Responsible for developing the creative and/or independent research careers of their mentees. The scholarly mentor must have expertise in the mentee’s area of scholarship and help provide resources to support the mentees work. Scheduled meetings take place 1-2 times per month.
The career mentor is responsible for overall career guidance and support for their mentee. Often affiliated with a Faculty Mentoring Program, the career mentor should not serve as the scholarly mentor. Scheduled meetings take place at least 2-3 times per year.
This type of relationship has been the focus of our mentoring program.
More limited role than a mentor. Provides guidance on an as-needed basis generally around a specific issue. No expectation for ongoing contact.
Who should you mentor? Struggling- - Target individuals who are at risk for “failure” or falling off the radar Undeclared-- Representative of most early career investigators Stars - Individuals with proven ability and record of success A focused approach. Effort could be disproportionately provided to persons under-represented in medical research. High impact. Provides services to self-selected group. Good setting for peer-to-peer interactions due to varied experience and achievement. High success rate likely. A less intensive targeted approach may be adequate. Participation may become highly coveted as an indicator of “star” status. Participation maybe perceived as stigmatizing. Overall success rate may be low. Methods not proven. Requires a tailored approach and flexible mentors. Could duplicate some institutional efforts. Impact will vary with participant. May be “preaching to the choir” with little impact on outcome. Unlikely to contribute to expansion of diversity in the investigator pool. May duplicates efforts since stars are prioritized.
UCSF-GIVI CFAR Venn Diagram To nurture and sustain innovative multidisciplinary HIV research at the intersections of the basic, clinical, and population based scientific disciplines . Clinical Science Population Science Basic Science
Developing sufficient mentors for CFAR programs may be a future challenge
Mentors are leaving
Mentors are not participating
Some mentors receive great praise, others less so.
We have to recruit and train the next generation of mentors for CFAR or face some risk regarding effective mentoring
2008-2009 we would focus on MENTORS
Workshops for Mentors-case based
Voluntary 360 degree review
Mentoring the Mentors Mentors’ workshops 2008-9
Motivating & coaching your research team
Dealing with interpersonal conflict in your group
Creating a professional research group and a culture of excellence
Role and expectations of a mentor
Understanding scientific fraud and misconduct
Voluntary 360 degree review
Objective: To discuss the responsibilities of a mentor. What should be the value gained from this experience for both the mentor and those being mentored. Examples from best and worst case mentoring situations. How to wean a mentee from both a style and project basis Objective: To understand individual differences, cultural diversity and techniques for assisting others to reach their potential. Objective: To provide participants with basic fundamental team-related conflict- management concepts and techniques. To help them better engage in difficult conversations and gain confidence in mediating interpersonal issues Objective: To provide participants with techniques for making effective hiring decisions, clarifying and communicating expectations; and instilling accountability for work ethics, procedures, results and behavior. Behavior-based interviewing techniques will be shared to address the three multiple interfaces for lab success. A performance management model will also be discussed. Prepare a plan of action and a response consistent with UCSF and GIVI policies and understand the need for a formal process.
Review your last performance evaluation; were there areas in which your supervisor felt you needed more development and expertise?
Read job descriptions or want-ads for positions you aspire to hold in the next three to five years. What skills do you have already? What skills/experiences do you need to develop to be qualified for these positions?
List three basic needs that you have in your current position (e.g., less stress, more responsibility, more challenge, more respect).
Think about what you currently enjoy in your current situation (job or otherwise)? What's missing?
Be clear about why you want to end the relationship. If you've achieved your goals - celebrate! Let you mentor know how they have helped you, and show your appreciation.
If you're ending the relationship for other reasons, let your mentor know what the reason is. Perhaps the relationship is not moving you forward and you'd like to spend time engaging in other professional development activities.
Regardless of the reason why you'd like to end the relationship, it's important to give your mentor clear feedback about what they might do differently and what they did well.
Mentors frequently become collaborators …always appreciate that the future is unknown and will bring about a surprise.
A complaint of research misconduct is received from a postdoctoral fellow concerning inappropriate use of research grant funds
Funding from Project A was used to support Project B and to support PI travel that was not necessary for the research
Postdoctoral fellow had been long frustrated by lack of support for his own research projects, and was looking for job with fewer publications than he had hoped for, disputes had also occurred regarding who the corresponding author on the papers should be;
PI felt that the postdoc had done well, productivity had been hampered by technical issues, and was unaware of the extent of postdoc’s concern
Postdoc also felt that PI had not been as supportive in job search as he could have been, and enrolled other lab staff in effort to review budgets and expenditures.
Postdoctoral fellow is granted whistle blower status, but eventually decided that academics was too difficult a work environment for him.
PI was forced to return funding for Project A using his entire unrestricted funding to cover the costs, resulting in cessation of other projects and support for several graduate students.
Other students and faculty who know PI were said to report this kind of misconduct happens all the time.
The faculty member had previously been required to take supervisory and anger management training.
The work that was reported in both papers was completed in the PI’s laboratory using grant funding that he obtained, but he was less involved in leading this work, which was an offshoot of the original project, than was his routine practice.
The PI reported that he was not aware the grievant had submitted this paper, and that he was simply completing what he had thought was an unfinished manuscript.
The PI was found to have violated the UCSF code of conduct.
Since the dispute became public within the department, the grievants also were perceived by some to have transgressed appropriate conduct and to have acted to falsely tarnish the reputation of the PI and his contributions to the research.