“looking at myself in the future”: how mentoring shapes

RESEARCH Open Access

“Looking at Myself in the Future”: howmentoring shapes scientific identity forSTEM students from underrepresentedgroupsKaitlyn Atkins1,2* , Bryan M. Dougan1,3, Michelle S. Dromgold-Sermen1,4, Hannah Potter1, Viji Sathy1 andA. T. Panter1

Abstract

Background: Mentorship has been well-established in the literature as fostering scientific identity and careerpathways for underrepresented minority students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)fields. Mentorship is prioritized by programs that aim to increase diversity and support future leadership in STEMfields, but in-depth understanding of mentorship in these contexts remains limited. Drawing on qualitativeinterview data, we sought to understand the relationship between mentoring and scientific identity among adiverse sample of 24 students in one such program, in order to inform program development.

Results: Qualitative analysis of the data revealed that mentorship, especially research mentorship, was commonand played a role in formation of scientific identity. Students with research mentors tended to say they stronglyidentified as scientists, whereas those who lacked research mentorship varied in their level of scientific identity. Ininterviews, research-mentored students described mentors as colleagues who gave them opportunities to growand as examples to look up to. Students valued mentors with whom they identified on the basis of demographicsimilarity or shared values, as well as those who challenged them in their academic and research endeavors.

Conclusions: Our analysis highlights how different mentoring experiences can contribute to development of futureSTEM leadership. We discuss implications for practice, including the need for tailored mentoring approaches andresearch-focused mentoring, and offer several recommendations for research and programming.

Keywords: Mentoring, Science identity, Diversity, Post-secondary

IntroductionThe USA has a long-standing goal of improving and main-taining diversity in the science, technology, engineering,and mathematics (STEM) workforce (Olson & Riordan,2012; Institute of Medicine, 2011). While improvements in

the participation of women and minorities in STEM havebeen made, STEM retention and degree attainment arepersistently lower for underrepresented minority (URM;Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and AmericanIndian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian) and femalestudents compared with male, white, and Asian students(Estrada et al., 2018). These disparities persist at under-graduate and graduate levels (Estrada et al., 2018; CioccaEller & DiPrete, 2018). To reduce this gap, scholars havehighlighted the importance of early preparation (includingK-12 STEM preparation), increased access to and aware-ness of STEM education, college affordability, commitment

© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you giveappropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate ifchanges were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commonslicence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commonslicence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtainpermission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

* Correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected] of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA2Social and Behavioral Interventions Program, Department of InternationalHealth, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD,USAFull list of author information is available at the end of the article

International Journal ofSTEM Education

Atkins et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:42 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00242-3

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1186/s40594-020-00242-3&domain=pdf

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8302-542X

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

of leadership to STEM diversity and inclusion, and ongoingacademic and social support for diverse STEM students(Institute of Medicine, 2011).As academic institutions strive to create diverse and

inclusive environments in STEM, a number of strategieshave been adopted to facilitate student retention, timelydegree completion, and career goal-setting for URM andfemale students. One strategy to improve URM and fe-male participation in STEM is the use of STEM enrich-ment programs, formal university-led programs that aredesigned to foster scientific community, expose studentsto research and mentorship, and improve academic andcareer outcomes (Domingo et al., 2019; Tsui, 2007).These programs often combine financial assistance withacademic and social support. In this analysis, we explorethe experiences of students in one such program, with afocus on mentoring and scientific identity. Specifically,we seek to answer the following questions: (1) How dohigh-performing URM and female STEM studentscharacterize successful mentoring relationships? (2) Howdo mentoring relationships influence students’ scientificidentities?

Theoretical FrameworkThis study draws on identity theory as an underlyingframework for analysis and interpretation of findings.According to identity theory, when individuals claim anidentity, they attribute to themselves a set of meaningsabout their role, group membership, or unique person-hood (Burke & Stets, 2009). These meanings are thencommunicated to others through behaviors and social in-teractions; individuals interpret the responses of others tothose interactions as approval or disapproval, and changeor control their identities. This identity process includesfirst seeing oneself as having a particular identity, then ex-periencing verification from others of one’s identity, andultimately viewing an identity as prominent or salient(Burke & Stets, 2009; Stets et al., 2017). Identities withgreater salience, or a higher position on a hierarchy of allone’s identities, are thought to be more persistent overtime (Serpe, 1987; Serpe & Stryker, 2011).In the STEM literature, the science identity has been

widely studied (Simpson & Bouhafa, 2020). The import-ance of scientific identity salience in shaping outcomeshas been well-demonstrated in this literature. Quantita-tive results from a national study of undergraduate sci-ence majors indicated that the salience of students’scientific identities directly impacted graduate schoolmatriculation and mediated the impact of STEM enrich-ment programs on graduate school matriculation (Mer-olla & Serpe, 2013). Scholars have further suggested thatfor female and URM students, given their underrepre-sentation in STEM fields, the development of scientificidentity and its salience over time may be especially

important and should be prioritized to facilitate in-creased participation and retention of these students inSTEM fields (Lee, 1998; Merolla & Serpe, 2013).Verification of identity is also important (Simpson &

Bouhafa, 2020; Stets et al., 2017). The verificationprocess occurs in small groups of peers, through interac-tions with mentors, and through self-reflection (Riley &Burke, 1995). Discrepancies between how STEM stu-dents see themselves and how they think others seethem can shape their later behaviors; individuals will be-have in ways to reassert their own identities to others,respond to perceived identity threat, and reduce discrep-ancies. Stets et al. (2017) suggest that if others see stu-dents as “better” scientists than students themselves,students may be less likely to continue in science. Theyfurther suggest this may be because the high expecta-tions of others, in contrast to students’ expectations ofthemselves, are distressing; students may then act inways to lower the expectations of others. In contrast, ifstudents perceive that others do not see them as scien-tists, they may behave in targeted ways to reassert theiridentities as scientists, in order to raise others’ expecta-tions and respond to identity threat.Because mentors play an important role in this identity

verification process, which in turn influences identity sa-lience, it is critical to better understand the complexitiesof their relationships with mentees and the ways inwhich mentor-mentee interactions take shape.

Scientific IdentityPrevious research has shown that a student’s developmentof scientific identity (i.e., considering oneself a scientist)improves academic performance, retention and persist-ence in STEM, and STEM degree completion (Matonet al., 2016; Merolla & Serpe, 2013; Syed et al., 2011). Onequalitative study, following women of color from theirundergraduate training into their science careers, foundthat women’s science identity trajectories were meaning-fully shaped by receiving recognition as a scientist fromothers, including mentors (Carlone & Johnson, 2007).Similarly, a national study of STEM persistence with stu-dents who indicated they planned to major in a STEMfield during their freshman year found that URM studentswith higher academic self-concept were more likely topersist in STEM fields (Chang et al., 2014).One strategy for fostering scientific identity and in-

creasing its salience among STEM undergraduates ismentoring. Particularly among URM students in STEM,mentoring has been shown to foster scientific identityand STEM career pathways (Summers & Hrabowski,2006). A 2007 review of strategies to increase diversityin STEM found that mentoring programs are widely uti-lized and can lead to higher grade point averages(GPAs), increased self-efficacy, and more clearly defined

Atkins et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2020) 7:42 of 15

academic goals (Tsui, 2007). A recent review of factorscontributing to academic success among Latinx STEMmajors similarly identified mentoring, including peermentoring, as a key driver of success for this population(Winterer et al., 2020).Research also suggests that different types of mentor-

ing may differentially influence identity development.For example, Aikens et al. (2017), in their research withundergraduate life sciences researchers, found that men-toring structures explained observed differences in scien-tific identity among women, men, and URM students.Similarly, a study of mentoring structures among men-tored undergraduate life sciences researchers found thatstudents with a direct relationship to a faculty mentor,compared to those whose relationships to faculty weremediated by postgraduate researchers (graduate studentsor postdoctoral scholars), had increased scientific iden-tity (Aikens et al., 2016).Studies have also found that mentor-mentee dyads

with shared beliefs, values, and backgrounds are pre-ferred by mentors and mentees, and may yield morepositive outcomes (Aikens et al., 2017; Eby et al., 2004;Eby et al., 2008; Eby et al., 2000). An assessment of stu-dents who were engaged in undergraduate research at apublic minority-serving institution in the USA foundthat socioemotional and culturally relevant mentoringwere strongly correlated with development of researchskills and independence, both key elements of scientificidentity (Haeger & Fresquez, 2016). In this study, socioe-motional mentors were perceived as warm and friendly,good listeners, and positive role models. Culturally rele-vant mentors were perceived to understand their men-tee’s ethnic, gender, and class background and to closelyrelate to that background.The pathways through which mentoring fosters scien-

tific identity have been an area of recent exploration inthe higher education literature. However, multiple longi-tudinal quantitative evaluations of mentored STEM stu-dents have shown that mentoring influences scientificidentity as mentors link students to career resources andresearch opportunities, provide emotional support, fosterstudents’ confidence and science self-efficacy, and facili-tate their valuing of scientific research (Estrada et al.,2018; Byars-Winston et al., 2015). A quantitative studywith minority undergraduate researchers found that,across intersectional race/ethnicity × gender subgroups,research self-efficacy was significantly associated withscientific identity and was shaped by research and men-toring experiences (Byars-Winston & Rogers, 2019).Similarly, a mixed-methods study with undergraduatementor-mentee dyads found that students who receivedinstrumental and socioemotional support from theirmentors had higher scientific identity, and that negativementoring experiences were associated with lower

scientific identity (Robnett et al., 2018). These findingssuggest that mentoring may provide students with di-verse forms of support, research skills and independence,and science self-efficacy which shape their scientificidentities (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,and Medicine, 2019).However, despite this recent evidence, there is a con-

tinued need for in-depth, qualitative understanding ofthe processes linking mentoring to scientific identity, in-cluding how these processes may differ for students ofdifferent backgrounds.

Successful Mentoring Relationships in STEMIn their 2009 review, Crisp and Cruz (2009) suggest thatmentoring relationships can be broadly characterized as(1) focusing on growth and development of an individual(often referred to as the protégé); (2) providing a broadrange of support, including professional and psycho-logical support; and (3) being characterized as being“personal and reciprocal” in nature, although some men-toring relationships are becoming less personal with newtechnologies that allow for Internet-based mentorship.For the purposes of this study, we conceptualized men-toring as a formal or informal relationship between amore experienced person (mentor) and a less-experienced person (protégé), characterized by provisionof support, with a focus on professional and personalgrowth and development (Hernandez et al., 2017). Whilementoring relationships can vary in length, weconceptualize them as relationships that are sustainedbeyond a one-time encounter, involving months or evenyears of repeated contact between mentor and protégé.In current research on mentoring among undergradu-

ate STEM students, the role of mentor has been distrib-uted among a broad range of individuals, includingfaculty members, staff members, graduate students orpostdoctoral scholars, peers, friends, community mem-bers, and family. Mentoring relationships can be formal(planned and organized through structured programs orinterventions) or informal (emerging through existingrelationships or outside of structured programs) in na-ture, though some literature suggests informal relation-ships may be more successful (Crisp & Cruz, 2009;Hernandez et al., 2017; Tsui, 2007). However, whethermentoring relationships are formal or informal, it is clearthat they should involve intentionality on the part ofboth mentor and mentee in identifying goals of the rela-tionship (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,and Medicine, 2019).Prolonged mentoring relationshipshave also been shown to yield better outcomes, com-pared with those only lasting a summer or single aca-demic term (Haeger & Fresquez, 2016).While demographic similarity to mentors may play a

role in forming quality relationships, some scholars have


suggested that the success of mentoring is more likely tohinge on the extent to which protégés view themselvesas similar to mentors in terms of their values and beliefsthan on the extent to which mentors and protégés“match” each other culturally or ethnically. A study ofmentoring experiences among high-performing URMundergraduate seniors majoring in STEM disciplinesfound that the most important factor associated with amentee’s determination of the relationship as high-quality was perceived (vs. actual) similarity to a mentor;that is, the extent to which mentees felt they sharedvalues (Hernandez et al., 2017). Importantly, thisphenomenon occurred regardless of actual demographicsimilarities between mentors and mentees. Others havehighlighted that, because URM mentors are often morelimited in number (and because mentoring URM stu-dents should not be the responsibility of URM faculty orscholars alone), demographically matching mentor-mentee dyads may be infeasible, and that matchingdyads based on shared values and beliefs may be moreimportant (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,and Medicine, 2019).Researchers have further argued that the qualities of

mentoring relationships, and not the characteristics ofmentors themselves, are what matter for mentees. Keytheoretical attributes of successful mentoring relation-ships include developing research skills and self-efficacy,building trusting relationships, developing science iden-tity and belonging, advancing equity and inclusion, fos-tering independence, and actively advocating formentees (Pfund et al., 2016).

Present StudyWhile the positive impacts of mentoring for STEM stu-dents have been well-established in the quantitative lit-erature, few papers have explored in-depth how thisoccurs. Our analysis aims to fill this gap by using quali-tative data to explore the complexities of mentoring rela-tionships and to identify potential pathways throughwhich mentoring shapes scientific identity, among a di-verse sample of high-performing STEM undergraduates.In this study, we examine mentorship relationships in

the Chancellor’s Science Scholars (CSS), a scholarshipprogram designed to increase the number of URM indi-viduals who obtain doctorates in science. CSS at TheUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH)is modeled after the Meyerhoff program of theUniversity of Maryland at Baltimore County (Summers& Hrabowski, 2006) and aims to increase diversity andsupport future leadership in STEM (Domingo et al.,2019). CSS aims to facilitate scientific identity by creat-ing a community of student scientists and engaging stu-dents in research.

A core CSS program value is mentorship, which is fa-cilitated both formally and informally through dedicatedCSS program advisors, faculty and postgraduate researchmentors, and university academic professional advisors.Students also find mentoring outside CSS through peers,friends, and community members. While CSS does notformally match students with mentors on the basis ofdemographic or other characteristics, understandingmentor-mentee dynamics for CSS students will informfuture CSS program development and help program ad-ministrators identify mentoring strategies that can bestsupport students and foster positive STEM outcomes.Further, given CSS was modeled after a program at a dif-ferent institution with a different student population,continuous evaluation of program elements, includingmentoring, is critical to ensure continued program suc-cess and may inform STEM enrichment programs atother institutions (George et al., 2019).

MethodInstitution and Program BackgroundIn order to achieve its goal of increasing diverse futureleadership in STEM, UNC-CH started the CSS programin 2013 with support from Howard Hughes Medical In-stitute and the UNC-CH Office of the Chancellor. UNC-CH is a highly ranked four-year public research univer-sity, with over 90% of the incoming 2013 class (3,946students) reporting GPAs of 4.0 or higher (UNC-CH Of-fice of Undergraduate Admissions, 2013). It is a predom-inately white university; approximately 63% of studentsin the incoming 2013 class identified as White or Cauca-sian only, per federal reporting guidelines. In the sameclass, 59% of incoming students were female, 18% werefirst-generation students, and 36% were recipients ofneed-based financial aid (UNC-CH Office of Under-graduate Admissions, 2013).CSS recruits high-achieving students from across

the USA who apply to the program during their se-nior year of high school. Students are selected basedon their academic merit and commitment to STEMcareers, social justice, and diversity and inclusion (Do-mingo et al., 2019). Since 2013, CSS has enrolled anannual cohort of approximately 40 students who livetogether for their first year at UNC-CH and receivean annual merit scholarship, research lab placements,and professional support including graduate schoolapplication assistance, extra tutoring, and test prepar-ation. To remain in CSS, students must participate ina rigorous summer program, maintain a 3.0 GPA inan approved STEM major, stay actively involved inthe program, take two STEM courses per semester,join a research lab, write a research thesis, and applyto four doctoral programs.


Data CollectionEach year that CSS students are enrolled in the program,they participate in end-of-year interviews focused onstudents’ overall experiences at UNC-CH and in CSS. Astandard, semi-structured interview guide is used for allinterviews, which covers a range of topics about course-work, classroom experiences, research, mentorship, sci-entific identity, and post-graduation goals and plans.Interviews are used rather than focus group discussions,as they allow program evaluators to understand the per-sonal experiences and perspectives of individuals in-depth.While mentorship was not the sole focus of the inter-

views used for this analysis, we asked each student ifthey had a relationship with a mentor, how that relation-ship was characterized, and how it influenced their otherexperiences. Similarly, we asked each student about theiridentity as a scientist, and probed for additional thoughtsand experiences related to this identity as they came upthroughout the interview. All interviews were conductedby trained graduate research assistants and were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Because thisanalysis aimed to understand students’ mentorship expe-riences and scientific identities during the time that theyprepared to transition out of college, only interviewsconducted with CSS students in their senior years wereincluded in our analytic sample (n = 24).Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the

Office of Human Research Ethics at the University ofNorth Carolina-Chapel Hill. Prior to conducting inter-views, written informed consent was obtained from eachparticipant.

Data AnalysisWe thematically analyzed the data, using Dedoose(2019), a Web-based qualitative data analysis software,to organize and code transcripts. First, we read eachinterview once for content; during this read of the data,we noted key topics, descriptive details, and patterns inthe interview to get a sense of the student’s experienceas a whole. In a second read of each interview, we notedpatterns and themes across interviews; each member ofthe team independently noted these and organized theminto thematic groups, which were then collectivelyrestructured and consolidated into a codebook. We useda combination of deductive coding, wherein a prioricodes were developed based on the interview guide, andinductive coding, wherein additional codes were addedto reflect themes discovered in the data. Coding wasconducted iteratively.First, we independently coded a total of six randomly

selected interviews, meeting throughout this process todiscuss coding strategies and revise code definitions be-fore coding the remaining data. To assess intercoder

reliability, we used an intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) at the interview level to assess the consistencywith which codes were applied at an interview level. Wealso qualitatively assessed intercoder reliability by inde-pendently coding a subset of transcripts and meeting todiscuss questions, concerns, and discrepancies in codingstrategies. This assessment was performed iterativelyuntil consensus about codes was reached. Representativecodes, along with the high-level themes to which theycorrespond, are summarized in Table 1.Throughout the analytic process, we used memos to

record processes, explore relationships between codes,make comparisons, and expand upon emerging categor-ies and themes (Saldaña, 2009). We also used matricesto summarize data related to codes and emergent cat-egories of interest for this analysis (including mentorroles, mentoring relationship quality, and scientific iden-tity) and to assess trends by demographic or academiccharacteristics (e.g., major). As themes and categoriesemerged, the first author continually reviewed tran-scripts to identify negative cases and pose new questionsto the data (Yin, 2011).

Research Team and ReflexivityInterviews were conducted by trained graduate researchassistants. Interviewers received annual training, whereinthey were informed about CSS, the interview protocol,and standards for qualitative interviewing procedures.Interviewers also received ethics training. Interviewerswere not involved in analysis of data. Data were codedby three doctoral research assistants (KA, BD, MD, andHP); the first author (KA) led the development of thisanalysis.The first author is a White woman who received train-

ing in social science and public health at UNC-CH. Asan advocate for URM researchers and students in STEMand a scientist and academic with experience as bothmentor and mentee, the first author is invested in thepotential implications of this study and has assumptionsabout the nature of mentoring and scientific identity. Toclarify these assumptions throughout data analysis, thefirst author regularly engaged in reflexive memoing anddebriefs with the research team. These processes, whichincluded acknowledgement of her own experiences withmentoring and her presuppositions about the challengesfaced by URM students in STEM, were used to distin-guish the first author’s views and experiences from thoseof study participants.

ResultsOf the students in our analytic sample, 18 (75%) were fe-male and 13 (54%) were URM (Table 2). Nine respon-dents (38%) were URM female students. Most studentshad at least one mentor at UNC-CH. These included


research (faculty or postgraduate (graduate students orpostdoctoral) researchers, or lab staff), teaching (facultyfrom whom students took courses), and program men-tors (faculty and staff affiliated with CSS). Some students(12.5%) also received mentorship from peers, though thiswas less common. Importantly, while the CSS programfacilitated mentorship for students, many of them foundmentorship from other sources. While all students par-ticipated in a supervised research experience throughCSS, one student mentioned that they did not currentlyhave anyone in their life they considered an activementor.We identified two key themes which correspond

with our research questions. First, we characterizedsuccessful mentorship, highlighting students’ valuesand preferences in mentoring relationships and theunique role of research mentorship. Second, we iden-tified the influence of mentorship on scientific iden-tity, particularly the role of mentored research inreinforcing mentorship experiences and reinforcingstudents’ identities.

Characterizing Successful Mentoring RelationshipsStudents said they looked to mentors to fill a variety ofroles, ranging from intimate involvement with their day-

to-day lives on campus to more tangential involvement.Many students had several mentors, each filling a uniquerole.I think all of them provide something different … they

provide very useful advice, like, different kinds of advice.[With] one of them, [it’s] purely research. He’s like, youknow, a connoisseur of research, like what I should doand … how to do that. Another one’s more like life ad-vice … It’s good to have a lot of mentors, just becausethey can all provide you with different kinds of advice.—Non-URM femaleI think I have four or five mentors … I have teachers

who have served as mentors for me, just to get throughthose classes, but also provide a lot of emotional sup-port. And then I also have my mentors, of course,through CSS, who have also provided academic andemotional support as well … my newest mentor, it wasjust that [researcher], so I’m actually gonna be continu-ing my work with her in grad school.—URM femaleMost students differentiated between advisors and

mentors. For these students, advisors were people theysought out when they needed advice, but who remainedrelatively distant and less involved in their day-to-daycollege lives. In contrast, mentors—including research,teaching, and program mentors—were not only sources

Table 1 Summary of relevant codes and corresponding themes

Code Definition High-level theme

Research/lab experience Students discuss working in a lab or conducting research(job responsibilities, independent work, experiencespresenting or publishing their research).

(1a) Unique role of research mentorship; (2)influence of mentoring on scientific identity

Relationships with faculty/staff Students discuss relationships and interactions with UNCfaculty and staff (mentoring, what mentoring means, rolemodels, support received from faculty/staff).

(1) Characterizing successful mentoringrelationships

Part-time jobs/internships Students discuss employment and internships: paid/unpaid,summer/academic year, reasons for working (e.g., careerdevelopment, money), time spent at work/internship,influence on academic and/or CSS experiences.

(2) Influence of mentoring on scientificidentity

Relationships with program staff Students discuss interactions with CSS staff, who it is,what their interactions include, such as in advising roles.


Professional development Student discusses opportunities that CSS provides themfor furthering their career (providing resources to travel,mentorship, paying for test fees).

(1) Characterizing successful mentoringrelationships; (2) influence of mentoringon scientific identity

Post-graduation motivations andsupport

Students discuss their motivations to pursue somethingpost-graduation, instrumental/emotional support theyreceive toward that goal, and overall preparedness forpost-grad life/career.


Diversity Students discuss diversity in STEM, mentorship, CSS,and at UNC more broadly.


Scientific identity Students discuss why they identify/do not identify/arehesitant about identifying as scientists.


Formative experiences Students discuss the personal experiences that shapetheir identity/absence of their identity as scientists.

(1a) Unique role of research mentorship

Perceived qualifications Students discuss their perceptions and understandingsof what it means to be a scientist, including educationalrequirements, research experience, and professionalengagement.



of advice but were intimately involved in their aca-demics, research and other work, and longer-term plan-ning. Importantly, students emphasized the value ofhaving a shared identity with mentors—whether thatwas a shared racial or ethnic, gender, or other identity.This shared identity was a key feature distinguishingmentors from advisors, and this was particularly salientfor URM students. For example, a URM female de-scribed how she views her female research mentors dif-ferently from a male mentor:I will consider [male faculty] an advisor more than a

mentor. I know they go together, but he’s just – [he will]listen, provide me advice. But the two women, I feel they –I can look up to them to know that I’m going to be wherethey are one day. So, I just split that up – with [my femalementors] I know I’m going to – I’m looking at myself inthe future, and then [my male mentor] is just advice.Another student, a URM male, found research men-

torship through graduate students and postdoctoral

researchers. However, his mentoring relationship with aCSS staff member of color served as an important and“inspiring” example to him:I would list him as a mentor just because he is an

African American male that has made it. And he’s doingamazing work and he’s now giving back and continuingto lead more and more minorities in terms of inspiringthem to become educational leaders.Some students intentionally sought out formal men-

tors who could serve as role models and provide profes-sional and academic support. For example, a URMfemale student described intentionally seeking out men-torship through a professor because she needed researchguidance and support: “I was like, I really want to do re-search, but I don’t know of anyone that can help me.Then [professor] ended up introducing me to a fewpeople.” While this mentoring was described positivelyby the student, she and other students emphasized thatsuch relationships were more unidirectional in nature,meaning that students actively sought out support ratherthan mentors initiating it.In contrast, many students mentioned that their stron-

gest and most sustained mentoring relationships weremore informal or “organic” in nature. One URM malestudent described an early interaction with a teachingmentor:So, one day really early in the program we were going

to some benefit on campus and it was just a downpour,like think of the hardest rainstorm you’ve ever been in.That was it. We were all dressed up in suits and every-thing ... I held my umbrella out ...above the doorway andthen I just stood in the rain for like five minutes whileeverybody was walking in and [future mentor] saw thatand he thought it was just like cool. And ever since,we’ve been really close … Whenever we run into eachother we get coffee. Like so, just organic, you know?In general, students said they preferred mentoring re-

lationships that felt natural and informal in nature.These relationships also tended to be more bidirectional,meaning both students and mentors took on the role ofinitiating contact and support. For most students, theseinformal relationships were characterized by personalcloseness, which was not experienced in formal relation-ships. However, students emphasized that while they val-ued personal closeness with mentors, they wanted thisto be balanced with academic or career accountability.In other words, while students appreciated mentors towhom they related and felt close personally, they felt itwas equally important to have mentors who pushedthem to achieve. In some mentoring relationships, thesequalities were at odds; some students described mentorswho challenged them academically but offered littleemotional support or intimacy, while others describedmentors who were close supporters but did not strongly

Table 2 Demographic characteristics of sample (n = 24)

Demographic characteristic N (%)

Sex

Female 18 (75.0)

Male 6 (25.0)

Underrepresented minority (URM)

Yes 13 (54.2)

No 11 (45.8)

Racea

White/Caucasian 13 (54.0)

Black/African American 6 (25.0)

Asian 2 (8.3)

Native American 2 (8.3)

Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latinx 5 (20.8)

Middle Eastern 1 (4.2)

Majorb

Biological sciences 16 (66.7)

Physical sciences 5 (20.8)

Psychological sciences 3 (12.5)

Mathematics and statistics 3 (12.5)

Computer science 2 (8.3)

Type of mentorship discussed

Research 19 (79.2)

Teaching 7 (29.2)

CSS program 5 (20.8)

Peer 3 (12.5)

Not discussed 1 (4.2)aOne student did not report their racebFive students had double majors in STEM fields


challenge them. However, students felt that being bothemotionally supported and academically challenged wasimportant and made them feel valued as mentees.Students who lacked the desired level of academic ac-

countability often said their mentorship was missingsomething. One URM female described how, althoughshe was happy with the personal support received fromone of her program advisors, she wished this mentorcould support her in other ways:[It] is more like a personal relationship than academic

relationship than I’ve had with a lot of my other CSS ad-visors ... That being said, sometimes I did wish we talkedabout – he was not harder on me, but a little bit hardon me of, “What are you doing right now? What do yousee yourself doing in a week or two weeks and how areyou gonna get those things done?” I don’t really have amentor or advisor like that. So I kind of have to do it tomyself.Other students received strong accountability from

mentors, but felt less comfortable with the mentor ifthey did not feel close to them personally. Students saidit was ideal to find this balance in a single mentor, but ifthis was not available, they found accountability andcloseness through a mix of mentors. For example, anon-URM female described a research mentor thatpushed her to achieve her goals, but with whom she didnot feel particularly close. For her, as for other students,the desired balance of intimacy and accountability wasachieved through a mix of different mentors, includinginformal peer mentors, rather than from an individualmentor:[My research mentor is] really great in terms of asking

me what I want to do, where I want to go with my life,and how I can reach those goals … But I think some-times I get more mentorship opportunities out of stu-dents or friends that I’m close to, just because I’m morecomfortable going to them a little bit more frequentlyand asking different kinds of questions. So it’s a mix ofboth.Similarly, a male respondent described his peer and

postgraduate mentors as people who “keep me on top ofwhat I need to be doing,” while faculty and CSS programstaff served more personal mentoring roles. The desirefor mentoring relationships characterized by sharedidentity, intimacy, and accountability was expressed bystudents about all types of mentors. However, as will beelaborated in the next section, research mentors exem-plified additional characteristics that differentiated theserelationships from others.

Unique Role of Research MentorshipWhen describing successful mentoring, students oftentalked about the link between research and mentoring,and cited mentored research experiences as uniquely

impactful. Indeed, research mentors were very commonin our sample, with 20 of 24 students reporting havingat least one research mentor. These were often a stu-dents’ direct collaborators on a research project or intheir lab, including study principal investigators, gradu-ate students, postdoctoral researchers, or other lab staff.In contrast to teaching or program mentors, who tendedto take on more distant, advice-giving roles, studentssaw research mentors as supportive colleagues who gavethem opportunities to grow in their scientific identitiesand as examples to model.Important for many students was the link between re-

search mentorship and hands-on research experience.While students found mentors in a variety of places,those more heavily engaged in research activities hadnot only increased access to mentors, but stronger men-toring relationships overall. Similarly, having a strongmentor seemed to encourage students to become moreinvolved in research activities in their fields. Researchmentors’ unique roles as collaborators positioned themwell to both advise students and support them in pursu-ing independent work and exploring new research goals.This type of support played a critical role in giving stu-dents confidence in their work:[My research mentor is] somebody who I know is

pushing me, who’s behind me … who’s willing to puther neck out for me as a student, and she’s been reallysupportive … [she] helped me realize that I can do thistype of work, even though I don’t have much experiencein it. Even though I might be the youngest person in thedepartment, it’ll be okay.—URM femaleResearch mentors were also important sources of in-

spiration. Students often said they felt proud of workingwith and being mentored by researchers they looked upto in their fields. They mentioned the importance of re-ceiving affirmation, feedback, and support from peoplethey admire. One student described feeling valued byher research mentors’ encouragement and support, not-ing that, “The work that comes out of their lab, it’s someof the best in the nation, and they make sure that mywork is good.” Another student described a researchmentor as someone who took time out of his scheduleto check in with her regularly and noted how she valuesthe insights of a mentor who “has done it”:He’s just been really great in terms of asking me what

I want to do, where I want to go with my life and how Ican reach those goals. And just being a sounding boardfor, “Well, I’m thinking about this. Should I do this orthat?” That kind of mentorship or someone that’s olderand has done it and has seen things change.—non-URMfemaleCollaboration with what one student called “world-

class scientists” not only facilitated high-quality mentor-ing relationships for students, but also played a critical


role in building their confidence and fostering in them amore salient sense of scientific identity. This is describedin the following section.

Influence of Mentoring on Scientific IdentityWhen students were asked if they identified as scientists,they overwhelmingly said they did. Sixteen of 24 respon-dents indicated that, at least to some extent, they sawthemselves as scientists. However, students’ explanationsof their identities indicated that they varied along aspectrum from weaker, less salient or undeveloped, tostronger, more salient and fully developed, scientificidentity. Students with weaker scientific identities werethose who expressed hesitation or lack of clarity aboutthis identity or said they felt they were not quite scien-tists, but on their way. These students described them-selves as “science-interested,” “scientist in training,” oras “leaning toward” being a scientist. Some said outrightthey did not identify as scientists at all. Students withstronger scientific identities were quicker and moreconfident in their expression of this identity and oftenarticulated specific qualifications they felt made themscientists. These students also commonly expressed thatbeing a scientist was an important part of their overallidentity.The salience of students’ scientific identities corre-

sponded to a number of qualities in their mentoring re-lationships. While most students did not explicitly drawthis connection, the ways students with strong or weakscientific identities talked about mentorship and identitywere similar, reflecting commonalities in the experiencesof students in these groups. Students with more salientscientific identities tended to have more established,longer-term mentoring relationships. They describedtheir mentors as sources of support, and guidance, butalso as collaborators who facilitated opportunities fortheir growth. One URM female student with strong sci-entific identity salience described receiving strong, long-term mentorship from her research advisors and collab-orators. This mentorship was characterized not only bysupport and encouragement, but by feedback andaccountability:If my work’s not good, they don’t tell you like, “Oh,

this is horrible.” They say, “This is how you should makethis [better].” And you’re kinda seeing eyebrows like[look of concern], but they tell me how to make it muchbetter.Receiving direct support and feedback from her men-

tors gave this student better research skills and moreconfidence in her abilities as a scientist. She describedhow taking on more independent work in the lab, withthis support, enabled her to call herself a scientist.In contrast, students with less salient scientific iden-

tities described fewer mentoring relationships overall.

These relationships tended to be initiated by students asnecessary, with little long-term commitment, collabor-ation, or academic accountability. For example, one fe-male URM student with weaker scientific identitysalience mentioned a few mentors during her interview,including a postdoctoral researcher, a CSS staff member,and a professor. Throughout her discussion of these in-dividuals, she described how each of her mentoring rela-tionships were self-initiated and based on provision ofadvice without accountability. In describing the lack ofaccountability, the student expressed some frustration,saying, “I have to do it myself.” While this student de-scribed a number of successes in her work including“having basically all the postdocs wanting me to do theirwork,” she was concerned about calling herself a scien-tist, saying “I don’t think I’m there yet” and “I tend todoubt myself a lot.”While most students received some form of research

mentorship, those who did not also tended to expressless salient scientific identities. One non-URM male stu-dent described that “mentors are one of the areas that Ihave a scarcity of resources.” The mentors he discussedduring his interview were teaching mentors who he de-scribed as providing a “voice of reason” and guidancewhen they had academic concerns. While this studentwas engaged in research, he did not consider his re-search collaborators to be mentors. Instead, he said, heonly went to them when he had work-related questions.And while this student was very science-interested andhad been accepted into multiple PhD programs in aSTEM field, he explained that he felt “limited” in his“ability to really be a scientist.”Some students described drastic changes in their sci-

entific identity over their time during college and in theCSS program, typically moving from initially having nosense of scientific identity to now fully and confidentlyself-identifying as a scientist. Others described moresubtle progressions over time. A few students said theycame to college and the CSS program already feeling likescientists:I guess I do consider myself a scientist. I think I can

think critically, find a problem, have a reasonable hy-pothesis, test data about it. I think I’ve felt that way for awhile. Like, entering the program I felt that way.—Non-URM femaleThis, however, was not a common experience. Most

students entered the program with a weaker sense of sci-entific identity, but their conceptualization and expres-sion of this identity developed over time. Many studentsgained confidence through their STEM coursework andultimately found fulfillment in their scientific identitiesas they applied their learning through lab work or otherresearch. Indeed, students overwhelmingly described sci-entific identity as achieved through experiences outside


the classroom. In particular, students emphasized thedistinction between scientific “thinking,” which many feltwas insufficient to identify oneself as a scientist, and sci-entific “action.” This was true not only for students whostrongly identified as scientists, but also for those whoexpressed a weaker scientific identity:I don’t currently identify as a scientist. It’s something I

want to work towards. Right now, I feel like a student. Ihave a long path ahead of me … I’ve got the thinkingdown, and I’ve got the – I guess the – I’ve got the think-ing down; I just don’t have the action down yet.—Non-URM maleA female student elaborated on this, saying that it took

her a year and half of doing her own research and takingSTEM courses to feel strong in that identity:At this point I’m definitely a scientist. I would say the

point is when I started to write up my own results andhave a paper and general ideas about my own researchproject and being able to present at a lab meeting … ac-tually doing research.—Non-URM femaleFor many students, this emphasis on scientific ac-

tion—versus some other qualification—helped them re-ject the notion that scientists were “elite.” One non-URM female student described how “a lot of times,people have this – they think ‘scientist’ is like a high-upword. But I think when you’re doing … any type of sci-ence, you’re a scientist.” For others, however, the em-phasis on scientific action led to a weakening offormerly held scientific identity. One student describedhow, despite identifying strongly as a scientist duringchildhood, he now felt more limited in that identity:On one hand, yes. It’s one of those, like, forever things.

It’s always been a part of the identity … since I was 10or 11 … On the other hand, not really, you know? Like,I’m doing some science, but I’m not publishing daily.You know, there’s a whole bunch of other things thatI’m doing that I think limit my ability to really be a sci-entist.—Non-URM maleThese students felt they were on their way to becom-

ing scientists, but had not taken the necessary steps toachieve that identity:I don’t think I’m not a scientist, but I think I haven’t

quite reached the point where I’m comfortable saying,“Hey, I’m a [scientist] who studies [this],” that sort ofstep there. I don’t think I’ll reach that point until either Ipublish my first paper or complete grad school or some-thing.—URM maleWhile most students emphasized the role of research

in fostering their scientific identities, they generally didnot draw an explicit connection between research expe-riences, identity, and mentorship. Instead, studentstended to describe their scientific identities as achievedthrough independent work and reflection. However, ourinterview data suggest that mentorship did play a key

role in strengthening students’ scientific identitiesthrough the research process. Mentors—particularly re-search mentors—facilitated and supervised formative ex-periences, supported students as they pushed their ownlimits, and served as examples of what it meant to be ascientist.Many students saw their mentors as sources of en-

couragement and support as they pursued more inde-pendent work, giving them confidence in their abilitiesas scientists:What I’m most proud of is just taking up this really

big task [in the lab] and feeling completely confident indoing it. And then also just writing my thesis … I’venever written a paper to the point that it’s publishable.I’ve written them turning in for school and stuff, but thispaper is so good. And I had my advisors working withme the whole time.—URM femaleFor students with stronger scientific identity, mentors

not only encouraged them as they pursued independentwork, but facilitated the opportunities to do so. This wasespecially the case for research mentors. For example,one student discussed the postdoctoral researcher whomentored her in a lab, saying, “She’s just really mentoredme from the very beginning … She’s held my hand theentire way.” She went on to discuss the role this mentorplayed in fostering experiences that shaped her scientificidentity, including publication opportunities.She asked me if it was okay if she put my name on

the publication. I don’t know. Just feeling very in-cluded, like, “Hey, I’m gonna be published,” is, Ithink, the most satisfying. Everything that I’ve doneleading up to the moment makes me an actual scien-tist.—URM femaleFor other students, while research mentors played a

less direct role in these formative experiences, they in-spired students’ aspirations toward scientific identity.Many students aspired to not only meet the expectationsof their research mentors, but to match them in theirwork. They described feeling proud and satisfied afterpresenting their research at conferences or when net-working with colleagues, a role they often saw theirmentors taking on.I’m the only undergraduate on my study … So, just

like satisfying. It’s like I presented on it and I did the en-tire thing by myself, and I was able to answer all of thequestions … So I think that was the biggest achievementthat I’ve made in research was just being able to contrib-ute and answer questions just as well as my PI [principalinvestigator] could.—Non-URM femaleFor other students, interacting with research mentors

challenged their previous notions of what it meant to bea scientist. One non-URM female student discussed howher identity evolved from being a “hard scientist” towhat she called a “business scientist”:


I feel like I was a hard scientist coming in, in terms ofexperience and hypothesis and testing and all that. Andnow I think I’ve moved more towards – this isn’t even aword – but a business scientist … using technology tosolve business needs and testing that and seeing whatcan we do that’s different … And I don’t think I recog-nized that that too is science. Even though I’m not achemist in a lab and pouring chemicals and boom-reaction-done … So I consider myself a scientist in thataspect, but maybe not the traditional research scientistworking in a lab.This student described how, through her research ex-

periences and engagement with mentors, her scientificidentity developed in unanticipated ways. While otherstudents retained more traditional definitions of scien-tists, their understandings of the scientific community,and their own role in it were similarly shaped by theirresearch and mentoring experiences.

DiscussionThis analysis adds to the growing body of researcharound the influence of mentorship for STEM studentsand sheds light on potential pathways through whichmentorship influences scientific identity. Specifically, weprovide additional insights into characteristics of suc-cessful mentoring relationships, scientific identity pro-cesses for STEM students, and the role of mentors inshaping and verifying scientific identity.

Characteristics of Successful Mentoring RelationshipsOur qualitative analysis was able to shed light on thecomplexities of mentoring relationships which are notfully understood through quantitative research on men-toring (Robnett et al., 2018). We found that studentscharacterized their mentoring relationships as positiveor successful when they offered a balance of personalcloseness and academic accountability, when they builton shared values and identities, and when they weremultidirectional in nature, with both mentor and menteesharing responsibility for setting mentorship goals andinitiating contact. This aligns with previous work on thetheoretical attributes of successful STEM mentoring re-lationships (Mondisa & McComb, 2015; Pfund et al.,2016). Our finding about the unique role of researchmentors in particular reinforces literature on the valueof mentors in developing students’ research skills andself-efficacy (Pfund et al., 2016).We also saw that having a shared identity with a men-

tor was important to students, but to varied extents. LikeHernandez et al. (2017), we found that while demo-graphic similarity to a mentor played a role in the suc-cess of mentoring relationships, the more salient factorwas the extent to which protégés saw themselves assimilar to their mentors in terms of their broader values

and perspectives. While these perspectives may have re-lated to the backgrounds of both mentors and protégés,not all students felt that having a matched-backgroundmentor was critical. However, other students preferredmentors that shared their background. Syed et al. (2012),in their study of preferences for matched-ethnic mentorsamong URM adolescents in STEM, similarly found indi-vidual differences in preferences for matched-background mentors and suggested the need for moretailored mentoring approaches. Additionally, while notthe focus of our research, we saw some indication thatinformal relationships were preferable to formal mentor-ing relationships. Students who described meeting men-tors “organically,” rather than outside the context of CSSor some other program, tended to have longer-term, bi-directional (equally initiated by both mentor and pro-tégé) relationships.Equally important to understanding successful men-

toring relationships is understanding unsuccessful ornegative mentoring (National Academies of Sciences,Engineering, and Medicine, 2019). In our study, studentsdid not elaborate on negative mentoring experiences. In-stead, students tended to either discuss positive mentor-ship experiences in-depth or to mention mentors onlybriefly, with short descriptions of mentor roles but norich discussion of mentoring history or relationships.One student did not discuss mentorship at all, saying hehad no mentors. It could be that students who deempha-sized the role of mentoring did so because they had littleto say about mentors, or because they had little experi-ence with mentoring. Alternatively, students may havefelt that negative mentoring experiences were normal ormay have felt it was important to withstand such men-toring in order to gain perceived benefits, such as pro-fessional connections, recommendations, or affiliationwith a lab. It could also be that they were aware of datacollectors’ affiliations with CSS and UNC-CH as an insti-tution and therefore were hesitant to go in-depth onnegative mentoring experiences. Regardless, our limitedfindings about these experiences underscore the import-ance of qualitative research that is more directly focusedon understanding negative mentoring in-depth.

Scientific Identity Processes for STEM StudentsWe found that scientific identity was expressed along aspectrum for our students and that it evolved over time.This echoes what has been described in the literature.For example, in their longitudinal qualitative study ofout-of-class experiences of graduating STEM majors,Thiry, Laursen, and Hunter (2011) found that students’scientific identities evolved over time and that the extentto which students expressed any sort of professionalidentity varied across the sample. In the same way, astudy of professional identity formation among


engineering undergraduates found that while some stu-dents fully considered themselves engineers, others felttheir identities as engineers were still in progress (Eliot& Turns, 2011). In our sample, we similarly saw thatsome students felt very little sense of a professionalidentity (as a scientist or otherwise), whereas othersstrongly saw themselves as scientists.Interpreting our results through the lens of identity

theory provides additional insights into the processes bywhich students developed, refined, and expressed theirscientific identities. For students in our sample, identityshaped and was shaped by their actions as scientists.Students with less salient scientific identities describedbeing less involved in research, publication, or independ-ent scientific work. While these activities may not havebeen of interest to students, it is also possible that theychose to deprioritize engagement in these activities as away to communicate other, non-scientific elements oftheir identities. Similarly, students with strong scientificidentities, who were engaged in these activities, mayhave done so as a way to signal their identity to others.At the same time, scientific engagement may have rein-forced students’ confidence, skills, and self-efficacy topromote a more salient scientific identity.

How Mentoring Influences Scientific IdentityIdentity theory also provides insights into how mentor-ing influenced scientific identity processes for studentsin our sample. We found that mentors were an import-ant part of identity verification for students in our sam-ple (Burke & Stets, 2009; Stets et al., 2017). For somestudents, there appeared to be little discrepancy betweenhow they saw themselves and perceived others to seethem. For example, for students who saw themselves asscientists, having mentors who supported this identityreinforced it and may have made it more salient. How-ever, other students experienced discrepancies betweentheir own and others’ views of their identity. For ex-ample, we discussed one student in our sample who re-ceived wide approval on her scientific work anddescribed “having all the postdocs wanting me to dotheir work.” However, this student did not see herself asa scientist. While this was initially a surprising finding,interpreting it through identity theory sheds light on thepossible underlying process—by emphasizing her non-scientist identity and deemphasizing her own scientificwork, this student may have been trying to counteractdiscrepancies between her own and others’ view of herscientific identity. By deemphasizing her own scientificidentity, she may have been working to reduce the dis-tress of others’ expectations, which contradicted herown.While students in our sample did not explicitly discuss

experiences of being told they were “bad” scientists,

there may have been students who identified strongly asscientists, but encountered others who disagreed. Ac-cording to identity theory, these students would, in aneffort to reassert their identities, more strongly exhibit“scientific” behavior which might include research, pub-lication, presentation, or even talking about science. Un-derstanding this process is particularly important forresearch with URM students, who may seek tooveremphasize their scientific identities in response toidentity threat or stereotype threat. However, othershave found that stereotype threat may actually reducescientific identity, and that the perceived authenticity orsincerity of mentoring relationships may change the in-fluence of identity verification (Fries-Britt & White-Lewis, 2020; Smith et al., 2015). Given the socially em-bedded nature of identity processes, future researchshould seek to better understand how discriminationand stereotypes may influence identity formation, verifi-cation, and salience for URM and female STEMstudents.Scholars have emphasized the need for understanding

how mentor-mentee similarity may influence outcomesfor STEM students (National Academies of Sciences, En-gineering, and Medicine, 2019). Our findings suggestthat shared identities may indeed shape the relationshipbetween mentorship and scientific identity. For studentsin our sample, mentors served as an example for navi-gating career challenges and aspirations within a givencombination of intersectional personal identities (e.g.,gender, racial, and ethnic identities). Students expressedthat being able to relate to mentors helped them feelclose to them; this may have made both students andmentors more willing to engage in the relationship.Shared identity may facilitate social community, whichhas been highlighted as an element of successful men-toring programs by Mondisa and McComb (2015). Ac-cording to their findings, mentoring programs establishsocial community through repeated “dynamic, multidir-ectional interactions among like-minded individuals”(Mondisa & McComb, 2015 p.159), which can createsuccessful, long-term relationships characterized by so-cial support and learning. Indeed, we saw that studentsin our sample preferred relationships that involved activecommunication, partnership, growth, and two-way com-munication, all building on a sense of shared identityand relatability. This may have supported their scientificidentity formation. However, students expressed thatstriking a balance between intimacy, shared identity, andaccountability with their mentors was challenging.Social community may have also been established

through peer or near-peer mentoring, including mentor-ship from older or more experienced CSS and STEMstudents. A few students in our sample mentioned re-ceiving informal peer mentorship, and some noted that


they served as formal peer mentors for the CSS programand for STEM courses at UNC-CH. These discussionswere uncommon, so we were unable to fully consider howthese processes may have shaped social community. How-ever, others have found that peer and near-peer mentoringprograms can facilitate coping, support, and positive aca-demic outcomes for STEM students (Garcia-Melgar &Meyers, 2020; Zaniewski & Reinholz, 2016). It is also pos-sible that non-mentoring peer or near-peer interactionsfostered by CSS participation may have facilitated socialcommunity and enhanced the success of mentoring.Finally, mentor identity was just one of several charac-

teristics that influenced how mentorship fostered scien-tific identity for students in our sample. We found thatstudents valued mentors who collaborated with them onresearch and that these relationships may have fostereda stronger sense of scientific identity for protégés. In-deed, the literature suggests that research experiencesplay a critical role in shaping students’ scientific iden-tities (Merolla & Serpe, 2013). A qualitative study withgraduating STEM majors found that among studentswho described identifying as a scientist, most attributedthat feeling to out-of-class experiences, including re-search (Thiry et al., 2011). Further, a longitudinal studyof undergraduates across the USA found that partici-pants’ research involvement predicted their scientificidentities 2 years later and that the association betweenresearch and scientific identity was mediated by scienceself-efficacy (Robnett et al., 2015). A 2011 review of pro-fessional identity development in higher education simi-larly found that research and practice played a key rolein development of professional identity for students andnoted that “collaborative, dialogic learning from prac-tice” was a consistently enabling factor (Trede et al.,2012). Our findings similarly suggest that it is not onlyexposure to research experiences, but also the nature ofsuch experiences in combination with collaborativementorship, that plays a critical role in how such experi-ences facilitate identity formation.

LimitationsThere were limitations to our research. First, althoughthere was variation in students’ levels of research experi-ence, the CSS program has a research requirement andemphasizes STEM research broadly in its activities. Thismay have led students to discuss research mentoring re-lationships more extensively than others. Second, limit-ing our sample to students in their senior year of collegemeans we were unable to explore mentoring and scien-tific identity among students at other places in their aca-demic trajectories. This also means our sample waslimited to students who successfully completed the CSSprogram and excludes students who may have droppedout of the program at an earlier stage, who may have

different mentoring experiences. However, limiting oursample to students in their senior years of college en-abled us to include students who were able to providericher insights given their longer duration of college andmentoring experiences. This also enabled us to answerquestions about the role of mentoring as students pre-pare to transition out of college. Our findings are alsocontext-specific, which may limit their generalizability toother populations of STEM students. However, the goalof qualitative research such as ours is to understand in-depth, situated experiences of individuals, rather than togenerate widely generalizable findings.Third, the data used for this analysis were quite struc-

tured, which limited our ability to deeply understandmentoring relationships in this sample. In particular, in-terviews provided limited information on how studentsidentified mentors and how (and by whom, in somecases) mentoring relationships were initiated. This lim-ited our ability to fully assess differences between formaland informal mentoring relationships. Further, our studydid not involve the collection of data from mentorsthemselves, which may have provided valuable insightsinto the context and characteristics of mentoring rela-tionships. However, others in the field have demon-strated that undergraduate students’ perceptions of theirmentoring relationships quantitatively predict scientificidentity, whereas mentors’ perceptions of those same re-lationships do not (Robnett et al., 2018).Finally, the bal-ance of URM and non-URM students in our sampleallowed us to begin assessing how these students com-pare in their experiences with mentoring and scientificidentity. However, because we only had interviews from12 senior URM students and our data were fairly struc-tured, we were not able to achieve saturation whenassessing the unique experiences of URM students. Be-cause the overall goal of our study was to evaluate a pro-gram, saturation of themes was not the primary goal orexpectation when recruiting participants. Despite this,our analysis provides rich insights into the experiencesof members of two underrepresented and high-prioritygroups in STEM—URM students and female students—with mentoring and scientific identity.

ConclusionsThis analysis highlights the importance of research men-torship in fostering scientific identity and increases ourunderstanding of how different types of mentoring expe-riences may contribute to development of future leadersin STEM. Specifically, we contribute to the mentoringliterature with our findings that mentees desire not justsupport, but accountability from mentors; that mentor-ship outside of research contexts may only be partiallysuccessful in shaping scientific identity; and that, forURM and female students in particular, shared mentor-


mentee identity and values play a key role in relationshipsuccess. We also draw on identity theory to explain howresearch engagement shapes scientific identity saliencefor STEM students, while simultaneously allowing stu-dents to communicate their scientific identities toothers. Mentors serve as key players in identity verifica-tion processes and may serve to reinforce students’ ownidentities or prompt them to counteract discrepancies.In elaborating on existing mentoring theory and litera-

ture, we have also identified a number of considerationsfor STEM enrichment programs, particularly those fo-cused on fostering scientific identity for URM and otherstudents. First, our results reveal a need for more tai-lored mentoring approaches. While we found thatshared values and identity were important for scientificidentity formation, as Syed et al. (2012) emphasize, notall URM students want a matched-background mentor,and programs should not assume they do. Where pos-sible, mentoring programs should consider student pref-erences when formally matching students to mentors.Second, given the role of research in expressing and re-

inforcing scientific identity, there is a need to integratementorship with high-quality, collaborative research expe-riences. For students in our sample, research collaboratorsoften naturally became mentors for students, but this wasnot always the case. Programs may want to consider waysto more intentionally link research and mentorship to en-sure research experiences offer students opportunities forcollaboration, dialog, and professional identity formationin addition to the research skills gained.Finally, STEM enrichment programs should consider

how they can better equip students to form mentoringrelationships on their own. While formal mentoring pro-grams have demonstrated benefits, some students in ourstudy indicated they preferred mentoring relationshipsthat were less formal or that they wanted more mentor-ing, but not all had the skills to initiate these relation-ships. Programs should incorporate strategies to helpstudents navigate how to ask for and organize mentor-ship based on their own preferences.These findings also raise a number of additional ques-

tions which should be considered by researchers in thefield. First, while peer mentorship was not the focus ofthis analysis, our findings suggested it may play a role inscientific identity formation. However, it is unclear theextent to which peer mentorship may operate differentlyor through different mechanisms than non-peer mentor-ship; this warrants further, more focused exploration.Second, this is one of a number of cross-sectional stud-ies exploring these relationships. Additional longitudinalresearch would be useful in assessing causal relation-ships between mentorship and scientific identity or otheroutcomes, and could allow for assessment of longer-term outcomes.

AbbreviationsCSS: Chancellor’s Science Scholars; STEM: Science, technology, engineering,and mathematics; UNC-CH: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;URM: Underrepresented minority

AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge financial and programmatic support from the HowardHughes Medical Institute. We are thankful to the Chancellor’s ScienceScholars, the program staff, and our Meyerhoff Adaptation Project partners atUniversity of Maryland at Baltimore County and the Pennsylvania StateUniversity.

Authors’ contributionsKA conceptualized the study and drafted the manuscript. KA, BD, MD, andHP conducted qualitative analyses and provided feedback on themanuscript. VS and AP participated in the study’s conceptualization, design,and coordination, and provided feedback on the full manuscript. All authorsread and approved the final manuscript.

FundingThis work was made possible through the support of the Chancellor’sScience Scholars program evaluation by the Howard Hughes MedicalInstitute to A. T. Panter and Viji Sathy. The opinions expressed in this articleare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of thesponsors.

Availability of data and materialsInterested parties should contact the lead author for access to the data andmaterials.

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author details1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolinaat Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2Social and Behavioral InterventionsProgram, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins BloombergSchool of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3Department of Anthropology,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4Departmentof Sociology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Received: 21 January 2020 Accepted: 26 July 2020

ReferencesAikens, M. L., Robertson, M. M., Sadselia, S., Watkins, K., Evans, M., Runyon, C. R., …

Dolan, E. L. (2017). Race and gender differences in undergraduate researchmentoring structures and research outcomes. CBE Life Sciences Education,16(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0211.

Aikens, M. L., Sadselia, S., Watkins, K., Evans, M., Eby, L. T., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Asocial capital perspective on the mentoring of undergraduate life scienceresearchers: An empirical study of undergraduate-postgraduate-faculty triads.CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0208.

Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford University Press.Byars-Winston, A., & Rogers, J. G. (2019). Testing intersectionality of race/ethnicity

× gender in a social–cognitive career theory model with science identity.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(1), 30–44.

Byars-Winston, A. M., Branchaw, J., Pfund, C., Leverett, P., & Newton, J. (2015).Culturally diverse undergraduate researchers’ academic outcomes andperceptions of their research mentoring relationships. Int J Sci Educ, 37(15),2533–2554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1085133.

Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences ofsuccessful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.

Chang, M. J., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., & Newman, C. B. (2014). What matters incollege for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresentedracial groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555–580.

Ciocca Eller, C., & DiPrete, T. A. (2018). The paradox of persistence: Explaining theblack-white gap in bachelor’s degree completion. American SociologicalReview, 83(6), 1171–1214.


https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0211

https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0208

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1085133

Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of theliterature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 525–545.

Dedoose (Version 8.2.30). (2019): SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC.Retrieved from www.dedoose.com

Domingo, M. R. S., Sharp, S., Freeman, A., Freeman, T., Harmon, K., Wiggs, M., …Sun, S. J. S. (2019). Replicating Meyerhoff for inclusive excellence in STEM.Science, 364(6438), 335–337.

Eby, L., Buits, M., Lockwood, A., & Simon, S. A. (2004). Protégés negativementoring experiences: Construct development and nomological validation.Personnel Psychology, 57(2), 411–447.

Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C., & Ragins, B. R. (2008). Mentors’ perceptions ofnegative mentoring experiences: Scale development and nomologicalvalidation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 358.

Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S., & Russell, J. (2000). The protege’s perspectiveregarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(1), 1–21.

Eliot, M., & Turns, J. (2011). Constructing professional portfolios: Sense-makingand professional identity development for engineering undergraduates.Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 630–654.

Estrada, M., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2018). A longitudinal study of howquality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresentedminorities into STEM careers. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066.

Fries-Britt, S., & White-Lewis, D. (2020). In pursuit of meaningful relationships: Howblack males perceive faculty interactions in STEM. The Urban Review, 1–20.

Garcia-Melgar, A., & Meyers, N. (2020). STEM near peer mentoring for secondaryschool students: a case study of university mentors’ experiences with onlinementoring. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1-24.

George, C. E., Castro, E. L., & Rincon, B. (2019). Investigating the origins of STEMintervention programs: An isomorphic analysis. Studies in Higher Education,44(9), 1645–1661.

Haeger, H., & Fresquez, C. (2016). Mentoring for inclusion: The impact ofmentoring on undergraduate researchers in the sciences. CBE Life SciencesEducation, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0016.

Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., & Schultz, P. W. (2017). Mentor qualitiesthat matter: The importance of perceived (not demographic) similarity. J ExpEduc, 85(3), 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405.

Institute of Medicine (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation:America’s science and technology talent at the crossroads. Washington, DC: TheNational Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12984.

Lee, J. D. (1998). Which kids can “become” scientists? Effects of gender, self-concepts, and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychology Quarterly, 199–219.

Maton, K. I., Beason, T. S., Godsay, S., Sto Domingo, M. R., Bailey, T. C., Sun, S., &Hrabowski, F. A. (2016). Outcomes and processes in the Meyerhoff scholarsprogram: STEM PhD completion, sense of community, perceived programbenefit, science identity, and research self-efficacy. CBE Life SciencesEducation, 15(3), ar48.

Merolla, D. M., & Serpe, R. T. (2013). STEM enrichment programs and graduateschool matriculation: The role of science identity salience. Social Psychologyof Education, 16(4), 575–597.

Mondisa, J. L., & McComb, S. A. (2015). Social community: A mechanism toexplain the success of STEM minority mentoring programs. Mentoring &Tutoring, 23(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2015.1049018.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. The science ofeffective mentorship in STEMM. Washington, DC: The National AcademiesPress. doi:10.17226/25568

Olson, S., & Riordan, D. G. (2012). Engage to excel: producing one million additionalcollege graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, andmathematics. Report to the President. Executive Office of the President.

Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J., Hurtado, S., & Eagan, K. (2016). Definingattributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relationships. AIDSBehav, 20(Suppl 2), 238–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1384-z.

Riley, A., & Burke, P. J. (1995). Identities and self-verification in the small group.Social Psychology Quarterly, 61–73.

Robnett, R. D., Chemers, M. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2015). Longitudinalassociations among undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, andidentity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 847–867.

Robnett, R. D., Nelson, P. A., Zurbriggen, E. L., Crosby, F. J., & Chemers, M. M.(2018). Research mentoring and scientist identity: insights from

undergraduates and their mentors. International journal of STEM education,5(1), 41.

Saldaña, J. (2009). Writing analytic memos about narrative and visual data. In InThe coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications Ltd..

Serpe, R. T. (1987). Stability and change in self: A structural symbolic interactionistexplanation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44–55.

Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2011). “The symbolic interactionist perspective andidentity theory.” In Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 225-248):Springer.

Simpson, A., & Bouhafa, Y. (2020). Youths’ and adults’ identity in STEM: Asystematic literature review. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1–28.

Smith, J. L., Brown, E. R., Thoman, D. B., & Deemer, E. D. (2015). Losing itsexpected communal value: How stereotype threat undermines women’sidentity as research scientists. Social Psychology of Education, 18(3), 443–466.

Stets, J. E., Brenner, P. S., Burke, P. J., & Serpe, R. T. (2017). The science identity andentering a science occupation. Social Science Research, 64, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.10.016.

Summers, M. F., & Hrabowski 3rd., F. A. (2006). Diversity. Preparing minorityscientists and engineers. Science, 311(5769), 1870–1871. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1125257.

Syed, M., Azmitia, M., & Cooper, C. R. (2011). Identity and academic successamong underrepresented ethnic minorities: An interdisciplinary review andintegration. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 442–468.

Syed, M., Goza, B. K., Chemers, M. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2012). Individualdifferences in preferences for matched-ethnic mentors among high-achieving ethnically diverse adolescents in STEM. Child Development, 83(3),896–910.

Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., & Hunter, A.-B. (2011). What experiences help studentsbecome scientists? A comparative study of research and other sources ofpersonal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates. The Journal ofHigher Education, 82(4), 357–388.

Trede, F., Macklin, R., & Bridges, D. (2012). Professional identity development: Areview of the higher education literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3),365–384.

Tsui, L. (2007). Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: A review ofthe research literature. Journal of Negro Education, 75(4), 555–581.

UNC-CH Office of Undergraduate Admissions. 2013. “Summary statistics - fall2013 first-year class.” Retrieved from https://admissions.unc.edu/reports/attachment/summary-statistics-fall-2013-first-year-class/

Winterer, E. R., Froyd, J. E., Borrego, M., Martin, J. P., & Foster, M. (2020). Factorsinfluencing the academic success of Latinx students matriculating at 2-yearand transferring to 4-year US institutions—implications for STEM majors: asystematic review of the literature. International Journal of STEM Education,7(1), 1–23.

Yin, R. K. (2011). Compiling, disassembling, and reassembling. In In Qualitativeresearch from start to finish. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Zaniewski, A. M., & Reinholz, D. (2016). Increasing STEM success: A near-peermentoring program in the physical sciences. International Journal of STEMEducation, 3(1), 1–12.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.


http://www.dedoose.com

https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066

https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066

https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0016

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1246405

https://doi.org/10.17226/12984

https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2015.1049018

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1384-z

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.10.016

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.10.016

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1125257

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1125257

https://admissions.unc.edu/reports/attachment/summary-statistics-fall-2013-first-year-class/

https://admissions.unc.edu/reports/attachment/summary-statistics-fall-2013-first-year-class/

“looking at myself in the future”: how mentoring shapes

Documents