An official website of the United States government
The purpose of this Work In Progress (WIP) qualitative study was to explore how underrepresented women graduate students and faculty in Science and Engineering understand and perceive what constitutes ethical behavior in a mentoring research relationship centered around the six ethical principles of Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy, Fidelity, Fairness, and Privacy. This WIP paper focuses on the responses of eight graduate students and four faculty to six case studies that targeted a specific ethical mentoring principle, and it represents an expansion of a larger study currently under review. The goals of this WIP paper are to: (a) explore participant understanding of each ethical mentoring principle; (b) elucidate participant perceptions of ethical issues in six case studies; and (c) reveal what ethical behaviors participants expect from their respective mentor/mentee if they placed themselves in the situation of the case studies.
more »
« less
“Mentoring is ethical, right?”: Women graduate students & faculty in science & engineering speak out.
The relationship between graduate students and their research advisors within academia is pivotal to the development and success of the research enterprise. Graduate students rely on their faculty advisor to be a source of information, a departmental negotiator, and a role model to guide their professional and ethical behavior. However, if an advisor does not fully recognize a student’s best interest or they are unaware of how to be an “ethical mentor”, they may overlook the unique social capital of the graduate student (e.g., background, culture) and jeopardize the research relationship. This work aims to explore how women graduate students and faculties in science and engineering understand ethical mentoring within research relationships. Particularly, we are interested in understanding the six ethical mentoring principles suggested by Johnson (2016)—beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, fidelity, fairness, and privacy—all of which require an in-depth understanding for a productive research relationship. Qualitative analysis revealed that participants emphasized the principles of beneficence and fidelity, while principles of privacy and fairness were mentioned the least. Three key themes emerged from this analysis: (a) communication; (b) relative power between mentor and mentee; and (c) awareness (or a lack thereof) around implicit expectations within the research culture.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1653140
- PAR ID:
- 10111520
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- International journal of gender, science and technology
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2040-0748
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 108-133
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The doctoral advisor—typically the principal investigator (PI)—is often characterized as a singular or primary mentor who guides students using a cognitive apprenticeship model. Alternatively, the “cascading mentorship” model describes the members of laboratories or research groups receiving mentorship from more senior laboratory members and providing it to more junior members (i.e., PIs mentor postdocs, postdocs mentor senior graduate students, senior students mentor junior students, etc.). Here we show that PIs’ laboratory and mentoring activities do not significantly predict students’ skill development trajectories, but the engagement of postdocs and senior graduate students in laboratory interactions do. We found that the cascading mentorship model accounts best for doctoral student skill development in a longitudinal study of 336 PhD students in the United States. Specifically, when postdocs and senior doctoral students actively participate in laboratory discussions, junior PhD students are over 4 times as likely to have positive skill development trajectories. Thus, postdocs disproportionately enhance the doctoral training enterprise, despite typically having no formal mentorship role. These findings also illustrate both the importance and the feasibility of identifying evidence-based practices in graduate education.more » « less
-
Universities have been expanding undergraduate data science programs. Involving graduate students in these new opportunities can foster their growth as data science educators. We describe two programs that employ a near-peer mentoring structure, in which graduate students mentor undergraduates, to (a) strengthen their teaching and mentoring skills and (b) provide research and learning experiences for undergraduates from diverse backgrounds. In the Data Science for Social Good program, undergraduate participants work in teams to tackle a data science project with social impact. Graduate mentors guide project work and provide just-in-time teaching and feedback. The Stanford Mentoring in Data Science course offers training in effective and inclusive mentorship strategies. In an experiential learning framework, enrolled graduate students are paired with undergraduate students from non-R1 schools, whom they mentor through weekly one-on-one remote meetings. In end-of-program surveys, mentors reported growth through both programs. Drawing from these experiences, we developed a self-paced mentor training guide, which engages teaching, mentoring and project management abilities. These initiatives and the shared materials can serve as prototypes of future programs that cultivate mutual growth of both undergraduate and graduate students in a high-touch, inclusive, and encouraging environment.more » « less
-
Background: Studies of changes in engineering students’ perceptions of ethics and social responsibility over time have often resulted in mixed results or shown only small longitudinal shifts. Comparisons across different studies have been difficult due to the diverse frameworks that have been used for measurement and analysis in research on engineering ethics and have revealed major gaps between the measurement tools and instruments available to assess engineering ethics and the complexity of ethical and social responsibility constructs. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to understand how engineering students’ views of ethics and social responsibility change over the four years of their undergraduate degrees and to explore the use of reflexive principlism as an organizing framework for analyzing these changes. Design/Method: We used qualitative interviews of engineering students to explore multiple facets of their understanding of ethics and social responsibility. We interviewed 33 students in their first and fourth years of their undergraduate studies. We then inductively analyzed the pairs of interviews, using the reflexive principlism framework to formulate our findings. Results: We found that engineering students in their fourth year of studies were better able to engage in balancing across multiple ethical principles and specification of said ethical principles than they could as first year students. They most frequently referenced nonmaleficence and, to a lesser degree, beneficence as relevant ethical principles at both time points, and were much less likely to reference justice and autonomy. Conclusions: This work shows the potential of using reflexive principlism as an analytical framework to illuminate the nuanced ways that engineering students’ views of ethics and social responsibility change and develop over time. Our findings suggest reflexive principlism may also be useful as a pedagogical approach to better equip students to specify and balance all four principles when ethical situations arise.more » « less
-
This full research paper explores the role of faculty mentors in supporting student mentees. Faculty mentors of undergraduate students have the ability to make an academic, professional, and/or personal impact on their students. For example, mentors may provide assistance with course planning, share career goal feedback, offer life advice, etc. The benefits of these relationships may prove to be especially valuable in competitive fields such as engineering. While students stand to gain much in mentor/mentee relationships, these interactions can be mutually beneficial, producing positive effects for mentors. Despite the importance of faculty mentoring undergraduate students, there is a gap in understanding what enables faculty mentors to feel effective in their roles. The majority of studies focus on student-related outcomes and do not delve into the mentors’ side of the relationship. Addressing this gap can serve to enhance the quality of student education by providing insight into mentoring relationships. This paper will utilize Zachary’s model for effective mentoring to understand the foundation of effective mentoring. This model provides a framework for understanding mentor-mentee interactions by describing the seven elements of an effective relationship: reciprocity, learning, relationship, partnership, collaboration, mutually defined goals, and development. Mentors in academia are put in the position to orchestrate student growth through these areas by lending their guidance and expertise. In order to better understand the faculty mentor experience within one-on-one and small-group faculty-to-student mentoring relationships in the undergraduate setting, this qualitative project will study a cohort of engineering faculty mentors of undergraduate engineering students at a mid-sized research university in the Midwest. Two research questions will be examined: a. What are the factors that enable faculty mentors of undergraduate engineering students to feel effective in their role? b. How can engineering faculty be supported to enhance their mentoring interactions? The primary focus of this study will be to fill a critical gap in the understanding of faculty mentoring of undergraduate students by investigating the factors that enable faculty mentors to feel effective and proposing strategies for their support.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
