Doctoral Education and the Faculty of the Future

11. Assessing Programs to Improve Minority Participation in the STEM Fields: What We Know and What We Need to Know

11 Assessing Programs to Improve Minority Participation in the STEM Fields What We Know and What We Need to Know Cheryl Leggon and Willie Pearson Jr. In this chapter we focus on evaluations of programs designed to improve the participation of underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities (URMs) in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines in the United States (U.S.). Our goal is to review selected published studies and unpublished reports about the most effective and promising programs in increasing STEM diversity at the undergraduate , graduate, postdoctoral, and junior faculty levels. We seek to identify what is known and what needs to be known about programs, practices, and policies that are effective in diversifying workers in the STEM disciplines. Background Within the past fifty years, the U.S. economic base has shifted from the manufacturing of durable goods to processing and analyzing information . In this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets are human resources. To compete successfully in the global economy, the United States needs citizens who are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that is well educated and well trained (National Academy of Sciences et al. 2006b; Pearson 2005). Improving Minority Participation in STEM Fields 161 Consequently, the nation cannot afford—literally or figuratively—to squander its human resources; the United States must develop and nurture the talents of all of its citizens. Historically, the United States recruited its STEM workforce from a relatively homogenous talent pool consisting largely of non-Hispanic white men. However, this pool has decreased significantly due not only to the decline of white men as a portion of the U.S. population but also to declining interest among this group in pursuing STEM careers. The need to improve the participation of underrepresented groups— especially URMs—in the STEM fields is not solely driven by demographics and supply-side considerations. An even more important driver is that STEM workers from a variety of backgrounds improve and enhance the quality of science insofar as they are likely to bring a variety of new perspectives to bear on the STEM enterprise—in both research and applications (Building Engineering and Science Talent 2004; Jackson 2003; Leggon and Malcom 1994). Over the last twenty years there has been a proliferation of programs geared toward improving and increasing the participation of URMs in the STEM fields. Yet, the proportion of STEM doctorates earned by members of underrepresented groups has shown only modest improvement (Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering [CEOSE] 2004). These programs can be broadly categorized in a number of ways: • Level: K–12, undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral, entry-level professional. • Funding source: colleges and universities, federal agencies (e.g., the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), nonprofit foundations (e.g., the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation). • Institutional base: an individual college or university (e.g., the Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of Maryland–Baltimore County); consortia (e.g., the Leadership Alliance, the National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in Engineering and Science, the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering); and professional associations (e.g., the American Chemical Society). • The STEM fields: in broad terms (e.g., physical sciences) or in traditional fields (e.g., physics). According to a report by Building Engineering and Science Talent, or BEST (2004), measurable objectives and formal evaluations are critical elements in assessing the effectiveness of programs. Evaluation represents the best strategy for providing information on what is effective and what is not. Moreover, evaluation can provide real-time continuous feedback to guide in design, planning, and implementation so that necessary changes can be made. Program evaluations continue to be limited and lack rigor. The few programs that do track participants report that 162 Doctoral Education and the Faculty of the Future academic benefits accruing to the students may actually diminish over time (Good, Halpin, and Halpin 2002). Other effects, such as the probabilities of persisting in basic math and science courses and of graduating , were assumed to persist (Barlow and Villarejo 2004). Much of the early funding of programs geared toward increasing the participation of URMs in the STEM fields did not include budgetary support for evaluation ; consequently, evidence of program effectiveness was largely anecdotal , minimal, or absent. This situation has begun to change (CEOSE 2004). Although there seems to be more awareness and inclusion of evaluative components in...