当前位置: X-MOL 学术Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Spaces of possibilities: a theoretical analysis of mentoring from a regulatory perspective
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences ( IF 5.2 ) Pub Date : 2020-07-07 , DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14419
Albert Ziegler 1 , Katharina L Gryc 1 , Manuel D S Hopp 1 , Heidrun Stoeger 2
Affiliation  

A review of the literature on the effectiveness of mentoring reveals a paradox: on the one hand, there is evidence that mentoring can be highly effective. On the other hand, meta‐analyses usually only show small to moderate effect sizes, and sometimes even negative effects. To better understand this mentoring paradox, we discuss three fundamental problems in mentoring research. We propose working definitions and theoretical premises to overcome these problems. We apply various systemic concepts to the field of mentoring that might help to resolve the mentoring paradox. We introduce mentees’ actiotopes and their interaction with other systems as the unit of analysis, and the regulations for which mentors are responsible for in the context of mentoring as the categories of analysis. To systemize and elaborate on the regulatory dimensions of mentoring, we introduce the nonagonal framework of regulation in mentoring (NFR‐M). To facilitate the analysis of ongoing changes caused by mentoring and therefore a dynamic understanding of mentoring, we introduce the concept of spaces of possibilities in mentoring (M‐spaces). Finally, we introduce the concepts of the Athena Mentor to explain why mentors can differ so dramatically in the effectiveness of the regulations they are responsible for in the context of mentoring. We conclude by describing how mentoring comparisons based on the NFR‐M, mentors’ regulatory insight, regulatory power, and M‐spaces can help to resolve the mentoring paradox.

中文翻译:

可能性空间:监管视角下的指导理论分析

对有关指导有效性的文献的回顾揭示了一个悖论:一方面,有证据表明指导可以非常有效。另一方面,荟萃分析通常只显示小到中等的影响大小,有时甚至是负面影响。为了更好地理解这种指导悖论,我们讨论了指导研究中的三个基本问题。我们提出了工作定义和理论前提来克服这些问题。我们将各种系统的概念应用于指导领域,这可能有助于解决指导悖论。我们将受指导者的行为及其与其他系统的交互作为分析单元,将指导者在指导背景下负责的规定作为分析类别。为了系统化和阐述指导的监管维度,我们引入了指导中的非角化监管框架(NFR-M)。为了便于分析由指导引起的持续变化,从而对指导进行动态理解,我们引入了指导中可能性空间(M-spaces)的概念。最后,我们介绍了 Athena Mentor 的概念,以解释为什么在指导的背景下,导师在他们负责的法规的有效性方面会存在如此巨大的差异。最后,我们描述了基于 NFR-M、导师监管洞察力、监管权力和 M-空间的指导比较如何帮助解决指导悖论。为了便于分析由指导引起的持续变化,从而对指导进行动态理解,我们引入了指导中可能性空间(M-spaces)的概念。最后,我们介绍了 Athena Mentor 的概念,以解释为什么在指导的背景下,指导者在他们负责的法规的有效性方面会有如此巨大的差异。最后,我们描述了基于 NFR-M、导师监管洞察力、监管权力和 M-空间的指导比较如何帮助解决指导悖论。为了便于分析由指导引起的持续变化,从而对指导进行动态理解,我们引入了指导中可能性空间(M-spaces)的概念。最后,我们介绍了 Athena Mentor 的概念,以解释为什么在指导的背景下,指导者在他们负责的法规的有效性方面会有如此巨大的差异。最后,我们描述了基于 NFR-M、导师监管洞察力、监管权力和 M-空间的指导比较如何帮助解决指导悖论。我们介绍了 Athena Mentor 的概念,以解释为什么在指导的背景下,指导者在他们负责的法规的有效性方面会有如此巨大的差异。最后,我们描述了基于 NFR-M、导师监管洞察力、监管权力和 M-空间的指导比较如何帮助解决指导悖论。我们介绍了 Athena Mentor 的概念,以解释为什么在指导的背景下,指导者在他们负责的法规的有效性方面会有如此巨大的差异。最后,我们描述了基于 NFR-M、导师监管洞察力、监管权力和 M-空间的指导比较如何帮助解决指导悖论。
更新日期:2020-07-07
down
wechat
bug