Institutional failures and missed opportunities: insights from engineering administrators on Native faculty hiring

Introduction: Past studies have shown that the lack of diversity among STEM faculty is not due to the lack of qualified applicants, but to failures in strategies used to recruit and retain underrepresented faculty. Native peoples remain the most severely underrepresented group among engineering faculty in the United States, yet institutional hiring practices affecting their representation are rarely studied. This study examines institutional hiring practices related to Native faculty representation in engineering education.

Methods: We interviewed 22 deans and associate deans in engineering colleges across the United States to understand barriers to Native faculty hiring and institutional engagement with tribal communities. Using social capital theory and thematic analysis, we analyzed administrators’ perspectives on faculty hiring, diversity, and institutional relationships.

Results: Most administrators attributed underrepresentation to a limited applicant pool, while few acknowledged structural biases within hiring practices. Despite operating in states with large Native populations, most colleges lacked formal relationships with tribal communities and did not advertise positions in Native-serving outlets. We identified inconsistent diversity policies, overreliance on institutional reputation in hiring, and the absence of Native-centered research as systemic issues shaping faculty hiring.

Discussion: This study offers a framework for institutional change based on culturally responsive hiring, regional partnerships, and rethinking how Indigenous knowledge is valued in engineering education. Our findings suggest that reframing diversity as an institutional responsibility rather than a pipeline problem can help decolonize faculty hiring practices in STEM fields.

1 Introduction

Faculty diversity in STEM fields enhances the quality and creativity of research, broadens academic excellence, and fosters student belonging by providing role models for historically underrepresented students (Fox, 2005; Nelson and Brammer, 2010; Leggon, 2010; Tapia, 2010; Dvorakova, 2018). Despite these well-established benefits, faculty of color remain underrepresented across engineering colleges in the United States (Campos et al., 2021; Nelson and Brammer, 2010). This underrepresentation has often been attributed to “leaks” in the educational pipeline, a metaphor suggesting that too few underrepresented students complete graduate degrees. However, this explanation has been widely critiqued (Bhalla, 2019; Boyle et al., 2021; Cannady et al., 2014; Fries-Britt et al., 2011; Gibbs et al., 2016; Pawley and Hoegh, 2011; Vasquez Heilig et al., 2019). Studies show no direct correlation between the number of underrepresented Ph.D. graduates and their presence in faculty ranks, pointing instead to structural failures in hiring and retention processes (Boyle et al., 2021; Gibbs et al., 2016; Vasquez Heilig et al., 2019). Yet, the hiring practices in STEM fields remain underexplored (Wu et al., 2023).

This critique is particularly urgent when considering Native faculty. Native students have the lowest persistence rates in higher education among all racialized groups (Chelberg and Bosman, 2020; Hunt, 2008; Lopez, 2018). Their historical and cultural experiences with academic institutions are uniquely shaped by colonial legacies, including the devaluation of Indigenous knowledge systems and the erasure of tribal community priorities in research agendas (Grande, 2004; Brayboy, 2005; Cech et al., 2017). Educational structures built on Western epistemologies often overlook or marginalize Indigenous worldviews, creating institutional environments that are misaligned with the values and goals of many Native students and scholars (Cicek et al., 2023; Jordan et al., 2019). These dynamics are rooted in settler colonialism, an enduring structure that positions Indigenous peoples as obstacles to land, resources, and institutional authority, rather than as participants in knowledge production (Wolfe, 2006). In the context of U.S. higher education, settler colonialism has shaped universities as institutions that historically excluded Indigenous sovereignty, marginalized Indigenous epistemologies, and prioritized extractive relationships with tribal lands and communities (Greeson et al., 2022).

In response to these settler-colonial foundations of U.S. higher education, scholars have developed theoretical frameworks that explicitly center Indigenous sovereignty, knowledge systems, and institutional accountability. Frameworks such as Tribal Critical Race Theory (Brayboy, 2005) and Lopez’s (2018) AI/AN Millennium Falcon Persistence Model have helped shift the focus from student “deficiencies” to institutional responsibilities. TribalCrit highlights the centrality of colonization in shaping educational inequities and calls for the integration of Indigenous knowledge in academic spaces. Lopez (2018) identifies three critical and interconnected supports for Native student persistence: family, tribal community, and the institution. Several Native students describe their educational goals in terms of giving back to their communities, a form of reciprocity that challenges the individualistic, competitive culture prevalent in STEM academia (Cruz Rios et al., 2021; Kwapisz et al., 2021; Ward et al., 2022). However, institutional responses to these values and forms of persistence have often fallen short, particularly in faculty hiring, where broad diversity initiatives frequently overlook the distinct histories, identities, and needs of Native scholars.

Evidence has shown that the lack of diversity among STEM faculty is not due to the lack of qualified applicants, but to failures in strategies used to recruit and retain underrepresented faculty (Gibbs et al., 2016; Bhalla, 2019). Prior research has identified a range of practices intended to improve faculty diversity, such as broadening hiring criteria, diversifying search committees, and adopting cluster hiring or target-of-opportunity models (Bhalla, 2019; Campos et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2023). However, these strategies are often applied generically to “underrepresented minority” faculty as a monolithic category, overlooking the complex interplay of historical, structural, and cultural factors that shape different racial and ethnic identities.

Existing scholarship has documented the experiences of Native students and faculty in higher education, highlighting persistent challenges related to cultural isolation, devaluation of Indigenous knowledge, mentoring gaps, and tensions between academic careers and commitments to tribal communities (Brayboy, 2005; Lopez, 2018; Dvorakova, 2018; Cruz Rios et al., 2021). Critically, little research has examined Native faculty hiring from the perspective of institutional decision-makers in engineering education. Existing studies tend to focus either on individual persistence and experience or on generalized hiring practices, leaving a gap in understanding how engineering colleges interpret, justify, and operationalize diversity goals with respect to Native faculty in particular. As a result, the institutional mechanisms that reproduce Native underrepresentation, such as hiring norms, recruitment practices, and relationships (or lack thereof) with tribal communities, remain poorly understood.

This study addresses this gap by examining how engineering deans and associate deans understand barriers to Native faculty hiring and institutional engagement with tribal communities. We draw on social capital theory to understand how engineering colleges might catalyze institutional transformation by increasing Native faculty representation and building connections with tribal communities. Social capital theory focuses on the value of social networks and institutional structures in shaping access to opportunities (Lin, 2001). In Lin’s conceptualization, institutions operate as gatekeepers of resources, and transformation occurs when marginalized groups build collective social capital that challenges and eventually reshapes dominant institutional logics. When applied to engineering education, social capital theory illuminates how hiring practices, informal norms, and external relationships either perpetuate exclusion or offer new pathways for inclusion (Garcia and Ramirez, 2018; Martin, 2015; McGee et al., 2022; Zambrana et al., 2015).

Lin also distinguishes between dominant and alternative forms of institutional capital. Engineering colleges, rooted in Western knowledge systems, often uphold dominant institutional norms—such as valuing publication prestige, individual research funding, or academic pedigree—while undervaluing culturally responsive work or community-engaged research. Indigenous knowledge and relational accountability can be understood as forms of alternative institutional capital that remain underrecognized and underutilized in faculty hiring. Building a faculty that reflects these values requires both expanding the number of scholars with alternative capital and strengthening the networks that support them. We build on Lin’s theory of institutional transformation through social networks, which suggests that change occurs when individuals with alternative institutional capital gain presence and collective influence. Drawing a parallel to Lopez’s (2018) AI/AN Millennium Falcon Persistence Model, we argue that decolonial change in engineering education depends on both increasing Native faculty representation and building reciprocal partnerships with tribal communities. These efforts enable the exchange and absorption of Indigenous knowledge within dominant educational systems. This study examines whether engineering colleges are advancing these two objectives as pathways to institutional transformation. We ask:

1. How are engineering colleges increasing (or failing to increase) Native representation within faculty positions as part of broader diversity and inclusion efforts?

2. To what extent are engineering colleges building meaningful partnerships with tribal communities and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) to support collaboration, mutual learning, and the integration of Indigenous knowledge into engineering education?

This paper contributes to the literature on diversity in STEM by focusing specifically on Native representation, a topic that remains understudied. It also advances social capital theory by showing how institutional transformation in higher education depends on both structural change and network-building. We offer a framework for engineering colleges to address their roles as institutionalizing organizations (i.e., entities that either replicate or transform dominant norms) and provide practical strategies for building more inclusive, reciprocal, and culturally grounded hiring processes.

In the sections that follow, we describe our methods, present key findings from the interviews, and discuss implications for policy and practice. We conclude by highlighting the structural shifts needed to support Native representation in engineering faculty and the broader transformation of engineering education.

2 Positionality statement

We, the authors of this paper, acknowledge that we are not Native and do not identify as members of any Indigenous community. As non-Native engineering faculty, we approach this research from an advocate perspective, influenced by our own experiences as members of other underrepresented groups in engineering (three out of our four authors identify as members of underrepresented groups). The first author identifies as Latina—born and raised in South America and immigrated to the US as an adult to pursue graduate school. The third and fourth authors identify, respectively, as Hispanic male and White female. We recognize the historical and ongoing systemic inequities faced by Native communities in higher education and research, and we are committed to using our positionality and platform to highlight these challenges. Despite being in an area with a large Native population, the institution where this work was performed did not have any Native faculty in engineering programs at the time. Our work was informed by the insights of Native scholars and community members, including an internal advisory board of Native academics and stakeholders. We strive to honor their perspectives by framing our analysis with cultural sensitivity, respect, and accuracy.

We also recognize that our analysis is informed by a Western academic framework, which influences the way we approach and interpret the topic of Native faculty recruitment in engineering. Our training and perspectives are rooted in methodologies and epistemologies prevalent in Western scholarship, which often prioritize linear narratives, generalizability, and written documentation. While we strive to understand and honor Indigenous ways of knowing, we acknowledge the limitations of our framework in fully capturing the lived experiences, values, and holistic perspectives of Native communities.

While we aim to contribute to equity and inclusivity through our research, we acknowledge the limitations of our Western framework and our perspective as outsiders. We welcome feedback from Native readers and scholars to ensure our work aligns with and supports the priorities and needs of Native communities.

3 Materials and methods

This study employed a qualitative research design to examine how engineering administrators understand Native faculty hiring and engagement with tribal communities. Rather than seeking to generate a formal theory or capture individual lived experiences, the study aimed to identify institutional logics, norms, and practices as articulated by decision-makers. This approach is aligned with qualitative descriptive inquiry, which emphasizes descriptive, contextualized accounts of participants’ perspectives without advancing formal theory (Sandelowski, 2000), and is consistent with interpretations derived through thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Data collection and analysis were guided by concepts drawn from Tribal Critical Race Theory, Lopez’s (2018) AI/AN Millennium Falcon Persistence Model, and social capital theory, which informed the development of the interview protocol and the interpretation of themes (for example, the question about tribal engagement in research and outreach was derived from Lopez’s (2018) AI/AN Millennium Falcon Persistence Model). We formulated questions about the faculty hiring process, barriers to hiring diverse faculty (and specifically, Native faculty), policies and practices in place to ensure DEI in faculty hiring, and engagement with tribal communities and organizations. The complete interview protocol used for the interviews with deans can be found in Supplementary material 1.

To answer our research questions and investigate the institutional perspective on Native faculty hiring, we conducted phone interviews with engineering administrators (i.e., deans or associate deans) in research universities across the country. We focused on the perspective of engineering deans because of their critical roles in diversity and inclusion decision-making. Engineering administrators are responsible for creating and fostering a culture of inclusion, requesting and approving policies on diversity and inclusion, assembling diversity and inclusion offices and committees, and issuing approvals for critical steps of the hiring process from the job opening to the final decision (Davenport et al., 2022; Pham and Tsai, 2024). While those roles give engineering deans the necessary high-level knowledge to answer our research questions, it is important to acknowledge that policies may not correspond perfectly with practice, and thus administrators may not be aware of the ground reality involving diversity and inclusion practices in the university.

While we acknowledge that the absence of video may limit our ability to capture nonverbal cues, we ultimately chose phone interviews over videoconferencing to better accommodate the administrators’ demanding schedules and provide greater flexibility. The selection criteria used to choosing the institutions was the following: research universities that offer Ph.D. degrees in engineering fields, and (1) were listed among the universities with the highest Native enrollment (College Express, 2019); OR (2) were listed among the best engineering colleges in the U.S. (U.S. News & World Report., 2019) and were located in the ten states with largest Native population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). From these criteria, a total of 52 engineering colleges were contacted, and the authors have completed 22 phone interviews (response rate = 42%) in 15 states. Table 1 presents a list of the 22 universities (not named to preserve anonymity), their regions, and the selection criteria.

Table 1

Table 1. List of universities, regions, and selected criteria.

3.1 Data analysis

We analyzed the interview data using deductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). In an inductive approach, the research question tends to emerge solely from the data, and so do the themes. Conversely, a deductive approach, as applied in this research, is driven by a pre-existing research question informed by theory, and the coding process follows the same logic; thus, the themes tend to follow the researchers’ questions (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

The data analysis was led by the first author with the help of two staff from the University Office of Evaluation and Education Effectiveness (UOEEE) at Arizona State University. Among other roles, the UOEEE assists researchers with qualitative data analysis. To enhance research credibility, we followed the collaborative thematic analysis process documented in Nowell et al. (2017). After the interviews were transcribed, the data analysis team members read the transcripts and documented initial thoughts and code ideas.

Initial coding was conducted on a subset of transcripts to identify recurring concepts related to faculty hiring, institutional responsibility, and engagement with tribal communities. A peer debriefing followed, where the team engaged in researcher triangulation and decided on initial codes. Through constant comparison across interviews, related codes were grouped into broader analytic categories, which were then refined into the themes presented in the Findings section. For example, initial codes such as recruiting students from tribal communities, engaging tribes through student outreach, conducting research on tribal lands, addressing community needs through research projects, collaborating with tribal colleges on teaching, and sharing instructional resources with tribal institutions were grouped into categories like “outreach programs,” “research and community development,” and “teaching partnerships,” which informed the broader theme of engaging with tribal communities presented in the Findings section. Throughout this process, themes were reviewed in relation to the full dataset and refined to ensure internal coherence and analytic distinction. An example of the coding criteria is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2

Table 2. Example from our codebook Main theme: engaging with tribal communities (institutions’ initiatives and examples of partnerships with local tribes, through research, outreach, or education).

The analysis revealed insights garnered from the institutional perspectives, presented in the Results section. Anonymous quotes from the transcripts were provided as evidence, per IRB confidentiality requirements.

To enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, several strategies commonly used in qualitative research were employed. Credibility was supported through the use of semi-structured interviews that allowed administrators to elaborate on institutional practices and clarify their perspectives, as well as through researcher triangulation during the analytic process, including peer debriefing with multiple members of the analysis team. Dependability was strengthened by the use of a consistent interview protocol across participants and an iterative analytic process involving repeated review of transcripts and themes. Confirmability was supported through the use of verbatim quotations to ground interpretations in participants’ accounts and through documentation of analytic decisions, including coding criteria illustrated in Table 2.

4 Results

In this section, we present our findings and illustrate them with quantitative and qualitative evidence. Relevant quotes from the interview transcripts serve as qualitative evidence, complemented by quantitative evidence in percentages.

4.1 Perceived barriers to hiring native faculty

4.1.1 Lack of native representation in faculty applicant pools

Ten engineering administrators (45%) provided the number of Native faculty in their colleges. While two participants reported a total of a single Native faculty among all engineering departments, eight deans reportedly had no Native faculty in their engineering colleges.

With the goal of examining the institutional perspective of barriers to hiring Native engineering faculty, all deans interviewed in this study were asked to list the main reasons why they find it difficult to hire Native faculty. Table 3 summarizes the reasons mentioned by the deans. Nineteen participants (86%) mentioned the applicant pool composition as a primary barrier to hiring Native faculty. Specifically, according to one respondent, Native representation within faculty applicant pools has historically been “almost invisible.” Indeed, five applicants, despite their extensive experience serving leadership and/or faculty positions within engineering colleges ranging from three to 30 years, indicated no recollection of having encountered any Native faculty applicants within their respective engineering fields. One respondent illustrated the extent of this lack of Native presence, stating, “…I’ve reviewed probably, I do not know, close to a hundred shortlists and… I’m not sure we have had…even a single Native American candidate in the pool.” Conversely, two respondents recalled encountering Native faculty applicants, albeit very few: “… in my [more than 10] years of experience, I think I’ve seen one or two [Native applicants] …and I’ve been a dean of…engineering programs at two universities ever since 2008.” Another respondent added, “There are no barriers [to hiring Native faculty]. We would love to hire Native American faculty, we just cannot find them… Unless we can change that, it does not matter what you do or I do, it really does not. So, the biggest barrier is that the pool is always very small and [there’s an] extremely competitive market.” Another concurred, stating, “I think when we bring candidates in, if we are able to identify and get them interested in the university, I do not think there’s any structural barriers that we have in terms of hiring a Native American candidate. It’s just supply and demand.”

Table 3

Table 3. Barriers to hiring Native faculty in engineering, as perceived by engineering deans (n = 22).

4.1.2 Pipeline leaks and assumptions about student interests

Despite the relatively large Native populations residing in the interviewees’ respective states, nine respondents (41%) highlighted “leaks” in the “educational pipeline” that may contribute to the lack of Native faculty applicants. One respondent noted, “we have, I think, identified working on getting more undergraduate engineering students brought on that are Native Americans. I think we have had some very modest success in that. I think that of those students completing an engineering degree at the undergrad level, we have not had experience with the students wanting to continue to get advanced degrees. In particular, as a Ph.D., for the purpose of becoming a faculty member.”

Two respondents (9%) drew inferences as to the reasoning underlying these “pipeline leaks,” namely pertaining to the incongruent cultural nuances between the Native community and the university setting. Drawing upon their extensive experience working with students, one respondent observed, “We have [Native] students that… come up here on campus and they really struggle…I think it’s just the whole university experience is not really something that they take to really easily… they’ll drop out their junior year or something…. It’s just a different philosophy.” Another respondent elaborated upon similar conjecture, stating that the resultant career path of pursuing an engineering degree, oftentimes, will inevitably remove them from their tribal settings and communities. They suggested, reflecting a common deficit narrative, Native students may not be interested in academic careers. Indeed, yet another respondent acknowledged that “there’s a challenge of getting more Native American students interested in engineering.” This respondent continued, underscoring a need for greater outreach efforts dedicated to “showing [Native students] the benefits and the excitement of an academic career, so that we can increase the overall pool.”

4.1.3 Competition with industry and prestigious institutions

Despite their expressed openness to hiring Native candidates, five respondents (23%) discussed the challenge of competing with more prestigious universities and higher-paying industry jobs. One dean observed that “big-name” schools such as MIT attract and produce the most Native Ph.D. graduates in engineering: “It’s hard once you get the PhD from MIT, even if you want to come back closer to our reservation here in [this state], because of your status, because you graduated from MIT, because you want to make money.” One respondent described their institution’s efforts to become more competitive, which entails hiring postdoctoral candidates with the agreement to offer them faculty positions upon completion:

We've offered this, too, in some cases, is to sort of combine a faculty position with a postdoctoral position. The postdoctoral position wouldn't be at the school that would hire them as a faculty member. We'd… sometimes even pay for a postdoctoral fellowship, so that they could get advanced experience, and then come to the institution as a faculty member. That seems to work. It's not a guarantee, because they could go elsewhere in the interim, but hopefully they show that there's this interest in investing in you that could support them.

Other respondents pointed out the salary disparity between an industry job and a graduate student salary, which makes an academic career less desirable for Native students upon graduation. However, one participant described a case in which their university was able to recruit an outstanding Native faculty member that turned down higher paying jobs in more prestigious institutions:

…we've also had a chance to recruit really outstanding people who appreciate our commitment to Native Americans and under-served students. For example, we were able to recruit a new [Native] faculty member who is outstanding, and she… We're not an R1 institution but… And she's not from [this state], but she recognized the opportunity to have more impact on Native American students with us, than at the other R1 institutions that were trying to woo her.

In sum, the top three barriers unearthed by the respondents—sparse Native representation within the applicant pool, leaks in the educational pipeline, and competition with both the industry and academic institution - are all intertwined. As one respondent observed, “The pool is so small and the competition is very high. So, the top universities… give big salaries or the top companies would win, every single time.”

4.1.4 Biases in search committees

Four deans (18%) discussed internal limitations in the hiring process that may be partially responsible for the low number of Native people in the applicant pool. While two respondents conceded that their search committees tend to display more vigilance about diversity statistics specific to Black, Latinx, and female engineers than to any other historically underrepresented group, two additional respondents discussed limitations to their institution’s hiring standards. Specifically, these interviewees noted patterns of bias in favor of applicants who attended especially prestigious schools, applicants that the search committee knows personally, and those with the most concrete accolades. One respondent stated:

[A] challenge is that sometimes our faculty are not willing to look at the quality of the person beyond maybe the institution where they got their degree. You know, maybe somebody went to the University of New Mexico and did a really great dissertation, but somebody else went to Stanford or MIT and did a good job. Then you know, unfortunately our faculty will go for the big-name school, and not really for the high-potential individual…I think when it gets down to the faculty and the committees, diversity kind of takes a back seat to really trying to find the most excellent candidate, the one who looks to be the rising star.

4.1.5 Geographical isolation and lack of community

Another issue mentioned by the deans was the location factor. Three respondents (14%) cited the distance between the university and the reservation as a notable impediment to reaching potential Native candidates. One respondent inferred that the thin Native presence in the area surrounding their institution may deter Native candidates from considering application, given that “the reputation is not that this is a place where they will find a good community.” This respondent continued, drawing upon their personal experience as a member of a racial-ethnic minority group: “…you have to really be comfortable in a scenario where you are the only person that looks like you. And has your lineage…then [you] would find the community. And that’s not what’s happening.” Similarly, another dean pointed out that the physical distance from tribal reservations may cause Native faculty to feel isolated in their university.

4.2 Current hiring practices for diverse faculty

4.2.1 Faculty hiring process overview

The engineering administrators were asked to describe the faculty hiring process and the existing practices and policies in their universities that are targeted to increase the number of Native faculty. While the deans collectively expressed a desire and commitment to increasing the diversity of their college’s faculty, efforts to hire historically underrepresented groups were more globally oriented towards all racial-ethnic minorities (including Natives) than centrally focused upon Native candidates.

Twenty respondents (91%) laid the foundation by describing a uniform, multilevel hiring process through which hiring needs are generated at the department level where college search committees are formed, and hiring plans are reported successively to the Deans’ and Provosts’ offices for review and approval. One individual described this process as follows:

Beginning with [the] individual department, the department head identifies a need to hire a faculty member, get the approval from the Dean’s office to open that line and then that position is advertised. Usually, the department will invoke a department-level committee to look at the CVs and resumes and that sort of thing. The top candidates will be invited in for interviews and presentations and those sorts of things, and then the faculty in that department will make recommendations to the department head, and the department head then will move ahead accordingly to either hire that individual or whoever comes out on top.

Implicit in this base process, however, is an additional dimension of review and approval pertaining to diversity considerations within the applicant pool. In general, respondents drew an even distribution of responsibility with this matter across all involved parties, including the individual academic departments, Human Resources departments, deans, and provosts. While each of the 22 interviewees expressed convergent perspectives pointing to the importance of promoting the diversity of the applicant and interview pools, subgroups of respondents illustrated varied manners of accomplishing this. Table 4 summarizes the strategies to promote diversity as identified by the respondents.

Table 4

Table 4. Strategies to hire diverse faculty as identified by the engineering deans (n = 22).

4.2.2 Diversity training and search committee preparation

Diversity training programs, oftentimes instituted by the National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant, composed one significant initiative undertaken by several institutions. Thirteen respondents (59%) established completion of a diversity training program as a prerequisite to serving on faculty search committees. Respondents highlighted multiple valuable facets of this training, namely with respect to educating them about implicit biases that manifest during the search process. Nine of these respondents referred to these programs collectively as “implicit bias training.” According to the deans, these programs resulted in enhanced understandings of the importance of diversity, methods, and guidelines for attaining diversity within the applicant pool, and how to combat personal biases that may unduly influence decisions.

4.2.3 Search plans and post hoc diversity review

Aside from training programs, six interviewees (27%) articulated the requirement to submit to the dean and provost a search plan for ensuring that the applicant pool will be adequately diverse. These plans typically outlined recruitment methods to be utilized to capture a diverse sample of applicants. Specific recruitment strategies oftentimes detailed advertising and networking tactics to ensure that information regarding the faculty opening is easily visible and accessible to diverse populations. As such, in these cases, approaches to increase the diversity of the applicant pool are developed preemptively in the form of a detailed plan recording networking and advertising strategies aimed toward diverse audiences.

Conversely, thirteen respondents (59%) illustrated their procedures through a process that one participant described as “self-policing,” beginning at the department level and culminating in an executive review by the dean and provost offices. Unlike the process that entails submitting a search plan for approval prior to instigating recruitment activities, these thirteen individuals described a series of reviews by the dean and provost, who provide approval and/or feedback on the diversity of the applicant pool post factum. Additionally, while the recruitment strategies themselves (i.e., networking and advertising) did not differ among the 22 represented universities, these methods appeared to be conducted with more autonomy at the department level among these thirteen respondents. Through this process, the applicant pool is selected and narrowed at the department level, after which point it is subject to review by the dean to ensure that the resultant interview pool contains proportional representation among diverse groups. These thirteen individuals emphasized the dean’s power to reject the interview pool based on a lack of diversity, noting that the department is not permitted to begin the interview invitation process until the applicant pool is approved. The determination of whether the shortlist covered a sufficiently broad cross-section paralleling the diversity of the original applicant pool, in these cases, appeared to lie largely at the discretion of the dean and their associates.

4.2.4 Role of HR and diversity officers

While most of these respondents described oversight of this nature from the dean’s office, four respondents (18%) noted that their practices are driven, at least in part, by predetermined parameters utilized to discern adequate diversity within an applicant pool or the college’s faculty body. Two of these respondents noted that they work in close collaboration with internal offices at their universities that provide them with targeted diversity statistics to exemplify adequate diversity within a given sample. The other two respondents reported operating under even more stringency, stating a consistent objective to reach quotas ranging from 20 to 50% hiring rates for diverse individuals.

Finally, while a portion of the interviewees specified that the hiring process is centralized between the department and the dean’s office, nine respondents (41%) described additional personnel who work in supplement with the search committees to monitor the measures search committees take to ensure diversity of the applicant pools. Four respondents referred to individual Human Resources representatives (i.e., “a diversity person,” or “an affirmative action person”) appointed by each search committee. Upon formation of the search committee, these HR representatives establish ground rules regarding how the committees should function. Specifically, these individuals serve jointly to promote awareness and sensitivity among search committees, to oversee the committee’s recruitment and outreach initiatives, and to monitor the reported statistics quantifying the diversity of the applicant pool.

Additionally, two respondents specifically shed light upon the committees’ contributions to the multiple facets of the outreach and recruitment efforts, namely advertising and networking. While one respondent highlighted the committee’s role to collect and report all potential advertising venues tailored to specific minority groups, the other applicant described a detailed, multistep process overseen by a specially trained committee. Specifically, this group provides feedback on the demographics of the search committee, discusses the language and placements of the job advertisements, plans and conducts presentations regarding the open faculty position at conferences, and identifies and connects with colleagues within their network to encourage their applications. Six additional respondents reported working closely with their Human Resources, Faculty Advancement and Equal Access Offices. Respondents described the roles of these offices in a similar manner to those of the diversity committees. In sum, the outreach and recruitment efforts conducted by the search committees operate largely under the direction of individual representatives, specially formed diversity committees, and/or college offices dedicated to promoting equitable hiring practices.

Concurrently with their illustrations of the hiring process, interviewees described an array of unique initiatives undergone by their respective colleges to expand the diversity of their candidate pools. For example, eight respondents (36%) described specialized efforts to increase the diversity of the search committees. Respondents recognized that diversifying the search committee based on gender, race and ethnicity is not always possible due to a lack of diversity in the faculty body, nor is it always practical due to the risk of placing undue burdens upon the same individuals each time a committee is formed. As such, with consideration to promoting the diversity of the search committees, these individuals oftentimes expanded the scope of “diversity” beyond dimensions of race, ethnicity, and gender to include additional qualities pertaining to rank, experience levels, and fields of study. Two of these respondents highlighted requirements to include committee members from outside of their respective departments and/or colleges, oftentimes including graduate students or individuals from industry, as relevant to the position at hand.

4.2.5 Recruitment and advertising strategies

Fifteen interviewees (68%) provided descriptions of their processes for advertising open faculty positions, highlighting the intent to place advertisements in “nontraditional places,” alongside mainstream media, for purposes of reaching a broad and diverse audience across a wide range of geographic regions, both national and international. Five of these interviewees noted consideration to ensuring the use of suitable language and wording on the advertisements, under guidelines set forth by the National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant. Such language seeks to describe the faculty position in broad, holistic terms while emphasizing institutional values of promoting diversity and inclusion. Indeed, three respondents described open rank search processes conducted at their institutions, through which open faculty positions are advertised in a manner that reaches individuals of varied geographic regions, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and academic specialties, without fine pointing the specific teaching needs of any given department.

Additionally, eight respondents (36%) discussed strategic ad placement in “minority-targeting” publications and websites. These placements are generally directed by the dean and provost with the intent to ensure that the advertisements are accessible to diverse groups, with a focus upon “underrepresented talent.” Five individuals named specific minority-centered magazines through which their institutions solicit applications for faculty openings, with three naming each of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) and Society of Women Engineers (SWE) magazines, two mentioning the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE) media, and one naming the Diversity in Higher Education journal. Only one of these individuals mentioned advertising in Native-specific media, including through the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) and the Society of Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) organizations. Two interviewees reported being unfamiliar with these organizations.

4.2.6 Networking and personal outreach

While many interviewees described procedures for advertising with the goal of reaching and attracting diverse candidates, nine respondents (41%) described proactive recruitment methods expanding beyond the passive scope of advertising to include networking and personalized interactions with potential applicants. Search committees engaging in these recruitment methods reported drawing upon personal connections with colleagues, students, postdocs, and/or distinguished individuals from their industry to identify potential applicants. While most of these respondents highlighted the formation of these connections through attendance at national conferences and meetings, two interviewees reported occasionally tracking former students to “look for opportunities to invite them to apply back at [their] institutions when they have appropriate academic credentials.” Although two respondents recognized notable opportunity to improve and expand their networking practices, interviewees in general believed that such tactics, particularly in combination with effective advertising, are highly conducive to identifying a diverse pool of potential applicants.

4.2.7 Contributions to diversity statements

Finally, four respondents (18%) described a unique addendum to the application process, oftentimes referred to as a Contributions to Diversity Statement. As a new requirement applied to the application process, the Contributions to Diversity Statements are submitted in supplement to the teaching and research statements. Evaluated at both the department and college levels through the hiring process, these statements composed each applicant’s individualized profiles outlining their interests, records, activities, experiences, views, and philosophies with respect to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

4.2.8 Target of opportunity and strategic hires

Reaching beyond the search process, thirteen institutions (59%) implement specialized hiring practices designed to attract and incentivize highly qualified candidates who offer some unique value or quality or the potential to fulfill a departmental need (i.e., diversification) toward seeking employment within their college. Eleven respondents described Target of Opportunity hires (also called “Strategic hires”), a process that transcends the conventional national faculty search. Through this process, the department identifies an outstanding candidate and presents a “special case” to the provost, regardless of whether the candidate was identified through the search process or whether the department presents need or availability for a new faculty hire. Although one respondent noted that departments are allocated a certain number of hiring “slots,” this respondent stated that, by virtue of Target of Opportunity hiring, “at any time they can request an additional…special hire that would not count against those slots for various special needs.” Two respondents highlighted cases in which these hiring proposals are likely to be approved, designating the process toward “people who would make extraordinary contributions to diversity,” and individuals who “[are] exceptional in an area of strategic importance and if they are an URM.” Selected individuals, as two respondents clarified, are enabled to bypass the initial screening processes, advancing immediately to the interview stage. Considering the traditionally prolonged faculty hiring process, this “out of cycle” hiring process allows departments to “strike as quickly as [they] can.”

4.2.9 Incentives and funding for diverse hires

To supplement the Target of Opportunity hiring practices described above, eight respondents (36%) described mechanisms by which funding is allocated to pay for the salary or startup package through the initial years of a diversity hire’s employment. Three of these individuals described an equal, shared financial responsibility between the college and the provost office. In other words, “the expectation is that half the money would come from the provost, and half the money would come from the college.” One respondent emphasized that their institution oftentimes allocates funds to endorse diversity hires, regardless of whether any faculty openings exist. Another respondent described a similar process through which an opportunity hire’s salary is funded in full by the provost throughout the first year of employment, though this financial support decreases incrementally over the first 3 years. This respondent described the process as follows: “I think it’s something like they pay all the first year, 2/3 of second year, 1/3 of the third year, and then none. Plus, they provide a large portion of the startup funds.”

4.2.10 Cluster hiring and institutional collaboratives

A lesser-mentioned tactic aimed toward increasing diversity hires was cluster hiring, that is, hiring a group of historically underrepresented faculty at once. Two respondents (9%) described cluster hiring practices implemented at their universities. One respondent noted that their university engaged in this practice by joining resources between multiple colleges as a means of attempting to attract Native people and other underrepresented groups. However, this respondent conceded that, relative to other colleges at their institution, these efforts within the engineering college have been less successful with respect to attracting and hiring Native faculty: “We did hire some, but not as many as I would have liked to.” The other respondent reported greater success in hiring diverse individuals within the natural resources field, but neither specified the nature of this diversity nor the extent to which these diversity hires included Native faculty.

Additionally, one respondent recounted their institution’s membership in the IChange Network, describing this program as a consortium of like-minded Association of Public Land-Grant (APLU) universities that exchange ideas and support dedicated to increasing the diversity of the STEM faculty body. As a program, the IChange Network supplies participating institutions with comprehensive support, technical assistance, and resources encompassing institutional self-assessment of inclusive hiring practices, leadership institutes to promote the professional development of underrepresented and minority faculty members, and funding programs to instigate new campus-based diversity-centric initiatives.

4.2.11 Institutional gaps and legal constraints

Finally, six interviewees (27%) reported no specialized practices or policies dedicated to increasing diversity hires at their universities. However, two respondents explicitly expressed a desire to implement similar processes at their universities. One respondent highlighted financial barriers as the primary impediment to doing so: “Our college does not have money to do that. I would love to but what’s happened at our university is the cost of living increases and other expenses…are exceeding the budget that we get from the state.” The other respondent concurred with the desire to incorporate these hiring strategies, stating that this endeavor is a work in progress. Five participants (23%) discussed the interaction of select state laws imposing affirmative action bans with their hiring efforts, emphasizing that special precautions must be taken to ensure that all hires are conducted in compliance with these legal propositions. While institutions are permitted to consider and value a candidate’s contributions to diversity, such laws prohibit establishing fixed hiring quotas or hiring solely based upon an individual’s race or ethnicity. As such, hiring committees are neither permitted to discriminate against nor give preference toward historically underrepresented groups.

4.3 Engaging with tribal communities

During the interviews with engineering college administrators, the participants were asked to describe ways in which their engineering colleges engaged with local tribes with respect to research, teaching, and service. Responses across the 22 interviewees illustrated a broad spectrum of engagement, ranging from limited contact to extensive involvement with tribes. Out of the 22 interviewees, fourteen (63%) reported limited or no engagement with local tribes, while eight respondents (36%) reported some level of engagement. Overall, the respondents reflected stronger initiatives in areas of outreach than in areas of research and teaching.

4.3.1 Outreach and student recruitment activities

Several respondents highlighted outreach efforts initiated by their colleges to engage with prospective Native university students. Some participants described outreach and recruitment efforts based on hands-on activities to pick Native high school students’ interest in engineering disciplines. Examples of such efforts included the GearUp program, and the American Indian STEM and Business Day conference.

4.3.2 Support for enrolled native students

Besides outreach efforts to attract prospective students, three participants described sources of institutional support provided to enrolled Native students, such as sponsorships to attend conferences affiliated with professional engineering student societies, and implementation of programs dedicated to the professional development of Native students. Two respondents, for example, stated that their colleges possess active AISES student chapters and often host regional meetings and national conferences. Similarly, another respondent described two other programs instrumental in fostering the inclusion and success of Native students in engineering research: The EMPower Program, and the American Indian Research Opportunities. The former is a program focused primarily (though not exclusively) upon Native students, while the latter dedicates itself to enhancing the student experience by exposing undergraduate students to substantial research experience and assisting them in their applications to fellowships and graduate education.

4.3.3 Faculty-led tribal collaborations

Two engineering deans reported involvement with local tribes through individual faculty engagements. One respondent stated, “…not every faculty member is going to engage with the Native populations, but many do… We’ve had a lot of success, for example, with NSF awards, and those have to have an engagement and outreach strategy explicitly written into proposals.” As an example of individual faculty engagement, a dean mentioned an initiative centered upon remediation of local water sources to ensure tribal access to clean drinking water. However, the dean noted that while the faculty members of their college consulted with the local tribes as a component of the remediation project, the tribes’ roles “[have] not been the strongest that could have been possible.” Specifically, this participant noted that “Remediation has usually taken shortcuts and our Native neighbors typically did not like the shortcuts taken and, in most cases, they were not consulted by the authorities when they were making decisions. So, their participations have been [limited] and not because of any of their faults.” Another participant drew connections and partnerships with local tribes through their university’s Engineers Without Borders program (a nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering the development of communities through sustainable humanitarian projects), while another mentioned their college’s association with the Construction in Indian Country program (a partnership between tribal committees and university leadership dedicated to enhancing the quality of tribally sponsored construction projects on tribal lands).

4.4 Collecting demographic data

A topic that has emerged from the interviews with engineering administrators was challenges in collecting and evaluating data from Native students and faculty. When asked about the challenges to hiring Native faculty in their colleges, five deans (23%) mentioned that it is hard to identify and track Native students and faculty applicants due to unreliable data collection. One participant described the problem: “[the data] is just self-reported and they can choose to even not complete that.” Another participant concurred, stating that “identifying [Native] candidates” is a great challenge: “we may not always know when somebody is not a Native American candidate.” Consequently, the search committee may try to infer whether a certain candidate is or not part of a historically underrepresented group. One dean stated: “You might be looking at the CV to see. They might list groups, professional groups they are associated with, or awards that then give a hint.”

In response to those challenges, one engineering administrator reported recruiting efforts in their universities that distinguish between self-identified race and tribal affiliation or community attachment. This dean stated that their university has a recruitment policy that encourages departments to consider “tribal or corporate enrollment or affiliation” as a positive factor in admission, financial aid, and outreach programs.

5 Discussion

This study addressed significant challenges and opportunities related to the persistent underrepresentation of Native American faculty in engineering colleges, from the perspective of engineering college administrators. The findings reveal systemic barriers in faculty hiring processes, shortcomings in institutional engagement with tribal communities, and reliance on generalized diversity practices that fail to target Native candidates effectively. This section situates these findings in relation to existing literature on faculty diversity hiring, highlighting points of alignment, extension, and divergence with respect to Native faculty in engineering.

Prior research on faculty diversity hiring in STEM has documented the tendency of universities to adopt standardized hiring practices that mirror broader institutional norms, often emphasizing procedural compliance over substantive change (Bhalla, 2019; Campos et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2023). These patterns are consistent with institutional isomorphism, in which organizations converge around similar structures and behaviors to maintain legitimacy within larger social systems (Lin, 2001). Our findings align with this literature, showing that engineering colleges frequently rely on hierarchical and standardized hiring processes that prioritize self-policing rather than formalized, enforceable diversity policies. At the same time, this study extends existing work by demonstrating how such isomorphic practices limit the effectiveness of diversity initiatives for Native faculty in particular. Although many deans described efforts that mirror recommended best practices, such as implicit bias training, diverse search committees, target-of-opportunity hires, active recruitment, and cluster hiring, these strategies were applied inconsistently and rarely tailored to the specific contexts shaping Native faculty careers. For example, only one dean reported advertising faculty positions through Native-centered professional societies such as AISES. The absence of targeted outreach to Native organizations and the lack of recruitment pipelines grounded in Indigenous communities suggest that generic diversity practices, while institutionally legitimizing, are insufficient for addressing Native faculty underrepresentation.

The reliance on standardized hiring structures is accompanied by narrative frames that deflect institutional responsibility, most notably pipeline explanations for Native faculty underrepresentation. Prior scholarship on faculty diversity hiring in STEM has consistently identified pipeline narratives as a dominant explanation for the underrepresentation of marginalized groups, often framing the problem as external to the institution rather than as a consequence of hiring practices themselves (Bhalla, 2019; Wu et al., 2023). Related research on academic decision-making further shows how meritocratic, White Western frames shape how STEM faculty and administrators evaluate candidates and define institutional priorities, privileging individualistic and decontextualized forms of achievement while marginalizing community-engaged and nontraditional scholarship (Blair-Loy and Cech, 2022; Russo-Tait, 2022). Consistent with this literature, the majority of interviewees attributed the absence of Native faculty to an insufficient applicant pool and competition with higher-paying positions. This study extends existing work by showing how pipeline narratives operate specifically in relation to Native faculty, obscuring the role of institutional norms, evaluation criteria, and recruitment practices in shaping who is recognized as a viable candidate. In this context, pipeline explanations take on a settler-colonial character, rendering Indigenous absence as natural, inevitable, or beyond institutional control while preserving existing hiring structures. Although a small number of deans acknowledged shortcomings in their own processes, most failed to interrogate how practices such as excluding Native candidates from targeted hiring efforts or prioritizing institutional prestige over research quality reproduce systemic inequities. These practices disadvantage candidates from less prominent academic backgrounds, including those connected to tribal communities or smaller institutions, and remain misaligned with stated commitments to diversity and inclusion.

Faculty diversity hiring literature has largely focused on internal institutional practices, such as search committee composition, evaluation criteria, and recruitment mechanisms, while paying limited attention to universities’ relationships with external communities (Bhalla, 2019; Campos et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2023). This study diverges from that literature by demonstrating that, for Native faculty, hiring practices are closely intertwined with how engineering colleges engage with tribal communities. Our findings indicate that Native candidates may prioritize opportunities to conduct tribal-relevant research and collaborate with local tribes over higher-paying industry positions or appointments at prestigious universities, highlighting the importance of community-embedded academic work in shaping faculty career decisions. These findings align with research on institutional change showing that sustained racial equity initiatives depend on structured, ongoing relationships with marginalized communities, particularly when formalized through liaison roles and power-sharing arrangements (LePeau et al., 2025). At the same time, our study reveals a critical disconnect between these priorities and prevailing institutional practices. Although some deans described outreach efforts focused on recruiting Native high school students or individual faculty initiatives involving research on tribal lands, such efforts were often episodic and oriented toward institutional benefit rather than reciprocal partnership. Research conducted in tribal contexts frequently lacked meaningful consultation with tribal leaders or respect for their roles in decision-making. Taken together, these patterns reflect settler-colonial institutional logics that normalize extractive engagement with tribal communities, positioning Indigenous knowledge and sovereignty as peripheral rather than foundational to faculty hiring and research partnerships.

Prior commentary in higher education has highlighted the central role of demographic data in shaping recruitment, retention, and accountability efforts, while also raising concerns about the limitations of broad racial categories for capturing meaningful differences in experience and need (Perna, 2023). Consistent with these concerns, our findings indicate that data collection practices, particularly reliance on self-identified race, are a critical but underexamined component of institutional strategies to recruit and retain Native students and faculty. This study demonstrates that reliance on self-identified race alone can obscure important distinctions within Native populations. Individuals who self-identify as Native may or may not have tribal affiliation or sustained community attachment, and these differences shape access to resources, experiences of marginalization, and institutional support needs. Consequently, recruitment and retention strategies based solely on self-reported race risk misalignment between institutional responses with the needs of Native students and faculty who maintain strong ties to tribal communities.

Finally, these findings suggest that expanding social networks and hiring Native faculty can work as synergistic activities to create resources and social capital necessary to promote the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge as a form of institutional capital in engineering colleges. We argue that incorporating Indigenous knowledge and decolonizing engineering education should be seen as a university’s responsibility to help alleviate the tension between Indigenous knowledge systems and the norms of Western academic institutions reported in the literature and acknowledged by deans in this study.

5.1 Recommendations for practice

In this section, the authors present the framework created to improve Native attainment in engineering education (Table 5) and provide recommendations for each of the five areas presented in the Results section: engaging with local tribal communities, hiring Native faculty, collecting data, teaching and mentoring, and providing financial support. Finally, the authors discuss the limitations of this study. The recommendations are based on the findings from this study, and in previous efforts by the authors (Cruz Rios et al., 2021).

Table 5

Table 5. Proposed framework: the role of universities in improving Native attainment in engineering.

5.1.1 Engaging with local tribal communities

Based on the findings discussed in the Results section, the authors recommend a few strategies that engineering colleges should adopt to support the desire shared by many Native students and faculty to give back to their communities. Investing in Native-centered research institutes and programs is key to allowing Native students and faculty to give back to Native communities through their field of work. Such initiatives should go beyond ephemerous research grants and promote long-term support to research and service in partnership with Native tribal members, government, and businesses. Additionally, investing in Native-centered research offers a great opportunity to increase the competitiveness of engineering colleges when seeking Native applicants.

Universities can also engage with local tribes by creating satellite campuses on tribal lands or forming partnerships with Tribal colleges and universities (TCUs). Evidence supports the importance of tribal college-mentored research experience in preparing Native students for participating in university research and exploring STEM disciplines (Ward et al., 2022). However, collaborations with tribal colleges and universities must be based on equal partnerships with mutual benefits. Historically, such collaborations have had an unfair distribution of benefits. For example, research universities may approach tribal institutions to be a part of a research grant proposal (often already written) merely to improve the probability of funding, with no intentions of truly co-developing the idea with tribal communities (Bittner et al., 2023). Bittner et al. (2023) offer guidance on how to develop balanced partnerships between tribal colleges and universities and research institutions. The same logic applies to research partnerships with tribal communities: research should be co-created with tribal members. For example, research following the principles of community-based participatory action research ensures that the tribal community is equally involved and in control of the research design, analysis, and interpretation. Failure to properly include tribal knowledge and participation in research collaborations may result in a lack of trust and strained relationships with local tribes, as exemplified by the anecdotal evidence from one dean (see Section 4).

There are a few examples of successful university-led, Native-centered initiatives in the recent literature. Grant et al. (2022) described the design and implementation of a faculty mentoring program for Native STEM faculty over 3 years in Montana. The program created partnerships between tribal colleges and one public university and was centered on the six R’s Indigenous framework (Respect, Relationship, Representation, Relevance, Responsibility, and Reciprocity). A similar collaboration between a Tribal College University and a Research University in North Dakota has shed light on the potential benefits of such partnerships for Native students and tribal members (Bittner et al., 2023). The University of Colorado Denver has inaugurated the Environmental Stewardship of Indigenous Lands (ESIL) program, a first-of-its-kind certificate program that aims at broadening the participation of Native students in STEM through education and community partnerships between Tribal and non-Tribal Organizations (Velez et al., 2022). Finally, a project created in a private university in the Pacific Northwest developed a regional partnership between the university, the Tribal Nation’s fisheries department, and a tribal college. The goal of the project was to “create a culturally responsive, place-based curriculum in Fisheries and Aquatic Science within the Environmental Studies program to provide students with a seamless transition from high school to university, graduate programs, and ultimately to the tribal community’s STEM workforce” (Howard et al., 2023). All the examples above have in common the engagement with local tribal communities to support the well-documented desire of Native students and faculty to give back to their community. As such, they can serve as successful case studies and help inform future similar endeavors.

Native undergraduate students have reported a concern with the lack of engineering-related careers in tribal lands, which they perceived as a barrier to gain tribal support for their work (Cruz Rios et al., 2021). Engineering colleges should partner with state government, tribal government, and industry to form taskforces to create job opportunities that are relevant to Native community needs. Such taskforces would assess tribal needs and council high school students in career paths that address such needs. For example, a taskforce may identify a need for solar energy infrastructure in a certain Native community. Tribal government and state government may then work together to promote incentives for tribal businesses that would invest in solar energy infrastructure. These businesses would in turn be informed by research conducted by local universities. In the meantime, the universities would promote outreach and recruitment efforts by counseling Native high school students on solar engineering career opportunities on their Native reservation.

5.1.2 Hiring native faculty

University administrations must create a standard faculty hiring process to ensure DEI outcomes instead of relying on “self-policing.” Such hiring processes should be consistent across departments and colleges, although the diversity goals may change depending on the field of study. The authors combined some of the most comprehensive practices mentioned by the deans into a step-by-step framework for hiring diverse faculty. The framework is represented in a swim lane diagram in Supplementary material 2 and illustrates the important role of the diversity committee in enforcing diversity criteria within both the search committee composition and the job opening. The diversity committee needs to understand the common challenges faced by each historically underrepresented group, as well as the motivations shared by such groups. Institutional diversity strategies should be tailored to each group, instead of aggregating all racial-ethnic minorities into a diversity umbrella. Otherwise, Native people may remain invisible to DEI officers and search committees.

Search committees should be aware of Native-targeting publications where they can advertise faculty positions. Only one dean interviewed in this study mentioned advertising in Native-centered outlets such as AISES or SACNAS, which may be an important factor that contributes to the small number of Native faculty applicants reported by the deans. Similarly, participation in Native-centered conferences can expand recruitment networks. Attending conferences targeted at underrepresented populations is best practice in networking with potential candidates for recruitment (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020). For example, the AISES National Conference includes college and career fair components with recruitment exhibitors targeting Indigenous STEM talent (American Indian Science and Engineering Society, 2025), and the SACNAS Annual Conference features an Academic and Career Expo that connects institutions with diverse STEM professionals and students (SACHNAS, 2025).

Finally, Department chairs should place efforts in forming diverse search committees. Ideally, the search committee diversity hiring goals should be tailored to each state demographics. That is, the percentage of a historically underrepresented group within the engineering faculty should correspond to the representation of the same group within the state’s population. Additionally, search committees should create broad job descriptions when advertising faculty positions and implement diversity-promoting hiring practices such as Target of Opportunity hires and cluster hires. Cluster hires can be combined with open rank searches. For example, the department may advertise an open rank search aimed at identifying a group of diverse candidates. Hiring more than a single applicant from the same racial-ethnic minority group at a time increases the chances of building community and creating social networks among underrepresented faculty. Additionally, search committees should consider each applicant’s value holistically, as opposed to overvaluing candidates from prestigious institutions.

5.1.3 Collecting data

Based on our findings, we recommend collecting tribal affiliation data instead of relying on race self-identification. Also, university administrators should ensure consistent data collection across colleges and departments to allow diversity policies that can be communicated and shared throughout colleges. In a regional level, college and university administrators should join efforts with other postsecondary institutions to share data and discuss strategies to improve Native attainment in engineering education.

5.1.4 Teaching and mentoring

Prospective mentoring programs dedicated to Native attainment in engineering education should strive to foster fruitful faculty-student relationships. It is essential that faculty members understand the challenges and motivations encountered by different historically underrepresented groups, including Native students. Faculty members must understand common motivations and challenges shared by many Native students, including the desire of contributing to their communities, the importance of family obligations, Indigenous worldviews and ways of measure success, the hesitance in reaching out for help, and the extent to which all the above may vary across individuals (Cruz Rios et al., 2021).

Native students have brought up a need for collaborative, hands-on activities, and environmental concerns related to the engineering profession (Cruz Rios et al., 2021). Hence, encouraging active learning strategies to foster collaboration in the classroom, along with fostering discussions about the social and environmental roles of engineers can have a positive impact on Native engineering students. Creating a sustainability-centered curriculum may be a way to connect the engineering profession with the sense of social and environmental responsibility shared by many Native students.

Faculty members should also become aware of the resources available to Native students and educate the students about such resources—or refer the students to someone who is knowledgeable in such resources (for example, a student advisor). If mentoring Native students, faculty should become aware of possible career opportunities in tribal lands and existing research that benefit tribal communities. Finally, Native students reported great benefits from Native student groups or charters, and perceived peer support as key to their academic success (Cruz Rios et al., 2021). Faculty and administrators should encourage the creation of Native student organizations and develop formal peer-to-peer mentoring initiatives.

5.1.5 Providing financial support

Although advanced STEM degrees are a necessary precursor to faculty careers, financial barriers at earlier stages of education play a critical role in shaping who ultimately enters those pathways. Native undergraduate students identified financial barriers and catalysts to their academic success: while Native-dedicated scholarships and other types of financial aid had largely influenced their decision to attend college, managing personal finances was mentioned as a challenge by some Native students (Cruz Rios et al., 2021). Universities should place substantial efforts on creating and maintaining programs and policies aimed at providing financial support for historically underrepresented students, particularly Native students. Examples of strategies are tuition discounts or waivers for Native students with tribal affiliations, partnering with existing foundations and fellowships directed to offering financial aid to Native students, and creating automated systems to help Native students apply for scholarships and grants. These strategies can be college-level or university-level. Additionally, providing extra funding for diversity hires is a best practice that can be implemented in many universities (except in states that have banned Affirmative Action laws). Finally, universities should be aware that many tribal reservations have limited or no access to the internet, and many households do not have access to computers. For that reason, any resources created to provide financial support for Native students and prospective students should not be limited to online enrollment and information. Universities should create taskforces to reach out to tribal communities, Native families, and tribal governments to raise awareness about the financial resources that are available to Native students.

5.2 Contribution

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of universities in decolonizing engineering education by increasing the representation of Native faculty and engaging with tribal communities to create social capital. To our knowledge, this is the first study to interview engineering administrators to uncover issues of racial diversity in faculty hiring, particularly in relation to Native faculty representation. Other studies have engaged with engineering deans to understand their personal support for LGBTQ equality measures (Cech et al., 2017) or interviewed medical school deans and directors of admissions to explore barriers and opportunities for DEI across all underrepresented groups (Ko et al., 2023). However, this study uniquely investigates the institutional-level decision-making processes that shape faculty hiring in engineering colleges. By focusing on the experiences and perceptions of these key administrators, this research provides novel insights into how faculty hiring practices are structured, the implicit and explicit barriers affecting Native representation, and the extent to which diversity initiatives are being implemented at the administrative level. This approach sheds light on systemic limitations within hiring structures that may not be immediately apparent in broader analyses of faculty diversity, emphasizing the need for targeted institutional reforms that move beyond generalized DEI efforts to actively address racial disparities in STEM academia.

Many of the obstacles reported by engineering deans—such as small applicant pools, competition with higher-paying jobs, and the tendency to prioritize candidates from prestigious institutions—are consistent with findings from broader studies on faculty diversity in STEM. However, this study revealed a critical oversight in diverse faculty hiring efforts—while many institutions implement best practices such as target hiring, these strategies frequently exclude Native candidates. Despite broader institutional commitments to increasing faculty diversity, Native scholars remain an afterthought in many hiring initiatives, with limited targeted outreach, engagement with Native professional societies, or tailored recruitment efforts designed to attract and support Indigenous faculty.

A critical contribution of this research is its examination of how engineering colleges engage (or fail to engage) with tribal communities. Although community-based participatory research has been recommended as a strategy to support the persistence of underrepresented groups in academia (Montoya et al., 2021), research suggests that such approaches hold particular significance for Native students and faculty (Brayboy, 2005; Cruz Rios et al., 2021; Lopez, 2018). However, our findings indicate that engineering colleges rarely leverage community-based participatory research as a recruitment or retention strategy for Native faculty, and outreach to tribal communities often serves institutional interests rather than fostering reciprocal relationships.

Furthermore, this study expands the application of social capital theory by examining its relevance to Native faculty hiring and institutional transformation in STEM. We draw a critical connection between institutional transformation and decolonization, arguing that increasing Native faculty representation and fostering meaningful engagement with tribal communities are essential steps toward dismantling colonial legacies in engineering education. We frame decolonization as an institutional process rather than solely an epistemological shift, and emphasize the role of universities as institutionalizing organizations that can either reinforce or disrupt exclusionary hiring practices. This contribution advances theoretical discussions on faculty diversity and offers a practical foundation for universities to rethink their approaches to hiring, outreach, and engagement with Native communities.

5.3 Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the findings reflect the perspectives of engineering deans and associate deans and do not capture the experiences of Native faculty or tribal community members directly. Second, because interviews focused on administrators’ perceptions and reported practices, the findings may reflect aspirational narratives or partial accounts of institutional behavior. Third, this analysis does not disaggregate findings by engineering discipline. Participants were interviewed in their roles as college-level administrators, and their responses reflected institution-wide hiring practices rather than discipline-specific processes. Future research could examine whether hiring practices, perceptions of applicant availability, or engagement with tribal communities vary across engineering disciplines, particularly given differences in labor markets, research funding, and proximity to place-based or community-engaged work. Finally, although the study examines engagement with tribal communities, it does not assess the perspectives of tribes themselves, which is an important direction for future research.

6 Conclusion

Native faculty in engineering are essential to fostering diversity and inclusion in STEM, yet their representation remains disproportionately low due to systemic barriers in faculty hiring and a lack of meaningful institutional engagement with tribal communities. This study critically examines how engineering administrators perceive and address these challenges, uncovering persistent flaws in hiring practices, missed opportunities for targeted recruitment, and the broader institutional disconnect from Native communities. The absence of Native-centered research initiatives, the lack of sustained engagement with tribal communities, and structural flaws in faculty hiring processes are clear indicators of how engineering colleges are failing to support Native students and faculty applicants.

Building on previous efforts, we propose a framework for improving the retention and success of Native faculty and students in engineering, emphasizing culturally responsive recruitment, meaningful tribal partnerships, and institutional accountability. However, for these recommendations to be effective, they must be evaluated and tested by those most impacted: university administrators and faculty, Native students, Native faculty, Native families, and tribal members. Ultimately, we hope this research serves as a catalyst for universities to move beyond passive diversity efforts and take intentional, structural action to create truly inclusive environments where Native scholars are not only recruited but supported, empowered, and valued in engineering academia.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated for this study are not publicly available due to confidentiality and ethical restrictions associated with qualitative interview data but de-identified excerpts may be made available by the authors upon reasonable request.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Arizona State University Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

FC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MA: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. DG: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. KP: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Broadening Participation in Engineering program, EEC 1542731.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the University Office of Evaluation and Education Effectiveness (UOEEE) at Arizona State University for the help in coding and analyzing the data. The authors are also thankful for Dr. Jameson Lopez, who was generous with his time and agreed to a conversation about his model. Finally, the authors thank Dr. Bryan Brayboy and Jacob Moore for their invaluable feedback during this project.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Author disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2026.1677398/full#supplementary-material

Abbreviations

AI/AN, American Indian/Alaska Native; AISES, American Indian Science and Engineering Society; DEI, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; HR, Human Resources; IRB, Internal Review Board; SACNAS, Society of Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science; SHPE, Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers; STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; SWE, Society of Women Engineers; TribalCrit, Tribal Critical Race Theory; UOEEE, University Office of Evaluation and Education Effectiveness; URM, Underrepresented minorities.

References

American Indian Science and Engineering Society. (2025) AISES National Conference. Available online at: https://conference.aises.org/ (Accessed January 2, 2026).

Google Scholar

Bhalla, N. (2019). Strategies to improve equity in faculty hiring. Mol. Biol. Cell 30, 2744–2749. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E19-08-0476,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bittner, N. M., Kennedy, R., and Parton, E. (2023) Indigenous innovators: creating collaborative student-engineer innovation teams between tribal colleges and research institutions. 2023 Annual Conference and Exposition.

Google Scholar

Blair-Loy, M., and Cech, E. A. (2022). Misconceiving merit: Paradoxes of excellence and devotion in academic science and engineering Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar

Boyle, S. R., Phillips, C. M. L., Pearson, Y. E., DesRoches, R., Mattingly, S. P., Nordberg, A., et al. (2021) An exploratory study of intentionality toward diversity in STEM faculty hiring. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.

Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brayboy, B. M. K. J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. Urban Rev. 37, 425–446. doi: 10.1007/s11256-005-0018-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Campos, J. S., Wherry, E. J., Shin, S., and Ortiz-Carpena, J. F. (2021). Challenging systemic barriers to promote the inclusion, recruitment, and retention of URM faculty in STEM. Cell Host Microbe 29, 862–866. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2021.04.001,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cannady, M. A., Greenwald, E., and Harris, K. N. (2014). Problematizing the STEM pipeline metaphor: is the STEM pipeline metaphor serving our students and the STEM workforce? Sci. Educ. 98, 443–460. doi: 10.1002/sce.21108

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cech, E. A., Metz, A., Smith, J. L., and deVries, K. (2017). Epistemological dominance and social inequality. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 42, 743–774. doi: 10.1177/0162243916687037

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chelberg, K., and Bosman, L. (2020). American indian college student mentoring: a study to measure changes in self-efficacy. Educ. Sci. 10, 1–13. doi: 10.3390/educsci10020038

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cicek, J. S., Masta, S., Goldfinch, T., and Kloot, B. (2023). “Decolonization in engineering education” in International handbook of engineering education research. ed. A. Johri (New York: Routledge).

Google Scholar

College Express (2019) “4-year colleges with the largest enrollment of American Indian or Alaska native students.” Chicago, IL: Carnegie Dartlet LLC.

Google Scholar

Cruz Rios, F., Naganathan, H., Tello, L., Adams, S., Cook-Davis, A., El Asmar, M., et al. (2021). Catalysts and barriers faced by native American engineering undergraduate students in Arizona. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 147:33. doi: 10.1061/(asce)ei.2643-9115.0000033

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Davenport, D., Alvarez, A., Natesan, S., Caldwell, M. T., Gallegos, M., Landry, A., et al. (2022). Faculty recruitment, retention, and representation in leadership: an evidence-based guide to best practices for diversity, equity, and inclusion from the Council of Residency Directors in emergency medicine. Western J. Emerg. Med. 23, 62–71. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2021.8.53754,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dvorakova, A. (2018). Contextual identity experiencing facilitates resilience in native American academics. Soc. Sci. J. 55, 346–358. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2017.12.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fox, M. T. (2005). Voices from within: native American faculty and staff on campus. New Dir. Stud. Serv. 109, 49–59. doi: 10.1002/ss.153

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fries-Britt, S., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Perna, L., Milem, J., and Howard, D. (2011). Underrepresentation in the academy and the institutional climate for faculty diversity. J. Prof. 5, 1–14.

Google Scholar

Garcia, G. A., and Ramirez, J. J. (2018). Institutional agents at a Hispanic serving institution: using social capital to empower students. Urban Educ. 53, 355–381. doi: 10.1177/0042085915623341

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gibbs, K. D., Basson, J., Xierali, I. M., and Broniatowski, D. A. (2016). Decoupling of the minority PhD talent pool and assistant professor hiring in medical school basic science departments in the US. eLife 5:e21393. doi: 10.7554/eLife.21393

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grande, S. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Google Scholar

Grant, A. D., Swan, K., Wu, K., Plenty Sweetgrass-She Kills, R., Hill, S., and Kinch, A. (2022). A research publication and grant preparation program for native American faculty in STEM: implementation of the six r’s indigenous framework. Front. Psychol. 12:734290. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.734290,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Greeson, K., Sassaman, S., Williams, K., and Yost, A. (2022). Unsettling colonial structures in education through community-centered praxis. J. Crit. Scholarsh. High. Educ. Stud. Aff. 6:1.

Google Scholar

Howard, M., Alexiades, A., Schuster, C., and Raya, R. (2023). Indigenous student perceptions on cultural relevance, career development, and relationships in a culturally relevant undergraduate STEM program. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 22, 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10763-023-10360-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hunt, B. (2008). The impending educational crisis for American Indians: higher education at the crossroads. J. Multicult. Gender Minority Stud. 2, 1–11.

Google Scholar

Jordan, S. S., Foster, C. H., Anderson, I. K., Betoney, C. A., and Pangan, T. J. D. (2019). Learning from the experiences of Navajo engineers: looking toward the development of a culturally responsive engineering curriculum. J. Eng. Educ. 108, 355–376. doi: 10.1002/jee.20287

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ko, M., Henderson, M. C., Fancher, T. L., London, M. R., Simon, M., and Hardeman, R. R. (2023). US medical school admissions leaders’ experiences with barriers to and advancements in diversity, equity, and inclusion. JAMA Network Open, 6:e2254928. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54928

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kwapisz, M., Hughes, B. E., Schell, W. J., Ward, E., and Sybesma, T. (2021). “We’ve always been engineers:” indigenous student voices on engineering and leadership identities. Educ. Sci. 11:675. doi: 10.3390/educsci11110675

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leggon, C. B. (2010). Diversifying science and engineering faculties: intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender. Am. Behav. Sci. 53, 1013–1028. doi: 10.1177/0002764209356236

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

LePeau, L. A., Yi, V., and Chang, T. H. (2025). Leveraging power: a multiple embedded case study of institutional change efforts for racial equity at four private universities. J. High. Educ. 96, 729–755. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2024.2364571

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Lopez, J. D. (2018). Factors influencing American Indian and Alaska native postsecondary persistence: AI/AN millennium falcon persistence model. Res. High. Educ. 59, 792–811. doi: 10.1007/s11162-017-9487-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Martin, J. P. (2015). The invisible hand of social capital: narratives of first generation college students in engineering. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 31:11701181.

Google Scholar

McGee, E. O., Jett, C. C., and White, D. T. (2022). Factors contributing to black engineering and computing faculty’s pathways toward university administration and leadership. J. Divers. High. Educ. 15, 643–656. doi: 10.1037/dhe0000407

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Montoya, L. D., Mendoza, L. M., Prouty, C., Trotz, M., and Verbyla, M. E. (2021). Environmental engineering for the 21st century: increasing diversity and community participation to achieve environmental and social justice. Environ. Eng. Sci. 38, 288–297. doi: 10.1089/ees.2020.0148,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2020). Promising practices for addressing the underrepresentation of women in science, engineering, and medicine: Opening doors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Google Scholar

Nelson, D. J., and Brammer, C. N. (2010) A National Analysis of MINORITIES in science and engineering faculties at research universities. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.

Google Scholar

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., and Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods 16:847. doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pawley, A. L., and Hoegh, J. (2011) Exploding pipelines: mythological metaphors structuring diversity-oriented engineering education research agendas. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.

Google Scholar

Perna, L. W. (2023) Why we need better data on faculty diversity. Inside Higher Ed. Available online at: https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/01/09/why-we-need-better-data-faculty-diversity-opinion (Accessed December 18, 2025)

Google Scholar

Pham, T., and Tsai, Y. Y. (2024). The roles of faculty hiring and retention in shaping diversity and representation in US higher education institutions: a retrospective and prospective analysis from 2001 to 2035. Res. High. Educ. 65, 1420–1460. doi: 10.1007/s11162-024-09810-w

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Russo-Tait, T. (2022). Color-blind or racially conscious? How college science faculty make sense of racial and ethnic underrepresentation in STEM. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 10, 1822–1852. doi: 10.1002/tea.21788

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res. Nurs. Health 23, 334–340. doi: 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

SACHNAS (2025) SACNAS Annual Conference. Available online at: https://www.sacnas.org/conference (Access January 2, 2026).

Google Scholar

Tapia, R. (2010). Broadening participation: hiring and developing minority faculty at research universities. Commun. ACM 53, 33–35. doi: 10.1145/1666420.1666435

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

U.S. Census Bureau (2012). “2010 Census Shows Nearly Half of American Indians and Alaska Natives Report Multiple Races.” Newsroom Archive.” Available online at: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-cn06.html (Accessed July 28, 2019).

Google Scholar

U.S. News & World Report (2019). Best engineering schools. Available online at: https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings (Accessed July 28, 2019).

Google Scholar

Vasquez Heilig, J., Flores, I. W., Eileen, A., Souza, B., Carlton Barry, J., and Monroy, S. B. (2019). Considering the ethnoracial and gender diversity of faculty in United States college and university intellectual communities. Hispan. J. Law Policy 2, 1–31. doi: 10.3102/1585037

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Velez, C., Nuechterlein, B., Connors, S., RedShirt Tyon, G., Roane, T. M., and Mays, D. C. (2022). Application of the indigenous evaluation framework to a university certificate program for building cultural awareness in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Eval. Program Plann. 92:102066. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102066,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ward, C., Topham, T., Dixon, H., Peterson, A., Rieder, J., Duffin, B., et al. (2022). Culturally inclusive STEM learning: mentored internships for native American undergraduates at a tribal college and a university. J. Divers. High. Educ. 17, 443–455. doi: 10.1037/dhe0000413

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native. J. Genocide Res. 8, 387–409. doi: 10.1080/14623520601056240

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, J., Cropps, T., Phillips, C. M. L., Boyle, S., and Pearson, Y. E. (2023). Applicant qualifications and characteristics in STEM faculty hiring: an analysis of faculty and administrator perspectives. Int. J. STEM Educ. 10:31. doi: 10.1186/s40594-023-00431-w

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zambrana, R. E., Ray, R., Espino, M. M., Castro, C., Douthirt Cohen, B., and Eliason, J. (2015). “Don’t leave us behind”: the importance of mentoring for underrepresented minority faculty. Am. Educ. Res. J. 52, 40–72. doi: 10.3102/0002831214563063

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar