Cross-cultural mentoring of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators; A grounded theory study.

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Introduction

The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs

(CACREP, 2016b) and the American Counseling Association (ACA, 2014) mandated

counselor preparation programs to diversify faculty body. Despite the ACA and

CACREP guidelines, individuals from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds are

underrepresented as counselor education faculty in CACREP-accredited counselor

preparation programs (CACREP, 2016a). The CACREP Annual Report indicated that

74.33% of full-time faculty at CACREP-accredited programs are Caucasian (CACREP,

2016a). Some of the issues negatively affecting the representation of racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators include: (a) job dissatisfaction due to racially

insensitive department/program climate (Frazier, 2011; Holcomb-McCoy & Addison-

Bradley, 2005; Kim et al., 2014; Lerma et al., 2015; Minor, 2016), (b) limited

opportunities to publish and present research (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Haizlip,

2012), (c) inequities in the promotion and tenure process (Frazier, 2011; Herbert, 2012;

Kim et al., 2014; Lewis & Olshansky, 2016; Minor, 2016), and (d) lack of mentoring

(Frazier, 2011; Haizlip, 2012; Kim et al., 2014; Lewis & Olshansky, 2016; Minor, 2016;

Rorrer, 2009). Specifically, mentoring is a strategy that assists racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators navigate and manage professional development issues in

academia.

However, racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators have issues

obtaining mentors (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Frazier, 2011; Haizlip, 2012; Kim et

al., 2016; Minor, 2016) or receive ineffective mentoring (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012;

Herbert, 2012; Holcomb-McCoy & Addison-Bradley, 2005; Lewis & Olshansky, 2016).

Due to Caucasians accounting for the predominant cultural group of CACREP faculty

and their position of power, privilege, and influence they are appropriate mentors to

shepherd racially and ethnically diverse mentees through obstacles. There is no current

cross-cultural mentoring theory to guide senior counselor education faculty in assisting

racially and ethnically diverse mentees in advancing their careers. Thus, the current study

will contribute an emergent theory of cross-cultural mentoring by uncovering the

knowledge, attitudes, and strategies used by those who serve as cross-cultural mentors. A

cross-cultural mentoring theory for racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators

will provide a framework for social justice to alleviate prejudice, discrimination, and

oppression they face in academia as well as increase their representation as full-time

CACREP faculty.

Background of the Study

Cross-cultural mentoring is a valuable tool increase cultural awareness in higher

education. Alston (2014) showcased cross-cultural mentoring in which African

American female faculty explored unshared cultural experiences with Caucasian female

doctoral student mentees resulted in greater awareness of the self and others by both

parties. Alston (2014) defined cross-cultural mentoring between African American

female faculty mentors and Caucasian female doctoral students as a relational experience

that fosters personal, professional, and possibly institutional transformation. However,

Alston’s definition of cross-cultural mentoring is not applicable to all cross-cultural

pairings and does not feature underrepresented racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators as mentees.

Moreover, counselor education researchers claimed that cross-cultural mentoring

is necessary to break down negative cultural stereotypes and barriers that hinder the

promotion and retention of a diverse faculty body (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Bradley

& Holcomb-McCoy, 2004). Researchers of the professional development of African

American doctoral faculty stated that future research on effective mentoring in the

recruitment and retention process could aid in the creation of structured mentoring

programs that increase both faculty diversity and student body diversity at the graduate

level (Alexander, 2010; Frazier, 2011; Haizlip, 2012; Henderson et al., 2010; Herbert,

2012; Murry, 2010). Minor (2016) explained that faculty support in the form of

mentoring, advice, assurance, and collegiality from senior Caucasian colleagues was a

determining factor for African American and Latino faculty in finding the “right fit” as

new faculty (p. 43). Lerma et al. (2015) recommended that counselor education programs

can increase Hispanic and Latino faculty by redefining and applying cultural sensitivity

to pre-tenure mentoring practices. Hence, cross-cultural mentoring is necessary for the

professional development of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators because

if not supported, they miss the opportunity to build collegial relationships with influential

faculty.

Existing research literature has yet to focus on the effects of cross-cultural

mentoring, let alone bolstering cross-cultural mentoring as a strategy to increase the

representation of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators to fulfill ACA and

CACREP faculty diversity guidelines. Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) projected that

systematic investigation of cross-cultural mentoring would allow mentor and mentee to

test stereotypes and prompt perceptions of senior Caucasian faculty on junior racially and

ethnically diverse faculty. Thus, there is a need for research targeted at investigating

cross-cultural mentoring for racially and ethnically diverse counselor educator

development to address the gap in the existing counselor education literature by

providing those who have served as cross-cultural mentors the opportunity to share the

significant experiences they believe influenced the mentoring relationship. Allowing

counselor educators to share the critical incidents that shaped their intercultural

interactions with junior colleague mentees will contribute to an emerging theory of cross-

cultural mentoring for racially and ethnically diverse faculty development in counselor

education.

Problem Statement

Mentorship is a necessity for the professional development of racially and

ethnically diverse faculty (Edwards, 2015; Lewis & Olshansky, 2016; Minor, 2016).

However, the problem is that mentoring racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators is scarce (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Frazier, 2011; Haizlip, 2012; Kim et

al., 2016; Minor, 2016) or ineffective (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Herbert, 2012;

Holcomb-McCoy & Addison-Bradley, 2005; Lewis & Olshansky, 2016). For instance,

senior African American counselor educators have limited ability to mentor other African

American faculty due to their scarcity and their priority of mentoring African American

students (Haizlip, 2012; Herbert, 2012). Additionally, Lerma et al. (2015) reported that

the number of Hispanic and Latino counselor education faculty are so low that Hispanic

and Latino students seek out other faculty of color as mentors. Kim et al. (2014)

explained that international Asian female counseling and psychology faculty have

difficulty establishing networks and finding mentors because they were excluded from

informal peer networking activities coupled with their institutions lacking formal

mentoring for junior faculty. Minor (2016) described that the lack of mentorship is an

influential factor in the decision for minority rehabilitation counselor educators to leave

their institutions early in their careers. Given that the most current faculty demographics

of CACREP-accredited programs are 73.63% Caucasian (CACREP, 2016a), the

likelihood that racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty at these

programs will have a mentor of similar cultural background is low. Warde (2009)

described how cross-cultural mentoring experiences positively affected the professional

development of 12 African American male doctoral faculty not in counselor education

regarding research, publication, and reputation or visibility within their institutions.

Furthermore, Caucasian senior counselor education faculty have the power and privilege

of gatekeeping which makes them appropriate mentor candidates (Behar-Horenstein et

al., 2012; Frazier, 2011). Developing an emergent theory of cross-cultural mentoring that

unites junior faculty from racially and ethnically diverse groups with senior faculty who

have the power and privilege in academia bridges the gap between the current deficit of

underrepresented diverse faculty and professional standard for counselor education

programs to recruit and retain faculty that represent multiculturalism.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study is to develop an emergent theory of cross-

cultural mentoring that describes best practices grounded in the mentors’ experiences of

intercultural exchanges. Previous counselor education researchers proposed that an in-

depth analysis of critical incidents and intercultural exchanges provide opportunities for

mentors to gain insight into the challenges experienced by junior faculty from racially

and ethnically diverse backgrounds (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Minor, 2016). The

lack of research on the impact of cross-cultural mentoring in the development of

counselor educators from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds indicates the need

to explore the relationship dynamics during cross-cultural mentoring. Thus, the goal of

this grounded theory study is to discover the mentors’ experiences of the cross-cultural

mentoring with racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. Gathering the

experiences of cross-cultural mentors provides insight into the multiple realities

contributing to the underrepresentation of full-time racially and ethnically diverse faculty

at counselor preparation programs.

Research Questions

To discover an emergent theory of cross-cultural mentoring of racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators, the sole research question for the proposed

qualitative grounded theory study is: “How do counselor educators provide competent

cross-cultural mentoring?”

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for generating an emergent theory of cross-cultural

mentoring for racial and ethnically diverse faculty development in counselor education is

constructivism. Maxwell (2013) explained that in constructivism humans construct their

perceptions and beliefs based on their prior experiences and interactions that occur in

their personal reality. Therefore, in constructivism, multiple realities exist about a single

phenomenon. Constructivists examine people’s multiple realities and the implications of

these realities for people’s lives and interactions with others (Patton, 2002). Racial and

ethnically diverse counselor education faculty reported their realities that current cross-

cultural mentoring is either non-existent (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Frazier, 2011;

Haizlip, 2012; Kim et al., 2016; Minor, 2016) or ineffective (Behar-Horenstein et al.,

2012; Herbert, 2012; Holcomb-McCoy & Addison-Bradley, 2005; Lewis & Olshansky,

2016). However, counselor educators who serve as cross-cultural faculty mentors have

yet to articulate their realities in the research literature. The constructivist research

paradigm is appropriate for gathering information about cross-cultural mentoring of racial

and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty from the perspectives of the mentors to

explain how their realities influence their mentoring behaviors. Creswell (2013)

described constructivist research as focusing on the process of interactions amongst

individuals and using individuals’ experiences to generate a theory inductively. Thus, the

rationale for using the constructivist framework is to capture cross-cultural faculty

mentoring experiences grounded in the views, assumptions, and interpretations of the

mentors.

Another conceptual framework pertinent to the development of an emergent

theory of cross-cultural mentoring is cultural competence. While exposure to different

cultures is the initial step to individuals developing cultural competencies (Fisher-Borne

et al., 2015); the individuals’ reaction to these critical incidences is of concern for

uncovering the process of cross-cultural mentoring. For example, Arredondo et al. (1996)

provided professional counselors with the Multicultural Counseling Competencies

(MCC) guidelines for the knowledge, skill, and attitudes helpful for demonstrating

cultural competence when working with clients from diverse backgrounds. These MCC

guidelines are also mandates in the ACA (2014) code of ethics. Thus, it is important to

acknowledge the influence of cultural competence during the process of cross-cultural

mentoring as it is a crucial part of counselor educators’ professional identity.

Furthermore, there is a current shift in the helping profession to move away from cultural

competence towards cultural humility (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015; Foronda et al., 2016;

Hook et al., 2016). Fisher-Borne et al. (2015) and Hook et al. (2016) explained that

cultural humility goes beyond competence to elicit ongoing self-critique and initiation of

social justice. Similarly, the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies

(MSJCC) expand the traditional MCC to elicit tangible action towards social change and

advocacy (Ratts et al., 2016). Acknowledgment of cultural humility and MSJCC as the

future conceptual frameworks of cultural competence and intercultural exchanges is

essential to understanding the cross-cultural mentoring in counselor education. Exposure

to diversity and successfully navigating intercultural exchanges through cultural

competence or cultural humility shapes how mentors construct their thoughts about their

cross-cultural mentoring experiences and the cross-cultural mentoring process.

Nature of the Study

The nature of the study will be a qualitative method with a grounded theory study

design. The qualitative methodology allows researchers to explore phenomena and

formulate theory rather than test an existing hypothesis. This grounded theory study is

designed to generate an explanation of the process of cross-cultural mentoring through

the lens of the mentors in counselor education who have experienced this process.

Classical grounded theory has its foundation in positivism and pragmatism by which

Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss utilized systematic analysis to support objectivity

(Gardner et al., 2012). Creswell (2013) explained that both systematic and constructivist

grounded theory studies end in the development of a model, matrix, story, or proposition

of interactions that represent the phenomena. However, Gardner et al. (2012) explained

that the constructivist grounded theory, developed by Kathy Charmaz in 1994,

emphasizes subjectivity by accepting that people cannot be completely objective and

acknowledging that people understand phenomena in the reality of their time, place, and

culture. Gardner et al. (2012) explained that researchers use constructivist grounded

theory to develop a detailed understanding of a phenomenon by exploring social

interactions and using the “voices of the participants and the views of the researcher”

construct meaning. Interviewing counselor educators who served as cross-cultural

mentors to a junior colleague of a different racial or ethnic background and analyzing

their experiences with the constant comparative method generates an explanation of the

process of cross-cultural mentoring. Therefore, the constructivist grounded theory

methodological design best suits the study’s purpose of understanding the knowledge,

skills, and attitudes necessary for the competent cross-cultural mentoring of racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators from the perspective of the mentors.

Definitions

The following section defines the key constructs pertinent to this study: counselor

educators, cross-cultural, mentee, mentor, mentoring, professional development,

recruitment, retention, and underrepresented.

Counselor educator: “a professional counselor engaged primarily in developing,

implementing, and supervising the educational preparation of professional counselors”

(ACA, 2014, p. 20).

Cross-cultural mentoring: a mentoring relationship that involves two individuals

who have unshared cultural characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, nation of origin, etc.)

(Alston, 2014). However, Alston’s definition of cross-cultural mentoring is not inclusive

of the scope the current study as her definition only encompasses cross-cultural

mentoring between African American female mentors and White female doctoral student

mentees. This study aims to capture the definition and process of cross-cultural

mentoring dynamics that include ethnically and racially diverse counselor educators as

the mentee or both mentee and mentor.

Cultural competence: the process of applying cultural awareness, knowledge, and

skill in the clinical setting, administration, research, policy development, and education

(Foronda et al., 2016).

Cultural humility: “the process of openness, self-awareness, being egoless, and

incorporating self-reflection and critique after willingly interacting with diverse

individuals” (Foronda et al., 2016, p. 213).

Intercultural exchanges: interactions between individuals from different racial

and ethnic backgrounds.

Mentee: a counselor educator (faculty or doctoral student) who is a junior

colleague of an individual with more professional experience and expertise and receives

guidance from the individual with more experience for professional development.

Mentor: a counselor educator who guides a colleague with less professional

experience to increase the junior colleagues’ professional development.

Professional development: gaining experience in the counselor educators’ “roles

and tasks of: (a) program expectations, (b) teaching and supervision, (c) research, (d)

publications, (e) grants and funding, (f) service and conferences, and (g) networking”

(Limberg et al., 2013, p. 41).

Recruitment: Edwards (2015) defined recruitment as the process of identifying

and informing African American, Hispanic, and Latino faculty of support for increased

access to a university. This study has an expanded focus of including other racial and

ethnic groups in addition to African American, Hispanic, and Latino counselor education

faculty. Therefore, recruitment will refer to the process of identifying and hiring racially

and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty.

Retention: strategies institutions use to prevent faculty turnover (Minor, 2016).

Underrepresented: cultural groups that are a statistical minority regarding the

numbers of full-time faculty in CACREP-accredited programs. According to CACREP

(2016a) African American, Asian, Hispanic, International, Latino, Native American,

Multiracial, and Pacific Islander counselor educators are statistical minorities. Combined

these racial and ethnic groups only make up 23.95% of full-time CACREP faculty in

comparison to 74.33% Caucasian faculty.

Assumptions

There are five assumptions critical for the meaningfulness of the study. First,

counselor education and preparation programs actively seek to diversify faculty in

alignment with the ACA and CACREP professional standards. Second, cross-cultural

mentoring has elements that distinguish it from mentoring in which mentor and mentee

share the same cultural background. Third, the mentee is willing and open to receiving

guidance from a cross-cultural mentor. Fourth, individuals who served as cross-cultural

mentors had some level of pre-existing cultural sensitivity or developed cultural

sensitivity through the mentoring process to maintain a relationship with the mentee. The

fifth assumption that is necessary to the context of the study is participants will have

various levels of racial identity development and counselor education development with

varied lived experiences of intercultural exchanges.

Scope and Delimitations

To address the deficit in the research on competent cross-cultural mentoring for

counselor educators the scope of the study limits itself to participants who mentor in the

profession of counselor education. Additionally, cross-cultural mentoring in the current

study focuses on racial, ethnic, and nation of origin differences as demonstrated in the

gaps and findings in the research literature and CACREP program statistics. For example,

ACA (2014) recognizes a mentoring relationship between a Caucasian Jewish male and a

Caucasian Catholic female as cross-cultural in origin of gender and religion at the

minimum. However, capturing this type of cross-cultural mentoring relationship does not

inherently provide insight on the issue of how to increase the presence of

underrepresented racially and ethnically diverse faculty at counselor education and

preparation programs. Equally, a delimitation of the study is not to directly compare

cross-cultural mentoring to same-culture mentoring, even though discriminant sampling

is a methodology for determining saturation (Creswell, 2013). Another delimitation is

that the study will capture the mentors’ experiences of cross-cultural mentoring; thus, not

interviewing the mentees about their cross-cultural mentoring experiences only portrays

one side of the phenomena. The scope of the study is cross-cultural mentoring in the field

of counselor education though similar cross-cultural mentoring applies in social work,

psychology, and other academic fields. Lastly, since researchers have already captured

lack of cross-cultural mentoring and ineffective cross-cultural mentoring for counselor

educators, the study is strengths-based and seeking to capture cross-cultural mentoring

competencies and best practices.

Limitations

The major limitation in the methodological design of a qualitative grounded

theory study is the inability to remove researcher bias completely. Creswell (2013)

described that due to the interpretive nature of data analysis in grounded theory the

researcher must be mindful to suppress preconceived ideas about the phenomena and

allow the underpinnings of the theory emerge organically. Charmaz (2014) further

explained that the grounded theory research design methodological limitations of

objectivity are due to the researcher’s proximity to the participants and the data. Another

weakness in the grounded theory methodology is that the researcher must organize and

present the theory or model in a manner readily understood and usable by practitioners

(Creswell, 2013). Therefore, I must use considerable care to produce a theoretical

depiction that fulfills the study’s purpose of addressing the need for cross-cultural

mentoring competencies. Finally, due to the specificity of the present grounded theory

study, transferability issues arise in the application of the theory to professions other than

counselor education. Individuals who work in fields that do not have the same emphasis

on cultural competence and increased diversity may not identify with the study’s

findings.

As an African American female doctoral counselor education and supervision

student as well as a recipient of cross-cultural mentoring, I must acknowledge my close

identification with the research phenomena in the study. My cross-cultural mentoring

experiences are unique, and I must take care to not generalize my unique personal

mentoring experiences with those described by the research participants or to the

emerging theory. To manage subjectivity and researcher bias, I kept a reflective journal

and had ongoing consultations with my research committee.

Significance of the Study

The proposed study can contribute to the counselor education profession by

addressing the gap in the literature and effect significant social change in four areas.

First, the study can aid in the creation of effective cross-cultural mentorship programs at

CACREP-accredited universities and institutions (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Frazier,

2011). Researchers reported that cross-cultural mentoring assists in the breakdown

negative cultural stereotypes and barriers that hinder the retention of diverse faculty

(Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Lewis & Olshansky, 2016; Minor, 2016). Second,

research findings can serve as evidence for CACREP to include formal mentoring

strategies for racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty in future

standards. CACREP (2016) stated that accredited institutions show “systematic efforts to

recruit, employ, and retain a diverse faculty” (p. 6). Thus, a grounded theory of formal

cross-cultural mentoring can help programs meet this standard. Third, the study will

provide a cross-cultural mentoring theory to build culturally competent faculty mentoring

networks for racially and ethnically diverse graduate students (Kim et al., 2014; Lerma et

al., 2015; Minor, 2016). Specifically, Lewis and Olshansky (2016) stated that a cross-

cultural mentoring theory for faculty development would acknowledge power, whiteness,

and privilege in academia. Gaining greater insight on how whiteness and acculturation

affects the diversity of counselor educators provides opportunities to critically assess

department culture and climate that transmits down to graduate students. Fourth, the

study will support the exploration of cross-cultural mentoring to increase recruitment and

retention of counselor education faculty from other multicultural groups. The proposed

grounded theory study could create social change within the counselor education

profession to advocate that the faculty body become representative of the student body to

limit cultural biases that obstruct the counseling profession’s emphasis on multicultural

competence. Therefore, the first step in developing a diverse counselor education faculty

body is to cultivate cross-cultural relationships with those already in power within

academia.

Summary and Transition

Although both the ACA and CACREP have mandates and guidelines to diversity

the faculty body at counselor preparation programs (ACA, 2014; CACREP, 2016b),

individuals from racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds remain underrepresented as

counselor education faculty in CACREP-accredited counselor preparation programs

(CACREP, 2016a). Current strategies for the recruitment and retention have not been

effective in meeting the needs of racially and ethnically diverse counselor education

faculty. However, counselor education researchers of multicultural issues suggested that

cross-cultural mentoring helps address the biases and lack of support racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators face in their professional development (Behar-

Horenstein et al., 2012; Bradley & Holcomb-McCoy, 2004; Lerma et al., 2015; Minor,

2016). However, a model of cross-cultural mentoring for the professional development of

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators currently does not exist. To begin the

process of developing a comprehensive theoretical model of cross-cultural mentoring

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators it is imperative to examine the current

barriers and professional experiences of mentees. Equally, it is important to acknowledge

who has power and privilege in academia and equip them with resources and tools to help

them become active mentors to underrepresented groups of counselor educators.

The subsequent Chapter 2 contains a review of the current research literature on

the academic experiences of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators, the

status of current cross-cultural mentoring tools and theories, as well as a conceptual

framework for an emergent theory of cross-cultural mentoring for underrepresented

counselor educators. Chapter 3 covers the methodological approach for participant

selection, data collection, and data analysis for the proposed grounded theory study.

Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 include findings from the data and future implications of cross-

cultural mentoring research in counselor education, respectively.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Counselor educators develop professionally with mentorship; yet, many racially

and ethnically diverse counselor educators do not have competent mentors. Counselor

educators who belong to underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in academe reported

that they feel isolated professionally due to their cultural differences with peers and

colleagues (Jones-Boyd, 2016; Kim et al., 2014; Lerma, et al., 2015). In the literature, a

plethora of knowledge exists about the barriers to cross-cultural mentoring racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators, specifically from the perspective of the mentees.

African American counselor educators reported that race and gender differences with

Caucasian colleagues created challenges with research collaboration, department

socialization, more unfavorable critiques of work performance in comparison to peers

(Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Frazier, 2011), and salary discrepancies (Brooks & Steen,

2010). Hispanic/Latino doctoral counselor education students expressed a disconnect

between their cultural values of collectivism and the individualistic nature of higher

education (Lerma et al., 2015). Asian female counselor educators explained that the

complications of invisibility, hypervisibility, and tokenism cast them as outcasts in

academe (Kim et al., 2014). Lastly, international counselor educators and international

doctoral counselor education students shared that they navigated their academic journeys

alone or with mentors from their home countries due to judgments, miscommunications,

and misunderstandings with Caucasian peers and faculty (Woo et al., 2015). The

extensive documentation of the cultural issues affecting the lack of mentorship explains

the underrepresentation of racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty;

yet, documenting the issues is only the initial step in addressing this problem.

Also in the literature, researchers took the next step in addressing the issue of

inadequate cross-cultural mentoring by recommending characteristics of culturally

sensitive mentoring. Seminal research by Brinson and Kottler (1993) as well as Johnson-

Bailey and Cervero (2004) gave the first check lists for culturally sensitive mentoring

behaviors between Caucasian mentors and junior minority faculty. Despite the awareness

of these researchers to address retention and mentoring needs of racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators, neither study produced an applicable theory of cross-cultural

mentoring grounded in the experiences of those serving as mentors. More recently Behar-

Horenstein et al. (2012) suggested that for Caucasian counselor educators to become

proficient cross-cultural mentors, they must have high levels of cultural competence.

Other experts reported that specific actions constitute competent cross-cultural mentoring

such as collaborative work for professional development (Park-Saltzman, Wada, and

Mogami, 2012), introduction into the mentors’ professional networks (Park-Saltzman et

al., 2012; Warde, 2009), and open dialogue about cultural similarities and differences

(Lewis & Olshansky, 2016; Minor, 2016; Park-Saltzman et al., 2012).

Few grounded theories for cross-cultural mentoring exist in the current literature.

However, Alston (2014) provided a Feminist grounded theory of the cross-cultural

mentoring relationship between African American female faculty mentors and Caucasian

female doctoral student mentees in non-counselor education fields of study which is

helpful in conceptualizing general characteristics of cross-cultural mentoring. While

Alston (2014) provided her definition of cross-cultural mentoring and a model for cross-

cultural mentoring, the limited scope and specific population of the study makes the

results less applicable to other intercultural exchanges in academia. Alston’s the

grounded theory is not representative of the professional standards of counselor education

nor does it address the underrepresentation of racially and ethnically diverse counselor

education faculty. Thus, the current study will broaden the scope of this existing

grounded theory of cross-cultural mentoring by not limiting the cultural background of

the mentors and will include experiences of mentoring racially and ethnically diverse

individuals.

Accordingly, what is missing from the literature is the perspective of those who

practice cross-cultural mentoring and their insights on how to best develop cross-cultural

mentoring relationships with racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. Hence,

there is a need for strengths-based research to address the barriers of mentoring racially

and ethnically diverse counselor educators towards professional development. This study

adds to the research literature by developing a grounded theory of cross-cultural

mentoring for the recruitment, retention, and professional advancement of racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators.

Literature Search Strategy

A systematic search of counselor education, multicultural, education, and

leadership topics in electronic library databases served as the information source for the

literature review. Literature searches utilized the Academic Search Complete, American

Doctoral Dissertations, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), Education Source, Education

Resource Information Center (ERIC), Google Scholar, MEDLINE with Full Text,

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO databases and

search engines. Key search terms of counselor education, counselor educator, cross-

cultural, faculty development, mentor, mentoring, professional development, coupled

with racial and ethnic group specifiers of African American, Asian, Hispanic,

International, Latino, Native American, Multiracial, and Pacific Islander yielded

literature review documents. The literature review encompasses current research from the

previous ten years as well as earlier seminal articles due to the articles’ relevance to the

progression of multiculturalism and diversity in the counselor education profession.

Conceptual Framework

The defining concept of the current study is cross-cultural mentoring of

underrepresented counselor educators, from here on denoted as CCM. Alston (2014)

defined cross-cultural mentoring as a relationship in which the mentor and mentee have

different backgrounds regarding race, ethnicity, or nation of origin. Lewis and Olshansky

(2016) explained that cross-cultural mentoring in academia is when a mentor uses

coaching and sponsoring to guide the mentee through professional development for

career advancement. Thus, CCM of underrepresented counselor educators entails a

mentor of one cultural background guiding a junior colleague of a different cultural

background towards career advancement to address barriers to diversity in counselor

education. The concept of CCM for underrepresented counselor educators resembles but

is distinct from other diversity concepts in the counseling profession and academia such

as Multicultural Counseling Competencies (MCC), Multicultural and Social Justice

Counseling Competencies (MSJCC), Cultural Humility, Cross-Cultural Supervision, and

Relational Cultural Theory.

Multicultural Counseling Competencies (MCC)

Arredondo et al. (1996) operationally defined Multicultural Counseling

Competencies as behaviors professional counselors use to address socio-political barriers

that negatively affect the lives of clients. Likewise, the ACA (2014) mandated that

regardless of a professional counselors’ specialty area they all must adhere and

demonstrate multicultural counseling competency. The MCC serve as a professional

guide for counselors to develop their cultural awareness and skills to assist clients from

cultures different from their own. The current study aims to generate a theoretical

framework that operationally defines CCM of racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators similar to how the MCC define beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and skills

relevant to proficiently and ethically serving a diverse clientele.

Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC)

The Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development (AMCD) created

a committee to update the MCC to broaden the concept of culture to include intersections

of identities and incorporate social justice advocacy into the roles of professional

counselors (Ratts et al., 2016). The resulting Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling

Competencies (MSJCC) from the committee are a framework to assist counselors in

identifying and participating in social change initiatives. The MSJCC framed counselor-

client dynamics regarding power and privilege within the context of developmental

domains such as counselor self-awareness, client worldview, counseling relationship, and

interventions (Ratts et al., 2016). The developmental domains overlay the framework’s

four core competencies. The MSJCC creators provided examples of how to implement

the core competencies of attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, skills, and action (Ratts et al.,

2016). Specifically, the MSJCC of action is a noted difference from the MCC, and the

action competency signifies an intentional effort to create change. The MSJCC

acknowledgement of power and privilege as well as the commitment to address

individual and systemic oppression makes it applicable to the difficulties of limited and

ineffective CCM for racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

The MSJCC framework also includes concepts found in cultural humility which is

another expansion of the MCC. Both MSJCC and cultural humility guide counselors to

develop their self-awareness and self-critique through an ongoing, lifelong process

(Foronda et al., 2016; Ratts et al., 2016). Additionally, MSJCC and cultural humility aim

to address individual and systemic oppression (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015; Ratts et al.,

2016). As the counseling profession’s traditional conceptualizations of cultural

competence evolve and expand to address the needs of clients, there is a similar need to

develop and expand conventional mentoring by adding a targeted CCM theory for

counselor educators.

Cultural Humility

Cultural humility is an expanded conceptual framework of cultural competence

and is vital to understanding CCM. Fisher-Borne et al. (2015) and Foronda et al. (2016)

endorsed cultural humility as a more transformative framework than cultural competence

due to cultural humility deviating from the assumption that helping professionals can

master knowledge of other cultures; instead, cultural humility accounts for social justice

as a lifelong process. In this regard, cultural humility is relevant to CCM due to the

possibility of the mentoring relationship occurring over a lifetime in which both mentor

and mentee learn and evolve because of intercultural exchanges. Cultural humility

encompasses five attributes: openness, self-awareness, being egoless, supportive

interaction, and self-reflection (Foronda et al., 2016). Helping professionals use the

attributes of cultural humility to address power imbalances in society and during clinical

supervision (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015; Foronda et al., 2016; Hook et al., 2016). Thus,

exploring the concept of cultural humility within the practice of CCM could provide

insights on implications for using social justice to increase the representation of racially

and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty.

Cross-Cultural Supervision

Cross-cultural supervision and CCM in counselor education share familiar

dynamics of multicultural communication and interactions just at a lower level of career

development. Powers (2014, p. 21) stated, “race and culture significantly influence the

supervisory process; supervisee’ perceptions of the supervisory relationship are directly

dependent on the supervisees’ race and their perception of the supervisor.” Thus, the

successful navigation of cultural differences in cross-cultural supervision reflects the

supervisors’ cultural competence. The concept of cross-cultural supervision is relevant to

CCM in counselor education because if mentors have experience with cross-cultural

supervision, then the mentors might bring those learned interactions into a cross-cultural

mentoring relationship. Additionally, in some cases, the cross-cultural mentoring

relationship is a continuation of a previously established cross-cultural supervision

relationship. The knowledge of best-practices in cross-cultural supervision offers

counselor educators serving as cross-cultural mentors a general guide as to approach

mentoring but a supervisee has different professional needs than a doctoral graduate or

new faculty. Thus, a theory specific to CCM targets the developmental process and needs

of the faculty mentees while decreasing the barriers to multicultural representation in

academia.

Relational Cultural Theory

Lewis and Olshansky (2016) explained the use of Relational Cultural Theory to

increase the representation of ethnic minorities and women in academia. Lewis and

Olshansky (2016) postulated that new faculty could attain success by training senior

faculty on cross-cultural mentorship that includes elements of Relational Cultural Theory

such as mutuality, authenticity, reciprocity, empathy, connectedness. Applying Relational

Cultural Theory as a structural approach to CCM begins to answer the question of how

academic institutions can change organizationally implement formalized CCM. However,

Relational Cultural Theory does not capture how cross-cultural mentoring relationships

initially develop nor does the theory gather the perceptions or experiences of those senior

faculty members expected to serve as mentors. Conceptualizing CCM using the

Relational Cultural Theory is beneficial to gauge the feasibility of implementing CCM

organizationally as well as general best practices. The current study also benefits from

Relational Cultural Theory by addressing gaps in the theory such as drawing upon the

actual experiences of mentors to target how cross-cultural mentoring relationships begin

and how mentors navigate competently when cross-cultural issues arise.

Cross-Cultural Mentoring in Counselor Education

Although Multicultural Counseling Competencies, Cross-Cultural Supervision,

and Relational Cultural Theory share the cultural differences of CCM, these concepts and

frameworks do not capture the multifaceted relationships of CCM. For example, cross-

cultural supervision has a similar hierarchal nature as CCM; however, not all cs have a

gatekeeping component which occurs in all clinical supervision relationships. No

hierarchal dynamics exists in Multicultural Counseling Competencies as clients have

autonomy over their life decisions in the therapeutic relationship. Whereas in CCM the

mentors’ prevalence of professional experiences and sometimes the mentors’ role at an

institution creates seniority over the mentee which allows the mentor to influence the

professional development of the mentee. Relational Cultural Theory’s approach to

building CCM competencies to increase the presence of racial and ethnic minorities as

well as women in academia through structural realignment shares the underpinnings and

purpose of CCM. However, Relational Cultural Theory is a feminist adaptation of a

theoretical framework that has its origins in the psychological development of Caucasian

males, and it is not distinct to the professional standards of counselor education.

Some of the first researchers of cross-cultural in counselor education drew upon

mentoring literature in the field of business as well as their own experiences of cross-

cultural mentoring as counselor education faculty to develop four focal areas that foster a

compatible working relationship (Brinson & Kottler, 1993). The researchers primarily

juxtaposition the experiences of Caucasian mentors with minority mentees due to the

power and privilege senior Caucasian faculty members have in academia. The current

study seeks to build upon the recommendations and findings of previous cross-cultural

frameworks and mentoring research to develop a focused theory CCM grounded in the

professional experiences of those who served as cross-cultural mentors to

underrepresented junior colleagues. The theory would create a framework of the

knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to address the barriers to the recruitment and

retention of racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty.

Literature Review

Racially and ethnically diverse faculty experience academe differently than

Caucasian faculty. Minority faculty occupy more nontenured and part-time instructor

positions in comparison to Caucasian faculty; thus, minority faculty leave academia to

seek professional advancement elsewhere (Brinson & Kottler, 1993). Lewis and

Olshansky (2016) reported that faculty of color who do attain tenure are more likely than

Caucasian faculty to leave the academy due to feelings of isolation in the culture and

climate of their institutions. Minor (2016) specified that, unlike Caucasian faculty, faculty

of color have expectations to teach courses related to diversity issues and serve on race-

related committees and initiatives for the department and larger university community.

The inability of higher education institutions to retain racially and ethnically diverse

counselor education faculty threatens the ability of the institutions to expose students to

diversity. The counseling profession has professional standards to uphold cultural

competence and tolerance for diversity which behooves counselor education programs to

surround counseling students with counselor educators who have diverse racial and

ethnic backgrounds, cultural knowledge, and professional experiences. Therefore,

reviewing the professional experiences of racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators identifies barriers to their professional advancement and what strategies help or

hinder the successful navigation of the barriers.

African American Counselor Educators

African American counselor educators experience multiple barriers to

professional advancement, despite ACA and CACREP emphasis on cultural diversity.

Although African American counselor educators are the second largest racial and ethnic

demographic group of full-time faculty at CACREP-accredited programs at 12.47%

(CACREP, 2016a), Affirmative Action has not led to increased representation and

equality of African American counselor educators (Bradley & Holcomb-McCoy, 2004).

Moreover, Haizlip (2012) reported that the discrepancy in the number of African

Americans receiving doctoral counselor education degrees and the number of African

American counselor education faculty is due to a lack of national and institutional

strategies to recruit and retain African Americans as counselor education faculty. African

American counselor educators encounter an unwelcoming work environment, overt

racism and prejudice, lack of institutional policies to support diversity, and lack of

mentoring which negatively affect their academic careers. Thus, chronicling the lack of

change in the acceptance of African American faculty in counselor education programs

recognizes the areas of growth for universities and institutions.

Discriminatory Work Environment

African American counselor education faculty describe an unwelcoming

department climate such as differential treatment and academic bullying. African

American counselor education faculty reported differential treatment such as

disproportionate assignments to service activities (Haizlip, 2012; Holcomb-McCoy &

Addison-Bradley, 2005). Cartwright et al. (2009) found that African American

rehabilitation counselor educators encountered “unequal/different treatment” in which

faculty had to negotiate informal procedures to resolve a complaint while their Caucasian

counterparts did not have to take extra steps in the same situation. African American

male counselor educators at CACREP-accredited institutions expressed receiving a lower

salary than their Caucasian counterparts with equal experience and credentials (Brooks &

Steen, 2010). African American female counselor educators noted differential treatment

in their review and promotion process, sexism by colleagues, and sexism by students as

significantly more stressful than African American male counselor educators (Bradley &

Holcomb-McCoy, 2004). The comparison of African American male and African

American female counselor educators’ academic experiences indicate that while African

American male counselor educators occupy higher ranking faculty positions, African

American male counselor educators experience inequality (Bradley & Holcomb-McCoy,

2004; Brooks & Steen, 2010). However, African American female counselor educators

struggle against the same cultural barriers as African American male counselor educators

in academia; yet, African American female counselor educators belong to multiple

oppressed groups and have added challenges of sexism and gender bias (Cartwright et al.,

2009; Frazier, 2011). The lack of equality in the handling, workload, and compensation

of African American counselor education faculty is a type of silent aggression in

academia.

Academic bullying is an overt form of aggression that contributes to a racially and

ethnically insensitive department culture. Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) and Frazier

(2011) described academic bullying as the long-term systematic behavior of faculty in

power that hinders the tenure and promotion of African American counselor educators.

Social isolation, invalidation, and no collegial support are microaggressions African

American counselor education faculty encounter during academic bullying (Bradley &

Holcomb-McCoy, 2004; Cartwright et al., 2009; Haizlip, 2012; Holcomb-McCoy and

Addison-Bradley, 2005). Holcomb-McCoy and Addison-Bradley (2005) explained that

systemically African American counselor educators have a harder time advancing

professionally in comparison to Caucasian counselor educators because African

American counselor educators are not in positions of power in their departments and have

little influence on decisions affecting the departments. Holcomb-McCoy and Addison-

Bradley (2005) expressed that department chairs and leadership do not assist in unifying

African American counselor educators with other colleagues, thus perpetuating an

adverse racial climate. Academic bullying and a racially insensitive department climate

negatively affect the job satisfaction of African American counselor educators. African

American counselor educators indicated a significant negative correlation in the

relationship between the scores on the Racial Climate Scale and the Minnesota

Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form: r(46) = -0.41, p < 0.01(Holcomb-McCoy &

Addison-Bradley, 2005). Thus, the higher levels of negative racial climate, the lower job

satisfaction for African American counselor educators. Furthermore, contrary to

Holcomb-McCoy and Addison-Bradley’s general assumption that higher ranked tenured

faculty have higher levels of job satisfaction, faculty rank and tenure status did not

account for a significant relationship with the job satisfaction of African American

counselor educators. Hence, African American counselor educators with high rank and

tenure experienced low job satisfaction if they work in a department with a negative

racial climate. Frazier (2011) delineated reduced efficiency, increased absenteeism,

increased job turnover, adverse health effects, negative reputation or organizational

image, and low job satisfaction as consequences of academic bullying. Academic

bullying is a cultural bias African Americans face in academia, but it is not the same as

racism and prejudice.

Inequities in Promotion and Tenure

Racism and prejudice are ethnocentric American ideologies that permeate all

aspects of society including academia. African American counselor educators identified

racism and stereotyping as barriers to promotion and tenure (Bradley & Holcomb-

McCoy, 2004). Holcomb-McCoy and Addison-Bradley (2005) provided examples of

racism and prejudice towards African American counselor educators such as Caucasian

colleagues commenting that an African American faculty candidate was “very articulate”

or implying that the program will have to “lessen” standards to admit African American

students (p. 11). Cartwright et al. (2009) shared an instance in which African American

counselor educator felt directly threatened by a colleague’s statements, “when you don’t

get tenure you won’t have to worry about that because you won’t be here” (p. 175).

Another form of prejudice African American counselor educators experience is the

devaluation of research and publications related to African American issues. Haizlip

(2012) and Holcomb-McCoy and Addison-Bradley (2005) attested that department

leadership and colleagues refuse to support or collaborate with African American

counselor educator when their research focuses on racial issues or the African American

population. Racism and prejudice block African American counselor education faculty

from advancing their academic careers by negating their qualifications, discounting their

research agenda, and degrading their presence in the professoriate.

Inadequate Administrative Support

When African American counselor educators challenge systemic barriers to their

professional growth as faculty, they rely on departmental and institutional policies to

support their efforts for equality. However, the lack of institutional policies and

procedures that deter racial and cultural intolerance by both students and faculty leave

African American counselor educators with little recourse. Haizlip (2012) explained that

African American counselor educators have little departmental protection against

students who racially or sexually harass faculty, and she suggested that counseling

programs create a written policy and include the policy in the course syllabi. Some

African American counselor educators called for policies that promote the even

distribution of support and collegial resources. Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) described a

department climate in which some faculty received more support and positive feedback

than African American faculty members. Fraizer (2011) emphasized the creation of

program policies to combat academic bullying and retain African American counselor

education faculty as an institutional accountability for promoting diversity. There is a

consensus amongst researchers that an institutional policy for mentoring African

American counselor educators is a beneficial strategy to address the barriers of faculty

retention (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Fraizer, 2011; Haizlip, 2012).

Lack of mentoring for African American Counselor Educators

Lack of mentoring for African American counselor education faculty hinders their

ability to navigate the demands of being a professional educator. Researchers

distinguished mentoring as a necessary strategy to increase the tenure and promotion of

African American counselor educators (Bradley & Holcomb-McCoy, 2004; Frazier,

2011; Jones-Boyd, 2016) as well as address issues with the recruitment and retention of

African American counselor educators (Brooks & Steen, 2010; Cartwright et al., 2009;

Haizlip, 2012; Holcomb-McCoy & Addison-Bradley, 2005). Jones-Boyd (2016) found

that mentorship from senior-level faculty and independent same-culture mentoring

networks contributed to the success of tenured African American female counselor

educators. Frazier (2011) discussed mentoring as a strategy to increase African American

faculty’s potential in obtaining tenure from both the perspectives of same-culture and

cross-cultural mentoring. Specifically, the researcher suggested that same culture

mentoring would be ideal, but the underrepresentation of African American faculty in

tenured positions makes it more likely that CCM might be more realistic in

implementation. To address the underrepresentation, recruitment, and retention of

African American, Brooks and Steen (2010) reported that mentoring creates a sense of

belonging amongst African American counselor educators in the department. Bradley and

Holcomb-McCoy (2004) recommended further exploration of mentoring practices,

strategies to reduce racial tension amongst faculty, and ways to address the alienation of

African American counselor educators. The proposed study seeks to address the gap in

the lack of mentoring for African American counselor educators by developing a CCM

theory that institutions and departments could potentially implement as faculty

development policy.

Competent mentorship can ameliorate the challenges African American counselor

educators face in the academic climate. Establishing cross-cultural mentoring

relationships with senior Caucasian and other influential counselor education faculty who

are committed to recruiting and retaining African American faculty can ease the barriers

to their professional advancement. African American counselor educators require allies in

academe to listen to their negative experiences, support their research and publication

agenda, consider the effect of departmental decisions on minorities, build collegial

relationships that foster inclusion. African American female counselor educators

experience multifaceted challenges due to their status in multiple oppressed groups.

Cross-cultural mentorship for African American female counselor educators may have

components different from mentoring African American males. It is important that the

current study capture the nuances of CCM racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators.

Asian Counselor Educators

Asian female counselor educators noted the cultural biases they face in the

academic setting. Kim et al. (2014) utilized the consensual qualitative research (CQR)

method to explore the work-related stressors and experiences of 11 international Asian

female faculty in counseling psychology, clinical psychology, rehabilitation psychology,

and counselor education programs. Kim et al. (2014) reported that Asian female

counselor educators feel like “strangers” and “outsiders” in academia (p. 147); their

sentiments are verbatim with the academic experiences of African American female

counselor education faculty (Hall, 2010; Herbert, 2012). Specifically, Kim et al. (2014)

found four domains that Asian female faculty use to describe their work experiences: “(a)

sources of challenges, (b) responses to challenges, (c) intrinsic rewards of being faculty,

and (d) influencing factors” (p. 151). The sources of challenges domain included the

difficulty of Asian female faculty finding mentors.

Additionally, Kim et al. (2014) noted that Asian female counselor educators face

exclusion, lack of mentoring, hypervisibility, and prejudice consistent with barriers to

professional development for racially and ethnically diverse faculty. Kim et al. (2014)

revealed that Asian female faculty occupy more junior and untenured faculty ranks in

comparison to Asian male faculty. For example, in the study only one of the 11 research

participants was a full-time faculty. Asian female counselor educators share the

professional experiences of low faculty rank, isolation, and limited support with those of

African American female counselor education faculty. However, Asian female counselor

educators deal with unique cultural challenges in academe that relate to their status as

international faculty.

Asian female counselor educators identified unrealistic expectations of being a

representative of their ethnic group as a primary source of job stress. They must cope

with students and colleagues viewing them as passive, submissive, and youthful to

address others discounting their professional abilities. For example, Kim et al. (2014)

explained that Asian female counselor educators spend large amounts of time dealing

with student behavioral issues such as interrupting and questioning the instructor,

mocking the faculty’s accent and clothing, and addressing student complaints and

revising their courses to accommodate students’ biases on evaluations. Moreover, Asian

female counselor educators experience bias from colleagues and department leadership in

the form of opposition towards research related to Asian and international topics. Asian

female counselor educators stated that department leadership influenced their research by

accepting publications in “major journals” rather than international journals and

promoting research on “Asian American” issues (Kim et al., 2014, p. 153). Thus, the

research participants expressed negative emotional reactions to their experiences in

academe and characterized interactions with students and colleagues at microaggressions.

To cope with the work challenges and micro aggressions, Asian female counselor

educators reported “working harder than others” and fostering collaborative professional

relationships with other faculty members from ethnic minority groups or professionals

from native countries (Kim et al., 2014, p. 155). Despite the barriers and additional

undertakings Asian female counselor educators face in academe, they noted increased

multicultural competence, greater capacity to connect and mentor students from racial

and ethnic minority groups, as well as incorporating diversity issues into their courses as

rewards of being in academia. Kim et al. instructed the audience of the importance to

investigate the strengths of having Asian female counselor education faculty due to much

of research addressing only barriers. Additionally, Kim et al. notified the reader that there

is little research data on the experiences of Asian counselor education faculty experiences

because previous researchers do not differentiate between foreign-born or international

Asian faculty and Asian American faculty. Further investigation of the differences

between international and Asian American faculty could answer the question if Asian

American faculty experience fewer barriers in academe because of their level of

assimilation to American culture.

Additionally, what is missing from the literature on Asian counselor educators in

the experiences of Asian male counselor education faculty and how those experiences

compare to Asian female faculty. It is difficult to isolate the gender and ethnic barriers

expressed by Kim et al. (2014) due to the participants including only female faculty.

Having the experiences of both Asian male and female faculty could inform future

mentors of unique considerations and skills necessary to assist Asian counselor education

faculty mentees.

Hispanic/Latino Counselor Educators

The individualistic worldview and customs of traditional academia are

problematic to Hispanic and Latino counselor educators who have collectivistic

worldviews. While there is a dearth in the literature accounting for the professional

experiences of Hispanic and Latino counselor education faculty, one study contained the

post-degree reflections of Hispanic and Latino doctoral counselor education students.

Lerma et al. (2015) conducted a phenomenological study that explored the experiences of

23 Hispanic men and women who completed doctoral degrees in counselor education.

Six themes of family role models, educational support, parental expectation, ethnic

identity, acculturation/cultural expectation, and intrinsic motivation emerged from the

researchers’ qualitative interviews. Within the theme of educational support

Hispanic/Latino doctoral counselor education students indicated that they sought

mentorship from Hispanic/Latino faculty and when similar culture mentors were

unavailable they sought mentors who were faculty of color. Those research participants

who reported social isolation in academia attributed it to a lack of a collectivist

orientation. Lerma et al. recommended that counselor education programs take steps to

re-create “familia” in the academic environment to promote resiliency amongst

Hispanic/Latino counselor education faculty and students (p. 171). The researchers

endorsed redefining faculty mentoring policies, developing Hispanic-learning

communities, and increasing the presence and number of Hispanic administrators as ways

to create a collectivist academic environment for Hispanic/Latino counselor educators.

Maintaining the existing individualistic cultural norms in academia is not culturally

sensitive to racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators who have collectivist

cultural worldviews; thus, it is important for a CCM theory to address cultural gaps.

Lerma et a. (2015) captured the broad academic experiences of an

underrepresented group of counselor educators and emphasized the need for cultural

sensitivity to support Hispanic/Latino counselor educators. The phenomenological study

is one of the few pieces of research in which Hispanic/Latino counselor educators lend

their voices to the issues and motivations of racially and ethnically diverse faculty.

However, due to the scope of the research, they only briefly discussed mentoring of

Hispanic/Latino counselor educators. More data on how Hispanic/Latino counselor

educators acquire mentors and how the mentors meet the needs of mentees who have

collectivist worldviews will contribute significantly to the development of a CCM theory.

International Counselor Educators

International counselor educators face communication and acculturation barriers

in academe in addition to racial and ethnic differences. Woo et al. (2015) conducted a

consensual qualitative research (CQR) analysis on the doctoral supervision training

experiences of eight international counselor education students at CACREP-accredited

programs to understand the resources and support systems they use to cope with cultural

challenges in their education. Woo et al. (2015) corroborated that international counselor

educators receive negative feedback and evaluations from students and faculty due to

them having foreign accents, language barriers, and differences in cultural

communication as reported by Kim et al. (2014). International counselor educators

reported that they were unfamiliar with United States culture and history which

negatively affected their ability to relate to others; thus, they expressed feeling pressure to

assimilate (Kim et al., 2014, Woo et al., 2015). Similarly, Kim et al. (2014) and Woo et

al. (2015) demonstrated that international counselor educators had low engagement from

peers, faculty, and faculty supervisors due to cultural differences which resulted in social

and academic isolation. Some international counselor educators reported experiencing

more problematic issues than social isolation in academia such as deliberate

discrimination. For example, international doctoral counselor education students shared

that Caucasian faculty supervisors unfoundedly questioned their clinical and supervisory

skills and made culturally insensitive comments towards them (Woo et al., 2015).

Likewise, Kim et al. (2014) explained that international counselor educators have limited

opportunities to gain and learn supervision experiences due to their immigrant status

disqualifying them from practicum and internship sites. International counselor educators

find themselves excluded from peers and faculty in the academic setting due to cultural

differences and some international doctoral counselor education students do not have

equal access to professional development opportunities.

Regarding mentoring, international counselor educators lack mentorship from

faculty at CACREP-accredited programs and seek mentorship from alternate sources.

International doctoral counselor education students explained that they encountered

cultural insensitivity and lack of support from faculty supervisors; thus, they established

mentoring relationships with counseling professionals from their home countries due to

the ability of the mentors to provide a safe, non-judgmental environment to discuss

culturally sensitive topics (Woo et al., 2015). International counselor educators use peer

networks as another mentoring alternative. Woo et al. (2015) described how international

doctoral counselor education students collaborate with peers from other programs to get

advice on how to manage the classroom, provide crisis assistance to supervisees, and

present at professional conferences. International doctoral counselor education students

acknowledged the presence of senior faculty as candidates for mentors. However, Woo et

al. (2015) explained that international doctoral counselor education students viewed

senior faculty as unapproachable. The current study seeks to explore gaps in mentoring

such as this by asking how senior faculty communicate and display an openness to

serving as mentors. Moreover, Kim et al. (2014) and Woo et al. (2015) described that

there is limited research on the strengths of international counselor educators due to the

current literature only highlighting the barriers and challenges they face. A grounded

theory based on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes conducive to mentoring international

counselor educators contributes a strengths-based approach to faculty diversity.

Lacking Research on Multiracial, Native American, and Pacific Islander Counselor

Educators

There is limited information as to how multiracial, Native American, and Pacific

Islander counselor educators participate and experience academe. Although there is a

dearth of literature about the professional experiences of multiracial counselor educators,

Henriksen and Maxwell (2016) explained that the multiple heritage population is the

fastest growing population in the United States according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

CACREP includes multiracial identifiers in the Annual Report and 1.85% of full-time

faculty identified as multiracial in the 2016 report (CACREP, 2016a). Additionally, ACA

(2015) outlined counseling and advocacy competencies that illuminate potential

challenges multiple heritage individuals experience in society. Like multiracial counselor

educators, CACREP (2016a) reported that individuals who identify as Native American

and Pacific Islander represent an insignificant portion of full-time counselor education

faculty, 0.46% and 0.08% respectively. Preliminary research on the unique cultural

experiences of multiracial, Native American, and Pacific Islander counselor educators in

academia will begin to address the gap of underrepresented racially and ethnically diverse

counselor education faculty in CACREP-accredited programs.

Mentoring

As doctoral graduates and new faculty begin their careers as professional

educators, mentoring assists them in adjusting to the added responsibilities and the new

environment of their departments and institutions. The issues surrounding mentorship of

new faculty include whether informal or formal mentoring is most beneficial and who is

responsible for initiating the mentoring relationship. Zafar, Roberts, and Behar-

Horenstein (2012) studied the mentoring experiences of six tenure-accruing international

faculty and found that each department within the same Research I institution had

differing policies or, in some cases, no policies for faculty mentorship. Similarly, Waller

and Shofoluwe (2013) examined new faculty perceptions of mentoring at Historically

Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and uncovered common sentiments that

mentoring practices are as varied as the departments. In the departments that utilize

formal mentoring strategies, a faculty member was given the freedom to choose two

mentors from with the department while another department assigned faculty mentors in

the form of a review committee for tenure (Zafar et al., 2012). New faculty reported both

satisfaction and dissatisfaction with various types of mentoring. The faculty member who

was able to choose his mentors reported a positive experience; however, the faculty

member chose his mentors based on personal preferences, shared cultural backgrounds,

and previous existing relationships with the mentors (Zafar et al., 2012). Those faculty

with assigned mentors noted frustration with the mentors not being qualified or having

authority within the department (Waller & Shofoluwe, 2013) or the mentors meeting with

the faculty once or twice a year to review a report of strengths and weaknesses to only

advise when the faculty was not on track for tenure (Zafar et al., 2012). Formal

mentorship of new faculty is not helpful when it mimics annual performance reviews

rather than guidance towards professional and personal growth. Additionally, mentors

who do not have the knowledge, skills, and influence of the department may not be

appropriate to lead new faculty to succeed.

Proponents of informal mentoring emphasize the relational dynamics between

junior and senior faculty. New faculty in non-counselor education programs reported that

they preferred that mentor and mentee develop a relationship organically and the mentor

provides protection and safeguards the well-being for the mentee (Waller & Shofoluwe,

2013; Zafar et al., 2012). Moreover, Zafar et al. (2012) explained that mentorship

includes elements other than work products and if the parties involved understand culture

and friendship then it strengthens the mentoring dynamic. Even at the administration

level, new administrators perceived informal mentoring as more beneficial to their career

trajectory than formal mentoring (Adedokun, 2014). Although conflicting opinions exists

regarding the preference for formal or informal mentoring for new faculty, the consensus

is that any form of mentoring is better in comparison to no guidance and support.

Another ongoing topic in mentoring new faculty is how the mentoring

relationship develops. New faculty perceive individual deans and department chairs as

having the ability to create a collaborative work environment and implement formal

mentoring programs (Waller & Shofoluwe, 2013). Junior faculty have limited knowledge

of the department culture and personnel upon hire; therefore, it is unrealistic to place the

duty of finding a mentor on new faculty. Likewise, Zafar et al. (2012) explained that new

faculty from collectivist cultures overly adhere to the power distance between junior and

senior faculty, and they argued that senior faculty must make themselves more

approachable and available to counteract strong cultural norms. A new faculty member at

an HBCU reported that he did not ask his university for a mentor because he felt the

institution could not produce one (Waller & Shofoluwe, 2013). What does it say about

department culture if new faculty enter academia and report not feeling confident that

there are qualified mentors to assist their professional growth? Thus, Waller and

Shofoluwe (2013) concluded that it is the responsibility of the institution to develop a

formal mentoring program and assign qualified senior faculty as mentors to new faculty.

However, there is little information about senior faculty’s perceptions of mentoring,

explicitly how they choose mentees and what messages they receive from the institution

regarding new faculty development.

There are negative consequences to an institution’s inability to successfully

mentor new faculty towards professional development. Zafar et al. (2012) determined

that lack of adequate mentorship for new faculty creates issues of faculty turnover which

jeopardizes the financial and intellectual investments of the institution as well as

interrupting student research projects. Thus, Waller and Shofoluwe (2013) advised that

new faculty ask mentoring and workplace environment questions upon interviewing for a

position. Lastly, the mentoring experiences of new faculty at HBCUs parallel those of

faculty at Predominately White Institutions (PWI) in that lack of mentoring, ambiguity

about who is responsible for initiating mentorship, and differences in the preference for

formal or informal mentoring also plague their professional development.

Mentoring Doctoral Students

Professional identity development of professional educators starts when students

are in their doctoral programs; thus, it is important to capture the significant mentoring

relationships and experiences established between faculty and doctoral students. Key

relationship components of mentorship between faculty and doctoral students include

initiation, advantages, and cultural interactions. First, although discrepancies exist about

the party responsible for initiating the mentoring relationship, every relationship begins

with an initial conversation. Grant and Simmons (2008) conducted a case study of

mentoring experiences of African American female non-counselor education doctoral

student at Predominately White Institution (PWI) and revealed that faculty mentoring

enhanced the student’s achievement in academia. The doctoral student in the Grant and

Simmons’ case study explained that her mentoring relationship began with casual

exchanges with faculty throughout the student’s matriculation of the program and peaked

when the faculty mentor served as the student’s dissertation chair (Grant & Simmons,

2008). Similarly, Limberg et al. (2013) utilized CQR to explore the professional identity

of doctoral counselor education students including faculty influences on their

development and reported students perceived informal conversations with faculty and

mentors as validation and encouragement of their contributions to the program. Grant and

Simmons (2008) emphasized that the doctoral program in the case study had a formal

mentoring procedure as a part of the curriculum which the student concluded promoted

an atmosphere of guidance and support conducive for finding mentors. The initiation of a

mentorship between faculty and doctoral students potentially improves the students’

academic journey.

Second, doctoral students experience both tangible and intangible advantages of

having mentors. Second-year doctoral counselor education students credited their

mentors for modeling teaching styles and developing research and writing interests

(Limberg et al., 2013). Doctoral students who publish and present with the assistance of

faculty mentors generate a curriculum vitae that prepares them for the academy. Some

doctoral students portray reinforcement from mentors as most influential in their

professional development as an educator. In Grant and Simmons’ (2008) case study, the

African American female doctoral student described mentorship as providing “emotional

intelligence, spiritual support, role-modeling, academic advisement, and networking

opportunities” (p. 507). Likewise, international doctoral counselor education and

supervision students noted emotional security, practical supervision skills, and resources

as gains from establishing mentorships with individuals back in their native countries

(Woo et al., 2015). Mentorship is an invaluable resource to expose doctoral students to

the professional demands of the academy. Moreover, the authentic connection with their

mentors is imperative as they learn their professional identity.

Third, positive cultural interactions support successful mentorship. An African

American female doctoral student benefited from same-culture same-gender mentorship

in which the mentor held a university or department leadership position (Grant &

Simmons, 2008). Woo et al. (2015) reported that international doctoral counselor

education and supervision students felt so uncomfortable and judged by their faculty

supervisors that over half of the eight participants sought outside mentorship from

counseling professional in their home countries. Thus, same-culture mentoring is

beneficial in overcoming multicultural barriers in academia, especially when the mentor

holds a leadership position and has influence within the department. However, what is the

alternative if same-culture mentoring is not available? If the faculty is not culturally

diverse, then competent CCM becomes essential.

Mentoring Counselor Educators

Mentorship for counselor educators must include holistic support for them to

develop just as counselor educators provide holistic care to clients, supervisees, and

students. Borders et al. (2011) explained that mentorship of counselor educators consists

of two domains, career and psychosocial, to assist the counselor educator in developing

personally and professionally. Career mentoring focuses on the counselor educator’s

work duties. Career mentoring includes coaching, protection, sponsorship, and

challenging the mentees’ limitations (Borders et al., 2011). For example, new counselor

education faculty have difficulty developing independent research agendas; thus, research

mentoring improves their productivity (Borders et al., 2012). Another form of career

mentoring is when mentors share teaching information and resources regarding creative

classroom activities, university politics, and program expectations (Waalkes, 2016).

Psychosocial mentoring includes nonjudgmental acceptance, friendship, positive role

modeling, and confidentiality (Borders et al., 2011). Waalkes (2016) demonstrated

psychosocial mentoring when ongoing relationships formed from teaching mentorships

such as mentors and mentees meeting casually for coffee. Borders et al. (2011) made the

case that the most effective mentors utilize both the psychosocial and career functions of

mentorship. Again, Waalkes (2016) supported Borders et al. (2011) findings of the

benefits of mentors using both career and psychosocial domains of mentoring when

Waalkes reported that mentors facilitated personal growth by promoting self-reflection,

increasing confidence, and supporting mentee initiatives for new programs. Although,

comprehensive mentoring promotes the adjustment and achievement of new counselor

education faculty, specific skills of teaching and research require targeted mentorship.

New counselor education faculty identify the need for more teaching preparation

as they enter the academy. Waalkes (2016) reported that most of the teaching mentorship

occurs during doctoral preparation; however, a new adjunct faculty stated that she sought

mentorship from colleagues to cover gaps in her teaching philosophy not covered during

her doctoral program. Waalkes identified that new counselor educators expressed the

need for mentorship that provided useful feedback and assisted the educators in managing

student issues and negative student feedback. Waalkes explained that new counselor

education faulty found feedback from mentors and colleagues was just as useful as

student feedback in building their teaching skills and confidence. However, Waalkes

disclosed that new counselor education faculty are more likely to receive research

mentoring than teaching mentorship. Professional organizations’ emphasis on research

mentoring for counselor educators supports Waalkes’ claims that new counselor

educators will benefit from teaching mentorship.

The Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) published

research mentorship guidelines that help define the characteristics of mentors and

mentees. Borders et al. (2012) reported that many counselor educators enter the

professoriate with only working knowledge of research skills and low research

productivity threatens the promotion and tenure of new counselor education faculty,

specifically women and ethnically diverse faculty. Research mentorship assists junior

counselor educators in sharpening their research knowledge for the advancement of their

careers as well as increasing their ability to teach students research skills in the classroom

and serve as advisors on student research projects. Borders et al. (2012) encouraged the

use of ACES guidelines to increase the vigor, standards, and scholarship in the counselor

education profession. The lack of research mentorship for ethnically and racially diverse

counselor education faculty is more evidence for the need for a CCM theory.

The proposed study for developing a CCM theory will address the issues and

limitations of formal mentoring training. Borders et al. (2012) explained there is a lack of

training to prepare counselor education faculty to become research mentors, and they

recommended more attention on “considerations for mentoring women and persons of

color” (p.169). Moreover, Waalkes (2016) emphasized the need for teaching mentorship

to assist marginalized counselor education faculty. Rorrer (2009) conducted a multiple

regression and multivariate analysis of mentoring data from 226 counselor education

faculty to examine the working alliance with the variables of ethnic identity, advocacy,

empowerment, cultural empathy, and mentor type. The researcher reported that cross-

cultural mentoring relationships had “significantly lower working alliances” than same-

culture mentoring relationships (Rorrer, 2009, p. 83). Thus, with evidence that CCM has

lower levels of working alliance and mentors lack training in CCM, there is a need for a

targeted framework that addresses inter-cultural exchanges.

A CCM theory will address the training gap of not having enough senior faculty

mentors who are competent and comfortable assisting racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators by providing evidence of useful knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The

ACES research mentoring guidelines encourage mentors to discuss cultural differences in

the mentoring relationship (Borders et al., 2012). However, the guidelines do not

reference a framework of behavior or best practices to accommodate the resolution of

cross-cultural barriers. Borders et al. (2012) admitted that the ACES research mentoring

guidelines do not encompass the multilayered relationships of mentors and mentees; they

also over-rely on the institution to resolve mentor-mentee conflicts (Borders et al., 2012).

The problem with relying on the institution to resolve conflicts between mentors and

mentees is that it assumes that every institution has formalized procedures for mentoring,

which is not the case.

The discussion of research and teaching mentoring topics offer preliminary

guidance for the creation of a formal mentoring program; however, implementation of

formal mentoring programs will vary based on the institution and department climate.

Borders et al. (2011) suggested formalized programs for mentoring junior counselor

education faculty must include direct participation of senior faculty and department

chairs (Borders et al., 2011). Waalkes (2016) recommended systematic teaching

mentorship strategies such as mentees observing mentors teach, mentors observing

mentees teach, and mentees teaching to a panel of mentors with panel feedback. Borders

et al. (2012) advocated for formalized research mentorship in counselor education

because those who received mentorship are more likely to reciprocate and become

mentors themselves. Likewise, the implementation of a formalized CCM theory for

ethnically diverse counselor educators fosters a department and institutional culture of

inclusion and equality.

Cross-Cultural Mentoring

There is limited research on CCM within the field of counselor education that

demonstrates effective mentorship and successful cross-cultural mentor-mentee

dynamics. However, authors of cross-cultural mentoring research in other academic areas

highlighted the barriers, components, risks, and benefits of cross-cultural mentoring

(Alston, 2014; Carraway, 2008). CCM differs from traditional mentoring in that it

requires action towards social change and shifting accountability to those who have

power and influence over the department and institution. The need for cross-mentoring is

evermore clear because as the diversity of counselor education students increases the

faculty training and guiding them must diversify as well.

Issues to Overcome in CCM

All mentoring relationships have issues to navigate as the mentor and mentee

become more acquainted with one another; but cross-cultural mentoring relationships

have added layers of uncertainty and misinterpretations due to differing cultural norms.

Brinson and Kottler (1993) explained that the sociocultural factors of distrust, power

differentials, miscommunication, and isolation impede cross-cultural mentoring amongst

counselor educators. During cross-cultural mentoring, cultural stereotyping interferes

with communication, understanding, and the development of trust while simultaneously

creating self-consciousness, defensiveness, and hostility (Alston, 2014, Carraway, 2008).

However, there are components of CCM that will assist mentors and mentees in getting

over the inevitable hurdles of cultural differences.

Components of CCM

CCM encompasses many different key components of cultural awareness that are

relevant to the current study’s purpose of identifying the knowledge, skills, and attitudes

of competent CCM. Trust, genuineness, positionality, open dialogue, and open-

mindedness are crucial for successful CCM. First, cross-cultural mentoring must include

the element of trust in that the mentee can express anger, frustration, and unhappiness

with the institutional system or even the mentor without the mentor seeking retaliation

(Johnson-Bailey et al., 2004). Alston (2014) explained that trust amongst mentors and

mentees from different racial and ethnic backgrounds is intentional due to both parties

deliberately working to improve confidence in one another. Trust is an essential element

for all successful relationships, but trust is more so important in cross-cultural mentoring

relationships due to unfamiliarity with the other’s experiences and worldviews.

Productive cross-cultural mentors have authentic connections with their mentees.

Mentors with the genuine desire to learn about cultural influences of others help create a

cohesive cross-cultural mentoring relationship (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012).

Furthermore, genuine interest in the mentee’s cultural experiences benefited cross-

cultural mentoring relationships with international Asian counseling psychology doctoral

students regardless of the mentor’s ethnic background (Park-Saltzman et al., 2012).

Brinson and Kottler (1993) identified genuineness, expertise, and cultural sensitivity as

foundational components of successful cross-cultural mentoring. Genuineness within the

CCM dynamic establishes a strong bond between mentor and mentee and this bond

impacts the mentee’s status within the department.

Positionality is a component of CCM that helps racially and ethnically diverse

faculty mentees gain access and visibility need for promotion and tenure. Behar-

Horenstein et al. (2012) conducted their qualitative case study through the theoretical lens

of the positionality theory, in which African American female counselor educators have

lower positions and power in academe that they must partner with those in a higher

position to advance professionally. Johnson-Bailey, Cervero, and Baugh (2004) explained

positionality as an influencing factor in the success of cross-cultural mentorship for

racially and ethnically diverse mentees because the acceptance of the mentees’ teaching

and scholarship depends on the sponsorship and endorsement from a respected colleague.

Transparency in the cross-cultural mentor’s position as shepherd of the mentee’s

professional destiny occurs through open and honest discussion.

Open dialogue allows racially and ethnically diverse faculty mentees to express

their experiences to those willing to help. Bradley and Holcomb-McCoy (2004)

recommended open dialogues or faculty meetings as strategies to address cultural

differences and foster cross-cultural mentoring relationships. Open discussion brings

forth cultural differences and issues within the cross-cultural mentoring relationship

(Minor, 2016) as well as within the institution and department (Behar-Horenstein et al.,

2012). Open dialogue increases the awareness of cross-cultural mentors to increase

tolerance and promote an open attitude towards resolving issues affecting racially and

ethnically diverse mentees.

Senior faculty with power and influence within the department best serve racially

and ethnically diverse faculty mentees when they keep an open mind about cultural

experiences. Johnson-Bailey et al. (2004) documented the complexities and successes of

a 13-year cross-cultural mentoring relationship between professors in the field of

Education and reported that a Caucasian male mentor with strong cross-cultural

mentoring skills accept his mentee’s narratives of racism has reality and not the mentee

being overly sensitive or paranoid. Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) instructed Caucasian

senior faculty who engage in cross-cultural mentoring to self-reflect on their biases,

privileges, and knowledge of others’ experiences then worked to overcome their limits to

cultural competence. However, Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) does not provide best

practices and skills for non-Caucasian senior faculty who engage in cross-cultural

mentoring. Researchers recognized various components of cross-cultural relationship;

yet, the components lack operationalization and procedures for implementation.

Risks and Benefits of CCM

CCM does not occur without social consequences; thus, there are risks and

benefits to participating in CCM. Some information exists about the risks to those who

engage in cross-cultural mentoring. Johnson-Bailey et al. (2004) explained that senior

Caucasian male faculty have protection in academia due to power and privilege, but

unacknowledged or unwanted preferential treatment creates a defensive response within

Caucasian male faculty called “White guilt” (p. 13). Bradley and Holcomb-McCoy

(2004) concluded that African American faculty must use informal networking groups

due to Caucasian faculty feeling “discomfort and awkwardness” developing close

connections with mentees who do not have similar interests and characteristics (p. 269-

270). It is essential to know the risks senior Caucasian faculty mentors face when they

engage in cross-cultural mentorship, some mentors may encounter social stigma for

challenging the status quo by assisting the promotion of disenfranchised faculty

(Johnson-Bailey et al., 2004). Those Caucasian and other influential senior faculty

members who engage in CCM deserve a chance to express their experiences as mentors

to capture the sociopolitical forces that affect their decisions to assist underrepresented

faculty.

However, cross-cultural mentoring relationships benefit both the mentor and the

mentee. Brinson and Kottler (1993) reported that mentors experience emotional

satisfaction and increased work productivity from helping proteges. Cross-cultural

mentoring relationships assist senior Caucasian faculty mentors in developing a working

knowledge of the mentee’s culture by acquiring knowledge and empathy (Johnson-Bailey

et al., 2004). Additionally, cross-cultural mentoring provides the mentors with

opportunities to gain insight into the challenges experienced by junior faculty of color

and have an open discussion about multicultural issues (Minor, 2016). Mentors enhance

their cultural competence when they engage in CCM.

Carraway (2008) explored the cross-cultural career mentoring experiences of

African American male mentees with Caucasian mentors at predominately white

organizations. Carraway explained that cross-cultural career mentors to African

American males in predominately white organizations benefited mentees by providing

coaching, challenging assignments, protection from adverse forces, and positive

visibility. Carraway reported that cross-cultural mentoring develops the mentee by

enhancing skills, identity formation, and relationship credibility. Thus, Carraway

suggested future research on cross-cultural mentoring relationships with larger sample

sizes, longitudinal data, and policy and procedure information from leadership and

management to promote formalized cross-cultural mentoring strategies. Accordingly, the

lack of existing research on the development and implementation of formal CCM

procedures is yet another gap the proposed study can address by gathering best practices

from cross-cultural mentors.

Traditional Mentoring Not Appropriate for Cross-Cultural Needs

Traditional mentoring is not appropriate for cross-cultural needs due to traditional

mentoring perpetuating old ideologies that the mentor is the expert with all the answers.

In traditional mentoring, the mentors usually mold the mentees in their image; but, the

replication process does not fit the needs of cross-cultural mentoring where mentees

champion research agendas to benefit populations from their cultural backgrounds

(Johnson-Bailey et al., 2004). Moreover, existing cross-cultural mentoring resembles

“academic cloning” rather than encouraging and advocating for new perspectives and

strategies towards academic issues (Lewis & Olshansky, 2016, p. 384). The generation of

a CCM theory with cultural competence will help those interested in becoming a cross-

cultural mentor move past outdated forms of mentoring and use strategies that create

change for racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

Cross-Cultural Mentors as Advocates for Social Change

Creating social change is a critical function of CCM. Cross-cultural mentoring

provides the mentors with opportunities to advocate on behalf of faculty of color (Minor,

2016). Furthermore, those who serve as cross-cultural mentors have responsibilities that

go beyond their support of an individual; cross-cultural mentors must actively work to

change the institutional and societal systems that limit the diversification of academia and

the upward mobility of racially and ethnically diverse faculty (Johnson-Bailey et al.,

2004). Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) explained that negative sentiments about

individuals and department culture trickled down from mentor to mentee and perpetuated

a non-cohesive department and institution. Thus, the researcher’s assumption in this

study is that the mentors who are open to the inclusion and promotion of

underrepresented counselor education faculty can create positive change in the

department and institutional climate.

Shift in Accountability for CCM

Just as there are conflicting thoughts on whom should initiate the mentoring

relationship, differing views exist on the accountability to promote CCM. The literature

on cross-cultural mentoring represents the deficit model where the emphasis is on

changing the behavior and experiences of the junior faculty rather than changing the

system and people who create the problematic experiences for junior racially and

ethnically diverse faculty (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012). Brinson and Kottler’s (1993)

more abundant recommendations for junior minority faculty in comparison to Caucasian

senior faculty mentors is an example of the need for a shift in accountability for cross-

cultural mentoring. Charging racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators with

accountability for changing a system in which isolates them parallels with blaming the

victim.

Brinson and Kottler (1993) began the discussion of cross-cultural mentoring as a

strategy for retaining racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty. Brinson

and Kottler suggested a bilateral approach to fostering cross-cultural mentoring

relationships with recommendations for both mentees and mentors. Brinson and Kottler

encouraged mentees to actively recruit senior faculty who have a history of serving as

mentors, teach the mentor about their culture, and discuss the need for mentoring in

public forums. Brinson and Kottler also advised senior faculty to publicly endorse cross-

cultural mentoring within the institution as well as approach minority junior faculty to

help, attend seminars and conferences focusing on minority issues, and volunteer time

working with projects that benefit minority students, youth, and community

organizations. While suggesting behavior modifications for both underrepresented

counselor educators and senior Caucasian faculty is logical and democratic, it has yet to

result in representation, promotion, and tenure for racially and ethnically diverse faculty.

Brinson and Kottler’s limited behavior modification recommendations for Caucasian

senior faculty is indicative of the need for more information from the mentor’s

perspective on how they contribute to improving cross-cultural dynamics. The literature

supports the efforts of racially and ethnically diverse junior faculty engaging senior

faculty for mentorship; however, the literature endorses that these efforts have not led to

increased mentoring or faculty diversity. Therefore, a CCM theory from the mentor’s

perspective of cross-cultural shift accountability to those individuals who have the power

to create change.

Examples of CCM Experiences

Current cross-cultural mentors to underrepresented faculty have creative ways to

show their support for change. Park-Saltzman, Wada, and Mogami (2012) explained that

cross-cultural mentoring of international Asian counseling psychology doctoral students

is best when the mentor balances the advancement of the individual with Asian cultural

values of collectivistic sense of self, hierarchal social relationships, upholding social

integrity, and high context communication style. Carraway (2008) reported that

Caucasian male mentors served as sources of support, friendship, acceptance, affirmation,

and counseling to their African American male mentees (Carraway, 2008). These general

examples of CCM begin to demonstrate the strategies to assist racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators.

Warde (2009) detailed the experiences of 12 African American male tenured

professors not in counselor education about how they achieved tenure which included

mentorship from senior colleagues of a different race and ethnicity. One African

American male faculty mentee describes support from his senior Caucasian faculty

mentor in the form of the mentor showing up to the mentee’s presentations when other

colleagues decline in introducing the mentee to a prestigious publisher which resulted in

the mentee receiving a book deal. African American male faculty stated that meaningful

cross-cultural mentoring relationships provided them with a sense that they were “valued

and fully integrated members of the department and institution” (Warde, 2009, p. 504).

The CCM experiences of the research participants is evidence of successful cross-racial

and cross-nationality relationships that promote underrepresented faculty. Warde

admitted that the research findings contradicted his assumptions and previous evidence in

the literature that cross-cultural mentoring is not readily available for African American

male tenure-track faculty.

However, not all CCM experiences are helpful. African Americans in academia

can have both positive and negative experiences with CCM. An African American

educational leadership faculty revealed two cross-cultural mentoring experiences one

with a Caucasian female who was sensitive to race and gender issues and one with a

Caucasian male who was preoccupied with his professional advancement that he made

the mentee feel uncomfortable discussing racial encounters and cultural politics (Grant

and Simmons, 2008). The most culturally sensitive mentorship helps mentees reframe

cultural differences as valuable contributions and assets rather than deficits and

weaknesses (Park-Saltzman et al., 2012). CCM embodies inclusion and appreciation for

differences to relieve the pressure to assimilate felt by racially and ethnically diverse

individuals in academia. While examples of CCM occur in the literature, there is not a

comprehensive CCM theory that targets racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators.

Status of CCM Theory

Existing theories of cross-cultural mentoring include the Relational Cultural

Theory (RCT), Criticality of Authentic Connection, and David A. Thomas’ model of

cultural dynamics (Carraway, 2008) in cross-race developmental relationships. First,

Lewis and Olshansky (2016) argued that a more impactful mentoring approach for junior

minority faculty is mentoring that incorporates RCT. Lewis and Olshansky explained that

RCT in the context of mentoring utilizes the interpersonal relationship to enhance the

growth and effectiveness of mentorship; however, Lewis and Olshansky suggested that

cross-cultural mentoring combines cultural competencies with RCT. Lewis and

Olshansky’s discussion of RCT included five key components: mutuality, authenticity,

reciprocity, empathy, and connectedness. Additionally, Lewis and Olshansky framed

cross-cultural mentoring of new faculty with RCT in the context of organizational

structure in which training senior faculty mentors in RCT will better prepare them to be

effective mentors to new minority faculty. Although RCT is more inclusive of culture

than traditional faculty mentoring practices, RCT has foundations in the developmental

experiences of Caucasian males and requires a synthesis with multicultural competencies

to acknowledge power, whiteness, and privilege in academia. The proposed study seeks

to address the gap in RCT by exploring what critical incidences in a cross-cultural

mentoring relationship create these components and how do these components develop

between individuals of different cultural backgrounds.

Second, Alston (2014) performed a feminist constructivist grounded theory study

to discover the nature of cross-cultural mentoring relationships between African

American female faculty mentors and Caucasian female doctoral student mentees. Alston

found significant categories in the mentees’ experiences including: (a) shared cultures of

oppression with the mentor; (b) negotiating power dynamics of age, academic role, and

role reversal; and (c) a shared culture of intentional trust, communication, and learning.

Alston identified the process of relational experiences between African American female

faculty mentors and their Caucasian female doctoral student mentees as “criticality of

authentic connections” (p. 119). She represented the process in the form of a periodic

table that included critical elements in increasing order of importance, expectations,

negotiating tensions, learning, and transfer of learning, respectively. Alston’s study

represents the closest study to introduce a formal grounded theory on cross-cultural

mentoring; however, the study participants were not in the field of counselor education,

and the aim of the grounded theory study was not to increase the diversification of

counselor education faculty. Furthermore, Alston’s grounded study captured the

perceptions of both mentors and mentees which is beneficial is creating a broad picture of

cross-cultural mentoring. Since racially and ethnically diverse faculty and counselor

educators have detailed their cultural difficulties in academia, the proposed study will add

the perspectives of senior counselor education faculty who engage in CCM as new data

and evidence of strategies that could promote the retention and promotion of racially and

ethnically diverse counselor education faculty.

Third, Carraway (2008) uses the theoretical framework of cross-race

developmental relationships developed by David A. Thomas in 1993 to explore cross-

cultural career mentoring of African American males in predominately white

organizations. While Thomas’s theory is detailed, it presents a pattern of cross-cultural

interactions based on compatible communication styles of direct engagement or denial

and suppression, it only considers dynamics of African American and Caucasian cross-

cultural mentoring pairs and it does not include the professional standards of counselor

education. A CCM theory inclusive of multiple cross-race and cross-nationality pairs

contributes to the goal of having more racially and ethnically diverse faculty represented

in counselor education programs. Although existing cross-cultural mentoring theories

address cross-cultural dynamics, none of the three cross-cultural mentoring theories meet

the specific mentoring needs of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators

seeking representation, promotion, and tenure.

Justifying the Need for a CCM Theory

Advocates of cross-cultural mentoring note current limitations in the literature and

provided suggestions for further research that justifies the need for a CCM theory.

Though Holcomb-McCoy and Addison-Bradley (2005) noted that “cross-race/cross-

gender mentoring relationships” are rare and commonly unsuccessful, they acknowledged

the need for “comprehensive mentoring models” in which senior Caucasian and non-

Caucasian faculty mentor underrepresented junior counselor education faculty (p. 12).

Many counselor education researchers endorse open dialogues on race relations in cross-

cultural mentoring as the main strategy to resolve cultural misunderstandings (Holcomb-

McCoy & Addison-Bradley, 2005; Johnson-Bailey et al., 2004; Minor, 2016); however,

Johnson-Bailey et al. (2004) argued that “literature fails to propose any solutions to these

dilemmas” (p. 13). Thus, the current situation is that experts on cross-cultural mentoring

stated the importance of having open dialogue; yet, they do not give guidance on how

cross-cultural mentors initiate, navigate, and escalate open discussions to meet the

mentoring needs of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) offered real-world applications of cross-cultural

mentoring strategies such as providing formal training in incentives to those senior

faculty willing to serve as mentors. It is important to note that these suggestions come

from racially and ethnically diverse faculty members and do not include the perspectives

of those who serve as mentors. Additionally, the suggestion of formal training for CCM

is ideal, but it lacks physical implementation without a distinct CCM theory with known

best practices. Behar-Horenstein et al. also made suggestions for institutions to

systemically address issues affecting their retention and promotion of racially and

ethnically diverse faculty such as having workshops for university and department

leadership to educate them on the cultural experiences of underrepresented faculty as well

as having departmental and institutional discussion forms to challenge the cultural status

quo in academia. Additionally, Behar-Horenstein et al. expressed the need for empirical

data of the perceptions of senior faculty regarding junior culturally diverse faculty.

However, the researcher of the proposed study argues that while it is important to gather

the perspectives of senior faculty on diversity within department climate, it is more

important to frame the exploration of cross-cultural dynamics in a strength-based,

solution-focused manner that fosters closer relationships amongst colleagues.

As stated in Chapter 1, it is likely that junior racially and ethnically diverse

faculty will have a mentor from a cultural background different from their own due to the

underrepresentation of senior culturally diverse faculty. Likewise, the quality of the

relationship between senior Caucasian faculty and junior African American and

Latino/Hispanic faculty impacts the junior faculty’s decisions to remain in the department

or institution (Minor, 2016). If CCM does not occur, then racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators must rely on same-culture mentors who do not have power and

influence or colleague mentoring networks who do not have adequate knowledge or

experience to provide professional guidance. Thus, CCM is necessary due to the

ineffectiveness of same-culture mentoring and informal mentoring networks to diversify

and promote racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty.

Another glaring gap in the cross-cultural mentoring literature is the lack of CCM

between junior counselor educator faculty and non-Caucasian mentors. While

statistically, the majority of senior counselor education faculty are Caucasians (CACREP

2015), the literature paints a picture that non-Caucasian mentors do not participate in

cross-cultural mentoring. There is undoubtedly valuable information in the perspectives

of racially and ethnically diverse senior counselor education faculty who mentor other

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. The current study seeks to address the

gaps described by cross-cultural mentoring experts in the literature through the formation

of a grounded CCM theory from those who serve as cross-cultural mentors.

Further justification for the construction of a CCM theory is that it will benefit

racially and ethnically diverse students as well as faculty. Warde (2009) explained the

institutions that have racially and ethnically diverse or predominately minority student

bodies a more hospitable to diverse faculty in cross-cultural mentoring. However, as

previously mentioned, faculty diversity is important to the development of racially and

ethnically diverse students. Thus, the interdependence of student diversity and faculty

diversity supports the need for CCM strategies that increase the promotion, retention, and

positive visibility of underrepresented counselor education faculty.

Evidence of effective cross-cultural mentoring establishes proof that mentors and

mentees can overcome cultural differences and barriers (Carraway, 2008; Grant &

Simmons, 2008; Johnson-Bailey et al., 2004; Warde, 2009). Racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators and other faculty draw attention to their professional

difficulties and the need for cross-cultural mentorship that creates systematic and social

changes to an inequitable academic institution. Current cross-cultural mentoring theories

address improving cross-cultural dynamics, but the theories do not encompass the

professional standards of counselor education nor do they include the perspectives of

those who have taken on the challenge of cross-cultural mentoring. If Caucasian

counselor educators are the majority and they along with other senior counselor educators

have the power and privilege to mentor racially and ethnically diverse colleagues and are

willing to do so, then what remains to be studied are the knowledge, skills, and attitudes

they use to practice CCM.

Summary and Conclusions

Review of the literature represents the most current descriptions of the

experiences of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators and their barriers to

effective mentoring. African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and International

counselor educators report similar difficulties in academia such as invisibility, social

isolation, hypervisibility, racism, inequitable treatment, and lack of mentoring.

International counselor educators expressed added issues of language barriers and

citizenship restrictions (Kim et al., 2014; Woo et al., 2015). By the academic experiences

of African Americans saturate the research literature, other racial and ethnic groups such

as Multiracial, Native American, and Pacific Islander counselor educators represent an

immense void in the literature. Missing knowledge of the barriers certain counselor

educators face impedes the ability for CCM to serve them.

Current literature on mentoring counselor education doctoral students and faculty

focuses on increasing teaching, research, and supervision competencies (Borders et al.,

2012; Limberg et al., 2013; Waalkes, 2016; Woo et al., 2015). However, there is a debate

on who should initiate the mentoring relationship (Waller & Shofoluwe, 2013; Zafar et

al., 2012), how mentoring relationships develop as the mentee progresses professionally,

and which method of mentoring best supports racially and ethnically diverse mentees,

informal or formal (Adedokun, 2014; Waller & Shofoluwe, 2013; Zafar et al., 2012).

Though debating mentoring preferences of mentees will provide a background of

possible CCM strategies, the debate lacks evidence of which strategies mentors perceive

as implementable within the academic social system. The proposed grounded theory

study seeks to capture the CCM practices mentors use to report which methods are most

effective.

CCM theory for racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators is in its

infancy. Establish cross-cultural mentoring theories do not meet the needs of

underrepresented counselor education faculty. Lewis and Olshansky (2016) promoted

combining RCT with cultural competencies to train senior faculty on cross-cultural

mentoring. RCT is not the best fit for a CCM theory because its foundation is the

psychological perceptions of Caucasian males. Additionally, using RCT to train potential

cross-cultural mentors does not include the experiences of those who have already

engaged in CCM. Alston (2014) created a feminist grounded theory to assist African

American female mentors make connections with Caucasian female mentees. Alston’s

theory is not applicable to diversify counselor education programs because it uses the

experiences of Caucasian female doctoral students who represent a privileged cultural

group at CACREP-accredited programs (CACREP, 2016a). Lastly, Carraway (2008)

offers David A. Thomas’ 1993 model of cross-race developmental relationships as a

theory for cross-cultural mentoring; however, the model only includes interactions

between African Americans and Caucasians. A CCM theory grounded in the experiences

of counselor educators who serve as cross-cultural mentors will address the limitations in

the literature. The grounded theory will uphold the counselor education professional

standards of cultural competency, incorporate a variety of cross-cultural pairings, and

address the gap of capturing the perceptions of those faculty members with the power and

influence to create change for racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. Review

of the literature indicates a need for a grounded theory approach to cross-cultural

mentoring underrepresented counselor educators to increase their visibility, promotion,

and tenure. The following Chapter 3 will detail the methodology for the grounded theory

study.

Chapter 3: Research Method

The proposed study uses the grounded theory design to develop an emergent

theory of CCM for the recruitment, retention, and promotion of counselor education

faculty based on the experiences of those who serve as mentors to underrepresented

counselor educators. A grounded theory of cross-cultural for racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators will address the current gap in the literature and counselor

preparation programs of inadequate mentoring for underrepresented counselor education

faculty. This chapter will describe the methodological process for the constructivist

grounded theory, the role of the researcher, participant selection, data collection, data

analysis, and attempts to address issues of trustworthiness.

Research Design and Rationale

To develop a grounded theory of CCM for ethnically and racially diverse

counselor education faculty the research question for the proposed study is: “How do

counselor educators describe the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of competent cross-

cultural mentoring?” Cross-cultural mentoring of counselor educators is a mentoring

relationship that involves two individuals with different racial, ethnic, or nation of origin

backgrounds (Alston, 2014) in which the mentor assists the mentee’s professional

development in the roles and tasks of counselor educators (Limberg et al., 2013). The

central phenomenon of CCM is necessary for the successful recruitment and retention of

racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty at CACREP-accredited

counselor preparation programs; thus, a CCM theory grounded in the experiences of

cross-cultural mentors might improve the underrepresentation of racially and ethnically

diverse counselor education faculty. Developing a theory from the experiences of cross-

cultural mentors is a form of qualitative inquiry due to the interpretative nature of

drawing meaning from the mentors’ experiences.

Qualitative

The proposed study utilizes the qualitative research tradition to gather and

organize meanings from cross-cultural mentoring relationships. Yilmaz (2013) explained

that the definition of qualitative research evolved from the late 1990s to the present.

Strauss and Corbin (1998) initially defined qualitative research as “findings not arrived

through statistical procedures or means of quantification” (p. 10-11). Then Gay and

Airasian (2000) defined qualitative inquiry as the “collection of data in the naturalistic

setting to gain insights not possible from other types of research” (p.627). Yilmaz (2013)

provided an integrated description from multiple definitions and described it as “a study

of people, cases, phenomena, social situations, and processes to reveal descriptive

meanings people attach to their experiences of the world” (p. 311-312). Therefore, per the

definition of qualitative research, to study the phenomena of CCM from the naturalistic

setting of counselor educators serving as cross-cultural mentors the qualitative research

tradition best allows for the description of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that support

meaningful intercultural exchanges. Moreover, the qualitative research tradition is

suitable for the needs of the current study because it situates the observer with the ability

to capture the voices not represented in the literature and empower individuals to share

their explanation of events (Creswell, 2013). Since the research literature does not

adequately express the accounts of cross-cultural mentors, qualitative inquiry provides

the opportunity for them to share their perspectives. The qualitative research tradition

uses open-ended interview, observations, documentation, and audio-visual data collected

from the natural setting of the phenomenon and uses the interpretation of experiential

data to develop broader meanings of the existing world (Creswell, 2009; Creswell, 2013;

Patton, 2002; Yilmaz, 2013). While the definition of qualitative inquiry is integrative and

evolving, it also has distinct research strategies and designs.

There are multiple study designs within qualitative inquiry. Case study,

ethnography, grounded theory, narrative study, and phenomenology are the most notable

study designs within the qualitative research tradition (Creswell, 2009; Creswell, 2013;

Patton, 2002; Yilmaz, 2013). With the phenomenon of CCM under investigation the

narrative and ethnographic approach would not fit due to these study designs focusing on

the life of a single individual and an entire cultural group, respectively (Creswell, 2009;

Creswell, 2013). A case study approach to examining the cross-cultural mentoring

experiences of those counselor educators who serve as mentors would provide

information on the specific intercultural interactions of one to three mentors; but, case

studies have the defining feature of having a bounded system of time, event, activity, or

program (Creswell, 2009). Since there is no consistency in the development of cross-

cultural mentoring relationships and mentorship occurs both informally and formally, it is

not beneficial to apply the bounded system restriction of the case study design on the

research phenomena. The phenomenology study design explores the lived experiences of

individuals who encounter a phenomenon and creates an extensive rich description of the

essence of the experience (Creswell, 2013). While a phenomenological study of

counselor educators’ CCM experiences would result in a description designed to aid in

the understanding of the essential elements in cross-cultural mentoring relationships, it

lacks the intention to build a generalizable theory to address how the CCM process

occurs. Researchers use the grounded theory study design to generate an explanation for a

phenomenon that becomes a model for future processes (Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2002).

A grounded theory study design satisfies the need for an emergent theory of CCM for

racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty by organizing interactions in

cross-cultural mentoring relationships into a logical and systematic model for practical

implementation.

Grounded Theory

The proposed study will use the grounded theory study design to create a CCM

theory for racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty. Hall, Griffiths, and

McKenna (2013) explained that in the 1960s Barney Glasser and Anselm Strauss

developed the grounded theory technique in response to the positivist paradigm that

emphasized deduced hypotheses and empirical evidence; Glasser and Strauss aimed to

demonstrate that qualitative inquiry can “develop theoretical explanations about human

behavior” (p. 18). The resulting theory from the grounded theory approach comes from

participants who have experience with the phenomenon, thus positioning or “grounding”

the data and theory in reality. Currently, cross-cultural mentors of counselor educators do

not have a CCM theory to guide them in promoting the professional development of

underrepresented counselor education faculty. Therefore, it is essential to ground an

emergent CCM theory in the knowledge and experiences of those who serve as cross-

cultural mentors. Moreover, Creswell (2013) stipulated that the grounded theory

approach is appropriate when attempting to address inadequate existing theories that do

not capture the complexities of a phenomenon. Existing theories of cross-cultural

mentoring such as RCT, Criticality of Authentic Connection, and David A. Thomas’

model of cultural dynamics (Carraway, 2008) in cross-race developmental relationships

do not adequately address the needs and professional challenges of racially and ethnically

diverse counselor education faculty. Thus, a grounded theory approach best fits the

purpose of the study to develop a theory to capture the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of

competent CCM.

Constructivist Grounded Theory

Within the grounded theory design there are multiple perspectives on the

interpretations, strategies, and procedures on how to implement the study design. The

most prominent types of grounded theories are the Glaserian “Classic,” systematic, and

constructivist approaches. Hall et al. (2013) described the Glaserian “Classic” approach

to grounded theory as focusing on the method of formulating the theory without any

theoretical underpinnings and remaining objective as the theory develops from unbiased

interpretations. Strauss and Corbin’s systematic grounded theory parts from Glaserian

approach in that the systematic grounded theory uses a “zig-zag” process of developing

the theory as data changes (Creswell, 2013, p. 86). Thus, the researcher cycles through

data collection and interpretation multiple times, unlike the Glaserian type where the

theory develops at the end (Creswell, 2013; Hall et al., 2013). Kathy Charmaz established

the constructivist grounded theory approach to recognize the multiple realities and

complexities of the world; she envisioned grounded theory as an interpretation of the

world rather than an absolute reality (Creswell, 2013; Gardner et al., 2012; Hall et al.,

2013). Charmaz developed the constructivist grounded theory to investigate “hidden

networks, situations, and relationships” to make visible “hierarchies of power,

communication, and opportunity” (Creswell, 2013, p. 87). With the limited voices of

cross-cultural mentors represented in the counseling education research literature and the

inadequacy of current cross-cultural mentoring practices, a constructivist grounded theory

approach offers the opportunity for cross-cultural mentors of racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators to advance and prioritize interactions that foster competent

intercultural mentoring relationships.

Role of the Researcher

Yilmaz (2013) explained that the role of the researcher in qualitative inquiry is to

use personal interactions with participants to develop an empathic understanding of the

research phenomenon and present an emic or insider’s point of view. Accordingly, the

role of the researcher in constructivist grounded theory is to use the voices of the

participants to co-construct the process of the social phenomenon under investigation

(Gardner et al., 2012). To capture a social process, grounded theory researchers initially

situate themselves as observers conducting their studies around the participants’

experiences then as the theory emerges the researchers find themselves providing a

comprehensive picture from inside the participants’ perspectives (Fathi Najafi et al.,

2016; Patton, 2002). In this grounded theory study of CCM of racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators, the researcher serves as the observer and data collection

instrument. The researcher as the data collection instrument will conduct semi-structured

interviews of those who serve as cross-cultural mentors to identify how it occurred to

understand their experiences as a process (Creswell 2013).

When the researcher’s role is the data collection instrument, the researcher takes

additional steps to clarify and manage personal biases that shape their interpretations of

the study topic (Creswell, 2009). First, the researcher must reveal any personal or

professional relationships with research participants and disclose any power differentials

or conflicts of interests that might influence the study (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2002).

Second, Patton (2002) explained that the researcher, to refrain from imposing preexisting

theoretical notions of the research phenomenon, will take advantage of “opportunistic

investigation” and follow “emergent possibilities” (p. 318). Thus, I followed where the

inquiry takes me and actively explored variants in the participants’ experiences to capture

multiple perspectives and realities. Lastly, as an African American female and current

recipient of cross-cultural mentoring during my doctoral counselor education and

supervision studies, I acknowledge my previous experiences, cultural biases, and

assumptions that could present during data collection and analysis. Patton (2002) advised

that qualitative researchers use field notes to capture researcher interpretations and

experiences to facilitate reflexivity and recognition of patterns. Therefore, in my role as

the data collector and data analyzer of the grounded theory study of CCM for racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators I report no current conflicts of interest or

preexisting relationships with research participants. I acknowledge the influence of my

experiences as an African American female recipient of CCM, and I used reflexivity

strategies to limit interference in the integrity of the research study.

Methodology

Participant Selection Logic

To meet the goal of developing an emergent theory of CCM for racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators, the study population will consist of counselor

educators who served or currently serve as mentors to a junior colleague of a different

racial or ethnic background. Purposeful sampling best fits the needs of the study due to

the sampling method allowing for the intentional selection of a small number of unique

people and cases that provided the best opportunity to produce detailed information and

in-depth understanding of the research phenomenon (Creswell, 2013; Yilmaz, 2013).

Therefore, the sampling strategy will begin with recruiting participants recognized as

distinguished mentors by winning the David K. Brooks award (ACA, 2018). ACA (2018)

described the distinguished mentor award winners as demonstrating academic,

professional, personal, and organizational support towards strengthening the counseling

profession, making these individuals’ experiences pertinent to the study if they have

mentored racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. If participants from the list

of David K. Brooks award recipients do not meet the sample size and saturation needs of

a constructivist grounded theory study, it will be necessary to recruit additional

participants from the ACA divisional mentorship award recipients. The final sampling

procedure available to meet saturation goals is snowball sampling. During snowball

sampling, current participants recommend other possible participants with similar

experiences to contribute to the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Thus, the proposed

grounded theory study will utilize purposeful sampling strategies in participant selection.

Purposeful sampling requires participants to meet specific research criteria. In

addition to winning the David K. Brooks award, the criteria for participant selection for

the study is for the individual to be a counselor educator who served or currently serves

as a mentor to a junior colleague of a different racial or ethnic background. Specifically,

the individual must have mentored a doctoral counselor education student or junior

counselor education faculty from a racially and ethnically diverse background. For

example, a Caucasian faculty mentor to a junior African American faculty member, an

African American faculty mentor to an international doctoral counselor education

student, or an informal mentoring relationship between an Asian university administrator

and Hispanic/Latino member of a counselor education professional organization would

all meet criteria for the study. I used a screening form and demographic questionnaire to

determine if participants meet the study criteria and their availability to contribute to the

study. I discuss the screening form and demographic questionnaire in detail in the

Instrumentation section.

Sample Size

The sample size for a grounded theory study depends on the point at which the

findings reach saturation. Higginbottom and Lauridsen (2014) explained that theoretical

saturation drives the sampling process rather than “the need for demographic

representativeness” (p. 9). Thus, theoretical saturation is the point in the data analysis in

which subsequent data collection adds no new insights to the study, and enough data

exists to develop a model (Creswell, 2013; Giles et al., 2016; Hennink et al., 2017).

While there are no mathematical rules for the point of saturation in a grounded theory

study, Creswell (2013) stated that saturation could occur between “20 to 60” participants

(p. 89). However, Hennink et al. (2017) described grounded theory research that reached

code saturation after nine interviews with meaning saturation met after 16-24

participants. Moreover, Giles et al. (2016) stated that the researcher could interview new

participants or re-interview existing participant to reach saturation. Due to the research

participants having high expertise and experience with mentoring in counselor education,

the proposed grounded theory study of sample size will include 8-14 participants of

counselor educators to meet theoretical saturation.

Instrumentation

Data collection instruments for the constructivist ground theory study will include

a participant screening form, demographic questionnaire, and researcher conducted semi-

structured interviews. The screening form will identify the appropriateness and fit of each

participant for the study. The demographic questionnaire will identify relevant

information about participants’ background to provide context for their experiences and

allow the interview to focus on CCM processes, knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The

following subsections provide details of each data collection instrument.

Researcher. I conducted each participant interview in the grounded theory study

by asking open-ended questions I designed based on current findings and gaps in the

literature and subsequently approved by the dissertation committee. As the data collection

instrument in the constructivist grounded theory study, my interviews with research

participants will develop a greater understanding of the research phenomena by gathering

participants’ experiences and constructing shared interpretations as research data

(Gardner et al., 2012; Glaser, 2012). Gardner et al. (2012) acknowledged that

constructivist grounded theory researchers could not separate themselves from

participants as a way of avoiding bias. Therefore, I recognize my cultural background as

an African American female doctoral student counselor educator and a recipient of CCM;

I understand that my worldview and previous experiences are present during data

collection and analysis. However, Glaser (2012) asserts that the researcher adequately

manages biases by applying grounded theory analysis techniques to conceptualize latent

patterns and core categories. I discuss additional strategies for managing bias in the

Issues of Trustworthiness section.

Screening Form. The screening form is a self-report of the participants’ mentoring

experiences and availability to contribute to the study. The screening form included the

following questions: (a) how long did you serve as a cross-cultural mentor to a junior

colleague of a different racial or ethnic background, (b) was your mentee from an

underrepresented racial and ethnic group, and (c) are you willing and able to participate in

audio-taped 60-minute interviews?

For those participants who meet the research criteria on the screening form, I

requested the dates and times they are available for interviews. Additionally, to address

the various needs and preferences of participants, I gave chosen participants the options

of face-to-face or phone interviews.

Demographic Questionnaire. In addition to the screening form. Participants will

complete a demographic questionnaire to gather information for context and

triangulation. The demographic questionnaire will include questions regarding

participants’: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) racial or ethnic identity, (d) country of origin, (e)

licensure and certifications, (f) employment setting, (g) geographical location, and (h) did

you receive cross-cultural mentoring.

Interview Protocol. Researcher conducted interview will serve as the primary

source of data for the study. Levitt, Motulsky, Wertz, Morrow, and Ponterotto (2017)

explained that qualitative researchers use interviews to gather “covert and internal”

participant experiences that are difficult to observe (p. 10). Since CCM of racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators is both rare and encompasses internal processes

such as attitudes and knowledge, participant interviews are more appropriate sources of

data in comparison to observations. Traditional grounded theorists described grounded

theory interviews as passive listening followed by focused questions based on emergent

categories, and they prefer non-structured interviews (Glaser, 2012). However, the

limitations of unstructured interviews are higher risks of researcher bias in the wording

and ordering of questions (Patton, 2012). Creswell (2013) advised that semi-structured

interviews support qualitative inquiry because semi-structured interviews have interview

protocols that use subquestions of the fundamental research question to guide the

interview. While interview data is susceptible to interviewee recall error, reactivity to the

interviewer, and self-serving responses, an interview protocol ensures consistency in the

line of questioning (Patton, 2012). Moreover, semi-structured interviews allow the

researcher to ask probing questions for more details (Patton, 2012) as well as ask the

participants what has not been asked to gain information that may be outside the

researcher’s perception (Levitt et al., 2017). The probing and asking the unknown

strategies during semi-structured interviews address Glaser’s concerns that semi-

structured interviews introduce researcher bias during constructivist grounded theory.

Therefore, the researcher used the following interview procedure for each participant:

1. Review and sign informed consent (see Appendix A)

2. Read and sign consent for audio recording (see Appendix A)

3. Read and sign the peer review consent form (see Appendix A)

4. Complete Screening Form (see Appendix B)

5. Complete Demographic Questionnaire (see Appendix C)

6. Researcher implemented interview protocol form (see Appendix D)

The interview protocol form includes the date, time, location, name of

interviewee, participant identification number, and the seven open-ended questions and

subquestions related to the research phenomena (Creswell, 2013). The initial interview

questions and subquestions are as follows:

1. How do you define competent cross-cultural mentoring?

2. How did you initiate and develop a cross-cultural mentoring relationship

with mentees?

a. How did you nurture the cross-cultural mentoring relationship over

time?

3. What lessons did you learn as a cross-cultural mentor?

a. What was successful in your cross-cultural mentoring relationship?

b. What limitations did you face in your cross-cultural mentoring

relationship?

c. What feedback did you receive from mentees about cross-cultural

mentoring?

d. What did you discover about yourself as a cross-cultural mentor

and how did you grow as a mentor?

4. How did you overcome challenges in the cross-cultural mentoring

relationship?

5. What makes a competent cross-cultural mentor for racially and ethnically

diverse mentees?

a. What knowledge do competent cross-cultural mentors need?

b. What attitudes do competent cross-cultural mentors possess?

c. How do you model cultural humility to your mentees?

d. What skills do competent cross-cultural mentors use?

e. What actions do competent cross-cultural mentors use for social

change and advocacy?

6. What are some best practices for cross-cultural mentorship?

7. How is cross-cultural mentoring different from mentoring someone of

your same racial and ethnic background?

As a part of the consent form, the researcher requested access to research

participants for follow-up questions and interviews if necessary. Follow-up interviews

allow the researcher to complete the constant comparative process of grounded theory

data analysis (Charmaz, 2017; Creswell, 2013; Giles et al., 2016). My goal with

subsequent interviews is to fill in gaps and refine categories during data analysis and

theory construction. Subsequent interviews will utilize the same interview procedure and

interview protocol form as initial interviews; however, the questions on the interview

protocol form will differ. At the end of every interview session as a part of the

participants’ exit of the study, I ensured participants of their confidentiality and thank

them for their contribution to the research.

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

To recruit a purposeful sample of counselor educators recognized for their

mentorship abilities and CCM experiences, I used the published list of the ACA’s David

K. Brooks distinguished mentor award recipients as the foundation for my study

participants. I recruited additional qualified participants from published lists of the ACA

divisional mentorship award recipients if the initial list of distinguished mentorship

award winners results in too few participants. Since the ACA (2018) published the names

of the mentorship award winners, I used online search tools to look up the recipients’

contact information. Once I identified potential participants, I emailed participants an

Invitation to Participate Form (Appendix E). After individuals agree to participate, I

emailed them the Informed Consent (Appendix A), Screening Form (Appendix B), and

Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix C) documents.

Although the informed consent, screening, and demographic procedures are

integral components of the research process, data collection will occur during researcher

conducted qualitative interviews. I collected data during one initial interview lasting

approximately 60-90 minutes and if necessary, follow-up interviews that will last no

longer than another 60 minutes. Grounded theory data collection uses the constant

comparative method in which the researcher will go back to participants for more data

after the initial interview (Charmaz, 2017a; Creswell, 2013; Giles et al., 2016). Thus, if

participants require multiple interviews, then I am only requesting 150 minutes of their

time in total. Participants will provide their permission and availability for interview

sessions during the informed consent and screening processes.

Recordings of participant interviews are the data source for the grounded theory;

therefore, I used audio recordings to capture participant responses. Due to the dispersed

locations of research participants, I provided participants with the options of face-to-face

or phone interviews. Face-to-face and phone interviews will have audio recordings

captured by a digital tape recorder. If participants require multiple interviews, they will

have the flexibility to use any combination of interview types. Participants will provide

their permission for recordings during the informed consent process. Transcripts of

recordings will contain the information for coding during data analysis.

Data Analysis Plan

Data in the constructivist grounded theory consists of recorded and transcribed

interviews from research participants about their CCM experiences with racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators. Furthermore, interview questions about the

mentors’ interpretations of the process and factors of CCM directly connect the data to

the research question, how do counselor educators provide competent cross-cultural

mentoring?” Data analysis in grounded theory produces an explanation of the process

under investigation (Chun Tie et al., 2019). Moreover, Creswell (2013) explained that

asking participants about how a process unfolds and what influences the process is how

researchers focus interviews into data that can inform the development of a theory.

Qualitative data analysis in the form of coding for themes will transform the raw

participant data into an emergent theory.

Coding. The coding procedure for grounded theory data analysis is a multifaceted

process. Charmaz (2014) and Giles et al. (2016) described grounded theory analysis as a

cyclical and simultaneous process of data collection, memoing, and coding. Memoing is

when the researcher writes ideas on transcripts or in journals to identify primary codes

that will later become a part of the theory (Creswell, 2013; Giles et al., 2016; Stocker &

Close, 2013). Memoing is not limited to identifying codes; grounded theory researchers

use memoing to manage bias (Chun Tie et al., 2019). Giles et al. (2016) explained that

the benefits of memoing are that it prompts spontaneous thinking, allows space for

reflexivity, and keeps the researcher focused on the participants’ view of their reality

rather than imposing current researcher assumptions and beliefs. The memoing technique

is essential to grounded theory because it encompasses the entire data analysis system.

Another underlying mechanism of grounded theory coding is the constant

comparison. As categories emerge from memoing participant interviews, the researcher

uses the constant comparison mechanism of data analysis to juxtapose subsequent

participant interviews to existing categories (Chun Tie et al., 2019; Creswell, 2013). Giles

et al. (2016) delineated that grounded theory researchers use constant comparison to:

(a) compare different people’s beliefs, actions, and experiences, (b) compare data

from the same individuals with themselves at different points in time, (c) compare

incident with incident, (d) compare codes with categories, (e) compare categories

with other categories, and (f) compare categories with memos (p. E36).

Thus, constant comparison keeps track of data analysis progression towards final theory

development.

The constant comparison method forms interpretations of the data, informs further

data collection needs, and establishes theoretical saturation (Creswell, 2013; Giles et al.,

2016). Glasser (2012) critiqued the constructivist grounded theory method. Still, he

characterized constant comparison as a strategy that helps researchers obtain objectivity.

As new participant data changes and shapes the researcher’s initial codes and categories,

the researcher’s input drops out, and the data becomes unbiased (Glasser, 2012). The

proposed dissertation study will use the constructivist grounded theory approach, which

relies heavily upon constant comparison as an analytical tool. Charmaz (2014) and

Charmaz (2017) described constant comparison as building abstract codes from the date,

which later become themes. Therefore, I used constructivist grounded theorists' principles

to capture the multiple realities of participants within the research phenomenon of CCM

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

While memoing and constant comparison in grounded theory are overarching

strategies of data analysis, grounded theory coding follows a specific formula of steps to

uncover processes of an emergent theory. The process of standard grounded theory data

analysis begins with open coding, followed by axial coding, then the final step of

selective coding (Creswell, 2013). In constructivist grounded theory, coding follows the

procedure of initial coding, focused coding, and theoretical coding (Charmaz, 2014; Chun

Tie et al., 2019). Initial coding identifies primary meanings from the participants’

narratives and is the researcher’s first pass at organizing preliminary data (Chun Tie et

al., 2019). As subsequent data arrives the primary codes become more focused as the

researcher dissects participants’ experiences, actions, and interpretations (Creswell, 2013;

Giles et al., 2016). During initial coding, the researcher will code and recode the data

multiple times. The researcher uses recoding to determine the adequacy and strength of

initial codes to promote them to the next level of coding (Giles et al., 2016). Once the

researcher identifies potential codes, the next step in grounded theory data analysis is to

examine the codes to determine categories.

In the standard grounded theory, axial coding connects initial categories found

during open coding (Higginbottom & Lauridsen, 2014). Creswell (2013) detailed that

axial coding further investigates each of the primary categories by establishing what

factors created the core category (causal conditions), actions in response to the core

category (strategies), situations that influence the strategies (intervening conditions), and

outcomes from using the strategies (consequences). However, in constructivist grounded

theory, the axial coding step is focused coding. Focused coding determines the adequacy

of the codes and promotes them to categories and themes (Charmaz, 2104). During

focused coding, the researcher uses constant comparison to collapse codes into themes.

Focused coding provides the foundation for researchers to conceptualize the components

of an emergent theory.

The theory emerges during the selective coding step of traditional grounded

theory analysis. During selective coding, the researcher investigates the intersections of

categories to develop a propositions model that depicts the final theoretical process

(Creswell, 2013). At the end of selective coding, the researcher will have a substantive

theory that explains a social process reflected in the patterns and actions of the

participants’ experiences (Creswell, 2013; Giles et al., 2016). Charmaz (2014) described

this process of determining the relationships between themes as theoretical coding. Like

the other stages of coding in constructivist grounded theory, theoretical coding includes

constant comparison. The constant comparison tool helps the researcher uncover the

directionality and linkages of the identified themes. Upon completing initial, focused, and

theoretical coding, I created a visual model of the emergent theory as part of the study’s

findings.

Finally, I used hand coding during data analysis rather than a software program. I

followed the hand coding procedure described by Giles et al. (2016) in which transcripts

entered in a Microsoft Word document will have columns and colors added to classify

coding phrases and reflexivity. Additionally, I recognize that there are conflicting views

of the data analysis structure and process between traditional grounded theorists Glasser

and Strauss and constructivist grounded theorist Charmaz. However, I used initial,

focused, and theoretical coding to increase the transparency and replication of data

analysis for future studies. Moreover, the current study is a constructivist grounded

theory study not a traditional grounded theory study and will not include the step of

creating a conditional matrix. I maintain that the current constructivist grounded theory

study emphasizes the participants’ experiences, worldviews, and actions of CCM that are

co-constructed into a theory as a part of the research process.

Issues of Trustworthiness

Credibility

Morrow (2005) and Shenton (2004) compared the elements of trustworthiness in

qualitative inquiry such as credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability to

internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity in quantitative inquiry,

respectively. Shenton (2004) explained that credibility answers the question, “How

congruent are the findings with reality” (p. 64). Within the paradigm of constructivist

grounded theory, multiple realities surround a single phenomenon. Therefore, in

constructivist grounded theory, participants and the researcher co-construct reality.

Member checking or respondent verification allows participants to validate the

researcher’s findings and interpretations as consistent with their experiences (Creswell,

2013; Leung, 2015; Morrow, 2005; Patton, 2002; Shenton, 2004). I used respondent

verification as a credibility strategy in my constructivist grounded theory study because

the method is efficient given my access to participants during multiple interviews.

Likewise, the constructivist grounded theory process of constant comparison during

participant interviews agrees with Morrow’s (2005) recommendation that the researcher

show and explain how data reached saturation as a part of credibility.

Another strategy I used to establish credibility is triangulation. Typically,

triangulation occurs across data types and theoretical approaches (Creswell, 2013).

However, Shenton (2004) described triangulation of sites as utilizing cases from different

locations to discover if variation within organizations results in stable findings. Thus,

interviewed cross-cultural mentors from various universities, institutions, and

organizations to support the data as having integrity.

Lastly, the researcher’s ability to show reflexivity is a component of creating

credibility. Multiple grounded theory researchers suggested that frequent debriefing

sessions and examination of the research process with superiors and academicians

increases opportunities to examine assumptions and biases, refine methodology, as well a

gain general feedback for steering the study (Creswell, 2013; Giles et al., 2016; Morrow,

2005; Shenton, 2004). Accordingly, I utilized meetings with my dissertation committee to

enhance credibility as the committee members are academicians and individuals who

have served as cross-cultural mentors to racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators. Moreover, I utilized peer review in conjunction with reflexivity to minimize

researcher bias in the development of codes and categories.

Transferability

A product of achieving credibility in qualitative inquiry is the researcher’s

proficiency to acquire information that is transferable. Shenton (2004) defined

transferability is the ability of a qualitative research study findings to relate to other

individuals outside the study who have also experiences the research phenomenon.

Morrow (2005) explained that transferability answers the question, “How far researchers

may make claims for a general application of their theory” (p. 252). Transferability in my

constructivist grounded theory is significant due to the study’s purpose of developing an

emergent theory of CCM that assists in addressing the underrepresentation of full-time

racially and ethnically diverse faculty at counselor preparation programs. Qualitative

researchers suggested that a researcher demonstrates transferability by producing “rich,

thick descriptions” of participant experiences, study setting, and research findings

(Creswell, 2013; Morrow, 2005; Shenton, 2004). Moreover, the same qualitative

researchers expressed the importance of transferability as a way for the audience to have

a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon to compare their experiences and

identify shared characteristics (Creswell, 2013; Morrow, 2005; Shenton, 2004). Since the

proposed study is a grounded theory, Creswell (2013) recommended using action verbs

and quotes to portray physical descriptions and movement in the qualitative descriptions.

Thus, to promote transferability I used rich, thick descriptions of participants’

experiences and meanings to convey the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of competent

CCM.

Dependability

Morrow (2005) and Shenton (2004) explained dependability as the method of

reporting the research process and analysis techniques to the audience in enough detail

that the audience can assess the steps for appropriateness and replicate the study. Multiple

qualitative researchers recommend that researchers create audit trails detailing the

chronology of data collection, emerging themes, categories, and analytic memos as well

as reflexive appraisals of the research process (Creswell, 2013; Morrow, 2005; Patton,

2002; Shenton, 2004). Accordingly, I created an audit trail to show dependability by

having figures that explain the process of how codes, categories, and models emerge

from the data. Additionally, I shared my reflexive memos and summaries of committee

critiques and debriefing sessions that shaped the process of the study.

Confirmability

Confirmability is the counterpart to objectivity in quantitative inquiry.

Confirmability is the researcher’s acknowledgment that while objectivity is not

achievable in qualitative inquiry, the researcher ensures the implementation of steps that

demonstrate academic rigor that findings represent the experiences of the participants and

not the beliefs and biases of the researcher (Morrow, 2005). Shenton (2004)

recommended that researchers show confirmability by reporting their predispositions,

preferences, and decision making as a part of a reflective commentary. Therefore, I wrote

a statement summarizing my reflexive notes and the procedures used to limit bias during

the study as a part of Chapter 4. Moreover, qualitative researchers explained that the audit

trails and reflective analysis procedures used to create dependability also establish

confirmability (Morrow, 2005; Patton, 2002; Shenton, 2004).

Ethical Procedures

To protect the rights of participants and prevent ethical risks, this dissertation

research project has been reviewed and approved by Walden University Institutional

Review Board (IRB). Walden University’s IRB approval number for this study is 04-17-

19-0418822 and it expires on April 28, 2021. Walden University IRB has approved the

following procedures for the treatment of human participants and treatment of data.

Treatment of human participants. I invited potential participants to contribute

to the study by emailing them the Invitation to Participate Form (Appendix E). After

individuals agree to participate, I emailed them the Informed Consent (Appendix A),

Screening Form (Appendix B), and Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix C)

documents. Participation in the study is voluntary, and there will be no penalty if

participants decide not to be in the study. Additionally, if participants begin the study

and change their minds; they may stop at any time without consequence. All participants

will receive a copy of the informed consent. Participating in a study concerning topics of

racial and ethnic differences involves risks of minor discomfort comparable to discussing

difficult issues with clients and students in the role of a counselor educator. Additionally,

participation in the study requires audio-recorded interviews which may feel awkward for

those who have never been subjected to recording. I maintained participants’

confidentiality and limit access to participants’ responses to the dissertation committee

and peer review. Thus, participation in this study poses no risks to participants’ safety or

wellbeing.

While there is no tangible benefit from participation in this study, I hope that

participants find comfort and encouragement that participation in the study will

contribute important information to the creation of a CCM theory that will benefit the

recruitment, retention, and professional advancement of underrepresented racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators. Participants’ contribution to the study

demonstrations their commitment and willingness to advance cross-cultural knowledge

and multicultural competence in the counseling profession.

Secure Treatment of data. Participants’ information will be kept private and

confidential. Participants’ information is for research purposes only, and no one outside

the research team will have access to participant data. I identified your written

documentation and digital files with coded identifiers. Only I will have access to the

mapping of coded identifiers to corresponding participant information. Additionally, I

used pseudonyms when I report findings in this study and any future presentations or

publications. For example, I refered to participants as “Joseph, Mike, Maria, Kathy, etc.”

in writings and presentations. Finally, for privacy and protection of participants’ rights

and research data, I kept data secured behind multiple locked doors in my home, and

within password-protected files on a password-protected computer. As required by

Walden University, I kept original and copied participant data for at least five years.

Summary

The proposed study will use the grounded theory design to develop an emergent

theory of CCM to address the current gap in the literature and counselor preparation

programs of inadequate mentoring for underrepresented counselor education faculty. I

served as the primary data collection and analysis tool by conducting semi-structured

qualitative interviews with participants and hand-coding the interview data. Due to the

vulnerability of qualitative inquiry to researcher bias, I implemented respondent

verification, audit trails, and peer review to establish trustworthiness in the study. The

following Chapter 4 will contain an overview of the participants’ data and data analysis.

Chapter 4: Results

The dissertation study used the constructivist grounded theory approach to

examine the experiences of counselor educators who conduct CCM to answer the

research question: “How do counselor educators provide competent cross-cultural

mentoring?” The purpose of investigating the participants’ CCM experiences is to

capture their mentoring actions so that counselor educators who want to serve as cross-

cultural mentors to racially and ethnically diverse mentees have a useful theoretical

model for implementing. Chapter 4 begins with the descriptions of the research setting

and a review of the researcher’s role. Next, the researcher reviews the participant

recruitment and selection procedures outlined in Chapter 3 and explains the IRB-

approved changes to these procedures. This chapter also includes the demographic

information of the participants included in the study.

After discussing the study’s participants, the researcher provides a detailed

explanation of the data collection and analysis process following the tenets of

constructivist grounded theory. The researcher offers evidence of trustworthiness and a

figure depicting the analytical procedures to show academic rigor and transparency in the

data analysis process. Chapter 4 ends by the researcher describing the major themes in

the data arranged into a theoretical model with examples of participants’ narratives that

support the theory.

Research Setting

In this dissertation study, the grounded theory approach uncovered an emergent

Cross-Cultural Mentoring theory by focusing on the academic setting of counselor

education programs. Charmaz (2017b) explained that researchers use the constructivist

ground theory to capture life’s social processes. As a current member of the counselor

education setting and a recipient of CCM, I entered academia in a new role as an observer

to gather information on the social processes mentors use to assist racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators. Vitally I entered the counselor education program setting,

specifically CACREP-accredited programs, as this is the same environment where

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators lack representation (CACREP, 2018).

In the study's research setting, I functioned as the conduit for the mentors’ experiences to

become a functional application of CCM (Charmaz, 2017b; Fathi Najafi et al., 2016;

Patton, 2002). I collected the audio recorded interviews that were the medium in which

data transformed from the participants’ words to an emergent theory.

Due to the participants’ dispersed geographical locations, I conducted phone

interviews and recorded the interviews with a digital audio recorder. The participants’

physical setting is mostly unknown due to no visual context clues, but some of the

participants’ geographical locations were Canada, Ohio, and Florida. For each of the

interviews, my physical setting was a home office with a locked door and a sound

machine to distort sounds from being identifiable. Despite the distance between the

research participants and me, the interview setting was quiet and free from interruptions

(Patton, 2002). Participants were notified twice, in the informed consent, and by me

before the interview questions started, that there would be audio recordings. Thus, there

were no other voices heard on any of the recordings. Lastly, there were no technical

issues with the audio recordings. I utilized a primary recorder with a noise cancellation

feature and a backup recorder if the primary recorder failed.

Participant Recruitment

After receiving approval from the Walden University Institutional Review Board

(IRB), I sent the first round of research invitation emails. First, I compiled a list of all the

twenty-two winners of the David K. Brooks award for distinguished mentors (ACA,

2018). I then used internet research tools such as Google and Bing to find contact

information posted publicly for each winner. During this process, the participant pool

decreased due to some of the winners being deceased, having restricted contact

information, or returning erroneous contact information. For example, two winners had

their emails posted publicly but returned non-working email errors when contacted. Also,

13 awardees did not have publicly posted contact information, or only members of their

specific institutions could view their contact information. Of the remaining winners with

working contact information, I emailed them the invitations to participate two times with

three months in between contacts. Moreover, I called and left voicemails notifying

winners that I sent them invitations to participate for those who had published phone

numbers.

After exhausting the ACA mentorship award winners' recruitment, I compiled a

list of ACA divisional mentorship award winners, including the Association for

Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) Locke-Paisley Outstanding Mentor Award

and the Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development (AMCD)

Compadrazgo/Comadrazga Award. These additional award winners produced 11 more

potential participants (ACES, 2018; AMCD, 2018). I used the same process to recruit

these award winners, such as sending emails and calling, as the ACA distinguished

mentor award winners. Although the ACES and AMCD divisional mentorship awards

provided additional potential participants, the sample size decreased due to these winners

being on the ACA winners list and having private contact information. At this point in the

participant recruitment process, the published lists of ACA, ACES, and AMCD

mentorship award winners were exhausted, and more participants were needed to reach

saturation. Moreover, due to the grounded theory methodology for they study, I began the

process of theoretical sampling to bolster the data. In grounded theory, theoretical

sampling is when the researcher selects new participants to add new information, refine

themes, and test interpretations rather than approximate a population (Chun Tie et al.,

2019; Snodgrass et al., 2020). Therefore, I returned to the Walden University IRB and

obtained approval for additional sampling strategies.

The Walden University IRB approved additional sampling using the snowball

sampling method. Creswell and Poth (2018) highlighted the efficiency of snowball

sampling because it allows researchers to identify additional cases within the phenomena

under investigation by enabling participants to connect the researchers to others that share

the same experience. Thus, I circled back and ask for referrals from current study

participants of individuals who also had cross-cultural mentoring experiences in

counselor education. Subsequently, the participants recruited through snowball sampling

would also be asked for referrals, thus continuing the snowball sampling until data

saturation. Participant recruitment ended once data reached saturation (Creswell, 2013;

Giles et al., 2016; Hennink et al., 2017; Higginbottom & Lauridsen, 2014). Participant

recruitment for this grounded theory study spanned 11 months.

Participant Selection

The participant selection process started after the individuals returned the

invitation letter via email, expressing their willingness to participate in the study. I

emailed the participants a packet of Informed Consent (Appendix A), Screening Form

(Appendix B), and Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix C) documents. Chun Tie et al.

(2019) explained that in grounded theory methodology the researcher purposefully selects

participants who can answer the research question. The research question for the

dissertation study is “How do counselor educators provide competent cross-cultural

mentoring?” Thus, the screening form included questions about the participants’

mentoring experiences and availability to contribute to the study. The screening form

contained the following questions: (a) how long did you serve as a cross-cultural mentor

to a junior colleague of a different racial or ethnic background, (b) was your mentee from

an underrepresented racial and ethnic group, and (c) are you willing and able to

participate in audio-taped 60-minute interviews? During the participant selection

process, three potential participants who initially agreed to participate in the study

declined. These individuals reported that they did not meet the qualifications for the study

based on the screening form.

The study's final participants consisted of individuals who returned all the

participant selection documents and self-reported that they met the study's scope. After

confirmation of the participants’ signed forms, I communicated with participants via

100

email to schedule the interviews. Scheduling of the participant interviews went smoothly,

and only one participant needed a follow-up interview due to time limitations on the

initial interview.

Demographics

At the beginning of the study, the potential participant pool was 34 individuals

using the initial sampling method of contacting mentorship award winners from the ACA

and its divisions. This sampling process produced only three participants due to four

participants being deceased, two participants having erroneous contact information, 13

participants having private contact information, and 14 participants not responding. After

the snowball sampling method, three more individuals participated in the study bringing

the total number of participants to six. Thus, half of the participants were mentorship

award winners who are CCM, and half of the participants were counselor educators with

CCM experience.

Age and Gender

The age range of the six participants was 42-77 years old. Most of the

participants, four of the six, were in their 40s. The participants' age range coincides with

the rationality that senior faculty are more equipped to mentor a junior colleague of a

different cultural background due to their expertise and power within their profession and

institutions (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012). Of the six participants, four were female, and

two were male. The gender demographics of the study participants are in line with the

larger demographics of CACREP-accredited programs where the majority of full-time

counselor education faculty are women (60.49%) compared to men (36.43%) (CACREP,

101

2018). Thus, there are no irregularities in the age and gender composition of the study’s

participants.

Race and Ethnicity

There were no participant selection criteria based on the mentors’ race and

ethnicity in this grounded theory study. However, I found it imperative to denote the race

and ethnicity of counselor educators engaging in cross-cultural mentoring to juxtapose

with the multicultural findings in the current research literature. The participants' self-

identified racial composition was three Caucasian/White, one Latina, one African

American, and one Multiracial. Of those participants who provided ethnicity, one

identified as White and one identified as Italian.

Country of Origin/ Geographical Location

For this study, country of origin refers to the country of the participants’ birth, and

geographical location refers to the participants’ residence or workplace location. Five of

the six participants reported the United States of America as their country of origin, and

one participant disclosed being from Puerto Rico. There was more diversity in the

geographical location of the participants. Additionally, some participants reported

multiple geographical areas due to the nature of their work. For example, two participants

identified as having an international location. One participant described teaching at

international institutions, and one participant disclosed living in two different places,

such as the United States and Canada. Within the United States of America, the

participants represented the West, Midwest, Northeast, and South. Therefore, there was

diversity in the geographical location of the six participants.

102

License and Certification

The six participants displayed breadth in their professional licensures and

certifications. Moreover, most participants had multiple licenses and certifications. Three

participants reported being a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC). Two participants

were Licensed Mental Health Counselors (LMHC). Two participants shared they had the

Certified Clinical Mental Health Counselor (CCMHC) certification. One participant was

a Canadian Certified Counselor. Three participants were National Certified Counselors

(NCC). Of the three participants with clinical supervisor designations, two were

Approved Clinical Supervisors (ACS), and two were Licensed Professional Clinical

Counselor-Supervisor (LPCC-S). Two participants held the certification of Board

Certified TeleMental Health Provider (BC-TMHP). One participant reported being a

Certified Eating Disorder Specialist. Lastly, one participant, in addition to being a

certified counselor, was a Licensed Psychologist.

Employment Setting

The employment setting for all the six research participants was academia,

notably the university setting. Some participants specified working at the graduate level

of counselor education, being an educator, or being an Associate Department Chair.

Participants reported working in setting outside of academia such as private practice and

a sports team clinician. All the participants worked in counselor education programs,

which was the targeted environment of the study.

Cross-cultural Mentoring Experiences

103

The study's goal is to capture the process of CCM to develop a grounded theory;

thus, knowing the participants’ experiences with cross-cultural mentoring adds additional

insight. While all the participants reported serving as a cross-cultural mentor, four of the

six participants were also a recipient of CCM. The screening form indicated other vital

characteristics related to this study not captured on the demographic questionnaire. For

example, the range in years served as a cross-cultural mentor was eight to 15 years. In

total, the participants reported over 67 years serving as cross-cultural mentors, with many

of the mentorships still ongoing. Lastly, the screening form asked if the mentor mentored

a mentee from an underrepresented racial and ethnic group in the form of a yes or no;

however, some participants noted the mentees' cultural descriptions. Participants

described engaging in CCM with African American, Latina, Chinese, and Filipino

individuals.

Data Collection

Data collection in a grounded theory study is an interactive process between the

researcher and the study participants. Charmaz (2017a) explained data collection as an

iterative process that continuously informs the emergent theory's development. In this

grounded theory study, I collected interview data from six participants. The locations of

the participant interviews varied due to the participants being geographically dispersed.

As the researcher, I conducted all the interviews from a home office in Atlanta, GA using

protective measures to ensure privacy and confidentiality. I did not ask participants to

disclose their locations during the interview, but they reported their geographical location

104

on the demographic questionnaire. Participants reported various locations such as Canada

along with the Midwest, Northeast, West, and South of the United States.

The interviews' frequency and duration varied based on the speed in which the

participants spoke and the level of detail given for each interview question. For example,

most participants completed their interviews within 60-minutes apart from one participant

who, due to time constraints, finished the interview in two sessions with a combined total

of 76 minutes. None of the interviews exceeded the 90-minute initial interview time

allotted from the data collection plan in Chapter 3. Additionally, the data collection plan

allocated for 60-minute follow-up interviews; however, no participants required follow-

up interviews as data met theoretical saturation with the sixth participant's addition.

Moreover, participants did not request follow-up interviews for clarification after

member checks of the data.

The content of the participants' interviews followed an interview protocol of

seven questions and ten sub-questions; see Interview Protocol (Appendix D). The

protocol is a data collection tool for semi-structured, in-depth interviews that limit

researcher bias while allowing elaboration and exploration (Creswell & Poth, 2018;

Fisher, 2019; Patton, 2012). For example, participants answered some of the sub-

questions in their response to the initial question. Still, when asked the sub-questions, the

participants contributed new information not addressed initially. I recorded all participant

interviews on two digital audio recorders then immediately transferred the audio

recordings to a saved and protected digital file on a laptop. As the data collection tool

during interviews, I used minimal encouragers and reflective statements to show

105

engagement with the participants (Fisher, 2019). During the conversation, my verbal

engagement was essential due to phone interviews not allowing for the visualization of

non-verbal communication. However, phone interviews are a viable first choice for data

collection with geographically dispersed participants. Researchers support phone

interviews in grounded theory research because phone interviews use ordinary technical

skills, decrease feelings of being judged, spur more honest responses due to anonymity,

and maintain rapport and the message integrity (Ward et al., 2015). Accordingly,

participants expressed no concerns with the phone interviews for this study. Finally, I

made extensive memos during the phone interviews because there was no need to make

eye contact with the participants.

There were no variations or unusual circumstances during data collection. The

only difference from Chapter 3 is that the Walden University IRB approved the addition

of participants who were not mentorship award winners. Fisher (2019) noted that the

grounded theory methodology is flexible and encourages the use of diverse data sources.

Thus the addition of participants who are not mentorship award winners but still serve as

cross-cultural mentors to racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators creates

diversity in the data. Fisher (2019) explained that diversity in the data increases the

applicability of the grounded theory.

Lastly, before moving on to data analysis, memoing in a grounded theory study is

relevant to data collection and data analysis. Glaser (2012) acknowledged that data

collection and data analysis are interactive in the constructivist grounded theory.

Charmaz (2017a) further posited that data collection and data analysis are simultaneous

106

because they inform each other when there is theoretical saturation. Thus, I used memos

during data collection to track participant interviews, identify codes appearing from each

subsequent interview, and self-monitor to decrease researcher bias. As data collection

progressed, memoing became more salient to staying organized and following changes in

the emergent theory as I was moving iteratively through increasingly large amounts of

data (Stocker and Close, 2013).

Data Analysis

I used the constructivist grounded theory methodology to determine the

theoretical process of CCM racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. The

grounded theory approach focuses on how participants create meaning to their

experiences, and interviewing participants about their experiences provides the data to

inform the theory (Chun Tie et al., 2019; Creswell & Poth, 2018). Data analysis in

grounded theory is an inductive process of coding participants’ interviews and textual

data into larger themes then synthesized to a theoretical model (Snodgrass et al., 2020;

Ward et al., 2015). Grounded theory data analysis involves an iterative and simultaneous

process of memoing, coding, constant comparison, and theoretical sampling (Charmaz,

2017a; Chun Tie et al., 2019; Giles et al., 2016). I provide a detailed discussion of my use

of each in the following sections.

First, I want to clarify the alignment of coding terminology between the

constructivist grounded theory and its counterparts. Standard grounded theory described

the coding process as open, axial, and selective (Chun Tie et al., 2019; Creswell, 2013).

(Chun Tie et al., 2019) explained that a second grounded theory genre, described as

107

traditional, uses the coding terminology of open, selective, and theoretical. The

constructivist grounded theory follows the same inductive coding rationality as its

counterparts but refers to the coding progression as initial, focused, and theoretical (Chun

Tie et al., 2019; Fisher, 2019). The current dissertation study uses the constructivist

grounded theory coding terminology to keep in methodological alignment.

Memoing

Memoing uses external notes to capture researcher actions during the grounded

theory study; memos depict decisions made to sampling, the formation of codes,

relationships between categories, and theory construction (Charmaz, 2017a; Chun Tie et

al., 2019). I used memoing in this constructive grounded theory research as a roadmap for

my study. Stocker and Close (2013) supported memoing from the conceptualization of

the study through theory construction. During the study's conceptualization, I used

memoing to keep the study focused on the mentors’ experiences of cross-cultural

mentoring and developing interview questions targeted at gaining access to the mentors’

actions. In theory development, I wrote memos chronicling every iteration of the

theoretical model until the final version.

The prominent use of memoing occurs during coding, theoretical sampling, and

constant comparison. During coding, memoing helps the researcher clarify and refine

themes (Ward et al., 2015). In the early stages of coding, the descriptions of CCM were

abstract, but memoing over time narrowed the abundance of codes to functional

categories. Chun Tie et al. (2019) further explained that memos indicate an audit trail of

ideas, events, and analytic processes. I made memos when my committee and I decided

108

to gather data from different individuals other than the original target population of ACA

mentorship award winners. Additionally, I made memos of lingering questions after the

data reached saturation and the answers to those questions eventually became the

underpinnings of the visual theoretical model.

Memoing can be in the form of a reflective research diary or journal (Stocker &

Close, 2013). Accordingly, I wrote memos about my cross-cultural mentoring

experiences then placed them alongside the themes emerging from the data. Memoing

created a safe space for my thoughts to limit personal biases in data analysis. Chun Tie et

al. (2019) informed that memos delineate the researcher’s feelings. I recorded my

feelings, goals, and spontaneous ideas in a dissertation journal. While the memos in my

dissertation journal did not contribute to developing the final theory, the memos served as

my organizational tool.

Initial Coding

Coding is the analytical process used to identify concepts, similarities, and

recurrences in the data (Chun Tie et al., 2019, pg. 4). During initial coding, I cyphered of

participant interviews using memoing to track analysis towards larger data units. I

followed the process of “line-by-line coding of text—i.e., tagging text passages with

thematic labels” (Snodgrass et al., 2020, p. 408). My goal was to take large paragraphs of

participant interviews during initial coding and break them down into digestible concepts.

Glaser (2016) describes the output of initial coding as multiple descriptors that do not fit

together. For example, when asked about how she models cultural humility with her

mentees, participant Debra stated:

109

I think part of it is just acknowledging for myself when I’m having struggles with

it in terms of like, I don’t know what to do about this, and I really messed up and I

said this and I shouldn’t have because it made me sound like another white savior.

Not necessarily beginning with, okay, I need to challenge you on what you just

said or just what happened with a student, but in the past, this has happened, or

right now this is happening for me. Almost like it’s really important to normalize

that we’re going to mess up as mentors, particularly in cross-cultural situations,

but these are some things that have worked, these things haven’t worked, I think

that’s certainly one piece of it.

The participant’s statement generated multiple codes such as “acknowledging mistakes,

trust-building, and challenging mentees” during initial coding. Glaser (2016) directed that

the first pass at coding directs the researcher towards which concepts to focus on

subsequent coding. Thus, the initial codes start data communication through constant

comparison to develop larger categories and themes during focused coding.

Focused Coding

While initial coding is a fragmenting process, focused coding refines data by

grouping codes into categories (Chun Tie et al., 2019; Snodgrass et al., 2020). Charmaz

(2014) explained that focused codes appear more frequently and have more significance

than initial codes. I began grouping codes that were recurrent across participants’

experiences and codes repeated across the various interview questions. I also synthesized

codes that were prominent but had descriptions that were too narrow. For example, cross-

cultural mentors described having to overcome challenges with racially and ethnically

110

diverse counselor educators not having previous mentors and not initially trusting the

mentor due to cultural differences. The codes of “lack of mentorship” and “distrust” were

pervasive in participants’ interviews and participants mentioned these experiences in

responses to multiple interview questions. Therefore, I grouped these initial codes into a

larger focused code of “mentee experiences” to capture the importance of the

participants’ experiences inductively.

Furthermore, focused coding determines the adequacy of initial codes (Charmaz,

2014). Focused coding helped reduce my initial codes that were descriptive but not

supported by subsequent participant data. I asked participants, "how did you initiate and

develop a cross-cultural mentoring relationship with mentees" (see Appendix D). Kathy

stated, "And so it's been interesting because I extend myself to her and then she doesn't

really bite, then I extend myself a little bit more." Debra stated:

One of the things that I did as a junior faculty member was I developed a research

team. It was open, it was rotating. I was very intentional about involving part-

time and full-time students. I was very intentional about inviting folks with

different cultural backgrounds, both in terms of race, ethnicity, LGBTQ, gender.

We don’t tend to have a lot of male students, much less male students of color,

but I was trying to diversify the team as much as possible.

Yet Mike stated, "Often a mentor relationship is periodic meeting, whether it be once a

week or once every other week, or what have you, depending on the need. But I really try

to work with someone more closely upfront." The responses to how they initiate the

mentoring relationship continued to vary amongst participants to the point of no

111

cohesion. Thus, the initial codes of specific strategies to initiate CCM were not viable in

focused coding. These discrepant cases triggered more in-depth analysis and further

coding. Charmaz (2014) instructed that focused coding takes the researcher further into

the comparative process. Marvasti et al. (2012) stipulated that concepts must earn their

way into the analysis based on their usefulness and boundaries. Constant comparison of

the participants' experiences initiating CCM demonstrated no consensus on strategies but

revealed agreement that it is the mentoring relationship's flashpoint.

Constant Comparison and Theoretical Sampling

Constant comparison and theoretical sampling inform data collection needs and

saturation in grounded theory methodology (Creswell, 2013; Giles et al., 2016). First,

constant comparison inductively relates new data to itself and new data to older data to

collapse codes into categories and themes that become building blocks of the final theory

(Charmaz, 2014; Chun Tie et al., 2019). I utilized constant comparison to analyze each

participant’s interview data for similarities in responses to questions, as similarities

provide insight into experiences participants emphasize. Then, I used constant

comparison to analyze similarities and differences across all the participant interviews to

determine which codes, categories, and themes were congruent enough for the emergent

theory. Giles et al. (2016) shared that the researcher includes memos in the constant

comparison process. As previously mentioned, my memos served as a roadmap to my

analytical decisions, goals, reflectivity, and lingering questions. So, comparing codes,

categories, and themes to my memos kept me on track methodologically. The constant

comparison also helped me find gaps in the data that needed exploration or more

112

participant data. Thus, the constant comparison process starts with the first data generated

and continues through the study's end (Chun Tie et al., 2019).

Second, theoretical sampling informed my grounded theory study's progress by

allowing me to methodically choose participants who had experience with mentoring

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. Initially, I selected participants from

individuals who were award-winning mentors then explored if they had cross-cultural

mentoring experiences. Once I exhausted contact with those individuals, I still had not

reached theoretical saturation. Charmaz (2014) describes theoretical sampling as a tool to

keep the researcher from becoming stuck as there are stops and starts during the

constructivist grounded theory. After consultation with my dissertation committee, we

decided to continue theoretical sampling with a new criterion of counselor educators who

had cross-cultural mentoring experiences but were not award winners. Charmaz (2014)

provided support for this strategy by explaining that altering sampling strategies creates

more theoretical reach. Fisher (2019) explained that diversity in the data increases the

applicability of the grounded theory. Thus, incorporating data from these new individuals

offers differing perspectives and strengthens the congruence among subsequent codes and

categories (Chun Tie et al., 2019).

Theoretical Coding

Theoretical coding occurs at later stages of grounded theory and deciphers the

propositions that link themes together into a final hypothesis or model (Charmaz, 2014;

Chun Tie et al., 2019; Giles et al., 2016; Marvasti et al., 2012; Snodgrass et al., 2020).

During my theoretical coding I analyzed how to organize the themes into a concise visual

113

representation that can guide counselor educators through the process of mentoring

racially and ethnically diverse colleagues and doctorate students. While theoretical

coding is not a standardized process (Charmaz, 2014; Marvasti et al., 2012), a

constructivist grounded theory's final destination depends on the researchers'

transparency in their purpose and approach (Charmaz, 2014). Charmaz (2014) shared that

theoretical coding could center around specific strategy. My process for theoretical

coding was to examine how categories and themes were moving. I wrote memos about

what the categories were "doing" and going back to the constant comparison method to

see the directionality of themes or lack thereof.

For example, during theoretical coding, I distinguished themes similar in their

topic but differed in how the mentors describe their application. Counselor educators

discussed the role of academic work in cross-cultural mentoring; some mentoring actions

included the mentees, and others did not. Debra spoke to the theme of publication,

presentation, and research when she stated,

And I think another action is just collaborating with students and giving students

and junior faculty credit when they deserve credit. I’m very sensitive to

authorship, particularly at this point, that I don’t need to be first author, and if I

don’t deserve to be first author, I shouldn’t be, and just having that piece is also

important.

In an unrelated interview question, she also stated, “Also, it’s important action as

a mentor to make sure that you’re bringing to the attention of other people, other faculty,

your community some of the work that your students are doing,” which fits with the

114

theme of publicizing mentees’ accomplishments. Although academic work is the

foundational topic of the two themes, the mentors’ actions indicated different

directionality. The mentors’ publication, presentation, and research actions occur inside

the relationship with the mentees’ knowledge. In contrast, the mentors’ actions of

publicizing mentees’ accomplishments occur outside of the relationship without the

mentees’ awareness.

Some significant themes did not indicate any directionality in the mentors'

actions. The themes of authenticity, genuineness, and intentionality provided insight into

the mentors' purposes for engaging in cross-cultural mentoring. My examination of the

context in which the participants discussed these non-directional themes revealed that the

participants outlined the atmosphere of cross-cultural mentoring. These codes are related

to each other in that they illustrate the environment conducive for cross-cultural

mentoring to thrive. For instance, Mike stated, "The continuation of that relationship is

around making sure that we're not ignoring or unintentionally diminishing the cultural

components in every exchange that we have, to make sure that is a continuous part of our

work together as a mentor-mentee." His words fit within the larger theme of

intentionality, which is essential to all the other emergent CCM theory themes. By the

end of my theoretical coding, I established the original visual model of CCM using all the

data that met theoretical saturation. At this point, I sufficiently explained all the

significant themes, and additional coding produced no new themes and confirmed

preliminary analysis (Chun Tie et al., 2019; Snodgrass et al., 2020).

115

Hand Coding

Although there are qualitative coding software programs, I coded by hand during

data analysis for this grounded theory study. I also used various materials and tools to

code, including paper, highlighters/markers, dry erase board, Microsoft Word, and

PowerPoint. My dissertation committee and I decided that the best way for me to keep

track of the dynamic nature of the large amounts of data was to use tools where I could

touch the data, spread the data out, and put pieces of data side-by-side with ease.

Additionally, coding by hand using paper allowed me to document memos spontaneously

as the thoughts occurred without waiting until I could log into a software program. Initial

coding started with printing out interviews and memoing in the margins, which I then

highlighted and color-coded during data analysis. Giles et al. (2016) and Ward et al.

(2015) described the process of hand-coding using tables and colors in Microsoft Word to

organize, classify, and categorize data into themes. I created color-coded tables in

Microsoft word to transform the hand-coded data into a structure quickly passed to others

for peer review. Additionally, due to the researcher, dissertation committee, and peer

reviewers' geographical distance, using Microsoft Word documents during data analysis

relieved peer reviewers from accessing or purchasing access to specific qualitative coding

software.

I wrote memos in a reflexive journal, on the interview protocols, on the printed

interviews, and in a dissertation notebook organized by chapters. I used memoing on

paper as the prevalent means of theoretical coding. Memoing on paper rather than on the

shared Microsoft Word documents allowed me to trace my thought processes over time

116

and keep my logic from biasing others during peer review. However, I made my memos

available to peer reviewers as questions arose, and as the peer review process refined the

final CCM theory.

In addition to hand-coding on paper and Microsoft Word, I used a dry erase board

and markers to develop the CCM model. I took pictures of each successive iteration as

propositions between themes changed. Like how I used Microsoft Word to convert hand-

coded data into a sharable structure, I used PowerPoint to transform a hand-drawn

template of CCM on a dry erase board into a computerized visual model. I provided peer

reviewers with the PowerPoint model of CCM, and they provided feedback on how to

refine the model to represent the linkage of themes better. Again, due to the researcher,

dissertation committee, and peer reviewers' geographical distance, using PowerPoint

during data analysis relieved peer reviewers from accessing or purchasing access to

specific qualitative coding software. Coding in this grounded theory followed the

constructivist grounded theory approach and used tools conducive to analyzing data and

disseminating data to geographically dispersed individuals.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Credibility

Shenton (2004) described that credibility refers to the accuracy of the results of a

qualitative study. The primary way to establish credibility is member checking or

respondent verification (Creswell, 2013; Fisher, 2019; Leung, 2015; Morrow, 2005;

Patton, 2002; Shenton, 2004). As mentioned previously in Chapter 4, a transcription

service transcribed the audio recorded interviews. I provided participants with the

117

interview transcripts to ensure the exactness of their statements. I also verified the

interviews' accuracy by reading the transcripts word for word with the recordings playing

simultaneously.

Another strategy to ensure credibility is peer review, where individuals with

research experience evaluate the results for correctness, possible biases, and alternate

interpretations (Powers, 2014). There were three peer reviewers for this grounded theory:

1. A counselor educator who was a recipient of cross-cultural mentoring.

2. A counselor education faculty member who had no prior experience with

cross-cultural mentoring.

3. A doctoral counselor education and supervision student with no previous

knowledge of cross-cultural mentoring.

I provided each peer reviewer with the de-identified interview transcripts, the

coding of themes, and the emergent CCM theory's visual representation. Additionally, I

met with peer reviewers for feedback sessions and reached a consensus among themes

and the model's elements.

Lastly, to show credibility in this constructivist grounded theory, I demonstrated

how I reached theoretical saturation. Fisher (2019) used memos to track progress towards

saturation. Similarly, I wrote memos when incoming data presented new information and

when data confirmed existing codes and themes. During the data collection process, I had

to ask the Walden University IRB for an extension of time and sampling method as

theoretical saturation was close but not met after exhausting the initial list of mentorship

award winners. Participant data reach theoretical saturation after six individuals. For

118

example, data reached saturation across participants in that responses were congruent

amongst mentorship award winners and those who just had the cross-cultural mentoring

experience. Additionally, codes and themes reached saturation within interview questions

where participants' descriptions of their experiences did not deviate as the interview

questions changed. They shared themes of building authentic relationships, providing a

safe space for disclosures, and resolving cross-cultural missteps, whether they were

discussing research, advocacy, or the evolution of the relationship over time. Therefore,

based on the consensus of data from the six participants, I expected additional participant

responses would coincide and not deviate from the current saturation. The current codes

seem to describe commons experiences in cross-cultural mentoring in counselor

education fully.

Transferability

Morrow (2005) explained that transferability is the ability of the results to relate

to others outside the study. I used triangulation, theoretical sampling, and high-quality

descriptions to increase the transferability of the emergent theory of cross-cultural

mentoring. Creswell (2013) and Shenton (2004) supported triangulation in diversifying

the sites, locations, organizations, and populations where the researcher collects data.

Accordingly, study participants represented various racial and ethnic groups,

geographical locations, licensures, universities, and years serving as a cross-cultural

mentor. The range in participants captures their collective wealth of cross-cultural

mentoring knowledge and accounts for the nuances that make their experiences unique.

119

I used theoretical sampling as another technique to improve transferability.

Theoretical sampling, like triangulation, increases the participants’ representation to

become aligned with the study’s purpose; however, theoretical sampling strengthens the

study’s applicability (Charmaz, 2014; Fisher, 2019). For example, if all the research

participants were mentorship award winners, then counselor educators looking to serve as

cross-cultural mentors could perceive that they must be expert mentors to use the theory.

Thus, theoretical sampling allowed me to gather data from counselor educators who had

cross-cultural mentoring experiences but did have mentorship awards. These participants

deepened the emergent CCM theory’s applicability by widening the population of

individuals who can use the theory to support racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators.

Lastly, successful transferability depends on the researcher’s communication of

the research findings. In qualitative research findings are presented as rich, thick

descriptions to connect the themes to the participants’ experiences (Creswell, 2013;

Fisher, 2019; Powers, 2014). The case of the current grounded theory, the visual model of

CCM depicts the overall flow and orientation of actions that occur during the process, but

the participants’ statements provide the examples of how they performed each action. I

provide the detailed descriptions of the participants’ actions within each theme of the

theory in the results section of Chapter 4.

Dependability

Morrow (2005) and Shenton (2004) characterized dependability as the

researcher’s ability to report the data analysis process clearly so others can understand

120

and replicate the steps. The primary way I documented the data analysis process was the

use of handwritten memos. Memos capture the grounded theory’s evolving process,

including constant comparison, thematic development, strategic choices, and reflexivity

(Charmaz, 2014; Fisher, 2019; Ward et al., 2015). In turn, memos are bits and pieces of a

more extensive audit trail that creates transparency in the researcher’s rationale for

decision during the grounded theory development (Chun Tie et al.,2019; Ward et al.,

2015).

While most of my audit trail is my handwritten memos, I used photographs and

figures to document my data analysis method. I took photos of all the iterations of the

visual model of the CCM theory as it changed. Additionally, I created Figure 1 using

shapes from Microsoft Word to show how themes emerged from the data and oriented

into a CCM model. Figure 1 illustrates the data analysis logic for this constructivist

grounded theory of CCM; I included in the figure my focus during constant comparison

and my strategy for theoretical coding.

121

Figure 1. Data Analysis Logic.

The dissertation committee is another useful tool to help ensure dependability in

qualitative inquiry. Fisher (2019) asserted that using expert review to stabilize the

research process diminishes openings for methodological errors. Therefore, I had

debriefing sessions with my dissertation committee and wrote memos to document

methodological decisions. My dissertation committee also connected me with a

methodological specialist, a counselor education faculty outside of Walden University,

who had no knowledge of my study but was skilled in qualitative research. This content

knowledge expert provided valuable feedback on how to create and maintain academic

rigor.

Confirmability

Confirmability is the demonstration of academic rigor to show how the researcher

addresses biases in qualitative inquiry (Morrow, 2005). I followed the guidance of Chun

122

Tie et al. (2019), who defines rigor as: “(1) the researcher’s expertise, knowledge and

research skills; (2) methodological congruence with the research question; and (3)

procedural precision in the use of methods” (p. 7). Thus, to strengthen my constructivist

grounded theory proficiency, I read the classic literature about this form of inquiry,

studied recent dissertation studies using this method, and consulted with methodological

experts. To keep in methodological congruence, I aligned my dissertation with Charmaz

(2014), who advised researchers to use the grounded theory to make invisible processes

known. At every level of the study, I examine how my decisions help me answer how do

counselor educators provide competent cross-cultural mentoring? At any point I was

unsure, I sought help from others. Lastly, I kept with procedural accuracy by following

the study procedures approved by the Walden University IRB, and when the process

needed adjustment, I sought additional approval from the IRB.

Confirmability also involves acknowledging unintentional researcher bias and

revealing the ways to address the predispositions. Providing a reflective analysis of

predispositions and positionality bolsters confirmability (Fisher, 2019; Shenton, 2004).

Consequently, as a recipient of cross-cultural mentoring and an African American female

doctoral counselor education and supervision student, my positionality is closely related

to the study. The potential for bias comes from if I only attended to data and themes that

confirmed my own cross-cultural mentoring experiences. The first strategy to combat my

predispositions was my decision to use mentorship award winners and senior counselor

education faculty as participants. Deferring to the participants places them as the experts

on cross-cultural mentoring due to their professional accomplishments and knowledge.

123

Second, I made a concerted effort not to disclose to the participants that I was a cross-

cultural mentor recipient. I wanted to assume the neutral role of data collector while

conducting interviews. Additionally, I kept my anonymity during phone interviews, not

allowing visual clues that could persuade participant responses. My fourth strategy to

limit my predispositions from affecting the study was my reflective journal and memos.

When I encountered themes and data that were contradictory to my own cross-cultural

mentoring experience, I wrote about them separately from the data analysis. For example,

when participants discussed participating in advocacy work with their mentees, I wrote

how this was not a part of my mentorship dynamic. I reflected upon my plans to ask my

mentors if they felt comfortable engaging in social change initiatives. Thus, I can

juxtapose my cross-cultural mentoring experiences with those of the participants without

influencing the outcome of the results. Fifth, peer review also helped me monitor my

biases; having individuals with no cross-cultural mentoring knowledge created firm

boundaries for codes and themes to only reflect the participants’ expressions. My last

strategy to limit my biases was to have conversations with other cross-cultural mentoring

recipients and compare our encounters. The discussions helped me rationalize the large

amounts of data and become comfortable with discrepant cases. It helped me stay

grounded, knowing that there would be variety in the participants’ experiences if we had

such variety in our experiences.

Study Results

For this constructivist grounded theory, the only research question is: “How do

counselor educators provide competent cross-cultural mentoring?” The answers to the

124

research question unearth the actions, abilities, and principles mentors use to conduct

cross-cultural mentoring with racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. The

emergent themes are the building blocks of a larger model that shows their linkage and

directionality. Therefore, others with interests in serving as cross-cultural mentors have a

visual guide of the process. I discuss the major themes of the model to serve as a roadmap

for applying the CCM theory. The arrangement of the themes depends upon their

directionality or lack thereof. Directional themes show the actor and recipient of the

themes, who has an awareness of the actions or the passage of time. Non-directional

themes indicate principles or qualities and do not describe actions. The non-directional

classifications of themes include environment and mentor qualities. The directional

classifications of themes include mentor experiences, mentee experiences, mentor actions

inside the relationship, mentor actions outside the relationship, and the evolution of time.

I provide detailed explanations and examples of the themes housed under each

classification. Figure 2 illustrates the major themes of the CCM theory and the orientation

of the classifications.

125

Figure 2. Model of the CCM Theory.

Non-Directional Themes

Non-directional themes are those that do not describe the movement or explicit

actions of the mentor. These themes depict the principles or qualities that the mentors

apply when working with racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. The non-

directional classifications of themes include the environment and mentor qualities.

Environment

The environment classification of themes refers to descriptions of the setting that

is conducive to conduct CCM. Participants shared the overall tenets they consider

essential to all elements of CCM. Mentors discussed the CCM environment throughout

all the interview questions. The environmental themes included intentionality,

authenticity, genuineness, respect for diversity, and intersectionality/multiple identities.

Intentionality. Intentionality is the mentors’ conscious decisions during CCM.

126

For example, mentors described intentionality as their motivation for initiating the

mentoring relationship, maintaining the relationship, and engaging in scholarly activities.

Maria explained her intentionality in choosing counselor educators with whom to start a

mentoring relationship:

And I could tell you, I made it a point to not do what happened to me to others.

So, when I approached my students and my colleagues who are different from me,

I’m going to hold that awareness. I am going to be very intentional and mindful,

and just acknowledging my limited knowledge. There is limited knowledge. And

I always like to… I call them reality checks.

Mike described intentionality as his way of continuing the cross-cultural mentoring

relationship:

The continuation of that relationship is around making sure that we’re not

ignoring or unintentionally diminishing the cultural components in every

exchange that we have, to make sure that is a continuous part of our work together

as a mentor-mentee.

Debra reported her intentional efforts to conduct research with racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators:

One of the things that I did as a junior faculty member was I developed a research

team. It was open, it was rotating. I was very intentional about involving part-

time and full-time students. I was very intentional about inviting folks with

different cultural backgrounds, both in terms of race, ethnicity, LGBTQ, gender.

127

We don’t tend to have a lot of male students, much less male students of color,

but I was trying to diversify the team as much as possible.

Thus, intentionality is a theme that is pervasive within CCM. Mentors who participate in

CCM consciously create conditions that reinforce their commitment to assist racially and

ethnically diverse mentees.

Authenticity. Participants described the theme of authenticity as their ability to

remain themselves in the mentoring relationship. Moreover, they presented authenticity

to acknowledge their limitations. Mentors referenced authenticity when recounting how

they nurture the relationship over time, overcome challenges, and conceptualize

competencies necessary for CCM. Kathy detailed how authenticity connects the mentor

and mentee on a individual level:

Because I think to me the hallmark of a really good mentorship relationship is

people being able to be authentic with you. And I don't think people can be

authentic with you if you're not authentic with them, and if you don't make space

for them to be able to be vulnerable in that relationship. That's something I really

try to put a lot of time into. It’s just who I am as a person. Who are you as a

person? I want to get to know who you are.

She also detailed how authenticity creates realistic expectations that set the tone for the

mentoring relationship:

I try to just be open and authentic and genuine and I'm very self-deprecating. I

just trying to keep it real, you know what I mean, with people and try to just be

128

like, I'm a human. I'm not perfect. I'm so fallible. I give up. I don't always have

the answers. I don't know what I'm doing. That's who I am across the board.

Similarly, Joseph shared that his authenticity comes from a mindset of unpretentiousness.

When asked how he overcomes challenges in the mentoring relationship, he stated, “Just

by being myself. Just by being authentic. I don’t have to impress anybody or put on any

kind of air. I’m just who I am.” Another mentor portrayed authenticity as a proficiency

when mentoring racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. Mike conveyed

authenticity as a necessity for competent CCM:

So, those are the biggest three pieces that if a mentor is able to openly express

their limitations and accept responsibility for those limitations, recognize that they

don’t know everything because they haven't done everything in the world. And be

able to truly and authentically accept and respect the individual in front of them

for who they are and what they bring to the table. Those are the three main

qualities, I think, are key.

The theme of authenticity, like intentionality, emerges from the data when participants

discuss multiple CCM aspects. Their descriptions provide context to the modesty they

create in the atmosphere when working with their mentees.

Genuineness. Genuineness is the perception of connectedness between the

mentor and mentee. Participants’ meanings of genuineness differ from authenticity in that

authenticity refers to the ability to be one’s self and displaying vulnerability. In contrast,

genuineness relates to the mentors’ engagement with the mentees. Genuineness reflects

the comfort and cohesion cross-cultural mentors have with their mentees. Kathy

129

discussed genuineness as a component of establishing the mentoring relationship. She

explained, “You can't say like, you're going to be someone's mentor. I think most

mentorship relationships, most good ones, have to develop naturally and organically, and

they're really based on a warm connection.” She also emphasized genuineness when she

evaluated her successful cross-cultural mentoring experiences:

I guess, the advice that I would give anybody who's like, I want to do cross-

cultural supervision mentorship. I think I would say, look, you have to just be an

engaging, likable person. You have to just connect with people and extend

yourself to them and try to find common ground, like what are common interests

that you have.”

Maria listed genuineness as an attitude mentor must possess for competent CCM:

Possess. Attribute. Openness. Genuineness. Curiosity. To the extent that we

possess it, sharing wisdom, based, really, to be sure, on our own lived experience,

because my wisdom may not apply to you, but I’m going to share it from my

vantage point, and then you can take it or leave it.

Maria portrayed genuineness as mentors sharing their experiences to create understanding

with the mentee. Other participants discussed genuineness in terms of creating the

atmosphere in a cross-cultural mentoring relationship. Joseph used genuineness to lower

power distances between the senior faculty mentor and the junior faculty mentee:

So, I just think you have to nurture a relationship and let the person know that

they can ask any question. Nothing will strike me as something they should

130

already know. All questions are okay. So, the reassurance and the affirmation is

what really makes the relationship work I think.

Likewise, Mike highlighted genuineness to increase the mentees’ comfort level with

disclosing to a mentor of a different race and ethnicity:

Whether they be in the classroom or in their session or with their students, or what

have you. To make sure that they trust me enough to say that, and they see who I

am instead of what I look like.

Thus, participants reference the theme of genuineness during multiple phases of CCM.

They mentioned it in the initiation and maturation of the mentoring relationship. Several

mentors use genuineness to sensitively encourage racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators to trust them. One mentor designated it as a necessary condition for

competent CCM.

Respect for Diversity. Participants’ accounts of the respect for diversity theme

included showing tolerance and acceptance of cultures, perspectives, and values different

from the mentor. They also alluded to the mentors having a non-judgmental disposition

towards differences. Joseph mentioned respect for diversity when he clarified his views

about competence in cross-cultural mentoring. He described respect for diversity as a

form of sensitivity:

I like to use the word sensitivity because I don’t think you can ever be competent

in another culture unless you lived it, breathed it, really understand it. But I think

you can be sensitive to a lot of nuances and that could guide your behavior.

Later, he elaborated that cross-cultural mentors value learning from other cultures:

131

Well, somebody who’s willing to learn about their culture and respects… I think

respect, because different groups have different traditions and it might not be a

tradition that my family introduced me to, but I have learned from that and I can

respect it.

Like Joseph, Mike talked about respect for diversity when discussing competencies for

CCM:

And then the other... Another quality, I could probably go on, that's really most

important is truly honoring your mentee as a human first. Seeing them for who

they are and accepting them unconditionally for who they are, flaws and all,

because we all have them.

However, Maria shared that respect for diversity is essential to nurturing the mentoring

relationship. She stated, “I mean, they have great respect for me, and I know that. And I

respect them, and they feel that. So, I think that that’s just a very mindful and deliberate

way of relating with them.” Yet another participant accentuated this theme as knowledge

mentors need for CCM. Yolanda asserted, “I think, first of all, cross-cultural mentors

need to have a pretty good understanding that every culture has its own story, whatever

that is. Everybody self-defines their culture.” Lastly, respect for diversity emerged from

Kathy’s data while she informed about the mentor attitudes that promote effective CCM:

I think openness to experience, openness to understanding people who are

different from them in whatever way that is. I think attitude of respect for

diversity, of just understanding differences and trying to not judge those so just

being comfortable understanding about it, I think that that’s really helpful as well.

132

Respect for diversity was a pervasive theme in the data. Participants mentioned it as a

mindset, attitude, and competency that guides the whole CCM process.

Intersectionality/Multiple Identities. The intersectionality/multiple identities

theme emerged when participants acknowledged that mentees identify themselves as

more than just their race and ethnicity. While the grounded theory focuses on racial and

ethnic differences between the mentor and mentee, humans distinguish themselves in

various ways, and these definitions appear in CCM. For instance, mentees can identify

themselves based on gender, race, ethnicity, nation of origin, etc. (Alston, 2014). The

research participants established that in CCM, the mentees' and mentors' multiple

identities interconnect, creating a multicultural dynamic that intersects at every exchange.

Mentors illustrated how they conceptualize intersectionality and multiple

identities as cross-cultural mentors. Maria explained how she incorporates these theories

into her mentoring style:

In terms of what informs those practices, I think a lot about intersectionality

theory, which is a sociological theory that is making its way into counselling

practice, and it’s about understanding the many and multiple identities that people

carry with them, some visible, some invisible, and how we must not assume that

we know the person sitting across from us because of the way they look.

One participant conceptualized intersectionality and multiple identities as a

developmental process in CCM. Mike explained how doctoral counselor educators

experience multiple identities as their identities shift during maturation. He processed

with his mentees “how their identity is changing because everyone who goes through the

133

counselor process, whether it be at the master level or doctorate level, there's a change in

identity.”

Mentors also shared how they addressed intersectionality and multiple identities

as cross-cultural mentors. Kathy reflected, “I think being humanistic and really trying to

understand what your mentees multiple identities means to them and how you can

connect with those and using them in reaching their goals is also really important and

helpful.” Similarly, Yolanda outlined a reflective dialogue she had with a mentee:

And I think another strong point is to ask that person to tell you about their

worldview and their experience unfiltered. Tell me what it's like to be you. What

is it like for you to be working with me when you and I have visible differences?

We have similarities, but we have things that aren’t similar. Let's not pretend. So,

tell me what it's like to be you and how is it going to be for you working with me,

and how is it going to be you working with me when I'm black and female?

Because almost every other group, there's some history between races, between

sexes. So, every other group could have interesting ways of engaging with each

other.

Finally, Debra provided intersectionality and multiple identities considerations she

practices with racially and ethnically diverse female counselor educators:

Particularly for women of color, I think being cognizant that they are often in

caretaking roles, or if they don’t have children themselves, they have other roles

that are caretaking, or folks that are working full time, and being invitational

about those conversations.

134

Debra’s approach to addressing intersectionality and multiple identities showcases how

CCM can fill gaps in the research literature. For example, Cartwright et al. (2009) and

Frazier (2011) reported that African American female counselor educators belong to

multiple oppressed groups. However, cross-cultural mentors with an understanding of

intersectionality and multiple identities have a framework to accommodate their life

experiences.

Patience. The theme of patience is the mentors’ state of calmness and persistence

when issues arise in CCM. While patience is a quality relevant to a person’s demeanor,

making it applicable to the next section of non-directional themes, the participants’

meanings of patience go beyond a personal characteristic. Mentors connected patience to

the mentoring relationship, lessons they learned, attitudes necessary for competency, and

conflict resolution. Thus, their application of patience advances the theme to an overall

tenet of CCM.

First, some mentors exercised patience when initiating the mentoring relationship.

Kathy shared an experience where she attempted to serve as a mentor, but the mentee was

reluctant. She reported, “And so it's been interesting because I extend myself to her and

then she doesn't really bite, then I extend myself a little bit more.” Kathy further

explained that the flashpoint of the mentoring relationship came later after several

outreach attempts. Joseph reflected upon his lessons learned when engaging potential

mentees:

Well, I’m very patient. Sometimes what I think is that there are a lot of students

and also colleagues who have never had a mentor that paid attention to them, and

135

so when somebody takes time with them, they are just very appreciative, and they

do all they can to make suggestions and implement them.

Mentors also expressed patience in terms of non-reactivity with challenging situations

and mentees. Yolanda detailed lessons learned from her experience with a mentee with

limited cultural awareness:

So, what I learned is to have a little bit of patience sometimes with people who for

various reasons, don't engage the diversity that’s right in their face. But it maybe

doesn't matter to them until it matters. Having patience with somebody who

engages the world that way has been a huge growth moment for me.

Likewise, other participants supported cross-cultural mentors exercising patience for

conflict resolution. Mike advised, “So, the mentor not taking it personal, especially when

the mentee is frustrated. Is it going to happen? It’s supposed to happen. If it doesn’t

happen then that person is not growing.” Joseph echoed a related sentiment when he

listed patience as a critical element of CCM competency. Joseph justified, “Non-

judgemental-ness, patience, openness to differences, having high self-esteem so that, just

because your tradition is different than your mentee’s tradition, you’re not threatened in

any way.” Therefore, mentors who incorporate patience and the other environmental

themes into their intercultural exchanges set the stage for other CCM interventions to

succeed.

Mentor Qualities

The second classification of non-directional themes is under the mentor qualities.

Like the themes under environment, mentor qualities do not describe actions in CCM.

136

Mentor qualities are the attributes, traits, and characteristics participants deemed valuable

for CCM competency. Participants portrayed qualities they have and general qualities

they believe are useful when mentoring racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators.

Avoid Assumptions. Participants depicted the theme of avoid assumptions as the

mentors refraining from applying preconceived beliefs on the mentee. Participants’

meanings of not making assumptions also extends to mentors recognizing that mentees

define themselves. Maria emphasized not making assumptions to decrease the

perpetuation of microaggressions. Maria stated, “I think it’s difficult to renounce

assumptions and stereotypes that we hold within, but it’s really important that we

challenge ourselves to do that, because we… It’s very easy to commit micro or

macroaggressions, even unintentionally.” Mike illustrated how he abstains from making

assumptions in his comments, “So, early on, the lessons I learned is don’t assume, ever.

Don’t really make any assumptions. Ask a question instead of assuming. By someone’s

appearance, don’t make assumptions, just ask.” Comparably, Kathy provided an example

of how she exercised not making assumptions due to her mentee having multiple ethnic

identities:

First of all, she has multiple ethnic identities and her experience and her values

and her thoughts, of course she is. You can't look at her and say, all

Filipino/Chinese/American have these values or they think that way. I just don't

assume that about anybody.

137

Kathy further explained that not only does she not assume, but she presumes that she

does not know the mentees’ experiences:

People have their own experience of their race and ethnicity and gender. They

have their own experience and that means something different to everybody. And

so I don't know, just from that perspective that's how I approach people. I assume

I don't know a lot. How could I? And I also assume that whatever their

experiences with their diversity is, their multiple identity is, that they will make

me aware of that and what they need to tell me and share with me and get support

from me as they need to.

Joseph also took the approach of not making assumptions and allowing the mentee to

describe their culture:

I just don’t pretend that I know things that I don’t know. I ask. Maybe I’m

working with a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person, that’s a different

subculture. Well, I will ask them what terminology I should use when I’m talking

to them if I’m not sure. I just don’t pretend that I know it all because I don’t.

The mentors accentuated their neutral cultural stance when working with racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators to demonstrate competency. Some participants are

conscious not to make assumptions so as not to oppress the mentees further. Other

participants do not assume to create space for the mentee to share their cultural identities.

The theme of mentors having the quality of avoiding assumptions leads to cultural

humility due to these themes’ relation to cultural sensitivity.

138

Cultural Humility. Foronda et al. (2016) defined cultural humility as “the

process of openness, self-awareness, being egoless, and incorporating self-reflection and

critique after willingly interacting with diverse individuals” (p. 213). Participants

discussed cultural humility in the context of helpful qualities cross-cultural mentors have

when making connections with mentees. They mentioned cultural humility as a mindset

that helps them successfully navigate intercultural exchanges. Maria attached cultural

humility to the core of her cross-cultural mentoring expertise. She declared, “Well, I

think at the core of competency with anything cross cultural would be cultural humility,

and the idea that no one knows what it is like to be the other better than the other.” Debra

emphasized cultural humility as self-awareness of how she presents herself to her

mentees:

As a mentor, I think some of these I’ve alluded to, that I think that as someone

who identifies as white, I think we have a challenge, as someone who also is

interested in multicultural issues, to not think, okay, well, I think I’m pretty woke,

but I’m really not, there are things. I can’t go around and tell students like, hey,

I’m white but I get it, because I don’t, and I think having that humility of knowing

that I will never fully understand what it’s like to be a student of color or a junior

faculty of color.

Yolanda listed cultural humility as a foundational attitude cross-cultural mentors hold.

She stated, “One that understands the difference between cultural humility and cultural

competence, one who does not believe that at a certain point I've read all these books and

understand the experiences of whatever people may be investigating.” Mike

139

demonstrated how he embraces cultural humility in his comments, “First, by

acknowledging the differences openly, whatever those may be. And for me, the

differences are whatever that person identifies as their culture and how I identify with my

culture.” He further clarified:

And I think that is the key to best practice with cross-cultural mentorship, is to not

expect someone to have to remove, diminish, dismiss their own cultural identity

to be a counsellor educator. They're both valuable, they're both important, we just

have to figure out how they play together and where they can intertwine and

where they need to be separate.

Lastly, Kathy said, “We were talking about cultural humility, about being curious, about

communicating and expressing what you don't know, I think is really helpful.” She

mentioned both cultural humility and curiosity as healthy qualities for CCM.

Curiosity. The theme of curiosity is the mentors’ quality of wanting to know

about the mentees’ life experiences and thoughts. Furthermore, the mentors’ curiosity

motivates them to ask questions and explore the unknown with their mentees. Maria

shared, “Well, I’m always curious about people from other cultures.” Likewise, Yolanda

reported “I need to learn about you based on your experiences.” Joseph described

curiosity when discussing general qualities of a competent cross-cultural mentor. He

stated, “Well, somebody who’s willing to learn about their culture.” Maria explained,

“So, I think it’s critical to approach any interaction that is cross cultural with a sense of

curiosity, and this desire to learn more about the other person, and to just allow space for

that knowing to happen.” Both Kathy and Mike emphasized the role of asking questions

140

when mentors are curious. Kathy conveyed, “And then I think just being curious if there

are things that you don't know or you're not certain about, just being curious and just

asking about it.” Mike explained how he uses his curiosity when processing with his

mentees:

But, also, really asking... When they bring up a challenge, or a question, or a

problem, really taking them a little bit deeper than just a question and ask them

what’s coming up for them after they answer the question.

The mentors’ curiosity is not limited to gaining knowledge about the mentees’ culture; it

also includes exploring the mentees’ interpretations of encounters within the CCM

process.

Acknowledge Privilege. The theme of mentors acknowledging privilege emerged

as participants discussed personal privileges or experiences addressing their lack of

privilege. Mentors who acknowledge privilege understand that racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators do not have access to the same opportunities or receive the

same treatment as Caucasian and European backgrounds. For example, racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators reported not having access to mentors (Frazier,

2011; Haizlip, 2012; Kim et al., 2014; Lewis & Olshansky, 2016; Minor, 2016). In

contrast, participants in the study shared that their mentors contributed to career

advancement. Debra conceded, “Yes, I get I have this privilege, that I’ve been really

blessed in my own life in terms of having the mentorship that I needed to succeed, that

not many people have that. I think that’s one piece of it.” Joseph commented, “A lot of

people have helped me along the way and so I like to give that same support back to

141

others” when he acknowledged his privilege of having mentorship in his career. Debra

further expounded upon how she acknowledges her privilege:

Some of the things that I’ve learnt about myself through reading about White

fragility, that just sounds so academic, but just some of the defense mechanisms

that white folks have, they have to show students of color or people of color that

they’re woke, but they’re really not because they have to do that. People of color,

students of color, they don’t need White saviors.

Similarly, Kathy articulated considerations of how her privilege can affect the cross-

cultural mentoring relationship:

I think how it would be different is me being aware of, as a white woman, what is

my privilege and what does that mean in the context of this cross-cultural

mentoring relationship? And what might that mean to this person? How do we

work around that?

Mike reflected upon how he learned to acknowledge his privilege in his statement, “And

so, initially, not taking that time to recognize how I'm perceived and how I’m received

was a limitation.” Finally, Maria discussed her acknowledgment of privilege in the

differences between herself and Caucasian faculty. She depicted how Caucasian students

imposed behavioral expectations upon her, and she used it as an opportunity to highlight

their privilege:

And sometimes those two clash, because students will come to me and say, well,

Dr. So and So is blah-blah-blah, and I’m like, yes, I understand Dr. So and So has

a different way of relating with students than I do. And I’m not saying one is

142

better than the other, but I’m saying that I am more fluid in my exchange with

students who are different from me, and that includes students who come from

white and privileged backgrounds.

Participants underscored the quality of mentors acknowledging privilege as an awareness

of the disadvantages that racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators endure. They

accepted their privilege as beneficial in their career development and decided to serve as

cross-cultural mentors to afford their mentees a similar opportunity. Participants

considered the mentees’ perceptions of their privilege during intercultural exchanges and

reflected upon how to navigate the issue in CCM. Cross-cultural mentors also

acknowledged others’ privileges and confronted these biased cultural privileges when

people placed them on racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

Flexibility. Participants’ responses converged into flexibility as a mentoring

quality when they described fluidity in mentoring approaches, variances in

communication styles, and balancing competing dynamics in the mentoring relationship.

Thus, the quality of being flexible refers to cross-cultural mentors’ ability to adjust their

presentation, process, and goals to fit the mentee’s needs. Debra suggested that mentors

“try to be as flexible as you can to give those people research experiences that might not

have other opportunities.” She also explained how she gained awareness of the need for

flexibility:

And that’s where I learned that flexibility was important, that folks didn’t come

into the doc programs, e.g., with the same master’s preparation, they had to learn

143

some of the things that folks knew in terms of mentorship but also just content

about counselling.

Kathy framed her flexibility as her fluid approach to cross-cultural mentoring:

Like I said before, I do a lot of mentoring and I do a lot of cross-cultural

mentoring. I do more of that than not, actually. That's most of what I do, do. And

I don't, I have never been super strategic about it.

Mike discussed how he is flexible in his cross-cultural communication style:

I also discovered that I do have a tendency to come across as directive, sometimes

overbearing. And I'm direct. I'm a very direct person and I think that is often

received as, sometimes, unlikable or I'm not liking them, or I'm not appreciating

them. So, I try to work harder at expressing my appreciation more, it’s hard for

me not to be direct, just because that’s how I've always been in my life as a

person, but to try and adjust and balance that with greater verbal appreciation is

how I try to adjust that. To make sure that I'm sending the message of what I want

to send, as opposed to what’s only being seen.

Lastly, Maria emphasized flexibility when challenging mentees as a way of balancing

trust-building with compelling mentee growth:

And so, there are times when I can step into that and face the challenge, and other

times I choose to let it go. I have to pick my battles, and so yes. But I always walk

away feeling like, dang, I wish I could’ve done that. I hope that makes sense.

144

Mentor qualities of flexibility, cultural humility, curiosity, acknowledging privilege, and

avoiding assumptions complete the last classification of non-directional themes in the

CCM theory.

Directional Themes

In the theory of CCM, directional themes indicate movement and explicit actions

of the mentor. These themes depict the flow of information, chronology, behaviors that

occur during CCM. Due to the scope of the dissertation study only collecting data from

those who serve as cross-cultural mentors, most of the directional themes primarily focus

on the mentor's role. However, the research participants provided insight into themes that

relate to the mentees and the mentoring dynamic. The directional classifications of

themes include: (a) mentor experiences, (b) mentee experiences, (c) mentor actions inside

the relationship, (d) mentor actions outside the relationship, and (e) the evolution of time.

Mentor Experiences

The theme of mentor experiences refers to the knowledge, skills, attitudes,

observations, and life lessons mentors have and bring into their work as cross-cultural

mentors. Kathy shared how her observations of others receiving mentoring influences

her decisions to become a cross-cultural mentor:

But it was funny because I was thinking in anticipation of our talk today, I really

haven't mentored very many white guys. I'm a white female. I haven't really

mentored very many white guys, which is interesting. But again, I think I just

concentrate and push a lot of my energy more into places where I think it's needed

145

more. My experiences, like I've seen a lot of white males get a lot of mentorship

from white males.

Additionally, Kathy explained that she shares her experiences with her mentees and

allows room to discuss her limitations as a mentor. She described, “I think it’s important

to, again, just be authentic and open and honest with people. Talking about your own

experiences I think can be helpful. And I think also talking about what you don’t know is

helpful.” Other participants echoed Kathy’s sentiments that mentors bring into the

mentoring relationship knowledge of themselves and their limitations. Joseph stated,

“Yes, you have to understand yourself and be self-assured before you can do anything of

any value to anybody you’re trying to mentor.” Similarly, Yolanda described mentors as

“people who know they don’t know everything, people who are open to seeing that while

there are beautiful things that have happened and there are certainly improvements in

many areas, there’s still so much work to do.” Mike outlined how he discusses the limits

of his experiences with his mentees:

Well, the first and most important thing is knowing themselves. As a mentor, you

have to know who you are, you have to know what your strengths are and where

your limitations are. And be willing to openly express your limitations. To me,

that is the key, is to be able to openly say I don't know that or teach me that or I

was wrong, or I misunderstood.

Debra provided specific examples of the experiences that contributed to her role as a

cross-cultural mentor:

146

I think that mentoring can be effective as both formal and informal, and I also

think that just because I mentor it doesn’t mean I know how to mentor well in

everything. I think that we can identify strengths in different mentors, where they

can be an effective mentor in that way, e.g., I’m stronger at writing manuscripts

and getting them published but I’m not as strong at getting grant funding. A

student would benefit more being paired with someone that has that expertise. I

think that would be a challenge, just making sure that the expertise is there and

that someone may need multiple mentors for different things.

Likewise, Maria emphasized recognizing the limits of the mentors’ experiences and

gaining experiences from the mentees:

Yes. Well, I discovered that I don’t know as much as I think I know. But you

know what? I’m always surprised and humbled by what students have to teach me

about themselves, about life. I also know that I’m lucky, I’m privileged, I’m

blessed in so many ways.

Lastly, Debra recommended mentoring experiences that bolster mentee development. She

suggested, “I think them having as many experiences around things that you would find

on a vitae around service teaching and research and helping them get those experiences is

really important.” Counselor educators serving as cross-cultural mentors have previous

personal and work experiences that affect the mentoring process. Research participants

agreed that having knowledge of self, recognizing limitations, observing who receives

most of the mentoring, and harnessing vitae competencies as experiences that mentors

bring into the CCM process.

147

Mentee Experiences

Just as mentors bring their previous experiences into the cross-cultural mentoring

process, mentees have experiences that affect the cross-cultural mentoring dynamic.

Although the current CCM theory centers on the mentors' perspectives, actions, and

experiences, the mentors shared insight into the backgrounds racial and ethnically diverse

counselor educators have before entering CCM. The research participants identified

distrust and lack of mentorship as experiences mentees bring into CCM.

Cross-cultural mentors noted that when racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators lack mentorship, they have limited practice and training in scholarly activities

and limited role models. Debra explained that lack of mentorship puts racially and

ethnically diverse consoler educators at a disadvantage when seeking tenure-track

positions:

I think in general some effective cross-cultural mentorship is just the awareness

that there are different experiences for students and junior faculty of color in an

academic setting. If you look at junior faculty of color, e.g., many times they

haven’t received the sufficient mentorship as a student themselves. And they’re

coming into academia, particularly maybe in a tenure-track position where they

haven’t been able to have the training or the experiences that, frankly, a lot of

white students have, because of a variety of reasons.

Kathy identified with those who did not have mentorship and used it as motivation to

serve as a cross-cultural mentor:

148

For me, I was very much like, okay, I didn't have those things and those are really

important. I don't want to be like the people around me who weren't helpful. I

want to reach out to people who I think could benefit from support or want

support, or maybe people who want it or need it and aren't asking for it.

Joseph remarked that he receives appreciation as a cross-cultural mentor due to the

mentees not having previous support:

Sometimes what I think is that there are a lot of students and also colleagues who

have never had a mentor that paid attention to them, and so when somebody takes

time with them, they are just very appreciative, and they do all they can to make

suggestions and implement them. Because lots of instructors all the way through

elementary, middle, high school, college, even graduate school don’t take the time

because they’ll think, this person just doesn’t have the writing skills or effort, and

that’s not really true. It’s usually that no one’s taken time with them to explain

what they need to do to succeed.

Thus, counselor educators who serve as cross-cultural mentors consider that racially and

ethnically diverse mentees might have never had previous support.

Cross-cultural mentors also reported having to address mentees’ experiences of

distrust. Participants described racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators as

having cultural distrust towards mentors from privileged backgrounds or backgrounds

different from the mentee. Cross-cultural mentors allude to distrust as interfering in

mentees’ help-seeking behaviors, initial openness, and overall comfort in counselor

149

education programs. Kathy recognized mentees’ distrust in their hesitancy to approach

her for assistance:

And a lot of it is some awareness that people from diverse backgrounds may not

know how to ask for help, or they may be scared to ask for help. They may have

had experiences of seeking help where they've been rejected, or not supported or

felt like that wasn't available in some way.

Joseph described how mentees presented as reserved with him due to his White male

status:

Well, sometimes people don’t know whether your all-American man is to be

trusted if they’re from a different culture. They wonder if maybe there’s an

agenda they’re not aware of and so I’ve just got to be patient with that as well

because there isn’t. A lot of people have helped me along the way and so I like to

give that same support back to others.

Comparably, Mike explained that mentees struggle to get past his phenotype despite his

cultural identity:

One of the biggest limitations was people getting, the mentees, getting

comfortable with me at first. I present as a white male. So that is something that...

Definitely not for how I identify, but that's how I'm perceived. So that's how I...

That creates, almost, a natural, I would say, barrier. A socially natural barrier at

times.

Debra recognized that racially and ethnically diverse mentees experience counselor

education programs differently, contributing skepticism towards the mentor:

150

And I’m not just talking about let’s write about multicultural issues and the issues

that clients of color face or whatever, but I’m talking about let’s also turn the

mirror on ourselves and talk about how we as white folks can perpetuate systemic

issues in counselor education that don’t provide fair access or opportunities to all

students. And I think when you are the white-on-white kind of relationship, it’s

very easy to not have those conversations because it’s not in your face. I think

that’s a huge difference.

Cross-cultural mentors face the concerns of racially and ethnically diverse mentees who

experience inequities in society and counselor education programs. Research participants

described mentees putting up social barriers with them due to their cultural presentation.

They also agreed that the mentor addresses the mentees’ distrust and lack of mentorship

during their work with the mentee.

Mentor Actions Inside the Relationship

Research participants described the mentoring actions they perform directly with

their mentees. In the emergent CCM theory, these mentor actions occur inside the

relationship where the mentees have full awareness of the action’s implementation. Some

mentor actions do not happen with the mentees’ knowledge, which is discussed later in

the study results section. Mentoring actions inside the relationship flow in two directions:

activities done with the mentees and activities done for the mentees.

Actions Done with the Mentee

The first type of mentoring activities inside the mentoring relationship are actions

that the mentors and mentees experience together. Mentors perform these actions with

151

their mentees; thus, these mentoring actions in the current CCM theoretical model are

labeled “actions done with the mentee.” Mentor actions done with the mentees happen

through a simultaneously learning process. During simultaneous learning, information

flows between mentor and mentees, and they learn from each other. In the CCM

theoretical model, simultaneous learning actions appear in the blue box with the double

arrows depicting the back-and-forth flow of information, see Figure 3.

Figure 3. Simultaneous Learning Actions in the CCM Model.

The next type of mentoring activities inside the mentoring relationship are actions

that the mentors perform to benefit the mentees’ growth solely. Therefore, altruistic

mentoring efforts in the current CCM theoretical model are labeled “actions done for the

mentee.” Mentoring actions done for the mentees happen through a one-way learning

process in which the mentor transfers knowledge, expertise, and resources to the mentees.

A later section will outline the one-way mentoring actions. First, I summarize the

simultaneous learning actions inside the mentoring relationship.

152

Cross-cultural mentors described the reciprocal learning process that occurs

during simultaneous learning. Yolanda stated, “So, while I'm learning from them, they

are learning from me. We're reinforcing each other's learning.” Joseph informed, “So

every relationship I have with someone that I’m mentoring helps me learn about how

they view the world and their culture and how their culture influenced them.” He further

detailed, “The knowledge that I need is what the mentee presents to me. That’s what I

need. I need them to let me know what their culture is like so I can do a better job with

them.” Mike emphasized the role of simultaneous learning in his cross-cultural mentoring

process:

So, in many situations, there's going to be clients, student, a situation that the

mentor has not experienced. And so, it’s really important for that mentor not to

pretend to know the answer. And then you learn together. You learn with your

mentee.

Maria shared that she considers the mentees are the primary source for cross-cultural

learning:

Well, I, again, I seek to educate myself, and the first source of that education is

the mentee, him or herself. And then I’m always looking to learn more about

other cultures. It’s just very interesting to me. And I have grown around certain,

maybe, biases and fears that I hold about other groups of people.

Lastly, Kathy explained how she uses what the mentees share with her to refrain from

stereotyping mentees:

153

I don't want to put people in boxes. I just want to know their story. I want to know

their story and what it is they need to share with me and have to share with me

and understand that from their perspective and then go from there.

The mentoring actions that occur through simultaneous learning are: (a) making a safe

space; (b) open conversations; (c) counseling skills; (d) disclosing challenges; (e)

challenging cultural privilege; (f) addressing power differences; (g) guidance/coaching;

(h) advocacy with mentee; (i) encouraging self-care; and (j) publication, presentation,

research.

Making a Safe Space. The theme of making space in CCM is the mentors’

actions of creating comfort for the mentees to share their experiences. Making a safe

space relates to trust-building with mentees, allowing mentees to provide feedback about

cross-cultural mentoring and general room for mentees to express themselves without

fear of judgment. Mike explained how he learned to make a safe space for mentees by

erroneously making assumptions:

Part of the assumption was assuming just the differential in the relationship, I'm

the mentor you're the mentee, we’re going to work together, and I'm just going to

assume you're going to upfront and honest with me. Well, that was erroneous, that

was limiting because we needed to know a relationship where that individual felt

safe with me, to bring the most sensitive things that are coming up.

Debra depicted creating a safe space for mentees to provide feedback about their issues in

the cross-cultural mentoring relationship:

154

And then self-disclosure at the mentee level, that they have the safe space that

they can speak up and talk through some of the career challenges they might be

having or some of the needs they might be having or some of the challenges

they’re having connecting with their mentor because of these cultural differences.

I think that piece is huge.

Kathy conceptualized making space as creating opportunities to discuss many topics that

can affect the mentees:

Again, it's making space. For me, that might mean introducing topics like sexual

orientation, ethnicity, gender, like bringing those topics up. Because I think for a

lot of people, they're afraid to bring those topics up. It's just me bringing it up. It's

like, okay, I'm making space here for you to talk about those issues that may be

important to you. Does that make sense?

Maria described her version of making a safe space for mentees as not creating barriers

for the mentees to be their authentic selves:

And then the feedback I get is usually that there’s a sense that I understand. And I

think even more important than that, that I accept them who they are, and it is

okay to be who you are, experiencing what you’re experiencing. All of these

moments, as heavy or light as they may seem, are impermanent, and that’s true

for all of life, right?

Cross-cultural mentors intentionally establish a safety zone where racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators feel secure disclosing their experiences.

155

Open Conversations. Counselor educators characterized open conversations in

CCM as purposefully engaging mentees in discussions of cultural topics. The discussions

can center around difficult sociopolitical issues, dynamics within the mentoring

relationship, and the mentees' professional development. Moreover, research participants

highlighted open conversations as an integral part of cross-cultural mentoring. Yolanda

borrowed from her previous mentor and fostered open conversations with her mentees by

addressing uncomfortable topics head-on:

My approach is her approach. Let's be real. Let's talk about what we need to talk

about. Let's talk about what it feels like to sit with some discomfort occasionally,

and know that in no way will your honesty reflect poorly on your work, if you're

really trying to find out how to best serve your clients and grow as a professional.

Mike internalized initiating open conversations as the role of cross-cultural mentors:

So, as the mentor, it’s my responsibility to bring up any cultural component I'm

seeing or ask. So, if I'm not recognizing or I'm not seeing anything, it’s my

responsibility my to ask. So, I maintain that topic as part of our regular

conversations and dynamic.

Kathy honed her mentoring skills by openly inviting feedback from her mentees:

But in terms of skill, I guess the skill is just being a good listener, being open, the

skill of understanding what I don't know and not being afraid to ask questions and

communicate with the people I’m working with. The skill of getting their input on

how things are going and how I'm doing. Not being afraid to ask questions.

156

Maria emphasized discussing world events as a way to have open cultural conversations

with counselor education students:

We know what’s happening in the world, so that when we are teaching students

we are cross-culturally mentoring, that we can be conversant of these real issues

that reverberate across the world. Our little, encapsulated, protected world. We

need to get out and face the discomfort of what’s happening everywhere else. We

live in relative peace here, and that’s not the way it is across the globe. Yes.

Thus, counselor educators talking about uncomfortable cultural topics is a necessary

mentoring action within the mentoring relationship.

Counseling Skills. Counseling skills in CCM theory is the mentors’ use of

reflection, validation, summarization, exploration, and other therapeutic skills taught to

counselors in training to support their mentees. Participants used basic counseling skills

to both understand the mentees’ culture and to how to best meet their needs as a mentor.

Kathy shared that she explores mentees’ culture like how a counselor would explore a

client’s culture:

I think for me, it's just a lot about asking those questions and just bringing it up

and seeing what does it mean to this person? It’s like being a counselor. It's like

what we do as counselors. What does your gender, your race, your ethnicity, what

do all these things mean to you? And how does that translate for you moving

forward?

Mike explained how he uses counseling skills to validate mentees in the mentoring

relationship:

157

The other skills are really a lot of the basic counseling skills. Reflection and

feeling are key. It’s probably the most powerful skill that a mentor could use, not

only because of what the experience is but also validating that you do understand,

on some level, what the mentee is experiencing. So, to me, that is key, in terms of

a skill.

Joseph echoed other mentors’ tenets of practicing counseling skills while mentoring

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators:

A lot of basic counselling skills. Paraphrasing content, active listening to a

person’s feelings, using open invitations to talk because you get more information

that way than you often do with closed questions. It’s just counselling 101 skills

that we all know about but sometimes forget.

The role of counseling skills in CCM theory is not to teach or model the skills to mentees

instead use the supportive properties of these communication skills to strengthen the

mentoring relationship.

Disclosing Challenges. The theme of disclosing challenges refers to mentors and

mentees discussing triggering events during CCM. The triggering events can occur from

elements outside the mentoring relationship or from friction within the relationship.

Debra reported that disclosing challenges in her mentoring relationships goes beyond

cross-cultural challenges and encompasses professional and personal challenges. She also

supported self-disclosures from both mentor and mentee:

Maybe some of the challenges they’re having in their career or the challenges that

they’re having in their relationships. I think one of the most effective components

158

you can have is just the ability to broach those conversations. And I think when

you’re successful at doing that, you see self-disclosure on both sides.

Mike expressed comfort in disclosing challenges with mentees as it provides

opportunities for mentee growth:

And when something is coming up, perhaps even more important to have the

attitude of openness, to bring some of the difficult elements that may be

happening. I find that when the friction happens, that's also when our cultural

views are challenged the most. And that's also when that mentee’s identity is

being challenged the most.

Similarly, Maria captured instances of mentee challenges to examine the underlying

cultural contexts:

So, it’s a tricky moment for me to say, okay, how are you different from this

person that you’re having a conflict with? And let’s talk about what’s happening.

And so, that becomes an opportunity for me to say, this is what’s going on.

Yolanda presented how she processes with mentees when they disclose challenges:

First of all, by asking them to define themselves, and by letting them know, if I

say something or do something or engage in some way that feels immoral to you,

disingenuous for you, let me know. There's no harm in telling me no, what you

just said does not really work in my group, or based on what I know, we're talking

about a third group, but based on what I know, what you just said, it does not

reflect how people who identify the same feel.

159

Disclosing challenges in CCM can create uneasiness, but mentors support the need for

these disclosures as it propels cultural awareness. Additionally, research participants

provided examples of how they navigate challenges within the mentoring relationship.

Challenging Cultural Privilege. Mentors challenge cultural privilege by creating

consciousness of the mentees’ cultural experiences within those from privileged

backgrounds. The study’s mentors described the process as first understanding their

privilege status or lack thereof, followed by changing their approach to cross-cultural

exchanges, then influencing others to examine their privilege. The mentors credited

learning from their mentees’ experiences as the driving force to hold others accountable.

Debra clarified her role of combating cultural privilege while not perpetuating

microaggressions:

Some of the things that I’ve learned about myself through reading about White

fragility, that just sounds so academic, but just some of the defense mechanisms

that white folks have, they have to show students of color or people of color that

they’re woke, but they’re really not because they have to do that. People of color,

students of color, they don’t need White saviors, they need people that, yes, will

advocate but that also can give them the platform to be empowered and to do their

own thing, but they also need White folks to go and challenge other White folks.

She he also challenged White male counselor educators to consider their privilege

juxtaposed to other colleagues’ cultural experiences:

But also, in my position, I have a lot of white males that are tired of the Me-Too

movement, they’re tired of racism, they’re tired of these conversations, a this-

160

isn’t-a big-deal-anymore attitude, without saying it like that or without saying

like, oh, I experience discrimination, too. But the importance of broaching, you

might have bad experiences with students or faculty of color, but you are not

experiencing racism, you are not experiencing sexism, because you have power.

Maria described how her movement from privilege within her culture to a PWI where she

had no privilege informed her cross-cultural communication:

I came from Puerto Rico, and I recognize that, in hindsight, I came from a place

of privilege within my own community, and then I entered a large university.

Somewhat large. Maybe medium-sized university. In the middle of Cajun

country. I mean, talk about culture shock. It was eye-opening and humbling,

because very quickly, I was reminded that I was the other, in a way that I had

never experienced. So, that kind of began my experience into other cultures and

informed in the end how I approach people different from me.

Maria also examines cultural assumptions with privileged students while teaching:

I am more fluid in my exchange with students who are different from me, and that

includes students who come from white and privileged backgrounds. I would be

more inclined, probably, to unpack that for them than when they’re having

opportunity to relate with who looks like them and is like them.

While CCM theory depicts mentors as having the ability to acknowledge privilege,

mentors take action to challenge privilege by creating consciousness in others. During

CCM, mentors become exposed to the mentees' cultural experiences; thus, the mentees

become the catalyst for the mentors to spark change in others.

161

Addressing Power Differences. The previous theme of challenging cultural

privilege references disparities in the lived experiences of racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators and those with privilege. However, the theme of addressing power

differences focuses on the nature of the academic hierarchy in CCM. Counselor educators

who engage in CCM address power differences by discussing issues related to

perceptions of authority and then lowering the power distance by relating to mentees in

ways that promote respect. Kathy explained that decreasing power in the mentoring

relationship encourages the mentees to share with her:

I'm trying to minimize the power in my relationships, in my supervision and

mentoring relationships. I don't want people to see me as this like sage on the

stage. I'm much more interested in being a guide on the side and just being with

people where they're at. I think that’s a much more effective way to meet people. I

would say all of my mentoring relationships are really about me trying to

establish the signs like we're on the same page and wanting people to feel like

they could share things with me.

Debra described how she navigates the power differential with an added cross-cultural

component:

I think in general that there are power differences between, particularly if you’re a

more senior faculty and you’re mentoring a junior faculty or even a doctoral

student or a master’s student, that exist outside of any kinds of cultural

differences. And in general, effective mentorship involves looking at that and

broaching those power differentials, but when you add the cultural difference

162

piece, I think it makes it incredibly more important. Because there are power

pieces that exist that you need to broach where students might not feel

comfortable but, say, as a White mentor, there are things that a student or a junior

faculty member of color would be maybe not as forthcoming about.

Maria revealed her approach to forming a cross-cultural mentoring relationship based on

mutual respect:

I will try to engage them in a very familiar way, so that the inherent power

dynamic is not salient. I mean, they have great respect for me, and I know that.

And I respect them, and they feel that. So, I think that that’s just a very mindful

and deliberate way of relating with them.

While addressing power differences in CCM spotlights the tiered relationship between a

junior colleague or doctoral student with a senior faculty mentor, mentors reported that

they also crossed into cultural discussions due to the inherent power some mentors have

because of their cultural background.

Guidance/Coaching. The theme of guidance/coaching originated from

participants’ descriptions of assisting mentees through challenges and new professional

experiences. During CCM, mentees seek the expertise and professional knowledge of

their mentors, and the mentors provide their support in a way that helps the mentee

develop organically. Debra illustrated providing coaching when she helped her mentee

set boundaries with other faculty:

163

And I think having those honest conversations about, okay, faculty members will

use you, but what is going to help you and what can you honestly say no to or

figure out a way to gently say no, it was important to me as well.

Maria expressed satisfaction when she guides mentees through their challenges:

I consider it successful when they thrive, and they embrace the challenges and

feel comfortable to tell me when they’re struggling. I think that it’s harder to

acknowledge struggle, and to be able to be transparent about that, so that I can

then adjust what I’m doing and provide support.

Kathy shared example of how she guided a racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educator through accepting her first faculty position:

Everybody calls me, but it's just usually more like a Filipino female who I’ve

been with for a very long time now, it’s eight years, nine years. She just was

navigating, accepting a job and she calls me and she's like, my God, what do I do

and how does this work? And so I helped her through that process.

Joseph reported that he received feedback from mentees thanking him for his guidance

and coaching:

In August I think it was, no, September she did a spotlight on me and the faculty

member that she spotlights has to respond to a whole bunch of questions about

their life. So as a surprise for me, she let my colleagues know she was doing it

and I probably had 20 people in that newsletter making comments about what

they appreciated that I had done.

Mike used metaphors to illustrate his process of guiding and coaching his mentees:

164

And so, it’s being able to walk through the fire with the mentee, that attitude of...

That's when the mentor has to become the leader, to me. Has to become the

leader, instead of the guide. So, if you think about someone driving a bus versus

someone telling everyone who’s on the bus about what they're seeing. I feel, to

me, the mentor is the tour guide at first. But when it gets difficult, they have to

pause and have to drive the bus.

Cross-cultural mentors understand that mentees will encounter challenges; thus, they

provide guidance and coaching to facilitate their growth.

Advocacy with Mentee. In the emergent CCM theory, mentors engage in

advocacy two ways, advocacy with the mentees and advocacy on behalf of the mentees.

The theme of advocacy with the mentees occurs within the mentoring relationship. It

encompasses mentoring activities that relate to social justice, social change, and activism.

Cross-cultural mentors divulged that they engage mentees in advocacy with conscious

dialogues and acts of service. Within the mentoring relationship, mentors focus on

advocacy for others and the mentees. Kathy approached advocacy with her mentees by

discussing injustices that the mentor witnesses:

There’s somebody who we mutually know who we deem insensitive culturally,

we both think really culturally inappropriate with what she puts on social media

and stuff like that. I’ll talk with my mentee about it. We joke about it. I don't

know, it's just, I guess in a way it's… I think about it as just being a little bit

horrible in a way. But it's also, I don't know, I guess in a way it's my way of

saying to her, wow, I get that she’s being so culturally inappropriate. I don’t

165

know, maybe that makes my mentees feel safe with me in a way that I can also

point out things that are really insensitive. I do think, as I'm thinking about it, that

is something I do. I talk about injustices I've seen or things I’ve witnessed that

have been really horrible and point those out.

Kathy also described how she supports mentees with self-advocacy:

But somebody that I mentor, she reached out to me because she was having a

baby. And she had a session at ACA conference, and she couldn't make it because

of her pregnancy, which meant that they would take her name off of the session.

But she really needs the session to get tenured. She needs presentations to get

tenured. And so she reached out to me and she’s telling me about it. And I was

like, hey, why don't you reach out to the ACA president? I'm like, why don't you

reach out to her? And she's really into gender issues. Reach out to her and share

that observation with her to let her know if there’s something that could be done

in situations like this. I suggested that to her that that could be something she

could explore. I work with my people all the time on their self-advocacy.

Maria explained that she includes her mentees in her advocacy work:

I’m going to Puerto Rico, and I’m going to bring students, and I’m going to give

them exposure to work on the ground, so they see the people, and meet the

people, and learn what it’s like to be them. I think that also in our leadership roles,

we can make a point to bring advocacy to the houses of government, whether it’s

regional or national. I was in Washington DC, at the Institute for Leadership

Training. So, we had the opportunity to go to the Capitol and meet

166

congresspeople, talk to them about our goals as a profession. That also includes,

beyond Medicare and mental health providers, includes advocacy as a counselor

for immigrants, advocating for refugees, advocating for social policy that supports

women, and children, and families, and people of color, and gun control, and the

things that are life affirming, rather than destructive and disenfranchising. I see

the counselling profession as a political profession. I don’t think of it as apolitical,

as an apolitical profession. You have to have opinions, and you have to be able to

speak about the injustices in the world.

Mike also supported incorporating mentees into advocacy activities:

So, doing that as a mentor with or without mentees is important. But once you

have a mentee, especially when it’s cross-cultural, it’s important to incorporate

mentees into those activities as well. So that mentee is not only learning about

whatever day to day work they're doing, but that other level of experience that we,

as professional counsellor educators, need to be doing in addition to the actual

work. Part of our commitment to our profession.

Counselor educators embedded advocacy into their mentoring of racially and ethnically

diverse mentees. They reported assisting mentees in self-advocacy, discussing social

injustices with mentees, and incorporating mentees into their activism pursuits.

Encouraging Self-Care. Cross-cultural mentors portrayed the theme of

encouraging self-care as aiming for the mentees’ wellbeing and assisting them in creating

protective boundaries. When asked about what approach she uses in competent CCM,

Yolanda answered, “One that includes the importance of self-care.” Other mentors in the

167

study described that most of the need for mentee self-care stemmed from the mentee

needing to not over-extend themselves professionally. Maria described the difficulty in

alerting mentees when they need to focus on self-care:

I think the hardest thing… One of the hardest things for doc students that I have

mentored is to reckon with the workflow and realize that maybe they’re taking…

They’re biting off too much, and they’re maybe choking. So, for me, it’s… And

this is important to my scholarship, and my teaching also my mentoring, is the

idea of self-care, the idea of knowing that you can only give up your overflow.

She further explained that her mentees gave her feedback that they appreciated her focus

on self-care:

So, some of us attach ourselves to things [unclear] and I see that happening, and I

have to gently say, look, letting go a little bit may be called for here. Your

knuckles are white, super white. And all of our knuckles look white when we’re

holding on too tight. So, yes, that’s what I hear back from them.

Kathy demonstrated how she considers cultural factors when approaching conversations

about self-care:

I felt like she had graduated from a PhD program and we both felt like the

program was taking advantage of her in doing something they shouldn’t be. We

talked for an hour or two just about how she could set some boundaries with them

and sorting this out with what did that look like. We talked about how her, she's

an Asian female, younger, and how that may be feeding into how they're treating

her and behaving.

168

The current CCM theory includes self-care as a mentoring activity within the mentoring

relationship because mentors monitor mentees’ wellbeing and bring to their awareness

when they require safeguards.

Publication, Presentation, Research. The CCM theme of publication,

presentation, and research describes mentors’ contributing to the development of the

mentees’ academic skills and scholarly accomplishments for the mentees’ vitae. Mentors’

actions included organizing research teams, co-authoring, and co-presenting with their

mentees. Cross-cultural mentors in the study also report serving on racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators’ dissertation committees and helping them find places to

submit manuscripts. Yolanda reported assisting mentees in research initiatives because “I

think publications and presentations matter.” Another cross-cultural mentor combines

research and publication with advocacy work. Mike stated, “And then, also, to actively

either participate in either research or publishing or activities is important to promote

social change and social justice.” Debra explained that she creates research teams to

assist racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators in gaining research and

publication experience:

And I think another action is just collaborating with students and giving students

and junior faculty credit when they deserve credit. I’m very sensitive to

authorship, particularly at this point, that I don’t need to be first author, and if I

don’t deserve to be first author, I shouldn’t be, and just having that piece is also

important.

She also finds ways to support others, not on her research teams:

169

I was also just making sure that I was intentional about helping students of color,

even off of the research team, offering to be on their dissertations or offering to

help them prepare a presentation proposal.

Maria stated that she purposefully co-authors and co-presents with her mentees:

If I can help them by proposing to present with them, I bring them in, and I give

them opportunity, as much as I can, to propose, to present, to submit manuscripts,

to publish with me. And if you look at my track record, a bunch of the people that

I’ve been involved with and published with, are going to be cross-cultural mentor

relationships.

Joseph assisted his mentees with publication and presentation by providing them

feedback and making suggestions about their work:

With something that they’re writing and want to publish, they will send it to me

and I’ll read it and give them feedback. Or maybe they don’t know where to

submit it, so I help them look around at journals to see where it fits and what they

might need to change in order to have it fit that journal. I often have them write

proposals, not write them, but I give them feedback on proposals that they’re

submitting for presentation at a conference.

Cross-cultural mentors engage their racially and ethnically diverse counselor educator

mentees in publication, presentation, and research when they provide feedback about

their work or participate in their scholarly activities.

Actions Done for the Mentee

170

As previously mentioned, some CCM actions that occur inside the mentoring

relationship are one-way learning instead of simultaneous learning. Both the mentor and

mentee are aware of these mentoring actions, but the route of information flows in a one-

way learning process. The cross-cultural mentors perform actions for the mentee due to

mentees' lack of knowledge, experiences, or seniority to provide instruction back to them.

Mentors reported connection to networks, funding resources, and feedback on promotion

and tenure as mentoring actions for mentees. In the CCM theoretical model, mentoring

activities that are one-way learning appear in the green box with the single arrow

depicting the directional flow of information, see Figure 4.

Figure 4. One-way Learning Actions in the CCM Model.

Connection to Networks. In the study, counselor educators identified the

mentoring actions of connection to networks as introducing mentees to professional

associations or colleagues with whom the mentee had no previous familiarity. The

mentors bring the mentees into their personal or professional groups to increase the

mentees’ exposure to career advancement opportunities. Debra explained how she

connects her mentees to professional organization where she is a member:

171

And then I just think, just very quickly, effective mentorship is about making sure

a junior faculty member or a student faculty member of color, that they’re

prepared in a lot of areas, they are aware of professionally how to network or get

connected at the regional and national levels in our professional organizations so

that their voices can be heard. I get them connected to some of the divisions that I

was involved in like ACES and [smaller division] and so forth.

Joseph shared an instance where he linked a racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educator to a source for employment at his university:

For example, there’s a wonderful new faculty member that I met last year at T. R.

long ethics conference. I met her and I said, you should apply for a position at

[my university], and then I introduced her to my program director. You may know

Dr. S. You may have heard of her. So I introduced her at last year’s ACA and

then Dr. S. got in touch with me again and said, I forgot her name and how do I

get hold of her? So now she is part of our faculty and she knows, in fact, we just

corresponded, that when she’s ready I’ll help her with things she wants to publish.

Kathy charactered herself as a connector when she performs CCM:

I think connecting people too. I can't understand everybody's experiences, but

maybe there's somebody else who can, maybe somebody of a similar ethnicity,

gender, whatever, maybe they could be more helpful around a particular issue

than I could be. And so being able to… I do that too. I’m a connector, I guess you

could say. I'm really good at connecting people. And so I try to connect people

172

with other people who I think may fill in any gaps that may be there just because

of my lack of experience or knowledge.

Maria described connecting mentees to the opportunities she discovers:

Well, the first thing I’m going to do is, every opportunity that I see is available to

them, that they can seek, I’m going to put in front of them, because I know they

come in at an inherent disadvantage.

Cross-cultural mentors use their personal and professional relationships to create

opportunities for their racially and ethnically diverse mentees to thrive.

Funding Resources. The theme of funding resources in CCM theory is the

mentors informing and securing their mentees’ financial support to perform professional

development. Mentors also described creating funding opportunities for their mentees.

Maria expressed commitment to ensure her mentees funding in her statement, “So, if

there’s a fellowship, a scholarship, financial support, if I can help offset the cost of

attending a conference.” Maria further explained how she links funding to both her

mentoring and advocacy work:

I’m current president of the [deidentified professional organization]. I don’t know

if you’ve seen little notifications about the conference coming up in Puerto Rico.

That’s me. I’m taking the conference to Puerto Rico, because I wanted to

contribute to the recovery post-Maria, and there’s no better way than to throw

yourself behind a conference and bring money to the island. So, I am also raising

money with my students to help offset cost of travel.

173

Debra emphasized her role as a mentor to prepare junior counselor educators for

acquiring funding for career advancement:

I think a challenge is that there’s not enough funding in counselor ed programs to

support students, and I’m not talking about just graduate assistantships but travel

funding and those things. You can mentor a student and they can get really

excited about going to present at ACES or ACA, but there’s no funding. And I

think that’s been a challenge, is not having the resources available through an

institution to be able to really effectively mentor to the next level and get these

students career ready or these junior faculty in a position of promotion and tenure.

Funding has also been a piece of that.

Joseph shared that he has a scholarship in his name at his university that provides funding

for students to attend professional conferences:

I have two [Joseph] scholarship students at [my university] and so I keep in touch

with them to see how they’re doing. I’m trying to get them to go to ACA so I can

introduce them to people and make sure they go to the right things, the good

things.

Cross-cultural mentors combat the inequities in opportunities for racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators to attend conferences, travel, and prepare for faculty

positions by advising and securing funding resources.

Feedback on Promotion and Tenure. The theme of feedback on promotion and

tenure refers to mentors advising junior faculty on the teaching, service, research,

presentation, and publication tasks needed to become senior faculty. Mentors in the study

174

referenced engaging in research, publication, and presentation with mentees; however,

mentors also indicated giving mentees instruction to build their curriculum vitae for

promotion and tenure. Debra provided an example of advice she gave to a junior faculty

mentee to strengthen her career advancement potential:

I have a mentee who identifies as an Asian international faculty member who

really didn’t have the doctoral training or the master’s training in research or

professional development. And I’ve worked with her for the past two and a half

years in terms of helping her, through crystallizing what her research interests are

and making those more, quote unquote, marketable in terms of what a promotion

and tenure committee is going to want to be interested in and making sure her

vitae presents the best-case scenario of who she is.

Kathy underscored her ability to be a haven for mentees to navigate the cultural issues

that affect their tenure and promotion progression. She stated, “Just show them you're

safe and that you want to talk about how race types of issues might be impacting their

experience, whether it's their relationships professionally or their job search processes, or

their tenure promotion processes.” In the emergent CCM theory, senior counselor

education faculty share their knowledge and expertise to support mentees seeking tenure

and promotion.

Evolution of Time

The evolution of time is a directional theme inside the mentoring relationship that

captures the matriculation of the bond between mentor and mentee. The solid black arrow

connecting the relationship's initiation to the formulation of a personal relationship

175

depicts the gradual process. In CCM theory, establishing the mentoring relationship is not

instantaneous and involves continual communication and engagement between the

mentor and mentees. Joseph described that he keeps in touch with mentees informally

with periodic check-ins:

Well, I do it very simply. About once a quarter, maybe every other quarter I

remind faculty that I’m around for any mentoring that they want. There’s no

requirement at all. So when people need something, any feedback, they just email

me. Sometimes we make an appointment to talk and other times it’s all done by

email, but it’s very informal. I think that’s best and I want them to take the

initiative rather than… I don’t want to impose anything.

Mike indicated that the mentoring relationship strengthen the more time mentor and

mentee spend with each other. He noted, “To me, the best practice is you really need to

get to know each other. And I mean spending time, even if it’s just talking or video or

whatever, whatever medium is appropriate.” Correspondingly, Kathy illustrated the

significance she places on taking time to learn about her mentees. She explained, “That's

something I really try to put a lot of time into. It’s just who I am as a person. Who are

you as a person? I want to get to know who you are.” Debra alluded to the large amounts

of time and effort she invests into CCM when she has conversations about cultural

humility with mentees:

No matter how much I read, no matter how many times I go to lunch with folks,

that we chat about the issues that are going on, just to have that humility and

being able to talk through that, that I’m struggling.

176

Maria acknowledged that mentoring relationships grow over time as she reflected upon

the development of her relationship with her mentor:

But she said yes, and she became the person that I, over time, collaborated with.

And she introduced me to the Center for Spirituality and Health. She kind of

brought me into the fold. And here we are, 15 years, 20 years later, and I’m

associate director of the center.

Cross-cultural mentors in the study reported that the mentoring relationship takes time to

build due to the complex nature of learning culture, working on professional endeavors,

and respecting the mentees’ autonomy.

Various Initiations of Relationship. In the emergent theory of CCM, there is no

prescriptive method to beginning a mentoring relationship. Thus, this theme indicates the

essentialness of cross-cultural mentors to focus on starting CCM in various ways.

Mentors revealed that they purposefully extend themselves to racially and ethnically

diverse mentees. They reported using research teams, conversations, meetings, and taking

advantage of pivotal moments to break the ice with mentees. Maria conceptualized the

mentoring relationship with doctoral counselor educators as a function of the hierarchy in

academia. She described mentoring doctoral students and expecting them to pay it

forward to the masters’ students:

You have to find ways to fill up, so that you can then give to others, because the

way that the doctoral studies is set up here is that they become mentors to the

master’s student, and then the faculty mentor them, and it’s like a chain reaction,

right? So, how can you be there for them if we’re not there for you first?

177

Kathy explained that she usually begins her mentoring relationships by offering her

support. She shared that even when the mentees do not initially take her help, a specific

situation or event can be the catalyst or entry into a mentorship relationship:

And so it's been interesting because I extend myself to her and then she doesn't

really bite, then I extend myself a little bit more. And then there was a situation

that happened recently. It was a little bit of a rupture, I guess. She made a mistake

with something, and I had to talk to her about it. She came back to me later and

she was like, I appreciate you.

Debra disclosed that she prioritizes developing research teams with racially and

ethnically diverse mentees to initiate mentoring relationships:

One of the things that I did as a junior faculty member was I developed a research

team. It was open, it was rotating. I was very intentional about involving part-

time and full-time students. I was very intentional about inviting folks with

different cultural backgrounds, both in terms of race, ethnicity, LGBTQ, gender.

We don’t tend to have a lot of male students, much less male students of color,

but I was trying to diversify the team as much as possible.

Mike starts his mentoring relationships by creating a periodic meeting schedule. He

stated that having regular conversations help the relationship develop deeper:

So, when I've started working with mentees and cross-cultural mentees, mentees

of another culture than mine, I really prefer to talk with them at least twice a

week. They don't have to be long conversations, but to really make sure that we’re

178

talking about not only what is going on in their practice and their development but

how it relates to their own identity.

Mentors in the study did not have a consensus amongst their approach to starting a

mentoring relationship. However, they delineate their willingness to extend themselves to

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators to serve as mentors.

Personal Relationship. The theme of personal relationship is the bond mentors

and mentees form during CCM. Mentors described having conversations with mentees

about their personal life and engaging them outside of the professional setting. Research

participants portrayed a personal relationship as a byproduct of working closely with

mentees and sharing cultural experiences with them over time. Kathy expressed serving

as a mentor beyond the mentees’ academic and professional realm:

I joke around. I tease the people that I mentor that I mentor for life. I become very

invested, and I put a great deal of time and energy into the people I mentor, and I

love that and I want to continue those relationships in some way forever.

Kathy further stated that she considers mentoring to include a personal component:

I think they would probably just talk about our relationship and connection and

me being available. And them being able to come to me with hard conversations

about relationships and families and dating. Because to me, you can't keep the

personal out of the mentorship relationship, and I think it’s really founded.

Likewise, Mike explored elements of his mentees’ personal life during CCM:

If you think about the key areas of the human being career, family, romance,

leisure, and spirituality. We need to know our views on all those things to be able

179

to work together and navigate because those, ultimately, are going to come up.

So, best practice is, really, to take the time to get to know each other not just from

a mentor-mentee standpoint about the work but, also, from those viewpoints on at

least those five elements.

Maria shared how she connects with her mentees’ cultural values and participates in the

activities that are important to the mentees:

“I think with that same careful attention to what they value. If I’m dealing with an

African American, or Hispanic, Latinx student, Asian American, I know we’re

collectivistic cultures. I know that they’re going to value family. I know that I am

going to be almost like a mother figure, really. And so, I encourage them. I feed

them food. I will say, let’s go for a coffee. Let’s grab lunch.

Yolanda also reported getting to know mentees personally and engaging them outside of

the professional setting:

And then go to her house and get to know her, because what she was really

offering was to allow me a glimpse into her life, who she is, what matters to her.

So, I took her up on it. And I got to see a really interesting person. I learned a lot

about her and what matters to her and how those things are reflected in her

clinical work. So, one of the ways that I nurtured our developing relationship was

actually allow it to be a relationship that existed outside of the four walls of our

office.

While developing a personal relationship is not required in the emergent CCM theory,

mentors in the study recounted their efforts to get to know their mentees’ lives outside of

180

academia. Moreover, mentors who participated in their mentees’ cultural activities and

values expressed deep connections and lasting relationships.

Mentor Actions Outside the Relationship

Research participants described mentoring actions they perform independently but

for the benefit of the mentees. In the emergent CCM theory, these mentor actions occur

outside the relationship because the mentees do not have any awareness of the action's

implementation. Figure 5 illustrates the orange blocks with arrows pointing away from

the mentee representing the mentor’s actions completed outside the relationship. Cross-

cultural mentors acquire CCM knowledge, advocate on behalf of the mentee, and

publicize the mentees’ accomplishments separate from directly working with them.

Figure 5. Mentor Actions Outside the Relationship in the CCM Model.

181

Acquire CCM Knowledge. The theme of acquiring CCM knowledge refers to

mentors seeking additional information and skills to understand better and support their

mentees. Research participants mentioned pursuing help to overcome challenges that

arise during CCM and prepare to serve racially and ethnically diverse mentees. They

shared that their typical methods of acquiring CCM knowledge were reading about

culture and world events, consulting with other professionals, and undergoing

supervision. Debra also emphasized the responsibility of cross-cultural mentors to keep

honing their mentorship skills:

I’d say another piece would be continuing to gain your own knowledge as a

mentor about areas that you aren’t good at in terms of mentoring, whether it’s a

basic skill to help someone else learn a skill, or it’s just even skills around being a

mentor itself would be another thing.

Mike stated, “I got my own supervision and consultation” when he discussed overcoming

challenges during CCM. Yolanda reported consulting with colleagues to get feedback

about specific mentoring situations:

But talking about it with other professionals and with other people going, did you

ever encounter something like this when you were mentoring somebody? How

did you approach X, Y, Z and not come across like you were the angry black

woman or whatever it is people were trying to call you… So, talking about it with

other professionals still to this day, I’d do the same thing. Just to have somebody

else's perspective, have another set of eyes or ears.

182

Maria suggested that counselor educators seeking to become cross-cultural mentors keep

up to date with world events:

Well, they need to read up on things happening around the world and be on top of

the socio-political climate. They need to really understand that counseling is a

profession of advocacy, and that it’s our job to be informed, so that when we have

students from Eastern Europe, we know what’s going on there. When we have

students from the cultures in the Middle East, we know what’s going on there.

When we have students, who come from the Pacific region, we know what’s

happening with the cultural battles, and the religious persecution, and the crisis of

refugees.

Kathy shared that in her free time, she would read about cultures:

I’d go to the library and I would read National Geographics. And I loved reading

about just people all over the world and cultures that were different. And then I

majored in sociology in college. I loved anthropology, and I've always been

curious about people from other cultures and other groups.

Debra described using the approaches of reading and consultation to increase her

knowledge of diversity:

I think part of it is my own reading and my own discussions with colleagues who

are both White as well as colleagues of color. As I’m reading things or as I’m

presenting, I’ve got my group of folks, that we can talk about this and we can be

honest about some of the things that we’re seeing or some of the help that we

need in addressing some of the things that we’re seeing. I think part of it is just

183

finding that tribe of people and making sure that tribe is diverse, that you’re not

just talking to people that look like you.

Counselor educators who perform CCM alluded to using techniques similar to continuing

education such as reading, consultation, and supervision to become more effective

mentors.

Advocacy on Behalf of Mentee. In the current CCM theory, participants’

meanings of advocating on behalf of their mentees involved the mentor using their

position and power to enact positive outcomes for them. Mentors also described

advocating on behalf of the mentees as advancing the practice of CCM. Debra voiced

having conversations with colleagues to recruit them to become cross-cultural mentors.

She stated, “Just humility and just figuring out better ways to talk to my White colleagues

about how we can be better mentors, that’s some of it.” Moreover, Debra explained that

her tenure status puts her in a position to be a more vigorous advocate:

And I think over time, because I’m now in a position with tenure and I’ve been

here long enough that I can say those things, but I couldn’t do that as a junior

faculty member, finding people, those allies, that maybe have a little more power

in the academic system to help get something done.

Joseph expressed serving as an advocate for his mentees in his statement, “Well, if

somebody will ask me to be an advocate or be assertive on their behalf and they ask me if

I can help them, I will.” Another mentor sought to make it easier for counselor educators

to have the crucial conversations that spark cross-cultural relationships. Maria created

advocacy materials that promote cross-cultural communications to bring people together:

184

Another thing I’m very proud of, in the ASGW special initiatives, we developed a

document that we are disseminating for free across anyone who wants it. Ten

strategies to have difficult conversations and combat hate. If you go to the ASGW

website, you can download it. It’s right there for you to grab. And I think that any

time that we are sitting in a group of people, we have an opportunity to affect

change through conversation is challenging. So, those strategies are just a starting

point for people to engage others in meaningful ways.

Counselor educators disclosed that they engaged in advocacy efforts that create

opportunities for their mentees and promote CCM to colleagues.

Publicizing Mentees Accomplishments. The theme of publicizing mentee

accomplishments refers to the actions mentors perform that improve their mentees'

visibility academically and professionally. The research participants discussed mentees’

gaining acknowledgment of accomplishments by publishing and presenting with mentors

and having first author status. However, Debra described mentors broadcasting the work

of mentees to address inequities in the treatment of racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators:

Also, it’s important action as a mentor to make sure that you’re bringing to the

attention of other people, other faculty, your community some of the work that

your students are doing. Praising them when they go present or praising them as a

co-author or praising them for joining a committee, e.g., really calling out and

celebrating these things is one action that we need to be doing. Because if we

don’t put it out there and put it out there that students of color or junior faculty of

185

color are successful, it doesn’t become the norm. You’re not going to change

minds if all we ever see are White folks being applauded for the work that they’re

doing.

Additionally, Joseph shared that one of his mentees uses organizational publications to

shed light on the accomplishments of counselor educators; he stated, “She’s a colleague

in clinical mental health. She does a newsletter every month.” Therefore, mentors take

the extra step of disseminating racially and ethnically mentees' work and achievements to

colleagues and the university community in the emergent CCM theory.

Discrepant Cases/Non-Conforming Data

In this constructivist grounded theory of CCM, there were no discrepant cases or

non-confirming data where participants reported atypical responses. The study's goal was

to interview counselor educators with cross-cultural mentoring experience working with

racially and ethnically diverse mentees to identify the actions, attitudes, skills, and

knowledge they use to provide competent mentoring. Due to the mentors in the study

possessing doctorate degrees in counselor education or professional counseling, their

responses presented as cohesive, and the data reached saturation after six participant

interviews. Furthermore, to provide depth to the study, I utilized theoretical sampling by

going back and adding participants who were not mentorship award winners, and their

responses were consistent with those participants who were award winners (Charmaz,

2014; Fisher, 2019). Lastly, researchers have already captured the lack of cross-cultural

mentoring and ineffective cross-cultural mentoring for counselor educators; therefore, it

186

is not in the scope of this dissertation study for the researcher to intentionally seek

discrepant cases.

Summary

Counselor educators contributed their experiences, knowledge, and skills to

develop a theory of CCM. The resulting CCM model answered the research question,

“How do counselor educators provide competent cross-cultural mentoring?” Cross-

cultural mentors to racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators intentionally create

an environment conducive to authentic cross-cultural connections using their previous

professional and personal experiences. Counselor educators agreed that mentors embody

characteristics that allow them to be sensitive to racially and ethnically diverse mentees’

needs due to mentees entering the mentoring relationship with life experiences and

cultural distrust. The process of CCM involves directional learning and directional

actions on the part of the mentor. Mentors work directly with the mentees to develop

cultural understanding, process challenges within the relationships, and complete

scholarly activities. While performing mentoring actions with their mentees, the mentor

learns simultaneously from them as both parties experience each other. However, there

are times when the mentor imparts knowledge upon the mentees as they bring the

mentees to the next level of their professional development. Counselor educators who

conduct CCM advised that not all mentoring actions occur between the mentor and

mentees; they perform actions outside the mentoring relationship without the mentees’

awareness. Cross-cultural mentors seek additional information to become better mentors

and combat inequities to build better opportunities for their mentees. Lastly, mentors

187

emphasized the developmental relationship that accompanies CCM in which the mentor

and mentees bond over time.

The results of the new CCM theory emerged from the participant data using the

constructivist grounded theory approach. Chapter 4 outlined the implementation of

constructivist grounded theory methodology to conduct data collection, theoretical

sampling, and coding analysis simultaneously using constant comparison and memoing

to track theory development (Charmaz, 2017a, Chun Tie et al., 2019; Fisher; 2019).

Additionally, this chapter included the methods and means for establishing

trustworthiness in the study. Chapter 5 will discuss further interpretations, implications,

and recommendations of this dissertation research.

188

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this dissertation study is to use the constructivist grounded theory

method to develop a model of cross-cultural mentoring (CCM) from the experiences of

those who have mentored racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. Six

counselor educators shared the knowledge, skill, and attitudes they use to provide

competent cross-cultural mentoring. Data analysis of their actions produced a theoretical

model of CCM that counselor educators can implement to address the

underrepresentation of racially and ethnically diverse full-time faculty at counselor

preparation programs.

The study results show that CCM involves multiple layers of interactions, actions,

learning, and investment of time. At the foundation of CCM is the mentors’ ability to

create an environment of respect for diversity, authenticity, patience, and the intentional

commitment to assist racially and ethnically diverse mentees, which is conducive to

building the trust necessary to perform the process actions of mentoring. While both the

mentor and mentees bring their previous experiences into the Cross-cultural mentoring

relationship, the participants focused on mentor qualities that aid the mentoring racially

and ethnically diverse counselor educators, such as cultural humility, avoiding

assumptions, and acknowledging privilege.

Process results of CCM are multi-directional. Some mentoring actions occur

inside the relationship in which both the mentor and mentee are aware of the activity.

Other mentoring actions occur outside the relationship without the mentee’s knowledge.

For example, mentors expressed publicizing the mentees’ accomplishments, advocating

189

on behalf of the mentee, and acquiring additional knowledge about cross-cultural

mentoring without notifying the mentee. Within the mentoring relationship, the actions

center on the crux of directional learning. Both the mentor and mentee learn from one

another in simultaneous learning actions; however, the mentor imparts knowledge and

skills to the mentee in one-way learning. The bulk of the mentoring actions occur within

the dynamic of simultaneous learning, which includes but are not limited to: (a) open

conversations; (b) disclosing challenges; (c) addressing power differences; and (d)

publication, presentation, research. Conversely, the three mentoring actions of connection

to networks, suggesting funding resources, and feedback on tenure and promotion are

examples of one-way learning processes.

The last element of CCM captured in the study results is the component of time.

The initiation of the mentoring relationship happens in various ways; however, the

mentors described reaching out to the mentees first to offer mentoring or making

themselves approachable and publicly announcing their intentions to serve as a mentor.

The progression of the mentoring relationship evolves as the mentor and mentee engage

in the various CCM actions and gives rise to a personal relationship in addition to a

professional association. Notably, not all mentoring relationships will result in a personal

relationship. The mentors explained that the personal relationship is not an endpoint or

goal of CCM but a by-product of working closely with the mentee and navigating cultural

dynamics.

The theoretical model of CCM is a tool current faculty, administration, and

leadership can use to retain and promote racially and ethnically diverse counselor

190

educators. The most recent publicly published 2017 CACREP Vital Statistics that showed

faculty demographics revealed that 71.38% of full-time faculty were Caucasian/White

(CACREP, 2018), a slight decrease from 74.33% in the 2015 CACREP Vital Statistics

(CACREP, 2016a). CACREP (2016b) has standards that require diversity in counselor

education faculty. Moreover, Branco and Davis (2020) highlighted that despite gains in

representation of racially and ethnically diverse counselor education students, there are

not enough ethnically diverse faculty to mentor these students for retention. Since there is

a need for diverse counselor education faculty to mentor the diverse student population,

but there are limited numbers of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

There is a gap in the support system for both counselor preparation students and program

standards which must be filled by racially and ethnically diverse counselor education

faculty. Due to the multitude of cultural backgrounds, personal characteristics, and

individual life experiences, there is an element of cross-cultural mentoring within any

mentee and mentor relationship. However, the theoretical model of CCM in this

dissertation study provides a framework for addressing the underrepresentation of racially

and ethnically diverse counselor educators due to a lack of mentoring.

Interpretation of Findings

After connecting the experiences of those who serve as cross-cultural mentors to

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators into a theoretical model of

implementing CCM, it is imperative to join the new theory to the current knowledge.

Charmaz (2014) instructed that the last stage of constant comparison in the grounded

theory approach is to compare the study’s categories to the scholarly literature. Elements

191

of the grounded CCM theory confirm, disconfirm, and extend the knowledge from the

literature view. As an overview, the themes in the theoretical model of CCM demonstrate

experiences of racial and ethnically diverse counselor educators in academia already

expressed in the research literature. Additionally, mentoring activities that study

participants reported using during CCM coincide with the mentoring recommendations in

established research (Brinson & Kottler,1993; Lerma et al., 2015; Park-Saltzman et al.,

2012). However, previous researchers of mentoring racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators made specific recommendations for mentors and institutions that did

not emerge from the participants’ data during this grounded theory study. Lastly, the

theme of mentor experiences extends the knowledge of the existing literature of CCM as

it highlights the knowledge, skills, attitudes, observations, and life lessons mentors have

and bring into their work as cross-cultural mentors. The following paragraphs precisely

map the themes of CCM to what is known and missing from the research literature.

Findings that Confirm Existing Knowledge

Findings of the CCM grounded theory significantly confirmed what is already in

the existing literature. For instance, participant data supports the experiences of racially

and ethnically diverse counselor educators. Previous researchers make recommendations

that coincide with the elements included in the CCM environment. Researchers of

mentoring and cross-cultural mentoring reported on unsuccessful and helpful mentoring

actions. The theoretical model of CCM mirrors accounts in the literature of how

mentoring relationships develop.

Environment

192

Intentionality is an element of the CCM environment where mentors purposefully

commit to serving racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators and make

conscious decisions to incorporate cultural considerations into their work. Researchers

acknowledge a need for a more concerted effort to mentor racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators. Borders et al. (2012) recommended training for faculty that focuses

more attention on “considerations for mentoring women and persons of color” (p.169).

Likewise, Waalkes (2016) emphasized the need for teaching mentorship to assist

marginalized counselor education faculty. Lewis and Olshansky (2016) urged cross-

cultural mentoring to move away from “academic cloning” towards new perspectives and

strategies of mentoring (p. 384).

Despite authenticity and genuineness having distinct definitions in this grounded

theory of CCM, the research literature uses these terms interchangeably. In the current

CCM, theory authenticity refers to the mentors’ ability to remain themselves in the

mentoring relationship, and genuineness refers to the perception of connectedness

between the mentor and mentee. Lewis and Olshansky (2016) described cross-cultural

mentoring from a relational cultural theoretical (RCT) lens which included five key

components: mutuality, authenticity, reciprocity, empathy, and connectedness. Notably,

RCT separates authenticity and interpersonal connection as environmental elements

conducive to effective mentoring.

However, other studies describe authenticity and genuineness as relational

dynamics in mentoring. Woo et al. (2015) explained the importance of having

authenticity and genuineness in the CCM environment due to international doctoral

193

counselor education students reporting potential mentors as unapproachable. Moreover,

Woo et al. (2015) emphasized the need for genuineness in CCM because international

doctoral counselor education and supervision students sought emotional security from

mentorships with individuals back in their native countries when they could not make

connections with senior faculty. Borders et al. (2011) described the theme of

genuineness in their definition of psychosocial mentoring, which included nonjudgmental

acceptance, friendship, positive role modeling, and confidentiality. Alston (2014)

documented cross-cultural mentoring between African American female faculty mentors

and their Caucasian female doctoral student mentees; however, even in this scope,

“criticality of authentic connections” was at the core of the mentoring experience (p.

119). Thus, the CCM themes of authenticity and genuineness support existing research

literature while providing more distinction to these mentoring features.

Additional environmental themes of the current CCM theory found in the research

include respect for diversity, intersectionality/multiple identities, and patience. The

existing literature has examples of when disregard for diversity interrupts the mentoring

dynamic and respect for diversity promotes positive cross-cultural mentoring encounters.

Woo et al. (2015) shared that international doctoral counselor education students felt

disrespected when Caucasian faculty supervisors unfoundedly questioned their clinical

and supervisory skills and made culturally insensitive comments towards them.

Furthermore, Brinson and Kottler (1993) identified cultural sensitivity as a foundational

component of successful cross-cultural mentoring. Counselor educators who respect

diversity in a cross-cultural mentoring environment recognize multiplicity within an

194

individual’s identity. Ratts et al. (2016) explained that individuals have intersectionality

and multiple identities due to the person having cultural backgrounds in several

historically marginalized groups. They provided the example of an African American gay

man who has “intersecting privileged and marginalized statuses such as male privilege

with racial and sexual minority marginalized statuses” (Ratts et al., 2016, p. 29).

Brinkman and Donahue (2020) added that intersectionality of multiple cultural identities

“are not exclusive of each other, but rather inform the construction of each other in

reciprocal ways” (p. 109). Therefore, mentors exercise patience in cross-cultural

mentoring as both the mentor and mentee navigate the complex layers of cultural identity

and cultural experiences. Johnson-Bailey et al. (2004) exemplified patience in CCM

when mentors do not seek retaliation while the mentees express anger, frustration, and

unhappiness with the institutional system or even the mentor. The CCM environment

metaphorically mimics the Earth’s environment. Proper atmospheric conditions allow

plants to grow and blossom just as supportive social elements stimulate the development

of racially and culturally diverse counselor educators.

Mentee Experiences

Existing research literature supports that racially and ethnically diverse mentees

bring the experiences of lack of mentorship and lack of acceptance into the cross-cultural

mentoring relationship. Numerous researchers captured African American mentees’

difficulty finding mentors and lack of mentoring (Frazier, 2011; Haizlip, 2012; Lewis &

Olshansky, 2016; Minor, 2016). Kim et al. (2014) documented that Asian female faculty

also struggle to find mentors. As racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators

195

encounter adverse social events, they can become skeptical regarding their fit in their

departments and institutions. Brinson and Kottler (1993) explained that mentees had

challenges overcoming the sociocultural factors of distrust and isolation while relating to

Caucasian faculty mentors. Participants in the current grounded theory of CCM shared

that a part of their role as mentors to racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators is

acknowledging and working with the previous experiences the mentees bring into the

mentoring relationship.

Mentor Qualities

In this grounded theory study, mentor qualities are the attributes, traits, and

characteristics participants deemed valuable for CCM competency. Participants portrayed

qualities they have and general qualities they believe are helpful when mentoring racially

and ethnically diverse counselor educators. The mentor qualities with support from

existing research are avoiding assumptions, cultural humility, acknowledging privilege,

and curiosity. The mentor quality of flexibility was not found in the research literature

and is in the findings that extend the existing knowledge section.

Previous researchers of cross-cultural mentoring warn against making

assumptions and the dangers of perpetuating stereotypes. For example, international

doctoral counselor education students shared that Caucasian faculty supervisors

unfoundedly questioned their clinical and supervisory skills and made culturally

insensitive comments (Woo et al., 2015). Moreover, international doctoral counselor

education students shared that faculty supervisors assumed deficiencies in their abilities

due to language differences (Woo et al., 2015). During cross-cultural mentoring, cultural

196

stereotyping interferes with communication, understanding, and the development of trust

while simultaneously creating self-consciousness, defensiveness, and hostility (Alston,

2014, Carraway, 2008). While cross-cultural mentors are humans and cannot be

completely free of making assumptions, the participants in the study keep this

vulnerability at the forefront of their work and ask their mentees questions to limit

missteps.

Cultural humility is a mentoring quality emphasized in the research literature and

the participant data. Foronda et al. (2016) defined cultural humility as “the process of

openness, self-awareness, being egoless, and incorporating self-reflection and critique

after willingly interacting with diverse individuals” (p. 213). Researchers of cross-

cultural mentoring highlight the necessity of cultural humility to create and sustain

rapport. Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) described that African American female faculty at

PWIs need mentors with the genuine desire to learn about the cultural influences of

others as this form of cultural humility helps create a cohesive cross-cultural mentoring

relationship. Likewise, Park-Saltzman et al. (2012) proposed that genuine interest in the

mentee’s cultural experiences benefited cross-cultural mentoring relationships with

international Asian counseling psychology doctoral students regardless of the mentor’s

ethnic background. Lastly, Brinson and Kottler (1993) identified cultural sensitivity as a

foundational component of successful cross-cultural mentoring. Fisher-Borne et al.

(2015) and Foronda et al. (2016) endorsed cultural humility as a more transformative

framework than cultural competence. Accordingly, the cross-cultural mentors in this

197

grounded theory study use the quality of cultural humility as an approach to relate to and

not merely understand racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

In the grounded theory of CCM, mentors have the quality of acknowledging their

privileges, primarily Caucasian mentors. While Caucasian mentors are not the only

individuals with privilege, the research indicates are the majority of senior counselor

education faculty at CACREP-accredited programs (CACREP, 2017). Furthermore,

Caucasian faculty have more power and influence in academia (Frazier, 2011). Behar-

Horenstein et al. (2012) instructed Caucasian senior faculty who engage in cross-cultural

mentoring to self-reflect on their biases, privileges, and knowledge of others’ experiences

then worked to overcome their limits to cultural competence. Johnson-Bailey et al. (2004)

explained that senior Caucasian male faculty have protection in academia due to power

and privilege. They reported that unacknowledged or unwanted preferential treatment

creates a defensive response within Caucasian male faculty called “White guilt”

(Johnson-Bailey et al., 2004, p. 13). Some of the cross-cultural mentors in this grounded

theory study explained that they had to face their feelings of White guilt and “White

fragility” to become more effective mentors to racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators.

The last mentor quality in the model of CCM found in the existing research is

curiosity. Within the current CCM theory, curiosity is the mentors’ desire to know about

the mentees’ life experiences and thoughts. The previous researchers depict those

mentors who showed a lack of curiosity about the mentee’s cultural experiences were not

viewed favorably by racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. For example,

198

Woo et al. (2015) explained that international doctoral counselor education students

viewed senior faculty as unapproachable and viewed Caucasian peers as disinterested in

the experiences of international students. Other researchers recognize cross-cultural

mentors’ use of curiosity to connect to their mentees. Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012)

reported that mentors with the genuine desire to learn about the cultural influences of

others help create a cohesive cross-cultural mentoring relationship. Genuine interest in

the mentee’s cultural experiences benefited cross-cultural mentoring relationships with

international Asian counseling psychology doctoral students regardless of the mentor’s

ethnic background (Park-Saltzman et al., 2012). The mentor quality of curiosity relates to

the existing counseling research literature, specifically the Multicultural Orientation

Framework (MCO) (Davis et al., 2018). Davis et al. (2018) described “cultural

opportunity” as the therapist’s willingness to explore the client’s cultural identity (p. 92).

Thus, CCM in counselor education parallels multicultural approaches in therapy.

Curiosity and the other mentor qualities are not direct CCM actions; instead, mentors

possess attitudes that reinforce trust and engagement with racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators.

Mentor Actions Outside the Relationship

In the theoretical model of CCM, mentors perform actions for the benefit of the

mentees without the mentees’ awareness. Mentors acquire CCM knowledge to address

deficits in their mentoring roles and improve support to their mentees. Suitably, Behar-

Horenstein et al. (2012) instructed Caucasian senior faculty who engage in cross-cultural

mentoring to work to overcome their limits to cultural competence. Mentors also

199

emphasize their mentees’ strengths by advocating on their behalf and publicizing their

accomplishments. Minor (2016) recommended that retention of counselor educators

strengthens when cross-cultural mentors advocate on behalf of faculty of color. Similarly,

Brinson and Kottler (1993) advised senior faculty to publicly endorse cross-cultural

mentoring within their institutions as well as attend seminars and conferences focusing on

minority issues. The existing research literature confirms that a recognizable connection

between an influential senior faculty mentor and their cross-cultural mentee aids in the

professional development and recognition of the mentee. Johnson-Bailey et al. (2004)

and Carraway (2008) explained the public connection of cross-cultural mentors and their

racially and ethnically diverse mentees as positionality. Positionality is an influencing

factor in the success of cross-cultural mentorship for racially and ethnically diverse

mentees because the acceptance of the mentees’ teaching and scholarship depends on the

sponsorship and endorsement from a respected colleague (Johnson-Bailey et al., 2004).

Thus, CCM actions that increase the visibility of the mentee or promote more cross-

cultural mentoring relationships without the mentee’s knowledge are just as valuable as

direct mentoring activities.

Mentor Actions Inside the Relationship

Mentoring actions inside the relationship are the direct activities both the mentor

and mentee have awareness about due to them participating in them together. While

working together, there are instances in which the mentor and mentee learn together and

from each other. In the current grounded theory of CCM, this mutual learning is called

simultaneous learning. Alston (2014) mentioned reciprocal learning with African

200

American female-Caucasian female cross-cultural mentoring relationships where both

parties teach each other in respectful and supportive ways. The simultaneous learning

mentoring actions supported in the existing research literature are: (a) making a safe

space; (b) open conversations; (c) challenging cultural privilege; (d) addressing power

differences; (e) guidance/coaching; (f) advocacy with mentee; (g) encouraging self-care;

and (h) publication, presentation, research.

Previous researchers of CCM and counseling describe making a safe space as the

mentee and mentor building trust and comfort to share experiences. Alston (2014) and

Carraway (2008) clarified that not making a safe space in CCM interferes with

communication, understanding, and the development of trust while simultaneously

creating self-consciousness, defensiveness, and hostility. For example, Grant & Simmons

(2008) documented the CCM experiences of an African American educational leadership

faculty. He reported that his Caucasian female mentor was sensitive to race and gender

issues; conversely, his Caucasian male mentor was preoccupied with his professional

advancement, making the mentee uncomfortable discussing racial encounters and cultural

politics (Grant & Simmons, 2008). Moreover, Johnson-Bailey et al. (2004) described a

safe space in CCM as a place where the mentees can share difficulties without fear of

retaliation. Making a safe space is another CCM component that coincides with existing

multicultural counseling literature. Davis et al. (2018) expressed that the pillars of the

Multicultural Orientation Framework in therapy are cultural humility, cultural

opportunities, and cultural comfort. The pillar of cultural comfort in the counseling

process is when the counselor discusses cultural differences with openness, calmness, and

201

ease (Davis et al., 2018). Thus, cultural comfort relates to making a safe space in CCM as

it reinforces incidences of critical dialogue. When racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators feel safe coming to their mentors for support, they can have open

conversations.

Open conversations are the essence of counseling and education; thus, existing

research literature supports honest conversations as the fundamental means of

communication in CCM. For instance, Alston (2014) found that a shared communication

is a significant category in the mentees’ CCM experience. Park-Saltzman et al. (2012)

explained that cross-cultural mentoring of international Asian counseling psychology

doctoral students is best when the mentor and mentees use a high context communication

style. Additionally, ACES has research mentoring guidelines that encourage mentors to

discuss cultural differences in the mentoring relationship (Borders et al., 2012). Brinson

and Kottler (1993) cautioned that miscommunication impedes cross-cultural mentoring

amongst counselor educators. Thus, open discussion brings forth cultural differences and

issues within the cross-cultural mentoring relationship (Minor, 2016) and the institution

and department (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012). Study participants and researchers

emphasize the importance of open conversations in competent CCM.

In the current grounded theory of CCM, mentors first understand their privilege

status or lack thereof, change their approach to cross-cultural exchanges, then influence

others to examine their privilege. Accordingly, Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) provided

instructions for Caucasian senior faculty who engage in cross-cultural mentoring to self-

reflect on their biases, privileges, and knowledge of others’ experiences. Johnson-Bailey

202

et al. (2004) encouraged senior Caucasian male faculty to recognize that they have

protection in academia due to power and privilege and acknowledge that discomfort may

arise when adjusting their perspectives. While existing research literature includes

discussions of the importance for Caucasian mentors to recognize their cultural privilege,

it does not provide best practices and skills for them and other non-Caucasian senior

faculty who want to engage in cross-cultural mentoring. However, the participant

experiences in this grounded theory of CCM provide tangible ways to move beyond

acknowledging privilege into actions that create change.

Both the study participants and research literature distinguish cultural privilege

and power differences. Cultural privilege references inequalities in the lived experiences

of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators and those with privilege, whereas

power differences relate to academic hierarchy in CCM. Park-Saltzman et al. (2012)

described that maneuvering the Asian cultural value of hierarchal social relationships is a

best practice when conducting cross-cultural mentoring with international Asian

counseling psychology doctoral students. Brinson and Kottler (1993) reported that the

inability to resolve power differentials negatively affects cross-cultural mentoring

amongst counselor educators. Alston (2014) included negotiating power dynamics of age,

academic role, and role reversal as substantial duties in CCM. In a process in which the

mentor is the senior colleague or a faculty member to a doctoral student, it is necessary to

address power differences so that reciprocal learning transpires naturally.

Previous researchers of CCM do not tease out the differences between

guidance/coaching and encouraging self-care, as in this grounded theory study. These

203

mentoring actions present in the research literature as the mentor protecting their mentees

and creating opportunities for their growth. First, faculty mentees provided examples of

ineffective coaching where they only met with mentors once or twice a year to review a

report of strengths and weaknesses (Zafar et al., 2012). Borders et al. (2011) focused on

career mentoring for counselor educators seeking tenure and promotion and specified that

career mentoring includes coaching, protection, sponsorship, and challenging the

mentees’ limitations. Likewise, Carraway (2008) endorsed coaching, providing

challenging assignments, protecting from adverse forces, and creating positive visibility

as beneficial mentoring behaviors for cross-cultural mentors to African American males

in predominately white organizations. New faculty in non-counselor education programs

reported that they appreciated when their mentors provided protection and safeguarded

their well-being (Waller & Shofoluwe, 2013; Zafar et al., 2012). However, this

theoretical model of CCM depicts guidance/coaching as assisting mentees through

challenges and new professional experiences. Also, instead of using the term protection

to describe fostering the well-being of the mentee, they represent nurturing the well-being

and assisting them in creating protective boundaries as encouraging self-care.

Advocacy with racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators involves

mentoring activities related to social justice, social change, and activism. Cross-cultural

mentors in this study reported including mentees in their advocacy work and supporting

their mentees in self-advocacy for vital issues. Brinson and Kottler (1993) requested that

senior faculty mentors conducting CCM volunteer time working with projects that benefit

minority students, youth, and community organizations. Additionally, Johnson-Bailey et

204

al. (2004) specified that cross-cultural mentors have responsibilities beyond their support

of an individual, such as actively working to change the institutional and societal systems

that limit the diversification of academia and the upward mobility of racially and

ethnically diverse faculty. The existing research supports the findings of the current

grounded theory study that advocacy is an integral part of performing CCM.

The last simultaneous learning mentoring action is the mentor developing the

mentee’s academic skills and scholarly accomplishments through publication,

presentation, and research. Borders et al. (2012) shared the ACES research mentorship

guidelines that aim to strengthen the research skills of new counselor education faculty,

specifically women and ethnically diverse faculty, as low research productivity threatens

their promotion and tenure potential. Second-year doctoral counselor education students

credited their mentors for assisting them in developing research and writing interests

(Limberg et al., 2013). Researchers of CCM also shared unique cultural considerations

for incorporating collectivistic values into the research development of racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators. For example, Lerma et al. (2015) recommended

that counselor education programs take steps to re-create “familia” in the academic

environment to promote resiliency amongst Hispanic/Latino counselor education faculty

and students (p. 171). Moreover, Park-Saltzman et al. (2012) explained that cross-cultural

mentors of international Asian counseling psychology doctoral students must balance the

advancement of the individual with Asian cultural values of collectivistic sense of self.

Study participants demonstrated these researchers’ ideals when they revealed that they

create research teams with racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators to build

205

skills and defer the first authorship to the mentees to establish their publication

proficiency.

The existing research literature contains accounts of cross-cultural mentors

supporting their mentees with presentations. Brinson and Kottler (1993) urged tenured

and established faculty mentors to attend seminars and conferences focusing on minority

issues. Warde (2009) detailed the CCM of an African American male faculty mentee

whose senior Caucasian faculty mentor showed up to the mentee’s presentations when

other colleagues declined. Therefore, mentor involvement in racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators’ presentation, publication, and research endeavors is

essential in CCM.

One-way Learning

During CCM, mentors transfer knowledge, expertise, and resources to their

mentees in a one-way learning process. In this grounded theory of CCM, the one-way

learning actions are the mentors connecting mentees to networks, informing mentees of

funding resources, and providing mentees feedback on tenure and promotion. However,

the only elements of the current theoretical model found in the existing literature are the

connection to networks and feedback on tenure and promotion. For instance, an African

American female doctoral student with a Caucasian mentor stated that her mentor

provided her with “emotional intelligence, spiritual support, role-modeling, academic

advisement, and networking opportunities” (Grant & Simmons, 2008, p. 507). Warde

(2009) captured the experience of an African American male faculty mentee whose

senior Caucasian faculty mentor introduced the mentee to a prestigious publisher, which

206

resulted in the mentee receiving a book deal. Without mentors willing to share their

personal and professional networks, racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators

miss opportunities to display their skills and work products.

Researchers of CCM shared various challenges and recommendations regarding

mentoring racially and ethnically diverse mentees seeking tenure and promotion. Early

researchers discussed difficulties junior faculty faced in their tenure and promotion

process, such as lack of mentorship and support from senior faculty to cope with racism

and stereotyping in academia (Bradley & Holcomb-McCoy, 2004). Cartwright et al.

(2009) shared an instance in which an African American counselor educator felt directly

threatened by a colleague’s statements, “when you don’t get tenure, you won’t have to

worry about that because you won’t be here” (p. 175). Other researchers emphasized the

need for mentoring as a necessary strategy to increase the tenure and promotion of

African American counselor educators (Bradley & Holcomb-McCoy, 2004; Frazier,

2011; Jones-Boyd, 2016). Specifically, Frazier (2011) discussed mentoring as a strategy

to increase African American faculty’s potential in obtaining tenure from both the

perspectives of same-culture and cross-cultural mentoring. Lastly, Warde (2009)

explained that mentorship from senior colleagues of a different race and ethnicity assisted

African American male professors in achieving tenure. The existing research literature

includes gaps in CCM for racially and ethnically counselor educators and justifies CCM

as an approach for them to gain tenure and promotion.

207

Time

The model of CCM in the current grounded theory depicts the development of a

cross-cultural mentoring relationship similar to the existing research literature.

Participants in the study describe the cross-cultural mentoring relationship as developing

over time, where mentors and mentees meet in several ways, eventually forming a

personal, friendly relationship. Researchers of CCM charged senior Caucasian faculty

with the responsibility to make themselves available as mentors to racially and ethnically

diverse mentees as they have the power and privilege in academia (Behar-Horenstein et

al., 2012; Brinson & Kottler, 1993; Zafar et al., 2012). Accordingly, both mentors in the

current study and previous CCM researchers endorsed casual exchanges and informal

conversations where the mentor shows encouragement and provides validation to the

mentee to initiate mentoring relationships (Grant & Simmons, 2008; Limberg et al.,

2013). Additionally, Grant and Simmons (2008) described mentoring relationships

stemming from the faculty serving on the dissertation committees of doctoral students.

Similarly, participants in the current study reported establishing mentoring relationships

while performing research projects.

Though the existing research does not include a preferred time for the

development of a cross-cultural mentoring relationship, Zafar et al. (2012) clarified that

mentees meeting with faculty mentors once or twice a year to review a report of strengths

and weaknesses as a part of feedback on tenure was not sufficient contact in CCM. In this

grounded theory study, the cross-cultural mentors reported serving a single mentee for

several years, upwards of 15 -years. They also shared that they spend time with them in

208

professional and personal settings such as meetings and lunches. Waalkes (2016) reported

that mentors often met with mentees for coffee. Lastly, the cross-cultural mentors in the

current study described using in-person conversations, emails, phone calls, and video

chats to stay in continuous contact with their mentees. Therefore, as a result of spending

large amounts of time with their mentees and learning about their culture, mentors shared

that they developed a friendship. Likewise, Zafar et al. (2012) explained that mentorship

includes elements other than work products, and a friendship evolves from the

understanding and appreciation of culture. Moreover, researchers of CCM explain that an

organic mentoring relationship can develop into a personal relationship in which the

mentor provides protection and safeguards the well-being of the mentee (Waller &

Shofoluwe, 2013; Zafar et al., 2012). Creating a personal relationship is not a

requirement in successful CCM; however, both the mentors in this study and previous

researchers frame it as an inevitability at times.

Findings that Disconfirm Existing Knowledge

While participant data in this grounded theory study did not refute the

recommendations of previous CCM researchers, the existing literature includes

mentoring experiences and recommendations that did not arise from participant data. For

example, Waalkes (2016) emphasized teaching mentorship as a targeted form of

mentorship for counselor educators. However, the teaching aspect of tenure and

promotion in CCM did not emerge as a significant theme; study participants emphasized

supporting publication, presentation, and research as critical mentoring activities. The

existing research literature has depictions of culturally insensitive department cultures

209

that negatively affect racially and ethnically diverse faculty and doctoral student mentees

(Frazier, 2011; Holcomb-McCoy & Addison-Bradley, 2005; Kim et al., 2014; Lerma et

al., 2015; Minor, 2016). Waalkes (2016) suggested that mentors to junior faculty benefit

from their mentors informing them about university politics and program expectations.

The cross-cultural mentors in this grounded theory study did not mention educating

mentees on department culture or university politics. The existing literature contains a

juxtaposition of researchers who advocated for formal mentoring (CACREP, 2016; Grant

& Simmons, 2008; Kim et al., 2014; Waller & Shofoluwe, 2013; Zafar et al., 2012)

versus informal mentoring (Adedokun, 2014; Bradley & Holcomb-McCoy, 2004;

Limberg et al., 2013). Unfortunately, the current grounded theory of CCM does not

clarify the effectiveness of formal mentoring compared to informal mentoring. Despite

the study findings providing a systematic model of CCM that mentors can implement

with racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators, this study does not add

additional information on the viability of universities and departments requiring formal

mentoring for junior faculty. The faculty who mentored racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators in the current study reported mentoring in formal and casual

environments. Thus, the research literature continues to have gaps in differentiating the

effectiveness of informal and formal mentoring.

Findings that Extend Existing Knowledge

The findings of the current theory of CCM establish elements of mentoring

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators that are not in the existing literature.

Participants in this grounded theory study showed the importance of cross-cultural

210

mentors reflecting on the experiences they bring into the mentoring relationship,

remaining flexible in their mentoring style, and connecting mentees to funding resources.

Additionally, previous studies revealed the mentoring approaches and mentor attributes

helpful to CCM (Alston, 2014; Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012; Brinson & Kottler, 1993;

Carraway, 2008; Johnson-Bailey et al., 2004; Minor, 2016; Park-Saltzman et al., 2012),

but none of the studies address the use of counseling skills within the relationship.

First, new the element of counseling skills in CCM is when the mentors use

reflection, validation, summarization, exploration, and other therapeutic skills taught to

counselors in training to support their mentees. Mentors do not teach counseling skills to

mentees; instead, they are a tool to learn and understand the mentees’ culture and how to

meet their needs as a mentor. Lewis and Olshansky (2016) described current cross-

cultural mentors as molding their mentees into a version of themselves through a process

called “academic cloning” (p. 384). However, this model of CCM harnesses the cultural

identity and individual assets of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators with

the mentors using counseling skills to strengthen the mentoring relationship and build the

mentees’ confidence.

Second, this model of CCM introduces the concept that mentors actively utilize

their previous life experiences in the current mentoring relationship. Brinson and Kottler

(1993) juxtaposed the power and privilege of senior Caucasian faculty mentors with the

academic encounters of their minority mentees. While this seminal research began the

conversation of cultural sensitivities needed to conduct mentoring racially and ethnically

diverse counselor educators, it did not show how to implement the cultural sensitivities.

211

In comparison, the mentor experiences in the current model of CCM advise mentors on

how to incorporate the knowledge, skills, attitudes, observations, and life lessons they

have into their work as cross-cultural mentors. Participants in the study contributed a new

method of channeling their professional and personal experiences into a guiding force for

why and how they conduct CCM.

Third, the mentor quality of having flexibility is not mentioned or defined in the

current CCM research literature. Accordingly, the quality of being flexible refers to the

cross-cultural mentors’ ability to adjust their presentation, process, and goals to fit the

mentee’s needs. The study participants described how they adapt their mentoring

approaches, modify their communication styles, and balance competing dynamics in the

mentoring relationship. Thus, they provide tangible actions mentors can use to become

more competent in working with racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

Lastly, the importance of connecting racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators to funding resources is specific to this study of CCM. Warde (2009) shared

how a Caucasian faculty mentor linked an African American male professor not in

counselor education to a publisher for a book deal. Cross-cultural mentors in counselor

education established that an integral part of positively influencing the success of their

mentees is informing and securing their mentees’ financial support to perform

professional development. Specifically, they connect mentees to fellowships,

scholarships, and fundraisers. Mentors prioritizing access to financial resources and the

other novel elements of CCM fill in significant gaps in the existing knowledge of how to

use mentoring to recruit and retain racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

212

Limitations of the Study

This current grounded theory study examines the phenomena of CCM with

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators and how to use competent CCM to

increase the representation of these counselor educators at CACREP-accredited

programs. The study encounters minor issues of trustworthiness, such as a small sample

size and low response rate. Marvasti et al. (2012) explained that the sample size of a

grounded theory study depends on the scope and complexity of the phenomena under

investigation. Therefore, the sample size of the current grounded theory study reflects the

findings of existing research literature that CCM for racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators is uncommon (Frazier, 2011; Haizlip, 2012; Kim et al., 2014; Lewis

& Olshansky, 2016; Minor, 2016). Furthermore, the researcher exhausted the original

participant selection plan of interviewing mentorship award winners then added snowball

sampling to find six participants who met the study criteria. Due to the small sample size,

this theoretical model of CCM is not generalizable to all mentoring relationships where

mentors and mentees have different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Further limitations to

trustworthiness for the current study include the specific university policies that can

affect the implementation of this model of CCM and that the entire model CCM stems

from the self-reports of the mentors without confirmation from their mentees.

Additionally, as in many constructivist grounded theory studies, the researcher is

the data collector and analyzer of the data, which can cause unforeseen biases. Charmaz

(2014) clarified that bias comes in the form of the researcher having an awareness of the

destination of a constructivist grounded because they are aware of the study’s purpose.

213

To help limit bias in the current constructivist grounded theory of CCM, peer-reviewers

assisted in the data analysis process. As an African American female counselor educator

and a recipient of CCM, I cannot rule out all biases and influences as I have personal

experience with the phenomena under investigation. However, I followed all available

strategies to support academic rigor and trustworthiness in this study.

The current grounded theory study of CCM is not purporting to be the only

systematic framework for increasing the representation of racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators at CACREP-accredited programs. This theoretical model of CCM

adds to the existing knowledge of CCM by moving beyond the checklists of

recommendations for “White mentors” and “Minority proteges” (Brinson & Kottler,

1993, pp. 250-252) to a tangible methodology of mentoring for any faculty member, not

just Caucasian faculty, wanting to serve as a cross-cultural mentor. Despite the inability

to generalize the model to all CCM situations, this grounded theory study fills a

significant gap in the current literature and mentoring experiences of racially and

ethnically diverse counselor educators.

Recommendations

The current study is a prototype of an effective model that builds upon the

recommendations from previous researchers. This grounded theory of CCM begins

creating a systematic approach to mentoring racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators to increase their representation as faculty at CACREP-accredited programs.

Findings from the study offer an operable CCM model that can assist CACREP-

accredited programs in meeting “systematic efforts to recruit, employ, and retain a

214

diverse faculty” (CACREP, 2016, p. 6). For example, Adedokun (2014) advocated for

more qualitative research on CCM to gather information from multiple sources and

expand its scope. Moreover, Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) explained that future analysis

of CCM should be exploratory, focusing on the perceptions of Caucasian faculty towards

junior culturally diverse faculty and vice versa. While the current study sheds light on the

perceptions of senior counselor educators who serve as cross-cultural mentors, future

research that gathers the mentees’ perceptions of engaging in CCM can provide

additional insight into this phenomenon.

The theoretical model of CCM developed in this study addresses the direct

concerns of Frazier (2011), where the author charged future researchers to focus on

mentoring models that support the psychosocial and professional development of African

American faculty as they seek tenure and promotion. The strength of the current model is

that it expands the application of CCM to other cultural groups. It considers other

underrepresented counselor educator groups at CACREP-accredited programs such as

Asian, Hispanic/Latino, Multiracial, Native American, Pacific Islander, and international

faculty. Further applications of the current CCM to racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators not listed in this study can only bolster its effectiveness.

Additionally, Carraway (2008) and Behar-Horenstein et al. (2012) suggested longitudinal

studies of CCM; Adedokun (2014) later confirmed their sentiments by stating the need

for future research on “the relationship between mentoring functions and mentoring

outcomes” (p.70). To further examine the effectiveness of mentoring approaches, it

would be beneficial to have an empirical study comparing this model of CCM with other

215

models of cross-cultural dynamics such as Lewis and Olshansky’s (2016) Relational

Cultural Theory.

There are opportunities for the examination of CCM at the structural level. The

goal of the current grounded theory study was to capture the initiation of cross-cultural

mentoring relationships to gain insight into the usefulness of formal and informal

mentoring settings. Previous researchers could not conclude about the effectiveness of

one mentoring dynamic over the other; they mentioned that informal mentoring creates

an organic connection while formal mentoring compels parties to work together

(Carraway, 2008; Kim et al., 2014, Waller & Shofoluwe, 2013; Zafar et al., 2012).

Similarly, the current theoretical model does not support just one mentoring approach as

cross-cultural mentors shared that they operated in formal and informal settings. Thus,

the research literature continues to have gaps in differentiating the effectiveness of

informal and formal mentoring. Fortunately, this CCM model can assist in future studies

as researchers can apply it as a grounded approach in different mentoring settings.

Lastly, developing a CCM model for those who want to serve as mentors to

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators provides program evaluation and

adjustments opportunities. Adedokun (2014) advised that continued research on

mentoring aids in designing and implementing organizational mentoring programs. Thus,

institutions, programs, and departments can build upon the current theoretical model of

CCM by exploring the theory in the context of their unique academic climate. Moreover,

Waller and Shofoluwe (2013) proposed that future research on mentoring can guide

administrative decisions to invest in minority faculty development initiatives.

216

Implementing the CACREP standard to recruit and retain racially systematically and

ethnically diverse counselor educators dramatically depends on the amount of

institutional and administrative support for CCM frameworks like this current study. It is

advantageous for counselor educators to implement this CCM model and continue to

explore applications of CCM to provide leadership and administration with evidence for

sustainable organizational change.

Implications

The development of a theory for CCM racially and ethnically diverse counselor

educators has social change and social justice implications. Smith et al. (2008) explained

that social advocacy is a responsibility of counselors, educators, and supervisors; they

instructed counselor educators to conduct research that promotes social justice.

Therefore, the CCM theory established in this study aims to alleviate some of the

challenges racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators face in their professional

development. The application of a CCM theory will combat our current traumatic social

structures such as racism, acculturation, prejudice, sexism, and ethnocentrism. This study

marks the beginning of a systematic mentoring approach senior faculty mentors with

power and privilege can use to address inequities in the current academic environment.

Rorrer (2009) clarified that CCM is inevitable due to the underrepresentation of

racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty. Thus, it is necessary to

prepare the existing faculty to serve as cross-cultural mentors. Srisuppak (2021)

recommended that White counselors experience exposure-centered training on diversity

during their graduate-level education to gain professional development in Multicultural

217

Orientation Frameworks. Similarly, at the doctoral and faculty level, Caucasian counselor

education faculty continue to learn about diversity and the need for social change by

interacting with different cultures through CCM. Rorrer (2009) shared that knowledge is

needed to train mentors in establishing and maintaining cross-cultural relationships

because faculty-to-faculty mentorship influences faculty-to-student mentorship and the

ability to groom graduate students into the academy. Tools such as this theoretical model

can increase CCM for racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators as now senior

Caucasian faculty have a methodology to implement. Also, the mass implementation of

CCM demonstrates a commitment to diversity and social change to students. The field of

counselor education must get to the point where CCM is normality and not a necessity.

The current theory of CCM has global implications for research. Gerstein and

Ægisdottir (2007) advised that a mentor with international research experience helps

scrutinize cultural biases in interpreting findings to non-American countries. The

researchers endorsed that Americans conducting international research solicit input from

persons abroad who know the topic under investigation as it creates additional validity in

the study. The current model of CCM is a means of establishing international research

networks since the international faculty and doctoral student mentees are members of

these cultural communities. CCM builds the connections needed to understand and gain

access to different countries. Moreover, CCM can encourage new research and social

change initiatives within the mentees’ culture or nation of origin.

Universities, institutions, and academic departments benefit from the application

of systematic CCM. Researchers warn about the harmful effects of academic cloning

218

during CCM in which the mentees are unable to incorporate their cultural values into

their academic work or professional development (Lewis & Olshansky, 2016; Rorrer,

2009). Rorrer (2009) described that a component of advocacy in CCM is the mentor’s

role in limiting “academic cloning” and the inability of the junior counselor educator to

voice cultural concerns freely (p.15). Ending academic cloning and the devaluation of

racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators’ lived experiences creates social

change at the university level. Additionally, social change at the departmental and

institutional levels creates local and global change opportunities as more cultural groups

express their voices. Advocacy, empowerment, and cultural empathy were significant

factors in the cross-cultural mentoring relationship that formed a healthy working alliance

(Rorrer, 2009). Thus, working towards a shared social change goal brought the mentors

and mentees closer together. A participant in the current study provided evidence for this

dynamic. The mentor took mentees to help with disaster relief efforts in her country of

origin, and the experience was pivotal to their mentoring relationships.

Furthermore, senior faculty mentors with power and privilege who empower

mentees to be themselves and show cultural humility create trust with mentees who might

have held hesitancy to engage in CCM. Participating in CCM and gaining exposure to

individuals from different cultures can dispel negative stereotypes. Participants in this

study shared that they encourage other colleagues to participate in CCM due to the

rewarding experiences working with different cultures. Hence, social change at the

individual level provides possibilities for those with positive experiences with CCM to

promote the mentoring approach to colleagues and leadership.

219

Lastly, there are CCM and advocacy implications for CACREP because of this

study. Pieterse et al. (2009) encouraged counselor educators to advocate for accreditation

standards to include “clearer and more focused” social justice principles (p.112). Thus,

cross-cultural mentors and mentees can approach CACREP proposing the inclusion of

CCM as a standard for all accredited programs to employ racially and ethnically diverse

counselor educators. Accordingly, the current model of CCM is a tool immediately

available to meet the goal of mentoring these counselor educators for recruitment and

retention. The Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies delegate

counselor educators to take concrete action towards social change and advocacy (Fisher-

Borne et al., 2015; Ratts et al., 2016). We must move beyond awareness of the need for

more racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators and use systematic models such

as the current theory of CCM to get them into positions at CACREP-accredited programs.

Conclusions

This study sought to develop a theory of CCM that is grounded in the best

practices of those who mentor racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators.

Interview data from six current cross-cultural mentors yielded accounts of the knowledge,

skills, and attitudes necessary for competent cross-cultural mentoring. Participants'

experiences converged into descriptions of the CCM environment, actions mentors

perform inside and outside the mentoring relationship, qualities that competent cross-

cultural mentors possess, and various ways to initiate a cross-cultural mentoring

relationship. The final theoretical model of CCM showcases a systematic approach to

mentoring that senior faculty with power and privilege can implement to support the

220

professional development of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators. This

model of CCM is a tool immediately available to meet the CACREP goal of recruiting,

employing, and retaining diverse faculty. Thus, the application of the CCM model has

implications for positive social change in university policies, departmental cultures,

future CACREP standards, and international research. Moreover, counselor educators can

use this CCM theory to challenge more significant social issues such as racism,

acculturation, prejudice, sexism, and ethnocentrism. The findings of this study further

support moving counselor education towards comprehensive steps to increasing the

representation of racially and ethnically diverse counselor education faculty.

Cross-cultural mentoring of racially and ethnically diverse counselor educators; A grounded theory study.

Students also viewed