Download PDFDiscussion
Based on the information available in the spring of 2020, this research shows that while biology research is displayed as more accessible on the university website, it is inequitable in policy as it is not required, while chemistry research was not accessible on the website but more equitable in its policy because it is required. In either case, both disciplines have systemic informal and exclusionary practices of linking advisees and students. In this way, the university prioritizes faculty over students when it comes to undergraduate research by implementing policies that leave students uninformed and subsequently disadvantaged. It is the university’s policy language that leads to an apparent reliance on students to initiate discourse about research and reach out to faculty, setting up a system where access to research can be carefully controlled. By heavily advertising biology research that can be gated due to the logistics of high demand, the university is able to keep the prestige brought on by declaring itself a research university while still handpicking student research assistants. Downplaying chemistry research and making it seem inaccessible ultimately leads to an inequity in access to student research. This also fortifies the power structure between student and research advisor who selects students that show the collaboration and communication skills that are valued by the larger scientific community.
The Association of American Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U) guiding principle, Making Excellence Inclusive, works to “help colleges and universities integrate diversity, equity, and educational quality efforts into their missions and institutional operations” (Making Excellence Inclusive, 2019). While my university, a member of AAC&U, has a page on their website dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion, there is an inequity in access to research. Because access to research is placed in the hands of research advisors, access is primarily based on student-faculty interactions, and my research indicates faculty prioritize academic merit. When access to opportunities is based on academic merit, in many cases “this merit is inherited [and because] access to higher education is, to varying degrees, competitive, [academic merit] will always privilege those with superior economic, social and cultural resources” (Clancy & Goastellec, 2007). This is especially important because in addition to how beneficial student research can be, positive student-faculty interactions have also proven to be,
related to numerous positive outcomes, including increased confidence in their abilities as scholars, achievers, and leaders; an enhanced sense of emotional wellbeing; and greater satisfaction with faculty contact and with the campus community. Faculty support is also related to higher degree aspirations and higher rates of bachelor’s degree attainment. (Sax et. al., 2005)
If this faculty support is largely given based on merit, this only works to further reward those with inherited merit while limiting opportunities for others.
Even before inequitable student-faculty interactions determine access to research, policy language provides another barrier. While the scope of this research is limited by only looking at the experiences of a small number of students, ultimately, the university sets up discourse surrounding research to be student driven. Even for biology research that is given more attention and for which students are provided with more information, by making these opportunities available only to a select few students, students are driven to actively reach out, start conversation, and prove themselves to research advisors. For chemistry research where research is guaranteed because it is a requirement, research is downplayed and no information is given on how to get involved. The language for the chemistry research course also sets up a barrier by listing being a “qualified” student as a prerequisite. By providing no information and making the process seem more exclusive, the student is driven to reach out to advisors and initiate conversation about how to get involved. This acts a barrier to students as first, they may not even be aware of research opportunities and second, if they are, they may not have the communication skills necessary to talk to the advisor or the confidence to approach an authority figure. Warding off potential students without these skills may even act to disproportionately benefit a subset of students from the same socio-cultural backgrounds as professors because these students may be more confident about knowing how to talk to the advisors in a way that the professor values.
Overall, it makes sense that universities would favor faculty over students based on the understanding that the research led by faculty can often lead to university prestige (Atkinson & Blanpied, 2008). A study looking at the observations of faculty from 4 colleges found that many research advisors noted that undergraduate research often “compromises their productivity” and in some cases, leads to “dozens of lost publications” which can impact a university as well as their faculty (Laursen et al., 2012). It should be noted, however, that my research only spoke to the experiences of students and that faculty may have other reasoning for their selection of student research assistants. Additionally, as this research was performed in 2020 and was not ongoing up until publication, there may be updates or changes to the information provided on the university website that could influence these findings. This research could be expanded by determining whether changes were made to the university websites since 2020, interviewing research professors and more students, and by reaching out to policy makers on campus.
By allowing discursive policies and practices to pervade higher education, diverse perspectives (e.g. historically marginalized perspectives) are likely lost which inevitably weakens the scientific field where different perspectives have led to incredible discoveries that better our understanding of the world. My research demonstrates how my university and other universities more broadly can make access to research more equitable. By fixing issues regarding lack of information given to students, merit-based accessibility, and by working to ensure student/advisor interactions are not student-driven, access to undergraduate research could be made more equitable.