Frames are used in the front-end of a paper to situate the study within a larger body of literature. All of the studies use frames regarding the barriers and challenges facing women of color faculty. The most common challenges discussed in framing were isolation, underrepresentation, and discrimination and bias. While these references to underrepresentation framed it as a challenge, some studies also employed underrepresentation in more nuanced and conflicting ways throughout the front-end of their papers.
Others argued that mentoring was needed to overcome underrepresentation; and another also argued that systemic change is needed to improve representation. All the studies presented findings affirming the value of mentoring for women of color faculty. The most common benefits of mentoring were navigational capital and problem-solving or advice. One of the studies also presented evidence that mentoring can lead to systemic change; in the data supporting this claim, one of the study participants described how she raised awareness of issues to folks in senior positions by mentoring up.
The articles presented a range of findings regarding who is the ideal mentor and the characteristics of successful mentoring relationships: receiving mentoring from White faculty members and from others who shared their race, gender or both.
This study utilizes meta-synthesis to investigate what we currently know from the research literature about the mentoring experiences of women of color faculty in STEM higher education. Meta-synthesis integrates and interprets patterns across qualitative studies that explore the same or closely related topic, with the goal of theory-building. This methodology is an essential tool in researching higher analytic goals, enhancing the generalizability of qualitative research, and creating a more comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand (Finlayson and Dixon 2008; Sandelowski, Docherty, and Emden 1997; Walsh and Downe 2005; Zimmer 2004).
If used as a tool of reduction and aggregation, meta-synthesis risks violating the tenets of the interpretative paradigm (Sandelowski, Docherty, and Emden 1997; Zimmer 2004). Careful attention must be given to the assumptions underlying any differences in methodologies of the individual studies, and contradictory findings across the studies must be explored for theory development (Zimmer 2004).
The first step of a meta-synthesis is the selection of studies and determination of inclusion criteria. At this stage, the comparability of articles must be considered on several factors, such as methodology, sampling, data collection and analysis, and disciplinary background of the researchers (Sandelowski, Docherty, and Emden 1997). The goal is to find all the relevant articles on a specified topic, not merely a sample (Walsh and Downe 2005). While prior meta-synthesis analyses range in size from four to over 100 studies (Finlayson and Dixon 2008), Sandelowski, Docherty, and Emden (1997) suggest to limit meta-synthesis to no more than 10 studies, as larger sample sizes “impede deep analysis and, therefore, threaten the interpretative validity of findings” (p.368). In order to create a dataset of studies that is both small enough for the analysis to preserve the integrity of the individual studies and comprehensive enough to include all of the relevant studies, the scope and inclusion criteria must develop in an iterative manner (Walsh and Downe 2005).
Utilizing Google Scholar, the initial searches included the broadest relevant search criteria: “mentoring ‘women of color’ faculty” and “mentoring minority women faculty”. Then, a series of searches with criteria that included specific racial/ethnic categories (in addition to “mentoring faculty” were run): African American, Alaskan Native, American Indian, Asian, Black, Chicana, Hispanic, indigenous, Latina, Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander. A series of searches with criteria with specific disciplinary categories (as defined by the NSF definition of STEM along with medicine) were then run: STEM, science, technology, engineering, math, astronomy, chemistry, computer science, geoscience, life science, physics, psychology, social science, STEM education, and medicine. Further variations with specificity on both racial/ethnic categories and discipline (e.g., “mentoring Black women Chemistry faculty”) were tested, however this approach did not yield any unique results.
A total of 28 unique searches were run and assessed. With the first two sets of broad searches, the first 200 items of each set of results were reviewed; for the more specific searches (which yielded substantially smaller numbers of studies), the first 100 items of results for each search term combination were reviewed. At this stage, only the title and abstract were reviewed to determine potential inclusion in the study (i.e., if the article was relevant to the meta-synthesis project). In addition to running searches through Google Scholar, a citation snowball method was used to identify additional studies. That is, the references cited within the studies that were found by the search procedure were reviewed, as well as articles that references any of the studies found by the search procedure. To assist in comparability, only articles from peer-reviewed journals were included.
The search procedures described above created a list of 33 studies for potential inclusion in the meta-synthesis. The initial inclusion criteria required that an article be: (1) a qualitative study focusing on (2) the faculty mentoring experiences of (3) women of color faculty within (4) STEMM fields broadly or a specific fields(s) within STEMM. Only three studies met all of these criteria. In the second iteration of the inclusion criteria, the third item of the criteria was expanded to include studies focusing on faculty of color and/or women faculty, if they separated out women of color faculty in their analyses. However, this did not add any new articles to the dataset, as none of the articles disaggregated their results by gender (if the focus was on faculty of color) or race (if the focus was on women faculty). In the third iteration of inclusion criteria, the fourth item of criteria was expanded from STEMM to academia, so that the inclusion criteria required an article be: (1) a qualitative study focusing on (1) the faculty mentoring experiences of (2) women of color faculty within (3) academia broadly. Using these criteria, a total of eight studies were selected for inclusion in the meta-synthesis, as shown in Table 1.
Frames are used in the front-end of a paper to situate the study within a larger body of literature. All of the studies make use of frames regarding the barriers and challenges facing women of color faculty. The most common challenges discussed in framing were: isolation (n=7), underrepresentation (n=7), and discrimination and bias (n=6). While these references to underrepresentation framed it as a challenge, seven of the studies also employed underrepresentation in more nuanced and conflicting ways throughout the front-end of their papers. Two of the studies argued that mentoring was needed to overcome underrepresentation (Buzzanell, Long, Anderson, Kokini, and Batra 2015; Crawford and Smith 2005); one of these studies also argued that systemic change is needed to improve representation (Crawford and Smith 2005). Two of the studies noted that underrepresentation and the associated marginalization can be sources of power (Daniel 2009) and spaces of resistance (Thomas and Hollenshead 2001), while Train (2014) argued that women of color are causing systemic change by resisting assimilation.
Six of the eight studies also employed frames relating to the importance of mentoring; three of these studies also included qualifications on the value of mentoring. Both articles by Crawford and Smith noted that individuals may succeed without mentors and that mentors do not guarantee success. Buzzanell et al. (2015) went further in qualifying the importance of mentoring, by presenting a critique of the “grand mentoring narrative,” writing:
“The anticipated benefits along with the assumed productive relationships create a grand mentoring narrative suggesting not only that mentoring is required for academic career and life success but also that mentoring processes and practices can be standardized, regardless of individuals’ differential experiences, backgrounds, and needs that might necessitate different mentoring forms and content.” (p.441)
All of the studies presented findings affirming the value of mentoring for women of color faculty. The most common benefits of mentoring were navigational capital (n=6) and problem-solving or advice (n=6). One of the studies also presented evidence that mentoring can lead to systemic change (Tran 2014); in the data supporting this claim, one of the study participants described how she raised awareness of issues to folks in senior positions by mentoring up.
The articles presented a range of findings regarding who is the ideal mentor and the characteristics of successful mentoring relationships. In two of the studies, participants found successful mentoring relationships through working with White faculty members (Holmes, Land, Hinton-Hudson 2007; Tran 2014). One of these studies also presented data that participants were most successful with mentors who shared their race, gender, or both (Holmes, Land, Hinton-Hudson 2007). While five of the studies found that their participants experienced successful peer mentoring relationships, three of these same studies also presented data on the importance of hierarchical one-on-one mentoring relationships.
Four of the studies presented data on the challenges that their participants experienced within mentoring relationships, including contentious relationships with their mentor and a general sense that mentoring is mysterious and not understood. Six of the studies also included participants who did not receive mentoring. In the two studies by Crawford and Smith, none of their participants had a mentoring relationship—however, the authors restricted the definition of mentor to be “one who is further along in an educational career than you are, perhaps in administration, and who counsels you and looks out for your career” (p.60). This definition excludes peer mentors and mentors that may exist outside of academia; indeed, in the data they present, the women spoke to having peer and non-academic mentors, yet the authors conclude that these women received no mentoring.
Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded theory. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Finlayson, K. W., and Dixon, A. (2008). Qualitative meta-synthesis: a guide for the novice. Nurse researcher, 15(2).
Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S., and Emden, C. (1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in nursing and health, 20(4), 365-371.
Tavory, I., and Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walsh, D., and Downe, S. (2005). Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of advanced nursing, 50(2), 204-211.
Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta‐synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of advanced nursing, 53(3), 311-318
Codebook: Meta-synthesis of the Mentoring Experiences of Women of Color Faculty
High-level characteristics
Abstracts
Keywords
Academic administration
African American
African American women
Black women
Career
Dignity
Engineering
Gender
Higher Education
Meaningful work
Mentoring
Minority career development
Narrative
No key words given
Post-structural
Professional development
Race
Research careers
STEM
Women leaders of color
Citations of other papers included in this study
Discipline of authors
First author
Communication
Education
Medicine
Psychology
Sociology
Other authors
Communication
Computer Information Systems
Education
Mechanical Engineering
Medicine
Sociology
unknown
Key finding
Disrupt grand narrative, mentoring is raced, classed, gendered, etc.
Lack of mentors for African American women in administration
Mentor makes professional success possible
Women of color resisting in order to succeed
Main purpose
Methods
Description of intervention
Description of themes
Description of subjects
Emergent coding
Feminist post-structural narratological stance
Interviews
Phenomenology
Program evaluation
Secondary analysis of survey and interview data
Setting
4-year predominantly White institutions
Large state university in Great Lakes area
National
New York State colleges and universities
Theoretical Frameworks
Black feminist thought
Post-structural feminism
Defining Mentoring
Given definition
Mention of peer mentoring, multiple mentors
Purpose of mentoring
Build mentees network
Increase women in STEM
Instrumental support
Psychosocial, emotional support
Frames
Barriers
Academic values do not align with cultural values
Barriers to professional socialization
Discrimination and bias
Enviro of cultural homogeneity
Expected to represent all women of their race
Focus on finding right job rather than succeeding at job they have
High service commitments
Hostile environment, climate
Intersectional
Isolation
Lack access to resources
Lack mentors
Lack networks
Lack of role models
Lack of sensitivity
Lack of trust
Lack of visibility
Limited opportunities for advancement
Low status
Marginal position
Pressure
Stereotype threat
Unclear P and T requirements
Underrepresentation
Undeserved scrutiny
Women of color choices and career paths
Women of color viewed as threat
Career development research, career paths
Different cultural definitions of success
Discipline of authors specific framing
Mentoring as constituted communicatively
Racial history of Psychology
Importance, value of mentoring, research on mentoring
Benefits to mentee of mentoring
Lit on benefits of mentors to all women
Lit on benefits of mentors to people of color, including men
Challenges to success of mentor relationships
Characteristics, timing influence mentoring impact
Cross race mentoring
Mentoring and women of color
Mentoring can shift overall paradigm
Mentoring improves institutional diversity
Mentoring is reciprocal
Peer and multiple mentors
Qualifies or limits the view of mentoring as always positive
Race matters
Racial differences w Whites
Systemic change needed
Underrepresentation
Causes
Lack of research on women of color
Margins as source of power, resistance
Mentoring as one intervention designed to address this
Need mentoring to improve representation
Need systemic change to improve representation
Need to increase rep to change research
Need to increase rep to recruit, retain Black students
Women of color on the margins
Women of Color
Intersectional
Racialized experiences of Women of color, code switching
Women of color as caretakers, self-care
Women of color changing higher education
Developing support networks
How Women of color cope, succeed, resist given marginality
Resisting assimilation
Findings re: Mentoring
At graduate student level
Bad mentoring experiences
Centrality of race
Challenges
Assigned mentors not clicking
Did not recognize mentoring opportunities
Difficult finding now that she is in Sr position
Lack of role models with same identities
Mentor mentee competitiveness
Mentoring is mysterious, not understood
No compliments or encouragement
Changes over time
Early on, institution invests in mentoring
Early on, prevent from dropping out
Later, shows adaptability to changes
Mentors leave your institution over time
Still need mentoring in Sr positions
Characteristics of successful mentoring relationships
Advocates
Allow for diversity of obligations and values
Attentive to intersectional identities
Emotional support
Instrumental support
Role modeling
Description of mentoring program or intervention activities
Experience of mentoring impacted by identity
Lack of mentoring
Because they focused on job access and not mobility
Blames self for lack of mentoring
Did not know what did not know
Did not realize need
Does not pursue
Led to uncertainty about career path
No traditional mentors
Nontraditional path in way of finding mentor
Others assumed she didn’t need it
Subbed observation of what not to do
Trained but not nurtured
Wishes had mentor
Types of mentoring
Author is dismissive of peer mentoring
Hierarchical one on one
Mentoring up, supervisors
Peer mentoring
They serve as the mentor
Value of mentoring at individual level
Accountability
Career development and advancement
Connect with other Women of color in academia
Emotional support
Encourage self-care
Feedback on manuscripts and grant apps
How to lead, take care of staff
Increase persistence
Increased network
Learn to ask for what need
Mentoring leads to individual success
Navigational know-how
Personal info, Referrals for personal matters
Problem solving, advice
Provide meaning and purpose
Raise awareness
Research, data analysis
Role model
Socialization
Someone to battle with you in the work
Understanding politics
Validate experiences
Value of mentoring at systemic level
Can create change by mentoring up
Catalyst for institutional change
Who initiates mentor relationship
Both institution and mentee responsible
Institution
Mentee
Mentor
Who is ideal mentor
Can be cross cultural, White
Need multiple, diverse perspectives
Peer with same identity
Senior to their current position
Shared gender
Shared race
Someone dedicated to mentoring
Someone whom other professors respect
White man
Findings not about mentoring
Challenges
Cautious, expecting racial or gender problems
Excess demands by students for support
Excess service demands
Having to choose between academic and cultural values
Isolation
Lack of respect from colleagues
Must work harder as a woman of color
Others assume women of color have advantages
Unwritten rules
At the individual level
Definitions of success change over time
Fluid subject positions
Important to establish relationships with those in power
Importance of networking and professional development
Need to build support system
Re race
Cultural obligation to give back
Cultural values and definitions of success
Difficulties engaging with White colleagues
Differences across URM women by race, ethnicity
Importance of community
Location on the margins
Overcoming racist culture
Separation of work and personal life
Similarities across URM women regardless of race, ethnicity
See self as DEI change agent
Socialization through observation of others’ mistakes
At institutional or cultural level
Adding a few Women of color to power does NOT equal real change
Call for culture change
Climate as a challenge, unwelcoming
Inadequate support for Women of color
Leadership must set tone for DEI
Local climate can be more challenging than national
Low retention rates at PWIs
Mentors as part of culture change
Race as primary and central
Differences with White experiences
Suggestions for further research
Black feminist thought, critical race theory on Black Women’s experience
Black women and mentoring in STEM
Compare African American women in administration with and without mentors
How to address cultural issues and cultural identity in mentoring
On different employments, authorial voices, subject positions
Research on the mentoring experiences of Women of color beyond Black women
What mentoring models work for who and in what context
Who has access to mentoring
Implications
Advice for mentors
Commitment, not race, is most important characteristic of mentor
Mentoring needs to address professional AND personal
Mentors need to recognize, honor cultural identity
Mentors need to support changing needs over time
Suggestions specific for majority mentors
White mentors must attend to cultural differences
Argue for their theoretical approach
Authors give advice to junior faculty
Ask for assistance
Develop networks
Develop research agenda
Find community of color
Find mentors to help turn dissertation into publications
Have a personal life
Institutional fit matters
Nurture mentoring relationships over time
Call for critical approach to mentoring research
Call for mentoring
Lack of mentors means institutions not fully capitalized on women of color potential
Lack of mentors leads to decreased career satisfaction
Mentoring can lead to institutional change
Mentoring is crucial in early years in tenure track position
Mentoring is key to Women of color success
Mentoring needed to empower Women of color leaders
Multiple mentors needed
Nontraditional folx need peer mentoring
Call to institutionalize inclusionary practices
Centrality of racism and race
Conclusions
Enter your email below to receive monthly updates from the community and information about upcoming events.
