skip to main content

Title: “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.
Authors:
; ;
Award ID(s):
1653140
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10111520
Journal Name:
International journal of gender, science and technology
Volume:
11
Issue:
1
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
108-133
ISSN:
2040-0748
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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.
  2. With support from NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM), the Culturally Adaptive Pathway to Success (CAPS) program aims to build an inclusive pathway to accelerate the graduation for academically talented, low-income students in Engineering and Computer Science majors at [University Name], which traditionally serves the underrepresented and educationally disadvantaged minority students in the [City Name area]. CAPS focuses on progressively developing social and career competence in our students via three integrated interventions: (1) Mentor+, a relationally informed advising strategy that encourages students to see their academic work in relation to their families and communities; (2) peer cohorts, providing social support structure for students and enhancing their sense of belonging in engineering and computer science classrooms and beyond; and (3) professional development from faculty who have been trained in difference-education theory, so that they can support students with varying levels of understanding of the antecedents of college success. To ensure success of these interventions, the CAPS program places great emphasis on developing culturally responsive advisement methods and training faculty mentors to facilitate creating a culture of culturally adaptive advising. This paper presents the CAPS progress in the past two project years. In particular, we will share several changesmore »that we have made after the first project year to improve several key components of the program - recruitment, cohort building, and mentor training. The program strengthened the recruitment by actively involving scholars and faculties in reaching out to students and successfully recruited more scholars for the second cohort (16 scholars) than the first cohort (12 scholars). Also, the program has initiated new activities for peer-mentoring and cohort gathering within each major. As continuous development of the mentor training, the program has added a training session focusing on various aspects of intersectionality as it relates to individual’s social identities, and how mentors can use these knowledge to better interact with mentees. In addition to these changes, we will also report findings on how the program impacted on scholars’ academic growth and mentors’ understanding about the culturally adaptive advisement to answer the CAPS research questions (a) how these interventions affect the development of social belonging and engineering identity of CAPS scholars, and (b) the impact of Mentor+ on academic resilience and progress to degree. The program conducted qualitative data collection and analysis via focus group meetings and interviews as well as quantitative data collection and analysis using academic records and surveys. Our findings will help enhance the CAPS program and establish a sustainable Scholars Support Program at the university, which can be implemented with scholarships funded by other sources, and which can be transferred to similar culturally diverse institutions to increase success for students who have socio-economic challenges.« less
  3. Abstract

    Although advising relationships are key for doctoral student success, little research has addressed how they form. Understanding the formation of advising relationships can help contextualize their later development and ultimately support a student’s decision to persist in the doctorate. To understand relationship formation, the purpose of this qualitative study is to identify and describe the types of advisor–advisee selection processes that exist in engineering, science, and math doctoral programs and examine patterns across disciplines within those fields. We conducted interviews with doctoral program directors and engaged in document analysis of graduate student handbooks from 55 doctoral programs in the aforementioned fields in high research institutions across the United States. Using principal–agent theory as a theoretical lens, our findings showed that engineering programs tend to decentralize the advisor selection process by funding students across different funding sources upon enrollment. Contrariwise, science and math programs tended to fund all students in a cohort from a common funding source, which allowed students to have more time to gather information, meet, and select an advisor. These findings also show important nuances when comparing graduate education in these programs that directly impact the doctoral student experience and reiterates the necessity to study these fieldsmore »separately.

    « less
  4. 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.
  5. PEARLS is a structured scholarship program designed to mitigate the economic hardship associated with the cost of attendance (COA). The main goal of the program is to increase the retention and success of low-income, academically talented students (LIATS) in engineering programs at a Hispanic institution. We structured students' interventions in five stages: LIATS Background Experiences, Belonging, Formative, Growth, and Graduate Development. This full paper presents the program evaluation results that combine social cognitive career theory and attrition mitigation elements. Specifically, we conducted a formative evaluation approach guided by the following question: What were the strengths and weaknesses of PEARLS according to students and mentors? A total of 92 LIATS (40 females and 52 males) met the eligibility criteria and the selection process established by the Executive Board. Overall, 78% of student participants voluntarily completed the electronic self-report questionnaires. Also, we assigned students under the supervision of eight mentors. In terms of their mentoring process, participant students reported an overall excellent opinion about their mentors and the mentoring process provided through the program. They expressed to be very satisfied with their relationship with their mentor regarding communication, connection, professionalism, and encouragement. Few students indicated weaknesses in their mentor, including poor accessibilitymore »due to lack of time, feeling intimidated by the mentor, and inadequate counseling. From the mentors’ perspective, it was perceived that their tasks and responsibilities aligned with their expectations. We noticed a relationship between what mentors perceived as their duties and what mentees identified as strengths of the mentoring program. For instance, their commitment to serve as a student mentor by offering academic counseling, encouragement, recommendations for COOP and research experiences, and setting career goals has resulted positive to establish a good relationship with the mentee. Finally, we concluded that both students and mentors felt satisfied with their involvement in the program. Similarly, mentors agreed that the time and commitment required to fulfill the responsibilities in the program are limited due to other obligations, such as teaching, research, and service commitments. This situation reflects on the mentees who expressed concern about the time availability of their mentors due to other professional obligations. Regardless, we conclude that the goal of the mentoring program proposed to promote a sense of belonging in mentees during their years of study was accomplished.« less