High Retention of Minority and International Faculty Through a Formal Mentoring Program
Skip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information)
:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Please contact : [email protected] to use this work in a way not covered by the license.
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
Abstract
In these economic times, retention of new faculty, particularly minority and international faculty, is a high priority. In this study, retention of new faculty from 2006 to 2013 was compared for participants and nonparticipants in a formal mentoring program. Retention was 92% for participating faculty and 58% for nonparticipating new faculty. For African American faculty, retention was 86% for participating and 56% for nonparticipating. Participating international faculty were retained at 100% and nonparticipating at 61%. The results indicate that mentoring programs including both individual and group mentoring provide a supportive community and self validation to new faculty, leading to high retention rates.
Keywords: faculty mentoring, faculty retention, minority faculty, international faculty
Diversification of the faculty is a common key component of universities’ strategic planning today. This critical goal requires intentional efforts focused on the retention as well as the recruitment of both minority and international faculty. The majority of institutions responding to a survey from the American Association of University Professors indicated that recruitment and retention are very important to staffing concerns due to increasing numbers of retiring faculty (Conley, 2007). Investigations on retention of new faculty indicate that both minority and international faculty are less likely than White American faculty to stay at their initial university (Cooper & Stevens, 2004; Collins, Slough, & Waxman, 2009; Rosser, 2004). The below quote, obtained from a new minority faculty member who participated in a focus group on our campus before the current study was conducted, gives some insight into why new minority faculty members are more likely to leave their initial university.
I have felt very isolated in my department as the only minority faculty member. I am frequently requested by minority students to provide advising even though I am often not their assigned advisor. In addition, every time my department needs a faculty member for a committee or special task group regarding diversity issues they assume that I will take on these roles. Many days I feel overwhelmed with my workload but the worst part is I feel I have no one to talk to about these concerns.
Paloma (2014) reports that faculty diversity continues to lag behind minority student enrollment. In fact, according to the National Center for Education Statistics in 2011 only 19% of the total full time faculty (tenured and nontenured) in degree earning institutions were of minority ethnicity while in that same year 36.6% were of minority ethnicity (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2014).
In this report, we delineate the methodology and seven year faculty retention outcomes of a formal university mentoring program that combines individual and group mentoring of new faculty at a Historically White University (HWU). The HWU is a public midsize university located in the Southeast. In 2008, our university hired an outside consulting firm to gather information related to retention of faculty. The data obtained through focus groups indicated that isolation was a major contributor to job dissatisfaction for both minority and international faculty, and that all groups wanted an institution wide mentoring program for career support. Although the currently described mentoring program was not specifically initiated in 2008 to address some of the challenges that the HWU was experiencing in regard to the recruitment and retention of minority faculty, these were unexpected positive outcomes from this program.
One of the primary motives behind the starting of formal mentoring programs in the 1970s and 1980s was to have a more culturally diversified faculty at institutions of higher education (Davidson, Vance, & Niemeier, 2001; Tenner, 2004). Nevertheless, there are few studies revealing the efficacy of mentoring on the recruitment and retention of minority faculty. This paucity of studies is even more noteworthy when only 5% of full professors in universities are African American, Native American, or Hispanic while minorities constitute somewhere between 20% and 25% of the student population (UNC Data Dashboard). It is unclear why so little research has looked at international faculty, especially with Finkelstein, Seal, and Shuster (1998) reporting that 26.6% of all new faculty in this country are foreign born, as are 17% of senior faculty. Between 1993 and 2003, U.S. higher education has seen a 96.3% increase in nonresident faculty (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). In addition, there have been more studies regarding the recruitment of minority faculty than the retention of these professionals (Turner & Myers, 2000). The lack of research on this issue is even more surprising in view of the fact that today’s junior faculty are more likely to be older, female, ethnic minorities, or foreign born (Collins et al., 2009).
Although there are some similarities regarding recruitment and retention issues for minority faculty and international faculty, there are also differences. One of the most common challenges for faculty of color is the lack of availability for mentoring from same culture senior faculty members (Moody, 2004; Thompson, 2008). Some studies have found that nonminority mentors are less likely to be accepting, trust worthy, and supportive of these junior faculty (Tillman, 2001). Not surprisingly, women of color are even less likely to have a mentor (Hollenshead, 2001) and when they do, these faculty are more likely to report a type of paternalistic relationship (Christman, 2003). Possibly for these reasons and others, faculty of color are more likely to leave their positions before being tenured than their White colleagues (Creamer, 1995). Other issues reported in the literature that contribute to recruitment and retention challenges of minority faculty include lack of respect for their scholarship (Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; Tillman, 2001), lack of cross cultural training of faculty and staff (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004; Trice, 2004), less psychosocial support (Johnson Bailey & Crevero, 2004; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004), attitudes of administrators and senior faculty that these faculty are less qualified (Yoshinaga Itano, 2006), disrespect and marginalization by students in the classroom (Aguirre, 2000; Bower, 2002), and more time demands to mentor minority students and provide university service (Cooper, 2006; Stanley, 2006; Turner, 2006). Subsequently, faculty of color report much higher occupational stress levels (Ruffin, 1997; Smith & Witt, 1993).
International faculty report more problems with what they describe as the absence of collegiality in the U.S. college setting, resulting in a greater sense of isolation and loneliness (Thomas & Johnson, 2004). Further, some of the cultural differences between these faculty and the host country can be quite different and these differences can cause particular problems in terms of both how they teach students and how they respond to them in the classroom (Kuhn, 1996). International faculty also report having problems similar to minority faculty, with White majority students being less respectful of them and often questioning their qualifications (Howe, 2008). Some of these issues may be due to residual language barriers.
Support for these new faculty may be achieved through formal mentoring programs. Cafarella (1992) defined mentoring as “an intense caring relationship in which persons with more experience work with less experienced persons to promote professional and personal development” (p. 37). Mentoring typically takes place one on one, although many institutions are now using a group mentoring model (Cook, 2005; Cox, 1997 2001; Darwin, 2000; Darwin & Palmer, 2009; Moss, Teshima, & Leszcz, 2008; Phillips, Crane, & Dennison, 2010).
Research on mentoring in higher education has identified many benefits that can address the issues of underrepresented and international faculty members (Nakanishi, 1993; Tillman, 2001). As noted by Stanley and Lincoln (2005), “There is nothing more isolating and alienating than to be the first or only person of one’s race and/or ethnicity to be hired in a department, and a mentoring relationship is one way to escape from that isolation” (p. 46). Mentoring programs have been found to more effectively address the challenges of cross gender and cross racial mentoring (Brinson & Kottler, 1993).
Other benefits include providing a safe setting where faculty can state perspectives that they would not be comfortable sharing in public meetings (Stanley & Lincoln, 2005), combating isolation (Stanley, 2006 2006), promoting a higher level of career development both in terms of teaching and research (Stanley et al. 2003; Tillman, 2001). Group mentoring is more likely to provide same culture mentoring from peers (Zellers, Howard, & Barcie, 2008), enhancing online course development and instruction (Hixon, Barczyk, Buckenmeyer, & Feldman, 2011), and dealing with issues such as challenges from students, devaluation of one’s scholarship, and high demands for university service (Thompson, 2008). Mentoring serves a particularly important need for international faculty to engage in meaningful relationships, as this population often reports high levels of isolation (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004). In addition, mentoring programs can help new faculty assimilate into the culture, mission, and goals of an institution (Mullen & Hutinger, 2008; Otieno, Lutz, & Schoolmaster, 2010). In fact, Aguirre (2000) noted: “Mentoring activities can alter the academic culture’s response to the inclusion of minorities in academe” (p. 80). The combination of these numerous benefits provided by mentoring can make it one of the most effective ways to recruit and retain both minority and international faculty, particularly at predominantly White colleges/universities (Stanley, 2006).
What is missing from the broad range of qualitative reports on the benefits of mentoring is longitudinal data on the effectiveness of mentoring in the retention of those faculty most at risk of leaving the university. In this report, we outline the methodology of a formal university mentoring program that combined individual and group mentoring of new faculty. The primary research question is whether a formal mentoring program improves retention rates for tenure track faculty. Retention rates for the participants of the program will be compared with those for new faculty who did not participate in the program. A second research question is whether a combined approach consisting of individual as well as group mentoring is successful in meeting the needs of minority and international faculty. We will also discuss survey results for participants in light of ways in which benefits of the program were perceived by international and minority faculty.
Methods
Participants
The mentoring program was introduced at this university in 2008. However, new faculty as far back as the 2005–2006 academic year were invited to participate. Recruitment materials were disseminated to new hires through on campus interviews for employment, in the employment packet, and through departmental and search committee chairs. New faculty members who did not participate in their first year were sent personal letters via campus mail.
Each participant filled out an information form, providing information about teaching and research interests. They also indicated areas in which they would like to have advice. These forms gave the participants the opportunity to reflect on where they were and what they needed, and were shared with their mentor to provide background. Signatures from department chairs and deans were also required, to be sure the participant’s time and effort was recognized. At the end of the academic year, all participants completed a survey answering questions about their experience. Use of these data was approved by an Institutional Review Board.
Program Design
All participants met all of the program mentors through a “five minute speed meet” and gave the director a list of top choices for one on one mentoring. Participants were paired with someone outside their home department to provide confidentiality, an important component of the program. These pairs met a minimum of once per month. Mentors received a half day of training, and participants were given an orientation session on what to expect. Mentors met monthly with the director of the program to discuss issues and share ideas and experiences. This also provided a noninvasive means for the director to oversee the smooth running of the program.
Participants were also placed into a peer group with other participants based on time availability. These groups met once a month for one and a half hours and were facilitated by two senior faculty members. Confidentiality agreements were used for all groups. The group facilitators received a half day of training on group facilitation, and met monthly with the program director to discuss the needs of participants arising out of the group sessions. Groups functioned in part as support groups and in part as self help groups. At times a guest speaker on a particular topic was requested. Participants were active in choosing monthly topics for discussion. A sample of common topics included clarity on tenure requirements, creating visibility in the department, workload negotiations, service negotiations, developing a productive writing schedule, dealing with difficult students in the classroom, and teaching online.
An end of year survey was administered to all participants. The open ended survey questions included information on mentor mentee activities and perceived benefits of both individual mentoring and group mentoring. Topics included work life balance, research planning, teaching preparation and evaluation, time management, introduction to campus culture, departmental negotiations and tenure strategies (see Supplementary document).
The program was designed to address two issues important to the success of the program: commitment of the participants and confidentiality of the proceedings. In order to benefit from the program, participants had to be committed to full participation. This was particularly crucial to the development of a bonded and supportive mentoring group. Confidentiality is also a critical factor in the success of the mentoring process, as it allows new faculty members to be honest about their concerns. Mentors came from outside their home departments so that they could talk with someone who would not be voting on their tenure. Both new faculty members and their mentors and group facilitators signed commitment and confidentiality forms.
The second component of the program was to create an environment where new faculty participants left the isolation of their offices and classrooms and connected with other faculty members across campus. The mentors and group facilitators also met monthly, each in their own groups, to share ideas and, at times, to ask for collective wisdom. This resulted in ongoing training for both mentors and group facilitators.
The cost of the program included buyout time for a director; this was seen as essential to the smooth and cohesive running of the program. The director met with the mentors and the group facilitators, made check in phone calls to participants in the first semester, recruited mentees, mentors and group facilitators, and managed end of year evaluation surveys. Other duties included planning and executing opening and closing events, creating mentor mentee matches, setting up groups, and reporting on the program in annual reports and newsletters.
Additional expenses for the first five years of the program included mini grants to provide seed money for research projects ($500 per mentee). Participants wrote one page proposals; examples include funding for research assistants, external training, lab work, digitizing archives, and development of course materials. Some funds were spent creating a comfortable, quiet meeting place for the groups that was not a conference table. These expenses are not seen as essential, but contribute to a sense of commitment.
Analysis
The data used to assess the impact of the mentoring program on retention were drawn from the university’s personnel data file (PDF). This file is drawn on September 30th of each year. These data include demographic and position information. For this study, we examined date of hire, ethnicity, gender, citizenship status, and employment status.
We defined “new faculty hires” as those persons who, for the first time at this institution, were hired into permanent, tenure track faculty positions within a PDF cohort year. The cohort year spans the 12 month period between October 1 and September 30 of the following year. Thus, the 2006 new faculty cohort included all persons hired into permanent, tracked faculty positions between October 1, 2005, and September 30, 2006. In this study, we included cohorts from 2006 to 2012 with the understanding that the cohorts from 2006 and 2007 were mentored during or after 2008.
The PDF also records if and when employees leave the university. For the purposes of this study, we considered faculty as “Not Retained” on and after a particular year if they left the tenure track by either leaving the university, or by moving to some other nontrack position. For example, a member of the 2007 new faculty cohort is considered “Not Retained” in 2010 and thereafter if she left the university in 2010 or moved into a nontracked position in that year.
One difficulty commonly experienced when working with diversity data is the problem of diminishing group sizes for certain uncommon minority groups. The PDF uses the nine Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System ethnic categories to code ethnicity data (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Cross tabulating these nine ethnicity categories by gender would result in a 9×2 matrix of18 cells. Adding the mentored/not mentored factor results in a matrix of 36 cells; adding the retention factor results in 144 cells. Having only 172 faculty in the study to begin with, we had to reduce the number of levels within each demographic factor to a dichotomy. From IPEDS ethnicity we created a “Minority Status” factor where “White” equals “Non Minority” and all other categories equal “Minority.” Likewise, for “Citizenship,” we collapsed the “Resident Alien” and “Non Resident Alien” categories to create a “Citizen/Non Citizen” factor. Even with these changes, we limited this study to the examination of single demographic factors paired with the mentor group factor.
We examined the cell frequencies of single factors by cohort year but interpreted significance tests only when using the entire population of 172 new hires. End of year survey data were analyzed qualitatively using theme categories. Data were analyzed separately for responses regarding individual mentors vs. mentoring groups.
Results
During the years 2006 to 2012, the HWU hired 172 new faculty, of which 59 participated in the mentoring program. Table 1 describes the demographic characteristics of the new hires as well as the rate of participation in the mentoring program. The rate of participation tended to increase with each cohort. Faculty in the 2006 cohort and 2007 cohort had already been in their positions for a time before the Mentoring Program began in 2008. Despite this, the program attracted about 34% of the 2007 new faculty cohort. Although participation rate dropped to about 30% in 2009, it increased to well over 50% by 2011. Hiring dropped off significantly after 2008 due to the faltering economy. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, the participation rate in the mentoring program increased substantially.
Demographic | Percentage Who Were Mentored | ||
---|---|---|---|
Cohort Year | N | n | Percentage |
2006 | 26 | 3 | 11.5 |
2007 | 35 | 12 | 34.5 |
2008 | 37 | 12 | 32.4 |
2009 | 23 | 7 | 30.4 |
2010 | 27 | 12 | 40.7 |
2011 | 23 | 13 | 56.5 |
2012 | 11 | 1 | 1.00 |
Total | 172 | 59 | |
Gender | |||
Female | 103 | 47 | 45.6 |
Male | 69 | 12 | 17.4 |
Citizenship | |||
Citizen | 138 | 46 | 33.3 |
Noncitizen | 34 | 13 | 38.2 |
Minority Status | |||
Nonminority | 111 | 34 | 30.6 |
Minority | 61 | 25 | 41.0 |
Although not specifically targeted to minorities, the mentoring program attracted a larger proportion of females and ethnic minorities. New hires tended to be female (103, or 59.9%) and almost half of those (45.6%) chose to participate in the program. Only 12 (17.4%) of the 69 new male hires participated. Of the 61 new minority hires, 25 (41.0%) chose to participate. The nonminority participation rate was lower at 30.6%. Predictably, there were far fewer noncitizen new hires (34, or 19.8% of all new hires). However, rates of citizen and noncitizen participation in the program were similar (33.3% for citizens and 35.3% for noncitizens).
It is clear that the Program attracted females, minorities, and noncitizens at rates disproportionate to their presence in the group of all new hires. There was no systematic targeting of these groups for inclusion in the mentoring program so it may be that women and minorities self selected into the program.
Retention in 2013 of new faculty hires in all cohorts across the university was 77.3% while retention for those participating in the mentoring program was 91.5%. This was significantly higher than the retention rate for the new hires that were not mentored (69.9%; φ = .245, p = .001). A further breakdown of the mentored/nonmentored group retention rates for the gender, minority status and citizenship factor is shown in Table 2.
Retained | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mentored n | Mentored | Nonmentored N | Nonmentored | Total n | ||
Gender | Female | 47 | 91.5 | 56 | 69.6 | 103 |
Male | 12 | 91.7 | 57 | 70.2 | 69 | |
Citizenship | Citizen | 46 | 89.1 | 92 | 70.7 | 138 |
Noncitizen | 13 | 1.00 | 21 | 66.7 | 34 | |
Minority Status | Nonminority | 34 | 91.2 | 77 | 72.7 | 111 |
Minority | 25 | 92.0 | 36 | 63.9 | 61 |
Particularly notable in Table 2 is the disparity in the attrition rates between the mentored and nonmentored groups. In fact, the attrition rate of the mentored faculty is so low it precludes comparison via significance test (in this case, the phi coefficient). However, it is difficult to dismiss the impression that the attrition rate for the mentored group is decidedly smaller than that of the not mentored group and that the difference is not likely due to chance.
In the end of year survey, respondents reported what they perceived were the benefits of the program. In terms of individual mentoring, the focus of mentoring sessions varied somewhat between pairs that matched along cultural identity lines and those that did not (see Table 3). All three groups were more likely to report spending the largest amount of mentoring time discussing their research plans. African American faculty reported the strongest emphasis on discussions of research. All three groups felt the safe and supportive nature of the mentoring relationship was of most value to them, and this included 100% of the African American participants. African American and international faculty mentees noted the importance of a personal mentor as providing them validation of their skills and ability to achieve tenure.
Variable | Caucasian | African American | International |
---|---|---|---|
Primary Focus of Time | |||
Research | 56 | 83 | 40 |
Teaching | 17 | 0 | 10 |
Service | 0 | 0 | 20 |
Work/life balance | 27 | 17 | 30 |
Value of Mentor1 | |||
Advice on tenure process | 41 | 57 | 0 |
Safe and supportive relationship | 72 | 100 | 45 |
Shared knowledge of university setting | 7 | 14 | 0 |
Provided validation of mentee’s work | 7 | 29 | 55 |
Mentor Assisted with Connections on Campus | |||
Yes | 48 | 43 | 27 |
No | 52 | 57 | 73 |
Reactions to group mentoring sessions also showed some variation based on diversity group, as seen in Table 4. Major benefits noted from across groups included a safe and supportive setting to discuss one’s concerns and creation of a sense of community. Caucasian participants also rated highly the development of supportive relationships. African American participants secondly reported value in brainstorming problem solving ideas in the group. International participants felt that the group provided them with a community. White American mentees were more likely to make suggestions oriented to productivity of time spent (more structure, speakers), while African American and International faculty were content with the mixed focus of the groups on topical issues and supportive discussions.
Variable | Caucasian | African American | International |
---|---|---|---|
Value of Group1 | |||
Developed supportive relationships | 52 | 14 | 18 |
Provided safe place to share | 45 | 43 | 36 |
Learned problem solving ideas from others | 7 | 43 | 9 |
Developed work/life balance | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Provided me with a community | 0 | 0 | 36 |
Realized I am not alone in my challenges | 24 | 29 | 9 |
Suggestions to Improve Group1 | |||
Provide more structure | 38 | 14 | 27 |
Have more speakers as part of agenda | 45 | 0 | 0 |
Provide more communication on upcoming opportunities and resources. | 7 | 0 | 18 |
Cross Discipline Good Mix in Same Group | |||
Yes | 62 | 100 | 55 |
No | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Has benefits and disadvantages | 17 | 0 | 45 |
The sense of a safe and supportive environment was reported for both individual mentoring relationships and group mentoring. Participants were more likely to be mentored on work life balance by their individual mentor, while the cross disciplinary group sessions provided them with connections across campus.
Discussion
This study provides evidence of the efficacy of a two pronged Mentoring Program on the retention of new faculty over a seven year period, with a particularly strong effect for minority and international faculty. Retention data support the hypothesis that a formal mentoring program results in the long term retention of new faculty, and is particularly effective for minority and international faculty. Table 1 shows that nonmentored new faculty tended to leave the HWU before the tenure year, and beginning with the third year. More importantly, a much smaller proportion of the mentored faculty left their positions when compared with the nonmentored faculty.
The efficacy of a formal mentoring program on retention is of particular importance in these economically challenging times for higher education settings since it has been found that recruitment of new faculty to replace those who have left positions is about the same as one year of salary for the individual (Detmar, 2004). An examination of a hypothetical example illustrates the potential cost efficiencies. In a scenario in which 20 new faculty are hired in a given year, and 10 of them participate in a formal mentoring program at a cost of $3,000 per person, costs to the university for the mentored group would be $30,000. The loss of one of these faculty members would incur a further cost of $70,000 for a total of $100,000. For the 10 nonmentored new faculty, three would be lost at a cost of 3 × $70,000, or $210,000.
This is one of the few investigations where the university wide faculty mentoring program involved one on one mentoring combined with a mentoring group. Findings from this study suggest that the combined Mentoring Program had unique benefits for minority and international faculty. Survey results have provided a better understanding of how this combined approach addresses the needs of these new faculty. As indicated in the related literature, most universities/colleges today do not have enough senior level faculty to ensure that new faculty, particularly women and minorities/internationals, can be matched up with a mentor on gender and ethnicity (Thompson, 2008). Our survey results suggest that cross cultural mentoring pairs were still seen as safe and supportive relationships.
Benefits mentioned by individual mentors included a sense of personal validation as well as a safe person to talk with who communicated care about their progress. This suggests that the individual mentoring aspect of the Program addressed the typical issues of isolation and the “imposter syndrome.” New faculty mentees were able to talk freely with a mentor who would not be voting on their tenure. This seemed particularly important to faculty in the diverse groups, who may have found it particularly uncomfortable to seek validation for their work inside their departments.
Our results suggest that new faculty benefit from group mentoring because it provides them a support system, helps them feel more a part of the larger institution community, and provides a safe place to share their struggles with their job demands. These findings validate reports by other investigators (Colon Emeric, Bowlby, & Svetkey, 2012; Carr, Bickel, & Inui, 2003; Paloli, Knight, Dennis, & Frankel, 2002). In addition, the mentees’ evaluation surveys indicated that when they could not be matched up with a mentor of the same gender and/or ethnicity, they were able to get their psychosocial/personal needs met with their mentoring group. Almost all the new faculty participants found that their mentoring group included peers of their same gender and ethnicity. In addition, survey results indicated that the perceived benefits of a supportive community also addressed the tendency for new faculty to become isolated within their departments. New faculty also benefitted from the realization that their concerns were shared by other faculty, as is typical of support groups. These results support the policy recommendations made by Ponjuan, Conley, and Trower (2011) to support new faculty through the development of personal and professional relationships, such as mentoring.
Anecdotally, we can also report that the formal faculty mentoring program appears to be having a positive impact on the entire culture of the HWU, which has been previously reported for other institutions (Aguirre, 2000; Mullen & Hutinger, 2008). For example, next year previous mentees comprise over half of the senior faculty mentors volunteering to serve in the program. Recruitment of mentors has become easier over the years of the program, and just in the past year we have had recently retired faculty members ask if they can somehow be involved in the mentoring program. Other types of mentoring programs have been initiated within subunits of the HWU. Informal reports from mentors indicate that when former mentors and group facilitators serve on university wide committees or in various roles (e.g., Chair of Faculty Senate), they seem to have a better understanding of the needs of junior faculty, and appear to have more ideas on how to ensure their voice is heard in regard to various new initiatives.
Although important findings surfaced from this investigation, there are limitations to this study. Even though the retention of international faculty in this study showed the largest improvement as a result of the mentoring program, meeting with the international faculty mentees in a separate focus group could have provided more insight in terms of their unique needs as new faculty members and what they see as ways the institution can best meet those needs. For similar reasons, having a separate focus group with minority faculty mentees could have provided more insight into their unique needs and ways to meet those needs. This would be particularly helpful for Hispanic faculty members, who participated at lower rates and have the lowest retention rates among new faculty.
We concede that it is possible that participants in the program were “go getters” who take advantage of every opportunity to further their careers, and therefore would have been successful with or without mentoring. However, these faculty members are also more likely to be lured away from the HWU by other institutions. Survey data indicated that faculty in the program felt more connected to the university due to participation in the program, which may account for the tendency to remain there.
Examination of retention/attrition data over a longer period than the seven years is needed to see if this positive correlation continues after faculty are tenured. Our data show that new faculty who left the HWU did so before the tenure year, beginning with year three. Of the four mentored faculty who left, only one left due to a negative tenure decision. The remaining three left to take advantage of offers made by other institutions. Additionally, in view of the economic challenges that higher education institutions face today and the resulting negative impact on faculty morale, more studies on how mentoring can impact the entire culture of the university/college need to be conducted.
This study provides preliminary data on how a faculty mentoring program was effective in retaining diverse faculty members at a midsized research HWU. A combined mentoring approach that includes both individual and group mentoring is shown to meet the needs of both minority and international faculty, and may increase organizational commitment among participants.
References
- Aguirre, A. (2000). Issues facing women and minority faculty. In Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment and retention, and academic culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
- Bower, B. (2002). Campus life for faculty of color: Still strangers after all these years? In C. L. Outcalt (Ed.), New directions for community colleges: No. 18. Community college faculty: Characteristics, practices, and challenges (pp. 75–87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
- Brinson, J., & Kottler, J. (1993). Cross cultural mentorships in counselor education: A strategy for retaining minority faculty. Counselor Education and Supervision, 32(4), 241–253.
- Cafarella, R. (1992). Psychosocial development of women: Linkages of teaching and leadership in adult education (Information Series No. 350) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354386). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
- Carr, P., Bickel, J., & Inui, T. (2003). Taking root in a forest clearing: A resource guide for medical faculty. Boston, MA: Boston University School of Medicine.
- Chapdelaine, R., & Alexitch, I. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 167–184.
- Christman, D. (2003). Women faculty in higher education: Impeded by academe. Advancing Women in Leadership Online Journal, 14.
- Collins, T., Slough, S., & Waxman, H. (2009). Lesson learned about mentoring junior faculty in higher education. Academic Leadership, 7(2), 1–5.
- Colon Emeric, C., Bowlby, L., & Svetkey, L. (2012). Establishing faculty needs and priorities for peer mentoring groups using a nominal group technique. Medical Teacher, 34, 631–634.
- Conley, V. M. (2007). Of incentive plans, health benefits, library privileges and retirement. Academe, 93(3), 20–27.
- Cook, A. (2005). Mentoring circles: Workshop Presentation at Colorado State University. Retrieved May 18, 2013, from http://cfw.utk.edu/mentoring_circles.html
- Cooper, T. (2006). The sista’ network: African American women faculty successfully negotiating the road to tenure. Bolton, MA: Anker.
- Cooper, J., & Stevens, D. (2004). Tenure in the sacred grove. Issues and strategies for women and minority faculty. Albany: State University of New York Press.
- Cox, M. (1997). Long term patterns in a mentoring program for junior faculty: Recommendations for practice. In D. Dezure & M. Kaplan (Eds.), To improve the academy (Vol. 16, pp. 225–268). Stillwater, OK: Forum Press and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
- Cox, M. (2001). Faculty learning communities: Change agents for transforming institutions into learning organizations. To Improve the Academy, 19, 69–93.
- Creamer, E. (1995). The scholarly productivity of women academics. Initiatives, 57(1), 1–9.
- Darwin, A. (2000). Critical reflections on mentoring in work settings. Adult Education Quarterly, 50(3), 197–211.
- Darwin, A., & Palmer, E. (2009). Mentoring circles in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(2), 125–136.
- Davidson, V., Vance, J., & Niemeier, D. (2001). Women in engineering leadership institute: Academic leadership development plans. Paper presented ICWES12: 12th International Conference of Women Engineers and Scientists. Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from http//www.wrac.iastate.edu/ jmvance/htmls/2002Htmls/Pub.02 WomenLead.htm
- Detmar, K. (2004). What we waste when faculty hiring goes wrong. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(17), 86–88.
- Finkelstein, M., Seal, R., & Shuster, J. (1998). New entrants to the full time faculty of higher education institutions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
- Gappa, J., Austin, A., & Trice, A. (2007). Rethinking faculty work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
- Hixon, E., Barczyk, C., Buckenmeyer, J., & Feldman, L. (2011). Mentoring university faculty to become high quality online educators: A program evaluation. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(4).
- Hollenshead, T. (2001). Resisting from the margins: The coping strategies of Black women and other women of color faculty members at a research university. The Journal of Negro Education, 20(3), 166–175.
- Howe, J. (2008). A journey of a thousand miles. New Directions in Higher Education, 143, 73–79.
- Johnson Bailey, J., & Crevero, R. (2004). Mentoring in Black and White: The intricacies of cross cultural mentoring. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12(1), 7–21.
- Kuhn, E. (1996). Cross cultural stumbling blocks for international teachers. College Teaching, 44, 96–99.
- McCauley, C. & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.) (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
- Moody, J. (2004). Faculty diversity: Problems and solutions. New York, NY: Routledge.
- Moss, J., Teshima, J., & Leszcz, M. (2008). Peer group mentoring of junior faculty. Academic Psychiatry, 32(3), 230–235.
- Mullen, C., & Hutinger, J. (2008). At the tipping point? Role of formal faculty mentoring in changing university research cultures. Journal of In Service Education, 34(2), 181–204.
- Nakanishi, D. (1993). Asian Pacific Americans in higher education: Faculty and administrative representation and tenure. In J. Gainen & R. Boice (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 55. Building a diverse faculty (pp. 51–59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
- National Center for Educational Statistics. (2006). Digest of education statistics, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
- National Center for Educational Statistics. (2014). Digest of education statistics, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
- Otieno, T., Lutz, P., & Schoolmaster, F. (2010). Enhancing recruitment, professional development, and socialization of junior faculty through formal mentoring programs. Metropolitan Universities, 21(2), 74–88.
- Paloli, L., Knight, S., Dennis, K., & Frankel, R. (2002). Helping medical school faculty realize their dreams: An innovative, collaborative mentoring program. Academic Medicine, 77(5), 377–384.
- Paloma, A. (2014). Why teaching faculty diversity (still) matters. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(3), 336–346.
- Phillips, S., Crane, P., & Dennison, S. (2010). Establishing a new faculty mentoring program: Proposal development. Journal of Centers for Teaching & Learning, 2, 37–51.
- Ponjuan, L., Conley, V. M., & Trower, C. (2011). Career stage differences in pre tenure track faculty perception of professional and personal relationships with colleagues. Journal of Higher Education, 82(3), 319–346.
- Rosser, V. (2004). Faculty members’ intention to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285–309.
- Ruffin, P. (1997). The fall of the house of tenure. Black Issues in Higher Education, 14(17), 18–26.
- Smith, E., & Witt, S. (1993). A comparative study of occupational stress among African American and white university faculty: A research note. Research in Higher Education, 34(2), 229–241.
- Stanley, C. A. (2006a). Coloring the academic landscape: Faculty of color breaking the silence in predominantly White colleges and universities. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 701–736.
- Stanley, C. A. (2006b). Summary and key recommendations for the recruitment and retention of faculty of color. In C. Stanley (Ed.), Faculty of color: Teaching in predominantly White colleges and universities. Bolton, MA: Anker.
- Stanley, C., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Cross race faculty mentoring. Change, 37(2), 44–50.
- Tenner, E. (2004). The pitfalls of academic mentorships. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(49), 87.
- Thomas, J. M., & Johnson, B. J. (2004). Perspectives of international faculty members: Their experiences and stories. Education & Society, 22(3), 47–64.
- Thompson, C. (2008). Recruitment, retention, and mentoring faculty of color: The chronicle continues. New Directions for Higher Education, 143, 47–54.
- Tillman, L. (2001). Mentoring African American faculty in predominantly White institutions. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 295–325.
- Trice, A. (2004). Mixing it up: International graduate students’ social interactions with American students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 671–687.
- Turner, C. (2006). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 74–93.
- Turner, C., & Myers, S. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/definitions.asp
- University of North Carolina. (2015). UNC Data Dashboard. Retrieved from https://www.northcarolina.edu/content/unc data dashboard
- Yoshinaga Itano, C. (2006). Institutional barriers and myths to recruitment and retention of faculty of color: An administrator’s perspective. In C. Stanley (Ed.), Faculty of color: Teaching in predominantly White colleges and universities. Bolton, MA: Anker.
- Zellers, D., Howard, V., & Barcie, M. (2008). Faculty mentoring programs: Reenvisioning rather than reinventing the wheel. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 552–588.