View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Graduate Student Preferences for Demographic Matching on an Advisor's Gender, Race, and Religion

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Graduate Student Preferences for Demographic Matching on an Advisor's Gender, Race, and Religion
Language: English
Authors: Scheitle, Christopher P., Platt, Lisa F. (ORCID 0000-0003-3242-9656), House-Niamke, Stephanie M.
Source: Innovative Higher Education. Jun 2023 48(3):477-499.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2023
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 1749130
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Graduate Students, Faculty Advisers, Gender Bias, Race, Religion, Individual Characteristics, Preferences
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-022-09632-7
ISSN: 0742-5627
1573-1758
Abstract: Research has examined the influence of a graduate student matching their advisor's demographic characteristics on a variety of outcomes, but comparatively few studies have examined students' preferences concerning such matching. Using data from a national survey of U.S. graduate students in five natural and social science disciplines, the analyses examine the importance students place on matching their advisor on three focal characteristics: gender, race, and religion. Overall, the analyses also find that the importance a student places on matching on one characteristic tends to be positively associated with the importance they place on matching on other characteristics. On gender-matching, the analyses find that female graduate students are more likely than male students to place importance on gender matching, but a majority still indicate that it is not at all important. However, a majority of Black students place importance on matching their advisor's race. Few students place any importance on religion matching, even among those who identify with a religion. While not discounting some groups' greater preference for matching their advisor's characteristics, these findings suggest that graduate programs should not assume that such preferences are universal or even particularly strong.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1376652
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHCHfNdDcZffE-CgJZ8Y87-AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIQYVPYMjxK-F9uPGgIBEICBm_SDqsN2byl953oVo7BqEGWs9RZoRlfPOFUz7sYMvnd5vZSjf0qq8kkYSGcFQTAUELtCH3knU086F2GMa5o6UNitJhWtdtS08ziCcTu7Y2_ZQwRNaKgCtfAoH5DQoOghpcxvhp54KTd-LJX2aUzNQoOHZMrtj9k-I1DTgHq36G-oyBhAD3ePja3O_qJSshLZNFmtpzDsEFBXDAXj
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0163633898;ihe01jun.23;2023May12.05:34;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0163633898-1">Graduate Student Preferences for Demographic Matching on an Advisor's Gender, Race, and Religion </title> <p>Research has examined the influence of a graduate student matching their advisor's demographic characteristics on a variety of outcomes, but comparatively few studies have examined students' preferences concerning such matching. Using data from a national survey of U.S. graduate students in five natural and social science disciplines, the analyses examine the importance students place on matching their advisor on three focal characteristics: gender, race, and religion. Overall, the analyses also find that the importance a student places on matching on one characteristic tends to be positively associated with the importance they place on matching on other characteristics. On gender-matching, the analyses find that female graduate students are more likely than male students to place importance on gender matching, but a majority still indicate that it is not at all important. However, a majority of Black students place importance on matching their advisor's race. Few students place any importance on religion matching, even among those who identify with a religion. While not discounting some groups' greater preference for matching their advisor's characteristics, these findings suggest that graduate programs should not assume that such preferences are universal or even particularly strong.</p> <p>Keywords: Graduate Students; Science; Advisors; Matching; Race; Gender; Religion</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>There is consistent evidence that the quality of the student-advisor relationship in graduate education is a critical variable for successful academic and career outcomes (e.g., degree completion, publishing research, obtaining a desired job), particularly for underrepresented populations (Blanchard & Haccoun, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref1">6</reflink>]; Lunsford, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref2">35</reflink>]; Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref3">53</reflink>]). The choice of an advisor and the criteria used in making that choice are therefore important issues to consider. Research has found that graduate students tend to evaluate a potential advisors along several dimensions, such as the perceived convergence of research interests between the student and faculty member, the experience and track record of the faculty member in successfully guiding students through their degrees and early careers, and the interpersonal dynamic or relationship between the student and faculty member (Ray, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref4">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>One issue often implicitly or explicitly connected to the interpersonal dynamic or relationships between student and advisor is whether the faculty member shares key demographic characteristics with the student, especially when the student is from a group underrepresented in their discipline or academia more broadly. That is, do students—particularly those from underrepresented groups—benefit from having an advisor who can support and guide them based on shared experiences of being marginalized? While some research has examined if and how students' academic performance or career outcomes benefit from having a demographically-matched advisor, much less is known about graduate student preferences for demographically matching their advisor. This critical gap in the literature highlights the important question of whether minorized graduate students prefer to have a demographically matched advisor. Students' success may not be best served if graduate programs are making programmatic or curricular decisions based on false assumptions about what those students desire in an advisor. In this study we examine the importance that graduate students in five natural and social science disciplines place on matching their advisor on three focal characteristics—gender, race, and religion—and the social patterns and predictors associated with those ratings.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-2">Graduate Student-Advisor Demographic Matching and Student Outcomes</hd> <p>Throughout higher education, important efforts are being directed toward the recruitment and retention of underrepresented students (Gaule & Piacentini, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>], Green & Bedeau, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref6">26</reflink>]). One area of focus, especially in graduate education, is reducing the oppressive experience for minoritized graduate students of feeling isolated or alone among peers and faculty (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]). To that end, graduate students are often paired with a demographically matched advisor with the goal of reducing this isolation (Syed et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref8">50</reflink>]). However, research examining whether underrepresented graduate students—particularly women and racially or ethnically minoritized students—benefit from having a demographically-matched advisor has produced mixed findings (Canaan & Mouganie, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]; Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref10">25</reflink>]; Pezzoni et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]; Schuckman, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref12">47</reflink>]). Some research supports demographically matching advisors and students. Gaule and Piacentini ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]) identified nearly 20,000 chemistry Ph.D. graduates from 1999 through 2008 on the ProQuest Dissertations and Abstracts database to assess career outcomes based on whether the student's gender matched their advisor's gender. Their analysis found some evidence that the productivity of both male and female students is greater when they have a same-gender advisor. Moreover, female students with female advisors were more likely to become faculty themselves. The researchers suggest that the latter finding findings may result, in part, from female faculty members serving as role models who demonstrate to female students the possibility of a successful balance between work and family life. In another example, Pezzoni et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]) found that female STEM graduate students paired with a male advisor co-author significantly fewer publications than other gender dyad combinations. The authors speculated that this finding may be a result, in part, of how faculty evaluate students and respond to student inquires based on the gender of the student. (We note that many studies have not always clearly distinguished between sex and gender, sometimes because the study's methodology did not allow for such distinctions).</p> <p>On the other hand, some studies have found that demographic matching either is not associated with outcomes or may only predict certain outcomes. For example, Blake-Beard et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]) found that students with a same-gender or same-race mentor reported more psychosocial and instrumental support than students without a demographically matched mentor. However, these students did not ultimately have significantly better academic outcomes (e.g., GPA, science self-efficacy, or confidence in their fit with science). Hilmer and Hilmer's ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref16">29</reflink>]) analysis of Ph.D. graduates in economics found no difference in outcomes between female students working with female faculty and those working with male faculty.</p> <p>Looking more deeply, some evidence suggests that simple demographic matching alone is not enough to have a predictive effect on outcomes (Campbell & Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]; Schroeder & Mynatt, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref18">46</reflink>]). In discussing the lack of an association between demographic matching and the core academic outcomes, Blake-Beard et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]) concluded that matching on demographic characteristics may actually be "a poor proxy for other, more meaningful types of matches" (p. 638). The authors suggest that instead of basic demographic matching, what may actually be helpful is considering how sharing a similar identity can, but does not always, indicate matching on other types of personality or values-based features. At least one study has investigated this further. In a study of undergraduate STEM students by Hernandez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref20">28</reflink>]), perceptions of personality-based or value-based similarity (e.g., agreement with statements like "My mentor and I see things in the same way") were a strong predictor of the students' reports of receiving psychosocial and instrumental support. Demographic matching, however, had no independent effect on these outcomes, likely because demographic matching alone does not guarantee a quality relationship.</p> <p>Although the overall quality of the student-advisor relationship is important for academic outcomes, the role of demographic-matching and the important nuances within those interactions has yet to be conclusively determined.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-3">Student Preferences for Demographic Matching</hd> <p>While a number of studies have examined how student-advisor demographic matching does or does not influence a variety of outcomes, comparatively few studies have systematically assessed students' preferences concerning such matching. That is, although it is a common practice (Syed et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref21">50</reflink>]), do graduate students place importance on their advisor being of the same gender, race, or other demographic characteristic? Moreover, what explains why some students place more importance on such demographic matching than others? Many might assume, for instance, that graduate students who belong to an demographic group that is underrepresented within their discipline or academia more broadly might place greater importance on demographically matching their advisor, but how well-founded is this assumption? And, finally, how do the answers to these questions vary depending on the demographic characteristic being considered?</p> <p>While there is a paucity of research on these important questions, one notable study examined this topic with undergraduate and graduate students in STEM disciplines. Blake-Beard et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref22">5</reflink>]) survey asked students "[h]ow important was it to you that you have a mentor who was the same [gender; race/ethnicity] as you?" (p. 631). Regarding a desire for a gender match, they found women were significantly more likely than men to rate this as important. However, the average rating for women was still only in the range of "somewhat important" (3.07 out of 5), meaning that on average, women did not rate gender matching as "very important." Their study also showed that students representing "targeted minorities" (i.e., Black, Native American, Hispanic, Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or multi-racial students) were more likely to rate gender matching as important relative to White students. When examining preferences for race-matching, Blake-Beard et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref23">5</reflink>]) found that students belonging to a racially minoritized group were more likely to say that matching was important relative to White students. In another study of adolescents attending a 4-week science education program, underrepresented ethnic minority students were more likely to indicate feelings of importance placed on having a mentor who matched their identities (Syed et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref24">50</reflink>]). The authors suggest that the desire for a demographically similar mentor is likely driven by how salient a student's ethnicity is to their identity.</p> <p>As the research is limited, theory can also serve as a foundation in predicting trends in student preferences. Identity salience and discipline-specific cultures are two potential domains that can help generate research predictions around marginalized student preferences for advisors.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-4">Identity Salience</hd> <p>A student's desire to match their advisor on a demographic characteristic may be influenced by the salience of that characteristic within the student's own identity (Morton & Parsons, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>]; Stryker & Burke, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref26">48</reflink>]). A student who, for instance, sees their racial identity as central to how they understand themselves may place more importance on their faculty advisor sharing the same racial identity. Research on identity salience and its consequences for individual behavior has found that, those who place more importance on an identity tend to be more likely to act in ways that are prescribed by and reinforce that identity, such as form relationships with others who hold the identity (Charnysh et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>]; McAdam & Paulsen, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref28">37</reflink>]; Merolla & Serpe, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref29">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Identity salience research is pertinent to the current study in several ways. First, such studies find that the salience of an individual's identity—or particular aspects of their identy—is influenced by the context in which they find themselves. Individuals in a context where they are the numerical minority and/or are socially or culturally minoritized tend to place more importance on that identity compared to individuals from the dominant group, such as identifying as a woman in a male-dominated STEM field or a BIPOC individual at a predominately White institution (Abrams et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>]; Pietri et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref31">41</reflink>]). The experience of being "the only one" intensifies salience of that identity (Charleston et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]; Leath & Chavous, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref33">32</reflink>]). Second, research demonstrates that racial and ethnic minoritized individuals tend to place more emphasis on their racial or ethnic identity than White or European Americans (Hurtado et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref34">30</reflink>]; Ting-Toomey et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref35">51</reflink>]), likely based on a number of factors including the salience of racism and oppression in everyday life. Third, regarding the other identity variable of religious identity in the current study, research has shown scientists who do identify with a religion or are religiously active often feel a need to conceal this part of their identity (Ecklund, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]; Scheitle & Dabbs, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>]), despite its importance in their personal lives.</p> <p>As such, the first hypothesis in the present study is:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Hypothesis 1: </bold> Graduate students in the numerical or cultural minority—specifically, racially and ethnically minoritized students, female students, and religiously-affiliated students—will rate matching their advisor on the minoritized characteristic as more important than their non-minoritized counterparts.</item> </ulist> <p>The salience of one's identities, particularly minoritized identities, may also predict the level of concern a student expresses about how those identity characteristics will be viewed or how they will be treated within their graduate program. In the present study, this type of identity salience is hypothesized to predict preferences on demographically matching their advisor. Therefore, the second hypothesis of the current study is:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Hypothesis 2: </bold> Graduate students who say they were concerned about fitting in due to their race or ethnicity, gender, and/or religion before entering their graduate program will rate matching their advisor on that characteristic as more important than students who did not report such a concern.</item> </ulist> <p>Additionally, identity salience is likely not unidimensional, but is better understood in the framework of intersectionality (Cole, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>]; Crenshaw, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]). Intersectionality, which was inspired by Black feminist scholars, can be broadly defined as the "critical insight that race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but as reciprocally constructing phenomenon that in turn shape complex social inequalities" (Collins, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref40">18</reflink>], p. 5). Intersectionality frameworks focus on multiple collective identities and how they mutually co-constitute one another <emph>and</emph> how those intersecting identities interact within systems of privilege and oppression (e.g., racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, ethnocentrism, colonialism, ableism and ageism) (Bowleg, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref41">7</reflink>]; Dhamoon, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>]). Intersectionality is not just about identifying specific marginalized groups (e.g., Black individuals, women) within specific categories (e.g., race, gender), but rather on identifying the processes by which people come to experience their collective identities within the broader social, historical, and political landscape (Dhamoon, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref43">20</reflink>]). The present study addresses the three identity variables of gender, racial/ethnic background, and religious identity. A graduate student's constellation of these three identities, and the relative positionality of each in concert with the others, likely influences the student's preferences for an advisor. For example, a Black woman graduate student may desire to be matched with an advisor that is also a Black woman, as both intersecting identities are likely salient (Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]; Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref45">44</reflink>]) due to issues such as gendered racism (Essed, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>]; Lewis & Neville, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref47">34</reflink>]) and other experiences of racial, gender-based oppressions. Taking an intersectional approach, the third hypothesis for the present study is as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Hypothesis 3: </bold> The importance a graduate student places on matching their advisor on one demographic characteristic will be positively associated with the importance they place on matching on the other two demographic characteristics.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0163633898-5">Discipline-Specific Cultures</hd> <p>In explaining some of the contradictory findings regarding the associations between student-advisor demographic matching and student outcomes, some have pointed to important differences across disciplines as an explanation (Gaule & Piacentini, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref48">24</reflink>]). While all graduate programs in both the natural and social sciences are increasingly focused on issues concerning diversity in their disciplines, the average student in the social sciences might be expected to be more regularly engaged in conversations surrounding gender, race and ethnicity, social identities, inequality, discrimination, and related topics, compared to students in other science fields (Clauss-Ehlers et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]). After all, these issues represent significant areas of teaching and research in social science disciplines like psychology or sociology (Sue & Sue, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref50">49</reflink>]; Wagenaar, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref51">52</reflink>]). Net of other factors, then, it may be reasonable to expect that social science students would be more likely to say it is important that their advisor share key characteristics with them, whether that is motivated by a desire for social psychological support, decreasing exposure to discrimination, or other reasons. To that end, our fourth hypothesis is:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Hypothesis 4: </bold> Graduate students in psychology and sociology will place more importance on sharing their advisor's race, gender, and religion relative to students in biology, chemistry, and physics.</item> </ulist> <p>While stating this hypothesis, we acknowledge that disciplinary differences could be shaped by other factors that would produce different findings than those hypothesized here. It is possible, for instance, that the relative lack of diversity along some demographic dimensions, such as gender, in fields like physics makes students' preferences concerning diversity stronger than in more diverse fields like sociology and psychology.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163633898-7">Data</hd> <p>The data for this study were produced from a national survey of graduate students in five natural and social science disciplines in the United States that was fielded in the spring of 2019.</p> <p>Sampling occurred in two stages. In the first stage, we identified the top 60 departments in biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, and sociology using U.S. News and World Report rankings of graduate programs. For each discipline we stratified the top 60 departments into four tiers (i.e., 1–15, 16–30, 31–45, and 46–60) and three departments from each tier were randomly selected. This resulted in the selection of 12 departments for each discipline or 60 departments in total.</p> <p>The second stage of sampling focused on identifying graduate students in the selected departments. To this end, we located graduate student directories on the websites of each department. If a department did not have an online graduate student directory then the department was replaced at random by another department in the same discipline-tier. We extracted student names and email addresses from these directories, resulting in a sample frame of 6,466 students. We then randomly selected 800 students from each discipline resulting in a sample of 4,000 students that were invited through email to complete the survey online. Sampled students were offered a $5 Amazon.com gift code upon completion of the survey. At the end of the survey period 1,307 complete responses were obtained in addition to 72 partial responses. This represents an overall response rate of 35.9% (AAPOR Definition #4).</p> <p>Note that the sampling of 800 students for each discipline represented an oversampling of smaller disciplines (e.g., sociology). We computed weights representing this oversampling in addition to patterns of nonresponse so that the gender-discipline-tier distributions are returned to those observed in the full sample frame.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-8">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163633898-9">Importance of Demographic Matching</hd> <p>The key outcome of interest for this study is the importance that a student places on matching their advisor on certain demographic characteristics. The survey instrument contained three questions concerning this issue. These questions began with the note, "Graduate students often have a primary faculty advisor. This is usually the person who supervises the student's thesis or dissertation." Students were then asked, (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>) "How important is it that your primary faculty advisor is of the same race or ethnicity as you?" (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>) "How important is it that your primary faculty advisor is of the same gender as you?" and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>) "How important is it that your primary faculty advisor has the same religion as you?" The order of these questions was randomized and offered responses to each were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>) not important to me, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>) a little important to me, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>) somewhat important to me, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>) very important to me.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-10">Student Demographic Information</hd> <p>The present study investigates the three identity variables of student gender, race or ethnicity, and religion. Gender identity was measured with a question asking, "With what gender do you currently identify?" with offered responses of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>) male, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>) female, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref61">3</reflink>) other, specify. We note that, based on later feedback from several respondents and peer reviewers, this measure would have strengthened if the instrument had offered the categories of "man" and "woman" rather than "male" and "female," the latter of which are terms more clearly associated with sex rather than gender identity. While acknowledging this flaw, for the sake of accurate reporting we refer to this variable as gender given the survey question wording and keep the labels as they were offered on the survey.</p> <p>Students' race or ethnicity is measured with a question asking, "Which of the following best represents your race or ethnicity? Select all that apply." Offered responses were, (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) American Indian or Alaska Native, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>) Black, African, Caribbean, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>) White, Caucasian, European, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>) Central Asian, Arab, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>) East Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, etc.), (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>) Hispanic or Latino, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref68">7</reflink>) South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc.), (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref69">8</reflink>) Other, specify. Due to the small number of cases in some categories and the option for selecting multiple responses, these were recoded into the following categories: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>) White, Caucasian, European alone, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>) Black, African, Caribbean alone, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>) East Asian alone, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>) South Asian alone, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>) Hispanic or Latino alone, and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref75">6</reflink>) Other or multiple races.</p> <p>Students' religion is measured with a question from the survey asking, "Religiously, do you consider yourself to be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, Muslim, not religious, or something else?" Sixteen responses were offered, including the option of "something else, specify." Given the relatively few number of responses in some categories, responses were recoded into the following for this study: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>) Christian, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) Jewish, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>) Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>) Not religious, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>) Agnostic, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref81">6</reflink>) Atheist, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref82">7</reflink>) Something else.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-11">Concern About Fit Within a Graduate Program</hd> <p>To assess a student's concerns about fitting into their graduate program, the survey instrument included a question asking, "Were any of the following significant concerns when you were deciding to go to graduate school? Select all that apply..." Seven items were offered, including three that asked: "Perception that I would not fit in because of my gender"; "Perception that I would not fit in because of my religion"; "Perception that I would not fit in because of my race." These items were each dichotomously coded, (e.g., 0 = did not select concern, 1 = did select concern).</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-12">Discipline-Specific Culture Variable</hd> <p>Hypothesis 4 predicts that students in sociology and psychology will rate demographic matching as more important than students in other disciplines, such as biology, chemistry, and physics. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their field of graduate study. The student's discipline was then included in the analysis with the biology category serving as the reference group.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-13">Control Variables</hd> <p>Two additional control measures were also included in the study. Given that a student's experience and preferences may vary across their professional development (Busby & Harshman, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>]), an item representing the number of years they have been in their graduate program was included in the analyses. This item ranged from (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>) This is my first year to (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref85">8</reflink>) This is my eighth or more year. Also, given that cultures can vary across tiers of prestige (Hermanowicz, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref86">27</reflink>]), also included was an item representing the ranking of the student's program. This is measured as (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>) 1–15, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref88">2</reflink>) 16–30, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref89">3</reflink>) 31–45 and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref90">4</reflink>) 46–60 and, as noted above, comes from their program's ranking in the U.S. News and World Report's graduate program rankings.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-14">Results</hd> <p>All analyses were conducted in Stata/SE 15.1 and utilized the software's complex survey command (<emph>svy</emph>) to account for the data's weights and structure. Descriptive statistics for the sample are shown in Table 1. Several analyses were conducted to test the study hypotheses, including initial descriptive statistics, cross tabulation, and logistic regression.</p> <p>Table 1 Demographic Information for the Sample</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Weighted Mean or Percentage</p></th><th align="left"><p>Linearized Standard Error</p></th><th align="left"><p>Min–Max</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Race or ethnicity</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> White</p></td><td align="left"><p>61.98%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Black</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.61%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> East Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.04%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> South Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.46%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Latino\Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.65%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other or Multiple</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.27%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Gender</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>53.35%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>44.87%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.78%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Religion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Christian</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.68%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Jewish</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.24%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.62%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Not religious</p></td><td align="left"><p>29.72%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Agnostic</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.37%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Atheist</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.59%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.79%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Pre-Graduate Program Concerns about Fit</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Race or ethnicity</p></td><td align="left"><p>.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>.006</p></td><td align="left"><p>0–1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>.007</p></td><td align="left"><p>0–1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Religion</p></td><td align="left"><p>.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>0–1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p> Discipline</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Biology</p></td><td align="left"><p>22.49%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Chemistry</p></td><td align="left"><p>28.02%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Physics</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.25%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Psychology</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.21%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Sociology</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.03%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Tier</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 1–15</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.33%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 16–30</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.96%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 31–45</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.18%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 46–60</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.53%</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Years in program</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.97</p></td><td align="left"><p>.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>1–8</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>N</emph> = 1,303</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-15">Descriptive Patterns and Cross Tabulation: The Importance of Demographic Matching</hd> <p>The first notable finding, as seen in Table 2, shows overall a large majority of graduate students say that demographically matching their advisor's race (87.9%), gender (79.7%), and religion (95.1%), is "not important to me." Of the three characteristics asked about, students are most likely to say that matching their advisor's gender is "at least a little important," with just over 20% of students rate gender matching as "at least a little important." Matching an advisor's religion is the characteristic that students seem to place the least importance on.</p> <p>Table 2 Importance Graduate Students Place on Matching Advisor's Demographic Characteristics by the Type of Characteristic</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>How important is it that your primary faculty advisor is of the same...</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>...race or ethnicity as you?</p></th><th align="left"><p>...gender as you?</p></th><th align="left"><p>...religion as you?</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Very important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.5%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Somewhat important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.7%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.1%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>A little important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.9%</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.6%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>87.9%</p></td><td align="left"><p>79.7%</p></td><td align="left"><p>95.1%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Total</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>N</emph> = 1,303</p> <p>We analyzed these ratings by the key demographic characteristics of students to investigate patterns of preferences more thoroughly. These analyses are presented in Table 3. Although a large majority of students overall do not report advisor matching preferences, regarding racial identity around 23% of Black students say that such matching is a little important, 15.2% say it is somewhat important, and 24.2% say it is very important. Additionally, self-identified Hispanic or Latino/a students are also more likely to say that matching their advisor's race or ethnicity is "at least a little important." Fifteen percent of these students say such matching is a little important, 12.8% say it is somewhat important, and 11.5% say it is very important. However, in this analysis, very few White students rate matching their advisor's race as important, as 94.1% say that such matching is not important. The analysis finds a similar pattern for East Asian and South Asian students, as 87.7% of the former and 92.7% of the latter say that matching on race is not important.</p> <p>Table 3 Importance Graduate Students Place on Matching Advisor's Demographic Characteristics by the Type of Characteristic and Student Demographics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>"How important is it that your primary faculty advisor is of the same race or ethnicity as you?" by student's race or ethnicity</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>White</p></td><td align="left"><p>Black</p></td><td align="left"><p>East Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>South Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>Latino, Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>Other or Multiple</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Very important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>24.2%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.8%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.5%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.8%</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Somewhat important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.9%</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.2%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.6%</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.8%</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.9%</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>A little important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.9%</p></td><td align="left"><p>22.5%</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.7%</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.8%</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>94.1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>31.1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>87.8%</p></td><td align="left"><p>92.7%</p></td><td align="left"><p>60.6%</p></td><td align="left"><p>76.5%</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Total</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design-based = 19.41, <italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>"How important is it that your primary faculty advisor is of the same gender as you?" by student's gender</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Very important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.6%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.3%</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Somewhat important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.9%</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>A little important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.9%</p></td><td align="left"><p>12.5%</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>94.3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>62.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>77.3%</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Total</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design-based = 40.62, <italic>p</italic> <.001</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>"How important is it that your primary faculty advisor is of the same religion as you?" by student's religion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Christian</p></td><td align="left"><p>Jewish</p></td><td align="left"><p>Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh</p></td><td align="left"><p>Not religious</p></td><td align="left"><p>Agnostic</p></td><td align="left"><p>Atheist</p></td><td align="left"><p>Other</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Very important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.2%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Somewhat important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.2%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.2%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.5%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>A little important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.0%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.8%</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.7%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Not important to me</p></td><td align="left"><p>92.2%</p></td><td align="left"><p>92.8%</p></td><td align="left"><p>100%</p></td><td align="left"><p>97.2%</p></td><td align="left"><p>97.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>92.9%</p></td><td align="left"><p>96.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Total</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>100%</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design-based = 1.43, <italic>p</italic> = n.s</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>N</emph> = 1,303</p> <p>Similarly, regarding gender, female-identified students are more likely to place at least a little importance on gender matching. Just under 18% of female students say gender matching is a little important, 12.1% say it is somewhat important, and 7.6% say it is very important, although a majority (62.4%) still says it is not important. Comparatively, the majority of male students, at 94.3%, say that matching their advisor's gender is not important. These patterns also provide partial support for hypothesis 1, predicting that racially and ethnically minoritized students and female students, will rate matching their advisor on the minoritized characteristic as more important than their non-minoritized counterparts. However, the analyses show few differences across religious groups. Over 90% of every religious group says that matching their advisor's religion is not important. This absence of differences appears to contradict the expectations stated in hypothesis 1.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-16">Logistic Regression Models: Race, Gender, and Religion Matching</hd> <p>To further investigate patterns of matching preferences within the data, and to control for possible covariates, the variables were analyzed in a series of logistic regression models. In these analyses, the outcomes were collapsed so that zero (0) equals the "not important to me" response and one (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>) equals the combined other three responses of a little important, somewhat important, and very important. Results from these logistic regression models are shown in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4 Logistic regression models predicting the importance that graduate students place on matching their advisor's demographic characteristics (Odds ratios shown > 1 = increased odds of saying matching is important; < 1 = decreased odds of saying matching is important)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="3" /><th align="left" colspan="9"><p>How important is it that your primary faculty advisor is of the same...</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>...race or ethnicity as you?</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>...gender as you?</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>...religion as you?</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Model 1</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 2</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 3</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 4</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 5</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 6</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 7</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 8</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 9</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="10"><p>Race or ethnicity</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> White (ref.)</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Black</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.26**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>17.36**</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.63**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.72</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> East Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.35*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.68</p></td><td align="left"><p>.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.24*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> South Asian</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>.61</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.59</p></td><td align="left"><p><sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p><sup>a</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Latino\Hispanic</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.63**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>10.05**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.06**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other or Multiple</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.09**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.47**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.98*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.68</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="10"><p>Gender</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Male (ref.)</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.43*</p></td><td align="left"><p>9.11**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>11.30**</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.79</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>.64</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.37</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.49</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.37</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="10"><p>Religion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Christian (ref.)</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Jewish</p></td><td align="left"><p>.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.48</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.24</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.26</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>.95</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.94</p></td><td align="left"><p><sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p><sup>a</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Not religious</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.37</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>.51*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.48</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Agnostic</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.16</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.31</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Atheist</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.42</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.23</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other</p></td><td align="left"><p>.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.75*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.83*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.57</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.49</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="10"><p>Pre-Graduate Program Concerns about Fit</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Race or ethnicity</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.52**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.71**</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.91**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.77</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.66</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.73</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.10*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.55</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Religion</p></td><td align="left"><p>.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.28</p></td><td align="left"><p>.53</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.80</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="10"><p>Importance of Matching</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Race or ethnicity</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.67**</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.74**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.06**</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.03**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.67**</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.10**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.16*</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.72*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Religion</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.06**</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.58**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.16*</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.37*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="10"><p>Discipline</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Biology (ref.)</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Chemistry</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.97</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.75</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Physics</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.61</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.91*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.32</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Psychology</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.94**</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.08</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Sociology</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.01*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.86*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.49</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="10"><p>Tier</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 1–15 (ref.)</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 16–30</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.29*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 31–45</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.74</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.81</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.79</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 46–60</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>.49*</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.70</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.81</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Years in program</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.95</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.93</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>N</p></td><td align="left"><p>1,303</p></td><td align="left"><p>1,303</p></td><td align="left"><p>1,303</p></td><td align="left"><p>1,303</p></td><td align="left"><p>1,303</p></td><td align="left"><p>1,303</p></td><td align="left"><p>1,211<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>1,303</p></td><td align="left"><p>1,211a</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> <.05; **<emph>p</emph> <.01 <sups>a</sups>No students in the South Asian or Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist categories selected that it was important to them that their advisor is of the same religion. Given this, these effects cannot be estimated and these cases are excluded from these models</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-17">Logistic Regression: Importance of Race Matching</hd> <p>Models 1 through 3 present the findings for the importance of race matching outcome. Relative to White students, Black, Latino or Hispanic students, and students identifying with another or multiple races are more likely to rate matching their advisor's race as at least a little important. East Asian and South Asian students do not differ from White students in their ratings of the importance of race matching. These patterns correspond to what was seen in Table 3 and largely support hypothesis 1, with the exception of the Asian groups of students.</p> <p>Model 3 includes all predictors and controls. Net of all other measures, all racial groups with the exception of South Asian students are more likely to say that matching their advisor's race is at least a little important when compared to White students. The differences are greatest among Black (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 17.36; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01) and Latino or Hispanic students (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 10.05; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01). Again, this largely supports hypothesis 1.</p> <p>Also, once all measures in the study are accounted for, female students have significantly lower odds (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 0.43; <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) of saying that race matching is important relative to male students. In model 1, female students had slightly higher odds of rating race matching as important, although this difference was not statistically significant. However, this seems to have been driven by the positive association between the importance placed on gender matching and race matching and female students' greater likelihood of saying that gender matching is important.</p> <p>Other findings seen in models 1 and 2 are substantively the same in model 3, with pre-graduate school concerns about fitting in due to race being positively associated (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 3.71; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01) with a student saying race matching is important and the importance of gender matching (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 7.10; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01) and religion matching (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 7.58; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01) both being positively associated with the importance of race matching. However, sociology students have significantly greater odds (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 2.01; <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) of saying that matching their advisor's race is at least a little important relative to biology students. The odds ratio for psychology students is in the same direction but is not statistically significant. If the comparison group was physics, however, then psychology students would have significantly greater odds of saying that race matching is important. In all, these disciplinary differences provide partial support to hypothesis 4.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-18">Logistic Regression: Importance of Gender Matching</hd> <p>Models 4 through 6 present the findings from the logistic regression models examining the importance students place on matching their advisor's gender.</p> <p>Model 6 represents the full model including the indicators for discipline. There are no significant racial differences relative to White students in the importance placed on gender matching once we consider students' ratings of the importance of matching on the other characteristics. In model 4, students identifying as Black or with another or multiple races had higher odds of rating gender matching as at least a little important when compared to White students. This seems to have been a function of the positive association between students' ratings of the importance of race matching and the importance of gender matching. That is, students identifying as Black or with another or multiple races are more likely to say that race matching as important, and those rating race matching as important are more likely to also see gender matching as important.</p> <p>However, in model 6, female students have significantly greater odds (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 11.30; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01) of saying that matching their advisor's gender is at least a little important when compared to male students even after accounting for all other measures in the study. This provides further support to hypothesis 1. This is not evidence to support hypothesis 2 in this model. Students who say that they were concerned about fitting in to their graduate programs due to their gender do not significantly differ in the odds of saying that gender matching is important when compared to those who say that fitting in due to gender was not a concern, although the odds ratio is in the expected positive direction. On the other hand, there is continued support for hypothesis 3, as students' ratings of the importance of race matching and religion matching are significantly associated with greater odds of saying that gender matching is at least a little important.</p> <p>Examining differences across disciplines in model 6, students in physics (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 1.91; <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), psychology (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 1.94; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), and sociology (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 1.86; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01) have greater odds of saying that matching their advisor's gender is important relative to biology students. The latter two findings are in line with what was expected based on hypothesis 4, but it was not expected that students in physics would also be more likely to rate it matching their advisor's gender as important.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-19">Logistic Regression: Importance of Religion Matching</hd> <p>The final group of models, shown in models 7 through 9, presents the analysis of students' ratings of the importance of matching their advisor's religion. Note that in some categories, no students indicated that matching their advisor's religion was important. These categories specifically were South Asian students and students identifying as Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist. This means that students in these groups cannot be included in the analysis for models 7 and 9, which is why the overall number of cases drops to 1,211 in these models.</p> <p>In contrast to the analysis of the race and gender matching outcomes, there are relatively few significant differences or associations when examining the religion matching outcome. This is likely a product of there being comparatively little variation in students' ratings of the outcome, which was seen in Table 3.</p> <p>In model 9, after accounting for all measures in the study, East Asian (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 0.24; <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and Latino or Hispanic (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 0.06; <emph>p</emph> < 0.01) students have significantly lower odds of rating religion matching as important relative to White students. There is no significant gender difference relative to male students or significant religion differences relative to Christian students, however. Although of borderline statistical significance (<emph>o.r.</emph> = 5.80; <emph>p</emph> < 0.08), there is some evidence that students who say they were concerned about fitting into their graduate programs due to their religion have greater odds of saying that religion matching is important relative to students who did not have that concern. This provides some tentative support to hypothesis 2. Again, the other two demographic matching items are significant positive predictors of students' ratings of the importance of religion matching, which is in line with hypothesis 3.</p> <p>Finally, looking at the indicators for discipline, no significant differences relative to biology students were found. Even if reference category is changed to sociology, which shows the lowest rating on the religion matching outcome, the differences between the other disciplines are not statistically significant. When it comes to the religion outcome, then, there is not support for hypothesis 4.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-20">Summary of Results</hd> <p>Overall, the results indicate several important findings. First, relative to White students, Black, Latinx or Hispanic students, and students identifying with another or multiple races are more likely to rate matching their advisor's race as at least a little important, supporting hypothesis 1. Additionally, female students have significantly greater odds of saying that gender matching is important relative to male students.</p> <p>Second, students who say they had a concern about fitting into their graduate program due to their race have greater odds of saying that matching their advisor's race is at least a little important. This association was not significant for the gender outcomes. This finding provides partial evidence for hypothesis 2 for racial identity matching.</p> <p>Hypothesis 3 of the study, which takes an intersectional approach, is also supported in the analyses. Students' ratings of the importance of matching on gender and religion are positively associated with the odds of them rating race matching as important. Likewise, students who say that matching on race or religion is important have greater odds of saying that matching on gender is important.</p> <p>Finally, hypothesis 4 predicted discipline-specific patterns in matching preferences of graduate students. There is partial support for this hypothesis in that sociology students have significantly greater odds of saying that matching their advisor's race at least a little important and students in physics, psychology and sociology have greater odds of saying that matching their advisor's gender is important relative to biology students.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-21">Discussion</hd> <p>Our goal in this study was to address the critical gap in the literature regarding graduate student preferences for demographically matching with an advisor, particularly for underrepresented, minoritized students. Graduate school is typically an educational experience that involves more in-depth relationships among students, advisors, and peer cohorts. Entering into, and feeling included, in such an environment as an underrepresented individual is often quite difficult, especially if the student is faced with being the "only one" of a certain demographic characteristic such as race or gender (Armstrong et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>]). The concept of identity salience provides context for our findings.</p> <p>Compared to White students and male students, students in other racial and ethnic groups and female students were more likely to rate matching their advisor's gender as at least a little important. In other words, underrepresented students likely find it at least a little important to interact with similar others, especially in potentially oppressive environments. Further, as a more direct indicator of identity salience, the analyses also showed that students who said that fit due to their race was a concern before entering their graduate program were more likely to say that matching their advisor's race is important.</p> <p>The current findings also demonstrate that identity salience and advisor preferences among underrepresented graduate students are not unidimensional, but rather intersectional. As a framework, authors of intersectionality theory describe how one's psychosocial experiences are influenced by a complex matrix of intersecting identities (Case [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref93">11</reflink>]; Cole, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref94">16</reflink>]). Experiences within interpersonal relationships at the micro-level as well as more macro-level structural issues such as privilege, oppression, and power hierarchies are unique depending on an individual's constellation of identities (Collins, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref95">17</reflink>]). For example, a female graduate student who also holds a minoritized racial identity, will likely have a different psychosocial experience of gendered racism, oppression, and institutional, structural inequalities as compared to either male graduate students, White graduate students, or even male, racially minoritized graduate students (Jones & Day, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref96">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>The current findings are evidence that when graduate students have a preference for advisors based on one demographic characteristic, such as racial background, they also tend to have a preference about the other two demographic characteristics of gender and religion. For these students, intersecting identity preferences are important. These findings show that students place importance on having an advisor with intersecting characteristics that match their own characteristics.</p> <p>Additionally, professional culture, norms, and demographic make-up can vary across different disciplines. As such, hypothesis 4 predicted discipline-specific patterns regarding advisor preference. However, the analysis produced mixed findings. There is some evidence that students in the social sciences are more likely to place importance on matching their advisor's race and gender when compared to biology and chemistry students. However, physics students are also more likely to rate gender matching as important when compared to chemistry and biology students. Some research has argued that physics has a particularly strong association with masculinity (Cheryan, et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref97">13</reflink>]; Makarova et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref98">36</reflink>]). It is possible that this culture of masculinity influences physics students to place more importance on their advisor's gender, as male physics students might want a male advisor who is seen reflecting that masculine culture and female students might want a female advisor as a buffer from that culture (Banchefsky & Park, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>]). Regardless of the reason, this mixed finding means that there does not seem to be a clear divide between the natural and social sciences, at least when it comes to the importance placed on gender our findings concerning the importance students place on matching their advisor's religion warrants some discussion as well. The analysis found that very few students place any importance on religion matching. This is true even among students identifying with a religious tradition. It is an important question as to why do even these students, who are underrepresented and often stigmatized within academic science (Ecklund, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref100">22</reflink>]), place little to no importance on their advisor's religion?</p> <p>One explanation could be that students do not place importance on matching their advisor's religion for the simple reason that religion is, for the most part, absent from the larger conversation about diversity in science (Ecklund, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref101">22</reflink>]). It likely does not occur to most students, even the ones with a religious identity, that their advisor's religion might be or can be of interest. This is compounded by the often-invisible nature of one's religion and the tendency among religious scientists to feel like they need to conceal their religious identities (Barnes et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref102">4</reflink>]; Ecklund, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref103">22</reflink>]; Scheitle & Dabbs, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref104">45</reflink>]). In sum, it is possible that students say that their advisor's religion is not important because they assume that it is unconnected given that they do not see it being discussed in the profession, because they assume that their religion and their advisor's religion is something to be hidden (Quinn & Chaudoir, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref105">42</reflink>]), or they assume that their advisor does not have a religious identity.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-22">Limitations</hd> <p>As with any study, there are limitations to be addressed. First, the data are cross-sectional, limiting any causal interpretations and some of the measures are retrospective. Within this analysis, it is also important to recognize that a student's stated preference about matching their advisor on demographic characteristics does not provide any evidence of whether they benefit from such matching. A student may not place any importance on matching but benefit from it nonetheless, or a student may place great importance on matching but not receive any discernable benefit from it. It is also possible that the importance a student places on matching their advisor moderates any benefits from matching their advisor's demographics. These are all important topics for future research, but outside the scope of this study.</p> <p>Finally, the outcome measures in the analyses focused on students' "primary faculty advisor." This does not represent all potential relationships that a graduate student may have with faculty. It is possible that students do not place importance on their primary faculty advisor matching their demographics but may place importance on having at least one more informal or secondary mentor who shares their race, gender, or religion.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-23">Implications</hd> <p>Despite the limitations, this study does make several important contributions. First, relatively little research has explored students' stated preferences concerning demographic matching, and the little research that does exist has utilized convenience or otherwise limited samples. This study utilized national probability sampling methods. Second, research on demographic matching has sometimes focused on a single discipline, which makes direct consideration of disciplinary differences impossible. This study included five disciplines in the natural and social sciences, which allowed us to assess such disciplinary effects. Moreover, this study also included an intersectional lens in considering preferences across three demographic characteristics.</p> <p>The present findings have implications for graduate programs who seek to enhance student-advisor placements. The findings indicate that demographic matching with an advisor is more important to some students, particularly to those students identifying as Black and Latino\a students and female students. When considering the demographic make-up of the faculty, it is critical to have faculty that match the type of underrepresented student groups a program is trying to recruit and retain.</p> <p>At the same time, aany effort to actively match students with advisors based on shared demographics based on the assumption that such matching is desired by students is potentially misguided. Indeed, such efforts may be seen as off-putting to the very students they are intended to help. Taken together, the current study adds noteworthy information to the scholarship on demographic matching preferences across gender, race, and religion for graduate students in five distinct science disciplines.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-24">Authors' contribution</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Christopher P. Scheitle. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Scheitle, Platt, and House-Niamke and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-25">Funding</hd> <p>This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Award #1749130, Christopher P. Scheitle, Principal Investigator).</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0163633898-27">Competing Interests</hd> <p>All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-28">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Instutional Review Board at West Virginia University (Approval #: 1610297576.</p> <hd id="AN0163633898-29">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0163633898-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref30" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abrams D, Thomas J, Hogg M. Numerical distinctiveness, social identity and gender salience. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1990; 29; 1: 87-92. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00889.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref53" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong A, Lomax J, Traylor-Knowles N, Samba-Louaka A, Towers C. On being Black in the ivory tower. Cell. 2020; 183; 3: 559-560. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.006https://<ulink href="http://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)31312-X.pdf">www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)31312-X.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref54" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Banchefsky S, Park B. Negative gender ideologies and gender-science stereotypes are more pervasive in male-dominated academic disciplines. Social Sciences. 2018; 7; 2: 1-27. 10.3390/socsci7020027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref58" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barnes ME, Maas SA, Roberts JA, Brownell SE. Christianity as a concealable stigmatized identity (CSI) among biology graduate students. CBE - Life Sciences Education. 2021; 20; 1: 1-15. 10.1187/cbe.20-09-0213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blake-Beard S, Bayne ML, Crosby FJ, Muller CB. Matching by race and gender in mentoring relationships: Keeping our eyes on the prize. Journal of Social Issues. 2011; 67; 3: 622-643. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01717.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref1" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blanchard C, Haccoun RR. Investigating the impact of advisor support on the perceptions of graduate students. Teaching in Higher Education. 2020; 25; 8: 1010-1027. 10.1080/13562517.2019.1632825</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref41" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bowleg L. The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality – An important theoretical framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health. 2012; 102: 1267-1273. 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref69" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Busby BD, Harshman J. Program elements' impact on chemistry doctoral students' professional development: A longitudinal study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 2021; 22; 2: 347-363. 10.1039/D0RP00200C</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell TA, Campbell DE. Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education. 1997; 38; 6: 727-742. 10.1023/A:1024911904627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Canaan, S, & Mouganie, P. (2021). The impact of advisor gender on female students' STEM enrollment and persistence. Journal of Human Resources. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.58.4.0320-10796R2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Case, K. A. (Ed.). (2016). Intersectional pedagogy: Complicating identity and social justice. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charleston LJ, George PL, Jackson JFL, Berhanu J, Amechi MH. Navigating underrepresented STEM spaces: Experiences of Black women in US computing science higher education programs who actualize success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 2014; 7; 3: 166-176. 10.1037/a0036632</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheryan S, Ziegler SA, Montoya AK, Jiang L. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?. Psychological Bulletin. 2017; 143; 1: 1-35. 10.1037/bul0000052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charnysh V, Lucas C, Singh P. The ties that bind: National identity salience and pro-social behavior toward the ethnic other. Comparative Political Studies. 2015; 48; 3: 267-300. 10.1177/0010414014543103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clauss-Ehlers CS, Chiriboga DA, Hunter SJ, Roysircar G, Tummala-Narra P. APA Multicultural Guidelines executive summary: Ecological approach to context, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychologist. 2019; 74; 2: 232-244. 10.1037/amp0000382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole ER. Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist. 2009; 64; 3: 170-180. 10.1037/a0014564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins PH. Gender, black feminism, and black political economy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2000; 568; 1: 41-53. 10.1177/000271620056800105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins PH. Intersectionality's definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology. 2015; 41: 1-20. 10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw K. Mapping the margins: Identity politics, intersectionality, and violence against women. Stanford Law Review. 1991; 43; 6: 1241-1299. 10.2307/1229039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dhamoon RK. Considerations on mainstreaming intersectionality. Political Research Quarterly. 2011; 64; 1: 230-243. 10.1177/1065912910379227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Essed P. Understanding everyday racism. 1991; Sage Publishing</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ecklund EH. Science vs. religion: What scientists really think. 2010; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392982.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, A. J, Mendoza-Denton, R, Patt, C, Young, I, Eppig, A, Garrell, R. L, Rees, D. C, Nelson, T. W. & Richards, M. A. (2019). Structure and belonging: Pathways to success for underrepresented minority and women PhD students in STEM fields. PloS One, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaule P, Piacentini M. An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers in science. Research Policy. 2018; 47; 4: 805-813. 10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein E. Effect of same-sex and cross-sex role models on the subsequent academic productivity of scholars. American Psychologist. 1979; 34; 5: 407-410. 10.1037/0003-066X.34.5.407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green JM, Bedeau KA. Mining for untapped talent and overcoming challenges to diversity in higher education: Evidence for inclusive academic programs. Higher Education Studies. 2020; 10; 4: 131-140. 10.5539/hes.v10n4p131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hermanowicz JC. Classifying universities and their departments: A social world perspective. The Journal of Higher Education. 2005; 76; 1: 26-55. 10.1080/00221546.2005.11772274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hernandez PR, Estrada M, Woodcock A, Wesley Schultz P. Protégé perceptions of high mentorship quality depend on shared values more than on demographic match. The Journal of Experimental Education. 2017; 85; 3: 450-468. 10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hilmer C, Hilmer M. Women helping women, men helping women? Same-gender mentoring, initial job placements, and early career publishing success for economics PhDs. American Economic Review. 2007; 97; 2: 422-426. 10.1257/aer.97.2.422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurtado S, Alvarado AR, Guillermo-Wann C. Thinking about race: The salience of racial identity at two-and four-year colleges and the climate for diversity. The Journal of Higher Education. 2015; 86; 1: 127-155. 10.1080/00221546.2015.11777359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones MK, Day SX. An exploration of Black women's gendered racial identity using a multidimensional and intersectional approach. Sex Roles. 2018; 79; 1: 1-15. 10.1007/s11199-017-0854-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leath S, Chavous T. Black women's experiences of campus racial climate and stigma at predominantly white institutions: Insights from a comparative and within-group approach for STEM and non-STEM majors. The Journal of Negro Education. 2018; 87; 2: 125-139. 10.7709/jnegroeducation.87.2.0125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis JA, Mendenhall R, Harwood SA, Browne Huntt M. "Ain't I a woman?" Perceived gendered racial microaggressions experienced by Black women. The Counseling Psychologist. 2016; 44; 5: 758-780. 10.1177/0011000016641193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis JA, Neville HA. Construction and initial validation of the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale for Black women. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2015; 62; 2: 289-302. 10.1037/cou0000062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lunsford L. Doctoral advising or mentoring? Effects on student outcomes. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning. 2012; 20; 2: 251-270. 10.1080/13611267.2012.678974</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makarova E, Aeschlimann B, Herzog W. The gender gap in STEM fields: The impact of the gender stereotype of math and science on secondary students' career aspirations. Frontiers in Education. 2019; 4; 60: 1-11. 10.3389/feduc.2019.00060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAdam D, Paulsen R. Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology. 1993; 99; 3: 640-667. 10.1086/230319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merolla DM, Serpe RT. STEM enrichment programs and graduate school matriculation: The role of science identity salience. Social Psychological Education. 2013; 16: 575-597. 10.1007/s11218-013-9233-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton TR, Parsons EC. # BlackGirlMagic: The identity conceptualization of Black women in undergraduate STEM education. Science Education. 2018; 102; 6: 1363-1393. 10.1002/sce.21477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pezzoni M, Mairesse J, Stephan P, Lane J. Gender and the publication output of graduate students: A case study. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11; 1. 10.1371/journal.pone.0145146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pietri ES, Drawbaugh ML, Lewis AN, Johnson IR. Who encourages Latina women to feel a sense of identity-safety in STEM environments?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2019; 84: 1-7. 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103827</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn DM, Chaudoir SR. Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97; 4: 634-651. 10.1037/a0015815</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ray, S. (2007). Selecting a doctoral dissertation supervisor: Analytical hierarchy approach to the multiple criteria problem. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2(1): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.28945/55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson TL. The intersections of dominant discourses across race, gender, and other identities. Journal of Counseling & Development. 1999; 77; 1: 73-79. 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02423.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheitle CP, Dabbs E. Religiosity and identity interference among graduate students in the sciences. Social Science Research. 2021; 93. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schroeder DS, Mynatt CR. Graduate students' relationships with their male and female major professors. Sex Roles. 1999; 40; 5: 393-420. 10.1023/A:1018819526103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuckman H. PhD recipients in psychology and biology: Do those with dissertation advisors of the same sex publish scholarly papers more frequently?. American Psychologist. 1987; 42; 11: 987-992. 10.1037/0003-066X.42.11.987</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stryker S, Burke PJ. The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2000; 63; 4: 284-297. 10.2307/2695840</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sue, D. W, & Sue, D. (2018). Counseling the culturally diverse (8th ed.). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Syed M, Goza BK, Chemers MM, Zurbriggen EL. Individual differences in preferences for matched-ethnic mentors among high-achieving ethnically diverse adolescents in STEM. Child Development. 2012; 83; 3: 896-910. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01744.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ting-Toomey S, Yee-Jung KK, Shapiro RB, Garcia W, Wright TJ, Oetzel JG. Ethnic/cultural identity salience and conflict styles in four US ethnic groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2000; 24; 1: 47-81. 10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00023-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagenaar TC. Is there a core in sociology? Results from a Survey. Teaching Sociology. 2004; 32; 1: 1-18. 10.1177/0092055X0403200101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao CM, Golde CM, McCormick AC. More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2007; 31; 3: 263-281. 10.1080/03098770701424983</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Christopher P. Scheitle; Lisa F. Platt and Stephanie M. House-Niamke</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Christopher P. Scheitle is an Associate Professor of Sociology at West Virginia University. He received his Ph.D. from Penn State University. His current research examines social dynamics between religion and science as well as issues related to religious discrimination and victimization in the United States.</p> <p>Lisa F. Platt is an Associate Professor of Counseling and Counseling Psychology at West Virginia University. She received her Ph.D. from Penn State University. Her current research examines the impacts of privilege and oppression for individuals with minoritized identities.</p> <p>Stephanie M. House-Niamke is a doctoral student in sociology at West Virginia University and a W.E.B. Du Bois Fellow. Her research interests concern power, access, and choice, across the areas of race, gender, and religion. This includes anti-racist pedagogy and identity development for melanin-dominant communities and women who participate in religious institutions.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref105"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1376652
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Graduate Student Preferences for Demographic Matching on an Advisor's Gender, Race, and Religion
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Scheitle%2C+Christopher+P%2E%22">Scheitle, Christopher P.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Platt%2C+Lisa+F%2E%22">Platt, Lisa F.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3242-9656">0000-0003-3242-9656</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22House-Niamke%2C+Stephanie+M%2E%22">House-Niamke, Stephanie M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Innovative+Higher+Education%22"><i>Innovative Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Jun 2023 48(3):477-499.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 1749130
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Advisers%22">Faculty Advisers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Bias%22">Gender Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Race%22">Race</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religion%22">Religion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Characteristics%22">Individual Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preferences%22">Preferences</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10755-022-09632-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0742-5627<br />1573-1758
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Research has examined the influence of a graduate student matching their advisor's demographic characteristics on a variety of outcomes, but comparatively few studies have examined students' preferences concerning such matching. Using data from a national survey of U.S. graduate students in five natural and social science disciplines, the analyses examine the importance students place on matching their advisor on three focal characteristics: gender, race, and religion. Overall, the analyses also find that the importance a student places on matching on one characteristic tends to be positively associated with the importance they place on matching on other characteristics. On gender-matching, the analyses find that female graduate students are more likely than male students to place importance on gender matching, but a majority still indicate that it is not at all important. However, a majority of Black students place importance on matching their advisor's race. Few students place any importance on religion matching, even among those who identify with a religion. While not discounting some groups' greater preference for matching their advisor's characteristics, these findings suggest that graduate programs should not assume that such preferences are universal or even particularly strong.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1376652
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1376652
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10755-022-09632-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 477
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Advisers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Race
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Religion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preferences
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Graduate Student Preferences for Demographic Matching on an Advisor's Gender, Race, and Religion
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Scheitle, Christopher P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Platt, Lisa F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: House-Niamke, Stephanie M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0742-5627
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1758
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 48
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Innovative Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1