A Qualitative Examination of Mentoring Practices for First-Generation,Low-Income STEM Students Through a Critical Intersectionality Lens

Abstract

This study examines the mentoring experiences of first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students in STEM through the lens of Critical Intersectional Mentoring (CIM). Drawing on testimonios from McNair Scholars, this study identifies the systemic barriers and power dynamics that shape mentoring relationships and limit academic success. Traditional mentorship models often ignore intersecting identities, leading to experiences of marginalization, mentor absenteeism, and cultural disconnection. The CIM framework integrates Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy to reframe mentoring as a social justice practice grounded in equity, empowerment, and relational trust. Using qualitative content analysis of pláticas, the study uncovers three key themes: (1) power dynamics and intersectional identities, (2) systemic racism in institutional practices, and (3) effective mentoring practices. The findings reveal that students thrive when mentorship affirms their identities, fosters collaboration, and centers lived experiences. The study offers practical recommendations for faculty and institutions to embed equity-centered mentoring into STEM structures through inclusive training, culturally responsive pedagogy, and institutional accountability. By institutionalizing CIM principles, universities can shift from performative inclusion to transformative equity, increasing retention, belonging, and success for historically excluded students in STEM.

Introduction

Mentoring is widely recognized in higher education and educational leadership studies as a critical factor in student success, particularly within research-intensive and graduate preparatory programs. For underrepresented students in STEM, especially first-generation and low-income, mentorship often determines academic success, yet traditional models frequently fail to address systemic inequalities and intersectional identities.

According to the National Science Foundation (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2023), Black, Hispanic, and Native American students earn less than 20% of all STEM degrees, despite comprising over 30% of the college-aged population. These disparities perpetuate cycles of exclusion from high-paying, high-impact sectors critical to innovation, public health, and technology. Improving mentorship for underrepresented students is a tangible, evidence-based strategy for diversifying the future STEM workforce and enhancing social mobility.

While mentorship is widely promoted as a high-impact educational practice, it often fails students who sit at the intersection of race, class, and gender marginalization. Traditional mentoring often reinforces inequities by ignoring power dynamics and cultural differences (Nkrumah & Scott, 2022; Weiston-Serdan, 2017). Few studies have explored how intersectionality informs mentoring experiences or how students’ testimonios can expose and challenge the systemic failures within current mentoring practices. There remains an urgent need to reconceptualize mentoring through equity-centered and intersectional frameworks.

Many colleges and universities struggle to implement genuinely inclusive mentoring in STEM (Byars-Winston et al., 2020). There is no consensus on what constitutes “effective” mentoring for marginalized students. Traditional definitions tend to emphasize academic output, retention, or publication productivity, while more recent work suggests that emotional support, identity affirmation, and critical consciousness are equally vital (Brown & Montoya, 2020; Fries-Britt & Snider, 2015). First-generation and low-income students often face cultural and generational gaps with faculty mentors, leading to disconnect and emotional fatigue (Merriweather & Morgan, 2013). Moreover, studies rarely interrogate how racism, classism, and gender bias operate within mentoring relationships or how institutional forces shape this relationship (Limeri et al., 2019; McCoy et al., 2015). This divergence signals a need for frameworks to bridge these perspectives through a social justice lens.

This study examines the mentoring experiences of first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students in STEM through the lens of Critical Intersectional Mentoring (CIM). By analyzing the McNair Scholars’ testimonios, the study uncovers how intersecting identities and systemic power dynamics shape mentorship and proposes an equity-driven framework for inclusive practices. CIM framework synthesizes Critical Race Theory (CRT), Intersectionality, and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP). CIM reconceptualizes mentorship as a form of social justice practice, emphasizing power awareness, cultural responsiveness, and the centering of mentee lived experiences. The study gathered pláticas and testimonios from McNair Scholars in STEM fields, thereby elevating the nuanced and often overlooked voices of first-generation, low-income, and students of color to shed light on the barriers, power dynamics, and affirming experiences that characterize academic mentoring relationships.

Additionally, the study seeks to convert its findings into practical strategies for faculty mentors, program administrators, and educational leaders by focusing on power-sharing, identity-affirming engagement, trust-building, and advocacy. These practices are vital for cultivating a sense of belonging and academic resilience among marginalized students in STEM. Ultimately, this study advocates for the institutionalization of equity-centered mentoring practices at the policy level, calling for faculty development, inclusive curriculum design, and structural supports that embed CIM principles into the core of the STEM field and, therefore, enhance retention, persistence, and representation of historically marginalized students. Ultimately, this study advocates for the institutionalization of equity-centered mentoring practices at the policy level, calling for faculty development, inclusive curriculum design, and structural supports that embed CIM principles into the core of the STEM field and enhance retention and representation of historically marginalized students. This study asks: How do first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented STEM students experience and make meaning of their mentoring relationships, and in what ways do these experiences reflect the influence of power, identity, and systemic inequities?

Literature Review

Given the broad recognition of mentoring as a pivotal factor in student success, particularly within research-intensive and graduate preparatory programs, higher education has increasingly supported the development of undergraduate research experiences. In 1987, the National Science Foundation (NSF), an independent federal agency supporting science and engineering in the U.S., relaunched undergraduate research through the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program, designed to support students’ hands-on research experiences. Nearly 40 years later, NSF continues to lead in funding undergraduate research, with $1.12 billion invested between 2002 and 2017 (McDevitt et al., 2020). NSF is also widely recognized for its role in broadening the participation of underrepresented students in STEM (James & Singer, 2016) due to the disproportionately low representation of Black, Native American, and Latinx students in STEM fields at all levels of higher education (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2023). In addition to NSF, several other organizations, such as the National Institute of Health, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education, have supported the development of research opportunities for undergraduates, especially in STEM. STEM has been defined based on the Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE), which includes a broad range of fields in the STEM category such as psychology, economics, sociology, anthropology, political science, and linguistics.

One federally funded program important to this study is the Ronald E. McNair Scholars Post-Baccalaureate Program, which was funded by the U.S. Department of Education in 1986 (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). The McNair Program exists in over 200 higher education institutions in the U.S. and Puerto Rico and supports students who come from low-income and first-generation backgrounds, and students who are underrepresented in graduate school by providing research and scholarly opportunities, mentoring, seminars and educational preparation, academic counseling, and support with graduate school admission and financial aid (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). From its inception, the McNair Program was designed to support low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented students in higher education, with targeted preparation for doctoral degree attainment and to increase diversity among doctoral degree holders. The McNair Program is highly effective in elevating underrepresented and first-generation students into advanced graduate programs and beyond (Renbarger & Beaujean, 2020).

Definition of Diversity and Intersectional Identities

In this study, diversity is understood not merely as demographic representation but as a relational and structural construct encompassing race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and first-generation status. Rather than viewing these categories as discrete or additive, an intersectional framework recognizes how these identities interact within systems of power to shape opportunity, belonging, and recognition in higher education (Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 1989; Hurtado, 2020). Within the U.S. context, underrepresented identities refer to populations historically excluded from equitable participation in postsecondary education—particularly Black, Latinx, Native American, Pacific Islander, and first-generation, low-income students (U.S. Department of Education, 2025). This study therefore conceptualizes diversity through a critical lens that foregrounds structural inequities and cultural capital rather than numerical inclusion alone. Such an approach aligns with the Critical Intersectional Mentoring (CIM) framework, which emphasizes power awareness, identity affirmation, and relational accountability as essential to effective mentorship (Museus et al., 2015; Weiston-Serdan, 2017).

Faculty mentoring for McNair Scholars, especially within REUs and local university research experiences, has been at the core of the McNair Program (Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, 2019). These experiences help students develop their research identities (Renee Posselt & Black, 2012). Hernandez et al. (2018) found that students who engage in faculty-mentored research for 10 or more hours per week or for more than two semesters are significantly more likely to graduate and gain acceptance into graduate programs in STEM fields. Furthermore, several other studies have demonstrated that research experiences bolster students’ persistence in STEM degree programs and stimulate their aspiration to pursue postgraduate studies (Russell et al., 2007). While the positive impact of undergraduate research on student retention and academic progression is well-documented as a high-impact practice, there is increasing recognition that the quality of mentoring varies considerably among students.

For instance, Thiry and Laursen (2011) highlighted the variation in mentoring quality related to mentor absenteeism, misaligned expectations, lack of career support, and unequal treatment. Nkrumah and Scott (2022) argued that mentoring initiatives in STEM higher education often fail to address the unique challenges faced by underrepresented students, particularly women of color. Current mentoring approaches frequently operate on deficit-based assumptions, perceiving underrepresented students as lacking technological, social, and cultural resources and needing to be “fixed,” rather than acknowledging their existing strengths and potential (Nkrumah & Scott, 2022). In Limeri et al.’s (2019) study, 33 undergraduate life science majors reported negative mentoring experiences such as absenteeism, abuse of power, interpersonal mismatch, lack of career and technical guidance, inadequate psychosocial support, misaligned expectations, and unequal treatment, including belittling, humiliating, and taking credit for mentees’ work. Although Limeri et al. (2019) did not explicitly center underrepresented students, 23 of the 33 participants identified as people of color, and 22 were women. These findings are nevertheless troubling when viewed in relation to the diverse identities of McNair Scholars and the distinct challenges they face in undergraduate and graduate research mentorship.

However, a significant gap remains in understanding how intersecting identities shape the mentor–mentee relationship and how this affects marginalized student populations. Thus, Nkrumah and Scott’s (2022) have called for mentorship grounded in intersectionality and resistance to oppressive behaviors, structures, and systems. This study challenges conventional mentoring models that often reproduce inequities for marginalized students by addressing a critical gap of how intersectional identities—such as race, gender, and class—shape power dynamics in STEM mentorship.

But what does power dynamics have to do with mentoring? This study demonstrates that power dynamics are central to understanding mentor–mentee relationships. Because less attention has been paid to how structural and institutional power, particularly at the meso level, shapes these relationships. These power layers, embedded in academic norms and traditions, often reinforce inequities. For example, Merton’s concept of the “ethos of science,” especially the principle of universalism, promotes a meritocratic view of science that overlooks how race, gender, and class shape access to opportunities (Baber, 2015). Although universalism claims objectivity, it can obscure the exclusion of students whose lived experiences and knowledge systems fall outside dominant norms (Fitzpatrick & Santamaría, 2015; Torres García, 2023).

Critical Race Theory (CRT) scholars argue that such frameworks marginalize students of color by privileging Eurocentric and Western epistemologies (Crenshaw, 1989; Ladson-Billings, 1994). Traditional mentoring models further this marginalization through hierarchical, one-directional relationships that limit mentees’ agency and prioritize assimilation over transformation (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004; Torres García, 2023; Weiston-Serdan, 2017). Mentors often serve as gatekeepers to networks and resources, reinforcing inequities when power remains unchecked. This is particularly harmful for first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students, whose voices and leadership are frequently excluded from shaping the mentoring process. To address these issues, Brown and Montoya (2020) call for an intersectional mentorship model that centers empowerment, critical consciousness, and social justice. Their approach reframes mentoring as a vehicle for both academic achievement and personal transformation. Building on this, our study applies a Critical Intersectional Mentoring (CIM) framework—rooted in Weiston-Serdan’s (2017) critical mentoring and Brown and Montoya’s (2020) intersectional model, to challenge hierarchical mentoring norms and support more equitable, transformative mentoring relationships.

Theoretical Framework

Critical Intersectional Mentoring (CIM) emerges from a rich foundation of Critical Race Theory (CRT), Intersectionality, Critical Pedagogy and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. It centers on how marginalized identities interact with power structures to shape experiences within academic and mentoring relationships. Rooted in social justice and equity, CIM draws on theoretical contributions that have reshaped mentoring research, especially for underrepresented students in STEM.

Building on the work of Crenshaw (1989) and Collins (2000), Intersectionality reveals how systems of oppression, such as racism, sexism, and classism, intersect to produce unique forms of marginalization. In mentoring, these overlapping identities critically shape how power, access, and support are navigated. CIM highlights the compounded challenges faced by mentees with multiple marginalized identities, offering a framework to examine and transform mentoring practices through an intersectional lens.

Weiston-Serdan (2017) introduced Critical Mentoring as a transformative alternative to traditional, hierarchical mentoring models that often reinforce systemic inequities and marginalize underrepresented students. Traditional mentoring presumes a one-directional flow of knowledge from mentor to mentee, positioning the mentor as expert and the mentee as deficient. This dynamic is especially problematic in cross-cultural and cross-racial contexts, where power differences are magnified. Weiston-Serdan (2017) asserts that mentoring relationships are inherently power-laden and must be interrogated, particularly in relation to first-generation, low-income, and students of color. Critical Mentoring reframes mentorship as a practice of co-learning, empowerment, and advocacy. It calls on mentors to examine their own positionality and intentionally cultivate equitable, inclusive spaces. Critical Intersectional Mentoring (CIM) builds on this foundation by addressing the specific needs of students whose identities exist at the intersection of multiple forms of marginalization. CIM is further informed by Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, as articulated by Ladson-Billings (1995) and Gay (1994), emphasizing the importance of cultural responsiveness in educational relationships. In applying CIM, this study also draws from Yosso’s (2005) concept of Community Cultural Wealth to analyze McNair Scholars’ testimonios, affirming the assets these students contribute to the mentoring relationship.

The theoretical framework of CIM has emerged as an approach to addressing the complex challenges faced by individuals with intersecting marginalized identities by examining systemic barriers and explicitly confronting intersections of oppression, offering an effective method for supporting marginalized students. This framework fosters belonging and inclusion by creating spaces where individuals feel seen, heard, and valued for their unique identities, while validating both experiential and traditional knowledge. Additionally, CIM empowers mentors and mentees to challenge systemic inequalities, contributing to broader social change efforts. As an evolving field, CIM is a dynamic, equity-driven framework rooted in social justice, critical pedagogy, and intersectionality. Rather than a static model, CIM offers a set of evolving principles that support inclusive, responsive, and transformative mentoring relationships. This study emphasizes six interrelated principles central to CIM:

1. Centering mentees’ lived experience: CIM places the lived experiences of mentees, shaped by intersecting identities such as race, gender, class, and sexual orientation, at the core of the mentoring relationship (Crenshaw, 1989; Weiston-Serdan, 2017). Recognizing these experiences requires mentors to actively listen and create affirming, culturally inclusive spaces. Drawing on Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth model, mentors must validate the unique knowledge and strengths that mentees bring, fostering environments where students feel supported both academically and personally.

2. Acknowledging and navigating power dynamics: Mentoring inherently involves power. CIM calls for a critical examination of how power operates within mentor-mentee relationships, especially when shaped by structural inequalities and social hierarchies (Brown & Montoya, 2020; Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004). Mentors must reflect on their positionality and intentionally work to deconstruct hierarchical models that undermine mentee agency. For students who are first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented in STEM, this principle is essential to fostering equity and reciprocal engagement.

3. Fostering critical consciousness: CIM incorporates Freirean principles of critical pedagogy, emphasizing the need for reflective dialogue around systemic oppression and social justice (Freire, 1970). Through open discussions of bias, discrimination, and institutional barriers, mentors and mentees co-construct knowledge that challenges dominant narratives and affirms marginalized perspectives (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001).

4. Promoting empowerment and advocacy: CIM requires mentors to move beyond academic guidance and toward active empowerment and advocacy. This includes equipping mentees with tools to navigate institutional barriers and advocating for institutional change on their behalf (Brown & Montoya, 2020; Weiston-Serdan, 2017). Empowerment also entails encouraging mentees to define their own success and pursue leadership, reinforcing their agency and self-determination.

5. Practicing culturally responsive mentoring and building trust: Mentoring practices must reflect an understanding of the mentee’s cultural background, affirming their identity through culturally relevant examples and inclusive pedagogies (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Trust is a foundational element, built through consistent, respectful, and relational engagement. For marginalized students, trust cultivates the psychological safety needed for authentic sharing, growth, and belonging (Brown & Montoya, 2020; Weiston-Serdan, 2017).

6. Engaging in ongoing reflection and growth: CIM views mentoring as an iterative process of mutual learning. Both mentors and mentees engage in continual self-reflection, adjusting practices based on evolving needs and feedback (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Weiston-Serdan, 2017). This principle underscores mentoring as a shared journey marked by curiosity, humility, and growth.

Together, these principles offer a holistic framework for transforming mentoring practices in higher education. When enacted intentionally, CIM enables mentors to support the academic and personal success of students from historically marginalized backgrounds, particularly in STEM, while challenging the systems that hinder their full participation and advancement.

Methods

Data Collection

This study employed a qualitative phenomenological design to explore the lived experiences of first-generation, low-income students in STEM fields who had participated in undergraduate research mentoring. Participants were recruited from a federally funded program that supports underrepresented students in preparing for graduate education; however, the program itself was not the focus of the study. Instead, it served as a vessel/conduit for identifying students who met the study’s inclusion criteria. The phenomenological approach was selected to capture the meaning participants ascribed to their mentoring experiences and to illustrate how intersecting identities shaped those experiences. The study followed Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines, safeguarding participants’ identities throughout. Participants provided informed consent electronically and could withdraw at any time. The study posed minimal risk and offered significant benefit by informing equitable mentoring practices for first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented STEM students. The primary aim was to gather insights from McNair Scholars regarding their mentoring experiences, exploring their needs, valued mentor qualities, and mentorship’s role in their academic development. This study involved participants from one of the Pacific Northwest’s leading TRIO McNair Programs. McNair Scholars who completed at least one STEM undergraduate research project under faculty guidance were invited to participate via email. Twenty-one McNair Scholars from STEM disciplines were recruited for interviews called pláticas, which function as narrative, open-ended interviews that honor participant voice and relational knowledge-building (Fierros & Bernal, 2016). These pláticas, as culturally grounded qualitative methods, aimed to elicit detailed testimonios about participants’ mentorship experiences, identifying effective and ineffective mentoring traits. The pláticas explored how students choose mentors, their relationship expectations, and characteristics that make mentors effective or detrimental, it allowed participants to reflect on their academic and mentoring experiences. Scholars reflected on past mentoring experiences either in their undergraduate or graduate years, suggesting improvements and describing their envisioned mentoring style. The pláticas were conducted via Zoom to accommodate participants, including those who relocated to different states for graduate school during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each session lasted between 60 and 90 min (average duration of 75 min) and was conducted in a single sitting. Participants were invited to share follow-up reflections by email after the interview if they wished to clarify or expand on any aspect of their narratives. All interviews were conducted in English, recorded with participant consent, and subsequently transcribed verbatim for analysis. The Zoom recordings from all the interviews were deleted after their transcriptions were completed to further ensure their anonymity. Detailed notes and recordings were taken for transcription and analysis. The data collection captured authentic testimonios, reflecting McNair participants’ diverse experiences with their research mentors.

Data Analysis

Of the 21 McNair Scholars initially recruited, 14 participated and completed the pláticas. Creswell (1998) suggests a range of 5 to 25 participants for a phenomenological design. All participant names are pseudonyms to protect participants’ confidentiality and ensure anonymity in accordance with ethical research practices and IRB approval. The investigators were careful not to position themselves within a particular epistemological stance before reviewing the pláticas. As students’ personal experiences regarding mentoring relationships unfolded, investigators held weekly meetings to discuss themes. These meetings were to weave the literature review with emerging themes, topics raised by interviewees, and investigators’ realities, ensuring data analysis within a robust theoretical framework. The authors used content analysis and applied thematic coding to review data from the interviews or pláticas with the unit of analysis being the individual experience of our participants who were first-generation, low-income STEM students. This approach is a standardized form of examining content to explore ideas, patterns, and connections to discover hidden characteristics that emerge from content to construct reliable conclusions (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Each team member independently coded the data into generalized themes, followed by collaborative triangulation to ensure reliability and depth. In this context, triangulation refers to researchers convening and comparing themes that had emerged from their analysis taking into consideration the literature from the subject matter as well as their own lived experiences as mentees and mentors. Not all themes identified by the researchers made it into the grouping below because a consensus about being a common theme that emerged from the research couldn’t be reached. To ensure analytic rigor and minimize researcher bias, each author independently coded all transcripts before meeting collectively to compare interpretations and refine themes. Through collaborative triangulation and reflexive dialogue, the team examined potential assumptions, reached consensus on theme definitions, and confirmed that findings accurately reflected participants’ lived experiences rather than researchers’ preconceived notions.

Positionality of Participants

The participants in this study were fourteen McNair Scholars who identified as first-generation, low-income students pursuing degrees in STEM disciplines. Their social identities reflected intersectional configurations of race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status, including Hispanic/Latinx, African American, Native American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander and white students. All participants identified as women except for two men. All engaged in mentorship relationships through McNair-sponsored research experiences.

Although this study centers on the voices of mentees, their testimonios revealed relational insights into the positionalities of their mentors as well. Most mentors were described as tenured or tenure-track faculty members who occupied dominant social positions within the academy—most frequently white and male. A few participants were mentored by women or faculty of color, whose shared cultural or gendered experiences sometimes fostered deeper empathy and understanding. These varied configurations of identity and positionality shaped how power, trust, and recognition were negotiated within the mentoring relationships (Collins, 2000; Crenshaw, 1989).

By attending to both mentee and mentor positionalities, the study underscores that power in mentorship is not solely derived from academic hierarchy but is also informed by intersecting systems of race, gender, and class that influence communication, expectations, and belonging. Recognizing these layered identities aligns with Critical Intersectional Mentoring’s core principle of relational awareness, understanding that mentoring is a dynamic exchange influenced by broader structures of privilege and marginalization.

Researcher: Weaving Together Our Positionalities for Reflexivity

The authors are McNair Alumni with extensive involvement in federally funded McNair Programs as Directors, Program Coordinators, Mentees, and Mentors. As first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented Latinx scholars, the authors brought their lived experiences to this research. Mentoring played a vital role in their success as undergraduate and graduate students, and this personal connection deeply influenced their interest in studying mentorship and research approach. The research team’s positionality, shaped by their social identities as marginalized individuals, was an active component of the study. Their experiences as first-generation students navigating higher education make them particularly attuned to power dynamics within mentor-mentee relationships. Their status as Latinx scholars provided insight into how race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background intersect to shape the mentoring experience of students of color, particularly within STEM fields, which have historically marginalized people of color- and low-income students.

Given their personal stakes in understanding effective mentorship, the authors approached this study aware of how their identities shaped their perspectives. This reflexive awareness guided data collection and analysis. They remained conscious of how their cultural understanding might influence their interpretations of participants’ testimonios. They balanced empathetic understanding of mentees’ challenges with rigorous scholarly analysis. Like anthropologists using ethnographic methodology, they were intentional yet scientifically objective, relying on their academic training to interpret and articulate findings.

As McNair alumni, the research team brought unique insight to analyze mentoring dynamics between faculty and students, not just as external observers. This insider perspective helped build rapport with participants and created a more trusting environment for the testimonios. Their insider knowledge allowed them to approach participants’ experiences with care and respect, while remaining conscious of how their personal stakes could shape their conclusions. For example, the team might have been more sensitive to stories of marginalization and the impact this may have in the success of a student than a researcher with a different positionality, potentially influencing the analysis of mentorship relationship dynamics.

The research team’s reflexivity played a crucial role in shaping this study. They recognized their lived experiences were not separate from the research process but were essential to the epistemological framework used to interpret data. By considering how their marginalized identities influenced each phase—from formulating research questions and creating interview protocols to interpreting findings—they aimed to produce an authentic, nuanced understanding of McNair Scholars’ mentoring experiences. This reflexive approach ensured participants’ testimonios were interpreted with cultural humility and academic rigor.

Findings

In examining the testimonios of McNair Scholars regarding their mentoring experiences, three primary themes emerged: (1) Power Dynamics and Intersectional Identities, (2) Systemic Racism in Institutional Practices, and (3) Effective Mentoring Practices. Consistent with Limeri et al.’s (2019) findings, the testimonios of McNair Scholars highlighted prevalent issues such as absenteeism, lack of career and psychosocial support, unequal treatment, and abuse of power within mentoring relationships.

Power Dynamics and Intersectional Identities

Power dynamics were deeply embedded in the testimonios, with multiple students sharing experiences that illustrated how power operates within mentor-mentee relationships, often influenced by the mentor’s positionality and the mentee’s marginalized identities. These dynamics frequently involve the marginalization of students based on gender identity, race, and first-generation factors, which shape the unequal power balance in these relationships. While the participants’ experiences are foregrounded, their testimonios also reflected how mentors’ social identities shaped these relationships. These dynamics, previously outlined in the positionality of participants, illustrate that power in mentorship extends beyond academic hierarchy and is influenced by intersecting systems of race, gender, and cultural privilege.

Gendered Power Dynamics

Cassandra, a first-generation white female student pursuing chemistry, vividly illustrated the manifestation of systemic gender inequalities during her research internship. Throughout her account, Cassandra used the terms advisor and mentor interchangeably to describe the same individual, a male professor who supervised her research. She reflected on how this mentor treated her differently from her male lab mates, leaving her feeling marginalized. She recounted,

During my summer internship with Dr. [Mentor, a white male], I felt like he was very belittling and condescending towards me, and treated me differently than the other people in the lab. I don’t know if it is because I’m a woman or not. But I felt like that could have been a factor because when I went to a conference in San Diego, …with my advisor and another lab mate…my advisor went around introducing my male lab mate to all of his colleagues, saying, hi, this is [Student], this is my graduate student, but he didn’t do the same for me. I had to go around and say hi, I’m Cassandra, and I’m also working in his lab. So…it really hurt my feelings and made me feel like I wasn’t worthy enough to be a part of his lab (Interview, July 2021).

Cassandra’s experience highlights how power, both subtle and overt, plays out in mentorship, particularly in STEM fields, where male mentors often hold authority in an academic discipline that historically has been predominately male. Her mentor’s failure to engage equally with his female mentee reflects the gendered power imbalances that limit her visibility and voice. While Cassandra questioned whether her treatment was due to her gender, her experience of unequal treatment and the dismissal of her work emphasized the need to critically engage with gendered power dynamics within STEM. Although Cassandra was the only participant who explicitly discussed this form of inequity, her testimonio echoes patterns identified in the literature, where mentoring relationships frequently reproduce gendered hierarchies that constrain women’s agency and professional growth (Prats-Brugat et al., 2024). Thus, while not representative of all participants in this study, Cassandra’s account illuminates an important dimension of power within mentoring, one that aligns with Critical Intersectional Mentoring’s emphasis on understanding and acknowledging complex power dynamics. Mentors must recognize the influence of their own positionality, including their gender, race, and class, on the mentor-mentee relationship (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004; Nkrumah & Scott, 2022).

Racial Power Dynamics

Power dynamics are further complicated by racial factors, as demonstrated in Michael’s experience. Michael, a Black male pursuing computer science, discussed how his mentor’s positionality, an Asian tenured male faculty, influenced their relationship and how systemic racial bias in academia compounded the challenges he faced. Michael stated,

There’s a systemic issue in STEM… I’ve seen my mentor treat people differently based on who they are. I’m not calling someone a racist, but there’s implicit bias… especially in STEM, where you’re judged heavily on appearance. It’s definitely a systemic issue (Interview, July 2021).

Michael’s experience highlights how systemic bias can manifest subtly within academic mentoring, particularly for first-generation and underrepresented students navigating predominantly white STEM spaces. Although Michael’s testimonio provides the most vivid illustration of this phenomenon, several participants echoed similar experiences of feeling overlooked or undervalued in research settings. These recurring patterns point to systemic rather than isolated forms of bias embedded within the structures and cultures of academic mentorship.

Michael hesitated to call out racism because he felt it was harsh. Scholars have argued that the norms of universalism and objectivity that underpin many STEM disciplines can inadvertently obscure racial and social inequalities, making it more difficult to identify and address systemic bias (Carlone & Johnson, 2007; McGee, 2020; Ong et al., 2018). These structural dynamics were echoed in participants’ narratives, who described feeling that discussions of race or inequity were often viewed as irrelevant or “outside” the scientific domain. Michael’s testimonio reflects the need for mentors who understand and acknowledge complex power dynamics and engage in critical consciousness-raising, which are two principles of CIM. To acknowledge complex power dynamics, mentors must reflect on how interactions are shaped by the intersecting identities of each person and how they influence the success of students who come from marginalized backgrounds. Critical consciousness-raising supports mentors not only to acknowledge these systemic issues that lead to biases, but also to work actively to dismantle them by advocating for more inclusive curricula, diverse faculty, and equitable departmental practices.

Power Dynamics in First-Generation Mentorship

Sami, a first-generation, white female pursuing chemistry with a white tenured male mentor, described how structural and relational power imbalances can manifest in mentorship:

That advisor kind of tried to push me into things that he thought would be useful, but he also didn’t have the experience to teach me how to do those things. So I was just really, really lost… Even if I asked, ‘Okay, how do I go about doing this?’ he would offer me no help (Interview, July 2021).

The mentor directs the mentee’s research path without offering the necessary guidance, leaving her overwhelmed and unsupported. Sami’s testimonio exemplifies how authority without accountability can hinder the development of first-gen scholars. Gracie, a first-generation, white female scholar pursuing anthropology, described a similar reproduction of structural power imbalances during her mentoring experience:

My mentor [a white tenured female] never really explained what I should be doing or how to approach the research. I had to ask other people for guidance, but even when I did, it didn’t feel like I was supposed to ask for help. My mentor was always busy, and when I did try to ask for feedback, it felt like I was bothering them, like they didn’t have time for me. It was like I was expected to just keep pushing forward without any real direction (Interview, July 2021).

Gracie spoke to the uncertainty of asking for support during her research experience because she felt that she should already have the knowledge to keep moving forward. Further, she described a sense of isolation when asking for help, which is part of disrupting institutional systems.

The experiences of Sami and Gracie reveal how structural power in mentoring is tied to the mentor’s expectations and the lack of clear guidance or support for the student. Unfortunately, eight other participants from the study were subjected to similar mentoring practices as Sami and Gracie. The mentors’ lack of communication around expectations, combined with the student’s perception of being a burden when seeking help, demonstrates the imbalance of power in the mentor-mentee relationship. Such dynamics can lead to feelings of exclusion, lack of belonging, isolation, and uncertainty for the student, especially when their mentor’s engagement is limited or hierarchical. The power dynamics that shape these mentoring expectations often overlook the needs of first-generation and underrepresented students, leaving them to navigate complex academic spaces without adequate support and guidance from faculty. Mentors who fail to understand and validate the unique experiences of racially minoritized students, utilizing a “colorblind” approach, can leave important psychosocial needs unmet and inadvertently perpetuate systemic inequities (McCoy et al., 2015). Mentorship does not occur in a vacuum: systemic racism and institutional practices (like “colorblind” or lack of diverse faculty) profoundly shape the mentoring experiences of first-generation, low-income, and racially minoritized students in STEM. When structural power is left unchecked, it can escalate into overt abuse of authority, where mentoring relationships become exploitative rather than developmental. This escalation is captured in Michael’s testimony, where academic advancement became contingent upon uncompensated labor and coerced compliance.

Abuse of Power

The theme of abuse of power emerged through Michael’s testimonio as he share:

He [Mentor] was like, ‘I’m not going to give you this letter until you hand over all the work.’ So, I gave him the work…I really didn’t care much about the project, to be honest…I really cared about the recommendation letter…His justification was…the project was his idea. Any work that I had done under him was his own, and it was literally his. His explanation was, ‘I’m your mentor. This was my project. So, this work technically belongs to me.’…He told me he wasn’t going to give me my recommendation letter unless I gave him this work (Interview, July 2021).

Michael’s account illustrates the hierarchical nature of mentoring relationships, particularly in STEM, where mentors often wield significant authority over students’ academic futures. In this case, the mentor’s power dynamics left Michael feeling disempowered, as he was expected to work solely for the mentor’s benefit. In STEM, faculty mentors often exert significant authority over students. This power imbalance is particularly pronounced for students from marginalized backgrounds, allowing mentors to exert excessive control or demand work in exchange for academic advancement (e.g., letters of recommendation) without mutual respect or collaboration (Weiston-Serdan, 2017).

Michael’s experience exemplifies CIM’s emphasis on the abuse of power, where the mentoring relationship becomes a transactional exchange rather than a collaborative partnership. Michael’s labor was commodified for the sake of receiving a letter of recommendation, which highlights a perhaps common issue in STEM mentoring–mentor exploitation of mentees for personal or professional gain. The CIM core principle of empowerment and advocacy is critical in this context (Brown & Montoya, 2020; Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001; Weiston-Serdan, 2017).

Embedded Systemic Racism in Institutional Practices

Systemic racism is deeply embedded in practices, laws, policies, beliefs, and attitudes that perpetuate the unequal treatment of minoritized people (Bonilla-Silva, 1997) and was a prevalent theme in the mentoring experiences of McNair Scholars. Specifically, McNair Scholars highlighted institutional practices employed by their mentors, such as mentor absenteeism due to the lack of recognition or value placed on mentoring marginalized students and the lack of representation in STEM disciplines, which not only overlooked but also often worked against marginalized students, reinforcing existing inequalities.

Mentor Absenteeism

A significant number of participants in this study spoke about varying degrees of absenteeism from their faculty mentors, especially at the doctoral level. One particularly concerning form of absenteeism was the “hands-off approach,” in which mentors only met with students once a year to discuss their academic progress and left students to independently manage their timelines and progress, particularly as they were completing their doctoral programs. This lack of recognition or value placed on mentoring, particularly for first-generation or marginalized students, reflects cultural attitudes toward mentorship.

Jenny, a Latina scholar pursuing political science, shared how the “hands-off approach” negatively impacted her academic journey, especially as a first-generation student navigating unfamiliar higher education structures:

When I have a hands-off mentor like I do now, it’s easy for me to get lost…I have to figure out everything for myself…I don’t feel like I could come to [mentor] and be like… I’ve been trying to find…the answer, but I can’t find it. I don’t know how to apply [research concepts]. I don’t know, um, how to move forward. And I think that when a student… gets lost and stuck–and that’s what you don’t want (Interview, July 2021).

Jenny’s testimonio illustrates how her mentor’s absence impacted her sense of direction, which can ultimately affect her development and success as a researcher. She described feeling compelled to figure things out on her own, a position she did not choose but felt forced into as a first-generation college student who did not want to burden her mentor.

Jenny’s experience underscores the challenges and complexity of mentoring this student population and the necessity for systemic change. Her testimonio reveals that mentor absenteeism is not just an individual failing of the mentor, but a broader institutional issue that reflects the underfunding of support programs, lack of diversity in faculty, and absence of training in culturally responsive mentoring practices. Further, Jenny’s testimonio highlights the critical need for mentors to offer proactive guidance, particularly for first-generation students who are often tasked with navigating complex academic policies, structures, and expectations on their own.

In alignment with Jenny’s experience, Sami described her mentor’s disengagement, noting, “Even if I asked him, ‘how do I go about doing this?’ like he would offer me no help…so it was really hard for me to get access to him” (Interview, July 2021). Although Sami was a recipient of independent funding, she described not making progress because her funded research did not align with her mentors’ research agenda. However, when she agreed to shift away from her research interests and pursue her mentors’ requests, she received no support or access to him.

Mentor absenteeism, a recurring theme throughout the study, directly contradicts the CIM’s principle of building trust and rapport. Trust is foundational in any mentoring relationship, and when mentors are absent, whether physically or emotionally, students feel unsupported and disconnected from their mentors. For first-generation students, this disconnect is especially harmful, as they are already navigating significant barriers to success both academically and socially. By actively engaging with mentees, mentors build the trust necessary for a productive relationship that empowers students to navigate the complexities of their academic and professional lives. Mentors who invest in their mentees’ success through consistent support contribute to a stronger, more resilient academic identity, especially for students from marginalized backgrounds who may already feel isolated within academic spaces.

Lack of Representation in STEM Disciplines

When speaking about his journey in his discipline, Michael highlighted the relationship between the lack of diverse faculty and scholarship, which ultimately made him feel that his work had no value. He stated,

The only Black professor in my department was like, you could go your entire PhD and not know people of color exist within the program…Umm, a lot of professors don’t include race scholarship, or they include it for a week, and they call it race week. If they fall behind on the syllabus, they remove it. And so symbolically, how that translates to students of color is that they don’t care about us. They don’t care. They don’t care about these conversations…Like I said before, it’s been so hard for me to put value in my work because I’m being told constantly in this department…that this didn’t matter [referring to the lack of a diverse curriculum] (Interview, July 2021).

While Michael did not explicitly describe his mentor in the response above, we see a close relationship to the business-like transaction he described earlier in his testimonio as he removed himself from his work. Michael highlighted the institutional invisibility of people of color in computer science, which was shared by his only Black professor in the department, and the lack of racially diverse scholarship in his field. The absence of racially diverse faculty and knowledge fostered feelings of isolation and internal devaluation of his worth and belonging in computer science.

The lack of representation in STEM disciplines speaks to the need for mentors to engage in culturally responsive mentoring practices. CIM emphasizes the importance of recognizing the unique cultural backgrounds of mentees and adapting mentoring strategies to fit mentees’ identity, cultural context, and needs. Michael’s testimony reveals that when STEM fields lack representation from diverse faculty, students of color can feel that their presence and contributions are devalued. Culturally responsive mentoring involves not only recognizing the importance of diversity in academia but also actively including diverse perspectives in the mentoring process. Mentors should engage with students regarding the challenges they face due to the lack of diverse role models and create mentoring spaces where students feel empowered to pursue their careers without feeling excluded or marginalized.

Effective Mentoring Practices Supported by CIM

The theme of effective mentoring emerged strongly from the testimonios of McNair Scholars, who emphasized the importance of mentorship that goes beyond academic guidance to include emotional and personal support for mentees. Effective mentors were described as those who fostered intellectual growth, acknowledged their mentees’ identities, and provided emotional validation. The following section examines the various facets of effective mentoring, as shared by McNair Scholars, focusing on the qualities and behaviors that make mentoring relationships impactful. From empathetic engagement to collaborative partnerships, these practices highlight the role of mentorship in fostering academic success and personal resilience among students. The experiences shared by McNair Scholars reveal that effective mentoring is not just about providing academic guidance but also about recognizing mentees as whole individuals, acknowledging their humanity, and offering emotional support.

A key aspect of effective mentorship for McNair Scholars is that mentors actively listen to their mentees, respect their identities, and provide emotional validation alongside academic encouragement. Sami illustrated this point with her experience of working with a mentor who recognized her humanity and supported her both professionally and emotionally. She said, “He’s the one who like, doesn’t outright insult you to your face constantly… he recognizes that you’re a human and wants to help you and knows that you have, desires and wants to listen to what issues you have” (Interview, July 2021). This quote emphasizes the importance of an empathetic mentor who can engage with their mentee’s individual needs and struggles, fostering a supportive and nurturing environment.

Additionally, Martin, a Latino scholar pursuing biology, emphasized the importance of feeling equal in the mentoring process, where mentors work collaboratively with mentees rather than holding power over them. He explained,

I pretty much felt that it was my project and her project at the same time. I was working side by side with her. I didn’t feel like a student…There were no titles or power differences, and I felt that we were on the same level working together on this project. So it was very flattering and also a great opportunity for me to take the lead (Interview, July 2021).

Martin’s sentiment exemplifies effective mentoring that centers on mutual respect and collaboration, which are crucial elements in the CIM framework. He felt that he was not just a subordinate but an equal partner, and this sense of autonomy and partnership contributed to his professional growth and sense of belonging.

In addition to creating a safe and collaborative environment, effective mentoring practices involve transparent communication and the creation of an open relationship. Jenny highlighted the importance of culturally transparent and engaged mentors:

I would like to see more of like, show me who you are as a person. Right. What are some things that you enjoy? What are some things in your culture that you’re about? What are you like? Let me “see you”. I don’t want to see your resume. Like, let me see who you really are. If your hood, if you’re, I don’t know, very proud of your indigenous culture, if you’re very proud of your African culture, whatever it is. But like, let me see you so that you, so that I could feel safe enough for you to see me (Interview, July 2021).

Jenny’s request for cultural transparency in the relationship speaks to the importance of a mentor who is not just a guide but also a person who is open and engaged, allowing the mentee to see their mentor’s full humanity. This openness fosters trust and respect, which are essential components of effective e-mentoring (Brown & Montoya, 2020; Fries-Britt & Snider, 2015; Weiston-Serdan, 2017). Fries-Britt and Snider (2015) concurred with this student testimonio in their study that draws on both research and professional practice to outline mentoring approaches that especially benefit women and students of color. They argue that traditional, hierarchical mentoring often fails these groups and instead call for authentic, mutual, and “vulnerable” mentoring relationships (Fries-Britt & Snider, 2015). In such relationships, mentors share their own struggles and listen to students’ lived experiences (rather than maintaining a distant, authoritarian stance). Practicing empathy, active listening, and personal validation is key to empowering mentees.

Another core theme was accountability, as seen in both Rachel’s and Sami’s experiences. For instance, Rachel, a white, female scholar, described her mentor as someone who helped keep her accountable while giving her the independence to find her own solutions and stay organized: “She [Mentor] would say, ‘Hey, where are we on this? Can you have this to you by this day? What can we do to do this?’ She kept on, on me, but also made me keep myself accountable” (Interview, July 2021). Sami demonstrated a mutual responsibility in her mentoring relationship, where her mentor’s guidance extended beyond the individual. She shared,

She [Mentor] is very good at networking with other people. … even if she is kind of like, ‘Oh, you should do this thing,’ and it’s big… I have access to her husband and other people who are more action-oriented. And so then I’m able to figure everything out (Interview, July 2021).

Sami acknowledged that her mentor played an active role in providing connections, but she, too, must take responsibility for utilizing those resources and taking action regarding her academic growth. This aligns with CIM’s principle of “shared responsibility,” where both the mentor and mentee take part in the development of the relationship and the mentee’s academic growth. Rachel’s mentor also set clear expectations and deadlines, fostering a structure that helped Rachel stay focused without feeling micromanaged, creating a balance of independence and support.

Discussion

This study offers a critical examination of the mentoring experiences of McNair Scholars through the lens of Critical Intersectional Mentoring (CIM). The findings, organized into three thematic categories—Power Dynamics and Intersectional Identities, Systemic Racism in Institutional Practices, and Effective Mentoring Practices—highlight the importance of applying a CIM framework to address the complex, layered challenges encountered by underrepresented students in higher education. This discussion interprets those findings in relation to the seven core principles of CIM: centering the mentee’s lived experience, acknowledging power dynamics, fostering critical consciousness, promoting empowerment and advocacy, practicing cultural responsiveness, building trust and meaningful rapport, and engaging in ongoing reflection and growth.

The first theme, Power Dynamics and Intersectional Identities, underscores how mentoring relationships are shaped by gendered and racialized hierarchies. Cassandra’s experience of gendered marginalization within her chemistry lab underscores the need for mentors to critically reflect on how gendered expectations influence their engagement with mentees. This aligns with CIM’s call for mentors to acknowledge complex power dynamics by examining their own positionality (Weiston-Serdan, 2017) to understand the way in which it impacts and influences their mentoring, which ultimately shapes students’ development (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004; Nkrumah & Scott, 2022). Similarly, Michael’s account of implicit racial bias within his department highlights the pervasive effects of structural racism. Michael’s experience mirrors those of other McNair Scholars who shared that their academic advisors made academic or personal judgements about them based on race (Bancroft et al., 2016). Michael’s reluctance to label his experiences as overt racism reflects the inconspicuous norms of objectivity in STEM that often render such discrimination unrecognizable. CIM addresses this through the principles of critical consciousness-raising and culturally responsive practices, urging mentors to recognize, name, and dismantle systemic barriers (Solorzano & Yosso, 2001). CIM calls on mentors to acknowledge their positionality and strive toward mutuality and respect (Johnson-Bailey & Cervero, 2004; Weiston-Serdan, 2017).

The testimonios of first-generation students, such as Sami and Gracie, further emphasize the detrimental impact of mentorship devoid of clear guidance or validation. These students were left to navigate complex academic systems with minimal support, exposing the need for mentors to center the mentee’s lived experience and strengthen their cultural capital by providing scaffolding tailored to their social and educational contexts (Yosso, 2005). The absence of mentorship that validates and supports intersectional identities perpetuates marginalization and undermines student success.

Systemic Racism in Institutional Practices

The second theme of institutional neglect emerged strongly in the testimonios, particularly through accounts of mentor absenteeism and the systemic devaluation of diverse epistemologies. Mentor absenteeism is a common experience among STEM undergraduates and can manifest when mentors are physically or intellectually unavailable to provide mentees with guidance and support (Limeri et al., 2019). Jenny’s narrative illustrates how a “hands-off” mentoring approach disproportionately impacts first-generation students who lack access to insider knowledge and institutional capital. Prior research by Fries-Britt and Snider (2015) similarly critiques the “hands-off” approach common in graduate mentoring, arguing that such detachment reflects broader institutional disinvestment in students of color. Their call for emotionally engaged and culturally responsive mentoring echoes the testimonios in this study, affirming that presence and relational investment are critical indicators of effective mentorship. CIM challenges this by emphasizing the importance of advocacy and intentional support, especially for students from structurally disadvantaged backgrounds. Effective mentorship requires not only presence but also an awareness of the unique barriers students face (Weiston-Serdan, 2017).

Michael’s reflections on the erasure of racial scholarship in his department further illuminate the epistemic violence experienced by students of color. The symbolic exclusion of race-related content from the curriculum fosters a sense of alienation and invalidation leaving students to question their sense of belonging and abilities in STEM (McGee, 2016). CIM’s emphasis on culturally responsive mentoring calls for mentors to actively affirm students’ identities and academic interests, recognizing the cultural wealth they bring into academic spaces (Yosso, 2005). Institutional commitment to representation and inclusivity must extend beyond token gestures to structural changes in curricula, faculty diversity, and mentoring expectations.

The lack of faculty diversity, as noted in Michael’s experience, amplifies these barriers. Hernandez et al. (2018) found that students’ perception of their mentor’s cultural awareness directly correlates with stronger science identity and persistence in STEM. This finding supports the need for inclusive mentoring structures that validate students’ lived experiences and center racial equity as a core outcome. Without intentional efforts to diversify faculty and curricula, academic institutions risk further alienating students whose identities remain unrecognized in traditional mentorship models.

Effective Mentoring Practices Supported by CIM

Despite the challenges described, several testimonios pointed to effective mentoring practices aligned with CIM principles. Of the fourteen participants, four students who experience positive mentoring, described their mentors as culturally responsive and emotionally validating, six reported a mixture of supportive and challenging dynamics, and four experienced relationships marked by exclusion, bias, or lack of engagement. The positive mentoring experiences were characterized by shared responsibility, cultural transparency, and mutual respect. As emphasized by Fries-Britt and Snider (2015), authentic mentorship emerges when mentors relinquish hierarchical authority and engage in relationships that are reciprocal and empowering. The testimonios in this study reinforce this claim, with mentees expressing a deep sense of belonging and self-efficacy when their mentors created inclusive and collaborative environments. Martin’s narrative exemplifies mentorship as a partnership grounded in mutual respect and shared decision-making. His mentor’s approach disrupted traditional hierarchical models by positioning Martin as a co-investigator, thereby promoting empowerment and advocacy (Brown & Montoya, 2020, Weiston-Serdan, 2017). Similarly, Sami and Jenny described mentors who acknowledged their humanity and offered both academic and emotional support, demonstrating the power of culturally responsive, empathetic engagement (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

Jenny’s call for mentors to show cultural transparency, to allow themselves to be “seen,” reveals a desire for authentic connection that goes beyond academic credentials. This reflects CIM’s emphasis on building trust and meaningful rapport, which is foundational to effective mentoring (Weiston-Serdan, 2017). When mentors are willing to share aspects of their identity and vulnerability, they create relational spaces where mentees feel seen, heard, and valued. Furthermore, the testimonios of Rachel and Sami illustrate the importance of accountability in mentoring relationships. Mentors who establish clear expectations and encourage self-directed growth foster a sense of agency in their mentees. CIM frames this as part of the ongoing reflection and growth that both mentors and mentees must engage in to sustain equitable and impactful mentoring practices (Ladson-Billings, 1994).

Crucially, these narratives reveal that effective mentorship is not merely a technical or transactional endeavor—it is deeply human and relational. As Weiston-Serdan (2017) and other scholars of critical mentoring argue, mentors who affirm the cultural identities of their mentees, provide emotional support, and center equity in their practice contribute to the development of resilient scholars who are more likely to persist in their academic and professional trajectories.

In sum, this study expands existing literature on mentorship in STEM by foregrounding the voices of marginalized students and employing the CIM framework to interrogate the intersectional dynamics of race, gender, power, and institutional culture. It calls for a reimagining of mentoring models—ones that prioritize advocacy, cultural humility, and emotional validation. For institutions committed to equity and student success, mentorship must be understood not as an individual act of benevolence but as a collective responsibility grounded in justice and care. Beyond the immediate findings, this study contributes to broader conversations about how mentoring frameworks grounded in critical and intersectional theories can transform institutional cultures in higher education. By applying Critical Intersectional Mentoring (CIM) to the experiences of first-generation, low-income, and racially minoritized students in STEM, the study illustrates how mentoring can function as a site of both resistance and transformation. These insights extend the work of Weiston-Serdan (2017), Ladson-Billings (1995) by demonstrating that equity-oriented mentoring requires structural as well as relational change. For practitioners, this means embedding culturally responsive mentoring expectations within faculty development and evaluation processes. For researchers, it underscores the need to examine mentoring as an institutional practice shaped by intersecting systems of power rather than as a purely interpersonal exchange. In doing so, this study affirms that transforming mentoring relationships is inseparable from advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion across the higher-education landscape.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study underscores the significance of adopting a Critical Intersectional Mentoring framework to better support underrepresented students in higher education. Through their testimonios, McNair Scholars articulated the ways in which mentoring relationships are shaped by intersecting systems of power, identity, and institutional structure. By aligning these testimonios with the core principles of CIM, this study highlights the transformative potential of mentoring practices that are reflective, culturally responsive, and rooted in social justice.

To institutionalize CIM in STEM fields effectively, academic institutions must embed its principles into core practices such as faculty recruitment, professional development, and curricular design. This includes prioritizing the hiring of diverse faculty committed to equity, integrating critical mentoring training into faculty development programs, and ensuring that STEM curricula reflect the lived realities and intellectual contributions of marginalized communities.

Additionally, institutions should establish infrastructure that sustains CIM practices, such as dedicated mentoring resources for historically excluded students, and peer mentoring programs. These structures must be supported by accountability mechanisms that assess both student outcomes and mentoring effectiveness. By systematically evaluating mentoring experiences and disaggregating outcomes by race, gender, and class, institutions can refine their practices to better serve all students. Ultimately, by embracing CIM as both a framework and a practice, institutions can shift from performative inclusion to transformative equity, cultivating environments in which all students feel valued, empowered, and equipped to succeed in their academic and professional endeavors.

Limitations and Future Research

This study is limited by its small sample (n = 14) and its focus on McNair Scholars within a single program context, which may limit transferability to other institutions, STEM disciplines, or mentoring structures. In addition, the study draws on self-reported testimonios, capturing participants’ experiences at one point in time rather than tracking how mentoring relationships and outcomes evolve longitudinally. Future research should examine CIM-informed mentoring across multiple institutional contexts and STEM fields, incorporate longitudinal and/or mixed-method designs, and evaluate specific CIM-aligned interventions (e.g., mentor development, structured accountability practices, peer-mentoring models). Further studies should also consider how mentoring experiences and outcomes vary across intersecting identities and institutional conditions, strengthening the evidence base for implementing CIM as a sustainable equity practice in higher education.