The Validation of Using Assessment Tools and a Theory to Mentor Doctoral Students with Integrity and Trustworthiness

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to reveal the assessment tools and a theory preferred to mentor doctoral students with integrity and trustworthiness. The connection between mentors’ feelings of trustworthiness and protégé success were explored. Background: This study examines the concept presented in 1983, 1985, and 1996 by Kram of mentor relations (MR) theory, which illustrates that graduation rates can improve with effective mentoring. In the United States, doctoral programs have low graduation rates. Scholars and researchers agree that doctoral programs must develop ways and means to improve their graduation rates. This researcher examined an extension of Kram’s mentor relations theory by employing the Mentor Integrity and Trustworthiness (MIT) theory, which depicts that mentors with a strong sense of integrity and trustworthiness provide a safe haven for protégés to succeed. As supported by Daloz, a trustworthy mentor provides a safe haven for protégés to take the intellectual risks required to produce an original contribution to the canon of scholarly knowledge in the form of a doctoral dissertation. Methodology: A quantitative research methodology of data collection ensued including the researcher generated MIT scale and the mentors’ perceptions of protégés’ independence (MPPI) scale, a survey to establish acceptable levels of internal consistencies for items on the two scales, a supported evidence of the content validity of the two scales, the researcher’s analysis of the validity of the MIT theory, and a multi-stage sampling method to recruit a research sample of 50 mentors from four universities in the eastern part of the United States from several education-related doctoral programs. The doctoral programs were diverse in terms of selectivity, type of degree, and mentors’ years of experience. Contribution: This research study contributes to existing literature knowledge by generating the relationship between mentors’ feelings of trustworthiness and protégés’ success as measured by graduation rate and the number of awards won by protégés. The validation of the mentor integrity and trustworthiness (MIT) scale and the mentor perceptions of protégé independence (MPPI) scale, and the supported evidence of content validity and reliability for both scales will deepen and extend the discussion of doctoral mentoring in higher education. Findings: Results indicated that mentors’ feelings of trustworthiness were correlated with the number of dissertation awards won by protégés and with graduation rates. Graduation rates and dissertation awards rates were not measured directly, but were reported by the mentors. In addition, the researcher found that mentors perceived their protégés to be independent scholars, in general, however, minimally in the area of writing the research methods section of their dissertation. Recommendations for Practitioners: The researcher discussed the practical implications for mentors’ professional development in trustworthiness and integrity. The researcher also provided the Right Angle Research Alignment table to help protégés organize and manage the research methods section of their dissertation. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should continue to explore MIT theory with experimental methods to attempt to improve the internal validity of the theory. Impact on Society: The researcher encourages scholars to test the MIT theory in mentoring relationships that go beyond doctoral studies such as mentoring in business and in the arts. The researcher also encourages scholars to test whether the MIT theory is relevant in other kinds of teaching relationships such as coaching and tutoring. Future Research: Further research questions that arise from this study are as follows: What can mentors do to improve their integrity? What can mentors do to improve their feelings of trustworthiness? How can the MIT and MPPI instruments be refined and improved?

The Importance of Tough-Love Mentoring to Doctoral Student Success: Instruments to Measure the Doctoral Student/Proteges’ Perspective

“…Empirical data have shown that protégés were more open to learning from trustworthy mentors (Fleig-Palmer & Schoorman, 2011). For example, according to mentors, doctoral protégés are more likely to graduate and are more likely to achieve at a high level when a trustworthy mentor is present (Roberts, 2020). The current study adds to this work by revisiting the relationship between mentors' trustworthiness and protégé success when these variables are measured from the point of view of the protégé.…”

“…Thus, the researcher adapted Tschannen-Moran's instrument to assess trustworthiness in the context of doctoral student mentoring. In a prior study, the researcher presented a new instrument designed to measure doctoral mentors' perceptions of their own trustworthiness (Roberts, 2020). In the current study, the researcher will present a parallel new instrument designed to measure mentors' trustworthiness from the point of view of the protégé.…”

“…High standards and growth demands are part of the tough love mentoring theory and also part of the MHS sub-theory (Roberts, 2020;Roberts & Ferro-Almeida, 2019). According to the MHS sub-theory, mentors must set high standards and push protégés to reach those standards.…”

“…Members of the academic community agree that the goal of programs in doctoral education is to provide learning experiences and resources that propel doctoral students to success. Success is defined as mastering the writing and research skills required to complete their dissertations; furthermore, academics agree that completion of the dissertation would signify the successful transformation of dependent students to independent scholars (Baker & Pifer, 2011;Lovitts, 2005;Roberts, 2020;Roberts & Ferro-Almeida, 2019;Woolderink et al, 2015). Unfortunately, many doctoral programs are failing to achieve this goal.…”

Effective Mentoring and the Problem of Assessing Quality in Science

“…The editors of all chemical journals are also involved in judging the quality of submitted papers. The subject has caught the attention of many scientists expressing their views in essays, and only a few are cited here [2–8] . As pointed out by a reviewer of this essay, a crucial aspect in judging the quality of scientific output is often forgotten, namely the explosion of the number of scientists in the world during the last 100 years and before, as first put forth by Derek J. de Solla Price in 1963 [9] and restated in 1986 [10] .…”