Search

Used in higher education for many decades, seed grants are now beginning to be applied as a strategy to advance diversity, equity and inclusion goals, including rebuilding community post-pandemic. There is little research on the effectiveness of seed grants for such communal goals. This work is innovative in two key ways. First, these seed grants focus on promoting a strong sense of community at the institution rather than promoting individual investigators and research projects. Second, engaging students and staff as principal investigators (PIs) disrupts power structures in the academy. We present a systematic analysis of seed grant project reports (n = 45) and survey data (n = 56) from two seed grant programs implemented at the same institution. A diverse set of projects was proposed and funded. Projects had a positive impact on awardees and their departments and colleges. Seed grant program activities were successful at building community among awardees and recognizing individual efforts. Most noteworthy are the career development opportunities for graduate students, postdocs and staff, which are afforded by changes to PI eligibility. We conclude that seed grant programs have the potential for organizational learning and change around community building in higher education.

Background: In addition to the benefits of a diverse faculty, many institutions are under pressure from students and administrators to increase the number of faculty from historically excluded backgrounds. Despite increases in the numbers of engineering PhD earners from these groups, the percentages of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino tenure-track faculty have not increased, and the percentage of women remains low. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify how experiences in graduate school encourage or deter PhD earners from historically excluded groups in pursuing an engineering academic career. Method: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with engineering PhD students and recent graduates, with half of participants interested and half disinterested in pursuing an academic career after graduation. Results: Three key factors emerged as strongly influential on participants' desire to pursue an academic career: their relationship with their advisor, their perception of their advisor's work-life balance, and their perception of the culture of academia. Participants extrapolated their experiences in graduate school to their imagined lives as faculty. The results illuminate the reasons why engineering PhD earners from historically underrepresented groups remain in or leave the academic career pathway after graduate school. Conclusions: The findings of this study have important implications for how graduate students' and postdoc's relationships with their advisors as well as perceptions of their advisors' work-life balances and the culture of academia affect future faculty. We make recommendations on what students, faculty, and administrators can do to create a more inclusive environment to encourage students from historically excluded groups to consider academic careers.