https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5952-8358
ABSTRACT
Mentoring (healthcare) research from low-to-middle-income countries is critical for developing evidence-based healthcare solutions. This paper presents findings from a study of the mentoring and supervisory relationships embedded in a South African fellowship program for early career healthcare researchers. The findings demonstrate how, rather than relying only on formally assigned mentors and supervisors, the fellows chose to establish a mentoring community. This mentoring community included a network of mentoring relationships which involved sharing career advice, establishing professional networks and cooperation opportunities, and creating a reciprocal psychosocial support community. We conceptualize these findings from a developmental network and mentoring community perspective.
Introduction
Formal mentoring programs for early career faculty and researchers in high income countries have a long history and have become relatively established and institutionalized (Baker et al., Citation2020; Luna & Cullen, Citation1995; Lunsford et al., Citation2017). This has, however, not been the case in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs) (Gupta & Garza, Citation2020; Hansoti et al., Citation2019). Informal mentoring has probably always existed in all academic and research settings, but only in the past two decades has the formalization of mentorship for early career faculty in South Africa and other LMICs received scholarly and institutional attention (Dhunpath et al., Citation2018; Geber, Citation2004; Lalloo et al., Citation2014; Lescano et al., Citation2019; Sawatsky et al., Citation2016). Moreover, the importance of formalizing mentoring for the purposes of developing research leadership in South African healthcare sciences academics came into sharp focus during the COVID-19 pandemic (Ward, Citation2020). For example, the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has had notable successes through the scientific contributions of a network of leading healthcare academics, researchers, and clinicians (Abdool Karim, Citation2020). These successes occurred in the context of historical and ongoing challenges in the South African healthcare system such as shortages in the quality and ongoing supply of clinical and healthcare faculty researchers in South Africa (Jackson et al., Citation2022; Maphumulo & Bhengu, Citation2019). This paper reports on a study which explored the mentoring and supervisory experiences of early career healthcare researchers from South Africa who were engaged in a fellowship program between 2016 and 2022 which prioritized their research leadership development.
Theoretical foundations of mentoring
Traditional conceptualizations of mentoring in the workplace imply the relationship between an older more experienced individual (who is well versed in work specific practices) and a younger less experienced novice (who is beginning to navigate the world of work and their career) (Kram, Citation1983). Levinson et al. (Citation1978) first conceptualized workplace mentoring from a lifespan developmental perspective, highlighting the stage appropriateness of the roles and activities undertaken by both mentor and mentee. Specifically, Levinson et al. (Citation1978) remark how it is common for a senior worker (potential mentor) to assess and appraise their career successes and setbacks in the latter phases of their careers, and to use this retrospection to guide the ways in which an early career worker (potential mentee) adjusts to and flourishes in the workplace. Conversely, it is developmentally appropriate for an early career worker to seek out career and psychosocial guidance from a more experienced worker. Mentoring in the workplace has thus traditionally been understood as a mutually beneficial and reciprocal relationship between two workers, one usually at the start of their career and the other towards the end (Kram, Citation1983).
Traditional formalized and dyadic notions of mentoring where one mentor is matched to one mentee are now somewhat outdated, with better career outcomes reportedly arising for workers who are engaged in a developmental network of mentoring relationships (Higgins & Kram, Citation2001; Yip et al., Citation2017). A developmental network perspective to mentoring prioritizes connections between individuals (Dominguez & Kochan, Citation2020). The success of the network depends on how strong and diverse the developmental relationships are (Yip et al., Citation2017). Diverse developmental networks consist of members from a range of organizations, levels, and contexts (e.g. family, work, community), while strong developmental ties involve ‘reciprocity, mutuality, and interdependence’ in the mentoring relationships (Higgins & Kram, Citation2001, p. 269). Despite a growing awareness that mentoring can exist as developmental networks, where there are mentoring programs for early career researchers and academics, these are typically still dyadic in nature with senior/junior pairings (Bojko & Kowalczyk, Citation2021; Hansoti et al., Citation2019). Moreover, although formalized mentoring programs for the purposes of developing healthcare research leadership are recognized as best practice for early career academics, LMICs like South Africa seem to have struggled to establish these kinds of programs in academic institutions due to multiple competing demands such as student massification, funding constraints, a declining professoriate and pool of suitable mentors, globalization, and knowledge productions demands. Hansoti et al. (Citation2019) review of mentoring toolkits highlights common challenges of faculty mentorship programs for healthcare researchers and academics in LMICS where these do exist. These challenges pertain to institutional mentoring capacity, programs not being supported institutionally, and programs taking place in hierarchical and patriarchal cultural contexts that do not support mutually beneficial and reciprocal forms of mentoring (Hansoti et al., Citation2019; Lescano et al., Citation2019).
While there are several forms of mentoring in the academic workspace (e.g. one-to-one, group, team, formal and/or informal, peer, self-selected and/or assigned) (Hundey et al., Citation2020), these work variably for different contexts. Current best practices for mentoring and early career development programs advocate a developmental network system where mentors are regarded as portals ‘to networks of people, data, and information and … not [sole entities] in providing services’ (Dominguez & Kochan, Citation2020, p. 8). Best practices for mentoring should also include reciprocity within a mentoring community and promote the ‘values of collaboration, co-mentorship, democratic learning, humanistic mentoring, and shared leadership’ (Mullen, Citation2012, p. 15).
Background to the DRILL program
Launched in 2016, DRILL (Developing Research Innovation, Localisation, and Leadership) is a multidisciplinary health research leadership fellowship and training program located in the College of Health Sciences at the University of Kwa-Zulu-Natal (UKZN) in South Africa. The program is funded by the United States National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Centre and responds to the challenge of relatively low healthcare research capacity in African universities, aiming to establish a pool of highly skilled and competent healthcare research leaders. The fellowships involved a competitive application process and recruited 25 early career health researchers/fellows in three cohorts into five scientific tracks (i.e. HIV/AIDS, health professions education, health systems strengthening, health research ethics, and mental health). Cohorts were inducted in 2016, 2018, and 2019 into four-year fellowships. The DRILL fellows are either academic staff members from UKZN (n = 20) or KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health healthcare professionals (n = 5) (e.g. doctors, nurses). A team of five principal investigators (PIs) from UKZN leads the program, drawing on the expertise of an advisory committee of global health research leaders. Recognizing that in South Africa, individual researchers largely appear to learn research leadership competencies, attitudes, and values ‘on the job’ and frequently by trial and error and/or chance (Chu et al., Citation2014; Lalloo et al., Citation2014; Uthman et al., Citation2015), DRILL intended to move towards a structured, active/deliberate, and focused approach to research leadership capacity training involving a formalized mentorship, supervision, and scientific skills development program. A developmental network of mentors was not intentionally set up, but rather a relational triad was originally established with each fellow being assigned to a separate mentor and supervisor. Both mentors and supervisors are senior UKZN researchers with the former being tasked to provide career pathing advice and support (i.e. career trajectory and psychosocial needs), while the latter were responsible for providing research support and supervision on the fellow’s DRILL-funded research project (i.e. predetermined research outputs). provides a graphic representation of the way in which the relational triads were conceptualized.
Figure 1. The original conceptual representation of the DRILL triads.
The DRILL program manager and PIs were responsible for setting up and initiating the triadic interactions and were also responsible for the overall program evaluation. However, it was up to the members of the triad to develop and sustain the mentoring and supervisory relationships. In addition to the triad serving as the framework for each fellow’s (research) leadership development, the DRILL fellows also participated in several research, career, and personal development workshops during the fellowship. The DRILL PIs and program manager, supported by the DRILL program management team, directed and managed the workshops, inducted new cohorts of fellows into the community of fellows during workshops, and monitored the fellows’ progress through quarterly review sessions. Parallel to the formal monitoring and evaluation of the DRILL program, an independent qualitative study was conducted with the DRILL fellows on their experiences and reflections of their DRILL-based mentoring and supervisory relationships. We report on this independent qualitative study in this paper, seeking to answer the following central question: How did the mentoring and supervisory relationships (i.e. the relational triads), offered by the DRILL program, function to enhance (or otherwise) the DRILL fellows’ career and research leadership development?
Methods
This paper is grounded in data generated from in-depth interviews conducted with 17 of the 25 DRILL fellows (qualitative case studies). Qualitative case studies are common in education and health and are useful for interrogating a phenomenon (i.e. a case) in context, especially ‘when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident’ (Yin, Citation2014, p. 2). In this study, the DRILL program and its related aims are the context, while the phenomena, or cases and units of analysis, are the DRILL fellows who participate in mentoring and supervisory relationships and other program activities. The study is embedded in a constructivist-interpretivist ontology, and therefore ‘rests on a belief in the existence of multiple, intersubjectively connected “truths” about social, political, cultural and other human events [e.g. mentoring relationships]; and on the belief that these understandings can only be accessed, or co-generated through interactions between researcher and researched’ (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, Citation2012, p. 4). Because of the potential biased responding that may have arisen had the PIs and program manager conducted the research interviews with the fellows, they invited the first and second authors to design and lead the independent qualitative study reported in this paper. Ethics clearance for the study was granted by the UKZN Biomedical Research Ethics Committee, protocol reference number BE030/19, and all interviewees signed informed consent forms for this study. The first and second authors, who work at the same university that hosts the DRILL program, but not in the program, invited the 25 DRILL fellows to participate in interviews with one of them between April 2019 and February 2021. Data collection for the study spanned a 22-month period because of variable fellowship cohort start and end dates, as well as disruption caused due to COVID-19. All participating fellows were interviewed in the second half of their four-year fellowships. Although the timing of the interviews could be regarded as a limitation to the study because the fellowships had not been concluded at the time of data collection, the interviews were specifically targeted to take place while the mentoring and supervisory relationships were actively in process. Of the 25 DRILL fellows, 17 (6 from Cohort 1, 7 from Cohort 2, and 4 from Cohort 3) consented to be interviewed. Of the seven who did not participate in the study, one relocated and resigned from the fellowship, one declined to participate, two indicated a willingness to participate but then did not respond to interview invites, while the remaining three did not respond to email invitations to participate in the study. The first and second authors were the researchers; they developed and used a semi-structured interview schedule for the interviews. Linked to the central question guiding this paper, the researchers focused the interviews on the ways in which the formalized mentoring and supervisory relationships were experienced by the fellows in relation to their career and research leadership development. The semi-structured interview schedule was theoretically grounded in Yip and Kram’s (Citation2017) conceptions of mentoring networks, and posed specific questions to the fellows about formal and informal mentoring and supervision experiences in terms of their career, psychosocial, and research leadership development. The semi-structured interview questions were also grounded in a developmental perspective, asking fellows to reflect on historical and current mentoring relationships. The fellows were assured of anonymity in the reporting and dissemination of the findings through the use of pseudonyms, anonymization, and modification of potentially identifiable information such as discipline expertise, race, or gender. In terms of data analysis, interviews were recorded and then transcribed in a predominantly denaturalized manner by the researchers (Bucholtz, Citation2000). While managing the data in NVIVO 12, the researchers embarked on a process of reflexive thematic analysis, which involved the iterative phases of transcription, data immersion, coding, theme generation, naming and refining themes, and then presenting and re-presenting the themes as part of this paper (Braun et al., Citation2018). Although not actively involved in the data collection, the other authors of this paper (i.e. the DRILL PIs and program manager) were actively involved in the theme development and refinement processes after the initial codes and themes were generated and presented in verbal and written forms by the researchers.
Findings
Our findings present participants’ reflections on the ways in which they were mentored and developed for career and research leadership development during their DRILL fellowship. Our initial assumptions, which guided our data coding, were that the findings and main themes would be best organized according to the type of person assigned to develop and support each fellow (e.g. mentor or supervisor). However, it soon became clear that the roles that people were assigned in the fellowship were not necessarily the most suitable categories for organizing the findings. In contrast, we identified three main themes from the interview data which did not prioritize roles in the fellowship, but rather the fellows’ experiences and meanings of personal and professional mentoring and development. We refer to the three themes as i) sharing meaningful career advice, ii) establishing professional networks and cooperation opportunities, and iii) creating a reciprocal psychosocial support community.
Theme 1: sharing meaningful career advice
The fellows identified a variety of people linked to the fellowship program who provided meaningful career advice. First, being provided with meaningful career advice involved being told or shown how to approach immediate career challenges such as managing competing demands. Second, it included being advised on career planning (e.g. working towards and applying for promotion) for the future.
In terms of approaching immediate career challenges, Fellow 14 indicated that their mentor ‘would give more input on life being an academic, and how do you cope with all these balls you’ve got to juggle.’ However, when discussing the DRILL PIs generally, Fellow 14 also noted that they are ‘down-to-earth people [who will] be quite open to share their challenges, their flaws, to help us’. Similarly, Fellow 24 noted that being helped to ‘look through the noise and pick up that important sort of piece’ arose from ad hoc meetings they had with one of the DRILL PIs. In emphasizing the experience of sharing meaningful career advice from other DRILL fellows, Fellow 1 praised Fellow 16 for providing important technical information on a study they were working on. Fellow 23 remarked that the fellows have ‘a really good thing going,’ elaborating how the fellows had a WhatsApp group where someone might message, ‘Can someone advise me? Can you look through this PowerPoint? This is the problem; what do you advise? … and I’m telling you, within a minute, people were posting.’ Furthermore, when discussing one of the fellows, Fellow 24 noted, ‘[they are] a great support and resource to me … [are they] assigned to me as a mentor? No, [they are] not, but [they are] really helping move some pieces in my life and in my career.’ Not all formally assigned mentor/fellow dyads were found to be functioning effectively, especially regarding guidance on immediate career challenges. Fellow 1 suggested that ‘the mentor part is the non-entity; that is not happening,’ while Fellow 5 found the mentor ‘kept talking about the project, and this and that, and data collection, you know. And as a mentor, it really is not about my data or what methods you use’.
The theme of sharing meaningful career advice also focused on input about career progression, again from a range of people. For example, Fellow 9 highlighted how one of the PIs ‘does an important role because’ they took the time to assist the fellow with their promotion application.
Several other fellows also reported how the fellows, the DRILL PIs, and certain formal mentors and supervisors worked with them on their applications for promotion. For example, Fellow 24 noted that they discussed ‘my career and where I saw myself … I was figuring myself out and how I want my career to look like and where do I see myself’. Given the complexities of the current academic environment for healthcare researchers in LMICs (i.e. involving teaching, clinical supervision, postgraduate research supervision, independent research in under-resourced public health settings, and university/government leadership, and administration tasks) (Hansoti et al., Citation2019; Lescano et al., Citation2019), many of the participants praised the roles that several other people played in guiding them through their immediate and future career related tasks. In addition to the relationships that provided immediate and future career related guidance, Fellows 1 and 14 reflected on the value that the fellowship workshops (e.g. on career and mental health, grant writing skills, publication and writing skills) had on their careers and research leadership development.
Theme 2: establishing professional networks and cooperation opportunities
The second theme we generated involved the importance that the fellows placed on establishing professional networks and cooperation opportunities as part of their career and research trajectories. Although the formally assigned mentors and supervisors featured as networking role-players, other DRILL fellows were also highly regarded as sources of networking and cooperation. For example, Fellow 21 explained that at a workshop, ‘I was speaking to [Fellow 15 and Fellow 20], and they do a lot of [specific healthcare specialization] work, so, I am writing two papers with them’. With regard to formal mentors introducing fellows to professional networks and committees, several fellows reported instances of this happening. In addition to writing two papers with two other fellows, Fellow 21 also noted how their formally assigned mentor had introduced them to a national health committee, on which they hoped to serve. Fellow 21 indicated that serving on the committee would assist with career visibility and would create new networking opportunities. Similarly, Fellow 10 reported how their mentor introduced them to a committee specific to their field of work and research, and was inducting them into the ways in which the committee worked, and how serving on the committee could advance their career.
Theme 3: creating a reciprocal psychosocial support community
The third theme reflects the importance that the fellows found in affirming and being affirmed by others as holistic individuals with concurrent non-professional lives. Despite all being career-focused and professionally driven, the fellows reported how reciprocal relationships of support evolved spontaneously in the fellowship program and became highly valuable for their personal and professional development. The most notable source (and target) of psychosocial support came from and went to other fellows. For example, ‘We go on walks together, we talk about everything, I mean, illnesses, challenges, complaints about PIs’ (Fellow 23), while Fellow 1 suggested that even though the fellows are all ‘excellent in their field … you don’t have inhibitions when you talk to them. You can be vulnerable. You can say what you mean … and there’s always someone there to help you’. In addition to finding several of the DRILL PIs supportive of their personal development, the fellows noted how a particular member of the DRILL program management team ‘is very supportive … and we always give the PIs the credit, but [this DRILL program management team member is] the unsung hero of the thing because it’s [their] vision as well’ (Fellow 1). In further elaborating on the kinds of psychosocial and professional support provided to the fellows, Fellow 1 went on to remark that, ‘I call this type of work soft skills … I lack the soft skills and um, now I begin to appreciate the value of the soft skills. And [the DRILL program management team member] has a lot of those things [soft skills] that [they] put in the program’.
Some formalized mentors were not experienced as sources of psychosocial support. Fellow 23 noted that, ‘I met [them] once to be honest … it’s not because there was any issue between us. It’s just that [their] style is different from my style’ while Fellow 21 indicated that they ‘don’t think [the mentor] knows me’.
Discussion: the evolution of a cooperative mentoring community for early career healthcare researchers
Our findings suggest that the original conception of the DRILL fellowship triads, as represented in , achieved mixed levels of success, did not consistently operate in the ways they were designed to, and did not extend the traditional and now outdated notion of mentoring dyads far enough (Kram, Citation1983; Yip & Kram, Citation2017). While some triads functioned well with fellow, mentor, and supervisor establishing comfortable, easy, and productive professional relationships, other triads were not initiated and/or sustained for a range of reasons such as differences in understanding about the roles of mentors and supervisors, and ‘style’ (Fellow 23) differences. Overall, our findings suggest that the mentoring and supervisory relationships in the fellowship evolved organically and informally beyond the originally conceptualized triadic arrangement, to include a complex developmental network of diverse and strong relationships between DRILL fellows, PIs, mentors, supervisors, and members of the program management team. Therefore, in addition to the influence that the formalized mentoring and supervisory relationships had in some triads, informal mentoring and supervisory relationships also played important roles in the fellows’ personal, professional, and health research leadership development. Rather than relying only on their formally assigned mentors and supervisors, many fellows de-emphasized the formalized triadic relationship, instead establishing informal peer mentoring relationships with other fellows and informal mentoring and supervisory relationships with the DRILL PIs and management team. Despite being informal, the findings suggest that these relationships were hierarchically diverse and relationally strong. In summary, the DRILL fellows seemed to spontaneously establish a developmental network within a cooperative mentoring community (Bottoms et al., Citation2020), and this is what formed an important part of their journey towards becoming healthcare research leaders.
We synthesize the above observations as an organically evolving mentoring community which exemplifies how (healthcare) faculty and research leadership development can foreground the principles and values of responsiveness, flexibility, cooperation, and support, as recognized in the emerging conceptions of developmental mentoring networks (Dominguez & Kochan, Citation2020; Higgins & Kram, Citation2001). Developmental networks within a mentoring community interact and overlap, and evolve over time (Dominguez & Kochan, Citation2020). Based on our findings, we integrate two novel principles (i.e. flexible networks and communities of mutual support, and a cooperative and reciprocally beneficial environment) to the ways in which developmental networks within a mentoring community may function.
Flexible networks and communities of mutual support (principle 1)
Whereas the original conception of the relational triads (see ) was fixed, the findings suggest that these evolved to become more adaptive, with bi-directional relationships between fellows, mentors, and supervisors. Instead of fixed relationships between fellow and mentor, and fellow and supervisor, a mentoring community includes a range of individuals who are available to offer both career and research mentorship. Whereas mentors and supervisors were part of the original DRILL triad, going forward, these role-players should probably be integrated as career and research mentors, and be located collectively as part of a flexible developmental network and community of mutual support that can interact with early career researchers in more dynamic and mutually beneficial ways. This revised structuring recognizes and affirms the developmentally appropriate and bi-directional learning that takes between mentee/mentor (Levinson et al., Citation1978), but also positions these within a developmental network (i.e. opportunities for developing diverse and strong mentoring relationships) (Yip & Kram, Citation2017). Our findings also demonstrate how mentoring relationships are dynamic and that during a fellowship, fellows will sometimes work and relate more closely with one or more formally assigned or informally established mentoring relationships, while sometimes they will work and relate more closely with other fellows (i.e. peers). As fellows develop and mature during their fellowships, they are likely to move in and out of relationships with other fellows, mentors, and the PIs and program management team as their needs develop and mature. Moreover, the mentoring community should allow for a more explicit space of bi- and multi-directional learning where multiple people serve in a dynamic professional network (Dominguez & Kochan, Citation2020). Specifically, collaborations between fellows and mentors, and between fellows themselves should be encouraged and recognized as being intentional and critical parts of a mentoring community. It is important for academic developers and fellowship program managers to recognize and facilitate these kinds of dynamic and multiple professional development relationships for the purposes of research leadership development among early career (healthcare) academics, rather than simply linking fellows to mentors in dyadic, or even triadic ways.
Creating a cooperative and reciprocally beneficial environment
The second principle that we integrate into our revised conception of a cooperative mentoring community among early career healthcare fellows involves creating a cooperative and reciprocally beneficial environment. This principle emphasizes community, interprofessional cooperation, and reciprocity. As DRILL unfolded, data from our study reflects the evolution of multi- and trans-disciplinary research and fellowship across five scientific tracks. Furthermore, the data point to how cooperation and a sense of community occurred across traditional hierarchical and boundaried levels of advisory committee, PIs, program management team, supervisors, mentors, and fellows. Although any new fellowships for early career healthcare fellows will still be led by several PIs and a program management team with the support of an expert advisory committee, it is envisioned that future fellows will be tasked to create an environment that is grounded in values and principles which prioritize cooperation and a mentoring community. This kind of environment is likely to allow fellows to express and develop strength from vulnerability, and offer and receive support from dynamic and non-hierarchical sources during their fellowship. Although health research leaders lead and manage others and make complex decisions which influence the lives of people, they are only successful in doing so if they can build and be part of the community around them.
Concluding comments
The cooperative mentoring community that emerged and is presented in this paper is aligned with and extends emerging best practices in mentoring in faculty in that it is embedded within a developmental network conception of mentoring relationships (Dominguez & Kochan, Citation2020; Yip & Kram, Citation2017). Specifically, the mentoring community illustrates how the professional cannot be developed in isolation from the person, and in the absence of diverse and strong mentoring relationships. Despite the reported benefits of developmental network models of mentoring, their implementation may be a challenge due to persistent beliefs that mentoring is dyadic in nature (Bojko & Kowalczyk, Citation2021). In addition, as highlighted by Hansoti et al. (Citation2019), there may not always be sufficient faculty available in LMICs to serve as career and research mentors within a mentoring community. It is sometimes difficult to find senior academics who are disposed to and adept at engaging in a developmental network and mentoring community given the significant multiple demands on senior LMIC academics already. Developing healthcare research leadership in South African (and other sub-Saharan African) institutions is important as it serves to advance research for evidenced-based solutions that are relevant to African health system issues that have global relevance. The original DRILL program has demonstrated that, in addition to having a structured program, together with a supportive environment of mentors (for career and research development), an organic system of informal developmental mentorship and support was negotiated by the fellows and other role-players. This spontaneous process led to a cooperative mentoring community, which, although less structured than the original triadic model warrants future pilot implementation and evaluation, bearing in the mind the potential risks of under-structuring and role confusion.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
Data not available due to ethical restrictions.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Nicholas Munro
Nicholas Munro is a senior lecturer in the Discipline of Psychology, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Heidi Matisonn
Heidi Matisonn was a senior lecturer in the Discipline of Philosophy in the School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics, University of KwaZulu-Natal. She now works as a senior lecturer in Ethics in the Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town.
Nisha Nadesan-Reddy
Nisha Nadesan-Reddy is a medical doctor, public health medicine specialist, and DRILL program manager.
Fatima Suleman
Fatima Suleman is a DRILL PI, and professor in the School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Douglas Wassenaar
Douglas Wassenaar is a DRILL PI, has a background in clinical psychology and research ethics, and chairs the University of KwaZulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee.
Suvira Ramlall
Suvira Ramlall is a DRILL PI, psychiatrist and Academic Leader for Registrar Training in the College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Mosa Moshabela
Mosa Moshabela is a DRILL PI, and the Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Petra Brysiewicz
Petra Brysiewicz is the communicating PI for DRILL, and professor based in the Discipline of Nursing, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
References
- Abdool Karim, S. S. (2020). The South African response to the pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(24), e95. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2014960
- Baker, V. L., Gonzales, L. D., Terosky, A. L., & Garza, R. (2020). Faculty-inspired strategies for early career success across intitutional types: The role of mentoring. In B. J. Irby, J. N. Boswell, L. J. Searby, F. Kochan, & N. Andelrahman (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of mentoring. Paradigms, practices, programs, and possibilities (pp. 223–241). Wiley Blackwell.
- Bojko, M., & Kowalczyk, B. (2021). Mentoring models in research in polish academia. International Journal for Academic Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1970558
- Bottoms, S. I., Pegg, J., Adams, A., Smith Risser, H., & Wu, K. (2020). Mentoring within communities of practice. In B. J. Irby, J. N. Boswell, L. J. Searby, F. Kochan, R. Garza, & N. Abdelrahman (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of mentoring: Paradigms, practices, programs, and possibilities (pp. 143–166). Wiley Blackwell.
- Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2018). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer Singapore.
- Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1439–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00094-6
- Chu, K. M., Jayaraman, S., Kyamanywa, P., & Ntakiyiruta, G. (2014). Building research capacity in Africa: Equity and global health collaborations. PLoS Medicine, 11(3), e1001612. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001612
- Dhunpath, R., Matisonn, H., & Samuel, M. (2018). Towards a model of mentoring in South African higher education. Alternation, 25(2), 78–105. https://journals.ukzn.ac.za/index.php/soa/article/view/1297
- Dominguez, N., & Kochan, F. (2020). Defining mentoring: An elusive search for meaning and a path for the future. In B. J. Irby, J. N. Boswell, L. J. Searby, F. Kochan, R. Garza, & N. Abdelrahman (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of mentoring: Paradigms, practices, programs, and possibilities (pp. 3–18). Wiley Blackwell.
- Geber, H. M. (2004). Mentoring in early career academics in South African higher education: A transformative strategy [ Doctoral dissertation, University of Witwatersrand]. Wits Institutional Repository on DSpace. https://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/23074
- Gupta, A., & Garza, K. R. (2020). Mentoring faculty for quality enhancement in Indian higher education. In B. J. Irby, J. N. Boswell, L. J. Searby, F. Kochan, & N. Andelrahman (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of mentoring. Paradigms, practices, programs, and possibilities (pp. 327–352). Wiley Blackwell.
- Hansoti, B., Kalbarczyk, A., Hosseinipour, M. C., Prabhakaran, D., Tucker, J. D., Nachega, J., Wallis, L., Stiles, J. K., Wynn, A., & Morroni, C. (2019). Global health mentoring toolkits: A scoping review relevant for low- and middle-income country institutions. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 100(1_Suppl), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0563
- Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378023
- Hundey, B., Anstey, L., Cruickshank, H., & Watson, G. P. L. (2020). Mentoring faculty online: A literature review and recommendations for web-based programs. International Journal for Academic Development, 25(3), 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2020.1731815
- Jackson, J., de Graft Aikins, C., Viney, A., Mitchell, H., Neba, A., Mtwisha, L., Kebirungi, A., & Outtara, K. (2022). Pathways to research leadership for early career researchers in Africa: A potential role for African and global funders. South African Journal of Higher Education, 36(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.20853/36-2-4697
- Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/255910
- Lalloo, U. G., Bobat, R. A., Pillay, S., & Wassenaar, D. (2014). A strategy for developing future academic leaders for South Africa in a resource-constrained environment. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(8 Suppl), S55–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000354
- Lescano, A. G., Cohen, C. R., Raj, T., Rispel, L., Garcia, P. J., Zunt, J. R., Hamer, D. H., Heimburger, D. C., Chi, B. H., Ko, A. I., & Bukusi, E. A. (2019). Strengthening mentoring in low- and middle-income countries to advance global health research: An overview. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 100(1_Suppl), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0556
- Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. Knopf.
- Luna, G., & Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering the faculty: Mentoring redirected and renewed. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED399889.pdf
- Lunsford, L. G., Crisp, G., Dolan, E., Wuetherick, B. (2017). Mentoring in higher education. In D. A. Clutterbuck, F. K. Kochan, L. Lunsford, N. Dominguez, & J. Haddock-Millar (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 316–334). SAGE Publications LTD.
- Maphumulo, W. T., & Bhengu, B. R. (2019). Challenges of quality improvement in the healthcare of South Africa post-apartheid: A critical review. Curationis, 42(1), e1–e9. https://doi.org/10.4102/curationis.v42i1.1901
- Mullen, C. A. (2012). Mentoring: An overview. In S. Fletcher & C. A. Mullen (Eds.), Handbook of mentoring and coaching in education (pp. 7–23). Sage Publications, Inc.
- Sawatsky, A. P., Parekh, N., Muula, A. S., Mbata, I., & Bui, T. (2016). Cultural implications of mentoring in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative study. Medical Education, 50(6), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12999
- Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854907
- Uthman, O. A., Wiysonge, C. S., Ota, M. O., Nicol, M., Hussey, G. D., Ndumbe, P. M., & Mayosi, B. M. (2015). Increasing the value of health research in the WHO African Region beyond 2015–reflecting on the past, celebrating the present and building the future: A bibliometric analysis. British Medical Journal Open, 5(3), e006340. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006340
- Ward, H. B. (2020). Resident leadership in the era of COVID-19: Harnessing emotional intelligence. Academic Medicine, 95(10), 1521–1523. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000003558
- Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.), Sage.
- Yip, J., Kram, K. E. (2017). Developmental networks: Enhancing the science and practice of mentoring. In Clutterbuck, D., Kochan, A. F., Lunsford, K. L., Dominquez, N., & Haddock-Millar, J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring (pp. 88–104). SAGE Publications LTD.