BRENDA L. H. MARINA
It has been evidenced how little attention has been paid to the relationship of mentoring and the sociocultural dis/advantages for women’s career paths in academia. There are consequences for women who lack mentorship throughout their educational career, and the lack of educational scholarship on mentoring women coupled with the sociocultural dynamics and conditions of academia is a concern. Findings from my qualitative research and literature analyses on women of diverse backgrounds in general and women of African ascent in particular in higher education provide evidence (or the lack of evidence) regarding the determinants for breaking the glass ceiling that has received little attention and gives rise to this conversation (Marina, 2015). Considering the past 36 years, a range of social ideologies has been identified as intervention strategies for breaking the glass ceiling in academia.
From my womanist (Maparyan, 2012) standpoint, the glass ceiling is referred to as the highest level a professional woman can attain in a given professional field without running into an impasse in terms of achieving higher goals (Marina & Fonteneau, 2012). There was a time when the term “glass ceiling” was used mostly to refer to mainstream, upwardly mobile white women entering male-dominated professions; however, the term is more broadly used here to include all women from various professional points of view. From a social justice perspective, similar to Adams, Bell, and Griffin (2010) and Adams and Griffin (2016), this work values the discerning patterns that are often invisible yet reflect systemic aspects of oppression functioning in various contexts. The amalgamation of the glass ceiling effect and mentoring women of diverse backgrounds in academia adds a dimension to our social justice discussion as new and different voices are added to the traditional notions of academic discourse, where glass shattering transformation can occur (Marina & Fonteneau, 2012).
Narratives by and about the experiences of women of diverse backgrounds in the United States and beyond the borders of this nation shed needed light on the ways in which mentoring influences identity formation and internal coping mechanisms in environments often characterized by marginalization (Stanley, 2006a; Vargas, 2002). Through these narratives, women of diverse backgrounds serve as “quasi-mentors” and create spaces for other women to develop and enhance their sociocultural identities to survive and thrive in academia.
To unpack the identity analyses, I briefly depict “mentor influenced” discussions. These were discussions about the experiences of African American women in graduate school as compared to their White peers. Two other African American women explained how women who navigated through the STEM environment had to find their own way. They discussed how women who were less satisfied in the academic workplace are less likely to stay in STEM careers if they felt they were less likely to advance within their career. Then there were two older-than-average women (one Native American/German, the other Norwegian/French) as students who became friends and peer-mentors focused on social support. They noted that research consistently indicates that men are better positioned than women to secure organizational mentoring relationships (Ely, Ibarra, & Kolb, 2011; Sandberg, 2013) and that women are often disadvantaged in traditional formalized mentoring structures (Searby, 2010; Zachary, 2009). These discussions I classified as “on the road to academe.”
Considering another group of conversations, one White woman discussed power dynamics and how women are often cut off from more senior mentors, which perpetuates a system that exists on a “sink or swim” mentality. My African Jamaican colleague discussed formal mentoring and workplace socialization; “while formal mentoring for faculty in higher education is a prominent feature or becoming more common in countries such as England, the United States and Australia, in small island states such as Jamaica, formal mentoring for new academics is not yet ingrained in the institutional practices at one of the chief institutions of higher education.”
Further, from a Pan-Asian perspective, another colleague discussed the negative consequences of ambiguous philosophical issues around gender and ethnicity. My colleagues from the United Kingdom (UK) followed with a similar theme, noting that the Higher Education Institutional (HEI) environment is characterized by a distinct absence of sponsorship and developmental mentoring, resulting in very few female professors. These discussions I classified as “Tapping on the Glass Ceiling in Academe.”
Continuing my analyses, Tammy and two of her colleagues, all African American, described collaborative efforts that enhanced their professional development. Their discussions posited the deeply rooted institutional, organizational, departmental, and individual values, beliefs, and perceptions that perpetuate issues surrounding race and gender that inhibit the success of minoritized female faculty, emphasizing Black female faculty (Hull, Bell Scott, & Smith, 1993; Morrison, 2001). More specifically, they described an institute that played a role in the development of social capital by facilitating peer mentoring, which is necessary for success in the academy (Collins, 1986; Gregory, 1999). Three other colleagues (one from Turkey, the other two of African ascent with one being a male) chimed in about a grassroots support program with activities provided by a university for its faculty, with an emphasis on female faculty. This program functions on the premise that the socialization process of junior female academics does not have to adapt to the male patterns of academic socialization. Further, it was made clear that a feminist construct for promoting women in academia is certainly not inferior to that introduced by senior males in years past. Finally, the topic of professional associations created for women who select disciplines that are historically underrepresented by women in general and persons of color in particular further conjectured the need for critical social justice conversations supported by White feminists, Black feminists, and feminists of color (Guy-Sheftall & Cole, 2010). These discussions are classified as “Steps Toward Successful Mentoring in Academe.”
Moreover, Patricia Hill Collins (1990) writes that African American women often invoke their own concrete experiences and those of other women and communities of color in the selection of topics for investigation. As such, the scholar and researcher within me challenges the status quo and espouses to ideals of social justice and equality by bringing insights to expose the extent to which social conceptions in mentoring have supported or failed these women. Within this chapter, women differently situated but engaged in academic workspaces have taken part to bridge some of the knowledge gaps where culture implies a set of beliefs, assumptions, norms, and traditions are incorporated into the lives of those in a group. Women (and one supportive male) describe mentoring experiences that influenced their sociocultural identity development and internal coping mechanisms in educational environments often characterized by marginalization.
To further the notion of “differently situated,” bear in mind that culture exists in countries, racial and ethnic groups, and organizations and institutions, and within each of these there may be subcultures that have their own set of beliefs and values (Kochan & Pascarelli, 2003; Morrison, 2001). Similarly, context, is a framework, situation, circumstance, or environment. As such, this chapter proffers sociocultured and gendered perspectives on mentoring from varied racial and ethnic backgrounds: African American, African American with a German parent, Asian (United Kingdom), Black, White, White with Scandinavian and Native American (Chippewa) parents, White with one German parent and one Norwegian/French parent, English (United Kingdom), Jamaican, Korean, South African, and Turkish. Moreover, these perspectives on mentoring are from varied education levels, disciplines, and workspaces: business, education, mathematics, social work, STEM, undergraduate, graduate, early career, tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty, and administrators.
I examined the stories of women of diverse backgrounds through the lens of the theory of intersectionality offering a discussion on cultural patterns, variations, and similarities in mentoring utilizing Yosso’s (2005) theory of cultural capital. The theory of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) suggests that various culturally and socially constructed categories, such as race, gender, and class, interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality. Through this intersectional lens, I attempt to illuminate how our mentoring experiences as women across cultures and around the globe are interconnected.
Following the work of Kochan (2002) and Kochan and Pascarelli (2003), I considered each narrative as a case from which to extrapolate data. I conducted a content analysis to situate this discussion about mentoring within the context of the sociocultural aspects of a glass ceiling in academia. The emergent themes from the intersecting realities of each woman present theoretical contributions, personal advice, and insights for mentoring to improve the current context of higher education for women, and thus promote the shattering of the glass ceiling in academia. I have intentionally studied the concrete experiences of women of African ascent (Collins, 1990), while at the same time striving to extrapolate wisdom and meaning from other women of diverse backgrounds. Our concrete experiences, uniquely individual, are at the same time collectively connected.
All of the women communicated a unique narrative and journey of continued persistence; consequently, several African American women used autoethnography (Muncey, 2010; Siddique, 2011) to analyze and reflect on their experiences to celebrate rather than demonize their individual story (Chang, 2008). I uncovered salient themes that emerged from the narratives that were eloquently shared about the positives and negatives of mentoring experiences in academia. Consistent with the precepts of intersectionality, these themes reference various culturally and socially constructed categories, such as race, gender, class, and ageism, which interact on multiple and often simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality, or in other words, a glass ceiling in academia (Marina, 2015). Glass walls and ceilings have been systematically constructed as a consequence of sociocultural attitudes, behaviors, and practices (Marina, 2011). Further, considering a sociocultured critique, Yosso’s (2005) Theory of Cultural Capital scaffolded the discovery of cultural patterns, variations, and similarities for mentoring. Yosso names six forms of cultural capital that marginalized groups (in this case, women are the marginalized group) bring into the conversation: aspirational, navigational, social, resistant, familial, and linguistic capital. Yosso’s theory complemented the notion of intersectionality and illuminated the complexities of issues faced by women of diverse backgrounds in general and African American women in particular.
Drawing from Yosso (2005), I briefly describe three of the forms of capital that were applicable for mentoring and academia in this particular case. Aspirational capital refers to the ability to sustain high aspirations even when one’s circumstances make them seem impossible to achieve, such as living in poverty or, in this particular case, remaining diligent in carving out a space for women in historically male-dominated structures. Navigational capital refers to the skills to navigate through social institutions, particularly institutions that systemically disadvantage marginalized persons. Social capital refers to the networks of people to whom women can turn to obtain information, emotional support, and access to key institutional personnel, such as those who may help them through the tenure and promotion process. These three forms of cultural capital can be used as identity markers for both mentors and mentees to consider as areas to identify barriers and address concerns.
Two African American women particularly described their graduate school experiences and discussed the role mentoring played in their identity development. They wanted … role models who embodied confidence, poise, and who embodied success … so there would be footprints for them to follow.1 The two African American women navigating the STEM discipline shared … we needed emotional support, guidance, and direction for coping with the social issues and politics surrounding degree attainment. One of the women poignantly noted … I lost valuable time finding my own way and encountered many detours, roadblocks, and brick walls. Navigating as a Black female in an environment that was traditionally for White males was clearly a challenge. Our Scandinavian/Native American and Norwegian/French colleagues said … during our graduate school experiences, formalized mentoring structures were very limited. Informal mentoring and/or peer mentoring proved to be the mechanism to help lessen the feelings of isolation and face obstacles as we navigated through academe. Embarking on graduate education, the African American women appeared to have encountered glass ceiling structures and obstacles to a greater degree. Systemic disadvantages were the major concern thwarting the navigational capital during the critical years of graduate education.
One White woman described academic socialization as … neither consistent nor an institutionalized process, and dependent upon the discipline, institution, or individual … socialization occurred mainly on-the-job, through trial and error, and with little formal training or formal mentoring. Similarly, my African Jamaican colleague noted that formal mentoring as an aspect of workplace socialization is not embedded in the organizational culture for several higher education institutions in my country. The two women from the United Kingdom furthered the notion that both informal and formal mentoring relationships are beneficial. These women firmly believed that informal mentoring relationships have been the basis for our academic socialization, however, … there remains the need for the adoption of formal processes and structures to support the professional well-being of faculty and staff. While social capital was the dominant theme with this group of women, there was one Korean woman whose early life reflections hint to the development of aspirational capital. The early lessons (mentoring) she gained as a protégé caused her to remain diligent in male-dominant spaces.
The theme of social capital continued as other African American women discussed that mentors were needed to build the social capital necessary for success and survival in academia. Peer mentoring and informal mentoring experiences were reiterated as extremely effective tools to build social capital. While four other African American women added their voices to the social capital issue (a social justice issue), their contention about the differential gender-based socialization process in academia applied to aspirational capital as they found structures not necessarily conducive to thriving in academia; however, they persevered and continue to tap on glass ceilings. Adams and colleagues (2013) portend that we need to affirm and value social and cultural differences and challenge the social norms and policies in institutions where difference is profoundly unequal.
While each woman spoke about mentoring experiences, relationships, and programs, several also suggested that women in large part are responsible for mentoring away the glass ceiling. For example, two respondents noted that they were intentional in selecting graduate programs with African American faculty members who shared their research interests and perspectives in higher education. Similarly, Virginia and Krystal said that African American women should not be afraid to seek support from individuals. Alison pointed out that it is women who carry the responsibility to move inside the margins and to help other women create their identities. As social justice educators, mentors, and role models, to tap on the glass ceiling, it is our responsibility to engage, inform, and provoke, as eloquently noted by Morrison and Denard (2008) in “What Moves at the Margin.”
Reflections and building confidence. I also suggest that women are in large part responsible for mentoring away the glass ceiling. The women in this study support this notion, as they collectively suggest that critical reflection and building one’s confidence can construct and maintain empowering definitions of self (Marina, 2015). Jennifer and Jeanette felt that scholarly reflection on one’s own experiences helped us to understand the experiences, issues, and obstacles we faced along the journey. Vanna, Abe, and Andy suggested that being mindful and reflective on one’s own experience in academia is an important ingredient of meaningful mentoring. Through reflection and critical dialogue, Julie’s mentor helped her to reach her own conclusions, which spurred the development of her confidence and self-esteem. Charlotte, regularly reflected on her mentoring process, which broadened her scope for change and new ideas. Wilma’s mentoring alliance improved her sense of worth as a scholar, and Joni noted that her mentoring relationship with her peer was the beginning of rebuilding her confidence as a faculty member. These self-initiated, self-reflective experiences suggest that, with diligence in identifying aspirational, navigational, and social capital issues (a reflective process), individual confidences created by women will be bolstered. As we make these connections with our own identities, we are better equipped to call attention to discrepancies between the rhetoric and practice of social justice in our academic spaces (Ross, 2016).
Peer mentoring and informal and formal mentoring. Several women (and one male) described peer mentoring as key for them, and every woman mentioned informal or formal mentoring networks, relationships, or programs. It was suggested that such relationships with other caring and nurturing women increase positive self-identity and self-efficacy (Packer-Williams & Evans, 2011). Peer mentoring was described as an opportunity that brought peers together as sisters, which met a need for faculty of color. Because faculty of color receive less social support than their White counterparts (Jackson, 2004; Ponjuan, Martin Conley, & Trower, 2011), peer relationships provide greater access to mentoring (Thomas, Hu, Gewin, Bingham, & Yanchus, 2005). A colleague from South Africa described her first mentoring experiences in her new leadership role as “corridor” mentoring. While she looked for a clear process of mentoring from her dean, she found herself asking questions of her peers as she passed them by in the corridors of the institution.
Informal mentoring relationships were the supports necessary for PhD journeys, helped in the development of identities as mentors, and were the fundamental part of students’ socialization processes in the academy. It was an evident and common theme that due to missing or inadequate formal mentoring, women in the academy relied on themselves and others for support and guidance (Fries-Britt & Kelly, 2005; Myers, 2002). It was suggested that formalized mentoring programs at the university level must be created and supported for women by women for the professional well-being of new members to the academy. If institutions moved from informal mentoring to more formal mentoring programs, the diverse needs of early career professionals aspiring to leadership roles may be met; the benefits of formal policies and programs that provide formal, structured mentoring experiences should not be overlooked.
Some of the women in this study now serve as mentors because of the supportive networks and environments they experienced. For others, the opposite is true: they now serve as mentors because of the lack of mentorship throughout their academic and or professional journey. Considering the intersecting realities (Crenshaw, 1991; Davis, 2008) of these African American women and the other women of diverse backgrounds, insights are offered for mentors, mentees, and educational intuitions and organizations. Whether it is the uneven terrain and journey that occurs from the onset of graduate education for women of diverse backgrounds (disciplines, cultures, age variance, etc.), or career issues and concerns that call attention to the positive and negative aspects of mentoring for women (Adams et al., 2013; Marina & Ross, 2016), or institutions responding to the sociocultural dynamics from within and without (Morrison, 2008), there is glass to be broken.
A Word to tap on the glass for mentees. Mentorship, in various forms, is critical for cultivating the self-definition necessary to resist the oppressiveness of university environments. The mentoring experience can facilitate emotional and sociocultural adjustments that come with the journey within institutions, disciplines, or departments. Further, a team of mentors can help reduce those feelings of isolation, low confidence, cultural alienation, and disillusionment that women often feel in male-dominated spaces (Herzig, 2004; Ponjuan, Martin Conley, & Trower, 2011). It is wise to build a team of mentors and have at least one mentor who can relate to the personal (e.g., gender-wise, social, cultural, racial, geographical) issues faced by women. Some of the women in this chapter preferred mentors who “looked like them”; however, their overall advice was that women should be open to mentorship from other well-intentioned and qualified individuals (e.g., mentors from other ethnic groups and/or genders or institutions). Being open to mentorship that was previously unconsidered is an opportunity to capitalize on being at the right place at the right time for career development, advancement, and potential success (Marina, 2015). Ming Fang He (2016) encourages clashing with the traditional … thriving in-between landscapes of education … to confront issues of social justice to bring positive social and educational change.
A word to tap on the glass for mentors. Mentors of women must be intentional about mentoring by identifying the aspirational, navigational, and social capital challenges and assist with gaining access to critical knowledge, networks, and other professional development opportunities. Insights into the sociocultural dynamics of an institution will help mentees understand how to engage and build relationships with key people in the academy. As such, mentors must continue developing strategies to increase the number of women working in leadership roles in academia and decrease feelings of isolation and alienation within courses, departments, colleges, or disciplines (Adams et al., 2013; Stanley, 2006b). Moreover, it is necessary for women mentors to share their stories (Bell, 2010) to empower and facilitate a better understanding of other women’s experiences.
A word to tap on the glass for institutions. The remnants of deeply rooted institutional, organizational, departmental, individual values, beliefs, and perceptions (Morrison, 2001) that perpetuate sociocultural issues that impede the success of women in academia must be obliterated. Institutions can benefit by diminishing exclusionary practices that impede mentoring, from ageism (DeJong & Love, 2010; Ostrom-Blonigen & Larson-Casselton, 2016) to racism (Bell, Love, & Roberts, 2007). While mentoring support is needed to increase the number of women of diverse backgrounds working in leadership roles in academia, the goal should be to change and sustain institutional culture shifts that go beyond merely adding women. Institutions should take note that effectively mentored women are more likely to stay at the university, receive more grant income, obtain a higher level of promotions, and have more positive perceptions of themselves as academics compared with nonmentored female academics (Marina, 2016). As such, incentivizing mentoring programs is a win-win proposition.
A consistent institutionalized process for academic socialization with some common starting points would likely pave the way for women to begin and advance in their careers. However, the consideration for the differing paths taken and the modification of “one-size fits all” models for mentoring relationships could better meet the needs of women seeking mentors (Peña & Wilder, 2011). There is strong evidence of the benefits of informal mentoring relationships for academic socialization; as such, higher education institutions should take decisive and proactive steps to develop and maintain structures and processes to support both informal and formal mentoring relationships and programs.
My South African colleague seemed to capture the essence of every articulated voice in these conversations. Collectively, these voices tell a story, a story about social justice; Bell (2010) calls it storytelling for social justice. Because social justice for the individual and for the collective is very important from the South African view, I will let her heart speak to our minds. Fatima was excited about the new opportunity for a leadership role, however, when she found that she was not being mentored as she expected, she reached out to peers and those who had done what she was trying to do. She also tapped into the untapped resources in the organization—the janitorial staff, who were very helpful in many ways. Fatima would say, “you must reach out.” There were times when Fatima simply had to learn it her own way—self-learning. She tapped into her own assets; she had to read and use her computer to gain her own social capital. Fatima would say, “you must reach in.” I support this social justice action, as I described such similar conundrums in Mentor Myself? The Juxtaposition of Identity Development for Women of Color in Higher Education (Marina, 2016). As Fatima reflected on her experiences, she found mentoring policies and agendas that were not fully executed. She also found that the women at the upper levels were not accessible; it seemed that they enjoyed saying that they broke that glass ceiling and wore it like a badge—they didn’t want that trophy taken away from them. Fatima would say, “you must reach down.”
It is my hope that both men and women may come to embrace the need to work within the context of knowing that what he or she does in any education discipline is a contribution to something higher than him- or herself (Bell, 2002). As a woman of African ascent, I must remind myself that I have assumed a role as leader, advocate, and collaborator in a male-dominated system to address ethical and equity concerns in the socioenvironmental and political contexts (Marina, 2016; Sefa Dei, 2002) of academia. If we as African-ascendant educators, scholars, researchers and mentor/teachers immerse ourselves in the spaces that are congruent with what we know in body, mind, and spirit, we can construct more authentic paradigms for women and deconstruct the boundaries and norms of Western ways. Where mentors of color are absent or scant on university campuses, we must constantly reassess our academic impact and continually create intellectual spaces in academe that affirm and support mentoring women of color. Mentors can enhance the aspirational, navigational, and social capital of women in higher education by extending their reach. In our reaching, we are teaching; we can transform social conceptions and break glass ceilings. Reach out, reach in, reach down!
1.Italicized text represents quotes from interviews.
Adams, M., Bell, L., & Griffin, P. (2010). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.
Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W., Castaneda, C., Hackman, H., Peters, M., & Zúñiga, X. (2013). Readings for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.
Adams, M., & Griffin, P. (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.
Bell, D. Ethical ambitions: Living a life of meaning and worth. New York: Bloomsbury.
Bell, L. (2010). Storytelling for social justice: Connecting narrative and the arts in antiracist teaching. New York: Routledge.
Bell, L. Love, B., & Roberts, R. (2007). Racism, and white privilege curriculum design. In M. Adams, L. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A source book for teachers (pp. 123–144). New York: Routledge.
Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography as method. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), 514–532.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color, Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–87.
DeJong, K., & Love, B. (2010). Ageism and adultism. In M. Adams, W. Blumenfeld, C. Casteneda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 533–540). New York: Routledge.
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy of Management, Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–493.
Fries-Britt, S., & Kelly, B. T. (2005). Retaining each other: Narratives of two African American women in the academy. Urban Review, 37(3), 221–242. doi: 10.1007/s11256-005-0006-2
Guy-Sheftall, B., & Cole, J. (2010). Who should be first: Feminists speak out on the 2008 presidential campaign. Albany: State University of New York Press.
He, M. (2016). Thriving in-between landscapes of education. The Sophist Bane, 8(1), 47–56.
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
Holmes, S. L., Land, L. D., & Hinton-Huston, V. D. (2007). Race still matters: Considerations for mentoring Black women in academe. The Negro Educational Review, 58(1/2), 105–129.
Hull, G., Bell Scott, P., & Smith, B. (1993). But some of us are brave: All the women are white, all the blacks are men: Black women’s studies. New York: The Feminist Press at CUNY.
Jackson, J. (2004). The story is not in the numbers: Academic socialization and diversifying the faculty. NWSA Journal, 172–185.
Gregory, S. T. (1999). Black women in the academy: The secrets to success and achievement. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Herzig, A. (2004). Slaughtering this beautiful math: Graduate women choosing and leaving mathematics. Gender and Education, 16(3), 379.
Kochan, F. (2002). Examining the organizational and human dimensions of mentoring: A textual data analysis. In F. K. Kochan (Ed.), The organizational and human dimensions of successful mentoring programs and relationships (pp. 269–286). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Kochan, F., Kent, A., & Green, A. (Eds.) (2014). Uncovering the hidden cultural dynamics in mentoring programs and relationships: Enhancing practice and research. Vol. 4: Perspectives in Mentoring Series. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Kochan, F., & Pascarelli, J. (2003). Global perspectives on mentoring: Transforming contexts, communities, and cultures. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Maparyan, L. (2012). The womanist idea. New York: Routledge.
Marina, B. L. H. (2016). Mentor myself? The juxtaposition of identity development for women of color in higher education. The Sophist Bane, 8(1), 29–33.
Marina, B. L. H. (Ed.) (2015). Mentoring away the glass ceiling in academia: A cultured critique. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Marina, B. L. H. (2014). A cultural connection to identity development for graduate female students of color. In F. Kochan, A. Kent, & A Green (Eds.), Uncovering the hidden cultural dynamics in mentoring programs and relationships: Enhancing practice and research (Vol. 4: Perspectives in Mentoring Series; pp. 63–77). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Marina, B. L. H., & Fonteneau, D. Y. (2012). Servant leaders who picked up the broken glass. Journal of Pan African Studies, 5(2), 67–83.
Marina, B. L. H. (2011). Breaking ground and breaking barriers in a globalized world. In S. Fullerton & D. Moore (Ed.), Global business trends contemporary readings 2011 edition (pp. 117–122). Ypsilanti, MI: Academy Business Administration. ISBN 1-887676-03-1
Marina, B. L. H, & Ross, S. (2016). Beyond retention: Cultivating spaces of equity, justice, and fairness for women of color in U.S. higher education. Research for Social Justice: Personal~ Passionate~ Participatory Inquiry Book Series. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing (IAP).
Morrison, T. (2001). How can values be taught in the university? Michigan Quarterly Review, 40(2), 273–278.
Morrison, T., & Denard, C. (2008). What moves at the margin: Selected nonfiction. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Myers, L. (2002). A broken silence: Voices of African American women in the academy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Muncey, J. (2010). Creating autoethnographies. London: Sage.
Ostrom-Blonigen, J., & Larson-Casselton, C. (2015). Navigating the turbulent boundaries of a Ph.d. program: A supportive peer-mentoring relationship. In B. Marina, Mentoring away the glass ceiling in academia: A cultured critique (pp. 41–58), Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Packer-Williams, C. L., & Evans, K. M. (2011). Retaining and reclaiming ourselves: Reflections on a peer mentoring group experience for new African American women professors. Perspectives in Peer Programs, 23(1), 9–23.
Peña, M., & Wilder, J. (2011). Mentoring transformed: When students of color see diversity in leadership. Diversity in Higher Education, 10, 345–363.
Ponjuan, L., Conley, V. M., & Trower, C. (2011). Career stage differences in pre-tenure track faculty perceptions of professional and personal relationships with colleagues. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(3), 319–346.
Ross, S. (2016). Dangerous terrain: Reflections of a Black woman teacher educator working within predominantly white universities. The Sophist Bane, 8(1), 5–10.
Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York: Knopf.
Searby, L., & Collins, L. (2010). Mentor and mother hen: Just what I needed as a first-year professor. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 30(20), 1–16.
Sefa Dei, G. (2002). Spiritual knowing and transformative learning. Working paper #59. Retrieved from nall.oise.utoronto.ca/res/59GeorgeDei.pdf
Siddique, S. (2011). Being in-between: The relevance of ethnography and auto-ethnography for psychotherapy research. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research, 11(4), 310–316.
Stanley, C. A. (2006a). An overview of the literature. In C. A. Stanley (Ed.), Faculty of color: Teaching in predominantly White colleges and universities (pp. 1–29). Bolton: Anker.
Stanley, C. A. (2006b). Summary and key recommendations for the recruitment and retention of faculty of color. In C. A. Stanley (Ed.), Faculty of color: Teaching in predominantly White colleges and universities (pp. 361–373). Bolton: Anker.