9 Feedback from Workshop Participants
Contributed chapter by
Lydia M. Contreras and Jamie Walls
There were many valuable aspects of the workshop for me. First, the
wealth of information that was shared by the senior faculty at the
workshop was invaluable -- after just a few weeks I can already see how
this new knowledge has improved my interactions with students and staff
in mentoring situations. Second, the opportunity to interact with and
get to know senior faculty in an informal environment was invaluable.
It is comforting to know that the network of people I can ask for advice
is now significantly larger than it was just a few weeks ago.
-- Workshop
participant
I found the experience of being able to talk about diversity and
mentoring outside of my usual administrator role filled me with huge
energy, enthusiasm and hope about making progress at my own
institution. The frank and open conversation among people at such
different stages in their careers gave new depth and richness to my
understanding of mentoring. I met and learned about some individuals I
would love to recruit as faculty.
-- Workshop Participant
Organization, execution, and evaluation of a mentoring
program were three important topics covered during the BIRS
Mentoring in Academia workshop, particularly in the session on
Building a Mentoring Program from the Ground Up. The workshop
helped to highlight the need to
establish formal mentoring programs and set clear
goals for such an endeavor, but also made clear
that these are only the first steps towards
building a program. Discussions that extended from
the workshop sessions raised several other questions that must
be addressed to create a successful program. These questions include how to
- attract mentors to the program,
- determine which
topics to address and the format in which to present them,
- create an effective environment where open conversations
can take place,
- balance formal and
informal mentoring venues, and
- evaluate the
program's overall impact.
As a way to think further about these
topics, we wanted to use this
Mentoring for Engineering Academia
II workshop as a case study. This specific mentoring experience
(aimed to mentor on how to be effective mentors and mentees) was
successful in bringing together people of diverse age groups,
cultural backgrounds, gender, and career stages. Additionally,
the workshop was able to cover a variety of topics that sparked
a wide range of dialogue in both formal and informal
contexts. In this chapter, we present: (i)
a short interview with Bob Gray aimed at gathering insight
into the "behind the scene" thinking in
putting this workshop together, and (ii) the feedback we obtained from many
participants by means of a written survey that was drafted to evaluate the short-term impact of this program.
To gain some insight about the goals
for this mentoring workshop and some of the planning aspects,
we talked to one of the organizers, Bob Gray, about the logistics of organizing and running
it, the selection of the mentors and
attendees, the selection of the topics
that were discussed, and some general aspects of mentoring
programs. The full interview is presented in this section.
In general, we
learned that the workshop's main goal, of improving the pipeline of
women and underrepresented minorities, was pursued by (i) bringing
together undergraduates, graduates, junior and senior faculty, academic
leaders, and academic administrators to discuss this subject, and (ii)
disseminating the insight gathered from these discussions.
Lodging, food, and facilities were
provided by the BIRS center as a result of a successful
formal proposal, and
travel money was awarded to US participants in EE and CS through an NSF proposal. (A copy of both
proposals can be obtained from Bob Gray upon request.) The selection of
the location was a key consideration to attract attendees, especially
top academic leaders. Our questions about logistics and Bob Gray's responses
are provided below.
- What were the goals and objectives for this mentoring program?
There were two primary goals: The first was to bring
together a highly diverse group of students and faculty, with an
emphasis on women electrical engineers and computer scientists, to
discuss and develop a variety of issues relating to mentoring for
engineering academia. The second goal was to arrange for the writing of
proceedings, distilling the key ideas of the presentations and
discussions, to more widely disseminate the results of the workshop.
- The workshop targeted a certain group of attendees, which would not
only receive tremendous information from the workshop itself but also
contribute to the information that was presented.
What was the target workshop audience?
Undergraduate and gradate
engineering students considering a career in academia, junior and middle
engineering faculty who are both mentors of students and more junior
faculty and protégés of senior faculty, and senior faculty, including
academic leaders such as chairs, deans, and presidents.
- It is well known that mentoring programs as well as mentor-mentee
experiences are key to academic and professional success.
What void did the program set out to fill?
The
percentage of women and underrepresented minorities in engineering
faculty positions is far below their percentage in the general
population. The workshop was aimed at improving the pipeline of
potential and actual new faculty.
- Budgets, distribution of money, and the acquision of facilities for a
program of this magnitude is definitely an important aspect of planning and
developing a workshop.
What issues were considered in budgeting and funding this
program?
The housing and food was provided by
BIRS. We wrote a proposal to BIRS about two years ago for the workshop
and they awarded us the workshop. In addition I submitted a proposal to
the NSF for $9600 to support travel for those who needed it. The NSF
limited those funds to US citizens and permanent residents and to EE/CS
students.
- The funding for the workshop was supplemented by
in-kind contributions (i.e., the BIRS station provided the food and housing).
What
was so convincing about the proposal that was submitted to BIRS?
I can not say why they liked the proposal past the fact that it was an
important subject in an area (engineering) into which they were expanding.
1
- Location can be very important when looking to attract participants to
any workshop, especially when targeting such a diverse set of
participants.
How was the location selected?
The original suggestion for the workshop came at a previous
BIRS workshop. It is a gorgeous location, which enhances everybody's
mood and talents. Beautiful places can draw major stars in the field, as
this one did.
- "Timing [can be] everything" when organizing a workshop.
How did you choose the month and the length of the workshop?
The list of topics needed at least
3 days, and the choices were 2 or 5. We added two sessions for loose
ends and the proceedings, and put the free afternoon on the penultimate
day. The nature of the participants (academics, mostly women) meant the
best time was middle summer, outside of the academic year. In addition,
this is the best time of year for Banff.
Below
is a sample daily schedule for the workshop. The first three
days followed this format, the fourth day allowed for a free afternoon,
and the morning of the fifth day was used for reflections and
organization of tasks for the proceedings.
Daily Workshop Schedule
|
Time | Daily Activity |
|
7:00-9:00 | Breakfast |
|
9:00-10:30 | Session 1 |
|
10:30-11:00 | Coffee Break |
|
11:30-13:30 | Lunch |
|
13:30 -15:00 | Session 2 |
|
15:30 -16:00 | Coffee Break |
|
17:30-19:30 | Dinner |
|
|
- How was the tempo (i.e., day-to-day schedule) of the
workshop determined?
The general principles were
discussed and agreed on by the organizers. The goal was to keep
sessions to 90 minutes and have lots of breaks and free time to
discuss. It was also decided to have no evening sessions as the
evenings would allow exploring, discussions, and relaxation. The
details of the schedule were put together by me to match the Banff
Center constraints on break and meal times. The tentative schedule was
then sent to the other organizers and the BIRS Facilitator (Andrea
Lundquist) and the schedule was then tweaked.
- Overcoming issues of intimidation that may hinder open communication
is critical for a workshop of this nature to maximize everyone's
contribution. What planning factors were
considered to ensure that a safe climate for dialogue was created?
As with our previous workshop (PAESMEM/Stanford, 2004) the
goal was to have a large majority of women with a minority of men. The
mix worked well at the first workshop. It had the usual population
groups, but in different proportions. Everyone learned from and
appreciated the different experience of either being in a majority or a
minority for the first time.
- An important part of planning a workshop is selecting people that you
can work well with and can rely on for help and
expertise.
How were the personnel and collaborators selected to
assist in running the workshop chosen?
As with the first
workshop, the original organizers were me and several of my former
students. This happened at the first workshop because they nominated me
for the PAESMEM award, so we worked together to put the money that comes
with the award to a good purpose. Rabab Ward was added because she and
I ran an earlier BIRS workshop (on multimedia and mathematics). The only
staff were the BIRS staff and my admin at Stanford, Kelly Yilmaz, who
helped out from time to time.
- Choosing a venue for communication and delegating responsibility to
the different individuals on a planning committee is an important part
of organizing a workshop.
How was the work delegated to make the planning
aspect more effective?
This was done in an informal manner by constant email among me and the
organizers, the organizing committee, and the session chairs.
The attendees to this workshop included undergraduate and graduate
students, assistant, associate, and full professors, academic administrators,
department chairs, and university deans and presidents, with a broad
range of mentoring experience. (A list of all the workshop
attendees is included as Appendix 11).
Given this diversity, we were
curious to learn how this crowd was selected. In general, we learned
that bringing attendees that fit mentor and mentees role was important
but that formal training was not a requirement to qualify as a mentor
for this workshop. Moreover, attendees were not particularly approached
as "mentors" or "mentees." Attendees were simply approached based on
their interest in mentoring as a key component in promoting the roles of
women and underrepresented minorities in academe. The assumption was
that the range in experience from all attendees would promote dynamic
two-way mentoring relationships, where learning and teaching could
both be achieved depending on one's specific expertise.
The interview continued on the subject of selecting attendees.
- Recruiting such
an impressive list of attendees can be highly challenging.
How were the attendees recruited?
This is a long
story, but briefly it began by inviting some of the more enthusiastic
participants in the original PAESMEM workshop and calling for
nominations of more participants from them. Until the final weeks, the
organizers (me, Rabab, Sheila, Eve) would make the decisions on whom to
invite and we all kept contacting people for more nominations. We early
agreed on a minimum of 25% students and tried to not overload on the
senior end. We did feel it important to get associate as well as
assistant professors, and this time we also tried to get non-tenure
track faculty. Whenever a faculty member was invited, we also asked them
to suggest a student. We were successful in getting students to come
with a faculty person where the student might have been reluctant to
come alone.
- We were wondering if participants were selected for their ability to
mentor or fit the role of a mentee.
What were the
criteria of attendees fitting the "mentee" vs. "mentor" category?
Nothing past the obvious that the most junior students are
mostly mentees and the most senior mostly mentors. The hope was
mentoring would go both ways.
- Formal and informal settings allow for different types of
conversations and abilitites to form relationships.
Did the workshop aim to bring formally-trained mentors?
We tried to have both [`natural' and formally-trained mentors]. We
included people like me who were never trained and did not know they
were mentoring, to professional staff people who run mentoring
programs. We did not assign roles, but obviously people like college
presidents and school deans filled a mentor role.
- Given the participant's busy schedules, a strong incentive must exist
to attend a workshop like this.
How did you "sell' the
workshop to the attendees?
I am probably not the best
person to ask. My view is that a workshop like this is a unique opportunity
to interact with people the participants do not usually interact with,
to learn, to teach, and to hike in this beautiful place. What is not to
like? That is reward enough.
- An environment that elicits honest conversation is key to a mentoring
workshop.
What aspects in the planning were aimed at
facilitating vertical conversations (e.g., between students and university
presidents)?
First names were used, titles were
not. Dress was informal. Session schedules were loose. Breaks were
plentiful and meals not rushed. People were given time to break out in
small groups and do stuff.
Given the diversity of the topics that were discussed, we wanted
to learn how these topics were selected. Were they based on needs (as
shown by research)? Personal experiences? Past conversations? In
general, many of the topics emerged from the PAESMEM workshop.
The interview continued to the subject of determining the content of the
workshop.
- More
topics than time can allow may need to be addressed in a workshop. This
variety can challenge the decision of which topics are more important
and relevant to the participants.
How were the topics
selected and what strategies were used to ensure that topics were
both broad and relevant?
Many were inherited from the
PAESMEM workshop, where they were developed by the organizers. New ones
were added following many email exchanges among the organizers and the
organizing committee. We did not [make sure that the topics/discussion
could be broad enough]. We thought of a good collection of topics, and
some sessions diverged from the original topics [covered in the first
workshop].
- Choosing presenters for a workshop is an important task, which
requires looking at information about candidates and deciding if they
would be able to adequately relay the information to the targeted
group of participants. The ability to empower, educate and even
entertain people all at the same time helps individuals to relay
information in a more accurate manner.
How were the
presenters for each session assigned?
First the organizers chose the session chairs and then worked with them
to find presenters. Sometimes new people were invited specifically to
present, sometimes they were chosen from the existing participants.
As a mentoring program, we were also interested in learning how
the organizers planned to evaluate the short-term and long-term
effectiveness of the workshop. We were also curious to see if they had
thought of ways by which to institutionalize this type of workshop.
Our conversation is reported below:
- Feedback and evaluation is an
important part of an event.
How did the organizers intend
to evaluate the impact of this workshop?
No formal mechanism was originally planned, but
we will get feedback as we write the proceedings.
This chapter and the interview and survey on which it is based provide
a more detailed description of the impact on the participants.
- The benefits of good mentoring continue to grow far beyond a workshop,
and organizers would like to find ways by which to reach more people
than allowed by a single workshop.
Do you intend to
institutionalize this program so that it continues?
Hmmmmm. That is not something I intend to do, but I would certainly be willing
to help whoever organizes a sequel.
- What would you like to hear 10 years from now
from the attendees that will make you think "wow, this program was
successful"?
Something like what I have heard from my
successful students, that they have been successful in their career and
personal life and have helped others achieve similar goals. While here I
had dinner with three former students and one "almost" student (I was
her second reader). I was just amazed that I even knew such powerful,
interesting, and wonderful people. The fact that they think I helped
them achieve that is the best reward of my career.
To learn about how the workshop impacted the participants'
opinions on mentoring and increasing the pipeline of women and
underrepresented minorities in engineering academia, we
conducted a survey. We were also interested in obtaining
feedback to learn about the aspects of the conference that were
successful (and not so successful). The survey was administered
(and received) after the conference, predominantly via e-mail. In
this second part of the section, we discuss a profile of all the
survey participants, present the results from the quantitative
("hard") part of the survey, and summarize the feedback obtained
from the qualitative responses that were collected. Twenty-one surveys
were received from the total of 42 participants.
The self-identification of the survey respondents is summarized as follows:
- Gender: 19 females, 2 males
- Academic Position: 2 non-tenured
professors, 2 non-academic, 4 academic leaders, 6 students considering
academia, 3 assistant professors, 4 tenured professors
- Self-identified roles: 5 as "mentors", 7 as "mentees," 5 as "mentor
and mentee," 2 as workshop organizers, 2 as presenters
- Formal
mentoring training: 4 said Yes, 17 No
- Travel money obtained
from workshop funds: 7 said Yes, 12 No
- Travel covered by
university or fellowship: 10 Yes, 9 No
Table 9.3
summarizes the results of
the quantitative part of the survey. To average the results, values of
0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 were assigned to "doesn't apply," "poor," "good,"
"very good," and "excellent." The table also includes the percentage of
respondents in each category. It is interesting to note that the
categories with the five highest ratings in response to the question of
"how would you rate ..." were
- the ability to bring
together a group with diverse experiences
- the ability of the
Banff Centre to facilitate this workshop
- the contribution of
people from diverse academic ranks to the quality of the
information/discussion offered in the workshops
- the degree to
which participants enjoyed the loose/flexible schedules for all
sessions, and
- the degree to which participants enjoyed meals that
were not rushed.
|
| Mean | (1)Poor |
(2)Good |
(3) Very Good |
(4)Excellent |
|
The ability to bring | | | | | |
|
together a highly diverse | | | | | |
|
group of students |
3.35 |
0.00% |
5.00% |
55.00% |
40.00% |
|
The ability to bring | | | | | |
|
together a highly diverse | | | | | |
|
group of faculty |
3.35 |
0.00% |
5.00% |
55.00% |
40.00% |
|
The ability to bring | | | | | |
|
together a group with | | | | | |
|
diverse experiences |
3.71 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
28.57% |
71.43% |
|
Degree to which the | | | | | |
|
workshop provided | | | | | |
|
information FOR you |
3.57 |
0.00% |
9.52% |
23.81% |
66.67% |
|
Degree to which the | | | | | |
|
workshop was directed | | | | | |
|
towards gathering | | | | | |
|
information FROM you |
2.5 |
5.00 |
55.00% |
25.00% |
15.00% |
|
Success of the workshop | | | | | |
|
in preparing you to better | | | | | |
|
improve the pipeline for | | | | | |
|
potential and new faculty |
2.8 |
0.00% |
40.00% |
40.00% |
20.00% |
|
Information gained to | | | | | |
|
better prepare you | | | | | |
|
to handle the challenges as | | | | | |
|
potential and new faculty |
3.30 |
0.00% |
15.38% |
38.46% |
46.15% |
|
The way tasks were | | | | | |
|
distributed to complete | | | | | |
|
the proceedings |
2.94 |
0.00% |
16.67% |
72.22% |
11.11% |
|
The ability of the Banff | | | | | |
|
Centre to facilitate this | | | | | |
|
workshop |
3.73 |
0.00 |
0.00% |
26.32% |
73.68% |
|
The Banff Centre as a | | | | | |
|
vacation spot (relaxing, | | | | | |
|
fun, etc.) |
3.85 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
15.00% |
85.00% |
|
The quality of the food at | | | | | |
|
the Centre |
3.33 |
0.00 |
9.52% |
47.62% |
42.86% |
|
The quality of the staff at | | | | | |
|
the Centre |
3.38 |
0.00 |
4.76% |
42.86% |
47.62% |
|
The ability to interact | | | | | |
|
with other workshop | | | | | |
|
attendees during meals |
3.8 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
20.00% |
80.00% |
|
The quality of your | | | | | |
|
interactions with other | | | | | |
|
attendees during meals |
3.52 |
0.00% |
4.76% |
38.10% |
57.14% |
|
The ability to interact | | | | | |
|
with other attendees | | | | | |
|
during "coffee breaks" |
3.48 |
0.00% |
9.52% |
33.33% |
57.14% |
|
The quality of your | | | | | |
|
interactions with other | | | | | |
|
attendees during | | | | | |
|
"coffee breaks" |
3.42 |
0.00% |
10.53% |
36.84% |
52.63% |
|
The convenience of the | | | | | |
|
workshop being in the | | | | | |
|
summer |
3.61 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
38.10% |
61.90% |
|
The convenience of the | | | | | |
|
length of the workshop | | | | | |
|
(i.e., 5 days) |
2.90 |
0.00% |
33.33% |
42.86% |
23.81% |
|
The amount of free time | | | | | |
|
(i.e., "time to yourself") | | | | | |
|
during the week |
3.38 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
61.90% |
38.10% |
|
The overall quality of | | | | | |
|
your stay at Banff |
3.62 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
38.10% |
61.90% |
|
The format of the | | | | | |
|
workshop (i.e., | | | | | |
|
presentation & group | | | | | |
|
discussions) |
3.48 |
0.00% |
4.76% |
42.86% |
52.38% |
|
The gain in your | | | | | |
|
understanding of how to | | | | | |
|
be a better mentor/mentee | | | | | |
|
during a mentoring | | | | | |
|
relationship |
3.3 |
0.00% |
20.00% |
30.00% |
50.00% |
|
The tempo of the | | | | | |
|
workshop (with lots of | | | | | |
|
breaks in the middle) |
3.55 |
0.00% |
5.00% |
35.00% |
60.00% |
|
The contribution of | | | | | |
|
people from diverse | | | | | |
|
academic ranks to the | | | | | |
|
quality of the | | | | | |
|
information/discussion | | | | | |
|
offered in the workshop |
3.71 |
0.00% |
4.76% |
19.05% |
76.19% |
|
Information provided to | | | | | |
|
help you find | | | | | |
|
mentors/mentees |
2.9 |
0.00% |
26.32% |
52.63% |
21.05% |
|
Overall quality of the | | | | | |
|
session chair/moderator |
3.3 |
0.00% |
15.00% |
40.00% |
45.00% |
|
Relevance/applicability | | | | | |
|
of the topics of the | | | | | |
|
sessions to you |
3.14 |
0.00% |
14.29% |
57.14% |
28.57% |
|
Overall quality of the | | | | | |
|
session speakers |
3.33 |
0.00% |
4.76% |
57.14% |
38.10% |
|
The quality of the | | | | | |
|
discussion climate created | | | | | |
|
by the women/men ratio |
3.14 |
4.76% |
9.52% |
52.38% |
33.33% |
|
The ability to meet new | | | | | |
|
people to explore the | | | | | |
|
Banff region |
3.45 |
0.00% |
15.00% |
25.00% |
60.00% |
|
The ability to engage in | | | | | |
|
valuable mentoring | | | | | |
|
conversations outside of | | | | | |
|
the formal workshop |
3.52 |
0.00% |
9.52% |
28.57% |
61.90% |
|
The importance of | | | | | |
|
sharing your experiences | | | | | |
|
with other attendees in | | | | | |
|
informal settings (i.e., | | | | | |
|
outside of the | | | | | |
|
formal workshop) |
3.57 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
42.86% |
57.14% |
|
The ability to meet new | | | | | |
|
mentors/individuals that | | | | | |
|
you foresee having a | | | | | |
|
future impact in your | | | | | |
|
career |
2.8 |
5.00 |
40.00% |
25.00% |
30.00% |
|
The exposure to resources | | | | | |
|
about how to mentor |
3.2 |
0.00% |
20.00% |
40.00% |
40.00% |
|
The exposure to | | | | | |
|
information about how to | | | | | |
|
navigate through some of | | | | | |
|
your current challenges |
2.84 |
0.00% |
31.58% |
52.63% |
15.79% |
|
The ability to receive | | | | | |
|
broad and diverse | | | | | |
|
perspectives on issues | | | | | |
|
that were important to | | | | | |
|
you |
3.38 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
61.90% |
38.10% |
|
Comfort achieved by the | | | | | |
|
freedom to call everyone | | | | | |
|
by their first names |
3.58 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
42.11% |
57.89% |
|
Comfort achieved by the | | | | | |
|
casual nature of the dress | | | | | |
|
code |
3.52 |
0.00% |
4.76% |
38.10% |
57.14% |
|
How did you like the | | | | | |
|
loose/flexible schedules | | | | | |
|
for all sessions |
3.67 |
0.00% |
4.76% |
23.81% |
71.43% |
|
Ability to enjoy meals | | | | | |
|
that were not rushed |
3.71 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
28.57% |
71.43% |
|
Ability to have plentiful | | | | | |
|
breaks |
3.57 |
0.00% |
0.00% |
42.86% |
57.14% |
|
The amount of free time | | | | | |
|
(i.e., "time to yourself") | | | | | |
|
during the week |
3.43 |
0.00% |
4.76% |
47.62% |
47.62% |
|
|
Table of Survey Results
This subsection summarizes the
responses obtained from the survey participants to some of the questions
that were asked in the survey. We have also included sample quotes from
the participants at the end of each section. We were interested in the
participants' feedback concerning
- the workshop's (at least immediate)
impact for improving the pipeline of women and underrepresented minority
faculty,
- ways that the workshop helped to provide them personally
with tools to address current (or expected) challenges,
- venues that made the workshop effective,
- the important factors that
contributed to the workshop's climate and the participants' level of
comfort,
- sessions that were of particular value, and
- incentives for attending the workshop.
In general, we learned that one
aspect that was extremely valuable for participants who, reportedly,
enjoyed and greatly benefited from the workshop, was the exchange of
personal experiences and personal stories as a complement to the formal
training and factual information that was presented in the
workshops. Some administrators also reported that they would like to see
more strategies aimed at how to help and support women and
underrepresented minorities.
- What was the workshop's (immediate) impact on improving the
pipeline (at the undergraduate, graduate, and junior faculty
level) of women and underrepresented faculty?
- Encouraged changes in
attitudes about academic positions and academic leadership roles.
- If
already considering an academic position, helped in planning/imagining a
long term career path.
- Reduced fear in assuming the responsibilities
that are associated with mentoring.
- Exposure to both positive and
negative experiences from mentors and mentees reinforced the type of
mentoring that can have a positive impact.
- Expanded notion of what
"successful" mentoring can mean and how important it is to advise, not
"dictate rules."
- Increased awareness and understanding of biases that
exist in search committees.
- Provided way to extend personal network
and connect to people who can help in the attempt to diversify an
institution (i.e., to recruit minority faculty).
- Informed about the
value of having multiple mentors.
- Helped to understand the importance
of communicating and providing feedback to mentors (i.e., showing mentors
appreciation).
- Provoked further thought about whom to consider
"underrepresented."
- Encouraged sensitivity about some of the special
issues faced by underrepresented minorities through exposure to unknown
information.
- Provided concrete tools for better understanding this
problem and to allow more effective conversations with those who need
to be "preached" to.
- Offered concrete ideas and suggestions to
increase the number of women (at that institution).
- Offered great
insight into mentoring students with disabilities.
- Introduced great ideas for developing formal mentoring programs.
- Added a valuable forum to directly support young women.
Success can mean a lot of different things and that makes being a
mentor seem less scary. You can start by talking about the expectations
you both have and seeing if those are reasonable, etc. It's nice to
know where to begin!
-Workshop participant
Prior to the workshop, I viewed "success" in a mentoring (or advising)
relationship as helping the mentee achieve his/her goals and helping the
mentee reach the best outcome for him/her. After the workshop, I see
that this definition is only part of what a successful mentoring
relationship is about. Now, I see that the mentor can also learn from
the mentee.
-Workshop participant
It helped to hear about potential problems and the importance of
multiple mentors. It's perhaps made me more willing to be a mentor in a
situation where I realize I don't have to be the sole mentor and risk
giving one bad piece of advice that could ruin someone's career!
-Workshop participant
I realized more than ever how important family issues can be for women,
knowledge and support can be for the disabled, and a welcoming climate
can be for underrepresented minorities. It brought home as never before
the importance of institutional commitment and coordination around these
issues. I also think the women leaders there have helped embolden me!
-Workshop participant
- What are the useful tools that the workshop provided to deal with current
(or expected challenges) in academia?
- The exchange of personal stories
and anecdotes in addition to general advice.
- The presentation of
realistic advice and practical ways to apply the knowledge that was
presented.
- Meeting and getting to know people to whom questions can
be asked, i.e., senior women who are supportive.
- Increase of awareness
and information about the challenges in the field for those in non-tenure-track or aspiring faculty positions.
- Not so helpful for
administrative staff working on faculty development.
- Raised awareness
about how important mentors are for professional success.
- The
opportunity provided to find mentors right at the workshop.
- Provided
useful strategies about mentoring undergraduates.
The workshop helped to: Validate how I am thinking and responding to
various challenges that I am facing now. Reaffirm that I am going in the
right direction and that a tremendous amount of work and focus remains
to be developed and completed ...Understand how to use various strategies
to move forward. Understand how to use various strategies to navigate
through challenging situations. Understand that we are in more control
than we think. Understand that keeping a focus is critical.
-Workshop participant
The information given was somewhere between `This is impossible, why
would anyone choose academia . . .' and `Choosing academia makes
everything so easy.' When I hear people from the first viewpoint I
wonder why anyone bothers, and the second viewpoint makes me think that
the proponents are either deluded or superheroes. This workshop had
lots of advice of the `It's difficult but here are some ways to handle
it' variety.
-Workshop participant
What was more valuable to me was to hear the senior people talking,
during the sessions and outside. I was inspired by their work. It gave
me a great sense of hope to see that people can really make differences
and can have a great life in academia.
-Workshop participant
- What were the venues (informal and formal) by which the workshop most effectively
impacted the participants' personal career pathways?
- Informal venues
(meals, coffee breaks, trips in the Banff area) were seen as a great
opportunity to get into deeper conversations with people about specific
topics of interest.
- Formal sessions and presentations were seen as a
good way to get general information and concrete facts.
- Formal
sessions were also seen as important precursors to powerful informal
conversations.
- Some participants felt that both were necessary and
useful, stating that "most of those (informal) conversations would not
have happened without previously having a formal discussion about those
topics during the sessions."
- Informal conversations were a good way to network
and for senior faculty and administrators to talk to the students and
even do some recruiting.
The formal discussion gave an overall summary of information. I got
most of my specific questions answered through informal venues.
-Workshop participant
A combination of both formal and informal methods of communication
provided me with the most information. I would not have felt
comfortable initiating contact with certain individuals if the formal
contact did not precede the informal contact.
-Workshop participant
It was the Mentoring for Academic Leadership Workshop that made me
realize that I would like to become an academic leader in the future.
-Workshop participant
Probably the most directly useful thing (in terms of what I need to
get done as President of Harvey Mudd College (HMC)) was meeting and learning about people of
color who might become future faculty at HMC. This happened in the
informal discussions during breaks and at meals.
-Workshop
participant
- What were the factors
that contributed to creating a safe conversational climate?
- Climate of honesty, openness, trust, and respect
- Feeling that
everyone was interested in hearing one another (i.e., no one got
interrupted or cut off)
- Tone established from the beginning by
organizers and senior leaders
- The honesty and commitment of the
facilitators that included them sharing explicit confidential
statements
- Feeling like everyone's contribution was valuable
- Loose schedule that was adaptive and accommodating to the time-needs of
each presentation and discussion
- Mutual caring and understanding
about diversity issues
- Informal atmosphere that enabled the creation
of personal connections aided by amount of spare time available during
meals, breaks, small size of the room, and "loose" nature of the
presentations
- Diversity within the group
- Session format: balance
between time dedicated to discussions and time dedicated to formal
presentation
- Women being a majority
It helped that people `with authority' talked so freely from the
get-go. By sharing confidences and their stories, it helped to relax
the atmosphere.
-Workshop participant
The number of participants in the workshop was ideal...The group was
small enough that I was able to meet almost everyone within the first
day, but large enough that there was a variety of people with whom to
talk. The group was an ideal size for the open discussion format of the
formal workshop meetings, and more in-depth and specific one-on-one
conversations were facilitated by the frequent coffee breaks, as well as
the format of the meals and the opportunities for evening
activities.
-Workshop participant
I am not sure whether the proportion of women versus men made a
difference most of the time, but probably some of the themes we touched
could not have come up if men had been a majority (for example, the
whole conversation about crying in public
2).
-Workshop participant
The fact that all of us were in all of the sessions ...We built up a
feeling of camaraderie that would have been harder to establish if we
were all going to different sessions. The "boot camp" aspect of keeping
everyone on the same task for a long time is very useful.
-Workshop
participant
The fact that we were all housed together made this a much different
experience from the original meeting and enhanced the ability for people
to network better.
-Workshop participant
- Which workshop sessions were particularly valuable?
Collectively, all of the
workshop sessions were found to be of high value. However, more than the
topic per se, participants commented on the value of being able
to share information in two-way dialogues with people from all
ranks of the academic ladder. The following comments reflect
reasons why the sessions were useful for different conference
participants:
I really enjoyed the conversation about how to handle crying 3).
The workshop on building a mentoring system was quite relevant to our
graduate program as we continually strive to improve the `graduate
school experience' for all our graduate students.
The leadership workshop awoke a desire in me to become a leader.
I found the group discussions in each workshop, especially the input
from the younger attendees, particularly valuable. As an academic
administrator it is especially helpful to hear from junior people who
are not at my institution since junior people at my institution feel
inhibited about talking to the dean or president no matter how hard I
try to avoid them feeling so.
...it usually wasn't the topic but also the discussion.
I found the one on mentoring for academic leadership particularly
interesting since most of the information in it was completely unknown
to me. Since that session I have started to think that I might be
interested in a leadership position in the future. The fact that the
presenters were women to whom I felt close in many ways made me feel
that that might be possible.
Dr. Ladner's discussion on utilizing undergraduate research [was
particularly useful] because of my interest in teaching.
Dr. Riskin's
discussion on empirical evidence to support diversity efforts because of
specific examples I had not heard before.
- What were the incentives to attend the workshop?
- To meet old friends, interesting
colleagues, and senior researchers
- To hear personal experiences on
the topic from senior researchers and leaders
- To enjoy Western
Canada
- To learn and hear other perspectives and new ideas about
mentoring
- To learn about the career paths of successful individuals,
in particular women
- Relevance of the content of the workshops
- To
network
- To listen about other people's experiences
- To share
knowledge, successes, failures about mentoring and mentoring programs.
- To watch and learn from senior faculty
- To recognize opportunities
for mentoring
- To learn how to formulate strategies on how to be a
better mentee and mentor
- To understand if "subconscious bias" really
existed
- Because it was recommended/suggested by a mentor (or
professor)
- To learn about what criteria define a good individual candidate for
academia
I recognize that I have greatly benefited from informal mentoring from
people more senior than myself. While I have been fortunate to have
people be a mentor to me at critical times, I recognize that there may
have been other opportunities for mentoring that passed me by because I
did not recognize the opportunity, and neither did the potential
mentors.
- Workshop participant
Since most of my experiences as a `mentee' have been rather passive, I
was hoping to learn how to foster more active, or interactive,
mentor/mentee relationships with senior faculty. Learning about [how to
mentor] students to become productive researchers. Learning about
identifying mentors and/or mentoring opportunities for myself.
-Workshop participant
I did not know enough about what the workshop actually was to make an
informed decision, but I'm open to new things. And you don't say no to
opportunities from your Dean.
- Workshop participant
I wanted to pick up ideas on actions I could implement (or my
University could implement) to help increase the number of female
students and faculty members. I was also interested to get first hand
experiences from women having either gone through or implemented such
programs.
- Workshop participant
Below is a list of suggestions and
recommendations for future workshops.
- Best to distribute surveys
during the last day of the workshop.
- Might be beneficial to see more
active participation during the sessions from all the
attendees (i.e., find ways to encourage those who did not contribute to
participate).
- In some ways because the group was so diverse, the
topics were not always of interest to the members. For example, the
topic on improving the pipeline for academics was good, but perhaps not
so useful to more junior participants.
- Shorter surveys are more
likely to be filled accurately.
- While the 5-day format is enjoyable
during the summer, a shorter format might be more convenient (i.e., 3
days), if organized at another time in the year.4
- Importance of how to
widely distribute the proceedings and how to encourage others to read
and build on them.
- Might be beneficial to facilitate more mixing of
the group over the first day or two to ensure that everyone gets the
opportunity to meet. Perhaps having some assigned break-out groups,
informal icebreakers (to learn names), or doing something to encourage
more "mixing" during meal times in the first day or two could mitigate
that.
- Informal icebreakers might also help to break the intimidation
factor of meeting such famous women.
- Might be fun to have had some
informal activity after dinner.
- Have more active sessions
(role-playing, communication, and negotiation).
November 15, 2007
