First-generation college graduates, racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds are gravely underrepresented in the health research workforce representing behavioral health sciences and biomedical sciences and engineering (BHS/BSE). Furthermore, relative to their peers, very few students from these underrepresented groups (URGs) earn scientific bachelor’s degrees with even fewer earning doctorate degrees. Therefore, programs that engage and retain URGs in health-related research careers early on in their career path are imperative to promote the diversity of well-trained research scientists who have the ability to address the nation’s complex health challenges in an interdisciplinary way. The purpose of this paper is to describe the challenges, lessons learned, and sustainability of implementing a large-scale, multidisciplinary research infrastructure at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) – a minority-serving institution – through federal funding received by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) Initiative. The CSULB BUILD initiative consists of developing a research infrastructure designed to engage and retain URGs on the research career path by providing them with the research training and skills needed to make them highly competitive for doctoral programs and entry into the research workforce. This initiative unites many research disciplines using basic, applied, and translational approaches to offer insights and develop technologies addressing prominent community and national health issues from a multidisciplinary perspective. Additionally, this initiative brings together local (e.g., high school, community college, doctoral research institutions) and national (e.g., National Research Mentoring Network) collaborative partners to alter how we identify, develop, and implement resources to enhance student and faculty research. Finally, this initiative establishes a student research training program that engages URGs earlier in their academic development, is larger and multidisciplinary in scope, and is responsive to the life contexts and promotes the cultural capital that URGs bring to their career path. Although there have been many challenges to planning for and developing CSULB BUILD’s large-scale, multidisciplinary research infrastructure, there have been many lessons learned in the process that could aid other campuses in the development and sustainability of similar research programs.

Introduction: Very few studies have examined the relationship between student characteristics and their acceptance to research training programs that use holistic selection. The present study addressed this question using institutional and applicant data of three NIH undergraduate training programs at California State University, Long Beach. Its first aim was to examine whether the applicants to the training programs were representative of the broader campus population. Its second aim was to investigate whether applicants who were accepted to the programs using a holistic selection process differed in academic discipline, demographics, and psychosocial characteristics from applicants who were not accepted.Methods: Information on students’ majors, race/ethnicity, and gender was obtained from the university records or applications submitted by students. Majors were categorized as either biomedical or behavioral disciplines, while URM status was defined as students who self-identified their race and ethnicity as African American/Black, Native American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or Hispanic. Applicants’ psychosocial characteristics were obtained from a separate online survey. The acceptance status of applicants was obtained from the training programs’ records.Results: The applicant and non-applicant groups showed similar distribution of demographic characteristics regarding URM status and gender. Moreover, students’ academic discipline and other demographic variables were not associated with application status at either the lower division (LD) or upper division (UD) levels. Although psychosocial characteristics measured with the online survey were not considered in the selection process, post-hoc analyses showed that LD applicants with higher grit and UD applicants with higher science interests were more likely to be accepted to the programs.Conclusion: The equal representation of URM and female students in the applicant and non-applicant groups suggests that students from these traditionally underrepresented groups in STEM were just as likely to apply to our training programs. Furthermore, while the holistic selection process resulted in comparable acceptance rates across URM status and gender, it appeared to favor LD applicants with higher grit and UD students with higher science interests. These findings imply that research training programs can effectively recruit diverse students from underrepresented populations in STEM by using intentional outreach and recruitment efforts coupled with an objective and holistic selection process.

Formal undergraduate research training programs are typically two years in length to support student development over time. However, some evidence suggests that many benefits of research participation can be achieved in a shorter duration, raising the question of whether shorter models can be as effective. This prospective study compared outcomes for two concurrent cohort-based research training models: a two-year Scholars Program and an accelerated one-year Fellows Program. The Fellows Program was designed for advanced students who joined the training program later than their peers for a variety of reasons. Both programs provided students with financial support, faculty-mentored research, a Learning Community, and other resources for professional development. The longer duration allowed Scholars to report significantly higher levels of research skills and produce more publications and professional presentations than Fellows by the end of their respective training programs. In contrast, the programs did not differ on graduation GPA, number of awards, or graduate school enrollment. Fellows also did not significantly differ from Scholars on psychosocial measures, including science/researcher identity, belongingness, cultural compatibility, family support, or time management. Findings suggest that a high-intensity, one-year model can deliver many broad academic and social benefits associated with the two-year model, while a longer two-year model provides students with more time and additional research opportunities to be more productive. We conclude that both types of programs should be available to best meet students’ needs and to make the most effective use of program resources.