The Dark Side of Development: A Systems Characterization of the Negative Mentoring Experiences of Doctoral Students

Toward Culturally Responsive Mentoring of Muslim Research Mentees in the Sciences

Research experiences are an integral part of training future scientists and fostering diversity in science. Providing culturally responsive research mentorship, defined as mentorship that incorporates cultural knowledge to improve learning experiences for a particular group, is a critical step in this endeavor. While culturally responsive mentoring is most commonly associated with mentoring students with underrepresented races and ethnicities in the sciences, it can also be helpful for mentees with a diversity of abilities, sexualities, economic backgrounds, and religions. In this essay, we discuss how mentors can provide more culturally responsive mentoring of Muslim research mentees in the sciences. Muslims are a stigmatized minority group in the United States who participate in a religious culture that often differs from the secular culture of science. Notably, there are few resources for how to engage in culturally responsive mentoring of Muslim research mentees. To address this gap, we drew from the extant literature on the challenges that Muslims encounter in the United States, which likely extends to the context of scientific research, and identified potential culturally responsive accommodations in research.

Inadequate mentoring in undergraduate research experiences: Exploring protective factors

This study examines instances of negative mentoring among undergraduate researchers within STEM education, and specifically, the common yet subtle issue of inadequate mentoring characterized by a faculty mentor's failure to provide their mentee with adequate research, educational, career-related, or emotional support. Using data from the Mentor-Relate survey of 514 participants in the National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, we identify prevalent patterns of inadequate mentoring and examine protective factors against it. Results indicate that inadequate research support is the least prevalent form, while inadequate educational and career guidance is more common, and inadequate emotional support is the most prevalent. Enhanced faculty mentoring skills emerge as a protective factor, with culturally responsive mentoring and gender concordance also playing significant protective roles. Less hierarchical mentoring structures, such as multiple faculty mentors, offer better emotional support. These findings underscore the importance of comprehensive mentor training and culturally sensitive practices to mitigate inadequate mentoring in undergraduate research experiences. By promoting inclusive and supportive mentoring environments, institutions can maximize the transformative potential of undergraduate research experiences for all participants.

Development of the Mentoring in Undergraduate Research Survey

Here we present the development of the Mentoring in Undergraduate Research Survey (MURS) as a measure of a range of mentoring experienced by undergraduate science researchers. We drafted items based on qualitative research and refined the items through cognitive interviews and expert sorting. We used one national dataset to evaluate the internal structure of the measure and a second national dataset to examine how responses on the MURS related to theoretically relevant constructs and student characteristics. Our factor analytic results indicate seven lower order forms of mentoring experiences: abusive supervision, accessibility, technical support, psychosocial support, interpersonal mismatch, sexual harassment, and unfair treatment. These forms of mentoring mapped onto two higher-order factors: supportive and destructive mentoring experiences. Although most undergraduates reported experiencing supportive mentoring, some reported experiencing absence of supportive as well as destructive experiences. Undergraduates who experienced less supportive and more destructive mentoring also experienced lower scientific integration and a dampening of their beliefs about the value of research. The MURS should be useful for investigating the effects of mentoring experienced by undergraduate researchers and for testing interventions aimed at fostering supportive experiences and reducing or preventing destructive experiences and their impacts.

What Makes a Good Match? Predictors of Quality Mentorship Among Doctoral Students

Quality mentoring promotes graduate student success. Despite an abundance of practical advice, empirical evidence regarding how to match mentees and mentors to form quality mentoring relationships is lacking. Here, we examine the influence of variables theorized to predict mentorship support and quality in a national sample of 565 science doctoral students from 70 universities in 38 states. Our structural equation modeling results indicate that mentor rank, mentee capital, and the relationship matching mechanism (direct admissions, rotations) were not associated with higher-quality relationships. We found no support for the widely held belief that students whose mentors shared their gender, race, or ethnicity experienced greater mentorship quality. Rather, mentees who shared attitudes, beliefs, and values with their mentor, or whose mentors displayed greater cultural awareness experienced more supportive, higher quality mentoring. Furthermore, these patterns were largely consistent across both mentee and mentor demographic groups. These results highlight the potential benefits of pairing mentees and mentors who share personal and intrinsic qualities rather than demographic or surface-level attributes. Our findings also indicate that graduate students from marginalized backgrounds can be effectively mentored by faculty who are demographically dissimilar if their mentors engage in culturally aware mentorship.

Mentoring up for early career investigators: Empowering mentees to proactively engage in their mentoring relationships

Introduction

Effective mentorship is recognized as critical for the professional development of clinical and translational investigators. Evidence-based mentorship training prompted the development of training for mentees at early career stages who are navigating both mentor and mentee roles. The curriculum titled, Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators, recognizes the importance of building mentee self-efficacy across proactive mentorship skills and competencies.

Methods

Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators curriculum is based on the research mentor training approach in Entering Mentoring. Pilot implementations of Mentoring Up at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Pennsylvania had positive training outcomes for KL2 Scholars. Subsequently, Mentoring Up was implemented and evaluated at several other institutions. For 26 implementations longer than 4 hours, data were collected on trainee demographics, satisfaction with training, skill gains across mentorship competencies, and the intent to change mentoring behaviors following training.

Results

88% of participants rated the mentee training as valuable. Significant skill gains were reported across all mentorship competencies following training. 77% reported specific plans to change or augment their mentoring behaviors because of the training. The majority aligned with mentorship skill competencies (aligning expectations, effective communications) or mentoring up strategies (voicing needs, setting boundaries, communicating proactively).

Conclusion

Mentoring Up training is effective in advancing mentee skills and promoting strategies to be more proactive in getting their mentoring needs met. Mentoring Up offers an expansion to the suite of mentorship education and resources to support the career advancement of all in the translational science workforce.

Preparing Teaching Assistants to Facilitate Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) in the Biological Sciences: A Call to Action

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) offer an expanding avenue to engage students in real-world scientific practices. Increasingly, CUREs are instructed by graduate teaching assistants (TAs), yet TAs may be underprepared to facilitate and face unique barriers when teaching CUREs. Consequently, unless TAs are provided professional development (PD) and resources to teach CUREs effectively, they and their students may not reap the assumed benefits of CURE instruction. Here, we describe three perspectives - that of the CURE TA, the CURE designer/facilitator, and the CURE student - that are collectively intended to inform the development of tentative components of CURE TA PD. We compare these perspectives to previous studies in the literature in an effort to identify commonalities across all sources and offer potential insights for advancing CURE TA PD efforts across a diversity of institutional environments. We propose that the most effective CURE TA PD programs will promote the use of CURE-specific instructional strategies as benchmarks for guiding change in teaching practices and should focus on three major elements: 1) enhancement of research and teaching acumen, 2) development of effective and inclusive mentoring practices, and 3) identification and understanding of the factors that make CUREs a unique learning experience.

"I don't Know what I Would do Without it" How Life Science Graduate Students Describe Resource Value

Graduate students often face choices about which resources to use to help them succeed in their programs. These choices likely differ among students, in part, due to different perceptions of resource value. However, little is known about why particular resources might be considered highly valuable to students, thus driving choice. Utilizing expectancy-value theory for help sources as our theoretical framework, this qualitative study explored life science (LS) graduate students' top three resource choices, their explanations about why they made those choices, and whether students' perceptions of value differed among resources and across demographic groups. We addressed two research questions: 1) What resources do LS graduate students consider to be the most important? 2) What drives LS graduate students' perceptions of resource value? Many participants indicated that 'advisor' and 'academic stipend' were most important. Student perceptions of value were driven by their perceptions of which needs resources fulfilled, such as basic needs, academic help, or support. Participants' top resource choices and underlying values of those resources did not differ among demographic groups. We propose a model for understanding graduate student resource choice that may inform future work on student outcomes.

Addressing the decline in graduate students' mental well-being

At the American Physiology Summit 2023 session entitled, "Mental Health for Graduate Students," numerous students expressed struggling with poor mental well-being primarily because of negative experiences during their graduate training. In fact, studies show that up to 50% of graduate students report symptoms of depression, anxiety, or burnout during their training, and poor mental well-being is a major contributor to students' decision to leave academia. Most of the current solutions focus on treatment or wellness strategies; while these are important and necessary, the training environment or culture that often contributes to worsening well-being continues to persist. In this collaborative article between trainees and mentors across various career stages, we discuss how the pace of scientific advancements and the associated competition, lack of sufficient support for students from diverse backgrounds, and mentor-mentee relationships crucially influence graduate students' mental well-being. We then offer specific solutions at the individual, institutional, and national levels that can serve as a starting point for improving graduate students' mental health and overall training experience.

How to be a GREAT mentor

Formal training in how to mentor is not generally available to students, postdoctoral fellows, or junior faculty. We provide here a framework to develop as a mentor, using the GREAT model. This includes giving opportunities and opening doors; reaching out to help students identify their strengths and reach their goals; encouraging them by serving as a positive example; advising each mentee as an individual; and training them for independent thinking. In this personal view, we expand on each of these steps to illustrate how to develop a personalized mentoring style of your own. By combining these approaches, you as a mentor can work with your mentees to develop an effective and productive mentoring relationship.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We provide here a framework to develop as a mentor, using the GREAT model. This includes giving opportunities and opening doors; reaching out to help students identify their strengths and reach their goals; encouraging them by serving as a positive example; advising each mentee as an individual; and training them for independent thinking.

Postgraduate perspectives on mentoring undergraduate researchers for talent development

Undergraduate research experiences are critical for the talent development of the STEM research workforce, and research mentors play an influential role in this process. Given the many life science majors seeking research experiences at universities, graduate and postdoctoral researchers (i.e., postgraduates) provide much of the daily mentoring of undergraduate researchers. Yet, there remains little research on how postgraduates contribute to talent development among undergraduate researchers. To begin to address this knowledge gap, we conducted an exploratory study of the experiences of 32 postgraduates who mentored life science undergraduate researchers. We identified four factors that they perceived as enabling undergraduate researcher talent development: undergraduate researcher characteristics, research project characteristics, and mentoring implementation as well as outcomes for both the postgraduate and undergraduate. We then describe a team-based approach to postgraduate mentoring of undergraduate researchers that attends to these factors to provide an example that practitioners can adapt or adopt for their own research groups.

Mentoring students in doctoral nursing programs: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Academic mentorship usually involves an ongoing, supportive relationship between experienced academics and research candidates, and is fundamental to establishing and nurturing scholarship and the skills for dealing with the changing demands of the academic environment. Mentoring is a valuable strategy for the development of students enrolled in doctoral nursing programs (Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing - PhD, Doctor of Nursing Practice - DNP, Doctor of Nursing Science - DNS, and Doctoral Education in Nursing - EdD).

PURPOSE

To report mentorship experiences among doctoral nursing students and academic mentors, identify positive and negative attributes of mentors and the relationship between mentors and students, and assess the benefits and barriers of mentoring.

METHODS

Relevant empirical studies published until September 2021 were identified using PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus electronic databases. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies published in English language which reported on mentorship among doctoral nursing students were included. Data were synthesized into a scoping review with findings presented as a narrative summary.

RESULTS

The review included 30 articles, mostly from the USA, which reported on the mentoring relationship, experiences, benefits, and barriers of mentoring for the student and the mentor. Students valued mentor attributes such as being a role model, respectful, supportive, inspiring, approachable, accessible, a content expert and a good communicator. Benefits of mentoring included enhanced experience of research endeavours, scholarly writing and scientific publication, networking support, improved student retention, timely completion of the project, and career readiness, as well as developing one's own mentoring skills for future mentoring of others. Despite the identified benefits, there are a number of barriers related to mentoring including access to mentorship support, limited mentoring skills among faculty, and lack of compatibility between students and mentors.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlighted students' expectations versus their reality of mentoring, which suggested areas for improvement in mentoring doctoral nursing students, in particular the need for mentorship competency, support, and compatibility. Additionally, there is a need for more robust research designs to understand the nature and characteristics of mentorship programs for doctoral nursing students and to assess the expectations and wider experiences of mentors.

Comparing the Outcomes of Face-to-Face and Synchronous Online Research Mentor Training Using Propensity Score Matching

In this study, propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to examine differences in the effectiveness of research mentor training (RMT) implemented using two modes-face-to-face or synchronous online training. This study investigated each training mode and assessed participants' perceived gains in mentoring skills, ability to meet mentees' expectations, and overall quality of mentoring, as well as intention to make changes to their mentoring practices. Additional factors that may contribute to participant outcomes were also examined. In total, 152 mentors trained using a synchronous online platform and 655 mentors trained in in-person workshops were analyzed using the PSM method. Mentors were matched based on similar characteristics, including mentee's career stage, mentor's title, mentor's prior mentoring experience, mentor's race/ethnicity and sex, and mentor's years of experience; results show that both face-to-face and synchronous online modes of RMT are effective. Findings indicated that the training mode did not significantly impact the mentors' perceived training outcomes. Factors associated with the reported training outcomes included dosage (hours of training), facilitator effectiveness, race/ethnicity, and previous mentoring experience. The results of this study demonstrate that mentors' perceived training outcomes are comparable regardless of the training modality used-online versus face-to-face.

Exploring Student Perspectives: How Graduate Students in a Life Science Department Define Success

Research in science education often has the goal of enhancing student success, yet there is a dearth of literature related to how students define success for themselves. In this study, we explored how 10 life science graduate students defined the term "success," as well as their experiences related to success. Using interpretive phenomenological analysis, we discovered that students had definitions of success that included multiple components and that students' definitions varied widely and were influenced by a number of factors. Students described challenges to their success-including lack of departmental support-as well as supports to their success-like caring relationships with others. Students felt guilty about having definitions that were not wholly academic, and their perceived misalignments between these definitions and those of their advisors or department generated negative feelings and a low sense of belonging. Finally, students described how their definitions of success had changed since entering graduate school. Our results suggest that student definitions of success are complex and that, as researchers and programs seek to enhance student success, they should attend to the diverse perspectives that students have about this concept; this may be an integral strategy to address students' well-being within academia.

Ethical considerations of academic surgical research

Ethical considerations surrounding clinical research have been a topic of intense debate and discussion for many years, however, issues specific to the surgeon-scientist are rarely discussed. This article summarizes ethical issues pertinent to the surgeon-scientist including conflicts of interest, use of human biospecimens, data integrity, manuscript authorship, and mentorship for trainees. The methods include a review of the current and past literature on each of these topics with a brief overview of how it relates to the surgeon-scientist. Case examples are provided throughout to provide further discussion points related to the topic. The purpose of this review is to promote awareness of the ethical challenges that the surgeon-scientist faces when engaging in basic science research in order to spark discussion and encourage integrity and ethical behavior.