Electronic Mentoring Programs: a Model to Guide Best Practice and Research

Electronic mentoring (e-mentoring) programs are providing unprecedented opportunities for establishing mentoring relationships. E-mentoring is the merger of mentoring with electronic communications and links mentors with proteges independent of geography or scheduling constrains. Unique qualities of electronic communications, such as the attenuation of status differences and the ease of thoughtful responses, make it especially promising as a medium for developing mentoring relationships. I this paper, we apply a Model of Structured Mentoring to the e-mentoring format, to begin the development of best practices, to identify research issues, and to promote the use of a theoretical framework to guide the advancement of e-mentoring programs. Electronic Mentoring Programs: a Model to Guide Practice and Research Electronic mentoring (e-mentoring) is creating a revolution in mentoring that will continue to expand through the 21 century. By leveraging the growth in information technology, ementoring provides opportunities for mentoring prohibited by face-to-face mentoring programs (Muller, 1997). E-mentoring enables mentors and proteges otherwise constrained by time and geography to participate because e-mentoring programs connect participants through electronic communications, primarily email supplemented by web sites and electronic discussion lists. The reliance on electronic communication facilitates the development of mentoring relationships, since electronic communications allow for the attenuation of status differences and the ease of thoughtful sharing. Also, e-mentoring programs provide unprecedented scalability; a core mentoring staff can service many more participants than feasible in face-to-face mentoring settings. Yet, the ease with which e-mentoring programs can be developed may belie the planning, administration, and resources required to make them successful (Education Development Center, 1998). Because of the physical distance between program coordinators and participants, the temptation is great to match mentors with proteges but then provide little in the way of the coaching, training, and follow-up required to obtain a high rate of successful e-mentoring relationships. In this paper, we define e-mentoring and structured e-mentoring programs, identify their promise and highlight some potential pitfalls. Then, relying on our experience conducting a large-scale e-mentoring program, our past research and that of others in face-to face and ementoring settings, along with research into the creation of virtual communities, we suggest a model for conducting structured mentoring programs and apply this model to the e-mentoring format. Our hope is that practitioners involved in conducting e-mentoring programs benefit from our insights so that these programs will deliver the expected benefits. We realize, however, that too often important support programs such as mentoring programs, operate with fewer resources than required. Under these circumstances, our desire is that the recommendations of this paper will not prove burdensome but may help facilitate the most effective utilization of the available resources. In the process of applying this model to the e-mentoring format, we also identify open research questions pertaining to e-mentoring. We encourage applied researchers to address the research issues we identify, thereby increasing our understanding of and ability to implement successful e-mentoring programs. In addition, we hope to promote the use of a theoretical framework to guide the advancement of e-mentoring and e-mentoring programs. Definition of E-mentoring and Structured E-mentoring E-mentoring is the merger of mentoring with electronic communications and has also been termed telementoring, cybermentoring, or virtual mentoring. E-mentoring is a relationship that is established between a more senior individual (mentor) and a lesser skilled or experienced individual (protégé), primarily using electronic communications, and is intended to develop and grow the skills, knowledge, confidence, and cultural understanding of the protégé to help him or her succeed. Structured e-mentoring is e-mentoring that occurs within a formalized program environment, provides training, coaching, and structure to increase the likelihood of engagement in the e-mentoring process and relies on program evaluation to determine the impact on the participants (both proteges and mentors) and to identify improvements for future programs. Structured e-mentoring programs vary in their program formats and target populations. Within a higher education context, examples of e-mentoring programs include pairing students with industry professionals for pre-professional support and encouragement or pairing new faculty with more experienced faculty in their fields at other universities. Advantages of E-mentoring E-mentoring is made possible by the increased availability of electronic communications on college campuses (Guernsey, 1997), in the workplace, in homes, schools and libraries. Electronic communications provide a flexible communication environment independent of time and space, and allows for asynchronous exchanges, thus making them an ideal medium for mentoring (Steinberg, 1992). Since failure to meet based on time and space constraints has doomed more mentoring relationships than any other factor (Noe, 1988) the asynchronous nature of e-mentoring alleviates this obstacle to the development of mentoring relationships. The flexible communication environment allows those located outside of the college campus to mentor students. Alumni/ae and professionals who do not have the time to meet a student face-to-face for a brief mentoring meeting can readily provide advice, suggestions, and support to students while sitting at their desks, workstations, or while at home. Therefore, ementoring extends mentoring opportunities to many more students and allows mentors to participate who otherwise would find the time investment prohibitive (Muller, 1997). E-mentoring also profits from the unique communication qualities associated with electronic communications. Electronic communications possess qualities that foster the development of open, supportive relationships. Electronic communications result in the attenuation of status differences by concealing social cues that otherwise hinder communication between higher status and lower status individuals (Sproull and Kiesler, 1992). In addition, communicating while using email allows for the construction of thoughtfully written messages without the pressure of immediately responding, as in communicating orally. Electronic communications have already changed the composition of communications on campus, increasing connections among faculty, students, and support staff (Bump, 1990; Kinkead, 1987) Sirc & Reynolds, 1990). In networked academic environments, students have more interactions with faculty (Hartman et al., 1991) and with each other (Althaus, 1997). Students who participate in on-line group discussions report greater cohesiveness within a learning group (Windschitl & Lesehm-Ackerman, 1997) learn more, and achieve higher grades than students taking part in face-to-face discussion groups (Althaus, 1997). Students who otherwise would not initiate contact with a faculty or staff member, feel more free to do so within networked environments (Harman et al., 1991; Kinkead, 1987). These attributes of electronic communications usage may indicate that it is a promising medium for promptly developing open and supportive mentoring relationships. In addition, mentoring programs prove particularly useful for providing mentoring and socialization experiences for underrepresented minorities, who otherwise may not have such opportunities (Boice, 1993; Corcoran & Clark, 1984; Turner & Thompson, 1993). The same holds for e-mentoring (for a discussion relating to women in science and engineering, see Single & Muller, 1999). E-mentoring holds much promise for higher education. Amidst this promise, we offer a note of caution. Early in its establishment, and too often today, the face-to-face mentoring movement met with disappointing results. Mentoring programs were initiated with good intentions but without adequate planning and resources (Freedman, 1992). Mentoring programs failed as they matched mentors with proteges but provided little in the way of training, coaching, or follow-up. Without high levels of program structure, proteges caught up in urgency failed to follow through on commitments (Boice, 1990; Diehl & Simpson, 1989); mentors never invested the time or energy to provide worthwhile support and encouragement to proteges (Dickey, 1997). These mentoring programs too often fell short of the program goals and the expected benefits of mentoring. Formalized mentoring programs were rated less successful and less beneficial than the naturally occurring mentoring relationships some fortunate newcomers found (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992). Practitioners and researchers quickly realized that training, coaching, and follow-up are required to extend the benefits of mentoring to a broader population of newcomers. As such, developing and sustaining a successful mentoring project is labor-intensive, requiring a program coordinator to provide training and ongoing communications with participants, to ensure involvement and the meeting of program goals (Wunsch, 1994). Proper program structure and personnel improve participant involvement and increase the benefits associated with mentoring programs (Murray, 1991). Based on these findings, structured face-to-face mentoring programs have proven successful on college campuses. Structured mentoring programs have aided new faculty teachers and graduate teaching assistants to improve their teaching abilities (Boyle & Boice, 1998b) and have increased the retention rates of minority undergraduate students (Campbell & Campbell, 1997). Other programs have supported new faculty, particularly women and faculty of color, as they adjust to the demands of the professoriate (Boice, 1990; Diehl & Simpson, 1989) and have lowered the attrition rates of women science and engineering students (Muller, 1991; 1993). Some qualities of electronic communications make it even more important to provide program structure for e-mentoring programs than for face-to-face mentoring programs. The tendency to match e-mentoring pairs without the necessary structure and follow-up will be as, if not more, tempting compared with traditional mentoring programs. Contact among program staff and participants is typically minimal, making it easy to overlook the necessity of creating a structured format to sustain regular interactions between e-mentors and proteges throughout the program duration. Therefore, the provision of mentor training and pair coaching is even more crucial within an e-mentoring format than within a face-to-face mentoring format, requiring a program coordinator to support the development of the e-mentoring pairs (Bennett, 1997). By introducing a model of mentoring programs, then applying this theoretical framework to the e-mentoring process, we hope to spare e-mentoring some of the early failures experienced by the mentoring community. Our hope is that this exercise will assist in the planning and implementation of future e-mentoring programs, will prompt and guide future research on ementoring, and will stimulate the reliance on a theoretical framework to advance the development of e-mentoring and e-mentoring programs. When appropriate to illuminate concepts, we use examples from MentorNet, a nation-wide structured e-mentoring program that pairs women in the engineering and related science fields with industry professionals and supports them through year-long e-mentoring relationships. A Model of Structured Mentoring We developed a model of structured mentoring by identifying and incorporating the essential elements of successful mentoring programs. This simple, iterative model, developed out of our experience conducting and researching the mentoring process, was informed by knowledge of the mentoring literature, and evolved from an earlier model (Boyle & Boice, 1998b). Although developed within a higher education context, the model incorporates the fundamental elements for conducting a mentoring program, therefore can be adapted to a variety of mentoring program settings. The theoretical framework, as can be seen in Figure 1, begins with Planning, moves to Structured Implementation, and ends with Assessment, directing a mentoring program from inception, through implementation, and finishing with program evaluation. The elements of the model are connected by three curved lines, which combine to form a circle and indicate the iterative nature of the model. The curved lines signify that sustainability should be a goal of any mentoring program. The curved lines also signify that the implementation of one year’s program may require multiple iterations through the model. For instance, while in the planning phase, assessment issues need to be considered, especially if pre-test measures will be