Process For Appointment Of Mentor/ Supervisor, Benefits, Challenges and International Collaboration

The Process For Appointment Of Mentor/ Supervisor

The aim of the process is to enhance the student’s knowledge, skills and ability to conduct research (Zhao, 2001). The main features of the process are reassurance and motivation to maintain the student’s confidence and enthusiasm (Delamont et al, 1997); These authors highlight that feedback on progress is essential as without it students are unlikely to progress.

Brown and Atkins (1988) maintain that the process should take place in a safe and relaxed environment in which regular, planned and structured work outputs are established and agreed to. Perhaps the most critical aspect is the management of time. Completing a PhD full time generally takes three years and part time five years.

This may seem like a long time to the research student but from experience the supervisor knows the dangers of allowing the student to adopt a false sense of security. Phillips and Pugh (2000) are of the opinion that students should never underestimate the amount of time the process takes.

Supervisors should therefore get the student to work out a timetable of events and set realistic deadlines. Phillips and Pugh (2000) advise to ensure that holidays (both students’ and supervisors’) are entered into a timetable as these are often missed. Although the supervisor will give advice and guidance on the suitability of the timetable, it must be made clear to the student that it is they who are in control of their research and not their supervisor.

The issue of establishing time frames and deadlines has been discussed by several authors (Armitage and Rees, 1988a, 1988b; Sheehan, 1993; Brown, 1994; Phillips and Pugh, 2000). Sheehan (1993) cites the work of Welsh (1981) who used a small sample of 37 PhD students to discover that one of the most important features of completing their studies was organization.

Since it was a small study, it is inappropriate to generalize the findings but there is anecdotal evidence to support Welsh’s findings (Armitage and Rees, 1988a). Brown (1994) and Phillips and Pugh (2000) give advice regarding timetables. The student should work backwards from the submission date and set deadlines for specific stages in the research.

Incorporated within the deadlines should be target dates for completion of writing. Brown (1994) in particular is most insistant that deadlines once set are non-negotiable; both parties should abide by them.

Where Brown (1994) will not tolerate flexibility within the time frames, Armitage and Rees (1988a, 1988b) believe that the emphasis should be on developing a realistic timetable and argue that a flexible approach is a strength rather than a weakness.

Benefits Of the Mentoring Process

The benefits of the mentoring process for the protégé are apparent, including advice and information to complete the doctoral research. Also indirect benefits may accrue through the mentor’s own connections and contacts. For example, the mentor can introduce the protégé to key scholars in the field, can talk about the protégé’s research to senior colleagues, and nominate the protégé for awards or prizes.

The mentor can give specific advice on which organizations and conferences are most important and can help the protégé get on a given program. More generally, a deeper sense of commitment to the role of scholar is often gained through the mentoring process. The relationship offers benefits for the mentor as well.

There is satisfaction in helping to create a scholar who can carry on work in the field. Specifically, the mentor receives feedback on projects from a person who is eager to learn and committed to the success of the mentor’s work.

The mentor finds that her or his own network of colleagues, visibility and influence expands as protégés accept positions at other institutions and some return to their own countries. According to the AAC report (1983) referred to earlier, there are also benefits for the institution from mentoring processes.

Effective mentoring contributes to scholarly productivity and commitment. There is less attraction of both students and faculty as cooperation and cohesiveness are encouraged in mentoring relationships. Providing skills for success makes graduates ambassadors of positive attitudes for the institution.

Challenges Arising During the Mentoring Process

During the supervision/mentoring process challenges and difficulties arise that both parties need to understand and address.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that problems may include reluctance of the student to accept less support and guidance from the supervisor as the study progresses (Phillips and Pugh, 2000), boredom and lack of motivation (Howard and Sharp, 1983; Grant and Graham, 1994; Phillips and Pugh, 2000), frustration, a desire to get it finished, not keeping to the timetable (Phillips and Pugh, 2000), and dissatisfaction with the supervision given (Grant and Graham, 1994).

This is often related to an unrealistic expectation on the part of the student, for as Burnard and Morrison (1993) and Grant and Graham (1994) explain, whereas the research is at the center of the student’s life, the student is only one of the many facets of the supervisor’s life. Nelson and Friedlander (2001) conducted a qualitative research study with the aim of investigating negative research supervision.

They interviewed 13 Master’s and doctoral students. Their findings indicated that problems mainly arose from a poor relationship between supervisor and student, with the students reporting excessive levels of stress and self-doubt; ongoing power struggles with their supervisor and the need to rely on peers, and other professionals and therapists for support. Similarly, Young (1985) noted the protégé’s perception of the need for conflict resolution for growth in the relationship.

Darling (1985b) describes what she calls a gallery of toxic mentors: avoiders; dumpers; blockers; and destroyers/criticizers. Avoiders make themselves scarce when it comes to having anything to do with the student. Wilson-Barnett et al (1995) call this type of toxic mentor an ‘absent mentor’.

An example would be a supervisor who consistently changes agreed appointments for meetings or generally makes herself unavailable or unapproachable. Dumpers, according to Darling (1985b), have the deliberate philosophy of throwing students in at the deep end, hoping that they swim in the process.

Dumpers literally abdicate all responsibility for the student. An example would be the supervisor who pushes the students into doing things before they felt ready or forces them into doing things for which they can see no relevance. Blockers are individuals who refuse to meet the student’s needs. They can do this in three ways. They can positively refuse (refuser) to help the student, for example, telling them that they can learn that later.

They can deliberately withhold (withholder) information, knowledge and skills. Lastly, blockers can inhibit the student’s development by too close supervision (hoverer). An example of the latter would be a supervisor who failed to allow the student to ‘acquire those techniques and methods themselves without stultifying or warping their own intellectual development’ (Brown and Atkins, 1988, p. 115).

Destroyers/criticizers are described by Darling (1985b) as working either subtly as underminers or more overtly as criticizers or belittlers. Brown and Atkins (1988, p. 123) list the common problems affecting research students as:

poor planning and management of projects
methodological difficulties in the research
writing-up
isolation
personal problems outside the research
inadequate or negligent supervision.

Brown and Atkins (1988, p. 127) also list the common criticisms of supervisors as:

too few meetings with students
no interest in students
no interest in topic
too little practical help given
too little direction
failure to return work promptly
absence from department
lack of research experience
lack of relevant skills and/or knowledge.

The use of multiple mentors offered by (AAC, 1983) is described as one way to deal with the problems that arise in direct one-to-one mentoring relationships. Short-term mentors for specific skills and advice may be appropriate.

Accepting weak ties for specific advice, guidance, and support from on and off campus at various stages may be effective. The novice also needs to be aware that the search for the perfect mentor may be futile.

Every organization should provide guidelines related to sexual attractions within mentoring relationships. Most university campuses today have well publicized policies and procedures to deal with the general area of sexual harassment.

International Collaboration And Networking Among Colleagues For Mentor Development

The crucial and multifaceted process of the supervision of research students is an area long overdue for research. It seems somewhat inconsistent that supervisors demand rigor when conducting research and the use of empirical evidence to back up actions, and yet the process used in the current mechanism of supervision is mainly based on anecdotal, experiential findings, and a small number of qualitative studies.

Further, Vance (1982) notes that the two theories that are used in research studies on mentoring are Erikson’s (1963, 1968) developmental stage of generativity and Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory. Grand- and mid-range theories in nursing provide possibilities for the design of studies specific to mentoring in nursing. Examples are: Peplau’s theory of interpersonal relationships (1994), Roy’s theories of self concept , role function, and interdependence (1976), Meleis and others’ work on transitions (2000), and Reed’s self-transcendence theory (1989).

It is therefore recommended that an international collaborative research study be undertaken grounded on a given theoretical basis that provides for conceptual and empirical definitions of terms. Such a study could clarify the meaning and processes of mentoring and provide guidance for the development of successful mentoring. Recognizing that practicing mentoring improves one’s abilities, we face some particular problems.

Some countries are facing faculty shortages due to retirement of experienced senior faculty and in other geographic areas, the preparation of mentors cannot keep pace with the need. The AAC (1983) notes that successful women mentors are most likely to be over-used.

Creative use of retired faculty as mentors to the mentors through electronic chat rooms is another possibility to extend the expertise and wisdom needed. When international students are involved, it is recommended that particular attention be given to the mentoring relationship.

Meleis (2003) suggests being in touch with key persons in the country of origin to share key events of the visiting student; having welcoming events and other strategies to make these students feel an important part of the community of scholars; and drawing on their knowledge and expertise from their home countries.

For example, one school is having an annual celebration of unity and diversity planned around a USA-style Christmas party that will allow international students to share their differing cultural and religious beliefs.

On the local level, it is recommended that within universities specific processes be instituted to come to some consensus on the process of mentoring and that faculty be encouraged to share successful strategies as well as issues that arise.

The International Network for Doctoral Education in Nursing is taking leadership in providing materials and processes for individual schools, and for a broader dialogue that can strengthen the important process of mentoring doctoral students.

https://nurseseducator.com/supervisor-mentor-qualification-or-experiences-and-students-selection/