In this issue:

Minority Ph.D. Production in SME Fields: Distributing the Work?

Context and Attrition

An Interview with Dr.Mary Louise Soffa

A Profile of an AGEP Institution: University of Puerto Rico

From the editors
 

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 in the fields of science, mathematics, and engineering. It is available in print and electronic format. Inquiries, information related to AGEP, and all correspondence should be sent to the editor. 

By Dr. Shirley M. Malcom, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Head, Directorate for Education and Human Resources Programs

Science and engineering communities have expressed enthusiastic support for the FY 2001 budget proposed by President Clinton. This budget calls for a $1B increase in support for the National Institutes of Health as well as the largest dollar increase ever proposed for  support of research and education at the National Science Foundation. This budget is based on a growing realization by the Administration and the Congress of the contribution of science and technology to our economic prosperity as well as to our quality of life. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has noted in recent speeches and articles the  importance of the new technologies to the unprecedented prosperity and economic health which the U.S. is enjoying. And support for basic research within the Congress has been  strongly bipartisan. Whether this rhetorical support is translated into real dollars, however, must await the resolution of the political process in a presidential election year. 

When tax dollars are used in support of  science, what do citizens get for their dollars? Collectively, there is a gain of research on health, energy, environment,  telecommunications and many other areas that can lead to new products, security, clean  water, safe and abundant food, cures and treatment for disease, better understanding of  human-kind, the Earth, solar system and the cosmos—of the things around us, both large  and small. This research has been a major contributor to  innovation and national well-being. 

As important as the knowledge, the new ideas and technologies is the production of people  that accompanies and supports the conduct of research and development. People are not  just a by-product of research but indeed are the enduring product as researchers and  teachers pass their knowledge and understandings from one institution and from one generation to another. 

A recognition of the importance of the human resources dimension of the research  investment has been fully acknowledged in the strategic plan of the National Science Foundation. It emphasizes the primacy of the integration of research and education as an  investment strategy. In keeping with this goal the criteria advanced by the National Science  Board (NSB) for evaluation of proposals were changed several years ago to recognize an expanded view of merit that includes the technical and infrastructure (including human  resources) components to this investment of public dollars. It is not clear how well these  criteria have been addressed in the review process to date, but the intent of the change was  clear.

Many of the same concerns that the NSB discussed in its strategic planning and criteria  review regarding the adequacy of the human resources base and the long term health of science likely drove the Congress to put in place the Minority Graduate Education program now known as the Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate Program.  Major  shifts underway in the demographics of the United States move us toward increased  proportions of college students, graduates and workforce participants from those groups  that have had weak traditions and lower levels of participation in SME fields, this at a time  when demands for talent in fields such as information technology and many areas of engineering are at an all time high. As the demographic shift affects the makeup of the  college and university population, the direct impact of low graduate production for  minorities (and in many fields for women as well) is starkly evident in the SME faculty:  few minorities; fewer still at high rank; and fewest at high rank in major research  universities. 

Where minority SME faculty are present to what extent do they carry a disproportionate share of the responsibility for contact and for serving as a role model to minority students?  At a symposium on human resources held at the 2000 AAAS Annual Meeting in  Washington, D.C., Dr. Charlotte Kuh, Director of the National Research Council's Office  of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, introduced the concept of  “faculty burden.”  This  refers to the relative role that faculty from underrepresented groups might play in their contact with students from underrepresented groups as they function as role models.  Certainly the concept bears on the tasks that are undertaken and/or assigned to such faculty  in their “representational roles” as well. 

Producing Future Faculty

So where does the responsibility rest to produce the number of minority PhDs we need as  the demographic makeup of the college age population shifts? And where should the  responsibility reside? Many would argue that those institutions that receive large amounts of federal funding for research should be expected to produce the research and the next  generation of researchers. To what extent do those institutions that receive significant  public research dollars participate in meeting the national goal of developing minority  researchers? How much overlap exists across the list of top funded institutions and top  producers of African American, Hispanic and Native American SME Ph.D.s?  Table 1 provides a list of the Top 20 institutions receiving federal funding in 1997 and their  rank in overall production of SME Ph.D.s in 1997. By examining other trends, we know that several trends are notable: the dominant effect of funding from the National Institutes  of Health as a driver on the rankings and the strong relationship between size of the  research enterprise and amount of Ph.D. production. Eighteen of twenty of the top federally funded universities are ranked in the top fifty Ph.D. producers. Sixteen of twenty have medical and/or veterinary programs associated with their research enterprise.

Viewed in the opposite way, one looks instead at the federal research funding of major  Ph.D. producing institutions and finds that all of the top 20 SME doctorate producing  universities rank among the top 50 institutions receiving federal research dollars. (Table 2)

Production of SME Ph.D.s is comprised of citizens and non-citizens and the list in Table 2  represents a combined total. If one considers only U.S. citizens and permanent residents,  the institutional rankings shift somewhat. But the overall relationship reflecting the  integration of research and education is retained. 

Ph.D. Production for  U.S. Minorities

How are Ph.D. producing institutions doing with respect to the Ph.D. production of African American, Hispanic and American Indian citizens? Only two of the top producing  institutions also appear on all three lists as top SME Ph.D. producing institutions of African  Americans, Hispanics and American Indians—University of Michigan and University of  California, Berkeley. Three of the top twenty institutions for SME Ph.D. production for  U.S. citizens and permanent residents did not appear among the top ranked Ph.D.  producers for any of the three minority groups—University of Wisconsin, University of  Minnesota, and Texas A&M University. [Note that this means they awarded fewer than  eight doctorates to African Americans, fewer than eight doctorates to Hispanics and fewer  than two doctorates to American Indians in all the computational, natural, social and  behavioral sciences and engineering fields in 1997.]* 

*In examining the data the author elected to look at the top twenty Ph.D. producing  institutions.  Eight was the natural “cut point” for African Americans and Hispanics. While a number of institutions produced one American Indian Ph.D., this was not considered  representative of “institutional effort.”

Several policy questions emerge from this analysis:
 

• Both University of Michigan and UC Berkeley have been challenged regarding use of  affirmative action in admissions and financial aid decisions. In this regard, as public  institutions they are especially vulnerable to legal challenge. While private institutions may  have more flexibility, it is not clear that they will step in to assume a leadership role (see  Table 3). Without regard to their use of these strategies in graduate programs, to what extent  does the challenge itself pose a danger to the efforts within the institutions for SME graduate education of minorities? 

• Since institutions with more modest federal support shoulder a disproportionate share of  the responsibilities for the education of minority graduate students what policies might be  put in place to support these efforts, e.g. capitation payments? 

• Since institutions receiving large investments of public dollars for research are under-producing minority Ph.D.s relative to their resources, how might alliances re-distribute responsibility for training? 

• How can “track record” in the successful production of minority SME Ph.D.s be factored  into review of large scale grants, especially where the “production of research and the next  generation of researchers” is a stated policy goal? 

• What policy incentives would engage institutions more aggressively in Ph.D. production of  minorities? How does one more fairly share the work? Or does one move to consider how  to distribute more wealth to those institutions doing more work? At least the challenge from  the Gospel of Luke might be considered: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him  shall be much required; and to whom  men have committed much, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:48). 

Looking inside One Field

 One of the major findings of the AAAS study, Losing Ground, (1998) was the extent to  which the decentralized nature of graduate education within universities increases the level  of the challenge associated with enhancing minority graduate education. Small numbers  coupled with uneven effort across fields and departments exacerbate effects of the uncertain  policy climate in which graduate education of minorities gets considered. 

Looking within one field gives us a different vantage point from which to view relative effort. Chemistry was selected as the field to consider for this purpose:  there is a robust job market for persons holding graduate degrees that includes industry as well as academia;  there are strong targeted efforts and organizations supporting minorities in chemistry.  Chemistry does not have the problem of very low production that physics has, nor the  challenge of a fragmented professional community as with the biological sciences. 

Minority graduate enrollment in chemistry is heavily driven by the minority serving  institutions. Seven Historically Black Colleges and Universities appear among the top  nineteen chemistry programs enrolling African Americans; chemistry enrollment numbers for Hispanics are dominated by two campuses of the University of Puerto Rico (Rio  Piedras and Mayaguez) whose combined total nearly equals that of the combined  enrollment of twenty programs ranked below them (166 vs. 168 students). For American  Indians, Oklahoma State was the clear leader with seven students in the chemistry program  (Table 4). 

While factors such as geography, masters vs. doctorate programs, and critical mass likely  affect enrollment figures so too do leadership and the efforts of individual faculty. Large,  well-funded programs are not necessarily diverse programs when considering the presence of American minority students. 

Next Steps 

One might imagine both institutional incentives and national strategies to alter the makeup  of departments, such as adding funding to programs that successfully recruit, mentor and  graduate minority students, or providing endowed chairs for successful mentors. AAAS and Presidential mentoring awards provide cash and recognition to individuals and/or  programs. For the chemistry community special efforts within the American Chemical  Society have raised the visibility of these issues. And chemists have been very successful  in being recognized by the AAAS Award.

It is not clear to what extent these factors of “the human infrastructure for science” are considered in funding decisions along with more traditional and more narrow views of  “technical merit.”

While the challenges of Ph.D. production of minorities are often taken on by individuals as matters of personal responsibility, questions remain as to the roles and responsibilities of  institutions, professional communities, federal funding agencies and the business and  philanthropic communities in addressing the human resources needs in SME that loom on  the horizon. Robert Merton, sociologist of science, introduced the concept of cumulative advantage to describe the making of a scientist as a process by which early opportunities for education  and experiences build, leading to more and more such opportunities. Drawing on the  Gospel according to Matthew, “Whoever has been given more and he will have an  abundance.”  Matthew has a flip slide as well (that of cumulative disadvantage): “whoever  does not have, even what he has will be taken from him” (Matthew 13:12). While Matthew  may have described the current process of the making of a scientist and the community's  mechanisms for distributing opportunities and judging outcomes (as well as the failures in  this process) perhaps we must look as well to Luke for answers of how to proceed in the  next millennium to expand the talent pool. 

This paper is based on presentations by Shirley Malcom at the Workshop 2000 conference  in Atlanta, Feb 24-25, 2000 and at a special symposium on human resources held during  the American Chemical Society Meeting in San Francisco, March, 2000. Special thanks to  Eleanor Babco, Director of the Commission on Professionals in Science and technology, for special data runs she did to support these presentations, as well as to Daryl Chubin, Senior Policy Associate, National Science Board, for painstakingly reviewing this article and providing feedback.