Spaces of possibilities: a theoretical analysis of mentoring from a regulatory perspective

Abstract

A review of the literature on the effectiveness of mentoring reveals a paradox: on the one hand, there is evidence that mentoring can be highly effective. On the other hand, meta-analyses usually only show small to moderate effect sizes, and sometimes even negative effects. To better understand this mentoring paradox, we discuss three fundamental problems in mentoring research. We propose working definitions and theoretical premises to overcome these problems. We apply various systemic concepts to the field of mentoring that might help to resolve the mentoring paradox. We introduce mentees' actiotopes and their interaction with other systems as the unit of analysis, and the regulations for which mentors are responsible for in the context of mentoring as the categories of analysis. To systemize and elaborate on the regulatory dimensions of mentoring, we introduce the nonagonal framework of regulation in mentoring (NFR-M). To facilitate the analysis of ongoing changes caused by mentoring and therefore a dynamic understanding of mentoring, we introduce the concept of spaces of possibilities in mentoring (M-spaces). Finally, we introduce the concepts of the Athena Mentor to explain why mentors can differ so dramatically in the effectiveness of the regulations they are responsible for in the context of mentoring. We conclude by describing how mentoring comparisons based on the NFR-M, mentors' regulatory insight, regulatory power, and M-spaces can help to resolve the mentoring paradox.

Key issues in professionalizing mentoring practices

“…Orchestrating the goals of all stakeholders is an important prerequisite of successful mentoring (see the discussion of ontological M-spaces in this volume, Ref. 36). Earlier research has focused on the goals and mutual expectations of mentors and mentees.…”

“…They include-but are not limited to-financial, social, cultural, didactic, time, equipment-related, infrastructural, and motivational resources. 36 In some cases, a resource shortfall can create a general effectiveness bottleneck for an entire mentoring program. Even a mentoring program that is designed carefully according to best-practice guidelines might, nevertheless, encounter a major stumbling block on its way to being effective.…”

“…The circumstance reflects a seeming, not an actual, contradiction and thus qualifies, as Ref. 36 argues, as a paradox. Earlier work corroborates this notion of a mentoring paradox.…”

“…educational measures [22][23][24] through moderate to small effect sizes-as mainly reported in metaanalyses [12][13][14]16,19,20,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] -down to, in some cases, even negative effects. [31][32][33][34][35] Researchers recently introduced the term mentoring paradox 36 when exploring the reasons for the unexpectedly large range of reported effects. The rationale of why individualized support via a suitable mentor should be effective is strong, 36 and case studies confirm that successful mentoring is possible.…”

“…[31][32][33][34][35] Researchers recently introduced the term mentoring paradox 36 when exploring the reasons for the unexpectedly large range of reported effects. The rationale of why individualized support via a suitable mentor should be effective is strong, 36 and case studies confirm that successful mentoring is possible. The overall lack of effectiveness appears to reflect a failure of many mentoring programs to successfully scale up inherently effective mentoring practices.…”