1.
Introduction
This paper presents the results of a review of
mentoring papers that appeared in leading Higher Education
journals in the past ten years. Over the past years, new
dynamics have emerged in the context of higher education
globally that have created both expectations and aspirations
towards supportive mechanisms of early career researchers’
(ECRs) professional development. In this paper, ECRs are
defined as researchers in academia with
less than 10 years of experience from the start of their PhD
studies, congruent with the definition used by the European
Commission.
Why is mentoring an important topic in relation
to ECRs? Internationally, ECRs in academia are challenged as
regards access to resources, supportive interactions and
lack of transparent career prospectives (the European
Commision 2011). Related to this is the underlying pressure
experienced by ECRs in terms of their opportunities for
research and development (Sauermann & Roach, 2012;
Åkerlind, 2005; Vitae, 2011) and international mobility
(Jepsen et al. 2014; Mellors-Bourne et al., 2013; Kehm,
2007) required to enhance their career prospects and secure
stable positions. Moreover, academic workplaces have been
transformed; that in turn, has lengthened the learning
trajectories of ECRs (Bonetta, 2011) and made them in some
respects more complex (Shuster, 2009).
The above reports have pointed out the learning
challenges ECRs perceive in developing their intellectual
independence and scholarly profiles (Gardner, 2008 for
doctoral students; Laudel & Glaser, 2008 for postdocs).
These reports also make relatively frequent mention of the
value of mentors and mentoring (Mullen & Forbes, 2000;
Hemmings, 2012) as do reports of institutional practices to
support ECRs (Debowski, 2012). In this context, mentoring
broadly can be situated in an array of complex supportive
mechanisms including co-working and networking that lead to
ECRs’ personal development, adaptation and integration as
members of their scholarly community (e.g., Baker et al.,
2014). On the one hand, this includes informal mentoring
through interactions between academics at different career
stages. On the other hand, this includes formal mentoring
programmes organised and structured at the institutional
level.
The role of mentoring in relation to ECRs
corresponds to the more general literature on mentoring
which focuses on ‘career’ and ‘psychosocial’ functions as
the two major functions of support between mentors and
mentees, contributing to (1) increasing the chances for
promotion and higher salaries, building a network of
professional collaborators (career function) as well as (2)
achieving higher levels of confidence and social skills
(psychosocial function) (Ragins & Kram, 2007). Not only
the specific function of mentoring, but also the
organisation in which mentoring takes place might also have
a significant effect on how mentoring is carried out, and
which outcomes of mentoring are experienced. It is the
specific higher education context we are interested in, and
how mentoring gets discussed in the higher education
literature as regards ECRs. Four specific aims were
formulated for the review.
First of all, we wondered the extent to which
ECR mentoring was conceptually constituted since a review on
mentoring spanning 30 years of formal mentoring programs in
the fields of education, business and medicine (Ehrich et
al., 2004) noted the absence of conceptual frameworks. So,
we undertook to explore the conceptual tools and definitions
used in the post-Ehrich literature on ECR mentoring,
starting from 2005. Secondly, not only were we interested in
the definitions and conceptual frameworks used by scholars,
but we also wished to document the methodological tools they
used to measure the impact of their definitions of
mentoring.
Thirdly, we also analysed the extent to which
empirical evidence would provide insight into how best to
support ECRs’ development, i.e., what to avoid, since Ehrich
et al. (2004) had reported some negative consequences
related to, for instance, the lack of training of mentors or
mismatch of expertise or personality. There was also some
evidence, again from non-higher education contexts (Eby,
2008), that the effects of mentoring could be quite small. This led us to explore the nature of the
evidence that would suggest mentoring could be a solution
for the existing problems with career development and
retention of ECRs, in particular whether mentoring could be used as
a tool that contributes to ECRs’ professional development,
including their competence (Linden et al., 2013) and
professional confidence in a range of key academic
practices.
Finally, this review analysis aimed to identify
gaps in the current literature and to explore the
recommendations scholars have made for future research. In
other words, our goal was to provide a research agenda for
further inquiry into mentoring in relation to ECRs.
2.
Research question
Our overall question
was ‘What does the
ECR literature-research say about mentoring?’ Specific
research questions, summarizing the aims in the previous
four paragraphs were:
·
What is the range of
ways in which ECR mentoring is defined or conceptually
presented?
·
What methodological
tools are used, i.e., the range of ways in which mentoring
is measured?
·
What evidence (or
counter evidence) is there of the value of ECR mentoring?
·
To what extent does the
literature point to future research?
The answers to these
questions provided a means to assess the extent to which
mentoring was a robust workable construct in examining ECR
experience.
3.
Method
Scope of review: As we undertook the study, we noted two
related fields of study on mentoring, mentioned in the
introduction:
·
The informal field of
learning and acquiring research skills from interactions
with more experienced researchers usually working in the
same context
·
The structured,
institutionalized programs of mentoring which are designed
to support the needs of special groups like women, newly
hired staff, or minority groups if they were directed at
ECR.
Search process: In terms of the scope of the review, we
decided to include journal articles published in the ISI top
ranked Higher Education journals in the past 10 years only
(2005-2014) as these are supposed to be the most influential
ones in the field. Papers had to be published post-Ehrich
review, that is 2004. We reviewed papers that appeared in Higher
Education, Journal of Higher Education, Research
in Higher Education, Review of Higher Education,
and Studies in Higher Education. These journals were
likely the ones that HE researchers, developers and policy
makers would go to in seeking information about ECR
mentoring. We also included the International Journal
for Academic Development and International Journal
for Researcher Development since these two journals
are highly referenced in the field of academic development
and thus need to be taken into account in an academic
development-related review exercise. While the review has
been limited to these journals, we feel confident in having
made a sound selection of the major journals in the field.
The keywords ‘mentor(ing)’ combined with ‘early
career researchers’, ‘post-docs’, ‘doctoral students’, and
variants had to appear in the title and/or the abstract of
the article. We distributed the search task amongst the
group of authors, with the search producing 23 papers. The
distribution of papers according to journals can be found in
Table 1, full references of the 23 papers are included in
the reference list at the end of the paper.
Analysis: The analysis framework drew upon Boote and
Beile’s (2005) literature review scoring rubric, which they
developed based on Hart’s (1999) previous work. The five
review categories Boote and Beile constructed are (1)
coverage (reasons for inclusion or exclusion), (2) synthesis
(state of the field, ambiguities, new perspectives), (3)
methodology (methodologies and research techniques), (4)
significance (practical and scholarly significance) and (5)
rhetoric (level of coherence and structure). Boote and
Beile’s work was specifically undertaken to increase
scholar’s awareness of the literature review stage of a
research project and is well-cited.
In order to synthesize the selected literature,
we created an Excel file with the following expanded
sub-categories of all but the last category in Boote and
Beile’s (2005) rubric: (1) nature of the article: empirical
or theoretical, (2) gap identified by authors, (3) question
or purpose of the article, (4) conceptual framework for
study, (5) pedagogical intervention (if there was one), (6)
data collection method, (7) sample and nature of
participants (8) country, disciplines (9) key empirical
findings, if any (10) conceptual representation of results
(11) practical and pedagogical implications (given our
interest in ECR development), (12) suggestions for future
research, (13) core references used by authors, and (14)
reviewers notes/critique. In general, it can be argued that
the sequence from exploring the literature, identifying a
gap, spelling out research questions, explaining
methodology, explaining and discussing results, and drawing
conclusions with recommendations for future policy and
practice, is perceived as a standard structure following
which social sciences journal articles are written (see
Shon, 2012). This structure is also reflected in the
sequence of our four research questions, focussing on (1)
conceptual frameworks and definitions, (2) methodological
approaches, (3) empirical evidence and (4) recommendations
for future research.
The articles were distributed across the group
of authors. We each read and then summarized the papers;
each author separately wrote a description of the emerging
findings and his/her interpretation of them. These were used
by two of the authors to create a first draft of the
findings and conclusions. The draft was then reviewed and
edited by the other authors.
Table 1:
Papers
included in review (journals listed in alphabetic order)
|
JOURNAL |
YEAR |
AUTHORS |
TITLE |
COUNTRY |
ARTICLE
KEYWORDS |
|
Higher
Education |
2014 |
Lechuga |
A motivation
perspective on faculty mentoring: the notion of
‘‘non-intrusive’’ mentoring practices in science and
engineering |
US |
Faculty Mentoring Motivation Discipline |
|
|
2014 |
van der Weijden,
Belder, van Arensbergen & van den Besselaar |
How do young
tenured professors benefit from a mentor? Effects on
management, motivation and performance. |
The
Netherlands |
Mentorship Academic
careers Research
management Human resources Motivation Performance |
|
|
2011 |
Bell &
Treleaven |
Looking for
Professor Right: mentee selection of mentors in a
formal mentoring program. |
Australia |
Academic
development Flexible mentoring Mentor-mentee choice Pairing
process |
|
|
2011 |
Lechuga |
Faculty-graduate
student mentoring relationships: mentors’ perceived
roles and responsibilities. |
US |
Faculty Graduate
students Mentoring Higher
education |
|
|
2011 |
Scaffidi &
Berman |
A positive
postdoctoral experience is related to quality
supervision and career mentoring, collaborations,
networking and a nurturing research environment. |
Australia |
Postdocs Mentoring Collaborations
Networking Research
environment |
|
International
Journal for Academic Development |
2012 |
Saito |
When a
practitioner becomes a university faculty member: a
review of literature on the challenges faced by
novice ex-practitioner teacher educators. |
- |
Professional
development Faculty member Ex-practitioner Teacher
educator |
|
|
2012 |
Weaver,
Robbie, Kokonis & Miceli |
Collaborative
scholarship as a means of improving both university
teaching practice and research capability. |
Australia |
Academic
development Mentoring Scholarship of
teaching and learning |
|
|
2011 |
Cox |
The impact of
communities of practice in support of early-career
academics. |
US |
Early-career
academics Academic
development program Transformative
learning Community of practice Faculty learning
community |
|
|
2011 |
Remmik, Karm
Haamer & Lepp |
Early-career
academics’ learning in academic communities. |
Estonia |
Early career
academics Professional learning Professional
identity Community of
practice |
|
|
2010 |
Hubball,
Clarke & Poole |
Ten‐year
reflections on mentoring SoTL research in a research‐intensive
university. |
Canada |
Mentoring Scholarship of
teaching and learning (SoTL) SoTL research
outcomes |
|
|
2009 |
Foote &
Solem |
Toward better
mentoring for early career faculty: results of a
study of US geographers. |
US |
Early career
faculty Mentoring Doctoral
education |
|
|
2008 |
Kamvounias,
McGrath‐Champ & Yip |
‘Gifts’ in
mentoring: mentees' reflections on an academic
development program. |
Australia |
Mentee Mentor Mentoring Gift |
|
|
2005 |
Mathias |
Mentoring on a
Programme for New University Teachers: A partnership
in revitalizing and empowering collegiality. |
UK |
- |
|
International
Journal for Researcher Development |
2014 |
Baker,
Pifer& Griffin |
Mentor-protégé
fit. |
US |
Mentoring Mentor-protégé
fit Doctoral education Student–faculty
mentoring relationships Academic
identity |
|
|
2014 |
Browning,
Thompson & Dawson |
Developing
future research leaders. |
Australia |
Early career
researchers Researcher development Evaluation Research
leaders Track record |
|
Studies in
Higher Education |
2013 |
Gilmore,
Maher, Feldon & Timmerman |
Exploration of
factors related to the development of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate
teaching assistants' teaching orientations. |
US |
Graduate
teaching assistant Teaching
orientation Teacher
beliefs Graduate
student education Graduate
student development Graduate
student mentoring |
|
|
2011 |
Lindén, Ohlin
& Brodin |
Mentorship,
supervision and learning experience in PhD
education. |
Sweden |
Mentorship PhD students PhD
supervision Learning
outcomes Professional
development |
|
|
2010 |
Hopwood |
Doctoral
experience and learning from a sociocultural
perspective. |
UK |
Doctoral
education Doctoral
practices Academic
practice Sociocultural
perspectives doctoral study |
|
|
2008 |
Kamler |
Rethinking
doctoral publication practices: writing from and
beyond the thesis. |
Australia |
- |
|
The Journal
of Higher Education |
2012 |
Noy & Ray |
Graduate
Students' Perceptions of Their Advisors: Is There
Systematic Disadvantage in Mentorship? |
US |
- |
|
|
2009 |
Patton |
My Sister’s
Keeper: A Qualitative Examination of Mentoring
ExperiencesAmong African American Women in Graduate
and Professional Schools |
US |
- |
|
The Review
of Higher Education |
2014 |
Main |
Gender
Homophily, Ph.D. Completion, and Time to Degree in
the Humanities and Humanistic Social Sciences. |
US |
- |
|
|
2013 |
O’Meara,
Knudsen & Jones |
The Role of
Emotional Competencies in Faculty-Doctoral Student
Relationships. |
US |
- |
4.
Results
As stated above, the main aim of this paper is
to generate insight into the current academic literature on
ECR mentoring; the findings are structured around the four
research questions.
4.1
What is the range of ways in which ECR
mentoring is defined or conceptually presented?
In order to answer this question, we first
explored the nature of the articles, the gaps identified by
the authors and the specific research questions in these
papers, as these elements could be expected to be related to
the conceptual frameworks and definitions authors had drawn
upon in developing their research study.
Nature of articles:
Our initial search of the journals confirmed Ehrich’s (2004)
outcome that while mentoring was frequently referred to, it
was rarely studied.
In fact, we found more articles that referred to mentoring
than those which studied mentoring as the core business of
their research project. Of the 23 articles that studied
mentoring and formed the basis of the review, 19 were
empirical studies, four (Mathias, 2005; Kamvounias et al,
2008; Hubball et al., 2010; Bell & Treveanor, 2011) of
which evaluated programs that had a mentoring element. Four
articles were non-empirical in nature (Baker et al., 2014;
Cox, 2013; Saito, 2013; Weave et al., 2013).
Gap identified:
In examining the ‘gap’ that the authors were attempting to
address, we noted that a definitional representation of
mentoring was rare. For instance, most of the studies
addressing doctoral experience used as a starting point that
the supervisor (referred to as advisor in the US) was
equivalent to a mentor, though Baker et al. (2014) noted the
ambiguity in the roles of supervisor, advisor, and mentor.
So, while half of the studies explicitly named the ‘gap’ as
the need to understand mentoring better, most appeared to
assume a shared understanding of mentoring between authors
and readers with the focus of each study mainly directed to
a given situation in a specific context, e.g., support for
teaching assistants.
Question/purpose:
The research questions underlying the studies were
formulated to answer question about (1) experiences of
mentoring and (2) mentoring relationships. The bulk of the
studies (Kamler, 2008; Patton, 2009; Hopwood, 2009; Lechuga,
2011; Baker et al., 2012; Noy & Ray, 2012; Gilmore et
al., 2013; Linden et al., 2013; Main, 2014) addressed
mentoring in the context of doctoral education, answering a
wide range of research questions in relation to career
advice, teaching and supervisory relationships. This group
was followed by a substantial minority on mentoring related
to teaching development with reference to ECRs, though not
necessarily defining who they were in terms of their length
of research or academic experience. Lastly, only one
addressed postdoctoral experience (Scaffidi & Berman,
2011).
In general, across all papers reviewed, two
main purposes were thus found. (1) Many articles focused on
gaining better insight into the way ECRs experience
mentoring and whether they get something out of it in terms
of their own learning process and professional development.
Examples include Patton’s article (2009) on experiences of
African American women in academia, Kamler’s research (2008)
on mentoring experiences in relation to academic writing, or
Mathias’ paper (2005) on specific mentoring experiences in
relation to participation in the Postgraduate Certificate of
Academic Practice (the UK’s officially recognised Higher
Education teaching qualification). (2) Another cluster of
papers focused on the specific relationships that
are being built between mentors and mentees. For instance,
Lechuga (2011) focused on mentors’ responsibilities and the
relationships they built with faculty-graduate students.
Kamvanious et al’s research (2008) explored the idea of
‘gifts’ in mentoring, and how mentees want to give something
back to their mentors. Research by O’Meara et al. (2013)
explored the ‘emotional landscape’ of relationships between
mentors/advisors and doctoral students.
Conceptual frame
and core references: Having identified the nature, gaps and
purposes of these articles, the next step was to explore the
conceptual frameworks used by these authors. In general,
conceptual framing of the studies in relation specifically
to mentoring was minimal.
Rather, papers tended to draw on general theories of
learning and faculty development largely rooted in
socio-constructivist perspectives, e.g., communities of
practice (Cox, 2013), learning (Linden et al., 2013),
emotional competence (O’Meara et al., 2013), scholarship of
teaching (Gilmore et al., 2013; Weave et al., 2013) or were
firmly empirical (e.g.
Mathias et al. 2005; Browning et al., 2014). Two empirical
studies stood out for their efforts to frame mentoring: Van
der Weijden et al. (2004) and Linden et al. (2013). Linden
et al. (2013) used a typology of learning outcomes related
to mentoring in the business context (Lankau and Scandura
2007). Van der Weijden et al. (2014) drew on the
meta-analysis of mentoring programs in a range of fields
referred to earlier (Ehrich et al, 2004). As well, Baker et
al. (2014) in their conceptual paper proposed a model based
on the notion of professional, relational and personal fit,
rather than similarity, between student and supervisor.
Given the diversity of stances taken in these studies, it
was hard to discover a consistent pattern of common core
references to conceptions of mentoring.
To conclude, as a general answer to this
research question, the most striking finding of this
analysis was a confirmation of the findings in the earlier
non-higher education review (Ehrich et al., 2004): the
generally under-conceptualized nature of mentoring in
empirical studies on ECR experience. We would encourage
researchers undertaking future studies of ECR mentoring to
explicitly explore the value of different conceptual
frameworks of mentoring, perhaps beginning with Erich et
al.’s meta-analysis.
4.2
What methodological tools are used, i.e., the
range of ways in which mentoring is measured?
In order to answer this research question, we
explored the specific settings in which data were collected,
by this we mean, the nature of the participants, their
disciplines, the national location of the study, as well as
the ways in which data were collected and analyzed,
distinguishing principally between quantitative and
qualitative methodologies.
Country/disciplines/participants: A majority of the papers represented research
in English-speaking countries, with more in North America
and Australia than in the UK. There were ten North American
(nine US - Gilmore et al., 2013; Foote & Solem, 2009;
Main, 2014; Noy & Ray, 2012; Baker et al., 2014; O'Meara
et al., 2013; Cox, 2011; Lechuga, 2014; Patton, 2009, one
Canada – Hubball et al., 2010); eight Australia and five EU
(three in continental Europe: Sweden – Linden et al., 2013;
The Netherlands – Van der Weijden et al. 2014; Estonia –
Remmik, 2011); two in the UK (Mathias, 2005; Hopwood, 2010).
As to disciplinary context, four focused on STEM fields
(Scaffaldi & Berman, 2011; Gilmore et al., 2013; Van der
Weijden et al., 2014; Lechuga, 2014), one focused
specifically on humanist disciplines (Main, 2014) and the
remainder represented participants from a range of
disciplines, although most within social sciences.
Data
collection/participants: As to the methods, qualitative and mixed
methods were used more than solely quantitative studies.
All, but one, of the quantitative studies were based on
surveys, while Main (2014) conducted an analysis of
pre-existing large data sets. As for the qualitative
studies, the four papers evaluating programs used
semi-structured interviews, student work, program documents
and sometimes focus groups (Hubball et al., 2010; Bell &
Treleaven 2011; Kamvounias et al., 2008; Mathias, 2005). The
other qualitative studies were based on semi-structured
interviews, with one also using focus groups, and another
interviews over time (Kamler, 2008). Of the two mixed
methods studies (Foote & Solem, 2009; Gilmore et al.,
2013), one used interviews which were analyzed both
quantitatively and qualitatively; the other used interviews,
followed by a survey. Participant numbers in the qualitative
studies tended to be quite small though Foote & Solem
(2009) used focus groups with 46 ECRs and Hopwood (2010) 33
in focus groups and interviews. The quantitative studies
also varied considerably in size from 86 (van der Weijden et
al., 2014) to several thousands (Main, 2014).
As a general answer to this research question,
we concluded that while a mix of qualitative and
quantitative approaches were used, most studies (regardless
of the methods) were based on one-time data collection with
small numbers of participants. One study (Kamler, 2008)
stood out in studying participant experience longitudinally
which we view an innovative approach which might be emulated
in future studies. Further, the tools used in the studies
rarely were designed to capture experience related to the
specific mentoring activities under study. We suggest
future studies could develop tools to better capture the
experience of specific elements of mentoring. Lastly, the
majority of studies were based on self-report; future
research might move beyond this way of collecting data.
4.3
What evidence (or counter evidence) is there of
the value of ECR mentoring?
Evidence of the value of mentoring was searched
for in the results and conclusion sections of the papers
under review. Apart from the nature of the results, we also
explored the way in which they were formulated, in order to
search for a conceptual representation of the results, which
could form a strong conceptual basis for future research.
Findings: key
findings (if any), conceptual representation of results
While most papers reported positive experiences
and relationships in mentoring, it is important to recognise
the influence of a range of factors on mentoring: e.g.
Mathias (2005) concluded that mentoring provided within a
postgraduate course resulted in several positive
experiences, though much of the effect depended on the
successful match between mentor and mentee. Still, given the
research was undertaken in different contexts and within
different disciplines, it is difficult to draw an overall
conclusion which indicates either a positive or negative
effect of mentoring. For example, Lechuga (2014) proposes
that some mentoring relations that are acceptable in the
social sciences may be considered “intrusive” in science and
engineering. Still, at first sight, the cumulative results
of these studies would
appear to confirm the earlier non-higher education
literature reviews: Eby et al. (2008) argued that the
effects of mentoring seem quite small, and that mentoring
does not always lead to positive experiences; Ehrich et al.
(2004) that mentoring can, in fact, have negative
consequences. Some authors, like Patton (2009) have already
reflected on the lack of robust conceptual frameworks
emerging from studies of mentoring, such as the emphasis on
the paternal, male representation of mentoring and lack of
critical studies on the topic. We agree that a more critical
attitude is required among researchers in the field.
As a general answer to this research question,
and as noted earlier, there was a stronger focus on the
positive outcomes of mentoring rather than any negative
ones. Given that the earlier reviews also noted this, a key
aspect of any future research needs to be a careful seeking
after possible negative effects as well as whether the
effects are worth the time and money invested. To continue
to propagate the notion that mentoring is important for ECR
success without sufficient evidence seems
counter-productive. Further analysis of both short-term and
long-term effects of mentoring on ECR development as well as
the existing challenges is recommended. Furthermore, apart
from trying to position mentoring as something ‘positive
versus negative’, it might be worthwhile to control for a
wide range of other factors such as age, gender, subject,
type of university, etc., in order to account for other
direct or indirect effects of mentoring experiences and
relationships.
4.4
To what extent does the literature point to
future research?
The papers pointed towards the future in two
ways. On the one hand, several papers made recommendations
for future policy and practice, which were mainly
concentrated around actions to increase the importance of
mentoring and awareness of what good mentoring among mentors
consists of. Both Foote and Solem (2009) and Gilmore et al.
(2013) reflected on the notion of inclusiveness and
involvement of mentors in their mentoring practices with
students. Baker et al. (2014) recommended having more
advanced reflections on the fit between doctoral students
and the supervisor in order to increase the effectiveness of
mentoring. As well, apart from reflecting on what needed to
happen in future mentoring, some papers formulated
recommendations for future research, such as the need for a
better understanding of what is causing good
mentoring (Kamvounias et al., 2008; Noy & Ray, 2012;
O’Meara et al., 2013; Baker et al., 2014; Van der Weijden et
al., 2014), as well as the need to enlarge research in
terms of countries
and disciplines (Patton, 2009; Bell & Treveaven,
2011). As a general answer to this research question, we
suggest there is room for conducting further research on
mentoring, in a broader and more diversified way than it has
been conducted until now.
5.
Significance
We undertook this review to assess the state of
the literature on ECR mentoring in the past 10 years,
post-Ehrich (2004) review, to provide a base for future
inquiry. We also wanted to consider possible policy
implications since the EU has created an imperative for
institutions to address the career development needs of
post-docs/ early career researchers within the Bologna
Strategy, the result of which has been a proliferation of
institutional mentoring.
We conclude there is much research still to be done
that can better inform our conceptualization and
implementation of ECR mentoring support and the
development of mentoring programs.
Below we make specific recommendations for future research
drawn from our review.
A future research agenda
We suggest a key goal is a more robust
conceptualisation of ECR mentoring including a well-defined
representation of the learning process. It should include at a
minimum, starting with the recommendations at the top of this
list:
·
Examine the theoretical
awareness of mentoring (including organisational and
individual obstacles) that exist among ECRs and their
mentors. These findings would help to capture the complexity
of ECR mentoring support.
·
Study ECRs who are
actively engaged in structuring informal learning situations
that meet their specific needs at different times, and that
as mentees they are free to choose one or more mentors. This
fits with the idea of mentoring as support towards
self-organisation and self-development, in which early
career researchers gain the skills to grow towards
independence (Gardner, 2008; Laudel & Glaser, 2008).
·
Further examine the
effects of mentorship relationships by looking at different
elements of mentoring (especially the functions of
mentoring), since there is evidence of some negative
consequences related to the mismatch of expertise and/or
personality (e.g. Ehrich et al. 2004).
·
Seek evidence of how
the literature on mentoring is connected with growing ECR
confidence and competence as independent researchers and
scholars; this would mean linking mentoring to the range of
abilities essential for ECRs to develop in relation to
research, teaching, management, leadership, intercultural
skills, publishing, media use, and expectations regarding
social engagement (e.g., Debowski, 2012).
·
Explore the potential
of a trans-organizational conceptualization of mentoring
that addresses transfer across institutions and countries,
as mobility and intercultural learning form important
aspects of early career researcher experience today (Horta,
2009).
·
Consider ways to link
mentoring for ECR development to other fields including
education (not higher education), business and medicine
(Ehrich et al., 2004) in order to build up the required
resource base and decide on suitable strategies and
benchmarks.
·
Examine organizational
measures for supportive mentoring systems by integrating
formal learning with informal mentoring to support
cooperation between less and more experienced researchers
and thus encourage collegial relationship across scholarly
communities in activities such as publishing, research
organization, data collection.
This review analysis was conducted post-Ehrich
review, exploring the period from 2005 to 2014. Overall, we
consider Ehrich et al.’s earlier assessment of the education
and business reports on mentoring programs to still hold
true – the need to: a) attend to mentors’ experiences - our analyses showed a
relatively weaker focus on mentors, and implied the need to
examine both mentees and mentors’ experiences ; b) pay more attention
to negative outcomes - few authors reported negative outcomes of
mentoring, and it is necessary to understand how the system
malfunctions in those cases ; c) move beyond the data that have
generally been collected (self-report process data) - for example, observation
approaches have not been used in our articles reviewed - and seek evidence of
impact on actual behaviour performance. And, in order to
assess the value of mentoring, attention should be given to
opportunities to collect longitudinal data.
Keypoints
More research is
recommended to better inform the conceptualization of
mentoring
A future research
agenda needs to explore formal as well as informal aspects
of mentoring
It would be
recommended to explore mentoring using a range of research
methods
References
Åkerlind, G. (2005). Postdoctoral
researchers: roles, functions and career prospects. Higher Education Research
& Development, 24(1), 21-40.
DOI:10.1080/0729436052000318550
Bonetta, L. (August 26, 2011).
Postdocs: Striving for Success in a Tough Economy. Science
Careers from the journal Science.
Debowski, S. (2012). Strategic Research
Capacity Building: Investigating higher education researcher
development strategies in the United Kingdom, United States
and New Zealand: The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of
Australia.
Eby., L., Allen, T., Evans, S., Ng, T.,
& DuBois, D. (2008). Does mentoring matter? a
multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and
non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 72(2), 254-267. DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005
Ehrich, L., Hansford, B., &
Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education and
other professions: A review of the literature. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 518-540. doi:
10.1177/0013161X04267118
Gardner, S. (2008). What's too much and
what's too little?" The process of becoming an independent
researcher in doctoral education. Journal of Higher
Education, 79(3), 326-350. Doi 10.1353/jhe.0.0007
Hansford, E.C., Ehrich, L.C. &
Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education and
other professions: a review of the literature. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 518-540. doi:
10.1177/0013161X04267118
Jepsen, D.M., Sun, J. J-M., Budhwar,
P.S., Klehe, U-C., Krausert, A., Raghuram, S. & Valcour,
M. (2014) ‘International academic careers: personal
reflections’. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(10),
1309–1326. DOI:10.1080/09585192.2013.870307
Hemmings, B. (2012). Sources of
research confidence for early career academics: A qualitative
study. Higher Education
Research and Development, 31(2), 171-184.
DOI:10.1080/07294360.2011.559198
Kehm, B. (2007). The Changing Role of
Graduate and Doctoral Education as a Challenge to the Academic
Profession: Europe and North America Compared, in Kogan, M.
&Teichler, U. (eds.) Key Challenges to the Academic
Profession, UNESCO Forum on Higher Education Research and
Knowledge, 111-124.
Laudel, G., & Glaser, J. (2008).
From apprentice to colleague: The metamorphosis of early
career researchers. Higher
Education, 55, 387-406. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-007-9063-7
Lindén, J., Ohlin, M. &Brodin, E.M.
(2013). Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in PhD
education. Studies in
Higher Education, 38 (5), 639-662.
DOI:10.1080/03075079.2011.596526
Mellors-Bourne, R., Metcalfe, J., &
Pollard, P. (2013). ‘What do researchers do? Early career
progression of doctoral graduates. Retrieved from
http://www.vitae.ac.uk/CMS/files/upload/What-do-researchers-do-Early-career-progression-2013.pdf.
Mullen, C., & Forbes, S. (2000).
Untenured Faculty: Issues of transition, adjustment and
mentorship. Mentoring
& Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 8(1), 31-46.
Doi:10.1080/713685508
Ragins, B.R. & Kram, K.E. (2007).
The roots and meaning of mentoring. In B.R. Ragins & K.E.
Kram (Eds). The handbook of mentoring at work: theory,
research, and practice (pp. 3-15). Thousand
Oaks: SAGE.
Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2012).
Science PhD career preferences: Levels, changes and advisor
encouragement. PloS
ONE, 7(5), e36307. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036307
Schuster, S. (2009). BAMBED commentary:
Post-PhD education. Biochemistry
and Molecular Biology Education, 37(6), 381-382. DOI:
10.1002/bmb.20337
Shon, P.C.H. (2012). How to read
journal articles in the social sciences. A very practical
guide for students. London: SAGE.
The European Commission (2011) Towards
a European Framework for Research Careers, [on-line],
available at www.ec.europa.eu/pdf/research_policies/Towards_a_European_Framework_for_Research_Careers_final.pdf
(Accessed 18 December 2014)
VITAE. (2011). Principal Investigators
and Research Leaders Survey. London, UK.
PAPERS REVIEWED
Baker, V., L., Pifer, M., J., &
Griffin, K., A. (2014). Mentor-protégé fit. International
Journal for Researcher Development, 5(2), 83-98
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-04-2014-0003
Bell, A., &Treleaven, L. (2011).
Looking for Professor Right: mentee selection of mentors in a
formal mentoring program. Higher Education, 61(5),
545-561. DOI10.1007/s10734-010-9348-0
Browning, L., Thompson, K., &
Dawson, D. (2014). Developing future research leaders. International
Journal
for Researcher Development, 5(2), 123-134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-08-2014-0019
Cox, M. D. (2011).The impact of
communities of practice in support of early-career academics.
International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1),
18-30. DOI:10.1080/1360144X.2011.599600
Foote, K. E., & Solem, M. N.
(2009). Toward better mentoring for early career faculty:
results of a study of US geographers. International
Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 47-58.
DOI:10.1080/13601440802659403
Gilmore, J., Maher, M. A., Feldon, D.
F., & Timmerman, B. (2013). Exploration of factors related
to the development of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics graduate teaching assistants' teaching
orientations. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10),
1910-1928. DOI:10.1080/03075079.2013.806459
Hopwood, N. (2010). Doctoral experience
and learning from a sociocultural perspective. Studies in
Higher Education, 35(7), 829-843.
DOI:10.1080/03075070903348412
Hubball, H., Clarke, A., & Poole,
G. (2010). Ten‐year reflections on mentoring SoTL research in
a research‐intensive university. International
Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 117-129.
DOI:10.1080/13601441003737758
Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral
publication practices: writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies
in Higher Education, 33(3), 283-294.
DOI:10.1080/03075070802049236
Kamvounias, P., McGrath‐Champ, S.,
& Yip, J. (2008). ‘Gifts’ in mentoring: mentees'
reflections on an academic development program. International
Journal for Academic Development, 13(1), 17-25.
DOI:10.1080/13601440801962949
Lechuga, V. (2011). Faculty-graduate
student mentoring relationships: mentors’ perceived roles and
responsibilities. Higher Education, 62(6), 757-771.
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-011-9416-0
Lechuga, V. (2014). A motivation
perspective on faculty mentoring: the notion of
“non-intrusive” mentoring practices in sciences and
engineering. Higher Education, 68, 909-926 DOI10.1007/s10734-014-9751-z
Lindén, J., Ohlin, M., &Brodin, E.
M. (2011). Mentorship, supervision and learning experience in
PhD education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5),
639-662. DOI:10.1080/03075079.2011.596526
Main, J. B. (2014). Gender Homophily,
Ph.D. Completion, and Time to Degree in the Humanities and
Humanistic Social Sciences. The Review of Higher
Education, 37(3), 349-375. DOI:10.1353/rhe.2014.0019
Mathias, H. (2005). Mentoring on a
Programme for New University Teachers: A partnership in
revitalizing and empowering collegiality. International
Journal for Academic Development, 10(2), 95-106.
DOI:10.1080/13601440500281724
Noy, S., & Ray, R. (2012). Graduate
Students' Perceptions of Their Advisors: Is There Systematic
Disadvantage in Mentorship? The Journal of Higher
Education, 83(6), 876-914.
O’Meara, K., Knudsen, K., & Jones,
J. (2013). The Role of Emotional Competencies in
Faculty-Doctoral Student Relationships.The Review of Higher
Education, 36(3), 315-347. DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2013.0021
Patton, L. D. (2009). My sister’s
keeper: A qualitative examination of mentoring experiences
among African American women in garaduate and professional
schools. The journal of
Higher Education, 80(5), 510-537 DOI:10.1353/jhe.0.0062
Remmik, M., Karm, M., Haamer, A.,
&Lepp, L. (2011).Early-career academics’ learning in
academic communities.International Journal for Academic
Development, 16(3), 187-199.
DOI:10.1080/1360144X.2011.596702
Saito, E. (2012). When a practitioner
becomes a university faculty member: a review of literature on
the challenges faced by novice ex-practitioner teacher
educators. International Journal for Academic Development,
18(2), 190-200. DOI:10.1080/1360144X.2012.692322
Scaffidi, A., K., & Berman, J., E.
(2011). A positive postdoctoral experience is related to
quality supervision and career mentoring, collaborations,
networking and a nurturing research environment. Higher
Education, 62(6), 685-698. DOI10.1007/s10734-011-9407-1
van der Weijden, I., Belder, R., van
Arensbergen, P., & van den Besselaar, P. (2014). How do
young tenured professors benefit from a mentor? Effects on
management, motivation and performance. Higher Education,
1-13. DOI10.1007/s10734-014-9774-5
Weaver, D., Robbie, D., Kokonis, S.,
&Miceli, L. (2012).Collaborative scholarship as a means of
improving both university teaching practice and research
capability.International Journal for Academic Development,
18(3), 237-250. DOI:10.1080/1360144X.2012.718993