From Proving to Connecting: The Shifting Nature of Belonging in the First Year of Minoritized US Doctoral Engineering Students

Research Paper Recommended citation: Artiles, M. S., Matusovich, H. M., Cruz, J. M., & Adams, S. (2025). From Proving to Connecting: The Shifting Nature of Belonging in the First Year of Minoritized US Doctoral Engineering Students. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631851. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. FROM PROVING TO CONNECTING: THE SHIFTING NATURE OF BELONGING IN THE FIRST YEAR OF MINORITIZED US DOCTORAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS. M.S. Artiles a,1, H.M. Matusovich b, J.M. Cruz c, S.G. Adams d a The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 0000-0001-7604-0410 b Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, 0000-0003-4335-6122 c Rowan University, Glassboro, New Jersey, USA, Country, 0000-0001-7426-682X d University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA, 0009-0002-5540-4750 Conference Key Areas: Diversity, equity and inclusion in our universities and in our teaching, Continuing education and life-long learning in engineering Keywords: doctoral students, sense of belonging, minoritized students ABSTRACT The first year of doctoral study is a critical period for students’ academic formation and persistence, especially in engineering disciplines where early integration into research and advising relationships is expected. In the US, for Black and Latiné students—groups historically underrepresented in engineering—this period can be critical as they navigate systemic inequities and social isolation. This longitudinal qualitative study explores how a sense of belonging manifests and evolves for minoritized engineering doctoral students during their first year in U.S. programs. Drawing on focus group data collected across eight sessions with sixteen students from a national summer bridge program, we identify two dominant forms of belonging: merit-contingent belonging, characterized by a need to demonstrate competence and legitimacy, and relational belonging, fostered through supportive advisor and peer relationships. Findings show that while merit-contingent belonging dominates early experiences, it gradually gives way to relational forms of connection as students gain confidence and build community. We call for equity-focused interventions that humanize students, clarify merit, and build trust. 1 Corresponding Author MS Artiles Artiles.[email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION In the US, the first year of a doctoral program represents a critical point in a student’s journey since they navigate new academic structures, form faculty/peer relationships, and build researcher identities (Weidman et al., 2001). For doctoral students in engineering, these challenges are often intensified by need to integrate into research groups early and develop solid advising relationships that will often outlast their doctoral journey (Artiles et al., Forthcoming). Additionally, within engineering doctoral degree contexts, advisors often fund students, creating layered roles—as mentors, supervisors, and instructors. (Artiles et al., 2023). These layers create complex dynamics to master particularly because the development of a sense of belonging—a student’s perception of being accepted, valued, and supported within their academic community—is key predictor of doctoral persistence and success (Strayhorn, 2018; Weidman & DeAngelo, 2020). While all students face hurdles during this formative stage (Golde, 1998), minoritized students in US engineering doctoral programs often encounter additional layers of difficulty stemming from systemic inequities, social isolation, and a lack of cultural representation within their departments, leading to their marginalization (Curry & DeBoer, 2020; McGee & Martin, 2011). In the US marginalized and historically underrepresented groups in engineering include Black, Latiné, Native American, Hawaiian, and Pacific Islanders. As a result of marginalization, students from historically underrepresented backgrounds may question whether they truly belong, regardless of their academic capabilities or motivations for pursuing the degree (Burt, Roberson, et al., 2020; Johnson & Strayhorn, 2023). These dynamics underscore the need to examine how belonging is experienced throughout this first year for minoritized students navigating doctoral engineering study. Although research has established sense of belonging as essential for sustained student engagement, academic achievement, and mental health (Baumeister & Leary, 2017; Walton & Cohen, 2007, 2011), less is known about the specifics in how belongingness manifests for minority doctoral students, particularly during the highstakes first year. Existing studies have often taken a retrospective approach to understanding belonging, missing the opportunity to capture its real time development as students experience their introduction to graduate school (Stachl & Baranger, 2020a; Strayhorn, 2022). In engineering, where vis-a-vis faculty advising, research group dynamics, and department culture play central roles in academic progress, understanding how belonging develops is essential for identifying meaningful points of intervention and support (Artiles et al., 2025). This study addresses this gap by exploring the following research question: How does sense of belonging manifest and evolve in minority doctoral students during their first year in engineering Ph.D. programs in the US? Drawing on longitudinal focus group data from a cohort of Black and Latiné engineering doctoral students, this study follows their experiences throughout their first year of doctoral study and examines the ways in their sense of belongingness evolves. Although focused on a specific population underrepresented in the US context, we believe our outcomes and approach provided a foundation for considering how educational systems can best serve all students vs just students who are in the majority. The distinction between merit-contingent and relational belonging offers a framework that may be adapted to other national systems grappling with equity in doctoral education beyond the US. As European and international institutions expand access to underrepresented groups, understanding how belonging evolves during the doctoral transition is increasingly critical. 1.1 Minoritized Doctoral Students’ and the First Year Experience The first year of doctoral education is a pivotal transition that shapes students’ experiences and influences their likelihood of degree completion (Gardner, 2009; Weidman & DeAngelo, 2020). In the US, this stage typically includes core coursework and a competency exam before students shift to full-time research. Although research often begins in year one, students are still developing the tools, techniques, and skills needed for their specialization. As they navigate coursework, research groups, and advising, their expectations—formed by prior academic experiences—are frequently tested by the realities of graduate school (Austin, 2009; Holbrook et al., 2014). These expectations, related to rigor, mentorship, and support, are shaped by motivation and earlier exposure to research (Borrego et al., 2018; Mosyjowski et al., 2017). When mismatches occur, dissatisfaction can emerge—a key predictor of attrition (Holbrook et al., 2014; Zerbe et al., 2020). One of the most influential factors in doctoral success is the advisor-advisee relationship, particularly in engineering programs where close collaboration is common (Zhao et al., 2007). Good advising supports disciplinary growth, shapes students’ perceptions of the academic climate, and promotes persistence (Bluestein et al., 2018; Burt et al., 2017; Litalien & Guay, 2015; Zerbe et al., 2023). Students often hope for mentoring that reflects their identities and needs (National Academies of Sciences et al., 2019; Perez et al., 2020, p. 202; Wofford & Blaney, 2021), but a lack of such support can hinder research development (Artiles et al., 2025; Litalien & Guay, 2015). In addition to advising, networks of support—including peers, labmates, and family—help students manage both academic and personal challenges (Golde, 1998; Gardner, 2009). Research groups can provide valuable peer mentoring (Burt et al., 2017; Crede & Borrego, 2012), but without inclusive leadership, these settings may foster harmful comparisons and competitiveness (Rodriguez et al., 2021; Wofford & Blaney, 2021), which can negatively affect belonging and retention (Berdanier et al., 2020a, 2020b). For historically marginalized students, this transition is further complicated by identity and structural inequity. While identity plays a role in persistence, belonging is increasingly recognized as a more critical factor (Bahnson et al., 2018; Ross et al., 2022). These students often face racism, sexism, and classism that challenge their inclusion in academia (Curry & DeBoer, 2020; Johnson & Strayhorn, 2023; Ramirez, 2017), even when their motivations stem from empowerment and community uplift (Burt, Roberson, et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2017; Moore et al., 2003). Resilience becomes essential in navigating stereotype threat and opportunity costs (Artiles et al., Forthcoming; McGee & Martin, 2011). Cross-racial advising may offer benefits (Henderson et al., 2022), but often lacks the identity-informed mentorship needed for sustained support (Barker, 2011; Burt, McKen, et al., 2020). When inclusivity is missing in advising or lab environments, students’ progress and career goals may suffer (Crede & Borrego, 2012; Fleming et al., 2016; Rodriguez et al., 2021). Responding to calls for more equity-focused research in engineering doctoral education (Curry & DeBoer, 2020; Holloman et al., 2021), this study examines how Black and Latiné students experience their first year. 1.2 Conceptualizing Sense of Belonging Sense of belonging is a foundational psychological need that strongly influences academic motivation, engagement, and persistence in higher education (Strayhorn, 2018). It involves both cognitive and emotional dimensions—feeling included, supported, and connected within an academic community (Johnson & Strayhorn, 2023; Strayhorn, 2022). For students in marginalizing settings like predominantly white institutions (PWIs), belonging becomes even more critical due to heightened risks of social and cultural isolation (Freeman et al., 2007; Strayhorn, 2019). A strong sense of belonging shapes academic behavior, mental health, and success (Baumeister & Leary, 2017; Walton & Cohen, 2011). In STEM doctoral programs, belonging develops through socialization, identity formation, and validation from faculty and peers (Strayhorn, 2019, 2022). However, underrepresented students—such as Black, Latiné, and Native American doctoral students—often face exclusion, microaggressions, and limited representation, which can fuel doubt, stress, and attrition (McGee et al., 2016; Bork & Mondisa, 2022; Curry & DeBoer, 2020). Supportive faculty and peer relationships are key to fostering belonging (Stachl & Baranger, 2020b), and intentional community-building can help mitigate isolation and promote persistence (Herzig, 2010; Johnson & Strayhorn, 2023). Understanding what support is most effective—and when to provide it—is crucial for designing timely, equity-oriented interventions in the doctoral journey. 2 METHODOLOGY This study explores how sense of belonging develops during the first year of doctoral study for Black and Latiné engineering students in the US. Using a longitudinal qualitative design, we conducted focus groups with sixteen students from prematriculation through the end of their first year. The data come from a broader NSFfunded mixed methods project on underrepresented students’ transitions into engineering Ph.D. programs (Artiles et al., 2021). Grounded in Yin’s (2018) case study approach and a constructivist paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003), the study captures students’ evolving, real-time experiences. This study was approved IRB. 2.1 Participants Participants came from summer bridge program specifically designed for minoritized engineering doctoral programs from across the US, not just the home institutions of the program facilitator. As part of this program, students completed a pre-study survey capturing demographics, prior research, and Ph.D. motivations. (Artiles et al., 2021). We purposely selected sixteen participants selected to ensure diversity across disciplinary backgrounds, geographic locations, demographic identities, and graduate education experience. We report demographic data in aggregate form to maintain anonymity. The cohort included eight students who self-identified as Black (one also as multiracial) and eight who identified as Latiné (five also as multiracial). Nine participants identified as female and seven as male. Four students held master’s degrees, and one transferred from another Ph.D. program. These demographics align with national data on racial-ethnic minority representation in engineering graduate education (NCSES, 2023). 2.2 Data Collection We conducted eight virtual focus group sessions via Zoom between July 2020 and May 2021, approximately every six weeks throughout the students’ first year. Online focus groups were chosen to foster candid dialogue among peers with shared experiences of marginalization while connecting students physically across the US during the early phases of the COVID pandemic (Abrams et al., 2015; Seidman, 2006). Two faculty members of minoritized backgrounds (first and third authors) facilitated the sessions to encourage open discussion and rapport-building (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2005). Initial conversations explored expectations and early impressions of doctoral life, with guiding questions such as, “What did you expect from your Ph.D. program that has or has not been met?” and “What support systems have you found helpful so far?” As the year progressed, discussions addressed specific strategies for managing advising relationships and department culture. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized. Participants were compensated $50 each meeting. 2.3 Data Analysis We used a thematic analysis approach (Saldaña, 2016) to examine how sense of belonging was expressed and evolved across time. First, all transcripts were coded inductively to identify statements related to belonging, using in vivo and descriptive codes. Next, we applied pattern coding to group similar codes into broader thematic categories corresponding to subtypes of belonging (e.g., merit-contingent, relational). In the final phase, we used a temporal lens to examine how these themes shifted across the eight focus group sessions. The first author led coding using Dedoose software, and themes were refined through regular debriefing with the second author to strengthen analytic trustworthiness and ensure interpretive credibility (Walther et al., 2013). The first author led the interview design and analysis; the second author validated interpretations through data debriefs. (Walther et al., 2013). The third and fourth authors contributed to data collection and project design. 2.4 Limitations While this study offers valuable insights into how belonging develops over time, it is not meant to be comprehensive or definitive. Findings are drawn from focus group data, which reflect collective sense-making and may differ from individual perspectives captured in one-on-one interviews (Abrams et al., 2015; Seidman, 2006). Because data collection began alongside participants’ bridge program, their early drive to prove themselves may have been shaped by that experience rather than natural program entry alone. The study timeline reflects COVID-19 disruptions and the phased nature of the NSF-funded research project from which this data is drawn. 3 FINDINGS Our findings showed two primary themes regarding sense of belonging. First, we found that students’ sense of belonging was initially contingent on demonstrating merit, i.e., they had earned the right to be there just as majority students, especially because of their underrepresented identities. This initial belief disappears as they settled into their roles. Second, we found sense of belonging to be closely linked to their desire to build and maintain relationships with their advisors and student peers. This second finding maintained throughout the initial year and eventually subsided. 3.1 Merit-contingent Sense of Belonging. In the early meetings of the focus groups which took place right when students were starting their doctoral journeys, we found participants linked their sense of belonging to their merit or ability to demonstrate they belonged in their doctoral programs. They shared various beliefs about what they thought was needed to obtain acceptance by their new communities because they are of underrepresented backgrounds. One example of this phenomenon is how one participant describes thinking about what they want their identity to be in the field and how that is important to define for oneself because they are a minority: “Something that really resonated with me was my identity in the field. I just want to become more confident with it and be able to use it, just establish yourself and understand that you are a minority” -Bryce We see here that this identity or how they want to be their defining marker to other researchers is attached to them being a minority in engineering. Similarly, a different participant describes struggling with feeling the need to show they have the merit to be admitted even if they might’ve been admitted because of their background: “I am part of this minority group. Did I get in on my own merit or did I get in because I'm part of that group? I want to know that I got in based off what I can do, but it doesn't really matter anymore. It just matters what I do next.” – Dallas This participant gives importance to what they do next as critical to show their belongingness in that space. While not explicitly connected to their minority identity, a third participant describes the importance of having the ‘substance’ to belong: “I'm trying to learn how to push yourself and sell yourself, to show that you are present and whatever you do, whatever you wear, act, you have to have [substance] that backs it up.” – Robin Once again, we note how proving belongingness is something these participants feel critical to their entry into doctoral study. They all share this preemptive need to prove themselves before being questioned on whether they belong. Further into the academic year, we see this preemptive need to demonstrate merit because of the identity transform into a need to demonstrate capacity to do research at the same level as their peers. The following quote shows how one participant describes feeling intimidated by being prompted to ask critical questions of a peers’ research presentation during their research group meeting: “Like when people do lab presentations, and they're like, "I'm opening the floor to questions," there's this pressure that you should ask a question, but you don't really know what to ask.” – Milan Although this participant is in their first year of doctoral study and likely not expected to have a strong critical voice in comparison to peers further down the doctoral path, they feel the need to demonstrate capacity. Similar to the prior quote, a different participant described spending a lot of time working on a task and learning as they go but being unsure it will yield productive research: “I'm doing machine learning and coding and that's something that I have a little bit of experience in, but I'm also new at. I've had to do a lot of learning on my own. I spent the last month doing background research, trying to understand the math behind this stuff, and I still haven't been able to get something on code yet and it makes me feel like I'm wasting my time. But then my professor always says like, "It's an important part of it," but I'm always scared that I'm... What if I still don't get something useful out of this?” – Taylor As time passed, participants doubt their abilities to perform lessened and slowly we some participants found validation in being able to contribute to their research groups as the following example shows: “So part of getting started with the project was two months of training, but training on all my characterization methods. That's five instrumentations I've had to learn from scratch, and it's pretty tough because it's like, okay, each instrument has its own function, has its own settings. Okay. Well, then when I changed to a new instrument, I was like, "Oh my God, I'm just not getting anywhere." But finally, I got some cool images and I'm like, "Oh my gosh, my advisor actually liked it. She wants me to use it." And she's like, "We're going to keep this. We're going to use this for good, raw data." And I'm like, "Great." So little win. – Bryce This quote shows how a difficult research task made the student doubt their ability to contribute to the research group, but validation from their advisor and the mention of it being included in a subsequent analysis helped the student realized that they were indeed making progress in their research. Our findings showed that by the conclusion of the focus group meetings at the end of the students’ first year, student concerns about their capacity were minimal to non-existent. 3.2 Relational Sense of belonging Sense of belonging also manifested in participants’ concerns about building and maintaining positive relationships throughout their doctoral journey. Predominantly we found two key relationships to matter – that with their doctoral advisors and with their research group peers. Most of our participants described having positive budding relationships with their doctoral advisors. For some participants, sharing identities with their doctoral advisor was one of multiple layers where he in that short time at the program they felt cared for and like they belonged in the research group, despite there being present other competing activities for that faculty advisor: “Through everything I said earlier, I think the highlight for me has been my lab group, and then also just my support system. If there's one thing I can say is, I've been saying it since day one. My advisor is another black male, who just turned 40. Even throughout submitting a tenure package and having to deal with two of his students graduating with their PhD, he has always been present, always been supportive, always been understanding, alongside the rest of our lab group, which has been a loving, just environment.” – Justice For other participants these relationships were affirming their place in the doctoral program, their place in the discipline, and helped them feel grounded about their journey and progress throughout their first year. This is perhaps best exemplified by the following quote that showcases how a faculty member helps a student feel at ease about their perceptions of a disciplinary conference. “But I had a conversation with the professor and she really affirmed everything. I told her what I observed at the conference and because I felt crazy. I'm over here telling people how terrible the conference was and that I won't be back and people are looking at me like I'm crazy, because it's literally one of the most esteemed conferences in our field. So, she told me to trust your own intuition about these spaces and be critical of them.” – Renee Here we see how even though this student didn’t have a positive experience at a conference, talking with their professor about it and finding validation in her feelings helps her feel affirmed in her journey. Not all students found their mentoring directly in their doctoral advisor but found other faculty to help build a support network as shown in the following quote: “The student support system which is fantastic. I have two separate mentors for different aspects of the program, which is nice. We get together and have beers and stuff like that every week. There's also on campus counseling and stuff like that, which is nice.” – Cameron This quote demonstrates that this student actively seeks broad support and has developed relationships beyond the formal with their mentors in addition to leaning into institutional support systems like counseling to help them progress in their doctoral journey. While many students described their advising relationship as a source of finding belonging, perhaps most students identified with their peer-to-peer relationships as the primary place of building that feeling of belonging they sought. We observed this in our data through various examples. The following quote shows how a student describing how relationships built with peers outside of the department have given them space to share candidly with others: “I have a group of friends I met at orientation who are all from different departments. And it's nice for them to kind of get away from their cohorts for a while. We’re all engineers and women, so it's kind of nice to have a space of just girlfriends. You can vent and you can talk about what's going. Sometimes when I'm complaining about my classes to like other male students, sometimes, not to generalize, but it kind of comes off as like, "Oh I'm not smart enough to do this." Or, "I'm somehow not good at this." I feel like it's more of a safe space to be like, "Oh I'm struggling with this." Without that fear of judgment. – Devan” Although this participant didn’t share not feeling like they didn’t belong in their primary department, they appreciate having community where judgment isn’t a factor for complaining about their program. This space allows them to feel like they belong without having to be inauthentic to themselves. Not all participants shared having a positive sense of belonging with respect to broader relationships. The following quote show how one participant shared struggling with the age gap they faced being a returning doctoral student compared to their peers: “I've been really struggling to find people who are around my age that can relate to the path of life that I've chosen and who also look like me. So yeah, these days I've definitely been having a lot of waves of loneliness, to be honest, because I had such a good support group at my previous school. – Raleigh This participant struggles to find community and described feeling loneliness. They attribute this to their age as well as having a positive reference point for feeling like they belonged at the prior institution before pursuing doctoral study. Our findings did not show notable trends about relational sense of belonging changing over time throughout the first year. However, we can firmly say that by the last meeting held with participants, the comments relating to overall sense of belonging were less than initial conversations. 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to examine how sense of belonging manifests and evolves for first-year minoritized engineering doctoral students in the US. Our findings show that sense of belonging is developing in the first year and is likely connected to persistence. It manifests two ways: merit-contingent and relational belonging. On merit-contingent belongingness, we found students initially link belonging to achievement and fitting in. Their identity as minority students puts them often ‘on the defense’ when entering the doctoral programs. Our participants showed internalization of institutional and disciplinary rhetoric within engineering about whether minorities belong and thus they responded by trying to take ‘control of the narrative’ in positioning themselves as academics. This extends Strayhorn’s (2018) model by showing how minoritized students first see belonging as legitimacy, not inclusion, reinforcing the emotional labor required to be perceived as competent. This rhetoric obscures the likely truth which is that they were admitted on similar, if not higher merits, than their peers (Miller et al., 2019; Posselt, 2016). Our findings align with prior studies in this space that they highlight the invisible labor these students carry (Johnson & Strayhorn, 2023; Ramirez, 2017; Wofford & Blaney, 2021). Further, they show how proving legitimacy—driven by systemic exclusion—can hinder early relationship building and increase burnout risk. (Bork & Mondisa, 2022; McGee & Martin, 2011).