Running Head: DIVERSITY AND MENTORING
Mentoring in Academia:
Considerations for Diverse Populations
William E. Sedlacek
Eric Benjamin
Lewis Z. Schlosser
Mentoring has become widely
accepted as an important process in professional development across a number of
fields. In fact, theoretical and empirical research on mentoring has grown
significantly in recent years. Some noteworthy areas include models of
mentoring relationships, research on the mentor-protégé relationship, the
process and outcome of mentoring relationships, and dysfunctional mentoring, to
name a few (Barnett, 1984; Bode, 1999; Healy & Welchert, 1990; Jacobi,
1991; Johnson & Huwe, 2003; Kram, 1985; Stafford & Robbins, 1991; Wilde
& Schau, 1991). This increased attention to mentoring has improved the
quantity and, more importantly, the quality of the research being conducted on
mentoring. Therefore, it appears that mentoring is an important construct
worthy of further discussion. In this chapter we will discuss some of the
research on mentoring in academic settings including an emphasis on diversity
issues. We will then discuss a model for organizing and evaluating
diversity-related mentoring, followed by examples of mentoring for African
American and Asian Americans and conclude the chapter with some final comments.
Academic Focus
Because of the variety of
arenas within which mentoring can occur, we believe that it is important to
limit our work to retain a sharp focus. Hence, this chapter will concentrate on
mentoring in academic settings, specifically the student-faculty relationship.
Within academia, student-faculty relationships tend to be more formalized, with
the most common type being the advisor-advisee relationship in graduate school
(Schlosser & Gelso, 2001; Schlosser, Knox, Moskovitz, & Hill, 2003;
Schlosser, Talleyrand, Lyons, Kim, & Johnson, 2005). Research has shown that students almost
always have an advisor (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001), but only 50 to 66 percent
report having a mentor (Atkinson, Casas, & Neville, 1994; Clark, Harden,
& Johnson, 2000; Cronan-Hillix, Davidson, Cronan-Hillix, & Gensheimer,
1986; Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002; Johnson,
Koch, Fallow, & Huwe, 2000). So, while our focus is on mentoring, it is
important to note that many mentors are also advisors, and researchers have
speculated that positive advising relationships and mentoring relationships are
quite similar (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001; Schlosser & Gelso, in press).
Graduate Training
In addition to focusing on
academic settings, we are also limiting our work to mentoring relationships in
graduate training. Although mentoring relationships can and do occur between
student and faculty members at all levels of higher education, we are focusing
on mentoring in graduate school for several reasons. First, the extant research
on student-faculty mentoring is overwhelmingly focused on the graduate-level
mentoring relationship. Second, student-faculty mentoring relationships are an
inherent part of the graduate training models for many disciplines. As such,
graduate school is typically viewed as an extension of the apprentice-master
model of learning a trade; as such, it naturally follows that the relationship
between mentor and protégé is a variable of critical importance. Third,
graduate-level mentoring relationships are qualitatively different than those
at the undergraduate level. Mentors are likely to be more invested in their
graduate student protégés than their undergraduate ones because (a) the
relationship will be longer with a graduate student protégé, (b) many graduate
student protégés will become colleagues with their mentor after graduation
(Schlosser et al., 2003), and (c) graduate student protégés come to their
mentoring relationships with more complex and sophisticated thinking abilities than
do their undergraduate counterparts. For all of these reasons, we are focusing
on graduate-level mentoring relationships. That being said, some of our conclusions
may be applicable to the undergraduate mentor-protégé relationship. Readers
interested in undergraduate mentoring and diversity issues are directed to the
relevant literature (e.g., Good, Halpin, & Halpin, 2000; Grant-Thompson & Atkinson, 1997; Kim,
Goto, Bai, Kim, & Wong, 2001; Santos & Reigadas,
2002).
Mentoring and Advising
In preparing our work here,
we reviewed relevant literature on both mentor-protégé and advisor-advisee
relationships in graduate school. We chose this course because, as noted above
and elsewhere, students are much more likely to have an advisor than they are
to have a mentor, especially in academia where such relationships are formalized
(Schlosser & Gelso, 2001). In addition, while advising and mentoring are
not synonymous, they do share certain characteristics and thus the advising
literature can be informative vis-à-vis mentoring. For example, a positive
advising relationship is characterized by good advisor-advisee rapport and by
the advisor facilitating the advisee’s professional development (Schlosser
& Gelso, 2001; Schlosser & Gelso, in press), as well as the advisee
feeling supported, respected, and valued by the advisor (Schlosser et al.,
2003). The descriptions of the important aspects of advising relationships appear
quite similar to how mentoring relationships are frequently described by the
two-factor model (i.e., psychosocial
and career-related functions). In the advising literature, these factors are
typically referred to as interpersonal
and instructional aspects,
respectively. In fact, advisees might refer to their advisors as mentors, even
if their formal relationship and means of coming together was for advising. It
is unlikely, however, that someone who disliked their advisor would refer to
that person as a mentor because of the inherent positive connotation contained
within the word mentor (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001). Advising and mentoring,
then, share some characteristics, but also diverge in certain areas. Material
from both of these literatures can and will enhance our discussion of diversity
issues in academic mentoring relationships.
Noncognitive Variables and
Diversity
One way to understand the
notion of developmental level, as well as other important contextual variables
that can affect the student-faculty relationship, is through the use of
noncognitive variables (Sedlacek, 1996, 2003a, 2004a). Briefly, the
noncognitive variables include (a) positive self-concept, (b) realistic
self-appraisal, (c) understands and deals with racism and other “-isms”, (d) preference for long-range goals,
(e) availability of strong support person, (f) successful leadership
experience, (g) demonstrated community service, and (h) knowledge acquired in a
field. These noncognitive variables have been shown to assess the potential
abilities of students from diverse backgrounds, specifically those whose racial
and cultural socialization experiences differ from the “traditional” White,
male, heterosexual, Christian, middle-to upper-middle-class Eurocentric
experience (Sedlacek, 1996, 2003a, 2004a). For the purposes of our work here,
we will refer to people from diverse backgrounds as nontraditional students.
Mentoring and Noncognitive
Variables
There are several advantages to employing noncognitive variables in mentoring nontraditional students. First, since noncognitive variables have been shown to correlate with the academic success of nontraditional students the mentor can emphasize the very attributes that relate to desirable protégé outcomes (Sedlacek, 2004a). Second, the noncognitive variables are developmental in nature and students can be evaluated on their progress along the dimensions (Sedlacek, 1991, 1994; Westbrook & Sedlacek, 1988). Third, there are methods available to assess each of the noncognitive variables in several ways (Sedlacek, 2004a). Fourth, using noncognitive variables allows for the training of mentors around a structure that can be practiced and duplicated for many mentors so they are operating in a similar and coordinated manner. Exhibit 1 contains a description of the noncognitive variables suggested in this chapter.
Having defined
the noncognitive variables, we can now examine some ways that we might
introduce them into a mentoring relationship. Students can be mentored by
identifying behaviors associated with good or poor performance on each of the
variables (see Exhibit 2). Mentors can do a self-assessment on each of the
variables to determine their strengths and weaknesses in working on each
dimension. For example, one advisor may be particularly effective at helping protégés
set long-term goals while another might be better at assisting them in learning
to negotiate the system. While most of the research with these noncognitive variables has been with undergraduate
students, Sedlacek (2003a, 2004a,b) has discussed the
value of the noncognitive variables in working with graduate and professional
students of color, including a number of principles, techniques, and examples
in working with the variables.
The noncognitive
variables can be used along with any other variables, models, or techniques
that are employed in whatever role or type of mentoring is involved. Teachers,
advisors, or counselors who use the system can expect to obtain better student
outcomes in terms of grades, retention, and satisfaction, as well as greater
satisfaction themselves in employing something systematic with demonstrated
utility in an area that often produces confusion and anxiety.
The noncognitive variables provide an important link between the two main foci of our chapter; that is, mentoring and issues related to cultural diversity. Our conception of diversity includes attending to issues being faced by People of Color, women, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons. The use of noncognitive variables with individuals from these groups is discussed in Sedlacek (2004a). While we also believe that other variables such as religion, social class, and ability status are important to consider vis-à-vis the mentoring relationship, the extant literature focuses more on issues pertaining to race, gender, and sexual orientation (Schlosser et al., 2005). In addition, our space limits a complete discussion of all diversity variables. Hence, we have used race as the primary cultural characteristic in the two groups focused on later in this chapter. We made this decision because of the ways that race informs culturally-appropriate interpersonal interactions (Helms & Cook, 1999) and the extent to which our understanding of race has historically served to advance our understanding of culture along other dimensions (e.g., sexual orientation identity development, Mohr, 2002). It is important to note that this discussion could be applied to other nontraditional student groups (e.g., LGBT individuals).
We believe that it is important to concentrate on diversity issues in mentoring for a number of reasons. First, nontraditional students have been historically under-represented in academia, and as a result, we don’t know as much about mentoring for these groups of people, including what works for whom and under what set of circumstances. Second, students of color represent a small, but growing number of new doctorates in psychology (Kohout & Wicherski, 2003). If this trend holds true for other disciplines, then it appears critical for all academics to know how mentoring relationships for nontraditional students differ from those relationships with a traditional student, as well as knowing how to mentor nontraditional and traditional students with equal effectiveness. This latter issue is especially important because the existing research (e.g., Atkinson et al., 1994; Pope-Davis et al., 1997; Schlosser et al., 2005) suggests that mentoring experiences are different for those in socially- privileged groups (e.g., Whites, men, Christians, heterosexuals) than those in socially-oppressed groups (e.g., People of Color, women, LGBT persons, religious minorities). Finally, we also know that the presence (or absence) of mentors of color is an important variable in the professional development of psychology doctoral students of color (Pope-Davis et al., 1997). This need for mentors for students of color has been stressed in other scholarly work as well (e.g., Blackwell, 1989; Brinson & Kottler, 1993). Therefore, it appears that addressing the under-representation of nontraditional students and faculty in academia is critical, and one in which mentoring can play an important role.
Research on Academic Mentoring
In general, research on student-faculty relationships shows a number of benefits associated with mentoring. Some examples include academic success (e.g., timely completion of one’s degree; Johnson & Huwe, 2003), research productivity (Cronan-Hillix et al., 1986), positive professional development (Schlosser et al., 2003), and satisfaction with graduate school (Clark et al., 2000; Cronan-Hillix et al., 1986).
With regard to gender, it is
somewhat surprising to report that no significant gender differences have been
found in terms of (a) finding a mentor (Clark et al., 2000; Cronan-Hillix et
al., 1986; Ragins, 1999), (b) initiating and maintaining mentoring
relationships (Clark et al., 2000, Gilbert, 1985; Ragins, 1999), (c) functions
provided by mentors (Ragins, 1999), and (d) outcomes of mentoring relationships
(Ragins, 1999). However, much of this literature is based on mentoring in the
workplace, rather than in academic settings. Despite these findings, several
key issues may emerge for female protégés in colleges and universities,
including dealing with sexism, gender-role stereotypes, and potential sexual
attraction in cross-sex mentoring relationships.
That women
face many systemic obstacles such as discouraging comments, differential
opportunities, and sexual harassment has been well documented (Ancis and Phillips, 1996; Brush, 1991). How well they learn to make the education
system work for them is predictive of their grades in college (Ancis and Sedlacek, 1997) and
mentoring can help women negotiate the sexism they encounter (Sedlacek, 2004a).
Evidence also exists that women experience an academic climate that
interferes with the ability to do realistic appraisals of their academic
abilities (Ancis and Phillips, 1996; Brush,
1991). These difficulties bring about a
corresponding decrease in academic and career aspirations from their first year
to their last year in school (Ossana, Helms and
Leonard, 1992). Women who are able to
make realistic self-appraisals have been shown to get higher grades in a
university than those who have difficulty with such assessments (Ancis and Sedlacek, 1997). Again,
mentoring can assist women in making more realistic appraisals of their
abilities (Sedlacek, 2004a).
With regard to race,
research reveals several obstacles for students of color to obtain mentoring.
Some examples include (a) a lack of faculty role models of color (Pope-Davis et
al., 1997), (b) differences in cultural values between mentor and protégé
(Goto, 1999), (c) not understanding the importance of good mentoring to success
in one’s career (Grant-Thompson & Atkinson, 1997), and (d) reluctance entering
a cross-race advising or mentoring relationship (Brinson & Kottler, 1993).
In addition, faculty members may believe one or more myths about mentoring
students of color (see Brown, Davis, and McClendon, 1999), and faculty of color
may be overwhelmed with requests for mentorship from students of color.
Finally, recent research
from the advising literature has indicated that the student-faculty advising
relationship is related to a number of important outcomes for both
faculty-advisor (e.g., Knox, Schlosser, Pruitt, & Hill, 2005; Schlosser
& Gelso, 2001) and student-advisee (Schlosser et al., 2003; Schlosser &
Gelso, in press). Specifically, the advising relationship has been shown to be
related in theoretically consistent ways to (a) student research self-efficacy,
attitudes toward research, and interest in science and practice, and (b)
advisor satisfaction with the advising relationship, as well as the costs and
benefits for advising. These findings suggest it is important to consider the
needs of both mentor and the protégé,
even though the overwhelming majority of research in this area is focused on
the protégé-student-advisee.
Mentoring African Americans
Traditionally,
the selection of a mentor or protégé has followed the dictum of shared
interests, values or traits (Olian, Carroll, Giannantonio, & Feren 1988). The rationale behind this is that the greater
the commonality of the relationship, the greater the ability to foster empathy.
The mentor-protégé relationship for African American students has tended to be
defined racially (Collins, Kamya, & Tourse, 1997). However, as the enrollment of African
Americans on college campuses increases, the ability to achieve same group
mentoring has decreased. According to
the
Previous research
has shown that the presence of a mentor is related to retention for African
American students across majors and types of institutions (Vann Lynch, 2002; Sedlacek, 2004a) However, it appears that same-race mentor-protégé relationships
for students and academic faculty at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) require greater effort on the part of African
American faculty and students than do their counterparts at HBCUs.
This implied racial and cultural affirmation of HBCUs
has traditionally been seen as an additional “selling point” for these
institutions. According to research
cited at the official website for the United Negro College Fund,
HBCUs, because of their unique sensibility to the special
needs of young African American minds, remain the institutions that demonstrate
the most effective ability to graduate African American students who are poised
to be competitive in the corporate, research, academic, governmental and
military arenas (http://www.uncf.org/aboutus/hbcus.as).
The simple
mathematic reality of same-race mentoring for African American students is that
they will be waiting in a long line for the time and attention of a faculty
member who will probably either be non-tenured or not on a tenure track. This last demographic trend is important to
note because it further demonstrates that the majority of available African
American academic faculty mentors may be relatively young in their professional
development, not seeking academic advancement, or have been unsuccessful at
achieving academic advancement for whatever reasons. Collins, Kamya,
& Tourse (1997) found that 79% of the African
American students in their study had a mentor.
Of those African American students who had a mentor, 80% of their
mentors were African American. However, there were only 35 participants in
their study. When the number of students
increases, the ability of African American faculty to provide mentoring becomes
not only onerous, but potentially detrimental to their scholarly productivity
and professional advancement (Vann Lynch, 2002). So many of the African
American faculty members available to serve as mentors may be encountering the
same issues of mentoring and professional development that their protégés are
negotiating. Sedlacek and Brooks (1976) discuss
this dilemma and provide a six stage model to guide mentors in working with
faculty and students of color. The noncognitive
variables shown in Exhibit 1 can be useful in mentoring Black students about
graduate school opportunities (Sedlacek, 2003b), and their
success while in graduate school (Davidson and Foster-Johnson, 2002).
Psychosocial and Career Aspects of
Mentoring African Americans
As was discussed
earlier, a two factor model of the relationship between mentor and protégé
provides a useful, but limited framework.
The psychosocial/interpersonal and career-related/instructional does
define very important aspects of the relationship, but there is also the
interaction among interpersonal and instructional roles and identities. Benjamin (1995) found that African American
students at PWIs construct bipartite identities that
consist of a personal/cultural self and an academic/institutional self. However, one key area both selves shared in
common is how racism influences their identities on both a personal and
institutional level. This appears
consistent with the noncognitive variable of learning
how to navigate the explicit and implicit values and practices of academic
institutions, and by realizing that all institutions of higher education are
firmly embedded in larger cultural systems.
Psychosocial
Aspects
An important aspect of the
professional development of the protégé may not be just their career
development, but the role that race may or not consciously play in their
identity development. As was mentioned
previously, the common trait between the otherwise discrete paths of career
development and personal identity for African American college students is the
experience of racism. More succinctly,
the experiences of personal racism and institutional racism may be connected
for many African American protégés. In order to understand the dynamics of race
in the mentor/protégé relationship, the area of counselor training and
therapeutic supervision may provide an instructive model. According to Bradley (as cited in Cook, 1994,
p.4), “…supervision is intended to assist supervisees in integrating their
personal and professional identities.”
In order to explore the supervisory relationship, Cook (1994) applied a mainstream approach (Constantine,
Richards, Benjamin, & Wilson, 1998) which is characterized by the
development of ego statuses that reflect varying degrees of racial
self-awareness ranging from internalized feelings of inferiority to feelings of
cultural acceptance of one’s self and others (Cross, 1995; Helms, 1994). According to Cook (1994) the combination of
different racialized ego-statuses between mentor and
protégé can be both predictive and descriptive of possible strengths and
limitations of the dyad.
Although the
mainstream approaches have become popular conceptualizations of racial identity
for African Americans and People of Color, there exist many other types of
theories. For example, African-Centered
models (Akbar, 1979; Baldwin, 1984) do not focus on the
process of identity development per se, but on the role that African and
African American culturally defined values and practices of African
Americans. Applying African-Centered
theories to the mentor/protégé relationship would be based not only on understanding
the beliefs and values of African American protégés and mentors, but also on
understanding the role and relevance of African American culture in defining
the sense of self for both the mentor and protégé. For example, an African American mentor at a
conformist ego-status would place a different value on the role of African
American cultural values in defining their professional identity than a protégé
at the internalization status. This
incongruity could be a source of conflict, but the process of negotiating and
ameliorating the incongruity could be a necessary component for future
professional development for the protégé.
Career
Aspects
On a prima facie
level this seems to be the most straight forward part of the relationship
between mentors of any race and African American protégés. It would seem that
the steps needed to become an engineer (for example) are clear and
prescriptive. “In order to become an engineer, you should do this, this, and
that at this time.” However, the basis of noncognitive
predictors of college student retention demonstrates that different groups of
students employ different skills at different times to solve the same problem (Sedlacek, 2004a). Both the publishers of the most widely used
career inventory, the Strong Interest Inventory (SII) (Prince, 1995), and subsequent empirical attempts to
validate the SII (Lattimore & Borgen,
1999) have reservations about the validity of the instrument with African
American populations. According to Lattimore and Borgen (1999, p. 186), “The combination of the diverse
research findings and numerous limitations makes final conclusions about
cross-cultural validity difficult.” They
further assert more research needs to examine the effect that racial
differences have on SII scores. Additionally,
to confound matters, there appears to be more in-group than between-group
racial variability in career interests, and it is within these vague areas of
understanding racial differences that the mentor-protégé relationship exists.
Regardless of the
race of the mentor, the belief that two people should make the assumption of
similar career motivations, goals, and values, because they share the same
demographic racial group is naïve at best, and racist at worst. This is not to deny that within same race
mentor-protégé relationships there may be the benefit of the normalization of
common racial experiences, which potential benefit is not without the possible
cost of resource and time demands on both the mentor and protégé. Also, because the influence and role of race
is a ubiquitous issue in not just career development, but in human development,
it is benefited by the mentor understanding the racial transference and
counter-transference that exists between them and their protégé in terms of
psychosocial development (Ladany, Constantine,
Miller, Erickson, & Muse-Burke, 2000).
The role of race may not be the primary issue within all mentor and protégé
relationships, but the agreement on the role of race in the mentor-protégé
relationship should be a function of the needs and role of the
relationship. Additionally, the
exploration of racial development should not be limited by unresolved issues of
race, power, and entitlement.
Within all of the
aforementioned theories of racial identity, the one core theme is that race can
play a role in defining both same and cross-race mentor/protégé relationships
in both psychosocial and career development.
Race may not be an overt feature of the relationship, but racial issues
should not be ignored in order to explore career development for African
American college students. Failure to
address the role of race in the relationship can limit what the experience of
supervision/mentoring has to offer.
Concurrently, working through the parallel process of race may serve as
a vehicle for both the protégé and mentor to better understand the
interpersonal and career aspects of their own identity development.
Mentoring Asian Americans
As of 2001,
12.5 million U.S. residents identified themselves as Asian Americans, which was
4.4% of the total population and represented an increase of more than 50% since
1990 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002; 2003). For individuals 25 years and older,
Asian Americans have the highest proportion that held a bachelor’s degree or
more (49.8%) in comparison with other racial groups (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).
Furthermore, in 2001, more than 937,000 Asian Americans were enrolled in college,
which represented a 54% increase since 1991 (American Council on Education,
2005). Despite these data, literature on mentoring Asian American students in educational
settings is scarce. Researchers (e.g., Goto, 1999)
have offered possible explanations for the lack of attention in this area,
including the model minority myth and culturally incongruent mentorship. Nevertheless,
Asian American college students do have their adjustment concerns and needs
(Liang & Sedlacek, 2003b). Successful mentorship can help Asian American
students in many ways, including easing difficulties in transition to college, improving
their satisfaction with college life and a chosen major, and developing their
professional skills, confidence, and personal and professional identity.
Model Minority Myth
For years, Asian Americans have been perceived as the “model minority”
group, members of which are supposed to perform well in educational settings
(Liang & Sedlacek, 2003a; Sedlacek, 2004a). This stereotype may perpetuate the
impression that Asian Americans have encountered very few barriers in higher
education and that mentoring programs should be targeting other minority
students who do not perform as well (Kodama, McEwen, Liang, & Lee, 2002).
Also, the academic success of Asian Americans may mask the complete picture of
their college experiences, excluding issues related to psychosocial adjustment
and psychological well-being (Sandhu, 1997, Kim, Goto, Bai, Kim, & Wong,
2001).
However, a closer and deeper scrutiny of the
status of Asian American students often yields a different story that contrasts
sharply with popular views of their academic successes. Many writers have
indicated the importance of recognizing the extreme diversity within the Asian
American population as reflected by country of origin, language, socio-economic
status, and so forth (e.g., Maki & Kitano, 2002; Uba,
1994). Despite the high percentage of Asian Americans who hold a bachelor’s
degree, some Asian American subgroups constitute a large undereducated mass.
For example, of those individuals over 25, 42.9% of all Asian Americans/Pacific
Islanders had at least a bachelor’s degree, whereas fewer than 10% of
individuals from some Southeast Asian subgroups, such as Cambodians, Laotians,
and Hmongs had such degrees (Le, 2005a, 2005b). This
bimodal distribution clearly indicates the enormous within-group differences among
Asian Americans. It may also imply that Asian American students could benefit
from mentoring and that mentoring programs should be tailored to fit the differing
needs of Asian American subgroups.
Mentoring: A Culturally
Incongruent Path to Success?
In her review, Goto
(1999) suggested that cultural reasons (e.g., incompatibility between Asian and
Asian Cultural Values
Cultural values, such as collectivism versus individualism,
have significant effects on social relationships (Chen, Brockner,
& Chen, 2002). Research reviewed in the previous section and other
literatures (e.g., counseling psychology) suggest the importance of considering
the cultural values of Asian American students when developing mentoring
programs (Atkinson, Lowe, & Matthews, 1995; Bui & Takeuchi, 1992). Therefore,
it is imperative that non-Asian mentors familiarize themselves with Asian
cultural values and understand the role these values might have on the mentoring
relationship with Asian American students. Although the Asian American
population is
composed of many different subgroups, individuals who can trace their cultural roots back to
Collectivism
versus individualism as a cultural
value
Major differences between
Hierarchical
nature of relationships and well-defined social roles
Embedded in Asian cultures
is a hierarchical social structure, where authority, leadership and
responsibility are at the top. Asian Americans tend to behave passively
toward their superiors and show deference to their elders, which is
often how mentors are perceived by their Asian American students. Every
individual in this hierarchical structure has distinct obligations; and the role
of each member in the hierarchical social structure is clear and apparent,
and
remain relatively stable (Paniagua, 1994). The hierarchical
nature of relationships is in sharp contrast to the egalitarian and
horizontal social structure of White American culture.
One-way
communication from an authority figure to persons in a group is also more the
norm in Asian society (Chung, 1992; Sue & Sue, 2003). Silence and lack of
eye contact often occur when Asian American students listen or speak to someone
higher in the hierarchy, such as parents, instructors, and mentors. Obedience
and compliance may prompt Asian American students to await instructions from their
mentors. Therefore, non-Asian/Asian American Mentors should keep in mind that they may
be expected to play a more active and directive role and should prepare
themselves for the possibility of developing a more formal relationship with
their Asian American students at the beginning stage of their mentoring
relationship. While it may be beneficial for non-Asian/Asian American mentors
and Asian American students to find a middle ground in the
collectivist-individualist continuum, failure to meet Asian American student cultural
needs may result in the premature termination of the mentoring relationship.
Public repression of problems
In general,
individuals heavily influenced by Asian cultural values tend to restrict
any discussion of personal problems, including physical and mental illness (Paniagua, 1994). Members of the family are not encouraged
to express their problems to people outside the group, especially to strangers. Also,
one
way to fulfill one’s family obligations is not to create problems (Chung, 1992;
Uba, 1994). This tendency plays an
important role in prohibiting Asian American students from expressing and
admitting their problems in settings outside their family, such as in mentoring. Non-Asian/Asian
American mentors need to be culturally sensitive and develop their skills in
creating a safe mentoring relationship in which Asian American students can feel freely to
seek help and explore themselves.
Acculturation and Ethnic Identity Development
In addition
to cultural values, acculturation level appears relevant in developing an
effective mentoring relationship with Asian Americans given that many are
foreign born (Sue & Sue, 2003). The concept of psychological acculturation
may be particularly useful as it emphasizes the effect of acculturation on
individual adaptation (Berry, 1980; Szapocznik, Scopetta, Kurtines, & Aranalde, 1978). The four types of adaptation – assimilation,
integration, separation, and marginalization – provide non-Asian/Asian American
mentors a framework to understand the various issues that Asian American protégés
might encounter in adjusting to college. Counseling research has supported the
hypothesis that more acculturated Asian American college students
perceived counseling professionals more favorably as sources of help for
personal/emotional issues than less acculturated ones (Atkinson & Gim,
1989; Tracey, Leong, & Glidden, 1986;
Zhang & Dixon, 2003). It seems reasonable that non-Asian/Asian American
mentors could apply findings from the counseling literature and should take
acculturation levels into consideration when mentoring Asian American students.
Another
variable that might have an effect on the mentoring relationship is the racial/ethnic
identity of mentors and protégés. As suggested by Helms and Cook (1999),
where the therapist and the client stand in their own racial identity
development process has bearing on the nature and quality of the therapeutic
relationship, which, in turn, would predict therapy outcomes. The same logic
could be argued for the cross-cultural mentoring relationship as it represents
one form of various helping relationships. It would be most helpful when
non-Asian/Asian American mentors are at a more advanced (or at least equal) status
of racial/ethnic identity development than their Asian American students. The
mentoring relationship could be problematic if Asian American students were at
a more mature identity status than their mentors, as this disparity might
create tension in the relationship and it might be difficult for students to
receive useful guidance on their identity development from mentors. Therefore,
it is important for mentors to understand themselves as racial/ethnic beings
and attend to how their own racial and cultural socialization experiences might
play a positive or negative role in developing an effective mentoring relationship
with Asian American students (Schlosser, Lyons, Talleyrand, Kim, & Johnson,
2005). Furthermore, several racial/ethnic identity development models have been
proposed specifically for Asian American (e.g., Lee, 1989; Kim, 1981; S. Sue
& Sue, 1971). These models may provide guidance for mentors to help their students
explore who they are as Asian Americans and help mentors better understand the
process that Asian American students go through to achieve a clear racial
identity.
The Big
Bang or Another Universe?
Are we able
to use general references on the mentoring/advising/counseling process and
apply them to People of Color, or do we need research and models unique to
those students? As with conceptions of
diversity, we feel that both are useful. By examining the evidence on the
mentor/protégé relationship for all groups we set a context to study and
analyze useful ideas and limitations in those studies and models. In turn, as we
examine some of the issues specific to students of color, we find research
evidence and theory that goes beyond the overall models. We feel that by
employing the noncognitive variable approach discussed above and shown in
Exhibits 1 and 2, mentors of any race or gender and protégés from any
nontraditional group can come together for mutual development. It is a
bicultural experience for both to consider general and specific principles in
that relationship.
References
American Council on Education (2005). Annual ACE report shows minority college. Enrollment continues to climb, but gaps still persist.
February 27 http://www.acenet.edu/hena/readArticle.cfm?articleID=1223
Atkinson, D. R., Casas, A.,
& Neville, H. (1994). Ethnic minority psychologists: Whom they mentor and
benefits they derive from the process. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 22, 37-48.
Atkinson, D. R., Lowe, S., & Matthews, L. (1995). Asian-American acculturation and willingness to seek counseling.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and
Development, 23, 130-138.
Akbar, N.
(1979). African roots of Black personality.
In W. D. Smith, K. Burlew, M. Mosely, & W. Whiteney
(Eds.), Reflections on Black psychology. (pp. 79-87)
Ancis, J. R., & Phillips, S. D. (1996). Academic gender bias and women’s behavioral agency and self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 75,
131–137.
Ancis, J. R., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1997). Predicting the academic achievement of female students using the SAT and noncognitive variables. College
and University, 72(3), 1–8.
Barnett, S. K. (1984). The
mentor role: A task of generativity. Journal of Human Behavior and Learning,
1, 15-18.
Baldwin, J. A. (1984). African
self-consciousness and the mental health of African Americans. Journal of Black Studies. 15, 177-194.
Benjamin,
E. M. (1995). The relationship between
African-centered self-concept and the perceptions of socially based power for
black students on predominantly White college campuses. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation.
Blackwell, J. E. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority faculty.
Academe, 75, 8-14.
Bode, R. K. (1999). Mentoring and collegiality. In R. J. Menges & Associates
(Eds.), Faculty in new jobs: A guide to settling in, becoming established,
and building institutional support (pp. 118-144).
Brinson,
J., & Kottler, J. (1993). Cross-cultural mentoring in counselor education: A
strategy for retaining minority faculty. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 32, 241-253.
Brown, M.
C., Davis, G. L., & McClendon, S. A. (1999). Mentoring
graduate students of color: Myths, models, and modes.
Brush, S. G. (1991). Women in science and
engineering. American Scientist, 79,
404-419.
Bui, H. T., & Takeuchi, D. T. (1992). Ethnic
minority adolescents and the use of community mental health care services. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20,
403-417.
Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J, & Chen, X. P. ( 2002). Individual-collective primacy and ingroup favoritism: Enhancement and protection effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5), 482-491.
Chung, D. K. (1992). Asian cultural commonalities: A
comparison with mainstream American culture. In D. K. Chung, K. Murase, &
F. Ross-Sheriff (Eds.), Social work
practice with Asian Americans (pp. 27-44).
Clark, R. A., Harden, S. L.,
& Johnson, W. B. (2000).
Collins, P. M., Kamya, H. A., & Tourse, R. W. (1997) Questions of racial diversity and mentorship: An empirical exploration. Social Work, 42(2) 145-152.
racial
identity theory: Limitations and considerations for future theoretical change. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7, 95-99.
Cook, D. A., (1994). Racial identity in supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision. 34(2), 1-7.
Cronan-Hillix, T., Davidson, W. S., Cronan-Hillix, W. A., & Gensheimer, L. K. (1986). Student's views of mentors in psychology graduate training. Teaching of Psychology, 13, 123-127.
Cross,
W. E. (1995) The psychology of Nigrescence: Revising the Cross model. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M.
Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
counseling (pp. 93-122).
Davidson, M. N., & Foster-Johnson, L. (2002). Mentoring in the preparation of graduate researchers of color. Review of Educational Research,
71, 549–574.
Gilbert, L. A. (1985). Dimensions of same-gender student-faculty role-model relationships.
Sex Roles, 12, 111-123.
Good, J., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G.
(2000). A promising prospect for minority retention: Students becoming peer
mentors. Journal of Negro Education, 69,
375-383.
Goto, S.
(1999). Asian Americans and developmental relationships. In A. J.
Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural
organizations (pp. 46-62).
Grant-Thompson,
S. K. & Atkinson, D. R. (1997). Cross-cultural mentor effectiveness
and African American male students. Journal
of Black Psychology, 23, 120-134.
Green, S.
G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with
doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 537-561.
Healy, C.
C., & Welchert, A. J. (1990). Mentoring relations: A definition
to advance research and practice. Educational Researcher, 19,
17-21.
Heisserer, D. L., &
Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university settings. College Student Journal, 36, 69-83.
Helms, J. E. (1994). Racial identity and career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 2, 199-209.
Helms, J.
E., & Cook, D. A. (1999).
Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process.
Bacon.
Hill, R. D., Castillo, L. G., Ngu, L. Q., & Pepion, K. (1999). Mentoring ethnic minority students for career in academia: The WICHE doctoral
scholars program. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 827-845.
Hollingsworth,
M. A. & Fassinger, R. E. (2002). The role of faculty mentors in the research
training of counseling psychology doctoral students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49, 324-330.
Jacobi, M.
(1991).
Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of
Educational Research, 64, 505-532.
Johnson, W. B. (2002). The
intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 88-96.
Johnson, W. B. (2003). A framework for conceptualizing competence to mentor. Ethics
& Behavior, 13, 127-151.
Johnson,
W.B. & Huwe, J.M. (2002). Toward a typology of mentorship
dysfunction in graduate school. Psychotherapy:
Theory/Research/Practice/Teaching, 39, 44-55.
Johnson,
W. B., & Huwe, J. M. (2003). Getting
mentored in graduate school.
Johnson,
W. B., Koch, C., Fallow, G. O., & Huwe, J. M. (2000). Prevalence of mentoring in
clinical versus experimental doctoral programs: Survey findings, implications,
and recommendations. Psychotherapy, 37, 325-334.
Kim, C. Y., Goto, S. G., Bai, M. M., Kim, T. E., & Wong, E. (2001). Culturally congruent mentoring: Predicting Asian American student
participation using the theory of reasoned
action. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31, 2417-2437.
Kim, J. (1981). The process of Asian American identity development: A study of Japanese-American women’s perceptions of their struggle to
achieve personal identities as
Americans of Asian ancestry. Dissertation Abstract International, 42, 155 1A. (University
Microfilms No.81- 18080)
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kâğitçibaşi, Ç, Choi, S. C., Yoon, G. (Eds.) (1994).
Individualism and
collectivism: Theory, method, and applications.
Kodama, C.
M., McEwen, M. K., Liang, C. T. H., & Lee, S. (2002). An
Asian American perspective on psychosocial development theory. In M. K.
McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.), Working with Asian American college students
(pp. 45-60).
Kohout, J.
& Wicherski, M. (2003). 1999
Doctorate employment survey.
Knox, S., Schlosser, L. Z.,
Pruitt, N., & Hill, C. E. (2005).A
qualitative study of the graduate advising relationship: The advisor
perspective. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational
life.
Ladany, N., Constantine, M. G., Miller, K., Erickson, C. D., &
Muse-Burke, J. L. (2000).
Supervisor countertransference: A qualitative investigation into its identification
and description. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 47, 102-115.
Lattimore, R. R., & Borgen, F. H. (1999). Validity of the 1994 Strong
Interest Inventory with racial and ethnic groups in the
Le, C. N. (2005a). The model minority
image. Asian-Nation: The landscape of Asian America. http://www.asian-nation.org/model-minority.shtml
(
Le, C. N. (2005b). Socioeconomic
statistics & demographics. Asian-Nation:
The landscape of Asian America. http://www.asian-nation.org/demographics.shtml
(
Lee, E. (1989). Assessment and treatment
of Chinese American immigrant families.
Journal of Psychotherapy and the Family, 6,
99-122.
Liang, C. T. H., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2003a). Attitudes of White students services practitioners toward Asian Americans. National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 40(3), 30-42. http://publications.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol40/iss3/art2.
Liang, C. T. H., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2003b). Utilizing factor analysis to understand the needs of Asian American
students. Journal of College
Student Development, 44, 260-266. http://publications.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol40/iss3/art2.
Maki, M. T., & Kitano, H. H. L. (2002). Counseling Asian Americans. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G.
Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across
cultures (5th ed., pp. 109-131).
Olian, J.D., Carroll, S.
J., Giannantonio, C. M. & Feren, D. B. (1988). What do protégés look for in a mentor? Results of three experimental studies. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 33, 15-37.
Ossana, S. M., Helms, J. E., & Leonard, M. M. (1992). Do “womanist” identity attitudes influence college women’s self-esteem and perceptions of
environmental bias? Journal of Counseling
and Development, 70, 402–408.
Paniagua,
F. A. (1994). Assessing and treating
culturally diverse clients: A practical
guide.
Prince, J. P.
(1995). Strong Interest Inventory
resource.
Provasnik, S., Shafer, L. L., Snyder, T. D. (2004). Historically Black colleges and
universities, 1976 to 2001(
Ragins, B. R. (1999). Gender and mentoring relationships. In G.
N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of Gender and
Work (pp. 347-370).
Sandhu, D. S.
(1997). Psychocultural profiles of Asian and Pacific Islander Americans:
Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 25, 7-22.
Schlosser,
L. Z. & Gelso, C. J. (2001). Measuring the working alliance in
advisor-advisee relationships in graduate school. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48,
157-167.
Schlosser,
L. Z. & Gelso, C. J. (in press). The Advisory Working
Schlosser, L.Z., Knox, S.,
Moskovitz, A.R., & Hill, C.E. (2003). A qualitative study of the graduate
advising relationship: The advisee perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50,
178-188.
Schlosser, L. Z., Talleyrand,
R. M., Lyons, H. Z., Kim, B. S. K., & Johnson, W. B. (2005). Advisor-Advisee relationships in counseling
psychology doctoral programs: Toward a multicultural theory. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Sedlacek, W. E. (1991). Using noncognitive variables in
advising nontraditional students. National
Academic Advising Association Journal, 11 (1), 75-82.
Sedlacek, W. E. (1994). Advising nontraditional students: The big bang or another universe? National
Academic Advising Association Journal, 14 (2), 103-104.
Sedlacek, W. E. (1996). An empirical method for determining nontraditional group status.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 28, 200-210.
Sedlacek, W. E. (2003a).
Alternative admission and scholarship selection measures in higher education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 35, 263-272.
Sedlacek,
W. E. (2003b). Negotiating admissions to
graduate and professional schools. In V. L. Farmer (Ed.).
The Black student’s guide to graduate and
professional school success. (pp. 13-22).
Sedlacek, W. E.
(2004a). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive
assessment in higher education.
Sedlacek, W. E. (2004b) Why we should use noncognitive variables with graduate and professional students. The Advisor: The Journal of the
National Association of Advisors for the Health
Professions. 24 (2), 32-39.
Sedlacek, W. E., & Brooks, G. C.,
Jr. (1976). Racism in American education: A model for change.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally
diverse: Theory and practice (4th ed.).
Sue, S., & Sue, D. W. (1971). Chinese-American personality
and mental health. American
Journal, 1, 36-49.
Szapocznik, J., Scopetta, M. A., Kurtines, W., & Aranalde, M. A.
(1978). Theory and measurement of acculturation. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 12,
113-120.
Uba,
L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality patterns, identity, and mental
health.
27, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-16.pdf.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features/001627.html.