Running head: Cultivating
Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education
Cultivating
Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education: The Role of Graduate School
Preparation Programs
Sosanya M. Jones
Southern Illinois
University-Carbondale
Abstract
Graduate school preparation programs (GSPPs) are formal
programs designed to increase student-of-color participation in providing
preparatory course work, summer immersion and research experiences, mentors,
and intensive program advising (Lewis, 2007; Simpson, 2003). Evidence shows
that GSPPs increase interest and participation in graduate school for Black and
Latino students, particularly in the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) fields. Despite this promising news, there has been very
little inquiry examining how GSPPs connect and support broader institutional
diversity and inclusion goals and initiatives. As a result national funding
organizations continue to invest in these programs in order to improve the
greater pipeline for underrepresented students of color.
Despite this promising news, GSPPs are not permanent and
fixed components of their institutions, and as result, these programs are often
vulnerable and at risk of being scaled back or eliminated. (Jones,
2000; Walker et al., 2010).
Furthermore, preparation and retention programs aimed at underrepresented
students are often criticized for their limited ability to influence
large-scale change because they cater to a small, specific population and
frequently are costly to operate (Barnett, et.al., 2012). Currently, the
literature on GSPPs is limited in its ability to highlight the value of these
programs beyond supporting a small select group of students of color. More
evidence is needed on how these programs not only serve their participants, but
also contribute to the larger campus community and institutional goals.
This study sought to explore how GSPPs support the goals
and contribute to the goals and needs of the institutions in which they are
situated. At a macro level, examining the role of GSPPs within their
institutions is important toward helping institutional leaders and external
funding organizations think about how these programs can be better funded and
connected to other initiatives and programs that seek to bolster the
participation of students of color. At an institutional level, this inquiry can
help institutional leaders re-imagine GSPPs and how they could be integrated
into broader strategic planning for increasing diversity and inclusion.
Literature Review
A
program is defined as a set of resources and activities directed toward one or
more common goals (Newcomer, Hatry, & Wholey, 1994). While there are many
types of graduate school preparation programs, within this study, graduate
school preparation programs were graduate-level initiatives designed to
increase access to graduate education and retention graduate education for
underrepresented students of color, particularly Black and Latino students
(Lewis, 2007; Simpson, 2003). Graduate
school preparation programs (hereafter referred to as GSPPs) are formal
programs designed to increase student-of-color participation by providing
preparatory course work, summer immersion and research experiences, mentors,
and intensive program advising (Lewis, 2007; Simpson, 2003).
History and Location of GSPPs
While
the number of GSPPs has not been documented, what is known is that they
continue to proliferate and they do have a positive effect on access and
retention for underrepresented students of color (Lewis, 2007; Stassun, Burger,
and Lange, 2010). across institutional type and discipline. Consequently, there
has been an increase in the amount of funding, inquiries, and studies being
conducted on GSPPs (BEST 2004; Lewis, 2007; Walker et al., 2010). Still, to
date, there has been no real systematic data collection chronicling the origins
and history of GSPPs. What can be concluded from the available literature is
that GSPPs began to gain popularity in the early 1990s and have the highest
concentration in the hard sciences (Simpson, 2003; Walker, et. al., 2010).
GSPPs come in many forms, but they can be readily identified by their formal
structured aims to accomplish one or more of the following goals: (a) to
increase interest in graduate education and careers that require graduate
education; (b) to recruit and provide greater access to graduate schools; and
(c) to decrease student attrition, increase retention, successfully moving
students from matriculation into careers that require a graduate degree (Lewis,
2007; Simpson, 2003; Walker et al. 2010). The literature reveals that programs
categorized as a GSPP may be intended for a number of student populations,
including (a) students from underrepresented racial or ethnic, socio-economic,
or geographically located groups; (b) at-risk students (i.e., students labeled
as more likely to fail or drop out); (c) women; and (d) the general student
population (BEST, 2004; Walker et al., 2010). While GSPPs can cater to any of
these populations, those that have a strong focus on the recruitment and
retention of underrepresented students of color and students at
risk—which is often used as a proxy term for underrepresented students of
color—were of most interest to this study. Most GSPPs aimed at increasing
the retention of Black and Latino students incorporate strategies that seek to
improve academic deficiencies, prepare students for graduate study by early
introductions to college life and courses, and provide intensive mentoring and
advising (Simpson, 2003; Walker et al, 2010). The location of a GSPP within an
institution can depend on the discipline, its explicit and implicit goals, the
formal role and location of its leader, and its primary funding source (Walker
et al, 2010). GSPPs may be housed within a specific academic department, or they
can be situated within academic affairs, academic support, or the multicultural
affairs division of an institution. GSPPs that are focused on a specific
discipline are usually housed within that department. Wherever they may be
situated, these programs offer lessons and strategies that can benefit the
institution as a whole. This is
especially true of GSPPs that offer the broadest range of services and support
to its students.
Types of GSPPs
GSPPs come in many forms that vary in terms of
length of time, support, and overall structure. The most common types of GSPPs
fall into seven categories: (a) academic bridge programs, or transition
programs designed to improve student efficacy and skills in specific subject
matter; (b) research opportunity; (c) student support programs, including
tutoring programs, mentoring and advising, and financial support; (d) social
networking; (e) leadership training; (f) living-learning communities, which are
designed to create a holistic cohort experience for students; and (g) hybrid
programs, which may incorporate several or all of the aspects described above
(BEST, 2004; Myers,2003; Pender et al., 2010; Tierney, Corwin, Auerbach, &
Venegas, 2003; Walker et al, 2010). While all of these seek to address various
points of pipeline challenges, the hybrid GSPP is the most comprehensive in
terms of goals and support, and, based on the current literature, it is the
most noted for addressing the various needs of graduate Black and Latino
students (Jones, 2000; Simpson, 2003; Walker et al. 2010). It is for this
reason that hybrid GSPPs were of particular interest to this study.
Hybrid GSPPs
Hybrid GSPPs are the most
comprehensive and intensive type of GSPP because they incorporate the widest
range of intervention strategies to assist in recruiting, retaining, and
securing access for Black and Latino students. Hybrid GSPPs are most commonly
found in the STEM fields, particularly engineering, the traditional sciences,
nursing, and medicine (Walker et al., 2010). While these hybrid GSPPs vary in
structure and disciplinary focus, they share the same general mission: to
prepare students to pursue and complete graduate studies. The basic components
of hybrid GSPPs include advising, mentoring, research experiences, financial
assistance, and workshops that are designed to increase transparency about the
discipline, demystify the graduate education process, and provide information
about development and advancement within STEM study and subsequent careers
(Lewis, 2007; Stassun, Burger, and Lange, 2010).
One of the earliest and most
recognizable examples of a hybrid GSPP is the Fisk-Vanderbilt Bridge program.
The Fisk-Vanderbilt Masters-to-PhD Bridge program is a partnership between Vanderbilt
University, a PhD-granting Research I university, and Fisk University, a
research-active HBCU. The Vanderbilt-Fisk GSPP seeks to broaden the
participation of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in the science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, specifically physics
and astronomy, materials science, imaging science, and the biomedical sciences.
Since its inception in 2004, the program has attracted a total of 32
underrepresented students, and in 2009, it graduated its first cohort (Stassun,
et. al, 2011).
Like other hybrid GSPPs, the
Vanderbilt-Fisk program offers a multi-level approach towards student
recruitment and retention, which includes a summer transition program where
students encounter introductory courses, mentoring, advising, a research
experience, an internship, and peer advising. This GSPP has a philosophy that
increasing Black- and Latino-student participation in the STEM fields requires
identifying and supporting a ”second pool” of students that consists of
individuals who are “talented and capable, and can succeed given proper
guidance, but who either have not been properly developed or properly
evaluated” (Stassun, et. al., 2011).
Consequently, this program not only
seeks to identify talented Black and Latino students but students who would be
labeled as at risk by other STEM programs. Their strategy for accomplishing
this has been to abandon the strict criteria of filtering applicants on the
basis of entrance tests such as the GRE in favor of identifying applicants with
unrealized potential that can be honed and nurtured (Stassun, Burger, and
Lange, 2010). This program is but one example of the ways in which hybrid GSPPs
can tailor their recruitment and overall program to facilitate the goal of
increasing Black- and Latino-student participation. But while hybrid GSPPs like
this are diverse in their offerings and approaches to support Black and Latino
students, the way in which these programs are studied is very one-dimensional
and limiting.
GSPPs in the Literature
Studies
have shown that GSPPs contribute to increased interest among students of color
in graduate school and have an impact on student selection of graduate
programs, applying to graduate school, gaining admission into graduate school,
and conducting research at the graduate level (Foertsch et al., 2000; Lewis,
2007; Frierson et al., 1994; Stamps & Tribble, 1995). Consequently, governmental
agencies, professional STEM groups, and higher education have increased their interest
and support for these programs (Langen & Dekkers, 2005). Many of these
efforts are focused specifically on recruiting underrepresented populations,
such as Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, women, and students from
disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds (Langen & Dekkers, 2005; Wistedt,
1998). Unfortunately, most of these studies are single-site case studies. For example, Simpson (2003) explored the academic and social transition experiences
of graduate students of color, analyzing their experience by race, type of GSPP
experience, and duration. Her data
revealed that GSPPs were especially critical to students of color who had low
self-efficacy and needed skill building in their major’s core courses. Hybrid
GSPPs that contain mentoring, advising, research experiences, and social and
professional development opportunities were also shown to increase student
confidence and awareness about the graduate school experience.
However, Simpson’s study, like most research
conducted on GSPPs, demonstrates the value of
GSPPs in addressing the student-of-color pipeline by exclusively
focusing on outcomes, the student population being served, and the evaluation
and need for GSPPs. While this data is promising, studies like these only
underscore how helpful these programs are for a small select group of
participants. There has been very little
systematic effort to explore how these programs serve the needs of the
institutions or the greater campus community
in which they are situated. This may reinforce the view that these
programs are “add-ons” and not integral parts of their institutions, even though
they play a valuable role in recruiting and retaining students of color.
Little research has been conducted comparing
and contrasting multiple sites or examining how these programs connect to the
greater institutional contexts in which they are situated. Worse still, GSPPs
are usually seen as isolated interventions, disconnected from their
institutions (Stage, 1992) and as a result they are often on the fringe and
uninstitutionalized.
Historically, GSPPs have depended on
some level of institutional funding to sustain their program’s efforts, whether
it is departmental, from a senior administrative office, or from the general
college budget. However, a recent study by the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign (2010) shows that although institutional funding is critical
to the support and continuation of GSPPs, in times of economic hardship and
recession, institutions are more likely to cut financial support for these
programs. This may be partially because GSPPs, though valuable, are still
viewed as limited in their scope because of the small number of students they
serve and are competing with other institutional priorities that serve more
students. When this occurs, GPLs have to make the difficult decision about
whether to decrease expenditures and reduce financial support and services, as
well as limit the number of students they can admit. This makes the need for
diversifying funding sources critical for them to sustain their programs.
Consequently, many GPLs also look to state, federal, non-profit, and corporate
support (Walker et al., 2010). However, the external funding for GSPPs, though
increasing, remains limited, which makes the process of applying for grant
funding very competitive.
Research Question
In order to investigate if
and how GSPPs support other institutional goals and contribute to the greater
campus environment, I explored the following research question:
How do STEM graduate school preparation programs (GSPPs)
designed to increase the recruitment and retention of Black and Latino students
in American higher education institutions support, connect, and contribute to
other diversity initiatives and institutional diversity and inclusion goals?
Considering my topic of
interest and research questions, three significant themes stood out. I wanted
to better understand (a) if GSPPs support the goals of other diversity programs
and initiatives on campus and the institution as a whole in terms of its goals
for increasing diversity and inclusion; (b) what activities and services GSPPs
offer to greater campus communities in which they are situated; and (c) how are
GSPPs perceived and utilized by the greater campus community (non-participants)
in which they are situated. I was seeking to understand if GSPPs in fact only
cater to their own small select populations, or whether they have a much larger
impact on the institutions in which they operate than they are currently given
credit for in the literature of higher education.
Conceptual Framework
To investigate this research question, I chose a conceptual framework that highlights
institutional context as it relates to diversity and inclusion. Chang’s (2002)
theory of institutional change asserts that for an institution to have true inclusion,
multiple areas of the institution must be transformed: (a)
historical—the legacy of an
institution as it relates to diversity and inclusion; (b) structural—the representation of underrepresented students of
color; (c) psychological—the
campus climate for underrepresented students; and (d) behavioral—the programmatic and curricular practices.
I used this conceptual framework to assess how various
activities sponsored by GSPPs work to address these key areas and support the
institution’s development into an inclusive environment. It should be
noted that this conceptual framework limited what I could explore within the
context. I chose to focus on diversity and inclusion, but there may be other
contextual factors that have a significant impact on the way GSPPs serve their
institutions, such as the institution’s overall budget, and political factors
not related to race and diversity.
Methodology
Because of the overrepresentation of
single-case studies on GSPPs, I chose a multi-case study design to glean
insight into trends across institutions. Case study research involves “the
study of an issue explored through one or more cases within a bounded system in
a setting, context” and involves the exploration of the bounded system or case “over time through detailed,
in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information” (Creswell,
2007, pg. 74). In the case of GSPPs, I wanted to capture the GSPPs as they were
experienced from those who work within and near them in their institutional environment.
A multiple-case design allowed me to see not only the shared and unique
contributions of the GSPPs but also the distinguishing features of
institutional contexts in which these programs are situated.
Data
Collection
Data were triangulated, starting with documents related to the AGEP GSPPs, including program reviews and reports,
marketing materials, internal memos, and published news and periodicals. These
documents were used to gather knowledge about each program. Next, I conducted
interviews with the leaders of these programs as well as program support staff,
faculty partners, and senior institutional administrators. I crafted protocols
that included probes designed to uncover the GSPPs’ relationships with various
offices and departments across their respective institutions, as well as to
discover what programmatic activities and services were open and utilized by
non-participants. These qualitative interviews were semi-structured and
open-ended, lasting approximately an hour–and-a-half. All interviews were
tape-recorded and transcribed to improve confirmability and overall
trustworthiness. Finally, using what Erickson (1986) calls
interpretative inquiry, I took notes of my observations during campus visits
and my reflections after interviews.
Study Participants
After identifying the initial three GSPPs and
their leaders, I used a snowball sample to identify additional participants. 20
individuals participated in the study, including: : three senior
administrators; three graduate preparation program leaders; eight faculty
members; five GSPP staff members; one other GSPP administrator.
Data Analysis
I examined each GSPP separately to understand the distinctive
characteristics of both the GSPP and its respective institutional context. In
order to maintain the integrity of the narrative for each participant and site,
I took the following steps: (a) re-read the interviews and my post-interview
observations; (b) gathered information from the site’s website and program
materials; and (c) used Dedoose to sort through coded data. Creswell (2007)
explains that in regards to case study analysis, a researcher has the option of
using holistic analysis, defined by Yin (2009) as the examination of an entire
case in which there is a presentation of description, themes, interpretations,
or assertions related to the whole case. A researcher could also employ an
embedded analysis, in which a researcher selects one analytic aspect of a case
for examination (Creswell, 2007). I grouped similar themes within each of these
theories to use as codes for my conceptual framework and subsequent data
analysis. The codes served as markers for the guiding themes of my conceptual
framework. Coding the data in this manner allowed me to examine pieces of each
theory and connect similar concepts.
Findings
Based on my analysis,
I found several key findings that demonstrate the importance of GSPPs to the
intellectual and social development of the faculty and students at their
institutions. Furthermore, I found that GSPPs support institutional goals to
increase diversity, inclusion, and community collaboration. Related to these
findings, I make the following assertions based on my analysis and will review each of these findings
briefly:
1. GSPPs
seek to increase diversity and inclusion for the greater campus. GSPPs sponsor
programming that is inclusive and open to the greater campus community
2. GSPPs
have a significant impact on perceptions of diversity and inclusion among
faculty and staff within the greater campus community.
GSPPs Seek to Increase Diversity and
Inclusion for the Greater Campus
Using Chang’s framework, I found that GSPPs address all four
areas needed for institutional transformation: (a) historical—GSPPs work to correct the past as well as build a
more inclusive future both at the institution and in the field; (b) structural—GSPPs seek to increase
the representation of underrepresented students of color; (c) psychological—GSPPs seek to
cultivate student retention by improving the campus environment and promoting
inclusion; and (d) behavioral—GSPPs
seek to influence change by offering programming and practical support that
increases feelings of inclusion among students of color.
All
of the GSPPs in this study had connections to professional organizations
outside the institution to increase awareness and support for STEM students of
color who were not necessarily participating in their programs. All of the
GSPPs also supported initiatives, programs, and projects that were designed to
assist students of color who may or may not be AGEP students on their campus.
They did this by engaging in collaborative relationships for grant writing,
workshops, and recruitment. As the leader of one of the GSPPs explained:
But what we want to do is we want to
increase the numbers annually that enter…and that the applications have gone
up. I mean, we noticed that appreciatively. We’ve received—we do a lot of
recruitment and…we partnered with the faculty, we partnered with the individual
outlook programs, because they are trying to get students into their programs.
They have limited funds, so we share resources. They say, “We can do this. Can
you help us with that?” So they’re interested in diversifying their cohorts,
and they—we work with them when we can to try to get money for that…
(Interview #1)
GSPP
Programming is Inclusive and Open to the Greater Campus Community
All three of the GSPPs in this study sponsor activities such as
academic conferences, seminars, workshops, and lectures; and they make their
activities accessible to the greater campus community. This is demonstrated in
the following statement by one GSPP leader:
Our
AGEP is open to all students in all majors with the sense that in order for
minority students to be successful and happy, all students have to be
successful and happy…in STEM, you are working in your department, and you’re
typically working within a research group. And if your research group is not
being successful and happy, then it will be hard for you to thrive as well because
that’s where the core of your research and academic work takes place (Interview
#25).
GSPPs
Have a Significant Impact on Perceptions of Diversity and Inclusion
In
all three cases, the GSPP staff and the colleagues they worked with described
tangible ways in which the GSPP had improved perceptions and support for
diversity and inclusion among faculty and staff within the greater campus
community. I discovered a shared perception that the GSPPs had raised awareness
about the importance of diversity and inclusion for faculty and administrators
not affiliated with AGEP and other diversity initiatives. This increased
awareness has apparently led faculty and administration across the university
to more support for, and participation in, diversity programs and initiatives.
As one GSPP staff member explained:
And
I think some of the successes that we have had is the fact that we have
been
able to change the disposition of many of the faculty who have moved
upward
in their administrative bracket. But you have to understand that there’s a
thousand
people here. And the transformative power that will come from the
thousand
and of the thousand—we have like 100 to 200 faculty who [have] been
participating.
That’s as far as we go with how much transformative value does it
have.
Of course those are voices that are moving forward, but there are 800 there
(Interview
#12).
GSPPs must do more than simply raise
awareness about the importance of diversity but
must also actively advocate for it and try to
compel those who are not supportive to see its value. I found evidence that
GSPPs do, in fact, work as advocates for change, particularly the leaders of
these programs. For at least two of the GSPPs that were examined, it was
evident that the program leaders actively confront and change some of the
resistant attitudes about diversity among faculty on campus. As one senior
administrator explained:
So
I think [the leader of the GSPP] helped us to make a paradigm shift from what
tended
to be sort of more standard ways of dealing with under-rep programs to
underrepresented students. If you were to ask me what was the greatest
accomplishment, it’s along those terms or lines… (Interview #14)
Discussion and Conclusions
As
I read through the literature on GSPPs and institutional diversity and
inclusion, I discovered that GSPPs designed to recruit and retain
underrepresented students of color within STEM were not widely represented, nor
were the contributions they make toward campus diversity and inclusion goals.
One of the reasons there may be so little attention given to the role of GSPPs
to the greater campus community is the limited way in which they are
conceptualized and discussed. There is no outlined recognition of their role or
of their contributions in either the NSF AGEP grant or within the advertisement
materials these programs use to recruit students. Significant work and
contribution can be made invisible by devaluation (Moore, Acosta, Perry,
Edwards, 2010; Hampson and Junor, 2005).
Diversity
and inclusion programs such as GSPPs offer comprehensive academic and social
programs that support institutional goals for diversity, inclusion, and
academic enrichment. They are also equipped with leaders and staff that have
vast knowledge, networks, and collaborative relationships with many communities
within and outside their institutions. They are committed to the goals of
increasing diversity and creating environments that are inclusive. If higher
education wants to truly move beyond symbolic diversity and toward
institutional change, institutional leaders and the funding organizations that
support diversity initiatives must begin to take the role of these types of
programs more seriously.
In the recent guide called ”Measuring Diversity: An Evaluation Guide for
STEM Graduate School Leaders,” the NSF
(2011) attempts to help leaders evaluate GSPPs connected to the AGEP. While the
importance of understanding context is briefly mentioned, the focus in that
guide rests almost exclusively on measuring program impacts and providing tips
about strategies for recruiting and retaining students of color. I assert that
discussions about the impacts and strategies without consideration for way
GSPPs serve and contribute to the greater campus community and institution
limits the ability of these programs to be seen more than just auxiliary
programs that only serve a small select group of students.
This
multi-case study revealed that each GSPP contributed and connected to broader
institutional needs to improve diversity and inclusion. The implications are
that these programs can have broader applicability to the institutions’
strategic plans and long-term goals. Regardless of the institutional context,
heightened awareness about the program and its services can bolster
their sustainability and visibility. GSPPs are
not only creating connections between underrepresented students and the greater
campus community, but they are also providing services that contribute to the
growth of non-program students, staff, and faculty and thereby supports the
diversity, inclusion, and the educational goals of their institutions.
References
American Association for the
Advancement of Science. (2013). AGEP Alliances for
Graduate
Education and the Professoriate. In About
AGEP. Retrieved from: http://www.nsfagep.org/.
Barnett, E., Bork, R., Mayer,
A., Pretlow, J., Wathington, H., Trimble, M. (2012). Bridging the
gap:
An impact study of eight developmental summer bridge programs in Texas (NCPR
Report. Retrieved from Community College
Research Center website: http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/bridging-gap-summer-bridge.pdf
Building
Engineering and Science Talent. (2004). A bridge for all: Higher education
design
principles to broaden participation in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics. San Diego: BEST.
Chang, M. (2002).
Preservation or transformation: where’s the real educational
discourse
on diversity? The Review of Higher
Education, 25(2), 125–140.
Creswell, J. (2007). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frierson, H., Hargrove, B.,
and Lewis, N. (1994). Black summer research students’ perceptions
related
to research mentors’ race and gender. Journal
of College Student Development, 35(5),
475–480.
Foertsch, J., Alexander, B.
B., Penberthy, D. (2000). Summer research opportunity
programs
(SROPs) for student of color undergraduates: A longitudinal study of program
outcomes, 1986–1996. Council on
Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 114–119.
Hampson, I & Junor, A, 2005,
'Invisible work, invisible skills: Interactive customer service as
articulation
work', New Technology Work and
Employment, vol. 20, pp. 166 – 181
Jones, S. (2000). Retaining
and graduating Black college students: A Longitudinal review
of the 1993 James Madison
University transition class. Ed.S. Project Master
Thesis. Supervised by Dr. Donna Sundre.
Langen, A. van, &
Dekkers, H. (2005). Participation in tertiary science, technology,
engineering,
and mathematics education in the Netherlands and other western countries. Final
research report. Nijmegen: ITS, Radboud University.
Lewis, N. (2007). Developing
and testing a model to predict underrepresented
students’
plans for graduate study: Analysis of the 1988–2006 cohorts of a summer
research program. Unpublished Dissertation, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive
approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maxwell. May 8, 2007. In peer
review, it’s time to stop thinking statistically about
qualitative
research. TC Record. Retrieved from:
http://www.tcrecord.org/discussion.asp?i=3&aid=2&rid=12612&dtid=0&vdpid=2761
Moore, H. A, K. Acosta, G. Perry and C. Edwards.
(2010). Splitting the academy: The
emotions of intersectionality at work. The Sociological Quarterly, 51
National Science Foundation. (2011). Measuring diversity: An evaluation
guide for
STEM graduate program leaders. Retrieved
from: http://www.nsfagep.org/files/2011/04/MeasuringDiversity-EvalGuide.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2012). NSF AGEP request for proposals.
Retrieved from:
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12554/nsf12554.htm
National Science Foundation. (2013). Alliances for graduate education
and the
professoriate (AGEP): Program
description. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5474
Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (1994). Meeting the
need for practical
evaluation approaches: An
introduction. Handbook of practical program evaluation, 1-10.
Simpson, M. (2003). Exploring
the academic and social transition experiences of ethnic
student
of color graduate students. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. Unpublished Dissertation. Joan B. Hirt, Chair. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12082003-155510/
Stage, E. (1992).
Interventions defined, implemented, and evaluated. In Matyas, M., Dix, L.
(Eds.),
Science and engineering programs: On
target for women, (pp.15-26). Washington, D.C.; National Academies.
Stamps, S. D., and Tribble,
Jr., I. (1995). If you can walk, you can
dance: If you can talk,
you can sing. Silver Spring, MD: Beckham House.
Stassun, K., Burger, A., and
Lange, S. (2010). The Fisk-Vanderbilt Masters-to-PhD Bridge
Program:
A model for broadening participation of underrepresented groups in physical
sciences through effective partnerships with Minority-serving institutions, Journal of Geoscience Education, 58(3), 135–144.
Stassun K., Sturm, S.,
Holley-Bockelmann, K., Burger, A., Ernst, D., Webb,
D. (2011).
The Fisk-Vanderbilt Master’s-to-Ph.D. Bridge Program: recognizing, enlisting, and cultivating unrealized or unrecognized potential in underrepresented minority students. American Journal of Physics. 2011;79:374–379
Walker, K., George-Jackson,
C., Rincon, B., Williams, M.. Baber, L. and Trent, W. (2010).
STEM
intervention programs: The shift from opportunity to merit. University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The 2010 Annual Conference Association for the
Study of Higher Education, November 17–20, 2010, Indianapolis, IN.
Wistedt, I. (1998) Recruiting
female students to higher education in mathematics, physics and
technology:
An evaluation of a Swedish initiative, Stockholm, Swedish National Agency for
Higher Education. Retrieved from:
https://guoa.ub.gu.se/dspace/bitstream/2077/19296/1/gupea_2077_19296_1.pdf