The Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program provides higher education institutions with federal funds to increase the doctoral attainment for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. We conducted a meta-analysis of the impact of the McNair program on graduate program enrollment. After an exhaustive literature search, we found 7 publications containing 13 studies that met the inclusion criteria. From these studies, we found that McNair program students were almost six times as likely to enroll in a graduate program as the comparison group. Nonetheless, there was much unexplained variability in effects across studies.

Measuring key components of resilience is vital for understanding cross‐cultural dynamics among youth and the environment. The Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM‐28) was developed as a cross‐cultural measure of resilience and has been used globally. To examine the cross‐cultural utility of the CYRM‐28, we conducted a systematic review of the literature reporting on the psychometric properties of the measure. Using data representing six countries (N = 6,232) that were supplied from authors of the studies reviewed, a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis was also conducted to estimate the variability of the measurement properties among communities, ages, and sex. Results indicate that the literature generally did not include reliability and validity information for the instrument. From the multilevel confirmatory factor analysis, the measure was invariant between adolescent age‐groups and sexes but not across communities.

Research indicates that high-potential students from low-income backgrounds have decreased educational attainment and success in college compared with their higher income peers. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the interventions that support postsecondary success for this group. Using a systematic review protocol, we identified five categories of support for these students: a summer intervention, advanced coursework, financial aid, college information, and a program that provides year-round supports. Findings suggest these programs differentially help certain groups, but can provide support in accessing college, persisting and attaining degrees, and helping with noncognitive supports such as peer support.

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a common measure used to gauge social, cultural, and financial capital in scientific literature. Over time, SES research has produced an extremely wide and inconsistently used variety of SES variables and components. This study will review research that estimates SES and will examine common components and trends from the inception of its measurement to present data. A systematic review protocol was used to gather literature related to SES, and a historical analysis was conducted to examine the SES variables and their components that were most commonly used in the literature. Results displayed varying trends by decade, with earlier SES measures including components on social capital and more recent measures incorporating aspects of cultural and economic capital. Subjective perspectives of social class became more common toward the turn of the century, and few measures included components from more asset-based frameworks. The Big 3 measures (parental education, parental occupation, and income) have been common measures across time.

Discussions around transparency in open science focus primarily on sharing data, materials, and coding schemes, especially as these practices relate to reproducibility. This fairly quantitative perspective of transparency does not align with all scientific methodologies. Indeed, qualitative researchers also care deeply about how knowledge is produced, what factors influence the research process, and how to share this information. Explicating a researcher’s background and role allows researchers to consider their impact on the research process and interpretation of the data, thereby increasing both transparency and rigor. Researchers may engage in positionality and reflexivity in a variety of ways, and transparently sharing these steps allows readers to draw their own informed conclusions about the results and study as a whole. Imposing a limited, quantitatively-informed set of standards on all research can cause harm to researchers and the communities they work with if researchers are not careful in considering the impact of such standards. Our paper will argue the importance of avoiding strong defaults around transparency (e.g., always share data) and build upon previous work around qualitative open science. We explore how transparency in all aspects of our research can lend itself toward projecting and confirming the rigor of our work.