Table 3.

Challenges or facilitators of mentoring that were unique to each region

Workshop	Unique issues
Lima, Peru, Workshop May 2013	Expectations of funding agencies and research community to conduct business in English, not Spanish or Portuguese
	Reduced opportunities for researchers from indigenous communities (e.g. those from Quechua community in Peru vs. those from mestizo (“mixed race”) Peruvian community or of direct Spanish descent). As one Peruvian mentor expressed “Disparity is a relevant and important challenge in the Peruvian context. I literally know only three indigenous doctors”
	Failure of institutions to directly address the unconscious bias toward researchers from indigenous communities
	Issues of economic diversity are also important. As one mentor from Argentina expressed “Universities opening in poor areas may mean students may be the first person in their family to go to college. The important thing is for them to have a role model”
	Time difference between Latin America and the United States worked in faculty mentors’ favor, e.g. decisions could be made in real-time via email or phone call over the day
	The nomenclature of the word “mentor” was discussed at length with one investigator from Mexico stating “There is no word for mentor in Spanish”
	Mentorship should be defined—with all its varied and holistic facets—using terms in Spanish
	Government control over academic institutions means the government should be involved in changing the culture of mentoring and bringing mentoring as a focus to academia. As one investigator from Panama expressed, “in my country.. changes have depended on outside forces, by the Ministry of Science and Technology, for example. Perhaps to effect change in universities, we need to work with governmental governing bodies.”
	The importance of family and the interest of mentors in the mentee’s family life was raised in the life–work balance session with one participant stating “your career is nothing without family and we talk about that with our mentees”
Mombasa, Kenya, Workshop June 2013	“North–South issues” when grants or projects involve collaborations between Africa-based investigators and United States– or Europe-based investigators as delineated in the following text
	Collaborations not balanced. Investigators in the North make all the important decisions regarding funding and aims of the project
	Populations of interest to North-based global health researchers (e.g. those at risk for or living with HIV; individuals with malaria or TB) are in Africa, but the inclusion of Africa-based investigators on the project is perceived as “lip service” only from North-based investigators (e.g. to gain access to the populations of interest)
	Time difference was major detriment to the North–South collaborations. As one Africa-based investigator expressed “I wake up in the morning and my collaborators have all made important decisions over email in the middle of the night my time. How is that collaborative?”
	The post-colonial legacy in East African countries represented at the workshop contributed to this disparity in decision-making power and control of the research project’s trajectory. Specifically, Africa-based investigators stated that “we were told we were inferior to white people”. This internalized perception may influence interactions with North-based investigators in terms of acquiescence and giving their collaborators’ opinions more weight
	Mentees from the North can be given more time than locally based mentees, taking away from the time needed to build up local research capacity
	Similarly, visitors from the North on the investigative team are given prominence during their visit (e.g. in meeting with institutional leadership), even when they are more junior in academic rank. As expressed in one quote, “How come an Assistant Professor from xx University in the U.S. is given more time with the Dean than I have had in the last 20 years?”
	Salaries funded from grants from the NIH or Europe-based agencies for Africa-based faculty are much lower in absolute U.S. dollars than salaries funded in the North and should be higher
	African country investments in research were seen as important: “If the grant money comes from the U.S. and not from Kenya, the people from the U.S. get to dictate the terms”
	“Paternalism,” hierarchy, and respect for elders were also seen as barriers for honest, open mentor–mentee relationships. As one mentor expressed, “Where the mentor is considered the sun and should be worshipped.. mentees must be unassertive and worship”
	An emphasis on propriety rather than openness can lead to “authority and value being given to a bad mentor instead of telling him the truth”
Bangalore, India, workshop November 2014	Issues of hierarchy were predominant in the discussions at the South Asia–based workshop regarding the mentee–mentor relationship
	A mentee-driven process, as encouraged by the didactic presentations, was seen as difficult in the South Asia context as mentees are supposed to defer to their professors’ needs and opinions
	The nomenclature of “supervisor” vs. “mentor” was discussed at length in this workshop because supervisors for a mentee’s research project are often assigned by the institution without consideration of the potential for true mentorship (e.g. aiding in the mentee’s success; taking the mentee’s research interests into account; aiding in the visibility of the mentee by introducing her/him to collaborators in the field; taking an interest in the mentee’s life–work balance
	True bidirectional feedback in the context of a hierarchical system is not usually encouraged. As expressed by one mentor from Bangladesh, “I don’t think my mentee would ever really tell me if he was unhappy with my mentoring”
	Issues of caste and economic class also raised as barriers to mentoring and barriers to the success of early-stage investigators from lower economic strata
	Unconscious bias toward investigators from traditionally lower castes is not often addressed in the South Asia setting
	Post-colonial legacy can lead to deference to North-based investigators, although this point was not raised as frequently as in the Kenya-based workshop
	Gender dynamics raised frequently with female investigators citing bias toward them when they start a family with the automatic assumption that they will no longer work as productively. As expressed by a senior female investigator in Bangalore, “As soon as I had my first child, my colleagues were asking me if I was going to take more time off or ask for a leave”
Johannesburg, South Africa, workshop March 2016	Issues of the post-apartheid legacy and its continued effects were predominant in the discussions regarding mentoring and mentoring effectiveness in South Africa
	Deans, department chairs, and section heads in South Africa–based institutions tend to be White
	It is more difficult for Black investigators (or those of mixed race or Indian descent) to rise in academic rank
	Issues of race, disparity, and both conscious and unconscious bias affect both faculty morale and the mentor–mentee interaction. As expressed by one faculty mentor from the Xhosa ethnic group in South Africa, “I cannot even get my Dean to pronounce my name properly, let alone recognize me for promotion”
	Although unconscious bias may be addressed and talked about in the South African context, those discussions do not always lead to changes in the biased nature of the system
	Zimbabwe-based investigators expressed that the expulsion of Whites under the former Mugabe administration was detrimental to the academic enterprise and to long-standing collaborations, although admittedly that bias in academia had also led to Whites being granted positions of leadership
	Resources were more available for mentoring training and structured mentoring programs in South Africa, but needed to be harnessed for greater efficacy
	Gender dynamics were discussed in the context of senior male faculty members having impunity from “power imbalances with female mentees”

NIH = National Institutes of Health.