Success and impact metrics in science are based on a system that perpetuates sexist and racist ‘rewards’ through prioritizing citations and impact factors. These metrics are flawed and biased against already marginalized groups and fail to accurately capture the breadth of individuals’ meaningful scientific impacts. We advocate shifting this outdated value system to advance science through principles of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We outline pathways for a paradigm shift in academic values based on multidimensional mentorship and promoting mentee wellbeing. These actions will require collective efforts supported by academic leaders and administrators to drive essential systemic change.

Before COVID-19, post-secondary learning was dominated by in-person, institution-organized meetings. With the March 12, 2020 lockdown, learning became virtual, largely dependent on commercial online platforms. Already more likely to experience anxiety and depression in re-lation to their research work, perhaps no students have endured more regarding the limitations imposed by COVID-19 on their mentorship and supervision than graduate students. The in-crease in mental health issues facing graduate students has come to the attention of their post-secondary institutions. Programs have been devised with the aim of reducing these chal-lenges. However, the additional attention and funds to combat depression and anxiety have not shown anticipated results. A new approach to mitigate anxiety and depression in graduate students through mentorship and supervision is warranted. Offered here is an award-winning model featuring self-directed learning in a community based on consensus decision-making where consensus represents the adding together of different points of view rather than agreement. The approach is non-hierarchical in structure, based in narrative research. The proposed model and approach are presented and limitations considered. This model and approach are offered as a likely solution to ebb the increase in anxiety and depression in graduate stu-dents—particularly in response to COVID-19.

Recent years have seen organizations increasingly shift towards the development of a mentoring culture, as opposed to the imposition of formalized mentoring programs. This original research paper set out to explore the utility of fostering mentoring cultures within higher education settings with a particular emphasis placed on the ways in which a mentoring culture may support the nurturing of leadership potential and serve underrepresented minority faculty and staff members. Primary data was gathered using an open-ended qualitative survey, which was followed up by semi-structured interviews. One hundred faculty members in diverse academic and administrative leadership roles across the United States were sent online surveys, with 18 individuals expressing interest in participating in a semi-structured interview. Those who responded affirmatively were then contacted via telephone to follow up with further questions. Analysis of their insights, in conjunction with analysis of other literature, suggests that the cultivation of a mentoring culture offers diverse benefits for mentees advancing into leadership positions; for mentors; and for the institution as a whole. Overall, the development of a mentoring culture characterized by informal, spontaneous exchanges, and tailored to the needs of underrepresented minority faculty members, appears to be a useful tool in enhancing leadership potential in higher education contexts.

Scientists who are interested in building research programs at primarily-undergraduate institutions (PUIs) have unique considerations compared to colleagues at research-intensive (R1) institutions. Maintaining a research program at a PUI holds unique challenges that should be considered before prospective faculty go on the job market, as they negotiate a job offer, and after they begin a new position. In this article we describe some of the considerations that aspiring and newly hired faculty should keep in mind as they plan out how they will set up a laboratory as a new Principle Investigator (PI) at a PUI. Anyone hoping to start a research program at a PUI should understand both the timeframe of interviews, job offers, and negotiations and the challenges and rewards of working with undergraduate researchers. Once a job is offered, candidates should be aware of the range of negotiable terms that can be part of a start-up package. Space and equipment considerations are also important, and making the most of shared spaces, existing infrastructure, and deals can extend the purchasing power of start-up funds as a new PIs builds their lab. PUIs’ focus on undergraduate education and mentorship leads to important opportunities for collaboration, funding, and bringing research projects directly into undergraduate teaching laboratories. A major focus of any new laboratory leader must be on building a productive, equitable, and supportive laboratory community. Equitable onboarding, mentorship plans, and formalized expectations, can all help build a productive and sustainable laboratory research program. However, important considerations about safety, inclusion, student schedules, and a PI’s own professional commitments are also extremely important concerns when working with undergraduates in research. A successful research program at a PUI will bring students into meaningful scientific inquiry and requires insights and skills that are often not the focus of scientific training. This article aims to describe the scope of setting up a new laboratory as a way to alleviate some of the burden that new and prospective faculty often feel.