Toward a critical theory of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics doctoral persistence: Critical capital theory

Abstract

The proportion of Black, Latinx, and American Native individuals annually earning science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) doctoral degrees in the United States (US) has been enduringly and inequitably low for decades compared to their White peers. Despite the intransigent connection between race and STEM doctoral outcomes, US STEM education policy documents typically fail to identify racism as influencing this racial inequity. This paper presents critical capital theory (CCT)—an integration of critical race theory, forms of capital, and fictive kinship—to give racism full explanatory power within the context of US STEM doctoral outcomes. CCT proposes that access to large and affluent social networks containing supportive individuals who have knowledge of how to successfully navigate institutions of power is currently core to STEM doctoral success. This access reinforces STEM identity and belonging, but has been and continues to be primarily preserved for White students via an ever‐evolving system of racism. CCT proposes systems supporting STEM faculty’s consistent provision of high‐quality mentorship experiences for all their students—coupled with accountability for providing this mentorship—would result in more equitable STEM doctoral outcomes.

A Systematized Literature Review of the Factors that Predict the Retention of Racially Minoritized Students in STEM Graduate Degree Programs

“…These experiences tended to make URM students conscious of their individual identities within exclusive spaces such as STEM degree programs. They often reported feelings of the following: increased awareness of being a representation for everyone in their race [18], internal perceptions of a learning deficit in math and science studies [19], pressures to work harder because of their race and gender [20], lack of knowledge and exposure [21], difficulty meeting the academic prerequisites and being admitted [21], and not having their accomplishments acknowledged due to their race [22]. Students even expressed that it was vital to their identity development to have affirmation that they were in the right program and could overcome the obstacles they might face [16].…”

“…The alienation from faculty and peers often resulted in a lack of confidence and comfort with communicating in order to gain understanding, attend meetings, request help, or even participate [19] [12]. Due to a lack of STEM faculty and peers that represent similar life narratives and cultural norms [18], many minoritized students see these previously listed factors as adversities that needed to be overcome to persist.…”

“…However, based on the articles reviewed, establishing cultural comfort to promote a sense of belonging served as a positive influencer of URM graduate student retention. Departments that provided application support [14], social support [21], financial support [18], and cultural engagement activities [25].…”

“…Other educators acknowledged that mentoring relationships provide a blueprint for success for career attainment, especially in academia [19]. URM scholars acknowledged these types of high-quality mentoring relationships as helpful, reassuring, and encouraging because of the cadre of supportive faculty combined with the graduate research experiences [18]. A high quality mentorship relationship, in this context, is one where an experienced professional helped a graduate student successfully matriculate through their degree program to achieve career goals while assisting them with their inclusion within the departmental culture [18].…”

“…URM scholars acknowledged these types of high-quality mentoring relationships as helpful, reassuring, and encouraging because of the cadre of supportive faculty combined with the graduate research experiences [18]. A high quality mentorship relationship, in this context, is one where an experienced professional helped a graduate student successfully matriculate through their degree program to achieve career goals while assisting them with their inclusion within the departmental culture [18]. This definition of quality differs from that at the undergraduate level, who have more frequent mentoring relationships with their older peers At the graduate level, it is likely that the quality of these interactions rather than the frequency of them had a higher impact on URMs perceiving themselves as being recognized as professionals within their STEM field.…”