Mentoring and sponsorship in higher education institutions: men’s invisible advantage in STEM?

Abstract

This article is concerned with the source of men's invisible advantage in the male dominated disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It is suggested that this advantage has been obscured by combining sponsorship and mentoring. The research asks: Are men or women most likely to be mentored? Is it possible to distinguish between mentoring and sponsorship? Is there gender variation in either or both of these depending on the sourcewhether from the academic supervisor, line manager or other senior academics. This qualitative study draws on interview data from 106 respondents (57 men and 48 women) at junior, middle and senior levels, in four universities: one each in Bulgaria, Denmark, Ireland and Turkey. It shows that both men and women received mentoring from their PhD supervisor, albeit with slightly different reported nuances. Men were more likely than women to receive sponsorship in that relationship. Both men and women received sponsorship from the Head of Department, whose wider responsibilities may have reduced homophily. Men were more likely than women to receive sponsorship and mentoring from senior men, with most women indicating a lack of access to such senior academics. By distinguishing between mentoring and sponsorship, this article contributes to our understanding of the way male dominance in STEM is perpetuated and suggests the source of men's invisible advantage in STEM.

An actionable anti-racism plan for geoscience organizations

“…Explicit policies and procedures require similar examination. For example, lengthy nomination procedures for awards and leadership positions in societies put undue burden on minoritized people who often do not have the required network connections within the larger white community and are less likely to be sponsored by senior (often white) male scientists 31,32 . A review and revision of the criteria for honors and awards, promotion, and leadership selection are critical to secure inclusion (ACTION #11).…”

Organisational Characteristics That Facilitate Gender-Based Violence and Harassment in Higher Education?

“…Academic careers often involve long periods of dependency, particularly at the start (Bozzon et al 2019). Relationships between academics at different career stages and between them and students are hierarchical, with power and resources concentrated in senior-position holders and with others (e.g., students, postdoctoral fellows, researchers) dependent on them for paid employment and academic success, frequently in a non-transparent ad hoc way, such as through sponsorship (Ibarra et al 2010;De Vries and Binns 2018;O'Connor et al 2019a). Such hierarchical and dependent relationships maximise the possibilities for GBVH (Johnson et al 2018;Good and Cooper 2016).…”

“…The dominant culture may remain homosocial with a 'mate-ocracy' existing: One in which 'mini-me's' are informally favoured (Cooper et al 2020). Thus, it may include a preference by those in senior positions for interaction with men, a higher evaluation of them, greater access to information and greater opportunities to get to know and trust them, leading to sponsorship of them (Grummell et al 2009;O'Connor et al 2019a). These relationships can become sources of loyalty and can engender collusion with GBVH.…”

Introduction to effective mentorship for early-career research scientists

“…Many reports have noted challenges with accessibility and barriers to STEM careers for underrepresented students [ 28 ]. Moreover, gender differences in mentorship and sponsorship have been suggested as contributing factors to the perpetuation of male-favored advantages in STEM disciplines [ 29 ]. This exclusion is often compounded by a lack of self-confidence, self-efficacy, and imposter syndrome [ 30 ].…”