Exploring Collegial Relationships Between Nurse Educators Nurse Educators’ Scholarship Action Team (NESAT) and Collegial Partnerships Research Action Team Penny Cash, Action Team Leader (University of Victoria) Betty Tate, Action Team Leader (North Island College) Marion Clauson, Collegial Partnerships Research Action Team Member
Purpose of the Research The purpose of the research is to facilitate collegial relationships between and among nurse educators in differing contexts of practice. This research has the potential to facilitate new and different collegial relationships as well as uncover the impact of these relationships on learning environments in acute care, complex care, community settings and educational institutions.
Background This research interest grew out of conversations between nurse educators in health care settings (e.g. Clinical Nurse Educators, Clinical Nurse Specialists) and Nurse Educators in post secondary settings (e.g. faculty in nursing programs) within the Nurse Educators’ Scholarship Action Team (NESAT) at a 2011 NESAT Colloquium. During these conversations we realized we had many common interests and concerns and had much to learn from each other even though we had traditionally worked in silo-like settings and had very little interaction with one another. We wanted to encourage and study the effects of reciprocal relationships across differing contexts of practice and this research process began.
Research Process After the 2011 NESAT Colloquium we began meeting online with NESAT members who were interested in developing this research. Together we began to explore our research interest in this topic. We looked at the literature on mentoring and thought we would like to encourage mentoring relationships across differing contexts of practice. We then took our work back to the 2012 NESAT Colloquium and spent a day working on our ideas for a research proposal. At that time we were concerned about the power relations implied in the language of mentoring, mentor and mentee as we saw the relationships we wanted to study as reciprocal. We decided to call these relationships across contexts collegial partnerships and began to explore their potential meanings. We also saw what was unfolding as an action research project combining learning about collegial partnerships and enacting them at the same time on the research team. In the fall of 2012 we developed a closed Inspirenet Action Team of the people interested in pursuing this research and have met monthly since then to complete a literature review and refine the research proposal. During these discussions we questioned the language of partnership and again sought further literature about organic relational mentoring and transformative learning. Through this process we changed collaborative partnerships to collaborative relationships. Over the 2 years we have come to understand how a collaborative research process evolves and we are currently seeing it as a community development process amongst Nurse Educators.
Questions The specific questions to be explored: • How do Nurse Educators construct their collegial relationships in differing contexts of practice? • What are the meanings of collegial relationships for participants? 1. Nurse Educators work in different contexts of practice and we have chosen this language to distinguish between contexts although it is not necessarily totally comprehensive. It is noted that CRNBC state that nurses work in four main areas of practice– administration, education, research and clinical. We did not want to describe the contexts as either academia or practice to take into account new emerging roles for nurse educators.
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012
www.PosterPresentations.com
Literature Review Mentoring Mentoring between Nurse Educators has been occurring for more than the past 2 decades (DeMarco, 1993; White, Brannan & Wilson, 2010). The literature defines mentoring as collaboration (Semeniuk & Worrall, 2000) or connections such as those between student and teacher (Andrews & Wallis, 1999), mentor-mentee (Nick & Delahoyde, 2012; Andrews & Wallis, 1999; Denmark & Williams, 2012), protégé (White, Brannan & Wilson, 2010; Wilson, Brannan &, White 2010), or preceptor-preceptee (Mixer et al., 2012; NLN, 2006). What these definitions have in common is that there is some kind of relationship between two or more people and there is an approach taken to support the relationships. Generally, the notion of mentorship reflects a position of the knower and the learner – suggesting that one person has the knowledge and the other is attempting to access that information (Mixer et al, 2012). The literature addresses these relational arrangements, however issues that have not appeared to be well documented include questions about power relationships, taken for granted assumptions in mentoring relationships and organizational culture or contexts that frame the situatedness of mentoring and mandate mentoring relationships. Moreover the role mentoring plays in knowledge development needs to be explored. Critiques of the dominant discourses surrounding mentorship have been to demystify how these relationships work. For example, models that focus on relationship building have as their cornerstone mutual collaboration. Indeed, shared learning or partnerships becomes an important process that offers significant advantages to individuals’ personal commitments, their sense of developing more egalitarian relationships and building a culture of inquiry (Andrews & Wallis, 1999). Semeniuk and Worrall (2000) consider mentoring as a form of professional sisterhood developed informally. It may happen serendipitously in response to dynamic and evolving social situations and workplace conditions. They suggest that these types of relationships are deeper than institutionalized mentoring programs. The informal arrangement seems to stress choice and interests in common, autonomy, and are long lasting. Thus the potential for sustaining informal mentoring relationships over time exists. Transformative Learning As we reviewed this mentoring literature and discussed our connections to education we turned to the literature on transformative learning as it seemed that transformative learning may be an outcome of these collegial relationships. Core elements of transformative learning (Taylor, 2009) are: • Individual experience – a starting point for discourse and examination of assumptions • Critical reflection – questioning of assumptions, beliefs, feelings for comprehensibility, truth, appropriateness, authenticity, credibility • Dialogue – with self and others – this is the medium for putting critical reflection into action, to identify the “edge of meaning” and transition to new meaning • Holistic orientation – ensure attention to feelings, emotions along with didactic knowing • Awareness of context – personal and sociocultural factors, professional contexts, when might a learner be on the edge of meaning • Authentic relationships – meaningful, genuine and trusting Informed by this literature we are beginning to develop our methodology and method. The following is our beginning thinking about these aspects of the research.
Methodology The methodology is informed by reflexive and critical perspectives. In particular, a co-constructivist critical approach to the formation of relationships between Nurse Educators in different contexts will be used . In these approaches the notions of participation, ethics, reciprocity, reflexivity and equity are all central to the process. Given the nature of the inquiry and consistent with these approaches, the participants are also the researchers.
Method
Dissemination and Knowledge Translation
Numbers and Recruitment of Participants The number of participant Nurse Educators will be a minimum 10 and maximum 40. An invitation to participate will be sent through the Inspirenet NESAT and members of the action team will be invited to circulate the invitation to their colleagues. Each Nurse Educator employed/experienced in a post-secondary setting will be paired with a Nurse Educator employed/experienced in a healthcare setting to form a dyad. The researchers will encourage Nurse Educators to self select their dyads and will help to facilitate this by supporting pairing of individuals with common interests.
The research has the potential to contribute to knowledge translation about Nurse Educator practice, cross sector collegial relationship experiences and transformative learning. We have begun this process through engaging Nurse Educators in the research discussions and developing a culture of inquiry. The fluid nature of the research team as well as this e-poster presentation are examples of knowledge translation in action. This process will add to the evidence, and the importance of organic community development research projects that can be translated to other contexts with political and policy implications. With more interaction and relationships between Nurse Educators in differing contexts, the potential for pedagogical knowledge translation and quality of learning environments is increased.
Data Collection
Next Steps First Group Meeting(s) of All Research Participants This meeting is designed to bring participants together to talk about the research, ensure they understand the working of the dyads and review their consent. The purpose of the dyad is that they work together exploring the experience of collegial relationships. It is anticipated that dyads will connect at least once every three weeks. Some guiding questions that might stimulate dialogue within the relationship will be developed. Personal-professional Journal Nurse Educators will be asked to keep a personal/professional journal of their practice that might include their thoughts, ideas, stories, questions, commentaries on practice etc. Their journals will act as a conversation prompt to stimulate reflection, reflexivity, critiques of experience, changes in practice and insights from shared dialogue. Participants will be invited to share only the information they wish to share with their dyad colleague and the researchers. Four Interviews/ Group Meetings Interviews and/or focus groups of participants will be held every 3 months over a 12 month period. Interviews will be conducted face to face or electronically depending on geographic location of participants and researchers.
• • • • • •
Meet September 15 at 2013 Colloquium to continue the process Refine Methodology and Method Write Research Ethics Proposal Write Research Grant Proposals Recruit Participants Publish Literature Review
References Andrews, M., & Wallis, M. (1999). Mentorship in nursing: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29 (1), 201-207. Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93 (Spring), 63-71. Cranton P., & Roy, M. (2003). When the bottom falls out of the bucket: Toward a holistic perspective on transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(2), 86-98. DeMarco, R. (1993). Mentorship: A feminist critique of current research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1242-1250. Denmark, F.L., & Williams, D.A. (2012). The older woman as sage: The satisfaction of mentoring. Women and Therapy, 25(3-4), 261-278. Doi: org/10.1080/13561820400021742.
Open ended questions will be used as discussion starters: • Tell us about nature of your collegial relationship. • How long on average did your meetings last? • How did you go about establishing your relationship (either before or after the research began as some relationships may already exist before beginning the study)? • What has been your experience of this collegial relationship? • How has this relationship enhanced your understanding of your partner’s contexts of practice? • Have other relationships been developed that you know of across different contexts of practice? • How has this relationship changed your practice? • Were there any barriers? How did you overcome them?
Mixer, S.J., Burke, R.C., Davidson, R., McArthur, P.M., Abraham, C., Silva, K., & Sharp, D. (2012). Transforming bedside nursing care through practiceacademic co-mentoring relationships. Journal of Nursing Care, 108. Doi:10.4172/jnc.1000108.
Each participant will receive a summary of their group/interview discussion to review and comment upon at the next meeting. The summary will serve as a conversation starter or participants may prefer to confirm the ideas and move to a topic of contemporary interest to the group. In this process the conversation is deepened with each meeting or interview.
Thorpe, K., & Kalischuk, G. (2003). A collegial mentoring model for nurse educators. Nursing Forum, 38(1), 5-15.
Final Group Meeting This meeting is designed to reflect on the experience at the end of the research and develop recommendations for the future.
National League for Nursing, Board of Governors (2006). Mentoring of nurse faculty: Position Statement. National League for Nursing, January 28. Nick, J.M., Delahoyde, T.M., Del Prato, D., Mitchell, C., Ortiz, J., & Siktberg, L.(2012) Best practices in academic mentoring: A model for excellence. Nursing Research and Practice, 2012/937906,1-9. Doi: 10.1155/2012/937906 Semeniuk, A., & Worrall, A.M. (2000). Rereading the dominant narrative of mentoring. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(4), 405-428. Taylor, E. W. (2009). Fostering transformational learning. In Mezirow, J., & Taylor, E.W. (Eds), Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace, and Higher Education (pp 3-17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint.
White, Brannan, & Wilson. (2010). A mentor-protégé program for new faculty, Part I: Stories of protégés. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(11), 601607. Wilson, Brannan & White. (2010). A mentor-protégé program for new faculty, Part II: Stories of mentors. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(12), 665-671.