Native Biomedical Scholar: Professional & Cultural Identity Integration

父级赠款摘要 强有力的人口统计学证据表明，本土学生没有融入STEM专业 社区学生的比例与多数学生相同。而土著人(美洲原住民/阿拉斯加人 原住民/夏威夷原住民)占美国人口的近2%， 他们只占在校本科生的0.01%(NSF，2014)和3014人(0.5%) 招收了601,883名理工科(S&E)研究生，规模更小 坚持教师STEM职业生涯的百分比(NSF，2017)。为什么对土著学者有浓厚兴趣的 生物医学职业以与大多数人相同的速度融入他们的STEM专业社区？ 目前，关于本土STEM学者的研究大多是定性的，涉及深度访谈 和那些坚持不懈的人。为了扩大研究范围，家长资助建立在关于 社会影响力三方整合模型(TIMSI)(Kelman，1958,2006；Estrada等人，2011)，Native 美国文化，与综合身份认同，进行前瞻性倾向得分纵向匹配 三组新兴本土生物医学的近、中、远期疗效比较研究 学者(n=162)。这些组包括：(A)无治疗对照组(匹配的土著学者 参与美国印第安人科学与工程学会(AISS)社区)，(B)修改 治疗组(从事AISES社区的匹配本地学者+在线专业人员 发展干预)，以及(C)完全治疗组(从事AISES的匹配土著学者 社区+完全的专业发展干预)。这项研究的主要目的是测试 “放大”密集职业发展关键方面的在线干预效果 相对于对照组的干预。第二个目标是了解解释 干预效果。我们将评估关键的心理-社会因素(即，[i]有效性、认同感和 价值观[融入专业社区的措施]，[二]土著学者的专业和土著 身份融合和[III]对生物医学职业中的共同价值承担的看法)调解 群体差异与长期融入专业社区的关系，更大 职业坚持性，以及对未来土著学者的指导率更高。假设驱动的设计 这项研究提供的结果向生物医学界提供了关于以下因素和机制的信息 最有可能影响和培养生物医学研究人员的持续职业生涯。此外，这项研究 提供了一个可概括的示例，说明如何为现有干预措施增加价值(成本低于母公司 干预)，以满足更多学生的需求。有用和有意义的调查结果将在 支持生物医学教育者指导、指导或建议土著学者的形式， 大学科学培训计划，以及生物医学专业本科生的教育计划。

PARENT GRANT ABSTRACT Strong demographic evidence shows that Native students are not integrating into STEM professional communities at the same rate as majority students. While Native people (Native American/Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian) make up nearly 2% of the U.S. population according the most recent U.S. Census, they make up only about 0.01% of enrolled undergraduate students (NSF, 2014) and 3,014 (.5%) of the 601,883 enrolled graduate students in Science and Engineering (S&E) programs, with even smaller percentages persisting to faculty STEM careers (NSF, 2017). Why don’t Native scholars with high interest in biomedical careers integrate into their STEM professional communities at rates equal to majority populations? At this time, most research regarding Native STEM scholars has been qualitative, involving in-depth interviews with those who persevere. To broaden the research, the parent grant builds on research regarding the Tripartite Integration Model of Social Influence (TIMSI) (Kelman,1958, 2006; Estrada et al., 2011), Native American culture, and integrative identity, to conduct a prospective propensity score matched longitudinal study to compare the short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes of three groups of emerging Native biomedical scholars (N=162). The groups include: (A) No Treatment Comparison group (matched Native scholars engaged in the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) community), (B) Modified Treatment group (matched Native scholars engaged in the AISES community + online professional development intervention), and (C) Full Treatment group (matched Native scholars engaged in the AISES community + complete professional development intervention). The primary aim of this study is to test the efficacy of an online intervention that “scales up” key aspects of an intensive professional development intervention relative to a control group. The second aim is to understand the mechanisms that explain the intervention effects. We will assess the degree to which key psycho-social factors (i.e., [i] efficacy, identity, and values [measures of integration into professional communities], [ii] Native scholars’ professional-and-Native identity integration, and [iii] perceptions of communal value affordances in biomedical careers) mediate the relationship between the group differences and long-term integration into the professional community, greater career persistence, and higher rates of mentorship of future Native scholars. The hypothesis-driven design of this study is providing results that inform the biomedical community regarding factors and mechanisms that are most likely to influence and foster a sustained career in the biomedical research workforce. Further, this study provides a generalizable example of how to add value to existing interventions (at less cost than the parent intervention) for larger populations of students. Useful and meaningful findings will be made available in formats that are supportive to biomedical educators instructing, mentoring or advising Native Scholars, university science training programs, and education programs with undergraduates in biomedical majors.