Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education – Mentoring and Advising (Part 3 of 8)
by Jonathan Gehrz | May 26, 2010
May 5, 2010 I posted an initial entry related to the recent monograph issued by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) on promising policies and practices that promote learner success. The foundation of our dialogue, while every institution has their own “flavor” or approach to doctoral education, the CGS’s Ph.D. Completion Project demonstrates that we do share common areas of concern and it only in promoting a “culture of evidence” that we’ll improve doctoral completion rates and meet society’s demands for a more relevant, globally competent PhD.
In Part 2, we extended this dialogue to reflect on policies and practices surrounding admissions, enrollment and institutional selection. Arguably, the importance of “fit” or “match” is a matter of ongoing relevance, but perhaps most important at the point of pre-application or program admission.
Today, we continue our conversation with looking at policies and practices related to mentoring and advising. In March 2009 (Do You Possess Clarity) I offered mentoring/advising as one of the single most significant factors in a learner’s success and program completion vs. failure and program attrition. Unfortunately, it also poses one of the most significant challenges to doctoral education, as individual practices, values, and ideologies vary not only among institutions or programs, but amongst individual mentors and/or advisors. Reflecting on such diversity, what makes a good mentor/advisor, good?
Here, worth rearticulating a base understanding and Galbraith’s (2003) definition, “while advising is a short-term process where the focus is on giving information and guidance to the learner, mentoring is a more intricate, long-term, one-on-one relationship that goes well beyond simply providing information. True mentoring is a complex process between professor and college adult learner that supports a mutual enhancement of critically reflective and independent thinking” (p. 16).
Building on that definition, I open the floor for your comments, suggestions, recommendations, and reflections on the policies and practices surrounding mentoring and advising. Here again, please do not feel limited to commenting in response to these questions, but for your consideration:
• What policies, practices, or perhaps characteristics define a “good” mentor/advisor?
• What should the role of the mentor/advisor be in a learner’s program (or beyond)?
• How does, or should, a mentor/advisor role change as you progress through a program?
• How or what role should the institution play in selection, quality, training, etc.?
• What more should your institution be doing to improve this area?
Again, I welcome you to consider these matters as they relate to both your own individual-institutional experience, but also as they relate to the larger, doctoral community. The goal of the dialogue is to assess and evaluate all facets of this sacred experience, but more importantly to talk and work together as a community that shares the same desired outcome – a re-envisioned PhD experience that is responsive to our needs.
Galbraith, M. W. (2003). The adult education professor as mentor: A means to enhance teaching and learning. Perspectives: The New York Journal of Adult Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
One Response to "Considering the National Dialogue on Doctoral Education – Mentoring and Advising (Part 3 of 8)"
S.Higbee says:
The comments regarding the mentor relationship are appreciated. Perhaps mentors could use a check list in regard to particular important helping strategies that the mentee needs. Mentors who undoubtedly have written dissertations may consider some of his/her own experiences that may be passed on to the mentee. Also, the mentor needs to think very carefully about the suggestions he/she makes to the mentee. These suggestions may not be understood clearly. Often an offhand comment from the mentor can confuse a mentee and cause unfortunate results in th mentee’s work. Also, some mentors do not realize that their comments are taken seriously by the mentee.