Citation
Affective correlates of a good mentoring relationship

Material Information

Title:
Affective correlates of a good mentoring relationship
Creator:
Brechtel, Mark F., 1957-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 172 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Employment discrimination ( jstor )
Graduate schools ( jstor )
Graduate students ( jstor )
Graduates ( jstor )
Grounded theory method ( jstor )
Mentoring ( jstor )
Mentors ( jstor )
Psychological research ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Women ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2003.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Mark Franklin Brechtel.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
030434853 ( ALEPH )
82280950 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










THE AFFECTIVE CORRELATES OF
A GOOD MENTORING RELATIONSHIP
















By

MARK FRANKLIN BRECHTEL


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2003













This dissertation is dedicated to Hallie Ward.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to the people in my life that are most

responsible for the good things that I am and do (and none of the not-so-good). First, my

mother, who (with a little help) started it all and is thus responsible for it all. Second, my

wife, Brenda, who has carried far more than her fair share in the past dozen years and

who would like to stop now, please. Third, my three daughters (in order of how much

work they did on this particular project), Christen, Christy, and Lisa-they are the reason

much of anything is worthwhile.













TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

A CKN OW LEDGM EN TS ................................................................................................. i1

ABSTRA CT....................................................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION .......................................................................................................... 1

Defining M entering ....................................................................................................... 5
Brief History of M entoring............................................................................................ 6
Im portance of M entoring............................................................................................... 8
Present Study ............................................................................................................. 10

2 REVIEW O F LITERA TURE ...................................................................................... 11

Construction of the M entering Relationship................................................................ 14
Functions of the M entering Relationship .................................................................... 20
Career and Psychosocial Functions ....................................................................... 21
Additional Functions.............................................................................................. 24
Phases of the M entering Relationship ......................................................................... 25
Phillips' Five-Phase M odel ................................................................................... 27
M issirian's Three-Phase M odel............................................................................. 28
Kram 's Four-Phase M odel..................................................................................... 29
Em pirical Validity of the Phase M odels ................................................................ 30
Outcom es of the M entering Relationship .................................................................... 33
Correlation of Functions to Outcom es................................................................... 34
Self-Efficacy, Productivity, and Success in Graduate School............................... 36
Job Satisfaction, Prom otion, and Incom e .............................................................. 37
Im pact of Protdgi Characteristics.......................................................................... 39
Obstacles to the M entering Relationship..................................................................... 41
N negative Behaviors................................................................................................ 42
Structural, Department Specific, and Relational Obstacles................................... 42
Risks to M entors .................................................................................................... 44
Other Factors That Affect the Mentoring Relationship ............................................... 45
Gender Factors....................................................................................................... 45
Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, and Other Cultural Factors.................................... 50
Ethical Concerns in the M entering Relationship ......................................................... 52
Introduction to the M ethod .......................................................................................... 55
V alue of Qualitative Research ............................................................................... 55
Grounded Theory M ethodology ............................................................................ 58

iv









3 M ETH OD ..................................................................................................................... 65

Participants................................................................................................................... 65
The Researcher............................................................................................................. 66
Procedure .....................................................................................................................69
Data Acquisition .................................................................................................... 69
Data Analysis......................................................................................................... 71

4 RESU LTS .................................................................................................................... 76

Feeling Respected........................................................................................................ 78
Respect of Persons ................................................................................................. 79
Respect of a Person's Right of Self-D eterm ination............................................... 81
Feeling V alued by or Im portant to the M entor ............................................................ 83
Availability ............................................................................................................ 84
Tim e and Effort...................................................................................................... 86
Feeling Safe ................................................................................................................. 88
N ot Experiencing Rejection................................................................................... 89
Receiving Affirm ation and Encouragem ent .......................................................... 92
Trust.......................................................................................................................93
Feelings of Belonging and Com m unity....................................................................... 95
Feelings of Increasing Com petence........................................................................... 100
Clarifying Expectations ....................................................................................... 101
Following an Appropriate Developmental Course .............................................. 102
Increasing Autonom y........................................................................................... 103

5 DISCU SSION .......................................................................................................... 105

APPENDIXES

A IN FORM ED CON SEN T ........................................................................................... 118

B M EN TOR INTERV IEW SAM PLE ........................................................................... 121

C SATISFIED PROTEGE (SP3) INTERVIEW SAMPLE........................................... 133

D DISSATISFIED PROT1EGE (DPI) INTERVIEW SAMPLE.................................... 145

E EXAM PLE OF OPEN CODIN G ............................................................................... 157

REFEREN CES ............................................................................................................ 164

BIOGRAPHICA L SKETCH ........................................................................................... 172














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE AFFECTIVE CORRELATES OF A GOOD MENTORING RELATIONSHIP

By

Mark Franklin Brechtel

August, 2003

Chair: Franz R. Epting, Ph.D.
Major Department: Department of Psychology

This project investigated the affective components that help define a good

mentoring relationship. This project was exploratory, not confirmatory; thus, no

hypotheses were constructed. While previous research has focused on various

components of mentoring, such as functions, phases, establishment, and structures, these

factors were not evaluated, as the focus of the project was on the quality of the

relationship. Results of this project, however, are consistent with existing research into

these areas.

Fourteen participants were interviewed (four award-winning mentors, five

satisfied proteges, and four dissatisfied proteges) regarding their experiences as mentors

and proteges. Participants were asked to provide their thoughts and perceptions about

what things were important in a good mentoring relationship and what might be missing

in a bad relationship. Results were analyzed using grounded theory methodology, which

is a qualitative method of research and analysis. Analyses indicated that positive affect








was the central factor that differentiated good mentoring relationships from bad

mentoring relationships. Positive affect, as a core category, subsumed five second-level

categories: (a) feeling respected, (b) feelings of being valued, (c) feeling safe, (d) feelings

of belonging, and (e) feelings of making progress. Each of these categories subsumed a

number of other themes. Results across all participants were remarkably consistent,

lending support to the importance of the interpersonal quality of the mentor-prothgd

relationship.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.
(Newton, 1676)

This sentiment, in varying forms and words, has historically been proffered by

many when asked to account for their successes in work or in life. Indeed, it is asserted

that Sir Isaac Newton, who wrote these words in a letter to his colleague Robert Hooke,

was himself paraphrasing an idea expressed by Bernard of Chartes in the year 1130

(Herbert, 2003). The insight that we are able to accomplish as much as we do only

because we build upon the works of those who have gone before us is both perceptive

and judicious, rendering due credit to those upon whose labors we build our own edifices.

It is a humbling insight. No matter our view of our own talents and efforts, we are not

alone basking in the spotlight of our accomplishments. We are not solely to credit for our

discoveries and constructions. Further, we have had an advantage that our precursors did

not have: We have access to their work, their wisdom, the edifices that they built upon

the shoulders of those who went before-and, in some cases, we have access to them.

This last element-that we often have the advantage of the presence of the

persons who have gone before-provides the direction for this research. The purpose of

this dissertation is to explore the relationship between mentors and their proteges and to

ask what factors are important for the relationship to be characterized as good.

The presence of these persons allows us to learn from them directly: to see them

working in the lab, to watch them negotiate a contract with a client in the office, to hear

1










them present their findings first hand at conferences, and to talk to them about our ideas

and our goals. More importantly, their presence may also allow us to develop personal

relationships with them. Whether in business, a profession, or in academia, the

opportunity to enter into a personal relationship with someone who is more advanced,

more knowledgeable, more expert, or of higher status and power can be a boon to the

personal and professional development of the novice.

The significance of these relationships has been heard in the words of many: the

businessman who spoke with enthusiasm about the female senior executive who showed

him the ropes (Hogan, as cited in Murray, 1991), the Nobel prize winner who described

the sponsor who saw the potential in him that he never saw in himself (Zuckerman,

1977), the spiritual teacher who eloquently expressed his love for the elder who guided

him through crises of faith (Lewis, 1955), the child who eulogized a parent's importance

to his peace and place in the world, and the artist who waxed poetic about the one who

saw and believed in the talent and passion that others discounted (McMullen, as cited in

Murray, 1991). These few examples are noted among an imagined infinitude of people

who have recognized the critical contributions of some significant figure to their

development, to their success, and to their lives.

The recognition of the value of these significant figures, however, is definitional

of graduate education (Kelly & Schweitzer, 1999). Where else are the shoulders of those

who have gone before so intentionally made available for those who would follow?

Where more than in the graduate academy is the mentoring and advising of students and

prot6g6s more central to the success of the endeavor? Although the goal of all education










is the transmission of knowledge, graduate education uniquely assigns the task of

preparing the next generation of scholars and researchers to those who themselves

developed and use the knowledge. "Generations of experienced scholars have known and

acted upon the knowledge that the intellectual development of their graduate students is

most effectively guided in one-to-one relationships" (Boyer Commission, 1998, p. I). The

intellectual, professional, social, and political development of individual graduate

students is the raison d'etre of the graduate mentor-the sine qua non of a doctoral

education.

Or is it? According to many sources (e.g., Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts,

2001; Tinto, 1987), the number of students who drop out of doctoral programs in the

United States has held steady at approximately 50% since the 1960s. Further, while the

specific attrition rates for women and minorities are not known, Lovitts reported it to be

considerably higher (see also National Science Foundation, 1997). It is also interesting to

note that "in many doctoral programs, roughly half of the students are mentored; in

others, the rate is much lower" (Johnson and Huwe, 2003, p. 4). Perhaps the development

of graduate students is not the central concern of graduate schools. Perhaps experienced

scholars have not known-or not acted upon the knowledge-that students' development

is best facilitated in one-on-one relationships.

A variety of reasons may be called up to explain these alarming statistics, and

researchers have not been unaware of the problem (Bean & Eaton, 2000; Bowen &

Rudenstine, 1992; Braxton, 2000; Tinto, 1987, 2000). Some researchers have focused on

the contribution of the individual student's personality and other characteristics to










retention. For example, Tinto (1987) discussed the relations between personal

dispositions such as intention and commitment and retention, Bean and Eaton (2000)

presented a model that focuses on the interactions between characteristics of the students

and the institutional environment in which they must function after arrival, and Green and

Bauer (1995) found that certain characteristics of students at entry predicted a significant

portion of the variance in outcomes.

Other researchers have explored what happens to students after they arrive.

Lovitts (2001) explored a number of reasons why graduate students do not complete their

programs and concluded that "it is not the background characteristics students bring to

the university that affects their persistence outcomes; it is what happens to them after

they arrive" (p. 2). Lovitts reported that a key factor in a students' success is their

satisfaction with their advisors/mentors, which predicted not only completion of the

doctorate, but also a wide range of other variables. Her discussion of the relative impact

of the student's advisor is of particular interest here. In summarizing, she wrote,

In particular, the students felt that their experiences would have been better if they
had had more interaction with faculty and/or their advisor and if the faculty or
their advisor had been more open, more supporting; given them a little more
personal attention; been more sensitive to their interests and career goals; and
provided them with appropriate professional socialization experiences. (p. 184)

Clearly, factors related to student success, satisfaction, and retention need further

explication. Nevertheless, and in spite of the distressing losses of doctoral students,

numerous researchers, theorists, and administrators have explicitly recognized the

importance of mentoring in graduate education. The Strategic Planning Committee of a

top-10 southeastern university concluded, "no function in the university should receive










more careful attention and support than the processes by which potential graduate

students are recruited, admitted, mentored, and placed" (University of Florida, 1997a, p.

21). Cameron and Blackburn (1981) discussed the positive correlations between

professional productivity and mentoring (broadly defined). The Council of Graduate

Schools (1990) specifically mentioned mentoring when noting that a university has an

obligation to provide support services to make academic progress possible. Commenting

on mentoring in the context of adult male development, Levinson (1978) added, "Given

the value that mentoring has for the mentor, the recipient, and society at large, it is tragic

that so little of it actually occurs" (p. 254).

Defining Mentoring

Although mentoring is a term that is frequently and widely used, it remains

resistant to clear, concise definition (Gibb, 1999). Many researchers and authors have

defined the term in the context of their work, providing additional descriptors and

examples that serve to reveal the insufficiency of the operationalization due to the

complexity and nuances of the relationship. For example, Johnson (2002) explicitly noted

that authors have had difficulty clarifying what is meant by mentoring, and then provided

three paragraphs describing his conceptions and use of the term. The present author is, of

course, not exempt from this difficulty.

A significant factor in defining the term is that mentoring is not a simple

construct. It is not a single role, a single task, nor a single concept. Rather, the mentoring

construct describes a juxtaposition of numerous roles, activities, purposes, and meanings.

The uniqueness and power of mentoring could not, in any case, be encompassed by a










bare description of functions and outcomes. As the present study is intended to

demonstrate, fulfilled functions and positive outcomes do not define the essence of

mentoring. Indeed, positive outcomes can be acquired without a mentor. Mentoring is

something more-something qualitative, phenomenal, subjective-and as such resists

attempts to define it in any categorical way.

Brief History of Mentoring

The term mentor has its origins in Greek mythology. In Homer's Odyssey,

Mentor was a close friend and wise counselor of Odysseus. Odysseus, who became a

hero after his victory at Troy, was unable to return home after the battle, as he was

hindered by the goddess, Calypso, who wanted to marry him. Eventually, the other gods

took pity on him and sent him homeward. However, Poseidon (whom Odysseus had

offended by blinding his son, Cyclopes Polyphemus) again hindered his progress and

prevented him from reaching home.

Wisely, before Odysseus had left his home in Ithaca for the battle, he placed

Mentor (his friend and advisor) in charge of his estate, his servants, and his young son,

Telemakhos. When Telemakhos was older, he thought about his missing father. At the

prompting of the goddess Athena, Telemakhos decided to seek out his father and bring

him home again. Athena would often appear to Telemakhos in the guise of Mentor, his

guardian and surrogate father, to provide advice, guidance, support, and encouragement.

Athena also appeared to Odysseus and Telemakhos in various other guises. In each case

Athena/Mentor, using her superior (divine) knowledge and power, was able to assist them










in their travels and travails because she saw their needs and intervened with the powers

(i.e., the other gods) on their behalf.

Odysseus, in appointing Mentor, was (in part) conforming to a customary practice

in ancient Greece, which was to find an older and wiser teacher to be a role model for

young men so that they could learn from and emulate their families' cultural values and

customs (e.g., Plato and Socrates, Alexander the Great and Aristotle; Murray, 1991). In

that both Mentor himself and Athena in the guise of Mentor exemplified the

characteristics of advisor, guide, counselor, intervener, and teacher, these older and wiser

role models became known as "mentors," and the term mentor became associated with

that role.

These same ideas regarding the transmission of knowledge and customs can also

be seen in the development of guilds during the Middle Ages. The various professions

(e.g., goldsmith, lawyer, merchant) developed an apprenticeship model in which young

boys were apprenticed to a master (i.e., someone recognized as expert in the given trade).

The boys spent years with their masters, learning their trades and eventually becoming

masters themselves by producing a masterpiece.

The master-apprenticeship model was largely replaced by an employer/employee

model, but informal mentoring continued to play a central role in history. For example,

McMullen (as cited by Murray, 1991) quoted artist Mary Cassatt when she learned of

Edgar Degas's interest in becoming her personal mentor:

I accepted with joy. Now I could work with absolute independence without
considering the opinion of a jury. I had already recognized who were my true
masters. I admired Manet, Courbet, and Degas. I took leave of conventional art. I
began to live. (p. 8)










The effects of having a mentor whom the protege admires and respects are evident and

continue to be play a central role in the value of mentoring (e.g., Kram, 1985; Levinson,

1978; Lovitts, 2001; O'Neil & Wrightsman, 2001).

In the last few decades, mentoring has received increasing attention in both

business and academia (Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002; Murray, 1991; Sands, Parson,

& Duane, 1991). Theories have been constructed, models have been developed, and

research has been conducted. The potential value to the protege, the mentor, the

institution or business, and society in general has driven an increased focus on how to

establish mentoring programs, structure mentoring relationships, and garner the hoped-

for benefits. Yet, a significant obstacle persists in the lack of a clear definition of

mentoring. Abstract knowledge of the concept remains insufficient for the task, as does

the bare description of functions and tasks.

Importance of Mentoring

At a purely practical level, teachers and mentors have always served an

acknowledged function as imparters of knowledge and exemplars of the professional role.

Knowledge, however, has been expanding at an accelerated rate in recent decades. The

increasing breadth and sheer quantity of information drives escalating demands to

specialize, and the rising number of highly trained and educated people creates growing

competition for limited business and academic positions. Technology is also more diverse

and complex, and the skills necessary to master it are correspondingly more intricate or

even esoteric. Consequently, the transmission of vital knowledge and skills required for

business or academic survival must be both efficient and effective. This does not imply










that mentoring is a new concept or that the efficient transmission of knowledge and

expertise is a 21st century imperative. Nevertheless, the levels of current demands have

grown such that, without the direct involvement of mentors, the task of survival-much

less success-may be nearly insurmountable.

As previously noted, however, the subjective experiences of the people in a

mentoring relationship are central, not only to the perceived quality of the relationship,

but also to the success of the relationship tasks (Bair, 1999; Lovitts, 2001). In addition to

noting the importance of mentoring in a professional context, Levinson (1978) discussed

the importance of a mentor to the psychological and emotional development of young

men. He stated,

A good mentor is an admixture of a good father and a good friend.... A "good
enough" mentor is a transitional figure who invites and welcomes a young man
into the adult world. He serves as a guide, teacher, and sponsor. He represents
skill, knowledge, virtue, accomplishment-the superior qualities a young man
hopes someday to acquire. He gives his blessing to the novice and his Dream.
And yet, with all this superiority, he conveys the promise that in time they will be
peers. The protegd has the hope that soon he will be able to join or even surpass
his mentor in the work that they both value. (pp. 333-334)

Although transmission of knowledge and technical expertise, dissemination of

cultural sophistication, enlarged networks, and other concrete benefits accrue to those

who are mentored, they are not perhaps the most important benefits. Neither are measures

of these benefits likely to capture the essence of the mentoring relationship. The present

study, therefore, does not focus directly on the practical aspects of mentoring, but rather

indirectly on the developmental, subjective, and phenomenological experiences of

mentors and proteges.










Present Study

The present study focuses on the subjective experience of participants in

mentoring relationships in order to develop an understanding of what qualitative factors

contribute to the characterization of a mentoring relationship as good. What does it mean

to each person in the dyad that mentoring "works"? Is essence, what elements comprise a

good mentoring relationship? As in a marriage, something occurs in a positive mentoring

relationship that is qualitatively different from a negative or less successful one. These

features are of primary interest in the present study and provide reasons for why

psychology may be uniquely suited to explore them.

This study is further undertaken in the "context of discovery," not in the "context

of verification" (Giorgi, 1990, 1992). Although the subjective perceptions and

experiences of the protdgd have been noted as a predictor of positive outcomes (e.g.,

Lovitts, 2001), little direct research has been done to date on this aspect of the

relationship. Given the data indicating the relatively high attrition rates in doctoral

education, the importance of mentoring to positive outcomes in doctoral education, and

the relatively high rate of dissatisfaction among graduate students in regard to the

mentoring they received, additional research on the subjective in the mentoring

relationship is essential.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical and empirical literature on

mentoring. As previously noted, the topic of mentoring has garnered increasing attention

during the last few decades. In a brief search of this body of literature, Fogg (2002) found

a significant increase in the number of articles written about mentoring, ranging from 4

papers written from 1960 to 1964 to 721 articles written from 1995 to 1999. Similar

results were obtained by this author in a search of the Educational Resources Information

Center (ERIC) database. Focusing on mentor in a keyword search of the literature

returned only one article published between 1960 and 1965. A subsequent search

returned 893 references published between 1996 and 2002.

Other resources also reveal increased interest in the topic of mentors. An internet

search using mentoring (instead of mentor in order to eliminate cities and other unrelated

references) yielded 1,520,000 hits (Google, 2003). A random search of university

websites revealed that mentoring is also a significant interest of educational

administrators. Murray (1991) commented that some reference to mentoring could be

found in "almost every publication aimed at managers, administrators, educators, human

resource professionals..." (p. xiii), and Clutterbuck (as cited in Brophy & Epting, 1996)

asserted that up to one-third of major companies in Britain have experimented with

formal mentoring schemes. Other such examples abound.








12

This surfeit of material, however, belies the relative tenuousness of the findings in

many areas of the mentoring literature (Gelso & Schlosser, 2001; Gibb, 1999; Jacobi,

1991). Although many researchers have invested significant effort into exploring the

relationship, their findings tend to be fragmented, and the essential characteristics of the

mentor-proteg6 relationship continue to be elusive as researchers obtain inconsistent

results (Chao, 1997). For example, the findings on the effects on personal development

and outcomes in cross-gendered mentor-protegd dyads are ambiguous; some authors have

found that women may have a more difficult time finding mentors or benefiting from

being mentored by men, whereas other researchers conclude that there are no differences

in outcomes or quality and effectiveness of the relationship in regard to gender issues.

Similar problems beleaguer other areas of mentorship inquiry, such as the research into

mentor-prot6g6 dyads comprised of persons from different ethnic backgrounds.

These apparent contradictions in the literature should not be taken to mean there

is no concordance between researchers or theorists regarding several important aspects of

the mentoring relationship. Some areas of study reveal significant agreement, and some

empirically well-supported models have become nearly ubiquitous in their longevity,

centrality, and explanatory power. For example, one area of significant agreement among

researchers regards the different functions that inhere in the relationship. Generally

speaking, most authors agree that the mentoring functions construed as meeting the

primary needs of the prot6gds fall into the two major categories first clearly described in

Kathy Kram's (1985) seminal work on mentoring; career functions and psychosocial

functions.










As implied by the increasing numbers of researchers, theoreticians,

administrators, and business managers interested in clarifying the character and structure

of the mentoring relationship-often with the explicit goal of developing effective and

efficient mentoring programs in business and academia-mentoring continues to be an

important topic as well as an elusive construct. That mentoring is effective seems to be

taken for granted; what its effects are, how these effects are achieved, and who benefits

from the relationship are still being clarified. Discussing the problem of definition in the

context of methodology in mentoring research, Wrightsman (1981) noted that

there is a false sense of consensus, because everyone "knows" what mentoring is.
But closer examination indicates wide variation in operational definitions, leading
to conclusions that are limited to the use of particular procedures.... The result is
that the concept is devalued, because everyone is using it loosely, without
precision.... (pp. 3-4)

Researchers have identified several factors that result in confusion and overlap

between projects and conceptualizations (e.g., Chao & Gardner, 1992; Jacobi, 1991;

Wrightsman, 1981), including inconsistency in definitions, a lack of consensus regarding

structural characteristics of the mentoring relationship, and the diversity of contexts in

which mentoring is of importance. In considering these factors for the purposes of the

present study, the research in the following categories will be reviewed: (a) construction

of the mentoring relationship, (b) functions of the mentoring relationship, (c) phases of

the mentoring relationship, (d) outcomes of the mentoring relationship, (e) obstacles to

the mentoring relationship, (f) gender, ethnicity, and other cultural factors, and (g) ethical

concerns in the mentoring relationship.










Construction of the Mentoring Relationship

Given the potential and anticipated benefits and costs of mentoring to a business

or educational institution (not to mention benefits and costs for prot6ges and mentors

themselves), anyone wishing to develop a mentoring program needs accurate information

as to how to initiate and structure the relationship within the relevant context. Many

organizations and institutions have attempted to implement mentoring programs with

which to garner these benefits (Gibb, 1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Scandura, 1998).

Typically, these efforts entail the formalization of those factors and processes construed

by the program designers to be fundamental to successful mentoring in informal contexts

(Chao et al., 1992; Noe, 1988). One of the major demarcations ofmentoring and

mentoring research is thus between formal and informal mentoring paradigms.

The primary distinction between formal and informal mentoring relationships is in

the method by which the relationship is initiated. In an informal mentoring relationship,

the proteg6 and the mentor initiate a relationship based on common interests, usually with

the prot6ge seeking out the mentor. Cronan-Hillix, Gensheimer, Cronan-Hillix, and

Davidson (1986) found that more than 80% of surveyed proteges sought out their

mentors on the basis of similar interests. An informal mentoring relationship is not

managed, structured, or established by an external organization. This relationship is

described as spontaneous, natural, or voluntary (Johnson, 2002; Pollock, 1995; Scandura,

1998).

Conversely, in a formal mentoring relationship, the business or institution has

taken an active interest in the development of the protege, usually with specific tasks or








15

goals in mind (Murray, 1991). According to Gibb (1999), these goals often include better

induction and socialization into the field, professional development, improved

performance, and development of potential. The organization develops a formal system

in which the company assesses its personnel and then determines who will be a mentor

and who will be mentored. In a formal mentoring relationship, the roles are more clearly

defined and the goals are more explicitly articulated than in an informal relationship, and

specific methods of intervention are often prescribed for the mentor.

A number of other factors in both the initiation and dynamics of formal and

informal mentoring relationships may influence the character and outcomes of these

relationships. Five issues identified in this body of literature will be presented here. First,

although the mentor in a formally structured mentoring situation may be construed as

suitable for a given protege by the mentoring coordinator, the proteg6 may have a

different opinion (as may the mentor). This may render the relationship not only

ineffective, but also possibly detrimental (Murray, 1991). For example, the proteg6 may

have psychological or career needs that the mentor cannot meet or is not skilled enough

to recognize. Second, a protege may not benefit as much from a formal mentoring

relationship if he or she believes that the mentor is investing time and effort only in

response to a management directive or because of a commitment to the organization,

rather than because of an interest in the protegd or the protege's work and development

(Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Third, formal mentoring schemes are often focused on short-

term needs and goals and may not provide enough time for mentors and proteges to reap

the benefits of the functions. Kram (1985) and Chao (1997) noted that some functions










(especially career functions) take time to come to fruition and that short-term

relationships with mentors may not be sufficient for these to germinate. Fourth, informal

mentors may be more concerned with the long-term needs and outcomes of their proteges

than their formal counterparts, and may, indeed, protect their proteges at a significant cost

to the organization (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Informal mentors may be more likely to

identify personally with their proteges and, likewise, the proteg6 with the mentor. Since

mentors and proteges in informal relationships choose each other, their personal

investment in the well being of the other may be greater than that in an assigned (formal)

relationship (Johnson, 2000; Zuckerman, 1977). Finally, Ragins and Cotton (1999)

argued that since formal mentors are more visible in an organization than informal

mentors are, they might be more concerned about avoiding the appearance of favoritism

towards their proteges. Contrariwise, informal mentors are expected to show favoritism,

to sponsor their proteges, and to buffer them from departmental politics.

Insofar as the informal mentoring relationship is prototypical and, therefore,

presumed to be effective and efficient, the formalization of the relationship has received

the most attention by researchers. Gibb (1999) noted that "while formal mentoring

programs are now very popular, there is not much critical analysis of the reality of their

relative successes and failures... "(p. 1057). Some researchers, however, have examined

the effectiveness of attempts to replicate the benefits of informal relationships in the

creation of formal mentoring programs.

Chao et al. (1992) explored differences in the perceived support functions

provided by mentors in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Support functions










were categorized as psychosocial functions or career functions as defined by Kram

(1985). Psychosocial functions are defined as those that influenced the protdgd's

competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role, whereas career functions

are defined as those that enhanced career advancement. Other outcomes, such as salary

and job satisfaction, were also assessed. In a survey of 576 university graduates (212

informally mentored, 53 formally mentored, and 284 non-mentored), proteges who had

been informally mentored reported receiving significantly greater career-related support

from their mentors than did formally mentored respondents. Interestingly, although

informally mentored proteges' scores were slightly higher than formally mentored

proteges in the psychosocial functions as well, the differences were not statistically

significant (thus, the researchers' hypothesis that informal mentoring relationships would

provide a greater number of the psychosocial functions described by Kram was not

supported). Additionally, both informally and formally mentored proteges scored higher

than non-mentored students did, with informally mentored proteg6s scoring higher on all

measures and formally mentored proteg6s scoring higher on only 3 of 12 measures.

Fagenson-Eland, Marks, and Amendola (1997) conducted a similar study of 16

informally mentored and 30 formally mentored proteg6s and obtained different results.

Those participants who were informally mentored reported greater psychosocial support

than did those who were formally mentored, yet both groups reported similar levels of

career-related support.

Ragins and Cotton (1999) noted the methodological difficulties (primarily in

instrumentation used) of earlier studies and sought to clarify the discrepancies in the










previous research. These researchers developed an instrument that allowed for separate

analysis of Kram's (1985) nine individual functions (five career and four psychosocial)

and two additional functions, rather than the superordinate categories of psychosocial and

career functions. They also assessed selected outcomes related to formally and informally

mentored proteges and non-mentored persons.

Ragins and Cotton (1999) surveyed a sample of 614 engineers, social workers,

and journalists (257 men, 352 women, 5 who did not report gender), 510 who had been

informally mentored, and 104 who had been formally mentored. These investigators

found that informally mentored proteges reported significantly more career function

support and more support in four of the six psychosocial domains measured than did

proteges in the formally mentored group. Informally mentored proteges also reported

greater satisfaction with their mentors and significantly greater job compensation than did

those in formal mentoring relationships. Controlling for other factors, post hoc tests with

non-mentored respondents revealed that proteges who had been informally mentored

reported significantly greater job compensation than employees who had not been

mentored, whereas no significant differences were reported in compensation between

formally mentored and non-mentored employees. Finally, informally mentored

employees received significantly more promotions than did both formally mentored and

non-mentored individuals, whereas no significant differences were reported between

formally mentored and non-mentored employees in this regard.

The findings of this research (Ragins & Cotton, 1999) support the assertion that

informal mentoring is significantly more beneficial than either formal mentoring or no










mentoring. Additionally, they provide some support for the position that formal

mentoring schemes are more beneficial than no mentoring at all, and that formal

mentoring can provide some of the functions believed to be beneficial in informal

mentoring relationships. Ragins and Cotton suggested that the more closely a formal

mentoring scheme approximates informal mentoring, the more likely that it will provide

the benefits obtained in informal mentoring. They also suggested that formal mentoring

be offered as an adjunct to informal mentoring, or perhaps as a preliminary to an informal

relationship, stating that "prot6g6s with formal mentors should be encouraged to seek

informal mentors while in the last stage of their formal mentoring relationship" (p. 546).

Clark, Harden, and Johnson (2000), taking the other side, asserted more strongly

that "the unique quality of the mentor relationship and the long-term nature of

relationship formation appear incongruent with third-party assignment" (p. 264). Some

researchers (e.g., Clark et al.; Cronan-Hillix et al., 1986; Johnson, 2002; Johnson &

Huwe, 2003) have also suggested that externally or structurally imposing the relationship

precludes the inscrutable "magic" underlying the affiliation and may render the

mentoring relationship merely utilitarian, lacking in passion and emotional investment.

These researchers do not, however, equate informal with unplanned. Johnson and his

colleagues (Johnson, 2002; Johnson & Huwe, 2003) explored ways to establish

individual and organizational conditions that would likely facilitate the initiation and

quality of what they refer to as intentional mentoring. These include such activities as

preparing mentors and students for their roles, and establishing a departmental culture

that recognizes and supports the value of the mentoring process (Cohen, Morgan, DiLillo,










& Flores, 2003; Gerholm, 1990; Lovitts, 2001). Johnson argued especially that the

protdg&-but also the mentor-must be intentional and proactive in seeking out those

with whom they would like to work and those who possess the qualities and resources to

meet one's needs (see also Kram, 1985).

As with many aspects of this body of literature, the results need further

clarification. A clear limitation, however, is that formal mentoring, at least at its present

stage of development, should not be construed as a sufficient substitute for informal

mentoring relationships. On the other hand, while few authors would be willing to assert

that people can be mentors or learn from mentors merely because they are mandated to

by upper management, some will argue that if the conditions are established that facilitate

the development of mentoring relationships, then the teaching, learning, and allied tasks

and goals are more likely to be accomplished (Kram, 1985; Johnson, 2002; Murray 1991;

Ragins & Cotton, 1999).

Functions of the Mentoring Relationship

Levinson (1978) asserted that the central function of a mentoring relationship is

the development of the self of the protege. In describing his research on adult male

development, Levinson stated, "The mentor relationship is one of the most complex, and

developmentally important, a man can have in early adulthood.... No word currently in

use is adequate to convey the nature of the relationship we have in mind here" (Levinson,

1978, p. 97). Although a mentor has a number of functions (e.g., sponsoring, guiding,

teaching), Levinson asserted that the mentor's primary role is that of a transitional figure

between parent and peer-neither one nor the other, but someone who can respond










appropriately to the developmental needs of the protege. Thus, according to Levinson,

not only is the relationship more complex than has been suggested by other researchers

(e.g., Murray, 1985), but it also ultimately exists for the developmental benefit of the

prot6ge, whether in the business context or in the educational context.

Kram (1985) defined functions as "those aspects of a relationship that enhance

both individuals' growth and advancement" (p. 22). One notable feature of Kram's

conceptualization is the delineation of both psychosocial functions as well as career

functions. Levinson's (1978) work was in the context of adult development more

generally and focused on the psychosocial development of the person. While Kram

agreed that the mentoring relationship is a developmental one in which both parties are

meeting each other's developmentally appropriate needs, she discovered that important

career functions are also being carried out in the relationship. A second important aspect

of Kram's model is that it takes into account the benefits that accrue to the mentor, as

well as to the protegd and the business or institution. Following this lead, researchers

have investigated the benefits that accrue to the mentors as well (e.g., Ragins &

Scandura, 1999; Wright & Wright, 1987).

Career and Psychosocial Functions

As noted previously, there is substantial agreement among authors regarding the

basic functions of the mentoring relationship; however, this was not always the case. In

her seminal research on mentoring, Kram (1985) evaluated the previous scattered

research and noted meaningful consistencies in the data. She subsequently engaged in a

research project in order to clarify the mentoring relationship, and developed a model that










elaborates both the phases in the mentoring relationship as well as the mentoring

functions. Her model has provided the foundation and impetus for a great deal of research

on mentoring.

Kram's (1985) mentoring functions were derived from a content analysis of

interviews with 18 mentor-protdgd dyads in a corporate setting. She identified two broad

categories of functions: career functions and psychosocial functions. She defined career

functions as those functions that contribute to the professional development of the

proteg6 and advancement in the organization. They include sponsorship (the mentor

actively advocates for or promotes their protege in the field), exposure-and-visibility (the

mentor provides or creates opportunities for the protege to demonstrate his or her

competence in front of key figures in the organization), coaching (the mentor enhances

the protege's knowledge and understanding about how to navigate effectively the culture

and politics in the organization or field), protection (the mentor shields the protege from

potentially damaging errors, interactions, or situations), and challenging assignments (the

mentor provides meaningful opportunities for the protege to develop skills and

competencies, and to obtain successes in the professional role). The ability to provide

career functions depends on the mentor's experience, rank, and status or influence. If the

mentor does not excel on these factors, then his or her ability to effectively provide the

career functions is impaired.

Contrariwise, psychosocial functions are based on the interpersonal relationship

between the mentor and the protege and are possible only in the context of mutual trust

and increasing intimacy. Kram (1985) defined these functions as "those aspects of a








23

relationship that enhance an individual's sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness

in the professional role" (p. 32). These functions include acceptance-and-confirmation

(both individual's derive a positive sense of self, personally and professionally, from the

positive regard of the other), counseling (the ability to explore personal concerns that

may interfere with the individual's professional development or functioning), friendship

(positive social interactions that make the relationship enjoyable), and role modeling (the

presentation of positive attitudes, values, and behaviors by the mentor that the protdgd

identifies with and internalizes, and that pertain to all areas of the relationship ranging

from modeling skills to enculturation in the organization or department).

Although Kram's (1985) model is significant in the literature (Chao, 1997; Gilbert

& Rossman, 1992; Johnson, 2002; Ragins & Cotton, 1999), it is not the only model

available, nor are her nine functions the only ones noted. For example, Scandura (1992)

developed a model that consists of the following three categories: vocational, social

support, and role modeling. The vocational category correlates with Kram's career

functions, whereas the social support and role modeling categories together are similar to

Kram's psychosocial functions. Subsequent factor analyses of data by Noe (1998) and

Schockett & Haring-Hidore (1985), however, confirmed a two-factor structure: (a) career

(Noe, 1988) or vocational (Schockett & Haring-Hidore, 1985) functions, and (b)

psychosocial functions. Olian, Carroll, Giannantonia, and Feren (as cited in Jacobi, 1991)

conclude that proteges "see two primary dimensions to the benefits obtained from the

relationship: job and career benefits through information and external brokering provided










by the mentor, and psychological benefits from the emotional support and friendship

obtained within the relationship" (p. 19).

Additional Functions

Researchers have proposed a number of additional functions. Jacobi (1991), in his

review of eight theorists, referred to 15 important functions (including Kram's) that have

been suggested, adding (for example) advice, clarification, socialization, and training.

Cameron and Blackburn (1981) added that mentors are often expected to provide

financial support, job placement support, publication support, research collaboration, and

more. More informally, this researcher's 30-minute perusal of approximately 20 of

journal articles revealed 35 distinct terms describing the functions or roles typically

ascribed to the mentor in the mentoring relationship. Pollock (1995) identified 144 terms

referring to mentors' behavior in her research. One wonders if true mentors are human (if

they exist at all) given the plethora of inspiring roles they must fulfill.

It is also important to note, then, that not all mentors are expected to fulfill all

roles or functions. Levinson (1978) wrote,

Mentoring is defined not in terms of the formal roles but in terms of the character
of the relationship and the functions that it serves.... A student may receive very
little mentoring from his teacher/advisor, and very important mentoring from an
older friend or relative. We have to examine a relationship closely to discover the
amount and kind of mentoring it provides. (p. 98).

The needs of the protege are often diverse, and many of them are unique to the

individual. Likewise, the capacities of mentors vary from mentor to mentor. Proteges and

mentors seek each other based largely on common interests, as well as on whether the

other has the skills and resources to meet the individual protege's or mentor's particular










set of needs (Kram, 1985; Levinson, 1978; Lovitts, 2001; Swerdlik & Bardon, 1988;

Zuckerman, 1977). The large numbers of roles and functions proposed reflects this

diversity and complexity.

A comment needs to be made on the concept of mentoring functions that is

relevant to this project. Although in significant agreement regarding the general functions

that a mentor fulfills and the factors used to describe them, researchers have been

essentially silent on just what a function accomplishes. They have derived lists of

functions and behaviors, but have not clarified why, for example, a good mentor's

teaching is different from that of any other teacher. Or again, to say that a mentor

"provides support" is to say what? To isolate 144 terms regarding mentor behaviors or

functions does not adequately clarify what makes mentoring unique, special, or worthy of

interest in itself. The current project was undertaken with this lack of clear distinction in

mind.

Phases of the Mentoring Relationship

To claim that relationships change is to state the obvious, and the mentoring

relationship is no exception to this phenomenon. In the context of his work on adult male

development, Levinson (1978) noted the changes over time in the relationship between a

young man and his mentor:

In the usual course, a young man initially experiences himself as a novice or
apprentice to a more advanced, expert, and authoritative adult. As the relationship
evolves, he gains a fuller sense of his own authority and his capability for
autonomous, responsible action. The balance of giving/receiving becomes more
equal. The younger man increasingly has the experience of"I am" as an adult, and
their relationship becomes more mutual. This shift serves a crucial developmental
function for the young man: it is part of the process by which he transcends the
father-son, man-boy division of his childhood. Although he is officially defined as










an adult at 18 or 21, and desperately wants to be one, it takes many years to
overcome the sense of being a son or a boy in relation to "real" adults. (pp. 98-99)

In the above quote, Levinson (1978) was referring to the psychological

development and transitions of the male adolescent from early to middle adulthood with

the help of a mentor. Substituting the terms "young woman," "employee," or "graduate

student" in place of "young man" does not alter the insight. In a relationship with a

teacher, advisor, sponsor (i.e., a mentor), the protdgd will progress from not only being a

novice, but also from feeling like a novice. A corollary to this psychological development

is an increased capacity to apprehend and benefit from increasingly important, complex,

and subtle aspects of the task at hand, whether in life, work, or education.

Researchers and theorists are not known for their propensity to pass up the

opportunity to reduce complex phenomena to a set of superordinate constructs: Erikson's

(1980) psychosocial stages, Kohlberg's (1963) stages of moral development, Piaget's

stages of cognitive development (Wadsworth, 1989), Helm's (1995) racial identity

statuses are examples. Similarly, mentoring, like these other important relationships, has

a developmental course that researchers and theorists have characterized by phases. The

three predominant models that have received attention in the literature have been

proposed by Phillips (1982), Missirian (1982), and Kram (1983, 1985). As discussed by

Pollock (1995), isolating phases in relationships requires both descriptions of the features

of interest as well as the ability to place these features in a temporal frame to determine if

patterns that might represent stages or phases emerge. All three models meet these

criteria.










Philips' Five Phase Model

In developing her model, Phillips (1982) interviewed 50 successful women

prot6g6es, many of whom had also been mentors. Phillips identified the following five

phases that comprise the course of a mentoring relationship: (a) initiation, (b) mutual

admiration, (c) development, (d) disillusionment, and (e) parting and transformation.

Initiation refers to the time at the very onset of the relationship in which the

mentor and protege are just meeting and agreeing to work together. Mutual admiration,

also referred to as the "sparkle" phase (Missirian, 1982), refers to the fantasies that each

party has regarding the other in terms of his or her talents and potential. Development is a

longer, two-part phase. Much of the work early in this stage is one-way (i.e., from the

mentor to the prot6ge) as the mentor structures and "kick-starts" the relationship, building

the protege's confidence and professional competence. Later parts of this stage are more

reciprocal, with the prot6ge beginning to engage with the mentor (Phillips, 1982).

Disillusionment is a phase in which the polish is off the mentor, and the proteg6

begins to become more autonomous and independent in his or her functioning. Although

the mentor continues to meet the prot6g6's needs, the urgency and level of doing so

decreases, and the prot6g6 begins to separate from the mentor. The final stage of parting

and transformation is characterized by a decrease in interactions between the mentor and

protege. The relationship is transformed from a mentor-prot6gd relationship to a senior-

junior colleague or peer relationship (Phillips, 1982). In developing one of the first

models (her work was based on her original 1977 dissertation project), Phillips' model

established a framework that subsequent research has tended to support.










Missirian's Three-Phase Model

Missirian (1982) developed another model of the stages of the mentoring

relationship based on interviews of 10 female corporate executives. Missirian identified

the following three phases in the course of the mentoring relationship: (a) initiation,

(b) development, and (c) termination. In this model, initiation is characterized by high

expectations on the mentor's part as he or she recognizes the protegd's talents and

potential. The mentor provides significant challenges and opportunities as if testing the

protege, even while providing the support, respect, and encouragement necessary for the

protege to succeed.

The development phase, also referred to as "total commitment," is one in which

the mentor provides a full range of training, support, modeling, challenge, responsibility,

coaching, and other functions. The protege is learning the tricks of the trade and being

socialized into the organization, acquiring the inside knowledge and skills necessary to

continue to move up the ladder in skill, position, and status. The protege is likewise

totally committed to the task and to the mentor, and both are becoming fully invested in

their career development and professional growth. Mentor demands are seen as

opportunities, and challenges are overcome. Later in this stage, the protege begins to

function more independently and creatively (Missirian, 1982).

During the termination phase that naturally follows the development phase, the

mentor begins to recommend the protege for promotions, associates more as a peer

(though yet senior), and begins to separate and let go the mentor-protdgd relationship.

The protege becomes more fully aware of his or her own strengths and skills, as well as










the limitations of the mentor, and also begins to look towards the next step in career or

professional development (Missirian, 1982).

Kram's Four-Phase Model

Kram (1983, 1985) noted that both of these models (Phillips, 1982; Missirian,

1982), although empirically grounded in interviews, are limited in that they were derived

from retrospective accounts, taken largely from the perspective of the proteges (Phillips)

or the mentors (Missirian) only, and were based on interviews with female managers

only. She also noted that although these studies were valuable, they provided no direction

in isolating factors that would cause the relationship to transition from one phase to the

next (Kram, 1983). To address these difficulties, Kram interviewed 18 pairs of older and

younger managers (both men and women) who were currently in a mentoring

relationship. Furthermore, these relationships were at different active stages, obviating

the need for retrospective accounting.

Kram (1983, 1985) identified the following four phases in the course of the

mentoring relationship: (a) initiation, (b) cultivation, (c) separation, and (d) redefinition.

Initiation is defined as a period of time (usually 6 months to 1 year) in which the

relationship in initiated and progresses from a mere interaction to an important

relationship between the two parties. This occurs when hopes for the relationship become

concrete expectations within the relationship between the mentor and protege. Cultivation

(2 to 5 years) is a period in which the maximum range of career and psychosocial

functions are provided. Both the mentor and the protege continue to benefit from the

alliance, and emotional bonds increase, as do opportunities for meaningful interactions.








30

The third phase, separation (6 months to 2 years), represents significant emotional

and structural changes in the relationship that occur when the protdg& wants to become

more autonomous and seeks less guidance from the mentor. Redefinition, the final stage

of the mentoring relationship, occurs for an indefinite time following the separation phase

and is characterized by a complete termination of the relationship or a reconstitution of it

in a new form-often as a peer (Kram, 1983, 1985).

Empirical Validity of the Phase Models

Although these characterizations of the phases of mentoring are well supported by

the work of the given authors, and are widely referred to in the literature, very little

subsequent research has been conducted to determine their empirical validity. Only two

articles (Chao, 1997; Pollock, 1995) were found that specifically examined the proposed

phases of the mentoring relationship. In an attempt to assess the validity of the three

above mentioned relationship phase models of mentoring, Pollock surveyed 138 proteges

and 218 non-mentored individuals from a diverse population of middle and upper-level

managers in a broad range of industries. Pollock asked respondents to reply to a list of

behaviors derived from the literature on mentor behaviors, indicating whether, when, and

how often they recollect the behavior occurring on the part of their mentors. These

behaviors were to be ascribed to one of three time frames: early, middle, or late parts of

the mentoring relationship. These behaviors were then matched to the phase models

(Kram, 1983, 1985; Missirian, 1982; Phillips, 1982) to determine which model fit the

data most adequately.










In general, Pollock (1995) found that all of the selected mentor functions were

provided at all times during the mentoring relationship. While there was some indication

that psychosocial functions received more endorsement both early and late in the

relationship and that all functions were more frequently experienced in the middle than at

the beginning of the relationship, there were no statistically significant differences in any

stage between functions received. The implication is that there are, in fact, no phases in

which different functions are emphasized or predominant, as was conceptualized by the

three models (Kram, 1983, 1985; Missirian, 1982; Phillips, 1982).

The value of Pollock's (1995) study is questionable, however, due to some

methodological concerns. First, the data were survey-based and retrospective, rather than

interviews and current, which introduces questions as to the reliability and validity of the

data. A second critical problem is that Pollock evaluated all three of the phase models and

concluded that they could all be accurately condensed to a three-phase model,

distinguished by presence, type, and frequency of the mentoring behaviors. This became

the model that Pollock used in her research. As a result of this reduction, Pollock's

instructions to the respondents required them to situate the recollected behaviors in one of

the three predetermined time frames (i.e., early, middle, late) of the mentoring

relationship. While it may allow for phases to emerge-assuming there are differences in

the frequency or occurrence of the available mentor behaviors-this procedure forces a

three-phase paradigm, thus defeating the possibility of finding or confirming a four- or

five-stage model (e.g., Kram, 1983; Phillips, 1982). Given these methodological










concerns, it is questionable whether the results of this study can be meaningfully

interpreted as appropriate evaluations these three models as intended.

The second project assessing mentoring phases was carried out by Chao (1997),

who evaluated only Kram's (1983) model. Chao used descriptions derived from Kram's

model to query 192 proteges about their current phase of mentoring relationships. This

investigator then obtained data regarding mentor psychosocial and career functions (also

derived from Kram, 1983, 1985), as well as other factors such as job satisfaction and

income (these other data will be discussed in subsequent sections of this review). Chao

found that proteges in the initiation phase reported the lowest levels of mentoring

functions (both career and psychosocial) than in any other phase. No other statistically

significant differences were found between mentoring phases and mentoring functions.

Although predictions were supported regarding the initiation phase as a time in which the

relationship is still being established, no other support for phases in the mentoring

relationship was found (using mentoring functions as a dependent variable).

Chao's (1997) findings were consistent with those of Pollock (setting aside for the

moment questions regarding Pollock's methodology), and bring into question the validity

of the phase models as they are presently construed (Kram, 1983; Missirian, 1982;

Phillips, 1982). Concerns thus arise regarding other areas of the literature on mentoring

subsequent to these ambiguities. For example, Johnson and Huwe (2003) asserted that

Kram's model has been empirically validated, citing the Pollock (1995) and Chao (1999)

research, and devote a chapter to this model. Additionally, Johnson and Huwe provide no










justification for transferring the phase structure to the graduate school context, which

arguably has meaningful differences from the business context in which it was derived.

Categorical reductions such as provided by these phase models may provide

access to complex phenomena, facilitate understanding and explanation, and provide a

common lexicon that facilitates discussion. It is important, however, that researchers and

theorists do not fall into the error of reifying the categories and limiting their research to

confirmatory paradigms. As is evidenced by the foregoing, that phases can be delineated

and operationalized does not necessarily indicate that there are invariably objective

differences between the phases in terms of functions. Kram's well-constructed and

empirically grounded four-phase model has provided 20 years of theoretical shorthand

and intuitive clarity, but has yet to find definitive empirical support. Fortunately, as noted

by Chao (1997), "the maximum level of functions provided to the protege is more

important than temporal fluctuations of these functions as the mentorship evolves" (p.26).

Outcomes of the Mentoring Relationship

Outcomes are, in a word, the reason for mentoring. The benefits that accrue to the

mentor or the protege (or the institution, or society) are what drive the interest in

understanding mentoring and trying to implement mentoring programs. For example,

Zuckerman (1977) reported some fascinating statistics: 48 of the 92 Nobel Laureates in

the United States prior to 1972 had Nobel Laureate mentors. Ten laureates in the United

States have mentored 30 Nobel winners. Forty-one percent of all Nobel winners of all

nationalities from 1901 to 1972 had at least one laureate mentor. Yet, while it almost

invariably assumed that the mentoring relationship leads to positive outcomes, it is










helpful and instructive to validate these assumptions with research. Clear empirical

support should help those involved in mentoring or in designing and implementing

mentoring programs determine which functions and activities would garner the best

possible outcomes.

Although there is a significant body of literature on the outcomes of mentoring,

outcomes have typically been associated with independent or predictor variables such as

whether or not a person was mentored at all, or whether the protege was satisfied with the

mentoring received, as opposed to specific mentoring functions. In one sense, the relative

lack of literature exploring the relationship between specific mentoring functions and

concrete outcomes is consistent with the thoughts of some of the more prominent

theorists (e.g., Kram, 1985; Levinson, 1978). Relationships are complex and multiply

determined, and people, heedless of statistical averages, continue to be unique and

idiosyncratic. Kram indicated that mentoring is a developmental relationship and that the

tendency to want to view it as an easily created and maintained panacea is simplistic and

inaccurate. She asserts that more attention needs to be given to the quality of the

relationship, as well as to the characteristics and needs of the individual protegds and

mentors. Levinson similarly noted that it is not the functions of the relationship that are

critical; rather, it is the quality of the relationship and how well it fulfills the needs of the

unique proteg6.

Correlation of Functions to Outcomes

Nonetheless, that the relationship between the many functions proposed as

definitional of mentoring and specific, concrete outcomes should be empirically explored










seems straightforward. Unfortunately, the literature does not reflect such an exploration.

Only one article was found that explored the relationship between specific functions

hypothesized to be important and the outcomes that may reasonably be associated with

those functions. Cameron and Blackburn's (1981) study of sponsorship explored specific

mentoring functions associated with concrete outcomes. In 250 surveys and 25 interviews

of active doctoral-level faculty in sociology, psychology, and English departments at nine

universities, these investigators asked whether sponsorship (as defined by such functions

as financial support, publication support, assistance on first job placement, and

collaboration on research projects received while a graduate student) was associated with

later rate of publication, grants received, rate of collaboration, and significant

involvement in professional associations. Findings provided some support for

associations between the assistance received as a graduate student in these areas and the

described outcomes.

Although the findings of Cameron and Blackburn's (1981) study provided

important (though limited) empirical support for the value of certain specific functions in

the long-terms outcomes for doctoral students, there are two difficulties. First, while this

project explored a function-outcome relationship, the function (sponsorship) was itself

broken down into a number of smaller functions. This approach dilutes the clarity of the

findings, which is a difficulty reported by the authors when they noted that the

independent predicative power of the variables (functions) was reduced when multiple

regressions analyses were carried out. Second, there is no mention in the article if the

relationships were (or were construed as) mentoring relationships (as opposed to research










assistantships or something else), and thus the applicability to mentoring is at best

inferred.

Self-Efficacy, Productivity, and Success in Graduate School

With the aforementioned limitations regarding specificity in the function-outcome

research in mind, the research exploring outcomes in relation to mentoring is, in general,

predominantly supportive. Hollingsworth and Fassinger (2002) explored the relationship

between mentoring and students' research self-efficacy and research productivity among

3rd- and 4th-year doctoral students in psychology. Using a questionnaire based on

Kram's (1985) career and psychosocial functions, Hollingsworth and Fassinger found

that both research self-efficacy and research productivity of doctoral students increased

as a function of the mentoring they received.

A further example of increased productivity was provided by a study of 174

mentored and 54 non-mentored female graduate students conducted by LeCluyse,

Tollefson, and Borgers (1985), who found that mentored students engaged in

significantly more professional activities than did non-mentored students. Professional

activities were defined as publishing an article or chapter, authoring a grant, presenting a

paper, conducting a workshop, conducting research, joining a professional organization,

attending a national conference, or working as a graduate assistant.

Interviewing and surveying administrators, department chairs, faculty, and

students across the country, Lovitts (2001) explored the importance of the advisor-student

relationship in graduate education as regards completion of the doctoral program. This

researcher defined an advisor as "the person most responsible for guiding you through










your graduate work" (p. 165), a definition not dissimilar to many provided by mentoring

researchers. Although not focusing on researcher mentoring, per se, Lovitts uncovered a

number of factors related to a student's decision to complete graduate school in the

context of her work on graduate student attrition. Some of the most significant factors

were similar or identical to those identified as functions within the mentoring literature.

For example, mentor/advisor functions such as integration/socialization into the

professional community, academic interactions, collaboration in research projects, job

search assistance, role modeling, and many others were correlated with a student's

decision to complete his or her doctoral education, which was Lovitts' primary dependent

(criterion) variable. Lovitts also explored outcome variables related to students' activities

while still in the academy (e.g., participation in professional and departmental activities),

again noting the positive correlations between these activities and students' satisfaction

with their advisors.

Job Satisfaction, Promotion, and Income Level

The benefits of mentoring in academia extend beyond the academic setting. Chao

(1997) explored the differences in outcomes between 151 mentored and 93 non-mentored

employed graduates of a college of engineering. The criterion variables were job

satisfaction, career outcomes, organizational socialization (the extent to which proteges

believed they had been well socialized into their professional roles), and income. Results

showed that proteges garnered significant outcome benefits as compared to their non-

mentored peers. These findings were also supported in a similar study by Dreher and Ash

(1990). They surveyed 440 graduates of two business schools and found significant








38

positive correlations between the quantity of mentoring received and rates of promotion,

income levels, and satisfaction with pay and benefits.

In another study, Chao et al. (1992) surveyed 576 alumni from two academic

institutions and found similar outcomes related to job satisfaction, organizational

socialization, and salary among 265 mentored proteges and 284 non-mentored persons.

On all outcome measures, mentored individuals reported significantly better outcomes

than did non-mentored individuals. Ragins and Cotton (1999) also examined differences

in outcomes as a function of whether or not an individual received mentoring. Their

survey of 1258 employees in engineering, social work, and journalism (614 mentored in

the work place and 548 without mentoring experience at work) revealed that mentored

individuals received greater compensation and more promotions than did non-mentored

individuals.

Building on the theme of better outcomes for proteges, Fagenson (1988) explored

employees' perceptions of the amount of power they have in an organization as a

function of whether they were mentored. A survey of 246 individuals working for a large

company in the health care industry revealed that those with mentors perceived

themselves as having more access to important people, more influence over

organizational policy, and a higher level of resource access in the organization than did

those without mentors. This effect, though different in absolute terms, was consistent

across levels in the organization and across gender. That is, those with mentors reported

higher perceptions of power in the organization than those without mentors regardless of

gender or level. Although Fagenson noted that no effort was made to determine if this










perceived power was also actual, she held that the benefits could be subsumed under

Kram's (1985) proposed career functions.

Impact of Protege Characteristics

Lest one think that only good things can be said about mentoring, however, there

is a qualifier worth noting. Research suggests that the characteristics of proteges before

they enter into a mentoring relationship may account for some outcomes that have been

attributed to mentoring and, indeed, facilitate entering into such a relationship in the first

place. A number of authors have noted the possibility that the student's characteristics

may be a more powerful predictor of satisfaction or outcomes than what actually occurs

within the relationship (Jacobi, 1991; Johnson & Huwe, 2003; Zuckerman, 1977).

However, other investigators (e.g., Lovitts, 2001) are adamant in their belief that "it is not

the background characteristics of students... it's what happens to them after they arrive"

(p. 2) that determines many of the outcomes of interest. If personality characteristics are

indeed a critical factor in determining who receives mentoring, however, then much of

the mentoring outcome literature is brought into question, as few researchers have

attempted to control for protege characteristics in their study designs.

Turban and Dougherty (1994) examined the potential impact of protege

characteristics on mentoring receptivity and career outcomes. In their survey of 147

graduates from a midwestemrn university, these researchers discovered that certain

personality characteristics (locus of control, self-monitoring, emotional stability)

predicted whether or not the student would initiate a mentoring relationship with a faculty

member. Subsequent analyses supported additional hypotheses that initiating a mentoring








40

relationship resulted in receiving more mentoring, and that receiving more mentoring was

related to both career attainment and perceived career success. Turban and Dougherty

thus concluded that personality characteristics indirectly influence career outcomes by

modulating mentoring received.

In a similar vein, Green and Bauer (1995) found no differences in outcomes in

terms of publications or submissions for publication after controlling for the incoming

potential of a doctoral student sample. In this well-designed study, Green and Bauer

explored the relationship among the attitudes, abilities, and commitment of students at

entry into the program and two outcome factors: productivity (number of convention

papers, journal articles, book chapters, and grants/contracts accepted) and level of

mentoring. Support was found for the hypotheses that greater student abilities at entry

would predict an increase in mentoring received. Furthermore, the hypothesis that

increased mentoring positively contributed to student productivity or commitment to

research career was not supported, again controlling for participants' incoming

characteristics. These investigators concluded that advisors look for incoming students

with high potential and commitment and provide more mentoring for them than for their

less capable or less motivated peers. This also raises a question concerning the motivation

of mentors who are unable to find the time to help those students who may need it most.

Thus, while some authors attribute student's not receiving mentoring to students'

own personality characteristics (e.g., Johnson and Huwe, 2003 cite possible protdgd

narcissism, arrogance, inappropriate boundaries, or procrastination), others (e.g., Lovitts,

2001) believe that the mentor, being older (usually), wiser (hopefully), of higher status










and power, and being in a position to know the larger picture, inherits a greater

responsibility to manage the relationship in a positive way. It seems unlikely that the

problems are either simple or categorical. In either case, although graduate schools must

recruit highly motivated and competent students, once a student is recruited by the school

and accepted by an advisor, the school and the advisor assume an obligation to facilitate

the student's development (Council of Graduate Schools, 1990; University of Florida,

1997; University of Kansas, 2003).

In summary, then, the literature generally supports the positive outcomes

attributed to mentoring relationships for both the prot6ge and the mentor. However, there

is some reason for hesitation regarding the absolute value of the research until additional

work is conducted clarifying the potential confound of student factors at entry. It can

safely be inferred that the same considerations apply in a business context as well.

Obstacles to the Relationship

As with the preceding limitations regarding the positive nature of mentoring

outcomes, another concern needs to be addressed. Not all mentoring relationships are

positive experiences in themselves-for the protege or the mentor. Research suggests that

a significant number of proteges have had bad experiences in mentoring relationships

(Eby, MacManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000). A number of authors have explored this issue

and have described characteristics of dysfunctional mentoring relationships (Johnson &

Huwe, 2003; Kram, 1985; Lovitts, 2001; O'Neil & Wrightsman, 2001; Scandura, 1998;

Wright & Wright, 1987).










Negative Behaviors

O'Neil and Wrightsman (2001) identified a number of negative behaviors in

which either or both the mentor and the protdgd may engage: using threats, being overly

authoritarian or submissive, being unavailable, acting sexist, racist, classist, ethnocentric,

or homophobic, being intellectually rigid, being unwilling to compromise, encouraging

dependence, abusing confidential information, devaluing other students or faculty,

playing one-upmanship, and/or comparing other students and faculty. Scandura (1992), in

his typology of dysfunctional behaviors, add to this list sabotage, spoiling, deception, and

harassment.

Structural, Department Specific, and Relational Obstacles

Johnson and Huwe (2003) divided the major obstacles to mentoring into the

following three categories: (a) structural, (b) department specific, and (c) relational.

Structural obstacles are products of the system in which they are imbedded (e.g., graduate

schools). These obstacles include giving the faculty or managers job credit only for

immediate productivity or funded research, or the hiring of part-time employees or

student instructors, thereby reducing the pool of available mentors.

The second category of obstacles to mentoring described by Johnson and Huwe is

department specific, representing problems in the culture of the particular department.

Examples of department specific obstacles are admitting more students than the

department can support or graduate (thus setting up competition and an expectation of

failure), failing to hire and keep minority or women faculty or managers, and failing to










concretely support mentoring with reduced teaching or productivity requirements or by

including successful mentoring in promotion decisions (Johnson & Huwe, 2003).

The third category of obstacles, relational problems, stem from the personality

characteristics and behavior patterns of a particular faculty mentor, manager, or protege,

or the interactions of traits in the mentor and the protege. Scandura (1992), for example,

developed a model for conceptualizing factors contributing to possible outcomes of

dysfunctional relationships. This model includes both protege and mentor characteristics

(e.g., demographics, personality) as contributing factors, and describes possible negative

outcomes to proteges (e.g., low self-esteem, poor job outcomes, stress, leaving), and to

mentors (e.g., stress, jealousy, overdependence, betrayal).

Additionally, as previously noted, mentors tend to select and invest in those

prot6ges who are considered most promising and whose interests are most similar to the

mentor's interests. Johnson and Huwe (2003) expressed concerns about equal access to

mentoring among students who are less exceptional. These authors further noted that

discrepant expectations between the mentor and the prot6ge concerning the character and

functions of mentoring could lead to dissatisfaction and dysfunction in the mentoring

relationship.

These obstacles to the mentoring relationship, at whatever level, can have a

significant impact on the quality of the relationship. For example, mentors who are not

given the support they need to fulfill their roles as mentors must often focus their time,

energy, and attention on the needs of their "primary" assignments, perhaps sacrificing the

needs of the protege in the process. Proteges whose expectations are rudely disconfirmed,










or whose mentors are more focused on departmental requirements of tenure, may find

that having a mentor is not worth the trouble. Often protdgds in this situation find

themselves getting their needs met elsewhere, and by other people.

Risks to Mentors

Wright and Wright (1987) noted that the mentor also is at risk in the relationship.

Taking on a commitment to a protege is highly demanding of both time and effort and

also may cost political capital if the proteg6 fails to live up to expectations or needs

excessive protection from the consequences of mistakes. Often, especially in the so-

called hard sciences, the mentor's work and reputation are on the line when a proteg6 is

given responsibility for some critical aspect of the mentor's research. Additionally, the

protege could prove to be unable to develop appropriate autonomy and become unable to

carry out tasks without constant supervision or "baby-sitting." On the other hand, the

mentor, who hopefully has invested him or herself personally in the proteg6, may be

rejected by them.

Researchers generally agree that potential problems and obstacles inherent in

mentoring relationships include personality, as well as organizational factors. Some

authors (e.g., Johnson & Huwe, 2003; Walfish & Hess, 2001) have explored these

problems more fully and presented relevant discussion regarding how to negotiate these

issues in a mentoring context. Invariably, these authors recommend approaching the

selection process and the relationship in an intentional and informed manner, given the

enormous time, energy, financial, and emotional investment.










Other Factors That Affect the Mentoring Relationship

Insofar as mentoring may be one of the most important interpersonal relationships

ever experienced by students, both personally and professionally (Gilbert & Rossman,

1992; Kram, 1985; Tinto, 1987), understanding the impact of gender, ethnicity, and other

cultural factors on the mentoring processes and outcomes also holds significant import

(Bogat & Redner, 1985). Since mentoring relationships are often based on perceived

similarities between mentor and protege, cultural differences may inhibit their formation

and functioning (Atkinson, Neville, & Casas, 1990; Redmond, 1990). In addition, the

lack of same-gender, same-ethnicity, or other identity-affirming role models may create

difficulties in identity development as the protege strives to identify with or internalize a

mentor who has limited insight into the protdgd's culture or concerns (Bruss & Kopala,

1993; Levinson, 1978).

Gender Factors

The impact of gender on mentoring has received the greatest attention among

researchers. The almost ubiquitous inclusion of gender as a demographic variable in

research has facilitated this exploration, and provides important information. Gender

effects have often been analyzed and noted, even in studies primarily designed to explore

other factors.

Another factor that may influence the relative frequency of including the gender

variable is the number of women conducting research on mentoring relationships. In fact,

many of the foundational and ongoing researchers are women (e.g., Chao, 1997;

Fagenson, 1988, 1992; Hite, 1985; Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002; Jacobi, 1991;










Kram, 1983; Lovitts, 2001; Missirian, 1982; Murray, 1991; Scandura, 1998; Wilde &

Schau, 1991; Zuckerman, 1977). Whatever the reasons for this proportion of female

researchers, the insight they provide may be helpful in understanding the issues inherent

in the question.

Some areas of concern raised by authors include factors that pertain to non-

mentoring relationships as well. For example, in exploring gender differences in

relationships with significant power differentials between the individuals involved,

Scandura (1992) explored concerns regarding sexual harassment. Female protdges, in

particular, may be faced with situations in which the person with the most power over her

professional or academic outcomes is a male who adheres to certain stereotypes that

entitle him to favors from female underlings. Conversely, a male mentor may, with the

best of intentions, be overprotective or excessively forgiving of a female protegee, thus

encouraging feelings of dependence or incompetence, and perhaps denying the protege

the opportunity to develop autonomy or independence (Clawson & Kram, 1984; Kram,

1983). Bogat and Redner (1985) discussed reservations on the part of some faculty that

women are able to complete graduate school, and some faculty member's perceptions

that women were less likely to make significant contributions to their fields than men.

Mixed-gender mentoring dyads also must be aware not only of their own

interpersonal behaviors, but also of public perceptions. Rumors may develop based on

observed togetherness or friendship behaviors misconstrued as sexual intimacy (Wright

& Wright, 1987). Male mentors especially may actually maintain unnecessary distance in

an effort to address or preempt these kinds of concerns, thus limiting the prot6ge's access










to them or depriving the protdg6 of important social interactions (Clawson & Kram,

1984).

As with any interpersonal relationship, then, many factors may be cause for

concern in cross-gendered relationships. These difficulties are often exacerbated by the

inclusion of personal characteristics as well as social/cultural perceptions and

expectations. It is thus important that mentors and proteges recognize and maintain

professional boundaries-neither too rigid nor too permeable-lest the relationship be no

longer a positive mentoring experience.

Regarding specific mentoring functions and outcomes, the empirical research into

the effects of gender on the mentoring relationship is more ambivalent, with some

researchers finding no effect and others finding significant effects. Ragins and Cotton's

(1999) study of 352 female and 257 male proteges found that the gender composition of

the mentoring dyad affected functions and outcomes. For example, female-female

mentor-protdg6 pairs were more likely to engage in after-work social activities than were

female proteges with male mentors. Male proteges with female mentors were less likely

to report having received acceptance functions from their mentor than any other gender

combinations, and both male and female proteges who have had male mentors received

more compensation than did those who have had female mentors. This could be

explained by Cameron and Blackburn's (1981) findings that proteges sponsored by men

developed significantly larger networking associations than did women.

Further complicating matters, findings concerning gender differences often appear

to depend on the outcomes measured. Burke, McKeen, and McKenna's (1990) study of








48

81 male and 13 female mentors found that female mentors provided both more career and

more psychosocial functions than did male mentors, yet there were no differences in

outcome measures as a function of gender of mentor or protege. In a subsequent study of

280 female business graduates, Burke and McKeen (1996) again reported few differences

in job satisfaction, career satisfaction, job involvement, or career prospects for female

proteges regardless of mentors' gender. Interestingly, although women with female

mentors received more psychosocial support than did women with male mentors, these

women were more likely to report their intentions to quit the organization. This finding

was not explained by the available data.

Among same-sex and cross-sex dyads in a sample of 466 female proteges in

business, Gaskill (1991) found differences between male and female mentors in functions

performed (female mentors performed more psychosocial functions), relationship

initiation (male mentors were more likely to unilaterally initiate a relationship, whereas

female mentors were more likely to mutually initiate the relationship), and protege

characteristics. No differences, however, were found in mentor characteristics, benefits

derived, problems reported, duration, termination causes, feelings about the relationship,

or reported value of the relationship. These findings support the hypothesis that women

benefit as much from male mentors as they do from female mentors.

On the other hand, a number of researchers have more consistently found that

gender has no impact on mentoring initiation, functions, or outcomes. Wilde and Schau

(1991) surveyed 177 graduate students (60% female) and found no differences in

psychological and professional mutual support, comprehensiveness, protege professional










development, and research together as a function of gender of proteg6, mentor, or cross-

gendered dyads. Furthermore, Fagenson (1988, 1992) found no differences as a function

of gender between mentored and non-mentored proteges regarding need for power,

autonomy, affiliation, achievement, or perceptions of power in the organization.

Surveying 80 female and 80 male executives, Ragins and Scandura (1994) explored

anecdotal reports that women were less likely to mentor than were men. Findings

revealed that women executives were as likely as men to be mentors, had every intention

of mentoring other women, and that women and men reported similar perceptions of the

costs and benefits of being mentors.

Turban and Dougherty (1994) also found no differences in their sample of

proteg6s in business (74 men, 73 women) in the probability that they would seek out and

develop a mentoring relationship or in the amount of mentoring they received. In their

study of 135 female and 59 male 3rd- and 4th-year doctoral students, Hollingsworth and

Fassinger (2002) found that student gender did not have an effect on the level of research

mentoring received, on student's research self-efficacy, or on research productivity

outcomes. Dreher and Ash (1990), studying 147 female and 173 male business school

graduates, similarly found no gender differences in the outcomes measures of promotions

received, income, or satisfaction with pay and benefits.

Trying to explain the differences in the research on gender in mentoring is,

perhaps, an exercise in futility. There are no clearly identifiable methodological problems

(e.g., sampling, data acquisition) to which the differences might be attributed. However,

three patterns seem to emerge. First, the gender of the protdg6 and the gender of the








50

mentor appear to influence some of the processes, yet these influences may be a result of

general socialization patterns in society. For example, the increase in psychosocial

functions by both female mentors and proteges is consistent with the relational

stereotypes associated with women. Second, gender effects on outcomes are minimal and

may also be attributable to social or external issues, such as the relatively lower status

and power of women (and thus of female mentors and proteges) in academia or industry.

Finally, both men and women may nonetheless be equally well served by either male or

female mentors.

Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, and Other Cultural Factors

Regarding the impact of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other cultural factors in

mentoring the literature is significantly smaller and much newer. In some cases, it has

little to say at all (Gilbert and Rossman, 1992; Johnson & Huwe, 2003; Wright & Wright,

1987). In a recent book on succeeding in graduate school, a chapter on graduate student

couples does not even mention gay or lesbian couples, an increasingly common and

public relationship arrangement (Pederson & Daniels, 2001. Issues specific to gay,

lesbian, bisexual, transgendered persons (GLBT) are, however, discussed elsewhere in

the volume.) In another recent book on mentoring in graduate school (Johnson & Huwe,

2002), no reference to sexual orientation could be found at all, and attraction between

mentors and proteges seemed to be of concern only in cross-gendered relationships.

As with any minority culture or group, concerns vary from blatant discrimination

to identity development issues. Institutionalized racism continues to have effects on

persons of color (Atkinson, Morton, & Sue, 1998), and legal discrimination against










GLBT persons continues in many states (e.g., denying protection against discrimination

in housing, education, and jobs. Massey & Walfish, 2001). Handicapped persons, older

persons, international students or employees, and other minorities are all at increased risk

for experiencing prejudice and discrimination. Finding mentors who are similar or who

are informed and openly sympathetic can be extremely comforting to a student or

employee as she or he negotiates, not only the academic or employment tasks common to

all, but also relevant social and cultural tasks (Hill, Castillo, Ngu, & Pepion, 1999; Lark

& Croteau, 1998; Redmond, 1990).

Fortunately, current research suggests that ethnic minorities are receiving

mentoring at approximately the same rate as Caucasians (Witt, Smith, & Markham,

2000), and that having an ethnically similar mentor is not related to proteges satisfaction

with the mentoring or to the benefits reported by doctoral student or novice professional

proteges (Atkinson, Neville, & Casas, 1991). Atkinson et al., noting that minority

proteges reported that having a mentor contributed significantly to their academic and

career success regardless of the mentor's ethnicity, concluded that European-American

professors and senior professionals can successfully serve as mentors to ethnic minority

proteges. It should be noted, however, that each individual will have his or her own racial

identity developmental status (Helms, 1995), which is likely to influence the importance

of the ethnic similarity of the mentor to the student or novice professional.

Only two empirical articles (Lark & Croteau, 1998; Niolon, 1998) were found that

focused on GLBT doctoral students' mentoring experiences. Lark and Croteau looked

more specifically at the mentoring relationships of 14 GLB counseling psychology










graduate students and found that when their mentor helped them feel safe and affirmed

them in their identities, the proteges' had the "energy and freedom" to fully engage the

work of graduate school. When they did not have this support, when they did not receive

affirmation and did not feel safe, their energies were tied up with emotional survival, and

their ability to participate in and gain from the graduate student experience and training

was severely compromised. Niolon (1998) interviewed nine gay and lesbian graduate

counseling psychology students and found that they did not have what they would refer to

as mentoring relationships with faculty, the faculty were not knowledgeable or

experienced with GLBT issues or concerns, and that they had numerous stressful

experiences and experienced prejudice and discrimination as gay and lesbian students.

These students, too, were often expending their energies on emotional survival, instead of

on graduate training and professional development.

As is evident, there is much room for additional research on mentoring in diverse

populations. In terms of ethnic minorities, the research to date is generally positive,

suggesting that minorities are being mentored and that they are satisfied with the

mentoring they are receiving. The research regarding GLBT students is not as clear.

Additional work clearly needs to be done, not only concerning research on mentoring, but

also on the mentoring and acceptance of the GLBT students themselves (Lark & Croteau,

1998; Massey & Walfish, 2001).

Ethical Concerns in the Mentoring Relationship

Mentoring is, almost by definition, a dual role relationship. The existence of

multiple overlapping roles in the context of the significant power differentials found in










the typical mentoring relationship is fertile ground for ethical problems. Boundary

violations, abuse of authority, sexual harassment, transference issues, stereotypical

expectations, and other problems are well suited to such contexts. Some fields

specifically address these concerns in ethics codes. For example, the American

Psychological Association's ethical guidelines (APA, 2002) specifically prohibits certain

multiple role relationships for psychologists, such as sexual or exploitative relationships

with students or those over whom psychologist's have evaluative authority, as well as

relationships in which there may be a conflict of interest.

In a survey of graduate students in psychology, Clark, et al. (2000) found that

11% of proteges reported ethical concerns about their mentors or mentoring relationships.

These problems included mentor's sexual behaviors and attitudes towards the protege or

other students in the program, the mentor publishing altered results, offering the protege

financial incentives to alter results, the mentor having poor boundaries or becoming

emotionally dependent on the protege, and mentors claiming credit for the protege's

work.

Further examples of possible ethical quagmires in mentoring abound (Biaggio,

Paget, & Chenworth, 1997; Blevins-Knabe, 1992; Johnson & Huwe 2003; Sumprer &

Walfish, 2001). A mentor might employ a protege on a major grant project, for example,

and feel pressured to judge the protege's work according to the need to finish the project,

rather than according to its objective quality. A mentor might characterize a protege's

work and ideas as their own. A mentor and protege might develop an intimate attraction

to each other. After all, many mentoring relationships are based on similarities and shared










interests and often develop into close working relationships. Although proteges often

assert that they did not feel coerced during the relationship, in retrospect they may see

that they often were, which undermines their assertions that such relationships were

consensual (Johnson, 2002). A mentor may "suggest" or "request" favors or behaviors

that have little to do with the academic or employment tasks, such as delivering things, or

making coffee.

Few would contend that dual relationships are avoidable in the mentoring context,

or that such a thing is necessary (Blevins-Knabe, 1992). Unfortunately, proteges are not

typically in a position to correct or address ethical concerns. Proteges are not often

inclined to accuse-publicly or privately-the person who has the most individual power

over their positions or education. Recommendations to talk to the offender are probably

more helpful to people who are strong enough in themselves to head off many of these

concerns in the first place. Additionally, department officials may choose to ignore

complaints of students for political reasons. If a 30-year senior professor or manager

denies the validity of a complaint or misrepresents it, no recourse may be available to the

protege.

It is argued that at minimum, mentors and proteges need to be educated in areas of

possible ethical concern, and that they clarify at the beginning of their relationships a

mutual recognition of the boundaries. Furthermore, mentors must monitor their own

behaviors with and attitudes towards proteges and accept responsibility for the power that

they have in the relationships (Biaggio et al., 1997). At the departmental level, it is

recommended that mentors be monitored for their competence as mentors and that, if








55

necessary, they receive supplemental training in the nature of the mentoring relationship

and in mentoring skills before they are allowed to take on graduate students or novice

employees (Johnson & Nelson, 1999).

Introduction to the Method

As was pointed out, an area of research that has received less attention is that of

the subjective factors in the mentoring relationship that lead one to characterize it as a

good relationship. Researchers have explored phases, functions, outcomes, and diversity

issues, not always with clear success, but have not often turned their attentions to the

subjective experience of mentoring. While it has been noted that satisfaction with the

mentoring relationship is significantly predictive of a number of positive outcomes, from

joining department activities to completing the doctoral degree, little has be done to

elaborate what subject factors contribute to this satisfaction.

The purpose of this project, then, is to explore the subjective factors in the

mentoring relationship. In order to accomplish this task, it will be important to use a

qualitative method that will allow the emergence of those factors that are construed as

important by the participants in the relationship. The goal is not to describe form or

function, but experience.

Value of Qualitative Research

The importance of qualitative research methodology in the understanding of

human interactions has been noted by a number of authors (Giorgi, 1990, 1992; Jacobi,

1991; Polkinghomrn, 1994). The value of qualitative research is found in its ability to tease

out factors that are subtle, idiographic, and often resistant to direct approach. For










example, the affective quality of a relationship may not be amenable to conscious

cognitive processing, and thus may be quite difficult to explore using an operationalized

survey (i.e., to quantify). And although qualitative research is often construed to be

preliminary to a presumably more rigorous quantitative confirmatory methodology, some

theorists recognize the intrinsic value of qualitative research methods in some areas of

interest (Giorgi, 1990, 1992; Glaser, 1992; Glaser & Strauss, 1967, 1970). As Glaser and

Strauss noted, "Qualitative research is often the most 'adequate' and 'efficient' method

for obtaining the type of information required... "(1970, p. 289).

The value of qualitative research has not been overlooked in the research on

mentoring, both in terms of data acquisition as well as in terms of analysis. Interviews

and surveys using open-ended questions are common methods of data acquisition, and

qualitative analyses such as phenomenological, content, and grounded theory have been

used. The grounded theory approach, for example, incorporates both a methodology and

a logic that support the value of qualitative research. This approach has been used by a

number of researchers in the mentoring literature (Kram, 1985; Lark & Croteau, 1998;

Niolon, 1997). Indeed, grounded theory is an excellent method for exploring the nuances

and subtleties of the mentoring relationship that are being sought here.

In grounded theory, as with other paradigms, the researcher begins with a

question of interest about a particular situation. The goal is to understand what is

happening (e.g., what people are doing, why they are doing it). What differentiates

grounded theory is that it is exploratory, rather than confirmatory (Giorgi, 1992). That is,

it is designed to allow for the relevant factors to emerge from the research situation,








57

rather than to seek confirmation of a hypothesis that is mapped onto the situation by the

investigator. As noted by Corbin and Strauss (1990), "One does not begin with a theory

and then prove it. Rather, one begins with an area of study, and what is relevant to that

area is allowed to emerge" (p. 23).

Even more salient, grounded theory is concerned with developing "substantive

theory" (Glaser & Strauss, 1970), which is "the formulation of concepts and their

interrelation into a set of hypotheses for a given substantive area-such as patient care,

gang behavior, or education-based on research in that area" (p. 288). Thus, the goal is

not merely to understand what is happening, but also to develop a theory within which to

situate events.

Focusing on the emergence of substantive theory, grounded research is also

differentiated from quantitative methods in how the findings are construed and judged.

Dick (2002) noted that the two main criteria for judging the adequacy (vs. validity and

reliability) of the results of a grounded theory are fit and pragmatism (i.e., that it works,

and it helps people understand the situation better). Grounded theory does not assert that

any researcher's conclusions are the only plausible ones, only that if the research is

carefully carried out, the findings will be sufficiently credible to most readers, and

adequately and accurately represent the area of interest (Glaser & Strauss, 1970). Nor are

the categories focused on and elaborated by the researcher the only possible categories of

interest in the situation. Other factors may be active and interesting, but not all things can

be attended to in any one project (Glaser, 1992).










Grounded Theory Methodology

The grounded theory method is based on a well-developed logic that establishes

meaningful guidelines for both data acquisition and data analysis. These guidelines,

described by Glaser and Strauss (1967), provide important support for the

meaningfulness of the findings and their credibility to the reader. A number of sources

can be utilized in data collection, including focus groups, existing literature, naturalistic

observation, informal discussion, and interviews. Interactive interviews, typically using

open-ended questions and a semi-structured or unstructured format, are common

approaches (Dick, 2002). The primary advantage is that themes and insights emerge in

dialectic and can be explored in vivo if the investigator is inclined. Giorgi (1990) notes

that interviews provide important contextual information for the apprehension of the

intended meaning of the respondent. Therefore, interviews will be the source of data on

the mentoring relationship in the present study.

Although reviewing the literature is a standard process in research and developing

the research question, the researcher does not follow this approach in grounded theory. In

fact, Glaser (1992) clearly stated, "There is a need not to review any of the literature in

the substantive area under study" (p. 31; emphasis added). The purpose of not reviewing

the literature is to avoid biasing the researcher by unnecessarily creating a priori

cognitive structures regarding the area of interest. Similarly, grounded theory recognizes

explicitly the subjective factor introduced by the interpretive and inductive nature of the

analytic procedure. Although this is one of the great strengths of qualitative research, it

also necessarily entails the introduction of an uncontrolled variance in the outcomes (i.e.,










already existing cognitive structures). Unlike phenomenology, which asks researchers to

withhold personal perspectives and biases, grounded theory asserts that this is neither

necessary, nor likely possible. Grounded theory instead presents a brief description of the

researcher-much as a description of any other instrument-so that readers can ascertain

for themselves the influence of the researcher on the theory presented. Note that the

purpose is not to determine the validity of the findings, per se, but their context and

credibility.

Insofar as a central feature of grounded theory is the data-driven nature of the

methodology, it is difficult to specify exactly the number of participants who will be

interviewed. Grounded theory requires that the data sets (indicated in this case as the

number of interviews and/or participants) be augmented until the categories are saturated;

that is, until no further information is being gleaned from additional data sets (Dick,

2002; Glaser, 1967; Rennie, Phillips, & Quartaro, 1988). In general, the criterion for

selection follows two steps. First, there is a focus on discovering the core features of the

phenomenon of interest, which is accomplished by interviewing persons who both

represent the phenomena and who are similar to each other in some relevant way.

The second step is to introduce variability into the data set in order to sample

exceptions to the emerging theoretical hypotheses (theory-based sampling, rather than

random sampling) and thus strengthen the generalizability of the emerging theory. This is

accomplished by interviewing participants who are somehow dissimilar from the

previous participants, or who do not represent the topic in the same way. In analogous

quantitative terms, this procedure provides data both within and between.








60

Having said this, the literature regarding this general type of qualitative research,

sparse though it is in this specific topic area, would seem to suggest that about five

interviews are preliminarily indicated for a given question, as saturation typically occurs

after analyzing 5 to 10 data sets (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Rennie, Phillips, & Quartaro,

1988). Based upon the foregoing considerations, the present study will include interviews

conducted with four to five individuals in each of the following three categories: (a)

highly rated faculty mentors, (b) satisfied graduate student proteges, and (c) dissatisfied

graduate student proteges.

Analysis in grounded theory methodology is a multi-step process and is highly

labor intensive. Analysis begins as soon as the interviews begin and continues throughout

the study. As the interviewer begins to interact with the data presented by participants,

hypotheses and themes are already being developed and tested. This continues after each

interview as the researcher again reviews the data looking for themes and categories. As

each interview is conducted, themes from previous interviews are kept in mind, and

hypotheses are tested between participants as well as within each interview. This is

referred to as constant comparison, and is central to the method. The value of constant

comparison is that the perceptions and developing interpretations of the researcher are

constantly checked against the data, thus interfering with the development of

misconceptions and ungrounded assumptions.

The first step in the formal analysis, open coding, is a process in which each unit

of analysis is independently evaluated for possible meanings. What stands for a unit of

analysis is flexible, but once defined by the researcher remains consistent throughout










open coding. Glaser and Strauss (1967) recommend that each line of a transcript be

considered a unit, whereas Rennie et al. (1988) prefer to delineate the data according to

coherent meaning units, an option that will also be used in this project. Each meaning

unit is evaluated and categorized or labeled according to the concepts embedded in the

data. This process is referred to as open coding because there are a priori neither

theoretical nor procedural limits on the categories or meanings that may be established.

To clarify, data is reviewed word-by-word and line-by-line in order to delineate

sections that cohere semantically, yet are distinguishable from the surrounding material.

Each of these delineated sections (i.e., meaning units) is labeled according to whatever

semantic content it was that caused the researcher to be able to isolate the semantic unit

(i.e., the concept). At this stage, concept generation is to be descriptive, thus the labels

should use language representative of the language used by the interviewees. These

concept labels are established as categories, and the meaning units themselves are

established as exemplars of the category. Any time a meaning unit is evaluated (in any

data set) that can be labeled similarly to an existing category, it will be placed in that

category (i.e., be given the same label).

As the open coding process continues, each newly evaluated meaning unit is

assigned to as many of the existing categories as possible. If no category exists that

represents the meaning embedded in the data, a new category is established. Ultimately,

some finite set of categories will emerge that adequately represent the data, and

additional meaning units will no longer require the development of new categories or

labels, which is a condition known as saturation.








62

Throughout the data analysis, the researcher's hunches and theoretical notions are

recorded separately from the data and from the categorizations, a process referred to as

memoing. These memoranda allow the researcher to record for later consideration

hypotheses, notions, and ideas that emerge during the analysis, and at the same time are

designed to reduce drift away from grounding in the data by making explicit the

researcher's perspectives.

Axial coding, the second step of the analysis, is a process in which the developed

categories are individually examined in order to more fully elaborate their content and

meaning in the researchers mind. At the same time, the contents are compared and

evaluated between categories and their exemplars for differences and similarities. The

goal is to develop a second level of abstraction that more fully integrates the data, finding

connections between categories and concepts. Some of the emergent higher-level

categories will be linked to a greater number of subordinate categories and concepts,

resulting in a hierarchical integration of the data as more concepts derived directly from

the data are subsumed by fewer core categories. Categories that have few or no links are

either collapsed into other categories or dropped altogether.

The final step in the analysis, selective coding, occurs when the researcher

evaluates the data in search of the most central or core category, one that would subsume

all the others in a coherent and parsimonious structure. This would be the category most

related to others and is typically very well defined by the structure. Glaser and Strauss

(1967, 1978) suggest that once a core category is defined, no further open coding is done

for any data not subsumable by the category (thus, selective coding). Is essence, although










other data are certainly present and may be of interest, they are distractions from the

emerging focus in any given project. Glaser and Strauss (1967) note that the unused data

could be used for another paper if desired, thus further representing the focused nature of

the method.

In summary, coherent units of meaning within the data are identified and labeled

according to the conceptual term by which they were identified. The meaning units and

concepts are then evaluated and compared unit with unit and unit with concept to see if

more categories emerge. If there are similarities and/or differences among them that lend

themselves to a hierarchical ordering, some of the categories will subsume some of the

others, and some will be subsumed. This structure, which can be multi-leveled, will be

further evaluated to see is there is some category that is sufficiently well distributed and

linked so as to represent a core or central category that might subsume all the others.

Once the analysis is complete, the researcher should have a well-delineated and strongly

empirically grounded model of the phenomenon under investigation. This structure can,

if desired, be subjected to a verification process using more traditional experimental

methods as it provides the a priori structure necessary for deductive hypotheses.

Verification, however, is not advocated by grounded theory practitioners and may even

diminish the value of the findings through operationalization and reification (Glaser,

1992).

Other researchers have explored the costs and benefits of being a mentor (e.g.,

Ragins & Scandura, 1999), the contribution of personality factors to the quality and

effectiveness of the mentoring relationship (e.g., Turban & Dougherty, 1994), and the








64

variance introduced into outcomes based on whether the relationship is voluntary or

assigned (e.g., Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992).
















CHAPTER 3
METHOD

Participants

Thirteen individuals were interviewed for this research: four award winning

mentors, five satisfied proteges, and four dissatisfied proteges. Three of the mentors were

men, and one was a woman. One of the male mentors was a distinguished professor of

psychology, one was associate dean of the graduate school and professor of psychology,

the third male mentor was a professor of reproductive physiology and biology, and the

female mentor was a professor of pharmacology and toxicology. These mentors were

solicited at two major universities from among those who had been conferred mentoring

awards, as determined by a search of the web sites of the two institutions.

Satisfied proteges were identified by asking the interviewed mentors to provide

the names of students they had mentored, or by word of mouth. Two of the satisfied

proteges were men, and three were women. One woman was in her final year of seeking

her doctorate in clinical psychology. The second woman was 5th-year student seeking a

doctorate in pharmacology and toxicology, and the third woman was in her 4th year of

work toward doctorate in pharmacology and toxicology. One of the men had completed

his doctorate in developmental psychology, and the other man was a 2nd-year student in

a doctoral program in clinical psychology.










Dissatisfied proteges were identified by e-mailing graduate student organization

leaders and asking for word-of-mouth recommendations of students who were not happy

with the mentoring or advising they had received. Two participants were men and two

were women. The first woman was seeking a doctorate in ethno-botany, but decided to

leave with a master's degree, in part because of the extremely poor support she received.

The second woman had intended to work towards a doctoral degree in cultural

anthropology, but also was leaving her program due to lack of support. One man had

completed his doctorate in child psychology, and another will complete his doctorate in

clinical psychology this year.

Each potential participant was contacted by e-mail by the researcher and offered

the opportunity to participate in the research. In no case were mentors made aware of

which, if any, of their proteges were solicited or interviewed. All participants were fully

apprised of the research questions and procedure, and were given the opportunity to

decline or withdraw from participation at any time. Informed consent was obtained, and a

copy was given to each participant (Appendix A).

The Researcher

An important feature of the grounded theory method is the explicit recognition

that the researcher is the primary research instrument and that the personal characteristics

and history of the researcher will impact the interpretation of the data and the

development of the theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). It is

recommended, therefore, that the researcher provide information regarding his or her own

history to facilitate the reader's evaluations of the validity and generalizability of the








67

findings, which are necessarily shaped by the characteristics of the researcher. This is in

contrast to a phenomenological method, in which the researcher attempts to "bracket" or

withhold the influence of her or his biases (see Giorgi 1990, 1992).

I am 45-year-old man in a counseling psychology doctoral program. I consider

psychology to be my third career. My first career was in the electronics industry, where I

spent 15 years as an electronics technician and then as a middle level manager. My

second career was as a foster parent. In addition to raising our own three daughters, my

wife and I cared for 30 medically and therapeutically needy foster children (mostly

infants and young girls) over an 8-year period. These experiences have likely altered my

perspectives from what might be expected from someone who had never raised children

or from someone who had gone straight through school into their doctoral program.

My status as a doctoral student in psychology not only will affect my thoughts

and interpretations, but also in a few cases was noted by the interviewees. As a doctoral

student, there was a strong commonality with the protdggs, who were going through the

same process, and seeking many of the same things in their careers and lives. Some of the

interviewees appeared to be influenced by my status as a student in psychology (e.g., the

myth that psychologists have some sort of "secret knowledge" about people and behavior

seemed to appear with some of the participants). Certainly, being a student of psychology

provides me with a framework that will bias my perceptions and interpretations. In that

psychology is uniquely suited to explore relationships, however, this bias might better be

construed as an advantage rather than as a negative influence.










My age and gender likely also played a role in the interactions with some of the

participants, as well as in my self-perceptions and presentations. For example, it was

perhaps easier for me to develop rapport with the mentors than a younger interviewer.

My life experience also appeared to facilitate the interaction, as topics less focused on

mentoring often arose as I worked to develop this rapport. Whether the interviewees were

more open with me than they might have been with a younger person is open to question,

but seems plausible. My age may have had an influence on the younger proteges that

were interviewed, especially as they knew little about me except that I was a graduate

student. The international student protege, a young woman from Thailand, may have

been more strongly influenced by her cultural deference to older males in positions of

authority (this was briefly discussed in reference to her mentor, who was also an older

male).

As a student, I consider that I have been positively mentored by four different

people. Each of these has had significantly different styles as well as influences on me,

from extensive personal support to technical and research mentoring to a more detached

but safe-base style of support. Each was important to my success and survival in their

own way. Prior to being a student, during my years in business and as a parent, I was also

well mentored. A variety of people fulfilled this role in my life, but none with the focus

on the task as I have experienced as a student. I have also been poorly mentored, both as

a student and in business, by individuals who appeared to be indifferent to my training,

educational, or personal needs, and who might reasonably have been expected to have an

obligation to meet those needs. Given these experiences, I was able to draw on personal










experience when interacting with both satisfied and dissatisfied protdg6s. Having had

both experiences, however, may have helped prevent an excessive bias in either direction.

There are other factors not noted here, no doubt some of which I am unaware. The

foregoing is provided so that the reader might have some basic information about one of

the critical instruments used in this research. As noted by Glaser and Strauss (1967), "The

root source of all significant theorizing is the sensitive insights of the observer himself."

(p.251)

Procedure

This section will describe the various aspects of the grounded theory procedures

utilized in the present study. It will include discussion of data acquisition and data

analysis.

Data Acquisition

Each of the participants was interviewed by the researcher in a private milieu.

The focus of the interviews was to learn what factors contribute to the qualification of the

mentoring relationship as "good." Although participants were asked to describe or define

"good mentoring," the problem of definition discussed earlier was not addressed. If a

mentoring relationship was asserted, the assertion was accepted at face value. The

question of interest in this project, as noted, was to differentiate a "good" relationship,

not, for example, mentored vs. non-mentored, or formal vs. informal mentoring.

The semi-structured interview began with a selection of open-ended questions

designed to both create a comfortable atmosphere for the discourse, as well as to facilitate

and direct the conversation towards the topic of interest. The questions focused on the










mentoring relationship and process, yet were exploratory and elicitory. Again, neither

"mentoring" nor "good" were defined for the participants, who were all able to easily

identify someone who was, or should have been, their mentor. The following are some of

the questions used to initiate the discussions:

1. How would define good mentoring relationship?

2. What might be some characteristics of a good mentor?

3. What could [the mentor] have done to make it work better for you?

4. What kinds of things made the relationship "work" for you?

5. What are some of the things that make a lousy mentor?

As the interviews proceeded, thoughts and insights occurred to the researcher

regarding potential emergent themes in the reports of the participants. Tentative

hypotheses were developed, which guided the formulation of additional questions, as

attempts were made to confirm or disconfirm these insights. Examples of further

enquires, then, followed the following form:

1. How does that make you feel?

2. Is it a part of the mentors job to ...?

3. What do you think that gets you at a psychological level?

4. How does it feel to have a mentor that you believe in that way...?

5. Why is that important to you?

Interviews were continued until both interviewer and interviewee appeared to have

exhausted the topic. Interviews typically lasted between 60 and 90 minutes.










Although researchers who specialize in grounded theory methodology

recommend against taping or taking notes during an interview (Dick, 2002), taping, note

taking, and transcribing were used in the present study to facilitate the development and

understanding of the data and to allow the researcher review the data if there were

questions or ambiguities in his theory construction. All interviews were thus audio taped.

As the researcher became increasing familiar with the material appearing in the

interviews, cognizant of the major themes, and aware of the significant consistency of the

reports between all of the participants, it was decided that it was unnecessary to

additionally transcribe all of the interviews, and the recordings and thematic notes taken

during the remaining interviews were relied upon. Thus, eight interviews were

transcribed onto hard copy: all four mentors, three satisfied protdgds, and one dissatisfied

protdgd. Partial samples of transcripts are available in the appendices (Appendices B, C,

and D).

Data Analysis

Analysis was carried out using the grounded theory procedures described earlier.

During each interview, key notes were taken, and developing hypotheses were tested.

Following each interview these notes were reevaluated and additional insights were

noted. Memoranda were written containing possible categories and other theoretical

observations. As each interview was conducted, themes and ideas from previous

interviews and analyses were kept in mind and explored using the method of constant

comparison.










As noted, in the present study, the interviews with all four mentors (who were

interviewed first), the first three satisfied proteges, and one dissatisfied protdgd were

transcribed to facilitate this process. The interviews were gone over line-by-line and

subjected to a formal coding process. The first step, open coding, was conducted by the

researcher by going over the transcripts line by line while looking for coherent meaning

units; that is, sections that cohere semantically, and yet are distinguishable from the

surrounding material. (In later interviews, key notes taken during the interviews and

reviewing of the audio tapes replaced full transcription and review.) These "pieces of

semantic coherence" can be labeled using a single descriptive word or phrase, which may

then be referred to as concepts. Each meaning unit, then, was evaluated and labeled

according to the concepts embedded in the data (see Appendix E for an example. Note

that there were at least two iterations of open coding when using transcripts, both on the

transcript as well as on separate note cards. Thus, the sample in the appendix is reduced

and clarified for readability). The concept labels used were chosen not only to reflect the

semantic content, but as much as possible the actual words used by the participant.

These concept labels were established as categories, which were a higher level of

abstraction of the units themselves, the meaning units being exemplars of the category.

Subsequently, any time a meaning unit was evaluated (in any data set) that could be

labeled similarly to an existing meaning unit, it was placed in that category (i.e., be given

the same concept label). As the open coding process continued, each newly evaluated

meaning unit was assigned to as many of the existing categories as possible. If no

category existed that represented the meaning embedded in the data, a new category was










established. Ultimately, a finite set of categories emerged that adequately represent the

data, and no further open coding was carried out. When this occurs, it is said that the

category is saturated, and selective coding begins (see below).

Axial coding, the second step of the analysis, is a process in which the developed

concepts are individually examined in order to more fully elaborate their content and

meaning in the researchers mind. At the same time, the concepts and their exemplars are

compared and evaluated for differences and similarities. The goal is to develop a second

or higher level of abstraction that more fully integrates the data, finding connections

between categories and concepts.

Axial coding was carried out following the procedure delineated by Rennie and

Brewer (1987). All open coding, whether from transcripts or tapes, was carried out using

3 X 5 cards on which the concepts and representative citations from the data (interviews)

were written. Over one thousand cards were produced in this project. Axial coding was

carried out by placing the cards in columns on a large table according to the meaning or

concept represented. Thus, common concepts, or categories, were represented by the

different columns of cards. As the concepts and their exemplars were compared and

evaluated for differences and similarities, superordinate categories emerged and were

developed, and cards labeling these higher-level categories were placed across the top of

the table. (Again, the concept of semantic factor analysis was found helpful in

conceptualizing the process.) Note that memoranda were also recorded on 3 X 5 cards,

but were not included in the sorting process. Memoranda were, however, referred to in

the structuring of the data and the development of superordinate categories. Numerous










different organizations of the cards were tried before the one selected was settled on as

having the greatest fit and being most representative of the data.

The final step in the analytic process, selective coding, occurs when the researcher

evaluates the data in search of the most central or core category, one that would subsume

all the others in a coherent and parsimonious structure. This was accomplished using the

process described above. As the researcher continued to reexamine the concepts and

categories as well as the emergent hierarchical structure, it became possible to recognize

a common feature that was linked to all the existing categories, and was also a factor

within all of the categories. This factor, positive affect, became the core category of the

analysis, and provided the central organizing principle and discovery of this research.

Again, as with axial coding, a number of possibilities were considered and discarded

before the final selection was confirmed as being most adequate and having the greatest

fit with the data.

In summary, the data (transcripts) were broken down into coherent units of

meaning, which were labeled roughly according to the concept by which they were

identified. Then, these labels and the units they represent were evaluated and compared to

see if there were similarities and/or differences among them that lent themselves to a

hierarchical ordering, such that some of the categories subsumed some of the others, and

some were subsumed. This structure, once derived, was further evaluated to see if there

was some category that was sufficiently well distributed and linked so as to represent a

core or central category that might subsume all the others. It was found that there was:








75

positive affect. The core category of positive affect and its subordinate categories will be

fully elaborated in the next section.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS


Four mentors (M), five satisfied proteges (SP), and four dissatisfied proteges

(DP), were interviewed for the present study. The purpose of the interviews was to

uncover factors that might contribute to the qualification of a mentoring relationship as

"good." Neither the term good nor the term mentoring were defined for the interviewees.

All protdgd participants were able to identify a person or persons whom they considered

as a mentor or, in the case of the DPs, a person whom they expected would mentor them

and did not do so satisfactorily. All Ms were identified in advance by virtue of their

having received mentoring awards.

The contents of the interviews were analyzed using the previously described

grounded theory inductive procedure. All interviews were included in the analysis. There

was very high consistency across all participants, including DPs, in terms of those aspects

that would qualify as central to the goodness of the relationship. The factors selected for

inclusion in this section emerged very early in the interviewing process, continued to

appear in virtually every data set, and subsequently represented the central themes

derived in the analysis.

As the data were analyzed, a central feature of the defining characteristics of a

good mentoring relationship appeared to be the affective nature of the relationship. That

is, when discussing what they thought defined a good mentoring relationship, the most

frequently reported features were related to participants' positive feelings about certain

76










aspects of their relationships. Since good was not defined for the participants, the focus

on these specific affective aspects of the relationship, rather than the structure or

mechanics of mentoring relationships, was emergent and indicative of the interviewees'

own priorities. Thus, the themes that emerged and the resulting categories of the derived

structure are subsumed under the core category of Positive Affect.

Participants also discussed a wide variety of other factors. Some of these factors

were subsumable into the core or second-level categories. If they were not subsumable

and they could not stand alone due to their relative infrequency, then they were dropped

from the analysis to limit the focus on a single core category as recommended when

using the grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

As the core category of the analysis, positive affect defines the features most

relevant to the evaluation of the mentoring relationship as "good," as presented by

participants. Five second-level categories identified within the core category of positive

affect were as follows: (a) feeling respected, (b) feeling valued, (c) feeling safe, (d)

feelings of belonging, and (e) feelings of increasing competence (See Table 1). These

categories are themselves reductions from third-level categories (i.e., themes) that were

derived directly from the data, and each describes areas in which positive affect was

highly salient to the participants. Each of these categories and themes will be discussed,

describing in detail the feelings themselves, ways the feelings are engendered or hindered

in the relationship, and positive correlates of the feelings.










Table 1. Affective Characteristics of a Good Mentoring Relationship

Core Category Second Level Categories Fundamental Concepts/ Themes

Positive Affect Feeling Respected Respect of person
Respect of person's right to self-
determination

Feeling Valued Availability
Time and effort

Feeling Safe Not experiencing rejection
Receiving affirmation and
encouragement.
Trust

Feelings of Belonging and
Community

Feelings of Increasing Clarifying expectations
Competence Following appropriate
developmental course
Increasing autonomy


Feeling Respected

The importance of respect (i.e., proteges' feelings of being respected by their

mentors) was noted by all three sets of participants. However, Ms and DPs drew attention

to it most frequently as of critical importance to a good mentoring relationship. SPs

mentioned the importance of feeling respected by their mentors, but much less frequently

than did the other two groups. This may be attributed to a slight difference in the salience

of certain characteristics to the different groups.

Respect seems to have been construed primarily in one of two ways. First, respect

of a person was based on the individual's belief in another's intrinsic worth as a human

being. This could be illustrated by the common admonition to treat people with simple










respect and courtesy. This character of respect was also mentioned more frequently by

Ms and DPs. A second meaning for respect that appeared to be salient was the respect of

a person's freedom and self-determination. This suggests an additional level of respect

maintained towards people's right to choose for themselves what they would like to do,

accomplish, or become. This concept was discussed by the majority of participants in all

three groups, but was most frequently discussed by the mentors.

Respect of Persons

Although all three groups of participants made references to the need for a

fundamental respect of the other in the relationship, DPs repeatedly emphasized the lack

of basic respect as a centrally important feature in their dissatisfaction with their

mentoring relationships. One DP placed basic respect at the top of her list of what she

wished she could have received from her mentor. She stated that although mentors

expected to be treated with respect, they often did not treat protdgds or students with

respect. Sometimes this emphasis on the lack of respect became quite emphatic, as

illustrated by the following example.

Interviewer: Why would he introduce you to people and brag about you?
DP3: Oh, because it reflects on him. That's what a graduate advisor is for, isn't it?
"Look, I have this...scholar who wants to work with me! I'm a cool person!"
And that's fine. I mean I totally understand that they're under a lot of pressure.
They have things they need. A grad student is cheap labor for them, who you
want to keep working for you as long as you can, because then they leave and you
have to train somebody new. I totally understand that it has to be a relationship
where they're getting something as well as you getting something. But it has to be
somewhat equal. I mean, both people do have to get something out of it. I mean,
there are rules in this relationship...
Interviewer: What are the rules?
DP3: Well, you know, a professor wants to take on a student so that they have
glory, and their work getting done, and papers written with their names on it...








80

Protdgds noted that when their mentors failed to treat them with respect, they felt

disconnected, lost interest in their work, and frequently decided that if respect was not

forthcoming, neither would it be given. As can be imagined, this can lead to further

difficulties. One protege stated that she had been "offered assistance to leave the

program." Typically these failures of respect manifested as not acknowledging or

attending to a proteg6's conversation; demeaning, condescending, or insulting behaviors

or comments; or failing to keep promises.

Satisfied prot6gds, however, mentioned basic respect only in general terms.

Having already received this kind of respect from their mentors as a function of the

quality of the relationship, it did not appear to be salient during the interview. Mentors

also tended to gloss over this form of respect perhaps because they also considered it to

be a given in the relationship. However, all four mentors stated they considered it an

honor to have been sought out by students.

The SP who was an international student described differences in cultural norms

regarding respect of persons. In her Asian culture, expectations of respect for elders or

culturally defined superiors (e.g., men, professors) are much stronger, and one never

criticizes or speaks freely with one to whom respect is due. She stated that students are

not considered to be equal to their professors. Students neither expect a mentor to stop

and talk to them, nor do students feel offended or unimportant when they do not. She

recalled being extremely and pleasantly surprised by her American mentor's openness

and willingness to engage with her in conversation at any time. She noted that although

she was not equal in status, neither did she feel inferior.










Although the consensus was that proteges a priori deserve respect, all mentors

noted its limits. As one mentor in the pharmaceutical field commented, although students

deserve respect, there are firm boundaries of acceptable behavior, especially considering

the potential health risks inherent in the field. Students are expected to take responsibility

for their education seriously and to behave as professionals.

Respect of a Person's Right to Self-Determination

The critical aspect of this theme is that a good mentoring relationship is

characterized by the mentor's focus on and commitment to facilitating the goals and

plans of the protege. The emphasis is so asymmetrical in favor of the protege that it

almost reaches the level that the needs and desires of the mentor are of little consequence.

As one mentor noted,

They are really the ones that count in the long run.... Yes, my goals will be
realized if they do their jobs, but it's more than that in the sense of who they are
and where they're going. It's really important.

This focus on supporting the goals of the protege was universal, and was focused

most strongly and repetitively by the mentors. In describing a mentoring relationship,

another mentor noted,

First and foremost I think it's a commitment to somebody else's career. So, when
somebody comes in and says they'd like to study-I'd like to study with you-
and I'm a lucky person in that I have marginal visibility nationally so that people
will apply to work with me. I'm lucky. I don't say I deserve that. It's an honor.
First, to have that happen. Second, it's a responsibility because to me it implies a
ton of obligation that the applicant probably doesn't realize.... So, I have to
know what they're interested in. I have to know what they want to do. My
favorite question to people is "Tell me what your life looks like 5 years from
now." Once we know that, then we craft the next 5 years or plan for the next 2 or
3 years to get you there.








82

Mentors stated their belief that all students are unique and that the central task of

a mentor is to uncover the natural talent of the individual student, to nurture their native

excellence and passion. Mentors repeatedly noted that it is not their task to determine

what a protege should be doing with her or his life or career; rather the mentor's task is to

support the growth and development of the prot6g6 in the direction the protege has

chosen. As M3 indicated, the goal is to develop the students in regard to their own

interests and talents, not to "make mini copies of yourself." He continued,

It's a wonderfully freeing, I think, experience [for proteges] to realize that you
can pursue that for which you have talent and interest, and can mold a life around
it.... I once heard that 98% of Americans get up in the morning, go to work and
dread that, and I can't imagine that day after day after day. This is why I think
some graduate students don't like graduate school. I would wish that 100% of
people could follow their own talents and inclinations.

Satisfied proteg6s also seemed to be most enamored of their mentors' focusing on

the prot6g6's desires and goals. One ofM3's prot6g6s, SP1, was also interviewed, and

stated that "a mentor is a guide who facilitates your reaching your goals, not you reaching

their goals." He said of M3 that whatever area you were interested in as a M3's proteg6-

academics, practice, research-M3 would "provide you with as many opportunities and

as much guidance as you need or want." SP 1 noted that he feels empowered and excited

by this kind of support because he believes he will be successful in the area he has

chosen.

There are limits and qualifications to this support, however, as is indicated in the

following exchange with M2.

M2: I've tried to find what they're interested in. And I try to give them that a little
bit....
Interviewer: So, it would be kind of like finding out what the individual student's










interests or passions are and then trying to feed that, to facilitate that?
M2: As best I can! Now, I can't just let them totally run my program, but I'm
more than willing to... I mean, I have enough flexibility in my program that I can
try to meet their particular needs, once I'm sure there's a passion for it....

M3 concurred, stating, "I just can't supervise any old thing that they come up

with.... Ml noted that if he doesn't know the area that a student wants to pursue, or the

student declines to take his advice or recommendations, then he can't do all the things

that he would normally do for a prot6ge. The student must then take responsibility to find

ways to make up the lack.

Feeling Valued by or Important to the Mentor

Feeling valued by or important to the mentor is closely aligned with respect.

However, feeling valued can be distinguished from basic respect in that basic respect is a

priori and due all people. Value and importance, on the other hand, refer to the particular

person. Although a mentor may fundamentally respect all graduate students, a mentor

should hold a special value for his or her proteges. (Should refers not to an ethical

imperative, but is an ontological indicative. I.e., a characteristic of a "good" mentoring

relationship, as described by participants in this study, is that the mentor does in fact

value the protege).

The salient factor here is that the protege feels that her or his unique identity is

being validated in the relationship with their mentor. The protege is not merely another

unit (interchangeable with any other unit) in a long series of onerous obligations with

which a faculty member is tasked by the nature of the job, nor is the protege merely a

means to the mentor's ends; rather the mentor actually has an interest in this particular

person. This interest manifests in demonstrable, tangible ways that are observable by the










protege, and that she or he can internalize as self-worth and value. In this case, the

protege could say, "If this important, high status person thinks I'm important, then maybe

I'm okay."

Participants experienced feeling valued by the practical demonstrations of their

mentors' (a) availability and (b) time and effort. Through these two modes the protege

became aware of the mentor's feelings about her or him; proteges' also construed these as

signals of the positive or negative quality of the relationship and of the self.

Availability

Availability was perhaps the most frequently noted quality in all of the data.

Mentors, satisfied proteges, and dissatisfied proteges all indicated that the mentor's

availability to proteges is sine qua non of good mentoring. Even in discussing

relationships that had little or no interpersonal components, availability was considered to

be critical. If the mentor was not available, there was, in fact, no mentor.

Availability can be understood in terms of psychological availability or physical

availability. While physical availability was mentioned numerous times, it was not

typically considered a significant factor in the quality of the relationship. All good

mentors were physically available to their proteges at some level-some spent several

hours a day with them in various contexts. What was repeatedly noted, however, was the

importance of the mentor being psychologically available. That is, graduate students felt

valued and important when their mentors responded when they were talked to, when the

response was relevant and helpful, when the mentor stopped what they were doing when

the protege wanted to talk to them about a problem (or when there was not a problem),








85

when the mentor was interested in the proteges concerns or needs, when the mentor was

willing to talk on the phone from home with the protege, or even if the mentor would

merely use e-mail to communicate.

In response to the opening question on how he would define good mentoring, SP3

said "... to be available is the most basic. To be able to be there, to be willing to be there,

to talk about your interests." M3 noted that one of the central characteristics he respected

in other good mentors he knew was "The ability to take time and listen fully to another

person's story." SP4, the student from Asia, noted that her mentor was always available

to her and that it made her feel important and valued. She further noted that her peers

with less available and open mentors were not happy, and did not feel very important to

their mentors. SP5 relayed a story that exemplifies availability and its effect on the

protege.

... He was one of the people on the committee for my paper. He was actually-
this is kinda cool-he was actually on vacation in January when I emailed him
and told him "Here's where I am, here's my outline. I've kind of revised it from
what we talked about last time." He emailed me back and said, "Actually, we're
on vacation. We're in Minnesota." He told me a little bit about the weather; it was
freezing, they were fortunate enough to arrive in the middle of a snowstorm, da da
da da da.... and, [he continued] "You know, I like what you're doing here. Our
host actually happens to know something about the subject, and he suggests that
you check out such and such...." I get this back-the guy's on vacation... and
he's talking about my project to his friend... and giving me feedback while he's
on vacation! I'm like, do I feel important? Do I feel valued? Well, yeah!

Dissatisfied proteges also had much to say about availability, or, in their case,

their mentor's unavailability. DP2 noted that she is on her second mentor/advisor;

unfortunately, the second, like the first, is not available either-physically or

psychologically. In fact, noted DP2, students have to sign up on a sheet on this










"mentor's" door to get an appointment-she dispenses her time in 15-minute

increments-whether they are an undergrad student or one of her grad students. DP2

commented that "there needs to be someone you can know that is going to answer back,

or you can touch base with, who can give you some direction, that you can talk to...."

She continued that the thing that both her mentors could have done was to simply be

available. DP3 indicated that if she had a question about requirements, about classes,

about where to find the bathroom, her mentor would tell her to go ask another grad

student. According to DP3, her mentor also waxed philosophical in her presence about

whether he should be hiring technicians rather than grad students, since technicians didn't

want other things in addition to the job.

Time and Effort

Availability is a fairly passive concept, in that the mentor is being responsive to

the immediate needs of the protege. The character of time and effort as a marker of value

and importance is found in a mentor's activity or proactivity on the prot6ge's behalf. The

mentor demonstrates her or his valuation of the proteg6 by the concrete investment of

limited time and energy resources to the development and progress of the proteg6

towards her or his goals. An important aspect of this factor is that the mentoring

relationship is not defined in terms of supply and demand; although there are lots of grad

students out there, there is only one "in front of you." The prot6g6's value to their mentor

is apparent to all, especially the protege, in the mentor's investment of time and energy.

This valuation will also be internalized and considered by the proteg6 in their valuation of

themselves.










The investment of time and effort was spoken of by the mentors mostly in terms

of the necessity of recognizing the level of commitment in these areas that is inherent in

deciding to take on grad students or proteges. All of the mentors noted this aspect of the

relationship, and expressed not only willingness, but also enthusiasm. Ml noted that he

felt that if students were going to come work with him, that he owed them his time and

effort and attention, and that he was happy to provide it. Ml's protege, SP3, said

... The fact that Ml would be willing to pass back and forth the draft three times,
was something that, as I've talked with other people, they didn't have that, and
that goes back to the first thing, about being there and to be willing to give time
for you.

When asked for his definition of a good mentor, M2 said that a good mentor was

a person that's going to take the time to spend with students on a daily basis and try to

develop them to their maximum potential... and it takes a lot of time." Later in our

interview, in the context of a discussion of how many grad students some mentors take

on, he said,

I have other colleagues that take ten or twelve students at a time, and I just can't
do that. So I've asked myself, 'what is it that precludes me from doing that?' And
I've come to the conclusion that I spend a lot more time with individual students,
mentoring them.... I put enough priority on trying to mentor and develop
individuals that I can only do so many at a time...

The other mentors reiterated this sentiment.

A partial list of other demonstrations of time and effort commitment by mentors

for their proteges reported by participants include writing a six or seven-page, single

spaced recommendation letters "in which I really tell a heartfelt story about that student"

(M3); paying for the protegd's attendance at conferences, and not only helping them set

up their presentations, but staying with them during the entire display time, and










introducing them to important people that come by; going to the lab every day and

seeking them out to see how they're doing; finishing necessary paperwork on time;

always knowing what the protege is doing, and making sure that the protege is on time

and on track regarding department and degree requirements; helping them negotiate

personal concerns, such as balancing work and family, so that they can remain in the

program and focused on their work; reading materials provided by the proteg6 in the

protege's area in order to keep up with the research in that area; and calling people to

promote the proteg6 for a position.

As might be imagined, the conversations of the dissatisfied protegds were much

briefer in this regard. Except to note that their mentors either invested no time or effort,

or that they only invested in those areas that were of personal interest, there was little to

say. DP I noted that "when I was doing things that were not only getting me through the

program, but were also gonna help him out with his... in his professional life...." he got

better treatment from his mentor. He described his personal relationship with his mentor

as "sterile" and leaving him with "an empty feeling." Ultimately, like other DPs, DPI

would take his work elsewhere; "I wouldn't even show it to him."

Feeling Safe

The importance of feeling safe was especially emphasized by the SPs. Mentors

and DPs also discussed the importance of the protdgd's feelings in this regard, but DPs

tended to withdraw from their mentors as soon as it became apparent that they weren't

safe and, as usual, the issue became one of deficiency.










In the conversations of the participants, feelings of safety seem to be related to

three primary themes: not experiencing rejection, receiving affirmation and

encouragement, and trust. These three things, when present and experienced by the

protege, establish a secure base from which they can function and develop. It is worth

noting that the concept of a secure base is derived from theories relating to attachments

between parents and their children. The participants in this study used the parent-child

metaphor frequently to express the feeling they had towards each other. In fact, all the

mentors and most of the SPs did so, but none of the dissatisfied proteges did.

For example, in response to the question "Do you like the idea of showing Ml

that you did it, that you wanted him to be proud?" SP3, who was particularly enamored of

the parenting metaphor, said

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I definitely have that second father figure feeling about it,
and it is equally as devastating when he'd you look at the first draft and really say,
'no, this is really bad, this is really not it." It was equally as devastating. I think I
definitely have that same kind of sense of... if he was saying "good job," then I
was feeling that I was good, and I was happy with the approval, and if he was
saying "no way..." that was a bad couple of days....

When discussing how having a protege was like having kids, Ml said, "It's the

same way. It's the same thing." Similarly, M4 said

If you take on a student, you know you're really taking on some responsibility for
them, just like what we have for a child; you're responsible for them. It's not
quite the same level of responsibility, but they are somewhat dependent on you in
a variety of ways... just as much as your kids are for the skills they'll need to
survive in the world whatever they do.

Not experiencing rejection

Of the three themes that are subsumed under feelings of safety (not experiencing

rejection, receiving affirmation, and trust in the mentor), not experiencing rejection was








90

clearly the most important to the proteges, both emotionally and in terms of personal and

professional development. While this theme is defined negatively, as the absence of a

behavior, it remains significant in that rejection is a positive punishment. That is, if it is

experienced at all, the offended party often tends to withdraw, and the possibility of a

corrective or ameliorating positive interaction with the mentor is significantly reduced, if

not eliminated. This reduction is due not only to the reduced numbers of interactions, as

the protege tries to avoid a repeat of the aversive event, but also to the negatively biased

interpretations of any further mentor behaviors by the protege. For example, what is

meant as a helpful critique may be taken as a direct assault by a previously sensitized

protege. As a result, even a small amount of this negative behavior may preclude to

possibility of developing a positive mentoring relationship.

Examples of mentor behaviors that were experienced as rejecting or threatening

include demeaning a proteges' efforts, implying the protege is stupid or is asking stupid

questions, yelling or screaming at the protege, blaming the protege for errors, for poor

outcomes, or for not knowing what to do, taking out frustrations on the proteg6 related to

other situations in the mentor's life, embarrassing a protege in front of others, shaming a

protege, taking a concern a protege brings and making it about themselves (e.g., a proteg6

presents something that she wanted help with, and the mentor tells a story about

something that happened to him, showing that he has 'suffered,' too, yet without

addressing the proteg6's concerns), behaving condescendingly towards the protege, and

others. Both SPs and DPs recognized the necessity of mentors' correcting them and










showing them their errors (see below), but all participants seemed to recognize the

difference between rejection and critique.

The most significant consequents to these rejecting behaviors were that the

prot6ge withdrew from interactions with the mentor, developed questions about their own

competence and value and career choice, and became afraid to engage in the necessary

work for fear of being "slapped down," as one mentor put it. SP2, who was actually the

SP of one of the award-winning mentors (M3), noted that if a prot6g6 became defensive

at M3's strong critiques, M3 would "hammer" them, but if you accepted the critique and

asked for help, M3 would "take you under his wing." (This was definitely experienced as

rejecting and threatening, but was later resolved when the protege went to M3 and

confronted him. According to the prot6g6, M3 has been working on that quirk since that

confrontation, and they now get along extremely well).

Many participants noted the absence of rejection and its correlates. The most

noted benefit is that protdgds feel safe to take risks, not only in terms of talking to their

mentors about problems and mistakes, but also in terms of being willing and emotionally

able to explore and experiment with their work or research. For example, when asked

what her mentor did when SP2 made a mistake, she said,

SP2: Oh, it was fine. I mean, she [M4] understands that you, of course, this is a
training period, even now. I've made mistakes.., but she doesn't go 'rooting' for
it, she's really relaxed about it.
Interviewer: what does that get for you? When you're in a situation, and you
make a mistake, and she's OK with it...
SP2: Well, I mean, it makes me more willing to admit that I made a mistake, and
also, it's not so much pressure. I know some mentors who are a lot more rigid
about that, and they do expect you to know, every time, exactly everything that
needs to be done. And you know, you're going to have people in the lab who are
going to be scared when you do that. I think it makes it easier for me to just go








92

ahead and do something, than to worry about it, if everything isn't exactly right. I
do make an effort to include everything I understand, based on my own
knowledge, to do everything correctly, but if it's not correct I don't feel like I
have to fear anything.


Receiving Affirmation and Encouragement

Receiving affirmation and encouragement from a mentor is essentially the

opposite of experiencing rejection-not opposite in the sense of the absence of one

implies the presence of the other, but in the sense that while rejection actively hinders

work and development, affirmation and encouragement promotes it. Of the three themes

under the category of feeling safe, this was mentioned directly the least but nonetheless

appeared in my coding quite often. It was my impression that there was what might be

termed an affirming atmosphere between the mentors and proteges, as evidenced by the

tone and affect of the participants during the interviews.

When affirmation was mentioned directly, however, its impact was important.

SP3 said, "I always knew I had good stuff, I had a good story to tell. What I also knew

was that I wasn't always the best at telling it.... I always felt motivated, because Ml

was very reinforcing, [saying]; 'you've got a good thing here to talk about.., yeah,

you're right, this is important, this is good stuff.'" SP5 noted that her mentor was always

very affirming or her work, even when suggesting better ways to do it or other options to

try. She said that she was never made to feel stupid or small. She continued in another

section

For the most part, they offered stuff [support and encouragement] so freely it was
more a matter of"I know where I can get this." I didn't have to earn it; it would
be there no matter what I did.... It was extremely validating.








93

Mentors also noted the importance of providing affirmation and encouragement to

proteges. M4 discussed how encouragement softened the blows of failures and mistakes,

and cultivated the ability to keep "plugging;" M3 commented, "I'm constantly

encouraging them.. to stretch, to try new things, to try ideas, to make mistakes, even."

The lack of affirmation and encouragement can result in proteges going elsewhere

for their needs, as was noted by DP 1, who said (as if he were talking to his mentor), "[if]

I'm not going to get the feedback and encouragement from you, I'll go to one of these

other people...." Regarding his mentor's lack of emotional support, when asked what

would happen to a younger proteg6 who came and worked with this mentor (DPI was 32,

and had good support at home), he said, "Well, I've seen a lot of them, and... I'm the

second person who has made it out through him with a PhD."

DP3 commented that instead of commending her for what she had done, her

mentor would complain about what she hadn't done. DP2 similarly described how her

mentor would tell her to do something (without providing any clear direction), and when

she'd bring the work back to him, he would say, "Why didn't you do 'X'." She argued

that this lack of support or affirmation of her work made her not want to do any work at

all, or to ever work with him.

Trust

There are various ways to construe trust, some of which have likely been implicit

in previous sections, and others that were not discussed by participants and thus are not

presented here regardless of their assumed or likely relevance. In fact, trust was

mentioned by various participants numerous time in diverse contexts, but as a word




Full Text

PAGE 1

7+( $))(&7,9( &255(/$7(6 2) $ *22' 0(1725,1* 5(/$7,216+,3 %\ 0$5. )5$1./,1 %5(&+7(/ $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ LV GHGLFDWHG WR +DOOLH :DUG

PAGE 3

$&.12:/('*0(176 ZRXOG OLNH WR H[SUHVV P\ DSSUHFLDWLRQ WR WKH SHRSOH LQ P\ OLIH WKDW DUH PRVW UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH JRRG WKLQJV WKDW DP DQG GR DQG QRQH RI WKH QRWVRJRRGf )LUVW P\ PRWKHU ZKR ZLWK D OLWWOH KHOSf VWDUWHG LW DOO DQG LV WKXV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU LW DOO 6HFRQG P\ ZLIH %UHQGD ZKR KDV FDUULHG IDU PRUH WKDQ KHU IDLU VKDUH LQ WKH SDVW GR]HQ \HDUV DQG ZKR ZRXOG OLNH WR VWRS QRZ SOHDVH 7KLUG P\ WKUHH GDXJKWHUV LQ RUGHU RI KRZ PXFK ZRUN WKH\ GLG RQ WKLV SDUWLFXODU SURMHFWf &KULVWHQ &KULVW\ DQG /LVDf§WKH\ DUH WKH UHDVRQ PXFK RI DQ\WKLQJ LV ZRUWKZKLOH

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3DJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LLL $%675$&7 YL &+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 'HILQLQJ 0HQWRULQJ %ULHI +LVWRU\ RI 0HQWRULQJ ,PSRUWDQFH RI 0HQWRULQJ 3UHVHQW 6WXG\ 5(9,(: 2) /,7(5$785( &RQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS )XQFWLRQV RI WKH 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS &DUHHU DQG 3V\FKRVRFLDO )XQFWLRQV $GGLWLRQDO )XQFWLRQV 3KDVHV RI WKH 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS 3KLOOLSVf )LYH3KDVH 0RGHO 0LVVLULDQfV 7KUHH3KDVH 0RGHO .UDPf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

PAGE 5

0(7+2' 3DUWLFLSDQWV 7KH 5HVHDUFKHU 3URFHGXUH 'DWD $FTXLVLWLRQ 'DWD $QDO\VLV 5(68/76 )HHOLQJ 5HVSHFWHG 5HVSHFW RI 3HUVRQV 5HVSHFW RI D 3HUVRQfV 5LJKW RI 6HOI'HWHUPLQDWLRQ )HHOLQJ 9DOXHG E\ RU ,PSRUWDQW WR WKH 0HQWRU $YDLODELOLW\ 7LPH DQG (IIRUW )HHOLQJ 6DIH 1RW ([SHULHQFLQJ 5HMHFWLRQ 5HFHLYLQJ $IILUPDWLRQ DQG (QFRXUDJHPHQW 7UXVW )HHOLQJV RI %HORQJLQJ DQG &RPPXQLW\ )HHOLQJV RI ,QFUHDVLQJ &RPSHWHQFH &ODULI\LQJ ([SHFWDWLRQV )ROORZLQJ DQ $SSURSULDWH 'HYHORSPHQWDO &RXUVH ,QFUHDVLQJ $XWRQRP\ ',6&866,21 $33(1',;(6 $ ,1)250(' &216(17 % 0(1725 ,17(59,(: 6$03/( & 6$7,6),(' 3527‹*‹ 63f ,17(59,(: 6$03/( ',66$7,6),(' 3527‹*‹ '3,f ,17(59,(: 6$03/( ( (;$03/( 2) 23(1 &2',1* 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

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f UHJDUGLQJ WKHLU H[SHULHQFHV DV PHQWRUV DQG SURWJV 3DUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR SURYLGH WKHLU WKRXJKWV DQG SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW ZKDW WKLQJV ZHUH LPSRUWDQW LQ D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DQG ZKDW PLJKW EH PLVVLQJ LQ D EDG UHODWLRQVKLS 5HVXOWV ZHUH DQDO\]HG XVLQJ JURXQGHG WKHRU\ PHWKRGRORJ\ ZKLFK LV D TXDOLWDWLYH PHWKRG RI UHVHDUFK DQG DQDO\VLV $QDO\VHV LQGLFDWHG WKDW SRVLWLYH DIIHFW YL

PAGE 7

ZDV WKH FHQWUDO IDFWRU WKDW GLIIHUHQWLDWHG JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV IURP EDG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV 3RVLWLYH DIIHFW DV D FRUH FDWHJRU\ VXEVXPHG ILYH VHFRQGOHYHO FDWHJRULHV Df IHHOLQJ UHVSHFWHG Ef IHHOLQJV RI EHLQJ YDOXHG Ff IHHOLQJ VDIH Gf IHHOLQJV RI EHORQJLQJ DQG Hf IHHOLQJV RI PDNLQJ SURJUHVV (DFK RI WKHVH FDWHJRULHV VXEVXPHG D QXPEHU RI RWKHU WKHPHV 5HVXOWV DFURVV DOO SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH UHPDUNDEO\ FRQVLVWHQW OHQGLQJ VXSSRUW WR WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH LQWHUSHUVRQDO TXDOLW\ RI WKH PHQWRUSURWJ UHODWLRQVKLS 9OO

PAGE 8

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 ,I KDYH VHHQ IXUWKHU LW LV E\ VWDQGLQJ RQ WKH VKRXOGHUV RI *LDQWV 1HZWRQ f 7KLV VHQWLPHQW LQ YDU\LQJ IRUPV DQG ZRUGV KDV KLVWRULFDOO\ EHHQ SURIIHUHG E\ PDQ\ ZKHQ DVNHG WR DFFRXQW IRU WKHLU VXFFHVVHV LQ ZRUN RU LQ OLIH ,QGHHG LW LV DVVHUWHG WKDW 6LU ,VDDF 1HZWRQ ZKR ZURWH WKHVH ZRUGV LQ D OHWWHU WR KLV FROOHDJXH 5REHUW +RRNH ZDV KLPVHOI SDUDSKUDVLQJ DQ LGHD H[SUHVVHG E\ %HUQDUG RI &KDUWHV LQ WKH \HDU +HUEHUW f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f§DQG LQ VRPH FDVHV ZH KDYH DFFHVV WR WKHP 7KLV ODVW HOHPHQWf§WKDW ZH RIWHQ KDYH WKH DGYDQWDJH RI WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH SHUVRQV ZKR KDYH JRQH EHIRUHf§SURYLGHV WKH GLUHFWLRQ IRU WKLV UHVHDUFK 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ LV WR H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PHQWRUV DQG WKHLU SURWJV DQG WR DVN ZKDW IDFWRUV DUH LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WR EH FKDUDFWHUL]HG DV JRRG 7KH SUHVHQFH RI WKHVH SHUVRQV DOORZV XV WR OHDUQ IURP WKHP GLUHFWO\ WR VHH WKHP ZRUNLQJ LQ WKH ODE WR ZDWFK WKHP QHJRWLDWH D FRQWUDFW ZLWK D FOLHQW LQ WKH RIILFH WR KHDU

PAGE 9

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f WKH 1REHO SUL]H ZLQQHU ZKR GHVFULEHG WKH VSRQVRU ZKR VDZ WKH SRWHQWLDO LQ KLP WKDW KH QHYHU VDZ LQ KLPVHOI =XFNHUPDQ f WKH VSLULWXDO WHDFKHU ZKR HORTXHQWO\ H[SUHVVHG KLV ORYH IRU WKH HOGHU ZKR JXLGHG KLP WKURXJK FULVHV RI IDLWK /HZLV f WKH FKLOG ZKR HXORJL]HG D SDUHQWfV LPSRUWDQFH WR KLV SHDFH DQG SODFH LQ WKH ZRUOG DQG WKH DUWLVW ZKR ZD[HG SRHWLF DERXW WKH RQH ZKR VDZ DQG EHOLHYHG LQ WKH WDOHQW DQG SDVVLRQ WKDW RWKHUV GLVFRXQWHG 0F0XOOHQ DV FLWHG LQ 0XUUD\ f 7KHVH IHZ H[DPSOHV DUH QRWHG DPRQJ DQ LPDJLQHG LQILQLWXGH RI SHRSOH ZKR KDYH UHFRJQL]HG WKH FULWLFDO FRQWULEXWLRQV RI VRPH VLJQLILFDQW ILJXUH WR WKHLU GHYHORSPHQW WR WKHLU VXFFHVV DQG WR WKHLU OLYHV 7KH UHFRJQLWLRQ RI WKH YDOXH RI WKHVH VLJQLILFDQW ILJXUHV KRZHYHU LV GHILQLWLRQDO RI JUDGXDWH HGXFDWLRQ .HOO\ t 6FKZHLW]HU f :KHUH HOVH DUH WKH VKRXOGHUV RI WKRVH ZKR KDYH JRQH EHIRUH VR LQWHQWLRQDOO\ PDGH DYDLODEOH IRU WKRVH ZKR ZRXOG IROORZ" :KHUH PRUH WKDQ LQ WKH JUDGXDWH DFDGHP\ LV WKH PHQWRULQJ DQG DGYLVLQJ RI VWXGHQWV DQG SURWJV PRUH FHQWUDO WR WKH VXFFHVV RI WKH HQGHDYRU" $OWKRXJK WKH JRDO RI DOO HGXFDWLRQ

PAGE 10

LV WKH WUDQVPLVVLRQ RI NQRZOHGJH JUDGXDWH HGXFDWLRQ XQLTXHO\ DVVLJQV WKH WDVN RI SUHSDULQJ WKH QH[W JHQHUDWLRQ RI VFKRODUV DQG UHVHDUFKHUV WR WKRVH ZKR WKHPVHOYHV GHYHORSHG DQG XVH WKH NQRZOHGJH f*HQHUDWLRQV RI H[SHULHQFHG VFKRODUV KDYH NQRZQ DQG DFWHG XSRQ WKH NQRZOHGJH WKDW WKH LQWHOOHFWXDO GHYHORSPHQW RI WKHLU JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV LV PRVW HIIHFWLYHO\ JXLGHG LQ RQHWRRQH UHODWLRQVKLSVf %R\HU &RPPLVVLRQ S ,f 7KH LQWHOOHFWXDO SURIHVVLRQDO VRFLDO DQG SROLWLFDO GHYHORSPHQW RI LQGLYLGXDO JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV LV WKH UDLVRQ GfWUH RI WKH JUDGXDWH PHQWRUf§WKH VLQH TXD QRQ RI D GRFWRUDO HGXFDWLRQ 2U LV LW" $FFRUGLQJ WR PDQ\ VRXUFHV HJ %RZHQ t 5XGHQVWLQH /RYLWWV 7LQWR f WKH QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV ZKR GURS RXW RI GRFWRUDO SURJUDPV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KDV KHOG VWHDG\ DW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b VLQFH WKH V )XUWKHU ZKLOH WKH VSHFLILF DWWULWLRQ UDWHV IRU ZRPHQ DQG PLQRULWLHV DUH QRW NQRZQ /RYLWWV UHSRUWHG LW WR EH FRQVLGHUDEO\ KLJKHU VHH DOVR 1DWLRQDO 6FLHQFH )RXQGDWLRQ f ,W LV DOVR LQWHUHVWLQJ WR QRWH WKDW fLQ PDQ\ GRFWRUDO SURJUDPV URXJKO\ KDOI RI WKH VWXGHQWV DUH PHQWRUHG LQ RWKHUV WKH UDWH LV PXFK ORZHUf -RKQVRQ DQG +XZH S f 3HUKDSV WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV LV QRW WKH FHQWUDO FRQFHUQ RI JUDGXDWH VFKRROV 3HUKDSV H[SHULHQFHG VFKRODUV KDYH QRW NQRZQf§RU QRW DFWHG XSRQ WKH NQRZOHGJHf§WKDW VWXGHQWVf GHYHORSPHQW LV EHVW IDFLOLWDWHG LQ RQHRQRQH UHODWLRQVKLSV $ YDULHW\ RI UHDVRQV PD\ EH FDOOHG XS WR H[SODLQ WKHVH DODUPLQJ VWDWLVWLFV DQG UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH QRW EHHQ XQDZDUH RI WKH SUREOHP %HDQ t (DWRQ %RZHQ t 5XGHQVWLQH %UD[WRQ 7LQWR f 6RPH UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH IRFXVHG RQ WKH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWfV SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG RWKHU FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WR

PAGE 11

UHWHQWLRQ )RU H[DPSOH 7LQWR f GLVFXVVHG WKH UHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ SHUVRQDO GLVSRVLWLRQV VXFK DV LQWHQWLRQ DQG FRPPLWPHQW DQG UHWHQWLRQ %HDQ DQG (DWRQ f SUHVHQWHG D PRGHO WKDW IRFXVHV RQ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH VWXGHQWV DQG WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQW LQ ZKLFK WKH\ PXVW IXQFWLRQ DIWHU DUULYDO DQG *UHHQ DQG %DXHU f IRXQG WKDW FHUWDLQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI VWXGHQWV DW HQWU\ SUHGLFWHG D VLJQLILFDQW SRUWLRQ RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ RXWFRPHV 2WKHU UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH H[SORUHG ZKDW KDSSHQV WR VWXGHQWV DIWHU WKH\ DUULYH /RYLWWV f H[SORUHG D QXPEHU RI UHDVRQV ZK\ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV GR QRW FRPSOHWH WKHLU SURJUDPV DQG FRQFOXGHG WKDW fLW LV QRW WKH EDFNJURXQG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV VWXGHQWV EULQJ WR WKH XQLYHUVLW\ WKDW DIIHFWV WKHLU SHUVLVWHQFH RXWFRPHV LW LV ZKDW KDSSHQV WR WKHP DIWHU WKH\ DUULYHf S f /RYLWWV UHSRUWHG WKDW D NH\ IDFWRU LQ D VWXGHQWVf VXFFHVV LV WKHLU VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKHLU DGYLVRUVPHQWRUV ZKLFK SUHGLFWHG QRW RQO\ FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH GRFWRUDWH EXW DOVR D ZLGH UDQJH RI RWKHU YDULDEOHV +HU GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH UHODWLYH LPSDFW RI WKH VWXGHQWfV DGYLVRU LV RI SDUWLFXODU LQWHUHVW KHUH ,Q VXPPDUL]LQJ VKH ZURWH ,Q SDUWLFXODU WKH VWXGHQWV IHOW WKDW WKHLU H[SHULHQFHV ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ EHWWHU LI WKH\ KDG KDG PRUH LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK IDFXOW\ DQGRU WKHLU DGYLVRU DQG LI WKH IDFXOW\ RU WKHLU DGYLVRU KDG EHHQ PRUH RSHQ PRUH VXSSRUWLQJ JLYHQ WKHP D OLWWOH PRUH SHUVRQDO DWWHQWLRQ EHHQ PRUH VHQVLWLYH WR WKHLU LQWHUHVWV DQG FDUHHU JRDOV DQG SURYLGHG WKHP ZLWK DSSURSULDWH SURIHVVLRQDO VRFLDOL]DWLRQ H[SHULHQFHV S f &OHDUO\ IDFWRUV UHODWHG WR VWXGHQW VXFFHVV VDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG UHWHQWLRQ QHHG IXUWKHU H[SOLFDWLRQ 1HYHUWKHOHVV DQG LQ VSLWH RI WKH GLVWUHVVLQJ ORVVHV RI GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWV QXPHURXV UHVHDUFKHUV WKHRULVWV DQG DGPLQLVWUDWRUV KDYH H[SOLFLWO\ UHFRJQL]HG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI PHQWRULQJ LQ JUDGXDWH HGXFDWLRQ 7KH 6WUDWHJLF 3ODQQLQJ &RPPLWWHH RI D WRS VRXWKHDVWHUQ XQLYHUVLW\ FRQFOXGHG fQR IXQFWLRQ LQ WKH XQLYHUVLW\ VKRXOG UHFHLYH

PAGE 12

PRUH FDUHIXO DWWHQWLRQ DQG VXSSRUW WKDQ WKH SURFHVVHV E\ ZKLFK SRWHQWLDO JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DUH UHFUXLWHG DGPLWWHG PHQWRUHG DQG SODFHGf 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD D S f &DPHURQ DQG %ODFNEXUQ f GLVFXVVHG WKH SRVLWLYH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ SURIHVVLRQDO SURGXFWLYLW\ DQG PHQWRULQJ EURDGO\ GHILQHGf 7KH &RXQFLO RI *UDGXDWH 6FKRROV f VSHFLILFDOO\ PHQWLRQHG PHQWRULQJ ZKHQ QRWLQJ WKDW D XQLYHUVLW\ KDV DQ REOLJDWLRQ WR SURYLGH VXSSRUW VHUYLFHV WR PDNH DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV SRVVLEOH &RPPHQWLQJ RQ PHQWRULQJ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI DGXOW PDOH GHYHORSPHQW /HYLQVRQ f DGGHG f*LYHQ WKH YDOXH WKDW PHQWRULQJ KDV IRU WKH PHQWRU WKH UHFLSLHQW DQG VRFLHW\ DW ODUJH LW LV WUDJLF WKDW VR OLWWOH RI LW DFWXDOO\ RFFXUVf S f 'HILQLQJ 0HQWRULQJ $OWKRXJK PHQWRULQJ LV D WHUP WKDW LV IUHTXHQWO\ DQG ZLGHO\ XVHG LW UHPDLQV UHVLVWDQW WR FOHDU FRQFLVH GHILQLWLRQ *LEE f 0DQ\ UHVHDUFKHUV DQG DXWKRUV KDYH GHILQHG WKH WHUP LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKHLU ZRUN SURYLGLQJ DGGLWLRQDO GHVFULSWRUV DQG H[DPSOHV WKDW VHUYH WR UHYHDO WKH LQVXIILFLHQF\ RI WKH RSHUDWLRQDOL]DWLRQ GXH WR WKH FRPSOH[LW\ DQG QXDQFHV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS )RU H[DPSOH -RKQVRQ f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

PAGE 13

EDUH GHVFULSWLRQ RI IXQFWLRQV DQG RXWFRPHV $V WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LV LQWHQGHG WR GHPRQVWUDWH IXOILOOHG IXQFWLRQV DQG SRVLWLYH RXWFRPHV GR QRW GHILQH WKH HVVHQFH RI PHQWRULQJ ,QGHHG SRVLWLYH RXWFRPHV FDQ EH DFTXLUHG ZLWKRXW D PHQWRU 0HQWRULQJ LV VRPHWKLQJ PRUHf§VRPHWKLQJ TXDOLWDWLYH SKHQRPHQDO VXEMHFWLYHf§DQG DV VXFK UHVLVWV DWWHPSWV WR GHILQH LW LQ DQ\ FDWHJRULFDO ZD\ %ULHI +LVWRU\ RI 0HQWRULQJ 7KH WHUP PHQWRU KDV LWV RULJLQV LQ *UHHN P\WKRORJ\ ,Q +RPHUfV 2G\VVH\ 0HQWRU ZDV D FORVH IULHQG DQG ZLVH FRXQVHORU RI 2G\VVHXV 2G\VVHXV ZKR EHFDPH D KHUR DIWHU KLV YLFWRU\ DW 7UR\ ZDV XQDEOH WR UHWXUQ KRPH DIWHU WKH EDWWOH DV KH ZDV KLQGHUHG E\ WKH JRGGHVV &DO\SVR ZKR ZDQWHG WR PDUU\ KLP (YHQWXDOO\ WKH RWKHU JRGV WRRN SLW\ RQ KLP DQG VHQW KLP KRPHZDUG +RZHYHU 3RVHLGRQ ZKRP 2G\VVHXV KDG RIIHQGHG E\ EOLQGLQJ KLV VRQ &\FORSHV 3RO\SKHPXVf DJDLQ KLQGHUHG KLV SURJUHVV DQG SUHYHQWHG KLP IURP UHDFKLQJ KRPH :LVHO\ EHIRUH 2G\VVHXV KDG OHIW KLV KRPH LQ ,WKDFD IRU WKH EDWWOH KH SODFHG 0HQWRU KLV IULHQG DQG DGYLVRUf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f NQRZOHGJH DQG SRZHU ZDV DEOH WR DVVLVW WKHP

PAGE 14

LQ WKHLU WUDYHOV DQG WUDYDLOV EHFDXVH VKH VDZ WKHLU QHHGV DQG LQWHUYHQHG ZLWK WKH SRZHUV LH WKH RWKHU JRGVf RQ WKHLU EHKDOI 2G\VVHXV LQ DSSRLQWLQJ 0HQWRU ZDV LQ SDUWf FRQIRUPLQJ WR D FXVWRPDU\ SUDFWLFH LQ DQFLHQW *UHHFH ZKLFK ZDV WR ILQG DQ ROGHU DQG ZLVHU WHDFKHU WR EH D UROH PRGHO IRU \RXQJ PHQ VR WKDW WKH\ FRXOG OHDUQ IURP DQG HPXODWH WKHLU IDPLOLHVf FXOWXUDO YDOXHV DQG FXVWRPV HJ 3ODWR DQG 6RFUDWHV $OH[DQGHU WKH *UHDW DQG $ULVWRWOH 0XUUD\ f ,Q WKDW ERWK 0HQWRU KLPVHOI DQG $WKHQD LQ WKH JXLVH RI 0HQWRU H[HPSOLILHG WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI DGYLVRU JXLGH FRXQVHORU LQWHUYHQHU DQG WHDFKHU WKHVH ROGHU DQG ZLVHU UROH PRGHOV EHFDPH NQRZQ DV fPHQWRUVf DQG WKH WHUP PHQWRU EHFDPH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKDW UROH 7KHVH VDPH LGHDV UHJDUGLQJ WKH WUDQVPLVVLRQ RI NQRZOHGJH DQG FXVWRPV FDQ DOVR EH VHHQ LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI JXLOGV GXULQJ WKH 0LGGOH $JHV 7KH YDULRXV SURIHVVLRQV HJ JROGVPLWK ODZ\HU PHUFKDQWf GHYHORSHG DQ DSSUHQWLFHVKLS PRGHO LQ ZKLFK \RXQJ ER\V ZHUH DSSUHQWLFHG WR D PDVWHU LH VRPHRQH UHFRJQL]HG DV H[SHUW LQ WKH JLYHQ WUDGHf 7KH ER\V VSHQW \HDUV ZLWK WKHLU PDVWHUV OHDUQLQJ WKHLU WUDGHV DQG HYHQWXDOO\ EHFRPLQJ PDVWHUV WKHPVHOYHV E\ SURGXFLQJ D PDVWHUSLHFH 7KH PDVWHUDSSUHQWLFHVKLS PRGHO ZDV ODUJHO\ UHSODFHG E\ DQ HPSOR\HUHPSOR\HH PRGHO EXW LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ FRQWLQXHG WR SOD\ D FHQWUDO UROH LQ KLVWRU\ )RU H[DPSOH 0F0XOOHQ DV FLWHG E\ 0XUUD\ f TXRWHG DUWLVW 0DU\ &DVVDWW ZKHQ VKH OHDUQHG RI (GJDU 'HJDVfV LQWHUHVW LQ EHFRPLQJ KHU SHUVRQDO PHQWRU DFFHSWHG ZLWK MR\ 1RZ FRXOG ZRUN ZLWK DEVROXWH LQGHSHQGHQFH ZLWKRXW FRQVLGHULQJ WKH RSLQLRQ RI D MXU\ KDG DOUHDG\ UHFRJQL]HG ZKR ZHUH P\ WUXH PDVWHUV DGPLUHG 0DQHW &RXUEHW DQG 'HJDV WRRN OHDYH RI FRQYHQWLRQDO DUW EHJDQ WR OLYH S f

PAGE 15

7KH HIIHFWV RI KDYLQJ D PHQWRU ZKRP WKH SURWJ DGPLUHV DQG UHVSHFWV DUH HYLGHQW DQG FRQWLQXH WR EH SOD\ D FHQWUDO UROH LQ WKH YDOXH RI PHQWRULQJ HJ .UDP /HYLQVRQ /RYLWWV 2f1HLO t :ULJKWVPDQ f ,Q WKH ODVW IHZ GHFDGHV PHQWRULQJ KDV UHFHLYHG LQFUHDVLQJ DWWHQWLRQ LQ ERWK EXVLQHVV DQG DFDGHPLD +ROOLQJVZRUWK t )DVVLQJHU 0XUUD\ 6DQGV 3DUVRQ t 'XDQH f 7KHRULHV KDYH EHHQ FRQVWUXFWHG PRGHOV KDYH EHHQ GHYHORSHG DQG UHVHDUFK KDV EHHQ FRQGXFWHG 7KH SRWHQWLDO YDOXH WR WKH SURWJ WKH PHQWRU WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ RU EXVLQHVV DQG VRFLHW\ LQ JHQHUDO KDV GULYHQ DQ LQFUHDVHG IRFXV RQ KRZ WR HVWDEOLVK PHQWRULQJ SURJUDPV VWUXFWXUH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG JDPHU WKH KRSHG IRU EHQHILWV
PAGE 16

WKDW PHQWRULQJ LV D QHZ FRQFHSW RU WKDW WKH HIILFLHQW WUDQVPLVVLRQ RI NQRZOHGJH DQG H[SHUWLVH LV D VW FHQWXU\ LPSHUDWLYH 1HYHUWKHOHVV WKH OHYHOV RI FXUUHQW GHPDQGV KDYH JURZQ VXFK WKDW ZLWKRXW WKH GLUHFW LQYROYHPHQW RI PHQWRUV WKH WDVN RI VXUYLYDOf§PXFK OHVV VXFFHVVf§PD\ EH QHDUO\ LQVXUPRXQWDEOH $V SUHYLRXVO\ QRWHG KRZHYHU WKH VXEMHFWLYH H[SHULHQFHV RI WKH SHRSOH LQ D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DUH FHQWUDO QRW RQO\ WR WKH SHUFHLYHG TXDOLW\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EXW DOVR WR WKH VXFFHVV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WDVNV %DLU /RYLWWV f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR QRWLQJ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI PHQWRULQJ LQ D SURIHVVLRQDO FRQWH[W /HYLQVRQ f GLVFXVVHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI D PHQWRU WR WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO DQG HPRWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI \RXQJ PHQ +H VWDWHG $ JRRG PHQWRU LV DQ DGPL[WXUH RI D JRRG IDWKHU DQG D JRRG IULHQG $ fJRRG HQRXJKf PHQWRU LV D WUDQVLWLRQDO ILJXUH ZKR LQYLWHV DQG ZHOFRPHV D \RXQJ PDQ LQWR WKH DGXOW ZRUOG +H VHUYHV DV D JXLGH WHDFKHU DQG VSRQVRU +H UHSUHVHQWV VNLOO NQRZOHGJH YLUWXH DFFRPSOLVKPHQWf§WKH VXSHULRU TXDOLWLHV D \RXQJ PDQ KRSHV VRPHGD\ WR DFTXLUH +H JLYHV KLV EOHVVLQJ WR WKH QRYLFH DQG KLV 'UHDP $QG \HW ZLWK DOO WKLV VXSHULRULW\ KH FRQYH\V WKH SURPLVH WKDW LQ WLPH WKH\ ZLOO EH SHHUV 7KH SURWJ KDV WKH KRSH WKDW VRRQ KH ZLOO EH DEOH WR MRLQ RU HYHQ VXUSDVV KLV PHQWRU LQ WKH ZRUN WKDW WKH\ ERWK YDOXH SS f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

PAGE 17

3UHVHQW 6WXG\ 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ IRFXVHV RQ WKH VXEMHFWLYH H[SHULHQFH RI SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ RUGHU WR GHYHORS DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZKDW TXDOLWDWLYH IDFWRUV FRQWULEXWH WR WKH FKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ RI D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DV JRRG :KDW GRHV LW PHDQ WR HDFK SHUVRQ LQ WKH G\DG WKDW PHQWRULQJ fZRUNVf" ,V HVVHQFH ZKDW HOHPHQWV FRPSULVH D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS" $V LQ D PDUULDJH VRPHWKLQJ RFFXUV LQ D SRVLWLYH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW LV TXDOLWDWLYHO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP D QHJDWLYH RU OHVV VXFFHVVIXO RQH 7KHVH IHDWXUHV DUH RI SULPDU\ LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ DQG SURYLGH UHDVRQV IRU ZK\ SV\FKRORJ\ PD\ EH XQLTXHO\ VXLWHG WR H[SORUH WKHP 7KLV VWXG\ LV IXUWKHU XQGHUWDNHQ LQ WKH fFRQWH[W RI GLVFRYHU\f QRW LQ WKH fFRQWH[W RI YHULILFDWLRQf *LRUJL f $OWKRXJK WKH VXEMHFWLYH SHUFHSWLRQV DQG H[SHULHQFHV RI WKH SURWJ KDYH EHHQ QRWHG DV D SUHGLFWRU RI SRVLWLYH RXWFRPHV HJ /RYLWWV f OLWWOH GLUHFW UHVHDUFK KDV EHHQ GRQH WR GDWH RQ WKLV DVSHFW RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS *LYHQ WKH GDWD LQGLFDWLQJ WKH UHODWLYHO\ KLJK DWWULWLRQ UDWHV LQ GRFWRUDO HGXFDWLRQ WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI PHQWRULQJ WR SRVLWLYH RXWFRPHV LQ GRFWRUDO HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKH UHODWLYHO\ KLJK UDWH RI GLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ DPRQJ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV LQ UHJDUG WR WKH PHQWRULQJ WKH\ UHFHLYHG DGGLWLRQDO UHVHDUFK RQ WKH VXEMHFWLYH LQ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV HVVHQWLDO

PAGE 18

&+$37(5 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( 7KLV FKDSWHU SURYLGHV DQ RYHUYLHZ RI WKH WKHRUHWLFDO DQG HPSLULFDO OLWHUDWXUH RQ PHQWRULQJ $V SUHYLRXVO\ QRWHG WKH WRSLF RI PHQWRULQJ KDV JDUQHUHG LQFUHDVLQJ DWWHQWLRQ GXULQJ WKH ODVW IHZ GHFDGHV ,Q D EULHI VHDUFK RI WKLV ERG\ RI OLWHUDWXUH )RJJ f IRXQG D VLJQLILFDQW LQFUHDVH LQ WKH QXPEHU RI DUWLFOHV ZULWWHQ DERXW PHQWRULQJ UDQJLQJ IURP SDSHUV ZULWWHQ IURP WR WR DUWLFOHV ZULWWHQ IURP WR 6LPLODU UHVXOWV ZHUH REWDLQHG E\ WKLV DXWKRU LQ D VHDUFK RI WKH (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVRXUFHV ,QIRUPDWLRQ &HQWHU (5,&f GDWDEDVH )RFXVLQJ RQ PHQWRU LQ D NH\ZRUG VHDUFK RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHWXUQHG RQO\ RQH DUWLFOH SXEOLVKHG EHWZHHQ DQG $ VXEVHTXHQW VHDUFK UHWXUQHG UHIHUHQFHV SXEOLVKHG EHWZHHQ DQG 2WKHU UHVRXUFHV DOVR UHYHDO LQFUHDVHG LQWHUHVW LQ WKH WRSLF RI PHQWRUV $Q LQWHUQHW VHDUFK XVLQJ PHQWRULQJ LQVWHDG RI PHQWRU LQ RUGHU WR HOLPLQDWH FLWLHV DQG RWKHU XQUHODWHG UHIHUHQFHVf \LHOGHG KLWV *RRJOH f $ UDQGRP VHDUFK RI XQLYHUVLW\ ZHEVLWHV UHYHDOHG WKDW PHQWRULQJ LV DOVR D VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUHVW RI HGXFDWLRQDO DGPLQLVWUDWRUV 0XUUD\ f FRPPHQWHG WKDW VRPH UHIHUHQFH WR PHQWRULQJ FRXOG EH IRXQG LQ fDOPRVW HYHU\ SXEOLFDWLRQ DLPHG DW PDQDJHUV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV HGXFDWRUV KXPDQ UHVRXUFH SURIHVVLRQDOVf S [LLLf DQG &OXWWHUEXFN DV FLWHG LQ %URSK\ t (SWLQJ f DVVHUWHG WKDW XS WR RQHWKLUG RI PDMRU FRPSDQLHV LQ %ULWDLQ KDYH H[SHULPHQWHG ZLWK IRUPDO PHQWRULQJ VFKHPHV 2WKHU VXFK H[DPSOHV DERXQG

PAGE 19

7KLV VXUIHLW RI PDWHULDO KRZHYHU EHOLHV WKH UHODWLYH WHQXRXVQHVV RI WKH ILQGLQJV LQ PDQ\ DUHDV RI WKH PHQWRULQJ OLWHUDWXUH *HOVR t 6FKORVVHU *LEE -DFREL f $OWKRXJK PDQ\ UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH LQYHVWHG VLJQLILFDQW HIIRUW LQWR H[SORULQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WKHLU ILQGLQJV WHQG WR EH IUDJPHQWHG DQG WKH HVVHQWLDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH PHQWRUSURWJ UHODWLRQVKLS FRQWLQXH WR EH HOXVLYH DV UHVHDUFKHUV REWDLQ LQFRQVLVWHQW UHVXOWV &KDR f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fV f VHPLQDO ZRUN RQ PHQWRULQJ FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV

PAGE 20

$V LPSOLHG E\ WKH LQFUHDVLQJ QXPEHUV RI UHVHDUFKHUV WKHRUHWLFLDQV DGPLQLVWUDWRUV DQG EXVLQHVV PDQDJHUV LQWHUHVWHG LQ FODULI\LQJ WKH FKDUDFWHU DQG VWUXFWXUH RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSf§RIWHQ ZLWK WKH H[SOLFLW JRDO RI GHYHORSLQJ HIIHFWLYH DQG HIILFLHQW PHQWRULQJ SURJUDPV LQ EXVLQHVV DQG DFDGHPLDf§PHQWRULQJ FRQWLQXHV WR EH DQ LPSRUWDQW WRSLF DV ZHOO DV DQ HOXVLYH FRQVWUXFW 7KDW PHQWRULQJ LV HIIHFWLYH VHHPV WR EH WDNHQ IRU JUDQWHG ZKDW LWV HIIHFWV DUH KRZ WKHVH HIIHFWV DUH DFKLHYHG DQG ZKR EHQHILWV IURP WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DUH VWLOO EHLQJ FODULILHG 'LVFXVVLQJ WKH SUREOHP RI GHILQLWLRQ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI PHWKRGRORJ\ LQ PHQWRULQJ UHVHDUFK :ULJKWVPDQ f QRWHG WKDW WKHUH LV D IDOVH VHQVH RI FRQVHQVXV EHFDXVH HYHU\RQH fNQRZVf ZKDW PHQWRULQJ LV %XW FORVHU H[DPLQDWLRQ LQGLFDWHV ZLGH YDULDWLRQ LQ RSHUDWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQV OHDGLQJ WR FRQFOXVLRQV WKDW DUH OLPLWHG WR WKH XVH RI SDUWLFXODU SURFHGXUHV 7KH UHVXOW LV WKDW WKH FRQFHSW LV GHYDOXHG EHFDXVH HYHU\RQH LV XVLQJ LW ORRVHO\ ZLWKRXW SUHFLVLRQ SS f 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH LGHQWLILHG VHYHUDO IDFWRUV WKDW UHVXOW LQ FRQIXVLRQ DQG RYHUODS EHWZHHQ SURMHFWV DQG FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQV HJ &KDR t *DUGQHU -DFREL :ULJKWVPDQ f LQFOXGLQJ LQFRQVLVWHQF\ LQ GHILQLWLRQV D ODFN RI FRQVHQVXV UHJDUGLQJ VWUXFWXUDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DQG WKH GLYHUVLW\ RI FRQWH[WV LQ ZKLFK PHQWRULQJ LV RI LPSRUWDQFH ,Q FRQVLGHULQJ WKHVH IDFWRUV IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ WKH UHVHDUFK LQ WKH IROORZLQJ FDWHJRULHV ZLOO EH UHYLHZHG Df FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS Ef IXQFWLRQV RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS Ff SKDVHV RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS Gf RXWFRPHV RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS Hf REVWDFOHV WR WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS If JHQGHU HWKQLFLW\ DQG RWKHU FXOWXUDO IDFWRUV DQG Jf HWKLFDO FRQFHUQV LQ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS

PAGE 21

&RQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS *LYHQ WKH SRWHQWLDO DQG DQWLFLSDWHG EHQHILWV DQG FRVWV RI PHQWRULQJ WR D EXVLQHVV RU HGXFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQ QRW WR PHQWLRQ EHQHILWV DQG FRVWV IRU SURWJV DQG PHQWRUV WKHPVHOYHVf DQ\RQH ZLVKLQJ WR GHYHORS D PHQWRULQJ SURJUDP QHHGV DFFXUDWH LQIRUPDWLRQ DV WR KRZ WR LQLWLDWH DQG VWUXFWXUH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWKLQ WKH UHOHYDQW FRQWH[W 0DQ\ RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG LQVWLWXWLRQV KDYH DWWHPSWHG WR LPSOHPHQW PHQWRULQJ SURJUDPV ZLWK ZKLFK WR JDPHU WKHVH EHQHILWV *LEE 5DJLQV t &RWWRQ 6FDQGXUD f 7\SLFDOO\ WKHVH HIIRUWV HQWDLO WKH IRUPDOL]DWLRQ RI WKRVH IDFWRUV DQG SURFHVVHV FRQVWUXHG E\ WKH SURJUDP GHVLJQHUV WR EH IXQGDPHQWDO WR VXFFHVVIXO PHQWRULQJ LQ LQIRUPDO FRQWH[WV &KDR HW DO 1RH f 2QH RI WKH PDMRU GHPDUFDWLRQV RI PHQWRULQJ DQG PHQWRULQJ UHVHDUFK LV WKXV EHWZHHQ IRUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ SDUDGLJPV 7KH SULPDU\ GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ IRUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV LV LQ WKH PHWKRG E\ ZKLFK WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LV LQLWLDWHG ,Q DQ LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS WKH SURWJ DQG WKH PHQWRU LQLWLDWH D UHODWLRQVKLS EDVHG RQ FRPPRQ LQWHUHVWV XVXDOO\ ZLWK WKH SURWJ VHHNLQJ RXW WKH PHQWRU &URQDQ+LOOL[ *HQVKHLPHU &URQDQ+LOOL[ DQG 'DYLGVRQ f IRXQG WKDW PRUH WKDQ b RI VXUYH\HG SURWJV VRXJKW RXW WKHLU PHQWRUV RQ WKH EDVLV RI VLPLODU LQWHUHVWV $Q LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV QRW PDQDJHG VWUXFWXUHG RU HVWDEOLVKHG E\ DQ H[WHUQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ 7KLV UHODWLRQVKLS LV GHVFULEHG DV VSRQWDQHRXV QDWXUDO RU YROXQWDU\ -RKQVRQ 3ROORFN 6FDQGXUD f &RQYHUVHO\ LQ D IRUPDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS WKH EXVLQHVV RU LQVWLWXWLRQ KDV WDNHQ DQ DFWLYH LQWHUHVW LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH SURWJ XVXDOO\ ZLWK VSHFLILF WDVNV RU

PAGE 22

JRDOV LQ PLQG 0XUUD\ f $FFRUGLQJ WR *LEE f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f 7KLV PD\ UHQGHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS QRW RQO\ LQHIIHFWLYH EXW DOVR SRVVLEO\ GHWULPHQWDO 0XUUD\ f )RU H[DPSOH WKH SURWJ PD\ KDYH SV\FKRORJLFDO RU FDUHHU QHHGV WKDW WKH PHQWRU FDQQRW PHHW RU LV QRW VNLOOHG HQRXJK WR UHFRJQL]H 6HFRQG D SURWJ PD\ QRW EHQHILW DV PXFK IURP D IRUPDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LI KH RU VKH EHOLHYHV WKDW WKH PHQWRU LV LQYHVWLQJ WLPH DQG HIIRUW RQO\ LQ UHVSRQVH WR D PDQDJHPHQW GLUHFWLYH RU EHFDXVH RI D FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ EHFDXVH RI DQ LQWHUHVW LQ WKH SURWJ RU WKH SURWJfV ZRUN DQG GHYHORSPHQW 5DJLQV t &RWWRQ f 7KLUG IRUPDO PHQWRULQJ VFKHPHV DUH RIWHQ IRFXVHG RQ VKRUWn WHUP QHHGV DQG JRDOV DQG PD\ QRW SURYLGH HQRXJK WLPH IRU PHQWRUV DQG SURWJV WR UHDS WKH EHQHILWV RI WKH IXQFWLRQV .UDP f DQG &KDR f QRWHG WKDW VRPH IXQFWLRQV

PAGE 23

HVSHFLDOO\ FDUHHU IXQFWLRQVf WDNH WLPH WR FRPH WR IUXLWLRQ DQG WKDW VKRUWWHUP UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK PHQWRUV PD\ QRW EH VXIILFLHQW IRU WKHVH WR JHUPLQDWH )RXUWK LQIRUPDO PHQWRUV PD\ EH PRUH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH ORQJWHUP QHHGV DQG RXWFRPHV RI WKHLU SURWJV WKDQ WKHLU IRUPDO FRXQWHUSDUWV DQG PD\ LQGHHG SURWHFW WKHLU SURWJV DW D VLJQLILFDQW FRVW WR WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ 5DJLQV t &RWWRQ f ,QIRUPDO PHQWRUV PD\ EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR LGHQWLI\ SHUVRQDOO\ ZLWK WKHLU SURWJV DQG OLNHZLVH WKH SURWJ ZLWK WKH PHQWRU 6LQFH PHQWRUV DQG SURWJV LQ LQIRUPDO UHODWLRQVKLSV FKRRVH HDFK RWKHU WKHLU SHUVRQDO LQYHVWPHQW LQ WKH ZHOO EHLQJ RI WKH RWKHU PD\ EH JUHDWHU WKDQ WKDW LQ DQ DVVLJQHG IRUPDOf UHODWLRQVKLS -RKQVRQ =XFNHUPDQ f )LQDOO\ 5DJLQV DQG &RWWRQ f DUJXHG WKDW VLQFH IRUPDO PHQWRUV DUH PRUH YLVLEOH LQ DQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ WKDQ LQIRUPDO PHQWRUV DUH WKH\ PLJKW EH PRUH FRQFHUQHG DERXW DYRLGLQJ WKH DSSHDUDQFH RI IDYRULWLVP WRZDUGV WKHLU SURWJV &RQWUDULZLVH LQIRUPDO PHQWRUV DUH H[SHFWHG WR VKRZ IDYRULWLVP WR VSRQVRU WKHLU SURWJV DQG WR EXIIHU WKHP IURP GHSDUWPHQWDO SROLWLFV ,QVRIDU DV WKH LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV SURWRW\SLFDO DQG WKHUHIRUH SUHVXPHG WR EH HIIHFWLYH DQG HIILFLHQW WKH IRUPDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS KDV UHFHLYHG WKH PRVW DWWHQWLRQ E\ UHVHDUFKHUV *LEE f QRWHG WKDW fZKLOH IRUPDO PHQWRULQJ SURJUDPV DUH QRZ YHU\ SRSXODU WKHUH LV QRW PXFK FULWLFDO DQDO\VLV RI WKH UHDOLW\ RI WKHLU UHODWLYH VXFFHVVHV DQG IDLOXUHV f S f 6RPH UHVHDUFKHUV KRZHYHU KDYH H[DPLQHG WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI DWWHPSWV WR UHSOLFDWH WKH EHQHILWV RI LQIRUPDO UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ WKH FUHDWLRQ RI IRUPDO PHQWRULQJ SURJUDPV &KDR HW DO f H[SORUHG GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SHUFHLYHG VXSSRUW IXQFWLRQV SURYLGHG E\ PHQWRUV LQ IRUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV 6XSSRUW IXQFWLRQV

PAGE 24

ZHUH FDWHJRUL]HG DV SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV RU FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV DV GHILQHG E\ .UDP f 3V\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV DUH GHILQHG DV WKRVH WKDW LQIOXHQFHG WKH SURWJfV FRPSHWHQFH LGHQWLW\ DQG HIIHFWLYHQHVV LQ D SURIHVVLRQDO UROH ZKHUHDV FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV DUH GHILQHG DV WKRVH WKDW HQKDQFHG FDUHHU DGYDQFHPHQW 2WKHU RXWFRPHV VXFK DV VDODU\ DQG MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZHUH DOVR DVVHVVHG ,Q D VXUYH\ RI XQLYHUVLW\ JUDGXDWHV LQIRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG IRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG DQG QRQPHQWRUHGf SURWJV ZKR KDG EHHQ LQIRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG UHSRUWHG UHFHLYLQJ VLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHU FDUHHUUHODWHG VXSSRUW IURP WKHLU PHQWRUV WKDQ GLG IRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG UHVSRQGHQWV ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ DOWKRXJK LQIRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG SURWJVf VFRUHV ZHUH VOLJKWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ IRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG SURWJV LQ WKH SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV DV ZHOO WKH GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH QRW VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW WKXV WKH UHVHDUFKHUVf K\SRWKHVLV WKDW LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZRXOG SURYLGH D JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI WKH SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV GHVFULEHG E\ .UDP ZDV QRW VXSSRUWHGf $GGLWLRQDOO\ ERWK LQIRUPDOO\ DQG IRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG SURWJV VFRUHG KLJKHU WKDQ QRQPHQWRUHG VWXGHQWV GLG ZLWK LQIRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG SURWJV VFRULQJ KLJKHU RQ DOO PHDVXUHV DQG IRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG SURWJV VFRULQJ KLJKHU RQ RQO\ RI PHDVXUHV )DJHQVRQ(ODQG 0DUNV DQG $PHQGROD f FRQGXFWHG D VLPLODU VWXG\ RI LQIRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG DQG IRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG SURWJV DQG REWDLQHG GLIIHUHQW UHVXOWV 7KRVH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKR ZHUH LQIRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG UHSRUWHG JUHDWHU SV\FKRVRFLDO VXSSRUW WKDQ GLG WKRVH ZKR ZHUH IRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG \HW ERWK JURXSV UHSRUWHG VLPLODU OHYHOV RI FDUHHUUHODWHG VXSSRUW 5DJLQV DQG &RWWRQ f QRWHG WKH PHWKRGRORJLFDO GLIILFXOWLHV SULPDULO\ LQ LQVWUXPHQWDWLRQ XVHGf RI HDUOLHU VWXGLHV DQG VRXJKW WR FODULI\ WKH GLVFUHSDQFLHV LQ WKH

PAGE 25

SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK 7KHVH UHVHDUFKHUV GHYHORSHG DQ LQVWUXPHQW WKDW DOORZHG IRU VHSDUDWH DQDO\VLV RI .UDPfV f QLQH LQGLYLGXDO IXQFWLRQV ILYH FDUHHU DQG IRXU SV\FKRVRFLDOf DQG WZR DGGLWLRQDO IXQFWLRQV UDWKHU WKDQ WKH VXSHURUGLQDWH FDWHJRULHV RI SV\FKRVRFLDO DQG FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV 7KH\ DOVR DVVHVVHG VHOHFWHG RXWFRPHV UHODWHG WR IRUPDOO\ DQG LQIRUPDOO\ PHQWRUHG SURWJV DQG QRQPHQWRUHG SHUVRQV 5DJLQV DQG &RWWRQ f VXUYH\HG D VDPSOH RI HQJLQHHUV VRFLDO ZRUNHUV DQG MRXUQDOLVWV PHQ ZRPHQ ZKR GLG QRW UHSRUW JHQGHUf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t &RWWRQ f VXSSRUW WKH DVVHUWLRQ WKDW LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH EHQHILFLDO WKDQ HLWKHU IRUPDO PHQWRULQJ RU QR

PAGE 26

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fSURWJV ZLWK IRUPDO PHQWRUV VKRXOG EH HQFRXUDJHG WR VHHN LQIRUPDO PHQWRUV ZKLOH LQ WKH ODVW VWDJH RI WKHLU IRUPDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSf S f &ODUN +DUGHQ DQG -RKQVRQ f WDNLQJ WKH RWKHU VLGH DVVHUWHG PRUH VWURQJO\ WKDW fWKH XQLTXH TXDOLW\ RI WKH PHQWRU UHODWLRQVKLS DQG WKH ORQJWHUP QDWXUH RI UHODWLRQVKLS IRUPDWLRQ DSSHDU LQFRQJUXHQW ZLWK WKLUGSDUW\ DVVLJQPHQWf S f 6RPH UHVHDUFKHUV HJ &ODUN HW DO &URQDQ+LOOL[ HW DO -RKQVRQ -RKQVRQ t +XZH f KDYH DOVR VXJJHVWHG WKDW H[WHUQDOO\ RU VWUXFWXUDOO\ LPSRVLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS SUHFOXGHV WKH LQVFUXWDEOH fPDJLFf XQGHUO\LQJ WKH DIILOLDWLRQ DQG PD\ UHQGHU WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS PHUHO\ XWLOLWDULDQ ODFNLQJ LQ SDVVLRQ DQG HPRWLRQDO LQYHVWPHQW 7KHVH UHVHDUFKHUV GR QRW KRZHYHU HTXDWH LQIRUPDO ZLWK XQSODQQHG -RKQVRQ DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV -RKQVRQ -RKQVRQ t +XZH f H[SORUHG ZD\V WR HVWDEOLVK LQGLYLGXDO DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQDO FRQGLWLRQV WKDW ZRXOG OLNHO\ IDFLOLWDWH WKH LQLWLDWLRQ DQG TXDOLW\ RI ZKDW WKH\ UHIHU WR DV LQWHQWLRQDO PHQWRULQJ 7KHVH LQFOXGH VXFK DFWLYLWLHV DV SUHSDULQJ PHQWRUV DQG VWXGHQWV IRU WKHLU UROHV DQG HVWDEOLVKLQJ D GHSDUWPHQWDO FXOWXUH WKDW UHFRJQL]HV DQG VXSSRUWV WKH YDOXH RI WKH PHQWRULQJ SURFHVV &RKHQ 0RUJDQ 'L/LOOR

PAGE 27

t )ORUHV *HUKROP /RYLWWV f -RKQVRQ DUJXHG HVSHFLDOO\ WKDW WKH SURWJf§EXW DOVR WKH PHQWRUf§PXVW EH LQWHQWLRQDO DQG SURDFWLYH LQ VHHNLQJ RXW WKRVH ZLWK ZKRP WKH\ ZRXOG OLNH WR ZRUN DQG WKRVH ZKR SRVVHVV WKH TXDOLWLHV DQG UHVRXUFHV WR PHHW RQHfV QHHGV VHH DOVR .UDP f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t &RWWRQ f )XQFWLRQV RI WKH 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS /HYLQVRQ f DVVHUWHG WKDW WKH FHQWUDO IXQFWLRQ RI D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH VHOI RI WKH SURWJ ,Q GHVFULELQJ KLV UHVHDUFK RQ DGXOW PDOH GHYHORSPHQW /HYLQVRQ VWDWHG f7KH PHQWRU UHODWLRQVKLS LV RQH RI WKH PRVW FRPSOH[ DQG GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ LPSRUWDQW D PDQ FDQ KDYH LQ HDUO\ DGXOWKRRG 1R ZRUG FXUUHQWO\ LQ XVH LV DGHTXDWH WR FRQYH\ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS ZH KDYH LQ PLQG KHUHf /HYLQVRQ S f $OWKRXJK D PHQWRU KDV D QXPEHU RI IXQFWLRQV HJ VSRQVRULQJ JXLGLQJ WHDFKLQJf /HYLQVRQ DVVHUWHG WKDW WKH PHQWRUfV SULPDU\ UROH LV WKDW RI D WUDQVLWLRQDO ILJXUH EHWZHHQ SDUHQW DQG SHHUf§QHLWKHU RQH QRU WKH RWKHU EXW VRPHRQH ZKR FDQ UHVSRQG

PAGE 28

DSSURSULDWHO\ WR WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO QHHGV RI WKH SURWJ 7KXV DFFRUGLQJ WR /HYLQVRQ QRW RQO\ LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS PRUH FRPSOH[ WKDQ KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG E\ RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV HJ 0XUUD\ f EXW LW DOVR XOWLPDWHO\ H[LVWV IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO EHQHILW RI WKH SURWJ ZKHWKHU LQ WKH EXVLQHVV FRQWH[W RU LQ WKH HGXFDWLRQDO FRQWH[W .UDP f GHILQHG IXQFWLRQV DV fWKRVH DVSHFWV RI D UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW HQKDQFH ERWK LQGLYLGXDOVf JURZWK DQG DGYDQFHPHQWf S f 2QH QRWDEOH IHDWXUH RI .UDPfV FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ LV WKH GHOLQHDWLRQ RI ERWK SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV DV ZHOO DV FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV /HYLQVRQfV f ZRUN ZDV LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI DGXOW GHYHORSPHQW PRUH JHQHUDOO\ DQG IRFXVHG RQ WKH SV\FKRVRFLDO GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH SHUVRQ :KLOH .UDP DJUHHG WKDW WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV D GHYHORSPHQWDO RQH LQ ZKLFK ERWK SDUWLHV DUH PHHWLQJ HDFK RWKHUfV GHYHORSPHQWDOO\ DSSURSULDWH QHHGV VKH GLVFRYHUHG WKDW LPSRUWDQW FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV DUH DOVR EHLQJ FDUULHG RXW LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS $ VHFRQG LPSRUWDQW DVSHFW RI .UDPfV PRGHO LV WKDW LW WDNHV LQWR DFFRXQW WKH EHQHILWV WKDW DFFUXH WR WKH PHQWRU DV ZHOO DV WR WKH SURWJ DQG WKH EXVLQHVV RU LQVWLWXWLRQ )ROORZLQJ WKLV OHDG UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH EHQHILWV WKDW DFFUXH WR WKH PHQWRUV DV ZHOO HJ 5DJLQV t 6FDQGXUD :ULJKW t :ULJKW f &DUHHU DQG 3V\FKRVRFLDO )XQFWLRQV $V QRWHG SUHYLRXVO\ WKHUH LV VXEVWDQWLDO DJUHHPHQW DPRQJ DXWKRUV UHJDUGLQJ WKH EDVLF IXQFWLRQV RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS KRZHYHU WKLV ZDV QRW DOZD\V WKH FDVH ,Q KHU VHPLQDO UHVHDUFK RQ PHQWRULQJ .UDP f HYDOXDWHG WKH SUHYLRXV VFDWWHUHG UHVHDUFK DQG QRWHG PHDQLQJIXO FRQVLVWHQFLHV LQ WKH GDWD 6KH VXEVHTXHQWO\ HQJDJHG LQ D UHVHDUFK SURMHFW LQ RUGHU WR FODULI\ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DQG GHYHORSHG D PRGHO WKDW

PAGE 29

HODERUDWHV ERWK WKH SKDVHV LQ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DV ZHOO DV WKH PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV +HU PRGHO KDV SURYLGHG WKH IRXQGDWLRQ DQG LPSHWXV IRU D JUHDW GHDO RI UHVHDUFK RQ PHQWRULQJ .UDPfV f PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV ZHUH GHULYHG IURP D FRQWHQW DQDO\VLV RI LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK PHQWRUSURWJ G\DGV LQ D FRUSRUDWH VHWWLQJ 6KH LGHQWLILHG WZR EURDG FDWHJRULHV RI IXQFWLRQV FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV 6KH GHILQHG FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV DV WKRVH IXQFWLRQV WKDW FRQWULEXWH WR WKH SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH SURWJ DQG DGYDQFHPHQW LQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ 7KH\ LQFOXGH VSRQVRUVKLS WKH PHQWRU DFWLYHO\ DGYRFDWHV IRU RU SURPRWHV WKHLU SURWJ LQ WKH ILHOGf H[SRVXUHDQGYLVLELOLWY WKH PHQWRU SURYLGHV RU FUHDWHV RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU WKH SURWJ WR GHPRQVWUDWH KLV RU KHU FRPSHWHQFH LQ IURQW RI NH\ ILJXUHV LQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQf FRDFKLQJ WKH PHQWRU HQKDQFHV WKH SURWJfV NQRZOHGJH DQG XQGHUVWDQGLQJ DERXW KRZ WR QDYLJDWH HIIHFWLYHO\ WKH FXOWXUH DQG SROLWLFV LQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU ILHOGf SURWHFWLRQ WKH PHQWRU VKLHOGV WKH SURWJ IURP SRWHQWLDOO\ GDPDJLQJ HUURUV LQWHUDFWLRQV RU VLWXDWLRQVf DQG FKDOOHQJLQJ DVVLJQPHQWV WKH PHQWRU SURYLGHV PHDQLQJIXO RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU WKH SURWJ WR GHYHORS VNLOOV DQG FRPSHWHQFLHV DQG WR REWDLQ VXFFHVVHV LQ WKH SURIHVVLRQDO UROHf 7KH DELOLW\ WR SURYLGH FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV GHSHQGV RQ WKH PHQWRUfV H[SHULHQFH UDQN DQG VWDWXV RU LQIOXHQFH ,I WKH PHQWRU GRHV QRW H[FHO RQ WKHVH IDFWRUV WKHQ KLV RU KHU DELOLW\ WR HIIHFWLYHO\ SURYLGH WKH FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV LV LPSDLUHG &RQWUDULZLVH SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV DUH EDVHG RQ WKH LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH PHQWRU DQG WKH SURWJ DQG DUH SRVVLEOH RQO\ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI PXWXDO WUXVW DQG LQFUHDVLQJ LQWLPDF\ .UDP f GHILQHG WKHVH IXQFWLRQV DV fWKRVH DVSHFWV RI D

PAGE 30

UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW HQKDQFH DQ LQGLYLGXDOfV VHQVH RI FRPSHWHQFH LGHQWLW\ DQG HIIHFWLYHQHVV LQ WKH SURIHVVLRQDO UROHf S f 7KHVH IXQFWLRQV LQFOXGH DFFHSWDQFHDQGFRQILUPDWLRQ ERWK LQGLYLGXDOfV GHULYH D SRVLWLYH VHQVH RI VHOI SHUVRQDOO\ DQG SURIHVVLRQDOO\ IURP WKH SRVLWLYH UHJDUG RI WKH RWKHUf FRXQVHOLQJ WKH DELOLW\ WR H[SORUH SHUVRQDO FRQFHUQV WKDW PD\ LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH LQGLYLGXDOfV SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RU IXQFWLRQLQJf IULHQGVKLS SRVLWLYH VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQV WKDW PDNH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS HQMR\DEOHf DQG UROH PRGHOLQJ WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI SRVLWLYH DWWLWXGHV YDOXHV DQG EHKDYLRUV E\ WKH PHQWRU WKDW WKH SURWJ LGHQWLILHV ZLWK DQG LQWHUQDOL]HV DQG WKDW SHUWDLQ WR DOO DUHDV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS UDQJLQJ IURP PRGHOLQJ VNLOOV WR HQFXOWXUDWLRQ LQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ RU GHSDUWPHQWf $OWKRXJK .UDPfV f PRGHO LV VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH &KDR *LOEHUW t 5RVVPDQ -RKQVRQ 5DJLQV t &RWWRQ f LW LV QRW WKH RQO\ PRGHO DYDLODEOH QRU DUH KHU QLQH IXQFWLRQV WKH RQO\ RQHV QRWHG )RU H[DPSOH 6FDQGXUD f GHYHORSHG D PRGHO WKDW FRQVLVWV RI WKH IROORZLQJ WKUHH FDWHJRULHV YRFDWLRQDO VRFLDO VXSSRUW DQG UROH PRGHOLQJ 7KH YRFDWLRQDO FDWHJRU\ FRUUHODWHV ZLWK .UDPfV FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV ZKHUHDV WKH VRFLDO VXSSRUW DQG UROH PRGHOLQJ FDWHJRULHV WRJHWKHU DUH VLPLODU WR .UDPfV SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV 6XEVHTXHQW IDFWRU DQDO\VHV RI GDWD E\ 1RH f DQG 6FKRFNHWW t +DULQJ+LGRUH f KRZHYHU FRQILUPHG D WZRIDFWRU VWUXFWXUH Df FDUHHU 1RH f RU YRFDWLRQDO 6FKRFNHWW t +DULQJ+LGRUH f IXQFWLRQV DQG Ef SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV 2OLDQ &DUUROO *LDQQDQWRQLD DQG )HUHQ DV FLWHG LQ -DFREL f FRQFOXGH WKDW SURWJV fVHH WZR SULPDU\ GLPHQVLRQV WR WKH EHQHILWV REWDLQHG IURP WKH UHODWLRQVKLS MRE DQG FDUHHU EHQHILWV WKURXJK LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG H[WHUQDO EURNHULQJ SURYLGHG

PAGE 31

E\ WKH PHQWRU DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO EHQHILWV IURP WKH HPRWLRQDO VXSSRUW DQG IULHQGVKLS REWDLQHG ZLWKLQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSf S f $GGLWLRQDO )XQFWLRQV 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH SURSRVHG D QXPEHU RI DGGLWLRQDO IXQFWLRQV -DFREL f LQ KLV UHYLHZ RI HLJKW WKHRULVWV UHIHUUHG WR LPSRUWDQW IXQFWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ .UDPfVf WKDW KDYH EHHQ VXJJHVWHG DGGLQJ IRU H[DPSOHf DGYLFH FODULILFDWLRQ VRFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG WUDLQLQJ &DPHURQ DQG %ODFNEXUQ f DGGHG WKDW PHQWRUV DUH RIWHQ H[SHFWHG WR SURYLGH ILQDQFLDO VXSSRUW MRE SODFHPHQW VXSSRUW SXEOLFDWLRQ VXSSRUW UHVHDUFK FROODERUDWLRQ DQG PRUH 0RUH LQIRUPDOO\ WKLV UHVHDUFKHUfV PLQXWH SHUXVDO RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RI MRXUQDO DUWLFOHV UHYHDOHG GLVWLQFW WHUPV GHVFULELQJ WKH IXQFWLRQV RU UROHV W\SLFDOO\ DVFULEHG WR WKH PHQWRU LQ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS 3ROORFN f LGHQWLILHG WHUPV UHIHUULQJ WR PHQWRUVf EHKDYLRU LQ KHU UHVHDUFK 2QH ZRQGHUV LI WUXH PHQWRUV DUH KXPDQ LI WKH\ H[LVW DW DOOf JLYHQ WKH SOHWKRUD RI LQVSLULQJ UROHV WKH\ PXVW IXOILOO ,W LV DOVR LPSRUWDQW WR QRWH WKHQ WKDW QRW DOO PHQWRUV DUH H[SHFWHG WR IXOILOO DOO UROHV RU IXQFWLRQV /HYLQVRQ f ZURWH 0HQWRULQJ LV GHILQHG QRW LQ WHUPV RI WKH IRUPDO UROHV EXW LQ WHUPV RI WKH FKDUDFWHU RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DQG WKH IXQFWLRQV WKDW LW VHUYHV $ VWXGHQW PD\ UHFHLYH YHU\ OLWWOH PHQWRULQJ IURP KLV WHDFKHUDGYLVRU DQG YHU\ LPSRUWDQW PHQWRULQJ IURP DQ ROGHU IULHQG RU UHODWLYH :H KDYH WR H[DPLQH D UHODWLRQVKLS FORVHO\ WR GLVFRYHU WKH DPRXQW DQG NLQG RI PHQWRULQJ LW SURYLGHV S f 7KH QHHGV RI WKH SURWJ DUH RIWHQ GLYHUVH DQG PDQ\ RI WKHP DUH XQLTXH WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO /LNHZLVH WKH FDSDFLWLHV RI PHQWRUV YDU\ IURP PHQWRU WR PHQWRU 3URWJV DQG PHQWRUV VHHN HDFK RWKHU EDVHG ODUJHO\ RQ FRPPRQ LQWHUHVWV DV ZHOO DV RQ ZKHWKHU WKH RWKHU KDV WKH VNLOOV DQG UHVRXUFHV WR PHHW WKH LQGLYLGXDO SURWJfV RU PHQWRUfV SDUWLFXODU

PAGE 32

VHW RI QHHGV .UDP /HYLQVRQ /RYLWWV 6ZHUGOLN t %DUGRQ =XFNHUPDQ f 7KH ODUJH QXPEHUV RI UROHV DQG IXQFWLRQV SURSRVHG UHIOHFWV WKLV GLYHUVLW\ DQG FRPSOH[LW\ $ FRPPHQW QHHGV WR EH PDGH RQ WKH FRQFHSW RI PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV WKDW LV UHOHYDQW WR WKLV SURMHFW $OWKRXJK LQ VLJQLILFDQW DJUHHPHQW UHJDUGLQJ WKH JHQHUDO IXQFWLRQV WKDW D PHQWRU IXOILOOV DQG WKH IDFWRUV XVHG WR GHVFULEH WKHP UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH EHHQ HVVHQWLDOO\ VLOHQW RQ MXVW ZKDW D IXQFWLRQ DFFRPSOLVKHV 7KH\ KDYH GHULYHG OLVWV RI IXQFWLRQV DQG EHKDYLRUV EXW KDYH QRW FODULILHG ZK\ IRU H[DPSOH D JRRG PHQWRUfV WHDFKLQJ LV GLIIHUHQW IURP WKDW RI DQ\ RWKHU WHDFKHU 2U DJDLQ WR VD\ WKDW D PHQWRU fSURYLGHV VXSSRUWf LV WR VD\ ZKDW" 7R LVRODWH WHUPV UHJDUGLQJ PHQWRU EHKDYLRUV RU IXQFWLRQV GRHV QRW DGHTXDWHO\ FODULI\ ZKDW PDNHV PHQWRULQJ XQLTXH VSHFLDO RU ZRUWK\ RI LQWHUHVW LQ LWVHOI 7KH FXUUHQW SURMHFW ZDV XQGHUWDNHQ ZLWK WKLV ODFN RI FOHDU GLVWLQFWLRQ LQ PLQG 3KDVHV RI WKH 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS 7R FODLP WKDW UHODWLRQVKLSV FKDQJH LV WR VWDWH WKH REYLRXV DQG WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV QR H[FHSWLRQ WR WKLV SKHQRPHQRQ ,Q WKH FRQWH[W RI KLV ZRUN RQ DGXOW PDOH GHYHORSPHQW /HYLQVRQ f QRWHG WKH FKDQJHV RYHU WLPH LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ D \RXQJ PDQ DQG KLV PHQWRU ,Q WKH XVXDO FRXUVH D \RXQJ PDQ LQLWLDOO\ H[SHULHQFHV KLPVHOI DV D QRYLFH RU DSSUHQWLFH WR D PRUH DGYDQFHG H[SHUW DQG DXWKRULWDWLYH DGXOW $V WKH UHODWLRQVKLS HYROYHV KH JDLQV D IXOOHU VHQVH RI KLV RZQ DXWKRULW\ DQG KLV FDSDELOLW\ IRU DXWRQRPRXV UHVSRQVLEOH DFWLRQ 7KH EDODQFH RI JLYLQJUHFHLYLQJ EHFRPHV PRUH HTXDO 7KH \RXQJHU PDQ LQFUHDVLQJO\ KDV WKH H[SHULHQFH RI f, DPf DV DQ DGXOW DQG WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLS EHFRPHV PRUH PXWXDO 7KLV VKLIW VHUYHV D FUXFLDO GHYHORSPHQWDO IXQFWLRQ IRU WKH \RXQJ PDQ LW LV SDUW RI WKH SURFHVV E\ ZKLFK KH WUDQVFHQGV WKH IDWKHUVRQ PDQER\ GLYLVLRQ RI KLV FKLOGKRRG $OWKRXJK KH LV RIILFLDOO\ GHILQHG DV

PAGE 33

DQ DGXOW DW RU DQG GHVSHUDWHO\ ZDQWV WR EH RQH LW WDNHV PDQ\ \HDUV WR RYHUFRPH WKH VHQVH RI EHLQJ D VRQ RU D ER\ LQ UHODWLRQ WR fUHDOf DGXOWV SS f ,Q WKH DERYH TXRWH /HYLQVRQ f ZDV UHIHUULQJ WR WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO GHYHORSPHQW DQG WUDQVLWLRQV RI WKH PDOH DGROHVFHQW IURP HDUO\ WR PLGGOH DGXOWKRRG ZLWK WKH KHOS RI D PHQWRU 6XEVWLWXWLQJ WKH WHUPV f\RXQJ ZRPDQf fHPSOR\HHf RU fJUDGXDWH VWXGHQWf LQ SODFH RI f\RXQJ PDQf GRHV QRW DOWHU WKH LQVLJKW ,Q D UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK D WHDFKHU DGYLVRU VSRQVRU LH D PHQWRUf WKH SURWJ ZLOO SURJUHVV IURP QRW RQO\ EHLQJ D QRYLFH EXW DOVR IURP IHHOLQJ OLNH D QRYLFH $ FRUROODU\ WR WKLV SV\FKRORJLFDO GHYHORSPHQW LV DQ LQFUHDVHG FDSDFLW\ WR DSSUHKHQG DQG EHQHILW IURP LQFUHDVLQJO\ LPSRUWDQW FRPSOH[ DQG VXEWOH DVSHFWV RI WKH WDVN DW KDQG ZKHWKHU LQ OLIH ZRUN RU HGXFDWLRQ 5HVHDUFKHUV DQG WKHRULVWV DUH QRW NQRZQ IRU WKHLU SURSHQVLW\ WR SDVV XS WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR UHGXFH FRPSOH[ SKHQRPHQD WR D VHW RI VXSHURUGLQDWH FRQVWUXFWV (ULNVRQfV f SV\FKRVRFLDO VWDJHV .RKOEHUJfV f VWDJHV RI PRUDO GHYHORSPHQW 3LDJHWfV VWDJHV RI FRJQLWLYH GHYHORSPHQW :DGVZRUWK f +HOPfV f UDFLDO LGHQWLW\ VWDWXVHV DUH H[DPSOHV 6LPLODUO\ PHQWRULQJ OLNH WKHVH RWKHU LPSRUWDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV KDV D GHYHORSPHQWDO FRXUVH WKDW UHVHDUFKHUV DQG WKHRULVWV KDYH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ SKDVHV 7KH WKUHH SUHGRPLQDQW PRGHOV WKDW KDYH UHFHLYHG DWWHQWLRQ LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH KDYH EHHQ SURSRVHG E\ 3KLOOLSV f 0LVVLULDQ f DQG .UDP f $V GLVFXVVHG E\ 3ROORFN f LVRODWLQJ SKDVHV LQ UHODWLRQVKLSV UHTXLUHV ERWK GHVFULSWLRQV RI WKH IHDWXUHV RI LQWHUHVW DV ZHOO DV WKH DELOLW\ WR SODFH WKHVH IHDWXUHV LQ D WHPSRUDO IUDPH WR GHWHUPLQH LI SDWWHUQV WKDW PLJKW UHSUHVHQW VWDJHV RU SKDVHV HPHUJH $OO WKUHH PRGHOV PHHW WKHVH FULWHULD

PAGE 34

3KLOLSVf )LYH 3KDVH 0RGHO ,Q GHYHORSLQJ KHU PRGHO 3KLOOLSV f LQWHUYLHZHG VXFFHVVIXO ZRPHQ SURWJHV PDQ\ RI ZKRP KDG DOVR EHHQ PHQWRUV 3KLOOLSV LGHQWLILHG WKH IROORZLQJ ILYH SKDVHV WKDW FRPSULVH WKH FRXUVH RI D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS Df LQLWLDWLRQ Ef PXWXDO DGPLUDWLRQ Ff GHYHORSPHQW Gf GLVLOOXVLRQPHQW DQG Hf SDUWLQJ DQG WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ ,QLWLDWLRQ UHIHUV WR WKH WLPH DW WKH YHU\ RQVHW RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ ZKLFK WKH PHQWRU DQG SURWJ DUH MXVW PHHWLQJ DQG DJUHHLQJ WR ZRUN WRJHWKHU 0XWXDO DGPLUDWLRQ DOVR UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH fVSDUNOHf SKDVH 0LVVLULDQ f UHIHUV WR WKH IDQWDVLHV WKDW HDFK SDUW\ KDV UHJDUGLQJ WKH RWKHU LQ WHUPV RI KLV RU KHU WDOHQWV DQG SRWHQWLDO 'HYHORSPHQW LV D ORQJHU WZRSDUW SKDVH 0XFK RI WKH ZRUN HDUO\ LQ WKLV VWDJH LV RQHZD\ LH IURP WKH PHQWRU WR WKH SURWJf DV WKH PHQWRU VWUXFWXUHV DQG fNLFNVWDUWVf WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EXLOGLQJ WKH SURWJfV FRQILGHQFH DQG SURIHVVLRQDO FRPSHWHQFH /DWHU SDUWV RI WKLV VWDJH DUH PRUH UHFLSURFDO ZLWK WKH SURWJ EHJLQQLQJ WR HQJDJH ZLWK WKH PHQWRU 3KLOOLSV f 'LVLOOXVLRQPHQW LV D SKDVH LQ ZKLFK WKH SROLVK LV RII WKH PHQWRU DQG WKH SURWJ EHJLQV WR EHFRPH PRUH DXWRQRPRXV DQG LQGHSHQGHQW LQ KLV RU KHU IXQFWLRQLQJ $OWKRXJK WKH PHQWRU FRQWLQXHV WR PHHW WKH SURWJfV QHHGV WKH XUJHQF\ DQG OHYHO RI GRLQJ VR GHFUHDVHV DQG WKH SURWJ EHJLQV WR VHSDUDWH IURP WKH PHQWRU 7KH ILQDO VWDJH RI SDUWLQJ DQG WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ D GHFUHDVH LQ LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH PHQWRU DQG SURWJ 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS LV WUDQVIRUPHG IURP D PHQWRUSURWJ UHODWLRQVKLS WR D VHQLRU MXQLRU FROOHDJXH RU SHHU UHODWLRQVKLS 3KLOOLSV f ,Q GHYHORSLQJ RQH RI WKH ILUVW PRGHOV KHU ZRUN ZDV EDVHG RQ KHU RULJLQDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ SURMHFWf 3KLOOLSVf PRGHO HVWDEOLVKHG D IUDPHZRUN WKDW VXEVHTXHQW UHVHDUFK KDV WHQGHG WR VXSSRUW

PAGE 35

0LVVLULDQfV 7KUHH3KDVH 0RGHO 0LVVLULDQ f GHYHORSHG DQRWKHU PRGHO RI WKH VWDJHV RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS EDVHG RQ LQWHUYLHZV RI IHPDOH FRUSRUDWH H[HFXWLYHV 0LVVLULDQ LGHQWLILHG WKH IROORZLQJ WKUHH SKDVHV LQ WKH FRXUVH RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS Df LQLWLDWLRQ Ef GHYHORSPHQW DQG Ff WHUPLQDWLRQ ,Q WKLV PRGHO LQLWLDWLRQ LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ KLJK H[SHFWDWLRQV RQ WKH PHQWRUfV SDUW DV KH RU VKH UHFRJQL]HV WKH SURWJfV WDOHQWV DQG SRWHQWLDO 7KH PHQWRU SURYLGHV VLJQLILFDQW FKDOOHQJHV DQG RSSRUWXQLWLHV DV LI WHVWLQJ WKH SURWJ HYHQ ZKLOH SURYLGLQJ WKH VXSSRUW UHVSHFW DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH SURWJ WR VXFFHHG 7KH GHYHORSPHQW SKDVH DOVR UHIHUUHG WR DV fWRWDO FRPPLWPHQWf LV RQH LQ ZKLFK WKH PHQWRU SURYLGHV D IXOO UDQJH RI WUDLQLQJ VXSSRUW PRGHOLQJ FKDOOHQJH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ FRDFKLQJ DQG RWKHU IXQFWLRQV 7KH SURWJ LV OHDUQLQJ WKH WULFNV RI WKH WUDGH DQG EHLQJ VRFLDOL]HG LQWR WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ DFTXLULQJ WKH LQVLGH NQRZOHGJH DQG VNLOOV QHFHVVDU\ WR FRQWLQXH WR PRYH XS WKH ODGGHU LQ VNLOO SRVLWLRQ DQG VWDWXV 7KH SURWJ LV OLNHZLVH WRWDOO\ FRPPLWWHG WR WKH WDVN DQG WR WKH PHQWRU DQG ERWK DUH EHFRPLQJ IXOO\ LQYHVWHG LQ WKHLU FDUHHU GHYHORSPHQW DQG SURIHVVLRQDO JURZWK 0HQWRU GHPDQGV DUH VHHQ DV RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQG FKDOOHQJHV DUH RYHUFRPH /DWHU LQ WKLV VWDJH WKH SURWJ EHJLQV WR IXQFWLRQ PRUH LQGHSHQGHQWO\ DQG FUHDWLYHO\ 0LVVLULDQ f 'XULQJ WKH WHUPLQDWLRQ SKDVH WKDW QDWXUDOO\ IROORZV WKH GHYHORSPHQW SKDVH WKH PHQWRU EHJLQV WR UHFRPPHQG WKH SURWJ IRU SURPRWLRQV DVVRFLDWHV PRUH DV D SHHU WKRXJK \HW VHQLRUf DQG EHJLQV WR VHSDUDWH DQG OHW JR WKH PHQWRUSURWJ UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH SURWJ EHFRPHV PRUH IXOO\ DZDUH RI KLV RU KHU RZQ VWUHQJWKV DQG VNLOOV DV ZHOO DV

PAGE 36

WKH OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKH PHQWRU DQG DOVR EHJLQV WR ORRN WRZDUGV WKH QH[W VWHS LQ FDUHHU RU SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW 0LVVLULDQ f .UDPfV )RXU3KDVH 0RGHO .UDP f QRWHG WKDW ERWK RI WKHVH PRGHOV 3KLOOLSV 0LVVLULDQ f DOWKRXJK HPSLULFDOO\ JURXQGHG LQ LQWHUYLHZV DUH OLPLWHG LQ WKDW WKH\ ZHUH GHULYHG IURP UHWURVSHFWLYH DFFRXQWV WDNHQ ODUJHO\ IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH SURWJV 3KLOOLSVf RU WKH PHQWRUV 0LVVLULDQf RQO\ DQG ZHUH EDVHG RQ LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK IHPDOH PDQDJHUV RQO\ 6KH DOVR QRWHG WKDW DOWKRXJK WKHVH VWXGLHV ZHUH YDOXDEOH WKH\ SURYLGHG QR GLUHFWLRQ LQ LVRODWLQJ IDFWRUV WKDW ZRXOG FDXVH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WR WUDQVLWLRQ IURP RQH SKDVH WR WKH QH[W .UDP f 7R DGGUHVV WKHVH GLIILFXOWLHV .UDP LQWHUYLHZHG SDLUV RI ROGHU DQG \RXQJHU PDQDJHUV ERWK PHQ DQG ZRPHQf ZKR ZHUH FXUUHQWO\ LQ D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS )XUWKHUPRUH WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH DW GLIIHUHQW DFWLYH VWDJHV REYLDWLQJ WKH QHHG IRU UHWURVSHFWLYH DFFRXQWLQJ .UDP f LGHQWLILHG WKH IROORZLQJ IRXU SKDVHV LQ WKH FRXUVH RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS Df LQLWLDWLRQ Ef FXOWLYDWLRQ Ff VHSDUDWLRQ DQG Gf UHGHILQLWLRQ ,QLWLDWLRQ LV GHILQHG DV D SHULRG RI WLPH XVXDOO\ PRQWKV WR \HDUf LQ ZKLFK WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ LQLWLDWHG DQG SURJUHVVHV IURP D PHUH LQWHUDFWLRQ WR DQ LPSRUWDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH WZR SDUWLHV 7KLV RFFXUV ZKHQ KRSHV IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHFRPH FRQFUHWH H[SHFWDWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH PHQWRU DQG SURWJ &XOWLYDWLRQ WR \HDUVf LV D SHULRG LQ ZKLFK WKH PD[LPXP UDQJH RI FDUHHU DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV DUH SURYLGHG %RWK WKH PHQWRU DQG WKH SURWJ FRQWLQXH WR EHQHILW IURP WKH DOOLDQFH DQG HPRWLRQDO ERQGV LQFUHDVH DV GR RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU PHDQLQJIXO LQWHUDFWLRQV

PAGE 37

7KH WKLUG SKDVH VHSDUDWLRQ PRQWKV WR \HDUVf UHSUHVHQWV VLJQLILFDQW HPRWLRQDO DQG VWUXFWXUDO FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW RFFXU ZKHQ WKH SURWJ ZDQWV WR EHFRPH PRUH DXWRQRPRXV DQG VHHNV OHVV JXLGDQFH IURP WKH PHQWRU 5HGHILQLWLRQ WKH ILQDO VWDJH RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS RFFXUV IRU DQ LQGHILQLWH WLPH IROORZLQJ WKH VHSDUDWLRQ SKDVH DQG LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ D FRPSOHWH WHUPLQDWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RU D UHFRQVWLWXWLRQ RI LW LQ D QHZ IRUPf§RIWHQ DV D SHHU .UDP f (PSLULFDO 9DOLGLW\ RI WKH 3KDVH 0RGHOV $OWKRXJK WKHVH FKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQV RI WKH SKDVHV RI PHQWRULQJ DUH ZHOO VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH ZRUN RI WKH JLYHQ DXWKRUV DQG DUH ZLGHO\ UHIHUUHG WR LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH YHU\ OLWWOH VXEVHTXHQW UHVHDUFK KDV EHHQ FRQGXFWHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKHLU HPSLULFDO YDOLGLW\ 2QO\ WZR DUWLFOHV &KDR 3ROORFN f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f WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK PRGHO ILW WKH GDWD PRVW DGHTXDWHO\

PAGE 38

,Q JHQHUDO 3ROORFN f IRXQG WKDW DOO RI WKH VHOHFWHG PHQWRU IXQFWLRQV ZHUH SURYLGHG DW DOO WLPHV GXULQJ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS :KLOH WKHUH ZDV VRPH LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV UHFHLYHG PRUH HQGRUVHPHQW ERWK HDUO\ DQG ODWH LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DQG WKDW DOO IXQFWLRQV ZHUH PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ H[SHULHQFHG LQ WKH PLGGOH WKDQ DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WKHUH ZHUH QR VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ DQ\ VWDJH EHWZHHQ IXQFWLRQV UHFHLYHG 7KH LPSOLFDWLRQ LV WKDW WKHUH DUH LQ IDFW QR SKDVHV LQ ZKLFK GLIIHUHQW IXQFWLRQV DUH HPSKDVL]HG RU SUHGRPLQDQW DV ZDV FRQFHSWXDOL]HG E\ WKH WKUHH PRGHOV .UDP 0LVVLULDQ 3KLOOLSV f 7KH YDOXH RI 3ROORFNfV f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fV LQVWUXFWLRQV WR WKH UHVSRQGHQWV UHTXLUHG WKHP WR VLWXDWH WKH UHFROOHFWHG EHKDYLRUV LQ RQH RI WKH WKUHH SUHGHWHUPLQHG WLPH IUDPHV LH HDUO\ PLGGOH ODWHf RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS :KLOH LW PD\ DOORZ IRU SKDVHV WR HPHUJHf§DVVXPLQJ WKHUH DUH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH IUHTXHQF\ RU RFFXUUHQFH RI WKH DYDLODEOH PHQWRU EHKDYLRUVf§WKLV SURFHGXUH IRUFHV D WKUHHSKDVH SDUDGLJP WKXV GHIHDWLQJ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI ILQGLQJ RU FRQILUPLQJ D IRXU RU ILYHVWDJH PRGHO HJ .UDP 3KLOOLSV f *LYHQ WKHVH PHWKRGRORJLFDO

PAGE 39

FRQFHUQV LW LV TXHVWLRQDEOH ZKHWKHU WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ FDQ EH PHDQLQJIXOO\ LQWHUSUHWHG DV DSSURSULDWH HYDOXDWLRQV WKHVH WKUHH PRGHOV DV LQWHQGHG 7KH VHFRQG SURMHFW DVVHVVLQJ PHQWRULQJ SKDVHV ZDV FDUULHG RXW E\ &KDR f ZKR HYDOXDWHG RQO\ .UDPfV f PRGHO &KDR XVHG GHVFULSWLRQV GHULYHG IURP .UDPfV PRGHO WR TXHU\ SURWJV DERXW WKHLU FXUUHQW SKDVH RI PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KLV LQYHVWLJDWRU WKHQ REWDLQHG GDWD UHJDUGLQJ PHQWRU SV\FKRVRFLDO DQG FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV DOVR GHULYHG IURP .UDP f DV ZHOO DV RWKHU IDFWRUV VXFK DV MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG LQFRPH WKHVH RWKHU GDWD ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG LQ VXEVHTXHQW VHFWLRQV RI WKLV UHYLHZf &KDR IRXQG WKDW SURWJV LQ WKH LQLWLDWLRQ SKDVH UHSRUWHG WKH ORZHVW OHYHOV RI PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV ERWK FDUHHU DQG SV\FKRVRFLDOf WKDQ LQ DQ\ RWKHU SKDVH 1R RWKHU VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG EHWZHHQ PHQWRULQJ SKDVHV DQG PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV $OWKRXJK SUHGLFWLRQV ZHUH VXSSRUWHG UHJDUGLQJ WKH LQLWLDWLRQ SKDVH DV D WLPH LQ ZKLFK WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LV VWLOO EHLQJ HVWDEOLVKHG QR RWKHU VXSSRUW IRU SKDVHV LQ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG XVLQJ PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV DV D GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHf &KDRfV f ILQGLQJV ZHUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKRVH RI 3ROORFN VHWWLQJ DVLGH IRU WKH PRPHQW TXHVWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ 3ROORFNfV PHWKRGRORJ\f DQG EULQJ LQWR TXHVWLRQ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH SKDVH PRGHOV DV WKH\ DUH SUHVHQWO\ FRQVWUXHG .UDP 0LVVLULDQ 3KLOOLSV f &RQFHUQV WKXV DULVH UHJDUGLQJ RWKHU DUHDV RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH RQ PHQWRULQJ VXEVHTXHQW WR WKHVH DPELJXLWLHV )RU H[DPSOH -RKQVRQ DQG +XZH f DVVHUWHG WKDW .UDPfV PRGHO KDV EHHQ HPSLULFDOO\ YDOLGDWHG FLWLQJ WKH 3ROORFN f DQG &KDR f UHVHDUFK DQG GHYRWH D FKDSWHU WR WKLV PRGHO $GGLWLRQDOO\ -RKQVRQ DQG +XZH SURYLGH QR

PAGE 40

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fV ZHOOFRQVWUXFWHG DQG HPSLULFDOO\ JURXQGHG IRXUSKDVH PRGHO KDV SURYLGHG \HDUV RI WKHRUHWLFDO VKRUWKDQG DQG LQWXLWLYH FODULW\ EXW KDV \HW WR ILQG GHILQLWLYH HPSLULFDO VXSSRUW )RUWXQDWHO\ DV QRWHG E\ &KDR f fWKH PD[LPXP OHYHO RI IXQFWLRQV SURYLGHG WR WKH SURWJ LV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ WHPSRUDO IOXFWXDWLRQV RI WKHVH IXQFWLRQV DV WKH PHQWRUVKLS HYROYHVf Sf 2XWFRPHV RI WKH 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS 2XWFRPHV DUH LQ D ZRUG WKH UHDVRQ IRU PHQWRULQJ 7KH EHQHILWV WKDW DFFUXH WR WKH PHQWRU RU WKH SURWJ RU WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ RU VRFLHW\f DUH ZKDW GULYH WKH LQWHUHVW LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ PHQWRULQJ DQG WU\LQJ WR LPSOHPHQW PHQWRULQJ SURJUDPV )RU H[DPSOH =XFNHUPDQ f UHSRUWHG VRPH IDVFLQDWLQJ VWDWLVWLFV RI WKH 1REHO /DXUHDWHV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV SULRU WR KDG 1REHO /DXUHDWH PHQWRUV 7HQ ODXUHDWHV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV KDYH PHQWRUHG 1REHO ZLQQHUV )RUW\RQH SHUFHQW RI DOO 1REHO ZLQQHUV RI DOO QDWLRQDOLWLHV IURP WR KDG DW OHDVW RQH ODXUHDWH PHQWRU
PAGE 41

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f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

PAGE 42

VHHPV VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ WKH OLWHUDWXUH GRHV QRW UHIOHFW VXFK DQ H[SORUDWLRQ 2QO\ RQH DUWLFOH ZDV IRXQG WKDW H[SORUHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VSHFLILF IXQFWLRQV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH LPSRUWDQW DQG WKH RXWFRPHV WKDW PD\ UHDVRQDEO\ EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKRVH IXQFWLRQV &DPHURQ DQG %ODFNEXUQfV f VWXG\ RI VSRQVRUVKLS H[SORUHG VSHFLILF PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK FRQFUHWH RXWFRPHV ,Q VXUYH\V DQG LQWHUYLHZV RI DFWLYH GRFWRUDOOHYHO IDFXOW\ LQ VRFLRORJ\ SV\FKRORJ\ DQG (QJOLVK GHSDUWPHQWV DW QLQH XQLYHUVLWLHV WKHVH LQYHVWLJDWRUV DVNHG ZKHWKHU VSRQVRUVKLS DV GHILQHG E\ VXFK IXQFWLRQV DV ILQDQFLDO VXSSRUW SXEOLFDWLRQ VXSSRUW DVVLVWDQFH RQ ILUVW MRE SODFHPHQW DQG FROODERUDWLRQ RQ UHVHDUFK SURMHFWV UHFHLYHG ZKLOH D JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWf ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ODWHU UDWH RI SXEOLFDWLRQ JUDQWV UHFHLYHG UDWH RI FROODERUDWLRQ DQG VLJQLILFDQW LQYROYHPHQW LQ SURIHVVLRQDO DVVRFLDWLRQV )LQGLQJV SURYLGHG VRPH VXSSRUW IRU DVVRFLDWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH DVVLVWDQFH UHFHLYHG DV D JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW LQ WKHVH DUHDV DQG WKH GHVFULEHG RXWFRPHV $OWKRXJK WKH ILQGLQJV RI &DPHURQ DQG %ODFNEXUQfV f VWXG\ SURYLGHG LPSRUWDQW WKRXJK OLPLWHGf HPSLULFDO VXSSRUW IRU WKH YDOXH RI FHUWDLQ VSHFLILF IXQFWLRQV LQ WKH ORQJWHUPV RXWFRPHV IRU GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWV WKHUH DUH WZR GLIILFXOWLHV )LUVW ZKLOH WKLV SURMHFW H[SORUHG D IXQFWLRQRXWFRPH UHODWLRQVKLS WKH IXQFWLRQ VSRQVRUVKLSf ZDV LWVHOI EURNHQ GRZQ LQWR D QXPEHU RI VPDOOHU IXQFWLRQV 7KLV DSSURDFK GLOXWHV WKH FODULW\ RI WKH ILQGLQJV ZKLFK LV D GLIILFXOW\ UHSRUWHG E\ WKH DXWKRUV ZKHQ WKH\ QRWHG WKDW WKH LQGHSHQGHQW SUHGLFDWLYH SRZHU RI WKH YDULDEOHV IXQFWLRQVf ZDV UHGXFHG ZKHQ PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQV DQDO\VHV ZHUH FDUULHG RXW 6HFRQG WKHUH LV QR PHQWLRQ LQ WKH DUWLFOH LI WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH RU ZHUH FRQVWUXHG DVf PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV DV RSSRVHG WR UHVHDUFK

PAGE 43

DVVLVWDQWVKLSV RU VRPHWKLQJ HOVHf DQG WKXV WKH DSSOLFDELOLW\ WR PHQWRULQJ LV DW EHVW LQIHUUHG 6HOI(IILFDF\ 3URGXFWLYLW\ DQG 6XFFHVV LQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO :LWK WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG OLPLWDWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ VSHFLILFLW\ LQ WKH IXQFWLRQRXWFRPH UHVHDUFK LQ PLQG WKH UHVHDUFK H[SORULQJ RXWFRPHV LQ UHODWLRQ WR PHQWRULQJ LV LQ JHQHUDO SUHGRPLQDQWO\ VXSSRUWLYH +ROOLQJVZRUWK DQG )DVVLQJHU f H[SORUHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PHQWRULQJ DQG VWXGHQWVf UHVHDUFK VHOIHIILFDF\ DQG UHVHDUFK SURGXFWLYLW\ DPRQJ UG DQG WK\HDU GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWV LQ SV\FKRORJ\ 8VLQJ D TXHVWLRQQDLUH EDVHG RQ .UDPfV f FDUHHU DQG SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV +ROOLQJVZRUWK DQG )DVVLQJHU IRXQG WKDW ERWK UHVHDUFK VHOIHIILFDF\ DQG UHVHDUFK SURGXFWLYLW\ RI GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWV LQFUHDVHG DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH PHQWRULQJ WKH\ UHFHLYHG $ IXUWKHU H[DPSOH RI LQFUHDVHG SURGXFWLYLW\ ZDV SURYLGHG E\ D VWXG\ RI PHQWRUHG DQG QRQPHQWRUHG IHPDOH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV FRQGXFWHG E\ /H&OX\VH 7ROOHIVRQ DQG %RUJHUV f ZKR IRXQG WKDW PHQWRUHG VWXGHQWV HQJDJHG LQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH SURIHVVLRQDO DFWLYLWLHV WKDQ GLG QRQPHQWRUHG VWXGHQWV 3URIHVVLRQDO DFWLYLWLHV ZHUH GHILQHG DV SXEOLVKLQJ DQ DUWLFOH RU FKDSWHU DXWKRULQJ D JUDQW SUHVHQWLQJ D SDSHU FRQGXFWLQJ D ZRUNVKRS FRQGXFWLQJ UHVHDUFKMRLQLQJ D SURIHVVLRQDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ DWWHQGLQJ D QDWLRQDO FRQIHUHQFH RU ZRUNLQJ DV D JUDGXDWH DVVLVWDQW ,QWHUYLHZLQJ DQG VXUYH\LQJ DGPLQLVWUDWRUV GHSDUWPHQW FKDLUV IDFXOW\ DQG VWXGHQWV DFURVV WKH FRXQWU\ /RYLWWV f H[SORUHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH DGYLVRUVWXGHQW UHODWLRQVKLS LQ JUDGXDWH HGXFDWLRQ DV UHJDUGV FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH GRFWRUDO SURJUDP 7KLV UHVHDUFKHU GHILQHG DQ DGYLVRU DV fWKH SHUVRQ PRVW UHVSRQVLEOH IRU JXLGLQJ \RX WKURXJK

PAGE 44

\RXU JUDGXDWH ZRUNf S f D GHILQLWLRQ QRW GLVVLPLODU WR PDQ\ SURYLGHG E\ PHQWRULQJ UHVHDUFKHUV $OWKRXJK QRW IRFXVLQJ RQ UHVHDUFKHU PHQWRULQJ SHU VH /RYLWWV XQFRYHUHG D QXPEHU RI IDFWRUV UHODWHG WR D VWXGHQWfV GHFLVLRQ WR FRPSOHWH JUDGXDWH VFKRRO LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI KHU ZRUN RQ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ 6RPH RI WKH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRUV ZHUH VLPLODU RU LGHQWLFDO WR WKRVH LGHQWLILHG DV IXQFWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH PHQWRULQJ OLWHUDWXUH )RU H[DPSOH PHQWRUDGYLVRU IXQFWLRQV VXFK DV LQWHJUDWLRQVRFLDOL]DWLRQ LQWR WKH SURIHVVLRQDO FRPPXQLW\ DFDGHPLF LQWHUDFWLRQV FROODERUDWLRQ LQ UHVHDUFK SURMHFWV MRE VHDUFK DVVLVWDQFH UROH PRGHOLQJ DQG PDQ\ RWKHUV ZHUH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK D VWXGHQWfV GHFLVLRQ WR FRPSOHWH KLV RU KHU GRFWRUDO HGXFDWLRQ ZKLFK ZDV /RYLWWVf SULPDU\ GHSHQGHQW FULWHULRQf YDULDEOH /RYLWWV DOVR H[SORUHG RXWFRPH YDULDEOHV UHODWHG WR VWXGHQWVf DFWLYLWLHV ZKLOH VWLOO LQ WKH DFDGHP\ HJ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ SURIHVVLRQDO DQG GHSDUWPHQWDO DFWLYLWLHVf DJDLQ QRWLQJ WKH SRVLWLYH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKHVH DFWLYLWLHV DQG VWXGHQWVf VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKHLU DGYLVRUV -RE 6DWLVIDFWLRQ 3URPRWLRQ DQG ,QFRPH /HYHO 7KH EHQHILWV RI PHQWRULQJ LQ DFDGHPLD H[WHQG EH\RQG WKH DFDGHPLF VHWWLQJ &KDR f H[SORUHG WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ RXWFRPHV EHWZHHQ PHQWRUHG DQG QRQPHQWRUHG HPSOR\HG JUDGXDWHV RI D FROOHJH RI HQJLQHHULQJ 7KH FULWHULRQ YDULDEOHV ZHUH MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ FDUHHU RXWFRPHV RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VRFLDOL]DWLRQ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK SURWJV EHOLHYHG WKH\ KDG EHHQ ZHOO VRFLDOL]HG LQWR WKHLU SURIHVVLRQDO UROHVf DQG LQFRPH 5HVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW SURWJV JDUQHUHG VLJQLILFDQW RXWFRPH EHQHILWV DV FRPSDUHG WR WKHLU QRQ PHQWRUHG SHHUV 7KHVH ILQGLQJV ZHUH DOVR VXSSRUWHG LQ D VLPLODU VWXG\ E\ 'UHKHU DQG $VK f 7KH\ VXUYH\HG JUDGXDWHV RI WZR EXVLQHVV VFKRROV DQG IRXQG VLJQLILFDQW

PAGE 45

SRVLWLYH FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH TXDQWLW\ RI PHQWRULQJ UHFHLYHG DQG UDWHV RI SURPRWLRQ LQFRPH OHYHOV DQG VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK SD\ DQG EHQHILWV ,Q DQRWKHU VWXG\ &KDR HW DO f VXUYH\HG DOXPQL IURP WZR DFDGHPLF LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG IRXQG VLPLODU RXWFRPHV UHODWHG WR MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO VRFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG VDODU\ DPRQJ PHQWRUHG SURWJV DQG QRQPHQWRUHG SHUVRQV 2Q DOO RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV PHQWRUHG LQGLYLGXDOV UHSRUWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ EHWWHU RXWFRPHV WKDQ GLG QRQPHQWRUHG LQGLYLGXDOV 5DJLQV DQG &RWWRQ f DOVR H[DPLQHG GLIIHUHQFHV LQ RXWFRPHV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI ZKHWKHU RU QRW DQ LQGLYLGXDO UHFHLYHG PHQWRULQJ 7KHLU VXUYH\ RI HPSOR\HHV LQ HQJLQHHULQJ VRFLDO ZRUN DQG MRXUQDOLVP PHQWRUHG LQ WKH ZRUN SODFH DQG ZLWKRXW PHQWRULQJ H[SHULHQFH DW ZRUNf UHYHDOHG WKDW PHQWRUHG LQGLYLGXDOV UHFHLYHG JUHDWHU FRPSHQVDWLRQ DQG PRUH SURPRWLRQV WKDQ GLG QRQPHQWRUHG LQGLYLGXDOV %XLOGLQJ RQ WKH WKHPH RI EHWWHU RXWFRPHV IRU SURWJV )DJHQVRQ f H[SORUHG HPSOR\HHVf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

PAGE 46

SHUFHLYHG SRZHU ZDV DOVR DFWXDO VKH KHOG WKDW WKH EHQHILWV FRXOG EH VXEVXPHG XQGHU .UDPfV f SURSRVHG FDUHHU IXQFWLRQV ,PSDFW RI 3URWJ &KDUDFWHULVWLFV /HVW RQH WKLQN WKDW RQO\ JRRG WKLQJV FDQ EH VDLG DERXW PHQWRULQJ KRZHYHU WKHUH LV D TXDOLILHU ZRUWK QRWLQJ 5HVHDUFK VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI SURWJV EHIRUH WKH\ HQWHU LQWR D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS PD\ DFFRXQW IRU VRPH RXWFRPHV WKDW KDYH EHHQ DWWULEXWHG WR PHQWRULQJ DQG LQGHHG IDFLOLWDWH HQWHULQJ LQWR VXFK D UHODWLRQVKLS LQ WKH ILUVW SODFH $ QXPEHU RI DXWKRUV KDYH QRWHG WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW WKH VWXGHQWfV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ EH D PRUH SRZHUIXO SUHGLFWRU RI VDWLVIDFWLRQ RU RXWFRPHV WKDQ ZKDW DFWXDOO\ RFFXUV ZLWKLQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS -DFREL -RKQVRQ t +XZH =XFNHUPDQ f +RZHYHU RWKHU LQYHVWLJDWRUV HJ /RYLWWV f DUH DGDPDQW LQ WKHLU EHOLHI WKDW fLW LV QRW WKH EDFNJURXQG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI VWXGHQWV LWfV ZKDW KDSSHQV WR WKHP DIWHU WKH\ DUULYHf S f WKDW GHWHUPLQHV PDQ\ RI WKH RXWFRPHV RI LQWHUHVW ,I SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH LQGHHG D FULWLFDO IDFWRU LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ ZKR UHFHLYHV PHQWRULQJ KRZHYHU WKHQ PXFK RI WKH PHQWRULQJ RXWFRPH OLWHUDWXUH LV EURXJKW LQWR TXHVWLRQ DV IHZ UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH DWWHPSWHG WR FRQWURO IRU SURWJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQ WKHLU VWXG\ GHVLJQV 7XUEDQ DQG 'RXJKHUW\ f H[DPLQHG WKH SRWHQWLDO LPSDFW RI SURWJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RQ PHQWRULQJ UHFHSWLYLW\ DQG FDUHHU RXWFRPHV ,Q WKHLU VXUYH\ RI JUDGXDWHV IURP D PLGZHVWHP XQLYHUVLW\ WKHVH UHVHDUFKHUV GLVFRYHUHG WKDW FHUWDLQ SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ORFXV RI FRQWURO VHOIPRQLWRULQJ HPRWLRQDO VWDELOLW\f SUHGLFWHG ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKH VWXGHQW ZRXOG LQLWLDWH D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK D IDFXOW\ PHPEHU 6XEVHTXHQW DQDO\VHV VXSSRUWHG DGGLWLRQDO K\SRWKHVHV WKDW LQLWLDWLQJ D PHQWRULQJ

PAGE 47

UHODWLRQVKLS UHVXOWHG LQ UHFHLYLQJ PRUH PHQWRULQJ DQG WKDW UHFHLYLQJ PRUH PHQWRULQJ ZDV UHODWHG WR ERWK FDUHHU DWWDLQPHQW DQG SHUFHLYHG FDUHHU VXFFHVV 7XUEDQ DQG 'RXJKHUW\ WKXV FRQFOXGHG WKDW SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQGLUHFWO\ LQIOXHQFH FDUHHU RXWFRPHV E\ PRGXODWLQJ PHQWRULQJ UHFHLYHG ,Q D VLPLODU YHLQ *UHHQ DQG %DXHU f IRXQG QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ RXWFRPHV LQ WHUPV RI SXEOLFDWLRQV RU VXEPLVVLRQV IRU SXEOLFDWLRQ DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH LQFRPLQJ SRWHQWLDO RI D GRFWRUDO VWXGHQW VDPSOH ,Q WKLV ZHOOGHVLJQHG VWXG\ *UHHQ DQG %DXHU H[SORUHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ WKH DWWLWXGHV DELOLWLHV DQG FRPPLWPHQW RI VWXGHQWV DW HQWU\ LQWR WKH SURJUDP DQG WZR RXWFRPH IDFWRUV SURGXFWLYLW\ QXPEHU RI FRQYHQWLRQ SDSHUV MRXUQDO DUWLFOHV ERRN FKDSWHUV DQG JUDQWVFRQWUDFWV DFFHSWHGf DQG OHYHO RI PHQWRULQJ 6XSSRUW ZDV IRXQG IRU WKH K\SRWKHVHV WKDW JUHDWHU VWXGHQW DELOLWLHV DW HQWU\ ZRXOG SUHGLFW DQ LQFUHDVH LQ PHQWRULQJ UHFHLYHG )XUWKHUPRUH WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW LQFUHDVHG PHQWRULQJ SRVLWLYHO\ FRQWULEXWHG WR VWXGHQW SURGXFWLYLW\ RU FRPPLWPHQW WR UHVHDUFK FDUHHU ZDV QRW VXSSRUWHG DJDLQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU SDUWLFLSDQWVf LQFRPLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 7KHVH LQYHVWLJDWRUV FRQFOXGHG WKDW DGYLVRUV ORRN IRU LQFRPLQJ VWXGHQWV ZLWK KLJK SRWHQWLDO DQG FRPPLWPHQW DQG SURYLGH PRUH PHQWRULQJ IRU WKHP WKDQ IRU WKHLU OHVV FDSDEOH RU OHVV PRWLYDWHG SHHUV 7KLV DOVR UDLVHV D TXHVWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ WKH PRWLYDWLRQ RI PHQWRUV ZKR DUH XQDEOH WR ILQG WKH WLPH WR KHOS WKRVH VWXGHQWV ZKR PD\ QHHG LW PRVW 7KXV ZKLOH VRPH DXWKRUV DWWULEXWH VWXGHQWfV QRW UHFHLYLQJ PHQWRULQJ WR VWXGHQWVf RZQ SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV HJ -RKQVRQ DQG +XZH FLWH SRVVLEOH SURWJ QDUFLVVLVP DUURJDQFH LQDSSURSULDWH ERXQGDULHV RU SURFUDVWLQDWLRQf RWKHUV HJ /RYLWWV f EHOLHYH WKDW WKH PHQWRU EHLQJ ROGHU XVXDOO\f ZLVHU KRSHIXOO\f RI KLJKHU VWDWXV

PAGE 48

DQG SRZHU DQG EHLQJ LQ D SRVLWLRQ WR NQRZ WKH ODUJHU SLFWXUH LQKHULWV D JUHDWHU UHVSRQVLELOLW\ WR PDQDJH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ D SRVLWLYH ZD\ ,W VHHPV XQOLNHO\ WKDW WKH SUREOHPV DUH HLWKHU VLPSOH RU FDWHJRULFDO ,Q HLWKHU FDVH DOWKRXJK JUDGXDWH VFKRROV PXVW UHFUXLW KLJKO\ PRWLYDWHG DQG FRPSHWHQW VWXGHQWV RQFH D VWXGHQW LV UHFUXLWHG E\ WKH VFKRRO DQG DFFHSWHG E\ DQ DGYLVRU WKH VFKRRO DQG WKH DGYLVRU DVVXPH DQ REOLJDWLRQ WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH VWXGHQWfV GHYHORSPHQW &RXQFLO RI *UDGXDWH 6FKRROV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 8QLYHUVLW\ RI .DQVDV f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f§IRU WKH SURWJ RU WKH PHQWRU 5HVHDUFK VXJJHVWV WKDW D VLJQLILFDQW QXPEHU RI SURWJV KDYH KDG EDG H[SHULHQFHV LQ PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV (E\ 0DF0DQXV 6LPRQ t 5XVVHOO f $ QXPEHU RI DXWKRUV KDYH H[SORUHG WKLV LVVXH DQG KDYH GHVFULEHG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI G\VIXQFWLRQDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV -RKQVRQ t +XZH .UDP /RYLWWV 2f1HLO t :ULJKWVPDQ 6FDQGXUD :ULJKW t :ULJKW f

PAGE 49

1HJDWLYH %HKDYLRUV 2f1HLO DQG :ULJKWVPDQ f LGHQWLILHG D QXPEHU RI QHJDWLYH EHKDYLRUV LQ ZKLFK HLWKHU RU ERWK WKH PHQWRU DQG WKH SURWJ PD\ HQJDJH XVLQJ WKUHDWV EHLQJ RYHUO\ DXWKRULWDULDQ RU VXEPLVVLYH EHLQJ XQDYDLODEOH DFWLQJ VH[LVW UDFLVW FODVVLVW HWKQRFHQWULF RU KRPRSKRELF EHLQJ LQWHOOHFWXDOO\ ULJLG EHLQJ XQZLOOLQJ WR FRPSURPLVH HQFRXUDJLQJ GHSHQGHQFH DEXVLQJ FRQILGHQWLDO LQIRUPDWLRQ GHYDOXLQJ RWKHU VWXGHQWV RU IDFXOW\ SOD\LQJ RQHXSPDQVKLS DQGRU FRPSDULQJ RWKHU VWXGHQWV DQG IDFXOW\ 6FDQGXUD f LQ KLV W\SRORJ\ RI G\VIXQFWLRQDO EHKDYLRUV DGG WR WKLV OLVW VDERWDJH VSRLOLQJ GHFHSWLRQ DQG KDUDVVPHQW 6WUXFWXUDO 'HSDUWPHQW 6SHFLILF DQG 5HODWLRQDO 2EVWDFOHV -RKQVRQ DQG +XZH f GLYLGHG WKH PDMRU REVWDFOHV WR PHQWRULQJ LQWR WKH IROORZLQJ WKUHH FDWHJRULHV Df VWUXFWXUDO Ef GHSDUWPHQW VSHFLILF DQG Ff UHODWLRQDO 6WUXFWXUDO REVWDFOHV DUH SURGXFWV RI WKH V\VWHP LQ ZKLFK WKH\ DUH LPEHGGHG HJ JUDGXDWH VFKRROVf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f IDLOLQJ WR KLUH DQG NHHS PLQRULW\ RU ZRPHQ IDFXOW\ RU PDQDJHUV DQG IDLOLQJ WR

PAGE 50

FRQFUHWHO\ VXSSRUW PHQWRULQJ ZLWK UHGXFHG WHDFKLQJ RU SURGXFWLYLW\ UHTXLUHPHQWV RU E\ LQFOXGLQJ VXFFHVVIXO PHQWRULQJ LQ SURPRWLRQ GHFLVLRQV -RKQVRQ t +XZH f 7KH WKLUG FDWHJRU\ RI REVWDFOHV UHODWLRQDO SUREOHPV VWHP IURP WKH SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG EHKDYLRU SDWWHUQV RI D SDUWLFXODU IDFXOW\ PHQWRU PDQDJHU RU SURWJ RU WKH LQWHUDFWLRQV RI WUDLWV LQ WKH PHQWRU DQG WKH SURWJ 6FDQGXUD f IRU H[DPSOH GHYHORSHG D PRGHO IRU FRQFHSWXDOL]LQJ IDFWRUV FRQWULEXWLQJ WR SRVVLEOH RXWFRPHV RI G\VIXQFWLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KLV PRGHO LQFOXGHV ERWK SURWJ DQG PHQWRU FKDUDFWHULVWLFV HJ GHPRJUDSKLFV SHUVRQDOLW\f DV FRQWULEXWLQJ IDFWRUV DQG GHVFULEHV SRVVLEOH QHJDWLYH RXWFRPHV WR SURWJV HJ ORZ VHOIHVWHHP SRRU MRE RXWFRPHV VWUHVV OHDYLQJf DQG WR PHQWRUV HJ VWUHVV MHDORXV\ RYHUGHSHQGHQFH EHWUD\DOf $GGLWLRQDOO\ DV SUHYLRXVO\ QRWHG PHQWRUV WHQG WR VHOHFW DQG LQYHVW LQ WKRVH SURWJV ZKR DUH FRQVLGHUHG PRVW SURPLVLQJ DQG ZKRVH LQWHUHVWV DUH PRVW VLPLODU WR WKH PHQWRUfV LQWHUHVWV -RKQVRQ DQG +XZH f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fSULPDU\f DVVLJQPHQWV SHUKDSV VDFULILFLQJ WKH QHHGV RI WKH SURWJ LQ WKH SURFHVV 3URWJV ZKRVH H[SHFWDWLRQV DUH UXGHO\ GLVFRQILUPHG

PAGE 51

RU ZKRVH PHQWRUV DUH PRUH IRFXVHG RQ GHSDUWPHQWDO UHTXLUHPHQWV RI WHQXUH PD\ ILQG WKDW KDYLQJ D PHQWRU LV QRW ZRUWK WKH WURXEOH 2IWHQ SURWJV LQ WKLV VLWXDWLRQ ILQG WKHPVHOYHV JHWWLQJ WKHLU QHHGV PHW HOVHZKHUH DQG E\ RWKHU SHRSOH 5LVNV WR 0HQWRUV :ULJKW DQG :ULJKW f QRWHG WKDW WKH PHQWRU DOVR LV DW ULVN LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS 7DNLQJ RQ D FRPPLWPHQW WR D SURWJ LV KLJKO\ GHPDQGLQJ RI ERWK WLPH DQG HIIRUW DQG DOVR PD\ FRVW SROLWLFDO FDSLWDO LI WKH SURWJ IDLOV WR OLYH XS WR H[SHFWDWLRQV RU QHHGV H[FHVVLYH SURWHFWLRQ IURP WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI PLVWDNHV 2IWHQ HVSHFLDOO\ LQ WKH VR FDOOHG KDUG VFLHQFHV WKH PHQWRUfV ZRUN DQG UHSXWDWLRQ DUH RQ WKH OLQH ZKHQ D SURWJ LV JLYHQ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU VRPH FULWLFDO DVSHFW RI WKH PHQWRUfV UHVHDUFK $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH SURWJ FRXOG SURYH WR EH XQDEOH WR GHYHORS DSSURSULDWH DXWRQRP\ DQG EHFRPH XQDEOH WR FDUU\ RXW WDVNV ZLWKRXW FRQVWDQW VXSHUYLVLRQ RU fEDE\VLWWLQJf 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG WKH PHQWRU ZKR KRSHIXOO\ KDV LQYHVWHG KLP RU KHUVHOI SHUVRQDOO\ LQ WKH SURWJ PD\ EH UHMHFWHG E\ WKHP 5HVHDUFKHUV JHQHUDOO\ DJUHH WKDW SRWHQWLDO SUREOHPV DQG REVWDFOHV LQKHUHQW LQ PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV LQFOXGH SHUVRQDOLW\ DV ZHOO DV RUJDQL]DWLRQDO IDFWRUV 6RPH DXWKRUV HJ -RKQVRQ t +XZH :DOILVK t +HVV f KDYH H[SORUHG WKHVH SUREOHPV PRUH IXOO\ DQG SUHVHQWHG UHOHYDQW GLVFXVVLRQ UHJDUGLQJ KRZ WR QHJRWLDWH WKHVH LVVXHV LQ D PHQWRULQJ FRQWH[W ,QYDULDEO\ WKHVH DXWKRUV UHFRPPHQG DSSURDFKLQJ WKH VHOHFWLRQ SURFHVV DQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ DQ LQWHQWLRQDO DQG LQIRUPHG PDQQHU JLYHQ WKH HQRUPRXV WLPH HQHUJ\ ILQDQFLDO DQG HPRWLRQDO LQYHVWPHQW

PAGE 52

2WKHU )DFWRUV 7KDW $IIHFW WKH 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS ,QVRIDU DV PHQWRULQJ PD\ EH RQH RI WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV HYHU H[SHULHQFHG E\ VWXGHQWV ERWK SHUVRQDOO\ DQG SURIHVVLRQDOO\ *LOEHUW t 5RVVPDQ .UDP 7LQWR f XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH LPSDFW RI JHQGHU HWKQLFLW\ DQG RWKHU FXOWXUDO IDFWRUV RQ WKH PHQWRULQJ SURFHVVHV DQG RXWFRPHV DOVR KROGV VLJQLILFDQW LPSRUW %RJDW t 5HGQHU f 6LQFH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH RIWHQ EDVHG RQ SHUFHLYHG VLPLODULWLHV EHWZHHQ PHQWRU DQG SURWJ FXOWXUDO GLIIHUHQFHV PD\ LQKLELW WKHLU IRUPDWLRQ DQG IXQFWLRQLQJ $WNLQVRQ 1HYLOOH t &DVDV 5HGPRQG f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH ODFN RI VDPHJHQGHU VDPHHWKQLFLW\ RU RWKHU LGHQWLW\DIILUPLQJ UROH PRGHOV PD\ FUHDWH GLIILFXOWLHV LQ LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW DV WKH SURWJ VWULYHV WR LGHQWLI\ ZLWK RU LQWHUQDOL]H D PHQWRU ZKR KDV OLPLWHG LQVLJKW LQWR WKH SURWJfV FXOWXUH RU FRQFHUQV %UXVV t .RSDOD /HYLQVRQ f *HQGHU )DFWRUV 7KH LPSDFW RI JHQGHU RQ PHQWRULQJ KDV UHFHLYHG WKH JUHDWHVW DWWHQWLRQ DPRQJ UHVHDUFKHUV 7KH DOPRVW XELTXLWRXV LQFOXVLRQ RI JHQGHU DV D GHPRJUDSKLF YDULDEOH LQ UHVHDUFK KDV IDFLOLWDWHG WKLV H[SORUDWLRQ DQG SURYLGHV LPSRUWDQW LQIRUPDWLRQ *HQGHU HIIHFWV KDYH RIWHQ EHHQ DQDO\]HG DQG QRWHG HYHQ LQ VWXGLHV SULPDULO\ GHVLJQHG WR H[SORUH RWKHU IDFWRUV $QRWKHU IDFWRU WKDW PD\ LQIOXHQFH WKH UHODWLYH IUHTXHQF\ RI LQFOXGLQJ WKH JHQGHU YDULDEOH LV WKH QXPEHU RI ZRPHQ FRQGXFWLQJ UHVHDUFK RQ PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV ,Q IDFW PDQ\ RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQDO DQG RQJRLQJ UHVHDUFKHUV DUH ZRPHQ HJ &KDR )DJHQVRQ +LWH +ROOLQJVZRUWK t )DVVLQJHU -DFREL

PAGE 53

.UDP /RYLWWV 0LVVLULDQ 0XUUD\ 6FDQGXUD :LOGH t 6FKDX =XFNHUPDQ f :KDWHYHU WKH UHDVRQV IRU WKLV SURSRUWLRQ RI IHPDOH UHVHDUFKHUV WKH LQVLJKW WKH\ SURYLGH PD\ EH KHOSIXO LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH LVVXHV LQKHUHQW LQ WKH TXHVWLRQ 6RPH DUHDV RI FRQFHUQ UDLVHG E\ DXWKRUV LQFOXGH IDFWRUV WKDW SHUWDLQ WR QRQn PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV DV ZHOO )RU H[DPSOH LQ H[SORULQJ JHQGHU GLIIHUHQFHV LQ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK VLJQLILFDQW SRZHU GLIIHUHQWLDOV EHWZHHQ WKH LQGLYLGXDOV LQYROYHG 6FDQGXUD f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t .UDP .UDP f %RJDW DQG 5HGQHU f GLVFXVVHG UHVHUYDWLRQV RQ WKH SDUW RI VRPH IDFXOW\ WKDW ZRPHQ DUH DEOH WR FRPSOHWH JUDGXDWH VFKRRO DQG VRPH IDFXOW\ PHPEHUfV SHUFHSWLRQV WKDW ZRPHQ ZHUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR PDNH VLJQLILFDQW FRQWULEXWLRQV WR WKHLU ILHOGV WKDQ PHQ 0L[HGJHQGHU PHQWRULQJ G\DGV DOVR PXVW EH DZDUH QRW RQO\ RI WKHLU RZQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO EHKDYLRUV EXW DOVR RI SXEOLF SHUFHSWLRQV 5XPRUV PD\ GHYHORS EDVHG RQ REVHUYHG WRJHWKHUQHVV RU IULHQGVKLS EHKDYLRUV PLVFRQVWUXHG DV VH[XDO LQWLPDF\ :ULJKW t :ULJKW f 0DOH PHQWRUV HVSHFLDOO\ PD\ DFWXDOO\ PDLQWDLQ XQQHFHVVDU\ GLVWDQFH LQ DQ HIIRUW WR DGGUHVV RU SUHHPSW WKHVH NLQGV RI FRQFHUQV WKXV OLPLWLQJ WKH SURWJfV DFFHVV

PAGE 54

WR WKHP RU GHSULYLQJ WKH SURWJ RI LPSRUWDQW VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQV &ODZVRQ t .UDP f $V ZLWK DQ\ LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLS WKHQ PDQ\ IDFWRUV PD\ EH FDXVH IRU FRQFHUQ LQ FURVVJHQGHUHG UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KHVH GLIILFXOWLHV DUH RIWHQ H[DFHUEDWHG E\ WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI SHUVRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DV ZHOO DV VRFLDOFXOWXUDO SHUFHSWLRQV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV ,W LV WKXV LPSRUWDQW WKDW PHQWRUV DQG SURWJV UHFRJQL]H DQG PDLQWDLQ SURIHVVLRQDO ERXQGDULHVf§QHLWKHU WRR ULJLG QRU WRR SHUPHDEOHf§OHVW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EH QR ORQJHU D SRVLWLYH PHQWRULQJ H[SHULHQFH 5HJDUGLQJ VSHFLILF PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV DQG RXWFRPHV WKH HPSLULFDO UHVHDUFK LQWR WKH HIIHFWV RI JHQGHU RQ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV PRUH DPELYDOHQW ZLWK VRPH UHVHDUFKHUV ILQGLQJ QR HIIHFW DQG RWKHUV ILQGLQJ VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFWV 5DJLQV DQG &RWWRQfV f VWXG\ RI IHPDOH DQG PDOH SURWJV IRXQG WKDW WKH JHQGHU FRPSRVLWLRQ RI WKH PHQWRULQJ G\DG DIIHFWHG IXQFWLRQV DQG RXWFRPHV )RU H[DPSOH IHPDOHIHPDOH PHQWRUSURWJ SDLUV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR HQJDJH LQ DIWHUZRUN VRFLDO DFWLYLWLHV WKDQ ZHUH IHPDOH SURWJV ZLWK PDOH PHQWRUV 0DOH SURWJV ZLWK IHPDOH PHQWRUV ZHUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR UHSRUW KDYLQJ UHFHLYHG DFFHSWDQFH IXQFWLRQV IURP WKHLU PHQWRU WKDQ DQ\ RWKHU JHQGHU FRPELQDWLRQV DQG ERWK PDOH DQG IHPDOH SURWJV ZKR KDYH KDG PDOH PHQWRUV UHFHLYHG PRUH FRPSHQVDWLRQ WKDQ GLG WKRVH ZKR KDYH KDG IHPDOH PHQWRUV 7KLV FRXOG EH H[SODLQHG E\ &DPHURQ DQG %ODFNEXUQfV f ILQGLQJV WKDW SURWJV VSRQVRUHG E\ PHQ GHYHORSHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ODUJHU QHWZRUNLQJ DVVRFLDWLRQV WKDQ GLG ZRPHQ )XUWKHU FRPSOLFDWLQJ PDWWHUV ILQGLQJV FRQFHUQLQJ JHQGHU GLIIHUHQFHV RIWHQ DSSHDU WR GHSHQG RQ WKH RXWFRPHV PHDVXUHG %XUNH 0F.HHQ DQG 0F.HQQDfV f VWXG\ RI

PAGE 55

PDOH DQG IHPDOH PHQWRUV IRXQG WKDW IHPDOH PHQWRUV SURYLGHG ERWK PRUH FDUHHU DQG PRUH SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV WKDQ GLG PDOH PHQWRUV \HW WKHUH ZHUH QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI JHQGHU RI PHQWRU RU SURWJ ,Q D VXEVHTXHQW VWXG\ RI IHPDOH EXVLQHVV JUDGXDWHV %XUNH DQG 0F.HHQ f DJDLQ UHSRUWHG IHZ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ FDUHHU VDWLVIDFWLRQ MRE LQYROYHPHQW RU FDUHHU SURVSHFWV IRU IHPDOH SURWJV UHJDUGOHVV RI PHQWRUVf JHQGHU ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ DOWKRXJK ZRPHQ ZLWK IHPDOH PHQWRUV UHFHLYHG PRUH SV\FKRVRFLDO VXSSRUW WKDQ GLG ZRPHQ ZLWK PDOH PHQWRUV WKHVH ZRPHQ ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR UHSRUW WKHLU LQWHQWLRQV WR TXLW WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ 7KLV ILQGLQJ ZDV QRW H[SODLQHG E\ WKH DYDLODEOH GDWD $PRQJ VDPHVH[ DQG FURVVVH[ G\DGV LQ D VDPSOH RI IHPDOH SURWJV LQ EXVLQHVV *DVNLOO f IRXQG GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ PDOH DQG IHPDOH PHQWRUV LQ IXQFWLRQV SHUIRUPHG IHPDOH PHQWRUV SHUIRUPHG PRUH SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQVf UHODWLRQVKLS LQLWLDWLRQ PDOH PHQWRUV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR XQLODWHUDOO\ LQLWLDWH D UHODWLRQVKLS ZKHUHDV IHPDOH PHQWRUV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR PXWXDOO\ LQLWLDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSf DQG SURWJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 1R GLIIHUHQFHV KRZHYHU ZHUH IRXQG LQ PHQWRU FKDUDFWHULVWLFV EHQHILWV GHULYHG SUREOHPV UHSRUWHG GXUDWLRQ WHUPLQDWLRQ FDXVHV IHHOLQJV DERXW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RU UHSRUWHG YDOXH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KHVH ILQGLQJV VXSSRUW WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW ZRPHQ EHQHILW DV PXFK IURP PDOH PHQWRUV DV WKH\ GR IURP IHPDOH PHQWRUV 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG D QXPEHU RI UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH PRUH FRQVLVWHQWO\ IRXQG WKDW JHQGHU KDV QR LPSDFW RQ PHQWRULQJ LQLWLDWLRQ IXQFWLRQV RU RXWFRPHV :LOGH DQG 6FKDX f VXUYH\HG JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV b IHPDOHf DQG IRXQG QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SV\FKRORJLFDO DQG SURIHVVLRQDO PXWXDO VXSSRUW FRPSUHKHQVLYHQHVV SURWJ SURIHVVLRQDO

PAGE 56

GHYHORSPHQW DQG UHVHDUFK WRJHWKHU DV D IXQFWLRQ RI JHQGHU RI SURWJ PHQWRU RU FURVV JHQGHUHG G\DGV )XUWKHUPRUH )DJHQVRQ f IRXQG QR GLIIHUHQFHV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI JHQGHU EHWZHHQ PHQWRUHG DQG QRQPHQWRUHG SURWJV UHJDUGLQJ QHHG IRU SRZHU DXWRQRP\ DIILOLDWLRQ DFKLHYHPHQW RU SHUFHSWLRQV RI SRZHU LQ WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ 6XUYH\LQJ IHPDOH DQG PDOH H[HFXWLYHV 5DJLQV DQG 6FDQGXUD f H[SORUHG DQHFGRWDO UHSRUWV WKDW ZRPHQ ZHUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR PHQWRU WKDQ ZHUH PHQ )LQGLQJV UHYHDOHG WKDW ZRPHQ H[HFXWLYHV ZHUH DV OLNHO\ DV PHQ WR EH PHQWRUV KDG HYHU\ LQWHQWLRQ RI PHQWRULQJ RWKHU ZRPHQ DQG WKDW ZRPHQ DQG PHQ UHSRUWHG VLPLODU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH FRVWV DQG EHQHILWV RI EHLQJ PHQWRUV 7XUEDQ DQG 'RXJKHUW\ f DOVR IRXQG QR GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKHLU VDPSOH RI SURWJV LQ EXVLQHVV PHQ ZRPHQf LQ WKH SUREDELOLW\ WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG VHHN RXW DQG GHYHORS D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS RU LQ WKH DPRXQW RI PHQWRULQJ WKH\ UHFHLYHG ,Q WKHLU VWXG\ RI IHPDOH DQG PDOH UG DQG WK\HDU GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWV +ROOLQJVZRUWK DQG )DVVLQJHU f IRXQG WKDW VWXGHQW JHQGHU GLG QRW KDYH DQ HIIHFW RQ WKH OHYHO RI UHVHDUFK PHQWRULQJ UHFHLYHG RQ VWXGHQWfV UHVHDUFK VHOIHIILFDF\ RU RQ UHVHDUFK SURGXFWLYLW\ RXWFRPHV 'UHKHU DQG $VK f VWXG\LQJ IHPDOH DQG PDOH EXVLQHVV VFKRRO JUDGXDWHV VLPLODUO\ IRXQG QR JHQGHU GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH RXWFRPHV PHDVXUHV RI SURPRWLRQV UHFHLYHG LQFRPH RU VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK SD\ DQG EHQHILWV 7U\LQJ WR H[SODLQ WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH UHVHDUFK RQ JHQGHU LQ PHQWRULQJ LV SHUKDSV DQ H[HUFLVH LQ IXWLOLW\ 7KHUH DUH QR FOHDUO\ LGHQWLILDEOH PHWKRGRORJLFDO SUREOHPV HJ VDPSOLQJ GDWD DFTXLVLWLRQf WR ZKLFK WKH GLIIHUHQFHV PLJKW EH DWWULEXWHG +RZHYHU WKUHH SDWWHUQV VHHP WR HPHUJH )LUVW WKH JHQGHU RI WKH SURWJ DQG WKH JHQGHU RI WKH

PAGE 57

PHQWRU DSSHDU WR LQIOXHQFH VRPH RI WKH SURFHVVHV \HW WKHVH LQIOXHQFHV PD\ EH D UHVXOW RI JHQHUDO VRFLDOL]DWLRQ SDWWHUQV LQ VRFLHW\ )RU H[DPSOH WKH LQFUHDVH LQ SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQV E\ ERWK IHPDOH PHQWRUV DQG SURWJV LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH UHODWLRQDO VWHUHRW\SHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ZRPHQ 6HFRQG JHQGHU HIIHFWV RQ RXWFRPHV DUH PLQLPDO DQG PD\ DOVR EH DWWULEXWDEOH WR VRFLDO RU H[WHUQDO LVVXHV VXFK DV WKH UHODWLYHO\ ORZHU VWDWXV DQG SRZHU RI ZRPHQ DQG WKXV RI IHPDOH PHQWRUV DQG SURWJVf LQ DFDGHPLD RU LQGXVWU\ )LQDOO\ ERWK PHQ DQG ZRPHQ PD\ QRQHWKHOHVV EH HTXDOO\ ZHOO VHUYHG E\ HLWKHU PDOH RU IHPDOH PHQWRUV (WKQLFLW\ 6H[XDO 2ULHQWDWLRQ DQG 2WKHU &XOWXUDO )DFWRUV 5HJDUGLQJ WKH LPSDFW RI HWKQLFLW\ VH[XDO RULHQWDWLRQ DQG RWKHU FXOWXUDO IDFWRUV LQ PHQWRULQJ WKH OLWHUDWXUH LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ VPDOOHU DQG PXFK QHZHU ,Q VRPH FDVHV LW KDV OLWWOH WR VD\ DW DOO *LOEHUW DQG 5RVVPDQ -RKQVRQ t +XZH :ULJKW t :ULJKW f ,Q D UHFHQW ERRN RQ VXFFHHGLQJ LQ JUDGXDWH VFKRRO D FKDSWHU RQ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW FRXSOHV GRHV QRW HYHQ PHQWLRQ JD\ RU OHVELDQ FRXSOHV DQ LQFUHDVLQJO\ FRPPRQ DQG SXEOLF UHODWLRQVKLS DUUDQJHPHQW 3HGHUVRQ t 'DQLHOV ,VVXHV VSHFLILF WR JD\ OHVELDQ ELVH[XDO WUDQVJHQGHUHG SHUVRQV */%7f DUH KRZHYHU GLVFXVVHG HOVHZKHUH LQ WKH YROXPHf ,Q DQRWKHU UHFHQW ERRN RQ PHQWRULQJ LQ JUDGXDWH VFKRRO -RKQVRQ t +XZH f QR UHIHUHQFH WR VH[XDO RULHQWDWLRQ FRXOG EH IRXQG DW DOO DQG DWWUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ PHQWRUV DQG SURWJV VHHPHG WR EH RI FRQFHUQ RQO\ LQ FURVVJHQGHUHG UHODWLRQVKLSV $V ZLWK DQ\ PLQRULW\ FXOWXUH RU JURXS FRQFHUQV YDU\ IURP EODWDQW GLVFULPLQDWLRQ WR LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQW LVVXHV ,QVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG UDFLVP FRQWLQXHV WR KDYH HIIHFWV RQ SHUVRQV RI FRORU $WNLQVRQ 0RUWRQ t 6XH f DQG OHJDO GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DJDLQVW

PAGE 58

*/%7 SHUVRQV FRQWLQXHV LQ PDQ\ VWDWHV HJ GHQ\LQJ SURWHFWLRQ DJDLQVW GLVFULPLQDWLRQ LQ KRXVLQJ HGXFDWLRQ DQG MREV 0DVVH\ t :DOILVK f +DQGLFDSSHG SHUVRQV ROGHU SHUVRQV LQWHUQDWLRQDO VWXGHQWV RU HPSOR\HHV DQG RWKHU PLQRULWLHV DUH DOO DW LQFUHDVHG ULVN IRU H[SHULHQFLQJ SUHMXGLFH DQG GLVFULPLQDWLRQ )LQGLQJ PHQWRUV ZKR DUH VLPLODU RU ZKR DUH LQIRUPHG DQG RSHQO\ V\PSDWKHWLF FDQ EH H[WUHPHO\ FRPIRUWLQJ WR D VWXGHQW RU HPSOR\HH DV VKH RU KH QHJRWLDWHV QRW RQO\ WKH DFDGHPLF RU HPSOR\PHQW WDVNV FRPPRQ WR DOO EXW DOVR UHOHYDQW VRFLDO DQG FXOWXUDO WDVNV +LOO &DVWLOOR 1JX t 3HSLRQ /DUN t &URWHDX 5HGPRQG f )RUWXQDWHO\ FXUUHQW UHVHDUFK VXJJHVWV WKDW HWKQLF PLQRULWLHV DUH UHFHLYLQJ PHQWRULQJ DW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ WKH VDPH UDWH DV &DXFDVLDQV :LWW 6PLWK t 0DUNKDP f DQG WKDW KDYLQJ DQ HWKQLFDOO\ VLPLODU PHQWRU LV QRW UHODWHG WR SURWJV VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH PHQWRULQJ RU WR WKH EHQHILWV UHSRUWHG E\ GRFWRUDO VWXGHQW RU QRYLFH SURIHVVLRQDO SURWJV $WNLQVRQ 1HYLOOH t &DVDV f $WNLQVRQ HW DO QRWLQJ WKDW PLQRULW\ SURWJV UHSRUWHG WKDW KDYLQJ D PHQWRU FRQWULEXWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ WR WKHLU DFDGHPLF DQG FDUHHU VXFFHVV UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH PHQWRUfV HWKQLFLW\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW (XURSHDQ$PHULFDQ SURIHVVRUV DQG VHQLRU SURIHVVLRQDOV FDQ VXFFHVVIXOO\ VHUYH DV PHQWRUV WR HWKQLF PLQRULW\ SURWJV ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG KRZHYHU WKDW HDFK LQGLYLGXDO ZLOO KDYH KLV RU KHU RZQ UDFLDO LGHQWLW\ GHYHORSPHQWDO VWDWXV +HOPV f ZKLFK LV OLNHO\ WR LQIOXHQFH WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH HWKQLF VLPLODULW\ RI WKH PHQWRU WR WKH VWXGHQW RU QRYLFH SURIHVVLRQDO 2QO\ WZR HPSLULFDO DUWLFOHV /DUN t &URWHDX 1LRORQ f ZHUH IRXQG WKDW IRFXVHG RQ */%7 GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWVf PHQWRULQJ H[SHULHQFHV /DUN DQG &URWHDX ORRNHG PRUH VSHFLILFDOO\ DW WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV RI */% FRXQVHOLQJ SV\FKRORJ\

PAGE 59

JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DQG IRXQG WKDW ZKHQ WKHLU PHQWRU KHOSHG WKHP IHHO VDIH DQG DIILUPHG WKHP LQ WKHLU LGHQWLWLHV WKH SURWJVf KDG WKH fHQHUJ\ DQG IUHHGRPf WR IXOO\ HQJDJH WKH ZRUN RI JUDGXDWH VFKRRO :KHQ WKH\ GLG QRW KDYH WKLV VXSSRUW ZKHQ WKH\ GLG QRW UHFHLYH DIILUPDWLRQ DQG GLG QRW IHHO VDIH WKHLU HQHUJLHV ZHUH WLHG XS ZLWK HPRWLRQDO VXUYLYDO DQG WKHLU DELOLW\ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ DQG JDLQ IURP WKH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW H[SHULHQFH DQG WUDLQLQJ ZDV VHYHUHO\ FRPSURPLVHG 1LRORQ f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t &URWHDX 0DVVH\ t :DOILVK f (WKLFDO &RQFHUQV LQ WKH 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS 0HQWRULQJ LV DOPRVW E\ GHILQLWLRQ D GXDO UROH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH H[LVWHQFH RI PXOWLSOH RYHUODSSLQJ UROHV LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH VLJQLILFDQW SRZHU GLIIHUHQWLDOV IRXQG LQ

PAGE 60

WKH W\SLFDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV IHUWLOH JURXQG IRU HWKLFDO SUREOHPV %RXQGDU\ YLRODWLRQV DEXVH RI DXWKRULW\ VH[XDO KDUDVVPHQW WUDQVIHUHQFH LVVXHV VWHUHRW\SLFDO H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG RWKHU SUREOHPV DUH ZHOO VXLWHG WR VXFK FRQWH[WV 6RPH ILHOGV VSHFLILFDOO\ DGGUHVV WKHVH FRQFHUQV LQ HWKLFV FRGHV )RU H[DPSOH WKH $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQfV HWKLFDO JXLGHOLQHV $3$ f VSHFLILFDOO\ SURKLELWV FHUWDLQ PXOWLSOH UROH UHODWLRQVKLSV IRU SV\FKRORJLVWV VXFK DV VH[XDO RU H[SORLWDWLYH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK VWXGHQWV RU WKRVH RYHU ZKRP SV\FKRORJLVWfV KDYH HYDOXDWLYH DXWKRULW\ DV ZHOO DV UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ ZKLFK WKHUH PD\ EH D FRQIOLFW RI LQWHUHVW ,Q D VXUYH\ RI JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV LQ SV\FKRORJ\ &ODUN HW DO f IRXQG WKDW b RI SURWJV UHSRUWHG HWKLFDO FRQFHUQV DERXW WKHLU PHQWRUV RU PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KHVH SUREOHPV LQFOXGHG PHQWRUfV VH[XDO EHKDYLRUV DQG DWWLWXGHV WRZDUGV WKH SURWJ RU RWKHU VWXGHQWV LQ WKH SURJUDP WKH PHQWRU SXEOLVKLQJ DOWHUHG UHVXOWV RIIHULQJ WKH SURWJ ILQDQFLDO LQFHQWLYHV WR DOWHU UHVXOWV WKH PHQWRU KDYLQJ SRRU ERXQGDULHV RU EHFRPLQJ HPRWLRQDOO\ GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH SURWJ DQG PHQWRUV FODLPLQJ FUHGLW IRU WKH SURWJfV ZRUN )XUWKHU H[DPSOHV RI SRVVLEOH HWKLFDO TXDJPLUHV LQ PHQWRULQJ DERXQG %LDJJLR 3DJHW t &KHQZRUWK %OHYLQV.QDEH -RKQVRQ t +XZH 6XPSUHU t :DOILVK f $ PHQWRU PLJKW HPSOR\ D SURWJ RQ D PDMRU JUDQW SURMHFW IRU H[DPSOH DQG IHHO SUHVVXUHG WR MXGJH WKH SURWJfV ZRUN DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH QHHG WR ILQLVK WKH SURMHFW UDWKHU WKDQ DFFRUGLQJ WR LWV REMHFWLYH TXDOLW\ $ PHQWRU PLJKW FKDUDFWHUL]H D SURWJfV ZRUN DQG LGHDV DV WKHLU RZQ $ PHQWRU DQG SURWJ PLJKW GHYHORS DQ LQWLPDWH DWWUDFWLRQ WR HDFK RWKHU $IWHU DOO PDQ\ PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH EDVHG RQ VLPLODULWLHV DQG VKDUHG

PAGE 61

LQWHUHVWV DQG RIWHQ GHYHORS LQWR FORVH ZRUNLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV $OWKRXJK SURWJV RIWHQ DVVHUW WKDW WKH\ GLG QRW IHHO FRHUFHG GXULQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ UHWURVSHFW WKH\ PD\ VHH WKDW WKH\ RIWHQ ZHUH ZKLFK XQGHUPLQHV WKHLU DVVHUWLRQV WKDW VXFK UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH FRQVHQVXDO -RKQVRQ f $ PHQWRU PD\ fVXJJHVWf RU fUHTXHVWf IDYRUV RU EHKDYLRUV WKDW KDYH OLWWOH WR GR ZLWK WKH DFDGHPLF RU HPSOR\PHQW WDVNV VXFK DV GHOLYHULQJ WKLQJV RU PDNLQJ FRIIHH )HZ ZRXOG FRQWHQG WKDW GXDO UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH DYRLGDEOH LQ WKH PHQWRULQJ FRQWH[W RU WKDW VXFK D WKLQJ LV QHFHVVDU\ %OHYLQV.QDEH f 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ SURWJV DUH QRW W\SLFDOO\ LQ D SRVLWLRQ WR FRUUHFW RU DGGUHVV HWKLFDO FRQFHUQV 3URWJV DUH QRW RIWHQ LQFOLQHG WR DFFXVHf§SXEOLFO\ RU SULYDWHO\f§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f $W WKH GHSDUWPHQWDO OHYHO LW LV UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW PHQWRUV EH PRQLWRUHG IRU WKHLU FRPSHWHQFH DV PHQWRUV DQG WKDW LI

PAGE 62

QHFHVVDU\ WKH\ UHFHLYH VXSSOHPHQWDO WUDLQLQJ LQ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DQG LQ PHQWRULQJ VNLOOV EHIRUH WKH\ DUH DOORZHG WR WDNH RQ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV RU QRYLFH HPSOR\HHV -RKQVRQ t 1HOVRQ f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f 7KH YDOXH RI TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK LV IRXQG LQ LWV DELOLW\ WR WHDVH RXW IDFWRUV WKDW DUH VXEWOH LGLRJUDSKLF DQG RIWHQ UHVLVWDQW WR GLUHFW DSSURDFK )RU

PAGE 63

H[DPSOH WKH DIIHFWLYH TXDOLW\ RI D UHODWLRQVKLS PD\ QRW EH DPHQDEOH WR FRQVFLRXV FRJQLWLYH SURFHVVLQJ DQG WKXV PD\ EH TXLWH GLIILFXOW WR H[SORUH XVLQJ DQ RSHUDWLRQDOL]HG VXUYH\ LH WR TXDQWLI\f $QG DOWKRXJK TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK LV RIWHQ FRQVWUXHG WR EH SUHOLPLQDU\ WR D SUHVXPDEO\ PRUH ULJRURXV TXDQWLWDWLYH FRQILUPDWRU\ PHWKRGRORJ\ VRPH WKHRULVWV UHFRJQL]H WKH LQWULQVLF YDOXH RI TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK PHWKRGV LQ VRPH DUHDV RI LQWHUHVW *LRUJL *ODVHU *ODVHU t 6WUDXVV f $V *ODVHU DQG 6WUDXVV QRWHG f4XDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK LV RIWHQ WKH PRVW fDGHTXDWHf DQG fHIILFLHQWf PHWKRG IRU REWDLQLQJ WKH W\SH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ UHTXLUHG f S f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t &URWHDX 1LRORQ f ,QGHHG JURXQGHG WKHRU\ LV DQ H[FHOOHQW PHWKRG IRU H[SORULQJ WKH QXDQFHV DQG VXEWOHWLHV RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW DUH EHLQJ VRXJKW KHUH ,Q JURXQGHG WKHRU\ DV ZLWK RWKHU SDUDGLJPV WKH UHVHDUFKHU EHJLQV ZLWK D TXHVWLRQ RI LQWHUHVW DERXW D SDUWLFXODU VLWXDWLRQ 7KH JRDO LV WR XQGHUVWDQG ZKDW LV KDSSHQLQJ HJ ZKDW SHRSOH DUH GRLQJ ZK\ WKH\ DUH GRLQJ LWf :KDW GLIIHUHQWLDWHV JURXQGHG WKHRU\ LV WKDW LW LV H[SORUDWRU\ UDWKHU WKDQ FRQILUPDWRU\ *LRUJL f 7KDW LV LW LV GHVLJQHG WR DOORZ IRU WKH UHOHYDQW IDFWRUV WR HPHUJH IURP WKH UHVHDUFK VLWXDWLRQ

PAGE 64

UDWKHU WKDQ WR VHHN FRQILUPDWLRQ RI D K\SRWKHVLV WKDW LV PDSSHG RQWR WKH VLWXDWLRQ E\ WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU $V QRWHG E\ &RUELQ DQG 6WUDXVV f f2QH GRHV QRW EHJLQ ZLWK D WKHRU\ DQG WKHQ SURYH LW 5DWKHU RQH EHJLQV ZLWK DQ DUHD RI VWXG\ DQG ZKDW LV UHOHYDQW WR WKDW DUHD LV DOORZHG WR HPHUJHf S f (YHQ PRUH VDOLHQW JURXQGHG WKHRU\ LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK GHYHORSLQJ fVXEVWDQWLYH WKHRU\f *ODVHU t 6WUDXVV f ZKLFK LV fWKH IRUPXODWLRQ RI FRQFHSWV DQG WKHLU LQWHUUHODWLRQ LQWR D VHW RI K\SRWKHVHV IRU D JLYHQ VXEVWDQWLYH DUHDf§VXFK DV SDWLHQW FDUH JDQJ EHKDYLRU RU HGXFDWLRQf§EDVHG RQ UHVHDUFK LQ WKDW DUHDf S f 7KXV WKH JRDO LV QRW PHUHO\ WR XQGHUVWDQG ZKDW LV KDSSHQLQJ EXW DOVR WR GHYHORS D WKHRU\ ZLWKLQ ZKLFK WR VLWXDWH HYHQWV )RFXVLQJ RQ WKH HPHUJHQFH RI VXEVWDQWLYH WKHRU\ JURXQGHG UHVHDUFK LV DOVR GLIIHUHQWLDWHG IURP TXDQWLWDWLYH PHWKRGV LQ KRZ WKH ILQGLQJV DUH FRQVWUXHG DQG MXGJHG 'LFN f QRWHG WKDW WKH WZR PDLQ FULWHULD IRUMXGJLQJ WKH DGHTXDF\ YV YDOLGLW\ DQG UHOLDELOLW\f RI WKH UHVXOWV RI D JURXQGHG WKHRU\ DUH ILW DQG SUDJPDWLVP LH WKDW LW ZRUNV DQG LW KHOSV SHRSOH XQGHUVWDQG WKH VLWXDWLRQ EHWWHUf *URXQGHG WKHRU\ GRHV QRW DVVHUW WKDW DQ\ UHVHDUFKHUfV FRQFOXVLRQV DUH WKH RQO\ SODXVLEOH RQHV RQO\ WKDW LI WKH UHVHDUFK LV FDUHIXOO\ FDUULHG RXW WKH ILQGLQJV ZLOO EH VXIILFLHQWO\ FUHGLEOH WR PRVW UHDGHUV DQG DGHTXDWHO\ DQG DFFXUDWHO\ UHSUHVHQW WKH DUHD RI LQWHUHVW *ODVHU t 6WUDXVV f 1RU DUH WKH FDWHJRULHV IRFXVHG RQ DQG HODERUDWHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU WKH RQO\ SRVVLEOH FDWHJRULHV RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ 2WKHU IDFWRUV PD\ EH DFWLYH DQG LQWHUHVWLQJ EXW QRW DOO WKLQJV FDQ EH DWWHQGHG WR LQ DQ\ RQH SURMHFW *ODVHU f

PAGE 65

*URXQGHG 7KHRU\ 0HWKRGRORJ\ 7KH JURXQGHG WKHRU\ PHWKRG LV EDVHG RQ D ZHOOGHYHORSHG ORJLF WKDW HVWDEOLVKHV PHDQLQJIXO JXLGHOLQHV IRU ERWK GDWD DFTXLVLWLRQ DQG GDWD DQDO\VLV 7KHVH JXLGHOLQHV GHVFULEHG E\ *ODVHU DQG 6WUDXVV f SURYLGH LPSRUWDQW VXSSRUW IRU WKH PHDQLQJIXOQHVV RI WKH ILQGLQJV DQG WKHLU FUHGLELOLW\ WR WKH UHDGHU $ QXPEHU RI VRXUFHV FDQ EH XWLOL]HG LQ GDWD FROOHFWLRQ LQFOXGLQJ IRFXV JURXSV H[LVWLQJ OLWHUDWXUH QDWXUDOLVWLF REVHUYDWLRQ LQIRUPDO GLVFXVVLRQ DQG LQWHUYLHZV ,QWHUDFWLYH LQWHUYLHZV W\SLFDOO\ XVLQJ RSHQHQGHG TXHVWLRQV DQG D VHPLVWUXFWXUHG RU XQVWUXFWXUHG IRUPDW DUH FRPPRQ DSSURDFKHV 'LFN f 7KH SULPDU\ DGYDQWDJH LV WKDW WKHPHV DQG LQVLJKWV HPHUJH LQ GLDOHFWLF DQG FDQ EH H[SORUHG LQ YLYR LI WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU LV LQFOLQHG *LRUJL f QRWHV WKDW LQWHUYLHZV SURYLGH LPSRUWDQW FRQWH[WXDO LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU WKH DSSUHKHQVLRQ RI WKH LQWHQGHG PHDQLQJ RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW 7KHUHIRUH LQWHUYLHZV ZLOO EH WKH VRXUFH RI GDWD RQ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ $OWKRXJK UHYLHZLQJ WKH OLWHUDWXUH LV D VWDQGDUG SURFHVV LQ UHVHDUFK DQG GHYHORSLQJ WKH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ WKH UHVHDUFKHU GRHV QRW IROORZ WKLV DSSURDFK LQ JURXQGHG WKHRU\ ,Q IDFW *ODVHU f FOHDUO\ VWDWHG f7KHUH LV D QHHG QRW WR UHYLHZ DQ\ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH LQ WKH VXEVWDQWLYH DUHD XQGHU VWXG\f S HPSKDVLV DGGHGf 7KH SXUSRVH RI QRW UHYLHZLQJ WKH OLWHUDWXUH LV WR DYRLG ELDVLQJ WKH UHVHDUFKHU E\ XQQHFHVVDULO\ FUHDWLQJ D SULRUL FRJQLWLYH VWUXFWXUHV UHJDUGLQJ WKH DUHD RI LQWHUHVW 6LPLODUO\ JURXQGHG WKHRU\ UHFRJQL]HV H[SOLFLWO\ WKH VXEMHFWLYH IDFWRU LQWURGXFHG E\ WKH LQWHUSUHWLYH DQG LQGXFWLYH QDWXUH RI WKH DQDO\WLF SURFHGXUH $OWKRXJK WKLV LV RQH RI WKH JUHDW VWUHQJWKV RI TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK LW DOVR QHFHVVDULO\ HQWDLOV WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ RI DQ XQFRQWUROOHG YDULDQFH LQ WKH RXWFRPHV LH

PAGE 66

DOUHDG\ H[LVWLQJ FRJQLWLYH VWUXFWXUHVf 8QOLNH SKHQRPHQRORJ\ ZKLFK DVNV UHVHDUFKHUV WR ZLWKKROG SHUVRQDO SHUVSHFWLYHV DQG ELDVHV JURXQGHG WKHRU\ DVVHUWV WKDW WKLV LV QHLWKHU QHFHVVDU\ QRU OLNHO\ SRVVLEOH *URXQGHG WKHRU\ LQVWHDG SUHVHQWV D EULHI GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH UHVHDUFKHUf§PXFK DV D GHVFULSWLRQ RI DQ\ RWKHU LQVWUXPHQWf§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f EH DXJPHQWHG XQWLO WKH FDWHJRULHV DUH VDWXUDWHG WKDW LV XQWLO QR IXUWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ LV EHLQJ JOHDQHG IURP DGGLWLRQDO GDWD VHWV 'LFN *ODVHU 5HQQLH 3KLOOLSV t 4XDUWDUR f ,Q JHQHUDO WKH FULWHULRQ IRU VHOHFWLRQ IROORZV WZR VWHSV )LUVW WKHUH LV D IRFXV RQ GLVFRYHULQJ WKH FRUH IHDWXUHV RI WKH SKHQRPHQRQ RI LQWHUHVW ZKLFK LV DFFRPSOLVKHG E\ LQWHUYLHZLQJ SHUVRQV ZKR ERWK UHSUHVHQW WKH SKHQRPHQD DQG ZKR DUH VLPLODU WR HDFK RWKHU LQ VRPH UHOHYDQW ZD\ 7KH VHFRQG VWHS LV WR LQWURGXFH YDULDELOLW\ LQWR WKH GDWD VHW LQ RUGHU WR VDPSOH H[FHSWLRQV WR WKH HPHUJLQJ WKHRUHWLFDO K\SRWKHVHV WKHRU\EDVHG VDPSOLQJ UDWKHU WKDQ UDQGRP VDPSOLQJf DQG WKXV VWUHQJWKHQ WKH JHQHUDOL]DELOLW\ RI WKH HPHUJLQJ WKHRU\ 7KLV LV DFFRPSOLVKHG E\ LQWHUYLHZLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKR DUH VRPHKRZ GLVVLPLODU IURP WKH SUHYLRXV SDUWLFLSDQWV RU ZKR GR QRW UHSUHVHQW WKH WRSLF LQ WKH VDPH ZD\ ,Q DQDORJRXV TXDQWLWDWLYH WHUPV WKLV SURFHGXUH SURYLGHV GDWD ERWK ZLWKLQ DQG EHWZHHQ

PAGE 67

+DYLQJ VDLG WKLV WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHJDUGLQJ WKLV JHQHUDO W\SH RI TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK VSDUVH WKRXJK LW LV LQ WKLV VSHFLILF WRSLF DUHD ZRXOG VHHP WR VXJJHVW WKDW DERXW ILYH LQWHUYLHZV DUH SUHOLPLQDULO\ LQGLFDWHG IRU D JLYHQ TXHVWLRQ DV VDWXUDWLRQ W\SLFDOO\ RFFXUV DIWHU DQDO\]LQJ WR GDWD VHWV *ODVHU t 6WUDXVV 5HQQLH 3KLOOLSV t 4XDUWDUR f %DVHG XSRQ WKH IRUHJRLQJ FRQVLGHUDWLRQV WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZLOO LQFOXGH LQWHUYLHZV FRQGXFWHG ZLWK IRXU WR ILYH LQGLYLGXDOV LQ HDFK RI WKH IROORZLQJ WKUHH FDWHJRULHV Df KLJKO\ UDWHG IDFXOW\ PHQWRUV Ef VDWLVILHG JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW SURWJV DQG Ff GLVVDWLVILHG JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW SURWJV $QDO\VLV LQ JURXQGHG WKHRU\ PHWKRGRORJ\ LV D PXOWLVWHS SURFHVV DQG LV KLJKO\ ODERU LQWHQVLYH $QDO\VLV EHJLQV DV VRRQ DV WKH LQWHUYLHZV EHJLQ DQG FRQWLQXHV WKURXJKRXW WKH VWXG\ $V WKH LQWHUYLHZHU EHJLQV WR LQWHUDFW ZLWK WKH GDWD SUHVHQWHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV K\SRWKHVHV DQG WKHPHV DUH DOUHDG\ EHLQJ GHYHORSHG DQG WHVWHG 7KLV FRQWLQXHV DIWHU HDFK LQWHUYLHZ DV WKH UHVHDUFKHU DJDLQ UHYLHZV WKH GDWD ORRNLQJ IRU WKHPHV DQG FDWHJRULHV $V HDFK LQWHUYLHZ LV FRQGXFWHG WKHPHV IURP SUHYLRXV LQWHUYLHZV DUH NHSW LQ PLQG DQG K\SRWKHVHV DUH WHVWHG EHWZHHQ SDUWLFLSDQWV DV ZHOO DV ZLWKLQ HDFK LQWHUYLHZ 7KLV LV UHIHUUHG WR DV FRQVWDQW FRPSDULVRQ DQG LV FHQWUDO WR WKH PHWKRG 7KH YDOXH RI FRQVWDQW FRPSDULVRQ LV WKDW WKH SHUFHSWLRQV DQG GHYHORSLQJ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI WKH UHVHDUFKHU DUH FRQVWDQWO\ FKHFNHG DJDLQVW WKH GDWD WKXV LQWHUIHULQJ ZLWK WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI PLVFRQFHSWLRQV DQG XQJURXQGHG DVVXPSWLRQV 7KH ILUVW VWHS LQ WKH IRUPDO DQDO\VLV RSHQ FRGLQJ LV D SURFHVV LQ ZKLFK HDFK XQLW RI DQDO\VLV LV LQGHSHQGHQWO\ HYDOXDWHG IRU SRVVLEOH PHDQLQJV :KDW VWDQGV IRU D XQLW RI DQDO\VLV LV IOH[LEOH EXW RQFH GHILQHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU UHPDLQV FRQVLVWHQW WKURXJKRXW

PAGE 68

RSHQ FRGLQJ *ODVHU DQG 6WUDXVV f UHFRPPHQG WKDW HDFK OLQH RI D WUDQVFULSW EH FRQVLGHUHG D XQLW ZKHUHDV 5HQQLH HW DO f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nf LV ODEHOHG DFFRUGLQJ WR ZKDWHYHU VHPDQWLF FRQWHQW LW ZDV WKDW FDXVHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR EH DEOH WR LVRODWH WKH VHPDQWLF XQLW LH WKH FRQFHSWf $W WKLV VWDJH FRQFHSW JHQHUDWLRQ LV WR EH GHVFULSWLYH WKXV WKH ODEHOV VKRXOG XVH ODQJXDJH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH ODQJXDJH XVHG E\ WKH LQWHUYLHZHHV 7KHVH FRQFHSW ODEHOV DUH HVWDEOLVKHG DV FDWHJRULHV DQG WKH PHDQLQJ XQLWV WKHPVHOYHV DUH HVWDEOLVKHG DV H[HPSODUV RI WKH FDWHJRU\ $Q\ WLPH D PHDQLQJ XQLW LV HYDOXDWHG LQ DQ\ GDWD VHWf WKDW FDQ EH ODEHOHG VLPLODUO\ WR DQ H[LVWLQJ FDWHJRU\ LW ZLOO EH SODFHG LQ WKDW FDWHJRU\ LH EH JLYHQ WKH VDPH ODEHOf $V WKH RSHQ FRGLQJ SURFHVV FRQWLQXHV HDFK QHZO\ HYDOXDWHG PHDQLQJ XQLW LV DVVLJQHG WR DV PDQ\ RI WKH H[LVWLQJ FDWHJRULHV DV SRVVLEOH ,I QR FDWHJRU\ H[LVWV WKDW UHSUHVHQWV WKH PHDQLQJ HPEHGGHG LQ WKH GDWD D QHZ FDWHJRU\ LV HVWDEOLVKHG 8OWLPDWHO\ VRPH ILQLWH VHW RI FDWHJRULHV ZLOO HPHUJH WKDW DGHTXDWHO\ UHSUHVHQW WKH GDWD DQG DGGLWLRQDO PHDQLQJ XQLWV ZLOO QR ORQJHU UHTXLUH WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI QHZ FDWHJRULHV RU ODEHOV ZKLFK LV D FRQGLWLRQ NQRZQ DV VDWXUDWLRQ

PAGE 69

7KURXJKRXW WKH GDWD DQDO\VLV WKH UHVHDUFKHUfV KXQFKHV DQG WKHRUHWLFDO QRWLRQV DUH UHFRUGHG VHSDUDWHO\ IURP WKH GDWD DQG IURP WKH FDWHJRUL]DWLRQV D SURFHVV UHIHUUHG WR DV PHPRLQJ 7KHVH PHPRUDQGD DOORZ WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR UHFRUG IRU ODWHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ K\SRWKHVHV QRWLRQV DQG LGHDV WKDW HPHUJH GXULQJ WKH DQDO\VLV DQG DW WKH VDPH WLPH DUH GHVLJQHG WR UHGXFH GULIW DZD\ IURP JURXQGLQJ LQ WKH GDWD E\ PDNLQJ H[SOLFLW WKH UHVHDUFKHUf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f VXJJHVW WKDW RQFH D FRUH FDWHJRU\ LV GHILQHG QR IXUWKHU RSHQ FRGLQJ LV GRQH IRU DQ\ GDWD QRW VXEVXPDEOH E\ WKH FDWHJRU\ WKXV VHOHFWLYH FRGLQJf ,V HVVHQFH DOWKRXJK

PAGE 70

RWKHU GDWD DUH FHUWDLQO\ SUHVHQW DQG PD\ EH RI LQWHUHVW WKH\ DUH GLVWUDFWLRQV IURP WKH HPHUJLQJ IRFXV LQ DQ\ JLYHQ SURMHFW *ODVHU DQG 6WUDXVV f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f 2WKHU UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH H[SORUHG WKH FRVWV DQG EHQHILWV RI EHLQJ D PHQWRU HJ 5DJLQV t 6FDQGXUD f WKH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ IDFWRUV WR WKH TXDOLW\ DQG HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS HJ 7XUEDQ t 'RXJKHUW\ f DQG WKH

PAGE 71

YDULDQFH LQWURGXFHG LQWR RXWFRPHV EDVHG RQ ZKHWKHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LV YROXQWDU\ RU DVVLJQHG HJ &KDR :DO] t *DUGQHU f

PAGE 72

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

PAGE 73

'LVVDWLVILHG SURWJV ZHUH LGHQWLILHG E\ HPDLOLQJ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW RUJDQL]DWLRQ OHDGHUV DQG DVNLQJ IRU ZRUGRIPRXWK UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV RI VWXGHQWV ZKR ZHUH QRW KDSS\ ZLWK WKH PHQWRULQJ RU DGYLVLQJ WKH\ KDG UHFHLYHG 7ZR SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH PHQ DQG WZR ZHUH ZRPHQ 7KH ILUVW ZRPDQ ZDV VHHNLQJ D GRFWRUDWH LQ HWKQRERWDQ\ EXW GHFLGHG WR OHDYH ZLWK D PDVWHUf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f 7KH 5HVHDUFKHU $Q LPSRUWDQW IHDWXUH RI WKH JURXQGHG WKHRU\ PHWKRG LV WKH H[SOLFLW UHFRJQLWLRQ WKDW WKH UHVHDUFKHU LV WKH SULPDU\ UHVHDUFK LQVWUXPHQW DQG WKDW WKH SHUVRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG KLVWRU\ RI WKH UHVHDUFKHU ZLOO LPSDFW WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH GDWD DQG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH WKHRU\ *ODVHU t 6WUDXVV 6WUDXVV t &RUELQ f ,W LV UHFRPPHQGHG WKHUHIRUH WKDW WKH UHVHDUFKHU SURYLGH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ KLV RU KHU RZQ KLVWRU\ WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH UHDGHUfV HYDOXDWLRQV RI WKH YDOLGLW\ DQG JHQHUDOL]DELOLW\ RI WKH

PAGE 74

ILQGLQJV ZKLFK DUH QHFHVVDULO\ VKDSHG E\ WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH UHVHDUFKHU 7KLV LV LQ FRQWUDVW WR D SKHQRPHQRORJLFDO PHWKRG LQ ZKLFK WKH UHVHDUFKHU DWWHPSWV WR fEUDFNHWf RU ZLWKKROG WKH LQIOXHQFH RI KHU RU KLV ELDVHV VHH *LRUJL f DP \HDUROG PDQ LQ D FRXQVHOLQJ SV\FKRORJ\ GRFWRUDO SURJUDP FRQVLGHU SV\FKRORJ\ WR EH P\ WKLUG FDUHHU 0\ ILUVW FDUHHU ZDV LQ WKH HOHFWURQLFV LQGXVWU\ ZKHUH VSHQW \HDUV DV DQ HOHFWURQLFV WHFKQLFLDQ DQG WKHQ DV D PLGGOH OHYHO PDQDJHU 0\ VHFRQG FDUHHU ZDV DV D IRVWHU SDUHQW ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR UDLVLQJ RXU RZQ WKUHH GDXJKWHUV P\ ZLIH DQG FDUHG IRU PHGLFDOO\ DQG WKHUDSHXWLFDOO\ QHHG\ IRVWHU FKLOGUHQ PRVWO\ LQIDQWV DQG \RXQJ JLUOVf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fVHFUHW NQRZOHGJHf DERXW SHRSOH DQG EHKDYLRU VHHPHG WR DSSHDU ZLWK VRPH RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWVf &HUWDLQO\ EHLQJ D VWXGHQW RI SV\FKRORJ\ SURYLGHV PH ZLWK D IUDPHZRUN WKDW ZLOO ELDV P\ SHUFHSWLRQV DQG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV ,Q WKDW SV\FKRORJ\ LV XQLTXHO\ VXLWHG WR H[SORUH UHODWLRQVKLSV KRZHYHU WKLV ELDV PLJKW EHWWHU EH FRQVWUXHG DV DQ DGYDQWDJH UDWKHU WKDQ DV D QHJDWLYH LQIOXHQFH

PAGE 75

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f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

PAGE 76

H[SHULHQFH ZKHQ LQWHUDFWLQJ ZLWK ERWK VDWLVILHG DQG GLVVDWLVILHG SURWJV +DYLQJ KDG ERWK H[SHULHQFHV KRZHYHU PD\ KDYH KHOSHG SUHYHQW DQ H[FHVVLYH ELDV LQ HLWKHU GLUHFWLRQ 7KHUH DUH RWKHU IDFWRUV QRW QRWHG KHUH QR GRXEW VRPH RI ZKLFK DP XQDZDUH 7KH IRUHJRLQJ LV SURYLGHG VR WKDW WKH UHDGHU PLJKW KDYH VRPH EDVLF LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW RQH RI WKH FULWLFDO LQVWUXPHQWV XVHG LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK $V QRWHG E\ *ODVHU DQG 6WUDXVV f f7KH URRW VRXUFH RI DOO VLJQLILFDQW WKHRUL]LQJ LV WKH VHQVLWLYH LQVLJKWV RI WKH REVHUYHU KLPVHOIf S f 3URFHGXUH 7KLV VHFWLRQ ZLOO GHVFULEH WKH YDULRXV DVSHFWV RI WKH JURXQGHG WKHRU\ SURFHGXUHV XWLOL]HG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ,W ZLOO LQFOXGH GLVFXVVLRQ RI GDWD DFTXLVLWLRQ DQG GDWD DQDO\VLV 'DWD $FTXLVLWLRQ (DFK RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZDV LQWHUYLHZHG E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU LQ D SULYDWH PLOLHX 7KH IRFXV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV ZDV WR OHDUQ ZKDW IDFWRUV FRQWULEXWH WR WKH TXDOLILFDWLRQ RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DV fJRRGf $OWKRXJK SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR GHVFULEH RU GHILQH fJRRG PHQWRULQJf WKH SUREOHP RI GHILQLWLRQ GLVFXVVHG HDUOLHU ZDV QRW DGGUHVVHG ,I D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV DVVHUWHG WKH DVVHUWLRQ ZDV DFFHSWHG DW IDFH YDOXH 7KH TXHVWLRQ RI LQWHUHVW LQ WKLV SURMHFW DV QRWHG ZDV WR GLIIHUHQWLDWH D fJRRGf UHODWLRQVKLS QRW IRU H[DPSOH PHQWRUHG YV QRQPHQWRUHG RU IRUPDO YV LQIRUPDO PHQWRULQJ 7KH VHPLVWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ EHJDQ ZLWK D VHOHFWLRQ RI RSHQHQGHG TXHVWLRQV GHVLJQHG WR ERWK FUHDWH D FRPIRUWDEOH DWPRVSKHUH IRU WKH GLVFRXUVH DV ZHOO DV WR IDFLOLWDWH DQG GLUHFW WKH FRQYHUVDWLRQ WRZDUGV WKH WRSLF RI LQWHUHVW 7KH TXHVWLRQV IRFXVHG RQ WKH

PAGE 77

PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DQG SURFHVV \HW ZHUH H[SORUDWRU\ DQG HOLFLWRU\ $JDLQ QHLWKHU fPHQWRULQJf QRU fJRRGf ZHUH GHILQHG IRU WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKR ZHUH DOO DEOH WR HDVLO\ LGHQWLI\ VRPHRQH ZKR ZDV RU VKRXOG KDYH EHHQ WKHLU PHQWRU 7KH IROORZLQJ DUH VRPH WKH TXHVWLRQV XVHG WR LQLWLDWH WKH GLVFXVVLRQV +RZ ZRXOG GHILQH JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS" :KDW PLJKW EH VRPH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI D JRRG PHQWRU" :KDW FRXOG >WKH PHQWRU@ KDYH GRQH WR PDNH LW ZRUN EHWWHU IRU \RX" :KDW NLQGV RI WKLQJV PDGH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS fZRUNf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

PAGE 78

$OWKRXJK UHVHDUFKHUV ZKR VSHFLDOL]H LQ JURXQGHG WKHRU\ PHWKRGRORJ\ UHFRPPHQG DJDLQVW WDSLQJ RU WDNLQJ QRWHV GXULQJ DQ LQWHUYLHZ 'LFN f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f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

PAGE 79

$V QRWHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ WKH LQWHUYLHZV ZLWK DOO IRXU PHQWRUV ZKR ZHUH LQWHUYLHZHG ILUVWf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f 7KHVH fSLHFHV RI VHPDQWLF FRKHUHQFHf FDQ EH ODEHOHG XVLQJ D VLQJOH GHVFULSWLYH ZRUG RU SKUDVH ZKLFK PD\ WKHQ EH UHIHUUHG WR DV FRQFHSWV (DFK PHDQLQJ XQLW WKHQ ZDV HYDOXDWHG DQG ODEHOHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH FRQFHSWV HPEHGGHG LQ WKH GDWD VHH $SSHQGL[ ( IRU DQ H[DPSOH 1RWH WKDW WKHUH ZHUH DW OHDVW WZR LWHUDWLRQV RI RSHQ FRGLQJ ZKHQ XVLQJ WUDQVFULSWV ERWK RQ WKH WUDQVFULSW DV ZHOO DV RQ VHSDUDWH QRWH FDUGV 7KXV WKH VDPSOH LQ WKH DSSHQGL[ LV UHGXFHG DQG FODULILHG IRU UHDGDELOLW\f 7KH FRQFHSW ODEHOV XVHG ZHUH FKRVHQ QRW RQO\ WR UHIOHFW WKH VHPDQWLF FRQWHQW EXW DV PXFK DV SRVVLEOH WKH DFWXDO ZRUGV XVHG E\ WKH SDUWLFLSDQW 7KHVH FRQFHSW ODEHOV ZHUH HVWDEOLVKHG DV FDWHJRULHV ZKLFK ZHUH D KLJKHU OHYHO RI DEVWUDFWLRQ RI WKH XQLWV WKHPVHOYHV WKH PHDQLQJ XQLWV EHLQJ H[HPSODUV RI WKH FDWHJRU\ 6XEVHTXHQWO\ DQ\ WLPH D PHDQLQJ XQLW ZDV HYDOXDWHG LQ DQ\ GDWD VHWf WKDW FRXOG EH ODEHOHG VLPLODUO\ WR DQ H[LVWLQJ PHDQLQJ XQLW LW ZDV SODFHG LQ WKDW FDWHJRU\ LH EH JLYHQ WKH VDPH FRQFHSW ODEHOf $V WKH RSHQ FRGLQJ SURFHVV FRQWLQXHG HDFK QHZO\ HYDOXDWHG PHDQLQJ XQLW ZDV DVVLJQHG WR DV PDQ\ RI WKH H[LVWLQJ FDWHJRULHV DV SRVVLEOH ,I QR FDWHJRU\ H[LVWHG WKDW UHSUHVHQWHG WKH PHDQLQJ HPEHGGHG LQ WKH GDWD D QHZ FDWHJRU\ ZDV

PAGE 80

HVWDEOLVKHG 8OWLPDWHO\ D ILQLWH VHW RI FDWHJRULHV HPHUJHG WKDW DGHTXDWHO\ UHSUHVHQW WKH GDWD DQG QR IXUWKHU RSHQ FRGLQJ ZDV FDUULHG RXW :KHQ WKLV RFFXUV LW LV VDLG WKDW WKH FDWHJRU\ LV VDWXUDWHG DQG VHOHFWLYH FRGLQJ EHJLQV VHH EHORZf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f $OO RSHQ FRGLQJ ZKHWKHU IURP WUDQVFULSWV RU WDSHV ZDV FDUULHG RXW XVLQJ ; FDUGV RQ ZKLFK WKH FRQFHSWV DQG UHSUHVHQWDWLYH FLWDWLRQV IURP WKH GDWD LQWHUYLHZVf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f 1RWH WKDW PHPRUDQGD ZHUH DOVR UHFRUGHG RQ ; FDUGV EXW ZHUH QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKH VRUWLQJ SURFHVV 0HPRUDQGD ZHUH KRZHYHU UHIHUUHG WR LQ WKH VWUXFWXULQJ RI WKH GDWD DQG WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI VXSHURUGLQDWH FDWHJRULHV 1XPHURXV

PAGE 81

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f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

PAGE 82

SRVLWLYH DIIHFW 7KH FRUH FDWHJRU\ RI SRVLWLYH DIIHFW DQG LWV VXERUGLQDWH FDWHJRULHV ZLOO EH IXOO\ HODERUDWHG LQ WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ

PAGE 83

&+$37(5 5(68/76 )RXU PHQWRUV 0f ILYH VDWLVILHG SURWJV 63f DQG IRXU GLVVDWLVILHG SURWJV '3f ZHUH LQWHUYLHZHG IRU WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV ZDV WR XQFRYHU IDFWRUV WKDW PLJKW FRQWULEXWH WR WKH TXDOLILFDWLRQ RI D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DV fJRRGf 1HLWKHU WKH WHUP JRRG QRU WKH WHUP PHQWRULQJ ZHUH GHILQHG IRU WKH LQWHUYLHZHHV $OO SURWJ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DEOH WR LGHQWLI\ D SHUVRQ RU SHUVRQV ZKRP WKH\ FRQVLGHUHG DV D PHQWRU RU LQ WKH FDVH RI WKH '3V D SHUVRQ ZKRP WKH\ H[SHFWHG ZRXOG PHQWRU WKHP DQG GLG QRW GR VR VDWLVIDFWRULO\ $OO 0V ZHUH LGHQWLILHG LQ DGYDQFH E\ YLUWXH RI WKHLU KDYLQJ UHFHLYHG PHQWRULQJ DZDUGV 7KH FRQWHQWV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH DQDO\]HG XVLQJ WKH SUHYLRXVO\ GHVFULEHG JURXQGHG WKHRU\ LQGXFWLYH SURFHGXUH $OO LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV 7KHUH ZDV YHU\ KLJK FRQVLVWHQF\ DFURVV DOO SDUWLFLSDQWV LQFOXGLQJ '3V LQ WHUPV RI WKRVH DVSHFWV WKDW ZRXOG TXDOLI\ DV FHQWUDO WR WKH JRRGQHVV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH IDFWRUV VHOHFWHG IRU LQFOXVLRQ LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ HPHUJHG YHU\ HDUO\ LQ WKH LQWHUYLHZLQJ SURFHVV FRQWLQXHG WR DSSHDU LQ YLUWXDOO\ HYHU\ GDWD VHW DQG VXEVHTXHQWO\ UHSUHVHQWHG WKH FHQWUDO WKHPHV GHULYHG LQ WKH DQDO\VLV $V WKH GDWD ZHUH DQDO\]HG D FHQWUDO IHDWXUH RI WKH GHILQLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DSSHDUHG WR EH WKH DIIHFWLYH QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KDW LV ZKHQ GLVFXVVLQJ ZKDW WKH\ WKRXJKW GHILQHG D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS WKH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ UHSRUWHG IHDWXUHV ZHUH UHODWHG WR SDUWLFLSDQWVf SRVLWLYH IHHOLQJV DERXW FHUWDLQ

PAGE 84

DVSHFWV RI WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLSV 6LQFH JRRG ZDV QRW GHILQHG IRU WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WKH IRFXV RQ WKHVH VSHFLILF DIIHFWLYH DVSHFWV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS UDWKHU WKDQ WKH VWUXFWXUH RU PHFKDQLFV RI PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZDV HPHUJHQW DQG LQGLFDWLYH RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHHVf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t 6WUDXVV f $V WKH FRUH FDWHJRU\ RI WKH DQDO\VLV SRVLWLYH DIIHFW GHILQHV WKH IHDWXUHV PRVW UHOHYDQW WR WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DV fJRRGf DV SUHVHQWHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV )LYH VHFRQGOHYHO FDWHJRULHV LGHQWLILHG ZLWKLQ WKH FRUH FDWHJRU\ RI SRVLWLYH DIIHFW ZHUH DV IROORZV Df IHHOLQJ UHVSHFWHG Ef IHHOLQJ YDOXHG Ff IHHOLQJ VDIH Gf IHHOLQJV RI EHORQJLQJ DQG Hf IHHOLQJV RI LQFUHDVLQJ FRPSHWHQFH 6HH 7DEOH f 7KHVH FDWHJRULHV DUH WKHPVHOYHV UHGXFWLRQV IURP WKLUGOHYHO FDWHJRULHV LH WKHPHVf WKDW ZHUH GHULYHG GLUHFWO\ IURP WKH GDWD DQG HDFK GHVFULEHV DUHDV LQ ZKLFK SRVLWLYH DIIHFW ZDV KLJKO\ VDOLHQW WR WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV (DFK RI WKHVH FDWHJRULHV DQG WKHPHV ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG GHVFULELQJ LQ GHWDLO WKH IHHOLQJV WKHPVHOYHV ZD\V WKH IHHOLQJV DUH HQJHQGHUHG RU KLQGHUHG LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DQG SRVLWLYH FRUUHODWHV RI WKH IHHOLQJV

PAGE 85

7DEOH $IIHFWLYH &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI D *RRG 0HQWRULQJ 5HODWLRQVKLS &RUH &DWHJRU\ 6HFRQG /HYHO &DWHJRULHV )XQGDPHQWDO &RQFHSWV 7KHPHV 3RVLWLYH $IIHFW )HHOLQJ 5HVSHFWHG 5HVSHFW RI SHUVRQ 5HVSHFW RI SHUVRQfV ULJKW WR VHOI GHWHUPLQDWLRQ )HHOLQJ 9DOXHG $YDLODELOLW\ 7LPH DQG HIIRUW )HHOLQJ 6DIH 1RW H[SHULHQFLQJ UHMHFWLRQ 5HFHLYLQJ DIILUPDWLRQ DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW 7UXVW )HHOLQJV RI %HORQJLQJ DQG &RPPXQLW\ )HHOLQJV RI ,QFUHDVLQJ &RPSHWHQFH &ODULI\LQJ H[SHFWDWLRQV )ROORZLQJ DSSURSULDWH GHYHORSPHQWDO FRXUVH ,QFUHDVLQJ DXWRQRP\ )HHOLQJ 5HVSHFWHG 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI UHVSHFW LH SURWJVf IHHOLQJV RI EHLQJ UHVSHFWHG E\ WKHLU PHQWRUVf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fV EHOLHI LQ DQRWKHUfV LQWULQVLF ZRUWK DV D KXPDQ EHLQJ 7KLV FRXOG EH LOOXVWUDWHG E\ WKH FRPPRQ DGPRQLWLRQ WR WUHDW SHRSOH ZLWK VLPSOH

PAGE 86

UHVSHFW DQG FRXUWHV\ 7KLV FKDUDFWHU RI UHVSHFW ZDV DOVR PHQWLRQHG PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ E\ 0V DQG '3V $ VHFRQG PHDQLQJ IRU UHVSHFW WKDW DSSHDUHG WR EH VDOLHQW ZDV WKH UHVSHFW RI D SHUVRQfV IUHHGRP DQG VHOIGHWHUPLQDWLRQ 7KLV VXJJHVWV DQ DGGLWLRQDO OHYHO RI UHVSHFW PDLQWDLQHG WRZDUGV SHRSOHf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fV ZKDW D JUDGXDWH DGYLVRU LV IRU LVQfW LW" f/RRN KDYH WKLV VFKRODU ZKR ZDQWV WR ZRUN ZLWK PH ,fP D FRRO SHUVRQf $QG WKDWfV ILQH PHDQ WRWDOO\ XQGHUVWDQG WKDW WKH\fUH XQGHU D ORW RI SUHVVXUH 7KH\ KDYH WKLQJV WKH\ QHHG $ JUDG VWXGHQW LV FKHDS ODERU IRU WKHP ZKR \RX ZDQW WR NHHS ZRUNLQJ IRU \RX DV ORQJ DV \RX FDQ EHFDXVH WKHQ WKH\ OHDYH DQG \RX KDYH WR WUDLQ VRPHERG\ QHZ WRWDOO\ XQGHUVWDQG WKDW LW KDV WR EH D UHODWLRQVKLS ZKHUH WKH\fUH JHWWLQJ VRPHWKLQJ DV ZHOO DV \RX JHWWLQJ VRPHWKLQJ %XW LW KDV WR EH VRPHZKDW HTXDO PHDQ ERWK SHRSOH GR KDYH WR JHW VRPHWKLQJ RXW RI LW PHDQ WKHUH DUH UXOHV LQ WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS ,QWHUYLHZHU :KDW DUH WKH UXOHV" '3 :HOO \RX NQRZ D SURIHVVRU ZDQWV WR WDNH RQ D VWXGHQW VR WKDW WKH\ KDYH JORU\ DQG WKHLU ZRUN JHWWLQJ GRQH DQG SDSHUV ZULWWHQ ZLWK WKHLU QDPHV RQ LW

PAGE 87

3URWJV QRWHG WKDW ZKHQ WKHLU PHQWRUV IDLOHG WR WUHDW WKHP ZLWK UHVSHFW WKH\ IHOW GLVFRQQHFWHG ORVW LQWHUHVW LQ WKHLU ZRUN DQG IUHTXHQWO\ GHFLGHG WKDW LI UHVSHFW ZDV QRW IRUWKFRPLQJ QHLWKHU ZRXOG LW EH JLYHQ $V FDQ EH LPDJLQHG WKLV FDQ OHDG WR IXUWKHU GLIILFXOWLHV 2QH SURWJ VWDWHG WKDW VKH KDG EHHQ fRIIHUHG DVVLVWDQFH WR OHDYH WKH SURJUDPf 7\SLFDOO\ WKHVH IDLOXUHV RI UHVSHFW PDQLIHVWHG DV QRW DFNQRZOHGJLQJ RU DWWHQGLQJ WR D SURWJf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f DUH PXFK VWURQJHU DQG RQH QHYHU FULWLFL]HV RU VSHDNV IUHHO\ ZLWK RQH WR ZKRP UHVSHFW LV GXH 6KH VWDWHG WKDW VWXGHQWV DUH QRW FRQVLGHUHG WR EH HTXDO WR WKHLU SURIHVVRUV 6WXGHQWV QHLWKHU H[SHFW D PHQWRU WR VWRS DQG WDON WR WKHP QRU GR VWXGHQWV IHHO RIIHQGHG RU XQLPSRUWDQW ZKHQ WKH\ GR QRW 6KH UHFDOOHG EHLQJ H[WUHPHO\ DQG SOHDVDQWO\ VXUSULVHG E\ KHU $PHULFDQ PHQWRUfV RSHQQHVV DQG ZLOOLQJQHVV WR HQJDJH ZLWK KHU LQ FRQYHUVDWLRQ DW DQ\ WLPH 6KH QRWHG WKDW DOWKRXJK VKH ZDV QRW HTXDO LQ VWDWXV QHLWKHU GLG VKH IHHO LQIHULRU

PAGE 88

$OWKRXJK WKH FRQVHQVXV ZDV WKDW SURWJV D SULRUL GHVHUYH UHVSHFW DOO PHQWRUV QRWHG LWV OLPLWV $V RQH PHQWRU LQ WKH SKDUPDFHXWLFDO ILHOG FRPPHQWHG DOWKRXJK VWXGHQWV GHVHUYH UHVSHFW WKHUH DUH ILUP ERXQGDULHV RI DFFHSWDEOH EHKDYLRU HVSHFLDOO\ FRQVLGHULQJ WKH SRWHQWLDO KHDOWK ULVNV LQKHUHQW LQ WKH ILHOG 6WXGHQWV DUH H[SHFWHG WR WDNH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU WKHLU HGXFDWLRQ VHULRXVO\ DQG WR EHKDYH DV SURIHVVLRQDOV 5HVSHFW RI D 3HUVRQfV 5LJKW WR 6HOI'HWHUPLQDWLRQ 7KH FULWLFDO DVSHFW RI WKLV WKHPH LV WKDW D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKH PHQWRUfV IRFXV RQ DQG FRPPLWPHQW WR IDFLOLWDWLQJ WKH JRDOV DQG SODQV RI WKH SURWJ 7KH HPSKDVLV LV VR DV\PPHWULFDO LQ IDYRU RI WKH SURWJ WKDW LW DOPRVW UHDFKHV WKH OHYHO WKDW WKH QHHGV DQG GHVLUHV RI WKH PHQWRU DUH RI OLWWOH FRQVHTXHQFH $V RQH PHQWRU QRWHG 7KH\ DUH UHDOO\ WKH RQHV WKDW FRXQW LQ WKH ORQJ UXQ
PAGE 89

0HQWRUV VWDWHG WKHLU EHOLHI WKDW DOO VWXGHQWV DUH XQLTXH DQG WKDW WKH FHQWUDO WDVN RI D PHQWRU LV WR XQFRYHU WKH QDWXUDO WDOHQW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQW WR QXUWXUH WKHLU QDWLYH H[FHOOHQFH DQG SDVVLRQ 0HQWRUV UHSHDWHGO\ QRWHG WKDW LW LV QRW WKHLU WDVN WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW D SURWJ VKRXOG EH GRLQJ ZLWK KHU RU KLV OLIH RU FDUHHU UDWKHU WKH PHQWRUfV WDVN LV WR VXSSRUW WKH JURZWK DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH SURWJ LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ WKH SURWJ KDV FKRVHQ $V 0 LQGLFDWHG WKH JRDO LV WR GHYHORS WKH VWXGHQWV LQ UHJDUG WR WKHLU RZQ LQWHUHVWV DQG WDOHQWV QRW WR fPDNH PLQL FRSLHV RI \RXUVHOIf +H FRQWLQXHG ,WfV D ZRQGHUIXOO\ IUHHLQJ WKLQN H[SHULHQFH >IRU SURWJV@ WR UHDOL]H WKDW \RX FDQ SXUVXH WKDW IRU ZKLFK \RX KDYH WDOHQW DQG LQWHUHVW DQG FDQ PROG D OLIH DURXQG LW RQFH KHDUG WKDW b RI $PHULFDQV JHW XS LQ WKH PRUQLQJ JR WR ZRUN DQG GUHDG WKDW DQG FDQfW LPDJLQH WKDW GD\ DIWHU GD\ DIWHU GD\ 7KLV LV ZK\ WKLQN VRPH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV GRQfW OLNH JUDGXDWH VFKRRO ZRXOG ZLVK WKDW b RI SHRSOH FRXOG IROORZ WKHLU RZQ WDOHQWV DQG LQFOLQDWLRQV 6DWLVILHG SURWJV DOVR VHHPHG WR EH PRVW HQDPRUHG RI WKHLU PHQWRUVf IRFXVLQJ RQ WKH SURWJfV GHVLUHV DQG JRDOV 2QH RI 0fV SURWJV 63 ZDV DOVR LQWHUYLHZHG DQG VWDWHG WKDW fD PHQWRU LV D JXLGH ZKR IDFLOLWDWHV \RXU UHDFKLQJ \RXU JRDOV QRW \RX UHDFKLQJ WKHLU JRDOVf +H VDLG RI 0 WKDW ZKDWHYHU DUHD \RX ZHUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ DV D 0fV SURWJf§ DFDGHPLFV SUDFWLFH UHVHDUFKf§0 ZRXOG fSURYLGH \RX ZLWK DV PDQ\ RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQG DV PXFK JXLGDQFH DV \RX QHHG RU ZDQWf 63 QRWHG WKDW KH IHHOV HPSRZHUHG DQG H[FLWHG E\ WKLV NLQG RI VXSSRUW EHFDXVH KH EHOLHYHV KH ZLOO EH VXFFHVVIXO LQ WKH DUHD KH KDV FKRVHQ 7KHUH DUH OLPLWV DQG TXDOLILFDWLRQV WR WKLV VXSSRUW KRZHYHU DV LV LQGLFDWHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ H[FKDQJH ZLWK 0 0 ,fYH WULHG WR ILQG ZKDW WKH\fUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ $QG WU\ WR JLYH WKHP WKDW D OLWWOH ELW ,QWHUYLHZHU 6R LW ZRXOG EH NLQG RI OLNH ILQGLQJ RXW ZKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWfV

PAGE 90

LQWHUHVWV RU SDVVLRQV DUH DQG WKHQ WU\LQJ WR IHHG WKDW WR IDFLOLWDWH WKDW" 0 $V EHVW FDQ 1RZ FDQfW MXVW OHW WKHP WRWDOO\ UXQ P\ SURJUDP EXW ,fP PRUH WKDQ ZLOOLQJ WR PHDQ KDYH HQRXJK IOH[LELOLW\ LQ P\ SURJUDP WKDW FDQ WU\ WR PHHW WKHLU SDUWLFXODU QHHGV RQFH ,fP VXUH WKHUHfV D SDVVLRQ IRU LW 0 FRQFXUUHG VWDWLQJ f, MXVW FDQfW VXSHUYLVH DQ\ ROG WKLQJ WKDW WKH\ FRPH XS ZLWKf 0O QRWHG WKDW LI KH GRHVQfW NQRZ WKH DUHD WKDW D VWXGHQW ZDQWV WR SXUVXH RU WKH VWXGHQW GHFOLQHV WR WDNH KLV DGYLFH RU UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV WKHQ KH FDQf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fJRRGf PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DV GHVFULEHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ LV WKDW WKH PHQWRU GRHV LQ IDFW YDOXH WKH SURWJf 7KH VDOLHQW IDFWRU KHUH LV WKDW WKH SURWJ IHHOV WKDW KHU RU KLV XQLTXH LGHQWLW\ LV EHLQJ YDOLGDWHG LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK WKHLU PHQWRU 7KH SURWJ LV QRW PHUHO\ DQRWKHU XQLW LQWHUFKDQJHDEOH ZLWK DQ\ RWKHU XQLWf LQ D ORQJ VHULHV RI RQHURXV REOLJDWLRQV ZLWK ZKLFK D IDFXOW\ PHPEHU LV WDVNHG E\ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH MRE QRU LV WKH SURWJ PHUHO\ D PHDQV WR WKH PHQWRUfV HQGV UDWKHU WKH PHQWRU DFWXDOO\ KDV DQ LQWHUHVW LQ WKLV SDUWLFXODU SHUVRQ 7KLV LQWHUHVW PDQLIHVWV LQ GHPRQVWUDEOH WDQJLEOH ZD\V WKDW DUH REVHUYDEOH E\ WKH

PAGE 91

SURWJ DQG WKDW VKH RU KH FDQ LQWHUQDOL]H DV VHOIZRUWK DQG YDOXH ,Q WKLV FDVH WKH SURWJ FRXOG VD\ f,I WKLV LPSRUWDQW KLJK VWDWXV SHUVRQ WKLQNV ,fP LPSRUWDQW WKHQ PD\EH ,fP RND\f 3DUWLFLSDQWV H[SHULHQFHG IHHOLQJ YDOXHG E\ WKH SUDFWLFDO GHPRQVWUDWLRQV RI WKHLU PHQWRUVf Df DYDLODELOLW\ DQG Ef WLPH DQG HIIRUW 7KURXJK WKHVH WZR PRGHV WKH SURWJ EHFDPH DZDUH RI WKH PHQWRUfV IHHOLQJV DERXW KHU RU KLP SURWJVf DOVR FRQVWUXHG WKHVH DV VLJQDOV RI WKH SRVLWLYH RU QHJDWLYH TXDOLW\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DQG RI WKH VHOI $YDLODELOLW\ $YDLODELOLW\ ZDV SHUKDSV WKH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ QRWHG TXDOLW\ LQ DOO RI WKH GDWD 0HQWRUV VDWLVILHG SURWJV DQG GLVVDWLVILHG SURWJV DOO LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH PHQWRUfV DYDLODELOLW\ WR SURWJV LV VLQH TXD QRQ RI JRRG PHQWRULQJ (YHQ LQ GLVFXVVLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV WKDW KDG OLWWOH RU QR LQWHUSHUVRQDO FRPSRQHQWV DYDLODELOLW\ ZDV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH FULWLFDO ,I WKH PHQWRU ZDV QRW DYDLODEOH WKHUH ZDV LQ IDFW QR PHQWRU $YDLODELOLW\ FDQ EH XQGHUVWRRG LQ WHUPV RI SV\FKRORJLFDO DYDLODELOLW\ RU SK\VLFDO DYDLODELOLW\ :KLOH SK\VLFDO DYDLODELOLW\ ZDV PHQWLRQHG QXPHURXV WLPHV LW ZDV QRW W\SLFDOO\ FRQVLGHUHG D VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRU LQ WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS $OO JRRG PHQWRUV ZHUH SK\VLFDOO\ DYDLODEOH WR WKHLU SURWJV DW VRPH OHYHOf§VRPH VSHQW VHYHUDO KRXUV D GD\ ZLWK WKHP LQ YDULRXV FRQWH[WV :KDW ZDV UHSHDWHGO\ QRWHG KRZHYHU ZDV WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH PHQWRU EHLQJ SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ DYDLODEOH 7KDW LV JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV IHOW YDOXHG DQG LPSRUWDQW ZKHQ WKHLU PHQWRUV UHVSRQGHG ZKHQ WKH\ ZHUH WDONHG WR ZKHQ WKH UHVSRQVH ZDV UHOHYDQW DQG KHOSIXO ZKHQ WKH PHQWRU VWRSSHG ZKDW WKH\ ZHUH GRLQJ ZKHQ WKH SURWJ ZDQWHG WR WDON WR WKHP DERXW D SUREOHP RU ZKHQ WKHUH ZDV QRW D SUREOHPf

PAGE 92

ZKHQ WKH PHQWRU ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH SURWJV FRQFHUQV RU QHHGV ZKHQ WKH PHQWRU ZDV ZLOOLQJ WR WDON RQ WKH SKRQH IURP KRPH ZLWK WKH SURWJ RU HYHQ LI WKH PHQWRU ZRXOG PHUHO\ XVH HPDLO WR FRPPXQLFDWH ,Q UHVSRQVH WR WKH RSHQLQJ TXHVWLRQ RQ KRZ KH ZRXOG GHILQH JRRG PHQWRULQJ 63 VDLG WR EH DYDLODEOH LV WKH PRVW EDVLF 7R EH DEOH WR EH WKHUH WR EH ZLOOLQJ WR EH WKHUH WR WDON DERXW \RXU LQWHUHVWVf 0 QRWHG WKDW RQH RI WKH FHQWUDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV KH UHVSHFWHG LQ RWKHU JRRG PHQWRUV KH NQHZ ZDV f7KH DELOLW\ WR WDNH WLPH DQG OLVWHQ IXOO\ WR DQRWKHU SHUVRQfV VWRU\f 63 WKH VWXGHQW IURP $VLD QRWHG WKDW KHU PHQWRU ZDV DOZD\V DYDLODEOH WR KHU DQG WKDW LW PDGH KHU IHHO LPSRUWDQW DQG YDOXHG 6KH IXUWKHU QRWHG WKDW KHU SHHUV ZLWK OHVV DYDLODEOH DQG RSHQ PHQWRUV ZHUH QRW KDSS\ DQG GLG QRW IHHO YHU\ LPSRUWDQW WR WKHLU PHQWRUV 63 UHOD\HG D VWRU\ WKDW H[HPSOLILHV DYDLODELOLW\ DQG LWV HIIHFW RQ WKH SURWJ +H ZDV RQH RI WKH SHRSOH RQ WKH FRPPLWWHH IRU P\ SDSHU +H ZDV DFWXDOO\f§ WKLV LV NLQGD FRROf§KH ZDV DFWXDOO\ RQ YDFDWLRQ LQ -DQXDU\ ZKHQ HPDLOHG KLP DQG WROG KLP f+HUHfV ZKHUH DP KHUHfV P\ RXWOLQH ,fYH NLQG RI UHYLVHG LW IURP ZKDW ZH WDONHG DERXW ODVW WLPHf +H HPDLOHG PH EDFN DQG VDLG f$FWXDOO\ ZHfUH RQ YDFDWLRQ :HfUH LQ 0LQQHVRWDf +H WROG PH D OLWWOH ELW DERXW WKH ZHDWKHU LW ZDV IUHH]LQJ WKH\ ZHUH IRUWXQDWH HQRXJK WR DUULYH LQ WKH PLGGOH RI D VQRZVWRUP GD GD GD GD GD DQG >KH FRQWLQXHG@ f
PAGE 93

fPHQWRUfVf GRRU WR JHW DQ DSSRLQWPHQWf§VKH GLVSHQVHV KHU WLPH LQ PLQXWH LQFUHPHQWVf§ZKHWKHU WKH\ DUH DQ XQGHUJUDG VWXGHQW RU RQH RI KHU JUDG VWXGHQWV '3 FRPPHQWHG WKDW fWKHUH QHHGV WR EH VRPHRQH \RX FDQ NQRZ WKDW LV JRLQJ WR DQVZHU EDFN RU \RX FDQ WRXFK EDVH ZLWK ZKR FDQ JLYH \RX VRPH GLUHFWLRQ WKDW \RX FDQ WDON WRf 6KH FRQWLQXHG WKDW WKH WKLQJ WKDW ERWK KHU PHQWRUV FRXOG KDYH GRQH ZDV WR VLPSO\ EH DYDLODEOH '3 LQGLFDWHG WKDW LI VKH KDG D TXHVWLRQ DERXW UHTXLUHPHQWV DERXW FODVVHV DERXW ZKHUH WR ILQG WKH EDWKURRP KHU PHQWRU ZRXOG WHOO KHU WR JR DVN DQRWKHU JUDG VWXGHQW $FFRUGLQJ WR '3 KHU PHQWRU DOVR ZD[HG SKLORVRSKLFDO LQ KHU SUHVHQFH DERXW ZKHWKHU KH VKRXOG EH KLULQJ WHFKQLFLDQV UDWKHU WKDQ JUDG VWXGHQWV VLQFH WHFKQLFLDQV GLGQfW ZDQW RWKHU WKLQJV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKH MRE 7LPH DQG (IIRUW $YDLODELOLW\ LV D IDLUO\ SDVVLYH FRQFHSW LQ WKDW WKH PHQWRU LV EHLQJ UHVSRQVLYH WR WKH LPPHGLDWH QHHGV RI WKH SURWJ 7KH FKDUDFWHU RI WLPH DQG HIIRUW DV D PDUNHU RI YDOXH DQG LPSRUWDQFH LV IRXQG LQ D PHQWRUnV DFWLYLW\ RU SURDFWLYLW\ RQ WKH SURWJfV EHKDOI 7KH PHQWRU GHPRQVWUDWHV KHU RU KLV YDOXDWLRQ RI WKH SURWJ E\ WKH FRQFUHWH LQYHVWPHQW RI OLPLWHG WLPH DQG HQHUJ\ UHVRXUFHV WR WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG SURJUHVV RI WKH SURWJ WRZDUGV KHU RU KLV JRDOV $Q LPSRUWDQW DVSHFW RI WKLV IDFWRU LV WKDW WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LV QRW GHILQHG LQ WHUPV RI VXSSO\ DQG GHPDQG DOWKRXJK WKHUH DUH ORWV RI JUDG VWXGHQWV RXW WKHUH WKHUH LV RQO\ RQH fLQ IURQW RI \RXf 7KH SURWJfV YDOXH WR WKHLU PHQWRU LV DSSDUHQW WR DOO HVSHFLDOO\ WKH SURWJ LQ WKH PHQWRUfV LQYHVWPHQW RI WLPH DQG HQHUJ\ 7KLV YDOXDWLRQ ZLOO DOVR EH LQWHUQDOL]HG DQG FRQVLGHUHG E\ WKH SURWJ LQ WKHLU YDOXDWLRQ RI WKHPVHOYHV

PAGE 94

7KH LQYHVWPHQW RI WLPH DQG HIIRUW ZDV VSRNHQ RI E\ WKH PHQWRUV PRVWO\ LQ WHUPV RI WKH QHFHVVLW\ RI UHFRJQL]LQJ WKH OHYHO RI FRPPLWPHQW LQ WKHVH DUHDV WKDW LV LQKHUHQW LQ GHFLGLQJ WR WDNH RQ JUDG VWXGHQWV RU SURWJV $OO RI WKH PHQWRUV QRWHG WKLV DVSHFW RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DQG H[SUHVVHG QRW RQO\ ZLOOLQJQHVV EXW DOVR HQWKXVLDVP 0O QRWHG WKDW KH IHOW WKDW LI VWXGHQWV ZHUH JRLQJ WR FRPH ZRUN ZLWK KLP WKDW KH RZHG WKHP KLV WLPH DQG HIIRUW DQG DWWHQWLRQ DQG WKDW KH ZDV KDSS\ WR SURYLGH LW 0OfV SURWJ 63 VDLG 7KH IDFW WKDW 0 ZRXOG EH ZLOOLQJ WR SDVV EDFN DQG IRUWK WKH GUDIW WKUHH WLPHV ZDV VRPHWKLQJ WKDW DV ,fYH WDONHG ZLWK RWKHU SHRSOH WKH\ GLGQfW KDYH WKDW DQG WKDW JRHV EDFN WR WKH ILUVW WKLQJ DERXW EHLQJ WKHUH DQG WR EH ZLOOLQJ WR JLYH WLPH IRU \RX :KHQ DVNHG IRU KLV GHILQLWLRQ RI D JRRG PHQWRU 0 VDLG WKDW D JRRG PHQWRU ZDV D SHUVRQ WKDWfV JRLQJ WR WDNH WKH WLPH WR VSHQG ZLWK VWXGHQWV RQ D GDLO\ EDVLV DQG WU\ WR GHYHORS WKHP WR WKHLU PD[LPXP SRWHQWLDO DQG LW WDNHV D ORW RI WLPHf /DWHU LQ RXU LQWHUYLHZ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI D GLVFXVVLRQ RI KRZ PDQ\ JUDG VWXGHQWV VRPH PHQWRUV WDNH RQ KH VDLG KDYH RWKHU FROOHDJXHV WKDW WDNH WHQ RU WZHOYH VWXGHQWV DW D WLPH DQG MXVW FDQfW GR WKDW 6R ,fYH DVNHG P\VHOI fZKDW LV LW WKDW SUHFOXGHV PH IURP GRLQJ WKDW"f $QG ,fYH FRPH WR WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW VSHQG D ORW PRUH WLPH ZLWK LQGLYLGXDO VWXGHQWV PHQWRULQJ WKHP SXW HQRXJK SULRULW\ RQ WU\LQJ WR PHQWRU DQG GHYHORS LQGLYLGXDOV WKDW FDQ RQO\ GR VR PDQ\ DW D WLPH 7KH RWKHU PHQWRUV UHLWHUDWHG WKLV VHQWLPHQW $ SDUWLDO OLVW RI RWKHU GHPRQVWUDWLRQV RI WLPH DQG HIIRUW FRPPLWPHQW E\ PHQWRUV IRU WKHLU SURWJV UHSRUWHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV LQFOXGH ZULWLQJ D VL[ RU VHYHQSDJH VLQJOH VSDFHG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ OHWWHUV fLQ ZKLFK UHDOO\ WHOO D KHDUWIHOW VWRU\ DERXW WKDW VWXGHQWf 0f SD\LQJ IRU WKH SURWJfV DWWHQGDQFH DW FRQIHUHQFHV DQG QRW RQO\ KHOSLQJ WKHP VHW XS WKHLU SUHVHQWDWLRQV EXW VWD\LQJ ZLWK WKHP GXULQJ WKH HQWLUH GLVSOD\ WLPH DQG

PAGE 95

LQWURGXFLQJ WKHP WR LPSRUWDQW SHRSOH WKDW FRPH E\ JRLQJ WR WKH ODE HYHU\ GD\ DQG VHHNLQJ WKHP RXW WR VHH KRZ WKH\fUH GRLQJ ILQLVKLQJ QHFHVVDU\ SDSHUZRUN RQ WLPH DOZD\V NQRZLQJ ZKDW WKH SURWJ LV GRLQJ DQG PDNLQJ VXUH WKDW WKH SURWJ LV RQ WLPH DQG RQ WUDFN UHJDUGLQJ GHSDUWPHQW DQG GHJUHH UHTXLUHPHQWV KHOSLQJ WKHP QHJRWLDWH SHUVRQDO FRQFHUQV VXFK DV EDODQFLQJ ZRUN DQG IDPLO\ VR WKDW WKH\ FDQ UHPDLQ LQ WKH SURJUDP DQG IRFXVHG RQ WKHLU ZRUN UHDGLQJ PDWHULDOV SURYLGHG E\ WKH SURWJ LQ WKH SURWJfV DUHD LQ RUGHU WR NHHS XS ZLWK WKH UHVHDUFK LQ WKDW DUHD DQG FDOOLQJ SHRSOH WR SURPRWH WKH SURWJ IRU D SRVLWLRQ $V PLJKW EH LPDJLQHG WKH FRQYHUVDWLRQV RI WKH GLVVDWLVILHG SURWJV ZHUH PXFK EULHIHU LQ WKLV UHJDUG ([FHSW WR QRWH WKDW WKHLU PHQWRUV HLWKHU LQYHVWHG QR WLPH RU HIIRUW RU WKDW WKH\ RQO\ LQYHVWHG LQ WKRVH DUHDV WKDW ZHUH RI SHUVRQDO LQWHUHVW WKHUH ZDV OLWWOH WR VD\ '3, QRWHG WKDW fZKHQ ZDV GRLQJ WKLQJV WKDW ZHUH QRW RQO\ JHWWLQJ PH WKURXJK WKH SURJUDP EXW ZHUH DOVR JRQQD KHOS KLP RXW ZLWK KLV LQ KLV SURIHVVLRQDO OLIHf KH JRW EHWWHU WUHDWPHQW IURP KLV PHQWRU +H GHVFULEHG KLV SHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK KLV PHQWRU DV fVWHULOHf DQG OHDYLQJ KLP ZLWK fDQ HPSW\ IHHOLQJf 8OWLPDWHO\ OLNH RWKHU '3V '3, ZRXOG WDNH KLV ZRUN HOVHZKHUH f, ZRXOGQfW HYHQ VKRZ LW WR KLPf )HHOLQJ 6DIH 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI IHHOLQJ VDIH ZDV HVSHFLDOO\ HPSKDVL]HG E\ WKH 63V 0HQWRUV DQG '3V DOVR GLVFXVVHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH SURWJfV IHHOLQJV LQ WKLV UHJDUG EXW '3V WHQGHG WR ZLWKGUDZ IURP WKHLU PHQWRUV DV VRRQ DV LW EHFDPH DSSDUHQW WKDW WKH\ ZHUHQfW VDIH DQG DV XVXDO WKH LVVXH EHFDPH RQH RI GHILFLHQF\

PAGE 96

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f'R \RX OLNH WKH LGHD RI VKRZLQJ 0O WKDW \RX GLG LW WKDW \RX ZDQWHG KLP WR EH SURXG"f 63 ZKR ZDV SDUWLFXODUO\ HQDPRUHG RI WKH SDUHQWLQJ PHWDSKRU VDLG
PAGE 97

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f HIIRUWV LPSO\LQJ WKH SURWJ LV VWXSLG RU LV DVNLQJ VWXSLG TXHVWLRQV \HOOLQJ RU VFUHDPLQJ DW WKH SURWJ EODPLQJ WKH SURWJ IRU HUURUV IRU SRRU RXWFRPHV RU IRU QRW NQRZLQJ ZKDW WR GR WDNLQJ RXW IUXVWUDWLRQV RQ WKH SURWJ UHODWHG WR RWKHU VLWXDWLRQV LQ WKH PHQWRUfV OLIH HPEDUUDVVLQJ D SURWJ LQ IURQW RI RWKHUV VKDPLQJ D SURWJ WDNLQJ D FRQFHUQ D SURWJ EULQJV DQG PDNLQJ LW DERXW WKHPVHOYHV HJ D SURWJ SUHVHQWV VRPHWKLQJ WKDW VKH ZDQWHG KHOS ZLWK DQG WKH PHQWRU WHOOV D VWRU\ DERXW VRPHWKLQJ WKDW KDSSHQHG WR KLP VKRZLQJ WKDW KH KDV fVXIIHUHGf WRR \HW ZLWKRXW DGGUHVVLQJ WKH SURWJfV FRQFHUQVf EHKDYLQJ FRQGHVFHQGLQJO\ WRZDUGV WKH SURWJ DQG RWKHUV %RWK 63V DQG '3V UHFRJQL]HG WKH QHFHVVLW\ RI PHQWRUVf FRUUHFWLQJ WKHP DQG

PAGE 98

VKRZLQJ WKHP WKHLU HUURUV VHH EHORZf EXW DOO SDUWLFLSDQWV VHHPHG WR UHFRJQL]H WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ UHMHFWLRQ DQG FULWLTXH 7KH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW FRQVHTXHQWV WR WKHVH UHMHFWLQJ EHKDYLRUV ZHUH WKDW WKH SURWJ ZLWKGUHZ IURP LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK WKH PHQWRU GHYHORSHG TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKHLU RZQ FRPSHWHQFH DQG YDOXH DQG FDUHHU FKRLFH DQG EHFDPH DIUDLG WR HQJDJH LQ WKH QHFHVVDU\ ZRUN IRU IHDU RI EHLQJ fVODSSHG GRZQf DV RQH PHQWRU SXW LW 63 ZKR ZDV DFWXDOO\ WKH 63 RI RQH RI WKH DZDUGZLQQLQJ PHQWRUV 0f QRWHG WKDW LI D SURWJ EHFDPH GHIHQVLYH DW 0fV VWURQJ FULWLTXHV 0 ZRXOG fKDPPHUf WKHP EXW LI \RX DFFHSWHG WKH FULWLTXH DQG DVNHG IRU KHOS 0 ZRXOG fWDNH \RX XQGHU KLV ZLQJf 7KLV ZDV GHILQLWHO\ H[SHULHQFHG DV UHMHFWLQJ DQG WKUHDWHQLQJ EXW ZDV ODWHU UHVROYHG ZKHQ WKH SURWJ ZHQW WR 0 DQG FRQIURQWHG KLP $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH SURWJ 0 KDV EHHQ ZRUNLQJ RQ WKDW TXLUN VLQFH WKDW FRQIURQWDWLRQ DQG WKH\ QRZ JHW DORQJ H[WUHPHO\ ZHOOf 0DQ\ SDUWLFLSDQWV QRWHG WKH DEVHQFH RI UHMHFWLRQ DQG LWV FRUUHODWHV 7KH PRVW QRWHG EHQHILW LV WKDW SURWJV IHHO VDIH WR WDNH ULVNV QRW RQO\ LQ WHUPV RI WDONLQJ WR WKHLU PHQWRUV DERXW SUREOHPV DQG PLVWDNHV EXW DOVR LQ WHUPV RI EHLQJ ZLOOLQJ DQG HPRWLRQDOO\ DEOH WR H[SORUH DQG H[SHULPHQW ZLWK WKHLU ZRUN RU UHVHDUFK )RU H[DPSOH ZKHQ DVNHG ZKDW KHU PHQWRU GLG ZKHQ 63 PDGH D PLVWDNH VKH VDLG 63 2K LW ZDV ILQH PHDQ VKH >0@ XQGHUVWDQGV WKDW \RX RI FRXUVH WKLV LV D WUDLQLQJ SHULRG HYHQ QRZ ,fYH PDGH PLVWDNHV EXW VKH GRHVQfW JR fURRWLQJf IRU LW VKHfV UHDOO\ UHOD[HG DERXW LW ,QWHUYLHZHU ZKDW GRHV WKDW JHW IRU \RX" :KHQ \RXfUH LQ D VLWXDWLRQ DQG \RX PDNH D PLVWDNH DQG VKHfV 2. ZLWK LW 63 :HOO PHDQ LW PDNHV PH PRUH ZLOOLQJ WR DGPLW WKDW PDGH D PLVWDNH DQG DOVR LWfV QRW VR PXFK SUHVVXUH NQRZ VRPH PHQWRUV ZKR DUH D ORW PRUH ULJLG DERXW WKDW DQG WKH\ GR H[SHFW \RX WR NQRZ HYHU\ WLPH H[DFWO\ HYHU\WKLQJ WKDW QHHGV WR EH GRQH $QG \RX NQRZ \RXfUH JRLQJ WR KDYH SHRSOH LQ WKH ODE ZKR DUH JRLQJ WR EH VFDUHG ZKHQ \RX GR WKDW WKLQN LW PDNHV LW HDVLHU IRU PH WR MXVW JR

PAGE 99

DKHDG DQG GR VRPHWKLQJ WKDQ WR ZRUU\ DERXW LW LI HYHU\WKLQJ LVQfW H[DFWO\ ULJKW GR PDNH DQ HIIRUW WR LQFOXGH HYHU\WKLQJ XQGHUVWDQG EDVHG RQ P\ RZQ NQRZOHGJH WR GR HYHU\WKLQJ FRUUHFWO\ EXW LI LWfV QRW FRUUHFW GRQfW IHHO OLNH KDYH WR IHDU DQ\WKLQJ 5HFHLYLQJ $IILUPDWLRQ DQG (QFRXUDJHPHQW 5HFHLYLQJ DIILUPDWLRQ DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW IURP D PHQWRU LV HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH RSSRVLWH RI H[SHULHQFLQJ UHMHFWLRQf§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f, DOZD\V NQHZ KDG JRRG VWXII KDG D JRRG VWRU\ WR WHOO :KDW DOVR NQHZ ZDV WKDW ZDVQfW DOZD\V WKH EHVW DW WHOOLQJ LW DOZD\V IHOW PRWLYDWHG EHFDXVH 0O ZDV YHU\ UHLQIRUFLQJ >VD\LQJ@ f\RXfYH JRW D JRRG WKLQJ KHUH WR WDON DERXW \HDK \RXfUH ULJKW WKLV LV LPSRUWDQW WKLV LV JRRG VWXIIff 63 QRWHG WKDW KHU PHQWRU ZDV DOZD\V YHU\ DIILUPLQJ RU KHU ZRUN HYHQ ZKHQ VXJJHVWLQJ EHWWHU ZD\V WR GR LW RU RWKHU RSWLRQV WR WU\ 6KH VDLG WKDW VKH ZDV QHYHU PDGH WR IHHO VWXSLG RU VPDOO 6KH FRQWLQXHG LQ DQRWKHU VHFWLRQ )RU WKH PRVW SDUW WKH\ RIIHUHG VWXII >VXSSRUW DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW@ VR IUHHO\ LW ZDV PRUH D PDWWHU RI f, NQRZ ZKHUH FDQ JHW WKLVf GLGQfW KDYH WR HDUQ LW LW ZRXOG EH WKHUH QR PDWWHU ZKDW GLG ,W ZDV H[WUHPHO\ YDOLGDWLQJ

PAGE 100

0HQWRUV DOVR QRWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI SURYLGLQJ DIILUPDWLRQ DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW WR SURWJV 0 GLVFXVVHG KRZ HQFRXUDJHPHQW VRIWHQHG WKH EORZV RI IDLOXUHV DQG PLVWDNHV DQG FXOWLYDWHG WKH DELOLW\ WR NHHS fSOXJJLQJf 0 FRPPHQWHG f,fP FRQVWDQWO\ HQFRXUDJLQJ WKHP WR VWUHWFK WR WU\ QHZ WKLQJV WR WU\ LGHDV WR PDNH PLVWDNHV HYHQf 7KH ODFN RI DIILUPDWLRQ DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW FDQ UHVXOW LQ SURWJV JRLQJ HOVHZKHUH IRU WKHLU QHHGV DV ZDV QRWHG E\ '3, ZKR VDLG DV LI KH ZHUH WDONLQJ WR KLV PHQWRUf f>LI@ ,fP QRW JRLQJ WR JHW WKH IHHGEDFN DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW IURP \RX ,fOO JR WR RQH RI WKHVH RWKHU SHRSOHf 5HJDUGLQJ KLV PHQWRUfV ODFN RI HPRWLRQDO VXSSRUW ZKHQ DVNHG ZKDW ZRXOG KDSSHQ WR D \RXQJHU SURWJ ZKR FDPH DQG ZRUNHG ZLWK WKLV PHQWRU '3, ZDV DQG KDG JRRG VXSSRUW DW KRPHf KH VDLG f:HOO ,fYH VHHQ D ORW RI WKHP DQG ,fP WKH VHFRQG SHUVRQ ZKR KDV PDGH LW RXW WKURXJK KLP ZLWK D 3K'f '3 FRPPHQWHG WKDW LQVWHDG RI FRPPHQGLQJ KHU IRU ZKDW VKH KDG GRQH KHU PHQWRU ZRXOG FRPSODLQ DERXW ZKDW VKH KDGQfW GRQH '3 VLPLODUO\ GHVFULEHG KRZ KHU PHQWRU ZRXOG WHOO KHU WR GR VRPHWKLQJ ZLWKRXW SURYLGLQJ DQ\ FOHDU GLUHFWLRQf DQG ZKHQ VKHfG EULQJ WKH ZRUN EDFN WR KLP KH ZRXOG VD\ f:K\ GLGQfW \RX GR f;ff 6KH DUJXHG WKDW WKLV ODFN RI VXSSRUW RU DIILUPDWLRQ RI KHU ZRUN PDGH KHU QRW ZDQW WR GR DQ\ ZRUN DW DOO RU WR HYHU ZRUN ZLWK KLP 7UXVW 7KHUH DUH YDULRXV ZD\V WR FRQVWUXH WUXVW VRPH RI ZKLFK KDYH OLNHO\ EHHQ LPSOLFLW LQ SUHYLRXV VHFWLRQV DQG RWKHUV WKDW ZHUH QRW GLVFXVVHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG WKXV DUH QRW SUHVHQWHG KHUH UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU DVVXPHG RU OLNHO\ UHOHYDQFH ,Q IDFW WUXVW ZDV PHQWLRQHG E\ YDULRXV SDUWLFLSDQWV QXPHURXV WLPH LQ GLYHUVH FRQWH[WV EXW DV D ZRUG

PAGE 101

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fP GRLQJ WKDW PLJKW QRW EH FRUUHFW RU WKDW VRPH RWKHU VHW RI H[SHULPHQWV DUH EHWWHU %XW DOVR IHHO FRPIRUWDEOH DVNLQJ TXHVWLRQV GRQfW IHHO OLNH ,fP JRLQJ WR EH EHOLWWOHG IRU ,QWHUYLHZHU 6R \RX IHHO FRQILGHQW WKDW VKHfV QRW JRLQJ WR DYRLG WHOOLQJ \RX ZKHQ \RXfUH VFUHZLQJ XS 63 2K DEVROXWHO\ 6KH GRHV LW LQ D ZD\ WKDW GRHVQfW PDNH \RX IHHO EDG VR WKDWfV UHDOO\ QLFH
PAGE 102

RQ WKH SDUW RI ERWK RI WKHVH VWXGHQWV WR GHFLGH WR QRW FRPSOHWH WKHLU 3K' DQG WR OHDYH WKHLU SURJUDPV ZLWK PDVWHUfV GHJUHHV 0V DOVR QRWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI SURYLGLQJ KRQHVW IHHGEDFN WR VWXGHQWV DERXW WKHLU ZRUN DQG SURJUHVV DQG LQGHHG ZKHWKHU WKH\ KDG VHOHFWHG WKH ULJKW ILHOG 0O QRWHG WKDW KLV VWXGHQWV DOZD\V NQRZ ZKHUH WKH\ VWDQG ZLWK KLP ,Q UHVSRQVH WR D TXHVWLRQ DV WR ZKDW GUHZ VWXGHQWV WR KLP 0 UHVSRQGHG 0 7UXVW WKLQN WKDW LI \RX GRQfW KDYH WUXVW \RX GRQfW JR DQ\ZKHUH 7KH\ QHHG WR WUXVW RXU UHODWLRQVKLS DQG NQRZ WKDW ZKDW ZLOO GR DQG VD\ LV IRU WKHLU EHQHILW 7KH\ QHHG WR WUXVW WKDW ,fP QRW MXVW D SUHWW\ ER\ WKDW ZLOO MXVW JLYH WKHP SRVLWLYH IHHGEDFN DOO WKH WLPH ZLOO JLYH WKHP IHHGEDFN ZKHQ WKLQN WKH\fUH QRW EHLQJ KRQHVW ZLWK WKHPVHOYHV DQG ZKHQ WKH\fUH PLVOHDGLQJ WKHPVHOYHV WKLQN SDUDGR[LFDOO\ WKDW LWfV NLQG RI WKH LQWHQVLW\ RI WKH H[SHULHQFH WKDWfV RQH RI WKH WKLQJV WKDW GUDZV SHRSOH ,QWHUYLHZHU 6R LQ WHUPV RI WUXVW WKH\ KDYH WR WUXVW \RX :K\ LV WUXVW LPSRUWDQW LQ WKDW NLQG RI UHODWLRQVKLS" 0 :HOO LW JHWV WKHP D SODFH LQ WKHLU OLIH ZKHUH WKH\ FDQ VD\ DQG GR YLUWXDOO\ DQ\WKLQJ DQG ,fP QRW JRLQJ WR MXPS GRZQ WKHLU WKURDW ,fOO JLYH WKHP KRQHVW IHHGEDFN WKDW LV EDVHG RQ ZKDW WKLQN LV IRU WKHLU JRRG DQG WKDWfV SHUKDSV WKH HVVHQFH RI WUXVW )HHOLQJV RI %HORQJLQJ DQG &RPPXQLW\ 3DUWLFLSDQWV RIWHQ QRWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI IHHOLQJ D SDUW RI VRPHWKLQJ DV HVVHQWLDO WR D JRRG JUDG VFKRRO H[SHULHQFH ,Q WKLV FRQWH[W WKH PHQWRUV LQ SDUWLFXODU ZHUH DZDUH WKDW LW LV RIWHQ LPSRUWDQW WR IDFLOLWDWH WKLV VHQVH RI EHORQJLQJ WR HQVXUH WKDW VWXGHQWV GHULYH ERWK WKH SHUVRQDO DQG SURIHVVLRQDO EHQHILWV RI EHLQJ D SDUW RI DQ LPSRUWDQW LQn JURXS 0HQWRUV IHOW WKDW WKH\ ZHUH LQ WKH SRVLWLRQ RI JDWHNHHSHUV RU VSRQVRUV DQG WKHUH ZDV D VHQVH RI WKH PHQWRUV VD\LQJ fFRPH EH ZKHUH DPf 6WXGHQWV HQWHU WKH SURJUDP DV SDUW RI WKH FODVV FDOOHG QRYLFH DQG OHDYH WKH SURJUDP SDUW RI WKH JURXS FDOOHG GRFWRU LW LV LPSRUWDQW WKDW WKLV WUDQVLWLRQ LQFOXGH DFWXDOO\ SDUWLFLSDWLQJ LQ WKH QHZ FODVV VLQFH WKH WLWOH

PAGE 103

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fV ZKDW JUDGXDWH VFKRRO LV DOO DERXW LWfV DERXW GHILQLQJ \RXU LGHQWLW\ ,WfV VRPHWKLQJ WR FRPPLW WR IRU VWXGHQWV WKH\ FRPPLW WR WKH GLVFLSOLQH WKH\ FRPPLW WR D FHUWDLQ SUREOHP WR ILJXULQJ LW RXW :HfUH DOO DFDGHPLFV DQG ZH GHILQH RXUVHOYHV D ORW RI RXU LGHQWLW\ LV GHILQHG LQ WHUPV RI ZKR ZH DUH ZKDW ZH GR WKLQN WKDWfV ZKDWfV NLQG RI DWWUDFWLYH LQ VRPH ZD\V DERXW DFDGHPLF ZRUN DQG UHVHDUFK LV WKDW \RX JHW WR VD\ fWKLV LV ZKR DP ,fP D VFLHQWLVWf $JDLQ LW ZDV PHQWRUV ZKR ZHUH SDUWLFXODUO\ FRJQL]DQW RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI GHYHORSLQJ D VHQVH RI EHORQJLQJ RU FRPPXQLW\ DPRQJ WKHLU SURWJV 7KH\ ZHUH RIWHQ YHU\ LQWHQWLRQDO LQ WKHLU IDFLOLWDWLRQ RI WKLV H[SHULHQFH DQG SURYLGHG D QXPEHU RI RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU WKHLU SURWJV LQ WKLV UHJDUG )RU H[DPSOH 0 LQFOXGHG IXQGLQJ LQ KHU JUDQW SURSRVDOV WR FRYHU KHU SURWJVf H[SHQVHV WR DWWHQG QDWLRQDO FRQIHUHQFHV $W WKHVH FRQIHUHQFHV VKH ZRXOG HQVXUH WKDW WKH\ ZHUH DEOH WR QRW MXVW PHHW EXW VRFLDOL]H ZLWK WKH fQDPHVf LQ WKH ILHOG 7KH SURWJV ZRXOG DOVR EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH OXQFKHV DQG GLQQHUV WKDW VKH KDG ZLWK RWKHU VHQLRU DFDGHPLFLDQV DQG UHVHDUFKHUV 6KH QRWHG WKDW WKLV QRW RQO\ JDYH KHU SURWJV LPSRUWDQW FRQWDFWV DQG fEUDJJLQJ ULJKWVf LW DOVR JDYH WKHP DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR LQWHUDFW ZLWK KLJK VWDWXV DQG KLJK SRZHUHG SHRSOH LQ D VDIH HQYLURQPHQW 2WKHU PHQWRUV ZHUH VLPLODUO\ LQWHQWLRQDO 0 DOVR WRRN KLV SURWJV WR QDWLRQDO FRQIHUHQFHV DV ZHOO DV EULQJLQJ LQ ZHOONQRZQ VFLHQWLVWV LQ WKH ILHOG WR MRLQ LQ WKH ZHHNO\

PAGE 104

ODE PHHWLQJV DQG WR SUHVHQW DQG GLVFXVV WKHLU RZQ ZRUN LQ WKH VDPH ZD\ DV GLG WKH SURWJV 7KH SURWJV DOVR SUHVHQWHG IRU WKH YLVLWRUV $V 0 DERYH 0 DOVR QRWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI SUDFWLFLQJ SURIHVVLRQDO DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO VNLOOV ZLWK KLJK VWDWXV SHUVRQV LQ D VDIH HQYLURQPHQW 0O LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WDNLQJ SURWJV WR FRQIHUHQFHV DQG LQWURGXFLQJ WKHP WR FROOHDJXHV DQG RWKHU SURIHVVLRQDO GHVFULEHG SXWWLQJ KLV SURWJVf QDPHV RQ D OHWWHUKHDG KH GHVLJQHG IRU WKH ODE VR WKDW ZKHQHYHU VRPHWKLQJ ZDV VHQW RXW IURP DQ\ PHPEHU RI WKH JURXS DOO WKHLU QDPHV ZHUH VHHQ E\ WKH UHFLSLHQWV :KHQ DVNHG ZK\ WKHVH ZHUH JRRG WKLQJV WR GR KH UHVSRQGHG 7KH\fUH D PHPEHU RI WKH\ EHORQJ WR WKH GLVFLSOLQH ,WfV DQ LVVXH RI EHORQJLQJ WR WKH GLVFLSOLQH WKH\fUH SDUW RI WKH VFLHQWLILF FRPPXQLW\ QDPH@ UHFRJQLWLRQ DQG VRDQGVR LV VRDQGVRfV VWXGHQW DOO WKDW JHWV SURFHVVHG EXW WKLQN LWf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fV FROOHDJXHV DQG FRPPXQLW\ LV DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR GHYHORS WKH VNLOO RI PHQWRULQJ

PAGE 105

3URWJV IRFXVHG RQ VRPH RI WKH EHKDYLRUV WKDW PHQWRUV HQJDJHG LQ WKDW PDGH WKHP IHHO WKDW WKH\ ZHUH LQ D SHHU UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW WKH\ ZHUH D SDUW RI D WHDP WKDW WKH\ ZHUH D SDUW RI D FRPPXQLW\ DV RSSRVHG WR DQ LVRODWHG LQGLYLGXDO PHUHO\ WU\LQJ WR JHW D GHJUHH 7ZR EHKDYLRUV ZHUH UHSHDWHGO\ GLVFXVVHG E\ SURWJV DV SURYLGLQJ D IHHOLQJ RI EHORQJLQJ )LUVW WKH PHQWRU EHLQJ DFWLYHO\ FXULRXV RU JHWWLQJ H[FLWHG DERXW WKH SURWJV SURMHFW RU UHVXOWV ZKLFK ZDV FRQVWUXHG DV DQ LQGLFDWRU WKDW WKH ZRUN ZDV VRPHWKLQJ WKDW D fUHDOf VFLHQWLVW ZRXOG GR DQG WKDW LW ZDV ZRUWKZKLOH LQ D ODUJHU VHQVH 6HFRQG HQJDJLQJ LQ EDQWHU ODXJKLQJ DQG MRNLQJ ZLWK WKH SURWJf§HVSHFLDOO\ LQVLGH MRNHV VHOIGHSUHFDWLQJ MRNHV RU MRNHV WKDW ZHUH GLUHFWHG DW LQVLGHUVf§DQG RWKHU fXQSURIHVVLRQDOf DFWLYLW\ 7KHVH WR WKH SURWJV ZHUH FOHDU FXHV WKDW WKH\ ZHUH QRZ D SDUW RI WKH LQJURXS DV RQO\ PHPEHUV RI D JURXS DUH DOORZHG WR fGHQLJUDWHf WKH JURXS FI LQJURXS XVH RI UDFLDO WHUPVf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f SHUFHSWLRQV RI EHORQJLQJ

PAGE 106

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f§WKDW ZDV DOVR WKH FLUFOH RI DSSURYDO RI RWKHU SHHUV WKDW DUH RXW WKHUH 2QH REVHUYDWLRQ PDGH GXULQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZV QRW PHQWLRQHG GLUHFWO\ E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKH FRQYHUVDWLRQV EXW UHOHYDQW WR WKH QRWLRQ RI IHHOLQJ RI EHORQJLQJ ZDV WKH FRQVLVWHQW XVH RI WKH SURQRXQ fZHf E\ ERWK 63V DQG 0V EXW QRW E\ '3V 7KLV VHHPV WR LQGLFDWH WKDW DW D YHU\ IXQGDPHQWDO OHYHO D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LQWULQVLFDOO\ LV RQH RI EHLQJ D SDUW RI VRPHWKLQJ HYHQ LI RQO\ D G\DG '3V DOVR UHFRJQL]HG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI EHORQJLQJ EXW W\SLFDOO\ KDG WR ILQG ZD\V WR IDFLOLWDWH WKLV RQ WKHLU RZQ 2QH '3 IHHOLQJ WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK KHU PHQWRU HVWDEOLVKHG D UHDGLQJ JURXS DPRQJ WKH PHQWRUfV JUDG VWXGHQWV VR WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURYLGH HDFK RWKHU VXSSRUW '3, QRWHG WKDW KH IHOW OLNH D FROOHDJXH RQO\ ZKHQ KH ZDV GRLQJ ZRUN WKDW VHUYHG KLV PHQWRUV QHHGV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO OLIH '3V IDU IURP IHHOLQJ OLNH WKH\ ZHUH D SDUW RI DQ\WKLQJ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH\ FRXOGQfW JHW DQ\RQH WR VXSSRUW WKHLU LQWHUHVWV WKDW WKHLU FRPPLWWHH ZDQWHG QHLWKHU WR PHHW QRU WR UHDG WKH

PAGE 107

SURWJVf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fLPSRVWHU V\QGURPHf LQ ZKLFK WKH JUDG VWXGHQW TXHVWLRQV ZKHWKHU VKH RU KH LV FRPSHWHQW WR GR WKH ZRUN ZKHWKHU VKH RU KH VKRXOG EH WKHUH DQG LQ ZKLFK WKH VWXGHQW ZRQGHUV ZKHQ WKH UHDO SURIHVVLRQDOV DUH JRLQJ WR ILQDOO\ QRWLFH WKDW fWKLV SHUVRQ LV DQ LPSRVWHU QRW D UHDO FDQGLGDWH DW DOOf $V DQ DQRG\QH WR WKLV V\QGURPH LW LV FULWLFDO WKDW WKH PHQWRU HQVXUH WKDW HYHQWV DQG H[SHULHQFHV DUH DYDLODEOH IRU WKH SURWJV WKDW SURYLGH UHSHWLWLYH DQG FOHDU FXHV WKDW RQH LV PDNLQJ SURJUHVV WRZDUG WKH JRDO ,QGHHG SURWJV DQG PHQWRUV UHFRJQL]HG WKLV DQG ERWK JURXSV RI SDUWLFLSDQWV QRWHG LW GXULQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZV 0 QRWHG WKDW DV D JRRG PHQWRU fLWfV D SDUW RI ZKDW \RX ZDQW WR VXSSRUW WKLQN WR KHOS WKHP GHYHORS WR EHOLHYH WKDW WKH\ FDQ VXFFHHG WKDW WKH\ FDQ WDNH RQ FKDOOHQJHV $QG WKH\ PD\ ZRQGHU ZK\ WKH\ GLG LW EXW \RX NQRZ WKH\ FDQ SXOO LW RIIf 0 VDLG WKDW UHFRJQL]LQJ WKDW fWKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LWVHOI >LV@ D YHKLFOH IRU KDYLQJ SURJUHVV WRZDUG YDULRXV JRDOVf LV IRXQGDWLRQDO DQG ZLWKRXW WKDW UHFRJQLWLRQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LVQfW JRLQJ WR ZRUN 63 QRWHG WKH IHHOLQJ WKDW KHU PHQWRU ZDV KHOSLQJ KHU SURJUHVV IURP QHRSK\WH WR SHHU DQG ZDV QRW NHHSLQJ KHU GHSHQGHQW 6KH

PAGE 108

DOVR QRWHG WKDW VLQFH VKH KDG JUHDW UHVSHFW IRU KLP ZKHQ KH VLPSO\ WROG KHU WKDW VKH ZDV GRLQJ ZHOO VKH EHOLHYHG KLP DQG VR VKH IHOW fFRPSHWHQW DQG FRQILGHQWf 63 VHHPHG LQVSLUHG ZKLOH GHVFULELQJ VRPH RI WKHVH IHHOLQJV ,W PDGH PH IHHO JUHDW ,W ZDV FRRO ,W KHOSHG PH IHHO OLNH ZDV DFFRPSOLVKLQJ WKLQJV OLNH ZDV DFWXDOO\ SDVVLQJ PLOHVWRQHV RU ZKDWHYHU ZKLFK WKLQN LWfV D KDUG WR IHHO HVSHFLDOO\ JRLQJ WKURXJK D GRFWRUDO SURJUDP ZKHUH \RX NHHS JHWWLQJ PRUH DQG PRUH ZRUN 7KHUH DUH WKRVH PLOHVWRQHV WKDW DUH NLQG RI IDU LQEHWZHHQ DQG LW KHOSHG PH IHHO WKDW ZDV SURJUHVVLQJ WKDW ZDV JRLQJ VRPHZKHUH ZDV OHDUQLQJ ZDV VHHLQJ FRXOG VWDUW WR VHH FRXOG YLVLEO\ VHH P\VHOI EHFRPLQJ PRUH DQG PRUH OLNH D SURIHVVRU WKH OHYHO ZDQWHG WR EH 6RPHWLPHV LWfV NLQG RI KDUG WR IHHO WKDW \RXfUH SURJUHVVLQJ WKDW \RXfUH JRLQJ DQ\ZKHUH
PAGE 109

PHQWRUf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fFRQWLQXDOO\ UDPSLQJ XS DV IDU DV KRZ PXFK \RX FDQ KDQGOH SHRSOH ZKR KDQGOH WKDW WKH DGGLWLRQ RI DQRWKHU VWUHVV VR WR VSHDN FRQWLQXH RQ DQG WKH SHRSOH ZKR VWDUW VWXPEOLQJ KH ZRXOG SUREDEO\ EDFN RIIf $OO RI WKH PHQWRUV ZHUH IXOO\ FRJQL]DQW RI WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO FRXUVH RI D SURWJV HGXFDWLRQ DQG LQFRUSRUDWHG LW LQWR WKHLU H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG JRDOV 0 GHVFULEHV KRZ D JRRG PHQWRU UHFRJQL]HV WKDW QHZ VWXGHQWV PD\ QRW NQRZ KRZ WR GR VFLHQFH RU ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV D JRRG RU EDG UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ VR KH WULHV WR EXLOG D SURJUDP WKDW WHDFKHV WKHVH VNLOOV 0 QRWHV WKDW LWfV QRW H[SHFWHG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZLOO KDYH JUHDW FRPPXQLFDWLRQV VNLOOV ZKHQ WKH\ DUULYH VR WKH\fUH WDXJKW 0O VDLG 0O WKLQN WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO V\VWHPV PRGHO WKDW ZH XVH LV D SHUIHFW PHWDSKRU >IRU PHQWRULQJ@ 7KH ZD\ \RX GR LW ZLWK DGYDQFH VWXGHQWV DQG WKH NLQG RI LQSXW WKDW \RX JLYH WKHP DQG WKH NLQG RI IHHGEDFN WKDW \RX JLYH WKHP LV YHU\ GLIIHUHQW WKDW WKH NLQG RI IHHGEDFN \RX JLYH D ILUVW \HDU DQG WKHUHfV VRUW RI D PLGGOLQJ SKDVH ZKLFK WR PH LV WKH KDUGHVW EHFDXVH \RXfUH DOZD\V KDYLQJ WR JDXJH ZKDW WKH\ NQRZ DQG GRQfW NQRZ DQG ZKDWfV JRLQJ WR EH VDOLHQW DQG ZKDWfV JRLQJ WR VWLFN DQG ZKDWfV QRW JRLQJ WR VWLFN ,QWHUYLHZHU :KDW ZRXOG KDSSHQ LI \RX JXHVVHG ZURQJ DQG H[SHFWHG VRPHWKLQJ RI WKHP WKDW WKH\ ZHUHQfW DEOH WR JLYH" 0O :HOO KDYH WR VFDOH EDFN

PAGE 110

,QWHUYLHZHU :KDW ZRXOG KDSSHQ WR WKHP LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU >GHYHORSPHQW@ 0O 2K :HOO LW GHSHQGV RQ ZKR WKH VWXGHQW LV DQG LI WKH\ VWXGHQW KDV IDLUO\ JRRG PHWDFRJQLWLYH DELOLW\ 6RPHWLPHV WKH\fUH SUHWW\ XSVHW WKDW WKH\fG OHW PH GRZQ RU WKH\fUH IHHOLQJ WKDW WKH\ GRQfW PHDVXUH XS 6RPH RI WKH VWXGHQWV DUH REOLYLRXVf§QRQH RI WKHP DUH ZKHQ WKH\ ILQLVK EXW VRPH DUH REOLYLRXV RQ WKH ZD\ 7KH\fOO JHW LW 7KH\fOO ILJXUH LW RXW ,QFUHDVLQJ $XWRQRP\ $ WKLUG FRQGLWLRQ ZKLFK LV D GHULYDWLYH RI WKH VHFRQG WKDW SURYLGHV HYLGHQFH WR WKH SURWJ WKDW VKH RU KH LV PDNLQJ SURJUHVV WRZDUGV WKH JRDO LV SURYLGLQJ LQFUHDVLQJ DXWRQRP\ DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ %RWK PHQWRUV DQG SURWJV FRPPHQWHG RQ EHLQJ SURYLGHG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR DQG VRPHWLPHV EHLQJ UHTXLUHG WRf VROYH SUREOHPV RQ WKHLU RZQ ERWK UHVHDUFK DQG SHUVRQDO 0 QRWHV WKDW VRPHWLPHV KH KDV WR SXVK WKH SURWJV WR HQJDJH LQ GLIILFXOW SURFHVVHV VXFK DV OHDGLQJ WKH UHVHDUFK JURXS RU SUHVHQWLQJ EXW WKDW E\ GRLQJ VR KH IDFLOLWDWHV WKHLU GHYHORSPHQW LQ D VDIH SODFH 0O VD\V WKDW HVSHFLDOO\ DV WKH VWXGHQWV SURJUHVV KH ZLOO WHOO WKHP ZKHQ VRPHWKLQJ QHHGV WR EH GRQH DQG OHW WKHP ILJXUH RXW KRZ WR JR DERXW GRLQJ LW 2U ZKHQ D GHFLVLRQ QHHGV WR EH PDGH KHfOO WHOO WKHP WR PDNH LW 63 DSSUHFLDWHV WKLV DSSURDFK ZKHQ DVNHG ZKHWKHU VKH ZDQWHG WR EH WROG WKH DQVZHUV WR GLIILFXOW SUREOHPV VKH VDLG f1R 1R DEVROXWHO\ QRW GRQfW ZDQW WR EH WROG WKH DQVZHU GRQfW ZDQW WR EH WROG ZKDW WR GR ZDQW WR KDYH VRPH IUHHGRP DQG DELOLW\ WR GHYHORS P\ RZQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJf 6KH ODWHU FRQWLQXHG ,Q WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI FRXUVH ZDV MXVW OHDUQLQJ WHFKQLTXHV DQG EDVLFDOO\ GRLQJ H[SHULPHQWV WKDW ZHUH DVVLJQHG 7KHQ DIWHU D ZKLOH DIWHU JRW D OLWWOH ELW PRUH LQYROYHG VKH UHDOO\ OHW PH NLQG RI WDNH WKLQJV LQ P\ RZQ GLUHFWLRQ )URP GRLQJ P\ RZQ UHDGLQJ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG ZKDW XQGHUVWRRG DERXW $O]KHLPHUfV GLVHDVH DQG RWKHU WKLQJV ,fYH EHHQ DEOH WR GHYHORS P\ RZQ VHW RI H[SHULPHQWV DQG P\ RZQ K\SRWKHVHV DQG NLQG RI P\ RZQ OLWWOH SURMHFW ZKLFK KDV EHHQ YHU\ KHOSIXO EHFDXVH RU DOVR DOORZV PH WR GR WKH NLQG RI WKLQNLQJ $QG WKDWfV ZKDW \RX KDYH WR GR LQ WKH UHDO ZRUOG

PAGE 111

7KH YDOXH RI LQFUHDVLQJ DXWRQRP\ DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LV RI FRXUVH PRGXODWHG E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI PDQ\ RI WKH RWKHU IDFWRUV GLVFXVVHG 7KLV LV HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH QHDUO\ WRWDO DXWRQRP\ DQG UHVSRQVLELOLW\ RI WKUHH RI WKH IRXU '3V RQO\ WZR RI ZKRP DUH FRPSOHWLQJ WKHLU GRFWRUDO GHJUHHV 7KH FRPPHQWV RI WKH WZR ZKR DUH OHDYLQJ ZLWK WKHLU PDVWHUfV GHJUHHV ZHUH UHPDUNDEOH VLPLODU )RU H[DPSOH '3 QRWHG WKDW LQVWHDG RI EHLQJ FRPPHQGHG IRU ZKDW VKH KDG GRQH VKH ZDV FULWLFL]HG IRU ZKDW VKH KDG IDLOHG WR GR '3 VDLG WKDW LI VKH GLGQfW KDYH DQ\ LGHDV VKH ZDV WROG VKH ZDVQfW GRLQJ WKH ZRUN ZKHQ VKH GLG KDYH LGHDV VKH ZDV WROG WKH\ ZHUH QR JRRG 7KH WZR '3V ZKR PDQDJHG WR FRPSOHWH WKHLU GRFWRUDO SURJUDPV GLG UHFDOO VRPH IHHOLQJV RI SURJUHVV '3 QRWHG WKDW LQ VSLWH RI KLV PHQWRUfV IDLOXUH WR DOORZ YLUWXDOO\ DQ\ DXWRQRP\ KH ZDV OHDUQLQJ LPSRUWDQW VNLOOV DQG EHKDYLRUV HVVHQWLDOO\ LQ VSLWH RI KHU HIIRUWV '3 IHOW WKDW LQ WKH YHU\ VSHFLILF DUHDV RI ZULWLQJ DQG UHVHDUFK KH IHOW WKDW KH ZDV PDNLQJ SURJUHVV ZKHQ KH ZDV ZLWK KLV PHQWRU EXW LQ QR RWKHU ZD\ LQ WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSf :KHQ DVNHG ZKHWKHU KH HYHU UHDFKHG WKH SRLQW LQ KLV UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK KLV PHQWRU ZKHUH KH VDLG f:KDWHYHUf KH UHSOLHG WKLQN WKDWfV D JRRG ZD\ WR ORRN DW LW
PAGE 112

&+$37(5 ',6&866,21 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ DWWHPSWHG WR XQFRYHU WKRVH TXDOLWDWLYH IDFWRUV WKDW ZKHQ SUHVHQW LQ D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS TXDOLI\ LW DV D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS 1HLWKHU JRRG QRU PHQWRULQJ ZHUH GHILQHG IRU SDUWLFLSDQWV ZKLFK DOORZHG WKH UHOHYDQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WR HPHUJH IURP WKH SDUWLFLSDQWVf WKRXJKWV DQG H[SHULHQFHV UDWKHU WKDQ EH DQ DWWHPSW WR LQIRUP D SURYLGHG FRQVWUXFW )XUWKHUPRUH DOWKRXJK WKLV SURMHFW ZDV H[SORUDWRU\ DQG GLG QRW VSHFLI\ D VWURQJ RU GLUHFW K\SRWKHVLV D FHQWUDO SUHVXPSWLRQ ZDV WKDW PHUHO\ KDYLQJ DQ DGYLVRU RU fPHQWRUf PHUHO\ PHHWLQJ ZLWK VRPHRQH DQG EHLQJ JLYHQ VRPH PHDVXUH RI DGYLFH DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ PHUHO\ KDYLQJ D FRPPLWWHH FKDLU ZDV QRW VXIILFLHQW WR GHILQH JRRG PHQWRULQJ $V ZDV SRLQWHG RXW E\ YDULRXV SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ VWXGHQWV FDQ JHW DGYLFH DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP DOPRVW DQ\RQH &RYH\ f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fW OLNH ZKDW WKH\ ZDQWHG KRZ WKLQJV PDGH WKHP IHHO DERXW WKHPVHOYHV RU WKHLU SURJUHVV RU WKHLU PHQWRUV ZDV SLYRWDO LQ WKH TXDOLWDWLYH GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ JRRG PHQWRULQJ DQG EDG PHQWRULQJ ,QGHHG LW PLJKW EH DUJXHG WKDW LQ WKH DEVHQFH RI D SRVLWLYH

PAGE 113

HPRWLRQDO WRQH WKH WHUP PHQWRULQJ PD\ EH DQ LQDFFXUDWH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS ,W ZDV GHWHUPLQHG WKDW WKH IDFWRUV PRVW FRPPRQO\ UHSRUWHG WR EH UHODWHG WR WKH TXDOLILFDWLRQ RI D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS FRXOG EH VXEVXPHG XQGHU D VLQJOH FDWHJRU\ WKDW ZDV WHUPHG fSRVLWLYH DIIHFWf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f 6RPH RI WKHVH FDWHJRULHV VXEVXPH WKLUGOHYHO WKHPHV ZKLFK DUH WKHPVHOYHV GHULYHG GLUHFWO\ IRUP WKH LQWHUYLHZ GDWD 1RWH WKDW ZKLOH WKH SURMHFW SHUVSHFWLYH XOWLPDWHO\ IRFXVHG RQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH SURWJV WKHVH ZHUH DV PXFK DV SRVVLEOH FRQQHFWHG ZLWK WKH PHQWRUfV DFWLRQV EHKDYLRUV DQG ZRUGV LQ RUGHU WR EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQG WKH PHQWRUfV SDUW LQ WKH JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS )HHOLQJ UHVSHFWHG VXEVXPHV WZR WKHPHV UHVSHFW DV D SHUVRQ DQG UHVSHFW RI WKH ULJKW RI VHOIGHWHUPLQDWLRQ 5HVSHFW DV D SHUVRQ PDNHV UHIHUHQFH WR WKH VLPSOH UHVSHFW DQG FRXUWHV\ WKDW ZH DOO RZH HDFK RWKHU DV SHUVRQV ,W LV LPSOLFLW LQ WKH QDWXUH DQG HWKLFV RI VRFLDO LQWHUFRXUVH 7KLV W\SH RI UHVSHFW ZDV RI PRVW FRQFHUQ WR PHQWRUV DQG WR '3V ZKR FRQVLGHUHG LW HVVHQWLDO DV D IRXQGDWLRQ WR WKH UHODWLRQVKLS :LWKRXW WKLV IXQGDPHQWDO UHVSHFW WKHUH DUH IHZ ZKR FRXOG RU ZRXOG PDLQWDLQ D UHODWLRQVKLS DW DQ\ OHYHO 7KH VHFRQG W\SH RI UHVSHFW ZDV WKH UHVSHFW IRU D SHUVRQfV IUHHGRP DQG VHOIGHWHUPLQDWLRQ ,Q D

PAGE 114

VHQVH VXSSOHPHQWDO WR EDVLF UHVSHFW RI SHUVRQ WKLV ZRXOG EH H[HPSOLILHG WKH DGGLWLRQDO OHYHO RI UHVSHFW PDLQWDLQHG WRZDUGV SHRSOHfV ULJKW WR FKRRVH IRU WKHPVHOYHV ZKDW WKH\ ZRXOG OLNH WR GR RU DFFRPSOLVK RU EHFRPH ,W ZDV QRWHG E\ DOO WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WKDW WKH SXUSRVH RI PHQWRULQJ LV WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH SURWJfV DWWDLQLQJ WKHLU JRDOV 7KLV FRQFHSW ZDV GLVFXVVHG E\ SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ DOO WKUHH JURXSV EXW DJDLQ PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ E\ WKH PHQWRUV :KLOH PHQWRUV QRWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI FUHDWLRQ DQG JHQHUDWLYLW\ LQ WKHLU RZQ PRWLYDWLRQ IRU PHQWRULQJ DQG WKH ZRUN LW HQWDLOV WKH\ UHSHDWHGO\ DVVHUWHG WKDW LW ZDV WKH SURWJVf FKRLFHV DQG GHVLUHV WKDW ZHUH WKH FHQWUDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ )HHOLQJ YDOXHG E\ RU LPSRUWDQW WR WKH PHQWRU WKH VHFRQG PDMRU IDFWRU SURYLGHV LPSRUWDQW YDOLGDWLRQ RI WKH SURWJfV EHLQJ DQG LGHQWLW\ 7KH SURWJ LV QRW VLPSO\ D PHDQV WR DQ HQG IRU WKH PHQWRU QRU LV VKH RU KH DQ H[WUDQHRXV DQG LQWHUIHULQJ DVSHFW LQ WKH PHQWRUVf fUHDOf ZRUN RI WHDFKLQJ RU UHVHDUFK 5HVSHFW DQG YDOXH DUH GLIIHUHQWLDWHG LQ WKLV FRQWH[Wf E\ WKH XQLYHUVDOLW\ RI UHVSHFW DQG WKH LQGLYLGXDOLW\ RI YDOXH $OO SHRSOH GHVHUYH UHVSHFW EXW D SURWJfV LV E\ GHILQLWLRQ RI JUHDWHU FRQFHUQ WR WKHLU PHQWRU WKDQ RWKHU SHRSOH D GLVWLQFWLRQ WKDW FDQ EH VHHQ LQ WKH PHQWRUfV DFWLRQV 7KH SURWJ SLFNV XS RQ WKHVH FXHV DQG EHKDYLRUV DQG LQWHUQDOL]HV WKH PHQWRUfV YDOXDWLRQV GHYHORSLQJ D SRVLWLYH VHOISHUFHSWLRQ 2I FRXUVH '3V SLFN XS D GLIIHUHQW YDOXDWLRQ DQG VLPLODUO\ LQWHUQDOL]H LW UHVXOWLQJ LQ TXHVWLRQV RI VHOI ZRUWK RU SRWHQWLDO LQ WKHLU FKRVHQ ILHOG 7ZR WKHPHV ZHUH IRXQG WR XQGHUSLQ IHHOLQJV RI EHLQJ YDOXHG RU LPSRUWDQW DYDLODELOLW\ DQG WLPH DQG HIIRUW $YDLODELOLW\ ZDV SHUKDSV WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW SDUWLFLSDQWfV PHQWLRQHG PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ DQG ZDV H[SOLFLWO\ QRWHG DV DQ HVVHQWLDO FRPSRQHQW VLQH TXD QRQ $YDLODELOLW\ UHIHUV QRW PHUHO\ WR SK\VLFDO

PAGE 115

DYDLODELOLW\ EXW WR SV\FKRORJLFDO RU HPRWLRQDO DYDLODELOLW\ VXFK DV LV H[KLELWHG ZKHQ PHQWRUV SURYLGHG HODERUDWHG UHVSRQVHV WR TXHVWLRQV DV RSSRVHG WR VKRUW DQG DFFXUDWH EXW XQKHOSIXO DQVZHUV 7KH FKDUDFWHU RI WLPH DQG HIIRUW DV LQGLFDWLYH RI WKH SURWJfV YDOXH LV IRXQG LQ D PHQWRUnV OHYHO RI DFWLYLW\ RU SURDFWLYLW\ RQ WKH SURWJf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f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

PAGE 116

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f IHHGEDFN WR SURWJV DERXW WKHLU ZRUN VNLOOV FRPSHWHQFH DQG SRWHQWLDO LQ WKH ILHOG 3URWJfV QRWHG WKDW HYHQ ZKHQ LW ZDV XQSOHDVDQW LW UHPRYHG VLJQLILFDQW XQFHUWDLQW\ DQG VWUHVV DOORZHG WKHP WR PDNH EHWWHU GHFLVLRQV DQG ZDV LQGLFDWLYH RI D IXQFWLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH IRUWK FDWHJRU\ ZDV GHILQHG E\ IHHOLQJV RI EHORQJLQJ DQG FRPPXQLW\ $OO SDUWLFLSDQWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW IHHOLQJ D SDUW RI VRPHWKLQJ ZDV DQ LPSRUWDQW SDUW RI WKH H[SHULHQFH DQG WKDW WKH PHQWRU ZDV D SULPDU\ IDFLOLWDWRU RI WKLV IHHOLQJ ,Q IDFW PHQWRUV ZHUH SDUWLFXODUO\ FRJQL]DQW RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI SURWJVf EHFRPLQJ D SDUW RI WKHLU SURIHVVLRQDO FRPPXQLWLHV PRUH VR WKDQ WKH SURWJV ZKR VHHPHG SULPDULO\ WR QRWLFH HLWKHU WKH IHHOLQJ RI EHORQJLQJ RU WKH DEVHQFH RI LW 0HQWRUV IDFLOLWDWHG WKHVH IHHOLQJV LQ WKH ZD\ WKH\ FRQVWUXFWHG WKHLU SURJUDPV DQG LQ WKH ZD\ WKH\ UDQ WKHLU UHVHDUFK DQG ODE JURXSV DQG PHHWLQJV 7KH\ DOVR HQODUJHG WKH FRPPXQLW\ E\ VXSSRUWLQJ SURWJVf DWWHQGDQFH DW FRQIHUHQFHV DQG E\ EULQJLQJ LPSRUWDQW SHRSOH LQ WKH ILHOG LQ WR WKH GHSDUWPHQW WR LQWHUDFW ZLWK WKH VWXGHQWV 0HQWRUV DUH DOVR LQ WKH SRVLWLRQ RI JDWHNHHSHUV

PAGE 117

WR WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH SURIHVVLRQDO FRPPXQLWLHV DQG SURYLGHG UHIHUHQFHV LQWURGXFWLRQV DQG RWKHU QHWZRUNLQJ EHQHILWV WR SURWJV 7KH ILIWK DQG ILQDO FDWHJRU\ UHSUHVHQWLQJ IDFWRUV WKDW FRQWULEXWH WR WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI D UHODWLRQVKLS DV D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IHHOLQJV RI PDNLQJ SURJUHVV *UDGXDWH VWXGHQWV RIWHQ IHHO ZKDW LV UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH fLPSRVWHU V\QGURPHf ZKLFK DWWHPSWV WR GHVFULEH WKH GRXEWV WKDW WKH\ KDYH ZKDW LW WDNHV WR VXFFHHG LQ WKHLU ILHOG DQG WKDW VRRQ VRPHRQH ZLOO QRWLFH DQG DVN WKHP WR OHDYH 7KLV V\QGURPH LV RQO\ SDUWLDOO\ WRQJXHLQFKHHN DV HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH GLVFXVVLRQV RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ DV ZHOO DV LWVf QRW LQIUHTXHQW DSSHDUDQFH LQ FRQYHUVDWLRQ DQG WKH OLWHUDWXUH 6LQFH PRVW SHRSOH LQ JUDGXDWH VFKRRO KDYH DQ DJHQGD D JRDO IHHOLQJV WKDW RQH LV PDNLQJ SURJUHVV WRZDUG WKDW JRDO ZLOO EH UHZDUGLQJ DQG WKXV PRWLYDWLQJ 2EMHFWLYH PHDVXUHV RI SURJUHVV DUH RIWHQ KDUG WR FRPH E\ LQ JUDGXDWH VFKRRO DQG WHQG WR EH LQIUHTXHQW HJ WKH PDVWHUVf GHJUHHf RU XQLQIRUPDWLYH HJ JUDGHVf ,W LV WKXV LPSRUWDQW WKDW WKH PHQWRU SURYLGH RQJRLQJ VXFFHVV H[SHULHQFHV DQG FOHDU IHHGEDFN ZKHQ SURJUHVV LV EHLQJ PDGH &ODULILFDWLRQ RI JRDOV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV IROORZLQJ DQ DSSURSULDWH GHYHORSPHQWDO FRXUVH DQG LQFUHDVLQJ WKH SURWJf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

PAGE 118

,OO $GGLWLRQDOO\ LW ZDV UHSHDWHGO\ UHSRUWHG WKDW JRRG PHQWRUV ZHUH DZDUH RI WKH SURJUHVVLYH QDWXUH RI WKHLU SURWJf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f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f§EXW WZR ZHUH SDUWLFXODUO\ HQDPRUHG RIf§SDUHQWLQJ DQG DWWDFKPHQW DV PHWDSKRUV IRU WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DV ZHUH ILYH RU VL[ RI WKH SURWJV $OVR VLJQLILFDQW ZDV WKDW WKH GLVVDWLVILHG SURWJV RIWHQ FRQILUPHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH IDFWRUV E\ H[SOLFLWO\ QRWLQJ WKHLU DEVHQFH 2I FRXUVH IDFWRUV WKDW

PAGE 119

IRXQG OLWWOH FRPPRQ VXSSRUW DV LPSRUWDQW IRU JRRG PHQWRULQJ ZHUH QRW FRQVWUXHG DV FHQWUDO DQG ZHUH QRW VHOHFWHG IRU LQFOXVLRQ )RU H[DPSOH ILQDQFLDO VXSSRUW ZDV QRWHG EXW LW ZDV QRW UHSUHVHQWHG DV LPSRUWDQW WR WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS $QRWKHU IDFWRU GLVFXVVHG EXW QRW LQFOXGHG DV D IDFWRU ZDV QRQDFDGHPLF VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQV GULQNV DIWHU ZRUN VRFLDO PHDOV JDPHV DQG VSRUWVf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f LW VHHPV OLNHO\ WKDW WKLV LV DQ LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFH IDFWRU DQG QRW D IDFWRU UHODWHG JHQHUDOO\ WR JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV $QRWKHU ILQGLQJ WKDW ZDV XQH[SHFWHG ZDV WKDW ZKHWKHU WKH PHQWRU ZDV DFWLYHO\ HQJDJHG LQ UHVHDUFK RU QRW ZDV QRW LQYDULDEO\ UHODWHG WR JRRG PHQWRULQJ LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWV ,W ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI PHQWRULQJ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV PHQWRUV ZRXOG QHHG WR EH DFWLYH LQ UHVHDUFK LI IRU QR RWKHU UHDVRQ WKDQ WR SURYLGH JRRG UROH PRGHOLQJ LQ WKDW GRPDLQ $OWKRXJK PRVW SDUWLFLSDQWV LQGHHG IHOW WKDW LW ZDV FULWLFDO

PAGE 120

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f 0LVVLULDQ f DQG .UDP f $OWKRXJK VSHFLILF VWDJHV ZHUH QRW GLIIHUHQWLDWHG LQ WKLV DQDO\VLV WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV GLG QRWH WKH FHQWUDO LPSRUWDQFH RI EHLQJ DZDUH RI DQG DGKHULQJ WR D FOHDU GHYHORSPHQWDO FRXUVH DQG HVSHFLDOO\ RI WKH PHQWRUfV HQJDJLQJ LQ DQ RQJRLQJ LI LQIRUPDOf DVVHVVPHQW RI WKH SURWJfV SURJUHVV DORQJ WKLV SDWK 3DUWLFLSDQWV DOVR QRWHG WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO FRXUVH RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LWVHOI GHVFULELQJ fVWDJHVf TXLWH VLPLODU WR WKRVH LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH 'LVFXVVLRQV RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV DOVR ZHUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK UHVHDUFKHUV SHUFHSWLRQV RI D YDVW GLYHUVLW\ RI PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV WKRXJK QRW 3ROORFNfV f +LJK TXDOLW\ PHQWRUV RQFH DJDLQ ZHUH UHSUHVHQWHG DV WUXO\ DPD]LQJ SHRSOH ZKR KDYH FDUHG IRU DQG QXUWXUHG SURWJV DV WKHLU RZQ FKLOGUHQ

PAGE 121

7KHUH DUH D QXPEHU RI IDFWRUV WKDW PD\ UHSUHVHQW OLPLWDWLRQV WR WKLV VWXG\ )LUVW WKHUH ZDV RQO\ RQH FRGHU RI WKH LQWHUYLHZ GDWD WKH DXWKRU SHUIRUPHG DOO FRGLQJ DQG DQDO\VLV WDVNV KLPVHOI $OWKRXJK WKLV LV QRW XQFRPPRQ LQ WKLV W\SH RI UHVHDUFK 'LFN .UDP f LW PXVW EH QRWHG WKDW WKLV ZLOO LQWURGXFH WKH OLNHOLKRRG RI D VXEMHFWLYH ELDV $V .UDP f QRWHG fGDWD FROOHFWLRQ DQG GDWD DQDO\VLV FDQ QRW EH VHSDUDWHG LQ H[SORUDWRU\ TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFKf S f 2QJRLQJ DQDO\VLV RI WKH GDWD E\ WKH UHVHDUFKHU LV DQ LQWHJUDO SDUW RI WKH SURFHVV RI JDWKHULQJ DGGLWLRQDO GDWD LW GRHV QRW RFFXU RQO\ DW WKH FRQFOXVLRQ RI D GDWD FROOHFWLRQ VWDJH ,QGHHG WKH UHVHDUFKHU LV FRQVWUXHG DV D SULPDU\ WRRO LQ WKH DQDO\VLV ,Q JURXQGHG WKHRU\ LW LV DVVHUWHG WKDW DYRLGDQFH RI WKLV ELDV WKLV LV QRW HQWLUHO\ IHDVLEOH QRU HYHQ QHFHVVDULO\ GHVLUDEOH JLYHQ WKH SUHVXPHG GHYHORSHG H[SHUWLVH RI WKH DQDO\VWf 7KH SUHVHQFH RI ELDV LV GHDOW ZLWK E\ ILUVW PDNLQJ WKH UHVHDUFKHUfV ELDVHV DV IDU DV SRVVLEOH H[SOLFLW DQG WKHQ E\ DFFHSWLQJ WKH OLPLWDWLRQV RQ WKH UHVHDUFKHUfV DELOLW\ WR PDNH XQELDVHG fWUXWKf FODLPV DERXW WKH ILQGLQJV ,W LV OHIW WR WKH FRQVXPHU RI WKH UHVHDUFK WR GHWHUPLQH IRU KHU RU KLPVHOI ZKHWKHU WKH UHVHDUFKHU LV FUHGLEOH DQG KHU RU KLV FRQFOXVLRQV DUH SODXVLEOH *URXQGHG WKHRU\ KRZHYHU PDNHV QR DVVHUWLRQ WKDW WKH SDUWLFXODU FRQFOXVLRQV RI WKH UHVHDUFKHUfV DQDO\VLV DUH WKH RQO\ SODXVLEOH FRQFOXVLRQV RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV PLJKW ZHOO FRPH WR GLIIHUHQW FRQFOXVLRQV RU ILQG GLIIHUHQW IDFWRUV PRUH FRPSHOOLQJ 7KLV GRHV QRW LPSDFW WKH YDOXH RI WKH SUHVHQW UHVHDUFK IRU VWUXFWXULQJ WKH GDWD RU GHYHORSLQJ VXEVWDQWLYH WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHOV *ODVHU t 6WUDXVV 5HQQLH t %UHZHU f

PAGE 122

5HVHDUFKHUV XVLQJ WKH JURXQGHG WKHRU\ PHWKRGRORJ\ FRQVLGHU WKH FRQFHUQV DERXW UHVHDUFKHU ELDV WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ RXWZHLJKHG E\ WKH FRPSOHPHQWDU\ EHQHILW WKDW LV WKDW WKH TXDOLWDWLYH PHWKRG fLV RIWHQ WKH PRVW DGHTXDWH DQG HIILFLHQW PHWKRG IRU REWDLQLQJ WKH W\SH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ GHVLUHGf *ODVHU t 6WUDXVV FI *LRUJL f 7KH XVH RI WKH JURXQGHG WKHRU\ PHWKRG LV SHUKDSV WKH PRVW QRWDEOH VWUHQJWK RI WKLV SURMHFW 7KLV PHWKRGRORJ\ KDV EHHQ XVHG QXPHURXV WLPHV LQ WKH PHQWRULQJ OLWHUDWXUH QRW WKH OHDVW LPSRUWDQW RI ZKLFK ZDV .UDPfV RULJLQDO DQG VHPLQDO ZRUN .UDP f ,W KDV DOVR EHHQ XVHG WR H[SORUH WKH PHQWRULQJ H[SHULHQFHV RI */% JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV 1LRORQ f 7KXV WKH OLPLWDWLRQ GXH WR VXEMHFWLYLW\ LV LQGXFHG E\ WKH VSHFLILF VWUHQJWK RI WKH SURMHFW WKDW RI EHLQJ DEOH WR GLVWLO RXW WKH VXEMHFWLYH IDFWRUV GHILQLWLRQDO RI WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS $ VHFRQG SRWHQWLDO TXDOLILFDWLRQ LV WKDW RI OLPLWDWLRQV RQ JHQHUDOL]DELOLW\ 7KH VDPSOH FRQVLVWHG RI RQJRLQJ RU UHFHQWO\ JUDGXDWHG GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWV RU LQ WKH FDVH RI WZR RI WKH GLVVDWLVILHG SURWJV VWXGHQWV ZKR GHFLGHG WR OHDYH WKHLU SURJUDPV DIWHU REWDLQLQJ D PDVWHUfV GHJUHHf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

PAGE 123

WKH PHQWRULQJ UHVHDUFK HJ *UHHQ t %DXHU /RYLWWV 7XUEDQ t 'RXJKHUW\ f :KLOH WKH UHVHDUFK RQ SULRU IDFWRUfV FRQWULEXWLRQV WR PHQWRULQJ RXWFRPHV LV DQ LPSRUWDQW FRQVLGHUDWLRQ DQG ZRXOG VHHP OLNHO\ WR SOD\ D SDUW LQ D PHQWRUfV RU D SURWJf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f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

PAGE 124

FOHDUO\ RSHUDWLRQDOL]HG DQG GLVVHPLQDWHG WR PHQWRUV DQG SURWJV DQG TXDOLWDWLYH DV ZHOO DV TXDQWLWDWLYH RXWFRPHV FRXOG EH PHDVXUHG ,I WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS LV VWURQJO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ERWK VXEMHFWLYH DQG REMHFWLYH RXWFRPHV /RYLWWV f WKHVH ILQGLQJV PD\ SURYLGH D ZD\ WR LPSURYH WKHVH RXWFRPHV 7KH XQLTXH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ LV WKH XQFRYHULQJ RI VSHFLILF DIIHFWLYH FRPSRQHQWV FULWLFDO WR D SRVLWLYH HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS 1R SUHYLRXV VWXG\ ZDV IRXQG WKDW VSHFLILFDOO\ IRFXVHG RQ WKHVH IDFWRUV *LYHQ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR HODERUDWH WKRVH IDFWRUV WKH\ EHOLHYHG WR EH FHQWUDO WR JRRG PHQWRULQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV IRFXVHG RQ DIIHFWLYH FRPSRQHQWV QRW UDWLRQDO FRQFUHWH WHFKQLFDO IDFWRUV 7KHVH RWKHU LPSRUWDQW IDFWRUV ZHUH QHLWKHU LJQRUHG QRU PLQLPL]HG UDWKHU LW ZDV QRWHG WKDW WKHVH WKLQJV FRXOG EH REWDLQHG HYHQ IURP D SRRU PHQWRU RU DQRWKHU SHUVRQ HQWLUHO\ 7KH FHQWUDOLW\ RI DIIHFW WR GLIIHUHQWLDWLQJ PHQWRULQJ IURP RWKHU SRVVLEO\ YHU\ SURGXFWLYH UHODWLRQVKLSV PD\ DOVR KHOS H[SODLQ WKH GLIILFXOW\ WKDW KDV EHHQ XELTXLWRXV LQ GHILQLQJ PHQWRULQJ 7KLV UHVHDUFK LPSOLHV WKDW PHQWRULQJ LV QRW D FRQFUHWH FRQVWUXFW WKDW FDQ DGHTXDWHO\ EH UHSUHVHQWHG E\ IXQFWLRQV DQG SKDVHV DQG RXWFRPHV LW LV D KXPDQ UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK IX]]\ ERXQGDULHV GHULYHG ODUJHO\ IURP DIIHFWLYH UDWKHU WKDQ FRJQLWLYH IDFWRUV :KHWKHU RU QRW WKH VDWLVILHG SURWJV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZLOO XOWLPDWHO\ UHFHLYH PRUH PRQH\ RU PRUH SURPRWLRQV WKH\ ZLOO OLNHO\ FRQWLQXH WR DVVHUW WKDW WKH\ ZHUH ZHOO PHQWRUHG DQG WKDW WKHLU PHQWRUV ZHUH DQG DUH LPSRUWDQW SHRSOH LQ WKHLU OLYHV ,W LV KRSHG WKDW WKHVH ILQGLQJV ZLOO SURYLGH PHQWRUV DQG SURWJV DQG RWKHUV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV VRPH JXLGDQFH LQ GHYHORSLQJ ZKDW DOO KRSH WR H[SHULHQFHf§D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS

PAGE 125

$33(1',; $ ,1)250(' &216(17 3URWRFRO 7LWOH 0HQWRULQJ 3OHDVH UHDG WKLV GRFXPHQW FDUHIXOO\ EHIRUH \RX GHFLGH WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKLV VWXG\ 3XUSRVH RI WKLV UHVHDUFK VWXG\ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ LV WR ORRN IRU SV\FKRORJLFDO IDFWRUV LQ WKH PHQWRULQJ SURFHVV WKDW IDFLOLWDWH WKH VXFFHVV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS :KDW \RX ZLOO EH DVNHG WR GR LQ WKLV VWXG\
PAGE 126

5LJKW WR ZLWKGUDZ IURP WKH VWXG\
PAGE 127

.8 $''(1'80 72 8) 35272&2/ 7,7/( 2) 35272&2/ 0(1725,1* ,Q NHHSLQJ ZLWK WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI .DQVDVf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f 8QLYHUVLW\ RI .DQVDV
PAGE 128

$33(1',; % 0(1725 ,17(59,(: 6$03/( 0$5. FRQWLQXLQJf VR WHOO PH OHWnV JR DKHDG DQG VWDUW WDONLQJ DERXW PHQWRULQJ -XVW D JOREDO TXHVWLRQ :KDW GR \RX WKLQN UHSUHVHQWV DQ HIIHFWLYH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS DQG REYLRXVO\ WKLV LV JRLQJ WR WDNH PRUH WKDQ ZRUGV 0O )LUVW DQG IRUHPRVW WKLQN LWV FRPPLWPHQW WR VRPHERG\ HOVHnV FDUHHU 6R ZKHQ VRPHERG\ FRPHV LQ DQG VD\V WKH\fG OLNH WR VWXG\ ,nG OLNH WR ZRUN ZLWK \RXf§DQG ,nP D OXFN\ SHUVRQ LQ WKDW KDYH PDUJLQDO YLVLELOLW\ QDWLRQDOO\ VR WKH SHRSOH ZLOO DSSO\ WR ZRUN ZLWK PH ,nP OXFN\ GRQnW VD\ GHVHUYH WKDW ,WnV DQ KRQRU ILUVW WR KDYH WKDW KDSSHQ DQG VHFRQG LWnV D UHVSRQVLELOLW\ EHFDXVH WR PH LW LPSOLHV D WRQ RI REOLJDWLRQ WKDW WKH DSSOLFDQW SUREDEO\ GRHVQnW UHDOL]H KDYH SXW RXW IRU WKHP KDYH WR ORRN RXW IRU WKHLU FDUHHU LQWHUHVWV KDYH WR ORRN RXW IRU WKHLU PHQWDO KHDOWK WR VRPH GHJUHH DQG LQ PDQ\ FDVHV IHHO UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKHLU EHLQJ DEOH WR KDYH PHDW DQG SRWDWRHV KDYH WR WU\ P\ GDPQHGHVW WR WU\ DQG VXSSRUW WKHP ILQDQFLDOO\ LQ D ZD\ WKDW PDNHV WKHP FRPIRUWDEOH EXW QRW WRR FRPIRUWDEOH DQG WR JHW WKHP WKURXJK 6R LWnV UHDOO\ D FRPPLWPHQW WR DOO WKUHH RI WKRVH DUHDV WKLQN DQG WKHUHnV SUREDEO\ PRUH WKDW ,nOO WKLQN RI DV ZH JR RQ WRGD\ EXW DW PLQLPXP LWnV WKRVH WKLQJV 6R KDYH WR NQRZ ZKDW WKH\ DUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ KDYH WR NQRZ ZKDW WKH\ ZDQWHG WR P\ IDYRULWH TXHVWLRQHG WR SHRSOH LV WHOO PH ZKDW \RXU OLIH ORRNV OLNH ILYH \HDUV IURP QRZf DQG RQFH ZH NQRZ WKDW WKHQ ZH FUDIW WKH QH[W ILYH \HDUV RU SODQ IRU WKH QH[W \HDUV WR JHW \RX WKHUH 6R

PAGE 129

0$5. 6R \RXnUH UHDO LQWHQWLRQDO DERXW WKLV
PAGE 130

WKHLU RZQ VFKHGXOHV GRQnW OLNH WR VHW NQRZ ZH KDYH WKUHH ODE VLWHV ZH KDYH GLIIHUHQW SURMHFWV JRLQJ RQ LQ WKH ODEV DW GLIIHUHQW WLPHV DQG NQRZ VRPH SHRSOH ZKR VWUXFWXUH WKHLU VWXGHQWV WLPHf§\RX KDYH WR EH KHUH DW WKLV WLPH \RX KDYH WR EH WKHUH DW WKDW WLPHf§, EDVLFDOO\ OHW WKHP PDNH WKHLU RZQ VFKHGXOHV DQG MXVW VD\ KHUHnV ZKDW KDV WR EH GRQH DQG \RX JX\V ILJXUH RXW KRZ WR JR DERXW JHWWLQJ D GRQH 6R IRXQG WKDW DW PHHWLQJV DW UHJXODU VWDII PHHWLQJV SHRSOH FRPH XS WR PH DQG VD\ :KRnV JRLQJ WR PDNH WKDW GHFLVLRQ $QG ,nG VD\ \RX JX\V GHDO ZLWK WKDW ,nP QRW JRLQJ WR GR 0$5. +RZ LV WKDW GLIIHUHQW IURP EHIRUH ZKHQ \RX ZHUH DOZD\V WKHUH" :DV LW WKH VDPH WKLQJ WKHQ" 0O ,W ZDV EDVLFDOO\ WKH VDPH WKLQJ WKHQ WRRN D OLWWOH ELW RI D PRUH FDQ WHOO \RX WKDW ZDV IDU PRUH SURDFWLYH LQ JHWWLQJ LVVXHV RXW DQG GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKHP WKDW DP QRZ EXW ,nP SUHWW\ FRQILGHQW QRZ WKDW P\ SRVWGRF FDQ NHHS D KDQGOH RQ WKDW 6KHnOO VD\ ,nP QRW VXUH WR ERWKHU \RX ZLWK WKLV QRUPDOO\ ,nG KDQGOH LW P\VHOI EXW WKLV LV VRPHWKLQJ WKDW QHHG \RX WR GR 0$5. 6R \RXU SRVWGRF WKHQ ZKHQ VKH KDV SUREOHP KRZ GRHV WKDW ORRN LQ WHUPV RI WKH GLVFXVVLRQ" 0O VD\ :KDWnV WKH SUREOHP 6KH VD\V +HUHnV WKH SUREOHP :H ORRN DW WKH SDUDPHWHUV ZKRfV DIIHFWHG ZKDW QHHGV WR EH GRQH ZKR QHHGV WR GR LW DQG LI LW LV VRPHWKLQJ WKDW KDYH WR GR ,fOO SLFN XS WKH SKRQH RU WDNH VRPH DFWLRQ WR FKDQJH LW 2U IRU VRPHWKLQJ WKDW VKH FDQ GR ,nOO VD\ WKDW KHUHnV ZKDW WKLQN \RX VKRXOG GR GRHV WKDW VRXQG 2. WR \RX" 0$5. VKH LV EHLQJ PHQWRUHG DQG RI FRXUVH \RXnUH ULJKW LW LV D OLWWOH GLIIHUHQW

PAGE 131

0O ,WnV QRW DOO WKDW GLIIHUHQW 0$5. 2. %XW ,nP WU\LQJ WR ILJXUH RXW ZKDW LV VKH JHWWLQJ RXW RI WKLV" ,V VKH JHWWLQJ RXW RI WKLV ZKDW VKH QHHGV WR JHW RXW RI WKLV" 0O 6KH LQ HIIHFW LV QRZ JHWWLQJ WUDLQLQJ DV D ODE KHDG DQG VKHnV JHWWLQJ WUDLQLQJ LQ VXSHUYLVLQJ JUDG VWXGHQWV 6R VKHnV JHWWLQJ WKDW NLQG RI H[SHULHQFH WKDW LV JRLQJ WR EH YDOXDEOH LQ WKH ORQJ UXQ 0$5. /HWnV WU\ D GLIIHUHQW RQH /HWnV VD\ \RXnUH EDFN LQ \RXU ODE DQG \RXU GRRUfV DOZD\V RSHQ DQG \RXfUH SUHWW\ PXFK DOZD\V WKHUH :KDW LV GLIIHUHQW DERXW WKH ZD\ \RX GLG WKLQJV WKDQ WKH ZD\ VD\ VRPHERG\ HOVH ZKR ZDV DOZD\V WKHUH ZLWK WKHLU GRRU DOZD\V RSHQ EXW ZDVQnW ZHOO OLNHG DV D PHQWRU :KDW ZHUH \RX GRLQJ ZKDW ZHUH \RX JLYLQJ WKHP WKDW ZDV GLIIHUHQW" 0O :HOO KDYH WR PDNH WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ XS EHFDXVH WKHUHnV JRW WR EH PRUH WKDQ RQH RWKHU SHUVRQ EHFDXVH RWKHU SHRSOH GR GLIIHUHQW WKLQJV 0$5. :HOO ZH FDQ MXVW HOLPLQDWH WKH RWKHU SHUVRQ :KDW \RX WKLQN WKDW \RX ZHUH JLYLQJ WKHP WKDW ZDV PDNLQJ LW ZRUN IRU WKHP" 0O WKLQN ILUVW DQG IRUHPRVW WKDW ZDV JLYLQJ WKHP DGYLFH RU GLUHFWLRQ WKDW ZDV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKHP DFWXDOO\ JHWWLQJ ZKDW WKH\ ZDQWHG LQ WHUPV RI FDUHHU LQ WKDW LW PDGH WKHP FRPSHWLWLYH QDWLRQDOO\ IRU SRVLWLRQV 2U LI WKH\ GLGQnW ZDQW D QDWLRQDOO\ FRPSHWLWLYH SRVLWLRQ LW PDGH WKHP FRPSHWLWLYH IRU ZKDWHYHU LW ZDV WKDW WKH\ ZDQWHG WR GR 7KH VHFRQG WKLQJ ZDV WKLQN P\ VWXGHQWV IHHO VXSSRUWHG E\ PH ,nYH QHYHU DVNHG WKHP WKDW TXHVWLRQ GLUHFWO\ EXW WKLQN WKDW WKH\ IHHO DJDLQ SULPDULO\ FDQ VHQVH VRPH JUXPEOLQJV QRZ WKDW ,nP QRW RQ WKH SUHPLVHV EXW WKLQN WKH\ IHOW WKDW ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ VXSSRUWLQJ WKHP

PAGE 132

RQ D QXPEHU RI GLIIHUHQW OHYHOV )RU H[DPSOH LI WKH\ FDPH WR PH DQG DVNHG PH IRU VRPHWKLQJ WULHG P\ EHVW WR JHW WR WKHP %XW DOVR JXHVV RQH RI WKH WKLQJV WKDW VWUXFN PH LV WKDW LW ZDV DFWXDOO\ SUHWW\ UDUH IRU IRXQG RXW UHFHQWO\ LW ZDV UDUH IRU JUDGXDWH DGYLVHUV WR LQYLWH VWXGHQWV WR WKHLU KRPHV IRU GLQQHU RU JR RXW WKHUH ZLWK WKHP RU WR WKURZ &KULVWPDV SDUW\ DW \RXU KRXVH DQG EX\ WKHP SUHVHQWV HYHQ LI LWnV D ERRN WKDW KDV WR GR ZLWK WKH ILHOG ,W GRHVQnW KDSSHQ ZDV MXVW DJKDVW WKDW WKDW GLGQnW KDSSHQ GR DOO WKRVH WKLQJV DQG WKRXJKW WKDWf§QRW WKDW P\ DGYLVHU GLG WKDW IRU PH EXW WKRXJKW WKDW WKH VWXGHQWV FDPH DOO WKLV ZD\ WR ZRUN ZLWK PH RU ZRUN RQ WKH VDPH NLQGV RI SUREOHPV WKDW ZH ZHUH ZRUNLQJ RQ WKDW RZHG LW WR WKHP +DSSLO\ EXW RZHG WR WKHP LQ WKH ODUJHU FRQWH[W 0$5. 6R LI \RX ZHUH WR WKLQN OLNH D SV\FKRORJLVW ,nP D VWXGHQW DQG FRPH ZRUN IRU \RX DQG \RX VD\ :HnUH KDYLQJ D GLQQHU $OO WKH VWXGHQWV DUH JHWWLQJ WRJHWKHU DQG JRLQJ RXW IRU GLQQHUf +RZ GRHV WKDW PDNH PH IHHO" 6HH EHFDXVH ZKDW ,nP WU\LQJ WR XQGHUVWDQG LV ZKDWnV JRLQJ RQ ZLWKLQ WKH SHUVRQ DOPRVW OLNH FDQ WDNH DQ DWWDFKPHQW PRGHO RU FDQ WDNH D GHYHORSPHQWDO PRGHO 3V\FKRORJLFDOO\ VSHDNLQJ ZKDW LV D VWXGHQW JHWWLQJ IURP D JRRG PHQWRU" 0O WKLQN WKDW WKH PHVVDJH WKDW WKH\ DUH JHWWLQJ LV WKDW FDUH DERXW WKHP DV D SHUVRQ ,WfV WULWH EXW WKLQN WKDWnV LW 7KH\nUH QRW MXVW VRPHRQH ZKR ZRUNV IRU PH HYHQ WKRXJK SD\ WKHP WKH\nUH QRW MXVW VRPHERG\ ZKR UHSUHVHQWV P\ HJR H[WHQGHG EHFDXVH UHDOO\ ZDQW WKHP WR JHW WR GR ZKDWHYHU LW LV WKDW WKH\ ZDQW WR GR GRQnW VRPH DGYLVHUV JHW UHDOO\ XSVHW WKDW WKHLU VWXGHQWV GRQnW JR RQWR UHVHDUFK RQH LQVWLWXWLRQV ,nYH KDG VWXGHQWV WKDW JR RQWR UHVHDUFK RQH LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG ,nYH KDG VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH TXLW WR ZRUN LQ

PAGE 133

LQGXVWU\ DQG ERWK DUH ILQH DV IDU DV ,nP FRQFHUQHG EHFDXVH WKH\ JHW ZKDW WKH\ ZDQW DQG WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK ZH SUHSDUHG WKHP IRU DQ\ RI WKRVH SRVLWLRQV LV SRVLWLYH 0$5. 6R ZKDW KDSSHQV WR WKRVH VWXGHQWV QRW QHFHVVDULO\ WKH VWXGHQWV WKDW \RXnYH KDG EXW VWXGHQWV ZRUNLQJ ZLWK VRPHERG\ ZKR GRHVQnW KDYH WKDW IRFXV" 0O ,nYH WKLQN WKDW WKH\nUH JHQHUDOO\ UHJDUGHG QRW ZRUWK WKH WLPH VR WKH\ JHW OHVV TXDOLW\ WLPH SRVVLEO\ OHVV WLPH RYHUDOO DQG FHUWDLQO\ QRW WKH TXDOLW\ RI DWWHQWLRQ RU IHHGEDFN WKDW D VWXGHQW KDYLQJ D OLWWOH KLJKHU RU DLPLQJ IRU WKH SURWRW\SLFDO UHVHDUFK MRE PD\ JHW 0$5. :KDW LV WKDW" 0O 7KDWnV WKH ZKLVWOH &ODVVHV DUH RYHU ,W KDSSHQV DIWHU DQG XQWLO 0$5. (YHU\ KRXU" 0O
PAGE 134

ZKDW LWnV OLNH WR GR WKDW LQ WKH KRSH WKDW HYHQWXDOO\ WKH\nOO GHDO WR GR LW RQ WKHLU RZQ HLWKHU KHUH VR FDQ QRZ DFWXDOO\ GHOHJDWH WKDW OHYHO RI ZRUN WR WKHP HYHQWXDOO\ DQG DOVR VR WKDW WKH\ FDQ JXHVV VR WKH\ FDQ GR LW ZKHUHYHU WKH\ HQG XS :LWKLQ WKDW PRGHO WKH ZD\ JR DERXW GRLQJ LW LV XVH D KLHUDUFKLFDO ODE VHW XS ZKHUH WKH PRVW VHQLRU JUDG VWXGHQW LV WKH RQH WKDW ZLOO RIWHQ VD\ 2. VR DQG VR NQRZV KRZ WR GR WKLV VR JR WDON WR WKHP 6R GHSHQGLQJ RQ ZKHQ \RX FDPH WKHUHnV VRUW RI DQ LQKHUHQW KLHUDUFK\ ZKHUH WKH SHRSOH ZKR NQRZ WKH PRVW DUH RIWHQ WKH GLVSHQVHUV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH RWKHU LVVXH LV PDNLQJ VXUH WKDW WKRVH UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH 2.f§WKDWfV DOVR VRPHWKLQJ ZDV QHYHU WUDLQHG WR H[SHFW WR KDYH WR GR RU WR GR
PAGE 135

FRUUHVSRQGHQFH WKDW ZHQW RXW SHRSOH JRW WR VHH WKHLU QDPHV 1RW WKDW WKH\nG WDNH QRWLFH RI WKRVH QDPHV EXW ODWHU RQ SV\FKRORJLVW PLJKW VD\ :KHUH KDYH VHHQ WKLV QDPH EHIRUH 7KDW PLJKW KDSSHQ VR WKDW ZDV SUHWW\ LQWHQWLRQDO %XW GR LQWURGXFH WKHP WR FROOHDJXHV DQG FRQIHUHQFHV PDNH VXUH WKDW WKH\ JHW LW LV DSSURSULDWH WR PDNH VXUH WKDW WKH\ JHW WR WDON DERXW ZKDW WKH\nUH GRLQJ VSUHDG WKHLU QDPHV DURXQG ZKHQ FDQ 0$5. :KDW GR WKH\ JHW RXW RI LW SV\FKRORJLFDOO\" 0O :HOO REYLRXVO\ WKH\nUH EHLQJ RND\ SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ 0$5. $JDLQ ,nP WU\LQJ WR JHW EHKLQG LW QRW MXVW ZKDW \RX GR EXW ZK\ LV D JRRG WKLQJ 0O 7KH\nUH D PHPEHU RI WKH\ EHORQJ WR WKH GLVFLSOLQH ,WnV DQ LVVXH RI EHORQJLQJ WR WKH GLVFLSOLQH 7KH\nUH D SDUW RI WKH VFLHQWLILF FRPPXQLW\
PAGE 136

ODXJKWHUf EXW LW UHDOO\ GRHV ZRUN 7KH ZD\ \RX GR LW ZLWK DGYDQFHG VWXGHQWV LV DQG WKH NLQG RI LQSXW WKDW \RX JLYH WKHP DQG WKH NLQG RI IHHGEDFN WKDW \RX JLYH WKHP LV YHU\ GLIIHUHQW WKDQ WKH NLQG RI IHHGEDFN \RX JLYH D ILUVW\HDU $QG WKHUHnV VRUW RI D PLGGOLQJ SKDVH ZKLFK WR PH LV WKH KDUGHVW EHFDXVH \RXnUH DOZD\V KDYLQJ WR JDXJH ZKDW WKH\ NQRZ DQG GRQnW NQRZ DQG ZKDWnV JRLQJ WR VDOLHQW DQG ZKDWnV JRLQJ WR VWLFN DQG ZKDWnV QRW JRLQJ WR VWLFN 0$5. :KDW ZRXOG KDSSHQ LI \RX JXHVVHG ZURQJ DQG H[SHFWHG IURP WKHP VRPHWKLQJ WKDW WKH\ ZHUHQnW DEOH WR JLYH" 0O :HOO KDYH WR VFDOH EDFN 0$5. :KDW ZRXOG KDSSHQ WR WKHP LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU 0O 2K :HOO LW GHSHQGV RQ ZKR WKH VWXGHQW LV DQG LI WKH VWXGHQW KDV IDLUO\ JRRG PHWDFRJQLWLYH DELOLW\ 6RPHWLPHV WKH\nUH SUHWW\ XSVHW WKDW WKH\nG OHW PH GRZQ RU WKH\nUH IHHOLQJ WKDW WKH\ GRQnW PHDVXUH XS 6RPH VWXGHQWV DUH REOLYLRXV QRQH RI WKHP DUH ZKHQ WKH\ ILQLVK EXW VRPH DUH REOLYLRXV RQ WKH ZD\ 7KH\nOO JHW LW WKH\nOO ILJXUH LW RXW 0$5. 'R \RX HYHU GR \RX KDYH DQ\ IHPDOH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV" 0O 7KH\nUH DOO IHPDOHV ,nYH KDG WZR PDOH VWXGHQWV QR VRUU\ PDOH VWXGHQWV 3V\FKRORJ\ LV LQFUHDVLQJO\ EHFRPLQJ IHPLQL]HG WR WKH SRLQW ZKHUH FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ SURJUDPV DUH EHLQJ DVNHG ZKDW DUH \RX GRLQJ QRZ WR DFWLYHO\ UHFUXLW PHQ LQWR WKH SURJUDP" ZRUN LQ GHYHORSPHQWDO ZKLFK KDV NLGV DQG EDELHV DQG LW VHHPV WR QDWXUDOO\ DWWUDFW ZRPHQ WR WKH VWXG\ DQG VR ,nYH KDG RQH PDOH VWXGHQW ZKRnV JRQH RQ WR D SRVLWLRQ DQRWKHU VWXGHQW ZKRnV ZRUNHG ZKR ZDVQnW WHFKQLFDOO\ P\ VWXGHQW EXW OHW WKHP ZRUN LQ WKH ODE DQG GR KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ WKHUHf§, EDVLFDOO\ JXLGHG KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ +H ZHQW RII WR

PAGE 137

WKH VFKRRO RI HGXFDWLRQ JDUEOHGf FKDLU DQG FXUUHQWO\ KDYH DQRWKHU PDOH VWXGHQW ZKRnV JRLQJ WR EH ILQLVKHG 0$5. $FWXDOO\ WKDWnV LQWHUHVWLQJ EHFDXVH ZDV JRLQJ WR DVN D TXHVWLRQ DERXW \RXU GLQQHUV DQG &KULVWPDV HYHQLQJV DQG VRFLDO JDWKHULQJV LI KDYLQJ IHPDOH VWXGHQWV ZDV GLIIHUHQW IURP KDYLQJ PDOH VWXGHQWV 0O
PAGE 138

0$5. $FWXDOO\ NLGV DUH ZK\ JRW LQWR SV\FKRORJ\ 0\ ZLIH DQG ZHUH IRVWHU SDUHQWV IRU D ORQJWLPH 0\ YHU\ ILUVW SDSHU DV D JUDG VWXGHQW ZDV RQ GHYHORSPHQWDO QHXURVFLHQFH ,W VWLOO KDV VRPH GHJUHH RI IDVFLQDWLRQ DOWKRXJK KDYHQnW KDG PXFK WLPH WR SXUVXH LW 0O
PAGE 139

FDQ WDNH FDUH RI D ORW RI GLIIHUHQW WKLQJV 7KH\ WHOO PH ZKHQ WKH\ WHOO PH KDYHQnW EHHQ GRLQJ ZHOO ODWHO\ DQG KHUHnV ZK\
PAGE 140

$33(1',; & 6$7,6),(' 3527‹*‹ 63f ,17(59,(: 6$03/( 0$5. $V P\ HPDLOV VDLG WKLV LV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ SURMHFW DERXW PHQWRULQJ DQG REYLRXVO\ JRW \RXU QDPH IURP 0O :KDW ,nP GRLQJ LV ,fP WU\LQJ WR ILJXUH RXW ZKDW LV JRRG PHQWRULQJ 0 IRU H[DPSOH UHFHLYHG DQ DZDUG IRU PHQWRULQJ :K\ GLG 0 UHFHLYH DQ DZDUG IRU PHQWRULQJ" ,WnV PRUH EDVLFDOO\ DW D SV\FKRORJLFDO OHYHO LWnV QRW KRZ PDQ\ WLPHV \RX PHHW DOWKRXJK WKDWnV D SDUW RI LW ,WnV QRW UHDO FRUH VWXII OLNH WKDW KH PD\ DQVZHU \RXU TXHVWLRQV :K\ GRHV PHHWLQJ ZLWK KLP ZRUN" :KDW LV LW DERXW PHHWLQJ ZLWK KLP" :KDW DUH \RX JHWWLQJ RXW RI LW" :KDW DUH \RX IHHOLQJ" :K\ LV WKDW JRRG IRU \RX" 6R DV ZH WDON WKLQN ZHfOO SUREDEO\ MXVW NLQG RI EHDW DURXQG WKH EXVK DERXW FHUWDLQ WKLQJV VR WKDW GRHVQnW PDWWHU 6R EDVLFDOO\ ,fOO VWDUW ZLWK WKH TXHVWLRQ KRZ ZRXOG \RX GHILQH JRRG PHQWRULQJ" +RZ ZRXOG \RX GHILQH D PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS" 63 KXP WR GHILQH JRRG PHQWRULQJ 0$5. $QG \RX GRQnW KDYH WR JHW LW ULJKW 63
PAGE 141

EH D PRWLYDWRU WR KHOS \RX RQH ZD\ RU DQRWKHU WR KHOS \RX EH H[FLWHG DERXW ZKDW \RXnUH ZRUNLQJ RQ 7R KHOS \RX VHH WKH EHQHILW RU WKH PRPHQWXP RI ZKDW \RXnUH JDLQLQJ DV \RXnUH ZRUNLQJ RQ VRPHWKLQJ %HQHILW LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW WKH\ SRLQW RXW WR \RX DQG KHOS \RX VHH WKDW \RXnUH DFWXDOO\ FRQWULEXWLQJ VRPHWKLQJ \RXfUH VKRZLQJ \RXU 0O@ KH JRW H[FLWHG >0O@ JRW H[FLWHG ZKHQ ZH ZRXOG ORRN DW P\ GDWD DQG KH ZRXOG VD\ f1RERG\ HOVH NQRZV WKLV 7KDWnV FRROf $QG WKDW PDGH DQ LPSUHVVLRQ RQ PH ,W JRW PH PRWLYDWHG WR FRQWLQXH WKURXJK WKH SURFHVV UDWKHU WKDQ IDGLQJ RXW ZKLFK KDSSHQV WR D ORW RI SHRSOH 0$5. :KDW LV LW DERXW EHLQJ H[FLWHG WKDWnV PRWLYDWLQJ" 1RERG\ HOVH NQRZV D SLHFH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ \RX NQRZ WKH SLHFH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ZK\ LV WKDW LPSRUWDQW" 63 GRQnW NQRZ MXVW KDG VRPHERG\ LQ KHUH WKH RWKHU GD\ DQG ZH ZHUH JRLQJ WKURXJK VRPH GDWD DQG ZH ZHUH VXSSRVHG WR JR WR OXQFK ,W ZDV WKHQ DQG ZDV NLQG RI OLNH fZHfYH EHHQ LQ KHUH D ORQJ WLPH ZH EHWWHU JR WR OXQFKf MXVW UHDOO\ ORYH LW ORYH PLQLQJ WKURXJK WKH GDWD $QG VR WR KDYH VRPHERG\ HOVH EH H[FLWHG DERXW WKDW DQG WR WKLQN \RX DUH DFWXDOO\ FRQWULEXWLQJ VRPHWKLQJ QHZ WR WKDW WR PH LV GRQnW NQRZ ZK\ DFWXDOO\ 0$5. 7R KDYH VRPHERG\ HOVH LV WKHUH FDPDUDGHULH" 63 0O@ DQG VD\ f+H\ ORRN ZKDW VDZ DQG ZKDW IRXQG WKLV LV ZKDW VHH LQ KHUHf DQG WKDWnV NLQG RI FRRO DQG KH ZRXOG FRPH IURP D FRPSOHWHO\ DQJOH fZHOO KDYH \RX ORRNHG DW WKLV"f 5DWKHU WKDQ MXVW WHOO PH WR JR RII DQG ORRN DW WKDW

PAGE 142

KH ZRXOG VD\ fGR \RX KDYH \RXU GDWD ZLWK \RX"f $QG LI GLG WKHQ KHfG VLW GRZQ DQG ZH ZRXOG ERWK VLW WKHUH DQG PLVV OXQFK DQG SOD\ ZLWK WKH GDWD ,W ZDV WKDW NLQG RI LQWHUDFWLRQ WKDW DW OHDVW IRU PH ZDV D UHDO *RGVHQG 0$5. +RZ GLG WKDW PDNH \RX IHHO ZKHQ \RX GR WKDW \RX JR WKURXJK \RXU GDWD DQG KH VD\V OHWV ORRN DW LW" 63 ,W PDGH PH IHHO JUHDW ,W ZDV FRRO ,W KHOSHG PH IHHO OLNH ZDV DFFRPSOLVKLQJ WKLQJV OLNH ZDV DFWXDOO\ SDVVLQJ PLOHVWRQHV RU ZKDWHYHU :KLFK WKLQN LWnV KDUG WR IHHO HVSHFLDOO\ JRLQJ WKURXJK D GRFWRUDO SURJUDP ZKHUH NHHS JHWWLQJ PRUH ZRUN DQG PRUH ZRUN DQG PRUH ZRUN 7KHUH DUH WKRVH PLOHVWRQHV EXW WKH\fUH NLQG RI IDU IHZ DQG IDU EHWZHHQ $QG VR LW KHOSHG PH IHHO WKDW ZDV SURJUHVVLQJ WKDW ZDV JDLQLQJ VRPHWKLQJ ZDV OHDUQLQJ ZDV VHHLQJ FRXOG VWDUW WR VHH WKDW ZDV EULQJLQJ EHWWHU TXHVWLRQV DQG ZDV DOUHDG\ DQWLFLSDWLQJ ZKDW KH ZDV JRLQJ WR VD\ 6R WKH QH[W WLPH FDPH LQ DQG VDLG +H\ ORRN ZKDW IRXQG WKLV LV UHDOO\ FRROf DQG KH ZRXOG VD\f :HOO GLG \RX GR WKDW GLG \RX ORRN DW WKLV"f DQG ZRXOG VD\ f
PAGE 143

0$5. 2. %HFDXVH ZDV ZRQGHULQJ LI \RX ZHUH WKLQNLQJ LQ WHUPV RI DFFRPSOLVKLQJ VRPHWKLQJ LQ VRFLHW\ RU VRPHWKLQJ 63 1DK ODXJKLQJf 7KDWnV ZKDW ,nP XOWLPDWHO\ WR GLVVHPLQDWH WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ EXW QR IHOW ZDV JDLQLQJ IRU P\VHOI 0$5. 0O@ WRR 6R IRU PH ,

PAGE 144

ZDV DOZD\V ORRNLQJ WR UHDIILUP ZDV LQ WKH ULJKW SODFH ZDV DW RULJLQDOO\ DQ (QJOLVK PDMRU DQG ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ VWDUWLQJ LQ FKLOGUHQnV ERRNV DV D JHQHUD RI OLWHUDWXUH DQG MXVW DVVXPHG VRPHERG\ RXW WKHUH KDG GRQH WKH UHVHDUFK RQ ZKDW \RX VKRXOG UHDG WR \RXU NLGV $QG VR WKDW ZDV P\ VHQLRU \HDU DV DQ XQGHUJUDG DQG VWDUWHG DFWXDOO\ GRLQJ VRPH UHVHDUFK ZRUNLQJ ZLWK VRPHERG\ LQ WKH (QJOLVK GHSDUWPHQW 6KH VDLG f\HDK MXVW JR ORRN WKDW XS DQG VHH ZKDW ERRNV DUH JRRG DQG WKDW PLJKW EH D JRRG VWDUWLQJ SODFH IRU \RXf GLGQnW ILQG DQ\ UHVHDUFK DQG UHDOO\ GLGQnW ILQG PXFK DERXW DQ\ERG\ UHDOO\ GHILQLQJ ZKHWKHU VRPH ERRNV DUH EHWWHU IRU NLGV RU KRZ GR \RX GHILQH WKDW" 0$5. ,Q WHUPV RI ODQJXDJH DFTXLVLWLRQ RU ZHUH \RX DW WKDW VWDJH \HW" 63 ZDVQnW DW WKDW VWDJH TXLWH \HW KDG LW LQ PLQG WKDW RQH WKLQJ FKLOGUHQ ZHUH JDLQLQJ IURP LW ZDV ODQJXDJH %XW ZDV DOVR ORRNLQJ IRU DQ\WKLQJ DERXW \RX NQRZ LQFOXGLQJ LPDJHV ZKHWKHU RU QRW VRPH FKLOGUHQ VHHP WR OLNH RU ZKHWKHU \RX FRXOG FODVVLI\ LW DW DOO WKDW ZD\ ILJXUHG DW OHDVW IRU D OHDVW IURP WKH ODQJXDJH SRLQWV RI YLHZ \RX ZHUHQfW UHDGLQJ 0RE\ 'LFN WR WKUHH\HDUROG WKH\ ZHUHQn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

PAGE 145

ZDV DIILUPLQJ WKDW FRXOG GR LW DQG LW ZRXOG KHOS PH WR DIILUP WKDW LI ZDV H[FLWHG DERXW LW DQG KDYLQJ IXQ GRLQJ LW WKDW ZDV LQ WKH ULJKW SODFH $QG WKLQN DOVR VHHLQJ WKDW >0O@ ZDV DOVR H[FLWHG DERXW LW PDGH PH WKLQN WKDW PD\EH WKLV LV VRPHWKLQJ WKDW ZLOO QHYHU JR DZD\ 0D\EH WKH H[FLWHG DERXW LW ZKHQ ,nYH EHHQ GRLQJ LW IRU \HDUV \RX NQRZ RU ZKDWHYHU OLNH KH KDV 0$5. 6R KH ZDV D JRRG PRGHO IRU WKDW" 63
PAGE 146

63 +XPPP $FWXDOO\ KH VD\V f1R WKDWnV QRW LWf 7KDWfV DFWXDOO\ SUHWW\ FORVH WR LW >0O@ OLNHV WR VHH SUHWW\ PXFK DOO RI RXU GRFXPHQWV VR RXU FRPSUHKHQVLYHVf§DQG RXU RUDOV LV DFWXDOO\ ZULWLQJ D UHYLHZ SDSHU DQG KDQGLQJ WKDW LQf§DQG WKH GLVVHUWDWLRQ RI FRXUVH $QG VR ZHnYH GRQH GUDIWV RI DOO RI WKRVH SLHFHV RI ZRUN WKDW KH VDZ EHIRUH ZH DFWXDOO\ KDQGHG WKHP LQ $QG KH JRHV WKURXJK WKHP DQG PDUNV WKHP XS DQG KH VD\V f1R WKLV LVQfW LW \HWf $QG VRPHWLPHV LWnV f7KLV VHFWLRQ LV SUHWW\ JRRG DQG FORVH EXW WKLV VHFWLRQ \RXfYH MXVW JRW WR UHZULWH WKH ZKROH VHFWLRQ 0$5. +RZ FRPH WKDW GRHVQnW EORZ \RXU HJR" 63 :HOO LW GHSHQGV RQ KRZ EDG WKH SDSHU ZDV DV WR ZKHWKHU RU QRW LW GLG EORZ P\ HJR RXW RI WKH ZDWHU ODXJKLQJf 0$5. :HOO \RXnUH VWLOO KHUH PHDQ \RX VWLOO OLNH KLP KHfV VWLOO \RXU PHQWRU +RZ LV LW KH FDQ WHOO \RX WKDW \RX QRW GRLQJ LW ULJKW DQG LWnV RND\" 63 WKLQN XPP LWnV KDUG IRU PH WR WKLQN DERXW WKDW DV EHLQJ VRPHWKLQJ WKDW >0O@ GLG RU VRPHWKLQJ WKDW DFWXDOO\ WKULYHG XQGHU KDG DFWXDOO\ KDYH D FRXSOH GD\V RI QRW ZDQWLQJ WR ZRUN RQ LW DQG LWV EODK EXW WKHQ XVXDOO\ NLQG RI KDYH D ILJKWHU DWWLWXGH DERXW WKDW ,I KH VDLG WKDW WKDW VHFWLRQ ZDV UHDOO\ EDG \RX UHDOO\ QHHG WR UHZULWH WKDW NLQG RI KDYH WKLV f, FDQ VKRZ KLPf NLQG RI DWWLWXGH WKDW FRPHV RXW ZKHUH ZLOO ILQG D ORW RI HIIRUW WR SXW LQWR OLNH WKDW RQH VHFWLRQ WR WU\ WR 0$5. 6KRZ KLP QRW LQ D QHJDWLYH VHQVH EXW VKRZ KLP FDQ GR WKLV WKDW ,fP JRRG HQRXJK WR WKH fJRRG IDWKHUf WKLQJ DJDLQ 63
PAGE 147

RI WKH WKLQJV ,nYH DOZD\V VWUXJJOHG ZLWK LV WKH FKDQJHRYHU IURP ZULWLQJ DV DQ (QJOLVK PDMRU WR ZULWLQJ LQ WKLV WHFKQLFDO PDQQHU :KLFK LI \RX XVH DQ DGMHFWLYH WKDWnV WKH ILUVW WKLQJ WR JR LQ (QJOLVK \RXnUH MXVW JRLQJ RII \RX NQRZ WKH FUHDWLYH ZULWLQJ WKDW ZDV DOZD\V P\ VWURQJ VXLW $QG WKHQ WR KLW WKLV ZDV UHDOO\ WRXJK IRU PH DQG LW VWLOO LV UHDOO\ WRXJK IRU PH WR SURGXFH D GRFXPHQW WKDW VWD\V ZLWKLQ WKH ERXQGV DQG UHDOO\ GRHVQnW VRXQG OLNH DQ (QJOLVK SDSHU DV >0O@ ZRXOG VD\ $QG WKDW ZDV GHILQLWHO\ D SDUW RI WKH OHDUQLQJ SURFHVV %XW DOVR WKLQN WKH FULWLFLVP GLGQnW JHW WR PH DERXW WKLQN EHLQJ WRXJK \RX KDYH D FHUWDLQ OHYHO RI WRXJK VNLQ 0O@ ZRXOG EH ZLOOLQJ WR SDVV EDFN DQG IRUWK WKH GUDIW WKUHH WLPHV ZDV VRPHWKLQJ WKDW DV ,nYH WDONHG ZLWK RWKHU SHRSOH WKH\ GLGQnW KDYH WKDW $QG WKDW JRHV EDFN WR WKH ILUVW WKLQJ DERXW EHLQJ WKHUH DQG EHLQJ ZLOOLQJ WR JLYH XS WKDW WLPH IRU \RX WKLQN WKH WRXJK VNLQ LW GLGQnW IHHO JRRG EXW LW ZDVQnW WRWDOO\ GHYDVWDWLQJ %XW GRQfW NQRZ LI WKHUH ZDV DQ\WKLQJ DERXW ZKDW >0O@ GLG DV FRPSDUHG WR ZKHWKHU RU QRW LW ZDV MXVW WKDW \RX KDG WR 0$5. $QG DJDLQ WKH LGHD WKDW \RX FRXOG KDYH DQ DGYLVHUf§SHUKDSV QRW \RX EXW VRPHERG\ HOVH WXUQV LQ D SDSHU DQG WKH\ VD\ 1R WKLV LVQnW JRRGf $QG WKHQ \RX KDYH >0O@ WKDW WXUQV EDFN DQG VD\V f1R WKLV LV QR JRRGf 2Q WKH RQH KDQG LWnV RND\
PAGE 148

UHDVRQ KDVQnW JRW WKDW UHODWLRQVKLS DQG LWfV OLNH f:HOO ) \RXf RU f2K P\ JRG ,nP D IDLOXUHf PHDQ >0O@ ZRQ WKH DZDUG ZKDW LV >0O@ GRLQJ WKDWfV GLIIHUHQW" 7KDWfV ZK\ LWnV KDUG WR GR WKLV UHVHDUFK LWfV KDUG WR ILQG ZKDW LW LV WKDW WKH\fUH GRLQJ 6R PDQ\ SHRSOH VHHP WR NQRZ WKLV JX\fV D JRRG PHQWRU ZKHUHDV WKH RWKHU JX\fV QRW 63 WKLQN DQG LW JRHV EDFN WR WKDW NLQG RI OHYHO RI H[FLWHPHQW DW OHDVW IRU PH LW ZDV DERXW WKDW >0O@ DOZD\V DOZD\V NQHZ KDG JRRG VWXII KDG D JRRG VWRU\ WR WHOO %XW ZKDW NQHZ DOVR ZDV WKDW ZDVQnW DOZD\V WKH EHVW DW WHOOLQJ LW DFFRUGLQJ WR WKLV NLQG RI FULWLFDO WKLV HPSLULFDO ZD\ RI ZULWLQJ WKLQJV RXW :KDW DOZD\V IHOW ZDV DOZD\V IHOW PRWLYDWHG EHFDXVH >0O@ DOZD\V ZDV YHU\ UHLQIRUFLQJ f0O@ ZRXOG EH WKHUH $QG WKH IDFW WKDW RWKHUV DUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ ZKDW ZDV GRLQJ DQG FRXOG WDON ZLWK WKHP DQG KDYH JRRG FRQYHUVDWLRQ DERXW WKLQJV DQG WKH IDFW WKDW >0O@ ZDV H[FLWHG WR EH WKHUH IRU WKRVH FRQYHUVDWLRQV DV ZHOO $QG DJDLQ WKDW ZDV DOVR WKH FLUFOH RI DSSURYDO RWKHU SHHUV WKDW DUH RXW WKHUH DV ZHOO DV WKH DSSURYDO RI >0O@ VHHLQJ WKDW ZKDW ZDV GRLQJ DFWXDOO\ ZDV IRU KLP LW ZDV SUREDEO\ ZKDW KH DOUHDG\ NQHZ EXW IRU PH LW ZDV OLNH f0O@ DW OHDVW IRU PH IRU VXUH ZH DOZD\V KDG D JRRG ZH DOZD\V KDG NLQG RI D VHSDUDWH UHODWLRQVKLS DV IDU DV WKHUH ZDV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS ZKHUH ZH ZHUH ZRUNLQJ RQ VRPHWKLQJ DQG WKHQ WKHUH ZDV D VHSDUDWH UHODWLRQVKLS ZKLFK ZDV PXFK PRUH IDPLOLDU DQG IULHQGOLNH LQ D ZD\ WKDW >0O@ DOZD\V

PAGE 149

WUHDWHG PH PRUH OLNH D SHHU WKDQ OLNH D VWXGHQW 6R LW ZDV DOZD\V PXFK PRUH LQ WKDW NLQG RI VHQVH DV IDU DV ZRUNHG LQ D ODE IRU \HDUV IRU KLP $QG VR WKHUH ZHUH NLQG RI WZR OHYHOV WKHUH DV IDU DV UXQQLQJ DQG ZRUNLQJ LQ KLV ODE DQG LW ZDV PXFK PRUH DERXW SHHU W\SH LQWHUDFWLRQ DQG D IULHQGW\SH LQWHUDFWLRQ WKLQN ZH KDG D SUHWW\ JRRG UHODWLRQVKLS LQ WKDW VHQVH :H ERWK NQHZ WKDW ZH FRXOG ZKHQ KH KDG WR EH DEOH WR VD\ WR PH f7KLV SDSHU LV QRW LW DQG \RXfYH JRW WR JR EDFN DQG GR PRUH VHULRXV ZRUN RQ LWf DQG WKDW ZRXOG EH D OLWWOH XSVHWWLQJ WR PH DQG NLQG RI EXP PH RXW D ELW IRU FRXSOH RI GD\V ,W GLGQnW KDYH DQ\WKLQJ WR GR ZLWK LW ZDVQnW HYHU OLNH f) \RXf DERXW LW RU ZKHQHYHU NQHZ KH ZDV JLYLQJ KLV KRQHVW RSLQLRQ DERXW ZKDW KDG GRQH DQG LW ZDVQnW HYHU WKDW WKRXJKW KH ZDV HYHU EHLQJ PHDQ DERXW LW RU DQ\WKLQJ ,W ZDV D VWULFWO\ WKDW IXOO\ EHOLHYHG ZKHQ KH VDLG KDG WR JR EDFN DQG GR PRUH ZRUN RQ WKLV WKDW UHDOO\ QHHGHG WR JR EDFN DQG GR PRUH ZRUN RQ WKLV +RZHYHU PXFK GLGQnW ZDQW WR RU UHDOO\ MXVW ZDQWHG WR WU\ WR fKDQG LW LQ DQG VHH LI LW SDVVHV EHFDXVH ,nP WLUHG RI ZULWLQJ RQ WKLV WKLQJf \RX NQRZ WKDW NLQG RI IHHOLQJ" WKLQN WKDW >0O@ DQG ZH KDG D SHULRG ZKHUH ZDV WKH RQO\ RQH LQ WKH ODE :H KDG D IXQGLQJ SHULRG DQG WKHQ D \HDU RII DQG WKHQ D IXQGLQJ SHULRG DQG FDPH LQ RQ D \HDU RII DQG ZH KLUHG RWKHU VWDII DURXQG WKHUH $QG GXULQJ WKDW WLPH LW ZDV MXVW KLP DQG DQG WKLQN WKDWnV ZKHUH ZH GHYHORSHG D SUHWW\ JRRG UHODWLRQVKLS DQG WKLV NLQG RI WKLV GLFKRWRP\ EHWZHHQ PRUH RI D SHUVRQDO OHYHO DQG WKHQ WKH ZRUN OHYHO PHDQ LW QHYHU IHOW OLNH ZH GLGQnW VPRRWKO\ PRYH EHWZHHQ WKRVH HYHQ ZKHQ ZH ZHUH KDYLQJ LW RXW $QG WKH IDUWKHU JRW DORQJ WKH PRUH ZLOOLQJ ZDV WR DUJXH DERXW ZK\ WKRXJKW ZKDW ZDV GRLQJ ZDV RND\ WR KDQG LQ DQG WR UHDOO\ WDON WKDW WKURXJK $QG \RX NQRZ ZHUH ERWK D OLWWOH VWXEERUQ EXW DJDLQ ZH FDQ KDYH D SUHWW\ KHDWHG WDON DERXW D SDSHU DQG WU\ WR GLVFXVV

PAGE 150

ZK\ GLGQnW WKLQN WKDW GRQnW HYHU WKLQN WKDW LW ZDV DJDLQ LW ZDV VWLOO VHSDUDWH LQ VRPH NLQG RI VWUDQJH ZD\ $QG WKDW NQHZ WKHQ LI ODWHU RQ LQ WKH ODE ZH XVHG WR DFWXDOO\ JR IRU GULQNV RQ )ULGD\ D ORW RI WKH WLPH DIWHUZDUGV DQG VR LI WKDW KDSSHQHG RQ 7KXUVGD\ RU HYHQ )ULGD\ E\ WKH WLPH )ULGD\ DW FDPH LI ZH ZHUH JRLQJ WR JR RXW DQG MXVW VLW LW ZDV FRPSOHWHO\ GLIIHUHQW $QG JXHVV WKH RWKHU WKLQJ ZDV QHYHU WKRXJKW WKDW >0O@ ZDV EHLQJ PHDQ DOZD\V WKRXJKW WKDW KH ZDV JLYLQJ PH DV KH VDZ LW GLGQnW DOZD\V VHH KLV DOZD\V DJUHH EXW LQ WKH VDPH WRNHQ DOZD\V IHOW WKDW ZKDW KH VDLG ZDV SUREDEO\ EHVW DQG PDGH WKH PRVW DQG PDGH VHQVH ,W ZDVQnW WKDW LW GLGQnW PDNH VHQVH HYHU LW ZDVQnW HYHU WKDW KH VXJJHVWHG VRPHWKLQJ WKDW UHDOO\ WKRXJKW fWKDW GRHVQnWf DQG KDYH WR DGPLW WKHUHfV EHHQ RWKHU SHRSOH ZKDW WKHLU DGYLVHUV WROG WKHP DQG WKRXJKW fWKDW GRHVQnW VRXQG ULJKWf :LWK >0O@ DOZD\V WKRXJKW WKDW KH ZDV JLYLQJ JRRG DGYLFH $QG WKDW PLJKW EH DQRWKHU SLHFH RI EHLQJ D JRRG PHQWRUf§KH ZDV DOZD\V SURYLGLQJ PH ZLWK JRRG LQIRUPDWLRQ 0$5. +RZ GRHV LW IHHO WR KDYH D PHQWRU WKDW \RX EHOLHYH LQ WKDW ZD\ JLYLQJ \RX JRRG DGYLFH" :KDW GRHV WKDW JHW \RX" 63 WKLQN LW JHWV \RX WR D FHUWDLQ OHYHO WKDW \RX FDQ UHOD[ DERXW WKDW WKDW \RX GRQnW KDYH WR ZRUU\ DERXW ZKHWKHU RU QRW \RX KDYH WR NLQG RI GRXEOH FKHFN WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ :KDW FDPH WR ZDV ZKDW IRXQG ZDV DFWXDOO\ >0O@ ZDV LQ WKH KXPDQ GHYHORSPHQW GHSDUWPHQW +H ZDV WKH JUDGXDWH FXUULFXOXP DGYLVHU VR LI \RX ZHUH D JUDG VWXGHQW KH ZDV NLQG RI ZKHUH WKH EXFN VWRSSHG EHIRUH \RX KDG WR JR XS WKH KLOO :KDW IRXQG ZDV WKDW D ORW RI WKH WLPH IULHQGV RI PLQH ZRXOG JHW VRPHWKLQJ IURP WKHLU DGYLVHU DQG WKH\ ZHUHQfW UHDO VXUH DERXW LW VR WKH\ ZRXOG HQG XS KDYLQJ WR JR WR >0O@ WR ILQG RXW LI DQG

PAGE 151

WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH WR GR LW LQ VRPH ZD\ ZKHUH WKH\ UHDOO\ ZHUHQfW JHWWLQJ WKHLU DGYLVHU LQ WURXEOH ZLWK WKH GHSDUWPHQW DQG WR WU\ DQG ILQG RXW f,V WKDW UHDOO\ WKH ZD\ ,nP VXSSRVHG WR GR WKLV"f DOZD\V IHOW ZLWK >0O@ WKDW QHYHU ZRUULHG DERXW WKDW ,W ZDV DOZD\V ZKDW KH DV IDU DV ORJLVWLFV RI WKLQJV DOZD\V NQHZ KH NQHZ KLV VWXII DQG WKDW WKDW ZDV QRW D SUREOHP 2I FRXUVH ZLWK KLV SRVLWLRQ KH NQHZ KLV VWXII $QG WKHQ LW ZDV WR NQRZ WKDW ZKR KH ZDV DV IDU DV D UHVSHFWHG UHVHDUFKHU LQ WKH ILHOG ZKR KDG EHHQ GRLQJ WKLV IRU D ORQJ WLPH DQG KDG EHHQ VKRZLQJ KLV SHHUV WKDW KH FRXOG GR WKLV DQG LV VWLOO EHLQJ DFWLYH LQ KLV UHVHDUFK VR KH FRXOG EH D SDUW RI WKDW :KHQ \RX ZHUHQfW ZLWK VRPHERG\ DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RU WKH HQG DJDLQ IURP VHHLQJ RWKHU SHRSOH LW FDQ ZHDU RQ \RX LW FDQ EH D GLIIHUHQW WDOH LI \RXnUH ZLWK VRPHERG\ ZKRnV MXVW EHJLQQLQJ DQG GRHVQnW NQRZ KRZ WR KDQGOH WKH VWXGHQWV ZKR GRHVQnW NQRZ WKDW EDVLF LQIRUPDWLRQ ,W ZDV D SLHFH WKDW \RX GLGQnW KDYH WR ZRUU\ DERXW $QG VR IRU PH LW ZDV OLNH VDLG LW ZDV MXVW QLFH WR QRW KDYH WR KDYH VRPHWKLQJ HOVH WR EH WKLQNLQJ DERXW RU WR ZRUU\ DERXW ZKHWKHU RU QRW KDG WR JR GRXEOH FKHFN ZKDW P\ DGYLVHU ZDV VD\LQJ

PAGE 152

$33(1',; ',66$7,6),(' 3527‹*‹ '3f ,17(59,(: 6$03/( 0$5. :KDW GRHV LW IHHO OLNH ZKHQ \RX DUH ZLWK WKH PHQWRU ZKR SURYLGHV SRVLWLYH IHHGEDFN IRU LQVWDQFH IRU \RXU ZULWLQJ DQG YLUWXDOO\ QR SRVLWLYH UHLQIRUFHPHQW IRU \RXU RWKHU DFWLYLWLHV OLNH \RXU IDPLO\" :KDW GRHV WKDW PDNH \RX IHHO OLNH" '3 O:HOO LWfV DK QRW YHU\ JRRG IRU EXLOGLQJ D UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK D PHQWRU GRQfW IHHO OLNH ,fYH KDG D JRRG UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK P\ PHQWRU RXWVLGH RI DFDGHPLFV DQG SURIHVVLRQDO OLIH DQG ZKHWKHU WKDWfV LPSRUWDQW RU QRW GRQfW NQRZ WKLQN ,fP QRW VXUH KRZ LW PDGH PH IHHOf§LW ZDV NLQG RI DQ HPSW\ IHHOLQJ ,W PDGH IRU D VWHULOH UHODWLRQVKLS JXHVV PD\EH WKDWfV RQH ZD\ WR SXW LW %XW FDQfW UHDOO\ SLQSRLQW H[DFWO\ KRZ LW ZRXOG PDNH PH IHHO ZKHQ KH ZRXOG GR WKDW 3DUW RI LW ZDV EHFDXVH UHDOO\ ZDQWHG WR JHW WKURXJK WKH SURJUDP VR NLQG RI VWDUWHG WR VHH KLP DV MXVW fWKDW SHUVRQf WKH SHUVRQ ZKR JRW PH WKURXJK WKH SURJUDP DQG WKDW ZDV KLV JRDO JXHVV LW ZDVQfW UHDOO\ QHFHVVDULO\ D EDG IHHOLQJ RU DQ\WKLQJ LW ZDV MXVW WKDW GRQfW WKLQN ZH KDG WKDW NLQG RI UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW ,fYH VHHQ VRPH SHRSOH KDYH ZLWK WKHLU PHQWRUV 0$5.
PAGE 153

, PHDQ VWLOO JRW P\ GHJUHH LQ D UHDVRQDEOH DPRXQW RI WLPH EXW VLQFH ,fYH JUDGXDWHG ZH GRQfW WDON WKDW PXFK :H GRQfW HYHQ HPDLO PXFK DW DOO 0$5. 'LG \RX HYHU IHHO OLNH D FROOHDJXH" '3 7KDWfV D JRRG TXHVWLRQ 6RPHWLPHV GLG DQG VRPHWLPHV GLGQfW ORQJ SDXVHf
PAGE 154

0$5. :RXOG \RX KDYH JLYHQ LW WR KLP LI WKDW ZHUHQfW WKH ODEHO" '3
PAGE 155

JHWWLQJ KLV RZQ UHVHDUFK JRLQJ DP LQ D SRVWGRFWRUDO SURJUDP QRZ DQG WKH PHQWRU WKDW KDYH WKHUH LV SUHWW\ PXFK WKH RSSRVLWH +H LV DOZD\V ZULWLQJ JUDQWV DOZD\V GRLQJ QHZ UHVHDUFKf§VR UHDOO\ FRPSOHWHO\ GLIIHUHQW SURIHVVLRQDOO\ LQ WKDW ZD\ 6R WKLQN GLGQfW VHH WKURXJK P\ JUDGXDWH FDUULHU ZKDW WKLQN ZRXOG EH D JRRG PRGHO RI ZKDW DQ DFDGHPLF UHVHDUFKHU VKRXOG EH 0$5. 'LG KH SURPRWH \RX LQ WKH ILHOG" 'LG KH LQWURGXFH \RX WR RWKHU SHRSOH" 'LG KH WDNH \RX WR FRQIHUHQFHV" '3 1R 1R ZRXOG VLJQ P\VHOI XS IRU FRQIHUHQFHV 1R
PAGE 156

'3 8K SDXVHf 1RWKLQJ
PAGE 157

'3 PHQWRU@ LW ZLOO JR WR VRPHERG\ HOVH

PAGE 158

0$5. 6R WKLV JX\ ZDV \RXU FKDLU ,fP DVVXPLQJ \RXU GLVVHUWDWLRQ FKDLU" '3
PAGE 159

0$5. 7KHUHfV D ORW RI WKLQJV WKDW FDQ JR RQ LQ D UHODWLRQVKLS DQG LQ WKH VWDQGDUG FRQFHSWXDO UHODWLRQ LQ D PHQWRU UHODWLRQVKLS \RX JHW QRW MXVW WKH SURIHVVLRQDO EXW WKH SHUVRQDO HPRWLRQDO VXSSRUW WKDW \RXfYH EHHQ DOOXGLQJ WR ,fP MXVW ZRQGHULQJ LI WKHUH ZDV VRPHERG\ HOVH LQ WKH SURJUDP WKDW ZDV JLYLQJ \RX WKDW VXSSRUW" '3 8K DK QR 0$5. %HFDXVH \RXU SHHUV RI FRXUVH FDQ JLYH \RX VRPH VXSSRUW EXW WKH\ FDQfW JLYH \RX WKDW NLQG RI '3
PAGE 160

+HfV JRW D SHUVRQ ZKR ZLOO EH ILQLVKHG ZLWK WKHLU PDVWHUV LQ D FRXSOH RI ZHHNV ZKR KDG VRPH UHDO SUREOHPV
PAGE 161

0$5. 6R ZKDW GRHV LW PHDQ WR VRPHERG\ RU WR \RX ZKHQ VRPHERG\ LQ WKDW SRVLWLRQ RI PHQWRU RU DV D IDFLOLW\ PHPEHU JLYHV \RX SRVLWLYH IHHGEDFN RQ VRPHWKLQJ WKDW \RXfUH GRLQJ :KDW GRHV WKDW JLYH \RX DW D UHDO IXQGDPHQWDO OHYHO" '3 WKLQN LW KHOSV EXLOG WKDW FROOHJLDO UHODWLRQVKLS IHHO PRUH RI D FROOHDJXH ZKHQ ,fP ZULWLQJ ZLWK D PHQWRU RU VRPH RWKHU IDFLOLW\ DQG JHW SRVLWLYH IHHGEDFN PHDQ REYLRXVO\ LW PDNHV PH IHHO JRRG ,W JLYHV PH D YHU\ JRRG IHHOLQJ DERXW P\ FRPSHWHQF\ DV D ZULWHU DQG D UHVHDUFKHU WKLQN LW LV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW DQG WKLQN VRPH SHRSOH DUH PXFK EHWWHU DW LW WKDQ RWKHUV
PAGE 162

UHDOO\ KDYH D YHU\ DGYHUVH UHDFWLRQ MXVW WKRXJKW ZHOO \RX NQRZ WKLQJV DUH JRLQJ 2. ODXJKLQJf WKHUHfV QR UHDVRQ WR URFN WKH ERDW 6R MXVW ZHQW RQ DQG QHYHU DVNHG KLP DERXW WKDW 0$5. :RXOG LW KDYH EHHQ XQVDIH" '3 1R \RX PHDQ OLNH 0$5. (PRWLRQDOO\" '3 c(PRWLRQDOO\ IRU PH RU IRU KLP" 0$5. )RU \RX '3
PAGE 163

UHDOO\ QLFH ZLWK KLP FKXFNOLQJf WKLQN DJDLQ MXVW UHDOO\ ZDQWHG WR JHW WKURXJK WKH SURJUDP DQG NQHZ WKDW LI GLG WKHVH WKLQJV ZDV JRLQJ WR JHW WKURXJK LW ZLWK KLP $QG RQH RI WKH RWKHU WKLQJV LV WKDW KHfV RQH RI WKH RQO\ SHRSOH LQ WKH GHSDUWPHQW ZKR KDV VLPLODU LQWHUHVWV ZLWK PH 7KHUH DUH RWKHU SHRSOH ZKR KDYH ZKR DUH LQWHUHVWHG LQ WKH WKLQJV WKDW ZH GR EXW WKDWfV QRW WKHLU PDLQ DUHD RI UHVHDUFK 6R FRXOG JR WR WKRVH SHRSOH DQG WDON WR WKHP EXW DV IDU DV D PDLQ DGYLVRU LW SUHWW\ PXFK KDG WR EH KLP $QG VR WKDW FRXOG KDYH FRQWULEXWHG WR WKDW EHFDXVH WKLQN GLG SUREDEO\ SXW XS ZLWK WKLQJV D OLWWOH ELW PRUH WKDQ RWKHU SHRSOH GLG 0$5. &DXVH \RX VRXQG UHDOO\ UHOD[HG QRZ DQG ,fP ZRQGHULQJ DUH \RX NLQG RI LQGLIIHUHQW" PHDQ KDYH \RX UHDFKHG WKH SRLQW GLG \RX UHDFK WKH SRLQW ZKHUH LWfV OLNH f:KDW (YHUf '3
PAGE 164

$33(1',; ( (;$03/( 2) 23(1 &2',1* 0DUN 6R JXHVV WKH RSHQLQJ TXHVWLRQ LV W\SLFDOO\ KRZ GR \RX GHILQH D JRRG PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS" 63 :HOO JXHVV LWfV GLIIHUHQW IRU GLIIHUHQW ILHOGV
PAGE 165

0DUN 6R OHWV LPDJLQH \RXfUH VLWWLQJ ZLWK VRPHERG\ DQG \RXfUH WDONLQJ
PAGE 166

0DUN :K\ LV WKDW" 'HYHORS JURZ OHDUQ RQ RZQ 63 %HFDXVH WKDWfV ZKDW \RX KDYH WR GR LQ WKH UHDO ZRUOG 3UHSDUDWLRQ UHOHYDQW WR JRDOV $QG WKDWfV SUREDEO\ ZKDW LQWHUHVWV PH LV WKH DELOLW\ WR /LNHV OHDUQLQJ ZLQQLQJ GHYHORS DQG \RX NQRZ VWLFN WKURXJK DQG DOO RI D VXGGHQ DJDLQVW RZQ LJQRUDQFH WKDW PRPHQW ZKHQ LW EHFRPHV FOHDU LV D ORW RI IXQ DQG LWfV *URZWK 'LVFRYHU\ LV UHZDUG YHU\ LQWHUHVWLQJ GRQfW ZDQW VRPHRQH MXVW GUDZLQJ PH D )XQ SLFWXUH DQG WHOOLQJ PH 7KLV LV ZKDW KDSSHQV MXVW PHPRUL]H 5HVSHFW KHU DELOLWLHV LW 7HDFK KHU GRQfW WHOO KHU 0DUN 6R ZKDW ,fP WU\LQJ WR ILQG RXW LV ZK\ WKDW ZRUNV IRU \RX" :K\ GRHV LW ZRUN IRU \RX QRW WR EH WROG WKH DQVZHU" :KDW LV LW WKDW \RXfUH JHWWLQJ" 6R \RXfUH VD\LQJ LWV PRUH H[FLWLQJ WR JHW WKH DQVZHU \RXUVHOI" 63
PAGE 167

DV \RX" 63 :HOO GRQfW NQRZ DERXW DOO ZRXOG KRSH VR 0DUN ,Q \RXU H[SHULHQFH" 63 ,Q P\ H[SHULHQFH \HV ZRXOG KRSH VR ,WfV LPSRUWDQW WR KDYH D OLWWOH ELW RI IUHH WKRXJKW )UHH WKRXJKW DQG GLIIHUHQW LGHDV DQG GLIIHUHQW H[SHULHQFHV NLQG RI ZKDW KHOSV PDNH WKH ILHOG SURJUHVV ,I HYHU\ERG\fV WKLQNLQJ WKH VDPH WKLQJ RU LI \RXfUH QRW JRLQJ WR KDYH DQ\ PRUH LGHDV WKHQ ZKDW \RXU PHQWRU KDV WKHQ \RXfUH QRW UHDOO\ SXVKLQJ WKH HQYHORSH DW DOO \RXfUH MXVW NLQG RI IROORZLQJ DORQJ 0DUN 6R KRZ GRHV >\RXU PHQWRU@ GR WKDW" 63 :HOO P\ H[SHULHQFH ZLWK KHU KDV EHHQ WKDW NQHZ D ORW DERXW WKH $O]KHLPHUfV GLVHDVH ILHOG FRPLQJ LQ GLGQfW NQRZ TXLWH DV PXFK DERXW WKH QHXURFKHPLVWU\ DQG DQDWRP\ EXW JRW WKDW LQ FODVVHV DQG WKLQJV 6KH UHDOO\ KDV OHW PH FRPH XS ZLWK P\ RZQ H[SHULPHQWV WR GR ,Q WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI FRXUVH ZDV MXVW OHDUQLQJ WHFKQLTXHV DQG EDVLFDOO\ GRLQJ H[SHULPHQWV WKDW ZHUH DVVLJQHG DQG WKHQ DIWHU D ZKLOH DIWHU JRW D OLWWOH ELW PRUH LQYROYHG VKH UHDOO\ OHW PH NLQG RI WDNH WKLQJV LQ P\ RZQ GLUHFWLRQ )URP GRLQJ P\ RZQ UHDGLQJ LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG ZKDW XQGHUVWRRG DERXW $O]KHLPHUfV GLVHDVH DQG RWKHU WKLQJV ,fYH EHHQ DEOH 7KHVH WKLQJV 6+28/' EH XQLYHUVDO )UHH WR H[SORUH LGHDV 6DIH %HORQJLQJ *URZWK ([SHULHQFHV *RLQJ EH\RQG ZKDWfV JRQH EHIRUH 0DVWHU WKHQ WUDQVFHQG ,QGHSHQGHQFH DXWRQRP\ $ELOLW\ GHVLUH WR VXUSDVV 0 5HVSHFW ZDQW LW JLYH LW &RQILGHQFH LQ RZQ DELOLWLHV *RDOV 'RQfW QHHG WR KDYH HYHU\WKLQJ 'RQfW QHHG 0 IRU EDVLF NQRZOHGJH )UHHGRP HTXDOV UHVSHFW )LUVW OHDP EDVLFV WKHQ JHW DXWRQRP\ DQG UHVSHFW 6WDJHV VNLOOV GHYHORSPHQW 5HVSHFW RI KHU DELOLW\ 6KRZ

PAGE 168

WR GHYHORS P\ RZQ VHW RI H[SHULPHQWV DQG P\ RZQ 0 DELOLW\ 0 UHFLSURFDWHV K\SRWKHVHV DQG NLQG RI P\ RZQ OLWWOH SURMHFW ZKLFK KDV EHHQ YHU\ KHOSIXO FDXVH LW DOVR DOORZV PH WR GR WKH NLQG RI ZIIHHGRP 8VH WKH IUHHGRP 6DIH WR H[SORUH RZQ LGHDV 6HOIGHYHORSPHQW WKLQNLQJ WR XQGHUVWDQG WKDW f2ND\ QHHG WR KDYH VRPH 3UDFWLFH WKLQNLQJ FRQWUROV IRU WKLV DVSHFW RI LWf RU f'RHV WKLV H[SHULPHQW *URZWK LQ VNLOOV FRQILGHQFH UHDOO\ DQVZHU WKH TXHVWLRQ WKDW ZDQW WR DQVZHU"f $QG $XWRQRP\ FDQ GR WKH GR WKDWfV ZKDW \RX KDYH WR GR LQ WKH UHDO ZRUOG DQG WKDWfV RQH RI WKH PRVW LQWHUHVWLQJ DVSHFWV RI GRLQJ VFLHQWLILF UHVHDUFK 0DUN
PAGE 169

SHRSOH LQ WKH ODE RQ VRPH RI WKHLU RZQ VWXII EXW \RX NQRZ 3HHU PHQWRUV WUDLQHUV \RX FDQfW MXVW MXPS LQ WKHUH DQG NQRZ KRZ WR GR HYHU\WKLQJ 0DUN 'LG \RX PDNH DQ\ PLVWDNHV" 63 2I FRXUVH 0DUN $QG KRZ ZDV WKDW" 63 2K LW ZDV ILQH PHDQ VKH XQGHUVWDQGV WKDW \RX RI &RPSOHWHO\ QRW WKUHDWHQHG FRXUVH WKLV LV D WUDLQLQJ SHULRG HYHQ QRZ ,fYH PDGH 6HFXUH FRQILGHQW PLVWDNHV RU QRW FRQWUROOHG WKH GDWD IRU VRPHWKLQJ DQG ZKHQ 0 XQGHUVWDQGV YV WROHUDWHV SUHVHQW WKH GDWD WR KHU VKH PHQWLRQV WKDW VR WKH QH[W WLPH HUURUV LJQRUDQFH GR WKH H[SHULPHQW UHDOL]H WKDW QHHG WR GR WKDW %XW LWfV QRW WKDW VKH GRHVQfW JR URRWLQJ IRU LW 6KHfV UHDOO\ 0HQWLRQV SRLQWV RXW QRW UHOD[HG DERXW LW DQG DERXW D ORW RI WKLQJV SRLQWV ILQJHU 0DUN :KDW GLG WKDW ZKDW GRHV WKDW JHW IRU \RX" :KHQ 'RHVQfW ORRN IRU WKLQJV WR DWWDFN ZD\V WR ORUG RYHU \RXfUH LQ D VLWXDWLRQ DQG \RX PDNH D PLVWDNH DQG VKHfV SURWJ RND\ ZLWK LW VKH GRHVQfW 63 :HOO PHDQ RI FRXUVH LW PDNHV PH PRUH ZLOOLQJ WR 6DIH EDVH 6HOIFRPIRUW 1R DGPLW WKDW PDGH D PLVWDNH $QG DOVR LWfV QRW VR PXFK QHHG WR HYDGH RU DYRLG 0 SUHVVXUH NQRZ VRPH PHQWRUV ZKR DUH D ORW PRUH ULGJHG /RZHU VWUHVV IRFXV RQ ZRUN DERXW WKDW DQG WKH\ GR H[SHFW \RX WR NQRZ HYHU\ WLPH )HDU RI 0 DIUDLG WR WHOO 0 H[DFWO\ HYHU\WKLQJ WKDW QHHGV WR EH GRQH $QG \RX NQRZ ZKHQ PDNH PLVWDNH $IUDLG WR \RXfUH JRLQJ WR KDYH SHRSOH LQ WKH ODE ZKR DUH JRLQJ WR EH WU\ DQ\WKLQJ IRU IHDU RI HUURU VFDUHG ZKHQ \RX GR WKDW $QG WKLQN LW PDNHV LW HDVLHU IRU DQG SXQLVKPHQW

PAGE 170

PH WR MXVW JR DKHDG DQG GR VRPHWKLQJ WKDQ WR ZRUU\ DERXW &DQ IRFXV RQ ZRUN UDWKHU WKDQ LI HYHU\WKLQJ LV H[DFWO\ ULJKW GR PDNH DQ HIIRUW WR LQFOXGH SRVVLEOH MXGJPHQW VDIH HYHU\WKLQJ XQGHUVWDQG EDVHG RQ P\ RZQ NQRZOHGJH WR GR VHFXUH 'HVLUH WR GR ZHOO LV LQWHUQDOO\ GULYHQ QRW D GHVLUH HYHU\WKLQJ FRUUHFWO\ %XW LI LWfV QRW FRUUHFW GRQfW IHHO OLNH WR DYRLG H[WHUQDO DYHUVLYHQHVV KDYH WR IHDU DQ\WKLQJ 0DUN
PAGE 171

5()(5(1&(6 $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ f (WKLFDO SULQFLSDOV RI SV\FKRORJLVWV DQG FRGH RI FRQGXFW 5HWULHYHG -XQH IURP KWWSZZZDSDRUJHWKLFVFRGHSGI $WNLQVRQ 5 0RUWRQ t 6XH : f &RXQVHOLQJ $PHULFDQ PLQRULWLHV WK HGf %RVWRQ 0F*UDZ+LOO $WNLQVRQ 5 1HYLOOH + t &DVDV $ f 7KH PHQWRUVKLS RI HWKQLF PLQRULWLHV LQ SURIHVVLRQDO SV\FKRORJ\ 3URIHVVLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH %DLU & 5 f 'RFWRUDO VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ DQG SHUVLVWHQFH $ PHWDV\QWKHVLV 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 80, 1R f %HDQ 3 t (DWRQ 6 % f $ SV\FKRORJLFDO PRGHO RI FROOHJH VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ ,Q 0 %UD[WRQ (Gf 5HZRUNLQJ WKH VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH SX]]OH SS f 1DVKYLOOH 9DQGHUELOW 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV %LDJJLR 0 3DJHW 7 / t &KHQRZHWK 0 6 f $ PRGHO IRU HWKLFDO PDQDJHPHQW RI IDFXOW\VWXGHQW GXDO UHODWLRQVKLSV 3URIHVVLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH %OHYLQV.QDEH % f 7KH HWKLFV RI GXDO UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ (WKLFV DQG %HKDYLRU %RJDW $ t 5HGQHU 5 / f +RZ PHQWRULQJ DIIHFWV WKH SURIHVVLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI ZRPHQ LQ SV\FKRORJ\ 3URIHVVLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH %RZHQ : t 5XGHQVWLQH 1 / f ,Q SXUVXLW RI WKH 3K' 3ULQFHWRQ 13ULQFHWRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV %R\HU &RPPLVVLRQ f 5HLQYHQWLQJ XQGHUJUDGXDWH HGXFDWLRQ $ EOXHSULQW IRU $PHULFDfV UHVHDUFK XQLYHUVLWLHV 5HWULHYHG -XQH IURP KWWSQD'OHVFFVXQYVEHG83UHVERYHUQVIZHEIRUP, %UD[WRQ 0 f 5HLQYLJRUDWLQJ WKHRU\ DQG UHVHDUFK RQ WKH GHSDHUWXUH SX]]OH ,Q 0 %UD[WRQ (Gf 5HZRUNLQJ WKH VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH SX]]OH SS f 1DVKYLOOH 9DQGHUELOW 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV

PAGE 172

%UDVV 9 t .RSDOD 0 f *UDGXDWH VFKRRO WUDLQLQJ LQ SV\FKRORJ\ ,WV LPSDFW XSRQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI SURIHVVLRQDO LGHQWLW\ 3V\FKRWKHUDS\ %XUNH 5 t 0F.HHQ & $ f *HQGHU HIIHFWV LQ PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO %HKDYLRU DQG 3HUVRQDOLW\ %XUNH 5 0F.HHQ & $ t 0F.HQQD & 6 f 6H[ GLIIHUHQFHV DQG FURVVVH[ HIIHFWV RQ PHQWRULQJ 6RPH SUHOLPLQDU\ GDWD 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV &DPHURQ 6 : t %ODFNEXUQ 5 7 f 6SRQVRUVKLS DQG DFDGHPLF FDUHHU VXFFHVV -RXUQDO RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 5HWULHYHG 0D\ IURP KWWSZZZLVWRURUJ &KDR 7 f 0HQWRULQJ SKDVHV DQG RXWFRPHV -RXUQDO RI 9RFDWLRQDO %HKDYLRU &KDR 7 :DO] 3 0 t *DUGQHU 3 f )RUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO PHQWRUVKLSV $ FRPSDULVRQ RQ PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV DQG FRQWUDVW ZLWK QRQPHQWRUHG FRXQWHUSDUWV 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ &ODUN 5 $ +DUGHQ 6 / t -RKQVRQ : % f 0HQWRU UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ GRFWRUDO WUDLQLQJ 5HVXOWV RI D QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ 7HDFKLQJ RI 3V\FKRORJ\ &ODZVRQ t .UDP ( 0D\-XQHf 0DQDJLQJ FURVVJHQGHU PHQWRULQJ %XVLQHVV +RUL]RQV &RKHQ / 0 0RUJDQ 5 'L/LOOR t )ORUHV / < f :K\ ZDV P\ PDMRU SURIHVVRU VR EXV\" (VWDEOLVKLQJ DQ DFDGHPLF FDUHHU ZKLOH SXUVLQJ DSSOLHG ZRUN 3URIHVVLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH &RXQFLO RI *UDGXDWH 6FKRROV f 2UJDQL]DWLRQ DQG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI JUDGXDWH HGXFDWLRQ :DVKLQJWRQ '& $XWKRU &RYH\ 6 5 f /HDGLQJ E\ H[DPSOH YLGHR SURJUDP &DUOVEDG &$ &50 /HDUQLQJ &URQHQ+LOOL[ 7 *HQVKHLPHU / &URQHQ+LOOL[ : $ t 'DYLGVRQ : 6 f 6WXGHQWVf YLHZV RI PHQWRUV LQ SV\FKRORJ\ JUDGXDWH WUDLQLQJ 7HDFKLQJ RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 'LFN % f *URXQGHG WKHRU\ $ WKXPEQDLO VNHWFK 5HWUHLYHG 0DUFK IURP KWWSZZZVFXHGXDXVFKRROVJFPDUDUSJURXQGHGKWPO 'UHKHU ) t $VK 5 $ f $ FRPSDUDWLYH VWXG\ RI PHQWRULQJ DPRQJ PHQ DQG ZRPHQ LQ PDQDJHULDO SURIHVVLRQDO DQG WHFKQLFDO SRVLWLRQV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 3V\FKRORJ\

PAGE 173

(E\ / 7 0DF0DQXV 6 ( 6LPRQ 6 $ t 5XVVHOO ( $ f 7KH SURWJfV SHUVSHFWLYH UHJDUGLQJ QHJDWLYH PHQWRULQJ H[SHULHQFHV 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI D WD[RQRP\ -RXUQDO RI 9RFDWLRQDO %HKDYLRU (ULNVRQ ( + f ,GHQWLW\ DQG WKH OLIH F\FOH 1HZ
PAGE 174

*ODVHU % t 6WUDXVV $ / f 7KH GLVFRYHU\ RI JURXQGHG WKHRU\ 6WUDWHJLHV IRU TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK &KLFDJR $OGLQH 3XEOLVKLQJ *ODVHU % t 6WUDXVV $ / f 'LVFRYHU\ RI VXEVWDQWLYH WKHRU\ $ EDVLF VWUDWHJ\ XQGHUO\LQJ TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK ,Q : )LOVWHDG (Gf 4XDOLWDWLYH PHWKRGRORJ\ )LUVWKDQG LQYROYHPHQW ZLWK WKH VRFLDO ZRUOG SS f &KLFDJR 0DUNKDQ 3XEOLVKLQJ *RRJOH 6HDUFK f 'DWD UHWULHYHG IURP KWWSZZZJRRJOHFRP *UHHQ 6 t %DXHU 7 1 f 6XSHUYLVRU\ PHQWRULQJ E\ DGYLVHUV 5HODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK GRFWRUDO VWXGHQW SRWHQWLDO SURGXFWLYLW\ DQG FRPPLWPHQW 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ +HOPV ( f $Q XSGDWH RI +HOPVfV :KLWH DQG SHRSOH RI FRORU UDFLDO LGHQWLW\ PRGHOV ,Q 3RQWHURWWR 0 &DVDV / $ 6X]LNL t & 0 $OH[DQGHU (GVf +DQGERRN RI PXOWLFXOWXUDO FRXQVHOLQJ SS f 7KRXVDQG 2DNV &$ 6DJH 3XEOLFDWLRQV +HUEHUW f 6WDQGLQJ RQ WKH VKRXOGHUV RI JLDQWV 5HWULHYHG -XQH IURP KWWSZZZZDUEOHFRPMKHUEHUWJLDQWVKWPO +LOO 5 &DVWLOOR / 1JX / 4 t 3HSLRQ f 0HQWRULQJ HWKQLF PLQRULW\ VWXGHQWV IRU FDUHHUV LQ DFDGHPLD 7KH :,&+( 'RFWRUDO 6FKRODUV 3URJUDP 7KH &RXQVHOLQJ 3V\FKRORJLVW +LWH / 0 -DQXDU\f )HPDOH GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWV 7KHLU SHUFHSWLRQV DQG FRQFHUQV -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO +ROOLQJVZRUWK 0 $ t )DVVLQJHU 5 ( f 7KH UROH RI IDFXOW\ PHQWRUV LQ WKH UHVHDUFK WUDLQLQJ RI FRXQVHOLQJ SV\FKRORJ\ GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWV -RXUQDO RI &RXQVHOLQJ 3V\FKRORJ\ -DFREL 0 f 0HQWRULQJ DQG XQGHUJUDGXDWH DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV $ OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ 5HYLHZ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK -RKQVRQ 5 0 f ,QYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH SURFHVVHV RI SHUVLVWHQFH 5HILQLQJ GLVFRXUVH DQDO\VLV DV D WRRO IRU JHQHUDWLQJ QHZ GHSDUWXUH WKHRU\ ,Q 0 %UD[WRQ (Gf 5HZRUNLQJ WKH VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH SX]]OH SS f 1DVKYLOOH 71 9DQGHUELOW 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV -RKQVRQ : % f 7KH LQWHQWLRQDO PHQWRU 6WUDWHJLHV DQG JXLGHOLQHV IRU WKH SUDFWLFH RI PHQWRULQJ 3URIHVVLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH -RKQVRQ : % t +XZH 0 f *HWWLQJ PHQWRUHG LQ JUDGXDWH VFKRRO :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ

PAGE 175

-RKQVRQ : % t 1HOVRQ 1 f 0HQWRUSURWJ UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ JUDGXDWH WUDLQLQJ 6RPH HWKLFDO FRQFHUQV (WKLFV DQG %HKDYLRU .HOO\ 6 t 6FKZHLW]HU + f 0HQWRULQJ ZLWKLQ D JUDGXDWH VFKRRO VHWWLQJ &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW -RXUQDO .RKOEHUJ / f 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI FKLOGUHQfV RULHQWDWLRQV WRZDUG D PRUDO RUGHU 6HTXHQFH LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RU PRUDO WKRXJKW 9LWD +XPDQD .UDP ( f 3KDVHV RI WKH PHQWRU UHODWLRQVKLS $FDGHP\ RI 0DQDJHPHQW -RXUQDO .UDP ( f 0HQWRULQJ DW ZRUN 'HYHORSPHQWDO UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO OLIH *OHQYLHZ ,/ 6FRWW )RUHVPDQ DQG &RPSDQ\ /DUN 6 t &URWHDX 0 f /HVELDQ JD\ DQG ELVH[XDO GRFWRUDO VWXGHQWVf PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK IDFXOW\ LQ FRXQVHOLQJ SV\FKRORJ\ $ TXDOLWDWLYH VWXG\ 7KH &RXQVHOLQJ 3V\FKRORJLVW f /H&OX\VH ( ( 7ROOHIVRQ 1 t %RUJHUV 6 % f 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ IHPDOH JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV LQ UHODWLRQ WR PHQWRULQJ &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW -RXUQDO /HYLQVRQ f 7KH VHDVRQV RI D PDQfV OLIH 1HZ
PAGE 176

1RH 5 $ f $Q LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH GHWHUPLQDQWV RI VXFFHVVIXO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV 3HUVRQQHO 3V\FKRORJ\ 2f1HLO 0 t :ULJKWVPDQ / 6 f 7KH PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLS LQ SV\FKRORJ\ WUDLQLQJ SURJUDPV ,Q 6 :DOILVK t $ +HVV (GVf 6XFFHHGLQJ LQ JUDGXDWH VFKRRO 7KH FDUHHU JXLGH IRU SV\FKRORJ\ VWXGHQWV SS f 0DKZDK 1/DZUHQFH (UOEDXP $VVRFLDWHV 3XEOLVKHUV 3HGHUVRQ t 'DQLHOV 6WUHVVHV DQG VWUDWHJLHV IRU JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW FRXSOHV ,Q 0 %UD[WRQ (Gf 5HZRUNLQJ WKH VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH SX]]OH SS f 1DVKYLOOH 9DQGHUELOW 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 3KLOOLSV-RQHV / f 0HQWRUV DQG SURWJV 1HZ
PAGE 177

6FDQGXUD7 $ f 0HQWRUVKLS DQG FDUHHU PRELOLW\ $Q HPSLULFDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ -RXUQDO RI 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO %HKDYLRU 6FDQGXUD 7 $ f '\VIXQFWLRQDO PHQWRULQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG RXWFRPHV -RXUQDO RI 0DQDJHPHQW 6FKRFNHWW 0 5 t +DULQJ+LGRUH 0 f )DFWRU DQDO\WLF VXSSRUW IRU SV\FKRVRFLDO DQG YRFDWLRQDO PHQWRULQJ IXQFWLRQV 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV 6WUDXVV $ t &RUELQ %DVLFV RI TXDOLWDWLYH UHVHDUFK *URXQGHG WKHRU\ SURFHGXUHV DQG WHFKQLTXHV 1HZEXU\ 3DUN &$ 6DJH 6XPSUHU ) t :DOILVK 6 f 7KH SROLWLFV RI JUDGXDWH SURJUDPV ,Q 6 :DOILVK t $ +HVV (GVf 6XFFHHGLQJ LQ JUDGXDWH VFKRRO 7KH FDUHHU JXLGH IRU SV\FKRORJ\ VWXGHQWV SS f 0DKZDK 1/DZUHQFH (UOEDXP $VVRFLDWHV 3XEOLVKHUV 6ZHUGOLN 0 ( t %DUGRQ f $ VXUYH\ RI PHQWRULQJ H[SHULHQFHV LQ VFKRRO SV\FKRORJ\ -RXUQDO RI 6FKRRO 3V\FKRORJ\ 7LQWR 9 f /HDYLQJ FROOHJH 5HWKLQNLQJ WKH FDXVHV DQG FXUHV RI VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ &KLFDJR 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV 7LQWR 9 f /LQNLQJ OHDUQLQJ DQG OHDYLQJ ([SORULQJ WKH UROH RI WKH FROOHJH FODVVURRP LQ VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH ,Q 0 %UD[WRQ (Gf 5HZRUNLQJ WKH VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH SX]]OH SS f 1DVKYLOOH 9DQGHUELOW 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 7XUEDQ % t 'RXJKHUW\ 7 : f 5ROH RI SURWJ SHUVRQDOLW\ LQ UHFHLSW RI PHQWRULQJ DQG FDUHHU VXFFHVV $FDGHP\ RI 0DQDJHPHQW -RXUQDO 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD Df 6WUDWHJLF SODQ IRU JUDGXDWH HGXFDWLRQ 5HWULHYHG -XQH IURP KWWSJUDGVFKRROUJSXIOHGXHGXFDWLRQVWUDWHJLFSODQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD Ef %HVW SUDFWLFHV LQ JUDGXDWH HGXFDWLRQ 5HWULHYHG -XQH IURP KWWS JUDGVFKRRO UJSXIO HGXSGI HGXFDWLRQSUDFWLFHV SGI 8QLYHUVLW\ RI .DQVDV f 0HQWRULQJ JXLGHOLQHV 5HWULHYHG 0DUFK IURP KWWSZZZNXHGXaJUDGXDWH)DFXOWYPHQWRULQJVKWPO :DGVZRUWK % f 3LDJHWfV WKHRU\ RI FRJQLWLYH DQG DIIHFWLYH GHYHORSPHQW WK HGf 1HZ
PAGE 178

:LOGH % t 6FKDX & f 0HQWRULQJ LQ JUDGXDWH VFKRROV RI HGXFDWLRQ 0HQWHHVf SHUFHSWLRQV -RXUQDO RI ([SHULPHQWDO (GXFDWLRQ :LWW 6PLWK 6PLWK : t 0DUNKDP 6 ( f 'LYHUVLW\ LVVXHV LQ PHQWRULQJ DFDGHPLF IDFXOW\ -RXUQDO RI &DUHHU 'HYHORSPHQW f :ULJKW & $ t :ULJKW 6 f 7KH UROH RI PHQWRUV LQ WKH FDUHHU GHYHORSPHQW RI \RXQJ SURIHVVLRQDOV )DPLO\ 5HODWLRQV 5HWULHYHG 0D\ IURP KWWSZZZMVWRURUJ :ULJKWVPDQ / 6 f 5HVHDUFK PHWKRGRORJLHV IRU DVVHVVLQJ PHQWRULQJ 3UHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO &RQIHUHQFH RI WKH $PHULFDQ SV\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ /RV $QJHOHV (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f =XFNHUPDQ + f 6FLHQWLILF HOLWH 1REHO ODXUHDWHV LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 1HZ
PAGE 179

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

PAGE 180

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

PAGE 181

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


THE AFFECTIVE CORRELATES OF
A GOOD MENTORING RELATIONSHIP
By
MARK FRANKLIN BRECHTEL
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2003

This dissertation is dedicated to Hallie Ward.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to the people in my life that are most
responsible for the good things that I am and do (and none of the not-so-good). First, my
mother, who (with a little help) started it all and is thus responsible for it all. Second, my
wife, Brenda, who has carried far more than her fair share in the past dozen years and
who would like to stop now, please. Third, my three daughters (in order of how much
work they did on this particular project), Christen, Christy, and Lisa—they are the reason
much of anything is worthwhile.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Defining Mentoring 5
Brief History of Mentoring 6
Importance of Mentoring 8
Present Study 10
2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
Construction of the Mentoring Relationship 14
Functions of the Mentoring Relationship 20
Career and Psychosocial Functions 21
Additional Functions 24
Phases of the Mentoring Relationship 25
Phillips’ Five-Phase Model 27
Missirian’s Three-Phase Model 28
Kram’s Four-Phase Model 29
Empirical Validity of the Phase Models 30
Outcomes of the Mentoring Relationship 33
Correlation of Functions to Outcomes 34
Self-Efficacy, Productivity, and Success in Graduate School 36
Job Satisfaction, Promotion, and Income 37
Impact of Protégé Characteristics 39
Obstacles to the Mentoring Relationship 41
Negative Behaviors 42
Structural, Department Specific, and Relational Obstacles 42
Risks to Mentors 44
Other Factors That Affect the Mentoring Relationship 45
Gender Factors 45
Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, and Other Cultural Factors 50
Ethical Concerns in the Mentoring Relationship 52
Introduction to the Method 55
Value of Qualitative Research 55
Grounded Theory Methodology 58
IV

3METHOD
65
Participants 65
The Researcher 66
Procedure 69
Data Acquisition 69
Data Analysis 71
4 RESULTS 76
Feeling Respected 78
Respect of Persons 79
Respect of a Person’s Right of Self-Determination 81
Feeling Valued by or Important to the Mentor 83
Availability 84
Time and Effort 86
Feeling Safe 88
Not Experiencing Rejection 89
Receiving Affirmation and Encouragement 92
Trust 93
Feelings of Belonging and Community 95
Feelings of Increasing Competence 100
Clarifying Expectations 101
Following an Appropriate Developmental Course 102
Increasing Autonomy 103
5 DISCUSSION 105
APPENDIXES
A INFORMED CONSENT 118
B MENTOR INTERVIEW SAMPLE 121
C SATISFIED PROTÉGÉ (SP3) INTERVIEW SAMPLE 133
D DISSATISFIED PROTÉGÉ (DPI) INTERVIEW SAMPLE 145
E EXAMPLE OF OPEN CODING 157
REFERENCES 164
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 172
v

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE AFFECTIVE CORRELATES OF A GOOD MENTORING RELATIONSHIP
By
Mark Franklin Brechtel
August, 2003
Chair: Franz R. Epting, Ph.D.
Major Department: Department of Psychology
This project investigated the affective components that help define a good
mentoring relationship. This project was exploratory, not confirmatory; thus, no
hypotheses were constructed. While previous research has focused on various
components of mentoring, such as functions, phases, establishment, and structures, these
factors were not evaluated, as the focus of the project was on the quality of the
relationship. Results of this project, however, are consistent with existing research into
these areas.
Fourteen participants were interviewed (four award-winning mentors, five
satisfied protégés, and four dissatisfied protégés) regarding their experiences as mentors
and protégés. Participants were asked to provide their thoughts and perceptions about
what things were important in a good mentoring relationship and what might be missing
in a bad relationship. Results were analyzed using grounded theory methodology, which
is a qualitative method of research and analysis. Analyses indicated that positive affect
vi

was the central factor that differentiated good mentoring relationships from bad
mentoring relationships. Positive affect, as a core category, subsumed five second-level
categories: (a) feeling respected, (b) feelings of being valued, (c) feeling safe, (d) feelings
of belonging, and (e) feelings of making progress. Each of these categories subsumed a
number of other themes. Results across all participants were remarkably consistent,
lending support to the importance of the interpersonal quality of the mentor-protégé
relationship.
Vll

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.
(Newton, 1676)
This sentiment, in varying forms and words, has historically been proffered by
many when asked to account for their successes in work or in life. Indeed, it is asserted
that Sir Isaac Newton, who wrote these words in a letter to his colleague Robert Hooke,
was himself paraphrasing an idea expressed by Bernard of Chartes in the year 1130
(Herbert, 2003). The insight that we are able to accomplish as much as we do only
because we build upon the works of those who have gone before us is both perceptive
and judicious, rendering due credit to those upon whose labors we build our own edifices.
It is a humbling insight. No matter our view of our own talents and efforts, we are not
alone basking in the spotlight of our accomplishments. We are not solely to credit for our
discoveries and constructions. Further, we have had an advantage that our precursors did
not have: We have access to their work, their wisdom, the edifices that they built upon
the shoulders of those who went before—and, in some cases, we have access to them.
This last element—that we often have the advantage of the presence of the
persons who have gone before—provides the direction for this research. The purpose of
this dissertation is to explore the relationship between mentors and their protégés and to
ask what factors are important for the relationship to be characterized as good.
The presence of these persons allows us to learn from them directly: to see them
working in the lab, to watch them negotiate a contract with a client in the office, to hear
1

2
them present their findings first hand at conferences, and to talk to them about our ideas
and our goals. More importantly, their presence may also allow us to develop personal
relationships with them. Whether in business, a profession, or in academia, the
opportunity to enter into a personal relationship with someone who is more advanced,
more knowledgeable, more expert, or of higher status and power can be a boon to the
personal and professional development of the novice.
The significance of these relationships has been heard in the words of many: the
businessman who spoke with enthusiasm about the female senior executive who showed
him the ropes (Hogan, as cited in Murray, 1991), the Nobel prize winner who described
the sponsor who saw the potential in him that he never saw in himself (Zuckerman,
1977), the spiritual teacher who eloquently expressed his love for the elder who guided
him through crises of faith (Lewis, 1955), the child who eulogized a parent’s importance
to his peace and place in the world, and the artist who waxed poetic about the one who
saw and believed in the talent and passion that others discounted (McMullen, as cited in
Murray, 1991). These few examples are noted among an imagined infinitude of people
who have recognized the critical contributions of some significant figure to their
development, to their success, and to their lives.
The recognition of the value of these significant figures, however, is definitional
of graduate education (Kelly & Schweitzer, 1999). Where else are the shoulders of those
who have gone before so intentionally made available for those who would follow?
Where more than in the graduate academy is the mentoring and advising of students and
protégés more central to the success of the endeavor? Although the goal of all education

3
is the transmission of knowledge, graduate education uniquely assigns the task of
preparing the next generation of scholars and researchers to those who themselves
developed and use the knowledge. “Generations of experienced scholars have known and
acted upon the knowledge that the intellectual development of their graduate students is
most effectively guided in one-to-one relationships” (Boyer Commission, 1998, p. I). The
intellectual, professional, social, and political development of individual graduate
students is the raison d’étre of the graduate mentor—the sine qua non of a doctoral
education.
Or is it? According to many sources (e.g., Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts,
2001; Tinto, 1987), the number of students who drop out of doctoral programs in the
United States has held steady at approximately 50% since the 1960s. Further, while the
specific attrition rates for women and minorities are not known, Lovitts reported it to be
considerably higher (see also National Science Foundation, 1997). It is also interesting to
note that “in many doctoral programs, roughly half of the students are mentored; in
others, the rate is much lower” (Johnson and Huwe, 2003, p. 4). Perhaps the development
of graduate students is not the central concern of graduate schools. Perhaps experienced
scholars have not known—or not acted upon the knowledge—that students’ development
is best facilitated in one-on-one relationships.
A variety of reasons may be called up to explain these alarming statistics, and
researchers have not been unaware of the problem (Bean & Eaton, 2000; Bowen &
Rudenstine, 1992; Braxton, 2000; Tinto, 1987, 2000). Some researchers have focused on
the contribution of the individual student’s personality and other characteristics to

4
retention. For example, Tinto (1987) discussed the relations between personal
dispositions such as intention and commitment and retention, Bean and Eaton (2000)
presented a model that focuses on the interactions between characteristics of the students
and the institutional environment in which they must function after arrival, and Green and
Bauer (1995) found that certain characteristics of students at entry predicted a significant
portion of the variance in outcomes.
Other researchers have explored what happens to students after they arrive.
Lovitts (2001) explored a number of reasons why graduate students do not complete their
programs and concluded that “it is not the background characteristics students bring to
the university that affects their persistence outcomes; it is what happens to them after
they arrive” (p. 2). Lovitts reported that a key factor in a students’ success is their
satisfaction with their advisors/mentors, which predicted not only completion of the
doctorate, but also a wide range of other variables. Her discussion of the relative impact
of the student’s advisor is of particular interest here. In summarizing, she wrote,
In particular, the students felt that their experiences would have been better if they
had had more interaction with faculty and/or their advisor and if the faculty or
their advisor had been more open, more supporting; given them a little more
personal attention; been more sensitive to their interests and career goals; and
provided them with appropriate professional socialization experiences, (p. 184)
Clearly, factors related to student success, satisfaction, and retention need further
explication. Nevertheless, and in spite of the distressing losses of doctoral students,
numerous researchers, theorists, and administrators have explicitly recognized the
importance of mentoring in graduate education. The Strategic Planning Committee of a
top-10 southeastern university concluded, “no function in the university should receive

5
more careful attention and support than the processes by which potential graduate
students are recruited, admitted, mentored, and placed” (University of Florida, 1997a, p.
21). Cameron and Blackburn (1981) discussed the positive correlations between
professional productivity and mentoring (broadly defined). The Council of Graduate
Schools (1990) specifically mentioned mentoring when noting that a university has an
obligation to provide support services to make academic progress possible. Commenting
on mentoring in the context of adult male development, Levinson (1978) added, “Given
the value that mentoring has for the mentor, the recipient, and society at large, it is tragic
that so little of it actually occurs” (p. 254).
Defining Mentoring
Although mentoring is a term that is frequently and widely used, it remains
resistant to clear, concise definition (Gibb, 1999). Many researchers and authors have
defined the term in the context of their work, providing additional descriptors and
examples that serve to reveal the insufficiency of the operationalization due to the
complexity and nuances of the relationship. For example, Johnson (2002) explicitly noted
that authors have had difficulty clarifying what is meant by mentoring, and then provided
three paragraphs describing his conceptions and use of the term. The present author is, of
course, not exempt from this difficulty.
A significant factor in defining the term is that mentoring is not a simple
construct. It is not a single role, a single task, nor a single concept. Rather, the mentoring
construct describes a juxtaposition of numerous roles, activities, purposes, and meanings.
The uniqueness and power of mentoring could not, in any case, be encompassed by a

6
bare description of functions and outcomes. As the present study is intended to
demonstrate, fulfilled functions and positive outcomes do not define the essence of
mentoring. Indeed, positive outcomes can be acquired without a mentor. Mentoring is
something more—something qualitative, phenomenal, subjective—and as such resists
attempts to define it in any categorical way.
Brief History of Mentoring
The term mentor has its origins in Greek mythology. In Homer’s Odyssey,
Mentor was a close friend and wise counselor of Odysseus. Odysseus, who became a
hero after his victory at Troy, was unable to return home after the battle, as he was
hindered by the goddess, Calypso, who wanted to marry him. Eventually, the other gods
took pity on him and sent him homeward. However, Poseidon (whom Odysseus had
offended by blinding his son, Cyclopes Polyphemus) again hindered his progress and
prevented him from reaching home.
Wisely, before Odysseus had left his home in Ithaca for the battle, he placed
Mentor (his friend and advisor) in charge of his estate, his servants, and his young son,
Telemakhos. When Telemakhos was older, he thought about his missing father. At the
prompting of the goddess Athena, Telemakhos decided to seek out his father and bring
him home again. Athena would often appear to Telemakhos in the guise of Mentor, his
guardian and surrogate father, to provide advice, guidance, support, and encouragement.
Athena also appeared to Odysseus and Telemakhos in various other guises. In each case
Athena/Mentor, using her superior (divine) knowledge and power, was able to assist them

7
in their travels and travails because she saw their needs and intervened with the powers
(i.e., the other gods) on their behalf.
Odysseus, in appointing Mentor, was (in part) conforming to a customary practice
in ancient Greece, which was to find an older and wiser teacher to be a role model for
young men so that they could learn from and emulate their families’ cultural values and
customs (e.g., Plato and Socrates, Alexander the Great and Aristotle; Murray, 1991). In
that both Mentor himself and Athena in the guise of Mentor exemplified the
characteristics of advisor, guide, counselor, intervener, and teacher, these older and wiser
role models became known as “mentors,” and the term mentor became associated with
that role.
These same ideas regarding the transmission of knowledge and customs can also
be seen in the development of guilds during the Middle Ages. The various professions
(e.g., goldsmith, lawyer, merchant) developed an apprenticeship model in which young
boys were apprenticed to a master (i.e., someone recognized as expert in the given trade).
The boys spent years with their masters, learning their trades and eventually becoming
masters themselves by producing a masterpiece.
The master-apprenticeship model was largely replaced by an employer/employee
model, but informal mentoring continued to play a central role in history. For example,
McMullen (as cited by Murray, 1991) quoted artist Mary Cassatt when she learned of
Edgar Degas’s interest in becoming her personal mentor:
I accepted with joy. Now I could work with absolute independence without
considering the opinion of a jury. I had already recognized who were my true
masters. I admired Manet, Courbet, and Degas. I took leave of conventional art. I
began to live. (p. 8)

8
The effects of having a mentor whom the protégé admires and respects are evident and
continue to be play a central role in the value of mentoring (e.g., Kram, 1985; Levinson,
1978; Lovitts, 2001; O’Neil & Wrightsman, 2001).
In the last few decades, mentoring has received increasing attention in both
business and academia (Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002; Murray, 1991; Sands, Parson,
& Duane, 1991). Theories have been constructed, models have been developed, and
research has been conducted. The potential value to the protégé, the mentor, the
institution or business, and society in general has driven an increased focus on how to
establish mentoring programs, structure mentoring relationships, and gamer the hoped-
for benefits. Yet, a significant obstacle persists in the lack of a clear definition of
mentoring. Abstract knowledge of the concept remains insufficient for the task, as does
the bare description of functions and tasks.
Importance of Mentoring
At a purely practical level, teachers and mentors have always served an
acknowledged function as imparters of knowledge and exemplars of the professional role.
Knowledge, however, has been expanding at an accelerated rate in recent decades. The
increasing breadth and sheer quantity of information drives escalating demands to
specialize, and the rising number of highly trained and educated people creates growing
competition for limited business and academic positions. Technology is also more diverse
and complex, and the skills necessary to master it are correspondingly more intricate or
even esoteric. Consequently, the transmission of vital knowledge and skills required for
business or academic survival must be both efficient and effective. This does not imply

9
that mentoring is a new concept or that the efficient transmission of knowledge and
expertise is a 21st century imperative. Nevertheless, the levels of current demands have
grown such that, without the direct involvement of mentors, the task of survival—much
less success—may be nearly insurmountable.
As previously noted, however, the subjective experiences of the people in a
mentoring relationship are central, not only to the perceived quality of the relationship,
but also to the success of the relationship tasks (Bair, 1999; Lovitts, 2001). In addition to
noting the importance of mentoring in a professional context, Levinson (1978) discussed
the importance of a mentor to the psychological and emotional development of young
men. He stated,
A good mentor is an admixture of a good father and a good friend.... A “good
enough” mentor is a transitional figure who invites and welcomes a young man
into the adult world. He serves as a guide, teacher, and sponsor. He represents
skill, knowledge, virtue, accomplishment—the superior qualities a young man
hopes someday to acquire. He gives his blessing to the novice and his Dream.
And yet, with all this superiority, he conveys the promise that in time they will be
peers. The protégé has the hope that soon he will be able to join or even surpass
his mentor in the work that they both value, (pp. 333-334)
Although transmission of knowledge and technical expertise, dissemination of
cultural sophistication, enlarged networks, and other concrete benefits accrue to those
who are mentored, they are not perhaps the most important benefits. Neither are measures
of these benefits likely to capture the essence of the mentoring relationship. The present
study, therefore, does not focus directly on the practical aspects of mentoring, but rather
indirectly on the developmental, subjective, and phenomenological experiences of
mentors and protégés.

10
Present Study
The present study focuses on the subjective experience of participants in
mentoring relationships in order to develop an understanding of what qualitative factors
contribute to the characterization of a mentoring relationship as good. What does it mean
to each person in the dyad that mentoring “works”? Is essence, what elements comprise a
good mentoring relationship? As in a marriage, something occurs in a positive mentoring
relationship that is qualitatively different from a negative or less successful one. These
features are of primary interest in the present study and provide reasons for why
psychology may be uniquely suited to explore them.
This study is further undertaken in the “context of discovery,” not in the “context
of verification” (Giorgi, 1990, 1992). Although the subjective perceptions and
experiences of the protégé have been noted as a predictor of positive outcomes (e.g.,
Lovitts, 2001), little direct research has been done to date on this aspect of the
relationship. Given the data indicating the relatively high attrition rates in doctoral
education, the importance of mentoring to positive outcomes in doctoral education, and
the relatively high rate of dissatisfaction among graduate students in regard to the
mentoring they received, additional research on the subjective in the mentoring
relationship is essential.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical and empirical literature on
mentoring. As previously noted, the topic of mentoring has garnered increasing attention
during the last few decades. In a brief search of this body of literature, Fogg (2002) found
a significant increase in the number of articles written about mentoring, ranging from 4
papers written from 1960 to 1964 to 721 articles written from 1995 to 1999. Similar
results were obtained by this author in a search of the Educational Resources Information
Center (ERIC) database. Focusing on mentor in a keyword search of the literature
returned only one article published between 1960 and 1965. A subsequent search
returned 893 references published between 1996 and 2002.
Other resources also reveal increased interest in the topic of mentors. An internet
search using mentoring (instead of mentor in order to eliminate cities and other unrelated
references) yielded 1,520,000 hits (Google, 2003). A random search of university
websites revealed that mentoring is also a significant interest of educational
administrators. Murray (1991) commented that some reference to mentoring could be
found in “almost every publication aimed at managers, administrators, educators, human
resource professionals...” (p. xiii), and Clutterbuck (as cited in Brophy & Epting, 1996)
asserted that up to one-third of major companies in Britain have experimented with
formal mentoring schemes. Other such examples abound.
11

12
This surfeit of material, however, belies the relative tenuousness of the findings in
many areas of the mentoring literature (Gelso & Schlosser, 2001; Gibb, 1999; Jacobi,
1991). Although many researchers have invested significant effort into exploring the
relationship, their findings tend to be fragmented, and the essential characteristics of the
mentor-protégé relationship continue to be elusive as researchers obtain inconsistent
results (Chao, 1997). For example, the findings on the effects on personal development
and outcomes in cross-gendered mentor-protégé dyads are ambiguous; some authors have
found that women may have a more difficult time finding mentors or benefiting from
being mentored by men, whereas other researchers conclude that there are no differences
in outcomes or quality and effectiveness of the relationship in regard to gender issues.
Similar problems beleaguer other areas of mentorship inquiry, such as the research into
mentor-protégé dyads comprised of persons from different ethnic backgrounds.
These apparent contradictions in the literature should not be taken to mean there
is no concordance between researchers or theorists regarding several important aspects of
the mentoring relationship. Some areas of study reveal significant agreement, and some
empirically well-supported models have become nearly ubiquitous in their longevity,
centrality, and explanatory power. For example, one area of significant agreement among
researchers regards the different functions that inhere in the relationship. Generally
speaking, most authors agree that the mentoring functions construed as meeting the
primary needs of the protégés fall into the two major categories first clearly described in
Kathy Kram’s (1985) seminal work on mentoring; career functions and psychosocial
functions.

13
As implied by the increasing numbers of researchers, theoreticians,
administrators, and business managers interested in clarifying the character and structure
of the mentoring relationship—often with the explicit goal of developing effective and
efficient mentoring programs in business and academia—mentoring continues to be an
important topic as well as an elusive construct. That mentoring is effective seems to be
taken for granted; what its effects are, how these effects are achieved, and who benefits
from the relationship are still being clarified. Discussing the problem of definition in the
context of methodology in mentoring research, Wrightsman (1981) noted that
there is a false sense of consensus, because everyone “knows” what mentoring is.
But closer examination indicates wide variation in operational definitions, leading
to conclusions that are limited to the use of particular procedures.... The result is
that the concept is devalued, because everyone is using it loosely, without
precision.... (pp. 3-4)
Researchers have identified several factors that result in confusion and overlap
between projects and conceptualizations (e.g., Chao & Gardner, 1992; Jacobi, 1991;
Wrightsman, 1981), including inconsistency in definitions, a lack of consensus regarding
structural characteristics of the mentoring relationship, and the diversity of contexts in
which mentoring is of importance. In considering these factors for the purposes of the
present study, the research in the following categories will be reviewed: (a) construction
of the mentoring relationship, (b) functions of the mentoring relationship, (c) phases of
the mentoring relationship, (d) outcomes of the mentoring relationship, (e) obstacles to
the mentoring relationship, (f) gender, ethnicity, and other cultural factors, and (g) ethical
concerns in the mentoring relationship.

14
Construction of the Mentoring Relationship
Given the potential and anticipated benefits and costs of mentoring to a business
or educational institution (not to mention benefits and costs for protégés and mentors
themselves), anyone wishing to develop a mentoring program needs accurate information
as to how to initiate and structure the relationship within the relevant context. Many
organizations and institutions have attempted to implement mentoring programs with
which to gamer these benefits (Gibb, 1999; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Scandura, 1998).
Typically, these efforts entail the formalization of those factors and processes construed
by the program designers to be fundamental to successful mentoring in informal contexts
(Chao et al., 1992; Noe, 1988). One of the major demarcations of mentoring and
mentoring research is thus between formal and informal mentoring paradigms.
The primary distinction between formal and informal mentoring relationships is in
the method by which the relationship is initiated. In an informal mentoring relationship,
the protégé and the mentor initiate a relationship based on common interests, usually with
the protégé seeking out the mentor. Cronan-Hillix, Gensheimer, Cronan-Hillix, and
Davidson (1986) found that more than 80% of surveyed protégés sought out their
mentors on the basis of similar interests. An informal mentoring relationship is not
managed, structured, or established by an external organization. This relationship is
described as spontaneous, natural, or voluntary (Johnson, 2002; Pollock, 1995; Scandura,
1998).
Conversely, in a formal mentoring relationship, the business or institution has
taken an active interest in the development of the protégé, usually with specific tasks or

15
goals in mind (Murray, 1991). According to Gibb (1999), these goals often include better
induction and socialization into the field, professional development, improved
performance, and development of potential. The organization develops a formal system
in which the company assesses its personnel and then determines who will be a mentor
and who will be mentored. In a formal mentoring relationship, the roles are more clearly
defined and the goals are more explicitly articulated than in an informal relationship, and
specific methods of intervention are often prescribed for the mentor.
A number of other factors in both the initiation and dynamics of formal and
informal mentoring relationships may influence the character and outcomes of these
relationships. Five issues identified in this body of literature will be presented here. First,
although the mentor in a formally structured mentoring situation may be construed as
suitable for a given protégé by the mentoring coordinator, the protégé may have a
different opinion (as may the mentor). This may render the relationship not only
ineffective, but also possibly detrimental (Murray, 1991). For example, the protégé may
have psychological or career needs that the mentor cannot meet or is not skilled enough
to recognize. Second, a protégé may not benefit as much from a formal mentoring
relationship if he or she believes that the mentor is investing time and effort only in
response to a management directive or because of a commitment to the organization,
rather than because of an interest in the protégé or the protégé’s work and development
(Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Third, formal mentoring schemes are often focused on short¬
term needs and goals and may not provide enough time for mentors and protégés to reap
the benefits of the functions. Kram (1985) and Chao (1997) noted that some functions

16
(especially career functions) take time to come to fruition and that short-term
relationships with mentors may not be sufficient for these to germinate. Fourth, informal
mentors may be more concerned with the long-term needs and outcomes of their protégés
than their formal counterparts, and may, indeed, protect their protégés at a significant cost
to the organization (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). Informal mentors may be more likely to
identify personally with their protégés and, likewise, the protégé with the mentor. Since
mentors and protégés in informal relationships choose each other, their personal
investment in the well being of the other may be greater than that in an assigned (formal)
relationship (Johnson, 2000; Zuckerman, 1977). Finally, Ragins and Cotton (1999)
argued that since formal mentors are more visible in an organization than informal
mentors are, they might be more concerned about avoiding the appearance of favoritism
towards their protégés. Contrariwise, informal mentors are expected to show favoritism,
to sponsor their protégés, and to buffer them from departmental politics.
Insofar as the informal mentoring relationship is prototypical and, therefore,
presumed to be effective and efficient, the formalization of the relationship has received
the most attention by researchers. Gibb (1999) noted that “while formal mentoring
programs are now very popular, there is not much critical analysis of the reality of their
relative successes and failures... ” (p. 1057). Some researchers, however, have examined
the effectiveness of attempts to replicate the benefits of informal relationships in the
creation of formal mentoring programs.
Chao et al. (1992) explored differences in the perceived support functions
provided by mentors in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Support functions

17
were categorized as psychosocial functions or career functions as defined by Kram
(1985). Psychosocial functions are defined as those that influenced the protégé’s
competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role, whereas career functions
are defined as those that enhanced career advancement. Other outcomes, such as salary
and job satisfaction, were also assessed. In a survey of 576 university graduates (212
informally mentored, 53 formally mentored, and 284 non-mentored), protégés who had
been informally mentored reported receiving significantly greater career-related support
from their mentors than did formally mentored respondents. Interestingly, although
informally mentored protégés’ scores were slightly higher than formally mentored
protégés in the psychosocial functions as well, the differences were not statistically
significant (thus, the researchers’ hypothesis that informal mentoring relationships would
provide a greater number of the psychosocial functions described by Kram was not
supported). Additionally, both informally and formally mentored protégés scored higher
than non-mentored students did, with informally mentored protégés scoring higher on all
measures and formally mentored protégés scoring higher on only 3 of 12 measures.
Fagenson-Eland, Marks, and Amendola (1997) conducted a similar study of 16
informally mentored and 30 formally mentored protégés and obtained different results.
Those participants who were informally mentored reported greater psychosocial support
than did those who were formally mentored, yet both groups reported similar levels of
career-related support.
Ragins and Cotton (1999) noted the methodological difficulties (primarily in
instrumentation used) of earlier studies and sought to clarify the discrepancies in the

18
previous research. These researchers developed an instrument that allowed for separate
analysis of Kram’s (1985) nine individual functions (five career and four psychosocial)
and two additional functions, rather than the superordinate categories of psychosocial and
career functions. They also assessed selected outcomes related to formally and informally
mentored protégés and non-mentored persons.
Ragins and Cotton (1999) surveyed a sample of 614 engineers, social workers,
and journalists (257 men, 352 women, 5 who did not report gender), 510 who had been
informally mentored, and 104 who had been formally mentored. These investigators
found that informally mentored protégés reported significantly more career function
support and more support in four of the six psychosocial domains measured than did
protégés in the formally mentored group. Informally mentored protégés also reported
greater satisfaction with their mentors and significantly greater job compensation than did
those in formal mentoring relationships. Controlling for other factors, post hoc tests with
non-mentored respondents revealed that protégés who had been informally mentored
reported significantly greater job compensation than employees who had not been
mentored, whereas no significant differences were reported in compensation between
formally mentored and non-mentored employees. Finally, informally mentored
employees received significantly more promotions than did both formally mentored and
non-mentored individuals, whereas no significant differences were reported between
formally mentored and non-mentored employees in this regard.
The findings of this research (Ragins & Cotton, 1999) support the assertion that
informal mentoring is significantly more beneficial than either formal mentoring or no

19
mentoring. Additionally, they provide some support for the position that formal
mentoring schemes are more beneficial than no mentoring at all, and that formal
mentoring can provide some of the functions believed to be beneficial in informal
mentoring relationships. Ragins and Cotton suggested that the more closely a formal
mentoring scheme approximates informal mentoring, the more likely that it will provide
the benefits obtained in informal mentoring. They also suggested that formal mentoring
be offered as an adjunct to informal mentoring, or perhaps as a preliminary to an informal
relationship, stating that “protégés with formal mentors should be encouraged to seek
informal mentors while in the last stage of their formal mentoring relationship” (p. 546).
Clark, Harden, and Johnson (2000), taking the other side, asserted more strongly
that “the unique quality of the mentor relationship and the long-term nature of
relationship formation appear incongruent with third-party assignment” (p. 264). Some
researchers (e.g., Clark et al.; Cronan-Hillix et al., 1986; Johnson, 2002; Johnson &
Huwe, 2003) have also suggested that externally or structurally imposing the relationship
precludes the inscrutable “magic” underlying the affiliation and may render the
mentoring relationship merely utilitarian, lacking in passion and emotional investment.
These researchers do not, however, equate informal with unplanned. Johnson and his
colleagues (Johnson, 2002; Johnson & Huwe, 2003) explored ways to establish
individual and organizational conditions that would likely facilitate the initiation and
quality of what they refer to as intentional mentoring. These include such activities as
preparing mentors and students for their roles, and establishing a departmental culture
that recognizes and supports the value of the mentoring process (Cohen, Morgan, DiLillo,

20
& Flores, 2003; Gerholm, 1990; Lovitts, 2001). Johnson argued especially that the
protégé—but also the mentor—must be intentional and proactive in seeking out those
with whom they would like to work and those who possess the qualities and resources to
meet one’s needs (see also Kram, 1985).
As with many aspects of this body of literature, the results need further
clarification. A clear limitation, however, is that formal mentoring, at least at its present
stage of development, should not be construed as a sufficient substitute for informal
mentoring relationships. On the other hand, while few authors would be willing to assert
that people can be mentors or learn from mentors merely because they are mandated to
by upper management, some will argue that if the conditions are established that facilitate
the development of mentoring relationships, then the teaching, learning, and allied tasks
and goals are more likely to be accomplished (Kram, 1985; Johnson, 2002; Murray 1991;
Ragins & Cotton, 1999).
Functions of the Mentoring Relationship
Levinson (1978) asserted that the central function of a mentoring relationship is
the development of the self of the protégé. In describing his research on adult male
development, Levinson stated, “The mentor relationship is one of the most complex, and
developmentally important, a man can have in early adulthood.... No word currently in
use is adequate to convey the nature of the relationship we have in mind here” (Levinson,
1978, p. 97). Although a mentor has a number of functions (e.g., sponsoring, guiding,
teaching), Levinson asserted that the mentor’s primary role is that of a transitional figure
between parent and peer—neither one nor the other, but someone who can respond

21
appropriately to the developmental needs of the protégé. Thus, according to Levinson,
not only is the relationship more complex than has been suggested by other researchers
(e.g., Murray, 1985), but it also ultimately exists for the developmental benefit of the
protégé, whether in the business context or in the educational context.
Kram (1985) defined functions as “those aspects of a relationship that enhance
both individuals’ growth and advancement” (p. 22). One notable feature of Kram’s
conceptualization is the delineation of both psychosocial functions as well as career
functions. Levinson’s (1978) work was in the context of adult development more
generally and focused on the psychosocial development of the person. While Kram
agreed that the mentoring relationship is a developmental one in which both parties are
meeting each other’s developmentally appropriate needs, she discovered that important
career functions are also being carried out in the relationship. A second important aspect
of Kram’s model is that it takes into account the benefits that accrue to the mentor, as
well as to the protégé and the business or institution. Following this lead, researchers
have investigated the benefits that accrue to the mentors as well (e.g., Ragins &
Scandura, 1999; Wright & Wright, 1987).
Career and Psychosocial Functions
As noted previously, there is substantial agreement among authors regarding the
basic functions of the mentoring relationship; however, this was not always the case. In
her seminal research on mentoring, Kram (1985) evaluated the previous scattered
research and noted meaningful consistencies in the data. She subsequently engaged in a
research project in order to clarify the mentoring relationship, and developed a model that

22
elaborates both the phases in the mentoring relationship as well as the mentoring
functions. Her model has provided the foundation and impetus for a great deal of research
on mentoring.
Kram’s (1985) mentoring functions were derived from a content analysis of
interviews with 18 mentor-protégé dyads in a corporate setting. She identified two broad
categories of functions: career functions and psychosocial functions. She defined career
functions as those functions that contribute to the professional development of the
protégé and advancement in the organization. They include sponsorship (the mentor
actively advocates for or promotes their protégé in the field), exposure-and-visibilitv (the
mentor provides or creates opportunities for the protégé to demonstrate his or her
competence in front of key figures in the organization), coaching (the mentor enhances
the protégé’s knowledge and understanding about how to navigate effectively the culture
and politics in the organization or field), protection (the mentor shields the protégé from
potentially damaging errors, interactions, or situations), and challenging assignments (the
mentor provides meaningful opportunities for the protégé to develop skills and
competencies, and to obtain successes in the professional role). The ability to provide
career functions depends on the mentor’s experience, rank, and status or influence. If the
mentor does not excel on these factors, then his or her ability to effectively provide the
career functions is impaired.
Contrariwise, psychosocial functions are based on the interpersonal relationship
between the mentor and the protégé and are possible only in the context of mutual trust
and increasing intimacy. Kram (1985) defined these functions as “those aspects of a

23
relationship that enhance an individual’s sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness
in the professional role” (p. 32). These functions include acceptance-and-confirmation
(both individual’s derive a positive sense of self, personally and professionally, from the
positive regard of the other), counseling (the ability to explore personal concerns that
may interfere with the individual’s professional development or functioning), friendship
(positive social interactions that make the relationship enjoyable), and role modeling (the
presentation of positive attitudes, values, and behaviors by the mentor that the protégé
identifies with and internalizes, and that pertain to all areas of the relationship ranging
from modeling skills to enculturation in the organization or department).
Although Kram’s (1985) model is significant in the literature (Chao, 1997; Gilbert
& Rossman, 1992; Johnson, 2002; Ragins & Cotton, 1999), it is not the only model
available, nor are her nine functions the only ones noted. For example, Scandura (1992)
developed a model that consists of the following three categories: vocational, social
support, and role modeling. The vocational category correlates with Kram’s career
functions, whereas the social support and role modeling categories together are similar to
Kram’s psychosocial functions. Subsequent factor analyses of data by Noe (1998) and
Schockett & Haring-Hidore (1985), however, confirmed a two-factor structure: (a) career
(Noe, 1988) or vocational (Schockett & Haring-Hidore, 1985) functions, and (b)
psychosocial functions. Olian, Carroll, Giannantonia, and Feren (as cited in Jacobi, 1991)
conclude that protégés “see two primary dimensions to the benefits obtained from the
relationship: job and career benefits through information and external brokering provided

24
by the mentor, and psychological benefits from the emotional support and friendship
obtained within the relationship” (p. 19).
Additional Functions
Researchers have proposed a number of additional functions. Jacobi (1991), in his
review of eight theorists, referred to 15 important functions (including Kram’s) that have
been suggested, adding (for example) advice, clarification, socialization, and training.
Cameron and Blackburn (1981) added that mentors are often expected to provide
financial support, job placement support, publication support, research collaboration, and
more. More informally, this researcher’s 30-minute perusal of approximately 20 of
journal articles revealed 35 distinct terms describing the functions or roles typically
ascribed to the mentor in the mentoring relationship. Pollock (1995) identified 144 terms
referring to mentors’ behavior in her research. One wonders if true mentors are human (if
they exist at all) given the plethora of inspiring roles they must fulfill.
It is also important to note, then, that not all mentors are expected to fulfill all
roles or functions. Levinson (1978) wrote,
Mentoring is defined not in terms of the formal roles but in terms of the character
of the relationship and the functions that it serves. ... A student may receive very
little mentoring from his teacher/advisor, and very important mentoring from an
older friend or relative. We have to examine a relationship closely to discover the
amount and kind of mentoring it provides, (p. 98).
The needs of the protégé are often diverse, and many of them are unique to the
individual. Likewise, the capacities of mentors vary from mentor to mentor. Protégés and
mentors seek each other based largely on common interests, as well as on whether the
other has the skills and resources to meet the individual protégé’s or mentor’s particular

25
set of needs (Kram, 1985; Levinson, 1978; Lovitts, 2001; Swerdlik & Bardon, 1988;
Zuckerman, 1977). The large numbers of roles and functions proposed reflects this
diversity and complexity.
A comment needs to be made on the concept of mentoring functions that is
relevant to this project. Although in significant agreement regarding the general functions
that a mentor fulfills and the factors used to describe them, researchers have been
essentially silent on just what a function accomplishes. They have derived lists of
functions and behaviors, but have not clarified why, for example, a good mentor’s
teaching is different from that of any other teacher. Or again, to say that a mentor
“provides support” is to say what? To isolate 144 terms regarding mentor behaviors or
functions does not adequately clarify what makes mentoring unique, special, or worthy of
interest in itself. The current project was undertaken with this lack of clear distinction in
mind.
Phases of the Mentoring Relationship
To claim that relationships change is to state the obvious, and the mentoring
relationship is no exception to this phenomenon. In the context of his work on adult male
development, Levinson (1978) noted the changes over time in the relationship between a
young man and his mentor:
In the usual course, a young man initially experiences himself as a novice or
apprentice to a more advanced, expert, and authoritative adult. As the relationship
evolves, he gains a fuller sense of his own authority and his capability for
autonomous, responsible action. The balance of giving/receiving becomes more
equal. The younger man increasingly has the experience of “I am” as an adult, and
their relationship becomes more mutual. This shift serves a crucial developmental
function for the young man: it is part of the process by which he transcends the
father-son, man-boy division of his childhood. Although he is officially defined as

26
an adult at 18 or 21, and desperately wants to be one, it takes many years to
overcome the sense of being a son or a boy in relation to “real” adults, (pp. 98-99)
In the above quote, Levinson (1978) was referring to the psychological
development and transitions of the male adolescent from early to middle adulthood with
the help of a mentor. Substituting the terms “young woman,” “employee,” or “graduate
student” in place of “young man” does not alter the insight. In a relationship with a
teacher, advisor, sponsor (i.e., a mentor), the protégé will progress from not only being a
novice, but also from feeling like a novice. A corollary to this psychological development
is an increased capacity to apprehend and benefit from increasingly important, complex,
and subtle aspects of the task at hand, whether in life, work, or education.
Researchers and theorists are not known for their propensity to pass up the
opportunity to reduce complex phenomena to a set of superordinate constructs: Erikson’s
(1980) psychosocial stages, Kohlberg’s (1963) stages of moral development, Piaget’s
stages of cognitive development (Wadsworth, 1989), Helm’s (1995) racial identity
statuses are examples. Similarly, mentoring, like these other important relationships, has
a developmental course that researchers and theorists have characterized by phases. The
three predominant models that have received attention in the literature have been
proposed by Phillips (1982), Missirian (1982), and Kram (1983, 1985). As discussed by
Pollock (1995), isolating phases in relationships requires both descriptions of the features
of interest as well as the ability to place these features in a temporal frame to determine if
patterns that might represent stages or phases emerge. All three models meet these
criteria.

27
Philips’ Five Phase Model
In developing her model, Phillips (1982) interviewed 50 successful women
protégées, many of whom had also been mentors. Phillips identified the following five
phases that comprise the course of a mentoring relationship: (a) initiation, (b) mutual
admiration, (c) development, (d) disillusionment, and (e) parting and transformation.
Initiation refers to the time at the very onset of the relationship in which the
mentor and protégé are just meeting and agreeing to work together. Mutual admiration.
also referred to as the “sparkle” phase (Missirian, 1982), refers to the fantasies that each
party has regarding the other in terms of his or her talents and potential. Development is a
longer, two-part phase. Much of the work early in this stage is one-way (i.e., from the
mentor to the protégé) as the mentor structures and “kick-starts” the relationship, building
the protégé’s confidence and professional competence. Later parts of this stage are more
reciprocal, with the protégé beginning to engage with the mentor (Phillips, 1982).
Disillusionment is a phase in which the polish is off the mentor, and the protégé
begins to become more autonomous and independent in his or her functioning. Although
the mentor continues to meet the protégé’s needs, the urgency and level of doing so
decreases, and the protégé begins to separate from the mentor. The final stage of parting
and transformation is characterized by a decrease in interactions between the mentor and
protégé. The relationship is transformed from a mentor-protégé relationship to a senior-
junior colleague or peer relationship (Phillips, 1982). In developing one of the first
models (her work was based on her original 1977 dissertation project), Phillips’ model
established a framework that subsequent research has tended to support.

28
Missirian’s Three-Phase Model
Missirian (1982) developed another model of the stages of the mentoring
relationship based on interviews of 10 female corporate executives. Missirian identified
the following three phases in the course of the mentoring relationship: (a) initiation,
(b) development, and (c) termination. In this model, initiation is characterized by high
expectations on the mentor’s part as he or she recognizes the protégé’s talents and
potential. The mentor provides significant challenges and opportunities as if testing the
protégé, even while providing the support, respect, and encouragement necessary for the
protégé to succeed.
The development phase, also referred to as “total commitment,” is one in which
the mentor provides a full range of training, support, modeling, challenge, responsibility,
coaching, and other functions. The protégé is learning the tricks of the trade and being
socialized into the organization, acquiring the inside knowledge and skills necessary to
continue to move up the ladder in skill, position, and status. The protégé is likewise
totally committed to the task and to the mentor, and both are becoming fully invested in
their career development and professional growth. Mentor demands are seen as
opportunities, and challenges are overcome. Later in this stage, the protégé begins to
function more independently and creatively (Missirian, 1982).
During the termination phase that naturally follows the development phase, the
mentor begins to recommend the protégé for promotions, associates more as a peer
(though yet senior), and begins to separate and let go the mentor-protégé relationship.
The protégé becomes more fully aware of his or her own strengths and skills, as well as

29
the limitations of the mentor, and also begins to look towards the next step in career or
professional development (Missirian, 1982).
Kram’s Four-Phase Model
Kram (1983, 1985) noted that both of these models (Phillips, 1982; Missirian,
1982), although empirically grounded in interviews, are limited in that they were derived
from retrospective accounts, taken largely from the perspective of the protégés (Phillips)
or the mentors (Missirian) only, and were based on interviews with female managers
only. She also noted that although these studies were valuable, they provided no direction
in isolating factors that would cause the relationship to transition from one phase to the
next (Kram, 1983). To address these difficulties, Kram interviewed 18 pairs of older and
younger managers (both men and women) who were currently in a mentoring
relationship. Furthermore, these relationships were at different active stages, obviating
the need for retrospective accounting.
Kram (1983, 1985) identified the following four phases in the course of the
mentoring relationship: (a) initiation, (b) cultivation, (c) separation, and (d) redefinition.
Initiation is defined as a period of time (usually 6 months to 1 year) in which the
relationship in initiated and progresses from a mere interaction to an important
relationship between the two parties. This occurs when hopes for the relationship become
concrete expectations within the relationship between the mentor and protégé. Cultivation
(2 to 5 years) is a period in which the maximum range of career and psychosocial
functions are provided. Both the mentor and the protégé continue to benefit from the
alliance, and emotional bonds increase, as do opportunities for meaningful interactions.

30
The third phase, separation (6 months to 2 years), represents significant emotional
and structural changes in the relationship that occur when the protégé wants to become
more autonomous and seeks less guidance from the mentor. Redefinition, the final stage
of the mentoring relationship, occurs for an indefinite time following the separation phase
and is characterized by a complete termination of the relationship or a reconstitution of it
in a new form—often as a peer (Kram, 1983, 1985).
Empirical Validity of the Phase Models
Although these characterizations of the phases of mentoring are well supported by
the work of the given authors, and are widely referred to in the literature, very little
subsequent research has been conducted to determine their empirical validity. Only two
articles (Chao, 1997; Pollock, 1995) were found that specifically examined the proposed
phases of the mentoring relationship. In an attempt to assess the validity of the three
above mentioned relationship phase models of mentoring, Pollock surveyed 138 protégés
and 218 non-mentored individuals from a diverse population of middle and upper-level
managers in a broad range of industries. Pollock asked respondents to reply to a list of
behaviors derived from the literature on mentor behaviors, indicating whether, when, and
how often they recollect the behavior occurring on the part of their mentors. These
behaviors were to be ascribed to one of three time frames: early, middle, or late parts of
the mentoring relationship. These behaviors were then matched to the phase models
(Kram, 1983, 1985; Missirian, 1982; Phillips, 1982) to determine which model fit the
data most adequately.

31
In general, Pollock (1995) found that all of the selected mentor functions were
provided at all times during the mentoring relationship. While there was some indication
that psychosocial functions received more endorsement both early and late in the
relationship and that all functions were more frequently experienced in the middle than at
the beginning of the relationship, there were no statistically significant differences in any
stage between functions received. The implication is that there are, in fact, no phases in
which different functions are emphasized or predominant, as was conceptualized by the
three models (Kram, 1983, 1985; Missirian, 1982; Phillips, 1982).
The value of Pollock’s (1995) study is questionable, however, due to some
methodological concerns. First, the data were survey-based and retrospective, rather than
interviews and current, which introduces questions as to the reliability and validity of the
data. A second critical problem is that Pollock evaluated all three of the phase models and
concluded that they could all be accurately condensed to a three-phase model,
distinguished by presence, type, and frequency of the mentoring behaviors. This became
the model that Pollock used in her research. As a result of this reduction, Pollock’s
instructions to the respondents required them to situate the recollected behaviors in one of
the three predetermined time frames (i.e., early, middle, late) of the mentoring
relationship. While it may allow for phases to emerge—assuming there are differences in
the frequency or occurrence of the available mentor behaviors—this procedure forces a
three-phase paradigm, thus defeating the possibility of finding or confirming a four- or
five-stage model (e.g., Kram, 1983; Phillips, 1982). Given these methodological

32
concerns, it is questionable whether the results of this study can be meaningfully
interpreted as appropriate evaluations these three models as intended.
The second project assessing mentoring phases was carried out by Chao (1997),
who evaluated only Kram’s (1983) model. Chao used descriptions derived from Kram’s
model to query 192 protégés about their current phase of mentoring relationships. This
investigator then obtained data regarding mentor psychosocial and career functions (also
derived from Kram, 1983, 1985), as well as other factors such as job satisfaction and
income (these other data will be discussed in subsequent sections of this review). Chao
found that protégés in the initiation phase reported the lowest levels of mentoring
functions (both career and psychosocial) than in any other phase. No other statistically
significant differences were found between mentoring phases and mentoring functions.
Although predictions were supported regarding the initiation phase as a time in which the
relationship is still being established, no other support for phases in the mentoring
relationship was found (using mentoring functions as a dependent variable).
Chao’s (1997) findings were consistent with those of Pollock (setting aside for the
moment questions regarding Pollock’s methodology), and bring into question the validity
of the phase models as they are presently construed (Kram, 1983; Missirian, 1982;
Phillips, 1982). Concerns thus arise regarding other areas of the literature on mentoring
subsequent to these ambiguities. For example, Johnson and Huwe (2003) asserted that
Kram’s model has been empirically validated, citing the Pollock (1995) and Chao (1999)
research, and devote a chapter to this model. Additionally, Johnson and Huwe provide no

33
justification for transferring the phase structure to the graduate school context, which
arguably has meaningful differences from the business context in which it was derived.
Categorical reductions such as provided by these phase models may provide
access to complex phenomena, facilitate understanding and explanation, and provide a
common lexicon that facilitates discussion. It is important, however, that researchers and
theorists do not fall into the error of reifying the categories and limiting their research to
confirmatory paradigms. As is evidenced by the foregoing, that phases can be delineated
and operationalized does not necessarily indicate that there are invariably objective
differences between the phases in terms of functions. Kram’s well-constructed and
empirically grounded four-phase model has provided 20 years of theoretical shorthand
and intuitive clarity, but has yet to find definitive empirical support. Fortunately, as noted
by Chao (1997), “the maximum level of functions provided to the protégé is more
important than temporal fluctuations of these functions as the mentorship evolves” (p.26).
Outcomes of the Mentoring Relationship
Outcomes are, in a word, the reason for mentoring. The benefits that accrue to the
mentor or the protégé (or the institution, or society) are what drive the interest in
understanding mentoring and trying to implement mentoring programs. For example,
Zuckerman (1977) reported some fascinating statistics: 48 of the 92 Nobel Laureates in
the United States prior to 1972 had Nobel Laureate mentors. Ten laureates in the United
States have mentored 30 Nobel winners. Forty-one percent of all Nobel winners of all
nationalities from 1901 to 1972 had at least one laureate mentor. Yet, while it almost
invariably assumed that the mentoring relationship leads to positive outcomes, it is

34
helpful and instructive to validate these assumptions with research. Clear empirical
support should help those involved in mentoring or in designing and implementing
mentoring programs determine which functions and activities would gamer the best
possible outcomes.
Although there is a significant body of literature on the outcomes of mentoring,
outcomes have typically been associated with independent or predictor variables such as
whether or not a person was mentored at all, or whether the protégé was satisfied with the
mentoring received, as opposed to specific mentoring functions. In one sense, the relative
lack of literature exploring the relationship between specific mentoring functions and
concrete outcomes is consistent with the thoughts of some of the more prominent
theorists (e.g., Kram, 1985; Levinson, 1978). Relationships are complex and multiply
determined, and people, heedless of statistical averages, continue to be unique and
idiosyncratic. Kram indicated that mentoring is a developmental relationship and that the
tendency to want to view it as an easily created and maintained panacea is simplistic and
inaccurate. She asserts that more attention needs to be given to the quality of the
relationship, as well as to the characteristics and needs of the individual protégés and
mentors. Levinson similarly noted that it is not the functions of the relationship that are
critical; rather, it is the quality of the relationship and how well it fulfills the needs of the
unique protégé.
Correlation of Functions to Outcomes
Nonetheless, that the relationship between the many functions proposed as
definitional of mentoring and specific, concrete outcomes should be empirically explored

35
seems straightforward. Unfortunately, the literature does not reflect such an exploration.
Only one article was found that explored the relationship between specific functions
hypothesized to be important and the outcomes that may reasonably be associated with
those functions. Cameron and Blackburn’s (1981) study of sponsorship explored specific
mentoring functions associated with concrete outcomes. In 250 surveys and 25 interviews
of active doctoral-level faculty in sociology, psychology, and English departments at nine
universities, these investigators asked whether sponsorship (as defined by such functions
as financial support, publication support, assistance on first job placement, and
collaboration on research projects received while a graduate student) was associated with
later rate of publication, grants received, rate of collaboration, and significant
involvement in professional associations. Findings provided some support for
associations between the assistance received as a graduate student in these areas and the
described outcomes.
Although the findings of Cameron and Blackburn’s (1981) study provided
important (though limited) empirical support for the value of certain specific functions in
the long-terms outcomes for doctoral students, there are two difficulties. First, while this
project explored a function-outcome relationship, the function (sponsorship) was itself
broken down into a number of smaller functions. This approach dilutes the clarity of the
findings, which is a difficulty reported by the authors when they noted that the
independent predicative power of the variables (functions) was reduced when multiple
regressions analyses were carried out. Second, there is no mention in the article if the
relationships were (or were construed as) mentoring relationships (as opposed to research

36
assistantships or something else), and thus the applicability to mentoring is at best
inferred.
Self-Efficacy, Productivity, and Success in Graduate School
With the aforementioned limitations regarding specificity in the function-outcome
research in mind, the research exploring outcomes in relation to mentoring is, in general,
predominantly supportive. Hollingsworth and Fassinger (2002) explored the relationship
between mentoring and students’ research self-efficacy and research productivity among
3rd- and 4th-year doctoral students in psychology. Using a questionnaire based on
Kram’s (1985) career and psychosocial functions, Hollingsworth and Fassinger found
that both research self-efficacy and research productivity of doctoral students increased
as a function of the mentoring they received.
A further example of increased productivity was provided by a study of 174
mentored and 54 non-mentored female graduate students conducted by LeCluyse,
Tollefson, and Borgers (1985), who found that mentored students engaged in
significantly more professional activities than did non-mentored students. Professional
activities were defined as publishing an article or chapter, authoring a grant, presenting a
paper, conducting a workshop, conducting researchjoining a professional organization,
attending a national conference, or working as a graduate assistant.
Interviewing and surveying administrators, department chairs, faculty, and
students across the country, Lovitts (2001) explored the importance of the advisor-student
relationship in graduate education as regards completion of the doctoral program. This
researcher defined an advisor as “the person most responsible for guiding you through

37
your graduate work” (p. 165), a definition not dissimilar to many provided by mentoring
researchers. Although not focusing on researcher mentoring, per se, Lovitts uncovered a
number of factors related to a student’s decision to complete graduate school in the
context of her work on graduate student attrition. Some of the most significant factors
were similar or identical to those identified as functions within the mentoring literature.
For example, mentor/advisor functions such as integration/socialization into the
professional community, academic interactions, collaboration in research projects, job
search assistance, role modeling, and many others were correlated with a student’s
decision to complete his or her doctoral education, which was Lovitts’ primary dependent
(criterion) variable. Lovitts also explored outcome variables related to students’ activities
while still in the academy (e.g., participation in professional and departmental activities),
again noting the positive correlations between these activities and students’ satisfaction
with their advisors.
Job Satisfaction, Promotion, and Income Level
The benefits of mentoring in academia extend beyond the academic setting. Chao
(1997) explored the differences in outcomes between 151 mentored and 93 non-mentored
employed graduates of a college of engineering. The criterion variables were job
satisfaction, career outcomes, organizational socialization (the extent to which protégés
believed they had been well socialized into their professional roles), and income. Results
showed that protégés garnered significant outcome benefits as compared to their non-
mentored peers. These findings were also supported in a similar study by Dreher and Ash
(1990). They surveyed 440 graduates of two business schools and found significant

38
positive correlations between the quantity of mentoring received and rates of promotion,
income levels, and satisfaction with pay and benefits.
In another study, Chao et al. (1992) surveyed 576 alumni from two academic
institutions and found similar outcomes related to job satisfaction, organizational
socialization, and salary among 265 mentored protégés and 284 non-mentored persons.
On all outcome measures, mentored individuals reported significantly better outcomes
than did non-mentored individuals. Ragins and Cotton (1999) also examined differences
in outcomes as a function of whether or not an individual received mentoring. Their
survey of 1258 employees in engineering, social work, and journalism (614 mentored in
the work place and 548 without mentoring experience at work) revealed that mentored
individuals received greater compensation and more promotions than did non-mentored
individuals.
Building on the theme of better outcomes for protégés, Fagenson (1988) explored
employees’ perceptions of the amount of power they have in an organization as a
function of whether they were mentored. A survey of 246 individuals working for a large
company in the health care industry revealed that those with mentors perceived
themselves as having more access to important people, more influence over
organizational policy, and a higher level of resource access in the organization than did
those without mentors. This effect, though different in absolute terms, was consistent
across levels in the organization and across gender. That is, those with mentors reported
higher perceptions of power in the organization than those without mentors regardless of
gender or level. Although Fagenson noted that no effort was made to determine if this

39
perceived power was also actual, she held that the benefits could be subsumed under
Kram’s (1985) proposed career functions.
Impact of Protégé Characteristics
Lest one think that only good things can be said about mentoring, however, there
is a qualifier worth noting. Research suggests that the characteristics of protégés before
they enter into a mentoring relationship may account for some outcomes that have been
attributed to mentoring and, indeed, facilitate entering into such a relationship in the first
place. A number of authors have noted the possibility that the student’s characteristics
may be a more powerful predictor of satisfaction or outcomes than what actually occurs
within the relationship (Jacobi, 1991; Johnson & Huwe, 2003; Zuckerman, 1977).
However, other investigators (e.g., Lovitts, 2001) are adamant in their belief that “it is not
the background characteristics of students... it’s what happens to them after they arrive”
(p. 2) that determines many of the outcomes of interest. If personality characteristics are
indeed a critical factor in determining who receives mentoring, however, then much of
the mentoring outcome literature is brought into question, as few researchers have
attempted to control for protégé characteristics in their study designs.
Turban and Dougherty (1994) examined the potential impact of protégé
characteristics on mentoring receptivity and career outcomes. In their survey of 147
graduates from a midwestem university, these researchers discovered that certain
personality characteristics (locus of control, self-monitoring, emotional stability)
predicted whether or not the student would initiate a mentoring relationship with a faculty
member. Subsequent analyses supported additional hypotheses that initiating a mentoring

40
relationship resulted in receiving more mentoring, and that receiving more mentoring was
related to both career attainment and perceived career success. Turban and Dougherty
thus concluded that personality characteristics indirectly influence career outcomes by
modulating mentoring received.
In a similar vein, Green and Bauer (1995) found no differences in outcomes in
terms of publications or submissions for publication after controlling for the incoming
potential of a doctoral student sample. In this well-designed study, Green and Bauer
explored the relationship among the attitudes, abilities, and commitment of students at
entry into the program and two outcome factors: productivity (number of convention
papers, journal articles, book chapters, and grants/contracts accepted) and level of
mentoring. Support was found for the hypotheses that greater student abilities at entry
would predict an increase in mentoring received. Furthermore, the hypothesis that
increased mentoring positively contributed to student productivity or commitment to
research career was not supported, again controlling for participants’ incoming
characteristics. These investigators concluded that advisors look for incoming students
with high potential and commitment and provide more mentoring for them than for their
less capable or less motivated peers. This also raises a question concerning the motivation
of mentors who are unable to find the time to help those students who may need it most.
Thus, while some authors attribute student’s not receiving mentoring to students’
own personality characteristics (e.g., Johnson and Huwe, 2003 cite possible protégé
narcissism, arrogance, inappropriate boundaries, or procrastination), others (e.g., Lovitts,
2001) believe that the mentor, being older (usually), wiser (hopefully), of higher status

41
and power, and being in a position to know the larger picture, inherits a greater
responsibility to manage the relationship in a positive way. It seems unlikely that the
problems are either simple or categorical. In either case, although graduate schools must
recruit highly motivated and competent students, once a student is recruited by the school
and accepted by an advisor, the school and the advisor assume an obligation to facilitate
the student’s development (Council of Graduate Schools, 1990; University of Florida,
1997; University of Kansas, 2003).
In summary, then, the literature generally supports the positive outcomes
attributed to mentoring relationships for both the protégé and the mentor. However, there
is some reason for hesitation regarding the absolute value of the research until additional
work is conducted clarifying the potential confound of student factors at entry. It can
safely be inferred that the same considerations apply in a business context as well.
Obstacles to the Relationship
As with the preceding limitations regarding the positive nature of mentoring
outcomes, another concern needs to be addressed. Not all mentoring relationships are
positive experiences in themselves—for the protégé or the mentor. Research suggests that
a significant number of protégés have had bad experiences in mentoring relationships
(Eby, MacManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000). A number of authors have explored this issue
and have described characteristics of dysfunctional mentoring relationships (Johnson &
Huwe, 2003; Kram, 1985; Lovitts, 2001; O’Neil & Wrightsman, 2001; Scandura, 1998;
Wright & Wright, 1987).

42
Negative Behaviors
O’Neil and Wrightsman (2001) identified a number of negative behaviors in
which either or both the mentor and the protégé may engage: using threats, being overly
authoritarian or submissive, being unavailable, acting sexist, racist, classist, ethnocentric,
or homophobic, being intellectually rigid, being unwilling to compromise, encouraging
dependence, abusing confidential information, devaluing other students or faculty,
playing one-upmanship, and/or comparing other students and faculty. Scandura (1992), in
his typology of dysfunctional behaviors, add to this list sabotage, spoiling, deception, and
harassment.
Structural, Department Specific, and Relational Obstacles
Johnson and Huwe (2003) divided the major obstacles to mentoring into the
following three categories: (a) structural, (b) department specific, and (c) relational.
Structural obstacles are products of the system in which they are imbedded (e.g., graduate
schools). These obstacles include giving the faculty or managers job credit only for
immediate productivity or funded research, or the hiring of part-time employees or
student instructors, thereby reducing the pool of available mentors.
The second category of obstacles to mentoring described by Johnson and Huwe is
department specific, representing problems in the culture of the particular department.
Examples of department specific obstacles are admitting more students than the
department can support or graduate (thus setting up competition and an expectation of
failure), failing to hire and keep minority or women faculty or managers, and failing to

43
concretely support mentoring with reduced teaching or productivity requirements or by
including successful mentoring in promotion decisions (Johnson & Huwe, 2003).
The third category of obstacles, relational problems, stem from the personality
characteristics and behavior patterns of a particular faculty mentor, manager, or protégé,
or the interactions of traits in the mentor and the protégé. Scandura (1992), for example,
developed a model for conceptualizing factors contributing to possible outcomes of
dysfunctional relationships. This model includes both protégé and mentor characteristics
(e.g., demographics, personality) as contributing factors, and describes possible negative
outcomes to protégés (e.g., low self-esteem, poor job outcomes, stress, leaving), and to
mentors (e.g., stress, jealousy, overdependence, betrayal).
Additionally, as previously noted, mentors tend to select and invest in those
protégés who are considered most promising and whose interests are most similar to the
mentor’s interests. Johnson and Huwe (2003) expressed concerns about equal access to
mentoring among students who are less exceptional. These authors further noted that
discrepant expectations between the mentor and the protégé concerning the character and
functions of mentoring could lead to dissatisfaction and dysfunction in the mentoring
relationship.
These obstacles to the mentoring relationship, at whatever level, can have a
significant impact on the quality of the relationship. For example, mentors who are not
given the support they need to fulfill their roles as mentors must often focus their time,
energy, and attention on the needs of their “primary” assignments, perhaps sacrificing the
needs of the protégé in the process. Protégés whose expectations are rudely disconfirmed,

44
or whose mentors are more focused on departmental requirements of tenure, may find
that having a mentor is not worth the trouble. Often protégés in this situation find
themselves getting their needs met elsewhere, and by other people.
Risks to Mentors
Wright and Wright (1987) noted that the mentor also is at risk in the relationship.
Taking on a commitment to a protégé is highly demanding of both time and effort and
also may cost political capital if the protégé fails to live up to expectations or needs
excessive protection from the consequences of mistakes. Often, especially in the so-
called hard sciences, the mentor’s work and reputation are on the line when a protégé is
given responsibility for some critical aspect of the mentor’s research. Additionally, the
protégé could prove to be unable to develop appropriate autonomy and become unable to
carry out tasks without constant supervision or “baby-sitting.” On the other hand, the
mentor, who hopefully has invested him or herself personally in the protégé, may be
rejected by them.
Researchers generally agree that potential problems and obstacles inherent in
mentoring relationships include personality, as well as organizational factors. Some
authors (e.g., Johnson & Huwe, 2003; Walfish & Hess, 2001) have explored these
problems more fully and presented relevant discussion regarding how to negotiate these
issues in a mentoring context. Invariably, these authors recommend approaching the
selection process and the relationship in an intentional and informed manner, given the
enormous time, energy, financial, and emotional investment.

45
Other Factors That Affect the Mentoring Relationship
Insofar as mentoring may be one of the most important interpersonal relationships
ever experienced by students, both personally and professionally (Gilbert & Rossman,
1992; Kram, 1985; Tinto, 1987), understanding the impact of gender, ethnicity, and other
cultural factors on the mentoring processes and outcomes also holds significant import
(Bogat & Redner, 1985). Since mentoring relationships are often based on perceived
similarities between mentor and protégé, cultural differences may inhibit their formation
and functioning (Atkinson, Neville, & Casas, 1990; Redmond, 1990). In addition, the
lack of same-gender, same-ethnicity, or other identity-affirming role models may create
difficulties in identity development as the protégé strives to identify with or internalize a
mentor who has limited insight into the protégé’s culture or concerns (Bruss & Kopala,
1993; Levinson, 1978).
Gender Factors
The impact of gender on mentoring has received the greatest attention among
researchers. The almost ubiquitous inclusion of gender as a demographic variable in
research has facilitated this exploration, and provides important information. Gender
effects have often been analyzed and noted, even in studies primarily designed to explore
other factors.
Another factor that may influence the relative frequency of including the gender
variable is the number of women conducting research on mentoring relationships. In fact,
many of the foundational and ongoing researchers are women (e.g., Chao, 1997;
Fagenson, 1988, 1992; Hite, 1985; Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002; Jacobi, 1991;

46
Kram, 1983; Lovitts, 2001; Missirian, 1982; Murray, 1991; Scandura, 1998; Wilde &
Schau, 1991; Zuckerman, 1977). Whatever the reasons for this proportion of female
researchers, the insight they provide may be helpful in understanding the issues inherent
in the question.
Some areas of concern raised by authors include factors that pertain to non¬
mentoring relationships as well. For example, in exploring gender differences in
relationships with significant power differentials between the individuals involved,
Scandura (1992) explored concerns regarding sexual harassment. Female protégés, in
particular, may be faced with situations in which the person with the most power over her
professional or academic outcomes is a male who adheres to certain stereotypes that
entitle him to favors from female underlings. Conversely, a male mentor may, with the
best of intentions, be overprotective or excessively forgiving of a female protégée, thus
encouraging feelings of dependence or incompetence, and perhaps denying the protégé
the opportunity to develop autonomy or independence (Clawson & Kram, 1984; Kram,
1983). Bogat and Redner (1985) discussed reservations on the part of some faculty that
women are able to complete graduate school, and some faculty member’s perceptions
that women were less likely to make significant contributions to their fields than men.
Mixed-gender mentoring dyads also must be aware not only of their own
interpersonal behaviors, but also of public perceptions. Rumors may develop based on
observed togetherness or friendship behaviors misconstrued as sexual intimacy (Wright
& Wright, 1987). Male mentors especially may actually maintain unnecessary distance in
an effort to address or preempt these kinds of concerns, thus limiting the protégé’s access

47
to them or depriving the protégé of important social interactions (Clawson & Kram,
1984).
As with any interpersonal relationship, then, many factors may be cause for
concern in cross-gendered relationships. These difficulties are often exacerbated by the
inclusion of personal characteristics as well as social/cultural perceptions and
expectations. It is thus important that mentors and protégés recognize and maintain
professional boundaries—neither too rigid nor too permeable—lest the relationship be no
longer a positive mentoring experience.
Regarding specific mentoring functions and outcomes, the empirical research into
the effects of gender on the mentoring relationship is more ambivalent, with some
researchers finding no effect and others finding significant effects. Ragins and Cotton’s
(1999) study of 352 female and 257 male protégés found that the gender composition of
the mentoring dyad affected functions and outcomes. For example, female-female
mentor-protégé pairs were more likely to engage in after-work social activities than were
female protégés with male mentors. Male protégés with female mentors were less likely
to report having received acceptance functions from their mentor than any other gender
combinations, and both male and female protégés who have had male mentors received
more compensation than did those who have had female mentors. This could be
explained by Cameron and Blackburn’s (1981) findings that protégés sponsored by men
developed significantly larger networking associations than did women.
Further complicating matters, findings concerning gender differences often appear
to depend on the outcomes measured. Burke, McKeen, and McKenna’s (1990) study of

48
81 male and 13 female mentors found that female mentors provided both more career and
more psychosocial functions than did male mentors, yet there were no differences in
outcome measures as a function of gender of mentor or protégé. In a subsequent study of
280 female business graduates, Burke and McKeen (1996) again reported few differences
in job satisfaction, career satisfaction, job involvement, or career prospects for female
protégés regardless of mentors’ gender. Interestingly, although women with female
mentors received more psychosocial support than did women with male mentors, these
women were more likely to report their intentions to quit the organization. This finding
was not explained by the available data.
Among same-sex and cross-sex dyads in a sample of 466 female protégés in
business, Gaskill (1991) found differences between male and female mentors in functions
performed (female mentors performed more psychosocial functions), relationship
initiation (male mentors were more likely to unilaterally initiate a relationship, whereas
female mentors were more likely to mutually initiate the relationship), and protégé
characteristics. No differences, however, were found in mentor characteristics, benefits
derived, problems reported, duration, termination causes, feelings about the relationship,
or reported value of the relationship. These findings support the hypothesis that women
benefit as much from male mentors as they do from female mentors.
On the other hand, a number of researchers have more consistently found that
gender has no impact on mentoring initiation, functions, or outcomes. Wilde and Schau
(1991) surveyed 177 graduate students (60% female) and found no differences in
psychological and professional mutual support, comprehensiveness, protégé professional

49
development, and research together as a function of gender of protégé, mentor, or cross-
gendered dyads. Furthermore, Fagenson (1988, 1992) found no differences as a function
of gender between mentored and non-mentored protégés regarding need for power,
autonomy, affiliation, achievement, or perceptions of power in the organization.
Surveying 80 female and 80 male executives, Ragins and Scandura (1994) explored
anecdotal reports that women were less likely to mentor than were men. Findings
revealed that women executives were as likely as men to be mentors, had every intention
of mentoring other women, and that women and men reported similar perceptions of the
costs and benefits of being mentors.
Turban and Dougherty (1994) also found no differences in their sample of
protégés in business (74 men, 73 women) in the probability that they would seek out and
develop a mentoring relationship or in the amount of mentoring they received. In their
study of 135 female and 59 male 3rd- and 4th-year doctoral students, Hollingsworth and
Fassinger (2002) found that student gender did not have an effect on the level of research
mentoring received, on student’s research self-efficacy, or on research productivity
outcomes. Dreher and Ash (1990), studying 147 female and 173 male business school
graduates, similarly found no gender differences in the outcomes measures of promotions
received, income, or satisfaction with pay and benefits.
Trying to explain the differences in the research on gender in mentoring is,
perhaps, an exercise in futility. There are no clearly identifiable methodological problems
(e.g., sampling, data acquisition) to which the differences might be attributed. However,
three patterns seem to emerge. First, the gender of the protégé and the gender of the

50
mentor appear to influence some of the processes, yet these influences may be a result of
general socialization patterns in society. For example, the increase in psychosocial
functions by both female mentors and protégés is consistent with the relational
stereotypes associated with women. Second, gender effects on outcomes are minimal and
may also be attributable to social or external issues, such as the relatively lower status
and power of women (and thus of female mentors and protégés) in academia or industry.
Finally, both men and women may nonetheless be equally well served by either male or
female mentors.
Ethnicity, Sexual Orientation, and Other Cultural Factors
Regarding the impact of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other cultural factors in
mentoring the literature is significantly smaller and much newer. In some cases, it has
little to say at all (Gilbert and Rossman, 1992; Johnson & Huwe, 2003; Wright & Wright,
1987). In a recent book on succeeding in graduate school, a chapter on graduate student
couples does not even mention gay or lesbian couples, an increasingly common and
public relationship arrangement (Pederson & Daniels, 2001. Issues specific to gay,
lesbian, bisexual, transgendered persons (GLBT) are, however, discussed elsewhere in
the volume.) In another recent book on mentoring in graduate school (Johnson & Huwe,
2002), no reference to sexual orientation could be found at all, and attraction between
mentors and protégés seemed to be of concern only in cross-gendered relationships.
As with any minority culture or group, concerns vary from blatant discrimination
to identity development issues. Institutionalized racism continues to have effects on
persons of color (Atkinson, Morton, & Sue, 1998), and legal discrimination against

51
GLBT persons continues in many states (e.g., denying protection against discrimination
in housing, education, and jobs. Massey & Walfish, 2001). Handicapped persons, older
persons, international students or employees, and other minorities are all at increased risk
for experiencing prejudice and discrimination. Finding mentors who are similar or who
are informed and openly sympathetic can be extremely comforting to a student or
employee as she or he negotiates, not only the academic or employment tasks common to
all, but also relevant social and cultural tasks (Hill, Castillo, Ngu, & Pepion, 1999; Lark
& Croteau, 1998; Redmond, 1990).
Fortunately, current research suggests that ethnic minorities are receiving
mentoring at approximately the same rate as Caucasians (Witt, Smith, & Markham,
2000), and that having an ethnically similar mentor is not related to protégés satisfaction
with the mentoring or to the benefits reported by doctoral student or novice professional
protégés (Atkinson, Neville, & Casas, 1991). Atkinson et al., noting that minority
protégés reported that having a mentor contributed significantly to their academic and
career success regardless of the mentor’s ethnicity, concluded that European-American
professors and senior professionals can successfully serve as mentors to ethnic minority
protégés. It should be noted, however, that each individual will have his or her own racial
identity developmental status (Helms, 1995), which is likely to influence the importance
of the ethnic similarity of the mentor to the student or novice professional.
Only two empirical articles (Lark & Croteau, 1998; Niolon, 1998) were found that
focused on GLBT doctoral students’ mentoring experiences. Lark and Croteau looked
more specifically at the mentoring relationships of 14 GLB counseling psychology

52
graduate students and found that when their mentor helped them feel safe and affirmed
them in their identities, the protégés’ had the “energy and freedom” to fully engage the
work of graduate school. When they did not have this support, when they did not receive
affirmation and did not feel safe, their energies were tied up with emotional survival, and
their ability to participate in and gain from the graduate student experience and training
was severely compromised. Niolon (1998) interviewed nine gay and lesbian graduate
counseling psychology students and found that they did not have what they would refer to
as mentoring relationships with faculty, the faculty were not knowledgeable or
experienced with GLBT issues or concerns, and that they had numerous stressful
experiences and experienced prejudice and discrimination as gay and lesbian students.
These students, too, were often expending their energies on emotional survival, instead of
on graduate training and professional development.
As is evident, there is much room for additional research on mentoring in diverse
populations. In terms of ethnic minorities, the research to date is generally positive,
suggesting that minorities are being mentored and that they are satisfied with the
mentoring they are receiving. The research regarding GLBT students is not as clear.
Additional work clearly needs to be done, not only concerning research on mentoring, but
also on the mentoring and acceptance of the GLBT students themselves (Lark & Croteau,
1998; Massey & Walfish, 2001).
Ethical Concerns in the Mentoring Relationship
Mentoring is, almost by definition, a dual role relationship. The existence of
multiple overlapping roles in the context of the significant power differentials found in

53
the typical mentoring relationship is fertile ground for ethical problems. Boundary
violations, abuse of authority, sexual harassment, transference issues, stereotypical
expectations, and other problems are well suited to such contexts. Some fields
specifically address these concerns in ethics codes. For example, the American
Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines (APA, 2002) specifically prohibits certain
multiple role relationships for psychologists, such as sexual or exploitative relationships
with students or those over whom psychologist’s have evaluative authority, as well as
relationships in which there may be a conflict of interest.
In a survey of graduate students in psychology, Clark, et al. (2000) found that
11% of protégés reported ethical concerns about their mentors or mentoring relationships.
These problems included mentor’s sexual behaviors and attitudes towards the protégé or
other students in the program, the mentor publishing altered results, offering the protégé
financial incentives to alter results, the mentor having poor boundaries or becoming
emotionally dependent on the protégé, and mentors claiming credit for the protégé’s
work.
Further examples of possible ethical quagmires in mentoring abound (Biaggio,
Paget, & Chenworth, 1997; Blevins-Knabe, 1992; Johnson & Huwe 2003; Sumprer &
Walfish, 2001). A mentor might employ a protégé on a major grant project, for example,
and feel pressured to judge the protégé’s work according to the need to finish the project,
rather than according to its objective quality. A mentor might characterize a protégé’s
work and ideas as their own. A mentor and protégé might develop an intimate attraction
to each other. After all, many mentoring relationships are based on similarities and shared

54
interests and often develop into close working relationships. Although protégés often
assert that they did not feel coerced during the relationship, in retrospect they may see
that they often were, which undermines their assertions that such relationships were
consensual (Johnson, 2002). A mentor may “suggest” or “request” favors or behaviors
that have little to do with the academic or employment tasks, such as delivering things, or
making coffee.
Few would contend that dual relationships are avoidable in the mentoring context,
or that such a thing is necessary (Blevins-Knabe, 1992). Unfortunately, protégés are not
typically in a position to correct or address ethical concerns. Protégés are not often
inclined to accuse—publicly or privately—the person who has the most individual power
over their positions or education. Recommendations to talk to the offender are probably
more helpful to people who are strong enough in themselves to head off many of these
concerns in the first place. Additionally, department officials may choose to ignore
complaints of students for political reasons. If a 30-year senior professor or manager
denies the validity of a complaint or misrepresents it, no recourse may be available to the
protégé.
It is argued that at minimum, mentors and protégés need to be educated in areas of
possible ethical concern, and that they clarify at the beginning of their relationships a
mutual recognition of the boundaries. Furthermore, mentors must monitor their own
behaviors with and attitudes towards protégés and accept responsibility for the power that
they have in the relationships (Biaggio et al., 1997). At the departmental level, it is
recommended that mentors be monitored for their competence as mentors and that, if

55
necessary, they receive supplemental training in the nature of the mentoring relationship
and in mentoring skills before they are allowed to take on graduate students or novice
employees (Johnson & Nelson, 1999).
Introduction to the Method
As was pointed out, an area of research that has received less attention is that of
the subjective factors in the mentoring relationship that lead one to characterize it as a
good relationship. Researchers have explored phases, functions, outcomes, and diversity
issues, not always with clear success, but have not often turned their attentions to the
subjective experience of mentoring. While it has been noted that satisfaction with the
mentoring relationship is significantly predictive of a number of positive outcomes, from
joining department activities to completing the doctoral degree, little has be done to
elaborate what subject factors contribute to this satisfaction.
The purpose of this project, then, is to explore the subjective factors in the
mentoring relationship. In order to accomplish this task, it will be important to use a
qualitative method that will allow the emergence of those factors that are construed as
important by the participants in the relationship. The goal is not to describe form or
function, but experience.
Value of Qualitative Research
The importance of qualitative research methodology in the understanding of
human interactions has been noted by a number of authors (Giorgi, 1990, 1992; Jacobi,
1991; Polkinghom, 1994). The value of qualitative research is found in its ability to tease
out factors that are subtle, idiographic, and often resistant to direct approach. For

56
example, the affective quality of a relationship may not be amenable to conscious
cognitive processing, and thus may be quite difficult to explore using an operationalized
survey (i.e., to quantify). And although qualitative research is often construed to be
preliminary to a presumably more rigorous quantitative confirmatory methodology, some
theorists recognize the intrinsic value of qualitative research methods in some areas of
interest (Giorgi, 1990, 1992; Glaser, 1992; Glaser & Strauss, 1967, 1970). As Glaser and
Strauss noted, “Qualitative research is often the most ‘adequate’ and ‘efficient’ method
for obtaining the type of information required... ” (1970, p. 289).
The value of qualitative research has not been overlooked in the research on
mentoring, both in terms of data acquisition as well as in terms of analysis. Interviews
and surveys using open-ended questions are common methods of data acquisition, and
qualitative analyses such as phenomenological, content, and grounded theory have been
used. The grounded theory approach, for example, incorporates both a methodology and
a logic that support the value of qualitative research. This approach has been used by a
number of researchers in the mentoring literature (Kram, 1985; Lark & Croteau, 1998;
Niolon, 1997). Indeed, grounded theory is an excellent method for exploring the nuances
and subtleties of the mentoring relationship that are being sought here.
In grounded theory, as with other paradigms, the researcher begins with a
question of interest about a particular situation. The goal is to understand what is
happening (e.g., what people are doing, why they are doing it). What differentiates
grounded theory is that it is exploratory, rather than confirmatory (Giorgi, 1992). That is,
it is designed to allow for the relevant factors to emerge from the research situation,

57
rather than to seek confirmation of a hypothesis that is mapped onto the situation by the
investigator. As noted by Corbin and Strauss (1990), “One does not begin with a theory
and then prove it. Rather, one begins with an area of study, and what is relevant to that
area is allowed to emerge” (p. 23).
Even more salient, grounded theory is concerned with developing “substantive
theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1970), which is “the formulation of concepts and their
interrelation into a set of hypotheses for a given substantive area—such as patient care,
gang behavior, or education—based on research in that area” (p. 288). Thus, the goal is
not merely to understand what is happening, but also to develop a theory within which to
situate events.
Focusing on the emergence of substantive theory, grounded research is also
differentiated from quantitative methods in how the findings are construed and judged.
Dick (2002) noted that the two main criteria forjudging the adequacy (vs. validity and
reliability) of the results of a grounded theory are fit and pragmatism (i.e., that it works,
and it helps people understand the situation better). Grounded theory does not assert that
any researcher’s conclusions are the only plausible ones, only that if the research is
carefully carried out, the findings will be sufficiently credible to most readers, and
adequately and accurately represent the area of interest (Glaser & Strauss, 1970). Nor are
the categories focused on and elaborated by the researcher the only possible categories of
interest in the situation. Other factors may be active and interesting, but not all things can
be attended to in any one project (Glaser, 1992).

58
Grounded Theory Methodology
The grounded theory method is based on a well-developed logic that establishes
meaningful guidelines for both data acquisition and data analysis. These guidelines,
described by Glaser and Strauss (1967), provide important support for the
meaningfulness of the findings and their credibility to the reader. A number of sources
can be utilized in data collection, including focus groups, existing literature, naturalistic
observation, informal discussion, and interviews. Interactive interviews, typically using
open-ended questions and a semi-structured or unstructured format, are common
approaches (Dick, 2002). The primary advantage is that themes and insights emerge in
dialectic and can be explored in vivo if the investigator is inclined. Giorgi (1990) notes
that interviews provide important contextual information for the apprehension of the
intended meaning of the respondent. Therefore, interviews will be the source of data on
the mentoring relationship in the present study.
Although reviewing the literature is a standard process in research and developing
the research question, the researcher does not follow this approach in grounded theory. In
fact, Glaser (1992) clearly stated, “There is a need not to review any of the literature in
the substantive area under study” (p. 31; emphasis added). The purpose of not reviewing
the literature is to avoid biasing the researcher by unnecessarily creating a priori
cognitive structures regarding the area of interest. Similarly, grounded theory recognizes
explicitly the subjective factor introduced by the interpretive and inductive nature of the
analytic procedure. Although this is one of the great strengths of qualitative research, it
also necessarily entails the introduction of an uncontrolled variance in the outcomes (i.e.,

59
already existing cognitive structures). Unlike phenomenology, which asks researchers to
withhold personal perspectives and biases, grounded theory asserts that this is neither
necessary, nor likely possible. Grounded theory instead presents a brief description of the
researcher—much as a description of any other instrument—so that readers can ascertain
for themselves the influence of the researcher on the theory presented. Note that the
purpose is not to determine the validity of the findings, per se, but their context and
credibility.
Insofar as a central feature of grounded theory is the data-driven nature of the
methodology, it is difficult to specify exactly the number of participants who will be
interviewed. Grounded theory requires that the data sets (indicated in this case as the
number of interviews and/or participants) be augmented until the categories are saturated;
that is, until no further information is being gleaned from additional data sets (Dick,
2002; Glaser, 1967; Rennie, Phillips, & Quartaro, 1988). In general, the criterion for
selection follows two steps. First, there is a focus on discovering the core features of the
phenomenon of interest, which is accomplished by interviewing persons who both
represent the phenomena and who are similar to each other in some relevant way.
The second step is to introduce variability into the data set in order to sample
exceptions to the emerging theoretical hypotheses (theory-based sampling, rather than
random sampling) and thus strengthen the generalizability of the emerging theory. This is
accomplished by interviewing participants who are somehow dissimilar from the
previous participants, or who do not represent the topic in the same way. In analogous
quantitative terms, this procedure provides data both within and between.

60
Having said this, the literature regarding this general type of qualitative research,
sparse though it is in this specific topic area, would seem to suggest that about five
interviews are preliminarily indicated for a given question, as saturation typically occurs
after analyzing 5 to 10 data sets (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Rennie, Phillips, & Quartaro,
1988). Based upon the foregoing considerations, the present study will include interviews
conducted with four to five individuals in each of the following three categories: (a)
highly rated faculty mentors, (b) satisfied graduate student protégés, and (c) dissatisfied
graduate student protégés.
Analysis in grounded theory methodology is a multi-step process and is highly
labor intensive. Analysis begins as soon as the interviews begin and continues throughout
the study. As the interviewer begins to interact with the data presented by participants,
hypotheses and themes are already being developed and tested. This continues after each
interview as the researcher again reviews the data looking for themes and categories. As
each interview is conducted, themes from previous interviews are kept in mind, and
hypotheses are tested between participants as well as within each interview. This is
referred to as constant comparison, and is central to the method. The value of constant
comparison is that the perceptions and developing interpretations of the researcher are
constantly checked against the data, thus interfering with the development of
misconceptions and ungrounded assumptions.
The first step in the formal analysis, open coding, is a process in which each unit
of analysis is independently evaluated for possible meanings. What stands for a unit of
analysis is flexible, but once defined by the researcher remains consistent throughout

61
open coding. Glaser and Strauss (1967) recommend that each line of a transcript be
considered a unit, whereas Rennie et al. (1988) prefer to delineate the data according to
coherent meaning units, an option that will also be used in this project. Each meaning
unit is evaluated and categorized or labeled according to the concepts embedded in the
data. This process is referred to as open coding because there are a priori neither
theoretical nor procedural limits on the categories or meanings that may be established.
To clarify, data is reviewed word-by-word and line-by-line in order to delineate
sections that cohere semantically, yet are distinguishable from the surrounding material.
Each of these delineated sections (i.e., meaning units') is labeled according to whatever
semantic content it was that caused the researcher to be able to isolate the semantic unit
(i.e., the concept). At this stage, concept generation is to be descriptive, thus the labels
should use language representative of the language used by the interviewees. These
concept labels are established as categories, and the meaning units themselves are
established as exemplars of the category. Any time a meaning unit is evaluated (in any
data set) that can be labeled similarly to an existing category, it will be placed in that
category (i.e., be given the same label).
As the open coding process continues, each newly evaluated meaning unit is
assigned to as many of the existing categories as possible. If no category exists that
represents the meaning embedded in the data, a new category is established. Ultimately,
some finite set of categories will emerge that adequately represent the data, and
additional meaning units will no longer require the development of new categories or
labels, which is a condition known as saturation.

62
Throughout the data analysis, the researcher’s hunches and theoretical notions are
recorded separately from the data and from the categorizations, a process referred to as
memoing. These memoranda allow the researcher to record for later consideration
hypotheses, notions, and ideas that emerge during the analysis, and at the same time are
designed to reduce drift away from grounding in the data by making explicit the
researcher’s perspectives.
Axial coding, the second step of the analysis, is a process in which the developed
categories are individually examined in order to more fully elaborate their content and
meaning in the researchers mind. At the same time, the contents are compared and
evaluated between categories and their exemplars for differences and similarities. The
goal is to develop a second level of abstraction that more fully integrates the data, finding
connections between categories and concepts. Some of the emergent higher-level
categories will be linked to a greater number of subordinate categories and concepts,
resulting in a hierarchical integration of the data as more concepts derived directly from
the data are subsumed by fewer core categories. Categories that have few or no links are
either collapsed into other categories or dropped altogether.
The final step in the analysis, selective coding, occurs when the researcher
evaluates the data in search of the most central or core category, one that would subsume
all the others in a coherent and parsimonious structure. This would be the category most
related to others and is typically very well defined by the structure. Glaser and Strauss
(1967, 1978) suggest that once a core category is defined, no further open coding is done
for any data not subsumable by the category (thus, selective coding). Is essence, although

63
other data are certainly present and may be of interest, they are distractions from the
emerging focus in any given project. Glaser and Strauss (1967) note that the unused data
could be used for another paper if desired, thus further representing the focused nature of
the method.
In summary, coherent units of meaning within the data are identified and labeled
according to the conceptual term by which they were identified. The meaning units and
concepts are then evaluated and compared unit with unit and unit with concept to see if
more categories emerge. If there are similarities and/or differences among them that lend
themselves to a hierarchical ordering, some of the categories will subsume some of the
others, and some will be subsumed. This structure, which can be multi-leveled, will be
further evaluated to see is there is some category that is sufficiently well distributed and
linked so as to represent a core or central category that might subsume all the others.
Once the analysis is complete, the researcher should have a well-delineated and strongly
empirically grounded model of the phenomenon under investigation. This structure can,
if desired, be subjected to a verification process using more traditional experimental
methods as it provides the a priori structure necessary for deductive hypotheses.
Verification, however, is not advocated by grounded theory practitioners and may even
diminish the value of the findings through operationalization and reification (Glaser,
1992).
Other researchers have explored the costs and benefits of being a mentor (e.g.,
Ragins & Scandura, 1999), the contribution of personality factors to the quality and
effectiveness of the mentoring relationship (e.g., Turban & Dougherty, 1994), and the

64
variance introduced into outcomes based on whether the relationship is voluntary or
assigned (e.g., Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992).

CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Participants
Thirteen individuals were interviewed for this research: four award winning
mentors, five satisfied protégés, and four dissatisfied protégés. Three of the mentors were
men, and one was a woman. One of the male mentors was a distinguished professor of
psychology, one was associate dean of the graduate school and professor of psychology,
the third male mentor was a professor of reproductive physiology and biology, and the
female mentor was a professor of pharmacology and toxicology. These mentors were
solicited at two major universities from among those who had been conferred mentoring
awards, as determined by a search of the web sites of the two institutions.
Satisfied protégés were identified by asking the interviewed mentors to provide
the names of students they had mentored, or by word of mouth. Two of the satisfied
protégés were men, and three were women. One woman was in her final year of seeking
her doctorate in clinical psychology. The second woman was 5th-year student seeking a
doctorate in pharmacology and toxicology, and the third woman was in her 4th year of
work toward doctorate in pharmacology and toxicology. One of the men had completed
his doctorate in developmental psychology, and the other man was a 2nd-year student in
a doctoral program in clinical psychology.
65

66
Dissatisfied protégés were identified by e-mailing graduate student organization
leaders and asking for word-of-mouth recommendations of students who were not happy
with the mentoring or advising they had received. Two participants were men and two
were women. The first woman was seeking a doctorate in ethno-botany, but decided to
leave with a master’s degree, in part because of the extremely poor support she received.
The second woman had intended to work towards a doctoral degree in cultural
anthropology, but also was leaving her program due to lack of support. One man had
completed his doctorate in child psychology, and another will complete his doctorate in
clinical psychology this year.
Each potential participant was contacted by e-mail by the researcher and offered
the opportunity to participate in the research. In no case were mentors made aware of
which, if any, of their protégés were solicited or interviewed. All participants were fully
apprised of the research questions and procedure, and were given the opportunity to
decline or withdraw from participation at any time. Informed consent was obtained, and a
copy was given to each participant (Appendix A).
The Researcher
An important feature of the grounded theory method is the explicit recognition
that the researcher is the primary research instrument and that the personal characteristics
and history of the researcher will impact the interpretation of the data and the
development of the theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). It is
recommended, therefore, that the researcher provide information regarding his or her own
history to facilitate the reader’s evaluations of the validity and generalizability of the

67
findings, which are necessarily shaped by the characteristics of the researcher. This is in
contrast to a phenomenological method, in which the researcher attempts to “bracket” or
withhold the influence of her or his biases (see Giorgi 1990, 1992).
I am 45-year-old man in a counseling psychology doctoral program. I consider
psychology to be my third career. My first career was in the electronics industry, where I
spent 15 years as an electronics technician and then as a middle level manager. My
second career was as a foster parent. In addition to raising our own three daughters, my
wife and I cared for 30 medically and therapeutically needy foster children (mostly
infants and young girls) over an 8-year period. These experiences have likely altered my
perspectives from what might be expected from someone who had never raised children
or from someone who had gone straight through school into their doctoral program.
My status as a doctoral student in psychology not only will affect my thoughts
and interpretations, but also in a few cases was noted by the interviewees. As a doctoral
student, there was a strong commonality with the protégés, who were going through the
same process, and seeking many of the same things in their careers and lives. Some of the
interviewees appeared to be influenced by my status as a student in psychology (e.g., the
myth that psychologists have some sort of “secret knowledge” about people and behavior
seemed to appear with some of the participants). Certainly, being a student of psychology
provides me with a framework that will bias my perceptions and interpretations. In that
psychology is uniquely suited to explore relationships, however, this bias might better be
construed as an advantage rather than as a negative influence.

68
My age and gender likely also played a role in the interactions with some of the
participants, as well as in my self-perceptions and presentations. For example, it was
perhaps easier for me to develop rapport with the mentors than a younger interviewer.
My life experience also appeared to facilitate the interaction, as topics less focused on
mentoring often arose as I worked to develop this rapport. Whether the interviewees were
more open with me than they might have been with a younger person is open to question,
but seems plausible. My age may have had an influence on the younger protégés that
were interviewed, especially as they knew little about me except that I was a graduate
student. The international student protégé, a young woman from Thailand, may have
been more strongly influenced by her cultural deference to older males in positions of
authority (this was briefly discussed in reference to her mentor, who was also an older
male).
As a student, I consider that I have been positively mentored by four different
people. Each of these has had significantly different styles as well as influences on me,
from extensive personal support to technical and research mentoring to a more detached
but safe-base style of support. Each was important to my success and survival in their
own way. Prior to being a student, during my years in business and as a parent, I was also
well mentored. A variety of people fulfilled this role in my life, but none with the focus
on the task as I have experienced as a student. I have also been poorly mentored, both as
a student and in business, by individuals who appeared to be indifferent to my training,
educational, or personal needs, and who might reasonably have been expected to have an
obligation to meet those needs. Given these experiences, I was able to draw on personal

69
experience when interacting with both satisfied and dissatisfied protégés. Having had
both experiences, however, may have helped prevent an excessive bias in either direction.
There are other factors not noted here, no doubt some of which I am unaware. The
foregoing is provided so that the reader might have some basic information about one of
the critical instruments used in this research. As noted by Glaser and Strauss (1967), “The
root source of all significant theorizing is the sensitive insights of the observer himself.”
(p. 251)
Procedure
This section will describe the various aspects of the grounded theory procedures
utilized in the present study. It will include discussion of data acquisition and data
analysis.
Data Acquisition
Each of the participants was interviewed by the researcher in a private milieu.
The focus of the interviews was to learn what factors contribute to the qualification of the
mentoring relationship as “good.” Although participants were asked to describe or define
“good mentoring,” the problem of definition discussed earlier was not addressed. If a
mentoring relationship was asserted, the assertion was accepted at face value. The
question of interest in this project, as noted, was to differentiate a “good” relationship,
not, for example, mentored vs. non-mentored, or formal vs. informal mentoring.
The semi-structured interview began with a selection of open-ended questions
designed to both create a comfortable atmosphere for the discourse, as well as to facilitate
and direct the conversation towards the topic of interest. The questions focused on the

mentoring relationship and process, yet were exploratory and elicitory. Again, neither
“mentoring” nor “good” were defined for the participants, who were all able to easily
identify someone who was, or should have been, their mentor. The following are some
the questions used to initiate the discussions:
1. How would define good mentoring relationship?
2. What might be some characteristics of a good mentor?
3. What could [the mentor] have done to make it work better for you?
4. What kinds of things made the relationship “work” for you?
5. What are some of the things that make a lousy mentor?
As the interviews proceeded, thoughts and insights occurred to the researcher
regarding potential emergent themes in the reports of the participants. Tentative
hypotheses were developed, which guided the formulation of additional questions, as
attempts were made to confirm or disconfirm these insights. Examples of further
enquires, then, followed the following form:
1. How does that make you feel?
2. Is it a part of the mentors job to ...?
3. What do you think that gets you at a psychological level?
4. How does it feel to have a mentor that you believe in that way...?
5. Why is that important to you?
Interviews were continued until both interviewer and interviewee appeared to have
exhausted the topic. Interviews typically lasted between 60 and 90 minutes.

71
Although researchers who specialize in grounded theory methodology
recommend against taping or taking notes during an interview (Dick, 2002), taping, note
taking, and transcribing were used in the present study to facilitate the development and
understanding of the data and to allow the researcher review the data if there were
questions or ambiguities in his theory construction. All interviews were thus audio taped.
As the researcher became increasing familiar with the material appearing in the
interviews, cognizant of the major themes, and aware of the significant consistency of the
reports between all of the participants, it was decided that it was unnecessary to
additionally transcribe all of the interviews, and the recordings and thematic notes taken
during the remaining interviews were relied upon. Thus, eight interviews were
transcribed onto hard copy: all four mentors, three satisfied protégés, and one dissatisfied
protégé. Partial samples of transcripts are available in the appendices (Appendices B, C,
and D).
Data Analysis
Analysis was carried out using the grounded theory procedures described earlier.
During each interview, key notes were taken, and developing hypotheses were tested.
Following each interview these notes were reevaluated and additional insights were
noted. Memoranda were written containing possible categories and other theoretical
observations. As each interview was conducted, themes and ideas from previous
interviews and analyses were kept in mind and explored using the method of constant
comparison.

72
As noted, in the present study, the interviews with all four mentors (who were
interviewed first), the first three satisfied protégés, and one dissatisfied protégé were
transcribed to facilitate this process. The interviews were gone over line-by-line and
subjected to a formal coding process. The first step, open coding, was conducted by the
researcher by going over the transcripts line by line while looking for coherent meaning
units; that is, sections that cohere semantically, and yet are distinguishable from the
surrounding material. (In later interviews, key notes taken during the interviews and
reviewing of the audio tapes replaced full transcription and review.) These “pieces of
semantic coherence” can be labeled using a single descriptive word or phrase, which may
then be referred to as concepts. Each meaning unit, then, was evaluated and labeled
according to the concepts embedded in the data (see Appendix E for an example. Note
that there were at least two iterations of open coding when using transcripts, both on the
transcript as well as on separate note cards. Thus, the sample in the appendix is reduced
and clarified for readability). The concept labels used were chosen not only to reflect the
semantic content, but as much as possible the actual words used by the participant.
These concept labels were established as categories, which were a higher level of
abstraction of the units themselves, the meaning units being exemplars of the category.
Subsequently, any time a meaning unit was evaluated (in any data set) that could be
labeled similarly to an existing meaning unit, it was placed in that category (i.e., be given
the same concept label). As the open coding process continued, each newly evaluated
meaning unit was assigned to as many of the existing categories as possible. If no
category existed that represented the meaning embedded in the data, a new category was

73
established. Ultimately, a finite set of categories emerged that adequately represent the
data, and no further open coding was carried out. When this occurs, it is said that the
category is saturated, and selective coding begins (see below).
Axial coding, the second step of the analysis, is a process in which the developed
concepts are individually examined in order to more fully elaborate their content and
meaning in the researchers mind. At the same time, the concepts and their exemplars are
compared and evaluated for differences and similarities. The goal is to develop a second
or higher level of abstraction that more fully integrates the data, finding connections
between categories and concepts.
Axial coding was carried out following the procedure delineated by Rennie and
Brewer (1987). All open coding, whether from transcripts or tapes, was carried out using
3X5 cards on which the concepts and representative citations from the data (interviews)
were written. Over one thousand cards were produced in this project. Axial coding was
carried out by placing the cards in columns on a large table according to the meaning or
concept represented. Thus, common concepts, or categories, were represented by the
different columns of cards. As the concepts and their exemplars were compared and
evaluated for differences and similarities, superordinate categories emerged and were
developed, and cards labeling these higher-level categories were placed across the top of
the table. (Again, the concept of semantic factor analysis was found helpful in
conceptualizing the process.) Note that memoranda were also recorded on 3 X 5 cards,
but were not included in the sorting process. Memoranda were, however, referred to in
the structuring of the data and the development of superordinate categories. Numerous

74
different organizations of the cards were tried before the one selected was settled on as
having the greatest fit and being most representative of the data.
The final step in the analytic process, selective coding, occurs when the researcher
evaluates the data in search of the most central or core category, one that would subsume
all the others in a coherent and parsimonious structure. This was accomplished using the
process described above. As the researcher continued to reexamine the concepts and
categories as well as the emergent hierarchical structure, it became possible to recognize
a common feature that was linked to all the existing categories, and was also a factor
within all of the categories. This factor, positive affect, became the core category of the
analysis, and provided the central organizing principle and discovery of this research.
Again, as with axial coding, a number of possibilities were considered and discarded
before the final selection was confirmed as being most adequate and having the greatest
fit with the data.
In summary, the data (transcripts) were broken down into coherent units of
meaning, which were labeled roughly according to the concept by which they were
identified. Then, these labels and the units they represent were evaluated and compared to
see if there were similarities and/or differences among them that lent themselves to a
hierarchical ordering, such that some of the categories subsumed some of the others, and
some were subsumed. This structure, once derived, was further evaluated to see if there
was some category that was sufficiently well distributed and linked so as to represent a
core or central category that might subsume all the others. It was found that there was:

75
positive affect. The core category of positive affect and its subordinate categories will be
fully elaborated in the next section.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Four mentors (M), five satisfied protégés (SP), and four dissatisfied protégés
(DP), were interviewed for the present study. The purpose of the interviews was to
uncover factors that might contribute to the qualification of a mentoring relationship as
“good.” Neither the term good nor the term mentoring were defined for the interviewees.
All protégé participants were able to identify a person or persons whom they considered
as a mentor or, in the case of the DPs, a person whom they expected would mentor them
and did not do so satisfactorily. All Ms were identified in advance by virtue of their
having received mentoring awards.
The contents of the interviews were analyzed using the previously described
grounded theory inductive procedure. All interviews were included in the analysis. There
was very high consistency across all participants, including DPs, in terms of those aspects
that would qualify as central to the goodness of the relationship. The factors selected for
inclusion in this section emerged very early in the interviewing process, continued to
appear in virtually every data set, and subsequently represented the central themes
derived in the analysis.
As the data were analyzed, a central feature of the defining characteristics of a
good mentoring relationship appeared to be the affective nature of the relationship. That
is, when discussing what they thought defined a good mentoring relationship, the most
frequently reported features were related to participants’ positive feelings about certain
76

77
aspects of their relationships. Since good was not defined for the participants, the focus
on these specific affective aspects of the relationship, rather than the structure or
mechanics of mentoring relationships, was emergent and indicative of the interviewees’
own priorities. Thus, the themes that emerged and the resulting categories of the derived
structure are subsumed under the core category of Positive Affect.
Participants also discussed a wide variety of other factors. Some of these factors
were subsumable into the core or second-level categories. If they were not subsumable
and they could not stand alone due to their relative infrequency, then they were dropped
from the analysis to limit the focus on a single core category as recommended when
using the grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
As the core category of the analysis, positive affect defines the features most
relevant to the evaluation of the mentoring relationship as “good,” as presented by
participants. Five second-level categories identified within the core category of positive
affect were as follows: (a) feeling respected, (b) feeling valued, (c) feeling safe, (d)
feelings of belonging, and (e) feelings of increasing competence (See Table 1). These
categories are themselves reductions from third-level categories (i.e., themes) that were
derived directly from the data, and each describes areas in which positive affect was
highly salient to the participants. Each of these categories and themes will be discussed,
describing in detail the feelings themselves, ways the feelings are engendered or hindered
in the relationship, and positive correlates of the feelings.

78
Table 1. Affective Characteristics of a Good Mentoring Relationship
Core Category
Second Level Categories
Fundamental Concepts/ Themes
Positive Affect
Feeling Respected
Respect of person
Respect of person’s right to self-
determination
Feeling Valued
Availability
Time and effort
Feeling Safe
Not experiencing rejection
Receiving affirmation and
encouragement.
Trust
Feelings of Belonging and
Community
Feelings of Increasing
Competence
Clarifying expectations
Following appropriate
developmental course
Increasing autonomy
Feeling Respected
The importance of respect (i.e., protégés’ feelings of being respected by their
mentors) was noted by all three sets of participants. However, Ms and DPs drew attention
to it most frequently as of critical importance to a good mentoring relationship. SPs
mentioned the importance of feeling respected by their mentors, but much less frequently
than did the other two groups. This may be attributed to a slight difference in the salience
of certain characteristics to the different groups.
Respect seems to have been construed primarily in one of two ways. First, respect
of a person was based on the individual’s belief in another’s intrinsic worth as a human
being. This could be illustrated by the common admonition to treat people with simple

79
respect and courtesy. This character of respect was also mentioned more frequently by
Ms and DPs. A second meaning for respect that appeared to be salient was the respect of
a person’s freedom and self-determination. This suggests an additional level of respect
maintained towards people’s right to choose for themselves what they would like to do,
accomplish, or become. This concept was discussed by the majority of participants in all
three groups, but was most frequently discussed by the mentors.
Respect of Persons
Although all three groups of participants made references to the need for a
fundamental respect of the other in the relationship, DPs repeatedly emphasized the lack
of basic respect as a centrally important feature in their dissatisfaction with their
mentoring relationships. One DP placed basic respect at the top of her list of what she
wished she could have received from her mentor. She stated that although mentors
expected to be treated with respect, they often did not treat protégés or students with
respect. Sometimes this emphasis on the lack of respect became quite emphatic, as
illustrated by the following example.
Interviewer: Why would he introduce you to people and brag about you?
DP3: Oh, because it reflects on him. That’s what a graduate advisor is for, isn’t it?
“Look, I have this.. .scholar who wants to work with me! I’m a cool person!”
And that’s fine. I mean I totally understand that they’re under a lot of pressure.
They have things they need. A grad student is cheap labor for them, who you
want to keep working for you as long as you can, because then they leave and you
have to train somebody new. I totally understand that it has to be a relationship
where they’re getting something as well as you getting something. But it has to be
somewhat equal. I mean, both people do have to get something out of it. I mean,
there are rules in this relationship...
Interviewer: What are the rules?
DP3: Well, you know, a professor wants to take on a student so that they have
glory, and their work getting done, and papers written with their names on it...

80
Protégés noted that when their mentors failed to treat them with respect, they felt
disconnected, lost interest in their work, and frequently decided that if respect was not
forthcoming, neither would it be given. As can be imagined, this can lead to further
difficulties. One protégé stated that she had been “offered assistance to leave the
program.” Typically these failures of respect manifested as not acknowledging or
attending to a protégé’s conversation; demeaning, condescending, or insulting behaviors
or comments; or failing to keep promises.
Satisfied protégés, however, mentioned basic respect only in general terms.
Having already received this kind of respect from their mentors as a function of the
quality of the relationship, it did not appear to be salient during the interview. Mentors
also tended to gloss over this form of respect perhaps because they also considered it to
be a given in the relationship. However, all four mentors stated they considered it an
honor to have been sought out by students.
The SP who was an international student described differences in cultural norms
regarding respect of persons. In her Asian culture, expectations of respect for elders or
culturally defined superiors (e.g., men, professors) are much stronger, and one never
criticizes or speaks freely with one to whom respect is due. She stated that students are
not considered to be equal to their professors. Students neither expect a mentor to stop
and talk to them, nor do students feel offended or unimportant when they do not. She
recalled being extremely and pleasantly surprised by her American mentor’s openness
and willingness to engage with her in conversation at any time. She noted that although
she was not equal in status, neither did she feel inferior.

81
Although the consensus was that protégés a priori deserve respect, all mentors
noted its limits. As one mentor in the pharmaceutical field commented, although students
deserve respect, there are firm boundaries of acceptable behavior, especially considering
the potential health risks inherent in the field. Students are expected to take responsibility
for their education seriously and to behave as professionals.
Respect of a Person’s Right to Self-Determination
The critical aspect of this theme is that a good mentoring relationship is
characterized by the mentor’s focus on and commitment to facilitating the goals and
plans of the protégé. The emphasis is so asymmetrical in favor of the protégé that it
almost reaches the level that the needs and desires of the mentor are of little consequence.
As one mentor noted,
They are really the ones that count in the long run.... Yes, my goals will be
realized if they do their jobs, but it’s more than that in the sense of who they are
and where they’re going. It’s really important.
This focus on supporting the goals of the protégé was universal, and was focused
most strongly and repetitively by the mentors. In describing a mentoring relationship,
another mentor noted,
First and foremost I think it’s a commitment to somebody else’s career. So, when
somebody comes in and says they’d like to study—I’d like to study with you—
and I’m a lucky person in that I have marginal visibility nationally so that people
will apply to work with me. I’m lucky. I don’t say I deserve that. It’s an honor.
First, to have that happen. Second, it’s a responsibility because to me it implies a
ton of obligation that the applicant probably doesn’t realize.... So, I have to
know what they’re interested in. I have to know what they want to do. My
favorite question to people is “Tell me what your life looks like 5 years from
now.” Once we know that, then we craft the next 5 years or plan for the next 2 or
3 years to get you there.

82
Mentors stated their belief that all students are unique and that the central task of
a mentor is to uncover the natural talent of the individual student, to nurture their native
excellence and passion. Mentors repeatedly noted that it is not their task to determine
what a protégé should be doing with her or his life or career; rather the mentor’s task is to
support the growth and development of the protégé in the direction the protégé has
chosen. As M3 indicated, the goal is to develop the students in regard to their own
interests and talents, not to “make mini copies of yourself.” He continued,
It’s a wonderfully freeing, I think, experience [for protégés] to realize that you
can pursue that for which you have talent and interest, and can mold a life around
it.... I once heard that 98% of Americans get up in the morning, go to work and
dread that, and I can’t imagine that day after day after day. This is why I think
some graduate students don’t like graduate school. I would wish that 100% of
people could follow their own talents and inclinations.
Satisfied protégés also seemed to be most enamored of their mentors’ focusing on
the protégé’s desires and goals. One of M3’s protégés, SP1, was also interviewed, and
stated that “a mentor is a guide who facilitates your reaching your goals, not you reaching
their goals.” He said of M3 that whatever area you were interested in as a M3’s protégé—
academics, practice, research—M3 would “provide you with as many opportunities and
as much guidance as you need or want.” SP1 noted that he feels empowered and excited
by this kind of support because he believes he will be successful in the area he has
chosen.
There are limits and qualifications to this support, however, as is indicated in the
following exchange with M2.
M2: I’ve tried to find what they’re interested in. And I try to give them that a little
bit....
Interviewer: So, it would be kind of like finding out what the individual student’s

83
interests or passions are and then trying to feed that, to facilitate that?
M2: As best I can! Now, I can’t just let them totally run my program, but I’m
more than willing to... I mean, I have enough flexibility in my program that I can
try to meet their particular needs, once I’m sure there’s a passion for it....
M3 concurred, stating, “I just can’t supervise any old thing that they come up
with....” Ml noted that if he doesn’t know the area that a student wants to pursue, or the
student declines to take his advice or recommendations, then he can’t do all the things
that he would normally do for a protégé. The student must then take responsibility to find
ways to make up the lack.
Feeling Valued by or Important to the Mentor
Feeling valued by or important to the mentor is closely aligned with respect.
However, feeling valued can be distinguished from basic respect in that basic respect is a
priori and due all people. Value and importance, on the other hand, refer to the particular
person. Although a mentor may fundamentally respect all graduate students, a mentor
should hold a special value for his or her protégés. (Should refers not to an ethical
imperative, but is an ontological indicative. I.e., a characteristic of a “good” mentoring
relationship, as described by participants in this study, is that the mentor does in fact
value the protégé).
The salient factor here is that the protégé feels that her or his unique identity is
being validated in the relationship with their mentor. The protégé is not merely another
unit (interchangeable with any other unit) in a long series of onerous obligations with
which a faculty member is tasked by the nature of the job, nor is the protégé merely a
means to the mentor’s ends; rather the mentor actually has an interest in this particular
person. This interest manifests in demonstrable, tangible ways that are observable by the

84
protégé, and that she or he can internalize as self-worth and value. In this case, the
protégé could say, “If this important, high status person thinks I’m important, then maybe
I’m okay.”
Participants experienced feeling valued by the practical demonstrations of their
mentors’ (a) availability and (b) time and effort. Through these two modes the protégé
became aware of the mentor’s feelings about her or him; protégés’ also construed these as
signals of the positive or negative quality of the relationship and of the self.
Availability
Availability was perhaps the most frequently noted quality in all of the data.
Mentors, satisfied protégés, and dissatisfied protégés all indicated that the mentor’s
availability to protégés is sine qua non of good mentoring. Even in discussing
relationships that had little or no interpersonal components, availability was considered to
be critical. If the mentor was not available, there was, in fact, no mentor.
Availability can be understood in terms of psychological availability or physical
availability. While physical availability was mentioned numerous times, it was not
typically considered a significant factor in the quality of the relationship. All good
mentors were physically available to their protégés at some level—some spent several
hours a day with them in various contexts. What was repeatedly noted, however, was the
importance of the mentor being psychologically available. That is, graduate students felt
valued and important when their mentors responded when they were talked to, when the
response was relevant and helpful, when the mentor stopped what they were doing when
the protégé wanted to talk to them about a problem (or when there was not a problem),

85
when the mentor was interested in the protégés concerns or needs, when the mentor was
willing to talk on the phone from home with the protégé, or even if the mentor would
merely use e-mail to communicate.
In response to the opening question on how he would define good mentoring, SP3
said .. to be available is the most basic. To be able to be there, to be willing to be there,
to talk about your interests.” M3 noted that one of the central characteristics he respected
in other good mentors he knew was “The ability to take time and listen fully to another
person’s story.” SP4, the student from Asia, noted that her mentor was always available
to her and that it made her feel important and valued. She further noted that her peers
with less available and open mentors were not happy, and did not feel very important to
their mentors. SP5 relayed a story that exemplifies availability and its effect on the
protégé.
... He was one of the people on the committee for my paper. He was actually—
this is kinda cool—he was actually on vacation in January when I emailed him
and told him “Here’s where I am, here’s my outline. I’ve kind of revised it from
what we talked about last time.” He emailed me back and said, “Actually, we’re
on vacation. We’re in Minnesota.” He told me a little bit about the weather; it was
freezing, they were fortunate enough to arrive in the middle of a snowstorm, da da
da da da... and, [he continued] “You know, I like what you’re doing here. Our
host actually happens to know something about the subject, and he suggests that
you check out such and such....” I get this back—the guy’s on vacation... and
he’s talking about my project to his friend... and giving me feedback while he’s
on vacation! I’m like, do I feel important? Do I feel valued? Well, yeah!
Dissatisfied protégés also had much to say about availability, or, in their case,
their mentor’s unavailability. DP2 noted that she is on her second mentor/advisor;
unfortunately, the second, like the first, is not available either—physically or
psychologically. In fact, noted DP2, students have to sign up on a sheet on this

86
“mentor’s” door to get an appointment—she dispenses her time in 15-minute
increments—whether they are an undergrad student or one of her grad students. DP2
commented that “there needs to be someone you can know that is going to answer back,
or you can touch base with, who can give you some direction, that you can talk to....”
She continued that the thing that both her mentors could have done was to simply be
available. DP3 indicated that if she had a question about requirements, about classes,
about where to find the bathroom, her mentor would tell her to go ask another grad
student. According to DP3, her mentor also waxed philosophical in her presence about
whether he should be hiring technicians rather than grad students, since technicians didn’t
want other things in addition to the job.
Time and Effort
Availability is a fairly passive concept, in that the mentor is being responsive to
the immediate needs of the protégé. The character of time and effort as a marker of value
and importance is found in a mentor's activity or proactivity on the protégé’s behalf. The
mentor demonstrates her or his valuation of the protégé by the concrete investment of
limited time and energy resources to the development and progress of the protégé
towards her or his goals. An important aspect of this factor is that the mentoring
relationship is not defined in terms of supply and demand; although there are lots of grad
students out there, there is only one “in front of you.” The protégé’s value to their mentor
is apparent to all, especially the protégé, in the mentor’s investment of time and energy.
This valuation will also be internalized and considered by the protégé in their valuation of
themselves.

87
The investment of time and effort was spoken of by the mentors mostly in terms
of the necessity of recognizing the level of commitment in these areas that is inherent in
deciding to take on grad students or protégés. All of the mentors noted this aspect of the
relationship, and expressed not only willingness, but also enthusiasm. Ml noted that he
felt that if students were going to come work with him, that he owed them his time and
effort and attention, and that he was happy to provide it. Ml’s protégé, SP3, said
... The fact that M1 would be willing to pass back and forth the draft three times,
was something that, as I’ve talked with other people, they didn’t have that, and
that goes back to the first thing, about being there and to be willing to give time
for you.
When asked for his definition of a good mentor, M2 said that a good mentor was
a person that’s going to take the time to spend with students on a daily basis and try to
develop them to their maximum potential... and it takes a lot of time.” Later in our
interview, in the context of a discussion of how many grad students some mentors take
on, he said,
I have other colleagues that take ten or twelve students at a time, and I just can’t
do that. So I’ve asked myself, ‘what is it that precludes me from doing that?’ And
I’ve come to the conclusion that I spend a lot more time with individual students,
mentoring them.... I put enough priority on trying to mentor and develop
individuals that I can only do so many at a time...
The other mentors reiterated this sentiment.
A partial list of other demonstrations of time and effort commitment by mentors
for their protégés reported by participants include writing a six or seven-page, single
spaced recommendation letters “in which I really tell a heartfelt story about that student”
(M3); paying for the protégé’s attendance at conferences, and not only helping them set
up their presentations, but staying with them during the entire display time, and

88
introducing them to important people that come by; going to the lab every day and
seeking them out to see how they’re doing; finishing necessary paperwork on time;
always knowing what the protégé is doing, and making sure that the protégé is on time
and on track regarding department and degree requirements; helping them negotiate
personal concerns, such as balancing work and family, so that they can remain in the
program and focused on their work; reading materials provided by the protégé in the
protégé’s area in order to keep up with the research in that area; and calling people to
promote the protégé for a position.
As might be imagined, the conversations of the dissatisfied protégés were much
briefer in this regard. Except to note that their mentors either invested no time or effort,
or that they only invested in those areas that were of personal interest, there was little to
say. DPI noted that “when I was doing things that were not only getting me through the
program, but were also gonna help him out with his... in his professional life....” he got
better treatment from his mentor. He described his personal relationship with his mentor
as “sterile” and leaving him with “an empty feeling.” Ultimately, like other DPs, DPI
would take his work elsewhere; “I wouldn’t even show it to him.”
Feeling Safe
The importance of feeling safe was especially emphasized by the SPs. Mentors
and DPs also discussed the importance of the protégé’s feelings in this regard, but DPs
tended to withdraw from their mentors as soon as it became apparent that they weren’t
safe and, as usual, the issue became one of deficiency.

89
In the conversations of the participants, feelings of safety seem to be related to
three primary themes: not experiencing rejection, receiving affirmation and
encouragement, and trust. These three things, when present and experienced by the
protégé, establish a secure base from which they can function and develop. It is worth
noting that the concept of a secure base is derived from theories relating to attachments
between parents and their children. The participants in this study used the parent-child
metaphor frequently to express the feeling they had towards each other. In fact, all the
mentors and most of the SPs did so, but none of the dissatisfied protégés did.
For example, in response to the question “Do you like the idea of showing Ml
that you did it, that you wanted him to be proud?” SP3, who was particularly enamored of
the parenting metaphor, said
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I definitely have that second father figure feeling about it,
and it is equally as devastating when he’d you look at the first draft and really say,
‘no, this is really bad, this is really not it.” It was equally as devastating. I think I
definitely have that same kind of sense of... if he was saying “good job,” then I
was feeling that I was good, and I was happy with the approval, and if he was
saying “no way...” that was a bad couple of days....
When discussing how having a protégé was like having kids, Ml said, “It’s the
same way. It’s the same thing.” Similarly, M4 said
If you take on a student, you know you’re really taking on some responsibility for
them, just like what we have for a child; you’re responsible for them. It’s not
quite the same level of responsibility, but they are somewhat dependent on you in
a variety of ways... just as much as your kids are for the skills they’ll need to
survive in the world whatever they do.
Not experiencing rejection
Of the three themes that are subsumed under feelings of safety (not experiencing
rejection, receiving affirmation, and trust in the mentor), not experiencing rejection was

90
clearly the most important to the protégés, both emotionally and in terms of personal and
professional development. While this theme is defined negatively, as the absence of a
behavior, it remains significant in that rejection is a positive punishment. That is, if it is
experienced at all, the offended party often tends to withdraw, and the possibility of a
corrective or ameliorating positive interaction with the mentor is significantly reduced, if
not eliminated. This reduction is due not only to the reduced numbers of interactions, as
the protégé tries to avoid a repeat of the aversive event, but also to the negatively biased
interpretations of any further mentor behaviors by the protégé. For example, what is
meant as a helpful critique may be taken as a direct assault by a previously sensitized
protégé. As a result, even a small amount of this negative behavior may preclude to
possibility of developing a positive mentoring relationship.
Examples of mentor behaviors that were experienced as rejecting or threatening
include demeaning a protégés’ efforts, implying the protégé is stupid or is asking stupid
questions, yelling or screaming at the protégé, blaming the protégé for errors, for poor
outcomes, or for not knowing what to do, taking out frustrations on the protégé related to
other situations in the mentor’s life, embarrassing a protégé in front of others, shaming a
protégé, taking a concern a protégé brings and making it about themselves (e.g., a protégé
presents something that she wanted help with, and the mentor tells a story about
something that happened to him, showing that he has ‘suffered,’ too, yet without
addressing the protégé’s concerns), behaving condescendingly towards the protégé, and
others. Both SPs and DPs recognized the necessity of mentors’ correcting them and

91
showing them their errors (see below), but all participants seemed to recognize the
difference between rejection and critique.
The most significant consequents to these rejecting behaviors were that the
protégé withdrew from interactions with the mentor, developed questions about their own
competence and value and career choice, and became afraid to engage in the necessary
work for fear of being “slapped down,” as one mentor put it. SP2, who was actually the
SP of one of the award-winning mentors (M3), noted that if a protégé became defensive
at M3’s strong critiques, M3 would “hammer” them, but if you accepted the critique and
asked for help, M3 would “take you under his wing.” (This was definitely experienced as
rejecting and threatening, but was later resolved when the protégé went to M3 and
confronted him. According to the protégé, M3 has been working on that quirk since that
confrontation, and they now get along extremely well).
Many participants noted the absence of rejection and its correlates. The most
noted benefit is that protégés feel safe to take risks, not only in terms of talking to their
mentors about problems and mistakes, but also in terms of being willing and emotionally
able to explore and experiment with their work or research. For example, when asked
what her mentor did when SP2 made a mistake, she said,
SP2: Oh, it was fine. I mean, she [M4] understands that you, of course, this is a
training period, even now. I’ve made mistakes... but she doesn’t go ‘rooting’ for
it, she’s really relaxed about it.
Interviewer: what does that get for you? When you’re in a situation, and you
make a mistake, and she’s OK with it...
SP2: Well, I mean, it makes me more willing to admit that I made a mistake, and
also, it’s not so much pressure. I know some mentors who are a lot more rigid
about that, and they do expect you to know, every time, exactly everything that
needs to be done. And you know, you’re going to have people in the lab who are
going to be scared when you do that. I think it makes it easier for me to just go

92
ahead and do something, than to worry about it, if everything isn’t exactly right. I
do make an effort to include everything I understand, based on my own
knowledge, to do everything correctly, but if it’s not correct I don’t feel like I
have to fear anything.
Receiving Affirmation and Encouragement
Receiving affirmation and encouragement from a mentor is essentially the
opposite of experiencing rejection—not opposite in the sense of the absence of one
implies the presence of the other, but in the sense that while rejection actively hinders
work and development, affirmation and encouragement promotes it. Of the three themes
under the category of feeling safe, this was mentioned directly the least but nonetheless
appeared in my coding quite often. It was my impression that there was what might be
termed an affirming atmosphere between the mentors and protégés, as evidenced by the
tone and affect of the participants during the interviews.
When affirmation was mentioned directly, however, its impact was important.
SP3 said, “I always knew I had good stuff, I had a good story to tell. What I also knew
was that I wasn’t always the best at telling it.... I always felt motivated, because Ml
was very reinforcing, [saying]; ‘you’ve got a good thing here to talk about... yeah,
you’re right, this is important, this is good stuff.’” SP5 noted that her mentor was always
very affirming or her work, even when suggesting better ways to do it or other options to
try. She said that she was never made to feel stupid or small. She continued in another
section
For the most part, they offered stuff [support and encouragement] so freely it was
more a matter of “I know where I can get this.” I didn’t have to earn it; it would
be there no matter what I did.... It was extremely validating.

93
Mentors also noted the importance of providing affirmation and encouragement to
protégés. M4 discussed how encouragement softened the blows of failures and mistakes,
and cultivated the ability to keep “plugging;” M3 commented, “I’m constantly
encouraging them... to stretch, to try new things, to try ideas, to make mistakes, even.”
The lack of affirmation and encouragement can result in protégés going elsewhere
for their needs, as was noted by DPI, who said (as if he were talking to his mentor), “[if]
I’m not going to get the feedback and encouragement from you, I’ll go to one of these
other people....” Regarding his mentor’s lack of emotional support, when asked what
would happen to a younger protégé who came and worked with this mentor (DPI was 32,
and had good support at home), he said, “Well, I’ve seen a lot of them, and... I’m the
second person who has made it out through him with a PhD.”
DP3 commented that instead of commending her for what she had done, her
mentor would complain about what she hadn’t done. DP2 similarly described how her
mentor would tell her to do something (without providing any clear direction), and when
she’d bring the work back to him, he would say, “Why didn’t you do ‘X’.” She argued
that this lack of support or affirmation of her work made her not want to do any work at
all, or to ever work with him.
Trust
There are various ways to construe trust, some of which have likely been implicit
in previous sections, and others that were not discussed by participants and thus are not
presented here regardless of their assumed or likely relevance. In fact, trust was
mentioned by various participants numerous time in diverse contexts, but as a word

94
which tends to be used to cover a plethora of ideas, it was necessary for there to be a clear
and repeated usage for it to be construed as a theme for our purposes.
The particular conception of trust that was of concern to participants incorporated
the main theme of honest feedback. The feeling that their mentors would provide honest
feedback, and in fact were providing it, was of significant importance to protégés in that
this enabled them to know where they stood in terms of where they stood with their
mentors, as well as regarding their choice of profession and their ability to perform in that
profession. SP3 noted that even when it was unpleasant, honest feedback was indicative
of a functional relationship, rather than that was a problem with him as a person. SP2
stated that she looks to her mentor to provide honest feedback as to the quality of her
research.
SP2:1 trust her to point out things that I’m doing that might not be correct, or that
some other set of experiments are better. But also, I feel comfortable asking
questions; I don’t feel like I’m going to be belittled for...
Interviewer: So you feel confident that she’s not going to avoid telling you when
you’re screwing up.
SP2: Oh, absolutely. She does it in a way that doesn’t make you feel bad, so that’s
really nice. You know, you don’t feel like “Oh, I’ve just messed up completely
and ruined everything...
Interviewer: So you trust her to be honest with you.
SP2: Oh, absolutely. I mean, that’s really important....
One important aspect of honesty was described by two of the DPs. Both DP2 and
DP3 described how they had, prior to registering in their programs, discussed with their
mentors what they would be working on, but that after they arrived they found that the
mentors either gave them another task (DP3), or decided not to work with them (DP2). In
fact, DP3 stated that she was actively recruited by her mentor, and after she arrived found
that he would not support her graduate work at all. This lack of integrity was instrumental

95
on the part of both of these students to decide to not complete their PhD, and to leave
their programs with master’s degrees.
Ms also noted the importance of providing honest feedback to students about their
work and progress, and indeed whether they had selected the right field. Ml noted that
his students always know where they stand with him. In response to a question as to what
drew students to him, M3 responded:
M3: Trust. I think that if you don’t have trust you don’t go anywhere.... They
need to trust our relationship and know that what I will do and say is for their
benefit. They need to trust that I’m not just a pretty boy that will just give them
positive feedback all the time -1 will give them feedback when I think they’re not
being honest with themselves, and when they’re misleading themselves. I think,
paradoxically, that it’s kind of the intensity of the experience that’s one of the
things that draws people. ...
Interviewer: So, in terms of trust, they have to trust you. Why is trust important in
that kind of relationship?
M3: Well, it gets them a place in their life where they can say and do virtually
anything, and I’m not going to jump down their throat. I’ll give them honest
feedback that is based on what I think is for their good, and that’s perhaps the
essence of trust.
Feelings of Belonging and Community
Participants often noted the importance of feeling a part of something as essential
to a good grad school experience. In this context, the mentors in particular were aware
that it is often important to facilitate this sense of belonging, to ensure that students
derive both the personal and professional benefits of being a part of an important in¬
group. Mentors felt that they were in the position of gatekeepers or sponsors, and there
was a sense of the mentors saying, “come be where I am.” Students enter the program as
part of the class called novice, and leave the program part of the group called doctor; it is
important that this transition include actually participating in the new class, since the title

96
itself will not provide a sense of belonging. Further, once the student graduates, the
groups that she or he was a part of during grad school dissipate, and need to be replaced
by the larger professional community. Ml, in defining a good mentoring relationship,
Ml: It would involve this sense of belonging, either to a scientific community at
large or to a local community in which the goals of the larger realm or community
are pursued.
Interviewer: So take it a step further. What does a sense of belonging...
M1:1 guess that you have a place in the world. It gives you a frame, it defines
your identity, and in some ways that’s what graduate school is all about, it’s about
defining your identity. It’s something to commit to for students; they commit to
the discipline, they commit to a certain problem, to figuring it out. We’re all
academics, and we define ourselves... a lot of our identity is defined in terms of
who we are, what we do. I think that’s what’s kind of attractive, in some ways,
about academic work and research, is that you get to say, “this is who I am, I’m a
scientist.”
Again, it was mentors who were particularly cognizant of the importance of
developing a sense of belonging or community among their protégés. They were often
very intentional in their facilitation of this experience, and provided a number of
opportunities for their protégés in this regard. For example, M4 included funding in her
grant proposals to cover her protégés’ expenses to attend national conferences. At these
conferences she would ensure that they were able to not just meet but socialize with the
“names” in the field. The protégés would also be included in the lunches and dinners that
she had with other senior academicians and researchers. She noted that this not only gave
her protégés important contacts and “bragging rights,” it also gave them an opportunity to
interact with high status and high powered people in a safe environment.
Other mentors were similarly intentional. M2 also took his protégés to national
conferences, as well as bringing in well-known scientists in the field to join in the weekly

97
lab meetings, and to present and discuss their own work in the same way as did the
protégés. The protégés also presented for the visitors. As M4, above, M2 also noted the
importance of practicing professional and interpersonal skills with high status persons in
a safe environment. Ml, in addition to taking protégés to conferences and introducing
them to colleagues and other professional, described putting his protégés’ names on a
letterhead he designed for the lab, so that whenever something was sent out from any
member of the group, all their names were seen by the recipients. When asked why these
were good things to do, he responded
They’re a member of... they belong to the discipline. It’s an issue of belonging to
the discipline, they’re part of the scientific community. Yes, they’re a neophyte in
the scientific community, but there are scientific communities, and it’s important
to belong. That’s what that gesture means, aside from the networking and the
[name] recognition and so-and-so is so-and-so’s student... all that gets processed,
but I think it’s is really as you say a socialization experience.
Mentors frequently mentioned lab or research group meeting as an important
component in developing feelings of community. M2 says that his protégés present their
results, interpretations, and the their plans for the next step at these meetings, and the
other members of the group provide input and critiques. He notes that a major purpose of
the weekly meetings is to establish bonds between the students and between him and his
protégés, to develop camaraderie and belonging, as well as to help them see how other
people think, and to help them develop communication and presentation skills. He also
notes that he encourages them to mentor each other, which in addition to developing
concern for one’s colleagues and community, is an opportunity to develop the skill of
mentoring.

98
Protégés focused on some of the behaviors that mentors engaged in that made
them feel that they were in a peer relationship, that they were a part of a team, that they
were a part of a community, as opposed to an isolated individual merely trying to get a
degree. Two behaviors were repeatedly discussed by protégés as providing a feeling of
belonging: First, the mentor being actively curious or getting excited about the protégés
project or results, which was construed as an indicator that the work was something that a
“real” scientist would do, and that it was worthwhile in a larger sense. Second, engaging
in banter, laughing and joking with the protégé—especially inside jokes, self-deprecating
jokes, or jokes that were directed at insiders—and other “unprofessional” activity. These,
to the protégés, were clear cues that they were now a part of the in-group, as only
members of a group are allowed to “denigrate” the group (c.f., in-group use of racial
terms).
It is worth noting that although social activities were discussed by some mentors
and protégés as a way to facilitate feelings of belonging, there was no clear correlation
between nonacademic activities and good mentoring relationships. Some mentors and
protégés felt that social activities were a very important part of the relationship, while
others disagreed, citing concerns such as favoritism or loss of objectivity. One mentor
indicated that in order to avoid perceptions of impropriety he did not feel free to socialize
after hours with his female protégés, a constraint that he was not happy about.
Nonetheless, for those mentors and protégés who feel comfortable engaging in social
interactions, they appeared to contribute to protégés’ perceptions of belonging.

99
As implied earlier, this limitation did not apply in the context of conferences.
Participation in conferences and colloquia was noted by protégés, as well, as one
especially important medium for developing a feeling of belonging. This more than any
other specifically mentioned activity represented to them that they were in fact a part of a
larger and important community. There appears to be a significant qualitative difference
between belonging to a lab group made up of grad students, and experiencing the
excitement and affirmation when participating in a professional conference. SP3 noted:
When we would go to conferences, people were really interested in what I was
doing, and again the whole time [M3] would be there. And the fact that others are
interested in what I was doing, and I could talk with them and have good
conversations about things, and the fact that [M3] was excited to be there for
those conversations as well—that was also the circle of approval of other peers
that are out there....
One observation made during the interviews, not mentioned directly by
participants in the conversations, but relevant to the notion of feeling of belonging, was
the consistent use of the pronoun “we” by both SPs and Ms, but not by DPs. This seems
to indicate that at a very fundamental level a good mentoring relationship intrinsically is
one of being a part of something, even if only a dyad.
DPs also recognized the importance of belonging, but typically had to find ways
to facilitate this on their own. One DP, feeling that there was no relationship with her
mentor, established a reading group among the mentor’s grad students so that they would
have an opportunity to provide each other support. DPI noted that he felt like a colleague
only when he was doing work that served his mentors needs and professional life. DPs,
far from feeling like they were a part of anything, indicated that they couldn’t get anyone
to support their interests, that their committee wanted neither to meet nor to read the

100
protégés’ work, and in one previously noted case, offered to help the student leave the
program, since she appeared to be functioning without support. Of course, only one side
of these stories is available, but regardless of the objective accuracy of these descriptions
and attributions, the experience of DPs is one of isolation and disconnection.
Feelings of Increasing Competence
If the reason that most people come to graduate school is to attain some specific
educational or personal goal, it would seem important that feeling that one was making
progress towards these goals would be a relevant factor. A commonly known feeling in
graduate school is the “imposter syndrome,” in which the grad student questions whether
she or he is competent to do the work, whether she or he should be there, and in which
the student wonders when the real professionals are going to finally notice that “this
person is an imposter, not a real candidate at all!” As an anodyne to this syndrome, it is
critical that the mentor ensure that events and experiences are available for the protégés
that provide repetitive and clear cues that one is making progress toward the goal.
Indeed, protégés and mentors recognized this, and both groups of participants
noted it during the interviews. M4 noted that, as a good mentor, “it’s a part of what you
want to support, I think, to help them develop... to believe that they can succeed, that
they can take on challenges. And they may wonder why they did it, but, you know, they
can pull it off!” M3 said that recognizing that “the mentoring relationship itself [is] a
vehicle for having progress toward various goals” is foundational, and without that
recognition, the relationship isn’t going to work. SP5 noted the feeling that her mentor
was helping her progress from neophyte to peer, and was not keeping her dependent. She

101
also noted that since she had great respect for him, when he simply told her that she was
doing well, she believed him, and so she felt “competent and confident.” SP3 seemed
inspired while describing some of these feelings:
It made me feel great! It was cool! It helped me feel like I was accomplishing
things, like I was actually passing milestones or whatever, which I think it’s a
hard to feel, especially going through a doctoral program, where you keep getting
more and more work. There are those milestones that are kind of far in-between,
and it helped me feel that I was progressing, that I was going somewhere. I was
learning, I was seeing, I could start to see.... I could visibly see myself
becoming more and more like a professor, the level I wanted to be.... Sometimes
it’s kind of hard to feel that you’re progressing, that you’re going anywhere.
You’re just kind of floating, a never ending “Am I going to finish this battle?”
And, yes, I felt that was something I could tangibly observe as being progress in
myself—I was moving towards the goal of finally getting my doctorate.
Clarifying Expectations
A number of activities appear to be relevant to helping the protégé feel that she or
he is making progress. The first one (chronologically speaking) is to clarify expectations
and goals. The notion of an advance organizer is applicable here. Providing an
understanding of the program, the requirements, the tasks to be accomplished and the
relevant time frames allows student to keep ongoing track of their progress, especially
when the goals are finite and concrete. M4 notes that she tries to make students fully
aware of “what they’re in for,” and what is expected from them as they’re progressing. At
the same time she states that it is important to “encourage them a lot, and give them a lot
of positive feedback for the successive approximations that they’ve made....” M3 states
that students he works with are fully apprised of what he is doing and what he is
interested in. As SP1 notes, when a mentor provides to the protégé a description of the

102
mentor’s style and limits, the protégé is able to more easily negotiate the relationship and
avoid tripping over things that might hinder this encouragement and positive feedback.
Following an Appropriate Developmental Course
A second factor that helps protégés experience successes and gains is when the
mentor follows an appropriate developmental course in their expectations from and
training of their protégé. Giving a first year student tasks appropriate to a forth year is not
often going to end up as a success experience, but neither will continuing to give a forth
year student tasks suited to a novice let that student feel that progress is being made. SP1
states that his mentor is “continually ramping up as far as how much you can handle...
people who handle that, the addition of another stress, so to speak, continue on, and the
people who start stumbling, he would probably back off.”
All of the mentors were fully cognizant of the developmental course of a protégés
education, and incorporated it into their expectations and goals. M2 describes how a good
mentor recognizes that new students may not know how to do science, or what
constitutes a good or bad research question, so he tries to build a program that teaches
these skills. M4 notes that it’s not expected that students will have great communications
skills when they arrive, so they’re taught. Ml said,
Ml: I think the developmental systems model that we use is a perfect metaphor
[for mentoring].... The way you do it with advance students, and the kind of
input that you give them and the kind of feedback that you give them is very
different that the kind of feedback you give a first year, and there’s sort of a
middling phase which, to me, is the hardest, because you’re always having to
gauge what they know and don’t know, and what’s going to be salient, and what’s
going to stick and what’s not going to stick. ...
Interviewer: What would happen if you guessed wrong and expected something
of them that they weren’t able to give?
Ml: Well, I have to scale back.

103
Interviewer: What would happen to them, in terms of their... [development]
Ml: Oh. Well, it depends on who the student is, and if they student has fairly
good metacognitive ability. Sometimes they’re pretty upset that they’d let me
down, or they’re feeling that they don’t measure up. Some of the students are
oblivious—none of them are when they finish, but some are oblivious on the way.
They’ll get it. They’ll figure it out.
Increasing Autonomy
A third condition, which is a derivative of the second, that provides evidence to
the protégé that she or he is making progress towards the goal, is providing increasing
autonomy and responsibility. Both mentors and protégés commented on being provided
the opportunity to (and sometimes being required to) solve problems on their own, both
research and personal. M2 notes that sometimes he has to push the protégés to engage in
difficult processes, such as leading the research group or presenting, but that by doing so
he facilitates their development in a safe place. Ml says that, especially as the students
progress, he will tell them when something needs to be done, and let them figure out how
to go about doing it. Or when a decision needs to be made, he’ll tell them to make it. SP2
appreciates this approach; when asked whether she wanted to be told the answers to
difficult problems, she said “No. No, absolutely not. I don’t want to be told the answer; I
don’t want to be told what to do. I want to have some freedom and ability to develop my
own understanding.” She later continued,
In the beginning, of course, I was just learning techniques and basically doing
experiments that were assigned. Then, after a while, after I got a little bit more
involved she really let me kind of take things in my own direction. From doing
my own reading of the literature and what I understood about Alzheimer’s disease
and other things, I’ve been able to develop my own set of experiments and my
own hypotheses, and kind of my own little project, which has been very helpful,
because or also allows me to do the kind of thinking... .And that’s what you have
to do in the real world.

104
The value of increasing autonomy and responsibility is, of course, modulated by
the presence of many of the other factors discussed. This is evidenced by the nearly total
autonomy and responsibility of three of the four DPs, only two of whom are completing
their doctoral degrees. The comments of the two who are leaving with their master’s
degrees were remarkable similar. For example, DP2 noted that instead of being
commended for what she had done, she was criticized for what she had failed to do. DP3
said that if she didn’t have any ideas, she was told she wasn’t doing the work; when she
did have ideas, she was told they were no good. The two DPs who managed to complete
their doctoral programs did recall some feelings of progress. DP4 noted that in spite of
his mentor’s failure to allow virtually any autonomy, he was learning important skills and
behaviors - essentially, in spite of her efforts. DP3 felt that in the very specific areas of
writing and research he felt that he was making progress when he was with his mentor,
but in no other way (in the mentoring relationship). When asked whether he ever reached
the point in his relationship with his mentor where he said “Whatever,” he replied:
I think that’s a good way to look at it.... Yeah, I did. I can’t pinpoint exactly
when that was. I think once I found myself getting though the program and doing
things, and then little things would come up. You know, I would get the kind of
feedback I was telling you about: “What are you writing this for? Why are you
doing this research?” I just decided I just didn’t need to step over that boundary,
so I didn’t. So I’d just go to someone else and find another avenue. By the end,
indifference was probably a good way to put it....

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The present study attempted to uncover those qualitative factors that, when
present in a mentoring relationship, qualify it as a good mentoring relationship. Neither
good nor mentoring were defined for participants, which allowed the relevant
characteristics to emerge from the participants’ thoughts and experiences rather than be
an attempt to inform a provided construct. Furthermore, although this project was
exploratory and did not specify a strong or direct hypothesis, a central presumption was
that merely having an advisor or “mentor,” merely meeting with someone and being
given some measure of advice and information, merely having a committee chair, was
not sufficient to define good mentoring. As was pointed out by various participants in this
study, students can get advice and information from almost anyone.
Covey (1998) reflected that teaching is heard, modeling is seen, but mentoring is
felt. The affective quality of mentoring was supported by the findings of this project.
During the analysis of the interview data, it became apparent that the characteristics
definitional of a good mentoring relationship, as described by the participants, were
affective in nature. As a result, how the protégés felt about what was going on in their
relationship with their mentors became the primary data of interest: What they liked or
didn’t like, what they wanted, how things made them feel about themselves or their
progress or their mentors was pivotal in the qualitative differentiation between good
mentoring and bad mentoring. Indeed, it might be argued that in the absence of a positive
105

106
emotional tone, the term mentoring may be an inaccurate representation of the
relationship.
It was determined that the factors most commonly reported to be related to the
qualification of a mentoring relationship could be subsumed under a single category that
was termed “positive affect.” This became the core category, under which the remainder
of the results could be compiled in a hierarchical structure. This structure contains three
levels: the first or highest level is the core category, positive affect. The second level has
five categories: feeling respected, feeling valued, feeling safe, feelings of belonging, and
feelings of making progress. (Note that all category labels were selected by the
researcher, and while intended to be representative of the contents of the category, remain
matters of preference.) Some of these categories subsume third-level themes, which are
themselves derived directly form the interview data. Note that while the project
perspective ultimately focused on the perceptions of the protégés, these were, as much as
possible, connected with the mentor’s actions, behaviors, and words in order to better
understand the mentor’s part in the good mentoring relationship.
Feeling respected subsumes two themes: respect as a person, and respect of the
right of self-determination. Respect as a person makes reference to the simple respect and
courtesy that we all owe each other as persons. It is implicit in the nature and ethics of
social intercourse. This type of respect was of most concern to mentors and to DPs, who
considered it essential as a foundation to the relationship. Without this fundamental
respect, there are few who could, or would, maintain a relationship at any level. The
second type of respect was the respect for a person’s freedom and self-determination. In a

107
sense supplemental to basic respect of person, this would be exemplified the additional
level of respect maintained towards people’s right to choose for themselves what they
would like to do, or accomplish, or become. It was noted by all the participants that the
purpose of mentoring is to facilitate the protégé’s attaining their goals. This concept was
discussed by participants in all three groups, but again most frequently by the mentors.
While mentors noted the importance of creation and generativity in their own motivation
for mentoring and the work it entails, they repeatedly asserted that it was the protégés’
choices and desires that were the central consideration.
Feeling valued by or important to the mentor, the second major factor, provides
important validation of the protégé’s being and identity. The protégé is not simply a
means to an end for the mentor, nor is she or he an extraneous and interfering aspect in
the mentors’ “real” work of teaching or research. Respect and value are differentiated (in
this context) by the universality of respect and the individuality of value. All people
deserve respect, but a protégé’s is by definition of greater concern to their mentor than
other people, a distinction that can be seen in the mentor’s actions. The protégé picks up
on these cues and behaviors and internalizes the mentor’s valuations, developing a
positive self-perception. Of course, DPs pick up a different valuation, and similarly
internalize it, resulting in questions of self worth or potential in their chosen field.
Two themes were found to underpin feelings of being valued or important:
availability, and time and effort. Availability was perhaps the characteristic of a good
mentoring relationship that participant’s mentioned most frequently, and was explicitly
noted as an essential component - sine qua non. Availability refers not merely to physical

108
availability, but to psychological or emotional availability, such as is exhibited when
mentors provided elaborated responses to questions, as opposed to short and accurate but
unhelpful answers. The character of time and effort as indicative of the protégé’s value is
found in a mentor's level of activity or proactivity on the protégé’s behalf. The mentor
demonstrates her or his valuation of the protégé by the concrete investment of limited
time and energy resources to the development and requirements of the protégé towards
their goals.
The third major characteristic indicative of a good mentoring relationship, feeling
safe, was particularly noted by SPs, but was discussed by all participants. Being in an
environment in which the protégé did not experience rejection, received ongoing
encouragement and affirmation, and in which the mentor could be trusted (the three
themes underlying this category) was essential for the qualification of a mentoring
relationship as good. Not experiencing rejection was an important component in the
protégés willingness to take risks, to try new things, to admit mistakes, and to accomplish
new tasks. DPs, who experienced significant rejection reported problems with confidence
and motivation, and avoided contact with their mentors rather than experience feelings of
rejection.
Obviously, DPs received little encouragement or affirmation, the second theme.
Receiving affirmation and encouragement from a mentor seems to promote motivation
and development, while rejection hinders these processes. In fact, of the three themes
making up feelings of safety, this was focused on least by all groups. It might be
hypothesized that rejection is a much more powerful form of feedback, and thus much

109
more salient. Rejection can have an immediate and pervasive negative impact on a
mentoring relationship, while experiences of affirmation might individually have a much
smaller impact. This also might represent a baseline affect that is slightly positive, in that
no rejection is itself a form of affirmation. Future research might look at this difference in
the reports of participants.
Despite the pervasive use of the term trust, and its consequent ambiguity, there
appeared to be a particular conception of trust reported by participants that was related
the theme of honest feedback. It was of special importance that mentors provide honest
(but not rejecting) feedback to protégés about their work, skills, competence, and
potential in the field. Protégé’s noted that even when it was unpleasant, it removed
significant uncertainty and stress, allowed them to make better decisions, and was
indicative of a functional relationship.
The forth category was defined by feelings of belonging and community. All
participants indicated that feeling a part of something was an important part of the
experience, and that the mentor was a primary facilitator of this feeling. In fact, mentors
were particularly cognizant of the importance of protégés’ becoming a part of their
professional communities, more so than the protégés, who seemed primarily to notice
either the feeling of belonging or the absence of it. Mentors facilitated these feelings in
the way they constructed their programs and in the way they ran their research and lab
groups and meetings. They also enlarged the community by supporting protégés’
attendance at conferences, and by bringing important people in the field in to the
department to interact with the students. Mentors are also in the position of gatekeepers

110
to their respective professional communities, and provided references, introductions, and
other networking benefits to protégés.
The fifth and final category representing factors that contribute to the evaluation
of a relationship as a good mentoring relationship was feelings of making progress.
Graduate students often feel what is referred to as the “imposter syndrome,” which
attempts to describe the doubts that they have what it takes to succeed in their field, and
that soon someone will notice and ask them to leave. This syndrome is only partially
tongue-in-cheek, as evidenced by the discussions of the participants in this study, as well
as its’ not infrequent appearance in conversation and the literature.
Since most people in graduate school have an agenda, a goal, feelings that one is
making progress toward that goal will be rewarding, and thus motivating. Objective
measures of progress are often hard to come by in graduate school, and tend to be
infrequent (e.g., the masters’ degree), or uninformative (e.g., grades). It is thus important
that the mentor provide ongoing success experiences and clear feedback when progress is
being made. Clarification of goals and expectations, following an appropriate
developmental course, and increasing the protégé’s autonomy and responsibility all
contribute to the ability of the protégé to recognize their progress towards the goals.
Clarifying goals and expectations reduces the problem inherent in measuring outcomes in
any domain. It is essential to know the goal before it can be determined if it has been
reached. When the mentor takes the time to clarify their expectations of the protégé, the
protégé is more meaningfully able to understand the implicit goals that a mentor has, so
she or he can incorporate those into her or his processes.

Ill
Additionally, it was repeatedly reported that good mentors were aware of the
progressive nature of their protégé’s development, and that significant consideration was
given to ensuring that the developmental status of the student was assessed and their
unique developmental needs were matched. This allows students to experience more
successes, and to become more aware of their own development as they continue to
engage in more developmentally advanced tasks. Closely related to this is the provision
of increasing autonomy and responsibility as the protégé becomes more skilled and more
able to cope with complex or advanced tasks. Protégés’ noted that this was one of the
important cues that they were getting closer to their goals of becoming professionals, and
that it prepared them for entry into that world. It was a clear indicator, other things given,
that in their mentors estimation they were able to function as beginning professionals
rather than merely students.
An interesting feature of these findings is the commonality of perceptions
amongst participants as to the characteristics of a good mentoring relationship. This
bodes well for the generalizability of these results, a possible limitation of this project.
While there were certainly individual variations in emphasis and focus, the majority of
these characteristics were discussed at some level by virtually all of the participants. For
example, one mentor discussed belonging much more than the others, another focused on
trust, and all four used—but two were particularly enamored of—parenting and
attachment as metaphors for the mentoring relationship, as were five or six of the
protégés. Also significant was that the dissatisfied protégés often confirmed the
importance of these factors by explicitly noting their absence. Of course, factors that

112
found little common support as important for good mentoring were not construed as
central, and were not selected for inclusion. For example, financial support was noted,
but it was not represented as important to the quality of the relationship.
Another factor discussed, but not included as a factor was non-academic social
interactions (drinks after work, social meals, games and sports). Based on general
readings of the literature, it was expected that social interactions outside the academy
would play a larger role in the minds of mentors and protégés in their definitions of a
good mentoring relationship. The data do not support this expectation. Although a
number of the participants indicated that they engaged in regular social activities, such as
going out after hours, or having protégés to their houses not infrequently, some mentors
and protégés indicated that this was not a factor, that they preferred not to engage in this
level of social intimacy, and that it in fact might prove an obstacle to maintaining
objectivity when difficult evaluations were needed. Insofar as the mentors and protégés
were matched with each other in terms of their preferences in this area (as far as could be
determined by the particular sample in the project), it seems likely that this is an
individual difference factor, and not a factor related generally to good mentoring
relationships.
Another finding that was unexpected was that whether the mentor was actively
engaged in research or not was not invariably related to good mentoring in the context of
doctoral students. It was expected that in the context of mentoring graduate students,
mentors would need to be active in research, if for no other reason than to provide good
role modeling in that domain. Although most participants indeed felt that it was critical

113
that the mentor be actively engaged in research, and that they obtained significant benefit
by observing their mentors in that role, this was not unanimous. In fact, one of the
mentors, who had recently received a national award from graduate students for his
mentoring, was not engaged in any research at all. Possible explanatory factors include
that this mentor has a highly active and productive research lab that he oversees but his
graduate students run, that he has done extensive research in the past, and that he
continues to be a prolific writer in the field. It was noted by one protégé that whether they
were actively engaged in research was less relevant than whether they had been. Further
research to determine the parameters of this variable would be valuable in determining
important mentor characteristics.
The findings of this research are consistent with much of the previous work on
mentoring. For example, general support was found for phases in the mentoring
relationship as described by Phillips (1982), Missirian (1982), and Kram (1983).
Although specific stages were not differentiated in this analysis, the participants did note
the central importance of being aware of and adhering to a clear developmental course,
and especially of the mentor’s engaging in an ongoing (if informal) assessment of the
protégé’s progress along this path. Participants also noted the developmental course of
the mentoring relationship itself, describing “stages” quite similar to those in the
literature. Discussions of the participants also were consistent with researchers
perceptions of a vast diversity of mentoring functions, though not Pollock’s (1995) 144.
High quality mentors once again were represented as truly amazing people, who have
cared for and nurtured protégés as their own children.

114
There are a number of factors that may represent limitations to this study. First,
there was only one coder of the interview data; the author performed all coding and
analysis tasks himself. Although this is not uncommon in this type of research (Dick,
2002; Kram, 1985), it must be noted that this will introduce the likelihood of a subjective
bias. As Kram (1985) noted, “data collection and data analysis can not be separated in
exploratory qualitative research” (p. 215). Ongoing analysis of the data by the researcher
is an integral part of the process of gathering additional data; it does not occur only at the
conclusion of a data collection stage. Indeed, the researcher is construed as a primary tool
in the analysis.
In grounded theory, it is asserted that avoidance of this bias this is not entirely
feasible (nor even necessarily desirable, given the presumed developed expertise of the
analyst). The presence of bias is dealt with by first making the researcher’s biases as far
as possible explicit, and then by accepting the limitations on the researcher’s ability to
make unbiased “truth” claims about the findings. It is left to the consumer of the research
to determine for her or himself whether the researcher is credible and her or his
conclusions are plausible. Grounded theory, however, makes no assertion that the
particular conclusions of the researcher’s analysis are the only plausible conclusions;
other researchers might well come to different conclusions, or find different factors more
compelling. This does not impact the value of the present research for structuring the data
or developing substantive theoretical models (Glaser & Strauss, 1970; Rennie & Brewer,
1987).

115
Researchers using the grounded theory methodology consider the concerns about
researcher bias to be significantly outweighed by the complementary benefit; that is, that
the qualitative method “is often the most adequate and efficient method for obtaining the
type of information desired” (Glaser & Strauss, 1970; c.f., Giorgi, 1992). The use of the
grounded theory method is perhaps the most notable strength of this project. This
methodology has been used numerous times in the mentoring literature, not the least
important of which was Kram’s original and seminal work (Kram, 1983, 1985). It has
also been used to explore the mentoring experiences of GLB graduate students (Niolon,
1997). Thus, the limitation due to subjectivity is induced by the specific strength of the
project, that of being able to distil out the subjective factors definitional of the quality of
the relationship.
A second potential qualification is that of limitations on generalizability. The
sample consisted of ongoing or recently graduated doctoral students (or, in the case of
two of the dissatisfied protégés, students who decided to leave their programs after
obtaining a master’s degree), and graduate school faculty mentors. In addition, the
number of fields and departments sampled was necessarily limited, though efforts were
made to include some diversity. Strictly speaking, the findings should be limited to these
populations. Further research with samples form other fields or departments, and from
business settings should be carried out to strengthen the generalizability of the findings.
A final factor to note is that no effort was made to account for or control for
personality or other characteristics that the mentors or the protégés brought to the
relationship. This was noted previously as being a strong potential confound for much of

116
the mentoring research (e.g., Green & Bauer, 1995; Lovitts, 2001; Turban & Dougherty,
1994). While the research on prior factor’s contributions to mentoring outcomes is an
important consideration, and would seem likely to play a part in a mentor’s or a protégé’s
qualification as a relationship as good, this is not construed specifically as a limitation.
The present research was descriptive of affective conditions and behaviors within the
relationship, not of the characteristics of the mentor or the protégé, per se.
This research provided an embarrassment of riches. Like a net with a small mesh,
far more data than is immediately usable was gathered. However, one of the design
parameters of the method of analysis used is that the researchers seek to uncover and
develop only one core category in any given project (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Thus,
while there is sufficient data to develop other projects if desired, it is argued that
inductive focus is lost if all possible categories are sought and elaborated.
Aside from research replicating these results, two areas in particular that would be
fruitful for future research include an exploration of the applicability of attachment theory
to the mentoring relationship, and developing a training model with which to disseminate
these findings. The prevalence of the parenting metaphor, as well as the ease with which
many of the central factors uncovered can be mapped onto the attachment model present
tantalizing clues that the extensive literature on child attachment processes could be
mined for use in understanding and developing the mentoring relationship.
Second, exploring whether the findings of this project can be developed into a
training program for mentors and protégés would be valuable. Many of the categories
delineated here are closely tied to definable mentor behaviors. These could be more

117
clearly operationalized and disseminated to mentors and protégés, and qualitative as well
as quantitative outcomes could be measured. If the quality of the relationship is strongly
associated with both subjective and objective outcomes (Lovitts, 2001), these findings
may provide a way to improve these outcomes.
The unique contribution of this study is the uncovering of specific affective
components critical to a positive evaluation of the mentoring relationship. No previous
study was found that specifically focused on these factors. Given the opportunity to
elaborate those factors they believed to be central to good mentoring, participants focused
on affective components, not rational, concrete, technical factors. These other important
factors were neither ignored nor minimized; rather, it was noted that these things could be
obtained even from a poor mentor, or another person entirely.
The centrality of affect to differentiating mentoring from other, possibly very
productive relationships, may also help explain the difficulty that has been ubiquitous in
defining mentoring. This research implies that mentoring is not a concrete construct that
can adequately be represented by functions and phases and outcomes; it is a human
relationship with fuzzy boundaries derived largely from affective rather than cognitive
factors. Whether or not the satisfied protégés in this study will ultimately receive more
money or more promotions, they will likely continue to assert that they were well
mentored, and that their mentors were and are important people in their lives. It is hoped
that these findings will provide mentors and protégés, and others concerned with these
relationships, some guidance in developing what all hope to experience—a good
mentoring relationship.

APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT
Protocol Title: Mentoring
Please read this document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.
Purpose of this research study:
The purpose of this study is to look for psychological factors in the mentoring process
that facilitate the success of the relationship.
What you will be asked to do in this study:
You will be interviewed by the primary researcher in a mutually agreed upon private
milieu. You will be asked a number of open-ended questions regarding your experiences
with and perceptions of mentoring and the mentoring relationship. These questions will
serve as an introduction to discussion, and will be followed by an unstructured dialogue
between the researcher and yourself. This discussion will be audio taped for later
transcription to hard copy.
Time required:
It is expected that the interview will last approximately 1 hour.
Risks, benefits, and compensation:
There are no anticipated risks associated with this study, nor are you expected to derive
any direct benefits. There is no compensation for your participation.
Confidentiality:
Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. No identifying
information will be requested while audiotaping is in progress, nor will any identifying
information be included in the transcripts. The tapes and transcripts will be labeled using
a code number, which will be kept separately from a master list. Transcription will be
carried out by the primary researcher or a supervised research assistant. The audiotapes
and the transcripts from the tapes will remain at all times in the care and control of the
primary researcher. When the project is complete, the audiotapes will be erased and the
master list destroyed. The transcripts will remain in the care and custody of the primary
researcher. Your name will not be used in any report.
Voluntary Participation:
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not
participating. You may decline to answer any question.
118

Right to withdraw from the study:
You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.
Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:
119
Primary Investigator: Mark Brechtel, MS
Department of Psychology
Box 112250
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL, 32611-2250
352-392-0601
brechtel@ufl.edu
Faculty Supervisor: Franz Epting, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Box 112250
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL, 32611-2250
352-392-0601 ext. 256
epting@ufl.edu
Whom to contact if you have questions about your rights as a research participant
in the study:
IRB Office: UFIRB Office
Box 112250
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL, 32611-2250
352-392-0433
Agreement:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure and I have received a copy of this description.
Participant: Date:
Principal Investigator: Date:

KU ADDENDUM TO UF PROTOCOL # 2002-551
TITLE OF PROTOCOL: MENTORING
120
In keeping with the University of Kansas’s interest in protecting the rights and welfare of
research participants, this addendum provides additional local contact information for the
principal investigator and the University of Kansas faculty sponsor. If you have any
questions about the project, please contact:
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Mark F. Brechtel, MS
Counseling and Psychological Services
2100 Watkins Health Center
University of Kansas
785-864-2277
brechtel@ku.edu
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
FACULTY SPONSOR: Francis J. DeSalvo, PhD, LSCSW
Counseling and Psychological Services
2100 Watkins Health Center
University of Kansas
785-864-2277
frankd@ku.edu
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please
contact:
Human Subjects Committee - Lawrence (HSCL)
University of Kansas
241 Youngberg Hall
2385 Irving Hill Road
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7563
Contact Person: David Hann
dhann@kh.edu
785-864-7429
Agreement:
I have received a copy of this addendum, which provides local contact information
regarding the indicted protocol.
Participant: Date:
Principal Investigator: Date:

APPENDIX B
MENTOR INTERVIEW SAMPLE
MARK: (continuing) so tell me ... let's go ahead and start talking about mentoring. Just
a global question: What do you think represents an effective mentoring relationship, and
obviously this is going to take more than 25 words.
Ml: First and foremost I think its commitment to somebody else's career. So, when
somebody comes in and says they’d like to study.... I'd like to work with you—and I'm
a lucky person in that I have marginal visibility nationally, so the people will apply to
work with me. I'm lucky, I don't say deserve that. It's an honor, first, to have that happen,
and second, it's a responsibility, because to me it implies a ton of obligation that the
applicant probably doesn't realize. I have put out for them. I have to look out for their
career interests. I have to look out for their mental health to some degree, and in many
cases I feel responsible for their being able to have meat and potatoes. I have to try my
damnedest to try and support them financially in a way that makes them comfortable but
not too comfortable and to get them through. So, it's really a commitment to all three of
those areas I think, and there's probably more that I'll think of as we go on today, but at
minimum it's those things. So, I have to know what they are interested in, I have to know
what they wanted to... my favorite questioned to people is "tell me what your life looks
like five years from now,” and once we know that then we craft the next five years or
plan for the next 2-3 years to get you there. So ...
121

122
MARK: So you're real intentional about this. You don't just wait for somebody come in
and ...
Ml: No. If you wait... usually people don't come in chat until there’s a problem, and by
then who knows what...
MARK: Do you have a schedule; get to meet with them on a regular basis?
Ml: I have a team ... I have found in the past.. .see, I have to now segregate my career
into before associate dean and after. Before taking this administrative post, I was in the
lab constantly, which.. .I'm not sure how my students liked that or not (laughing)... but I
was there constantly and I was in my office constantly.. .my door was always open. So,
we got our last NIH grant in '98, and I said that “we should have regular staff meetings”
and they said, “For what? We don't have to have this, you're always around.” So, that’s
how that's happened. Now, what I do now is a little different, because—this is going to
screw up your study—what I do now is check in with them, because I'm not available on
a regular basis. I should say ... they're still welcome to walk through the door; it's just
that I'm physically removed from the premises. So, they're still welcome. I feel like I
have to check in with them occasionally, but they're still welcome to check in with me.
E-mail’s good for that. They can call me, but they know that e-mail’s better. And they're
not shy about asking for time, and I still give them top priority. If they need to get in to
see me, that's still my top priority, for them to come in and.... We don't really have
meetings, staff meetings, because ... what I found that happens during staff meetings is
we do get to iron out things, but right now I have my post-doc who can handle a lot of the
ironing out. And the other thing is that I like them to work together as a team, to work out

123
their own schedules. I don't like to set.. .1 know we have three lab sites, we have
different projects going on in the labs, at different times, and ... I know some people
who structure their students time—you have to be here at this time, you have to be there
at that time—I basically let them make their own schedules, and I just say "here's what
has to be done, and you guys figure out how to go about getting a done." So, I found that
at meetings, at regular staff meetings, people come up to me and say, "Who's going to
make that decision." And I'd say, you guys deal with that, I'm not going to do ...
MARK: How is that different from before, when you were always there? Was it the
same thing then?
Ml: It was basically the same thing then. I took a little bit of a more ... I can tell you
that I was far more proactive in getting issues out and dealing with them that I am now,
but I'm pretty confident now that my post-doc can keep a handle on that. She'll say, I'm
not sure to bother you with this, normally I'd handle it myself, but this is something that I
need you to do.
MARK: So your post-doc, then, when she has problem, how does that look, in terms of
the discussion?
Ml: I say, "What's the problem." She says, "Here's the problem." We look at the
parameters, who’s affected, what needs to be done, who needs to do it, and if it is
something that I have to do I’ll pick up the phone or take some action to change it. Or for
something that she can do, I'll say that here's what I think you should do, does that sound
OK to you?
MARK: she is being mentored ... and, of course, you're right, it is a little different...

124
Ml: It's not all that different.
MARK: OK. But I'm trying to figure out, what is she getting out of this? Is she getting
out of this what she needs to get out of this?
Ml: She, in effect, is now getting training as a lab head, and she's getting training in
supervising grad students. So, she's getting that kind of experience that is going to be
valuable in the long run.
MARK: Let's try a different one. Let's say you're back in your lab, and your door’s
always open, and you’re pretty much always there. What is different about the way you
did things, than the way, say, somebody else who was always there with their door
always open, but wasn't well liked as a mentor. What were you doing, what were you
giving them that was different...?
Ml: Well, I have to make the other person up, because ... there's got to be more than
one other person, because other people do different things ...
MARK: Well, we can just eliminate the other person. What you think that you were
giving them that was making it work for them?
Ml: I think first and foremost that I was giving them advice or direction that was
consistent with them actually getting what they wanted in terms of career; in that it made
them competitive nationally for positions. Or, if they didn't want a nationally competitive
position it made them competitive for whatever it was that they wanted to do. The second
thing was I think my students feel supported by me. I've never asked them that question
directly, but I think that they feel, again, primarily ... I can sense some grumblings now
that I'm not on the premises, but I think they felt that I was interested in supporting them

125
on a number of different levels. For example, if they came to me and asked me for
something, I tried my best to get to them. But also.. .1 guess one of the things that struck
me is that it was actually pretty rare for, I found out recently, it was rare for graduate
advisers to invite students to their homes for dinner, or go out there with them, or to
throw Christmas party at your house and buy them presents, even if it's a book that has to
do with the field. It doesn't happen! I was just aghast that that didn't happen! I do all those
things, and I thought that—not that my adviser did that for me, but I thought that the
students came all this way to work with me, or work on the same kinds of problems that
we were working on, that I owed it to them. Happily, but I owed to them in the larger
context.
MARK: So, if you were to think like a psychologist... I'm a student, and I come work
for you, and you say, "We're having a dinner. All the students are getting together and
going out for dinner.” How does that make me feel? See, because what I'm trying to
understand is what's going on within the person, almost like I can take an attachment
model, or I can take a developmental model.... Psychologically speaking, what is a
student getting from a good mentor?
Ml: I think that the message that they are getting is that I care about them as a person.
It’s trite, but I think that's it. They're not just someone who works for me, even though I
pay them, they're not just somebody who represents my ego extended, because really I
want them to get to do whatever it is that they want to do. I don't... some advisers get
really upset that their students don't go onto research one institutions. I've had students
that go onto research one institutions, and I've had students who have quit to work in

126
industry, and both are fine as far as I'm concerned because they get what they want, and
the degree to which we prepared them for any of those positions is positive.
MARK: So what happens to those students, not necessarily the students that you've had,
but students working with somebody who doesn't have that focus?
Ml: I've think that they're generally regarded not worth the time, so they get less quality
time, possibly less time overall, and certainly not the quality of attention or feedback that
a student having a little higher... or aiming for the prototypical research job may get.
MARK: What is that?
Ml: That's the whistle. Classes are over. It happens 20 after and 10 until.
MARK: Every hour?
Ml: Yeah.
MARK: How come I only hear it about three times a day?
Ml: I don't know. Where's your office?
MARK: I'm down at Watkins.
Ml: OK, so you won't hear it down the hill so much. It's a real trip to be next to it what
goes off.
MARK: Really! So, a student is feeling that he's valued ...
Ml: Yes, I think that's right. I should say that one of the things I have, I model for
graduate training is a junior colleague model. It’s different from an apprentice model, or a
kingdom model. In a junior colleague model I accept them and I'm obligated to treat them
as I would a junior colleague, and not a grad student, whatever that is ... they're involved
in as much ... I try to involve them in as many tasks as I can that I do so they can see

127
what it's like to do that, in the hope that eventually they'll deal to do it on their own, either
here, so I can now actually delegate that level of work to them eventually, and also so
that they I can, I guess, so they can do it wherever they end up. Within that model, the
way I go about doing it is, I use a hierarchical lab set up where the most senior grad
student is the one that I will often say, OK, so and so knows how to do this so go talk to
them. So, depending on when you came, there's sort of an inherent hierarchy where the
people who know the most are often the dispensers of information. The other issue is
making sure that those relationships are OK—that’s also something I was never trained to
expect to have to do, or to do. You want to make sure that those relationships are OK,
because when they're not it wreaks havoc.
MARK; How do you go about doing that?
Ml: When there are conflicts, and they're relatively rare, we treat them as problem
solving sessions. We bring people in—not together—and say "what did so and so say?"
Well, here's why so-and-so might have said that. Or, sometimes I'll get—it's important to
get both sides of the story, and if I come to the decision that so-and-so's wrong, I'll just
ask them and say, well, that shouldn't happen again. And they'll say that to the student,
eventually. It's all got to be handled, in an interpersonally sensitive way; otherwise it all
goes to hell.
MARK: What about socialization experiences? Do you introduce them to valuable
people ... ?
Ml: Yeah, I do to the extent that I can. I don't do it right now. For a while I put their
names on ... I created a lab letterhead and I put all their names on the letterhead, so any

128
correspondence that went out people got to see their names. Not that they'd take notice of
those names, but later on psychologist might say, "Where have I seen this name before."
That might happen, so that was pretty intentional. But I do introduce them to colleagues
and conferences, I make sure that they get... it is appropriate to make sure that they get
to talk about what they're doing; I spread their names around when I can.
MARK: What do they get out of it, psychologically?
Ml: Well, obviously they're being ... okay, psychologically...
MARK: Again, I'm trying to get behind it, not just what you do, but why is a good thing.
Ml: They're a member of... they belong to the discipline. It's an issue of belonging to
the discipline. They're a part of the scientific community. Yes, they're a neophyte in the
scientific community, but there are scientific communities, and it's important to belong.
That's what that gesture means, aside from the networking and the recognition and so-
and-so is so-and-so's student... that all gets processed, but I think it is really as you say
a socialization experience.
MARK: Do you think they get the same kind of thing from the structure, the informal
structure in a lab's, where they have a hierarchy, a friendly hierarchy as you call it... ?
Ml: Yeah. I think that it's a community, on a smaller scale, of course but, yeah.
MARK: You’re developmental, and I'm not sure exactly what aspect... your focus
seems to be on neuroscience, but if you had to ... if you were to pick a developmental
model that might subsume mentoring, would you be able to ...
Ml: I think the developmental systems model that we use is a perfect metaphor. I hate to
be somebody who's “I've got a hammer and everything is a nail,” but... well, sometimes

129
(laughter)... but, it really does work. The way you do it with advanced students is, and
the kind of input that you give them and the kind of feedback that you give them is very
different than the kind of feedback you give a first-year. And there's sort of a middling
phase which, to me, is the hardest, because you're always having to gauge what they
know and don't know, and what's going to salient and what's going to stick and what's not
going to stick.
MARK: What would happen if you guessed wrong and expected from them something
that they weren't able to give?
Ml: Well, I have to scale back.
MARK: What would happen to them, in terms of their ...
Ml: Oh. Well, it depends on who the student is, and if the student has fairly good
metacognitive ability. Sometimes they're pretty upset that they'd let me down or they're
feeling that they don't measure up. Some students are oblivious... none of them are when
they finish, but some are oblivious on the way. They'll get it, they'll figure it out.
MARK: Do you ever ... do you have any female graduate students?
Ml: They're all females. I've had two male students, no, sorry, 3 male students.
Psychology is increasingly becoming feminized, to the point where clinical psychology
programs are being asked "what are you doing now to actively recruit men into the
program?" I work in developmental, which has kids and babies, and it seems to naturally
attract women to the study, and so I've had one male student who's gone on to a position,
another student who's worked, who wasn't technically my student but I let them work in
the lab and do his dissertation there—I basically guided his dissertation. He went off to

130
the school of education (garbled) chair... and currently I have another male student
who's going to be finished ...
MARK: Actually, that's interesting, because I was going to ask a question about your
dinners and Christmas evenings and social gatherings, if having female students was
different from having male students.
Ml: You know, I haven't... I've found male and female students to be equally sensitive,
although in slightly different ways, in terms of how they take feedback and in terms of
how they respond to things. I have a box of tissues always around, just in case. I just had
a conversation today about students getting emotional, and is it that my experience that
women will get more emotional than men under stress. But men are just a sensitive, they
just show it in different ways, respond in different ways. If you're talking about
relationships and that sort of thing, it's very safe for them. I’m married, I have two kids,
and a dog... I have a very stable family life, so it's not an issue, not even close.
MARK: Because it is actually, has been brought up in the literature ... getting too close
to female protégées
Ml: Yeah, it's been brought up, there's a bunch of books on it, including exposes and
what have you ...
MARK: So, you haven't had a problem with that?
Ml: No ... I'm old now (laughing)
MARK: So, you have two kids? How old are they?
Ml: Five and seven.

131
MARK: Actually, kids are why I got into psychology. My wife and I were foster parents
for a longtime. My very first paper as a grad student was on developmental neuroscience.
It still has some degree of fascination, although I haven't had much time to pursue it.
Ml: Yeah, it's moving pretty fast. One thing I do notice that you do have to, initially, is
kind of convince female students that they don't have to worry about that part of the
relationship. When they come in, you can always see that there's a little bit of hesitancy
in that, and that it's something that they're kind of thinking about, to protect themselves
against.... After our first few meetings, it's not an issue anymore. But there is that. With
men that's obviously not an issue.
MARK: Are the students, generally, when you take them on, uncertain about what it's
supposed to be like.
Ml: Yeah, they're pretty clueless. Some of them ... they're not sure how to act, and what
can be like, so that's why it's important to present yourself as a real person, and ... some
of them I'm pretty ... actually, none of my students are formal with me. Today I had a
student switch over and say she wanted to work with me, and I said fine; she still calls me
Dr. and whatever... I hate that, but I won't instruct her to do otherwise until she feels
comfortable doing that; it might be taken as a rebuke, or something like that.
MARK: Do you think that you provide the atmosphere or safe base where they can ...
Ml: Yeah, I think that they always feel that they know where they stand with me, and in
that... we're talking about successful students, because I have had unsuccessful students,
I'm assuming that we'll get to those eventually to ... but I do think that they feel that I'm
interested in them as a whole person, that they do feel safe with this as somebody who

132
can take care of a lot of different things. They tell me when... they tell me "I haven't been
doing well lately, and here's why, Yeah, I know I haven't, I've been cut out of it lately,
I've been struggling, I've really feel depressed lately about this or that.” And so they seem
to be fairly comfortable. I can't say all of them, but the sense I have is that they feel like
they can tell me that kind of stuff.

APPENDIX C
SATISFIED PROTÉGÉ (SP) INTERVIEW SAMPLE
MARK: As my e-mails said, this is a dissertation project about mentoring, and obviously
I got your name from Ml. What I'm doing is I’m trying to figure out what is good
mentoring. M1 for example, received an award for mentoring. Why did M1 receive an
award for mentoring? It's more basically at a psychological level; it's not how many times
you meet, although that's a part of it. It's not real core stuff like that he may answer your
questions. Why does meeting with him work? What is it about meeting with him? What
are you getting out of it? What are you feeling? Why is that good for you? So, as we talk
I think we’ll probably just kind of beat around the bush about certain things, so that
doesn't matter.... So, basically, I’ll start with the question; how would you define good
mentoring? How would you define a mentoring relationship?
SP3: hum... to define good mentoring....
MARK: And you don't have to get it right.
SP3: Yeah. I was going to say, that's a tough one.
MARK: This is exploratory... obviously I'm not trying to defend a hypothesis here; I'm
trying to find out what people think, so don't even think about trying to get it right. Just
whatever comes to mind, because as we talk for the next little while, more things will
come to mind.
SP3: Right. Well, I think probably... one, to be available is the most basic... to be able
to be there, willing to met with you, and to talk about your interests. But beyond that is to
133

134
be a motivator, to help you one way or another... to help you be excited about what
you're working on. To help you see the benefit, or the momentum of what you're gaining
as you're working on something. Benefit in the sense that they point out to you and help
you see that you're actually contributing something, you’re showing your.... You know,
with [Ml], he got excited. [Ml] got excited when we would look at my data, and he
would say, “Nobody else knows this! That's cool!” And that made an impression on me.
It got me motivated to continue through the process rather than fading out, which
happens to a lot of people.
MARK: What is it about being excited that's motivating? Nobody else knows a piece of
information, you know the piece of information, why is that important?
SP3:1 don't know. I just had somebody in here the other day, and we were going through
some data, and we were supposed to go to lunch. It was 2:00 then, and I was kind of like,
“we’ve been in here a long time, we better go to lunch.” I just really love it; I love mining
through the data. And so to have somebody else be excited about that, and to think you
are actually contributing something new to... that, to me is.... I don't know why,
actually....
MARK: To have somebody else, is there, camaraderie?
SP3: Yeah, I think that. I think also to be that guiding.... You know sometimes there are
things there that you don't see, so to be willing to sit there with you and go through the
information. I would come to [Ml] and say, “Hey look what I saw, and what I found, this
is what I see in here,” and that's kind of cool, and he would come from a completely
angle, “well have you looked at this?” Rather than just tell me to go off and look at that,

135
he would say, “do you have your data with you?” And if I did, then he’d sit down and we
would both sit there, and miss lunch, and play with the data. It was that kind of
interaction, that at least for me, was a real Godsend.
MARK: How did that make you feel, when you do that, you go through your data, and
he says, lets look at it?
SP3: It made me feel great! It was cool! It helped me feel like I was accomplishing
things, like I was actually passing milestones or whatever. Which, I think it's hard to feel,
especially going through a doctoral program, where keep getting more work and more
work and more work. There are those milestones, but they’re kind of far... few and far
between. And so it helped me feel that I was progressing; that I was gaining something. I
was learning, I was seeing... I could start to see that I was bringing better questions, and
I was already anticipating what he was going to say. So the next time I came in and said,
"Hey, look what I found, this is really cool,” and he would say,” Well did you do that, did
you look at this?” and I would say, “Yeah, I did,” and he would still have something else,
but we could kind of...
MARK: What does it feel like when you have anticipated?
SP3: Again, I felt like I was accomplishing something. I felt like I could visibly see
myself becoming more and more like a professor, like the level I wanted to be, the
intellect level.
MARK: So you are accomplishing something towards your own development?
SP3: Yeah.

136
MARK: OK. Because I was wondering if you were thinking in terms of accomplishing
something in society or something....
SP3: Nah (laughing). That's what I'm... ultimately, to disseminate that information, but
no, I felt I was gaining for myself.
MARK: You were learning, you were getting better, you were getting smarter, you were
actually getting something out of it.
SP3: Right, and could see that. Like I said, it just seems that the milestones are so few
and far between. Sometimes it's really hard to feel that you're progressing or going
anywhere. You're just kind of floating in this never ending “am I ever going to finish”
battle, and yeah, I felt like that was something I could tangibly observe as being progress
in myself. That I could move towards the goal that I wanted to, of finally getting my
doctorate.
MARK: Did you... when you had those situations where you predict ahead of time what
he’s going to say and you get it right, how does that make you feel?
SP3: Again, that feels good. It felt like I was... like I knew that that was coming....
And just thinking ahead about... like with my writing, being able to try and anticipate
what reviewers might come back with. That was kind of my thinking about that, was can
I anticipate what to somebody else, who’s a little more experienced in the field, what are
they going to ask when I say x, z, y? What’s the other piece that they’re going ask about?
To be able to anticipate that.... Again, for me... I didn't actually come in to this field, I
don't know if anybody does, in any kind of normal sense, it was not like I always wanted
to do this. I kind of stumbled into psychology, and stumbled into [Ml], too. So, for me I

137
was always looking to reaffirm I was in the right place. I was at originally an English
major, and I was interested in starting in children's books as a genera of literature, and I
just assumed somebody out there had done the research on what you should read to your
kids. And, so, that was my senior year as an undergrad, and I started actually doing some
research working with somebody in the English department. She said, ”yeah, just go look
that up and see what books are good, and that might be a good starting place for you.” I
didn't find any research, and really didn't find much about anybody really defining
whether some books are better for kids or how do you define that?
MARK: In terms of language acquisition, or were you at that stage yet?
SP3:1 wasn't at that stage quite yet. I had it in mind that one thing children were gaining
from it was language. But I was also looking for anything about, you know... including
images, whether or not some children seem to like... or whether you could classify it at
all that way. I figured at least for a least from the language points of view, you weren’t
reading Moby Dick to three-year-old, they weren't that interested in... they prefer
cartoons or what ever. So that was kind of my... so, I kind of suddenly changed gears
into this other area. And I had kind of the plan of what I thought I might do in English,
and psychology was a real change for me. So, the more I got into it, the more I kind of
felt like I was in the right place. But I also was always looking for that affirmation of that,
that this is the right place, and that also that I could... I had reservations whether or not I
could handle a psychology program, especially coming from an English program, which
was not very heavily science based. And so for me, it was affirming to myself that I could
do this. When I would come into [Ml] and we would have one of those interactions, it

138
was affirming that I could do it, and it would help me to affirm that if I was excited about
it, and having fun doing it that I was in the right place. And I think also, seeing that [Ml]
was also excited about it, made me think that, maybe this is something that will never go
away. Maybe the excited about it when I've been doing it for 20 years you know or
whatever, like he has.
MARK: So he was a good model for that?
SP3: Yeah. I think that's one thing we definitely have in common. I mean, the one thing
we both really like it is when you get the raw data and you can mine it, find out that thing
that nobody else knows. Whatever a weird thing that is, it just has a certain appeal to it
that both of us share.
MARK: Do you feel that you like the idea of showing Ml that you did it, you wanted
him to be proud?
SP3: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I definitely have that kind of “second father figure”
feeling about it. And it is equally devastating when he’d look at a first draft, and say,
“No, this is really bad, this is really not it,” and it was equally as devastating. So, it was..
. but I think I definitely have that same kind of sense, if he was saying good job, and I
was feeling I was good, and I was happy with the approval. And if he was saying,” no
way,” that was a bad couple of days.” You know, “oh, man,” and then pick it back up and
do it over again.
MARK: When he said, and possibly still does, when he says “No, this is not quite right,”
how does he do that?

139
SP3: Hummm. Actually, he says “No, that's not it.” That’s actually pretty close to it.
[Ml] likes to see pretty much all of our documents; so, our comprehensives—and our
orals is actually writing a review paper and handing that in—and the dissertation of
course. And so we've done drafts of all of those pieces of work that he saw before we
actually handed them in. And he goes through them, and marks them up, and he says,
“No this isn’t it yet.” And sometimes it's “This section is pretty good and close, but this
section... you’ve just got to rewrite the whole section.
MARK: How come that doesn't blow your ego?
SP3: Well, it depends on how bad the paper was, as to whether or not it did blow my ego
out of the water (laughing).
MARK: Well, you're still here, I mean you still like him, he’s still your mentor. How is it
he can tell you that you not doing it right and it's okay?
SP3:1 think, umm... it's hard for me to think about that as being something that [Ml]
did, or something that I actually thrived under. I had, I actually have a couple days of not
wanting to work on it, and its blah; but then I usually kind of have a fighter attitude about
that. If he said that that section was really bad, you really need to rewrite that, I kind of
have this, “I can show him” kind of attitude that comes out, where I will find a lot of
effort to put into like, that one section to try to....
MARK: Show him, not in a negative sense, but show him I can do this, that I’m good
enough to... the “good father” thing again.
SP3: Yeah. It is kind of that again. And I do think it's always been seeking that kind of
approval at some level. But also to show him that I can do it, that affirmation for me. One

140
of the things I've always struggled with is the changeover from writing as an English
major, to writing in this technical manner. Which if you use an adjective... that's the first
thing to go, in English, you're just going off, you know the creative writing, that was
always my strong suit. And then to hit this was really tough for me, and it still is really
tough for me to produce a document that stays within the bounds, and really doesn't
sound like an English paper, as [Ml] would say. And that was definitely a part of the
learning process. But I also think the criticism didn't get to me about.... I think being
tough, you have a certain level of tough skin. Yeah, it's a bummer when don't get it right,
but you have to figure out a way to get over that, then try again. When it's the third time,
and it's still not right, that's when he gets to be hard. And I have to admit actually I didn't
ever really find myself there very often; it was usually the third time, we were basically
done at that point—and a couple times the third time was still not there. And I think that
that also, just talking with other people, the fact that [Ml] would be willing to pass back
and forth the draft three times, was something that, as I've talked with other people, they
didn't have that. And that goes back to the first thing, about being there and being willing
to give up that time for you. I think the tough skin... it didn't feel good, but it wasn't
totally devastating. But I don’t know if there was anything about what [Ml] did as
compared to whether or not it was just that you had to....
MARK: And again, the idea that you could have an adviser—perhaps not you, but
somebody else turns in a paper, and they say, No, this isn't good.” And then you have
[Ml] that turns back and says, “No, this is no good.” On the one hand, it's okay. You get
motivated and want to show him you can do it. Then the other person, for whatever

141
reason, hasn't got that relationship, and it’s like, “Well, F you,” or, “Oh, my god, I'm a
failure.” I mean, [Ml] won the award, what is [Ml] doing that’s different? That’s why it's
hard to do this research, it’s hard to find what it is that they’re doing.... So many people
seem to know this guy’s a good mentor, whereas the other guy’s not.
SP3:1 think, and it goes back to that kind of level of excitement, at least for me it was
about that [Ml] always... I always knew I had good stuff. I had a good story to tell. But
what I knew also was that I wasn't always the best at telling it, according to this kind of
critical, this empirical way of writing things out. What I always felt was, I always felt
motivated because [Ml] always was very reinforcing; “You've got a good thing here to
talk about.” And the other thing was that was reinforced also by when we would go to
conferences, people were really interested in what I was doing. And again, the whole
time [Ml] would be there. And the fact that others are interested in what I was doing, and
I could talk with them and have good conversation about things, and the fact that [Ml]
was excited to be there for those conversations as well. And again, that was also the circle
of approval other peers that are out there, as well as the approval of [Ml] seeing that what
I was doing actually was... for him it was probably what he already knew, but for me, it
was like, “Yeah, you’re right, this is important stuff. This is good stuff.”
MARK: So he always invested energy and interest in what you were up to....
SP3: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think the other thing that [Ml]... at least for me for sure, we
always had a good... we always had kind of a separate relationship, as far as... there
was the relationship where we were working on something, and then there was a separate
relationship which was much more familiar and friend-like in a way that [Ml] always

142
treated me more like a peer than like a student. So, it was always much more in that kind
of sense, as far as, I worked in a lab for 5 years for him. And so there were kind of two
levels there, as far as running and working in his lab, and it was much more about peer-
type interaction, and a friend-type interaction. I think we had a pretty good relationship in
that sense. We both knew that we could, when he had to be able to say to me, “This paper
is not it, and you’ve got to go back and do more serious work on it,” and that would be a
little upsetting to me, and kind of bum me out a bit for couple of days. It didn't have
anything to do with, it wasn't ever like, “F you,” about it or whenever. I knew he was
giving his honest opinion about what I had done, and it wasn't ever that I thought he was
ever being mean about it or anything. It was a strictly that... I fully believed when he
said I had to go back and do more work on this, that I really needed to go back and do
more work on this. However much I didn't want to, or really just wanted to try to “hand it
in and see if it passes, because I'm tired of writing on this thing,” you know that kind of
feeling? I think that [Ml] and I, we had a period where I was the only one in the lab. We
had a funding period, and then a year off, and then a funding period, and I came in on a
year off, and we hired other staff around there. And during that time it was just him and I,
and I think that's where we developed a pretty good relationship, and this kind of this
dichotomy between, more of a personal level, and then the work level. I mean, it never
felt like we didn't smoothly move between those, even when we were having it out. And
the farther I got along, the more willing I was to argue about why I thought what I was
doing was okay to hand in, and to really talk that through. And you know, were both a
little stubborn, but again we can have a pretty heated talk about a paper, and try to discuss

143
why I didn't think that. I don't ever think that it was... again, it was still separate in some
kind of strange way. And that I knew then if later on in the lab... we used to actually go
for drinks on Friday a lot of the time, afterwards, and so if that happened on Thursday or
even Friday, by the time Friday at 4:00 came, if we were going to go out, and just sit, it
was completely different. And I guess the other thing was, I never thought that [Ml] was
being mean, I always thought that he was giving me, as he saw it... I didn't always see
his, always agree; but in the same token, I always felt that what he said was probably
best, and made the most... and made sense. It wasn't that it didn't make sense, ever, it
wasn't ever that he suggested something that I really thought, “that doesn't...,“ and I
have to admit, there’s been other people, what their advisers told them, and thought,
“that doesn't sound right.” With [Ml], I always thought that he was giving good advice.
And that might be another piece of being a good mentor—he was always providing me
with good information.
MARK: How does it feel to have a mentor that you believe in that way, giving you good
advice? What does that get you?
SP3:1 think it gets you to a certain level that you can relax about that, that you don't have
to worry about whether or not you have to kind of double check the information. What I
came to was, what I found was... actually, [Ml] was in the human development
department. He was the graduate curriculum adviser, so if you were a grad student, he
was kind of where the buck stopped, before you had to go up the hill. What I found was
that a lot of the time, friends of mine would get something from their adviser, and they
weren’t real sure about it, so they would end up having to go to [Ml] to find out if... and

144
they would have to do it in some way where they really weren’t getting their adviser in
trouble with the department, and to try and find out, “Is that really the way I'm supposed
to do this?” I always felt with [Ml] that I never worried about that. It was always, what
he, as far as logistics of things, I always knew he knew his stuff, and that that was not a
problem. Of course, with his position, he knew his stuff. And then it was to know, that
who he was, as far as a respected researcher in the field, who had been doing this for a
long time, and had been showing his peers that he could do this, and is still being active
in his research so he could be a part of that. When you weren’t with somebody at the
beginning or the end... again, from seeing other people, it can wear on you; it can be a
different tale if you're with somebody who's just beginning and doesn't know how to
handle the students, who doesn't know that basic information. It was a piece that you
didn't have to worry about. And so, for me it was, like I said, it was just nice, to not have
to have something else to be thinking about, or to worry about whether or not I had to go
double check what my adviser was saying.

APPENDIX D
DISSATISFIED PROTÉGÉ (DP) INTERVIEW SAMPLE
MARK: What does it feel like when you are with the mentor who provides positive
feedback, for instance for your writing, and virtually no positive reinforcement for your
other activities, like your family? What does that make you feel like?
DP l:Well it’s ah... not very good for building a relationship with a mentor. I don’t feel
like I’ve had a good relationship with my mentor outside of academics and professional
life, and whether that’s important or not I don’t know. I think ... I’m not sure how it
made me feel—it was kind of an empty feeling. It made for a sterile relationship. I guess
maybe that’s one way to put it. But I can’t really pinpoint exactly how it would make me
feel when he would do that. Part of it was because I really wanted to get through the
program, so I kind of started to see him as just “that person,” the person who got me
through the program, and that was his goal. I guess it wasn’t really necessarily a bad
feeling or anything, it was just that I don’t think we had that kind of relationship that I’ve
seen some people have with their mentors.
MARK: You said that you started to feel that way; you started to put him in that role.
But at the beginning what were your expectations?
DP 1: Well, from seeing other graduate students, and with some of the relationships that I
had with some of my professor in undergrad, actually, I kind of expected more of a
combination of the professional and personal relationships. I didn’t necessarily get that.
145

146
I mean, I still got my degree in a reasonable amount of time, but since I’ve graduated we
don’t talk that much. We don’t even e-mail much at all...
MARK: Did you ever feel like a colleague?
DP 1: That’s a good question. Sometimes I did, and sometimes I didn’t, (long pause).
Yeah, when I was doing things that were not only getting me through the program, but
were also going to help him out with his, in his professional life, I did. I felt like a
colleague. And I don’t know if that was because we tended to work more together and it
was that kind of relationship.
MARK: Were you getting better feedback when you were serving his needs as well?
DP 1: Oh, yeah. Oh, yaeh, definitely!
MARK: So if you were doing your own project and he wasn’t interested in it...
DP 1: Yeah, and I don’t know if it was because I realized that at the beginning, and so I
didn’t really seek his feedback on things that weren’t really involved with him. Because I
didn’t. If I was working on a paper that didn’t have to do with his area, then a lot of
times I wouldn’t even show it to him, I would just go to someone else.
MARK: I am curious... you obviously have some individual in mind when you use the
word mentor. Why do you use the word mentor about that individual?
DP 1: Well, I think he did. I think he did; I think he mentored me in a specific area, and
there was defiantly, I think, some mentoring going on there. And I learned a lot from
him; And plus, that was his job, and so you know that’s part of it too. He was my main
advisor, and stayed that way through out my entire graduate school. Yeah, he did some
mentoring, but then it was also the fact that was the label that he had.

147
MARK: Would you have given it to him if that weren’t the label?
DP 1: Yeah, I would say he was a mentor.
MARK: So, what kind of things did he teach you?
DP 1: He taught me how to write, he definitely taught me how to write a whole lot better.
He taught me how to do research; a particular type of research, (long pause) There’s a
lot of things with in those two areas, but those are the two big things—the writing, I can
defiantly give him big kudos for that. Because he did do a good job on that.
MARK: What kinds of things didn’t he do that you would have liked to see?
DP 1: The biggest thing that he didn’t do, I felt... I don’t think he was a good model for
what an academic researcher should be. I don’t know if it’s an individual thing, or if it’s
because of the way the system is set up... he’s got tenure, he teaches a huge
undergraduate class, and that’s his job in the department. There’s really no contingency
on him to go out and get funding to do new research and to write more and to do things.
So, I didn’t see a person who was an active researcher, an active writer. You know, when
I was there, the major studies that he did were the things that I was doing. He might have
done one other one, but that was pretty much it. Again, I don’t know if that was because
of him or if it was the system setup, so once you get tenured you pretty much have to kill
someone to get fired....
MARK: Do you think he really wasn’t carrying his load... taking advantage of it... ?
DP 1: Yeah. Yeah, I would say so. Yeah. Especially when I first got here. When I first
got here it was much worse than it is now. For some reason... I don’t know if some one
lit a fire under him or what, but the past few years he’s been a little more proactive in

148
getting his own research going. I am in a post-doctoral program now and the mentor that
I have there is pretty much the opposite. He is always writing grants, always doing new
research—so really completely different professionally in that way. So, I think I didn’t
see through my graduate carrier what I think would be a good model of what an academic
researcher should be.
MARK: Did he promote you in the field? Did he introduce you to other people? Did he
take you to conferences?
DP 1: No. No. I would sign myself up for conferences. No, Yeah, No he did not do that. I
think again it was because he was not really active in the field, and he didn’t really have
much of an opportunity to promote me, to give me connections to other people. And so I
would go with other of his colleagues and get that. Yeah, he didn’t do any of that.
MARK: If you took away the writing and the research, what did he do for you?
DP l:(pause) Well, he taught me how to get through the program. You have to do
specific things, obviously, in every graduate program, and a lot of people... it’s a very
self-motivating thing. You have to... there are certain dates that you have to do certain
things, and it’s somewhat unstructured. So, a lot of people have trouble with that, and I
think he was really good and ah... and you know, showing me first of all, pointing that
out to me and helping me get through that and doing the things I needed to do to get
through the program. So, yeah, and you know, I said that, he helped me get through the
program.
MARK: What did he do for you personally? Like as a person?

149
DP 1: Uh (pause) Nothing. Yeah, there was no personal... I mean we would tell jokes
and stuff. But he and I, I think were different people too. Yeah, we're different people. I
mean... you know, we went out a couple of times and we had a couple of drinks or
something, you know. He’s just a different person. He’s been married a few times,
(laughs) So, you know... and maybe that’s part of the family thing... having bad
experiences with that. No, there really wasn’t anything personal.
MARK: What do you think about that? That he didn’t do anything for you personally?
DP l:Again, you know, I didn’t come here to get a personal relationship with a facility
member at KU, that wasn’t one of my goals. It would be nice, and like I said, I’ve seen it
in other graduate students, having personal relationships with other facility. So I got it in
other places, so I... .it would have been nice, but the fact that I didn’t get it... (long
pause)... it wasn’t devastating. I don’t necessarily... I don’t find that to be as big as a
problem as the fact that I don’t think that he was a good model for what I think a
professor should be doing.
MARK: You said that if you had a paper that wasn’t really in his area you never even
took it to him. Why is that? Where do you learn that that was a wasted effort?
DP 1 ¡Because he would question why I was even writing this, and why I was spending
my time doing that. Rather than go through all that business....
MARK: So the first time you did that, I don’t know if you can remember the first time
you did that, you go to him wit the paper, and you have some level of excitement because
you have this paper and you want so feedback from your mentor. You take in a paper
and he says, “Why are you wasting your time on this?” How does that make you feel?

150
DP 1: Yeah, that hurts. That would hurt. Yeah, because... that’s ... you know... he
obviously had a reason for doing that, and he would question it and you know... I would
have a good dialogue about this, but it turned out just... I learned eventually that it
really was just... because it wasn’t really his area, and you know he would say that
because “this isn’t going to help you get through the program” and you know “thjis isn’t
going to get you to your goal. But, you know, I obviously have other goals other than
getting through the program; I wanted to develop professionally. So yeah, that hurt.
Because it would be nice to have someone who could be involved in all of that. If it was
me, I think I probably would have... I probably would have just told... if I had a
student, I would have just said, “Maybe you ought to go talk to so and so because this is
his area. You know this is just great but I’m not familiar with it. So you might want to
take it to somebody else”. But rather than doing that he would just insinuate that it was
kind of a waste of my time and I should be working on other things.
MARK: Did that impact your image of yourself as a competent researcher? Make you
wonder if you picked the right program?
DP 1: (pause) I know it didn’t in the later parts; I am trying to think in the early parts,
when he first was doing that.... I think I probably did initially. Yeah, yeah, I did
initially and then ... but then when I would figure out, “Well let me try with someone
else.” You know give the paper to someone else or discuss the research with someone
else. Then eventually I just realized, it was just his own little personal hang-up and I just
changed my behavior, and well this paper will not go to [mentor], it will go to somebody
else.

151
MARK: So this guy was your chair, I’m assuming, your dissertation chair?
DP 1: Yeah, yeah..
MARK: And probably your master chair. Was there somebody else in particular that
you went to most of the time for those kinds of emotional things?
DP 1: To talk about that?
MARK: Not necessarily to talk about him... I mean... you’re married?
DP 1: Right.
MARK: So your probably getting a lot of emotional support at home. I’m making an
assumption here.
DP 1: Yeah, you’re right.
MARK: Was there somebody else in the department or somebody else around that you
would go to get some professional emotional support.
DP l:The students. Yeah, yeah... not necessarily other facility; I wasn’t comfortable
talking about that with other facility. I know some people do, and... no, I never did it
with other facility. But other students, yeah... yeah definitely, I’d talk to them about
that.
MARK: About him?
DP 1:About... Yeah.
MARK: What about feelings of confidence? What about the idea that somebody on the
inside thinks that you’re OK?
DP 1:About confidence. .. ?

152
MARK: There’s a lot of things that can go on in a relationship, and in the standard
conceptual relation in a mentor relationship... you get not just the professional but the
personal, emotional support that you’ve been alluding to. I’m just wondering if there was
somebody else in the program that was giving you that support?
DP 1: Uh, ah, no
MARK: Because your peers of course can give you some support but they can’t give you
that kind of...
DP 1: Yeah... Yeah... Yeah... there was a couple of facility... again, I wouldn’t go to
them and say, “He’s doing this.” It would just, yeah... well, yeah, it was the whole, “I’m
not going to get the feedback or encouragement from you, so I’ll go to one of these other
people.” And yeah... I’d defiantly do that.
MARK: Can I ask how old you are?
DP 1:1 am 32.
MARK: So you’re a little non traditional.
DPI: Yeah
MARK: And you have a pretty stable home environment. Because one of the things I
am seeing in you is that you have a lot of emotional resilience to start with, like you came
in... probably more mature than your average 22-year-old master’s student. I’m
wondering, what you think would happen if some neophyte young person came in and
met this guy?
DP 1: Well, I’ve seen a lot of them and I think I’m the only one who’s made it out
through him. No, I’m the second person who has made it out through him, with a PHD.

153
He’s got a person who will be finished with their masters in a couple of weeks, who had
some real problems. Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of students come and go within my ten year
commitment... yeah, they just couldn’t handle it. Yeah, it’s always an individual thing. It
may be the lack of a personal relationship; they’ve all been female except for one male.
MARK: Now is your program a PHD program or Master’s or a terminal Master’s.
DP 1: There is a terminal master’s, and this one person is the only one that I have seen
come through him, yeah, who ended on their master’s.
MARK: Do you think that was their intent?
DP 1: No, that wasn’t their intent.
MARK: Do you think that their decision was related to him? I don’t how well you know
the person.
DP 1:1 know her very well. To some degree, yeah. I’m not real sure that she would have
gone on with somebody else. It’s hard to tell, because there are other things, too; that
was defiantly a factor in there. Whether or not taking that factor out she would have gone
on, I can’t say for sure.
MARK: Because you obviously were able to find the resources, and have the emotional
foundation that you didn’t need...
DP 1:1 think that finding other people... and a lot of those people... what happened is..
. I say a lot... one of the people who didn’t make it actually went to another mentor and
she did end up finishing. So, she just completely pulled herself away from him and went
with someone else and did finish. The other people just didn’t... didn’t find anybody
else. I don’t know if the personal part of it made a difference there or not.

154
MARK: So, what does it mean to somebody, or to you, when somebody in that position
of mentor or as a facility member gives you positive feedback on something that you’re
doing. What does that give you at a real fundamental level?
DP 1:1 think it helps build that collegial relationship... I feel more of a colleague when
I’m writing with a mentor, or some other facility and I get positive feedback. I mean,
obviously it makes me feel good. It gives me a very good feeling about my competency
as a writer and a researcher. I think it is very important, and I think some people are
much better at it than others. You know its interesting, as far as the writing, I think my
mentor... and I’m not so sure that this was a bad way to do it, but, when I think about it,
how he went about giving me feedback on my writing; in the beginning he was giving me
a lot of positive feedback and really trying to shape my writing, and giving me corrective
feedback too. But as it went on it was just less and less. Just less feedback period. And I
always wondered if my writing had gotten better or... because he wasn’t giving the
positive feedback either. So I don’t know if he just felt like I didn’t need it anymore, or if
it was ...
MARK: Did you ever ask him?
DP l:No (chuckles)
MARK: Why not?
DP 1: That’s a good question. I think it was probably because of that relationship. I felt
like that might be kind of going over that boundary that may have led to a lot of people
not making it through with him. I think he is a very insecure person, and so when you
call him on things he has a tendency to sometimes be really OK with it, and sometimes

155
really have a very adverse reaction. I just thought... well, you know, things are going
OK (laughing) there’s no reason to rock the boat. So I just went on, and I never asked
him about that
MARK: Would it have been unsafe?
DP 1: No... you mean... like...
MARK: Emotionally?
DP 1 ¡Emotionally ... for me or for him?
MARK: For you.
DP 1: Yeah, it could have been.... (long pause) Yeah, it could have been, because...
again I’ve seen other people go down that path with him ,and it always turned out bad...
for the person. And since he has tenure and you can complain to the department chair all
you want... and threaten legal issues and everything... he’s got tenure....
MARK: Did anybody ever do that, that you know of?
DP l:You mean bring up...
MARK: Go to the dean? Go to the chair? Threaten issues?
DP l:Oh, absolutely.
MARK: About his treatment of them?
DP 1: Yeah, yeah
MARK: So are you just being incredibly polite about this guy?
DP l:You know, I have asked myself that a lot and people have asked me that because
you know... the people that I know who had him in their life said, “Man, how did you
make it through with him?” And you know, that’s one way to look at it... but I was just

156
really nice with him (chuckling). I think, again, I just really wanted to get through the
program, and I knew that if I did these things, I was going to get through it with him...
And one of the other things is that he’s one of the only people in the department who has
similar interests with me. There are other people who have... who are interested in the
things that we do, but that’s not their main area of research. So, I could go to those
people and talk to them, but as far as a main advisor, it pretty much had to be him. And
so, that could have contributed to that, because I think I did probably put up with things a
little bit more than other people did.
MARK: Cause you sound really relaxed now, and I’m wondering, are you kind of
indifferent? I mean, have you reached the point... did you reach the point where it’s like
“What Ever!”
DP 1: Yeah. I think that’s a good way to look at it. Yeah, I did. I can’t pin point exactly
when that was. I think once I found myself getting through the program and doing things
and then little things would come up... you know, I would get the kind of feedback I was
telling you about; “What are you writing this for? Why are you doing this research?” And
I just decided I just didn’t need to step over that boundary, so I didn’t. So, I’d just go to
someone else and find another avenue. By the end an indifference was probably a good
way to put it because I really... the last couple of years I probably wasn’t learning a
whole lot from him. Once he taught me the writing which he did an excellent job of...
(garbled) how to conduct his type of research, it was pretty much just, “We do this, we do
that, we do this, then I’m done.”

APPENDIX E
EXAMPLE OF OPEN CODING
....
Mark: So I guess the opening question is typically, how do
you define a good mentoring relationship?
SP2: Well, I guess it’s different for different fields. You
know science, where you’re doing research, there’s a lot of
information that you have to develop with experimental
designs and stuff like that. And I think that part of a good
mentoring relationship is kind of a back and forth with some
Interactive relationship about
field.
of that information. The ability to ask questions, and get
answers of course, and also kind of a little bit of freedom in
Ask and actually get answers.
developing your own hypothesis as a student, and
Freedom w/guidance, support.
developing the experimental design to go on with that,
Practice, growth, developing
because that is really what’s going to help you in the job
autonomy-increasing trust.
Preparation.
world. But also, I think, and this is just me, you kind of
need to have a relationship that’s not strictly science based;
you know, a little bit of a personal interaction. Knowing
Personal relationship.
what’s going on with each other, and be able to talk a little
Time. Affirmation of value.
bit besides what’s going on in the lab and what experiments
Able to talk beyond advising.
Research is not person.
are being done and things like that.
157

158
Mark: So lets imagine you’re sitting with somebody and
you’re talking. You’re the protégé and they’re the mentor.
You have a need for some information. This is what you’re
looking at; this is what you don’t under stand. “Tell me
what I need to know?” And they tell you what you need to
know. Of course, you can get straight information from
them, you can get an answer.
SP2: Yeah, that’s not strictly what I’m talking about
though. Really, kind of more a pointing in the right
direction. If there’s just some small item, or some tiny little
Guidance, not directive.
thing that you don’t understand, then you can come to short
Point, not carry.
answers; that’s the best way to go and not waste a whole
bunch of time digging through all the literature, looking for
M not obsessed w/irrelevant
detail. M not cover
some tiny aspect. But if it’s a general concept, you really do
ignorance?
need to develop that yourself. And maybe take that to your
Learn diff. b/n learning and
mentor, as “This is what I understand, tell me if you think
wasting time.
its right, or if you think maybe I’m missing something.”
Learn to learn important stuff.
Mark: So you don’t want to be told the answer typically.
Safe place to be wrong.
Trust, respect M’s knowledge,
SP2: No, no absolutely not. I don’t want to be told the
skills, responsiveness.
answer. I don’t want to be told what to do. I want to have
Wants M to know P can do it?
some freedom and ability to develop my own
Desire to learn, not just pass.
understanding.
Wants freedom and guidance.

159
Mark: Why is that?
Develop, grow, learn on own.
SP2: Because that’s what you have to do in the real world.
Preparation, relevant to goals.
And that’s probably what interests me... is the ability to
Likes learning, winning
develop, and you know, stick through, and all of a sudden
against own ignorance.
that moment when it becomes clear is a lot of fun, and it’s
Growth. Discovery is reward.
very interesting. I don’t want someone just drawing me a
Fun.
picture and telling me, "This is what happens, just memorize
Respect her abilities.
it."
Teach her, don’t tell her.
Mark: So, what I’m trying to find out is why that works for
you? Why does it work for you, not to be told the answer?
What is it that you’re getting? So you’re saying its more
exciting to get the answer yourself?
SP2: Yeah, it’s more exciting. And its more applicable,
Discovery, overcoming is
because if I go out and get a job, then I’m not going to have
rewarding. It also prepares for
someone I can go to... I shouldn’t have someone there I
goals. Relevant growth.
can go to... at the PhD level, I shouldn’t have someone I
Wants to become a real PhD.
can just go to and say, “what is the answer to this?” That’s
part of what science is about, finding the answer. It’s not
just finding answers that no on has found before, but
Belonging.
Wants to participate in real
science—not about fame, but
understanding, discovery,
understanding and finding some of the answers in the
overcoming, work. To be a
literature, and doing your own reading.
scientist. To Belong.
Mark: Do you think that all protégés think in the same way

160
as you?
SP2: Well, I don’t know about all, I would hope so.
Mark: In your experience?
SP2: In my experience, yes. I would hope so. It’s
important to have a little bit of free thought. Free thought,
and different ideas, and different experiences, kind of what
helps make the field progress. If everybody’s thinking the
same thing, or if you’re not going to have any more ideas
then what your mentor has, then you’re not really pushing
the envelope at all, you’re just kind of following along.
Mark: So how does [your mentor] do that?
SP2: Well, my experience with her has been that, I knew a
lot about the Alzheimer’s disease field coming in. I didn’t
know quite as much about the neurochemistry, and
anatomy, but I got that in classes and things. She really has
let me come up with my own experiments to do. In the
beginning of course I was just learning techniques and
basically doing experiments that were assigned, and then
after a while, after I got a little bit more involved, she really
let me kind of take things in my own direction. From doing
my own reading in the literature, and what I understood
about Alzheimer’s disease and other things, I’ve been able
These things SHOULD be
universal.
Free to explore ideas. Safe.
Belonging. Growth.
Experiences.
Going beyond what’s gone
before. Master, then
transcend.
Independence, autonomy.
Ability, desire to surpass M.
Respect; want it, give it.
Confidence in own abilities.
Goals.
Don’t need to have
everything.
Don’t need M for basic
knowledge. Freedom equals
respect. First leam basics,
then get autonomy and
respect.
Stages; skills development.
Respect of her ability. Show

161
to develop my own set of experiments and my own
M ability. M reciprocates
hypotheses, and kind of my own little project, which has
been very helpful, cause it also allows me to do the kind of
w/ffeedom. Use the freedom.
Safe to explore own ideas.
Self-development.
thinking to understand, that “Okay, I need to have some
Practice thinking.
controls for this aspect of it,” or “Does this experiment
Growth in skills, confidence.
really answer the question that I want to answer?” And
Autonomy, can do the do.
that’s what you have to do in the real world, and that’s one
of the most interesting aspects of doing scientific research.
Mark: You alluded to how it was different at the
beginning.
Internalized research values.
Progress towards goals.
Preparation, fun.
SP2: Well, when I first came into the lab, I had no
experience doing any kind of techniques, and that’s kind of
what I was learning when I first came in. She would say,
Neophyte, novice.
Phases.
Guidance. Developmentally
“Okay, this experiment, we need to have this project run,
appropriate. M assessed
and because you need to learn how to do this experiment, do
skills, needs. Use the word
this technique basically, why don’t you do this?” Even
“we”-collective, not ego.
then, it wasn’t, like, you know, very strict, as far as, exactly,
you know... I still had to understand enough about it to say,
“Well I need to control for this, and I need to test for this
Not command language
Guidance with freedom.
Positive expectations, rope.
and this.” But it was... basically, when I first got into the
lab for the first couple of months, I was just trying to learn
the techniques, and so I was working with some of the other
Start at the bottom. Work

162
people in the lab on some of their own stuff, but, you know,
Peer mentors, trainers.
you can’t just jump in there and know how to do everything.
Mark: Did you make any mistakes?
SP2: Of course.
Mark: And how was that?
SP2: Oh it was fine, I mean, she understands that you.. .of
Completely not threatened
course this is a training period, even now. I’ve made
Secure, confident.
mistakes, or not controlled the data for something, and when
M understands, vs. tolerates,
I present the data to her she mentions that, so the next time I
errors, ignorance.
do the experiment I realize that I need to do that. But it’s
not that... she doesn’t go rooting for it. She’s really
Mentions, points out - not
relaxed about it, and about a lot of things.
points finger.
Mark: What did that, what does that get for you? When
Doesn’t look for things to
attack, ways to lord over
you’re in a situation, and you make a mistake and she’s
protégé.
okay with it, she doesn’t...
SP2: Well, I mean, of course it makes me more willing to
Safe base. Self-comfort. No
admit that I made a mistake. And also, it’s not so much
need to evade or avoid M.
pressure. I know some mentors who are a lot more ridged
Lower stress, focus on work.
about that, and they do expect you to know, every time,
Fear of M, afraid to tell M
exactly everything that needs to be done. And you know,
when make mistake. Afraid to
you’re going to have people in the lab who are going to be
try anything for fear of error
scared when you do that. And I think it makes it easier for
and punishment.

163
me to just go ahead and do something, than to worry about
Can focus on work rather than
if everything is exactly right. I do make an effort to include
possible judgment - safe,
everything I understand, based on my own knowledge, to do
secure. Desire to do well is
internally driven, not a desire
everything correctly. But if it’s not correct, I don’t feel like
to avoid external aversiveness.
I have to fear anything.
Mark: You feel comfortable coming up with, doing more
risky type things, a more far out hypothesis?
SP2: Oh absolutely. I don’t know if you know how we do
Safe.
our oral examinations... ?
Mark: She told me, yes.
SP2: We do a lot of proposals, so I just wrote my grant
proposal, and it’s kind of out there. They’re going to let me
Can take risks, safe. Can
do it. Its not so far out there, I guess, that it’s unreasonable.
explore ideas.
Safe to be different, push the
envelope. M supports in
committee? - note use of
“they’re.”
The foregoing is a rough example of the first iteration of an open coding process. The
actual process was carried out with pencil on an original transcript. The second iteration
was carried out when concepts were further reduced and transferred to note cards.

REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principals of psychologists and
code of conduct. Retrieved June 9, 2003, from
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.pdf.
Atkinson, D. R., Morton, G., & Sue, D. W. (1998). Counseling American minorities (5th
ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Atkinson, D. R., Neville, H., & Casas, A. (1991). The mentorship of ethnic minorities in
professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 4. 336-
338.
Bair, C. R. (1999). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis.
Dissertation Abstracts International. 60 (02), 0353A. (UMI No. 9917754)
Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention.
In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 48-61).
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Biaggio, M., Paget, T. L., & Chenoweth, M. S. (1997). A model for ethical management
of faculty-student dual relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice. 28. 184-189.
Blevins-Knabe, B. (1992). The ethics of dual relationships in higher education. Ethics
and Behavior. 2. 151-163.
Bogat, G. A., & Redner, R. L. (1985). How mentoring affects the professional
development of women in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice. 16. 851-859.
Bowen, W. G., & Rudenstine, N. L. (1992). In pursuit of the PhD. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Boyer Commission. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for
America’s research universities. Retrieved June 16, 2003, from
http://naDles.cc.sunvsb.edU/Pres/bover.nsf/webform/I.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reinvigorating theory and research on the depaerture puzzle. In J.
M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 257-274).
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
164

165
Brass, K. V., & Kopala, M. (1993). Graduate school training in psychology: Its impact
upon the development of professional identity. Psychotherapy. 30. 685-691.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1996). Gender effects in mentoring relationships. Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality. 11, 91-104.
Burke, R. J., McKeen, C. A., & McKenna, C. S. (1990). Sex differences and cross-sex
effects on mentoring: Some preliminary data. Psychological Reports. 67. 1011-
1023.
Cameron, S. W., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). Sponsorship and academic career success.
Journal of Higher Education. 52. 369-377. Retrieved May 3, 2003, from
http://www.istor.org.
Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 51.
15-28.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A
comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts.
Personnel Psychology. 45. 619-636.
Clark, R. A., Harden, S. L., & Johnson, W. B. (2000). Mentor relationships in clinical
psychology doctoral training: Results of a national survey. Teaching of
Psychology. 27. 262-268.
Clawson, J. G., & Kram, K. E. (1984, May-June). Managing cross-gender mentoring.
Business Horizons.
Cohen, L. M., Morgan, R. D., DiLillo, D., & Flores, L. Y. (2003). Why was my major
professor so busy? Establishing an academic career while pursing applied work.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 34. 88-94.
Council of Graduate Schools. (1990). Organization and administration of graduate
education. Washington, DC: Author.
Covey, S. R. (1998). Leading by example video program. Carlsbad, CA: CRM Learning.
Cronen-Hillix, T., Gensheimer, L. K., Cronen-Hillix, W. A., & Davidson W. S. (1986).
Students’ views of mentors in psychology graduate training. Teaching of
Psychology. 13. 123-127.
Dick, B. (2002). Grounded theory: A thumbnail sketch. Retreived March 18, 2002, from
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html.
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and
women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 75. 539-546.

166
Eby, L. T., MacManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). The protégé’s
perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a
taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 57. 1-21.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W. W. Norton & CO.
Fagenson, E. A. (1988). The power of a mentor: Protégés’ and nonprotégés’ perceptions
of their own power in organizations. Group and Orientation Studies. 13, 182-194.
Fagenson, E. A. (1992). Mentoring—who needs it? A comparison of protégés’ and
nonprotégés needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Journal of
Vocational Behavior. 41. 48-60.
Fagenson-Eland, E. A., Marks, M. A., & Amendola, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of
mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 51. 29-42.
Fogg, R. J. (2002). The mentor-protégé relationship in an academic setting:
Contributions and outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International. 63 (12),
0353A. (UMI No. AAT3076093).
Gaskill, L. R. (1991). Same-sex and cross-sex mentoring of female protégés: A
comparative analysis. The Career Development Quarterly. 40. 48-63.
Gelso, C. J., & Schlosser, L. Z. (2001). Studying the graduate advising relationship: New
concepts and findings. Psychotherapy, 36 (1), 6-8.
Gerholm, T. (1990). On tacit knowledge in academia. European Journal of Education. 25,
263-271.
Gibb, S. (1999). The usefulness of theory: A case study in evaluating formal mentoring
schemes. Human Relations. 52. 1055-1075.
Gilbert, L. A., & Rossman, K. M. (1992). Gender and the mentoring process for women:
Implications for professional development. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice. 23. 233-238.
Giorgi, A. (1990). Phenomenology, psychological science, and common sense. In G. R.
Semin & K. J. Gergen, (Eds.), Everyday understanding: Social and scientific
implications. Inquiries in social construction (pp 64-82). Thousand Oaks, CA.:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Giorgi, A. (1992). Description verses interpretation: competing alternative strategies for
qualitative research. Journal of Phenomenological Research. 23(2). 119-135.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

167
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1970). Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy
underlying qualitative research. In W. J. Filstead (Ed.), Qualitative methodology:
Firsthand involvement with the social world (pp. 288-304). Chicago: Markhan
Publishing.
Google Search. (2003). Data retrieved from http://www.google.com.
Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships
with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel
Psychology. 48. 537-561.
Helms, J. E. (1995). An update of Helms’s White and people of color racial identity
models. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suziki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Herbert, J (2003). Standing on the shoulders of giants. Retrieved June 16, 2003, from
http://www.warble.com/jherbert/giants.html.
Hill, R. D., Castillo, L. G., Ngu, L. Q., & Pepion, K. (1999). Mentoring ethnic minority
students for careers in academia: The WICHE Doctoral Scholars Program. The
Counseling Psychologist. 27. 827-845.
Hite, L. M. (1985, January). Female doctoral students: Their perceptions and concerns.
Journal of College Student Personnel. 18-22.
Hollingsworth, M. A., & Fassinger, R. E. (2002). The role of faculty mentors in the
research training of counseling psychology doctoral students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology. 49. 324-330.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review.
Review of Educational Research. 61. 505-532.
Johnson, R. M. (2000). Investigating the processes of persistence: Refining discourse
analysis as a tool for generating new departure theory. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 157-169). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University Press.
Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice
of mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 33. 88-96.
Johnson, W. B., & Huwe, J. M. (2003). Getting mentored in graduate school.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

168
Johnson, W. B., & Nelson, N. (1999). Mentor-protégé relationships in graduate training:
Some ethical concerns. Ethics and Behavior. 9. 189-210.
Kelly, S., & Schweitzer, J. H. (1999). Mentoring within a graduate school setting.
College Student Journal. 33. 130-148.
Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children’s orientations toward a moral order:
Sequence in the development or moral thought. Vita Humana. 6, 11-33.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal.
26,608-625.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational
life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Lark, J. S., & Croteau, J. M. (1998). Lesbian, gay and bisexual doctoral students’
mentoring relationship with faculty in counseling psychology: A qualitative study.
The Counseling Psychologist. 26 (5), 754-776.
LeCluyse, E. E., Tollefson, N., & Borgers, S. B. (1985). Differences in female graduate
students in relation to mentoring. College Student Journal. 411-415.
Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Lewis, C. S. (1955). Surprised bv iov. Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure
from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Massey, R., & Walfish, S. (2001). Stresses and strategies for underrepresented students:
Gender, sexual, and racial minorities. In S. Walfish & A. K. Hess (Eds.),
Succeeding in graduate school: The career guide for psychology students (pp.
141-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Missirian, A. G. (1982). The corporate connection: Why executive women need mentors
to reach the top. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How to facilitate an
effective mentoring program (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
National Science Foundation. (1997). Workshop on graduate student attrition. Retreived
May 10, 2003, from http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf98322.
Niolon, R, A. (1997). Experiences of gays and lesbians as students in psychology
training programs. (Doctoral Dissertation, St. Louis University, 1997)
Dissertation Abstracts International. 58. (8-B), 4463. (UMI No. 9803803)

169
Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful mentoring
relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41.457-479.
O’Neil, J. M, & Wrightsman, L. S. (2001). The mentoring relationship in psychology
training programs. In S. Walfish & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Succeeding in graduate
school: The career guide for psychology students (pp. 111-127). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Pederson & Daniels, 2001. Stresses and strategies for graduate student couples. In J. M.
Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 171-185). Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and protégés. New York: Arbor House.
Polkinghom, D. E. (1994). Research methodology in humanistic psychology. In F.
Wertz (Ed.), The humanistic movement: Recovering the person in psychology.
(pp. 105-128.), Lake Worth, FL: Gardner Press.
Pollock, R. (1995). A test of conceptual methods depicting the developmental course of
informal mentor-protégé relationships in the work place. Journal of Vocational
Behavior. 46. 144-162.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of
men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 84. 529-550.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of
mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal. 37. 957-971.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits
of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 20, 493-509.
Redmond, S. J. (1990). Mentoring and cultural diversity in academic settings. American
Behavioral Scientist. 34. 188-200.
Rennie, D. L., & Brewer, L. (1987). A grounded theory of thesis blocking. Teaching of
Psychology, 14 (IT 10-16.
Rennie, D. L., Phillips, J. R., & Quartaro, G. K. (1988). Grounded theory: A promising
approach to conceptualization in psychology. Canadian Psychology. 29 (21. 139-
150.
Sands, R. G., Parson, L. A., & Duane, J. (1991). Faculty mentoring faculty in a public
university. Journal of Higher Education. 62, 174-193. Retrieved May 3, 2003,
from http://www.istor.org.

170
Scandura,T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior. 13. 169-174.
Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of
Management. 24, 449-467.
Schockett, M. R., & Haring-Hidore, M. (1985). Factor analytic support for psychosocial
and vocational mentoring functions. Psychological Reports. 57. 627-630.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sumprer, G. F., & Walfish, S. (2001). The politics of graduate programs. In S. Walfish &
A. K. Hess (Eds.), Succeeding in graduate school: The career guide for
psychology students (pp. 77-94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Swerdlik, M. E., & Bardon, J. I. (1988). A survey of mentoring experiences in school
psychology. Journal of School Psychology. 26. 213-224.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2000). Linking learning and leaving: Exploring the role of the college
classroom in student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student
departure puzzle (pp. 81-94). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1994). Role of protégé personality in receipt of
mentoring and career success. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 688-702.
University of Florida. (1997a). Strategic plan for graduate education. Retrieved June 16,
2003, from http://gradschool.rgp.ufl.edu/education/strategicplan/.
University of Florida. (1997b). Best practices in graduate education. Retrieved June 16,
2003, from http ://gradschool .rgp.ufl. edu/pdf/ education/practices .pdf.
University of Kansas. (2003). Mentoring guidelines. Retrieved March 31, 2003, from
http://www.ku.edu/~graduate/Facultv/mentoring.shtml.
Wadsworth, B. J. (1989). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development (4th ed.).
New York: Longman.
Walfish, S., & Hess, A. K. (Eds.). (2001). Succeeding in graduate school: The career
guide for psychology students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

171
Wilde, J. B., & Schau, C. G. (1991). Mentoring in graduate schools of education:
Mentees’ perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education. 165-179.
Witt Smith, J., Smith, W. J., & Markham, S. E. (2000). Diversity issues in mentoring
academic faculty. Journal of Career Development. 26(4). 251-262.
Wright, C. A., & Wright, S. D. (1987). The role of mentors in the career development of
young professionals. Family Relations. 36. 204-208. Retrieved May 3, 2003, from
http://www.istor.org.
Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Research methodologies for assessing mentoring. Presented at
the Annual Conference of the American psychological Association, Los Angeles.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 209 339)
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York:
The Free Press.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Mark Brechtel was born in 1957 in Calgary, Canada. His father was a senior
executive in the oil industry and later an independent consultant. His mother, who began
as a schoolteacher, has been an exemplary mother, wife, and homemaker. He is the
youngest of four siblings, having two brothers and one sister.
Mark finished grade 9 before becoming disenchanted with school and decided to
pursue other interests as a teenager. He obtained employment in the budding electronics
industry, worked as an electronics and computer technician, and later as a manager in a
computer company for approximately 15 years. For 8 years, he and his second wife,
Brenda, were therapeutic/medical foster parents, helping to raise 30 children, including
two daughters from his previous marriage and one daughter from her previous marriage.
In 1993, Mark again became disenchanted and returned to school. He received a
national award for the highest scores on the GED and entered the University of Colorado.
With a GPA of 4.0, he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology, with a minor in
philosophy. He was subsequently awarded the J. Hillis Miller Presidential Fellowship and
later a McLaughlin Dissertation Fellowship by the University of Florida. He is presently
completing an APA accredited doctoral internship at the University of Kansas
Counseling Center and has accepted a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of
Georgia Counseling Center.
Mark does not yet know what he wants to be when he grows up, nor has he any
immediate plans to do so.
172

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is folly adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy.
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is folly adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy.
Gregory J. Neimeyer
Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is folly adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy.
Professor of Psychology
1 certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is folly adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy.
Kenneth J
Professor
Disorders
rhardt
ommunication Sciences and
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of
Psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
August, 2003
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08557 2088



xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EOBX96UA9_P1WIEY INGEST_TIME 2014-04-30T18:27:39Z PACKAGE AA00020974_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES