Knowles, M. The adult learner 5th ed. Houston: Gulf. Kovar, S. Changing contexts in the professoriate. Quest, 48, Kram, K. Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Mentoring in a context of diversity and turbulence. Kossek Eds. London: Blackwell. Lave, J. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Little, J. The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. Cazden Ed. Metzler, M. Waiting for Boyer: A cross-generational dialogue. Quest, 48 2 , Mitchell, M. Transition to teacher education: Alien perspectives. Carnes Ed. Napper-Owen, G. A qualitative analysis of the impact of induction assistance on first-year physical educators.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, Putnam, R. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?
Educational Researcher, 29 1 , Safrit, J. Women in research in physical education: A update. Quest, 36, Smith, T. What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, That's actually how I first met Hal, an interaction that I doubt he remembers, but one that was very important to me. After finishing my Ph.
I started a project on HMOs and read numerous articles that informed and influenced my research by someone named Luft. I had my first research paper looking at the impact of HMOs on market costs accepted for presentation at an economics conference. In the course of my presentation, I mentioned the work by Luft several times, pointing out how my work addressed some issues he had not included. You're on the right track. I am by no means alone in being a mentee of Hal. He has been the co-director or associate director of five different training programs, some of which have been going on for many years.
Approximately fellows have been at the Philip R. Unknown numbers of junior faculty considered themselves mentored by him at UCSF. Furthermore, as evidenced by my own story, Hal has served as a mentor for an unknown number of people outside of UCSF. One glance at Hal Luft's list of publications and research projects makes it clear that his mentoring relationships have been productive, long lasting, and widespread.
In part, then, the questions for our field are: What did Hal do as a mentor and how can we get more of it? Tempting as it may be to look simply at his mentoring history, as good researchers we know the dangers of extrapolating from a sample of one. There are studies looking at all three mentoring situations commonly found in the academic environment, but none in the field of health services and health policy training.
Some of the programs described do not translate very well into our multidisciplinary framework, but there were some common themes. As noted before, there are two types of mentoring relationships: formal and informal.
Informal relationships develop on their own between partners. Formal mentoring, on the other hand, refers to assigned relationships, often associated with organizational mentoring programs. In well-designed formal mentoring programs, there are program goals, schedules, training for mentors and mentees , and evaluation.
In some of these highly structured programs, the mentor is someone from a different discipline, even a different department, clearly not the model seen in bench science, considered by many the historical base of academic mentoring, but more akin to the coaching phenomenon seen in businesses. For many observers, what has been historically an informal, unofficial, voluntary, mutually agreeable, and self-selected interaction between two people has become a program—an institutionalized strategy for trying to force what some observers think can only come about naturally.
And, certainly, the idealized vision of the mentor devoting scarce time and energy to the mentee, and establishing a lifelong collegial relationship, almost certainly requires some kind of fit, both in terms of research interests and personal style.
Among the findings:. Although most professors consider that having or being a mentor is a natural part of graduate school, if not the essence of graduate school, more than 30 percent of all graduate students do not feel that they have a faculty mentor. Students rate their social interaction with faculty members as high in engineering, sciences, mathematics, and education—and relatively low in the social sciences and humanities. In rating the quality of academic interactions, students in the humanities think highly of their professors while those in the social sciences and in math and science are more critical.
The survey also demonstrated that a substantive mentoring relationship with a faculty member positively affects progress toward the degree and, more importantly, is significantly related to completion of the Ph. Therefore, it was particularly disturbing that they found significant, and negative, gaps in the experiences of minority and female graduate students—from admissions, to getting teaching or research assistant jobs, to publishing research while still in graduate school.
In math and science, for example, half of the black students reported having a mentor, whereas three quarters of the white students did. In this study and others, more important than whether there is a formal or informal mentoring process in place, doctoral students highlight frequency of contact as the factor most important to them.
Several researchers found that the length of the relationship and frequency of contacts were the most important determinants of perceived benefits from the mentor—student relationship Boyle and Boice At the end of the day, most evaluators agreed that research productivity, which was heavily influenced by participation in a satisfactory mentoring relationship, is the most important measure of a successful doctoral education experience.
There have also been several surveys and studies of the mentoring of postdoctoral fellows. The results are very similar to those found for doctoral students. As mentioned earlier, the NIH survey found that 25 percent had no mentor Wolfsberg et al.
The National Postdoctoral Association, gathering data from over 7, postdoctoral fellows at 46 institutions, discovered wide variation in the selection of fellows, the assignment of mentors, and the structure of the mentoring process Davis Repeating the findings for doctoral students by Nettles and Millett, this study and others found correlations between gender, race, and ethnicity and the presence of a strong mentoring relationship.
Although a more recent focus for research, there are also strongly held views about the need for and the structure of successful faculty mentoring. Again, there is sparse strong empirical research on the topic, but there are quite a few surveys and opinions. In one study, only half of new faculty with assigned mentors were still involved in the relationship after 1 year, whereas all but one of the new faculty who had sought out a mentor were still engaged in that mentoring relationships Bode Regardless of whether the mentor was assigned or found, all studies agree that there are positive outcomes associated with junior faculty mentoring.
One study used data from faculty members at two research institutions and discovered that assistant professors with multiple sources of mentoring both within and outside of their institutions reported higher levels of both objective and subjective career success Van Eck Peluchette and Jeanquart In these and other studies gender influenced both the presence of and the strength of the mentoring relationship. In Bode's study , men were much more likely to find a mentor than were women, who were more likely to have one assigned.
In part in response to research that shows women junior faculty having more difficulty finding a mentor, several universities have initiated mentoring programs solely for women junior faculty. As noted above, however, studies have shown that formal assigned mentoring dyads are less likely to continue beyond the initial year. It is unclear from reports on the structure and processes developed in over a dozen junior faculty mentoring programs what the durability of the resulting mentoring relationships was Thomas There is increasing evidence that mentoring makes a difference.
Doctoral students in a mentoring relationship are more likely than those without a mentor to present papers at national conferences, publish articles while in school, and complete the program Nettles and Millett Studies also show that not only are doctoral students who were mentored more satisfied with their graduate school experience, they are also more likely to become mentors themselves Johnson Postdoctoral fellows who reported having a satisfactory mentoring relationship were more likely to be involved in successful research projects yielding multiple publications and to move on to tenure track positions at the end of the fellowship program.
Junior women and minority faculty have higher dropout rates; limited evidence suggests that those with mentors are less likely to leave academics and more likely to achieve tenure. Controlling for gender, graduate school quality, department prestige, and number of publications, Kirchmeyer found a significant positive effect of having a mentor in predicting promotion for junior faculty.
The immediate question is: Given the evidence of the gains from mentoring at all levels, why don't we see more of it? In part, demands for research, teaching, and committee work—the more tangible, measurable, and expected activities—often discourage faculty from being available as mentors.
In addition, in most cases, good mentoring does not just happen. Johnson lists the personality characteristics associated with being a good mentor—intelligent, caring, flexible, empathetic, and patient, as well as ethical, psychologically well-adjusted, and well-known as scholars and professionals.
Learning how to be a good mentor is time-consuming and unfortunately does not often bring with it professional prestige or reward. Download Free PDF. Andrea Bencsik. Download PDF. A short summary of this paper. RELIK Establishing, developing, preserving and transferring knowledge require several tasks and activities from the organizations.
One method of transferring knowledge is mentoring, where knowledge-sharing and learning is fulfilled between the mentor and the mentored person. In Hungary the process of mentoring is not yet a wide-spread practice in the life of organizations; therefore we considered it highly important to get to know and to reveal the features of the Hungarian practice regarding the issue.
This year we have initiated an extensive qualitative research in order to examine the mentoring process and its characteristics from both sides, from the side of the employers and from the side of the employees. Our aim was also to see whether the mentoring system is suitable to the system of knowledge management. We were curious to know how the interviewees see this method of knowledge transfer from the two sides of the coin, what the similarities and differences are from the two aspects as regards this practice.
Key words: mentoring, knowledge-sharing, mentor, mentored person, human resource management, knowledge management JEL Code: J24 Introduction By today the justification of knowledge-management is undoubted in the life of organizations. Finding, exploiting, preserving and developing the valuable knowledge-base of the company is the common aim of the two fields; moreover forming them into a system and operating them is or can be one of the strategic tasks of the company.
For instance it was Haesli and Boxal who highlighted some pre-conditions in one of their studies, which are necessary to preserve the human capital as the source of the basic competencies and therefore source of the sustainable success. This is already part and aim of the knowledge- management as well, thus it is about the mutual cooperation of the two fields.
Knowledge-sharing is an important step of knowledge-management, which can be fulfilled in different ways directly or indirectly , but by all means it has to be about the knowledge-sharing and transferring between participants Bencsik, The process can be either a one- or two-way process, while knowledge-sharing can be realized between the individuals and groups Argote and Ingram, One form of knowledge-sharing is the so-called mentoring process, which is quite fashionable nowadays and where the knowledge-transfer is carried out between one mentor and his mentored person.
The study of Kram described mentoring in its classical interpretation in , where the author defines mentoring as the group of activities, where there is teaching, supporting and helping and which is provided by a highly qualified leader to his mentored person.
Based on the approach, the mentor mainly supports his mentored person in his career while this help has influence on the psycho-social development of the mentored as well. According to Bell the mentor is an educator, a leader who provides help to his mentored person in extending and developing his knowledge. The question is how knowledge-transfer can be interpreted both from the aspect of the organizations and from the aspect of the employers.
Are the views and goals from the two sides the same and where are the differences if there are differences at all? In order to answer the above question, a research- involving in-depth interviews- has been carried out this year. The interviews were made with different Hungarian organizations and their employees about the issue how the participants of the process the mentored persons and how the organizations as employers see this method of knowledge-sharing. Those results of some interviews made with organizations serve as the base of the present paper where there was mentoring practice operating.
Although the research examined companies of different size, at present the circle of investigation has narrowed to big companies 15 organizations. The interviews were made one by one with all the respondents, thus basically people could not influence each other.
The answers were recorded, and later comparisons were made in excel tables. The questionnaire of both group of respondents contained similar group of questions. It is not the aim of the present paper to show the results of the research in details, the authors simply intend to summarize some experiences.
The examination showed that the knowledge-sharing willingness of the participants could be evaluated as medium and basically they were not initiators in sharing tacit knowledge and did not show high willingness. While during knowledge-transfer the respondents were not characteristically interest-oriented with friends, acquaintances and with strangers, the same cannot be stated in case of formal connections and colleagues.
The in-depth interviews were carried out based on the experiences of the above research. The specification of the sample was the following: As it was previously mentioned, from the side of the employers there were 15 organizations, which employed people or more.
Based on their field of activities, more areas could be distinguished, thus there were employees mainly from service industries financial, IT sector, transportation, strategic , from agriculture, from vehicle-industrial production and from trading.
There was only one company from the governmental sector; all the other companies were private enterprises. These employers were mainly from service industries, from IT sector, from education and from vehicle industry, etc. The interviews made with both sides showed that all the participants considered the knowledge of human capital primarily important in the strategic operation of the organization and they agreed in its importance of competitiveness on labour market.
At present the market is full, the increasing potential is low, and the aim is to keep the positions.
0コメント