Stressed-Out of STEM: Examining Mentoring Experiences of Women, People of Color, and International Postdocs

Abstract

This narrative study examined the mentor-mentee relationship from the positioning of 31 minoritized STEM postdocs at a research-intensive institution. Seeking to enhance the current body of literature on mentoring and minoritized STEM postdocs to encourage institutions to adopt culturally responsive practices and cultivate sustainable research environments, the researchers conducted individual, in-depth interviews with women, people of color, and international postdocs who spanned 17 different STEM departments at a large, research-intensive university in the southeast United States. Using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis, findings revealed four themes: (1.1) Postdocs’ observations of faculty roles, responsibilities, and leadership styles influenced their decisions to pursue or depart a career path to academia; (1.2) postdocs cited poor communication from mentors and misaligned position expectations versus realities as major challenges; (1.3) postdocs described few productive exchanges and felt many exchanges directly benefited mentors; and (1.4) postdocs observed and experienced mentors’ mistreatment of minoritized postdocs (i.e., women, people of color, and individuals with international status).

Notes

1 In the context of this study, “minoritized” refers to women, people of color, and international postdocs.

2 Molm’s (2006) social exchange framework suggests that mentoring relationships are not unidirectional; rather, all involved parties give and receive through a cost-benefit interaction.

3 In the context of this study, faculty mentors included principal investigators (PIs).

4 Henceforth referred to as “postdocs.”

5 Thematic analysis (TA) is a method for systematically identifying, organizing, and offering insight into patterns of meaning (themes) across a data set. Through focusing on meaning across a data set, TA allows the researcher to see and make sense of collective or shared meanings and experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2012, p. 57).

6 In vivo codes utilize verbatim language and terminology used by study participants (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018).

7 Descriptive codes utilize a short word or phrase to summarize the primary topic of an excerpt (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018).

8 “Productive exchanges,” per Molm’s (2006) Social Exchange Framework definition, refers to mentoring exchanges that are based on two or more participants creating a joint project or product that will benefit all involved (e.g., postdocs working together with the mentor on a collaborative project).