Qualitative findings reveal institutional barriers impacting Latina students' academic success in STEM fields.
Despite numerous reforms and initiatives, Latina students continue to be underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.This underrepresentation has been connected to the many inequities and systemic obstacles that Latinas face throughout their undergraduate degree, which can be exacerbated within competitive STEM environments.These obstacles impact their academic experience, increasing their likelihood of facing academic struggles and potentially being placed on academic probation.While research examining the intersection of academic probation and student success exists, studies specifically exploring the institutional barriers Latina STEM students face when placed on academic probation (especially those that consider their racial, gendered, and other intersectional identities from an antideficit stance) are largely missing.To address this gap, this article presents the qualitative findings from a larger mixed-methods study.The findings presented in this article are based on semistructured interviews with 12 Latina STEM students on academic probation attending an emerging Hispanic-serving institution, research-intensive, land-grant university.Using Latina/o critical race theory and the concept of intersectionality, this analysis revealed the following institutional barriers highlighted by study participants: (a) disempowering intersectional underrepresentations (b) limited efficacy of existing support and resources for improving academic standing; and (c) dehumanizing interactions.This study explores the implications of these barriers, focusing on the challenges they present for Latina STEM students aspiring to improve their academic standing, persist in their major, and graduate successfully.Overall, the findings aim to inform institutional reforms and STEM departments' initiatives to better support and retain their Latina student body.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Negrete et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: