The lack of diverse representation in neuroscience remains a significant problem reflecting the systemic inequities of the United States (U.S.) educational system and structural oppression that is deeply entrenched into the fabric of the country. Current data from the National Center for Education Statistics between the years of 1995–2015 show that non-Latinx, white neuroscience graduates represent the largest percentage of graduates across bachelor’s (52.6–66.3%), Master’s (52.6–60.8%), and doctoral (53.2%-66.5%) degree granting neuroscience programs (Ramos et al., 2017). While the number of neuroscientists entering the field is growing, the proportion of those from underrepresented backgrounds remains markedly lower than the U.S. census representation.

Historically, research efforts to characterize the demography of the academic landscape have focused on very narrow aspects of diversity (e.g., race, or gender, or disability). However, there is growing acknowledgment of the expansiveness of identity and its intersections. These intersecting identities shape access to power/privilege and, resultantly, one’s experience navigating the world, including academia (Crenshaw, 1989; Cole, 2009). Transgender and nonbinary/gender expansive people, undocumented immigrants, people living with a disability, and religious minorities have been systematically excluded in the neurosciences, and initiatives to improve their representation in academic spaces are lacking (Corrington et al., 2020). The inclusion of diverse voices in the neurosciences is part of the necessary shift towards a more equitable society and directly contends with the discrimination and oppressive hegemony entrenched within the institution of education (Zhao, 2016; Bartz and Kritsonis, 2019). Additionally, diverse perspectives are the catalyst for innovation in the sciences (Graham et al., 2020; Daehn and Croxson, 2021) and contribute to more dynamic problem solving (Friedman et al., 2016).

Diverse identities should be reflected within all levels of the neuroscience pipeline, but representation appears poorest at higher ranking positions—that is, the further you advance along the academic pipeline, the “leakier” it becomes (Shaw et al., 2021). The attrition, or leaks, of diverse neuroscience talent tends to occur at critical transition junctures involving academic advancement (Shaw et al., 2021). A number of factors—likely interacting with one another—impact retention of diverse talent and contribute to leaks. While a comprehensive overview of factors contributing to attrition is beyond the scope of this article, we offer a few examples across different stages of training and career.

Among first-generation college students, some face unique challenges including disparities in access to resources and financial precarity impacting their ability to complete a degree. First generation and low income students are less likely to complete an application for financial aid (Bahr et al., 2018) and there is evidence that financial aid offer letters use inconsistent terminology and conflate different aid options (Burd et al., 2018), creating barriers to appropriate decision making to fund college education. Current data also show bias in graduate school admission processes including the discriminatory use of the standardized testing like the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) or other quantitative measures (e.g., GPA) as a predictor of academic success despite the GRE having low predictive validity (Moneta-Koehler et al., 2017). The GRE is a poor indicator of future research productivity (Woo et al., 2022) or graduate degree completion (Petersen et al., 2018) as it instead measures test taking ability and exam familiarity (Kruse, 2016). The continued use of the GRE by admissions committees contributes to pipeline leakiness as its incorrect use as an indicator of aptitude most often unfairly excludes women, racially and ethnically minoritized persons, and those from socioeconomic disadvantaged backgrounds from admission into graduate school programs (Miller and Stassun, 2014).

For historically excluded and marginalized graduate students, socialization to academia (i.e., the process whereby institutional values, skill sets and ways of engagement are learned and reinforced) can be in direct conflict with existing belief systems and often upholds dominant cultural norms (Weidman et al., 2001; Azizova, 2016), impacting feelings of belongingness and inclusivity both of which are predictors of retention and success in STEM PhD programs (Fisher et al., 2019). For women and birthing people, a critical transitional period along the academic pipeline postdoctoral phase where roles and responsibilities as a parent and scientist may collide with very little leeway and support. In fact, the decision of whether to start a family and when is a major predictor of attrition among postdoctoral fellows (Resmini, 2016; Ledford, 2017; Ysseldyk et al., 2019).

At the faculty level, funding rates are significantly lower for racially and ethnically minoritized groups and data show the Black scientists are less likely than their peers to receive an R01 grant from the NIH (National Institute of Health), reflective of a substantial funding gap impacting productivity and career progression on the tenure track (Ginther et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2018). One study reported that applications from Black scientists were less likely to be discussed and received lower impact scores (Hoppe et al., 2019). In the study, greater than 20% of the funding gap was attributable to differences in choice of research topics by Black scientists compared to white counterparts. Topics more commonly identified as relevant to Black scientists, such as community-engaged research and population health, were awarded at lower rates, demonstrating bias and discrimination in funding priority as well as epistemic exclusion devaluing and delegitimizing the important work of racially minoritized scholars (Settles et al., 2021). The unfortunate truth of these data is that the Ivory Tower remains unattainable, unwelcoming, or housed with a glass ceiling that limits the upward mobility of many diverse neuroscientists [e.g., see Black in the Ivory (Davis, 2021) for overview].

While diversity is slowly increasing at the student level, those who hold high ranking faculty positions do not reflect the same diverse demographic and social identities. Often, cisgender, heterosexual, white men occupy senior neuroscience positions and serve as gatekeepers to academic advancement thereby limiting upward mobility. Not only does a power differential exist within the mentorship relationship based on career status, but the mentor’s status within society’s social hierarchy can influence the mentorship dynamic (Ragins, 1997; Thorne et al., 2021). As diverse neuroscience mentees ascend the academic ranks, it is likely that they will encounter incongruence between their identity and the social-demographic characteristics of a mentor. Admittedly, a number of thriving cross-identity mentoring relationships exist. In some instances, however, it may affect the mentor’s ability to effectively respond to the systemic oppression, discrimination, and other challenges uniquely faced by the mentee.

Lack of effective mentorship has been regularly cited as a barrier to successful advancement in neuroscience (Singleton et al., 2021), and academia more broadly (Davis et al., 2021; Ocobock et al., 2021). Thus, it is incumbent on mentors to maintain awareness of approaches that are less helpful in mentorship dyads where identity incongruence is a factor, and to apply strategies and mentorship styles that facilitate retention and progression within neuroscience. For instance, in a study examining cross-racial mentoring of racially and ethnically minoritized faculty, the mentor’s awareness of the mentee’s cultural experience, the mentor’s open-mindedness, and trust and comfort in the relationship shaped how race affected the relationship (Thorne et al., 2021). To date, there is limited research on mentorship practices that support diverse neuroscientists across training and career level. Identifying strategies that promote mentee retention and academic enrichment across developmental stages of education and career is central to building supportive, customized experiences unique to the mentee’s needs at each transition juncture. Accordingly, our manuscript seeks to expand extant work by applying a developmental framework to examining cross-identity mentorship factors that: (1) hinder, (2) support, and (3) retain diverse neuroscientists in academia across varied developmental stages of training and career.

All study procedures were approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board and all participants provided written informed consent. Participants completed the survey on a voluntary basis and were offered co-authorship for their contribution.

The results of the present study amplify and extend numerous efforts within the neuroscientific community aimed at identifying and dismantling oppressive structures and processes that lead to the systemic exclusion and marginalization of diverse people in neuroscience. We stand in solidarity with organizations, such as (Singleton et al., 2021; Black in Neuro, 2022; SPARK Society, 2022), and the BRAINS program (Brains, 2022) which create visibility for the invisible and/or erased neuroscientists, and uplift perspectives that deviate from the mainstream. Our findings resonate with many other accounts that highlight how race and ethnic identity are reified and reinforced in dynamic ways that feed into the preservation of whiteness, power, and dominance of the majority. Additionally, findings provide rich context and situate the intersectional experiences of neuroscientist mentees from other marginalized and historically excluded backgrounds (e.g., sexually minoritized, disabled, economically disadvantaged, immigrant). Figure 1B provides a conceptual model that illustrates the layered, complex dynamic of a mentor-mentee relationship within academia.

We specifically seek to highlight the individual-level factors that both the mentor and mentee separately bring to the relationship, as well as the clear power differential that is inherent to the interpersonal dynamic. This relationship offers a set of experiences that are nested within a larger ecosystem of the academic institution as well as society and social values (Sambunjak, 2015; Vargas et al., 2021). Both participants of the mentorship dyad bring their own set of worldviews, lived experiences, and biases which influence the discourse and behaviors within the mentorship relationship (DiAngelo, 2018). Interpersonal factors such as degree of individualism vs. collectivism, expectations for the relationship, and social justice orientation (Clutterbuck, 2007; Vargas et al., 2021) vary across culture and other aspects of identity but are important factors that influence the nature of engagement particularly when there is identity incongruence. For mentors, their past experiences as a former mentee, current encounters within the system of academia, willingness to acknowledge their power and privilege, and general openness to identity differences may shape their approach to mentorship (Vargas et al., 2021). For historically marginalized mentees, feelings of imposter syndrome, social isolation, and experiences of discrimination or identity-based stress may impact help-seeking within the relationship (Williams et al., 2018; Muradoglu et al., 2022). Full appreciation of the mentorship dynamic requires careful consideration of individual attributes and experiences within the dyad as well as contextualization within a broader macrosystem of and will likely, at points, require participating in difficult dialogues as a means of engagement in equitable mentoring relations (Madore and Byrd, 2022).

Many of the academic barriers identified by our group are by design in that they recapitulate social hierarchy within the academy and have unfortunately led to a mass exodus of some of the most talented minds (see Flaherty, 2021; Matias et al., 2021 for examples). We acknowledge “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (Lorde, 1984) as the foundations of academia are deeply flawed and designed to maintain these inequities. True institutional change will require a multi-tiered approach including implementing change at the policy level. However, engaging in effective mentorship practices offers the opportunity to deconstruct oppressive systems via investing in the mentee’s success, nominating them for leadership roles, creating a sincere environment of inclusion and belongingness, and intentionally changing the demographic landscape of neuroscience even if primarily at the local (laboratory) level. As a mentor, embarking on the ongoing, life-long process of critical self-reflection and education (e.g., developing language to discuss inequities, recognizing one’s role in maintaining and/or perpetuating inequities within academia, naming and calling out epistemic exclusion)–is a crucial first step. Additionally, culturally-responsive mentorship education should be a component of faculty onboarding, and training should be routinely required throughout one’s career in the academy. Mentorship training that is process oriented and moves beyond the theory or strategy of mentorship and delves into personal mentorship experiences, reflections, and application would be especially beneficial (Balmer and Richards, 2012).

The themes in our study underscore the importance of a mentor’s awareness of their status within the larger social hierarchy, acknowledgment of the structural factors that impact diverse mentees (i.e., structural racism and power), and engagement in active allyship, emphasizing elements of academia that extend beyond those that put the onus on diverse mentees. Inaction to address these bare minimums in the face of persisting structural barriers implies complicit endorsement of the processes that cause harm to minoritized people. We offer a list of recommendations for cross-identity mentorship relationships in Figure 1C based on the collective knowledge gleaned from our group survey.

Our qualitative investigation, conducted by diverse neuroscientists about diverse neuroscientists, challenges research epistemology that prioritizes Eurocentric approaches to the production of knowledge, while highlighting the artificial distinction between the “researcher and the researched” (Probst, 2016; Holmes, 2020). We hope this examination of cross-identity mentorship in diverse early-career neuroscientists will inspire future efforts that elevate the diverse voices of those experiencing the effects of structural oppression, as those perspectives hold the transformative and radical insights needed for change.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary materials, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

TH-J wrote the first draft of this manuscript, designed the survey, and completed data analysis. RN designed the survey, completed data analysis, and contributed to writing the methods. CC-I contributed to writing the discussion and created the figure. JA contributed to writing the abstract. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.