An official website of the United States government
This full paper interrogates the perceptions of mentoring of international STEM doctoral faculty at US universities. International faculty comprise the second largest STEM faculty population in the US, yet little is known about their perceptions surrounding mentoring. Literature informs on the importance of cross-cultural mentoring which is impacted by various factors especially sociocultural and sociopolitical concerns. As a result of the miniscule number of Black and Brown STEM faculty at US institutions, most US underrepresented racially minoritized students have doctoral faculty mentors who are either White or international. These students are negatively impacted when these cross-cultural mentorships fail to be culturally liberative. A qualitative case study using interviewing as method was employed to better understand the perspectives of international faculty teaching in US STEM doctoral programs. Using inductive constant comparative analysis, the study identified three patterns relative to STEM doctoral mentoring by international faculty: focus on pragmatics, science culture as race and culture neutral, and limited ability to empathize with the marginalization of "the other" in spite of marginalization as international faculty. Three implications were developed based on the findings. STEM doctoral education should reimagine mentoring as holistic, embedded in and accountable to cultural understanding, international faculty should draw on their own experiences of marginalization to connect with and better respond to the needs of racially minoritized US STEM doctoral students and international faculty should engage in anti-racism and anti-Black racism training to become aware of ways in which implicit bias and lack of cultural knowledge infiltrates mentoring practice.
more »
« less
Discovering our "We": Marginalization as Connection between International STEM Faculty and their Black and Brown Doctoral Mentees
International faculty have a strong presence in STEM university educational programming. They represent the second largest demographic, after White faculty, among STEM faculty in US universities, the majority of which are from Asian countries such as China, South Korea, and India, surpassing by large margins racially minoritized domestic faculty including Black Americans, Latine, Native Americans, Native Pacific Islanders, and Native Alaskans (NSF, 2022). These demographics mirror that of STEM doctoral students with White students occupying the largest share, followed by Asian students (international and domestic). Because of this, the National Science Foundation determined that Black Americans, Latine, Native Americans, Native Pacific Islanders, and Native Alaskans were underrepresented in STEM education and occupations. It should come as no surprise that the majority of these racially minoritized students engage in cross-cultural mentoring. While much attention has been devoted to cross-cultural mentoring with White faculty, less has been paid to cross-cultural mentoring with international faculty. International faculty, especially Asian, often occupy a peculiar space as they are often viewed through the model minority lens while also being cast as sufficiently different based on white hegemonic norms (Author, 2021). They are subjected to acceptance for their presumed STEM gifts and talents on one hand, while on the other hand being subjected to marginalization emanating from their home language, accents, and culture (Herget, 2016). International faculty may face isolation and bias in ways similar to their racially minoritized students. Literature is relatively silent on international faculty's doctoral mentoring perceptions and if shared experiences of marginalization are leveraged to enhance the quality of cross-cultural doctoral mentorships between international faculty and Black and Brown students and This paper explores the perceptions of mentoring of international STEM doctoral faculty at three US universities in the southeast. Data were extracted from a larger multiple embedded qualitative case study (Yin, 2018) utilizing interviews with 18 international faculty from three US institutions in the southeast and a survey. Constant comparative inductive analysis was employed to develop findings. The findings suggest that international faculty often share cultural attitudes not much different than their White faculty counterparts, attitudes that reflect anti-Black racism (Gordon, 1995; Dumas & ross, 2016). The findings also reveal an assumption of science neutrality, lacking criticality in understanding science from broader epistemological foundations. Finally, the findings indicate that pragmatic concerns are prioritized over sociocultural and sociopolitical ones that may impact US racially minoritized doctoral students, resulting in international faculty failing to appreciate how their experiences of marginalization can result in empathic connections to their marginalized students. The implications implore STEM education to reimagine STEM doctoral education and mentoring as "holistic and embedded in and accountable to cultural imperatives" (Author, 2022). International faculty should become more aware of ways in which implicit bias fueled by anti-Black racism negatively impacts their Black and Brown doctoral mentees. STEM faculty development education should consider ways to assist international faculty with better connecting with racially minoritized and marginalized students to improve the cross-cultural doctoral mentoring experience.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10511413
- Publisher / Repository:
- ASEE Conferences
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- 2023 Collaborative Network for Computing and Engineering Diversity
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- https://peer.asee.org/44789
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- Graduate, Faculty, Race and Ethnicity
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- New Orleans , Louisiana
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Background: Even though Historically Black College and Universities (HBCUs) make up only 3% of higher education's institutions, they play a pivotal role in producing Black scientists by virtue of the fact that many received either their undergraduate or doctorate degree from a HBCU. HBCUs are credited with providing a more supportive and nurturing environment that thrives on communal mindsets and practices, emphasizing the importance of relationships, offering opportunities for Black students to "see themselves" as part of the academic and social milieu whereas Historically White Institutions (HWIS) are characterized as being hostile and discriminatory. Mentoring is said to be pivotal in the attainment of the PhD. Mentorships have an inherent gatekeeping mechanism, better positioning those who receive effective mentorships while disadvantaging those who do not. It has potential to harm and marginalize when not engaged with deliberate care and a culturally liberative mindset. Mentoring, when not under the thumb of colonizing mindsets, can contribute to more equitable experiences and outcomes for students who hail from AGEP population groups. Literature has indicated that Black students are less likely to have a mentor or be engaged in effective mentorships. The HBCU narrative of supportive environment is consistently told but has scant empirical validation for Black students pursuing STEM doctoral degrees. In fact, the lure of having faculty and peers who look like you is something of an enigma given that even at HBCUs there are limited numbers of Black faculty in STEM. How are same race, same gender mentorships attained when, not unlike their HWIS counterparts, HBCU STEM faculties have a large number of White and Asian men? If the environment is indeed different at HBCUs, is it different for Black STEM doctoral students? Is STEM doctoral mentoring at HBCUs emblematic of anti-Blackness or is it yet another tool used to oppress marginalized students? Theoretical Framework: Anti-black racism and critical capital theory serve as critical theoretical frameworks and were selected because they highlight the ways violence is enacted through taken for granted colonized practices such as mentoring. Fanon understood that thoughts and mindsets are the progenitors of violence and dehumanization is the process through which violence is enacted. Anti-black racism and critical capital theory can be useful in unearthing the structural inequalities that uphold the current system in place for STEM doctoral learning. Research Design: An embedded multiple qualitative case study research project sought to understand the nature and quality of STEM doctoral mentorships at an HBCU. The analysis on the HBCU subcase asked, how are STEM doctoral mentorships understood by Black STEM doctoral students at HBCUs? Black STEM HBCU students were interviewed and completed a mentoring competency assessment survey. In addition STEM doctoral students from three universities also completed the survey. The qualitative data was analyzed using narrative analysis and the survey data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. This project is part of a larger NSF AGEP sponsored research study. Research findings: The findings from this study expose that Black STEM doctoral students at HBCUs have not reached the proverbial Promise Land. In spite of being in a space that is more diverse, they manage to simultaneously be invisible and hypervisible. An unmerited sense of assumed cultural belonging was highlighted with students reporting a lack of selfethnic reflectors in their programs. In many ways the systemic and institutional structures on HBCUs with respect to STEM doctoral programming mirrored the colonial structures more often associated with HWIS. Their culture and cultural-based experiences as domestic students as well as their academic strengths were often not recognized by mentors while that of international students were. Three themes were supported by the data: Conspicuous Absence, Race Still Matters, and Invisibilized Hypervisibility. Implications: Better understanding how STEM doctoral mentoring is facilitated at HBCUs holds the promise of informing a mentoring practice that supports cultural liberation instead of cultural degradation and suppression. It becomes one avenue as the “The Call'' suggests to "confront our own complicity in the colonial enterprise" by holding STEM doctoral mentors and the institutions they represent accountable for socially just mentoring practices. Greater intentionality as well as mandated training informed by the study's results are recommended. HBCU faculty doctoral mentors are challenged to be scholar activists who engage mentoring from an advocacy and accomplice framework. The development of STEM scholar activists is the aspiration of more culturally liberative STEM doctoral mentorships. Black students need mentors who are willing and equipped to be advocates and accomplices in their success.more » « less
-
This work presents the research methods and preliminary results from a pilot study that assesses mentoring approaches used to support racially minoritized students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. There is a national imperative to broaden participation of racially minoritized undergraduates in STEM fields as evidenced by reports and the recent calls for social justice and equity in these fields. In STEM, mentoring has been recognized as a mechanism that can help to support racially minoritized student populations (e.g., persons who identify as Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and American Indian/Alaskan Native). Yet for mentors in higher education, minimal examples exist that detail effective mentoring approaches, strategies, and competencies that support the persistence and success of minoritized mentees in STEM. In better understanding mentoring approaches, we can make visible how to better mentor these populations and help to employ more equitable mentoring participation. The research question guiding this study is: What approaches are used by mentors who help racially minoritized undergraduate mentees persist in STEM fields? Mentoring literature and two theoretical frameworks were leveraged to situate these mentoring experiences. Intersectionality theory is used to explore the role of compounding minoritized identities within the power contexts (i.e., structural, hegemonic, disciplinary, and interpersonal) of higher education. Community cultural wealth is also used as a lens to examine six forms of capital (i.e., family, social, navigational, aspirational, resistant, and linguistic) that may be used in mentoring practices with minoritized students. This paper will present the methods and findings from the pilot study, centering on the development of the team’s interview protocol. This work will provide insights about the piloting process of a larger study as well as initial emergent themes about the approaches and experiences of mentors who mentor minoritized undergraduate students in STEM.more » « less
-
The racialized structure of STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) higher education maintains gross inequities that are illustrative of structural racism, which both informs and is reinforced by discriminatory beliefs, policies, values, and distribution of resources. Thus, an examination into structural racism in STEM is needed to expose the marginalization of underrepresented groups in STEM and to improve understanding of the STEM policies, practices, and procedures that allow the foundation of racism to remain intact. I argue that, even at the top of the education hierarchy, Black STEM doctorate students and PhD degree holders consistently endure the racist residue of higher education institutions and STEM employers. Thus, this manuscript also discusses how universities institutionalize diversity mentoring programs designed mostly to fix (read “assimilate”) underrepresented students of color while ignoring or minimizing the role of the STEM departments in creating racially hostile work and educational spaces. I argue that, without a critical examination of the structural racism omnipresent in the STEM, progress in racially diversifying STEM will continue at a snail’s pace.more » « less
-
Doctoral advisors are key to ensuring positive outcomes, especially for underrepresented students in STEM fields. In this study, graduate faculty and doctoral students with three or more years in their programs in the AGEP-NC Alliance were surveyed about the advising practices they engaged in (faculty) or received (students). Faculty were also asked about their confidence advising graduate students generally as well as students who are different from themselves demographically and culturally. Students were also asked about their relationship with their advisors. Findings show that faculty are significantly more confident advising students generally than they are advising students who are different from themselves. On all common measures of advising practices, faculty report that they engage in those practices significantly more often than students report experiencing the advising practice from their advisor. Black, Hispanic, and Native American U.S. citizen students report receiving research guidance from their advisors significantly less than White and Asian U.S. citizens or international students. International students are offered teaching opportunities significantly more often than White and Asian students. There was a significant difference in whether students understood their advisor’s expectations and Black, Hispanic, and Native American students were significantly less likely than international students to report that their advisor respects their contributions. We find that there is a clear lack of alignment between faculty confidence and student perceptions of faculty advising. This gap is especially clear in key advising behaviors like research and presentation guidance. Given that the goal of the AGEP program is to prepare underrepresented U.S. citizen students for the professoriate, both the lack of research guidance and lack of opportunity to build teaching experience for these students is troubling. Change is thus required at both the departmental level to improve the climate for all students as well as at the individual faculty advisor level to ensure that all students are treated equitably with high quality advising.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--44789
