Responsible mentoring
ThemesResponsible mentoring
What is this about?
Mentoring is a formal or informal professional relationship between an experienced researcher and a less experienced researcher.[1] It is dyadic relationship, i.e. a committed relationship between two persons, usually characterized by institutional proximity and direct contact.
- ↑ Sambunjak D, Marušić A. Mentoring: what's in a name? JAMA. 2009 Dec 16;302(23):2591-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1858.
Why is this important?
Mentoring is important as it has traditionally been a successful way for research development of individuals, as well as research institutions and systems.
Although mentoring is an old concept (Mentor and Telemachus in The Odyssey), it is a difficult concept. It is should not be confused with other types of professional research relationship, such as teaching, tutoring, coaching, advising, counselling, supervising, sponsoring, role-modelling, preceptoring, peer support.[1]
Mentoring is a complex phenomenon,[2] which integrates different functions, as mentors help their mentees to acquire, synthesize and integrate new knowledge and skills, as well as develop professionally and personally. It is an intense, personal as well as professional relationship with high commitment over a long period of time. It is reciprocal but asymmetrical, as the primary goal is the professional growth and development of a mentee.
We do not have solid evidence that mentorship work. A systematic review of mentoring in academic medicine[3] showed that it is perceived as very important bur there is little evidence that it is actually successful. This is similar for many other disciplines and types of mentoring.[4]
There are different ethical issues in mentoring, related to the individuals involved in the mentoring relationship but also related to the hosting organization.[5] Issues for mentees include lack of motivation and poor collaboration, and laps in professionalism, failure to acknowledge mentee’s contribution, lack of commitment and collaboration. Ethics burdens to a mentoring relationship may be the power imbalance, misalignment of goals, poor communication, competition, gender or cultural bias, and personality conflicts. Organizations where mentorship happen are also responsible for ethics problems generated by mentoring: they may not have adequate recruitment procedures, oversight, assessment and recognition of good mentorship, lack of clear guidelines, and lack of administrative support, such as protected time for mentoring.
- ↑ Sambunjak D, Marušić A. Mentoring: what's in a name? JAMA. 2009 Dec 16;302(23):2591-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1858.
- ↑ Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marušić A. A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Jan;25(1):72-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1165-8.
- ↑ Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marušić A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006 Sep 6;296(9):1103-15. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1103.
- ↑ Eby LT, Allen TD, Evans SC, Ng T, Dubois D. Does Mentoring Matter? A Multidisciplinary Meta-Analysis Comparing Mentored and Non-Mentored Individuals. J Vocat Behav. 2008 Apr;72(2):254-267. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005.
- ↑ Kow CS, Teo YH, Teo YN, Chua KZY, Quah ELY, Kamal NHBA, Tan LHE, Cheong CWS, Ong YT, Tay KT, Chiam M, Mason S, Krishna LKR. A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools. BMC Med Educ. 2020 Jul 31;20(1):246. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02169-3.
For whom is this important?
What are the best practices?
The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC RI) defines a good practice in mentorship:[1]
“Senior researchers, research leaders and supervisors mentor their team members and offer specific guidance and training to properly develop, design and structure their research activity and to foster a culture of research integrity.” The ECoC RI also defines the misuse of seniority to encourage violations of research integrity as an unacceptable practice.
The Office for Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services defines the expectations of trainees and mentors in the research process.[2]
“Trainees need to know:
· how much time they will be expected to spend on their mentor’s research;
· the criteria that will be used for judging performance and form the basis of letters of recommendation;
· how responsibilities are shared or divided in the research setting;
· standard operating procedures, such as the way data are recorded and interpreted; and, most importantly,
· how credit is assigned, that is, how authorship and ownership are established.
Mentors need to know that a trainee will:
· do assigned work in a conscientious way,
· respect the authority of others working in the research setting,
· follow research regulations and research protocols, and
· live by agreements established for authorship and ownership.”
- ↑ All European Academies. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2017. Available: https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf.
- ↑ Office for Research Integrity (ORI). Basic responsibilities. ORI Introduction to RCR: Chapter 7. Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities. Available: https://ori.hhs.gov/content/Chapter-7-Mentor-and-Trainee-Responsibilities-Basic-responsibilities.
Ana Marusic, Andrijana Perković Paloš contributed to this theme. Latest contribution was Sep 20, 2021
