Scholarship - Exploring Mentoring Relationships in Academic Nursing

In this episode of Nursing EDge Unscripted Scholarship, Dr. Steven Palazzo explores the vital role of mentoring in academic nursing with guests Dr. Katie Ruth Busby and Dr. Claire Burke Draucker. The conversation delves into stages of mentorship, emotional impacts, and practical strategies for fostering effective mentoring programs in nursing academia. Key recommendations include structured mentoring training, collaborative matches, and recognizing mentoring as a critical component of academic roles.

Busby, Katie Ruth; Draucker, Claire Burke. Mentoring in Academic Nursing From the Perspectives of Faculty Mentors. Nursing Education Perspectives ():10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000001220, January 16, 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000001220

Dedicated to excellence in nursing, the National League for Nursing is the leading organization for nurse faculty and leaders in nursing education. Find past episodes of the NLN Nursing EDge podcast online. Get instant updates by following the NLN on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. For more information, visit NLN.org.

Transcript

0:00

[Music] Welcome to this episode of NLN podcast Nursing EDge Unscripted the Scholarship  track. I'm your host, Dr. Steven Palazzo, a member of the editorial board for Nursing  Education Perspectives. Nursing EDge Unscripted and our track entitled Scholarship celebrates the  published work of select nurse educators from the NLN's official journal, Nursing Education  Perspectives and the NLN Nursing EDge blog. The conversations embrace the author's unique  perspectives on teaching and learning innovations and implications for nursing program development  and enhancement. In this episode, we will discuss the benefits of two mentoring frameworks aimed  at novice nurse faculty and experienced nurse mentors. We will discuss the perspectives with  my guest today Dr. Katie Ruth Busby, an assistant professor in the Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Beth-El College of Nursing and Health Sciences at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs and Dr.  Claire Burke Draucker, Angela Barron McBride professor of psychiatric nursing Indiana University School of  Nursing. We will discuss their articles, "Mentoring in Academic Nursing From the Perspectives of  Faculty Mentors" and "Exploring Mentorship Relationships Among Novice Nurse Faculty:  A Grounded Theory." These articles can be found in the January-February 2023 issue of  Nursing Education Perspectives. Dr. Busby and Drauker, welcome. Thank you for having us. Yes  great to be here. Well it's a pleasure to have you both and thank you for taking some time  out of your day. Could you please describe the process of developing and creating the  mentorship pathways to navigate academia and growing together mentor's perspectives  on mentoring? One was aimed at the novice nurse experience and the other at experienced nurses  providing the mentorship and what did you learn about mentoring that we didn't know previously?  Sure, so to speak about our first study, we were really interested in learning more about  the process of mentoring among nurse faculty in academia. Both studies were qualitative grounded  theory with current full-time nurse faculty from all over the United States. The first  theoretical framework with our novice faculty was titled, "Creating Mentorship Pathways to Navigate  Academia." This framework depicted how new faculty obtained and maintained mentoring relationships  during their transition into academia. This framework included five phases. The first phase,  beginning work with a formal mentor, was where new faculty were typically assigned a mentor by a  program administrator and the focus was on gaining knowledge regarding the faculty role. In the second  phase, participants found that their mentoring needs were not being met by that kind of formal  assigned mentor and so that was typically either through poor matching, a lack of structure  or goals for the relationship, or mentors who were just too busy or maybe not interested in mentoring  at the time. In phase three, participants, understanding the need for support, they  identified informal mentors who were experienced and approachable. In this phase, new faculty began  to acquire teaching skills needed for the faculty role such as test writing or classroom management  in addition to receiving valuable feedback from informal mentors about their role. In phase four, new faculty started to develop connections with their mentor. This phase was heavily psychosocial  developed with participants sharing that this was where they built friendships based on trust  and respect with their mentors. The last phase is where the work of mentoring began through  growth and career development into all aspects of the role: teaching, scholarship, and service.  This usually occurred through collaboration on research projects, involvement in service, and  committees, leadership positions and then advancing teaching skills. Grounded theory allows us to  describe common stages in a process. In our first study, as Katie has discussed, we identified five  stages that novice nurse faculty talked about as they described how their mentoring relationships  

unfolded: 4:56

beginning work with a faculty member, not having mentoring needs met, etc. However, I  think it's important to point out that not all persons in any sample experienced the exact same  stages nor did they always experience them in the same order. So in addition to the stages Katie  described, we identified a second trajectory. This trajectory occurred when proteges and assigned  our initial mentors clicked and moved pretty quickly to doing the work of mentoring. They  skipped the stages of not having their needs met or seeking informal mentors. With a larger sample  we might have been able to discover a variety of other trajectories, so while grounded theory  allows us to determine common shared process, it also lets us begin to understand variations  in these processes and determine what some of the causes of these variations might be. So once  we wrapped up the first study we understood that we only really studied one view of the mentoring  relationship and that was from the protege or the mentee side. We then came together again  and we wanted to focus on the other side of the relationship, which was our experienced nurse  faculty mentors. That second grounded theory resulted in a theoretical framework titled, "Growing  

Together: 6:21

Mentors' Perspectives on Mentoring." This included four phases and three strands that  speak to the relationship with the protege. The interesting piece of this is those three strands. Some of the data told us about the work of the mentoring the emotional impact of mentoring  and then the relationship with the protege. In phase one, the mentor and the protege were getting  together to establish the mentoring relationship. Like our new faculty protege study, mentors were  typically formally assigned to mentor by an administrator. The work of mentoring in this  phase focused on the protege's immediate needs and was primarily teaching focused. The emotional  impact of mentoring was feelings of uncertainty and frustration over the lack of guidance and  resources for mentoring and as a result of that mentors leaned on their own intuition  and experience to guide the mentoring relationship. In phase two, the mentoring relationship started to  get going. The mentor and the protege began to build deeper connections and the mentor  became invested in the protege's success. The work of mentoring shifted from teaching to more of a  focus on scholarship and service in reviewing guidelines for promotion and tenure tenure. At  this point mentors were overwhelmed due to heavy workloads, lack of support, and faculty shortages. In phase three, the mentor and the protege were going together and mentoring based on mutual  trust and commitment to the relationship. The work in this phase focused heavily on  navigating academic culture and relationships. Mentors began to feel satisfied, confidence, and  joy from the mentoring relationship. In phase four titled, "Going Beyond," mentors began to  celebrate the protege's independence and growth and cultivated the intimate personal relationship,  typically a friendship that had developed, and then they also championed the protege's success  as a faculty member. Lastly mentors also reported feeling gratification for their relationship but  there was also a sense of loss from the protege leaving the mentoring nest, as one participant put it. Well thank you for sharing those. I found them just fascinating. I think they'd be a great tool  for use in many areas of mentoring from TAs, GAs, someone on tenure track, non-tenure track,  clinical faculty, I mean it's applicable in all areas. So what would you say you learned  or what was most surprising that we didn't know about mentoring from the work that you both did? For me from both frameworks we learned what a dynamic, evolving process mentoring really  is. This seems sort of obvious given the studies were grounded theory, which looks for processes  and changes over time, but it really did hit home that if both members of the dyad weren't open to  change not only in themselves but also in the relationship the mentoring could become stalled.  For example, the second study revealed that the early work of mentoring, which we called "getting  together," was meeting the immediate needs of the protege: teaching classes, developing syllabi, using  technology, but at some point, as Katie mentioned, the dyads moved to another stage which we called  "getting going" and they began to address the broader facets of the faculty role. How the novice  nurse faculty might meet the tripod mission and what that meant for promotion and tenure.  But that change involved some adjustments in the relationship that sometimes involved  a renegotiation of goals between the dyad and if that renegotiation did not happen and  the dyad were in different spaces, let's say the novice nurse faculty was growing concerned about  career advancement whereas the mentor continued to focus on tasks that needed to be accomplished,  there could be a rift in the process. There was really kind of two take-home points, one  from each of the study. With our new faculty we found that mentoring is vitally important  for the development of interpersonal bonds and the psychosocial development of our new faculty member.  New faculty members successful mentoring includes friendship, trust, respect, and valuing each other's  opinions. When we often think of mentoring, it's viewed solely in the context of career  development, but our findings support the idea that psychosocial development and friendship is just as  important as career development is. New faculty proteges also mention the importance of active  learning opportunities and being hands-on with their mentors. Usually when we visualize mentoring  we often think of one-on-one office meetings with a back and forth dialogue at a table, but  our participants shared that those who were able to observe mentors in the classroom or in the  clinical setting those who watch their mentors role model leadership in meetings and those who  were able to collaborate actively on research projects together reported deeper connections  with their mentors, deeper self-confidence, and then development into the faculty role. I was  surprised in the first new faculty study how many participants relied on informal mentors as their  primary mentors. I realized lots of informal mentoring happens every day in nursing academe  but the pathway in the first model in which the assigned mentor did not work out and the novice  faculty had to seek out other mentors who then became their primary mentors was revealing to  me and is a phenomenon we need to know more about. Are there differences and outcomes in working with  a formal versus an informal mentor? What if there are non- informal mentors who can take on a more  formal mentoring role and what are the rewards and responsibilities of informal mentors? So that was  something that I learned and would love to know more about. And then with our mentor study, one  finding that was interesting was the data about the emotional impact of mentoring. So once again,  we go back to this psychosocial component of mentoring. Good quality and positive mentoring  relationships take a lot of time and effort and faculty mentors discuss the variety of emotions  that came along with mentoring. Participants reported feelings such as frustration, uncertainty,  being overwhelmed, and then later on, feelings of satisfaction, appreciation, gratification, and  a sense of loss. So combine that emotional impact with heavy workloads and faculty shortages that  are often present in academia and it can lead to a really big burden for our nurse faculty.   Another thing is that mentoring is also not one size fits all. Every every new nurse faculty comes  into academia with different clinical backgrounds and education the immediate needs for new faculty  was orienting to the new world of academia and learning how to teach skills and research and  service commitments usually came later. On the flip side, while our mentors were mid-career and  senior nurse faculty with a lot of experience, many were new to mentoring so as a result they hadn't  received any sort of formal training in mentoring and they mentored new faculty based on their own  intuition, which can lead to different variations in the quality of mentoring that our new faculty  to receive. We need to do a little bit better job at establishing what exactly the goals and  expectations are for mentoring relationships. Thank you very much for that explanation. So taking all  this into account, then how would you or what would you recommend to a college of nursing who  is interested in starting a mentoring program? How would they use your frameworks? How would you  recommend them starting with your frameworks? Sure. So both studies found that academic  mentoring relationships often lack structure and best practices. Both our new faculty proteges  and our experienced faculty members reported feeling unsupported and overwhelmed due to the  lack of guidance and structure to many mentoring relationships. What you can do is things such  as mentoring training programs, having formal oversight of a mentoring training program such as  a director or faculty lead and then establishing formal mentoring agreements that address goals,  responsibilities, roles and ground rules for the mentoring relationships can all help to  provide structure. Almost all of the new faculty proteges and experienced faculty mentors did not  also have any input into the mentoring match meaning who they were matched with at the  very beginning of the relationship. As a result, mentoring dyads often did not feel  well matched leading to relationships that were unsuccessful. Program administrators, leaders,  and faculty should make every effort to allow mentors and proteges input into the mentoring  matches. Both our new faculty proteges and experienced faculty mentors mentioned heavy  workloads, which can limit quality mentoring activities. Another suggestion would be to  provide service awards for mentoring stipends or protected buyout time for mentoring activities  for both the mentor and the protege. That's a great suggestion, the buy-out time. I also  think programs need to have more discussion about the differences between the role of mentors and  other faculty roles especially department chairs or course leaders. Sometimes we assume faculty in  these roles provide the same mentoring and I don't think they do. For example, a chair has  responsibility for ensuring courses are taught, the needs of the department are met, whereas a faculty  mentor can focus on the developmental needs of the protege and sometimes these roles can conflict. For example, a department chair might need a certain course taught whereas a faculty mentor  might think the protege's time should be more devoted to research. I think a coordination  and communication among these roles would be really helpful. I also wonder if for senior and  mid-level faculty mentoring should be considered a fourth pillar in addition to research, service,  and teaching. The participants often talked about how mentoring is not supported, acknowledged and  wonder if that is because it is not a formal part of faculty roles and rewards. I think that  program should consider team and group mentoring programs given that faculty shortage and heavy  workloads, for example, could one nursing faculty be assigned a new faculty cohort and meet with  them on a regular basis. This might be a more efficient use of time for faculty and would  offer cohorts of new faculty an opportunity to gain peer support and guidance from one another. Thank you those are great suggestions to get us started. I want to thank you both so much  for joining us today in this conversation. I appreciate the time you took out of your day  to talk to myself and the viewers about this work and how we can begin to introduce this  into our own institutions. And to our listeners, if you have not had the opportunity, please take  a look at the author's work, "Mentoring in Academic Nursing From the Perspectives of  Faculty Mentors" and "Exploring Mentoring Relationships Among Novice Nurse Faculty:  A Grounded Theory." And I want to thank you both again so much for joining us. Thank you again.[Music]