Mentoring
Learning Objectives
Identify Major Areas of
Instruction in Mentoring
Distinguish Responsibilities
of Mentors and Trainees
Given Cases Involving
Mentoring Decisions, Work Through Complex Decisions
Code of Conduct (http://www.memphis.edu/facultyhandbook/2007FHB_Chapter5.htm#Academic%20Misconduct)
Academic Misconduct (http://www.memphis.edu/facultyhandbook/2007FHB_Chapter5.htm#Academic%20Misconduct
The following material from
the NIH website (see below) summarizes the issues involved in mentoring. Unlike other areas of RCR which have been the
subject of extensive development, formal materials on mentoring are rather
new. The NIH Guide to Training and
Mentoring is an excellent place to start.
Also, much of the material in this module has been adapted and
reproduced from the University of California San Diego site ( ) and is used
here with their permission.
Research
training is a complex process starting with formal courses in undergraduate and
graduate years, carrying through to personal interactions with faculty during
early research projects, and on to continuing education at meetings and courses
throughout one's career. It is the
responsibility of each training institution to establish and optimize learning
opportunities, but ultimately it is up to each trainee to tailor his or her own
education to meet career goals.
The
component of training that is designated as mentoring (after Mentor, Odysseus'
family's sage counselor in Greek mythology) has received increasing attention
in recent years. A mentor is a person
who has achieved career success and counsels and guides another for the purpose
of helping him or her achieve like success. Research supervisors should always be mentors; they have the
responsibility to discuss with and advise a trainee on aspects of his or her
work and professional development. The trainee may find additional mentors
informally--or the training institution may designate them. They are very important in the overall
experience of the trainee and may contribute to research productivity as well.
Supporting these training and mentoring relationships at the NIH are the
Section, the Laboratory (or Branch), the individual Institutes and Centers, and
the Office of Intramural Research, in the Office of the Director, NIH.
Training
in the skills of mentorship itself is important, especially for those who plan
careers in research or teaching. Postdoctoral trainees should learn to train
and guide others, for example, by working with more junior individuals,
supervising technical staff, or training students. The characteristics considered important by a fellow in selecting
a supervisor and other mentors--interest in contributing to the career
development of another scientist, research accomplishments, professional
networking, accessibility, and past success cultivating the professional
development of fellows--are characteristics that trainees may eventually strive
to emulate in their own careers.
Although
this Section has emphasized the responsibilities of supervisors and others in
research institutions to provide mentoring to trainees to facilitate their
professional development, trainees also have responsibilities. Collaborative research frequently requires
productive interactions among fellows themselves as well as recognition of
their roles as part of a team effort. In
addition, fellows must have a commitment to the work of the laboratory and
Institute and to the achievement of their goals. They cannot be passive participants in their training; they should
appropriately make known their satisfactions, dissatisfactions, and needs
clearly and often.
Intramural Research Program
at NIH
A Guide to Training and
Mentoring
http://www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/ethic-conduct/mentor-guide.htm
Mentoring handbook for
graduate students
How to Get the Mentoring You
Want: A Guide for Graduate Students at a Diverse University, Horace H. Rackham
School of Graduate Studies, University of Michigan
http://www.rackham.umich.edu/StudentInfo/Publications/StudentMentoring/contents.html
Mentoring handbook for
faculty
How to Mentor Graduate
Students: A Guide for Faculty in a Diverse University, Horace H. Rackham School
of Graduate Studies, University of Michigan
http://www.rackham.umich.edu/StudentInfo/Publications/FacultyMentoring/contents.html
National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (1997): Adviser,
Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and
Engineering. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 84 pp. (Also available
online at http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/mentor)
Virginia Commonwealth
University
http://www.vcu.edu/teaching/bestpractices/medicinementoring
Science's "Next Wave:
resources for the next generation of scientists (This site requires AAAS
membership or institutional membership)
http://www.nextwave.org/cgi/content/full/1998/03/29/245
Mentoring Network
"The National
Electronic Industrial Mentoring Network for Women in Engineering and
Science"
Mentoring Projects
Links and listings for
mentoring projects, maintained at Yale University
http://www.cs.yale.edu/HTML/YALE/CS/HyPlans/tap/mentoring.html
Beveridge, W. I. B. (1950).
The art of scientific
investigation. New York: Vintage
Books.
Feibelman, P. J. (1993).
A Ph.D. is not enough: A guide to
survival in science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kennedy, D. (1997).
Academic duty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Medawar, P. B. (1979).
Advice to a young scientist. Philadelphia: Harper & Row.
Selye, H. (1964).
From dream to discovery: On being
a scientist. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schoenfeld, C. (1992).
Mentor in a manual : climbing the
academic ladder to tenure. Madison, WI : Magna Publications.
Sindermann, C. J. (1987).
Survival strategies of new
scientists. New York: Plenum Press.
Swazey, J. P., &
Anderson, M. S. (1996). Mentors,
advisors, and role models in graduate and professional education. Washington, DC: Association of Academic
Health Centers.
How should mentors respond
to a request for a letter of recommendation?
What kind of letter should a mentor write for a trainee who is not outstanding
but still passable in an established training program?
CASE 1
Letters of Recommendation
Dr. Mentor has had an active
research program for 20 years and is well respected by his peers and his
trainees. Because of his reputation and the caliber of his work, he has always
attracted extremely talented graduate students to his laboratory. For a variety
of reasons, Dr. Mentor's department has recently been accepting more students
into the program, resulting in a greater range of ability. One of these new
students, Ricky Trainee, showed some promise, but after 5 years in Dr. Mentor's
laboratory, it is clear that Ricky is probably one of the worst students Dr.
Mentor has ever trained. Ricky is certainly competent, but he does not stand
out for his creativity, his ability to grasp new concepts easily, his
willingness to work hard, or his ability to write. Nonetheless, Ricky's work
will be sufficient to complete the program. Ricky has asked Dr. Mentor for a
letter of support for his applications for postdoctoral positions in one of the
two leading groups in his field of research. What are the costs and benefits of
each of the following courses of action, which do you find acceptable, and what
would you do if you were Dr. Mentor? In considering your answer, balance
whether it is your responsibility to help Ricky with whatever direction he
choses, to help him to get the best possible position, or to redirect him
(whether or not he is willing to take your advice)?
Tell Ricky that you would be
happy to write a strong letter, in your letter praise him as one of the best
graduate students you have ever trained, and conclude the letter with your
unqualified recommendation.
Tell Ricky that you would be
happy to write a strong letter, but in your letter provide only a lukewarm
description of his accomplishments, despite concluding the letter with your
unqualified recommendation.
Tell Ricky that you would be
happy to write a strong letter, but in your letter provide only a lukewarm
description of his accomplishments and conclude that he is an adequate, but not
a strong, candidate.
Tell Ricky that you can't
write him a strong letter. If he still wishes a letter from you, then you make
it clear that you would describe his accomplishments and conclude the letter by
noting that he is an adequate, but not a strong, candidate
Tell Ricky that you won't
write a letter for him because you can't write him a strong letter.
Tell Ricky that you won't
write a letter for him because you can't write him a strong letter. However, you
will work with him to identify either a less ambitious research direction or an
alternate career path.
This case was contributed by
Dr. Michael Kalichman (kalichman@ucsd.edu)
of the University of
California, San Diego. ©1999
For further information about
credit and copyright, see: rcr.ucsd.edu/copyright.htm (Reproduced here with
Permission)
CASE 2
Laboratory Selection
Amos Jones was accepted to
an excellent graduate program in molecular biology. The faculty was relatively small but there were two outstanding
professors, Claire Cheng and Patricia Slocum, who really determined the quality
of the graduate program. Amos had been
encouraged to train under Dr. Slocum by his undergraduate advisor.
Amos planned to do rotations
in both the Cheng and Slocum laboratories. When inquiring about the research activities in the labs, Amos was
told by Dr. Slocum's trainees that whether for a rotation or a thesis, Amos
would be given a specific project, he would be expected to communicate results
only to his direct supervisor, and he would have to give a formal presentation
on the progress of his research once every two months. They noted that daily handwritten and dated
entries were required for their laboratory notebooks. Much of the work had potential for commercial
applications, so the laboratory was locked even during the day, with entry
limited to the staff. The graduate
students were reluctant to describe their experiments. The pace was very intense and trainees were
required to prepare abstracts for the two important national meetings every
year. The trainees also noted that many
famous investigators visited the lab, spending time in formal and informal
scientific discussion. Trainees were
allowed to examine copies of papers that Dr. Slocum had received for review and
to discuss them at lab meetings. They
also saw an occasional grant application that she was asked to review. The trainees expected to be in great demand
for postgraduate fellowships.
Professor Cheng's students
reflected on the openness of the laboratory and her constant and immediate
availability. They thoroughly enjoyed
broad scientific interplay within the lab and with investigators on campus and
elsewhere. They indicated that they
were encouraged to explore their own ideas and expected to select their own
thesis project. The students gave no
formal presentations except when rehearsing for meetings. Progress in the laboratory was episodic
rather than steady as various concepts were explored. Although their notebooks were not specifically
examined, Dr. Cheng knew about every experiment and provided constructive
criticisms and suggestions. Dr. Cheng
did not go to many meetings and refused to show papers she received for review
to her trainees. The students admitted
that they felt a little out of touch with the newest developments in the field.
Although Dr. Cheng did not enjoy the
same prestige and reputation as that of Dr. Slocum, the trainees said Dr.
Cheng's lab was a much more pleasant and collegial environment in which to
work.
If you had to prioritize,
which features would you value most highly in the selection of a laboratory for
your rotation or for your thesis work?
What criticisms would you
have of each laboratory as described? What
would you describe as the strengths of each lab?
What would you like to know
about an investigator and laboratory prior to selecting that individual as your
thesis advisor?
The two laboratory chiefs
presented in this scenario represent somewhat different philosophical views of
science. How do you view a career in
science?
Case E1 from
Teaching the Responsible
Conduct of Research Through a Case Study Approach,
a handbook prepared by the
Association of American Medical Colleges (Korenman SG and Shipp AC, 1994)
This case was contributed by
Allan Shipp (acshipp@aamc.org)
of the Association of
American Medical Colleges. ©1994
For further information
about credit and copyright, see: rcr.ucsd.edu/copyright.htm (Reproduced here
with Permission)
| Please Click the Button Below to Confirm Completion of this Module. For The University of Memphis Faculty and Graduate Assistants ONLY! |