Guiding Principles for Culturally Responsive Facilitation: Lessons Learned from Delivering Culturally Aware Mentor Training to STEMM Faculty

Abstract

Diversifying the academic workforce requires equitable and inclusive training environments. Essential to achieving this goal is understanding the relevance of racial and cultural identities in our interactions, and a willingness and ability to engage in frank discussions about race and racism. Grounded in reflective practice, somatic abolitionism, and social justice education theory, this practice brief articulates six guiding principles for culturally responsive facilitation within diversity, equity, and inclusion workshops for adult learners. We use our collective experience implementing a mentorship education intervention, Culturally Aware Mentoring, with faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine to illustrate these principles.

Reform demands in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests amplified calls for more commitment to learning about racism and increasing courageous conversations on cultural diversity topics (Acosta & Ackerman-Barger, 2017; Asai, 2020; Colón Ramos & Quiñones-Hinojosa, 2016). Consequently, many workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training programs are being offered or required. Most DEI training programs, however, are not evidence-based and are often focused on bias reduction (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Ely & Thomas, 2020; Moss-Racusin et al., 2014). While useful, such programs are insufficient to reveal deep seated beliefs and practices driving behavior. Moreover, many rely on lecturing, despite evidence that process-based interventions that engage participants through active learning techniques and reflective practice, along with didactic content, are more efficacious in increasing the personal insights and self-confidence needed to enact behavioral change (Jacobson & Ruddy, 2015; Onyeador et al., 2021). Thus, it is essential to better understand the preparation and skills that facilitators need to deliver DEI education.

In this brief, we articulate guiding principles for culturally responsive facilitation (CRF) within DEI workshops for adult learners. We describe theoretical frameworks that inform our rationale for these principles and then apply them to one example of a mentorship education intervention, a workshop called Culturally Aware Mentoring (CAM) (Byars-Winston et al., 2018; Womack et al., 2020). We assert that when these principles are applied, we are more likely to enhance the effective delivery of DEI education. Here we share insights learned from facilitation of mentorship education that addresses race and racism in the United States (US) with faculty in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) disciplines.

Many in the STEMM community have noted that science has a racism problem and urged people to combat this systemic racism within these fields (Cell Editorial Team, 2020; Barber et al., 2020). STEMM faculty generally have a “culture of silence about culture in science” (Byars-Winston et al., 2020), owing to many factors, including presumed objectivity in these fields and a general adherence to color/culture-evasive ideology (McGee, 2020; Prunuske et al., 2013; Rodriguez et al., 2021). Yet, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM, 2019) report, The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM, found evidence that mentors’ cultural responsiveness–recognizing and responding to cultural identities in themselves and in their mentees–contributes to mentorship effectiveness. Because faculty mentors are a major determinant in trainees’ success (Laursen et al., 2010; NASEM, 2018), mentorship education that equips faculty to be culturally responsive is a critical strategy for building equitable and inclusive STEMM research training environments. It is thus important for DEI interventions to be tailored for STEMM faculty (Moss-Racusin et al. 2014). We argue that such interventions are needed to develop culturally responsive mentorship practices of faculty mentors who, in turn, will better facilitate the success of mentees in STEMM.

Theoretical Foundation

Our approach to CRF is informed by several theories. First, we referenced reflective practice research which includes three key components: reflection in action (analysis of what is being done), reflection on action (analysis of a past situation), and reflection for action (new learnings applied to future actions) (Schon, 1986 as cited in Steinert, 2010). These three components engender the critical analysis, self-awareness, and collective peer community necessary for participants to articulate and strategize transformative individual behaviors for cultivating equitable and inclusive academic environments. Second, we referenced Menakem’s (2017) concept of somatic abolitionism that emphasizes healing racialized trauma through embodying anti-racist action and culture building. Third, we drew upon tenets of facilitating social justice education (Landreman & MacDonald-Dennis, 2013). Fundamental to this theory is a rejection of the notion that education is a values-neutral process. Taken together, these three theories highlight the need for learning through critical reflection on one’s practice, re-engaging the emotions and experiences in one’s body relative to race, and critical examination of social processes that inform working relationships.

Lived Experiences and Emergence of CRF Principles

The CRF principles were informed by the collective lived experiences of facilitators¹ implementing the CAM workshop as part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) supported by the NIH National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) (#U01 GM132372).² CAM is a process-based mentorship education curriculum for STEMM faculty, centered on race and ethnicity in the US (Byars-Winston et al., 2018). Facilitators’ experience with mentorship education curricula, DEI scholarship, and with each other matters (Landreman et al., 2008; Williams & Brigham, 2013). All CAM facilitators are scientists (life and social science disciplines) themselves and are able to draw on their lived experiences with STEMM training environments. Prior to the CAM project, they were involved in DEI issues within STEMM at their local institutions and nationally, were all part of the NRMN Master Facilitators Initiative (House et al., 2020), and were intimately involved in providing insight and feedback throughout the CAM development process. Thus they have a deep-seated knowledge of the curriculum and have had years to build mutual rapport and trust. This provided a strong foundation on which the facilitator training and preparation for CAM was built, as well as a space to collectively discuss how workshop logistics and structure could improve effectiveness. We list our considerations for facilitator preparation, facilitator composition and CAM workshop logistics in Table 1.

Table 1.

CAM Facilitator Preparation, Facilitator Composition, and Workshop Logistics

Facilitator Preparation
Pre-Trial	All CAM facilitators were part of the NRMN Master Facilitator Initiative (2015-2019). Engagement in this community of practice entailed annual in-person retreats and co-facilitation of mentorship education among members. It also included a CAM facilitator training, early CAM implementations with biomedical scientists, and revision of CAM curriculum.
Trial	Preparation for CAM RCT (Nov 2019-Oct 2020) included both an in-person training and additional virtual workshops to prepare for online implementation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Facilitators also beta-tested and reviewed a new version of the CAM curriculum being assessed in the trial.
Facilitator Composition and Workshop Logistics
Number of Facilitators	At least two facilitators are needed to take turns leading and observing, and to share the psychological and emotional weight of facilitating culturally salient workshop content.
Facilitator Sociocultural Identities	We have intentionally paired facilitators who represent different racial identities, though in cases when this was not possible we have highlighted other dimensions of difference between them (e.g., ethnicity). It can also be beneficial to pair facilitators along other sociocultural identities such as gender, age, discipline, or national origin.
Number of Participants	We find it helpful to have 15-25 participants in a CAM workshop in order to bring a range of diverse participant perspectives into discussions while still providing space for their voices to be shared.
Space	In-person workshops are always done in a room with multiple tables that facilitate small group discussion (4-5 mentors/table). Virtual workshops utilized a video conferencing platform that allowed all participants to be viewed at once, and included functions for small group breakouts, polls, and chat.

We have found that preparation for DEI training is better done in a community of practice in which facilitators are able to learn each other’s facilitation style, gain professional practice and feedback, and share facilitation resources and techniques. Being able to draw on the collective knowledge of facilitator peers is key to facilitator effectiveness and integral to CRF. For our group, this engagement has included quarterly “huddles” to review emergent issues from CAM implementations and address the impact of current events (e.g., George Floyd’s murder trial) on the training. One result of these huddles was the inclusion of a third ‘support facilitator’ during CAM workshops after they were converted to an online format due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This person does not lead discussions but monitors participant engagement and communicates observations privately to facilitators in real-time, as well as holding confidential discussions with any struggling participants.

Culturally Responsive Facilitation Principles of Practice

Similar to the definition of culturally responsive mentoring (Byars-Winston et al., 2018), we define CRF as guided practices to support learning enacted through a lens of cultural diversity and equity that is grounded in the sociohistorical context of race in the US. Our approach to CRF hones in on institutionalized racism (Jones, 2000), commonly referred to as systemic racism, which is defined as “the complex array of recurring exploitative, discriminatory, and other oppressive white practices targeting Americans of color,” as well as social resource inequalities along racial lines that are manifested in all aspects of society (Feagin, 2013, p. ix).

We posit that CRF requires knowledge of a racial contextual framework (see Feagin, 2013), self-reflection, cultural humility, intentionality, and a willingness to embrace intrapersonal and interpersonal discomfort as a vehicle for professional growth (Dugas et al., 2019; Heifetz et al., 2009; Hook et al., 2013). Because of the vulnerability involved in reflecting on and uncovering one’s own “cognitive, affective, and habitual patterns linked to dominant ideologies and hegemonic forces” (Robinson, 2021, p. 641), culturally responsive facilitators must be able to regulate their own emotions about Whiteness and White racial framing while helping participants navigate the emotional labor that comes with self-reflection, and then facilitate the transformation of new insights into behavioral change.

Below we outline six principles of CRF practice that we have collectively generated (Table 2). Fundamental to these principles is that facilitators are themselves cultural beings operating within a cultural context and that human growth is based on gaining personal insight (Kahneman, 2011; Siegal, 2010). Understanding one’s own cultural context, including insight into oneself and the world relative to race and ethnicity, is key. CRF principles, predicated on intrapersonal and interpersonal reflection for facilitator and participant alike, contribute to participants’ understanding of their cultural contexts and, thereby, increase their personal insights. We selected a few examples from our own experiences and lessons learned from implementing CAM workshops to illustrate how these principles may be enacted.

Table 2.

Culturally Responsive Facilitation Principles of Practice

1. Educate yourself about the history and ongoing impact of systemic racism in the US and in the local context.

2. Decenter white cultural norms in workshop implementation and structure.

3. Examine the formation of your own worldview and biases and understand the implications of your social identities.

4. Engage in practices to promote somatic awareness so that you can be fully present, reduce bias, practice active listening, and hold space.

5. Embody the attitudes and behaviors you wish to engender among participants.

6. Cultivate an environment of productive discomfort.

I. Educate yourself about the history and ongoing impact of systemic racism in the US and in the local context.

As culturally responsive facilitators, you need a foundational understanding of, and adherence to, a practice for continuous learning about the history, functions, and impact of systemic racism in the US (Freire, 1996; Katz, 1985; Kendi, 2016; McGee, 2020; Okun, 1999; Schooley et al., 2019, whitesupremacyculture.info). This continuous learning helps facilitators recognize and work with participants’ racial frames, that is, their racialized worldview, ideologies, emotions, and reactions that shape how they understand themselves and relate to others.

As CAM facilitators, we have committed to an ongoing process of learning to raise our own consciousness about the impacts of systemic racism. This process includes staying abreast of current events that may impact participants, such as the ongoing murders of minoritized Americans by police. In addition, as a part of the preparation for each CAM workshop, we have developed the practice of seeking out information about each academic setting, or local culture, including power dynamics, programmatic initiatives, or incidents of racism that may impact participants.

II. Decenter white cultural norms in workshop implementation and structure.

Addressing racism necessitates engaging in thorny topics like whiteness and its unconscious accepted normality as a social mechanism that privileges and values the lives, practices, and beliefs of white-identified people over others (Cabrera et al., 2016; Schooley et al., 2019). Whiteness as an ideology leads to a white racial frame, which is the dominant worldview in the US that has a positive orientation toward white cultural values such as: avoidance of conflict and uncomfortable emotions; hierarchical decision-making; adherence to rigid time schedules; and binary (either/or) thinking (Katz, 1985; Okun, 1999).

The historical and ongoing impact of multiple levels of racism (institutionalized, personally-mediated, internalized) (Jones, 2000) on the doing of science, science education, and metrics for scientific success is not generally a part of scientists’ training (Cell editors, 2020), nor is acknowledgement of the white racial frame that dominates STEMM fields (McGee, 2020). Thus, CAM facilitators delivering mentorship education to increase cultural responsiveness must be alert and nimble to challenging participants in a manner that promotes their self-reflection and dialogue about the salience of racial ideologies and cultural values in STEMM education and mentoring practices. Further, the CAM curriculum intentionally interrupts white-dominant framing in subtle ways. For example, we made intentional decisions to slow the pace of workshop activities to make time for human connection, which is counter to the depersonalization and detachment commonly emphasized in STEMM disciplines. We also counter the ‘right to comfort’ by inviting participants to commit to brave sharing and to regard discomfort as an opportunity for growth (Arao & Clemens, 2013). Further, we counter the norms of either/or dualistic thinking by emphasizing that we are all complex beings whose worldviews are culturally informed and invite participants to question their assumptions made about others.

III. Examine the formation of your own worldview and biases and understand the implications of your social identities.

Critically examine the formation of your personal narrative and worldview to better understand where your biases and blind spots may be (Maxwell et al., 2011a). Further consider your strengths and vulnerabilities to better take responsibility for and manage your reactions to participant questions and pushback (Love, 2000). For facilitators identified as white and people of color (POC) alike, this includes confronting and interrogating Whiteness and White-dominant culture, and their impact on the construction of your racial identity (Carter & Helms 1990; Ropers-Huilman, 2013). You should cultivate cultural humility and be mindful of our own egos’ desire to please, impress, and virtue-signal at the expense of connection to participants. Contemplate what aspects of your personal story you may share with participants and vet these stories with co-facilitators as a way of gauging how they may be received by workshop participants (Obear, 2017). For example, in CAM we lead a “culture box” activity where we model what participants have been asked to do - prepare and share items that symbolize their identity, including one that represents their racial identity (McGee et al., 2021). Prior to leading this activity with participants, facilitators collectively shared their culture box items with each other to discuss how their stories might be perceived and how they might facilitate vulnerability and openness for participants. White identified CAM facilitators have worked to set the tone by elucidating and interrogating whiteness and making its relationship to privilege transparent; likewise, POC identified facilitators may share how their socialization into the dominant white racial frame has influenced their worldview. Finally, you must be cognizant of your own identity differences and experiences with privilege and oppression and of how your social identities shape how participants respond to what you say and do (Hook et al., 2013; Maxwell et al., 2011a; Yeakley, 2011). With CAM, we strategically leveraged facilitators’ identities and positionality to set tone and enhance curricular content. Each workshop is led by two facilitators, one racialized as white and one racialized as a POC. Strategic decisions were made on who should lead what content and when, so as to best support learning and growth. For example, POC facilitators always lead the opening of the workshop as a way of countering norms of white leadership. Similarly, white facilitators lead content about racial profiling and challenging the color-evasive approach to model that such issues and perspectives are relevant and supported by those in the US racial majority. Whatever the racial and gender make-up of co-facilitators, critical attention must be paid to participants’ unconscious assumptions and expectations about the facilitators and the impact of those assumptions and expectations on their response to the facilitation and workshop content.

IV. Engage in practices to promote somatic awareness so that you can be fully present, reduce bias, practice active listening, and hold space.

Good facilitation involves mindful presence and active listening so that you can become attuned to participants’ emotional tenor and better understand what is being communicated. This involves listening with both the body (physical reactions) and mind (thoughts) (brown, 2021; Jacobson & Ruddy, 2015; Magee, 2019; Menakem, 2017), though as academics we often divorce the two and neglect the body (Sue, 2015). Somatic practice is essential to examining and healing racialized trauma within your body and overcoming the dissociation related to that trauma, regardless of your racial identity (brown, 2021; Menakem, 2017). Thus, when you are personally triggered or ‘activated’ by dynamics or comments while facilitating a workshop, somatic awareness can allow you to resist the fight, freeze, or flee impulse, and to remain verbally and energetically calm, to respond rather than react. This allows the potential to use the moment to go deeper with participants. Slowing down and calming the mind and body also reduces implicit bias by weakening automatically activated associations engrained by our cultural and racial frames (Kahneman, 2011; Lueke & Gibson, 2015). In this way, facilitators are able to “hold space,” or as brown calls it, “hold change” for participants, which is to “hold both the people in, and the dynamic energy of the room” in a nonjudgmental way that affords grace and promotes growth and understanding (brown 2021:7). This practice can help build resilience in participants, or as Menakem defines it, a “flow” that “moves through the body and between multiple bodies when they are harmonized” (2017, p. 51).

Kinesthetic and brief mindfulness practices have long been incorporated into the training of CAM facilitators, and they have developed their own rituals to prepare for facilitation, as well as grounding exercises following the workshop. These include meditation, breathing practices, walking, dancing, body scans, consuming comforting foods or drinks, visualization, and making adjustments to their physical working environment (e.g., placing comforting pictures near one’s computer when facilitating virtually).

V. Embody the attitudes and behaviors you wish to engender among participants.

It is important to embody the principles you are attempting to engender; practice what you preach (brown, 2021; Bussard & Lawrence, 2019; Cruess et al., 2008, Yeakley, 2011). You can model openness, curiosity, and inclusivity by drawing out a range of perspectives, and prioritizing the value and inclusion of marginalized voices while respectfully engaging with resistance and divergent views. You can also show emotion and validate the emotions of participants; you may need to be available after the workshop to follow up on any participant concerns or reactions to workshop content. It is important to be authentic and model cultural humility and personal growth by utilizing strategic self-disclosure to illustrate examples of our own learning, mistakes, and biases, showing how change is accessible (Obear, 2013). As much as possible you should come as a complex human being, flaws and all, demonstrating vulnerability and a growth mindset. For example, one facilitator accidentally referred to the Hindu festival of Holi as a Muslim tradition. Once realized, it provided an opportunity during the session for the facilitator to practice humility and acknowledge the mistake, noting how easily our implicit biases may manifest. By creating a space where all participants are encouraged to speak, listen, and learn, and are not penalized for making mistakes, the culture of silence around issues of race/ethnicity and racism in STEMM can begin to be dismantled (Magee, 2019).

VI. Cultivate an environment of productive discomfort.

Work to cultivate an environment that challenges participants in a way that supports learning and personal growth (Anzaldúa & Keating, 2002; Arao & Clemens, 2013; Heifetz et al., 2009). That includes engaging participants’ cognition and affect–mind, heart, and body–while reading the room to gauge their verbal and nonverbal responses as indicators of how participants may be receiving challenging content. Providing “emotionally challenging experiences” helps participants access their subconscious, where bias often lives (Maxwell et al., 2011b:45). This provides space for participants to reconnect to their authentic selves, a practice that may be applied to their mentoring relationships. You should be cued in to give the work of problem-solving and conflict resolution back to participants by encouraging them to clarify and explore their ideas, especially their attitudes and behaviors that may be culturally ineffective (Heifetz et al., 2009). It often becomes necessary to redirect participants back to race when they shift to discussing other topics like gender or international differences. You must further be prepared to identify, name, and even tug on racial dynamics as they arise, and provide a counter narrative to ill-informed assertions when others fail to do so. For example, the claim that “science is colorblind” can be countered by research that shows that this ideology actually increases bias (e.g., Macrae et al., 1994). White identified facilitators should be especially mindful of speaking up and not relying on people of color to carry this burden (Campbell & Rodríguez, 2019).

CAM includes a number of activities that are challenging for some STEMM faculty, including asking them to share information about their background and racial identity, discussing an incident of police racial profiling on campus, and a role playing exercise. The latter, in which participants act out a conversation between a mentor and an African American mentee, is both challenging and effective as a means of enhancing mentors’ skills to broach racially salient interactions (Byars-Winston et al., 2018, Hou, 2012; Chen, Muthitacharoen, & Frolick, 2003). In general, you must gauge the ‘temperature of the room’ and know when to ‘turn up the heat’ by forcing elaboration and reflection to help participants gain confidence in discussing challenging topics (Heifetz et al., 2009), a practice we hope translates to their ability to broach such topics with their mentees.

Conclusion

Effective facilitation of diversity-focused interventions is key to advancing equity and inclusion needs in academia. Grounded in theory and our own experience, we propose guiding principles for culturally responsive facilitation to help fill the gap in understanding how such interventions can be effectively implemented. Underlying these principles is the understanding that it is critical to give this work the time and space needed for both facilitators and participants to unlearn the deeply entrenched norms of White-dominant culture and replace them with new practices that support cultural responsiveness. We acknowledge that our proposed CRF principles, grounded in our field experiences, are an initial step in a larger body of work. Research is needed to gauge a more nuanced understanding of how our CRF approach and other DEI facilitation approaches are effective for a range of facilitators and participants. We hope that this practice brief will catalyze more discussion on how to effectively train facilitators and implement facilitation with the eventual aim of creating more equitable and inclusive academic environments.