What Mentors Tell Us About Acknowledging Effort and Sustaining Academic Research Mentoring: A Qualitative Study

Participant perspectives on a department of surgery faculty mentoring program

BACKGROUND

Mentorship in academic medicine serves to promote career advancement and job satisfaction. This study was to evaluate the initial results of a faculty mentorship program in an academic Department of Surgery.

METHODS

A faculty mentorship program was initiated in July 2015 with 63 participants. Junior faculty mentees (n = 35) were assigned senior faculty mentors (n = 28). After three years, an electronic survey was administered and the results analyzed.

RESULTS

Response rate was 67% (n = 42). 34 (81%) respondents had met with their mentor/mentee at least once. Topics discussed included: research (76%), leadership (52%), work-life balance (45%), and promotion (5%). Mentees endorsed achieving promotion (n = 2), increasing research productivity (n = 2), and obtaining national committee positions (n = 2). 61% of mentors and 53% of mentees felt they benefitted personally from the program. Actionable improvements to the mentorship program were identified including more thoughtful pairing of mentors and mentees with similar research interests.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants felt the mentorship program was beneficial. Further investigation regarding the optimization of the mentor-mentee pairing is warranted to maximize the benefits from structured mentorship in academic surgery.

Caution Before Embracing Team Mentoring in Academic Medical Research Training: Recommendations from a Qualitative Study

Background: Multidisciplinary team mentoring increasingly is being advocated for biomedical research training. Before implementing a curriculum that could include team mentoring, we asked faculty about their opinions of this mentoring approach. Questions/Purposes: The goals of this study were to ask faculty about the benefits, challenges, and drawbacks of team mentoring in research training. Methods: Twenty-two experienced mentors representing all academic departments at a single institution were interviewed about perceived benefits, drawbacks, and their willingness to participate in team mentoring. Responses were analyzed with qualitative techniques using grounded theory and a comparative analytic strategy. Results: Faculty noted academic pursuits in medicine usually occur within, and not across, specialties; thus, multidisciplinary team mentoring would require coordinating diverse work schedules, additional meetings, and greater time commitments. Other challenges included ensuring breadth of expertise without redundancy, skillfully managing group dynamics, and ensuring there is one decision-maker. Potential drawbacks for mentees included reluctance to voice preferences and forge unique paths, perceived necessity to simultaneously please many mentors, and less likelihood of establishing a professional bond with any particular mentor. Conclusions: Faculty recommended caution before embracing team mentoring models. An acceptable alternative might be a hybrid model with a primary mentor at the helm and a selected group of co-mentors committed to a multidisciplinary effort. This model requires training and professional development for primary mentors.

Spirals of Sustainable Academic Motivation, Creativity, and Trust of Higher Education Staff

Sustainability has to penetrate more and more into higher education. It should not focus only on traditional elements. It should also enter new, but for future improvement, extremely important areas. Based on this premise, creativity and motivation, when additionally interconnected and supported by trust that is provided and achieved, decide on the progress and sustainability of universities. This connection is gaining importance especially from the point of view of building solid foundations and mechanisms that functionally preserve the potential effects of these elements in the future. For this reason and following the nature, importance, and content of sustainable academic motivation (SAM), the paper introduces two new concepts: sustainable academic creativity (SAC) and sustainable academic trust (SAT). For further original contributions, the paper hypothesizes the existence of mutual—spiral—relations of sustainable academic motivation (SAM), sustainable academic creativity (SAC), and sustainable academic trust (SAT). The empirical section tests the validity of this claim in the universities of two countries: the Slovak Republic and Poland. A survey performed on a sample of n=181 pedagogical, scientific, management, and administrative staff in higher education confirms the existence of these spirals. The results indicate the spiral effect of motivation when connected with creativity and trust and show that it is accented by the crucial principles of sustainability (responsibility, novelty, usefulness, progress, etc.). Therefore, the paper’s conclusion contains the explanations for the potential occurrence of three types of sustainably mutual systems and complexes. These are: (a) individual sustainable systems of SAM, SAC, and SAT; (b) group/sectional sustainable systems of SAM, SAC, and SAT; and (c) the global sustainable complex of SAM, SAC, and SAT in the university.

Mentoring New and Early-Stage Investigators and Underrepresented Minority Faculty for Research Success in Health-Related Fields: An Integrative Literature Review (2010-2020)

Mentoring to develop research skills is an important strategy for facilitating faculty success. The purpose of this study was to conduct an integrative literature review to examine the barriers and facilitators to mentoring in health-related research, particularly for three categories: new investigators (NI), early-stage investigators (ESI) and underrepresented minority faculty (UMF). PsychINFO, CINAHL and PubMed were searched for papers published in English from 2010 to 2020, and 46 papers were reviewed. Most papers recommended having multiple mentors and many recommended assessing baseline research skills. Barriers and facilitators were both individual and institutional. Individual barriers mentioned most frequently were a lack of time and finding work-life balance. UMF mentioned barriers related to bias, discrimination and isolation. Institutional barriers included lack of mentors, lack of access to resources, and heavy teaching and service loads. UMF experienced institutional barriers such as devaluation of experience or expertise. Individual facilitators were subdivided and included writing and synthesis as technical skills, networking and collaborating as interpersonal skills, and accountability, leadership, time management, and resilience/grit as personal skills. Institutional facilitators included access to mentoring, professional development opportunities, and workload assigned to research. Advocacy for diversity and cultural humility were included as unique interpersonal and institutional facilitators for UMF. Several overlapping and unique barriers and facilitators to mentoring for research success for NI, ESI and UMF in the health-related disciplines are presented.

Mentors' perspectives on the successes and challenges of mentoring in the COG Young Investigator mentorship program: A report from the Children's Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

Identification and development of young investigators (YI) is critical to the long-term success of research organizations. In 2004, the Children's Oncology Group (COG) created a mentorship program to foster the career development of YIs (faculty <10 years from initial appointment). This study sought to assess mentors' long-term assessment of this program.

PROCEDURE

In 2018, 101 past or current mentors in the COG YI mentorship program completed an online survey. Statistical comparisons were made with the Kruskal-Walis test.

RESULTS

The response rate was 74.2%. As some mentors had multiple mentees, we report on 138 total mentee-mentor pairs. Mentors were 57.4% male, and mentees were 39.1% male. Mentors rated being mentored as a YI as important with a median rating of 90 on a scale of 1-100, interquartile range (IQR) 80-100. Most mentors reported that being mentored themselves helped their own success within COG (78.2%) and with their overall career development (92.1%). Most mentors enjoyed serving in the program (72.3%) and the median success rating (on a scale of 1-100) across the mentor-mentee pairings was 75, IQR 39-90. Success ratings did not differ by mentor/mentee gender, but improved with increased frequency of mentor-mentee interactions (P < .001). Mentor-mentee pairs who set initial goals reported higher success ratings than those who did not (P < .001). Tangible successes included current mentee COG committee involvement (45.7%), ongoing mentor-mentee collaboration (53.6%), and co-authored manuscript publication (38.4%).

CONCLUSION

These data indicate that mentorship is important for successful professional development. Long-term mentoring success improves when mentors and mentees set goals upfront and meet frequently.