“They Open Doors, It Is Our Job to Walk Through”: Opportunity-Centered Institutional Logics as Perceived by Students

Abstract

Science, technology, engineering, math and medicine (STEMM) disciplines often have academic cultures shaped by institutional logics that privilege prestige and competition. In contrast, some STEMM departments are taking up “opportunity-centered institutional logics” or student-centered organizational frameworks that emphasize inclusion, expansive opportunity, and student success over prestige and elitism. Building upon Núñez’s framework, this qualitative study examines how undergraduate students perceive themes of inclusivity, talent development, and culturally responsive educational practices in a computer science department at a minority-serving urban research university in the northeastern United States. The study asks: (a) How do students perceive opportunity logics in their CS learning environment? (b) What departmental structures and norms align with opportunity-centered logics values and goals? Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 25 undergraduate students participating in a federally funded scholarship program. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using iterative thematic coding focused on opportunity-centered themes. Findings indicate that students experienced their department as highly supportive and opportunity-oriented through inclusive communication practices, visible and accessible academic support systems, strong peer and faculty relationships, normalization of help-seeking and struggle, and intentional efforts to connect students to research, internships, career development, and institutional resources. By centering student perspectives, this study extends the conceptualization of institutional logics to the interactional level by demonstrating how opportunity-centered values are enacted through everyday departmental practices and relationships.

1. Introduction

Computer science higher education has long been characterized as a “chilly,” exclusionary environment that privileges a narrow set of students and ways of learning. Despite growing attention to broadening participation in computing, many departments continue to reproduce barriers related to access, belonging, and career preparation—particularly for first-generation students, who often have less access to the informal knowledge, networks, and experiences that support success in computing pathways.

Existing research has made important progress in identifying structural and cultural barriers in computing education, as well as the role of identity, belonging, and support in student persistence (Atadero et al., 2018; Avendano-Uribe et al., 2022; Hug et al., 2024). However, much of this work focuses either on broad institutional patterns or on individual-level experiences, with less attention to how institutional logics are experienced on the ground through everyday interactions with faculty, staff, and departmental structures. In particular, we know relatively little about how students themselves perceive and interpret opportunity-oriented approaches to education within computing contexts.

Academic computer science contexts have been characterized as chilly, didactic, and elitist learning environments that privilege male, technically obsessed, antisocial learners (Barker et al., 2009; Fisher & Margolis, 2002). While pedagogical innovation, professional development, and faculty community building are on the rise in the higher education computer science community, there remains a call to broaden participation in computing and improve upon departmental culture to assure access and persistence of all students in the field (Camp et al., 2019; Fletcher et al., 2021; Price et al., 2021). First-generation college students may not have access to the professional and extracurricular activities that are supportive of computer science job attainment based on their tendency to live off campus at home, work for pay, and hold familial commitments that decenter college going in their list of priorities (Burger & Naudé, 2019; Yang et al., 2024).

Institutional logic concepts bring together socially negotiated structure and individual agency. Institutional logics are “socially constructed, historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices, assumptions, values and beliefs” used to construct institutional and organizational realities (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). Cai and Mountford (2022) drew out the institutional logics developed in field studies, with “academic logic,” “higher education as a social institution,” “Science logic,” and “academic capitalism” serving as concepts reified in higher education settings. In the higher education research literature, institutional logics have focused on macro-level instantiations of institutional logics, while forgoing interactional levels of study (Hallett & Ventresca, 2006; Zilber, 2016). Institutional logics draw out the ways in which elitism, disciplinary thinking, and capitalist ideals are embedded in the construction of organizations, and serve to frame meaning-making within higher-education contexts.

The emphasis on high-level institutional logics can show how leaders’ values shape institutional policy making and cultural production of organizational identity, as well as highlight when and how disruption, conflict, or change may complicate institutional logics. At the same time, micro-level interactions are valid and valuable in the study of institutional logics, particularly for understanding how institutional logics influence student academic pathways. One-on-one interactions among stakeholders are vital to the makeup of institutional logics; in effect, the actions and dialogs among individuals substantiate institutional logics (Zilber, 2016). The study of institutional logics “on the ground” means capturing not just what institutional logics are present, but also how they are invoked within the organization, and to what end.

Opportunity-centered logics (Núñez, 2025) were conceptualized to understand how computer science departments supported student persistence and success based on upper-level administration and institutional leader perspectives. Núñez explained opportunity-centered logics as access-focused, asset-based values and dispositions towards students that emphasize career-centric trajectories and serve first-generation student populations. In an effort to “add the micro aspects of institutions to the study of institutional logics”, our study centers the perspectives of undergraduate students in a computer science department highlighted in the initial study of opportunity-centered institutional logics to understand whether and how students perceive the themes drawn out by Núñez, those of inclusivity, talent development, and culturally responsive educational practices.

In this study, we examine how opportunity-centered logics (Núñez, 2025) manifest within a computer science department at a minority-serving, urban research university. Drawing on qualitative interviews with undergraduate students, we center student perspectives to understand how faculty and staff practices, departmental structures, and everyday interactions shape experiences of inclusivity, talent development, and culturally responsive support. By connecting student perceptions to organizational practices, this study extends institutional logics research to the interactional level and offers actionable insight into how departments can operationalize opportunity-centered approaches to support student success in computing.

The research questions that frame our study are: How do opportunity-centered logics manifest in the CS student experience at [University]? (a) Do students perceive opportunity logics in their CS learning environment, and if so, how? (b) What departmental structures and norms align with opportunity logics values and goals? The aim of this work is to draw out student, staff, and faculty performance of opportunity-centeredness on the interactional level, and to disseminate the strategies, talk, and messaging used in opportunity-centered learning spaces to advance student success in computer science.

2. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in a computer science department in the northeast United States. The institution is a mostly minority-serving, urban, first-generation-serving institution with undergraduate enrollment approaching 12,000 and graduate student enrollment of approximately 2000 students in Masters or doctoral programs. The institution achieved R2 status in 2024 and was named the first Urban Research University in the state. The department has 15 faculty members and 3 full-time staff, two of whom are grant-funded and student-facing, serving approximately 800 undergraduate students. The department began a PhD program in the fall of 2025. The department is led by a chair who has led the department for 15 years, and has been successful in partnering with other computer science education organizations as well as earning funding from federal agencies to support educational innovation and technical research. In the last seven years, the department has participated in four multimillion-dollar federal grants that primarily support educational initiatives, and fund staff positions as well as student worker and researcher positions in the department.

Interviews held with undergraduate computer science students analyzed for this work were a part of a larger study documenting the ways in which a discipline-based scholarship program improved student persistence and time to degree for Pell grant-eligible, academically talented undergraduate students across 5 US northeast post-secondary institutions. Students were included in the study if they were recipients of a scholarship funded by a federal agency, and if they consented to the interview when requested.

Upon review of the interviews with an eye towards the learning environment and climate for computer science, the themes of opportunity-centered logics at one institution became evident. At that point, a first round of coding emphasized opportunity-centered logic themes of inclusivity, talent development, and culturally responsive pedagogy, with an emphasis on faculty and staff talk and language practices, faculty actions, and departmental policies and resources. Coding for this work was iterative across 25 interviews of undergraduate students in the computer science major who were also a part of the scholarship program. Interviews took place in the fall of 2024 or the spring of 2025 over Zoom software version 7.0.5 and were led by author 3. Interviews lasted from 50 min to 1.5 h. Transcripts were made of each recorded interview for analysis. A table is included documenting demographic markers and year in school. None of the interviewees from [University] were excluded from the analysis. Demographic data for each of the 25 students involved in this study are provided in the table with relation to year in school, gender identity, and race/ethnicity demographic markers. Additional information was available from surveys for 18 of the participating 25. Half of the students indicated they were first-generation college students (9 of 18), and eight of 18 grew up with a family member or friend interested in STEM fields. See

Table 1. Student demographic information of interviewees in the study.

Student #	Year in College	Gender	Race or Ethnicity
1	Fourth Year	woman	Hispanic/Latino/a
2	Fourth Year	woman	Hispanic/Latino/a
3	Fourth Year	woman	Hispanic/Latino/a
4	Fourth Year	woman	Hispanic/Latino/a
5	Third Year	woman	Hispanic/Latino/a
6	Fourth Year	man	Hispanic/Latino/a; Asian not from Indian subcontinent
7	Fifth Year or more	man	African American/Black
8	Third Year	woman	African American/Black
9	Third Year	man	Hispanic/Latino/a
10	Third Year	woman	Caucasian/White
11	Fourth Year	man	Asian, not from Indian subcontinent
12	Third Year	woman	Caucasian/White; Middle Eastern
13	Fifth Year or more	man	African American/Black
14	Third Year	woman	Caucasian/White
15	Third Year	man	African American/Black
16	Third Year	man	Caucasian/White
17	Fourth Year	man	Caucasian/White
18	Fourth Year	man	Caucasian/White
19	Fourth Year	man	African American/Black
20	Fourth Year	man	African American/Black
21	Third Year	woman	African American/Black
22	Fourth Year	man	Asian
23	Fourth Year	man	African American/Black
24	Fourth Year	man	Caucasian/White
25	Fifth Year or more	man	Caucasian/White

.

Analysts reviewed the transcripts 3 to 5 times before beginning coding to become immersed in the data. Author 2 documented passages in all of the transcripts that related to the themes of opportunity-centered logics, and authors 1 and 2 coded a subset of passages together in analysis meetings. Author 1 coded the selected passages following biweekly discussions held over the first 4 months of collaboration.

Author 1 has observed, interviewed, surveyed, and analyzed documents from the department over the past eight years as a social scientist and program evaluator engaged in learning about the department, its students, its faculty, and its teaching methods. Her background knowledge of the context for learning through 8 site visits and multiple collaborative efforts supports meaning-making from an “insider–outsider perspective.” Author 2 is a social science scholar with expertise in STEM learning and STEM identity development, as well as broadening participation along STEM pathways. She had limited knowledge of the department before beginning the study. This allowed for author 2 to draw on an outsider perspective in the analysis of student interviews. Addressing research question 1 occurred with a close interpretation of interview responses and coalescence of findings across student interviews and across authors engaged in analysis. Analysis for research question 1 emphasized the three themes of opportunity-centered logics (inclusivity, talent development, and culturally responsive practices). For research question 2, the authors drew on observation, documentation, and background knowledge of the context of the department. Analysis for research question 2 drew on contextual knowledge of the department to connect student experiences, the in situ instantiations of institutional logics, to the departmental resources, norms, practices and policies that, we argue, center opportunity. The authors relied on participant observation data developed over seven years of study to make meaning as well as ongoing member checks with department staff, faculty, and leadership to document the organizational resources, norms, language practices, and policies relevant to student perceptions of opportunity-centered logics.

3. Results

The concepts of opportunity-centered logics as posited by Núñez were evident in the data from student interviews at [university]. We address the first research question thematically. Student descriptions of the learning environment shed light on how departmental inclusivity was enacted. Similarly, student interviews provided specific examples of how norms and practices in the department oriented learning towards talent development, rather than on weeding out those with less experience or less background knowledge than their peers. Students also provided experiential evidence of culturally responsive pedagogy enacted by faculty, department chairs, and staff to support individuals in their academic trajectories. The next sections provide qualitative interpretation of the department’s enacted logics of opportunity-centeredness from student perspectives.

3.1. Inclusivity at [University]

Student perspectives regarding how departmental change agents support inclusivity can uncover strategies for making changes in STEM. The opportunity-centered theme of inclusivity was experienced by computer science students in interviews from this case study. Evidence from student perspectives conveys the way departmental stakeholders expand the notion of which students fit in computing by normalizing struggle, sharing high-impact practices broadly, and creating mechanisms that share aspects of hidden curriculum to all students. Given engineering higher education logics that promote elitism, messages of inclusivity in academic higher education is notable. In the quote below, a student describes how the department’s use of a department-level canvas course shell to share opportunities broadly is one way that staff, faculty, and peers support one another in an opportunity-centered learning environment.

“I love the department at [University]. I can’t speak obviously for any other university, but I’m very grateful for the department that we have. I think that as a whole, they’re very communicative, which is not something that even my high school did. And we have our own canvas with just our department, so it’s professors, it’s our dean, our chairperson, the (staff) and secretaries. They’re all part of that. And any opportunities that kind of arise, they send them out immediately. And I think that’s amazing because there are so many of these things that I never would’ve known about if it wasn’t for them kind of providing us all of this information. And I think that they kind of make it a point to try to make sure that all of the students have something to look forward to at the university and are getting the most out of their experience and finding my place, while it took a little bit of time, I feel like I’m going into my third year now. While it took a little bit of time for me, I think that even the professors making a point to try to make sure that every student feels comfortable. And I’m really grateful that, like I said earlier, that I’ve kind of seen the change happening while I’m there. And I think that the department does a really good job at making sure that everybody is supported.”

Interviews indicate that staff, faculty, the department chair, the dean, and peers in the computing department communicated elements of the hidden curriculum for academic and career success to the student body via workshops, events, and one-on-one conversations with departmental stakeholders. An example specific to computer science is the use of GitHub in professional computing circles for sharing, modifying, and communicating about code. A student describes an ACM club meeting where student peers and staff created GitHub accounts and began to collaborate with one another during the session. While club meetings are student-run, the ideas for the co-curricular events occur with guidance from staff, faculty members, and the department chair. Club meetings address topics that are beyond academic content yet vital to career success in computing.

“You’d be surprised if you say something offhand (among peers) someone will cut in. It’s like, ‘oh, hey, you’re talking about X, Y, Z from the last meeting. Right?’ It’s like, ‘oh yeah, you were there too. Here’s some notes I took and this is what I’ve learned.’ Definitely. We had one meeting where we learned how to create GitHub accounts and collaborate with each other. That was definitely something great to learn because that was something I would need to know for my future career and I’m glad I learned it (in the ACM club). …We’d have a presentation and we’d all take notes. It’s always super helpful stuff. …They opened so many doors for us and it was up to us to walk through them.”

The quote above highlights student camaraderie as well as agency in learning together and supporting one another’s career development.

Messages students receive about who needs academic help and when they can obtain it are made clear through policies, services, and visibility/accessibility of those services. In our case study, students describe the ease with which they locate and utilize tutoring help as upper-level students in the major. Two faculty members have led the Code Samurai program for a decade as an unfunded service to the department. The department chair in cooperation with the dean allocated funding for Code Samurai hourly wages, and allocated space for the sessions. The online and in-person support occurs within the department in small group study rooms in the computer science building with glass walls; on visits to the department, it is common to see pairs of students working together in the spaces. The quote below indicates how the support provided is ongoing, over the years in the program and over the semester.

“So, at [University] we have our designated tutors called the Code Samurai. …They always have a time slot for, at least for me, it’s just very convenient because I am always able to attend their time slots that they have. Anytime I’m struggling or anytime I need help, I pop in. I’m like,” Hey, this is what I need help with.” They’re like, “alright, cool. Show me what you’ve done so far. Show me where you’re struggling,” and they make sure that you learn it. I remember I was working with one back in my freshman year. He’s like, alright, forget the computer. We’re going to code on paper. “You did it perfectly,” then he ripped out my notebook, “do it again.” Alright. Repetition was key and he helped me and he made sure I passed my class. …The library also has their tutoring section, but it’s just not as good as the Code Samurai. The Code Samurai are literally some of the best that I’ve had the pleasure of being assisted by.”

An issue that occurs with STEM academic support services is a stigma against those accepting help in academic work, perpetuated in some institutional logics that promote elitism and selectivism. In contrast, support in the department we studied is valued and viewed as a resource for everyone, even those students that are thriving. The quote below indicates the reputation of Code Samurai as one that is valued by all students, independent of academic record or background.

“I’ve never used it before, but I’ve heard it’s a great resource. A lot of my friends do use it. There’s a lot of smart people who go to Code Samurai. As far my understanding is you set up meetings and you can meet in the common area and someone who has taken the course before and done well will come and kind of walk you through and explain what you might be struggling on or just give you some extra practice problems. I know a lot of people use it for coding classes like Python, Java and stuff like that. So it seems like a good resource.”

Student interviews indicate that the [University] computer science department is one that expresses inclusivity as a departmental value—communicating this element of institutional logic through normalizing struggle, expanding help as well as opportunities for advancement to the entire student body, and by sharing elements of the hidden curriculum as a matter of course in the department.

3.2. Talent Development at [University]

Talent development is an element of opportunity-centered logics described as the presumption of student talent and potential. As such, the onus of creating successful students resides not only on the selection of students who have already proven themselves as successful but also on the academic stakeholders of an institution (or in this case, of a department) in supporting students in their learning so they can achieve success. In this section, we document examples from student perspectives regarding how the department communicates a talent development approach to teaching and learning computing.

Students described how through departmental influence, they begin undergraduate research with faculty. As part of the scholarship program at [University], students are strongly encouraged to begin undergraduate research, and are matched with faculty mentors to begin research.

“Oh, the department’s scholarship program, it has done me very well. It is the reason that I got into research. That’s another thing. At first I was like, ‘research, no, I’m not doing that. Why do I need to do extra work that I don’t have to do?’ That’s how I felt about it. But talking to some of my peers, and like I said, you got (the department chair promoting it) I got into it. I said, ‘okay, I’m going to try something new.’”

Through department chair, peer, and programmatic promotion of undergraduate research, students who otherwise do not view themselves as undergraduate research material get involved in the practice. The student quoted above describes how the department chair personally encouraged his involvement in undergraduate research, and offered him a place on a research team.

Another student explained the ways in which departmental engagement supported career development and offered on- and off-campus opportunities to all students during college hour times that are, by design, free from course conflicts. Meetings for co-curricular clubs were sites for departmental communications via staff and faculty to computer science majors. Clubs had representation from staff, faculty, and leadership, and utilized departmental and alumni contacts to augment content. Meetings in the clubs create links between co-curricular, student-led activities and departmental messaging and goals, such as spreading messages about how to succeed in STEM post-secondary education. Staff alumni and peers bring opportunities directly or communicate opportunities to student leaders to share with a broader student audience from a student perspective.

“So it’d be every Thursday or every other Thursday we’d meet up (in our ACM chapter meeting). We’d have a presentation, we’d all take notes all the time. It is super helpful stuff, it is like, ‘oh program X, Y, Z is happening at (nearby college campus) if you guys want to sign up for that here, and we have that, this and this.’ ‘Oh and there is (national conference). Do you want to go do a research project?’”

Another student described how co-curricular engagement showed a path forward and illuminated the steps needed to succeed in computing, while emphasizing current topics and technical content.

“The meetings are very helpful too with career development. They’re going to be doing a resume review coming up. They reiterate research and a bunch of different learning styles. We learned about discord bots and such. Just a lot of interesting topics.”

By focusing on future professional roles and how to get to them, the co-curricular opportunities support talent development and trajectory development in the computing industry. The open invitations to students indicate that no matter the student background or current achievement, all can aspire to the opportunities that computing provides. Deliberate match-making with near peers is another way in which students at [University] learned about opportunities from a student perspective and encouraged one another to advance in their career through co-curricular activity involvement.

“So for me, it’s looking in the right places. So coming in freshman year, there were some classes that I struggled in. Tutoring definitely helped me out a lot within those early classes that I took. Tutoring was my best friend. And also looking into something that I wish I did a little bit earlier was kind of focusing on my department resources. I feel like I wasn’t looking in the right places my freshman year. It wasn’t until my sophomore junior year that I was introduced to people within my department, like higher ups that could potentially help you out for looking for internships and things like that. So I think just looking within those departmental resources would’ve really helped me out my freshman year. I mean now I was able to do so.”

The student described an introduction to supportive faculty and staff in the second year which made the transition to career advancement easier; departmental resources (including human resources) were supportive once the student understood how to access them.

Talent development assumes that students are capable, and that career trajectories are planned for and a part of undergraduate education outcomes. The theme of talent development is evident from student perspectives. Clubs guided by staff and faculty and often visited by alumni in the workforce were the focus of much career development, yet the content of these meetings were built from an assumption that students at [University], even if they initially struggled, would succeed in coursework and earn professional careers in high-level computing positions.

3.3. Cultural Responsiveness at [University]

Opportunity-centered logics, as defined by Núñez, involves culturally responsive pedagogical orientations to student development. At the departmental level, culturally responsive pedagogies draw on the realities of student populations and develop policies and practices that support the students, rather than maintaining outdated policies or practices designed for traditional (white, middle- or upper-class, and financially dependent on family) college student populations. Students experience culturally responsive pedagogies inside or outside the classroom learning spaces, including mentoring, research, clubs, and co-curricular services. In classroom spaces, students value faculty who convey care for students and their progress, and also point out additional resources they can utilize to succeed:

“Yeah, I guess as far as from taking classes perspective, having a professor that’s able to work with you as a student and want to actually see you succeed as far as if it goes… giving outside resources to look at. But I feel like for me that’s been the biggest thing, that it’s having a professor that’s willing to work with you and actually wants you to benefit and have a great successful career.”

Student interviews included a question regarding barriers to their success in the computer science department. A student described how the departmental staff and leadership are poised to support student needs directly.

“Any concern I have, the computer science department would address. It’s like, ‘oh, you don’t have a laptop?’ ‘Well, only one (in the household).’ ‘Oh, you need this, we’ll help you with that.’ It’s like, ‘oh, you need transportation? Fill this form out. You can get a monthly pass at NJ Transit for $60.’ There was always a way to get what you needed. And not only that, but there are people there to tell you where to go to get those things.”

Department-level stakeholders leverage their knowledge of institutional resources to speed up and streamline support systems for students within the department, with colleagues and staff who are trusted by the students based on relationships and proximity to their day-to-day academic environment.

Faculty and peers at [University] are building relationships with students that are personal as well as focused on student understanding of content and specialties within the major. A student described these departmental relationships as vital to student success. The relationships support collaborative learning and differentiation of student roles, and can influence positive student computer science identity development by highlighting student ability.

“In my major. So I would say the main thing that helps me succeed inside my major is the relationships. The relationships with the professors and the relationship with my peers. Because you know how they say four eyes are better than two or two brains are better than one. And it’s true because what the things that I may know this person may not know, but they may also know the things that I don’t know. So we put that together. Everybody is giving everybody a piece of information that nobody else knows. So at the end, we still may not know everything, but everybody will leave knowing more than what they do.”

The student quote above represents an understanding that collaborative work is encouraged, and that individuals bring different, complementary approaches to the problem to be solved. The quote below shows how [University] faculty attend to the strengths and interests of each student to build competent course groupwork teams of complementary skills and knowledge.

“And then the relationships with the professors …they know the type of student you are. They know your weaknesses, they know your strengths. So they kind of know how to assist you better when you build that relationship … not only as a student, but as a person. … Even in the classroom when we have group projects, I noticed when the professors know you, even though they allow you to come up with your own decision on how you want to do things, they put insight on it and they say like, “Hey, (student)’s good with the database, so he should do a database part of the project. You’re good with HTML and CSS, so you should do the front end of the project.””

At [University], computer science students indicate a sense of care they receive from faculty, staff, and peers that is built on relationality. Students indicate the care they receive is based on who they are as individuals and as learners, and that the support they receive is tailored to their scholarly experiences.

3.4. Interpretation of How Departmental Structures and Norms Led to Opportunity-Centered Student Experiences

While the previous discussion focused on student perspectives, opportunity-centered logics are also visible in the departmental structure, practices, and interactions that shape those experiences. In this section, we connect student narratives with observational and contextual data to show how opportunity-centered values are reinforced through everyday departmental practices, relationships, and systems of support. The following vignette provides just one example of these values as they are enacted within the department.

A Vignette—Regional 24 h Professional Development Workshop and Hackathon

In April 2026, [University] hosted a weekend program for undergraduate students interested in AI and computer science. The event included technical and professional workshops, led by industry partners and faculty; a career fair with 10–12 booths of industry and non-profit organizations; an overnight team-based competition, which involved institutional staff, building security, catering, and IT services; two panels with industry representatives and recent [University] alumni; and an assortment of prizes for the projects that were judged best in certain categories. The event was student-run and department- and institution-supported, and highlighted the opportunity-centered logics evident at [University].

Recruitment occurred through faculty, departmental, and institutional networks, leading to the registration of over 300 students. Five faculty members attended the event, and the dean of the college joined to greet the industry representatives he recruited to the career fair. The student volunteers coordinated with security to ensure overnight guests were secure as they worked on their projects. The IT manager in the building remained at the event until the final presentation at 9 p.m. on Saturday, promising to arrive at 7 the next day to support presentations of the winning projects.

About 20 upper-level students volunteered during the event, helping to direct student workers, running a discord channel to support team formation, registering students, directing catering, greeting career fair participants, and, early on the morning of the second day, judging the competition entries. Two staff members were on hand throughout to coordinate. The leader of the event from the past year attended as a graduate student, alumni, and industry representative at the career fair. Alumni returning for the panel volunteered as they could to support their peers who continued their studies at [University]. During their panel, they discussed the ways in which they were supported by [University] departmental resources, faculty, staff, and peers. As volunteers took up varying levels of responsibility, one individual was noticed by volunteers, staff, and alumni, as showing leadership. “Next year’s event chair” was something heard in the volunteer room, creating an unofficial succession plan for the future events.

Student data indicates multiple ways in which they experience their department as opportunity-centered. Considering logics from the “bottom up” via personal interaction and agency can ensure that all stakeholders are experiencing the organizational culture as those in leadership purport. An issue with considering logics from the bottom up is that organizational and departmental norms and practices are not always visible as such; we interpret findings as organizational in nature based on contextual knowledge of the department when the interviewees may or may not describe their learning contexts in this way.

In this section, we consider the case of the computer science department at [University], and interpret data with the institutional logics lens by triangulating case study data gathered from participant observation over seven years of departmental engagement, as well as via member checks with departmental staff and faculty. The interpretations build from student perceptions to messages conveyed to organizational factors that, we hypothesize, advance opportunity-centered logics within the department (see

Table 2. Opportunity-centered logics mapped to student experiences.

Opportunity-Centered Theme	Concept of Opportunity Perceived by Students from the Department	Organizational Contextual Factors
Inclusivity	“Struggling in CS undergraduate programs is normal” “Opportunities to excel in computer science are for everyone”	Visible and frequent interactive opportunities for academic support Multiple spaces are available for building peer relationships Multiple and sufficient communications about opportunities across electronic and in person platforms
Talent development	“There is a recommended pathway that supports CS job attainment and success” “[University] students in CS can and do achieve high-quality CS jobs” “[University] students in CS can and do achieve research aims as undergraduate and Masters students”	Extra and co-curricular activities are developed and maintained through guided student leadership and staff support Examples of successful peer efforts are celebrated and promoted in the CS hallways, peer support spaces, and classrooms Faculty communicate a success metric related to student industry and graduate placement outcomes
Culturally responsive pedagogy	“Faculty and staff care about students’ success at [University]” “Individual students bring particular gifts and talents to the CS workforce”	Regular engagement with academic advisors who are departmental faculty ensure students select a relevant, efficient path to graduation Course resources are maximized to secure low student–instructor ratios that support faculty/student relationship building Institutional and departmental stakeholders consider the whole student when supporting academic success and connect CS undergraduates to institutional resources

).

Regarding inclusivity, students in the department experience multiple stakeholders normalizing the struggle of college computer science degree attainment and providing plentiful support for academic success. Student support is, therefore, a resource that is encouraged for all students as a mechanism for maintaining or achieving strong academic performance. The availability and visibility of the department- and institution-supported tutoring and supplemental instruction throughout the computer science hallways via well-marked, glass-walled rooms conveys that opportunities for academic support are available, normal, and utilized by others. Supplementary physical spaces for collaboration are evident in the computer science department, particularly advantageous in commuter-campus environments where students require them.

In addition, opportunities such as undergraduate research are communicated widely for broad recruitment in computer science and not as experiences reserved for the “best and brightest” requiring individual specialized faculty invitations. An example described by a faculty member in the first CS course sequence for expanding research opportunities for a larger number of students with continuity involved the faculty member approaching three to four students per semester offering undergraduate research with her as a mentor. Once the semester of research concluded, the faculty mentor would transition the students who completed the research successfully to one of three or four faculty members with grant-funded research labs to continue their undergraduate research. She would continue this practice each semester, as would her colleagues, building robust research teams from early on in the CS course sequence.

The department conveys the message that research is for everyone through additional mechanisms, specifically frequent posts on the discord channel and canvas shell for CS majors, through flyers across the department, and through large group and individual verbal invitation and encouragement from staff and faculty. Invitations occur in person with the department chair engaging in many of the requests for student participation. Information is shared often and with sufficient time for students to adjust their schedules to participate, including online access during evening events for students with familial commitments at home.

Much of the career-focused efforts for [University] computer science take place in the co-curricular or extra-curricular learning spaces such as student club meetings. The [University] computer science department works through staff, faculty, and active student succession planning to maintain continuity from year to year and to advise regarding workshop offerings, alumni events, and near-peer mentoring opportunities. Peer encouragement and peer role modeling through leadership and participation in extra and co-curricular activities via informal presentations to less experienced student groups communicates the hidden curriculum or implicit knowledge students need to get a strong industry position in computer science. On a visit to campus, author 1 witnessed three peers volunteering to prepare a senior for her Zoom internship interview. During a separate visit, an alumna advised students at [University] to pull a staff member aside to practice for an interview with professional recruiters.

Evidence of student success is displayed in the form of posters, message boards, and flyers in the hallways and student learning spaces with professional color photos of juniors, seniors, and Masters students who have earned internships, won research awards or scholarships, moved into industry positions, or given talks at conferences. Talent development at [University] computer science is visible in the way faculty communicate with one another in the hallways and in departmental meetings regarding their students’ achievements in job procurement, conference acceptance, and even graduate program acceptance.

Faculty and staff communicate care for their students as well as deep understanding of their individual needs, interests, and affinities. Staff in the department are recruited from new [University] graduates invested in the institution, and have community building and education-related backgrounds. Their on-boarding and training emphasized intentionally building informal encouraging relationships, and being visible in their work spaces. Their experience with [University] as alumni helps them provide guidance for students’ wellbeing and personal needs: they are most likely to know if students are food-insecure or in need of housing, transportation, or technical tools. Staff are empowered to connect students to any [University] resource they might need, according to departmental leadership and staff communications. Author 1 has collaborated with staff in disseminating recommendations based on staff work at [University] (Hug, 2023; Hug et al., 2022, 2024, 2025).

Structurally, faculty and student relationships build in two ways, via faculty course advising and small courses, elements of computer science department decision-making regarding resource allocation. Experiences with advising outside of the department indicated to stakeholders that a structured approach to course enrollment and degree progression was needed for efficient management of student pathways. Course mappings of different emphases are used to facilitate conversations regarding student interests (e.g., AI focus, cybersecurity focus) as well as pathways through a 4+1 Master’s degree program, and faculty meet each semester with their 50–60 student advisees to measure progress and plan for the next year. Selecting from pre-populated course maps allows faculty to advise efficiently while providing choice and student differentiation. Because faculty are getting to know students through advising and small courses, they have additional information for encouraging student skill and knowledge development and for honoring their strengths.

4. Discussion

In this paper, we describe the experiences of first-generation college students who learn in a computing environment that we consider opportunity-centered. This paper privileges the voices of students to illustrate how opportunity-centered logics operate in situ. It extends the interpretation of student experiences through multimethod case study data to hypothesize how departmental structure and norms shape positive student experiences of learning computer science in an urban research university.

This study demonstrates that opportunity-centered logics are not only present at the level of institutional vision, but are actively produced through everyday interactions, practices, and structures within academic departments. At [University], students described how they experienced inclusivity, talent development, and culturally responsive support through faculty communication, staff engagement, peer networks, and departmental design. These findings extend research on institutional logics by showing how logics are not only embedded in policy or leadership discourse, but are enacted and interpreted at the interactional level. By centering student perspectives, we illustrate how institutional logics feel in practice, through their advising conversations, classroom and departmental messaging, access to resources, and peer interactions.

A limitation of studying logics from a bottom-up perspective through student voices is that the organizational elements may be obscured by the layers of organization in between students and leadership. To students, the actions and words of staff, peers, and faculty are most visible, and are not always viewed as systematic. Yet, taking an insider–outsider perspective, we witness the patterns of behavior, institutional and departmental resource allocation, staff recruitment and training, implicit and explicit statements of values, and concerted effort employed to ensure students at [University] are prepared equitably for opportunities in computer science.

An important insight from this study is that opportunity-centered logics are most effective when they are redundant, visible, and relational. Students did not describe a single intervention or program as transformative; rather, they described a coordinated environment in which messages, resources, and support were consistently reinforced across multiple levels of the department. This points to the need to build/create opportunity-centered environments—not through isolated initiatives, but through consistent/aligned structures, practices, and interactions that collectively shape student experience.

These findings have important implications for departments seeking to broaden participation in computing. Rather than focusing solely on recruitment or individual interventions, departments should operationalize opportunity-centered logics by (a) making opportunities visible and broadly accessible, (b) building strong advising and peer support structures, (c) normalizing help-seeking and academic struggle, (d) aligning co-curricular and curricular experiences, and (e) embedding career-relevant knowledge into everyday interactions.

Finally, this study underscores the importance of centering student perspectives in understanding institutional change. While departments may intend to create supportive environments, it is ultimately students’ interpretations of those environments that shape their engagement, persistence, and success. By linking student experience to organizational structures, this study provides a model for translating institutional values into actionable and observable practice.