Female mentors positively contribute to undergraduate STEM research experiences

Saili Moghe; Katelyn Baumgart; Julie J Shaffer; Kimberly A Carlson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260646

. 2021 Dec 2;16(12):e0260646. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260646

Female mentors positively contribute to undergraduate STEM research experiences

Saili Moghe ^1,^*, Katelyn Baumgart ¹, Julie J Shaffer ¹, Kimberly A Carlson ¹

Editor: Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso²

PMCID: PMC8638905 PMID: 34855824

Abstract

The positive influence of undergraduate research and mentoring on student success in STEM fields has been well-established. However, the role that the gender of a research mentor may play in the undergraduate research experience warrants further investigation. This is an especially critical issue to address, since the lack of female role models in STEM fields is acknowledged as an impediment to the success and progress of women pursuing STEM-careers. To evaluate how the gender of undergraduate research mentors influences the research experience of students, we collected and analyzed surveys from undergraduates and alumni who had completed undergraduate research at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. We found that even though students did not select mentors based on gender, there were differences in how students perceived their mentors, depending on the gender of their mentors. Interestingly, students with female mentors were more likely than students with male mentors to report that their research experience had prepared them for a career in science. Further, our gender-pairing analyses revealed that students who expressed that the gender of their mentor had contributed to their relationship with their mentor were more likely to have a female mentor. Our data indicate that female mentors favorably influence the undergraduate research experience of both male and female students. Finally, our study reinforces the conclusions of previous studies demonstrating that undergraduate research and mentoring are beneficial for students. Overall, our findings support that, for students to fully benefit from their undergraduate research experience, undergraduate research opportunities for students should include an equitable representation of female mentors.

Introduction

Undergraduate research benefits students in multiple areas. Past survey studies show that students who have completed undergraduate research achieve better grades [1], are more confident, have a better understanding of science and how research is conducted, as well as a greater awareness about the culture of research [2–4]. Students who engaged in undergraduate research also have a greater interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers and in obtaining a graduate degree, as compared to those students who did not participate in undergraduate research [2, 5]. Undergraduate research paired with mentoring is proposed to provide even greater benefits for students in areas of both personal and academic development [6].

In addition to mentoring having positive effects on the career decisions and professional development of undergraduate students [7, 8], mentoring relationships in an undergraduate setting may be an avenue to encourage more women to pursue and succeed in STEM careers [9]. Currently, men are more widely acclaimed in STEM fields than women [10], and outnumber women in science [11], especially in senior positions [12]. This gender disparity in STEM fields [11–13] may mean that aspiring female scientists lack female role models. This creates challenges for women pursuing STEM careers, since they may interpret the paucity of women in STEM as an indication that jobs in STEM are not meant for them [14]. Studies show that starting from an early age, when girls are socially exposed to other girls interested in STEM, they are more likely to maintain their own interests in STEM [15]. Further, characteristics of undergraduate institutes, such as the proportion of women in faculty and leadership positions, also shape how undergraduate women perceive different majors and traditional gender stereotypes [16].

As part of understanding how mentoring relationships can benefit undergraduates, it is important to determine if the gender of a mentor or student might influence the mentor-mentee relationship. Previous studies suggest that both men and women have the potential to harbor gender biases [17, 18]. These studies showed that female students or prospective employees were viewed as less competent and less worthy than their male counterparts and were consequently offered a lower pay or less career mentoring. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the effect that the gender of a student or their mentor has on student success, especially that of female students.

To ensure that students succeed in science careers after graduation, the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK) implemented a mentoring program. This program involves students carrying out a research project to help them acquire the experience of working in the scientific field, and to educate them on issues such as the existing gender gap in STEM careers. In addition to making students competitive for future science careers, requiring students to participate in mentor-guided research is expected to prepare them for possible gender-related issues that they might encounter in their future science careers. The purpose of our study was to learn how effective the UNK undergraduate research program has been in enabling students to succeed in the sciences, post-graduation. Additionally, our study aimed to determine if there were any differences in the research experience, including mentoring relationships, of students based on their own gender and their mentor’s gender.

Methods

Department history and university demographics

Since 1988, the UNK Biology department has included undergraduate research within its degree programs through coursework that involves faculty-mentored student research. This coursework includes 2 courses: 1) BIOL 375 in which students design a research project and select a research mentor and 2) BIOL 420 in which students conduct their designed research under the guidance of their research mentor. Starting from 2010, the program incorporated a hostile work environment training component to address hostile work situations that students may face during the course of their future careers. At the start of the program in 1988, the department had 13 faculty members that included a sole female faculty member, following which female representation increased to 6 female faculty out of a total of 18 faculty members by 2003. The number of female faculty steadily increased to 10 out of 22 faculty members in 2011 and has maintained approximately this proportion since. The UNK undergraduate student population currently consists of 60.8% women and 39.2% men; the population of women has consistently risen since 2006 at which time 54.2% of the student population was female. Since 2006 until present, the majority (over 75%) of the undergraduate student body is white [19].

Study details

This study received IRB approval (#090210–1) and began in the Fall of 2010. Surveys were collected until Fall 2016. The Biology Department at UNK asked students who had chosen their research mentor in BIOL 375 (a course in which a student pairs with a mentor and designs a research project), to complete Part I and II of the survey, which asked questions about their demographics and about mentor selection. Students who had completed BIOL 420 (a course in which students conduct their research after being paired with a mentor in BIOL 375), completed Parts I, II and III of the survey, which asked about their undergraduate research experience. To limit social desirability, the survey was completely anonymous with no identifiers. In addition, the survey was worded such that the respondents could not be identified in any way and so that the questions would not be leading. To minimize recall bias, the same survey was given to each participant, and undergraduates completed the survey during the same semester that they were enrolled in the research series. In Fall 2016, UNK alumni who had graduated and had successfully completed the series of undergraduate research classes (BIOL 375 and BIOL 420) were emailed the entire survey, which along with Part I-III, also included Part IV, a final section asking about career outcomes and the influence that undergraduate research has had on their current positions. Alumni included students who completed the program when it first began in 1988. S1 Appendix includes the entire survey (Part I-IV) which was constructed by the Biology department faculty based on questions that the department wanted to gather student responses on. The survey was independently validated by the UNK IRB and by faculty from the Psychology department at UNK who had expertise in analyzing validity, bias, and reliability in surveys. After the surveys were collected, the responses were entered into Excel spreadsheets. Data from respondents of each question were collated (S1 File) and analyzed by the Fishers Exact Test using SPSS Statistics Version 26 software (IBM). The Fisher’s Exact Test was used because the sample size of groups being compared was relatively small (less than 1000), and therefore a test that uses an exact procedure was needed, rather than a test such as a Chi-squared test that assumes a large sample size and therefore assumes approximation. A value of p<0.01 was considered as statistically significant.

Sample description

Survey respondents were either undergraduate students or alumni that were 18 years old or older. There were 484 respondents, of which 304 were undergraduate students and 180 were alumni (S1 File). The respondents reflected similar characteristics as the UNK student body population (as described in the Department history and demographics section). Of the undergraduate respondents, 54.3% were female and 40.6% were male students and of the alumni, 59.4% were female alumni and 40.6% were male alumni. The majority (over 95%) of survey respondents identified as Caucasian in the survey. Surveys were emailed to 1163 alumni, and undergraduate students enrolled within the research series from 2010 to 2016, were provided the opportunity to complete the surveys. The response rate for alumni was 15.5% and 84.7% for undergraduate students (S1 Table).

Ethics statement

We obtained institutional review board (IRB) approval (#090210–1) from the University of Nebraska at Kearney IRB committee for delivering surveys. The forms were anonymous with no personal identifiers. We recorded the responses from the surveys into spreadsheets as a number and proceeded with analysis.

Results

Mentor selection and mentor assignment

Responses from alumni and undergraduate students combined showed that the majority (94.8%, n = 481) felt that the gender of their mentor did not influence the selection of their undergraduate research mentor. Similarly, most respondents (92.1%, n = 483) stated that gender does not need to be considered when choosing a mentor. When asked about whether male mentors should mentor female students and female mentors should mentor male students, 53.4% (n = 470) respondents answered “Yes,” and 46.6% answered “No” (Fig 1).

Fig 1 — Responses in percentages from alumni and undergraduates regarding their views on considering gender when selecting a mentor.

When alumni responses were compared to undergraduate student responses (BIOL 375 and BIOL 420 students combined), there was a significant difference in how they responded to the question of if gender ought to be considered in mentor selection (p<0.001). While most respondents from both groups responded that gender should not be considered in mentor selection, 95.7% (n = 303) of undergraduates compared to only 86.1% (n = 180) of alumni responded that gender should not be considered in mentor selection (Fig 2A). Undergraduates and alumni also significantly differed in how they responded to the question of if male mentors should mentor female students and if female mentors should mentor male students. Over half (64.4%, n = 177) of the alumni responded “Yes,” compared to only 46.8% (n = 293) of the undergraduates who responded “Yes” (Fig 2B). There was no significant difference in responses to questions about selection of mentors when responses from male and female students were compared (S2 Table). The assignment of male and female mentors also did not significantly differ by student gender (S3 Table), that is, there was no association between student gender and mentor gender.

Fig 2 — Responses in percentages to questions about gender and mentor selection for which responses from undergraduates and alumni were significantly different (p<0.001). (A) Responses to if respondents believed that gender should be considered during mentor selection. (B) Responses to if respondents believed that male mentors should mentor female students and female mentors should mentor male students.

Undergraduate research experience of undergraduate students versus alumni

A large majority of undergraduates and alumni who had completed their undergraduate research responded “Yes” to questions regarding if their overall undergraduate experience was positive and if their mentor was a good role model, helpful, understanding, and available to help (Fig 3). There was no significant difference between undergraduates and alumni in how they responded to most questions about their undergraduate research experience and mentors (S4 Table). However, there was a significant difference (p = 0.001) between how undergraduates and alumni responded to whether their undergraduate experience had prepared them for hostile work environments; 52.2% (n = 134) of alumni, in contrast to only 20.3% (n = 128) of undergraduates, responded “No” to this question (Fig 4).

Fig 3 — Responses in percentages from alumni and undergraduates regarding their undergraduate research experience and perceptions of their mentor.

Fig 4 — Responses in percentages from alumni and undergraduates regarding if their undergraduate research prepared them for hostile work environments. Alumni and undergraduate responses were significantly different (p = 0.001).

Undergraduate research experience of female versus male respondents

A comparison of how male and female respondents (both undergraduate students and alumni) responded to questions about their undergraduate research experience and mentors showed that there was a significant difference in how they responded to if they thought their mentor was a good role model (p = 0.001). Almost 95% of male respondents (n = 135), compared to only 81.6% (n = 179) of female respondents, responded that their mentor was a good role model (Fig 5A). The majority of both genders responded that their undergraduate research experience did not prepare them for work opportunities due to their gender. However, there was still a significant difference between their responses (p = 0.001; Fig 5B). A higher proportion of male respondents (77.8%, n = 108), than that of female respondents (59.6%, n = 141), responded that their undergraduate research experience did not prepare them for work opportunities due to their gender. For all other questions about their undergraduate research experience and mentor, there was no significant difference between the male and female respondents (S4 Table).

Fig 5 — Responses in percentages from female and male respondents (alumni and undergraduates) about (A) if they felt their research mentor was a good role model and (B) if they felt that their undergraduate research experience had prepared them for work opportunities due to their gender. Female and male respondents were significantly different (p = 0.001) for both questions.

Gender pairing of mentor-mentee

Questions that relate directly to the gender of the undergraduate research mentors were evaluated by comparing responses from those students who had male mentors to those that had female mentors; responses from both alumni and undergraduates were combined for this. There was a significant difference in how students and alumni with female mentors, compared to those with male mentors, responded to if the gender of their mentor contributed to their mentor-mentee relationship (p<0.001). A large majority (84.2%, n = 165) of students with male mentors, compared to only 58.1% (n = 124) of those with female mentors, responded that the gender of their mentor did not contribute to their relationship with their mentor (Fig 6A). Further, based on the gender of their mentor, there was also a difference in how students and alumni responded to the question of if their research experience had prepared them for a career in science. Only 76.5% (n = 183) of students with a male mentor compared to 87.4% (n = 135) of those with a female mentor, responded that their undergraduate research experience prepared them for a career in science (Fig 7). There was no difference in the responses from students with male mentors compared to those with female mentors when asked about other aspects relating to the gender of their mentor (S5 Table). We also analyzed the same set of questions relating to the gender of the mentor by comparing how respondents (alumni and undergraduates combined) who were same gender-paired (i.e., as students, had mentors of the same gender as themselves) responded, compared to those who were different gender-paired (i.e., as students, had mentors of a different gender than themselves). Only 61.6% (n = 146) of same gender-paired students responded that the gender of their mentor did not contribute to their relationship, compared to 84.6% (n = 143) of different gender-paired students (p<0.001; Fig 6B). For all other questions about gender and mentoring, there was no difference based on gender-pairing (S5 Table).

Fig 6 — Responses in percentages from alumni and undergraduates about if the gender of their mentor contributed towards their relationship with their mentor. Responses differed significantly (p<0.001) (A) between those who had male mentors and those who had female mentors, and (B) between those who were same gender-paired (mentor-mentee of same gender) and those who were different gender-paired (mentor-mentee of different genders).

Fig 7 — Responses in percentages from alumni and undergraduates about if their undergraduate research experience prepared them for a career in science. Responses differed significantly (p = 0.008) between respondents who had male mentors and those that had female mentors.

To tease out if there was a difference between how different gender pairs responded to the question of if the gender of their mentor contributed to their mentor-mentee relationship, we also compared different gender pair combinations (i.e., male mentor-male student, male mentor-female student, female mentor-male student, female mentor-female student). There was a significant difference between the responses from female students with female mentors and male students with male mentors (p<0.001). Less than half (46.1%, n = 76) of female students with female mentors, compared to 78.6% (n = 70) of male students with male mentors responded that the gender of their mentor did not contribute to their relationship with their mentor (Fig 8). Similarly, there was also a significant difference in how female students with female mentors responded, compared to how female students with male mentors responded. In this instance, 88.4% (n = 95) of female students with male mentors responded that the gender of their mentor did not contribute to their relationship with their mentor (Fig 8). Given that a smaller of portion of female students than males students responded that their mentor was a good role model (Fig 5A), we further investigated if the gender of their mentor had any influence on if female students perceived their mentor as a good role model. We found a significant difference (p = 0.005) in how female students responded based on the gender of their mentor. Almost ninety percent (89.9%, n = 79) of female students with female mentors stated that their mentor was a good role model, whereas only 76.7% (n = 102) of female students with male mentors stated so (Fig 9).

Fig 8 — Responses in percentages from alumni and undergraduates in different mentor-mentee gender pairings. Responses differed significantly (p<0.001) between FF and FM, and between FF and MM. FF = Female students with female mentor, FM = Female students with male mentor, MF = Male students with female mentor, MM = Male students with male mentor.

Fig 9 — Responses in percentages from female students who had a male mentor, and those who had a male mentor regarding if they thought their mentor was a good role model. Responses differed significantly (p = 0.005) between those who had male mentors and those who had female mentors.

Post-graduation experiences of alumni

Survey results showed that the majority (84.4%, n = 160) of alumni that responded were in a science-related field at the time of completing the survey. Over half (58.9%, n = 158) of the alumni also responded that their undergraduate mentor and research experience had influenced their current education or employment. Further, 70.7% (n = 157) of responding alumni thought that their undergraduate research experience had adequately prepared them for their current education or employment status, and 83% (n = 153) responded that they thought the undergraduate research experience had adequately prepared female students for a career in science (Fig 10). There was no significant difference between how male and female alumni responded to these aspects of their undergraduate research experience (S6 Table). The majority of both male and female alumni who had a choice in selecting their current supervisor or mentor, responded that the gender of their undergraduate mentor did not influence the selection of their current mentor or supervisor (Fig 11A). However, when their responses were analyzed based on whether they had a choice in selecting their supervisor or mentor, a significantly higher proportion of female alumni compared to male alumni reported not having a choice in the selection of their current supervisor or mentor (p<0.01). Of the female alumni, 61.9% (n = 97) reported not having a choice when selecting their supervisor or mentor, while only 36.1% (n = 61) of male alumni reported not having a choice (Fig 11B).

Fig 10 — Responses in percentages from alumni regarding the influence of their undergraduate research experience on their current position.

Fig 11 — (A) Male and female alumni responses in percentages regarding if gender of their undergraduate mentor played a role in the selection of their current mentor or supervisor, for those who had a choice. (B) Male and female alumni responses in percentages regarding if there was a choice when selecting the mentor or supervisor for their current position (p = 0.002).

Discussion

Our data reveal that most alumni and undergraduate students surveyed feel that gender does not need to be considered when selecting a research mentor. In line with this, most of them reported that the gender of their undergraduate research mentor did not influence why they selected their mentor (Fig 1). We also did not see any association between student gender and mentor gender (S3 Table), indicating that mentor gender did not influence how students selected their mentor.

Although the majority of alumni and undergraduates said gender should not be considered when selecting a mentor, of those who responded that gender should be considered, there were more alumni than undergraduates (Fig 2A). It is possible that these differences are because alumni are likely to have had more work experience, including experience working with mentors of different genders, than undergraduate students. Research suggests that female mentors provide more role modeling and less career development than male mentors [20]. Such differences in mentoring may have been observed by some alumni, leading them to state that gender needs to be taken into consideration when selecting a mentor. Further, the alumni surveyed had completed the program anytime between 1988 and 2016, therefore, a portion of them would have gone through an undergraduate experience when the UNK Biology department faculty was largely composed of men. This imbalance in gender representation of mentors may have skewed notions and expectations about male and female mentors and may also be a contributing factor to why alumni may have considered the gender of their mentor as important. For future studies, it will be valuable to collect data on the specific years that alumni participated in the program to assess how gender imbalances in faculty composition relate to student perceptions of mentor selection.

Surprisingly, when asked if female mentors should mentor male students and male mentors should mentor female students, the responses from alumni and undergraduates were mixed (Fig 1). These mixed responses contradict their overall consensus about gender not being necessary to consider when selecting a mentor. Therefore, there is a possibility that this question was interpreted in different ways by the respondents. Some respondents may have misinterpreted the question as asking if only female mentors should mentor male students and if only male mentors should mentor female students. Since there is uncertainty about how this question was interpreted, even though we observed a difference in how undergraduates and alumni answered this question (Fig 2B), it is not currently possible to interpret this particular result unambiguously. Future investigations with more clarity regarding this question will be required to determine perceptions towards mentor-mentee relationships comprising of different genders (i.e., male mentors for female students and female mentors for male students).

Overall, responses from undergraduates and alumni demonstrated that their undergraduate research experience was positive. The Biology department mentors at UNK were also regarded as being good role models, helpful, understanding, and available to help by both undergraduates and alumni (Fig 3). Our results agree with past studies that have also found similar benefits of undergraduate science research [2, 4, 5]. Responses from alumni and undergraduates about their undergraduate research experience were similar, except regarding if their undergraduate research experience had prepared them for hostile work environments. The alumni felt less prepared for hostile work environments compared to undergraduates (Fig 4). One of the reasons for this difference could be attributed to some of the alumni not completing the Biology research series at UNK with hostile work environment training, because this training was not implemented until 2010. Further, some alumni may have also only experienced undergraduate research in a time when most research mentors in the department were men and may not have considered work-related hostility, especially as it relates to women. Another reason for the difference may be because of the differences in their years of work experience. Alumni are likely to have had more years of work experience compared to undergraduates and, therefore, may have a better perspective of hostile work environments and what types of preparations help with navigating such situations. While it is positive that most undergraduates felt prepared for hostile work environments, it is important to consider that more than half of the alumni did not. This emphasizes the continued need to prepare students for hostile work environments that continue to exist in STEM fields [21]. Further investigation, specifically of alumni who had undergone the hostile work environment training as students, will be useful to determine if the undergraduate research program accompanied by the hostile work environment training was useful in preparing students for hostile work environments.

A comparison of responses from male and female students shows that both genders shared similar perceptions about their undergraduate research experience and research mentor. However, there were key differences between the two genders, namely, if they perceived their mentor as a good role model, and if their undergraduate research experience had prepared them for work opportunities due to their gender. Even though most female and male respondents thought their mentor was a good role model, a smaller proportion of female respondents compared to male respondents, responded as such (Fig 5A). Our analysis indicates that how female students perceive their mentor may be related to their mentor’s gender since, female students with female mentors were more likely than female students with male mentors to report that their mentor was a good role model (Fig 9). These data reiterate past studies that demonstrate the value of female role models for female trainees [15, 16, 22].

Most of both male and female students responded that their undergraduate research experience did not prepare them for work opportunities due to their gender (Fig 5B). Since most respondents felt underprepared for work opportunities due to their gender, it suggests that overall, they do not necessarily feel that work opportunities are specific to particular genders. However, female students were more likely than male students to state that their undergraduate research experience had prepared them for opportunities due to their gender. This difference indicates that women, more than men, may associate work opportunities with their gender, which may be a consequence of gender stereotypes that women are often exposed to starting from an early age [15, 23].

Most alumni and undergraduate students responded that the gender of their undergraduate mentor did not influence their relationship with their mentor. However, a larger proportion of students with female mentors than those with male mentors, stated that the gender of their mentor had or may have influenced their relationship with their mentor (Fig 6A). Similarly, students with a mentor of the same gender as themselves were more likely to state that gender of their mentor had or may have influenced their relationship with their mentor, compared to those with a mentor of a different gender than themselves (Fig 6B). Female students with female mentors were most likely than any other mentor-mentee gender-pair to state that their mentor’s gender influenced their relationship with their mentor (Fig 8). This is likely because women often feel more comfortable working with other women, and female STEM professors appear to act as positive role models in science, as well as reduce the cultural stereotype that science is a male-dominated field [22, 24]. Interestingly, regardless of their own gender, when respondents stated that the gender of their mentor contributed to their relationship with their mentor, their mentor was more likely to be female. Another area where the gender of the mentor influenced responses was regarding if students felt that their undergraduate research experience had prepared them for a career in science. While most alumni and undergraduates felt they had received preparation, a higher proportion of respondents who had female mentors responded so (Fig 7). These findings together support the utility of female mentors for undergraduate students in general, regardless of the gender of the students.

Responses from the alumni regarding the influence of undergraduate research on their current positions demonstrated that for the majority of graduates, the undergraduate research experience had a positive influence on their current position. Moreover, most of the graduates were in a science-related field, indicating that the graduates were successful in pursuing science-related careers, post-graduation (Fig 10). However, female alumni were more likely than male alumni to be in a situation where they did not have a choice in selecting their current mentor or supervisor, regardless of if they wanted to select their mentor or supervisor based on gender (Fig 11B). These data indicate that female graduates may be experiencing the workplace in a different way compared to their male counterparts. The lack of choice that female alumni reported could be due to fewer job opportunities and therefore fewer mentors being available for them. It may also be because men are more likely to be in senior positions (such as supervisors or mentors) than women are in STEM fields [12]. Consequently, female alumni may have been presented with only one gender (male) as a possible mentor or supervisor, leaving them no choice for selecting one of their chosen gender.

While our study provides valuable insights on undergraduate research mentoring relationships, it is important to note that the results of our study are based on a single department within our institution. Further, our respondents represent a population that is predominantly white. Therefore, this may limit how generalizable our findings are. Larger studies across multiple institutions with a diverse sample will be necessary in the future. Further, the scope of our study is restricted to binary gender identities, and studies that take into account non-binary gender identities will be needed going forward. Another factor to consider for future work would be the possible heterogeneity (other than gender) in the research mentors. To account for this, we suggest future work will need to look at what specific attributes of mentors, irrespective of their gender, may influence the research experience of students. Finally, since we surveyed alumni who graduated at different times over a span of almost 30 years, there is a possibility that there were varying levels of recall bias amongst the alumni when answering some questions about their undergraduate research experience. However, recall bias would not have been an issue for questions pertaining to the alumni’s perspective about mentor selection and about their current position. Even with these limitations, we believe our findings still provide valuable insights regarding the role that gender plays in mentoring relationships and are applicable to institutions with an emphasis on undergraduate research. In particular, the components of our program that likely contribute to its success include, the hostile work environment training, and the 2-part structure of the program in which students get to know their mentors while designing their study in the first part, before they carry out their research project in the second part. These features likely helped with preparing students for hostile work environments and with allowing students to form constructive mentor-mentee relationships. We suggest that these features would be possible and worthwhile to replicate in other institutions to enhance the undergraduate research experience for students.

Conclusions

Our study shows that undergraduate students do not display any conscious biases when selecting mentors, but they seem to perceive mentors differently based on their gender. Specifically, female mentors were more likely to be regarded by both male and female students as having a positive influence, than male mentors in terms of preparing students for a career in science. Students that reported that the gender of their mentor contributed to the mentor-mentee relationship were more likely to have a female mentor. Further, female students with a female mentor were more likely than those with a male mentor to state that their mentor was a good role model. While the benefit of female mentors for female students that we report here is expected and previously documented [16, 22], our study shows that female mentors were beneficial for male students as well. These results add to our current knowledge regarding undergraduate mentoring relationships and underscore the value of female mentors in undergraduate research. Therefore, for institutions with undergraduate research programs, it is important to consider that female representation in research and mentoring roles can be useful for all undergraduate students. Male academics should also be encouraged and trained to be effective and inclusive mentors. Crucially, it will be useful for men and women to be equally represented in research and mentoring roles in STEM departments.

Overall, the undergraduate research experience at UNK was regarded as useful by both undergraduate students and alumni. In particular, the fact that most alumni not only thought of their research experience as positive but also were working or studying further in science-related fields, is a testament to the success of the undergraduate research program at UNK. Our undergraduate research program appears to be performing its intended purpose of preparing students for careers in science and our study supports the continued implementation of undergraduate research programs for the benefit of students. Importantly, the findings of our study are helpful for the broader STEM community to understand what type of research mentoring relationships can benefit current and future students. A deeper understanding of what features of the undergraduate research experience enable students to succeed in STEM careers is still needed and will assist in strengthening undergraduate mentoring and research programs.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Summary of sample and response rates.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(73.2KB, pdf)}

S2 Table. Summary of responses to gender and mentor selection questions.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(29KB, pdf)}

S3 Table. Summary of assignment of mentors based on student gender and mentor gender.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(30.8KB, pdf)}

S4 Table. Summary of responses to questions about undergraduate research experience and mentors.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(65.9KB, pdf)}

S5 Table. Summary of responses to questions about gender and research mentor.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(46.3KB, pdf)}

S6 Table. Summary of alumni responses to questions about undergraduate research experience and current positions.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(49.5KB, pdf)}

S1 Appendix. Undergraduate research mentoring survey.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(104.6KB, pdf)}

S1 File. Excel dataset containing survey responses.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(42KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jyoti Iyer for critical feedback on this manuscript and Hari K. Iyer for consultation on statistical analysis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Sell AJ, Naginey A, Stanton CA. The impact of undergraduate research on academic success. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research. 2018. Apr 1;1(3):19–29. [Google Scholar]
2.Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J. Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science. 2007. Apr 27;316:548–549. doi: 10.1126/science.1140384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.VanMeter-Adams A, Frankenfeld CL, Bases J, Espina V, Liotta LA. Students who demonstrate strong talent and interest in STEM are initially attracted to STEM through extracurricular experiences. CBE Life Sciences Education. 2014. Dec;13(4):687–697. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-11-0213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Lopatto D. Undergraduate research experience support career decisions and active learning. Life Sciences Education. 2007. Dec;6(4):297–306. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Eagen MK, Hurtado S, Chang MJ, Garcia GA. Making a difference in science education: the impact of undergraduate research programs. American Educational Research Journal. 2013. Aug;50(4):683–713. doi: 10.3102/0002831213482038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Thiry H, Laursen SL. The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. Journal of Science Education Technology. 2011. Dec;20(6):771–784. [Google Scholar]
7.Hunter A-B, Laursen SL, Seymour E. Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education. 2007. Jan;91(1):36–74. [Google Scholar]
8.Haeger H, Fresquez C. Mentoring for inclusion: the impact of mentoring on undergraduate researchers in the sciences. CBE Life Sciences Education. 2016. Sep;15(3):ar36. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Campbell A, Skoog G. Preparing undergraduate women for science careers: Facilitating success in professional research. Journal of College Science Teaching. 2004. Mar 1;33(5):24–6. [Google Scholar]
10.Lincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, Leboy PS. The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science. 2012. Apr; 42(2):307–20. doi: 10.1177/0306312711435830 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Martinez A., Chrisnatch C. Women are nearly half of US workforce but only 27% of STEM workers. [Internet]. United States: United States Census Bureau; 2021[updated 2021 January 26, cited 2021 May 1]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html [Google Scholar]
12.Hollman L, Stuart-Fox D, Hauser CE. The gender gap in science: how long until women are equally represented? PLOS Biology. 2018. Apr 19;16(4):e2004956 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Beede D, Julian T, Langdon D, McKittrick G, Khan B, Doms M. Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Brief. 2011. Aug 1(04–11). [Google Scholar]
14.Blickenstaff JC. Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education. 2005. Oct;17(4):369–386. [Google Scholar]
15.Raabe IJ, Boda Z, Stadtfeld C. The social pipeline: How friend influence and peer exposure widen the STEM gender gap. Sociology of Education. 2019. Apr; 92 (2):105–23. [Google Scholar]
16.Mullen AL, Baker J. Gender gaps in undergraduate fields of study: Do college characteristics matter? Socius. 2018; 4:2378032118789566. [Google Scholar]
17.Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings in the National Academy of Science. 2012. Oct 9;109(41);16474–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L. How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 2014. Mar 25;111(12):4403–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314788111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.University of Nebraska at Kearney. Enrollment Fact Book [Internet]. Kearney: University of Nebraska at Kearney: 2020 [updated 2020 October 9, cited 2021 May 1]. Available from: https://www.unk.edu/factbook/enrollment.php
20.Sosik JJ, Godshalk VM. The role of gender in mentoring: implications for diversified and homogenous mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2000. Aug 1;57(1):102–22. [Google Scholar]
21.Funk C, Parjer K. Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace equity. [Internet]. Pew Research Center; 2018. [update 2018 May 16, cited 2021 May 1]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/ [Google Scholar]
22.Young DM, Rudman LA, Buettner HM, McLean MC. The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2013. Sep 1; 37(3):283–92. [Google Scholar]
23.Miller DI, Nolla KM, Eagly AH, Uttal DH. The development of children’s gender-science stereotypes: a meta-analysis of 5 decades of U.S. draw-a-scientist studies. Child Development. 2018. Mar 20;89(6):1943–55. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Gaul P, Piacentini M. An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers in science. Research Policy. 2018. May 1;47(4):805–13. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260646.r001

Decision Letter 0

Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso

26 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-21231

The Importance of female mentoring in undergraduate STEM research experiences

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moghe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. My apologies for taking so long, due to the uncommon circumstances. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I have received two reviews of your manuscript. Both reviewers think the topic of the study is relevant. However, they also encountered several problems in your manuscript, which are detailed below. I also identified a number of issues based on my independent review. The consistent problem we all found can be solved by describing, under the limitations of this study, the potential response bias due to social desirability.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the reviewers. You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please consider changing the title so as to meet our title format requirement (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines). In particular, the title should be "Specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field" and in this case it is not informative and specific about your study's scope and methodology.

3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender)

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting article. I believe this is a well-written piece of research with objectives that are well justified by a good literature review. However, the study has some important limitations, that the authors fail to identify and discuss appropriately. I, therefore, recommend accepting this manuscript once the authors have addressed the following issues:

- Key limitations of the study are social desirability and recall bias in responses. Please discuss these limitations.

- Limits to generalizability of findings should also be discussed as the study was based on the case of one program at one institution.

- The underrepresentation of women in STEM fields is mentioned in at least three different parts of the introduction, which makes the text a bit repetitive. I believe it is better to discuss this once, thoroughly, in the introduction.

- In my opinion, the following paragraph on page 3 is tautological: “Although the percentage of women working in science-related careers has improved greatly, women are still underrepresented in these fields [13]. Men have also been more widely acclaimed in science fields than women. Women represent approximately 48% of the United States work force, but they only represent 27% of STEM careers [13]. This is an improvement from 8% of women in STEM careers in 1970 but is still disproportional [13]. This gender gap may be the reason why women are more likely to work in education or healthcare careers, rather than STEM careers [16]”. Perhaps it would be better to mention sociological explanations for horizontal gender segregation in academic fields.

- This paragraph on pages 3-4 is somewhat repetitive: “The purpose of our study was to learn how effective the UNK undergraduate research program has been in enabling students to succeed in the sciences, post-graduation. Additionally, our study aimed to determine if there were any differences in the research experience, including mentoring relationships, of students based on their own gender and their mentor’s gender. Here we report our findings on the effectiveness of the undergraduate research program, and the differences in the undergraduate research experience of students based on gender.”

- In my opinion, the subsection “Undergraduate students vs. alumni – mentor selection” in the results section does not contribute to addressing the study’s objectives. It has more to do with the data and processes of mentor selection. Therefore, I would suggest including this information in the Methods sections. Further, a key issue would be to actually test if assignment to male and female mentors differed by student gender. This is, Fisher’s exact test could also be used to assess the association between student gender and mentor gender.

- Reliability issues: Some of the items were worded in ways that could have been confusing for the respondents and, therefore, interpretating these results can be challenging. For example, whether the mentorship “prepare them for work opportunities due to their gender” or the statement “females should mentor males and vice versa”. I would suggest not reporting these results.

- When discussing post-graduation experiences, the authors refer to alumni’s current mentors. Is this a figure that they all should encounter in their careers? How common is to have a mentor? What did participants understand for this (e.g. employer, supervisor)?

- In the discussion section, the authors suggest that the year in which students completed the program could have an impact on their perceptions, due to changes in the imbalances in gender representation of mentors. I would suggest testing this and reporting the results in the paper.

- On page 12, the authors state “Why a greater proportion of females than males may not have perceived their mentor as a good role model warrants further investigation.” Could they test if females that had males as mentors were more likely to perceive this?

- Finally, on page 13, the authors state: “Therefore, it is important to consider that female representation in mentoring roles can be useful for undergraduate students of all genders, not just females. Our results show that female mentors benefit both male and female undergraduate trainees and are also in agreement with past findings which show that female mentors benefit female trainees [22].” However, readers could interpret this as a recommendation to assign women, more frequently than men, to mentoring roles, and I find this problematic. In academia, women usually tend to be assigned to teaching, supervision and administrative duties more frequently than men, and this can have an impact on their careers as they are left with less time for other areas that are highly valued for promotion, such as research. Recommending disproportionally position female academics in mentoring roles could increase this burden, particularly in context with low representation of women. In my opinion, male academics should also be encouraged and trained to be to be effective and inclusive mentors.

Reviewer #2: Overall

This paper evaluates how the gender of undergraduate research mentors influences the research experience of students. I agree with the authors that this is a relevant topic, that needs to be investigated further. However, I have some concerns with this paper as it is currently written. Particularly, with the methods and analysis sections.

Methods & Analysis:

1. Description of the overall sample and response rate would be helpful. Particularly, it would be useful to understand the different response rates among groups: gender, students/alumni, cohorts, and majors. Are these response rates consistent with the UNK undergraduate student population?

2. Potential response bias is a key component to this study. However, authors don’t mention nor elaborate on this. How does response bias play a role in the analysis? How is this study addressing this issue? Are these results robust?

3. Related to the above, I wonder how students/alumni academic outcomes and demographics are related to response rates and survey answers. Are there subgroups of the UNK population that are heavily represented in the survey results?

4. Authors mention the use of Fishers Exact Test to answer research questions. Elaborate on why you choose this method over Chi-square test, specially giving your sample size.

5. How was the survey constructed? Was there any psychometric analysis regarding validity or reliability of the measure? How is this related to different interpretations to some items by the respondents?

6. The authors mentioned how future studies should be directed towards determining the attributes of mentors that make them good role models. On this note, was there any attempt to account for mentor heterogeneity? (other than gender). If not, how can attributes of mentors influence these results? Is this a potential limitation to this study?

Conclusion & Discussion:

7. It appears that the undergraduate research experience at UNK was viewed as useful -according to authors analyses. How can these results be of any help to other institutions? What are the main elements of this research experience that added value? Are they any different to other mentoring programs in STEM? Can or should this be replicated in other institutions? If so, what are the authors recommendations.

8. It would be important to address the limitations of the study. Are these results generalizable to other contexts or institutions? Or even to other departments within UNK?

9. I would suggest further developing ideas in the conclusion section. How are these results pertinent to this specific journal audience? What did the authors learn about phenomenon through analyzing data that can contribute to the existing literature?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 2;16(12):e0260646. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260646.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

18 Oct 2021

Dear Reviewers,

We thank you for the helpful and thorough review of our manuscript. We are grateful and appreciative of the time and effort spent on the review of our manuscript. The critical comments that we have obtained from you have been valuable in greatly improving our manuscript.

As you will note from our revised manuscript, we have spent a considerable amount of effort in addressing every editorial and reviewer comment that we received, as thoroughly as possible. In this letter we have responded to the journal requirements and each point raised by Reviewer # 1 and Reviewer # 2. The line numbers that have been referenced in our responses correspond to the unmarked version of our revised manuscript (the file ‘Revised Manuscript’).

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have ensured that our manuscript meets the PLOS ONE style requirements, including those for file naming. The manuscript has been formatted in accordance with the following PLOS ONE style templates: (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf).

We have now reworded our title so that it is informative and specific about the scope and methodology of our study. The title has been changed from “The importance of female mentoring in undergraduate STEM research experiences” to “Female mentors positively contribute to undergraduate STEM research experiences.”

3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender)

We have now changed “female” to “woman” and “male” to “man” when these have been used as a noun in the entire revised manuscript.

Response to comments from Reviewer # 1

We would like to thank reviewer #1 for their thorough review of our manuscript and their valuable suggestions and feedback provided to improve our manuscript. Below we have addressed each of the comments from Reviewer #1.

- Key limitations of the study are social desirability and recall bias in responses. Please discuss these limitations.

We have now included in our methods section the steps that were taken to reduce social desirability and recall bias in survey responses. To limit social desirability, the survey was completely anonymous with no identifiers. In addition, the survey was worded such that the respondents could not be identified in any way and so that the questions would not be leading. To minimize recall bias, the survey was given to the undergraduates during the semester that they were enrolled in the research series (lines 90-94). There is a possibility of recall bias in alumni responses given that they may have completed the research series at any time within the timespan of 1988-2016, and we have discussed this limitation in the discussion section (lines 367-370).

- Limits to generalizability of findings should also be discussed as the study was based on the case of one program at one institution.

We have now included in our discussion section a portion that discusses the extent of the generalizability of our findings. In our discussion we acknowledge that our study is based on data from a single program within a single institute. We explain how our findings can be applicable to other institutes that have the same emphasis on undergraduate research as our institute (lines 359-378).

We have now consolidated our discussion regarding the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields into one comprehensive paragraph (lines 43-52).

We have reworded this section to reduce any redundancies; the relevant information is now in the consolidated paragraph about the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields (the same paragraph mentioned in response to the previous reviewer comment, lines 43-52). As suggested, we have also added information about sociological explanations for horizontal gender segregation in academic fields (lines 49-52).

We have now removed any repetitive statements from this paragraph (lines 60-68) to make it concise.

As suggested, we have carried out the Fisher’s exact test to assess if there is an association between student gender and mentor gender. Our analysis shows that there is no significant difference in the assignment to male and female mentors based on student gender. We have reported these results in our revised paper, and they are stated in a newly created section entitled, “Mentor selection and mentor assignment” (lines 141-142). In this section we have also retained the results regarding mentor selection (lines 123-127) because we feel that the data about mentor selection still contributes to our study objectives of understanding how gender influences the mentor-mentee relationship. Since the mentor-mentee relationship first starts with mentor selection, we feel that reporting the data on mentor selection provides insights about how the mentor-mentee relationship is initiated and therefore have kept these results in the results section of our revised manuscript.

We agree that the data for some of the questions are challenging to interpret given that some questions may have been interpreted by respondents in different ways. To this end, in the discussion section, we have explained that some of these questions may have been confusing to respondents and have also detailed how these questions may have been misinterpreted (lines 286-293). While we agree that not reporting the results of these questions will remove any confusion with data interpretation, we feel that reporting the data provides us the avenue to discuss the need to still address such questions and better word these questions in future studies (lines 291-295).

When discussing post-graduation experiences, we refer to the alumni’s current mentor based on the survey questions that are about the current supervisor or mentor of the alumni. Our survey questions for these were phrased as, “What is the gender of your current supervisor or mentor?” and “Did the gender of your undergraduate research mentor influence your choice of your current supervisor or mentor?” Therefore, based on the wording of the question, alumni would have regarded this question to be referring to either their mentor or supervisor. These questions are based on the expectation that post-graduate careers or education typically involve having a mentor or supervisor. In our reporting and discussion of the data (lines 252-258; lines 350-358) and in the associated figure (Fig 11) and figure legend (lines 262-265) displaying data of alumni mentors and supervisors, we have now made sure to specify that we are referring to both mentors and supervisors and not just mentors. We thank the reviewer for bringing this to our attention so that we could edit this appropriately in our revised manuscript.

Our survey was open to students who were in the program between 1988 and 2016. However, since our survey did not collect information regarding which year students graduated or completed the program, we do not have the data to be able to test if the year in which students completed the program influenced their perceptions. Our survey was limited to asking if students had completed the program up to 6 or more years ago but not specifically how much more than 6 years ago. Therefore, we do not have the data to test the association between student perceptions and the faculty gender ratio at the time they were in the program. Our discussion proposes the possibility that the year(s) in which students participated in the research courses could influence their perceptions, due to changes in the imbalances in gender representation of mentors throughout the history of the department. We have further clarified in our discussion that this hypothesis should be tested in future studies which should collect data regarding what years students were in the program. Collection of such data can then be used to determine if there is an association between student perceptions and the ratio of male to female faculty mentors during the years in which students were in the program (lines 279-285).

We have now looked at how female students with male mentors and female students with female mentors responded to the question of if they thought their mentor was a good role model. Based on our analysis, there was a significant difference in how female students responded based on the gender of their mentor. We have reported these results (lines 227-232) in the revised paper and displayed the results in Fig 9. We have also discussed this finding in our discussion (lines 320-323). We appreciate the reviewer’s insight and for directing us to perform this analysis.

We have now reworded this portion to clarify for the readers that we are not at all recommending that women should be assigned to mentoring roles more frequently than men, but rather, that women and men should be equally represented in research and in research mentoring roles (386-393). We also agree with the reviewer’s opinion that male academics should be encouraged and trained to be effective and inclusive mentors, and therefore, we have also added this apt recommendation within our manuscript (lines 391-392). We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and for pointing out that our original wording could have been misinterpreted.

Response to comments from review # 2

We would like to thank reviewer #2 for their thorough review of our manuscript and their valuable suggestions and feedback provided to improve our manuscript. Below we have addressed each of the comments from reviewer #2.

We have now described the overall sample and explained that the sample is reflective of the UNK undergraduate population. We have also included the response rates of undergraduates and alumni (lines 107-115).

The UNK student body is primarily white as described in our methods section (under the subsection “Department history and demographics”) and respondents predominantly identified as Caucasian in the surveys. Therefore, our survey results do heavily represent a white population. We have now also added a discussion regarding this in our discussion section. Specifically, we acknowledge that our survey results primarily represent a white population and we discuss the need to study undergraduate research experiences of students and alumni of diverse populations (lines 359-362).

4. Authors mention the use of Fishers Exact Test to answer research questions. Elaborate on why you choose this method over Chi-square test, specially giving your sample size.

We have now added in our methods section an explanation regarding our choice to use the Fisher’s Exact Test for our analyses. The Fishers Exact Test was used because it is applicable for all sample sizes. Since we compared groups of a relatively small sample sizes (less than 1000), we needed to use a test that uses an exact procedure rather than a test such as a Chi-squared test that assumes a large sample size and therefore applies approximation (lines 103-106).

We have included in our methods section how the survey was constructed. The survey was constructed based on questions that the department wanted to gather student responses on. The survey was also independently validated by the IRB and faculty from the Psychology department at UNK (lines 98-101).

In this study we only focussed on mentor gender and did not account for any other heterogeneity within the mentor population. It is possible that other attributes of mentors, aside from their gender may have played a role in how students responded to questions about their mentors. We acknowledge that this may be a potential limitation in our study and that future studies will require accounting for mentor heterogeneity by collecting more information about mentors other than just their gender (lines 364-367)

Conclusion & Discussion:

We have now included in our discussion a section explaining the utility of our results to other institutes. We have elaborated on what we feel are the most valuable elements of the research program at out institute and also our recommendations for what can be replicated at other institutes (370-378).

8. It would be important to address the limitations of the study. Are these results generalizable to other contexts or institutions? Or even to other departments within UNK?

In our discussion we have added a section relating to the limitations of our study and addressed if our results are generalizable to other contexts or institutions. We have acknowledged that our study is based on the results from one department within one institution and have explained how our results can still be applicable and useful to other undergraduate institutes (lines 359-378).

We have now expanded the conclusions section to address how our results are pertinent to the audience of PLOS ONE and we have explained what we learned through analyzing the data, and how it contributes to the existing literature (lines 381-403).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(31.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260646.r003

Decision Letter 1

Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso

15 Nov 2021

Female mentors positively contribute to undergraduate STEM research experiences

PONE-D-21-21231R1

Dear Dr. Moghe,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you again for the opportunity to review this interesting article. The authors have carefully considered and satisfactorily addressed all the comments raised in the previous revision round. Particular attention was paid to acknowledging and discussing the limitations of the study. I recommend the publication of this manuscript. Congratulations!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260646.r004

Acceptance letter

Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso

22 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-21231R1

Female mentors positively contribute to undergraduate STEM research experiences

Dear Dr. Moghe:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Summary of sample and response rates.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(73.2KB, pdf)}

S2 Table. Summary of responses to gender and mentor selection questions.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(29KB, pdf)}

S3 Table. Summary of assignment of mentors based on student gender and mentor gender.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(30.8KB, pdf)}

S4 Table. Summary of responses to questions about undergraduate research experience and mentors.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(65.9KB, pdf)}

S5 Table. Summary of responses to questions about gender and research mentor.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(46.3KB, pdf)}

S6 Table. Summary of alumni responses to questions about undergraduate research experience and current positions.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(49.5KB, pdf)}

S1 Appendix. Undergraduate research mentoring survey.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(104.6KB, pdf)}

S1 File. Excel dataset containing survey responses.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(42KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(31.4KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0260646.ref001] 1.Sell AJ, Naginey A, Stanton CA. The impact of undergraduate research on academic success. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research. 2018. Apr 1;1(3):19–29. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref002] 2.Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J. Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science. 2007. Apr 27;316:548–549. doi: 10.1126/science.1140384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref003] 3.VanMeter-Adams A, Frankenfeld CL, Bases J, Espina V, Liotta LA. Students who demonstrate strong talent and interest in STEM are initially attracted to STEM through extracurricular experiences. CBE Life Sciences Education. 2014. Dec;13(4):687–697. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-11-0213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref004] 4.Lopatto D. Undergraduate research experience support career decisions and active learning. Life Sciences Education. 2007. Dec;6(4):297–306. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref005] 5.Eagen MK, Hurtado S, Chang MJ, Garcia GA. Making a difference in science education: the impact of undergraduate research programs. American Educational Research Journal. 2013. Aug;50(4):683–713. doi: 10.3102/0002831213482038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref006] 6.Thiry H, Laursen SL. The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. Journal of Science Education Technology. 2011. Dec;20(6):771–784. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref007] 7.Hunter A-B, Laursen SL, Seymour E. Becoming a scientist: the role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education. 2007. Jan;91(1):36–74. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref008] 8.Haeger H, Fresquez C. Mentoring for inclusion: the impact of mentoring on undergraduate researchers in the sciences. CBE Life Sciences Education. 2016. Sep;15(3):ar36. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref009] 9.Campbell A, Skoog G. Preparing undergraduate women for science careers: Facilitating success in professional research. Journal of College Science Teaching. 2004. Mar 1;33(5):24–6. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref010] 10.Lincoln AE, Pincus S, Koster JB, Leboy PS. The Matilda Effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science. 2012. Apr; 42(2):307–20. doi: 10.1177/0306312711435830 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref011] 11.Martinez A., Chrisnatch C. Women are nearly half of US workforce but only 27% of STEM workers. [Internet]. United States: United States Census Bureau; 2021[updated 2021 January 26, cited 2021 May 1]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref012] 12.Hollman L, Stuart-Fox D, Hauser CE. The gender gap in science: how long until women are equally represented? PLOS Biology. 2018. Apr 19;16(4):e2004956 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref013] 13.Beede D, Julian T, Langdon D, McKittrick G, Khan B, Doms M. Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Economics and Statistics Administration Brief. 2011. Aug 1(04–11). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref014] 14.Blickenstaff JC. Women and science careers: leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education. 2005. Oct;17(4):369–386. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref015] 15.Raabe IJ, Boda Z, Stadtfeld C. The social pipeline: How friend influence and peer exposure widen the STEM gender gap. Sociology of Education. 2019. Apr; 92 (2):105–23. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref016] 16.Mullen AL, Baker J. Gender gaps in undergraduate fields of study: Do college characteristics matter? Socius. 2018; 4:2378032118789566. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref017] 17.Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings in the National Academy of Science. 2012. Oct 9;109(41);16474–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref018] 18.Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L. How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 2014. Mar 25;111(12):4403–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314788111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref019] 19.University of Nebraska at Kearney. Enrollment Fact Book [Internet]. Kearney: University of Nebraska at Kearney: 2020 [updated 2020 October 9, cited 2021 May 1]. Available from: https://www.unk.edu/factbook/enrollment.php

[pone.0260646.ref020] 20.Sosik JJ, Godshalk VM. The role of gender in mentoring: implications for diversified and homogenous mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2000. Aug 1;57(1):102–22. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref021] 21.Funk C, Parjer K. Women and men in STEM often at odds over workplace equity. [Internet]. Pew Research Center; 2018. [update 2018 May 16, cited 2021 May 1]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/01/09/women-and-men-in-stem-often-at-odds-over-workplace-equity/ [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref022] 22.Young DM, Rudman LA, Buettner HM, McLean MC. The influence of female role models on women’s implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2013. Sep 1; 37(3):283–92. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref023] 23.Miller DI, Nolla KM, Eagly AH, Uttal DH. The development of children’s gender-science stereotypes: a meta-analysis of 5 decades of U.S. draw-a-scientist studies. Child Development. 2018. Mar 20;89(6):1943–55. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0260646.ref024] 24.Gaul P, Piacentini M. An advisor like me? Advisor gender and post-graduate careers in science. Research Policy. 2018. May 1;47(4):805–13. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Female mentors positively contribute to undergraduate STEM research experiences

Saili Moghe

Katelyn Baumgart

Julie J Shaffer

Kimberly A Carlson

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Department history and university demographics

Study details

Sample description

Ethics statement

Results

Mentor selection and mentor assignment

Fig 1. Views on considering gender when selecting a mentor.

Fig 2. Differences in alumni and undergraduates regarding their views on gender and mentor selection.

Undergraduate research experience of undergraduate students versus alumni

Fig 3. Undergraduate research experience and perceptions of research mentors.

Fig 4. Differences in alumni and undergraduates regarding preparation gained for hostile work environments.

Undergraduate research experience of female versus male respondents

Fig 5. Differences in male and female respondents regarding their views about undergraduate research and mentors.

Gender pairing of mentor-mentee

Fig 6. Views about mentor gender and its contribution towards the mentor-mentee relationship.

Fig 7. Gender of mentor and how mentees responded about being prepared for a career in science.

Fig 8. Views on how gender of mentor contributed to the mentor-mentee relationship.

Fig 9. Responses from female alumni and undergraduates regarding if they perceived their undergraduate mentor as a good role model.

Post-graduation experiences of alumni

Fig 10. Influence of undergraduate research on the current positions of alumni.

Fig 11. Alumni choice in current mentor or supervisor selection.

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso

Roles

Acceptance letter

Juan Cristobal Castro-Alonso

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases