Search results

This paper aims to present demographic characteristics and postgraduate employment trends of business doctoral graduates, especially the proportion that are underrepresented minorities (URMs) over time.

The authors analyze the near census of individuals receiving doctoral degrees in a wide range of business disciplines from US-accredited universities from 1973 to 2018 (n = 50,091) contained with the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates. The authors analyze how the proportion of URM graduates, by discipline, has changed over time both in terms of receiving a doctoral degree and entering an academic position.

The proportion of URM graduates fluctuated between approximately 5% and 15% annually, steadily increasing across decades. Overall, 64.4% of all graduates entered an academic position, with notably higher rates among whites (72.1%) compared to Blacks (51.8%), Hispanics (60.4%) and other URMs (56.4%) (p < 0.001). In adjusted models, the proportion of URMs that entered academic positions significantly increased overtime, beginning in the 1990s and peaked in the 2000s. Although the few institutions that graduated the highest number of URMs do not currently have an Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-accredited business school, the authors identify several exemplar institutions where URM graduates entered academic jobs at the highest rates.

The authors provide demographic trends that shed light on ways to influence an increase in URM doctoral graduates from business disciplines into academic careers. This discussion is of interest to university administrators and other stakeholders interested in diversity issues in higher education.

This chapter tackles the tension between equity and excellence that critics often highlight in opposition of diversity initiatives and efforts in the higher education employment setting. We present several arguments that respond to the assumptions undergirding these criticisms, by drawing on prior research to emphasize that equity and excellence are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, we present new evidence from a national sample of Black and Hispanic Engineering Faculty (BHEF) (n = 68) to argue that their racialized work experiences promote exclusive environments that serve to sustain their underrepresentation and marginalize their performance contributions. We conclude with a new direction for how to cultivate inclusive work environments in higher education.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) programs are traditionally delivered in-person and full-time (40 h per week) for 10 weeks during the summer. However, this type of format has the potential to limit broader student participation. This study aims to compare learning assessment data between a traditional NSF REU (10 weeks of summer, full-time, in-person) to an alternative NSF REU delivered virtually, part-time and over 10 months as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

A retrospective pre-then-post survey was completed to assess perceived learning gains for each REU program. Three learning gains categories were assessed: entrepreneurial competencies, career goals and research skill development. T-tests were used to evaluate a difference in means between pre and post.

Findings show the greatest quantity of learning gains within the alternative program delivery. Moreover, a larger quantity of learning gains was perceived within the first semester of the alternative program delivery compared to the second semester.

The authors propose the NSF should be intentional about trying new approaches to REU programs delivery, including duration and format, as a way to broaden participation in engineering.

This study is original in that it is the first of its kind to assess an alternative REU program delivery (allowed only because of the COVID-19 pandemic) in comparison to traditional REU program delivery.

The USA’s higher education leaders and professional organizations have called for increased professional development programming at graduate colleges to better prepare US graduate students for their future careers. This study aims to investigate the demographic characteristics of graduate students participating in co-curricular professional development (PD) and sociocultural development (SD) programming at a graduate college at a large, selective and research-intensive public university in the Midwestern USA.

Using institutional data from six semesters, the authors examined the characteristics of students that attended the graduate college’s programs at one university. The authors analyzed which students were most likely to attend PD and SD programs using multinomial logistic regression models.

Female students, students from US historically marginalized racial groups, and US Pell Grant recipients (low-income students) were found to have a higher likelihood of attending both PD and SD programs at the centralized graduate college.

The findings will be of interest to graduate deans and educators who support graduate students. Further evaluative research on the usefulness of such programs at other institutions would help graduate colleges better understand the role they play in meeting graduate students’ needs.

The findings contribute to the understanding of the important role of the US graduate college in the development of graduate students. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first study to evaluate the backgrounds of graduate students who pursue co-curricular PD and SD opportunities.

While known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literature and exploration of university-wide policies.

The authors conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions’ and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of qualifying exams practices in PhD training at a research-intensive US institutions.

This study identified the need for more research on qualifying exams to establish evidence-based best practices. The authors found a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, with little evidence in support for specific formats. The authors also found little evidence that student expectations are made clear. The lack of evidence-based best practices coupled with insufficient clarity for students has a real potential to disadvantage PhD students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams.

There are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus-wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.

Drawing upon the authors’ experiences as minoritised academic scholars within leadership roles of a Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic (BAME) Network in the United Kingdom (UK) academe, the authors explored the research question “In what ways do racially minoritised academics use coping techniques and strategies to counter racism and inequality in the higher education environment”.

The authors used a collective autoethnography approach accompanied by storytelling, underpinned by a qualitative interpretative process, supported by inductive, data-driven theorising. The authors’ approach is supplemented by the usage of content analysis (Schrieier, 2012) to analyse the data and generate findings.

The research findings specifically highlight (1) collectivism, solidarity and belonging, (2) knowledge expansion and critical consciousness, (3) disarming approaches and emotional labour, (4) resistance through setting boundaries and (5) intersectionality and BAME men allyship, as specific approaches for taking forward anti-racism.

Autoethnographic research has encountered challenges around verification, transparency and veracity of data, and issues have been debated due to its subjective nature (see Jones, 2010; Keeler, 2019; Méndez, 2013). Additional complications arise regarding neutrality and objectivity associated with the researchers' identities and experiences being represented in autoethnographic accounts. The authors acknowledge that the accounts provided are subjective, and have influenced the research process and product.

Research on the experiences of minoritised academics leading staff equality networks constitutes a research gap. This article offers an original analysis through outlining the authors’ lived experiences in leadership positions of a BAME Network and hope to other minoritised employees undertaking anti-racist work.

Structural mentoring barriers are policies, practices and cultural norms that collectively disadvantage marginalized groups and perpetuate disparities in mentoring. This study aims to better understand structural mentoring barriers at the postdoctoral training stage, which has a direct impact on faculty diversity and national efforts to retain underrepresented groups in research careers.

A diverse sample of postdoctoral scholars (“postdocs”) from across the USA were asked to participate in focus groups to discuss their training experiences. The authors conducted five 90-min focus groups with 32 biomedical postdocs, including 20 (63%) women and 15 (47%) individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (URG).

A social-ecological framework was used to categorize both the upstream and downstream manifestations of structural mentoring barriers, as well as mentoring barriers, overall. Notable structural barriers included: academic politics and scientific hierarchy; inequalities resulting from mentor prestige; the (over) reliance on one mentor; the lack of formal training for academic and non-academic careers; and the lack of institutional diversity and institutional mentor training. To overcome these barriers, postdocs strongly encouraged developing a network or team of mentors and recommended institutional interventions that create more comprehensive professional development, mentorship and belonging.

For postdoctoral scientists, structural mentoring barriers can permeate down to institutional, interpersonal and individual levels, impeding a successful transition to an independent research career. This work provides strong evidence for promoting mentorship networks and cultivating a “mentoring milieu” that fosters a supportive community and a strong culture of mentorship at all levels.