Shadow mentoring: a cost-benefits review for reform

Abstract

Shadow mentoring relationships are those outside of the traditional mentoring roles defined in academia and is an unseen yet critical component of training and trainee retention that is rarely discussed or acknowledged. Here, we detail the benefits of shadow mentoring, recount lived experiences as shadow mentors, and propose mechanisms to ensure that shadow mentoring is acknowledged as a vital contribution to scientific communities.

The need for shadow mentoring

Mentorship is a critical part of research training which takes many forms that are not all equally valued or acknowledged. In particular, a great need for mentorship exists for underrepresented minority (URM) trainees who often lack mentors with shared identities and experiences at their institutions. Without adequate mentorship regarding career and research development, URM trainees can feel less accepted within the broader scientific community. This exclusion aids in exacerbating imposter syndrome and further perpetuating the underrepresentation crisis as trainees leave academia [1, 2].

To address these realities as URM researchers, we often accept substantial mentorship commitments outside of traditional research mentoring roles for these students, with the goal of encouraging trainees to remain in science. This mentorship, termed shadow mentoring, is a robust mediation process during which a faculty member or a more experienced scientist relative to the trainee provides independent, unbiased mentorship, but does not receive formal recognition for their additional contributions and responsibilities (e.g., counts toward tenure and promotion). Shadow mentoring goes beyond casual mentoring [3], often involving more dedicated and specialized commitment to mentees to create a sense of belonging for women and URM mentees without access to intentional mentoring [4].

Often, shadow mentors have a shared identity with the mentee which allows for more in-depth discussion of their lived experiences with shared context. For example, those of us on this author list that identify as Black women report not having direct mentors who were also Black women during earlier stages of training, but we benefitted greatly from such mentors at other institutions who offered us advice, encouragement, and support. Many of us would not have persisted successfully without this guidance and recognize the need to fill this role for future generations of trainees. However, although shadow mentoring requires a high level of wisdom, thoughtfulness, and integrity, due to difficulty documenting this effort as a recognized academic activity, shadow mentoring can create an environment that hinders the progress of those currently navigating the academic pipeline. As shadow mentoring relationships are beneficial to both mentors and mentees, and to the institutional community, we want to maintain these roles and propose solutions for how institutions can support these critical relationships.

The role of the shadow mentor

We (the authors) have collectively mentored over 500 “shadow trainees” on topics such as navigating career transitions, time management, resolving personal conflict, self-advocating, applying for a new position, steps to improve career readiness, overcoming imposter syndrome, building professional and social networks in graduate school and beyond, and seeking outside help (e.g., financial support, mental health services). These mentoring relationships assumed various forms, from a 3-hour session discussing a very specific issue with some follow-up, to a longer-term mentoring relationship with monthly or bi-monthly meetings. The mentees come both from our current institutions and from around the world. Although these mentoring roles do not always involve guiding someone directly in our respective labs, they reward us with an important experience that strengthens our expertise and ability to be strong faculty mentors and leaders.

As an example, one of the coauthors was recently contacted by two Black women (graduate students at separate institutions) to discuss the need for additional support outside of that received their respective programs. Both students expressed feelings of loneliness and imposter syndrome [5, 6] from being the only Black person in their cohort and they were exploring options to take a leave of absence or leave their respective programs entirely. The mentor was not the students’ advisor, but instead took on the role of a shadow mentor to offer emotional, appraisal, and instrumental support, and to advise these students on steps allowing them to remain in their programs [7]. While this is a specific example, it is not unique as many of the authors have had similar conversations with URM mentees who needed this additional support. As mentors, we want to increase the diversity of trainees and to see them thrive with proper support. We know how it feels to be the “only one” and seek to make their experience less isolating. However, shadow mentors can only caulk this leaking pipeline for so long without proper acknowledgement and support (Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Mentoring pipeline depicting the leakage of shadow mentees and mentors. At top, mentees enter the pipeline where leakage may occur. In some cases, shadow mentors can circumvent this leakage and ensure mentees achieve their goals. At bottom, shadow mentors enter their own pipeline, where many shadow mentors exit the pipeline due to insufficient support, acknowledgment, or resources, while others achieve their goals.

Based on widespread practices that encourage this type of mentoring, we believe nearly all URM faculty have participated in shadow mentoring, which means that collectively, URM scientists mentor a disproportionate number of trainees relative to majority colleagues. In fact, many mentees are specifically directed to a URM mentor by colleagues who felt that the trainee would benefit from advice from a mentor with a shared identity such as Black/LatinX, female, or queer. While we engage in this type of mentorship because we view it as important, shadow mentoring adds to the toll of invisible labor often described by URM faculty researchers as it is rarely reported on the mentor’s CV or dossier, making it virtually unquantifiable. Furthermore, because of this, early trainees may incorrectly appear to have less experience acting as mentors, which may be counted against them when applying for jobs.

Recognizing shadow mentors

Shadow mentoring is a fulfilling experience for both mentees and mentors. However, as valuable as this experience is to mentees, it can lessen mentors’ “traditional” productivity (i.e., time applied towards publication record, research presentations, academic advisor involvement, service commitments, etc), as it is always in addition to expected service and mentoring roles. Further, mechanisms are not in place to evaluate shadow mentorship at the faculty level, particularly related to tenure and promotion. We believe this must be rectified and propose viable solutions that institutions should adopt within their normal recruitment and retention processes.

At the institutional level, we believe it is important to acknowledge the contribution of shadow mentoring in promoting URM student enrollment and retention. However, recognition of these roles can be challenging, as in addition to these mentees not being our “primary” trainees (i.e., not a student in our lab or otherwise under our direct supervision), shadow mentoring often involves keeping mentees’ identities confidential to (a) build trust and (b) reduce risk of retaliation against the mentee. For traditional scientific mentoring, trainee names are included in the CV and tenure/promotion materials. To protect this confidentiality, we propose alternatively reporting the number of mentees, hours committed, and the topics covered, which would simultaneously allow quantification of mentorship outside of our primary mentees. Shadow mentoring could be considered part of a faculty member’s service hours or developed into a new component evaluating commitment to diversity, as some institutions have adopted [8-10]. Additionally, to support mentors, institutions should incorporate shadow mentoring into official mentor training to provide tools for mentors to best assist mentees. Furthermore, to reduce the burden of shadow mentors, institutions should ensure that faculty who regularly participate in this process have a mechanism to formally provide suggestions to their departments/institutions to implement policies and procedures that reduce burden on faculty and/or students. For example, if a student reports that the reimbursement process for conference travel is burdensome, faculty should have a way to directly report this feedback.

It is also important to consider the impact of shadow mentoring on early career trainees. Between peer mentoring relationships commonly adopted by institutions to support URM trainees and shadow mentoring roles often undertaken by graduate students and postdocs alike, we believe it’s important to increase recognition of this valuable mentorship experience. Thus, any mechanisms instituted for adding this service onto the CV of faculty should serve as a model for these trainees to add it to their own and should be a component of their evaluations (such as Individualized Development Plans). Importantly, we are not encouraging trainees to take on additional mentorship roles, or institutions to ask this, instead we seek to ensure recognition and acknowledgement for the roles they are already filling. For trainees with significant mentoring commitment, there should be a reduction in other responsibilities or a formal appointment to recognize this additional scholarship, where possible. For example, in schools that require a teaching assistantship, this role as a peer mentor or a mentor to more junior scientists could be counted towards that service. These steps would recognize more formally the important contributions these trainees, whom are often URMs themselves, make to their institutional environment and encourage their own retention.

Concluding remarks

At the individual level, both trainees and colleagues can increase recognition and reduce the burden associated with shadow mentoring. Trainees who seek advice from ‘shadow’ mentors must realize they can also serve as formal mentors by inviting them to serve in that capacity, such as on thesis committees, where appropriate. Faculty, departments, and institutions must recognize their URM colleagues not only for their diversity, equity, and inclusion expertise, but also for their scientific expertise, and they should recommend URM colleagues accordingly. In addition, more faculty who are not from URM backgrounds should be encouraged to receive training in intentional mentorship^4,9 and accept more casual mentoring roles to reduce the burden on URM faculty. Mentorship of URM trainees not only benefits minoritized groups through increased representation, but also benefits the entire scientific community. Diversity of thought leads to better research questions, inclusive study design leads to more generalizable results, and analyses that consider cultural context leads to better interpretation of findings.