4.3 Article

Defining Attributes and Metrics of Effective Research Mentoring Relationships

Journal

AIDS AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 20, Issue -, Pages S238-S248

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-016-1384-z

Keywords

Mentoring; Mentor; Mentee; Persistence; Metrics

Funding

  1. National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) NIH [U54MD009479/NIGMS, U54GM119023,]
  2. NIGMS [R01GM094573]
  3. Coordinating and Evaluation Center NIH [U54MD009508/NIGMS, U54GM119024, R01GM071968]
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund, through the Office of Strategic Coordination/Office of the NIH Director of the NIH Institutes and Centers
  5. NIH Institutes and Centers of the NIH Institutes and Centers
  6. Office of Research Infrastructure Programs/Office of the NIH Director of the NIH Institutes and Centers [U54GM119024, U54GM119023]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite evidence of mentoring's importance in training researchers, studies to date have not yet determined which mentoring relationships have the most impact and what specific factors in those mentoring relationships contribute to key outcomes, such as the commitment to and persistence in research career paths for emerging researchers from diverse populations. Efforts to broaden participation and persistence in biomedical research careers require an understanding of why and how mentoring relationships work and their impact, not only to research training but also to promoting career advancement. This paper proposes core attributes of effective mentoring relationships, as supported by the literature and suggested by theoretical models of academic persistence. In addition, both existing and developing metrics for measuring the effectiveness of these attributes within mentoring relationships across diverse groups are presented, as well as preliminary data on these metrics from the authors' work.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available