Leveraging Cultural Wealth, Identities and Motivation: How Diverse Intersectional Groups of Low-Income Undergraduate STEM Students Persist in Collegiate STEM Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript examined the lived experiences of 10 undergraduate STEM students from low income backgrounds. The authors sought to better understand why these students persist in their field and how their backgrounds influenced their experiences. The authors discuss several factors such as the intersectionality of student backgrounds, motivation, and the importance of community. The authors recommend that student identities need to be taken into consideration for more equitable STEM programs.

 

This was an interesting article to read and the authors included a lot of the relevant literature in their manuscript. Given the focus on capital and lack of definition of capital, I might recommend reviewing Claussen, S., & Osborne, J. (2013). Bourdieu's notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum. Science Education, 97(1), 58-79. As well as the work from the Aspires team (e.g., Moote, J., Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & MacLeod, E. (2020). Science capital or STEM capital? Exploring relationships between science capital and technology, engineering, and maths aspirations and attitudes among young people aged 17/18. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1228-1249). I believe their focus on the intersectionality of race, gender, and income on science pathways would strengthen the introduction to this study.

 

In the introduction, please define autonomy, competence, and relatedness on lines 198-199. This will help the readers better understand some of your key concepts. The authors will also want to add a section that defines capital, science identity, and social agency. These are key concepts around which the study centers and a clear definition will help your readers understand your study.

 

I would be interested to know the positionality of the researchers. Given the emphasis on how individuals from dominant groups may not understand the lived experiences of those from the non dominant group, it would help situate the study.

 

The methods section needs to be strengthened. The methods do not describe how the data were analyzed. This needs to be added for reproducibility and an understanding of how the results were achieved. How were the interviews coded? What was the inter coder reliability? How were the student GPAs and reports triangulated with the interviews? They were listed in the data points but not discussed in the results or discussion. 

 

The authors should consider adding to the results section. For example, in the discussion (lines 583-586) the authors state “The White women in this study did not even acknowledge their whiteness as a salient identity when navigating their educational spaces and often took the approach of blindness to diversity when discussing and engaging with diverse groups of people in their academic and social settings.” This should be discussed in more detail in the results with quotes before being addressed in the discussion. Similarly, on line 599, the authors discuss the importance of civic responsibility. This should be addressed first in the results section.

 

The manuscript is missing a limitations section.

 

Finally, the authors should give the manuscript a close read as several sentences were missing words throughout the manuscript. On lines 93-95, I think the sentence was unfinished: “highlighted many existing STEM recruitment and retention programs frame their targeted student population with deficit descriptions such as “underprepared” and “at-risk” and typically focus solely [15].” What did it focus on?  On line 223, understanding should be understand. Another example is on line 297-298 “This study's third source of annual evaluation reports provided by the external program evaluator.” I believe it should say “the third source of data were annual evaluation reports”.

 

Thank you for the time and energy that was put into this study. This is a subject that is critical to the discussion of STEM interests and aspirations. With some editing, this paper has the potential to be a valuable addition to the literature.

 

Author Response

We have outlined and addressed the following comments from reviewer #1.

1. Given the focus on capital and lack of definition of capital, I might recommend reviewing Claussen, S., & Osborne, J. (2013). Bourdieu's notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum. Science Education, 97(1), 58-79. As well as the work from the Aspires team (e.g., Moote, J., Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & MacLeod, E. (2020). Science capital or STEM capital? Exploring relationships between science capital and technology, engineering, and maths aspirations and attitudes among young people aged 17/18. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1228-1249). I believe their focus on the intersectionality of race, gender, and income on science pathways would strengthen the introduction to this study.

• Thank you for your feedback. We have added community cultural wealth as our working definition for capital in this study. We believe the addition of this term and its context brings into focus the type of capital we are referring to.

2. In the introduction, please define autonomy, competence, and relatedness on lines 198-199. This will help the readers better understand some of your key concepts. The authors will also want to add a section that defines capital, science identity, and social agency. These are key concepts around which the study centers and a clear definition will help your readers understand your study.

• Thank you for your comment. We have added definitions for the following key concepts to assist readers in understanding our study. Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness, Science identity, Cultural Wealth and Social Agency

 

3. I would be interested to know the positionality of the researchers. Given the emphasis on how individuals from dominant groups may not understand the lived experiences of those from the non-dominant group, it would help situate the study.

• Thank you for your comment. We have added a positionality statement for the authors and context of our individual and collective research and professional interests to situate our commitment to this research.

 

4. The methods section needs to be strengthened. The methods do not describe how the data were analyzed. This needs to be added for reproducibility and an understanding of how the results were achieved. How were the interviews coded? What was the inter coder reliability? How were the student GPAs and reports triangulated with the interviews? They were listed in the data points but not discussed in the results or discussion. 

• Thank you for your feedback. The following paragraph has been added to the data collection and analysis section.
  "The data analysis process was grounded in an inductive coding strategy that allowed the researchers to identify patterns and assign codes to concepts of interest in the interview data [1, 2]. The first step in this analysis process was reading through the transcripts to ensure the accuracy and correction of grammatical errors and to gain an initial understanding of each participant in the case study. Next, each transcript was uploaded into the Dedoose qualitative analysis software for coding. Each transcript was open-coded using an inductive strategy: reading and interpreting raw data to develop themes and concepts via interpretations based on data [3]. In this phase, the codes produced are tentative and subject to evolve and change as the analysis continues. After initially open-coding all transcripts, the first iteration of the codebook was completed. In subsequent rounds of axial coding and refining the codebook, the final codebook was completed, which included 76 codes.
  
  The reporting of the data analysis was two-fold. We conducted a narrative analysis to understand how they interpret their own lives through their identities as they navigate the academic and social environment in college utilizing multiple data sources—student metrics, evaluation reports, interview data— to deepen our understanding of each participant and the context of their environment [4, 5]. Secondly, we examined the data across the group by identifying relationships and patterns across the ten participants. Utilizing these groupings of relationships and patterns, we labeled the emerging themes shared by the participants [6]. The final themes presented in the results section are the key outputs produced by the identified patterns or trends between the participants’ experiences. We utilized peer debriefing sessions and concept mapping throughout the study development, implementation, and execution phases to ensure trustworthiness [7, 8]."

 

5. The authors should consider adding to the results section. For example, in the discussion (lines 583-586) the authors state “The White women in this study did not even acknowledge their whiteness as a salient identity when navigating their educational spaces and often took the approach of blindness to diversity when discussing and engaging with diverse groups of people in their academic and social settings.” This should be discussed in more detail in the results with quotes before being addressed in the discussion.

• Thank you for your feedback. We added the following paragraph in the results section of the manuscript.
  "Rachael and Mary, White women in their sophomore year in the Biological Sciences and Mathematical Statistics programs, respectively, discussed identities from the perspective of accepting others without acknowledging how they view their education journey through their own identities. For instance, when asked how her identities or perceptions of race, class, or gender have shaped her experience, Rachael said, "I wouldn't say it has influenced it as much… I'll talk to anybody. It doesn't bother me. It's nothing wrong with your identity… everybody's unique.”

 

6. Similarly, on line 599, the authors discuss the importance of civic responsibility. This should be addressed first in the results section.

• Thank you for this comment. In the second theme, we introduced the participants’ commitment to civic responsibility, particularly Irene and Malcolm, sharing their desires to utilize their education to educate and serve their communities. We have added common language in the results section to clarify their excerpts as civic responsibility.

7. The manuscript is missing a limitations section.

• Thank you for your comment. We added the following paragraph for the limitations of the study.
  "The participants’ sensemaking of intersectionality varied significantly across the group. While most of them could list their salient identities, we recognized that our participants varied in their understanding of how their identities shaped the navigation of their STEM academic experience. As such, a secondary interview in the research design would be beneficial to investigate the concept of intersectionality and support our participants’ sensemaking process more comprehensively."

 

8. Finally, the authors should give the manuscript a close read as several sentences were missing words throughout the manuscript. On lines 93-95, I think the sentence was unfinished: “highlighted many existing STEM recruitment and retention programs frame their targeted student population with deficit descriptions such as “underprepared” and “at-risk” and typically focus solely [15].” What did it focus on?  On line 223, understanding should be understand. Another example is on line 297-298 “This study's third source of annual evaluation reports provided by the external program evaluator.” I believe it should say “the third source of data were annual evaluation reports”.

•  Thank you for your comment. We have addressed the grammatical errors within the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper addresses an important topic and provides important insights into how low-income undergraduate students from diverse backgrounds persist in STEM.  The feedback from the students in the case studies is important to see and share and can help provide important resources and examples for other students from similar backgrounds.  It would have been helpful to see more of the data that were collected to help provide a more complete picture of the students background and experiences.  Only the SOARS interview protocol was provided in the supplemental materials, though a figure, table, and video were listed. 

There seems to be a contrast with some of the specific responses from the students and the generalization and focus on structural barriers to succeeding in STEM, with all of the students’ reports of positive experiences having come from that same environment.  Perhaps the article should focus more on how students persist versus sharing generalizations about STEM environments and vague suggestions on how to improve them.  For example, in the conclusions, the authors write the following, “Specifically based on this study, we urge STEM leaders to consider how they are structuring higher education experiences such as high-impact, evidence-based retention and student success practices on an intersectional population of low-income students to deepen understanding of needs within our economically disadvantaged student population and their experiences to encourage and support their persistence in the STEM higher education ecosystem.”  More specific examples of what programs should focus on and how to support students could be more helpful and on target with the central focus on this paper. 

 

This reviewer also had an issue with the following generalization as well, “For instance, we recognize that engagement in activities outside of the classroom can be inaccessible to students from low-income backgrounds because of the likelihood that they cannot afford such experiences or have the time to engage in such engagement opportunities.”  Could this be clarified?  What types of experiences are these?  Could the authors also provide examples of the many activities that are free and accessible to all students, such as the numerous clubs and interest groups available to college students, so as not to provide a deterrent to participation for low-income students who may read this paper.  

 

Overall, the paper is well-written and easy to understand. 

There is an extra period before the citation in line 56. 

The sentence ending in line 95 is incomplete.

Author Response

We have outlined and addressed the following comments from reviewer #2.

1. This paper addresses an important topic and provides important insights into how low-income undergraduate students from diverse backgrounds persist in STEM.  The feedback from the students in the case studies is important to see and share and can help provide important resources and examples for other students from similar backgrounds.  It would have been helpful to see more of the data that were collected to help provide a more complete picture of the students background and experiences.  Only the SOARS interview protocol was provided in the supplemental materials, though a figure, table, and video were listed. 

• Thank you for your comment. As researchers working with marginalized populations, we acknowledge that there is a delicate balance required when sharing the narratives of such a small population while ensuring anonymity. As such, we have provided within the manuscript a participant table and engagement in academic and social activities table and the interview protocol in the supplemental material. Regarding this request for more supplemental material, we respectfully decline to share any additional information as it may reveal their identity.

 

2. There seems to be a contrast with some of the specific responses from the students and the generalization and focus on structural barriers to succeeding in STEM, with all of the students’ reports of positive experiences having come from that same environment.  Perhaps the article should focus more on how students persist versus sharing generalizations about STEM environments and vague suggestions on how to improve them.  For example, in the conclusions, the authors write the following, “Specifically based on this study, we urge STEM leaders to consider how they are structuring higher education experiences such as high-impact, evidence-based retention and student success practices on an intersectional population of low-income students to deepen understanding of needs within our economically disadvantaged student population and their experiences to encourage and support their persistence in the STEM higher education ecosystem.”  More specific examples of what programs should focus on and how to support students could be more helpful and on target with the central focus on this paper. 

• Thank you for your feedback. Our research aims to show how students’ persistence is supported or inhibited based on their relationship with their academic environment. As such, we sought to show the complexity of persistence as it is dependent on numerous factors. Additionally, we have provided several points to consider, particularly for practitioners to consider how programs are structured and accessible to their student populations based on the demographics which they serve. From our standpoint, we chose to provide our readers with general considerations as the ability to develop and implement initiatives is based on student populations, institution types, and resource availability.

 

3. This reviewer also had an issue with the following generalization as well, “For instance, we recognize that engagement in activities outside of the classroom can be inaccessible to students from low-income backgrounds because of the likelihood that they cannot afford such experiences or have the time to engage in such engagement opportunities.”  Could this be clarified?  What types of experiences are these?  Could the authors also provide examples of the many activities that are free and accessible to all students, such as the numerous clubs and interest groups available to college students, so as not to provide a deterrent to participation for low-income students who may read this paper.  

• Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Our focus in the paragraph was to illuminate equity minded considerations that can be made to support students from low-income backgrounds. Below is our amended paragraph to clarify our point in the paragraph:
  "As scholars, practitioners, and leaders in the STEM enterprise address the call for broadening participation, we encourage consideration of the realities of low-income students and other marginalized groups when establishing initiatives and engagement opportunities. For instance, participation in supplemental science-based activities has been long touted as beneficial to strengthen credentials and connection to the science community at little to no cost. However, we present two critical considerations for low-income populations. The first is that several immersive opportunities, such as conference participation and international undergraduate research experiences, are typically available to students with the time and financial resources to participate. The second is that many low-income students support themselves financially through college and, therefore, do not have the time to engage in supplemental activities. With this context in mind, we implore STEM program leaders to consider how their initiatives are equity-minded. An example is dedicated funding sources for economically disadvantaged students with information to support their engagement in professional development and science-based activities. This approach removes the financial burden and potential stigma low-income students may experience regarding finances and encourages their involvement in learning experiences similar to their well-resourced counterparts."

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciated the opportunity to review, "Leveraging capital, identities and motivation: How diverse intersectional groups of low-income undergraduate STEM students persist in collegiate STEM environments." My comments and points are for you to consider when strengthening this manuscript.

 

1). Your paper does not really talk about capital.  You might consider removing that term in the title and abstract.

 

2). p. 3 this sentence seems incomplete:

Castro  highlighted many existing STEM recruitment and retention programs frame their targeted student population with deficit descriptions such as “underprepared” and “at-risk” and typically focus solely”

Soley on what?

 

3). Why motivation theory?

How is that theory not deficit in framing? Why do you perceive it as an asset-based approach for this study? You could say more here in the discussion of the conceptual framework to strengthen the importance of the paper.

 

4). On page 4 when you describe intersectionality—I think it’s important that it’s not just intersecting more than one identity but the idea that examining how polices, practices, laws operate or not through the perspectives of people who identity with more than one oppressed identity simultaneously reveals inequities that you miss when only examining an issue through one identity or perspective. You could then probe this concept more in why it matters in relation to your findings as you started to do in the discussion. 

 

5). p. 6—not all high impact practices are high impact. How might you outline the importance of the design of practices in STEM to be relevant to students with marginalized identities based on your findings?  You could revisit this point in the discussion.

 

Thanks for your work with this study.

Author Response

We have outlined and addressed the following comments from reviewer #3. 

1. Your paper does not really talk about capital. You might consider removing that term in the title and abstract.

• Thank you for your comment. We changed the term from capital to cultural wealth and provided a definition and rationale for the use of the term.

2. Why motivation theory? How is that theory not deficit in framing? Why do you perceive it as an asset-based approach for this study? You could say more here in the discussion of the conceptual framework to strengthen the importance of the paper.

• Thank you for your question. We have added additional context in the theory section regarding utilizing these elements. We chose three strands of the motivation theory (self-determination theory, self-efficacy, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) as elements of our conceptual framework, particularly for its focus on understanding the individual. We chose these elements particularly because they allow for various interpretations and representations based on one's experiences. Additionally, we encouraged all of our participants to share their definitions and experiences regarding these elements without limiting how they are developed and engaged in their academic journey. As such, we consider this asset-based as we focus on their unique experiences and strengths related to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and self-determination. 

 

3. On page 4 when you describe intersectionality—I think it’s important that it’s not just intersecting more than one identity but the idea that examining how polices, practices, laws operate or not through the perspectives of people who identity with more than one oppressed identity simultaneously reveals inequities that you miss when only examining an issue through one identity or perspective. You could then probe this concept more in why it matters in relation to your findings as you started to do in the discussion.

• Thank you for your comment. We expounded further on this point in the conceptual framework section as well as the discussion section. 

 

 

4. 6—not all high impact practices are high impact. How might you outline the importance of the design of practices in STEM to be relevant to students with marginalized identities based on your findings? You could revisit this point in the discussion.

• Thank you for your comment. We added the following paragraph to expand on this point in the conclusion.
  "Finally, our research encourages using high-impact educational practices adapted to account for the diverse student populations our institutions serve. In addition to the guidance on high-impact educational practices, we also posit that consideration can be given to the program operation, logistics, cultural competence, and accessibility, among others. For instance, undergraduate research experiences are considered a high-impact educational practice. When designing such experiences for students with marginalized identities, we offer the following considerations as an example: paying undergraduate researchers, culturally relevant training approaches, and connection to a mentor. It is incumbent that educators and leaders to consider how we are intentionally and thoughtfully engaging students who have the desire and willingness to pursue their desired STEM career path."

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your careful attention to my recommendations. The added definitions on page 6 has really strengthened your paper. When describing community cultural wealth, you are missing the word “which” on line 255 immediately after (CCW). It would also be useful if you list the six types of capital described by CCW for readers who may not be familiar.

 

 

Thank you for adding the positionality statement. It really helps to center the study. This study will be valuable in the literature exploring science identity and capital.