Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal |
|
TERRY HUTCHINSON[*]
Writing in 1994, Clark commented that ‘Notwithstanding the fact that
mentoring is quite common, there has been comparatively
little written about
it’.[1] At this point in 2002,
it may be more pertinent to ask whether there is really anything new to say?
There are now a number of basic
mentoring handbooks available, many of which are
listed in the bibliography. There are informative
websites,[2] and the number of
universities that have run mentoring programs, judging by the published reports,
is numerous.[3] However, there are
many variations in what is encompassed under the “mentoring” banner,
so it is vital to this discussion
of mentoring for female academics to define
the parameters of mentoring, the roles of the mentor and mentorees, and also to
look
at the background against which the perceived need for mentoring of female
academics has arisen in law schools. A mentoring scheme
for female academics
from the Faculties of Law and Arts was conducted at Queensland University of
Technology (QUT) in 2000/2001.
This scheme has been evaluated, and this paper
tests the perceived outcomes of the scheme against the range of proposed
objectives.
It has also provided an opportunity for the organisers to compile a
basic program that is transferable to other mentoring schemes
involving varied
cohorts such as students and practitioners.
The word “Mentor” of course comes from Homer’s The
Odyssey. Odysseus, the King of Ithaca, left his son, Telemakhos, in the care
of Mentor who acted as advisor, protector and wise friend.
Telemakhos went to
look for his father accompanied by a new Mentor, Athena, Goddess of War and
patroness of industry and the arts.
There are examples through history of many
famous academic mentors such as Plato and Aristotle, and Marie Curie and her
husband
Pierre. Even in today’s popular entertainment, there are mentors.
Obi-Wan Kenobi, and the Jedi Master, Yoda, from Star Wars, exemplify the
coach and mentor – watching, teaching, cajoling, affirming, critiquing and
taking a personal interest in the
achievements of the pupil. Even
vampire-slayers have
trainers![4]
Mentoring
encompasses formalized assistance of a less experienced person by another who is
more senior in the organization and more
knowledgeable about the work
environment. It is a means of work socialization, career education, and
introduction of the protégé
into the academic
environment.[5] Mentors are often the
means of providing the protégé with an entrée to networks,
and they are invaluable in
providing guidance and encouragement. This process
of ‘accumulating merit’ may be achieved through invitations to
‘participate
in research projects, to present guest lectures’ or
perhaps to join an influential
committee’.[6] Tony Becher, in
his sociological study of the academic world, underlined the importance of being
able to sell yourself in order
to ‘get on’, and the fact that
‘it is not only what you write but who you are and where you come from
that counts’.[7] Therefore,
good mentoring can provide one means of gaining more opportunities, more
visibility, more recognition, and enhanced work
socialization.[8]
However,
there are limits to what can come under the “mentoring” banner.
Mentoring is described in some of the literature
as akin to counselling and
dealing with workplace stress, but this type of mentoring would seem to move
beyond the normal boundaries
of an organised work
relationship.[9] No doubt mentors
may have personal knowledge of their protégé and provide social
support, in the same way as a research
supervisor may have these types of
connections to a doctoral candidate, and friendships may develop, but mentoring
is an essentially
work-focused relationship.
There is also the question
of the overlap of workplace Performance Planning and Review schemes with
mentoring. No doubt there are
many who consider that career planning is a part
of management’s role. However, this often depends on the personality of
the
individual manager. In addition, it is not difficult to foresee situations
where there may be a conflict of interest. For example,
it may be in the
manager’s interest to have an academic teaching in a large core unit,
whereas it may be in the staff member’s
best interest to have a
non-teaching leave period to complete a large project, or to teach in a smaller
elective unit. Thus, any
underlying responsibility for appraisal under a
managerial supervision role may impinge on the trust and honesty necessary for a
mentoring relationship.
Therefore, while career based, mentoring is
not an employment service, or a tool of management, but an individual’s
guide to
career enhancement. A mentor may be happy to perhaps provide a
reference or even an introduction, but mentors do not have the responsibility
for finding employment for their mentorees. Thus, the mentoring relationship
must be to some extent informal and certainly non-competitive,
and while it is
best achieved between those of unequal standing, it is not necessarily achieved
with a supervisor.
Mentoring is an accepted mode of academic development. There are at
least four identifiable versions of voluntary mentoring –
spontaneous
career nurturing of chosen protégés by senior academics, informal
peer mentoring within groups of academics
on the same career levels, group or
organization mentoring and “assigned” mentoring programs. While the
statement that
“everyone who makes it has a mentor” may not be
totally correct,[10] it is true that
most successful people have had steady help and guidance from others of more
experience.[11] Mentoring covers
all aspects of life but the focus in this paper is on academic career mentoring
in the areas of research, teaching
and professional leadership.
In law
faculties, spontaneous mentoring occurs where those students choosing academia,
use their connections with undergraduate degree
teachers to obtain references
and advice in choosing postgraduate study, including placements at overseas
institutions. The networks
built at that point, can be called on once again
when the person enters the workforce or enrols in a PhD. Postgraduate
supervisors
may provide this role. Sometimes specific programs are put in place
within faculties to identify the bright and committed who may
work as research
assistants and feed into the postgraduate programs of the school. Connections
are formed and excellence is fostered.
This traditional mentoring
relationship between senior academics and their protégés has often
depended on personalities,
so that ‘senior people in positions of
authority would sponsor those they particularly liked, and stand aloof from the
rest’.[12] This type of
arrangement can lead to factional rivalry between groups. As a result anyone
who has not attached themselves to one
of the main groups may find that
promotions are more difficult to attain without that group thrust or support.
The consequent danger
of this system is also that the mentors turn out clones of
themselves - ‘followers instead of potential
leaders’.[13] In addition,
there are disadvantages in relying on this form of fostering staff development.
Outstanding students are more likely
to find mentors willing to help them, while
those who lack the glow of imminent success, possibly because they are mature
aged, or
have broken careers, will be left to fend for
themselves.[14] There is also a
risk that some mentors may actually hold their mentorees back because they feel
threatened by potential competitors
– the ‘Salieri
Factor’.[15] The
protégé is not always blessed - their star may rise with the
mentor’s, but correspondingly, their career
may also fall when the mentor
moves to another stage or in some way loses influence. In addition, male/
female mentoring relationships
can present special
challenges.[16]
Peer
mentoring can also be of some comfort to new staff. It occurs among staff on
similar levels, and entails encouragement, networking,
notification of new
research or conferences arising in other’s areas, group attendance at
relevant functions and basically
supportive activity provided by work
colleagues. Of course one essential aspect missing within this model is the
gatekeeper’s
key. The gatekeeper, of course, is the person determining
‘who is allowed into a particular community and who remains
excluded’.[17] Instead of the
chosen protégé being ushered courteously through a door, peer
mentoring is akin to a group of academics
blindly searching for the door and
then attempting to ram a way in through force of numbers. Sometimes the door
opens wide enough
for one or two to squeeze through!
Organisational
mentoring programs provide general mentoring support for a whole work group. An
example of this idea in action is
the Visiting Professor Program at the Victoria
University of Technology’s Faculty of Business and Law. Professor
Margaret
Thornton was appointed first visiting professor in 2000 under
VUT’s new visiting professor program for women academics. This
particular
program allowed each faculty to invite an experienced woman professor from
another university to work for a year ‘as
a mentor and role model for
female academics, run seminars, develop a research culture and work with
VUT’s advisory groups
and
committees’.[18] Visiting
adjunct’s often provide this type of advice and encouragement in a less
formal way. QUT’s Research Concentration
in Women Children and the Law
recently hosted Ottawa’s Professor Liz Sheehy, and her seminars and
presentations provided a
catalyst for debate and research project planning. The
timeframe for such visits, being usually limited to less than two months,
necessarily constrains any outcomes.
Group mentoring occurs when a
formal program is organized with a larger group of mentorees and a small group
of mentors, for example,
ten mentorees and three mentors. The program may
include presentations by mentors and mentorees, and visits to different
workplaces
where appropriate. There is no matching up process with an
individual focus, but rather a broadening of experience and knowledge.
This
would normally be most effective where the mentorees are from different areas or
organizations.[19]
Finally
there is individual assigned mentoring. This occurs when funding is provided
within an institution to organize a program,
which identifies those who would
like personal support in a stipulated area, and senior staff volunteers are then
called on to provide
that support within limited boundaries. This type of
mentoring includes the ‘deliberate pairing of a more skilled or
experienced
person with a lesser-skilled or experienced one, with the agreed
upon goal of having the lesser-skilled person grow and develop specific
competencies’.[20] Do
artificial pairings work? Reports from these programs in the past have largely
been positive, but as one organizer commented
– ‘I might (host) a
dance but I’m not going to expect everyone who comes to it to then go on
and get married’.[21] The
next segment of this paper focuses on assigned mentoring of women academics and
the outcome of one such scheme.
Mentors are essentially volunteers, but are there any specific values
that organizers look for in those participating in such a scheme?
For the most
part, mentors are the elders of the organization and in academic terms this will
include those at senior lecturer level
or above. There are basic qualifications
for mentors, then, especially if the mentorees have specific projects in mind
such as the
completion of a PhD, the publication of refereed journals or books,
or even a teaching portfolio. There are also a whole host of
personal
attributes. Eugene Clark lists these attributes as being: sensitive to the
needs of others, an effective listener, knowledgeable
about current educational
issues and practice, committed to the mentoring process, open to new ideas,
accessible, able to devote
sufficient time to the mentoring process, cognizant
of the political and organizational dynamics of the workplace, socially adept
and a good one-on-one communicator, respectful of others achievements, discreet
and ethical.[22]
Mentoring
therefore is the process whereby a more experienced worker provides helpful
advice and support to another person. It is
about individual attention. It is
directed. It is one on one. It is about the transfer of information and skills
towards the development
of another. It is confidential and it often makes calls
on that very precious commodity – time.
It can include such issues as –
The expected
positive outcomes for the Mentors include a sense of personal satisfaction in
teaching and sharing, an opportunity to
reflect on skills and practices,
exposure to new ideas, incentives for staying current in one’s field, and
recognition of administrative
talents of staff
members.[25] It will likely lead to
increased exposure and status throughout the university. However, it is another
call on precious time and
taking on another’s career progress may be a
burdensome responsibility.
What about training for the mentors? Is this
warranted? At the very least mentors need some introduction to the process. In
the
QUT scheme, both mentors and mentorees were invited to the launch of the
program and given some guidance and printed material on
the parameters of the
scheme. Some manuals suggest that separate orientation and information sessions
should be held for the mentors.[26]
Perhaps this might be considered too onerous given the voluntary nature of the
mentoring role, but written information should be
made available along with some
avenue for having questions answered during the progress of the scheme. Some
thought should also
be given on how to thank the mentors for taking part in the
program.
The mentoree’s role is initially an easier one including:
The
benefits for the mentorees are patent, and include on-going support and
encouragement, clear expectations and constructive feedback,
increased
self-confidence and career aspirations, access to inside information and
organization dynamics, association with a successful
role model, help in
building a professional network, career advice and direction, and development of
a university / firm / department
perspective.[28] There may be
negatives in the process, too. There is no guarantee the relationship will be
successful and if it is not there may
be a sense of failure.
Mentorees,
therefore, have to be committed to change and be willing to give energy and time
to the process. This requires a good
amount of honesty on the mentoree’s
part in order that they can assess their own skills, identify strengths and any
weaknesses
needing development, as well as being prepared to take advantage of
available opportunities. There needs to be an honest assessment
of any
perceived threats or barriers to
success.[29] The mentoring
relationship will not work if the person being assisted refuses to act on the
advice given – or indeed to move
out of their personal comfort zone at
all.
Although mentoring programs are advantageous for all staff, there are
several social factors pointing to the need for special support
programs such as
mentoring for women academics. It is a truism that women now make up more than
50% of university law graduates
in Australia. However, in all areas of private
and government practice, at the bench and at the bar, women tend to be
over-represented
at the lower end of the employment spectrum. Of a total 5060
solicitors in Queensland for example, 1480 or 29% are women. Women
make up 106
of the 832 sole practitioners (12.75%). However, 91% of the partners in law
firms are male. There are only 108 female
partners in the firms
(8.9%).[30] Women are similarly
under-represented at the bar and bench. Much talk has centred on the
“trickle-up” theory, which
suggests that as more women enter the
profession, the landscape would change and more women will reach senior
levels.[31] However, this does not
seem to be happening in reality and if the situation is to change it must begin
in the law schools where
the employment benefits and workplace flexibility are
measurably different from practice.
However, women are entering the
general academic workforce at the lower rung and do not seem to progress beyond
senior lecturer.
Federation of Australian Universities Staff Associations
(FAUSA) statistics for 1983 show women holding 54.4% of the principal tutor
positions, 21% lecturers, 9.4% senior lecturers, 4.6% readers and 2.4%
professors.[32] There had only been
a slight improvement by 1991 with women at 9.8% of academics senior lecturer and
above.[33]
Australian law
school statistics follow this trend. The 1994 Australian Law Reform Commission
Report No 69 on Equality Before the Law: Womens’ Equality stated
that the effect of the lack of senior women academics on the education of law
students reverberated throughout the profession:
8.10 In 1993 women represented 35% of total academic staff in Australian law schools. However, they are concentrated in tutorial and lecturer positions while men dominate the positions of associate professor and professor. Few women occupy the managerial positions of dean or head of department in law schools. This reduces the contribution women are able to make in the formulation of academic policies. One submission comments that the distribution of women academic staff has serious implications for students in reinforcing notions of women's inferior position in professional life. ... It means that women students lack role models or mentors in senior positions.[34]
Little has changed in the last seven years. In Australian
universities, women tend to be clustered at the lower rungs of the career
ladder, with the July 1999 Australian Vice Chancellors Statistics (AVCC) showing
women at 51% of academics at Level A (associate)
level, 42% at Level B
(lecturers), 27% at Level C (senior lecturers), and 14% at level D and E
(associate professors and
professors).[35] The statistics
also demonstrate that women make up only 26% of Deputy Vice-Chancellors and 16%
Vice-Chancellors.[36]
The
monitoring of the ratio of women in senior positions to total women employed is
now part of an Australian Vice Chancellor’s
Committee (AVCC) plan
announced in 1999 to improve women’s representation at higher levels. The
plan, a joint project by the
AVCC and the Colloquium of Senior Women in
Australian Higher Education, has three objectives:
1. to exert the AVCC’s leadership to promote the achievement of gender equity in Australia;
2. to develop strategies based on research for overcoming barriers to gender equity for university staff; and,
3. to refine the AVCC and university staff development services to target gender equity more effectively.[37]
Strategies
include the collation of basic quantitative data on the position of women
employed in higher education,[38]
with stated performance targets including increasing the ratio of the percentage
of academic staff at level D and above who are women
to the corresponding
percentage of all academic staff who are women, training for senior staff, and
establishment of information,
communication and mentoring networks. In 1999,
the AVCC commissioned a survey of all Australian universities looking at their
actions
on gender equity issues. This material has been analysed and the report
is available on the AVCC website. Note should be made of
the Australian
Technology Network Women’s Program in which QUT participates and the
schemes such as Quality Women in Leadership
Program and Successful Women’s
Advancement Program developed at that
university.[39] However, no
formalised mentoring program was noted in the QUT response.
The 2000 data for
QUT reflects the stated national trends with women making up 41% of the academic
staff overall, with 54% Level A
positions, 42% Level B, 30% Level C, 30% Level
D, and 19% Level E.[40] QUT Law
Faculty figures also reflect these trends, with women accounting for 53% of the
academic staff (including casuals). The
proportion of women at Level C was 49%,
which is higher than the university average. However, there has been little
change to the
numbers at Level D (2) and Level E (1) for some time. Staff
changes in 2001 have seen the movement of the one Level E position away
from the
faculty for a protracted period, and the replacement of the two previous Level
D’s by two new incumbents, with no
change in the actual numbers of women
at that level. Overwhelmingly it was the female academic staff from the Law
Faculty who decided
to take up the University’s Voluntary Early Retirement
(VER) offer. These staff from Levels B, C, and D will be replaced with
Level A
appointments. This will necessarily change the Faculty profile coming in to
2002.
Comparatively speaking, the situation for women legal academics in
other countries appears no better. Clare McGlynn’s study
of the UK
situation begins with a snapshot of women academics across all faculties. In
1996-97, only 8.1% of professors in the United
Kingdom were women. Women made
up 35% of all other staff.[41] The
1997 examination of the Higher Education Statistics Agency figures in the UK
revealed that 29% of men were employed as senior
academics compared to 12% of
women.[42] Apparently this inequity
also flows over into pay levels with a 1992 UK AUT study concluding that
‘women are systematically
paid less than men in
universities’.[43] The
results of the McGlynn study of UK law faculties reveals that women comprised 43
of 258 professors which represented 14% of
chairs,[44] 22% of readers, 40% of
principal lecturers, 42% of senior lecturers, and 49% of
lecturers.[45] The situation is by
no means consistent across the board, with the study finding considerable
differences between law schools.
Many law schools had no women law professors
(63%).[46] Differences were also
found between the old and new universities with readers being more common at the
old universities and principal
lecturers at the new. However, there were very
few professorial appointments at the new universities. Clare McGlynn comments:
‘as
the vast majority of principal lecturers are in the new universities,
and there are very few professorships in the new universities,
the possibility
for advancement for the 40% of women principal lecturers appear
limited’.[47] On the other
hand, the new universities seem to have a base grade appointment as senior
lecturer.
The Canadian Bar Association’s 1993 landmark "Bertha
Wilson Task Force Report", Touchstones for Change: Equality, Diversity and
Change looked at the status of women in the legal profession and handed down
approximately 200
recommendations.[48] Chapter Eight
specifically referred to the academic arena, and the implementation of the
following recommendations are being overseen
by a Standing Committee on Equality
of the Canadian Bar Council:
8.1 That law schools should give priority to the recruitment of members of minority groups into faculty positions.
8.2 That law schools undertake regular reviews of recruitment practices to ensure that sufficient progress is being made toward gender parity and full representation of minority groups in teaching appointments.
8.3 That law deans make full efforts to ensure that affirmative action recruits are recognized as fully qualified appointments.
8.4.1 That law deans, subject to recommendation 8.4.2, make every effort to include female faculty members on law school committees, particularly in leadership roles, and that participation on committees be recognized in evaluating faculty members for tenure positions.
8.4.2 That law deans, in making such efforts, regularly review the burden of committee work in faculties to ensure that junior and senior women are not over-burdened.
8.5 That law schools demonstrate leadership in adopting and implementing model workplace equity policies that ensure equal treatment to women and other minority groups.
8.6 That law schools give due consideration, which might include affirmative action, to women, minority faculty and feminist scholars for decanal appointments.
8.7 That universities develop and implement plans to eliminate systemic differences in salaries between male and female members.
8.8 That law faculties monitor starting salaries, qualifications and promotion rates of new female and male faculty members in order to ensure that inequities are not institutionalized.
8.9 That law faculties put in place programs to grant reduced teaching loads in the first year of appointment for men and women faculty, combined with half-year pre-tenure sabbaticals at the approximate midpoint between recruitment and the tenure decision.
8.10 That law deans recognize and reward the "invisible work" as role models and in counselling done by women and minority faculty members.
8.11 Deleted: see 8.4 above, which incorporates the original 8.11.
8.12 That law schools jointly, through the Canadian Law Teaching Clinic or other fora, develop video tape materials and seminars to illustrate the challenges experienced by faculty members who teach material involving gender and minority issues, with the purpose of exploring student and faculty responses, as well as remedial strategies.
These
recommendations include a number of initiatives aimed at equalizing opportunity
for those entering law faculties and in so doing
recognize by implication the
institutional inequities that may occur in the system.
The Association of
American Law Schools Statistical Report on Law School Faculty 1999/2000
demonstrated that whereas in 1994-95, 2,343
(28.5%) of the faculty in the
Directory were women,[49] by
1999-2000, the number had increased to 2,781 women, representing 31.5%. These
included 48% assistant professors, 46% associate
professors, and 21.9%
professors. The American scene is very idiosyncratic, and there are differences
to the Australian academic
hierarchy nomenclature. There appear to be pockets
of great inequity, especially in subject areas where women academics are
employed
predominantly.[50]
Another indication of success seemed to be
to obtain the first promotion within five years of appointment or 10 years as a
maximum.[69] Mentoring as such was
not mentioned. However, it was included in Nadya Aisenberg and Mona
Harrington’s list of general rules
for women academics, which include the
need to:
Women
are progressing very slowly in academia. Although the numbers at professorial
levels are low overall, there are now sufficient
numbers of senior women to
provide the required support and encouragement for others. Providing adequate
numbers of these successful
women are prepared to lend their expertise to the
program, and this was certainly the case in the QUT experience, assigned
mentoring
appears one way of addressing some of the obstacles being faced in
women’s career
advancement.[71]
Recognising the need for additional support for female academic staff
because of the range of obstacles being faced by women, the
Chairs of the Equity
Committees of the Faculties of Law and Arts established a mentoring programme.
This aimed to provide support
and direction in achieving personal career
objectives. The programme provided confidential individual mentoring by more
senior and
experienced academics and administrators within the institution. The
general objective of the mentoring project was to facilitate
the personal and
professional development of staff by encouraging supportive working partnerships
directed to enhancing career satisfaction
and achievement of individual goals by
those participating. Detail of this programme is provided here for the benefit
of other organisations
wishing to implement similar schemes.
The Faculty
of Arts had already run such a program for their female academic and general
staff, and they were keen to begin another
round spurred on by their past
experiences and enthusiasm for a joint program. The program also gained the
enthusiastic support
of the Deans of Law and Arts. The Equity Coordinators from
the two faculties provided the administrative support and organisational
know-how for the program. Applicants were given the opportunity to nominate
senior staff members, male or female, from any faculty,
school, division or
campus at QUT. Applicants were then matched with appropriate and available
mentors. Applicants were also given
an opportunity to choose a specific project
or goal to achieve with the support of their mentor.
The program was
designed within the following parameters:
Planning for the program began informally with a morning workshop on 23
November 1999 called Promotion 2000. It was held at the Kelvin
Grove campus to
accommodate participation of all the faculties, and was a bridging day between
the previous Arts mentoring program
and the precursor to the Arts / Law program.
There was a general invitation sent out to female academics in the Arts, Law and
Business
faculties. Speakers included panels on “The Process of
Promotion” and on “The View from All Sides: Expectations
of
selection panels and discussion with recently promoted women”. An outline
of the new mentoring program was presented to
encourage those present to
participate the next year. This was followed up by advertisements in the
faculty newsletters, supportive
emails from the Deans and the distribution of
registration forms.
An official orientation session was held on the 22
February 2000. The Faculty of Law Equity Chair welcomed the group and
introduced
the Deans of Law and Arts who outlined their support for the program.
The Equity Project Officers explained the concept of mentoring
and introduced
the group to some basic guidelines for the mentoring relationship. Prepared
information sheets were provided to the
participants along with a Mentoring
Diary. The University Equity Coordinator spoke about the links between
mentoring and equity.
Those who had taken part in previous programs spoke about
their experiences. In addition, this provided an opportunity for some
of the
mentorees to make the first contact with their mentors.
In April some
pertinent journal articles were sent out to mentorees as a reminder of the
program together with an informal letter
from the Equity Project Officer
inviting questions and feedback about the meetings and contacts made to date.
Ongoing contact took
place throughout the year including information and
opportunities to attend conferences such as “Women Actively Managing their
Futures” on 16 June 2000. To close the first year of the program, an Arts
/ Law Mentoring Lunch was held on Friday 27 October
2000 in the Council Room
with Dr Cherrell Hirst as the guest speaker. This was a resounding success,
especially because it underscored
the importance of such programs to the
university. The relationships continued into the next academic year. A survey
was conducted
early in 2001 to determine progress, and a final meeting was held
in October 2001 to thank the mentors and gather views on the need
for further
follow-up programs.
The evaluation survey was prepared in March 2001 and sent out to both the
mentorees and mentors. The object was to test the objective
of
‘supportive working partnerships directed to enhancing career satisfaction
and achievement of individual goals’.
The questions in the survey were
broadly based on an evaluation conducted by Dr Laurie Buys for an earlier
program in the Faculty
of Arts. Ethics approval was sought and given for this
survey.
An analysis of the 15 completed surveys returned by mentorees
demonstrate that:
46% (7) had worked in a university environment for less
than 10 years and 53% (8) for more than 10 years. This latter group would
of
course include some senior lecturers. Of the group, 66% (10) had worked at QUT
for less than 10 years and 33% (5) for over 10
years.
Meetings took place
on average four times, with 73% (11) meeting under five times and 26% (4)
meeting over five times. Communication
was also made by phone, all replying
that this occurred less than five times. Email was a more popular contact
method with 46% (7)
saying they had emailed less than five times and 53% (8)
saying over five. The earlier 1997 program had reported more contacts by
phone
than email but this result obviously represents changing communication trends
across the university.
The meetings were usually arranged on an ‘as
required’(85%), rather than on a regular basis, and these took place
either
in the mentor’s office (50%), or in coffee shops (42%). Most
meetings lasted approximately one hour. This is a very similar
result to the
1997 program. Meetings were initiated either by the mentoree or both parties,
rather than by the mentor. Therefore,
some initiative had to come from the
mentoree.
The most popular issues for discussion included career
development (92%), specific work strategies (92%) and organisational issues
(75%) in that order. Interestingly the 1997 program results demonstrated more
emphasis on personal issues and less emphasis on organisational
issues. One
main difference between the two programs was that the 2000 one required the
mentorees to choose a specific goal for
the program. This result perhaps
reflected this difference.
The mentorees’ goals centred on advice
on career advancement (50%), personal promotion (50%), general personal and
professional
support (41%) and enhanced publication activity (33%). There was
generally some progress made on these projects (76%) although some
fully
achieved their projects (30%). Two mentorees reported they had not acted on
contacting their mentors at all.
Thirteen (92%) thought the mentoring
relationship had been excellent or very satisfactory, and most were very
satisfied with the time
invested (100%) and frequency of meetings (93%) with
their mentors.
I was lucky (and grateful to organisers) for my choice of mentor. We were quite perfectly matched. I was slow to initiate contact (a me thing) though I was also worried about how busy my mentor was and imposing on her time, when I felt she had many of the same issues as me.
My mentor has been great. It’s been wonderful to be teamed with such a lively and vibrant individual.
My mentor is now also a mentor on a grant I received last year.
The end of year luncheon with Dr Cherrell Hirst was the most popular event in the program:
Underscored the importance of the program, that QUT values it.
I thought this was fantastic. I particularly found Dr Hirst’s obvious and genuine interest in our project inspiring.
All but one of those who responded considered they had benefited from the mentoring program. When asked to comment about positive aspects about being involved in the mentoring program, the comments were very supportive.
Formal way of being involved in support relationship.
Getting out of the Faculty I found the most refreshing – I personally would encourage all mentees to have mentors out of the Faculty. I also found a (sounds goofy) a bit of a ‘soul mate’ and made a good friend.
Getting the right mentor.
Great mentor – achieved goals mentor assigned me for meeting with her colleague when she was away (very helpful).
Support outside my school! Encouragement and understanding. Sympathy.. Positive suggestions / strategies.
Getting to know my mentor – having her take a personal interest in my career – learning by example – making a personal friendship and close contact.
Knowing someone outside the faculty.
Advice from mentor based on personal experience.
An independent person with whom to discuss your work and career situation.
Enhanced personal organisational skills.
Networking.
I have learnt some things about organizational structure that I was not aware of previously.
Sage advice and support.
Having an introduction to a friendly committed colleague who is modelling how to be a successful woman academic and teaching me lots of things.
Support and guidance.
Participants were also asked whether there were any aspects of the program they had found disappointing. Some commented that their mentor had left QUT and another that there had been delay in making contact with the mentor because of ‘my own inability to be organized and assertive enough to make my first appointment’. Another comment was perhaps more reflective of the need not to expect miracles –
You discover after a while that your mentor doesn’t have magic answers to your problems. You have to be realistic about the process and its outcomes.
There were several suggestions on how the program could be improved. These included the need for a formal way to exit the program if work and time commitments became unworkable. The spread of mentors and mentorees between campuses became a problem when arranging meetings.
In my case there is no time for mentoring activities. Secondly, it is almost impossible for me to go to Gardens Point or Kelvin Grove as I am at Carseldine.
There also seemed to be a call for more informal meetings among mentorees.
Need more than the Orientation – an event each semester would be good. I really liked the networking opportunities of the Orientation, and would like much more of this as I find I feel very isolated (partly due to overwork and location.)
More regular group meetings with group members eg monthly over paper bag lunch.
Specific talks at these lunches eg by Equity Section; one pair of mentor/mentorees to speak; senior university manager etc.
Getting together, sharing experiences would be very empowering.
There is currently a good balance between supporting us and letting us all do it our own way – this is great. One suggestion might be a half yearly or quarterly email reminder re whether we’ve been in touch recently with our mentor as it is very easy to get caught up with work and overlook it.
Mentors taking part in the program were asked whether their experience
had enhanced job satisfaction through involvement in such areas
as –
These were the indicators used in the
earlier Faculty of Arts program.[72]
All seven respondents indicated satisfaction in at least two of these areas. An
analysis of the seven surveys returned by mentors
demonstrates that the main
positive ways in which the mentor thought they aided the mentorees was through
sharing institutional knowledge
and expertise and helping to clarify work
goals.
On sharing of expertise:
It is particularly rewarding to be able to share one’s knowledge of the system and academic matters with a newer member of staff.
This has been a major focus of the relationship and allowed for comparisons and options to be developed.
I think I was able to share expertise in relation to a number of areas: applying for PDP leave for PhD study, advice re PhD supervision problems and conflict within the school.
I did feel I was able to guide my mentee through the issues with which she was dealing. As an experienced manager, I was more knowledgeable about University procedures, team work and dealing with management.
On helping
mentoree to clarify work goals:
I think that the mentoring system is very useful for junior members of staff who are hoping for promotion.
Yes, much of our discussion was around PhD study and its significance to the mentoree’s career development.
Yes I think this was useful for her and myself.
My mentee and I spent some time on this. I hope I was able to help her consider fresh options and prioritise the options available.
On contributing to the organisation’s strengths by fostering professionalism through mentoring:
Mentoree and I are from academic and general staff. We found it an enriching experience to build a relationship from different bases. I was able to contribute more to her situation than I had first thought.
On
gaining a fresh perspective and insights from the mentoree through collaboration
or innovation:
It helps to keep in touch with the career aspirations and interests of younger staff.
As above, I certainly gained some insights into an academic’s working life, in particular, how isolated an academic can be from teamwork and support.
On building networks and team projects throughout the university:
Not really? – but a friendship formed and links to another area of the university – networks perhaps.
Building / adding to my network of women academics was very satisfying.
Overall the response to the program from both mentors and mentorees was very positive.
Some basic recommendations flowed from this program. The earlier 1997
report had indicated that workshops should incorporate information
on the
different types of relationships so that participants might ‘tailor their
relationship to meet their particular
needs’.[73] Although this was
covered, one aspect that was not pursued in the QUT program was a negotiated
mentoring agreement of the type recommended
for agreeing on doctoral supervision
relationships. It is important to agree on the parameters of a mentoring
relationship right
from the beginning. It is helpful to clarify ideas on such
things as:
In
addition, the mentor needs to be provided with an updated resume at the
beginning, possibly by the organisers. The organisers
should also stipulate who
is to make the first move so that the relationship does not stall before it is
even begun. In some respects,
it might be useful for the mentoree to also be
given the mentor’s resume. This should facilitate the first stage of any
such
relationship, which is of course the creation of a rapport. From there
the mentoring relationship usually progresses through several
stages including
the formulation of objectives, and assessing the ‘here and now’,
that is, the mentoree’s point
of departure, and deciding on the
‘there and then’, that is, the end
point.[75] Together they can decide
on how best to get from ‘here to there’. More important even than
this decision is the mentoree’s
need to perform and then the mentor can
assess progress. In addition, appropriate arrangements should be set in place
so that alternative
placements can be made if the relationship fails for some
reason. There needs to be a formal resignation process established.
A
Reflective Diary of the meetings can also be productive. A Diary was provided
to mentorees at the beginning of the program but
most reported that they had not
used it, possibly because of lack of time for reflection and assessment of
progress over the time
period. At least one response indicated that the diary
was seen as a constraint on the flow of the relationship – ‘I
didn’t use the mentoring diary – just not my thing – forms
prescriptive’.
In addition, it may have been useful to add another
level of administration to the process. This would involve the organisers in
looking carefully at the nominated projects identified and discussing these
further with the mentorees in order to determine if basic
training could be put
in place for the mentoree, rather than burden the mentor unnecessarily with
skills training. Time management
or assertiveness training can be provided in
more efficient ways than through mentoring. Nor is mentoring a solution to
dysfunctional
doctoral supervision.
Timing also appears to be vital to
success. It would seem that the best time to provide a mentor is at the
beginning of the academic
career. It is at that point that the most appropriate
advice can be given and this will invariably result in the person wasting
less
valuable career planning time. This need has especially been recognized for the
development of research by early career women
academics.[76] Perhaps further help
is required once the academic’s position has stabilized, and promotion
begins to appear realistically
in sight, or a PhD candidate needs extra
assistance to achieve completion. Researchers have identified four basic
academic career
stages. These are apprentice, colleague, mentor and sponsor,
roughly equivalent to associate lecturer, lecturer, senior lecturer
and
professor.[77] Academics may move
from one rank to another without necessarily being promoted. Therefore,
mentoring co-ordination needs to take
into account the actual level of the
mentoree and provide more expert mentors. It would seem that some mentorees may
have entered
this program at the wrong time for them personally because of their
research and teaching schedules.
Another recommendation is to also
examine mentoring alternatives. One challenge to the program was provided by
the lack of senior
women available to act as mentors. Research indicates that
‘women tend to find it easier to approach other women as
mentors’,[78] and ‘that
same-sex mentoring relationships are most
productive’.[79] A response
to this situation may be to establish a limited peer mentoring activities
program to support women’s research development
including advice on
publishing academic work, the do’s and don’ts of grant writing, how
a research profile impacts on
career advancement and how to balance teaching,
research and administrative
responsibilities.[80] Kram speaks
of three types of peer mentoring relationships – Information Peer,
Collegial Peer and Special Peer as representing
a continuum of support
relationships from low-level information provision to intimate self
disclosure.[81] Peer mentoring may
be another avenue to investigate in the future.
This mentoring program provided a basic framework in which to work in
establishing other mentoring schemes. Mentoring as a process
is a
cost-effective and popular form of support within the university and the legal
profession. Recently the Faculty has been approached
for support and advice on
mentoring projects from an array of different groups.
Members of the
Bar were keen to form a Bar Mentoring scheme to encourage the participation of
indigenous and other students at the
bar by providing focussed support and
guidance for individual students. This scheme has been through one iteration
with students
from several equity groups participating. The Oodgeroo Unit,
which provides support for indigenous students, has also encouraged
such schemes
together with the mentoring type programs established for indigenous students
wanting to work in the courts. These aim
to provide shadowing opportunities so
that students can work with the judges and their associates on a regular basis.
This is happening
in the Supreme Court in Queensland and places are available
for students in the Federal and Family Courts and interstate.
In
addition, the Faculty External Students Facilitator and the Equity Project
Officer applied successfully for an Equity Grant to
establish a mentoring scheme
for external law students in the Rockhampton area. The scheme united seven
external law students living
in the Rockhampton area with local lawyers who were
willing to act as their mentors. The project was designed to help students gain
a real-world understanding of law by developing a support network with members
of the local legal profession. Another student mentoring
project has been
established to give support and guidance to first year law students who applied
for the equity-based Law Founder’s
Scholarship. This involved new law
students being linked with younger solicitors employed in the
firms.
Thus, the experience gained during this program has had spin-offs.
In at least one case students have been advised against instituting
a mentoring
program because of the responsibilities entailed. Individual mentoring is not
always the best vehicle. A less administratively
onerous student organised
support group, for example, can be less time consuming and a beneficial
preliminary step. A group support
program rather than individual mentoring
might be more cost-effective for new graduates who are keen to meet a
cross-section of practitioners
and view varied workplace environments. This
programme has provided a benchmark for other equity support projects.
The QUT program benefited the individual mentorees taking part by
providing them with both concrete outcomes, being the achievement
of their own
individual goals, and the added benefits of increased networking within the
wider university community. They were given
an opportunity to benchmark their
own progress and achievements against the expectations of senior managers and
experienced teachers
and researchers from a variety of fields. The
mentorees’ responses indicated they had progressed their individually
chosen
projects and that they were very satisfied with the time spent pursuing
the program. Some mentorees could count their success in
terms of completed
PhDs and successful grant and promotion applications. Other outcomes of the
program such as increased self-confidence,
enhanced morale, a greater sense of
being supported within the university and better understanding of the university
system, are
more difficult to
quantify.[82] Thus, this program
benefited the university by providing cost-effective support for staff in the
form of directed guidance and fostering
of skills and knowledge in this
committed contingent. It increased interdisciplinary communication. It is
also a tribute to the
calibre of the senior staff mentors working in the
organization.
This project therefore has provided an awareness of the
shared nature of academic endeavour across disciplines and the common
difficulties
facing women in academia. It has highlighted the need for more
informal support apart from the Performance Planning and Review process.
In
this regard, Steve Colwell has pointed out the difference between the supervisor
or instrumental mentor who has power over the
mentoree, and the potential for
such a relationship to be overshadowed entirely by the institution and
institutional ambitions, along
with the need for professionals to staff its
programs in compliance with its strategic
aims.[83] The difference between
secondary mentors and this program lies in the fact that the scheme described in
this paper was voluntary.
It was not concerned with competence but with
fostering excellence. It is therefore closer to the traditional
“Yoda”
mentoring role. Thus, this paper, and the example of the
program described here, demonstrates that personal assigned mentoring programs
are certainly one way of providing useful support and socialisation, as well as
career guidance, for individual female academics
who choose to take an active
part.
[*] Chair, QUT Faculty of Law Equity Committee and Director, Research Concentration in Women Children and the Law.
[1] E Clark ‘Mentoring: Its Potential for Staff Development and Learning Enhancement in a Legal Environment’ (1994) 12 Journal of Professional Legal Education 239.
[2] See, for example, Arizona Leadership 2000 and Beyond Mentoring Guide <http://www.igc.org/az/2000/alumni/guide.htm> (30/10/2001).
[3] M Bodsworth and L Buys, Faculty of Arts Mentoring Program: An initiative of the Faculty of Arts Equity Committee. Interim Report (QUT, September 1997); Monash University Mentor Scheme for Women: Final Report (Melbourne:1994); F Rowland and A Butorac, Mentoring Junior Academic Women: Project Evaluation (Perth: Murdoch University and Curtin University of Technology, 1996); P Seitz Pilot Mentor Scheme (Melbourne: University of Melbourne, 1992); Programs also run at QUT Faculty of Arts July 1996-, Monash University 1994, Murdoch University and Curtin University of Technology 1996, University of Melbourne 1992.
[4] Reference to the television
series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Buffy’s trainer
Giles.
[5] See generally Clark,
above n 1, 244-245.
[6] P Todd and D Bird, Does
Gender Make a Difference? Gender in Promotion Procedures at the University of
Western Australia (Perth: University of WA, The Graduate School of
Management, 2000) 2.
[7] T Becher,
Academic Tribes and Territories : Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of
Disciplines (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1989) 54 and
56.
[8] Ibid.
[9] J Lewis ‘Stress and
the legal profession’ (May 1999) 7 New Law Journal 670,
671.
[10] Peter Doherty the
Nobel prize winner for Physiology or Medicine in 1996 claims not to have had a
single powerful mentor - ‘I
have never had a powerful mentor who saw me as
the product (or continuation) of his program ...’
<http://nobel.sdsc.edu/medicine/laureates/1996/doherty-autobio.html>
(28/6/01).
[11] R Moayedi, ‘Mentoring
a Diverse Population’ in S N Davis, M Crawford and J Sebrechts (eds),
Coming into Her Own : Educational Success in Girls and Women (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999)
229.
[12] ‘What Makes a
Good Mentor?’ (1997) 12 Maine Bar Journal 180,
181.
[13]
Ibid.
[14] Clark, above
n 1, 242.
[15] Ibid.
[16] K Kram ‘Complexities of Cross-Gender Relationships’ in Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life (Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman, c1985) Chap 5.
[17] Becher, above n 7, 60.
[18] M Cook,
‘Women’s career path – to a point’, The Age,
16/8/2000,
<http://www.theage.com.au/education/20000816/A7500-2000Aug16.html>
.
[19]
A O’Connor ,‘Mentoring: a variety of options’ (2001) 9 (3)
Australian Law Librarian 220,
222.
[20] M Murray, Beyond
the Myths and Magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an effective mentoring
program (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991).
[21] S Keeva, ‘Good Act to
Follow’ (April 1997) Australian Legal Practice 18,
19.
[22] Clark, above n 1, 242
quoting Carruthers 20.
[23] M
Bodsworth and L Buys, Faculty of Arts Mentoring Program, An Initiative of the
Faculty of Arts Equity Committee, Interim Report (September 1997) quoting
from Limerick and Burgess-Limerick ‘Women and Mentoring for Change’
(Paper delivered at Training
2000 Conference, Scotland
1995).
[24] The Law Society
of South Australia Mentor Scheme Guidelines, 1999,
2.
[25] Clark, above n 1,
241.
[26] D Clarke,
Mentoring (Sydney: Orange House Publishing Pty Ltd, 1996) see Activity
2.
[27] The Law Society of
South Australia Mentor Scheme Guidelines,
1999.
[28] Clark, above n 1,
241.
[29] Belle Alderman refers to
this as a SWOT analysis – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats,
Mentoring Relationships
<http://www.alia.org.au/conferences/alia2000/proceedings/belle.alderman.html>
(8/6/2001).
[30] Queensland Law
Society Statistics June
2001.
[31] H Sommerlad,
‘The myth of feminisation: women and cultural change in the legal
profession’ (1994) 1 International Journal of the Legal Profession
31, 34.
[32] B Wilson and E
Byrne, Women in the University: A Policy Report of the University of
Queensland Senate Working Party on the Status of Women (St Lucia: University
of Queensland Press, 1987) Appendix C, Table
18.
[33] See K Joyner, A Preston
and I Saunders, ‘Concepts of Leadership and Management at QUT: An Analysis
by Gender’ in Women Culture and Universities: A Chilly Climate
(Conference Proceedings UTS: Desktop Publishing, 1995)
121-127.
[34] Commonwealth
of Australia, 1994, chap 8 para 8.7
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/69/vol2/ALRC69.html#ALRC69>
(12/10/01). In 1993 of a total of 132 tutorial positions, 82 were held by women
and 51 by men; of 295 lecturer positions, 146
were held by women and 149 by men;
of 218 senior lecturer positions, 64 were held by women and 145 by men; of 84
associate professor
positions, 15 were held by women and 69 by men; and of 84
professor positions, 10 were held by women and 74 by men: C McInnis and
S
Marginson, Australian Law Schools After the 1987 Pearce Report (Canberra:
AGPS, 1994) compiled from Table A5.31-A5.33,
459-461.
[35] This is not too
dissimilar to the UK statistics which show women at 40% academics (49%
lecturers, 14% Professors and 22% readers);
From C McGlynn, ‘Women
Representation and the Legal Academy’ (1999) Legal Studies 68,
75.
[36] Figures taken from Rosemary
Calder First Assistant Secretary Office of the Status of Women Address to
Victorian Women Lawyers 24/8/2001.
<http://www.osw.dpmc.gov.au/content/resources/FASpeeches/lawyers.htm>
(8/6/2001); P Todd and D Bird, Does Gender Make a Difference? Gender in
Promotion Procedures at the University of Western Australia (Perth:
University of WA, The Graduate School of Management, 2000) 2; M Cook,
‘Women’s career path – to a point’,
The Age, 16
August 2000,
<http://www.theage.com.au/education/20000816/A7500-2000Aug16.html>
.
[37] Promoting Women to
Professor, AVCC Media Release, No 22/99 (13 July 1999)
<http://avcc.edu.au/avcc/mediarel/1999/99mr22.htm>
(21/2/2000).
[38] Australian
Vice- Chancellors’ Committee’s Action Plan for Women employed In
Australian Universities, 1999 to 2003
<http://www.avcc.edu.au/news/public_statements/publications/wactplan.doc>
.
[39] Women and Leadership Programs in Australian Universities: Summary of Responses to AVCC Questionnaire, 4 <http://www.avcc.edu.au/uni_staff/avcc_prof_develop_training/women_leadership_programs_sept01.doc> (12/10/01).
[40] Report on Affirmative
Action Program for Women 2000 (Brisbane: QUT Equity Section, May 2001) 5.
[41] C McGlynn, ‘Women,
Representation and the Legal Academy’ (1999) Legal Studies 68,
69.
[42]
Ibid.
[43] Ibid quoting
AUT Sex Discrimination in Universities (London: AUT, 1992)
2.
[44] McGlynn, ibid
76.
[45] Ibid
75.
[46] Ibid
77.
[47] Ibid
79.
[48]
<http://www.cba.org/Equality/Equality/default.asp>
(18/10/01).
[49]
<http://www.aals.org/statistics/#women>
(22/10/01).
[50] A number of
journal articles have recently appeared taking issue with the so-called
“pink ghettos” in legal academic
life in the United States in
particular. See HV Samborn, ‘Legal Writing Institution: The Pink Ghetto of
Academe’ (2001)
10 (1) Perspectives 8.
[51] On the masculine law
school, see generally, F Cownie, ‘Women Legal Academics – A New
Research Agenda?’ (1998) 25 (1) Journal of Law and Society
102.
[52] P Todd and D Bird,
Does Gender Make a Difference? Gender in Promotion Procedures at the
University of Western Australia (Perth: University of WA, The Graduate
School of Management, 2000) 2, 3. Identified first four in list.
[53] Ibid
2.
[54] Ibid 1. The UWA study
showed removing many of the gender inequities in promotion practices, reduced
inequities in outcomes.
[55] A Edwards, M Gardner and E
Ramsay, ‘Report to the AVCC’ (Academic Womens Forum, 1998)
<http://www.adelaide.edu.au/awf/avcc.html>
(8/6/2001).
[56] M Thornton,
Dissonance and Distrust: Women in the Legal Profession (Melbourne: Oxford
University Press, 1996) 112-114.
[57] McGlynn, above n 41, 69 citing UK research.
[58] Thornton, above n 56,
77.
[59] F Cownie, ’Women
in the Law School – Shoals of Fish, Starfish or Fish out of Water?’
in P Thomas, Discriminating Lawyers (London: Cavendish Publishing Ltd,
2000).
[60] Thornton, above n
56, 113.
[61] Ibid 271.
[62] Todd and Bird, above n 52, 3.
[63] Ibid
14.
[64] F Cownie, ‘Women
Legal Academics – A New Research Agenda?’ (1998) 25 (1) Journal
of Law and Society 102 citing Sheila McIntyre’s ‘Gender Bias
within the Law School: ‘The Memo’ and Its Impact’ in The
Chilly
Collective (eds), Breaking Anonymity: the Chilly Climate for Women
Faculty (1995).
[65] Ibid
66.
[66] R Collier,
‘Masculinism, Law and Law Teaching’ (1991) 19 International
Journal of the Sociology of Law 427,
444.
[67] S Holton, The
Professional Development of Women Academics: A Case Study in South Australia
(Canberra: AGPS, 1988) 2.
[68]
Ibid.
[69] Ibid.
[70] N Aisenberg, and M
Harrington, Women of Academe: Outsiders in the Sacred Grove (Amherst: The
University of Massachusetts Press, 1988)
145-152.
[71] Not forgetting or
discounting the several men who acted as mentors in the QUT program too. R
Moayedi, ‘Mentoring a Diverse
Population’ in S N Davis, M Crawford
and J Sebrechts (eds), Coming into Her Own: Educational Success in Girls and
Women (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999) 229. (Citing Bova 1995;
Halcomb 1980; Kim 1995; Merriam 1983; Missirian
1982).
[72] M Bodsworth and L
Buys, above n 3, 7.
[73]
Bodsworth and Buys, above n 3, 24.
[74] Some of these were from a
checklist in Belle Alderman, Mentoring Relationships
<http://www.alia.org.au/conferences/alia2000/proceedings/belle.alderman.html>
(8/6/2001) which she had based on M Murray, Beyond the Myths and Magic of
Mentoring (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991)
158-159.
[75] Based on the
Seven-Stage Mentoring Process from N MacLennan, Coaching and Mentoring
(Gower 1995).
[76] J Niland,
‘Staff Development in Relation to Research’, Implementation Minute
No 100, UNSW 2000
<http://www.workingparties,.unsw.edu.au/impmin/impmin100.html>
(8/6/2001).
[77] From M N Maack and J Passet, Aspirations and Mentoring in an Academic Environment: Women Faculty in Library and Information Science (London: Greenwood Press, 1994) 19 based on G Dalton, P Thompson and R Price, ‘The Four Stages of Professional Careers: A New Look at the Performance of Professionals’ (1977) Summer Organizational Dynamics 6, 23.
[78] C Mitchell, ‘Mentoring and Development’ (1992) 66 (3) Law Institute Journal 172.
[79] R Moayedi, ‘Mentoring a Diverse Population’ in S N Davis, M Crawford and J Sebrechts (eds), Coming into Her Own: Educational Success in Girls and Women (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999) at 229 citing Goldstein 1979; Tidball 1973.
[80] ‘Women Share to launch
career success’ (1999) 8 (27) UniNEWS
<http://www.unimelb.edu.au/ExtRels/Media/UN/archive/1999/427/womenshare.html>
(8/6/2001).
[81] K Kram and L
Isabella, ‘Mentoring Alternatives: The Role of Peer Relationships in
Career Development’ (1985) 28 (1) Academy of Management Journal
110.
[82] Bodsworth and Buys, above n 3, 6.
[83] S Colwell, ‘Mentoring, Socialisation and the Mentor/Protégé Relationship’ (1998) 3 Teaching in Higher Education 313.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QUTLawJJl/2002/11.html