United States

STEM education and careers are known for being inhospitable to people of color (e.g., McGee, 2020a, b), causing the most resilient scientists of color to begin to suffer from racial battle fatigue, chronic or acute physiological and psychological stress due to daily micro- and macro-aggressions (McGee &amp; Stovall, 2015; McGee, 2020b). Given this traumatizing impact on scientists of color, McGee and Stovall (2015) call for the need to address mental health in STEM. They believe that Critical Race Theory (CRT), in particular, “provides an opportunity to understand and implement racially appropriate healing systems for black college students and other groups that are chronically underserved and understudied” [emphasis added] (McGee &amp; Stovall, 2015, p. 508). 

 

Subsequently, in this hands-on, interactive workshop, we offer a way to “connect CRT [Critical Race Theory] as a theoretical construct to a livable, observable, teachable process of critical consciousness, knowing and doing” (CRiT walking - Hughes &amp; Giles, 2010, p. 42). We do this through the enactment of a new methodology called Contemplative CRiT Collage (CCC) with the aim of moving marginalized students and professionals of color within STEM toward community- and self-mending. Like Ortiz (2018), we intentionally use mending rather than healing because mending recognizes that, though the wound is closed, or the direct effect has long since vanished, the bodymind is no longer the same. It has been forever changed by the hurt it has experienced. Thus, CCC’s objective is to mend the hurt within scientists of color to try to minimize traumatic retention and address institutionalized trauma (Menakem, 2017).  

 

CCC infuses visual arts-informed methods (i.e., photo elicitation and photovoice) with collage, contemplative practice, and CRT. Informed by contemplative methods (Chang, 2020), cultural intuition (Delgado Bernal, 1998), and women of color epistemologies (e.g., Cruz, 2001; Hurtado, 2003), CCC is a unique methodology that Dr. Torres-Gerald first began developing as a doctoral student looking for a way to document the stories of women of color in STEM while addressing the pain that she knew many of them were in, especially given her own journey as a female scientist of color with a disability (Torres, 2016). She has used portions of this methodology herself in examining her scholarly identity as a disabled Latina mother-scholar during COVID (Torres, 2021). As a trained scientist and mindfulness instructor, she also understands the value of adding meditation to reduce stress and improve telomere regulation, which is associated with aging (Conklin et al., 2019).  

 

This workshop will highlight the need for interventions that address racialized trauma and the use of CCC as a possible way to aid in the mending of students of color who encounter negative experiences in STEM. CCC is offered as a new approach to support their persistence in STEM through meditation and collage-making. Workshop attendees will engage in a four-part workshop: (1) learning about the CCC methodology; (2) engaging in a short meditation practice; (3) creating an individual and collective collage; and (4) participating in a large group discussion about their experience with this methodology and how it can be used in their respective STEM fields. It is our hope that attendees will take what they learn from this workshop and share or incorporate it at their institutions while understanding its challenges and risks. Attendees will leave this workshop with a new understanding of this innovative arts-informed method for data collection and strategies to support the persistence of students and professionals in STEM, especially those from marginalized backgrounds. They will be able to adapt CCC to campus programming that focuses on supporting marginalized students or professionals in STEM, such as STEM bridge and mentoring programs.

2025 Understanding Interventions Annual Conference

Mending the Path to Broader Participation in STEM Through Contemplative CRiT Collage

STEM education and careers are known for being inhospitable to people of color (e.g., McGee, 2020a, b), causing the most resilient scientists of color to begin to suffer from racial battle fatigue, chronic or acute physiological and psychological stress due to daily micro- and macro-aggressions (McGee & Stovall, 2015; McGee, 2020b). Given this traumatizing impact on scientists of color, McGee and Stovall (2015) call for the need to address mental health in STEM. They believe that Critical Race Theory (CRT), in particular, “provides an opportunity to understand and implement racially appropriate healing systems for black college students and other groups that are chronically underserved and understudied” [emphasis added] (McGee & Stovall, 2015, p. 508). 

 

Subsequently, in this hands-on, interactive workshop, we offer a way to “connect CRT [Critical Race Theory] as a theoretical construct to a livable, observable, teachable process of critical consciousness, knowing and doing” (CRiT walking - Hughes & Giles, 2010, p. 42). We do this through the enactment of a new methodology called Contemplative CRiT Collage (CCC) with the aim of moving marginalized students and professionals of color within STEM toward community- and self-mending. Like Ortiz (2018), we intentionally use mending rather than healing because mending recognizes that, though the wound is closed, or the direct effect has long since vanished, the bodymind is no longer the same. It has been forever changed by the hurt it has experienced. Thus, CCC’s objective is to mend the hurt within scientists of color to try to minimize traumatic retention and address institutionalized trauma (Menakem, 2017).  

 

CCC infuses visual arts-informed methods (i.e., photo elicitation and photovoice) with collage, contemplative practice, and CRT. Informed by contemplative methods (Chang, 2020), cultural intuition (Delgado Bernal, 1998), and women of color epistemologies (e.g., Cruz, 2001; Hurtado, 2003), CCC is a unique methodology that Dr. Torres-Gerald first began developing as a doctoral student looking for a way to document the stories of women of color in STEM while addressing the pain that she knew many of them were in, especially given her own journey as a female scientist of color with a disability (Torres, 2016). She has used portions of this methodology herself in examining her scholarly identity as a disabled Latina mother-scholar during COVID (Torres, 2021). As a trained scientist and mindfulness instructor, she also understands the value of adding meditation to reduce stress and improve telomere regulation, which is associated with aging (Conklin et al., 2019).  

 

This workshop will highlight the need for interventions that address racialized trauma and the use of CCC as a possible way to aid in the mending of students of color who encounter negative experiences in STEM. CCC is offered as a new approach to support their persistence in STEM through meditation and collage-making. Workshop attendees will engage in a four-part workshop: (1) learning about the CCC methodology; (2) engaging in a short meditation practice; (3) creating an individual and collective collage; and (4) participating in a large group discussion about their experience with this methodology and how it can be used in their respective STEM fields. It is our hope that attendees will take what they learn from this workshop and share or incorporate it at their institutions while understanding its challenges and risks. Attendees will leave this workshop with a new understanding of this innovative arts-informed method for data collection and strategies to support the persistence of students and professionals in STEM, especially those from marginalized backgrounds. They will be able to adapt CCC to campus programming that focuses on supporting marginalized students or professionals in STEM, such as STEM bridge and mentoring programs.

workshop paper

### Welcome to the 2025 Understanding Interventions Annual Conference

This year’s event promises to be an enlightening experience, filled with opportunities for sharing, networking, engagement, and inspiration.

Our mission? To foster an inclusive environment where the science communities can come together to discuss, collaborate, and strategize on how to broaden participation in science careers. Whether you’re an educator, researcher, policymaker, or passionate advocate, this conference is designed to provide valuable insights and practical solutions.

Get ready for:
* **Cutting-edge Research:** Explore the latest trends and findings in interventions aimed at enhancing diversity and inclusion in science fields.
* **Networking Opportunities:** Connect with like-minded professionals, forge new partnerships, and exchange ideas that can drive meaningful change.
* **Inspiring Keynote & Speakers:** Gain insights from renowned speakers who are leading the charge in promoting diversity and equity in science.
* **Global Perspectives:** Engage with experts from around the world to gain diverse perspectives and approaches to addressing common challenges.
* **Professional Development:** Enhance your skills and knowledge through workshops, panel discussions, and interactive sessions tailored to your professional growth.
* **Seed Funding Opportunities:** Learn about funding opportunities and resources available to support initiatives aimed at increasing diversity in STEM.

Thank you for visiting Understanding Interventions 2025 Annual Conference event page.<br><br> In order to gain full access, please register [**here**](https://understandinginterventions.swoogo.com/ui2024/begin).

Please register!

Don’t miss out on this invaluable opportunity to be part of a movement towards a more inclusive and equitable future in science. This year’s event promises to be an enlightening experience, filled with opportunities for sharing, networking, engagement, and inspiration.
Mark your calendars, spread the word, and join us for the 2025 Understanding Interventions Annual Conference on February 7-8th.

Fair Play is a free, downloadable exploration game in which the player takes on the perspective of Jamal Davis, a Black graduate student on his way to becoming a renowned professor. Fair Play spans five chapters during which players navigate through the challenges of graduate school including finding an advisor, writing publications, and much more. On the journey, players experience situations that exemplify different types of racial biases, both directly (from interpersonal interactions) and indirectly (from environmental factors). Based on environmental and conversational interactions, the player will decide how to respond to each bias and become more familiar with the names and definitions of bias as they attempt to correctly identify the different types encountered in the virtual academic setting. 
Fair Play highlights many obstacles that prevent minoritized individuals from excelling in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine) fields. To enhance the capabilities of this learning tool, two workshops were developed to complement the Fair Play game and to address the needs of different audiences. Both workshops are based on a tested workshop model (Carnes et al., 2015), use the experiential component of Fair Play, and have similar content and learning objectives.
•The Fair Play Workshop for STEMM Faculty and Staff increases awareness about different types of microaggressions and other racial biases. Additionally, the workshop provides evidence-based techniques for workshop participants to overcome these biases within themselves.

•The Fair Play Workshop for Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scientists provides participants with the knowledge and strategies to empower them to persist in their field of study. The first module of the workshop provides a brief outline of the history of race, an overview of implicit bias, and discusses the impacts of implicit bias in academia. The final module of the workshop explores strategies to empower the participants to persist in their field and discusses bias intervention strategies.

At the Understanding Interventions conference, participants will experience a full workshop in its entirety and will also be provided with an orientation to the open access resources available to implement one at their home institution.

Fair Play: Conversations about Racial Bias in STEMM

Introduction. Gender gaps persist in biomedical sciences. Men make up a greater proportion of the workforce (Plank-Bazinet et al., 2017) and report greater sense of belonging in the biomedical field compared to women (Gonzalez-Flores et al., 2023).  Men are also more likely to acquire independent research grants than women (Richter et al., 2020). Increasing grantsmanship self-efficacy (GSE) can positively impact funding acquisition, a key indicator of career success (Harwood et al., 2019). This study evaluates the personal and professional factors associated with sense of belonging and GSE, as well as the relationship between them among early-career researchers (ECRs), with the goal of informing interventions to reduce workforce disparities. 

Methods. This cross-sectional study utilized baseline data in a randomized trial examining two professional development models among non-binary and women ECRs with career development (K) awards. Before the professional development, ECRs completed a survey about their professional background, professional growth, and self-efficacy.
 
Outcomes of interest were sense of belonging and GSE. Sense of belonging in the scientific community was assessed with a 5-item validated tool (scale 1-5, agreement) (Estrada et al., 2011). GSE measured confidence in conceptualizing, designing, and acquiring funding for studies using a 19-item validated tool (scale 0-10, confidence) (Harwood et al., 2019). Linear regression models were used to examine factors associated with the two outcomes and to examine association between them. Adjusted models accounted for personal and professional factors, including race/ethnicity, disadvantaged background, disability status, years since first award (T, F, or K), receipt of clinical research-specific award (K08, K12, K23), and participation in national, regional, or institutional committees. Linear relationships were quantified with regression coefficients (denoted as beta). Based on primary analyses, post-hoc mediation analysis with bootstrapping was conducted to determine if belonging mediated the relationship between race/ethnicity (underrepresented vs not [non-Hispanic white or Asian]) and grantsmanship. 

Results. Almost all enrolled ECRs completed the baseline survey (n=97/98). About half of ECRs identified as non-Hispanic white (46%), 15% as non-Hispanic Black, 14% as Hispanic/Latinx, 16% as non-Hispanic Asian, and 8.2% as multiracial/other. A smaller proportion of ECRs reported having a disadvantaged background (26%) or disability (8%). ECRs most commonly had K01 awards (52%), then K23 (29%) and K08 (9.2%). 

Non-Hispanic Black ECRs reported higher sense of belonging to the community of biomedical researchers versus non-Hispanic white ECRs, as seen in unadjusted and adjusted models (unadjusted beta=0.36, p=0.02); adjusted beta=0.35, 95%CI 0.02–0.69, p=0.04). No other factors were significantly associated with sense of belonging.

Sense of belonging was significantly associated with GSE. For every 1-point increase in mean sense of belonging score, GSE scores increased by 0.84 points (p<0.001). This relationship held in adjusted models (beta=0.75, 95%CI 0.27–1.23, p=0.002). No other factors were significantly associated with GSE in unadjusted models. While race/ethnicity was not significantly associated with GSE in unadjusted or adjusted models, we found that belonging had a significant mediating effect on this relationship (average causal mediation effects beta=0.21, 95%CI 0.02–0.49, p=0.04).

Conclusions and Discussion. Among ECRs who identify as women and non-binary, higher sense of belonging is associated with greater GSE. Belonging also mediated the relationship between race/ethnicity and grantsmanship, suggesting nuanced differences in how sense of belonging influences GSE across racial groups. Interventions that promote inclusivity and foster sense of belonging among underrepresented biomedical researchers may positively influence career progression.

Relationship Between Sense of Belonging and Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy Among Early Career Biomedical Researchers

Exclusionary behaviors such as harassment, bullying, and microaggressions prevent participation in higher education and STEM. A National Academies report recommends the implementation of training to develop skills to interrupt and intervene in inappropriate behavior (NASEM, 2018). Evidence shows trainings that use a community approach, are tailored for relevance to specific audiences, are implemented with messenger integrity, and include social interaction have greater effectiveness (Clancy et al., 2020; NASEM, 2018; Rawski et al., 2023; and Kalinoski, et al. 2013).

The NSF ADVANCE funded ADVANCEGeo Partnership program is designed to empower scientists to transform workplace climate through enacting interventions at the individual and collective levels through behavior change education informed by intersectionality and ethics of care frameworks (Marin-Spiotta et al., 2022). One component is bystander intervention training designed to give members of the academic community the knowledge and tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate harm from discriminatory behavior that directly affects the retention of excluded groups in STEM. The ADVANCEGeo training includes evidence-based aspects contributing to participant satisfaction and long-term outcomes. Participants in the geoscience-focused bystander intervention training learn to address exclusionary behaviors using community approaches and the training is led by trained geoscience and STEM educators, offering interactive practice with real-world scenarios.

In this presentation we describe the ADVANCEGeo bystander intervention training program and present quantitative and qualitative evaluation data collected from 1283 participants of 81 workshops delivered between 2018-2022 and a 6-month follow-up survey with over 170 responses.

Responses to the anonymous post-workshop survey indicate the majority (98%) of respondents rated the quality of the workshop as excellent or good. The majority (90%) of participants reported that the scenarios used for bystander intervention practice are relevant or very relevant to experiences in their discipline. Almost all (93%) respondents indicated they intend to use the bystander intervention strategies presented in the workshop. Respondents report increases in knowledge about prevalence of harassment, how structures in research and academia influence harassment, and how professional societies, departments, institutions, and individuals can address exclusionary behaviors. Participant responses to open-ended items explain facilitator(s) use approaches that encourage participation and respectful conversation, and appreciation for interactions with peer geoscientists.
Six months after the training, the majority of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed they still found the workshop useful (93%), were able to practice things learned in the workshop (88%), and have discussed the training with others (79%). Ninety three percent of 44 workshop participants that said they had encountered an opportunity to use bystander intervention agreed or strongly agreed the techniques learned in the workshop were applicable and useful for the situation, 89% agreed or strongly agreed they were able to successfully implement bystander intervention techniques learned in the workshop, and 89% agreed or strongly agreed they felt more confident implementing bystander intervention techniques because of the workshop. These respondents were asked if they experienced barriers to using bystander intervention techniques. Seventeen respondents provided open-ended descriptions of the barriers they encountered which align with four themes: power dynamics, concern about negative repercussions, lack of confidence/need more practice, and resistant offender.

In conclusion, bystander intervention training tailored to a geoscience audience has positive short and long-term outcomes. Additional practice and training can boost confidence and reduce barriers to intervention.

Bystander Intervention Training for Geoscientists: Short and Long-term Workshop Effectiveness

Introduction. Participation in structured research and mentorship programs may increase the likelihood that students plan to enroll in college and graduate school,(Eagan et al., 2013) and increase their confidence to pursue a career as a research scientist;(Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, & DeAntoni, 2004) thus providing a model to increase the number of individuals shown to be underrepresented in the biomedical sciences. However, students are unlikely to be exposed to biomedical research training at early educational levels. The UMB Research and Mentoring Program (RAMP) is a summer research training program that targets 11th and 12th grade high school students from West Baltimore. This 2-year program provides foundational information required to understand concepts across the translational research continuum while teaching the skills to perform basic lab techniques and clinical measurements (year 1) in order to prepare students for a mentored summer research experience (year 2). Importantly, RAMP fills a critical niche in our robust STEM training pipeline by connecting students from Baltimore City HS with UMB faculty and facilities to foster their progression to careers in the biomedical workforce. The purpose of this project is to describe an overview of the pilot project and relevant outcomes.
Methods. Our overall target recruitment area includes multiple neighborhoods across West Baltimore.  Applicants that meet the Youthworks eligibility criteria (valid workers permit; resides in Baltimore City) and are >16 years of age with an interest in healthcare or STEM will be invited to join the program. There is no minimum GPA requirement, but students must be on track to graduate high school. In year 1 (2023), scholars received 5 hours of daily instruction over 5 weeks in basic science lab and clinical research skills through an interdisciplinary team of UMB faculty and graduate and undergraduate student mentors recruited from undergraduate and graduate programs in the Baltimore area. Pre- and post-surveys assessed research interest and sense of belonging. Completion of the first year of the program serves as a “ramp” to the next step in year 2 (2024), a 5-week summer lab or research-based experience with UMB faculty members. Scholars were compensated both summers through partnership with Youthworks, an established workforce development program funded by Baltimore City.
Results. Of the 7 scholars who completed the pilot in year 1, average attendance was 87%, or 22 out of 25 total days. By the end of the first summer, 100% of scholars identified themselves as a student researcher  (29% pre-program), 86% believed they had skills to conduct research (0% pre-program) and 57% agreed that being a researcher was now part of their identity (29% pre-program). Also of importance, most scholars wanted to do research that helps their community (86%), and make a meaningful contribution to society through research (71%). In year 2, 4 of the 7 scholars were matched with UMB faculty to complete 5-week research internships.  Three scholars completed the full 5 week research internships in different labs focused on neuroscience (n=1) and immunology (n=2).  The main reason for attrition between year 1 and 2 was competing activities in the summer, including preparation for the transition to college (n=1) and employment opportunities outside of Youthworks (n=3). 
Conclusion and Discussion. This project demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a high school summer research program designed to provide a gradual introduction to research and academia in order to build students’ confidence and self-efficacy that they belong in an academic research environment (Butts et al., 2012; Piggott & Cariaga-Lo, 2019). Future studies are needed to determine the longitudinal impact on student matriculation to STEM undergraduate majors and undergraduate research experiences. 
Acknowledgments. This project was supported by a NIGMS Science Education Partnership Award (SEPA, R25GM129875) and supplements (3R25GM129875-04S1; 3R25GM129875-05S1); NIH NIA SEPA  R25AG090804; the University of Maryland SOM, Office of Student Research, Department of Physical Therapy and Rehab Science, and Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Building a 'RAMP' to Research for Baltimore City High School Students: Pilot Results from a 2-year Summer Research Training And Mentoring Program

Introduction. Disparities persist in Chicago as disinvested neighborhoods with predominantly Black or Hispanic/Latinx populations experience structural inequities resulting in poorer educational (Sander & Testa, 2010) and health outcomes (Chicago Department of Public Health, 2020). Engaging youth in STEM education and community programming can inform sustainable and effective solutions for addressing disparities in their communities as well as contribute to their personal development (Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs). The Advancing Community Health and Individual leadership through a noVel Educational (ACHIEVE) program trained high school students from Chicago’s South Side and undergraduate students (scholars) to become agents of change in their communities through research (Kowalczyk et al., 2024). 

Methods. Between 2020 and 2022, the ACHIEVE program engaged cohorts of scholars in classroom-based learning and community projects focused on health and education disparities. Scholars participated in seminars and workshops to learn of local disparities (e.g., childhood chronic diseases, physical education, nutrition, food security) and to develop research and leadership skills (e.g., project management, communication, research methods). ACHIEVE scholars applied their knowledge and skills to address local disparities by partnering with community organizations on projects that advanced the organization’s mission. 

To evaluate impact, pre- and post-program surveys were administered to scholars to assess knowledge about disparities, skills, and self-efficacy in impacting their communities. Both surveys contained 24 questions with 5-point Likert scale as well as open-response questions to learn of their experience in the program and plans after the program. Descriptive and thematic analyses were conducted on the primary data.

Results. Across four cohorts (March 2020; September 2020-May 2021; September-November 2021; March-May 2022), 85 students participated in the ACHIEVE program (n=45 high school students, n=40 undergraduate students). The majority were female (66.7%, n = 40/60). Nearly all high school students were Black, while race/ethnicity varied among undergraduate students. 

Scholars supported 19 community-based projects across eight organizations that increased awareness of local issues and resources and evaluated programs. Project topics included vaccination awareness, racial practices in lung measurement, secondhand exposure to marijuana, social emotional learning, and community gardens. 

The pre-program survey was completed by 57 scholars, and the post-program survey was completed by 36 scholars. Majority of scholars indicated increased knowledge of health and education issues (91.4%), how different aspects of community influence health (91.4%), and how to collect information about health issues in their community (94.3%)). Scholars described greater confidence in conducting a literature search (80%), engaging community leaders (97.1%), and confidence in communicating their research (77.1%) after the ACHIEVE program. Scholars also expressed interest in sustained community engagement.

Conclusions and Discussion. The ACHIEVE program had positive impacts on scholars’ development through classroom-based learning and hands-on experiences in addressing local disparities. The program also empowered scholars to engage with and support communities. Such experiences may influence youth’s education and career aspirations in science and health related fields as well as avenues to impact local disparities.

Empowering Chicago Youth to Impact Local Health and Education Disparities

Introduction. The American Indian Science and Engineering Society Lighting the Pathway to Faculty Careers (AISES LTP) has a proven success record, with 93.48% (N=182) of participants persisting in career trajectories toward STEM faculty careers. However, the program is resource-intensive, which limits the number of program participants. We aimed to understand the potential to scale up the AISES LTP program by sharing online methods of communication and support for additional Indigenous scholars. 
We utilized the Tripartite Integration Model of Social Influence (TIMSI), which has shown that efficacy (confidence to perform STEM-related tasks), identity (seeing oneself as a part of a STEM community), and values (endorsement of a STEM community’s core values) predict STEM persistence among historically underrepresented scholars (Estrada et al., 2011; Estrada et al., 2018). We measured learners’ harmony of STEM-Indigenous identities to test the hypothesis that Indigenous scholars benefit from finding harmony between one’s STEM identity and one’s Indigenous identity (Windchief & Brown, 2017), as opposed to acculturating and abandoning Indigenous identity. Previous research has found that professional-cultural heritage identity harmony was critical for the well-being of Chinese Americans and people of color (Benet-Martinez & Haritatos 2005; Lee et al., 2021) 

Method. We build upon TIMSI to understand the effects of the AISES LTP intervention and the potential to scale up the program by conducting a longitudinal quasi-experimental study. Participants were 165 members of the AISES national organization who self-identified as Indigenous STEM scholars. The study had three groups. The first was the AISES LTP group (Full intervention group) which received a complete STEM professional development intervention program. Propensity score matching was used to identify 48 other scholars who were similar to the Full intervention groups. The group was randomly assigned to one of two groups, the Modified intervention group who received an online STEM professional development intervention program, or the No intervention group, which were a propensity score matched control group that did not receive intervention programming. 

Results. Using a One-Way ANOVA, we compared differences in identity harmony among the full intervention, modified intervention, and No intervention groups. We found group differences in identity harmony after 18-months of intervention (F (2,15) = 6.54, p=.002, eta-squared = .09) and 24-months of intervention (F(2,132 = 3.21, p=.04, eta-squared = .05). Post-hoc analysis using the Tukey test indicated the mean score for the full intervention group was significantly lower than the modified treatment group (M = -0.60, SE = 0.17 ) and the propensity score matched control group (M = -0.42, SE = 0.17) after 18-months,  but only significantly lower than the modified treatment group (M=0.44, SE=0.18 ) after 24th-months of intervention. 

Conclusion. The findings indicate significant differences in identity harmony between participants in the full AISES LTP intervention and those in the modified and control groups, particularly after 18 and 24 months. The full intervention group consistently showed lower scores in identity harmony compared to the modified group, suggesting that the in-person components of the AISES LTP program may lead to continued individual dissonance between professional and cultural identities. These results highlight the need to further understand Indigenous STEM program components and their impact on Indigenous STEM identity harmony. 

Acknowledgements. 
The research reported in this study was supported by NIH grants 3R01GM138700-01S1 and #K99GM151640.

Fostering Indigenous STEM Identity Harmony through Online and In-Person Interventions

Research training is a fundamental component in preparing undergraduates to gain essential research skills and receive mentoring in undergraduate research.  Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) generally exist in two modalities: the independent or mentored UREs  (Lopatto, 2010) and Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) (Auchincloss et al., 2014). Though mentored UREs are effective methods to engage undergraduates in research and faculty agree that undergraduate research mentoring is important, many faculty face challenges finding the time, space, and other resources to provide quality mentored undergraduate research experiences, especially to diverse student populations (Pierszalowski et al., 2021). 
One solution to this bottleneck has been the implementation of CUREs. However, most CUREs have been developed for upper-level students, neglecting the fact that the earlier the URE, the more impactful it can be for the students (Bowman & Holmes, 2018).  At the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), the Freshman Year Research Intensive Sequence (FYRIS) (Echegoyen et al., 2024) was developed to address this critical need and improve student retention by providing research training and experiences to acquaint students with biomedical research and create a pathway towards mentored UREs. FYRIS adopts a course-based approach, integrating research foundations with research-intensive courses. In particular, FYRIS consists of one general research foundations course (RFC) and a sequence of two research driven courses (RDCs) from participating departments. 
The long-term impact of programs that use the FYRIS model remains understudied. In this presentation, we describe the FYRIS program and student experience in the course sequence. We will also present compelling longitudinal findings that underscore the positive influence of FYRIS and subsequent mentored research experiences on 4-year retention and graduation rates. Our findings describe the effect of FYRIS participation using a quasi-experimental design to compare students who completed a full-FYRIS sequence (one RFC and a sequence of two RDCs), students who completed a partial FYRIS sequence (one or more of the designated courses, but not the full sequence), and those who took regular, non-FYRIS courses. Using this design, we present compelling longitudinal findings that underscore the efficacy of the FYRIS and research mentoring on major academic outcomes. Remarkably, FYRIS impacts often surpass historical socioeconomic, demographic, and educational factors, such as high school percentile, gender, and community college transfer status.

A Freshman Year Research Intensive Sequence for Improving Inclusive Equity in Research Training

Introduction. Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) are increasingly valued as high-impact experiential educational activities that have broad and long-standing positive impacts on college students (Adedokun et al., 2014; Hu et al., 2007), particularly those in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medical (STEMM) fields. UREs are beneficial for broadening the participation of underrepresented minorities in STEMM (Hernandez et al., 2018). In this study, we delve into the crucial role of family support for students attending an undergraduate research program at a Hispanic-serving university and how family members effectively encouraged their students while in the program. In this presentation, we present results from interviews and focus groups with the first cohort of BUILDing Scholars. 
Methods. This study includes former students of BUILDing Scholars, an undergraduate program aimed at broadening biomedical research participation. In addition to tuition support, scholars conducted research with a faculty mentor during the academic year and attended a summer research program at a partner institution. They also attended professional development workshops (i.e., how to present a poster and GRE preparation) and presented their research at local symposia. One of the key features of BUILDing Scholars has been family involvement, such as invitations to orientations before they start the program and before they leave for a summer research program, local symposia, lecture presentations, and graduation events. For this study, 19 students from the first cohort who graduated from the program and were either in graduate school or working in industry were interviewed to reflect on their experiences upon graduation. Interviews took place in the winter of 2019-2020. We also collected data from focus groups with 7 of those participants during the spring of 2021. Semi-structured interviews included questions about their decisions to attend graduate school, the different types of support they have received, and their experiences during the pandemic. Data was analyzed using the NVivo qualitative software, using a content and thematic analysis (Saldaña, 2016). 
Results. Students talked about how their parents are very supportive even though they don’t fully understand their research. When students talked about choosing a graduate program or a job, they often expressed the importance of going to a place close to home or easy to go back home (i.e., a short flight or an easy drive). Students also talked about how they exercised their roles as scientists concerning family, community, and STEM research careers during the pandemic. Students revealed that their experiences in the program allowed them to take a more active role in explaining different science terms to their family and community members. Participants translated scientific research into a language easier to understand for family members unfamiliar with science. In addition, they talked about the importance of their research and their impact on their community. They also reported how they dealt with home responsibilities and school with online learning.
Conclusion and Discussions. Results from interviews and focus groups showed the importance of family involvement with the program as it eased the transition to external summer research programs and graduate school and provided a better understanding of the students’ research and their role as scientists within their families. Interventions such as UREs should find ways to integrate family members to better prepare students for their life after graduating from college. 
Acknowledgments. Research reported in this paper was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under linked Award Numbers RL5GM118969, TL4GM118971, and UL1GM118970. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Familial Ties and Student Success: Perspectives from Biomedical Research Program Alumni

Focus of the Study: Despite institutional efforts, faculty diversity has remained unchanged for decades. University systems provide an existing network of collaborating institutions that regularly engage in change-efforts in concert (Martin et al., 2022), and thus we hypothesized a coordinated program to diversify the faculty may be effective. Here we report on the five year impacts of an NSF-funded Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) PROMISE Academy Alliance, a consortium within the University System of Maryland (USM) collaborating to develop, implement and disseminate a unique postdoc-to-faculty conversion model (Cresiski et al., 2022). The initiative was piloted with five participating institutions within the USM, including teaching-focused institutions, comprehensive universities, research institutions, and professional schools. Methodology and Measures Used: Research through focus groups, meeting observations, focus groups and document review from internal and external evaluators have yielded significant quantitative and qualitative data about the impacts of the PROMISE Academy. The impacts of the AGEP PROMISE Academy Alliance are multifaceted, including positive outcomes on participating fellows and documented improvements to policy and practice across all participating institutions and at the university system office itself. Illustrative questions/issues to be discussed in the open-ended roundtable: What are some potential benefits and challenges in implementing a collaborative program across different institutional types (e.g., research universities, HBCUs, rural colleges, predominantly undergraduate institutions)? How can these challenges be addressed? What histories and lenses should be considered when forging such partnerships? When coordinating efforts across campuses, especially ones that may have long timelines, what benchmarking measures can be used to document incremental change (i.e. practice change prior to policy change)? What facilitates and hinders effective change efforts from one campus being scaled to other campuses regionally? Nationally?

Coordinating Change: Lessons from a Multi-Campus Faculty Diversity Initiative

Relationships between academic institutions and the communities they are embedded in have been tumultuous and often unfair, with the institutions seemingly using the communities’ resources, without giving back. However, in the more recent decades there have been intentional efforts within universities and departments focused on outreach and engagement in the local and surrounding community (Bruning et al., 2006). University of Illinois’ Grainger College of Engineering’s outreach and engagement department is one such entity which seeks to engage local K-12 students and families in STEM learning experiences during the school year through afterschool and weekend programs and partnerships. For these programs to run successfully, we look to our university’s undergraduate and graduate students to play key roles as mentors, content creators, program leads, and helping hands.  

Despite the various benefits of volunteering and engagement, (Haski-Leventhal et al., 2020) we have found that creating and sustaining a culture of community outreach and engagement among university students has been challenging. Recruiting students for individual events, as well as developing long-term partnerships with student organizations has been a hit-or-miss, and informal conversations with service-oriented student organization leaders have revealed the lack of outreach and service culture within the university experience. To this end, previous studies have looked to understand factors impacting university students’ volunteering participation (Moore et al., 2014).  

In this study, we analyze one-on-one interviews with three university students who have been extensively engaged in community engagement efforts, to understand their experiences. Through an insight-oriented approach of qualitative analysis (Scherr, 2009), we discovered that the interviewees were motivated to engage with the community for reasons such as wanting to give back, and engaging in activities that they had once engaged in as school students. We also seek their input to understand some ways that community engagement can be made more accessible to the university students and summarize some key points that could be put into practice by university outreach departments.

Premium content

Mending the Path to Broader Participation in STEM Through Contemplative CRiT Collage

Downloads

Next from 2025 Understanding Interventions Annual Conference

Fair Play: Conversations about Racial Bias in STEMM

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES