Dataset Information

Developmental Networks Among Mentors and Mentees Involved in a Mentoring Intervention.

ABSTRACT: The growing application of social network-based theories and methods (Burt et al., 2013) in scholarship on mentoring illustrates that mentoring goes beyond dyadic relationships comprising a senior mentor and a junior protégé (Higgins & Kram, 2001). However, limited data exist on the state of developmental networks of university faculty. This study examines developmental network characteristics among mentors and mentees participating in an ongoing intervention that aims to enhance career success through improved mentoring. Cross-sectional data come from 81 faculty mentors and mentees at three universities in the Southwestern United States. Using the online Modified Mentoring Network Questionnaire (MNQ), participants provided information on relationships with developers, who are people that have taken concerted action, and provided professional and/or personal guidance to help participants advance in their careers. An individual's developmental network comprises relationships with developers. We conducted exploratory analyses examining key characteristics of mentors' and mentees' developmental networks. Participants received psychosocial and career support from an average of 4.9 developers (4.8 and 5.1 for mentors and mentees respectively) from 2.3 arenas (2.2 and 2.4 arenas for mentors and mentees, respectively). While the most common arena was the respondents' current job/position (62%, 64% and 59% for all participants, mentors, and mentees respectively), developers were from graduate school (11%, 6% and 17%); prior jobs/positions (13%, 16% and 9%) and family (8%, 5% and 11%). Our preliminary findings suggest that developers are important for university faculty and that methods and insights from social network analysis can be applied to examine their support networks. As our study is part of an ongoing longitudinal intervention, these findings will inform future analyses that will examine changes in developmental network characteristics and its impact on participants' careers.

SUBMITTER: Soller B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9258986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFormal education of oncology is lacking in many undergraduate medical curricula. Mentoring schemes can expose participants to specific areas of medicine and may address the shortfalls in oncology education. Few mentoring schemes have been designed within the United Kingdom, especially within oncology. There is a need to understand reasons for mentor and mentee participation in such schemes and to identify ways to minimize barriers to engagement.ObjectiveThis study identifies motivations for participation in an oncology mentoring scheme and its benefits and limitations to both the mentee and the mentor.MethodsThe British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies launched a National Oncology Mentorship Scheme (NOMS) on September 1, 2021. Mentees (medical student or foundation doctor) were paired with mentors (specialty registrar or consultant), for 6 months of mentoring. In total, 86 mentors and 112 mentees were recruited to the scheme. The mentees and mentors were asked to meet at least 3 times during this period and suggestions were provided on the content of mentoring. Mentees and mentors were invited to complete a prescheme questionnaire, exploring motivations for involvement in the scheme, current experiences within oncology, and knowledge and interests in the field. At the end of the scheme, mentors and mentees were asked to complete a postscheme questionnaire exploring experiences and benefits or limitations of participation. Paired analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For free text data, content analysis was applied to summarize the main themes in the data.ResultsOf the 66 (59%) mentees who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 41 (62%) were clinical, 21 (32%) preclinical medical students, and the remainder were junior doctors. For mentees, networking was the primary reason for joining the scheme (n=25, 38%). Mentees ranked experience of oncology at medical school at 3 on 10 (IQR 2-5). In this, 46 (53%) mentors completed the prescheme questionnaire, 35 (76%) were registrar level, and the remainder were consultant level (n=11). The most common reason for mentor participation was to increase awareness and interest in the field (n=29, 63%). Of those who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 23 (35%) mentees and 25 (54%) mentors completed the postscheme questionnaire. Knowledge in all areas of oncology assessed significantly increased during the scheme (P<.001). Most mentees (n=21, 91%) and mentors (n=18, 72%) felt they had benefited from the scheme. Mentees cited gaining insights into oncology as most beneficial; and mentors, opportunities to develop professionally. Whilst mentees did not report any barriers to participating in the scheme, mentors stated lack of time as the greatest barrier to mentoring.ConclusionsBritish Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies' NOMS is expanding and is beneficial for mentees through increasing knowledge, providing exposure, and career advice in oncology. Mentors benefit from improving their mentoring skills and personal satisfaction.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Outcome-based approaches to education and the inherent emphasis on programmatic assessment in particular, require models of mentoring in which mentors fulfil dual roles: coach and assessor. Fulfilling multiple roles could result in role confusion or even role conflicts, both of which may affect mentoring processes and outcomes. In this study, we explored how mentors conceptualise and enact their role in a multiple-role mentoring system and to what extent they experience role conflicts. METHODS:We conducted a constructivist grounded theory study at one undergraduate medical school. A purposive sample of 12 physician-mentors active in a programmatic assessment system was interviewed. Data analysis followed stages of open, axial and selective coding through which themes were constructed. RESULTS:Three predominant mentoring approaches were constructed: (i) empowering (a reflective and holistic approach to student development); (ii) checking (an observant approach to check whether formal requirements are met), and (iii) directing (an authoritative approach to guide students' professional development). Each approach encompassed a corresponding type of mentor-mentee relationship: (i) partnership; (ii) instrumental, and (iii) faculty-centred. Furthermore, mentors' strategies, focus, agency provided to students and perception of the assessment system characterised mentoring approaches and relationships. Role conflicts were mainly experienced by mentors with a directing mentoring approach. They used various coping mechanisms, including deviation from assessment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:In multiple-role mentoring in the context of programmatic assessment, mentors adopted certain predominant mentoring approaches, which were characterised by different strategies for mentoring and resulted in different mentor-mentee relationships. Multiple-role mentoring does not necessarily result in role conflict. Mentors who do experience role conflict seem to favour the directing approach, which is most at odds with key principles of competency-based education and programmatic assessment. These findings build upon existing mentoring literature and offer practical suggestions for faculty development regarding approaches to mentoring in programmatic assessment systems.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mentoring plays a pivotal role in workplace-based learning, especially in the medical realm. Organising a formal mentoring programme can be labor and time intensive and generally impractical in resource constrained medical schools with limited numbers of mentors. Hence, informal mentoring offers a valuable alternative, but will be more likely to be effective when mentors and protégés share similar views. It is therefore important to gain more insight into factors influencing perceptions of informal mentoring. This study aims to explore mentors and protégés' perceptions of informal mentoring and how these vary (or not) with gender, age and the duration of the relationship. METHOD:We administered an Informal Mentor Role Instrument (IMRI) to medical practitioners and academics from Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire was developed for the study from other validated instruments. It contained 39 items grouped into 7 domains: acceptance, counselling, friendship, parenting, psychological support, role modelling and sociability. RESULTS:A total of 103 mentors and 91 protégés completed the IMRI. Mentors had a better appreciation for the interpersonal aspects of informal mentoring than protégés, especially regarding acceptance, counselling and friendship. Moreover, being older and engaged in a longer mentoring relationship contributed to more positive perceptions of interpersonal aspects of mentoring, regardless of one's role (mentor or protégé). CONCLUSION:It can be concluded that the expectations of mentors and protégés differed regarding the content and aim of the interpersonal characteristics of their mentoring relationship. We recommend mentors and protégés to more explicitly exchange their expectations of the informal mentoring relationship, as typically practiced in formal mentoring. Additionally, in our study, seniority and lasting relationships seem crucial for good informal mentoring. It appears beneficial to foster lasting informal mentoring relationships and to give more guidance to younger mentors.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the motivation, attitude, and practice toward mentoring and related factors among clinical nursing mentors.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included clinical nursing mentors from 30 hospitals in Zhejiang Province between August and September 2023. Demographic information, motivation, attitude, and practice were collected through a self-administered questionnaire.ResultsA total of 495 valid questionnaires were collected, and most of the participants were 30-39 years old (68.7%). Average motivation, attitude, and practice scores were 29 [26, 32] (possible range: 8-40), 87 (82, 94) (possible range: 22-110), and 41 (38, 45) (possible range: 11-55), respectively. Correlation analyses showed that the motivation scores were positively correlated with attitude scores (r = 0.498, P < 0.001) and practice scores (r = 0.408, P = 0.001), while attitude scores were positively correlated with practice scores (r = 0.554, P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression showed that intermediate and senior nursing mentors (OR = 0.638, 95% CI: [0.426-0.956], P = 0.030) and different hospitals (OR = 1.627, 95% CI: [1.054-2.511], P = 0.028) were independently associated with motivation. The hospital's frequency of psychological care was a significant factor associated with nursing mentoring motivation, attitude, and practice. Participation in training (OR = 2.908, 95% CI: [1.430, 5.913], P = 0.003) and lower frequency of job evaluation in hospital ("Often": OR = 0.416, 95% CI: [0.244-0.709], P = 0.001 and "Sometimes": OR = 0.346, 95% CI: [0.184-0.650], P = 0.001) were independently associated with practice.ConclusionClinical nursing mentors had adequate motivation, positive attitude, and proactive practice towards mentoring and associated factors. Clinical nursing mentorship should be enhanced by prioritizing mentor training, fostering a supportive environment with consistent psychological care, and promoting structured mentorship activities.

Dataset Information

Developmental Networks Among Mentors and Mentees Involved in a Mentoring Intervention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets