Japera Johnson Hemming1, Adriana Baez2, Meldra Hall1, Winston Thompson3, Jonathan Stiles4, Elizabeth Ofili1. 1. Clinical Research Center, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 2. Pharmacology and Otolaryngology, University of Puerto Rico Medical Science Campus, San Juan, PR. 3. Physiology and Mentoring Academy, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 4. Microbiology, Biochemistry, and Immunology Department, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
Objective: Morehouse School of Medicine, a collaborative partner in the National Research Mentoring Network, established the Mentoring Academy Institutional Planning Forum (MA Forum) to help minority-serving institutions (MSI) optimize research mentoring. In this commentary, we describe the policy workshop and review survey data from six MSIs to assess the current state of organizational policies and activities that advance research mentoring. Participants: Twenty-eight institutional leaders, representing six MSIs, participated in an MA Forum between May 20, 2016 and May 11, 2017. Methods: After describing the MA Forum's background, design and recruitment strategy, we present a synthesis of institutional summaries built from responses to a 45-item survey that explored existing mentoring infrastructure, policies, and activities at each institution. Results: There is a heavy reliance on extramural funds to facilitate research mentoring initiatives. Mentoring policies and activities were most often governed by individual programs rather than the institution. Thus, the research mentoring expertise was concentrated at the local level, which may prevent opportunities for future scalability and optimization. Conclusions: Given these findings, we offer recommendations to help MSIs establish a mentoring culture backed by institutional policy.
Objective: Morehouse School of Medicine, a collaborative partner in the National Research Mentoring Network, established the Mentoring Academy Institutional Planning Forum (MA Forum) to help minority-serving institutions (MSI) optimize research mentoring. In this commentary, we describe the policy workshop and review survey data from six MSIs to assess the current state of organizational policies and activities that advance research mentoring. Participants: Twenty-eight institutional leaders, representing six MSIs, participated in an MA Forum between May 20, 2016 and May 11, 2017. Methods: After describing the MA Forum's background, design and recruitment strategy, we present a synthesis of institutional summaries built from responses to a 45-item survey that explored existing mentoring infrastructure, policies, and activities at each institution. Results: There is a heavy reliance on extramural funds to facilitate research mentoring initiatives. Mentoring policies and activities were most often governed by individual programs rather than the institution. Thus, the research mentoring expertise was concentrated at the local level, which may prevent opportunities for future scalability and optimization. Conclusions: Given these findings, we offer recommendations to help MSIs establish a mentoring culture backed by institutional policy.
Authors: Donna J Keyser; Joan M Lakoski; Sandraluz Lara-Cinisomo; Dana J Schultz; Valerie L Williams; Darlene F Zellers; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: Acad Med Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Robert E Tillman; Susan Jang; Zainab Abedin; Boyd F Richards; Brigitta Spaeth-Rublee; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: Acad Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Richard Yanagihara; Marla J Berry; Monica J Carson; Sandra P Chang; Heather Corliss; Marc B Cox; Georges Haddad; Christine Hohmann; Scott T Kelley; Eun Sook Yu Lee; Bruce G Link; Richard J Noel; Julie Pickrel; James T Porter; Gregory J Quirk; Temesgen Samuel; Jonathan K Stiles; Angela U Sy; Deborah A Taira; Mary Jo Trepka; Fernando Villalta; Thomas E Wiese Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-07 Impact factor: 4.614