522660
research-article2014
NSQXXX10.1177/0894318414522660Nursing Science QuarterlyFlorczak / Research Issues
Research Issues
The Mentor-Mentee Relationship: An Intricate Dance
Nursing Science Quarterly 2014, Vol. 27(2) 103–107 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0894318414522660 nsq.sagepub.com
Kristine L. Florczak, RN; PhD,1 Eileen Collins, RN; PhD,2 and Lee Schmidt, RN; PhD3
Abstract Leadership in the mentoring of novice researchers is the focus of this column. Interviews with two senior nurse research scientists is presented in which they respond to questions about the nature of mentoring, advantages and disadvantages of the process for both the mentor and the mentee, and the necessary factors for a good mentoring relationship. Both scientists discuss their on-going work in mentoring and finally a synopsis of their thoughts is presented. Keywords mentoring, nursing research, nursing theory Leadership in terms of mentoring is the focus of this column; therefore to learn more about the endeavor, interviews were conducted with two leading nurse scientists who are currently involved with mentoring either doctoral or postdoctoral students. The first interview was conducted with Dr. Eileen Collins who is a Research Career Scientist at the Department of Veterans Affairs in Maywood Illinois and a tenured faculty in the College of Nursing at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She has mentored a number of students as they conducted research for both the disciplines of nursing and medicine. The second interview was conducted with Dr. Lee Schmidt who is a Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the Marcella Niehoff School of Nursing at Loyola University Chicago. He also has mentored a number of nursing students while either chairperson of or serving on dissertation committees at Loyola University Chicago, the University of Miami, and Florida Atlantic University. The questions posed to both pertained to the definition of mentoring, the advantages and disadvantages of the mentoring process for both the mentor and the mentee, and the key factors for effective mentoring. Other questions were asked about the theories that guide their own research or practice and how the theories related to nursing science. Finally, they were asked to describe any work that they were currently mentoring or any insights about the process.
Interview with Collins
For example, the research involves patients with COPD and one of the symptoms that they have to overcome is dyspnea. So, many of our interventions are aimed at desensitizing patients’ perceptions of dyspnea or making physiologic adjustments so they do not feel as short of breath. The other half of the model is concerned with cyclical cycle of chronic disease and that is what we try and interrupt, the cyclical cycle of inactivity which then avoids the downward spiral of decreased quality of life related to shortness of breath. It is very simple, sort of a systems approach of input/ output. KF: How do you relate the use of the model to nursing science? EC: I always have trouble when people say nursing science, because I look at it as health science. I see that as nurses we bring a unique perspective to how we take care of patients. We tend to be concerned with symptoms as opposed to attempting a cure. However, I think we are all after the same goal and that is the improvement of health using whatever specific paradigm or lens that works. KF: What is your definition of mentoring? EC: I think mentoring at the doctoral or post-doctoral level involves mostly providing guidance since these individuals already have the knowledge but they are 1
Associate Professor, Saint Xavier University Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago 3 Senior Associate Dean, Loyola University of Chicago 2
Kristine Florczak (KF): What theory guides you as a researcher, or even as a nurse? Eileen Collins (EC): I use a conceptual model by Rikli and Jones which is a conceptual framework or model that is concerned with physical activity and disability.
Contributing Editor: Kristine L. Florczak, RN, PhD, Associate Professor, Saint Xavier University, 7807 Janes Avenue, Woodridge, Illinois, 60517. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
104
Nursing Science Quarterly 27(2)
not quite sure of how to put it into practice. They have the tools in their head, but they have not used them per se in doing a research project. For example, they know that they have to get Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, but they may never have gone through the process of filling out all the forms or doing all the paperwork and what will fly and what will not fly from a regulatory perspective. They know that they are going to have to lead a research team, but they have never done that and they do not know how to set up a protocol manual which seems so simple to somebody who has been doing it. However, that is very important for consistency in the project. I think another crucial factor in mentoring is being a good role model. As a researcher, there are a lot of demands, many researchers are also in academia at the same time and the question becomes how do you manage those multiple roles? People who are new in their doctoral program tend to say yes too much when people ask and it takes a while to learn to say no. I just met with one of my mentees yesterday. She had a grid that the department head gave to her and it is a beautiful grid toward getting promotion and tenure. Under service, it says no, no, and no in the early years and then when you are more senior and established it says yes. We looked at what she was doing and she was saying yes, yes, and yes. However, I also think it is important that people are good academic citizens, but sometimes we take advantage of our young and they get on every committee and the next thing we are telling them is that you are not productive enough, so sorry, we cannot promote or tenure you. We need to foster that productivity and teach our novice researchers how to say no to certain things and let our more senior scholars take over the committee work. I think it is the role of a mentor to help young doctoral students and researchers to say no. KF: What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of mentoring a novice researcher for you? EC: For me, I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Novice researchers bring enthusiasm; they bring back that curiosity and excitement for research that sometimes is lost when you are in the grind for a long time. They also keep you engaged with the latest and the greatest. They question because they are not afraid to question and look at things differently. I think that’s a huge advantage. They also can help the senior researcher with publishing since they are eager to get their work out there and establish themselves. In terms of disadvantages, the only one I can think of is time; it takes a lot of time to mentor someone. KF: What are the advantages and disadvantages of mentoring for the novice researcher? EC: I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages for them as well. If they are fortunate, they will find a good mentor, somebody who will remain in the
relationship for a long time. One of the things that a good mentor can help with is the disappointments that occur with publishing or grant writing. The people who are the best funded have had multiple grants rejected, they have had papers rejected. No matter how senior you are, your papers will get rejected. I think that your novice researcher can gain a lot from watching how you and other people handle the failures because that is really I think what makes people successful, the manner in which they deal with the failures and rejection. Do you take what the person said and rip it apart and just send the same thing somewhere else? Or, do you put it away for a while, then look at it and see that maybe they were not totally right, but they had good points. I think that the novice researcher sees that and they are watching even when you do not realize it. On the other hand, sometimes novice researchers do get taken advantage of in terms of maybe being used for scut-work or for not getting credit when they do a lot of work on a project. KF: What do you think are the key factors for effective research mentoring? EC: I think probably fairness would be one. Recognize that when you are mentoring somebody, it needs to be a fair process meaning that there needs to be give and take on both sides. Certainly, the mentor gives a lot to the relationship and gets a lot from the relationship, but the mentee also needs to realize that they need to give a lot to the relationship as well. They are only going to get out of it what they put into it. I think there is also a role for advocacy, meaning that when you have a mentee, you must take it upon yourself to introduce them to the appropriate people in the field so that they are networking with the proper people. If they are in a postdoc position, you should advocate for them when they are looking for another position and recognize that they need to move toward independence no matter how much you like them. Your job is really kind of like a parent, having the ability to let go. It then becomes a transformation of that relationship into one of being a colleague. Another factor is being a good coach and teaching your mentees that critiquing a work does not mean ripping it apart since when it comes to real life, you do not want your work to be ripped apart. We need to foster the idea that when we critique, it needs to be with an iron fist in one hand and a soft glove on the other. We need to teach people how to effectively critique the work and not the individual, to recognize the strengths as well as the weaknesses. For example, first grant that I submitted many, many years ago was to Sigma Theta Tau and it was an extension of my dissertation. I submitted it not knowing that I had critiqued the work of one of the reviewers and I had previously torn apart her work and I did not recognize all the good things. I only pointed out the flaws. I think
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
105
Florczak / Research Issues that is something we need to teach, that when critiquing a work that both the good and positive aspects must be acknowledged. KF: Please describe any work that you are currently mentoring or your involvement with mentoring. EC: In my position at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), we started a formal mentorship program. The senior people have been assigned a junior faculty member and the expectation is that we meet twice a semester. The idea is that you answer any questions, no matter what they are, and help them toward promotion and tenure. The two that I have are both on the tenure track and so they need answers to many questions. What types of things should they be doing to reach those goals? How do you deal with the teaching load? How do you negotiate? Who do I call because I need X? I think answering those kinds of questions can help them. They just need a friendly face or somebody who is non-judgmental, supportive, and just sort of be the go-to person. We have another really nice thing at UIC, which is a think tank and a mock review for researchers when they are putting in for grants. Sometimes, new faculty members are not aware that the think tanks are there for them and that they can just go and talk about their research with senior scientists. It is constructive and it is not meant to tear people down, it is meant to get their ideas to a point where they can go forward with a formal grant application. In my position at the Veteran’s Administration (VA), I am a Research Career Scientist which means that the VA supports my salary for five years and it is renewable indefinitely. In essence, you do not have to worry about bringing in grant dollars to fund any of your salary, and some of that time can be spent mentoring junior scientists. We have a number of bench scientists here at the VA and some of them are female with families and that creates issues for them especially since it is predominantly a male-dominated field. I have a little book that I recommend to all of them and it is called Women Don’t Ask. I tend to informally sit down and discuss with them the issues that women face that men do not or maybe face in a different way. KF: I have seen that a lot in the literature, talking about women scientists and the issue of remaining a scientist but I wonder if things are changing because of the preponderance of women being educated in what once was a typically male-dominated field. EC: I think it is changing. Actually, Nature had a series where they talked about female scientists. When women are in the child-bearing age, instead of institutions saying get out, they say, how can I effectively help you stay in? It might mean cutting back on hours for a few years, or it may be changing the role. The question becomes how do we help you so that we don’t lose this magnificent mind in science? I think men too
are seeing that they also want the family part. So, it is becoming a melting pot as opposed to having a polarity between men and women in science.
Interview with Schmidt Kristine Florczak (KF): What theory guides your research? Lee Schmidt (LS): I sort of straddle both the qualitative and quantitative world and cannot say that one theory guides my work. Some of my work has been theorygenerating while some has been theory testing. I started my career by doing a qualitative study on the patient’s perception of nursing care which was my dissertation. In that study, patients told me that they felt safe because the nursing staff watched over them. Next, I did a study with nurses and how they watched over their patients on a work shift and then developed an instrument to test the phenomenon. So, my interest right now is on surveillance by registered nurses, which I would say is middle-range theory. In the end, I think for me it is more situational, the right theory for the right situation. KF: How is your work related to nursing science? LS: This question I was happy to see because I think it is something that sometimes does not get the emphasis that it needs in education, and I like the idea that theory is a product of science and also the process of science. We need to remember that everything we do is theorydriven and I really think we lose sight of that sometimes. I think that is unfortunate. I have debates with people about whether or not there always has to be a theoretical model or a conceptual framework guiding a study. The purest in me says yes because there has to be a theoretical foundation to the study. You know even if you are testing the relationship between two physiologic parameters there is a theoretical basis because the whole process of testing has to be based in theory. So, I think I take more of a view that theory is primary in science. In fact, I have an editorial coming out in the Journal of Nursing Education about keeping the theory in measurement. So, I will be interested to see what people think of it. I guess my argument has always been if we do not situate our findings from our research in a theoretical orientation I do not see how science can advance because we will keep asking the same questions rather than building from science. I try to teach students with the work of Jacqueline Fawcett’s hierarchy, that the propositions at the theoretical level are the hypotheses that they are testing at the empirical level. If that connection is lost, they have a hard time moving forward and building a program of research. I also believe that we do not have all the theories we will ever need. In fact, our catalog of theories is really quite limited. As a discipline, we should stress that theory
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
106
Nursing Science Quarterly 27(2)
development is equally as important as theory testing, although some people are more comfortable in one domain than the other. We need both. KF: What is your definition of mentoring? LS: I always think of mentoring as a mentee/mentor relationship. It is a very close relationship where the mentor is giving talents to the mentee and the mentee shapes those talents by presenting a different perspective and questioning some of the mentor’s age-old practices. KF: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the mentoring process? LS: I am not that far out from my PhD, only 12 years, but people have 30 and 40 year careers, so I am still in the early part of mine. For the novice researcher, an advantage is that they can get perspectives that they do not or cannot see. New researchers have not been through the trials of doing a study or the joys of doing a study and they may see it only as marking items off a check list and not seeing how these items all fit together. Those of us who have experienced it know that that the decision- making upfront in conceptualizing the study really affects everything about the study. So, I think that it is an advantage for the novice researcher to have a mentor actually help them put the pieces together. I think that is certainly an advantage. Another advantage is just having people know how to navigate the system and knowing when it is okay to be a little bit succinct in trying to explain something or when more information is needed. Also, when students or mentees are presenting the results of their studies at conferences it is helpful to give them feedback, and to tell them how to handle the stress of walking up to the podium. Furthermore, reminding them that the presentation is only 12 minutes long and that 15 slides are about the maximum and that they should practice in their room before going down to do the presentation. I think it is an advantage just giving those tips to the novice to relieve some of the stress. I am not a firm believer that everyone has to have growing pains and go through their own personal agony to do research. If we can give people some clues or just a shoulder to cry on sometimes, I think that it is an advantage. I think another advantage is to introduce mentees to others. That does not mean that we have to introduce them to everybody and take them on a show and tell to our network of colleagues. If nothing else, just introducing them to people with whom you are familiar. For example, one of my students presented at a conference last year and I introduced her to people even if they were not in the same area. I wanted her to know that she was joining a select community and is now a member of the discipline that will transform her work. Being a member of an academic discipline is a different way of thinking. It is a different way of presenting yourself. A different way of engaging. Providing advice about publishing is
also helpful for novice researchers, especially when they receive rejections or want to know where to publish. As far as rejections, many times I tell them that I have had the same experience. It is important for them to realize that we all have been through the process of rejection, also the process of acceptance. When people ask me where to publish their work, I typically say in nursing, because they are a member of the nursing discipline. Furthermore, I say always go for the highest impact available. Specialty journals are fine but try to be sure to get a broad exposure to your work. One disadvantage for the mentee is that the mentor may become impatient and want things to move quickly. For example, sometimes it is easier just to do things myself but at the same time I know people must be allowed to do things their own way, as long as they get to the end product. It is important for me to step away; they are going to get to the end product and I do not need to write for them. They will get there. Another disadvantage for the mentee is that the mentor may want to force a mentee into seeing something their way, but that fresh perspective from a mentee can actually change our ways of thinking and we have to be open enough to allow that to happen. Sometimes, we get very set in our ways. KF: What do you think are the key factors for effective mentoring in research? LS: I think there has to be matching in terms of content area, but I do not think the people have to work exclusively in the same area. However, I think there has to be a familiarity with the content, at least orienting yourself to the phenomenon of interest but I do not think you have to be so saturated in it that you are closed to new perspectives. I think fresh eyes sometimes bring us new perspectives. Another factor is that people have to be able to get along interpersonally and be able to communicate, which means that they have to be respectful of each other and they have to trust each other. I think initially you may have the respect of the mentee, but may not have the trust since they really do not know you as a person. So, I do think you need to get to know the mentee at a personal level. Other factors for effective mentoring include having patience and tolerance.I think the mentor probably has to have patience and tolerance in order to allow their mentees to make mistakes but the mentee also has to have patience and tolerance because it may take a while to get an answer to a question. I think we are all so attuned to everything getting answered within 24 hours that we grow impatient, but that is just not realistic. That being said, the mentor needs to respect the mentee and respond to their questions by saying that there will be a response by a certain date. KF: Please describe any work that you are currently mentoring; work that you might want to share.
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
107
Florczak / Research Issues LS: Sure. So, there are several students for whom I am an advisor for their dissertation. One student is doing a grounded theory study on how students transfer simulation learning to the clinical setting which I think is timely and I think it is a really important study. There is another student who in interested in relational care and relational work. She believes that relational care and work are not really emphasized or valued. Institutions are more interested in the tasks but the tasks do not get done unless the relational network exists. So, she plans to do a qualitative study that uses some observation to determine the process of relational work. There is another student who is interested in that point in time when patients with a chronic illness are diagnosed with organ failure and how they process that in transition to a new way of being with a long-term illness. One student is finishing her work on discovering the process that registered nurses with two to three years of experience use in making clinical judgments while caring for their assigned patients. Those are four qualitative studies that are in various stages of development at the present moment. One student just finished a very interesting study about how trust develops between the patient and the nurse caring for them. I think she made an excellent distinction between institutional trust, we all trust nurses, and trusting that nurse who is taking care of me. She did that with Mexican-American patients who were hospitalized, and has presented her findings at the local, regional, and international levels.
Synopsis To create a coherent summary of the nature of mentoring novice nurse researchers from the interviews of Collins and Schmidt, the definition of mentoring developed by Mijares, Baxley, and Bond (2013) was chosen as scaffolding. They said that “mentoring is an interpersonal process that takes place between a trained, seasoned mentor and a novice protégé. After accounting for cultural differences, mentoring entails providing emotional support, sharing knowledge and experience, role-modeling and guidance” (Mijares, Baxley, & Bond, 2013, p. 27). Both Collins and Schmidt spoke about emotional support, sharing of knowledge, role-modeling, and guidance in terms of mentoring. The idea of emotional
support was evident since both scientists discussed the need to be there for mentees when they received rejections of their work either in the form of publications or grants. Both said that they tried to impress upon their protégés that all researchers, even senior scientists get rejected and suggested ways to handle the situation such revamping the work. The sharing of knowledge and experience was ubiquitous in both interviews in terms of the process of conducting and presenting findings. Mentees of both Collins and Schmidt received knowledge about traversing the IRB process, creation of protocol manuals, crystallization of research ideas, critiquing another’s work, and effective presenting. Role modeling was apparent since the idea that mentees were watching and learning from the mentor without the mentor overtly communicating was identified. Finally, guidance was evident throughout the entire process even regarding roles outside of research, for example being a faculty member and the balancing of family and work. Other ideas that arose during the conversation included the fact that the mentee brings curiosity and excitement with a fresh pair of eyes which facilitates continued growth in the mentor. Advocacy for the mentee on the part of the mentor surfaced as a factor in the mentoring role for both Collins and Schmidt. They both thought that mentors should introduce their protégés to a network of colleagues in order to facilitate the mentee’s transition into other positions and entry into the academic discipline. Finally, both scientists felt that the relationship should include fairness on both the part of the mentor and the mentee along with trust and a dose of patience. In the end, mentoring of novice researchers appears to be a complex, dynamic, and intricate dance. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this editorial.
Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this editorial.
Reference Mijares, L., Baxley, S. M., & Bond, M. (2013). Mentoring: A Concept Analysis. Journal of Theory Construction & Testing, 17(1), 23-28.
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
research-article2014
NSQXXX10.1177/0894318414522660Nursing Science QuarterlyFlorczak / Research Issues
Research Issues
The Mentor-Mentee Relationship: An Intricate Dance
Nursing Science Quarterly 2014, Vol. 27(2) 103–107 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0894318414522660 nsq.sagepub.com
Kristine L. Florczak, RN; PhD,1 Eileen Collins, RN; PhD,2 and Lee Schmidt, RN; PhD3
Abstract Leadership in the mentoring of novice researchers is the focus of this column. Interviews with two senior nurse research scientists is presented in which they respond to questions about the nature of mentoring, advantages and disadvantages of the process for both the mentor and the mentee, and the necessary factors for a good mentoring relationship. Both scientists discuss their on-going work in mentoring and finally a synopsis of their thoughts is presented. Keywords mentoring, nursing research, nursing theory Leadership in terms of mentoring is the focus of this column; therefore to learn more about the endeavor, interviews were conducted with two leading nurse scientists who are currently involved with mentoring either doctoral or postdoctoral students. The first interview was conducted with Dr. Eileen Collins who is a Research Career Scientist at the Department of Veterans Affairs in Maywood Illinois and a tenured faculty in the College of Nursing at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She has mentored a number of students as they conducted research for both the disciplines of nursing and medicine. The second interview was conducted with Dr. Lee Schmidt who is a Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the Marcella Niehoff School of Nursing at Loyola University Chicago. He also has mentored a number of nursing students while either chairperson of or serving on dissertation committees at Loyola University Chicago, the University of Miami, and Florida Atlantic University. The questions posed to both pertained to the definition of mentoring, the advantages and disadvantages of the mentoring process for both the mentor and the mentee, and the key factors for effective mentoring. Other questions were asked about the theories that guide their own research or practice and how the theories related to nursing science. Finally, they were asked to describe any work that they were currently mentoring or any insights about the process.
Interview with Collins
For example, the research involves patients with COPD and one of the symptoms that they have to overcome is dyspnea. So, many of our interventions are aimed at desensitizing patients’ perceptions of dyspnea or making physiologic adjustments so they do not feel as short of breath. The other half of the model is concerned with cyclical cycle of chronic disease and that is what we try and interrupt, the cyclical cycle of inactivity which then avoids the downward spiral of decreased quality of life related to shortness of breath. It is very simple, sort of a systems approach of input/ output. KF: How do you relate the use of the model to nursing science? EC: I always have trouble when people say nursing science, because I look at it as health science. I see that as nurses we bring a unique perspective to how we take care of patients. We tend to be concerned with symptoms as opposed to attempting a cure. However, I think we are all after the same goal and that is the improvement of health using whatever specific paradigm or lens that works. KF: What is your definition of mentoring? EC: I think mentoring at the doctoral or post-doctoral level involves mostly providing guidance since these individuals already have the knowledge but they are 1
Associate Professor, Saint Xavier University Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago 3 Senior Associate Dean, Loyola University of Chicago 2
Kristine Florczak (KF): What theory guides you as a researcher, or even as a nurse? Eileen Collins (EC): I use a conceptual model by Rikli and Jones which is a conceptual framework or model that is concerned with physical activity and disability.
Contributing Editor: Kristine L. Florczak, RN, PhD, Associate Professor, Saint Xavier University, 7807 Janes Avenue, Woodridge, Illinois, 60517. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
104
Nursing Science Quarterly 27(2)
not quite sure of how to put it into practice. They have the tools in their head, but they have not used them per se in doing a research project. For example, they know that they have to get Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, but they may never have gone through the process of filling out all the forms or doing all the paperwork and what will fly and what will not fly from a regulatory perspective. They know that they are going to have to lead a research team, but they have never done that and they do not know how to set up a protocol manual which seems so simple to somebody who has been doing it. However, that is very important for consistency in the project. I think another crucial factor in mentoring is being a good role model. As a researcher, there are a lot of demands, many researchers are also in academia at the same time and the question becomes how do you manage those multiple roles? People who are new in their doctoral program tend to say yes too much when people ask and it takes a while to learn to say no. I just met with one of my mentees yesterday. She had a grid that the department head gave to her and it is a beautiful grid toward getting promotion and tenure. Under service, it says no, no, and no in the early years and then when you are more senior and established it says yes. We looked at what she was doing and she was saying yes, yes, and yes. However, I also think it is important that people are good academic citizens, but sometimes we take advantage of our young and they get on every committee and the next thing we are telling them is that you are not productive enough, so sorry, we cannot promote or tenure you. We need to foster that productivity and teach our novice researchers how to say no to certain things and let our more senior scholars take over the committee work. I think it is the role of a mentor to help young doctoral students and researchers to say no. KF: What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of mentoring a novice researcher for you? EC: For me, I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. Novice researchers bring enthusiasm; they bring back that curiosity and excitement for research that sometimes is lost when you are in the grind for a long time. They also keep you engaged with the latest and the greatest. They question because they are not afraid to question and look at things differently. I think that’s a huge advantage. They also can help the senior researcher with publishing since they are eager to get their work out there and establish themselves. In terms of disadvantages, the only one I can think of is time; it takes a lot of time to mentor someone. KF: What are the advantages and disadvantages of mentoring for the novice researcher? EC: I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages for them as well. If they are fortunate, they will find a good mentor, somebody who will remain in the
relationship for a long time. One of the things that a good mentor can help with is the disappointments that occur with publishing or grant writing. The people who are the best funded have had multiple grants rejected, they have had papers rejected. No matter how senior you are, your papers will get rejected. I think that your novice researcher can gain a lot from watching how you and other people handle the failures because that is really I think what makes people successful, the manner in which they deal with the failures and rejection. Do you take what the person said and rip it apart and just send the same thing somewhere else? Or, do you put it away for a while, then look at it and see that maybe they were not totally right, but they had good points. I think that the novice researcher sees that and they are watching even when you do not realize it. On the other hand, sometimes novice researchers do get taken advantage of in terms of maybe being used for scut-work or for not getting credit when they do a lot of work on a project. KF: What do you think are the key factors for effective research mentoring? EC: I think probably fairness would be one. Recognize that when you are mentoring somebody, it needs to be a fair process meaning that there needs to be give and take on both sides. Certainly, the mentor gives a lot to the relationship and gets a lot from the relationship, but the mentee also needs to realize that they need to give a lot to the relationship as well. They are only going to get out of it what they put into it. I think there is also a role for advocacy, meaning that when you have a mentee, you must take it upon yourself to introduce them to the appropriate people in the field so that they are networking with the proper people. If they are in a postdoc position, you should advocate for them when they are looking for another position and recognize that they need to move toward independence no matter how much you like them. Your job is really kind of like a parent, having the ability to let go. It then becomes a transformation of that relationship into one of being a colleague. Another factor is being a good coach and teaching your mentees that critiquing a work does not mean ripping it apart since when it comes to real life, you do not want your work to be ripped apart. We need to foster the idea that when we critique, it needs to be with an iron fist in one hand and a soft glove on the other. We need to teach people how to effectively critique the work and not the individual, to recognize the strengths as well as the weaknesses. For example, first grant that I submitted many, many years ago was to Sigma Theta Tau and it was an extension of my dissertation. I submitted it not knowing that I had critiqued the work of one of the reviewers and I had previously torn apart her work and I did not recognize all the good things. I only pointed out the flaws. I think
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
105
Florczak / Research Issues that is something we need to teach, that when critiquing a work that both the good and positive aspects must be acknowledged. KF: Please describe any work that you are currently mentoring or your involvement with mentoring. EC: In my position at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), we started a formal mentorship program. The senior people have been assigned a junior faculty member and the expectation is that we meet twice a semester. The idea is that you answer any questions, no matter what they are, and help them toward promotion and tenure. The two that I have are both on the tenure track and so they need answers to many questions. What types of things should they be doing to reach those goals? How do you deal with the teaching load? How do you negotiate? Who do I call because I need X? I think answering those kinds of questions can help them. They just need a friendly face or somebody who is non-judgmental, supportive, and just sort of be the go-to person. We have another really nice thing at UIC, which is a think tank and a mock review for researchers when they are putting in for grants. Sometimes, new faculty members are not aware that the think tanks are there for them and that they can just go and talk about their research with senior scientists. It is constructive and it is not meant to tear people down, it is meant to get their ideas to a point where they can go forward with a formal grant application. In my position at the Veteran’s Administration (VA), I am a Research Career Scientist which means that the VA supports my salary for five years and it is renewable indefinitely. In essence, you do not have to worry about bringing in grant dollars to fund any of your salary, and some of that time can be spent mentoring junior scientists. We have a number of bench scientists here at the VA and some of them are female with families and that creates issues for them especially since it is predominantly a male-dominated field. I have a little book that I recommend to all of them and it is called Women Don’t Ask. I tend to informally sit down and discuss with them the issues that women face that men do not or maybe face in a different way. KF: I have seen that a lot in the literature, talking about women scientists and the issue of remaining a scientist but I wonder if things are changing because of the preponderance of women being educated in what once was a typically male-dominated field. EC: I think it is changing. Actually, Nature had a series where they talked about female scientists. When women are in the child-bearing age, instead of institutions saying get out, they say, how can I effectively help you stay in? It might mean cutting back on hours for a few years, or it may be changing the role. The question becomes how do we help you so that we don’t lose this magnificent mind in science? I think men too
are seeing that they also want the family part. So, it is becoming a melting pot as opposed to having a polarity between men and women in science.
Interview with Schmidt Kristine Florczak (KF): What theory guides your research? Lee Schmidt (LS): I sort of straddle both the qualitative and quantitative world and cannot say that one theory guides my work. Some of my work has been theorygenerating while some has been theory testing. I started my career by doing a qualitative study on the patient’s perception of nursing care which was my dissertation. In that study, patients told me that they felt safe because the nursing staff watched over them. Next, I did a study with nurses and how they watched over their patients on a work shift and then developed an instrument to test the phenomenon. So, my interest right now is on surveillance by registered nurses, which I would say is middle-range theory. In the end, I think for me it is more situational, the right theory for the right situation. KF: How is your work related to nursing science? LS: This question I was happy to see because I think it is something that sometimes does not get the emphasis that it needs in education, and I like the idea that theory is a product of science and also the process of science. We need to remember that everything we do is theorydriven and I really think we lose sight of that sometimes. I think that is unfortunate. I have debates with people about whether or not there always has to be a theoretical model or a conceptual framework guiding a study. The purest in me says yes because there has to be a theoretical foundation to the study. You know even if you are testing the relationship between two physiologic parameters there is a theoretical basis because the whole process of testing has to be based in theory. So, I think I take more of a view that theory is primary in science. In fact, I have an editorial coming out in the Journal of Nursing Education about keeping the theory in measurement. So, I will be interested to see what people think of it. I guess my argument has always been if we do not situate our findings from our research in a theoretical orientation I do not see how science can advance because we will keep asking the same questions rather than building from science. I try to teach students with the work of Jacqueline Fawcett’s hierarchy, that the propositions at the theoretical level are the hypotheses that they are testing at the empirical level. If that connection is lost, they have a hard time moving forward and building a program of research. I also believe that we do not have all the theories we will ever need. In fact, our catalog of theories is really quite limited. As a discipline, we should stress that theory
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
106
Nursing Science Quarterly 27(2)
development is equally as important as theory testing, although some people are more comfortable in one domain than the other. We need both. KF: What is your definition of mentoring? LS: I always think of mentoring as a mentee/mentor relationship. It is a very close relationship where the mentor is giving talents to the mentee and the mentee shapes those talents by presenting a different perspective and questioning some of the mentor’s age-old practices. KF: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the mentoring process? LS: I am not that far out from my PhD, only 12 years, but people have 30 and 40 year careers, so I am still in the early part of mine. For the novice researcher, an advantage is that they can get perspectives that they do not or cannot see. New researchers have not been through the trials of doing a study or the joys of doing a study and they may see it only as marking items off a check list and not seeing how these items all fit together. Those of us who have experienced it know that that the decision- making upfront in conceptualizing the study really affects everything about the study. So, I think that it is an advantage for the novice researcher to have a mentor actually help them put the pieces together. I think that is certainly an advantage. Another advantage is just having people know how to navigate the system and knowing when it is okay to be a little bit succinct in trying to explain something or when more information is needed. Also, when students or mentees are presenting the results of their studies at conferences it is helpful to give them feedback, and to tell them how to handle the stress of walking up to the podium. Furthermore, reminding them that the presentation is only 12 minutes long and that 15 slides are about the maximum and that they should practice in their room before going down to do the presentation. I think it is an advantage just giving those tips to the novice to relieve some of the stress. I am not a firm believer that everyone has to have growing pains and go through their own personal agony to do research. If we can give people some clues or just a shoulder to cry on sometimes, I think that it is an advantage. I think another advantage is to introduce mentees to others. That does not mean that we have to introduce them to everybody and take them on a show and tell to our network of colleagues. If nothing else, just introducing them to people with whom you are familiar. For example, one of my students presented at a conference last year and I introduced her to people even if they were not in the same area. I wanted her to know that she was joining a select community and is now a member of the discipline that will transform her work. Being a member of an academic discipline is a different way of thinking. It is a different way of presenting yourself. A different way of engaging. Providing advice about publishing is
also helpful for novice researchers, especially when they receive rejections or want to know where to publish. As far as rejections, many times I tell them that I have had the same experience. It is important for them to realize that we all have been through the process of rejection, also the process of acceptance. When people ask me where to publish their work, I typically say in nursing, because they are a member of the nursing discipline. Furthermore, I say always go for the highest impact available. Specialty journals are fine but try to be sure to get a broad exposure to your work. One disadvantage for the mentee is that the mentor may become impatient and want things to move quickly. For example, sometimes it is easier just to do things myself but at the same time I know people must be allowed to do things their own way, as long as they get to the end product. It is important for me to step away; they are going to get to the end product and I do not need to write for them. They will get there. Another disadvantage for the mentee is that the mentor may want to force a mentee into seeing something their way, but that fresh perspective from a mentee can actually change our ways of thinking and we have to be open enough to allow that to happen. Sometimes, we get very set in our ways. KF: What do you think are the key factors for effective mentoring in research? LS: I think there has to be matching in terms of content area, but I do not think the people have to work exclusively in the same area. However, I think there has to be a familiarity with the content, at least orienting yourself to the phenomenon of interest but I do not think you have to be so saturated in it that you are closed to new perspectives. I think fresh eyes sometimes bring us new perspectives. Another factor is that people have to be able to get along interpersonally and be able to communicate, which means that they have to be respectful of each other and they have to trust each other. I think initially you may have the respect of the mentee, but may not have the trust since they really do not know you as a person. So, I do think you need to get to know the mentee at a personal level. Other factors for effective mentoring include having patience and tolerance.I think the mentor probably has to have patience and tolerance in order to allow their mentees to make mistakes but the mentee also has to have patience and tolerance because it may take a while to get an answer to a question. I think we are all so attuned to everything getting answered within 24 hours that we grow impatient, but that is just not realistic. That being said, the mentor needs to respect the mentee and respond to their questions by saying that there will be a response by a certain date. KF: Please describe any work that you are currently mentoring; work that you might want to share.
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
107
Florczak / Research Issues LS: Sure. So, there are several students for whom I am an advisor for their dissertation. One student is doing a grounded theory study on how students transfer simulation learning to the clinical setting which I think is timely and I think it is a really important study. There is another student who in interested in relational care and relational work. She believes that relational care and work are not really emphasized or valued. Institutions are more interested in the tasks but the tasks do not get done unless the relational network exists. So, she plans to do a qualitative study that uses some observation to determine the process of relational work. There is another student who is interested in that point in time when patients with a chronic illness are diagnosed with organ failure and how they process that in transition to a new way of being with a long-term illness. One student is finishing her work on discovering the process that registered nurses with two to three years of experience use in making clinical judgments while caring for their assigned patients. Those are four qualitative studies that are in various stages of development at the present moment. One student just finished a very interesting study about how trust develops between the patient and the nurse caring for them. I think she made an excellent distinction between institutional trust, we all trust nurses, and trusting that nurse who is taking care of me. She did that with Mexican-American patients who were hospitalized, and has presented her findings at the local, regional, and international levels.
Synopsis To create a coherent summary of the nature of mentoring novice nurse researchers from the interviews of Collins and Schmidt, the definition of mentoring developed by Mijares, Baxley, and Bond (2013) was chosen as scaffolding. They said that “mentoring is an interpersonal process that takes place between a trained, seasoned mentor and a novice protégé. After accounting for cultural differences, mentoring entails providing emotional support, sharing knowledge and experience, role-modeling and guidance” (Mijares, Baxley, & Bond, 2013, p. 27). Both Collins and Schmidt spoke about emotional support, sharing of knowledge, role-modeling, and guidance in terms of mentoring. The idea of emotional
support was evident since both scientists discussed the need to be there for mentees when they received rejections of their work either in the form of publications or grants. Both said that they tried to impress upon their protégés that all researchers, even senior scientists get rejected and suggested ways to handle the situation such revamping the work. The sharing of knowledge and experience was ubiquitous in both interviews in terms of the process of conducting and presenting findings. Mentees of both Collins and Schmidt received knowledge about traversing the IRB process, creation of protocol manuals, crystallization of research ideas, critiquing another’s work, and effective presenting. Role modeling was apparent since the idea that mentees were watching and learning from the mentor without the mentor overtly communicating was identified. Finally, guidance was evident throughout the entire process even regarding roles outside of research, for example being a faculty member and the balancing of family and work. Other ideas that arose during the conversation included the fact that the mentee brings curiosity and excitement with a fresh pair of eyes which facilitates continued growth in the mentor. Advocacy for the mentee on the part of the mentor surfaced as a factor in the mentoring role for both Collins and Schmidt. They both thought that mentors should introduce their protégés to a network of colleagues in order to facilitate the mentee’s transition into other positions and entry into the academic discipline. Finally, both scientists felt that the relationship should include fairness on both the part of the mentor and the mentee along with trust and a dose of patience. In the end, mentoring of novice researchers appears to be a complex, dynamic, and intricate dance. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this editorial.
Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this editorial.
Reference Mijares, L., Baxley, S. M., & Bond, M. (2013). Mentoring: A Concept Analysis. Journal of Theory Construction & Testing, 17(1), 23-28.
Downloaded from nsq.sagepub.com at USD & Wegner Health Science Information Center on May 8, 2015
