INTERNATIONAL MENTORING ASSOCIATION Diversity in Mentoring Conference March 29-31, 2001 Washington, D.C.
Mentoring of Tenure-Track Engineering Faculty '1
I I
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Presented by: Ram M. Narayanan, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering-' University of Nebraska-Lincoln
190
Department of Electrical Engineering 209N Walter Scott Engineering Center P.O. Box 880511 Lincoln, NE 68588-0511 Phone (402) 472-3771 FAX (402) 472-4732
University of Nebraska Lincoln
Mentoring of Tenure-Track Engineering Faculty RamM. Narayanan Department of Electrical Engineering University of Nebraska Lincoln, NE 68588-0511 Tel: (402) 472-5141 email:
[email protected]
ABSTRACT The tenure-track faculty member of today confronts some unique challenges in order to succeed The attainment of tenure and subsequent career advances call for excellence in the triple missions of higher ---edue-atien,-viz~:reseMeh,-teaehing,-and-seIVice:--T-o-tlre--nev;-faculty-member;--thes-e--resp-onsibilities-app-ear
to
be in mutual conflict. However, with proper mentoring, it is indeed possible to succeed in all three missions, thereby emerging as an academic leader. This paper develops a mentoring strategy for engineering faculty.
I. INTRODUCTION It is the view of the author that tenure-track engineering faculty must strive to become Academic Leaders. An
Academic Leader is defmed as a faculty member who excels in all three missions of higher education, namely, research, teaching, and service. Although it is -widely considered that attainment of.excellence in each of the three missions is mutually exclusive, it is the opinion of the author that it is indeed possible to excel in all of the above three missions simultaneously. Since these three missions work together as gears that drive the engine of engineering education, success in one synergistically reinforces momentum in the other two. Focused and sustained mentoring in each of the three missions is essential in the eventual transformation of today's tenure-track faculty into tomorrow's Academic Leaders. Each of the three missions requires a different type of approach to succeed, and in most cases, these
University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska at Omaha University of Nebraska at Kea"f9 1
different approaches appear to be in conflict. For example, a faculty member striving for excellence in teaching by spending extra time preparing for lectures feels that he/she is doing so at the cost of writing research papers or proposals. This perceived conflict of interests frequently causes frustration and disappointment among tenure-track faculty during their eagerly-awaited early years in the academic profession. While pursuit of tenure is the primary goal of newly hired faculty, other major expectations include the intellectual growth and maturation of students, and the performance of high quality research based upon personal convictions (Bube, 1990). The problem is compounded due to lack of suitable mentoring as well as the presence of conflicting signals from senior faculty and administrators. Mentoring provides benefits to the protege, the mentor, the organization, and society as a whole (Schulz, 1995). While most faculty may have been mentored as undergraduate or as graduate students, a study fmmd that only one-third reported having a mentor at the university (Sands et al., 1991 ). Although the traditional mentor is usually an individual of authority, it was found that in a university setting, untenured faculty seemed --~i~n=cl~in~ed_to_deY_elop_mentoring_cyp_e_relationships_wifu_peer.s-~lfa:mish-and-Wild,-1-993}~1t-haS-been-found-that--
mentorship in the academic environment provides benefits such as enhanced opportunities for career advancement, achievement, and socialization, similar to those prevalant in the corporate sector (Madison and Huston, 1996). In addition, mentoring guidance is essential for proteges to secure tenure, promotion, career level progression, and personal growth and development (Guy et al., 2000). Furthermore, mentors enhance the protege's sense of competence, clarity of identity, and professional effectiveness (Henry et al., 1994). II. MENTORING OPPORTUNITIES AND TECHNIQUES
There exist numerous opportunities for mentoring junior faculty. These are descnbed briefly in the following. A. Mentoring in Research Activities The main areas in research that need mentoring are ( 1) Research Program Initiation, (2) Research Program Development, and (3) Research Results Disseminatiori. (I) Research Program Initiation: It is very important for engineering faculty members to get an early and solid start on their research program, preferably within the first half of their tenure-track years. This is accomplished by knowing where the fimds are and how to get them. The mentor may bring to the
192
attention of the protege various fwicling opportunities for research initiation at federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Defense (DoD). The mentor may also advise the protege on successful strategies for making the right contacts. It is generally desirable for tenure~track faculty in the process of initiating the:ir research fwicling
to primarily develop individual single-investigator proposals (Kaplan, 1990), although it is not uncommon for them to sometimes be part of a multi-investigator proposal led by a senior faculty member or perhaps a mentor. One of the commonly-accepted methods used for initiation of research is by spending summers at government laboratories (Ng, 1991), such as Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), A:ir Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA GSFC), etc.
This enables the faculty member to
establish personal contacts and become aware of the agency's fwicling priorities from an insider's perspective. The mentor may be able to suggest contacts at these laboratories wherein the protege may --obtain a summer research-opportunity-.- Among federal agencies, the proposal review process and the selection of ftmded projects differs significantly (Robinson, 1991 ). Some agencies, such as NSF and NASA, rely upon external peer review of proposals, followed by an internal decision panel appraisal, to select and reject proposals. Other agencies, notably Office of Naval Research (ONR) and A:ir Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), generally rely on manager discretion to select projects for funding. Most other agencies, such as Anny Research Office (ARO), practice a combination of the above two methods. Personal contact is thus more important for agencies that use manager discretion, but this does not guarantee support for weak or poorly written proposals. For industry ftmding, manager discretion is almost always the norm. The mentor may be able to provide some strategies from his/her experience on each of the above agency types. The primary factor that influences the attainment of research funding is the quality of the research proposal, whether the agency relies on the peer review or the manager discretion method of project selection. The mentor may offer to review pre-proposals and provide suggestions for improvement.
193
The mentor may also share copies of his/her successful research proposals with the protege. Many funding agencies are now allocating a large percentage of their budget for supporting large multi-disciplinary proposals. In this context, the seasoned mentor can indeed make a difference by encouraging the protege to seek cooperation across disciplines (Harnish and Wild, 1994). (2) Research Program Development: Once the protege's research program takes root, the mentor may point the protege towards other sources of research support, notably industry. Since the needs of industry are quite different from those of the federal agencies, the mentor may suggest appropriate approaches, such as relevance to the company's immediate needs to help develop successful proposals. In addition, the mentor may impress upon the protege the need to visit funding agencies periodically to meet with program officers in order to ensure that the proposed research is indeed of relevance to the agency. This is motivated by the fact that agency funding decisions are determined primarily by their values and needs (Stanley-Samuelson, 1996), and this can change over time. The mentor may also provide insights into broadening the protege's research program, such as branching into new but . ________relate_d_ar_eas.of_r_es_earch,and_collahorating_with_faculty-from-other-disciplines__Sincegood-research - - can only be learned under the tutelage of a good researcher (Brink, 1995), the importance of having a research mentor cannot be over-emphasized In certain settings, a structured mentoring program for developing research potential of inexperienced researchers may prove to be very useful (Johnston and McCormack, 1997). (3) Research Results Dissemination: Another area of mentoring that is needed is in the area of disseminating research results. Too often, junior faculty wait until their tenure decision year to submit journal papers, which may be too late. The mentor may be ·able to review the research accomplishments of the protege, and suggest suitable papers that may be submitted while the latter is at the mid-point of the tenure-track period This allows the protege to have a few accepted papers while going up for tenure. The mentor may also carefully review journal paper submissions, and make suggestions for improvement. Another area where the mentor can assist is in suggesting suitable conferences where the protege can present his/her work for optimum exposure to the funding as well as the research community.
194
B. Mentoring in Teaching Activities In the area of teaching, mentoring is usually required in ( 1) Instructional Teclnriques and Assessment, and (2) Graduate Student Supervision. (1) Instructional Techniques and Assessment: Since the goal of engineering education is to provide a firm foundation upon which the student can build professional competence after graduation (Monis, 1950), the methods used for instruction need to be perfected Due to inexperience, new faculty are frequently lacking in classroom skills and effective lecture delivery. The mentor may review the protege's class notes and make suggestions for improvement, if needed The mentor may also take the time to attend a few of the protege's lectmes, as well as informally discuss with the protege's class students, and provide constructive_ feedback to the protege on the effectiveness of his/her lectme delivery (Portner, 1998). The mentor must also impress upon the protege that the style and pace of lecture delivery must differ according to the class level taught. One area that merits good mentoring for jmrior engineering faculty is the optimum strategy to explain the often difficult mathematics behind the engineering concept. Another area where the mentor can make a difference is in the testing and evaluation of students. The mentor may review the homework assignments as well as quizzes and examinations to ensure that the protege is indeed able to evaluate the students' performance and test the students' knowledge of the subject. One common complaint of junior faculty is that their tests are too long. The mentor may suggest ways by which the tests can be designed so that they may be completed by the "average" student within the time allotted, and also be used to rate the performance of students. The importance of undergraduate research experience to identify and nurture creativity in engineering students has been established (Fejer and Graham, 1965). In this regard, the mentor may provide ideas on using undergraduate students for research that benefits not only the student but also the faculty member. In addition, the mentor may provide suggestions on identifying good tmdergraduate students for possible follow on graduate study. (2) Graduate Student Supervision: The need for a close relations_hip to exist between the graduate research assistant and the faculty supervisor is very essential (Council of Graduate Schools, 1990). As
195
far as graduate student supervision is concerned, the mentor may explain the different approaches needed for supervision of masters and doctoral level students. The mentor may also impress upon the protege the need for frequent discussions with graduate students on research progress, and the need for the students to provide written progress reports. In addition, the mentor may also suggest to the protege the importance of having his/her graduate students present seminars and presentations to the group, or at conferences if possible. One of the primary contnbutions that the mentor can make is to teach the protege how to mentor the latter's own graduate students.
C. Mentoring in Service and Outreach Activities Although service activities are usually relegated to the background, tenure-track faculty need mentoring in the areas of (1) Institutional Service, and (2) Professional Service (which includes outreach activities). (1) Institutional Service: The mentor may provide suggestions to the protege to participate not only in departmental_ committees, but also in college and university-wide committees. This will help the protege rmderstand how the university system works as a whole, and also allow him/her to make connections with other department faculty for future collaboration. The mentor may draw up a suitable plan for the protege for institutional service that progressively increases in the range and scope of activities as the protege progresses through the tenure-track years. The mentor may also impress upon the protege that student advising is very essential and an integral part of being a faculty member. Techniques for proper and meaningful advising may also be suggested (2) Professional Service: Active participation in professional activities enhances the role of the faculty member. The mentor may suggest appropriate professional service through voluntary active participation in the protege's professional society, such as board member, newsletter editor, etc. This allows the junior faculty member to make contacts with individuals who may be useful for his/her professional growth in the future. The mentor may also suggest methods to perfonn outreach service activities, such as consulting for companies, talks at local schools and organizations, etc.
D. Mentoring in Organizational Issues In addition to the traditional activities associated with the professorate, it is also important for junior faculty to be aware of the institutional culture and norms. The mentor can provide some very good input
196
into this aspect. It is vital to be aware of the missions, objectives, and priorities, so that the faculty member's accomplishments are appropriately recognized as supportive of the institutional mission. At the same time, one needs to develop personal long-range plans and objectives, as well as an annual plan and goals at the begimring of each academic year. Recordkeeping and reporting accomplishments are alsoconsidered important for both career advancement and attainment of academic leadership. The mentor can thus advise the protege on what is important within the institution, how to ensure that the latter's activities support the institutional mission, and to provide suggestions on reporting achievements to the public relations department. In addition, untemrred faculty members need mentoring to develop interpersonal skills, administrative skills, time management, and to effectively integrate research, teaching, and service requirements (Goodwin et al, 1998). It is also important to recognize that some advice about career advancement skills for engineers also
applies for faculty members (Hoschette, 1994). While determining the formal (i.e., written and documented) criteria for promotion and tenure is relatively simple, every institution has an unwritten informal criteria by which faculty members are judged Here, the mentor can make a real contnbution by providing insights into the promotion and tenure process. III. CONCLUSIONS The above list of mentoring opportunities are those that immediately come to mind, especially in the context of engineering education. A focused and intensive mentor/protege relationship will undoubtedly assist junior faculty in attaining the status of academic leaders within a short time period, perhaps soon after attaining tenure. It is lmown that activities which guarantee professional growth, such as tenure and promotion, are the same that can help one achieve success as an academic leader. Thus, new tenure-track faculty members are advised to seize the opportunity during their early years (Soukup, 1999). The best metric for success of this program is if the protege subsequently assumes the role of a mentor, thereby continuing the strong mentoring tradition existing within the institution. At the present time, few such partnerships officially exist in most universities, with the result that junior faculty often drift aimlessly and without direction as they seek tenure. It is highly recommended that universities develop a formal and rewarding mentoring plan within their institutions to link junior tenure-track faculty with successful senior faculty mentors from day one. Having a
197
senior faculty member mentor the faculty newcomer in order to facilitate the latter's integration and adjustment into the institution is considered essential (Thomas, 1997). However, it is recommended that the mentor not be from the same department as the protege (Colley and Thorson, 1990). As an added bonus, mentoring programs not only benefit the individuals involved, but also have a positive impact on the success and growth of the organization (Kerr et al., 1995).
REFERENCES Brink, P.J. (1995), Learning how to do research requires a mentor. Western Journal ofNursing Research, Vol. 17,No. 4,August 1995,pp. 351-352. Bube, RH (1990), Expectation vs. reality in engineering faculty careers. Engineering Education, Vol. 61, No. 1, January/February 1990, pp. 33-36. Colley J. and Tho~on C.C. (1990), Mentoring along the tenure track. College & Research Libraries News, Vol 51, No. 4, April 1990, pp. 297-300. Council of Graduate Schools (1990). Research Student and Supervisor: An Approach to Good Supervisory Practice. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate School. Fejer, AA and Graham, L. (1965). Undergraduate Research Participation in Engineering. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Goodwin, L.D., Stevens, E.A, and Bellamy, G.T. (1998), Mentoring among faculty in schools, colleges and departments of education Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 49, No. 5, November-December 1998, pp. 334343. Guy, T., Guy, K., and Powers, L. (2000), Building a community ofleaders through mentoring. In Proceedings of the 13th Diversity in Mentoring Conference, pp. 122-130. Harnish, D. and Wild L.A (1993), Peer mentoring in higher education: a professional development strategy for faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 17, No. 3, May/June 1993, pp. 271282. Harnish, D. and Wild, L.A (1994), Mentoring strategies for faculty development. Studies in Higher Education, Vol 19, No. 2, 1994, pp. 191-201. Henry, J.S., Stockdale, M.S., Hall, M., and Deniston, W. (1994), A formal mentoring program for junior female faculty: description and evaluation. Initiatives, Vol 56, No. 2, 1994, pp. 37-45. Hoschette, J.A (1994). Career Advancement and Survival for Engineers. New York: Wiley. Johnston, S. and McCormack, C. (1997), Developing research potential through a structured mentoring program: issues arising. Higher Education, Vol. 33, No. 3, April 1997, pp. 251-264. Kaplan, M.H. (1990), Funded research: getting started . Engineering Education, Vol.· 61, No. 1, January/February 1990, pp. 27-30.
Kerr, K.M., Schulze, D.R, and Woodward, L.E. ( 1995), Organizationally sponsored mentoring. In Mentoring:
198
New Strategies and Challenges (M.W. Galbraith and N.H. Cohen, Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 33-41. Madison, J. and Huston, C. (1996), Faculty-faculty mentoring relationships: an American and Australian perspective. NASPA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, Summer 1996, pp. 316-330. Morris, F.C. (1950). Effective Teaching: A Manual for Engineering Instructors. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ng, W.F. (1991), Research initiation from ajmrior faculty member's view. In Proceedings of the 1991 ASEE Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, Vol. 2, J1llle 1991, pp. 1235-1238. Portner, H. (1998). Mentoring New Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Robinson, E.M. (1991), Know thy sponsor-project selection methods at federal research agencies. Bioscience, Vol. 41, No. 9, September 1991, pp. 575-577. Sands, R.G., Parson L.A., and Duane, J. (1991), Faculty mentoring faculty in a public mriversity. Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 62, No. 2, March/April 1991, pp. 174-193. Schulz, S.F. (1995), The benefits of mentoring. In Mentoring: New Strategies and Challenges· (M.W. Galbraith and N.H. Cohen, Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 57-67. Soukup, R.J. (1999), Guidance for new faculty. In Proceedings of the 1999 ASEE Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC, CD-ROM Format, June 1999. Stanley-Samuelson, D.W. (1996). Writing from the Winner's Circle: A Guide to Preparing Competitive Grant Proposals. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska EPSCoR Office. Thomas, J.R. (1997), Vision and leadership for selecting and mentoring new faculty in higher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, Vol. 68, No. 5, May/June 1997, pp. 41-46.
199
