1) Mentoring Research

An excellent review of mentoring research has been produced by the Mentoring and Befriending Foundation http://www.mandbf.org.uk/fileadmin/filemounts/general/Publications/Synthesis_of_published_research_MBF_report__Kate_Philip_.pdf This paper is a serious attempt to analyse and discuss the mentoring research canon. I particularly liked the way that the authors try to understand mentoring in at least three dimensions: firstly, in terms of the often unspoken theoretical framework and assumptions underlying projects; secondly, trying to construct a typology of mentoring in order to distinguish different categories or types of relationships, for example, drawing a distinction between befriending and mentoring; thirdly discussing specific research findings. I think there is great merit in this approach, as it holds out the possibility of locating mentoring as part of broader social analysis, such as the way mentoring develops or utilises social capital in a community. This is particularly important when considering populations suffering from a range of disadvantages. However, it does add complication to the analysis and I’d recommend anyone interested in this subject to begin by looking at a more clear-cut review and listing of the research such as that to be found in Mentoring and Young people, A literature review, by John C. Hall at the university of Glasgow (2003). This survey adopts a more pragmatic approach to the research, largely bracketing off the theoretical debate and limiting itself to asking questions such as ‘what works’ and ‘what doesn’t work’ http://www.scre.ac.uk/resreport/pdf/114.pdf . For me, this is a great way into the research literature as it quickly highlights research findings. For example, Hall argues that the history and practice of mentoring is more developed in the USA than in the UK with, for example, organisations such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America who have been in operation for over 90 years. He also points out that the US experience is much richer in quantitative studies of mentoring than the UK; indeed, such studies are almost non-existent in the UK. In more than one study, the American researchers used a neat, if slightly brutal, solution to the problem of finding valid control groups; they used the existence of waiting lists for schemes, to fast track a randomly chosen cohort for the scheme, while leaving the other cohort to wait in line and to act as the control group. There is no mention of e-mentoring in these studies but there are many lines of discussion and findings that are of interest, not least, that there has been considerable work into the importance of matching mentors and mentees.