3.8 It takes a village to raise new faculty: implementing triangular  (Page 2/4)

The COE–USF New Faculty Mentoring Program

Program Vision and Goals

The NFMP encapsulates joint decision-making, triangular mentoring relationships, and faculty leadership. It grew out of Carol Mullen’s initiative as a tenured faculty member and Dean Kennedy’s enthusiastic support of her proposed mentoring program for all new faculty. The program was rapidly developed by consulting the literature on formal faculty mentoring programs and processes, and through interactive, joint decision-making.

Specific goals of this formal mentoring program are assisting faculty members and departments in actively mentoring new professors; enabling the scholarly development of newcomers through triangular mentoring relationships that support the retention and advancement of all new faculty, and that sustain collegewide mentoring through ongoing practice.

NFMP Structure and Activities

The new faculty who join us function as the center of a mentoring triad, assigned to both a mentor in their department and another in the college. Academic protégés benefit more from multiple relationships focused on their interests and needs (Higgins, 2000), so we followed this established mentoring protocol. Department chairs identify department mentors, and in addition, the mentoring director makes the college matches, with input from the Dean’s office. The department mentor is likely to have close contact with the new academic, serving as an invaluable resource and sounding board. The college mentor is a“go to”person for discussing any concerns in confidence and an outsider to the mentee’s department, this mentor can offer fresh perspectives.

For the inaugural year in which this piloted program was tested, the following activities were implemented: fall orientation,“meet and greet”luncheon for new faculty, end-of-the-year luncheon, and a research and scholarship panel. The current year of 2006–2007 of the NFMP is characterized by more sophisticated as well as inclusive mentoring strategies, which will be outlined later. This brief report focuses on the processes and outcomes of the first year of 2005–2006 of this program.

What We Learned During the Pilot Phase

The 30 participating faculty—that is, 10 new faculty participants joined by their department mentor and their college mentor to form a triad were surveyed both fall 2005 and spring 2006. 2 For the preliminary study, the 30 faculty members were surveyed twice (fall and spring) with 10 participants per group (new faculty, department mentor, college mentor). The overall return rate of survey responses was 63% for the fall semester and 57% for the spring semester. The new faculty response rate was 80% in both the fall and spring. Department mentors had a 60% return rate in the fall, with 80% the following semester. Relatively speaking, the college mentor response rate was modest—50% (fall) and 30% (spring), but overall a healthy return rate can be reported.

We learned that new faculty needs in our college typically ranged from entry-level concerns such as learning the functions of key personnel, to academic agendas such as securing resources, to performance reviews such as clarifying requirements for annual evaluations. Additional findings concerning faculty mentor support and improvements for the second year follow.