related
faculty had other suggestions for how to do that. At a minimum, the BEP faculty and
stakeholders could better partner with the centralized recruiting department to better
strategize how BEP can take a more proactive role in ensuring an increase in URMs
in their program
154
Knowledge
A learning organization learns from past history, the best practices of others,
engages in systematic problem-solving and experimentation with new approaches,
and ultimately has the ability to transfer knowledge quickly and efficiently
throughout the organization (Kezar, 2005). The question is, “Do faculty currently
know what they need to know, in order to accomplish the goal at hand?” This study
is not measuring knowledge and motivation but gleaning from their responses a
glimpse into those dynamics.
First and foremost, it is evident that without the context of CRT, faculty have
very limited knowledge about equal access with dramatically impacts the range and
quality of their recommendations. It is essential that faculty and BEP stakeholders
become more critically conscious. Challenging student perception around deficit
thinking and equity thinking is critical fundamental knowledge for faculty. One way
the literature has provided for doing this is through the practitioner-as-researcher
methodology. Given the strength of the researcher paradigm emerging in these
findings, it is unclear how successful that might be but more proactive engagement
in that process could prove to be very valuable.
By the overwhelming response of faculty in their own words, they do not
have the knowledge to effectively engage in the recruitment process nor do many
necessarily believe they personally should have the knowledge based on competing
priorities in their jobs as research or non-research active faculty. It seems clear that
fundamental knowledge about culturally relevant teaching practices would inevitably
155
have a powerful impact on not only student success but on the ability of faculty to
impact the perception that potential students have of the BEP.
Absent of that knowledge, it is recommended that all stakeholders of the BEP
continue to increase their knowledge of the state of affairs regarding enrollment
trends, student perception, and of best practices for recruitment and retention of
students of color.
It is highly recommended that faculty make themselves aware of the many
programs around the country that have contributed to the increase in URMs at
individual institutions, and become at least as conversant about issues impacting
URMs as they are about issues impacting females in STEM fields.
Implications for Practice
While it is certainly necessary to explore and understand the perspective of
faculty based on their own world-view, ultimately, those things alone are not
sufficient for creating the depth and scope of solutions to solve the challenges. The
collective research-paradigm perspective of faculty is limiting their view of available
solutions to the quiet crisis related to the underrepresentation of people of color in
STEM fields. Whether or not faculty, and more specifically, research-active faculty,
should know more about the issues, and should know more about how to recruit, is in
some ways a moot point. The fact is, many of them acknowledge that they do not
know and so the first step is to either create an institutional culture that rewards (or at
least does not penalize) their active participation in the process or create alternative
means of being successful. These faculty unquestionably engage in work that is
156
fundamentally important to the lives of human beings the world over and we should
not diminish that fact. The question is, do they also have a responsibility for
increasing enrollment of URMs?
I believe that aside from the basic numbers-that is to say, we need “X”
amount of people in the workforce and we have “X” amount of underrepresented
people that we can use to fill that gap, if researchers understood the fundamental
value of diversity to the research process, to the ways of thinking about and solving
problems, they would be compelled to ensure diversity. What is needed is
consciousness-raising. I cannot also help but believe that if researchers understood
the history of contribution that domestic people of color-Americans have made to the
advancement of scientific discovery, if they saw more people of color in their own
textbooks and in their conferences and research papers, they would understand the
inherent value of including this vastly untapped resource in the mix.
Recommendations for Future Research

1. Does discipline trump academic culture? Further research is needed to better
understand whether these faculty views are unique to UARE, the academic
discipline or the particular cluster of units at UARE. I recommend expanding
to include Humanities or faculty from sciences in other universities.
2. More work is needed to better understand the dynamic between how the
responses of the faculty would differ if the researcher were of the same race
157
as the interviewees. The subject is not one that is easy to discuss for many
people in our society.
3. I think it is important to compare URM student perspectives side by side with
faculty perspectives to determine what factors students at UARE, those who
are recruited by, and those who declined acceptance considered when making
their decisions.
4. Explore options for expanding the pool prospective URMs by exploring
community college transfer students as a viable source of students.
Concluding Reflections
Prior to conducting this research, I answered the question of
underrepresentation in a few words: “where there is a will there is a way.” What I
have discovered by listening very carefully to those whom I interviewed is that this
is a much more complex issue. Lack of successful outcome does not necessarily
mean lack of will (although this is a necessary component), and lack of will does not
necessarily equate to intent to discriminate. What I have come to know however, is
that the problem of access is far more widespread than I originally knew and that the
consequences of under representation of people of color has implications far beyond
the individuals and the particular academic institutions involved but our national
economic stability and global competitiveness is at risk. There are many
stakeholders; including the US government with a vested interest in solving this
crisis that have collectively invested time and resources toward that end. It is my
hope that this research helps move that effort forward by exploring the challenges
158
and solutions from another perspective – those of faculty who are, in my opinion key
players in this arena.

159
REFERENCES

Acker, J. C., Hughes, W., & Fendley, Jr., W. R. (2002). Implementing a recursive
retention assessment system for engineering programs. Paper presented at the
Annual Forum for the Association for Institutional Research (42nd Annual).

Akbar, N. (1998). Know Thyself. Tallahassee: Mind Productions & Associates.

Alberto, F. C., Amaury, N., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagerdorn, L. S.
(1999). Campus racial climate and the adjustment to students to college: A
comparison between white students and African American students. The
Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 134-161.

American Competitiveness Initiative (2006) Domestic Policy Council Office of
Science and Technology Policy
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/index.html#section6

Astone, B. & Nunez-Wormack, E. (1990). Pursuing diversity: recruiting college
minority students. ASHE-ERIC Report No. 7. Association for the Study of
Higher Education; ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington,
D.C.; George Washington University, Washington, DC. School of Education
and Human Development.

Aung, W., Conrad, L., Donnelly, A., Kannatey-Asibu, E., Martin, T., & Tranter, E.
(2006). Undergraduate and graduate education activities of current
engineering research centers. Washington, D.C.: National Science
Foundation.

Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning partnerships model: A framework of
promoting self-authorship. In M. E. Wilson, & L. E. Wolf-Wendel (Ed.),
ASHE Reader on College Student Development Theory. (pp. 609-624).
Boston: Pearson Custom Printing.

Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The Underestimated Significance of Knowledge in the
Scholarship on Student Success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4),
441-469.

Bensimon, E. M., Bauman, G. L., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that makes a
difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104-126.

Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: Affirming opportunities for
science, mathematics, and engineering majors. The Journal of Negro
Education, 69(Winter 2000), 92-111.

160
Brawner, C. E., & Serow, R. C. (1998). Growing pains: An evaluation of the
SUCCEED coalition. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Engineering Education.

Clark, R. E., & Estes, C. F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide for
selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta: CEP Press.

Clark, J. V. (1999). Minorities in science and math. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science
Mathematics and Environmental Education, 8.

Cross, T. (2000). Hopwood in doubt: The folly of setting a grand theory of race
neutrality in all programs of higher education. Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education, 29, 60-84.

Daempfle, P. A. (2003/2004). An analysis of the higher attrition rates among first
year college science, math, and engineering majors. Journal of College
Student Retention, 5(1), 37-52.

Davig, W. B., & Spain, J. W. (2003/2004). Impact on freshmen retention of
orientation course content: Proposed persistence model. Journal of College
Student Retention, 5(3), 305-324.

Derlin, R. L., & McShannon, J. L. (2000). Faculty and student interaction and
learning styles of engineering undergraduates. American Journal of
Engineering Education (submission), 7.

Dervarics, C. (2006). Report reveals best and worst schools for graduating
minorities. Black Issues in Higher Education, 23(17), 1.

D'Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. The
Free Press. A Division of Macmillan, Inc, New York, NY

Engineering Workforce Commission. (2005). Engineering & Technology
Enrollments. (Washington, DC, Fall 2005).

Engineering Workforce Commission, Engineering and Technology Degrees, 2005
(Washington, DC, 2005).

Fine, M. (1997). Witnessing Whiteness. In M. Fine; L. Weiss; L.E. Powell, & L.
Mun Wong (Eds.), Off White: Readings on race, power and society (pp. 57-
65). New York: Routledge.

Flowers, L. A. (2004). Retaining African American students in higher education: an
integrative review. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 23-35.
161

Frehill, L., Javurek-Humig, A., & Cecily, J.C. (2006). Women in engineering: A
review of the 2005 literature. Society of Women Engineers, 52(3), 1-18.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat lecture at MIT [Video lecture].

Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century
(Second ed.). New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Goodman, K., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006). First-year seminars increase persistence
and retention: A summary of the evidence from how college affects students.
Peer Review, 8(3), 26-29.

Green, D. O. (2004). Affirmative action, conflict, and the University of Michigan: An
insider's perspective. Paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association.

Grolier Electronic Library. (1996). Retrieved January 17, 2007.

Gurin, P., Dey, E .L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher
education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(3), Fall 2002, 330-366

Hale, J. E. (1986). Black Children, their roots, culture, and learning styles.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hermond, D. (1995). Measuring the retention strategies of a minority engineering
program: A service quality perspective. Journal of Engineering Education, 5.

Hilliard, A. (1976). Alternatives to IQ testing: An approach to the identification of
gifted minority children. Final report to the California State Department of
Education.

Hilliard, A., Payton-Stewart, L., & Williams, L.O. (1990). Infusion of African and
African American content in the school curriculum: Proceeding of the first
national conference. Chicago: Third World Press.

Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of
higher education. Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185-197.

162
Hurtado, S., Cerna, O. S., Chang, J. C., Saenz, V. B., Mosqueda, C., Oseguera, L., et
al. Aspiring scientist: Characteristics of college freshmen interested in the
biomedical and behavior sciences (unpublished report).

Hurtado, S., Chang, J. C., Saenz, V. B., Espinosa, L. L., Cabrera, N. L., & Cerna, O.
S. (2006). Predicting transition and adjustment to college: minority
biomedical and behavioral science students' first year of college. Paper
presented at the AIR Forum.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998).
Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy
and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.

Hurtado, S., & Navia, C. (1977). Reconciling college access and the affirmative
action debate. . In M. Garcia (Ed.), Affirmative action's testament of hope:
Strategies for a new era in higher education. (105-130). Albany: State
University of New York Press.

Hyde, J., & as cited in Frehill. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American
Psychologist, 60(6), 581-592.

Jones, M. S. , Yonezawa, S., Ballesteros, E., and Mehan, H. (2002). Shaping
pathways to higher education. Educational Researcher, 31(2), 3-11.

Kemnitzer, S., Charles, E. B., Blevins, L. G., Carriere, P., Gabriele, G., Rao, V., et
al. (2005). The Engineering Workforce: Current State, Issues, and
recommendations. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

Kezar, A. (Ed.). (Fall 2005). Organizational learning in higher education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, P. M. (2005). Theories of college student development: Sequences and
consequences. In M. E. Wilson & L.E. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.). ASHE Reader
on college student development theory (pp. 43-53). Boston: Pearson Custom
Publishing.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York:
Harper Perennial.

Kunjufu, J. (1995). Countering the conspiracy to destroy black boys. Chicago:
African American Images.

Lam, P. C., Doverspike, D., & Mawasha, R. P. (1999). Predicting success in a
minority engineering program. Journal of Engineering Education, 3.
163

Leslie, L. L., McClure, G. T., & Oaxaca, R. L. (1998). Women and minorities in
science and engineering: A life sequence analysis. The Journal of Higher
Education, 69(3), 239-279.

MacGuire, S., & Halpin, G. (1995). Factors related to persistence in engineering:
Results of a qualitative study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Mid-South Educational Research Association.

Maki, P. L. (2004). Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment
across the institution. Sterling, VA.: American Association of Higher
Education.

Martin, M. V. (2006). Science and math take money. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, LIII(Number 2), 1.

May, G. S. & Chubin, D. E. (2003). A retrospective on undergraduate engineering
success for underrepresented minority students. Journal of Engineering
Education, 13.

Misra, S., & McMahon, G. (2006). Diversity in higher education: The three R's.
Journal of Education for Business, 82(1), 4.

Metz, G. W. (2004/2005). Challenge and changes to Tinto's persistence theory: A
historical review. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(2), 191-207.

Moses, Y. T. (1994). Quality, Excellence, and Diversity. In New Directions for
Institutional Research (Vol. 81, pp. 9-20): Jossey-Bass.

NACME. National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. (2005). A
report on the NACME symposium 2005. Forging partnerships…sharing
goals: Meeting American’s need for engineering talent. White Plains, NY. 1-
10.

NACME. National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. (June, 2006).
Vanguard Engineering Scholarship Program: A report on students and
institutional participation and progress. P. 1-31.
www.NACME.org/vanguard.

NACME. National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. (June, 2006).
Opening the pathways to engineering: Annual report. White Plains, NY.

National Science Foundation –NSF (2007). http://www.nsf.gov/about/ Retrieved
January 30, 2007, 2007
164

National Science Foundation –NSF (2007) Retrieved February 3, 2007.
http://www.erc-assoc.org/

National Science Foundation NSF. Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science
and Engineering (2005-2006) Biennial Report to Congress. Arlington, VA (1-
46)

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. 2006. S&E
Degrees, by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients: 1995–2004. NSF 07-308. Susan T.
Hill and Maurya M. Green, project officers. Arlington, VA.

O'Neal, E. N. (1995). An evaluation of an interdisciplinary science course designed
to help at-risk students. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (Third ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Peña, E.V., Estella Mara Bensimon, and Julia Colyar. (2006). Contextual Problem
Defining: Learning to think and act. Liberal Education, Spring, 2006

Pike, G. R. & G. Kuh, G.D. (2006). Relationships among structural diversity,
informal peer interactions and perceptions of the campus environment. The
Review of Higher Education, 29(4), 425-450.

Pluviose, D. (September 7, 2006). Commission's final draft report recommends
revamping higher ed curricula. Black Issues in Higher Education, 23(15), 10.

Powell, L. C. (1997). The Achievement (K)not. In M. L. W. Fine, Linda C. Powell,
L. Mun Wong (Ed.), Off White (pp. 3-12). New York: Routledge.

Ramaley, J.A., B. M. Olds, J. Earle (2005). Becoming a Learning Organization: New
directions in Science Education Research at the National Science Foundation.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 14, n.2. p173-189. July
2005, New York.

Reichert, M. (1997). Taking another look at educating African American engineers:
The importance of undergraduate retention. Journal of Engineering
Education, 12.

Reporter, S. (2006, September 1, 2006). Spellings commission report warns of perils
of complacency for American colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

165
Rodriguez, N. (2005, October 5, 2005). Black enrollment drops 5 percent in 2005.
Daily Trojan.

Rogers, I. (2006). Survey: CEOs fear international competition for STEM talent.
Black Issues in Higher Education, 23(8), 17.

Roithmayr, D. (2000). Barriers to entry: A market lock-in model of discrimination.
Virginia Law Review, 86(4), 727-799.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The art of Hearing Data.
Thousand Oaks.

Sahadi, J. (2007, February 8, 2007). Most lucrative degrees for 2007 grads. CNN.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences (second ed.). New York and London:
Teachers College, Columbia University.

Serow, R. C., Brawner, C. E., & Demery, J. (1997). Curriculum reform and the NSF
engineering education coalitions: A case study. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago

Seymour, E. (2000). Tracking the processes of change in US undergraduate
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. pp 79-195. Stephen Norris, Section editor.

Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). A critical race counterstory of race, racism,
and affirmative action. Equity & Excellence in Education. 35(2), 155-168.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, Vol. 67 No.1 Spring 1997. 307-346.

St. John, P. E. (2000). The impact of student aid on recruitment and retention: What
the research indicates. New Directions for Student Services, 89, 61-75.

Strange, C. (1994). Student development: The evolution and status of an essential
idea. In M. E. Wilson & L. E. Wolf- Wendel (Eds.), ASHE Reader on college
student development theory (pp. 25-41). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Suresh, R. (2006/2007). The relationship between barrier courses and persistence in
engineering. Journal of College Student Retention, 8(2), 215-240.

166
Society of Women Engineers (2006). Are more women and diversity needed in the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce? Paper
presented at conference: Are more women and diversity needed in the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce?,
Washington, DC. September 26, 2006.

Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1994). Living with myths: Undergraduate
education in America. Change, 26(1), 28-33.

Tinto,V. (1987). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

USC. (2007a). BMES ERC website. Retrieved April 2007, 2007, from http://bmes-
erc.usc.edu/education/

USC. (2007b). USC Facts at a glance. Retrieved August 4, 2007, 2007, from
http://www.usc.edu/about/ataglance/

USC. (2007c). USC Viterbi School of Engineering website. Retrieved January 28,
2007, from http://viterbi.usc.edu/about/facts.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000) Census by race and gender. Retrieved May 2007,
2007, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). 2005 American Community Survey. Retrieved
February 3, 2007. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-
geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=GCT0202&-
ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-
mt_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_GCT0202_US9&-format=US-9

Washburn, M. H., & Miller, S. G. (2004). Retaining undergraduate women in
science, engineering, and technology: A survey of a student organization.
Journal of College Student Retention, 6(2), 155-168.

West, C. (1994). Race Matters. New York: Vintage Books.

Wilson, M. E. & L. E. Wolf-Wendel ASHE Reader on college student development
theory (pp. 25-41). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing (2005).

Windschitl, M., & (2002). Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation of
Dilemmas: An Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural, and
Political Challenges Facing Teachers. Review of Educational Research.

167
APPENDIX A

BEP Mission Statement
The Biomedical Engineering Program’s (BEP) mission is to develop
implantable microelectronic devices to treat blindness, paralysis and central nervous
system disorders; integrate the efforts of multidisciplinary research groups at partner
research institution; provide research for industrial partners, along with providing
BEP students mentoring and job opportunities with industrial partners; increase
underrepresented minorities in both the outreach as well as educational programs;
and disseminate information about emerging technologies to the general public.

168
APPENDIX B

The BEP Diversity Plan
The BEP Diversity Plan includes both short and long term efforts to increase
the numbers of underrepresented minorities and women in all roles at all levels of the
center. This common goal of increasing diversity is stated to be shared and supported
by the senior leadership and the senior administration of the institution. The plan
includes a desire to attract more women and underrepresented minority faculty to the
BEP by securing four positions and active recruitment. The BEP seeks to supply
such candidates to the academic pipeline by recruiting and training diverse
populations of students from K-12 to undergraduate to graduate levels.
In terms of students, in particular, the BEP has implemented aggressive recruitment
initiatives at the undergraduate level by increasing nationwide awareness of BEP
summer programs through the website, flyer dissemination, and seminars. In
addition, BEP states that it has made a dramatic impact in increasing undergraduate
research participation by working closely with diversity and student organizations as
well as securing research funding for undergraduate researchers from multiple
sources (Merit Scholar Program, WiSE Undergraduate Research Grants, McNair
Scholars Program, REU, and TCUP REU). The emphasis on undergraduate research
was intended to lead to attract more diverse populations of students for the graduate
programs. To attract more graduate students, similar tactics of increasing nationwide
awareness with an emphasis on recruiting forums (conferences, recruiting events,
seminars) and securing fellowships and top-off awards have been implemented.
169
APPENDIX C

American Competitiveness Initiative

Full PDF Document (3.94 MB)
• President's Letter
• Overview
• Leading the World in Innovation
• American Competitiveness Initiative Research
• Leading the World in Talent and Creativity
• Conclusion
President's Letter
My fellow Americans,
One of the great engines of our growing economy is our Nation’s capacity to innovate.
Through America’s investments in science and technology, we have revolutionized our
economy and changed the world for the better. Groundbreaking ideas generated by
innovative minds in the private and public sectors have paid enormous dividends—improving
the lives and livelihoods of generations of Americans.
To build on our successes and remain a leader in science and technology, I am pleased to
announce the American Competitiveness Initiative. The American Competitiveness Initiative
commits $5.9 billion in FY 2007 to increase investments in research and development,
strengthen education, and encourage entrepreneurship. Over 10 years, the Initiative
commits $50 billion to increase funding for research and $86 billion for research and
development tax incentives. Federal investment in research and development has proved
critical to keeping America’s economy strong by generating knowledge and tools upon which
new technologies are developed. My 2007 Budget requests $137 billion for Federal research
and development, an increase of more than 50 percent over 2001 levels. Much of this
increased Federal funding has gone toward biomedical research and advanced security
technologies, enabling us to improve the health of our citizens and enhance national
security. We know that as other countries build their economies and become more
technologically advanced, America will face a new set of challenges. To ensure our
continued leadership in the world, I am committed to building on our record of results with
new investments—especially in the fields of physical sciences and engineering. Advances in
these areas will generate scientific and technological discoveries for decades to come.
The bedrock of America’s competitiveness is a well-educated and skilled workforce.
Education has always been a fundamental part of achieving the American Dream, and the
No Child Left Behind Act is helping to ensure that every student receives a high-quality
education. Accountability and high standards are producing positive results in the classroom,
and we can do more to provide American students and workers with the skills and training
needed to compete with the best and brightest around the world. Building on our successes,
the American Competitiveness Initiative funds increased professional development for
170
teachers, attracts new teachers to the classroom, develops research-based curricula, and
provides access to flexible resources for worker training.
As we increase investments in research and development, strengthen education, and
provide more flexible training for workers, we continue to keep taxes low, avoid unnecessary
and burdensome regulations, promote free and fair trade, maintain the integrity of our
markets, and foster entrepreneurship. Over the past five years, my Administration has
lowered taxes to create more jobs, opened new markets to U.S. products and services,
created incentives for private sector innovation, and protected intellectual property rights.
America’s economy is strong and getting stronger. My 2007 Budget recognizes the
importance of innovation to our economic future—fostering and encouraging all the
components that make our economic engine the envy of the world. In partnership with the
private sector, State and local governments, and colleges and universities, the American
Competitiveness Initiative will promote new levels of educational achievement and economic
productivity. With the right policies, we will maintain America's competitive edge, we will
create more jobs, and we will improve the quality of life and standard of living for generations
to come.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 2, 2006
Back to Top

Overview
Keeping our competitive edge in the world economy requires focused policies that lay the
groundwork for continued leadership in innovation, exploration, and ingenuity. America's
economic strength and global leadership depend in large measure on our Nation’s ability to
generate and harness the latest in scientific and technological developments and to apply
these developments to real world applications. These applications are fueled by: scientific
research, which produces new ideas and new tools that can become the foundation for
tomorrow’s products, services, and ways of doing business; a strong education system that
equips our workforce with the skills necessary to transform those ideas into goods and
services that improve our lives and provide our Nation with the researchers of the future; and
an environment that encourages entrepreneurship, risk taking, and innovative thinking. By
giving citizens the tools necessary to realize their greatest potential, the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) will help ensure future generations have an even brighter
future.
"The role of government is not to create wealth; the role of our government is to create an
environment in which the entrepreneur can flourish, in which minds can expand, in which
technologies can reach new frontiers." – President George W. Bush, May 2001
Sustained scientific advancement and innovation are key to maintaining our competitive
edge, and are supported by a pattern of related investments and policies, including:
171
• Federal investment in cutting-edge basic research whose quality is bolstered by
merit review and that focuses on fundamental discoveries to produce valuable and
marketable technologies, processes, and techniques;
• Federal investment in the tools of science—facilities and instruments that enable
discovery and development—particularly unique, expensive, or large-scale tools
beyond the means of a single organization;
• A system of education through the secondary level that equips each new generation
of Americans with the educational foundation for future study and inquiry in technical
subjects and that inspires and sustains their interest;
• Institutions of higher education that provide American students access to world-class
education and research opportunities in mathematics, science, engineering, and
technology;
• Workforce training systems that provide more workers the opportunity to pursue the
training and other services necessary to improve their skills and better compete in
the 21st century.
• Immigration policies that will continue to enable the United States to attract the best
and brightest scientific minds from around the world to work alongside the best and
brightest American scientists;
• Private sector investment in research and development that enables the translation
of fundamental discoveries into the production of useful and marketable
technologies, processes, and techniques;
• An efficient system that protects the intellectual property resulting from public and
private sector investments in research; and
• A business environment that stimulates and encourages entrepreneurship through
free and flexible labor, capital, and product markets that rapidly diffuse new
productive technologies.
An important element of the American Competitiveness Initiative is Federal investment in
research and development (R&D). Under President Bush, this investment has increased by
more than 50 percent to $137 billion—the largest sustained increase since the Apollo space
program in the early 1960’s. Similarly, President Bush and Congress have provided historic
funding increases for K-12 education over the last five years and have successfully instituted
critical policy reforms as a part of the President’s No Child Left Behind Act.
American Competitiveness Initiative Goals:
• 300 grants for schools to implement research-based math curricula and
interventions
• 10,000 more scientists, students, post-doctoral fellows, and technicians provided
opportunities to contribute to the innovation enterprise
• 100,000 highly qualified math and science teachers by 2015
• 700,000 advanced placement tests passed by low-income students
• 800,000 workers getting the skills they need for the jobs of the 21st century
This Administration has consistently pursued policies and investments that reflect the need
for a vigorous science and technology enterprise, as outlined by the National Science and
Technology Council’s 2004 report, Science for the 21st Century, and by the President’s 2004
plan to inspire A New Generation of American Innovation.
Recognizing the critical importance of science and technology to America’s long-term
competitiveness and building on these previous efforts, President Bush introduced the
American Competitiveness Initiative, an aggressive, long-term approach to keeping America
172
strong and secure by ensuring that the United States continues to lead the world in science
and technology, in his State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006.
This $5.9 billion ACI includes $1.3 billion in new Federal funding and an additional $4.6
billion in R&D tax incentives. Specifically, the ACI:
• Doubles, over 10 years, funding for innovation-enabling research at key Federal
agencies that support high-leverage fields of physical science and engineering: the
National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the
National Institute for Standards and Technology within the Department of
Commerce;
• Modernizes the Research and Experimentation tax credit by making it permanent
and working with Congress to update its provisions to encourage additional private
sector investment in innovation;
• Strengthens K-12 math and science education by enhancing our understanding of
how students learn and applying that knowledge to train highly qualified teachers,
develop effective curricular materials, and improve student learning;
• Reforms the workforce training system to offer training opportunities to some
800,000 workers annually, more than tripling the number trained under the current
system;
• Increases our ability to compete for and retain the best and brightest high-skilled
workers from around the world by supporting comprehensive immigration reform that
meets the needs of a growing economy, allows honest workers to provide for their
families while respecting the law, and enhances homeland security by relieving
pressure on the borders.
Back to Top

Leading the World in Innovation
Scientific and Technological Foundations of Economic Growth
During the past five years, the U.S. economy has shown remarkable vitality and resilience.
The current economic expansion is steady and strong, with GDP growing at an annual rate
of over 3.5 percent for three years. After-tax incomes are rising, household net worth is at an
all-time high, and the unemployment rate is low. Meanwhile, inflation remains in check, and
we have had extraordinary and sustained productivity growth—averaging a 3.4 percent
annual rate for the past half-decade. The American economy today is the envy of the world.
Our prosperity is no accident. It is the product of risk-takers, innovators, and visionaries. We
owe our global leadership in large measure to our willingness to build an economy and
culture that welcomes and encourages innovation and flexible, open markets. By increasing
U.S. innovation capacity through the bolstering of our world-class R&D enterprise and
through investments in our education and information infrastructure, we have achieved new
discoveries and breakthroughs that drive productivity, grow the economy, and solve
important societal problems.
Research pays off for our economy. It leads to breakthroughs that inspire new products and
have spawned entire industries. In fact, economists estimate that as much as half of post-
173
World War II economic growth is due to R&D-fueled technological progress. Today’s
revolutionary technologies and many of our most popular consumer products have roots
deep in basic and applied research. Long before there were computers or the Internet,
scientists were unlocking the secrets of lasers, semiconductors, and magnetic materials
upon which today’s advanced applications were built. This enterprise was fueled in large
part by Federal investment in basic research that was necessary but not necessarily
profitable for the private sector to undertake over the long term.
Global Science and Technology: Status and Outlook
By nearly every relevant metric, the U.S. leads the world in science and technology. With
only about five percent of the world’s population, the U.S. employs nearly one-third of all
scientists and engineers and accounts for approximately one-third of global R&D spending
(U.S. R&D spending of over $300 billion is as much as the rest of the G-8 nations
combined). Chart 1 illustrates that, even after adjusting for population and size of the
economy, the U.S. is among the world leaders in R&D spending and the number of scientists
and engineers.
President Bush’s FY07 Budget brings the total Federal R&D investment to a record $137
billion, an increase of more than 50 percent over the 2001 level. The conduct of Federal
R&D, historically measured in constant dollar outlays, is also at a record high level in
inflation-adjusted terms (Chart 2). Funding for basic research alone has increased over 32
percent from 2001-2007. More importantly, R&D funding increases since 2001 reversed a
decade-long trend of flat or declining Federal investment in scientific research and
development.
While the U.S. is supporting science at unprecedented levels, the rest of the world is not
standing still. Following the successful U.S. model, many countries are working hard to build
their own innovation capacity by pouring resources into their scientific and technological
infrastructure. This competitive drive is a positive development for the world—accelerating
worldwide economic growth and trade, contributing to greater peace and stability, and
raising the standard of living for many people. But because of these trends, science,
technology, and innovation now move at a faster pace, and the ability of foreign nations to
compete with America in the increasingly integrated global economy is much greater.
The enhanced innovation capacity of our economic competitors makes it increasingly
important to make our own economy more flexible and responsive. This will require us to
pursue pro-growth economic policies—policies that have been an ongoing priority of the
Bush Administration. It also requires a long-term vision to strengthen Federal support for the
Nation’s innovation enterprise. As a result, President Bush has called for the integrated
package of investments and policies in the ACI.
A New Generation of American Innovation
President Bush has long believed that government must work to strengthen the environment
for innovation and that giving workers the best technology and training will help ensure that
the American economy remains the most flexible, advanced, and productive in the world.
Since 2001, the Administration has focused on three principles: creating a business climate
that allows innovators to pursue their ideas (through policies on taxes, trade, IP/patents, tort
system, etc.); cultivating high-skilled workers (through education, job training, and
immigration policies); and supporting the advanced infrastructure needed to support
innovation (through investments in R&D, broadband, etc.).
174
In April 2004, the President announced A New Generation of American Innovation—a series
of specific measures to inspire innovation and technology development in energy, health
care, and information technology. Specifically, the policies intend to help:
• Provide a Cleaner and More Secure Energy Future through Hydrogen Fuel
Technology. As part of his commitment to request $1.2 billion over five years in
research funding to bring hydrogen and fuel cell technology from the laboratory to
the showroom, the President announced that DoE plans to fund hydrogen research
and demonstration projects totaling $350 million ($575 million with private cost
share) to overcome key obstacles on the path to the hydrogen economy.
• Transform Health Care through Health Information Technology. President Bush
believes that innovations in electronic medical records and the secure exchange of
medical information will help transform health care in America and improve the
relationship between doctors and patients. Accordingly, the President set an
ambitious goal of assuring that most Americans have electronic health records
within the next 10 years. To achieve the President’s 10-year goal, the Administration
is taking steps to urge coordinated public and private sector efforts that will
accelerate broader adoption of health information technologies.
• Promote Innovation and Economic Security through Broadband Technology.
The President has called for universal, affordable access to broadband technology
by 2007 and wants to ensure Americans have plenty of technology choices when it
comes to purchasing broadband. The Administration has implemented a wide range
of policies to promote new technologies, eliminate access taxes, reduce regulatory
barriers, and increase spectrum availability in order to make broadband more
affordable and available. The Administration’s policies are working—between 2001
and 2005 broadband penetration has increased 440 percent, from 7 million lines to
38 million lines.
Back to Top

American Competitiveness Initiative Research
The centerpiece of the American Competitiveness Initiative is President Bush's strong
commitment to double investment over 10 years in key Federal agencies that support basic
research programs in the physical sciences and engineering.
Strengthening Innovation Capacity Through Intellectual
Prosperity Reforms
In the United States, intellectual property-intensive industries—the biotechnology and
information technology sectors, for example—account for over half of all U.S. exports,
represent 40 percent of our economic growth, and employ 18 million Americans whose
wages are 40-percent higher than the U.S. average. A recent study valued U.S. intellectual
property at approximately $5 trillion—or about half of U.S. GDP. The U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) has launched a vigorous reform effort aimed at enabling the
Office to examine patent and trademark applications in a more timely manner, without
compromising quality.
175
A critical component of this strategy has been reforming USPTO’s fee structure and
implementing new strategic initiatives to improve the quality and efficiency of the patent and
trademark examination process. The President has also requested that USPTO have full
access to its fee collections in the 2005 through 2007 budgets. These reforms have helped
USPTO increase its annual spending authority by over 60 percent since 2001. In other
efforts to strengthen intellectual property protections, the Administration has insisted on
including updated intellectual property protections in trade agreements such as CAFTA-DR
(the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement), and the
Administration-wide Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP) initiative is pursuing
aggressive IP protection both domestically and overseas.
Physical sciences and engineering include high-leverage areas of research that develop and
advance knowledge and technologies that are used by scientists in nearly every other field.
President Bush plans to double, over 10 years, investments in innovation-enabling physical
science and engineering research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DoE SC), and the Department of Commerce’s
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) core activities. In addition to the
doubling efforts at these three agencies, the President’s FY 2007 Budget also makes other
similarly high-leverage programs a significant priority, such as basic and applied research at
the Department of Defense (DoD).
In 2007, the ACI proposes overall funding increases for NSF, DoE SC, and NIST of $910
million, or 9.3 percent, above FY 2006 (Figure 1). To achieve doubling within ten years,
overall annual increases for these ACI research agencies will average roughly 7 percent.
This amounts to a total of $50 billion in new investments in high-leverage, innovation-
enabling fundamental research that will underpin and complement shorter-term research
performed by the private sector.
Past research has spawned such technologies as personal computers, the Internet, fiber
optics, bar codes, medical imaging devices, balloon catheters, hearing aids, laser eye
surgery, air bags, and global positioning devices and satellite telecommunications systems.
And in every case, research funding at NSF, DoE SC, or NIST core (consisting of NIST lab
research and construction accounts), has been essential to proceed to the point at which the
private sector recognizes a potentially marketable product and invests in its development.
These agencies make research decisions based on systematic planning and merit-review
allocation processes designed to identify and support the most promising ideas and the
teams most likely to succeed in carrying them out. As a result of these processes, grants
and in-house research from these agencies have a strong track record of leading to scientific
publications, patents, and eventually to new products and technologies.
Because the sciences—and especially their applications—are interconnected, research in
physical science and engineering provides tools and technologies for all other fields.
Ultimately, of course, everything is made of atoms and their sub-components. As such, basic
techniques for the imaging, manipulation, and simulation of matter at the atomic scale are of
value for applications in every field. To use the information in the human genome, for
example, it is necessary to understand the functions of the proteins whose blueprints are
encoded in DNA, a feat that is enabled by tools that visualize the immensely complex
structure of these building blocks of life. And those tools—bright x-ray sources and powerful
computation, for example—are products of physical science and engineering. Important
opportunities for improving these powerful tools exist today and sustained leadership in
science and technology for innovation demands that we seize them.
176
Impact of Basic Research on Innovation
The development of MP3 technologies illustrates the unexpected benefits of basic
research. In 1965, a hand-sized storage and playback device that would hold 15,000
recorded songs was the stuff of science fiction. Even simple hand-held calculators
were rare and expensive at that time. Research funded by the Department of Defense,
the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of
Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology contributed to the
breakthrough technologies of magnetic storage drives, lithium-ion batteries, and the
liquid crystal display, which came together in the development of MP3 devices. The
device itself is innovative, but it built upon a broad platform of component
technologies, each derived from fundamental studies in physical science,
mathematics, and engineering.
ACI Research Agencies
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of support for university and
academic research in the physical sciences, funding potentially transformative basic
research in areas such as nanotechnology, advanced networking and information
technology, physics, chemistry, materials science, mathematics, and engineering. It is well
regarded for management of funding through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. The
NSF funding derived from the ACI initiative is expected to support as many as 500 more
research grants in 2007 and provide opportunities for upwards of 6,400 additional scientists,
students, post-doctoral fellows, and technicians to contribute to the innovation enterprise.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science (DoE SC) supports scientific studies and
infrastructure for a wide range of R&D related to economically significant innovations
including high-end computing and advanced networking, nanotechnology, biotechnology,
energy sources, and other materials science research. It is the principal supporter of world-
class Federal research facilities, providing scientists with the necessary tools to advance
scientific understanding for innovation and discovery. In addition to making possible support
for approximately 2,600 more researchers in FY 2007 than in FY 2006, the ACI provides for
the construction of a number of cutting-edge scientific research tools with direct implications
for economically relevant R&D, including the world's most powerful civilian supercomputer
and an x-ray light source user facility with world-leading capabilities to study materials,
chemicals, and biological matter at the scale of an individual atom. Additional DoE SC
facilities supported by the ACI include: completion of the Centers for Integrated
Nanotechnology and Functional Nanomaterials; support for domestic fusion facilities
underpinning the future ITER nuclear fusion project; and maximum capacity operation of the
full suite of major x-ray light source and neutron research facilities.
Overcoming Technological Barriers to the Hydrogen Economy
The "hydrogen economy" would use domestic sources of energy to create hydrogen gas,
which in turn could be used as a transportation fuel. Other possibilities include using
hydrogen-bearing fuels such as alcohol or natural gas as potentially economical and long-
lasting sources of electrical power for portable electronics such as cell phones and laptop
computers, or even for powering buildings that are remote from power lines.
177
Many technical and economic hurdles remain before these technologies can be made widely
available. Reducing costs, improving efficiencies, and making the technology reliable
enough for everyday use will all be important. If these technical goals are achieved, the
broad use of hydrogen as a fuel may prove to have environmental advantages as well. The
Department of Energy is leading the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to achieve these
goals.
NIST research helps support this developing technology in many ways. Projects currently
under way at NIST are providing measurements, data, and technologies needed to develop
and test the performance of hydrogen-based power sources and to improve the efficiency of
hydrogen production methods.
A new imaging facility at the NIST Center for Neutron Research provides a rare portal for
visualizing water and hydrogen transport in fuel cells. Neutrons reveal how water forms and
moves while a fuel cell is operating. Mastering the combined challenge of managing
incoming humidity, proper hydration of fuel cell membranes, and the handling of water
byproducts is essential to the development of fuel cells that are practical for automotive and
residential applications as well as portable devices.
The Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) is a high-leverage Federal research agency that performs high-impact basic research
and supports the successful technical translation and everyday use of economically
significant innovations such as new materials and processes; electronics, information
technologies, and advanced computing processes; advanced manufacturing integration,
biotechnologies, and new energy sources such as hydrogen; and nanotechnology. NIST
also plays a critical role in supporting standards-development activities that are used by the
private sector and government agencies. In FY 2007, NIST will seek to focus 3,900
scientists and engineers from government, industry, and universities—an increase of 600
researchers over FY 2006—on meeting the Nation’s most urgent measurement science and
standards needs to speed innovation and improve U.S. competitiveness.
In addition to the high-leverage research in NSF, DoE SC, and NIST core, other Federal
agencies fund important research that makes valuable contributions toward the goals of the
ACI. One example is the Department of Defense (DoD), which provides strong support for
the physical sciences and engineering, including projects with both commercial and military
applications (“dual-use” technologies). Past DoD research has resulted in revolutionary
technological capabilities such as radar, digital computers, wireless mobile communications,
lasers, fiber optics, composite materials, the Internet (and other “packet switched” networks),
and satellite navigation. The President’s FY 2007 Budget includes $5.9 billion for DoD basic
and applied research, $440 million, or eight percent, more than requested in the FY 2006
Budget. (The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) shares in these
programs, as well as some more advanced technology development projects beyond
research.) Although the FY 2007 DoD research budget is less than the enacted FY 2006
level, that is only the case due to the removal of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual
earmarks.
Maximizing the Effectiveness of ACI Research
The ACI enhances basic research programs in priority agencies that employ best practices
for identifying and funding the most promising research ideas. Careful planning, strong
technical advisory mechanisms, and systematic merit-based peer review are acknowledged
methods for optimizing research success. The idea is not to introduce entirely new
government programs, but to increase fundamental research capacity in response to
178
growing numbers of outstanding and novel proposals from the Nation's technical community.
It is imperative for the optimal disposition of research funds to uphold these principles in the
Federal budget and appropriations process. Earmarking—the assignment of science funding
through the legislative process for use by a specific organization or project—is rarely the
most effective use of taxpayer funds. In the case of science programs, the practice signals to
potential researchers that there are acceptable alternatives to creating quality research
proposals for merit-based consideration, including the use of political influence or appeals to
parochial interests. The rapidly growing level of legislatively directed research funds
undermines America's research productivity. The Administration commends Congress for
having taken measures to protect NSF and the National Institutes of Health from this
practice. To maximize the effectiveness of ACI research, the President encourages the
Congress and the academic community to resist securing research and facilities funding
through earmarks, particularly in the ACI agencies.
Goals for ACI Research
While expected new innovations are impossible to predict with specificity, certain capabilities
and technology platforms can be anticipated as a result of the ACI:
• World-class capability and capacity in nanofabrication and nanomanufacturing that
will help transform current laboratory science into a broad range of new industrial
applications for virtually every sector of commerce, including telecommunications,
computing, electronics, health care, and national security (NSF, DoE, NIST)
• Chemical, biological, optical, and electronic materials breakthroughs critical to
cutting-edge research in nanotechnology, biotechnology, alternative energy, and the
hydrogen economy through essential infrastructure such as the National
Synchrotron Light Source II and the NIST Center for Neutron Research (DoE, NIST)
• World-leading high-end computing capability (at the petascale) and capacity,
coupled with advanced networking, to enable scientific advancement through
modeling and simulation at unprecedented scale and complexity across a broad
range of scientific disciplines and important to areas such as intelligent
manufacturing, accurate weather and climate prediction, and design of safe and
effective pharmaceuticals (NSF, DoE)
• Overcoming technological barriers to the practical use of quantum information
processing to revolutionize fields of secure communications, as well as quantum
mechanics simulations used in physics, chemistry, biology, and materials science
(DoE, NIST, NSF)
• Overcoming technological barriers to efficient and economic use of hydrogen,
nuclear, and solar energy through new basic research approaches in materials
science (DoE, NSF, NIST)
• Addressing gaps and needs in cyber security and information assurance to protect
our IT-dependent economy from both deliberate and unintentional disruption, and to
lead the world in intellectual property protection and control (NSF, NIST)
• Improvement of sensor and detection capabilities that will result in world-leading
automation and control technologies with a broad range of applications important to
areas such as national security, health care, energy, and manufacturing (NSF)
• Development of manufacturing standards for the supply chain to advance and
accelerate the development and integration of more efficient production practices
(NIST)
179
• Enhanced response to international standards challenges, which impact U.S.
competitiveness and limit export opportunities for American businesses by acting as
technical barriers to trade (NIST)
• Accelerated work on advanced standards for new technologies (NIST)
• Advances in materials science and engineering to develop technologies and
standards for improving structural performance during hazardous events such as
earthquakes and hurricanes (NIST, NSF)
• Improving capacity, maintenance, and operations of DoE and NIST labs
R&D Tax Incentives
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the President continues to support—for
the sixth straight year—making the Research and Experimentation (R&E) Federal tax credit
permanent. While temporary extensions of the credit have been enacted in recent years, a
permanent R&E credit would enable companies to have certainty in their tax planning and
therefore be bold in their R&D investment strategy. The President is also committed to
working with Congress to simplify and modernize the credit to make it even more effective
and efficient at encouraging private sector innovation.
With an overall R&D effort of over $200 billion, the private sector accounts for approximately
two-thirds of all U.S. R&D spending. Tax policy is used to encourage this research because
corporate-funded R&D targets commercial opportunities, helping to turn knowledge and
ideas generated as a result of basic and applied research into products and processes that
businesses and consumers demand. The R&E tax credit helps to increase this spending by
reducing the effective cost of R&D investments to businesses. Economic evidence suggests
that the credit has a significant positive impact on private sector research activity. A recent
study found that the current tax credit is claimed by over “15,000 firms that operate in every
industry and all 50 states and employ millions of Americans.”
Using Technology to Power Our Economy Forward
Reliable and affordable supplies of energy are critical to maintaining an American economy
that is competitive in the global marketplace. The recent high costs of energy, particularly for
crude oil, refined gasoline, and diesel fuels, have raised the costs associated with producing
and transporting goods and services to market. Higher product costs mean less savings, job
creation, and prosperity. To address these high fuel costs, President Bush is taking steps to
develop alternatives to crude oil for transportation. His 2007 budget will increase research
funding for production of cellulosic ethanol from agricultural wastes, helping the farm
economy with a new product while increasing America's energy security. He is also
promoting technologies to enable greater fuel efficiency through sensible reforms to the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program and through tax incentives for efficient
hybrid and clean diesel vehicles contained in the energy bill he signed into law in August
2005. For the long term, the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative seeks to develop a new
generation of hydrogen vehicles that will eventually eliminate our dependence on foreign oil,
improving our energy security.
In addition, the President will act to address the high cost of natural gas, which is straining
home heating budgets and leading some industrial firms to relocate overseas where energy
costs are lower. Over the past decade, natural gas has been the fuel of choice for new
power plants, resulting in increasingly high demand for natural gas with very little new
supply. To address the fundamentals driving higher natural gas prices, the President is
proposing policies that will diversify the fuels we use in our electric power sector by
180
encouraging new investments in clean coal technology, nuclear power, and renewable
energy sources. His 2007 budget supports cutting-edge investments in clean coal and
carbon sequestration to enable continued use of our plentiful domestic coal resources with
fewer environmental impacts. The President will propose visionary new efforts to recycle
spent nuclear fuel, allowing for a rapid expansion of nuclear power around the world, while
addressing concerns over proliferation risk and lack of current nuclear waste storage. And
renewable energy technologies offer the prospect of homes and buildings that can one day
generate more power than they consume, using solar photovoltaic technologies integrated
into the building itself. By reducing future demand for natural gas, these resources -- coal,
nuclear, and renewables -- will help reduce prices for consumers, keep high-paying
manufacturing and industrial jobs here in America, and reduce the need for future imports of
natural gas by pipeline or by tanker.
Lower energy prices and secure energy resources will mean a growing and prosperous
American economy, one that will vigorously compete in the technology-driven world of
tomorrow.
However, the effectiveness of the current credit has been limited in part because of its
complexity, antiquated formula, and ongoing uncertainties associated with its renewal (it
expired for the 12th time on December 31, 2005). Making the credit permanent, which is
estimated to cost $4.6 billion in FY 2007 and $86.4 billion over ten years (Table 1), will
eliminate problems associated with its temporary nature. In addition, the Administration will
work with Congress to make appropriate changes to the credit to simplify and modernize it in
order to increase incentives for businesses to invest in research and development over the
long term.
Table 1: Budgetary cost of making the R&E tax credit permanent, FY 2007 – FY 2016
(in billions of dollars).
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Cost 4.6 5.9 6.9 7.7 8.3 9.0 9.7 10.5 11.4 12.3 86.4
Back to Top

Leading the World in Talent and Creativity
Education is the gateway to opportunity and the foundation of a knowledge-based,
innovation-driven economy. For the U.S. to maintain its global economic leadership, we
must ensure a continuous supply of highly trained mathematicians, scientists, engineers,
technicians, and scientific support staff as well as a scientifically, technically, and numerically
literate population. The American Competitiveness Initiative proposes $380 million in new
Federal support to build on the President’s commitment to strengthen our Nation’s education
system. By improving the quality of math, science, and technological education in our K-12
schools, thus engaging every child in rigorous courses that teach important analytical,
technical, and problem-solving skills, we will prepare our citizens to compete more effectively
in the global marketplace.
181
No Child Left Behind
The President’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), passed by a bipartisan majority in
Congress and signed into law on January 8, 2002, ended decades of low expectations and
excuses for poor performance. NCLB requires the presence of highly qualified teachers in
every classroom and the use of research-based instruction to optimize student learning.
NCLB also requires annual student assessment in reading and mathematics through the
early grades and once in high school to detect deficiencies early and offer needed
remediation. This landmark piece of legislation has reformed public education to ensure that
every child has access to a high-quality education and the opportunity to develop the skills
necessary to become a productive citizen in the 21st century.

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has provided unprecedented funding increases
for a number of priority education programs. For example, funding for Title I, which provides
financial support for Local Educational Agencies with the highest percentages of children
from low-income families, increased by over 45 percent between fiscal years 2001 and
2006. Additionally, funding for targeted programs aimed at increasing achievement in
reading, such as Reading First, has increased by over 300 percent.
In addition to yearly assessments administered by states to evaluate the Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) of students, schools, and districts, a series of nationally administered
assessments provide a snapshot view of the Nation’s collective education performance and
progress. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also called the
Nation’s Report Card, measures student achievement in reading and mathematics, among
other academic subjects, at various grade levels. This year’s promising NAEP results show
improvements across the board in mathematics and in fourth-grade reading, with African
American and Hispanic students posting all-time high scores in a number of areas. These
data demonstrate the positive impact NCLB has had on students—an accomplishment for
which students, teachers, and parents should be commended. However, much is still to be
done to improve U.S. student performance relative to the rest of the world.
As important as the early years are to building a strong foundation in mathematics and
reading, rigorous high school preparation can make the difference between success and
failure as a student moves on to college or the workplace. In order to build upon the
success we have seen in the early grades, President Bush has proposed extending key
aspects of NCLB to include the high school years. Expanding accountability and high
expectations to high schools is the first step to ensuring an education system that prepares
the Nation’s students for the jobs of the 21st century. The President’s High School Reform
Initiative will:
• Provide grants through State educational agencies to local educational agencies for
targeted, proven interventions that increase the achievement of high school
students, eliminate the achievement gap, and prepare all students to graduate with
the knowledge and skills they need to enter college or the workforce; and
• Require testing in two additional high school grades to inform schools of the efficacy
of their curriculum and identify students in need of additional help.
American Competitiveness Initiative: Education
Although we have seen great progress in student performance in reading and mathematics
as a result of NCLB and expect to see similar results at the high school level under the
President’s High School Reform Initiative, a number of gaps must be addressed if U.S.
182
students are to realize their full potential. President Bush’s American Competitiveness
Initiative seeks to fill these gaps and produce results by establishing a number of new and
expanded programs, including:
• Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) Program to expand
access of low-income students to rigorous course work by training 70,000 additional
teachers to lead AP/IB math and science courses and to increase the number of
AP/IB math and science tests passed by low-income students to 700,000 from
230,000;
• Adjunct Teacher Corps to encourage up to 30,000 math and science professionals
to become adjunct high school teachers.
• A National Math Panel to evaluate empirically the effectiveness of various
approaches to teaching math and science and to create a research base to improve
instructional methods and materials;
• Math Now for Elementary School Students program to promote promising and
researched-based practices in mathematics instruction and to prepare students for
more rigorous math courses in middle and high school;
• Math Now for Middle School Students to diagnose and remedy the deficiencies of
students who lack math proficiency and to provide proven methods of intensive and
systematic instruction aligned with the goals of NCLB;
• Evaluation of Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)
education programs across agencies to determine which are effective in meeting
their stated goals; and
• Include Science Assessments in NCLB accountability to ensure children are learning
the necessary content and skills to be successful in the 21st century workforce.
PRESIDENT’S ACI INITIATIVE FY 2007 Budget Request
AP/IB $122 million
Adjunct Teacher Corps $25 million
National Math Panel $10 million
Math Now for Elementary School Students $125 million
Math Now for Middle School Students $125 million
Evaluation of Federal STEM programs $5 million
Training and Recruiting Highly Qualified Teachers
Fundamental to improving student learning and achievement is the presence of highly
qualified teachers in every classroom. Teachers must have mastery of content and
instructional methods to be effective educators and mentors, yet recent data published as
part of the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Survey indicate that, at
the elementary grade level, less than eight percent of students are taught by teachers with a
major or specialization in mathematics or science. The statistics improve somewhat at the
8th grade level, where 48 percent of students are taught by teachers who majored in
mathematics and 15% by teachers who majored in science, but still a significant majority of
children are being taught math and science by teachers who lack significant training in the
subjects they teach. NCLB requires teachers to be highly qualified and provides funding
through the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, which can be used to address a variety
of challenges for schools and districts, including teacher preparation and qualifications of
new teachers, recruitment and hiring, and professional development. Further investment in
high-quality professional development that increases teachers’ content knowledge is
necessary to ensure students get access to more rigorous curriculum.
183
While a number of Federal programs are focused on recruiting more college math and
science majors into teaching careers, the lag time in education means that it will take years
to fill our math and science classrooms with highly qualified math and science teachers. Yet
there is an untapped resource among current and retiring science and mathematics
professionals who have both content mastery and the practical experience to serve as
effective teachers and positive role models for students who are interested in science or
mathematics careers. While many scientists and engineers express an interest in teaching,
traditional teacher certification programs are seen by many scientists and mathematicians as
an unnecessary and unacceptable barrier to becoming a classroom teacher. Being a good
practitioner of mathematics or science does not necessarily make one a good teacher of
those subjects, but anecdotal evidence does suggest that math and science majors and
professionals are more likely to transition to careers in teaching if their teacher certification
recognizes the training and experience they possess in their field.
To meet these challenges, the American Competitiveness Initiative proposes a two-step
approach that provides professional development for current teachers and attracts new
teachers to the classroom:
The Advanced Placement Incentive Program expands the Administration’s current
commitment to the Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) programs by
increasing funding to $122 million ($90 million over fiscal year 2006 appropriations) with a
specific emphasis on math and science. This program targets districts with a high
concentration of low-income students by offering incentives and training to teachers to
become highly qualified instructors of AP/IB math and science courses, while also
subsidizing AP/IB testing fees for lower income students. The Department of Education
would require applicants to offer incentives, such as salary increments or bonuses, to
teachers to become qualified to teach AP/IB courses in mathematics, science, and critical
foreign languages by completing training provided or recognized by the College Board or the
International Baccalaureate Organization, or the equivalent, and to teachers who increase
the number of students passing AP/IB tests in those subjects. The Administration calls on
States and the private sector to match, dollar-for-dollar, the Federal Government’s
investment in this program to meet the five-year goal of training 70,000 new teachers and
increasing the number of students achieving passing AP/IB scores to 700,000.
Support Teacher Professional Development
Research confirms that teachers are the single most important factor in raising student
achievement. The Department of Education’s Teacher-to-Teacher Initiative was created by
teachers for teachers and provides access to free professional development activities and
keeps teachers informed of new policies and the best practices vital to their craft.
The initiative engages the Nation’s best teachers and principals to share strategies for
raising student achievement through a variety of resources that highlight real-world
examples of how teachers translate education research into practice that works in the
classroom. The initiative offers help through free online digital workshops, an eLearning
website, and teacher-to-teacher workshops held in cities across the country.
The initiative has helped more than 200,000 teachers learn effective strategies for raising
student achievement, including training approximately 4,500 teachers at 18 workshops since
2004. The Department is expanding this initiative by partnering with TechNet, a group of
technology companies, to create urban teacher workshops focusing on math, science, and
technology. The goal is to enhance teachers’ content knowledge so they can motivate
184
students to pursue math and science in school and better prepare students for careers in
those fields.
In addition to funding professional development opportunities for current teachers,
the American Competitiveness Initiative also provides funds to establish an Adjunct
Teacher Corps program. Through this program, the Department of Education will support
partnerships between school districts and public or private organizations that encourage and
prepare science, mathematics, and engineering professionals to teach specific high school
math, science, and technology courses as adjunct teachers. This initiative would tap the
skills of well-qualified individuals who reside outside of the public education system to meet
specialized needs in secondary schools. The goal of this $25 million investment, matched
by States and the private sector, is to have a 30,000 member Adjunct Teacher corps by
2015.
Research-Based Teaching Materials and Methods
A pillar of NCLB is its requirement that schools utilize research-based curricula and proven
methods to raise student achievement. Thanks largely to the efforts of the National Reading
Panel, established by Congress in 1997, we have made great progress in understanding
how children learn to read and in developing research-based diagnostic tools, teaching
materials, and “best practices” that improve reading instruction. A report issued by the Panel
helped shape several promising Administration initiatives, including the Reading First and
the Striving Readers programs. Both of these programs are designed to help schools and
school districts improve reading achievement through proven methods of instruction.
We do not have a similarly strong research base in the area of math education. There is
little empirical research on how children learn mathematics, and a thorough review of
existing mathematics curricula by the Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse
shows that few mathematics curricula are either research-based or proven effective as a
result of rigorous independent evaluation.
Building on the successful model of the National Reading Panel and subsequent Reading
programs, the American Competitiveness Initiative provides funding for several important
programs aimed at discovering how students learn math, how best to prepare teachers in
these disciplines, and what materials are most effective in raising student achievement and
preparing students early on for more rigorous coursework in high school and beyond.
The National Math Panel
Similar to the National Reading Panel, the National Math Panel will bring together experts in
mathematics, cognitive science, and education to review the current literature and identify
important research findings as well as gaps in our current knowledge. They will work to fill
these research gaps and conduct a comprehensive assessment of existing programs so that
they can establish principles for effective math instruction.
The Math Now Programs
As research advances our understanding of how students learn and the National Math Panel
identifies principles for effective teaching, it is imperative that other teams of mathematicians
and educators be prepared to translate these research findings into practical solutions for
teachers. The Math Now programs will put effective tools into the hands of teachers so that
students begin to benefit from our improved understanding of learning and cognition.
Math Now for Elementary Students will lay the groundwork for establishing a strong
foundation in math. This program will enable teachers to access proven methods, materials,
185
and practices that will provide students with a solid foundation for more rigorous math
coursework in middle and high school.
Math Now for Middle School Studentswill build on the successes of the elementary school
programs and will provide more sophisticated diagnostic tools and remediation strategies for
students who have notable deficiencies. This program will promote research-based
interventions involving intensive and systematic instruction with the goal of proficiency in
algebra for middle-school students.
Evaluating the Impact of Government-Wide Investments in Math and Science
Education
While the Department of Education has the primary mission at the Federal level of improving
U.S. K-12 education, a number of Federal agencies sponsor programs aimed at generating
student interest in science and technology, developing innovative curricular materials,
providing teacher preparation and professional development opportunities, and increasing
the general public’s understanding of various scientific efforts and issues. Although there
are a large number of existing Federal programs that support both formal and informal math
and science education and outreach, these programs are quite fragmented across the
government and few have been evaluated for their efficacy in improving student learning.
For this reason, the American Competitiveness Initiative will provide $5 million for the
purpose of establishing a comprehensive evaluation program that will review past, current,
and future federally funded programs to determine what works in preparing teachers and
educating students in math and science and how well these programs are aligned with the
goals of NCLB. To the extent possible, this evaluation program will incorporate the
accountability principles of NCLB and will look to empirical indicators of enhanced student
performance as a result of student or teacher participation in these government-sponsored
education programs. Funds will be used to assess the quality of program evaluations, to
design and carry out evaluations of programs that have not been evaluated, and to develop
guidelines for future program evaluations.
Including Science Assessments in NCLB
Currently, NCLB requires every State to develop and administer science assessments once
in each of three grade spans by the 2007-08 school year. However, NCLB does not require
these assessments in the accountability system. Including science assessments in the
accountability system will illustrate the importance of science as part of a student’s education
and ensure students are learning the content knowledge necessary to prepare them for the
jobs of the 21st century.
Encouraging Students to Major in STEM Fields
Through NCLB, it is President Bush’s goal to enable every child to leave high school fully
prepared to enter college or the workforce. Over the past two decades, enrollment in U.S.
institutions of higher education rose from 12.6 million students in 1983 to 15.7 million in
2001. Over that same period, the number of entering freshman who declared their intent to
study science and engineering (S&E), as well as the percentage of S&E degrees conferred,
remained steady at about one-third of all degrees. Within certain fields, such as engineering
and the physical sciences, however, there have been slight declines in enrollment and
degree completion, while in other S&E fields, such as the social and behavioral, life, and
computer sciences, degree completion rates have increased. Among those who graduate
with S&E bachelor’s degrees, the retention rate of those who go into S&E graduate
186
education or careers has declined to 28 percent. It is important that our country maintain an
adequate flow of well-trained STEM workers, and for that reason President Bush supports a
number of programs across the Federal government that seek to increase access to college
and to recruit and retain students in STEM majors at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
STEM Education and Workforce Training at the National Science
Foundation
The National Science Foundation administers over 48 programs designed to improve
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructional materials and
methods, teacher preparation and professional development, student performance and
interest, and the recruitment to and retention of students in STEM majors and graduate
programs. These education and workforce programs serve the full range of individuals, from
preschool students to post-doctoral fellows, as well as seasoned professionals who seek to
update their skills or transition to new areas.
Among these programs is the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program, funded in
FY 2007 for $46 million, which supports partnerships between community colleges, local
industries (who also make substantial contributions toward the partnerships), secondary
schools, and four-year institutions to train skilled technicians of all ages for careers in the
everchanging high-technology workplace. In addition, ATE partner institutions develop
strong linkages through joint advisory teams, shared personnel, and formal articulation
agreements that allow students to transition easily – and transfer credits – from high school
to community college to four-year institution.
An example of a successful ATE Regional Center is the Southwest Center for Microsystems
Education (SCME) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This Center is led by Albuquerque
Vocational Technical Institute in partnership with Sandia National Laboratories, the
University of New Mexico, Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center in
Semiconductor Manufacturing, the Micro and Nanotechnology Commercialization Education
Foundation, Intel, and Texas Instruments, among others. It provides the Microsystems
industry with workforce development models, materials, skills standards, and opportunities
for communities creating Microsystems technology clusters. A bi-national alliance with two-
year technological universities in Mexico is also being fostered by the United States-Mexico
Foundation for Science with Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute to train Mexican
faculty in Micro Electrical Mechanical Systems Technology.
To make a college degree more affordable, the President has provided the largest increase
in Pell grant funding in the history of the program and has increased by one million the
number of students receiving this assistance. In particular, the President supports recent
Congressional action to establish the American
Competitiveness Grants program, which provides supplemental grants to low-income college
freshman and sophomores who completed a rigorous high school curriculum and maintain at
least a 3.0 GPA in college, and juniors and seniors who major in math, science, and critical
foreign languages. This new grant program builds on proposals included in President
Bush’s 2006 Budget request, including the President’s proposal to provide enhanced Pell
Grants to students who pursue rigorous coursework in high school and the Presidential Math
and Science Scholars Fund. As passed in the Deficit Reduction Act, the American
Competitiveness Grants will provide a total of $4.5 billion in grant aid to students through the
187
2010-2011 academic year, including $790 million in the upcoming 2006-2007 academic year
and $850 million in 2007-2008.
American Competitiveness Initiative: Workforce Training
Education, training, and retraining provide individuals with better career options,
opportunities for promotion, and the ability to contribute to the U.S. innovation enterprise.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 26 of the 30 fastest growing job categories
require some type of post high school education or training. Data show that earnings
increase and unemployment decreases with educational achievement and skills attainment.
Moreover, a recent survey of American manufacturers revealed that over 80 percent of
respondents were facing a shortage of qualified workers overall, and over 90 percent of
respondents were facing a moderate to severe shortage of qualified, skilled production
employees.
A Commitment to Community Colleges
Community colleges make great training providers because they are affordable, accessible,
and perhaps most important, adaptable. Community colleges are able to track changing
local labor conditions and partner with local employers to provide training geared toward the
jobs that are in demand.
One of the hallmarks of a strong economy is labor market flexibility. When workers can move
relatively freely from job to job and place to place following the rhythms of the marketplace,
businesses have the workers they need to do the job and workers have opportunities for
career advancement. Community colleges, as flexible training providers, help make the U.S.
workforce and the U.S. economy more competitive.
In his 2004 State of the Union address, the President proposed "increasing our support for
America's fine community colleges, so they can…train workers for industries that are
creating the most new jobs." This commitment has been supported by $125 million in 2005
and 2006 for the Community-based Job Training Grants program to provide training for
100,000 workers. The President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget supports these efforts with a
$150 million request, which would provide training for 160,000 workers.
U.S. colleges and universities provide world-class educational opportunities for those who
seek a post-secondary degree. Many individuals, however, opt for post-secondary skills
training that lead to an industry-recognized license, certificate, or credential. In addition,
many fields require workers to update their skills continually or to retrain on newer
technologies through certification programs and technical training classes or workshops.
Training and development programs are critical to maintaining a skilled workforce capable of
making efficient use of cutting-edge technologies, and greater access to these programs is
critically important for individual workers as well as for America’s competitiveness.
Yet Federal workforce programs, as currently designed, are an inefficient means to meet the
needs of the 21st Century American workforce. Too much money is currently spent on
competing bureaucracies and the sometimes cumbersome service delivery infrastructure,
and not enough on meaningful education and skills training that leads to job growth and
economic prosperity. In general, infrastructure and overhead costs are estimated to
188
consume one third of all Federal training dollars, which amounts to approximately $1.2 to
$1.5 billion annually.
Several states, including Idaho, Montana, and Indiana, have recognized the need to spend
more dollars on worker education and skills training and fewer dollars on overhead and
administration and are working to consolidate and streamline their workforce training
programs. These States anticipate savings on the order of $1 to $2 million each through
these efforts, much of which can be passed on to provide more training opportunities for
more individuals. However, these States, as well as all other States, could provide
additional educational and training opportunities through a new approach to job training in
America.
The 2007 Budget introduces an important initiative, Career Advancement Accounts (CAA).
CAAs will be self-managed accounts of up to $3,000 available to workers entering the
workforce or transitioning between jobs, or incumbent workers in need of new skills to
remain employed or move up the career ladder. The CAAs will give workers the resources
they need to increase their skills and compete for the jobs of the 21st century economy. The
CAA initiative also provides flexibility for Governors and States to design service delivery
systems that best serve their citizens.
These accounts will:
• Empower individuals by significantly increasing workers' choices in the job training
and employment services they need to get back to work. Workers will have the
resources to take the longer-term training that leads to higher-paying jobs.
• Increase training opportunities by eliminating duplicative training and employment
programs and unnecessary overhead. The CAA initiative will offer training
opportunities to some 800,000 people annually, more than tripling the number
trained under the current system.
• Increase flexibility by allowing individuals to use their accounts for training and other
services to help them advance their careers.
American Competitiveness Initiative: Immigration
President Bush has established a goal to better prepare U.S. students and workers to
succeed in the 21st century workforce. The President also recognizes that enabling the
world's most talented and hardest-working individuals to put their skills to work for America
will increase our entrepreneurship and our international competitiveness, and will net many
high-paying jobs for all Americans. The United States benefits from our ability to attract and
retain needed immigrant and non-immigrant students and workers, and it is important that
America remains competitive in attracting talented foreign nationals. President Bush has a
comprehensive plan for immigration reform that meets the needs of a growing economy,
allows workers to provide for their families while respecting the law, and enhances homeland
security by securing and relieving pressure on the borders.
Conclusion
In the years to come, the United States will face increased economic competition from a
number of countries around the world. We will have to work harder to maintain our
competitive edge. By laying the foundation today for expanded scientific and technological
189
excellence, we will continue to lead the world tomorrow in inquiry, invention, and innovation.
The greatest asset of our Nation is the potential of the American people. America is founded
on the belief that every life is precious and holds unique promise. By investing in people,
helping them reach their full potential, and rewarding their creativity, we will unleash the
natural creativity and ingenuity of the human mind, create new jobs, train workers to fill them,
and make our Nation and the world a safer, cleaner, and better place to live. The American
Competitiveness Initiative provides our Nation with the tools to better educate our children,
to train our workforce, and to push the boundaries of our scientific and technological
capabilities now and in the future.

Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/index.html

190

Abstract (if available)

Abstract America's diminishing global competitiveness in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields is due in part, to a dwindling workforce. Increased representation of historically underrepresented minorities (URMs) through undergraduate education is one means of addressing the "quiet crisis" (Friedman, 2006). Faculty from a prominent research institution (UARE) were interviewed (n=8, 4 from the Biomedical Engineering Program -- BEP and 4 from a science-related unit) to better understand the challenges and solutions to increasing URMs, specifically African Americans. The two challenges cited most by BEP faculty were (1) program less competitive than more prestigious institutions (75%) and, (2) student-related challenges (75%). Collectively, the two top challenges stated by 7 of 8 (88%) of faculty across both academic units were (1) student-related, and (2) faculty lack of institutional support. There was no consensus amongst the BEP faculty on recommendations and the most prevalent responses related to increasing institutional support: (1) Need help finding students (50%), (2) Increase outside grants to support diversity recruitment in labs (50%). Combining the findings across both units, the need for better recruiting (50%) was mentioned but the proposed methods varied considerably. Overall, the nature of the challenges and recommendations indicate faculty perception of external locus of control. From a constructivist framework the faculty perspectives are inherently credible. From a Critical Race Theory framework the faculty perspectives appear limited and therefore insufficient to address the under representation. The research paradigm and lack of knowledge about how to engage in better recruitment are also constraints to improving access.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

Factors influencing admissions counselors’ ability to increase the number of African American males in a private college: a gap analysis

PDF

The emerging majority in the United States health professions: a gap analysis innovation model for Latinx recruitment planning within higher education

Asset Metadata

Creator Buchanan, Donna M. (author)

Core Title How is an undergraduate engineering program uniquely positioned to create a diverse workforce through the recruitment of African American students? A faculty perspective

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 08/01/2008

Defense Date 05/12/2008

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

Tag critical race theory,diversity,minority,OAI-PMH Harvest,recruitment,STEM field,underrepresentation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Ragusa, Gisele (committee member), Suite, Denzil (committee member)

Creator Email dbuchanan@fms.usc.edu,donnambuchanan@earthlink.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1520

Unique identifier UC1288038

Identifier etd-Buchanan-1989 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-100450 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1520 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Buchanan-1989.pdf

Dmrecord 100450

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Buchanan, Donna M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu