Investigating Best Practices in the Research Mentoring of Underrepresented Minority Students in Engineering: The Impact of Informal Interactions

This exploratory study addresses the need to increase the numbers of traditionally underrepresented minority (URM) students in engineering careers through an investigation of the role of research mentoring in recruiting and retaining URM students in engineering. Mentoring students in engineering and science research has long been acknowledged as an effective way to engage undergraduates in engineering majors, and is also an essential component of the doctoral degrees that represent the gateway to careers in engineering research. This study was guided by the following questions: 1) What can we identify as best practices in mentoring and supervising URM students as they conduct engineering research? 2) How is the effectiveness of these practices perceived by URM populations? 3) To what extent are these best practices in research mentoring congruent with commonly accepted guidelines for undergraduate and graduate students from majority groups? In order to answer these questions, data was collected through an online survey of a nationwide sample of URM engineering undergraduate students, graduate students, and recent PhD recipients. Semi-structured follow-up interviews were conducted by telephone with a sub-set of the survey respondents. Through coding and narrative analysis of qualitative data and triangulation with quantitative survey data, several themes emerged regarding the impacts of mentoring and students‘ perceptions of best practices in research mentoring. In this paper, we focus on one theme which stood out in the data: the role of informal mentoring by research supervisors in retaining undergraduate students in engineering. In this paper we describe what informal mentoring looks like in the context of engineering research experiences and how it has contributed to students‘ persistence in engineering. We also explore how informal mentoring may be particularly beneficial for URM students. We propose that incorporating more informal types of mentoring into the research mentor-mentee relationship is one effective way for faculty to facilitate the retention of URM undergraduate students in engineering. Introduction “My mentor believed in me when I didn't believe in myself. My mentor was great for motivation and perseverance. Because of my mentor, I persisted.” — Female post-doctoral associate i The need to increase the numbers of traditionally underrepresented minorities (URMs) in engineering careers and research is well documented. Underrepresented minorities (African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos/as, and American Indians/Alaska Natives) make up approximately 31% of the population 1 , but account for just 11.6% of the science and engineering workforce 2 . This disparity is also reflected in the demographics of students earning degrees in engineering. In 2008, just 12.4% of the Bachelor‘s degrees in engineering were earned by underrepresented minorities 3 . Looking at graduate degrees for the same year, 19% of the Master‘s degrees and 3.5% of the doctoral degrees granted in engineering fields went to underrepresented minorities. According to Seymour and Hewitt 4 , approximately one third of URM students intend to major in science or engineering as college freshmen; however, of that group only 37% graduate with a Bachelor‘s degree in a STEM field, indicating that retention is at least as critical an issue as P ge 22971.2 recruitment into engineering majors. More equitable representation of minorities in engineering would not only allow these individuals to benefit personally, but would also help advance the field through the unique contributions and perspectives that members of these groups can bring, helping to keep the U.S. competitive globally 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 . This exploratory study addresses these disparities through an exploratory investigation of the role of research mentoring in recruiting and retaining URM college students in engineering. Mentoring students in engineering and science research has long been acknowledged as an effective way to engage and interest undergraduates in earning the baccalaureate degrees that lead to careers or advanced degrees in STEM fields 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 . Research mentoring is also an essential component of the doctoral degrees that represent the gateway to careers in STEM research 17, 18, 19 . However, most of the faculty and research staff who supervise students in research have received little formal training in research mentoring. Although ―how-to‖ guides for being an effective mentor exist, the best practices (i.e., techniques proven to reliably produce a desired result) endorsed by these guides are often not grounded in empirical research, and few focus specifically on URM populations in engineering. In this paper, we focus on one of the themes that stood out in the data: the role of informal mentoring by research supervisors in retaining undergraduate students in engineering. We describe what informal mentoring looks like in the context of engineering research experiences, examine how this type of mentoring has contributed to students‘ persistence in engineering, and explore how informal mentoring may be particularly beneficial for URM students. We suggest certain implications for practice related to this particular theme, using the notion of communities of practice 34, 35, 36 as an interpretive framework, with further recommendations based on the full data set to be discussed elsewhere. Research Design and Methodology This study was guided by the following research questions: What can we identify as best practices in mentoring and supervising URM students as they conduct engineering research? How is the effectiveness of these practices perceived by URM populations? To what extent are these best practices in research mentoring congruent with commonly accepted guidelines for undergraduate and graduate students from majority groups? In order to address these questions, quantitative and qualitative data were collected through an online survey and semi-structured follow-up interviews. Survey: An online survey collected responses from a nationwide sample of 92 URM engineering undergraduate students, graduate students, and recent PhD recipients ii . Calls for volunteer participants were sent by email (including professional society listservs) to engineering faculty across the U.S., and faculty were asked to pass the information along to those in their networks who might be interested and eligible for participation. Due to this ―snowball‖ method of recruitment it is unknown exactly how many potential participants received the information; therefore, a response rate is not available. Survey recruitment materials specified that eligible participants must 1) be current undergraduate students, graduate students, or recent PhD recipients (within the last 10 years); 2) have P ge 22971.3 participated in some form of mentored research in engineering; and 3) belong to one or more of the groups traditionally underrepresented in engineering (African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos/as, or Native Americans). Participants self-reported their eligibility and other demographic information within the survey. Information on participants‘ home institutions was not collected, due to a concern that this level of detail would make participants too identifiable. This survey included both qualitative (open-ended narratives) and quantitative (multiple choice and Likert scale) questions about respondents‘ experiences with mentoring in engineering research. The series of narrative questions asked respondents to first describe one mentoring experience or interaction that was memorable, powerful, or influential in either a positive or negative way. Respondents were then asked to describe how (if at all) this particular mentoring experience had influenced their thinking about their career or academic pathways, and how (if at all) the experience might influence their own mentoring of other students. Respondents were also asked, through a series of Likert scale questions, to characterize their actual mentoring experience, rate their satisfaction with various aspects of that experience, and indicate their preferences for an ―ideal‖ mentoring situation. Demographic information about respondents was also collected through multiple choice questions. Interviews: Follow-up interviews were conducted by telephone with eight of the survey respondents. Interview subjects were selected from among the pool of survey respondents who agreed to be contacted for this purpose. Efforts were made to include a mix of individuals that reflected the demographics of the overall participant sample. In these semi-structured interviews 20 , subjects were asked to clarify or expand on their survey responses, in order to help us better understand their experiences, the mentoring contexts, and the impacts of mentoring. Study population The 92 survey respondents represented a wide range of backgrounds and experiences, according to their self-reported demographic information. As mentioned above, the survey was open only to individuals who were undergraduate students, graduate students, or recent PhD recipients; had participated in some form of mentored research in engineering; and belonged to one or more of the groups traditionally underrepresented in engineering. The gender balance of the respondents was 31% female and 69% male. At the time of the survey, 70% of the participants were undergraduate students, 22% were graduate students, 1% were postdoctoral associates, and 7% categorized themselves as ―other.‖ Regarding their racial or ethnic background, respondents were asked to check all categories that applied, and several respondents did choose multiple categories. The most common identifications were Hispanic or Latino/a (49%) and Black or African American (40%), with smaller numbers identifying with other racial/ethnic groups (see Figure 1 for details). (It should be noted that all respondents who chose the