1

Introduction

Many participants in the workshops and other events held by the Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have credited relationships with mentors as important to their academic and career development. In further recognition of the importance of mentorship, most, if not all, of these individuals themselves serve as mentors to those who are following in their paths. In addition, many workshop presenters have described mentorship and advising as components of their organizations’ broader pathway programs to increase the numbers of Black and other underrepresented minorities in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine.

As described in a recent consensus report from the National Academies on the science of mentoring, “mentorship refers to a collaborative learning relationship and working alliance based on intentionality, trust, and shared responsibility of the interactions in that relationship and the effectiveness of those interactions” (NASEM, 2019, 4), while “advising typically provides feedback about specific questions” (NASEM, 2019, 38). In fulfilling its mission to identify barriers and opportunities encountered by Black men and Black women in entering and succeeding in science, engineering, and medicine careers, the Roundtable recognizes mentoring and advising as promising practices that would benefit from a closer focus. One of its six action groups is dedicated to the topic.

On December 7 and 8, 2020, this action group of the Roundtable took the lead to convene a virtual workshop that examined how to strengthen

mentoring and advising of Black students and professionals in science, engineering, and medicine (see Box 1-1 for the Statement of Task). Presenters included faculty deans, social scientists who are experts in organizational and professional development, and program implementers. Throughout the workshop, individual presenters highlighted evaluation criteria used by successful pipeline programs, including statistics on recruitment, retention, and advancement; career and leadership accomplishments; and awards and publications. Breakout groups and a series of three mentor-mentee conversations amplified the points expressed during the presentations and discussions. (See Appendix A for the agenda.)

OPENING REMARKS

Cato T. Laurencin, M.D., Ph.D., University of Connecticut and chair of the Roundtable, welcomed the participants to the workshop and introduced John L. Anderson, Ph.D., National Academy of Engineering (NAE), to open the workshop.

As president of the NAE, Dr. Anderson noted that the National Academies have become more proactive in discussion of and action on issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. One example is an NAE committee formed around racial justice and equity in engineering. He noted its creation was driven by NAE members to seek actionable recommendations

not only for the NAE but also in the broader engineering community. He said he and others in the leadership of the National Academies are looking to the Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine for input.

Turning to the topic of the current workshop, Dr. Anderson said he has often served as a mentor or advisor throughout his career. He stressed mentoring is a critical component of career growth, and its importance does not end at graduation, as the workshop agenda recognizes. Considering the origin of the term from Greek mythology (Mentor helped guide the son of Odysseus when the latter went off to fight the Trojan War), Dr. Anderson said, “Mentoring is about building confidence, developing self-esteem, and navigating life. It continues throughout life as mentor or mentee.” From the perspective of a white male, he added, he realizes he has had unfair advantages, which he considers when mentoring individuals from other racial backgrounds.

Dr. Laurencin thanked Dr. Anderson, colleagues on the Roundtable, National Academies staff, and the more than 500 participants who registered for the workshop. He reviewed the Roundtable’s origins and previous work. The Roundtable grew out of a workshop hosted by the National Academies on the absence of Black men in medicine. In 2016–2017, only 273 African American men were enrolled in medical school, out of more than 21,000 students, according to data compiled by the Association of American Medical Colleges. This led to a workshop and influential report An American Crisis: The Growing Absence of Black Men in Medicine and Science: Proceedings of a Joint Workshop (NASEM, 2018b). After release of the report, Dr. Laurencin explained, the Roundtable was launched in 2019 to understand the broader issues impacting Black men and Black women in science, engineering, and medicine, and to create ideas for solutions utilizing the strengths in having Black men and Black women in these fields.

The members of the Roundtable established action groups to share information, engage with key stakeholders, and conduct workshops and other activities for meaningful change. In addition to the mentorship and advising, the other action groups address public engagement, systematic change to avoid psychological barriers, racism and bias, pre-K to graduate education, financing, and, as a later addition, the COVID-19 pandemic.¹

___________________

¹ For the Roundtable’s activities and previous reports, see https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/roundtable-on-black-men-and-black-women-in-science-engineering-andmedicine.

FRAMING COMMENTS FROM THE WORKSHOP CO-CHAIRS

Workshop co-chair Randall C. Morgan, Jr., M.D., M.B.A., Cobb/NMA Health Institute, welcomed participants. He noted that developing the workshop themes and agenda was a group learning exercise that emphasized the need to progress and change the pipeline to lead to more successful and impactful careers in science, engineering, and medicine. He also described how the committee aimed to “conduct a workshop to present old information in a new way and develop new information that will hopefully change the success rate of Black men and Black women as they navigate their careers after they obtain degrees.” Experiences as residents, fellows, and postdoctoral scientists are often dependent on the culture of the institution and leaders they encounter along the way, he noted, which is why it is important to look at individuals, institutions, and systems.

Co-chair Joan Y. Reede, M.D., M.P.H., M.S., M.B.A., Harvard Medical School, added her thanks to action group members, staff, and participants. She noted that the National Academies’ report Breaking Through: The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Science Researchers (NASEM, 2018a) recognized that multiple sectors (e.g., government, education, industry, philanthropy, and accreditation bodies) involving intersecting systems must be engaged to effectively address workforce issues in the sciences. At the organizational level, academic medical centers, research enterprises, and associations are all involved. At the individual level, institutional leaders set policy, control finances, allocate resources, determine strategic directions, and have the ability to hold units and people accountable. In addition, individual actors within organizations serve as advisors, mentors, coaches, sponsors, and gatekeepers. She also took note of individual Black women and men who attempt to traverse what is often a lonely career path in order to transition from one level to another. They seek excellence with a desire to make meaningful contributions while addressing challenging environments hampered by inadequate resources and narrow professional networks. These are the same Black men and women, she added, who are also giving their time and effort in helping others move forward.

Publications from the National Academies including The Impacts of Racism and Bias on Black People Pursuing Careers in Science, Engineering, and Medicine: Proceedings of a Workshop (NASEM, 2020a) and Promising Practices for Addressing the Underrepresentation of Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM, 2020b) document bias, discrimination, and racism and experiences of harassment, marginalization, and microaggressions,

Dr. Reede pointed out. She said this workshop acknowledges the need for a forum to explore further what does and does not work in mentoring. She emphasized that while the need to address the entry and success of Black women and men into medical and graduate studies is clear, only achieving entry and graduation is not adequate. “We must improve the arc of representation at all levels,” Dr. Reede stated. “To use a metaphor, it is important not only to have a seat but also to have a voice at the table, setting the table, determining the agenda, and inviting others to the table. Black men and women are needed in leadership.”

ORGANIZATION OF THIS PROCEEDINGS

This publication summarizes the workshop Mentoring and Advising of Black Students in Science, Engineering, and Medicine. After introductory remarks highlighted in this chapter, Chapter 2 provides a summary of presentations on the current status of Black professionals in science and industry, with a focus on academic medicine and engineering. In Chapter 3, two medical school deans and an engineering college president offered perspectives on the advancement and promotion of Black faculty. Three “dyads” of mentors and mentees shared how their relationships began and have evolved, followed by discussion among them, summarized in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 summarizes a couple of social science perspectives, and four specific programs are presented in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 highlights report-outs from the breakout groups around a series of directed questions, as well as concluding comments by the workshop co-chairs. The workshop agenda and biographical sketches of the presenters can be found in Appendixes A and B, respectively.

In accordance with the policies of the National Academies, workshop participants did not attempt to establish any conclusions or recommendations about needs and future directions. In addition, the planning committee’s role was limited to planning the workshop. This proceedings was prepared by the rapporteurs as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop.

REFERENCES