Supervisor/Mentor Qualification or Experiences and Students Selection
Supervisor’s/Mentor’s Selection of a Student
Delamont et al (1997) advise that when choosing a student one should reflect carefully on the skills and abilities a student requires in order to complete their doctoral studies: high level of motivation; ability to complete tasks (no previous false starts or abandoned courses); ability to work independently; evidence of intellectual creativity or at least some ideas of their own; ability to write and to be critical of previous work.
In respect of mentors and mentees, MortonCooper and Palmer (2000) report that ideally, the two parties should be ‘drawn together naturally by their personal characteristics, attributes and common values’ (p. 41). Furthermore, Zhao (2001) states that one of the key issues derived from his study and supported by the literature is the ‘matching of students and supervisors in terms of individual characteristics’ (p. 4). The latter could be determined to some extent when interviewing doctoral candidates.
Experience and Qualifications Required by Mentors
The experience and qualifications required by mentors are implied in the definition of the role and the discussion of selecting a mentor. Further, these will be specific to given programs in particular settings.
However, the qualifications for being a mentor for doctoral students can be explained by examining some relevant documents on quality in doctoral education and work in progress on a position paper on mentoring by Roy et al (2003) for the International Network for Doctoral Education in Nursing .
The following were examined to identify behaviors and capabilities desired for mentors: Pew Foundation project on Reenvisioning the PhD (2000); Indicators of quality in research-focused doctoral programs in nursing (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN] 2001); INDEN’s Draft of quality indicators for doctoral programs (INDEN, 2001); the University of Michigan handbooks on mentoring (Lewis, 2001) for both faculty and students; and work at the University of Maryland by Barbosa (2000).
From these sources four categories were derived to include what is expected of a mentor: assistance, communication, guidance, and support. A 50 item opinion was developed that included sections on qualifications, responsibilities, general expectations and expectations of students. Some relevant findings from piloting the opinion with 14 faculty and 17 students from one doctoral program in the USA are discussed below Faculty and students agreed that the following qualifications were essential for a mentor:
- a doctoral degree
- publication/recognition for research and scholarship
- awareness of the scope of the discipline and state of knowledge development and of a given area
- understanding of the program and the procedure for approval of research. Two items that more students than faculty felt were essential are experience and expertise related to the student’s area of interest and experience in the guidance of research.
Student comments included: ‘The mentor should have been on enough committees’ and should ‘provide support and guidance; give the inside story and help interpret curriculum and policy; provide helpful feedback; open doors; be what one aspires to be and help students assimilate those characteristics’ (Roy et al, 2003).
In relation to general expectations, faculty and students tended to agree in rating the following items as essential for a mentor:
- has a broad perspective on nursing as a discipline with a specific focus of research interests that leads to significant contributions to knowledge for nursing
- has a commitment to the sustained time and effort required of a scholar and mentor in nursing
- ensures the responsible conduct of science
- has a record of fulfilling scholarly and academic commitments in a timely fashion
- is committed to the student’s success and completion of the program in a reasonable time period
- is competent in research writing and capable of directing others in developing these skills.
Both groups were close to even split between the following two items as essential or preferable:
- is actively involved in the key issues and debates of nursing as a scholarly discipline
- maintains a network of contacts who can be called upon as resources for students.
One faculty comment at the end of this section asked whether ‘mentors must get mentored’. One student noted that the student needed self-direction and initiative and to not be dependent.
The identification of consensus within a given school and follow-up faculty development programs can lead to better understanding of the process of mentoring and to the enhancement of the skills and abilities needed (Roy et al, 2003).
Nature of the student-supervisor/mentor relationship the nature of the relationship between student and supervisor/mentor is crucial to the successful submission of a doctoral thesis. It is vital that a trusting working relationship is established as early as possible.
This can be achieved through setting and agreeing upon ground rules from the onset, as it is from this process that each party is able to explore what their expectations are and arrange a set of guidelines on which there is mutual agreement (Delamont et al, 1997 ;Zhao, 2001).
Armitage and Rees (1988a) advise that it is imperative that each party is aware of their respective roles and functions, and they suggest that a worthwhile strategy is the creation of a verbal or written contract.
The contract should cover time frames, agreements over deadlines, minimum number of supervision hours which will be offered, and the ethical and administrative aspects of the research (Armitage and Rees, 1988a; Ryan, 1994), and should be detailed to avoid supervision problems arising from lack of clarity (Phillips, 1994; Ryan, 1994).
Johns (1994) discussed the construction of contracts in relation to reflective practice, and offered a rationale for contract setting: ‘Contracting sets the stage for a relationship built on trust; a climate of trust being essential to enable the practitioner to feel free to share their experiences without a fear of being judged’ (p. 120).
This would seem an admirable motivation for using contracts within research supervision. Contracts should be reviewed on a regular basis. Ryan (1994) suggests informally every three months and formally every six months. The rationale for reviewing the contract or agreed guidelines is that over time, the nature of the relationship changes.
In earlier work Young (1985) noted that the protégé’s perception of the conflict resolution process in different phases of the relationship was a crucial element in the ability to grow and develop from the relationship. Morton-Cooper and Palmer (2000) suggest that over time students gradually gain in confidence and develop the capacity to ‘go it alone’.
They cite Hunt and Mitchell’s (1993) four-stage model which involves initiation, training, termination and the formation of an amicable ending of the supervision process with the establishment of a peer friendship. Supervisors need to be good listeners and be able to create an environment conducive to the student sharing problems or difficulties (Armitage and Rees, 1988a; van Ooijen , 1994). They also need to be highly interested in the research in order to inspire their students (Clifford, 1993).
In discussing a role relationship that is complex and multidimensional in relation to both skills and personal qualities, it may be useful to list the frequently quoted 12 strategies for effective mentoring published by Noller (1982).
- Positive attitude: encourage the mentee to approach life and goals with enthusiasm and to be accepting of self and others.
- Valuing: encourage a person to examine beliefs and ideals in an effort to establish personal values and goals
- Open-mindedness: encourage a person to keep an open mind to ideas.
- Interrelations: the interactions between mentor and mentee should be situations of sharing, caring and empathizing.
- Creative problem solving: encourage the mentee to use a creative problemsolving process.
- Effective communication: encourage a person to be an attentive listener and an assertive questioner. • Discovery: encourage the mentee to be an independent thinker.
- Strengths and uniqueness: encourage a person to recognize individual strengths and uniqueness and to build on them.
- Confidence: assist a person in developing self-confidence.
- Awareness: stress that an individual be aware of the environment, be intuitive, be problem sensitive, and be ready to make the most of opportunities.
- Risk-taking: encourage a person to be a risk-taker and to be an active participant, not a spectator.
- Flexibility: share with a mentee the importance of being flexible and adaptable in attitudes and actions, looking for alternatives, and seeing situations/persons from different perspectives.
Read More
https://nurseseducator.com/role-of-the-supervisor-mentor-definition-and-students-selection/