Research at Historically Black and Tribal Colleges Report

Introduction

To this day, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) remain underrepresented in critical areas of research, particularly, those related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Furthermore, they are not very well represented in various research-related national programs, for example, the INCLUDES National Network, as compared to Historically White Institutions (HWIs). In a similar way, the Quality Education for Minorities Network (QEM) reports that the National Science Foundation (NSF) Broadening Participation Research Award does not have many representatives from HBCUs and TCUs with the 2016 portfolio including only five projects by HBCUs and no TCU participation. As a result, the efforts that aim to reduce this disparity are justified.

One of such efforts is the “National Summit to Survey and Stimulate Broadening Participation Research at Historically Black and Tribal Colleges and Universities.” It had a focus on African Americans and Native Americans, therefore, predominantly involving HBCUs and TCUs. The Summit was dedicated to broadening participation (BP) in STEM for HBCU and TCU students, and its primary goal was to communicate the existing knowledge on this topic and promote future research on it. The objectives of the Summit were summarized through the Quad-C framework, which incorporated Convening and Connecting educational researchers from HBCUs and TCUs, Collecting data from them that would be helpful in determining strategies on BP, and Conveying the results to the HBCU and TCU communities.

The first three Cs from the Quad-C framework were covered by working with nationally recognized specialists in the field of HBCU and TCU research, as well as conducting research on minority education. The specialists were engaged in focus groups and surveys, and they provided their expert advice and shared critical experiences and insights on the Summit’s topics with QEM collecting and analyzing the resulting data. In addition, QEM reported investigating the existing studies on the topic for at least a year preceding the Summit. This investigation involved 23 articles published in journals, as well as reports and policy papers that discussed the practices which are currently considered to be the best ones for the improvement of minority representation in STEM research. QEM found gaps in the studied research, as well as some crucial issues that became the topic of the Summit.

Consequently, the final C of the framework included launching the Summit and conveying the findings to the representatives of HBCUs and TCUs who visited it. The goal was to deliver this information to the broader community and promote the development of HBCU/TCU STEM research and cooperation with NSF. The Summit took two days in March 2019; it was hosted by a hotel in Alexandria, VA. The anticipated outcomes included the development of STEM talents in HBCUs and TCUs and enhancing leadership in such institutions. The Summit also incorporated a self-assessment system that included a feedback survey.

The present report will use the data from the Summit’s proposal, its feedback survey, and the notes of the session participants to provide details about the insights and lessons that one can extract from the event. The rest of the report will be structured as follows. First, the survey’s findings will be summarized, including the information about the attendees, their feedback concerning their experiences during the Summit, and their reported future plans that may have been affected by the Summit. Then, the session notes will be reported and summarized to find important lessons that the participants learned from the Summit. Finally, conclusions will be drawn, and recommendations for different stakeholders who can promote STEM research in HBCUs and TCUs will be offered.

Lessons Learned

Institutions and Participants: Characteristics

Multiple-choice questions from the survey determined the characteristics of the Summit’s participants. A total of 55 respondents from various HBCUs and TCUS responded to the survey. The educational institutions were not represented equally; for example, the Texas Southern University and the Xavier University of LA sent five people, but many universities, including Alabama State University or Oakland University, only managed to send one representative. Also, while the Summit’s initiators apparently anticipated working with the representatives of the University of Memphis, none of them managed to attend or respond to the survey. A detailed table with the participants’ affiliations is presented below (see Table 1).

Table 2 demonstrates that the majority of the participants (40 people) were assistant, associate, or full professors; also, three instructors were present. In comparison to these numbers, the administrators who attended the Summit do not appear to be very numerous, but they were still represented among the attendees. Table 3 details the responses that did not fit the options provided by the survey.

The participants were also instructed to report the number of years that they have spent working with their current institution (see Table 4). Mostly, people with up to nine years of experience were present; 29.09% (16 people) reported having less than five years of experience, and 27.27% (15 people) stated that they had worked in their then-current institution for a period between five and nine years. Almost 44% of the respondents had more experience than that with 10.91% (six people) reporting 10-14 years, and 14.55% (eight people) reporting 15-19 years. Five people, which amounted to 9.09%, have been working for 20-24 years with their current institution, and the same number of participants stated having 25 or more years of experience with their organization. Thus, the majority of the participants had more than five years of experience with their HBCU or TCU, which implies that they could understand the challenges and opportunities present for HBCUs and TCUs.

The Impressions of the Participants

Multiple questions from the survey were meant to determine the impressions that the participants had after the Summit. Mostly, the survey attempted to gather the data about the most and least successful elements of the event and find out what potential for improvement it had. It should be noted that some participants did not respond to some of the questions, which may affect the percentages that are going to be reported here. However, in the absolute majority of cases, the Summit’s attendees were able to respond.

Expanding Knowledge

The first question that was intended to gather the participants’ opinions presented them with specific statements that they could agree or disagree with using a Likert scale-based system. The system included five options: “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “agree,” and “strongly agree.” This scale or similar ones will be used in the majority of the following questions as well.

It should also be noted that the Summit intended to expand the participants’ knowledge with respect to six particular areas, and these areas were included in the question. The first one focused on the current state of BP research at HBCUs and TCUs. The second one covered the data on the gaps that could be found in STEM education research when HBCU and TCU students were concerned. The third one described the expansion of knowledge related to HBCU/TCU roles in STEM research, especially with respect to conducting it and building the institutions’ capacity for conducting it. The fourth one involved collaboration-building with a focus on STEM researchers that were affiliated with HBCUs or TCUs. The fifth option represented the knowledge regarding the translation of research findings into practice; the Summit also included the dissemination of findings into this option. Finally, the topic of telling HBCU/TCU stories to diverse audiences was considered. Thus, the participants were asked to check these areas of knowledge and determine if the Summit had provided them with any new information.

The responses suggest that the absolute majority of the attendees expanded their knowledge with the help of the Summit. Thus, 43 people (or about 78% of the attendees) strongly agreed with the idea that the Summit helped them to learn more about current BP research conducted at HBCUs and TCU. Forty-one (75%) people felt the same way about the information on collaboration building between STEM researchers at HBCUs and TCUs. Forty (72%) people received similarly significant knowledge regarding HBCU and TCU roles in STEM education research.

Thirty-three attendees (61%) strongly agreed with the idea that they learned a lot about telling their stories, 30 (55%) people commented in a similar way about the gaps that existed in STEM education research with respect to HBCUs and TCUs, and 29 people (54%) felt that they learned a lot about the process of translating research to practice. A slightly lesser degree of approval was expressed by nine individuals (16%) with respect to BP research, 17 people (30%) regarding STEM research gaps, 13 people (24%) concerning HBCU/TCU roles, 10 people (18%) regarding collaborations, 22 people (41%) concerning findings translation to practice, and 17 people (31.48%) with respect to telling HBCU/TCU stories.

Few people chose to disagree with the idea that the Summit affected their knowledge in the mentioned areas. Only two people chose the option “disagree.” One of them implied that the Summit did not expand their knowledge on the gaps in STEM research when applied to HBCU/TCU, and the other one found no new information regarding storytelling. However, more people chose to strongly disagree with the idea that the Summit expanded their knowledge. Three people (5.45%) stated that they did not receive any new information regarding HBCU/TCU BP research. One person (1.82%) felt the same way about the information regarding the gaps in STEM research as applied to HBCUs/TCUs. Two people (3.64%) commented in the same way on the HBCU/TCU roles in STEM education research, collaboration-building, and research-to-practice translation each. Finally, one more person stated that they did not receive any new data on storytelling.

Regarding the people who remained unsure, two people did not assess their experience positively or negatively for both collaboration-building and storytelling. Also, one person was not certain about the expansion of their knowledge with respect to findings-to-practice translation. Six people were unsure when it came to the data provided on the STEM gaps.

The summarized findings demonstrate the following. First of all, the Summit was predominantly successful in disseminating new information among attendees. Mostly, attendees either agreed or strongly agreed that the event expanded their knowledge. Three people disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement with respect to the information provided on current BP research; for the rest of the areas, only two people expressed disappointment with the provided data. Also, most attendees could assess their experience as either a positive or a negative one. It is difficult to claim that the Summit was particularly successful in any respect, but the current BP research, HBCU/TCU roles, and collaboration elements appear to have been assessed very positively especially often.

The Value of Different Kinds of Activities

The next question also used a Likert scale, and it was applied to different types of activities that were present throughout the Summit. The respondents were asked to assess them depending on their value. Thus, the scale consisted of the following options: “extremely invaluable,” “somewhat invaluable,” “neither valuable nor invaluable,” “somewhat valuable,” and “extremely valuable.” The activities included plenary, roundtable, and sampler sessions, as well as panel discussions held by NSF/INCLUDES grantees or funders. In addition, the questionnaire asked the participants to evaluate the networking opportunities presented by the Summit, which was not exactly a direct activity but rather a part of the rest of the described opportunities.

The reception of the plenary sessions was mostly positive but with some exceptions. Thus, 33 people (60%) were viewed them as extremely valuable, and 15 people (27.3%) found at least some value in them. However, one person (1.82%) remained unsure, one more person described them as somewhat not valuable, and four people (7.27%) stated that they were not valuable at all. Similar patterns could be observed for roundtable sessions. The majority of the attendees viewed them as either extremely or somewhat valuable (31 and 19 people or 56% and 35%). However, one person could not assess them, two people (3.64%) viewed them as not very valuable, and two more people considered them not valuable at all.

With sampler sessions, more people remained unsure: six attendees (10.9%) could not decide whether they were valuable or not. Furthermore, one person described them as not very valuable, and two more viewed them as not valuable at all. However, 20 attendees (36.36%) considered them to be somewhat valuable, and the rest (26 people or 47.27%) stated that they were extremely valuable.

Furthermore, both panel discussions received noticeable support, and those by NSF/INCLUDES grantees were especially favored. Indeed, 40 people (74%) described them as extremely useful, and nine more (16.67%) stated that they were somewhat valuable. However, one person was unsure, one person found the discussions not very valuable, and two more people described them as not valuable at all.

With funders’ discussions, 35 people were extremely satisfied (63.64%), and ten were somewhat satisfied (18.18%). However, four people could not describe these discussions as valuable or not, and two people considered them somewhat not valuable. Finally, two more people deemed them extremely nonvaluable. The networking opportunities were positively assessed by the greatest number of people: 42 of the attendees (76.36%) considered them to be extremely valuable. Seven more people (12.73%) also described them as somewhat valuable. However, four people assessed them as extremely nonvaluable, and one person viewed them as somewhat nonvaluable. Also, one person could not decide on their assessment.

To summarize, all activities received positive assessments by most attendees, but each of them was described in a negative way by at least some participants. Also, networking opportunities and discussions were more positively viewed than sessions, especially sampler sessions. Sampler sessions appeared to render the most attendees confused as to how to assess them. Based on this question, all activities appear to have been relatively well-chosen and suited the Summit and its goals.

While the question focused on the Likert scale, it also offered an opportunity for leaving comments, which a minority of the participants did provide. Their analysis can result in the following conclusions. The plenary sessions section received seven comments, two of which were purely positive, stating that the presentations were “good” and provided “a wealth of information.” The rest of the comments made suggestions for improvement. One of the participants pointed out that the sessions replicated some of the information. Three participants noted that the lack of interaction was a weakness of this activity format; one of them proposed making workshop-based presentations, and another one suggested that more opportunities for questions and answers would have been an improvement. Two of the participants also commented that the sessions had too much information; one of them termed them “exhausting” as a result. Five of the comments had something positive to note about the sessions, and two focused on providing some advice.

Eleven comments were written in the roundtable sessions section. Nine of them were purely positive. Two participants stated that they “loved” the sessions, and one more described them as “one of the highlights of the Summit for me.” The respondents felt that the discussions were informative and provided possibilities for learning and discovering new perspectives. Furthermore, the participants commented on the opportunity for meeting, sharing, discussing, and cooperating as an advantage of the activity. One of the participants noted that the discussions followed the plenary sessions, which enabled interaction with the speakers. Also, one attendee commented that the discussions that were solution-focused were the ones he or she loved the most. One more person specifically stated that this activity was the most valuable one.

In addition, two participants provided criticisms of the roundtable sessions and the questionnaire. The first one stated that the prompts for the discussions were not sufficiently specific and suggested that making them dedicated to only one question (rather than several questions) would have been better. One more participant was confused about the terminology used in the Likert scale. Indeed, “invaluable” and “valuable” are synonyms, which is why it would be logical to modify the questionnaire in the future.

The sampler sessions received fourteen comments, which was the greatest number of comments dedicated to an activity. Four of them were positive with the participants praising the value of the sessions in that they provided important information about understanding grants, their potential weaknesses, and future possibilities. However, the rest of the participants focused on possible improvements. Two people noted that the sessions were overloaded with information; two suggested that more time was needed for each session. A few people commented on technical problems, including the difficulty in hearing the presenters or the lack of forewarning regarding the assignment of attendees to particular sessions. Two people suggested that a different organization of sessions could help; in particular, they proposed building them around a specific theme. One participant stated that a poster session could work better, and one proposed using roundtable discussions instead.

The section for the panel discussions with grantees received the smallest number of comments. Two participants provided positive feedback; one of them noted that he or she “loved” the activity, and one stated that it was informative and prompted him or her to decide to apply for a grant. One more person suggested providing more opportunities for interacting with the grantees, especially in one-on-one discussions. Thus, only three comments were dedicated to this activity. Funders’ discussions were commented on by seven attendees. One of them honestly stated that they missed the activity, which was why they could not assess it. One more person commented that the panel was extremely helpful; the rest made improvement suggestions. Two people stated that an opportunity to talk to funders after the panel would have been beneficial. Also, one more stated that more time would make the activity better, and another person suggested including more diverse funding agencies in the future. Finally, one person noted that he or she could not determine if any of the funders could be applicable to his or her institution, but they pointed out that they could research the topic on their own.

The networking opportunities received thirteen comments, which was a relatively large number. Nine of them were purely positive comments; attendees noted that the environment of the Summit was “conducive to establishing relationships.” Four respondents stated that the Summit helped them to meet new people, and two of them briefly described plans for future collaboration. One participant also pointed out that the atmosphere was informal, which was good for interaction. Four participants made suggestions for improvement. Two of them stated that the majority of the attendees mostly sat in specific groups that did not change over time; they proposed regularly moving the name tags to enable cooperation and interaction between more people. One participant noted the lack of time and suggested adding a poster session to rectify the issue, and one more person also disliked the lack of time while pointing out that more network opportunities could be introduced.

To summarize, the open-ended part of the question provided additional insights, especially about the weaker aspects of the different activities. It might not have fully explained why certain individuals liked or disliked a particular activity since the questionnaire was anonymous, and the responses could not be matched. However, it showed that people were enthusiastic about the Summit and its opportunities but not oblivious to its flaws. Other questions from the questionnaire provided more insights into the weaker parts of the Summit.

Overall Rating

The next question was aimed at determining the rating of different aspects of the Summit. The Likert scale used for that purpose consisted of the following five options: “poor,” “fair,” “good,” “very good,” and “excellent.” The aspects of the Summit that were assessed included the organization, goals, materials, and duration. Also, the participants were asked to provide the overall rating of the whole event. The feedback was extremely positive, and only a few negative assessments were made.

The organization was evaluated first, and 39 people (71%) described it as excellent. Eleven more people (20%) termed it as very good, four people (7.27%) thought that it was good, and one person (1.82%) viewed it as fair. Nobody assessed the Summit’s organization as poor. Regarding the goals and their clarity, no person described them as poor or fair. Five people (9.09%) viewed them as good, 18 (32.73%) considered them to be very good, and the rest (32 people or 58.18%) stated that they were excellent. Similarly, nobody considered the materials provided for the Summit to be poor or fair; five people described them as good, and twelve (21.82%) as very good. Thirty-eight people (69.09%) assessed them as excellent.

The length of the Summit received the most negative feedback. One person (1.82%) described it as poor, and three people (5.45%) considered it to be fair. Nine attendees (16.36%) believed it to be good, 21 people (28.18%) described it as very good, and the rest (21 more people) viewed it as excellent. Finally, the overall rating of the Summit was extremely positive. Only one person stated that it was good; 17 people (30.91%) responded by describing it as very good, and 37 attendees (67.27%) assessed it as excellent. Therefore, the Summit was largely positively received. The organization and materials were described as especially well-prepared. Basically, the only aspect of the Summit that was really problematic was its duration, which implies that the participants wanted more of it.

The Most Valuable Aspect of the Summit

Several open-ended questions were intended to gather some more detailed and specific information about the participants’ experiences. One of them asked the attendees to state which aspect of the Summit proved to be the most valuable one to them. Almost every participant responded; a total of 54 responses were collected. Some of them specified the activity that they considered to be the most useful one; such responses included sampler sessions (one person), plenary sessions (two people), and roundtable discussions (one person). Also, at least five people mentioned the opportunity to learn from grantees and funders, which can be viewed as a reference to the panels. In addition, the opportunities for discussion and collaboration were mentioned in direct or indirect ways in at least forty responses. Since the questionnaire views networking as a separate activity, it can also be included in this section as the most valuable one for the majority of the participants. In other words, a number of people considered the Summit’s activities to be its most valuable aspect.

Furthermore, the participants considered the outcomes to be very valuable. As it was mentioned, 40 people commented on collaboration opportunities in one way or another, and at least two of them stated that they had seized those opportunities by forging relationships with potential contributors. Secondly, many participants commented on the informative nature of the Summit. At least 23 people directly stated that they learned something new, and this aspect of the Summit became the most valuable one for them. The topics that they discovered new things about included BP research, collaboration, funding opportunities, the roles of HBCUs and TCUs, and cultural factors in research. Thus, the participants viewed the Summit as valuable because of its activities, opportunities, and positive outcomes, which included collaboration and information dissemination.

The Least Valuable Aspect of the Summit

In order to determine potential routes for improvement, the Summit also inquired the participants about its least valuable aspect. Twenty-eight people either did not respond to this question or chose to state that nothing about the Summit could be considered not valuable. Some people were apologetic about having to label an aspect as the least valuable one. For example, one person wrote that the sample sessions “definitely” had value but were the least valuable activity as compared to the other ones. Therefore, it can be suggested that some attendees might have been reluctant to provide their feedback in response to this question because it used a word with a negative connotation that implied the lack of value in something.

However, the rest of the attendees did respond by specifying something that they did not like about the Summit. Here, it can be mentioned that some respondents did not focus on the least valuable element but instead stated a flaw or a disadvantage of the Summit. Thus, one person noted that the breakfast did not include any protein, which cannot be considered the least valuable element of the Summit. Similarly, two people stated that the Summit was overscheduled, and two more individuals suggested that more time was required, particularly for interaction. One person wrote that the last Friday session had too many activities. Two more people pointed out the flaws of particular activities; one of them suggested that four-minute presentations needed a different format (have greater length), and the other stated that it was difficult to hear certain presentations. All these comments are important to consider, even though they do not respond to the stated question.

Regarding the answers to the question, they were predominantly focused on particular activities. Two people stated that reporting the information about funding that was already published was not necessary. Another one noted that sampler sessions were less valuable because they were too general and did not offer an improved understanding of BP research. One attendee believed that the group discussions had some redundant information, which made them less valuable. Another one stated that lectures were less valuable than more active learning approaches.

One more individual described personal narratives as insightful but not very valuable and proposed using more workshops. Sampler sessions were described by one person as not very valuable because it was “difficult to keep them straight.” Also, three people did not explain their choice and simply stated that specific activities (the sampler sessions, discussions on research design, and abstract presentations) were not valuable to them. Thus, many of the respondents felt the need to justify their criticisms by explaining why they considered something not valuable and making suggestions for improvement. This tendency further demonstrates the participants’ reluctance to answer a question with a clearly negative descriptor in it. In general, however, the responses demonstrated that certain aspects of the Summit could be criticized and could potentially be improved either through organizational changes or by altering the activities themselves.

Recommended Improvements

The next question required the participants to offer recommendations and propose improvements for future Summits by QEM. Fifty-two attendees responded, but fourteen of them stated that they did not want to improve anything. Sometimes, they added motivational, positive comments describing the Summit as an “excellent event” and asking QEM to “keep up the good work.” The rest of the responses contained some suggestions, however, and they will be summarized here.

Multiple comments were concerned with organizational aspects, and at least seventeen of them touched upon the time and scheduling issue in one way or another. Specifically, the participants were dissatisfied with the duration of breaks, including those meant for meals, the tightly packed schedule, and the long days that lasted 10-12 hours. Suggestions for resolving the issue included simply restricting the schedule with more breaks and fewer activities or adding a day but keeping the same number of hours and activities. In general, the participants pointed out that the Summit had very tiring and difficult days and recommended changing his aspect of it. Other organizational issues included changes in the menu (adding more protein), finding a better way of communicating the names of the speakers to the audience, and providing participants with some more detailed information about the schedules, as well as offering them more time to prepare for the Summit. Two people suggested that paper materials could be complemented by or substituted with electronic ones.

Furthermore, opportunity suggestions were offered. Thus, at least fourteen people commented on the need for expanding communication and interaction opportunities. Two of them proposed more structured ones; another one suggested that using meals for networking was a possibility. Several people commented on the need to engage HBCU and TCU representatives to a greater extent; one of them believed that more administrators were needed, and the other one considered it essential to involve younger people. Collaboration and roundtable sessions were proposed.

Also, people suggested adding more opportunities for talking with NSF representatives, grantees, and various regional organizations and institutions. One individual offered brainstorming activities, and another one stated that a “speed dating” networking activity could be introduced to foster communication. A few suggestions about the removal of certain elements were also made. Thus, one person proposed removing sampler sessions, and another one also suggested substituting them with poster-based ones. Finally, one person proposed adding poster sessions and a cocktail hour for the ending of the Summit or its days.

Additional Comments

The final question of the questionnaire was meant to offer the participants the opportunity to provide any other comments they might have had. The question explicitly pointed out that any additional ideas or suggestions would be welcome in these responses as well. Forty-three people left comments, but thirteen of them just stated that they did not have anything else to say. Many attendees thanked QEM and once again commented on the positive qualities of the Summit. At least eight comments were thankful, and 17 comments included some sort of positive feedback. Among other things, the Summit was described as “excellent” and “wonderful,” and QEM was commended for doing a “great job.”

Some suggestions were made as well. One of the attendees praised QEM’s approach to name tents, which made it easy to find particular participants, and suggested that it was possible to include some information about their current projects for collaboration purposes. One person asked for more examples of funding and competition, and another one stated that they wanted to learn more about TCUs. Two attendees proposed more sessions with funding agencies, and another one generally supported the idea of more opportunities for networking. One more person suggested that the Summit materials need to be made available, and two people recommended involving junior faculty to a greater extent.

Some participants also offered to explore additional topics, including quantitative and qualitative research, community improvement, and teaching process enhancement. Finally, one person shared their future plans: they stated that they would like to cooperate with QEM in organizing a workshop. In summary, some of the attendees used this open-ended question to leave some more insightful suggestions.

Post-Summit Plans of the Participants

Two of the survey questions were designed to find out if the Summit had any impact on participants. In particular, they were geared toward determining the plans of the attendees for future actions related to BP in STEM research. First, 53 of the respondents (96.36%) stated that the Summit resulted in them becoming interested in developing partnerships; only three people did not feel that way. Furthermore, the survey asked about more specific partnership plans; one open-ended question invited the attendees to name the institutions that they wanted to recruit as a partner. Forty-eight people responded to this question, which means that five people who intended to develop partnerships did not wish to share their plans. Also, among the respondents, three stated that they could not decide on the specific institution, one reported that they would like to cooperate with all other institutions, and four merely responded that they wanted to work with TCUs or HBCUs in general.

Four participants pointed out that they intended to choose institutions that would fit their requirements. One of them highlighted the importance of having similar project ideas and “passion,” and one focused on the distance issue, specifying the feasible distance between their own institution and potential partners. Two more attendees discussed specific research interests and pointed out that they wanted to cooperate with institutions that supported them. Thus, at least some of the attendees explained the reasons for their attention to particular institutions. The rest, however, simply named individual HBCUs or TCUs they planned to cooperate with. One of the participants commented that they have already exchanged business cards with the representatives of the institutions that were of interest to them.

Thus, the open-ended question helped to clarify the plans of some of the participants, demonstrating their commitment to future cooperation and partnerships. In addition, it provided some data on the factors that HBCU and TCU representatives consider before forging relationships with other institutions. Apparently, they include similar research interests and ideas, as well as the circumstances that can facilitate or hinder cooperation. Both questions also showed that the Summit succeeded in achieving some of its desired outcomes, including the promotion of STEM research in HBCUs and TCUs with the help of cooperation.

Participant Insights

The Summit involved multiple activities, and they included, among other things, different kinds of sessions. Discussion sessions involved attendees being assigned to groups or “tables” and participating in discussions that covered particular questions. During the latter, the participants made notes, which summarized the content of the information found during their discussions by their table. Having obtained such notes from several attendees, the present report will offer a review of the participants’ insights. The names of the individuals will not be stated to preserve their anonymity, but the results will be summarized for each session, and the conclusions regarding the key areas of knowledge disseminated by the Summit will also be provided.

Session 1

The first session involved the consideration of very numerous questions, and some of the participants reported that they did not manage to cover them all in time. However, the review of all notes allows answering more or less all of them; also, some of the questions were eventually covered by the second session, and the related responses will be reviewed in the subsection dedicated to it. In general, the questions of the first and the second sessions overlapped a little, but the first one was predominantly devoted to the overview of research on BP.

The first question that was covered by the first session was concerned with metrics for the success and effectiveness of HBCUs and TCUs, especially when compared to HWIs. Responses included a number of suggestions. First, it was recognized that HBCUs, TCUs, and any other minority-serving institutions could need specific metrics, especially given the fact that minority students are typically very diverse and might encounter rather particular difficulties and challenges. Thus, it was proposed that HBCU and TCU successes should be acknowledged in specific ways with a broader understanding of what success means.

First, a focus on research rather than graduation and retention was offered; for example, a participant suggested that the highest-producing PhDs could be a good metric. Other performance-connected recommendations included the tracking of the number of institutions’ publications, talks, presentations, and, in general, research conducted. Also, checking undergraduate research programs was offered as a metric. The latter suggestion appears to focus on assessing an institution’s ability to promote research rather than research conducted. An assessment of the faculty’s understanding of grant procedures was also suggested as another option.

Furthermore, one of the tables discussed the idea that HBCUs and TCUs might need the recognition of the support that is provided to students. Thus, the empowerment of students and graduates was considered a potential metric with direct feedback as a measurement approach. The growth of students since enrollment and until graduation was suggested as well. Finally, the continued monitoring of post-graduation successes of students was discussed as a possibility. Some of the factors that could be assessed included jobs, income, and other phenomena that could indicate social mobility.

It was eventually pointed out that HBCUs and TCUs are actually rather diverse on their own. As a result, more tailored metrics that would take into account the specifics of particular institutions were proposed as the most appropriate approach. In the same vein, when considering the advantages and disadvantages of using the same metrics for different institutions, the participants appeared to see disadvantages. The only direct advantage that was proposed was simplicity; also, it was acknowledged that certain aspects of education have to be standardized, for instance, when it comes to the standards of education. However, it was pointed out that different institutions do have different concerns, resources, and possibilities with minority-serving institutions typically remaining disadvantaged. Consequently, it was suggested that NSF and other funding organizations might proceed to disadvantage HBCUs and TCUs by applying the same criteria to them and predominantly white colleges and universities.

Indeed, the use of the same metrics for different institutions appears to ignore the systematic inequalities, bias, and racism that HBCU and TCU researchers have to experience. Furthermore, it was not considered to be a fair approach when smaller institutions were concerned, and it was pointed out that the data on TCUs that would enable the creation of metrics meant for them were not very extensive. Basically, it was suggested that the existing metrics which used the data from HWIs were not suitable for HBCUs or TCUs. Finally, it was pointed out that the metrics could be flawed in other ways, for example, in being focused on tests and graduation. Thus, it was generally agreed by all groups that individualized metrics for different types of institutions would be a good idea.

The participants also described the ways in which HBCUs and TCUs could be more successful than predominantly white institutions. They were supposed to focus on the factors that could make HBCUs and TCUs more successful. The attendees pointed out that HBCU/TCU students would be best suited to respond to this question, which justified researching the topic with a greater sample. Still, the participants did propose some suggestions.

First, student support and empowerment were considered, which were especially impactful for minority students from the perspective of the participants. Second, the fact that HBCUs and TCUs are usually smaller was used to suggest that the better student-to-faculty ratio could enable more personalized approaches to education. One of the participants stated that the mission of HBCUs could be considered “value-added”; that means that HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions do their best to meet students wherever they are and ensure their progress. Third, the fact that HBCUs and TCUs are usually supportive of their students’ culture was brought up. As a result, the participants argued, HBCUs and TCUs could feel safer and less hostile than other environments where micro-and macroaggressions and cultural insensitivity could be a problem. Finally, it was suggested that HBCUs and TCUs might focus on teaching and learning rather than research, which could make HBCUs and TCUs more popular with students but did not support the idea of engaging them in STEM research.

The attendees, however, noted that judging by the scores, HBCUs could be less successful than HWIs. They proposed that certain improvements were required to change that, including adequate funding, success-oriented faculty with a positive mindset, student support, and research culture. In addition, it was pointed out that outside factors such as the cultural incompetence of federal agencies and the lack of research on HBCU/TCU students and settings were also significant. Thus, when discussing the success factors for HBCUs and TCUs, the participants considered both their strengths and challenges.

The attendees were asked to consider the ways in which BP research agenda could be incorporated into their institutions’ strategic plan. The participants stated that STEM importance would be supported by such an agenda, improving students’ preparedness for STEM research. In other words, the suggestion demonstrated visible benefits. The attendees determined that in order to incorporate this agenda into strategic plans, it would be necessary to prepare and educate future participants, including students and faculty, ensure goal alignment, come up with outcomes and metrics to determine success, develop evidence-based strategies, and formalize related terminology to articulate the necessary plans. The participants of one of the tables also insisted that BP needed to have a direct impact on the community, and community-related goals and outcomes required investigation as well. Furthermore, QEM support was mentioned as a factor that would enable BP research agenda integration through the dissemination of information, and networking was viewed as a major tool for BP research, as well as the promotion of student research.

In addition, the attendees posed questions for a better understanding of the BP activities that were implemented at their institutions at the time. The opportunities for an improved understanding of the ways in which modern-day teaching innovations could be used in a STEM learning environment were also reviewed. The suggestions included workshops that would promote an understanding of innovations and encourage experimental educational approaches. Such workshops could also take the form of conferences, especially with NSF support and grants. It was also suggested that virtual workshops or labs could have greater accessibility. The participants appeared to be in favor of hands-on and workplace-simulating approaches, as well as the innovations that facilitated students’ work and reduced their workload. One table also highlighted the lack of recognition of such innovations in their institutions, pointing out the importance of their introduction.

The value of reviewing both effective and ineffective HBCUs and TCUs was shortly debated as well with the conclusion that experiences and stories of success and failure could provide valuable lessons. It was suggested that both HBCUs/TCUs and predominantly white institutions could learn from each other. However, one of the tables explicitly articulated the frustration with HBCUs being unfairly compared to and expected to look up to HWIs, as well as the reluctance of the latter to approach HBCUs and TCUs. It was also pointed out that trust issues that resulted from centuries of inequality remained a barrier in that they prevented people of color or women from sharing their stories with other groups, which prevented understanding. The challenge of building trust through ensuring the creation of safe spaces for such discussion was considered.

The question of TCU partnerships was also considered during this session. It was established that non-equitable relationships are unlikely to appeal to TCUs, and they were also described as insufficiently effective, strong, or helpful. However, it was stressed that TCUs needed to focus on forging partnerships with federal and local agencies while remaining loyal to their own goals and those of their students. The collaboration of TCUs with HWIs was also repeatedly noted as an effective approach to data dissemination. In addition, it was pointed out that TCUs do encounter multiple problems, including the lack of peer-reviewed publications, as well as incentives to publish them or participate in conferences for TCU faculty. The participants suggested that HBCU and TCU faculty are commonly very innovative, but they might not have the time to due to large teaching loads and lack of other approaches to promoting research and innovation. Topics like effective approaches to data dissemination, TCU success, STEM in TCU, and STEM over-emphasizing were mostly touched upon in the second session.

Session 2

The second session also involved multiple questions, but this time, more or less every one of them was covered in due time. The questions predominantly revolved around the topic of HBCU and TCU roles in STEM and BP education and research. The first question required discussing the resources that were available at the participants’ network for developing BP research and relevant skills and collaborations. Some of the ideas proposed by the participants included funds and particular structures, for example, research committees, which would be required for the funds’ successful allocation. Faculty, students, and other human resources, as well as their mindsets, willingness to particulate, and important skills and knowledge, were recognized as a resource as well. Advocates were considered as another human resource element. Potential for partnerships, among other things, with local businesses, and strategic benefits, including, for example, mission and vision were listed as resources too. Thus, the key resources were connected to collaboration and funding, which were some of the primary topics of the Summit.

In addition, literature and other learning materials that would promote the necessary skills were also considered significant resources. Moreover, it was pointed out that the size of an institution could offer a benefit, in particular, when it was large and, therefore, more likely to host and attract resources. Furthermore, institutional exchanges were viewed as a potential resource that could also foster both collaborations and relevant skills. The use of recently developed technological platforms was discussed as a major opportunity but also as a resource that required funds and maintenance. In summary, multiple potential resources were listed by the participants, and some of them could not be effectively categorized.

When discussing the topic of resources, the participants also pointed out some challenges, including the little time available to educators and students, limited financial support, problems with the availability of advanced equipment and technology, and sustainability of innovative projects. The issue of preparing students for research was also considered given that the procedure requires both collaboration and funding. Finally, the increasing of the research capacity of the facilities was viewed as a challenge due to the need for training and mentoring systems that would enable future research. In other words, when considering the resources that were available specifically in their institutions, the participants could not help but notice their shortages and the factors that can lead to their shortages.

The second question focused on TCUs; it required discussing how TCUs, which are so small in numbers and likely to face significant difficulties, manage to demonstrate success. Moreover, the participants discussed how TCUs could build equitable and successful collaborations as well. The participants stated that TCUs are generally not very large and tend to have few students, which puts them at a disadvantage when funding agencies are concerned. As a result, it was suggested that TCUs should build partnerships with other, larger institutions to increase the numbers of students and research capacity. Furthermore, a comment on the mindset was made; it was proposed that TCUs required an emphasis on research in order for students to become really invested in it.

It was also pointed out that TCUs did not appear to produce a lot of PhDs, which was viewed as a hindrance to their visibility. Other approaches to making TCUs more visible included ensuring the monitoring and recording of successes, preparing students to make a change and have a social impact, and various approaches to empowering students. The idea of telling the TCU story was also viewed as a primary method of resolving the issue. Thus, in response to this question, the participants once again focused on existing problems and the means of resolving them.

The next question asked the participants to consider the ways in which they could assist their institutions in building capacity for BP research. It was also concerned with the skills that were necessary to that end. The key skills for an educator that were mentioned throughout the session included pedagogical ones, as well as those related to leadership, research, and findings dissemination. Mentoring was discussed as a very important ability that could be augmented through the use of technology. Consequently, the topic of technology and its use was brought up as well. Also, the participants pointed out some of the challenges that they encountered as educators, including the shortages of time and resources. Given the fact that few administrators were involved, their role was discussed to a lesser extent, but the comments about leadership apply to them as well. In general, the participants recognized the contribution of both groups to the building of research capacity.

The attendees were further asked how STEM could fit or be integrated into TCUs’ academic program and mission. It was proposed that instead of measuring TCUs using absolute numbers, a focus on trends and change, as well as the “added value,” could help. In other words, it was suggested that TCUs needed to consider the ways in which the education provided by TCUs benefited their students. In addition, the development of a culture of collaboration, particularly with funding agencies and other institutions, including predominantly white ones, was listed as a major requirement for progress.

In general, however, innovative solutions were viewed as the complex but necessary way to achieve the desired outcome of STEM integration into TCUs programs. Thus, it was highlighted that student experiences and future challenges needed to be taken into account and introduced as a crucial element of their preparation for their future employment. The resulting “cocktail” of experiences would be expected to include studying, researching, and internships, all of which would promote STEM integration. Furthermore, the idea that STEM in TCUs should also have an entrepreneurial angle was also voiced; this approach was supposed to incorporate the translation of research to practice and forge important collaborations and partnerships.

Certain additional questions were also considered. Thus, the most effective approaches to dissemination, which were named, included partnerships and other forms of interactions between HBCUs, TCUs, and other institutions. Moreover, conferences and meetings, interviews, blogs, relevant websites (for instance, Native Science Report website that focuses on TCU research), and teaching and learning opportunities were also viewed as dissemination opportunities. Finally, the session also asked if it was possible to theoretically over-emphasize STEM. The participants pointed out that different colleges and universities encountered different issues, which is why for particular types of HBCUs and TCUs, especially small ones, STEM could indeed be overemphasized. Thus, the second session covered a wide variety of questions.

Session 3

The third session aimed to respond to three key questions that we’re concerned with collaboration. The first one focused on the ways in which federal agencies can promote collaboration between HBCUs, TCUs, and any other minority-serving institutions, specifically with the intention of increasing BP understanding in them. Several strategies were identified during the session, and it was suggested that a multi-dimensional, complex solution was required. First, the participants recommended reviewing the existing collaborations between HBCUs and TCUs and ensuring their monitoring, for example, through a list of such connections. It was established that agencies need to recognize HBCUs and TCUs as important receivers of funds with the opportunities for large and mini-grants. Also, it was pointed out that the awareness of existing inequalities was crucial for future improvements. This awareness might require evolving mindsets in case they do not reflect these problems both within the agencies and HBCUs or TCUs. An approach to changing mindsets that were considered consisted of advocacy.

In addition, it was pointed out that the existing funding models were not necessarily targeting collaboration. As a result, plans for using particular collaboration models were proposed by one of the tables. The existent model that was suggested was the National Nuclear Security Administration consortium model, which could be applied to up to four minority-serving institutions and should be used to strengthen collaboration between them. However, it was also implied that data mining techniques could be utilized to determine opportunities for collaboration. According to the table’s members, federal agencies would have access to the necessary data, which made them capable of conducting this research. The results would be used to prepare the models and databases that would facilitate matches and connections between the institutions that appeared to have similar interests. The emphasis was on ensuring productive, sustainable, and equitable collaborations that would be positive and conducive to building capacity for BP research.

Furthermore, it was determined that the most obvious solution was HBCU- and TCU-targeting programs and incentives, although these are umbrella terms that incorporate multiple individual activities. One example that was discussed in particular was awards provided by federal agencies to celebrate achievements in collaboration. Also, the participants noted that some NSF programs did focus on collaboration and that an increase in their numbers could be the solution. It was further pointed out that HBCU and TCU research needed platforms and creating them or funding their creation would be a good approach to promoting collaboration available to agencies.

The instruments that disseminate information were considered, including workshops, dear-colleague letters, and calls for proposals, as well as meetings and summits like the one described in this report. The dissemination of technical information was deemed as a crucial factor that could ensure that no grants would be rejected because applicants turned out to be insufficiently aware of the relevant procedures. The need for the clarity of the provided information was also mentioned. Finally, it was suggested that the procedures needed to be reviewed to ensure that no significant and undue restrictions were in place that could potentially restrict HBCU or TCU participation. In the end, the participants highlighted the positive aspects of HBCU-TCU collaboration, pointing out that it would be beneficial for both of them while also promoting change in other institutions, including those that do not serve minorities.

The discussion also considered the issues and challenges in the process of collaboration fostering. The session participants suggested that HBCU-TCU collaboration should not be considered an option; rather, it should be viewed as a requirement and treated as such by federal agencies. An example of the ways in which agencies could ensure this approach would involve requiring such collaborations for an institution to remain eligible for funding. Also, adequate funding for collaborative opportunities and programs was proposed. The participants acknowledged the presence of significant barriers, in particular, geographical distances, but they suggested that the modern-day methods of communication mitigated the issue. Furthermore, the differences between institutions were recognized as a challenge that made individualized solutions more likely to be successful. However, the participants also realized that most minority-serving institutions had some very similar concerns, which made more standardized approaches feasible to some extent. In addition, the attendees suggested paying attention to small institutions which could be considered particularly underfunded and lacking resources.

The second question of the session was concerned with the different approaches to cross-institutional collaborations; participants were encouraged to share their personal experiences and the best, most innovative practices of their institutions. The participants pointed out that at the time, little collaboration and few innovative approaches to ensuring it could be observed in their institutions. The examples included the STEM initiative between Jackson State University and Indiana University and the Minority Serving grants of the University of Pennsylvania. Also, some collaboration between local institutions was mentioned. The attendees noted that HBCUs rarely reached out to other institutions while HWIs did entertain the possibility. Regardless, the participants recognized the need for both minority- and majority-serving institutions could benefit from collaboration. Also, the session did suggest that STEM could be considered a common interest for everyone involved. This finding was to be expected since the Summit focused on STEM research, but it is also promising in that it implies that HBCUs and TCUs can be united through diverse STEM fields.

The suggestions for cooperation options that were voiced included collaborative programs and exchanges, especially graduate and post-doctorate student exchanges and full or partial faculty exchanges. Similarly, regular events, especially regional ones, were viewed as an opportunity for collaboration. Finally, the idea of educational experience programs with a focus on cultural and educational exchange achieved through temporary studying in TCUs was proposed. The participants did highlight the problems with funding associated with exchange solutions and suggested that grants aimed at such programs could be helpful.

In addition, summer research programs were mentioned, as well as the option of “affiliate faculty,” which enables a faculty to co-advice students from other institutions. It was pointed out that the value of such programs consists of the opportunity to prepare and develop students and enhance the understanding of the systemic issues that cause minority students to remain at a disadvantage. The participants also highlighted the importance of reviewing all the existing programs to make sure that existing gaps and deficits are known and addressed in a due manner. By updating the existing collaborations and programs, HBCUs and TCUs could address the concern of future collaborations.

It should be mentioned that one of the tables proposed uses data mining to determine the common interests among individual institutions which could be used for developing collaborations between HBCUs and TCUs. This solution focused on the role of federal agencies which could gain access to the relevant data. However, the investigation of proposals and abstracts published by HBCUs and TCUs could be conducted by other interested institutions as well, which was pointed out by two other tables. Their members proposed reaching out to the authors of relevant publications with collaboration proposals while focusing on younger contributors who might not reach out on their own.

The third question was dedicated to the participants’ and their institutions’ interests in STEM and BP education and research. The members of the tables were encouraged to consider the ways in which such interests could be used to develop collaborations. Not all groups managed to consider this issue because of the lack of time, but some conclusions can still be made. Thus, an important point that was made was that the interest in BP research needed to be fostered in HBCUs and TCUs, and individual researchers and administrators could assist by promoting it within their own institutions or, possibly, smaller units, for instance, departments.

In addition, the session involved pointing out that BP research is generally favored, especially by promotion committees. The participants suggested that this aspect could be viewed as a potential advantage. Indeed, from this perspective, such committees could promote BP through various incentives, which was in line with the idea that particular bodies, including federal agencies, can and should promote BP research in HBCUs and TCUs.

An issue was mentioned as well: some participants stated that the level of instruction at HBCUs might be not very high-quality, which could become a constricting factor. In addition, it was noted that HBCUs generally do not have many doctoral programs. It was, however, established that the problem was manageable, among other things, through improved education and the development of the staff of HBCUs and other minorities-serving institutions, especially on STEM research and related topics. One of the notes pointed out that the session was insightful, and some people commented that they learned more about TCUs during this session and the Summit than throughout the rest of their careers. Therefore, the session was a success in terms of covering the key questions and educating its participants.

Session 4

Depending on the table that a participant attended, his or her fourth and fifth session may have been different. Specifically, the questions covered in them could be interchangeable or otherwise overlap. However, certain plans still existed, and they determined the types of questions that were covered by the two sessions. Thus, the fourth session was supposed to be dedicated to cultural competence and ethics, and it was expected to involve responding to three questions.

First, the participants were invited to consider the topics related to cultural competence and ethics in HBCU/TCU STEM research. The responses were rather numerous, and it turned out that a lot of topics needed to be discussed in this regard. It was pointed out that culture does appear to impact the way in which an institution functions. Predominantly white and predominantly minority institutions were reported to differ, for instance, in the focus of the latter on the collective. Thus, one of the first ideas proposed by the Summit attendees described the urgency of informing and engaging students and faculty in discussions about BP research and its role.

The development of faculty competence and cultural sensitivity was brought up as a crucial component as well. Furthermore, it was pointed out that cultural competence could only be achieved through the introduction of the perspectives from underrepresented groups, including students who could provide some data on the cultural issues that their communities encounter. As a result, it was proposed that TCUs could relatively easily make propositions for what would be required to ensure culturally competent research, but planning was deemed an important element of actually incorporating diverse historical perspectives and value systems.

Then, certain concerns were raised. Thus, the costs were reviewed, particularly the indirect ones that would be required for the support of broadening participation. It was further pointed out that the idea of cultural competence might require definition or redefinition in particular institutions in case it was found to fail to demonstrate a significantly broad spectrum of sociocultural phenomena. It was recognized that ethnicity and race were the primary components of cultural competence, but other sociocultural factors like the socioeconomic status also required consideration. Furthermore, the participants mentioned the ethical implementation of research as a very significant consideration. Additional ethical topics were considered as well, including the level of accommodation that could be afforded by HBCU and TCU researchers, their right to keep to themselves if needed, and the upholding of particular cultural standards and values. Finally, the mechanisms for data-sharing and partnerships were discussed as challenging topics that required a review for their solution.

The second question invited the consideration of the ethics of educational research; basically, the participants were meant to determine what ethical educational research was. The response that was proposed consisted of a combination of ethical practices that ensured the deliberation of the moral issues associated with each particular study, as well as the measures and steps taken to protect human subjects before, during, and after the relevant procedures. The key considerations included those related to privacy or confidentiality risks and health hazards. In connection to that, Institutional Review Boards were mentioned, as well as their reports that would be required for monitoring their activity.

Furthermore, the issues of equity in research and the underrepresentation of non-white research samples were pointed out. The participants suggested that HBCUs and TCUs might need their own theoretical models that would be critical of the norms which developed in predominantly or all-white communities. Rather, HBCU and TCU variances and the recognition of the need for individual approaches with diverse populations were considered a basis of the knowledge that HBCU and TCU ethical, equity-based research required for their development. In connection to that, cultural competence and sensitivity were considered as well.

The third question was concerned with the opportunities that the participants could see in their local networks as related to developing culturally appropriate BP research. First, it was established that it is necessary to have an understanding of the cultures and groups that were of interest to this effort. Second, it was determined that cultural competence and sensitivity were required for the successful development of culturally appropriate research. It was pointed out that minority-serving institutions were not homogenous, and the recognition of their diversity was critical for ethical and culturally appropriate research.

The suggestion for contacting and enlisting the help of the individuals who research the topics of cultural, social, and educational aspects was proposed. Partnerships with first-generation students, as well as various organizations that were concerned with cultural minorities, were viewed as an option as well. In general, collaborations with international, national, and other professionals and organizations were suggested by different tables. The dissemination of culturally relevant BP research was also considered as an opportunity. The possibility of modifying culturally insensitive materials was framed in a very positive way with the potential for change being highlighted and tied together with educating the faculty on cultural issues and appropriateness. Thus, while the participants required considering a number of issues while debating this question, the discussion kept its focus on the opportunities for improvement. The fourth session appeared a successful one due to its coverage of all the planned questions.

Session 5

As it was mentioned, the fourth and fifth sessions could overlap, but in general, the fifth session was concerned with five questions dedicated to the dissemination of the results of educational research. As the first question of the session, the participants considered the recipients of research information and the ways in which it could be distributed so that the results could also be used. The general consensus was that findings are important for those who can take part in future research, support it, or benefit from it. The participants noted that potential contributors and partners could be informed for the purpose of enlisting their help with future research. In a similar way, funders could be enticed through publications and presentations, and such an approach to dissemination would enable future research and proceed to build BP and STEM research capacity in HBCUs and TCUs.

It was pointed out that since students are technically future investigators, their interest in STEM could be enhanced when provided with research data through events and demonstrations dedicated to the relevant topics. An idea was also expressed that parents tend to have a significant effect on the choices of their children. As a result, disseminating information to the parents of students and communicating it to them that STEM fields should be important for the future of their children was described as a good strategy as well. In other words, all the stakeholders from politicians and advocates to students and their parents were described as the people who had the right to learn about research results.

However, individual tables did demonstrate a preference for particular groups. Thus, one table focused on the people who could directly benefit from research results with the understanding that the general population is more likely to be a part of that group. However, another table proposed considering policymakers and legislators as the people who needed to be informed the most because such an approach would invite them to promote and fund research and find the ways of further disseminating findings.

It was also pointed out that dissemination of data was not the only aspect of findings dissemination; rather, researchers needed to present both the results and the ways in which they could be used, especially in different contexts. The adaptability of research to individual circumstances is an important aspect of the research-to-practice transition. One table also highlighted the importance of disseminating information in ways that would be digestible; thus, it is reasonable to use understandable language and structure the findings in ways that facilitate their comprehension. Finally, it was suggested that researchers are not usually specifically trained on how to disseminate findings, especially when approaching legislators and policymakers. It was consequently proposed that teaching researchers the best ways of reaching diverse populations was needed.

The second question invited the participants to consider the mechanisms that would be required to show that the BP activities of individual institutions can apply to other institutions and other environments. It was acknowledged that the applicability of research could be impacted by multiple factors, including, for example, the size of institutions that served as settings for a particular project. For instance, something that worked for a very small college might not be applicable to a larger one. The proposed solutions included piloting and replicating research, examining the factors that might affect the application of findings, involving more researchers and reviewers to evaluate the findings, and developing the criteria of effectiveness that could be applied to HBCUs or TCUs. The collaboration solution was especially emphasized as a method for enabling all these interventions. It was also pointed out that for research to be replicable or transferable, the original studies should provide sufficient data on their design and methodology, which implies that educating HBCU and TCU researchers on the intricacies of research reporting is even more important. Furthermore, it was suggested that this question was connected to dissemination since for a study to be replicated or reproduced, it needs to be sufficiently accessible.

The third question was concerned with creative data dissemination approaches. Respondents focused on recent technology-assisted methods. Indeed, at least one table pointed out that digital dissemination could be more accessible than traditional methods. As a suggestion, radio talk shows or other forms of broadcasts were mentioned. Moreover, it was highlighted that modern technologies allow fairly creative dissemination methods, including social media, as well as other websites, and the use of Twitter or Instagram for mentorship. As a result, the fourth question, which asked the participants about the possibility of using social media to reach various audiences and disseminate findings to diverse populations, was answered with comments about social media being very suitable for data dissemination. Online or offline conferences and presentations were described as rather creative and reliable methods of disseminating findings as well.

Other than that, it was suggested that the creativity of a method depended on the needs of a population that it intended to reach. For instance, one table proposed that policymakers could benefit from research-to-practice translation guidelines, which could indeed be used to disseminate findings. However, the same table also suggested that it would be important to avoid allowing a publication to become too engaging; from the perspective of the participants, it would be inappropriate to try to sway an audience. Rather, dissemination should be objective and accurate, which links the topic back to ethics in research.

The final question was concerned with the resources at the participants’ institutions that could be used to assist researchers with findings dissemination. The list of the suggestions included the public relations departments, grant funds, learning management systems, exchange programs, and various methods of communication, in particular, newsletters. In general, the discussion of the dissemination methods was rather diverse and productive, making the fifth session a success.

Key Insights and Conclusions

The above-summarized five sessions of the Summit covered a number of important topics that will be used to structure this section of the report. Rather than narrating the ideas that were proposed during individual sessions, here, the ideas will be presented based on their links to specific crucial aspects of BP research as related to HBCUs and TCUs. This way of presenting information will facilitate making relevant conclusions on HBCU and TCU BP research.

Current Knowledge Base on BP in STEM at HBCUs and TCUs

Current Focus Areas of BP Research

The attendees demonstrate that BP is becoming increasingly significant and emphasized by diverse institutions, especially when STEM fields are concerned. It appears to be particularly true for predominantly white colleges and universities. However, BP focus does not seem to incorporate minority-serving institutions to a sufficient extent.

Critical Gaps in STEM Education Research

The participants generally agree that modern BP and STEM research are not very inclusive. The research does not often sample HBCUs or TCUs, and it is also not very often conducted by HBCUs and TCUs. This exclusion results in the limited visibility and representation of minority-serving institutions, as well as some problems with finding the data that could be used to improve research and other aspects of the activities of HBCUs and TCUs. Therefore, the greater engagement of HBCUs and TCUs in BP and STEM research would help to cover these gaps.

The Roles of HBCUs and TCUs in Conducting and Building Capacity for STEM Education Research

The diverse findings of the five sessions demonstrate that currently, HBCUs and especially TCUs are not sufficiently engaged in STEM research and are underrepresented within its fields. However, while some participants point out the possibility of over-emphasizing STEM, all of them also appear to agree that the situation can be changed. The key issues that are cited in this regard include the lack of resources, visibility, funding, and attention of federal agencies. The primary solutions include changes in the mindset, appropriate management of resources, education and advocacy, and collaboration.

Building STEM Education Research Collaborations at HBCUs/TCUs

Identifying Potential Collaborators

The participants demonstrate that HBCUs and TCUs need to search for potential collaborators based on their interests in STEM and BP. The search strategies include the monitoring of publications, the creation of databases of HBCU/TCU researchers, and the development of HBCU/TCU networks for data dissemination. It is established that the matching of potential collaborators could be carried out by HBCUs and TCUs or various agencies. It is also recommended to keep considering collaborations with predominantly white institutions with a suggestion for federal agencies to promote such alliances. Also, for small institutions, it is apparently a reasonable choice to collaborate with bigger ones for a greater access to resources and funding possibilities.

Establishing the Collaboration

When considering the ways in which collaborations could be established, the participants appear to focus on the incentives that could be provided by federal agencies. Such incentives could include collaboration-focused programs or the requirement for collaboration in applications for certain grants. However, communication, advocacy, and information dissemination were also described as collaboration-building mechanisms. Regarding the specifics and quality of collaborations, the participants highlight equity and productivity.

Building Cultural Competence and Ethical Practices in STEM Education Research

Historical, Geographic, Political, and Ethical Factors

All the participants show some awareness of the varied factors that still affect HBCUs, TCUs, other minority institutions, and their students. They also suggest that different institutions tend to have cultural specifics that affect their activities.

As a result, the Summit recognizes the significance of ensuring cultural competence within the institutions and outside of them, as well as of promoting culturally competent and ethical research. The participants conclude that cultural competence is predominantly augmented through education and mindset change and that ethical research requires a complex of continuously employed measures that affect research before, during, and after it is conducted.

Transitioning to Practice, Replicating Success and Disseminating Results

The idea that STEM research carried out by HBCUs and TCUs needs to be practice- and often community-oriented is supported by many participants. The transitioning of research to practice was discussed in connection to results dissemination. Thus, the Summit’s attendees believe that findings of studies need to be reported to anybody who can have a stake in them with a focus on the people who benefit from the findings, implement them, or can support future research. It is acknowledged that the findings of any given study might not be fully replicable in other settings, but that consideration only implies the need for careful reporting of all the details of a study’s methodology and settings. This way, researchers can avoid making incorrect assumptions and can use the data to replicate or carry out similar investigations in the future. When disseminating findings, researchers are encouraged to make an emphasis on their practical application and employ the methods of communication that are most likely to be used by the target audience.

Telling Our Story to Diverse Audiences

The participants directly highlight the importance of making minority-serving institutions, especially small TCUs, more visible. As a result, the varied methods of data dissemination are viewed as important for telling HBCU and TCU stories. The cultural competence and new technologies should enable the messages to reach diverse audiences, especially the stakeholders who can potentially assist HBCUs and TCUs in building their research capacity. As for the methods of dissemination, the participants clearly favor those that employ communication technologies (for instance, social media) and those that enable communication and potential collaborations (for instance, conferences, including technology-assisted ones).

Collaborations for STEM Education Research Publications

The idea that TCUs and HBCUs should collaborate for the purposes of disseminating research findings was only briefly covered. However, it is apparent that the participants support the idea of minority-serving institutions uniting resources to enhance their ability to report the results of their research. This way, HBCUs and TCUs can build their research capacity, find new collaboration opportunities, and improve their visibility.

Summary of Key Findings

This section will present an overview of the findings that can summarize both the lessons and insights from the Summit. Furthermore, it will discuss the recommendations that can be made based on these lessons and insights. Thus, the current report investigated the results of the Summit’s survey and the session notes that were made by some of its participants. The analysis of these two sources provides rather different conclusions, but they can be interconnected.

The survey was aimed at determining what worked about the Summit and how to improve it. It demonstrated that the Summit was an overall success. The majority of the issues were linked to its organization, especially scheduling, since many participants found the Summit exhausting and difficult to cope with because of twelve-hour days. Other than that, suggestions were concerned with potential improvements for individual activities. However, the activities were mostly enjoyed; the only one of them that consistently received negative feedback was sampler sessions. Possibly, they could be replaced by poster sessions, but it should be pointed out that the majority of the attendees still liked them.

The most valuable aspects of the Summit were its activities, cooperation and networking opportunities, and learning options. This fact demonstrates that the Summit was generally successful in achieving its goals, but it also allows connecting the survey results to the session notes. The notes were meant to record the crucial insights experienced by the participants during discussion sessions. They do not cover all the information that the participants received, but they contain some of it while highlighting the participants’ role in constructing the knowledge produced by the Summit.

The five sessions of the Summit were not very tightly structured, and the time shortage affected them as well since, as the participants had admitted, they did not always manage to cover all the planned questions. Still, the sessions managed to consider BP research, TCU/HBCU role in it, cultural competence, ethics, potential for collaboration, findings dissemination, and challenges associated with all these topics. When responding to session questions, Summit attendees showed a noticeable preference for discussing the existing issues and challenges, but they also presented meaningful solutions and pointed out exciting opportunities.

Thus, the sessions indicate that there are some gaps in the way HBCU and TCU STEM research is funded as compared to HWIs. It is suggested that HBCUs and TCUs have specific cultural features and face particular concerns, which is why they might require the metrics that focus on added value rather than simple performance. Furthermore, it appears that HBCUs and TCUs can become more effective, successful, and visible through collaboration and increased focus on research, especially in STEM fields.

The resources at HBCUs and TCUs appear to be scarce based on the participants’ responses. In addition, there may be a need for education on research, grants, and BP that would simultaneously promote awareness and stimulate interest in these topics. Education is also a tool for increasing cultural competence and ensuring ethical research. Finally, researchers might need some training on dissemination methods, especially on modern and innovative ones that use recently developed communication technologies and opportunities; an example is social media. In addition, the sessions also make a number of meaningful recommendations on the topic that will be discussed below.

Recommended Strategies for Advancing STEM Education Research at HBCUs/TCUs

HBCU and TCU Researchers and Administrators

Some of the findings contain relatively direct suggestions for various actors who can potentially improve HBCU and TCU STEM research and BP. First, the Summit recognizes the significance of educators, researchers, and administrators, and their ability to influence their institutions. Thus, the Summit demonstrates that there are notable gaps in BP and STEM research, and the staff of HBCUs and TCUs are the primary element of human resources that can be mobilized to address them. To achieve positive outcomes, researchers and administrators need to incorporate STEM research into the programs and agendas of their institutions, promote awareness of STEM and research opportunities, including grant-related ones, and contribute to the development of meaningful, equitable partnerships between HBCUs and TCUs, as well as HWIs. The latter should be achieved through the monitoring and communication between different institutions with a focus on those that share similar research interests. Various exchange programs are also a viable option for enhancing collaboration.

Finally, researchers are the primary agents of findings dissemination, but they require funds and support from administrators. Thus, the collaboration between researchers and administrators is also a predictor for building the research capacity of HBCUs and TCUs. In addition, research dissemination is also an option for engaging other stakeholders, including federal agencies. Researchers’ ability to reach them, using communication technology, conferences, and publications, is crucial for HBCU and TCU research.

Program Officers and Federal Agencies

The specific recommendations for federal agencies include researching and reviewing the existing policies and adjusting them in ways that facilitate collaboration and research in HBCUs and TCUs. The Summit’s participants point out that the existing policies might be imperfect if not exclusionary. Their revision with a culturally aware approach could help to improve HBCU and TCU involvement in STEM. Then, the mechanisms of federal agencies’ incentives could be used to encourage different institutions to focus on STEM and enter collaborative research.

STEM Advocates and Policymakers

Advocates and policymakers were recognized by the participants as stakeholders that can stimulate research, but they were not the focus of the Summit. Still, the recommendations for them include promoting STEM, BP, and inequality awareness, which is especially topical for advocates, and introducing incentives for institutional cooperation, which is especially applicable to policymaker roles. In addition, one table found that researchers were often ill-equipped to work with policymakers, which is a problem that can be resolved with the help of advocates spreading information or acting as intermediaries. Policymakers also need to consider reviewing the existing success metrics for HBCUs and TCUs and check if ones based on added value could be introduced. Finally, advocates can assist in making TCUs and HBCUs more visible. In general, the building of HBCU and TCU STEM education research capacity can be achieved through the collaboration of multiple groups of stakeholders.

Conclusion/Next Steps

After a review of the Summit’s proposal, feedback questionnaire, and session notes, the following conclusions can be made. The Summit was introduced to share some important information about BP and STEM educational research in HBCUs and TCUs, and it has managed to achieve this outcome. Indeed, the majority of the participants learned new information from the Summit that was related to the key topics that it covered. Certain issues were also encountered during the event, especially with respect to time. Many participants suggested that more time was required, especially for covering all the questions included in every session. This information, as well as the rest of the attendees’ feedback, can be used to improve future Summits.

In general, however, the Summit was a success. The participants discussed critical gaps in STEM educational research, especially those related to the lack of HBCU and TCU representation in it. They also proposed solutions to this problem with a focus on increasing the awareness of research opportunities, developing new partnerships with minority-serving institutions and HWIs, promoting culturally sensitive and ethical research, and increasing the focus on various approaches to information dissemination. Overall, the findings demonstrate that there exist significant problems which prevent HBCUs and TCUs from becoming equally represented in research, but with a combined effort of HBCU and TCU staff, federal agencies, policymakers, and advocates, this situation can be changed.

The presented analysis and recommendations suggest that further steps are required to advance BP and STEM research in HBCUs and TCUs. The presented Summit requires an analysis and discussion, and the findings need to be disseminated. Some of them can help to improve future similar events, and other ones contain recommendations for different stakeholders or simply potential strategies. Furthermore, the Summit does not resolve the problem of HBCU and TCU underrepresentation in BP and STEM research. The Summit only contributes some data on the existing issues and solutions to them. The scientific testing of such solutions and their outcomes, as well as the continued monitoring of arising concerns and new interventions to rectify them, is required. Thus, future Summits and other methods of diagnosing issues and reporting solutions would become the next steps in promoting equal research participation of different minority institutions.