Scholarly Caring in Doctoral Nursing Education: Promoting Diversity and Collaborative Mentorship Afaf lbrahim Meleis, Joanne M. Hall, Patricia E. Stevens

One of the most significant, yet not fully developedgoals of doctoral education is the graduation of scholars who can make a major contribution to the discipline of nursing. There have been many discourses and debates about the essential criteria for quality in doctoral programs that create and promote scholarliness. Scholarliness in nursing includes critical thinking, a connection to practice, a commitment to the discipline's mission, substantive mastery areas, philosophical analyses, rigorous investigations, and a social awareness of the relationship between knowledge development and impact on society. Promoting scholarship necessitates the development of a culture of scholarly caring. Scholarly caring can be developed through promotion of diversity and through collaborative mentorship. Features of collaborative mentorship are negotiated relations, mutual interactions, facilitative strategies, and empowerment. To develop these properties of a scholarly doctoral program, attention must be paid to actions that compromise scholarly quality of programs such as the lack of resources and lowered expectations of students.

[Keywords: quality of doctoral education; scholarliness; men torsh ip; colla bora tionl

* *

here is a proliferation of doctoral programs in the United States. The authors' concern is that in attempts to make doctoral education more accessible nursing may be failing in some cases to T create and maintain an academic culture that

embodies scholarship. Scholarship in doctoral education is a crucial force in the development of the discipline of nursing. The fundamental question we pose is this: What actions are being taken in doctoral programs to help students develop the critical thinking, behaviors, and sentiments necessary to become scholars?

*

Afaf lbrahim Meleis, RN, PhD, FAAN, Alpha Eta, is Professor; Joanne M. Hall, RN, PhD, Alpha Eta, and Patricia E. Stevens, RN, PhD, Alpha Eta, are postdoctoral fellows, all at the University of California-San Francisco School of Nursing, Department of Mental Health, Community and Administrative Nursing. This paper i s a revised version of a keynote address by Professor Meleis to the 41st Annual Meeting of the Council of Baccalaureate and Higher Degree Programs, National League for Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 30, 1992. Correspondence to Professor Meleis, University of California-San Francisco, School of Nursing, Department of Mental Health, Community and Administrative Nursing, Room NSOSY, Box 0608, San Francisco, CA 941 43-0608.

Accepted for publication May 1 1 , 1993.

Volume 26, Number 3, Fall 1994 177

Scholarly Caring in Doctoral Nursing Education

Scholars in the human sciences formulate questions and pursue answers. They envision inquiry as knowledge discovery and disseminate their results to colleagues and to the public for further development and application. They are committed to a discipline, understand how their scientific work is related to that discipline’s mission and history, and recognize how it can affect society. Scholars conceptualize from a well-developed theoretical orientation, engage in philosophical debates, conduct rigorous investigations, and establish expertise in particular substantive areas. Their research leads to cumulative knowledge development (May, Meleis, & Winstead-Fry, 1982; Meleis, 1988).

Scholarship in nursing embraces each of these activities, as well as a vital connection to practice. Nursing research and theory development must be highly relevant to nursing practice. The crux of a doctoral program is developing a passion for a substantive area of knowledge that is the focus of scholarship (Meleis, 1987). This substantive mastery must be timely and socially significant and capable of making a real difference in the daily lives of the diverse populations we serve. Doctoral scholarship in nursing should be at the cutting edge of the movement to reframe health in the broader context of sociocultural, economic, and political environments and to reform healthcare to be more accessible, equitable, appropriate, and culturally competent. In our doctoral programs, are we nurturing a culture that values and promotes this level of scholarship?

Scholarly Caring

Scholarship in doctoral nursing education differs in several ways from undergraduate and master’s education. First, there is a selection process in doctoral programs whereby nurses accepted as students have already demonstrated clinical expertise and the potential for scientific productivity. Second, doctoral education is the beginning point in a trajectory of lifelong work in building nursing knowledge and developing the discipline of nursing. Third, learning in doctoral education integrates philosophy, theory, history, and scientific investigation in the elaboration of substantive areas of nursing knowledge and practice.

In undergraduate education, faculty are challenged to move away from task-oriented, behaviorally measured curricula and, instead, emphasize the student-teacher relationship as the context for learning the value of caring (Beck, 1991; Bevis & Watson, 1989; Diekelmann, 1990; Tanner, 1990). This challenge, which incorporates the caring relationships between students and teachers, encourages more conscious dialogue about the ethical, affective, cognitive, and experiential aspects of nursing care. At the doctoral level, however, this therapeutic notion of caring for and about students, by itself, is not enough. We need scholarly caring. While honoring relational experiences, the knowledge base and quality of scholarship must receive the same level of commitment and care in doctoral education.

Scholarly caring is painstaking attention to the quality of our doctoral programs, commitment tc excellence in nursing, skilled nurturance of the intellectual capabilities of doctoral students, and enthusiastic collaboration with students in examining the substance of nursing, doing the science, and walking the paths

178

of knowledge development. How is caring for scholarship accomplished? We suggest two actions: promoting diversity and collaborative mentorship.

Promoting Diversity

Celebrating diversity of culture, life experience, worldview, thought, practice, and method enriches the scholarly potential (Meleis, 1988; 1992). Doctoral level scholarliness implies awareness of history in our multicultural society, critique of the status quo, openness to multiple ways of knowing, understanding of multiple ways of living and being healthy, and tolerance of many philosophical, epistemological, and theoretical viewpoints. It involves coexistence with ambiguities and complexities. In doctoral education, it is vital to promote diversity in the variety of consumer groups served by our scholarly efforts. This means that the knowledge we build is relevant to the experiences of women, people of color, those who survive on lo\v incomes, and individuals and groups who differ from the majority with respect to physical abilities, sexual orientation, ethnicity, language, and so forth (Collins, 1990; 1991). Promoting diversity of student and faculty populations is also essential, meaning that we must recruit and support the success of a multicultural group of nurses in doctoral study. In so doing, we should have high scholarly expectations of all students (Jones, 1992; Weekes, 1989), and secure the resources, skills, commitment, and compassion necessary to assist them economically, socially, and academically in meeting these expectations.

Another means of promoting diversity is in offering doctoral education to those previously excluded because of geographic location and the constraint of employment. With more and more new doctoral programs in nursing, geographic accessibility is improving. Increasing numbers of students are able to maintain their occupational positions and, in some cases, also raise families while pursuing doctoral degrees in nursing. Making doctoral programs more available to part-time students in their own locales, however, should be accompanied by efforts to provide students in relatively isolated areas with opportunities to participate in intercollegial dialogue with larger communities of scholars and to move part-time students into full-time doctoral study.

It is not ideal to pursue doctoral education on a part-time basis. Full-time employees who are simultaneously pursuing doctorates can become intellectually fatigued and physically exhausted. Nurse educators need to organize and alter financial structures to assure that the majority of doctoral students can pursue their learning full-time. Rather than relax scholarly standards to accommodate students’ non-academic obligations, we need to work toward freeing students from constraints so they can devote their full energies to scholarly pursuit. If this means insisting upon changes in university structures to more adequately assist indkqiduals from a wide variety of socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, and educational backgrounds to pursue doctorates in nursing, then that is the action that nurse educators must take. By reducing fees, offering stipends, equitably reimbursing research and teaching assistantships, increasing the opportunities and logistical

IMAGE: )ournal of Nursing Scholarship

Scholarly Caring in Doctoral Nursing Education

an active, dynamic approach that demonstrates solidarity in the pursuit of scholarship. Incorporating principles of feminist pedagogy (Bricker-Jenkins & Hooyman, 1987; Freedman, 1990; Heald, 1989; Maher, 1987; Nemiroff, 1989), the features of collaborative mentorship are: negotiated relations, mutual interactions, facilitative strategies, and empowerment.

support for fellowships and grants, developing tutorial services, and providing child care, schools of nursing will ensure scholarly success.

In opting for expediency in some cases, do our doctoral programs foreclose opportunities to develop the kind of socially relevant and productive scholarship that is sorely needed? Can students develop a “passion for substance” (Meleis, 1987) and become socially committed scholars through severely restricted academic encounters that are geared simply toward getting a degree? Doctoral scholarship in nursing depends upon amassing communities of scholars working in concert, collaboration, and competition. Can such a resource be adequately built in periods of rapid expansion?

Why are all these questions so important? Nursing needs excellent scholarship now more than ever to respond to the challenges of the public’s health. In our history as a discipline, one of nursing’s greatest resources, our brilliant scholarly potential, has too often been divided, conquered, and dissipated in the diverse tasks of daily nursing work and in the countless yet poorly compensated responsibilities women face at home.

Collaborative Mentorship

How can scholarly caring that promotes diversity actually operate in the academic milieu? Old habits of interacting with students that have frustrated and oppressed faculty need to change. Most agree that mentorship is a valued approach to student-faculty interaction (Banoub-Baddour & Gien, 1991 ; Bidwell & Brasler, 1989; Davidhizar, 1988; Vance & Olson, 1991; Yoder, 1990), but, how mentoring is practiced can be problematic. One habit of mentoring we take issue with is “advising on the periphery,” that is, making suggestions, offering counsel, and bolstering students’ egos without actually sharing in the work. As research indicates, a mentoring style that encourages students to envision goals and develop self- confidence is often ineffective if it does not also include working directly with students on academic tasks (Cole & Slocumb, 1990; Williams & Blackburn, 1988).

Another habit that invites concern is the use of traditional hierarchical mentorship in which sage advisors provide guidance to naive students. Students are expected, in this model, to mirror their wiser and older mentors (Fields, 1991). This is not consistent, however, with valuing diversity, as we have outlined it, nor is it affirming of the experiences students bring as seasoned clinicians, teachers, and administrators. Mentoring of this type risks being dominating wherein the wisdom and skills of doctoral students are subordinated.

A third, even more regrettable habit is borrowing the model of exploitive mentoring. A classic example is found in some laboratory sciences where doctoral and postdoctoral students labor for years on senior investigators’ projects. They perform the lion’s share of the work promoting the scholarly success and prestige of another without adequate remuneration and acknowledgement.

As opposed to these habits, we urge a fully conscious effort at faculty and student collaboration. Collaborative mentorship is

Volume 26, Number 3 , Fall 1994 ~

Negotiated Relations The quality of negotiated relations in mentoring implies that

different mentors may be sought for varied substantive, methodological, and theoretical needs. It also suggests that changes in mentoring relationships can be initiated, altered, or terminated through mutual negotiation to accommodate changing academic needs. Rather than faculty members waiting to be approached by students or relying only on advisee assignment systems, collaborative mentorship involves opportunities for face- to-face negotiation. In environments conducive to negotiation, faculty and students actively seek one another, searching for common interests and complementary skills. Instead of inflexible roles as knower and novice, participants in collaborative mentoring relationships all wish to expand their intellectual awareness through scholarly relating.

Mutual Interactions Mutual interactions are horizontal communications, not

paternalistic or unidirectional. Collaborative mentoring is an ongoing dialogue between and among colleagues characterized by reciprocity. Feminism emphasizes mutual give and take (Shapiro, 1991). Cooperative, mutually beneficial projects join teachers and students in working together on generating theory, conducting research, writing for publication, and organizing for practice and policy change.

Tensions can certainly arise in striving for mutuality. For instance, when students are expected to do library searches and data entry these may be experienced as exploitive and as not directly serving their educational needs. In atmospheres of collaboration, both faculty and students share, to varying degrees, in every labor of academic projects, both the meaningful and mundane. Moreover, they openly discuss their feelings, personal interpretations, and the implications of the division of labor in academia.

It is unlikely that the mere seeking of a credential will sustain a doctoral student throughout an entire program of study, however, this can also be a source of friction in a mentoring relationship. Some talented doctoral students insist that the degree, not the caliber of scholarship, motivates them. Collaborative mentorship in such cases may involve discussions about the power afforded by credentials compared to the power of scholarship. It may also involve listening and acting on students’ criticisms about the relevance of academic priorities.

Faci I i tative Strategies Facilitative strategies reflect solidarity in academic

achievement. Each participant takes a role in supporting the scholarly work of the other, whether they are working on joint or individual projects. Helping each other gain professional recognition through publication and presentation, as well as

179

Scholarly Caring in Doctoral Nursing Education

working together to obtain intramural and extramural support adds value and dignity to education that encourages scholarly productivity. Such facilitative actions may be in opposition to the individualism and competitiveness that characterizes some of academia.

Empowerment As an integral component of collaborative mentorship,

empowerment is demonstrated through collectivity, consciousness-raising, and change. First, collectivity suggests that the form mentoring takes is broadened. No longer is it confined to individual mentors relating to individual students. A milieu is created in which a complex network of supportive, critical, and facilitative one-to-one and group exchanges are possible. By providing the structure and atmosphere for collectively sharing ideas, experiences, and emotions, the opportunities for dialogue and reciprocal relationships necessary for innovative inquiry are enhanced. Second, empowerment in mentorship implies consciousness-raising. A goal of scholarly relating is the tearing away of unquestioned assumptions that keep nursing research, theory, and practice from being as influential and reflective of the diversity of human experience as they might be. Consciousness-raising is not without its challenges, however. Empowering exchanges may have to proceed slowly with students who have disparate values or who have strong allegiances. Third, empowering mentorship brings about change in the intellectual, sociocultural and political competencies of all participants. It potentiates meaningful societal change and significantly contributes to the discipline.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we advocate scholarly caring in doctoral nursing education, which can be accomplished by promoting diversity and collaborative mentorship. Tensions can beset such an undertaking. In nurturing and supporting a multicultural student body, most of whom are women, nurse educators must often face and overcome the problems associated with white, male- dominated academic institutions and practices. Despite the constraints, it is absolutely necessary that mentors challenge students and help them develop their insights, critical abilities, and powers of expression. Our model of scholarly caring provides not only the means to support these goals, but a context in which the dynamics can be included as part of an ongoing dialogue about nursing scholarship.

It is a matter of strategy, indeed of justice, that we as nurses enhance our scholarly potential. Scholarly caring prompts actions to secure adequate resources so that doctoral students can focus on the development of knowledge. Scholarly caring motivates students to publish and present their work and to conceive of their research in the larger frame of societal needs. Scholarly caring establishes debating, negotiating, critiquing, writing, theorizing, and investigating as routine activities of academic life in doctoral education. Scholarly caring mandates that we not only see the student at hand, but care for the future of nursing scholarship and reckon with our accountability for nurturing the kind of

knowledge development in nursing that will significantly affect the health and healthcare of the people we serve.

References

Banoub-Baddour, S., & Gien, L.T. (199 1). Student-faculty joint-authorship: Mentorship in publication. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 23(1), 5-14.

Beck, C.T. (1991). How students perceive faculty caring: A phenomenological study. Nurse Educator, 16(5), 18-22.

Bevis, E.O., & Watson, J. (1989). Toward a caring curriculum: A new pedagogy for nursing. New York: National League for Nursing.

Bidwell, AS., & Brasler, M.L. (1989). Role modeling versus mentoring in nursing education. IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 21,23-25.

Bricker-Jenkins, M., & Hooyman, N. (1987). Feminist pedagogy in education for social change. Feminist Teacher, 2(2), 36-42.

Cole, F.L., & Slocumb, E.M. (1990). Collaborative nursing research between novices: Productivity through partnership. Nursing Forum, 25, 13-18.

Collins, P.H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Collins, P.H. (1991). On our own terms: Self-defined standpoints and curriculum transformation. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 3(3), 367-381.

Davidhizar, RE. (1988). Mentoring in doctoral education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 13,775-781.

Diekelmann, N. (1990). Nursing education: Caring, dialogue, and practice. Journal of Nursing Education, 29,300-305.

Fields, W.L. (1991). Mentoring in nursing: A historical approach. Nursing

Freedman, E.B. (1990). Small group pedagogy: Consciousness raising in conservative times. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 2(4), 603-623.

Heald, S. (1989). The madwoman in the attic: Feminist teaching in the margins. Resources for Feminist Research, 18 (December), 22-26.

Jones, S.H. (1992). Improving retention and graduation rates for black students in nursing education: A developmental model. Nursing Outlook, 40,78-85.

Maher, F.A. (1987). Toward a richer theory of feminist pedagogy: A comparison of “liberation” and “gender” models for teaching and learning. Journal of Education, 169(3), 91-100.

May, K.M., Meleis, A.I., & Winstead-Fry, P. (1982). Mentorship for scholarliness: Opportunities and dilemmas. Nursing Outlook, 30,22-28.

Meleis, A.I. (1992). Directions for nursing theory development in the 21st century. Nursing Science Quarterly, 5, 112-117.

Meleis, A.I. (1988). Doctoral education in nursing: Its present and its future. Journal of Professional Nursing, 4,436-446.

Meleis, A.I. (1987). Revisions in knowledge development: A passion for substance. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice, 1,5-19.

Nemiroff, G.H. (1989). Beyond “talking heads”: Towards an empowering pedagogy of women’s studies. Atlantis, 15(3), 1-16.

Shapiro, A.H. (1991). Creating a conversation: Teaching all women in the femi- nist classroom. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 3(1), 70-80.

Tanner, C.A. (1990). Caring as a value in nursing education. Nursing Outlook,

Vance, C.N., & Olson, R.K. (1991). Mentorship. Annual Review of Nursing

Weekes, D. (1989). Mentor-protegee relationships: A critical element in

Williams, R., & Blackburn, R. T. (1988). Mentoring and junior faculty

Yoder, L. (1990). Mentoring: A concept analysis. Nursing Administration

Outlook, 39,257-261.

38, 70-72.

Research, 9, 175-200.

affrmative action. Nursing Outlook, 37, 156-157.

productivity. Journal of Nursing Education, 27,204-209.

Quarterly, 15(1), 9-19.

180 IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship