Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2005, pp. 449--479

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World

Jean E. Girves∗The Ohio State University

Yolanda ZepedaCommittee on Institutional Cooperation

Judith K. GwathmeyHarvard Medical School and Gwathmey, Inc.

Mentoring can be an effective strategy in improving retention of college studentsand faculty from fields where historical underrepresentation has occurred. Thisarticle reviews the benefits of mentoring in higher education, and identifies com-ponents of effective mentoring strategies that promote educational and careeradvancement. It illustrates how effective programs can be institutionalized andscaled through consortial and national collaborations. Traditional and alterna-tive mentoring models are described through four successful programs designedto increase the academic and professional success of undergraduates, graduatestudents, and junior faculty. The article concludes with a set of general recom-mendations and caveats gleaned from the literature and programs reviewed.

Introduction

Demographic Changes

The results of the 2000 Census (2001a) indicate that the United States is be-coming a diverse nation much faster than had been anticipated. In the last 10 years,

∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jean E. Girves, 247 UniversityHall, 230 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210 [e-mail: girves.1@osu.edu]. The CIC Summer ResearchOpportunities Program (SROP) received major funding from the Lilly Endowment, Pew CharitableTrusts, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency,and the Ford, Kellogg, Mellon, and Sloan Foundations. The CIC Women in Science and EngineeringInitiative (WISE) was funded by the National Science Foundation.

449

C© 2005 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

450 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

the minority population increased by 35% compared to just 3.4% for the White,non-Hispanic population. According to Census projections, within 20 years, overone-third of the U.S. population will comprised people from minority groups. And,by 2050, minority groups are projected to become the majority population. In otherwords, as the baby boom generation moves toward retirement, their future and thefuture of the society will rely increasingly on people of color.

These dramatic demographic shifts in the population have been accompaniedby rapid technological advancements and the globalization of our economy. Forthe United States to remain internationally competitive, the Business-Higher Ed-ucation Forum (2002) stated that the nation must fully develop all of its humanresources. As the population increases, and as minorities constitute a growing shareof the population, the National Alliance of Business estimates that the gap betweenthe number of jobs to be filled and the number of people who are qualified to fillthose jobs will significantly widen (BHEF, 2002). Furthermore, they projected that“by 2028, there will be 19 million more jobs than workers who are adequately pre-pared to fill them; roughly 40% of the people available to fill these jobs will be themembers of minority groups; and a large proportion of new jobs—especially jobsthat offer competitive salaries and benefits—will demand skills and knowledgefar beyond those of a high school graduate” (p. 14). They conclude that, “Morethan ever, it is urgent that our nation provide equal opportunity and eliminate thebarriers to the development of human potential of all Americans” (p. 16).

At present, however, college enrollment, persistence, graduation, and the pur-suit of advanced study are all points where students of color and low-incomestudents drop out in disproportionate numbers (Astin, Tsui, & Avalos, 1996;Ottinger, 1991; Thayer, 2000; USDE, 1998). The rate at which minority groupsare pursuing undergraduate education and advanced study persistently lags behindthe rates for White non-Hispanics. According to the 2000 Census (2001b), forexample, White non-Hispanics earn bachelor’s degrees at twice the rate of under-represented minority groups. While African-American students account for 9% ofthe undergraduate student population; they earn only 5% of the bachelor’s degreesand less than 2% of the doctorates in science and engineering fields. Further, al-though women earn 56% of the baccalaureate degrees in all fields, they accountfor only 14% of the bachelor’s degrees in engineering and 39% of the bachelor’sdegrees in the physical sciences (NSB, 2002). The representation of both minoritygroups and women in the sciences and engineering is even lower at the doctorallevel (NSB, 2002). Thus, even in instances where overall representation suggestsparity, the NSB identifies sub-areas in which participation must be bolstered toassure an adequate flow of trained professionals.

Mentoring as a Strategy to Meet the National Need

Mentoring is one strategy that fosters and facilitates academic progress aswell as career advancement (Bird, Didion, Niewohner, & Fillmore, 1993; Boyle

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 451

& Boice, 1998; Deneef, 2002; Haring-Hidore, 1987; O’Neill, Horton, & Crosby,1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Terrell & Hassell, 1994; Woolston, Hrabrowski,& Maton, 1997). Even though there is not clear agreement about what makesmentoring successful (Boyle & Boice, 1998; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Haring, 1997;Healy, 1997; Wunsch, 1994; Zachary, 2000), there is widespread agreement thatit does work and that more of it is needed. National initiatives designed to fosterthe development and recognize the value of mentoring include: the Departmentof Education’s Mentoring Program grants (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/mg.html); the U.S. Postal Service’s commemorative stamp, “Mentoring a Child,”(http://www.usps.com/news/2001/philatelic/sr02 003.htm); the White House’sPresidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and EngineeringMentoring (PAESMEM) that recognizes individual mentors and mentoringprograms (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/hrd/paesmem.asp); and the designation ofJanuary as National Mentoring Month by the National Mentoring Partnership(http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/chc/mentoring.html), which hopes to scale mentor-ing programs to meet the needs of the nation’s youth. Clearly, mentoring is be-coming a national priority.

Effective mentoring has been described by Jacobi (1991) as having five com-ponents: (1) the relationship is focused on the achievement or acquiring knowledge;(2) it consists of support, direct assistance, and role modeling; (3) it has recipro-cal benefits; (4) relations are personal in nature; and (5) mentors have greaterexperience, influence, and achievement within the mentoring setting. As will beaddressed in more detail later in this article, there are many views about mentoring,for it can take many forms. It can be formal or informal. A mentoring relationshipcan evolve spontaneously or naturally, or it can be planned and systematic. It canoccur as part of a program, within a cohort group, or one-on-one. The one-on-onerelationship can bring together novices such as new employees or students; it caninvolve dyads of senior and junior colleagues such as faculty–student or manager–employee, or it can occur among colleagues, such as between senior faculty andjunior faculty. Mentoring can take place over a relatively short period of time, orit can endure for a lifetime. Importantly, evidence seems to suggest that a numberof different types of mentoring can be effective.

Since mentoring can be manifested in so many ways, we examine the fol-lowing questions to better understand the benefits and the process, particularlyas a strategy for impacting large numbers of underrepresented groups in highereducation. What are the key components of successful mentoring? Which studentsand junior faculty are most likely to engage or be engaged in mentoring relation-ships? How can institutions of higher education support mentoring opportunitiesto maximize the benefits more broadly? This article reviews benefits and key com-ponents of effective strategies that promote educational and career advancement.We illustrate mentoring processes through four successful programs that employmentoring principles to increase the academic and professional success of under-graduate and graduate students, especially minorities and women in science and

452 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

engineering. These model programs are followed by a brief review of the literatureand description of the status of mentoring programs for junior faculty. Finally, thearticle concludes with a set of general recommendations and caveats gleaned fromthe programs reviewed.

Review of the Literature

Although the value of mentoring has been discussed in the literature since theearly 1970s, empirical studies have been reported only since the mid-80s (Crosby,1999). Most of these empirical studies have addressed mentoring relationships inthe corporate or private sector. Only a few empirical studies have been conducted inacademic settings. Unfortunately, no standard operational definition of mentoringexists in the literature, which makes it difficult to compare and build on the resultsof previous studies (Boyle & Boyce, 1998; Crosby, 1999; Haring, 1999a; Healy,1997; Jacobi, 1991).

Academic Integration

Providing equal access to higher education for all racial and ethnic groups isnecessary to ensure opportunities for academic achievement of all groups, but is notsufficient to ensure proportionate outcomes. The major factor that distinguishesbetween undergraduate and graduate students who thrive and those who do not isthe involvement in the academic life of the institution (Girves & Wemmerus, 1986;Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1975, 1987). Students who are more engagedin the academic environment of the institution—those who interact frequently andmeaningfully with other students and faculty outside the classroom—are moresuccessful than those who do not. Pascarella and Terrenzini (1991) observed thatacademic integration has its strongest positive influence on persistence and degreeattainment for students at the lowest levels of social integration. Furthermore, theynote that the importance of academic and social integration decreases as the level ofthe student’s family education and commitment to graduation increases. Therefore,first-generation college students and underrepresented minority students who oftenreport feeling isolated on campus are especially at risk of attrition unless they canbe integrated into the academic community very early in their college careers(Terrell & Hassell, 1994).

Mentors can play a key role in the process of academic integration. High-quality mentoring enhances retention and facilitates advancement all along thehigher education pipeline, positively impacting undergraduates, graduate students,and even junior faculty (Boyle & Boice, 1992, 1998; Davidson & Foster-Johnson,2001; Haring 1997, 1999b; Heinrich, 1995; Lee, 1999; Woolston et al., 1997;Wunsch, 1994). Terrell and Hassel (1994) report that mentoring appears to beespecially important for students who are at risk of leaving college. While every

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 453

student could benefit from a mentoring relationship, the need for mentoring iseven more crucial for women and minorities who tend to be more isolated andhave less contact with faculty and academic role models (Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001; Johnsrud, 1994). Mentoring women and minorities is particularlycritical for shaping and raising expectations about academic careers, preparingfor the job market, and managing their careers once they gain entry to a facultyposition (Freeman, 1999; Johnsrud, 1994; McHenry, 1997; Otto, 1994; Terrell &Hassell, 1994).

What Do We Mean by Mentoring?

In the academic setting, the level and scope of mentoring activities vary signif-icantly across mentoring pairs and programs. Although it may begin with academicadvising or role modeling, mentoring is much more than that. It is a multidimen-sional, dynamic, reciprocal relationship between a more advanced practitioner anda novice (Healy, 1997). A mentor helps his or her mentee set goals and standardsand to develop the skills necessary to succeed. It is an intentional process that issupportive, nurturing, and protective, providing orchestrated or structured experi-ences to facilitate growth. A mentor provides constructive criticism yet allows roomfor risk and failure. Through sponsorship and recognition, a mentor supports thegrowth and development of the mentee and bears in mind the mentee’s long-termcareer goals (Brainard, Harkus, & St. George, 1998; Davidson & Foster-Johnson,2001; Haring, 1997; Lick, 1999; Mullen, 1999; Sands, Parson, & Duane, 1991;Tinto, 1987). In confirming Kram’s (1985) qualitative study of utility companymanagers, Schockett and Haring-Hidore’s (1985) analysis of survey responsesclustered these mentoring functions into two categories, i.e., psychosocial and vo-cational. The psychosocial or personal support functions include the role modeling,encouraging, counseling, and colleagueship. The vocational or career-related func-tions include educating, coaching and consulting, sponsoring, providing visibilityand exposure, and protection. Surprisingly, when asked which type of support theythought they needed the most, mentees in Haring’s study cited the psychosocialfunctions (1999b) as being the most important to them.

Effective mentors are described as practical, generous, direct, honest, havingclarity of ideas, energy, passion, high expectations, and a vision for their mentee’sfuture (Otto, 1994; Wunsch, 1994). Mentors cultivate qualitative changes in thementee’s approach to problem solving and quantitative changes in their level ofachievement and productivity. In effect, mentors pass on their professional legacythrough the insight, judgment, understanding, and knowledge they have accumu-lated over the years (Healy, 1997).

While mentoring is key to individual students’ and faculty members’ profes-sional development and career advancement (Bird et al., 1993; Brainard et al.,1998; Crow & Matthews, 1998; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Otto, 1994), mentees or

454 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

Table 1. Benefits of Mentoring to Protege, Mentor, and Institution

Protege Benefits Mentor Benefits Institutional Benefits

Teaches specific skills Satisfaction of helping anotherperson develop professionally

Better retention

Develops intellectual abilitiesand critical thinking

Enthusiasm and the feeling ofaccomplishment

Better learning environmentfor all students

Engages in meaningful,substantive tasks

Ideas and feedback about one’sown research project

Clearer policies

Facilitates entry into theprofession and careeradvancement

A network of mentees acrossinstitutions who cancollaborate on projects, placestudents, and serve assounding boards

Increased productivity andcommitment

Relates how the field orprofession operates

An expanded network ofcolleagues, especially if thementor is part of a formalprogram

Improved cooperation andcohesiveness

Introduces to key players inthe field

Recognition for service to thecommunity

More positive feeling towardcampus and

Provides advice,encouragement, andfeedback

Potential for professionaldevelopment

Sense of community, ofbelonging

Raises expectations andfuture aspirations

The very act of mentoring—guiding, promotingothers—may serve to effecttheir own transformations

Exemplifies values and anapproach to professionaland personal life

proteges are not the only beneficiaries of mentoring relationships. The literaturealso cites benefits that accrue to mentors (Bird et al., 1996; Brainard et al., 1998;Crow & Matthews, 1998; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Otto, 1994) and to the institutionswhere mentoring programs are supported (Crow & Matthews, 1998; Didion, Fox,& Jones, 1996; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Haring, 1999b; McHenry, 1997; Terrell &Hassell, 1994; Woolston et al., 1997; Wunsch, 1994). A list of gains to proteges(mentees), mentors, and institutions is provided in Table 1.

Even with demonstrated benefits of mentoring to the mentor, mentee, as wellas the institution, there are still many hindrances to participation. These hindrancesor barriers have been identified and discussed in the literature (Boyle & Boice,1998). They appear in Table 2.

Mentoring Women and Underrepresented Minorities

Traditional mentoring models such as the grooming model described abovepose particular challenges for underrepresented students and faculty. It is the ex-ceptional student who has the initiative, the confidence, or the savvy to initiate

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 455

Table 2. Potential Hindrances to Participation in Mentoring Programs

1. Many students and junior faculty receive no mentoring, since it is assumed to happenspontaneously or come about naturally

2. People avoid mentoring programs because they view development programs as remedial andtherefore potentially harmful to their advancement

3. People are too busy to participate4. Some feel vulnerable and fear that information may be used in the evaluation process5. Mentors feel self conscious that they do not know enough or how to mentor effectively6. Men are reluctant to mentor women because of concerns such as sexual harassment7. Some may be unaware of how the mentoring system works and may be reluctant to develop

personal ties for professional gain8. Many feel they are compromising themselves by involving themselves in a structure that is based

on favoritism rather than on merit9. Programs cost money to plan, implement, assess, and sustain

informal relationships with a mentor. Wallace, Abel, and Ropers-Huilman (2000)found that low income, first-generation students in their study reported a desirefor faculty mentors, but did not develop informal relationships with faculty. Spon-taneous relationships, when they do occur, tend to involve students and facultywho share social characteristics, such as gender, class background, and social sta-tus (Woolston et al., 1997; Haring, 1997, 1999; Wunsch, 1994). Yet, mentoringappears to be especially important when students are in environments culturallydifferent from their own, even for high-achieving students (Freeman, 1997). Thus,women in science and engineering fields and minorities in all fields stand at adisadvantage with their peers when forming relationships that are key to theiracademic integration.

When the focus is on women and minority mentees and/or mentors, the em-pirical research regarding access to mentors and the benefits derived from beingin a mentoring relationship is limited and the results are mixed. While cross-raceor cross-gender relationships have demonstrated benefits for minority and womenfaculty (Boice, 1992), Welch (1997) and Tillman (2001) caution that cultural andgender differences may limit the benefits of mentoring relationships, especially ifmajority mentors do not recognize or value these differences (also see Bowman,Kite, Branscombe, & Stacey, 1999). In the private sector, the percentage of workersreporting having been mentored was nearly the same for men and women (Fagen-son, 1988; Ragins & Cotton, 1991). Busch (1985) and Keith and Moore (1995)also report no difference in percentages of men and women who reported havingbeen mentored in the fields of education and sociology. Yet, while underrepre-sented minorities may indicate they were mentored during their academic careers,in many cases their mentors were actually outside academia (Bowman et al., 1999).

Interestingly, in their survey of MBA graduates now working in the privatesector, Dreher and Cox (1996) found that both race and gender were related tothe formation of mentoring relationships with white men and that graduates whodid form these relationships earned substantially more in compensation on average

456 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

than those who did not. In fact, if the mentor was a female or a member of a minoritygroup, the mentee did not earn any more than those who did not have a mentor.On the other hand, in their retrospective survey of ethnic minority members of theAmerican Psychological Association (APA), Atkinson, Neville, and Casas (1991)conclude that ethnic similarity between doctoral mentee and mentor is not relatedto the mentees’ ratings of any perceived benefits.

Women and minorities may be less interested in being assimilated into the pre-dominant culture of the institution, as the grooming model presupposes. Resistanceto assimilation may cause mentees from underrepresented groups to pull back andnot take full advantage of what white male mentors have to offer (Freeman, 1997;Gonzales-Rodriguez, 1995; Haring, 1999b). Women and minorities, in general,may feel uncomfortable with the concept of being groomed or cloned fearing theymust give up their own identities. Mentees may feel suspicious of and behave moreawkwardly around mentors who are different from them. Or, they may be reluctantto seek out mentors out of fear that they will be perceived as being too dependent(Boice, 1993).

On the other hand, mentors who may be willing to provide the vocationalfunctions may feel less comfortable offering the psychosocial support to a menteewho differs from them (Bowman, 1999; McCambley, 1999; O’Neill et al., 1999).Multiple mentors may be the solution. It may be easier to establish important linksto obtain support in the vocational arena and rely on others to supply emotional orpsychosocial support. However, Wallace et al. (2000) found that low income, first-generation students in their study generally reported that race and gender did notmatter. Those who reported a difference based on gender and/or race had multiplementors available and seemed to rely on different mentors for meeting differentneeds.

Mentoring Models

Haring (1997, 1999b) describes two models of mentoring—the more tra-ditional grooming model and an alternative networking model. The traditionalgrooming model focuses on socializing the mentee into the culture of the in-stitution and on providing vocational assistance. The mentoring relationship isone-on-one and hierarchical with the benefits flowing primarily to the mentee. Inthis traditional model, the focus is necessarily on matching individuals—findingthe best mentor. It is difficult to know a priori which characteristics should beused to match mentor and mentee or how much each factor should be weighted.Even natural, or spontaneous selection by the individuals themselves often doesnot result in the “best” match (Boyle & Boice, 1998; Haring, 1999b).

Haring’s alternative networking model is more inclusive and egalitarian (1997,1999b). With the assistance of a skilled facilitator, a group of peers join togetherand exchange the traditional benefits of mentoring relationships. The expectation

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 457

is that everyone contributes and everyone benefits. No single person is the perfectmentor who can provide everything. The facilitator is a support person to thenetwork and is responsible for organizing the group meetings and for connectingthe participants to senior colleagues and to the resources of the institution. In thismodel the facilitator is not a mentor. Haring views the networking model as moreempowering, enabling individuals to develop in their own way rather than beingcloned or assimilated. There is a sense of equity among participants. However,because they require a high degree of coordination, mentoring networks are moredifficult to organize and sustain than traditional mentoring programs. Individualparticipants may not advance as quickly. Fortunately, structured programs can bedesigned to effectively combine both models, taking advantage of the strengths ofeach approach while reducing their inherent weaknesses.

Structured Mentoring Opportunities

Even if students from underrepresented groups can overcome barriers to es-tablishing a mentoring relationship with faculty, the sheer logistics of serving theneeds of large numbers of students preclude traditional one-on-one mentoring asan effective strategy (Haring, 1997). There are simply too many students and juniorfaculty and too few potential mentors to effect a broad impact through one-on-onementoring relationships, regardless of the level of commitment of faculty to theirstudents’ development.

In addition, mentors require skills and insight beyond their academic expertisein order to be effective (Zachary, 2000). In the classroom, protocol is fairly wellestablished. Outside of the classroom, however, Zachary (2000) suggests that somefaculty may be reluctant to engage students from diverse cultural or social back-grounds in a context where expectations and communication patterns may departfrom more formal classroom interaction. Further, faculty are rarely rewarded fortheir mentoring efforts in the promotion and tenure process and are seldom trainedor hired for possessing such skills. Structured mentoring programs can provide forthe training and support of mentors to ensure that mentoring activity is effectiveand productive, and to the degree they are institutionalized, can include facultyreward structures.

Within post-secondary education, structured efforts can help disadvantagedor underrepresented students gain access to mentoring activities; they can expandthe benefits to more students than traditional one-on-one faculty to student re-lationships; and structured mentoring can provide the training and support thatparticipants need to develop effective relationships. While structured programsmay lessen the overall time commitment required of mentors and mentees, lack oftime is still viewed as a major obstacle in implementing them (e.g., Boyle & Boice,1998). Furthermore, even though a growing number of mentoring programs havebeen established in colleges and universities across the country, they typically are

458 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

small, isolated, and not centrally located within the administrative structure. Theyhave not significantly impacted the number of minority students completing theirdegree programs (Haring, 1999a).

In contrast to typical programs, several large, federally funded mentoringprograms designed to counter the disadvantages mentioned previously have dra-matically increased the number of minority students who earn bachelor’s de-grees and pursue graduate study. For example, over 11,000 juniors and seniors(minority as well as first-generation and low-income students) have participatedin the Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement Program since 1989(Humphrey, Carey, & Mansfield, 2002) and over a third of those earning baccalau-reate degrees entered graduate school (see http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/HEP/trio/mcnair.html for information about the program). Another example, the LouisStokes Alliances for Minority Participation Program (LSAMP) targets all un-derrepresented minority students majoring in the sciences, technology, engineer-ing, and mathematics (STEM) fields (see http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/hrd/amp.asp forinformation about the program). In 2001, nearly 22,000 minority students whowere enrolled in LSAMP institutions earned bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields.“LSAMP works on changing the system and the capacity of the system to meetstudent needs, as well as the success rate of students within it” (Sharp, Kleiner,& Frechtling, 2000, p. 3). In their assessment of three federal programs support-ing minority undergraduates in STEM fields, Sharp et al. report that the alliancestructure, the emphasis on creating a sense of community among students withineach alliance, mentoring, and other academic and social support activities havebenefited a large proportion of the STEM minority students enrolled on LSAMPcampuses.

According to Zachary (2000), successful mentoring programs have a clearlydefined purpose, flexibility in implementing and modifying activities for individu-als, visible support from the top, paid staff, and are housed in a stable support unit.She recommends that a mentoring program office should provide the importantfunctions listed in Table 3 (see also Boyle & Boice, 1998; Crow & Matthews,1998; Ferren, Gaff, & Clayton-Pedersen, 2002; Haring, 1999b, 1997; Johnsrud,1994; Sharp et al., 2000; Terrell & Hassell, 1994; Wunsch, 1994).

Table 3. Functions of Successful Mentoring Program Offices

1. Administrative support2. Coordination to foster and monitor activities3. Development of a pool of mentors and mentees4. Marketing and communication about the program5. Evaluation and tracking6. Recommendations for institutional policies and practices that support mentoring7. Workshops and training seminars8. Orientation9. Social activities

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 459

Indicators of Success—Formative and Summative Evaluationand Institutionalization

The purposes of mentoring programs vary. In the corporate sector, for exam-ple, career advancement (promotions) and increased compensation are the typicaldesired outcomes (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). In academic settings, on the otherhand, key outcomes may include improved critical thinking, higher grades, re-tention, pursuit of advanced study, or employment (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2002;Jacobi, 1991; Woolston et al., 1997). Therefore, the criteria used to determinewhether mentoring programs are successful will also vary. Indicators of successare a function of the purpose of the program and the amount of time the programhas been in place. The federally funded McNair Program, for example, is intendedto increase the number of minority students who pursue advanced study and aca-demic careers (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2002). However, more than 10 years couldelapse before a McNair Scholar finishes his or her bachelor’s degree, completes thePhD degree, and enters the professoriate. Therefore, in the short term, evaluatorsuse formative evaluation measures to assess and refine the quality of the programand to assess the experiences and progress of the participants. Specific measuresinclude the level of participation in and satisfaction with program activities, cumu-lative grade point averages, progress toward the baccalaureate, graduation rates,recommendations to peers, and external recognition and awards (e.g., Humphreyet al., 2002). Summative evaluation is used to determine the overall effectivenessof the program. Did it achieve its goals? McNair evaluators track students beyondtheir baccalaureate degrees. They determine how many students enroll in graduateschool, complete doctoral degrees, and become faculty members.

We have found through our experiences running programs like McNair thatreporting the results of positive formative evaluations can provide increased visibil-ity and credibility to the program, which may in turn lead to its institutionalization.That is, programs can become an integral rather than peripheral part of the univer-sity’s culture and infrastructure. This final step is critically important in order toachieve the overall goal of fully developing all human resources. Even successfulprograms, if not institutionalized, will eventually disappear and their benefit willbe lost, for their success is tied to the individuals who run them. In the followingsection, we draw upon our personal experiences to describe four model programs,provide assessments that demonstrate their success in achieving their goals, iden-tify the factors associated with their success, and highlight the strategies they haveincorporated to sustain and institutionalize them over the long term.

Four Model Programs—Undergraduate and Graduate Students

Individual mentors can only work with a limited number of mentees. In or-der to meet the challenge of providing equal access to mentoring, colleges and

460 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

universities must scale their mentoring efforts. Four programs that utilize tradi-tional, networking, and co-mentoring models are examined to identify the factors orcharacteristics that contribute to their success. Two of the programs, the MeyerhoffScholarship Program and the Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP)have received the Presidential Award for Science, Engineering, and MathematicsExcellence in Mentoring. The Meyerhoff Program is based on a single campus,while the SROP and the third program, the Women in Science and Engineering(WISE) Initiative, are administered across 15 campuses in the Midwest by theCommittee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). The fourth model, the PreparingFuture Faculty (PFF) Program, is coordinated by the American Association ofColleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS)on over 300 campuses.

Meyerhoff Scholarship Program—Single Campus

The Meyerhoff Scholarship Program is an intensive, 4-year, academic supportand research internship program that is based on a single campus. It was createdat the University of Maryland at Baltimore County in 1988 with a grant fromthe Robert and Jane Meyerhoff Foundation (Woolston et al., 1997). The foundersidentified four critical factors from the literature that they believe lead to minoritystudent success—(1) knowledge and skills; (2) motivation and support; (3) moni-toring and advising; and (4) academic and social integration (for more informationsee http://www.umbc.edu/Programs/Meyerhoff). They incorporated these ideas intheir program design. “The concept of mentoring is at the heart of almost everycomponent” (Woolston et al., 1997, p. 106).

Program description. Top high school mathematics and science students arerecruited and invited to campus for a “selection” weekend involving faculty, staff,and peers. A summer bridge program featuring math, science, and humanitiescourse work, group study, problem-solving training, and social events preparesstudents for the transition from high school to college and helps establish a strongsense of community. Meyerhoff scholars receive 4 years of comprehensive finan-cial support as long as they maintain a B average in a science or engineering major.Approximately 45 freshmen join the program each year.

Study groups are strongly encouraged. Program staff emphasizes the impor-tance of striving for outstanding academic achievement, seeking help when needed,supporting one another, and looking ahead to and preparing for advanced study.According to Woolston et al. (1997), a sense of community is further advancedthrough regular meetings and living in the same residence hall during their fresh-man year. Scholars have access to personal advising and counseling, tutoring, andsummer internships. Faculty are involved in every aspect of the program. Parentsare kept informed of student progress and may participate in special events. In

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 461

addition to the mentoring that occurs at every stage of the program, mentors foreach student are also identified from among science professionals in the Baltimore–Washington area.

Evaluation. Meyerhoff scholars have a 94% graduation rate in the scienceswith a cumulative grade point average of 3.4 (Woolston et al., 1997, p. 104).Approximately 82% of the graduates pursue advanced study in sciences. Meyerhoffscholars are more likely to persist in science fields than comparison samples thathave similar academic ability (Meyerhoff Scholars—94%, comparison sampleof Asian American—74%, and White—52%) and maintained the same GPA’sin science courses as the comparable samples. Woolston et al. (1997) concludethat without such highly integrated support programs, even very talented African-American students are generally unlikely to earn PhD degrees in the sciences.

SROP and WISE—Regional Collaborative Programs

The Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) is the academic consor-tium in the Midwest that includes the University of Chicago, the University ofIllinois, Indiana University, the University of Iowa, the University of Michigan,Michigan State University, the University of Minnesota, Northwestern Univer-sity, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, andthe University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Three affiliated campuses, the Universityof Illinois at Chicago, Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, andUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee participated in the collaborative programsdescribed below.) CIC programs encompass all aspects of university activity ex-cept intercollegiate athletics. Over the years, the CIC has administered a widevariety of mentoring programs that target women and underrepresented minoritiesin an effort to increase the number of students who complete degree programs,pursue advanced study, and pursue academic careers (see http://www.cic.uiuc.edufor more information about the CIC and its programs). By examining two ofthese consortial programs, the SROP and the Women in Science and Engineering(WISE) Initiative in the next section, we identify factors associated with successfulmentoring programs and illustrate the value of inter-institutional collaborations insustaining them over the long term. Each program was evaluated by the CIC stafffacilitator on an annual basis as well by the LEAD Center at the University ofWisconsin-Madison.

Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP)

Begun in 1986, the SROP is an early intervention program designed to engageunderrepresented minority students majoring in any field in research experienceswith faculty mentors, to accelerate each student’s socialization into a discipline,

462 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

and to foster the creation of a community of scholars among all the participants. It isintended to enhance bachelor’s degree completion and to better prepare students forand encourage them to pursue graduate study and academic careers. The programis composed of three complementary components: one-on-one research intern-ships with faculty mentors, weekly campus-based educational enrichment activi-ties, and a CIC-wide summer research conference. Over 8,000 students and over3,000 faculty mentors have participated in the SROP since its inception.

One-on-one faculty mentoring. Faculty mentors are active researchers. Match-ing students with a faculty mentor is a function of the interests and capabilitiesof the student, the nature of the discipline, and the research areas and directionsof the faculty mentor. With faculty from 15 institutions involved in the SROP,campus coordinators can better ensure a research experience that focuses on atopic of interest to both the student and the mentor. Furthermore, because facultymentors are part of this larger program, they are not burdened with the administra-tive details of running a program or hosting a student from another campus (e.g.,identifying and recruiting applicants, room and board, campus orientation, socialactivities, and support). They have more time available to attend to the task of men-toring students and in engaging them in a research project (Foertsch, Alexander, &Penberthy, 1997). Over 60% of the student participants rated their research expe-rience and faculty mentors “excellent” (Girves, 2000).

Mentoring interactions are not limited to the individual student’s faculty men-tor. Other faculty on the host campus or attending the conference, graduate students,SROP staff, SROP alumni, and the other participants all play important roles inmentoring each student throughout the summer. Most of the students live togetherin a residence hall. Thus, mentoring occurs at several levels: one-to-one; amongpeers; within a campus group that represents all fields of study; and at the researchconference where students are clustered by discipline. A community of scholarsevolves over the summer that supports and reinforces each student’s commitmentto pursue advanced study and an academic career. Those students who have hadpositive experiences are the best recruiters for new participants. Over 99% say theywould recommend the program to a friend (Girves, 2000). They inform, guide,and most importantly demonstrate by example to their peers.

Educational enrichment activities. The weekly workshops and seminars aredesigned to broaden students’ views of research and graduate education, tostrengthen their technical skills, and to foster the development of a community ofscholars among all the participants. Seminars conducted by faculty members andgraduate students, who serve as role models, expose the undergraduates to a widerange of fields of study and research. Workshops inform students about graduateadmission procedures, financial aid opportunities, and university resources (e.g.,computing facilities, library databases, writing and statistical labs), and develop

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 463

their test taking, public speaking, and writing skills. Informal social gatheringsprovide a relaxed setting for students and faculty to exchange ideas and share ex-periences. Belonging to this academic community of scholars both on campus andacross campuses is one of the key ingredients to student success and advancement.These campus-based activities are generally rated good to excellent by two-thirdsof the participants (Girves, 2000).

Research conference. The third component is the Research Conference, whichbrings the participants together from all 15 campuses for a weekend. It is struc-tured to maximize the networking and mentoring interactions among students in thesame or related disciplines. The Conference features roundtable progress reportsfrom students in the same or related disciplines; formal presentations by SROPalumni from the previous year; faculty and graduate student panel discussions onthe rewards and sacrifices of pursuing a career in academia; workshops on oppor-tunities and strategies for applying for graduate admission and financial aid; anda chance to meet with individual campus representatives to discuss specific grad-uate programs. The roundtables are small, informal group discussions facilitatedby a faculty member in the discipline. In addition to describing their own researchprojects, students question one another and offer suggestions. Two roundtablesare combined for discussions with graduate students focusing on applying to andsurviving in graduate school.

To encourage more in depth networking at the Conference, roommates areassigned by field but from different institutions. All of the students in the samefield room next door to one another creating discipline clusters derived from theroundtables and the “applying and surviving” discussion groups. Thus, even thoughthe Conference may host 600 students, the peer networks are focused. Studentsreport that they are inspired by seeing and meeting so many other students likethemselves, who are interested in pursuing academic careers (Foertsch et al., 1997).The intellectual stimulation together with the peer support network created by theConference generates a very powerful mechanism motivating students to fulfillcommitments to attend graduate programs.

Concluding symposium. At the end of the summer, the graduate school oneach of the 15 CIC participating campuses arranges a symposium for studentsand faculty mentors during which the students present their research orally and/orwith posters and share experiences and accomplishments. Mentors, family, andfriends are invited to hear each student’s presentation. The research presentationsare typically followed by a banquet at which the student participants are recognizedand urged to maintain the sense of community that has grown among them. Facultymentors are also recognized for their contributions to the success of each student.Each student also submits an abstract and a final report on his or her summerresearch project. Oftentimes, students are listed as co-authors on publications

464 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

resulting from their research. For many students, the experience does not end atthe close of the summer. Nearly half of the SROP participants continue working ontheir research projects during the academic year—sometimes for academic credit,sometimes for money, and sometimes just for the experience (Girves, 2000).

Evaluation. Each program component is evaluated annually and refined asnecessary. In addition, an SROP database is maintained by the CIC office, so thatthe academic progress of program participants can be tracked. The retention, grad-uation, and post-baccalaureate enrollment rates of SROP students are substantiallyhigher than those of the general student population nationally. Approximately 74%of the SROP alumni have gone on to graduate and professional schools—comparedto 17% of underrepresented minority students nationally (Foertsch et al., 1997,p. 4). Approximately 55% pursue graduate study, over half of whom attend a CICinstitution (Girves, 2000). Another 20% pursue professional degrees. Based ontheir interviews and surveys, Foertsch et al. (1997) reported that students gainedconfidence and a better understanding of what it takes to succeed in graduateschool and become a professor. In many cases, students reported that the programsteered them toward research and academic careers.

Administration. A key component to the success of this program is that it isadministered and facilitated through the consortium. Each campus has a programcoordinator, usually an assistant or associate dean in the graduate school plusgraduate student staff members. Individual campus programs range from 10 to 100participants annually. Although each campus program follows the same generalguidelines, implementation is flexible and varies considerably across institutions.At their quarterly meetings, the campus coordinators review evaluation results anddiscuss which practices work and which do not. Their discussions lead to programmodification and change for the next summer, since new ideas can be quicklyadopted. The SROP has been institutionalized and nearly all of the funding is nowprovided by the host institutions.

Factors related to the success of the SROP (Foertsch et al., 1997; Girves, 1993,2000) are provided in Table 4.

Women in Science and Engineering (WISE)

The CIC WISE Initiative was established in 1996 with a grant from the Na-tional Science Foundation to address the broad goal of achieving gender equityalong the science and engineering pipeline by focusing on the retention and ad-vancement of upper-division undergraduate and graduate students. Four comple-mentary strategies were utilized: (1) annual Student Leadership Conferences thatfocused on Strategies for Success; (2) bi-annual Travel Grant Award competi-tions for students presenting their research at scientific meetings; (3) annual Best

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 465

Table 4. SROP Success Factors

1. Intensive relationship with a faculty member2. Structured, substantive research experience3. High expectations4. Creation of a community of scholars across fields on campus5. Creation of a peer network within a discipline across 15 campuses6. Research conference experience7. Program coordinator who handled the administrative details8. Financial support for the student as well as for his or her research expenses9. Continual refinement of program activities

10. Creation of a co-mentoring network among the program coordinators

Practices Workshops addressing the professional development of administratorsand faculty; and (4) WISE Liaisons who coordinated consortial and campus ac-tivities. The independent evaluation conducted by the LEAD Center focused onthe impact of the WISE Initiative on institutionalizing WISE programs on theparticipating campuses (Bowcock, 2000).

Student leadership conferences. Using the SROP Conference as a model (e.g.,small groups, assigned roommates, facilitated networking), the Leadership Con-ferences were designed to develop the leadership and survival skills that promotesuccess in academic and professional careers. Each year campus teams attended theconference and returned to plan a similar forum at their own institutions. Studentsreported gaining confidence, a sense of community, useful survival strategies, andthe motivation to pursue their academic goals. Participation enhanced retentionand jumpstarted the implementation of similar programs on each campus, thusbroadening the impact (Bowcock, 2000).

Travel grants. Attending and presenting posters and papers at professionalconferences are important components of the academic integration and social-ization process. Bi-annual travel grant competitions supported nearly 400 stu-dents to attend professional meetings with their faculty mentors. The volumeof applications for each competition demonstrated the need for and encouragedthe creation of campus-funded travel grant programs. Bowcock (2000) reportedthat the recipients gained confidence, exposure, and expanded their professionalnetworks.

Some students who participated in the Leadership Conferences or who wereawarded Travel Grants felt torn because they knew women were underrepresentedin science and engineering fields, but they did not want special or preferentialtreatment. Even students who were not ambivalent said that faculty members,advisors, or male peers reacted negatively to the idea of a conference or travelgrants for women. In these cases, they felt pressure to justify their participationto their peers, advisers, or faculty. Even women faculty participants feared that

466 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

they would be viewed as less serious about science if they took advantage of theseprograms or if they advocated for women (Bowcock, 2000).

Best practices workshops. Four faculty and staff professional developmentworkshops were designed to help identify, adapt, and institutionalize best prac-tices for recruiting, retaining, and advancing women in science and engineeringdisciplines. Information regarding program content, management, infrastructure,finances, and assessment was provided in sufficient detail to enable attendees toadapt these programs on their own campuses. Workshops addressed classroomclimate, undergraduate research internships, living/learning programs, mentor-ing strategies, and fundraising and program development (CIC, 1998). Bowcock(2000) concludes that these workshops fostered networking among faculty andstaff (67% of her survey respondents) across the consortium and provided ac-countability, credibility, opportunities for benchmarking, peer support, and a sys-temic approach. Eighty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they tookfollow-up actions when they returned to their home institutions (Bowcock, 2000).As a strategy, these workshops created mechanisms for inducing changes in theinstitutions in the CIC.

WISE campus liaisons. The WISE Initiative is another example of a co-mentoring strategy. The CIC WISE Liaisons came together to develop the con-sortial programs as well as to share information about WISE activities on theirown campuses. Working with the CIC facilitator, they coordinated WISE activi-ties across the consortium. As individuals, they implemented them on their owncampuses. Bowcock (2000) reported that the Liaisons considered the consortialstructure invaluable for exchanging ideas, benchmarking, jump-starting campusprograms, and most importantly, enhancing their own professional development.

Institutionalization. Individual students and faculty benefited from their par-ticipation in the consortial activities as described above. However, one of the pur-poses of the Initiative was to broaden the impact beyond those who participated inthe consortial activities—to create a multiplier or ripple effect. As a result of theirparticipation in WISE programs, individuals and teams were expected to return tosupport and implement WISE-related activities on their own campuses.

The extent to which individual participants were able to implement programsand energize others on their own campuses appears to be a function of each insti-tution’s capacity to support WISE-related activities. The campus leadership, theclimate for women, the presence of a critical mass of science and engineeringwomen students and faculty, and the WISE-related infrastructure are importantfactors that in combination are considered the capacity of the institution. Bowcock(2000) reports that individuals returning to low-capacity institutions appeared tohave little impact; yet, low levels of participation reaped big returns at high-capacity

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 467

institutions. A threshold in capacity appears to exist below which there is little rip-ple or multiplier effect for the home institution.

CIC campus WISE programs represent a range of organizational structures,staffing patterns, and funding levels. Some are centralized; many are very de-centralized. Some have no formal structure where a lone faculty or university staffmember voluntarily carries out WISE-related work. These structures tend to bemarginalized and peripheral. Success and progress of the effort at these institutionsare dependent on the idiosyncratic and unique qualities of the person serving as theWISE Liaison. Unfortunately, much of their effort was spent on the basics—tryingto legitimize and bring visibility to the activities.

The more formal campus programs have an infrastructure in place; stablestaffing and budget; and broad-based funding sources. The amount of core fund-ing available impacts the staffing level, the number of WISE activities, and, im-portantly, the amount of time Liaisons spend on grant writing. Those with stablefunding were able to generate additional external funds for their programs. Li-aisons at institutions with moderate support reported that they and their programsimproved as a result of their participation in WISE. Even those with the mostsupport indicated that their campuses benefited from fresh ideas and energizedparticipants.

Factors related to successful institutionalization of WISE programs and high-capacity institutions (Bowcock, 2000; Girves, 1999) are listed in Table 5.

Advantages of the Consortial Approach

The CIC has a 45-year history of effective voluntary inter-institutional cooper-ation. The programs of the CIC offer a clear demonstration of a mechanism, whichenables a set of institutions to accomplish collectively far more than they couldachieve acting individually (CIC, 1998). The results of collaborative activities af-ford several advantages (Bowcock, 2000; CIC, 1998; Girves, 1999) including thefollowing:

1. Greater stability of programming as personnel changes inevitably occurs—When a program is administered in relative isolation, it may disappear when

Table 5. WISE Success Factors Related to Institutionalization

1. Programs are centrally located within the organizational structure.2. Endorsement and visibility are provided from higher administration.3. Coordinators have the authority to carry out their responsibilities.4. Sufficient human and financial resources are available to hire staff and implement program

activities.5. Advisory committees with broad representation are actively involved in guiding activities.6. Campus community is educated about the need for and value of such programs.7. Programs are evaluated and status reports are published on a regular basis.8. A co-mentoring network facilitates professional development among WISE Liaisons.

468 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

the project director departs. However, when it is part of a consortium, morepeople on each campus and across the campuses have a vested interest in its suc-cess. The institutional and consortial memory is not lost as personnel changesoccur.

2. The ability to bring the new partners up to speed quickly through collegialmentoring—Invariably over time, people change responsibilities or jobs. In aconsortium, each person has a counterpart at each of the other member insti-tutions, who has similar responsibilities. They share information regularly andcan help inform, mentor, and socialize new colleagues quickly.

3. Greater local and national visibility in recruiting and placement—Programs arepromoted by individual institutions as well as by the entire consortium, thusincreasing their national visibility. At the same time, individual programs gainadditional credibility on their own campuses.

4. More effective program operation through economies of scale—Once a struc-ture has been put in place, new programs can be added without a significantincrease in staff. Programs that would be too small to operate on a single campuscan be cost effective across multiple campuses, because a central infrastructureis in place. Without the consortium, for example, neither the Research nor theLeadership Conferences would have been possible.

5. Achieving a critical mass—Underrepresented minority students and women inscience and engineering fields, who may feel isolated in a department or on acampus, have access to a network of peers across the consortium.

6. Continuous learning and refinement of programs through co-mentoring facil-itated by CIC staff—The campus coordinators review programs on a regularbasis and share ideas on what works and what does not. As a result, they canquickly adopt new ideas, which have proven effective at peer institutions.

7. Greater and longer continuity as individual institutional allocations fluctuateannually—The number of students applying for and funded by the SROP con-tinued to increase even though the source of funding changed over the yearsand the number of students supported on each campus has fluctuated.

8. Vertical integration of programs, involving faculty, department chairs, deans,vice presidents, and provosts—The structure of a long-standing consortiuminvolves people at multiple levels, which broadens the base of understandingand support of individual programs. Broad-based faculty participation acrossall disciplines plus high-level administrative support and understanding haveenabled the consortium to maintain the institutional commitment required tosustain these programs over the long term.

9. Cooperation in a competitive environment, generating peer pressure to excel—Faculty and staff cooperate across institutional lines to make these programswork, but they continually compare their institution’s performance with the

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 469

others. The desire to compete with one’s peers is even stronger in a consortiumwhere comparative data are provided routinely.

Preparing New Faculty

Preparing Future Faculty Program (PFF)—A National Collaboration

The Preparing Future Faculty Program (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, & Weibl, 2000)was designed to develop alternative models of faculty preparation and then to in-stitutionalize them. It is a national initiative that was established in 1993 by theAmerican Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Councilof Graduate Schools (CGS) with funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts. PFFcurrently involves over 300 colleges and universities, eleven national professionalassociations and societies, and additional external funders. PFF programs addressthe mismatch between doctoral education and the needs of colleges and univer-sities that employ new PhDs (see http://www.preparing-faculty.org for additionalinformation). Since doctoral training is research oriented, it oftentimes does notmatch the career goals of graduate students seeking faculty appointments or theexpectations of their hiring institutions (Adams, 2002; Deneef, 2002; Gaff et al.,2000).

PFF features clusters of institutions—an anchor doctoral degree-granting uni-versity collaborating with various partner colleges and universities located withinthe same geographical area. These PFF clusters transform the way in which doc-toral programs prepare aspiring faculty members for their careers by providingdoctoral students with the opportunity to observe and experience faculty at a va-riety of academic institutions with varying missions, diverse student bodies, anddifferent expectations for faculty. A steering committee determines the directionof the program and includes representatives from each partner. Each program isexpected to address the full scope of faculty roles and responsibilities. Most of theprograms provide a course on college teaching, a seminar series that addresses dif-ferent aspects of faculty life, and visits to different colleges and universities. PFFprograms include a formal system of mentoring in all aspects of professional devel-opment. While doctoral students usually have a mentor guiding their dissertationresearch, they seldom have a mentor guiding their teaching or professional serviceexperiences. In fact, most doctoral students do not have structured teaching or pro-fessional service experiences in which they are given progressively more complexassignments and responsibilities as part of their training (Adams, 2002; Gaff et al.,2000). The new mentors are often located at one of the partner institutions.

In his survey of PFF alumni, Deneef (2002) found that PFF legitimizes con-versations about all faculty roles, that minority students value PFF programs morethan majority students, that junior faculty who had participated in PFF believethey are much better prepared to be faculty than their colleagues, and that the PFF

470 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

program smoothens the transition from graduate student to assistant professor.Over 99% of the respondents said they would recommend PFF to other doctoralstudents. However, more time is needed to assess the impact of the PFF experienceto determine if alumni earn tenure at higher rates than non-PFF participants.

The PFF campus directors meet regularly to share ideas; to discuss the strengths,weaknesses, and opportunities of their programs; and to develop strategies for in-stitutionalizing their activities. PFF professional development activities are nowbeing integrated into existing academic programs on many campuses. Ferren et al.(2002) report on the assessment of the strategies for sustaining PFF programs,which was conducted by three independent observers who interviewed faculty,students, and alumni. Eight of the 10 programs visited are likely to continue overthe next 3 years, one is uncertain, and one probably will not continue due to severebudgetary cutbacks. While PFF programs are tailored to individual campus circum-stances, several overarching strategies designed to sustain PFF over the long termhave proven effective. The lessons learned (Ferren et al., 2002) are summarizedbelow.

1. Leadership: PFF seems to work better when there is both strong centralizedadministrative leadership (most are located in the graduate school offices) anddecentralized departmental leadership. In order to enhance sustainability, suc-cession planning and shared leadership should be built in.

2. Graduate faculty: Although the initial aim was to involve graduate faculty inthe process, only a few actively participated in the program. By engaging 11professional societies, the credibility and visibility of the PFF among facultyhave been enhanced. Applegate (2002) notes that “disciplinary societies signalwhat is important and define quality in their fields by the content of their jour-nals, the programs at their conferences, and the special activities they sponsor”(p. 1).

3. Expanded perspective: The cluster concept, with research universities servingas anchors and community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and master’s institu-tions serving as partners, broadened the vision of all participants. Barriers tocollaborations have been reduced (Ferren et al., 2002, p. 18).

4. Budgeting: Universities are required to match the money they received fromthe grant in the hope they would continue their support after external fundingdisappears. The results are mixed. A few campuses have added little money;others have slowly integrated PFF into regular budget lines; and one or twohave increased institutional funds and sought additional external funds.

5. Professional development: Students are most satisfied with the professionaldevelopment component.

6. Institutionalizing programs: Visibility, integration, and recognition are criticalto institutionalizing a program. This is enhanced through annual conferences

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 471

for PFF program directors and publications, as well as through conferences ofprofessional societies.

7. Assessment: Formative evaluation focuses on continuous program improve-ment and refinement through the sharing of information among program direc-tors and through surveys of participants. Although individual portfolios com-piled at the end of the program demonstrate substantial progress for each stu-dent, summative information (e.g., number of tenure-track faculty, quality ofteaching) still needs to be compiled for the entire program.

8. Placement of graduates: The original goal of PFF was to better prepare andincrease the number of graduate students interested in pursuing academic ca-reers. However, the number of current participants is just a fraction of thoseentering the professorate. Little tracking of graduates has been conducted bythe campus programs.

9. Adaptations: The flexible program structure enables each cluster to respond toits local context and to make changes as needed.

Mentoring Junior Faculty

Participation in PFF gives graduate students a jumpstart in pursuing theiracademic careers. However, the majority of new faculty enters the professoriatewith little preparation for the roles and responsibilities that they are expected toassume. Mentoring programs for junior faculty are not widespread and there areno consortial or national collaborations in place. Yet, just as universities facilitatestudents’ involvement into the academic life of the university in order to enhanceretention, universities can facilitate the academic integration and career develop-ment of their junior faculty (Boice, 1993; Boyle & Boice, 1998). The Universityof Wisconsin-Madison, for example, recognizes that “high quality mentoring hasa positive effect on climate and is vital to effective recruitment and retentionof faculty. . .” (Draine, Hyde, & Buehlman, 1999, p. 23). Their Women FacultyMentoring Program was created to ameliorate the isolation of women faculty andimprove retention. The advantages of mentoring junior faculty and involving themin their campuses have been demonstrated in a variety of settings. Mentees exhibitimprovements in risk taking, political savvy, research productivity, and profes-sional skills (Boice, 1993; Cameron & Blackburn, 1991; Corcoran & Clark, 1984;Didion et al., 1996; Fagenson, 1989).

Boice (1993) conducted multiple, in depth interviews in his study examiningthe involvement of new faculty in the campus community. He observed that newwomen and minority faculty tended to be less effectively immersed in their cam-puses than their White, male counterparts. Boice concluded that minor, yet pivotal,negative events occur quickly—within the first two or three semesters of employ-ment. These events can result in key decisions that lead to reduced professional

472 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

interactions with colleagues and lowered career aspirations. New faculty whothrive, on the other hand, typically “came to campus with social networks, men-toring, and collaborations already in place” (p. 333). This outcome is consistentwith the perceptions of the PFF alumni described above.

In a study conducted by Sands et al. (1991), over a half of the faculty reportedhaving been mentored in some way when they were graduate students. About20% had mentors when they were undergraduates. Only one-third said that theywere mentored by a faculty colleague once they joined the faculty. In most cases,senior faculty and junior faculty mentoring relationships were mutually negotiated.Respondents estimated spending 1–3 hours per week with their mentoring partner.Few reported having a mentor assigned to them or being mentored in a structuredprogram as a new faculty member. It is assumed that new faculty members donot need the mentoring support they received as graduate students. Boice (1992)also reports that about one-third of new faculty had mentoring relationships thatwere formed naturally or spontaneously. However, these relationships tended tobe irregular and short-lived. When one must rely on a spontaneous or naturalmentoring relationship to develop, women and minorities are less likely to beincluded (Otto, 1994; Wunsch, 1994).

In their study of new teachers, new graduate teaching assistants, and newfaculty, Boyle and Boice (1998) concluded that systematic or structured mentoringworks much better than spontaneous or natural mentoring. Mentoring pairs metmore regularly, met over a longer period of time, and experienced greater programinvolvement than a matched control group of natural mentoring pairs. In addition,they noted that structured programs are more likely to involve people who arenormally left out of the mentoring process. Even though initially junior facultyfeared they would be too busy to participate, both mentors and mentees not onlyreported learning from each other, they indicated that their program group meetingswere an important part of the learning process. As a result of participating inthis mentoring program, junior faculty felt part of the university community andbelieved that their participation would have a positive impact on their academiccareers. The participants developed an effective mentoring network in which theycould easily exchange and adopt ideas and approaches. Boyle and Boice (1998)concluded that in the long run, participants realized that mentoring saved moretime than it costs.

Junior faculty would benefit by participating in a mentoring program (Boyle &Boice, 1998; Deneef, 2002; Draine et al., 1999; Sands et al., 1991). However, sinceuniversity cultures value competitiveness, independence, and autonomy, juniorfaculty may be reluctant to participate in a mentoring program fearing that it wouldbe harmful to their careers if they admitted that they needed “extra help” (Boyle &Boice, 1998). Administrators and senior faculty need to facilitate the integration ofnew faculty into the academic community and to create an environment in which

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 473

mentoring and professional development of junior faculty are valued, fostered,and rewarded. Consortial and national collaborations with the help of professionalsocieties could help provide both the credibility and visibility needed to sustaincampus-based programs over the long term.

Recommendations

The purpose of mentoring, as we have discussed it here, is academic ad-vancement and professional development, helping individuals achieve their fullpotential. However, in order to assure an adequate flow of trained professionals tomeet the projected national need, successful mentoring programs must be imple-mented and scaled. This concluding section describes conditions drawn from theliterature and our experience that we believe are necessary for the developmentand maintenance of successful mentoring programs (Bird et al., 1993; Bowcock,2000; Brainard et al., 1998; Ferren et al., 2002; Foertsch, 1997; Gaff et al., 2000;Girves, 1997, 1999, 2000; Hall & Sandler, 1983; Jacobi, 1991; McHenry, 1997;Sandler, 1992; Sandler et al., 1996; Woolston et al., 1997; Wunsch, 1994; Zachary,2000).

1. Leadership: University leaders, including the president and provost, shoulddiscuss mentoring programs and encourage their development at everylevel.

2. Education: The value of mentoring is not apparent to everyone, especially theneed for mentoring during a student’s or faculty member’s critical first year.The university needs to offer workshops, produce publications, and, otherwise,make information readily available for faculty, staff, and students concerningthe importance of mentoring, how to be a better mentor, what to expect froma mentor, and what university resources are available to support mentoring.

3. Facilitation: An office or group of people with expertise in developing men-toring programs should be identified as a resource and the implementation ofprograms should be facilitated. Such an office could serve as a clearinghousefor best practices around the university and country.

1. Student conferences: Conferences that bring students together to discuss theirresearch and to share their experiences will inspire and raise their expectations,facilitate peer mentoring, accelerate their socialization into the discipline, andreinforce their commitment to complete their degree programs.

5. Gatherings: Opportunities need to be provided for mentors to come together toshare information and for mentoring pairs to come together to learn strategiesfrom one another in a safe environment, one that encourages openness andrespect for diversity.

474 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

6. Genealogy: Mentors should talk about their own mentors and their mentors’mentors, so students and others will understand how they fit (belong) withinthe long history of the discipline.

7. Networking: Mentoring program coordinators should have an opportunity tocome together and share ideas much like the SROP, WISE, and PFF coordi-nators do, so they can create their own mentoring network.

8. Structure: An infrastructure needs to be put in place that enables mentors andmentees to focus their attention on cultivating their relationship and the taskat hand and not on administrative details.

9. Integration: Mentoring programs should be fully integrated into the univer-sity’s larger effort to recruit, retain, and advance all individuals. They need tobe aligned within the university and not viewed as an add-on, or left on themargin.

10. Policy and practice review: Departmental, college, and university policies andpractices should be reviewed to determine whether they support or hinderthe mentoring process. Funding agencies need to include a mentoring com-ponent just as they request an evaluation component to be part of their pro-posals. Progress and final reports should include information on individualsmentored.

11. Support: Support, recognition, and incentives should be provided to individualmentors and to programs. Promotion and tenure documents should includeinformation on students and faculty mentored.

12. Compensation: Mentors must be compensated for their time, especially thosewho mentor faculty or students at other institutions.

13. Assessment: Both formative and summative evaluation are important. Individ-ual programs need to be assessed on a regular basis for continuous improve-ment. (Mentors who are not part of a program should also have an opportunityto have their mentoring assessed.) Participants also need to be tracked in orderto determine the overall effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals.

14. National information and support: A national, searchable, online database ofbest practices should be created that contains a program description togetherwith basic financial information, organizational structure, contacts, and as-sessments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we return to the questions posed at the outset of this article:What are key components of successful mentoring? Which students and juniorfaculty are most likely to engage or be engaged in mentoring relationships? Howcan institutions of higher education support mentoring opportunities to maximize

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 475

benefits more broadly? While few evaluations of mentoring programs or individualmentors have been published, we have identified common factors that characterizeeffective mentoring efforts. Structured programs are necessary in academic settingsto ensure access to mentoring relationships, to provide support and resources thatfoster productive relationships, and to recognize and reward the efforts of thosewho participate in mentoring activities. Consortial and national collaborations havesuccessfully scaled campus efforts to expand and help institutionalize mentoringopportunities on campus.

Mentoring can certainly play an important role in helping us meet the nationalgoal of fully developing all of our human resources. The challenge is to scale ef-fective intervention programs in order to positively impact as many students andjunior faculty as possible and to integrate mentoring efforts into the mainstreamof the university structure and culture as soon as possible. Consortial and nationalprograms have several advantages over single-campus programs that, in combi-nation, can dramatically accelerate the scaling and integration processes. In otherwords, structured mentoring programs that are part of consortial or national initia-tives are more likely to help achieve goals of institutionalizing effective mentoringprograms across campuses expeditiously.

References

Adams, K. A. (2002). What colleges and universities want in new faculty. Washington, DC: Associationof American Colleges and Universities.

Applegate, J. L. (2002). Engaged graduate education: Seeing with new eyes. Washington, DC: Asso-ciation of American Colleges and Universities.

Atkinson, D. R., Neville, H., & Casas, A. (1991). The mentorship of ethnic minorities in professionalpsychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 336–338.

Astin, A. W., Tsui, L., & Avalos, J. (1996). Degree attainment rates at American colleges and uni-versities: Effects of race, gender, and institutional type. Higher Education Research Institute.University of California at Los Angeles.

Bird, S. J., Didion, C. J., Niewohner, E. S., & Fillmore, M. D. (1993). Mentoring means future scientists:A guide for developing mentoring programs based on the AWIS mentoring project. Washington,DC: The Association for Women in Science.

Boice, R. (1992). Lessons learned about mentoring. In M. D. Sorcinelli & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Devel-oping new and junior faculty (pp. 51–61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boice, R. (1993). New faculty involvement for women and minorities. Research in Higher Education,34, 291–340.

Bowcock, D. (2000). CIC WISE initiative: Evaluation of the outcomes. Madison, WI: LEAD Center,University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Bowman, S., Kite, M., Branscombe, N., Williams, S. (1999). Developmental relationships of BlackAmericans in the academy. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilem-mas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 21–46). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate teachingassistants. Innovative Higher Education, 22, 157–179.

Brainard, S. G., Harkus, D. A., & St. George, M. R. (1998). A curriculum for training mentors andmentees: Guide for administrators. Seattle: Women in Engineering Initiative, University ofWashington.

476 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

Busch, J. (1985). Mentoring in graduate schools of education: Mentors’ perceptions. American Edu-cational Research Journal, 22, 257–265.

Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF). (2002). Investing in people: Developing all of America’stalent on campus and in the workplace. Washington, DC: BHEF.

Cameron, S. W., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). Sponsorship and academic career success. Journal ofHigher Education, 52, 369–377.

Committee on Institutional Cooperation. (1998). CIC annual report: July 1, 1997 through June 30,1998. Champaign, IL: Committee on Institutional Cooperation.

Corcoran, M., & Clark, S. M. (1984). Professional socialization and contemporary career attitudes ofthree faculty generations. Research in Higher Education, 20, 131–153.

Crosby, F. J. (1999). The developing literature on developmental relationships. In A. Murrell, F. Crosby,& R. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural orga-nizations (pp. 3–20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Crow, G. M., & Matthews, L. J. (1998). Finding ones’ way: How mentoring can lead to dynamicleadership. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Davidson, M. N., & Foster-Johnson, L. (2001). Mentoring in the preparation of graduate researchersof color. Review of Educational Research, 71, 549–574.

Denecke, D. (2002). Report of the PFF complementarity meeting. CGS Communicator, 35(8), 1–2, 6,7.

Deneef, A. L. (2002). The preparing future faculty program: What difference does it make? Washington,DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Didion, C. J., Fox, M. A., & Jones, M. E. (1996). Cultivating academic careers: AWIS project onacademic climate. Washington, DC: Association for Women in Science.

Draine, B., Hyde, J., & Buehlman, J. (1999). Mentoring for faculty and academic staff—three programsat the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In J. Z. Daniels (Ed.), WISE best practices guidebook—mentoring programs (pp. 23–28). Champaign, IL: Committee on Institutional Cooperation.

Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainmentand the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–308.

Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of proteges. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 10, 309–320.

Fagenson, E. A. (1988). The power of a mentor: Proteges’ and nonproteges’ perceptions of their ownpower in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 13(2), 182–194.

Ferren, A., Gaff, J. G., & Clayton-Pedersen, A. (2002). Will reforms survive? Strategies for sustainingPreparing Future Faculty programs. Liberal Education, Changing Course: Preparing Facultyfor the Future, 88 (3), 14–21.

Foertsch, J. A., Alexander, B. A., & Penberthy, D. L. (1997). Evaluation of the UW-Madison’s summerundergraduate research programs, final report: Integrated analysis of program outcome data,student surveys, and student and mentor interviews. Madison, WI: LEAD Center, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison.

Freeman, K. (1999). No services needed? The case for mentoring high-achieving African Americanstudents. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 15–26.

Gaff, J. G., Pruitt-Logan, A. S., & Weibl, R. A. (2000). Building the faculty we need—colleges anduniversities working together. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Uni-versities.

Girves, J. E. (1997). Catalyst for success: The SROP. Presentation at the IDEA Exchange, Washington,DC, Council of Graduate Schools.

Girves, J. E. (1999). The CIC WISE initiative: The value of a consortium. Proceedings of the 10thAnnual WEPAN Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Girves, J. E. (2000). Student tracking. National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure(NPACI) All Hands Meeting, February, 2000, San Diego, California.

Girves, J. E., & Wemmerus, V. (1988). Developing models of graduate student progress. Journal ofHigher Education, 59, 163–189.

Gonzales-Rodriguez, Y. E. (1995). Mentoring to diversity: A multicultural approach. New Directionsfor Adult and Continuing Education, 66, 69–77.

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 477

Hall, R., & Sandler, B. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women. Washington, DC:Association of American Colleges.

Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1983). Academic mentoring for women students and faculty: A newlook at an old way to get ahead. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges andUniversities.

Haring, M. J. (1999a). The case for a conceptual base for minority mentoring programs. PeabodyJournal of Education, 74, 5–14.

Haring, M. J. (1999b). Foreword from the field. In C. A. Mullen & D. W. Lick (Eds.), New directionsin mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy (pp. xi–xii). New York: Falmer Press.

Haring, M. J. (1997). Networking mentoring as a preferred model for guiding programs for underrep-resented students. In H. T. Frierson, Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in higher education: Vol. 1. Mentoringand diversity in higher education (pp. 63–76). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Haring-Hidore, M. J. (1987). Mentoring as a career enhancement strategy for women. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 66, 147–148.

Harvey, W. B. (2001). Minorities in higher education 2000–2001: Eighteenth annual status report.Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Healy, C. C. (1997). An operational definition of mentoring. In H. T. Frierson, Jr. (Ed.), Diversity inhigher education: Vol. 1. Mentoring and diversity in higher education (pp. 9–22). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Heinrich, K. (1995). Doctoral advisement relationships between women: On friendship and betrayal.Journal of Higher Education, 66, 447–469.

Humphrey, J., Carey, N., & Mansfield, W. (2002). A profile of the Ronald E. McNair postbaccalaureateachievement program: 1999–2000. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review ofEducational Research, 61, 505–532.

Johnsrud, L. K. (1994). Enabling the success of junior faculty women through mentoring. In W. A.Wunsch (Ed.), Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions(pp. 53–63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Keith, B., & Moore, H. (1995). Training sociologists; An assessment of professional and the emergenceof career aspirations. Teaching Sociology, 23, 199–214.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview,IL: Scott, Foresman.

Lee, W. Y. (1999). Striving toward effective retention: The effect of race on mentoring African Americanstudents. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 27–43.

Lick, D. W. (1999). Multiple level comentoring: Moving toward a learning organization. In C. A.Mullen & D. W. Lick (Eds.), New directions in mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy(pp. 202–212). New York: Falmer Press.

McCambley, E. (1999). Testing theory by practice. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.),Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 173–188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McHenry, W. (1997). Mentoring as a tool for increasing minority student participation in science,mathematics, engineering, and technology undergraduate and graduate programs. In H. T.Frierson, Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in higher education: Vol. 1. Mentoring and diversity in highereducation (pp. 115–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Mullen, C. A. (1999). Navigating a new mentoring pathway: The search begins. In C. A. Mullen &D. W. Lick (Eds.), New directions in mentoring: Creating a culture of synergy (pp. 1–8). NewYork: Falmer Press.

National Science Board (NSB). (2002). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: NationalScience Foundation (NSB-02-01).

O’Neill, R. M., Sylvia, H., & Crosby, F. J. (1999). Gender issues in developmental relationships. In A.Murrell, F. Crosby, & R. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships withinmulticultural organizations (pp. 63–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ottinger, C. (1991). College going, persistence, and completion patterns in higher education: Whatdo we know? Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research Improvement. (ERIC: ED 381054).

478 Girves, Zepeda, and Gwathmey

Otto, M. L. (1994). Mentoring: An adult developmental perspective. In W. A. Wunsch (Ed.), Mentoringrevisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions (pp. 15–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender differences in perceived barriers

to gaining a mentor. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 939–951.Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentors functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and

women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Science, 84, 529–549.

Sandler, B. R. (1992). Success and survival strategies for women faculty members. Washington, DC:Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A., & Hall, R. M. (1996). The chilly classroom climate: A guide to improvethe education of women. Washington, DC: Association for Women in Higher Education.

Sands, R. G., Parson, L. A, & Duane, J. (1991). Faculty mentoring faculty in a public university.Journal of Higher Education, 62, 174–193.

Schockett, M. R., & Haring-Hidore, M. J. (1985). Factor analytic support for psychosocial and voca-tional mentoring functions. Psychological Reports, 57, 627–630.

Sharp, L., Kleiner, B., & Frechtling, J. (2000). A description and analysis of best practice findsof programs promoting participation of underrepresented undergraduate students in science,mathematics, engineering, and technology fields. Washington, DC: WESTAT.

Terrell, M. C., & Hassell, R. K. (1994). Mentoring undergraduate minority students: An overview,survey, and model program. In W. A. Wunsch (Ed.), Mentoring revisited: Making an impacton individuals and institutions (pp. 35–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Thayer, P. (May, 2000). “Retention of students from first generation and low income backgrounds,”Opportunity outlook, Washington, DC: Council for Opportunity in Education.

Tillman, L. C. (2001). Mentoring African American faculty in predominantly white institutions.Research in Higher Education, 42, 295–325.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review ofEducational Research, 45, 89–125.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (March, 2001a). Population by race and Hispanic or Latino origin for the UnitedStates: 1990 and 2000; Table 4: Difference in population by race and Hispanic or Latino origin,for the United States: 1990–2000. Retrieved April 30, 2003 from www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t1.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. (March, 2001b). Educational attainment in the United States; Table 1a: Percent ofhigh school and college graduates of the population 15 years and over by age, sex, race, and His-panic origin. Retrieved April 30, 2003 from landview.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/ppl-157.html.

U.S. Department of Education (USDE). (1998). National Center for Education Statistics. First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary educa-tion, NCES 98-082, by A. Nunez and S. Cuccaro-Alamin, Washington, DC.

Wallace, D., Abel, R., & Ropers-Huilman, B. (2000). Clearing a path for success: Deconstructingborders through undergraduate mentoring. Review of Higher Education, 24, 87–102.

Welch, O. (1997). An examination of effective mentoring models in academe. In H. T. Frierson,Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in higher education: Vol. 1. Mentoring and diversity in higher education(pp. 41–62). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Woolston, C., Hrabrowski, F., & Maton, K. (1997). The recruitment and retention of talented AfricanAmericans in science: The role of mentoring. In H. T. Frierson, Jr. (Ed.), Diversity in highereducation: Vol. 1. Mentoring and diversity in higher education (pp. 103–114). Greenwich: JAIPress.

Wunsch, M. A. (1993). Giving structure to experience: Mentoring strategies for women faculty. Initia-tives, 56, 1–10.

Wunsch, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mentoring in a Post-Affirmative Action World 479

Zachary, L. J. (2000). The mentor’s guide—facilitating effective learning relationships. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.

JEAN E. GIRVES obtained her PhD from Ohio State University, where she servedas assistant dean of the graduate school before joining the Committee on In-stitutional Cooperation (CIC) as its associate director. Her institutional researchfocused on the retention and advancement of graduate students. Her administrativeresponsibilities focused on developing, implementing, and monitoring consortialprograms designed to increase the number of underrepresented minority studentsand women in science and engineering, who earn bachelor’s and PhD degrees andwho pursue academic careers. The Presidential Award for Excellence in Science,Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring was given to the CIC for its SummerResearch Opportunities Program (SROP) in 2000. Dr. Girves is the project directorfor the Ohio Science and Engineering Alliance, which is funded under the LouisStokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) program by the NationalScience Foundation.

JUDITH K. GWATHMEY earned her PhD from Ohio State University and herVMD (Veterinary Medical Degree) from the University of Pennsylvania. Her pri-mary research goal is to reverse the effects of heart disease. She maintains a diverselab and has mentored 53 students and junior faculty for which she received the2001 Presidential Award for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineer-ing Mentoring. Dr. Gwathmey is currently CEO of Gwathmey, Inc., a pre-clinicalresearch company offering animal studies and in vitro assays.

YOLANDA ZEPEDA is assistant director of graduate education and diversityat the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). Her professional interestsare recruitment and retention of underrepresented students and the professionaldevelopment of students in graduate education. She has been involved with the CICSROP program for nearly 10 years at Indiana University, Ohio State University,and the CIC office.