Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Advising Versus Mentoring: Does the Name Matter?

Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recommendations, during the past 20 years, to improve PhD scientific training and graduate school success, have focused on the significance of mentoring. It is well established that PhD students with mentors have significantly more success in graduate school as demonstrated by publishing papers before they graduate and by making presentations. Have faculty and academic institutions embraced the mentoring role? This study explores the views of 3,500 scientists who have primary responsibilities to educate PhD and MD/PhD students. Faculty members report they are more likely to prefer being viewed as advisors (54 %) than mentors (38 %). Through an examination of perceptions about specific responsibilities of advisors and mentors, faculty members provide a description of their culture and the expectations they have about themselves and others. One would expect that because mentoring requires additional time and involvement that faculty would report differences between advising and mentoring. However, faculty members perceive few differences between advisors and mentors. We examine the implications of these findings. Future scientists need to be confident their education includes the opportunity to acquire the best possible research skills. To develop advisors who have the ability to provide this training, the process begins by defining role expectations and responsibilities and preparing advisors to interact with doctoral students in ways comparable to mentors. We expect faculty members to know how to teach and how to mentor; yet, we rarely discuss how to develop and shape the necessary skills of advisors so, that they more closely resemble those of mentors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. In order to calculate the response rate we used the computation referred to as RR3 in the AAPOR guidelines which is Response Rate = A/(A + B + C * D) where A = Number of completed interviews, B = Eligible non-respondents (eligibility affirmed since they passed the screen in the questionnaire, but did not complete the critical items in the questionnaire to be considered respondents), C = Eligibility rate, where (Eligible respondents + Eligible non-respondents)/(All sample members for whom eligibility is known), and D = Non-respondents for whom eligibility was unknown. (The American Association for Public Opinion Research (2008). Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. (5th ed.,). Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR. http://www.aapor.org/For_Researchers/4683.htm).

References

  • American Association for Public Opinion Research (2008). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. (5th ed.,). Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR. http://www.aapor.org/For_Researchers/4683.htm.

  • Arce, C., & Manning, W. C. (1984). Minorities in academic careers: The experience of ford foundation fellows. New York: Ford Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Colleges. (2008). Compact between biomedical graduate students and their research advisors. https://www.aamc.org/download/49868/data/gradcompact.pdf

  • Bird, S. (2001). Mentors, advisors and supervisors: Their role in teaching responsible conduct of research, Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 455–468. http://www.bu.edu/orc/files/2010/06/Mentors_Advisors_RCR.pdf

  • Blackwell, J. E. (1987). Mentoring and networking among blacks. In A. S. Pruitt (Ed.), In pursuit of equality in higher education (pp. 146–162). Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, I. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartnett, R. T. (1976). Environment for advanced learning. In J. Katz & R. T. Hartnett (Eds.), Scholars in the making: The development of graduate and professional students (pp. 49–84). Ballinger: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine Report. (1989). The responsible conduct of research in the health sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine Report. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10430&page=R2

  • National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine Report. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309119707

  • Nettles, M., & Millett, C. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, (quote from166).

  • NIH. (2009). Update on the requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html; http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-002.html

  • ORI. (2000). PHS policy on responsible conduct of research. http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/rcr_policy.pdf

  • Rose, G. (2005) Group differences in graduate student’s concepts of the ideal mentor. Research in Higher Education 46(1). doi: 10.1007/s11162-6289-4.

  • Steneck, N. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeldich, M. (1990). Mentor roles. In Proceedings from the 32nd annual meeting of the western association of graduate schools (pp. 16–18). Tempe, AZ, 11 March.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Frank Macrina, Vice President for Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, for several thoughtful discussions with us during the design of this study. We would also like to thank anonymous reviewers for their useful comments to strengthen the paper. The research was funded on 1% Evaluation Funds from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, Office of the Secretary, DHHS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra L. Titus.

Additional information

Disclaimer

The views expressed herein represent those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the Department of Health and Human Services, or Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Titus, S.L., Ballou, J.M. Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Advising Versus Mentoring: Does the Name Matter?. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 1267–1281 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9366-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9366-7

Keywords

Navigation