Attracting STEM Talent: Do STEM Students Prefer Traditional or Work/Life-Interaction Labs?

William C DeFraine, Wendy M Williams and Stephen J Ceci

PLOS ONE, 2014, vol. 9, issue 2, 1-7

Abstract: The demand for employees trained in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields continues to increase, yet the number of Millennial students pursuing STEM is not keeping pace. We evaluated whether this shortfall is associated with Millennials' preference for flexibility and work/life-interaction in their careers-a preference that may be inconsistent with the traditional idea of a science career endorsed by many lab directors. Two contrasting approaches to running STEM labs and training students were explored, and we created a lab recruitment video depicting each. The work-focused video emphasized the traditional notions of a science lab, characterized by long work hours and a focus on individual achievement and conducting research above all else. In contrast, the work/life-interaction-focused video emphasized a more progressive view – lack of demarcation between work and non-work lives, flexible hours, and group achievement. In Study 1, 40 professors rated the videos, and the results confirmed that the two lab types reflected meaningful real-world differences in training approaches. In Study 2, we recruited 53 current and prospective graduate students in STEM fields who displayed high math-identification and a commitment to science careers. In a between-subjects design, they watched one of the two lab-recruitment videos, and then reported their anticipated sense of belonging to and desire to participate in the lab depicted in the video. Very large effects were observed on both primary measures: Participants who watched the work/life-interaction-focused video reported a greater sense of belonging to (d = 1.49) and desire to participate in (d = 1.33) the lab, relative to participants who watched the work-focused video. These results suggest Millennials possess a strong desire for work/life-interaction, which runs counter to the traditional lab-training model endorsed by many lab directors. We discuss implications of these findings for STEM recruitment.

Date: 2014
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089801 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 89801&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0089801

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089801

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().