Research Mentorship in Counselor Education Cynthia A. Briggs & Dale-Elizabeth Pehrsson The purpose of this national survey was to determine whether pretenured counselor educators receive research mentorship, and if so, what instructional and relational factors occur within that relationship. Pretenured counselor educators in counselor education programs accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs were surveyed (N = 269). The 139 respondents (51.7% response rate) indicated that most (n = 107) pretenured counselor educators receive research mentorship. The relationship(s), most often described as cooperative (n = 84) and open (n = 70), focused primarily on navigation of promotion and tenure (n = 87) and generating refereed publications (n = 95) and presentations (n = 72).

The pretenure years for novice counselor educators may include confusion, anxiety, and role overload. In particular, novice counselor educators express concern about conducting research to obtain tenure (Davis, Levitt, McGlothlin, & Hill, 2006). Mentorship may motivate research endeavors, yet, to date, no studies have been conducted on the specific application of research mentorship with novice counselor educators (Okech, Astramovich, Johnson, Hoskins, & Rubel, 2006). Research mentorship, a recent construct emerging in the literature, has received limited attention and remains underexamined (Dohm & Cummings, 2002; Melicher, 2000) even though it is the most common manifestation of mentorship in higher education (Clark & Watson, 1998). The current study was conducted to shed light on the role of research mentorship in counselor education and to determine whether pretenured counselor educators were receiving guidance critical to their professional success. Another aim of this study reflects the vision statement of the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) in that it is intended to enhance the professional identity of counselor educators and promote quality scholarship by increasing understanding of the importance of research mentorship for new counselor educator training (ACES, 2005).

Elements of Research Mentorship A review of social science literature reveals that the term research mentor appears to have emerged within the past 10 years. Although general mentorship is applied widely, research mentorship is specific to academic, scientific, or other research-laden occupations (Clark & Watson, 1998), and the expected outcome of this mentorship is increased scholarly productivity (Paul, Stein, Ottenbacher, & Yuanlong, Cynthia A. Briggs, Department of Counselor Education, Winona State University; Dale-Elizabeth Pehrsson, College of Education, Oregon State University. Dale-Elizabeth Pehrsson is now at Department of Counselor Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cynthia A. Briggs, Department of Counselor Education, Winona State University, 859 30th Avenue SE, Rochester, MN 55904 (e-mail: [email protected]). © 2008 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

101

2002). Although publication in peer-reviewed journals is given the most weight in academia, scholarship in counselor education embodies other elements (Ramsey, Cavallaro, Kiselica, & Zila, 2002), including creating opinion or theory pieces for professional publications, presenting at professional conferences, conducting needs assessments, giving speeches, writing grants, and creating online resources and Web pages (Creamer, 1998; Dixon-Reeves, 2003; Erwin, 2001). Although counselor educators value publication in scholarly journals (Magnuson et al., 2003), they also review books, write training manuals, evaluate agencies, offer workshops, and act as consultants (Ramsey et al., 2002). Research mentorship functions fall into two broad categories: relational factors and instructional factors (Clark & Watson, 1998; Magnuson et al., 2003). Relational factors include support, mentor–protégé partnership, role modeling, nurturance, advocacy, and protégé socialization (Magnuson et al., 2003; Paul et al., 2002; Reynolds, 2005). Effective research mentors are “go to” individuals who respond quickly to e-mail messages and telephone calls, schedule regular meetings, and invest themselves in their protégés’ success. These behaviors reduce protégés’ isolation and loneliness (Clark & Watson, 1998). However, relational qualities may not directly increase protégés’ research productivity (Paul et al., 2002). Instructional factors include assistance in generating research questions, critical analysis of ideas, and offering multiple perspectives on ideas and issues. Mentors assist with research design, methodology, data analysis, and feedback on writing (Magnuson et al., 2003). Mentors also offer career guidance in various areas, including article submission, promotion of scientific integrity, navigation of the tenure and promotion processes, and time management (Magnuson et al., 2003; Reynolds, 2005). The relational and instructional needs of a protégé are unique and depend on his or her individual research experience, level of confidence, and writing ability (Reynolds, 2005). Research mentorship appears to be more effective than mere didactic training (Magnuson et al., 2003), given that the synergy created by collaboration drives and generates research (Clark & Watson, 1998). Benefits Research mentorship can benefit both parties in the relationship. Protégés gain expertise and contribute to project success (Benishek, Bieschke, Park, & Slattery, 2004). Mentors gain valuable assistance (Benishek et al., 2004) and experience generativity (Black, Suarez, & Medina, 2004; Burke & McKeen, 1996). Successful research mentorship increases scholarly productivity (Paul et al., 2002). Collaboration is of particular importance to protégés who may have experienced marginalization in academia, people of color, and lesbians, because collaboration validates their contribution in a way they may never have experienced before (Benishek et al., 2004).

102

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

Barriers Challenges to successful research mentorship exist. Protégés cite difficulty scheduling meetings, the emotional toll of criticism, and issues related to the balance of power in the relationship (Clark & Watson, 1998). For mentors, producing collaborative work with protégés may be more time-consuming than working alone or with a colleague because mentors must simultaneously produce a work and train a neophyte (Clark & Watson, 1998; Paul et al., 2002). Finally, mentors and protégés may have different ideas about what research mentorship entails, which can create confusion and lead to disappointment (Tentoni, 1995). Definition of Research Mentorship This study defined research mentorship as follows: A complex, dynamic relationship that occurs within an academic setting. The mentor, a more experienced researcher, offers both relational and instructional support to the protégé in research generation and collaboration and in professional development. The relationship is goal- and task-oriented, and primarily serves protégé needs, with secondary benefit for the mentor, who gains a research collaborator.

Relevance of Research Mentorship to the Profession of Counselor Education Paucity of Literature Less than 1% of articles in counseling and psychology journals discuss mentorship (Black et al., 2004). Empirical studies have been few and inconsistent in their results, while examination of existing mentoring programs demonstrates inconsistency regarding framework and function (Tentoni, 1995). No research exists that has examined whether research mentorship occurs specifically for counselor educators (Okech et al., 2006). Importance of Research Individually, counselor educators value research because it is a primary facet of tenure (Magnuson et al., 2003; Melicher, 2000), and they may value it as a means for establishing a viable profession. New faculty members who have mentors to guide them through research processes experience less stress and greater productivity (Hill, 2004; Magnuson et al., 2003; Melicher, 2000; Paul et al., 2002). However, many new counselor educators enter professional roles unprepared to dive into scholarly endeavors (Magnuson et al., 2003), making research mentorship critical for them. Counselor educators have indicated concern about the “large number of flawed research-based manuscripts” (Okech et al., 2006, p. 131) submitted for publication, and mentorship may improve protégés’ research productivity and its quality, potentially leading to greater job satisfaction and success as partially defined by achieving tenure and promotion. Because quality research endeavors

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

103

and resulting publication are inextricably linked to the tenure and promotion process at most universities, research mentorship includes instructional advice about navigating this process. Collectively, counselor educators have offered written guidelines for the profession regarding how to conduct effective research (Magnuson et al., 2003) because research is the foundation for ethical and effective clinical practice (Dohm & Cummings, 2002; Paul et al., 2002). Neglecting this vital area weakens the counselor education profession. Unfortunately, the gap between research and practice appears to be growing, with clinical professionals often abandoning research endeavors (Erwin, 2001). As a result, it is important for counselor education faculty to promote scientific inquiry into counseling theories and interventions. Because mentorship can play a significant role in the process of learning how to produce quality research (Magnuson et al., 2003), research mentors become even more important for pretenured counselor educators. Professional Commitment to Wellness Counselor education includes an implicit commitment to wellness. However, stressors exist in academia and “may include role overload, insufficient feedback, inadequate resources, lack of collegial support, and unrealistic expectations” (Hill, 2004, p. 135). If unchecked, stressors lead to decreased productivity and job satisfaction and have a negative impact on educators. When counselor educators successfully manage occupational stressors, they model positive behaviors to students and increase job satisfaction and productivity (Hill, 2004). Research mentorship may enhance the occupational wellness of pretenured counselor educators, because it is thought to reduce isolation, increase productivity, and lead to greater job satisfaction (Benishek et al., 2004; Paul et al., 2002). The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which pretenured counselor educators receive research mentorship and to offer an initial descriptor of the primary components of that relationship. The results of this study may be informative for professional practice for both pre- and posttenured counselor educators.

Method Participants The sample population included pretenured faculty members in counselor education programs accredited in 2005 by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The population database included all faculty from these programs who were listed in online directories as assistant professors. Programs that did not list individual faculty contacts on their Web sites were excluded. The resulting population was 319. Because of the small size of the resulting population, the entire population was sampled to provide the best estimate of its true characteristics (Courtney, 2004).

104

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

Over the course of survey implementation, the sample size decreased because of one or more of the following factors: invalid e-mail address, self-identification as inappropriate for the study, recently deceased, maternity leave, sabbatical, and lack of interest in participating. The final sample included 269 counselor educators, and there were 153 responses to the survey. Fourteen of these responses were discarded because participants answered no to Question 1 of the survey, “Are you a counselor educator working toward tenure?” The final response rate was 51.7% (139 eligible responses). This is well above the 30% response rate considered acceptable for Web-based surveys (University of Texas at Austin, Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment, 2006). Survey Design and Implementation The Web-based survey developed for this study, the Research Mentor Quality Questionnaire (RMQQ), was piloted with six pretenured faculty members of CACREP-accredited counselor education programs and a statistician for verification of face validity. Suggestions and corrections offered during the pilot process were included in the revised survey. These suggestions generally pertained to clarification of terminology and more effective wording of individual items. Although face validity existed for the RMQQ, content and construct validity were questionable. This was due to the lack of empirical data on research mentorship available in the research literature. However, a case can be made for content validity given that the content of the survey’s items seemed to match the reported content of mentorship relationships in academia according to the literature. Furthermore, a partial case can be made for reliability because of the Web-based administration and computer scoring of the survey, which reduced administration errors or scoring mistakes. The survey consisted of two sections. The first section consisted of questions based on information gleaned from literature regarding the instructional (Clark & Watson, 1998; Magnuson et al., 2003; Oregon State University Faculty Handbook, 1999; Reynolds, 2005) and relational (Magnuson et al., 2003; Paul et al., 2002; Reynolds, 2005) functions of research mentorship. Instructional functions include career-oriented activities and areas of guidance addressed during mentorship: generating research ideas; critiquing research ideas; assisting with research design, data analysis, and methodology; providing feedback on writing; assisting with journal submissions; and advising on career decisions and the promotion and tenure process. Participants were also asked about their collaborative research productivity based on tenure and promotion dossier items outlined within the Oregon State University Faculty Handbook (1999). These items included publications such as journal articles, books and book chapters, and other scholarly or creative works; presentations, including refereed and invited presentations; and local, regional, and national grants. Relational functions examined the nuances of the mentor–protégé relationship: hierarchical issues, cooperation, nurturance, openness, and level of support. For

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

105

each of the questions in Section 1 of the survey, participants selected as many of the instructional and relational functions as seemed relevant to their research mentorship experiences. The second survey section queried to obtain demographic information on mentors and protégés (the participants themselves), including gender, racial/ethnic identity, employment status and length, and tenure status. The complete RMQQ consisted of 19 items. Following institutional review board approval, the survey was implemented using the tailored design method (Dillman, 2000 for Web-based surveys, which recommends mixed-modal contacts to increase response rate. Thus, contacts with participants included a presurvey phone call and a presurvey e-mail informing participants of the imminent commencement of the survey research. Three followup e-mail contacts were sent, one each subsequent week, including an electronic cover letter explaining the rationale for the study and providing a link to the survey. All data were collected within 1 month of the initial telephone contact. Data Analysis Demographic data were analyzed to understand particular characteristics of the sample as a whole (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2005). Also, descriptive data were gathered from the sample to determine the degree to which participants had experienced research mentorship.

Results Demographic Data Of the 139 respondents, 82 (59%) were female, 57 (41%) were male. One hundred and two (73%) identified as Caucasian, 16 (12%) as African American, 8 (6%) as Asian American/Pacific Islander, 7 (5%) as Hispanic, 2 (1%) as Native American, 2 (1%) as other, 1 (< 1%) as multiracial or biracial, and 1 (< 1%) declined to identify race or ethnicity. Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding and because in some cases demographic data were not provided. Respondents were asked to report current academic rank: 131 (98%) identified as assistant professor, with 2 respondents identifying as associate professor, and 1 respondent identifying as other. Although participants were selected based on Web information indicating assistant professor rank, it appeared that some respondents had received promotion (but not tenure) prior to being surveyed. Respondents also reported the number of years employed at their current university: 29 (21%) responded one year; 21 (15%) two years; 18 (13%) three years; 24 (17%) four years; 21 (15%) five years; 8 (6%) six years; 4 (3%) more than six years; and 13 (9%) responded other. Those indicating “other” had been working at their universities for less than 1 year. The remaining demographic data reported tenure status. All respondents were pretenured, but 98% planned to seek tenure at their present university. Additionally, 4% had obtained tenure at an institution where they had previously been employed.

106

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

Research Mentor and Mentorship Data Respondents indicated whether they had collaborated on a research project with a more experienced faculty member. The majority of respondents, 77 (58%), reported one or two collaborators; 24 (18%) reported three or four collaborators; and 9 (7%) reported more than four collaborators. Twenty-two (17%) indicated zero research mentors. Regarding instructional functions of research mentorship, refereed publications were the most prevalent (n = 95; 68%). Refereed presentations ranked second (n = 72; 52%), followed by book chapters (n = 49; 35%; see Figure 1). Additional instructional areas of guidance related to the research process were queried. Eighty-seven (63%) participants indicated they received guidance through navigation of the promotion and tenure process; 70 (50%) received feedback on writing; and 63 (45%) gained assistance with editing (see Figure 2). Finally, relational qualities of the research mentorship relationship were queried (see Figure 3). Eighty-four (60%) participants described the relationship as cooperative; 70 (50%) selected open communica100 — 90 —

Number of Responses

80 — 70 — 60 — 50 — 40 — 30 — 20 — 10 —

Refere

ed pub lication s (n = 9 5) Juried public ations (n = 1 3) Other public ations (n = 2 1) Other creativ e work s (n = 1 0) Book (n = 1 5) Book chapte r (n = 4 9) Refere ed pap ers (n = 8 Refere ) ed pre sentati ons (n = 7 2) Invited presen tations (n = 3 1) Other presen tations (n = 2 4) On-ca mpus grants (n = 2 9) Nation al gran ts (n = 2 4) Other grants (n = 2 1) None of the above (n = 8 ) Other (n = 6 )

0—

Response

FIGURE 1 Participants’ (N = 139) Survey Responses Regarding Instructional Functions of Research Mentorship

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

107

100 — 90 —

Number of Responses

80 — 70 — 60 — 50 — 40 — 30 — 20 — 10 —

Critic

Gene

rating

resea

rch id ea (n = s al an 61) alysis of ide Assis a tance (n = s 50) in res earch desig Assis (n = n tance 40) in an Assis alyzin tance g data in de (n = velop 31) ing m ethod ology (n = Feed 29) back on w riting (n = 70) Subm Editin ission (n = g s to s 63) chola rly jo ur nals Advic e abo (n = ut ca 45) reer decis ions Prom (n = oting 57) scien tific in tegrit Time (n = y 11) mana g e m Navig ent s kills ation of pro (n = 37) motio na proce nd tenure ss ( n = 87) Othe r gra nts (n = 21) None of the abov e (n = 8) Othe r (n = 8)

0—

Response

FIGURE 2 Participants’ (N = 139) Survey Responses Regarding Areas of Guidance in Research Mentorship tion is encouraged; 51 (37%) described the relationship as nurturing; 46 (33%) chose egalitarian; 41 (30%) described the relationship as focused on protégé needs; and 39 (28%) selected differences are discussed openly. Fewer than 17% of the respondents selected the following options: hierarchical, competitive, individualistic, focused on mentor needs, differences are ignored, and open communication is discouraged. Remaining questions addressed demographic information about the respondents’ primary research mentor. Seventy-four (58%) identified their primary research mentor as male, 52 (40%) as female, and 3 (2%) selected other. Regarding race and ethnicity, 112 (88%) identified their primary research mentor as Caucasian, 6 (5%) as Hispanic, 5 (4%) as African American, and 1 (1%) Asian American/Pacific Islander. Regarding employment status, 63 (49%) research mentors held the

108

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

100 — 90 —

Number of Responses

80 — 70 — 60 — 50 — 40 — 30 — 20 — 10 — Other (n = 1 0)

Egalita rian (n = 4 6) Hierarc hical (n = 2 3) Coope rative (n = 8 4) Comp etitive (n = 4 ) Nur turi ng (n = 5 1) Individ ualistic (n = 1 Focus 5) ed on your n eeds (n = 4 1) Fo mentor’ cused on yo u s need s (n = 1 r 8) Differe nces cusse d open are disly (n = Differe 39) nces a re igno red (n = 4 Open ) comm encou unication is raged (n = 7 Open 0) comm discou unication is raged (n = 3 ) None of the above (n = 7 )

0—

Response

FIGURE 3 Participants’ (N = 139) Survey Responses Regarding Relational Qualities of Research Mentorship rank of full professor, 46 (36%) associate professor, 8 (6%) assistant professor, and 12 (9%) other, including research associates, retired faculty, clinical faculty, and higher education administrators, including deans. Of the research mentors, 110 (91%) were tenured, 14 (9%) were not. Thirty-three (27%) respondents listed their former doctoral major adviser as their primary research mentor.

Discussion Data gathered from respondents who received research mentorship provided valuable insight. Respondents received research mentorship across the spectrum of scholarly research activities. The fact that refereed publications and presentations topped the list indicates that traditional scholarly activity continues to be valued by novice faculty. Regarding the areas in which guidance was received, “navigation of promotion and tenure process” topped the list, with 63% responding. This is an important consideration because current literature indicates that achieving tenure and promotion is a confounding and

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

109

confusing process (Finkel & Olswang, 1996; Hill, 2004). This result supports the idea that counselor educators are concerned with attaining tenure and promotion. However, on the basis of responses to this survey, it was impossible to determine the specific kind of guidance that research mentors provided to protégés and whether this guidance would increase their chances of advancement. These questions would provide a rich opportunity for further study. In addition to guidance regarding promotion and tenure, respondents indicated that assistance with writing is a primary function of research mentorship. Clearly, generating written scholarly work is important to new faculty in counselor education. Rounding out the top five instructional areas of guidance indicated by respondents on the survey was “advice about career decisions” (41%). It is interesting to note that these five items all relate to traditional avenues of scholarship, promotion, and tenure. It is thought that producing scholarly, published written work is one of the most heavily weighted aspects of the tenure process. This information mirrors current literature that identifies tenure, promotion, and publishing as being among the most daunting activities for new faculty (Hill, 2004). It is startling to us that the three lowest ranked choices (besides “none of the above” and “other”) pertained to research methodology, data analysis, and promoting scientific integrity. Yet, it appears that pretenured counselor educators are receiving more mentoring regarding promotion, tenure, and writing than research design and data analysis. This is of particular concern because quality research guides quality clinical practice (Dohm & Cummings, 2002; Paul et al., 2002). The data support a belief that the majority of pretenured counselor educators receive research mentorship. Generally, it is assumed that research mentorship helps to produce outcomes that could lead to tenure, in particular, scholarly publications and presentations. However, this assumption provides an opportunity for further study. Some protégés seemed to gain assistance from their research mentors in crafting quality research products and in navigating the tenure and promotion process. The relationship was most often described as open, nurturing, and/or cooperative. In summary, according to data gathered during this study, a number of protégés used research mentorship for promotion, tenure, and career guidance and for production of refereed publications and presentations. This reinforces the notions that pretenured years are focused on achieving tenure and that university systems reward traditional modes of scholarship. However, counselor educators also engage in more creative scholarship, including nonrefereed articles, grants, book chapters, external program reviews, consultation, workshops, and training manuals (Ramsey et al., 2002). Thus, counselor educators may be challenged to meet the expectations of traditional scholarly work, such as refereed journal articles. Limitations We identified limitations of this study. First, sample selection may have been problematic. Only 155 of 198 CACREP-accredited programs

110

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

were accessed because many Web sites lacked contact information for faculty members. Furthermore, surveying only faculty members of CACREP-accredited programs limited the generalizability of this study. Because no control group was used to determine if differences exist between faculty from CACREP-accredited and unaccredited programs, it is difficult to determine if the results are applicable to the larger counselor education community. Second, feedback was received from respondents regarding research design qualities of this study. One response stated that mass e-mails were impersonal. This respondent expressed concern that mass emails, although ensuring anonymity, could also discourage potential respondents from completing the survey. Conversely, other respondents stated that they appreciated the multiple contacts, particularly the personal telephone call. Finally, the wording of the survey in one case caused confusion. The wording of the survey questions was inconsistent because some questions referenced multiple mentors whereas others referenced only one mentor. One respondent indicated that this presented a difficulty because of uncertainty about how to address responses. Recommendations Given the dearth of information on research mentorship in counselor education, there is ample room for future investigation. This survey initiates an effort to determine effective ways to mentor new counselor educators who seek to secure successful, satisfying careers in higher education. Based on respondent feedback, future projects should include exploration of research mentorship with posttenured faculty members. Comparison can then be made of results of the two studies of research mentorship for pretenured and posttenured faculty members. Such studies provide important clues regarding factors promoting successful careers. Related areas for exploration might include the relationship between research mentorship and job satisfaction and retention. These issues are particularly significant for faculty of color; gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals; women; and individuals with disabilities. A second avenue for investigation involves qualitative study of pretenured faculty members’ experiences with research mentorship. Allowing for open discussion about individual experiences may generate a wealth of information that could not be gleaned from a survey. For example, although mentorship may exist for an individual, the relationship might be unproductive, oppressive, or insufficient regarding production of scholarship because not all mentorship is beneficial. Exploring research mentor relationships through qualitative means may enlighten counselor educators and provide useful information on factors necessary for protégé success. Third, examining the experiences of individuals who did not receive research mentorship could provide valuable insight. Although studying successful mentoring relationships can provide important information, addressing needs of the underserved informs our practice as experienced

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

111

counselor educators. Through a willingness to explore its weaknesses and areas for growth, counselor education can promote a capacity for welcoming all who wish to join its ranks. Ignoring deficits does nothing to enhance the counselor education profession. Critically examining areas of failure may strengthen the profession as a whole. Finally, further study to examine the experiences and recommendations of tenured mentors might elicit intriguing information about mentorship from the mentor’s perspective. Senior mentors might describe their own mentoring training, protégé experiences, and skill sets involved in quality mentorship. Mentors may contribute recommendations on how they assess particular needs of their protégés. Examination of the process mentors use to evaluate protégés’ research capacities could provide the foundation for an evaluation tool that might be shared throughout the profession, thereby benefiting all. This area is worthy of study because research mentorship, a potentially powerful and beneficial experience for novice counselor education faculty members, is barely understood or formalized in professional literature. Without formalization, senior faculty members who are in the best position to assist pretenured faculty are less able or less likely to do so. Additionally, if senior faculty members choose to offer research mentorship to junior faculty, an in-depth understanding of the process will increase the probability of a positive rather than negative experience. Because current knowledge of research mentorship is limited, mentors and protégés are less likely to create healthy, productive relationships, risking possible alienation or frustration for both. Research mentorship might be viewed as essential to the survival and continued advancement of the profession of counselor education. This study offers a foundation for defining this valuable relationship and the hope that future exploration will build on this foundation and expand the implementation of research mentorship.

References Association for Counselor Education and Supervision. (2005). Vision statement. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from http://www.acesonline.net/vision.asp Benishek, L. A., Bieschke, K. J., Park, J., & Slattery, S. M. (2004). A multicultural feminist model of mentoring. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 428–442. Black, L. L., Suarez, E. C., & Medina, S. (2004). Helping students help themselves: Strategies for successful mentoring relationships. Counselor Education & Supervision, 44, 44–55. Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1996). Gender effects in mentoring relationships. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11, 91–105. Clark, M. C., & Watson, D. B. (1998). Women’s experience of academic collaboration. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 79, 63–74. Courtney, E. W. (2004). Descriptive data analysis: A series of performance-based modules. Corvallis, OR: Sanderling Press. Creamer, E. G. (1998). Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity (Report No. EDO-HE-98-2). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Davis, T. E., Levitt, D. H., McGlothlin, J. M., & Hill, N. R. (2006). Perceived expectations related to promotion and tenure: A national survey of CACREP program liaisons. Counselor Education & Supervision, 46, 146–156.

112

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Dixon-Reeves, R. (2003). Mentoring as a precursor to incorporation: An assessment of the mentoring experience of recently minted Ph.D.s. Journal of Black Studies, 34, 12–27. Dohm, F., & Cummings, W. (2002). Research mentoring and women in clinical psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 163–167. Erwin, T. M. (2001). Scholarship and counseling: A perfect marriage? (Report No. CG031270).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED457489) Finkel, S. K., & Olswang, S. G. (1996). Childrearing as a career impediment to women assistant professors. The Review of Higher Education, 19, 123–139. Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Applying educational research: A practical guide (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hill, N. R. (2004). The challenges experienced by pretenured faculty members in counselor education: A wellness perspective. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 135–146. Magnuson, S., Davis, K. M., Christenson, T. M., Duys, D. K., Glass, J. S., Portman, T., et al. (2003). How entry-level assistant professors master the art and science of successful scholarship. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 42, 209–222. Melicher, R. W. (2000). The perceived value of research and teaching mentoring by finance academians. Financial Practice and Education, 10, 166–174. Okech, J. E. A., Astramovich, R. L., Johnson, M. M., Hoskins, W. J., & Rubel, D. J. (2006). Doctoral research training of counselor education faculty. Counselor Education & Supervision, 46, 131–145. Oregon State University faculty handbook. (1999). Retrieved November 23, 2005, from http://oregonstate.edu/facultystaff/handbook/index.html Paul, S., Stein, F., Ottenbacher, K. J., & Yuanlong, L. (2002). The role of mentoring on research productivity among occupational therapy faculty. Occupational Therapist International, 9, 24–40. Ramsey, M., Cavallaro, M., Kiselica, M., & Zila, L. (2002). Scholarly productivity redefined in counselor education. Counselor Education & Supervision, 42, 40–57. Reynolds, C. F., III. (2005). Research mentoring in psychiatry: What works for whom? Psychiatric Times, 22, 78–79. Tentoni, S. C. (1995). The mentoring of counseling students: A concept in search of a paradigm. Counselor Education & Supervision, 35, 32–42. University of Texas at Austin, Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment. (2006). Conduct research: Response rates. Retrieved October 2, 2008, from http://www.utexas.edu/academic/diia/assessment/iar/teaching/gather/ method/survey-Response.php?task=research

Counselor Education & Supervision • December 2008 • Volume 48

113