CSCTR NEWS ARTICLE Developmental networks in translational science ELLEN W. SEELY, KATHY E. KRAM, and S. JEAN EMANS BOSTON, MASS
M
entorship has been positively associated with career development and research productivity, including scholarship and grant success,1-4 whereas lack of mentorship in areas identified as ‘‘unmet needs’’ has been a significant barrier to career development and satisfaction.5 Although mentorship is universally highlighted as an important attribute for success, the evidence base for effective models of mentoring needs further strengthening. Newer approaches have emphasized the transition from the reliance on the dyadic (single mentor-mentee pair) and hierarchical (mentor is senior to mentee) model to a framework of developmental networks. Developmental networks, initially created and disseminated in the business world6,7 emphasized the importance of relationships with people who help get the work done, help advance one’s career, and provide personal support. Developmental networks may include traditional scholarly research mentors, advisors, peer mentors, e-mentors, colleagues, juniors, mentees, family, and friends who can provide access to knowledge, opportunities, and resources across institutions and cultures. Recently, Murphy and Kram8 have emphasized additional roles that can be filled by the ‘‘step-ahead’’ mentor, a colleague one level higher than mentee or a more experienced peer who has higher levels of skills or experience. Is there a rationale for promoting the concept of developmental networks for investigators in transla-
From the Department of Medicine, Faculty Development Office, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Boston University, Boston, Mass; Office of Faculty Development, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Reprint requests: Ellen W. Seely, Endocrine Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 221 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115; e-mail: [email protected]. 1931-5244/$ - see front matter Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2014.12.002
tional research? Translational research as a continuum from basic science (T1) through clinical settings (T2), clinical practice (T3) to community and population applications (T4)9 transcends a single research area and approach and thereby requires new paradigms and mentoring models. Investigators need to understand how to translate basic laboratory science into application to humans including diagnosis, therapy, and prevention and diverse skills that may encompass first testing in humans and the translation of results from clinical studies into everyday clinical practice and health decisions.10 An important attribute that needs to be fostered is the bidirectional nature of translational research.9,11 One option is for translational researchers to seek out other translational researchers as mentors. However, this approach limits the trainee to the translational bridge of the mentors’ own research areas. Another approach is for the trainee to create a network of mentors with different mentors being able to provide disparate but complementary research skill training or an even broader developmental network acknowledging the critical additional roles of sponsors,12 ‘‘step-ahead mentors’’8 (important in a new field), peers, students, friends and relatives. An approach that values networks allows trainees to cross disciplines of their own choosing and facilitates career development along a pathway independent of a single mentor. A recent study reporting the results of structured interviews of 100 former recipients of National Institutes of Health K (mentored training) awards emphasized the relevance of networks. Important themes that emerged included the numerous roles assigned to mentoring, the unlikelihood of finding a single mentor for all mentoring needs, the needs for mentoring changing over time, and the importance of mentoring networks.13 Thus, given the nature of translational research, we propose that the framework of developmental networks is particularly applicable to fostering the careers of investigators committed to discovery and innovation by bridging different research approaches. 531
532
Translational Research April 2015
Seely et al
Table I. Steps to creating an effective mentoring network Step
Description
Clarify your goals Assess your situation
Clarification of one’s goals and assessment of strengths and weaknesses to achieve these goals.18 Assessment of one’s context and environment for pursuing a translational research project. For example, if the goal is learning how to develop therapies targeted at cancer gene mutations, is there a researcher at one’s institution who is an expert in genetic functional analyses and is there a researcher who is an expert in drug development? If not, can faculty at your institution connect you with experts outside your institution? Building of a developmental network through shared interests and collaborations to help achieve goals. Regular reassessment of one’s goals and developmental network to make sure that the composition and size of the network aligns with changing goals.
Build your network Repeat
Table II. Instructions for developmental networks pre-exercise: roles of network members Instructions for Part I: We ask you to critically examine your network so that you can reflect on your own support system considering the questions: ‘‘What are my goals in translational research?’’, ‘‘What skills do I have for reaching those goals?’’ and ‘‘What skills do I need?’’ For this exercise, we define your network as the set of relationships that help you to get your job done, advance your career, and provide both personal and professional support. As you think back over the past 1–2 years, consider the following 3 types of relationships. Relationship People who help you get the job done
People who help you advance your career
People who provide personal support for you
Role
Symbol
Helpful and useful in doing your work, may work directly with you, or have provided leads to others who helped you with important information, scientific or technical advice, professional expertise, or other resources to do your work Contribute to your professional development or career advancement; give you career guidance or direction, arrange exposure to critical people, provide political advice, serve as ‘‘sponsors’’18 to help you get important opportunities or assignments (such as appointments on hospital or national Committees, journal editorships, or grant panels), advise you on promotion, provide advice on funding opportunities, and/or advocate for you People you go to for your emotional well-being and psychosocial support; ones with whom you share experiences (positive and negative, consult about decisions or concerns that are important to you, vent or commiserate with, debrief critical experiences with); and people with whom you can be yourself
Instructions for Part II: Once you have critically examined your network according to these relationships, you should complete Table III as follows: people with whom you have more than one kind of relationship should be listed more than once (ie, one person could be in 2 or 3 categories). In addition to considering people who perform these functions in your network, we also want you to place them in the column that best describes the type of relationship you have with them. Close relationships are ones where there is a high degree of trust, liking, and mutual commitment. Distant relationships are ones where you do not know the person very well. Moderate relationships are in the middle, neither very close nor distant. In Table III, indicate by a star (+) those people whom you see as very well connected in your department or hospital or professional circle, including someone who ‘‘sponsors’’ you. That person might be an actual leader or just somebody who seems to know many other influential people. Write ‘‘mentor’’ or ‘‘mentee’’ inside the shape (square, triangle, or circle) of anyone you consider in that role.
Building on the concept of developmental networks in business, we adapted an assessment tool developed for managers and business students14 for the world of academic medicine and created a program, which we have used for trainees and faculty in departmental and medical school leadership programs as well as national audiences of postdoctoral trainees and junior faculty.
The aim of these programs is to increase knowledge about the value of developmental networks and introduce learners to the application of developmental networks for their career trajectory.15 We propose that this exercise may be especially useful to assist in the career development of translational researchers. This approach to developmental network building was
Translational Research Volume 165, Number 4
Seely et al
533
Table III. Identifying developmental network members and their roles
presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the Central Society for Clinical and Translational Research reflecting the society’s commitment to innovative approaches to promote career development of translational researchers.16,17 In teaching about developmental networks, we have found it useful for learners to follow a stepwise approach in creating a mentoring network and making it effective (Table I). DEVELOPMENTAL NETWORK EXERCISE
The exercise can be done in a one-on-one career advising session, with a small group of 8–10 or a large group of 20–100 learners in 60–90 minutes depending on discussion time. Prework, discussion, reflection, and identification of action steps are important components of the learning process. Facilitation. The key to a successful exercise for a large or small group is a facilitator who is known as a respected mentor and who is knowledgeable about developmental networks and the exercise. At the start of the workshop, we stress that the facilitator is also there to learn more about networks and that the group
of participants will be providing important feedback to each other. The facilitator’s main role is to make sure the session runs on time, to clarify the framework, and to answer questions about the exercise process. This review and reading of the references can also provide the background to facilitate a workshop. The facilitator can provide examples of important roles of people in his or her network to kick off the discussion. Pre-exercise work. In advance of the exercise for translational investigators, participants are asked to reflect on 3 questions: ‘‘What are my goals in translational research?’’, ‘‘What skills do I have for reaching those goals?’’ and ‘‘What skills do I need?’’ They are sent or given the ‘‘developmental networks preexercise’’ (Tables II and III) and instructions for building a network and asked to complete it before the exercise session and bring it with them. It is important that the diagram (Fig 1—mapping your developmental network) is completed in advance so that the available time can be used for the interactive discussion. During the prework, individuals should perform an assessment of their current developmental network
534
Translational Research April 2015
Seely et al
Fig 1. Mapping your developmental network.
and evaluate the role each member of the network plays in their career development and training. In addition, the individual should begin to identify gaps and unmet needs as well as redundancies in their network and think about how and if to remedy these. Exercise. The day before the exercise, participants are reminded to bring their completed network prework with them to the session. Literature and data about mentoring are briefly reviewed with the participants, and the instructions for the prework reviewed and questions are answered so that the participants can make modifications as needed. Most of the program is then spent in breakouts and discussion. Participants are asked to divide into pairs preferably with someone they know least well and have the least work interaction with. This allows a more open discussion of the networks not constrained by prior knowledge. Each participant in the pair is then given the opportunity to present his or her network to his or her counterpart indicating the self-assessed strengths of the current network to achieve career goals and self-identified
weaknesses in the current network and plans to address these weaknesses, for example, to find an additional mentor or colleague with complementary expertise. The counterpart in the pair is then given the opportunity to critically review the network of the first participant offering additional comments as to both the strengths and weaknesses of the network and especially focusing on providing suggestions on how to remedy weaknesses identified. Once this is completed, the second participant in the pair goes through the same process. Group discussion. We have used different processes for the group discussion depending on the number of participants. If the number of participants is small (eg, 10–14), the remainder of the program can be used to discuss lessons learned from the pair discussions. The networks are analyzed in terms of the themes of diversity, redundancy, interconnectivity, strength of connection, balance, size, and sources of power and influence (Table IV). As each theme is discussed, the 3 categories of roles of people in the network as well as the closeness of the relationship and whether the
Translational Research Volume 165, Number 4
Seely et al
535
Table IV. Themes for mentoring network analysis Research demonstrates that networks vary in structure, content, and quality of relationships. Answer the following questions to better understand the potential value and limitations of your current network. Theme
Description
Diversity
How similar or different are these individuals (in terms of gender, race, function, geography, organizations) to each other and to me? How much overlap is there? Does one person serve every function? Do you have many people helping you get the work done but no one providing personal support? How closed is the network in the sense that most of the people know each other? What is the spread of people in terms of closeness and distance? Is your network balanced or in danger of tipping? Do you have too many mentors and no mentees? Or for more senior faculty, do you have too many mentees but no longer have mentors? How many individuals would you characterize as influential in the department or hospital or field?
Redundancy Interconnectivity Strength of connection Balance Connections to power and influence Size
How large or small is your network? Does the size fit your goals? Is the network a size that you can maintain?
individual is intraorganizational vs external to the organization are examined. Participants can be asked to comment on what they noticed in terms of benefits and limitations of each. In this way, common patterns can be defined and steps taken to solve these issues can be discussed. For example, if the participant has no network members outside his or her institution, other participants may suggest how to identify and add such members by asking existing mentors or sponsors to facilitate introductions locally or at national meetings. Alternatively, the participants can be asked which themes they would like to focus on and the group can discuss these themes. The facilitator uses a white board or flip chart to record the benefits and negatives of themes and actions, and this helps in the identification of shared issues. If the group is large (eg, 20–100), we will preselect 2 themes for group discussion, for example, diversity of the network and redundancy. Instead of opening the discussion directly up to the whole group after the individual network reviews, we perform a second breakout with groups of 6–10 and assign themes to the group asking each group to pick 1 reporter with one half focusing on 1 theme and the other half focusing on a second theme. After these breakouts, we ask each reporter to briefly summarize the discussion points of his/her group. Subsequent reporters are asked to indicate if the discussion points have already been summarized by a prior group and to add only new comments. This process allows time for each group to report and at the same time capturing issues that are shared among many participants. Similar to the smaller group program, the facilitator may record issues and potential solutions on a white board or flip chart, or for large groups, we have found PowerPoints or overhead transparencies to be of use.
Session summary. The facilitator summarizes issues and solutions that the participants have discussed and stresses the importance of continual re-evaluation of one’s network at least once a year. The facilitator asks each participant to write down 3 action steps he or she will take in the next week to strengthen his or her network. An alternative is to have dyads share their action steps with the plan of checking in with one another in a month to see how each is doing with implementation of the steps. The facilitator points out the importance of participants thinking about the individuals they have met during the exercise as potential additions to their network. Participants are asked to think about how they might use developmental networks for their own career development and for that of their mentees. Translational research offers the promise of integration and rapid discovery. New models for career development are urgently needed, and the framework of developmental networks provides a paradigm shift away from dyadic, hierarchical mentoring. The bidirectional nature of translational research and the need for additional skills in evolving fields underscores the value of the developmental network that includes the traditional mentor and the ‘‘step-ahead’’ mentor, the peer mentor, the sponsor, and equally important the student or trainee. Being a mentor and being mentored occur simultaneously. Using the exercise described in this paper, translational researchers can be encouraged to build their own networks, which are responsive to the challenges of their research. Importantly, the translational investigator is at the center of the model, which emphasizes the responsibility of the individual for assessing and reassessing met and unmet needs for his or her own career development. Because the model is dynamic, the participant needs to be active in focusing
536
Seely et al
on next steps for new questions and facilitating the bridging of fields, including new technology. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have read the journal’s policy on disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and have none to declare. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Audrey Haas, MBA and Maxine Milstein, MBA in the development of the exercise. REFERENCES
1. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, et al. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional development in U.S. medical schools. Acad Med 1998;73:318–23. 2. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 2006;296:1103–15. 3. Illes J, Glover GH, Wexler L, Leung ANC, Glazer GM. A model for faculty mentoring in academic radiology. Acad Radiol 2000;7: 717–24. 4. Tracy EE, Jagsi R, Starr R, Tarbell NJ. Outcomes of a pilot faculty mentoring program. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1846–50. 5. Blood EA, Ullrich NJ, Hirshfeld-Becker DR, et al. Academic women faculty: are they finding the mentoring they need? J Womens Health 2012;21:1201–8. 6. Higgins MC, Kram KE. Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network perspective. Acad Manage Rev 2001;26: 264–98. 7. Higgins MC, Thomas DA. Constellations and careers: toward understanding the effects of multiple developmental relationships. J Organiz Behav 2001;22:223–47.
Translational Research April 2015
8. Murphy W, Kram KE. Strategic relationships at work: creating your circle of mentors, sponsors, and peers for success in business and life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2014. Hardcover. 9. Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research—‘‘Blue Highways’’ on the NIH roadmap. JAMA 2007;297:403–6. 10. Sung NS, Crowley WF Jr, Genel M, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 2003;289: 1278–87. 11. Rubio DM, Schoenbaum EE, Lee LS, et al. Defining translational research: implications for training. Acad Med 2010;85:470–5. 12. Travis EL, Doty L, Helitzer DL. Sponsorship: a path to the academic medicine C-suite for women faculty? Acad Med 2013; 88:1414–7. 13. DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, Stewart A, Jagsi R. Batting 300 is good: perspectives of faculty researchers and their mentors on rejection, resilience, and persistence in academic medical careers. Acad Med 2013;88:497–504. 14. Kram KE, Higgins MC. A new mindset on mentoring: creating developmental networks at work. Sloan Manage Rev 2009. reprint 50431. 15. Blood EA, Trent M, Gordon CM, et al. Leadership in adolescent health: developing the next generation of maternal child health leaders through mentorship. Matern Child Health J 2015;19: 308–13. 16. Franklin MJ. Recognizing the research achievements of new investigators. Transl Res 2013;162:130–1. 17. Laurence J. Centennial celebration of translational research: The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine. Transl Res 2014; 165:1–6. 18. Emans SJ, Milstein M. ‘‘The Mentee’s Checklist’’ in Community of Mentors Guidelines for Junior Faculty 2014–2015, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston MA. http://www.childrenshospital. org/~/media/Clinician%20Resources/Office%20of%20Faculty %20Development/2014JuniorFacultybrochurefinal.ashx, pages 9–10. Accessed November 18, 2014.
M
entorship has been positively associated with career development and research productivity, including scholarship and grant success,1-4 whereas lack of mentorship in areas identified as ‘‘unmet needs’’ has been a significant barrier to career development and satisfaction.5 Although mentorship is universally highlighted as an important attribute for success, the evidence base for effective models of mentoring needs further strengthening. Newer approaches have emphasized the transition from the reliance on the dyadic (single mentor-mentee pair) and hierarchical (mentor is senior to mentee) model to a framework of developmental networks. Developmental networks, initially created and disseminated in the business world6,7 emphasized the importance of relationships with people who help get the work done, help advance one’s career, and provide personal support. Developmental networks may include traditional scholarly research mentors, advisors, peer mentors, e-mentors, colleagues, juniors, mentees, family, and friends who can provide access to knowledge, opportunities, and resources across institutions and cultures. Recently, Murphy and Kram8 have emphasized additional roles that can be filled by the ‘‘step-ahead’’ mentor, a colleague one level higher than mentee or a more experienced peer who has higher levels of skills or experience. Is there a rationale for promoting the concept of developmental networks for investigators in transla-
From the Department of Medicine, Faculty Development Office, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Boston University, Boston, Mass; Office of Faculty Development, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Reprint requests: Ellen W. Seely, Endocrine Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 221 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115; e-mail: [email protected]. 1931-5244/$ - see front matter Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2014.12.002
tional research? Translational research as a continuum from basic science (T1) through clinical settings (T2), clinical practice (T3) to community and population applications (T4)9 transcends a single research area and approach and thereby requires new paradigms and mentoring models. Investigators need to understand how to translate basic laboratory science into application to humans including diagnosis, therapy, and prevention and diverse skills that may encompass first testing in humans and the translation of results from clinical studies into everyday clinical practice and health decisions.10 An important attribute that needs to be fostered is the bidirectional nature of translational research.9,11 One option is for translational researchers to seek out other translational researchers as mentors. However, this approach limits the trainee to the translational bridge of the mentors’ own research areas. Another approach is for the trainee to create a network of mentors with different mentors being able to provide disparate but complementary research skill training or an even broader developmental network acknowledging the critical additional roles of sponsors,12 ‘‘step-ahead mentors’’8 (important in a new field), peers, students, friends and relatives. An approach that values networks allows trainees to cross disciplines of their own choosing and facilitates career development along a pathway independent of a single mentor. A recent study reporting the results of structured interviews of 100 former recipients of National Institutes of Health K (mentored training) awards emphasized the relevance of networks. Important themes that emerged included the numerous roles assigned to mentoring, the unlikelihood of finding a single mentor for all mentoring needs, the needs for mentoring changing over time, and the importance of mentoring networks.13 Thus, given the nature of translational research, we propose that the framework of developmental networks is particularly applicable to fostering the careers of investigators committed to discovery and innovation by bridging different research approaches. 531
532
Translational Research April 2015
Seely et al
Table I. Steps to creating an effective mentoring network Step
Description
Clarify your goals Assess your situation
Clarification of one’s goals and assessment of strengths and weaknesses to achieve these goals.18 Assessment of one’s context and environment for pursuing a translational research project. For example, if the goal is learning how to develop therapies targeted at cancer gene mutations, is there a researcher at one’s institution who is an expert in genetic functional analyses and is there a researcher who is an expert in drug development? If not, can faculty at your institution connect you with experts outside your institution? Building of a developmental network through shared interests and collaborations to help achieve goals. Regular reassessment of one’s goals and developmental network to make sure that the composition and size of the network aligns with changing goals.
Build your network Repeat
Table II. Instructions for developmental networks pre-exercise: roles of network members Instructions for Part I: We ask you to critically examine your network so that you can reflect on your own support system considering the questions: ‘‘What are my goals in translational research?’’, ‘‘What skills do I have for reaching those goals?’’ and ‘‘What skills do I need?’’ For this exercise, we define your network as the set of relationships that help you to get your job done, advance your career, and provide both personal and professional support. As you think back over the past 1–2 years, consider the following 3 types of relationships. Relationship People who help you get the job done
People who help you advance your career
People who provide personal support for you
Role
Symbol
Helpful and useful in doing your work, may work directly with you, or have provided leads to others who helped you with important information, scientific or technical advice, professional expertise, or other resources to do your work Contribute to your professional development or career advancement; give you career guidance or direction, arrange exposure to critical people, provide political advice, serve as ‘‘sponsors’’18 to help you get important opportunities or assignments (such as appointments on hospital or national Committees, journal editorships, or grant panels), advise you on promotion, provide advice on funding opportunities, and/or advocate for you People you go to for your emotional well-being and psychosocial support; ones with whom you share experiences (positive and negative, consult about decisions or concerns that are important to you, vent or commiserate with, debrief critical experiences with); and people with whom you can be yourself
Instructions for Part II: Once you have critically examined your network according to these relationships, you should complete Table III as follows: people with whom you have more than one kind of relationship should be listed more than once (ie, one person could be in 2 or 3 categories). In addition to considering people who perform these functions in your network, we also want you to place them in the column that best describes the type of relationship you have with them. Close relationships are ones where there is a high degree of trust, liking, and mutual commitment. Distant relationships are ones where you do not know the person very well. Moderate relationships are in the middle, neither very close nor distant. In Table III, indicate by a star (+) those people whom you see as very well connected in your department or hospital or professional circle, including someone who ‘‘sponsors’’ you. That person might be an actual leader or just somebody who seems to know many other influential people. Write ‘‘mentor’’ or ‘‘mentee’’ inside the shape (square, triangle, or circle) of anyone you consider in that role.
Building on the concept of developmental networks in business, we adapted an assessment tool developed for managers and business students14 for the world of academic medicine and created a program, which we have used for trainees and faculty in departmental and medical school leadership programs as well as national audiences of postdoctoral trainees and junior faculty.
The aim of these programs is to increase knowledge about the value of developmental networks and introduce learners to the application of developmental networks for their career trajectory.15 We propose that this exercise may be especially useful to assist in the career development of translational researchers. This approach to developmental network building was
Translational Research Volume 165, Number 4
Seely et al
533
Table III. Identifying developmental network members and their roles
presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the Central Society for Clinical and Translational Research reflecting the society’s commitment to innovative approaches to promote career development of translational researchers.16,17 In teaching about developmental networks, we have found it useful for learners to follow a stepwise approach in creating a mentoring network and making it effective (Table I). DEVELOPMENTAL NETWORK EXERCISE
The exercise can be done in a one-on-one career advising session, with a small group of 8–10 or a large group of 20–100 learners in 60–90 minutes depending on discussion time. Prework, discussion, reflection, and identification of action steps are important components of the learning process. Facilitation. The key to a successful exercise for a large or small group is a facilitator who is known as a respected mentor and who is knowledgeable about developmental networks and the exercise. At the start of the workshop, we stress that the facilitator is also there to learn more about networks and that the group
of participants will be providing important feedback to each other. The facilitator’s main role is to make sure the session runs on time, to clarify the framework, and to answer questions about the exercise process. This review and reading of the references can also provide the background to facilitate a workshop. The facilitator can provide examples of important roles of people in his or her network to kick off the discussion. Pre-exercise work. In advance of the exercise for translational investigators, participants are asked to reflect on 3 questions: ‘‘What are my goals in translational research?’’, ‘‘What skills do I have for reaching those goals?’’ and ‘‘What skills do I need?’’ They are sent or given the ‘‘developmental networks preexercise’’ (Tables II and III) and instructions for building a network and asked to complete it before the exercise session and bring it with them. It is important that the diagram (Fig 1—mapping your developmental network) is completed in advance so that the available time can be used for the interactive discussion. During the prework, individuals should perform an assessment of their current developmental network
534
Translational Research April 2015
Seely et al
Fig 1. Mapping your developmental network.
and evaluate the role each member of the network plays in their career development and training. In addition, the individual should begin to identify gaps and unmet needs as well as redundancies in their network and think about how and if to remedy these. Exercise. The day before the exercise, participants are reminded to bring their completed network prework with them to the session. Literature and data about mentoring are briefly reviewed with the participants, and the instructions for the prework reviewed and questions are answered so that the participants can make modifications as needed. Most of the program is then spent in breakouts and discussion. Participants are asked to divide into pairs preferably with someone they know least well and have the least work interaction with. This allows a more open discussion of the networks not constrained by prior knowledge. Each participant in the pair is then given the opportunity to present his or her network to his or her counterpart indicating the self-assessed strengths of the current network to achieve career goals and self-identified
weaknesses in the current network and plans to address these weaknesses, for example, to find an additional mentor or colleague with complementary expertise. The counterpart in the pair is then given the opportunity to critically review the network of the first participant offering additional comments as to both the strengths and weaknesses of the network and especially focusing on providing suggestions on how to remedy weaknesses identified. Once this is completed, the second participant in the pair goes through the same process. Group discussion. We have used different processes for the group discussion depending on the number of participants. If the number of participants is small (eg, 10–14), the remainder of the program can be used to discuss lessons learned from the pair discussions. The networks are analyzed in terms of the themes of diversity, redundancy, interconnectivity, strength of connection, balance, size, and sources of power and influence (Table IV). As each theme is discussed, the 3 categories of roles of people in the network as well as the closeness of the relationship and whether the
Translational Research Volume 165, Number 4
Seely et al
535
Table IV. Themes for mentoring network analysis Research demonstrates that networks vary in structure, content, and quality of relationships. Answer the following questions to better understand the potential value and limitations of your current network. Theme
Description
Diversity
How similar or different are these individuals (in terms of gender, race, function, geography, organizations) to each other and to me? How much overlap is there? Does one person serve every function? Do you have many people helping you get the work done but no one providing personal support? How closed is the network in the sense that most of the people know each other? What is the spread of people in terms of closeness and distance? Is your network balanced or in danger of tipping? Do you have too many mentors and no mentees? Or for more senior faculty, do you have too many mentees but no longer have mentors? How many individuals would you characterize as influential in the department or hospital or field?
Redundancy Interconnectivity Strength of connection Balance Connections to power and influence Size
How large or small is your network? Does the size fit your goals? Is the network a size that you can maintain?
individual is intraorganizational vs external to the organization are examined. Participants can be asked to comment on what they noticed in terms of benefits and limitations of each. In this way, common patterns can be defined and steps taken to solve these issues can be discussed. For example, if the participant has no network members outside his or her institution, other participants may suggest how to identify and add such members by asking existing mentors or sponsors to facilitate introductions locally or at national meetings. Alternatively, the participants can be asked which themes they would like to focus on and the group can discuss these themes. The facilitator uses a white board or flip chart to record the benefits and negatives of themes and actions, and this helps in the identification of shared issues. If the group is large (eg, 20–100), we will preselect 2 themes for group discussion, for example, diversity of the network and redundancy. Instead of opening the discussion directly up to the whole group after the individual network reviews, we perform a second breakout with groups of 6–10 and assign themes to the group asking each group to pick 1 reporter with one half focusing on 1 theme and the other half focusing on a second theme. After these breakouts, we ask each reporter to briefly summarize the discussion points of his/her group. Subsequent reporters are asked to indicate if the discussion points have already been summarized by a prior group and to add only new comments. This process allows time for each group to report and at the same time capturing issues that are shared among many participants. Similar to the smaller group program, the facilitator may record issues and potential solutions on a white board or flip chart, or for large groups, we have found PowerPoints or overhead transparencies to be of use.
Session summary. The facilitator summarizes issues and solutions that the participants have discussed and stresses the importance of continual re-evaluation of one’s network at least once a year. The facilitator asks each participant to write down 3 action steps he or she will take in the next week to strengthen his or her network. An alternative is to have dyads share their action steps with the plan of checking in with one another in a month to see how each is doing with implementation of the steps. The facilitator points out the importance of participants thinking about the individuals they have met during the exercise as potential additions to their network. Participants are asked to think about how they might use developmental networks for their own career development and for that of their mentees. Translational research offers the promise of integration and rapid discovery. New models for career development are urgently needed, and the framework of developmental networks provides a paradigm shift away from dyadic, hierarchical mentoring. The bidirectional nature of translational research and the need for additional skills in evolving fields underscores the value of the developmental network that includes the traditional mentor and the ‘‘step-ahead’’ mentor, the peer mentor, the sponsor, and equally important the student or trainee. Being a mentor and being mentored occur simultaneously. Using the exercise described in this paper, translational researchers can be encouraged to build their own networks, which are responsive to the challenges of their research. Importantly, the translational investigator is at the center of the model, which emphasizes the responsibility of the individual for assessing and reassessing met and unmet needs for his or her own career development. Because the model is dynamic, the participant needs to be active in focusing
536
Seely et al
on next steps for new questions and facilitating the bridging of fields, including new technology. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have read the journal’s policy on disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and have none to declare. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Audrey Haas, MBA and Maxine Milstein, MBA in the development of the exercise. REFERENCES
1. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, et al. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional development in U.S. medical schools. Acad Med 1998;73:318–23. 2. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 2006;296:1103–15. 3. Illes J, Glover GH, Wexler L, Leung ANC, Glazer GM. A model for faculty mentoring in academic radiology. Acad Radiol 2000;7: 717–24. 4. Tracy EE, Jagsi R, Starr R, Tarbell NJ. Outcomes of a pilot faculty mentoring program. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1846–50. 5. Blood EA, Ullrich NJ, Hirshfeld-Becker DR, et al. Academic women faculty: are they finding the mentoring they need? J Womens Health 2012;21:1201–8. 6. Higgins MC, Kram KE. Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network perspective. Acad Manage Rev 2001;26: 264–98. 7. Higgins MC, Thomas DA. Constellations and careers: toward understanding the effects of multiple developmental relationships. J Organiz Behav 2001;22:223–47.
Translational Research April 2015
8. Murphy W, Kram KE. Strategic relationships at work: creating your circle of mentors, sponsors, and peers for success in business and life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2014. Hardcover. 9. Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research—‘‘Blue Highways’’ on the NIH roadmap. JAMA 2007;297:403–6. 10. Sung NS, Crowley WF Jr, Genel M, et al. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 2003;289: 1278–87. 11. Rubio DM, Schoenbaum EE, Lee LS, et al. Defining translational research: implications for training. Acad Med 2010;85:470–5. 12. Travis EL, Doty L, Helitzer DL. Sponsorship: a path to the academic medicine C-suite for women faculty? Acad Med 2013; 88:1414–7. 13. DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, Stewart A, Jagsi R. Batting 300 is good: perspectives of faculty researchers and their mentors on rejection, resilience, and persistence in academic medical careers. Acad Med 2013;88:497–504. 14. Kram KE, Higgins MC. A new mindset on mentoring: creating developmental networks at work. Sloan Manage Rev 2009. reprint 50431. 15. Blood EA, Trent M, Gordon CM, et al. Leadership in adolescent health: developing the next generation of maternal child health leaders through mentorship. Matern Child Health J 2015;19: 308–13. 16. Franklin MJ. Recognizing the research achievements of new investigators. Transl Res 2013;162:130–1. 17. Laurence J. Centennial celebration of translational research: The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine. Transl Res 2014; 165:1–6. 18. Emans SJ, Milstein M. ‘‘The Mentee’s Checklist’’ in Community of Mentors Guidelines for Junior Faculty 2014–2015, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston MA. http://www.childrenshospital. org/~/media/Clinician%20Resources/Office%20of%20Faculty %20Development/2014JuniorFacultybrochurefinal.ashx, pages 9–10. Accessed November 18, 2014.
