HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author Manuscript
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24. Published in final edited form as: J Fac Dev. 2014 September ; 28(3): 13–22.
Social Media and Mentoring in Biomedical Research Faculty Development Stacey Alan Teruya and Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science
Abstract Author Manuscript
Purpose—To determine how effective and collegial mentoring in biomedical research faculty development may be implemented and facilitated through social media. Method—The authors reviewed the literature for objectives, concerns, and limitations of career development for junior research faculty. They tabularized these as developmental goals, and aligned them with relevant social media strengths and capabilities facilitated through traditional and/or peer mentoring. Results—The authors derived a model in which social media is leveraged to achieve developmental goals reflected in independent and shared projects, and in the creation and expansion of support and research networks.
Author Manuscript
Conclusions—Social media may be successfully leveraged and applied in achieving developmental goals for biomedical research faculty, and potentially for those in other fields and disciplines. Our search of the literature revealed a general scarcity on research faculty development, as opposed to that on teaching and clinical faculty. Their respective needs and priorities, however, are seen to differ substantially. Teachers, for example, value acquiring knowledge and functioning better as instructors (Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2005), while clinical faculty desire specialized and focused non-research training (Beck, Wingard, Zuniga, Heifetz, & Gilbreath, 2008). For all faculty, however, mentoring has been found to be a consistent, recurring variable for productivity in different groupings and analysis, e. g. Bland et al (2005), and a priority in career development, e. g. Coates, Love, Santen, Hobgood, Mavis, Maggio, & Farrell (2010).
Author Manuscript
Mentors provide continuing professional career guidance (Wells, Short, & Lester, 2010), recommend learning and development activities specific to each mentee (Thomas, DienerWest, Canto, Martin, Post, & Streiff, 2004), and are instrumental in promotion, tenure, and other developmental matters (Schuh, 2010; Steinert, McLeod, Boillat, Meterissian, Elizov, & Macdonald, 2009). Close, collegial mentoring has also been found to be especially important for racial minorities, who benefit significantly from emotional and cultural
Correspondence should be addressed to: Stacey A. Teruya, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, 1731 E. 120th. St., Los Angeles, CA 90059, Tel (323) 563-5961; Fax (323) 563-5910, [email protected].
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 2
Author Manuscript
support in these relationships (Feldman, Arean, & Marshall, 2010; Yager, Waitzkin, Parker, & Duran, 2007). The literature also reveals some fundamental uncertainty as to who should serve as a mentor, in what capacity, and what constitutes good and effective mentoring. From a research perspective, relevant metrics that accurately reflect performance improvement are therefore imperative. The purpose of this manuscript is to first examine objectives, concerns and limitations in research faculty development found in the literature, in the context of current adult learning theory. Synthesizing these as developmental goals, we then sought to identify social media strengths and capabilities which may be used to achieve them, thus facilitating professional development for biomedical research faculty, and potentially for those in other fields and disciplines. Lastly, we propose a social media model in which practical mentoring approaches are seen to yield measurable, quantitative outcomes.
Author Manuscript
Background Finding a Mentor
Author Manuscript
In a national faculty development program centered at the University of California at San Diego, participants reported limited mentorship in advancing their academic trajectory (Beck et al., 2008). One-third of junior faculty at the University of California at San Francisco said that they had no mentor, and most needed assistance in finding an appropriate one (Feldman et al, 2010). Junior faculty members have expressed a need for more formal, centralized and institutionalized mentoring (Bland, Seaquist, Pacala, Center, & Finstad, 2002; Schuh, 2010), possibly in terms of simply finding or being assigned a mentor. At Morehouse University, less than half of surveyed junior faculty felt adequately mentored (Rust, Taylor, Herbert-Carter, Smith, Earles, & Kondwani, 2006). These sources suggest that the availability of mentors, and what they can and are willing to provide, are fundamental challenges. One possible reason is that the pool of potential mentors is selective and tightly constrained. Traditionally, only established, senior faculty with noteworthy publication and grant records are deemed eligible to be mentors (Lane, 2008), regardless of the abilities, qualifications or background of available, but less-established researchers. There are, of course, valid reasons in discouraging early-stage faculty from being primary mentors to others. Both they and the trainee, for example, may be in competition for the same pilot or developmental grants, or for first-authorship on collaborative, peer-reviewed publications (Lane, 2008). Finding the Right Mentor
Author Manuscript
Reports and studies such as Chew, Watanabe, Buchwald, & Lessler (2003) emphasize that mentees must not just find a mentor, but the right mentor. To add to the scarcity of available traditional mentors, the parameters and demands of scientific and career mentoring are rigorous, and the rewards often altruistic, without financial compensation. Effective mentors must have, and be willing to spend, the time necessary to ensure the success of his or her mentee. They must accept full responsibility for this junior person, who should never be viewed simply as a personal resource, such as a lab or research assistant (Coates, Ankel, Birnbaum, Kosiak, Broderick, Thomas, Leschke, & Collings, 2004; Lane, 2008). Racial and J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 3
Author Manuscript
ethnic minorities are seen to require even more individual attention, dedication, encouragement, and support to succeed (Jackson, Smith, & Hill, 2003; Rust et al., 2006; Yager, Waitzkin, Parker, & Duran, 2007). In light of these demands and concerns, we identified supportive, personal mentoring relationships as fundamental in junior biomedical faculty development, and our first developmental goal. Mentoring in a Traditional Apprentice Model
Author Manuscript
The commonly-employed, traditional academic apprenticeship model advances scholars from a bachelor’s to a master’s degree, and then, with the oversight and guidance of a mentor(s) and/or adviser(s), to a doctorate (Belcher, 1994; Glazer & Hannafin, 2006). In ideal circumstances, junior research faculty in a scholarly development paradigm are adequately coached, supported and trained in areas of scientific research and writing, grantsmanship, and career enhancement by senior, accomplished investigators. These considerations lead us to identify guided and experiential learning in an apprentice model, and the demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge in this paradigm, as our second and third developmental goals, respectively. Traditional mentoring, however, has its demands and limitations. Mentors will encourage practical problem-solving through close, almost daily interaction, which is crucial in the success of every trainee and student (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2010). The type, frequency and depth of these desired engagements, resultant rewards (if any), and the resources and commitment required, help to highlight the limitations of available mentors and mentoring in the traditional apprentice model. Peer Mentoring
Author Manuscript
Senior faculty in a traditional apprentice model may not be willing or able to provide guidance and assistance on an almost daily basis in scientific, career, and even personal domains, especially through frequent social interaction and engagement. If we allow that peers can effectively serve as both scientific and career mentors, not only will there be a larger pool from which to choose, such a model can leverage constructs of selfempowerment, group learning and collaboration (Pololi, 2005). Trainees will become more involved, vested and interested in their own learning, and connected with their developmental activities, their institution, and to other students (Axelson & Flick, 2010).
Author Manuscript
The literature suggests that organically-derived peer mentoring, as a group process of nonhierarchical relationships (Pololi, 2005), may be more satisfying and productive than traditional pairings (Feldman et al., 2010). Social media is, of course, both organic and social, and socialization appears to occur more readily between peers, rather than with members of a different social, cultural or academic order. For example, some students believe that teaching faculty should not be present on Facebook at all (Hewitt & Forte, 2006), echoing unease as well as privacy and identity management concerns (Moran, Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2011). However, technology and social media may be used to help overcome such concerns and facilitate both peer and group relationships (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Through online
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 4
Author Manuscript
platforms, for example, one mentor – peer or traditional – can efficiently guide and advise multiple mentees at one time, using podcasts, discussion threads, RSS feeds and other social media tools. In another example, third and fourth year medical students in Charles R. Drew University’s Research Thesis Program elect class presidents. He or she is expected to employ text messaging, emails and social networking sites to advise, counsel, support and link their classmates and peers in their research, as well as to communicate Program news and developments. This technology may even enable locating the “right” traditional mentor through referrals and recommendations.
Author Manuscript
In a discussion of peer mentoring, it is important to consider that these individuals share common values, backgrounds, perspectives and objectives with those they guide, support and counsel, and are not necessarily social or professional “equals.” Patel, Roberts, Miller, Ziegler, & Ostapchuk (2012), for example, found that the success of resident physicians as mentors to medical students was based primarily on the similarity of usage patterns of personal electronic media, and on the common, preferred mentoring approaches of both. These dynamics support assimilation into a virtual learning community and information sharing among peers as critical and relevant developmental components in social media, which form our fourth and fifth goals, respectively. In addition, because the demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge among peers appears fundamental to group and social learning, it was identified as our sixth developmental goal. Research Networks and Collaborations
Author Manuscript
The number and size of research networks and scientific collaborations appear to be valid and valuable outcomes in research faculty development. In 2012, we identified all 41 active Charles R. Drew University (CDU) research faculty members credited as first or last author in a PubMed search, and/or who were awarded competitive, independent research grants within the past five years. Using de-identified data, we conducted bivariate analysis to confirm significant predictors of grant and publication success found in the literature. Using pseudo-R2 through logistic regression, we found that “size of research networks and collaborations” was the most statistically significant predictor of both publication and grant success (Table 1). Faculty with “High” networks and collaborations were awarded three to five times more competitive grants, and had five to ten times the number of publications than those with “Low” or “Medium” sized networks and collaborations. It is important to note that holding full or associate professor rank was also found statistically significant in predicting grant and publication success. However, such attributes are, of course, normally not associated with junior faculty.
Author Manuscript
These preliminary data suggest the importance of building research networks and collaborations in junior faculty career development, which was recognized as our seventh and final developmental goal. This goal is achieved in online communities through interaction with both senior investigators and with professional and scientific colleagues, and through the guidance and assistance of peer and traditional mentors.
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 5
Grants and Publications as Desired Outcomes
Author Manuscript
There is no lack of descriptive studies on institutionalized or departmental development programs wherein performance improvement in less-established faculty is usually selfassessed, e. g. Bland et al (2002). These often use criteria such as career satisfaction (Palepu, Friedman, Barnett, Carr, Ash, Szalacha, & Moskowitz, 1998) and perceptions of selfefficacy (Feldman et al., 2010). The absence of quantifiable and objective criteria, though, may in truth reflect the scarcity of adequate research, especially on “bad” mentoring, and what should be done to correct it (Schuh, 2010).
Author Manuscript
Grants and publications have been used as metrics in previous, substantive studies (Roy, Roberts, & Stewart, 2006; Rust et al., 2006; Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo, & Dicrisi, 2002). Independent, competitive grant awards in particular are seen as accurate indicators of innate and acquired productivity, distinct from “lesser” university and department incentives and mechanisms, such as pilot grants and institutional funding (Eisen & Barlett, 2006; Karimi, Arendt, Cawley, Buhler, Elbarbry, & Roberts, 2010; Nunez-Wolff, 2007). In addition, the significance of published, peer-reviewed articles as a desired outcome is confirmed by a study in which the mean number of publications by faculty at different universities was significantly correlated with U.S. News & World Report rankings for each of these institutions (Roy et al., 2006).
Author Manuscript
In addition to their intrinsic value in demonstrating competency and competitiveness, grant and publications may also serve as indicators or proxies of effective mentoring in achieving mentees’ desired outcomes. For example, junior faculty have cited “effective writing of grants and publications” as their most important career development need (Miedzinski, Davis, Al-Shurafa, & Morrison, 2001), and an increase in their number and quality may represent effective faculty development and mentoring. Other Relevant Metrics of Success Common online, social media products range from conversations in Facebook, to shared videos on YouTube, to collaborative articles under Wikipedia. In addition to the number of manuscripts and grants, posited metrics in a social media model of mentoring include online postings, peer and mentor interactions, and online rankings of shared, collaborative projects. The number of postings by emerging faculty, and interactions with peers on Facebook, for example, can be easily tracked. Participants can vote “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” to assess recorded journal clubs on YouTube, and note the number of times the project has been viewed by mentors, peers or others, who are free to leave detailed comments and critique.
Author Manuscript
Wikipedia is more structured and formalized in its online content and format, but still allows for the easy creation, modification and verification of online articles as shared projects between mentor and mentee, or between peers. Wikipedia also provides a “Talk” capability, through which participants can discuss, critique and raise questions about any article posted by emerging faculty.
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 6
Author Manuscript
Methods Recurrent themes in faculty development found in the literature include the scarcity of recognized mentors, what constitutes good and effective mentoring, and what processes and tools can increase the scientific and career trajectory of emerging faculty. In a systematic process, we first synthesized these and others as seven developmental goals in a matrix, with corresponding posited mechanisms and processes that may address them through social media (Table 2). We next considered which specific social media tools may be best aligned with achieving each of these goals, and which type of mentoring (peer, traditional or both) may be best suited to each (Table 3).
Author Manuscript
Results From Tables 2 and 3, we derived a social media model of mentoring for biomedical research faculty that can achieve developmental goals, implemented through seven different modes or approaches. These are categorized by type of mentoring: Peer, traditional, and both (Table 4). Each mode is enabled through different processes, which yield distinct quantitative outcomes. Peer Mentoring
Author Manuscript
In the first mode or approach, peers engage in online conversation and social interaction directly with other users, and through interest groups and event postings. These exchanges foster social learning (Reed, Evely, Cundill, Fazey, Glass, Laing, Newig, Parrish, Prell, Raymond, & Stringer, 2010) in units or communities of practice, as found on sites such as Facebook or LinkedIn. Supportive online environments facilitate assimilation into and adjustment in these communities. Social media also enables recruitment, membership and engagement, and help unify community members. Measurable outcomes may include the level and degree of social interaction with other researchers, quantifiable as low, medium, and high.
Author Manuscript
In the second mode, peer mentoring fosters group learning, which is highly personal (Rogers, 2000; Roth & Lee, 2006), often cohort-based (Lipson, 2002; Scribner & Donaldson, 2001), and can occur on Facebook, LinkedIn, and purpose-built resources such as www.clivir.com. Personal interactions facilitate and enable emotional connections, shared experiences and “engagements” (Kuh et al., 2010) that meet both individual and collective needs in both social and group learning (Bonk, Wisher, & Nigrelli, 2004). These types of learning are demonstrated through acquired knowledge manifest mainly as independent projects, which include podcasts, photos, videos and online presentations. Such efforts receive feedback and critique from peers within supportive learning communities (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999). These social groups enable junior faculty to develop close and meaningful personal relationships with their peers and peer mentors, thereby integrating academic and social needs (Kuh et al., 2010). Quantifiable metrics in this mode include the number and online rating of projects.
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 7
Author Manuscript
In the third mode, group and social learning occur through the demonstration of acquired knowledge in both independent and collaborative projects – mainly articles and postings in Wikipedia, blogs and miniblogs. These are assessed by online peers, and enhanced and refined through feedback and critique. Possible relevant metrics include the number and online rating of projects, and the number of resultant manuscripts (published or not), grant applications and funding awards. Traditional Mentoring
Author Manuscript
In a fourth mode, a mentee demonstrates his or her acquired knowledge by posting podcasts, photos, videos and presentations in content communities such as YouTube, Flickr and SlideShare. Through the same social media, senior faculty will guide and critique the project to completion in an apprentice model of scholarly development. Such “hands-on,” directed discovery facilitates experiential (A. Kolb & Kolb, 2005; D. Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2001) and guided learning (Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Craig, 1953). In this mode, the number and online rating of shared media projects may be valid, quantitative performance metrics.
Author Manuscript
In the fifth mode, mentored faculty apply their acquired research knowledge in web-based, shared, collaborative projects with a traditional mentor. These collaborations have been endorsed as the means of effective, traditional mentoring relationships (Gitlin, Yuan, Little, & Todd, 2005; Gusic, Milner, Tisdell, Taylor, Quillen, & Thorndyke, 2010; McWey, Henderson, & Piercy, 2006; Thorndyke, Gusic, George, Quillen, & Milner, 2006). At universities, such “real-life” partnerships may also yield salary support for emerging faculty, which is clearly an important practical consideration in their academic persistence. Articles, postings and other topics on Wikipedia, blogs, miniblogs or other social media sites are developed, refined and enhanced in a cooperative effort between junior faculty and a senior investigator. Possible quantitative metrics include the number of collaborative projects that result in grant proposals or published manuscripts. Mentoring by Both Peers and Traditional Mentors The sixth mode involves both traditional senior mentors and the mentee’s professional peers. Junior faculty engage in “brainstorming” sessions, and communicate and interact with other less-established researchers, as well as with senior and experienced investigators. Resultant referrals, partnerships and collaborations are enabled through direct online communication, and facilitated through group and event postings on sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Valid performance metrics may include the number of interactions with other researchers, and the number of resultant manuscripts and grant proposals.
Author Manuscript
In the final mentoring mode in this model, senior faculty, friends and colleagues lend emotional and other career development support on sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook. In addition to words of encouragement, this support may include help locating and retaining appropriate scientific, career and life mentor(s) through referrals, postings and profiles. Appropriate and relevant metrics may include the number and quantifiable outcomes of resultant mentoring relationships, such as manuscripts and grant proposals, or promotion, salary support, and other career criteria.
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 8
Author Manuscript
Discussion and Conclusions
Author Manuscript
Mentors and mentoring are critical components in the scientific and career advancement of all junior research faculty, especially racial and ethnic minorities. Having a mentor is limited by the relatively small number of available candidates, a constraint imposed through a traditional perspective in which only senior, accomplished faculty are considered qualified and eligible. The process, though, requires considerable commitment, and dedication of time and other precious resources, in addition to a high degree of altruism. Social media can facilitate finding and engaging the “right” traditional mentor through referrals and postings in Facebook groups, online professional networking sites such as LinkedIn, and even through Twitter feeds by friends and colleagues. To effectively address the many challenges in finding and engaging effective mentors, however, we must first allow that professional and social peers – fellow researchers, friends, students, and even junior faculty – can help less-established investigators achieve their career and personal goals. Technology may be successfully leveraged and applied in mentoring both research and potentially other junior faculty through online, social media. Key components in this model include a) the creation of and assimilation into online learning communities, b) the basis for social, group and experiential learning, c) the value and relevance of peer mentors, d) a nonthreatening environment and showcase for demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge and skills, e) collaboration and networking through shared projects, f) referrals and social interaction, and g) emotional support from peers, friends, colleagues and traditional mentors.
Author Manuscript
Social media allows a mentee to gather and assimilate information from online sources, and to demonstrate his or her acquired knowledge by posting on the same or another resource. This in turn provides the basis for critique by, as well as collaborative project(s) between, both peer and traditional mentor(s) and the mentee. Peers and traditional mentors may even collaborate in expanding the mentee’s research networks through referrals, “brainstorming,” and other research interactions on sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Senior faculty, friends and colleagues can provide crucial emotional and other support, including help in locating and engaging scientific, career and life mentor(s).
Author Manuscript
In our model, we have delineated several modes or approaches through which research faculty career development goals may facilitated through peer and traditional mentoring, and enabled through social media. These goals, and the type of mentoring aligned with achieving them, may be applicable not only to biomedical research faculty, but to those in teaching and other disciplines as well. Each approach in our model may be tested using posited outcomes in controlled, preferably randomized studies. We have considered only those developmental goals which appear aligned with, and addressable by, social media. We also examined only quantitative outcomes, but recognize that qualitative data as comments and critique, and even subjective self-assessments and perceptions, may be used to test our model and evaluate approaches. In future research, it is important to further explore a) how social media may enable and encourage online learning communities and shared collaborative projects, b) how these may best facilitate social,
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 9
Author Manuscript
group and experiential learning, c) how they may better provide an environment for the demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge and skills, and d) how social media technology may be best applied in faculty development in other fields and disciplines.
Biographies Stacey Alan Teruya, EdD, MS, is Research Instructor in the Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science.
Author Manuscript
Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (CDU) and Chair of the CDU/UCLA Medical Student Research Thesis program. She holds a joint appointment as adjunct Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), CA.
References
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Axelson RD, Flick A. Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 2010; 43(1):38–43. Beck E, Wingard DL, Zuniga ML, Heifetz R, Gilbreath S. Addressing the health needs of the underserved: a national faculty development program. Academic Medicine. 2008; 83(11):1094– 1102. [PubMed: 18971666] Belcher D. The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes. 1994; 13(1):23–34. Bielaczyc K, Collins A. Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. 1999; 2:269–292. Bland C, Center B, Finstad D, Risbey K, Staples J. A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine. 2005; 80(3) doi: 80/3/225 [pii]. Bland C, Seaquist E, Pacala J, Center B, Finstad D. One school’s strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty. Academic Medicine. 2002; 77(5):368–376. [PubMed: 12010690] Bonk C, Wisher R, Nigrelli M. Learning communities, communities of practice: Principles, technologies, and examples. Learning to Collaborate, Collaborating to Learn. 2004:199–219. Brown A, Palincsar A. Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. 1989:393–451. Chew LD, Watanabe JM, Buchwald D, Lessler DS. Junior faculty’s perspectives on mentoring. Academic Medicine. 2003; 78(6):652. [PubMed: 12805052] Coates WC, Ankel F, Birnbaum A, Kosiak D, Broderick KB, Thomas S, Leschke R, Collings J. The virtual advisor program: Linking students to mentors via the world wide web. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2004; 11(3):253–255. [PubMed: 15001404] Coates WC, Love JN, Santen SA, Hobgood CD, Mavis BE, Maggio LA, Farrell SE. Faculty development in medical education research: A cooperative model. Academic Medicine. 2010; 85(5):829–836. 810.1097/ACM.1090b1013e3181d1737bc. [PubMed: 20520036] Craig, R. The transfer value of guided learning. Oxford, England: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Co.; 1953. Eisen A, Barlett P. The Piedmont Project: Fostering faculty development toward sustainability. Journal of Environmental Education. 2006; 38(1):25–36. Feldman MD, Arean PA, Marshall SJ. Does mentoring matter: Results from a survey of faculty mentees at a large health sciences university. Medical Education Online. 2010; 1510.3402/ meo.v15i0.5063
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 10
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Gitlin SD, Yuan Z, Little RJ, Todd RF. Factors that influence successful training and faculty career development in hematology/oncology patient-oriented clinical research. Journal of Cancer Education. 2005; 20(2):72–78. [PubMed: 16083369] Glazer EM, Hannafin MJ. The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2006; 22(2):179–193. Gusic ME, Milner RJ, Tisdell EJ, Taylor EW, Quillen DA, Thorndyke LE. The essential value of projects in faculty development. Academic Medicine. 2010; 85(9):1484–1491. doi: 10.1097/ACM. 0b013e3181eb4d17. [PubMed: 20671538] Hewitt, A.; Forte, A. Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook; Poster presented at ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW); Banff, Alberta. November 4 – 8, 2006; 2006. p. 1-2. Jackson AP, Smith SA, Hill CL. Academic persistence among Native American college students. Journal of College Student Development. 2003; 44(4):548–565. Karimi R, Arendt CS, Cawley P, Buhler AV, Elbarbry F, Roberts SC. Learning bridge: Curricular integration of didactic and experiential education. American Journal of Pharmacological Education. 2010; 74(3):48. Kolb A, Kolb D. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2005; 4(2):193–212. Kolb D, Boyatzis R, Mainemelis C. Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. 2001; 1:227–247. Kuh, GD.; Kinzie, J.; Schuh, JH.; Whitt, EJ. Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010. Lane R. Mentoring and the development of the physician-scientist. Journal of Pediatrics. 2008; 152(2): 296–297. [PubMed: 18206711] Lipson L. A small circle of friends: Cohort groups as learning communities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2002; 2002(95):83–92. McWey LM, Henderson TL, Piercy FP. Cooperative learning through collaborative faculty-student research teams. Family Relations. 2006; 55(2):10. Meister JC, Willyerd K. Mentoring millennials. Harvard Business Review. 2010; 88(5):68–72. [PubMed: 20429252] Miedzinski LJ, Davis P, Al-Shurafa H, Morrison JC. A Canadian faculty of medicine and dentistry’s survey of career development needs. Medical Education. 2001; 35(9):890–900. doi: med1002 [pii]. [PubMed: 11555228] Moran, M.; Seaman, J.; Tinti-Kane, H. Teaching, learning, and sharing: How today’s higher education faculty use social media. Babson Survey Research Group. 2011. Retrieved from http:// www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/Pages/babson-survey-researchgroup.aspx Mosley AL. An evaluation study of a training program to prepare community college faculty for online teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2007; 68(4-A):115–146. Nunez-Wolff CN. A study of the relationship of external funding to medical school faculty success. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2007; 68(3-A): 141–223. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, Carr PL, Ash AS, Szalacha L, Moskowitz MA. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional development in U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine. 1998; 73(3):318–323. [PubMed: 9526459] Patel PD, Roberts JL, Miller KH, Ziegler C, Ostapchuk M. The responsible use of online social networking: Who should mentor medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2012; 24(4):348–354. [PubMed: 23036003] Pololi L. Mentoring faculty in academic medicine: A new paradigm? Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005; 20(9):866–870.10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.05007.x [PubMed: 16117759] Pololi LH, Dennis K, Winn GM, Mitchell J. A needs assessment of medical school faculty: Caring for the caretakers. Journal of Continuing Education in Health Professions. 2003; 23(1):21–29.10.1002/ chp.1340230105 J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 11
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Reed M, Evely A, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass A, Laing J, Newig B, Parrish C, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer L. What is social learning? Ecology and Society. 2010; 15(4):r1. Rogers J. Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology & Society. 2000; 3(3):384–392. Roth W-M, Lee Y-J. Contradictions in theorizing and implementing communities in education. Educational Research Review. 2006; 1(1):27–40. Roy K, Roberts M, Stewart P. Research productivity and academic lineage in clinical psychology: Who is training the faculty to do research? Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2006; 62(7):22. Rust G, Taylor V, Herbert-Carter J, Smith Q, Earles K, Kondwani K. The Morehouse faculty development program: Evolving methods and 10-year outcomes. Family Medicine. 2006; 38(1): 43–49. [PubMed: 16378258] Sax L, Hagedorn L, Arredondo M, Dicrisi F. Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education. 2002; 43(4):423–446.10.1023/a: 1015575616285 Schuh JL. Reflections on the first three years as a junior faculty member. American Journal of Pharmacological Education. 2010; 74(4):67. Scribner J, Donaldson J. The dynamics of group learning in a cohort: From nonlearning to transformative learning. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2001; 37(5):605–636. Steinert Y, McLeod PJ, Boillat M, Meterissian S, Elizov M, Macdonald ME. Faculty development: A ‘field of dreams’? Medical Education. 2009; 43(1):42–49. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2923.2008.03246.x. [PubMed: 19140996] Thomas PA, Diener-West M, Canto MI, Martin DR, Post WS, Streiff MB. Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Academic Medicine. 2004; 79(3):258–264. [PubMed: 14985201] Thorndyke LE, Gusic ME, George JH, Quillen DA, Milner RJ. Empowering junior faculty: Penn State’s faculty development and mentoring program. Academic Medicine. 2006; 81(7):668–673. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000232424.88922.df00001888-200607000-00019 [pii]. [PubMed: 16799296] Wells JG, Short G, Lester F. Intrinsic motivation and environmental factors affecting research of social work faculty on aging. Educational Gerontology. 2010; 36(3):229–243. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/03601270903182901. Yager J, Waitzkin H, Parker T, Duran B. Educating, training, and mentoring minority faculty and other trainees in mental health services research. Academic Psychiatry. 2007; 31(2):146–151. doi: 31/2/146 [pii] 10.1176/appi.ap.31.2.146. [PubMed: 17344457]
Author Manuscript J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript 0.22
2. Number of Independent, Competitive Grant Awards
Statistically significant (CI does not cross ‘1’)
*
0.25
Variance (Pseudo-R2)
1. Number of Peer-Reviewed Publications
Dependent Variable
Networks and Collaborations
Networks and Collaborations
Faculty Characteristic
Low-Med
High*
Low-Med
High*
Variable
8.8
11.14
Odds Ratio (OR)
Significance of Size of Research Networks and 1) Publication and 2) Grant Success using Pseudo-R2
Reference
2.08 – 37.20
Reference
2.42 – 51.41
Confidence Interval (CI) at 95%
Author Manuscript
Table 1 Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi Page 12
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 13
Table 2
Author Manuscript
Developmental Goals, Enabling Social Media Mechanisms, and Processes
Author Manuscript
Developmental Goals
Enabling Mechanisms in Social Media
Processes in Social Media
1
Supportive personal mentoring relationships
Social Networking
Locating, engaging mentor(s); social media as enabler of resultant relationships
2
Guided and experiential learning in an apprentice model
Content Communities (Media Sharing)
Mentee gathers and assimilates information, demonstrates skills and knowledge in independent project(s)
3
Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge in an apprentice model
\Web-based, knowledge sharing projects
Media/technology enables and facilitates shared, collaborative projects between mentor and mentee
4
Assimilation into a virtual learning community
Social Networking
Media/technology facilitates recruitment, engagement and assimilation, and unifies a community of learners
5
Sharing of information among peers
Content Communities (Media Sharing)
Online content enables sharing of projects and information with a supportive online learning community
6
Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge among peers
Web-based, potentially shared projects
Online critique of posted independent and collaborative projects
7
Building research networks and collaboration
Social Networking
Interaction, engagement, referrals and online profiles
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 14
Table 3
Author Manuscript
Developmental Goals, Relevant Social Media Tools, and Facilitating Types of Mentoring
Author Manuscript
Developmental Goals
Tools
Facilitated by
Potential Mentor(s)
1
Supportive personal mentoring relationships
Locating, engaging and communicating with life and career mentors through postings and online profiles
Traditional and Peer Mentors
Sr. faculty, friends, professional and scientific colleagues
2
Guided and experiential learning in an apprentice model
Podcasts, photos, videos, online presentations
Traditional Mentors
Sr. faculty
3
Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge in an apprentice model
Collaborative articles, postings, topics which are refined and enhanced
Traditional Mentors
Sr. faculty
4
Assimilation into a virtual learning community
Conversation and social interaction with other users; use of interest groups, event postings
Peer Mentors
Students, jr. faculty, research associates
5
Sharing of information among peers
Podcasts, photos, videos, online presentations
Peer Mentors
Students, jr. faculty, research associates
6
Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge
Collective postings, refinement of online articles
Peer Mentors
Students, jr. faculty, research associates
7
Building research networks and collaboration
“Brainstorming,” communication and interaction with other researchers in groups, event postings
Traditional and Peer Mentors
Sr. faculty and research colleagues
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge among peers Guided and experiential learning in an apprentice model Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge in an apprentice model Building research networks and collaboration
Supportive, personal mentoring relationships
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional and Peer
Traditional and Peer
4
5
6
7
Sharing of information among peers
Peer
2
Peer
Assimilation into a virtual learning community
Peer
1
3
Developmental Goals
Type of Mentoring
Mode
Social networking facilitates locating and engaging life mentors, e. g. through postings and online profiles
Social networking enables informal communication and scholarly interaction with peers and traditional mentors, increasing the number and size of collaborations and research
Web-based content sites encourage the demonstration of acquired knowledge through collaborative projects between a traditional mentor and a mentee
Content communities allow for gathering and assimilation of acquired knowledge under the guidance and tutelage of a traditional mentor
Online projects allow for the demonstration of acquired knowledge, and allow for critique, feedback and enhancement by peers
Content communities allow for the sharing and acquisition of information through e-media, e. g. photos and online presentations
Social networking enables assimilation into a community of learners, and interaction between its members
Social Media Processes
LinkedIn, Facebook
LinkedIn, Facebook
Wikipedia, blogs, miniblogs
Wikipedia, YouTube, Flickr, SlideShare.
Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, miniblogs
Wikipedia, YouTube, Flickr, SlideShare.
Facebook, LinkedIn
Common Media Sites
Proposed Model of Junior Research Faculty Development and Mentoring through Social Media
Number and quantifiable outcomes of resultant mentoring relationships, and promotion, funding, other career advancement criteria
Number of interactions with other researchers, size of networks, and number and quality of resultant projects
Number of collaborative projects that become grant proposals or (published) manuscripts
Number and online rating of shared media projects
Rating of projects, quantitative assessment by peers, number of resultant grants and manuscripts
Number and online rating of projects
Level and degree of social interaction with other researchers, quantifiable as high, med, low
Posited Outcome Metrics
Author Manuscript
Table 4 Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi Page 15
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24. Published in final edited form as: J Fac Dev. 2014 September ; 28(3): 13–22.
Social Media and Mentoring in Biomedical Research Faculty Development Stacey Alan Teruya and Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science
Abstract Author Manuscript
Purpose—To determine how effective and collegial mentoring in biomedical research faculty development may be implemented and facilitated through social media. Method—The authors reviewed the literature for objectives, concerns, and limitations of career development for junior research faculty. They tabularized these as developmental goals, and aligned them with relevant social media strengths and capabilities facilitated through traditional and/or peer mentoring. Results—The authors derived a model in which social media is leveraged to achieve developmental goals reflected in independent and shared projects, and in the creation and expansion of support and research networks.
Author Manuscript
Conclusions—Social media may be successfully leveraged and applied in achieving developmental goals for biomedical research faculty, and potentially for those in other fields and disciplines. Our search of the literature revealed a general scarcity on research faculty development, as opposed to that on teaching and clinical faculty. Their respective needs and priorities, however, are seen to differ substantially. Teachers, for example, value acquiring knowledge and functioning better as instructors (Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2005), while clinical faculty desire specialized and focused non-research training (Beck, Wingard, Zuniga, Heifetz, & Gilbreath, 2008). For all faculty, however, mentoring has been found to be a consistent, recurring variable for productivity in different groupings and analysis, e. g. Bland et al (2005), and a priority in career development, e. g. Coates, Love, Santen, Hobgood, Mavis, Maggio, & Farrell (2010).
Author Manuscript
Mentors provide continuing professional career guidance (Wells, Short, & Lester, 2010), recommend learning and development activities specific to each mentee (Thomas, DienerWest, Canto, Martin, Post, & Streiff, 2004), and are instrumental in promotion, tenure, and other developmental matters (Schuh, 2010; Steinert, McLeod, Boillat, Meterissian, Elizov, & Macdonald, 2009). Close, collegial mentoring has also been found to be especially important for racial minorities, who benefit significantly from emotional and cultural
Correspondence should be addressed to: Stacey A. Teruya, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, 1731 E. 120th. St., Los Angeles, CA 90059, Tel (323) 563-5961; Fax (323) 563-5910, [email protected].
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 2
Author Manuscript
support in these relationships (Feldman, Arean, & Marshall, 2010; Yager, Waitzkin, Parker, & Duran, 2007). The literature also reveals some fundamental uncertainty as to who should serve as a mentor, in what capacity, and what constitutes good and effective mentoring. From a research perspective, relevant metrics that accurately reflect performance improvement are therefore imperative. The purpose of this manuscript is to first examine objectives, concerns and limitations in research faculty development found in the literature, in the context of current adult learning theory. Synthesizing these as developmental goals, we then sought to identify social media strengths and capabilities which may be used to achieve them, thus facilitating professional development for biomedical research faculty, and potentially for those in other fields and disciplines. Lastly, we propose a social media model in which practical mentoring approaches are seen to yield measurable, quantitative outcomes.
Author Manuscript
Background Finding a Mentor
Author Manuscript
In a national faculty development program centered at the University of California at San Diego, participants reported limited mentorship in advancing their academic trajectory (Beck et al., 2008). One-third of junior faculty at the University of California at San Francisco said that they had no mentor, and most needed assistance in finding an appropriate one (Feldman et al, 2010). Junior faculty members have expressed a need for more formal, centralized and institutionalized mentoring (Bland, Seaquist, Pacala, Center, & Finstad, 2002; Schuh, 2010), possibly in terms of simply finding or being assigned a mentor. At Morehouse University, less than half of surveyed junior faculty felt adequately mentored (Rust, Taylor, Herbert-Carter, Smith, Earles, & Kondwani, 2006). These sources suggest that the availability of mentors, and what they can and are willing to provide, are fundamental challenges. One possible reason is that the pool of potential mentors is selective and tightly constrained. Traditionally, only established, senior faculty with noteworthy publication and grant records are deemed eligible to be mentors (Lane, 2008), regardless of the abilities, qualifications or background of available, but less-established researchers. There are, of course, valid reasons in discouraging early-stage faculty from being primary mentors to others. Both they and the trainee, for example, may be in competition for the same pilot or developmental grants, or for first-authorship on collaborative, peer-reviewed publications (Lane, 2008). Finding the Right Mentor
Author Manuscript
Reports and studies such as Chew, Watanabe, Buchwald, & Lessler (2003) emphasize that mentees must not just find a mentor, but the right mentor. To add to the scarcity of available traditional mentors, the parameters and demands of scientific and career mentoring are rigorous, and the rewards often altruistic, without financial compensation. Effective mentors must have, and be willing to spend, the time necessary to ensure the success of his or her mentee. They must accept full responsibility for this junior person, who should never be viewed simply as a personal resource, such as a lab or research assistant (Coates, Ankel, Birnbaum, Kosiak, Broderick, Thomas, Leschke, & Collings, 2004; Lane, 2008). Racial and J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 3
Author Manuscript
ethnic minorities are seen to require even more individual attention, dedication, encouragement, and support to succeed (Jackson, Smith, & Hill, 2003; Rust et al., 2006; Yager, Waitzkin, Parker, & Duran, 2007). In light of these demands and concerns, we identified supportive, personal mentoring relationships as fundamental in junior biomedical faculty development, and our first developmental goal. Mentoring in a Traditional Apprentice Model
Author Manuscript
The commonly-employed, traditional academic apprenticeship model advances scholars from a bachelor’s to a master’s degree, and then, with the oversight and guidance of a mentor(s) and/or adviser(s), to a doctorate (Belcher, 1994; Glazer & Hannafin, 2006). In ideal circumstances, junior research faculty in a scholarly development paradigm are adequately coached, supported and trained in areas of scientific research and writing, grantsmanship, and career enhancement by senior, accomplished investigators. These considerations lead us to identify guided and experiential learning in an apprentice model, and the demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge in this paradigm, as our second and third developmental goals, respectively. Traditional mentoring, however, has its demands and limitations. Mentors will encourage practical problem-solving through close, almost daily interaction, which is crucial in the success of every trainee and student (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2010). The type, frequency and depth of these desired engagements, resultant rewards (if any), and the resources and commitment required, help to highlight the limitations of available mentors and mentoring in the traditional apprentice model. Peer Mentoring
Author Manuscript
Senior faculty in a traditional apprentice model may not be willing or able to provide guidance and assistance on an almost daily basis in scientific, career, and even personal domains, especially through frequent social interaction and engagement. If we allow that peers can effectively serve as both scientific and career mentors, not only will there be a larger pool from which to choose, such a model can leverage constructs of selfempowerment, group learning and collaboration (Pololi, 2005). Trainees will become more involved, vested and interested in their own learning, and connected with their developmental activities, their institution, and to other students (Axelson & Flick, 2010).
Author Manuscript
The literature suggests that organically-derived peer mentoring, as a group process of nonhierarchical relationships (Pololi, 2005), may be more satisfying and productive than traditional pairings (Feldman et al., 2010). Social media is, of course, both organic and social, and socialization appears to occur more readily between peers, rather than with members of a different social, cultural or academic order. For example, some students believe that teaching faculty should not be present on Facebook at all (Hewitt & Forte, 2006), echoing unease as well as privacy and identity management concerns (Moran, Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2011). However, technology and social media may be used to help overcome such concerns and facilitate both peer and group relationships (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Through online
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 4
Author Manuscript
platforms, for example, one mentor – peer or traditional – can efficiently guide and advise multiple mentees at one time, using podcasts, discussion threads, RSS feeds and other social media tools. In another example, third and fourth year medical students in Charles R. Drew University’s Research Thesis Program elect class presidents. He or she is expected to employ text messaging, emails and social networking sites to advise, counsel, support and link their classmates and peers in their research, as well as to communicate Program news and developments. This technology may even enable locating the “right” traditional mentor through referrals and recommendations.
Author Manuscript
In a discussion of peer mentoring, it is important to consider that these individuals share common values, backgrounds, perspectives and objectives with those they guide, support and counsel, and are not necessarily social or professional “equals.” Patel, Roberts, Miller, Ziegler, & Ostapchuk (2012), for example, found that the success of resident physicians as mentors to medical students was based primarily on the similarity of usage patterns of personal electronic media, and on the common, preferred mentoring approaches of both. These dynamics support assimilation into a virtual learning community and information sharing among peers as critical and relevant developmental components in social media, which form our fourth and fifth goals, respectively. In addition, because the demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge among peers appears fundamental to group and social learning, it was identified as our sixth developmental goal. Research Networks and Collaborations
Author Manuscript
The number and size of research networks and scientific collaborations appear to be valid and valuable outcomes in research faculty development. In 2012, we identified all 41 active Charles R. Drew University (CDU) research faculty members credited as first or last author in a PubMed search, and/or who were awarded competitive, independent research grants within the past five years. Using de-identified data, we conducted bivariate analysis to confirm significant predictors of grant and publication success found in the literature. Using pseudo-R2 through logistic regression, we found that “size of research networks and collaborations” was the most statistically significant predictor of both publication and grant success (Table 1). Faculty with “High” networks and collaborations were awarded three to five times more competitive grants, and had five to ten times the number of publications than those with “Low” or “Medium” sized networks and collaborations. It is important to note that holding full or associate professor rank was also found statistically significant in predicting grant and publication success. However, such attributes are, of course, normally not associated with junior faculty.
Author Manuscript
These preliminary data suggest the importance of building research networks and collaborations in junior faculty career development, which was recognized as our seventh and final developmental goal. This goal is achieved in online communities through interaction with both senior investigators and with professional and scientific colleagues, and through the guidance and assistance of peer and traditional mentors.
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 5
Grants and Publications as Desired Outcomes
Author Manuscript
There is no lack of descriptive studies on institutionalized or departmental development programs wherein performance improvement in less-established faculty is usually selfassessed, e. g. Bland et al (2002). These often use criteria such as career satisfaction (Palepu, Friedman, Barnett, Carr, Ash, Szalacha, & Moskowitz, 1998) and perceptions of selfefficacy (Feldman et al., 2010). The absence of quantifiable and objective criteria, though, may in truth reflect the scarcity of adequate research, especially on “bad” mentoring, and what should be done to correct it (Schuh, 2010).
Author Manuscript
Grants and publications have been used as metrics in previous, substantive studies (Roy, Roberts, & Stewart, 2006; Rust et al., 2006; Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo, & Dicrisi, 2002). Independent, competitive grant awards in particular are seen as accurate indicators of innate and acquired productivity, distinct from “lesser” university and department incentives and mechanisms, such as pilot grants and institutional funding (Eisen & Barlett, 2006; Karimi, Arendt, Cawley, Buhler, Elbarbry, & Roberts, 2010; Nunez-Wolff, 2007). In addition, the significance of published, peer-reviewed articles as a desired outcome is confirmed by a study in which the mean number of publications by faculty at different universities was significantly correlated with U.S. News & World Report rankings for each of these institutions (Roy et al., 2006).
Author Manuscript
In addition to their intrinsic value in demonstrating competency and competitiveness, grant and publications may also serve as indicators or proxies of effective mentoring in achieving mentees’ desired outcomes. For example, junior faculty have cited “effective writing of grants and publications” as their most important career development need (Miedzinski, Davis, Al-Shurafa, & Morrison, 2001), and an increase in their number and quality may represent effective faculty development and mentoring. Other Relevant Metrics of Success Common online, social media products range from conversations in Facebook, to shared videos on YouTube, to collaborative articles under Wikipedia. In addition to the number of manuscripts and grants, posited metrics in a social media model of mentoring include online postings, peer and mentor interactions, and online rankings of shared, collaborative projects. The number of postings by emerging faculty, and interactions with peers on Facebook, for example, can be easily tracked. Participants can vote “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” to assess recorded journal clubs on YouTube, and note the number of times the project has been viewed by mentors, peers or others, who are free to leave detailed comments and critique.
Author Manuscript
Wikipedia is more structured and formalized in its online content and format, but still allows for the easy creation, modification and verification of online articles as shared projects between mentor and mentee, or between peers. Wikipedia also provides a “Talk” capability, through which participants can discuss, critique and raise questions about any article posted by emerging faculty.
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 6
Author Manuscript
Methods Recurrent themes in faculty development found in the literature include the scarcity of recognized mentors, what constitutes good and effective mentoring, and what processes and tools can increase the scientific and career trajectory of emerging faculty. In a systematic process, we first synthesized these and others as seven developmental goals in a matrix, with corresponding posited mechanisms and processes that may address them through social media (Table 2). We next considered which specific social media tools may be best aligned with achieving each of these goals, and which type of mentoring (peer, traditional or both) may be best suited to each (Table 3).
Author Manuscript
Results From Tables 2 and 3, we derived a social media model of mentoring for biomedical research faculty that can achieve developmental goals, implemented through seven different modes or approaches. These are categorized by type of mentoring: Peer, traditional, and both (Table 4). Each mode is enabled through different processes, which yield distinct quantitative outcomes. Peer Mentoring
Author Manuscript
In the first mode or approach, peers engage in online conversation and social interaction directly with other users, and through interest groups and event postings. These exchanges foster social learning (Reed, Evely, Cundill, Fazey, Glass, Laing, Newig, Parrish, Prell, Raymond, & Stringer, 2010) in units or communities of practice, as found on sites such as Facebook or LinkedIn. Supportive online environments facilitate assimilation into and adjustment in these communities. Social media also enables recruitment, membership and engagement, and help unify community members. Measurable outcomes may include the level and degree of social interaction with other researchers, quantifiable as low, medium, and high.
Author Manuscript
In the second mode, peer mentoring fosters group learning, which is highly personal (Rogers, 2000; Roth & Lee, 2006), often cohort-based (Lipson, 2002; Scribner & Donaldson, 2001), and can occur on Facebook, LinkedIn, and purpose-built resources such as www.clivir.com. Personal interactions facilitate and enable emotional connections, shared experiences and “engagements” (Kuh et al., 2010) that meet both individual and collective needs in both social and group learning (Bonk, Wisher, & Nigrelli, 2004). These types of learning are demonstrated through acquired knowledge manifest mainly as independent projects, which include podcasts, photos, videos and online presentations. Such efforts receive feedback and critique from peers within supportive learning communities (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999). These social groups enable junior faculty to develop close and meaningful personal relationships with their peers and peer mentors, thereby integrating academic and social needs (Kuh et al., 2010). Quantifiable metrics in this mode include the number and online rating of projects.
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 7
Author Manuscript
In the third mode, group and social learning occur through the demonstration of acquired knowledge in both independent and collaborative projects – mainly articles and postings in Wikipedia, blogs and miniblogs. These are assessed by online peers, and enhanced and refined through feedback and critique. Possible relevant metrics include the number and online rating of projects, and the number of resultant manuscripts (published or not), grant applications and funding awards. Traditional Mentoring
Author Manuscript
In a fourth mode, a mentee demonstrates his or her acquired knowledge by posting podcasts, photos, videos and presentations in content communities such as YouTube, Flickr and SlideShare. Through the same social media, senior faculty will guide and critique the project to completion in an apprentice model of scholarly development. Such “hands-on,” directed discovery facilitates experiential (A. Kolb & Kolb, 2005; D. Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2001) and guided learning (Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Craig, 1953). In this mode, the number and online rating of shared media projects may be valid, quantitative performance metrics.
Author Manuscript
In the fifth mode, mentored faculty apply their acquired research knowledge in web-based, shared, collaborative projects with a traditional mentor. These collaborations have been endorsed as the means of effective, traditional mentoring relationships (Gitlin, Yuan, Little, & Todd, 2005; Gusic, Milner, Tisdell, Taylor, Quillen, & Thorndyke, 2010; McWey, Henderson, & Piercy, 2006; Thorndyke, Gusic, George, Quillen, & Milner, 2006). At universities, such “real-life” partnerships may also yield salary support for emerging faculty, which is clearly an important practical consideration in their academic persistence. Articles, postings and other topics on Wikipedia, blogs, miniblogs or other social media sites are developed, refined and enhanced in a cooperative effort between junior faculty and a senior investigator. Possible quantitative metrics include the number of collaborative projects that result in grant proposals or published manuscripts. Mentoring by Both Peers and Traditional Mentors The sixth mode involves both traditional senior mentors and the mentee’s professional peers. Junior faculty engage in “brainstorming” sessions, and communicate and interact with other less-established researchers, as well as with senior and experienced investigators. Resultant referrals, partnerships and collaborations are enabled through direct online communication, and facilitated through group and event postings on sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Valid performance metrics may include the number of interactions with other researchers, and the number of resultant manuscripts and grant proposals.
Author Manuscript
In the final mentoring mode in this model, senior faculty, friends and colleagues lend emotional and other career development support on sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook. In addition to words of encouragement, this support may include help locating and retaining appropriate scientific, career and life mentor(s) through referrals, postings and profiles. Appropriate and relevant metrics may include the number and quantifiable outcomes of resultant mentoring relationships, such as manuscripts and grant proposals, or promotion, salary support, and other career criteria.
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 8
Author Manuscript
Discussion and Conclusions
Author Manuscript
Mentors and mentoring are critical components in the scientific and career advancement of all junior research faculty, especially racial and ethnic minorities. Having a mentor is limited by the relatively small number of available candidates, a constraint imposed through a traditional perspective in which only senior, accomplished faculty are considered qualified and eligible. The process, though, requires considerable commitment, and dedication of time and other precious resources, in addition to a high degree of altruism. Social media can facilitate finding and engaging the “right” traditional mentor through referrals and postings in Facebook groups, online professional networking sites such as LinkedIn, and even through Twitter feeds by friends and colleagues. To effectively address the many challenges in finding and engaging effective mentors, however, we must first allow that professional and social peers – fellow researchers, friends, students, and even junior faculty – can help less-established investigators achieve their career and personal goals. Technology may be successfully leveraged and applied in mentoring both research and potentially other junior faculty through online, social media. Key components in this model include a) the creation of and assimilation into online learning communities, b) the basis for social, group and experiential learning, c) the value and relevance of peer mentors, d) a nonthreatening environment and showcase for demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge and skills, e) collaboration and networking through shared projects, f) referrals and social interaction, and g) emotional support from peers, friends, colleagues and traditional mentors.
Author Manuscript
Social media allows a mentee to gather and assimilate information from online sources, and to demonstrate his or her acquired knowledge by posting on the same or another resource. This in turn provides the basis for critique by, as well as collaborative project(s) between, both peer and traditional mentor(s) and the mentee. Peers and traditional mentors may even collaborate in expanding the mentee’s research networks through referrals, “brainstorming,” and other research interactions on sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Senior faculty, friends and colleagues can provide crucial emotional and other support, including help in locating and engaging scientific, career and life mentor(s).
Author Manuscript
In our model, we have delineated several modes or approaches through which research faculty career development goals may facilitated through peer and traditional mentoring, and enabled through social media. These goals, and the type of mentoring aligned with achieving them, may be applicable not only to biomedical research faculty, but to those in teaching and other disciplines as well. Each approach in our model may be tested using posited outcomes in controlled, preferably randomized studies. We have considered only those developmental goals which appear aligned with, and addressable by, social media. We also examined only quantitative outcomes, but recognize that qualitative data as comments and critique, and even subjective self-assessments and perceptions, may be used to test our model and evaluate approaches. In future research, it is important to further explore a) how social media may enable and encourage online learning communities and shared collaborative projects, b) how these may best facilitate social,
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 9
Author Manuscript
group and experiential learning, c) how they may better provide an environment for the demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge and skills, and d) how social media technology may be best applied in faculty development in other fields and disciplines.
Biographies Stacey Alan Teruya, EdD, MS, is Research Instructor in the Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science.
Author Manuscript
Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (CDU) and Chair of the CDU/UCLA Medical Student Research Thesis program. She holds a joint appointment as adjunct Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), CA.
References
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Axelson RD, Flick A. Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 2010; 43(1):38–43. Beck E, Wingard DL, Zuniga ML, Heifetz R, Gilbreath S. Addressing the health needs of the underserved: a national faculty development program. Academic Medicine. 2008; 83(11):1094– 1102. [PubMed: 18971666] Belcher D. The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes. 1994; 13(1):23–34. Bielaczyc K, Collins A. Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. 1999; 2:269–292. Bland C, Center B, Finstad D, Risbey K, Staples J. A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine. 2005; 80(3) doi: 80/3/225 [pii]. Bland C, Seaquist E, Pacala J, Center B, Finstad D. One school’s strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty. Academic Medicine. 2002; 77(5):368–376. [PubMed: 12010690] Bonk C, Wisher R, Nigrelli M. Learning communities, communities of practice: Principles, technologies, and examples. Learning to Collaborate, Collaborating to Learn. 2004:199–219. Brown A, Palincsar A. Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. 1989:393–451. Chew LD, Watanabe JM, Buchwald D, Lessler DS. Junior faculty’s perspectives on mentoring. Academic Medicine. 2003; 78(6):652. [PubMed: 12805052] Coates WC, Ankel F, Birnbaum A, Kosiak D, Broderick KB, Thomas S, Leschke R, Collings J. The virtual advisor program: Linking students to mentors via the world wide web. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2004; 11(3):253–255. [PubMed: 15001404] Coates WC, Love JN, Santen SA, Hobgood CD, Mavis BE, Maggio LA, Farrell SE. Faculty development in medical education research: A cooperative model. Academic Medicine. 2010; 85(5):829–836. 810.1097/ACM.1090b1013e3181d1737bc. [PubMed: 20520036] Craig, R. The transfer value of guided learning. Oxford, England: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Co.; 1953. Eisen A, Barlett P. The Piedmont Project: Fostering faculty development toward sustainability. Journal of Environmental Education. 2006; 38(1):25–36. Feldman MD, Arean PA, Marshall SJ. Does mentoring matter: Results from a survey of faculty mentees at a large health sciences university. Medical Education Online. 2010; 1510.3402/ meo.v15i0.5063
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 10
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Gitlin SD, Yuan Z, Little RJ, Todd RF. Factors that influence successful training and faculty career development in hematology/oncology patient-oriented clinical research. Journal of Cancer Education. 2005; 20(2):72–78. [PubMed: 16083369] Glazer EM, Hannafin MJ. The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2006; 22(2):179–193. Gusic ME, Milner RJ, Tisdell EJ, Taylor EW, Quillen DA, Thorndyke LE. The essential value of projects in faculty development. Academic Medicine. 2010; 85(9):1484–1491. doi: 10.1097/ACM. 0b013e3181eb4d17. [PubMed: 20671538] Hewitt, A.; Forte, A. Crossing boundaries: Identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook; Poster presented at ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW); Banff, Alberta. November 4 – 8, 2006; 2006. p. 1-2. Jackson AP, Smith SA, Hill CL. Academic persistence among Native American college students. Journal of College Student Development. 2003; 44(4):548–565. Karimi R, Arendt CS, Cawley P, Buhler AV, Elbarbry F, Roberts SC. Learning bridge: Curricular integration of didactic and experiential education. American Journal of Pharmacological Education. 2010; 74(3):48. Kolb A, Kolb D. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2005; 4(2):193–212. Kolb D, Boyatzis R, Mainemelis C. Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles. 2001; 1:227–247. Kuh, GD.; Kinzie, J.; Schuh, JH.; Whitt, EJ. Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010. Lane R. Mentoring and the development of the physician-scientist. Journal of Pediatrics. 2008; 152(2): 296–297. [PubMed: 18206711] Lipson L. A small circle of friends: Cohort groups as learning communities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2002; 2002(95):83–92. McWey LM, Henderson TL, Piercy FP. Cooperative learning through collaborative faculty-student research teams. Family Relations. 2006; 55(2):10. Meister JC, Willyerd K. Mentoring millennials. Harvard Business Review. 2010; 88(5):68–72. [PubMed: 20429252] Miedzinski LJ, Davis P, Al-Shurafa H, Morrison JC. A Canadian faculty of medicine and dentistry’s survey of career development needs. Medical Education. 2001; 35(9):890–900. doi: med1002 [pii]. [PubMed: 11555228] Moran, M.; Seaman, J.; Tinti-Kane, H. Teaching, learning, and sharing: How today’s higher education faculty use social media. Babson Survey Research Group. 2011. Retrieved from http:// www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/Pages/babson-survey-researchgroup.aspx Mosley AL. An evaluation study of a training program to prepare community college faculty for online teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2007; 68(4-A):115–146. Nunez-Wolff CN. A study of the relationship of external funding to medical school faculty success. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2007; 68(3-A): 141–223. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, Carr PL, Ash AS, Szalacha L, Moskowitz MA. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional development in U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine. 1998; 73(3):318–323. [PubMed: 9526459] Patel PD, Roberts JL, Miller KH, Ziegler C, Ostapchuk M. The responsible use of online social networking: Who should mentor medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2012; 24(4):348–354. [PubMed: 23036003] Pololi L. Mentoring faculty in academic medicine: A new paradigm? Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005; 20(9):866–870.10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.05007.x [PubMed: 16117759] Pololi LH, Dennis K, Winn GM, Mitchell J. A needs assessment of medical school faculty: Caring for the caretakers. Journal of Continuing Education in Health Professions. 2003; 23(1):21–29.10.1002/ chp.1340230105 J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 11
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript
Reed M, Evely A, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass A, Laing J, Newig B, Parrish C, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer L. What is social learning? Ecology and Society. 2010; 15(4):r1. Rogers J. Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology & Society. 2000; 3(3):384–392. Roth W-M, Lee Y-J. Contradictions in theorizing and implementing communities in education. Educational Research Review. 2006; 1(1):27–40. Roy K, Roberts M, Stewart P. Research productivity and academic lineage in clinical psychology: Who is training the faculty to do research? Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2006; 62(7):22. Rust G, Taylor V, Herbert-Carter J, Smith Q, Earles K, Kondwani K. The Morehouse faculty development program: Evolving methods and 10-year outcomes. Family Medicine. 2006; 38(1): 43–49. [PubMed: 16378258] Sax L, Hagedorn L, Arredondo M, Dicrisi F. Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education. 2002; 43(4):423–446.10.1023/a: 1015575616285 Schuh JL. Reflections on the first three years as a junior faculty member. American Journal of Pharmacological Education. 2010; 74(4):67. Scribner J, Donaldson J. The dynamics of group learning in a cohort: From nonlearning to transformative learning. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2001; 37(5):605–636. Steinert Y, McLeod PJ, Boillat M, Meterissian S, Elizov M, Macdonald ME. Faculty development: A ‘field of dreams’? Medical Education. 2009; 43(1):42–49. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2923.2008.03246.x. [PubMed: 19140996] Thomas PA, Diener-West M, Canto MI, Martin DR, Post WS, Streiff MB. Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Academic Medicine. 2004; 79(3):258–264. [PubMed: 14985201] Thorndyke LE, Gusic ME, George JH, Quillen DA, Milner RJ. Empowering junior faculty: Penn State’s faculty development and mentoring program. Academic Medicine. 2006; 81(7):668–673. doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000232424.88922.df00001888-200607000-00019 [pii]. [PubMed: 16799296] Wells JG, Short G, Lester F. Intrinsic motivation and environmental factors affecting research of social work faculty on aging. Educational Gerontology. 2010; 36(3):229–243. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/03601270903182901. Yager J, Waitzkin H, Parker T, Duran B. Educating, training, and mentoring minority faculty and other trainees in mental health services research. Academic Psychiatry. 2007; 31(2):146–151. doi: 31/2/146 [pii] 10.1176/appi.ap.31.2.146. [PubMed: 17344457]
Author Manuscript J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript 0.22
2. Number of Independent, Competitive Grant Awards
Statistically significant (CI does not cross ‘1’)
*
0.25
Variance (Pseudo-R2)
1. Number of Peer-Reviewed Publications
Dependent Variable
Networks and Collaborations
Networks and Collaborations
Faculty Characteristic
Low-Med
High*
Low-Med
High*
Variable
8.8
11.14
Odds Ratio (OR)
Significance of Size of Research Networks and 1) Publication and 2) Grant Success using Pseudo-R2
Reference
2.08 – 37.20
Reference
2.42 – 51.41
Confidence Interval (CI) at 95%
Author Manuscript
Table 1 Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi Page 12
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 13
Table 2
Author Manuscript
Developmental Goals, Enabling Social Media Mechanisms, and Processes
Author Manuscript
Developmental Goals
Enabling Mechanisms in Social Media
Processes in Social Media
1
Supportive personal mentoring relationships
Social Networking
Locating, engaging mentor(s); social media as enabler of resultant relationships
2
Guided and experiential learning in an apprentice model
Content Communities (Media Sharing)
Mentee gathers and assimilates information, demonstrates skills and knowledge in independent project(s)
3
Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge in an apprentice model
\Web-based, knowledge sharing projects
Media/technology enables and facilitates shared, collaborative projects between mentor and mentee
4
Assimilation into a virtual learning community
Social Networking
Media/technology facilitates recruitment, engagement and assimilation, and unifies a community of learners
5
Sharing of information among peers
Content Communities (Media Sharing)
Online content enables sharing of projects and information with a supportive online learning community
6
Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge among peers
Web-based, potentially shared projects
Online critique of posted independent and collaborative projects
7
Building research networks and collaboration
Social Networking
Interaction, engagement, referrals and online profiles
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi
Page 14
Table 3
Author Manuscript
Developmental Goals, Relevant Social Media Tools, and Facilitating Types of Mentoring
Author Manuscript
Developmental Goals
Tools
Facilitated by
Potential Mentor(s)
1
Supportive personal mentoring relationships
Locating, engaging and communicating with life and career mentors through postings and online profiles
Traditional and Peer Mentors
Sr. faculty, friends, professional and scientific colleagues
2
Guided and experiential learning in an apprentice model
Podcasts, photos, videos, online presentations
Traditional Mentors
Sr. faculty
3
Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge in an apprentice model
Collaborative articles, postings, topics which are refined and enhanced
Traditional Mentors
Sr. faculty
4
Assimilation into a virtual learning community
Conversation and social interaction with other users; use of interest groups, event postings
Peer Mentors
Students, jr. faculty, research associates
5
Sharing of information among peers
Podcasts, photos, videos, online presentations
Peer Mentors
Students, jr. faculty, research associates
6
Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge
Collective postings, refinement of online articles
Peer Mentors
Students, jr. faculty, research associates
7
Building research networks and collaboration
“Brainstorming,” communication and interaction with other researchers in groups, event postings
Traditional and Peer Mentors
Sr. faculty and research colleagues
Author Manuscript Author Manuscript J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge among peers Guided and experiential learning in an apprentice model Demonstration and critique of acquired knowledge in an apprentice model Building research networks and collaboration
Supportive, personal mentoring relationships
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional and Peer
Traditional and Peer
4
5
6
7
Sharing of information among peers
Peer
2
Peer
Assimilation into a virtual learning community
Peer
1
3
Developmental Goals
Type of Mentoring
Mode
Social networking facilitates locating and engaging life mentors, e. g. through postings and online profiles
Social networking enables informal communication and scholarly interaction with peers and traditional mentors, increasing the number and size of collaborations and research
Web-based content sites encourage the demonstration of acquired knowledge through collaborative projects between a traditional mentor and a mentee
Content communities allow for gathering and assimilation of acquired knowledge under the guidance and tutelage of a traditional mentor
Online projects allow for the demonstration of acquired knowledge, and allow for critique, feedback and enhancement by peers
Content communities allow for the sharing and acquisition of information through e-media, e. g. photos and online presentations
Social networking enables assimilation into a community of learners, and interaction between its members
Social Media Processes
LinkedIn, Facebook
LinkedIn, Facebook
Wikipedia, blogs, miniblogs
Wikipedia, YouTube, Flickr, SlideShare.
Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, miniblogs
Wikipedia, YouTube, Flickr, SlideShare.
Facebook, LinkedIn
Common Media Sites
Proposed Model of Junior Research Faculty Development and Mentoring through Social Media
Number and quantifiable outcomes of resultant mentoring relationships, and promotion, funding, other career advancement criteria
Number of interactions with other researchers, size of networks, and number and quality of resultant projects
Number of collaborative projects that become grant proposals or (published) manuscripts
Number and online rating of shared media projects
Rating of projects, quantitative assessment by peers, number of resultant grants and manuscripts
Number and online rating of projects
Level and degree of social interaction with other researchers, quantifiable as high, med, low
Posited Outcome Metrics
Author Manuscript
Table 4 Teruya and Bazargan-Hejazi Page 15
J Fac Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 24.
