The praxis of inquiry is Intersectionality. Intersectionality is a sociological framework that analyzes how various systems of power and oppression, such as racism, sexism, and classicism, overlap and intersect creating unique and multifaceted experiences of social inequality (Taj and Ashraf, 2024). It emphasizes that an individual's identities, like race, gender, and socioeconomic status, collectively shape their lived experiences (Carter and Seaton, 2025). Furthermore, intersectionality unveils how to operatively manage cultural complexities (Hays, 2024) and understand forms of discrimination that may result in disadvantages for those with overlapping marginalized identities (Taj and Ashraf, 2024; Collins and Bilge, 2016). Using intersectionality as the framework for inquiry, this study conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews to explore student's perceptions and considerations of enrolling in STEM careers, as well as barriers and incentives to remaining enrolled and graduating in these fields.

The recruitment was done using peer referrals. The principal investigator of this project recruited 3 STEM students as research assistants (RAs) for the NSF grant titled “Collaborative Research HSI_HUBs: Intersectionality in STEMs.” Each RA recruited between 4 and 5 peers in their field to interview. The inclusion criteria for the study were that students were required to be currently enrolled in a STEM-related field at the MSI campus and being over the age of 18 years. Consent to participate was collected at time of recruitment.

The recruitment used a purposive, peer-referral sampling led by three undergraduate RAs who each recruited peers in their field. Interviews were conducted on Zoom between Summer and Fall 2024, in English, averaged ~60 min, and participants received a $20 Amazon e-gift card.

The semi-structured interviews followed a research protocol that mimics a conversation between two-peers to seek to collect a “narrative” of storytelling that describe students' experiences. Interviews were conducted via zoom during a time agreed between the RA and the student. No individual identifier information was collected. Participants used a pseudo-name during the interview and cameras-on were optional. The intersectional variables associated with socioeconomic status were gender, age, family income, race or ethnicity, family support, place of birth, nativity, and school or degree program at the College. RAs took brief field notes after each session to capture contextual details and early analytic memos.

Based on findings of the literature on intersectionality, higher education and from extensive discussion between the RAs of the study, the following narratives and counter-narratives in STEM education were explored in the semi-structure interviews:

The methodology entailed discussing the STEM stereotypes described above through the lens of the participant's lived experiences. To this end, participants explored the following:

The data analysis used inductive thematic analysis. Best practices from step-by step Qualitative content analysis was used (Mayring, 2021). The three undergraduate RAs generated data-driven codes in Excel/Word, then met to build a shared codebook, compare interpretations, and refine theme boundaries. All transcripts were consensus-coded; disagreements were resolved through discussion. We enhanced trustworthiness through regular analytic meetings and peer debriefing with the faculty mentor, and by keeping brief notes on coding decisions. Intersectionality provided the interpretive lens for relating emergent themes to gender, race/ethnicity, immigrant background, and socioeconomic status.

Under this category, two sub-themes were identified: (1) Parental Sacrifices and High Expectations and (2) First-Generation College Experience and Lack of Parental Guidance. Each of the following quotes exemplifies students' sentiments and the role of their ancestry in choosing a career in STEM.

This finding is well within the literature of the expectancy-value model of motivation achievement which posits that motivation is influenced by social-cognitive variables such as self-efficacy and beliefs about the usefulness or utility of task (Dotterer, 2022). In this case, the self-efficacy of students is proven in the quotes of the participants of this study. Students expressed the usefulness of their sacrifice as perceived by their parental figures as the most useful. Research supports that parent involvement can promote children's self-efficacy which is important for having STEM interest and persisting in a STEM field (Amarnani et al., 2018). This model applied in this study helped to understand the factors that contribute to racial/ethnic minority adolescents' STEM interest and achievement, suggesting that parental involvement was the most predictive of the variables, as linked to self-efficacy. Therefore, parental involvement in STEM helps adolescents to feel more confident in their STEM abilities but it does not necessarily contribute to adolescents' STEM utility values (Dotterer, 2022; Amarnani et al., 2018).

The semi-structured interviews revealed six sub-themes related to family and culture. Specifically, participants described differences in expectations based on both culture and gender. Students emphasized the importance of family or community members as role models, particularly those with exposure to STEM careers or knowledge, as key motivators for entering or staying in STEM fields. Peers, faculty, or mentors were mentioned less often in influencing college or major choices. A few participants, however, highlighted their peers as role models. Table 1 illustrates each sub-theme with a participant's quote.

A systematic narrative review of 55 articles that assessed the effects of role models on students' STEM motivation as a function of several features of the role models (their perceived competence, their perceived similarity to students, and the perceived attainability of their success) and the students (their gender, race/ethnicity, age, and identification with STEM) found that students and models need to be carefully studied (Gladstone and Cimpian, 2021). There is no one-size fits all. The majority-group of STEM role models are less-than-effective motivators for marginalized students because they highlight the stereotypes differences and may conclude in students feeling unwelcomed. In contrast, underrepresented-group STEM role models may not activate similar threats in majority-group students, who are generally unlikely to question their place in STEM and might therefore see the role model simply as an inspiring adult whose success they can try to emulate (Gladstone and Cimpian, 2021). Therefore, what role model is more applicable to the students from this study is differentiated by gender than race, with a note that boys or young men from a minority or immigrant background are knowingly different. In that sense, role models from underrepresented groups that apply more than one motivator may result in a net motivation gain on average and avoiding sticking to a single motivation model (Gladstone and Cimpian, 2021; Tal et al., 2024).

Most of the students expressed challenges related to time management and work-school-family balance. Three sub-themes were identified: overall sentiments of an overwhelming life, job-related burnout and procrastination, and difficulties managing the time demands of STEM coursework (Table 2).

These sentiments are not unique to students in this study. Student stress and anxiety are frequently cited as having negative effects on students' academic performance (Hsu and Goldsmith, 2021). In fact, stress and anxiety are known as major challenges facing college students with more than one-third of all college students report experiencing stress and impact their academic performance within the past academic year (Morey and Taylor, 2019). Some of the research suggest that instructors and professors can play a role in mitigating these challenges (Hsu and Goldsmith, 2021). Evidence-based strategies that instructors can employ span a range of approaches, from modifying instructional techniques to empowering students with different mindsets and tools that they can use to alleviate stress (Morey and Taylor, 2019; Myers et al., 2012).

Participants in this sample expressed that they experience high, often unrealistic expectations as STEM students. These include overworking through extracurricular activities and feeling pressured to apply to competitive programs or internships. Some of the quotes include:

This finding is aligned with the literature of college students in STEM disciplines in that they are increasingly faced with highly competitive and demanding degree programs and are at risk of academic overconfidence (Hall and Sverdlik, 2016). Due to this risk, students report that having high ability in science disciplines are also likely to experience academic pressure and associated physical and psychological distress (Webb et al., 2002). Important to this research is to identify the factors that may contribute to racial disparities in STEM participation beyond academic preparation related to added stress or unrealistic expectations. Some research suggest that first-year STEM students tend to overestimate their performance in general, and subsequent analyses indicate that students who overestimate are more likely to switch out of STEM (Park et al., 2023) and some race-based differences in overestimation can be explained by pre-college academic and high school a student attended (Park et al., 2023).

Themes related to the university infrastructure, including faculty mentorship and research capacity, in addition to peer- and community-environment were identified as important factors to remaining in a STEM major. Table 3 illustrates each of the sub-themes in this category.

Mentoring initiatives for undergraduate and graduate students is vast, and there are many programs that support students from a minority background (Nkrumah and Scott, 2022). Under the intersectionality framework mentoring programs must include multiple intersections. This manifold approach call for the attention that understands power, challenges social context, and interrogates oppressive structures and mentors and mentees, as well as other individuals in higher education (e.g., staff and administrators) addressing hierarchies (Nkrumah and Scott, 2022).