Peer power
2018; Springer Nature; Volume: 19; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês
10.15252/embr.201847246
ISSN1469-3178
AutoresShelly Levy‐Tzedek, Galia S. Moran, Uri Alon, Neta Sal‐Man,
Tópico(s)Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
ResumoScience & Society5 November 2018free access Peer power A women's peer-mentoring program at the workplace: example from the academia Shelly Levy-Tzedek orcid.org/0000-0002-5853-3235 Department of Physical Therapy, Recanati School for Community Health Professions, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS), University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Galia S Moran The Charlotte B. and Jack J. Spitzer Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel Search for more papers by this author Uri Alon orcid.org/0000-0003-1121-5907 Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel Search for more papers by this author Neta Sal-Man [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-1109-479X The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel Search for more papers by this author Shelly Levy-Tzedek orcid.org/0000-0002-5853-3235 Department of Physical Therapy, Recanati School for Community Health Professions, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS), University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany Search for more papers by this author Galia S Moran The Charlotte B. and Jack J. Spitzer Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel Search for more papers by this author Uri Alon orcid.org/0000-0003-1121-5907 Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel Search for more papers by this author Neta Sal-Man [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-1109-479X The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel Search for more papers by this author Author Information Shelly Levy-Tzedek1,2,3,‡, Galia S Moran4, Uri Alon5 and Neta Sal-Man6,‡ 1Department of Physical Therapy, Recanati School for Community Health Professions, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel 2Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel 3Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS), University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany 4The Charlotte B. and Jack J. Spitzer Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel 5Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 6The Shraga Segal Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel ‡These authors contributed equally to this work EMBO Rep (2018)19:e47246https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847246 PDFDownload PDF of article text and main figures. ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures & Info For most scientists in academia, a tenure-track position is both a major achievement and a long-awaited challenge to gain independence and pursue their own research projects. But this independence comes with drawbacks. Although principle investigators (PIs) can rely on many years of experience and training of how to perform research, many find it an onerous task to lead a research group, as their training focused mostly on their scientific education and too often not on the other skills required: recruiting excellent students, allocating resources, management skills, becoming a mentor, and navigating institutional politics. Many universities and research institutions therefore offer mentoring programs whereby successful senior faculty members, who are willing to allocate time, resources, and expertise, pair up with a young PI to help and advise them. These programs, which often hinge on a good personal and professional fit between mentor and mentee 1, are very helpful to improve productivity, career advancement, and career satisfaction 2. While establishing an independent research group is challenging for anyone, female PIs face additional challenges, such as maintaining a healthy work–life balance, confronting stereotypes about women as group leaders, or dismissive attitudes which undermine the achievements of female scientists 3. In addition, female scientists seem to find it more difficult to form mentorship relationships on their own 4. Given the importance of mentoring, and the specific challenges and difficulties for female scientists, many universities and academic centers—among others, Kansas University School of Medicine, Rice University, Pennsylvania State University, and University of Wisconsin-Madison—have implemented specific mentoring programs for female faculty. Public funding agencies, notably the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the European Commission Horizon program, also support such projects to develop and apply approaches with the aim of helping women in academic STEM careers, including formal mentoring and soft-skills workshops. Indeed, female researchers with mentors tend to have more publications in peer-reviewed journals, spend more time on research, and have greater career satisfaction than women with no mentors 5. While establishing an independent research group is challenging for anyone, female PIs face additional challenges… Each academic mentoring program has its unique rules about how to recruit mentors and to pair them with junior faculty, the duration of the program, meeting schedules, training of mentors, access to resources and soft-skills workshops, and how to evaluate the success of the program. The majority of these mentoring programs is centered around the junior–senior, one-on-one relationship 6. Here, we describe an alternative to this classical mentoring model—a Junior Women Peer-Mentoring Group—our experience and recommendations for implementing such a program at other universities and academic centers. Junior Women Peer-Mentoring Group In 2016, we started an all-women, new-PIs workshop bi-annually at Ben-Gurion University. This initiative was led by Galia S. Moran and inspired by an all-women's group she had co-established at Harvard Medical School 7. The vision was to form a Junior Women Peer-Mentoring Group (JWPMG) program at the university to address the specific needs of young female faculty members, and provide them with concrete advice for coping with the challenges of academic life and running a research group. During each of seven sessions, the facilitators—Galia S. Moran and Uri Alon—used the peer-coaching approach to address and resolve an issue or a problem per requests from the group; for example, how to say no, time management, work–life balance, networking, and assertive self-presentation. Our peer coaching has three phases: During phase 1, one participant—the mentee—describes a challenge she is currently struggling with. The other members of the group can only ask questions to clarify the situation, but should give no advice. In phase 2, the mentee becomes an observer while the rest of the group—the mentors—suggest possible actions, and talk about the mentee in third-person voice. This creates a sense of distance for the mentee, which helps her to see the problem from an outsider's perspective. One person from the group is charged with taking notes of the various suggestions. Another person serves as a facilitator to make sure the discussion adheres to the format. Then, in phase 3, the mentee rejoins the discussion and selects action items that she feels are appropriate for her situation and commits to acting on them within a specific timeline. … female researchers with mentors tend to have more publications in peer-reviewed journals, spend more time on research, and have greater career satisfaction… During these sessions, we dedicate time to create a positive atmosphere so that participants trust each other and form a group that is interested and dedicated to meeting periodically. An important principle is to stick to this positive atmosphere and clearly set the goal of each meeting, and the timeframe. We also make sure that everyone has an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. What is special about Junior women peer-mentoring group? The JWPMG approach is different from traditional mentoring programs in various aspects. The mentoring is performed by a group of individuals, and not by a single person, which allows for multiple solutions to emerge; the mentors and the mentee are at the same level in terms of academic rank, so there is no paternalism in the interactions; and each person in the group plays both roles—mentor and mentee, forming a sense of reciprocity. Moreover, while other programs also use a group format 8, they include senior PIs, who either lead the group or are part of it, thus maintaining the traditional hierarchical model. Indeed, playing the roles of both mentor and mentee removes the often-present imbalance between senior and junior colleagues; there is no one person who holds all the answers. The mentee chooses an action plan, not because the person offering advice is her senior, but because it is the one that can help her to solve the problem. This process enhances the sense of ownership over the chosen strategy. The all-women, similar-academic-rank JWPMG group with faculty members from different departments provides a safe environment. Participants can bring up burning issues without fear of repercussions, and the mentors can discuss these in a relatively neutral manner, as they are not personally involved. These issues often include gender-specific challenges at the workplace, which can be discussed without concerns of experiencing a judgmental look. There is another advantage to junior faculty members advising their colleagues: Since their specific challenges are often the same no matter in which discipline they work, and are unique to their academic stage—establishing a research group, recruiting students, preparing courses, establishing one's name recognition—the peers can easily relate to these dilemmas, and offer solutions from their own recent experience. This has the additional benefit of efficiency: Regardless of the role played during the discussion, any member can benefit from advice given by the group. The group approach offers a diverse set of experience, opinions, and suggestions, from which the mentee or any other group member can then choose what she wants to apply to resolve her dilemma. What did we take away from the program? Our experience with these JWPMG groups shows that it is beneficial for the participants by embracing and discussing different approaches to leadership, by coming up with solutions to problems that women face more frequently, and by creating a sense of camaraderie. Differences in leadership styles increase diversity and help to make research more creative. When we start a new research project leading us into the "unknown", different voices give different answers to the questions. It is a common cliché that a woman that "makes it to the top" has to act "like a man". Hearing from other women in the group that they succeed as a research group leader, while maintaining what is a considered a stereotypically female leadership approach, such as using emotional intelligence when dealing with colleagues and students, encouraged us to embrace the diversity of approaches and management styles. During the JWPMG meetings, we also learned practical advice for how to say "no", how to deal with being asked to perform administrative duties too often owing to gender stereotypes, and how to manage the overwhelming multiplicity of roles: personal and professional. … playing the roles of both mentor and mentee removes the often-present imbalance between senior and junior colleagues; there is no one person who holds all the answers. Finally, the group meetings also created a sense of camaraderie among the participants. One can easily feel isolated as a faculty member, especially as member of a minority group 3, 9. In this program, during which we shared personal dilemmas, and exposed our concerns in intensive meetings, we bonded with colleagues across campus. Now, when we face a challenge, we can quickly assemble a group to discuss it, and suggest options. The diversity of personalities in the group meant that each person could find someone to relate to, and at the same time, receive multiple viewpoints and responses to their question. What needs to happen for this to be replicated? In order to make the Junior women peer-mentoring group work at other places, universities or research centers need to initiate such programs top-down, since the externally determined structure is an important factor to ensure compliance. The regular meetings, set by the university administration, helped participants make time in their busy schedules to attend—the meetings were three hours each, including lunch. This facilitated the formation of a support network 10, which we could then maintain following the initial 7-week workshop. We also suggest charging a small fee for participation, as a way to ensure attendance and commitment. Confidentiality is key to maintaining trust, and to benefiting from such a program. Participants need to know that what they say in the room stays in the room. In order to ensure that participants are free to express their concerns and opinions, including about colleagues and seniors, it is advised that no more than one researcher from each department is in a group. The diversity of personalities in the group meant that each person could find someone to relate to, and at the same time, receive multiple viewpoints and responses to their question. It should be noted that peer-mentoring, as opposed to one-on-one mentoring programs, does create specific challenges: Coordinating among group members' schedules can be difficult, the meetings are less intimate, and there is a price paid for diversity; not all topics are relevant to all participants, and not everyone may have advice for how to address a given problem. Although our experience is based on an academic setting, we believe that JWPMG can be applied in other organizations, including medical institutions or industry. Indeed, we think it has potential to bring about change and help women succeed in academia or other workplaces. While one-on-one mentoring has a significant personal value to the faculty members who participate, it alone is not enough to instigate a cultural change. Group mentoring, however, by its sheer numbers, is more likely to make a more pronounced impact on the local institutional culture than classical mentoring programs. Acknowledgements This work was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation grants number 535/16 (to SL) and number 559/15 (to NS) and by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 754340 (to SL). Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References 1. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A (2010) A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med 25: 72–78CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2. Shollen SL, Bland CJ, Center BA, Finstad DA, Taylor AL (2014) Relating mentor type and mentoring behaviors to academic medicine faculty satisfaction and productivity at one medical school. Acad Med 89: 1267–1275CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3. Carr PL, Helitzer D, Freund K, Westring A, McGee R, Campbell PB, Wood CV, Villablanca A (2018) A summary report from the research partnership on women in science careers. J Gen Intern Med https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4547-yCrossrefGoogle Scholar 4. Blood EA, Ullrich NJ, Hirshfeld-Becker DR, Seely EW, Connelly MT, Warfield CA, Emans SJ (2012) Academic women faculty: are they finding the mentoring they need? J Womens Health 21: 1201–1208CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 5. Levinson W, Kaufman K, Clark B, Tolle SW (1991) Mentors and role models for women in academic medicine. West J Med 154: 423CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 6. Voytko ML, Barrett N, Courtney-Smith D, Golden SL, Hsu F-C, Knovich MA, Crandall S (2018) Positive value of a women's junior faculty mentoring program: a mentor-mentee analysis. J Womens Health 27: 1045–1053CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar 7. Lahav G (2010) How to survive and thrive in the mother-mentor marathon. Mol Cell 38: 477–480CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 8. Pololi LH, Evans AT (2015) Group peer mentoring: an answer to the faculty mentoring problem? A successful program at a large academic department of medicine J Contin Educ Health Prof 35: 192–200Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 9. Butcher J (2011) Women in science and medicine. Lancet 377: P811–P812CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar 10. Milo R, Schuldiner M (2009) Weizmann young PI forum: the power of peer support. Mol Cell 36: 913–915CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Previous ArticleNext Article Read MoreAbout the coverClose modalView large imageVolume 19,Issue 12,December 2018Cover: ADAR1 is responsible for editing dsRNAs, and loss of ADAR1 activates the innate immune response. ADAR1‐mediated editing is essential for thymic T cell development, and for counteracting autoimmunity via MDA5‐sensing of unedited dsRNA. From Taisuke Nakahama, Yukio Kawahara and colleagues: ADAR1‐mediated RNA editing is required for thymic self‐tolerance and inhibition of autoimmunity. For detail, see Article on page e46303. Cover concept by the authors. Cover illustration by Beata Edyta Mierzwa ( www.BeataScienceArt.com). Volume 19Issue 121 December 2018In this issue ReferencesRelatedDetailsLoading ...
Referência(s)