In this issue:

Multicontextuality: 
A New Perspective on Minority Underrepresentation in SEM Academic Fields

Multicontextuality Unpacked

An Interview with Dr. Sheila E. Brown

A Comparative study of the Impact of Differing Forms of Financial Aid on the Persistence of Minority and Majority Doctoral Students

A Profile of an MGE Institution: Georgia Tech

From the editors

About Our Icon

Managing Editor:Yolanda S. George
Editor: 
Virginia Van Horne
Art Director:
Ann Williams
 

Making Strides is a free, quarterly (April, July, October, and January) research newsletter published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Directorate for Education and Human Resources Program. Its purpose is to share information about minority graduate education (MGE) in the fields of science, mathematics, and engineering. It is available in print and electronic format. Inquiries, information related to MGE, and all correspondence should be sent to the editor. 

A perennial question in higher education is why do most Latinos and other minority graduate students select academic careers in the social sciences or humanities? A related question is why are so few of these ethnic minorities seeking doctoral degrees in the biological and physical sciences, engineering or mathematics—SEM for short? Latino graduate students, for example, share a history of seeking degrees mainly in education, humanities, and the social sciences. Despite increases in doctorates awarded to Latinas (45%) and Latinos (30%) in the sciences between 1987 and 1996 (National Science Foundation, 1997:37-41), the chronic underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities in these fields sends researchers looking for solutions to increase the diversity in these disciplines (see Clewell and Brown 1999; National Science Foundation 1995, 1996; Seymour 1995; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). 

Among Latinos, there are a number of possible factors creating these patterns. For instance, bilingual Latinos, and especially immigrants, are naturally attracted to the language and culture of Spanish departments that offer degrees with more career opportunities than many other fields. Latino enrollments are often the highest in Schools of Education because they tend to attract more women, consequently there are more Latinas in those fields. The most common explanation is that since many Latinos attend poor elementary schools, they are usually unprepared to compete academically, or they do not perform as well, as other populations that traditionally dominate SEM programs. Thus, Latinos are found more often in the “soft sciences” that reflect more qualitative characteristics than in the “hard sciences,” that are characteristically more quantitative. 

Concepts of Multicontext Theory

I believe there is yet another overlooked perspective for explaining why Latinos and other ethnic minorities are underrepresented in SEM fields. To begin with, the concern over academic clustering is usually defined by what Latinos are less likely to study, namely SEM fields, rather than what they prefer to study and why. Many social science, education and humanities disciplines are well known for their characteristics of cultural context and social sensitivity, and they attract minority students for their orientation toward people, social interaction, and the community. The attraction is not associated with just any applied field. For instance, Latinos can be attracted to highly analytical or quantitative professional disciplines, such as law and medicine, because they also provide applied skills that directly help people and the community (see Ibarra, 1996; and in press). One research university administrator commented recently that recruitment and retention of Latino students was directly associated with the presence or absence of applied community-oriented academic programs. He noted that Latino enrollments dropped dramatically on his University of California campus whenever academic departments downsized by eliminating their applied programs (Leadership Summit on Diversity in Doctoral Education, personal communication, 1999).

But these patterns represent only the tip of a cultural iceberg, for much more lies hidden beneath the surface. Recent research on Latinos in graduate education (Ibarra, 1996) framed these patterns into a theory of Multicon-textuality, a new construct for explaining the conflict and academic performance differences for Latinos, women and other ethnic minorities in higher education (Ibarra, in press). The theory was partially constructed from cultural models developed by anthropologist Edward T. Hall, a pioneer in the field of intercultural communication (1959, 1966, 1974, 1977, 1984, 1993). Learned patterns or sets of behavior and values we call “culture” are imprinted on individuals by family and community beginning at birth. These conscious and unconscious patterns frame the “context” for individuals to perceive, interact and learn about the world. Hall identified populations both here and abroad by their similar patterns of cultural context and clustered them on a continuum from “High” to “Low” signifying the importance of these patterns within certain ethnic, gender and national origin groups.

“High Context Cultures” (HC), identified in this country as predominantly ethnic minorities and females, tend to focus on streams of information that surround an event, situation or interaction in order to determine meaning from the context in which it occurs. “Low Context Cultures” (LC), predominantly northern European ethnic groups and majority males, tend to filter out conditions surrounding an event or interaction to focus as much as possible on words and objective facts. Table 1 synthesizes selected cultural characteristics that highlight almost thirty years of Hall’s research on patterns of cultural context.

Cultural context issues usually focus on the fundamental conflicts between individuals from certain High and Low Context ethnic and gender groups. Although the model has not been fully applied to ethnic minorities in higher education, it seems to account for much of the conflict and confusion arising from Latino graduate students and faculty interviewed in the research project (Ibarra, 1996). For Latinos struggling for success in graduate education, the research discovered that the greatest conflicts are associated with Low Context cultural value systems and infrastructures of academia itself. 

Academic cultures, especially those associated with graduate education, trace their origins to Low Context cultures (Ibarra,
in press). For instance, doctoral education in the U.S. was transported here in the mid-1800s as a German research model. German national cultures, accord- ing to Hall, are the epitome of Low Context cultures throughout the world. Some aspects of academic cultures and graduate education, such as graduate seminars and the internship learning model, seem High Context in nature, but most aspects of higher educational systems are shaped and imprinted by learning modes created by and for Low Context cultures. The consequences in graduate education have direct and often negative effects on many people from High Context cultures. 

The Theory of Multicontextuality is an amalgamation of cultural context and cognitive models. It postulates that a growing number of individuals now entering higher education today are mixtures of multiple cognitive and cultural contexts. Successful individuals learn and formulate adaptive strategies that display characteristics interchangeable with models of “Cultural Context” (High and Low) and “Bicognition” associated with dual cognitive perspectives. “Cultural Context” is a macro model of human culture. It represents a binary continuum along which a range of cultural characteristics may be found to identify and measure differences between various cultural groupings. As such, it transposes the characteristics of larger groups and populations into labels that characterize individuals who consider themselves members of those groups. “Bicognition” is a micro model of human psychology developed by Clinical Psychologists Manuel Ramírez III and Alfredo Castañeda (1974) and refined further by Ramírez predominantly (1998, 1999). Bicognition represents a variability of individual personality and cultural styles generated by two distinct cognitive (Field Sensitive and Field Independent) conditions within individuals. Thus, it transposes these psychological characteristics of individuals into labels that characterize larger cultural groups and populations within which individual identity is validated. These distinct cognitive conditions share similar characteristics with cultural context models (see Ibarra in press). To facilitate discussion, however, primarily macro context models will be applied here.

Multicontext Factors in Higher Education¹

Latinos and other ethnic minorities may be more attracted to certain academic careers because they share both macro and micro characteristics of High Context cultures (see Table 1). Further-more, there is evidence that Latinos and other minorities can be more successful academically in SEM disciplines if they effectively incorporate some High Context principles. For example, Uri Treisman (1988) discovered for some ethnic minorities learning difficult (and Low Context) subjects, such as calculus, that academic performance can be improved by simply applying teaching/learning methods that require studying in groups—a High Context characteristic. While academic preparedness is an important factor for faculty to consider when admitting students into SEM graduate programs, academic culture, cognition and Multicontext fit are also important factors for Latinos and other minorities to consider when selecting an academic degree.

A recent study of undergraduates by Seymour and Hewitt (1997) provides evidence to support this concept of culture, cognition and fit and sheds new light on patterns of underrepresentation in SEM fields at the graduate level as well.  We know that the undergraduate and graduate fields least populated by Latinos are the biological, physical and health sciences, public administration and engineering (see Ibarra, in press). In fact, at the undergraduate level the attrition rate for Latinos in SEM disciplines is the highest at 75 percent, compared to 50 percent for African Americans and Native Americans each, over 27 percent for Anglos and only 17 percent for Asian Pacific Americans according to Seymour and Hewitt (1997:320). To find out why undergraduates leave the sciences, the authors launched a qualitative study of seven institutions that included an examination of cultural differences among ethnic groups of undergraduate students and their consequences for switching out of their SEM majors.

Seymour and Hewitt (1997) interviewed 335 current and former SEM students with math SAT scores (or their equivalent) of 650 or above. Half had switched out of SEM majors and half had not.  Of all students interviewed, 88 were students of color (African American, Asian American, Native American, and Latino/a). Eleven of the 20 Latinos were switchers and nine were non-switchers. One of the study objectives was to compare the switching and persistence factors embedded in the accounts of students of color with those of the white majority. On a macro level of analysis, the authors initially sorted these factors into two groups differentiated only as “White Switchers” and “Non-White Switchers” (changed here to “Majority Switchers” and “Minority Switchers”). They then disaggregated the text data by minority group at a micro level of analysis in order to understand the different cultural factors bearing upon the decisions of students in each group. In a ranked list of ten macro level factors, reproduced in Table 2, the authors focus on items indicating the greatest percentage of difference between students from the four minority groups taken together and the majority (white) group. That pattern revealed minorities have greater difficulty than majorities with choice of SEM major that proves appropriate, conceptual difficulty with one or more subjects, and inadequate high school preparation. Majori-ties, in comparison, cite loss of interest, poor teaching by faculty, and curriculum overload or fast pace as their top three reasons for switching. 

However, viewed through the perspective of Multicontext theory, the macro level data reveal other important and previously unnoted patterns for why minority students switch SEM majors. Based on priority ranking alone, the top three reasons given for why minority students switch to non-SEM majors suggest preferences toward academic content and fit: (1) they were more educationally appealing; (2) they may have been the more appropriate choice of a college major to begin with, and (3) non-SEM majors offer better careers. The least important reasons for why minorities switch majors relate to academic ability and preparedness: (7) inadequate high school academic preparation; (8) low grades in early years, and (10) curriculum overload or overwhelming pace. Even poor teaching by SEM (9) ranks lower on the list among minority respondents. 
From this, one could argue that within a combined group of academically able students from different ethnic groups, the appeal of non-SEM majors and associated careers are the top three most important factors for leaving the sciences or switching majors, while mainly academic reasons are the least important factors. The reverse also seems to be true; that is, despite the fact that some groups of ethnic minority students realize they received less than adequate high school preparation (1997: 328-329), minority students leave or switch majors because they become less enchanted with SEM majors and more attracted to non-SEM majors. Indeed, issue (5), the loss of interest in SEM or “turned off science,” and (6) rejection of SEM careers/associated lifestyles reflect this pattern. Even issue (4) conceptual difficulties with one or more SEM subjects, reflects conflict with academic content, cognition and Multi-context fit. One conclusion from the data presented in Table 2 is that issues involving academic content or culture constitute over half of the top most highly ranked factors contributing to switching decisions among minorities in their study.

One could interpret these patterns further by stating that Minority Switchers become attracted to non-SEM disciplines with more High Context characteristics (see Table 1). If non-SEM majors are those that are more likely to be found in disciplines with more High Context characteristics, then there is good reason to believe that context, cognition and cultural fit are very important factors. In fact, these factors may be directly associated with some of the major influences that convince ethnic populations to leave science majors, and perhaps, discourage them from choosing to pursue SEM majors altogether. That Latinos are entering SEM undergraduate majors in greater numbers is a testament to their ability to master Low Context academic disciplines involving linear, analytical thinking, while maintaining High Context cultural values of the family and community—the essential characteristics found among successful women and ethnic minorities in graduate school (Ibarra, in press). 

The preceding interpretations of macro level data in Table 2 are meant to be more illustrative than conclusive that Multi-context factors influence the decisions of minority switchers. But they provide researchers with another perspective to examine the issues. For instance, why do some minorities who enter science disciplines find them unattractive and decide to switch? That Latinos and other ethnic groups with academic abilities leave in droves for non-SEM majors suggests something is amiss within the academic cultural systems and infrastructures of these majors, and either voluntarily or involuntarily turns them away. These answers, however, are not easily found by macro level data alone. That level of analysis may be incomplete, can distort outcomes and all too often misleads educators into thinking that some commonality of issues among diverse ethnic groups equates with a common set of solutions for their various needs. A more fruitful approach is to seek answers and solutions for these issues at the ethnic group or micro level of analysis (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; Ibarra, in press).

Even at the micro level of analysis, the pattern of Multicontextuality, related to the conflict encountered between High Context cultures and academic culture, is borne out in the research findings of Seymour and Hewitt (1997). They found that “to succeed in S.M.E. careers, male [minority] students and all women often find it necessary to alter or over-ride important personal values. Those unable to discard cultural values that hinder individual success are vulnerable either to changing majors or to abandoning the attempt to attain any degree,” (1997:330, italics added for emphasis). I suggest that students who can over-ride or set aside personal and cultural values without discarding them, are Multicontext individuals and are most likely to succeed in higher education through graduate school.

One way to successfully alter personal values without discarding them is to recreate High Context conditions in an academic environment. For example, the authors found that Latino undergraduates who recreated family-like relationships and infrastructures on campus, such as extended kin networks and other support groups, were less likely to drop out of the institution (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997:330). Furthermore, when the authors found incidences of high Latino persistence in an academic program, the institution also demonstrated a strong commitment to creating infrastructures that emulated the extended family/ community cultural systems (e.g., group residency units providing self-contained academic, financial and other student support services). It appears that each of these personal and institutional activities are successful because they recreate important macro level characteristics found in High Context cultures, and they adopt them to the priority needs for specific ethnic populations at the micro level. 

Implications Beyond the Baccalaureate

In conclusion, my research among Latino graduate students and faculty agree with many observations by Seymour and Hewitt, and that includes recommendations that academia should accept some of the responsibility for contributing to the chronic problems of underrepresented populations in SEM fields. Many educators assume that to be successful in higher education one needs to conform to the system rather than have the system adopt additional strategies and conditions to meet the needs of different cultural contexts among students. And in most cases, adjusting the system and structures to include High Context cultural values would neither diminish SEM academic culture nor relinquish the rigorous nature of scientific inquiry. Yet, educators and administrators continue to ignore this opportunity for cultural change and structural reform. And each year when student and faculty statistics show little change in the diversity of SEM programs, they ask the perennial question—“What is driving our students away?”

References

Clewell, Beatriz Chu and Shirley Vining Brown. 1999. "The Non-SEM Field Choices of Black and Latino Undergraduates with the Aptitude for Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Careers." Making Strides. Washington, DC: Directorate for Education and Human Resources programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1-1: 8-11, April.

Hall, Edward T. 1959. The Silent Language. Greenwich, CN: Fawcett Publications.

1966. The Hidden Dimension. 2nd ed. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
1974. Handbook for Proxemic Research. Washington, DC: Society for the Anthropology of Visual Communication.
1977. Beyond Culture. 2nd edition. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
1984. The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time, 2nd ed. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday Books.
1993. An Anthropology of Everyday Life, 2nd ed. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

(In press). Academia at a Cultural Crossroads: Reframing the Context of Higher Education. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. 

National Science Foundation. 1995. Science and Engineering Degrees, by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients: 1985-93. (NSF 95-330), Arlington, VA.

1996. Women, Minorities, and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 1996. (NSF 96-311), Arlington, VA.
1997. Division of Science Resources Studies. Science and Engineering Degrees, by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients, 1989-95. NSF 97-334, by Susan T. Hill, Arlington, VA.

 —and Alfredo Castañeda. 1974. Cultural Democracy, Bicognitive Development, and Education. NY: Academic Press.

 —and Nancy M. Hewitt. 1997. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.