J. COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION, Vol.

9(2) 169-181, 2007-2008

A SHIFTING PARADIGM IN THE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF UNDERREPRESENTED GRADUATE STUDENTS

MICHAEL C. POOCK East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina

ABSTRACT

Efforts to recruit and retain a diverse graduate population at colleges and universities are undergoing a paradigm shift. Diversity has traditionally been operationalized as racial minority, yet recent court decisions have indicated that such a definition is legally problematic. As a result, institutional leaders are moving toward defining diversity in terms of underrepresented. However, little is known about the specific activities institutions are undertaking to attract and retain underrepresented graduate students. This study presents the results of a national survey of members of the National Association of Graduate Admission Professionals on the efforts their institutions are undertaking to attract and retain underrepresented graduate students as well as their perceived effectiveness of such activities.

Many authors have addressed the importance of creating a diverse student body on campuses (e.g., Baez, 2004; Lewis, Ginsberg, Davies, & Smith, 2004). These studies focused on a variety of issues, from recruitment to admission to degree completion. However, much of this research on recruiting and retaining a diverse student population has focused on undergraduate students (Fenske, Porter, & DuBrock, 2000; Jenkins, Harburg, Weissberg, & Donnelly, 2004; Taylor & Miller, 2002). Over the past decade the importance of diversity in graduate education has received the level of attention generally reserved for undergraduates (e.g., Council of Graduate Schools, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Jenkins & Thomas,
169 2007, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. doi: 10.2190/CS.9.2.c http://baywood.com

170 / POOCK

2002; Poock, 1999, 2000). While the volume has increased recently, this topic has been identified as a need for many years. For example, 20 years ago Cowell argued, if part of the value of graduate education derives from interactions with other students, the diversity of the student community may well be as crucial a measure as quality (Cowell, 1985, p. 27). While diversity is crucial, it nevertheless remains complex. The Council of Graduate Schools has argued that recruiting underrepresented minorities is a challenge throughout graduate education (Council of Graduate Schools, 2003b, p. 4). The need to recruit and retain a diverse graduate student body is clear. An inclusive campus enhances the academic environment, promotes student success in an increasingly global society, and has a positive impact on the curriculum (Council of Graduate Schools, 2003a). In short, graduate schools in general, and academic programs in particular, should strive toward an inclusive graduate student body because, . . . in an inclusive environment everyone wins. Benefits accrue, for both majority and minority students, in the quality of the educational experience and in the care and treatment of graduate students overall (Council of Graduate Schools, 2003a, p. 13). However, perhaps the most significant current challenge to recruiting a diverse student body results from the recent Supreme Court decisions involving the University of Michigans undergraduate admissions (Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al., 2002) and law school admissions (Grutter v. Bollinger et al., 2002). The Supreme Court held for the plaintiff in Gratz, citing in part the universitys use of points for race was not narrowly tailored in the aim to achieve diversity. However, the court sided with the University of Michigan in Grutter, yet suggested that the use of racial preferences will not be held legal in perpetuity. Indeed, the Courts majority slip opinion stated that it expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today (Grutter v. Bollinger et al., 2002, p. 5). On the importance of race alternative methods the Court noted that:
Universities in California, Florida, and Washington State, where racial preferences in admissions are prohibited by state law, are currently engaged in experimenting with a wide variety of alternative approaches. Universities in other States can and should draw on the most promising aspects of these raceneutral alternatives as they develop ( Grutter v. Bollinger et al., 2002, p. 35).

In short, race may be a variable, but only when utilized in a narrow manner. Even then, the opportunity of using race in admissions is limited in time and it is not clear when the use of race will be permissible in the future (Lauren, 2003). In the wake of the Michigan cases, many institutions with race-based summer enrichment programs have embraced the notion of underrepresented rather than using race as a standard for acceptance. These include Princeton, Yale, Harvard, and Delaware (Schmidt, 2004). Specifically, Schmidt stated, colleges are dropping the word minority from the titles of scholarships and fellowshipsas

A SHIFTING PARADIGM

171

well as recruitment, orientation, and academic enrichment programsand opening them to populations that they had excluded (p. A17). The aforementioned Supreme Court rulings and corresponding changes by universities strongly suggests that there is a shift in the diversity preference paradigm: from racial minority to underrepresented. This paradigm shift can clearly be seen at the graduate level. For example, the Council of Graduate Schools offers grants to institutions that support the creation of programs that promote inclusiveness based not on race but on underrepresentiveness (Council of Graduate Schools, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). The Council of Graduate Schools states that underrepresented includes first generation students as well as those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Institutions such as the University of Georgia, offer diversity assistantships available to all graduate students from underrepresented populations. These assistantships are available to women in male-dominated fields and students from low socio-economic backgrounds or who are first generation graduate students. In short, the movement toward inclusiveness is not merely re-labeling existing efforts to attract and retain students based on their race; rather, it is a fundamental change in the target population, namely graduate students who are underrepresented on campus in general and in academic fields in specific. Therefore, although race may be easy to define (but still problematic for students from multi-racial backgrounds), underrepresented remains an amorphous term. Given this paradigm shift, an important question is: what are universities doing to ensure an inclusive and diverse student body without relying on race? The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine the activities graduate admission professionals across the country are conducting to attract and retain underrepresented students. CURRENT LITERATURE The research addressing recruitment and retention issues of graduate students has focused on a variety of methodologies. Cowell (1985) used secondary data, including U.S. Census and the Ford Foundations Commission on the Higher Education of Minorities. She argued against lower standards or a strong emphasis on promotiona1 efforts, but strategically providing information to those seeking it at the appropriate time. Cowell argued that graduate schools do not need to give away free T-shirts, hold scholarship lotteries and sponsor admissions office bounty hunters to recruit a diverse student population (p. 28). Rather, she suggested providing information to the appropriate (i.e., underrepresented) people at the appropriate time, and offered that the three best bases for effective retention were personal contact, follow-up, and consistency in implementing practices. Focusing on graduate students, Jenkins and Thomas (2002) conducted a national survey on practices related to graduate student recruitment by

172 / POOCK

seeking input from members of the Council of Graduate Schools, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Among their findings were that the most common recruitment activities were the use of the Web, brochures, graduate fairs, letters, and phone calls. The means identified as most effective were Web and phone calls. From prospective students perspectives, the most important variables in selecting a school were financial aid, program availability, academic quality/reputation, location, and personal contacts. The findings by Jenkins and Thomas are consistent with Poock (1999), who surveyed students in doctoral programs in higher education administration with a focus on students of color. He found that factors that were particularly important to doctoral students included the climate on campus. Additionally, students of color were specifically concerned with friendliness, acceptance, and an accepting campus atmosphere. Lewis, Ginsberg, Davies, and Smith (2004) studied the experiences of AfricanAmerican doctoral students and recent graduates at a major research institution. Among their more significant findings related to retention were the importance of positive relationships with faculty, increased peer interaction, and assistance with adjustment issues (p. 232). In 2003, the Council of Graduate School published a three-monograph series on inclusiveness. Achieving an Inclusive Graduate Community, Recruiting for Success, and Ensuring Success (Council of Graduate Schools, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c) focused on the importance of creating an inclusive environment, successful recruitment strategies, and tactics for effective retention. It appears clear to this author that promoting a diverse graduate population has value to both institutions in general and students in specific. However, given the importance of creating a diverse graduate student population, it is surprising that there is no nationwide study on the specific activities that are being conducted at graduate schools to achieve these ends. This study attempts to rectify that omission. METHODOLOGY Underrepresented Populations The definition of underrepresented graduate population was developed by soliciting the input from members of the National Association of Graduate Admission Professionals (NAGAP). The researcher queried a dozen prominent NAGAP members from research universities as to what their leaders consider as underrepresented. Based on this information, an amalgamated definition was developed, namely individuals who will contribute to the diversity of the community. This definition includes students who are the first in their generation to pursue graduate education, women in male dominant studies, those

A SHIFTING PARADIGM

173

who are socially, economically, or educationally disadvantaged, or those who possess a uniquely diverse background that can add to their academic discipline. Participants were asked to limit their answers to masters and doctoral students, not students in first professional degrees such as J.D., M.D, and D.D.S. Participants Members of NAGAP were the participants in this study. In instances where an institution had more than one member, the ranking member was identified. These individuals were sent a personal e-mail asking for their participation and directing them to an online questionnaire. A follow-up e-mail was sent approximately three weeks later requesting that those individuals who had not yet participated do so by a specific date. Procedure The questionnaire was developed by consulting with literature for common recruitment and retention activities. Additionally, 12 graduate admission professionals at institutions with varying Carnegie Classifications provided the researcher with lists of all their recruitment and retention activities. The items on the questionnaire were developed from both these sources of information. Face and content validity were established by having graduate admissions professionals (those not involved in the creation of the instrument) review the questionnaire. Following this a pilot study was conducted with yet another group of graduate admission professionals. RESULTS Of the 884 member organizations listed in the NAGAP membership directory, 121 were excluded because they were duplicate listings of educational institutions (e.g., one institution listed twice) or they were not educational institutions but were commercial enterprises. Ten educational institutions were excluded because e-mails were returned as undeliverable and the researcher could not locate the appropriate person on the institutions Web site. These exclusions resulted in 753 possible participants. A total of 93 participants completed the questionnaire yielding a response rate of 12%. Thirty percent of the participants were from doctoral/research universities extensive institutions, 19% from doctoral/research universitiesintensive institutions, and 28% and 8% from masters colleges and universities I and masters colleges and universities II institutions, respectively. Fifteen percent of the participants did not know the Carnegie Classification of their institution.

174 / POOCK

Recruitment The vast majority of participants (77%) indicated that they engage in recruitment activities for underrepresented populations, but only 26% set specific goals in this area. Also, only 34% of the participants indicated that there is a single employee at the institution directly responsible for the recruitment of underrepresented graduate students. Of those institutions with a person responsible for recruitment activities, only four had a person dedicated full-time toward these activities. These individuals held the title of director or coordinator, but there was wide variance in the percentage of time individuals with these titles dedicate to recruitment, ranging from the previously stated 100% to just 25%. Those individuals with the title of assistant dean or associate dean dedicated only 25% of their time to recruitment of underrepresented groups. Regardless of who was responsible for recruitment, two-thirds of the participants collaborated with others on campus. This collaboration included current students, faculty, and institutional staff and administration. Less than one-third collaborated with alumni. Approximately two-thirds of the participants did not allocate funds specifically for recruitment activities, and less than half offered assistantships or fellowships for underrepresented individuals. The number of awards was small; 73% offered no more than five awards, and these awards were quite modest (fewer than $1000). Only seven participants indicated that they award assistantships or fellowships worth $5000 or greater. Despite the limited funds, participants did engage in various recruitment activities, each with varying ranges of perceived effectiveness. Table 1 contains the activities in which these professionals engage. These activities are numerous, but only one activity was perceived as somewhat effective. Offering assistantships, with a mean of 3.53 (on a 5-point Likert scale) was the lone activity with a mean above 3.00. All other activities pursued by recruitment staff were viewed as ineffective by the same individuals. The limited sample size resulted in empty cells and necessitated collapsing the institutions into two groups based on size so that t-test could be performed. Approximately three-fourths of the doctoral/research universities had a graduate student enrollment of over 1000, and more than half of the masters institutions had a graduate enrollment of 1000 or fewer. Therefore, doctoral/research universityextensive and intensive were collapsed into one group, and masters colleges and universities I and II were collapsed into the other group. As Table 2 indicates, participants at doctoral/research universities viewed numerous recruitment activities as more effective than did participants at masters institutions. Assistantships and other funding opportunities were viewed as the most effective activity with a mean of 4.39. The effectiveness of an institutions Web site was also viewed as effective, with a mean of 3.52. The other activities

A SHIFTING PARADIGM

175

Table 1. Recruitment Activities and Their Perceived Effectiveness Activity Available assistantships, grants, and scholarships Web site Correspondence by e-mail Visitation days/open house Graduate school recruitment days Career fairs-off campus Graduate preparatory programs (e.g., McNair) Correspondence by mail Campus tours Summer research programs Career fairs-on campus Information meetings Use of on-campus student organizations Brochures for specific populations Sending speakers to undergraduate classes Office of minority students Alumni contact Advertisement on Internet site Undergraduate to graduate bridge program Outreach programs to businesses and organizations Advertisement (radio/TV/newspaper) Internet virtual open house Internet chat rooms GRE mailing list Internet blogging
a

Meana 3.53 2.95 2.86 2.83 2.75 2.62 2.59 2.52 2.51 2.41 2.39 2.37 2.29 2.27 2.22 2.15 2.13 2.13 2.11 2.10 2.01 1.68 1.62 1.55 1.47

SD 2.64 2.01 1.75 1.86 1.70 1.50 1.99 1.60 1.90 2.26 1.55 1.80 1.78 1.85 1.69 1.64 1.70 1.61 1.76 1.64 1.40 1.27 1.24 1.10 1.00

On a 5-point Likert scale: 5 = most effective and 1 = least effective.

176 / POOCK

Table 2. Significant Difference of Recruitment Activity Effectiveness, Group by Institution Classification Doctorala Mc Assistantships/funding Web site Preparatory programs Visitation days/open house Career fairs-off campus Recruitment days Summer research programs Correspondence by e-mail Campus tours Career fairs-on campus Information meetings Speakers to undergraduate class Alumni contact 4.39* 3.52* 3.48* 3.43* 3.28* 3.26* 3.24* 3.17* 3.15* 3.13* 2.67* 2.61* 2.52* SD 2.60 2.00 2.01 1.89 1.53 1.87 2.63 1.74 2.00 1.57 1.96 1.90 1.81 1.75 Mastersb Mc 2.79 2.24 1.55 2.03 1.91 2.27 1.30 2.30 1.73 1.48 1.73 1.85 1.70 1.64 SD 2.45 1.82 1.23 1.55 1.10 1.35 0.92 1.69 1.49 0.88 1.42 1.54 1.40 1.56 t 2.80 2.96 5.20 3.63 4.64 2.73 4.62 2.23 3.62 5.94 2.90 2.13 2.52 2.37 df 72 73 75 75 77 77 59 70 77 73 77 76 76 73

On-campus student organizations 2.83*

a Doctoral = Doctoral/Research UnivExtensive and Doctoral/Research UnivIntensive. b Masters = Masters Colleges and Univ I and Masters Colleges and Univ II. c

On a 5-point Likert scale: 5 = most effective and 1 = least effective. *p .05.

viewed as effective by participants at doctoral/research universities involved the prospective student being on campus. Visitation days, recruitment days, summer research programs, campus tours, and on-campus career fairs all required a physical presence on campus. Retention In examining retention activities, two-thirds of the participants indicated that they did not provide programs to assist this population with integrating in their institution. Of those offering programs, the most common programs are orientation, using faculty and peer mentors, offering social receptions, and professional development activities (see Table 3). With the exception of orientation, with a mean of 3.92, participants rated retention activities as fairly ineffective with means well below 2.00.

A SHIFTING PARADIGM

177

Table 3. Retention Activities and Their Perceived Effectiveness Activity New student orientation Peer mentors Professional development opportunities Faculty mentors On-campus visitations Receptions Other Mean 3.92 1.55 1.54 1.53 1.38 1.34 1.14 SD 0.90 1.21 1.78 1.21 0.86 0.77 0.64

Note: On a 5-point Likert scale: 5 = most effective and 1 = least effective.

As with recruitment activities, t-tests were performed between doctoral and masters institutions (see Table 4). Doctoral institutions rated the following retention activities significantly more important than did masters institutions: using peer and faculty mentors, receptions, and professional development activities. While significant differences existed between the institutions, the results were not meaningful as the greatest mean was less than 2.00. Given the option of responding to an open-ended question about other activities in which participants engaged, six indicated that they provide social opportunities for underrepresented students. An equal number also provided specialized mentoring for this population, both by students and faculty. Without exception, each of the six participants indicated that these activities were effective, which is inconsistent with the quantitative results (the option of other retention activities reflects an overall mean of just 1.14).

DISCUSSION The results of this study appear to parallel the amorphous nature of underrepresented students. Graduate admission professionals engage in activities to recruit underrepresented graduate students. This fact suggests that they are viewed as important. As the perceived ineffectiveness of such activities by those conducting them indicated that recruiting such students is problematic (that is, graduate admission professionals understand that developing a diverse student body is important, but the effective means to that end are not clear), they engage in traditional recruitment activities, but those activities are admittedly lacking. Aside from offering assistantships, these admissions professionals see their efforts as largely ineffective.

178 / POOCK

Table 4. Retention Activity Effectiveness, Grouped by Institution Classification Doctorala Mc New student orientation Peer mentors Professional development opp. Faculty mentors On-campus visitations Receptions Other 3.84 1.91* 1.91* 1.78* 1.54 1.54* 1.17 SD 0.90 1.47 1.41 1.41 1.00 0.91 0.74 Mastersb Mc 4.14 1.19 1.17 1.28 1.21 1.15 1.11 SD 0.90 0.74 0.73 0.93 0.66 0.55 0.52 t 0.76 2.99 3.20 2.05 1.89 2.53 0.51 df 24 91 91 91 91 91 91

a Doctoral = Doctoral/Research UnivExtensive and Doctoral/Research UnivIntensive. b Masters = Masters Colleges and Univ I and Masters Colleges and Univ II. c

On a 5-point Likert scale: 5 = most effective and 1 = least effective. *p .05.

Doctoral institutions with a greater graduate student enrollment have admission professionals who view many of their activities as effective relative to their counterparts at small, masters level institutions. In addition to the effectiveness of assistantships and other aid, professionals at research institutions believe that their Web sites, preparatory programs, and activities designed to bring prospective underrepresented students to campus are generally effective recruitment activities. A possible explanation for this difference is the nature of students at each type of institution. It is likely that research institutions draw from a larger, more geographically diverse population of potential students, whereas masters institutions tend to draw students who are geographically restricted to that region. If this is indeed the case, then potential students would be familiar with the institution and thus would not need visitation days, campus tours, or an effective Web site, and may not participate in preparatory or summer research programs. While recruitment activities are assumed to be important, retention activities specifically designed for underrepresented students are not. The vast majority of institutions do not offer programs designed to assist underrepresented students with their transition to graduate education. Those that do offer programs view them as ineffective. Unlike recruitment activities, there are no meaningful differences between doctoral and masters institutions. It is possible that graduate admission professionals view their role as focusing on recruitment and admission, and not on retention. This view would account for the overall lack of programs. Moreover, while it can be argued that recruitment and admissions are

A SHIFTING PARADIGM

179

the responsibility of many individuals at an institution, there is a clear admission process at institutions, but most institutions do not have a retention process. There may be retention activities, but the individual(s) responsible may be as a varied as the number of institutions that offer such programs. It is also possible that institutions offer various retention activities for all graduate students, a portion of which are underrepresented students. Thus, it is possible that institutional leaders view this need as being met and do not need separate programs specifically for underrepresented students.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH If the perceptions of the participants in the study are validnamely, that current efforts are not effectivethen the most obvious topic for future research focuses on recruitment and retention activities that are effective. Indeed, one may postulate that current recruitment and retention activities are not data-driven; that is, the activities are not selected based on their effectiveness. Thus, understanding what activities are effective in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented graduate students would have a profound impact for institutional leaders attempting to increase the participation of this population. When developing the instrument used in this study, graduate admission professionals indicated that most of their attention was directed toward recruitment, and not retention, activities. This point is supported by comments provided by participants, many of whom indicated that they focus little, if any, attention to retention. Jack Maguire, Chairman of the enrollment management consulting Maguire Associates (in Helms, 2003), argues that effective enrollment management is an integrated effort with attention given to retention activities, not just recruitment and admission activities (Helms, 2003). Therefore, developing an effective enrollment management model for underrepresented graduate students that incorporates effective and recruitment efforts appears to be desperately needed in higher education.

LIMITATIONS There are limitations within this study needing acknowledgment. First, the response rate was fairly low. This limits the generalizability of the results. Second, not all institutions have a centralized graduate school and/or admissions professionals that are members of NAGAP. Additionally, institutions may employ academic advisors, faculty, and other professionals tasked with recruiting and retaining a diverse student body. Therefore, it is possible that effective recruitment and retention activities are occurring that were not captured in this study.

180 / POOCK

CONCLUSION The recruitment and retention of a diverse graduate student body has received considerable attention in the academic press and on college campuses, but the definition of diverse has undergone a paradigm shift. Recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly changed the diversity landscape so that institutions are now defining diversity in terms of underrepresented. As institutions are moving away from race-based recruitment and retention activities and toward activities that address the needs of underrepresented students, it is important to understand recruitment and retention activities and their level of effectiveness. This study addressed this need through a national survey of graduate admission professionals. The results indicate a variety of activities with varying degrees of perceived effectiveness. As the activities designed to meet the needs of underrepresented students evolve, so too will the need to understand effective means to reach this end. REFERENCES
Baez, B. (2004). The study of diversity. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 285-306. Council of Graduate Schools. (2003a). Achieving an inclusive graduate community (Inclusiveness Series, Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Council of Graduate Schools. (2003b). Recruiting for success (Inclusiveness Series, Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Council of Graduate Schools. (2003c). Ensuring Success (Inclusiveness Series, Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Cowell, P. (1985). Recruitment and retention for graduate student diversity. The Journal of College Admissions, 109, 27-31. Fenske, R. H., Porter, J. D., & DuBrock, C. P. (2000). Tracking financial aid and persistence of women, minority, and needy students in science, engineering, and mathematics. Research in Higher Education, 41 (1), 67-94. Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. (2002). Retrieved April 15, 2005, from: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html Grutter v. Bollinger et al. (2002). Retrieved April 15, 2005, from: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html Helms, R. M. (2003). Interview with John (Jack) Maguire Chairman, Maguire Associates. College and University Journal, 79 (1), 33-38. Jenkins, A. H., Harburg, E., Weissberg, N. C., & Donnelly, T. (2004). The influence of minority group cultural models on persistence in college. The Journal of Negro Education, 73(1), 69-80. Jenkins, J. O., & Thomas, C. L. (2002). A national survey of graduate student recruitment practices. Unpublished manuscript. Lauren, B. (2003). Affirmative action dodges a bullet: What may be permissible? Whats next? College and University Journal, 79 (1), 3-8. Lewis, C. W., Ginsberg, R., Davies, T., & Smith, K. (2004). The experiences of African American Ph.D. students at a predominantly White Carnegie 1-Research institution. College Student Journal, 38 (2), 231-245.

A SHIFTING PARADIGM

181

Poock, M. C. (1999). Students of color and doctoral programs: Factors influencing the application decision in higher education administration. College and University Journal, 74(3), 2-7. Poock, M. C. (2000). African American students and the decision to attend doctoral programs in higher education administration. College Student Affairs Journal, 19(2), 51-60. Schmidt, P. (2004, March 19). Not just for minority students anymore. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A17-A20. Taylor, J. D., & Miller, T. K. (2002). Necessary components for evaluating minority retention program. NASPA Journal, 39(3), 266-282.

Direct reprint requests to: Michael C. Poock, Ph.D. Dept. of Educational Leadership East Carolina University 203 Ragsdale Hall Greenville, NC 27858 e-mail: poockm@ecu.edu

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.