Perspectives of American and English University Administrators: Fostering Minority Students' Graduation in Doctoral STEM Programs

• In Event: 72.057 - Critical Academic and Public Policy Issues Affecting Minorities in STEM

Abstract

Research and literature have examined issues and policies (de jure and de facto) affecting the entrance (to) and completion (of) graduate STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) degrees by underrepresented students in the United States (US) and England. Some examines justice and equality for underrepresented students in STEM fields (Smith, 2009; Trent and Gong, 2006) whilst other literature focuses-on institutional factors that positively/negatively affect diverse student and professional representation (Museus et al, 2011; Hurtado et al, 2009). Further works analyse the influence of public policies and interconnections with globalization on STEM (Lindsay and Blanchett, 2011; Perna et al, 2008); importance of disciplines within institutions (Bonner, 2012; Lindsay, 2012); and criticality of research agendas in STEM (Harper and Newman, 2010). All such variables affect entrance and completion rates of underrepresented students at American and English university PhD programs.

Based upon an ongoing National Science Foundation (NSF) grant comparing the admission and completion rates of underrepresented students in STEM between the US and England, this paper responds to 2011 calls by President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron. Both endorsed increasing the number and range of STEM professionals and educators by 2021 (to 100,000 in each country) to help ensure viable communities and economies (Obama, 2011; Royal Academy of Engineering, 2012). The paper concentrates on: a) analyzing university administrative positions that facilitate or impede the admission and completion of underrepresented students who will become STEM professionals; b) exploring the roles of administrators providing leadership and managerial capacity; and c) examining the administrative roles and positions vis-a-vis comparative education/university and public policies affecting matriculation and graduation.

Scrutiny of entrance and completion policies/practices of graduate STEM disciplines at seven universities occurred via interviews with over 30 administrators (deans and above). Their responses to protocols were designed to “tease out” components of the conceptual frameworks – frontstage/backstage (Goffman, 1959; Picca and Feagan, 2007) and educational and public policies – elucidated below.

In light of the AERA Conference theme (educational praxis, research theory, and policy changing the world towards justice we delve into frameworks regarding education/university and public policies and frontstage and backstage (formal and informal respectively) modes that are implemented, thus making ethical dimensions evident for “voiced” statements for equity and fairness. We discovered that US and English university policies require particular types of baccalaureate degree research projects and/or honours degrees, along with students’ interview responses, for PhD admissions. Moreover, public policies, designed by legislators and national funding agencies, “dictate” student funding and years to degree completion. Our interviews portrayed that degrees of flexibility exerted by university administrators in light of frontstage/public policies and backstage/nonpublic-informal options affected entrance and completion. These policies encompass plans of action aimed at accomplishing organizational goals that emerge from political, social, or fiscal realities. For example, ensuring particular enrollments meant the presence or absence of funding. In essence, frontstage and backstage policies significantly affect success or absence thereof (Mario and Lindsay, 2011; Lindsay and Ginsburg, 1995).

Authors

• Eric J Simeon, The Pennsylvania State University - University Park

• Beverly Lindsay, University College London