Scientific mentoring in the higher education system: the results of an empirical study

Sokolova Marina Vladimirovna ORCID: 0000-0002-1579-2464 PhD in History Associate Professor; Department of Social and Humanitarian Disciplines; Vladimir Branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 59 Gorky str., Vladimir, Vladimir region, 600017, Russia rags33marina@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Glebov Gleb Evgen'evich ORCID: 0009-0006-5258-3692 Lecturer; Department of Management; Vladimir Branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration 59 "A" Gorky str., Vladimir, Vladimir region, 600017, Russia rags33marina@yandex.ru

Introduction

Research activities are an integral part of the functioning of the higher education system. The teaching staff consists of scientific and pedagogical staff. To occupy most positions according to qualification requirements, it is necessary to have an academic degree of candidate or doctor of sciences, and to be elected by competition to the head of the department, you also need to have an academic title, which is currently awarded not by the department, but by scientific specialties. Continuity in the reproduction of the research potential of a higher educational institution faces a huge number of problems. They are partly due to the lack of necessary logistical capabilities. An even bigger problem is the involvement of students and faculty in research and development. In fact, a certain intergenerational gap in research activities has already been formed. Certain structural changes in the higher education system also hinder the formation of scientific potential. For a young specialist, it turns out to be too long a path to enter the scientific field: bachelor's, master's, postgraduate studies. This period of study is 9-10 years. Considering that a bachelor's degree graduate receives a diploma of higher education after 4-5 years of study, the possibility of realizing their professional skills in the labor market does not form a choice for most of them in favor of further education and scientific activities. Since there is no global goal of building a career in higher education and science, interest in this area, even at the level of student science, is at a fairly low level.

In order to ensure continuity in the reproduction of scientific and pedagogical personnel in the near future, it is necessary to actively involve students in this process. Of significant importance is the development of the institute of scientific mentoring, which is currently becoming increasingly important due to the age gap in the reproduction of personnel for science and higher education and the psychological and pedagogical characteristics of the buzzer generation, which are focused more on an individual and personal approach. The discussed issue of the introduction of the institute of scientific mentors puts on the agenda a number of organizational and substantive issues. The main ones are: who can act as a scientific mentor, what professional and personal qualities scientific mentors should have, at what levels of the educational process and the implementation of professional activities mentors are needed. The question of the role of scientific mentors is currently well presented from the perspective of students, but this does not form a comprehensive vision of the problem. The position of the teaching staff, heads of departments and deans is of great interest. Barriers to the development of the institute of mentoring are poorly understood to date.

The purpose of the study is to identify the main problems of the implementation of scientific mentoring and to develop proposals for improving this area. The subject of the study is the existing system of scientific mentoring in the higher education system. The hypothesis is the assumption that there are certain barriers to the implementation of the institute of mentoring in modern realities: the performance of this function by teachers is not on a permanent basis, but only in the process of studying the course, the lack of certain knowledge and special methodological training for the implementation of this social role of teachers, the insufficient level of training of students themselves. The methodological basis of the study was based on the methods of questionnaires and in-depth interviews. A mass survey based on a representative sample was used when working with faculty and students. In-depth interviews turned out to be the best option for obtaining information from heads of departments and deans who organize this component of the work of scientific and pedagogical workers. To conduct an in-depth interview, a special guide was developed, which contained questions aimed at identifying problems related to the introduction of the institute of scientific mentors in the higher education system. The scientific novelty of the research consists in an integrated approach to the study of the problem. In most cases, the literature considers the issue of students' attitude to research activities. This process has different participants who form their own vision of this system, determine the problems of functioning of the mentoring institute. Only a combined consideration of the issue from the perspective of students, faculty, heads of departments and deans will allow us to formulate comprehensive proposals to improve the effectiveness of this social institution. In the modern education system, in addition to scientific mentors, there is an even more well-known category of "scientific supervisors", and "tutors" that have appeared in recent decades. In terms of their meaningful functionality, scientific mentors are closer to scientific supervisors, since they transfer knowledge, skills and abilities in research activities. Ideally, it is assumed that a scientific mentor performs his functions for a longer time, he has a wider range of functions, including building a trajectory of professional growth in research activities.

In recent years, a number of works devoted to the problem of scientific mentoring have appeared in the scientific literature. P.A. Ambarova's work ^[1] presents a theoretical understanding of the everyday practices of scientific mentoring. The results of a large-scale sociological study on the example of higher educational institutions of the city of Volgograd are presented in the article by N.V. Dulina, E.V. Anufrieva, G.V. Boyko, A.E. Godenko ^[3]. The paper examines in detail the forms of research activities in which students participate. Based on the empirical data obtained, the most significant qualities of mentors for students are highlighted. Much attention is currently being paid to the study of scientific mentoring as a kind of social institution, a special phenomenon in the higher education system. In this regard, the works of E.A. Dudina ^[3], O.E. Kochetkova, N.V. Pustovoit ^[5], T.D. Skudnova ^[9] are of interest.

The formation of scientific mentoring is directly related to the motivation of students for this type of activity, the involvement of students in research activities has become the topic of a number of studies. The degree of involvement of students in research activities and the main factors of motivation to engage in this type of activity are mainly studied ^{[4, 6, 7, 10]}. The concept of students' research culture, which should be formed as part of the educational process, is now being actively introduced into scientific circulation. This research culture develops through the immersion of students in various types of research activities, significantly contributes to the formation of a research culture of the Institute of scientific mentoring. This aspect is considered in sufficient detail in the articles by P.A. Ambarova, N.V. Shabrova, E.V. Kemmet, A.N. Mikhailova ^[2] and L.V. Yurkina, A.O. Tambovtseva ^[11]. The specifics of the organization of scientific mentoring for young teachers in the higher education system are presented in the work of S.D. Sazhina ^[8]. It is of interest from a methodological point of view, since in many ways working with young teachers is a continuation of working with students.

The results of an empirical study

In September – November 2023, the Vladimir branch of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation conducted a survey of students of higher educational institutions in the city of Vladimir, the purpose of which was to identify the perception of the institute of mentoring by students. The respondents were full-time bachelor's degree students, 350 students took part in the survey. The choice of this particular target group is determined by the formation of ideas about research activities by the senior year, full-time students, in general, are more focused on building an academic career.

The overwhelming majority of them spoke in favor of the need for scientific mentors in the higher education system, 82.7 percent of respondents adhere to this position. Only 7.7 percent answered negatively, 9.6 percent could not formulate their positive or negative opinion.

Table 1 – Do you think it is necessary to introduce the institute of scientific mentors in higher educational institutions?

Most often, students tend to believe that a teacher with an academic degree can act as a scientific mentor (it does not matter which one). Graduate students are in second place in popularity. Less often, undergraduate students consider venerable doctors of sciences, who have their own scientific school, as mentors, only 13.5 percent of them. Twice as many respondents give preference to undergraduates and undergraduates. The significantly rarer choice of doctors of sciences as scientific mentors is the result of several factors at once: they work much less often in the classroom with undergraduate students, they are not known; the vast majority of students are not going to enter graduate school and receive a PhD degree; when choosing a scientific consultant, the factor of lack of a barrier in communication is triggered.

Table 2 – Who do you think could act as a scientific mentor for undergraduate students?

It is important to understand the issue is to consider the functionality that students assign to mentors. Since research work with students is not always permanent and well-established, quite often it occurs sporadically and has no continuity from course to course, it is quite difficult for students to determine the organizational and substantive components that this part of the teaching staff should perform. In most cases, research and teaching staff advise students when writing articles, term papers and graduation projects. It is this functionality that dominates among the respondents' responses as necessary. In the second place is the definition of a promising research topic, the third position is occupied by the search for possible options for publication. Students are less likely to point out strategic tasks that can work in the long term. Less than a third of all respondents tend to believe that a mentor should determine the trajectory of professional growth in the scientific and pedagogical field. Only 15.4 percent of this functionality is associated, among other things, with the search for a supervisor for subsequent postgraduate studies. The latter two options are much less common due to the complexity of these tasks for students to understand and the lack of need for their mass application to work with students, since they are focused only on the part that will continue to study in graduate school. From survey to survey, those wishing to continue their studies in the system of training highly qualified personnel are around 15 percent. The results for the Vladimir region are not unique, the figure of 10-15 percent is typical for other subjects of the Russian Federation. A similar situation in the Volgograd region is presented in the article by N.V. Dulina, E.,V., Anufrieva, G.V. Boyko, A.E. Godenko ^[3]. A study conducted by S.A. Pisareva, E.I. Brazhnik, I.V. Gladkaya, E.V. Piskunova, N.M. Fedorova in St. Petersburg also recorded a similar figure of 16.2 percent.

Table 3 – What functions, in your opinion, should scientific mentors perform?

Among the significant qualities that a scientific mentor should possess, in the first place is a good command of his scientific field of knowledge, in the second place is the ability to clearly explain and set scientific tasks. It is these two components that lead by a significant margin from all other qualities. Further, as the motivation for achieving scientific results decreases, students have a broad outlook, demanding tasks, commitment and punctuality, a democratic style of communication and respect. The most irrelevant qualities for mentors are: lack of boredom and good command of modern information technologies. The latter option looks very unexpected in the digital age, but it is quite common in practice, which is an indicator of a high degree of tolerance of students to the lack of digital literacy of the teaching staff. A similar indicator in the region of 30 percent for this parameter is found in the work of N.V. Dulina, E.V. Anufrieva, G.V. Boyko, A.E. Godenko [3. - P. 87]. It should be noted that professional knowledge, skills and abilities are more important, which imply a good command of the subject area of knowledge and the ability to convey this content to students by a mentor. In a similar study in the Volgograd region, pedagogical skills and knowledge of the subject area are also in the first place [3. - p. 87.].

Table 4 – What qualities should scientific mentors have?

Most of the respondents represent which of the teachers could provide scientific advice for them. Only 13.5 percent do not understand who it could be, a quarter of the students found it difficult to answer.

Table 5 – Do you have an understanding of which of the teachers could advise you?

A similar survey was conducted with teachers of higher educational institutions in the city of Vladimir, 210 teachers took part in the survey. Like students, teachers primarily associate scientific mentoring with consulting in the process of completing scientific projects and preparing articles. Almost everyone points to this functionality - 98 percent of the respondents. The teaching staff assigns significantly more importance to the definition of a promising research topic (80% of respondents) and the construction of a professional growth trajectory (42 percent).

When evaluating the qualities that a mentor should possess, teachers have a good command of their field of knowledge in the first place, the ability to explain clearly comes second, followed by a wide level of horizons. Good knowledge of their field of knowledge and the ability to clearly convey this knowledge are two of the most important qualities, according to both teachers and students. Less often than not, the teaching staff indicates that they are demanding to complete their tasks. It should be noted that teachers attach much greater importance to the level of proficiency in modern information technologies. Generation Z students who grew up with smartphones turn out to be quite loyal in this matter.

Table 6 - What qualities, in the opinion of teachers, should scientific mentors have?

A survey of research and teaching staff showed that only 44% have all the necessary information and can fully carry out research activities. More than half of them face some difficulties. Most often, there is a lack of necessary knowledge about student scholarships, grants for research activities, as indicated by 38 percent of respondents. In the second place, there is a lack of understanding of how students can be taught academic writing skills. In third place is a rather difficult criterion - understanding how to teach students to write an application for a research grant. For 6% of teachers, it is difficult to determine the topic of scientific research for a student.

Table 7 - What information, knowledge, skills and abilities do you lack to fulfill the role of a scientific mentor?

The most common difficulties faced by teachers in implementing the function of a scientific mentor focus on the following components: lack of financial incentives for this activity (54%), weak starting level of students (46%), high classroom workload (46%). Only 18% of the faculty members do not see any difficulties in implementing the functions of scientific mentors. One in ten admits that they do not possess the necessary competencies to perform the role of a scientific mentor.

The majority of teachers direct the student's research activities in the process of studying an academic subject. A similar situation is typical for the results of research conducted in other regions of the Russian Federation ^{[3, 7]}. There is a pronounced binding of research activities to a certain academic discipline, as soon as the study of this subject is completed, research activities on this topic are immediately curtailed. Only one in ten respondents performs the functions of a student's scientific mentor during the entire period of study at the bachelor's degree or specialty. Another one in ten continues to lead a student already in the master's program.

The heads of departments and deans are engaged in organizing the activities of scientific mentors. In-depth interviews were conducted with the heads of structural divisions to understand the problems of managing this process, 35 heads of structural divisions took part in in-depth interviews. A pre-developed guide for conducting in-depth interviews assumed an assessment, from the position of heads of structural divisions, who can act as scientific mentors. First of all, in this role they consider teachers with long experience and work experience, research supervisors of graduate students, teaching staff actively engaged in independent research and development. Here we see a certain discrepancy with the position of students, who most often consider any teacher with an academic degree as a mentor.

The second significant aspect that the in-depth interview was focused on is the identification of barriers that hinder the development of the institution of mentoring in the higher education system. Among the difficulties of implementing the institute of scientific mentoring, deans and heads of departments point to: a fairly low level of motivation of employees of the higher education system, the lack of an integrated system of scientific training of students in many areas of training (from the basics to defending the degree of candidate of sciences), a weak initial level of student training and insufficient level of involvement in research and development of teachers themselves.

This is what these barriers look like in a generalized version. In a more detailed scenario, the low level of motivation of the teaching staff is associated with: the lack of financial incentives and the lack of development of special approaches to the formation of the training load for mentors, high academic and extracurricular workload of employees. The lack of an integrated training system in many scientific fields implies the lack of opportunities for postgraduate, doctoral, and sometimes even master's degrees. This in itself does not contribute to the formation of long research trajectories by students. As part of in-depth interviews, the heads of structural divisions noted a rather low level of involvement of the teaching staff in research and development. This significantly narrows their range of opportunities as scientific mentors.

The main conclusions

Scientific mentoring is a necessary element of the functioning of the higher education system, according to the majority of the survey participants. As the most important qualities of mentors, both teachers and students name: good command of their field of knowledge and the ability to intelligibly convey this knowledge to students. In the implementation of activities as mentors, the teaching staff faces a number of difficulties of an informational, methodological and organizational plan. A significant part lacks information about student grants, scholarships, and competitions for research activities. Methodologically, there is a lack of understanding of the possibilities of teaching students academic writing. Among the organizational difficulties, it is necessary to note the high classroom workload of the teaching staff and the lack of a system of financial incentives for this activity.

Attention is drawn to the dominance of short trajectories in the management of students' research activities. In most cases, a mentor is associated as a supervisor when writing scientific articles, less often its functionality is associated with the definition of a promising research topic. This is largely due to the fact that most of the teachers direct research activities within the framework of studying an academic subject.

The heads of structural divisions among the main barriers to the introduction and development of the mentoring system indicate: a weak initial level of student training, an insufficient level of involvement of the teaching staff in research and development, a low level of motivation of teachers to engage in this type of activity.

Recommendations for the introduction of scientific mentoring in the higher education system

The results of the conducted research allow us to formulate the following necessary recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the Institute of scientific mentoring:

1. In order to adjust the knowledge, skills and abilities available to the teaching staff, it is necessary to develop and implement a professional development program "Methods of teaching academic writing to students of higher educational institutions". Within the framework of conducting methodological seminars with the teaching staff, it is necessary to consider the issues of student participation in research grants, grants from the President of the Russian Federation for applicants to the master's degree. An important point is to inform teachers about the necessary criteria for students to receive scholarships at the federal level: scholarship of the Government of the Russian Federation, scholarship of the President of the Russian Federation, personal scholarships.

2. In order to increase the effectiveness of working with the most talented and scientifically motivated students, it is advisable to consider the possibility of assigning mentors to them for the entire period of study. In this case, the function of the teaching staff is not only to advise in the preparation of articles and scientific research, but also involves building an individual trajectory of professional growth.

3. A number of organizational issues need to be resolved at the administrative level. The significant workload of the teaching staff does not leave time to work as a scientific mentor. The issue of reducing the classroom load for this category of scientific and pedagogical workers or allocating a significant amount of hours during the afternoon should be considered. It is desirable to take this type of work into account in an effective teacher's work contract, which will provide material incentives for this type of activity.