Abstract
Objective. To investigate the strengths and challenges of a structured junior faculty mentoring program at a public four-year school of pharmacy, identify areas of opportunity to improve the program, and describe the mentoring needs of mid-career faculty.
Methods. Focus groups and interviews were conducted to elicit participants’ experiences, perceptions, and suggestions for opportunity to improve the program. Stakeholder groups included junior faculty enrolled in the mentoring program, mid-career faculty who had graduated from the program, mid-career faculty who had not participated in the program, internal mentors, external mentors, and division chairs. Thematic coding was used to identify semantic themes, and summaries of participant perceptions were generated. The program was mapped to the PAIRS checklist from the 2014 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Joint Council Task Force on Mentoring.
Results. Participants described the structure of the program and mentee-mentor relationships as strengths of the program. Challenges included finding time to meet and ensuring mentee-mentor fit. Several areas of opportunity were identified, such as adjusting the topics for large mentee seminars, providing mentors with training, and providing mentoring for mid-career faculty. The mentoring needs of mid-career faculty were described as unique and requiring potentially different strategies than those used for mentoring junior faculty.
Conclusion. Mentoring is critical to the professional development of faculty, supporting faculty retention and job satisfaction, and reducing faculty burnout. Scholarly endeavors that explore faculty mentoring, specifically those using qualitative methods, can help the Academy better understand and meet the needs of faculty.
INTRODUCTION
Faculty mentoring is widely recognized as an important component of professional development, with effective mentoring being positively associated with job satisfaction,1-3 productivity,4,5 promotion,6 socio-emotional support,7 professional identity, and sense of competence.8 Furthermore, lack of mentorship can lead to faculty burnout,9 impede career progression, reduce satisfaction, and contribute to faculty attrition.5,10 For institutions, this can result in lost opportunity, reduced faculty connectedness, damaged reputation, and costs associated with recruitment and onboarding of new faculty.11
Despite the apparent benefits of faculty mentoring, most pharmacy schools do not offer formal mentoring services, often opting for informal mentoring or none at all.12,13 Although formal mentoring programs may require more resources, benefits include higher rates of faculty retention because of the structure and curriculum of the program and commitment from the mentee, mentor, and institution.1,13-15 In a recent review of faculty mentoring programs, McRae and colleagues1 identified only four papers describing formal programs within schools of pharmacy. The described programs used various formats and approaches, including external faculty mentoring,14,16 department mentoring,17 multi-institution mentoring,18 and voluntary mentoring.15 These programs were largely described as beneficial for faculty and emphasized the importance of effective program design.1
The lack of literature describing and evaluating formal mentoring programs within schools of pharmacy is somewhat surprising given the long-standing emphasis on mentoring among pharmacy thought leaders.19,20 Mentoring was described as one of four key strategies for elevating pharmacy faculty productivity and work-life quality by the Continuing Professional Development (CPD)-Council of Faculty (COF) Joint Task Force on Faculty Workforce nearly a decade ago.20 Yet most mentoring and research related to mentorship in pharmacy appear to focus on students and trainees.21-24 More research is needed to better understand the structure, need, and opportunities for formal faculty mentoring within pharmacy education.
The 2014 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Joint Council Task Force on Mentoring outlined key design steps and recommendations for successful faculty mentoring programs.19 The task force specifically recommended the use of formal, systematic approaches to mentoring with clearly defined mentor roles, the inclusion of multiple mentors for different aspects of faculty life (eg, external mentors for faculty transitioning to administrative roles), the appropriation of key resources for program sustainability, and the implementation of programmatic assessments to evaluate and improve mentoring programs.19 This work resulted in the development of the PAIRS (Process, Assessment and evaluation, Intent, Resources, Structure) checklist, which provides a guiding framework for faculty mentoring focused on intent, structure, process, resources, and assessment and evaluation.19
The University of North Carolina (UNC) Eshelman School of Pharmacy launched the Bill and Karen Campbell Mentoring Program (CMP) in 2006 with the goals of recruiting, retaining, acclimating, and supporting junior faculty to reach their full potential, and taking advantage of the unique and valuable talent of senior faculty within and outside the school (Table 1).25 The CMP is an endowed, structured mentoring program that utilizes a team mentoring approach, with one mentor internal to the school and one mentor external to the school but within the university,16,25 which is a uniquely structured design compared to that of other formal faculty mentoring programs. Mentors are selected based on area of scholarship by the director of the mentoring program, with consultation from the junior faculty member and their division chair.16 During this selection process, the needs and interests of the mentee (eg, grants, publications, teaching) and the mentors’ expertise, as well as the mentors’ capacity to commit to formal mentoring, are considered in an effort to optimize the mentor-mentee match. These individuals mentor the junior faculty member one-on-one and are encouraged to meet on a monthly basis and attend an annual team meeting with the program director, the faculty member, the faculty member’s division chair, and the administrative supervisor (if applicable). This team advises, mentors, and supports the mentee as they acclimate to the school and university, develop in their faculty role, and navigate the promotion, reappointment, and tenure process. Additionally, the CMP offers monthly large group seminars during the academic year that provide opportunities for mentees to meet, network, and socialize and for guest visitors to present and lead discussions on key topics (eg, promotion and tenure, grant writing). Mentees graduate from the CMP upon successful faculty promotion. The time to promotion is variable because tenure-track and fixed-term assistant professors are included in the program. Internal and external mentors are paid an annual stipend for their participation in the program. Kohn16 provides a more detailed description of the mentoring program.
Structure of and Representative Quotes From Participants in a Qualitative Evaluation of a Junior Faculty Team Mentoring Program
As part of the assessment and evaluation of the CMP, mentees were surveyed in 2013 about their experiences.16 Most agreed or strongly agreed that participating in the mentoring program was a valuable experience (94%) and met their expectations (87%). Interacting with mentor(s) was identified as the most beneficial aspect of the program, followed by interacting with the CMP director and attending monthly luncheons.16 Several years after the CMP survey was conducted, the school and CMP underwent leadership changes; thus, more information was needed to better understand the strengths, challenges, and opportunities of the program.
Upon reviewing the literature, we found there was a paucity of in-depth qualitative research exploring faculty mentoring within pharmacy schools, despite recommendations by the AACP Joint Task Force on Mentoring to include qualitative methods.19 Further, Desselle argued for faculty mentoring programs to be treated like other scholarly endeavors, ie, that rigorous in-depth studies should be conducted to determine how these programs can better support current faculty, future leaders, and the profession of pharmacy.20 The purpose of this study was to investigate the benefits and opportunities for mentoring junior faculty within pharmacy and, specifically, the CMP at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy.
METHODS
A formal, qualitative evaluation was conducted to provide a deeper examination of the CMP beyond the quality improvement feedback provided informally to the program director throughout the year. Specifically, focus groups were conducted to provide an in-depth view of participant and stakeholder experiences in and perceptions of the mentoring program. While this type of data collection and analysis is not feasible on a yearly basis, it provides detailed insight into the program and a formative way to identify areas of opportunity.
To accomplish this, six stakeholder groups were included in this evaluation. Five groups were engaged through one-hour focus groups: current program mentees (n=9); program graduates (n=5); internal program mentors (n=8); external program mentors (n=9); and associate professors who did not participate in the program (n=9). To accommodate scheduling constraints, individual interviews were conducted with the sixth set of stakeholders, ie, current and former division chairs (n=5).
Focus group and interview scripts were structured to elicit participants’ experiences, perceptions, and suggestions for opportunity regarding the mentoring program (interview scripts available from the author upon request). For example, CMP mentees and graduates were prompted, “Talk about the benefits of being a part of the CMP,” whereas CMP mentors were asked, “Tell me how you think the CMP has benefited your mentee,” and division chairs were prompted, “Tell me how you think the CMP has benefited faculty in your division.” The questions were intentionally broad to elicit participants’ overall perceptions of and experiences with the mentoring program regardless of duration.
Two postdoctoral research assistants not associated with the CMP conducted all focus groups and interviews from January 2019 to July 2019. Interactions were audio recorded with the participants’ consent and comprehensive field notes were recorded for analysis purposes. Data from each participant group were compiled into a single corpus for that group (eg, division chairs) prior to analysis. One member of the research team used thematic coding to identify semantic themes within each set of focus group data.26,27 This type of thematic analysis provided a description of what existed in the data and allowed for the data to be organized into interpretative patterns.26 Saturation of themes was achieved, providing a rich description of the entire data set, and themes were pervasive across participant groups.26-28 The semantic themes were then used to construct comprehensive summaries that reflected the voices of each participant group. Summaries were reviewed and verified by the second researcher who had helped conduct the focus groups and interviews. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved between the two researchers. This study was submitted to the UNC Institutional Review Board and was determined to be not human subjects research (NHSR) given its purpose as a program evaluation (ie, focused on the program).
RESULTS
Three major themes and related subthemes emerged across all participant groups: strengths of the Campbell Mentoring Program (CMP), eg, structure, mentoring relationships; challenges experienced by the participants, eg, time, mentoring fit; and future directions and opportunities, eg, mentee seminars, mentor training, associate professor mentoring. A discussion of these themes and subthemes follows, and direct quotations from the different participant groups are provided as representative examples within the text and in Tables 1 and 2.26-28 As seen in Table 1, participant responses mapped to each category of the PAIRS checklist, suggesting alignment between the CMP design and key recommendations from the 2014 AACP Joint Council Task Force on Mentoring.
Themes Identified in Quotes From Participants in a Qualitative Evaluation of a Junior Faculty Team Mentoring Program (n=45)
Strengths of CMP
All participant groups lauded the ability of the program to support assistant professors on their path to promotion and tenure, aligning with the process and intent components of the PAIRS checklist.19 Moreover, participants acknowledged that the CMP supported new faculty during their transition into the university and school communities. One participant shared, “the connection between teaching, service, and scholarship are not linked well, so the CMP really helped to bridge these three big buckets. It helps new faculty understand the culture at UNC.”
The formal structure of the program was seen as a critical strength for ensuring mentees were engaged, progressing appropriately, and aware of expectations. This included the monthly seminars, individual mentoring meetings, and annual team mentoring meetings. External mentors suggested that the formal structure helps junior faculty because, “sometimes young faculty have challenges and don’t know when they should reach out” and the CMP provides a platform for those conversations. Monthly seminars were specifically identified as being important to help build relationships and provide guidance for assistant professors. These findings further support the importance of structure, as identified in the PAIRS checklist,19 as a key framework component for faculty mentoring.
The CMP mentoring relationships, which map to the structure and resource components of PAIRS,19 were regarded as critical for faculty success, promoting collaborations, and retaining faculty. Participants also lauded the use of internal and external mentors, with many focusing on the different perspectives provided by internal and external mentors. For example, one mentee described their external mentor as an “added benefit” that provided a “balance…and a different perspective,” while an external mentor stated that, “the key element to success is being external because we bring a different perspective.”
Mentoring relationships also helped promote research collaborations. As one mentee shared, “Having a mentor networking across campus has been wonderful to be able to find other collaborators and people to talk to and get suggestions from.” Similarly, an internal mentor expressed, “It’s nice to have mentees from across divisions [within the school], it helps with our culture and collaborations.” Several CMP graduates and mentors continued their relationships after mentees graduated from the program. Ongoing interactions included research collaborations, occasional coffee meetings, and chatting via email. One external mentor stated, “If they reach out with a problem, I’m there.”
Internal and external mentors also suggested that mentoring relationships improved faculty retention and faculty connectedness. Internal mentors suggested that the CMP was filling a void in that it supported assistant professors in “realizing they are not alone in this.” Similarly, external mentors suggested that the CMP established, “an intrinsic understanding that ‘I am here for you.’” External mentors also had the impression that the school of pharmacy has a stronger support system than in other schools on campus.
Challenges Experienced by Mentoring Program Participants
Although the CMP was lauded for its benefits, participants reflected on several challenges, including scheduling time for mentors and mentees to meet consistently and ensuring appropriate fit between mentors and mentees. Finding time to meet on a consistent basis with mentors and scheduling yearly progress meetings with chairs, mentors, and mentees were among the topics identified as challenging. The frequency and purpose of meetings varied widely. Some participants adhered to very rigid and consistent schedules while others were more flexible and sometimes inconsistent. Division chairs wanted mentors and mentees to meet more consistently and stated that it was the responsibility of the mentees to initiate meetings with their mentors. Several mentees acknowledged that they were concerned about taking up too much of their mentors’ time or wasting their time. However, as one mentor shared, “Time is a barrier. Sometimes new faculty are involved in so many things, they need to be reminded to meet.”
While mentor fit was discussed by all groups, their reasons for highlighting this part of the CMP varied. Division chairs, for example, were especially concerned about the possibility of “poor fit” between mentor and mentee hindering mentee development. Some CMP graduates indicated that fit changed over time and they wanted the option to switch mentors as their career progressed. Mentors often discussed the importance of clarifying mentee needs for promotion to ensure they could support the needs of the mentee appropriately. Internal mentors, for example, highlighted the different expectations established across faculty tracks (eg, tenure track, fixed term) while external mentors acknowledged lack of awareness about school expectations generally. One external mentor shared, “I was giving conflicting advice on research trajectories. So, then my mentee had to navigate different sets of advice,” putting an unnecessary burden on the mentee.
Future Directions and Areas of Opportunity
Participants identified several areas of opportunity for the CMP. Mentees wanted a broader array of topics to be discussed at the monthly large group meetings, mentors requested training on how to best support their mentees, and several groups suggested extending the CMP to include associate professors.
The CMP graduates and mentees suggested additional topics for the monthly large group seminars, including grant writing, developing entrepreneurial skills, and developing leadership skills. Existing topics that participants wished to keep included sessions on dossier preparation led by a CMP graduate, exemplary teaching tips led by an award-winning university instructor, and self-promotion communication led by a business faculty member. Mentees who were close to promotion and tenure also encouraged the addition of programming on preparing for the promotion review process.
Mentors also acknowledged that the mentee large group seminars were an area of opportunity for improvement. Mentors wanted to be informed about what was being discussed in the mentee seminars, perhaps via an email. One mentor wanted to be informed of the CMP programing because, “not all seminars benefit everyone, but as a mentor I can help bridge that gap.” Some mentors wanted the option to attend the mentee seminars so they could have a better understanding of what was being presented. External mentors also wanted to know more about the school and mentee programming. As one noted, “I don’t understand the structure of the school itself...I think an orientation for mentors would be helpful.”
When asked about whether a structured mentoring program for associate professors was needed, division chairs posited the potential benefits of such a program for associate professors who become “terminal associates,” (ie, faculty who achieved tenure but did not progress further),“lost,” “stuck,” or “left hanging.” Associate professors who did not participate in the CMP acknowledged they could benefit from mentoring, as they sometimes felt overwhelmed by their teaching, research, service, and leadership responsibilities. While largely supportive of mentoring for associate professors, nearly every participant group acknowledged that the needs of this group would differ from assistant professors and across associate professors. Some suggested different pathways for associate professors, such as leadership training. Others suggested making the program optional and extending the CMP team beyond the point of promotion. Associate professors who completed the CMP stated they maintained relationships with their mentors and thereby continued the program informally.
DISCUSSION
Mentoring can play a critical role in the success of faculty and is considered by some as necessary for a successful academic career.1-3,29 This study is one of the first in-depth qualitative evaluations of a structured faculty mentoring program within pharmacy education and the first to include the viewpoints of associate/mid-career faculty as mentees. By engaging various stakeholders, including division chairs and non-program participants, this study was able to holistically explore the strengths, challenges, and opportunities for a pharmacy faculty mentoring program. Namely, participants highlighted the ability of the program to facilitate the transition into the school and the contributions of mentors to the development and progression of junior faculty toward promotion and tenure. While these findings align with previous research about faculty mentoring programs, they also provide additional support and insight into the specific needs of pharmacy faculty.
The strengths of the CMP align with the AACP Joint Council Task Force on Mentoring recommendations, including the use of a formal and systematic approach focused on mentoring relationships. Notably, the results highlight key structural aspects of team mentoring that align with these recommendations and the value of internal and external mentors.14,19 The use of external faculty within the university may be particularly well-suited for pharmacy programs as many faculty specialize in areas that intersect or align with other disciplines, such as chemistry, engineering, education, medicine, and public health. Although the CMP does not include peer mentors, this could be another strategy for enhancing the diversity of perspectives, networking opportunities, and types of support that faculty experience.9,30
Despite these strengths, participants explicated common faculty mentoring challenges, including finding time to meet and ensuring that mentors and mentees were well matched.1,5,15 Protecting time for career development is a critical aspect of success in academia and strategies for incentivizing commitment to the program may warrant attention. Mentor fit is also critical for a successful program, and the selection of mentors is done with great care to ensure mentees obtain the best support. To help address these challenges, the CMP has an endowment that supports the program and provides a financial incentive to its mentors. Since mentors believed the stipend reflected the School’s appreciation for their time and mentoring, many were willing to use the stipend provided by the CMP to take mentees out to lunch or coffee.
Resources such as financial incentives and time must be well-understood and secured to ensure the success and sustainability of faculty mentoring.1 As it relates to the CMP, the school has committed a clear administrative infrastructure that includes a director and staff support. Financial support is available for monthly seminar lunches, occasional socials, and mentor incentives. Division chairs understand and support the time investment required of junior faculty and internal mentors to participate in the program. Participants described the CMP and its infrastructure as critical to their success, and the current evaluation identified ways in which to optimize time and resources for continued support.
Program evaluation, including the use of qualitative data, is critical for ensuring that mentoring programs are aligned with and meeting the needs of mentees, mentors, and schools.1,19,20 Conducting focus groups with all stakeholders allowed for insight into all aspects of the CMP and from multiple viewpoints. Coupled with previous evaluations,16 this qualitative evaluation provided additional depth and insight into opportunities for improving faculty development and equipped CMP and school leadership to make changes.
Although the benefits of CMP to mentors was beyond the scope of this study, most mentors expressed satisfaction with the program and provided only minor suggestions for improvements (eg, providing mentors with training prior to meeting with mentees, extending invitations to monthly seminars). Previous research has shown benefits to mentors, including career development, improved leadership skills, new networks, and enhanced research.31,32 As such, exploring the role of the CMP in promoting the professional development of mentors could be an important next evaluation step. As stated by Pioloi and Knight,33 “Everyone can benefit from mentoring in important ways, regardless of status, position, or level of expertise.”
Given the critical role of mentoring in faculty success, it is somewhat surprising that most pharmacy schools lack formalized faculty development programs.12,13 As pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences evolve, and pharmacy curricula undergo significant revisions, mentoring will play a critical role in helping faculty develop the skills requisite for success within academia. More research is needed to understand the unique needs of pharmacy faculty, as schools commonly embody faculty on various tracks (eg, tenure, clinical, research), with a wide range of primary responsibilities (eg, teaching, research, practice, precepting) across diverse fields that often intersect other disciplines. Further, formal mentoring could be critical for promoting the retention of underrepresented minority faculty in pharmacy as a lack of mentoring has been cited by faculty of color as the reason for not attaining tenure.34
Shortly after this evaluation, school leadership chose to pilot an expansion of the program to include associate professors as mentees. Associate professors wanted guidance on how to advance and shape their careers, such as adapting their research agendas over time or positioning themselves for administrative and leadership positions. Although most faculty mentoring programs focus on early career faculty, mid-career faculty can also benefit from mentoring.19 In fall 2019, five associate professors from the school (ie, one from each of the school’s five divisions) were included as mentees in the program. A sixth associate professor joined the program during the spring of 2020. Subsequent CMP evaluations will examine the experience of associate professors and additional opportunities for improving and expanding the program.
This study has several limitations. First, this evaluation was conducted at a single institution with endowed funds to support the mentorship program. While this design limits generalizability, the needs and experiences expressed by the participants in this study are likely similar to those of faculty at other pharmacy schools. Second, the participants interviewed were volunteers, which may have introduced self-selection bias. However, the qualitative design of this study enabled us to reach saturation among participants as the themes discussed appeared across all participant groups.29 Third, social desirability bias could have occurred despite de-identifying data and ensuring anonymity in the dissemination of findings.
Regardless of these limitations, this work contributes to a gap in the literature concerning qualitative evaluation of faculty mentoring programs in pharmacy schools. More specifically, this study explored the perceived strengths and limitations of a team-based mentoring program and identified the perceived needs of mid-career faculty. It also highlighted the design of the CMP as it relates to the 2014 AACP Task Force PAIRS checklist and provided rich data about faculty experiences and needs within a structured, systematic mentoring program for junior faculty. The results informed changes within the CMP and are offered in hopes of helping other schools in the development of their own faculty mentoring programs.
CONCLUSION
Mentoring is important for faculty professional development as it supports job satisfaction, productivity, and helps reduce burnout. The CMP is designed to provide junior faculty with numerous points of contact to support them during their initial years in academia (ie, peer community, internal and external mentors, CMP program director, and division chairs). The qualitative evaluation of CMP provided insight into the strengths, challenges, and areas of opportunities for the program, which is critical for the program’s continued success in supporting junior faculty. The evaluation also identified the mentoring needs of mid-career faculty and future opportunities for inclusion within the CMP. Participants provided invaluable information regarding the program that will inform the future of not only the CMP at the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy but also faculty mentoring programs throughout pharmacy education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge William “Bill” Campbell, PhD, former Dean of the School and namesake of the school’s mentoring program (along with his wife, Karen Campbell) for his role in helping design and support the program. We also acknowledge UNC Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Robert A. Blouin, PharmD, Dean of the School when the CMP was established; Harold Kohn, PhD, founding Director of the CMP; and the Pharmacy Foundation of North Carolina for their support of the mentoring program. In addition, the authors thank the former CMP Director Dhiren Thakker, PhD, who was serving as the school’s interim dean at the time of this evaluation and provided support and feedback during the design of the focus group scripts. We also thank Susan Charamut for her help in scheduling and organizing the focus groups.
- Received July 7, 2020.
- Accepted December 18, 2020.
- © 2021 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
REFERENCES
In this issue
Jump to section
Similar AJPE Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.