Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 06 October 2014, At: 21:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Gerontology & GeriatricsEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgge20
Mentoring New Social WorkFacultyPeter Maramaldi PhD a , Daniel Gardner MSW b ,Barbara Berkman DSW c , Kristen Ireland MA, EdM d ,Sarah D'Ambruoso BA e & Judith L. Howe PhD f g ha University of Utah College of Social Work , 395 S.1500 E., Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USAb Columbia University School of Social Work , 251West 26th Street, 4A, New York, NY, 10001-6729,USAc Hartford Geriatric Social Work Faculty ScholarsProgram, and Rehr/Fizdale Professor , ColumbiaUniversity School of Social Work , 622 West 113Street, Room 610, New York, NY, 10025, USAd Wisnik Career Enterprises, Inc. , One River Place,P2-02, New York, NY, 10036, USAe Hartford Geriatric Social Work Faculty ScholarsProgram , Columbia University School of SocialWork , 622 West 113 Street, Room 610, New York,NY, 10025, USAf Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and AdultDevelopment , Mount Sinai School of Medicine , USAg GRECC, Bronx VAMC , USAh Brookdale Department of Geriatrics Mount , SinaiSchool of Medicine , One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box1070, New York, NY, 10029, USAPublished online: 04 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Peter Maramaldi PhD , Daniel Gardner MSW , Barbara BerkmanDSW , Kristen Ireland MA, EdM , Sarah D'Ambruoso BA & Judith L. Howe PhD (2004)
Mentoring New Social Work Faculty, Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 25:1, 89-106,DOI: 10.1300/J021v25n01_06
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J021v25n01_06
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Mentoring New Social Work Faculty:A Gerontological Perspective
Peter Maramaldi, PhDDaniel Gardner, MSW
Barbara Berkman, DSWKristen Ireland, MA, EdMSarah D’Ambruoso, BA
Judith L. Howe, PhD
ABSTRACT. The John A. Hartford Foundation, in collaboration withthe Gerontological Society of America, has developed new models tocreate geriatric faculty capacity within social work. The Faculty Scholars
Peter Maramaldi is a Hartford Scholar, University of Utah College of Social Work,395 S. 1500 E., Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (E-mail: [email protected]).Daniel Gardner is a Hartford Doctoral Fellow, Columbia University School of SocialWork, 251 West 26th Street, 4A, New York, NY 10001-6729 (E-mail: [email protected]).Barbara Berkman is the National Director, Hartford Geriatric Social Work FacultyScholars Program, and Rehr/Fizdale Professor, Columbia University School of SocialWork, 622 West 113 Street, Room 610, New York, NY 10025 (E-mail: [email protected]). Kristen Ireland is the Professional Development & Recruitment Coordi-nator, Wisnik Career Enterprises, Inc., One River Place, P2-02, New York, NY 10036(E-mail: [email protected]). Sarah D’Ambruoso is the Program Coordina-tor, Hartford Geriatric Social Work Faculty Scholars Program, Columbia UniversitySchool of Social Work, 622 West 113 Street, Room 610, New York, NY 10025(E-mail: [email protected]). Judith L. Howe is Associate Professor, BrookdaleDepartment of Geriatrics and Adult Development, Mount Sinai School of Medicine,Associate Director/Education, GRECC, Bronx VAMC, Brookdale Department of Ge-riatrics Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1070, NewYork, NY 10029 (E-mail: [email protected]).
The mentoring model described in this paper was established with support from theJohn A. Hartford Foundation in New York City.
Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, Vol. 25(1) 2004http://www.haworthpress.com/web/GGE
2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J021v25n01_06 89
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Program is building faculty leadership in academic geriatric social workthrough a strategic approach that includes long-distance national and in-stitution-based mentoring. While mentoring models have proven to beeffective means of career development, this is relatively new in aca-demic social work and little is known about the impact of long-distancementoring in association with sponsorship from a mentor at the scholar’shome institution. This paper describes the mentoring model and its con-ceptual underpinnings. Evaluation data from an ongoing evaluation ispresented in discussion of the strengths and limitations of the mentoringmodel. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]>Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc.All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Mentoring, professional development, career advance-ment, diffusion of information theory
In the coming decades, the unprecedented growth in the population of olderAmericans will call for a dramatic increase in geriatric-trained health care pro-fessionals to meet the needs of older adults and their caregivers (Berkman,Silverstone, Simmons, Howe, & Volland, 2000). Since 1929, the John A. Hart-ford Foundation has been committed to fostering innovations in health care prac-tice, education, and research in order to ensure the well-being and vitality of olderadults. Through programs that enhance the training of doctors, nurses, and socialworkers who care for older adults, the foundation has helped to support the devel-opment of trained geriatric and gerontological professionals to promote innova-tions in the integration and delivery of services for all older Americans.
In 1999, the Hartford Foundation began an initiative aimed at enhancingthe need for social work educators to train practitioners to improve the healthand well-being of older adults and their families. One of the projects fundedunder this agenda is the Hartford Geriatric Social Work Faculty Scholars Pro-gram, which is administered by The Gerontological Society of America. TheFaculty Scholars Program utilizes a formal, semi-structured long-distancementoring model intended to develop new faculty scholars in research, teach-ing, and professional activities. The conceptual model for the mentoringmodel capitalizes on the recruitment and cultivation of these emerging facultyleaders to produce a groundswell of activity and position the social work pro-fession further into gerontology. Once in position, the synergistic effect of
90 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
highly trained gerontologists and geriatricians in the fields of social work,nursing, and medicine joining forces in practice, research and scholarship willresult in truly interdisciplinary innovation to improve the health and well-be-ing of aging populations and their caretakers.
BACKGROUND
In the last ten years, there has been a growing interest in faculty mentoringprograms (Danielson, 1999). Academics have long recognized the potential ofmentoring relationships to establish life-long teaching, research, and scholar-ship trajectories for new faculty members. Although the empirical literatureon mentoring is sparse, existing studies in a variety of professional programs(i.e., business, psychology, medicine, social work) suggest that mentorshipfosters professional success and career satisfaction (Bower, Diehr, Morzinski, &Simpson, 1998; Collins, 1994; Walsh, Borkowski, & Reuben, 1999), im-proved teaching and research (Wilson, Perreira, & Valentine, 2002) and thedevelopment of intramural and extramural networks (Goodwin, Stevens, &Bellamy, 1998). In addition, mentoring is thought to support the formation ofprofessional identity and the transmission of professional norms and values(Goodwin, Stevens & Bellamy, 1998; Walsh et al., 1999).
Mentoring has been defined as a helping relationship between two profes-sionals at different stages in their careers who work together to nurture the ju-nior professional’s development (Schapira, Kalet, Schwartz, & Gerrity, 1992).Although often conceptualized as a means of fostering individual advance-ment, formal mentoring programs in higher education can also enhance capac-ity in substantive areas of scholarship-such as aging. A mentoring initiative ina targeted substantive area can yield a critical mass of academic scholarshipcapable of influencing the direction of an entire professional discipline (Schuster,1993). This paper describes the national mentoring model used by the Hart-ford Geriatric Social Work Faculty Scholars Program to move social work fur-ther into gerontology, and increase the profession’s teaching, practice, researchand scholarship capacity in gerontology. We will also discuss the lessons wehave learned in the first four years of the model’s implementation.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The Faculty Scholars Program is based on the diffusion of innovation the-ory (Rogers, 1962; 1995), which suggests that innovation and knowledge are
Maramaldi et al. 91
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
best promoted by individuals who are experts and leaders in a targeted area.Used widely in health and educational contexts (Goldman, 1994; Lapinski &Witte, 1998; see Oldenburg, Sallis, French, & Owen, 1999 for a review), diffu-sion of innovation programs rely on respected and socially-integrated innova-tors to disseminate new knowledge or practices throughout the field. Thisconceptual framework is well-suited to the goals of developing increased ac-tivity in social work practice, teaching, research, and policy by enhancing ge-riatric skills among social work faculty. Although the mentoring model maybe applied to other substantive areas in social work, the sharp focus on agingcombined with the interdisciplinary nature of the professional developmentactivities and research make this program uniquely gerontological.
The Faculty Scholars Program attracts PhD level social work scholars–fromrecent graduates to 12 years post doctorate–to the field of gerontology by pro-viding opportunities for funding, mentorship, and professional development.By pairing each new or mid-career faculty members with a seasoned nationalgerontological mentors and a local institutional sponsor, the program fostersan intellectually stimulating, mutually supportive and highly connected net-work of colleagues who are committed to the generation of knowledge anddissemination in the field of aging. These scholars, in turn, will train the nextgeneration of social workers to improve the health and well-being of olderadults and their families. The program’s focus on health and well-being forcesthe new scholars–being mentored by seasoned gerontologists–to broaden theirperspectives to include multidisciplinary approaches inherent to the field, andthus gerontological education and training.
Traditional models of mentoring often rely on hierarchical arrangementsthat can exacerbate existing power disparities (Beech & Brockbank, 1999). Inacademia and elsewhere, mentoring networks may serve to limit opportuni-ties, in particular for those, such as women and people of color, who have his-torically been marginalized from established networks (Bauer, 1999; Richey,Gambrill, & Blythe, 1988). The Faculty Scholars Program uses a formalmentoring model, which is non-hierarchical and inclusive in design. Themodel is guided by the conviction that individuals and innovation flourish inmutually respectful and supportive mentoring relationships (Rowley, 1999;Starcevich & Friend, 1999). In addition, the program establishes structuresand expectations of professional conduct that encourage the open flow ofcommunication and fosters risk taking, discovery, and growth among all par-ties. A new or mid-career faculty can take risks because mistakes or unsuc-cessful ventures into new areas are expected and used as opportunities forlearning and growth–which would not be possible for a faculty in the processof tenure and/or promotion review process by their faculty peers.
92 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
The Faculty Scholars Program mentoring model is based on the principlethat successful mentoring relationships provide a mutual, collaborative learn-ing process, which values the unique experiences and skills of both mentorand mentee (Starcevich & Friend, 1999). In this model, the mentor and mentee(hereafter mentee referred to “scholar”) are viewed as partners in the mentoringrelationship. The scholar is responsible for letting the mentor know what he orshe needs, and the mentor is responsible for learning those needs and for build-ing on the scholar’s strengths. Scholars specializing in new methodologies ordeveloping innovative interventions can draw upon the hard-won practical ex-perience of their mentor, while emerging as leaders in their own area of expertise.
Mentoring relationships have been shown to benefit mentors themselves byexposing them to new ideas and skills, emerging technology and shifts in aprofession’s culture (Collins, 1994; Hill & Bahniuk, 1998). Mentees oftenprovide mentors with new insights and fresh perspectives on shared profes-sional interests (Suggs, 1986; Peyton, Morton, Perkins, & Dougherty, 2001).In the Faculty Scholars Program, mentors and scholars belong to a larger cadreof professionals who share common values and the goal of improving socialwork knowledge and expertise in gerontological scholarship and practice.These principles have been built into the overall design and implementation ofthe program.
PROGRAM DESIGN
There are four interacting components of the Faculty Scholars Program, de-signed to promote the scholars’ success as leaders in gerontological socialwork: a funded research project; the professional development plan; instituteand workshop training on research, teaching, and leadership skills; and thementoring relationship. The following section discusses each one of thesecomponents.
The Research Project
Each faculty scholar proposes and implements a significant research pro-ject that addresses the effectiveness of social work practice in enhancing thephysical, social, and psychological well-being of older adults and their fami-lies. These projects are supported by two-year grants of $50,000 per year. Pro-jects are located in practice or policy settings, and must have the endorsementof the scholar’s school of social work and the research site. The projects mustalso reflect an awareness of the changing health care environment, and attendto outcomes (individual, organizational, or systemic) that relate to improved
Maramaldi et al. 93
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
and cost effective social and/or health care services. A complete list of the in-dividual research projects funded in cohorts I-III appears in the Appendix.
Professional Development
Each scholar, working with his or her institutional sponsor, designs a pro-fessional development plan that outlines the scholar’s evolving professionalgoals and competencies related to aging. This plan guides the scholar’s profes-sional development and enhances his or her effectiveness as an academicleader. Upon acceptance, the scholars submit self-defined needs assessmentswith specific learning and task goals for their two years in the program. In ad-dition, the program has expectations of the scholars (i.e., integrating agingcontent into the courses they teach, and attending and presenting at profes-sional and gerontological conferences) that help to integrate their specific ca-reer goals with the program goal of promoting gerontological education,training, research and services in social work. As an example of innovativecurriculum, one of the scholars developed a state-of-the-art web-based teach-ing model that used streaming video of a seasoned clinician interviewing anAlzheimer’s patient in a nursing home to demonstrate clinical interview tech-niques in advanced generalist practice courses.
Institutes and Workshops
The scholars participate in skill-based educational institutes and in workshopsheld in conjunction with national conferences, which are designed to enhancetheir teaching and research skills. In addition to educational and professional de-velopment, the institutes provide opportunities for networking and cohortbuilding, through formal and informal events where scholars get to know andshare their progress with one another and other program participants. A recentcommunication workshop brought together scholars representing social work,nursing, and medicine from all parts of the country for a communication work-shop. The synergistic effect of the interdisciplinary workshop sessions enhancedthe scholars’ ability to effectively articulate their scholarship to multidisciplinaryaudiences.
THE MENTORING MODEL
The mentoring relationship is the core component of the Faculty ScholarsProgram. Through mentoring, the program prepares new social work facultyto be leaders in the field of aging and health care, and to disseminate this
94 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
knowledge to the next generation of gerontological social workers. The foun-dation of the mentoring model is the relationship among the scholar, nationalresearch mentor, and institutional sponsor. This triadic relationship makes themost of intramural and extramural resources to meet the scholars’ professionaldevelopment and learning goals. These three primary groups have specificroles and functions within the model. The following section describes the rolesand functions of these relationships.
The Scholars
The mentees in the program are referred to as “scholars” or “faculty schol-ars” in recognition of their prior accomplishments, their success in a highlycompetitive selection process, and their roles as future leaders in gerontologi-cal social work. Faculty scholars are selected on the basis of six criteria: (1) theapplicant’s commitment to gerontology; (2) his or her leadership potential;(3) the quality, feasibility, and originality of the proposed research study;(4) the relevance of the proposed study to improving the health and well-beingof older people and their caregivers; (5) the research site’s commitment to theproject; and (6) the commitment of the applicant’s school to the applicant’s ac-ademic and professional development in gerontology. These six componentsare intended to identify individuals with the greatest likelihood of emerging associal work leaders–capable of interdisciplinary collaboration with geriatri-cians and gerontologists in other disciplines.
The scholars conduct research projects that generate practice-based geron-tological knowledge. They follow their proposed professional developmentstrategies in order to disseminate this new knowledge. The program preparesand encourages scholars to publish and present their findings to professionaland community audiences, and to infuse the courses they teach in social workschools with knowledge they have gained about the aging process, olderadults, and their families. Under the guidance of their mentors and sponsors,the scholars thus play a critical role in the diffusion of gerontological knowl-edge and practice innovations throughout the field of social work and other ac-ademic and health care disciplines, such as gerontology, sociology, nursing,medicine, and the allied health fields. This cross-disciplinary education re-flects a growing trend toward the cross-fertilization of knowledge and ideas ingeriatric health care (Howe, Hyer, Mellor, Lindeman, & Luptak, 2001; Howe,Mellor, & Cassel, 1999; Mellor, Hyer, & Howe, 2002). An exemplar of thisnew trend is a scholar project that is embedded in a larger interdisciplinary re-search program aimed at developing linguistically and culturally relevanthealth assessments and tailored health messages. This project involves collab-oration among social work, nursing, medicine, and anthropology researchers.
Maramaldi et al. 95
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Institutional Sponsors
Applicants are required to identify an institutional sponsor from their ownschool at the time of their application. The sponsor is a mentor and a profes-sional role model, who provides guidance and support, clarifies the intricaciesof the academic work environment, provides political sponsorship, and facili-tates entry into organizational and professional networks. This aspect of themodel aims to foster the scholar’s professional advancement within his or herinstitution, and to encourage the institution’s commitment to the goals of thescholar and of the Faculty Scholars Program.
National Research Mentors
Each scholar is assigned a national research mentor, who is primarily responsi-ble for providing ongoing consultation to the scholar regarding the scholar’s re-search project and learning goals over the two years of the program. The mentor’srole may also include some guidance in terms of political sponsorship, and facili-tating the scholar’s entry into professional and organizational networks. Thislong-distance mentoring relationship expands the scholar’s professional geo-graphic reach outside of his or her particular institution, and builds ever-wideningnetworks of collaboration around gerontological social work scholarship. Eachnational research mentor receives an honorarium each year for the two years, aswell as funding for a required visit to the scholar’s school and research site.
Mentors are drawn from a nationwide roster of experienced and highlyskilled gerontological scholars, and are matched with the scholars based ontheir areas of substantive and methodological expertise. The principal investi-gator of the Faculty Scholars Program initially makes tentative matches. Be-fore finalizing the match, each potential mentor and scholar mentee is queriedto ensure the match is mutually agreeable to both parties. National mentorsand mentees meet for the first time at the scholars’ initial orientation institutewhere time is allotted for individual meeting among the mentors and scholars.Thereafter, they meet at conferences and during the site visit each mentormakes to his or her scholar’s school.
A rigorous process akin to snowball sampling culled the roster of NationalResearch Mentors. Starting with key informants, leaders in gerontology wereasked to identify advanced social work researchers who might serve as re-sources in a mentoring program of junior faculty in social work. The recom-mendations were then reviewed and selected based on the extent of theirscholarship (i.e., publications in gerontology journals and state and federal re-ports, grant histories and honors from professional organizations), professionalservice (i.e., membership on public, foundation, and community boards) and
96 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
reputations for teaching and mentorship in the gerontological social workcommunity. The program committee, who regularly updates and supplementsthe list in order to keep it current, approved the initial roster.
The Scholar-Mentor-Sponsor Triad
The formal identification of two mentors for each scholar is a unique facetof the mentoring model. The national research mentor is primarily responsiblefor the development and implementation of the scholar’s research project.However, differences between the professional and political environments ofthe mentor’s and the scholar’s academic institutions can limit the mentor’sability to offer professional guidance and political support in negotiating thescholar’s institutional advancement toward, for example, promotion and ten-ure. The school-based institutional sponsor was created to address this gap.The sponsor, who is not required to be a gerontologist, is primarily responsiblefor monitoring the scholar’s professional development plan and supporting hisor her professional advancement and negotiation of systems in their home in-stitution.
In practice, there is some overlap between the functions of the institutionalsponsor and the national research mentor, as sponsors can offer research guid-ance and mentors can offer professional advice. When it is clear that a particu-lar triad suffers from too little role clarity or too much overlap, the FacultyScholars Program’s principal investigator, acting as program director, inter-venes to mediate and to clarify roles in the mentoring relationships. Most of-ten, however, the scholar benefits from access to two seasoned professionals,each with different but overlapping purviews, and learns to exercise autono-mous and creative use of resources and expertise. In addition, the use of twomentors provides a balance and prevents potential abuses of power that havebeen found to limit the benefits of traditional or hierarchical mentoring rela-tionships. In this way, the triadic nature of the mentoring relationship rein-forces the mutually beneficial and non-hierarchical exchange of knowledgethat the program seeks to foster.
Scholar-to-Scholar Mentors
In addition to the formalized mentoring of the national research mentor andinstitutional sponsor, the program has begun to match each scholar with ascholar from a prior cohort. This match is based on a variety of factors, themost important of which are common substantive and methodological inter-ests. The aim of the “scholar-to-scholar-mentors” is to help orient the incom-ing scholars to the program and to supplement their network of resources
Maramaldi et al. 97
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
about research, teaching, and professional development. The program doesnot stipulate any specific requirements for this peer mentoring relationship,but actively encourages each pair to spend time with each other at program in-stitutes and national conferences.
COMMUNICATION AND NETWORK-BUILDING
National research mentors and scholars rely primarily on email and tele-phone communication to facilitate their long-distance mentoring relation-ships. However, given the benefits of face-to-face communication, the programencourages scholars to set up appointments with their mentors at the variousacademic conferences and meetings they attend. In addition, the program paysfor one visit by the mentor to the scholar’s institution, and asks that the mentormeet with the scholar’s dean and institutional sponsor and visit the researchsite. This provides the scholar and the national mentor with an opportunity topromote gerontological and geriatric education, and scholarship with the deanof each scholar’s school.
Throughout the year, the program sponsors activities designed to foster co-hort building and to strengthen the national network of gerontological socialwork researchers and academics. A variety of professional and social func-tions held in conjunction with national conferences and institutes bring to-gether scholars and mentors as well as participants in other Hartford Initiativeprograms (i.e., the Hartford Doctoral Fellows Program and participants in thenursing and physician initiatives). These activities help to ensure maximal in-teraction among program participants, with the goal of developing synergyand building a sense of shared professional mission in gerontology.
EVALUATION
Program evaluation is an integral part of the design and implementation ofthe Faculty Scholars Program. The program staff conducts an ongoing forma-tive evaluation, which provides a continuous stream of feedback about eachcomponent of the Faculty Scholars Program. All scholars, sponsors, and men-tors are surveyed every six months to gather feedback about the quality andnature of mentoring relationships, the scholars’ progress on their professionaldevelopment plans and research projects, and suggestions for program im-provement. The surveys also gather information regarding specific outcomeindicators such as awards and honors, publications and presentations, curricu-lum development, and leadership activities. The resulting data are analyzed in
98 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
the context of baseline data obtained from the applications, in order to assessthe program’s success at guiding the scholars to greater professional compe-tence and productivity.
Evaluations are also carried out for every program institute and workshopin which the scholars participate. This formative evaluation strategy runs con-currently with the program’s activities, providing important feedback thatguides the implementation of changes and the design of new activities. Theevaluation process provides valuable insights that inform the planning activi-ties of the program committee and regular communications with the HartfordFoundation.
The Faculty Scholars Program’s impact on the social work profession, andits sustainability beyond the initial funding period is evidenced by data fromthe first four years of scholar activity presented in Table 1. Cumulatively,scholars have accrued publication of 122 peer reviewed articles, 37 books orbook chapters, 75 grant submissions (with 46 funded to date), 62 aging curric-ula, 212 aging-related presentations at professional meetings, and more than277 honors, awards, and professional activities such as participation in specialcommissions, boards, and advisory groups.
A further indicator of the ongoing impact and program’s sustainability is theadditional funding for aging related research and program development lever-aged by the first alone. One year after the end of their two-year grant period, theten scholars in cohort I have a cumulative total of $6,991,494 in funded grants.
LESSONS LEARNED
Results from evaluations of the first three cohorts of program participantsindicate that scholars, sponsors, and mentors all derive professional benefitsand personal satisfaction from their involvement in the Faculty Scholars Pro-gram. The triadic relationships have fostered a well-connected national net-work of aging scholars across the United States.
Maramaldi et al. 99
TABLE 1. Hartford Social Work Faculty Scholars–Professional Activities byCohort
Cohort Articles Books Reports GrantsSubmitted
GrantsAwarded
Curricula Presentations Awards/Honors
Other
III
III*Total
575629
122
9236
37
12213
34
33242775
31137
46
19271662
9110654
212
1187
24
8612839
253
* Cohort III data includes only the first 12 of 24 months of professional activity
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Faculty Scholar Reports
Scholars in the first three cohorts indicate significant increases in their en-gagement in a variety of professional activities, such as submitting grant appli-cations and publications for peer-reviewed journals and books, and presentingtheir work at national conferences (Table 1). Scholars have become more in-volved in curriculum development in their schools, in integrating aging con-tent into their classes, and enhancing gerontological social work practice intheir schools and local communities.
Scholars find the support of the Faculty Scholars Program indispensable inmaking progress toward completing their gerontological research projects.They describe a range of research activities, including meeting with mentorsto clarify and refine their research designs and sampling plans; collaboratingwith community agencies and other sources of data; developing survey instru-ments and focus group protocols; application and review by Institutional Re-view Boards (IRB); collecting and analyzing data, and integrating their findingsin professional reports and journal articles. The first cohort of scholars, alongwith several program affiliates, has published a book based on their researchprojects (Berkman & Harootyan, 2003) that highlights issues in social workand health care in aging.
Scholars report that their institutional sponsors are important advocates indeveloping and meeting goals from their professional development plans.Most describe their sponsors as generous with time and support, providingmonthly or more frequent contact. Several scholars have also found the spon-sor to be essential in getting the scholar’s research projects underway. Spon-sors are particularly helpful in negotiating the local IRB process, securing thescholar’s protected time at their universities for research, and making connec-tions at their community-based research sites. In addition, scholars look totheir institutional sponsors for career guidance and support around participa-tion in leadership activities in and outside of their schools.
During the first year of the program, there was some role confusion be-tween the national research mentors and the institutional sponsors, illustratedby the observation of one scholar who asked, “Who has the final say?” regard-ing her research project. This led to the renaming of the “institutional mentor”to “institutional sponsor,” and to clarifying the description of the respectiveroles of sponsor and mentor in the orientation of program participants. In situ-ations where confusion or conflict still arises, the program director has inter-vened and negotiated with the mentoring triad to improve the relationshipsamong the three parties. Several scholars have suggested that the institutionalsponsors be given greater acknowledgement for the work they do and in-
100 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
creased involvement in the program activities (e.g., attendance at the traininginstitutes).
A majority of the scholars report great satisfaction with their national re-search mentor match. Scholars indicate that they communicate frequently (anaverage of once monthly) with their national research mentors, and that theirmentors are highly committed to the mentoring relationship. “I’m totallypleased,” writes one scholar, “My national research mentor is generous, cre-ative, and supportive. She’s the best.” According to another:
I feel I have an excellent relationship with my national mentor. He is al-ways responsive to my questions, request[s] for assistance, and generaldiscussions regarding my project. I cannot think of how it can be im-proved.
Mentors are seen as particularly helpful in the early stages of developingand implementing the scholars’ research projects. Scholars credit their men-tors with guiding them through revising their research designs, helping themlocate measures and develop interview protocols.
Approximately 45% of the scholar’s contact with their National ResearchMentors is face-to-face, with the remaining time email (39%) and telephone(16%) contact. In response to the scholars’ requests for more in-person con-tacts with their mentors, the program supports one site visit to the scholar’s in-stitution. The site visits have proved highly successful, with mentors takingthe opportunity to meet with the scholar’s dean and institutional sponsor, andto visit the research site. Feedback from the implementation of these site visitshas been very positive.
Many of the scholars credit the Faculty Scholars Program with promotingtheir development of professional networks and linkages with other geronto-logical scholars. Several scholars have consulted with other scholars and men-tors in their cohort regarding their research projects, and one scholar took theinitiative of setting up a list-serve to facilitate such communication. Others re-port that being selected as a Hartford Faculty Scholar has raised their profes-sional profiles in their schools, their communities, and in professional circles.Indeed, the scholars have leveraged approximately $3 million in additionalfunds to support their Hartford related research agendas.
Institutional Sponsor Reports
Institutional sponsors consistently report satisfaction with the scholars’progress in the areas of research, teaching, and leadership skill building. Sev-eral proudly describe the actions they have taken to assist the scholars in nego-
Maramaldi et al. 101
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
tiating the complex terrain of university administration to attain resources, inavoiding political complications, and in obtaining adequate workload releasetime and institutional research support. Several scholars have worked withtheir sponsors to increase the amount of aging content in their social workclasses and to secure funding to develop gerontological resources at theirschools. In addition, sponsors have provided guidance and support aroundwriting grant applications and promoted the scholars’ participation in nationalconferences and institutes related to geriatric scholarship.
The institutional sponsors’ evaluations echo those of their scholars in re-porting that they have promoted the scholars’ career development beyond theimmediate research projects. Many of the sponsors appreciate the impact theFaculty Scholars Program is having on the scholars’ professional developmentand on the profession as a whole.
. . . I believe that the Hartford Geriatric Social Work Scholar program isinvaluable for the scholars themselves and to seed Schools of SocialWork with well qualified researchers and scholars with content andmethodological expertise in aging.
National Research Mentor Reports
Responses from the national research mentors have been overwhelminglypositive regarding the mentoring process. Two general themes have emergedfrom the reports of the mentors. The first theme reflects the personal and pro-fessional satisfaction that comes from guiding and nurturing the developmentof an emerging scholar. Mentors speak eloquently about “preparing the nextgeneration of gerontologists,” and the ways in which the mentoring relation-ship has enhanced their own gerontological research and scholarship.
This mentoring experience is reciprocal. I am gaining a lot more than Iam giving. I think it is empowering to realize that the knowledge I’ve ac-cumulated over the years is valuable to someone who is just building hercareer in aging. I feel valued and re-invigorated!
The second theme has to do with the networking and capacity building that hastaken place as the Faculty Scholars Program and the Hartford Geriatric SocialWork Initiative have grown during the last five years.
One of the pleasures is having an opportunity to interact with the otherHartford Scholars who share my research interests in elder abuse and ag-ing and mental health. I feel that my own research has been enriched and
102 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
benefited greatly by the forum that the Hartford program provides forsharing research ideas in the field of aging.
Many national research mentors report that their relationships with scholarshave exceeded the initial role of research mentor and have become collegial innature. Several mentor-scholar pairs have embarked on collaborative researchand now share long and short-term career trajectories.
Overall, our evaluations suggest that the Faculty Scholars Program mentoringmodel provides a successful vehicle for building leadership among new socialwork faculty and for generating and disseminating gerontological knowledge.Although the individual personalities of each scholar-sponsor-mentor triad arequite varied, participants report similarly positive experiences with the modeland the program. Moreover, a significant network of gerontological research-ers and leaders has been cultivated that will undoubtedly continue to grow be-yond the life of the program.
Indeed, the profile of geriatric social work is raised by the work and reputa-tion of the scholars themselves; the first three cohorts have acted as ambassa-dors for gerontological social work among other fields of practice in socialwork and other disciplines in the field of aging. The interdisciplinary andcross-fertilization of gerontological and geriatric scholarship is one of themost significant outcomes of the program. In response to requests from pro-gram participants, a summit on advances in gerontological social work hasbeen planned for the first four cohorts of scholars and their national researchmentors in 2004.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The first cohort of Faculty Scholars Program “graduated” from the programin December 2001. In a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the Geronto-logical Society of America in November 2001, a cohort I scholar, her institu-tional sponsor, and her national research mentor spoke about their experienceswith the program. The scholar praised her sponsor and her mentor and spokearticulately about the ways in which each had enriched her development as aresearcher and a gerontologist through the synergy. She attributed much of herprofessional development and her ongoing academic success to her involve-ment in the Faculty Scholars Program (Berkman, Kane, Robert, Seltzer &Maramaldi, 2001).
Challenging the belief that a mentee is a passive receptor of the mentor’swisdom, the scholar and her mentors described the many active roles she tookduring the program and the ways in which she helped to shape her mentoringrelationships. They noted that the mentoring relationship had evolved over
Maramaldi et al. 103
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
time on the basis of the scholar’s needs, from concrete help with the scholar’sresearch project to advice on her short and long-term career goals. True to theconceptual foundations of the program model, the members of the mentoringtriad attested to the benefits of a formal semi-structured partnership in further-ing mutual goals and values. Although anecdotal and idiosyncratic, the enthu-siasm with which these three professional social workers described theirinvolvement with the program is similar to that expressed by other programparticipants.
In summary, the Faculty Scholars Program has been found to be an effec-tive model for advancing the careers of new social work faculty, for buildingleadership, and for disseminating knowledge to a new generation of geronto-logical social workers. Based on a conceptual model that emphasizes the culti-vation of leadership within the context of formal, semi-structured mentoringrelationships, the program successfully fosters development in the individualand in the profession. We have discovered that a powerful synergy developswhen bringing together so many talented people who are working toward acommon goal. By establishing a national network and building long-distancementoring partnerships, the program has worked to enhance gerontologicalteaching and scholarship in social work. Further, we have designed, imple-mented, and assessed a unique model of mentoring, incorporating long-dis-tance and local elements, which may be adapted and applied to other professionsas they develop their teaching, research, and scholarship in gerontology andgeriatrics. In this way, the Faculty Scholars Program has helped to improve thehealth and well-being of current and future older adults and their families.
REFERENCES
Bauer, T. (1999). Perceived mentoring fairness: Relationships with gender, mentoringtype, mentoring experience, and mentoring needs. Sex Roles, 40(3/4), 211-225.
Beech, N. & Brockbank, A. (1999). Power/knowledge and psychosocial dynamics inmentoring. Management Learning, 30(1), 7-24.
Berkman, B. & Harootyan, L. (Eds.) (2003). Social work and health care in an agingsociety: Education, policy, practice, and research. New York: Springer PublishingCo.
Berkman, B., Kane, R., Robert, S., Seltzer, M., & Maramaldi, P. (2001, November). Aconceptual view of mentoring. Paper presented at the meeting of the GerontologicalSociety of America, Chicago, IL.
Berkman, B., Silverstone, B., Simmons, W., Howe, J., & Volland, P. (2000). Socialwork gerontological practice: The need for faculty development in the new millen-nium. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 34(1), 5-23.
Bower, D., Diehr, S., Morzinski, J., & Simpson, D. (1998). Support-challenge-vision:A model for faculty mentoring. Medical Teacher, 20, 595-597.
104 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Collins, P. (1994). Does mentorship among social workers make a difference? An em-pirical investigation of career outcomes. Social Work, 39, 413-419.
Danielson, C. (1999). Mentoring beginning teachers: The case for mentoring. Teach-ing and Change, 6, 251-257.
Goldman, K. D. (1994). Perceptions of innovations as predictors of implementationlevels: The diffusion of a nationwide health education campaign. Health EducationQuarterly, 21, 433-445.
Goodwin, L., Stevens, E., & Bellamy, G. (1998). Mentoring among faculty in schools,colleges and departments of education. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 334-343.
Hill, S. & Bahniuk, M. (1998). Promoting career success through mentoring. Review ofBusiness, 19(3), 4-7.
Howe, J., Mellor, M., & Cassel, C. (1999). Cross-disciplinary approaches to teachinginterdisciplinary teamwork and geriatrics. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education,19(4), 3-17.
Howe, J., Hyer, K., Mellor, M., Lindemann, D., & Luptak, M. (2001). Educational ap-proaches for preparing social work students for interdisciplinary teamwork on geri-atric health care teams. Social Work in Health Care, 32(4), 19-42.
Lapinski, M., & Witte, K. (1998). Health communication campaigns. In L. Jackson &B. Duffy (Eds.). Health communication research: A guide to developments and di-rections (pp. 139-161). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press/Greenwood PublishingGroup, Inc.
Mellor, M., Hyer, K., & Howe, J. (2002). The geriatric interdisciplinary team ap-proach: Challenges and opportunities in educating trainees together from a varietyof disciplines. Educational Gerontology, 28, 867-880.
Oldenburg, B., Sallis, J., French, M., & Owen, N. (1999). Health promotion researchand the diffusion and institutionalization of interventions. Health Education Re-search, 14(1), 121-130.
Peyton, A., Morton, M., Perkins, M., & Dougherty, L. (2001). Mentoring in gerontol-ogy education: New graduate student perspectives. Educational Gerontology, 27,347-359.
Richey, C., Gambrill, E., & Blythe, B. (1988). Mentor relationships among women inacademe. Affilia, 3(1), 34-47.
Rogers, E. (1962; 1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.Rowley, J. (1999). The good mentor. Educational Leadership, 56(8), 20-22.Schapira, M., Kalet, A., Schwartz, M., & Gerrity, M. (1992). Mentorship in general in-
ternal medicine: Investment in our future. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 7,248-251.
Schuster, J. (1993). Preparing faculty for the new conceptions of scholarship. New Di-rections for Teaching and Learning, 54, 30.
Starcevich, M. & Friend, F. (1999). Effective mentoring relationships from the Mentee’sperspective. Workforce, July, 2-3.
Suggs, P. (1986). The mentoring relationship: A professional asset. The Gerontologist,26, 449.
Walsh, A., Borkowski, S., & Reuben, E. (1999). Mentoring in health administration:The critical link in executive development/practitioner application. Journal ofHealthcare Management, 44, 269-280.
Wilson, P., Pereira, A., & Valentine, D. (2002). Perceptions of new social work facultyabout mentoring experiences. Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 317-333.
Maramaldi et al. 105
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
106 GERONTOLOGY & GERIATRICS EDUCATION
APPENDIX
Research Projects by Cohort
Cohort I
Social work-managed multidisciplinary team and treatment of geriatric depression in LTC.
Self-health care of African American elders.
An empowerment intervention with caregivers of dependent low-income elders.
A program for grandparents who are raising their grandchildren.
Social work discharge planning in home health: Impact on patient outcomes.
An evaluation of the FDCE program for spouse caregivers of persons with dementia.
Multi-site evaluation for geriatric task-centered case management.
HIV-infected and HIV-affected elders: Experiences, strengths, and needs.
Research and evaluation of family care: (State's) long-term care redesign pilot program.
Community residential care for elders with neuropsychiatric disorders.
Cohort II
A study of an elder abuse victim’s psychoeducational support group model.
An evaluation of the impact of senior companion program on elders and companions.
An evaluation of interdisciplinary geriatric mental health team.
An exploration of sources of social support for older adults with HIV/AIDS.
A study of providers and end-of-life care for frail elders in managed care.
An examination of the adequacy of informal and formal services used by rural, demented elders
An analysis of the factors influencing the well being of nursing home residents.
A study of factors that influence practice responses to elder abuse: A cross-cultural study.
A study of long-distance caregiving among U.S. Army officers.
A comparative study of partner abuse experiences among older Black, Latina, and Caucasian women.
Cohort III
The long-term effects of spirituality and positive attitude on the health and adjustment of older adultsfollowing cardiac surgery.
Older case management clients and younger family members in need of care.
A preliminary evaluation of the Depression Screening and Treatment Program (DSTP) for elderly homecare clients.
Changes in disability among older blacks and whites: A study of elderly participants in (state's) Medicaidwaiver program.
An exploratory study on serving older persons through independent living centers.
An exploratory comparison of colorectal cancer survivors health beliefs and diagnostic experiences.
Acculturation, traditional values, culture, and long term decision-making among Latino elderly.
Spirituality and religion: An exploration of factors in the health and well-being of older adults.
Explorations into coalition building: How aging and disability service networks are partnering to meet theneeds of persons aging with disabilities.
At the eleventh hour: Psychosocial factors that contribute to delayed hospice care for terminally ill olderadults.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f St
elle
nbos
ch]
at 2
1:11
06
Oct
ober
201
4
