Youth mentoring relationships have significant potential for promoting positive youth development. Nonetheless, the benefits derived from such relationships depend considerably on the length and quality of the bonds that are created between mentors and youth. Although some attention has been paid to youth's experience of relationship quality, few studies have focused on mentors' experience of relationship quality. In the context of a national sample of mentor and youth dyads in Big Brothers Big Sisters community-based mentoring programs (N = 5,222), the current study validated a new mentor-reported measure of relationship quality, explored associations between mentor and youth assessments of relationship quality, and investigated the capacity of early assessments of relationship quality to predict mentoring relationship duration. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Given the challenges to the notion of objectivity posed by social psychological research on investigator effects, constructivist and critical epistemological perspectives, and the introduction of qualitative research methods in psychology, the investigators examined how leading methodologists understand the function of objectivity and subjectivity in psychological science. The aim of the study was to learn how contemporary methodologists view these issues so as to communicate converging perspectives to the field and inform methods education. A brief historical review of the concept of objectivity in psychology is presented to contexualize this examination. Eleven accomplished methodologists with expertise in a range of methods and epistemological perspectives were interviewed. Findings from a grounded theory analysis demonstrated that all the participants expressed concern about the belief that science is unaffected by scientists' perspectives, believing researchers and educators should problematize this perspective. Recommendations from participants included that science be viewed as a value-laden endeavor in which scientists systematically conduct research from multiple epistemological perspectives, and/or utilize diverse methods tailored to address their questions. Scientific procedures were detailed that could curtail dangers of either unchecked subjectivity or a false sense of objectivity. A functional analysis of these constructs, objectivity and subjectivity, suggested they both serve a similar scientific and an ethical purpose-to prevent the premature foreclosure of possible understanding because of the expectations of researchers. The mainstreaming of disclosures about the perspectives and positions of investigators, as well as their management, and the implementation of epistemological and methodological pluralism are encouraged to support this ethic.

No abstract

No abstract