Formal Mentoring in Athletic Training Higher Education: Perspectives from Participants of the National Athletic Trainers' Association Foundation Mentor Program

Instrumentation

We developed 2 semistructured interview guides (Tables 2 and 3), based upon the purpose of the study¹⁷ as well as the timing of the interview (initial, final) and the participant's role in the program (mentor, mentee). The founding principle of a phenomenological study is to understand the experiences of the individual without influencing them; thus, questions were derived to be open ended and unbiased.¹⁶ Developing interview guides that allow for a broad understanding of the phenomenon allowed us to bracket our biases and personal experiences in an attempt to improve the credibility of our findings.¹⁶ In addition to the interview guides, we also developed a series of structured questions the participants responded to at 3-month intervals (Table 4) during the 11-month program. Prior to data collection, 3 experts in qualitative research completed a peer review of the interview guides and journal questions to help improve credibility and trustworthiness. Minor edits and formatting issues were addressed during this process.

Table 2.  Initial Interview Guides

View Fullscreen

Table 3.  Final Interview Guides

View Fullscreen

Table 4.  Guided Journal Reflections

View Fullscreen

Procedures

All participants completed a 1-on-1 semistructured phone interview at 2 time points (early June, prior to engagement in the program, and mid-May, upon completion of the program). The initial and final interviews lasted 45 minutes and, for consistency purposes, were conducted by the same researcher. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, and participants were asked to complete a member check upon completion of the final interview. The initial interview was done prior to the start of the formal aspect of the program after pairing of the mentor and mentee had been complete. The final interview was done at the completion of the program. Our selections of time points for the interview was planned, as we wanted to first gain preliminary reflections and expectations about the program (Table 2) and then to follow up and discover their personal evaluations of the program (Table 3). We also had participants respond to a series of questions in a journal entry format (Table 4) designed to assess their experiences throughout their mentoring relationship. The journal prompts were sent via e-mail every 3-months, and responses were stored on Qualtrics (Provo, UT). All of our participants completed all phases of the study.

Mentors: Collaboration

Our participants perceived mentoring relationships to be mutually beneficial, a primary reason they accepted a role within the program. Erica, in her final interview, reflected on her participation in the program: “I also think that it's great to be in the program because, if you get a relationship with the one that I did with my mentee, it was valuable to me, too, because I learned from her as well.” Throughout the study, many of our participants discussed their satisfaction with the mentor program, as they viewed it as mutually beneficial and collaborative. Comments included: “learn from one another,” “helped each other,” and “mentor and mentee can grow professionally.” Our participants believed involvement benefited them by collaborating on research ventures (mentoring increases productivity) and learning new and different ways to approach things. Greg, in his final interview, shared his thoughts on his experiences over the year saying:

It's a great experience on both sides, mentor, mentee. I think it's a great thing for the NATA as well because, you know, this is in most situations, I think both the mentor and mentee are going to grow professionally, which is going to help to freshen academic training as well. So, yeah, absolutely, I would recommend it.

It was unmistakable that Daniel was very content with his experiences as part of the mentor program. During his journal entries, he reflected on the success they were having as a mentoring pair. An early journal entry illustrates collaboration: “it is going quite well. We've both helped each other out with different projects.” In a later entry, Daniel reflected: “[W]e have similar interests and her background has been very helpful.”

Mentors: Professional Service

Our mentors also discussed wanting to “give back to the profession” or “pay it forward” due to previous mentoring they received as young faculty members. Daniel's motivation to participate in the program was based upon the chance to give back to the profession and support a young faculty member. Daniel shared in his first interview:

Hopefully, I could be somewhat helpful to the junior faculty member who I will be placed with. Hopefully, there is something that I could help that person with, and you know, I think that it is good anytime you can give back to the profession in any way.

Much like Daniel's motivation, Erica also agreed that she participated in the program due to the desire to engage in a professional service activity that supported a young professional. Erica stated the factors linked to her involvement in the program centered on: “It's always good to give back.” She continued explaining in greater detail:

It was my primary reason for engaging in this particular one [role]. It was a chance to give back, plus, with the mentee [I was assigned], I thought it would be a good pair. I think that's valuable. So I would recommend it, and in the sense of being able to give back.

Our participants also discussed engaging in the program because they enjoyed mentoring, which was due to the mentorship they had previously received and the relationships that often are cultivated as a result. Emily had reflected early in the study on the impact her past mentors had, and so when given the chance to serve in the role wanted to pay it forward and continue to be a part of a mentoring relationship. In her first interview, Emily shared:

I definitely highly value all the mentors that I've had in my career, so which is a part of the reason I wanted to participate in it as a mentee several years ago, just looking to, you know, build networks, and then now to provide this and provide insight into different types of faculty positions, different research opportunities for current young investigators.

Greg said:

I love being a mentor. I loved it when I was a faculty member, and as an administrator, that's-that's my number 1 responsibility is mentoring younger faculty, and you know, when you're a faculty to achieve whatever it is they want to achieve, so to be able to give them the resources and the knowledge they need to do what they want to do. So I love that aspect of it, and I know [mentee name], so when I was asked to be a mentor for [mentee name], it was kind of a win-win situation.

His reflections illustrate recognition on his part of the importance of mentoring as well as his willingness to engage in an activity that allows him to support the growth of a young faculty member.

Mentees: Networking

Participation for our mentees was strongly connected to the desire to gain a professional connection to someone outside of their current institutions, and someone who was well connected and established within the athletic training community. Arnold's comments on his initial attraction to the program highlight this finding, as he said: “[T]he idea of branching out further and getting another researcher's opinion or another set of eyes on things, to communicate with, that is why I saw this opportunity as something good.” Reggie's reasons, much like Arnold's, were founded on the desire to develop a professional connection to a renowned faculty member. He said: “[T]he ability to develop a relationship with someone who is fairly well established in the field and being able to use them as a mentor was definitely helpful.” Reggie, in his final interview, reflected: “I think it was a generally good experience. . . It was nice to know I have someone to share and bounce ideas off of.” Danica discussed the importance of the connection to the field of athletic training during her interviews. She acknowledged having an institutional mentor that was critical for organizational success, but also the need to have “an athletic training connection and the content expertise” to thrive as a faculty member as well.

Extending beyond their network was also part of the motivation to participate in the program. That is, our participants wanted to gain perspectives of other athletic training scholars and faculty members in the field. Arnold stated that he continued to maintain a relationship with his former doctoral mentor, but also recognized that adding mentors to his support team would benefit his professional growth and pursuits. He shared:

I definitely think my mentor has definitely helped me through this year, and I will continue to seek that out. By adding mentors, [it] wouldn't necessarily [coincide] with the idea of replacing a previous mentor. It would be more or less kind of continuing to start to build a network from either different research interests or just different philosophies or different points in our careers.

Rachel discussed the importance of “getting a different perspective on things and a different outlook” that was beyond that of her doctoral experiences. Her rationale was based upon “wanting to differentiate myself from my PhD mentor and not relying on him for every question that I have.”

Mentees: Research Support

Our participants also directly linked their desires to gain more support as researchers as their motivators to participate. Our mentees discussed wanting guidance in scholarly writing, building a research line, and general support in continuing their research agendas. Adrienne, during her first interview, said:

I'm hoping to gain lots of publications from it and then, like I said, just learning more of the ins and outs about research and publications. I have some aspirations to do some grant writing and things, too, so just learning some of those facets, and then if they don't know, then maybe connecting me with someone that does know more about that kind of thing.

Reggie, like Adrienne, wanted a mentor to support his research agenda. In discussing his initial attraction to the mentor program, he shared:

I think grant training is probably the biggest one, and I was just hoping that might be someone who is at a smaller university that has ideas on how to be successful at a smaller university, especially with the whole research aspect.

Other participants discussed getting feedback on manuscripts in development, brainstorming new research ideas, as well as guidance on how to manage current grants. The focus for our mentees was gaining the continued support as they ventured into the researcher's role independently for the first time. Amanda shared her reasons for participating:

So I was really looking for an additional mentor to try and work with me with [my area] and being assigned someone that really could help me with that. So that really attracted me to it. Just having another person to talk about kind of the process of, you know, being a junior faculty member kind of, you know, being able to talk with them about that, a possibility of collaboration with them, maybe on a project especially with similar research interests.

Strengths of the Program: Initial Connections and Overview of the Guidelines

The NATA Foundation Mentor Program begins during a luncheon hosted by the foundation during the NATA's Annual Meeting and Clinical Symposia. Our participants acknowledged that this served as the platform for developing a relationship with their mentor/mentee. Amanda, a mentee, and Greg, a mentor, both recognized the luncheon as the start of the relationship. Amanda shared: “At the research luncheon at NATA, we were able to talk in person and come up with a plan for the year.” Greg, too, said: “[W]e met during the-the lunch for this mentor/mentee program. We mapped out some plans, some ideas, some things we wanted to work on.” Both articulated the formal luncheon as their start to the relationship, and the chance to meet their mentor/mentee and plan for the experience. The participants spoke of the value they gained from the chance to meet their mentor/mentee in person and discuss their expectations and goals for the year. Greg shared his appreciation for the luncheon during his final interview:

I thought the-the luncheon we had at the annual meeting was great because it gave me a chance to sit down with my mentee, and really honestly, that was the first time I had, I had physically met her. So it was great to actually sit down with her and-and talk about what she wanted to accomplish with the relationship and get to know her a little bit better. So I-I thought that was a, I thought that was a great resource that NATA provided for us.

Emily believed the luncheon was an important part of the development of the relationship; it helped facilitate the direction of the relationship. She shared in her final interview:

I think [the luncheon] is creating sort of the opportunity to have that initial meeting, which definitely helped to facilitate and create an opportunity to meet and briefly chat. I think, in the future, I think if there's any way to like just to have that sort of like lunch or whatever opportunity happen every year, even to continue these relationships.

The luncheon was the formal platform for the development of the mentoring relationship, as it provided a chance for direct communication between the pair, as they did not have a previous relationship. The luncheon was mentioned as important for providing some basic information on mentoring. Amanda discussed that she was clear on the overall guidelines of the program, which she learned during her attendance at the luncheon. She shared:

I think they were clear. You know, they suggested outlining what our goals are for the year, and I don't think we met every single one of them, but we met a lot of them. I think that having suggestions that were given in the guidelines on, you know, how to have a [meaningful] relationship were clear.

Arnold also believed that, by attending the luncheon, he was able to gain a basic understanding of the direction of the program and what needed to be done. Arnold reflected in his final interview:

From what I remember, they gave some general statements on what they perceived this mentoring looking like and some ideas of how to form some goals to potentially set and some ideas of trying to… I remember from the luncheon of trying to set up meetings throughout the, you know, the year and predetermining those, and you know, more or less, I felt that there was support there.

During the luncheon, the communication by the program facilitators helped provide some direction for our participants. The direction was rudimentary as summarized by our participants and appeared to be focused on “the need to develop a direction, a plan, and something to work towards as a pair.”

Areas of Improvement: Ongoing Communication and Facilitation

Many of the participants acknowledged that, despite the program being formal, in terms of pairing the mentees with mentors, there was little structure beyond the initial meeting at the June luncheon. Many participants suggested more ongoing communication was needed from the NATA Foundation. Several suggestions included: “reminders to touch base with your mentor/mentee,” “suggestions for dialogue between mentors and mentees,” and “an overall check-in process to make sure things are going well and that meetings are happening.” Rachel shared: “I think communication throughout the year, throughout the program would be really helpful.” Her recommendations included: “just send an e-mail out to the mentees and say, ‘Make sure you are checking in with your mentor. Here are some questions you can ask them.'” Rachel's comments reflected that an e-mail would help the mentee understand how to navigate the mentoring relationship, as well as “navigate being overwhelmed.” Much like Rachel's comments, many of the mentees wanted support through active communication from the program, simply as a way to better facilitate the relationship and be successful. Danica, during a journaling response and her final interview, shared her desire for more communication from the NATA Foundation. She first wrote: “The only roadblock would be a lack of clear direction.” Her solution:

I have overcome this by calling/e-mailing my mentor when I have questions instead of letting the leadership direct that. I think that this process could have been more valuable with periodic check-ins with the leadership.

Danica also, during her final interview, articulated that the program, although formal in theory, was more organic, as once the pairing was complete, it was the initiative of the mentor/mentee to facilitate the relationship. She told us:

I felt like, with the program, it was really left for him and I to make it what we wanted, which, I think, was great at times, but maybe if there had been a little more guidance of, you know, here are some topics that we could discuss, or maybe him initiating some conversations could have been helpful.

Ongoing communication emerged as 1 area for improvement, along with helping the pair cultivate the relationship. Participants shared having some facilitation by the program on common topics to cover, possible questions that could be discussed between the pairs, or other guiding elements could have helped the pair navigate their relationship and meet the goals first discussed at the luncheon. When asked about the role the foundation played in the facilitation of the program, Adrienne reflected that she wanted a bit more from them. She shared in her final interview: “I think it needs to be [facilitated] by the people [Foundation administration] that want to do it so if you're not willing to put in the effort then you're going to get out of if what you put into it.” Rachel's thoughts on the program reflect the need for more communication that can stimulate discourse between the mentor and mentee, as well as serve as a reminder to the mentee to be proactive in reaching out. She shared in her final interview:

I think communication throughout the year, throughout the program, would be really helpful, just e-mailed out to the mentees and say, you know, to make sure you're checking with your mentor or, you know, just like here's a few things that you can ask your mentor, some e-mail that you can just look at and kind of remind you about it because I think, especially in my situations when I was overwhelmed, it wasn't the first thing that I thought of, and it probably would have been a really good resource.

Erica told us during her final interview that she thought the NATA Foundation organizers could have been more active during the program. She shared:

I think [the Foundation facilitators] could be involved more. I don't know what their actual purpose or goal is in the end. I mean, I know from when I did it before, it was supposed to be like this matched pair kind of like, you connect somebody up, and it's like an introduction. Then you click on contact, and either it works out, or it doesn't. So I don't know what the whole outcome of the program is. So depending on what that outcome is, I guess there could be potentially more communication.

Erica's reflections indicate a need for more formal communication about the goals of the program, but also a concentrated effort in directing the mentoring pairs throughout the program.