Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Disciplinary identity, or connection to a particular academic discipline, is constructed through a developmental process across a scholar’s academic life course. Using unique data from an online survey of students at four different colleges and universities, we investigate the extent to which disciplinary identity among undergraduate researchers reflects motivations for participating in research and varies by student discipline. We document key differences in disciplinary identity based upon two internal motivators, intellectual interest and grit, as well as demographic characteristics. We discuss implications for institutions and undergraduate programs desiring to encourage students to participate in undergraduate research.

Keywords

undergraduate research research motivations college student identity disciplinary identity

Prior research has shown significant benefits obtained by students who participate in undergraduate research (UR), both during and after completion of their undergraduate careers (Adedokun, Dyehouse, Bassenbacher, & Burgess, 2010; Behar-Horenstein, Roberts, & Dix, 2010; Craney et al., 2011; Felder, 2010; Hunter, Laursen, & Seymour, 2007; Laursen, Hunter, Seymour, Thiry, & Melton, 2010; Lei & Chuang, 2009; Levenson, 2010; Lopatto, 2010; Osborn & Karukstis, 2009; Potter, Abrams, Townson, & Williams, 2009; Seymour, Hunter, Laursen, & DeAntoni, 2004). Although the positive impact of UR on students is well known, little is known about how the research process facilitates the student’s connection to their discipline, or their disciplinary identity.

Feeling connected to one’s major is an important indicator of social embeddedness that is correlated with student persistence (Bean, 2005). Furthermore, recent interest in student persistence has focused on students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines in particular to determine factors that support those students’ degree completion (e.g., Robnett, Chemers, & Zurbriggen, 2015). Therefore, it is important to investigate correlates of student connection to major and the construction of their disciplinary identity as a means to uncover ways to support college success for all students.

The purpose of this research is to examine correlates of students’ connection to their major as a measure of disciplinary identity developed in the UR process, ultimately focusing on how factors differently shape disciplinary identity for natural and social science students. In this article, we present the results of a study conducted across four institutions, using our findings to provide suggestions for institutions and undergraduate programs seeking to encourage student engagement and therefore success (Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008) through participation in the high impact teaching and learning practices of UR.

Background and Literature Review

UR, or independent scholarly inquiry, is a well-documented practice shown to consistently deliver student learning outcomes (Kinkead, 2003; Linn, Palmer, Baranger, Gerard, & Stone, 2015; Lopatto, 2010). In addition to better preparing students for future careers and graduate study, UR has also been shown to help students refine their scholarly interests (Craney et al., 2011; Hunter et al., 2007; Laursen et al., 2010; Lei & Chuang, 2009; Osborn & Karukstis, 2009; Seymour et al., 2004; Wilson, Howitt, Wilson, & Roberts, 2012). Through the research process, students learn major-specific skills of inquiry that contribute to their professional socialization within their discipline (Adedokun et al., 2010; Behar-Horenstein et al., 2010; Boyer, 1990; Hunter et al., 2007; Merkel, 2003; Merkel & Baker, 2002; Potter et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2012). Thus, the UR experience plays a significant role in shaping students’ professional, disciplinary identities.

Identity construction occurs through an exploratory and evolutionary process, where engagement in discipline-specific learning activities and students’ personal and cultural contexts (to include their demographic background) intersect with the institutional and disciplinary contexts within their specific university setting (Aschbacher, Li, & Roth, 2010; Flum & Kaplan, 2006; Palmer, Hunt, Neal, & Wuetherick, 2015). Therefore, as the UR process is exploratory by nature and typically major specific, the academic and social engagement that occur during its practice facilitate the growth of a specific disciplinary identity.

This process of identity construction is further influenced by social and human capital, as well as sociocultural characteristics (Aschbacher et al., 2010; Margolis, Fisher, & Miller, 2000; Robnett et al., 2015; Smith, Deemer, Thoman, & Zazworsky, 2014). Specifically, within the college setting, social capital has been defined as the availability of supportive relationships and/or networks which work to facilitate goal achievement (Aschbacher et al., 2010; Farmer-Hinton & Adams, 2006; Palmer & Maramba, 2015; Perna & Titus, 2005). Social capital within the university setting can accrue not only through mentor relationships (Palmer et al., 2015) but also through other personal and family experiences (Aschbacher et al., 2010; Margolis et al., 2000). Consequently, familial and institutional–specific experiences of “college-going culture” (Hooker & Brand, 2010) are not as accessible to first-generation students or those who transferred into a particular institution.

In addition, a student’s identity within their chosen field is shaped through sociocultural experiences based on race, gender, social class, disability status, and other characteristics (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013). Through the UR experience, students draw upon both social and human capital resources as they imitate the professional practices of their discipline (Aschbacher et al., 2010; Craney et al., 2011; Hunter et al., 2007; Lopatto, 2010; Wilson et al., 2012), thus their experiences of the process likely differ with each particular discipline resulting in a specific disciplinary identity.

The professional identity that is constructed within one’s field is a key outcome of UR that is linked to student success as an undergraduate (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2010; Craney et al., 2011; Hunter et al., 2007; Laursen et al., 2010; Lei & Chuang, 2009; Levenson, 2010; Linn et al., 2015; Osborn & Karukstis, 2009; Seymour et al., 2004). In fact, a recent study has shown that research experiences contribute to heightened confidence in students’ abilities to do science, resulting in self-identifying as scientists within their field (Robnett et al., 2015). For natural scientists, their perceived ability to do scientific tasks is especially important to their retention within their chosen major, and students who participated in the “real world practice” of doing science experienced greater persistence when facing discipline-related challenges (Aschbacher et al., 2010; Hazari, Sonnert, Sadler, & Shanahan, 2010; Margolis et al., 2000).

For women in particular, recent research has demonstrated that social class and first-generation status shapes how they select their majors, pursue available opportunities (including UR), and develop their professional and disciplinary identities (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013). Due to substantial differences in the experiences of women, underrepresented minorities, and first-generation students in the STEM fields (Blake-Beard, Bayne, Crosby, & Muller, 2011; Espinosa, 2011; Felder, 2010; Girves, Zepeda, & Gwathmey, 2005; Kardash, 2000; Margolis et al., 2000), understanding what factors contribute to the development of a professional, disciplinary identity are especially important as there may be selection factors that influence choice of discipline and ultimately connection to one’s major.

Given the importance of the research experience in developing a disciplinary identity and therefore connecting students to their major, it is also important to identify how students come to participate in UR. Prior studies tend to emphasize engagement in exploratory processes, such as research, as a product of intellectual interest that motivates continued learning within a discipline (Flum & Kaplan, 2006; Perez, Cromley, & Kaplan, 2014), whereas overlooking how motivation to participate may mediate the development of a disciplinary identity. A recent study that focused on what would motivate student participation found that students felt more connected to their major when they believed there were both intellectual and instrumental reasons for participating in UR (Smith et al., 2014). However, we are aware of no research that focuses on connecting motivations of students who are participating in UR with their disciplinary identity.

In this article, we extend previous lines of inquiry by investigating the factors that influence students’ connections to their major and the construction of their disciplinary identity. Given that previous scholarship (Aschbacher et al., 2010; Robnett et al., 2015) has focused on natural scientists, another key contribution of our article is to examine whether the UR experience also provides social science students an opportunity to develop a disciplinary identity in the same way. As disciplinary identity is formed within the realm of exploration and embracing the ambiguity it entails (Flum & Kaplan, 2006; Perez et al., 2014), we focus on how UR leads to the development of a disciplinary identity rooted in one’s discipline through connection to the major, ultimately highlighting the ways in which these factors may differ between natural and social scientists.

Method

Data

We analyzed data from a multiinstitutional study entitled Pathways to Undergraduate Research Experiences (PURE). The central purpose of the PURE study was to understand the factors that influence how undergraduate students participate in UR across diverse institutional contexts. The institutional review board (IRB)–approved PURE study was exploratory and comprised in part of a student survey. The survey was developed by an interdisciplinary team of scholars representing biology, chemistry, psychology, sociology, and education. The four universities used in this study were the home institutions of the project team, thus facilitating access to the populations. Detailed information on the instrument, the sample, sampling procedures, and overall descriptive analysis can be found in Mahatmya et al. (2017).

In two institutions (labeled R3 and M1), administrators randomly selected students to participate. The remaining two institutions (labeled A&S and R1) administered the survey to all students (see Mahatmya et al., 2017, for more details on institutional-specific sampling procedures). Selected students were asked to complete an anonymous online survey via SurveyMonkey during the 2014-2015 academic year; no extra credit or course credit was given for participation. Our overall response rate was 8.87%; 73.8% completed all sections of the survey. The response rates for the two institutions that used random sampling were 11.1% (R3) and 9.1% (M1); the response rates were 9.8% (A&S) and 8.1% (R1) for the two institutions that invited all students to participate. A total of 979 students completed the survey, of whom 165 had participated in UR. This article analyzes responses from the 162 students who provided complete information on the survey items of interest.

Institutional Contexts

The survey instrument was deployed to four participating institutions, referred to as R1, R3, M1, and A&S. All schools are located in the United States and each is described, in brief, below.

R1 is a public doctoral university in the mid-Atlantic region. With a Carnegie classification of Highest Research Activity, this school has over 33,000 students enrolled each year and is primarily residential, with a 66.7% admissions rate and high percentage of transfer students from local community colleges.

R3 is private doctoral university in the Midwest region. This university differs from R1 in that it has a Moderate Research Activity Carnegie classification, a smaller enrollment (approximately 10,000), and an 86.6% admissions rate. R3 is also primarily residential, with majority undergraduate students, and is considered to be balanced in arts and sciences/professions.

M1 is a public master’s college with a medium student population (approximately 7,400) that is very high in undergraduate enrollment. Located in the northeast, this school is balanced in the arts and sciences/professions and has a 49% admissions rate and low transfer rate.

A&S is a private, small (approximately 1,700) baccalaureate college. As an arts and sciences focused university, A&S is also highly residential has a 64.5% admission rate and very low transfer rate. This university is located in the mid-south region.

Measures

Connection to major

Connection to major, the operationalization of disciplinary identity in this study was measured by students’ responses (ranging from 1 to 7) to the question: “To what degree do you feel like you fit in and belong to your academic department or major?”—with higher values reflecting more connection. Because of the skewness of the measure, we took the logarithm of this measure and included that as a continuous measure in our analysis.

Discipline

Students were asked to identify the discipline most closely aligned with their UR project by typing this information into a text box. We categorized students into either social (n = 72) or natural science (n = 90) based on this description, removing from the sample students whose projects were described as neither social nor natural science or as both social and natural science (n = 39). Although we do not have a direct measure of student major, we believe the performance of UR in a particular discipline is most likely to occur within a student’s discipline (or closely related one) and thus are confident about our use of this measure to capture student discipline.

Research motivations

Motivation for the project was constructed based upon student responses to a set of items asking why they participated in their project: intellectual interest or instrumental interest (e.g., needing research experience to be competitive for graduate school). We include motivation as a dummy variable with instrumental interest as the reference category. Grit, or perseverance and passion for long-term goals, was measured using an average of the Short Grit Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Duckworth et al., 2007), where higher values reflect more grit.

Social capital characteristics

Mentoring effectiveness was included as an average of 12 items, capturing behaviors exhibited by the mentor toward the student (e.g., “My mentor was helpful in providing direction and guidance on professional issues”). Higher values reflect reports of more frequent effective mentoring behaviors exhibited by the faculty mentor. First-generation status was included as a dummy variable (1 = yes), as was transfer status (1 = yes).

Sociodemographic characteristics

Gender was included as a dummy variable (1 = men), as was race (1 = White). Year in school was included as a categorical variable, combining first year and sophomores together, with juniors and seniors as distinct groups. Whether or not the student was a Pell Grant recipient was included as a dummy variable (1 = yes), as was disability status (1 = yes). Institution was included as a categorical variable. Table 1 provides a description of the sample.

Table 1.

Sample Statistics.

	Natural science		Social science
	M	SD	M	SD
Satisfaction with major	1.81	0.18	1.77	0.33
Motivated by intellectual interest (1 = yes)	0.48	0.50	0.72	0.46
Mentoring score	5.33	0.74	5.09	1.40
Grit	3.81	0.52	3.79	0.61
Race (1 = White)	0.79	0.41	0.72	0.45
Gender (1 = male)	0.49	0.50	0.22	0.42
Disability (1 = yes)	0.22	0.42	0.31	0.46
Transfer student (1 = yes)	0.11	0.32	0.13	0.33
Pell recipient (1 = yes)	0.24	0.43	0.33	0.47
First generation (1 = yes)	0.12	0.33	0.21	0.41
First year/sophomore	0.21	0.41	0.11	0.32
Junior	0.39	0.49	0.32	0.47
Senior	0.40	0.49	0.57	0.50
R1	0.01	0.11	0.14	0.35
R3	0.19	0.39	0.31	0.46
M1	0.26	0.44	0.25	0.44
A&S	0.54	0.50	0.31	0.46

Note. Sample: n =162; natural science: n = 90, social science: n = 72.

Analytic Strategy

We begin the analysis with an examination of the bivariate correlations across all variables of interest (see Table 2). Because of the small sample size, we use the correlations to guide our construction of multiple regression (ordinary least squares [OLS]) models where the logarithm of connection to major is regressed on factors found to be significantly correlated at the bivariate level. All analyses are performed separately for natural and social science students.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlation Coefficients.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)	(14)	(15)	(16)	(17)
1. Satisfaction with major		−.107	−.055	.322*	.154	−.023	−.071	.051	−.146	−.003	.084	−.186	.122	.043	−.050	−.139	.148
2. Intellectual interest	.221*		−.071	.084	.011	−.098	.227^†	.058	0	.103	.032	.112	−.126	−.096	.094	.018	−.039
3. Mentoring	.086	.226*		.006	−.050	.030	.002	.017	−.164	−.076	−.200^†	.057	.074	−.001	−.015	−.112	.121
4. Grit	.094	.137	.073		.084	−.170	−.177	−.015	−.008	.087	−.113	.116	−.038	.016	−.085	.023	.051
5. White	.143	−.050	−.136	.039		.033	.007	.047	−.219^†	−.293*	.022	−.041	.024	−.199^†	.007	−.072	.209^†
6. Male	−.044	−.179^†	−.085	−.341*	.125		.008	0	−.094	−.027	−.189	−.151	.262*	−.215^†	.153	.077	−.064
7. Disability	−.239*	.024	−.091	−.024	.015	−.095		.114	.107	−.043	.245*	.063	−.215^†	−.005	.018	.104	−.113
8. Transfer	−.033	.016	.049	−.225*	.010	.008	.066		.089	−.090	−.134	.011	.074	.334*	.023	−.218^†	−.068
9. Pell status	.018	.077	.117	−.172	−.339*	−.143	−.117	.128		.3627*	.031	.274*	−.278*	.057	.107	0	−.149
10. First generation	−.128	.051	.161	−.097	−.389*	−.093	.045	.084	.340*		.036	.162	−.176	−.008	−.043	.099	−.043
11. First year/sophomore	.109	.050	.174	.021	.067	.093	−.015	−.183^†	−.104	−.027		−.242	−.407	.114	.053	0	−.139
12. Junior	−.267*	−.033	−.107	−.056	−.258*	.086	.012	.153	−.029	−.019	−.413		−.788	−.103	−.131	.224^†	−.002
13. Senior	.175^†	−.009	−.039	.039	.200^†	−.163	0	0	.116	.042	−.422	−.651		.025	.090	−.211^†	.090
14. R1	.082	−.101	.048	−.220*	−.205^†	.108	−.057	−.037	.186^†	.284^†	.205*	−.085	−.087		−.266	−.232	−.266
15. R3	.011	−.064	−.042	.001	−.029	−.074	−.121	.010	−.208*	−.007	−.041	−.036	.070	−.051		−.383	−.440
16. M1	.011	.103	.053	.236*	−.134	.089	.116	.036	.082	−.063	.071	.055	−.114	−.062	−.283		−.383
17. A&S	−.036	−.018	−.024	−.161	.183^†	−.043	.006	−.032	.053	.001	−.073	−.003	.064	−.116	−.528	−.641

Note. Sample: n = 162; natural science: n = 90; social science: n = 72.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Findings

As shown in Table 2, there were few bivariate correlations between connection to major and human or social capital measures or demographic measures for either natural or social science students. Among natural science students, connection to major was correlated with pursuing the project due to intellectual interest, having a disability, and year in school. Among social science students, connection to major was correlated with grit.

We included only the statistically significant correlates from Table 2 in our multivariate models. In the results reported in Table 3, we find that the bivariate results are generally robust. That is, among natural science students, pursuing the project due to an intellectual interest is significantly and positively associated to reporting a higher level of connection to the major, net of other factors. Having a disability is significantly and negatively associated with reporting a higher level of connection to the major, net of other factors. There are modest differences by year in school among natural science students. Among social science students, grit is significantly and positively associated with reporting a higher level of connection to the major, net of other factors. In the multivariate model, small differences by year in school emerge. Among both sets of students, juniors report lower connection to their majors than do first year and sophomores who are engaged in UR. We performed sensitivity analyses to determine whether, despite no association at the bivariate level, institutional context was associated with level of connection to the major in the multivariate analysis or whether controlling for institutional context changed the significant correlations for either set of students. In results not shown here (but available upon request), we found no difference in the results reported in Table 3 once institutional context was controlled in our model.

Table 3.

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Undergraduate Researcher Satisfaction With Major or Discipline (Logged).

Variable	Natural science students	Social science students
Grit	.016 (.035)	.198* (.263)
Motivated by intellectual interest (1 = yes)	.077* (.036)	−.088 (.085)
Disability (1 = yes)	−.105* (.043)	.011 (.087)
Year in school
First year/sophomore	(Reference)	(Reference)
Junior	−.091^† (.049)	−.221^† (.132)
Senior	.006 (.048)	−.081 (.126)
Intercept	1.764*	1.193*
Model F	3.60*	2.76*
Adjusted R²	.127	.110

Note. Natural science: n = 90; social science: n = 72. Values in parentheses are standard errors.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Discussion

Developing a disciplinary identity or connection with a major is a key aspect of not only social belonging on a college campus but also a crucial component in developing a career trajectory after college. Our research has examined correlates of the development of a connection with the college major among students who have already shown a higher level of interest in disciplinary work through the performance of UR. In our examination of whether the correlates of connection to major differ across natural and social scientists, we found three key differences. First, pursuing the UR project because of intellectual interest (rather than instrumental interest) is positively correlated with reporting a connection to one’s major among natural scientists, where no such differences are found among social scientists. Overall, this is not surprising. Natural science students believe they must perform UR to be perceived as a well-prepared student for graduate and professional school (Pacifici & Thomson, 2011). Performing UR for instrumental reasons, that is, to be seen as a well-prepared candidate for graduate or professional school, is correlated with a reduction of connection to the major, as the major and the UR project are seen as a means to an end rather than ends unto themselves. Natural science students whose primary reason for choosing to perform their UR project was to answer an intellectually interesting question are potentially demonstrating an internalization of the norms of their discipline or major as an inquiry-based discipline and thus report feeling more connected to it. This is consistent with previous research that found that premed students who wanted to help people were more likely to engage in UR for intellectual rather than instrumental reasons (Pacifici & Thomson, 2011). The expectations of UR may not be present at the same levels for graduate or professional school among social science disciplines overall.

Second, grit, or the level of internal perseverance, is correlated with social science students’ level of connection to their major with no such correlation present for natural scientists, consistent with previous research. This correlation likely reflects the labor-intensive, private nature of the research process in most social science disciplines (Carney, 2016). Undergraduate researchers in social science disciplines are typically expected to perform independent capstone projects, requiring them to construct and implement research projects of their own design (see Hauhart & Grahe, 2010, for a comparison of sociology and psychology capstone experiences). There is certainly variation across disciplines in this practice (e.g., psychology students may join a faculty member’s lab and examine their own line of inquiry). However, the independent and private nature of these capstone projects likely requires students to draw upon their own internal perseverance because the projects are designed to demonstrate their competence as researchers within a discipline.

Finally, other key characteristics are important in structuring student connection to their major. Students with disabilities performing UR report lower levels of connection to their major, but only among natural scientists. It is likely that disabilities yield either a perceived or real barrier to feeling connected to one’s major and discipline among natural science undergraduate researchers. Disabilities were measured as physical, mental, or cognitive disabilities, meaning that this finding is not simply about students in wheelchairs needing better access to the lab bench. Instead, we believe that the prevalence of the “ideal worker”/“ideal researcher” within these fields is most likely the explanation for why natural science undergraduate researchers with a disability feel less connected to their major (Davis & Wagner, 2019).

We were surprised that juniors engaged in UR reported lower levels of connection to their major than did first year and sophomore students, a finding consistent across both social and natural science students. We believe this is likely due to a selection effect. Those students who are pursuing UR very early in their academic life course may have been engaged with work in their discipline and felt connected to their major prior to beginning their UR project. Longitudinal analyses of students that measures connection to the major beginning in the first semester of postsecondary instruction would clarify this relationship.

That there were no racial or gender differences in connection to major (see Table 2) was surprising. It is possible that the racial and gender differences in selecting students for participation in UR are at work in these findings, especially for race. Although women comprised half of our sample of students participating in UR, there were no differences by gender on disciplinary identity. Future research would benefit from interrogating the disciplinary-specific processes of identity construction to determine whether and how the selection process into UR plays a role in the identity construction process for women and underrepresented minorities in particular.

Conclusion

As the pathways to facilitate the development of a disciplinary identity through a student’s connection to their major differs between natural and social science students, recommendations for faculty and student development professionals also need to differentiate their approaches for these two groups. College and university officials working with natural science students should highlight the importance of UR as hands-on experience that is focused on intellectual discoveries. Although UR can be a pathway to graduate and professional school, especially among those in highly competitive science fields, encouraging students to see UR as contributing to the intellectual discourse of their major, where they become part of the conversation, will further develop their identity as a natural scientist.

Although it is common for students in natural science disciplines to join an existing research study (Craney et al., 2011), student and faculty interests may not always align, potentially resulting in the loss of a student’s intellectual interest in the project. To better foster this interest, and therefore connection to major, universities should encourage natural science students to participate in the shaping of the research question at the beginning of the project. By encouraging student input early on, mentors are able to emphasize UR as an intellectual endeavor, rather than a stepping stone, allowing students to grow not only research skills but also a connection to their discipline from the beginning of the process.

Students in social science disciplines seem to construct their professional identity as a researcher in their field when engaging in projects that activate their own grit, or internal perseverance. Social science programs would benefit, then, from making more visible the methods by which faculty members perform their research, as faculty are often using the same methods students are being asked to deploy. Faculty can serve as role models even when not serving in a direct mentoring relationship by including regular discussions about how they do their research in all classes (that is, not only those classes teaching research methods). Highlighting the internal perseverance of faculty researchers within the discipline may yield intellectual connections and professional support mechanisms for students when they are asked to conduct their own research project.

Our study contributes to the existing literature on student disciplinary identity development through connection to the college major, specifically comparing natural and social science students. Our findings suggest the need to work within disciplines and majors to cultivate student connection and construction of a disciplinary identity while recognizing the importance of selection effects that lead certain students into, or away from, particular majors. By directly housing some professional development college-to-career programming within disciplines, departments and programs can increase programmatic retention rates and potentially reduce the “leaky pipeline” (Blake-Beard et al., 2011; Espinosa, 2011; Girves et al., 2005; Winslow & Davis, 2016) within STEM disciplines.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the American Sociological Association Carla B. Howery Teaching Enhancement Fund to the first author.

ORCID iD

Shannon N. Davis

Author Biographies

Shannon N. Davis is a professor of sociology at George Mason University. Her research focuses on the reproduction of gender inequality in institutions, in particular within families and higher education, as well as the construction and maintenance of beliefs about gender (gender ideologies). In addition to numerous publications in scholarly journals (such as the Journal of Family Issues; Marriage & Family Review; Community, Work, & Family; Sex Roles; and Research in Social Stratification and Mobility) she is coauthor (with Theodore Greenstein) of Methods of Family Research (3rd ed., Sage) and co-editor (with Sarah Winslow and David Maume) of Gender in the Twenty-First Century: The Stalled Revolution and the Road to Equality (University of California Press).

Sarah E. Wagner holds a bachelor’s degree in sociology from George Mason University. As an undergraduate, her coursework focused on areas of inequality and social change. She also conducted research focusing on reproductive health, specifically how stigma is reinforced and resisted, and the experience of undergraduate researchers. She currently works in social policy research related to education, health, nutrition, and family support.

References

Adedokun

O. A.

Dyehouse

Bassenbacher

Burgess

(2010, April 30-May 4). Exploring faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of mentoring undergraduate research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Armstrong

E. A.

Hamilton

L. T.

(2013). Paying for the party: How college maintains inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Aschbacher

P. R.

Roth

E. J.

(2010). Is science me? High school students’ identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 564-582. doi:10.1002/tea.20353

Bean

J. P.

(2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In Seidman

(Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-243). Westport, CT: American Council on Education.

Behar-Horenstein

L. S.

Roberts

K. W.

Dix

A. C.

(2010). Mentoring undergraduate researchers: An exploratory study of students’ and professors’ perceptions. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18, 269-291.

Blake-Beard

Bayne

M. L.

Crosby

F. J.

Muller

C. B.

(2011). Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 622-643. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01717.x

Boyer

E. L.

(1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Carney

(2016). All lives matter, but so does race. Humanity & Society, 40, 180-199. doi:10.1177/0160597616643868

Craney

McKay

Mazzeo

Morris

Prigodich

de Groot

(2011). Cross-discipline perceptions of the undergraduate research experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 82, 92-113.

10.

Davis

S. N.

Wagner

S. E.

(2019). Social and human capital influences on undergraduate researchers’ disciplinary identity: The case of social and natural scientists. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 2(3), 35-44.

11.

Duckworth

A. L.

Peterson

Matthews

M. D.

Kelly

D. R.

(2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087

12.

Duckworth

A. L.

Quinn

P. D.

(2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802634290

13.

Espinosa

(2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 209-241. doi:10.17763/haer.81.2.92315ww157656k3u

14.

Farmer-Hinton

R. L.

Adams

T. L.

(2006). Social capital and college preparation: Exploring the role of counselors in a college prep school for black students. Negro Educational Review, 57, 101-116.

15.

Felder

R. M.

(2010). The link between teaching and research—Does it exist? Chemical Engineering Education, 44, 109-110.

16.

Flum

Kaplan

(2006). Exploratory orientation as an educational goal. Educational Psychologist, 41, 99-110. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_3

17.

Girves

J. E.

Zepeda

Gwathmey

J. K.

(2005). Mentoring in a post-affirmative action world. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 449-479. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00416.x

18.

Hauhart

R. C.

Grahe

J. E.

(2010). The undergraduate capstone course in the social sciences: Results from a regional survey. Teaching Sociology, 38(1), 4-17.

19.

Hazari

Sonnert

Sadler

P. M.

Shanahan

M.-C.

(2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 978-1003. doi:10.1002/tea.20363

20.

Hooker

Brand

(2010). College knowledge: A critical component of college and career readiness. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010(127), 75-85. doi:10.1002/yd.364

21.

Hunter

A.-B.

Laursen

S. L.

Seymour

(2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91, 36-74. doi:10.1002/sce.20173

22.

Kardash

C. M.

(2000). Evaluation of undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 191-201. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.191

23.

Kinkead

(2003). Learning through inquiry: An overview of undergraduate research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003(93), 5-18. doi:10.1002/tl.85

24.

Kuh

G. D.

Cruce

T. M.

Shoup

Kinzie

Gonyea

R. M.

(2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540-563.

25.

Laursen

Hunter

A.-B.

Seymour

Thiry

Melton

(2010). Undergraduate research in the sciences: Engaging students in real science (Vol. 1). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Lei

S. A.

Chuang

N.-K.

(2009). Undergraduate research assistantship: A comparison of benefits and costs from faculty and students’ perspectives. Education, 130, 232-240.

27.

Levenson

C. W.

(2010). Enhancing undergraduate research in the arts and the humanities. Peer Review, 12(2), 13-15.

28.

Linn

M. C.

Palmer

Baranger

Gerard

Stone

(2015). Undergraduate research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347(6222), 1261757. doi:10.1126/sci ence.1261757

29.

Lopatto

(2010). Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience. Peer Review, 12(2), 27-30.

30.

Mahatmya

Morrison

Jones

R. M.

Garner

P. W.

Davis

S. N.

Manske

Ditty

(2017). Pathways to undergraduate research experiences: A multi-institutional study. Innovative Higher Education, 425-6, 491-504.

31.

Margolis

Fisher

Miller

(2000). The anatomy of interest: Women in undergraduate computer science. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 28, 104-127. doi:10.2307/40004448

32.

Merkel

C. A.

(2003). Undergraduate research at the research universities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003 (93), 39-54. doi:10.1002/tl.87

33.

Merkel

C. A.

Baker

S. M.

(2002). How to mentor undergraduate researchers. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

34.

Osborn

J. M.

Karukstis

K. M.

(2009). The benefits of undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative activity. In Boyd

Wesemann

(Eds.), Broadening participation in Undergraduate Research: Fostering Excellence and Enhancing the Impact (pp. 41-53). Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.

35.

Pacifici

L. B.

Thomson

(2011). Undergraduate science research: A comparison of influences and experiences between premed and non-premed students. Life Sciences Education, 102, 199-208.

36.

Palmer

R. J.

Hunt

A. N.

Neal

Wuetherick

(2015). Mentoring, undergraduate research, and identity development: A conceptual review and research agenda. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 23, 411-426. doi:10.1080/13611267.2015.1126165

37.

Palmer

R. T.

Maramba

D. C.

(2015). The impact of social capital on the access, adjustment, and success of Southeast Asian American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 56, 45-60. doi:10.1353/csd.2015.0007

38.

Perez

Cromley

J. G.

Kaplan

(2014). The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 315-329. doi:10.1037/a0034027

39.

Perna

L. W.

Titus

M. A.

(2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 485-518.

40.

Potter

S. J.

Abrams

Townson

Williams

J. E.

(2009). Mentoring undergraduate researchers: Faculty mentors’ perceptions of the challenges and benefits of the research relationship. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 6(6), 17-30.

41.

Robnett

R. D.

Chemers

M. M.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

(2015). Longitudinal associations among undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 847-867. doi:10.1002/tea.21221

42.

Seymour

Hunter

A.-B.

Laursen

S. L.

DeAntoni

(2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88, 493-534. doi:10.1002/sce.10131

43.

Smith

J. L.

Deemer

E. D.

Thoman

D. B.

Zazworsky

(2014). Motivation under the microscope: Understanding undergraduate science students’ multiple motivations for research. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 496-512. doi:10.1007/s11031-013-9388-8

44.

Wilson

Howitt

Wilson

Roberts

(2012). Academics’ perceptions of the purpose of undergraduate research experiences in a research-intensive degree. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 513-526. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.527933

45.

Winslow

Davis

S. N.

(2016). Gender inequality across the academic life course. Sociology Compass, 10, 404-416. doi:10.1111/soc4.12372

Research Motivations and Undergraduate Researchers’ Disciplinary Identity

Abstract

Keywords

Background and Literature Review

Method

Data

Institutional Contexts

Measures

Connection to major

Discipline

Research motivations

Social capital characteristics

Sociodemographic characteristics

Analytic Strategy

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References