The BRUSH program was created in response to National Institutes of Health initiatives to diversify the health-related research workforce, with the explicit goal of increasing the number of students from historically excluded groups who pursue biomedical research careers. Since its inception in 2011, the program has enrolled 147 undergraduate and 30 veterinary students from underrepresented populations defined by race, ethnicity, disability, and/or financial resources. Its outcomes have been notable: 78 percent of alumni pursued advanced education, a substantially higher rate than the 35 percent reported by the U.S. National Science Foundation for comparable populations. Participants have also reported growth in science identity, confidence, research skills, and communication.

Yet the study’s authors, a team drawn from Michigan State University and Howard University that included many Black faculty with lived experience of cross-race mentorship, wanted to understand something more specific: how students of color experienced being mentored largely by White faculty, and what mentors could do to foster trust, belonging, and confidence. To that end, they invited all 122 alumni who had participated in the program between 2011 and 2022, and 32 agreed to one-on-one interviews conducted between March and December 2023. The analytical cohort included 19 women and 13 men, with 28 former undergraduate participants and 4 former veterinary students. Their postgraduate enrollment rate, 84.4 percent, closely matched that of the full alumni cohort, suggesting the interviewed group was broadly representative.

Interviews were conducted by two Michigan State faculty members who had no prior affiliation with the BRUSH program, a deliberate choice intended to help participants speak freely. The semi-structured guide covered six domains: trust and commitment, confidence and scientific engagement, assumptions, community, mentoring practices, and racial, ethnic, and cultural differences. Each interview averaged 29 minutes. The team analyzed transcripts using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis, framed by Relational Cultural Theory, an approach that treats mentorship as a reciprocal relationship shaped by broader systems of power, including race, class, and gender, rather than a one-directional transfer of knowledge from senior to junior.

The first major theme, belongingness in research, captured the difficulties participants encountered as visible minorities in scientific spaces. Many described being one of only a few students of color, or the only one, in their labs and classrooms. One participant recalled being one of four African American graduates in a class whose members did not even know one another, each feeling so unwelcome that they dispersed from campus as quickly as possible. Another, now a veterinary student, noted that the profession is only 2 percent Black and described how the absence of anyone who looked like them invited imposter syndrome. Several said the scarcity of minority representation made them feel as though they were present merely to meet a quota, and that diversity thinned out further at higher rungs of the academic ladder, undermining confidence that they could climb it.

Stereotypes, whether or not mentors voiced them openly, weighed heavily. Many participants found it difficult to answer questions about what assumptions their mentors might hold, and interviewers observed that some appeared to avoid the topic, possibly out of discomfort. The dominant concern was being perceived as intellectually inferior: participants worried that mentors questioned their ability, their motivation, or their fitness for research because of their race. Feedback at conferences could land as a challenge to their identity as a person of color rather than as a scholar, one participant explained, and criticism from a mentor could feel like something subtly different from constructive critique. The authors note that such racial microaggressions, even when unintentional, carry documented costs for belonging, wellbeing, and academic performance.

The interviews also surfaced the shadow cast by racially charged current events. During the participants’ academic years, the United States experienced the Black Lives Matter protests following police brutality and anti-Hispanic political messaging. Students reported that they were still expected to show up in labs and act as though nothing had happened, which reduced their wellbeing and productivity. What they wanted, the authors found, was authentic acknowledgement from mentors, whether through personal emails or general statements to the lab, and practical flexibility such as permission to take time off when events hit their communities hard. Performative displays of support, made for appearances rather than from genuine concern, were recognized and discounted by students. One participant described a mentor who sent personal emails during the period surrounding George Floyd’s death as an example of acknowledgement that felt appropriate and real.

At the same time, participants did not want their identities ignored. They described a delicate balance between invisibility and hypervisibility: mentors should recognize that race, ethnicity, and culture shape how students navigate scientific communities, without spotlighting or publicizing those differences in ways that cause discomfort. Some participants felt uncomfortable discussing racial issues with supervisors who held power over them, particularly when mentors lacked the knowledge or sensitivity to handle such conversations. The authors connect this to broader institutional patterns, noting that predominantly White institutions may voice commitments to diversity while senior academic ranks remain predominantly White, and that responsibility for change cannot rest on mentors alone or on students of color themselves.

The second theme, relational mentorship practices, mapped the specific behaviors that built or eroded trust and confidence. Authentic communication ranked highest: participants valued mentors who shared their own struggles, checked in regularly, set transparent expectations early, listened rather than talked at them, and remained accessible. Mentors who were absent or uncommunicative left students questioning whether they were being mentored at all. Respect for developing expertise mattered as well; when mentors treated students as future colleagues and engaged with their ideas, confidence grew, while a dismissive no without explanation felt silencing. Investment in mentees’ growth, through conference presentations, introductions to other academics, application reviews, and even quietly nominating students for scholarships they did not know existed, translated directly into academic and career advancement. Empathy and respect proved decisive: words of affirmation helped students trust they were on track, while harsh criticism that questioned competence turned some away from research entirely, and mentors who spoke poorly of former students undermined their own trustworthiness.

The lab community itself emerged as an unexpected but crucial layer of mentorship. Participants described labs that functioned as families, with social events, shared conference practice, journal clubs, and mutual celebration of successes, as places where they felt they belonged, in contrast to labs where members worked in isolation or engaged in bad competition and gossip about others’ errors. The authors caution that their findings carry limitations: interviews occurred up to ten years after program participation, so alumni drew on later research experiences as well, mentors’ perspectives were not explored, and alumni from institutions other than Michigan State were somewhat overrepresented in the analytical cohort. Even so, the study’s conclusions are concrete. Cross-cultural mentorship requires respectful awareness of difference, authentic rather than performative engagement, and relational skills that many faculty have never been formally trained to practice. The team has used these findings to develop and pilot training materials for mentors working across racial and ethnic lines, aiming to help well-intentioned faculty fully support students and avoid unintended discouragement at a critical juncture in the biomedical workforce pipeline.

Subject of Research: Experiences of historically excluded university students in a cross-cultural summer research mentorship program

Article Title: “There was no one who looked like me”: experiences of historically excluded university students in a summer research program

Article References: Brown, I. A. M., Khoddami, S., Harvey, M., Richardson, K. A., Hudson, T., Thompson, K. M., Lee, D. L., & Ewart, S. L. (2026). “There was no one who looked like me”: experiences of historically excluded university students in a summer research program. Frontiers in Education, 11, 1981917. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1981917

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1981917

Keywords: mentorship, undergraduate research, biomedical workforce, diversity, sense of belonging, relational cultural theory, thematic analysis, STEM education, health disparities, summer research program, cross-cultural mentoring, qualitative research