Author: Kristi Verbeke

The study highlighted in our newsletter this issue examined the nature of mentoring in a doctoral program at the University of Hawaii. As the authors note, mentoring has been associated with many positive outcomes for both mentors and mentees and has the potential to contribute to positive institutional outcomes. Using focus groups and follow-up discussions, this particular study looked at differences between protégés, peer mentors, and faculty mentors in terms of how they defined the mentoring relationship, their experiences with mentoring, and the outcomes of those mentoring experiences.

Definitions

The three groups had similar ideas about the definition of mentoring; however their definitions became more broad and sophisticated from with each level (protégé to peer mentor to faculty mentor). All three agreed that many different types of individuals could serve as a mentor (advisor, peer, professor), that mentors should serve as a guide for mentees, and that the relationship should be reciprocal. However, while protégés tended to define mentors solely as a guide in their professional development, peer and faculty mentors expanded this definition, emphasizing the development of a relationship which benefits both parties. Additionally, faculty mentors also stressed developing future needs of their protégés.

Experiences
After analyzing stories about the mentoring experience, the researchers identified six themes across all three groups. First, all participants emphasized the importance of a quality relationship between mentor and mentee. Second, mentors were motivating, providing support and encouragement to their mentees. Third, mentors helped their mentees transition from student to professional. The authors coined this “socialization into the profession.” Fourth, mentors offered instruction and ensured their mentees gained essential knowledge and skills. Fifth, mentors made available opportunities and connections for mentees that they otherwise would not have had on their own. And sixth, mentors bestowed guidance and advice beyond the typical advising role.

Outcomes
Finally, the authors asked participants to identify outcomes which they attributed to the mentoring relationship. These fell into two categories: procedural and learning. Examples of procedural outcomes cited included program admission, degree requirement completion, and degree completion. Learning outcomes such as knowledge of subject matter, professional activities (teaching, conference presentations), and publishing were also identified by mentees as resulting from the mentoring relationship.

Conclusion
This study suggests that both mentors and mentees find value in a mentoring relationship and feel it helps further the development of doctoral students. While informal mentoring often happens at the graduate level, departments might find it beneficial to explore the establishment of formal mentor programs between doctoral students and faculty.

References
Noonan, M. J., Ballinger, R., & Black, R. (2007). Peer and faculty mentoring in doctoral education: Definitions, experiences, and expectations. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 251-262.

Kristi Verbeke, MEd
Associate Director, Office for Teaching & Learning
af5315@wayne.edu
(313) 577-6448