CERP Bulletin

The CERP Bulletin frequently shares news, timely information about CERP initiatives, and items of interest to the general community.
Subscribe to the CERP E-Mail List to stay connected.

Tag Archive: Undergraduate Students

CERP ImageCERP Image

Fall 2023 Data Buddies Department Reports Release

The Center for Evaluating the Research Pipeline (CERP) is excited to announce the release of the Fall 2023 Data Buddies Department Reports to all participating departments!

This year, 138 academic departments across the United States and Canada were eligible to receive a department report. To be eligible to receive a report, departments must achieve at least 5 survey responses from students in their department.

Geographic Distribution of Data Buddies

In addition to the standard full report, departments received a characteristics report that delves into the student respondents’ academic background and demographics. New this year, participating departments were also provided with a key findings report. This was created in response to feedback from some departments for a desire for a more digestible version of the report that highlights some of the most important and interesting findings from the survey in a much-reduced format.

Key Findings Report

There were also 16 participating departments that received additional special reports that departments specifically requested from the CERP team. Departments can request up to three specialized reports that present unique data either through selecting a specific subset of students to narrow down the sample and/or modifying their comparison group. For example, departments may request a report that splits out their data by just PhD or master’s students or Domestic and International Students. Data Buddies departments request these special reports by completing this Special Report Form.

All Data Buddies reports were made accessible for departments on the Data Buddies reporting portal created by the CERP team which currently allows departments to easily access and download all of their department’s reports going back to 2021. The CERP team plans to upload reports from previous years onto the portal for access in the near future as well.

Reporting Portal

The release of the department reports also marked the release of the 2023 Data Buddies Annual Report and the release of public datasets that incorporate all response data across all departments. Both of these releases are available on the CERP Website.

Read more about the Data Buddies report release in Computing Research News.

Are you on our list? Becoming a Data Buddy is free and easy! Click here to sign up today.

CERP ImageCERP Image

CRA Center for Evaluating the Research Pipeline Stipends and Student Participation in Undergraduate Research Prepared by Kristi Kelly

  1. Overview

How does the provision of stipends in REUs affect undergraduate students’ participation in research? This question has been examined in several ways, although there continues to be little systematic investigation of the extent to which stipends (and their size) affect participation. The research described in this summary generally examines stipends as part of a set of factors that may influence REU participation, and it is supplemented with unpublished data from the Center for Evaluating the Research Pipeline’s (CERP) Data Buddies Survey. In addition, this review includes a broader discussion of how financial concerns may impact students’ decisions about their involvement in research.


  1. The role of stipends in promoting formal research participation

Two studies led by D.R. Economy (Economy et al., 2013; Economy et al., 2014) provide the most direct evidence of the relative importance of stipends in guiding students’ REU decision-making. In an initial study, the researchers surveyed 61 NSF REU Site participants in nine REUs throughout the United States. Respondents were presented with a list of ten items and were asked to indicate which ones were important to them when selecting research program(s) they had applied to and accepted. The most-cited factor in accepting their REU was the stipend, with 69% of respondents indicating this was an important factor. This was slightly higher than the second-most-cited response, which was the research project’s focus (64% of respondents).

In a follow-up study with a larger group of respondents and a modified survey, the researchers used a 6-point Likert scale (rather than a checklist) for measuring the degree of importance of different factors in students’ decisions to accept their REU. Results in this survey revealed that the most important factor was the research project focus (with a mean score of 5.16 out of 6, corresponding to a little above “important”), followed by the stipend (mean = 4.92, or a little below “important”) and the date of their REU offer (mean = 4.54). Across both studies, there were no differences among various student subgroups in their likelihood of indicating stipends were important for them or their ratings of how important they felt the stipend to be. Taken together, these studies underscore that the provision of a stipend may make research participation possible, as such stipends are important for students and rank highly in their decisions about participating in REUs.

In these studies, however, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which varying stipend amounts affected students’ decisions, since the authors did not ask about this explicitly.[1] One data point that is relevant to this question looks at a comparison of the responses of students who had received one REU offer versus students with more than one offer. If those students with more than one offer rated the importance of the stipend more highly in their REU decision-making than students with only one offer, this might suggest that stipend size helped them decide between two (or more) REU sites. However, results showed that stipends were no more (or less) important for students considering multiple REU offers, relative to students with just one offer. However, other factors did appear to become more important to students when they were choosing between multiple REUs. In the first study, students with more than one REU offer were most likely to cite the date of the offer letter as an important factor in their decisions – unlike students with just one offer, and far more often than stipends. In the second study, students who were accepted into more than one NSF REU research program put greater emphasis than their peers on the importance of activities outside of the lab and on the sites being far from home when making their decisions (Economy et al., 2013; Economy et al., 2014).

An additional analysis was included in Economy and colleagues’ second study to examine those who chose an NSF REU over other research or non-research opportunities. These REU participants were asked in an open-ended format to describe why they chose the REU instead of other opportunities. Stipend-related responses were the fourth-most-named reason (cited by 23% of those respondents), after having a research experience, having a “new” experience, and the site location. The authors conclude that “the stipends that are offered need to be competitive with other academic undergraduate research programs” (Economy et al., 2014, p. 1,403). Thus, this suggests that stipends need to approximate the level of compensation offered by other experiences. Qualitative feedback from students from underrepresented backgrounds discussing their barriers to participation in undergraduate research (and engaged learning experiences more broadly) supports this as well (Finley & McNair, 2013). Notably, however, there is more theorizing than data on the impact of providing larger stipend amounts on REU selection, and this seems to focus more on inter-program competition for undergraduate participants than broadening overall access to research opportunities (e.g., Landis & Dagher, 2001; Mahmud & Xu, 2010).


  1. Data Buddies Survey data

Available data from the Data Buddies Survey (DBS) do not suggest that concerns about stipend size play an important role in students’ decisions about engaging in formal research. Across several years of data, concerns about pay are the least frequently endorsed reason for non-participation in formal research (e.g., Stout, 2018). Moreover, the percentage of undergraduates citing pay as a reason they would not participate in formal research experiences may be decreasing over time (CERP, 2021).[2]

Although a relatively small percentage of undergraduate respondents overall see low pay as a barrier to research experiences, it is still possible that specific subgroups of students are more concerned about this issue. To test this, CERP separately examined the DBS responses of several groups of students who are underrepresented in computing or who may have more financial concerns that drive their decisions about participating in research. Results from these targeted analyses show that even among these subgroups, only 10% to 15% of students report that concerns about the pay contributed to their reasons for not engaging in research.

Source: Data Buddies Survey, 2020. Center for Evaluating the Research Pipeline, Computing Research Association.


  1. Using a broader lens: Finances and decisions about extracurricular experiences

Research looking at internship decisions also supports the notion that pay issues exist but are much less of a factor than other issues when students are considering experiences outside of their regular coursework. For example, in a study asking students in an open-ended format about why they had chosen not to do internships, responses revealed that financial concerns were mentioned by only a few students, and that the most common issues were low self-efficacy and barriers related to applying and being accepted into positions (Kapoor & Gardner-McCune, 2020).

Importantly, the financial concerns described by respondents in this study – along with other research and theorizing – suggest a need for conceptions of students’ financial decision-making about research participation that go beyond considerations of the size or provision of compensation.  For example:

  • Low-income students may need to consider the fact that REU stipends are time-limited, whereas some students need to prioritize work that provides sustained, long-term earnings (Kapoor & Gardner-McCune, 2020, Russell & Dye, 2014).
  • Low-income and non-traditional students who are already working in other jobs and considering an REU may face the loss of benefits for themselves or any family members they are supporting if they choose research participation (Bangera & Brownell, 2014; Russell & Dye, 2014).
  • Students from underrepresented groups might not have the ability to relocate from their homes for a summer research position, due to family responsibilities (Bangera & Brownell, 2014).
  • For some students, acceptance of stipends for research many have implications for their financial aid packages (Hewlitt, 2018).


  1. Summary

In sum, studies suggest that students feel that the presence of a stipend is important; stipends rank higher than most other factors in selecting a research experience. At the same time, in the few studies found that investigate this issue, few students report concerns about stipends as a barrier to REU participation, a finding which is supported by CERP Data Buddies Survey results. A small amount of data and theorizing raise issues about broader financial considerations among underrepresented groups that may also play a role in students’ decisions about research participation.


  1. References

Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE—Life Sciences Education13(4), 602-606.

Center for Evaluating the Research Pipeline, (2021). Data Buddies Survey, Unpublished data.

Economy, D. R., Martin, J. P., & Kennedy, M. S. (2013, October). Factors influencing participants’ selection of individual REU sites. In 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1257-1259). IEEE.

Economy, D. R., Sharp, J. L., Martin, J. P., & Kennedy, M. S. (2014). Factors associated with student decision-making for participation in the research experiences for undergraduates program. The International journal of engineering education30(6), 1395-1404.

Finley A., McNair T. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in high-impact practices. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.

Hewlett, J. A. (2018). Broadening participation in undergraduate research experiences (UREs): The expanding role of the community college. CBE—Life Sciences Education17(3), es9.

Kapoor, A., & Gardner-McCune, C. (2019, February). Understanding CS undergraduate students’ professional development through the lens of internship experiences. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 852-858).

Landis, E. N., & Dagher, H. J. (2001). Research Experiences for Undergraduates: Advanced Engineered Wood Composites.

Mahmud, S. M.  & Xu, C. Z. (2010). REU Program in Telematics and Cyber Physical Systems (TCPS): Sharing Strategies, Experience and Lessons Learned to Help Others. Retrieved from: http://webpages.eng.wayne.edu/~ad5781/PersonalData/PubPapers/ASEE_Jun10.pdf.

Russell, H., & Dye, H. (2014). Promoting REU participation from students in underrepresented groups. Involve, a Journal of Mathematics7(3), 403-411.

Stout, J. (2018). Understanding Why Many Undergraduate Students Don’t Participate in Research. Computing Research News, 30 (3).

[1] The survey item in both studies was listed as “stipend.” Thus, there is some ambiguity in how respondents might have been interpreting it.

[2] 21% in 2017 and 14% in 2020. However, it should be noted that the comparability of responses is somewhat limited due to a change in which respondents answered the question in 2017 versus 2020. In 2017, all respondents who had not participated in formal research were asked for their reasons why, whereas in 2020 only respondents who had not participated in formal research and did not plan to in the future were asked those questions.

NSF logoNSF logo

CISE Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program Webinar

NSF’s Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) is providing information on the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program solicitation NSF 19-582 via a webinar on August 6th, 2021 starting at 12:00 pm ET. The event page can be found by clicking here, which includes more information about the webinar and a list of clarifications for specifically REU Site proposals.

One important clarification is the new option for the required evaluation component of the REU Site proposal. PIs are encouraged to work with the CRA Center for Evaluating the Research Pipeline to fulfill the evaluation requirement of the REU Sites program. Submit an interest form to sign up and for a statement to include in your proposal. If you choose to participate in this evaluation, you do not have to include evaluation in your budget.

Additionally, the webinar will include a briefing on the CISE REU program and key solicitation requirements followed by a question-and-answer session. Prior to the webinar, you can submit questions to cise.reu@nsf.gov.

Register in advance for this webinar, which will take place via Zoom:

After registering, a confirmation email will be sent containing information about how to join the webinar. Participants will be able to join in a listen-only mode and interact through the Q&A function.

Contact: Rebecca Shearman rshearman@nsf.gov

This community update is brought to you by the CRA’s Center for Evaluating the Research Pipeline (CERP). CERP provides social science research and comparative evaluation for the computing community. Subscribe to the CERP newsletter & bulletin by clicking here. Volunteer for Data Buddies by signing up here.


CRA Looking to Develop a Mentoring Program for NSF’s CSGrad4US Graduate Fellowship

In response to the National Science Foundation (NSF) Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Directorate’s recently announced CSGrad4US Fellowship program, the Computing Research Association’s Education (CRA-E) and Widening Participation (CRA-WP) committees, with CRA support, are exploring the development of a CSGrad4US Mentoring Program to support recipients of the CSGrad4US Fellowship. The goals of the mentoring program would be (1) to guide returning students through the application process towards a successful CS Ph.D. admission and school selection and (2) to mentor them through the transition to Ph.D. graduate study during the first year. The CSGrad4US Mentoring Program would include both a group mentoring component addressing general aspects of the graduate application process and an individual coaching component.

With an understanding of the myriad pathways into computing research, the mentoring program aims to support students with varying levels of research experience, including those with no prior research experience. The mentoring program is being explored under the guidance of Susanne Hambrusch (Purdue University), Lori Pollock (University of Delaware), Maria Gini (University of Minnesota), and Russ Joseph (Northwestern University).

Interested in serving as a mentor or coach?
More information and a sign-up opportunity will be posted on CRA, CRA-E and CRA-WP websites in the spring. Click here to subscribe to updates.