Factors influencing the willingness to mentor 1st-year faculty in physical education departments

Transcription

1 Mentoring & Tutoring Vol. 15, No. 1, February 2007, pp Factors influencing the willingness to mentor 1st-year faculty in physical education departments Glenna G. Bower* University of Southern Indiana, USA CMET_A_ sgm / Mentoring Original 2007 Taylor February GlennaG.Bower and & Article Francis &(print)/ Tutoring 2007 Ltd (online) This study of mentoring 1st-year faculty in physical education departments focused on individual reasons for mentoring and organizational factors inhibiting or facilitating mentoring. A phenomenological research design was used to examine the mentoring relationship between 1st-year faculty and physical education department Chairs (N = 5), and a constant comparative analysis of personal portraits provided themes and categories. Results illustrate the need for department Chairs to initiate the mentoring relationship with 1st-year faculty, provide department orientation programs, schedule regular meetings, and encourage interdisciplinary efforts within and outside the department. Researchers have clearly established the benefits of mentoring for the mentor, the protégé, and the organization in terms of professional advancement, higher compensation, management of office politics, and more (Weaver & Chelladurai, 2001; Blackhurst, 2002). Mentoring is even more beneficial for 1st-year faculty who are pressured to excel in teaching, scholarship, and service (Rice et al., 2000). Mentors guide protégés through collaborative efforts on research, discuss teaching methods and creative ideas for service, and provide support. Recognizing the benefits of such a relationship, college administrators in the United States often invest substantial resources in beginning faculty to help them teach effectively and research productively (Rice et al., 2000). Defining mentoring is problematic due to inconsistent definitions and ungrounded theory (Merriam, 1983). While there is no one agreed-upon definition, Healy and Welchert (1990) define mentoring to accommodate observations from multiple studies of mentoring relationships: *University of Southern Indiana, 8600 University Blvd, Evansville, IN 47712, USA. gbower@usi.edu ISSN (print)/issn (online)/07/ Taylor & Francis DOI: /

2 74 G. G. Bower A dynamic, reciprocal relationship in a work environment between an advanced career incumbent (mentor) and a beginner (protégé) aimed at promoting the career development of both. For the protégé, the object of mentoring is the achievement of an identity transformation, a movement from the status of understudy to that of self-directing colleague. For the mentor, the relationship is a vehicle for achieving midlife generativity [or passing along a legacy]. (p. 17) I chose this definition because it supports aspects of the mentoring functions developed by Kram (1983) to enhance an individual s growth and advancement. Kram s (1983) two primary functions are career and psychosocial. The career-related functions of sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments (Kram, 1985) are often present in the life of a new faculty member. The sponsorship function allows the mentor to help build the reputation of the 1st-year faculty by highlighting his or her potential, and exposure and visibility allow the mentor to introduce new faculty to others in the department. These relationships assist the 1st-year faculty in developing relationships and allow for greater advancement opportunities. The mentor also provides knowledge and skills, as well as productive feedback on teaching skills, projects, manuscripts, and presentations. Often, 1st-year faculty make the mistake of overwhelming themselves, not realizing when to say no. As a protection function, the mentor shields the mentee from taking on too many responsibilities. The mentor might also take the blame for the mistakes of the new faculty. Finally, challenging assignments are given by the mentor to prepare protégés for greater responsibilities (Kram, 1985). The psychosocial functions identified by Kram (1985) include role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and friendship. Role modeling consists of the mentor efficiently performing organizational tasks while the protégé observes these behaviors, attitudes, and values. In acceptance and confirmation, the mentor expresses confidence, creates mutual trust, confirms individual abilities, and lends encouragement and support. Counseling allows the mentor to help the 1st-year faculty investigate and solve personal conflicts they might detract from effective performance. Finally, friendship is a social interaction allowing new faculty to share personal experiences and escape the pressures of work. Problem statement Although the largest body of research on mentoring has been conducted in education (Bloom et al., 1998), limited research has focused on mentoring in sports with regard to educational administration, athletes, and students. Even less research has focused on mentoring in physical education itself (Kovar & Overdorf, 1996; Silverman, 2003; Savage et al., 2004). The mentoring literature consistently indicates that individuals in a positive mentoring relationship are more likely to mentor in the future (Ragins & Cotton, 1993; Allen et al., 1997); hence, it is important to determine the factors influencing or motivating individuals to mentor others. It seems if both career-related and psychosocial functions of the mentoring relationship are positive, protégés will more than likely be satisfied by serving as mentors in the future (Allen et al., 1997).

3 1st-year faculty in physical education 75 Therefore, this study attempted to understand mentoring from the perspective of the mentor and discover factors influencing a mentor s decision to engage 1st-year faculty in physical education departments. The study focused on the following two questions: 1. What are the individual reasons for mentoring 1st-year faculty in a physical education department? 2. What organizational factors inhibit or facilitate mentoring 1st-year faculty in a physical education department? Method Phenomenological genre A qualitative research design phenomenology was utilized to examine the mentoring relationship from the perspective of the mentor (Denzin, 1994). According to Rossman and Rallis (2003), the phenomenological tradition seeks to understand the deep meaning of an individual s experiences and how he or she articulates these experiences (p. 72). A phenomenological study utilizes in-depth, exploratory interviews as its primary means of collecting data (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). This type of interviewing provides a greater understanding of the participants and their experiences, and the exploratory nature of this study allowed participants to examine the mentoring relationship from their perspectives as protégés and mentors (Patton, 2002). The mentors Participants were chosen based on Healy and Welchert s (1990) aforementioned definition of mentoring. The advanced career mentors for the study were Chairs from the Midwest (N = 5), physical education professionals in well-respected state organizations (females = 3; males = 2). This form of sampling, known as snowball or chain sampling, is typical of purposeful sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994). According to Miles and Huberman (1994), its purpose is to identify cases of interest from people who know people who know what cases are information-rich (p. 28). These department Chairs mentored for an average of 18 years, spending about 29 years in academics and 5 years as Chairs. It was likely that they had a better concept of the mentoring relationship than less experienced non-mentors, and they were therefore qualified for the study. The study s sample size was based on the recommendations for a phenomenological study. According to Rossman and Rallis (2003), If you are doing a phenomenological study with three very long interviews with participants, you would be unwise to have a sample of more than three to five people (p. 138). The other caveat for the sample size was saturation of the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Douglas, 1976; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Rubin & Rubin, 1995), a point in a study at which the interviewer begins to hear the same information reported (Seidman, 1998, p. 48).

4 76 G. G. Bower Pilot study I asked permission to use the interviews that were originally used in a study by Allen et al. (1997) and was creative in organizing and developing new questions for a phenomenological study. Once the interview procedures were developed utilizing the Schuman (1982) protocol, a pilot study was conducted for the first of a series. The first three were studies by Bower (2004); Bower et al. (2005); and Bower et al. (in press). In the current pilot study, I interviewed one Chair recommended through the sampling process. The Chair was asked the original interview questions proposed for this study, and, following the interview, the questions were revised and asked one more time before data collection began. Data collection This study relied on in-depth interviews as its primary means of collecting data. Demographic information was also collected from each participant. Demographic information. Background data included gender, age, race, number of years as mentor, number of years in academia, and number of years as Chair. Phenomenological interviews. A specialized phenomenological interviewing technique was used in hopes of finding meaning of lived experiences in regard to the mentoring phenomenon (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). The three-interview series technique (Schuman, 1982) was modified to meet the needs of the study and allowed the interviewer and participant to introduce and contextualize the mentoring experience. For example, each interview was conducted on the same day, with only a small break between the interviews instead of 2 3 weeks. The first interview (13 questions) examined the life history of the mentor as protégé, and lasted about 60 minutes. The second interview (26 questions), which lasted approximately 120 minutes, considered the personal narrative of the mentor as mentor. And in the third interview (six questions), participants conceptualized the protégé and mentoring experiences by reflecting on the mentoring experience. The final interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Data analysis procedures In order to reduce the interview data, Wolcott s (1994) four phases were used to analyze and interpret data. I organized the data by recording each interview and using verbatim transcription, labeling each transcript with a pseudonym to maintain confidentiality, journaling the data and notes, and using the qualitative software HyperResearcher 2.6. The software allowed me to thematically organize data from all five participants and code and categorize it. I utilized the constant comparative method of analysis throughout this stage (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), which involved

5 1st-year faculty in physical education 77 comparing all transcripts and coding them. A code was any phrase or statement that stood out in describing the mentoring phenomenon for the research study. The information from the transcripts was coded into categories and compared with previous information. HyperResearcher 2.6 helped me cluster the categories as themes began to emerge, and the final stage identified preliminary words to describe the emergent themes. The themes were integrated to establish factors influencing the willingness of Chairs to mentor 1st-year faculty in physical education departments. Plausibility of the study In order to establish plausibility of the study, I used several techniques developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). First, credibility (internal validity) was established with authentic tape-recorded conversations and verbatim transcripts, three structured interviews, pilot questions, and the constant comparative method. Second, transferability (external validity) was established by using thick description (Erlandson et al., 1993), illustrated in the results section of this paper. Third, dependability (reliability) relied on external auditing; a Chair examined the interviews, notes, and transcripts throughout the study. Finally, confirmability (objectivity) was established by limiting bias and premature conclusions, and making a conscious effort to remain neutral in verbal responses and body language during the interviews. Limitations This study had several limitations. For instance, the experiences of the Chair are based on a Midwest state only, and each institution had different expectations of teaching, scholarship, and service because they represented a wide variety of classifications from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2006, see Appendix 1). Results and discussion Demographics The mentors experience and reputation were evidenced by the time spent mentoring, in academia, and as a department Chair (see Table 1). The mentors average number of years in academia was 28.8, ranging from 16 to 39; as a department Chair, 7 years, ranging from 1 to 15; and as a mentor, 18.2, ranging from 9 to 25. Three females and two males participated in the study, allowing for more varied perspectives. Four of the mentors experienced an informal mentoring program, and one mentor participated in a formal mentoring program. Personal portraits The first interview delved into the history of the mentors as former protégés. I focused on questions pertaining to how their past experiences influenced their decision to

6 78 G. G. Bower Table 1. Demographic data of mentors Variable Mentor 1 Mentor 2 Mentor 3 Mentor 4 Mentor 5 Gender F M M F F Age Race White White White White White Years as Mentor Years in Academics Years as Department Chair mentor. The mentors were asked, How did the experience as a protégé help you prepare to be a mentor? Three themes emerged from the responses. First, the protégé experience helped the mentors prepare their own system to advise students in the future. The mentors as protégés watched their mentors advise and learned how to greet students and become familiar with curricula in different disciplines. They took advice from their mentors to improve teaching and discussed the importance of developing a teaching philosophy. One participant explained, I learned how to advise. She taught me how to advise. She taught me how to deal with people. She was my role model. They also used their mentoring relationships as a means for structure in their current mentoring relationships. One mentor elucidated the expectations of the mentor that helped build a means for structure in current mentoring relationships: It is really important that the mentor establish set times, really set the organization and not be so loose that mentoring does not happen It really has to have that structure, time structure, meeting structure, structure within the meeting of what s going to be addressed, what s there to talk about. You know that is the mentor s responsibility. In addition, they indicated that their friendships helped develop their role as a mentor. For example, one mentor said: We did a lot of fun things, like faculty lunches, canoe trips, and those types of activities. Since I had that type of relationship with my mentor, then, yes, I would like to promote that sort of relationship with our younger faculty. The participants were also asked what characteristics their mentor had that led to a successful mentoring relationship. They described four main themes: role modeling, nurturing, displaying a personality, and being competent. The mentors as protégés viewed their mentors as role models because they led by example, provided leadership to the organization, and were willing to serve in any way possible to the department. One conveyed, She prepared me in that she was a role model, so I just followed more of her style because it matched the style I wanted to display to my protégés. The mentors also displayed nurturing characteristics by providing care, support, and a positive outlook throughout the promotion and tenure process, taking both a personal and professional interest, and being sensitive to the needs of the protégé. A mentor shared:

7 1st-year faculty in physical education 79 He was just a very nurturing individual, very enthusiastic individual. He would make recommendations but in a very positive way. I guess I do not know how you would term that sort of approach, but he was a very positive, very nurturing type of individual, and that carried on to his management style for the department, too. So he was very encouraging and had a very positive outlook, and so it sort of carried onto that. The mentors display of personality included a positive attitude, honesty, enthusiasm, listening skills, and humor. Finally, competency indicators included being an effective communicator and having knowledge of teaching, scholarship, and service, as well as people and places on the university campus. One description illustrates many of the themes mentioned: He was a very good person, a very good colleague, very upbeat, very energetic, but he also had the credentials and the credibility. He was a leader in the discipline. I think he was a very good example and one that I tried to emulate as a chair and as a leader because he was open and honest. He kept the atmosphere and the morale very high. An additional interview question was, What outcomes do you associate with the mentoring received when you were a protégé? The interviewees identified three themes, indicating that their mentors influenced their personal lives, helped them to develop professionally, and demonstrated how to become a role model for future protégés. The mentors influenced their personal lives by encouraging time off, spending time with family, developing a friendship, and instilling confidence. The mentors also helped the protégés develop professionally by teaching them how to advise, supporting them with external resources, and providing them with expectations of teaching, scholarship, and service. The mentors as protégés were encouraged to seek credentials for their respective areas and to stay current (e.g. memberships to organizations, national certifications) so they could be role models in the discipline. The only disadvantage to the mentoring relationship consisted of jealousy from other faculty members of the mentoring relationship. The personal portraits as protégés corresponded with the four psychosocial functions set forth by Kram (1983) role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and friendship. The mentors as protégés indicated their early mentoring relationships were positive, which might have lead to the desire to mentor 1st-year faculty; according to Allen et al. (1997), past mentoring experiences (as a protégé, mentor, or both) correlate to the willingness to mentor others. Personal portraits as mentors The second interview examined the personal history of the mentor as mentor. During this interview, a determination was made whether the protégé experience influenced the mentor in regard to career-related functions, psychosocial functions, and the willingness to mentor new faculty. I focused on the participants current experiences as mentors and how their past experiences influenced their practice. The mentors were asked, What are the individual reasons for mentoring 1st-year faculty in a physical education department? Four themes emerged from the responses.

8 80 G. G. Bower First, mentors identified their experience as protégé as an individual reason for mentoring today. A mentor explained: Knowing how it made me feel to have someone treat me the way my mentor treated me, really exemplified a servant leader in that he carried the load to help others. I try to do that as well. I try to help faculty as much as possible, to make their job easier so they can do their job to the best of their ability. I try to give faculty the resources and support they need. The desire to help young faculty succeed was the second individual reason participants became mentors. The mentors discussed the need to help new faculty manage their workload in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service, protecting them against outside influences, being a resource, and explaining expectations of the university. The literature also supports these factors in relation to the willingness to mentor (Aryee et al., 1996). A mentor recounted: In our department, I address the issues related to service, teaching roles and assignments. I assign young faculty their teaching responsibilities, and I have always tried to keep their teaching loads low so they can get everything else going in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service. I also talk to young faculty about service responsibilities. I always tell them service will find you. I tell them to make sure they always say that sounds really interesting but let me check with my Chair so it gives them an out. Self-preservation was the third theme of this interview. Self-preservation could be perceived as being motivated by egoistic concerns (helping will improve the welfare of the helper), but the better the mentoring, the fewer problems for the department, more sanity for the Chair, and greater avoidance of burnout for the protégé. A mentor clarified: First is self-preservation so that I do not have so many problems. When I go through the hiring, I try to get the brightest and the best I can find. I want young faculty to be successful, and therefore I try to get them the tools they need so they do not become frustrated. The literature indicates that mentors sometimes have the desire to pass along information to help others succeed while building a competent workforce, which could be construed as self-focused reasons leading to gratification (Aryee et al., 1996). Finally, the nature of the Chair position was a motivation for mentoring new faculty. A relationship should develop between the Chair and 1st-year faculty, though the extent of the relationship is up to the mentor and the protégé. A mentor illustrated, Well, for some, it was a little bit more of a natural relationship in that I spent quite a bit of time with them in the hiring process. This relationship could also be an example of the norm of reciprocity, where a sense of responsibility mediates the relationship (Gouldner, 1960). It is interesting to note that the majority of the individual reasons for mentoring young faculty were the same career functions introduced by Kram (1985) relating to helping the protégé succeed. There was no mention of psychosocial reasons. The second question mentors were asked, What organizational factors inhibited or facilitated mentoring 1st-year faculty in a physical education department? included five themes (two inhibiting and three facilitating). The main factors that inhibited mentoring were time constraints and interdisciplinary teaching. The mentors

9 1st-year faculty in physical education 81 indicated that department and university expectations in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service made it more difficult to devote time and energy to mentoring activities. Universities might want to reevaluate the need for mentoring as a crucial step in the development of new faculty (Rice et al., 2000). If universities want to continue to promote, attract, and retain new faculty, Chairs may need to be given additional time to effectively mentor. One mentor reasoned, Well, I think that we re asked to do a lot, that there s not a lot of downtime, between teaching classes, advising students, being on committees, helping the campus community. The literature reveals that managers experience more time constraints and these constraints make it more difficult to devote time and energy to mentoring (Allen et al., 1997). Interdisciplinary teaching was identified as an inhibiting factor to the mentor if the protégé was from a different discipline and/or the protégé was teaching students from another discipline. Although interdisciplinary teaching is common, it can be an adjustment for 1st-year faculty who are just beginning their teaching career. A mentor stated: If you are not in the same curriculum area, then it is difficult because you are not always crossing paths. Finding the time to work together could be more difficult if mentors are assigned under those kinds of circumstances. Interdisciplinary teaching may be managed by coaching the protégé (Kram, 1985), beginning during the orientation process and focusing on university expectations in terms of teaching, scholarship and service, and interdisciplinary teaching. The factors facilitating a mentoring relationship within the organization included an orientation program, communication, and traditions. The majority of universities already offer an orientation program through their academic affairs department, but the mentors in this study suggested that it might also be helpful to establish an orientation program within the department to help the new faculty learn the department mission, meeting schedules, advising system, filing system, and office equipment. One mentor expanded: For young faculty, the dean of the college does an orientation early on, trying to help [them] understand the structure and procedures of the department and university. I think there are four sessions of orientation, so that structure is in place. Structurally, we have a secretary, who, as secretaries usually do, kind of rules the roost and knows who is where, and how you do this and that, and answers the daily questions on how you work the copy machine, how you get your copy card, etc. Monthly meetings provided timely communication between the mentor and protégé, and communication was also established at other times with mentors open door policy. One participant commented, We have a weekly department meeting, and so usually I make sure I sit by or speak with young faculty members to check in with them at least weekly when they first come. Mentors also discussed how such departmental traditions as parties, picnics, and canoe trips facilitated mentoring: We usually have a welcome back [from summer break] faculty party where we get to know their spouses and try to bring young faculty in. So I think there are a lot of organizational

10 82 G. G. Bower traditions that we do out of hospitality. I think we do a lot of things just out of politeness and courtesy that are also kind of mentoring opportunities. All of the themes supporting organizational factors, which represent both career and psychosocial functions, promote a culture of developmental activity that may help integrate the beginning faculty member into the organization (Gaskin et al., 2003). These functions serve to encourage new faculty to be proactive, create opportunities for faculty to work together, and help 1st-year faculty reach a balance between teaching, scholarship, and service. Reflections on the mentoring relationship The third interview conceptualized the protégé and mentoring experiences with personal reflections. I focused on questions pertaining to the participants past experience as a protégé and current experience as a mentor. These mentors had positive mentoring relationships as protégés, which influenced their decision to mentor new faculty. The mentors discussed mentoring strategies for both the mentor and the protégé and encouraged an early start in the mentoring process. Mentoring relationships are crucial in the 1st year. New faculty need to be oriented to departmental and school expectations. The mentor and protégé need to meet on a regular basis and, most importantly, both must desire to gain from the experience. Implications for future Chairs and 1st-year faculty and future research This study presents several implications for current and future Chairs and 1st-year faculty. First, Chairs need to realize their role in the mentoring relationship and take the initiative to set the stage for the new faculty. Second, orientation programs within the department can provide the protégé with valuable information to ease the transition into academia and the department. Third, regularly scheduled meetings with the new faculty are helpful, even though 1st-year faculty might be reluctant to ask because they do not want to bother senior faculty or the Chair. These meetings offer the perfect opportunity for the protégé and mentor to communicate and solve problems in a timely manner. Finally, Chairs need to create awareness of interdisciplinary teaching, research, and service opportunities. Pairing the 1st-year faculty with someone outside their discipline promotes collaboration and understanding within the department. Future research should include protégé interviews to determine why they enter mentoring relationships. Moreover, a broader population should be examined, exploring gender and race differences. Finally, universities from different classifications of the Carnegie Foundation could be analyzed separately. Does the emphasis on teaching, scholarship, and service determine whether a Chair will make the time to mentor 1st-year faculty or affect the content of the mentoring that takes place?

11 1st-year faculty in physical education 83 This research study provides information regarding mentors decisions to engage in a mentoring relationship with 1st-year faculty in physical education departments. The mentoring relationship is shaped by the protégés experiences, and therefore mentors today influence our mentors for tomorrow. Mentoring is important for the development of future scholars, and thus it is critical to continue expanding our understanding of the issue. References Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997) The mentor s perspective: a qualitative inquiry and future research agenda, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, Allen, T. D., Russell, J. E., & Maetzke, S. B. (1997) Formal peer mentoring: factors related to protégés satisfaction and willingness to mentor others, Group & Organization Management, 22, Aryee, S., Chay, Y., & Chew, J. (1996) The motivation to mentor among managerial employees, Groups & Organizations Management, 21, Blackhurst, A. (2002) Effects of mentoring on the employment of experiences and career satisfaction of women student affairs administrators, NASPA Journal, 37, Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N., Schinke, R. J., & Salmela, J. H. (1998) The importance of mentoring in the development of coaches and athletes, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, Bower, G. G. (2004) Factors influencing the willingness to mentor females in campus recreation, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, Kentucky. Bower, G. G., Hums, M. A., & Keedy, J. F. (2005) Factors influencing the willingness to mentor students in campus recreation, Recreational Sports Journal, 29, Bower, G. G., Hums, M. A., & Keedy, J. F. (in press). Factors influencing the willingness to mentor females in leadership positions within campus recreation: an historical perspective [Electronic version]. Advancing Women in Leadership Online Journal. Available online at: (accessed 20 June 2005). Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2006) The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Available online at: classifications (accessed 11 January 2006). Denzin, N. K. (1994) Handbook of qualitative research (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage). Douglas, J. D. (1976) Investigative social research: individual and team field research (Beverly Hills, Sage). Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993) Doing naturalistic inquiry: a guide to methods (Beverly Hills, Sage). Gaskin, L. P., Lumpkin, A., & Tennant, K. L. (2003) Mentoring new faculty in higher education, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 74, Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research (Chicago, Aldine). Gouldner, A. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American Sociological Review, 25, Healy, C. C., & Welchert, A. J. (1990) Mentoring relations: a definition to advance research and practice, Educational Researcher, 19, Kovar, S. K. & Overdorf, V. (1996) Scholarly productivity as a function of graduate training, workplace, and gender, Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 4, Kram, K. E. (1983) Phases of the mentor relationship, Academy of Management Journal, 26,

12 84 G. G. Bower Kram, K. E. (1985) Mentoring at work (Glenview, IL, Scott, Foresman). Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry (Beverly Hills, Sage). Merriam, S. (1983) Mentors and protégés: a critical review of the literature, Adult Education Quarterly, 33, Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd edn) (Thousand Oaks, Sage). Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd edn) (Thousand Oaks, Sage). Ragins, B. R. & Cotton, J. L. (1993) Gender and willingness to mentor in organizations, Journal of Management, 19, Rice, R. E., Sorcinelli, M. D., & Austin, A. E. (2000) Heeding new voices: academic careers for a new generation (Washington, DC, American Association for Higher Education). Rossman, G. B. & Rallis, S. F. (2003) Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research (2nd edn) (Thousand Oaks, Sage). Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (1995) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data (Thousand Oaks, Sage). Savage, H. E., Karp, R. S., & Logue, R. (2004) Faculty mentorship at colleges and universities, College Teaching, 52, Schuman, D. (1982) Policy analysis, education, and everyday life (Lexington, MA, Heath). Seidman, I. (1998) Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and social sciences (2nd edn) (New York, Teachers College Press), 48. Silverman, S. (2003) The role of teaching in the preparation of future faculty, Quest, 55, Weaver, M. A. & Chelladurai, P. (2001) Mentoring in intercollegiate athletic administration, Journal of Sport Management, 16, Wolcott, H. F. (1994) Transforming qualitative data: description, analysis, and interpretation (Thousand Oaks, Sage).

13 1st-year faculty in physical education 85 Appendix 1. Carnegie Classification System for each university University 1: 4-year, private, not-for-profit, 1,075 students UIP = Balanced arts and sciences/professions, some graduate coexistence GIP = Single postbaccalaureate (business) EP = Very high undergraduate UP = Full-time, 4-year, selective, lower transfer-in S&S = Small, 4-year, highly residential University 2: 4-year, private, not-for-profit, 2,677 students UIP = Professions plus arts and sciences/professions, some graduate coexistence GIP = Single doctoral (other field) EP = Very high undergraduate UP = Full-time, 4-year, selective, lower transfer-in S&S = Small, 4-year, highly residential University 3: 4-year, public, 11,200 students UIP = Professions plus arts and sciences/professions, some graduate coexistence GIP = Doctoral, professional dominant EP = Higher undergraduate UP = Full-time, 4-year, inclusive S&S = Medium, 4-year, primarily residential University 4: 4-year, public, 20,507 students UIP = Professions plus arts and sciences/professions, some graduate coexistence GIP = Doctoral, professional dominant EP = Very high undergraduate UP = Full-time, 4-year, selective, lower transfer-in S&S = Large, 4-year, primarily residential University 5: 4-year, public, 29,953 students UIP = Professions plus arts and sciences/professions, some graduate coexistence GIP = Doctoral, STEM dominant EP = High undergraduate UP = Medium, full-time, 4-year, selective, higher transfer-in S&S = Large, 4-year, primarily nonresidential UIP = undergraduate instructional program GIP = graduate instructional program EP = enrollment profile UP = undergraduate profile S&S = size and setting

14