Mentorship of Academics in Higher Learning Institutions

Mentorship of Academics in Higher Learning Institutions

Salmie L. Sakarias*, Michael Neema, Davy Julian du Plessis.

Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), Department of Governance and Management Science

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8090179

Received: 20 September 2024; Accepted: 30 September 2024; Published: 11 October 2024

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a normative mentorship model that can enhance the efficiency of academics at higher learning institutions. However, the specific objectives included examining the benefits of mentoring strategies both for mentors and mentees and exploring the challenges of mentoring strategy. The paper employed a literature survey and qualitative content analysis to achieve this objective. The study’s findings revealed that mentorship practices generally contribute significantly to the productivity of academic research, playing a crucial role in the development of both graduate students and faculty members. The paper also details how mentorship strategies are challenged by both the dynamic nature of the mentorship process and the need to balance the mentors’ capabilities with their responsibilities. The paper concludes that the mentorship of academics produces many favorable work outcomes, such as academic adjustment to organizational culture, career development and advancement, promotion, job satisfaction and constructive participation in organization. Based on the findings, the study recommended that serious consideration and implementation of formal mentoring strategy is required when institutions of higher learning’s mentorship strategies or framework are not formally recognized or implemented.

Keywords: Mentorship, mentors, mentee, academic,

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, mentorship is recognised as a tool used by institutions to foster growth and development, and this holds true in higher education as well (Cordie et al., 2020). Institutions of Higher learning recognize mentoring as a valuable strategy for growth and development in more elevated education, especially among the academic staff. Many higher education institutions worldwide have adopted mentoring programs as a staff development approach, particularly for new lecturers. However, mentoring should not stay with lecturing and higher education. As cited by Nunan et al. (2023), mentorship is practical yet beneficial for institutions to expand and be sustainable. Although a remarkable phenomenon, what exactly is mentorship? Mentorship is a form of learning in a workplace to mitigate the ever-evolving complex problems that may arise (Nunan et al., 2023). Therefore, the research establishes a connection between mentorship, teaching, community engagement, and research in higher education. Nunan et al. (2023) view mentorship as an ongoing process between the mentor (the individual teaching through practice) and a mentee (an individual who receives the practical teaching). Wong and Premkumar (2007) define mentoring as a learning process that builds helpful, personal, and reciprocal relationships. Emotional support is a crucial component of this process. Within mentoring relationships, mentees develop and learn through conversations with more experienced mentors”. Mentoring is a technique used to enhance the three pillars of a university, which consist of teaching, community engagement, and research. This paper will delve into the details of how mentorship can impact these three pillars (Cordie & Lin, 2020). According to Andersen and West (2020), in their research on improving mentoring in higher education and exploring Implications for Online Learning, mentorship refers to a senior person providing guidance, emotional support, and advice to a junior person or employee. In the study context, this is the definition that Andersen and West (2020) opted for to guide the article.

In academia, mentoring is an increasingly high-impact strategy for promoting academic and student success in higher education institutions (Law & Hales, 2020). Mentorship helps academics prepare students for their career journey (Law & Hales, 2020).

Mentorship is equally relevant in the context of Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), previously known as Polytechnic of Namibia, which was renamed Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST) in 2015 (Namibia University of Science and Technology, 2024). This paper is a follow-up from Naris and Ukpere (2010), who observed that despite the widespread use of mentoring in higher education, there is a lack of a well-established policy in the Human resource code at NUST as it inherited the Human Resource code when the institution was known as the Polytechnic of Namibia (Naris & Ukpere, 2009). The lack of a well-established policy is particularly alarming given the diverse needs of newly appointed staff members at NUST, who could greatly benefit from additional support mechanisms (Cordie & Lin, 2020). Given the limited research on mentorship in higher education institutions in Namibia, this study will largely contribute to the knowledge of mentorship and propose a mentorship framework that can be recommended at any university (Naris & Ukpere, 2009).

The following primary research questions guide this literature review:

• What are the benefits of mentoring for mentors and mentees?
• What are the challenges of mentoring for mentors and mentees?
• What is the suggested mentorship model of academics at institutions of higher learning?

LITERATURE REVIEW

This paper’s literature review aims to examine a previously documented phenomenon from multiple theoretical perspectives. This section is structured as follows: section 2.1 presents the broad overview of the impact of mentorship at HEIs, and 2.2 pronounces the paper’s comprehensive framework of effective mentorship relationships. Section 2.3 analyses the recent empirical literature on the role of mentorship at HEIs in Namibia and other countries.

Overview of Mentorship at High Education Institutions (HEI)

According to Smith, Salinitri and Hart (2024), Mentoring is an aspect of teacher education that shows promise in facilitating adjustment to university, professional identification, critical thinking, planning, and classroom management skills. This means that mentoring is popular for capacity building, knowledge transfer, and employee retention in many organisations, especially in the educational sector. Researchers Nnabuife Ezimma K. et al. (2021) argue that mentoring yields numerous work outcomes in the workplace, including career development and advancement, promotion, compensation, job satisfaction, and organisational participation. Hansford & Ehrich (2006) support this, arguing that mentoring programs have positively impacted many professions in business, industry, and education.

Harvard Business Essentials (2004) wrote that tertiary educational institutions are labour-intensive and are primarily dependent on their employees for efficient delivery of services to achieve their goals. According to Diggs et al. (2023), mentorship in higher education has grown as a mechanism not only to retain and graduate students but also to retain and develop highly effective faculty. Anderson (1988) defined mentorship as a nurturing process in which more skilled and experienced individuals serve as role models to teach, sponsor, encourage, counsel, and befriend less skilled or less experienced individuals. Eller, Lev, and Fuerer (2014) wrote that early studies identified two mentoring functions: psychosocial functions (role modelling, acceptance/confirmation, counselling, and friendship), as well as career functions (sponsorship, exposure/visibility, coaching, protection, and challenging assignments).

Career-related mentorship fosters protégés’ professional development; psychosocial functions increase self-efficacy, self-worth and professional identity (Eby et al., 2010). Mentors provide insight into the unwritten and often vague norms in academia, helping mentees navigate higher social networks (Portillo, 2007). Mentors also take a particular interest in their mentee’s professional and personal development and assist in socialization into academia’s discipline, culture, and career (Benavides, 2018; Watson, 2007). Mentoring is, therefore, an engaging relationship-building process that develops through multiple encounters, fostering trust and reliability. Cited in Rinfret et al. (2023), recent literature acknowledges that mentorship is dynamic and lacks a one-size-fits-all approach (Ashley et al., 2023; Ding & Riccucci, 2022; Evans et al., 2023), the authors argue that Individuals from diverse backgrounds seek varied forms of mentorship for different reasons, often utilizing different strategies (Azevedo et al., 2023; McCandless et al., 2022). Therefore, This paper argues that research is needed to fine-tune mentoring relationships and practices in business and HEIs to better cater to mentors’ and mentees’ productivity.

Mentorship is crucial in developing graduate students and faculty members (Meier, 2023). For graduate students, mentorship offers valuable emotional support during the highly stressful phases of their academic journey, with long-lasting effects on their careers (Alshayhan et al., 2023; Hummel & Hersey, 2023). Faculty members also benefit significantly from mentorship, experiencing higher career satisfaction (Luna & Cullen, 1995), increased research output (Fountain & Newcomer, 2016), and greater satisfaction throughout the promotion and tenure process (Ashley et al., 2023). Mentorship is a well-established practice (Fowler, 2022), extensively explored in the literature across various disciplines, examining different types, purposes, motivations, and benefits (Bozeman & Feeney, 2009; Bozionelos, 2004; Chaos et al., 1992; Farrell et al., 2022; Kram, 1985).

Mentorship relationship process and components framework at High Education Institutions (HEI)

The Namibian academic community has faced several challenges regarding its effectiveness and global importance. One of these challenges is the incessant increase in student enrolment, thus requiring Namibian universities to expand their student numbers on an annual basis. This demand for a more competent academic sector that delivers qualitative learning, research, and services, capable of rivalling its peers in the developed world, is also a pressing issue. Osezua and Agbalajobi (2016) posit that a critical avenue through which academic standards can be maintained and sustained is through academic mentoring. Creating a mentoring system for academics is undoubtedly a step in the right direction if instituted in the Namibian university system.

Faculty handbooks and the HR code at NUST rarely mention formal mentorship of junior faculty as they navigate faculty ranks. This paper, therefore, adopts a framework that argues not only that student success depends on faculty success, but also that investing in faculty is as integral as investing in students. According to Watson (2007), mentoring is a cyclical process operating within institutional and interpersonal structures that can evolve into a trusted partnership. Watson’s (2007) mentoring framework argues that three stages of mentorship can help faculty meet academic requirements (research, teaching and community service) and develop support networks. Watson (2007) illustrates the relational dynamics between the mentor and mentee at each stage: hierarchical years, junior/senior colleague relationships, and the trusted sage years. This is represented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Best Practice Suggestions

According to Watson (2007), the hierarchical years refer to the initial period when a new professional is assigned to work within the organization. In both business and academia, the initial relationship is formal, hierarchically based, tactically focused and could best be described as advisory or directive rather than mentoring (Watson, 2007). The hierarchical relationship generally lasts between three and four years. During this time, the advisor assists the new professional in understanding the corporate culture, getting appropriate work supplies, completing required forms, getting placed on an initial project and guiding the new professional through recurring yearly actions (e.g., performance appraisals). In this case, various researchers argue that the relationship is tactical and designed to enable the employee to become productive (Bain & Fedynich, 2011) quickly. The next stage involves a more informal development of mentorship, which can be formalised through academic policies.

Watson (2007) argues that the junior/senior colleague years or stage occur after the early hierarchical years and reflect a transitional period when the mentee has become fully oriented. Therefore, the relationship with the mentor evolves based on individual goals and personalities. The junior/senior faculty relationship revolves around professional commonalities and similar personalities, where the senior faculty (mentor) provides support (Watson, 2007). It is at this stage that senior faculty (mentors) introduce junior faculty (mentees) to their social networks and increase the mentees’ visibility in academia. Mentors may also help guide mentees’ career progression toward Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) (Fleming et al., 2015; Wolfe et al., 2018). The final stage—trusted sage years—occurs when hierarchical boundaries are eliminated and the mentor becomes a lifelong, trusted friend, while the mentee assumes the mentor role for students and/or junior faculty (Watson, 2007). Accordingly, while specific activities vary by mentoring stage, mentors and mentees should create successful relationships, respect time expectations and demands, ensure that necessary advisement occurs, and be open to an increasingly deep and personal relationship (Watson, 2007).

Regarding the components of an effective mentoring relationship, this paper adopts the key components identified by Eller, Lev, and Fuerer (2014). According to Eller, Lev and Fuerer (2014), a fruitful mentor-protégé relationship is comprised of components such as (1) open communication and accessibility, (2) goals and challenges, (3) passion and inspiration, (4) a caring personal relationship; (5) mutual respect and trust; (6) exchange of knowledge; (7) independence and collaboration; and lastly (8) role modelling (see Figure 1). Eller, Lev, and Fuerer (2014) conclude that three of the eight themes fit the “career-related” category, while five could be categorised as “psychosocial,” which highlights the importance of a supportive mentoring relationship to both mentors and protégés (Kram, 1983; Schockett & Haring-Hidore, 1985).

Figure 1: Key components of an effective mentoring relationship.

Empirical literature on mentorship at HEI in Namibia and other countries

Adopting a quantitative research method approach and following the ex-post facto research design, Okon, Owan, and Owan (2022) analyzed the contribution of three mentorship practices relatively and cumulatively to the research productivity of early-career academics in the field of educational psychology in universities. The study was conducted in the South region of Nigeria, where its population consisted of 723 early-career researchers (ECRs) in educational psychology, distributed across 19 universities in South-South Nigeria. The “Mentorship Practices and Research Productivity Questionnaire” (MPRPQ) was the instrument used for data collection. The questionnaire was designed by the researchers and then validated by three experts. Primary data were collected from the field after copies of the instrument had been administered to respondents. The study results revealed that mentorship practices were generally shown to significantly contribute to the research productivity of ECRs in educational psychology in universities. Specifically, the adoption of cloning and apprenticeship approaches to mentorship contributed substantially to the ECRs’ research productivity. The study concluded that mentorship practices are essential determinants of the research productivity of early-career educational psychologists, and it recommended that institutions strengthen their mentorship practices to boost the productive research capacities of ECRs.

Diggs et al. (2023) discuss the specific challenges faced by faculty at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), particularly Women of Color (WOC) faculty, in providing effective mentoring due to resource limitations and a lack of institutional support. The study utilizes a collaborative auto-ethnography approach triangulated with program data. The authors detail how, even though HBCUs excel in mentoring students, the faculty’s responsibilities are often underemphasized and influenced by past experiences, role definitions, and institutional expectations. The authors emphasize the need to recognize mentorship’s role in HBCUs and call for more research to address issues related to faculty mentorship, especially for WOC faculty members. The article also underscores the importance of equitable mentorship and support for faculty to foster student success within HBCUs, calling for reevaluating institutional standards to value mentoring as a visible academic service. According to Diggs et al. (2023), HBCU faculty members are expected to produce quality professional experiences comparable to those of other majority White institutions. However, HBCU faculty may lack fundamental training and resource support.

The aim is to identify the mentor characteristics that lead to superior mentoring outcomes and to provide human resources development (HRD) professionals with evidence-based suggestions for recruiting, selecting, and training mentors to improve the effectiveness of mentorship programs. Deng and Turner (2023) critically reviewed quantitative research on mentor characteristics that impact effective mentoring. Their study found that five critical categories of mentor characteristics are linked to successful mentoring outcomes. These are competencies in context-relevant knowledge, skills and abilities; commitment and initiative; interpersonal skills; pro-social orientation and an orientation toward development, exploration and expansion. Institutions must focus on recruiting and training mentors to ensure a sufficient pool of qualified mentors and mentors who meet the desired criteria (Deng & Turner, 2023). Additionally, the author argues that incorporating the desired mentor characteristics into both processes, rather than just selection, will help with self-selection and developing these characteristics. Lastly, Deng and Turner (2023) wrote that despite the ongoing interest in identifying effective mentor characteristics, the existing literature is fragmented, making it challenging for HRD professionals to determine which characteristics are crucial for mentoring relationships and success.

Investigating the differences in the teachers’ professional development (TPD) through mentorship in the workplace, the authors Zhang, Ma and Xu (2024) examined the role of mentorship in the professional development of teachers. They conducted a meta-analysis of pertinent empirical data. The authors used data from over 2,900 individuals, 66 experiments and 12 countries, presenting a meta-analysis of the association between workplace mentorship and TPD. Zhang, Ma and Xu’s (2024) study indicated that mentoring activities could somewhat boost the TPD. Additionally, they argue that mentorship contributes positively to the discipline of science and language, kindergarten, individual mentoring and curriculum research. In conclusion, researchers Deng and Turner (2023) argue that the development of TPD is influenced to varying degrees in four aspects: discipline, educational stage, intervention strategy and mentorship cycle.

Cited by Eller, Lev and Fuerer (2014), in a retrospective study of 152 alum protégés and 42 of their mentors, Haggard and Turban (2012) identified mentor and protégé functions based on the psychological mentoring contract. This contract encompasses perceived obligations from both mentors and protégés, including both relational and transactional commitments. According to Eller, Lev, and Fuerer (2014), the relational obligations of mentors include availability, encouragement, acceptance, trust, and advising. The relational obligations of protégés include loyalty, respect, friendship, support, and deference (Eller et al., 2014). Transactional obligations of mentors include providing career support, offering networking opportunities, intervening on behalf of the protégé, and presenting challenges. Transactional obligations of protégés include providing project assistance, demonstrating a willingness to learn, achieving high performance, and sharing information (Eller et al., 2014).

METHODS

This literature review employs a qualitative, descriptive research design to compile and evaluate the growing body of knowledge published since 2007 regarding mentoring at institutions of higher learning. The goal is to investigate the benefits and challenges and suggest a mentoring framework for higher learning institutions in developed, emerging, and underdeveloped countries. The elements include the mentoring models and the advantages, challenges, and benefits of mentoring. The review was conducted systematically in Table 3 to ensure a thorough understanding of mentoring in higher education institutions. Moreover, the literature review followed accepted practices.

Table 3: Literature-reviewed model

Testing the outdated NUST mentoring framework is the ultimate goal of a follow-up article based on the empirical evidence studied for this narrative literature review.

Literature Search Strategy

Searching for pertinent mentoring literature will be done using methodical techniques. According to Booth (2016), the following actions are performed:

The selection of resources will involve searching popular academic databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, JSTOR, and Scopus, for peer-reviewed books, articles, and conference papers on mentoring at higher education institutions. The investigation will encompass a wide range of viewpoints, utilising grey literature, including publications from alternative educational establishments, such as schools.

The search term combination for mentoring will comprise the following terms: “mentoring,” “mentorship,” “mentor-mentee relationship,” “mentoring models,” “mentoring outcomes,” and “mentoring challenges.” The article adheres to Petticrew and Roberts’ (2006) guidelines for establishing the article’s inclusion and exclusion criteria. All English-language research published by 2014 or later will be included in the review. Studies addressing mentoring in higher education institutions will be the focus of attention, along with evaluations of literature and theoretical works. Studies that do not address mentorship at higher education institutions are excluded.

Research design, data Extraction and Synthesis

A thorough systematic review process is hindered by the semi-systematic or narrative review technique, which is intended for subjects conceptualised differently and investigated by researchers across various disciplines (Wong et al., 2013). It is just not feasible to review every article that might be pertinent to the subject, so an alternative approach needs to be devised. Business journals have published several publications that use this methodology (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2017). In addition to providing an overview of a subject, a semi-systematic review frequently examines the evolution of a topic across study traditions or the advancement of research within a particular discipline. Instead of quantifying impact size, the review aims to uncover and comprehend all potentially relevant research traditions that have consequences for the topic under study. These are then synthesized using meta-narratives (Wong et al., 2013). This facilitates comprehension of complex subjects. This approatopicer, maintains that the research process should be transparent and have a well-developed research strategy that allows readers to evaluate whether the arguments for the judgments made were reasonable, both for the chosen topic and from a methodological perspective, despite covering a wide range of topics and study types.

The data will first be extracted methodically after identifying and selecting pertinent literature. Necessary details include the author(s), publication year, research context, mentoring methods, results, and any difficulties encountered. A thematic classification and integration will be applied to the retrieved data—second, Quest et al. (2012); Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Make the case that the themes created by grouping the data align with the research questions posed in the article. Themes could include definitions of mentoring, types of mentoring, advantages for both mentors and mentees, challenges in mentoring relationships, and the outcomes of mentoring. Finding patterns, parallels, and discrepancies among the many literary works examined through thematic analysis will be possible.

Lastly, the quality, validity, and reliability of each study and report were thoroughly evaluated. This will entail evaluating each study’s research design, sample size, data collection strategies, and analytical approaches. In the synthesis, studies of higher calibre will be given greater weight. (Roberts & Petticrew, 2006). To verify the validity of the suggested mentoring model, a comprehensive and systematic approach to analyzing the mentoring literature is ensured by the methodology described. The review will consolidate the current research on mentoring by utilizing a thorough search method, thematic analysis, and critical appraisal. This will provide insightful information for academics, higher education institutions, practitioners, and policymakers.

RESULTS

Proposed Mentoring Normative Model

All the current staff and academic appointees should complete a need analysis survey as reflected in the above model. The faculty and departments should have a database of mentors who are champions in the different needs and skills, as identified (4.1.1). After the needs analysis survey is completed, champions should be appointed according to the needs analysis of the mentee (4.1.2). The faculty will then forward the information of both mentors and mentees to the Human Resource Department to compile the mentorship agreement (4.1.3). After completing the mentorship agreement, the Human Resources Department will sign to confirm its completion (4.1.4). The mentee will then be added to the mentor database for future academics appointed (4.1.5).

RECOMMENDATIONS

• First, for any change like this proposed model, NUST should, through effective consultation with all staff members, buy into this proposed model. Furthermore, the mentorship responsibility should be included in the mentor’s workload. Those above ensure the effective and efficient completion of the mentorship agreement.
• Key performance indicators should be identified to ensure mentorship contributes to the mission and vision of the institution.
• The institution should create a conducive lifelong learning cultural environment amongst all academics.
• Incentives can motivate mentors and mentees to complete mentorship agreements successfully

In conclusion, the article proposes a follow-up after NUST implements the proposed model. The follow-up article will be based on primary data, covering academics’ perceptions of the proposed model.

REFERENCES

1. Alshayhan, N., Yusuf, J. E., Saitgalina, M., & Corbett, M. E. (2023). Career mentorship of graduate students in public administration at the intersection of the relationship between students and faculty. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 29(4), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803. 2023.2234796
2. Bain, S., Fedynich, L., & Knight, M. (2011). The successful graduate student: A review of the factors for success. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 3, 1–9.
3. Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. SAGE Publications.
4. Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2009). Public management mentoring: What affects outcomes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 427–452. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jopart/mun007
5. Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality, and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001- 8791(03)00033-2
6. Chaos, G. T., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17446570.1992.tb00863.x
7. Cordie, L. A., Brecke, T., Lin, X., & Wooten, M. C. (2020). Co-teaching in higher education: Mentoring as faculty development. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 32(1), 149-158. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1259487.pdf
8. Cordie, L. A., Brecke, T., Lin, X., & Wooten, M. C. (2020). Co-teaching in higher education: Mentoring as faculty development. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 32(1), 149-158. tps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1259487.pdf
9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
10. Deng, C.and Turner, N. (2024), “Identifying key mentor characteristics for successful workplace mentoring relationships and programmes”, Personnel Review, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 580-604. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2022-0535.
11. Diggs, S., Bharath, D., Roberts-Lewis, K., & Bailey, D. (2023). Mentoring at the intersection of student and faculty retention at Historically Black Colleges and University (HBCUs) masters of public administration programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 29(4), 462–480. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15236803.2023.225560432.
12. Eller LS, Lev EL, Feurer A. (2014) Key components of an effective mentoring relationship: a qualitative study. Nurse Educ Today. 2014 May;34(5):815-20. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.07.020. Epub 2013 Aug 14. PMID: 23978778; PMCID: PMC3925207.
13. Farrell, C., Hatcher, W., & Diamond, J. (2022). Reflecting on over 100 years of public administration education. Public Administration, 100(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12808
14. Fleming, G. M., Simmons, J. H., Xu, M., Gesell, S. B., Brown, R. F., Cutrer, W. B., Gigante, J., & Cooper, W. O. (2015). A facilitated peer mentoring program for junior faculty to promote professional development and peer networking. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 90(6), 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000705.
15. Fountain, J., & Newcomer, K. E. (2016). Developing and sustaining effective faculty mentoring programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(4), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803. 2016.12002262
16. Fowler, L. (2022). Strategies for dealing with policy ambiguities. Public Administration. https://doi. org/10.1111/padm.12887
17. Harvard Business Essential (2004). Coaching and mentoring: How to develop top talent and achieve stronger performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
18. Hummel, D., & Hersey, L. (2023). Mentoring online MPA students: Assessing mentorship qualities and aligning program goals. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 29(4), 522–542. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15236803.2023.2247471
19. Koki, S, (n/d). The role of teacher Mentoring in educational reform. https://nmu.edu/Webb/ArchivedHTML/UPCED/mentoring/docs/Role-mentor.pdf
20. Kram, K. E. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training & Development Journal, 39(4), 40–43.
21. Law, D.D., Hales, K., & Busenbark, D. (2020). Student success: A literature review of faculty to student mentoring.Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 4(1), 6. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=jete
22. Luna, G., & Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering the faculty: Mentoring redirected and renewed. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
23. McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Snyder, H., Elg, M., Witell, L., Helkkula, A., Hogan, S. J., & Anderson, L. (2017). The changing role of the health care customer: review, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 28(1), 2–33.
24. McCombes, S., & Bhandari, P. (2021, June 7). What Is a Research Design | Types, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-design/
25. Meier, K. J. (2023). It all depends: Reflections on the art of mentoring PhD students in public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 29(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2022. 2157191
26. Namibia University of Science and Technology. (2024). History of NUST. https://www.nust.na/about-nust/profile#history
27. Namibia University of Science and Technology. (2024). Statistics.
28. Naris, N.N. & Ukpere, I.W. (2010). Mentoring programmes for academic staff at the Polytechnic of Namibia. African Journal of Business Management,4(3), pp. 350-356 http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM
29. Naris, S.N. and Ukpere, W.I., (2010). Mentoring programmes for academic staff at the Polytechnic of Namibia. African Journal of Business Management, 4(3): 350-356.
30. Nunan, J. L. R., Ebrahim, A. B., & Stander, M. W. (2023). Mentoring in the workplace: Exploring the experiences of mentor-mentee relations. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 49(1), 1-11. https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S2071-07632023000100011&script=sci_arttext
31. Okon, A.E., Owan, V.J., & Owan, M.V. (2022). Mentorship Practices and Research Productivity Among Early-Career Educational Psychologists in Universities. Educational Process: International Journal, 11(1): 105-126.
32. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Wiley-Blackwell.
33. Researchers to observe interaction between multiple participants.” (n.d.). In Foundations of Social Work Research. https://uta.pressbooks.pub/foundationsofsocialworkresearch/chapter/9-4-types-of-qualitative-research-designs/
34. Watson, R. T., & Dawson, G. S. (2007). Involved or committed? Similarities and differences in advising and mentoring in the academic and business world. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02002Whitaker.
35. Wolfe Poel, E., Arroyos-Jurado, E., & Coppola, B. J. (2018). Women, mentoring, and a border university. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(4), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803. 2006.12001453
36. Wong, A.T. & Premkumar, K. (2007). An Introduction to Mentoring Principles, Processes and Strategies for Facilitating Mentoring Relationships at a Distance. http://www.usask.ca/gmcte/drupal/?q=resources
37. Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: Meta‐narrative reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(5), 987–1004.
38. Zhang, S., Ma, X., Xu, H.and Lu, J. (2024), “The influence of mentorship in workplace on teachers’ professional development a meta-analysis based on 66 experiments”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-11-2022-0588.