Black Women Community College Professors’ Perceptions of Relational Mentoring and Achieving Tenure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This interpretative phenomenological study used theoretical and conceptual frameworks based on critical race theory and relational cultural theory. The purpose was to analyze and understand the perceptions of seven tenured Black women community college professors regarding relational mentoring, navigating barriers, and achieving tenure at a large public university system in the northeastern United States. The underrepresentation of Black women faculty members can be attributed to factors that affect the tenure process, including: gendered racism, social isolation, unreceptive and alienating campus climates, lack of access to research opportunities, discredited scholarly research, increased teaching and service committee assignments, and lack of mentoring. Based on the findings of this study, mentoring and networking programs can help to address and eliminate barriers, and provide support and access to Black women community college faculty members, as well as contribute to the recruitment and retention of minority faculty members. For institutional leaders, this research offers insight into the plight of Black women community college professors as they navigate a tenure process that represents institutional and organizational norms that are entrenched in systemic racism and sexism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".