Escala de valores de prioridad a atender según necesidades

Another form of mentoring that emerged from my data and from the literature was through the supervisory relationship. Of the 63% of questionnaire respondents who responded to having received mentoring, most (63%) responded that the mentoring they received was from their supervisor/s. In addition, mentoring was mentioned by ten of the questionnaire respondents in open-ended questionnaire questions as being experienced as part of the supervision process while they were completing their PhD studies. The research on mentoring as part of the supervisory relationship suggests that mentoring at this level mostly occurs at the vocational level of support. For example, Ragins and Cotton (1999) found that supervisors as mentors provided vocational support in the way of sponsorship, protection, challenging assignments and exposure; but not psychosocial support which they suggested may be withheld due to conflict with the supervisory role. However, when supervisors did provide psycho-social mentoring to their PhD students this was found to be beneficial in terms of research self-efficacy and research productivity (Paglis, Green & Bauer, 2006). Paglis, et al. (2006) found that

151

supervisor mentoring contributed to higher research productivity on the part of mentees.

One interviewee, an Accelerated Development lecturer noted that having a mentor who was also the academic’s supervisor

could be good and bad because it could blur the line between mentor and supervisor or it could strengthen it and I was lucky because it did strengthen it. He knew not only everything about my research but everything else I was doing, admin, teaching, etc. (Ann)

The amount of experience that a supervisor has as a supervisor and a researcher can make a difference to the kind of mentoring she/he is able to provide. My data analysis indicates that when the social capital of the supervisor was insufficient to meet the mentoring needs of the mentee, this led to an unsatisfactory supervisory and mentoring relationship. In one instance, an inexperienced supervisor led to a lack of confidence in the mentee when she herself supervised students. The questionnaire respondent wrote:

‘I was the first postgrad student of both my MSc and PhD supervisors and have never felt a very “secure” supervisor’ (Participant N8). Another questionnaire respondent expressed difficulty with doing her PhD late in life and having to take advice from a younger supervisor. She wrote: ‘I found it difficult to be treated as young and immature and in need of advice at points where I didn’t want advice’ (Participant S17). However, another questionnaire respondent experienced the social capital of her supervisor as enabling to her development and wrote: ‘[I] was lucky enough to have a wonderful supervisor who also gave me invaluable advice about how to structure an academic career’ (Participant S5).

5.6.5. Gender issues

Research findings on the impact of gender on mentoring relationships seem to indicate that gender is a variable that could affect mentoring relationships (Quinlan, 1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Allen, et al., 2004). Ragins and Cotton (1999) found that mentees who had a history of male mentors received significantly better compensation than mentees who had a history of female mentors, regardless of the gender of the mentee. They attributed this to men having more power in the organisation and more influence when putting their mentees forward for promotion (career sponsorship). Based on Ragins and Cotton’s (1999) research, the assumption is that more male mentors would encourage their mentees to apply for promotion than female mentors.

152

The analysis of my data indicates that in line with the gender composition of the faculties38_{, more women in the Natural Sciences had male mentors than in the Social}

Sciences39 _{where the gender distribution of mentors was more equal. Because there are}

more male mentors in the Natural Sciences, the research would suggest that more women in the NS group stood a greater chance of being encouraged to apply for promotion than women in the SS group. This was the case with my participants. More of the NS group indicated they were encouraged to apply for promotion (46%) than the SS group (32%).

However, of the 52% (n=44) of women who had applied for promotion, overall there was a greater percentage of women from the SS group who had applied for promotion (57%, n=30) than from the NS group (42%, n=11), i.e. a greater proportion of the SS group applied for promotion of their own volition. This may suggest that perhaps more women in the SS group had higher levels of self-esteem which empowered them to put themselves forward for promotion. One of the reasons for this could be that there were a greater proportion of women mentors in the SS group which enabled higher levels of self-esteem in the SS group than in the NS group. Further research would be needed to establish whether this is in fact so.

Scandura and Ragins suggest that ‘gender-related traits may play a larger role in predicting mentorship than biological sex’ (1993, cited in Phillips & Imhoff, 1997, p. 47). Analysis of my data supports this. As I alluded to earlier, two questionnaire respondents believed that the characteristics of role models and mentors cannot be generalised in terms of gender but rather by stereotypical feminine or masculine attributes of the role model. They said:

I have had one male informal mentor and one female. They both demonstrate personality types and management styles typically associated with the other gender i.e. the male was warm and supportive, the female competitive.

(Participant S38)

38 _{Women comprise 48% of Social Science academics and 28% of Natural Science academics at the}

Institution (HR spread sheet/database, 2011).

39 _{The SS group comprised an equal number of mentees who had had either mostly men mentors}

or mostly women mentors (41% of each) and 18% who had been mentored by both men and women at different times of their careers. In the NS group there was a vast difference, with 65% who had had mostly men mentors, 10% who had had mostly women mentors, and 25% who had had both men and women mentors during their careers.

153 I am not convinced that it is based on “sex” but on the WAY in which mentoring happens - for instance, some men may work with more “feminine principles” or “economies” of being able to listen, absorb, place ego aside whereas some women may behave with aggressive traits; demanding and dominating traits/energies in order to assert their power. (Participant S40)

This feeling was shared by two of the Accelerated Development lecturers interviewed, both of whom had had male role models/mentors. They felt that gender was not the issue but rather that the conventional feminine or masculine attributes of the role model/mentor were important. Sandra said:

I think he is a fantastic role model, as an academic, as a person of integrity. The fact that he is a man doesn’t take away from all those role model facets that I want to be like. And he values his family, so that nurturing side that I value is also there and I see how he makes that work with being an academic of excellence. (Sandra)

A high response (78%) was received to the optional open-ended questionnaire question on whether academics believed, based on their experience, that men and women have different strengths as mentors. A greater percentage of the NS group believed that men and women have different strengths as mentors (NS - 65%; SS - 44%). About a quarter of the participants noted that they felt uncomfortable generalising about mentor strengths based on gender. As with role models, they felt it often had more to do with the individual mentor and their feminine or masculine attributes than with gender. As one Accelerated Development lecturer said ‘I don’t feel that I have missed out because

[my mentor] is a man and not a woman and there are things he doesn’t understand, because he is an incredibly empathetic person’ (Sandra). However, there were clear perceptions, even from those who stated feeling uncomfortable with this question, of certain differences between women and men mentors which I shall now discuss.

In the open-ended questionnaire responses, emotional support was the dominant discourse that described the strengths of women mentors. Women were perceived as being able to relate to, identify with and understand constraints that women face, mainly; multiple demands, non-linear career paths, gender-role conflicts and guilt associated with conflicts over work and family life balance. One participant said ‘women somehow understand the personal battles (guilt) associated with careers’ (Participant N7).

154

Women mentors were perceived by some questionnaire respondents as being better able to focus both on personal and professional development. More ‘feminine’ characteristics associated with women mentors such as compassion, empathy, sensitivity, intuition, patience and nurturing were mentioned by my research participants. Women mentors were also perceived by the questionnaire respondents as being more generous with their time, being good communicators and good listeners, less judgemental and aware of the need for positive reinforcement and for building self-esteem.

A couple of participants highlighted what they perceived to be the negative side to women mentors, namely that women tended to be more emotional and older women could be more controlling, competitive, unaccommodating, and expecting compliance rather than seeking to develop an equal relationship. One participant wrote:

I have experienced some negative aspects of women mentors -particularly the older women academics who are often harder on young women academics and incredibly competitive rather than supportive. I have also found that many women in the role of mentors act as controllers, and battle to recognise diversity of wishes, desires or experiences, and expect compliance rather than equality.

(Participant S11)

While women were perceived as more emotional, the dominant discourse described men as being less emotional. One questionnaire respondent described male mentors as not letting ‘emotions get in the way of the facts’ (Participant S13). Male mentors were described by some of the questionnaire respondents as more goal-orientated ‘towards the big picture’, ‘pushier’, ‘better connected’, ‘more career focussed’, as having ‘clarity and access to power’, being able to deal with issues ‘head-on’ and being able to teach the mentee to be more single-minded in approaches to projects. They were perceived as

‘more likely to stretch the person professionally’ by advocating research productivity above anything else, having a ‘can-do attitude’, being competitive, ‘very strategic’ and focussed, with an ‘outward vision’. They were perceived as being good time managers who do not feel guilty about pursuing their goals. One respondent described a male mentor as having ‘a good knowledge of the academic system for career progression [… and] know[ing] how the rules work, and how to play by them’ (Participant S27).

Men were seen as less likely to manipulate people emotionally and were seen as ‘less pedantic and petty’ (Participant S19). They were seen as ‘more cold and clinical’

(Participant S36), and able to separate work from friendship by not getting ‘too close’

155

esteem, being self-assured and confident in their own abilities. They appeared to be ‘less threatened by women and therefore more inclusive and less competitive’ with their mentees (Participant N2).

Ragins and Cottons (1999) propose that women mentees with male mentors may view their male mentor in parental terms to avoid sexual undertones. One questionnaire respondent noted the possible sexual implications in cross gender mentoring and/or supervisory relationships. She felt that the power imbalance in the emergence of personal relationships between more senior male mentors or supervisors and more junior female mentees or students is a ‘dangerous landscape for both parties to navigate’

(Participant N8). This could explain why the discourse that many of my questionnaire respondents used to identify the strengths of their male mentors was through paternal terms such as ‘uncle’, ‘fatherly’, being ‘in more powerful gatekeeping positions’, having

‘access to power’ and ‘traditionally being the leaders within academia’.