Intentionality of Preparation: Systematic Mentorship in Doctoral Education

The Council of Graduate Schools (2010) identified "mentoring" as one of the most important institutional and program characteristics that influence doctoral student completion and attrition rates. Often considered an individual relationship between student and faculty member (Bell-Ellison & Dedrick, 2008; Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001), the mentorship process can also include support from peers (Noonan, Ballinger, & Black, 2007) and co-mentoring by multiple faculty (Mullen, Fish, & Hutinger, 2010). Moreover, mentorship affiliations may focus on gender-based initiatives (Rose, 2005), underrepresented minorities (Grant, 2012; Holley & Caldwell, 2012), and discipline-specific mentoring groups (Barnes, Williams, & Stassen, 2012). Research on these mentoring relationships tends to emphasize theories of relational care (Canary & Dainton, 2003; Rutti, Helms, & Rose, 2013; Schwartz & Holloway, 2014) and the characteristics of the mentors/mentees as well as the personal attributes of the individuals involved. In addition, Kram's (1985/1988) "relationship constellation" or mentoring mosaic model describes not just a single mentoring relationship but a network of co-mentored relationships and co-learning opportunities that are flexible, nurturing, and synergistic.The literature (Fletcher & Mullen, 2012) describes examples of mentorship focused on the mentor/mentee and the diversity of students who enter doctoral programs with different experiences and goals for their careers (professor, researcher, school district supervisor, consulting, community college teaching). With the doctoral program instigating transformative shifts in each student's personal and professional life, we recognize the mentor/mentee relationship as vital. However, we also wanted to understand additional program features and structures through which we could provide intentional acculturation and systematic preparation for our students' prospective careers in research universities.In addition to the mentor/mentee relationship, the literature indicates that peer support is an important component of doctoral student development, progress, and problem solving (Pilbeam, Lloyd-Jones, & Denyer, 2013); yet, the social capital benefits of networking cannot be required. Instead, networking is facilitated when students learn in groups, engage in face-to-face interactions, or participate in other experiences that mitigate the isolation of a doctoral degree that is defined by research independence (Pilbeam, Lloyd-Jones, & Denyer, 2013). These informal interactions, which include professional development workshops and brown bag seminars are critical to their professional socialization as independent scholars (Gardner, 2008). In fact, in programs with the highest completion rates among doctoral students, the network of relationships and support from other students creates a climate conducive to their success in graduate school and beyond (Flores-Scott & Nerad, 2012; Gardner, 2010). The reciprocity between peers contributes an essential element of the learning environment that complements the mentorship by faculty.Along these same lines, isolation in teaching and research is ineffective practice. To support doctoral students' preparation as educational researchers, systematic and apprenticed experiences are necessary (Levine, 2007; Young, 2008). Murray (2012) describes a semester-long writing for publication course that supported students by providing a forum to address barriers associated with fatigue and stress. Similarly, structures such as "inquiry communities" (Arhar, et.al. 2013; Johnson, 2012) or "practicum" experiences (Svoboda, Williams, Jones, & Powell, 2013) are systematic and rigorous experiences that provide both personal support and methodological exposure are necessary for doctoral student success.Finally, benchmarking progress and clearly identifying doctoral student performance goals are necessary for helping students understand the expectations for their performance and determining overall program quality (Brooks & Heiland, 2007; Maki & Borkowski, 2006). …