Effective Faculty Mentoring For Diversity: An Assessment Of Mentoring Paradigms

One of the difficulties facing smaller institutions is the limited number of faculty from which mentoring partnerships can be formed. This is problematic when changing institutional priorities can cause a generational difference in the faculty expectations of junior and senior faculty with respect to research production; this change in institutional priority is occurring at many predominantly undergraduate institutions (Kramer 2005). It becomes even more problematic when the issue of diversity is brought into play. Numerous paradigms for faculty mentoring exist; the question becomes, which mentoring models or combination of models are most effective in institutions with small numbers and changing expectations for faculty performance? In particular, what models prove effective for underrepresented faculty? A plethora of articles exist on mentoring and its importance in faculty development (Smith et al 2000). Faculty mentoring is predominantly based on a male model which fosters a challenging, competitive environment and stresses independence (Seymour and Hewitt 1997). However, women prefer inclusive, cooperative environments that provide a sense of belonging (Gilligan 1982). Chesler and Chesler (2002) discuss innovative mentoring strategies related to gender, including the “distributed mentorship.” This approach breaks the traditional one-on-one, senior faculty as mentor model and includes alternative methods such as peer mentoring and electronic methods for distance mentoring. This model may be particularly well suited to an institution lacking critical mass of women faculty and/or geographically isolated from other institutions. While gender may be one criterion in choosing a mentor, it cannot be the only criterion, nor does it guarantee a successful mentoring relationship (Chessler and Chessler 2002, Smith et al 2000). At institutions where there are less than ten women faculty members in the science or engineering programs, gender-specific mentoring or networking programs are not likely to be to be practical. This is generally due to the lower number of senior female faculty when compared to junior faculty in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields (NSF 2007) as well as the fact that women faculty allocate a higher percentage of their time to teaching and service than their male counterparts (Bellas and Toutkoushian 1999). This paper will discuss the preliminary findings of a meta-analysis of a number of faculty mentoring programs at both large, research intensive institutions and predominantly undergraduate institutions to consider the question, “What are the strengths and weaknesses of different faculty mentoring paradigms, particularly with respect to diversity?” Problem and Background Faculty and student mentoring relationships have been analyzed and implemented at institutions of all sizes and locations. Less attention had been given to the importance of faculty mentoring which has only gained research attention within the last few decades . Page 15440.2 The South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (SDSM&T) is a specialized engineering and science institution located in the Midwestern United States. SDSM&T is a primarily undergraduate institution that is geographically isolated with a student population of approximately 2100 students. Within the last few years, SDSM&T has been experiencing a slow increase in the student population and a more significant increase in research expectations while maintaining a reputation for excellence in undergraduate education. Currently, no formal mentoring program exists at the institution or at any of the state regential institutions for either new or existing faculty members. The small number of faculty members (approx. 150) at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology results in fewer individuals to do the necessary work of teaching, advising, and service, particularly as research expectations rise and a low number of faculty from which to create mentoring relationships. In general, new professors take four to five years to rise to full research and educational expectations set by the employing institution. Within this time, new faculty members use a trial and error method to learn how to balance education, research, and family life. Some new faculty members fail to reach tenure or fail to efficiently conduct research and teach within the classroom setting. For this purpose, mentoring may be used as a tool to overcome such obstacles and quickly transition new faculty into becoming efficient assets to the institution. However, it is still often a struggle to create programs that assist these faculty members in the beginning stages of their academic careers, particularly in smaller institutions that may be geographically isolated, possess a small engineering faculty population, and/or have limited financial resources. A survey was conducted by the research team to determine the major concerns of faculty members at their respective institutions to determine major factors that a new faculty development program may need to address. This survey targeted STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) faculty and included questions about mentoring, career satisfaction, and career relationships. The participants ranked their responses as strongly disagree, tend to disagree, tend to agree, and strongly disagree. The data contained within this survey will be analyzed in more detail as the research process progresses. From results compiled from the Indicator Survey performed by the research team, it was determined that many faculty members chose location as one of the primary factors when choosing employment at any given institution in the state. For the purpose of this study and in conjunction with the Indicator Survey, geographically isolated institutions are institutions that are considered to be sheltered from major centers of population (e.g. Rapid City, South Dakota) (Indicator Survey). Geographically isolated institutions often find it difficult to attract diverse faculty; this may be attributed to a number of factors including homogenous demographics and lack of support systems for underrepresented faculty (Indicator Survey). The isolated institution must rely on its own faculty, staff, and administration to encourage communications with colleagues at institutions across the county. Even though geographically isolated institutions do have a disadvantage in terms of location, programs may be established that accommodate the recruitment and retention of faculty, including those from underrepresented groups. The main objective of ongoing research reported herein is to perform a meta-analysis of mentoring programs and paradigms at diverse institutions to determine the most effective paradigm to implement at a predominantly undergraduate, geographically isolated, and P ge 15440.3 specialized institution. Mentoring paradigms at institutions varying in size, focus, geographic location and demographic make-up throughout the United States will be analyzed to assist in determining the most effective modes of mentoring for different desired outcomes. In this study, a successful mentoring paradigm to be reviewed within the meta-analysis will be defined as helping to achieve the following institutional outcomes: • Recruit and retain top faculty • Inform new faculty of university policies and regulations • Engage and open communication between new faculty and existing faculty • Provide a smooth transition for entering faculty • Assist new faculty in future career decisions • Promote diversity in faculty populations The desired outcome of the research is that the most effective mentoring paradigm or paradigms can be incorporated into a formal faculty mentoring program at SDSM&T, and that recommendations concerning the efficacy of specific paradigms can assist in development of appropriate paradigms for similar institutions. Definition of Mentoring In a sociological sense, the term “mentor” does not have a specific definition. A mentor may serve as a career advisor who assists an individual in making positive career choices. In other instances, a mentor may be a person that emotionally assists the individual with personal and career decisions. Each mentoring relationship will vary based on characteristics of the individuals involved in the mentoring relationship. Depending on the type of relationship desired, a mentor may be a colleague but not necessarily a friend to the mentee and vice-versa. Some mentoring programs follow a group construct where a group of multiple mentors and mentees may hold discussions and assist one another in that sense. Specific mentoring paradigms are described in the next section. “Formal mentoring” is the term used to define a planned mentoring process. Individuals are generally placed together in various mentoring groups and attend scheduled meetings. Meeting times and other scheduled events are logged, and financial costs can be documented to help the institution assess whether or not the program experiences continuing success. Informal mentoring relationships are generally developed through means other than a formal pairing structure. Meetings and other scheduled events may occur within this relationship, but no criteria are set for the number of times the mentor and mentee are required to contact one another. The following mentoring paradigms discussed include both formal and informal mentoring styles.