Selection of Research Mentors for K‐Funded Scholars

Selecting research mentors for students, fellows, and K scholars is an important process. K scholars in particular represent unique trainees that require a different kind of mentoring compared to students and postdoctoral research fellows. K scholars are usually appointed as assistant professors or assistant scientists and are expected to develop independent research programs as quickly as possible. However they are vulnerable from a number of perspectives including their relative inexperience in engaging in an academic environment. Conducting pilot studies, writing up prior work, and preparing larger scale studies for R awards is a difficult balancing act when trying to initiate new teaching, clinical, and administrative responsibilities. K scholars need to build their own multidisciplinary research team that often includes students, postdoctoral fellows, and research staff; yet they lack the managerial skills and experience to establish and sustain such teams. Additionally, scholars need to develop a relationship with funding agencies and other research advisors, but lack the contacts and academic network of their senior colleagues. Strong, involved mentors can facilitate almost all of these activities. K scholars need active mentoring that provides scientific expertise and direct oversight as they try to establish independent research programs. The purpose of this white paper is to provide a framework for the process of selecting mentors for K scholars. This paper is one of several white papers written on the various elements of mentoring K scholars in clinical and translational science. These white papers are being written by members of the National Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) mentor working group that consists of 20 faculty members across 15 CTSA Institutions. Faculty members of the working group include Ph.D. educators and scientists, senior physician scientists, and academic leaders. The group was established by Dr. Fred Meyer who was the chair of CTSA education Key Function Committee in the fall of 2008 with Dr. Michael Fleming appointed as leader of the group. The white papers were supported by an American Recovery Act supplement awarded to University of Wisconsin-Madison by the National Center for Research Resources. The working group has been collaborating since the fall of 2008 with face-to-face meetings and frequent conference calls. The papers were developed based on discussions in the working group, available literature, a national survey of KL2 directors, and focus groups with K scholars and mentors conducted at the University of Wisconsin, Vanderbilt University, University of Colorado, and University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. The working group elected to divide the various programmatic elements of mentoring into six papers, including: (1) scholar–mentor alignment, (2) mentor selection, (3) mentor support, (4) mentor training, (5) mentor competencies, and (6) mentor evaluation. The series also includes a paper that reports the results of the national KL2 survey1 and will culminate with a working group consensus summary of effective mentoring practices. The available literature on mentoring is enormous with thousands of articles and hundreds of books written in the last decade alone. The number of articles relevant to the white papers, however, is less than 200. There are fewer than 20 articles that discuss mentor selection relevant to clinical translational science. There are no empirical papers on mentor selection that report outcomes. The KL2 mentoring survey was a semistructured telephone interview conducted with KL2 program leaders at 46 of the CTSAs funded in the first four cohorts (2006–2009). This was a 100% sample of all CTSAs funded at the time the interviews were conducted. The survey specifically asked how mentors were selected and is the only study reported that specifically addresses this question.1 The focus-group data reported in this paper were obtained from a series of meetings with scholars and mentors at four CTSAs including the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Vanderbilt University, the University of Colorado Denver, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Similar questions were asked for each focus group. The focus groups were taped, transcribed, and entered in a qualitative database. A total of 55 scholars and 44 mentors across the four sites participated. The process of mentor selection varies by the level of trainee and institutional culture. In the case of most Ph.D. students and many postdoctoral research trainees, departmental faculty choose the students they want to work with as part of the Ph.D. or postdoctoral fellow application process. Medical students enrolled in Medical Scientist Training Programs are usually accepted into the program without a specified mentor, and rotate through two to three labs during the first 2 years of M.D. training ultimately deciding which laboratory and research mentor they would like to work with on their Ph.D. On the other hand, new investigators applying for individual career development K awards are in a different stage of their career. They have a history with previous mentors, have begun to establish a research program, and need mentors who can facilitate their transition to independence. The mentors they need for their K awards need to be more than strong scientists. Primary mentors for K scholars need to help scholars to navigate the complexity of the academic environment, to facilitate the K scholar in developing his or her own research teams to become well known at the National Institutes of Health and in the scientific community, and to create a sustainable, long-term research plan. The literature review conducted for this communication, a national survey of KL2 program leaders, and focus groups with scholars and mentors revealed a variety of methods currently in use to identify mentors for K scholars. The national survey found that CTSA KL2 programs expected the K scholar to identify and recruit his or her mentor(s) prior to the application process with limited formal guidance from CTSA leaders. However some CTSAs provided formalized assistance to the K scholar by the program leadership, particularly in the selection of secondary or topical mentors. Other institutions provided names of qualified mentors from a “mentor academy” or equivalent institutional group to K scholars to aid them in their mentor search. One institution (Scripps) required that a chair or dean recommend individuals to serve as K-scholar mentors for a specified time period. Two of the 46 sites surveyed assigned mentors to rising K scholars. The superiority of mentor selection by K scholars compared to assigned mentorship is unclear.2 Sambunjak’s meta-analysis, although not specifically focused on selection of K scholars’ mentors, did not suggest superiority of either self-selection or assignment of mentors in terms of either career success or independence of the mentee.3 Their review suggested that selection of mentors by the mentee may offer a better opportunity for a genuine, meaningful academic relationship. With this strategy, the mentor and K scholar have each committed to the research relationship from its inception. Further, it promotes autonomy and responsibility for the relationship by the K scholar, and allows flexibility for the choice of mentor that best suits the scholar’s perceived research needs. Scholars within our K focus groups acknowledged that direction and introductions to potential mentors by senior faculty members familiar with the environment of an institution were extremely valuable in providing direction to choice of mentors. The K scholars reported that senior faculty members provided critical information on potential mentors both inside the scholar’s home department, and when appropriate, outside the department. Importantly, focus-group members believed that such advice could be obtained either with or without a formalized “mentoring committee.” In our K-scholar focus groups, lack of compatibility in assigned mentor–mentee pairings was perceived as a definite limitation by scholars. Some centers required scholars to select mentors from a specific pool, regardless of scientific compatibility. Although this was viewed as not necessarily helpful in terms of scholar scientific development, listed individuals in the pool were perceived as good overall career mentors, who “very clearly knew what they were doing when it comes to career development of young investigators.” In other centers, although mentor assignments were typically made in the best interest of the scholar by either a senior individual or committee, they were also affected primarily by who was available to mentor at the time of the K application. Proceedings from K focus groups suggest that mentors may be selected (at least in the K scholar’s estimation) years before the formal relationship has been established in conjunction with the K award. For example, a K scholar might choose a fellowship program based on a specific faculty member. Such preselection demonstrates the K scholar’s commitment to a research career, and autonomy in selecting a mentor who has proven expertise. Alternatively, with physician K scholars, prior clinical interactions during portions of a postdoctoral fellowship may function to introduce future mentors, thereby laying the groundwork to establish a later research relationship. Persistence and perseverance in the K scholar’s seeking the best possible mentor or mentors is important, particularly in building a strong multidisciplinary team that will support the oftentimes broad mentoring needs of the average K scholar. The concept of “speed mentoring”—bringing together a group of mentees with a group of experienced mentors, and encouraging brief, one-on-one interactions in a designated venue has been examined as a potential method to provide introductions to determine if “chemistry” exists between mentees and mentors.4 As a method of introduction and forming a network with potential mentors, speed mentoring has a potential role that deserves further investigation. Mentor selection for K scholars across the 46 surveyed CTSA sites had typically occurred at the time of the application, particularly the identification of the individual designated as “primary mentor.” Most review committees rely heavily on the K applicant’s choice of their primary mentor. There is the assumption that a strong senior mentor, who provides a strong letter of support, will increase the K awardees’ chance of success and the development of an independent research program. Selection of a primary mentor postaward is uncommon. Changing mentors and adding new mentors is another element of mentor selection that occurs over time. In a meta-analysis of qualitative research examining the role of mentee in the academic medicine mentor–mentee relationship, active participation of the mentee in the relationship was positively associated with career success.5 Prior investigations have stressed that mentees who are proactive, willing to learn, and are selective in accepting advice from their mentors achieved more tangible success over time. One focus-group K scholar reported the value of meeting with numerous faculty who had experience in his chosen field of research. He met with multiple Principal Investigators and the personnel in their laboratories, and attended their laboratory meetings. Another focus-group participant reported up meetings with potential mentors on to a new and with mentors at that time. qualitative and in the mentoring needs of K scholars across CTSA sites including within the sites These can be to KL2 program in that mentoring needs are being met for all K scholars. For example, KL2 scholars at the University of Colorado, by one of the of this paper from scientists with prior experience in a clinical scientists working on research and in research. K scholars will from mentoring groups of the is often the primary mentor for the K and within the postdoctoral students, students, laboratory These individuals will provide advice on the of the research for the K scholar, who is a career in the of helpful individuals outside of the primary mentor can be a a and more difficult to identify and for is that scholars involved in this of time to with not the primary mentor, but also establish focused time to mentoring from these other who may be in different and and at other but who are to the of clinical research. Such focused time might include meetings with research to and into studies, to the of the study and data and to that are in these individuals are not in a but are across an to in mentoring and topical mentors and meeting with them to education and mentoring for the K scholar in the of research are critical to the and success of K scholars the in clinical and translational research. The and of mentoring to success of a KL2 scholar is for K scholars with prior laboratory experience and multiple a mentoring strategy, the scholar is to his or her own engaging the mentor on an may be and for more K scholars, an mentoring occurs multiple in to more formal face-to-face meetings two to three a could be more The of mentoring a KL2 scholar that or needs to be in a research career is an important in mentor selection, as not all mentors will be to provide of time and Scholars and potential mentors be the and of interactions they will that both can CTSA sites with KL2 scholars, exists in the of the scholars’ as well as the required level of by their mentors. These the institutional of a some the need for a mentor is as a of Further, the at some institutions the of mentoring and will not support the time or with providing an accepted of mentoring for K scholars, it is the CTSAs surveyed to provide a to KL2 mentors for their time to the of these committed individuals for time mentoring and not in other perceived as more Additionally, oversight by KL2 directors, as well as or not be as a for mentoring support to the from the primary mentor. Such individuals can provide the scholar with and for the research and aid in or other of career One other for mentoring that could be at programs a number of senior faculty are available to mentor K scholars is the of a mentoring program, mentoring with other groups of KL2 can serve an important mentoring has been in the academic with groups of who have as as years of faculty The may be by the needs or of the group, but a support at group and a or group can supplement one-on-one mentoring that a K scholar from more senior mentors. The mentoring literature potential in research mentors. These may be and to help in the mentor selection thereby providing a to the mentor.” mentoring of value to the K scholar often include three primary and interest in the scholar’s specific of in the skills by the K scholar, and experience with the department, or program to the scholar to its and The focus groups conducted as part of the writing of the white papers methods for a of the focus groups suggest that expertise in the of the K scholar’s research is of to KL2 trainees in the focus scholars be that the expertise of their primary mentor will over time as the scholar more The is a made by one of the scholars during one the focus had a with one of primary mentors, and both his and his expertise would one of but also knew kind of his The believed to be important in a research mentor by our K-scholar focus groups are in the A K mentor will have had a previous and currently have available to the scholar in a research career. Scholars who in the focus groups a need for assistance with and in as well as of the with by the scholar, the and to and assistance in A of as by in the may be viewed as a of the to work with in to with first or senior provides that the mentor can without all of the research or and is in his or her as a senior The can also provide an to K scholars the of potential that could be available to the research conducted in found that of a mentee may his or her of of has not been in the mentor–mentee relationship in the of however, in between mentors and K scholars will working K-scholar focus groups the of the in independence and are that no how work, not to be to be as with other of the if or more or less Importantly, between the scholar and mentor may be in the is assigned within the academic medicine might be in mentor–mentee of different with between different mentor–mentee as well as perceived in between different mentors have been reported in the academic although these have not been examined in the of mentoring in academic however, have revealed to suggest that mentoring is suggest that a mentor of or may not be as important if the relationship is of KL2 scholars be strong The mentor needs to be his or her role with the and to on the relationship in terms of its and The of the mentor–mentee relationship be clearly and prior to the of the relationship to later Prior mentoring experience of mentors is perceived as important to K scholars. Further, to their to on the role of K mentor, they have a history of mentoring other trainees at the level of K scholar to independence. One with a prior experience by members of the K focus group was how important with and in the academic may be in This was particularly when mentors from a different or career as their K scholar were of for the scholar, yet were for that the scholar is in terms of of mentors in the for and for trainees outside of their home can help the career success of the One other in by the KL2 focus group was the of mentoring of physician K scholars by other physician scientists. Such mentoring may be perceived by the K scholar as being associated with of the clinical with this of was that physician mentors for K scholars could better the oftentimes of clinical work in that career in to a Ph.D. without such and the and of mentors have strong skills that will them not only to their mentees in the of but will also them to be to in the and to these as as possible. research skills a definite time and mentors have the time available to aid the mentee in building his or her skills who are and with the best may to the career of mentees without time for this education to This is particularly when one mentor on multiple mentees K scholars in our focus groups were of the need for time of the is senior and and has a papers not that a good may be a but they may not either have the time or the or the interest it to mentor With the of mentor training programs to the needs of clinical and translational are more and accepted across the These programs are in terms of and but typically focus on developing skills for the many they will have to including and of our surveyed CTSAs required of such a program as a for a scholar mentor. One established mentoring training program has been at the University of since is to investigators in mentoring individuals involved in Although the mentor training for individuals who will aid the career of K scholars has yet to be an of mentor training for involved in research will establish and for these individuals As with or an the experience of can be an of it is not that from a previous mentees was also by one focus group K-scholar participant as a method to mentors for these KL2 scholars need to be with what they want to in their both and A of career and how they will with other as well as over the of is but to and and to The success of a KL2 scholar is to some on the of the mentoring or institutional and program oversight are important to that mentors not this scholars can be to a research mentor with the best in selecting this only to or years into the relationship that career are not being or are further the scholar’s or might not be that this is for mentees could (1) meeting with primary mentor, (2) to the mentor with difficult (3) like and mentor are in different and (4) the that mentor is not In these the relationship, or seeking new advice and mentoring can to be extremely difficult and This is in the relationship has become one of but also in the relationship is on a but on a a K-scholar are different that might be For an K scholar, seeking the advice and assistance of the KL2 program or is the first as these individuals are in the scholar’s success as faculty The KL2 program or is in a better than the more scholar to be to the mentor–mentee relationship in to a that will be to all Additionally, the K scholar have some to who might be a more mentor for his or her research and that has the to be a new primary mentor. this information to the KL2 program or chair can help the scholar and if this new mentor could be a a KL2 program primary mentors for stage KL2 scholars, who often can be one-on-one with the primary mentor and specific than later is almost the best this with the mentor, with the that the will work is not an effective the and on the scholar. a meeting with the scholar and the mentor, the one-on-one is also important can and the is also important for both the scholar and the mentor both from their The scholar needs to be to how to in these but in the of and by the KL2 and his or her direct often their For a K scholar who has established his or her own network of a with the primary mentor might not be to ultimately In lack of support by the primary mentor a of mentorship might be perceived as an on the to independence. the complexity of clinical and translational it is not for investigators to have a broad of with and over time as the scholar’s skills a less on the focus of the scholar to first to new laboratory different mentors may be an individual to the who serve primarily as career advisors, be to focus on the of the scholar’s career. Mentor selection for K scholars developing in clinical translational is not scholar will have an established mentor with they have with for a number of most K have to to with the they need to help them with their research and career The mentor not only needs to be a good and but also with an established and Institutes of for Research and for or other agencies research program. This paper a number of important that need to be by program leaders, research as well as K scholars. The paper also the need for more empirical research on the process and of mentor The CTSAs offer an laboratory in which to some of the methods in this There need to be studies on the of and mentors who can support yet K scholars become for mentors is another that needs empirical With the of CTSAs and KL2 the in selecting mentors for new scholars has become more offer some for K scholars, their mentors, and program based on available data that will facilitate this process. for K mentors including expertise in their prior independent a success in mentoring faculty and available time to mentor. In selection of a K mentor, K scholars need to be with the and career and the time to potential mentors to that chosen mentors will facilitate the of these needs can based on the of research being conducted by the K scholar as well as the prior Although a primary mentor is in the mentee at the of the research career, mentors and career be to the mentor by the This is valuable both to the K scholar on and in case the primary mentor–mentee relationship for KL2 program specific for the K mentor can be both for scholars to use in the mentor selection and to faculty from mentoring the can be will help pairings and mentor success in the mentor training as a part of the for K-scholar Such training could provide a good for these and may also a of mentoring at that mentees have scientific and career and the experience that this may not be in the This paper supported by KL2 and