- Email: [email protected]
Nursing education administrators: Level of career development and mentoring
Nursing
SUSAN
Education Administrators: Level of Career Development and Mentoring M.
RAWL,
RN,
PHD* AND LEONA M. PETERSON, RN,
The focus of this study was to analyze the influence of mentoring on the level of career development of nursing education administrators. Other variables that may influence the level of career development of nursing education administrators also were examined. These included early life influences, academic preparation, supporting factors, constraining factors, and career stage. Relationships among these variables are depicted in the conceptual Model of Career Development in Academic Administration. Survey research methods were used in this correlational, retrospective study. A questionnaire developed by the investigators was mailed to a randomly selected national sample of 600 nursing education administrators in National League for Nursing-accredited baccalaureate and higher degree programs. A response rate of 71 per cent yielded 427 completed questionnaires. Multiple regression techniques were used to examine the relationships between dependent variables and independent varlables in the conceptual model. Nine variables explained 59 per cent of the variance in level of career development scores. This variance was explained by highest degree earned, number of years since completion of the highest degree, number of years as an academic administrator, the scholarly difficulty index, the work commitment index, mentoring relationships, number of months of nonemployment, number of children, and type of institutlon where highest degree was earned. Mentoring contributed significantly to the prediction of level of career development of nursing education administrators and therefore should be encouraged and fostered. (Index words: Career development; Leadership; Mentoring; Nursing education administration) J Prof Nurs 8:161-169, Saunders Company
1992. Copyright 0 7992 by W.6.
of Professional
the leadership
lem and challenge made several tion.
facing
(1974)
the profession.
recommendations
preparation Since
then
been developed
to rectify
Leininger the situathe edu-
of nurses for administrative many
educational
to prepare
posi-
programs
have
nurses at both the master’s
degree and doctoral levels for various leadership However,
cited
as a major prob-
Most dealt with the need to improve
cational tions.
Leininger
crisis in nursing
educational
preparation
posts.
is only one process
critical to the nurse administrator’s professional velopment. Another process that may contribute the career development
of nursing
education
deto
admin-
istrators is the mentor relationship. The contribution that mentoring relationships may make to the career development of nursing one focus of this study. Mentorship,
education
in the broadest
administrators
was
sense, is the process by
which an older, wiser, and more experienced person guides and nurtures a younger one. This phenomenon is not new: Men have used such informal support systems for centuries. According to Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe (1978), in any profession
women
who want to succeed
need a system of mentors
and spon-
sors for career development. Felton (1978) suggested that the reason for the paucity of women in leadership positions was that “women often lack mentors or sponsors who can be instrumental in preparation for and introduction
to established
mote career progress,
advancement,
networks
that
pro-
and success” (p.
59). Researchers of mentoring in nursing have reported that subjects perceived their mentoring relationships as having positively influenced their career develop-
*Associate Professor, Department of Nursing, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, IN. tAssociate Professor, Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago. Supported in part by Sigma Theta Tau International, Alpha Lambda Chapter; the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago; and Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, IN. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Rawl: Department of Nursing, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, IN 46323. Copyright 0 1992 by W.B. Saunders Company 8755-7223/92/0803-0008$03.00/O
Journal
0
VER 15 YEARS AGO,
PHD”~
Nursing,
Vol 8, No 3 (May-June),
ment (Olson, 1984; Spengler, 1982; Vance, 1977; White, 1988). Other investigators have recommended controlled studies of the influence of mentoring on more objective career development criteria such as salary levels (Merriam, 1983; Primus, 1984). In an extensive review of the literature, Merriam (1983) cited several criticisms of the research on mentoring: The phenomenon of mentoring has been neither clearly nor consistently defined, researchers have 1992: pp 161-169
161
162
RAWL AND PETERSON
employed
relatively
and analysis torship
unsophisticated
techniques,
research
and the literature
design on men-
has been biased in favor of the phenomenon.
In light of Merriam’s
(1983) criticisms,
the purpose
of this study was to analyze the influence ships
on career
other
factors
ment.
development
considered
Additionally,
while
relevant
mentored explored opment
nursing
education
are depicted in Academic
for
to career develop-
the investigators
levels of career development
of mentor-
controlling compared
of mentored administrators.
the
and nonVariables
in the Model of Career DevelAdministration
(Fig I).
Figuve 1.
Model of Career Development
in Academic Ad-
ministration.
Conceptual Framework The conceptual
Model
rank,
of Career Development
in
was the result of a review of
2. Early
the literature pertaining to career development in academia, women in higher education administration,
found ment, cation
Academic
Administration
and mentoring. Queralt (198 1) formulated a conceptual model for examination of academic mentorships based on her comprehensive
study
of 287 randomly
selected faculty and administrators from Florida’s public universities. Queralt concluded that mentored subjects showed significantly higher levels of career development knowledged
than nonmentored
subjects,
the possible confounding
lack of control
of certain
but she ac-
of results due to
variables.
. . . menfored subjects showed significantly higher levels of career development than nonmentored subjects . . .
Queralt (1981) argued that it may not be mentorship alone that accounts for the higher levels of career development, but that selection may confound the issue. More promising individuals may be more successful in attaining a desired mentor or may be more frequently chosen to be mentored. It is important, therefore, to control for variables relevant to both career development and to rhe issue of selection.
Definitions of Variables in the Model 1. Level of career development
(LCD): an index obtained by combining weighted scores on five variables: number of publications, number of grants received, number of years served in national or international leadership posts,
and annual
activities
income
(including
life influences: to be associated such as parental and significant
ward a strong
from professional
salary). early
life experiences
with career developoccupation and eduothers’ influence to-
career orientation.
preparation: highest degree 3. Academic tained, type of institution where highest
atde-
gree was earned (Carnegie classification) and number of years since completion of the highest degree; Carnegie classification categorizes colleges and universities
on the basis
of level of degrees offered, comprehensiveness of the mission, and federal grant support received.
4. Mentoring
relationships: the quality and amount of mentoring experienced over the career; characteristics of the most important mentoring
experience
include
origin
and du-
ration of the mentorship, career stage of the protege and mentor, degree of identification between mentor and protege, usefulness of the mentorship.
and functional
5. Supporting positive
factors: subjects’ perceptions influences on career development
of in-
cluding spousal occupation and support for career decisions, professional involvement, strong work commitment, opportuniry preparedness, affirmative action policies, area of residence, and personal qualities.
6. Constraining
factors: subjects’ perceptions of negative influences on career development including lack of personal support for career decisions, family obligations, work-related constraints, and perceived degree of scholarly difficulty.
7. Career
stage:
the current
stage
of subjects’
163
LEVEL OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND MENTORING
careers
(age and
level
experi-
of academic
ence).
Methods
ing in a 7 1.2 per cent response
rate. All participants
were assured of confidentiality
of responses.
Institu-
tional
of the study
was ob-
Review
Board approval
tained. In initial
SAMPLE
data analyses,
for distribution The target
population
ministrators League
was nursing
at all administrative
for Nursing
and higher
degree
(NLN)-accredited programs.
tors in each academic higher
baccalaureate
Letters
requesting
education
the
administra-
unit were sent to the top nurse
of NLN-accredited
degree
ad-
levels in National
names and titles of all nursing administrators
education
programs
baccalaureate
and
Responses
from
(n = 485).
414 (85.9 per cent) programs
yielded
a total of 1147
names, from which 600 subjects were randomly selected. The sample demographics are presented in Table 1. INSTRUMENTATION,
A 5%item
DATA COLLECTION,
mailed
questionnaire
AND ANALYSES
elicited
informa-
tion on career development, aspirations, mentoring experiences, and demographic data. The questionnaire was reviewed for content validity and clarity by a panel of five nursing education administrators, and it was pilot-tested with 15 randomly selected administrators not included in the final sample. A total of 427 completed questionnaires were returned, result-
TABLE
1.
Sample
Demographics
data,
characteristics.
frequencies
were run;
ables, univariate
statistics
was examined
For all categorical
on all continuous
were obtained.
vari-
For replies
to multiple-response
items, factor analysis was used so
that
in question
the
weighted
variables
factor scores were obtained able.
could
for use in later analyses.
For each of these indexes,
were examined
be properly
For each factor,
and were used as weights
to create indexes of standardized so that problems
scores on each varicorrelation
matrices
with multicollinear-
ity could be identified and addressed. Finally, the variables in the model were analyzed via regression to explore their relationships to one another. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability of questionnaire items measuring level of career development and mentoring relationships. Alphas obtained were Y = 0.66 and r = 0.93,
respectively.
Findings LCD was an index comprised
of scores on five vari-
ables: total number of publications, total number of grants received, total number of years in national and/
(n = 427) n
%
Female Male Marital status
419 7
98.1 1.6
Married Srngle Race
256 169
60 0 39 5
White African Amerrcan Asian Amerrcan Hispanic Highest degree Doctorate Master’s Current position
396 19 5 4
92.7 4.4 12 0.9
317 109
74.2 25 5
64 83 133 10 82 11 44
150 19.5 31 1 2.3 192 2.6 10.3
Variable
each variable
Mean
SD
Range
49.95 1570 7.08 4.42 9.95
7.69 6.72 6 02 3.70 6.68
32-70 o-37 O-30 l-20 o-35
Gender
Dean Assistant/associate dean Department head/chair Assistantiassociate head or chair Program/center director/coordinator Assistant/associate director Other Age Years Years Years Years
as faculty member as academic administrator in current position since completion of highest degree
164
RAWL AND PETERSON
or international and annual
leadership
A significant
difference
tween mentored tal number averaging
positions,
academic
rank,
(P < .OO 1) was found be-
and nonmentored
of publications,
tored subjects’
subjects
with
10.6 publications
to specific
compared
subjects
with nonmen-
average of 5.7 (Table 2). With
types
professional
on the to-
mentored
of publications, number
journals,
those edited),
number
regard
significant
ences (P < .05) were found on number of books
of chapters
differ-
of articles
in
(excluding
in books, and num-
ber of book reviews published. Significant
differences
also were found on whether
any grants had ever been funded (P < .05) and on the number
3.
TABLE
income.
of competitive
grants
over $500,000
(P <
.05). The LCD index scores were computed by summing the weighted standardized scores on each of the five variables described above. The difference in LCD mean scores between mentored and nonmentored subjects also was significant
(P < .Ol). Since number
publications
had a grant
and having
funded
of
were the
only two variables where significant differences were found between mentored and nonmentored administrators, it may be presumed that these variables are primarily responsible for the significant difference observed between
these groups
on the LCD scores.
No significant differences were found between mentored and nonmentored subjects on total number of grants received, average number of years served in national and/or international leadership positions, rank, and annual income. The variables entered into the regression
analyses
are shown in Table 3. Variables entered as indexes and those entered individually are identified. Each index (or factor scale) was constructed using a factor-analytic approach. Separate factor analyses were run on all vari-
Dependent variables Number of publications Number of grants received Number of years in national and/or international leadership posts Rank Annual income LCD index Independent variables Early life influences Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social Position Significant other support for career orientation Academic preparation Highest degree earned Type of institution awarding highest degree Number of years since completion of degree Career stage Number of years as full-time faculty Age Number of years as full-time academic administrator Supporting factors Spousal occupation Strong work commitment index Professional involvement index Opportunity preparedness Index Nonmodifiable factors index Situational and contextual factor index Spousal support for career decision to enter nursing, academia, or administration Constraining factors Number of months of nonemployment Lack of personal support index Work-related constraints index Number of children Family obligations index Scholarly difficulty index Mentorlng relationships Timing index Satisfaction and usefulness index Similarity index
ables comprising obtained
TABLE
2.
Variable Number of publications* Mean SD Range LCD index? Mean SD Range “P < ,001. tf < .Ol.
Mentored and Nonmentored Administrators: Publications LCD Index
and
All Subjects (n = 427)
Mentored Subjects (n = 290)
Nonmentored Subjects (n = 137)
9.05 13.20 o-119
10.64 14.70 o-1 19
5.72 8.60 o-54
2.76 0.90 0.56-5.50
2 85 0.94 0.56-5.50
Dependent and Independent Variables Entered In Regression Analyses
from
each index, the factor
matrix.
These
factor scores were used to weight the standardized scores. Each index was the sum of these weighted standardized scores. The factor loadings of the variables comprising each of the relevant indexes are presented in Table 4. Stepwise regression analyses then were performed as the initial regression procedure. Finally, standard regression analyses were performed including only significant variables from the stepwise procedures. REGRESSION
2.57 0.86 0.88-5.13
and factor scores were
correlation
ANALYSES USING DATA FROM ALL SUBJECTS
Six separate regressions were run using data provided by all 427 nursing education administrators, with the mentoring relationships variable entered as a
LEVEL OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT
4.
TABLE
165
AND MENTORING
Factor Loadings of Variables Comprising Indexes
TABLE
Factor Loading
Factor Variables LCD index Number of publications Number of grants recerved Number of years in national and/or international leadership positions Rank Annual Income Work commitment index Willingness to work hard Self-motivatron Willingness to take rusks Acceptance of extra responsibility Opportunity preparedness index Educational preparatron Ability to relocate Work experrence Situational factors index Area of residence Affirmative action policies Scholarly difficulty index Drfficulty gettiing published Difficulty getting grants Work constraints index Lack of support from superiors Lack of support from colleagues Employment discrimination Lack of opportunity to participate on policy-making university committees
5.
Standard Regression Coefficients Relating LCD Index to Independent Variables LCD Index
Independent Variable 0.83837 0.66470 0.78108 0.58062 0.84989 0.81198 0 78938 0 66829 0.50932 0 75518 0 65046 0.54943 0.76517 0 52136 0 80970
Highest degree earned Number of years since completion of hrghest degree Number of years as full-time academic administrator Scholarly difficulty Index Work commitment index Mentonng relationships Number of months of nonemployment Number of children Type of rnstitutron where highest degree was earned
Beta
P
0.65
0000
0.43
.oooo
0.15 _-0.13 0.10 010
.0002 .0002 0022 0023
_-0.10 0.10
0034 .0046
_ 0.09
0061
NOTE R’ = 0.59, adjusted R’ = 0 58, standard error = 0 68.
Individual Variables Comprising Level of Career Development Index as Dependent Variables
0 76767 0 74857 0.67174 0 57143 0.51845
Five additional tionships between
regression analyses examined relaindependent variables and each of
the five LCD variables. Results gression analyses are presented cussed in the following
of these standard rein Table 6 and dis-
sections.
Number of publications.
dummy
variable
(0 =
yes,
1 =
no).
In the first
regression analysis, the LCD index score was identified as the dependent variable. In the remaming regression analyses, the five individual variables comprising the LCD index were the dependent variables.
Level of Career Development Index as the Dependent Variable
Each of the independent variables listed in Table 5 contributed significantly (P < .Ol) to prediction of the dependent variable, LCD. Taken together, scores on nine independent variables predicted 59 per cent (58 per cent adjusted) development scores.
of the variance in level of career In order of importance these
were: highest degree earned, number of years since completion of the highest degree, number of years in full-time academic administrative positions, the scholarly difficulty index, the work commitment index, mentoring relationships, number of months of nonemployment, number of children, and type of institution where highest degree was earned (Carnegie classification).
ber of publications,
Of the varjability in num4 1 per cent (40 per cent adjusted)
could
by scores on seven
be predicted
independent
variables. Listed in order of importance, these were: highest degree earned, number of years since completion of highest
degree,
mentoring
relationships,
scholarly difficulty index, type of institution highest degree was earned, age, and number dren. Each of these contributed significantly
the
where of chil(P <
.05) to the prediction of number of publications. Nzlmber of grants. Of the variability in the number of grants received, 28 per cent (27 per cent adjusted) could be predicted by scores on seven independent variables. Listed in order of importance, these were: highest degree earned, number of years since completion of highest degree, academic administrator,
number of years as full-time the work constraints index,
the work commitment index, spousal support for entering academic administration, and the situational factors index. Each of these contributed significantly (P < .O5) to the prediction of number of grants received. Number of years sewed in national andlor international leadership positions.
Of the variability in number of years served in national and/or international leadership positions, 28 per cent (27 per cent adjusted)
166
RAWL AND PETERSON
TABLE
6.
Standard Regression Coefficients Independent Variables
Relating
individual
Variables
of the LCD Index to
Beta No. of Years in National
Independent Variable
No of Publications
Highest degree earned No. of years since completion of highest degree Mentoring relationships Scholarly difficulty index Type of institution where highest degree was earned
Income
0.46$
0.42$
0 581)
0 37$ 0.17$ -0.12t
0 25+
0.39*
0.14*
0.36$
- 0.09*
12t 12” 0.11’
- 0.13t
- 0.09*
0.14$ 0 15t
0.16t
0.13t
0.15t
0.14t -0.12* -0.11’
0.41 0.40 0.37
Adjusted R’ Standard error
t= *=
Rank
0.36$
0 1st 0 17* 0.14t
R”
l=
AnlWal
LeadershIp
0 68$
-0 -0
Age No. of children No. of years as full-time academic administrator Work constraints index Work commitment index Spousal support for entering academic administration Situational factors index No. of months of nonemployment No. of years as full-time faculty Opportunity preparedness index
and/or
lnternatwnal
0 28 0 27 0.31
-0.14t 0.27$ -0.10*
0.28 0 27 0 45
0.44 0 42 0 76
0.44 0.43 1.26
P < .05 P< 01. P < ,001.
could be predicted by scores on four independent variables. Listed in order of importance, these were: highest degree earned, number of years since completion of highest degree, the work commitment index, and number of months of nonemployment. Each of these variables prediction ternational Rank.
contributed of number
significantly (P < .05) to the of years in national and/or in-
leadership positions. Of the variability in rank, 44 per cent (42
degree earned,
number
of years since completion
of
highest degree, the work commitment index, and the type of institution where the highest degree was earned. Each of these contributed significantly (P < .05) to the prediction of annual income. REGRESSION
ANALYSES:
MENTORED
SUBJECTS
ONLY
per cent adjusted) could be predicted by scores on nine independent variables. Listed in order of importance,
The same procedures were used to perform additional regression analyses using data provided by those nursing education administrators who reported hav-
these were: highest
ing had at least one mentoring
degree earned,
number
of years as
full-time faculty, number of years as full-time academic administrator, number of months of nonemployment, number of children, number of years since completion of highest degree, type of institution where highest degree was earned, the opportunity preparedness index, and the scholarly difficulty index. Each of these contributed significantly (P < .05) to the prediction of rank, with the exception of the scholarly Annual
difficulty income.
index (P = .05). Of the variability
in annual
in-
come, 44 per cent (43 per cent adjusted) could be predicted by scores on five independent variables. Listed in order of importance, these were: highest
relationship
(n
=
290). These separate analyses explored whether specific factors underlying the mentorship relationships variables were predictive of level of career development. Five separate regression analyses were performed using data from the 290 mentored administrators. In these analyses, the dependent variables were the five individual variables comprising the LCD index: number of publications, number of grants, number of years in national and/or international leadership positions, rank, and annual income. Results of these analyses are summarized in Table 7. The usefulness and satisfaction index of the mentoring relationship con-
LEVEL OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT
TABLE
7.
167
AND MENTORING
Standard Regression Coefficients Relating Individual Independent Variables for Mentored Subjects
of the LCD
Variables
Index to
Beta No of Years
of
National and/or
Independent Variable
No. of Publicabons
Highest degree earned No of years since completion of highest degree Nonmodifiable factors index Type of institution where highest degree was earned Situational factors index Usefulness/satisfaction of mentoring relationship index Work constraints Index Spousal support for entering nursing No. of years as full-time academic administrator No. of months of nonemployment Work commitment index No of years as full-time faculty Age Scholarly difficulty index Spousal support for entering
-0 -0
No. of Grants
International Leadership
0.65$
0.38+
0.42$
0 33* 0 17t
0 25t 0 22t
0.35*
15t 15’
Rank
Annual Income
0.25$
0.56$ 0 35*
-0.15”
0 14* 0 1st 0.13’ 0.21t
0 13 -0.15* 0 14’ 0.32$ 0.18” -0.13’
0.15t
academia 0 45 0.43 0.36
R’ Adfusted /?’ Standard error
0.29 0.27 0.31
0 26 0 24 0 46
0.35 0.34 0 79
0.45 0.43 1.26
*= P < .05 t= P < .Ol *= P < ,001
tributed significantly (P < .05) to the prediction total number of publications.
of
Discussion Differences subjects allowing
between
mentored
and
nonmentored
were explored primarily for the purpose of comparisons with other studies on mentor-
ing. Significant differences between mentored and nonmentored subjects were found on total number of publications, having had a grant funded, and LCD index scores. Many other studies of mentoring have reported similar findings when comparing mentored and nonmentored groups and have attributed such differences to the mentoring condition. It is important to note, however, that the mentored and nonmentored subjects in this study were significantly different from one another on two variables: age and highest degree earned (P < .Ol). Mentored subjects were younger and a greater number of them held doctorates than the nonmentored subjects. This difference in highest degree earned is important in that it would presumably have some influence on the observed differences in publications and grantsmanship.
Of the variance
in level
of career
development
scores, 59 per cent was explained by nine variables. These included highest degree earned, number of years since completion of the highest degree, number of years of experience as a full-time academic administrator,
the scholarly
difficulty
index,
the work com-
mitment index, having had a mentoring reiationship, number of months of nonemployment, number of children, and the type of institution where the highest degree was earned. More specifically, level of career development scores were positively related to the number of years since completion of the highest degree, the number of years of experience as a full-time academic administrator, the work commitment index, having had a mentor, and number of children. The work commitment index was comprised of four variables: willingness to work hard, self-motivation, willingness to take risks, and acceptance of extra responsibility. Subjects rated these variables highly in terms of the degree of positive influence they had on their level of career development. Conversely, level of career development scores were negatively related to the scholarly difficulty index, the
168
RAWL AND PETERSON
number
of months
institution negie
of nonemployment,
where the highest
classification).
The
scholarly
score was based on subjects’ negative
influence
ratings
two variables
career development:
difficulty
getting
grants.
Other
studies
are consistent
ber of children varied inversely directly
Bird (1984). demic
index
of the degree of
had on their level of
with
articles and
these findings,
of the influence
and type of institution
degree was earned. varied
difficulty
publishing
difficulty
except for two: the directions
and the type of
degree was earned (Car-
In this study,
of num-
where highest
number
of children
with level of career development; in the research
Buchanan
(1984),
career development
of Palley
(1978)
in her study
of nurses,
and that
personal characteristics, including number of children, were not critical predictors of career success. She stated that nurse educators “had learned to effectively juggle
homemaking
sponsibilities”
and parenting
with
career
(p. 14 1). The present findings
higher
re-
are con-
only those who had already
achieved
levels of career development.
For these subjects,
the level of career development
achieved
was significantly
higher
mentor.
For the mentored
subjects
gators evaluated
the contributions
if the subject only,
of the subjects’ mentoring
predicting
level of career development.
the usefulness nificantly
and satisfaction
to the prediction In other words,
frequency
relationships
of total number
provided
the higher
This finding
supports
sig-
of publi-
the variety
and
by the mentor
and
the greater the degree of satisfaction relationship,
in
Specifically,
index contributed
the greater
of assistance
had a
the investi-
of each of the three
dimensions
cations. it
of aca-
reported
than studying
with the personal
the number
of publications.
Queralt’s
(198 1) hypothesis
that significant defining characteristics of a mentorship are high quality in terms of usefulness of the assistance received and satisfaction with the personal relationship. Also supported in this study were the results of McNeer (1981),
who found that several vari-
sistent with Buchanan’s in that number of children influenced level of career development positively rather than negatively. This conclusion also was sup-
ables appeared to influence the success of women administrators’ mentoring relationships. These factors were the relationship itself (attitudes of the partici-
ported
pants,
by subjects’
positively
influenced
perceptions
of factors
career development.
that
had
Several sub-
jects reported that their children had been an important positive influence on their careers. Many investigators have reported a positive relationship between the prestige of the institution where the highest productivity
degree is earned and subsequent (Buchanan,
1984; Cameron
of institution
where
the
highest
and willingness
to
terms of the protege’s environment.
career and the organizational
research
and Black-
burn, 1981; McGinnis and Long, 1980; Reskin, 1979). In this study, the relationship between the type
their needs, characteristics,
help), the kinds of help requested and received and its impact, and the timing of the experience both in
degree
An active, involved, helpful mentor can make a difference in career development.
was
earned and level of career development was negative. A possible explanation for this unexpected finding
Although
having
had a mentor
did contribute
to
degree of variance on this variable An alternative explanation may be classification used was compiled in less accurate today. Since the mean
the prediction of the level of career development of these administrators, it was less predictive than four other factors: educational preparation at the doctoral level early in one’s career, appropriate work experi-
number of years since completing the highest degree was 10, it was decided that this classification scheme was appropriate. However, this could be considered a limitation of the study. Another limitation of this study relates to the Model of Career Development in Academic Administration. It is likely that other variables important to
ence, a strong work commitment, and the degree of scholarly difficulty. These findings suggest that although mentoring may be a critical factor in the ca-
may be the small for these subjects. that the Carnegie 1976 and may be
career development have not been included in the model and therefore were not explored. The inclusion of subjects who held the master’s degree as their highest degree may be considered a limitation. However, one intent of this study was to examine individuals at different points in their career development, rather
reer development of nursing education administrators, it will not open doors to an administrative career for those who lack the appropriate educational background
and skills gained
from experience.
Recommendations The findings of this study suggest certain recommendations for those interested in pursuing careers in nursing education administration. An active, involved, helpful mentor can make a difference in career
LEVEL OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT
development. toring
From the descriptive
relationships
administrators,
experienced
differently.
tors may be desirable various
points proteges
contributed ing education Mentoring,
early
to serve different
who provided
findings
at
indi-
specific assistance by activities
may have
most to the career development
of nurs-
although
important,
in one’s career
educational
base. Obtaining results
back-
Higher
can be achieved and grantsmanship
of
levels of
when skills reare learned and
fostered. A strong work commitment also is needed. In short, if highly motivated, career-oriented, educated
individuals
seek out
mentors
they
What
was not clear in this study
for the doctoral
is the possible
would
able in predicting
and obtaining
the doc-
relationship
served as
degree.
If so, the mentor-
be an even more critical
of this interaction
significant
difference
was supported
between
the number
degree and doctorally
prepared
mentored
(2) the number
(P < .Ol);
the onset of their graduate
position, having
vari-
level of career development.
possibility
study
subjects
mentoring
and during
ie, before the doctorate; between
had a mentor
The
by (1) the of master’s
who had been of subjects
re-
relationship
as
their
first faculty
and (3) the signif-
highest
degree
earned
and
.15, P < .OOl). Further
(Y =
research is needed to investigate
the importance
of the
timing of the mentoring relationship and the interaction between having a mentor and pursuing a higher degree.
can learn
from, they can anticipate high levels of career development in academic administration.
mentoring
the mentoring
ing relationship
icant correlation
a doctorate
in the achievement
levels of career development.
career development lated to publishing
an impetus
during
was less impor-
the appropriate
between
Perhaps
porting
administrators.
and experiential
higher
and men-
functions
These
with publication
tant than obtaining ground
multiple
interaction torate.
education
function
As a result,
in one’s career.
cated that mentors helping
data on the men-
by nursing
it is clear that mentors
assist proteges
169
AND MENTORING
Acknowledgment Special tions.
thanks
to all study
participants
for their contribu-
References Bird, G. (1984). Family and career characteristics of women and men college and university administrators. Journal
of the National Association of Women Deans, Adminis-
trators and Counselors,
4 7,
2 l-28.
Buchanan, C. (1984). An investigation and analysis of the prevalence and effect of sponsorship in the academic career development of nurses. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3556A. (University Microfilms No. 8502775) Cameron, S., & Blackburn, R. (198 1). Sponsorship and academic career success. Journal of Higher Education, 52(4), 369-377.
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. ( 1976). A classification of institutions of higher education. Berkeley: Author. Felton, G. (1978). On women, networks, patronage and sponsorship. Image, 10, 59. Leininger, M. (1974). The leadership crisis in nursing: Critical problem and challenge. Journal of Nursing Administration, 4,
28-34.
McGinnis,
R.,
Mentors have conse-
& Long, J. (1980).
quences and reap returns in academic biochemistry. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 193 082).
McNeer, E. (1983). Two opportunities
for mentoring:
A
study of women’s career development in higher education administration. Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators
Merriam,
and Counselors, 47,
8- 14.
S. (1983). Mentors and proteges:
review of the literature.
Adult
Education
A critical
Quarterly,
33(3),
161-173.
Olson,
R. (1984).
An investigation
of the selection
pro-
cess of mentor-protege relationships among female nurse educators in college and university settings in the midwest. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2259B. (University Microfilms No. 8520 130). Palley, M. (1978). Women as academic administrators in the age of affirmative action. Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors,
42, 3-9. Primus, B. (1984). Mentor-protege relationships among black professionals in selected allied health occupations: Effects on personnel development. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2404A. Queralt, M. (1981). The role of the mentor in career development of university faculty members and academic administrators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43,
693A. (University Microfilms No. 820 1424) Reskin, B. (1979). Academic sponsorship and scientists’ careers. Sociology of Education, 52(7), 129-146. Shapiro, E., Haseltine, F., & Rowe, M. (1978). Moving up: Role models, Management
mentors
Review, 19,
and the patron
system.
Sloan
5 l-58.
Spengler, C. (1982). Mentor-protege relationships: A study of career development among female nurse doctorates. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2 113B. (University Microfilms No. 8326808). Vance, C. (1977). A group profile of contemporary influentials in American nursing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 4734B. (University Microfilms No. 7804472). White, J. (1988). The perceived role of mencoring in the career development and success of academic nurseadministrators. Journal of Professional Nursing, 4, 17% 185.
SUSAN
Education Administrators: Level of Career Development and Mentoring M.
RAWL,
RN,
PHD* AND LEONA M. PETERSON, RN,
The focus of this study was to analyze the influence of mentoring on the level of career development of nursing education administrators. Other variables that may influence the level of career development of nursing education administrators also were examined. These included early life influences, academic preparation, supporting factors, constraining factors, and career stage. Relationships among these variables are depicted in the conceptual Model of Career Development in Academic Administration. Survey research methods were used in this correlational, retrospective study. A questionnaire developed by the investigators was mailed to a randomly selected national sample of 600 nursing education administrators in National League for Nursing-accredited baccalaureate and higher degree programs. A response rate of 71 per cent yielded 427 completed questionnaires. Multiple regression techniques were used to examine the relationships between dependent variables and independent varlables in the conceptual model. Nine variables explained 59 per cent of the variance in level of career development scores. This variance was explained by highest degree earned, number of years since completion of the highest degree, number of years as an academic administrator, the scholarly difficulty index, the work commitment index, mentoring relationships, number of months of nonemployment, number of children, and type of institutlon where highest degree was earned. Mentoring contributed significantly to the prediction of level of career development of nursing education administrators and therefore should be encouraged and fostered. (Index words: Career development; Leadership; Mentoring; Nursing education administration) J Prof Nurs 8:161-169, Saunders Company
1992. Copyright 0 7992 by W.6.
of Professional
the leadership
lem and challenge made several tion.
facing
(1974)
the profession.
recommendations
preparation Since
then
been developed
to rectify
Leininger the situathe edu-
of nurses for administrative many
educational
to prepare
posi-
programs
have
nurses at both the master’s
degree and doctoral levels for various leadership However,
cited
as a major prob-
Most dealt with the need to improve
cational tions.
Leininger
crisis in nursing
educational
preparation
posts.
is only one process
critical to the nurse administrator’s professional velopment. Another process that may contribute the career development
of nursing
education
deto
admin-
istrators is the mentor relationship. The contribution that mentoring relationships may make to the career development of nursing one focus of this study. Mentorship,
education
in the broadest
administrators
was
sense, is the process by
which an older, wiser, and more experienced person guides and nurtures a younger one. This phenomenon is not new: Men have used such informal support systems for centuries. According to Shapiro, Haseltine, and Rowe (1978), in any profession
women
who want to succeed
need a system of mentors
and spon-
sors for career development. Felton (1978) suggested that the reason for the paucity of women in leadership positions was that “women often lack mentors or sponsors who can be instrumental in preparation for and introduction
to established
mote career progress,
advancement,
networks
that
pro-
and success” (p.
59). Researchers of mentoring in nursing have reported that subjects perceived their mentoring relationships as having positively influenced their career develop-
*Associate Professor, Department of Nursing, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, IN. tAssociate Professor, Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago. Supported in part by Sigma Theta Tau International, Alpha Lambda Chapter; the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago; and Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, IN. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Rawl: Department of Nursing, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, IN 46323. Copyright 0 1992 by W.B. Saunders Company 8755-7223/92/0803-0008$03.00/O
Journal
0
VER 15 YEARS AGO,
PHD”~
Nursing,
Vol 8, No 3 (May-June),
ment (Olson, 1984; Spengler, 1982; Vance, 1977; White, 1988). Other investigators have recommended controlled studies of the influence of mentoring on more objective career development criteria such as salary levels (Merriam, 1983; Primus, 1984). In an extensive review of the literature, Merriam (1983) cited several criticisms of the research on mentoring: The phenomenon of mentoring has been neither clearly nor consistently defined, researchers have 1992: pp 161-169
161
162
RAWL AND PETERSON
employed
relatively
and analysis torship
unsophisticated
techniques,
research
and the literature
design on men-
has been biased in favor of the phenomenon.
In light of Merriam’s
(1983) criticisms,
the purpose
of this study was to analyze the influence ships
on career
other
factors
ment.
development
considered
Additionally,
while
relevant
mentored explored opment
nursing
education
are depicted in Academic
for
to career develop-
the investigators
levels of career development
of mentor-
controlling compared
of mentored administrators.
the
and nonVariables
in the Model of Career DevelAdministration
(Fig I).
Figuve 1.
Model of Career Development
in Academic Ad-
ministration.
Conceptual Framework The conceptual
Model
rank,
of Career Development
in
was the result of a review of
2. Early
the literature pertaining to career development in academia, women in higher education administration,
found ment, cation
Academic
Administration
and mentoring. Queralt (198 1) formulated a conceptual model for examination of academic mentorships based on her comprehensive
study
of 287 randomly
selected faculty and administrators from Florida’s public universities. Queralt concluded that mentored subjects showed significantly higher levels of career development knowledged
than nonmentored
subjects,
the possible confounding
lack of control
of certain
but she ac-
of results due to
variables.
. . . menfored subjects showed significantly higher levels of career development than nonmentored subjects . . .
Queralt (1981) argued that it may not be mentorship alone that accounts for the higher levels of career development, but that selection may confound the issue. More promising individuals may be more successful in attaining a desired mentor or may be more frequently chosen to be mentored. It is important, therefore, to control for variables relevant to both career development and to rhe issue of selection.
Definitions of Variables in the Model 1. Level of career development
(LCD): an index obtained by combining weighted scores on five variables: number of publications, number of grants received, number of years served in national or international leadership posts,
and annual
activities
income
(including
life influences: to be associated such as parental and significant
ward a strong
from professional
salary). early
life experiences
with career developoccupation and eduothers’ influence to-
career orientation.
preparation: highest degree 3. Academic tained, type of institution where highest
atde-
gree was earned (Carnegie classification) and number of years since completion of the highest degree; Carnegie classification categorizes colleges and universities
on the basis
of level of degrees offered, comprehensiveness of the mission, and federal grant support received.
4. Mentoring
relationships: the quality and amount of mentoring experienced over the career; characteristics of the most important mentoring
experience
include
origin
and du-
ration of the mentorship, career stage of the protege and mentor, degree of identification between mentor and protege, usefulness of the mentorship.
and functional
5. Supporting positive
factors: subjects’ perceptions influences on career development
of in-
cluding spousal occupation and support for career decisions, professional involvement, strong work commitment, opportuniry preparedness, affirmative action policies, area of residence, and personal qualities.
6. Constraining
factors: subjects’ perceptions of negative influences on career development including lack of personal support for career decisions, family obligations, work-related constraints, and perceived degree of scholarly difficulty.
7. Career
stage:
the current
stage
of subjects’
163
LEVEL OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND MENTORING
careers
(age and
level
experi-
of academic
ence).
Methods
ing in a 7 1.2 per cent response
rate. All participants
were assured of confidentiality
of responses.
Institu-
tional
of the study
was ob-
Review
Board approval
tained. In initial
SAMPLE
data analyses,
for distribution The target
population
ministrators League
was nursing
at all administrative
for Nursing
and higher
degree
(NLN)-accredited programs.
tors in each academic higher
baccalaureate
Letters
requesting
education
the
administra-
unit were sent to the top nurse
of NLN-accredited
degree
ad-
levels in National
names and titles of all nursing administrators
education
programs
baccalaureate
and
Responses
from
(n = 485).
414 (85.9 per cent) programs
yielded
a total of 1147
names, from which 600 subjects were randomly selected. The sample demographics are presented in Table 1. INSTRUMENTATION,
A 5%item
DATA COLLECTION,
mailed
questionnaire
AND ANALYSES
elicited
informa-
tion on career development, aspirations, mentoring experiences, and demographic data. The questionnaire was reviewed for content validity and clarity by a panel of five nursing education administrators, and it was pilot-tested with 15 randomly selected administrators not included in the final sample. A total of 427 completed questionnaires were returned, result-
TABLE
1.
Sample
Demographics
data,
characteristics.
frequencies
were run;
ables, univariate
statistics
was examined
For all categorical
on all continuous
were obtained.
vari-
For replies
to multiple-response
items, factor analysis was used so
that
in question
the
weighted
variables
factor scores were obtained able.
could
for use in later analyses.
For each of these indexes,
were examined
be properly
For each factor,
and were used as weights
to create indexes of standardized so that problems
scores on each varicorrelation
matrices
with multicollinear-
ity could be identified and addressed. Finally, the variables in the model were analyzed via regression to explore their relationships to one another. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability of questionnaire items measuring level of career development and mentoring relationships. Alphas obtained were Y = 0.66 and r = 0.93,
respectively.
Findings LCD was an index comprised
of scores on five vari-
ables: total number of publications, total number of grants received, total number of years in national and/
(n = 427) n
%
Female Male Marital status
419 7
98.1 1.6
Married Srngle Race
256 169
60 0 39 5
White African Amerrcan Asian Amerrcan Hispanic Highest degree Doctorate Master’s Current position
396 19 5 4
92.7 4.4 12 0.9
317 109
74.2 25 5
64 83 133 10 82 11 44
150 19.5 31 1 2.3 192 2.6 10.3
Variable
each variable
Mean
SD
Range
49.95 1570 7.08 4.42 9.95
7.69 6.72 6 02 3.70 6.68
32-70 o-37 O-30 l-20 o-35
Gender
Dean Assistant/associate dean Department head/chair Assistantiassociate head or chair Program/center director/coordinator Assistant/associate director Other Age Years Years Years Years
as faculty member as academic administrator in current position since completion of highest degree
164
RAWL AND PETERSON
or international and annual
leadership
A significant
difference
tween mentored tal number averaging
positions,
academic
rank,
(P < .OO 1) was found be-
and nonmentored
of publications,
tored subjects’
subjects
with
10.6 publications
to specific
compared
subjects
with nonmen-
average of 5.7 (Table 2). With
types
professional
on the to-
mentored
of publications, number
journals,
those edited),
number
regard
significant
ences (P < .05) were found on number of books
of chapters
differ-
of articles
in
(excluding
in books, and num-
ber of book reviews published. Significant
differences
also were found on whether
any grants had ever been funded (P < .05) and on the number
3.
TABLE
income.
of competitive
grants
over $500,000
(P <
.05). The LCD index scores were computed by summing the weighted standardized scores on each of the five variables described above. The difference in LCD mean scores between mentored and nonmentored subjects also was significant
(P < .Ol). Since number
publications
had a grant
and having
funded
of
were the
only two variables where significant differences were found between mentored and nonmentored administrators, it may be presumed that these variables are primarily responsible for the significant difference observed between
these groups
on the LCD scores.
No significant differences were found between mentored and nonmentored subjects on total number of grants received, average number of years served in national and/or international leadership positions, rank, and annual income. The variables entered into the regression
analyses
are shown in Table 3. Variables entered as indexes and those entered individually are identified. Each index (or factor scale) was constructed using a factor-analytic approach. Separate factor analyses were run on all vari-
Dependent variables Number of publications Number of grants received Number of years in national and/or international leadership posts Rank Annual income LCD index Independent variables Early life influences Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social Position Significant other support for career orientation Academic preparation Highest degree earned Type of institution awarding highest degree Number of years since completion of degree Career stage Number of years as full-time faculty Age Number of years as full-time academic administrator Supporting factors Spousal occupation Strong work commitment index Professional involvement index Opportunity preparedness Index Nonmodifiable factors index Situational and contextual factor index Spousal support for career decision to enter nursing, academia, or administration Constraining factors Number of months of nonemployment Lack of personal support index Work-related constraints index Number of children Family obligations index Scholarly difficulty index Mentorlng relationships Timing index Satisfaction and usefulness index Similarity index
ables comprising obtained
TABLE
2.
Variable Number of publications* Mean SD Range LCD index? Mean SD Range “P < ,001. tf < .Ol.
Mentored and Nonmentored Administrators: Publications LCD Index
and
All Subjects (n = 427)
Mentored Subjects (n = 290)
Nonmentored Subjects (n = 137)
9.05 13.20 o-119
10.64 14.70 o-1 19
5.72 8.60 o-54
2.76 0.90 0.56-5.50
2 85 0.94 0.56-5.50
Dependent and Independent Variables Entered In Regression Analyses
from
each index, the factor
matrix.
These
factor scores were used to weight the standardized scores. Each index was the sum of these weighted standardized scores. The factor loadings of the variables comprising each of the relevant indexes are presented in Table 4. Stepwise regression analyses then were performed as the initial regression procedure. Finally, standard regression analyses were performed including only significant variables from the stepwise procedures. REGRESSION
2.57 0.86 0.88-5.13
and factor scores were
correlation
ANALYSES USING DATA FROM ALL SUBJECTS
Six separate regressions were run using data provided by all 427 nursing education administrators, with the mentoring relationships variable entered as a
LEVEL OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT
4.
TABLE
165
AND MENTORING
Factor Loadings of Variables Comprising Indexes
TABLE
Factor Loading
Factor Variables LCD index Number of publications Number of grants recerved Number of years in national and/or international leadership positions Rank Annual Income Work commitment index Willingness to work hard Self-motivatron Willingness to take rusks Acceptance of extra responsibility Opportunity preparedness index Educational preparatron Ability to relocate Work experrence Situational factors index Area of residence Affirmative action policies Scholarly difficulty index Drfficulty gettiing published Difficulty getting grants Work constraints index Lack of support from superiors Lack of support from colleagues Employment discrimination Lack of opportunity to participate on policy-making university committees
5.
Standard Regression Coefficients Relating LCD Index to Independent Variables LCD Index
Independent Variable 0.83837 0.66470 0.78108 0.58062 0.84989 0.81198 0 78938 0 66829 0.50932 0 75518 0 65046 0.54943 0.76517 0 52136 0 80970
Highest degree earned Number of years since completion of hrghest degree Number of years as full-time academic administrator Scholarly difficulty Index Work commitment index Mentonng relationships Number of months of nonemployment Number of children Type of rnstitutron where highest degree was earned
Beta
P
0.65
0000
0.43
.oooo
0.15 _-0.13 0.10 010
.0002 .0002 0022 0023
_-0.10 0.10
0034 .0046
_ 0.09
0061
NOTE R’ = 0.59, adjusted R’ = 0 58, standard error = 0 68.
Individual Variables Comprising Level of Career Development Index as Dependent Variables
0 76767 0 74857 0.67174 0 57143 0.51845
Five additional tionships between
regression analyses examined relaindependent variables and each of
the five LCD variables. Results gression analyses are presented cussed in the following
of these standard rein Table 6 and dis-
sections.
Number of publications.
dummy
variable
(0 =
yes,
1 =
no).
In the first
regression analysis, the LCD index score was identified as the dependent variable. In the remaming regression analyses, the five individual variables comprising the LCD index were the dependent variables.
Level of Career Development Index as the Dependent Variable
Each of the independent variables listed in Table 5 contributed significantly (P < .Ol) to prediction of the dependent variable, LCD. Taken together, scores on nine independent variables predicted 59 per cent (58 per cent adjusted) development scores.
of the variance in level of career In order of importance these
were: highest degree earned, number of years since completion of the highest degree, number of years in full-time academic administrative positions, the scholarly difficulty index, the work commitment index, mentoring relationships, number of months of nonemployment, number of children, and type of institution where highest degree was earned (Carnegie classification).
ber of publications,
Of the varjability in num4 1 per cent (40 per cent adjusted)
could
by scores on seven
be predicted
independent
variables. Listed in order of importance, these were: highest degree earned, number of years since completion of highest
degree,
mentoring
relationships,
scholarly difficulty index, type of institution highest degree was earned, age, and number dren. Each of these contributed significantly
the
where of chil(P <
.05) to the prediction of number of publications. Nzlmber of grants. Of the variability in the number of grants received, 28 per cent (27 per cent adjusted) could be predicted by scores on seven independent variables. Listed in order of importance, these were: highest degree earned, number of years since completion of highest degree, academic administrator,
number of years as full-time the work constraints index,
the work commitment index, spousal support for entering academic administration, and the situational factors index. Each of these contributed significantly (P < .O5) to the prediction of number of grants received. Number of years sewed in national andlor international leadership positions.
Of the variability in number of years served in national and/or international leadership positions, 28 per cent (27 per cent adjusted)
166
RAWL AND PETERSON
TABLE
6.
Standard Regression Coefficients Independent Variables
Relating
individual
Variables
of the LCD Index to
Beta No. of Years in National
Independent Variable
No of Publications
Highest degree earned No. of years since completion of highest degree Mentoring relationships Scholarly difficulty index Type of institution where highest degree was earned
Income
0.46$
0.42$
0 581)
0 37$ 0.17$ -0.12t
0 25+
0.39*
0.14*
0.36$
- 0.09*
12t 12” 0.11’
- 0.13t
- 0.09*
0.14$ 0 15t
0.16t
0.13t
0.15t
0.14t -0.12* -0.11’
0.41 0.40 0.37
Adjusted R’ Standard error
t= *=
Rank
0.36$
0 1st 0 17* 0.14t
R”
l=
AnlWal
LeadershIp
0 68$
-0 -0
Age No. of children No. of years as full-time academic administrator Work constraints index Work commitment index Spousal support for entering academic administration Situational factors index No. of months of nonemployment No. of years as full-time faculty Opportunity preparedness index
and/or
lnternatwnal
0 28 0 27 0.31
-0.14t 0.27$ -0.10*
0.28 0 27 0 45
0.44 0 42 0 76
0.44 0.43 1.26
P < .05 P< 01. P < ,001.
could be predicted by scores on four independent variables. Listed in order of importance, these were: highest degree earned, number of years since completion of highest degree, the work commitment index, and number of months of nonemployment. Each of these variables prediction ternational Rank.
contributed of number
significantly (P < .05) to the of years in national and/or in-
leadership positions. Of the variability in rank, 44 per cent (42
degree earned,
number
of years since completion
of
highest degree, the work commitment index, and the type of institution where the highest degree was earned. Each of these contributed significantly (P < .05) to the prediction of annual income. REGRESSION
ANALYSES:
MENTORED
SUBJECTS
ONLY
per cent adjusted) could be predicted by scores on nine independent variables. Listed in order of importance,
The same procedures were used to perform additional regression analyses using data provided by those nursing education administrators who reported hav-
these were: highest
ing had at least one mentoring
degree earned,
number
of years as
full-time faculty, number of years as full-time academic administrator, number of months of nonemployment, number of children, number of years since completion of highest degree, type of institution where highest degree was earned, the opportunity preparedness index, and the scholarly difficulty index. Each of these contributed significantly (P < .05) to the prediction of rank, with the exception of the scholarly Annual
difficulty income.
index (P = .05). Of the variability
in annual
in-
come, 44 per cent (43 per cent adjusted) could be predicted by scores on five independent variables. Listed in order of importance, these were: highest
relationship
(n
=
290). These separate analyses explored whether specific factors underlying the mentorship relationships variables were predictive of level of career development. Five separate regression analyses were performed using data from the 290 mentored administrators. In these analyses, the dependent variables were the five individual variables comprising the LCD index: number of publications, number of grants, number of years in national and/or international leadership positions, rank, and annual income. Results of these analyses are summarized in Table 7. The usefulness and satisfaction index of the mentoring relationship con-
LEVEL OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT
TABLE
7.
167
AND MENTORING
Standard Regression Coefficients Relating Individual Independent Variables for Mentored Subjects
of the LCD
Variables
Index to
Beta No of Years
of
National and/or
Independent Variable
No. of Publicabons
Highest degree earned No of years since completion of highest degree Nonmodifiable factors index Type of institution where highest degree was earned Situational factors index Usefulness/satisfaction of mentoring relationship index Work constraints Index Spousal support for entering nursing No. of years as full-time academic administrator No. of months of nonemployment Work commitment index No of years as full-time faculty Age Scholarly difficulty index Spousal support for entering
-0 -0
No. of Grants
International Leadership
0.65$
0.38+
0.42$
0 33* 0 17t
0 25t 0 22t
0.35*
15t 15’
Rank
Annual Income
0.25$
0.56$ 0 35*
-0.15”
0 14* 0 1st 0.13’ 0.21t
0 13 -0.15* 0 14’ 0.32$ 0.18” -0.13’
0.15t
academia 0 45 0.43 0.36
R’ Adfusted /?’ Standard error
0.29 0.27 0.31
0 26 0 24 0 46
0.35 0.34 0 79
0.45 0.43 1.26
*= P < .05 t= P < .Ol *= P < ,001
tributed significantly (P < .05) to the prediction total number of publications.
of
Discussion Differences subjects allowing
between
mentored
and
nonmentored
were explored primarily for the purpose of comparisons with other studies on mentor-
ing. Significant differences between mentored and nonmentored subjects were found on total number of publications, having had a grant funded, and LCD index scores. Many other studies of mentoring have reported similar findings when comparing mentored and nonmentored groups and have attributed such differences to the mentoring condition. It is important to note, however, that the mentored and nonmentored subjects in this study were significantly different from one another on two variables: age and highest degree earned (P < .Ol). Mentored subjects were younger and a greater number of them held doctorates than the nonmentored subjects. This difference in highest degree earned is important in that it would presumably have some influence on the observed differences in publications and grantsmanship.
Of the variance
in level
of career
development
scores, 59 per cent was explained by nine variables. These included highest degree earned, number of years since completion of the highest degree, number of years of experience as a full-time academic administrator,
the scholarly
difficulty
index,
the work com-
mitment index, having had a mentoring reiationship, number of months of nonemployment, number of children, and the type of institution where the highest degree was earned. More specifically, level of career development scores were positively related to the number of years since completion of the highest degree, the number of years of experience as a full-time academic administrator, the work commitment index, having had a mentor, and number of children. The work commitment index was comprised of four variables: willingness to work hard, self-motivation, willingness to take risks, and acceptance of extra responsibility. Subjects rated these variables highly in terms of the degree of positive influence they had on their level of career development. Conversely, level of career development scores were negatively related to the scholarly difficulty index, the
168
RAWL AND PETERSON
number
of months
institution negie
of nonemployment,
where the highest
classification).
The
scholarly
score was based on subjects’ negative
influence
ratings
two variables
career development:
difficulty
getting
grants.
Other
studies
are consistent
ber of children varied inversely directly
Bird (1984). demic
index
of the degree of
had on their level of
with
articles and
these findings,
of the influence
and type of institution
degree was earned. varied
difficulty
publishing
difficulty
except for two: the directions
and the type of
degree was earned (Car-
In this study,
of num-
where highest
number
of children
with level of career development; in the research
Buchanan
(1984),
career development
of Palley
(1978)
in her study
of nurses,
and that
personal characteristics, including number of children, were not critical predictors of career success. She stated that nurse educators “had learned to effectively juggle
homemaking
sponsibilities”
and parenting
with
career
(p. 14 1). The present findings
higher
re-
are con-
only those who had already
achieved
levels of career development.
For these subjects,
the level of career development
achieved
was significantly
higher
mentor.
For the mentored
subjects
gators evaluated
the contributions
if the subject only,
of the subjects’ mentoring
predicting
level of career development.
the usefulness nificantly
and satisfaction
to the prediction In other words,
frequency
relationships
of total number
provided
the higher
This finding
supports
sig-
of publi-
the variety
and
by the mentor
and
the greater the degree of satisfaction relationship,
in
Specifically,
index contributed
the greater
of assistance
had a
the investi-
of each of the three
dimensions
cations. it
of aca-
reported
than studying
with the personal
the number
of publications.
Queralt’s
(198 1) hypothesis
that significant defining characteristics of a mentorship are high quality in terms of usefulness of the assistance received and satisfaction with the personal relationship. Also supported in this study were the results of McNeer (1981),
who found that several vari-
sistent with Buchanan’s in that number of children influenced level of career development positively rather than negatively. This conclusion also was sup-
ables appeared to influence the success of women administrators’ mentoring relationships. These factors were the relationship itself (attitudes of the partici-
ported
pants,
by subjects’
positively
influenced
perceptions
of factors
career development.
that
had
Several sub-
jects reported that their children had been an important positive influence on their careers. Many investigators have reported a positive relationship between the prestige of the institution where the highest productivity
degree is earned and subsequent (Buchanan,
1984; Cameron
of institution
where
the
highest
and willingness
to
terms of the protege’s environment.
career and the organizational
research
and Black-
burn, 1981; McGinnis and Long, 1980; Reskin, 1979). In this study, the relationship between the type
their needs, characteristics,
help), the kinds of help requested and received and its impact, and the timing of the experience both in
degree
An active, involved, helpful mentor can make a difference in career development.
was
earned and level of career development was negative. A possible explanation for this unexpected finding
Although
having
had a mentor
did contribute
to
degree of variance on this variable An alternative explanation may be classification used was compiled in less accurate today. Since the mean
the prediction of the level of career development of these administrators, it was less predictive than four other factors: educational preparation at the doctoral level early in one’s career, appropriate work experi-
number of years since completing the highest degree was 10, it was decided that this classification scheme was appropriate. However, this could be considered a limitation of the study. Another limitation of this study relates to the Model of Career Development in Academic Administration. It is likely that other variables important to
ence, a strong work commitment, and the degree of scholarly difficulty. These findings suggest that although mentoring may be a critical factor in the ca-
may be the small for these subjects. that the Carnegie 1976 and may be
career development have not been included in the model and therefore were not explored. The inclusion of subjects who held the master’s degree as their highest degree may be considered a limitation. However, one intent of this study was to examine individuals at different points in their career development, rather
reer development of nursing education administrators, it will not open doors to an administrative career for those who lack the appropriate educational background
and skills gained
from experience.
Recommendations The findings of this study suggest certain recommendations for those interested in pursuing careers in nursing education administration. An active, involved, helpful mentor can make a difference in career
LEVEL OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT
development. toring
From the descriptive
relationships
administrators,
experienced
differently.
tors may be desirable various
points proteges
contributed ing education Mentoring,
early
to serve different
who provided
findings
at
indi-
specific assistance by activities
may have
most to the career development
of nurs-
although
important,
in one’s career
educational
base. Obtaining results
back-
Higher
can be achieved and grantsmanship
of
levels of
when skills reare learned and
fostered. A strong work commitment also is needed. In short, if highly motivated, career-oriented, educated
individuals
seek out
mentors
they
What
was not clear in this study
for the doctoral
is the possible
would
able in predicting
and obtaining
the doc-
relationship
served as
degree.
If so, the mentor-
be an even more critical
of this interaction
significant
difference
was supported
between
the number
degree and doctorally
prepared
mentored
(2) the number
(P < .Ol);
the onset of their graduate
position, having
vari-
level of career development.
possibility
study
subjects
mentoring
and during
ie, before the doctorate; between
had a mentor
The
by (1) the of master’s
who had been of subjects
re-
relationship
as
their
first faculty
and (3) the signif-
highest
degree
earned
and
.15, P < .OOl). Further
(Y =
research is needed to investigate
the importance
of the
timing of the mentoring relationship and the interaction between having a mentor and pursuing a higher degree.
can learn
from, they can anticipate high levels of career development in academic administration.
mentoring
the mentoring
ing relationship
icant correlation
a doctorate
in the achievement
levels of career development.
career development lated to publishing
an impetus
during
was less impor-
the appropriate
between
Perhaps
porting
administrators.
and experiential
higher
and men-
functions
These
with publication
tant than obtaining ground
multiple
interaction torate.
education
function
As a result,
in one’s career.
cated that mentors helping
data on the men-
by nursing
it is clear that mentors
assist proteges
169
AND MENTORING
Acknowledgment Special tions.
thanks
to all study
participants
for their contribu-
References Bird, G. (1984). Family and career characteristics of women and men college and university administrators. Journal
of the National Association of Women Deans, Adminis-
trators and Counselors,
4 7,
2 l-28.
Buchanan, C. (1984). An investigation and analysis of the prevalence and effect of sponsorship in the academic career development of nurses. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3556A. (University Microfilms No. 8502775) Cameron, S., & Blackburn, R. (198 1). Sponsorship and academic career success. Journal of Higher Education, 52(4), 369-377.
Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. ( 1976). A classification of institutions of higher education. Berkeley: Author. Felton, G. (1978). On women, networks, patronage and sponsorship. Image, 10, 59. Leininger, M. (1974). The leadership crisis in nursing: Critical problem and challenge. Journal of Nursing Administration, 4,
28-34.
McGinnis,
R.,
Mentors have conse-
& Long, J. (1980).
quences and reap returns in academic biochemistry. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 193 082).
McNeer, E. (1983). Two opportunities
for mentoring:
A
study of women’s career development in higher education administration. Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators
Merriam,
and Counselors, 47,
8- 14.
S. (1983). Mentors and proteges:
review of the literature.
Adult
Education
A critical
Quarterly,
33(3),
161-173.
Olson,
R. (1984).
An investigation
of the selection
pro-
cess of mentor-protege relationships among female nurse educators in college and university settings in the midwest. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2259B. (University Microfilms No. 8520 130). Palley, M. (1978). Women as academic administrators in the age of affirmative action. Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors,
42, 3-9. Primus, B. (1984). Mentor-protege relationships among black professionals in selected allied health occupations: Effects on personnel development. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2404A. Queralt, M. (1981). The role of the mentor in career development of university faculty members and academic administrators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43,
693A. (University Microfilms No. 820 1424) Reskin, B. (1979). Academic sponsorship and scientists’ careers. Sociology of Education, 52(7), 129-146. Shapiro, E., Haseltine, F., & Rowe, M. (1978). Moving up: Role models, Management
mentors
Review, 19,
and the patron
system.
Sloan
5 l-58.
Spengler, C. (1982). Mentor-protege relationships: A study of career development among female nurse doctorates. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2 113B. (University Microfilms No. 8326808). Vance, C. (1977). A group profile of contemporary influentials in American nursing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 4734B. (University Microfilms No. 7804472). White, J. (1988). The perceived role of mencoring in the career development and success of academic nurseadministrators. Journal of Professional Nursing, 4, 17% 185.