The Ethics of Mentoring

The Ethics of Mentoring

Sandra L. Borden

Several research ethics programs and articles have addressed the ethical issues that arise within mentoring relationships between faculty and graduate students (cites). Analyses typically have focused on abuse of power by the faculty member, illustrated by excesses ranging from sexual harassment to stealing the student’s work. The case studies included in this module address such concerns. However, the purpose of this essay is to conceptualize the morally significant aspects of mentoring and suggest ethical values that should guide faculty and students.

Mentoring by Choice or by Chance?

What if one party perceives the relationship as a mentoring one, while the other party does not? Is this mismatched perception morally significant? For example, the student may see the faculty member’s attention to her broader professional development as an indication that the faculty member is not “just” her dissertation director, but also her mentor. Meanwhile, the faculty member thinks she is just “doing her job.”

Mentoring usually is seen as being concerned with more than program completion or scholarly competence (King, xxx). In other words, it is seen as going above and beyond minimal expectations for a research adviser. This extra commitment implies a voluntary and conscious choice on the faculty member’s part to take on the extra responsibilities associated with mentoring. If the faculty member does not, in fact, choose to take on these extra duties, is she morally bound to do so? What moral weight do the student’s expectations carry? If the faculty member knows the student has these expectations – promised or not – does this de facto obligate the faculty member? Does it matter if the subject is never explicitly discussed between the two parties? Is an unwilling mentor obligated to disabuse a student of his mistake?

Even if the faculty member willingly takes on the role of mentor, are the expectations associated with this relationship optional? If so, are they of relatively low priority compared with the faculty member’s non-optional academic and disciplinary responsibilities? Should he communicate this to the student to make sure he does not expect too much?

A One-Sided Commitment?

Most commentators place the ethical onus on the faculty member. This is as it should be, given the professor’sfiduciary responsibilityand pedagogical role. Graduate students have much less power and are directly dependent on faculty members for career advice, research opportunities, professional guidance, academic progress and job references. Because of this power inequity, and students’ extreme dependence, faculty members must use their position, experience and knowledge to act in students’ best interests, not their own.

In addition, faculty members have additional responsibilities in their instructional role. At a minimum, these include providing accurate and timely feedback on the quality of academic work, nurturing students’ growth as scholars, providing effective supervision, and keeping students on track to graduate in a timely manner.

Even though the faculty member bears the brunt of ethical responsibility in a mentoring relationship, the student is not without obligation herself. Indeed, in the ideal mentoring relationship, the mentor equips the mentee to become independent in the field and to develop into a peer. This implies that the mentee contributes more and more to the relationship as she develops confidence, expertise and experience. This is not only a matter of the mentee contributing her fair share, but also a matter of respecting the mentor/colleague. Respecting one’s mentor includes using the mentor’s time well, for example, by making timely progress on projects and being responsive to the mentor’s feedback. It also means respecting the commitments the mentor has outside the mentoring relationship. Of course, these same obligations are incumbent upon the mentor herself, in addition to her fiduciary and instructional responsibilities.

Where Is the Line?

Some people equate mentoring with a higher level of intimacy than the typical supervisory relationship between teacher and student. In other words, there often is an expectation that a mentor will not just be a professor or research supervisor, but a friend, maybe even a parental figure. However enriching this kind of closeness can be, it also carries the potential for ethical quagmires.

Besides the dangers posed by romantic bonds, there also is the possibility that both parties might exceed appropriate limits on the time they can devote to the mentoring relationship, as well as the kind of help they offer each other. For example, the mentor may unwittingly give personal advice best handled by a professional counselor (King, xxx). And, given the inherent power inequality of mentoring relationships, the mentor risks becoming paternalistic to the point of interfering with the mentee’s development. Because of these dangers, the nature of the relationship must be clear to both parties. Especially at the beginning, when the power asymmetry is greatest, prudence suggests that the relationship should be primarily professional.

The Right Fit

Mentoring relationships often develop between scholars who are “like” each other. They share similar interests (professional and recreational), they look at the world in the same way, they have the same take on their academic field. This kind of compatibility makes for easy communication, quick camaraderie and smooth collaborations. Therefore, it is highly desirable. Both parties should discuss relevant compatibility factors (such as research interests, work habits, etc.) to realistically assess their prospects for a fruitful partnership.

However, graduate students often are not “like” their prospective mentors. They may be from a different racial or social background, for example. Or perhaps they simply are not “traditional” graduate students – perhaps they are older, with family obligations (King, xxx). Or maybe the intellectual tide in a department is turning, and the graduate students coming in adhere to a different research paradigm than the majority of the faculty. These students, if anything, may require more nurturing than those who can easily network with possible mentors. Faculty cannot ethically turn their backs on students who are “different.”

The mentor may not initially see the potential benefit to himself in such partnerships. But interacting meaningfully with someone from another background enriches both parties, sometimes in unexpected ways. There are campus resources available to bridge certain gaps and assist with special accommodations. In short, difference should not preclude a successful pairing, but both parties should take extra care to discuss expectations, given their potentially divergent perspectives.

Just Between Me and You?

Other faculty members besides the student’s mentor have pedagogical responsibilities toward the student. These responsibilities are less extensive because they do not involve the supererogatory obligations of mentoring and because they do not occur in the context of a special one-on-one relationship. Nevertheless, the entire faculty of a department should help graduate students succeed academically. This may mean, for example, coming to the aid of a student in a dysfunctional mentoring relationship by intervening with their colleague or even taking over mentoring responsibilities if necessary.

Some Guiding Values

This essay suggests several values for enhancing the moral quality of mentoring relationships: candid communication, reciprocity, respect for each other’s interests, mutual accountability, empathy, and the promotion of each other’s well being.

• Candid communication calls on the parties to forthrightly express goals, expectations, and concerns so that they can make commitments to each other based on realistic assessments regarding risks and benefits. Candid communication may preclude “accidental” mentors, which is in the best interest of both parties. Candor about boundaries also can ward off some of the worst difficulties associated with personal distance. Candor establishes trust, but also implies that constructive criticism of professional standards is to be expected.

• Reciprocity requires give-and-take between the parties, so that both are “in” the relationship together. This helps avoid the one-sided mentoring relationship in which expectations are unwittingly dashed and no one’s needs are met. This value is not just “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.” It is about both parties giving to each other and taking risks together with the assurance that such actions take place within the context of mutual commitment and caring.

• Respect for each other’s interests calls on both parties to appreciate the worth of the other’s goals, not just their own. This value draws attention to the fact that interests can be complementary even when they are “different.” It also recognizes that mentees deserve help developing their own research agendas and they should not merely be expected to adopt those of their mentors. Finally, it recognizes that mentors have discretion about how to allocate their multiple academic commitments.

• Mutual accountability suggests that both parties must do their part to make sure the relationship works well. Inevitable differences in power, expertise and status place a fiduciary responsibility upon the faculty member. However, both parties owe each other their best efforts and consideration.

• Empathy is especially pertinent in the graduate school context, where students face a great deal of stress and uncertainty. They also are extremely dependent on their faculty supervisors to make their degree programs worthwhile. It can be easy to forget what it is like to walk in those shoes, but faculty should strive to remember and to respond with concern and encouragement. Students, as well, should make an effort to understand things from the perspective of their mentors, who face many conflicting demands on their time and energies. Not only does empathy foster respect between mentor and mentee, it has the potential to provide a broader perspective on what it means to be a faculty member. For those who want to follow in their mentor’s footsteps, empathy gives them a chance to see down the road ahead.

• Promoting each other’s well being should be the animating impulse behind the mentoring relationship. At a minimum, both parties should refrain from exploiting each other. Mentors, due to their expertise and experience in the field, also should alert mentees to the professional consequences of their actions and ensure that they have appropriate opportunities for development in the field.

Conclusion

Mentoring relationships can be the most rewarding aspect of graduate education for both faculty and graduate students. The best relationships outlast the student’s program and blossom into collegial collaborations and even friendships that last entire careers. Mentoring relationships are both necessary and desirable for the development of both parties. As such, they should be encouraged. But they also should be initiated and managed with great care. The stakes are high – professionally, personally and ethically.