Nature's guide for mentors

Nature (Impact Factor: 42.35). 07/2007; 447(7146):791-7. DOI: 10.1038/447791a
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Having a good mentor early in your career can mean the difference between success and failure in any field. Adrian Lee, Carina Dennis and Philip Campbell look at what makes a good mentor.

  • Source
    • "A fortunate graduate student sums up the enormous difference a mentor's commitment to a student makes, by saying, ''For me there is a difference between a supervisor and a mentor. With the latter you find that you are not simply a student with a research project, but a student with a career in front that the mentor helps you start'' (Lee et al. 2007). In order to help faculty learn to do more than just supervising or advising, some writers have proposed the use of a written agreement or contract to facilitate the development of a graduate student's goals and also help both parties develop an ongoing relationship (Howard Hughes 2004; Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) 2006, 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The importance of public confidence in scientific findings and trust in scientists cannot be overstated. Thus, it becomes critical for the scientific community to focus on enhancing the strategies used to educate future scientists on ethical research behaviors. What we are lacking is knowledge on how faculty members shape and develop ethical research standards with their students. We are presenting the results of a survey with 3,500 research faculty members. We believe this is the first report on how faculty work with and educate their PhD students on basic research standards. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether individual faculty members, who are advisors or mentors, differ in how they implemented components of responsible conduct of research (RCR) with their PhD students. Mentors were more likely than advisors or supervisors to report working with all of their PhDs, who graduated in the last 5 years, on the 17 recognized critical components of RCR training and research skill development. We also found about half of the faculty members believe RCR is an institutional responsibility versus a faculty responsibility. Less than a quarter have had opportunities to participate in faculty training to be a better mentor, advisor, or research teacher, and about one third of faculty did not or could not remember whether they had guidelines related to their responsibilities to PhD students. We discuss the implications of our findings and focus on ways that PhD research mentoring can be enhanced.
    Science and Engineering Ethics 05/2013; 20(1). DOI:10.1007/s11948-013-9437-4 · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "With practice, and a variety of experiences, the capabilities of a supervisor has to do this can be expected to grow. As such, experience, an ongoing professional commitment to development, and engagement with reflective and reflexive practice, all represent hallmarks of excellence (Lee, Carina, and Campbell 2007). Evidence of such attributes represents one aspect of the supervisory relationship. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One issue universities face is the need to demonstrate excellence in postgraduate research supervision at the individual, faculty and university level. While poor supervision might become obvious over time, with grievances, withdrawals and poor completion times and rates, this paper focuses specifically on identifying and demonstrating supervisory excellence. Currently, the amount and range of evidence used to support claims of supervisory excellence tends to be limited, leaving supervisors, faculties and institutions in a position where demonstrating excellence remains difficult. This paper proposes two inter-dependent ideas which, considered together, help to redress this problem. The first is a 'map' for the collection and use of evidence of supervisory excellence. The second is a 'template' for a 'supervisory excellence report'. The 'map' details the organisational elements, uses of data, and data types which can be considered. The 'report' explains one simple and potent way to organise and present these data for multiple purposes. Together they constitute a much-needed framework for promoting and recognising excellence in the supervision of research students. Yes Yes
    Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 12/2009; 34(6). DOI:10.1080/02602930802474193 · 0.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Gelso and Lent (2000) posited that interpersonal reinforcement for research behavior likely affects mentees' attitudes, self-efficacy, skills, and productivity. 4. The mentor exposes mentees to a variety of clinical research methods (Gelso, 1993, 2006), guides the development of clinical research, evaluates and critiques ideas and work, provides corrective and timely feedback, and is available for meetings (Lee et al., 2007). Realizing the heterogeneity inherent in psychological research , successful mentors expose mentees to a variety of research styles and methods to enable students to fit the appropriate method to their clinical research questions and to use methodologies that best fit their personalities and personal preferences (Gelso, 1993, 2006). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Psychologists are frequently called on to mentor students, trainees, and early faculty in various aspects associated with research. Little formal training is provided to mentors on how to effectively and successfully mentor trainees at the various developmental levels of the training process. The authors apply a developmental focus to the mentoring relationship. The literature on research mentoring is reviewed, including a review of mentorship with women and ethnic minorities. The multiple roles and functions of mentorship for clinical researchers and research scientists also are explored. Finally, the authors provide a list of the top 6 skills and behaviors that enable successful mentoring. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
    Professional Psychology Research and Practice 05/2009; 40(3):306-313. DOI:10.1037/a0011996 · 1.34 Impact Factor
Show more