7

Ensuring Broad and Equitable Participation in NCER and NCSER Research Training Programs

According to Section 112 of the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA), the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is directed to “strengthen the national capacity to conduct, develop, and widely disseminate scientifically valid research in education.” To fulfill this charge, over the past two decades, IES has funded programs that train researchers in the skills needed to carry out such research. Put another way, IES’s training programs have “seeded” the field of education sciences with researchers who have the skills necessary to carry out its vision of scientific research. In the early 2000s, as a new agency encouraging the adoption of research methods not widely used in the field, IES decided it was crucial to invest in several types of highly competitive training programs, including those administered by the National Center for Education Research (NCER) and National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER). Although data on the outcomes of the NCER and NCSER training programs are not available, based on the high volume of participation, increases in the funding, and publication of research of the sort desired by IES, as well as the high quality of training experiences reported in testimony to the committee and witnessed by committee members themselves at first hand, these training programs seem to have paid off in advancing IES’s goal to build a cadre of researchers capable of pursuing the sort of research it aimed to fund.

In this chapter, we re-examine the goals of NCER and NCSER’s training programs, asking the question of what it would mean to “strengthen the national capacity” to carry out this report’s vision of education research for the future. At minimum, the recommendations of this report are likely to require a broadening of the number and kinds of training opportunities made

available to emerging researchers. We begin the chapter by examining the existing NCER and NCSER training programs at the undergraduate, predoctoral, postdoctoral, and early career levels, as well as the methods training program. This chapter also explores the impact of the research training programs and the continued need for these programs within the field. Finally, we discuss numerous ways NCER and NCSER can work to broaden participation in education research through these training programs.

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING NCER AND NCSER TRAINING PROGRAMS

A review of training program requests for applications (RFAs) over IES’s 20-year history indicates that the NCER and NCSER research training portfolios have had three primary objectives: (1) to increase the number of scientists capable of conducting rigorous and relevant education research independently, (2) to increase the number of education researchers capable of conducting education research that can be funded by IES, and (3) to advance the field of education research statistically, methodologically, theoretically, and practically. Over the past 5–10 years, a fourth objective has emerged: to increase the diversity of researchers and institutions that participate in training opportunities provided by NCER and NCSER so as to increase the diversity of the education research workforce. To achieve these goals, NCER and NCSER offer several different types of training programs for education researchers at different points in their careers, including programs aimed at undergraduate students, predoctoral students, postdoctoral scholars, and early career faculty. There are also methods training programs that vary in their focus, providing opportunities for education researchers at any stage of their careers, including graduate students (NCER only), researchers and faculty at institutions of higher education, and researchers outside of institutions of higher education, like local education agencies (LEAs), state education agencies (SEAs), research institutes and centers, and other non-university entities. More recently, some training programs have been designed specifically to increase participation of individuals from groups who are traditionally underrepresented in education research, including faculty and undergraduate students at Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). Other training programs require fellows to work in or with SEAs and LEAs to gain practical experience. We summarize these programs in Table 7-1.

The training opportunities offered by NCER and NCSER are overlapping but distinct. For example, both centers provide training opportunities for postdoctoral researchers and specialized methods training. NCER and NCSER diverge in their offerings for junior scholars, with NCSER providing training programs for early career faculty and NCER providing training

TABLE 7-1 Research Training Programs at the Institute of Education Sciences, FY2002–Present

SOURCE: Committee-generated based on data from IES.

NOTES:

¹ This includes five grants funded through the Unsolicited grant opportunity. Three of these were funded prior to the existence of the official Methods Training for Education Researchers topic area (R305U080001, R305U100001, R305U110001), and the other two include one grant to provide training for SEA and LEA research staff to conduct cost analysis (R305U180001) and one Methods training planning grant (R305U190001).

² This includes one grant funded through the Unsolicited grant opportunity (R324U140001), two grants funded under a competition called “Methods Training Using Single-Case Designs” (R324B160034 and R324B200022), as well as one grant funded under a competition called “Research Methods Training Using Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trial (SMART) Designs’ (R324B180003).

³ The Early Career Mentoring Program for Faculty at Minority-Serving Institutions was announced, but no awards had been made in FY2021.

⁴ Prior to establishing the Methods Training for Education Researchers program, NCER and NCSER supported methods training grants that were submitted under the unsolicited grants opportunity. We have included these grants in our total grants funded under this program, and therefore have noted the starting date for these grants as 2002.

programs for undergraduate, masters, and predoctoral students and, as of FY2022, for early career faculty as well. These differences are due, in part, to differences in the funding levels for both centers. With substantially less funding, NCSER directs its limited resources to the postdoctoral and early career levels.

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAMS AT IES

IES has invested millions of dollars into its training programs to date. How impactful have these programs been? We know that hundreds of students, junior, early career, and senior scholars have participated in training programs, and many have carried these skills and competencies into education research careers (IES, 2021). Likewise, available data on the career-development aspects of the training programs suggest that the programs have brought scholars to education science who may not otherwise be in the field (IES, 2021).

Although some new information was provided in a recent report (IES, 2021), more data are needed for the committee and the field to fully understand who participates in these programs, how their participation has contributed to their success as education researchers, and how their participation has shaped the field. For example, it is not clear from the available data how many participants in the various training programs have matriculated through education research careers, how many have applied for and secured funding from NCER and NCSER, or how many have made use of the specific methodological and statistical techniques they were trained on in their research. Moreover, although recent RFAs specifically encourage training programs to recruit fellows from specific groups that are underrepresented in education research, information about the participation of individuals from these groups in the training programs is not available. It would be important to know if individuals from these groups are or are not applying for the NCER and NCSER programs, being accepted into the programs, or using their experiences in the programs to further their research careers (e.g., to secure IES funding as independent researchers). Data about each of these points are needed to better understand the success of the programs and to evaluate whether changes are needed.

Beyond the quantity of participants, data are also not readily available on different aspects of the training experiences provided by the programs. For example, all of the pre- and postdoctoral training programs are required to implement strategies to recruit and retain fellows from groups that are underrepresented in education research. In addition, many of the current IES training programs have an explicit interdisciplinary focus, including the predoctoral training programs. Further, over time, required

activities for trainees have changed (such as the move toward apprenticeships for predoctoral fellows). However, data on the success of these efforts are not readily available. We do not know which components of the training programs are most beneficial for trainees. We do not know the extent to which programs have succeeded at enrolling and retaining individuals from historically underrepresented groups. And, we do not have data to understand whether specific disciplines within the broad field of education are underrepresented in the training opportunities.

All in all, it seems likely that the training opportunities have led to many desired changes. However, in the absence of specific data related to each of the training programs’ primary objectives, it is difficult to ascertain the impact of the training opportunities offered by NCER and NCSER on education research. It is worth noting that the training programs’ reporting requirements imply that indicators of program success have been collected; however, the data are not publicly available currently and were not made available to the committee. These data represent a rich and robust resource that can be used to examine who is and who is not participating in education research training programs at different points in the pipeline; what practices are effective for recruiting and retaining scientists in successful education research careers; and what barriers and opportunities are important to consider in the development of a diverse cadre of interdisciplinary education researchers. These data need to be made available to realize this promise.

NEED FOR CONTINUED TRAINING IN EDUCATION SCIENCES

The training portfolio that NCER and NCSER established to meet the charge issued within ESRA (Section 112) is impressive. Through these programs, IES has established a pipeline for developing education scientists, from undergraduate and graduate study and continuing throughout their research careers. It has also established a reputation for offering high-quality training opportunities that have advanced statistical and methodological expertise in the broad interdisciplinary field of education research, equipping the field with the expertise, tools, and competencies required to produce rigorous research. The sheer volume of education researchers who have participated in these training programs would seem to indicate that IES has, indeed, strengthened the nation’s capacity to develop, conduct, and disseminate scientifically valid education research widely. At historical moments such as the present one, strengths like the training programs can and should be leveraged to address both challenges and opportunities to improve student achievement and school success.

As noted in previous chapters, recent events associated with the global COVID-19 pandemic and civil rights violations have laid bare historical and structural inequities that are prevalent in many aspects of U.S. society. Emerging data make clear that education is no exception. Disparities in academic, behavioral, and social-emotional opportunities and outcomes are not new (Schneider, 2021) but have been exacerbated as student experiences in schools have continued to vary in unexpected, unpredictable, and unprecedented ways. These issues are complex, and evidence is only just now emerging on their impact on a variety of educational outcomes. When available, data indicate that, on average, students who were already more likely to experience poorer outcomes on most indicators of school achievement and success fared much worse, including students with disabilities, students growing up in poverty and low-income households, and students from minoritized groups.¹ If these trends hold, then the immediate and long-term impacts of this once-in-a-lifetime moment are likely to be felt for generations, making already stubborn disparities even more difficult to address.

Advances in education science are required to respond sufficiently to such complex challenges proactively and effectively. Now more than ever, the public demands that the field act quickly and strategically to produce research that is rigorous, relevant, and responsive to this moment. Doing so will require a balance of improvement and innovation—both hallmarks of training programs offered by NCER and NCSER.

Regarding improvement, NCER and NCSER’s training programs were founded, in part, on the assumption that many education researchers did not have specific skills or competencies required to design, conduct, or disseminate causally informative research studies. As discussed in Chapter 2, although the field continues to debate what constitutes scientifically valid research, the number of IES-funded research studies that have employed experimental and quasi-experimental research designs has increased substantially over the past 20 years, allowing for an increasing number of effectiveness and efficacy studies, and allowing for meta-analyses and research syntheses on several interventions and instructional practices across elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education. It stands to reason that these advances were due, in part, to training opportunities provided by NCER and NCSER to develop and upskill scientists who could produce this research. IES has been successful in building the field’s capacity for conducting education research, and this success should be celebrated and continued.

Relatedly, diversity has emerged as an important area of improvement for the training programs. In recent years, both NCER and NCSER have

___________________

¹ These summary statements about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on education rely on a background paper the committee commissioned from Hough et al. (2021).

made efforts to increase diversity in the field of education research by providing training opportunities for individuals and institutions historically underrepresented in education research. RFAs for all training programs now explicitly encourage providers to recruit participants from underrepresented groups, including individuals from racial and ethnic subgroups, individuals with disabilities, individuals working in smaller or less well-known institutions, individuals in MSIs, individuals who are first-generation college students, and individuals with nontraditional professional pathways into education research. Specific data on the characteristics of participants in the training programs have become available only recently and make clear that participation of individuals from underrepresented groups in the full array of NCER and NCSER training opportunities is limited (IES, 2021). Thus, intentional efforts to broaden participation are warranted and would constitute a substantive improvement for both centers.

Regarding innovation, a hallmark of NCER and NCSER’s training programs is their capacity to evolve to respond to needs in education research and education practice. For example, although ESRA charges IES with disseminating scientifically valid research, growing evidence indicates that dissemination of research evidence does not always translate into the uptake and use of research evidence; practitioners and policy makers often require significant engagement with researchers, knowledge brokers, and other agents to use research in a manner that changes policy, practice, and student performance (e.g., Finnigan & Daly, 2014; Coburn, Honig, & Stein, 2009). Accordingly, the most recent training programs respond to this need to improve efforts to mobilize research evidence for policy and practice. The 2019 predoctoral training grants required trainees to apprentice with an education agency or organization (e.g., school district, nonprofit education organization, or postsecondary institution) for a minimum of 1 year. The postdoctoral training grants required mentors to develop trainees’ ability to “communicate their research findings effectively to researchers, education policymakers, practitioners, and the public.” In 2021, a Methods Training on implementation research was awarded to prepare researchers to gain skills for studying the use of research evidence by teachers, principals, and other school administrators, and a Methods Training on research to support program and policy decisions was awarded to prepare researchers in state and local education agencies. These training programs are intended to increase the likelihood that IES-trained researchers are prepared to work in collaboration with communities and schools in ways that lead to timely, relevant, and high-quality research. Future trainings could build on these recent advances by explicitly developing the knowledge and skills needed to, for example, understand practitioner or policy maker contexts, build trusting relationships with partners, clearly establish roles and responsibilities

of researchers and collaborative stakeholders, and more broadly engage in rigorous research in partnership with schools and communities.

Relatedly, innovation will be required to develop training programs that will prepare researchers to grapple with the complex themes of equity, implementation, heterogeneity, usefulness, and technology that resonate throughout this report. Both NCER and NCSER have prioritized training that supports scholars to pursue lines of inquiry to develop generalizable knowledge about “what works.” Yet, data on student achievement and school success before and during the global pandemic have made it increasingly clear that access to and availability of evidence-based programs and practices are not sufficient to support student achievement for all learners. There are many barriers as well as opportunities for advancing education science in a manner responsive to practitioners, policy makers, students, and families, including issues associated with heterogeneity of intervention effects, barriers and facilitators to implementation of evidence-based practices, measurement of inequitable outcomes, development of effective intensive interventions for students with disabilities, analysis and integration of “found” data, and production of products and tools that can be used at scale to support learning. In its definition of scientifically based research standards, ESRA, Section 102(18)(vii) charges IES with “using research designs and methods appropriate to the research question posed.” Accordingly, both NCER and NCSER have begun to focus on training that supports scholars to develop scientific evidence about the processes and mechanisms that underlie not just “what works,” but how it works, why it works, for whom it works, and under what conditions it works. For example, in 2020, a Methods Training on selecting, implementing, and evaluating evidence-based interventions was awarded to build the capacity of researchers working in or with high-need school districts to use evidence-based interventions effectively to improve student and school outcomes.

Such pursuits of improvement and innovation should continue in earnest, as the nation will continue to face many challenges to ensuring equitable educational outcomes for all learners. ESRA charges IES with applying science to improve education and to address achievement disparities among different populations of students in specific content areas (ESRA, 2002). Scientific investigations that inform these complex problems of policy and practice will require theoretical, statistical, and methodological approaches above and beyond those already in use. Training that employs innovative approaches to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies will be needed to advance the field. Therefore, NCER and NCSER’s training programs should be prepared for continued improvement and innovation.

BROADENING PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATION RESEARCH THROUGH RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAMS

With a mission of building the nation’s capacity for designing, conducting, and disseminating scientifically valid education research, IES has always been responsible for broadening participation in the field. NCER and NCSER have been critical in the institute’s strategic approach to taking on this challenge. It is reasonable to suggest that the training provided by NCER and NCSER has not only changed the way that basic and applied education research are conducted, but also has changed the way that scientists are trained in the broad and interdisciplinary field of education research. This reciprocal relationship is critical for the advancement of science and for the overall health and well-being of the field of education. In the following section, we discuss practices that can both demonstrate and expand NCER and NCSER’s commitment to broadening participation in education research through training programs.

Transparency in Data

As noted earlier in the chapter, IES requires that training programs make targeted efforts to recruit participants from diverse backgrounds. For the most part, however, data about the backgrounds of applicants and participants in the training programs have not been made public. Very recently, information on participants in Pathways predoctoral and postdoctoral training programs was released in a Technical Working Group summary (dated December 2, 2020) that was linked on an IES blog post (IES, 2021). This summary report noted the limited racial and ethnic diversity among predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees (75% and 74% White, respectively). The report also noted that the predoctoral training programs are becoming more diverse over time (the percentage of predoctoral fellows who are African American increased from 4 percent in 2004–2009 to 12 percent in 2014–2020). In addition, IES has organized listening sessions since the report’s release to better understand how it might enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The report—and the actions that have followed—makes clear that IES is increasingly attending to the need to track its training practices and the participants in its training programs. We encourage IES to prioritize the routine collection and public reporting of these data.

To better understand how current practices affect recruitment, participation, and retention in the training programs and to develop appropriate solutions to broaden participation, more detailed data on the racial, ethnic, gender, disability status, disciplinary, and institutional backgrounds of applicants and participants in the training programs must be collected

and published. At present, we cannot discern whether individuals from underrepresented groups are not applying for training programs, not being accepted into training programs, or not remaining in the field over career transition points (graduation, becoming faculty members or research scientists). To identify which issues are at hand will require appropriate data and data access.

In the future, it will be necessary to develop and publicly share the criteria used to evaluate the success of each training program, and to gather and share data on these measures. These actions are needed to inform continued development of training that responds to the needs of the field and of society.

Expanding Methods Training

Addressing inequities in education requires understanding not only what educational practices, intervention, and policies “work,” but also how and why they work, for whom they work, and under what conditions. Given the importance of these questions, there is a clear need for training opportunities that focus on methods to address questions of how and why educational practices, interventions, and policies work. This will require training focusing on methodological approaches appropriate to these research questions, including qualitative methods, survey research, and mixed methods. To address these “how” and “why” questions with cutting-edge tools and approaches, researchers will also need training in methods for working with new data sources and “found data,” including machine learning, predictive analytics, and natural language processing. In addition, researchers will need training in the implications of these new methods for equity concerns (e.g., issues of bias detection and correction). Finally, we emphasize the need for all methods training to address connections to theory, with consideration of how methodological choices and approaches relate to the theoretical conceptions of the constructs being studied.

These strands of methodological training are important both in dedicated methods training and as part of career development programs. Emerging scholars need to gain expertise in the new and advanced methodologies that they will encounter during and after graduate study. More advanced scholars may be better equipped to take on the risk of a “career change” and lead others in the field in new directions. Thus, training in these methodological approaches needs to be offered, both in methods training opportunities for early and mid-career scholars, and in undergraduate, predoctoral, postdoctoral, and career-development training programs.

Finally, the number of methods training opportunities needs to be increased. There is intense demand for such training opportunities, and the committee anticipates that demand will continue to grow. If demand for

spaces in methods training workshops continues to outstrip supply, it is also important to consider how to allocate spaces to interested individuals, with attention to the implications of such decisions for equity concerns.

Additional Strategies for Broadening Participation

Some current training programs are effectively broadening participation, most notably the Pathways to Education Sciences programs and the Early Career Mentoring Program for Faculty at MSIs. These programs must be continued with increased funding. Building on these strengths, IES can implement additional strategies to further broaden participation in its training programs and in the field as a whole.

First, IES can develop new training mechanisms to provide opportunities for individuals who do not have access to training programs within the current structure. One such mechanism would be supplements for existing research grants that could create training opportunities for individuals at institutions that do not have organized training programs but that do have IES-funded principal investigators (PIs). For example, supplements could support undergraduates’ participation in research grants (similar to the National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates supplement program) or could support graduate students’ and postdocs’ participation in research grants (similar to National Institutes of Health ([NIH] Minority Supplements). Another mechanism would be short-term research opportunity programs for undergraduate students, such as summer internships or formal training programs like the national McNair Scholars Program or the Big Ten’s Summer Research Opportunities Programs. Such programs would provide career and talent/skill development opportunities to a different set of undergraduates than the current Pathways programs, which are longer term and more geographically limited. Summer internship programs frequently draw students from undergraduate institutions or regional universities that are not research intensive and that might not be able to support Pathways programs. Summer internship programs could also provide research opportunities for practicing teachers who wish to consider working in education research.

Several other changes can lead to shifts in who is served by existing career-development training programs. Toward this end, IES could consider implementing competitive priorities to incentivize broadened participation for existing training programs. IES could institute competitive priorities for institutions underrepresented within the training grant portfolio (e.g., MSIs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities [HBCUs]); for programs that graduate a high percentage of individuals from underrepresented groups; for predoctoral programs that recruit schol-

ars from the IES Pathways Programs; or for programs that include doctoral training in understudied or priority areas of education research.

It is also important to set increased expectations for continued funding for training programs at institutions that have previously received training grants. Training grants serve to enhance infrastructure and improve capacity; therefore, institutions that have received funding multiple times should be in a better position to take on greater responsibility for broadening participation. IES could encourage this greater responsibility, for example, by requiring institutions to implement practices to yield a greater percentage of participants from underrepresented groups admitted, retained, and successfully launched in education research careers postgraduation. Institutions that hold training programs could also be required, in subsequent applications, to partner with MSIs and HBCUs, to include faculty at MSIs and HBCUs as co-PIs or multiple PIs, to offer training programs at both campuses, or to establish extended in-person and/or remote research apprenticeship opportunities in MSIs and HBCUs.

The committee also recommends supporting engagement and interaction of scholars across different career stages—in a sense, creating “inter-generational” learning ecologies in which scholars can work together to learn new skills and to build broader and deeper networks. IES currently encourages interactions between predoctoral training programs and Pathways undergraduate training programs, for example, by asking applicants for training sites to formally describe their plans for such interactions. This practice could be continued and expanded. More broadly, career-development training programs can build in opportunities for trainees to engage with scholars at different career stages, as these opportunities may open new possibilities for trainees to receive mentoring or to gain skills via research site visits, “shadowing” opportunities, or research apprenticeships. These strategies focus not only on getting people into the field, but also on retaining them as they transition from undergraduate and graduate study into research careers in academic and nonacademic organizations.² By leveraging their training programs for researchers at different career stages, NCER and NCSER would be well positioned to promote sustained career development and thereby support retention of education researchers (Byrd & Mason, 2021).

___________________

² Education faces a shortage of well-trained research-active doctoral graduates. Though education produces more doctorates than all other fields combined, less than 10 percent of education doctoral recipients pursue research careers (Hedges & Jones, 2012). This faculty shortage is especially pronounced in the field of special education (Smith & Montrosse, 2012; Smith et al., 2011), which experiences substantial yearly losses of faculty to retirement and especially high attrition from doctoral training programs (Robb, Moody, & Abdel-Ghany, 2012). The shortage of special education faculty has cascading effects on the persistent shortages of special education teachers (Smith et al., 2011).

IES might also consider other avenues to broaden access to its training programs, particularly its methods training for education researchers. The methods training programs have proven to be highly desirable (as evidenced by the large number of participants annually). IES could elect to provide online access to these training materials, or coaching and/or technical assistance could be delivered remotely. IES might also consider approaches that would give faculty guidance on how to better navigate the grant proposal process, particularly for early career scholars who may not have mentors who had previously submitted IES proposals. For example, potential grantees might be able to observe panel discussions to better understand how proposals are reviewed. Or, successful grant applications could be made available (after sufficient time has passed) to give potential grantees models from which to learn.

Finally, another critical means to broaden participation in education research is to provide targeted funding for topics that scholars from underrepresented groups are interested in addressing. Some recent research (e.g., Hoppe et al., 2019) focusing on research portfolios at NIH has suggested that some of the challenges NIH faces in creating a diverse pipeline of scholars is that the agency has not tended to prioritize issues or research topics that are of interest to diverse scholars or the populations they serve. The same may be true for IES, although evidence is not yet available to discern if there is a mismatch between education researchers and IES’s funding priorities. Therefore, IES may consider broadening the focus of its research portfolio to prioritize such topics, including those topics highlighted in Chapter 5 of this report. This broadening of focus will also require diversifying the reviewer pool and training reviewers to evaluate proposals to study these priorities appropriately.

RECOMMENDATIONS

IES’s training programs are a vital and important component of its efforts to strengthen the education research field, and it is imperative that these programs continue to be offered. Indeed, the committee heard overwhelming testimony regarding both the popularity and utility of the existing programming. The committee encourages IES to systematically document the success of these programs and to expand them.

RECOMMENDATION 7.1:

IES should develop indicators of success for training, collect them from programs, and then make the information publicly available. IES should report the data it already collects on the success of programs and the pathways of trainees post-training.

RECOMMENDATION 7.2:

IES should build on its current strengths in methods training and expand in the following areas:

• Methods to address questions of how and why policies and practices work
• Methods that use machine learning, predictive analytics, natural language processing, administrative data, and other like methods

To fully meet the needs of the field as outlined in ESRA, IES has a responsibility to ensure that its training programming is reaching populations of scholars and researchers who need it most. As the committee notes in this report, this is an important issue of equity in the education research community. In addition, there is tangible value in ensuring that the field of education research is diverse insofar as it improves the overall quality of eventual research, increases the likelihood that issues of equity will be taken up in research, and supports the ultimate identity building of future researchers.

RECOMMENDATION 7.3:

IES should collect and publish information on the racial, ethnic, gender, disability status, disciplinary, and institutional backgrounds (types of institutions including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions) of applicants and participants in training at both the individual and institutional levels.

RECOMMENDATION 7.4:

IES should implement a range of strategies to broaden participation in its training programs to achieve greater diversity in the racial, ethnic, and institutional backgrounds of participants. These strategies could include

• Implementing targeted outreach to underrepresented institution types
• Supporting early career mentoring
• Requiring that training program applications clearly articulate a plan for inclusive programming and equitable participation
• Offering supplements to existing research grants to support participation of individuals from underrepresented groups
• Funding short-term research opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.