In academia, perhaps more than in any other field or workplace, the boundaries between who is a mentor and a mentee are permeable and changing. Shifting roles in the academic context mean that boundaries between mentors and mentees are often in continuous flux. Here, our old definitions of mentors as senior leaders willing to take junior employees under their wing, or of masters in their craft willing to apprentice novices, do not apply. Instead, the descriptions of mentors and mentees in teaching mentoring relationships are rich, nuanced, serendipitous and constantly evolving. Indeed, when viewing types of mentors and mentees, our academic lens often highlights the trajectory of mentee experiences and mentor relationships. Our commitment to mentorship is a commitment to lifelong learning within an academic micro-community.

Who is a mentor?

In trying to understand who is a mentor and who is a mentee, we find it especially helpful to use the framework of significant conversations (Roxå & Martensson, 2009). Roxå and Martensson’s proposal of the significant conversation uses the term to describe moments of academic communication within small communities that enable transitions from understandings of “teacher-focused learning” to “student-focused or learning-focused teaching” in teachers’ practice (2009, p. 547). Perhaps mentors or mentees are simply individuals who engage in significant conversations about teaching and learning, engaging in a way that, as Roxå and Martensson suggest, is essential to evolving understanding within academic micro-communities. As we understand them here, significant conversations are conceptualized differently by all participants. These conversations are fundamental to initiating and strengthening mentorship or academic micro-community networks, and to building the strong mentor and mentee relationships that make it possible to advance learning cultures. Our conception of the academic micro-community is thus supported by Hinsdale’s (2015) definition of mentorship in an academic context as a continuum or spectrum of engagements, with movement between the subject identities of mentor and mentee occurring over the course of membership in the community itself.

Mentors in academic communities come from diverse career streams, faculty needs and career stages. They may be our colleagues, our peers or members of our senior academic leadership team. They might be people we work with today or with whom we have worked in the past. They might be students or junior faculty members whose experience we are looking to grow.

Who is a mentee?

Any of us within small academic communities who take on the role of lifelong learner can imagine ourselves as a mentee at different times in our career. Much of our work as members of academic micro-communities includes seeking guidance, engaging in significant conversations about our teaching and learning practice, and learning through legitimate peripheral practices. We shift from mentee to mentor through experience, and we bring acts of mentorship and acts of mentee-focused learning to each of our significant conversations with colleagues and student partners.

These multiple and changing definitions of mentor and mentee are reflected clearly in Roxå, Martensson and Alveteg’s (2011) network approach to teaching and learning cultures, and in Wenger’s (1998) understanding of communities of practice. Clarke and Poole (2009) offer an expanded definition of mentorship that uses the community of practice framework (Lave & Wenger, 1991) to frame a continuum of mentor—mentee experiences, and to highlight a multiplicity of identity positions both enacted and residual within that network. The definitions of mentor and mentee provided here extend this understanding of mentoring as a form of legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) to include significant conversations as acts of mentorship within both the community of practice (as suggested by Clarke and Poole, 2009) and the academic micro-community, or teaching and learning culture network (Roxå, Martensson & Alveteg, 2011).

Types of mentorship

There are as many varieties of mentorship as there are individual mentoring relationships. Each will differ depending on numerous factors, including mentor and mentee needs, the mentoring relationships’ stated objectives, individual personalities, etc. In turn these factors will affect time commitment and engagement levels, meeting frequency, whether mentoring relationships are formal or casual or temporary (related to specific goals or projects) or indefinite, among other facets. Mentors and mentees can be involved in multiple simultaneous mentorships, with each different from the others on the dimensions listed above. Mentorships can also evolve over time as needs and objectives change.

Although this guide provides templates for successful teaching and learning mentoring relationships, it is intended to be a supportive tool rather than a prescriptive one. Mentees and mentors should feel free to let their mentoring relationships take the shapes that best align with their objectives. To this end, good and ongoing communication is central, with all parties open to routine re-assessment and adjustment.

Mentoring relationships also differ in how they arise. Some form naturally out of existing professional relationships, especially where some amount of informal mentoring is already occurring. Others are formally arranged.

Within this nearly endless diversity of mentorship, most mentoring will fall into one of the following types.

• Dyad: In the traditional dyad mentorship model, mentees are paired with more experienced mentors, often with institutional support. Successful dyad mentorships require active participation, with equal responsibility shared between mentors and mentees.
• Peer: Peer mentoring consists of two or more people, often similar in experience or rank, interacting as equal mentoring partners to achieve mutually determined goals. Peer mentorship is collaborative in nature, where each member provides mentorship to the other by providing guidance, expertise, support, counsel and advice while bringing out each member’s finest skills, providing opportunities to pool knowledge and strengthen relationships (Nowell, Norris, Mrklas & White, 2017).
• Group: Group mentorship is where one mentor supports a group of interdependent mentees who hold themselves individually and collectively accountable to a common purpose of learning and development. Group mentoring provides opportunities for discussion and socialization, encouragement and support (Nowell et al., 2017).
• Constellation: Constellation mentoring is when one mentee has multiple mentors who take active interest and action to advance the mentee’s development. Constellation mentoring allows mentees to experience mentors with different styles of mentoring and leadership, providing rich and in-depth understandings of multiple teaching and learning practices. Furthermore, having multiple mentors provides mentees with greater opportunities to expand their networks (Nowell et al., 2017).
• Distance: Distance mentoring is where the mentee and mentor are in different locations or faculties. This form of mentorship can be particularly valuable for those located at satellite campuses and for those wishing to obtain guidance from mentors who may be at different institutions or faculties.

Mentor Models

The following briefly addresses common questions on formal mentoring, describes existing mentor models, and provides suggestions for choosing a model to use.

Q: What is formal mentoring?

Formal mentoring is when one or more mentors are intentionally assigned to a mentee and assume responsibility for facilitating the professional development of the mentee through activities such as providing information, advice, encouragement, and connections to other mentors, colleagues and professional networks. It is voluntary and can lead to a two-way, mutually beneficial relationship. No one mentor can fulfill all of a mentee’s needs. Mentees have a responsibility to maximize, build on and supplement the mentor/mentee relationship with other mentors and career development activities.

Q: Isn’t having a robust informal mentor network sufficient?

Informal mentoring is critically important to career satisfaction and success. Formal mentoring is not meant to replace informal mentoring but to supplement and strengthen it. Evidence clearly indicates that formal mentoring makes a positive difference in achieving career success. It differs from informal mentoring in several important ways:

• it is intentional
• participants are held accountable
• it is based on best practices to promote a high-quality, productive relationship
• it is available to all faculty so that bias and unequal access, whether intended or unintended, is minimized

Q: What is the best model of mentoring to use?

The traditional model is the mentor/mentee dyad with the mentor being either from within or outside the unit. However, current wisdom suggests that it is much more productive to have multiple mentors. Even if there is one primary formal mentor, mentors and mentees are both encouraged to build on and supplement this relationship with other mentors and career development activities. The model chosen depends on the needs and resources of the individual faculty member, department, and institution.

adapted from

• “The Mentorship Guide for Teaching and Learning,” by Barrette-Ng et al, Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary, shared with a CC BY NC 4.0 license.
• “Faculty Mentoring Toolkit: A Resource for Faculty, Mentors and Administrators” by Luz, C.C. (Ed.), Michigan State University (NSF ADVANCE Grant #0811205), shared with a CC BY NC 4.0 license.