Autonomy and Privilege in Doctoral Education: An Analysis of STEM Students’ Academic and Professional Trajectories

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of data analysis process.

Table 1. Profiles of participants quoted in findings.

Name	Academic Trajectory	Professional Trajectory	Autonomy	Influences	Race	Gender	FG Status
Aaron	Linear	Unchanging	High	Support from advisor and other faculty	White	Man	No
Evan	Linear	Unchanging	High	Support from faculty; external opportunities; parents are scientists	White	Man	No
Amelia	Linear	Unchanging	High	Support from advisor, other faculty, and peers; “privileged upbringing”	White	Woman	No
Lorenzo	Linear	Unchanging	N/A	Support from advisor and peers	Latino	Man	No
Marie	Linear	Unchanging	Moderate	Support from advisor, other faculty, and peers; external opportunities	White	Woman	No
Brayden	Linear	Changing	High	Support from advisor, other faculty, and peers; external opportunities	White	Man	No
Anthony	Linear	Changing	High	Support from advisor	White	Man	No
Colt	Linear	Changing	High	Support from faculty; external opportunities	White	Man	No
Aaliyah	Linear	Changing	High	Support from advisor	Latina	Woman	Yes
Adrian	Non-linear	Unchanging	High	Challenging but supportive advisor; external opportunities	Other	Man	Yes
Addison	Non-linear	Unchanging	High	Support from advisor, other faculty, and peers	White	Woman	Yes
Ana	Non-linear	Changing	High	Support from advisor and from “female friends”	Latina/White	Woman	No
Jane	Non-linear	Changing	High	Support from advisor and other faculty	Black	Woman	No
Aiden	Non-linear	Changing	High	Support from advisor, other faculty, and peers; “socioeconomic privilege”	White	Man	No
Elaine	Non-linear	Changing	N/A	Support from advisor and peers	Black/White	Woman	Yes
Ava	Non-linear	Changing	Low	Discrimination from advisor; very supportive peers	Indigenous/White	Woman	Yes
Antonia	Non-linear	Changing	Low	Hostile experiences with advisor	Latina/White	Woman	No

FG = first-generation college student. Perceived autonomy refers to students’ perception of themselves as autonomous in their fourth year in the program. N/A indicates that the student did not discuss corresponding theme. This table includes the 17 participants who were quoted in the findings presented in this paper. All 66 interview participants remain in the analysis.