Facilitating Faculty Career Clarity: The Role of a Graduate STEM Intervention Program

Abstract

The pervasive underrepresentation of racially minoritized students in STEM fields and the workforce remains a concern to the scientific community. At the graduate level, underrepresented students have reported difficulties with advising, negative research group experiences, along with challenges in determining their long-term career interests. STEM intervention programs (SIPs) aid in students’ abilities to be academically successful in graduate school, expose students to career opportunities, and provide them with skills to help them be competitive and successful in those professional roles. This study centers the experiences of 25 racially and ethnically underrepresented graduate students, all of whom participated in a graduate STEM intervention program, to better understand how they gained more clarity about their post-graduate career plans, namely the professoriate. The new information presented in this study offers insights into STEM intervention programs and graduate programs to better support minoritized graduate students in the development of their faculty career clarity.

1. Introduction

The pervasive underrepresentation of racially minoritized students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and the workforce remains a concern to the scientific community (Burt, 2020; Moreira et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2017). Persistent challenges at the undergraduate level (e.g., weed-out courses; chilly climate) make the completion of an undergraduate degree in STEM a challenge (Green & Glasson, 2009; Lane, 2016; Prunuske et al., 2016). For those on the road less traveled—graduate education—additional supports are needed to navigate the even more mysterious educational terrain (Burt et al., 2025). At the graduate level, underrepresented students have reported difficulties with advising, negative research group experiences, along with challenges determining their long-term career interests (Burt et al., 2023). Resources that help retain students, mitigate their challenges, and assist them in understanding their career options are needed. Various initiatives have been designed to address the ongoing underrepresentation of students of color in STEM undergraduate studies (see, for example, the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation Program, McNair Scholars Program, or Meyerhoff Program (Baber & Jackson, 2018; Brady & Gallant, 2021; Brothers & Knox, 2013; Burt et al., 2020). Diversifying one career option in particular, the professoriate, is a key strategy to systematically broadening participation in STEM (Burt, 2020). Those serving in faculty roles generate and disseminate new knowledge while also teaching, advising, mentoring, and inspiring newer generations of learners who will later occupy and lead in a host of careers (e.g., faculty, industry, policy). Yet, how students come to decide on whether to choose the professoriate or other career options remains unclear. According to Rincon and George-Jackson (2016), STEM intervention programs (SIPs) are resources aimed to “increase the access to STEM fields and improve the educational experiences of students inadequately represented within STEM fields,” (p. 431). These interventions not only aid students’ abilities to be academically successful in graduate school, but they also expose students to career opportunities and provide them with skills to help them be competitive and successful in those professional roles.

This study centers on the experiences of 25 racially and ethnically underrepresented graduate students, all of whom participated in a graduate STEM intervention program, to better understand how they gained more clarity about their post-graduate career plans, namely the professoriate. The following research question guides this study: How does participation in a graduate SIP shape students’ faculty career clarity? The new information presented in this study offers insights into current structured intervention programs and graduate programs to better support minoritized graduate students in the development of their career clarity.

2. The Development of Career Clarity and the Need for STEM Intervention Programs

2.1. A Literature Review

National statistics and research show that Black, Latinx, and Native American individuals remain underrepresented across STEM pathways, including undergraduate and graduate education, and participation in the STEM workforce (National Science Board, 2024). In addition, similar patterns of underrepresentation are evident in the professoriate, where the majority of faculty are white, while Black (6%), Hispanic (6%), and American Indian or Alaska Native (less than 1%) faculty remain underrepresented in U.S. higher education institutions (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2024). These patterns demonstrate the persistent underrepresentation of URM scholars along STEM pathways. To better understand the need for STEM intervention programs, this contextual information about educational pathways is a necessary backdrop.

2.2. Toward Career Clarity

Students attend graduate education to gain enhanced expertise and skills in their particular field in an effort to secure a fulfilling career post-graduation (Burt et al., 2023; Mowreader, 2024; Solem et al., 2013). Yet, upon matriculation, some students may lack clarity in what they want to do upon graduation (Ganapati & Ritchie, 2021; Gemme & Gingras, 2012; Griffin et al., 2023; Levin et al., 2013; McAlpine & Emmioğlu, 2015). Thus, when describing students’ “career clarity,” we mean students’ understanding of their career options and the sense-making that goes into the choice of a career. One barrier to students’ gaining career clarity is a lack of access to information about the host of career options that are possible for them. In fact, scholars highlighted that when students lacked information about their career opportunities, they were not adequately prepared for careers during their graduate programs (Amelink & Artiles, 2021; Fisher et al., 2019; MacLachlan, 2006). In a ten-year longitudinal study of African American doctoral students in STEM, students experienced a lack of career training from their graduate programs, influencing their overall experiences in graduate school (MacLachlan, 2006).

Myriad factors influence students’ academic progress, career development, and career clarity (Byars-Winston et al., 2011; Griffin et al., 2023; Layton et al., 2020; Sweitzer, 2009). One factor that contributes to students’ progress and success through graduate education includes access to role models (Nicole & DeBoer, 2020). That is, a student’s ability to see themselves as successful in graduate school and in post-graduate careers is shaped, in part, by their exposure to role models with whom they can identify (Amelink & Artiles, 2021; White et al., 2023). For minoritized graduate students in STEM, faculty mentorship is critical for students navigating academia and understanding faculty careers (Burt, 2020). As an example, in Burt’s (2019) ethnographic study of a research team, he illustrates how students develop a “faculty prototype,” a model of what they consider to be the top standard of a professor, which shapes students’ perceptions of faculty work and contributes to their decision to identify with (or not) a faculty career. Similarly, Amelink and Artiles’ (2021) study exploring socialization and career trajectories in engineering graduate programs illustrated the importance of role models for minoritized students. In their study, students rated “faculty support” and “relationship with advisor” 3.20 and 3.18, respectively, out of 4, indicating the “major contribution” both factors provide for success in graduate school.

2.3. STEM Intervention Programs and Their Components

To address persistent issues related to the underrepresentation of minoritized graduate students, STEM intervention programs (SIPs) at the institutional and/or cross-institutional levels have been established (Rincon & George-Jackson, 2016). Similar to those at the undergraduate level (Baber & Jackson, 2018; Brothers & Knox, 2013), SIPs at the graduate level tend to have some similar goals and program components designed to improve students’ educational progress and development of career clarity. Some common programmatic components include mentorship and advisement that is complementary to that which students receive from their academic programs (Burton et al., 2019; Villarreal & Campbell, 2023), such as skill development and academic preparation (Moreira et al., 2019), funding and financial support (Preuss et al., 2020), community and support networks (Maton et al., 2016), research opportunities and hands-on learning (Burton et al., 2019). One particular component, mentoring, which can take many forms (e.g., peer-to-peer, faculty-to-student, or staff-to-students), tends to be a vital component of SIPs, as these relationships often incorporate personalized academic and research guidance, career advice, and building students’ professional networks (Burton et al., 2019; Maton et al., 2016; Preuss et al., 2020; Prunuske et al., 2016; Villarreal & Campbell, 2023). Peer mentoring, in particular, has been shown to reduce isolation for students while promoting their sense of belonging, self-efficacy, and persistence (Burt et al., 2026; Maton et al., 2016; Preuss et al., 2020).

Scholarship details the benefits and outcomes resulting from participation in SIPs. For example, peer support networks in SIPs tend to facilitate inclusive spaces for academic and social integration for minoritized students who might otherwise have isolated and chilly experiences within their graduate programs (Maton et al., 2016; Moreira et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2017). These support networks have been shown to reduce students’ academic anxiety related to imposter syndrome (Clance & Imes, 1978), helping students to stay motivated in their pursuit of degree completion and pursuit of their post-graduate career interests (Preuss et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2017). Further, these support networks foster a sense of STEM identity (i.e., students self-identify as a person in the STEM field and future STEM workforce) and validation by establishing avenues whereby minoritized students in STEM gain knowledge from faculty, staff, and peers (current and alumni) (Burton et al., 2019; Maton et al., 2016; Preuss et al., 2020). This exchange of knowledge provides students with emotional support, role modeling, and guidance, which is shown to boost students’ confidence in their STEM abilities and persistence in STEM (Burt et al., 2020; Burton et al., 2019).

SIPs often include a robust set of professional development offerings geared toward career exposure and preparedness (Villarreal & Campbell, 2023; Moreira et al., 2019). Usually offered through workshops, seminars, and research and professional training, these professional development offerings help complement the formal graduate curriculum, and, in some cases, offer students information and skills they do not have access to within their graduate programs (Ganapati & Ritchie, 2021; Wurgler et al., 2014). While some of the programming focuses on academic socialization and research competencies (e.g., transitioning into graduate school, CV development, grant and fellowship writing, dissertation writing support, demystifying the publication process), other programming focuses on career development activities (e.g., communication and presentation skills, networking, writing diversity/teaching statement) to boost students’ overall competitiveness for the job market and to help students thrive in the STEM workforce post-graduation (Burt et al., 2020; Carter-Veale et al., 2016).

Despite the increasing amounts of literature being documented for SIPs, the programmatic components and student outcomes that result from student participation provide less information detailing how SIPs facilitate students’ understandings of their career options and the sense-making process when clarifying or seeking to choose a career path. The availability of more information that explains how students come to understand their full host of career options (e.g., academic, industry, government, or non-profit sectors), develop requisite skills, and decide to pursue a particular career (i.e., career clarity) would assist relevant actors (e.g., advisors, administrators, and SIP program staff) in supporting students along their educational journey. Given that many SIPs are designed, in part, to increase representation in the professoriate, it is especially important to understand how these programs shape students’ faculty career clarity. To address this gap, the following research question guides this study: How does participation in a graduate SIP shape students’ faculty career clarity?

2.4. Theoretical Framework: Sociocultural Perspectives on Learning

To gain a better understanding of graduate students’ faculty career clarity and the role(s) that STEM intervention programs (SIPs) play in facilitating their clarity, sociocultural perspectives on learning serve as a useful theoretical framework. Specifically, sociocultural perspectives on learning postulate that individuals learn and develop in large part through the process of internalizing social interactions (Wertsch, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978). To this end, learning is facilitated through a process of mediation: the cognitive internalization of someone’s interactions through external mediators, such as engaging with material tools (e.g., technology, worksheets), gaining exposure to common symbols (e.g., language, jargon, archetypes), and interacting with people who guide and encourage their learning (e.g., peers, mentors, experts) (Burt, 2019; Polly et al., 2018; Wenger, 2010; Wertsch, 1991). Sociocultural perspectives posit that this learning is most effective when it occurs in an individual’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the place immediately outside of one’s “comfort zone” (e.g., expertise, current knowledge), where someone is able to learn upon receiving external assistance (Polly et al., 2018; Vygotsky, 1978). Further, both external mediators and individual ZPDs are shaped by the cultural contexts they are situated in (e.g., social and cultural norms; environments and organizations; histories and personal experiences), which influence the accessibility of meaningful mediators, the extent of learning possibilities, and how much someone is expected to learn. Lastly, it is believed that when an individual consistently participates in a community of practice (Wenger, 2010)—engaging with relevant and meaningful mediators outside of their comfort zone (ZPD) through practice—their identification with the community increases, which facilitates a sense of belonging and further learning.

Regarding this study, SIPs are examples of communities of practice in action, making sociocultural perspectives of learning a useful framework when studying them. For example, SIPs are created with specific values and goals (e.g., increasing exposure to STEM; retention and persistence along educational and career pathways). In pursuing these goals, SIPs operationalize mediation processes found in sociocultural learning, specifically by engaging students with tools (e.g., informational handouts, writing samples, application materials), symbols (e.g., academic jargon, names and titles of various career paths, archetypes of faculty), and people (e.g., other students, program staff, mentors, faculty, and industry leaders). Graduate students who participate in SIPs enter these spaces with varying degrees of knowledge, experience, programmatic needs, and, germane to this study, faculty career clarity—or Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD). SIPs are consequently tasked with facilitating learning across varying ZPDs, illustrating a challenge that SIP administrators commonly face: providing scalable services that are relevant to students’ unique needs. Furthermore, minoritized graduate students in STEM have experiences and challenges unique to their underrepresentation within HPWI environments, graduate education, STEM disciplines and careers, and even SIPs themselves. Consequently, in addition to pursuing representation in STEM graduate programs and careers, many SIPs center the development of safe spaces, community, and peer support within their individual programs—fostering communities of practice that students might be inclined to identify with and frequently attend.

In this study, we draw on sociocultural perspectives on learning to explore one graduate-level STEM intervention program. This SIP serves as a community of practice where participating graduate students gain information about faculty career pathways (among other career options) and develop their understanding of, and clarity regarding, academic careers through engagement with the SIP (i.e., attending programs, interacting with peers, faculty, and program staff). As such, sociocultural perspectives on learning provide a useful lens for examining how participants in this SIP shape their faculty career clarity.

3. Methods

This study is guided by a social constructivist paradigm (Creswell & Poth, 2025), which suggests that individuals have varied lived experiences—shaped by their interactions with others, as well as navigation through cultural, historic, and institutional contexts—and differently make meaning of their lives. We engaged their words and meaning-making using basic qualitative research techniques (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Specifically, we inductively explored how participation in a graduate intervention consortium (referred to as “GIC” from this point forward) informed the faculty career clarity of 25 graduate students.

3.1. The Graduate Intervention Consortium (GIC): An Overview

The Graduate Intervention Consortium (GIC) is a multi-institution collaboration aimed at providing graduate students with professional development, academic support, and a sense of community to increase the likelihood of success (e.g., satisfaction, persistence, graduation) in graduate school. The GIC has served students enrolled in a system of institutions on the East Coast of the U.S. for over two decades. Within the last five years, the GIC has expanded to another system of schools on the West Coast of the U.S., increasing the reach and impact of its services and supports to students. As a consortium, they have some all-GIC programs and events where students across the entire GIC can participate and network. However, each GIC (East Coast system of institutions and West Coast system of institutions) has its own inter-system programming that caters to students’ needs within their local institutional system.

With initial funding from the National Science Foundation, the GIC began as an intervention focused on STEM students and those from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds. However, because program staff saw value in its programming for all students, they allowed participation for all students, regardless of the field of study (e.g., public policy) and race/ethnicity. In addition, the GIC is utilized by students at different levels (i.e., master’s and doctorate), stages (i.e., year in school), and enrollment status (i.e., full-time and part-time)—with some students holding full-time employment positions. Graduate students learn about the GIC through various strategies (e.g., flyers on campus; emails from the graduate college, departments, targeted listservs for graduate students of color, personal invitations from program staff and peers). Participation in a GIC (e.g., attending its programs and accessing its resources and program staff) is voluntary, and has no connection to students’ academic departments (i.e., there is no retribution to students for not attending GIC programs or utilizing a GIC).

Related to this study, data were collected during the COVID-19 global pandemic. This context is important because, like other institutional services, much of what the GIC offered had to be converted virtually (e.g., Zoom webinars, orientations, interactive sessions). For existing GIC students, they were exposed to GIC offerings in-person, virtually, and then to the return of in-person offerings. For newly matriculated graduate students, the GIC began as an intervention program that exclusively operated electronically through emails, social media, and virtual platforms. Immediately prior to data collection, the GIC held its first all-GIC event—convening at the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) conference, where GIC participants networked with peers (across the country, including other GIC students from different geographic regions), faculty teaching at different colleges and universities, and program staff (from their GIC and the other system’s GIC).

This context about the GIC, its offerings, and its support through the COVID-19 global pandemic is important when understanding how students described their experiences, engagements, and interactions with the GIC’s programmatic offerings, resources, and people.

3.2. Data Collection

Participants of this study were recruited via purposeful sampling techniques (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Institutional liaisons sent email invitations to all enrolled graduate students who engaged with GIC programming in the year 2022 (or prior). Because the email invitation was sent to all GIC participants (approximately 150 students), the principal investigator (this study’s first author) did not screen for how actively engaged (e.g., frequency of attendance to GIC programming) the students were. All GIC students interested in participating in this study were accepted (25 students).

Upon acceptance, participants filled out a brief demographic questionnaire that detailed their various identities (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, academic discipline) and post-graduation plans. Of the 25 study participants, all identified as holding one or more minoritized racial or ethnic identities, 14 identified as men, 10 identified as women, and one identified as non-binary. Further, four of the students were master’s students, 20 were doctoral students, and one student chose not to disclose her educational details. The majority of students (21) were within a STEM academic discipline. See

Table 1. Demographic data for study participants.

Pseudonym	Gender	Race/ Ethnicity	Age	Year	Location	Program	Activity in the GIC	GIC-Derived Career Clarity
Aaliyah	F	Black	20–25	1st M	EC	STEM	Low	No Clarity
Amari	M	Black	41+	2nd	EC	STEM	High	Definite (Faculty)
Anna	F	Black	20–25	2nd	WC	STEM	Medium	Openness (Faculty)
Ari	M	Black	31–40	1st M	WC	STEM	Medium	Openness (Faculty)
Brian	M	Black	20–25	2nd	EC	STEM	High	Openness (Faculty)
Cynthia	F	Black	20–25	2nd	WC	STEM	High	Openness (Faculty)
Daniel	M	Black	41+	4th	EC	STEM	Medium	No Clarity
Dimarcus	M	Black	O	5th	EC	NS	Medium	Openness (Faculty)
Elaine	NB	Black	26–30	4th	WC	STEM	High	Openness (Faculty)
Ethan	M	Black	31–40	2nd	EC	STEM	Low	O
Jalen	M	Black	26–30	4th	WC	STEM	Medium	No Clarity
Jamie	F	Black	O	O	EC	NS	Medium	Definite (Faculty)
Jonathan	M	Black	20–25	3rd	WC	STEM	Low	No Clarity
Julian	M	Black	26–30	5th	WC	STEM	High	Openness (Faculty)
Kayla	F	Latina, White	26–30	2nd	EC	STEM	High	No Clarity
Logan	M	Black	20–25	1st M	EC	STEM	High	Openness (PhD)
Luciana	F	Latina	26–30	4th	WC	STEM	High	Definite (Industry)
Marla	F	Hispanic, Latina	26–30	4th	WC	STEM	Low	No Clarity
Monique	F	Black	26–30	2nd	EC	STEM	High	Openness (Faculty)
Quinn	M	Black	31–40	6th	EC	NS	High	Definite (Faculty)
Rafael	M	Latino	26–30	1st	WC	STEM	Low	No Clarity
Ravi	M	Asian, Indian	26–30	1st M	EC	STEM	Low	O
Renee	F	Black	41+	2nd	EC	STEM	Low	No Clarity
Sade	F	Black	20–25	2nd	WC	STEM	Low	No Clarity
Thomas	M	Black	31–40	3rd	EC	NS	Medium	No Clarity

“O” = student chose not to share information. “Year” refers to the number of years a student has been in graduate school. “M” = Master’s student. “STEM” = refers to a student enrolled in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics field of study. “NS” = refers to a student not enrolled in a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics field of study. “EC” = East Coast; “WC” = West Coast. “Activity in the GIC” = refers to a student’s self-reported level of engagement in GIC programming. “GIC-Derived Career Clarity” = refers to how participation in the GIC influenced a student’s career clarity.

for participant demographics.

A focus group interview design was used for data collection to capture students’ interactions and rich conversational dialog regarding their participation in GIC. From a social constructivist perspective, focus group interviews allowed for multiple interpretations of students’ experiences (i.e., participating in a GIC, interest in faculty careers) to be discussed, contested, and co-constructed between participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Based exclusively on students’ availability, students selected from seven available dates, resulting in six focus groups (ranging from two to six participants per focus group); one focus group turned into a one-on-one interview due to student scheduling conflicts. The principal investigator facilitated all interviews.

A standardized, semi-structured interview protocol afforded consistency, yet flexibility, with the asking of questions across focus group interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Questions were designed to evoke rich responses and dialogue between participants, and follow-up questions were sporadically asked in instances that warranted further clarification. Some example questions include: What made you become a participant of GIC? How active of a participant were you? What is your most memorable experience from the GIC and why? In what ways do you think GIC prepared you for a faculty career? All interviews were held via an online videoconference platform (i.e., Zoom), and transcripts were professionally transcribed verbatim to document the intended words, dialects, and meanings of the participants.

3.3. Data Analysis

Data analysis followed an iterative, collaborative coding process informed by thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), using a multi-cycle coding approach. The five-member research team analyzed transcripts in three major stages. In the first stage, the team conducted open coding (i.e., line-by-line reading and identifying chunks of text that help to explain the research question) in iterative rounds of one or two transcripts at a time. After each coding round, the team met to compare interpretations, discuss coding decisions, and refine emerging codes. The team focused on clarifying related codes by negotiating differences between the codes and aligning semantic (explicit) and latent (interpretive) approaches to coding. In other cases, team members used different labels for the same text segments or coded similar phenomena at different levels of interpretation. We discussed the analytic process collectively, and by grounding decisions in participants’ experiences as a whole, we arrived at a shared understanding and clarity, particularly when refining distinctions between related codes (e.g., awareness versus exposure, perceived benefits versus program outcomes). This iterative process was repeated until all transcripts were coded. Following these rounds, the team developed a codebook collaboratively based on our interpretation of participants’ experiences in the GIC and their faculty career clarity.

In the second stage, after the preliminary codebook was created, the remaining transcripts were divided among team members for focused coding, with particular attention given to moments where participants described gaining new insights related to post-graduate careers, faculty aspirations, and evolving perceptions of both academic and non-academic career paths. To illustrate, the code “understanding faculty application process” was applied when participants described learning about the steps required to apply for faculty jobs (e.g., preparing teaching, research, and diversity statements) through GIC programming. Similarly, the code “understanding faculty lifestyle” captured when participants discussed their perceptions of faculty life, such as balancing research, grant writing, mentorship, and their personal lives. Codes related to shifts in initial perceptions of academic careers were also used to capture changes in how participants interpreted the professoriate. During focused coding, these and related codes were grouped under a broader subtheme, “Faculty Career Clarity,” which reflected how the GIC helped participants develop a deeper understanding of what it means to pursue a faculty career.

In the final stage, the research team identified patterns and relationships across participants. For instance, because GIC participants were enrolled across five universities, spanning the East and West Coast geographies, we considered how institution-specific student supports versus consortium-wide programmatic efforts had greater influences on students’ career clarity. Although no patterns emerged from inter-system programming, we remained open and revisited this hypothesis throughout the remainder of the data analysis process. As an additional example, we considered how students’ participation levels in the GIC varied between institutions. Participation levels—low, medium, and high, respectively—were assigned [see “Activity in GIC” in Table 1] based on their self-described levels of engagement in GIC programming (e.g., minimal versus routine programmatic attendance). While no stark differences in participation level emerged between institutions, these data were later useful in contextualizing patterns of career clarity development among participants.

As analysis progressed, the team revisited participants’ transcripts holistically and recategorized participants into three descriptive categories based on how the GIC influenced their faculty career clarity: (1) students who developed openness toward faculty careers (n = 9), (2) students who moved toward definite career directions (n = 4), and (3) students who received alternative benefits rather than faculty career clarity (n = 10). Of the 25 participants, two were unable to be placed in a definitive category due to their limited participation within the focus group interviews. However, we acknowledge that their presence in the focus groups potentially influenced the overarching conversation and focus group dynamics, and were thus retained in the study (see Table 1). To distinguish between the first two categories (i.e., “openness” versus “definite”), the team agreed upon a general criterion. Students who indicated that the GIC changed their assumptions of the professoriate, or their place within it, to that of a possible career choice, were placed within the “openness” category. In contrast, students who moved beyond a sense of openness, indicating that the GIC led them to definitively and/or likely to pursue a specific career, were placed in the second category. If a student indicated that they received other benefits but no career clarity (as defined by the first two categories) directly from the GIC (including those who received clarity outside of the GIC), they were placed into a “no career clarity” category. It should be noted that while all participants engaged—to varying degrees—with GIC programming, the nature by which they described satisfaction for and/or personal outcomes resulting from GIC programming also varied. Given this, we were intentional in identifying disconfirming evidence (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to challenge and balance our interpretations of students’ experiences with the GIC.

3.4. Researchers’ Postionalities

As researchers, our varying identities and backgrounds reflect the diversity found within the group of students who participated in this study. Our team comprises one doctorate-holding faculty member and four doctoral students—all of whom hold non-STEM educational backgrounds and study equity and higher education. Similar to the participants, we all identify as having minoritized racial identities, albeit with different intersections: two international women who identify as Black and Asian, respectively, and three domestic men who identify as Middle Eastern, Latino, and Black, respectively. Our diversity presented unique strengths for our research (e.g., recognizing our own diversity, we were able to see participants as unique individuals with some shared characteristics and experiences). Our diversity also necessitated reflexivity when interpreting the data (Milner, 2007). For instance, throughout the research and writing process, we discussed how our backgrounds informed our individual philosophical assumptions, engagement with one another as a team, and interpretations of the participants’ words and lived experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These conversations supported our reflexive efforts to mitigate bias (i.e., conflating participants’ experiences with our own) and honor the participants via cultural sensitivity.

3.5. Limitations

This study has limitations. Notably, no researchers on the team have an educational degree in a STEM discipline. Given this study’s focus on STEM intervention programs (SIPs) in graduate school contexts, we acknowledge that our team may be limited in fully capturing and understanding the discipline-specific cultures, norms, career opportunities, and lived experiences of STEM participants. However, everyone on our team has experience either implementing graduate-level intervention programs or participating in them as graduate students. Further, the GIC has programmatic elements that parallel other non-STEM intervention programs, minimizing the gap in knowledge within the team. Yet, we were cautious not to overlay our experiences with SIPs with those of GIC participants. Another limitation of this study lies within sampling. Specifically, because the focus groups comprised a sample gathered from any student who participated in the GIC, the sample of 25 (out of the approximate 150 study invitees) may not be representative of the full range of experiences and development of faculty career clarity among graduate students exposed to SIPs. To account for this limitation, we avoided claims of broad transferability and incorporated rich descriptions during our analysis and communication of findings—allowing readers to determine the extent to which these findings are transferable to their contexts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Relatedly, while we did collect some demographic information, other information (e.g., first-generation status, prior exposure to faculty careers, prior career plans to joining the GIC) might have provided additional interpretive insights. Although not standardized across students, some participants voluntarily shared useful demographic and background information during the focus group interviews. When available, we integrated students’ demographic and background experiences within our rich descriptions of the interview data.

Finally, we considered temporal influences on students’ experiences in the GIC and their subsequent descriptions of faculty career clarity. That is, we would not expect a first-year and a sixth-year graduate student to have identical experiences with the GIC. Because of these differences in class levels (e.g., first-year student, second-year student, sixth-year student) and engagement with the GIC, we did not expect all students to be able to articulate career clarity in the same ways. We maintained an awareness of potential temporal differences during the analysis of data.

3.6. Ensuring Quality

We implemented multiple strategies to ensure the validity and reliability of our findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Throughout the data analysis process, we iteratively discussed our individual reactions to transcripts and interpretations of the data until consensus was reached. Data were analyzed by a minimum of two researchers, allowing data to be scrutinized through the use of multiple investigators (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Relatedly, every group discussion was thoroughly documented, and we all individually memoed throughout our independent reading and analysis of the transcript data. These documents and memos tracked our evolving interpretations and decision-making, culminating in an extensive audit trail (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Throughout the analysis process, the team regularly met to discuss interpretations, resolve discrepancies, and document analytic decisions to ensure transparency and consistency. Finally, given the voluntary nature of study participation, it could be assumed that only students with positive experiences with the GIC chose to participate. To address the concern of bias, we intentionally sought out disconfirming evidence (i.e., the analytic technique of searching for data that challenges and complicates preliminary findings) (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In doing so, we discovered that our sample was balanced with students having a wide range of attendance, experiences, years in graduate school, and constructive critiques of the GIC. This balance of students provided us with confidence that our findings, too, offered a balanced interpretation of students’ faculty career clarity resulting from GIC participation.

4. Findings

To illustrate how participation in the GIC provided students with faculty career clarity (i.e., understandings of their option to pursue a faculty career and sense-making of their choice to choose a faculty career [or not]), three themes are presented: (1) participation transforms students’ openness toward faculty career possibilities; (2) participation influences some students’ movement toward a more definite faculty career direction; and, (3) participation provides some students with alternative benefits, but not faculty career clarity. In the first two themes, “faculty career clarity” was developed among the GIC’s participants, albeit in nuanced ways. However, the extent of such development (i.e., openness versus definite) is how these two “career clarity” themes are distinguished from one another. The third theme, then, details findings among those who did not develop career clarity upon participating in the GIC.

4.1. GIC Transforms Students’ Openness Toward Faculty Career Possibilities

Participation in the GIC transformed some students’ openness toward the professoriate, even when it did not lead to definitive career decisions. These students previously held ideas, biases, and assumptions—shaped by their expectations, observations, and lived experiences with faculty along their academic pathways—which often led them to dismiss or show little interest in faculty careers. However, through their participation in the GIC, they began to reconsider these assumptions and view the professoriate as a possible, though not yet fully decided upon, career path. For example, Cynthia, a second-year doctoral student studying computer science, reflected on her initial assumptions about faculty roles:

The mentorship sessions that they planned [were helpful]. My big thing was just thinking that professors just teach. Like that’s all they do. But in one of our early meetings with [one of GIC’s administrators]… she [explained that] there’s actually different types of faculty roles. If you want to be a research professor and just do research, you can do that. There’s this flexibility that you don’t necessarily have if you’re not a faculty member. For example, being able to serve as a subject matter expert, being able to go on sabbatical and do other stuff. I’m not huge on the teaching part, but everything else about a faculty role seems very—it’s enough to pull me in. I would say it [participating in the GIC]… opened my eyes, kind of exposed me to what being a faculty member kind of looks like, and the different roles that are available, the different things that you can do with it.

Cynthia explains how participation in the GIC expanded her understanding of faculty roles and influenced her openness to the professoriate. Through GIC-provided mentorship sessions, Cynthia’s learning about faculty career pathways was mediated by GIC faculty and administrators who served as key sources of new information and perspectives. While she did not express a definitive commitment to pursuing a faculty career, her reflection that the role was “enough to pull [her] in” suggests a shift from her earlier reservations towards a reconsideration of how academia might fit her professional interests, given its flexibility and particularly her preference for research over teaching.

Monique, a second-year doctoral student studying electrical engineering, also described how participation in GIC programming, particularly through the NSBE conference, expanded her perspective on faculty roles:

… it was a really good opportunity to have breakfast with Chancellor [and other faculty]… and to be in a same room with some of the key players in engineering who are on leadership but also trying to diversify the field. So it was a good way to just like, ask some questions about their careers and how they got to where they are… like going through a postdoc and how long that took… the process of applying for grants… them being honest of, it is a tough process, right?… that I’m not going in thinking that it’s all going to be roses… the process of preparing yourself for this position requires a lot too. I do appreciate the honesty.

Monique’s words illustrate how participation in the GIC provided a more realistic understanding of what pursuing a faculty career entails, particularly the demands of preparing for such a path. Monique’s understanding of the professoriate was mediated by exposure to faculty’s lived experiences across different institutions and roles that made faculty careers more visible and concrete. As a result, she began to reconsider what pursuing a faculty career might look like, as she states, “opened my eyes a bit” and “gave me a perspective of if I do decide to take that route [the professoriate], what the possibilities are.”

Like Monique, Anna, a second-year doctoral student studying informatics, also described the mediating roles that faculty and academic leaders played in reshaping her understandings of academic careers:

What opened my eyes as far as the different opportunities for faculty members was during NSBE, … they had that meeting where the Chancellor came and… other deans of other graduate schools and programs. Just looking at the opportunity for not just going to the traditional professor role but excelling and moving up in different levels [of academic administration]. That’s what really interested me. Because honestly, being a faculty member feels like it’s a lot of work and it just don’t seem worth it. But then it’s like when you see those people who did go through the grueling work of being a faculty member to excel or to achieve their goal or reach this other level of power… it definitely seemed more appealing. Like just being a professor, isn’t the end all, be all. There’s opportunities for growth and more afterwards.

Anna’s reflections show a shift and a growing openness in how she interpreted the value of academic careers as a viable and impactful pathway despite her unclear commitment to pursuing a faculty career. Though she initially perceived faculty roles as highly demanding and not necessarily worthwhile, exposure to faculty and administrators allowed her to reframe the professoriate as a potential step on the ladder toward academic leadership, including what she described as the “other level of power.”

While Anna highlights how participation in the GIC expanded students’ understanding of the opportunities within academic career pathways, other students described shifts in how they perceived faculty themselves, which, in turn, shaped their openness to the professoriate. Brian, a second-year doctoral student studying biochemical engineering, described how his assumptions about faculty were shaped by negative stereotypes prior to participating in the GIC:

I originally had no intention of going to academia because I thought a career as a faculty was very stressful, very limiting. I thought you gotta have a certain type of personality. I thought that you would have a terrible work life balance… I thought the faculty would have to be task masters. Very cold. Not people that I would want to hang out with at a party or get a drink with. Just somebody who I just not would want to be around. I thought they were all… mean, older people. [Yet], because of [the GIC], I found out that was not the case. These people have hobbies, are really cool, and funny. [My perception changed at] the breakfast at the NSBE conference because it was the first time seeing people who look like me in leadership positions at universities. And it just was really cool to be able to learn about their journey, their path, [and] seeing how they’re all connected… it’s like a lineage. So yeah, [participating in the GIC] fully opened up my mind to academia.

Engaging with faculty members who were “really cool and funny,” and seeing individuals who shared his identity in leadership positions, inspired Brian to rethink what it means to be part of academia—a place he could build a career. Brian’s experience reflects a broader pattern in how students form perceptions of academic careers, a combination of assumptions based on observations and interactions (Burt, 2020). Existing research highlights that students often observe their professors in efforts to make sense of whether they have similar qualities (i.e., faculty prototype) (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Burt, 2019) as those holding faculty careers. Sometimes the assumptions of “productive” faculty pose challenges to other assumptions students hold about professors’ lack of work–life harmony (Burt et al., 2021). Viewed in another way, the archetype of the “task master” faculty member with a “terrible work-life balance” serves as a symbol that some graduate students are commonly exposed to within graduate (and STEM) education environments made up of norms and histories of hyper-competition (Burt et al., 2026). In Brian’s case, the GIC exposed him to alternative, humanizing symbols of faculty, situating these symbols within relaxed and informal settings that challenged the competitive norms he was originally used to.

In contrast to Brian’s negative stereotypes of faculty, others held more idealized prototypes of faculty that similarly created barriers to imagining themselves in the professoriate. For example, Elaine, a fourth-year doctoral student studying chemical engineering, initially perceived the professoriate as being unattainable:

… it [becoming a faculty member] was just not something that was possible for me. Like you had to be the best of the best. You had to know everything from principles to just how to communicate to people. Like there was just such a wide variety of skills that you need to have that I just didn’t think it was possible for me to have. So, I initially was just like, “I’ll just go into research.” But after talking to new faculty that were at the school attending GIC events… I felt like I could actually tackle them [variety of skills] instead of this big conglomerate of things that I just didn’t know how to distinguish from each other. So, initially I thought it [becoming a faculty member] was impossible. But now I’m learning that it [becoming a faculty member] is possible.

Initially, Elaine perceived the professoriate as a “big conglomerate” of demands that required being the “best of the best.” This perception reflects a possible sign of imposter syndrome, where individuals question their own abilities and potential (Clance & Imes, 1978). This internalized, deficit-framed thinking tends to influence some students’ perceptions that those around them are smarter or better and thus belong more or deserve more than they do (Burt et al., 2026). This deficit framing can prevent students—like Elaine—from realizing their full potential. Through interactions with faculty at GIC events, however, these assumptions were disrupted, as exposure to more concrete and attainable representations of faculty work is reflected in her movement from “impossible” to “possible.”

While Brian and Elaine’s accounts reflect a shift in how students began to imagine the possibility of themselves in academic careers, Julian, a fifth-year doctoral student studying mechanical engineering, explained how participation in the GIC reshaped his understanding of what it means to pursue a faculty career:

It was nice to see examples of the professors that we got to speak with… at the NSBE conference. Specifically, sessions with [the Chancellor] and the others. It was nice to see the success stories of folks like us or the paths that we’re trying to follow. Because for me, I wasn’t that hyped up about going down the path of professorship because it just didn’t look exciting. I’m like professors look like they work really hard and you’re still trying… You have to prove yourself again after you’ve done all this work to be a Ph.D., to get a Ph.D. And then add on top of that being a minoritized scholar—it’s like, “Do I really want to continue dealing with that to find some peace?” It was nice to see people that are there [in the role of the professoriate]… [it showed that] you can find a way. And you can be at peace. [And] you [too] can feel good in your role as a professor or whatever.

Julian, along with several other students, commented on the significant impact attending the NSBE conference (as a group) had on their perspectives. While it can be assumed that Julian would have appreciated meeting professors and administrators individually, the magnitude of hearing and seeing “success stories” from several individuals in one space, particularly those who shared his racial/ethnic and minoritized identities, was especially powerful. An important aspect of his reflection centers on the journey of pursuing the professoriate—a continuous proving process. Fries-Britt and Griffin (2007) explain that the proving process is a cumulative hurdle that high-achieving Black students face at historically and predominantly white institutions (HPWIs) where they feel intense pressure from their peers, professors, staff, administrators, and the campus community to prove that they belong, are capable of academic excellence, and are deserving to be at their institutions. For Julian, however, seeing examples of professors and administrators holding these roles, and modeling for him that “being at peace” in such roles is possible, transformed his thinking and openness to the possibility of the professoriate.

As evidenced by Julian and across participants, GIC programming intentionally created opportunities for students to engage with current faculty and administrators, many of whom were former faculty. These interactions allowed students to move beyond limited understandings of the professoriate and instead contributed to understanding how faculty roles can take on different forms by institution. Among the participants discussed above, these evolved understandings of the professoriate dispelled their formerly held assumptions and increased their openness towards pursuing faculty careers.

4.2. GIC Influences Students’ Movement Toward Definite Career Directions

Whereas some students who participated in the GIC described an increased openness toward pursuing faculty careers, others described a concrete career direction derived from their participation in the GIC. In both cases, students consistently described the GIC’s role in transforming their assumptions about different faculty careers. However, upon dispelling their assumptions, some students moved beyond a GIC-derived openness towards faculty careers, instead describing likely and/or definite plans to pursue careers in academia. As an example, Jamie, a doctoral student in the social sciences, explained how her assumptions of the professoriate were negatively shaped by contrasting undergraduate and graduate school experiences, and how the GIC reaffirmed her confidence in pursuing academia:

I unfortunately had a skewed perception of what professors would be like. My undergrad was at an [Historically Black College and University] HBCU, so professors were between the age of 35 and 80, different races, different lifespans. And that’s what I expected coming into grad school. That’s not what happened… I did leave a previous graduate school before entering [this current institution]. [At the first graduate school] all of my professors were non- minority, over 60. It was just very different, not what I expected or needed…

The HBCU where Jamie attended included Black and (assumed) young(er) faculty, an intersectional demographic that she hoped to identify with when beginning her own faculty career; however, her original graduate school did not meet her expectations, causing a moment of doubt related to career direction. However, participation in the GIC provided reassurance that her previous experiences with and observations of the professoriate are attainable, even at HPWIs, but require identifying different spaces (i.e., those offered by the GIC) within institutions that meet her needs for representation:

… it was just reinforced with the [GIC]… I knew that it [diversity] wasn’t just at HBCU’s… I know that there are PWIs that have 40 year old professors. I was just at the wrong grad school at first… Everyone that I met [at GIC] was diverse in their own way. At my first university, there was no diversity… So unlike my first grad school experience, it [the GIC] just reinforced what I already knew. There is a space for me [in the academy] and I just have to find it because it exists.

Seeing diverse faculty members within GIC programming, Jamie returned to her initial assumptions of the professoriate as a potential career space where she might also find diversity. Participants frequently noted that academic careers seemed implausible in part because they had limited interactions with faculty who looked like them. This lack of access to (and inability to speak to) visual models of professors appeared to challenge students’ faculty career clarity, especially for minoritized scholars navigating a historically and predominantly white career (i.e., the professoriate).

Amari, a second-year electrical engineering doctoral student, also described an initially uncertain sense of faculty career direction that became more definitive after GIC participation:

I would say yes, participation in [the GIC] actually changed my perspective. Initially, when I started graduate school, I was like, “I don’t really have time to write grants, to ask people for money, for my research and all those stuff.”… So I wasn’t cut out for that, even though my primary reason for coming to graduate school is to be able to teach. But my perspective actually shifted a bit after the last big conference [NSBE] where I had an opportunity to have a breakfast with [the] chancellor and some other Black faculties. Prior to that, my intention was get my Ph.D. degree and just move to the industry. But for them sharing their experiences of how they overcome some of the challenges that Black faculty faces in their colleges and universities kind of encouraged me… So that event actually helped me to begin to look towards faculty as an option.

By becoming involved with the GIC, Amari’s negative assumptions of the professoriate were challenged, and his passion for teaching was reignited. Attendance at the NSBE conference was a consistent highlight for students to see representation en masse, as they rarely saw faculty who shared their intersectional identities (combinations of minoritized race and gender) at their current graduate institutions. Similar to Jamie, Amari’s experiences seeing the representation of other Black faculty members, hearing about their perseverance in navigating the academy, and interacting with them appear to have allowed him to identify with and clearly see himself in a faculty role in the future.

Whereas the NSBE conference served as an annual opportunity that GIC participants looked forward to, participants also indicated that the GIC offered valuable programming throughout the entire academic year. For instance, as Amari continued sharing how the GIC supported his faculty career clarity, he mentioned the concrete skills and career preparedness he gained from a collection of GIC programming:

Programs from [the GIC] has actually prepared me for faculty positions… the most important part of [the GIC] is actually [the] professional development part of it… There is plenty of events that actually helped me, even in my graduate school at the moment. And some that also helped me in my official pursuit of faculty positions, like [how to write] the diversity statement, the research statement, the teaching statement and the rest of them.

Because preparing various statements (e.g., research, teaching, diversity) is an application requirement for faculty careers, offering workshops that assist students, like Amari, with these processes is essential for them to submit competitive applications. Further, participating in these professional development workshops helps make visible the hidden curriculum of understanding and gaining access to faculty careers. For students who are open to faculty careers, yet who still contemplate a definitive career decision, programming specific to application processes and career preparedness might also provide them with the knowledge and confidence in choosing a particular career direction.

Similar to Amari, Quinn, a sixth-year doctoral student studying history, was previously interested in the professoriate, but when he went to graduate school at his institution, he began second-guessing his career ideas, assuming that he would have to work in a research-intensive role should he join the professoriate. Participation in the GIC, however, offered him clarity regarding the kind of faculty roles that better align with his interests:

Initially, when I came to grad school, I wanted to obtain my master’s and then segue into my Ph.D. program. And then I learned that a large amount of time [in the Ph.D. and academic roles] is spent researching and [publishing] articles… I stopped to think as to whether or not I wanted to continue in the world of academia. So when I enrolled in the [GIC], I was really interested in the area of teaching [at] community colleges… [I learned that] as an adjunct professor, your whole aim is to teach and mold minds. Researching and publications really aren’t as big of a… They aren’t part of the job description for adjunct professors as they are full-time faculty members. And so the [GIC] kind of helped change my perspective when it came to my trajectory in terms of continuing a path for academia. And so I decided that instead of trying to get my Ph.D. and go through all this, I could just get a job as adjunct professor and do what it is I want to do and that’s teach. It [GIC workshops] provided me a framework in regards to how I tackle the process of applying to adjunct professor positions. And so using some of the information… I was able to kind of change the flavor of my resume, my cover letter, incorporating some of the ideas that I learned about. And as a result, I was able to adjunct at the local community college. So, I can definitely point the [GIC] as assisting me in achieving that goal in this past year.

Like Amari, Quinn was able to learn and apply what he learned from the professional development workshops (e.g., improving application materials). In Quinn’s case, his evolved clarity of the professoriate led him to apply for, and begin working as, an adjunct professor whilst finishing his doctoral studies. Without professional development opportunities from intervention programs like the GIC, students like Amari, Quinn, and others may not receive the necessary guidance needed to be competitive in the academic job market, nor hold the confidence in themselves as applicants and future faculty.

Gaining definitive career clarity was not exclusively a move toward the professoriate. Career clarity away from the professoriate was also evident. Luciana, a fourth-year doctoral student studying materials science engineering, shared her perspectives on how her career clarity came into greater focus:

[As far back as undergraduate studies] my professors and my peers would say that I [am] a good fit for being a professor. I always like just took that as some kind of sign that I should be on the academic path. [When] I got here, I had this idealized vision and I always saw industry as something that was totally opposite of what I wanted, which was working on my own pace. It was nice to be able to explore the differences in what [it] actually means to be a professor, because there’s way more than just doing research; you have to worry about being a mentor to your students and writing grants… the most memorable [GIC] experience was the conference… called DELTA engineering faculty… that was really good for me and my personal career choice because I’ve always been on the fence in terms of like what I was going to do after I graduated. And with getting exposure, all this information about what being in an academy looks like, it really helped me understand that’s not where I wanted to be. It was really clarifying for me.

Luciana’s movement away from faculty careers does not represent a failure of the GIC; rather, the victory is in providing students with access to information about faculty careers that is necessary to make informed decisions. Exposure to information about careers provides students, like Luciana, with information that they may not otherwise receive to make informed career decisions. One programmatic goal of the GIC is to broaden participation in the professoriate. Yet, Luciana demonstrated that she received the benefit of career clarity—of academia not being a correct fit—outside of this specific career placement goal, informing her decision to pursue a non-faculty career.

4.3. GIC Provides Some Students with Alternative Benefits, but Not Faculty Career Clarity

It might be assumed that when students participate in an intervention program, ideal results are immediate. However, many factors, such as exposure to career pathways (evidenced above), influence an individual’s openness and commitment towards specific careers. Ideally, graduate programs, career services offices, and intervention programs such as the GIC can facilitate students’ understandings of their options while also providing other valuable outcomes to participants. For some participants, and for a variety of reasons both inside and outside of the GIC’s control, engagement in the GIC did not lead to career clarity; however, these students still found value in their participation, particularly by developing professional skills within a safe and supportive community of practice outside of their formal academic environments. For instance, Thomas, a full-time university administrator and part-time doctoral student in his third year of studying language, literacy, and culture, had no intention of deviating from his current career and thus did not seek out GIC programming specific to career paths or preparation. Nonetheless, Thomas highlighted how his participation supported his degree progression and a sense of community:

So I will say, [the reason I participated in the GIC is] because it was Black people. There was a sense of community… you all mentioned [one of the GIC administrators]. We had her first at [my current institution]… she was an instrumental person to create spaces. They did Dissertation House and that’s sort of where I even, as a grad student writing papers, I would attend Dissertation House even before I’m in dissertation mode. Because it was Black people spending the weekend together at a predominantly white institution… The room was filled with folks who looked like me and that’s not necessarily what’s outside of that space. And so it was just important for me to have that feeling of it. And that professor was a person of color. And so it even hit me harder when I was thinking about it. I was like I don’t need the folks to tell me what I can’t do, but I need folks to tell me what I can do and how I can get it done. And it seemed to be from, again, people in [the GIC], again, who were about that too.

Thomas describes how the GIC provided a safe and motivating counterspace to his HPWI, an institution where he formerly had a professor tell him that he “was not ready for a Ph.D. program.” His description appears to mirror that of other Black graduate students who describe chilly and isolating climates when they are underrepresented at their institutions (Burt et al., 2018; McGee et al., 2019). By providing a space for Thomas to learn alongside and from other Black students and faculty, the GIC fostered the comfort and confidence needed within Thomas to continue his doctoral studies. Further, one specific GIC program he attended—Dissertation House—appeared to facilitate not only a sense of community, but a community of scholars with shared goals of writing and completing their degrees (see, for example, Carter-Veale et al., 2016). By routinely practicing dissertation writing alongside peers (i.e., mediated learning through tools and people) with whom he shared similar backgrounds and goals of academic progression, Thomas’s identification with the GIC as a supportive community of practice grew.

Similar to Thomas, Jalen, a fourth-year doctoral student studying energy systems with interests in pursuing a corporate/industry career, also defined the GIC as a safe space where he could connect with others and support one another’s academic progress:

[The GIC administrators and staff] did a good job of doing formal and informal events that allowed us to kind of get to know each other beyond just the academic research setting. And it just felt like a safe space because there were just so many Black people in general… I just felt like this experience really showed me like this is the place to really form genuine connections that don’t just do the social aspect, but kind of also spread the academic as well and bolster each other’s careers, even if it’s not directly applied… And so going to people’s [Qualifying Exams] QEs and practices, and even beyond that of just social things and social events and hanging out with people and all of that budding from academic[s]…

Like Thomas, Jalen found the GIC to be an environment where peers supported one another through their academic progression and milestones (i.e., qualifying exams). Such support can provide comfort during stress-inducing stages of the doctoral journey and provide motivation for persisting through graduation (Authors). Additionally, Jalen mentions that even though the programs are beneficial, they may not “directly apply,” which implies that the GIC’s programming was not always directly applicable to his career interest in a corporate/industry job. Yet, the social component of the GIC that brought together his Black peers was a crucial component and a reason he continued to participate. Relatedly, Rafael, a first-year doctoral student studying chemistry and biochemistry, reflected on how important attending GICs’ in-person programming was to build community:

Yeah, yeah. For me it was basically being able to interact with people in person and kind of make a breakthrough in the Latino community at [my institution]. I came to the graduate program at the start of the pandemic, so I hadn’t been really able to make connections with a lot of people due to that. I had been having trouble actually connecting with my community at all at [my institution]. I couldn’t really figure out how to make leeway there. I attended my first [GIC] event in person… last year. That’s where I actually finally got to meet some other Latino people… and I’ve been keeping up with them as well… [Now] I’m getting to that close knit community… in part, thanks to actually attending these events.

Similar to Thomas and Jalen, Rafael desired a connection with his racial/ethnic community (i.e., Latino). As a newer graduate student, Rafael’s quotation offers an important reminder of the cross-section of GIC students in the focus groups: those who began graduate school before the COVID-19 global pandemic and those who started graduate school during the COVID-19 global pandemic. For Rafael, matriculation into graduate school—while mandatory (and in some cases, voluntary) distancing was being practiced—presented the challenge of being isolated from his community at his institution. Although the GIC offered multi-modality programming, Rafael appears to have gained more community connection through in-person programming. These interactions fostered a sense of belonging and helped him build sustained connections within his Latino community. In this way, the GIC functioned as an important space for mitigating isolation and supporting students’ integration into their academic and social environments.

In another example, Aaliyah, a first-year master’s student who is unsure of her post-graduation career interest, describes the exposure and confidence that GIC programming provided:

So my idea of a professor was… just that [of a] glorified teacher. But being in that space [the GIC], at a different institution [other than my undergraduate institution], at the graduate level, and seeing how research and all that pans out was really interesting and definitely has been a shift in my knowledge and understanding how academia even works. I’m just a master’s student. So I don’t think that being a professor is something that I ever really considered… One of the first events that I went to was this online webinar where previous graduate students or current graduate students shared their experiences. And I felt like that was a very memorable moment for me as I’m trying to navigate the start of my graduate school journey. Just hearing the experiences of other people really gave me hope and confidence. It was just so great to be in that space to hear from other people who are… I’m going to walk their similar shoes.

While Aaliyah acknowledges that faculty careers and research processes are interesting, she stops short of indicating openness toward pursuing faculty careers, which might be connected to her viewing of herself as “just a master’s student.” It is not clear from this study alone whether Aaliyah will become more open or definitive in her decisions to pursue faculty, industry/corporate, or other career options. However, it is possible that the GIC’s focus on faculty career exposure, as well as its offering of knowledgeable resources (e.g., peers, mentors, GIC staff), could offer her more faculty career clarity in the future. It is also germane to acknowledge that participation in the GIC connected her with peers and alumni, both of whom offered inspiration and boosted her confidence during a time of uncertainty and challenge (e.g., matriculation into graduate education, COVID-19), a benefit also described by Thomas, Jalen, and Rafael. Although not the same metric as determining faculty career clarity, increased likelihood to persist (or be retained) and to help retain other students in the future is a byproduct of the GIC’s programmatic design.

Sade, a second-year doctoral student studying electrical and computer engineering, described uncertainty toward a career in academia and remained “on the fence,” as her career considerations were shaped by factors beyond the GIC, including exposure to faculty roles and salary. Despite this uncertainty, Sade highlighted how GIC programming provided other benefits:

The meeting with [the Chancellor] and [other GIC students]… was really the first or second time when I had really seen other people at [my institution] who looked like me and were also graduate engineering students. … And then just hearing [the Chancellor’s] story of undergrad to grad school, professor, and the path he took… it was very inspiring and a reminder that I’m not alone out here essentially… I’ve basically always been the only Black person in my classes… well also, only Black woman as well… But I think just seeing other people that look like me was like, “Oh, they know what it’s like… I’m not the only person who sometimes has to think about, “Oh, I have to make sure I don’t act a certain way so that they don’t stereotype in a certain…” I don’t know… it felt like a weight came off when I was in that space.

As shared by others, Sade’s account also illustrates the significant role that the GIC played in helping to bring racially and ethnically (and gender-specific) minoritized students together. For Sade, these interactions in GIC programming offered a sense of recognition and shared identity that was otherwise difficult to find. For those like Sade, participation in the GIC was meaningful, but perhaps not in the career-focused way GIC aims. While the GIC did not resolve all participants’ career uncertainties, it still provided an important space for affirmation, connection, and exposure to relatable success stories. It is possible that for some, career clarity may be an outcome that surfaces with more time.

5. Discussion

The Graduate Intervention Consortium (GIC) explored through this study provided 25 historically minoritized students (STEM and non-STEM) with opportunities to learn about faculty and non-faculty careers (e.g., industry, corporate, government) they might pursue upon graduation. In doing so, their programs exposed students to faculty, administrators, and industry leaders and created a supportive and safe environment. From a sociocultural perspective on learning (Polly et al., 2018; Wertsch, 1991), the GIC served as a valuable community of practice that shaped how students interpreted, evaluated, and imagined their professional futures through mediated exposure to career knowledge, interactions with faculty and peers, and opportunities for reflection on personal values and goals. The GIC, as an intervention, illustrates how learning and career identity occur, in part, through social engagement, mediated by tools, symbols, and people within a community of practice (Wenger, 2010). Rather than directing students toward a single career, participation in the GIC supported students in developing more informed, intentional, and reflective ways of thinking about their career trajectories, highlighting that the development of career clarity is an evolving and socially mediated process.

Some findings from this study warrant further discussion. First, nearly all students agreed that the GIC provided more nuanced information about faculty careers, such as the myriad roles that faculty play, and how institutional types can shape the nature of a professor’s work. Providing students with greater depth of information was beneficial to them. Yet, exposing students to both new information and to real-life possibility models (e.g., people who look like them who occupy faculty roles) (Burt, 2020; Amelink & Artiles, 2021) appeared to move some students, more than others, toward a definitive career trajectory and/or a new openness to the possibility of pursuing a faculty career. One reason for this gap in programmatic outcomes is the range of faculty career clarity that participants held prior to participating in the GIC, constituting varying Zones of Proximal Development (Polly et al., 2018), where the GIC could realistically mediate learning. For example, some students indicated that they already held the knowledge and/or experience needed to make a career decision, and instead utilized the programs offered by the GIC for other reasons, notably to find community and/or develop the skills necessary to progress through graduate school milestones (e.g., Dissertation House). Among these students, some already held professional roles (i.e., adjunct faculty, university administration) that they intended to retain post-graduation, and some indicated having external support systems that satisfied their career clarity needs (e.g., faculty advisors, academic programs).

Prior research shows that STEM intervention programs support goal clarification, solidification of intent, and increased awareness of career options through mentoring, exposure, and external feedback (Amelink & Artiles, 2021; Burton et al., 2019; Villarreal & Campbell, 2023; Williams et al., 2017). Building on this work, we argue that many of the GIC program mechanisms that contributed to students’ career clarity in this study are broadly beneficial across disciplines. Both STEM and non-STEM students received benefits from engaging with the GIC. However, these supports are particularly critical within STEM contexts, where racially and ethnically minoritized students have historically encountered limited access to information about career pathways, faculty mentorship, and role models, alongside persistent underrepresentation in the STEM workforce and professoriate (Amelink & Artiles, 2021; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2024).

GIC programming contributed to students’ faculty career clarity by making the realities of post-graduate careers more visible, understandable, and personally meaningful for students, particularly in relation to STEM career trajectories. In this study, the GIC, like other SIPs (Baber & Jackson, 2018; Brady & Gallant, 2021; Brothers & Knox, 2013; Burt et al., 2020; Carter-Veale et al., 2016; Lane, 2016), appeared to include mechanisms that facilitated students’ faculty career clarity among a host of other beneficial outcomes for students. Specifically, the GIC helped make careers clearer and more understandable by providing practical and concrete information about faculty roles, expectations, and pathways. This kind of exposure has been shown to support career clarification by helping students move beyond abstract or incomplete understandings of their possible futures (Burton et al., 2019). Also, the program offered affirming spaces and access to role models, particularly through interactions with faculty and administrators from historically underrepresented backgrounds. Seeing individuals with shared identities occupying academic roles reinforced participants’ sense that these pathways were attainable, echoing prior findings on the importance of representation and belonging in shaping career aspirations (Villarreal & Campbell, 2023). In addition, the GIC contributed to faculty career clarity by supporting the development of practical and actionable knowledge, such as understanding application materials and professional expectations, which reduced uncertainty and increased students’ confidence in navigating academic careers (Williams et al., 2017). Finally, the GIC enabled students to engage in dialog among peers and mentors. By incorporating this practice of exploratory reflection, some students were able to use career uncertainty as a productive stage in the career development spectrum rather than a sign of indecision or failure.

Some participants viewed the GIC’s programming as incongruent with their career clarity needs. Some were critical of the GIC for not offering workshops specific to their field (i.e., non-STEM disciplines), location (i.e., careers outside of the U.S.), or sector (i.e., industry and corporate careers). However, others described success in attending GIC programming that covered these special cases, which might speak to the variation in GIC programming and outreach efforts across different institutions and timeframes (e.g., pre-COVID vs. post-COVID). Consequently, students’ frequency and intensity of engagement within a SIP might also be assumed to influence their career clarity development. Although not intensively explored in this study, every student who indicated low engagement with the GIC (i.e., less than three programs) was also found in the “no clarity” category. In contrast, only one of the ten students who indicated high engagement was found in that same category. Taken together, our findings suggest that a student’s year in graduate school, their type and intensity of needed career clarity, and their level of participation in a SIP might both be interrelated and combined to influence the level of career clarity developed upon their participation—and thus might explain the gaps in clarity development among our participants.

It became clear that many students held assumptions about faculty and faculty life, likely based on their interactions with and/or observations of the faculty at their HPWI. In fact, students who developed an openness to the professoriate and those who had definitive faculty career clarity all had shifts in their assumptions about faculty, faculty roles, and faculty lives. This finding is consistent with existing research that highlights how students’ meaning-making of the professoriate is shaped by their interactions and observations of their faculty, principal investigators, and peers who are also making sense of their academic environments (Antony & Taylor, 2004; Burt, 2019, 2020). The opportunity to see other faculty—all of whom share minoritized identities—appeared to offer students new visions of what is possible. Participants’ emphasis on events such as the NSBE conference further highlights the importance of in-person interactions with faculty and professional leaders in shaping students’ understanding of academic careers. Hearing their stories of navigating the academy as graduate students, faculty, and for some—as administrators—was motivating for nearly all GIC participants (at least those who attended programming where faculty and administrators were featured). These interactions appear to make academic pathways more visible, relatable, and attainable. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where many students experienced primarily virtual engagement, these in-person opportunities may have been especially impactful for students who entered graduate school during or after this period. This finding is consistent with other research that illustrates the significant impact students of color have when talking candidly about the professoriate with faculty members of color (Antony & Taylor, 2004). These in-person interaction opportunities to gain clarity on their assumptions and observations might be especially beneficial for racially minoritized students trying to navigate HPWIs.

Attendance at GIC events alone did not guarantee faculty career clarity, nor an interest in the professoriate—an implicit goal of the GIC: to increase the number of historically racially minoritized graduate students entering the professoriate. For some students, other factors (e.g., work–life balance, disinterest in focusing on research, potential earning power in industry versus faculty careers) weigh on their career decisions. Yet, despite not converting all students into potential faculty members, SIPs like the GIC still offer participants valuable skills (e.g., writing compelling and competitive job market materials) and create safe and supportive environments that counteract the isolating and chilly climates students tend to encounter at their historically and predominantly white institutions.

It is possible that for some students, the development of career clarity takes more time than what was allotted for in this one-time data collection research design. It might be assumed that those early in their graduate journeys, for example, may gain more definitive career clarity as they progress through graduate school, and as they gain more knowledge about careers through further participation with the GIC—developmental expectations like this often situate progress within a linear and incremental path. However, our findings illustrate that more nuanced pathways to career clarity can occur. For example, Amari, a second-year doctoral student, described movement towards a definite faculty career direction after engaging in high-impact conversations with faculty. Meanwhile, Elaine, a fourth-year doctoral student, noted only a recent openness to joining the professoriate. Nuanced scenarios like these occurred throughout the study, and while we recognize that someone’s year in graduate school can inform their career clarity development, we argue that it should not solely be relied upon to predict their level of career clarity, as other factors are often at play.

5.1. Implications for Future Policy and Research

SIPs, like the GIC, are beneficial for students navigating graduate education and exploring career options. A byproduct of their successful navigation through graduate education is a workforce that thrives from their expertise and passion for their career. Given the reduction in funding toward initiatives like the GIC from the federal level, we encourage college and university leaders to embed evidence-based strategies that boost students’ faculty career clarity and sense of belonging—like those demonstrated to be effective by the GIC—within existing graduate education structures. When updating the graduate (co)curriculum, programs might include standardized information about faculty and non-faculty careers (e.g., career paths, responsibilities, requirements). Through formal institutional-level standardization of the (co)curriculum, institutional actors (e.g., department chairs, deans, graduate school leadership, governance bodies, curriculum committees) will better situate students’ faculty career clarity as a central goal of the graduate student experience.

With regard to future research, scholars should further explore how the availability of support systems and resources in graduate education contexts (e.g., quality faculty advising, departmental career development opportunities, exposure to industry and faculty professionals in STEM careers) influences students’ levels of participation in, and career clarity developed from, SIPs. Such research can assist SIPs’ development and implementation of meaningful and efficient programming. Relatedly, future studies should further explore how the unique backgrounds, identities, and experiences of students shape their engagement with, and career clarity developed from, SIPs. In doing so, studies might emphasize inquiries into students’ first-generation status, prior exposure to STEM careers, and prior career plans, among other potential influencers. For example, tracking students’ prior career plans might illuminate when and how SIPs transform students’ intended career destinations. Lastly, scholars might also explore the relationship between faculty career clarity and long-term success in STEM careers (whether they be faculty or non-faculty careers), where “success” can be measured by students’ retention, upward mobility, and overall satisfaction within their chosen careers. Such research can illuminate whether the process of making an informed career decision (via career clarity) leads to long-term satisfaction and success in one’s career. Longitudinal designs that trace the trajectories of students from their graduate school experiences—including the career clarity they received—well into their professional careers would be most effective in exploring this relationship.

5.2. Implications for Professional Practice

Students in this study landed in one of three groups: those with new openness toward the professoriate, those with a definitive interest in the professoriate, and those unsure of their career clarity but still gained valuable skills from participation in the GIC. If SIPs and/or graduate departments are focused exclusively on increasing interest in the professorate, targeting students in the first two groups might be the most advantageous. Those in the second group appear to need affirmation and nurturing of their existing interest in the professoriate. Those in the first group have an openness, which means they are not completely in favor of a faculty career, but there are aspects that they see value in, and they may be working toward seeing themselves in that role. For those students, helping to address the concerns that they may have about faculty careers would be useful. Also, helping them to further understand the various kinds of faculty roles, by institutional type, might help them to more clearly find a fit in the faculty career.

For some students, identifying with the possibility of the professoriate was achieved by seeing those who look like them occupying faculty roles. However, from a sociocultural perspective on learning lens, others may not fully identify with the possibility of pursuing a faculty career until they practice some aspects of the role. For instance, engaging students in research (e.g., presenting at conferences, publishing one’s findings, and grant work), teaching and mentoring, and service might help them to see some additional aspects of faculty roles. SIPs that incorporate opportunities for students to “practice” different careers might move them beyond exposure and to a more definitive career clarity.

Many students hold incomplete or deficit-framed assumptions about faculty and non-faculty careers, including misunderstandings about faculty responsibilities and beliefs that such careers are unattainable given their limited preparation and minoritized identities. Practitioners responsible for promoting students’ career clarity (e.g., course instructors, faculty advisors, principal investigators, department chairs, program coordinators) should prioritize the demystification of STEM careers by making roles, responsibilities, and career pathways explicitly known. One way to unmask this hidden curriculum around career options is to connect graduate students with current industry leaders and faculty through panels, formal mentoring relationships, or informal conversations. These intentional connections can correct misunderstandings and provide students with greater confidence, particularly when students share similar backgrounds and identities with these professionals.

Unless there are standardized supports for graduate students across departments and programs, practitioners should recognize that graduate students require varying levels and forms of support depending on the available resources (e.g., information about careers). Practitioners should, therefore, strategically prioritize outreach and intensive support for students receiving limited guidance, while maintaining broadly accessible opportunities for those with less-intensive needs. Finally, practitioners should avoid measuring program “success” solely on specific career decisions and placement outcomes, as there are likely to be other significant benefits from participating in SIPs (e.g., career clarity, confidence, self-efficacy, sense of belonging).

6. Conclusions

The professoriate, as a career, is a significant catalyst in the effort to broaden participation in STEM and the scientific workforce, warranting renewed commitments to diversify, equity, and inclusion. Yet, higher education in the United States is under attack. These attacks have been especially enhanced and targeted toward programs like the GIC that were previously funded to help address and redress the historical [educational] injustices and [educational] debt owed to racially and ethnically minoritized individuals (Ladson-Billings, 2006). These attacks on higher education have ushered in a precarious time where successful efforts to improve and make the academy more equitable for historically underrepresented populations have been vindictively thwarted. The present-day unfounded and anti-intellectual efforts to roll back the progress of representation in the academy and STEM workforce provide some challenges—and opportunities—for policy, research, theory, and professional practice.

If a motivator for student persistence is career clarity, then having more information about students’ career interests and leveraging that information to provide students with the needed skills to be successful in those careers would be a useful strategy. STEM intervention programs (SIPs) like the GIC do this work; they continue to prove themselves to be a valuable, gap-filling resource within graduate education. Through SIPS, students who may otherwise not consider themselves eligible to become a professor might now see themselves in that future role, thanks to the intervening of a graduate SIP. For other students, SIPs may nurture an existing interest in pursuing a faculty role, helping students realize that their decision to pursue the professoriate is worthwhile. Rather than replacing and/or duplicating existing departmental or graduate program efforts, SIPs complement the formal graduate [hidden] curriculum and help address uneven access to career options, mentoring, and professional socialization. Without SIPs, students who remain on the margins of higher education may continue to navigate graduate education without guidance. Instead, with the assistance of SIPs, minoritized students gain skills that prepare them for post-graduate careers, like the professoriate.