UCLA

Severe inequities for underrepresented student groups (URGs) in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) fields has remained a topic of national concern for several decades. Research has demonstrated the efficacy of STEMM intervention programs (SIPs) in addressing disparate STEMM outcomes. However, there is a dearth of research that has examined the process of developing, implementing, and sustaining programs. Using a multiple case study approach and organizational theory, this study tracks the life cycle of the Chancellor’s Science Scholars program at UNC-Chapel Hill and the Millennium Scholars Program at Penn State (University Park), two SIPs modeled after the nationally successful Meyerhoff Scholars Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. This study provides campuses with important practical and theoretical implications regarding distinct phases of SIPs.

Results demonstrate that unique challenges emerge at each phase of the life cycle, requiring programs to employ multiple strategies to find success. At the implementation phase, campuses navigated logistical challenges determining program placement, setting up a funding model, and integrating into the existing ecosystem of programs and diversity initiatives. Additionally, the cultural contours of UNC-Chapel Hill and Penn State, two predominantly white research-intensive universities, were at odds with the Meyerhoff program features derived from an HBCU model. Addressing these cultural challenges required several adaptations to the model leading to unintended consequences but also some that enhanced diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Sustainability was achieved through garnering buy-in and commitment from organizational members across, and at multiple levels, of the institution. Additionally, programs were sustained through: shifts in their organizational placement and funding models, helping to advance their institutions’ espoused DEI goals, and demonstrating their value through programmatic assessment. Using organizational theory, the study moves away from conceptualizing institutionalization as simply moving from grant-funding to institutional funding, to understanding institutionalization as a multidimensional process on a spectrum that is linked to organizational change. Results from this study provide a nuanced and meaningful contribution to the study of SIPs, allowing campuses to use this work as a guide to advance culturally responsive and strengths-based programs through distinct stages of the program life cycle.