Chapter 14- The Mentoring Program as a Research Project

Chapter 14, “The Mentoring Program as a Research Project,” helps stakeholders, program coordinators, and researchers distinguish the differences and similarities between program evaluation and program research. If stakeholders choose to include program research, they will need approval from their university’s institutional review board (IRB). Therefore, the second section of this chapter helps stakeholders navigate the IRB. The third section of this chapter describes how theoretical frameworks, operational definitions of mentoring, and methodological designs factor into mentoring programs that contain research. While all formal mentoring programs in academia should include theoretical frameworks, operational definitions, and sound methodology, many do not. The third section of this chapter highlights the interconnectedness between theory, definitions, methods, and measurements. The fourth and final section provides examples of measurements that can be used. Some of these measurements may be used for both evaluative and research purposes

Making Connections: A Handbook for Effective Formal Mentoring Programs in Academia

This book, Making Connections: A Handbook for Effective Formal Mentoring Programs in Academia, makes a unique and needed contribution to the mentoring field as it focuses solely on mentoring in academia. This handbook is a collaborative institutional effort between Utah State University’s (USU) Empowering Teaching Open Access Book Series and the Mentoring Institute at the University of New Mexico (UNM). This book is available through (a) an e-book through Pressbooks, (b) a downloadable PDF version on USU’s Open Access Book Series website), and (c) a print version available for purchase on the USU Empower Teaching Open Access page, and on Amazon

Institutional Review Board: Ally not adversary

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were developed in response to a historically demonstrated need for ethical guidance and accountability in research with human subjects. The inhumane and unethical treatment of prisoners of war and underrepresented populations in the pre-IRB era are the antithesis of today’s national and international acts, codes, and declarations. Over the last five decades of IRB-reviewed research, several concerns about the IRB process have been raised. In this editorial, we review common concerns regarding the scope and functioning of IRBs. We also review the updated federal Common Rule, effective January 2018, and discuss how some of the reviewed concerns will be addressed in the update. Lastly, we end with recommendations for collaborating with IRBs. These recommendations are not tips on how to circumvent the review process but rather reflective and action-oriented steps to engage the IRBs, which are allies, collaborators, and expert consultants in the research enterprise