Despite evidence of mentoring's importance in training researchers, studies to date have not yet determined which mentoring relationships have the most impact and what specific factors in those mentoring relationships contribute to key outcomes, such as the commitment to and persistence in research career paths for emerging researchers from diverse populations. Efforts to broaden participation and persistence in biomedical research careers require an understanding of why and how mentoring relationships work and their impact, not only to research training but also to promoting career advancement. This paper proposes core attributes of effective mentoring relationships, as supported by the literature and suggested by theoretical models of academic persistence. In addition, both existing and developing metrics for measuring the effectiveness of these attributes within mentoring relationships across diverse groups are presented, as well as preliminary data on these metrics from the authors' work.

Background and purpose

The NIH-funded National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) aims to increase the representation and success of underrepresented groups (URGs) in biomedical research by enhancing the training and career development of individuals from diverse backgrounds, communities, and cultures. The national scope of NRMN, its wide array of innovative programs in mentor and mentee matching and training across the career spectrum, requires a collaborative evaluation strategy that addresses both internal and external evaluation needs. Due to the variety of programs implemented for each target group, the NRMN program is responsible for its own process and short-term outcome evaluations and the national Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC) is responsible for assessing the medium and long-term effectiveness of the implemented strategies and program sustainability. Using a collaborative, utilization-focused evaluation framework, both internal NRMN evaluators and the CEC are working to translate findings into information that can be used to make both short term and long-term decisions about the efficacy and reach of the NRMN model. This important information can then inform efforts to institutionalize the current programs and potentially replicate them elsewhere.

Program and key highlights

The overall evaluation of NRMN is guided by both outcome and process questions that are tailored for each target group. The different target groups include faculty and others who serve as mentors, mentees across academic training and career stages, and researchers without a history of independently funded research. NRMN is also building the capacity for training those pursuing biomedical careers by developing "master trainers" for both mentoring and grantsmanship programs in organizations and institutions that can support expanded training efforts aimed at diversifying the biomedical workforce.

Implications

Results of this evaluation will be used to inform the design and implementation of sustainable, effective, and comprehensive mentoring and career development initiatives that promote diversity in the biomedical research workforce. Our collaborative evaluation design, theoretically-derived measurement instruments, efficient data systems, and timely reporting serve as an example of how to put evaluation principles described into practice for large, multi-site, and multi-dimensional research training programs like NRMN.

Introduction

Mentorship is critical for faculty success, satisfaction, and engagement. However, many faculty, particularly underrepresented racial/ethnic (UR) faculty, lack access to high-quality mentoring. In an effort to improve mentoring for all faculty, we developed and implemented a formally structured faculty mentor training program (FMTP) across UC San Diego Health Sciences, which included institutional support, mentorship training, and department/division mentorship programs.

Methods

FMTP impact was evaluated using three primary outcome variables: mentoring quality, mentoring behaviors, and institutional climate. Participants' self-assessed mentoring competencies were measured using validated instruments.

Results

A total of 391 (23%) of Health Sciences faculty participated in FMTP. Participation rate was higher for women than men (30% versus 17%) and highest for UR faculty (39%). FMTP was implemented in 16 of 19 departments. Self-reported mentoring improved for FMTP participants with mentoring quality (p = 0.009) and meeting mentees' expectations (p = 0.01) continuing to improve for up to 2 years after training. However, participants were unsure if they were meeting UR mentees' expectations. FMTP participants were significantly more satisfied with mentoring quality (p < 0.001) compared to non-participants, with the greatest increase in satisfaction reported by UR faculty (38-61%). UR faculty reported improved overall morale (51-61%) and a perception that the environment was supportive for UR faculty (48-70%).

Conclusion

The implementation of a system-wide formal structured FMTP was associated with improved faculty satisfaction, quality of mentoring, and institutional climate, especially for UR faculty.

This article summarizes the outcomes of the second national conference on the Future of Bioscience Graduate and Postdoctoral Training. Five topics were addressed during the conference: diversity in leadership positions; mentoring; modernizing the curriculum; experiential learning; and the need for better data on trainees. The goal of the conference was to develop a consensus around these five topics and to recommend policies that can be implemented by academic and research institutions and federal funding agencies in the United States.

Objective

The biomedical/behavioral sciences lag in the recruitment and advancement of students from historically underrepresented backgrounds. In 2014 the NIH created the Diversity Program Consortium (DPC), a prospective, multi-site study comprising 10 Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) institutional grantees, the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) and a Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC). This article describes baseline characteristics of four incoming, first-year student cohorts at the primary BUILD institutions who completed the Higher Education Research Institute, The Freshmen Survey between 2015-2019. These freshmen are the primary student cohorts for longitudinal analyses comparing outcomes of BUILD program participants and non-participants.

Design

Baseline description of first-year students entering college at BUILD institutions during 2015-2019.

Setting

Ten colleges/universities that each received <$7.5mil/yr in NIH Research Project Grants and have high proportions of low-income students.

Participants

First-year undergraduate students who participated in BUILD-sponsored activities and a sample of non-BUILD students at the same BUILD institutions. A total of 32,963 first-year students were enrolled in the project; 64% were female, 18% Hispanic/Latinx, 19% African American/Black, 2% American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 17% Asian, and 29% White. Twenty-seven percent were from families with an income <$30,000/yr and 25% were their family's first generation in college.

Planned outcomes

Primary student outcomes to be evaluated over time include undergraduate biomedical degree completion, entry into/completion of a graduate biomedical degree program, and evidence of excelling in biomedical research and scholarship.

Conclusions

The DPC national evaluation has identified a large, longitudinal cohort of students with many from groups historically underrepresented in the biomedical sciences that will inform institutional/national policy level initiatives to help diversify the biomedical workforce.