Perceptions of academic staff about mentoring in a Faculty of Dentistry in a public university in South Africa

Twenty mentees who had engaged in the funded mentoring process were targeted for semi-structured interviews, to describe their perceptions about the ongoing mentorship process, experiences in other mentoring processes, and expectations about future formal mentoring in the faculty. Quantitative data was analysed descriptively, while content analysis of the qualitative data was performed to identify themes.


INTRODUCTION
Though labelled a previously disadvantaged university which operated under severe financial and social constraints, UWC has contributed towards democracy and transformation by providing access to students from previously disadvantaged communities. 7,8 By widening access, the university experienced exponential growth resulting in large classes with underprepared students and often inadequate facilities. 9 These factors contributed to the challenges in attracting and keeping competent academics who could mentor junior academic staff to succeed in the areas of teaching, research, and academic administration, among others. 10 While the first dental education program in the country was established in 1925, 11 there were concerns that the dental needs of a heterogeneous community were not being fully met. 12 The dental faculty at UWC was established in 1974 13 to broaden access into the profession 12,14 and address the shortage of oral health professionals. 15 The breakdown of dentists registered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for 2015, according to age, gender and race, showed that younger dentists were predominantly female and Black while older dentists were mainly White and male. 14 To empower the academic staff with the necessary pedagogical skills, 9 the recommendation of the American Dental Education Association about mentoring [16][17][18][19][20] becomes relevant to the RSA. Descriptions about mentorship "encompass a synergistic relationship between a mentor with accumulated expertise and a mentee with novice-like inexperience, who engage in the sharing of knowledge and personal experiences to facilitate career development and guidance towards a path of promotion, fulfilment and overall success ...a lack of mentorship may result in failure to retain junior faculty at an institution or within academia altogether." [p2] 18 In 2019, there were approximately 100 academics within the faculty, required to teach and provide dental care services in hospitals and communities. 21 The profile of the academics reflected the general profile of those reistered with the HPCSA. 14 Fifty-eight of the academics were in permanent full-time positions, eleven at professorial levels, and only 15 possessed PhD qualifications in addition to their professional qualifications. Within the first year of the mentor's (SLA) appointment, less than one third of 20 mentees consulted on issues about post-graduate studies and writing papers for publication. Others sought "guidance on coping with faculty demands".
The absence of guidelines for effective mentoring programs in the faculty prompted the exploration of the perceptions of academics below professorial rank about the pilot mentoring program. The objectives were to evaluate the experiences of academics who engaged in (a) the EASCEP and (b) any other mentoring process after joining the faculty; and (c) the perceptions of academics about what a faculty mentoring program should focus on. To prevent a potential bias, a research assistant (RB) was appointed to independently manage the study process, at the end of which the analysed data was then checked and debated by the authors.
After obtaining ethics approval (BM19/9/15) and sourcing for funding from the Research Office of the university, a self-administered adapted questionnaire 16,22 was pilot tested for face and content validity with five academics in the faculty. Using a cross-sectional, descriptive research design, RB later distributed the survey instrument via email and hard copies, among academics below professorial ranks (n=89). The four-part survey instrument (Appendix 1) sought biographical information (9 items), perceptions about the EASCEP (4 items), experiences in any other mentoring processes after joining the faculty (12 items), and expectations of a future faculty mentoring program (24 items).
A cover letter accompanied the survey instrument, explaining the study procedures and the voluntary basis of participation. Unfortunately, the response was poor. Such development is not necessarily an unwillingness of academics in dental schools in the RSA to participate in research, but their responsibilities in teaching and service delivery are often obstacles. 21 A purposive sampling, qualitative research design 18,[23][24][25] was then adopted to address the same aims. The twenty mentees who engaged in the EASCEP were targeted, but only eight consented. The amended four-part survey instrument (Appendix 2) was also administered by RB via individual, semi-structured interviews via Skype which took place in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Part A of the survey instrument sought biographical information, while the remaining three parts sought participants' (i) perceptions about the EASCEP, (ii) experiences in other mentoring processes since joining the faculty, and (c) expectations about mentoring in the faculty. The survey instrument was sent in advance to the eight participants so they could answer the closed-ended questions and have time to ponder on their responses to the open-ended statements. Unfortunately, only five of the participants (A2, A4, A6, A7, A9) were able to keep the interview appointments, while the remaining three (A1, A3, A10) completed and submitted the survey instrument (Appendix 2).

Procedure
The demographics of the non-respondents were similar to those of the respondents presented in Table 1. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Quantitative data was analysed descriptively, while content analysis of the qualitative data was performed by two independent academics with expertise in qualitative research to identify themes which were then discussed to reach consensus. 23 To check and establish credibility in the findings, data were triangulated through (i) giving the participants access to the transcriptions for verification; (ii) comparing interview data alongside relevant academic literature; and (iii) agreement of the interpretations of the data by the researchers. Table 1 describes the profile of the participants. Two participants (A2, A3) had only brief interactions with the mentor and were unable to comment on the value of the mentorship program but presented their expectations about a future formal mentorship program in the faculty. Though A2 and A4 were not engaged in other mentoring processes since appointment, there was consensus among the participants about the purpose of mentoring as described by A9: Understanding the mentee, providing a safe space for the mentees to share their plans, aspirations and challenges; assisting the mentee to reflect objectively on their challenges and aspirations, …guiding the mentee to reach goals… to reflect [but] not creating dependence on the mentor.
Participants also differentiated a mentor from a supervisor: …The supervisor… can guide you in the methodological process and has deep insight into your [ On what worked well in the mentorship program, mentees described their experiences: I still struggled to execute, and I suppose that time management is a problem for me that was not addressed. [A10] The professional background of the mentor was a concern to one participant while two others perceived this was beneficial: The participants strongly expressed the need for a formal mentorship program within the faculty, which should be holistic in nature for optimum use and success. As for their expectations from a future formal faculty mentorship program, one participant explained it clearly: There is a lack at the faculty, in terms of support; there is a lack in terms of work and how you are supported in coping with the many roles you have. [A9] Participants expressed their expectations from a future formal mentorship program:

I will tell you why, up until now I am still struggling to get an article out of my PhD program, simply because I don't have mentorship. Doing a PhD is very different from writing a journal article, I am up and running with my writing again, but I still feel that I am lacking in mentoring for that process. I never had that, and I am learning from scratch and unfortunately it has taken the life out of me because I become so frustrated and dejected at times. A mentorship program is needed. Not only for the PhD [and] Masters process but also for the process after that, what happens afterwards. [A2]
The This study set out to evaluate the experiences of academics in the Faculty of Dentistry at UWC who engaged in the EASCEP, as well as their expectations from a future formal program. The change in methodology due to the poor response in the first survey did not compromise the integrity of this study as similar methodologies have been utilized in previous studies. 18,[23][24][25] However, the poor participation of academics in research 21 may be a reflection of their inability to satisfactorily share their time in meeting the demands in teaching, research, clinical service and administration.
The participants also acknowledged that it was essential to allocate time to participate in the mentorship process. Upon entering a career in dental education, the academic is expected to successfully navigate an oftenunfamiliar environment of teaching, scholarly activity and research, as well as perform administrative tasks and participate in both university and community service. 18 Academics may also need assistance to manage the time to meet these demands. With little or no previous experience and coming from diverse backgrounds, the new academic may become overwhelmed, unsupported, and discouraged.
Currently, there is little documented evidence of specific formal activities relating to mentorship of academic staff in Dental faculties in RSA. Though the pilot program targeted academics yet to obtain a doctoral degree or below professorial rank, it was accessible to all academic staff. So, it is worth noting that two participants who had not engaged in any mentorship process had been in the faculty for 18 and 20 years respectively. Such occurrence acknowledges the need for a formal mentorship process to help new lecturers in their transition into their new positions, 18 especially in a faculty where the demographic profile of the lecturers is still similar to the profile of those registered with the HPCSA in 2015. 14 Overall, the EASCEP was perceived as a necessary and welcome initiative as in other studies. [16][17][18][19][20] On what worked well in the mentorship program, mentees perceived the consultation provided the much-needed space, where they felt they were heard and understood to seek the required support and guidance in respect to academic development. Participants appreciated the accessibility of the mentor and the individual attention they received. However, it should be noted that there were no discipline-specific issues raised with the mentor, though it is uncertain if this was due to the mentor not having a background in dentistry.
Participants were clear in what they expected from a formal mentorship program stemming from what seemed to be lacking within the faculty. The expectations were broader than what was being addressed in the EASCEP and included seeking assistance to meet faculty and institutional demands. As the unique context of each institution and the diverse needs of each academic will DISCUSSION impact on how the capacity development of academics is managed, an ideal mentorship program should address both the professional and the personal development of academics. 10 To enhance the accessibility of the mentorship program, the mentees in the EASCEP recommended ways to improve the advertisement of such a program. Thomas et al. recommended that administrators of mentorship programs might consider publicising the programs in advance of the academic year in which the programs are offered. 25 The recruitment materials should also be explicit regarding what is expected of the participants, as well as what benefits they may expect. In addition, due consideration should be given to train potential mentors.

CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence that the UCDG mentorship program has been beneficial to those individuals who participated in the process. There is also the expectation that a formal mentorship program within the Dental Faculty at UWC is critical in the career development of the academic staff.