ɫɫ��

Miloš N. Mladenović and Jani Romanoff

School of Engineering, Aalto University

Setting the stage

The dyad (i.e., a network of two people) between a doctoral researcher and a professor is a cornerstone of a modern research university, at least since the 1960s (Goodchild & Wechsler, 1997). 

The significance of this dyad is twofold. On the one hand, it is essential for the societal benefits stemming from research, as it has direct impact on research quality.  On the other hand, it is essential for training the early stage researchers, in both domain expertise and a range of transferable skills – as well as having a range of other impacts on the doctoral researcher, spanning all the way to development of personal values and their wellbeing (Bird, 2001; Carozza, 2011; Gardenier, 2001; Lee, 2008; Lee, 2019; Murray, 2001; Noe, 2006; Tenenbaum et al., 2001; Wisker et al, 2007). 

In contrast to its significance, this dyad is also the most complex relation in the modern university, fundamentally, as it includes a lot of work and personal growth, as well as meaningful moments, for both professor and doctoral candidate (Carozza, 2011; Kutsyuruba, 2021; Lee, 2008; Robertson, 2017; Sun & Trent, 2023; Sverdlik et al., 2018; Vehviläinen & Löfström, 2016; Wisker et al, 2007). 

Considering its significance and complexity, below are three aspects that a successful supervisor of a doctoral researcher could take into account for personal reflection and development.

Recommendation 1. The limits of our language are the limits of our imagination – i.e. reflect on your own words

As professors, we use two words in Aalto. Supervising professor and thesis advisor. 

Let’s contrast this to another word – mentor. This word originates from Ancient Greek mythology, where Odysseus entrusted his friend Mentor to be a teacher and guide to his son Telemachus while Odysseus was away from home.

Besides the word mentor, what would happen to our thinking if we would use some other words, such as guide, role model, counselor, socializer, supporter, confidant, coach, exemplar, luminary, or even Yoda (Clutterbuck & Lane, 2004; Kreber & Wealer, 2023; Lee, 2008; Motta, 2002; Sun & Trent, 2023; Wisker et al, 2007).

Beyond those, how would your thinking evolve if the important mentor’s characteristics would be questioned? For example, besides being knowledgeable, intelligent, ambitious, passionate or organized - what if you could describe oneself as mentor who is approachable, nonjudgmental, patient, good listener, willing to share knowledge, empathetic, nurturing, kind, encouraging, curious, cooperative, communicative?

Lastly, what would happen if next time someone asks you “How many doctoral researchers do you have?” –  you would answer: “There are X doctoral researchers that have me.”?

The bottom line is – an important aspect of being a good mentor is actively reflecting upon our own assumptions and beliefs rooted in the common words we use to describe our end of this dyad. Those words ultimately shape how we think, so we should critically approach them, especially in our everyday conversations.

Recommendation 2. Mentoring as a process with four stages

Many who already have had mentoring experiences know that relationships evolve over time, and that mentoring is a process that changes over time. Even though getting a doctoral degree means that one is capable of independent research, it is not reasonable to expect that such independence starts from day one of the dyad relation. In fact, it is well known in literature that mentor-mentee dyad has to start from mentee’s dependence, if it is to end with autonomy, confidence and self-reliance. In broad terms, literature recognizes four stages (Bouquillon et al., 2005; Carozza, 2011; Chao, 1997; Clutterbuck & Lane, 2004; Lee, 2019; Sun & Trent, 2023)

Stage 1: This is basically getting-to-know-each-other phase. In this initial phase, the role of the mentor is explicated, while also explicating the goals and expectations of the mentee. This also includes building base level trust, rapport and openness in the dyad, while identifying both the common ground and important differences. Discussion related to the personal study plan is an ideal place to explicate these expectations.

Stage 2: In this second stage, the mentor is the one who should be more proactive. In metaphorical terms, the mentor is supposed to walk ahead of the mentee, carving the path that mentee follows. During this stage, the focus is on core domain mentee’s learning within the conditions of psychosocial support and personal project planning enabled by the mentor. This stage might involve several iterations for learning from trial and error, especially related to first conference or journal publications for the given dissertation. Besides learning, this stage is essential for building a higher level of mutual trust in the dyad. The need for more support in the early stages has also been emphasized in the results from our doctoral student yearly follow-up 2025.

Stage 3: In this stage, the mentor and mentee walk side by side, again in metaphorical terms. At this point in time, the dyad becomes more collaborative, as the mentee takes more responsibility than in the previous stage. Here, while the mentee develops more independence and confidence, the mentor becomes more challenging and encouraging critical reflection. Ideally, this would be the stage when the second journal publication is co-written. 

Stage 4: Taking the walking metaphor to its conclusion, in this stage, the mentee starts to walk independently ahead of the mentor. Basically, this means that mentee has functional independence and even begins to outgrow the mentor. Ideally, this would be the stage where the last publication for the dissertation is prepared, or one that includes seamless preparation for defense. Thus, in this stage, the mentoring relationship can even transform into a casual friendship, as it has fulfilled its development purpose. 

Recommendation 3. Mentoring as a craft in the writing process of the first paper

Even from our personal experience, we all know how personally significant the process is of writing the first academic paper. With that significance in mind, it would be good to remember the apprenticeship model, from the Middle Ages craft guilds (Murray, 2001). There, the essence of learning the craft was observing the expert while working. At the same time, the mentee would hear the commentary on the crafting process, andthen be given concrete opportunities to work on smaller pieces of the craft – in an iterative manner and in close proximity to the mentor.  

In the academic context, this means that writing the first academic paper has to a) be led by the mentor, b) include dedicated time to observe and reflect with the mentor in action, and c) having dedicated time for mentee to work on the paper at the same time with the mentor. 

In quantitative research, this would mean that for the first paper, the mentor would be responsible for most of the work with problem statement and hypothesis formulation in relation to previous knowledge. In contrast, the mentee would then be responsible for testing the hypothesis and reporting the results. 

In qualitative research, this would mean that mentor is the one again responsible for problem statement in relation to previous knowledge, and defining the analytical framework as well as method, potentially taking also the role of the second coder. In relation, the mentee would then be responsible for implementing the method, and reporting the results. 

Practically speaking, this would be implemented in a set of 2-4 hour meetings, where mentor and mentee take terms in crafting the article, while actively reflecting on the thought process. Similar sessions would also happen after receiving the peer review comments, as in many situations this would also mean providing emotional support for (unfortunately still present) Reviewer 2 overly-negative feedback. And for those for whom this might sound as a high time investment – well it is exactly that – an investment into mentee’s capabilities that would then save plenty of time down the road in the doctoral training process by gradually building functional independence. 

Conclusion

These are certainly not all the important aspects to consider in the mentor-mentee dyad, which is ultimately one of the highly complex human relations out there. For example, there are many aspects that mentees themselves should take into account for managing their own development and the process in the dyad. In contrast, it is important to understand many pressures that modern university professors are facing, which are effectively taking away time from investing in mentor-mentee dyad development, and the need for organizational process development. Moreover, the existence of the extended support network is another important aspect for providing additional guidance, experience and support to both people in the dyad. 

Considering the ever-increasing diversity in higher education, high quality mentoring dyad has the capability to make a positive impact on a grander scale, in addition to just benefiting the directly involved individuals. Ultimately, high quality mentoring can be very important in developing and accomplishing the transformation of scientific communities of the future and maintaining a high level of public trust in the academic institution. Nonetheless, a reflective mentor open to learning and development is still a necessary precondition for facing diverse future challenges.  

References / Further reading recommendations

Bird, S. J. (2001). Mentors, advisors and supervisors: Their role in teaching responsible research conduct. Science and engineering ethics, 7(4), 455-468.

Bouquillon, E. A., Sosik, J. J., & Lee, D. (2005). ‘It’s only a phase’: examining trust, identification and mentoring functions received across the mentoring phases. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 13(2), 239-258.

Carozza, L. S. (2011). Science of successful supervision and mentorship. Plural Publishing.

Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of vocational behavior, 51(1), 15-28.

Clutterbuck, D., & Lane, G. (2004). The situational mentor: an international review of competences and capabilities in mentoring. Gower Publishing Company.

Gardenier, J. (2001). Commentary on ‘mentoring and the impact of the research climate’. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(4), 538-540.

Goodchild, L. F., & Wechsler, H. S. (1997). The History of Higher Education. ASHE Reader Series. Pearson Custom Publishing.

Kutsyuruba, B. (2021). The role of trust in doctoral student–supervisor relationships in Canadian Universities: The students' lived experiences and perspectives. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(2), 125.

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher education, 33(3), 267-281.

Lee, A. (2019). Successful research supervision: Advising students doing research. Routledge.

Motta, M. M. (2002). Mentoring the mentors: The Yoda factor in promoting scientific integrity. The American Journal of Bioethics, 2(4), 1-2.

Murray, M. (2001). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an effective mentoring process. John Wiley & Sons.

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel psychology, 41(3), 457-479.

Robertson, M. J. (2017). Trust: The power that binds in team supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(7), 1463-1475.

Tenenbaum, H. R., Crosby, F. J., & Gliner, M. D. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of vocational behavior, 59(3), 326-341.

Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361-388.

Sun, X., & Trent, J. (2023). Shaping a sustainable doctoral pathway: a critical analysis of reflexive mediation between structure and agency in the PhD experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(2), 468-482.

Vehviläinen, S., & Löfström, E. (2016). ‘I wish I had a crystal ball’: discourses and potentials for developing academic supervising. Studies in higher Education, 41(3), 508-524.

Wisker, G., Robinson, G., & Shacham, M. (2007). Postgraduate research success: Communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(3), 301-320.