Pamela Felder, Ph.D. , Independent Scholar
This commentary provides brief analysis of contextual issues based on Gumport’s (2016)
perspectives on the causes for interdependence and strain in graduate education. Four
challenges and opportunities identified include: uncertainty in external funding; increased
competition for federal research funds; commercialization; and student concerns about the
availability of career opportunities. Given the rapidly changing demographics in higher
education and systemic exclusion regarding historically marginalized communities,
consideration of racial and cultural experiences is paramount to the proliferation of graduate
education, the communities it serves, and their future. Thus, a reexamination of the areas of
interdependence and strain in graduate education calls for refocusing the ways race and culture
intersect with these dynamics. Observations of key reports by The Commission for the Future of
Graduate Education (2010, 2012) identify challenges and opportunities regarding systemic
development of graduate education. They suggest the need for additional research focused on
institutionalizing racial and cultural awareness practices in the following areas: recruitment and
retention; establishing professional development outcomes, development of institutional
partnerships, and student transitions into academic and non-academic career pathways,
including the professoriate.
Cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) lends guidance towards renewed perspectives of the contributions
historically marginalized communities make to our graduate education system. Yosso identifies
cultural wealth as being represented by six forms of capital: Aspirational, linguistic, familial,
navigational, social, resistance. For example, navigational capital refers to students’ skills and
abilities to navigate social institutions and educational spaces and aligns, conceptually, with
decades of campus climate research. Research development on diversity, racial and cultural
awareness, racial and cultural inequities, and institutional transformation has generated a type
of cultural wealth within higher education scholarship (Worthington, 2012). This scholarship
has informed the way our graduate education functions regarding perspectives on race and
culture within higher education. This development, by scholars committed to strengthening the
focus of racial and cultural relevance within institutional environments, is critical to facilitating
renewed conversations about graduate education. Cultural wealth prioritizes racial/ cultural
experiences, perspectives, and practices of historically marginalized communities within
graduate education environments. The following four areas represented in graduate education
are addressed with consideration of cultural wealth.
Uncertainty in External Funding
In discussing the volatility of forces shaping the key markets for higher education, Gumport
(2016) notes federal involvement began with organizational efforts to designate advisory boards
for scientific research. The development of diversity focused research related to these markets,
raises questions about the racial and cultural representation of these advisory boards. Analysis
of graduate education supporting the development of scientific discovery and the existence of
leadership facilitating research and practice, particularly focused on historically marginalized
communities, advocates for a commitment to equitable representation of key stakeholders in
graduate education. (Griffin, Muniz, and Espinosa, 2012).
Oftentimes perspectives on managing this uncertainty influences consideration of key priorities
within graduate education. For example, Gumport notes, the establishment of the National
Research Council (NRC) in 1919, became the principal organizational vehicle for monitoring
research efforts and how federal funds were channeled to university research. Given the role
and contribution of historically marginalized scholars, and the need to strengthen support for
our work, learning more about intended and equitable organizational representation within the
federal government, the public, and among scientists and engineers is critical for identifying
forms of cultural capital. To what extent does this equity exist when considering historically
marginalized communities in graduate education? For instance, the presence of ethnic-racial
categories by the NRC emerged with consistent demographic representation around 1975.
Therefore, what are the implications for the forms of cultural capital to be seriously considered
within graduate education, especially during times of uncertainty. Advocacy efforts often matter
the most during times of uncertainty. In what ways will the forms of cultural capital
represented by historically marginalized communities be considered in times of uncertainty?
How can higher education and graduate education researchers and advocates facilitate
cultural wealth in times of uncertainty?
Consider some observations on student enrollment, higher education’s chief revenue market.
Observations about recruitment and retention highlight critical details shaping the experiences
of historically marginalized graduate students. The Survey of Earned Doctorates (2018) reports
54,904 doctoral degree completers; approximately 22,000 of those recipients represented
historically marginalized communities. In an examination of doctorates during the 20th
Century, The Survey of Earned Doctorates (2006) reports, in terms of fields of study, more than
1.35 million research doctorates were awarded in the United States during the last eight decades
of the 20th century— 62 percent in science and engineering (S&E) and 38 percent in non-S&E.
Although the number of S&E doctorates exceeded the number of non-S&E doctorates in every
year, education was the largest major field from 1962 to 1999. From a disciplinary perspective,
racial and cultural advocacy in education fields, for example, is especially critical with larger
numbers of Blacks/African Americans and Latinos pursuing graduate degrees in these areas.
Historically marginalized populations accounted for nearly 14 percent of all S&E doctorates
awarded to U.S. citizens in 1995–99, compared with about 6 percent in 1975–79, when data on
race/ethnicity were first collected in the SED.
Among U.S. citizens, historically marginalized populations also increased their share of
non-S&E doctorates from less than 10 percent in 1975–79 to more than 14 percent in 1995–99.
In terms of gender, men received about 73 percent of all doctorates awarded between 1920 and
1999 (Survey Earned Doctorates, 2006). The rapid increase in the numbers of women earning
doctorates, beginning in the 1960s, increased their share of doctorates from 15 percent in the
early 1920s to 41 percent in the late 1990s. Furthermore, during the last four decades of the
century, non-U.S. citizens earned increasing shares of doctoral awards in each of the major
fields. From 1920 to 1959 doctoral awards to non-U.S. citizens rose from 6 to 12 percent of all
doctorates awarded. From 1960–64 to 1995–99, the share of doctorates awarded to foreign
nationals rose from 16 to 39 percent in all S&E fields combined and from 7 to 17 percent in
non-S&E fields. Most foreign nationals, both men and women, received their degrees in S&E
fields. The role and nature of the international student experience as contributors to the
composition of diverse college and university environments continues to contribute to the
transformation of support on our campuses. The statistical development of racial and cultural
representation within student enrollment influences the forming of new perspectives to
interpret the experiences of graduate students. The following questions pose opportunities for
further consideration: In what ways are increases in enrollment reflected in advocacy
representation to support recruitment and retention, and, ultimately degree completion for
historically marginalized populations and international students? How has this increase of
historically marginalized and international students contributed to the cultural wealth of our
college and university environments?
Increased Competition for Federal Research Funds
Uncertainty in external funding, or financial sources for research outside of college and
university environment, facilitates concerns about how increased competition for federal
research funds is managed. To support historically marginalized students, federal investment in
graduate education has been largely represented in several educational pipeline initiatives
(Gumport, 2016). They include the Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement
Program, Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation Program, Alliances for Graduate
Education and the Professoriate, and numerous university-based initiatives focused on
recruitment, retention, degree completion and transition into academic and non-academic
career pathways.
Though these programs may compete against themselves for funding support, a closer look at
these initiatives individually reveal increased competition exists within the programs
themselves. For example, TRIO consists of eight programs that collectively provide services
from middle school through graduate school: Upward Bound (UB), Upward Bound Math
Science (UBMS), Veterans Upward Bound (VUB), Educational Talent Search (TS), Student
Support Services (SSS), Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC), and Ronald E. McNair
Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program (McNair), as well as a training program for TRIO
project staff. Thus, any potential advocacy for graduate students specifically exists as 1/8th of
TRIOs total focus on educational pipeline support initiatives.
Furthermore, TRIO’s board of directors represents all programs and increased competition
among them may serve to minimize and/or complicate funding support for historically
marginalized graduate students. Gumport notes that increasing participation of historically
marginalized graduate students is a national necessity in order to maintain global
competitiveness. To facilitate continued support towards developing cultural wealth, advocacy
in the form of leadership must be renewed with a stronger more dedicated focus to graduate
education initiatives that emphasize the forms of cultural wealth capital, specifically. In what
ways do existing educational pipeline initiatives advocate for historically marginalized
graduate students’ aspirational, linguistic, familial, navigational, social, resistance capital? In
what ways do existing educational pipeline initiatives advocate for cultural capital within
diverse college environments?
Commercialization
Gumport’s (2016) discussion of commercialization depicts higher education’s Postwar expansive
enterprise through the representation of disciplinary development and increasing enrollment
trends. From a disciplinary perspective, the concept of cultural wealth supports the expansion
of racial and cultural interests of graduate students looking to transition into careers where the
application of racial and cultural competence is a valuable skill; especially in higher education
faculty and/or practitioner careers (Worthington, 2012). The role and value of cultural wealth is
far beyond its meaning regarding the commercialized interests of industry during the Postwar
era.
The United States graduate education system is deemed an educational “model for the world”
(Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2014). Certainly, this bears truth regarding historically
marginalized graduate students. For example, a notable aspect of the report highlights the
contribution of doctoral degree completers on the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners. Esteemed
Civil Rights Leader and Morehouse College graduate, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. known for
leading the largest Civil Rights Movement in the United States. His social justice activism
garnered a federally-recognized holiday, numerous social and commercial enterprises, and a
national monument. Some might deem the commercial and/or economic influence of this
contribution invaluable regarding its representation of cultural wealth.
While commercialization addresses the economic developments of industry, the relevance of
race and culture has tremendous implications for identifying with the cultural capital
historically marginalized communities contribute to our college and university environments.
The opportunities for graduate education programs to acknowledge this capital can be a
valuable asset. How can forms of cultural capital be formally acknowledged within our
graduate education system?
Student Concerns about the Availability of Career Opportunities
Rapid Postwar expansion led to the rampant development in postbaccalaureate educational and
career opportunities (Gumport, 2016). However, for historically marginalized graduate students
access to these opportunities continue to be problematic and complicated by educational
pipeline issues affecting graduate degree completion and transition in career pathways. The
Commission for the Future of Graduate Education (The Council of Graduate Schools and
Educational Testing Center, 2012) identified several vulnerabilities influencing graduate
education access for students: demographic shifts; disruptions in the pathways; growth in
international education, attrition; debt; and lack of transparency regarding career options.
Over time these vulnerabilities have served to create institutional climates where the value of
cultural wealth is undermined, minimized, and not fully understood regarding opportunities to
enhance doctoral student experiences and strengthen institutional capacity for sustaining
diverse environments (McAlpine, Paulson, Gonsalves & Jazvac-Martek, 2012). Moving towards
cultural wealth involves seeing student concerns related to race and culture as opportunities to
strengthen institutional environments. Renewed perspectives focused on cultural wealth can
increase the potential for understanding how diversity can facilitate the development of
innovation leading to new career opportunities. In what ways might we consider cultural
wealth to facilitate renewed perspectives on supporting students?
Implications for Future Research and Practice
There are several areas where this work can continue to make an impact. Continuing research
on the foundations of previous and current policies, trends, and issues in graduate education
serves to identify vestiges of exclusion that exist as barriers to academic success and degree
completion. For example, scholarship focused on key dimensions of diversity regarding the
undergraduate experience has informed what is known about the graduate student experience,
transformative practices, the value of diversity and intellectual development; preparation for
career and educational opportunities, overall student development support, and institutional
transformation (Hurtado, Milem, Allen, Clayton-Pedersen, 1998; 1999; Harper & Hurtado,
2007). Future research and practice must continue to draw on this work to understand its
applicability and function in our higher education and its systemic vulnerabilities (Worthington,
2012).
Given the observations on both Gumport and Yosso’s work, during the next 100 years, research
on the relationship between graduate education, cultural capital, and the development of
disciplines and industries will be a driving force in the way institutions continue educate
graduate students. The role of departments have been foundational in these areas towards
(re)building institutional processes for graduate education (Golde, 2005). This involves
scholarship and practice focused on theoretical and philosophical foundations of graduate
education; recruitment; retention; advisement; mentoring; acquisition of knowledge, academic
success, degree completion, and transition into postdoctoral and career opportunities (Nettles &
Millett, 2006) Key to this work will be the increase of regional, national, and global emphasis on
culturally relevant institutional-industry partnerships to cultivate funding and career
opportunities for students (Council of Graduate Schools & Educational Testing Service, 2012).
An underlying goal of this commentary is to engage active discussion about the ways AERA
considers supporting its graduate educational communities across divisions and special interest
groups, facilitate dialogue about the challenges we face regarding racial and cultural inequities,
consider opportunities for growth and development where race and culture can be viewed as
institutional wealth, and develops strategies for improving and strengthening commitments to
advocacy for historically marginalized communities. Gumport (2016) and Yosso’s (2005)
perspectives provide guidance for deeper analysis of racial and cultural relevance and their role
in diverse environments and the changing nature of graduate education. While Gumport’s
analysis of historical and current trends illuminate forces shaping graduate education, Yosso’s
work creates analytical space for issues on the cultural experiences related to the ethno-racial
composition of students, and the cultivation of peer-reviewed research representing historically
marginalized communities. Given the position of AERA and its reach as a global leader,
considering their work informs practice and advocacy in these areas towards the future
development of graduate education.
References
Council of Graduate Schools and Educational Testing Service. (2012). Pathways Through
Graduate School and Into Careers. Report from the Commission on Pathways Through Graduate
School and Into Careers. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Golde, C.M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition:
Lesson from four departments, The Journal of Higher Education, 76,6, 669-700.
Griffin, K.A., Muñiz, M.M., & Espinosa, L. (2012). The influence of campus racial climate on
diversity in graduate education. The Review of Higher Education 35 (4), 535-566.
doi:10.1353/rhe.2012.0031.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enhancing campus climates
for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher Education, 21(3),
279–302.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning
environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education institutions.
Washington: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series: George Washington University
Graduate School of Education.
McAlpine, L., Paulson, J., Gonsalves, A., Jazvac-Martek, M. (2012). ‘Untold’ doctoral stories:
can we move beyond cultural narratives of neglect?, Higher Education Research & Development,
(31)4, 511-523.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2018.
Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: 2016. Special Report NSF 18-304. Alexandria, VA.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, U.S. Doctorates in the
20th Century, NSF 06-319, Lori Thurgood, Mary J. Golladay, and Susan T. Hill (Arlington, VA
2006).
Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Worthington, R. (2012). Advancing scholarship for the diversity imperative in higher education:
An editorial, Journal for Diversity in Higher Education , 5(1), 1-7.
Yosso, T. (2015). Whose culture has capital? A critical race discussion of community cultural
wealth, race and ethnicity in education, (8)1, 69-91.
Comments
Post a Comment