Role Of the Supervisor/Mentor, Definition and Students’ Selection
Guiding and facilitating the development of students through their doctoral education and research experiences is a complex process which requires multiple skills and abilities.
Whatever we call the person(s) involved in this challenging task, their understanding of the process can instill the required skills, and their approaches can be improved with practice. Some may argue that ideally a research supervisor is synonymous with being a mentor.
However, this is not always the case. There can be occasions where a research supervisor can be deemed to be a very good supervisor but for a variety of reasons the relationship does not develop into a lasting mentoring relationship.
Surprisingly, there is a dearth of published research on the current supervision process of research students (Hawthorn, 1981; Bodley, 1991; Clifford, 1993; Sheehan, 1993; Marrow and Tatum 1994; Cottrell et al, 2002) and a few dissertations ( Young, 1985; Alexander, 1986).
However, there is much more research related to mentorship in general. Thus much of what is written in this chapter comes from experience, ours and others’, and from extrapolations from related research studies.
Definitions
Research Supervisor
If one compares the variety of roles expected of the mentor, in its classical sense, and that of a research supervisor, then there are a number of similarities. Barber and Norman (1987) define supervision as ‘an interpersonal process where a skilled practitioner helps a less skilled practitioner to achieve professional abilities appropriate to their role. At the same time they are offered counsel and support’ (p. 3).
Howard and Sharp (1983) are more process-oriented in their definition of supervision. They assert that it contains two elements: advice seeking from the student and direction giving from the supervisor. Burnard and Morrison (1993) define supervision as ‘the process through which one, more senior person, facilitates the growth and development of another colleague, in a professional and educational context’ (p. 90).
Mentor
The term mentor originates from Homer’s Odyssey. The detail of the accounts varies from author to author but essentially the story is as follows: Odysseus was the king of a small Greek island called Ithaca. He was married to Penelope and when their only son Telemachus was still an infant, the Trojan War began. Odysseus set off to fight in the Trojan War, which legend states last ten years.
Before departing for the war, Odysseus appointed Mentor, who was an old and trusted friend, to be a tutor adviser to Telemachus and guardian to his estate (Butcher and Lang, 1883). Confusion over the language used in association with mentorship in nursing has been identified for some time.
Shapiro et al (1978) called for a clarification of concepts related to mentoring and even with repeated requests from others over the years, there has been no clear move forward (Merriam, 1983; Megel, 1985; Hagerty, 1986; Watts, 1986; Burnard, 1990; 1994; Woodrow, 1994).
Authors have offered many different definitions and there is some consistency in the terms used to describe the mentor. Early work by Vance (1977) identified the classic mentor-protégé relationship as one in which an older, more experienced person guides, supports and nurtures a younger, less experienced one.
Based on her study of nurse influencers, Vance added that the mentoring relationship involves a combination of behaviors and roles that contribute to both the professional and personal development of the protégé. Learning is enhanced by the mentor demonstrating the desired behavior.
The modeling influences are personalized by the mentor becoming directly involved with the protégé in a continuing relationship. In summary, Vance (1982) notes that a mentor may serve as a role model, guide, teacher, tutor, coach, confidant, and visionary-idealist.
Other authors offer similar perspectives of roles and behaviors . The mentor is older (Merriam, 1983; Burnard, 1988; Arnoldussen and White, 1990; Stachura and Hoff, 1990); more skilled and experienced than the person they mentor (Fagan and Fagan, 1983; Merriam 1983; Davis 1984; Darling 1985a; Burnard 1988; Hyde 1988; Foy and Waltho, 1989; Arnoldussen and White, 1990; Prestholdt , 1990; Brennan and Williams , 1993; 1993; and wise and faithful (May et al, 1982; Megel 1985; Nyatanga and Bamford, 1990; Fields, 1991; Kelly, 1991).
A precise definition to which all can agree seems impossible. Prestholdt (1990) offers a definition that reflects the majority of opinion and research findings: Mentoring is viewed as a long term adult developmental process with active involvement in a close personal relationship.
Mentors serve as counselors, teachers, sponsors, and guides for neophytes learning about their professions and how to cope with dynamic workplace realities. ( Prestholdt , 1990 p. 26)
As Merriam (1983) states ‘its meaning [mentor] appears to be defined by the scope of a research investigation or by a particular setting where it occurs’ (p. 162). Hagerty (1986) competes with Merriam’s observation.
Snelson et al (2002) state that ‘the use of mentoring in many areas of nursing has been documented in the nursing literature such as the development of clinical practitioners, researchers and educators’ (p. 655).
It is therefore argued that the person(s) fulfilling the role could either be called a supervisor or mentor. Regardless of the title afforded the individual(s), what is vital is that the process takes place as effectively as possible.
Role And Responsibilities Of The Supervisor/Mentor
Anecdotal findings suggest that the role of the supervisor/mentor is diverse and multifaceted. Regardless of whether the term supervisor or mentor is used, in respect to the role, there are a number of similarities identified in the literature. Brown and Atkins (1988) usefully link the role to aspects of research supervision which are identified below:
- Director (determining topic and method, providing ideas)
- Facilitator (providing access to resources or expertise, arranging fieldwork)
- Adviser (helping resolve technical problems, suggesting alternatives)
- Teacher ( analyzing possible research techniques and methods)
- Guide (suggesting table for writing up, giving feedback on progress, identifying critical path for data collection)
- Critic (providing feedback and direction on design of inquiry, of draft chapters, of interpretations of data)
- Freedom giver (authorizing student to make decisions, supporting student’s decisions)
- Supporter (giving encouragement, showing interest, discussing student’s ideas)
- Friend (extending interest and concern to non-academic aspects of student’s life)
- Manager (checking progress regularly, monitoring study, giving systematic feedback, planning work)
- Examiner (such as suggesting internal examiner, mock vivas , interim progress reports, supervisory board member) When contrasting the roles in Table 8.1 with aspects of research supervision by Brown and Atkins (1988), it can be seen that additional roles have been added which relate specifically research supervision. As Brown and Atkins state ‘given the range of possible roles it is not, perhaps, surprising that differences in opinion can exist as to what the role of the supervisor should be’ (p. 120).
Student’s Selection Of A Supervisor/Mentor Zhao (2001)
reports that ‘in the view of students, the ideal supervisor helps them to achieve a scientific, professional or personal goal, and to learn about research and how to conduct research against the quality standards of the system’ (p. 2).
According to Brown and Atkins (1988) the most favorable qualities of a research supervisor/mentor were that the individual was knowledgeable, available, helpful and stimulating. Andersen and Shannon (1988) added that the chairperson’s power and influence were the most significant and the primary socializing agent for doctoral candidates.
Other characteristics to look for are experience with the system, an ability to give clear feedback and direction and to enhance the student’s self-esteem. Zhao (2001) also adds clear guidance and parameters to the list.
From a three-year longitudinal qualitative research study of student nurses, Gray and Smith (2000) identified the following qualities of an effective mentor: approachable; confident in their own ability; good communicator; professional; organized; enthusiastic, friendly, possessing a good sense of humor ; caring; keen; enthusiastic; good role model; patient and understanding.
These qualities can be easily attributed to that of an effective research supervisor. So these qualities should be uppermost in the mind of a student selecting a supervisor/mentor. Choosing a supervisor is obviously important to the whole process, yet in many institutions, the supervisor is allocated by the head of the department (Phillips and Pugh, 2000).
Higginson (1990) suggests that when considering the choice of supervisor, the least tangible qualities are the most important such as knowledge, enthusiasm, willingness and availability. She also warns to deliberate on the possibility of the supervisor withdrawing or leaving and ascertaining the arrangements which would be made in that instance.
Higginson places the choice of the supervisor in equal importance to the choice of the research topic. Phillips and Pugh (2000) suggest that the student ascertains whether their proposed supervisor has an established research record and is maintaining a contribution to the development of their field or discipline.
An Association of American Colleges (AAC) report (1983) lists a number of questions that a newcomer can ask in looking for a mentor, including specifics such as:
What panels and committees does the mentor serve on?
What organizations does the mentor belong to and in what capacities?
What influence does the mentor have in developing the discipline?
Does the mentor know what is excellent in a given area and set high standards for himself?
Is the mentor someone who believes wholeheartedly in your abilities?
What has happened to this person’s former mentees in terms of positions, grants, and publications?
Sheehan (1993) contemplates the issue of choosing a supervisor against being matched or allocated. He concludes that there is no evidence available which indicates that one method is better than the other. For those who see supervision of research students assuming a mentorship quality, the mutual attraction of supervisor and student would be clearly important.
That is to say the supervisor and the student would be kindred spirits. Indeed Sheehan (1993) cites research conducted by Elton and Pope (1989) in which they assert that the selection process ‘should be one of matching students and supervisors for personal and academic compatibility, including the choice of the research topic’s (p. 883) .
Sheehan (1993) himself concludes that a good match between supervisor and student is inherent in the supervisory process. Burnard and Morrison (1993) agree that this is the ideal situation.
Read More
https://nurseseducator.com/supervisor-mentor-qualification-or-experiences-and-students-selection/