. . . J I

flauflw.
l... .
0%.» .9.
.o n ..
an . v
i
L.

a

mm...

“2'

if
I!

'90..
.v‘ AI: .1
“ 3.! Ilsll» r

 

 

 

 

THESIS

'k "1 C63“)

llfiiiii'liiliif1iiiliiifi|iililliiWiI

31293 01712 75

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A Retrospective Study of How New Faculty'
Report the Use of Mentoring Relationships
to Make Sense of Their Multiple Roles

presented by

Jonathan David Rohrer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D . degree in Education

 

flow (‘4 add-(222:;

 

Major professor

Date /9/'97/Q7

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0~ 12771

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michlgan State
Unlverslty

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we COMM.“

 

A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF How NEw FACULTY
REPORT THE USE OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS
To MAKE SENSE OF THEIR MULTIPLE ROLES
By

Jonathan David Rohrer

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1997

ABSTRACT
A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF HOW NEW FACULTY
REPORT THE USE OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS
To MAKE SENSE OF THEIR MULTIPLE ROLES
By

Jonathan David Rohrer

New faculty members experience difficulty in making sense of their roles during
the socialization process of organizational entry as a result of receiving mixed messages
from multiple faculty cultures. Mentoring has been suggested as an appropriate means of
easing the stress of faculty in making sense of their faculty roles. However, very few
studies exist in the literature of higher education that fully explain how new faculty
members have used mentoring relationships to make sense of their faculty roles.

This study explored the way in which new faculty members from various
disciplines at a large research university used mentoring relationships to make sense of
their faculty roles. Three bodies of literature informed the theoretical conceptualization
of this study: (1) the literature of socialization, particularly role theory and the process
of making sense of roles during organizational entry, (2) the literature of faculty cultures
which states that faculty receive messages from four distinct cultures: the culture of the

institution, the discipline, the national system of higher education, and the academic

profession, andi(3) the literature of mentoring in higher education that is informed by the
greater body of mentoring literature in organizational and developmental psychology.

This study was interpretative, focusing only on the remembered perceptions of a
small group of faculty in a Midwest research university who had completed the first three
years of their faculty appointment. Qualitative research methods were used to interview
thirteen new faculty members regarding how they used mentoring and non-mentoring
relationships to make sense of their faculty roles.

This study found that mentors were important for new faculty members in
making sense of their faculty roles during the first three years of their faculty
appointment. Non-mentoring relationships were also important for new faculty members
in making sense of their faculty roles. Relationships with peer colleagues were as
Significant as mentoring relationships for new faculty members in making sense of their
roles. Faculty members used a web of multiple relationships that included mentoring and
non-mentoring relationships for the process of sense making. This study found that the
type of relationship that new faculty used in making sense of faculty roles was not as
important so long as new faculty had a variety of relationships that included career
support such as sponsorship, coaching, feedback and reflection, and collaboration, and

personal support such as friendship, personal affirmation, and professional advising.

Copyright by
JONATHAN DAVID ROHRER

1997

Dedicated to my loving family who endured
the dissertation process with me:
Dalice, my wife and best friend,
and our children who bless our life

Aaron, Adam, Joel, and Jenny

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the members of my dissertation
committee for their counsel and support. Committee members are:

Dr. Ann E. Austin, Committee Chair and Dissertation Director

Dr. Kathryn Moore

Dr. Rob Rhoads

Dr. Steve Yelon

I especially want to thank my family who has supported me throughout the
doctoral study and the writing of the dissertation. They have been patient and have
made a great sacrifice in this educational achievement.

Most of all I would like to give thanks and praise to Jesus Christ, my Lord and
Savior, who has graciously enabled me to finish this degree and has provided every need

for life.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1
THE NEED FOR THIS STUDY ...................................................................................... 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
The Background of the Problem ........................................................................................ l
The Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................... 2
The Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 4
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 5
The Value of Studying New Faculty Mentoring ............................................................... 6
Overview of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................................. 9
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 9
New Faculty Members ................................................................................................... 10
New Faculty Members: Who Are They? ................................................................ ll
Experiences of New Faculty ..................................................................................... l2
Needs of New Faculty .............................................................................................. 13
Summary ................................................................................................................... 14
Theoretical Frame: Socialization .................................................................................... 15
Organizational Socialization ..................................................................................... 15
Application to New Faculty ..................................................................................... 18
Role Theory .............................................................................................................. 19
Summary ................................................................................................................... 21
Faculty Cultures .............................................................................................................. 21
Four Faculty Cultures ............................................................................................... 22
Summary ................................................................................................................... 25
Mentoring Relationships ................................................................................................. 25
Mentoring as a Concept and Phenomenon ................................................................ 25
Historical Understanding of Mentoring .................................................................... 26
The Benefits/Outcomes of the Mentoring Relationship ........................................... 26
The Definition of Mentoring ..................................................................................... 27
Types of Mentoring .................................................................................................. 29

vii

Functions of Mentoring ........................................................................................... 30

Faculty Mentoring in Higher Education .................................................................... 32
Literature on Mentoring in Higher Education ..................................................... 32
Mentoring Programs in Higher Education ........................................................... 32
Studies of Faculty Mentoring ............................................................................. 34
Summary ............................................................................................................. 36

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 39
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 39
Conceptual Frame ..................................................................................................... 44
The Study Design ...................................................................................................... 47
The Study Population ............................................................................................... 49
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 51
Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................... 53
Conclusion. ................................................................................................................ 55

CHAPTER 4

NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN THIS SAMPLE:

CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTRIBUTES ................................................................ 57
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 57
General Characteristics of This Sample of New Faculty Members .......................... 60
Faculty Roles ............................................................................................................ 62

The Role of Research .......................................................................................... 63
Grant Writing ................................................................................................ 63
Initiating and Writing Research ..................................................................... 65

The Role of Teaching .......................................................................................... 67

The Role of Service ............................................................................................. 70

Challenges for New Faculty ...................................................................................... 73
The Challenge of Finding Balance ....................................................................... 74
The Challenge of Research .................................................................................. 78
The Challenge of Negotiating Departmental Culture .......................................... 79
The Challenge of Teaching .................................................................................. 8O

Satisfaction of Faculty Members .............................................................................. 82
Satisfaction in Working with Students ................................................................ 83
Satisfaction in Doing Research ............................................................................ 84

Success for the New Faculty Member ...................................................................... 86

CHAPTER 5

THE MENTORING EXPERIENCES OF NEW FACULTY

IN MAKING SENSE OF FACULTY ROLES .............................................................. 91
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 91
New Faculty Members’ Assumptions About Mentoring ........................................ 96

viii

A Definition of Mentoring .................................................................................. 97

Mentoring: Interaction Between a Senior and Junior Colleague ................... 98
Mentoring: A Complex Interactive Process ............................................... 100
Mentoring: Career and Psychosocial Functions ......................................... 101
The Appropriateness of Mentoring for New Faculty in Academe .................. 102
New Faculty Expectations for Mentoring ........................................................ 105
New Faculty Expectations for Who Should Mentor Them ........................ 105
New Faculty Expectations Concerning
Types of Mentoring Relationships ....................................................... 108
New Faculty Expectations Concerning the Functions of Mentoring .......... 112
New Faculty Expectations Concerning the Personal
Characteristics of the Mentor ............................................................... 114
New Faculty Expectations Concerning the Personal
Behavior of the Mentor ......................................................................... 118
Who Served as Mentors for New Faculty .............................................................. 123
The Types of Mentoring Experiences of New Faculty Members .......................... 126
The Functions of Mentoring in Faculty Mentoring Relationships ........................ 131
Career Functions of Mentoring Experienced by New Faculty ........................ 134
Sponsorship ................................................................................................ 134
Coaching ..................................................................................................... 138
Protecting .................................................................................................... 142
ChallengingAssignments ............................................................................. 145
Psychosocial Functions of Mentoring Experienced by New Faculty ............... 146
Role Modeling ............................................................................................. 146
Acceptance and Confirmation ..................................................................... 152
Counseling. ................................................................................................. 156
Friendship .................................................................................................. 158
How Mentoring Relationships Play a Part in Understanding Faculty Cultures ..... 161
Conclusion. .............................................................................................................. 169
CHAPTER 6
OTHER SENSE-MAKING RELATIONSHIPS
FOR NEW FACULTY ................................................................................................. 172
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 72
The Difference Between Mentoring and Other Sense Makers ............................... 175
Individuals Who Served as Other Sense Makers for
New Faculty Members ..................................................................................... 178
PeerColleagues ............................................................................................ 1 78
The Department Chair ................................................................................ 181
Non-Mentoring Senior Faculty Members ................................................... 185
Non-Mentoring Graduate Advisors ............................................................ 186
Lilly Fellows and the Lilly Fellowship ....................................................... 187

Other Helpful Relationships ....................................................................... 191

Summary on Other Sense Makers ..................................................................... 192
Other Sense-Making Relationships and Their Functions ................................. 193
Career Functions Provided by Junior Faculty Peers ................................... 194
Coaching ............................................................................................... 195
Protection .............................................................................................. 197
Collaboration ........................................................................................ 197
Psychosocial Functions Provided by Faculty Peers ................................... 198
Role Modeling ...................................................................................... 199
Friendship, Acceptance and Confirmation, and Counseling ................. 200
Functions Provided by Other Sense Makers .............................................. 203
How Functions of Mentoring and Other Relationships Compare ................... 205
How Other Helpful Relationships Play a Part in
Understanding Faculty Cultures ................................................................ 205
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 207
CHAPTER 7
SENSE-MAKING RELATIONSHIPS:
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 208
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 208
A Change of Perspective ................................................................................... 208
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 210
Overview of Chapter ......................................................................................... 211
The Satisfaction and Challenges of New Faculty .................................................... 212
The Satisfaction of New Faculty Members ...................................................... 212
The Challenges of New Faculty Members ........................................................ 212
The Challenge of Making Sense of Research ............................................... 213
The Challenge of Making Sense of Teaching ............................................... 215
The Challenge of Making Sense of Multiple Roles ..................................... 216
The Challenge of Making Sense of Evaluation and Review ........................ 217
The Challenge of Sorting out Messages from Different Faculty Cultures..218
Summary ..................................................................................................... 218
Sense Making Through Traditional Mentoring Relationships ................................ 219
Mentoring: Changed Assumptions as a Result of This Study ......................... 219
A Definition of Mentoring ................................................................................ 221
Formal Mentoring of New Faculty ......................................................................... 222
Mentoring of New Faculty: For What Purpose? ................................................... 224
Types of Functions in Faculty Mentoring Relationships in Higher Education ...... 226
Final Thoughts on the Mentoring of New Faculty Members ................................. 227
Sense Making Through Other Types of Relationships .......................................... 228
Sense-Making Relationships with Peer Colleagues ........................................... 229
Relationships with the Department Chair ........................................................ 231
General Observations About Sense Making ........................................................... 232

Implications of the Study ........................................................................................ 233

Recommendations for New Faculty Members ................................................ 235

Recommendations for Senior Faculty Members .............................................. 240

Recommendations for Department Chairs ....................................................... 241

Recommendations for Graduate Advisors ....................................................... 243

Recommendations for Faculty Developers and Administrators ..................... 244

Recommendations for Researchers in Higher Education .................................. 246

Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 251
APPENDICES

A. LETTER OF INVITATION FOR FACULTY PARTICIPATION ............... 253

B. PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM ............................................................... 255

C. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .............................................................................. 257

D. KRAM’S MENTORING FUNCTIONS ......................................................... 261

E. PARTICIPATING RESPONDENTS .............................................................. 262

F. PARTICIPANTS’ SENSE MAKING RELATIONSHIPS ........................... 263

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 276

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Theoretical Frame of Dissertation ............................................................................. 45
2. Mentoring Sense-Making Relationships ................................................................... 46
3. Other Sense Making Relationships ........................................................................... 47
4. Faculty Characteristics .............................................................................................. 61
5. Challenges for New Faculty Members ...................................................................... 74
6. Satisfaction of New Faculty Members ..................................................................... 83
7. New Faculty Members Assessment of Performance ................................................ 87
8. Mentoring Expectations of New Faculty Members ............................................... 118

CHAPTER 1
THE NEED FOR THIS STUDY
Introduction
This study explored the way in which thirteen faculty members used mentoring
relationships to make sense of their faculty roles during the first three years of their first
faculty appointment. The theoretical frame of organizational socialization guided the
study which used qualitative research methods to answer the research question: How do
new faculty use mentoring relationships during the entry stage of organizational
socialization to make sense of their faculty roles?
The Background of the Problem
Higher education must increasingly confront the challenge of delivering quality
education in a time of fiscal constraints and calls for greater accountability. Faculty
remain one of the greatest resources for achieving quality in meeting the demands and
challenges confronting higher education. The quality of higher education heavily depends
on how faculty fulfill their multiple roles in teaching, research, and service.

Faculty, however, have become an imperiled resource as they are called upon to
do more with less in achieving excellence (Bowen & Schuster, 1986). Evidence exists for
the decline of working conditions and a decrease in faculty morale as faculty experience
stress in fulfilling conflicting demands in their roles and responsibilities (Austin &

Gamson, 1985). The maintenance of faculty professional and personal vitality (those
1

2

factors contributing to productivity) has become a major concern in light of these
conditions.

The many external as well as internal challenges to higher education have created a
great need for faculty development (Eble & McKeachie, 1985). Jack Schuster (1990)
stated that these critical conditions confronting higher education call for creative new
approaches to faculty development. One such approach is to create climates for
encouraging collegial relationships that enable faculty members to draw on the resources
of colleagues and peers. New faculty, who often feel isolated, particularly need a sense of
connection in community as they confront the many challenges in entering the
professorate (Whitt, 1991).
The Statement of the Problem

Multiple studies in the literature of higher education have shown that new faculty
experience difficulty in making sense of their roles during the socialization process of
organizational entry (Boice, 1991; Eimers, 1990; Fink, 1984; Finkelstein, 1992; Olsen,
1993; Sorcinelli, 1992; Sorcinelli, 1988; Whitt, 1991 ). New faculty report a sense of
anxiety and stress in balancing faculty responsibilities. They often lack support in
developing their teaching, doing research, and understanding the criteria for salary and
personnel decisions (Sorcinelli, 1992). Entrance into the profession often becomes a
painful rite of passage, characterized by random socialization rather than explicit formal
orientation and development (Reynolds, 1992). Ruscio (1987) wrote:

For academics newly inducted into the scholarly world, no similar process exists

for socialization into the specific college or universities where they are to be
employed. The former students leave graduate school with virgin ideologies and

3

find them frequently violated by the organization. Academics are often surprised

by their organizational obligations, committee work, teaching loads, and advising

duties. (p. 359).

It is, however, in the best interest of the institution to help faculty succeed in
making sense of faculty roles during the process of organizational enny. The investment
of the organizational resources of time and money necessary to undertake a faculty
position search and finally bring an individual on board, integrating them into appropriate
institutional roles, is significant (Tierney and Bensimon, 1996). This valuable investment
of resources is wasted if the new faculty member does not successfully navigate the
transition into the multiple roles of a faculty member. The investment of the individual
faculty member's time and personal stamina are also wasted if the new faculty recruit fails
to make sense of her/his roles. In terms of human resources, it is not good for the
institution to set the individual up for failure by not sending clear messages to faculty
about roles and responsibilities (Tierney and Bensimon, 1996).

New faculty experience difficulty in making sense of their faculty roles, but this
is not in the best interest of the institution or the faculty member. In addressing this
tension, it is not necessary to study further the stresses and concerns of new faculty.
This has been well documented by studies of new and junior faculty (Austin, 1993;
Boice, 1992a; Boice, 1991; Fink, 1984; F inkelstein, 1992; Olsen, 1992; Sorcinelli, 1992a;
Sorcinelli, 1992b; Whitt, 1991).

However, further exploration needs to be done conceming how institutions of

higher education might more efficiently socialize new faculty. A more effective

socialization of new faculty members could prevent their loss from the institution. The

4

creation of climates that enable a more affirming and accessible transition into the
professorate could help diminish new faculty attrition, especially of diverse,
underrepresented faculty who are at even greater risk of being lost during the transition
into the professorate.

Mentoring has been suggested in the organizational literature as a means of easing
the stress of organizational socialization for new members (Alleman, 1982; Gray & Gray,
1990; Zey, 1991). The literature of higher education also contains strong
recommendations from various researchers, faculty developers and theoreticians
concerning the value of mentoring activities for easing the stressful process of
organizational socialization for new faculty members (Boice, 1990; Boice, 1992b; Hill,
Bahniuk & Donbos, 1989; Jackson & Simpson, 1994; Johnsrud, 1994; Tierney &
Bensimon, 1996; Tierney & Rhoads, 1993).

Although the organizational literature has explored the relationship of mentoring
to career success and integration into the organization, the literature of higher education
has not explored to any depth, the relationship between the mentoring of new and junior
faculty and effective socialization. The question that remains is how, if at all, mentoring

can play a role in the effective socialization of early career faculty.

The Purpose of this Study
The literature of higher education has not clearly established a relationship

between the mentoring of new faculty and their effective socialization. The purpose of

5
this study is to address how new faculty use mentoring to make sense of their multiple

roles during the entry stage of organizational socialization.
Research Questions

I have stated that it is in the best interest of the institution and the new faculty
member to understand how new faculty make sense of their faculty roles during the first
three years of organizational entry. The primary assumption at the start of this study
was that mentoring may offer an explicit method of socialization to help new faculty in
making sense of their roles and responsibilities. Before using mentoring as an explicit
method of socialization for new faculty, it is important to first understand how new
faculty have used mentoring relationships to make sense of their roles. Therefore the
primary research question that informed this study was:

How do new faculty use mentoring relationships during the entry stage of
organizational socialization to makes sense of their faculty roles?

Other questions supported this primary question in the exploration of sub themes. The
first theme was:

1. Who has served as mentors for the new faculty member?
This question explored who served as mentors for new faculty members in order to
understand the relationships that new faculty members used in making sense of their
roles.

2. What are the types of mentoring that the new faculty members have experienced
and the outcomes of those types of mentoring?

This question addressed the dynamics of formal and informal mentoring relationships and

' which are most helpful for faculty members.

6

3 . What types of functions has the new faculty member encountered in the
mentoring relationship?

This question probed behaviors of the mentoring process that were most helpful for new
faculty members. An understanding of the types of behaviors used to mentor new
faculty may provide some suggestions for the way in which a mentor should act.
4. What part do these mentoring relationships play as new faculty seek to
understand faculty cultures and the expectations in the messages from those
cultures about faculty member roles?
Faculty receive mixed messages from the different cultures of which they are a part: the
culture of the discipline, the culture of the institution, the culture of the academic
profession, and the culture of the national system of higher education. This question
asked how new faculty used mentoring relationships to sort out the messages that they
received from different cultures in order to make sense of their roles. Each of these
research questions will be explained more fully in Chapter 3 so that the reader may
understand how the questions guided the interview protocol and data analysis.
The Value of Studying New Faculty Mentoring

In summary, the literature pertaining to new faculty abounds with information
regarding the challenges new faculty face in making sense of their faculty roles. There is,
however, a need for articles that suggest how to effectively help new faculty transition
into the professorate. Faculty who do not successfully manage the transition into the
professorate are a tragic loss of resources for any institution of higher education. A study

that explores how new faculty made sense of their faculty roles may offer some points of

discussion concerning what types of strategies might be appropriate for the success and

7
stability of new faculty. This study holds value for those who are interested in the

development of new faculty as well as new faculty themselves.

In recent years, faculty developers have proposed mentoring in the development
of new faculty, and this method has been used in developing the organizational neophyte.
However, the ultimate question that lies behind this study pertains to the value of
mentoring and the benefits of mentoring as an explicit method of socialization. Is
mentoring the most appropriate way to help new faculty members make sense of their
faculty roles? I will return to this question in the final chapter as I discuss the results of
the study and the implications of the data.

Overview of the Sum

This study is organized into the following six chapters: Chapter 2 gives an
overview of the literature that informed this study. That literature comes primarily from
four areas: (1) the literature on new faculty challenges and needs; (2) the literature of
organizational socialization of new faculty during the entry period of the first three years,
particularly the literature regarding role theories and the process of sense making; (3) the
literature that delineates faculty cultures of the discipline, the institution, the academic
profession, and the national system of higher education in which new faculty must work
and make sense of their roles from a cultural perspective; and (4) the literature of
mentoring from organizational and developmental psychology that has been integrated
into the discussion of the mentoring process in higher education. Chapter 3 describes the
methodological approach to this study, including the research questions and the strategies

of data collection and analysis. Results of the study are reported in Chapters 4, 5, and 6.

8

Chapter 4 gives an overview of the characteristics of the faculty members in this group
and their shared Similarities and differences. Chapter 5 presents the data pertaining to
mentoring that is the primary focus of this study. This chapter answers the research
questions of the study. Chapter 6 presents the data that emerged in the process of the
interviews with faculty. This chapter discusses other important relationships that
faculty used in making sense of their roles. Finally, Chapter 7 discusses the findings of
the study in relation to the relevant literature. Implications are stated for appropriate
application of the study as well as recommendations for further research. Relevant

documents that support the discussion of this study may be found in the appendices.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction

There are four primary sources of literature that informed the conceptualization of
this dissertation. The first body of literature pertains to the study of early career faculty.
Researchers in the field of higher education have probed extensively the experiences and
needs of new and junior faculty. This literature provides: (1) a definition and profile of
new faculty; (2) the nature of new faculty members’ experience and needs; (3) the tasks
of new faculty in making sense of faculty roles; and (4) development programs for new
faculty who are a valuable resource in achieving excellence in higher education.

The socialization literature, particularly role theory, was the second source of
literature that informed this study. New faculty must make sense of multiple roles as
they are socialized into the professorate. Although these new faculty members have
often endured a rigorous anticipatory socialization experience in the research mentoring of
graduate school, they may encounter difficult transitions in the entry stage of
organizational socialization. The socialization process in which they make sense of
faculty roles in a particular institution of higher education can be stressful. Often they

experience ambiguity in fulfilling multiple roles that contain conflicting demands. Role

10
theory provided a theoretical frame for understanding the process of making sense of

faculty roles and responsibilities.

The third body of literature that also informed this study came from the writing
on faculty cultures. Faculty cultures are the context in which faculty make sense of and
carry out their roles. Faculty roles are further complicated by the mixed messages about
roles that these cultures send to faculty. Austin (1992a) stated:

Understanding the nature of faculty cultures requires recognition that the values

and commitments of these cultures sometimes conflict. The nature of a faculty

member's professional life is forged out of the accommodations, trade-offs, and

choices made in response to sometimes conflicting cultural imperatives. (p. 1615)

Finally, the literature of faculty mentoring in higher education was used as a
conceptual frame to probe a relational process that early career faculty might use to assist
in the construction of multiple roles in conflicting cultures. The literature of mentoring in
higher education has drawn from and been heavily influenced by a larger body of writing
on mentoring in the literature of organizational and developmental psychology. A small
number of studies and journal articles have explored the integration and application of this
broader mentoring literature into the process of new faculty development in higher
education.

New Faculty Members
There are many differences among new and junior faculty that are influenced by

personal and professional concerns. New and junior faculty, however, share a number of

similar stresses and experience very similar needs for support in their early socialization.

11

These similarities have been explored in a number of studies concerning early career
faculty.
New Faculy Members: Who Are They?

The explanation of who new and junior faculty are varies in the uses of the term
across numerous sources in the literature. New faculty have been defined in national
surveys by age, rank, and status. They are most fi'equently defined as individuals who
have recently finished a Ph.D. or other terminal professional degree who are beginning a
life career in higher education. Some studies also include individuals who are not in their
first appointment but who are new to a particular institution. F inkelstein and LaCelle-
Peterson (1992) stated how the terms of "new and junior faculty" are used:

[They are used] somewhat loosely to refer to an imprecisely defined group of

non-tenured, full time faculty below the rank of associate professor, including

some who are new to the profession, some who are new to their current
institution of employment, and some who are in the midst of probationary
appointments (but clearly in contradistinction to experienced, tenured faculty in

the senior ranks). (p. 8)

These new faculty have the following characteristics: they are part of a small
group that has chosen the professorate at a time when an increasing number of Ph.D.
graduates are choosing the private business sector instead of the academic profession.
They are more diverse than earlier generations of faculty with a greater representation of
women and ethnic minorities. These new faculty are more mature than earlier
counterparts due to the longer time periods necessary to achieve the doctorate and gain

appointment in a faculty position in many disciplines. They are increasingly diverse in

their academic backgrounds and specialization due to the growth of knowledge through

12

research. Many of these new faculty are juggling a two career domestic partnership with
their many academic roles (F inkelstein & LaCelle-Peterson, 1992).
Experiences of New F aculg

New faculty report a high level of satisfaction in the autonomy that the academic
life affords, the opportunity for intellectual discovery, and the opportunity to make an
impact on others. This satisfaction, however, is often offset by a sense of anxiety and
stress in balancing faculty responsibilities (Sorcinelli, 1992). Several patterns have
emerged in the studies describing the stresses that new faculty face.

New faculty members seldom receive explicit messages of socialization that enable
them to effectively make sense of their multiple roles and set priorities in filling those
roles. Implicit messages of socialization are often confusing and contradictory, creating
role ambiguity for new faculty members (Austin, Brocato & LaFleur, 1993).

New faculty ofien do not ask for help from faculty colleagues or administrators in
addressing role ambiguity . They may fear that they would appear unprepared or unable
to meet the wide array of demands across multiple faculty roles (Finkelstein, 1984;
Sorcinelli, 1992; Whitt, 1991).

New faculty also experience stress concerning evaluation processes because they .
are not sure about the necessary criteria that will be used in measuring their productivity.
Messages concerning the demands for achieving tenure and promotion can be ambiguous,
leaving new faculty members feeling vulnerable and unprepared to meet those demands.
New faculty also often feel that the standards and expectations that are used to measure

them are not applied equally to their senior colleagues who have already received tenure.

13
As a result they feel that they are unfairly targeted to carry the weight of research,

teaching, and committee assignments in their departments (Sorcinelli, 1992).

Although new faculty desire collaboration in scholarship, they frequently work
alone in isolation from their senior colleagues. They may not encounter the collegial
interaction and conversations focused on teaching, scholarship and other work-related
activities that they expected (Sorcinelli, 1992).

Long term goals of research productivity can be eclipsed by the immediate goal to
perform well in teaching (Sorcinelli, 1992). Teaching fills an inordinate amount of time as
many new faculty over-prepare for lectures (Boice, 1991). The stress of teaching
preparation often stems from the pressure that new faculty members feel to be content
experts in their discipline (Fink, 1984). New faculty also report a lack of support in
developing their teaching and meeting the immediate demands of course development
(Whitt, 1991).

Needs of New Faculty

Because of these experiences, new faculty have many needs for support and
development. Perhaps the greatest need for professional development lies in the creation
of a climate that would enable new and junior faculty to know and fully understand the
institutional context, values, and expectations (Austin, 1992b; Olsen & Sorcinelli, 1992;
Tierney & Rhoads, 1993). In such an environment, new and junior faculty could give
attention to appropriate priorities in fulfilling their roles.

Efforts at deliberate and explicit socialization could contribute to this climate of

enablement. The question that must be confronted concerns what type of strategies

14

would be most effective in creating a climate that affirms and enables faculty to
effectively make sense of their faculty roles. Olsen and Sorcinelli stated:

More fluid relations between junior and senior colleagues could provide more and

better information about the culture of the institution, teaching and research

Opportunities, the tenure process, and feedback about performance and means of

improvement. (Olsen & Sorcinelli, 1992)

Tierney and Bensimon (1996) have suggested that deliberate efforts should be
made to insure that the new faculty member is mentored. They argue that through
mentoring, explicit messages given by senior faculty could enable the new faculty member
to more easily make sense of institutional roles. Some institutions have attempted to
make the relations more fluid between senior and junior faculty by establishing mentoring
programs or encouraging mentoring relationships. These mentoring relationships may
appear to help new faculty. However more definitive studies are needed to explore how
mentoring relationships meet the needs of new faculty in making sense of their roles.
Summag

The literature pertaining to new faculty suggests that new faculty in first
appointments have similar experiences of stress in making sense of their multiple roles. A
recurrent theme in this literature is that mentoring may be helpful to the new faculty
member in making sense of their roles. The research questions of this study addressed

how a particular group of new faculty in their first appointment might use mentoring to

address their needs and stress in making sense of their roles.

15

Theoretical Frame: Socialization

Several bodies of socialization literature provided a theoretical perspective for
framing this study. The following sections review the three bases of literature that
informed the questions and guided the interpretation of findings.
Q’ganizational Socialization

Socialization has been defined as "the process through which a society instills its
members with basic values and beliefs." (Tosi, Rizzo & Carroll, 1990, p. 227). It is "the
process by which persons acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that make them
more or less able members of their society." (Brim & Wheeler, 1966, p. 3).

Organizational socialization, as the primary form of adult socialization, refers
specifically to "the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and
skills necessary to assume an organizational role." (VanMaanan & Schein, 1979, p. 21 1).
Although some attention has been given to the content of socialization, most of the
literature focuses on the stages that an individual moves through in the socialization
process (Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein & Gardner, 1994). Socialization has generally
been divided into two stages: anticipatory socialization and in-role socialization, more
specifically referred to as organizational socialization. Organizational socialization has
further been broken down into two stages: initial entry and role continuance (Fisher,
1986; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Tierney & Rhoads, 1993).

Anticipatory socialization refers to the prepatory learning that an individual
engages in prior to assuming an organizational role. The individual may internalize a

broad range of knowledge, skills, and values based upon the expectations and beliefs

16

concerning the expected role that s/he will assume. This socialization process may occur
through social interaction with significant individuals over many years, prior to entry into
an employing organization (Fisher, 1986; VanMaanen, 1976).

Organizational socialization theory has primarily focused on the period of entry in
which the individual learns to make sense of the organizational roles that s/he is expected
to fulfill (Louis, 1980). Newcomers experience problems when personal expectations and
realities of the new role do not match. Critical learning in the entry period of
organizational socialization focuses on the reconciliation of expectations and assumptions
with role realities (Major, Kozlowski, Chao & Gardner, 1995; VanMaanen, 1976). Schein
(1968) stated that this learning involves:

1. The basic goals of the organization,

2. The preferred means by which those goals should be attained,

3. The basic responsibilities of the member in the role which is being granted to him
by the organization,

4. The behavior patterns which are required for effective performance in the role,

5. A set of rules or principles which pertain to the maintenance of identity and

integrity in the organization. (p. 11)

The process of socialization does not cease after the initial entry period. The
individual engages in learning throughout the tenure of her/his association with the
organization. This is the period of role continuance (V anMaanen, 1976). Learning does
occur continuously throughout one's organizational career (V anMaanan & Schein, 1979).

This study, though, is concerned with and will be informed by the literature dealing with

the period of organizational entry (Fisher, 1986).

17
The following assumptions fiom the literature drove the thinking of this research.

First, individuals have relatively similar experiences during organizational entry that allow
analysis and comparison (V anMaanan & Schein, 1979).

Second, individuals who are going through organizational entry are experiencing a
certain amount of anxiety that will create an impetus for learning. This learning will be
more intense and problematic for the individual due to the recent entry into the
organization (V anMaanan & Schein, 1979).

Third, learning takes place within the context of organizational culture and the
relationships that culture engenders. Organizational leaders and colleagues form a role set
of relationships that send messages to the newcomer. This role set of insiders enables the
new individual to learn important information in making sense of organizational roles
(Graen, 1976; Major et al., 1995).

The organization does not socialize a passive individual, but the newcomer acts as
an agent of her/his own socialization process (Jones, 1983; Miller & Jablin, 1991;
Morrison, 1993a; Reichers, 1987). Socialization is bi-directional with the individual
making an impact on and changing the organization as well as the organization socializing
and changing the individual (Tierney & Rhoads, 1993).

Fourth, the stability and productivity of any organization depends on the ways in
which newcomers are able to adjust to and carry out their roles. It is in the best interest
of the organization to understand the dynamics of explicit as well as implicit socialization
and provide a climate in which careful attention has been given to the successful entry of

new members (Tierney & Rhoads, 1993; VanMaanan & Schein, 1979).

18

Fifth, organizations use various strategies and tactics to socialize newcomers. The
socialization literature offers perspective regarding the kind of events, the structure of
socialization, and the relational dynamics used (Jones 1986; VanMaanan & Schein, 1979;
VanMaanen, 1976).

Success in the socialization process has been related to the degree to which the
individual embraces the organizational values and norms through creative individualism
without the extreme of over-conformity (Fisher, 1986; VanMaanan & Schein, 1979;
VanMaanen, 1978). Louis (1980) considered success to be contingent upon the
individual's ability to make sense of the organizational uncertainty in assuming new roles.
The quality of relationships with organizational insiders is tied to the ability of the
newcomer to make sense of the organization in adjustment to the organization (Jones,
1983; Reichers, 1987).

Application to New Faculm

These assumptions from the literature of socialization informed this research in
the following manner: (1) The literature shows that new faculty across the various
disciplines and institutional cultures share some similar stresses in the early stages of
organizational socialization. (2) These new faculty are experiencing a very intense
learning dynamic as they enter the professorate for the first time. (3) New faculty are
learning about their role from administrative leaders as well as colleagues in explicit as well
as implicit messages. (4) New faculty are the agents who make sense of their multiple

roles. (5) More careful attention should be given to the strategies that could be used in

l9

socialization to create a climate of faculty empowerment (Tierney & Rhoads, 1993). This
could increase faculty productivity and effectiveness.

The literature of higher education shows a paucity of research regarding effective
strategies of socializing faculty during organizational entry. This study probed how
faculty use one strategy of socialization, mentoring, in making sense of their roles during
the organizational entry.

The time period of organizational entry is generally viewed as a one year window
of time in which the individual adjusts to the organization (Major et al., 1995). One can
justifiably argue that new faculty experience a complexity of factors that draws out the
organizational entry into a longer time period. This study considered the first three years
of appointment as organizational entry. Successful socialization of the new faculty
member is tied to the ability to make sense of multiple faculty roles and responsibilities.
Success for faculty also includes understanding and fulfilling criteria for promotion and
tenure.

Role Theory

The formation of roles, though not the exclusive content of socialization, is the
primary activity of adult socialization processes (Brim & Wheeler, 1966). As the adult
enters in and out of various social systems, the acquisition of roles, negotiation of roles,
and making sense of those roles becomes a lifelong process of growth and change. Role
may be defined thus:

A set of functions an individual performs in response to the expectations of the

significant members of the social system and his or her own expectations about
the position he or she occupies in the social system (Pareek, 1986)

20

The socialization process becomes easier with a greater potential for success when
the newcomer encounters role clarity instead of role conflict in organizational entry. The
degree to which a newcomer's adjustment occurs depends on the clarity of messages from
the individual's role set. The role set is comprised of organizational insiders who will be
supervising and working (administrators and colleagues) with the newcomer. Ambiguous
or contradicting role expectations create role conflict for the newcomer. Kahn defined role
conflict:

A kind of inadequate role sending; lack of agreement or coordination among role

senders produces a pattern of sent expectations which contains logical

incompatibilities or which takes inadequate account of the needs and abilities of

the focal person (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn & Snoek, 1964)

A newcomer's unmet expectations can be detrimental to job satisfaction and
commitment. In other words, if role ambiguity and resultant role conflict are greater than
the individual anticipated, role adjustment may be difficult and result in dissatisfaction,
lack of commitment, and attrition (Major et al., 1995; Wanous, Poland, Premack & Davis,
1992)

Sense making is the activity in which a newcomer engages in order to cope with
the surprise and unmet expectations of the role conflict. Sense making takes place
through interaction with organizational insiders significant to the newcomer (Reichers,
1987; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). The quality of these interactions can determine
adjustment and socialization success (Jones, 1983).

In studying the sense-making process, research has focused on the way in which

newcomers proactively seek information to make sense of their roles (Ashford, 1986;

21
Morrison, 1993a; Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Newcomers are

dependent on insiders for information about their role (Louis, Posner & Powell, 1983;
Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), but they also act as agents of their socialization in making
sense of that information.
Summary

In summary, new faculty will experience stress in organizational entry. This
critical period of the first three years is the socialization stage that the research question
addresses. Mentors may help clarify faculty roles and help the faculty member to make
sense of her/his roles. New faculty are active agents who make sense of their roles by
interacting with mentors. This interaction is sense making, the key activity in
organizational entry that prevents role ambiguity. The new faculty member experiences
effective socialization as s/he makes sense of faculty roles. These themes from
socialization literature are at the heart of the primary research question: How do
successful new faculty use mentoring relationships during the entry stage of
organizational socialization to make sense of their faculty roles?

Faculty Cultures

Socialization is a cultural phenomenon and any study that deals with the
socialization of new faculty must give careful attention to the culture in which faculty
members work. Culture provides an interpretive framework for understanding the
"persistent patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions that shape the
behavior" of faculty (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). Faculty work in multiple cultures that are

often laden with conflicting messages. These conflicting messages can create ambiguity

22
for the faculty member who is trying to make sense of multiple faculty roles (Austin,

1 9923)

Clark (1987) stated that there is a tension between the "many and the one" in
which antithetical identities and commitments create a tension of contrary forces. Even
public universities are broken doWn into different colleges and departments that create
very different beliefs and value sets that individualize the way faculty work and make
sense of their various roles. A faculty member may function simultaneously as a citizen
of different sectors. (Clark, 1987)

Four Faculty Cultures

Four cultures basically influence a faculty member’s behavior: (1) the culture of
the discipline, (2) the culture of the academic profession, (3) the culture of the institution,
and (4) the culture of the national system of higher education (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). The
disciplinary culture is the core around which higher education is organized (Austin,
1992a). Becher (1987) stated that the discipline influences a new member's initiation into
the profession, the range and types of professional contacts, the available resources and
supports in professional contacts, necessary responsibilities, and the political power one
enjoys. Other considerations include how internal power and control are exercised within
the discipline and the way research is done and integrated with the existing literature.

The disciplines assign "intellectual tasks" according to their epistemological
formulations of which Becher (1987) theorized four primary groups: (1) pure science,
("hard-pure"); (2) humanities, ("soft-pure"); (3) technologies, ("hard applied"); and (4)

applied social sciences, ("soft-applied"). Specializations in a particular discipline are

23
highly defined and fairly stable. A discipline specialty will influence the way in which a

new faculty member enters the professorate. For instance, faculty positions in particular
hard sciences may be won only after a fellowship in which the individual is apprenticed
into a research agenda. For other disciplines, entrance into a faculty position may be fluid
and less formal.

The culture of the profession maintains several foundational values: (1) the
purpose of higher education is to discover and disseminate knowledge, (2) autonomy and
academic freedom in research and teaching are necessary to protect creativity and the
development of controversial ideas, (3) intellectual honesty and fairness is paramount, (4)
collegiality is the desired mode for interaction, (5) the academic profession is committed
to the service of society (Rice, 1986; Clark, 1989). Specialisms within the profession
create a tension between the one and the many. Becher (1987) stated, "Is there one
academic profession or many?" (p. 297).

The culture of the institution influences the faculty member in many different
ways. An institution's mission will impact the way in which faculty are recruited as well
as evaluated in their performance. An institutional culture is affected by the institutional
mission and goals, administration and governance, curriculum and academic standards,
characteristics of faculty and students and their interactions, and geographical location and
size (Austin, 1990). Often the confounding factor for early career faculty is the
disciplinary ties that conflict with the institutional culture (Chronister, 1991). Ruscio

(1987) stated:

24

Socialization into the organization comes after an intense introduction into the
world of scholarship. The sequence causes the academic to see the second process
as inhibiting what he was trained to do in the first. While scholarly socialization is
an ordeal willingly entered into, organizational socialization is reluctantly
tolerated. (p. 359)

The department in which a new faculty member resides is a very important
socializing unit, having distinctive norms, values and behavior patterns. The department
is often where multiple cultures converge, providing a tension for the new faculty member
concerning which of the cultures will receive greater allegiance (Austin, 1990). It is the
department that provides a sense of community and collegiality for faculty who highly
value autonomy (Clark, 1987), but it is in the relationships with departmental colleagues
that the conflicting messages among faculty cultures becomes most acute. New faculty
often receive diverse cultural messages from colleagues within the department concerning
the roles and responsibilities that they should fulfill and the priority that they should give
to each. As a result, new faculty may experience tension in making sense of the
conflicting messages that they receive fiom departmental colleagues (Austin, 1990).
Another confounding factor is the issue of a faculty member's academic appointment. A
faculty member in a larger university may have appointments in more than one
department. One may appropriately ask how socialization will be carried out by multiple
departments.

The culture of the national system is influenced by beliefs about the organizing
principles and policies of higher education. Beliefs vary among nations concerning

accessibility to higher education, the relationship of higher education and employment,

the position of research and teaching in higher education, the goals of higher education, the

25

role that the government plays in higher education, organization and structure of faculty,
and the organization of disciplinary knowledges (Clark, 1983).
Summa_ry

Faculty experience tension in making sense of their roles when the messages of
their employing institution differ from the messages of other faculty cultures. In addition,
new faculty often receive conflicting messages from colleagues who represent competing
cultural beliefs about appropriate professional priorities in the exercise of faculty roles.

This study examined how mentoring relationships help the faculty member
understand the mixed messages from the multiple faculty cultures. Mentors may
compound role ambiguity for the new faculty member depending on how they place their
loyalties to faculty cultures in the mentoring process.

Mentoring Relationships

Mentoring as a Concept and Phenomenon

Mentoring, an ancient educational concept with roots in the classical literature of
Greece, became the focus of adult educators and trainers in the early 1980's when adult
developmentalists theorized from a small sample that mentoring was an integral part of
adult development (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson & McKee, 1978; Sheehy, 1974).
Developmentalists theorized that mentoring occurs at critical stages of development for
the mentor and the mentee. The mentoring relationship has also been theorized to have
developmental stages (Kram & Bragar, 1992; Kram, 1983).

Private corporations and public agencies began to use mentoring as a means of

professional development and socialization in order to address an environment

26
characterized by internal constraints and external challenges (Zey, 1991). A burgeoning

popular literature and large number of research studies argued that mentoring offered
many positive benefits for the training and development of leadership.
Historical Understancing of Mentoring

Mentoring was the primary educational model in ancient Greece and Rome. The
ruling class would secure for their young sons a tutor whose primary responsibility was
to educate the young charge so that he could assume full civic responsibility and
leadership. The tutor was usually a slave, bound to the family who lived with the young
boy and provided social and emotional support as well as educational training. The most
well known tutoring relationship comes from Homer's Odyssey in which Mentor was the
individual that Odysseus seemed for the young Telemachus' education for kingly
responsibilities.

Throughout history, some prevailing themes have characterized the relationship of
mentoring. The paternal relationship of mentoring occurred between an older male
superior and a subordinate younger male. The mentor prepared the protege to assume
leadership through a personal dynamic of modeling and psychosocial support in addition
to didactic teaching. "Mentee" was the preferred term in this study instead of "protege"
which comes form the French verb, "to protect." "Mentee" more appropriately suggests
the active agency of the new faculty member in the mentoring relationship.

The Benefits/Outcomes of the Mentorifl Relationship
Research studies have reported that mentoring can be a means for greater career

success and satisfaction (Berry, 1983; Collins & Scott, 1978; Fagenson, 1989; Lunding,

27
Clements & Perkins, 1978; Roche, 1979; Shapiro, Hazeltine & Rowe, 1978). Mentored

individuals fare better in adj ustrnent to the corporate organization, make early connections
with the power structure of the organization, realize greater organizational power and
influence (Hunt & Michael, 1983), and achieve an advantage in financial remuneration
(Dreher & Ash, 1990).

Themes also exist in the literature concerning the benefits of mentoring for the
organization as well as the individual being mentored. These benefits include longer
tenure of mentored individuals with the organization (V iator & Scandura, 1991), early
identification of leaders for more effective management succession (F agenson, 1989),
mentored individuals' greater commitment and identification with the company (Collins,
1983), more effective transmission of critical information about the organization's policies
and mode of operation, and increased employee productivity (Zey, 1991).

One may argue that the mentoring process holds great value for thoroughly
integrating the individual into the life and practice of the organization. These
organizational studies imply that mentoring could provide benefits for new faculty and
their employing institution.

The Definition of Mentm

The broad and diverse literature related to mentoring has produced many varied
definitions of the activity of mentoring. These varied conceptualizations of the
phenomenon of mentoring have greatly influenced how researchers measure the activity of

mentoring and its achievement of success (Merriam, 1983).

28
Carden (1990) proposed a definitional continuum of mentoring that is helpful for

understanding the diverse array of definitions. She proposed that Levinson (1978) and
Kanter (1977) form the polar ends for a definitional continuum of mentoring. On one end
of the continuum, Levinson posited that the mentoring relationship is one of the most
important developmental relationships in adult life for both the mentor and the mentee.
The mentor for Levinson is more than a practical help in skill and knowledge attainment.
The mentor provides a relationship of love and support, giving "his blessing to the novice
and his Dream." (Levinson et al., 1978, p. 334). Kanter, on the other end of the
continuum, focused on sponsorship as an instrumental alliance in organizational life that
provides mobility and opportunity in the organization for the sponsored individual.

These two views can be reconciled with Kram's primary mentoring functions of
career (instrumental) and psychosocial (personal) support. One may sponsor an
individual for organizational promotion apart fiom the mentoring relationship. Kram
(1985) and others (Carden, 1990; Zey, 1991), however, theorize that sponsorship is a
career function of mentoring.

Carmin (1988) provided a working definition of mentoring that draws upon both
perspectives of Kanter and Levinson that were applied to this study. She defined
mentoring thus:

A complex, interactive process occurring between individuals of differing levels of
experience and expertise which incorporates interpersonal or psychosocial

development, career and/or educational development, and socialization functions
into the relationship. (p. 10)

29

Key elements in this definition include psychosocial as well as career and
educational development. A more senior individual with greater experience and
knowledge of organizational dynamics mentors a junior individual with less professional
experience and organizational power. The participants generally move from a relationship
of temporary inequality to collegiality. This highly personal relationship meets
developmental needs for both individuals as well as enabling them to make sense of their
organizational roles. Although this definition does not explicitly demand that the mentor
be a senior colleague with a higher organizational status than the mentee, the mentor as a
senior colleague with a higher organizational rank is implied. The literature of mentoring
generally considers the mentor to be a senior colleague with a higher organizational status
in addition to a greater competency and professional experience.

Types of Mentoring

There are two types of mentoring: formal and informal. The mentoring
relationship has historically been understood as a spontaneous informal relationship that
develops by one of the partners, generally the mentor, initiating the relationship.
Nevertheless, business, governmental agencies, and higher education institutions have
begun to utilize formal mentoring programs to draw upon the resources of a broader more
diverse labor force for leadership through affirmative action. Formal mentoring may be
defined as a program in which the mentor and the mentee are linked through the effort of
the organization or departmental unit and expected to continue in the relationship for a
specified length of time. Within broad general parameters, the relationship may be very

flexible regarding its activities, functions, and proposed outcomes. Formal mentoring is

30
that endeavor initiated and directed by the organization in order to achieve institutional

goals informed by the values and beliefs of the organization.

Proponents of formal mentoring have stressed its benefits for the organization in
achievement of leadership continuity, increased productivity, and integration of staff into
the culture of the organization (Zey, 1991). Other proponents argue that formal
mentoring is necessary to enable women and minorities to achieve their full professional
potential (Kanter, 1977; Zey, 1991). Opponents (Clawson, 1985; Clawson, 1980; Kram
& Isabella, 1985; Kram, 1985; Merriam, 1983) of formal mentoring have argued that
formal mentoring changes the nature and reduces benefits of the mentoring relationship.

Chao et al. (1992), in a notable study, compared formal and informal mentoring.
They concluded that the differences between formal and informal mentoring were not
significant. They recommended more study to probe further regarding whether there is a
difference between the process and outcome of formal and informal mentoring.
Functions of Mentoring

The literature on mentoring has also probed the functions or behaviors of the
mentoring relationship. Kram (1983; 1985) divided the mentoring relationship into two
broad functions that correspond to the emphases of Levinson and Kanter:

1. Career functions which include:
a. sponsorship-supports the mentee directly in a promotion meeting discussion or
indirectly through association.
b. exposure and visibility-assigns responsibilities that provide contact with key
organizational members who can promote or advance the mentee.

c. coaching-provides information on how to accomplish work objectives and access
organizational networks.

3 1
d. protection-shields the mentee from untimely or potentially damaging conflict with

other senior individuals.

e. challenging assignments-gives work assignments with feedback that increase the
mentee's professional competence and sense of accomplishment.

2. Psychosocial firnctions which include:

a. role modeling-models attitudes and behavior that the junior colleague may emulate.

b. acceptance and confirmation-expresses positive regard for the junior colleague

c. counseling-explores personal concerns with the junior colleague that may interfere
with professional accomplishment in the organization.

(I. friendship-interacts socially and informally at work and outside of work (Kram,

1985)

Kram posited that although the mentoring relationship is primarily a teaching
relationship, it addresses the larger issues of career development and psychosocial
support. Although some researchers considered role modeling distinctly separate from
mentoring (Shapiro, Hazeltine, & Rowe, 1978; Speizer, 1989), Carden stated that "most
researchers consider role modeling a function or behavior of mentors" (Carden, 1990, p.
29) as Kram placed it within the continuum of mentoring firnetions.

Schoekett and Haring-Hidore (1985) in a factor analytic study of mentoring, agree
with Kram's two proposed mentoring functions. Decoster and Brown (1982) delineated
two classes of mentoring functions in higher education which parallel Kram's categories:
(1) prescriptive functions involving instructional concerns (career functions) and (2)
facilitative functions which focus on the individual in all his/her personal needs

(psychosocial functions). Zey proposed a hierarchy of mentoring that also corresponds

to the categories of Kram (Zey, 1991).

32

FaeultLMentoring in Higher Education

The literature of higher education pertaining to the mentoring of faculty by faculty
may be divided into four categories: (1) articles reviewing the literature on faculty
mentoring, (2) theoretical articles advocating the use of mentoring for faculty
development, (3) reviews and assessments of existing mentoring programs, and (4) studies
on the phenomenon of faculty mentoring.

Literature on Mentoring in Higher Education

Several key literature surveys agree that the body of writing on faculty mentoring
is brief (Boice, 1992a; Lavery, Boice, Thompson & Turner, 1989; Merriam, 1983;
Merriam, Thomas & Zeph, 1987). Another theme of the literature reviews on faculty
mentoring is that formalized faculty mentoring, in addition to already existing informal
relationships, should be utilized as a means of consistent and comprehensive faculty
development (Alexander, 1 992; Boice, 1 9923).

An array of articles advocates faculty mentoring as a valid and important form of
faculty development to better equip faculty. These articles conclude that mentoring could
help faculty improve their teaching (Boice, 1992a), construct a research agenda (Jarvis,
1992), and successfirlly navigate the tenure and promotion process (Alexander, 1992).

Mentoring Programs in Higher Education

Those articles that review existing programs are very instructive concerning
various mentoring prograrns' emphases in faculty mentoring for professional

development. The most notable example is the Lilly Endowment Teaching Fellows

33
Program. Austin (1992b; 1992c) concluded that the Lilly Program has had a significant

positive effect, not only on the teaching quality of faculty fellows, but on their career
development as well.

The Lilly Program has been instituted on a number of campuses with a degree of
flexibility that permits each institution to tailor the program to its own needs and
institutional context. The program reaches a small number of new and junior faculty (six
to ten each year) in supporting their teaching and research, collegial collaboration,
university citizenship, and professional confidence (Austin, 1992b; Austin, 1992c).

Through a FIPSE Grant, Boice instituted a formal mentoring program that enabled
him to study the dynamics of twenty five mentoring pairs. Boice designed a ten scale
Mentoring Index to measure the effectiveness across a variety of mentoring activities and
functions. Boice admitted that the success of his program had a great deal to do with his
supervision and intervention as researcher and program director. Boice concluded that
mentoring can and should be studied empirically for the purpose of instituting improved
models of formal mentoring for faculty development (Boice & Turner, 1989; Boice, 1990;
Boice, 1 992b).

Wunsch, in her program at the University of Hawaii for the mentoring of faculty
women, concluded that formal mentoring can be effective in the socialization process.
Success of the program, however, depended on the institution's long term commitment to
faculty development efforts through formal mentoring relationships. Wunsch argued from

the success of her program that formal mentoring can indeed successfully socialize

34

underrepresented faculty and prevent their attrition in a hostile environment (Johnsrud,
1994; Wunsch, 1993; Wunsch & Johnsrud, 1992).

While these articles on program review have argued for the value of formal
mentoring as a means of faculty development (Hipps, 1980; Jackson & Simpson, 1994),
the evidence that drives these conclusions is lacking. Success remains a nebulous concept
when there are no consistent factors imposed across programs to determine objective
outcomes. The idea of evaluating firnctions, phases, or benefits is tentative at best.
Carden (1990) stated appropriately that, "the relatively unsophisticated design of
mentoring research and the tendency to leap from survey and interview data to sweeping
endorsements of mentoring applications, also warrants continued attention." (p. 280).
Studies of Faculty Mentoring

Two key studies exist that are helpful in framing the questions that drive this
study. Sands, Parson, and Duane (199]) explored how faculty in a large research
university engaged in mentoring. The study was part of a larger research endeavor that
focused on affirmative action issues in relation to types of career support, mentoring
being one type of support.

In this study, "mentor" was defined as a guide or sponsor who looks afier,
advises, protects, and takes a special interest in another faculty member's development.
The authors specifically studied the past and current experiences of faculty with respect
to mentoring, the nature of mentoring between faculty members in the academic setting,

and the preferred types of mentoring for faculty members.

35
Sands, Parson, and Duane (1991) found that 72% of the participants responded

that they had had a mentor. The largest number of these respondents indicated that
mentoring occurred when they were graduate students. Only one-third of the faculty
reported the experience of being mentored by a colleague in the university of the study.
In that group there was no significant difference between male and female faculty in the
frequency of their mentoring experiences. The authors observed:

The decline in mentoring from graduate school to employment in an academic

setting may reflect expectations of the university professorate. The Ph.D. is a

terminal degree for scholarship. Presumably the scholar conferred with a

doctorate is capable of autonomous practice as a university professor. It is

assumed that the new university professor does not need the support that was

present in graduate school. (Sands et al., 1991, p. 188)

The authors found that a mentoring relationship between faculty was most often
negotiated by both faculty participants. The next most frequent occurrence was initiated
by the mentor. The departmental assignment of mentoring relationships occurred only as
a rare alternative.

A second study by Hill, Bahniuk, and Donbos (1989) studied the relationship
between mentoring and collegial support systems and information adequacy,
communication apprehension, and faculty success at a large public university and a small
private college. The authors explored whether collegial and peer support systems would
contribute to faculty success to the same degree as faculty mentoring.

The authors designed a perceptual measure of success to determine a faculty

member's perceived impact on the organization as well as her/Iris perceived career success.

36

This perceptual measure was compared to performance indicators of "salary, number of
annual refereed publications, number of books authored, and faculty rank." (p. 20)

The authors found that having a mentor seemed to relate positively for both males
and females in achieving success. They suggested that faculty who have mentors have
richer communication environments both in terms of information adequacy and support.
Mentors contributed to greater success than that enjoyed by faculty without mentors
(Hill et al., 1989). Other collegial supports such as peer collaboration made moderate
contributions to faculty success. Nonetheless, mentoring was the strongest support
behavior in contributing to faculty success.

Summary

There is evidence in the literature that mentoring can help new faculty through the
process of organizational socialization and contribute to faculty success. However, the
literature has not clearly defined how new faculty use mentoring relationships to make
sense of their multiple roles in the context of various faculty cultures. More studies are
needed to explore the impact of mentoring on new faculty as they make sense of their
faculty roles.

The following points were taken from the literature on mentoring to inform this
study: First, a working definition of mentoring that is drawn from the literature guided
the inquiry into the nature of new faculty mentoring relationships. The key points from
Carden's definition framed the examination of faculty mentoring relationships. These

relationships must occur between a senior and junior faculty member, they must be

37

interactive over a period of time, and they must have elements of psychosocial or career
support.

Second, this study examined the types of mentoring that faculty experience, both
formal and informal. Boice (1989) and Austin ( 1992b) have written about the impact of
two formal mentoring programs. Faculty, however, may experience a range of mentoring
relationships that are formal and informal. Very little exists in the literature that
compares the outcomes of formal and informal mentoring concerning which type is more
advantageous for new faculty socialization. This study explored that issue by asking
what types of mentoring new faculty experienced, and what they perceived as more
beneficial for them.

Third, the literature on faculty mentoring lacks any extensive treatment of
mentoring behaviors or functions. Kram's categories are fairly representative of the
broader organizational literature's treatment of mentoring behaviors. Her theory regarding
mentoring functions framed the inquiry into the mentoring behaviors that new faculty
experience and which behaviors are most beneficial.

Fourth, the literature of higher education shows that mentoring occurs frequently
for faculty in the stage of anticipatory socialization. This study probed how university
faculty report using mentoring to make sense of their multiple roles at the second stage of
socialization, organizational entry. Although mentoring does not occur as frequently in
this period, Tierney and Bensimon (1996) posited that mentoring at this point should be

considered as an important organizational effort to insure the success of the new faculty

38

member's transition into her/his professorial roles. The question is whether new faculty
indeed find mentoring helpful in their first appointment in making sense of their roles.
Alternative hypotheses exist concerning other agents of socialization that might be
important for new faculty. This study, however, began with an exclusive exploration of
mentoring as one type of socialization relationship for new faculty. This study tried to
determine how new faculty members in the first three years of their faculty appointment

use mentoring to make sense of faculty roles.

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Questions

A review of the literature reveals that new faculty experience many challenges in
making sense of their faculty roles. Mentoring relationships have been suggested as an
appropriate means of socialization to ease the difficult situation of organizational entry
for new faculty. The research questions of this study explored how new faculty use
mentoring relationships to make sense of mixed messages regarding multiple faculty roles.

The primary research question for this study was:

r”

How do new faculty use mentoring relationships during the entry stage of
organizational socialization to make sense of their faculty roles?

 

Mentoring often has been defined as an interactive relationship in which a senior

__.._‘\

 

individual (the mentor) with expertise and experience provides psychosocial support (role
modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and fiiendship) and/or career and
educational development (sponsorships, exposure and visibility in the organization,
coaching, protection, and challenging assignments) to a junior individual (the mentee) as a
means of socialization (Carmin, 1988; Kram, 1985; Zey, 1991). ~

This mentoring relationship may be formal, in which the relationship is arranged
outside the initiative of the mentor or the mentee (generally relationships that are assigned

by the department or the organization), or informal (initiated by the mentor or the
39

4o
mentee). This study set out to look at the range of mentoring relationships, both formal

and informal, that individual new faculty members experience as they are socialized into
the professorate.

Mentoring relationships have historically been viewed as long term developmental
relationships (Kram, 1985). This study examined relationships that developed over time
and that were highly interactive between a new faculty member and a senior colleague for
at least one year. The period of one year was chosen as a guiding perspective of time
because most formal mentoring programs are at least one year in length while informal
mentoring relationships usually last longer. Brief episodic events of instruction,
sponsorship, friendship or casual organizational interaction do not constitute a mentoring
relationship.

The W in this study was successfirl new faculty members who
recently finished their Ph.D. and were in years four, five, or six of their first faculty
appointment. These faculty reflected retrospectively on years one, two and three. Thes
first three years were chosen because most universities review the new faculty member \
after this period. These first three years were viewed in this study as a period of
organizational entry for the new faculty member. This study only foam the period
of organizational entry (the first three years of pre-tenure) in which the faculty member
entered the academic profession in a specific institution of higher education. This study

__——

did not focus on faculty who left the university for whatever reason, during or at the end

 

of the first three years.

41

The study began with the intent to focus on the range of mentoring experiences
that the new faculty experienced in the organizational entry period. This study did not
/
examine the mentoring experiences that occur in graduate training as a part of anticipatory
socialization to prepare faculty for the professorate. Although mentoring relationships
occur in the process of preparation for the professorate, I examined only those graduate
advisor relationships that continued after the faculty member’s transition into the

professorate.

The foundational question that drove the study is how new faculty used their

 

 

mentoring experiences to make sense of their faculty roles. The study was built on the

 

asWofing may possibly aid the new faculty member in making sense of
faciilty roles, but I remained open throughout the study to the possibility that mentoring
may also inhibit the sense-making process for the new faculty member. I also remained
open to other types of relationships and how they might affect the process of
socialization for the new faculty member.

Sense making is an activity that occurs during the process of socialization in which
the new faculty member interacts with senior faculty colleagues to clarify role
expectations (Louis, 1980; Reis-Louis, 1984). The new faculty member acts as an agent
of her/his socialization process in making sense of faculty roles and responsibilities
(Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983). The clarification of role expectations enables the new
faculty member to perform the roles with appropriate behavior that meet organizational

expectations.

42
The new faculty member is part of several cultures including the academic

profession, discipline, department, institution, and national system that send messages
concerning what a faculty member is supposed to do (Austin, 1992). These cultures may
send conflicting messages that create role ambiguity for the faculty member. The new
faculty member must make sense of the conflicting messages within the context of each
these different cultures.

The following research questions are subsidiary themes of the primary research
question:

1. Who has served as mentors for the new faculty member?

This study explored who served as mentors for new faculty in helping them make
sense of faculty roles. The study recognized at the beginning that some disciplines have a
strong tradition of mentoring thatris almost like an apprenticeship that is used by the
faculty to enter the discipline. Through the course of the research I wanted to explore
various types of mentoring relationships to find out which mentoring relationships might
tend to reinforce the messages sent by the disciplinary culture.

I realize, however, that the institution also has a vested interest in socializing the
faculty member concerning institutional mission and values. Cross disciplinary mentors
in the institution may send messages that strongly conflict with or reinforce department
or disciplinary mentors. I wanted to understand, if cross disciplinary mentoring
relationships do exist, what kind of messages they send to the new faculty member.

Different mentors may send messages that create greater role ambiguity instead of

role clarity for the new faculty member. Gaining an understanding of who the faculty

43

members are who have served as mentors is important for understanding the types of
messages conveyed during mentoring concerning faculty roles.

2. What are the types of mentoring that the new faculty members have
experienced and the outcomes of those types of mentoring?

This Question was informed by the literature on mentoring that identifies two
types of mentoring: fOrrnal, in which the relationship is arranged outside the initiative of
the’mentor or the mentee, and informal, which is initiated by the mentor or the mentee.
The research literature comparing formal and informal mentoring is not conclusive
concerning which is more effective for the mentee (Chao, Walz & Gardner, 1992). This
study probed the outcomes of each type of mentoring relationship and how these types
of mentoring specifically benefit the new faculty member.

The organizational literature has identified specific benefits of mentoring for the
new organizational member. The literature of higher education is not conclusive
concerning the outcomes of mentoring for the new faculty member (Alexander, 1992;
Lowe, Boyd & Brunette, 1991), and more work needs to be done to explore the benefits
of mentoring for new faculty success.

1
3. What types of functions has the new faculty member encountered in the
mentoring relationship?

Kram (1985) identified two primary functions of a mentoring relationship: (1)
career functions which include sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection,
and challenging assignments; (2) psychosocial frmctions which include role modeling,
acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and friendship. Although a range of discussion

concerning mentor behavior exists in the literature, the list suggested by Kram provides a

44
systematic grid for looking at mentoring functions. The study explores which of these

functions are most helpful for the new faculty member in making sense of her/his roles.

4. What part do these mentoring relationships play as new faculty seek to

/‘"‘I,. l/
l‘ .(‘i

, ~~ understand faculty cultures and the expectations in the messages from these
cultures about faculty member roles?

New faculty receive messages from the disciplinary culture, the institutional
culture, the culture of the academic profession, and the culture of a national system
(Austin, 1992). This study seeks to understand how mentoring relationships help faculty
to make sense of the multiple messages they receive from the different cultures.

Concegtual Frame

The conceptual frame of this study was informed by four bodies of literature: (1)
the literature on new faculty; (2) socialization literature-specifically that which pertains
to organizational entry and the sense making of roles in the second stage of socialization;
(3) literature on the four faculty cultures of the discipline, academic profession,
institution, and national system; and (4) mentoring types, ftmctions, and outcomes.

Figure 1 illustrates the interrelationship of informing literature. The core of this
study focused on how new faculty members in years one to three of their first faculty
appointment made sense of multiple roles in the context of multiple cultures. More
specifically, this study explored how new faculty used mentoring relationships to make
sense of the mixed messages that they received. This activity of sense making occurs in

the second stage of new faculty socialization, organizational entry.

45

 

 

» Anticipatory

 

 
 
   
   

 

Organizational

Entry

 
  

Faculty

 

   
 
 

R01

 

 

:‘SbciéflizétiOn Sense-Making Continuance
Years 1- 3
Informed by:
1. Literature on New Faculty
2. Literature on Socialization: Organizational

Entry, Role Theory

U)

. Literature on Faculty Cultures

4. Literature on Mentoring

Figure 1 - Theoretical Frame of Dissertation

Figure 2 expands the central oval of Figure 1. The new faculty sense making

activity that occurred through mentoring was at the heart of this dissertation. New

faculty members engaged in making sense of their multiple roles in the contexts of

multiple cultures. Various mentors from different cultures may have given very different

messages to new faculty. The various cultures' messages were interpreted and changed by

each mentor as they transmitted them to new faculty.

46

FACULTY SENSE-MAKING ACTIVITY
Within Multiple Cultures: Mentoring Relationships

 

  
   
   
 
    

     
  
    
  

  

Mixed Messages Mentoring
From Multiple Cultures Relationships

 

*Disciplinc ___9 *Formal and Informal
* C
Academic Mentoring Functions
Professron

*Institution
*National System
> I New Facul Mem r

*Multiple Roles

 

 

Figure 2 - Mentoring Sense-Making Relationships

Figure 3 illustrates that many relationships exist that affected the sense-making
activity during organizational entry, and there were many different socializing agents.
Colleagues and administrators sent messages concerning faculty roles to socialize the new
faculty member. Kram (l 98 5) gave attention to other developmental relationships that
impacted the new organizational member, and this diagram acknowledges that other
relationships also provide messages for sense making. This dissertation, though,

originally focused only on one type of socializing relationship, mentoring.

47

FACULTY SEN SE-MAKING ACTIVITY
Within Multiple Cultures: Non-Mentoring Relationships
Relationships

l {- I Outside Institution 8

Relationships /l\ Administrative
Within Institution / \ Relationships

\ \l/ /
IE New Faculty Member
(Multiple Roles)

 

       
  
 
   

   
  
 
   
  

 

 

Figure 3 - Other Sense-Making Relationships

The Study Desigg

Open-ended interviews were used as the method of data collection. Open ended

WW»... y“... a.» h... ”m“ .

 

 

 

 

interviews are based on an interview protocol developed by the researcher, but the
researcher is free to move into areas that appear interesting during the interview process

(Tierney, 1991). As a result of this method of Interviewing, I was able to give some

NV ‘mw—B o

 

“an.
E- ._.-..'.-M

structure in the interview protocol while pursuing interesting areas that emerged In the

W.»- -.
(" -n-.-~.,_.r.____.__-—-

interview process. The interviews were retrospective in which the faculty member
reflected on the first three years of her/his faculty appointment. Retrospective interviews
have been the most common method used to understand the mentoring process (Carmin,
1988). Faculty were asked to reflect on how they used mentoring relationships to make

sense of the multiple messages they received about faculty roles.

48
The interview protocol (See Appendix C) was structured in three parts. In the

introduction, questions 1-8, faculty members were asked to identify the current status of
their appointment, the roles that they filled as a faculty member, the challenges that they
faced in coming to the university, what brought them satisfaction as a faculty member,
how they knew if they were doing a good job as a faculty member, and whether or not
they had experienced any mentoring relationships or other relationships that had been
helpful in the first three years in making sense of their faculty roles. Respondents were
asked to identify and rank order, from most sigm’ficant to least significant, relationships

that had been helpful to them. After the general introduction in which faculty members
identified relationships that were helpful, questions 8-11 with the attending probes were
used to explore the nature of each identified relationship regarding the dynamics of the
relationship, the process and outcomes of the relationship, the functions of the
relationship, and how the relationship helped the respondent in understanding different
messages that s/he had received. In the third part of the interview, questions 12-14 asked
respondents to reflect generally on mentoring and how it had been helpful to them in
making sense of their roles.

The interview ~with each faculty respondent lasted for approximately three hours.

I gave faculty respondents the choice to do the interviews in three appointments of one
hour each or two appointments of one and a half hour each. Eleven of the respondents
chose to do the interviews in two appointments of one and a half hour each. One

respondent did the interview in three appointments of one hour each, and one respondent

did one interview of about two and a half hours.

49

A, Interviews were conducted face to face, predominantly in the faculty member’ 3

office, except for four faculty members. Three of these faculty members met me at a
neutral meeting place, a food court on the campus of the university, and one of the faculty
members came to my office for the interviews. All interviews were taped except for two
faculty members who asked not to be taped because of the sensitivity of the questions. I
also took extensive field notes at each interview to compare with the transcription of the
tape during data analysis. These notes also provided a backup in case of tape
malfunction. Interview participants were assured of confidentiality at the beginning of
the interviews, and each participant was asked for permission to tape the sessions.
1 . Prior to interviewing the faculty sample, I piloted the interview protocol with two
new faculty members who are not eligible for the study. They checked the following
issues with me : Do the questions elicit the 'right response? How long do the protocol
questions take to answer? Faculty members who took part in the pilot interviews offered
suggestions concerning the structuring of the interview questions and appropriate wording
in the questions that would keep them open ended.
The Study Population

The population for the study consisted of new faculty members who were in their
first faculty appointment (Finkelstein & LaCelle-Peterson, 1992) at a Midwestern,
research intensive, land-grant university. These new faculty members were drawn from
years four, five and six of their faculty appointment so that they were as close as possible

to the first three years of their first faculty appointment. This was important to insure

50
that the memory and the perceptions of the faculty about their mentoring relationships

were as close to the socialization experience as possible.

Race, gender, or ethnicity were not primary considerations in drawing the sample.
Marital status or familial relationships were also not a consideration. I did give
consideration to the disciplinary affiliation of the faculty member in drawing the sample.
I set out to identify faculty members according to Becher’s (1987, 1989) categories of
"hard pure, hard applied, soft pure, and soft applied." I tried to have three faculty
members from each of these categories. Although I did not achieve my goal, it was close
to the distinctions of Becher with two faculty members from hard science and two from
applied science, two from the social sciences, two from the humanities, and four from
professional fields of study. I found that in selecting faculty for the study, faculty
members do not easily fall within Becher’s categories because of the nature of their
appointment (it may be a joint appointment in multiple departments) or because of the
nature of how they interpret their own disciplinary affiliation and the emphasis of their
teaching and research (for instance, one faculty member in the sample was listed on the
roster sheet in a category that Becher might call a “hard pure” category, science. I found,
however, in the interview process that the faculty member was very focused on issues of
applied science in the courses that he taught and the research that he did. College
affiliation gave no indication of this initially). In any case, faculty respondents were
fairly well distributed among several disciplinary areas.

Faculty members were drawn from a data sheet of first-time faculty appointments

in their fourth, fifth, and sixth year at the university. The data sheet of faculty members

51

was supplied by the Office of the Vice Provost for Human Resources at the university. I
compared this data sheet with the names of participants in the Lilly Fellowship that were
provided by the Assistant to the Provost for Faculty Development. I identified five
faculty members who had been Lilly Fellows that were on both lists. I chose these
faculty as a priority because they had experienced a mentoring relationship as a part of
the Lilly Fellowship.

After examining both lists, I identified potential faculty participants. I sent thirty
four letters of invitation (See Appendix A) to each of the potential faculty participants
and stated that I would follow up with a phone call. After choosing the five Lilly
Fellows, I rank ordered respondents who I would follow up with a call to confirm
participation. In rank ordering faculty participants after the first five Lilly Fellows, I
gave attention to different disciplinary affiliations, and a balance of gender in the sample.

I called the first fourteen respondents who I had identified, and thirteen consented to take

part in the study. I did not expect to have such an overwhelming response for

participation. I sent electronic mail messages to the other potential respondents relaying

that the study sample was full and that I would not be able to interview them at this time.
Data Analysis

Analysis was an iterative, inductive process during the interviews and the
transcription of the interviews, and after the transcriptions were completed (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). The interview protocol questions, which were based on the research

’_.__._~__ . W

questions, guide_d_the initialwanalysisof data. Responses from study participants was

M

entered on thematically organized matrices that allowedfpreategofieal thematic

N a"- -1“

52

comparisons. Three matrices were developed for data analysis. These matrices were
organized according to the following themes: (1) General Characteristics and Values of
Respondents, (2) Sense Making Relationships and Attending Processes and Outcomes,
(3) Emerging Themes. These matrices allowed comparison of sense-making relationships
by each participant as well as across the sample.

Every piece of data was carefully tagged in order to provide a clear and consistent
data audit for an external evaluator (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This tag included the
following information: respondent code number, interview number, transcription page
number, and line numbers of the quote. Data was carefully recorded on computer hard
drive, backup disk, and server. Faculty identity with code identification was kept in a
separate locked file at a separate location to protect confidentiality of the participants.

Results of the data analysis are written in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of this study.
Various terms have been used consistently in referring to the individuals and the
relationships that were helpful to the new faculty member in making sense of faculty
roles. They are:

Sense makers: These are individuals who were helpfirl to the new faculty member
in making sense of faculty roles. No faculty member exists in a vacuum, hence, the
activity of sense making is not a solitary experience. Sense making is a social process of
interaction among individuals through which they share meaning and construct a common
cultural understanding (W eick, 1995). Both the respondent and her/his colleagues are

engaged in an interactive process of sense making. This dissertation, however, focuses

only on new faculty members’ interpretation of the interactive process of sense making

53

that occurred in relationships with mentors and other colleagues. It is appropriate as a
matter of convenience to refer to those colleagues with whom faculty interacted as “sense
makers” while referring to study participants as “respondents’ or “new faculty
members.”

Sense-making relationships: These are relationships that the new faculty member
/

_._—---"”

u.‘-_.... p..- h—I—v—fl—F

used in making sense of faculty roles and responsibilities; In the process of reporting this

M

 

,.._..—

 

Mfld

data, it was easiest to refer to these relationships as sense-making relationships. Sense-

' relationships are further divided between mentoring and other sense-making

relationships which were not identified by respondents” mentoring relationships.

mflfi

 

fl

 

 

Sense Making: Sense making is a process for new faculty in which they are
constructing an understanding concerning faculty roles that they should fulfill and
appropriate priorities in the fulfillment of those roles. It is “creating and sustaining
images of a wider reality to rationalize what they are doing.” (W eick, p. 14) Through this
process, new faculty come to understand meaning and significance in the roles that they
fulfill within the multiple levels of culture. In other words, through sense making, faculty
establish a professional identity within their multiple roles and a professional self-
efficacy in the performance of those roles.

Limitations of the Study

This study is limited as a retrospective study of new faculty members'
remembrance of the mentoring relationships that they have experienced. It is not a
longitudinal observation that uses objective criteria to measure the results and the value of

the mentoring relationships over a period of time. As a qualitative study, it is

54

interpretive, focusing on the faculty members' remembered perceptions of how they used
the mentoring relationship to make sense of mixed messages concerning their faculty roles.
It is very possible that the interpretation of the data has been influenced by the faculty
members’ individual perceptions. This study did not interview mentors in order to
compare their perceptions with the respondents’ views. Given that mentoring involves
both the faculty respondent and the mentor, it is possible to have multiple
interpretations. It is also possible that the interpretation of the data is influenced by my
perceptions regarding the needs of new faculty and their sense-making experiences and
my personal identification with their stories. Respondents’ perceptions have not been
compared with those of mentors, because the study only focused on how new faculty
report using mentoring to make sense of faculty roles.

This study is alsg_linr_it__ed_by the nature and the size of the sample. The faculty
were drawn from a large research university in the Midwest. Fifty-two faculty members
were originally identified by the Office of the Vice Provost for Human Resources as
faculty members who were in the fourth, fifth, or sixth year of their first faculty
appointment. These faculty were selected because they had completed the first three
years of their faculty appointment but were not too removed from that time period.
Thirteen faculty members who were representative of this larger group of faculty were
selected to take part in the interviews. Of these thirteen participants two faculty
members were drawn from the humanities, two from pure science, two from applied
science, three fi'om the social sciences, and four from various fields of professional study.

Five of these faculty members were also Lilly Fellows who had taken part in a formal

55
mentoring experience through the Lilly Fellowship. This study only probed the

experiences of faculty who remained after the review of their first three years in the
professorate. It did not focus on faculty who left the institution of study or the
professorate during or after the first three years.

This study is exploratory for the purpose of generating hypotheses. The study
does not offer generalizations for the literature of new faculty, socialization, faculty
cultures, or mentoring. Rather, it provides a point of correlation with the extant literature
to explore how faculty at a Midwest research university during a particular period of time
made sense of their multiple roles.

Finally, a key limitation is that this study focuses on the perceptions of the new
faculty member who has been helped by mentors or other colleagues. In this study, the
new faculty member is the agent in making sense during the process of organizational
socialization. This is not a study of mentors as agents of socialization. A study of
mentors and their perceptions regarding the mentoring relationship might provide very
different accounts from the interpretation of new faculty.

Conclusion

Throughout the process of data collection, I have as researcher sought a deeper
understanding of how new faculty make sense of their multiple roles through the
mentoring process. This study provided data that is correlated with the literature to
understand how new faculty at a Midwest research university made sense of their
multiple roles during a limited period of time in the context of multiple faculty cultures.

In no way does this study claim either universality or generalizability to other institutions

56
of higher education. It provides thoughtful suggestions to further the dialogue within the

research community concerning the impact of mentoring on the socialization of new

faculty members.

CHAPTER 4

NEW FACULTY MEMBERS IN THIS SAMPLE:
CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTRIBUTES

Introduction

This study set out to explain the way in which new faculty members use
mentoring relationships during the entry stage of organizational socialization to make
sense of their faculty roles. The analysis of the interyiews uncovered a complexity of
sense-making relationships that surpasses the study's original intent to explore mentoring
relationships. (Mentoring relationships are highly interactive relationships that last at
least one year between a senior and a junior colleague.) Other relationships that emerged
during the interviews provide a parallel focus alongside of mentoring in understanding
how new faculty members made sense of their faculty roles and responsibilities. It is
impossible to understand how the new faculty members in this study made sense of their
roles and responsibilities by only looking at the mentoring relationships that they
experienced. One must look at the many relationships that new faculty respondents
identified, as well as the characteristics of this group of new faculty, to fully understood
the context and process of those varied relationships (All sense-making relationships are
given in a brief summary overview in Appendix F).

In order to understand mentoring in the rich context of multiple relationships

through which new faculty in this sample made sense of their roles, the reporting of the
57

58
data has been organized into three broad sections: (1) Chapter 4 is an overview of new

faculty participant characteristics. It is important to understand who the new faculty in
this sample are and the general characteristics of the sample are discussed. (2) Chapter 5
presents a general overview of what new faculty members reported about the mentoring
experiences that they used to make sense of their faculty roles and responsibilities. It
analyzes their expectations regarding mentoring, who served as their mentors, the types
of mentoring relationships and behaviors that they encountered, and the outcomes of
those mentoring relationships. This chapter will be more lengthy than the other chapters
because it was the primary focus of the questions in the interview protocol.

(3) Chapter 6 presents data that emerged regarding the non-mentoring sense-making
experiences of this group of new faculty members. These data, that emerged in the
process of the interviews on mentoring, show that other relationships were just as _
powerful for new faculty members in making sense of their roles. This chapter explores
other types of relationships that were helpful for new faculty members, the
functions/behaviors that occurred in these relationships, and how these relationships
helped new faculty in making sense of their faculty roles.

In reporting the process and outcomes of these sense-making relationships, it was
crucial to protect the identity of new faculty members who have not received tenure. For
example, two non-tenured faculty participants, who were concerned about the sensitivity
of these interviews, asked that the interviews not be taped. Three of the taped
participants asked that the tape recorder be turned off for brief periods at various

intervals because of the sensitive nature of their comments. The sample of respondents in

59 .
this study is small, and it is possible that a reader from the respondents’ university could

directly link some of the comments with specific faculty members in spite of the careful
reporting of the researcher. The desire to fully report the conversation of each faculty
member, while protecting respondent confidentiality, influenced the way in which I

organized the reporting of data. I tried to protect respondent confidentiality by reporting

 

 

m
..___ *‘v-WW "d’

the data thematically rather than as individual stories or cases. Respondents are referred

A

r '—

to as “Respondent 1, Respondent 2,” etc. This protects the confidentiality of the

#V

1'

respondents while. enabling thereader IQI‘PEP. track‘of who is being quoted. (Appendix E
provides a brief biographical sketch of each participant.)

This chapter begins by presenting faculty participants’ personal characteristics in
general themes across the sample. I then present the roles that new faculty members
identified and the value that they placed on each role. I then explore the challenges of new
faculty members in this sample. Those challenges that new faculty members identified
are directly related to the roles that they valued and the relationships that they sought for
making sense of those roles. The challenges of this faculty are not unlike the challenges
identified by other studies in the literature pertaining to new faculty (F inkelstein & La-
Celle Peterson, 1992). Finally, the chapter looks at what brought these faculty members
satisfaction and how they knew that they were doing a good job as a new faculty member.
These issues are similar to the literature that states that new faculty members have a high
degree of satisfaction as well as stress (Sorcinelli, 1992). Understanding the satisfaction
of respondents is also important for understanding how this group of faculty members

determined that they had succeeded in making sense of their roles. It is important to

60
understand the criteria of success that they used as well as who helped them in knowing if

they had done a good job as a faculty member.
General Characteristics of This Sample of New Faculty Members

I begin by looking at the personal characteristics of faculty members across this

 

sample (See Figure 4). Thirteen faculty in their first faculty appointment at the rank of
assistant professor took part in the study. I asked them to reflect on their experience as a
new faculty person during the first three years of their tenure stream appointment. These
faculty came from eight different colleges within a large Midwestern, research intensive,
land grant university. They fall broadly into the following disciplinary categories: three
faculty members from the social sciences, four from a field of professional study, two
from the humanities, two from science, and two from fields of applied science (See
Appendix E). Six of the faculty members are female while seven are male. Regarding the
number of years spent at the university, three had just completed their fourth year, five
had just completed their fifth year, four had just completed their sixth year, and one had
just completed the seventh year. Three of the faculty had recently gotten word that they
had received tenure, and one of these three received early tenure. Five of the faculty are
preparing for the tenure review process next year and two of the faculty had just been
denied tenure.

Most of these new faculty members came from prestigious programs where they
had done graduate work before coming to the university. Eight of the faculty members
followed fairly straight trajectories to the faculty appointments within their discipline.

Five of the faculty members had a viable professional career that preceded their decision

61
to return to higher education to pursue graduate work. While these faculty were at the

same career stage as new faculty in the sample, they were at a different chronological age.

13 Faculty Participants (Total)
(Faculty are divided according to status in each column by number
of participants within the sample.)

 

Discipline Years at University Present Tenure
Status

3 Four years Facing Tenure 8
Professional 4 Five Years Received Tenure 3 .
2

Social Science

Humanities Six Years Denied Tenure 2 .
Applied Science 2 Seven Years
Pure Science 2

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 - Faculty Characteristics

It is important to have a brief overview of personal characteristics to provide
background for the study. Faculty members were deliberately chosen across an array of
disciplines to determine the impact of their disciplinary context on the mentoring
relationships that they experienced. The other characteristics were not given

consideration in the selection of the respondents. I had hoped to have a fairly balanced

62

representation from both genders, but disciplinary association was given primary
consideration.
Faculty Roles
A consideration of how these faculty members prioritized their roles within a
research-intensive, land grant university informs our understanding of the nature of the
relationships that they used to make sense of their roles. Those roles that were most
valued in faculty members’ understanding of faculty work were the roles for which they
primarily sought help in making sense of their transition into the professorate.
Respondents identified three primary roles, but for these faculty members, a
hierarchy of importance clearly existed within those three roles. Research and teaching
_ were preeminent, with other secondary roles identified as service, and administrative
work. Respondent 5 summarized the faculty group’s prioritization of roles:
I was told long before I ever came here, and some people are not afraid to admit
this and some are. But it’s pretty well known to those who want to become
faculty members that there are three roles: research, teaching, and outreach or
service-(- service being professional service working for a professional
organization. There’s also outreach. Outreach sort of spans all three of those in
some sense. Some people say that you have to be good at two of those things to
get tenure and so on. It’s clear that number one better be research, and number
two better be teaching. The service and the outreach-- those are fine and dandy,
but the other two better be there.
How these new faculty members understood and integrated these roles with one
another was dependent on a number of factors. These factors included the faculty

members’ individual values concerning roles, departmental messages concerning faculty

priorities, and the individual and corporate interpretation of institutional mission.

63
The Role of Research

While these faculty generally spoke of research and teaching as being primary,
research clearly received the greatest attention in time allotted and effort expended in their
faculty roles. By exception, only two faculty members stated that teaching received the
primary focus of time and effort in working out faculty roles. One of these faculty
members was in a college that embraces excellence in teaching as a priority in its mission
and gives careful consideration to the teaching of undergraduates in tenure decisions. To
Show the importance of research, six of the faculty stated that research received 50% of
their time or greater in fulfilling their roles. Research took a great deal of time and effort
for these respondents in producing research that was publishable and in many cases
fundable.

Grant Writing

Grant writing was the greMallenge for new faculty members in initiating
research. Four respondents, particularly those in the areas of pure and applied science,
felt especially constrained, not only to engage in a healthy schedule of research for
publication, but to spend a large amount of time writing grants. For these faculty
members, grant writing is a matter of survival in fully equipping a research lab and funding
graduate or research assistants to run the lab with them in a formalized research group.

figémmJZIQflCQICQPD that pressure: 7 1

There’s a tremendous need for funding. So I need to write at least two, ideally

three large grants per year where the grant is fifteen pages of facts. But there’s a

lot of information that goes into one grant, at least 100 references with the present

results and continuations of what we expect and what is expected. Usually a grant
takes about a month to write, and that’s actually in a good time.

Respondent 10 also stated:

_ _ _____,_.

We have a lab that is rather expensive to maintain, and so just the basic operating
costs are a major importance to that research funding. I also knew that I would be
coming up for tenure, and quite clearly, I made this a criteria for tenure of doing
well in research and bringing in research grants.

New faculty members were required to go beyond simply writing grant proposals.
They had to figure out how to package their ideas for targeted foundations and agencies in
order to obtain funding. This type of ability to “market ideas” could make the difference
between a funded and non-funded grant proposal. RCSMS identified that tension in
getting research going:

For example, to do research, you have to write proposals and you have to give

presentations at various places. You really have to market your ideas before you

can be funded to do the work, so that you have to learn about selling a little bit
and try not to sell it too hard because that gives it a fake appearance. Part of the
marketing is also the networking-- getting people to know you and trust you to
give several hundred thousand to do the research.

Once funded for research, there was a tremendous time commitment that new
faculty members made to the managementof the ”grant. Attention had to be given to
setting up the laboratory, directing the personnel, giving financial and research accounting,
and reporting and publishing the data. Assistants had to be trained, but work with
assistants was a great stress factor for carrying out research in a lab with a research group.
Respondent 5 stated:

To do the research, you have to be a project leader in the sense that you have

students that you will hire to do the research. The money comes in to do the

research. You have a pot of money in your lap, and you can’t do all the work

yourself. Part of the job is to hire research students, and you have to guide them
through the work. Students don’t come here as robots. They have personalities

65

and personal problems, and sometimes you find yourself being an advisor of more
than just technical issues. You find yourself being a social worker sometimes.

Initiating And Writing Research

Even though some new faculty members were not constrained by the need to
equip and manage a research lab, they still devoted a great deal of time and effort to

‘ research writing. One of the primary problems that faculty members identified in relation
to research was finding the time to actually do it while engaged in teaching and other

. faculty responsibilities. New faculty members in this sample were surprised by their

. inability to carve out time for research among their many roles and responsibilities during
regular fall and spring terms. They also discovered that research demanded an inordinate

l amount of time during the summer months. Several faculty complained that they felt
such a press for time as a new faculty member that they were not really able to do much
with research in the first couple of years.

In spite of the‘gaflW time for research, respondents felt that creating
and maintaining a research agenda was the most important activity in which they could
engage. However, these new faculty members received nfixedmfssages conveyed in
various ways concerning the amount of research that was necessary for tenure review.
One respondent called research a “crap shoot.” He could never get a read from his
department chair or colleagues concerning how much research was necessary for tenure.
Another faculty member felt that the amount of j oumal articles was comparatively

weighed against the most productive faculty member. He felt that you would be doing

okay as long as you were “one up” on the most productive faculty member. Respondent

66
9 stated that the only message fiom her department chair about research was, “just do it.”

’ She only gained clarity about research when she served on the departmental policy

h committee. She stated:
I’m getting rrrixed messages. It’s really hard to even say what kind of messages
I’m getting. But I learned a lot my third year. I was on the policy committee, the
departmental policy committee. So I was in on tenure decisions and merit raise
decisions that year. That’s where I really learned everything» nobody told me
anything before that...so it was clear that the research area was far more important
than the other two areas [teaching and outreach].
In addition to mixed messages about how much research to do, faculty felt that

they did not receive clear messages about what kind of research was appropriate.

Respondents agreed that there was an unwritten ordering within their department

 

concerning those research articles that carried more weight. Three faculty members

referred to them as “big hits,” while several others called them “first tier journal articles”.

According to some new faculty, the most weighty research for tenure had to appear in

key disciplinary journals. Respondent 1 stated that his junior colleagues would arrange
M

“to meet for a toast” when one of them got a “big hit.” However, this faculty member

lamented that he had published in the flagship journal, in what he called a lifetime

accomplishment, and he also published two books at a prestigious university publisher,

but he still did not receive tenure. Most other faculty felt confident that they had figured

 

out the messages related to Ewen
The issue of what journals faculty published in was not the only concern of new
faculty. Other faculty were concerned that the type of research that they were doing was

_._.___\

applied and would not be acceptable to the tenure committee. Respondent 4 conveyed

67

this concern about how to focus on problem solving research while satisfying

[ departmental requirements:

(

It was a bit challenging to start with to try and find research opportunities that
were going to be acceptable to the department and publishable that would still
match up with my interests and so on...I’ve tried to steer away from that sort of
theory building project, and my fear would be that they would just sit on the shelf
somewhere. I try to create my research project and my collaborative research

based on problems that I have identified or questions that are asked of me that I

don't know the answers to.

In sum, study participants tried to make the research role a priority in the time
that they devoted to it. However, they found that it was difficult to give their research
ample time because of all the other roles and responsibilities of a faculty member. In
addition to the challenge of finding time for research, faculty were never quite sure how
much research was enough and what types of research would be most appropriate for
tenure and review. As a beginning researcher they wrestled with finding what research
would give the greatest impact in performance review in what Respondent 5 called “safe
research.”

The Role of Teaching

In addition to the role of research, which was preeminent, study participants gave
a great deal of time and consideration to the role of teaching. There was a broad range in
the way that faculty valued this role and integrated it with other roles. Faculty members
fell along a continuum in which teaching was highly valued at one end while on the other
end, teaching was a distraction that should not violate one’s research. Respondent 13,

who viewed teaching as a distraction, stated “you try to do a good job without getting

distracted from the primacy of research.” At the other extreme, Respondent 1 who made

68
teaching his most important task, resented the message from the department chair to do

research and “make sure that you do not get into any trouble in the classroom with your
teaching.” However, most of the faculty fell somewhere in the middle of these two
extremes in which research received more attention in the time expended, but teaching
remained a very complementary role.

Most of the faculty in this sample were committed to doing well in their teaching,
but “doing well” involved a struggle for new faculty as they sought to do more than
simply lecture. Respondent 5 described this struggle:

With the teaching, there is more to that th/an just standing up and giving a lecture

too, because teaching is not just lecturing. You have to really work hard to find

ways to explain things in a way that people will understand them. Usually that
means explaining it in more than one way, because people seem to understand
things in different ways.
These faculty clearly wanted to facilitate student learning by giving attention to the
students’ learning preferences. All of the respondents viewed their role as crucial for
student success.

Respondents were surprised that they received little support in their teaching. If
they wanted to teach well as faculty, they found that they would have to take the
initiative in improving their teaching. They felt that they were given students and
expected to teach them without a great deal of help or direction. Respondent 10 voiced
his concern:

I feel that obligation mainly to the students which is where it should be if you ask

me. But yet, I’ve never had any counseling on what makes a good teacher or
whatever.

69
Most of the faculty sought advice from colleagues on how to teach better or

sought programs for teaching improvement. Five faculty pursued the Lilly Fellowship
because of its emphasis on teaching. One other faculty member had applied for the
fellowship and was not accepted. In addition to these five faculty, four other faculty
members regularly attended teaching workshops offered by the university faculty
development programs. Two of the faculty recounted how the faculty workshops for
Lilly Fellows and other faculty provided them a “safe place” outside of their department
to talk about teaching. One of these faculty members would repeat workshops that she
had previously taken in order to participate in small group conversation focused on
teaching. Respondent 8 echoed these concerns for excellence in teaching:
I was not a teacher who was in danger, so I didn’t really have to [do the Lilly
F ellowship]...It was more of a commitment, an interest in teaching and developing
as a teacher. And just the other thing would be talking to people who teach and
who are interested in teaching. We talk a lot about it, and I think that’s part of it.
Faculty wanted to improve the methods by which they taught as well as the way
in which they prepared. They were also concerned with how to best teach application of
the material for the students’ life experiences and how to motivate the students to learn.
Respondent 5 stated how he did this by integrating research and teaching:
My research effects my teaching because I bring those ideas into the classroom. I
talk about things that are going on at [Research Corporation] or things that other
professors are doing. It’s just fun. There has to be some way to motivate what
we’re learning in the classroom. If I just go in and start putting equations on the
board, then frankly students hate that, and they are not going to learn.

Classroom teaching dynamics for these faculty members ranged from large

undergraduate sections with over a hundred students to very small seminars for graduate

70

students or honor students. For respondents, teaching, however, not only involved
classroom interaction, it also involved advising graduate and undergraduate students on
class projects, research, and academic scheduling. Teaching also involved the supervision
of a research group in a laboratory. Respondent 4 stated succinctly the desire of faculty
in this group to do well in their teaching:

One of the greatest challenges for me as I entered into this [faculty role] is that I’m

very oriented for teaching. It’s a written stated goal of mine to become an

exemplary undergraduate instructor. I want to be an outstanding teacher, and
balancing that desire with multiple roles that one is asked to play as an assistant
professor in this unit that I’m in has been challenging.

In summary, faculty members in this sample highly valued the role of teaching.
Teaching was second only to the role of research in their valuing of faculty roles. In spite
of the fact that they received very little support in their teaching, respondents sought
help from colleagues and programs, particularly the Lilly Fellowship, to help them with
their teaching. Faculty also tried to facilitate successful student.

The Role of Service

The mission of the respondent’s university delineated a tripartite mission of
teaching, research, and service. While respondents had very clearly established the
primacy of research followed by teaching, there was a wide disparity of views among
them concerning what service meant for them professionally. For instance, one faculty
member “would not allow departmental or institutional mission to dissuade her from
research.” while another faculty member clearly saw herself as a “representative of the

university.” On the other hand, most study participants conceptualized service as the

contribution that one makes to her/his discipline in scholarly collaboration as well as

71

internally to the university community. Respondent 7 stated that, “service is the sort of
thing where there’s service committee work within the university, but then there is also
the service to other professional organizations...” For some, service on committees and
doing editing and reviewing for the disciplinary community could be crucial for survival as
a researcher. Another faculty member in a professional discipline felt that her department
Spent a lot of time talking about what outreach meant, but the primary emphasis is still
on research. Respondent 9 stated that she was “getting mixed messages, I wouldn’t say
that I’m getting a three part message.”

To sum all this up, there was a great deal of inconsistency concerning what faculty
members believed service involved as a faculty role. Only two faculty members fully
embraced and clearly delineated what service meant for them as a faculty member in the
university community. Both of these individuals identified mentors in central
administration who had made an impact on them. As a result of these relationships, these
two faculty clearly understood a tripartite mission with complementing roles of research,
teaching, and service. Respondent 2 felt strongly about the importance of outreach:

It wasn’t until I got here and had the opportunity to listen, read, and interact with

people, that I began to develop and understand why the land grant institution is so

important and how this really contributes to the growth of faculty. So I think that
my time here has impacted the way that I think about land grant institutions and
the professorial roles of those institutions.

He stated further:

I believe, given the mandate of a land grant institution, my work needs to be more
applied rather than in scientifically dealing with different laboratory science.

72

In reflecting on the issue of multiple roles and responsibilities for new faculty and
how to determine priorities in addressing those roles, Respondent 5 made an insightful
comment in what the integrating factor in these multiple roles was for him. He did not
concern himself with institutional mission as much as how to integrate all faculty roles for
the good of the students.

My priorities probably can’t be put in terms of those roles. My priorities are

almost always the students; and sometimes that means that the priority is

teaching, sometimes that means the priority is bringing in enough money to
support through the program of study. When students are working with me or for
me doing research, I feel instantly a responsibility to maintain a certain level of

financial support for that student. I feel a strong responsibility to the student, I

would bend over backwards to help a student who really wants to learn and work

hard to prioritize those roles, except that usually the student comes before the

department-- if I see the two are at odds which normally is not the case. The

department also has the same priority. But even ifI have some other

responsibilities, the student comes first, because that’s our product and our

paying customer. I think we owe them a lot when they come here, and they will
. go out and be ambassadors for us after they leave.

In summary, study participants were generally not as clear concerning the role of
service and what firlfillment of that role meant for them. Only two faculty members in
this study clearly delineated a view of service consistent with university rhetoric.

Faculty members often adopted their own integrating principles for determining priorities
related to service as a faculty role.

The discussion of faculty priorities related to roles are important for
understanding the types of relationships that faculty sought for making sense of their
roles. For instance, clearly this sample of new faculty members valued research above the

other roles. A quick perusal of the chart on sense making (Appendix F) will show how

much research was at the forefront in the consideration of types, processes, and outcomes

73
of relationships. Faculty spoke often of their struggles with research and teaching and

sought help most frequently in these areas. Only a very small number of faculty talked
about the need for help in making sense of other areas such as advising of students,
administration, or outreach. How faculty prioritized their roles is reflected in those
challenges that they most often identified as a new faculty member.
Challenges for New Faculty

As new faculty made the transition from graduate study to facukty positions they
experienced many challenges in making sense of their faculty roles and responsibilities.
Respondent 7 stated,

There’s a good bit to be said about how you make this transition, regardless of

what your profession is- How do you make this transition? It took me awhile to

figure it out. So that’s part of the balance. For awhile I felt like a kid in a candy

store. Because there’s so much opportunity, so many wonderful things to do, so

many people...It took a good use of my time to serve them...I had to learn how to

balance time in this kind of setting vs. another.

The faculty within this study indicated that they had experienced challenges in five broad

areas as they attempted to make sense of their faculty roles and responsibilities.

74

1) Finding balance in professional roles as a faculty person

 

2) Getting research agenda going

 

3) Figuring out departmental dynamics

 

4) Figuring out the teaching role

 

, 5) Sorting out the mixed messages they receive as a faculty person

 

 

Figure 5 - Challenges for New Faculty Members

The Challenge of Finding Balance

The predominant challenge was in finding balance among the many professional
and personal roles that faculty members were required to fill. Faculty did not expect to
find the complexity of layers in personal management of time, energy, and resources that

they encountered as they made the transition into faculty life. Several of the faculty felt

75
that they were competent to handle each of the roles alone but did not know how to

integrate and balance them with one another. These faculty members reflected on their
first few years of adjustment and described a state of not only feeling physically
exhausted fi'om the multiple tasks but overwhelmed. Respondent 11 stated, “I often
worked 80 hours or more a week, and I was tired all the time and could not get enough
sleep.” Faculty members endured this sometimes exhilarating and sometimes
overwhelming pace without taking time to think or prioritize their roles. They simply
tried to keep things going. Respondent 2 experienced this dilemma:

For me it’s been the productivity that’s been more important. It’s the excitement;
it’s the enthusiasm. But maybe that’s also why I’m tiring, because I’ve been at
such a rapid pace, but I haven’t taken the personal time to just sit back and write
as much as I want what I think can be written on some of it, of the issues I’m
focusing on. So maybe the response is that I haven’t managed. I’ve just done, and
I haven’t spent a lot of positive time thinking about how I’m going to juggle all
these balls. I just do it, and in some respects, maybe that is an asset, or as I’m
moving into a phase of personal reflection, it’s becoming a deficit.

Part of the problem for the new faculty person in balancing the many faculty
roles, was the desire to please everybody and to do everything well. It was difficult to
prioritize one’s time and to determine which endeavors would receive the greatest time
commitment of energy and resources. Respondent 12 reflected on the pace:

I’m still in the crazy mode of making everything first priority, so it’s very hectic.
If a student walks into my office and has a question about the class, I will
definitely stop what I’m doing and answer. Then once in a while, I try to not
come into my office and escape and say, “well the rest of the world can fall off.”
So I’m doing half with the students and half doing what the university wants me
to do, and so it’s very difficult to prioritize on this. And then everything is going,
and then something in the lab breaks-- and I need to go into the lab and fix it
because people depend on it. Also, it’s early in my career, and it’s not good to
turn down too many invitations.

76
Another difficulty in working out the multiplicity of roles for new faculty was

that there did not seem to be one right way to manage the different roles. What may work
for one faculty person may not work for another faculty member based on all the
variables of personal and professional constraints. Sometimes a faculty member only
found contentment in knowing that s/he was doing the best that s/he could. Respondent
5 stated:

You find yourself wearing a different hat everyday, and sometimes a different hat

every ten minutes. That’s one of the most challenging and the most fun parts of

the profession. It seems to never be boring, and usually there is way too much to
do, and no one does the job the same way. You ask people to prioritize their
time. No one will do it exactly the same way, and there is no perfect way to do
the job. You just do the best you can, and at the end you sort of have these broad
measures of how well you’re doing. That’s how I describe the profession. I heard
people say that it’s an impossible job, and it is. You can’t be everything
perfectly. You just set your own priorities and do the best you can.

As these faculty grew they learned to make sense of their own priorities and what
works well for them in the alignment of their faculty roles and responsibilities.
Respondent 7 lamented:

Sometimes I allotted too much or too little time. I’m learning how to better allot

time so that my role and my message , or whatever my activities are- are

perceived in the best way by the university. It’s really easy to get caught up in a

lot of different things and ending up not doing everything totally as well as you

would like. Of course, then you cannot please everybody and manage your time.

The matter of finding balance in professional roles was further complicated by the
pressure of personal roles. A faculty member sometimes felt isolated as s/he attempted
to balance roles and make personal connections apart from professional roles.

Respondent 12 felt that the greatest difficulty was the way in which his professional life

complicated his personal life without any departmental support or understanding. His

77

chair expressed concern that too much attention to his children and family would cut
down on his faculty productivity. He stated:

The problem is that I want to do the best teaching, the best research, the best

everything, the best father, the best husband. So yes, there is a lot of frustration

with it.

Part of that frustration in finding balance among many roles stemmed from the
reality that in determining priorities in roles, faculty often received very little support in
sorting out mixed messages. In fact, faculty felt that this was a primary challenge in
finding balance-- sorting out the mixed messages that they received. Respondent 5 stated:

Unfortunately, faculty members do have to look out for themselves a little bit,

sometimes a lot , because there is this dual standard. On the surface they

encourage you to do certain things, but then you are judged on what we all know
is important.

To sum up this section, faculty struggled with finding balance among all their
varied roles. They had to sort through mixed messages that came to them from others
while sorting through their own inner tensions and priorities. Trying to find balance in
faculty roles became a source of continual conflict. Respondent 4 voiced this tension:

Well, conflicts from the standpoint of listening to the director or the chair say,

“publish, publish, publish,” and then listening to some of the other folks [senior

faculty] who had a broader view of things saying that it’s important that you do

more than just publish. I think I was already aware at that point and time; it was
just a bit of a game to be played. I just felt like I was pulled in different directions

at various points sometimes-- sometimes to the detriment of my overall
productivity.

Respondent 5 summarized well the challenge of finding balance among varied

faculty roles:

I think when I came here I knew that I could roughly do research. I thought I
could teach, because I’ve given enough lectures. I felt I could eventually become a

78
good teacher. I could serve on committees. The challenge was, I think, to figure

out how to do everything all at once, and at the same time have a long term view

of where all this was going, and development of various programs of curriculum-

all that with the complete uncertainty of what was being counted by the senior
faculty. I can’t emphasize how much I did not know. I had the abilities to do
each of the things individually which I think most young faculty do, or they
wouldn’t have gotten that far. But you really don't know how to put it together,
and you don't know so many small things.

The Challenge of Research

In addition to finding balance among all the roles, faculty often felt challenged in
initiating a research program. Faculty members often spent an inordinate amount of time
in teaching preparation so that their research suffered. Half of the respondents voiced
concern that they did not initially know how to get through the necessary conduit from
writing a paper to publishing it in a journal. Faculty members indicated that the paper
that one writes looks very different by the time that it is published, and there is not much
help in understanding the intermediate steps. Respondent 6 stated her anxiety about this
process: “the rejection rate is at 90%” [and if you do not understand the process], “you
can be put off by that first rejection letter” [instead of persevering in getting something
published].

The production of grant funding for research was a large challenge for new faculty
who have never had experience in writing a grant. Faculty sometimes felt that they
“groped along” in writing grants without any support or help from the department.
Respondent 12 stated that he was under pressure to raise “$170,000 a year for research

to cover lab equipment, graduate students, a postdoctoral assistant, and summer salary”

and had no idea of how to do it at the beginning. The challenge of raising money was a

79

daunting challenge for some faculty members who were initiating a research program.
Respondent 10 reflected on that challenge:

That’s the way it is, and I think that that’s a destructive attitude, because it’s kind

of like, there’s an old thing that an artist should not be worried about the amount

of paint that he uses. An artist should have all the paint he wants and just be able

to do whatever he wants to do. And if he’s constrained about the amount of

paint, then he’s no longer an artist. He’s worried about other things than the art.

I think that’s the kind of approach to be as a scientist. I want to be worried about

doing my science and applying my creativity to research rather than worry about

dollars.
The Challenge ofNegotiatingDeyartmental Culture

In addition to the challenges of balancing faculty roles and beginning a research
program, new faculty found that negotiating the departmental culture could be difficult,
especially if the department seemed cool or indifferent toward new faculty members.
Many of the faculty in the sample experienced some kind of challenge in entering the
department as a new faculty member. Five faculty participants felt that an unsupportive
department could be a serious challenge in making sense of faculty roles. Two faculty felt
that the climate in their department was particularly strained as senior faculty appeared
aloof and distanced themselves from junior faculty. Another two faculty members
experienced a department that was not supportive because of a departmental split over
their hiring. The split over these hirings had nothing to do with their viability as
candidates but was related to philosophical issues within the department that were
beyond their control. These senior faculty who did not believe that the new faculty had

appropriate disciplinary emphases for the department shunned the new colleagues.

80
Respondent 10 remembered:

I think there were a lot of personal challenges. I don’t think my reception from
the department was very warm, at least some members of the department. We
have a debate within the department, and I’m sure everyone does.

The challenge of negotiating a departmental climate could be due to a variety of
factors. Without some kind of help in understanding the departmental politics or culture,
a department could seem cold and unreceptive for a new faculty member.

The Challenge of Teaching

Finally, new faculty members stated that the challenge of teaching preparation and
mastering new courses that had never been taught before placed a new faculty member
under a great deal of stress. Respondent 10 stated:

Well, I think developing a good teaching approach and developing new courses
were certainly a major challenge. I think finding a proper balance between
textbook learning and applied learning that I identified as a real struggle in the first
three years; and a lot of my lectures I felt like were dry. I felt like, well you
know, this is material we need to know, but was it like it was alive? It was kind
of boring you know. The students were sleeping on the desk, and it wasn’t
reaching them, and that’s frustrating for me. So I had to find a balance between--
okay, what’s real important, and how do 1 capture their interest?

Other faculty members did not expect teaching preparation to be so difficult.
Respondent 12 did not expect to encounter the difficulty with teaching that he
experienced in trying to help students understand the content area he was teaching:

I assumed that teaching was going to be so simple, and then there’s a class of

students with blank faces. And 1 say, “Oh no, somehow the information that I

have that I’m trying to speak in is not getting in.” So that was another challenge--
how to get them to understand-- how to get that information across.

8 1
Standing before a class could be somewhat intimidating for a new faculty member,

especially if s/he had never taught before. New faculty were not unlike this in struggling

for appropriate methods to use in the process of teaching. Respondent 5 stated:
It’s amazing when you first start, how green you really are. I was so naive, I was
just downright stupid about many things. Things now seem so obvious, but at the
time I just really didn’t know some things...I didn’t ask any questions about how I
lecture and so forth. That is the sort of thing that they expect you to jump in and
figure that out.

Respondent 10 echoed this struggle of finding appropriate teaching methods to use in the

classroom:
So there were some basic kind of mechanics of a lecture that I sort of just learned
by stumbling or picking up a pointer here and there that would be very nice to
know. Taking strategic findings and also learning how to pace a lectur -- when do
you decide there’s too much material, and when do you decide you haven’t
covered enough. That’s something that’s very difficult to learn, and I’m still
struggling with it because I just want to cover more material than they can absorb.

This respondent likened his early teaching experience to being pushed off the dock to

learn how to swim:

I always like to tell people that you can be pushed off the dock as an effective
way of learning to swim, but you won’t come out swimming the crawl.

In sum, faculty in this sample experienced challenges in finding balance among
their many roles, beginning their teaching and research, figuring out departmental
dynamics, and sorting out the mixed messages that they received as a new faculty
member. The literature of new faculty parallels the experiences of the new faculty in this
sample. Sorcinelli (1992) stated that nearly all studies on new faculty report faculty
stress because they find it difficult to find balance among their roles in getting everything

done (Olsen, 1993, Fink, 1984, Whitt, 1991). Sorcinelli (1992) also stated that new

82

faculty members often receive “inadequate feedback, recognition, and reward,” (p. 29).
New faculty members in this sample also spoke about the challenge of negotiating
departmental culture in which they did not receive clear messages about what or how
much research was appropriate and had trouble in sorting out departmental messages.
Whitt (1991) identified that faculty often place excessively high expectations on
themselves that are reinforced by department chairs and others. Sorcinelli (1992) wrote:

New faculty reported the lack of collegial relationship as the most surprising and

disappointing aspect of their first year. Few faculty engaged in the kind of

conversations with colleagues about scholarship, teaching, and other work-related

activities that they had hoped for. (p.31)

The experience of these new faculty was not so different fi'om other studies in the
literature. The need to make sense of faculty roles was predicated on the challenges or the
stresses that new faculty members face.

Satisfaction of Faculty Members

Although these faculty faced demanding challenges in the first three years of their
faculty appointment, they also expressed a high degree of satisfaction with their faculty
experience. These faculty members found great satisfaction in the following things: (1)
making an impact on students’ lives and (2) engaging in research. In fact, all the faculty
that participated in these interviews, except one, named these two factors as the sources
of their satisfaction. They spoke enthusiastically about working with students. They
also took pride in their research accomplishments. Only three faculty expressed that they

had found professional satisfaction in other sources outside of working with students and

engaging in research.

83

Source of , Nature of Satisfaction and Number of Faculty From Sample (13
Satisfaction Parentheses) Who Indicated this Satisfaction

1) Students Student Teaching Relation to

success (4) students (4) students (1)

 

 

2) Research ' Getting Getting Opportunity
work research to collaborate
published(6) grants/fellow with others
ships (3)

 

Reaching

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6 - Satisfaction of New Faculty Members

Satisfaction in Workig with Students
Faculty members relayed that the greatest sense of satisfaction in working with
students was in watching the learning that took place, to “watch the light bulb go on.”
Respondent 10 stated:
I enjoy teaching a lot, and getting positive responses fiom the students means an
awful lot to me. I was like, all right, there’s a student who made the connection,
who used book learning and facts and started to apply it to the world around her

and sees that it really does make sense. So when that happens, that means an
awful lot to me, to see that science is a turn on for the students.

84
It was not only the day to day teaching and interaction with students, but the

awareness of a larger perspective, that in making an impact on the learning of students,
the faculty member was changing how the student viewed the world. Respondent 12
stated:
One of the things that is most satisfying for me is, to put it in one or two words,
is to change the world-- every time I have a student that sees the world slightly
differently because of something I said. And I hope that it’s very positive and in
the positive setting that it’s very satisfying. I enjoy a lot more teaching
undergraduate per semester than special topics for graduate students and post
doctoral.
The satisfaction of teaching students also came from the sense that the faculty member
was reproducing her/himself professionally. Watching students learn and go on to
integrate it in a way that brings professional success provided enormous satisfaction.
Respondent 9 stated:
The greatest satisfaction is when I get a really good student who comes in and is
intelligent and willing to work hard. And they’re coming not knowing very much.
And by the time they leave, you feel like, wow, I really taught this student a lot.
A couple have gone on to get really good jobs. There’s a particular student’ I’m

working with, a Ph.D. student who I’ve been helping a lot with his research. We
had a meeting a month ago, and he came to me afterwards, and it was so great. He

said, thank you, you really helped me shape this study, and stuff like that is very

rewarding.
Satisfaction in Doing Research

In addition to the satisfaction of working with students, respondents identified the
research endeavor as an extremely satisfying process. Satisfaction in research stemmed
from the intellectual stimulation of research and the opportunity for collaboration with

colleagues within the faculty member’s discipline. The continual pressure to write and

present one’s research brought the satisfaction of being invited by scholarly associations

85
to present or publish articles. For several faculty, the first published work in a flagship

journal as a “big hit” was an “incredibly good feeling.” Respondent 12 reflected on the

satisfaction of his research:
It can validate the faculty member’s participation in the larger discipline.
It’s totally satisfying to see my articles in print, and it’s very satisfying when I
see someone else refer to them. It’s very satisfying when I get invited to do talks;
So when they invited me to [International Symposium in his Discipline]- that’s
pretty amazing.
Some faculty approached the process with a bit of anxiety because the rejection
rate was high in their discipline, and they were not sure that they would make it as a
researcher. Satisfaction in research for some of these faculty was linked to the realization

that they had finished a publishable article. Respondent 4 remembered:

The other really satisfying thing is that I started off being a little worried about
whether I could get published and so on, was having a few articles show up a few
places that was awesome I have to admit, but not in the longer term as I look at it
that it has become a bit of a game to me.

Getting positive reviews in the review process could also be very satisfying.

Respondent 9 stated:

[Satisfaction was found in] getting positive reviews on your work when you
submit it for publication. I had a journal that accepted with this one review that I
memorized because it was so...(laughter) so that’s just very rewarding.

Four faculty derived a special sense of satisfaction from getting research funding
through a grant or fellowship. It was gratifying for a faculty member to think that people
would commit money to a research agenda. Respondent 5 stated:

I feel pretty good. I’ve been lucky in some sense, but I was doing work in a field

where people need my efforts over the past few years. So I have been successful
in bringing in money to fund research which is one of the most difficult things as a

professor.

86

Although seeing the end results of publication or funding could be gratifying, there
was satisfaction inherent in simply doing the research. Respondent 10 summarized this
sentiment:

In terms of research, getting a grant is always a big highlight moment and a big

reward. But I think more than that, it’s just doing the research. And part of the

reason I continue in this job is to get out into the field and actually work in the lab
and analyze the data and collect the facts, because I like solving problems.
Faculty life may constrain one to do research but for these faculty, there was a freedom in
being able “to do the research that I wanted to do.”

Faculty members in this sample experienced many challenges, but similar to the
literature on new faculty, there were many sources of satisfaction in faculty work.
Sorcinelli (1992) stated that there is an intrinsic satisfaction in the autonomy that faculty
work provides and the opportunity for intellectual growth and discovery. These new
faculty members felt that faculty work was basically a rewarding endeavor in spite of the
_ many challenges that they faced in making sense of their faculty roles.

Success for the New Faculty Member

Success for this group of faculty was integrally linked with their satisfaction in the
faculty role. In asking this faculty how they knew if they were doing a good job, they
often commented on the satisfaction of doing research and getting feedback from the
students. I specifically questioned the respondents concerning the types of feedback

mechanisms they had experienced, both formal and informal. In responding to the probe,

respondents related that colleagues often gave feedback about their teaching and research.

87

How Faculty Know if They are Doing a Good Job

 

l) Informal feedback from junior colleagues

 

2) Feedback from students

 

3) Success in publication or research

 

4) Informal senior colleague feedback

 

5) Department Chair/ Formal feedback

 

Figure 7 - New Faculty Member Assessment of Performance

Most of the faculty relied on feedback fi'om junior or senior colleagues or
students, and often stated that formal departmental feedback was lacking or inconsistent.
Only three faculty felt that the department chair or formal feedback mechanisms had been
helpful for them in truly understanding how they were doing as a faculty member.
Regarding the process of formal review and feedback on how he was doing, Respondent 4
stated:

The unit has an annual faculty activity report that’s completed, and there is an

evaluation system that’s just now coming into place that’s at the unit level where
senior faculty members look at the faculty activity report which includes reference

88

to the students’ instructional rating system forms and service forms. So every

year I get feedback. You get written feedback from the director, but it’s typically

not very detailed. It seems to me to be a process we go through because it looks

good.

He went on to say that evaluations were very inconsistent regarding how much
work was enough. He found the evaluation and feedback from students to be more

reliable for gaining a sense in how he was doing:

I can tell I’m doing okay or can get better feedback by talking and listening to
students and looking at what they write on the evaluation forms.

As a result of inconsistent feedback, Respondent 4 felt that it was necessary to
take the initiative in getting feedback on how he was doing. He also found that it was
politically expedient to solicit senior faculty feedback on how he was doing:

Now there are senior faculty, because I see my future here, I see that they have a

strong influence in whether I stay around or not. So I go and check with them and

try to make sure when we have those hallway conversations, and I’m asking them
how it’s going from their standpoint. How does it look for me and that sort of
thing. Not quite so bluntly as that, but I try to get into the kinds of conversations
that will help me get a read on whether they view my progress as appropriate.

The formal review process for faculty members could be intimidating, especially if
the faculty member did not perceive that they were doing as well as they should be doing.
Three faculty members found the review times with the department chair to be difficult
and of no value. Two other faculty had difficulty sorting out the messages of the
department chair in the review process. Respondent 11 stated, “you have to read
between the lines and take what he says with a grain of salt. He does not always have

your best interest at heart.” Respondent 5 felt that the department chair evaluations put

the departmental concerns before the individual faculty member’s concerns:

89

Sure the department chair has helped in some sense, but I’ve learned over time,
that he also is tainted in a sense. He has the bottom line in mind at all times and
that’s probably as it should be. But it’s also good to know that when you listen
to him and take his advice.

Respondent 9 felt that the evaluation of the department chair was not that helpful:

Our department chair meets with us once a year and nothing’s written. I’ve heard
in other departments they select a committee to do this but not in ours...lt’s hard
to tell from this- like what my strengths and weaknesses are.

She stated further, “I think I’m doing just as well as people who have tenure. So that’s
basically how I think I’m doing.”

' Some faculty found that both senior and peer colleagues gave helpful feedback on
how they were doing as a faculty member. However, a few faculty relied only on peer
colleagues, because they did not feel that they could truly be vulnerable in asking a senior
faculty member for feedback.

Although new faculty may not have felt comfortable in asking senior faculty for
feedback, Respondent 5 felt that senior faculty should be expected to provide that kind of
feedback for junior faculty:

1 think it’s their responsibility (senior faculty) to let you know how you’re doing,
not just the department chair dtuing the once a year evaluation. 1 drink you have
to look at the senior faculty for guidance on many occasions, and I think it’s their
responsibility to stop by from time to time and ask how things are going. “How’s
your class going, do you have any questions? By the way, I was noticing that
you got a new grant. That’s great, you’re really doing good on that.” Even more
specific, they need to come by and say, “Yes, you’ve done this, you’ve done that,
you’re on the right track. You might want to look into this-because that looks
good.” And they know what firings are important when it comes time for
promotion and tenure. I don't think any assistant professor knows really. You
can’t ever imagine what goes on inside those committee rooms, how the argument
is occurring. But they’ve been there because they are tenured, and they know
what counts.

90

In sum, faculty members used multiple sources to determine how they were doing
as a faculty member. They often felt that they did not receive adequate formal feedback
and had to carefully weigh that formal feedback that they did receive against the
perspective gained from other sources. Once again, this parallels the literature of new
faculty that stated that new faculty members often do not receive adequate feedback and
evaluation on how they are doing (Sorcinelli, 1992).

The need to know how one is doing as a faculty member is an important
motivational factor for building sense-making relationships. Knowing how one is doing in

her/his faculty roles is crucial for making sense of the various faculty roles.

CHAPTER 5

THE MENTORING EXPERIENCES OF NEW FACULTY IN
MAKING SENSE OF FACULTY ROLES

Introduction

The previous chapter explored the challenges that this particular group of faculty
encountered in making sense of their roles and responsibilities as new faculty members.
The challenges of these faculty correspond to many of the challenges of new faculty that
have been identified in the research literature. The two most frequently identified
challenges of this faculty were: (1) finding out how to balance their multiple professional
roles, and (2) making sense of mixed messages about appropriate priorities in fulfilling
faculty roles. This was the focus of the socialization process for these new faculty during
the entry period of the first three years: to address these challenges in making sense of
their professional roles.

One of the foundational presuppositions of this study was that it is in the best
interest of the university to understand the dynamics of explicit as well as implicit
socialization and provide a climate in which careful attention has been given to the
successful entry (sense making) of new faculty members (Tierney & Rhoads, 1993;
VanMaanan & Schein, 1979). The stability and productivity of new faculty is contingent

on their successful adjustment to faculty roles as a result of clear and definitive messages

91

92
from individuals within the institution. It would be in the best interest of the university

to find out what types of relationships might be most helpfirl for faculty in giving these
clear messages that would result in faculty success.

This research study began by examining one particular type of relationship,
mentoring, to determine how a group of new faculty might use that relationship to
successfully make sense of their faculty roles during the entry period of socialization.
The educational literature (Tierney and Bensimon, 1996; Boice, 1992a; Boice 1992b;
Wunsch & Johnsrud, 1992) has suggested that mentoring might be an appropriate method
to insure the successful entry of new faculty and insure faculty stability and
productivity.

In focusing on mentoring, this study looked at the types of mentoring
relationships that faculty encountered, who served as mentors, mentoring behaviors and
processes, and the outcomes of mentoring relationships. This study assumed that by
understanding the dynamic of mentoring as it occurred in the context of multiple cultures
with new faculty , some suggestions might be made for the formation of mentoring
relationships that help new faculty in the sense-making process.

However, as this study probed the relationships that a group of new faculty
formed with individuals who helped make sense of their roles, a complex web of
relationships emerged. Mentors played a significant role in the entry of these new faculty
into the professorate. Other non-mentoring relationships also provided a rich array of
helpful sense-making relationships. Some of these relationships for a few faculty

members were more significant than the mentoring relationships they experienced. Also,

93
three faculty in the sample had no mentoring relationships in their early faculty career,

but they received messages from other various individuals in how to make sense of their
faculty roles.
As a result of this complex array of data, this chapter will look specifically at the

mentoring relationships that faculty experienced and the processes and outcomes of these

 

 

relationships. Chapter 6 will look further at the other types of relationships (both

'.

 

positive and negative) that made an impact on faculty and compare those relationships
with mentoring relationships. From the composite dynamic of all these relationships,

some specific observations will be made in the final chapter concerning what types of

relationships were most helpful to new faculty in making sense of their faculty roles.

fre- This chapter will be divided into the following sections that will address the

“mm- ._._-

 

--—_Jr r—fi—*M+—‘

research questions about mentOring as well as emerging themes related to mentoring:
W" m... __ L -

Section 1 will address the assumptions that new faculty made concerning mentoring and

Mmfiwglfiy‘.‘ WW..." .v..-.

the expectations that they held concerning how mentoring should occur. Attention will be

m

 

NM

«23%

given to how new faculty defined mentoring. Although this particular theme was not part

,mmq ~ __.,\_ _" (MM wr-AI- duo—“K

 

of the research questions, faculty members held beliefs that influenced the way in which

m‘__-_
f— " \-' - M

 

they identified and described mentoring relationships. The interview questions asked
faculty to self identify mentors according to their own beliefs about mentoring. It was
important to understand their beliefs and compare them with the theoretical definition of
mentoring informing this study in order to frame the discussion pertaining to mentoring.
Section 2 will address the question: who served, as megtgrs ӣ959? new faculty

member? In order to understand the processes of mentoring, the messages that mentors

94

sent, and the outcomes of the mentoring relationships, it is important to know who
mentored the faculty. The messages received in mentoring and the nature of the
mentoring relationship are heavily influenced by the mentors’ values, beliefs, and primary
allegiance concerning faculty culture. '

Section 3 will address the question: what are the types of mentoring that the new
faculty member experienced and the outcomes of those mentoring relationships? The
literature of mentoring has primarily identified two types of mentoring: formal mentoring
in which the relationship is arranged outside the initiative of the mentor or the mentee and
informal mentoring, which is initiated by the mentor or the mentee. This section will
discuss the type that faculty experienced and which type was more helpful for them in
making sense of faculty roles. Outcomes of the mentoring relationships will also be
discussed in this section as well.

Section 4 will address the question: What types of functions has the new faculty
member encountered in the mentoring relationship? The theory of Kram (1985) regarding
mentoring behavior will frame the discussion regarding the types of behaviors occurring in
the mentoring relationships that these faculty experienced.

Section 5 will address the question: What part do these mentoring relationships
play as new faculty seek to understand faculty cultures and the expectations in the
messages from these cultures? Faculty receive differing messages from the disciplinary
culture, the departmental culture, the institutional culture, the culture of the academic

profession, and the culture of the national system. This section will examine how this

95

group of faculty used messages received from mentors to make sense of these different
messages.

Section 6 will provide a brief summary of the questions and other themes
pertaining to mentoring that emerged in the course of the interviews. These data were not
part of the original research questions but emerged as important concerns during the
interviews.

For ease of reference, mentors have been broken down by respondents in
Appendix F entitled “Sense-Making Relationships.” This table identifies the discipline of
each respondent, who mentored the faculty person, the type of mentoring relationship,
mentoring functions, outcomes of the mentoring relationship and the help that the
mentoring relationship provided for making sense of faculty roles. The mentors for each
respondent are numbered according to the respondent’s ordering regarding the mentor’s
degree of impact and helpfulness. Respondents identified sense makers, including
mentors, with the rank ordering of those who were most helpful to least helpful. In that
regard, some faculty had sense makers who were not mentors, who ranked higher in the
degree of helpfulness. For instance, Respondent 8 had two individuals who were more
helpful than the mentor identified so that the senior faculty mentor on the table begins
with the number three. The mentoring functions that are identified on the table follow
Kram’s (1985) categories of career and psychosocial functions. One function,
collaboration, has been added which is not part of Kram’s mentoring functions. Faculty
placed a high priority on collaborative behavior which did not fit neatly into Kram’s

categories. Collaboration will be explored more fully in section 4 of this chapter.

96

The table identifies outcomes conceming how the mentor and the mentee
presently relate to one another. “Strained Relationship” describes a relationship that is
presently awkward or distant. “Colleague” describes a relationship in which the mentor
and the mentee may still interact as departmental or disciplinary colleagues.
“Collaborator” denotes that the mentor and the mentee are still actively engaged in
collaboration, whether in research, teaching, or outreach efforts. “Friend” refers to the
dynamic in which the mentor and the mentee still interact outside of professional
associations or concerns. When the respondent presently has no contact with the mentor,
it is noted, “No Present Contact.” The last column of the table identifies the role in
which the mentor was most helpful to the faculty member in making sense of faculty
roles.

New Faculty Members’ Assumptions About Mentoring

Before directly addressing the research questions, it is essential to first understand
the assumptions that this group held regarding how mentoring should be defined, the
appropriateness of mentoring for new faculty, and faculty expectations concerning what a
mentor should be and do for the mentee. This will provide a foundation for understanding
how faculty identified mentoring relationships and what they valued in mentoring
relationships. This group of new faculty used a flexible range of meanings in referring to
mentoring similar to the mentoring literature which lacks a universal consensus regarding
the definition of mentoring (See Chapter 2 on the definition of mentoring). They
entertained varied and diverse views concerning the processes and outcomes of mentoring

as well as who served as mentors in the sense-making process.

97
Faculty respondents were asked to self-identify if they had experienced mentoring

relationships in the first three years of their tenure stream faculty appointment. I did not
give faculty a definition of mentoring to use in idenn'fying mentoring relationships,
because I wanted to ascertain how they defined mentoring and the expectations that they
had for mentors and mentoring behaviors. I began the interviews with some foundational
assumptions about mentoring that I had drawn fiom the literature on mentoring
(discussed in Chapter 2 under the literature review). This literature on mentoring guided
the questions for the interview protocol, but I wanted to be flexible in the interview
process to allow the faculty to clearly delineate the types of relationships (mentoring as
well as non-mentoring sense-making relationships) that were most helpful for them in
making sense of their faculty roles. I also wanted them to identify any mentoring
relationships and delineate their assumptions. There are many points of agreement and
consistency between this faculty group’s experiences and assumptions about mentoring .'
and theliterature of mentoring. On the other hand, there are some details that have
emerged that will present the experience of mentoring for this group of faculty group as
different from the processes and outcomes identified in the literature.
A Definition of Mentoring

The foundational working definition of mentoring used in this study came from
Carmin (1988). She identified mentoring in this way:

[A] complex, interactive process occurring between individuals of differing levels

of experience and expertise which incorporated interpersonal or psychosocial

development, career and/or educational development, and socialization functions
into the relationship. (p. 10)

98

This definition of mentoring is fairly representative of the mainstream definition of
mentoring in the literature. Throughout the interviews and the data analysis, I kept
returning to the simple elements of Carrnin’s definition in exploring the mentoring
relationships of this group of faculty.

Mentoring: Interaction Between a Senior and Junior Colleague

According to Carmin, mentoring is a complex interactive relationship between
individuals of differing experience and expertise. An interactive relationship must occur
between a more senior colleague and a younger junior colleague to be termed a mentoring
relationship. It is a relationship in which the younger colleague draws upon and is
enriched by the senior colleague’s professional experience. This faculty sample generally
agreed that mentoring is provided by a more experienced senior colleague. They identified
individuals that were ahead of them in professional experience or development who had
served as mentors. And when they reflected on who should provide mentoring, they
invariably exmd senior colleagues to do this. Respondent 1 stated well this belief that
was entertained across the sample:

People in our department, we don’t really have any mentoring. Junior faculty

have asked for a long time to have senior faculty become mentors. I don't think

we’re going to get it because the senior faculty just does not want to be bothered

and they said as much. They’re just too busy doing other things.

As an interviewer, I pressed to know the fill] range of individuals who had helped
new faculty in making sense of their faculty roles. Faculty identified oth_e_rs, sometimes

‘peer colleagues, who were important in helping them to make sense of faculty roles. But

only in one instance did a respondent identify a peer colleague as a mentor in what she

99
identified as “peer mentoring.” She felt that she and her colleague had “peer mentored”

each other. This was one of two exceptions in which a respondent identified a person as
mentor that I did not include in the discussion of mentors. There are two reasons why I
did not include this person in the discussion of mentors: (1) I held to the definition of
Carmin that a mentor should be a senior colleague with greater professional experience and
knowledge, (2) This was the only occurrence in the sample with the designation “peer
mentoring.” A more fi'equent occurrence in which faculty respondents identified
instances of “peer mentoring” might have necessitated an assessment of the
appropriateness of Carmin’s requirement that a mentor be a senior colleague. Although a
small body of literature refers to “peer mentoring,” I have held to Carmin’s definition
based on the predominant number of sources in the literature that refer to the mentor as a
senior colleague and the interviews of this study in which faculty respondents assume
that a mentor will be a senior colleague. As Respondent 5 stated, a professional peer
might offer support but cannot always provide the necessary help in advancing one’s

career:

I have established fiiendships with all the junior faculty as well, and we talk from
time to time. But I wouldn’t say that 1 derived a great benefit in terms of guidance
from these conversations. I don’t know why, I guess that we’re all in the same
boat, and no one feels confident to give advice. We mostly just talk about what is
going on and what things we’re doing. For me to give advice to someone at my
same stage of career development is like the blind leading the blind.

Faculty respondents identified mentors as senior colleagues who had more
professional experience consistent with the predominant idea of mentoring in the

literature occurring between senior and junior colleagues. A mentor then, is a senior

100

colleague who interacts with a junior colleague and enriches the junior colleague’s
socialization process by sharing from her/his accrued experience. As Respondent 7
stated:

A mentor has been there before and traveled the road and can give guidance on the

road that she has already traveled. And the job of a mentor is having been there

and traveled that path already.

Mentoring: A Complex Interactive Process

Another key focal point in Carmin’s definition of mentoring is that the
relationship should be a complex interactive process. According to Carmin (1988) and
others, it is a developmental relationship with frequent interaction occurring over a period
of time. This definition of mentoring necessitates more than a relationship of infrequent
encounters or casual support or interaction. The relationship must be highly interactive
interperSonally and professionally to be designated as mentoring. Faculty respondents
again agreed with the literature by identifying individuals that they had had interaction
with over/apep’qdnf time. There was a great degree of variation in the types of behaviors

fl

and dynamics that occurred in the processes of mentoring that the new faculty

experienced, but each of the relationships identified showed an extended length and depth
of interpersonal and professional interaction. There was one exception in which a faculty
member identified a person as a mentor although he had only read his written research and
interacted casually with him on a limited basis. In this instance, the individual might have
served as a distant role model (and certainly many mentors in this sample served as role

models), but role modeling does not equate with mentoring. The focal point in deselecting

101

this identified mentor was that it did not fit the criteria of a “complex, interactive
process.” (Carmin, 1988, p.10)

The sections which deal with the process and outcomes of the mentoring
relationships of this sample will show that the mentoring relationships were complex
interactive processes, instrumental in advancing the junior faculty member’s career.
Respondent 4 reflected:

\

I’m not sure I can describe this as an “ah ha,” but more of a sort of crystallization
of the importance that certain people have had in my career-- these individuals
that we’ve talked about. It’s one of those things that I can say, I wonder what
would happen if I hadn’t known people like this, where would 1 be now? What
would I be doing, because they in their own way have all been instrumental in
whatever degree of career success I’ve had.

Mentoring: Career and Psychosocial Functions

According to Carmin (1988) the mentoring relationship should incorporate
“interpersonal or psychosocial development, career and/or educational development and
socialization functions into the relationship” (p. 10). The categories correspond with
Kram’s (1985) categories of career and psychosocial functions. Respondents spoke of an
array of mentoring functions that fell within the categories of psychosocial and career
fimctions in which the mentor socialized the new faculty member. Faculty expected
mentoring relationships to be personally supportive and facilitative of career
advancement. Respondent 3 expressed this desire for interpersonal and career support
when she said: ‘

I don't know if it’s something that I’ve already said, but I’ve often been concerned

because here there really isn’t any senior faculty in my area to work through or to

collaborate with, to write grant programs with, to ask how to work with graduate
students. In a lot of ways it’s just a question of having someone there who would

102
be willing to give support, or that you work with. And when I think about things

that I would have wanted, a lot of it has to do with time rather than having a

certain type of person around.

Not all the relationships of the faculty went so far as to become friends, but there
was clearly a dynamic in the relationships of both professional development and
interpersonal or psychosocial support. New faculty members looked for and expected
both mentoring functions to be present in the mentoring relationship. The nature of
psychosocial and career functions will be explored more fully in section four of this
chapter.

The Appropriateness of Mentoring for New Faculty in Academe

" One may question the appropiiateness of mentoring for the socialization of new
faculty because mentoring has traditionally been viewed as a hierarchical relationship
between a superior and subordinate organizational member. The nature of faculty
relationships within the academe is generallyfieOIIegial and one may argue that faculty do
not viewthemselves in a hierarchical manner. Only one faculty member questioned the
appropriateness of mentoring f_o_r academe. Respondent 13 believed that mentoring would
destroy the “innovative model” of academe in which faculty are forced to creatively make
their own way in establishing a research agenda. She stated: “toddling in another’s
footsteps would greatly inhibit the diversity of the community that comes from .
developing one’s own research,” and “mest‘people do their best work when they are
annoyed or trying to make sense of something.” A point of contention for her was the

hierarchy of traditional mentoring and sequential socialization in which the mentor has

authority over the mentee, but she conceded that “if by mentoring, you mean role

r‘k’trn

103
modeling and support, there is a place for that in the academe.” In contrast to this faculty

person, it was the general consensus of this faculty group that the mentoring of new
MM

faculty was appropriate and desirable in higher education. Each of these respondents had

different views concerning how mentoring Should be worked out, but there was general

m
,.--P'

-.--

agraemgattgayrpgptoring was valuable for faculty. Even those respondents that did not
experience mentoring felt that mentoring was important for new faculty and wished that
mentoring had been part of their early faculty experience. Respondent 5 summarized his
views on mentoring:

Some people will succeed no matter what. I think that’s true, but most people

may not. I think it’s certainly true that having a support structure around you

will help you succeed and help you get further than you would have on your own.
This faculty member saw mentoring as a support structure to help the faculty member
succeed.

A mentoring structure between a senior and junior colleague need not be a
hierarchical relationship in which the mentor holds authority over the new faculty
member. In fact, faculty felt that it was important that the mentor not be overbearing or
dictatorial and that the mentoring relationship should not be forced on the new faculty
member. Respondent 5 said:

I think most people don't have earth shattering questions, or they wouldn’t have

come this far you know. So I think to have too domineering of a mentor would be

extremely negative for most faculty. You have to develop your own program of
research, and your own style of teaching, and your own way of doing the job.

Everyone does it a little bit differently, and the way that you do it has to match

your personality and your goals. So in that respect, saying that it’s absolutely
necessary to have a mentor might push mentors to do too much.

104
Although faculty mentoring was an appropriate concept for this group of faculty,

it was seen as more of a collaborative collegial relationship that a senior member should

provide for a new faculty member. For these faculty, mentoring should offer professional

support without constraining the professional autonomy or identity of the new faculty

person. These new faculty clearly wanted mentoring to be collaborative. Respondent 8

reflected On an unsuccessful mentoring relationship that did not work because the mentor
saw it as a hierarchical relationship:

I think that I was looking for someone that I could talk to. I think I needed more
of a peer. And I think that I would have been better off in that kind of a
mentorship with someone who would be more interested in collaborating.

This sums up well the stated and implied desire of these faculty for a sense of collegiality

in mentoring. Respondent 7 stated:
I don't think necessarily that the assumption should be that when a faculty person
is hired as a faculty member they need to be handheld. I don't think that’s the
assumption that should be made. But I do think in the nature of these jobs
[faculty roles], someone should be keeping their eye out, and specifically taking
leave to address something. I certainly don't want people telling me what I need
to do, or what I should do, or how I should go about my business, but I also want
a little more interaction.

Collaboration in which the junior and senior faculty saw themselves as colleagues

 

’—

was an important way of preventing an imbalance. An imbalance would occur if a junior
faculty member lost a sense of autonomy as a result of the mentoring relationship.

Respondent 8 stated about collaborative mentoring relationships:
/
' Maybe mentoring in the traditional sense is not what I would aspire to but more a
sense of connection in multiple relationships, rather than one relationship. It is
more important to have multiple networks of support.

105

In sum, respondents in this group assumed that mentoring was indeed appropriate
for the socialization of new faculty. However, they did not view mentoring as a
hierarchical relationship in which the mentor has authority over the mentee. According to
this faculty, mentoring should be supportive and collegial, permitting collaborative
interaction as professional equals. Even though the mentor possesses greater experience
and competency, the relationship should be one of interaction in which both members
contribute.
New Faculty Expectations for Mentoring

Faculty respondents not only made assumptions about the definition of mentoring
and the appropriateness of mentoring in higher education, but they also made
assumptions about what they expected a mentor to be and do. They stated these
expectations directly by describing what an effective mentor should be and indirectly
through the discussion and evaluation of their own socialization experiences. New faculty
expectations about mentoring that emerged in the analysis of the interviews included who
should mentor the new faculty member, the types of mentoring relationships appropriate
for new faculty, the importance of collaboration in mentoring relationships, and the
personal characteristics of an effective mentor.

New FaculgI Expectations for Who Should Mentor Them

The first consideration in dealing with this sample’s expectations about mentoring
pertains to who should mentor the new faculty member. Expectations for who should
mentor focused primarily on senior faculty who had the same disciplinary interests and

expertise as the new faculty member. Eight faculty members in this study clearly stated

106
that they expected senior faculty to carry out the mentoring of new faculty members.

Respondent I felt very strongly about the responsibility of senior faculty in his
department:

Junior faculty have asked for a long time to have senior faculty become mentors; I

don’t think we’re going to get it because the senior faculty just does not want to

be bothered and they said as much. They’re just too busy doing other things.”
This faculty member was disappointed by the lack of response by senior faculty in his
department to step forward and mentor junior faculty. He added:

Well I guess the thing is this. The senior faculty have a lot of power over junior

faculty and it would be really nice if you had a senior faculty who would

represent your interest. That would help the junior faculty a lot.

This faculty member linked mentoring by senior faculty to the act of advocacy
within the departmental political climate. The mentor was one who achieved professional
experience so that s/he would be able to be a political advocate. The expectation for a
senior faculty mentor in the same discipline may focus on the desire for help in navigating
tasks within the discipline. Respondent 12 expressed:

I need to find someone senior enough that has been into those places, that has the

degree of science in my field to tell me- here’s how you prepare. For example,

this is what you want and do not want to put in your paper. These kinds of
things, or otherwise I continue on in my own experience.

This faculty member desired to draw upon the experience of mentoring senior
faculty members in order to enhance his own competence. He went on further to say that

he has not been able to receive the degree of mentoring from senior faculty that he would

have preferred or expected because senior faculty are too busy maintaining a research

107

agenda. Respondent 3 desired to have senior faculty mentor her but did not receive that
mentoring:

Yes, I wish I had had more mentoring from senior faculty. I think part of the

problem even though we were very good at helping each other [referring to junior

faculty], it still was extremely time consuming because we did a lot of self
learning. And it would have been nice had some of that been put on senior
faculty.
In sum, faculty in this sample expected to draw on the experience of a senior faculty
member who would be an advocate for them as well as helping them to negotiate the
challenges that a new faculty member might experience.

This group of faculty felt that the senior faculty person should have similar
research interests. A disciplinary mentor could be a mentor in one’s department or a
senior faculty member in another institution.

Because research was highly esteemed by this faculty, help fi'om a mentor in
getting a research program underway was invaluable. It was also important for the
mentor to be from the same discipline in order to open doors for the junior colleague
within the broader discipline. Respondent 6 stated about mentors outside of the field,
“we can’t talk about the research stuff too much across areas, but also, they can’t
recommend you that credibly.” Respondent 3 could not find a mentor in her research
area:

There are very few senior faculty here. There is no one in [name of field], so there

would be no one that I would actually work closely with on research. Probably

the closest when it came to things like trying to write grant proposals, 1 would
talk to the chair...But other than that I would have to say that our senior faculty
are fairly isolated, and I think that had I been in another sub-field or perhaps had

maybe a different personality, I would have pursued a mentoring relationship with
some of the faculty more strongly. But I guess when I came in, I didn’t see

108

anyone that was doing anything that was comparable to what I was doing, and so
I didn’t find it.

Collaboration with a mentor could be difficult for new faculty if the mentor was
not in the same disciplinary area. New faculty often had difficulty in fi'aming
collaborative research with more seasoned individuals outside of their disciplinary content
area. However, a new faculty person may have made a special effort to collaborate, as
Respondent 2 did, if s/he enjoyed the relationship with the mentor and saw a common
research link:

The biggest difficulty with our relationship is [name of mentor] focuses on

[content area]. So the opportunities to interact are really ones that we have to

work at. But it’s interesting that even though we have disciplinary differences, we

are constantly trying to find a way to work at things that are going to bring us
closer together.

New Facrm Expectations Concerning Types of Mentoring Relationships

Mentoring has often been seen as a once in a lifetime relationship that occurs over
a period of years between the mentor and the mentee. The traditional belief about
mentoring is that one individual will provide multiple dynamics in the mentoring process
that will equip the mentee both professionally and personally. However, a junior
colleague need not have an exclusive relationship with one mentor that supplies all that is
necessary for personal and professional development. It is probable that one person will
not be able to provide all the necessary career and psychosocial support that may be
needed.

This group of faculty spoke of the importance of multiple mentors who served

multiple functions and made diverse contributions to the development of the faculty

109
person. According to this faculty, a mentoring relationship should be a developmental

relationship that occurs over a period of time, but a mentor may make only a few
contributions in the professional development of the junior colleague. As Respondent 12
said: “no one mentor can give you everything that you need. You need to seek out
mentors for specific functions or needs.”

Six of the faculty Specifically spoke of the importance of multiple mentoring in
seeking out varying perspectives and functions for professional development. An
examination of the table on sense making (Appendix F) reveals that faculty often had
multiple mentoring relationships characterized by different functions and different
outcomes. Respondent 5 reflected on his experience of multiple mentoring and why it
was so beneficial:

I guess I have a diversity of mentors in that sense. I think that’s been helpful.

You don't want to get all of your advice fiom the same place. It helps to

understand the different approaches and adapt your advice that you get to your

own personality and your own goals because each person is different and that’s
what you want.
Respondent 7 said that you don't want to “put all your eggs in one basket” by restricting
yourself to one mentor. Respondent 4 felt that multiple perspectives can be very
valuable for the junior faculty person:

Having multiple mentors it seems to me is pretty beneficial as well, or at least

multiple perspectives. So even if it were the same person, if that person had

perspective or experience from outside the institution or outside the unit of the
same institution, that’s really helpful.

Several faculty stated that they would advise new faculty to take the initiative in seeking

out multiple mentors. Respondent 2 advised:

110

Look for people who have different perspectives-- to look for multiple mentors.
Don't expect one person to, especially in these times of doing more with less,
don't expect one person to give it to you all. And also to look for people who
have a degree of complirnentarity about them although they may have different
perspectives so that one isn’t torn between two individual or two different
camps.”

Multiple mentors covered the multiple needs and preferences of the junior faculty
person. Respondent 2 stated how he used multiple mentors:

I would probably say that there are a number of people but it’s all contextually
related. By watching people and looking at how their careers have developed,
there are certain people I would go to for certain types of advice. In the research
area there are about three or four people that I go to quite regularly; one on this
campus and a couple of them off campus. In teaching there are about three or four
people that I go to. All because we have similar teaching philosophies and hearts
of constant exploration and internal reflection for what we can do to advance it. In
terms of trying to mentor and work with students, there is a whole different group
of people that I go to. People that I have observed who have won the admiration
of graduate students, and graduate students seem to be attracted for an array of
reasons. And then in terms of outreach, there are some faculty who are extremely
good for outreach and I tend to seek them out when I have an outreach related
factor issue.

This faculty person sought out multiple relationships for diverse help. Some of these
relationships were mentoring relationships and others were more casual. But he
exemplified the predominant belief of this faculty that a new faculty person should be
initiatory in seeking out multiple relationships for multiple purposes.

In addition to multiple mentoring relationships, this group of faculty preferred
flexible or fluid relationships that were informal rather than formal. Instead of having the
relationship “thrust upon them” in a formal process, they preferred to take the initiative
in seeking out the mentoring relationship that would develop naturally without external

constraints. Only two faculty felt that mentoring should be formalized by the

111

department in order to insure that every junior faculty person has a mentor who works
with them. However, both of these faculty had unfortunate experiences in their
department where senior faculty seemed aloof and unavailable for mentoring. For the
most part, respondents preferred flexibility in mentoring that allowed for their own
initiative in establishing the relationship. Faculty felt very strongly that mentoring should
not be mandated or constraining as Respondent 7 stated:

Some people don’t need strong mentoring relationships to be fulfilled. I don't

think I particularly need them. I’m a strong person. I’ve always been able to do

things, find my way by asking questions, so I don’t want someone to hold my
hand.
However, this person said that given the demands of research, there should be some
concerted effort in providing support through mentoring.

Autonomy was highly valued by these faculty members. Faculty members felt
that mentoring should not destroy the delicate balance of faculty initiative and autonomy.
As Respondent 5 stated, “to have too domineering of a mentor would be extremely
negative for most faculty.”

Three faculty suggested that a mentor should be a friend before s/he becomes a
mentor or that at least the mentee should know the mentor well. This kind of knowledge
of the mentor, they suggested might be more conducive to a relationship of equals that
preserves the autonomy and professional identity of the mentee. Respondent 2 stated:

Looking at all the people that we’ve talked about, there is a common theme that

evolves, and that is one of establishment or identification of common visions or

common values and beliefs and building upon these. In none of the relationships

that I mentioned would I suggest that I felt it was forced upon, but it was allowed
to evolve.

1 12
In summary, faculty members in this sample looked for multiple mentoring

relationships with multiple purposes and outcomes. They did not expect one mentor to
do it all or supply it all for them. They looked carefully for people with different
competencies that could provide them with very different things to meet their needs in
the process of sense making.

New Faculty Expectations Concerning the Functions of Mentoring

New faculty in this sample had high expectations that a primary mentoring
function or behavior should be collaboration. Several faculty felt that collaborative
mentoring by a senior faculty member was key in helping them get their research
underway. It was just the type of help that they needed in turning their dissertation into
research that was publishable. Without the collaborative help the research agenda may
not have gotten underway. As Respondent 6 remembered:

Clearly I think [name of mentor] was most helpful because in making a goal of

doing research, it was the most important thing. He was helpful in advising me

how to turn the dissertation into several articles. He helped me make it with that.

My three big hits are extremely dependent on [name of mentor].
Respondent 6 added how another mentor helped get her publishing going through
collaboration:

Of all things, she suggested that we do a paper together. She had no big journal

topic in mind. We just got this thing rolling which was pretty good, and then once

it became too big» But clearly that’s been a good collaboration, working with us

also.

Mentor collaboration could be foundational for establishing a career as Respondent 4

stated:

113

Absolutely, professionally, it’s what my career is built on; It really is when I
think about it.

Another faculty member felt that a collaborative research endeavor with a senior
colleague gave her an appropriate amount of accountability in getting her research going
and working through the steps of writing and publishing articles. Her mentor authored
articles with her and the process of collaboration kept her pushing to fulfill the deadlines
necessary for writing the articles. She stated:

I guess that is one thing I like about collaboration is that you say, okay we are

going to meet on this day and then you know you’ve got to get something done by

that date. I mean I really like that kind of thing.

Collaboration for this faculty group was an interaction among professional equals
in which the junior colleague might draw upon the more extensive experience of the
mentor without being looked on as lesser in the collaborative relationship. This faculty
group felt that collaboration should allow the interaction to be a two way dialogue in
which both partners make a significant contribution. It should not simply be a
hierarchical one way transmission. As Respondent 11 relayed concerning a valued

mentoring relationship, there is more to the relationship than only one-way instruction:

We are fiiends as well as professional collaborators, and there is a very strong
personal dynamic. We do research together, and we like and respect each other.

Faculty members in this sample were ambivalent about collaboration with senior
faculty mentors in the same department. On one hand, they were apprehensive about
tenure that had not been achieved and the power that departmental senior faculty held
over them. On the other hand, they truly wanted to be mentored in a relationship of

professional equity in which they could draw on the more mature development and

114

professional experiences of senior faculty. Respondent 4 gave an example of the collegial
collaboration of a mentor who fit his ideal:

[He does not] wear that on his shirt sleeve or suggests-- I taught that young lad

how. He’s very much a colleague, but I don't have him on a pedestal. He has been

one of those people that’s done things for and with me that I couldn’t repay him;
nor were they done with the intent by having done this for me, he expected
something in return. But he’s done things for me that I feel that I could only
repay by passing on to others.

Collaboration, for these faculty, required that a senior faculty person give priority
to working with junior faculty. It also meant that the senior faculty needed to carefully
think how collaboration could be initiated. This collaboration could require an initiative of
reaching across to the junior faculty member’s research interests and competencies. New
faculty also felt that newer colleagues should not be viewed as a threat to one’s own
productivity. Faculty stated that in order to collaborate, the mentor must be “unselfish,”
“willing to share” and “willing to sacrifice for the good of the department” in keeping
newer faculty as a mentoring priority. Respondent 5 identified how his graduate advisor
fulfilled the expectation:

He feels a responsibility to the field to bring junior faculty along to maintain the

excellence that’s been achieved so far. So I think he feels it deep that it’s part of

his responsibility, and I think He’s geared for that. [to mentor new faculty]

New Faculty Expectations Concerning the Personal Characteristics of the Mentor

In addition to expectations conceming who should mentor them, the type of
mentoring relationships, and the functions of mentoring, faculty in the sample expected a

mentor to have two primary personal characteristics. The mentor should be a person of

integrity, and the mentor should be accessible to the mentee. Ten faculty spoke about

1 15
issues related to integrity that should characterize the mentor. The mentor of integrity

should be trustworthy. Respondent 11 spoke of “confidential mentors.” This was a
mentor with whom he felt safe to talk freely about difficulties as a new faculty person
without fear of repercussion. Respondent 4 stated that integrity meant candidness and
openness without negative consequences:

[A mentor is] somebody that they can speak candidly with, where they can share

their experiences, for example, in the classroom. “Here are some things I tried that

didn’t work out the way I wanted them to.” And having somebody that will
listen with an informed ear where there are no negative consequences attached to
admitting frailty or admitting, even if it’s not a failing. It’s admitting the
uncertainty sometimes that goes with somebody that says, “I don't understand
how this works. How does this work? I read the faculty handbook that says this
and that and the other thing about the tenure system for instance, and I have even
gone to a survive and thrive workshops, but in our unit for example, how does this
really wor .”

Respondent 2 illustrated from his experience with mentors what integrity meant for him:
There is a common thread across all four of these. We have four people that I
admire that I could perceive as having high degrees of integrity. As four people
who effectively impact other people in very meaningful ways, and it is four
people who are willing to say the difficult things that other people don’t want to
hear.

Because these mentors were people of integrity, the faculty member could open
her/himself to their constructive criticisms and hear the things that they said, trusting that
they were honest with her/him. Sometimes a new faculty member needed the permission
to talk about failure or questions that s/he had without fearing the consequences. A
mentor of integrity granted the freedom to talk openly and reflect on one’s experience

without concern. A relationship of integrity also gave the mentee confidence that the

mentor would be open and honest with feedback.

1 16
A trusted mentor to whom one could be open and honest about her/his

experiences as a faculty member without fear of consequences was valued by these
untenured faculty. As untenured faculty, many expressed concern about how tenure
would go, how senior faculty were perceiving them, and the agenda that the department
chair had for them as a new faculty member. They expressed that they had to be guarded
on many occasions because they were in a very politically charged climate. They were
careful not to speak too openly or honestly in their department for fear of the
consequences. In fact, four faculty observed that new faculty should guard carefully what
they say. Respondent 5 said, “just keep your head down and do your work and don’t
get involved in anything personal or political.” In relation to the issue of tenure,
Respondent 11 felt strongly that a “confidential mentor” who was trustworthy could not
be in the mentee’s department to decide on one’s tenure appointment.

New faculty in this sample felt that another necessary personal characteristic for a
mentor is accessibility. Eight faculty spoke about the necessity of accessibility.
Accessibility meant that the mentor would give a commitment of time to the mentee.

This commitment could involve an open door policy for the mentee, but at the very least
meant that the mentor met regularly and frequently with the mentee.
Respondent 9 described her expectation:

So I need somebody who’s a little less busy and hurried-- who will stop to eat

lunch and [say] “we’ll come here and talk”...that’s really good with personal

problems. If you want to go talk to her , she’ll stop what she is doing and talk to

you. So that’s all importan -- someone who will take the time to talk to you
about whatever is going on. I think somebody who does an open door thing.

117

Respondent 1 said that senior faculty’s unwillingness to invest time in junior faculty in
his department showed that they were not interested in mentoring junior faculty:
The senior faculty are basically concerned about doing stuff that promotes their
own individual stuff...But let’s face it. Action speaks louder than words and they
have done nothing and everything to hurt us» and it’s kind of interesting this
department has had a hard time retaining junior faculty.
This intense indictment of a group of senior faculty in his department was predicated on
the premise that senior faculty seemed to be too busy to mentor» to offer time to junior
faculty. The comrrritrnent of time was a significant expectation of new faculty regarding a
mentor’s investment in the mentee. Respondent 7 named people that helped her as a new
faculty person but did not designate them as mentors, because they did not have frequent

or regular encounters. She stated:

If you’re identifying the person that you would like to be your mentor, than that
mentor really does need to be as invested as you are.

In sum, trustworthiness and accessibility were complementary characteristics of a
desired mentor. It was important that the new faculty member be able to trust her/his
concerns with a mentor who was open and available. These high expectations meant that
the mentor should clearly enjoy and value the connection with the mentee enough to make
a personal commitment of time. This commitment should seek the well being of the
mentee and guard the mentee’s openness with support. A mentor of integrity and
accessibility would provide the mentee with a “safe person” from whom one could draw

feedback, guidance, and support.

118
New Faculty Expectations Concerningthe Personal Behavior of the Mentor

Faculty members in this sample held the following expectations concerning what a
mentor should do: give feedback and advice, provide role modeling, support new faculty
in making sense of faculty roles and responsibilities, provide friendship, and open doors

for the junior faculty member.

Mentor“! AW? L Ne_aw____ l We of Fwd _-

" 1. Givin advice and feedback 10 Faculty

 

2. Providing role modeling ' 6 Faculty

 

3. Support of faculty roles (research and teachipg)

 

4. Friendship

 

 

 

Figure 8 - Mentoring Expectations of New Faculty Members

Faculty felt that the mentor should be a good listener who is able to give advice
and feedback to the mentee. Feedback may be positive but it should also be bold in
confronting the mentee concerning issues that need to be changed and addressed for the
well being of the new faculty member. Respondent 5 expected feedback to provide
direction as well as encouragement:

When I think of a mentor, I think of someone who really tries to play the role of
someone that wants to encourage and provide guidance and so on.

1 19
Respondent 7 stated that giving advice and feedback involved coaching and directing that

enabled the junior faculty to succeed. The mentor should be fairly directive in giving that
advice and feedback:

What I think I would have preferred in the hindsight is someone to help me. This
is how to do this, this how to do that, go talk to this person. A little bit more
than just, here it is run with it.

According to Respondent 7, the mentor must be willing to say the difficult things that
have the best interest of the mentee as the focal point:

[The mentor should] feel the freedom to say whatever. Sometimes beating me in
the head with two by fours about what they’re pleading in their case or what I’ve
gained. Or telling me things they need help with--whatever it might be, because it
is a relationship with balance.

In addition to giving advice and direction in coaching the mentee, the mentor
should also be a good listener, a good assessor of talents and someone willing to share
their experiences in acting as a sounding board. According to respondents, the mentor
should press the point in confronting the difficult issues and speak the truth that the
mentee needs to hear. Respondent 4 summarized well what advising involves:

I would say [a mentor should be] unselfish, a good listener, a good assessor of
talents so that the mentor can play the role of not just supporting the individual
faculty member in their strengths, but helping them identify where they need
improvement and things they want to work on, and trying to share their
experiences and not protect their ego, not just direct but be a sounding board, be
such a good listener that helps. When I’ve asked questions, sometimes I knew the
answers or had a sense of what the answers were, but I wanted validation. A good
mentor I think can do that, but he can also help the prote'ge' ponder some of the
issues of some of the circumstances that they don't necessarily want to think
about. So it’s not just a sounding board to reinforce but to help broaden the
perspective or consider other alternatives.

120
Another expectation that respondents had for what a mentor should do is to

provide role modeling for the faculty member. In providing a role model, the mentor must
be one that has gone before in successfully making sense of the role. Respondent 7
believed:

A mentor has been there before and traveled the road and can give guidance on the

road that she has already traveled. And the job of a mentor is having been and

traveled that path already.

In addition to giving advice and feedback and providing role modeling, faculty
expected a mentor to help them make sense of their roles of research and teaching. It was
especially important for nine faculty to have some kind of mentoring to get their research
going. It was not necessarily a ‘hand holding’ as much as providing accountability,
feedback on writing, and coaching in navigating the publishing process. Those who had to
navigate the grant writing process expected a mentor to provide help with how to write
and submit grants. Respondent 9 stated:

One thing that’s important is to get someone else to read your work before you

send it out. Get feedback, give it to people to read, and get feedback on your

work before you send it out. I mean better to have someone criticize it before you
send it to a journal and have it get negative reviews and then go through the whole
process of revisions. And also, before you start a research project I think as well,
talk to people and get ideas--am I setting this up right, important questions.

Section 5 will explore more fully how faculty benefited from the help of the
mentor in their research role. Respondents in this sample highly valued the research role
and sought out mentors who would help in the fulfillment of that role.

Faculty participants also spoke of the value of a mentor in giving feedback on

teaching. The faculty members who took part in the Lilly Fellowship felt that feedback

121

and reflection in teaching was especially important for a mentor to provide. It was
primarily Lilly Fellows who expressed an expectation for a mentor to help with the
construction of their teaching role. These faculty in particular chose to do the Lilly
Fellowship and sought mentors who would help with the process of teaching.
Respondent 8 sought out the Lilly Fellowship and a mentor for teaching:

I was not a teacher who was in danger, so I didn’t really have to. I mean, I

certainly wasn’t given to believe after my first year review that I had to worry

about teaching. So it wasn’t that. It was more of a commitment, and interest in
teaching and developing as a teacher. And just the other thing would be talking to
other people who teach and who are interested in teaching.

Three faculty stated that they had an expectation that a mentor should be a friend.
Respondent 2 felt that fi'iendship should precede mentorship so that the mentor fully
understands the needs of the mentee:

Well, maybe this is a way to think about this, establish yourself as friends first, as
colleagues second, and mentors finally. So it was never artificially constrained by
a particular goal or objective, but it evolved out of mutual co-identification. And
the reason I believe that’s important is because as an individual I might not always
see my strengths or my assets. Or I may not be willing to always acknowledge
them. But by establishing that friendship collegiality first, it becomes easier to
foster development based on comparing our mutual perceptions and our mutual
objectives that can be established.

For this faculty member, friendship would enable an openness and honesty in the
relationship which would result in collegiality to establish a mutual vision and goal.
Although only three faculty specifically spoke of expectations for friendship fiom a

mentor, the deeper issue for most of the faculty was that the mentor and mentee should

truly mesh together interpersonally. They should get along interpersonally and there

122

should be a dynamic in the relationship of enjoying and appreciating one another as
individuals in collaboration. Respondent 7 stated:
I would say that they should look into direction. If they could find someone who
is one person that matches them in content and personality, then that’s a good
thing.
A mentor should open doors for the junior colleague through direct actions on

behalf of the faculty and indirectly by association. Respondent 5 emphasized this:

Something very important is personality. You don’t want to be too closely tied
to someone who is offensive to everybody else.

According to this respondent, you do not want to choose someone who will alienate the
people that you need to win.

Finally, two faculty expected a mentor to open doors for them. The opening of
doors can be an effort that makes the difference in launching the new faculty member’s
career and making sense of their roles. Opening doors for a new faculty member involves
the activity of making the new faculty member aware of activities as well as people in the
profession that will provide an opportunity to build professional experience and advance
one’s career. Respondent 9 gave an example on how important it was for the mentor to
open a door:

Although she and another person are the director of the center and the actual

authors of the grant proposal, she said, “do you want to come down to

Washington with me? We can read successful grant proposals.” I helped write

parts of the grant in some ways. I would not have been an appropriate person to

co-direct a grant. You need a full professor to co-direct a grant. You need a full
professor who’s got more time on their hands as well. But she made me a project
leader in one of the areas, and it resulted in getting three years of summer salary.

And she’s in some ways-- (pause) that grant really was something that is
benefiting my career immensely.

123

This mentor opened the door for the respondent by making her aware of professional
opportunities and relationships that would advance her career.
Who Served as Mentors for New Faculty

This section will address the question: who has served as mentors for the new
faculty member? The previous section discussed the assumptions that faculty had about
mentoring and the high expectations that faculty had regarding who should serve as
mentors. This section will look at who actually did serve as mentors for new faculty. In
order to understand the processes of mentoring, the messages that mentors send, and the
outcomes of the mentoring relationships, it is important to know who mentored the
faculty. The messages received in mentoring and the nature of the mentoring relationship
were heavily influenced by the mentors’ values, beliefs, and primary allegiance concerning
faculty culture. Faculty ofien used examples drawn from their own mentors or people
who had helped them in making sense of their early faculty experience to describe what a
mentor should be and do.

As stated earlier, faculty were asked to identify the individuals that mentored
them, as well as other individuals who helped them in making sense of their faculty roles.
Faculty members also were asked to compare their mentors with other individuals who
helped in making sense of faculty roles and rank order the type of impact that each
individual made from most to least significant. In examining the table (Appendix F) for
identified mentors, some interesting patterns emerge in this sample. Two groups appear
most frequently in the rank ordering of people that were significant to the faculty person

in making sense of roles. Seven faculty members identified senior faculty members in

124
their department as mentors. Only twice however, did a faculty member identify a

departmental senior faculty member as the mentor making the most significant impact.
Four other times, senior faculty outside of the new faculty member’s department, but
within the college of the new faculty member were identified as mentors. None of these
individuals were identified as most significant to the faculty member. In contrast to this,
six faculty (three who had mentors and three who did not) identified peer colleagues as
the most helpful person in making sense of faculty roles and responsibilities. Two
faculty in the sample identified associate faculty members who were a few years ahead of
them as mentors who made the most impact. In other words, eight faculty in this sample \
felt that peers who were a few years ahead of them were the most helpful person in
making sense of their faculty roles. The impact of these individuals was greater than
senior faculty mentors.

Graduate advisors were also a group of individuals who were helpful for new
faculty as they transitioned into the faculty role. Six faculty stated that their graduate
advisor mentored them as a new faculty member. Only three faculty identified the
graduate mentor as the most significant mentor in their first three years as a faculty
member. Graduate advisors played an integral role in assisting faculty in the first three
years of their appointment. These graduate advisors not only assisted in the transition
into a faculty role, but helped the new faculty member with research networking in the
broader disciplinary community. Over half of the faculty in this sample stated that the

graduate advisor had a significant impact on their hiring for the present position as a

faculty member. According to this faculty group, the impact may have been very direct

125

in which the graduate advisor provided a positive recommendation for the faculty person,
or it could have been very indirect in which the faculty member was given an advantage
by being linked with the graduate advisor. Graduate advisors were also helpful in
collaborating with faculty and getting research going. Several faculty found the graduate
advisor a primary collaborator in helping them turn their dissertation into journal articles
or a book.

One faculty member had a mentor that was a faculty member within the discipline
at another university, and three faculty had advisors who were part of administration at
this institution. Only one of the identified mentors was a department chair. That mentor
was not a department chair throughout the entire mentoring process with the new faculty
member. One faculty person had two mentors who were outside the university who were
not directly involved in higher education as faculty members but were closely involved in
higher education as a policy analyst and director of a research center. Both had
previously been faculty members.

All of the mentors who were helpful to new faculty in their first years were
older. Faculty sought out mentors who had experienced the multiple roles of being a
faculty member and wrestled with making sense of those roles.

Faculty had mentors who were closely aligned with their disciplinary field. Of the
twenty five mentors identified by faculty, sixteen of the mentors were from the same
discipline as the faculty person. Four mentors were outside the department of the faculty
person but were in the same college. Only five of those individuals identified as mentors

were truly outside the respondents’ field of study in a cross disciplinary mentoring

126
experience. The point in this discussion is that faculty did not generally go far from their

disciplinary focus. This corresponds to the expectations they reiterated in which they
preferred a mentor to be from their same discipline. This faculty group generally
preferred mentors who would give messages that would be congruent with their
disciplinary field, and they preferred mentors who could specifically collaborate with
them in disciplinary issues of research, teaching, and networking in the broader discipline.
Even the smaller group of five Lilly Fellows contained in this sample tended to choose
mentors who were closely related to their discipline. Although the Lilly Fellowship
focused on teaching and was very cross disciplinary in the faculty that it brought
together, faculty chose faculty members for the Lilly mentor who were already mentoring
them or someone within their department/college.

In summary, respondents sought other faculty to mentor them in the first years of
the professorate. In several cases, senior faculty initiated the mentoring relationship. The
most frequent person to mentor faculty were senior faculty in the new faculty member’s
discipline. Six faculty maintained a strong tie to their graduate advisors in doing research
and getting advice about departmental politics and disciplinary networks. Faculty
generally experienced mentoring from a colleague who was close to their disciplinary
interests and competencies.

The Types of Mentoring Experiences of New Faculty Members

This section will address the question: what are the types of mentoring that the

new faculty member experienced and the outcomes of those mentoring relationships?

This was the second research question that drove this study concerning the type of

127
mentoring relationships that faculty had experienced in the first three years of their

faculty appointment. Based on a survey of the literature, the study distinguished
between two types of mentoring: formal and informal. Formal mentoring consists of
those relationships that were begun as part of a program initiative and appointed to help
the new faculty person. Informal mentoring consists of those relationships that evolve
naturally through the initiative of the mentor, the mentee, or both without programmatic
constraints or direction. Formal mentoring in which mentors are appointed for new
faculty to assist in the sense making process of socialization has been suggested in various
sources of the literature of higher education as a way of increasing new faculty retention
and productivity (Alexander, 1992; Boice, 1992a; Jarvis, 1992). Formal mentoring has
also been suggested in the business and organizational literature as a way to prevent
attrition and increase productivity of new organizational members (Collins, 1983; Hunt &
Michael, 1983; Fagenson, 1989; Zey, 1991)).

In this faculty sample however, only two faculty in the sample identified formal
mentoring that occurred as a departmental initiative. These faculty had senior mentors
appointed for them as new faculty members by their department. One of the
relationships evolved into a mentoring experience after the first three years, but more as a
result of the interpersonal dynamics and research interests of the involved faculty than
the department direction. Respondent 9 shared:

We’re assigned a faculty mentor when we first get here. And one of my senior

colleagues in my area who is very well known through the world is my mentor in

name. But the thing is, because she is the only one that really does what I do, we
have a good relationship . I guess what I’m trying to say is, I don't see any

128

difference in my relationship with her just because they’ve assigned her as my
mentor.

The other formal mentoring appointment occurred in name only with no interaction
between the respondent and the assigned mentor.

It is helpful at this point to revisit how respondents expected to be mentored. We
have already identified that these faculty members preferred informal relationships to
formal ones. They also did not want a mentoring relationship that was too controlling or
that might infringe on their autonomy as a faculty person. Even though a type of “hand-
holding relationship” might have been desired, Respondent 5 felt that it was not
preferable to have a controlling, hierarchical relationship in which mentoring became a
constraint.

So I think to have too domineering of a mentor would be extremely negative for

most faculty. You have to develop your own program of research, and your own

style of teaching, and your own way of doing the job. Everyone does it a little bit
differently , and the way that you do it has to match your personality and your
goals.

Respondent 7 did not “want people telling me what I need to do, or what I should
do, or how I should go about my business...” Mentoring, according to these faculty,
needed to be carefully balanced and flexible. On the whole, respondents did not engage in
or find formal relationships helpful (only one felt that mentoring should be formalized in
the department).

In proposing this study that would look at the difference in dynamics between a

formal and informal mentoring relationship, I became interested in the Lilly Fellowship as

an example of formal mentoring dynamics. However, none of the five faculty in this

129
sample who were Lilly Fellows had a truly formal mentoring experience through the Lilly

Fellowship. Although the Lilly Fellowship formally recommended a mentoring
relationship as a part of the fellowship, all of the faculty in this sample that participated
in the Lilly Fellowship knew their Lilly mentors prior to the fellowship and chose them
to be their Lilly mentors. Two of the fellows chose faculty who were already mentoring
them and who they thought should receive recognition for what they were already doing.
Of the other three fellows in this sample, each chose the mentor because s/he knew the
person and her/his expertise and felt that s/he would be an appropriate person to act as
mentor.

In discussing the Lilly Fellowship, each of these faculty did not believe that the
mentoring relationship was the most significant aspect of the Lilly Fellowship. So
mentoring was not formal through the Lilly Fellowship and could not provide a true
example of formal mentoring to compare with other informal mentoring relationships this
group experienced. A section of chapter 6 will reflect on the importance of the Lilly
Fellowship in the sense making process which included many components that surpassed
the value of the mentoring relationship.

Mentoring relationships were primarily informal and evolved naturally for Lilly
Fellows. In fact, the occurrence of mentoring heavily depended on the faculty member’s
own initiative. These faculty members were initiatory in seeking out relationships with
other faculty or there was a mutual initiation of the relationship between the mentor and
the new faculty member. Only in a very few instances did the mentor seek out the new

faculty person first. Usually the relationships evolved naturally as the mentor and junior

130

faculty person interacted in the context of professional concerns. Respondent 1, who’s
graduate advisor mentored him as a new faculty member, reflected on how he initiated the
relationship as a student:

So I knew [name of mentor]’s interest, and I knew it was mine, so I lobbied to be

his teaching assistant and from there we became fast fi'iends, and we were talking

about interests and it gave us an opportunity to talk about things that were going
on, and then I took a class from him. I took this class, so now I was not only his
teaching assistant, 1 was his student. That’s howl initiated it. But it was mostly
my initiative. I went after [name of mentor], and he was the person I worked
with.
The continuance of this relationship into his faculty position also depended on his
initiative. Respondent 4 remembers that he watched a faculty member very carefully
before finally taking the initiative to approach the person and ask for mentoring as a new
faculty member.

I was very much in a wait and see sort of attitude I think. I was somewhat not

intimidated but just hopeful and wanted to be very careful about how to approach

him, what to do, and what to say. So I observed for a period of time before I

could see just in his mannerisms and his personality that he was very

approachable.

Sometimes the initiation of a mentoring relationship came about because the
faculty respondent had mentoring expectations for a person. The mentor had
competencies of experience that the respondent had observed and desired. Just as ofien,
the mentee had no expectations and the relationship evolved into a mentoring exchange.

Respondent 2 talked about the natural evolution of the mentoring relationship that

occurred as a result of a mutual initiation of the mentor and the mentee in his relationship

with a policy analyst:

13 1
Part of it is because I think that what we had found between ourselves was a sort

of synchronistic relationship. There were more things that we had in common the

longer we spent time together and that we tended to find the right time for these

issues to be brought up.

Respondent 6 also stated that the evolutionary process happened as “we just sort
of bumbled along together” and settled into the relationship of mentoring. Mentoring for
respondents was not just a relationship in which they passively received the transmitted
educative efforts of the mentor. These faculty were highly initiatory in seeking out
mentoring relationships and highly interactive and collaborative with their mentors.

In summary, mentoring relationships for this group of faculty members were
primarily informal and can not be compared to formal mentoring relationships that were
for all purposes non-existent for this faculty group. This group of faculty preferred
mentoring relationships that evolved naturally, were flexible, and did not constrain their
faculty autonomy or professional identity. This group of new faculty were
predominantly the initiators of mentoring relationships. For the most part, mentoring
relationships were positive and made important contributions to the establishment of the
faculty member’s career and the process of making sense of faculty roles and
responsibilities.

The Functions of Mentoringin Faculty Mentoring Relationships

This section will address the question: What types of functions has the new

faculty member encountered in the mentoring relationship? This question focused

primarily on the types of behaviors that mentors carry out in the mentoring relationship

that impact new faculty. The designation of mentoring “functions” was drawn from

l 32
Kram (1985) who theorized that there are two broad categories of mentoring functions or

behaviors:

Career functions are those aspects of the relationships that enhance learning the

ropes and preparing for advancement in an organization. Psychosocial functions

are those aspects of a relationship that enhance a sense of competence, clarity of
identity, and effectiveness in a professional role. While career functions serve,
primarily, to aid advancement up the hierarchy of an organization, psychosocial
functions effect each individual on a personal level by building self-worth both

inside and outside the organization. (p. 22)

Kram theorized that career functions include sponsorship, exposure and visibility,
coaching, protection, and challenging work assignments. The mentor is able to provide
career behaviors that advance the mentee’s career because of her/his professional
experience, position, and professional influence, and these behaviors serve the career ends
of the mentee by helping her/him advance within the organization. Kram (1985) stated:

Psychosocial functions are those aspects of a relationship that enhance an

individual’s sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role.

These functions include role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling,

and friendship. (p. 32)

The degree to which a mentee experiences both categories of ftmctions depends on
the mentoring relationship. Not all mentoring relationships will contain the full range of
mentoring functions or behaviors. However, these fimctions that Kram theorized as
separating a developmental mentoring relationship from other work relationships
provided a theoretical template for exploring the types of mentoring behaviors that this
group of new faculty experienced. This section on mentoring behaviors experienced by

this faculty uses Kram as an organizing starting point for discussion. It also looks at how

the nature of higher education and the dynamics of the professorate made the new faculty

l 3 3
members’ experiences different from Kram’s theoretical frame which focused on

mentoring in a hierarchical business organization.

While the categories of Kram provided a theoretical foundation for probing the
mentoring relationships of this faculty group, they are not always appropriate or
sufficient to cover the dynamics that occur in academic mentoring among faculty
members. For instance, it would be very rare for a faculty member to give another faculty
member a challenging assignment that would bring about growth and exposure in the
organization, because faculty work in collegial rather than hierarchical relationships. Even
though a committee chairperson might ask a new faculty member to assume a task that
becomes an assignment, it is not in the true sense of Kram’s meaning for a challenging

‘6

assignment. Kram’s challenging assignment” denotes a hierarchical relationship in which
a superior (boss) assigns a subordinate (employee) a task.

From another perspective, collaboration was an activity that occurred in faculty
mentoring which has no direct correspondence to the categories of Kram. Collaboration
was highly valued by new faculty in mentoring relationships as an activity in which junior
and senior faculty work together (primarily in research and publication) as professional
equals. Through collaboration, the junior faculty drew on the experience and success of
the senior faculty mentor, but in an equitable collegial way. It may have involved
coaching and counseling but it transcended these activities in which interaction occurred as
colleagues. Several faculty identified collaboration as the primary activity that launched

their career as a faculty researcher. Collaboration has been added to Appendix F as one of

the career functions.

134

Career Functions of Mentoring Experienced by New Faculty

Sponsorship

Kram (1985) stated that sponsorship is the most frequent career fimction that
occurs in mentoring relationships. This was also true in the experience of this group of
faculty. According to Kram, sponsorship may involve nomination for promotion or a
more prestigious lateral move, formal explicit support of the mentee by the mentor, or
indirect support through association. It is the dynamic by which the mentor opens doors
for the mentee, creating opportunities and situations that advance the mentee. For the
new faculty member, it was those mentoring activities that enabled the roles and
responsibilities to come together in such a way that it launched the career of the faculty
member.

In dealing with the experiences of new faculty, Kram’s function of exposure and
visibility are very close to the function of sponsorship. Exposure and visibility occur
when a boss assigns a task to a subordinate that increases competence in a way that raises
the profile of the subordinate in the organization. Such a behavioral relationship between
faculty usually does not exist in higher education. On the other hand, as new faculty were
“sponsor ” or recommended by mentors for professional positions such as committee
work and scholarly presentations, it increased their visibility and exposure. In a sense,
the mentor has sponsored the new faculty member. Because of this, I will deal only with
sponsorship which is more appropriate to faculty and look at the results of sponsorship

that often produce exposure and visibility.

135
In the twenty-five mentoring relationships that this faculty group described,

faculty indicated that sponsorship occurred in at least eighteen of the relationships.
Sponsorship had a number of facets that advantaged these faculty in the mentoring
relationships. Mentors explicitly sponsored new faculty by recommending them for their
faculty position and networking on behalf of the new faculty person within the
disciplinary community. They indirectly sponsored new faculty by association (simply
having worked or studied with the mentor sometimes opened doors in the academic
community.)

Mentors ofien recommended new faculty for positions and actively engaged in
advocacy on behalf of the mentees. In this occurrence, the mentor was usually a graduate
advisor who helped new faculty make the transition into the professorate. Several faculty
stated that their mentor was foundational in launching their career. Respondent 12
reflected on his graduate advisor who sponsored him in his early career:

He got me this position and was the reason why I have the two fellowships. And

to a great extent, it’s probably his recommendation, so absolutely yes, if he had

not done some good work for me, I would not be here.

Respondent 1 said that it was really hard to get a position in his discipline at the
time that he began the job search, but because of the association with his mentor and the
advocacy of his mentor he had three positions offered to him, an incredible phenomenon
in his discipline:

When I was going on the market the first time, he talked to a number of people

about me at conferences. He said, “I’ve got a really good student, do you have

any job openings this year?” In fact, I got an interview at [name of institution],

and I know part of that was [name of mentor] talked to somebody at [name of
institution], so I got an interview there and got the offer. I got another interview

136

at [name of institution], and I got the offer there, and I got this offer. So I had
three offers, and I was quite fortunate when I chose this one.

He added that this sponsorship was not only the foundation of his career but has been an
ongoing activity that his graduate mentor has provided throughout his faculty career.

Sponsorship could initially help launch the career of the faculty member through
recommendation and networking. Respondent 9 knew that a mentor was an advocate on
committees for her as a new faculty person, “...this is all confidential, but I know she
watched out for me. I mean I know she put her two cents worth in there.”

Sponsorship within the broader disciplinary community was crucial for new
faculty in breaking into the discipline as a new faculty member. Sponsorship in the
disciplinary community was far more important and valued by this faculty than any
networking within the institutional culture. Sometimes the mere association with a
mentor provided an entree for new faculty member in the discipline. Respondent 9
remembered how her senior faculty mentor opened doors for her simply by association:

Also she’s very visible, and I think just her name adds prestige to our department

and therefore, they see my name with her--with the department--with the center

and that’s been beneficial to me.

For new faculty it was crucial to establish relationships with the broader
disciplinary community as well as program and funding agencies. Often the ability to
enter into these relationships occurred as a result of the mentor. Respondent 6 relayed:

She’s been very helpful on getting me on national level committees and

professional organizations which is something that matters. It’s very important
around here.

137
As a result of sponsorship, Respondent 5 gained an entrance into funding agencies and

learned how to ask for money:

He took me to [name of agency] several times, and I sat next to him while he

talked about his work with people at [name of agency] trying to get funded. I did

this half a dozen times, not just before [name of agency]. He would invite me to

sit in on the discussion that he was having with them. He would say, “this is
what we would like to support, and this is what we have in mind and that sort of
thing.” That is the kind of discussion that a young faculty member would not
know how to even initiate.

Sponsorship was crucial for establishing working relationships and credibility.
Several faculty felt that sponsorship was indispensable for getting opportunities to
publish, especially in key disciplinary journals. Respondent 2 observed that a mentor
who was a research director at a study center was his entree into a prestigious
disciplinary publication:

The handbook of [name of discipline] is a trend setter that basically lays out

challenges for the next ten years and revisits historical issues and will set patterns

of development. In the fifth edition of this volume, I will be the only assistant
professor who has a co-authored paper in that chapter with two senior colleagues,
one fiom the west coast and one fi'om the east coast. And I happen to have
known the one from the east coast. Three very different people, yet we managed
to do it all by writing long distance. [name of mentor] has always encouraged me
to take bigger risks.

Through these opportunities, a senior faculty mentor opened doors in establishing

professional relationships that the new faculty member could not open on her/his own.

Respondent 12 knew that his departmental mentor sponsored him, although he
had never talked to his mentor about it. He had been invited to speak at several
conferences a year after this well known faculty member had spoken there, so he felt very

strongly that this faculty mentor had recommended him to speak at these conferences.

138
A mentor also gave exposure and visibility by engaging the faculty member in

national committee assignments. A mentor of Respondent 5 linked him with a national
committee:
So it’s one of those committees in the [name of field]. But this particular
committee is for people in [name of area], and almost all the big name people are
part of the committee. So that’s rather important to belong to so that you are
viewed as someone who contributes to that commtmity. He helped me to become
first a friend of the committee, and then to organize symposia, and then to become
a member. My advisor still looked out for me in that regard. He’s even said on
occasion, “you were my student and so you have become part of my family, and
you are always part of my family and I tell my students now the same thing.”
Coachin
The second mentoring firnction that faculty frequently identified was coaching.
New faculty expressed that mentors coached them on performing specific faculty roles
and responsibilities, doing research and teaching, and engaging in reflective problem
solving. Kram (1985), defined coaching in this way:
[It] enhanc [es] the junior person’s knowledge and understanding of how to
navigate effectively in the corporate world. Much like an athletic coach, the senior
colleague suggest specific strategies for accomplishing work objectives. (p. 28)

Respondent 4 defined what coaching should involve when he described a senior faculty

member who mentored him:
To me he embodies what a great coach is, and probably there are lots of different
ways to look at it. To me a great coach is somebody who helps the players or
protégés develop in such a way that they’re not relying on the coach. But that
their position goes on and does great things without the coach.
The coaching that this faculty group spoke most frequently about was coaching

concerning research. The identification of research coaching as being primary reflects the

respondents’ chief concern in making sense of their faculty roles. Respondents felt that it

139

was assumed that they should be able to get a research agenda going without any help
because of the nature of their graduate preparation. However, several faculty made a
sharp distinction between performance as a graduate student in doing a dissertation and
beginning and sustaining a research program. Respondent 7 reflected on the difficult
transition in getting her research going:

I learned a lot [in doctoral study] but what I didn’t get was putting it all into

practice» how to do it. It’s one thing to read about it, whatever it is—- how to

publish, how to do an analysis of a variance, how to design a single case study.

But there’s one thing to read about it; it’s another different thing to literally do it

and discuss the problems or the issues. Not only in the content but also in the

method and the process of trying.

Even science faculty who had had fellowships prior to coming to the university
needed help in getting their research going. A mentor of Respondent 5 coached him in
getting his research going in the laboratory:

I wanted to do some experimenting , and he was helpful in sort of lending me some

space in his laboratory and some equipment. I did work for several months on

trying to get something started, and he was helpful with that and supportive in
getting me up to speed.

Faculty participants frequently said that their mentors coached them by reading
their writing and giving feedback on conceptualization, structuring of thought, and writing
to targeted audiences. Respondent 2 spoke about how important this coaching was from
one of his mentors:

I think it established a relationship where there was an expectation perhaps on

both our parts that he would help me understand the pathways of scholarship in

terms of writing, in terms of research. Let me rephrase that, to enhance my skills

in those domains, and as a consequence, a lot of our energy was focused
exclusively on the launching of a career.

140
Respondent 1 stated that both of his mentors (graduate advisor and senior faculty

person in the department) read and gave feedback to him on his writing. Even as a
seasoned faculty member, he still sends his manuscripts to his graduate advisor who reads
them and gives feedback.

Reading research and giving feedback was an important aspect of coaching that
provided the faculty member with confidence to submit articles for publication.

Providing feedback on one’s writing also enabled the new faculty member to
conceptualize writing clearly. Respondents felt that it was invaluable to talk about ideas
and gain feedback from a seasoned faculty member.

Coaching that was accompanied by collaborative efforts in research, such as
writing or presenting together allowed support and direction to occur in a collegial
manner. Faculty felt that collaborative coaching enabled them to feel like a peer and an
equal with senior colleagues. However, collaboration did not always accompany
coaching, and the mentee initiated collaboration more often than the mentor. In an
exception to this, Respondent 6 was totally surprised when the initiation came from her
senior faculty mentor:

Of all things, she suggested that we do a paper together! She had no big journal

topic in mind. We just got this thing rolling which was pretty good, and then once

it became too big [she took over]. But clearly that’s been a good collaboration
working with us also.

Four faculty, three of whom were Lilly Fellows, indicated that they had received

coaching about their teaching. Only one faculty member who was a non-Lilly fellow

spoke about a mentor who coached teaching. There are several reasons why this may

141

have been. Research faculty (both senior and junior faculty) may not have esteemed
teaching and may not have given attention to it in the mentoring process. Within the
culture of their department, several faculty said that teaching was not an issue as long as
they did not make a mess in the classroom. The prioritized need for coaching in
producing publishable research may have eclipsed respondents’ remembrance of any
coaching related to teaching. Or the autonomy of the classroom may have been so
established that senior faculty mentors did not go into the mentee’s classroom and
provide feedback and coaching.

In any case, the experiences of these faculty show that coaching in teaching did
not occur so readily as coaching in research. Throughout this faculty sample’s experience,
faculty had to search for professional relationshipslike the Lilly Fellowship or
workshops in which they specifically were given help regarding teaching. Faculty talked
with peers about teaching and shared resources on teaching but did not receive mentoring
in teaching as frequently as mentoring in research.

Two faculty stated that mentors provided some coaching concerning how to
balance multiple roles and responsibilities. However, this was an infrequent experience in
coaching. Perhaps senior faculty still struggled themselves in managing faculty roles and
maintaining balance. Respondent 4 stated that one of his mentor’s never did achieve that
balance. The respondent came to believe that it was impossible for someone to do the
amount of research that his mentor advocated and do quality research:

So I guess the way he was helping me make sense of things was more or less

showing me the model that-- do anything to get published, and that’s my
interpretation of it now. It doesn’t matter if its advancing the body of knowledge

142

very much. If it’s a published refereed journal article, it’s a check mark or a plus,

or a gold star, and that’s the thing he wants most. The quality standpoint leaves

me a little bit concerned.

Support that enabled the performance of the new faculty person without violating
her/his professional integrity and autonomy was central to the idea of coaching for this
group of new faculty. This faculty group highly valued their professional identity and
autonomy and would resist coaching that was overly directive.

On the other side, senior faculty may have left new faculty alone and not initiated
coaching, because they did not want to appear intrusive or insulting to new faculty. Yet
the literature of new faculty and this faculty sample shows that new faculty want help
and direction in establishing their roles. It is a delicate balance between the expectations
of faculty for guidance and support and the desire for professional coaching that does not
violate their professional identity as faculty members.

Protecting

Protection as a mentoring function, according to Kram (1985) shields the mentee
from untimely conflict that may threaten an emerging junior colleague’s reputation as a
professional in the field. Kram stated that protection involves “taking credit and blame in
controversial situations as well as intervening in situations where the junior colleague is
ill-equipped to achieve satisfactory resolution.” (p. 29) Protection on the part of the
mentor attempts to remove the mentee from situations where premature failure may occur
because of inexperience in dealing with conflicts or problems. Failure, particularly in a

high profile conflict, may damage the mentee’s reputation for performance in leadership.

Protection as a mentoring function is problematic for faculty careers due to the nature of

143
faculty autonomy and collegiality. Senior colleagues do not usually take blame in the

same manner as a boss or supervisor would in a business organization.

Mentors did not necessarily stand in and “protect” junior colleagues, but they
tried to warn them about premature involvement in politics that could be damaging.
Mentors did try to protect new faculty by warning about damaging departmental politics
and relationships that would hinder rather than promote the new faculty member’s
success.

In one faculty member’s experience, the mentor provided a type of protection in
shielding the new faculty member from becoming involved in departmental details too
early. Respondent 5 observed:

I’d say he’s helping me to keep priorities straight and shielding me fiom some of

the administrative stuff that goes on. I think that’s true of most of the senior

faculty, even the ones that are not too much older than me but are still senior
compared to me. They do try to shield me fi'om the politics, because first I have
to demonstrate myself as a professor so they can allow me to do that and [name
of mentor] has been good about that.
Respondent 6 stated that her department chair and senior faculty mentor kept her fi'om
departmental politics. She felt that it was helpful to keep her out of politics until she had
received tenure. She realized that even though her senior faculty mentor and department
chair had shielded her, she also needed to be careful about politics.

I’d have to continue to be careful over the next year not to get myself too caught

in the middle of these things. There’s something of a division in the department

between the really active researchers and those people who are not. They are
afiaid they’re going to lose out too much to this.

Respondent 5 also received warnings from his graduate advisor who mentored him

as a new faculty member. He warned about politics:

144
The main thing he said to me when I accepted the faculty position here was, “Go

there, work hard, don't get involved in any politics or personal disputes. Just let

your work speak for itself. If you try to do too much in a way of political

maneuvering and things, you’ll get yourself in big trouble. That’s how some
people do get into trouble with their faculty positions. Just work hard, be nice,
do the things that you think are right. Have a good heart and a spirit and you’ll
probably be way ahead of everybody.”

Some respondents did not want to elaborate the specifics of the warnings they
received about politics from a mentor because the issues were very sensitive for a junior
faculty member. Sometimes the warnings made the difference in providing the faculty
member guidance in how to act in the department.

Mentors not only warned new faculty members about politics within the
department but warned them about potentially damaging people in the broader
disciplinary community. Respondent 1 stated:

He’d warn me about going to conferences. [name of person] was on the panel at

the time, and I remember [name of senior faculty mentor] saying to be careful.

[name of person] likes his own ideas and he doesn’t like other people’s ideas and

he can go on the attack and go after you. He was right, and I heeded the warning.

Respondent 12 cautioned that the new faculty member needs to carefully sift
through the warnings of a mentor. He felt that his mentor’s warnings were more a result
of personal paranoia than a desire for the respondent’s well being:

He not only gave me warnings, but I saw how he got into science. So we were not

allowed to talk to anybody about what we’re talking about and things like that

which is really in the world of science-- not good. I mean you want to be able to
talk to people, and you want to be able to communicate, but pretty much
everybody was out to get him.

In sum, protection as a function of mentoring occurred in this faculty sample’s

experience primarily as warnings regarding political dynamics and relationships with

145

people in the department as well as the broader discipline. Mentors cautioned new
faculty about potentially damaging relationships that could be detrimental for their career.
This kind of protection was primarily advisory, and the new faculty member had to sift
through the advice to determine how appropriate the warning may be.

Challenging Assignments

The next function within Kram’s theory regarding mentoring functions is
challenging assignments. Kram (1985), explained the function of challenging assignments:

[Challenging assignments] characterize effective boss subordinate relationships. It

relates to the immediate work of the department. The assignment of challenging

work, supported with technical training and ongoing performance feedback,

enables the junior manager to develop specific competencies and to experience a

sense of accomplishment in a professional role. (p. 31)
The effective mentor will not just give assignments but will give feedback on the
assignments so that the mentee grows in the experience and does not resent the
assignment as an overwhelming task. Within this sample of faculty, mentors did not give
assignments in the way that a boss would give an assignment to an employee. Mentors
did, however, invite faculty to take part in challenging tasks that would enable the new
faculty member to grow professionally as well as raising their professional profile,
particularly in the discipline. Respondent 5 stated that his graduate advisor made a point
to accept work on national committees, and then would invite a young faculty member
who was a former student to do the task. He would give feedback to the faculty member
as he worked along side him.

Basically what happens is, he’ll volunteer in a committee meeting to organize

something, and then he’ll call up one of his former students and say, “would you
like to do this with me?” I would do all the work, but at the same time I know

146
he’s not doing it to make us do all the work. He knows that it’s something we can

do as junior faculty members to establish ourselves and get that exposure and

experience. The first couple of times it’s not easy to do, but I’ve done it several

times now and it’s proven to be very valuable.

Challenging assignments occurred infrequently, but it was an occasion when a
mentor would invite a new faculty member to take part in a task that would stretch them
professionally in the development of competency and the establishment of professional
networks. One might argue that collaboration in research is also a challenging assignment
in which the mentor invites the new faculty member to do research. Certainly all
experiences of interaction in which the senior colleague invites the new faculty member to
try new tasks becomes a means of stretching the faculty member professionally.
Psychosocial Functions of Mentoring Experienced by New Faculjl

Mentoring functions that launch a career are important for the new faculty
member, but without supportive psychosocial functions, a mentoring relationship might
be impersonal and lacking. Phillips (1982) has designated mentoring relationships that
contain interpersonal support as well as career support “primary mentoring
relationships.” Psychosocial behaviors that accompany career mentoring are valued by
faculty as much as the career support. Kram (1985) identified a range of behaviors that
provide psychosocial support for the new faculty member.

Role Modeling

Kram (1985), concluded in her writing that role modeling is the most frequent

psychosocial function that occurs in the mentoring relationship. She wrote:

147

[Role modeling is both a] conscious and unconscious process; a senior person may

be unaware of the example she is providing for a less experienced colleague, and a

junior person may be unaware of the strength of identification. (p. 33)

Over a period of time the junior person may incorporate some aspects of the mentor’s
behavior as her/his own while rejecting other characteristics. It is through this process of
embracing the positive and rejecting the negative that the mentee makes a differentiation
from the mentor and establishes a unique professional identity. The role model makes a
distinct impact on the values and professional identity of the junior colleague.

The respondents’ identification of role modeling as the most important
psychosocial dynamic of their mentoring relationships agrees with the writing of Kram.
Mentors often provided an example that the respondents followed in their own
professional behavior. Sometimes new faculty consciously copied the mentor, and at
other times they were unaware of the extent of their mentor’s influence until they were
actually in the process of making decisions or carrying out actions. Respondent 1
consciously copied his graduate advisor’s example in research. Although he made a
conscious effort to copy his mentor’s role model in research, he also found that his
mentor’s methods of teaching made an impact on him as well. He stated:

I guess my expectations would be that I learned about researching in a quantitative

perspective. It was more of a professional type of expectation, not a personal

one, and I wasn’t interested in learning from [name of mentor] how to teach
although he has affected my teaching abilities. I was more interested in learning

from [name of mentor] how to research, but his teaching has rubbed off on me as a

side benefit. It wasn’t what I had anticipated.

In fact, Respondent 1 added that when he came to the university he consciously sought

for role models as a new faculty person. He could not find adequate role models and

148
found himself falling back on his graduate advisor’s example. The behaviors that he had

previously observed unconsciously in his graduate advisor were consciously reafiirmed as
he integrated them into his behavior as a new faculty person. He said:

I think that [name of mentor] gave me an example that I could follow when there

weren’t any examples to follow here at [name of university], or at least there were

no examples that I wanted to follow. Therefore, I sort of reverted back to
following those examples, and that’s true in terms of how I handled my teaching
and research and how I interact with graduate students. His open door policy is
my policy. The way he handles things he does in his classes are things I adopted

in many cases. I clearly see his thumbprint on a lot of things that I do. And like I

said, he’s probably the example that I followed when I got here, and I couldn’t

find any examples that I really like.

Several faculty indicated that the reflective process that occurred during the
interviews of this study caused them to realize just how much they had been influenced
by their mentor’s role modeling. Respondent 4 stated:

[This was] a sort of crystallization of the importance that certain people have had

in my career-- those individuals that we’ve talked about. It’s one of the things

that I can say, I wonder what would happen if I hadn’t known people like this,
where would I be now?

Role modeling also may have been a precursor to mentoring that drew the new
faculty member to move from a casual relationship to a deeper relationship of mentoring
with a senior colleague. As a result of the modeling of senior faculty, new faculty may
have determined to forge a deeper relationship so that they could draw more from the
expertise and behavior that the senior person modeled. Respondent 4 said of a senior
faculty member who mentored him:

In fact, at one point I just said to him, “you know I’ve observed you, I looked at

how you work, I see your level of publication.” In fact, this isn’t a direct quote,

but I said something along the line of, “you play this game very well, and I’d like
to learn from you.”

149

Respondent 4 stated that the department chair modeled a dynamic teaching style
that he emulated and embraced. “I think what I may have done to a degree is put him on a
pedestal. This is somebody that looks like he has students engaged.” As a result of that
modeling, “he just seemed like what a professor ought to be at that stage of my life.”
Respondent 4 invited another mentor to take part in his classes so that he could observe
his teaching as a role model:

So from a teaching standpoint and the development of teaching skills and a

feedback mechanism, he is someone I can go to. I’ve had him come to class, never

with the intention of evaluating or providing informative evaluation information.

But he’s come and done things in class, and I’ve observed him as well. He’s been

a role model from the standpoint of developing, not just as a researcher and getting

published, but from the teaching side as well.

Respondents often were concerned about how to fulfill the multiple faculty roles
while maintaining a balance in their professional lives. These faculty observed
particularly how mentors constructed their research and their teaching. According to
Respondent 7, her senior faculty mentor provided that model of balance in faculty roles.
She maintained the balance that Respondent 7 embraced:

It was a role model for me of how to have a constant theme across all of these

things-- the teaching, outreach, research. [name of mentor] was doing that ...She

was at the university, she was teaching, and she was researching.

Role models not only provided pictures of how to fulfill the faculty roles of
research and teaching, they also provided examples in how to interact with other faculty
and students. Observing how one handled the departmental committee politics could be

invaluable for the new faculty person. Respondent 5 discussed what he learned from a

senior faculty mentor:

150

I’ve been on a lot of committees with [name of mentor]. It’s very helpful to see
how he deals with situations in committees, because there are a lot of politics that
go on in committees. You make rules and how to deal with various situations, and
what’s going to happen each year, and what’s your firture direction, and that’s
when people express a lot of opinions and politics come in.
Respondent 6 felt that it was helpful to observe her mentor in how she handled her role as
a woman faculty member and “beat up on the male faculty” in the department. She had
been a role model because “she’s a real fighter and can get things through.”

Faculty often related to students in the way that their mentors modeled faculty-
student relationships. For respondents, an appropriate role model was one that models a
passion for people and facilitates the growth of people rather than controlling them.

Respondents emulated and embraced the positive qualities of their mentors in
balancing roles of research and teaching and relating to people. They also had to sift
carefully through some of the negative examples of their mentors and detennine not to be
like a mentor in areas they deemed as unbalanced or detrimental to a professional career.
Ofien the junior colleague had to separate the good from the bad in the process of role
modeling. The mentee often realized that s/he could never fully embrace the mentor’s
example and maintain appropriate balance. Respondent 5 discussed his admiration of the
hard work his mentor modeled but could not firlly embrace the degree of his hard work:

I think that the key thing that he had done is to set an example. He is not a natural

leader. He’s actually a soft spoken person. He’s not the kind of person that

draws a lot of attention due to his flamboyance or anything like that. He’s just a

quiet, nice, hard worker who I think almost everyone has great respect for, and he

works his tail off. I mean I could never work as much as he does, unless I
sacrificed my family entirely.

151
Respondent 2 admired the positive qualities of scholarship in a mentor. He realized,

however, in his mentor’s passion for research he was a poor administrator and alienated
people.

On a scale of one to ten with ten being superior, I probably would put him at
about a seven or eight. The reason I say that because I think as an administrator,
he was not very strong. As a scholar and a researcher, he definitely warranted a
ten. As a person who interacts and creates an environment of collaboration among
a diverse group of individuals or amongst a unit, again, it’s not very strong.
Perhaps because of his abilities, he was not always open to other people and to
their perspective, but he would always make an effort to collaborate, although
collaborations were defined by his terms not by everyone. There is the good and
the bad. If I had to do the relationship over, I’d do it over, but I would still walk
in with the certain mind of take it at face value and take what you can that fits into
your own personal development.

A mentor may have provided such a negative role model that the junior faculty
member could not embrace the mentor’s behavior as a model. Respondent 11 enjoyed the
collaborative research with his graduate advisor and the advice for faculty roles, but he
rejected his mentor’s other professional behaviors as an inadequate role model:

He is a terrible role model. He is very anal retentive and a workaholic. He is not

able to handle all that he takes on as a faculty member. His many administrative

roles often negate his power as a major professor. He is often very frustrating to
work with because he over-commits.

No one role model is exactly what the junior faculty member may need, but as
Respondent 5 said about a particular role model, you take the whole that you observe and
draw a model from it.

In many respects, he’s a very good teacher. He’s going to make a good

administrator. I think he’ll probably go that way eventually. He does very good

research. His papers are well written and facilitative. So yes, I think there is
never any one person that is exactly what you need. They always say it a little

bit differently, but he is sort of a role model in the way that he does things and
handles things.

152

In sum, the fundamental respect that these faculty had for their mentors made
them open to embrace the values and behavior related to faculty roles that the mentors
exhibited. As they observed the mentor’s behavior, they visualized appropriate ways in
which to enact their own behaviors. Faculty consciously sifted through the role modeling
of mentors and embraced what they deemed as positive for their own professional
behavior and rejected what they deemed as unacceptable.

Accgrtance and Confirmation

Acceptance and confirmation, according to Kram, is a psychosocial function in
which both the mentor and the mentee derive a fuller sense of self as a result of the
positive regard of the mentor. The mentor’s acceptance provides psychological support
and encouragement for the new faculty member that results in a personal self-efficacy.
As a result of this self-efficacy, new faculty members become bolder in taking risks in
unfamiliar endeavors so that they expand and grow professionally. Acceptance and
confirmation occurs when the senior colleague communicates his/her valuing of the
relationship and the exchange that occurs between the two colleagues. Through
acceptance, the senior colleague makes a commitment to the faculty person’s
development. Personal acceptance cannot be underestimated in the support that it may
provide for a new faculty member’s career. Respondent 7 stated of a senior faculty
mentor:

I just don't recall the instance over time, the incident that bolted us across this

level of what I consider good friends. But she had taken a clear interest in me as a

human being and also as a faculty member. She took the initiative to say, please
come to my house for lunch, and we’ll just visit. And we talked about personal

153

things. We also talked about the professional issues and how to balance and how
to publish, and she reviewed an article for me and manuscript before I sent it out.
She’s shown willingness to go out of her way to encourage me. She was a
resource if I had any questions, not only about my content areas but about good
writings.

The fact that this senior faculty took an interest in her as a person provided a supportive

environment in which to interact personally and professionally. Respondent 2 said about

a mentor who was a national figure:

And so our whole relationship has been based on finding meaningful opportunities
for us to spend time together. I know that for her, she has a real genuine concern
and investment in what I do and who I become, and none of it has to focus on
product, and none of it has to focus on collaborative initiative. It all has to focus
on person.

It was affirming to his personal and professional sense of self that she valued their

interaction in the mentoring relationship. Respondent 5 also felt professional acceptance

not only because his graduate advisor mentored him as a new faculty person but because

he communicated to him on several occasions that he highly valued the relationship. He

stated:

[Name of advisor] is one of the top five, six, or seven people in the world in this
area, and he’s also known for being just one of the nicest people in the community
as well. In fact, he just won a couple more awards. He was cited for being not
only one of the most prolific people in the field, but just being known as a
constant gentleman and someone who mentors people. He helps everyone. He’s
even written a paper on mentoring and how senior faculty need to help junior
faculty along. He feels a responsibility to the field to bring junior faculty along to
maintain the excellence that’s been achieved so far.

This mentor communicated to Respondent 5 that, “you’ve become part of my family,

and you’re always part of my family.” The commitment that a senior faculty of this

professional stature would be willing to make in the life of the new faculty member and

154

the energy spent on the relationship communicated a sense of professional worth to the
new faculty member. On the other hand, when senior colleagues were not willing to make
a time investment in the professional lives of new faculty, the new colleagues perceived
that “they don’t care for us” and “I wasn’t high on her priorities” and “he could care less
about my professional development.”

Support and acceptance was communicated to new faculty when senior faculty
initiated professional collaboration. The initiative on the part of the senior faculty person
communicated acceptance of the junior colleague. Respondent 9 stated of her faculty
mentor, “She invited me to give a paper at a conference, and she asked, do you want to
do this with me?” The invitation to collaborate not only helped get her research
underway but communicated professional acceptance. For Respondent 4 it was the
“chance” his department chair gave that communicated professional acceptance.

What I appreciate most about [name of person] is that he gave me an opportunity.

He encouraged me and gave me an opportunity. He got me a start at this

institution, and so I can thank him for that on a number of occasions. I think

really, I talked about the way I feel like I can give some of that. I can’t repay him
for that, but I can give to others.

Mentors communicated acceptance and support by allowing the new faculty
member open access and the freedom to ask about the difficult things of faculty life.
Respondent 12 stated that his senior faculty mentor was “like a big brother. We talk
everyday and we talk about research a great deal and how to refine that research.”
Respondent 11 said that his graduate advisor was “never denigrating when he answers his

questions or gives him advice.” It was this ease of sharing that communicated acceptance.

Respondent 5 said of his senior faculty mentor:

155
We just talk very easily about things-- be it research or teaching or work or

professional stuff. We’ve interacted outside of the university and printed and

stuff like that.

The secret of this easy interaction was the manner in which this mentor received
Respondent 5. He never rejected his questions or communicated that the new faculty
member was naive or lacking because of his questions:

I think he’s been the strongest mentor in the sense that I can go ask him questions

that I probably would not ask some other people just because I feel more

comfortable. I know he’s not going to laugh about some questions that I’ve asked
him or even other people. Later on I sort of laugh about it myself and say, “my
gosh, how did I ever ask a question like that. It’s so clear now.”

Respondent 6 felt that some issues that were gender related were particularly
difficult to talk about. A mentor of the same gender provided an acceptance in which the
new faculty member felt comfortable in talking with her about difficult issues. Even
issues in which the mentor and mentee might disagree were not difficult when there was a
relationship of acceptance and confirmation. Respondent 6 stated:

It’s more relaxed to talk with someone who’s more your gender, especially about

difficult subjects. You know you get into department politics where your going to

disagree on a research issue. I think it’s a little less fi'aught when someone shares
the same experiences with you.

For a new faculty member that felt isolated in her/his new professional
responsibilities and who was struggling with how to make sense of the various faculty
roles, acceptance and confirmation provided a climate for taking risks. The new faculty

member felt free to take the initiative in asking questions. The new faculty member may

also have felt personal support to take risks that brought greater competency. New

156
faculty in this sample identified mentor acceptance that enabled them to feel confident as

a new faculty member.

9.02%

Counseling, according to Kram, is the function in which the mentor explores
personal concerns with the mentee that may prevent her/him from succeeding within the
organizational culture. Through careful listening and feedback the mentor advises the
mentee on how to balance the demands of roles and responsibilities with one’s own
personal needs and priorities. As a new faculty person is trying to fulfill the
responsibilities of professional life, s/he may not be careful to take care of her/his own
personal needs. Respondent five’s mentor talked to him about how to balance the
demands of professional life to prevent burnout:

He also talked about me diversifying my work, my interests and maybe not

working on just one thing, but maybe working on three, four, or five things so that

when you start to get burned out on one thing you at least stay on a topic. Move
on to something else and that’s it. You can still be productive on something else.

He gave me some good insight there and I actually took that advice, and it served

me very well. I now work at about ten or twelve projects at a time which is a bit

too many at times, but I’m able to go from one thing to the next and change gears
very quickly, and I’m able to work hard without getting burned out.
Another mentor for Respondent 5 helped in sorting out priorities:

If I was worried about a situation, he’d tell me to do this. That should be a

priority and say very calmly and very clearly, this is going to go away, this is

going to stay and deal with the thing that’s going to stay...He has helped me a few

times sort of interpret situations and helped me get priorities straight when I

wasn’t sure about things.

For this respondent, both of these mentors assisted him in setting priorities to deal with

issues needing balance to prevent burnout. A mentor may also have served as a sounding

157

board for making personal as well as professional decisions. Personal and professional
concerns were very integrally related and the mentor who counseled, linked personal and
professional concerns. Respondent 2 stated this about a mentor who was also a
university administrator:

And one of the things that I would say about [name of mentor] is, he’s one of the
people in my own mind that I have on my own personal and professional board of
directors. There’s a real difficult decision or fork that I come to, I know that I can
go to him and trust that advice that he is going to give to me is based on experience
and what he perceives as what’s best for me, and that he will support me in what
ever position I take.

Counseling existed in those mentoring relationships in which the mentor was open
with the mentee in an affirming relationship of fiiendship. The mentor gave freely with
no strings attached. Respondent 4 stated:

He was very candid and down to earth about the things you wouldn’t read in a
book or find in a manual or otherwise worried about in terms of the politics of the
committee relationship-- looking out for the agendas of those that are making job
offers and that sort of thing, encouraging me to get involved in activities like the
paper reading process for the [name of conference]. I could ask him anything, and
there would be no strings attached to it.

Counseling conveyed support to the new faculty member as personal and professional
concerns were linked in advice and direction. Respondent 7 stated:

[Name of mentor] has become a great personal friend to me. Also which I didn’t
believe could happen, but it has. But she’s been a strength for me personally and
professionally. But there were many things, sort of in the midst of a lot of other
difficulties, personal difficulties in my life. And it sort of came about, and I’m not
going to give you any details except to say that is was potentially very damaging
professionally...And I didn’t know what to do about it. So I went to [name of
mentor] and I said, “ [name of mentor], help me.”

In this particular instance, the mentor counseled in a personal situation that was

potentially damaging professionally for the new faculty person. She guided her in making

158
an appropriate decision for her professional well being within the bounds of professional

ethics and personal integrity. Those faculty within this sample who experienced
counseling, experienced input from mentors on the personal part of their life that had a
high impact on their professional life. Although faculty did not talk a great deal about
counseling, it had a powerful impact on the new faculty member when it occurred.

Friendship

Friendship is the function according to Kram (1985), in which social interaction
“results in mutual liking and understanding and enjoyable informal exchanges about work
and outside work experiences” (p. 38). Friendship enhances professional growth and
development for both participants in the mentoring relationship, particularly the mentee.
Through friendship the mentee can experience greatermutuality in the relationship and
“colleagueship and informality in relating to someone who is more experienced and older”
(p. 38).

Respondent 7 felt that a senior faculty member who mentored also became a
fiiend. Such a dimension in the relationship deepened the level of professional
collaboration and enabled the respondent to feel greater support and collegiality. She
stated:

I just don't recall the instance over time, the incident that bolted us across this

level into what I consider good friends. But she had taken a clear interest in me as

a human being and also as faculty member. She took the initiative to say, please

come to my house for lunch, and we’ll just visit. And we talked about personal

things. We also talked about the professional issues and how to balance and how
to publish, and she reviewed a manuscript before I sent it out. She’s shown

willingness to go out of her way to encourage me. She was a resource if I had any
questions not only about my content areas but about good writings.

159

Friendship built a sense of continuity in the relationship of mentoring so that it
became a bond between the mentor and the mentee. As the mentor and the mentee shared
in personal as well as professional issues, friendship provided a context for richer
collaboration as colleagues. Respondent 2 stated:

And even though we started out just having informal conversations, we keep

coming back to these conversations. What we’ve also done is, having started in

the process, we’ve also developed a personal relationship. We’ll golf and

racquetball together and join each other for dinner periodically with our families.
The respondent added that the friendship prodded them to continually explore ways to
collaborate and keep the relationship going even though they were not fi'om the same
disciplinary area. He added:

So the opportunities for us to interact are really ones that we have to work at.

But it’s interesting that even though we have disciplinary differences, we are

constantly trying to find a way to work at things that are going to bring us close

together. On a couple of occasions when we both had very hectic schedules, we
found ourselves saying, let’s just go to lunch, or lets go play racquetball, or lets go
do something. We continually move forward, and we get caught, and we are
constantly reestablishing and extending it further.
Within the bounds of friendship, they deepened the professional collaboration as time
went by. As a result of the friendship, they found ways to collaborate, and they continue
to collaborate professionally and personally.

Mentoring relationships in which the faculty were friends as well as professional
collaborators endured over time and found continuing ways to interact and collaborate.
Respondent 4 said:

I really look at him as a valued colleague. He’s become a fiiend. We socialize.

I’ve met his family, and really view him as a valued fiiend now. So that if we no

longer have professional connection at any level, I think of him as somebody I just
always look forward to seeing. When I took a leave of absence this past semester,

160
we got together about every two or three weeks and just would have lunch. He

was also entering his sabbatical. So we just got together and grabbed lunch to just

kind of see what’s going on with projects.”

Friendship permitted the mentee to share as an equal with the mentor in the
relationship. Respondent 4 said further of this mentor:

He was looking I think to help me develop. I don't think that there was any doubt

about that, but he never treated me as a junior faculty member or someone that

was beneath him.
He truly felt that it was a relationship in which the mentor had given without looking for
anything in return.

Friendship did not always occur in the mentoring relationships of this group of
faculty. But, when friendship occurred, it created a greater cohesive bond in the
mentoring relationship. Friendship was also a factor in the longevity of the relationship.
Those mentoring relationships that grew into friendship had a base for continued
interaction.

In summary, faculty in this sample did not receive all of the mentoring functions
of Kram in each mentoring relationship. However, faculty mentoring experiences in this
sample were very similar to the categories of Kram with some modification pertaining to
the nature of academic work in which faculty were more collaborative and less hierarchical
in their relationships. The functions of mentoring were fairly well represented in the
experiences of this group of faculty. Collaboration was a function in which the mentor
and the mentee interacted as colleagues from a posture of equity. All the functions were

tempered by this consideration of collaboration. Faculty valued coaching that was done

collaboratively, and sponsorship that was collaborative. Even if the mentor was warning

161
or inviting the new faculty member to assume a challenging assignment-- the posture of

collaboration was still a tempering factor. I think that Respondent 7 said it well in
summing up the functions of mentoring for new faculty. They desired mentoring
functions for support and help, but not in a constraining manner that would violate their
professional integrity. Respondent 7 stated:

Some people don't need strong mentoring relationships to be fulfilled. I don’t
think I particularly need them. I’m a strong person. I’ve always been able to do
things, find my way asking questions, so I don't want someone to hold my hand.
But I do think that in this kind of environment, and given the nature of how
research works, if it’s not taught or experienced in the doctorate program, then
there really ought to be a little more formal way of doing that.

She added:

I didn’t need hand holding, but what I asked for was this- what I know is what
I’m going to need assistance with, rather than me having to take the initiative to
create. What I think I would have preferred in the hindsight is someone to help
me. This is how to do this, this is how to do that, go talk to this person. A little
bit more than just, here it is, run with it. There are some things that I had
identified that I wasn’t sure that I could run with on my own, so it has taken me
awhile to discover learning-- to get to a point. And who knows, I might have
taken the initiative. I don't think, and this may be in direct contradiction to what
I’ve said earlier. I don't necessarily think that the assumption should be that when
a faculty person is hired as a faculty member they need to be hand held. I don’t
think that’s the assumption that should be made. But I do think in the nature of
these jobs, someone should be keeping their eye out, and specifically taking leave
to address something. I certainly don't want people telling me what I need to do,
or what I should do, or howl should go about my business, but I want a little
more interaction. I think that was probably hard for my department chair at the
time. I don’t think he really knows well how to mentor.

How Mentoring Relationsmm Play a Part in Understanding Faculty Cultures
This section will address the question: What part do these mentoring
relationships play as new faculty seek to understand faculty cultures and the expectations

in the messages from those cultures? Chapter two identified from the literature that new

162
faculty often receive multiple messages from the conflicting cultures of the discipline, the

department, the academic profession, the institution, and the national system of higher
education about appropriate roles and priorities. Chapter four identified that new faculty
within this sample also received mixed messages from these conflicting cultures. The
intent of this guiding question was to identify how new faculty use mentoring
relationships to make sense of their faculty roles. Do mentoring relationships help new
faculty to make sense of their roles within the context of multiple cultures or do they
simply reinforce the culture to which the mentor and/or the mentee is primarily oriented?

In response to these questions, mentors for this faculty ultimately delivered the
cultural message to which they were primarily aligned. The mentors that this faculty
experienced were primarily oriented toward research and predominantly gave messages
about how to organize and write research, how to fund research, and how to network in
the broader discipline in building relationships for collaboration and dissemination of
research. The mentors’ experiences in research and their passion for doing research are
what the mentees sought out and embraced.

One can question why this was so. It may be that the mentor made an impact on
the mentee in giving priority to her/his faculty roles to research and seek out research
endeavors. Or, the mentee may have sought out the mentor who was strong on research
because of the implicit and explicit messages within the culture of a research oriented
university to make research a priority. Faculty received direct messages as well as
indirect messages that research was truly what counted in succeeding as a faculty person.

Respondent 4 talked about his department chair who mentored him:

163

I started to tell him about my intentions and goals to become a really good teacher.
He said, “I can tell you right now, that’s a nice goal but if you want to be
successful here all you have to do is not get in trouble in the classroom and
publish-- the key distinctions you want to make in moving ahead.” At the time
that really disappointed me. Although as I think about it, that’s probably real
sound advice for a director to give a faculty member at that point and time,
although it disheartened me at the time. At least I had hoped he would have said,
“Fine I support you in your goals to be an effective teacher and simultaneous to
that, I want to help you keep sight of the mission that’s going to keep your
support.” That wasn’t really the message that I wanted to hear. So did that help
me make sense of things? I guess it did, although it wasn’t in a necessarily
positive way. I didn’t feel encouraged, I felt discouraged.

He received the message from the department chair to do research. These messages
connected him to the wider disciplinary culture. But it also connected him to the
departmental culture in fulfilling its criteria for success.

New faculty connected with mentors who would help them in fulfilling their
faculty role as researcher. They may have sought help from a graduate advisor who
mentored them, a faculty member within the university or the larger disciplinary
community. But doing research was a primary consideration in mentoring relationships.
Respondent 6 received mentoring from her graduate advisor in the research process,
making inroads into the discipline. She stated:

I’ve certainly been thinking a lot about [name of mentor] recently because he’s

coming here for a couple of days. He’s got a workshop in August, and I’ve got to

pull him off in a comer and say, “Okay, I’ve done the first stage of life, now
what?” And I pursued a low risk strategy, because quantity counts a fair amount
here. And you don't get any points for trying something really hard and not
making it, although I’ve had some big papers. I also did a number of lesser things,
and I don't want to go on that way once I have a little security. See if I can make a

bigger mark out there, and I need your assistance-- your advice for this. He’s the
person I would of course go to for some issue like that.

164

Faculty felt pressure to give a priority to research, especially faculty in science
who were under pressure to write grants and who were judged on the amount of money
that they brought into their college. As a result of this pressure, faculty connected with
mentors who were primarily helpful in the role of research. For Respondent 5, the help
that his mentor gave in writing grants was invaluable in getting his research going. “He
wrote a proposal with me. He let me write a proposal and then he went over it with me
and he submitted parts of it.” Respondent 1 conveyed how important the mentoring was
for him:

I can send [name of mentor] a draft of a paper today and say, “[name of mentor],

I’m working on this paper. I think it’s good, but I need your advice. What do

you think?” He’ll come back and he’ll read the paper very thoroughly and give me

great advice. I feel very fortunate that I had somebody like that.

These new faculty were more concerned about research and relationships within
the broader discipline than within the university. Respondent 1 stated that a mentoring
relationship with a senior faculty member was important because it opened doors in the
discipline, even if it was a liability in departmental politics:

[name of mentor] reads my work and gives me comments on it and gives me

encouragement. [name of mentor] is also the assistant chair of our department,

but actually he’s not a very powerful assistant chair...he’s not highly regarded in
the department. But, he is well regarded in the discipline, and he has been a real
help to me.
Respondent 1 stated further that “I actually got the interview here in spite of the fact that
[name of mentor] was pushing for me.” He risked his reputation within the institutional

culture in associating with this faculty mentor because he contributed to his broader

disciplinary connections.

165

The second faculty role in which mentors helped new faculty was the role of
teaching. New faculty may have been particularly drawn to a mentor because of the way
in which s/he integrated teaching with research. Respondent 2 said:

From [name of mentor], I think it would have to come in terms of two areas, one

is the teaching. I was really intrigued by his teaching style and his sensitivity to

students as well as his ability to assess in his classroom very well what students
were perceiving-- what they might have been struggling with. In terms of the
scholarship, it has sustained a vision on one dimension and really taken that
dimension and manipulated it in multiple arenas in multiple ways so that it
resulted in an extension of his original work.

Respondent 4 stated:

[name of mentor] is professionally speaking, a very highly respected researcher,

and very prolific publisher. He’s also an exceptional classroom teacher. He’s

been a role model from the standpoint of developing, not just as a researcher and
getting published, but from the teaching side as well.

Faculty who spoke about mentors who focused on teaching were all Lilly Fellows
with the exception of one faculty member. Faculty who took part in the Lilly Fellowship
also highly esteemed teaching. They were the faculty who spoke about the dynamic in
which their mentor helped them in making sense of the teaching role. Of the five faculty
who were Lilly Fellows, two asked people who were already functioning as a mentor to
be their Lilly mentor. The other three specifically chose faculty who would mentor them
regarding their teaching role. Respondent 2 chose someone to specifically mentor
regarding teaching:

When the Lilly opportunity came along, I was aware that she had won a couple of

teaching awards, but I was also intrigued by the number of students in the

graduate level that I had heard, that had had her and felt that she was one of the

most effective and passionate instructors that they had during their student
experience. And I remember at the time, it was a very quick decision.

166

The mentoring, however, focused on more than teaching:

I made it a point to at least stop and talk with her almost every other week for
half an hour to an hour. Periodically, we would go out for coffee, and it wasn’t
always focused on the Lilly or teaching experience. She made it a point to go
beyond that.

The results, however, focused predominantly in the area of teaching:

I think because of [name of mentor], I’m probably a little more willing to be a risk
taking professional and willing to communicate with students. That may not be
effective-- but let’s try it and assess it collectively rather than individually. And I
think [name of mentor] has helped me understand the importance of establishing a
learning community as opposed to a community of learners.

He further added:

In many ways what [name of mentor] has done for me is to constantly remind
that the focus of our teaching is not on just subject matter, but its’ on helping
students develop an internal passion for such matters.

Respondent 7 chose her Lilly mentor for a specific purpose, the integration of technology
in her teaching:

I had the expectation that she would give me information on content. Either
talking directly or leading me to sources. Somehow she would direct me in the
content of what I wanted which was how to do the technology and how to create
this product.

She added:

That was a very good relationship for its purpose which was technology and
getting new information on technology and how to insert technology into the
classroom.

She stated further regarding the outcome:

So the question is, was I satisfied with the relationship. Yes, because of what I
got fi'om it. It’s not what I had intended or hoped in the beginning, but that ‘8
because it made me realize; unless I spent all my time for more than one year, I
wouldn’t get that part. So, it gave me a good reality check on ways possible to
achieve within the constraints that I was placing-- Like, this is all I can do because

167

I still have to teach classes and do other things. This technology thing is her main
focus in life--it was not my main focus.

Those faculty who were Lilly Fellows valued the teaching role highly and spoke
about mentoring related to teaching. These faculty sought the Lilly Fellowship because
they valued teaching, but even the conversation regarding mentoring from non Lilly
mentors was highly flavored with teaching. Respondent 4 stated most clearly what other
Lilly Fellows said regarding why they sought out the fellowship and why teaching was
pervasive in their conversations about mentoring:

One of the greatest challenges for me as I entered into this [faculty role] is that I’m

not very oriented for teaching. It’s a written stated goal of mine to become an

exemplary undergraduate instructor. I want to be an outstanding teacher, and
balancing that desire with multiple roles that one is asked to play as an assistant
professor in this unit that I’m in has been challenging.

Faculty who were Lilly fellows, valued the mentoring that focused on teaching as
well as mentoring relationships focused on research. Faculty connected with mentors
who reflected their values concerning faculty roles whether it was teaching or research. It
was natural that faculty sought out mentoring help for their research in a research oriented
culture. Lilly fellows had been highly sensitized to issues of teaching through the Lilly
Fellowship.

Only two faculty spoke of mentoring relationships that focused on service. These
two faculty were mentored by university administrators who were particularly focused
on service. Respondent 2 reflected on his mentoring relationship:

The focus is on outreach scholarship, he’s really been a champion for outreach

scholarship on this campus for years, and I fear what his departure will bring,
whether it will create a void or if the tide will shifi.

1 68
He stated further:

So for me, the notion of outreach scholarship that he has tried to invent within us,
and that I’ve tried to walk toward is attention to work with communities rather
than to apply your scholarship in a way that facilitates their efforts to confront
the daily issues of society ills or community development issues that they
confront.

The answer to the question regarding how mentors helped faculty make sense of
the messages from different cultures is contingent on the perceptions of the new faculty
and their valuing processes. Throughout these interviews it was clearly evident that
faculty perceived research to be a priority in the ordering of their roles within this
institution. They connected with mentors who were competent in research and had a
passion for doing research. These faculty placed the greatest emphasis on research as
shown by the time that they committed to research. All faculty except a faculty member
who did not receive tenure committed the greatest amount of time to research. Research
was a pervasive and predominant theme in mentoring relationships except for several of
the Lilly mentoring relationships.

While mentors may have helped in teaching or research, for the most part, they
did not help sort out the messages or help with the integration of those roles within the
context of differing messages. Senior faculty mentors within the department conveyed
the same types of messages as mentors from outside the university: the importance of
publishing and doing research. Mentors gave messages that reflected their priorities. In

other words, for the most part, these mentoring relationships may not have made the

faculty better citizens of the university more attuned to the university mission.

169

However, mentors equipped new faculty to thrive in the broader discipline and a
departmental emphasis on research productivity for tenure.

Faculty members who were Lilly fellows and who had administrators for mentors
were more attuned to institutional mission across the university, particularly outreach and
service. These faculty saw themselves as members of the larger university as well as a
participant of a particular discipline. They were concerned about issues related to being a
good citizen within the university and doing research for a broader disciplinary
community. These faculty were also the most interested in teaching as a service within
the university community to undergraduate students. In conclusion, mentoring may not
have helped faculty to distinguish the different cultural messages regarding priorities for
role. Mentoring may have further complicated the tension between different faculty
cultures, particularly the culture of the university and the culture of the discipline.

Conclusion

In conclusion, mentoring relationships were generally helpful for respondents’
sense making of faculty roles and responsibilities. New faculty members in this sample
felt that mentoring was appropriate and desirable for faculty members, and they had high
expectations for mentoring as they transitioned into the professorate. Respondents
generally looked for multiple sense-making relationships (mentoring and non-mentoring)
to help them in making sense of their roles. They felt that no mentoring relationship was
adequate to fulfill all of their needs. They used different mentors to meet different

personal and professional needs.

170

Respondents looked for mentors who were collaborative in providing an array of
career and psychosocial functions. Collaboration was the integrative factor in functions
of coaching, sponsorship, protection, role modeling, acceptance and confirmation,
fiiendship, and counseling. New faculty members in this sample felt that a mentoring
relationship should be based on collegial equity rather than a superior-subordinate
relationship. In other words, faculty wanted and expected help in making sense of their
roles, but they did not want their own professional identity or autonomy to be eclipsed
by the mentoring process.

Most of the mentors that faculty in this sample had were senior colleagues who
were faculty members or who had been a faculty member. Respondents’ mentors were
usually within the same discipline or were very close to the field of the new faculty
member. Respondents wanted a mentor who helped them in making sense of the research
role and in opening doors for them in the disciplinary field. Making sense of roles as a
member of the broader disciplinary community was far more important for this faculty
group than making sense of their roles as a citizen of the university community.

Mentoring reflected the cultural alignment and values of the mentor and the
mentee. These faculty were focused on the priority of making sense of research and
connecting with the larger discipline, hence their mentoring relationships did more to
connect them with the larger discipline than the institutional community and mission. As
a result of the ordering of priorities of faculty members, teaching was a secondary concern

in the mentoring relationships, and outreach or service was not generally a concern.

171

Mentoring was helpful in the sense-making process for these new faculty
members. However, it was not the panacea for faculty socialization. Other relationships
were just as important as mentoring, particularly peer colleague relationships which I will

discuss in Chapter 6.

CHAPTER 6
OTHER SENSE-MAKING RELATIONSHIPS FOR NEW FACULTY
Introduction
The previous chapter examined data from this sample of new faculty regarding
their mentoring experiences and how they used those mentoring relationships to make
sense of their faculty roles. Mentoring was very important for this group of faculty, but
analysis of the interviews showed that faculty also connected with other varied
relationships to help make sense of their faculty roles. Mentoring was not the only type
of relationship that faculty used to make sense of their roles. In fact, three faculty did not
identify any mentoring relationships that helped them in making sense of their roles. Six
of the faculty in this sample identified others that they considered more helpful in making
sense of their roles.
The study of all sense-making relationships (both mentoring and non-mentoring)
did not fall neatly into discrete categories with this group of new faculty. These new
faculty members experienced a complex web of relationships that contributed to their
process of sense making. These relationships were often integrally related. Other sense-
making relationships came to my attention through the process of the interviews and the
ways in which the questions were framed. Questions three and five in the interview

protocol brought forth a lot of discussion about non-mentoring relationships:

172

173
3. What have been your greatest challenges in coming to this university as a new

faculty member? Who/What has been most helpful in addressing these
challenges?

5. How do you know when you are doing a good job as a faculty member? Who
primarily has helped you to figure out if you are doing a good job as a new
faculty member? (Mentors or other relationships?)

These questions asked respondents to identify challenges and asked them how they knew
that they were doing a good job as a faculty member. Probes for these questions
specifically asked respondents to identify who was helpful in each of these areas. It was
at this point that the respondents often identified individuals who were equal in
importance to mentors in helping them make sense of their faculty roles. Although it was
not in the interview protocol, I asked the respondent to rank order the individuals that
were helpful to them in making sense of their roles. This ranking determined the order by
which I would extensively probe the relationships concerning functions, processes, and
outcomes of the relationships in the second part of the interviews. As faculty members
identified non-mentoring and mentoring individuals in the mix of helpful sense makers, we
would discuss .each of those relationships according to their ranking of most helpful to
least helpful.

Some faculty identified no mentors at this point in the interview process. It

became apparent to me in the course of the intervieWs, that mentors and other
relationships were intertwined for many of the faculty. It would be inappropriate to

discuss the sense making that occurred for faculty only in the context of mentoring

relationships. Although in its inception, this research study focused on mentoring

174

relationships, the data revealed the power of non-mentoring relationships in the sense-
making experience of this group of new faculty.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore other relationships that emerged in the
interviews alongside the mentoring relationships in the sense-making experience of new
faculty. This chapter will not only present the array of other relationships that this
faculty identified as sense-making relationships; it will compare them with the mentoring
relationships discussed in the previous chapter. It will examine the place that other
relationships had for this group of faculty, particularly when faculty identified no
mentoring relationships.

This chapter will be divided into the following sections to address the themes
concerning other relationships that emerged during the interview process. Section 1 will
address the question: What was the difference between mentors and others? This section
will compare other relationships with mentors and answer which type of relationship was
more helpful for new faculty in making sense of roles.

Section 2 will address the question: Who served as sense makers for new faculty
in addition to mentors? This section will explore other types of relationships that were
helpful and the outcomes of those relationships. Not all relationships were characterized
by positive interpersonal relations. However, even if the relationship was strained
interpersonally, it still could make a contribution to the sense-making process for the new
faculty member.

Section 3 will address the question: What were the functions of non-mentoring

sense-making relationships? This section will use the psychosocial and career functions

175
of Kram (1985) to examine the types of behaviors other helping relationships exhibited

and how that helped the new faculty member. It will also compare the functions of
mentoring relationships with other sense-making relationships.

Section4 will address the part that other sense-making relationships play for
faculty members in the understanding of faculty cultures and roles. How do these
relationships help faculty to understand the conflicting messages that they receive from
different faculty cultures? The final section will be a summary of the findings and
conclusions relative to these other sense-making relationships.

The Difference Between Mentoring and Other Sense Makers

In addition to mentors, faculty connected with an array of relationships that
included peer colleagues, other non-mentoring senior faculty, department chairs and
administrators, and personal friends and family. These relationships were not mentoring
relationships because of the following reasons: (1) They did not fit the criteria of a
mentor according to Carrnin’s (1988) definition that was discussed in the last chapter.
Specifically, the relationship was not between a senior and a junior colleague, was not a
complex interactive process, or lacked an array of mentoring functions according to
Kram’s (1985) categories of career and psychosocial functions. (2) New faculty in the
group did not identify the relationship as a mentoring relationship. (3) Though the
relationship was not a mentoring relationship, the relationship was one that the new
faculty member used to make sense of her/his faculty roles. Only two relationships

identified by faculty as mentoring relationships were excluded from the sample of

176

mentoring relationships and included in this section because they failed to meet the
criteria for mentoring relationships. (This was explained in section two of chapter five.)

It was interesting to compare the mentoring and non-mentoring sense-making
relationships because invariably a question will be raised. Which relationship was more
helpful for the new faculty member in making sense of her/his roles? In which
relationships did the sense maker supply more functions and behaviors that were helpful
for the new faculty member? After analysis, I have come to the conclusion that one
relationship was not necessarily better than the other, but both types of relationships
supplied valuable functions for the new faculty member in sense making. Some faculty
made sense of their roles without mentoring relationships. Much of the sense-making
process depended on the individual faculty member’s initiative in using individuals that
were available. Sense making is not a process that washes over a passive individual, but
has a great deal to do with the different kinds of support available and the way in which
the faculty member uses that support.

It was interesting that, during the interview process, new faculty members were
surprised by the help that peer colleagues and others provided in making sense of their
faculty roles. When they were contacted for a study on mentoring, they did not expect to
discuss other relationships and the way in which they had made an impact on them. In
fact, some faculty had not considered or had taken for granted the impact that peer
colleagues had made on their career. These discoveries emerged as I questioned new
faculty members on those relationships that helped them make sense of challenges. Other

faculty in the study came to the realization that even some relationships that they

177

perceived as negative, provided help in making sense of their faculty roles. These
discoveries came from probing relationships with the department chair and senior faculty
in the department.

Perhaps the primary difference between mentoring and other relationships lies in
the functions that occurred between the respondent and the sense maker. Relationships
that were cold and formal usually ended up as strained and distant. Relationships within
this sample that were collegial, tended to involve a great deal of collaboration, and mutual
support, and usually maintained that type of relationship. No relationships within this
sample went through a separation process where the interpersonal dynamic moved from
one of warm interaction and friendship to strain and social or emotional distance.

In comparing relationships across the sample, both mentoring and other types of
relationships were helpful for faculty members in making sense of faculty roles. No one
type of relationship stands out in the sample as being consistently more helpful than any
other type of relationship. The value of any type of relationship depended on what the
new faculty member was able to draw from the relationship. Respondent 7 gave the
following advice concerning what type of relationship was most helpful for a new faculty
person:

The other thing I would say is, if there isn’t such a person [referring to a mentor]

or you don't find one, or for some reason that kind of person doesn’t emerge, then

seeking a variety of mentoring [implied-non-mentoring] relationships is good...I
guess my advice would be, think about what you think you need. And is it best

to find it in one person or across several people for different reasons and different
projects?

178
Individuals Who Served as Other Sense Makers for New Faculty Members

This section will explore who provided help for new faculty in other sense-making
relationships. Respondents had a variety of formal and informal relationships that were
helpful in making sense of their faculty roles. Not all of these relationships provided
warm interpersonal support and affirmation for the new faculty member, but all the
following relationships contributed in some way to the sense-making process of the
respondent. Other sense makers included peer colleagues, department chairs, non-
mentoring senior faculty and graduate advisors, and associates in the Lilly Fellowship.
Peer Colleagues

Peer colleagues were the most important and most frequently named sense makers
besides mentors. These peer colleagues were either a few years ahead of or behind the
respondents. They were either from other institutions that respondents met through
disciplinary associations, or they were colleagues from graduate school. But within this
sample, peer sense makers predominantly came from a respondent’s department or
university. Seven respondents identified peer faculty members as the most important
sense maker in their first three years as a faculty member.

The relationship with peers was one in which respondents felt a sense of collegial
bonding in professional collaboration as well as friendship. These informal relationships
with peers, often transcended a number of professional as well as personal dynamics.
Peer colleagues often were the fi'iends with whom respondents socialized outside of work.
Several respondents spoke in familial terms such as “sister” or “brother” to describe a

faculty peer relationship. Peers were individuals with whom respondents felt free to

179
share personal as well as work-related concerns. The freedom to share with peers did not

hinge alone on shared concerns and status. Peer colleagues were also non-threatening
because they did not have an evaluative role in the faculty member’s life. For many of the
respondents, it was a shared status of neophytes trying to break in to the organization
that made the bond so natural. As Respondent 8 said of a peer colleague, “we latched on
to each other because we felt marginalized by the department in so many ways.” When a
junior colleague came after Respondent 9 had spent three years as the only junior faculty
member in the department, she stated, “F inally-- somebody I can relate to.” Respondent
3 described this bonding that came easily with a peer in her department:

I guess mostly there are a few junior faculty that came in right around the same

time I did, and we all bonded and helped each other and probably the most

prominent person is the other junior faculty in the [name of program]. Our
research interests are fairly close. Our philosophy towards teaching and research
are very close. Our attitudes toward students is very close. We pretty much just

work together on how to go about approaching the whole thing. We formed a

workshop in [name of program] for graduate students to present their research and

be able to present it in an informal setting. We Would share thoughts on classes

and that kind of stuff. So he is probably the most prominent person; and I guess a

couple of other junior faculty.

In addition to providing a non-threatening relationship of support, peer colleagues
shared resources and knowledge, focusing on teaching and research and navigating the
political dynamics of departmental structures. Peers were a powerful source of learning
about roles and departmental politics. Respondent 1 stated:

We have learned from each other, so I think they [junior colleagues] are a great

resource. There is a sort of sense of unity among the junior faculty with a few
exceptions.

180
Respondent 1 stated further that the sharing of resources and support provided this sense

of unity among the junior faculty in his department:

There is a sense of turity, I think among the junior faculty, but the senior faculty

of our department have a reputation. I knew it was like this, but people [senior

faculty] come here and they just work. They don't really socialize, they just go
home. The junior faculty socialize more, and there is a greater sense of unity,
maybe because there is a larger junior faculty contingency, maybe just because of
the pressures of being junior faculty.

A respondent’s learning about faculty roles often occurred just by watching a
colleague who was a few years ahead of the respondent Respondents learned by
watching a peer colleague that had understood what to do in teaching and research in
satisfying departmental requirements for tenure. Respondent 6 stated:

It’s really great to have someone who is clearly satisfying the department’s

requirements and doing well, so then you know what they are. You say, “You

know if I could do this, it would be fine.” If the people ahead of you are very
marginal so it’s not clear if you’re making it or not, then you don't know.
Respondent 10 reflected on the impact of a peer who also was his wife:

She’s about two or three years ahead of me in terms of this professional career.

So I’ve been able to watch her go through the hoops and learn from it, and I

certainly think tenure was a great example. I saw the whole tenure process as she

was going through it. So I knew exactly what I had to do to get prepared, and it
was also really good because it gave me the lead time. I started thinking about
tenure two years before it came up and said, “I’ve got to prepare myself for this.”

And I knew what I had to prepare myself for.

In sum, peer colleagues were a powerful source of learning for new faculty
members in making sense of faculty roles. These colleagues provided non-threatening
relationships for respondents as well as sharing organizational identities and concerns.

Respondents often felt more freedom to relay professional concerns with peers than with

senior colleagues, because they did not want to appear incompetent to senior colleagues

18 1
who might also evaluate them for tenure. Respondents felt that peers seemed more

accessible and more able to empathize with them than senior faculty who seemed to have
forgotten what it was like to be a new faculty member. Faculty peers provided
respondents with important messages about political dynamics and how to navigate
departmental relationships. Respondent 3 surmnarized the power of a peer:
Well I think I had a lot more interaction with them over the time period [the first
three years], and we were all going through the same thing, and so we could really
relate to each other. Whereas, I think both the chair and my advisor were all
senior faculty. Actually, neither one was teaching any longer. Both were
established professionally, and they weren’t going through tenure and trying to
sort out teaching and being a faculty member. So I think we [junior faculty] all
understood better what we were going through as colleagues, plus we were good
friends. It was easy to talk to each other about things.
The Department Chair
A second helpful relationship that new faculty members identified was the
department chair. Respondents in this sample did not rank the department chair highly as
a sense maker, except for Respondent 4 who identified his department chair as a mentor.
In that particular case the mentor was not department chair for the early part of the
mentoring relationship. For this group of faculty, the relationship with the department
chair was predominantly formal rather than informal. Respondents usually only met with
the department chair during a yearly review. In spite of the formal nature of the
relationship with the department chair and the limited contact that the new faculty

member had with the department chair, the chairperson sent messages to new faculty

regarding faculty roles and responsibilities. As a result of the review process, the new

l 82
faculty member received messages from the department chair about making sense of

faculty roles even when s/he perceived the relationship to be strained or formal.

Faculty in this sample generally received the messages that came from the
department chair with caution. A department chair might provide advice and support.
However, this group of faculty generally perceived that the department chair had a larger
agenda than their professional well being and development, the growth and development
of the department. Because of this larger concern for the department’s advancement,
respondents were not sure that advice from the department chair always had their best
interest as the primary focus. Respondent 5 related his caution concerning the
department chair:

But you always have to be a little bit careful of how you take the advice of an

administrator [referring to the chair], because like I said before, they are looking

out for the big picture and what they view needs to be done. They might say,

“here is a young faculty-- get them to do this and sort of fill this hole in our

department resume or whatever. Sometimes what they may ask you to do may

not be one hundred percent in your best interest.
Respondent 6 gave a specific example of departmental priorities of the department chair
in the assignment of her teaching load. In the way that her load was assigned, she thought
that the chair was looking out more for the interests of the department than her own
professional well being.

He [department chair] was very urgent to get me teaching [course] for

undergrads...We talked about that, and he’s also been really active in keeping me in

that course when I could have switched back up and done the [course] for the
masters students. That’s probably been a good thing for me, because it saved me
dealing with the curriculum hassles. There have been a lot of changes with the

[name of program] which would have taken a lot of my time, which would not

have been good for me. But it’s also clearly a department agenda that the
department focuses attention on the undergraduate program. If it hadn’t been for

183

all the problems, itself, it might have been in some ways better for me to do the
[masters students of a particular program]. I’d probably get along better with
[masters students of a particular program]. They give you a certain access to
research that undergraduates don't have.

For some faculty in the sample, the department chair seemed out of touch with
them. They perceived that the chair handed down messages that were primarily
departmental requirements with no concern for how the faculty member may have
struggled in making sense of the messages. They felt that the chair usually waited for the
new faculty member to initiate contact. Respondent 10 stated his perception of the
department chair:

To me it was more a hostile approach. That’s kind of just the way he is. He’s
not a mentoring kind of person. He’s a very good administrator. He does his job
exceptionally well, but in terms of counseling, he’s not that kind of person. If he
sees a problem, he just tries to come to a solution. He says, “Well, how can I
approach you so that I foster a growing situation by fostering a good
communication.” Like, what’s the problem, and we’ll just go do it. We are
supposed to have a yearly review, and I believe that’s university policy, and
that’s also a policy that’s being developed right now at the university level. It’s
not formal yet, but I’ve only had one annual review in the past five years.

Respondent 11 also felt that his department chair was not only unaware of his concerns
as a new faculty member, but did not himself fulfill departmental expectations for faculty:
The department chair is out of touch. He is very straight and square in his
dealings. However, he is very formal-- he only has formal, organizational dealings

with new faculty. Yearly reviews last about five minutes. He has high
expectations about research, but he himself is very far away from those
expectations. There is hypocrisy between his expectations and the actual
fulfillment in his own life.

Two faculty members found the department chair to be unbearable. They realized

that the department chair was delivering messages about requirements, but they felt that

184
he was abrasive and intrusive. Respondent 1 called his department chair the “mentor that

was not.” He stated that he tolerated reviews:

He used to drive me nuts, and he thinks he knows everything about everybody’s
discipline. We just have big clashes, he and I. I found working for him incredibly
unpleasant. I really wanted him to leave as department chair. You’re in his office
for a review. The review’s going on for two hours. You really want this review to
be over with. He’s done most of the talking. You really want this review to be
over with, but you can’t tell a department chair I’ve had enough and I’m leaving.
Because he can and he will punish you. The department chair is very strong, he
has a lot of power and authority if he chooses to use it. And not wanting to tick
him off, I just have to sit there and listen to him go on and on about all kinds of
things.

In contrast to these faculty member’s perceptions, two faculty members found
the department chair to be supportive of new faculty. Respondent 6 reflected on her
department chair’s support:

Sure, it was helpful that he was being so nice, because for example anytime you do

anything well, like get really high teaching scores or publish something in a good

journal, you get a nice reward. There’s always a nice note from him in your box-

“isn’t this wonderful.” He always makes sure that other people in the department

know about it. “We’re so happy about so and so.” And having that sort of thing

going on-- a lot of it really does improve the atmosphere and make you feel good
about what you’re doing.

In sum, respondents generally regarded the department chair as a sense maker.

The relationship with the department chair was primarily formal and perfimctory, but
even a formal relationship provided messages about how new faculty should prioritize
faculty roles. New faculty generally perceived that they had to determine what part of

the messages would be most beneficial for their own professional development as

opposed to the greater good and development of the department.

185

Non-mentorinLSenior Faculty Members
In addition to peer colleagues and the department chair, respondents spoke about
non-mentoring relationships with senior faculty members. However, only four new
faculty members in this sample spoke directly about other senior faculty members who
helped them in making sense of their faculty roles and responsibilities. New faculty
members in this group generally perceived that non-mentoring senior faculty members
were aloof and unable to relate to the concerns of new faculty. A few new faculty
members felt that senior faculty members were threatened by their presence in the
department and were hostile towards them. Five respondents spoke of the divide
between senior and junior faculty members as being a divide between non-researchers
(senior faculty) and researchers (junior faculty). Respondent 8 said:
There is a great disparity between senior and junior faculty in my department.
It’s pretty weird. The two older guys who have been there a long time, since
1972-- neither of them publish. Neither of them are involved in professional
organizations. And then we two, the younger two, we publish. We go to
conferences...it’s a systemic problem in that sense that they were able to get by
without publishing.
Respondent 1 stated further about the tension between junior and senior faculty:
Senior faculty think, when we were younger, we worked harder, we were better
teachers, we were better researchers, our wives were prettier. The truth is, we
look at what they got tenure on which is practically nothing compared to us.
Most of them had tenure in three years, four years. They had one or two articles
and a book. That was it. But their hindsight is certainly with rose colored glasses.
So, it’s just physical tension there.
In spite of the perceived or actual aloofness of senior faculty members, non-

mentoring senior faculty members served on a limited basis as sense makers for new

faculty members in this sample. The faculty that spoke about non-mentoring senior

186
faculty identified the following ways in which senior faculty were helpful in making sense

of faculty roles. A few senior faculty initiated collaboration with new faculty members.
The interaction was infrequent but contributed in a small way to the sense-making
process. New faculty also learned how to make sense of their roles by observing the way
in which senior faculty fulfilled their roles. Respondent 10 summarized these types of
relationships:

He’s a very interesting man because he’s well respected in his field. I had been

reading his articles since my early masters days, and he is probably going to retire

anytime in the next few years. He’s had a very colorful and wonderful career, and
sometimes I like to call him the walking encyclopedia. You can sit there and
mention anything and he says, “oh yeah, I read a few articles on that so and so in
1955...”We’ve written a few proposals together, but unfortunately we’ve never
established a formal collaboration. We’ve been advisors on the same committee
for two or three students, which I really enjoyed because when you go through
something like an oral exam-- that’s when you really get to see the gift of scientist
that is in him.

For the most part, new faculty felt that the relationship with senior faculty was
not what they had expected in terms of collaboration and collegial interaction. (This has
been discussed at length in Chapter 4). Non-mentoring senior faculty did have limited
input into new faculty regarding sense making, but these non-mentoring sense-making
relationships were not as significant as peer colleagues and mentoring relationships.
Non-Mentoring Graduate Advisors

Non-mentoring graduate advisors were helpful to a few new faculty members in
making sense of their faculty roles during the first three years of the appointment. New

faculty members would call or contact the former graduate advisor through electronic mail

for advice regarding faculty roles, particularly research and teaching. This infrequent

187

contact provided a limited amount of help, but it still contributed to the process of sense
making for the new faculty member. Respondent 3 stated that she went to her former
advisor for advice:

My graduate advisor where I went to graduate school would be the closest thing

to a mentor so I would use her for advice. She was very busy; and limited, I

guess, my interaction more than I would have.

Respondent 10 also stated that he went to his former graduate advisor for advice in spite
of a strained relationship:

So we have a cordial relationship, and I still respect him an awful lot. If I had

particular problems in trying to figure out the lab, I would give him a call, but I

don't have an awful lot of feelings of warmth toward him.

A non-mentoring graduate advisor may have served as a resource without being
particularly close to the new faculty member. New faculty drew upon the expertise of
the graduate advisor by seeking her/him for advice, even when the relationship was
strained and distant.

Lilly Fellows and the LillLFellowship

Five faculty within the sample participated in the Lilly Fellowship. I deliberately
selected these faculty members for the study sample in order to probe the dynamics of
the mentoring relationship that they had experienced during the Lilly Fellowship. The
mentors of these Lilly Fellows have been discussed in the previous chapter. An
interesting discovery, however, in interviewing former Lilly Fellows, was that the
mentoring experiences were not the most significant part of the Lilly Fellowship. Other

features of the Lilly Fellowship surpassed the mentoring relationship in contributing to

sense making. Specifically, those features were the teaching workshops with national

188
figures, the connection to central administration of the university, and that which

respondents identified as the most helpful part of the fellowship-- the forging of
relationships with faculty peers across the university. Respondent 7 discussed how the
Lilly Fellowship connected her with peer colleagues and university administrators across
the university:

That’s happened with a couple of other people, who either I was appointed a
Lilly fellow with in that same year, or a couple of other people, who have been
appointed a couple of years after me. They developed into very important
personal relationships. Another great source of support came from the upper
administration in this university.

Fellowship participants expressed surprise that the relationships with other Lilly
Fellows outside of their discipline became professionally vibrant and collaborative.
Respondent 7 reflected on her surprise at being able to connect with other Lilly Fellows
outside her department:

In the second year I was here, I was named a Lilly Fellow for a teaching
foundation. I met a friend, and we both liked each other’s story. We were in the
same college, both named in the same year; came away from the first meeting,
where-- at the time, [name of administrator], was directing this. And she talked to
us about how we were going to become great friends; all these wonderful side
effects or side benefits in the Lilly Foundation. And this other person and I, we
looked at each other and said-- “hmm, you can’t legislate fiiendship. I don't think
it’s going to happen that way.” Well, we’ve been eating our words for several
years because we have become fast friends at the university.

She stated further regarding this fiiendship:

It’s both personal and professional. But that came about strictly because of the
Lilly Fellowship. Although we would see each other here and there in college
meetings, I doubt we would ever have become as close fiiends as we are now, had
it not been for knowing each other first as professionals through the Lilly.

189
Respondent 4 stated that the collaborative relationships formed outside of his

discipline, as a result of the Lilly Fellowship, helped him in making sense of his roles.
These relationships offered him a multiplicity of perspectives as a new faculty member.

Actually, that’s been very valuable to me. The whole experience there, and the
relationships that have ensued have been really valuable. What started, that is,
that there were six of us Lilly Fellows. And I remember thinking, what am I
possibly going to learn from somebody who teaches romantic classical languages,
and a fisheries and wildlife person, and teaching folk medicine and geography, and
urban planning? And I thought, well this will be fun and interesting; but I didn’t
really think that I would get that much from them. But they were wonderful,
because they were having similar struggles-- some of them. So they were another
sounding board, another set of perspectives, because they were right there on
campus.

Lilly Fellows in this sample stated that the Lilly Fellowship enabled them to talk
with others who were interested in teaching. These fellows were able to share common
concerns about teaching with other new faculty members who had the same concerns.
This was especially important, because often they did not find someone within their own
department or discipline to talk to about their teaching concerns. Respondent 2 stated
that the workshops with national speakers opened doors for conversations across the
university with other peers who participated in the fellowship.

For me, part of the benefit of the Lilly was establishing relationships with other
faculty in or about the same level of development as I was across the campus.
There are two people with whom I interact from my Lilly Fellowship year quite
regularly, another one periodically; and two that seem to, for whatever reason,
focus on their own disciplinary work. The second advantage of the Lilly was the
national scholars that came in. And just the seeds of thought they plant -- or that
it allowed me to reflect upon, as well as the opportunities to share, with faculty
across campus who were also engaged in thinking about these issues.

The Lilly Fellowship not only helped faculty members connect to other peers in

making sense of their teaching role, it also helped the new faculty member to connect to

190

the larger university. Lilly Fellows expressed a greater sense of obligation to the larger
university beyond their department and their disciplinary concerns than the other faculty
in this sample. Respondent 7 stated:

I am an extension of [name of university]. I am a voice of [name of university], if
you will. I’m a representative of the university. And so where I go, and what I
do; whether or not I identify myself as a faculty member of [name of university],
that is an attachment. That is a piece of me that reflects on the university.

The Lilly Fellows also connected with administrators in central administration
who facilitated the program. This connection often opened doors for other opportunities
to serve the larger university. Respondent 7 further stated:

By virtue of being a Lilly Fellow, and I suspect there are some other qualities
about me-- an assistant professor in the tenure track, and a woman in this
building-- my name continues to crop up places. So I get asked to be on
committees and do things. Every time I am, it gives more insight on how to do my
job in a good way.

In summary, the Lilly Fellowship provided an opportunity for new faculty
participants to connect with others in conversations related to teaching. These
conversations helped the faculty member in making sense of their teaching role. New
faculty in this sample expressed their desire to take part in the fellowship in order to
become more effective in teaching. Respondents did not expect the learning that took
place through the connection with other fellowship participants who shared the same
concerns. Sense making that occurred as a result of the Lilly Fellowship occurred through
peer colleagues, central administrators, and national authorities on teaching as well as the

mentoring relationship. All these experiences and relationships combined to give the

participants help in making sense of teaching, research and outreach.

l9 1
Other Helpful Relationships

Other relationships that respondents mentioned in the interviews were incidental,
because their impact on the sense making of new faculty members was hard to discern.
These relationships were identified in passing through the course of the interviews. I did
not pursue these relationships because my time for interviewing was limited, and because
they were primarily personal or casual professional relationships. However, I feel that it
is necessary to mention that there were other relationships that potentially could have
helped new faculty members in sense making. These relationships included personal
friendships, relationships through religious affiliation, and familial relationships as well as
casual group encounters within the department that contributed to the new faculty
member’s sense-making experience. For example, several new faculty were in
departments in which the entire department lunched together on a regular basis.
Conversations around the lunch table provided a type of interpersonal cohesiveness for
the faculty member in which they felt freedom to ask questions about faculty roles.
Often these lunch times focused on the exchange of departmental gossip that provided the
new faculty member with an understanding of political dynarrrics and requirements within
the department.

Another type of relationship that cannot be discounted for support for new
faculty members were non-professional personal friendships and family relationships.
Respondent 8 stated, “a group of friends just got together for wine and cheese on Friday
nights. That was immensely helpful for reflecting and thinking about our work.”

Respondent 12 stated that “my wife provided the greatest support of anyone. She heard

192
about all the hard things and continued to give feedback and support.” Respondent 3

stated of her husband, “We actually wrote several papers together and so in many ways
he’s halfway responsible for all my opportunities.” Respondent 10 had an unusual
integration of personal and professional relationships in that his wife was also a faculty
colleague a few years ahead of him in the department. When asked which professional
relationship was most significant he replied:

It would have to be the relationship with my wife. There’s always someone to

talk to about a problem and to get reflection on it. She was someone I could talk

to about things. Whereas I was worried about talking to other faculty because
they always seem to have an agenda. They always have their own goals, and so
you get advice, but you don't always think of it as necessarily the best advice.

It’s a terrible thing to say.

In sum, these personal relationships and casual professional relationships emerged
as minor themes, embedded in conversations related to other sense making relationships.
From the protocol questions and interviews, it was hard to make definitive statements
about how these relationships contributed to sense making; but some of these faculty felt
that they were important enough in making sense of their roles to inj ect them into the
conversations.

Summary on Other Sense Makers

Although this study originally focused on the sense making relationships between
mentors and new faculty, a complex array of other relationships emerged. These
relationships were as significant for new faculty members as mentoring relationships in

making sense of faculty roles. The most frequent relationships besides mentoring that

faculty in this group talked about were with other peers, the department chair, and non-

193

mentoring senior faculty members. Non-professional relationships such as friendships
and familial relationships were important for the new faculty member as well.
Relationships with the department chair tended to be formal while the other relationships
were informal. Whether formal or informal, all relationships played a part in the sense
making of new faculty.
Other Sense-Making Relationships and Their Functions

This section will use Kram’s (1985) functions of mentoring to We the
discussion of other helpful relationships. Kram’s functions were helpful in analyzing
other sense-making relationships that emerged alongside of mentoring in the course of the
interviews. This section will focus primarily on the functions that occurred in
relationships that new faculty members in this sample shared with peer colleagues. The
reason for specifically focusing on relationships with peers is as follows: (1) New faculty
in this sample identified peers as carrying out many different functions that corresponded
to Kram’s’ mentoring functions. Peers often provided psychosocial as well as career
support for the new faculty members in this sample. (See the discussion of a mentoring
defrnition in Chapter 5) (2) Although new faculty identified many different relationships
that were discussed in the last section, peers were the only group of relationships that
consistently emerged in the conversations as having an equal or greater impact than
mentors. New faculty members spoke of other sense makers such as non-mentoring
senior faculty members, graduate advisors, department chairs, and personal relationships.

New faculty did not speak with the same regard for these relationships, nor did they

194

describe them with the same intensity as mentoring relationships or relationships with
peer colleagues.

Peer colleagues provided both psychosocial and career functions for new faculty
in this sample. Refer to chapter two and chapter five where the meaning of these
functions were discussed in detail. The reader may also refer to Appendix D as a
reference which briefly describes Kram’s mentoring functions that fall within the broad
categories of psychosocial and career mentoring.

Career Functions Provided by Junior Faculty Peers

According to Kram (1985), career functions enhance learning the ropes and
preparing for advancement in an organization. These career firnctions include
sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protecting, and challenging assignments. I
will first address those functions that were generally missing from the discussion of
sense-making relationships between peers and respondents: exposure and visibility, and
challenging assignments. Respondents did not identify any dynamic in which a faculty
peer gave a challenging assignment or provided exposure and visibility for the respondent.
It would be natural for these functions to be absent from a peer relationship between new
faculty and peers. According to Kram, these functions require a supervisory role over a
subordinate in which the employer assigns tasks to the employee that will provide the
employee visibility and professional growth through challenging assignments. Chapter
five discussed the dynamics between faculty colleagues that make these kind of functions
very different for faculty. Faculty do not have the hierarchical relationship of employer

and employee. However, a senior faculty colleague with administrative responsibilities,

195

or broader professional networks, may invite a new faculty member to do a task that will
give professional exposure and broaden professional growth. By doing the task
(challenging assignment) the new faculty member may grow or increase professional
networks. This dynamic was absent in the relationship between respondents and peers.
These colleagues often had a shared status with new faculty members with limited
opportunities for sponsorship, exposure and visibility, and challenging assignments.
Coaching
Peers, however, provided a great deal of career support for new faculty members
in coaching, sending protecting messages of warning about political dynamics and climate,
and collaboration. The most important career function that peers provided for
respondents was coaching. The two most frequent ways in which peer colleagues
coached new faculty in this sample was to read their writing and give feedback and advice
regarding teaching. First, peers provided coaching, not only on the mechanics of writing,
but on how to write for a particular professional audience and where to submit that
writing for publishing. Respondent 1 stated that the feedback and exchange with peers
had been very helpful:
They [junior colleagues] give feedback on my writing. I mean, every time they
read, they give me good feedback on it. Half of my junior colleagues read my
papers and my work as well. They give me good feedback. I read their stuff, and
I give them feedback. We have learned from each other, so I think they are a great
resource.

Respondent 9 stated that she and her colleague read each other’s writing. Her peer

colleague also talked to her about where to send writing for publishing.

196

I think that when she got here, I remember being that way; just giving each other
stuff [their writing] to read. And talking-- like which journals should I send this

paper to.

Secondly, peers also coached new faculty respondents regarding their teaching.
They shared teaching resources such as texts, course outlines and syllabi as well as talking
about student issues and concerns. Respondents found it easier to ask peers for advice
and feedback on teaching as well as help with teaching methods. Respondent 3 stated:

Well I think I had a lot more interaction with them over the time period, and we

were all going through the same thing, and we could really relate to each other.

Whereas I think both the chair and my advisor were all senior faculty. Actually,

neither one were teaching any longer. Both were established professionally, and

they weren’t going through tenure and trying to sort out teaching and being a

faculty member any longer.

Conversations with peers that coached new faculty regarding teaching were just as
helpful or equal to the coaching by mentors. In fact, some respondents expressed that
they had to go outside of their department to talk about teaching, because they did not
feel that it would be viewed within the department as important or appropriate.
Respondent 13, who was not a Lilly Fellow, stated that she went to the Lilly workshops
because it “affords a safe place to talk with colleagues about teaching.” Respondents also
invited peer colleagues into their classes to observe and give feedback. Respondent 8
summarized well the nature of peer coaching in teaching:

We have shared assignments from our classes and ways of thinking about how to

work with students. She was an important sounding board, and it is important to

have a sounding board-- someone just to listen to concerns and reflect with you
about teaching.

197

Protection

In addition to coaching about teaching and research, peer colleagues fulfilled the
function of protection described by Kram. Peers often warned respondents about
departmental policies, politics, and departmental climate. These warnings were important
in saving the new faculty member from committing errors that could have been
detrimental to their careers. Respondent 1 stated:

I think that we talk enough amongst ourselves [peer colleagues] that we sort of

know what’s what. We warn each other of dangers that we think might happen--

Or some senior faculty member’s conducting such and such-- this is what it’s

going to mean for us. Let’s do this or that in response. So there’s a lot of

informal networking that goes on, and we sort of keep each other abreast of all the

events and twists and turns of department intrigue. That’s been really important

to me.

Collaboration

A final function that peers provided was collaboration. The previous chapter
stated that collaboration was a dynamic that transcended all the functions of Kram and
was specific to the nature of academic work among faculty. Collaboration for junior
faculty primarily focused on efforts in research, but one may argue that the conversations
about teaching between peers was also a very important collaboration. Teaching was
often a very private act for faculty members. Conversations in which the respondent
received coaching and feedback on teaching were very important collaborations that
helped them in making sense of their teaching. Respondent 3 stated that junior colleagues
were the ones who “taught her how to collaborate with other faculty in doing research.”

Collaboration with junior colleagues came about naturally as an outgrowth of a shared

professional status. Respondent 9 stated:

198
And the other thing is that even though our research areas are different, they’re

close enough so that we can understand what each other does really well. I go in

to her office and say, “I had this idea.” And she goes, “Oh, Great!” And we

expand on that idea, and then we decide; we’re going to do this together.
Respondent 10 also stated how natural collaboration was with a junior colleague:

I think there’s a lot of sharing between us, a lot of feedback and interaction.

There’s a lot of conversation that goes on between us that ultimately for the most

part shows us a vision of what needs to be done.

In summary, junior Colleagues provided new faculty members career support
through the functions of coaching and protection. Coaching primarily focused on giving
advice and feedback about teaching and research. Another important dynamic of
interaction, not a part of Kram’s career functions was collaboration. Respondents found
that collaboration with junior faculty colleagues provided an important source of career
support. Respondent relationships with junior colleagues did not engage in Kram’s
functions of exposure and visibility, sponsorship, and challenging assignments.

Psychosocial Functions Provided by Faculty Peers

This section will deal with the psychosocial functions that peer colleagues

provided for the new faculty members in this sample. Kram (1985) wrote:

Psychosocial functions are those aspects of a relationship that enhance an

individual’s sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role.

These functions include role modeling, acceptance and continuation, counseling,

and fiiendship. (p. 32)

Peer colleagues made the greatest impact through psychosocial functions in helping new
faculty members make sense of their faculty roles. These psychosocial functions,

particularly the functions of acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and friendship,

provided an interpersonal support that gave the new faculty member a sense of

199
professional efficacy. The value of interpersonal support for these respondents cannot

be underestimated in the process of making sense of faculty roles. Friendship and
counseling provided a powerful impetus to persevere against professional challenges.

Role Modeling

Role modeling was the most important psychosocial function for mentoring
relationships that respondents experienced. Although peers did not serve as role models
as frequently as mentors, respondents stated that peer colleagues did act as role models
for them. Role modeling by these colleagues provided an example for new faculty
members in how to meet departmental requirements for tenure. New faculty in this
sample also learned how to navigate the system by watching colleagues a few years ahead
of them in the process of tenure and review. Respondent 6 felt that the modeling of a
successful colleague was invaluable for understanding requirements and navigating the
system:

It’s really great to have someone who is clearly satisfying the department’s

requirements and doing well, so then you know what they are. You say, “you

know if I could do this, it should be fine.” If the people ahead of you are very

marginal so it’s not clear if you’re making it or not, then you don't know.
Respondent 10 felt that his wife, who was also a colleague, “paved the way” for him in
understanding requirements and navigating the system:

Then again, she kind of paved the way a little bit, and it was someone for me to

watch and learn fi'om. She certainly helped me be aware of the dynamics of the

department and how all that worked.

Peers not only provided a model in how to satisfy requirements for tenure but

they also provided models in how to teach. Respondents observed other pre-tenure

200
faculty in their teaching and used their teaching as a model for their own teaching.

Respondent 8 felt that a junior colleague had provided her with a model of the type of
teacher that she wanted to be:

She was a model for the kind of teaching that I wanted to do. She is very creative

in her assignments and collaborative with students. She is very good at what she

does in teaching and carefully constructs the teaching event.

Peer colleagues not only provided a model for tenure requirements and teaching,
but they also provided a model for how to draft research. Colleagues took the mystery
out of the research process for some respondents. Research seemed more attainable when
looking at the model of a peer as opposed to the model of an accomplished senior
researcher. Respondent 9 stated:

I’ve never thought of her as a role model until now. She’s somebody who does

very well. She’s productive, but she’s not a workaholic. She continues at a

steady pace in publishing. My field is very broad as far as research. You have to

know a lot about a lot of different areas. And she’s one of the few people that
really knows the journals every month. I look at the journals and pick out what’s
interesting, and she reads everything all the time, especially managing with 2 kids
to watch.

Friendship, Acceptance and Confirmation, and Counseling

While peer colleagues provided role modeling for respondents, the most significant
psychosocial functions that they provided were friendship, acceptance and confirmation,
and counseling. These three functions are integrally related in the personal support that
peer colleagues provided for the new faculty member. Through the dynamic of
friendship, a junior colleague accepted and confirmed the new faculty member as a person
and as a professional colleague. The context of that fiiendship provided many

opportunities for reflection and counseling regarding career decisions. Peers provided

201
support through friendship, in which they listened to the new faculty member and

provided advice. Peers were truly able to empathize with the new faculty member
because of their shared professional identity and status. Often the power and bond of
friendship between a respondent and peer colleague came as a result of both individuals
feeling like they were on the outside of faculty work, trying to break in. Respondent 7
spoke of this power of a relationship that transcended personal and professional
dynamics :

But [name of colleague] and I repeatedly tell the story, because it illustrates for us

the power around professional and personal relationships and the power of

support. In my darkest, most difficult days in the last few years, [name of
colleague] has been the fiiend that is there-- listening to me, talking with me. She’s
been a great support personally in how you can sort through a lot of difficult
issues. And she’s also talked about her professional experience which is a bit
different from mine. And she’s given me some information about how she’s
conducted her life which I have encircled with mine, in which I say, “Yeah, I see.”

She’s been in several instances a personal support through professional

relationships.

For new faculty members in this sample, friendship provided a dynamic in which
it was safe to talk about personal as well as professional concerns that overlapped,
without fear of consequences for one’s professional identity and status. Because peer
colleagues were equal in status, they were not as threatening as a senior colleague or
department chairperson who would also serve as an evaluator for tenure. Respondent 3
stated that, “we were all going through the same thing, and so we could really relate to
each other...”

Friendship provided a cohesiveness in which interaction occurred on multiple

levels with varied dynamics. This dynamic gave the new faculty member an identity

202
through the acceptance of colleagues, and a social network of personal support and

professional collaboration. Respondent 3 reflected:

They are very good friends of mine. I would say that it differs depending on who
we’re talking about. [name of colleague] and I are probably closer fiiends than we
are close colleagues. We don't actually collaborate on anything, although we
certainly work together on evaluating how we’re doing, and our teaching and that
kind of stuff. I do collaborate with [name of colleague], and we do have very
similar interests. And so that’s more professional interaction.

Respondent 9 also spoke of the multiple levels of friendship and how that
provided a rich context for professional collaboration.

And the friend in New York; my daughter plays with the kids when I go there. So
there’s a fiiendly relationship. She’s also probably one of my- I consider one of
my most intelligent colleagues. I mean, a really incredibly intelligent woman, and
productive too. And so when you go to have a personal visit, we will talk about
work the entire time which in one sense is good. You talk about your research,
and she’s also very critical. If she says something like this is good, you know it’s
good. She’s also been good in guiding me. She’s somebody that I can talk to
about my research.

Peer colleagues, acting as friends, provided counseling as well as support and
collaboration. Sometimes the counseling was strictly personal, and at other times it
explored the interrelationship of personal and professional problems. This counseling
provided an important process in which the respondent made sense of faculty roles.
Respondent 3 stated:

They [peer colleagues] tried to teach me how to divide my time between teaching

and research. How to go about how to get to the point where I could tell someone

“no”- that I didn’t have enough time to devote to something that I was being

asked to do so that I could do my own research. So I mean, basically, they just

sort of showed me all the stuff that allows you to organize your time, and they
taught me all of these things.

203

In summary, peer colleagues provided new faculty members career support and
psychosocial support. The integration of personal support with career support and the
ways in which friendship transcended personal and professional concerns provided a
powerful bonding and sense-making relationship. Peer colleagues provided an important
dynamic for new faculty members that was equally powerful to the mentoring
relationships discussed in this study.

Functions Provided by Other Sense Makers

This section will summarize briefly the types of functions that department chairs,
graduate advisors, and non-mentoring senior faculty provided for new faculty in this
sample. The functions that other sense-making relationships provided were not as varied
with the same degree of impact as the functions that peer faculty colleagues provided in
sense making.

The relationships between new faculty in this sample and department chairs was
primarily formal. Interaction was infrequent and predominantly focused on how the new
faculty member was meeting departmental requirements as a faculty member. In the
formal relationship as evaluator, some department chairs provided coaching on a limited
basis to help new faculty broaden their work, “put this on your vitae, or apply for this.”
Respondent 3 said:

I think he [department chair] would suggest alternative journals or lower tier

journals, I guess, and encourage me to send stuff there. He encouraged me to send

papers out to what he looked at, although I think I was already doing that. He
really did want me to get stuff done. I mean he would talk me through what

options I had in terms of publishing» other places, and we would try to work that
way.

204
Senior faculty and graduate advisors predominantly provided coaching and

advising. New faculty in this sample may have gone to a former graduate advisor or
senior faculty colleague for advice, because they perceived them as competent in specific
areas. For example, Respondent 4 went to senior faculty who were non-mentors for
advice, because they were the ones who were going to decide on his tenure. He wanted to
build political alliances for tenure and be sure that he understood their expectations:

Now there are other senior faculty, because as I see my future here, I see that they

have a strong influence in whether I stay or not. So I go check with them, and try

to make sure when we have those hallway conversations. And I’m asking them
how it’s going from their standpoint; how does it look for me and that sort of
thing. Not quite so bluntly as that, but I try to get into those kinds of
conversations that will help me get a read on whether they view my progress as
appropriate.

Senior faculty, department chairs, and former graduate advisors infrequently
provided role modeling. Sometimes the role model was positive, but on other occasions,
new faculty members perceived the role model as a negative one. Kram inferred that even
a negative role model makes an impact on the junior colleague. Respondent 10 stated that
the negative role model of his graduate advisor enabled him to chart a different direction in
his faculty roles.

I think he certainly developed an appreciation for research in me, and he certainly

influenced the development of my research program. But in terms of being a

professor and balancing teaching and research with all my other administrative

duties we do, very little input at all. He was the type of person who put almost

no preparation in his teaching, and perhaps that was an example for me, because I
wanted to be a better teacher, to reach my students.

205

How Functions of Mentoring and Other Relationships Compare

In looking at the difference between mentoring and non-mentoring frmctions,
perhaps the only conclusion that I can make from this sample is that mentors do provide
an advantage in the functions of sponsorship and exposure and visibility. Mentors had a
greater professional network and experience than peer colleagues. The new faculty
member’s career was advanced by the association with the mentor as well as the mentor’s
advocacy on behalf of the mentee. This sponsorship and exposure and visibility could
occur with a peer colleague, but not to the degree that a mentor offered as one who had
more professional contacts.

On the other hand, new faculty members in this sample found peer colleagues
more accessible. Relationships with peer colleagues more readily integrated personal
fiiendship with professional collaboration than relationships with senior colleagues. The
shared status and professional identity between respondents and peer colleagues enabled
equitable collaboration and friendship far more quickly than relationships with a senior
colleague.

How Other Helpful Relationships Play a Part in Understanding Faculty Cultures

This section will focus on how non-mentoring sense-making relationships have
helped faculty to understand the messages that they received from different faculty
cultures. One may ask the same question of non-mentoring sense makers that I posed in
the last chapter regarding mentors. Do non-mentoring sense makers help new faculty to
make sense of their roles within the context of multiple cultures, or do they simply

reinforce the culture to which the sense maker and the respondent are primarily oriented?

206

In response to this question, other sense makers generally delivered the message
fiom the culture to which they were primarily aligned. Senior faculty, department chairs,
and graduate advisors generally gave the message concerning the priority of research over
teaching. That message concerning the priority of research was perceived by the faculty
in this sample as an important message for alignment with and success in the disciplinary
culture. New faculty members also perceived research to be a priority as a member of a
research university.

Peer colleagues often conveyed messages from different cultures to new faculty,
because often they were themselves still in the process of sorting out the different
messages about multiple roles and responsibilities. The messages from peers may not
have helped clarify the messages for new faculty members from different cultures.
However, new faculty did learn by the example of peer colleagues a few years ahead of
them which messages were more important for success in receiving tenure and achieving
success as a faculty member.

A very interesting theme related to culture emerged in the interviews of these
respondents. New faculty members who perceived a hostile departmental environment,
developed a counter culture with other junior colleagues. These faculty members banded
together and watched out for each other in those departments. Respondent 1 stated that
“there is a greater sense of unity maybe because there is a large junior faculty
contingency, maybe just because of the pressures of being a junior faculty.”

Messages that were given to new faculty members in this sample regarding

different faculty cultures, were influenced by the values and cultural allegiance of the

207
sender. Relationships often confounded rather than clarified the understanding of faculty

cultures. Respondents were agents of the sense-making process in making sense of
priorities in each of the different layers of culture.
Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to reaffirm that the discussion in this chapter has been built
on the discussion of relationships that emerged in the interviews with new faculty
members in this study. Although I did not anticipate the importance that respondents
would accord to other sense-making relationships, the conversations have altered my
original thinking about the importance of mentoring in the sense-making process. While
writing and reflecting on these non-mentoring relationships, I went back to the literature
and found that, in some studies, peer relationships in the daily tasks of work were found
to be as important as relationships with superiors (Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983). Peers
provided personal support and powerful messages for respondents in making sense of

faculty roles and responsibilities.

CHAPTER 7

SENSE-MAKING RELATIONSHIPS:
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

A Change of Perspective

The research question that drove this study was: How do new faculty use
mentoring relationships during the entry stage of organizational socialization to make
sense of their faculty roles? Because new faculty in this sample had a complex web of
multiple relationships that included other types of experiences besides mentoring, the
discussion of this chapter will not focus solely on mentoring relationships. If I only
reflected on the mentoring relationships of new faculty members in this sample, I would

deny the power of other relationships that respondents used to make sense of their roles.

As I began this study, I was interested in mentoring as a helpful relationship for
new faculty. The literature of mentoring is primarily influenced by a traditionalflstructural
perspgtivie in which a mentoring relationship occurs between a senior and junior colleague
of differing rank and status. However, I also used the cWipegtifive to inform my
thinking about how faculty use the mentoring relationship to make sense of their multiple
faculty roles. As I was guided by a cultural perspective of sense making, it is not
surprising that I discovered a web of multiple relationships beyond traditional mentoring
that faculty used to make sense of faculty roles.

I did not give faculty a definition concerning the characteristics of a mentor at the

beginning of the interviews because I wanted to understand how they defined a mentor. I
208

«j
mentors were not the only relationships that helped faculty make sense of their roles.

209
simply informed the respondents that this was a study on mentoring. All faculty except one

usedga traditional structural perspective in identifying mentors. In other words, they
: identified senior faculty as mentors. If they did not have mentors, they had expectations

, for senior faculty to do mentoring. They did not refer to peer colleagues as mentors.

As a result of the cultural perspective of sense making, I probed beyond these
identified mentors to explore all types of sense-making relationships that new faculty used
in making sense of their roles. Faculty identified other colleagues that were helpful in

making sense of their faculty roles. A variety of perspectives emerged in which traditional

 

m

\K

Though I set out to explore mentoring from a traditional perspective, the cultural frame

informed my thinking to focus more broadly on sense-making relationships, of which
mentoring is only one type of relationship among many.

Because respondents held a @EEEIIYEY?‘ mentpring throughout the interviews
and the mentoring. literature. predominantlyflissmifiss #16,“?an as. asmturélgslsfionship,
I tried to hold on Lo'th‘etraditional structuralview of mentoring in the reporting of data.
(This was the rationale for the division of the data into Chapter :5, which reported on
mentors and Chaptehr‘g which reported on other sense makers.) However, in the final
analysis, the dissertation has become a study of sense-making relationships. Mentoring is
one type of sense-making relationship, but faculty used a much broader array of“
relationships beyond mentoring that was helpful in making sense of their multiple roles.

I chose. to designate the different relationships] aswtfirfladitional mentoring relationships
and other sense-making relationships. These relationships could have been referred to as
vertical relationships (mentoring) and lateral relationships (other sense making
relationships). These categories are not totally satisfying as a full descriptive breakdown of

the relationships.

This study has brought to light a tension that exists between a structural and

cultural fiame in understanding relationships that are helpful for faculty in the

210

socialization process. More work needs to be done by researchers in clarifying the nature

A

of relationships that new faculty have with colleagues in making sense of their roles.

- Tierney and Bensimon (1995), from a cultural viewpoint, proposed categories of formal

1’

and informal mentoring relationships. Tierney and Rhoads (1993), also proposed the

three functions of symbolic leader, trail guide, and oral historian to refer to mentoring

relationships helpful for new faculty. Speizer (1989), from 3.919.” traditional viewpoint,

suggested rolemodels, mentors, and sponsors as helpers in making sense of roles. All of
these categories are helpful for discussion, but do not really begin to fully delineate the
range of dynamics and variety of relationships that new faculty experience in the
socialization process in making sense of their roles.

I do not believe that it is sufficient to categorize all helping relationships as
mentoring relationships. This cannot be reconciled with the traditional understanding of
mentoring in the literature and general assumptions about mentoring. Further studies of
the multiple webs of relationships that new faculty experience would be helpful in
understanding the nature of social interaction that these faculty use to construct meaning
in their roles.

Limitations

At this point, it is important to reiterate that this study is limited as a
retrospective study of new faculty members’ remembrance of experienced mentoring
relationships. This interpretive study focused only on the perceptions of a small group
of new faculty at a Midwest research university regarding how they used mentoring

relationships to make sense of multiple roles. The study did not interview colleagues that

21 1
respondents identified as helpers in making sense of faculty roles. It is possible that the

perceptions of these helpful colleagues might have been very different. The discussion
points of this chapter in no way will make generalizations for all new faculty, but will
provide a point of comparison with the literature and recommendations for possible
further research.

Overview of Chapter

This chapter is organized to correspond to the way that the data was reported in
Chapters 4, 5, and 6. The first section of this chapter will reflect on the satisfaction and
stress of new faculty members in this sample and make comparisons with the literature
pertaining to new faculty. A consideration of the challenges of new faculty will help the
reader understand the various relationships of sense making. I will discuss the challenges
that faculty members in this sample faced in making sense of research and teaching,
balancing multiple roles, understanding evaluation and review, and sorting out conflicting
messages from different faculty cultures.

The second section of this chapter will look at mentoring experiences that
respondents identified as sense-making relationships. In this section, I reflect on the
respondents’ mentoring experiences and the fimctiofinggrbehaviors that were helpful for
them in making sense of their roles.

The third section of this chapter will explore other relationships. I will discuss
the value of those other types of relationships, how they compare with mentoring
relationships in the process of sense making, and things that have been learned from all

types of relationships in this sample.

212

The final section of this chapter will give observations that I made as a result of
this study. Implications of this study for new faculty members, senior faculty members,
department chairs, graduate advisors, faculty developers and administrators, and
researchers in higher education.

The Satisfaction and Challenges of New Faculty

The themes that emerged from the interviews with faculty in this study share
many similarities with the themes that have been identified pertaining to new faculty in
the literature. Sorcinelli (1992) stated that new faculty report a high level of satisfaction
that is often offset by a sense of anxiety and stress in balancing faculty roles.

The Satisfaction of New Faculty Members

In agreement with Sorcinelli (1992), the new faculty in this sample stated that
they had a high degree of satisfaction with the academic profession and the autonomy that
it affords. They found the work of research to be richly rewarding. They found
satisfaction in not only seeing their work published, but in the research process as well.
They also found it fulfilling to make an impact on students through teaching and research.
The Challegges of New Faculty Members

In spite of these satisfactions, this group of faculty wrestled with many challenges
that caused them stress as a faculty member. In agreement with the literature (Sorcinelli,
1992; F inkelstein & LaCelle-Peterson, 1992), they rarely received explicit messages
concerning what their faculty work entailed, and those messages that they did receive
were fairly ambiguous. New faculty in this group felt that they were expected to perform

as a faculty member, but messages were not always clear concerning performance

213

expectations. Fulfilling their own expectations as well as the expectations of others was
most difficult in the areas of teaching and research. Faculty especially struggled in
understanding the criteria for evaluation and sorting out messages regarding their multiple
roles.

The Challenge of Making Sense of Research

New faculty in this sample faced many challenges in making sense of their
research similar to the challenges of new faculty challenges identified in the literature
(Sorcinelli, 1992). Research challenges existed primarily in writing publishable research
and submitting a research grant proposal for funding. Respondents struggled with how to
write a paper and submit it for publication. Many felt that research as a graduate student
did not adequately prepare them for the process of writing and submitting papers for
publication as a faculty member. Respondents suggested that collaboration in which a
more experienced faculty member guided them through the process as a supportive
second author would have been particularly helpful.

Faculty members in the sample who were most successful in initiating research
early in their faculty appointment had support from colleagues (whether from mentors or
other colleagues) who guided them in the process of turning research into publishable
papers. Colleagues often provided coaching on how to write for a particular audience and
where to submit their research for publication. Colleagues also provided support by
reading the new faculty member’s writing and giving feedback.

New faculty members also struggled with how to write and submit a grant. For

some new faculty members, this was a critical expectation they needed to fulfill in order

ll ill ll.'ill

. t‘ ' ‘l'- O

214

to equip and support a research lab. Instead of receiving help, respondents were left to
muddle through the process on their own. Even those faculty members who had research
fellowships prior to coming to the university did not feel adequately prepared for the
pressure of grant writing. Grant writing seminars sponsored by the university were
available to faculty, but faculty who attended the seminars still had questions about
writing a grant proposal. Respondents generally felt that grant writing had been a process
in which they had not had a great deal of previous involvement. Faculty in this sample
felt it would have been helpful to be part of a successful grant writing process as an
observer before they had to venture out on their own in writing a grant. New faculty
members would have profited immensely by a formal mentoring or apprenticing under a
senior faculty member in which they could take part as an observer in seeing all the
aspects of writing a grant proposal. Faculty members who were most successful in
writing grants and receiving funding early in their career were mentored in the process of
contacting funding agencies and foundations for funding.

New faculty might be better served by preparation for publishing research and
writing grants during the anticipatory socialization of graduate school in order to
transition more seamlessly into the faculty research role. Prospective new faculty are
done a great disservice in graduate education, if they are not adequately prepared for the
faculty research role.

It would be helpful not only to teach prospective faculty the processes of
research, but to prepare them for the competition that they will face in publishing

research and obtaining funding. For instance, one faculty member in this sample stated

215

that funding from the NSF is becoming increasingly elusive, but he had found creative
ways in which to fund his research from private foundations and other funding agencies.

Efforts to help graduate students fully understand the process of research might
minimize the need of mentoring relationships for new faculty. If this support does not
happen in graduate school, as was the case for many of the faculty in this sample, it
should be made available for them.

The Challenge of Making Sense of Teaching

In addition to struggling with research, study participants struggled with the
development of teaching. Their experiences in the development of teaching were very
similar to the findings of new faculty studies (Fink, 1984, Whitt, 1991). Respondents
were expected to teach without any preparation in how to do course and curriculum
design, interact with students, or choose appropriate methodologies for teaching. As a
result of this lack of preparation, most of the faculty reverted to teaching in ways they
had been taught. One of the faculty members in this sample likened this process of
learning to teach to learning to swim by being thrown off a dock. One does not learn to
swim the crawl in that manner, and one does not learn excellence in teaching in that way
either.

In addition to all this, many faculty in this group perceived that teaching was not
that important for review and evaluation. When they tried to focus on excellence in
teaching, they were cautioned by colleagues that teaching detracted from the primary

pursuit of research.

 

.\. .
‘I

"‘
1 I'll...
. .t . tl l....'r.fl‘

216
The Lilly Fellowship and other workshops provided teaching development

opportunities for some faculty. One of the most beneficial aspects of the Lilly
Fellowship was the opportunity that it provided for faculty to engage in conversation
about teaching with colleagues from across the university. These programs provided a
place in which a new faculty member could safely talk about concerns and desires for
improvement outside of the department. One faculty member called teaching workshops
a “safe place,” because she could talk freely without any concern about department
colleagues who would evaluate her.

Not all of the faculty in this sample had the opportunity to take part in the Lilly
Fellowship, and not all were fully aware of other workshop opportunities. It would have
been helpful for these faculty to have a “safe place” to talk about teaching outside the
department. This group of faculty expressed that informal conversations about teaching
with colleagues were extremely helpful.

The Challenge of Making Sense of Multiple Roles

In addition to making sense of teaching and research, faculty did not expect to
experience tension in balancing their faculty roles. They did not realize that establishing
teaching and research would be so time consuming and cause so much stress in their
personal and professional lives. Establishing these roles was compounded by the need to
address multiple roles simultaneously. New teaching preps along with establishing
research was daunting for many in the sample. No respondent in the sample met

expected goals for research productivity in the first or second year. Many of the

217
respondents felt that they were just beginning to get a rhythm of balance between

research and teaching at the time of the interviews.

According to the literature, new faculty members often have difficulty in balancing
multiple roles simultaneously (Sorcinelli, 1992). The process of balancing multiple roles
can be overwhelming for the neophyte, and new faculty often hold unrealistic
expectations for performance in these multiple roles (Sorcinelli, 1992).

The Challenge of Making Sense of Evaluation and Review

In addition to the stress of balancing multiple roles, faculty stated that they were
not ever fully sure about how much effort was necessary to satisfy requirements for
evaluation and review. Several faculty complained that the process of evaluation was
highly politicized with relative standards that changed with different department chairs.
Some faculty spoke cautiously about the tenure process during the interviews, and several
faculty relayed that they were disillusioned by the process, calling it a “game” or
“politics”.

Respondents were uncertain about the quantity or the quality of work necessary
for tenure. Respondents often felt an obligation to do well in teaching, but were cautioned
by colleagues to make research primary. It was often difficult to focus on the long term
goals of research when teaching provided more immediate demands as well as gratification.

Stress for these faculty could have been relieved by clear and consistent
communication concerning evaluative requirements. Faculty felt that consistent review
would have been helpful in understanding appropriate prioritization of roles. Three

faculty members who received consistent communication from the department chair were

218

confident that they were prepared for the tenure review process, and that there would be
no surprises.

The Challenge of Sorting out Messages from Different Faculty Cultures

Faculty faced the challenge of making sense of messages from different cultures.
Many of the new faculty had a clearer understanding of how to achieve professional
viability for their discipline than professional viability within the university. The larger
mission of the university was generally not clear to respondents. Only a few of the
faculty, who were Lilly Fellows, clearly delineated their understanding of the university
mission.

Opportunities like the Lilly Fellowship were helpful to some faculty in which
they were exposed to faculty members from other disciplines and departments. This
experience gave them exposure to the larger community of the university and encouraged
discussion of university mission across the disciplines. New faculty members can be
very focused on their own research and departmental concerns so that they do not
appreciate the benefit of collaboration with others across the university. However, the
Lilly Fellowship was only available for a small faculty cohort, leaving other faculty
without any comparable program to appreciate the broader institutional mission and
networks.

Summapx

This group of new faculty members was not unusual or extraordinary in the
challenges that they faced. The literature pertaining to new faculty contains the same

themes as the ones that emerged in this study (Boice, 1991; Fink, 1984; Olsen &

2 19
Sorcinelli, 1992; Sorcinelli, 1992; Whitt, 1991). New faculty experienced similar stresses

and challenges across the disciplines and departments within a university. These faculty
experienced a very intense learning dynamic as they came into the faculty position. The
significance of these challenges for sense-making relationships will be addressed in section
four of this chapter.
Sense Making through Traditional Mentoring Relationships

This study, as I stated earlier, set out to probe how faculty reported using
mentoring in the first three years of their faculty appointment to make sense of faculty
roles. New faculty in this sample not only used traditional mentoring to make sense of
their faculty roles; they used other types of relationships as well. This section will probe
more fully the value of traditional mentoring and make some concluding statements about
mentoring.
Mentoring: Changed Assumptions as a Result of this Study

After reflecting on the experience of these faculty members, I have come to some
conclusions about mentoring that are very different from the assumptions with which I
began this study. I began with a primary assumption that traditional mentoring should be
formalized as a primary tactic for helping all new faculty in making sense of their faculty
roles. I would now say that traditional mentoring is one of many socialization tactics that
can make positive contributions to new faculty. It is not, however, the only means of
socialization, and it may not be the most helpful tactic for some faculty. What one
faculty member stated about mentoring continues to reverberate in my thinking. She said

that it is important not to “put all your eggs in one basket.” She was speaking of

220

embracing multiple mentoring relationships. I would expand that advice to apply to
mentoring as a tactic of socialization. Mentoring relationships are helpfirl, but they need
to be integrated with other relationships and other types of programs to provide a full
array of mechanisms that support the new faculty member. All the “eggs” of
socialization should not be “put into one basket,” mentoring.

Stories abound concerning the merits of mentoring relationships for the new
organizational member. The organizational literature has also found that mentoring gives a

I new employee an edge on professional growth and development within the organization.

(Berry, 1983, Collins and Scott, 1978, Fagensons, 1989, Roche, 1979, and Zey, 1991)
Mentoring has weaknesses as well as strengths.

Not all mentoring relationships are created equal, and not all mentoring

relationships look the same. The dynamic of a mentoring relationship is very

’,,

idiosyncratic, dependent on the personality of both participants, their professional
experiences and competencies, and the organizational context in which the mentoring
takes place. The mentoring of the faculty in this sample looked very different from the
mentoring that organizational literature describes between a senior employer and a junior
employee. The new faculty members in this study spoke of multiple mentoring

\

1 relationships rather than one lifelong mentoring relationship, as Levinson, (1978)

/

7" suggests. They also preferred more of a collegial and collaborative relationship than a
superior-subordinate hierarchy. Even though they referred to mentoring from a traditional

perspective-of aseniorejunior relationship, they preferred that the dynamic of the

relationship would be more collegial and collaborative.

221
In addition, some new faculty within this sample did not have the opportunity to

develop mentoring relationships in the context of their department or other associations
within the university. Yet, they were able to draw upon other types of relationships for
making sense of their faculty roles and responsibilities. I would contend that it is
advisable to have mentoring as a new faculty member, but one need not fail because of a
lack of mentoring relationships. I am reminded of Respondent 8 who had a traditional
mentoring relationship that did not go well, but she had a network of other relationships
that provided support in making sense of faculty roles.
A Definition of Mentoring

I return to a definition of mentoring because it pertains to the way in which I have
organized the reporting of data and the conclusions regarding mentoring. I have retained a
traditional defmitfiipnmqfflmeptoring. I do not believe that sense making that occurs between
colleagues with the same degree of professional experience and the same professional rank
is mentoring. Peer colleagues can be invaluable in the process of sense making as the
experiences of this faculty group demonstrate. However, a mentor has deeper experience
and a broader professional network through which s/he can open doors for a mentee that
peer colleagues cannot do or the mentee cannot do for her/himself. For instance, mentors
who had greater faculty rank and broader professional networks than respondents, were
very helpful in opening doors within disciplinary associations in order to publish
research. The mentee often drew upon the greater professional competency and

experience of the mentor in ways that are not available from a peer colleague.

222

Mentoring may occur between two individuals of the same age group if one of the
individuals has greater experience and networks across professional roles. One of the
faculty members identified a mentor who was about her same age. However, this
respondent had a professional career before returning to academia to do a Ph.D. and
moving into a faculty role. So, while they were the same age, the mentor had a greater
experience and competency, as well as higher ranking status.

Mentoring for respondents was a mfiifaceted developmental relationship with
many different levels of interaction, that grew between the mentor and the mentee over a
period of time. Faculty did not identify casual relationships of support and advising as
mentoring relationships, although from a cultural perspective, they certainly may have
qualified as sense-making relationships.

The new faculty members in this sample spoke of multiple mentoring
relationships, and they believed that one person could not convey all that a faculty
member needs to make sense of faculty roles and responsibilities. There may be the need
and opportunity for more than one mentoring relationship, and certainly there will be
many sense-making relationships.

Formal Mentoring of New Faculty

Both Boice (1990, 1992b) and Wunsch (1993) have argued that formal mentoring
(a program for establishing mentoring relationships for the mentor and the mentee) can be
used as a viable method for the professional development of new faculty. New faculty in
this sample generally did not experience formal mentoring. Faculty in this sample highly

valued their autonomy and questioned the value of formal mentoring programs. The

223

nature of faculty work is built on the core value of autonomy and the expression of that
autonomy in the way in which a faculty member carries out her/his roles. Autonomous
faculty interact in collegial relationships of collaboration and not in assigned relationships.
In the course of this study, some respondents raised the question whether a formal
mentoring relationship could restrict a new faculty member. Respondent 13, who had
experienced a traditional mentoring relationship in the corporate world prior to returning
to higher education, argued that formal mentoring would inhibit the individual struggle in
establishing oneself that encourages faculty creativity. She felt strongly that formal
mentoring would impede the faculty autonomy that is necessary for developing initiative
and creativity in research.

More work needs to be done in the area of formal mentoring programs to
determine the impact on new faculty members in making sense of their roles. More
studies concerning the processes and outcomes of formal mentoring would be helpful in
understanding the impact of such programs. Chao, Walz, & Gardner (1992), in a key
study, compared the differences between formal and informal mentoring and concluded
that they were not significantly different.

Formal mentoring has especially been suggested as a means of insuring the
effective transition of new faculty members from underrepresented groups (ethnic
minorities and women) into the academy (Boice, 1992a; Wunsch, 1992). This study
cannot speak in detail to these issues, but the nature of comments from women faculty
members participating in this study raises questions whether formal mentoring is always

appropriate for addressing the needs of underrepresented faculty members in the

224

professorate. Women faculty members in this study generally found it more effective to
create a network of multiple relationships of all types of colleagues, rather than relying on
formalized mentoring.

The experience or perceptions of this faculty sample is not extensive enough to
make definitive comments about formal mentoring. While formal mentoring was not the
general experience of these new faculty, they raised interesting questions concerning the
operationalization of formal mentoring that should be pursued in further studies that
focus on formal mentoring.

Mentoring of New Faculty: For What Purpose?

Another issue emerged from this study concerning the purpose of mentoring in
relation to the organization. Mentoring for these new faculty members did not
necessarily increase loyalty to and integration within the organization as the
organizational literature suggests (Collins, 1983). This study began with a recognition
that new faculty members receive different messages from the culture of the discipline,
the department, the institution, the profession as a whole, and the national system of
higher education. Mentors of new faculty members in this study predominantly
conveyed messages from the culture to which they were aligned, and often the mentor’s
primary allegiance was not to the organization. For new faculty members across this
sample, they received many different messages. The nature of the message depended on
the professional emphasis of the mentor, the nature of the mentoring relationship, and the

purpose of the relationship.

225

Mentoring experienced by these new faculty members did not always integrate
them more fully into the organizational structure of the university. Respondents,
themselves, were primarily interested in making sense of their research and sought
mentors for broader disciplinary contacts. These mentoring relationships may have
ultimately compromised their loyalty to the university.

Mentoring for these faculty did not necessarily give them an edge in understanding
institutional policy for success or greater productivity within the university. Faculty
experienced a range of multiple mentors, some who were even outside the institution and
were not necessarily interested in transmitting institutional policies. The experiences of
the new faculty in this sample do not agree with Zey’s (1991) contention that mentoring
is a more effective way to transmit institutional policy. In fact, for these faculty, it may
have been a less effective transmission of institutional policy.

In conclusion, faculty in this sample were primarily oriented toward the research
role. As they were focused on research in their mentoring and sense-making relationships,
they ultimately formed strong ties that would help them in research. In response to this,
one may ask how mentoring would differ for new faculty who are not so driven to do
research in a research university. Would mentoring in a community college or another
type of college be more focused on institutional loyalty in the process and outcome of the
mentoring relationship? More studies are needed regarding how the mentoring of new
faculty members is influenced by the institutional culture and mission. More studies are

also needed to sort out the influence of faculty cultures on mentoring relationships.

226

Types of Functions in Faculty Mentoring Relationships in Higher Education

The fimctions of Kram (1985) were helpful for probing the behaviors of faculty
mentors. The new faculty members in this sample agreed that mentoring needs to contain
functions that support career as well as psychosocial dynamics. Within these two
categories, some of Kram’s functions were appropriate for the mentoring of new faculty
such as sponsorship, coaching, and protection. Other functions were not so helpful in
describing new faculty mentoring experiences such as exposure and visibility and
challenging assignments. These functions are more linked to hierarchical relationships in
which the mentor assigns the mentee specific tasks that will result in career development
for the mentee.

Also, in the course of the interviews, a behavioral process or function kept
recurring that was not contained in Kram’s categories or functions. I chose to call that
function “collaboration.” It was a dynamic in which the mentor and the mentee shared in
research or teaching as professional equals. In that sharing as professional equals, the
junior colleague was enriched and advanced by the professional experience and
competence of the senior colleague. More work needs to be done concerning the nature of
collaboration and how that helps new faculty members make sense of their faculty roles.
In understanding the nature and dynamics of collaboration, perhaps suggestions could be
given to senior faculty on how to incorporate collaboration into relationships with new
faculty to encourage professional growth and development.

The functions of Kram (1985) provided a helpful starting point in looking at the

process of mentoring. However, more research needs to be done to explore the nature of

227

functions that occur in the process of mentoring for new faculty members. The literature
of higher education has not adequately explained the activities of mentoring among
faculty.

Final Thoughts on the Mentoring of New Faculty Members

In the final analysis, it was hard to make general recommendations from this
sample concerning whether and how new faculty should be mentored to insure success in
making sense of faculty roles. The experiences of this faculty group show that mentoring
was highly individual and idiosyncratic, based on the needs of the faculty member and
the context in which the faculty member worked. Faculty members in this sample used a
variety of people in mentoring relationships to make sense of faculty roles. Based on the
experiences of these respondents, perhaps one of the most helpful things that we could
do for faculty is to give them advice on how to initiate mentoring relationships. Then,
allow them to create their own strategy and initiate their own relationships for sense
making based on that support and guidance. This does not imply that faculty should be
left on their own to figure things out. The university has a very important responsibility
to provide help for new faculty by orienting them concerning what they should look for
in constructing sense-making relationships.

The final question concerns what a mentor contributes to the new faculty member
that cannot be obtained through any other sense-making relationship. Based on the
interviews with these respondents, faculty members were able to draw on the mentor’s
professional connections and experience to get a quick start in their career. The mentors

opened doors in professional networks for new faculty in a way that peer colleagues

228

could not necessarily do. By recommending the new faculty member to the broader
professional network, the mentor linked her/his own professional reputation with the
performance and success of the junior colleague.

Secondly, the mentor provided a powerful role model for the new faculty member.
The depth of interpersonal connection through the mentoring relationship made the role
modeling of the mentor especially powerful. New faculty in this sample indicated that
the personal knowledge of the mentor seemed to accentuate those positive behaviors that
they embraced and the negative behaviors they rejected.

Thirdly the mentor provided an acceptance and confirmation of the new faculty
person that was helpful in building professional identity and self-efficacy. When a senior
colleague, who was widely respected in the field, entered into a mentoring relationship
with a respondent characterized by multiple levels of professional and personal
interaction, it built the new faculty member’s personal esteem and professional efficacy.
The new faculty member gained confidence and boldness to take risks and initiatives that
s/he may not have done otherwise. Respondents in this sample expressed surprise and
satisfaction that mentors had sought them out for professional collaboration.

Sense Making through Other Types of Relationships

In addition to mentoring relationships, faculty members in this sample used other
relationships that were helpful for making sense of their faculty roles and responsibilities.
The other sense-making relationships that respondents used included peer colleagues,
non-mentoring senior faculty and graduate advisors, and department chairs as well as

other various relationships. There is no consistent pattern across the sample regarding

229

when respondents used these relationships. Faculty members used other colleagues when
they did not have a mentoring relationship, when mentoring relationships were
insufficient, and even alongside of helpful mentoring relationships. All this is to say that
new faculty members initiated all types of relationships within their particular context to
create a multiple web of helpful relationships.

Sense-Making Relationships with Peer Colleagu_es

The most surprising learning from this study was the power and value of sense-
making relationships with peer colleagues a few years ahead of or behind the new faculty
member. Faculty members a few steps ahead of new faculty members in this sample
provided a very important source of learning in how to make sense of faculty roles. Peer
colleagues were identified as the most significant sense-making relationship as often as
mentoring relationships. Respondents expressed the importance of integrating friendship
with professional support that peer colleagues provided.

Respondents stated that they felt more comfortable in sharing with peers than
senior colleagues, because peers did not have an evaluative function to play in
respondents’ professional lives. Sometimes the respondent and the peer found a ready
bond because they both felt on the outside of the departmental power and structure. In
addition to finding a ready bond, peer colleagues a few steps ahead of the respondent
often provided a more accessible role model than the successful senior faculty member.
The model of a peer colleague made the reality of achieving tenure or publishing research
seem doable for the respondent. Interaction with someone who shared a similar identity,

professional status, and professional experiences provided a point of identification.

230

Throughout the interviews, new faculty expressed that senior faculty mentors often
forget what it was like to be a new faculty member. On the other hand, a peer daily lived
a similar experience and was fully able to empathize with the respondents.

For many different reasons, new faculty members in this sample found that
collaboration with peers occurred more naturally and frequently. I have previously
discussed how important collaborative relationships were for new faculty members in
making sense of faculty roles and responsibilities. Collaboration with peers was mixed
with friendship outside of work in connections at many different levels.

Peer colleagues were also an important connection through the Lilly Fellowship
for respondents who were Lilly Fellows. Those respondents agreed that the Lilly
Fellowship provided opportunities to link with peer colleagues across the university who
were experiencing some of the same stresses and concerns. Through the Lilly Fellowship
respondents not only found a way to connect with these colleagues, they also found a
forum in which they could discuss with freedom and openness the issues facing new
faculty.

Hill, Bahniuk, and Donbos (1989) found in their study of mentoring and collegial
support systems that mentoring was the most significant relationship that provided
adequate information for faculty success. They also found, however, that peer
relationships provided an important source of information for faculty success. Many
sources in the literature of higher education propound mentoring as an important source
of socialization, but the power of peer colleagues is often overlooked and needs more

attention.

231

The relationships that respondents had with peers provided some valuable points
about those types of sense-making relationships that were helpfirl for new faculty
members. First, sense-making relationships that were readily accessible and open for new
faculty members provided opportunities for addressing new faculty concerns without fear
of repercussion. The Lilly Fellowship is an example of accessible open relationships
outside of the department in which faculty felt that they could safely address issues.
New faculty often felt that they could not ask questions in the department or they would
appear less competent as a faculty member.

Second, collaboration provided the new faculty member opportunities to
contribute to others as well as to learn themselves. This type of relationship provided a
sense of professional efficacy and self confidence for the new faculty member that
allowed them the opportunity to take growth-producing risks in making a contribution.

Third, sense-making relationships that linked professional collaboration with
friendship and personal sharing on many levels multiplied the benefits of the sense-
making relationship. It was important to have both career and psychosocial support in
the behaviors of a sense-making relationship. Personal support was invaluable for new
faculty members in multiplying the impact of the professional collaboration of the
relationship with a peer.

Relationships with the Department Chair

Relationships do not need to be warm and supportive in order to be valuable in
the sense-making process. New faculty may not have had a particularly warm

relationship with the department chair, but the department chair communicated messages

232

that the new faculty member used to make sense of her/his roles. The department chair
primarily served an evaluative function in the life of the new faculty member. Such a
function precluded a warm type of relationship, but clear, consistent messages from the
department chair also provided help to the new faculty members in this sample. Clear
and consistent messages may not have always been appreciated, but new faculty then
knew exactly where they stood and what the expectations were. Faculty found that the
department chair and other relationships were not helpful when the messages were
inconsistent or mixed concerning what they needed to do.

Faculty in this sample also felt that any message in sense making seemed more
palatable if the one who sent the message communicated in spoken ways and non-verbal
actions that s/he had the best interest of the new faculty member as a primary
consideration. Sometimes the communication of a department chair or other senior
faculty member left the faculty member wondering if this person had a primary desire for
the professional advancement of the faculty member.

General Observations About Sense Makirg

Sense making for respondents occurred across all types of relationships. An
important theme from the literature on sense making is that the new organizational
member becomes an agent of socialization in sense making and initiates relationships that
enable sense making to occur. Newcomers proactively seek information in making sense
of their roles (Ashford, 1986; Morrison, 1993a; Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992). New
faculty in this sample were agents of the sense-making process; they were not simply

passive recipients of socialization.

233

In contrast, the traditional mentoring process has often been viewed as passive for
the new faculty member. Boice (1992) stated, “Traditional mentoring is passive in terms
of self-initiative for new faculty in general, and for the new recruits that we need to
nurture and retain in particular.” (p. 55). New faculty members in this sample conveyed
that they generally took the initiative for creating and establishing mentoring relationships
as well as other sense-making relationships. Sands, Parson, and Duane (1991) found that
mentoring relationships in their study were most frequently mutually initiated by both
participants. All of this is to say that sense-making relationships did not just happen to
the new faculty member. The new faculty member was the agent and sought out multiple
relationships that were helpful in making sense of faculty roles and responsibilities.

Implications of the Study

New faculty members contribute to the organization as they interact with
organizational members in making sense of their roles. More work needs to be done in
higher education research to ascertain and fully understand the nature of the contributions
that new faculty members make to the organization in the process of socialization.

In addition to building a multiple web of relationships for sense making, it is
important that the new faculty member look for multiple levels and types of functions in
sense making. I am not sure that the type of relationship that a new faculty member
seeks in order to make sense of faculty roles is as important as the functions they
experience in the relationship. A new faculty member should build relationships that
provide career support as well as psychosocial support. Both are necessary for

successfully making sense of faculty roles. These functions may be provided by

234

traditional mentoring or any other range of sense-making relationships. Kram (1985)
originally meant her functions to be applied to mentoring relationships, but I believe,
based on the experiences of these respondents, that they can be applied to all sense-
making relationships. The functions that Kram has identified are necessary for support
and guidance in career growth and development, regardless of the type of relationship.

In addition to building a multiple web of sense-making relationships, with a
variety of career and psychosocial functions, it is important for new faculty to have
relationships that provide an opportunity for feedback and reflection. New faculty
members in this sample explained that conversations regarding their faculty roles provided
help in making sense of faculty roles. Relationships that focused on conversations related
to teaching and research provided important personal as well as career support.
Conversations in which faculty feel free to reflect on their professional roles in the
presence of trusted colleagues who provide feedback may be a very important means of
professional development. The value of reflection and feedback cannot be overlooked.

In responding to all that I have learned through this study, I want to close with a
discussion of the audiences that might profit from this study and make suggestions
regarding the relevance of this study for each of those audiences. I also want to suggest
possible studies that might build on the strengths of this research as well as addressing the
weaknesses of the study. I make the following remarks to new faculty members, senior
faculty members, department chairs and administrators, graduate advisors, faculty
developers, and researchers interested in studying the sense-making relationships of new

faculty.

235

Recommendations for New Faculy Members

Several implications can be drawn from this study that are valuable for new
faculty members who are making the transition into faculty work and who are trying to
make sense of faculty roles. The new faculty in this study shared many of the same
concerns, challenges, stresses, and satisfactions that have been identified in the literature
pertaining to new faculty members (F inkelstein & LaCelle-Peterson, 1992). Some of the
learning that emerged from this study may be helpful for new faculty members in making
sense of their faculty roles. I have composed a list of suggestions for new faculty
members that takes account of both the experiences of the new faculty members in this
sample and the predominant themes reported in the literature.

S_uggstion 1: Seek out relationships to helm making sense of faculmroles.

Boice (1991) has coined the term “quick starters” to refer to new faculty members
who become exemplary teachers (identified through student evaluations, researcher
observations, and faculty members self-report). These “quick starters” were comfortable
in their teaching role, were reasonably satisfied with their campus, sought advice from
senior colleagues about teaching, and quickly balanced their teaching and research
priorities to give more time to research. According to Boice, one of the key characteristics
of these “quick starters” was their initiative in talking with senior colleagues in asking for
help with their teaching role. Faculty respondents in this study sample spoke of the
necessity of seeking out multiple sense-making relationships with senior and peer

colleagues in making sense of their faculty roles, particularly teaching and research.

236
It would be helpful for faculty to know that it is critical for them to take the

initiative early in their careers to build relationships with other colleagues who can
provide advice and support. Success in sense making and getting a “quick start” in one’s
faculty roles depends on an action plan in seeking advice and help from other faculty. I
would advise new faculty to seek relationships that would help them with each of their
roles as well as the balance and integration of those roles.

Suggestion 2: Build a network of support.

In addition to admonishing new faculty to seek out multiple relationships for
advice and support, I would advise new faculty to seek a network of support to prevent
feelings of isolation. New faculty members in this study expressed hesitancy to ask for
advice from senior faculty members for fear of appearing incompetent. This parallels the
findings in other studies that new faculty are hesitant to ask for help, hence they feel
isolated in their attempts to make sense of their roles (Finkelstein, 1984; Sorcinelli, 1992;
Whitt, 1991). It is crucial for new faculty to take the initiative in building supportive
relationships. It does not simply happen.

In building a network of relationships, new faculty members should seek a variety
of sense-making relationships for different kinds of purposes. No one relationship can
supply all that a new faculty member needs to make sense-of her/his roles. A new faculty
member cannot expect that other faculty members will seek her/him out, but s/he must
build the network of support.

Also, in building a network of multiple relationships, these relationships should

include important career functions like sponsorship, coaching, protection, and

237

collaboration. The relationships should also include appropriate psychosocial fimctions
of role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, friendship, and counseling. A web of
relationships needs to supply all these functions for career advancement and interpersonal
support.

One of the multiple relationships that new faculty should seek is mentoring.
Mentors can provide professional sponsorship for the new faculty member to expand
her/his professional network. New faculty may also draw upon the mature experience of
the mentor in coaching, role modeling and counseling. In addition to the mentor, however,
new faculty should not overlook the roles of peer colleagues in providing coaching and
support as well as role modeling, guidance, and friendship. A range of professional
colleagues at different stages of professional experience and development would be
helpful for new faculty members. It is more important to look for the career and
psychosocial functions of relationships, and that they are fully delivered across one’s
network of relationships, than to look for certain types of relationships. It is not as
crucial to have any one type of relationship as it is to have a web of relationships that
provides a full array of these career and psychosocial functions.

In all of the relationships that new faculty build in the network, they should
include people with whom they feel comfortable in talking about their concerns. Faculty
in this sample greatly valued and found extremely helpful, relationships that provided a

sounding board for reflection and feedback.

238

Spggestion 3: Remember that you are not alone in the stress that you face.

New faculty should be made aware of the findings in the literature: They will face
anxiety and stress in balancing their multiple faculty roles (Sorcinelli, 1992). They will
probably receive ambiguous messages concerning their roles (Whitt, 1991; Austin,
Brocato, & LaFleur, 1993). They will probably feel that the standards that are used to
measure them are not applied equally to senior colleagues, and they will be swamped with
work related assignments (Sorcinelli, 1992). Teaching will fill an inordinate amount of
time in their first years and eclipse personal research goals (Fink, 1984; Boice, 1991). It
will be hard to build collaborative relationships with other colleagues (Sorcinelli, 1992). It
will be difficult to sort out mixed messages from diverse cultures in which they will
negotiate faculty roles (Austin, 1992a). New faculty members within this sample
expressed all of these same kind of challenges and concerns. It would have been extremely
helpful if they could have had a “quick start” in realizing that their concerns are universal,
they are not alone, and there are relationships that they should form to address these
concerns.

Suggestion 4: You are the key in making sense of your faculty roles.

The literature has shown that one of the greatest needs for new faculty is the
creation of a climate that would enable new faculty members to understand institutional
context, values, and mission. However, the very nature of academic work and valuing of
faculty autonomy can negate efforts to create a welcoming climate. Realistically, in some
disciplines, faculty positions are few, the competition for research funding is fierce,

expectations for new faculty performance continue to rise, and the press to do more with

239

less becomes customary. The expectation for an autonomous faculty member, who
comes to the position fully trained to succeed and excel as a faculty member will probably
continue. It is in these less than ideal conditions that new faculty must act as proactive
agents of their own sense making.

New faculty members in this sample indicated that they felt ultimate
responsibility for their success. Support was important and desired, but self-initiative in
building supportive relationships was the key for success. The literature pertaining to the
socialization of new faculty has predominantly targeted administrators, faculty
developers, senior faculty and researchers with the message that they need to work at
creating a welcoming climate for new faculty. New faculty members, however, should
also be targeted in these discussions. They need information on what they can do to build
their own network of support when they don't encounter a supportive environment.
They need orientation and direction for building a network that includes an array of
functions and relationships when the climate for socialization is not warm and welcoming.

One may question this conclusion that new faculty members are the key to their
own success in making sense of their faculty roles. By the stress that I have given to the
importance for new faculty initiative in making sense of faculty roles, I do not mean to
excuse those who can also take steps to build a better institutional climate for the
socialization of new faculty members. The next section will address this research from
the standpoint of the responsibility of senior faculty members, department chairs and

administrators, graduate advisors, and faculty developers.

240

Recommendations for Senior Faculty Members

Faculty in this sample had high expectations for help from senior faculty
members. In contrast, what the faculty members in this sample generally perceived is
that senior faculty were aloof and not concerned about their success. New faculty
members in this sample found it to be especially helpful when senior faculty took the
initiative to establish collaboration in teaching and research. New faculty members
wanted collaboration with senior faculty in which they could draw upon their experience
and knowledge in an equitable collegial relationship.

Based on the experience of this faculty group, collaboration that a senior faculty
member initiates might be as simple as inviting the junior colleague to read and comment
on the senior colleague’s writing or research. Another way to initiate collaboration might
be to invite a junior colleague to take part in a research project, the writing of a paper, or a
presentation together for a disciplinary association. When new faculty members in this
sample were invited to collaborate in these ways, they were able to draw upon the
experience and competency of the senior faculty member. Often collaborative
relationships were helpful in getting a research agenda going for the new faculty member
in this sample.

In reflecting on the interviews, I believe that senior faculty members may not
necessarily harbor ill will for a junior faculty person, but they may appear aloof because
they are not generally sure how to establish a mentoring relationship with a junior faculty
member. It may be that the senior faculty member assumes that an initiative to help the

junior faculty person would be looked upon as an intrusion on the new faculty members’

241

autonomy. Faculty development that focuses on equipping senior faculty to mentor and
help junior faculty might be helpful for both senior and junior faculty. Senior faculty
could be encouraged to mentor junior faculty by being made aware of the potential
contribution that it might make to them as well as junior faculty (Levinson, 1978).

Incentives might be developed by departments and universities to encourage
senior faculty to mentor junior colleagues. Junior faculty probably face greater stress in
making sense of faculty roles than senior faculty previously encountered (Finkelstein,
1984; F inkelstein & LaCelle-Peterson, 1992), and they would greatly profit by drawing
on the experience and competency of senior faculty who initiate collaborative
relationships.
Recommendations for Department Chairs

Department chairs and administrators, by the nature of their evaluative function,
were generally not interpreted by the new faculty member in this sample as offering warm
supportive relationships. Most of the faculty in this sample did not feel particularly
close to their department chairs. One of the key problems that respondents identified in
their relationship with the department chair was that messages concerning expectations
seemed unclear and/or inconsistent. A department chair does not need to provide a warm
supportive relationship to be helpful to the new faculty person. However, it might be
helpful for the department chair to make sure that s/he gives messages that are
consistently clear regarding the expectations for evaluation of the new faculty member.
Faculty in this sample complained that they were never sure about the requirements for

evaluation.

242
Another way in which the department chair might help new faculty is to provide

them with the names of senior faculty in the department who have competencies and
experiences that they could offer to new faculty members. New faculty may not be
aware of who would be helpfirl in making sense of various faculty roles. Mentoring
relationships may be assigned, but they need encouragement and support from the
department chair. Departmental incentives for senior faculty who fulfill assigned
mentoring responsibilities would encourage mentoring relationships that would be helpful
to new faculty members. It would also be helpful if the department chair not only
suggested supportive people for new faculty members, but also kept the new faculty
person informed about faculty development programs within the college and the
university.

New faculty would greatly appreciate a department in which the department chair
protects them from shouldering heavy committee responsibilities in their first years as a
faculty member. Some new faculty members in the sample were protected from these
types of committee assignments and responsibilities, which gave the time to focus on
more pressing demands such as developing research and teaching.

Faculty who had a supportive department chair appreciated honest messages
when they were doing well. They also appreciated admonitions or suggestions concerning
how they could do better in meeting departmental requirements. Two faculty had a
department chair who provided suggestions for them, but they felt that he did it in an

intrusive and nagging manner. The department chair should be clear about expectations

243

and offer support, but it is the new faculty member who ultimately chooses to follow or
reject that support.
Recommendations for Graduate Advisors

This study also raises issues that are relevant for graduate advisors who mentor
potential new faculty members. This study focused on the entry period of organizational
socialization by specifically looking at the sense-making relationships during the first
three years of a new faculty member’s appointment. I did not look at the relationships
that impact a faculty member in making sense of faculty roles during the period of
anticipatory socialization in graduate school.

However, the relationship that a new faculty member has with a graduate advisor
may span the period of anticipatory socialization during the graduate student experience
and the entry period of socialization during the first three years of a faculty appointment.
Several new faculty members in this sample had a mentoring relationship with a graduate
advisor that began during graduate study and carried over into the faculty appointment.
Other new faculty members did not have a mentoring relationship with the graduate
advisor, but relied on the graduate advisor as one person to help in making sense of
faculty roles. Even a relationship with a graduate advisor that did not endure into the
entry period may have contributed to the sense making of a faculty member as a
relationship of anticipatory socialization. This anticipatory socialization could be a
powerful sense-making relationship for new faculty members.

Most of the faculty in this sample struggled with getting research and teaching

established as a new faculty member. New faculty members in this sample felt that the

244

graduate experience had not sufficiently prepared them to do the work of a faculty
member in these areas. The question that arises for graduate advisors is whether the
graduate experience can be improved to more adequately prepare faculty for their faculty
roles, particularly teaching and research. Respondent 5 did not have as much difficulty in
getting research and teaching going as other faculty. His graduate advisor had adequately
prepared him to do research by introducing him to funding agencies and collaborating with
him in writing grants as a graduate student. The graduate advisor of Respondent 5 also
thrust him into the classroom as a graduate student when he learned of the respondent’s
aspirations to teach.

A graduate advisor can have a significant impact on the way in which a new
faculty member makes sense of her/his roles. Perhaps some faculty would not need as
much help in making sense of their roles during the first three years as a faculty member if
the mentoring received during graduate school adequately prepared her/him for a faculty
position. Those faculty who have not been adequately prepared may need more help in
making sense of their roles. Graduate advisors might reexamine the kind of mentoring and
guidance that they are giving the graduate student and how that will enable the faculty
member to make sense of faculty roles.

Recommendations for Faculty Developers and Administrators

I have placed faculty developers and administrators together in this section
because I want to focus on the implications of this study for those who provide
professional development for new faculty members. I will address issues that flow from

this study concerning how faculty developers might give support and professional

245

development for new faculty. Based on the discussion with this faculty I might suggest
the following strategies for development of new faculty.

First, I offer strategies concerning the personal development of faculty. Faculty
developers could inform new faculty members about the process of sense making and the
need to take the initiative in building multiple relationships. These relationships should
include a diverse type of dynamics and a broad range of career and psychosocial
functions. These relationships might include mentoring relationships as well as peer
colleague relationships that would be helpful in making sense of faculty roles.

I would also encourage new faculty members to develop a personal plan for
faculty development in which they identify their needs and the people and programs that
might help them in meeting those needs. A new faculty member should identify people
that can provide career support through collaboration in establishing research and teaching
and should find people who will provide interpersonal support.

In addition to strategies for personal development of new faculty members, I
would suggest developing organizational strategies for the professional development of
faculty. From this sample, it is evident that programs like the Lilly Fellowship help
faculty in making sense of their faculty roles. Programs like the Lilly Fellowship make a
great contribution by providing a forum for forging collaborative relationships across the
university. The Fellowship also provides a “safe place” for conversations about faculty
roles, specifically teaching. Programs that provide a way for faculty to make connections
across the university and encourage faculty to discuss teaching and research without fear

in admitting need or failure are invaluable in contributing to new faculty members’

246

professional development. At a minimum, this is what the university should do in
providing programs like the Lilly Fellowship for new faculty that afford the opportunity
for conversations and collaboration across multiple roles.

Recommendations for Researchers in Higher Education

The final audience that I will address with recommendations concerning this study
are those who are interested in pursuing further research pertaining to the mentoring of
new faculty members in higher education. In the process of doing this study, I
encountered new issues and questions that I could not address because of the limitations
of this study. I will focus in this section on recommendations for furthering the research
based on an integrative discussion of the literature and this study.

This study asked faculty members to engage in a retrospective reflection on the
mentoring relationships that were helpful in making sense of their faculty roles. In
looking back on the way in which I framed the interview protocol for the respondents, I
would have asked questions from a much broader perspective than mentoring. I assumed
that mentoring had been a primary sense-making relationship for new faculty members,
and the letter of invitation and confirmation by telephone prompted respondents to think
in terms of mentoring. Mentoring, because it was the primary theme of this study,
emerged as a primary relationship that helped in making sense of faculty roles. However,
the conclusions of this study might have been different if I had focused more broadly on
all types of relationships and the dynamics of those relationships. I would recommend
that more studies are needed that generally probe and compare all types of relationships

that are helpful for new faculty members in making sense of faculty roles. It would also

247
be helpful to ask faculty members to rank order relationships that have been helpfiil from

most to least significant and explain why they ranked the relationships accordingly.

In reflecting on the interview questions of this protocol, I learned a great deal
about mentoring relationships and the types of functions/behaviors that faculty valued
and found helpful in their sense making. I worked from the theoretical frame of Kram’s
(1985) categories of mentoring that have primarily been tested in corporate organizations.
Further research would be helpful regarding all types of relationships that new faculty
members encounter to determine what functions/behaviors are specific for an academic
organization of multiple cultures. The nature of academic work and the context of
multiple cultures in which faculty work greatly influences the types of processes that
occur in relationships for new faculty members. More research to discern the types of
functions/ behaviors that are specific to the mentoring of new faculty would be helpful in
understanding the mentoring of new faculty by other colleagues.

For instance, in this study I found that faculty talked a great deal about
collaboration. Work could be done to define further the nature of collaboration and how a
collaborative relationship is negotiated between a junior and senior colleague. I am
convinced, on the basis of these respondents’ values and preferences for autonomy and
professional identity, that collaboration initiated by a senior colleague which is flexible
and clearly a relationship of equity between professionals would be extremely helpful.
Perhaps in coming to an understanding of how collaboration works, suggestions could be
offered for multiple collaborative relationships that would help new faculty in making

sense of their faculty roles.

248

Another issue that needs attention in the research literature pertaining to
mentoring is the problem of a consistent definition of mentoring. Carmin (1988) raised
this issue in her writing concerning the need for a definitive understanding of mentoring. I
did not give the respondents a definition of mentoring in the interview protocol, because I
wanted to learn how they identified mentors in their professional experience. I also
wanted to know what they valued in mentoring and what they expected from a mentor
without coloring their thinking by giving them a definition. Findings in the interviews
generally agreed with the definition that I embraced from Carmin (1988). But, there were
some fine nuances of difference that emerged in the study. More studies are needed to
explore what new faculty believe about mentoring and what they look for in a mentoring
relationship.

It might be helpful for further studies to probe the full array of relationships that
faculty use in making sense of their roles. Questions that might be helpful are: What is
the full array of relationships that faculty use to make sense of their roles? What types
of relationships were most helpful and why? What were the professional and
interpersonal dynamics of these most helpful relationships and what were the outcomes?

This study also could have been strengthened by interviewing the sense makers
that faculty identified. This study only contains the perspective of the new faculty
member, not the perspective of the person who sends messages for sense making.
Gathering both perspectives would have given a greater understanding of the nature of
interaction that occurred between the two individuals and how that contributed to the

process of sense making.

249
In addition to looking at the perspective of the mentor, it would be helpful to

understand what mentoring contributes to the professional development of the mentor.

 

This study did not probe what mentoring does for the mentor. Very little exists in the
literature that looks at mentoring from the perspective of the mentor (Holmes, 1988). It
would be helpful to have a clearer understanding of what the mentoring of new faculty
members contributes to the mentor’s professional development.

This study did not focus on issues of gender or ethnicity. Further studies are
needed that specifically probe the experiences of new faculty members who are women or
who are from a diverse ethnic background. Mentoring has been proposed as a method of
helping these groups with the process of socialization in order to prevent attrition. More
attention needs to be given to understand how successful faculty members from each of
these groups have made sense of their faculty roles and the individuals that were most
helpful in making sense of those roles. The information regarding how the process of
sense making works for these groups of underrepresented faculty members might be
helpful in creating program initiatives for these faculty.

This study only focused on the types of sense-making relationships that new
faculty in a research university encountered. Discussion for these faculty predominantly
focused on the roles of research and teaching. It would be helpful to understand how the
process of socialization differs for new faculty members in community colleges,
comprehensive universities, and liberal arts colleges. The process of sense making for
these faculty was highly influenced by their perception of the institutional mission and

the nature of their work as a research faculty member who is closely aligned with the

250

disciplinary culture. Further research could be done to explore how the institutional
context and professional orientation of the new faculty member influences the process of
sense making. In other words, how would a community college faculty member who is
primarily aligned with the institution and focused on teaching engage in sense making?
What would be the primary issues for this new faculty member in making sense of her/his
roles?

In considering the two types of mentoring, this study set out to look at the
differences between formal mentoring programs and informal mentoring relationships.
Sources in the literature of higher education suggest formalized efforts in mentoring as a
means of socialization for new faculty members (Tierney and Bensimon, 1996).
However, the literature needs more studies to probe the nature of formal mentoring
programs and the impact on new faculty members. Boice (1990) and Wunsch (1993)
have done modest studies pertaining to the impact of a formal mentoring program on new
faculty members, but very little presently exists in the literature that compares the impact
of formal mentoring programs with informal mentoring relationships (Chao, Waltz, &
Gardner, 1992). More research could probe the value and impact of formal mentoring
programs.

This study showed that mentors may not help faculty make sense of the multiple
cultures of the institution, discipline, national system, and profession, but may actually
complicate the messages that the faculty member receives from competing cultures.
Mentors and other sense makers convey the message of the culture to which they are

predominantly aligned. A study that specifically probes the nature of messages that

251

come from each culture and how various relationships help the faculty person make sense
of these messages, might enable faculty and administrators to confront the dilemma of
mixed cultural messages.

Conclusion

 

This study has broad implications for new faculty members and those who are
interested in the success and professional development of new faculty members.
Administrators, senior faculty and faculty developers could help new faculty by alerting
them to some of the challenges that they might face as they attempt to make sense of
their faculty roles and responsibilities. New faculty could also be helped by being made
aware of programs and people that will be helpful in making sense of their faculty roles.
New faculty should be admonished to take the initiative in building a web of relationships
with senior colleagues as well as peer colleagues that include a range of multiple functions
that will provide career support as well as psychosocial support. They should be
reminded that no one relationship will contribute all that they need in making sense of
their roles. The key in negotiating these relationships for sense making with other
colleagues is an open communication from the new faculty member concerning
expectations in what the colleague might provide.

More deliberate efforts for support and encouragement of new faculty could be
made by administrators and senior faculty members. Faculty would be greatly assisted
by programs that encourage conversation about faculty roles, and collaboration across
disciplines. This would be a minimal effort on the part of the university, but could

provide invaluable assistance to new faculty in making sense of multiple roles.

 

252

Finally, this study may have raised more questions concerning the use of

mentoring than it answered. Mentoring is an important relationship for new faculty

 

1.“

members, but other relationships are just as important as mentoring for some new faculty
members. I am more convinced after this study that certain functions need to occur in a
broad array of relationships for new faculty members than I am certain that those
relationships need to be mentoring (whether formal or informal). Faculty members should

have an array of multiple relationships that include the functions of coaching,

 

sponsorship, collaboration, protection from potentially damaging organizational conflict,
role modeling, acceptance and confirmation of the new faculty member, counseling
concerning personal and professional concerns, and friendship. That relationships have
these functions is far more important than the type of relationship. I believe that new
faculty members in this sample had helpful mentoring relationships, and they had
mentoring relationships that offered no help. The same could be said about any other
type of relationship, such as relationships with peers, senior faculty, and department
chairs. I believe that this group of new faculty members’ key for success in making sense
of faculty roles was contained in the types of career and psychosocial functions that they
experienced. I believe that if we could understand more fully the dynamics of these
functions and how to deliver them to new faculty members, we could provide support

that would enable the success of new faculty members in organizational socialization.

APPENDICES

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A
LETTER OF INVITATION FOR FACULTY PARTICIPATION

 

253
LETTER OF INVITATION FOR FACULTY PARTICIPATION

March 25, 1997
Dear Dr.

I am writing to ask you to participate in a dissertation study that I am conducting. I am a
faculty development specialist for the College of Osteopathic Medicine, and I am
finishing my Ph.D. in Educational Administration through the College of Education. The
study that I am hoping that you will participate in is entitled "A Retrospective Study of
How New Faculty Report The Use of Mentoring Relationships to Make Sense of Their
Multiple Roles." My research advisor is Dr. Ann Austin.

The purpose of this study is to explore how new faculty have used mentoring
relationships to make sense of their multiple roles. The study will explore the following
themes:

Individuals who have served as mentors for new faculty.
-Types of mentoring new faculty experience and the outcomes of those types of
mentoring.
-Mentoring behaviors encountered in the mentoring relationship.
-The role of mentoring in helping new faculty understand their multiple roles.
-How different disciplines affect the process of mentoring for new faculty.

The study, which utilizes qualitative research methods, will involve new faculty members
in their first appointment in the pure and applied disciplinary fields. The literature of
higher education has explored the challenges that new faculty often face as they seek to
make sense of multiple faculty roles in their first faculty appointment. These new
faculty members often find that they receive very different messages regarding
appropriate values, attitudes, and actions in fulfilling faculty roles. Mentoring has been
proposed as a strategy of socialization for new faculty that could ease their transition into
faculty roles.

You have been identified by the Office of the Provost as a new faculty member who has
completed the first three years of your faculty appointment at this university. You can
provide valuable insight concerning your experience of mentoring relationships in the first
three years of your faculty appointment. Through this study you will have the
opportunity to reflect on your own professional development as a faculty member.

I am inviting various new faculty to participate, and I hope that you will be involved in
this study. If you agree to participate, I would interview you for approximately three
hours in two or three visits, which ever you prefer. These conversations will be
scheduled in your office at a time convenient for you.

 

 

 

 

 

254

Your participation would be completely confidential, known only to myself. Reports
from the study would be written in such a way as to protect your confidentiality.

I hope that you will consider participating in this study. I would be grateful to learn
about your perspectives and experiences as a new faculty member. Within a few days
after you have received this letter, I will call to explore your willingness to participate. In

the meantime, please feel free to call me if you have any questions or would like to
discuss the study further (355-8301).

Cordially,

Jonathan Rohrer, M.Div., Researcher Ann E. Austin, Ph.D., Advisor
Curriculum Development Educational Administration
326 East Fee Hall 407 Erickson Hall

Michigan State University Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 East Lansing MI 48824

e-mail: rohrerjo@com.msu.edu aaustin@msu.edu

 

APPENDIX B
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

 

255
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

A Retrospective Study of How New Faculty Report The Use Of Mentoring
Relationships to Make Sense of Their Multiple Roles

I understand that the research project in which I am agreeing to participate concerns
mentoring relationships as a socializing relationship in the first three years of my faculty
appointment. I am willing to discuss the mentoring relationships of my first three faculty
years, focusing on the types of mentoring relationships, the mentoring behavior
experienced, and the outcomes of those mentoring relationships.

I understand that I will be interviewed for approximately three hours in three one hour
appointments or two hour and a half appointments depending on what works best for my
schedule. During these interviews I will have the opportunity to reflect on the mentoring
experiences of my first three years of faculty appointment. Interviews will take place in
my office unless I designate another place.

I understand that by signing this form, I give my consent to take part in the study. I
recognize that my participation is voluntary, and that I can withdraw my participation in
this study at any time.

I further understand that the researcher will hold my responses in strict confidence, and
that no comments will be attributed to me in any report on this study. I also further
understand that even though the researcher will take the greatest precautions to maintain
confidentiality, the nature of my responses to the questions of this protocol may make it
possible for a reader within this university community to identify me with my comments.
I will receive a summary report of the data collected in this study to review.

Please check one statement below:

I give consent for the interviews to be audiotaped. At any time, I may ask that
the tape recorder be stopped.

I do not give consent that the interviews be audiotaped.

 

 

Name

Date

 

Signature

 

Any questions please contact:

Researcher:

Jonathan D. Rohrer, M. Div.
Graduate Student

Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

326 East Fee Hall
432-2852

256

Research Director:

Ann E. Austin, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong
Education

417 Erickson Hall
355-6757

 

APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

 

Introduction:
Let’s begin by getting a little background information:

1.

\l

257
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Part]

What is your current department in the university, your rank at the university, and
the number of years you have served in this present appointment?

What {gleam} you presently fulfill in your faculty position? (For example: teaching,
research, outreach, administration, advising) Explain what each of these roles means
to you as a faculty person. How is the fulfillment of these roles influenced by the
institutional mission?

 

. What have been your greatest challen es in coming to this university as a new faculty

member? Who/What has been most helpful in addressing these challenges?

What has brought you the greatest satisfaction as a new faculty member at this
university?

. How do you know when you are doing a good job as a faculty member? Who

primarily has helped you to figure out if you are doing a good job as a new faculty
member? (Mentors or other relationships?)

Did you experience any mentoring relationships during your graduate study that
carried over into your faculty appointment? What was the nature of these
relationships in your first three years of teaching?

. Did you find those pre-faculty mentoring experiences/relationships to conflict with

your roles/ responsibilities in this university? If so, in what ways?

Could you please describe any mentoring relationships that you have encountered
since coming to the university?

Each of the mentoring relationships that the faculty member has described will be

explored in depth with the following questions.

258
Part 2

You have described the mentoring relationships that you have encountered, now lets take
some extended time to reflect on each mentoring relationship that you have described.

Mentor 1,2,3,4, etc.
(As many as needed)

9. What is the background of this person? (who served as your mentor?) How would
you characterize this person personally and professionally?

Probes:

a. What was the nature of your prior relationship with this person?
b. How was this relationship begun?
c. What kind of expectations or hopes did you have concerning how this person

would help you professionally or personally? Were those expectations met?
, . ., l

10. How would you describe the process and outcomes of this mentoring relationship?

I \-..

Probes :

a. How often did you meet during the mentoring relationship? What kind of
relationship do you presently have with this person?

b. How did the way in which this mentoring relationship developed affect the
mentoring process?

c. How satisfied have you been with this mentoring relationship personally?
professionally?

11. What did this person do to help you personally and professionally? ‘, , /
Probes:

a. How has this relationship helped you, if at all, to understand what you should do
as a new faculty member? How did this relationship help you to do a good job at:
teaching? research? administration? outreach and service?

b. Did this person ever recommend or nominate you for any position that would
advance you professionally? If so, what did this person do that would advance
you professionally?

c. Has the association with this person opened any doors for you professionally? If
so, in what ways? Probe: Has this person linked you with any key individual
that would help you advance professionally?

 

12.

259

d. Has this person coached you to be more effective in your faculty roles? If so, in
what ways?

e. Has this person warned you about avoiding individuals or things that would be
damaging for you professionally? If so, what did this person warn you about and
how did s/he do that?

f. Has this person collaborated with you in any way professionally or given you
any feedback on your faculty work? If so, in what ways?

g. How would you assess this person as a role model?

h. What was your personal relationship like with this person?

i. What metaphor, word, or phrase would you use to describe this person and the
way s/he has related to you?

Faculty have many responsibilities to fulfill departrnentally, in their respective
discipline, and to the university as an employing institution. Has this person helped
you to sort out these various responsibilities?

Probes:

a. Did this person help you to understand your academic department? If so, how?

b. Did this person help you to understand what you should do as a new faculty
member in your discipline? If so, how?

c. Did this person help you to understand what you should do as a new faculty
member participating in the university community? If so, how?

 

 

260
Part 3

These questions return to general questions after each of the mentoring relationships have
been probed individually with questions 8-11.

13. This study is about how new faculty use mentoring relationships to make sense of
their faculty roles. For you, what are the key ingredients in a useful or successfirl

mentoring relationship?

14. Overall, to what extent has mentoring helped you to understand and make sense of
your faculty roles and responsibilities?

15. What kind of advice would you give for a new faculty member concerning what
mentoring relationships are most helpful?

16. Please reflect with me on the value of the interviews and anything that has become
apparent during the interview process?

17. Any comments or questions?

 

 

 

APPENDIX D
KRAM’S MENTORING FUNCTIONS

 

261

KRAM’S MENTORING FUNCTIONS

4-

Career Functions

(Aspects of the relationship that enhance
career advancement.)

= . . m
Psychosocral F unctrons

(Aspects of the relationship that enhance
sense of competence, identity, and
effectiveness in professional role)

 

 

Function

Function Description

Function Function Description“

 

l. Sponsorship

Opening the door for
the junior colleague
by direct verbal
support/ nomination
or indirect support
through association.

. Role Modeling

Providing an
example for the
junior colleague to
follow as a guide for
appropriate behavior.

 

2. Exposure-and-

Assigning tasks that

Acceptance-and- Positive personal

 

 

 

Visibility will allow the Confirmation regard for the junior
colleague to display colleague so that s/he
competence or derives a sense of
responsibility. self- confidence and

competence.

3. Coaching Advising, guiding, . Counseling Exploring personal
directing, sharing concerns with the
knowledge, giving junior colleague that
feedback, suggesting may hinder
strategies for success. organizational

advancement or
ll professional growth.
'1 4. Protection Shielding the junior . Friendship Interacting around

 

colleague from
untimely conflict,
warning of conflict.

personal as well as
professional concerns
at work as well as
socially outside of
work.

 

5. Challenging
Assignments

 

 

Assigning tasks with
accompanying
feedback on
performance that will
bring professional
growth to the junior
colleague.

 

 

 
 

 

APPENDIX D
PARTICIPATING RESPONDENTS

 

...d.

PARTICIPATING RESPONDENTS

Respondent 1:
(Social Science)

Respondent 2
(Social Science)

Respondent 3
(Social Science)

Respondent 4
(Field Of Professional Study)

Respondent 5
(Applied Science)

Respondent 6
(Field of Professional Study)

Respondent 7
(Field of Professional Study)

Respondent 8
(Humanities)

Respondent 9
(Humanities)

Respondent 10
(Science)

Respondent l 1
(Applied Science)

Respondent 12
(Science)

Respondent 13
(Field of Professional Study)

262

A Brief Biographical Sketch

Respondent 1 has been at the university for six years. He has
just gone through the tenure process and was denied. He is
actively seeking another faculty appointment.

Respondent 2 has been at the university for four years. He
was a Lilly Fellow and has been active in research and
outreach.

Respondent 3 has been at the university for six years. She
withdrew from the tenure process and is leaving the
university. She has no immediate plans.

Respondent 4 did undergraduate and graduate studies at the
university. He completed the fourth year of his faculty
appointment. He was a Lilly Fellow.

 

Respondent 5 has just completed his fourth year at the
university. He has been successful in bringing in large grants
from private corporations for his research.

Respondent 6 returned to academic life after a professional
career. She has just completed the fourth year of her faculty
appointment

Respondent 7 has just completed the sixth year of her
appointment and has just received tenure. She was a Lilly
Fellow and is closely connected to central administration.

Respondent 8 has just completed the sixth year of her
appointment and just received notice of tenure. She has just
completed her second book. She was a Lilly Fellow.

Respondent 9 has just completed the fifth year of her
appointment. She is confident that she will be ready for
tenure review next year.

Respondent 10 just completed his fifth year and received
tenure early. He has been very successful in securing grants to
fund his research.

Respondent 11 just completed his fifth year and is concerned
about the tenure process next year, because he feels that it is
highly politicized.

Respondent 12 just completed his fourth year as a faculty
member. He has struggled with getting grant funding. He was
a Lilly Fellow.

Respondent 13 has just completed her fifth year as a faculty
member. She is confident that all will go well with the tenure
review next year.

APPENDIX F
PARTICIPANTS’ SENSE-MAKING RELATIONSHIPS

 

 

263

_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$3335 ,
.082 0.3—-
Q2323?”— quaeua—om EEO _
3585- weioaoo- 388m “5.5.830 .v L
Enmccotm- mozwaozou _
goth- “33080.5- 35:233— .038..—
aefionmzou- wcioaoo- 38.5.?— BEE. .m _
V
_
3528a- _
$388.5- ~585qu “
war—800- :_ .6380.)— u
23...... Eseogeam- aEmcoza—om biog

nosomom- new—3:00- 8:823:00- 35.8:— ._o_:om .N
_
gangsta- fl

cotazcceou
ES
3:832}? _
3.252 22. __
wezoouoi- "
wcfioaoo- m
$208...- ESE- aim—8.5%- 35:28.3— uem_>v< ,
subsumed- 8.83230- 5383230- 388.2: 82680 ._ 8:38 308 _ Eugen—mom ,
253m .8an macaw
_. 8.3— 5.3!.— Eomek— anezeush aim—8323— wuteao—z hoe—a2 «meow «no—uncanny—
.EB Eel Boa—33¢ mew—3:02 he 3:. .52 war—See: 2533.5 azaoam

cave—5&2 some 8% 83:: he cocaogcflm .3 cBBE=ZV
2.233.23— ueia—z Snow war—8:02-52 an: new—8:02

 

 

 

 

264

 

252%...-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mam—8550-
3.082
0.3—- £95223
3 53:82
mpg—Bach- ESE- Esflaceqm- 3:28:23— .0...on
soaomox- “BEBE—o0- screen—«=00- .mESmE ect—om .m
Exact”:
2:25:
29:-
chomoU- 5250
Both- b_=£m_> Enmcozsom £9383—
;Emomox 8:22.“on- Ea Eamoqu- 358%: be .8825 .N
£2355-
wE—omceeo-
mczoeoz
0—3—-
@3028;-
ucotm- 5:535 aim—Sum—om umba=<
chomo-w- “9832—00- 28 Ezmoaxm- 35.8:— xo=om ._ ooeofim 338 N “co—Eamom
E05589
E .3822
3:22.23“ 32335 Esmeozsom e938“— 95:520an
35.5m- EBE 20¢- EEQE 8.80m .m ooaofim 38m _ Beep—88¢
2.35 hoe—«2 Snow
no.3— b_=oah =38...— neezeaam 32253501 war—8:02 hoe-a2 3.5m gee—Eczema
5?» Eu: \moEeo.=O mar—3.3: he 29:. -=ez ”5.8.5: 2533.5 5.35—

 

 

 

 

 

265

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_

2588...-
cocascceou
E3
“83...:- oo§n8o<-
£0383:- SEBEBU- 35:233.: 950:0“—
, $208.7 2&8on- =2383=ou- 38.5.8— bz: .n
m 9.855-
3:88.00-
8:08:
20y:- 53.8
33.5w BEE- 85833: 4883.
28280- .8??? 33230- 3885 .0833: .c
n
3 2.2655-
meioaoo-
vcotm- 8:88:03- aEmceuflom 8m_>_o<
£888:- B383=ou- 823.53.30- 38..o.t: «33.80 .m
8238....800
23 ©0802
oo:8gooo<- 3.5:
8:082 £222:
23:- 3 5:802
05:“:- 85533: b303,: €083.80: _
@288.- ..BEBEEU- @2800. 38.8.3: 830m .v oocofim 330m N 82809.3:
33% 5332 Snow
83m .333..— Eemonm 883:5— ..Eneeufiem ”5.8282 583—): 85% nae—c.593—
P :33 a3: 308380 ”£5352 he 09C. 83.: ”av—38.2 08:33.5 .333: m

 

 

 

266

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eons—02 _
Enmcozflom 328on Esmcocsom b.35— i
vofigm- .282 0.3—- 888m 880m .m n
.082 23.- £823.01 .83? H
8.880%- 8888.80. Eamoaxm- _nE8m 08.880 .v
7 .
Esmcoza—om aimcozflom :20 H
5883—- .8585- mat—080- 888m 825839 .m _
_
_ 952%...-
__ 3:38:80.
8:88:80
8 Ba
# 028808? E
. acorn- 82828.3. _
fl 8883—- 88892.00- 8:888:80- .888»:— 85581 .N
8
M 9555. _
_ wczomczoo-
zeta—Eccoo fl
98 H
oo=Saooo<-
i wcioaoo- 8258qu h
82.....- 5:365 5 $3822 _
ganged- 88882.00. 28 Eamoaxm- 82828.3— b_:oam _
8283.- 0:30:00- 8:835:00- 3.885 883. ._ oo=o_om .308 m Eon—8&3—
naauum 88.82 9.8m
8.3— .3.8.; 288.:— maczuash 3:28:23— uateao—z .8an 028m «818.76%
5?: Eu: E28980 ”58:82 .8 09:. -82 acts—82 25985 3.38% '

 

    

 

,. L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@2897 mEmcozflom “833‘
5883.- 25th.- mam—.260- Egon 22680 .m
mamas;
wczomcsoo-
wince: 0.3—-
biota:
wczoowoi- .5523
£555 a Bee:
acorn- can Ezmogxm- aEmcozsox ~03on
£2881- “SEES—o0- 358825- .558:— BEom .v
cosgcccou
v5
ammo—BU- oo=8aooo<-
95:23.3. 3:252 958323. :26
soaomum- .5585- 0.3—- .253:— EoEtanoQ .m
gang—5
. 8 hon—=22
_ 86.32.00- aim—5:23. b.35—
. £9683... Swan—BU- $532 23.. .258:— Ezcohéoz .m
aEmccotm- C252
3382 3:6
0.3—. 225.3qu
2.85.. E hon—=22 33m
choaoh- BEBE—cu- $5885- niacgflom Dion; _a=o_mm£oi
5303M- Swan—BU- wcfiomoo- 38.5.2: BEom ._ .«o 22.,— v Eoucoamom
3.3m hog—a2 3.5m
8.3— b.35— 2395 2.52::— Efiaccéom 323:»: Lou—a2 Scam Evening—
.EB 30: E25536 ”5.5.52 .3 gab .52 9:32.02 2533.5 3.3:..—

   

 

 

 

 

 

_
_
g

 

 

 

 

05.08: 23.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.:0E.&.$<
w:.w:0=0..0-
920000- _
i 0:503 02223.0: .833 _
, £80003.- 00w00..00- 0:0 0-5805.- .0=:0..:. 0.00.080 .m
9.022;-
_ w:..0m::00-
:0..0=:_-.:00
0:0 m
00:5008<- __
$_ 80.5.8000 _
2 @2080...- :. .0080: .
w:._.000-.-- .50....- w:...0000- 0.520.023. £000“. .
50.8003.- 00w00..00- 0.5.05.0...- .0E._0..:. 00.:0m .N _
:0..0E:-.:00 _
0:0 _
— 00:02.83? 3080:0000 _
05.082 a. 03.52 .
5.8003.- .0:0.._n.- 0.3.- 0230.023. 3.000”. 00:0.0m .
@2000... 5.800260- w:...0000- .:=:0..:. 0.0.0003. .. 00:00... w 20.50003. W
.:0Et0000
:. 00080.). 0.005 m
0.55.3.3. 3.000... .0:0.mm0..0.:. 30:50:00. _
0:05.- 0.:m..:0.:....- .0::0..:. 8.5... 0 ..0 0.0.“. v 30.50003.
050% 000—0.). 00:0m _
00.3. 5.00:“. 2000.... 0:030:5— a._.m:0.00.3. 3.08:0: 000—0.). 00:0m 30.32.33.
5...» 0.03 30500.30 3.03:0: ..0 0...... :07. ”0.08:0: 03.0.00:— b.=0a..~ .

 

 

 

 

  

   

   

  

     

l-il1L

 

 

 

ll |‘|| EH!:.§'1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:ozaccccou
Ea
oogqooo<-
3.252 23.-
wczoouoi-
mafia—woo-
$355 3.5,
wcfioaoh- can Ezmaxm- qucomEom 8m_>v< .2330on
5883—- “8832.00- 35.85%. 358.2.— ofizvfic ._ mo 20E 0 acovcoamom
8:30:00
Diana
Esta- 25.8.3.3— BEE.
onwao=o0- Esau—Stu- 35.8:— 850 .c
wcfioaoh- 3:80:23. :20
:8881. onwaozou- chouoU- Escon— EoEtmaoQ .m
Hangman
E .3832
2.2.5- Enmcocflom $28". oocomom 82.528an
noaomom- 0:30.30- wcfioaou- EEQE BEE. .v 8:93 m “consumed
255m hog—a2 85m
8.3— b.55— «comoum 2.3.2::— aEmaomB—om ugtsaoz now—a2 3.5m .5333:—
.EB Eel 395:3..6 ”5.8262 ..c 3:. ..52 ”5.852 05.83.:— .3523

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_
.
_
_
E
_
~
A
m
l
A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.80...- 0388.....-
wc...000...- 80830.80- 0.58.8.3. $8.8".
£2080”.- 0sw00..o0- 8.082.280- 358.... b... .N
3505...-
8.035080
.80 b.0825.
00:338...- :. 89:02 83m
wc...000,.-- .80....- mn....m8..0.0~. 5.300... 38.30.85
, 50883.- 0:30:00- w=.:080- .0888. 8.8.. .. .8 20.”. 0 80.89.03. h
_ £22.23. 0.28
. $5.000...- 0=w00=o0- $5.080- .088. 808.880 .v
M
_ 020.80....- 80852.09
_ 22;- 02.082 23.- s .3522
_ w:.:000,.-- 800890.80- a.;m:o.8.0~. 5.300“.
_ £8033.- 0=w00..o0- $5.080- .0E8..=. 8.5... .m
95055-
8.85:..80
.80
00.88003?
05.082 23.-
3.808...-
w=._.0000- 808.8000
0:535 s .3502 .25
88800.80. .80 0889.0- n.._.m=o..0.0~. 3.200... 38.0.8.8... €055.80.
:080m0m- 0:30:00- g.:flo€o..m- .0888. 8.:0m .m .8 20.... 0 80.82.03. _
0305 80.0.). Sam
00.3. 5.30..- ..800... 28.85:.— ..E»8..a.0~. ”£82.05. 80.02 oncom 30.82.03.
5...» 3.0m. 3050030 ”5.8802 .0 0...... £07. mam—3:02 3.3.00.9 5.30:...— .

 

 

I!

 

 

 

271

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:80:23—

 

 

 

 

 

 

.30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:900:00- wcfioaoo- .0508:— E0Etsa0o .e
0:25.300
£00280- :_ .3802
wig—000.7 0:03—- wEBvo—Z 35:23.3. b300,..—
5030m0x- 0swa0__ou- 0.3—- EEE-«E ..oEom .m
gauge—BU Cow—.02
Ba :50
00539000? 3503.5
05.0022 23.- .< .3502
5005.5- aEmcoEw—om b.33—
w:_:000-_-- 0300.30- 320.30. .0808:— ..o_=0m .v
95050;.
cogs—Ego
28
00530037
mam—.0000- €305 avam
£000.25- bani; 35:250.: 4583‘ 3.563095 30:50:08
9.230%- ?EE- ES Eamon—Km- Esta:— b_m._0>_:D .m we 20E 5 2.09830”—
...Efim 000—02 02.0m
0.0.3— b_=0am 2.08.5 2832:...— Eangcafim war—8:02 000.02 02% 30—52—00“
.53 E0: B05830 nuts—.02 .3 0a.:- -:02 ”stat—02 05.3003 532$

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000025-500 002.02
0.0 .50
02.0.0003..- 2.0.5.0000
_ 5 .00502
. 02.0320 025000—00 E300
. 32000.7 0:30:00- 3:0002 0.00- .0550..— .0_:0m .0
L 000055-500
0:0 2.0.5.0000
02.0.0000...- 5 .00502
055000—00 b500,...
7 5.00000- 0:30:00- 020.0500? .0550... .050m .m
n,“
2 v 0500:000-
M 000052-500 2.0.5.0000
” 0:0 5 .3502
0:0..0- 00:50000<- 020000000 .0500...
350000-- 0:30:00- 3.0002 0.00. .0550..— .0...:.. .N
0.005...-
3:00.500-
. 0000:5200
0:0 2.0.5.0000
00530003.- 5 .00502
3.80.0.0- b.0000
32.0000.- 0..0..0- 350000- 02.500200 00.5.0.
5.00000- 0:30:00- ..0..0.000:00- .0550..— -..0Z .. 00:50:51 0 500000000
0305 .0302 300m
00.00 5.000.— 2.0.0.0 5020.....— 020003500 ”5.02.02 .0302 00:0m 500000000
:23 0.00 3050050 ”5.02.02 .0 000,—. -=0Z ”5.02.02 0.50.030 5.000..—
." “in“ .-|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

273

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00w00=00- w0_._0000- .0200..— .000...0000 v
, 0.0000000-
000055000 200.0300
000 .05000
F 00:0.0000<- .0 .00502
A 22..- 00.082 23.- 0.30...
. 00.00000- .0.0.000=00- w020000- 0.0.000. .20.... .m
_ w0=0m0000-
_ 0000200000
2-
. 0000.0000<-
50.000004.
_ 0:03.000.
W 32.0000-
. .5303 28.5.00
_ 000 0.000000- 0. .00502
1 .0.0.000=00- 0.00.8003- 020000501 00—000.,—
m 00.00000- 00w00=00- 0000.30.30- 02:00 .0_00m .m
, 020.50.-
‘ 00000....0000
m Ea
_ 0000.0000<-
“ w0=0005 0.0m- 00.5.0000
_ 00000- 0. .00502
m 326000-- .0.0.000=00- w0_00000- 020000000 b.0000
_ 00.00000- 00w00:00- 0.000000%.- _0.0.000_ .05.... ._ 00200.00: 0 000000000
_ 00.0% .0002 800m
“ 00.00 ©5000 .0000... 0005000...— 0_0m00_.0_0~— «5.02.02 .0002 0000a 2.0000003—
. 0...: 0.0: 0.050025 ”5.0202 ..0 00C. -002 ”5.0202 0.50.000 5.000..—

 

 

.. $000000..- !.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000050.500
. 000 _
_ 0000.0000<- u
_ 00.0.52 3
0.0,..- _
000.....- w0...0000- 02.000.20.00 .0m.>0< 0000.0m w
00.0000..- .0.0.0..0=00- 0.00.8000? .00080. 0.0.00.0 .. 00..00< .. 50000000.. 0
n 0.0000023. 00.000023. ..0..0 "
. w0...000..-- 000.0...m- w0...0000- .0500 .00520000 .0 w
__ .
,__ .0>..0w00. 3
3 2000.30. .000... 0.0-..-
_ 0.500.200”. 0.050.203. .0m.>0< V
_ 00.0000..- 000.0...m- 50.0000- .0....80. 0.0.00.0 .m
A
__ 50.5.0000 r
0. 000.02 .
H 0.0000023. b.0000 _
w 2000.50. .000... 0.00. .0580. .0.00m .N .
_
w 0.020...- _
5:000:00-
00..0.0..-.000 A
000
0000.0000<-
52000.:
0.0”.- 505.0000
000.....- 0. .08002 _
w0...000,.-- .0.0.0..0..00- w0...0000- 05.000.20.08 b.0000 . ,
00.0000..- 0=w00=00- 00..0.0..0..00- .0008... 5.00.. .. 0000.0m 0. 500000000
00.0.m .0302 800m
00.00 5.000.. 5000... 005.00....— 0...000..0.0~. ”5.0502 .0302 0000m 500000000
0...... 0.0: E05350 5.5502 ..0 00»... -007. ”5.0502 05.0.0050 b.0000 _

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

275

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 0.0.050.- eseoz .30
W 0000..- 00.000023. b.0000 0.00.0080...
. 00.0000..- 00w00=00- w0...0000- .00080. 8.00.. .. ..0 0.0. 0 m. .000000000
. 00.000053. ..0..0
00.0000..- 00w00..00- 000.0000- .0E.0... .000...000n. .0
_ w0000.0.0-
_ w0...0000-
0:305
0.0000000... 000 0.0.0000- 0...00000.0~. .8.>0<
00.00000.- 000.0..m- 0.00.8000? .00080. 0.00080 .m
N..m.0>.0D-||
0. 000.02
00.000023. b.0000
00.0000..- 00w00..00- w0...0000- .00080. .0.00m .N
0.00000...-
w0..0002
0.3.- A.0.002
05.
w0...0000- 00.000000
0:305 s .3502
000.....- 000 0.000000- 0000000200 b.0000
00.00000- 00w00=00- 00.0.00000m- .00080. 0.0.0003. .. 0000.0m N. .00000003.
0.0000020”. 00.000023. ..000
000.0..m- w0...0000- .00000 80.0.0000 .m
.00:...000n.
0.005...- c. 03.52
000...- 00.000020”. b.0000 0000.0m 00000000.
30.000..- 00w00..00- w0._.0000- .00080. .0.00.. .N 00..00< .. .000000m0y.
00.0.m .0002 0000m
00.3. ~5.000.. .0000... 0000000... 00.000023. 0020.002 .0002 0000a 0.000008%
0...» 0.0.. 00500.00 “5.0.002 .0 00.... 007. 0.0.0.002 0000.005 0.0.00...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, J. C. (1992). Mentoring: On the Road to Tenure and Promotion. AQA
Balletin,72(January), 54-8.

Alleman, E. (1982). Mentoring Relationships in Organizations: Behaviors, Personality
Characteristics, and Interpersonal Relationships. In W. Gray & M. Gray (Eds.),
_ en 0 Ll‘. 5 0 0 he 'V Annot ‘10 30 -0 av h 0 41010 1-11,:1fere '
Canada: International Association for Mentoring.

Ashford, S. J. ( 1986). The Role of Feedback Seeking in Individual Adaptation: A
Resource Perspective. Academy of Management legal, 22, 465-487.

Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty Culture, Faculty Values. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Assessing

Academie Ch’mtes and ngires (Vol. 68, pp. 61-74). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Austin, A. E. (1992a). Faculty Cultures. In B. R. Clark & G. R. Neave (Eds), The
Encyclopfl'a of Higher Edueatien (Vol. 3, pp. 1614-1623). New York: Pergamon

Press.

Austin, A. E. (1992b). Supporting Junior Faculty Through a Teaching Fellows Program.
In M. D.Sorcinelli & A. E. Austin (Eds), v 1 in N w and J i r Facul
(Vol. 50, pp. 73-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Austin, A. E. (1992c). Supporting the Professor as Teacher: The Lilly Teaching Fellows
Program. The Review ef Higher flacatien, 16(1), 85-106.

Austin, A. E., Brocato, J. J., &LaFleur, M. (1993, April 1993). We
Seeializatiea ef Uaiversity fifeachers, Paper presented at the American Educational

Research Association Annual Conference, Atlanta

Becher, T. (1989). Ac e ' tl n ' th ltures
ef the Diseipiiaes .Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Becher, T. (16987). The Disciplinary Shaping of the Profession. InnB. R. Clark (Ed), ]'h_
Ac Pr f :N (pp. 270-

 

303). eBerkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Berry, P. (1983). Mentors for Women Managers: Fast Track to Corporate Success.
WAQ) 36-40

Boice, R., & Turner, J. L. (1989). The FIPSE-CSULB Mentoring Project for New
Faculty. fifo impreve the Aeademy, 8, 117-139.

Boice, R. (1990). Mentoring New Faculty: A Program for Implementation. Journal
ef Staff, Program, Ed Qrggiizaiienal Deveiepment, 8(3), 143-160.

276

 

 

277

Boice, R. (1992a). Lessons Learned About Mentoring, Developing New and Junior
Eacnlty (Summer 1992 ed., Vol. 50, pp. 51-61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boice, R. (1992b). Mentoring to Build Collegiality, Iiihe New Faculgy Member:
Supperting and Festering Professionfl Development (pp. 107-129). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.
Boice, R. (1991). New Faculty as Teachers. lomal 6f Higher Educatien, 62(2), 150-173.

Brim, O. G., & Wheeler, S. (1966). Seeialization After Childhded; Two Essays. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.

Carden, A. D. (1990). Mentoring and Adult Career Development: The Evolution of A
Theory. The Cennseling Psyehelogist, 18, 275-299.

Carmin, C. N. (1988). Issues in Research on Mentoring: Defmitional and Methodological.
International Jeumal ef Menten’ng, 2(2), 9-13.

Chao, G. T., O'-Leary Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J, &Gardner, P. D. (1994).
Organizational Socialization. Its Content and Consequences. W351

Psychology,7 9(5) 730-743.

Chao, G. T., M. Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and Informal Mentorships: A
Comparison on Mentoring Functions and Contrast with N onmentored
Counterpartso Jon 1 o] r 45,
730- 743 or 619- 636.

Chronister, J. a. L. (1991). Institutional Culture and The New Professorate.
Academe(September/October), 23-25.

Clark, B. R. (1987). eAc emicPr f ssi ° 3' n ic' lin In 'tu' nal
Semgs. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clark BR (1983) Wages;
National Eeismetiv e. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.
Clawson, J. (1985). oac 'n h rnis 11 °
Evelepmeniai Relatienships in Qgganim'ens (Darden School Working Paper:

Paper No. 85-02). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

Clawson, J. G. (1980). Mentoring in Managerial Careers, Werk, Family ad the Cmer .
New York: Praeger Publishers.

Collins, E. G. C., & Scott, P. (1978). Everyone Who Makes It Has A Mentor. Harvard
Business Review, 56, 89-101.

Collins, J. C. (1983). flofessienal Weinen and flfheii; Mentois. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. (

Decoster, D., & Brown, R. (1982). Mentoring Relationships in the Educational Process.
In R. Brown & D. Decoster (Eds), Ment ' r nscri t tem f r Promotin

SEQQQQI Qrewth (pp. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

278
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A Comparative Study of Mentoring Among Men and
Women in Managerial, Professional, and Technical Positions. ,leusnai 6f Applied
Rsyehelegy, 25(5), 539-546.

Eimers, M. (1990). Background and Experiences of New Faculty. Instructieng
Evelopment, 1(3), 12-15.

Fagenson, EA. (1989). The Mentor Advantage: Perceived Career/ Job Experiences of
Proteges Versus Non Proteges. 16mg ef annizatienai Eehaviet, IQ, 309-320.

Fink, L. D. (1984). The Fifit Year at Qellege leaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Finkelstein, M. (1984). The AmericanA cadentie mfessien; A Synthesis 6f Social
Scientific Ingni gt Since Werld Wai; 11. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University

Press.

Finkelstein, M. J., & LaCelle- Peterson, M. W. (1992). New and Junior Faculty: A
Review of the Literature. In M. D. Sorcinelli & A. E. Austin (Eds) W
New and Junior Facnity (Vol. 50, pp. 5-14). San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.

Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational Socialization: An Integrative Review. Research in
Persennel and Human Resources Management, 4, 101-145.

Graen, G. (1976). Role Making Processes Within Complex Organizations. In M. D.

Dunnette (Ed), fifhe Handhmk ef Indnstrial and Qrganizatienal Psychology (PP.
1201-1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Gray, M. M., & Gray, W. A. (1990). Planned Mentoring: Aiding Key Transitions in
Career Development. Mentoring Intemgieng, 4(3), 27-32.

Hill, S. E. K. Bahniuk, M. H., & Donbos, J. (1989). The Impact of Mentoring and
Collegial Support on Faculty Success: An Analysis of Support Behavior,

Information Adequacy, and Communication Apprehension. Cdmtnnniem
Ed neatio on,,38 15- 33.

Hipps, G. M. (1980). Talking About Teaching. The Contributions of Senior Faculty to
Junior Faculty. In W. C. Nelson & M. E. Siegel (Eds.,) Eff 9&6 ve Approaches te
FacultyDe vneiepme nt.(pp 43—48). Washington D. C.: Association of American
Colleges.

Holmes, S. K. (1988). New Faculty Mentoring: Benefits to the Mentor. W
WU) 17- 20

Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A Career Training and Development
T001.A¢3¢m¥££MW£BEXiflL§(3). 475-485.

Jackson, W. K., & Simpson, R. D. (1994). Mentoring New Faculty for Teaching and
Research. In M. A. Wunsch (Ed) Mentenng Revisited: Madng an Impact en

Individuals and Instinitiens (Summer 1994 ed., Vol. 57, pp. 65- 72). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jarvis, D. K. (1992). Improving Junior Faculty Scholarship. InM. D. Sorcinelli & A. E.
Austin, (Eds.,) Wfiumer ed., Vol. 50, pp. 63-

72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

 

 

1.... -—- - w _,--—

a-“ .32

 

-A‘-'

 

279

J ohnsrud, L. K. (1994). Enabling the Success of Junior Faculty Women Through
Mentoring. In M. A. Wunsch (Ed), Menton'ng Revisited: Making an Impact on
Individnals and Instimtiens (Spring 1994 ed., Vol. 57, pp. 65-72). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological Orientation and the Process of Organizational

Socialization: An Interactionist Perspective. Academy ef Management Review, 8,
464-474.

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization Tactics, Self-Efficacy, and Newcomers' Adjustments to

Organizations". Academy 6f Management Jomai, 22(2), 262-279.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., & Snoek, J. D. (1964). thmiz_an'enmStms_sz_
Studies in Rele Eonflict and Ambignity. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Wemen ef the Comeran'en. New York: Basic Books.

Kram, K., & Bragar, M. (1992). Development Through Mentoring: A Strategic

Approach. Montross & C. Shinkman (Eds), WM
Practice (pp. 221-254): Charles C. Thomas Press.

Kram, K., & Isabella, L. (1985). Mentoring Alternatives: the Role of Peer Relationships

in Career Development. Academy 6f Management Jamaal, 28(1), 110-132.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Ment rin W ' v lo elati 11 hi 'n anizati nal

Mfe. Glenview, IL: Foresman.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the Mentoring Relationship. Academy ef Management
M, 608-625.

Kuh G D &Whitt E J (1988) WWW
ES! Universities (ASHE- ERIC higher Education Report No. 1). Washington,

D. C: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Lavery, P. T., Boice, R., Thompson, R. W. & Turner, J. L. (1989). Mentoring New
Faculty WWO) 39-46

Levinson, D. J ., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978).
flfhe Seasons ef a Mmi's Life. New York: Ballantine Books.

Lincoln, Y. and E. Guba (1985). Nammhshejngnny. Newbury Park, CA, Sage
Publications.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and Sense Making: What Newcomers Experience 1n

Entering Unfamiliar Organizational Settings. WM,
228- 251.

Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The Availability and Helpfulness
of Socialization Practices. WM, 857-866.

Lowe, A.A., Boyd, M.A., & Brunette, D.M. (1991) Mentoring and Pretenure Faculty
DCVCIOPment- Waiting. 55 (10) 675-8.

 

 

280

Lunding, F. L., Clements, G. L., & Perkins, D. S. (1978). Everyone Who Makes it Has a
Mentor. Harvard Business Review, 36, 89-101.

Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A
Longitudinal Investigation of Newcomer Expectations, Early Socialization
Outcomes, and the Moderating Effects of Role Development Factors. 1m

Applied Psyehoiegy, 80(3), 418-431.

Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and Proteges: A Critical Review of the Literature. AM
Edncation Qngerly, 33(3), 161-173.

Merriam, S., Thomas, T. K., & Zeph, C. P. (1987). Mentoring in Higher Education:
What We Know Now. The Review ef Higher Education, 11(2), 199-210.

Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information Seeking During Organizational Entry:
Influences, Tactics, and A Model of the Process. Academy ef Management
Review, 16, 92-120.

Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Information Seeking on
Newcomer Socialization. loonmal 6t Applied Rsyehelegy,78 ,17-3 183.

Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer Information Seeking: Exploring Types, Modes,
Sources, and Outcomes. W16. 557-589.

Olsen, D. (1993). Work, Satisfaction, and Stress in the First and Third year of Academic
Appointment. MW (4). 453-471.

Olsen, D. and SA. Maple (1993). Gender Differences Among Faculty at a Research
University: Myths and Realities. Initia_tiyes(33)4, 33-42.

Olsen, D., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992). The Pretenure Years: A Longitudinal Perspective
(Vol. .
50, pp. 15-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational Socialization as a Learning
Process. The Role of Information Acquisition. Bersennei Esychelegy, 4,3 849-
874.

Pareek, U. (1986). Developing and Increasing Role Efficacy. In J. W. Pfeiffer & L. D.
Goodstein (Eds), 1115;1286. San Diego: University Associates.

Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and Proteges, New York, Arbor House.

Reichers, A. E. (1987). An Interactionist Perspective on Newcomer Socialization Rates.

Academy ef Management Review, 12(2), 278-287.

Rice, R. E. (1986). The Academic Profession in Transition: Toward a New Social Fiction.
MW 14(January 1986) 12- 23

Roche, G. R. (1979). Much Ado About Mentors. Hmard Easiness Review,
31(January/February), 14-16,20,24,26-28.

Ruscio, K. (1987). Many Sectors, Many Professions. In B. R. Clark (Ed), flfhe AeMemic
Erefessien (pp. 331-368). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

 

 

281

Sands, R. G., Parson, L. A., & Duane, J. (1991). Faculty Mentoring Faculty in a Public
University. Jeumal ef Higher Edneatien, 62(2), 174-193.

Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management. In
David A. Kolb, Irwin M. Rubin, & J. M. McIntyre (Eds), QrgamzmnenaL
chol ' A o o eadin (pp. 9-23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the Etiology of Climates. Rersonnel
Psychelegy, 36, 19-39.

Schockett, M., & Haring-Hidore, M. (1985). Factor Analytic Support for the
Psychological and Vocational Mentoring Functions. ical 57,
627-630.

Shapiro, E. C., Hazeltine, F. P., & Rowe, M. P. (1978). Moving Up: Role Models,
Mentors, and the "Patron System". Sloan Mmagement Review, 12(8), 51-58.

Sheehy, G. (1974). W New York: Bantam
Books.

Sorcinelli, MD. (1988). Satisfactions and Concerns of New University Teachers. It;

Improve the Academy, :2. 121-133.

Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992a). The Career Development of Pretenure Faculty: An Institutional
Study. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Center for Teaching.

Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992b). Mentoring Junior Faculty: Some Models. W
3, 57-68.

Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. E. (1992). Developing New and Junior Faculty. (Vol. 50).
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992). New and Junior Faculty Stress: Research and Responses. In M.
D. Sorcinelli & A. E. Austin(Eds.), Developing New and Junior Faculty (Vol. 50,
pp. 27-37). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Speizer, J. J. (1989). Role Models, Mentors, and Sponsors: The Elusive Concepts. Signs:
Jo W 111 (Summer), 692- 712.

Tierney, W. G. (1991). Utilizing Ethnographic Interview to Enhance Academic Decision
Making In D M Fetterman(Ed) WW

(V0172). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Tierney, W G & Bensimon E M (1996) W51
W. Albany, NY. State University of New York Press.

Tierney, W G.. & Rhoads R A (1993) WWW

Miner 6f histitntienal Cemm'tment. (Vol. 6). Washington D. C. The George
Washington University.

Tosi, H. L., Rizzo, J. R., & Carroll, S. (1990). Managing thmizatienal Behaving. (2nd
ed). New York: Harper and Row.

 

282

VanMaanan, J ., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization.
Research in Or aniz ti n eh v' 1, 209-264.

VanMaanen, J. (1976). Breaking In: Socialization to Work. In R. Dubin (Ed), Randhook

of Werk, Organization and Socieni (pp. 67-130). New York: Rand McNally
Publishing Company.

VanMaanen, J. (1978). People Processing: Strategies of Organizational Development.
WGHMCG

Viator, R. E., & Scandura, T. A. (1991). A Study of Mentor-Protege Relationships in
Large Public Accounting Firms. Amingmnadnsj$eptemberx 20- 30.

Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992). The Effects of Met
Expectations on Newcomers Attitudes and Behaviors: A Review and Meta-

Analysis. lonmal ef Applied Esyeholegy, :27, 288-297.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Qrganim'ons. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Whitt, E. J. (1991). Hit the Ground Running: Experiences of New Faculty in a School of
Education. The Review of Higher Edncan'en, 14(2), 177-197.

Wunsch, M. A. (1993). Mentoring Probationary Women Academics: A Pilot Programme
for Career Development. Smdies in Higher Education, 18(3), 349-362.

Wunsch, M. A., & Johnsrud, L. K. (1992). Breaking Barriers: Mentoring Junior Faculty
Women for Professional Development and Retention. fife impmve the Academy,
11, 175-187.

Zey,M G (1991) W New

Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

 

“‘111111111111111Es