3.3 Mentoring doctoral students: the need for a pedagogy  (Page 4/10)

Whether the term used to describe the relationship between a doctoral candidate and a faculty member directing dissertation research is advisor, coach, mentor, supervisor, role model, major professor, or chair, there is general agreement that having a mentor during one’s doctoral work significantly increases the chances of finishing the degree and facilitates entry into the academic world (Lage-Otero, 2005). Galbraith (2003) further states:

…while advising is a short-term process where the focus is on giving information and guidance to the learner, mentoring is a more intricate long-term, one-on-one relationship that goes well beyond simply providing information. True mentoring is a complex process between professor and adult learner that supports a mutual enhancement of critically reflective and independent thinking. (p.16)

We have served as faculty at 6 regional and research universities during our careers. Rarely has there been any thought given to the notion that effective mentoring is analogous to good teaching that requires knowledge and skills that must be developed, carefully organized, practiced, and assessed.

A pedagogy for mentoring doctoral students

In most cases, good mentoring does not just happen or occur without careful and thoughtful planning and practice. Learning how to be a good mentor is time-consuming and unfortunately does not carry the“expectation”or“reward”from academe. Though occasionally promotion and tenure policies address the number of advisees a faculty member carries, few faculty assessment systems include recognition for the quality and effectiveness of doctoral student mentoring (e.g., Mullen, 2005).

Confounding the need for faculty and universities to develop good mentoring skills is the realization that the mentoring role is dynamic and will change, depending on the needs and stage of development of the student. For example, mentoring a doctoral student upon entry of the program is certainly different and requires different mentoring skills than mentoring a doctoral student during the dissertation process. Having served as faculty in four different university doctoral programs, we find very little emphasis or guidance placed at the institutional level on how one develops into an effective doctoral student mentor. Yes, there is the expectation and responsibility to serve, but absent is any guidance or support toward the development of effective mentoring skills from the institution, college, or department.

Defining the Practice of Mentoring

A discussion of the definition and purpose of mentoring helps to frame a pedagogy of mentoring. If we agree that a major goal of mentoring is to facilitate the doctoral student becoming“an independent professional researcher and scholar in their field, capable of adapting to various research arenas, whether university or field-based”(Pearson&Brew, 2002, p. 139), then the profession needs to explicitly support and encourage such development.

Returning to the distinction between advising and mentoring, we suggest effective mentoring must include helping the doctoral student with research productivity. Though research productivity may vary from institution to institution, we are defining scholarly productivity as involving the production of conference presentations, journal articles, research briefs, book chapters, and books. Though several studies report on research productivity after completion of the degree, much less evidence exists focusing on research productivity of students during doctoral study (Ethington&Pisani, 1993; Smith&Davidson, 1992). The significance of mentors helping students with scholarly productivity during their program of study relates to the importance of preparing them for careers as university faculty. Though few of our doctoral students in educational leadership programs move right into the university setting as professors, a far greater number eventually arrive there after a few more years in the field, typically in the roles of school or district leader. Nettles and Millett’s (2006) study reports“most students in the humanities (73%), science and mathematics (59%), and the social sciences (55%) expected to become college or university faculty or to seek postdoctoral research or academic appointments”(p. 101).