Seema L. Clifasefi, PhD, MSW, Division 50 (Society of Addiction Psychology), writes about “Promoting Underrepresented Minorities in Psychology (PUMP): Developing an Interdivisional Approach to Mentoring of Underrepresented Psychological Scientists,” which received a grant of $8,500.
Division leaders are encouraged to submit an Interdivisional Grant Program proposal by the September 1 deadline.
Despite efforts to increase diversity in the field of psychology, people from historically marginalized communities remain underrepresented in the psychological workforce (American Psychological Association, 2020). For example, only 7.2% of psychology PhDs (across subfields) conferred in 2019 were awarded to Black, 8.2% to Latinx, and 0.4% to Indigenous individuals (National Science Foundation, 2020), groups that account for 13.4%, 18.5%, and 1.3% of the U.S. population, respectively (United States Census Bureau, 2020). Rates worsen in the transition into the workforce, where less than 20% of the working psychology population are persons of color (American Psychological Association, 2020).
Not unlike other professional disciplines, we have significant trouble both recruiting and retaining URM professionals in the field of psychology. This lack of diversity across psychology is concerning because it means that our profession is not reflective of the communities we aim to serve. These issues are often discussed in terms of the “leaky pipeline,” wherein we lose bright, qualified URM scientists at every step of the process. The reasons for such leaks are variable yet systemic. Underrepresented minority people are less likely to report adequate financial, peer social, and supervisorial support, explicit (e.g., overt discrimination) and implicit (e.g., microaggressions) racism, and lack of belongingness (Callahan et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2012; Stockard et al., 2021). Underrepresented people on average produce more ‘innovative’ work but are cited at lower rates (Hofstra et al., 2020); the now-infamous “Ginther report” confirmed that Black researchers continue to face institutionalized problems in obtaining NIH funding (Ginther et al., 2011). Perhaps among the clearest examples of systematic racism in recent years is the well-documented finding that resumes with traditionally-White names were more likely to receive call backs and interviews compared to those with traditionally-Black names, despite being otherwise equivalent (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004).
Fixing these issues will require sustained engagement from individuals who are committed to doing this hard work to address decades of discrimination that has permeated the academy. We have a professional responsibility to work to remedy these issues that lead to disparities and, as such, urgently need to employ a variety of approaches to help prevent this attrition, and support URM scientists’ success. We believe dedicated, systematic, and comprehensive mentorship is one of many avenues to help counteract the “leaky pipeline.”
In partnership with our colleagues across APA, we developed Promoting Underrepresented Minorities in Psychology (pump). PUMP is a comprehensive and formalized system of mentorship to increase representation of underrepresented professionals in psychology. The project, generously funded by the Committee on Division/APA Relations (CODAPAR) Interdivisional Grant Program, was a collaboration between Division 12 (Society of Clinical Psychology), Division 28 (Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse), Division 45 (The Society for the Psychological Study of Culture, Ethnicity, and Race), and led by Division 50 (Society of Addiction Psychology).
Pump, in many ways, mirrors the peer review process. The funding provided by the CODAPAR Interdivisional Grant Program was used to purchase access to a manuscript submission portal, which was restructured to fit the needs of our project. Through PUMP, underrepresented people in psychology (“mentees”) can submit a request for review/mentorship. Much like the peer review process, the mentee is asked to include topic keywords (similar to classifications used by journals) in order to match them with a qualified scientist in a specific topic area. Facilitators (i.e., designated representatives from each sponsoring division) then send requests to one of the many eager mentors that have signed up to provide mentorship. Much like receive a peer review request, mentors can decide whether they have the expertise and bandwidth to adequately provide mentoring services at the current time. All mentors have joined according to their interest in providing services free of charge and free of coauthorship expectations, minimizing the potential for conflict and/or power differentials between mentors and mentees.
Mentees can request “formal” review (which more closely mirrors the peer review process) of a manuscript, grant idea, graduate school applications, etc. Mentees can also request “informal” mentorship in which PUMP simply facilitates connecting the mentee with an eager mentor who meet with the mentee on agreed upon terms until the goals of the mentorship relationship have been accomplished. This is not only a service for students; people seeking feedback on job applications or advice on transitioning from early- to mid-career, for example, can submit requests for mentorship from anyone above their career stage. During the CODAPAR funding period, we focused on designing the framework and submission portal and establishing feasibility and acceptability. We have accumulated 146 mentors and have facilitated mentorship for 18 mentees during the pilot phase as we have tweaked and optimized the platform. The portal is now open for submissionsopens in new window.
We were thrilled when we learned about the CODAPAR Interdivisional Grant mechanism because we felt this project was directly aligned with APA’s strategic vision (“A strong, diverse, and unified psychology that enhances knowledge and improves the human condition”) and the guiding principles to champion diversity and inclusion and to lead by example. We also feel that if our application of the journal peer review model is successful, this approach could be scaled and replicated across APA divisions. We also suspect this could serve as a model for other fields as well, and APA would once again “lead by example.” The application process and grant writing were smooth, in part because we are passionate about mentorship and representation and felt that ample compelling evidence of the issue had accumulated to compel action. We reached out to our friends and colleagues in various Divisions that we had relationships with to help with the grant writing, platform design, and to serve as the inaugural board members and facilitators. The APA facilitated CODAPAR sessions were helpful in allowing for strategic connections with other leaders interested in this area and we would encourage anyone thinking about submitting a proposal to bring their ideas to these meetings and/or put it out on the interdivisional listserv to ascertain who else might be interested in collaborating on future proposals. If your division is interested in participating in PUMP and/or providing this mentorship model as a resource/tool for your members, please check out our PUMP siteopens in new window and contact Samuel Acuff, PhD, for further information.