This post is part of a series, describing the assessments used to develop the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL).
In 2016, with the second IMLS grant, we began to examine formal mentoring as a research success factor. At that time, research mentoring was a well-established success factor in other practitioner-researcher professions but had yet to be extensively studied in the LIS literature (Hoffmann, Berg, & Koufogiannakis, 2014). We added a formal mentor program to IRDL for 2017-2019, with each Scholar paired with a mentor who was a more seasoned librarian-researcher, with a plan for them to meet on a schedule for feedback and guidance on the Scholar’s research project.
I attended the UNM Mentoring Institute’s conference to learn how to build a successful mentor program. My significant takeaways from the presentations and workshops offered were to design a mechanism for the mentor and mentee to be clear with each other at the outset of the relationship of their goals, to provide a path for frequent and honest communication about the state of the relationship, and to seek feedback at the end of the program about the satisfaction of both the mentor and the mentee.
I therefore designed two documents to share with each Scholar/Mentor pair at the beginning of the program, one with an outline of what they could expect from the year-long program and one with a monthly reflective prompt to discuss during their one-on-one meeting. Some of the monthly topics requested written feedback sent to each other and/or the program directors. The goal of providing reflective prompts was to give some guidance and structure to the monthly meetings, to support the rest of their discussions about the Scholars’ research progress.
Each mentor could be paired with two Scholars, depending on the interest of the Mentor. We solicited formal feedback at the end of the year-long program, using a questionnaire. We asked questions about barriers they may have encountered in being available to their Scholar(s), if they were able to check in with their Scholar(s) on their agreed-upon schedule, and if they had anything they wanted to share with us about the Scholar(s). We asked them if their Scholars asked any questions they weren’t prepared to or able to answer as well as how/if they used the monthly topic prompts. Finally, we asked them to reflect on any earlier mentoring experiences they may have participated in (either as mentor or mentee) and compare it, related to preparation/training for them as the mentor; program structure, or guidance for the participants; and clarity of expectations for the participants.
A notable comment from a mentor: “This was the most focused mentoring that I have participated in. My other experiences of mentoring have been more onboarding of pre-tenured faculty. These guidelines and expectations were clear and manageable preventing any misconceptions of what the relationship was about.”
Linked here is the version of the feedback form in use from 2022-2024.
My reflection on the use of this tool for assessing the program
I was interested in the satisfaction of both the mentor and the mentee and with how the structure of the program supported them in their year-long relationship. We had multiple conversations with both the Scholars and the Mentors throughout the year and were able to gather informal feedback as they moved through the program. Following up at the end of the program with a simple questionnaire offered them an additional place to reflect on the process. I was delighted at the amount of positive feedback we received on the program.
The cost of this assessment tool
Because LMU has an institutional subscription to Qualtrics, no grant funds needed to be used for the assessment.
Hoffmann, Kristin, Berg, Selinda, and Koufogiannakis, Denise. 2014. “Examining success: identifying factors that contribute to research productivity across librarianship andother disciplines.” Library and Information Research 38:119. https://lirgjournal.org.uk/index.php/lir/article/view/639/658
Introduction post, Confidence scale, Research networks of the Scholars, External review, Post-workshop survey, Pre-/post-workshop research proposal evaluation, Mid-point check-in survey, Summative survey
