3.3 Mentoring doctoral students: the need for a pedagogy  (Page 7/10)

Second, exemplary programs have in place a well-structured procedure for graduate students to obtain research advisors after they have started the program. Opportunities are provided regularly for students to learn about research interests of the faculty. These allow students to observe faculty work habits, supervisory styles, availability, and personality–all important factors to consider in the selection of quality and responsive mentors. An example of such a procedure is the practice of requiring doctoral students to interview three to five faculty members to help decide who they might want to work with over the next 4 to 6 years.

Lastly, Boyle and Boice (1998) found exemplary programs to include opportunities for graduate students to socialize with both faculty and more advanced students. These social gatherings provide opportunities for students and faculty to talk informally. Doctoral students closer to the completion of their degree can provide equally important information to new doctoral students as they contemplate the selection of a research or dissertation advisor.

We wish to further highlight the difference between and need for both academic advisors and research advisors. Working with innovative and substantive mentoring programs for new university faculty, Mullen (2006) and Kram (1988) both underscore the importance of realizing that faculty have both career-focused and psychosocial scholarly needs. New faculty benefit from assistance in research and teaching but as important is assistance with adjustment and socialization. Hence, a doctoral student mentoring model must address both of these mentoring components. One ideal way to accomplish this is to assign academic advisors at program entry to make certain program structure and academic expectations are addressed with each doctoral student. Then sometime early in the program (e.g., during first academic year) students select a research advisor (more of a mentor) who in addition to addressing research needs (i.e., prospectus and dissertation) pays attention to role modeling, counseling, and friendship.

Recent attention (Mullen, 2006; Richardson, 2006) is drawn to the importance of doctoral students gaining practical knowledge systematically subjected to critical reflection. Practical knowledge is gained through experience under the careful eye of a mentor. Examples of practical knowledge in doctoral programs include active involvement in a variety of research-related activities such as submitting proposals for funding, teaching graduate classes, and presenting at national and international conferences. Our doctoral programs are replete with opportunities for gaining formal knowledge, but could benefit from more attention paid to mentoring students toward a wider breadth of practical experiences. Indications are that this does not happen without the student having a caring and guiding mentor.

Here is an example of a doctoral student response to aspects of the beyond the formal knowledge of mentoring: