Institutional Strategies to Enhance Graduate Student Success Through Mentoring

in Kinesiology Review
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Kinesiology, Graduate College, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA

High-quality mentoring is a vital component of graduate education that leads to degree completion. For many students and faculty members, the traditional model of mentorship based on a fixed hierarchy is no longer viable because of the increasing complexity of higher education, diversification of graduate student career paths, and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the success of our students and graduate programs, it is essential that kinesiology leaders place renewed effort on supporting the mentoring relationship through departmental strategies. Effective mentoring can assist students in feeling competent, autonomous, and connected with others. The purpose of this paper is to explore the three components of a contemporary model of mentorship—transparent socialization, mutually shared expectations, and the student as a whole individual.

In a presentation, Susan Dynarksi shared that the most expensive education is the one that is not completed (as cited in Grunewald, 2018). Financial, temporal, and human resources are used without the resultant degree or credentials. Yet attrition in graduate programs is very high with estimates that 50% of doctoral students will not complete their degree (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021). It is likely that low completion rates are also pervasive in kinesiology and warrant our attention. Therefore, it is vital that leaders in kinesiology continually examine academic, institutional, and disciplinary culture and practices to increase the success of our graduate students.

A critical component in maximizing student achievement is mentorship (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021). Mentorship can be defined as “a professional, working alliance in which individuals work together over time to support the personal and professional growth, development, and success of the relational partners through the provision of career and psychosocial support” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019, p. 2). Although there is great variability in individual mentoring relationships, many remain based on traditional models, which are formal, hierarchical, and private interactions between a master and novice (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021; Lunsford et al., 2017). Traditional models of mentorships are less effective because they do not provide graduate students the needed experiences nor professional development for success. However, because of the enduring assumption that surviving their own doctoral programs automatically makes faculty members effective mentors, many faculty continue to use the traditional model and do not pursue additional training to implement a contemporary model of mentorship (Manathunga & Goozée, 2007).

Effective mentoring requires application of principles such as (a) communicating effectively, (b) aligning expectations, (c) assessing understanding, (d) addressing equity and inclusion, (e) fostering independence, (f) promoting professional development, and (g) ethics (Lee et al., 2016, pp. 138–139). In addition, an approach with multiple mentors collaborating together needs to be embraced to revive our graduate programs and develop the success of our students (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021). When both faculty and student are empowered to apply these mentorship principles, graduate students receive multiple benefits, including increased satisfaction with the graduate program (McAllister et al., 2009); increased research competencies and scholarly productivity (Lunsford, 2012); improved ability to cope with disappointment and barriers during the graduate program (Lunsford); and increased likelihood of securing employment (Johnson, 2007). Principles of effective mentoring assist in meeting the three basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Psychological development, well-being, satisfaction, persistence, and fulfilling goal-directed behavior emerge when graduate students feel capable of completing tasks and being successful (i.e., competence); experience individual responsibility for their actions (i.e., autonomy); and connect with others (i.e., relatedness; Deci & Ryan). As kinesiology leaders, we have a responsibility to apply a more contemporary model of mentorship aligned with principles supporting development rather than tradition. From this perspective, mentoring relationships that support the basic needs will allow students to flourish and should be considered as a vital component of graduate education.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the three components of a contemporary model of mentorship—transparent socialization, mutually-shared expectations, and the student as a whole individual. To begin, I highlight elements of the traditional model of mentorship. Next, the three components of the contemporary model will be explored. After describing each component, departmental and faculty-level strategies will be offered in order to best serve students (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021). A case study is used to highlight these contrasting models. Because there is a dearth of literature about mentorship in kinesiology, I draw from literature in higher education and from the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. In addition, training and educational materials from other universities provide examples of best practices.

Traditional Model of Mentorship

In the traditional model of mentorship, faculty act as gatekeepers of information and of processes. That is, faculty mentors may willingly withhold pertinent information; employ arbitrary rules; or simply not have the proper knowledge about policy, procedures or processes, to prevent what becomes in effect a weeding out of graduate students (Tuma et al., 2021). Graduate education contains a hidden curriculum of information (e.g., academic jargon or milestones) that needs to be revealed to students (Calarco, 2020). This revelation does not always happen with some doctoral students reporting that their mentors purposefully hid information or lacked necessary expertise to effectively support students (Tuma et al., 2021). Without knowing the hidden curriculum, faculty may believe that qualified students do not possess the necessary talent or disposition for success in kinesiology merely because they have not been provided the necessary information to be successful (Calarco). When faculty mentors, intentionally or not, withhold information from students, students often feel a lack of confidence and inadequacy. Calarco shared that the hidden curriculum may make students feel like they should not be in graduate school and these experiences could contribute to symptoms of depression and anxiety.

When mentors act as gatekeepers, the impact will be more intense for some groups of students. Specifically, the hidden curriculum perpetuates inequities while those from more privileged groups—often White, male, heterosexual, and middle class—reap greater benefits from the system (Calarco, 2020). Those students from privileged groups are more likely to have learned the academic system and they appear successful, simply because of their socialization. Simultaneously, students from less privileged and historically underrepresented groups who are less familiar with the academic system may appear to lack the necessary talent or disposition for success. Within traditional models of mentorship, faculty mentors may be weeding out students from historically underrepresented groups. Moreover, the perception that such weeding out is deserved incorrectly places blame on the individual rather than addressing systematic shortcomings (Calarco). Gatekeeping does not allow students to develop the basic need of competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

A second component of the traditional model of mentorship is that the power often rests with the faculty mentor and, in turn, leads to students feeling controlled (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021; Tuma et al., 2021). In this model, faculty mentors direct and dominate the relationship and thereby minimize the role and responsibility of the graduate student (Lee et al., 2016). The graduate student’s fate can be at the whim of their mentor: their faculty mentor may be inaccessible or provide limited feedback on progress to degree or on research (Tuma et al., 2021). Feeling a lack of power in a relationship is antithetical to the basic need for autonomy and can result in negative outcomes such as performing poorly or dropping out of the program entirely.

Another component of the traditional model of mentorship is seen when mentors only acknowledge the academic identity of the student, rather than their multiple, intersecting identities. Specifically, students inhabit social and cultural identities that should be, but often are not, recognized in the mentoring relationship. For example, interviews with undergraduate research mentors and mentees in STEM fields revealed that 87.5% of mentees believed cultural diversity should be directly addressed in the relationship, but only 52.3% of mentors agreed (Byars-Winston et al., 2020). Presumably, similar beliefs exist at the graduate level. In another study, some mentors reported a firm belief in a color-blind approach to the STEM mentoring relationship and remained silent when conversations veered toward social and cultural identities (Butz et al., 2019; Prunuske et al., 2013). Color blindness, however, is not beneficial to the interpersonal relationship and may exacerbate biases, assumptions, and inequities (Butz et al., 2019; Tuma et al., 2021). Indeed, doctoral students have reported unequal treatment in mentoring relationships, discrimination, and being treated less favorably due their social identity (Tuma et al.). One doctoral student shared that their mentor said, “[You’re] a Latino, you’ll have to work twice as hard to prove yourself.” (p. 15).

To highlight the traditional model of mentorship, a cases study1 is proffered. The case focuses on a student trying to complete her dissertation in biomechanics, and she experiences gatekeeping and unequal power dynamics.

Isabella, a first generation, Mexican, Doctoral candidate in biomechanics, sent her chair a dissertation chapter to read two weeks ago. She needs the feedback before she can begin writing the next chapter. Because there is no email acknowledgment of her chapter submission, she meets with her chair and is told that the feedback will be coming shortly. Every time she approaches her chair, he tells her he is busy with many different responsibilities and to be patient. After Isabella has waited another six weeks, she finally hears back—a full two months after the original email. There is no mention of the delay, or an apology, and the feedback is minimal. She is disappointed, hurt, and confused that her supervisor has checked only the first two pages and the last page of the chapter, ignoring everything between.

Because of the power dynamic, Isabella thanks her chair for the feedback and does not challenge him over the delay or quality of feedback. She knows she is dependent on him for completion of her dissertation, to receive a strong letter of recommendation, and ultimately to graduate with her degree. Sustaining a complaint would come down to her word against his. He is not only well respected in the department and the university, but holds the dominant position in a power dynamic related to her social identities of gender and ethnicity. Either no one would believe her, or she would be accused of being weak and making unnecessary difficulties. And even if they did believe her, she doesn’t think it would be worth the hassle of having to find a new chair in her final year.

Isabella continues without much guidance. Eventually, after continued delay and little feedback, she finishes her dissertation. She has no idea if it is ready to defend or not. She asks her chair for final feedback and approval to defend, but she is told to take responsibility for her work, be confident in its quality and in her ability to defend it. There is nothing for Isabella to do but schedule the defense. She spends the next month worrying about failing and wondering if the past four years of hard work has been a complete waste of time.

Contemporary Model of Mentorship

Because some faculty mentor as they were mentored, reflection and professional development may be needed to implement a contemporary model of mentorship. It is incumbent upon departments to foster a culture that prepares faculty members to serve as mentors. Department heads can encourage faculty to consider how they were mentored by prompting them to reflect on (a) the mentoring they received, (b) the quality of the mentoring they received, and (c) the mentoring they wish they had received (University of Michigan, 2020b). Similarly, department heads can invite faculty to consider mentoring elements, such as their level of commitment and their ability to set realistic expectations, before becoming a mentor (American Psychological Association, or APA, 2016b). Responses to these reflection questions can help the department head identify the degree to which a faculty mentor would implement a traditional model of mentorship and areas where professional development is needed. Mentoring professional development and training such as Entering Mentoring (CIMER, n.d.) can help equip faculty learn about necessary tools and approaches to high-quality mentoring. Their program assists faculty in becoming more competent in communicating effectively, creating mutually shared expectations, fostering independence, promoting professional development, and addressing the whole student (CIMER, n.d.). Essentially, professional development opportunities can help faculty mentors implement the three components of a contemporary model of mentorship to be explored in the next sections—transparent socialization, mutually shared expectations, and treating the student as a whole individual.

Transparent Socialization

To maintain motivation and achieve success, graduate students need to believe in their capability to learn and understand the institutional, disciplinary, and academic cultures. Effective mentors socialize their graduate students by sharing relevant information about higher education and kinesiology, assessing for understanding, promoting professional development, and being accessible, in spite of other professional obligations (Lee et al., 2016; Tuma et al., 2021; Yob & Crawford, 2012). In other words, institutions and faculty should proactively reveal the hidden curriculum (Calarco, 2020). Because faculty mentors often have a wealth of accumulated tacit knowledge about the field and culture of kinesiology, efforts to deliberately make explicit and share this information will best serve graduate students.

Explaining academic jargon is a relatively easy place to start, but mentors also need to share information about informal or unspoken rules, training programs, ways to manage the graduate school experience, professional opportunities, and disciplinary organizations (Calarco, 2020). At the programmatic level, departments should develop and communicate guidelines about timely and productive feedback in response to a students’ thesis or dissertation, requests for letters of recommendation, and other milestones of the program (NASEM, 2019). As active participants in the profession, faculty can introduce their mentees to other professionals and provide valuable advice. This can help students develop networks, identify collaborators, understand funding opportunities (e.g., for research or travel to conferences), and develop skills to discuss their research (Calarco). With effective communication and transparent milestones, faculty can uncover the hidden curriculum so all students, not just the most privileged, can experience competence, feel adequate, and be successful.

Mutually Shared Expectations

By reflecting on their needs, goals, and values in graduate education under the guidance of responsive and challenging mentors, students can develop a sense of self-responsibility for their behaviors (Yob & Crawford, 2012). The contemporary model of mentorship promotes reciprocity through creating mutually shared expectations for success and fostering independence through forming independent opinions and lines of scholarship (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021; Lee et al., 2016; Yob & Crawford, 2012). Effective mentors support students in their development of competence and autonomy by providing more support early in the student’s career and gradually withdrawing the support as the student progresses (Janssen et al., 2013). By graduation, then, students are often able to reach relatively high levels of autonomy in their academic and professional skills.

Students often have not developed the skills to be an effective mentee. Therefore, departments can implement a Mentoring Up approach to help empower graduate students to be active and equal participants in the mentoring relationship (Lee et al., 2016). The Mentoring Up approach requires “the mentee’s proactive engagement … so that both parties mutually benefit from the relationship and move forward toward an agreed-upon purpose” (p. 136). Some institutions offer Mentoring Up workshops and training to assist graduate students in managing their mentorship relationships (see Collaborative Learning and Integrated Mentoring in the Biosciences, 2013). Using case studies, the CLIMB training sessions encourage graduate students to consider what characteristics and behaviors are necessary for a successful mentoring relationship.

Departments should also strongly encourage mentors and mentees to use tools to create shared expectations (Tuma et al., 2021). These include mentoring maps and mentoring contracts (Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, 2021b; University of Michigan, 2020a), as well as individualized development plans (IDPs; National Institute of Health, 2021). IPDs are often used in the STEM fields, where policies require grant-supported graduate students to use them. This external nudge to use IDPs does not exist, however, in the humanities or social sciences (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021). Through the IDP process, the graduate student will (a) conduct a self-assessment and career exploration; (b) set goals and make a plan to meet academic and professional goals; (c) share the plan with mentors; and (d) implement the plan, review progress, and revise as needed (APA, 2016a; Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, 2021a).

With an expectation to use IDPs in kinesiology departments, mentors are able to guide students to templates and resources to create their own plans (see APA, 2016a; Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, 2021a). After the student creates the IDP, the mentor becomes an active participant in the process by reviewing and revising the plan, establishing regular progress reviews, and discussing networking and career development opportunities (University of Minnesota, 2017). Not surprisingly, IDPs are most helpful when there is collaboration between the mentor and the mentee. Unfortunately, one study reported that 26% of doctoral students who created an IDP did not discuss it with their advisor (Vanderford et al., 2018), which underscores the need for faculty mentors to actively pursue open communication with their mentees. Regular reviews of students’ progress coupled with IDPs can facilitate this process (NASEM, 2019). IDPs and other tools help create mutually shared expectations and provide graduate students a road map for success. Having a map allows students to develop autonomy and proactively develop their future pathway.

Treating the Student as a Whole Individual

Another component of the contemporary model of mentorship is understanding that students possess multiple identities beyond an academic or kinesiology identity. Cassuto and Weisbuch (2021) state, simply, that “faculty need to advise students as human beings” (p. 228). That is, each student brings multiple and intersecting social and cultural identities, which then need to fit in with their professional identity (NASEM, 2019). Helping students develop their academic or kinesiology identity during graduate school should be balanced with their social and cultural identities. Many students have social and cultural identities that deviate from the prototypical graduate student identity of White, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, and middle class (NASEM, 2019). Deviation from the prototypical identity may lead students to experience isolation or microaggressions, racism, sexism, and heterosexism (Wyatt et al., 2019). Wyatt et al. (2019) argue that some students may face stereotype threat that prompts anxiety in situations where their performance could potentially reinforce a negative stereotype. For example, a female doctoral student in exercise physiology with an all-male committee may fear being perceived as the emotional and illogical female during a dissertation defense or proposal (NASEM, 2019). As leaders in higher education and kinesiology, we must create inclusive environments that promote a sense of belonging in all students and which, in turn, support the basic psychological need of relatedness.

Inclusive environments include faculty mentor and student mentee relationships built on bilateral trust, patience, communication, and emotional support (Yob & Crawford, 2012). Through vulnerability, self-disclosure, genuine interest, and caring, graduate students are more likely to believe that they belong in the program and in the field (Janssen et al., 2013). Trusting relationships foster openness to challenging conversations about race, ethnicity, able-bodiedness, gender, and sexual identity. Not surprisingly, mentors possess a range of comfort levels in broaching cultural diversity with their mentees (Butz et al., 2019). While some mentors expressed competence in having these conversations with their students, other mentors only engaged in the conversation if the mentee brought it up first, and other mentors avoided the conversations altogether. Successful conversations about cultural diversity will enhance rather than endanger the relationship, yet both faculty and students were concerned about the potential for misperception during these discussions (Byars-Winston et al., 2020). Some mentors feared being perceived as biased while some mentees of color feared the perception of receiving special treatment if cultural and racial diversity was addressed (Butz et al.). Overall, mentors and mentees preferred indirect means to start conversations about diversity (Byars-Winston et al., 2020). Indirect means could include faculty signaling the acceptability of addressing social and cultural identities. Mentors can display artifacts in their office that show an openness to multiple identities (e.g., a Safe Zone training certificate) or ask questions about why the student chose this degree (Butz et al.). Opening space for conversations about social identities within the development of a kinesiology identity can meet the need of relatedness.

Similar to the case study about the traditional model of mentorship, the case below is about a student trying to complete her dissertation in biomechanics. In the contemporary model of mentorship, she understands how to work with her mentor and follows her IDP. She feels competent and autonomous.

Isabella, a first generation, Mexican, Doctoral candidate in biomechanics, placed a copy of her dissertation chapter in the mailbox of the chair of her dissertation. From the mentoring contract, she knew that her chair preferred a hard copy with a cover letter requesting specific feedback. She then emailed her chair to let him know that the chapter was delivered and reminded him of the timeline they agreed upon in her IDP. She asked for feedback in two weeks, which she needs before she can begin writing the next chapter. Her chair confirmed receipt of the hard copy. He also shared that he was attending a conference and that he could send her feedback in 3 weeks. She was disappointed for the added week, but she understood his busy schedule.

After two weeks, she sent him an email reminding him of the date they agreed upon for feedback. At three weeks, she received the feedback based on cover letter. He suggested she revise the chapter, start the next chapter, and schedule a dissertation committee meeting to discuss her progress. Although she is nervous about showing her work to the full committee, especially because the sample will consist of Mexican-American children, she knows her committee acknowledges her ethnic identity as well as her academic identity. She is grateful for the mentoring she has received and knows the past four years of hard work will result in a desired job.

Conclusion

Creating mentoring relationships that meet the needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000) benefits all stakeholders of graduate education. Establishing this environment by revealing the hidden curriculum, creating individual developments plans, and understanding that students have multiple identities can be facilitated by addressing major barriers to improving our current system of mentorship. These barriers include (a) the belief there is not a problem with the system of mentoring, (b) comfort with the traditional mentorship relationship, (c) blaming the graduate student, and (d) lack of commitment to supporting high-quality mentorship (NASEM, 2019). Kinesiology administrations and faculty are in leadership positions to acknowledge these barriers, provide a counter narrative, and establish departmental and programmatic strategies. Through these mechanisms, kinesiology leaders can promote and advance an effective culture of mentorship at their institution.

Between 2009 and 2019, first time graduate enrollment in health and medical sciences increased by 16.7 % for Hispanic/Latino, 7.9% for Asian/Pacific Islander, 6.1% for Black/African American, and 3.9% for White students (Okahana et al., 2020). As the demographics of our graduate students change, departments need to be prepared to develop culturally aware mentoring (CAM; CIMER, n.d.). Training in CAM can help mentors gain intrapersonal cultural awareness and build skills to recognize and respond to cultural diversity issues (Womack et al., 2020). With CAM training, mentors are better able to help mentees navigate invalidating experiences in academia, affirm connectedness and belonging, and reinforce students’ competency. CAM training participants who were interviewed 1–2 years after completing a program presented specific examples of how the training positively impacted their mentoring relationships (Womack et al., 2020). Even without formal training, programs and departments can institute strategies to help students integrate a kinesiology identity with their social and cultural identities. As indicated in CAM training, the first step is reflection on one’s own social and cultural identities, as well as one’s socialization about diversity, equity, and inclusion. To allow for this reflection, kinesiology leaders could ask faculty to share two items, if they are comfortable, representing their cultural and social identity in a faculty meeting (Womack et al., 2020).

Faculty mentors have a responsibility to be informed about, share, and incorporate multicultural research and perspective (NASEM, 2019). Because kinesiology has many subdisciplines, many colleagues, particularly in sport psychology, sport sociology, sport management, and sport history are publishing scholarship with multicultural perspectives. These colleagues might serve as a resource in a department’s efforts to help faculty mentors learn more about social and cultural identities. Finally, mentors can learn about and participate in networks for historically underrepresented students and faculty (NASEM, 2019). While some kinesiology organizations have special interest groups (e.g., race and ethnicity in sport affinity groups within the Association for Applied Sport Psychology) or training programs (e.g., ACSM’s Leadership and Diversity Training Program), widening relevant networks would presumably create more opportunities to learn and connect with others. Organizations like #BLACKandSTEM, VanguardSTEM, Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science, or GLMA (Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality) can provide resources and support for historically underrepresented students.

While all students need a primary faculty mentor, it is nearly impossible for that mentor to meet all the needs of a graduate student (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021) and likely unreasonable to ask one faculty to act as sole mentor (Tuma et al., 2021). Departments may encourage collective mentoring one of two ways. First, departments may a preassign a group of faculty mentors for students (Montgomery, 2017). This may include a more empowered dissertation or thesis committee (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021; Tuma et al., 2021). In these instances, power is shared among the committee members, and the full committee is encouraged to meet with the student throughout the dissertation process (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021). Second, departments may encourage students to create a personal collection of mentors to meet their various needs (Montgomery). For example, beyond the content expert, students may need a networking person, an advice person, or a listener person to support their progress toward goals and success (Calarco, 2020). Creating opportunities for graduate students and faculty to interact and socialize through structured activities such as brown bag lunches or research symposia can encourage the development of a network of mentors (University of Michigan, 2020a). Regardless of the mechanism, the group of faculty should work in collaboration with each other for the benefit of the graduate student (Cassuto & Weisbuch).

High-quality mentoring is a personal, professional, and institutional investment. It requires acknowledging the limitations in the traditional hierarchical mentoring model and committing to a more contemporary model, even if it conflicts with some of the ways faculty members themselves were socialized to mentor. To maximize perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, kinesiology leaders must contribute to a shifting of mentorship toward a more public endeavor that includes broad institutional strategies (Cassuto & Weisbuch, 2021). Just as mentor skills can improve with commitment and experience, institutions can also do much more to support, reinforce, and incentivize contemporary mentorship within the academy. For example, deans, department heads, and faculty can determine ways to assess the quantity and quality of mentorship experiences, establish a mentor award, support professional development, and ensure mentorship discussions are part of department meetings (NASEM, 2019). Our dedication to higher education and the field of kinesiology should propel us to create conditions for student success and for students to flourish. It is essential that kinesiology leaders place renewed effort on supporting the mentoring relationship to develop the next generation of civic-minded scholars and professionals.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2016a). APA’s resources for individual development plans. https://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Psychological Association. (2016b). Important questions to consider before selecting a mentor or becoming one. https://www.apa.org/education/grad/mentor-mentee.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Butz, A.R., Spencer, K., Thayer-Hart, N., Cabrera, I.E. , & Byars-Winston, A. (2019). Mentors’ motivation to address race/ethnicity in research mentoring relationships. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(3), 242254. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000096

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Byars-Winston, A., Leverett, P., Benbow, R.J., Pfund, C., Thayer-Hart, N., & Branchaw, J. (2020). Race and ethnicity in biology research mentoring relationships. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(3), 240253. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000106

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Calarco, J.M. (2020). A field guide to grad school: Uncovering the hidden curriculum. Princeton University Press.

  • Cassuto, L., & Weisbuch, R. (2021). The new PhD: How to build a better graduate education. John Hopkins Press.

  • Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research CAM. (n.d.). Culturally Aware Mentoring resources. https://cimerproject.org/culturally-aware-mentoring-resources-2/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research Project. (n.d.). Mentor curricula and training: Entering Mentoring. https://cimerproject.org/entering-mentoring/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collaborative Learning and Integrated Mentoring in the Biosciences. (2013). Excelling in graduate school. https://www.northwestern.edu/climb/resources/excelling-in-graduate-school/index.html

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and self-determination of behaviors. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grunewald, R. (June 20, 2018). Is college still worth it? https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2018/23-is-college-still-worth-it

  • Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. (2021a). Individual Development Plan. https://ictr.wisc.edu/mentoring/individual-development-plan/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. (2021b). Mentoring compacts/contracts examples. https://ictr.wisc.edu/mentoring/mentoring-compactscontracts-examples/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Janssen, S., van Vuuren, M., & de Jong, M.D. (2013). Identifying support functions in developmental relationships: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(1), 2029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.005

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johnson, W.B. (2007). Transformational supervision: When supervisors mentor. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 259267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.3.259

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, S., McGee, R., Pfund, C., & Branchaw, J. (2016). Mentoring up: Learning to manage your mentoring relationships. In G. Wright (Ed.), The mentoring continuum: From graduate school through tenure (pp. 133153). The Graduate School Press of Syracuse University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lunsford, L.G. (2012). Doctoral advising or mentoring? Effects on student outcomes. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(2), 251270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.678974

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lunsford, L.G., Crisp, G., Dolan, E.L., & Wuetherick, B. (2017). Mentoring in higher education. In D.A. Clutterbuck, F. Kochan, L.G. Lunsford, N. Dominguez, & J. Haddock-Millar (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 316334). Sage.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Manathunga, C., & Goozée, J. (2007). Challenging the dual assumption of the ‘always/ already’ autonomous student and effective supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 309322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701278658

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McAllister, C.A., Ahmedani, B.K., Harold, R.D., & Cramer, E.P. (2009). Targeted mentoring: Evaluation of a program. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(1), 89104. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700107

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Montgomery, B.L. (2017). Mapping a mentoring roadmap and developing a supportive network for strategic career advancement. Sage Open, 7, 113. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017710288

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). The science of effective mentorship in STEMM. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25568

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Institute of Health. (2021). Individual development plans. https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/strategicplanimplementationblueprint/pages/individualdevelopmentplans.aspx

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Okahana, H., Zhou, E., & Gao, J. (2020). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2009 to 2019. Council of Graduate Schools.

  • Prunuske, A.J., Wilson, J., Walls, M., & Clarke, B. (2013). Experiences of mentors training underrepresented undergraduates in the research laboratory. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12, 403409. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-02-0043

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tuma, T.T., Adams, J.D., Hultquist, B.C., & Dolan, E.L. (2021). The dark side of development: a systems characterization of the negative mentoring experiences of doctoral students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(16), 121. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-10-0231

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • University of Michigan. (2020a). Graduate student mentoring guide: A guide for students. https://rackham.umich.edu/downloads/student-mentoring-handbook.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • University of Michigan. (2020b). How to mentor graduate students: A guide for faculty. https://rackham.umich.edu/downloads/how-to-mentor-graduate-students.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • University of Minnesota. (2017). The individual development plan for graduate students at the University of Minnesota. https://d1uqjtzsuwlnsf.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/163/2017/07/Minnesota-grad-IDP.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vanderford, N.L., Evans, T.M., Weiss, L.T., Bira, L., & Beltran-Gastelum, J. (2018). A cross-sectional study of the use and effectiveness of the individual development plan among doctoral students. F1000Research, 7, 722. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15154.2

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Womack, V.Y., Wood, C.V., House, S.C., Quinn, S.C., Thomas, S.B., McGee, R., & Byars-Winston, A. (2020). Culturally aware mentorship: Lasting impacts of a novel intervention on academic administrators and faculty. PLoS One, 15(8), Article e0236983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236983

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wyatt, G.E., Chin, D., Milburn, N., Hamilton, A., Lopez, S., Kim, A., Stone, J.D., & Belcher, H.M. (2019). Mentoring the mentors of students from diverse backgrounds for research. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89(3), 321328. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000414

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yob, I., & Crawford, L. (2012). Conceptual framework for mentoring doctoral students. Higher Learning Research Communications, 2, 3447. http://hdl.handle.net/11268/4558

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Psychological Association. (2016a). APA’s resources for individual development plans. https://www.apa.org/education/grad/individual-development-plan

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • American Psychological Association. (2016b). Important questions to consider before selecting a mentor or becoming one. https://www.apa.org/education/grad/mentor-mentee.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Butz, A.R., Spencer, K., Thayer-Hart, N., Cabrera, I.E. , & Byars-Winston, A. (2019). Mentors’ motivation to address race/ethnicity in research mentoring relationships. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(3), 242254. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000096

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Byars-Winston, A., Leverett, P., Benbow, R.J., Pfund, C., Thayer-Hart, N., & Branchaw, J. (2020). Race and ethnicity in biology research mentoring relationships. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(3), 240253. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000106

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Calarco, J.M. (2020). A field guide to grad school: Uncovering the hidden curriculum. Princeton University Press.

  • Cassuto, L., & Weisbuch, R. (2021). The new PhD: How to build a better graduate education. John Hopkins Press.

  • Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research CAM. (n.d.). Culturally Aware Mentoring resources. https://cimerproject.org/culturally-aware-mentoring-resources-2/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research Project. (n.d.). Mentor curricula and training: Entering Mentoring. https://cimerproject.org/entering-mentoring/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collaborative Learning and Integrated Mentoring in the Biosciences. (2013). Excelling in graduate school. https://www.northwestern.edu/climb/resources/excelling-in-graduate-school/index.html

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and self-determination of behaviors. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grunewald, R. (June 20, 2018). Is college still worth it? https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2018/23-is-college-still-worth-it

  • Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. (2021a). Individual Development Plan. https://ictr.wisc.edu/mentoring/individual-development-plan/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. (2021b). Mentoring compacts/contracts examples. https://ictr.wisc.edu/mentoring/mentoring-compactscontracts-examples/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Janssen, S., van Vuuren, M., & de Jong, M.D. (2013). Identifying support functions in developmental relationships: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(1), 2029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.005

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johnson, W.B. (2007). Transformational supervision: When supervisors mentor. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 259267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.3.259

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, S., McGee, R., Pfund, C., & Branchaw, J. (2016). Mentoring up: Learning to manage your mentoring relationships. In G. Wright (Ed.), The mentoring continuum: From graduate school through tenure (pp. 133153). The Graduate School Press of Syracuse University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lunsford, L.G. (2012). Doctoral advising or mentoring? Effects on student outcomes. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(2), 251270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2012.678974

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lunsford, L.G., Crisp, G., Dolan, E.L., & Wuetherick, B. (2017). Mentoring in higher education. In D.A. Clutterbuck, F. Kochan, L.G. Lunsford, N. Dominguez, & J. Haddock-Millar (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 316334). Sage.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Manathunga, C., & Goozée, J. (2007). Challenging the dual assumption of the ‘always/ already’ autonomous student and effective supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 309322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701278658

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McAllister, C.A., Ahmedani, B.K., Harold, R.D., & Cramer, E.P. (2009). Targeted mentoring: Evaluation of a program. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(1), 89104. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700107

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Montgomery, B.L. (2017). Mapping a mentoring roadmap and developing a supportive network for strategic career advancement. Sage Open, 7, 113. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017710288

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). The science of effective mentorship in STEMM. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25568

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • National Institute of Health. (2021). Individual development plans. https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/strategicplanimplementationblueprint/pages/individualdevelopmentplans.aspx

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Okahana, H., Zhou, E., & Gao, J. (2020). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2009 to 2019. Council of Graduate Schools.

  • Prunuske, A.J., Wilson, J., Walls, M., & Clarke, B. (2013). Experiences of mentors training underrepresented undergraduates in the research laboratory. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12, 403409. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-02-0043

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tuma, T.T., Adams, J.D., Hultquist, B.C., & Dolan, E.L. (2021). The dark side of development: a systems characterization of the negative mentoring experiences of doctoral students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(16), 121. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-10-0231

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • University of Michigan. (2020a). Graduate student mentoring guide: A guide for students. https://rackham.umich.edu/downloads/student-mentoring-handbook.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • University of Michigan. (2020b). How to mentor graduate students: A guide for faculty. https://rackham.umich.edu/downloads/how-to-mentor-graduate-students.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • University of Minnesota. (2017). The individual development plan for graduate students at the University of Minnesota. https://d1uqjtzsuwlnsf.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/163/2017/07/Minnesota-grad-IDP.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vanderford, N.L., Evans, T.M., Weiss, L.T., Bira, L., & Beltran-Gastelum, J. (2018). A cross-sectional study of the use and effectiveness of the individual development plan among doctoral students. F1000Research, 7, 722. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15154.2

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Womack, V.Y., Wood, C.V., House, S.C., Quinn, S.C., Thomas, S.B., McGee, R., & Byars-Winston, A. (2020). Culturally aware mentorship: Lasting impacts of a novel intervention on academic administrators and faculty. PLoS One, 15(8), Article e0236983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236983

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wyatt, G.E., Chin, D., Milburn, N., Hamilton, A., Lopez, S., Kim, A., Stone, J.D., & Belcher, H.M. (2019). Mentoring the mentors of students from diverse backgrounds for research. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89(3), 321328. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000414

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yob, I., & Crawford, L. (2012). Conceptual framework for mentoring doctoral students. Higher Learning Research Communications, 2, 3447. http://hdl.handle.net/11268/4558

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 175 175 0
Full Text Views 513 513 263
PDF Downloads 82 82 24