Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education: Developing Collegiality through Organised Supportive Collaboration (Higher Education Dynamics, 61) 3031374576, 9783031374579

Citation preview

Higher Education Dynamics  61

Thomas de Lange Line Wittek   Editors

Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education Developing Collegiality through Organised Supportive Collaboration

Higher Education Dynamics Volume 61

Series Editors Peter Maassen, Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Science, University of Oslo, Blindern, Oslo, Norway Manja Klemenčič, Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Editorial Board Members Akira Arimoto, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hyogo University, Kakogawa, Japan Elizabeth Balbachevsky, NUPPs-IEA/USP, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Giliberto Capano, Political & Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy Glen Jones, Ontario Inst for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Marek Kwiek, Center for Public Policy Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poznań, Poland Johan Müller, School of Education, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa Teboho Moja, Higher Education Program, New York University, New York, NY, USA Jung-Cheol Shin, Department of Education, Seoul National University, Gwanak-Gu, Seoul, Korea (Republic of) Martina Vukasovic, Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

This series is intended to study adaptation processes and their outcomes in higher education at all relevant levels. In addition it wants to examine the way interactions between these levels affect adaptation processes. It aims at applying general social science concepts and theories as well as testing theories in the field of higher education research. It wants to do so in a manner that is of relevance to all those professionally involved in higher education, be it as ministers, policy-makers, politicians, institutional leaders or administrators, higher education researchers, members of the academic staff of universities and colleges, or students. It will include both mature and developing systems of higher education, covering public as well as private institutions. All volumes published in the ‘Higher Education Dynamics’ series get peerreviewed (single-blind). The series is included in Scopus.

Thomas de Lange • Line Wittek Editors

Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education Developing Collegiality through Organised Supportive Collaboration

Editors Thomas de Lange Department of Education University of South-Eastern Norway Oslo, Norway

Line Wittek Department of Education University of Oslo Oslo, Norway

ISSN 1571-0378     ISSN 2215-1923 (electronic) Higher Education Dynamics ISBN 978-3-031-37457-9    ISBN 978-3-031-37458-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Preface

The current volume focuses on peer group mentoring for academic staff in higher education. This is a collaborative method based on egalitarian principles aiming to support the development of professionals by encouraging reflection in the context of peer discussions. In higher education, this kind of mentoring can be freely organised among colleagues, more formally implemented as part of research or organisational development or offered as a pedagogical component of doctoral programmes and research schools. However, the most common implementation is through academic development programmes. This formative learning environment can be structured in numerous ways and is often documented as a single case, but few studies have analysed how similar approaches play out in different contexts. This is the gap that the current book addresses through empirical studies that investigate how similar peer group mentoring models work in different settings. The book includes both empirical and conceptual chapters. The introductory chapter defines and reviews the field of peer group mentoring in a global tertiary context and presents the research project that this volume is based on. The second chapter connects relevant feedback perspectives to peer group mentoring. Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 form the empirical core of the book, analysing and discussing how peer group mentoring is experienced in four different faculty communities. Chapter 11 summarises and discusses the findings in relation to the introductory review and concretisations, while the final two chapters comment on the significance of these findings for higher education globally. The readership of this book are both policymakers and higher education management concerned with systemic and overarching quality measures, as well as academic developers and employees seeking ways to develop supportive collegiality in their immediate professional surroundings. It is important to note that this book is the product of collaboration among skilled colleagues from a variety of disciplines. It has been an exciting journey to develop the focus of each chapter and the book as a whole. Many thanks to all the contributors for their productive and meaningful cocreation. It has been both educational and fun working with you. Also, thanks go to the participants in the peer group v

vi

Preface

mentoring sessions who were willing to act as informants. Thanks also to the publisher, Springer, and a special thanks to Astrid Noordermeer, who contributed her professional support throughout the process. Thanks also to both internal and external colleagues whose critical comments greatly improved the book’s quality. Oslo, Norway  Thomas de Lange May   2023 Line Wittek

Introductory Comment

The academic literature on global governance developments in higher education focuses mainly on research and highlights the interpretation that the global science system is more and more characterised by competition at the global, system, institutional and individual levels (Marginson, 2022). Krücken (2021) has pointed to the role of a growing use of and reliance on quantitative measurements in this development, which, he argues, has both positive and negative consequences for creativity and innovation in science and higher education. This ‘metricisation’ of science and higher education allows for relatively straightforward performance assessments and comparisons. University rankings are a key example of the ways in which the measurement orientation has attracted attention also outside higher education, for example, in private sector companies that have used quantitative indicators for developing commercial ranking products, in the media that use rankings for multiple purposes, and by students, who feel that rankings provide them information on the ‘value’ of study programmes they might be interested in. However, although the interest of politics and society in the performance of universities is understandable, rankings and other forms of ‘metricisation’ can be regarded as reductionist approaches that isolate major developments in complex national and global science and higher education systems and institutions from the impact of a single variable. Obviously, the governance emphasis on competition is not only oriented towards the research activities of universities, for example, through competitive research funding programmes, but also towards the teaching and learning activities, e.g. through the introduction of performance-based funding parameters with respect to education. Overall, this competitive turn in university governance is aimed at having an impact on various aspects of the functioning of universities and the ways in which their performance is perceived by society. Nonetheless, the question can be raised whether the competitive change dynamics encompasses and dominates all academic activities in universities. In addition, does the focus on competition in the academic literature on the governance of higher education and systems do justice to the complexity of universities? This book is important and timely because it shows that relevant changes in university practices are not only caused by competition, but are also developing as a vii

viii

Introductory Comment

result of processes that are driven by collegiality, trust and democracy. On this, the book provides arguments for the continuous relevance of the interpretation of the modern university as a multiversity, introduced around 60 years ago by Clark Kerr (1963). In a series of lectures, later published under the title ‘The Uses of the University’, Kerr argues that the traditional university emerging in the Middle Ages in Europe is replaced by a new type of institution, the multiversity: The University started as a single community-a community of masters and students. It may even be said to have had a soul in the sense of a central animating principle. Today the large American university is, rather, a whole series of communities and activities held together by a common name, a common governing board, and related purposes. This great transformation is regretted by some, accepted by many, gloried in, as yet, by few. But it should be understood by all. (1963, p. 1)

As a multiversity, the university is rather fragmented, in the sense of being organised into many units, both academic and administrative, that are loosely coupled. These units have multiple purposes and are expected to contribute in an effective way to connecting the intrauniversity handling of the exponential growth of knowledge to the needs of society. Recent reforms have aimed at turning the university into a more tightly coupled, integrated and strategic organisational actor (Krücken & Meier, 2006) but have done so with limited success (Musselin, 2006; Maassen, 2017). Because a multiversity, the university of the second decade of the twenty-­ first century is characterised both by a more executive and hierarchical leadership function and a decentralised academic domain, with a continuous function for dealing with the uncertainties and complexities of producing, certifying, applying and transferring knowledge. Effectively linking these two components is one of the key challenges of the modern university. The growing political importance of the notion of the knowledge society has led to a somewhat narrow focus on the role of the university in innovation, economic competitiveness and job creation. However, for the university to satisfy this role and its other functions in society, a broader understanding of the way in which the knowledge dealing processes within universities take place is crucial. This book contributes to a better understanding of an essential activity in universities, that is, academic development, by focusing on faculty peer group mentoring in teaching and supervision (PGM). The theoretical approach to PGM and the empirical data presented and discussed in the book are derived from a research-based innovation project funded by the Research Council of Norway entitled ‘Faculty Peer Mentoring in Teaching and Supervision’ (abbreviated as PeTS). This project investigated how peer group mentoring practices have been implemented and experienced in four different academic settings at a research-intensive Nordic university. The book defines peer group mentoring (PGM) as a form of collegial faculty development in which groups of faculty members of equal status meet on a regular basis to support and guide each other’s educational practice and development. This implies that PGM is interpreted as the mutual exchange and knowledge-sharing that occurs with respect to teaching and supervision in collegial groups, with rotating roles and democratic rules for dialogue and discussion.

Introductory Comment

ix

A key message in the book and that connects all chapters is that PGM needs to be further developed conceptually and better documented through empirical research. This can be regarded as an important step in developing supportive collegiality as a valuable tool for enhancing the quality of education at higher education institutions. Conceptually and empirically, this book provides an important frame of reference for future research on PGM and collegial faculty development. Conceptually, it identifies three sets of factors, contextual, relational and individual, that affect the extent to which PGM leads to the aimed at outcomes. The contextual factors concern, for example, the role of the institutional context and the way in which the strategic, executive institutional leadership is coupled to the academic domain in initiating and sustaining effective PGM practices. In this, the book provides an important conceptual and empirical illustration of the relevance of taking the multiversity nature of the university into account in research on university change dynamics. For understanding change in universities, it is not only of relevance to investigate the impact of government reforms on the nature and functioning of university leadership. In addition, the ways in which university leadership and administration are coupled with academic processes, such as PGM, are essential for understanding intrauniversity change (Gorniztka et  al., 2017; Maassen et al., 2017). The empirical setting for the research project underlying the book is a research-­ intense Nordic University. This is a specific setting that is obviously of importance for determining the relevance of the perspectives presented and the general applicability of the findings of the project to other settings. Here, I want to highlight two aspects. First is the broad and thorough nature of the project, which involved a number of highly experienced researchers. It can be argued that this makes the project unique and the book a highly relevant frame of reference in any institutional setting for future research on collegial faculty development in general and PGM in particular. Second, it can be argued that the book suggests that supportive collegiality is a key aspect for enhancing the quality of higher education in any university or college setting. In this, guiding models for peer-based mentoring practices are crucial, with this book offering relevant new insights into how models influence the unfolding of PGM in practice. Nonetheless, the question on the extent to which enough space can be created in any university setting for supportive collegiality to impact the quality of higher education positively, as reported in this book, requires further research in settings other than the Nordic one. With this in mind, the book incorporates an important message with respect to the importance of trust in PGM processes. It argues that the essence of group mentoring with peers is to create a space where colleagues can trust each other in such a way that vulnerability can be exposed (de Lange et al., 2021). This is argued to lead to an openness that offers stimulating opportunities to learn and develop as a teacher and professional academic. For this to be realised, there has to be an explicit awareness of how to build the kind of mutual trust that forms the foundation for successful PGM activities. However, can the required level of trust be built in the academic domain of any university or college setting? Is the Nordic setting unique in allowing sufficient space for collegiality and trust among colleagues in academic

x

Introductory Comment

development, and has the competitive turn in university governance reached the academic domain in other countries? The latter could imply that, in other settings than the Nordic one, such as the UK, Australia and the Netherlands, instead of through collegiality and trust, enhancing quality in education is stimulated to be achieved mainly through competition and individual incentives. Addressing these questions requires international comparative research on academic development that can encouragingly and effectively build on the conceptual and empirical work by the scholars contributing to this book. Oslo, Norway  Peter Maassen [email protected]

  References de Lange, T., Wittek, A. L., & Bjerknes, A. (2021). Trust in peers: Conditions of trust in facultybased peer review of teaching in Norway. In P. Gibbs & P. Maassen (Eds.), Trusting in higher education. A multifaceted discussion of trust in and for higher education in Norway and the United Kingdom (pp. 117–131). Springer. Gorniztka, Å., Maassen, P., & de Boer, H. (2017). Change in university governance structures in continental Europe. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3), 274–289. Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Harvard University Press. Krücken, G. (2021). Multiple competitions in higher education: A conceptual approach. Innovations, 23(2), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2019.1684652 Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. S. Drori, J.  W. Meyer, & H.  Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organisation (pp.  241–257). Oxford University Press. Maassen, P. (2017). The university’s governance paradox. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3), 290–298. Maassen, P., Gorniztka, Å., & Fumasoli, T. (2017). University reform and institutional autonomy: A framework for analysing the living autonomy. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3), 239–250. Marginson, S. (2022). What drives global science? The four competing narratives. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1566–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1942822 Musselin, C. (2006). Are universities specific organisations? In G.  Krücken, A.  Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63–84). Transcript Verlag.

Acknowledgement Including Information of Funding

The project is funded by the Norwegian Research Council, project number 275572, Faculty Peer Tutoring in Teaching and Supervision  – Innovating Teacher Collaboration Practices in Norwegian Higher Education (PeTS). We would like to thank the Department of Education at University of Oslo for the possibility to initiate and conduct the PeTS project. Thanks also to the project partners and contributors to this book and to everyone who participated in the project as informants. Thanks are also extended to both internal readers and external reviewers who have contributed to the quality of this publication.

xi

Contents

1

Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education ����������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Thomas de Lange, Rachelle Esterhazy, and Line Wittek

2

Feedback in the Context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective������������������������������������������������������������������������   23 Line Wittek

3

Peer Group Mentoring: Exploring the Interplay with Institutional Practices ��������������������������������������������������������������������   39 Hege Hermansen, Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, Kirsten Hofgaard Lycke, and Alf Rasmussen

4

Interactional Dynamics in Observation-­Based Peer Group Mentoring����������������������������������������������������������������������������   55 Line Wittek, Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, and Hege Hermansen

5

Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision of Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   75 Crina Damşa, Lise Toft Henriksen, and Hege Christensen

6

 Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions: Structured Peer Group Mentoring as Collegial Support in a Research School Context��������������������������������������������������   95 Marit Kirkevold and Thomas de Lange

7

Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning������������������������������������������������������������������  113 Arnt Maasø and Hanne Gram Simonsen

8

Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development ������������������������������������������������������������  131 Sofie Bastiansen and Line Wittek xiii

xiv

9

Contents

 Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring ������������  155 Thomas de Lange and Line Wittek

10 Experiences  from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How Should We Proceed?�������������������������������  177 Thomas de Lange and Line Wittek 11 The  Power of Collegiality in Developing Higher Education����������������  197 Katarina Mårtensson 12 Rebuilding Collegiality?��������������������������������������������������������������������������  209 Bjørn Stensaker

Chapter 1

Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education Thomas de Lange

, Rachelle Esterhazy, and Line Wittek

Abstract  In this chapter, we introduce the reader to the project Faculty Peer Mentoring in Teaching and Supervision (PeTS). This project empirically documents how peer group mentoring practices have been implemented and experienced in four different academic settings at a research-intensive Nordic university. This introductory chapter begins by defining the conceptual basis for the PeTS project, presenting peer group mentoring (PGM) as a term to describe an activity providing collaborative spaces for academic staff to discuss their teaching and supervision practices for the purpose of professional development. The chapter continues by presenting a review of research on PGM internationally, which we relate to the two mentoring models that are implemented and studied in the PeTS project. The chapter also describes how these implementations are studied, here based on an overarching research design. With these conceptual and methodological grounds, this introduction aims to provide a common basis for the subsequent contributions of the book. The introduction also serves as a foundation for final reflections and conclusions in the last chapter, where the overarching aim of the current publication is related to international research, providing commentaries from respected scholars within the field of higher education and faculty development.

Introduction Higher education teaching and supervision are commonly considered solitary endeavours (de Lange & Wittek, 2018; Meirink et al., 2009). However, as in other professions, open and critical reflections and supportive discussions of how T. de Lange (*) Department of Education, University of South-Eastern Norway, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] R. Esterhazy ∙ L. Wittek Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_1

1

2

T. de Lange et al.

university teachers perform as professionals are valuable for personal and collective growth. This is also well supported by research revealing that the productive development of educational practices is strongly related to collaboration and the sharing of experiences in  local academic communities (Edwards & Downes, 2013; Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016). Thus, creating more openness around the work we do as teachers and supervisors is an important means to further promote educational quality. In recent decades, there has been an increased focus on training and faculty development in higher education worldwide (Sugrue et al., 2018). Academic development programmes are offered in numerous institutions for the mandatory formal endorsement of pedagogic competencies; they generally take the form of formal professional training courses that contain a combination of applied conceptual and reflective elements (Sutherland, 2018). These courses are a form of ‘event-based learning’ that is typically organised by professional faculty developers and offered only for a limited time span (Gosling, 2014; Sugrue et al., 2018). One challenge with this approach is that faculty members often do not have the collegial support structures necessary to implement newly developed pedagogical skills in their local teaching contexts once the programme has ended (Sutherland, 2018). This challenge may be addressed by using collegial faculty development (CFD) approaches that focus on establishing sustainable arenas in which faculty members support each other in their common effort to improve the quality of teaching and educational practices (Esterhazy et al., 2021). In this edited volume, we present the findings from a development and research project on one specific form of CFD: peer mentoring among groups of teaching staff. More specifically, we investigate how peer group mentoring contributes to the development of educational practices and collegiality in different disciplinary communities by empirically studying how this is perceived by participants, what collaborative processes emerge within peer mentoring groups and how peer group mentoring resonates with organisational and institutional surroundings.

Peer Group Mentoring as Collegial Faculty Development Peer group mentoring is a form of CFD, in which groups of faculty members of equal status meet on a regular basis to support and guide each other’s educational practice and development. The role of supportive peers for the benefit of knowledge-­ sharing and collaboration on teaching and supervision has previously been documented in different settings, where microcultures with peers play a valuable role in helping colleagues develop educational practices (Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016). This awareness of shared collegiality has surfaced in organised peer learning, where a need has been recognised for faculty staff to accommodate pedagogical discourse and reflection more systematically (Sachs & Parsell, 2014; Thomas et al., 2014). In this context, the notion of ‘peer’ implies the involvement of actors in similar positions or situations who formally do not function as experts and are not superior or

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

3

subordinate to each other (Colvin, 2014). Peer also refers to learning as a reciprocal process in which all parties are supposed to benefit from the relationship. This differs from peer review of teaching, which does not exclude learning but not necessarily encompasses supportiveness or a productive outcome and is often unclear regarding its formative or summative function (Winstone & Boud, 2020). Based on the vagueness associated with the term peer review, we use the term peer group mentoring to indicate a clear orientation towards learning and collegial support. It is also important here to underscore the significance of the word group, which radically distinguishes peer group mentoring from traditional mentoring practices. The notion of mentoring is traditionally connected to a dyadic relationship that is often used in professional settings to support employees’ career development  – for example, when junior employees are given regular opportunities to discuss their work or career path with a senior colleague (Bozeman & Feeney, 2007; Lumpkin, 2011). What distinguishes the traditional mentoring dyad from peer group mentoring is that the former is based on an asymmetric relationship, while the latter is oriented towards mutual exchange and knowledge-sharing between all participants (Colvin, 2014; Driscoll et al., 2009). The group aspect in mentoring addressed in the current book is therefore essential, in assuming an even distribution of authority and responsibility between peers, regardless of prior experience or formal position (Kroll, 2016; Thomas et al., 2014). This principal equality is also reflected in how this activity is organised, with rotating roles and democratic rules for dialogue and discussion (Skaniakos & Piirainen, 2019). These symmetric characteristics also carry along epistemic notions of interactional and collective knowledge construction that usually contrast with traditional dyadic mentoring (Heikkinen et al., 2012; Huizing, 2012; Kroll, 2016). Hence, the book places itself clearly in the collective notion of peer group mentoring, a field we consider to be conceptually and empirically underreported in the higher education literature. In summary, peer group mentoring as addressed in the current book is defined as supportive collegial arrangements for discussing academic practices based on symmetric principles with minimal emphasis on hierarchy and expert roles, organised within smaller group constellations (Darwin & Palmer, 2009; DeCastro et al., 2013; Moss et al., 2008). In Fig. 1.1, we present an overview of how this notion of peer group mentoring (PGM) is contextualised within the landscape of faculty development. As evident in Fig. 1.1, FD represents the overarching programmes at universities and higher education institutions that have the aim of supporting and qualifying academic staff in their teaching and educational work (Sutherland, 2018). Within this overarching activity, we commonly find elements of CFD, in which peers work together in various ways to develop each other’s teaching styles. A further distinction of specific forms of CFD is represented by peer mentoring methods, in which peers engage with specific methods for supportive collaboration through organised discussions of teaching and/or challenges related to educational obligations. The objective of this volume is based on the implementation of two specific peer mentoring models that have been empirically investigated and tested. The two models in

4

T. de Lange et al.

Fig. 1.1  Positioning peer group mentoring in the wider landscape of faculty development

Table 1.1  The two PGM models in the PeTS project Structuring guidelines that help participants to focus the conversation on a specific pedagogical challenge they experience in their professional work. The participants describe and submit a case describing the problem. The cases are approached during the sessions based on stepwise phases, starting with information retrieval and open questioning in the starting phases and gradually leading to practical solutions and coping strategies towards the end. The model is based on a conversational framework and rotating system safeguarding symmetry and equality in the group. 2. Observation-­ Structuring guidelines that help participants through the three main phases based peer group from planning to observing and final reflection on practical teaching. The mentoring participants submit lesson plans prior to the sessions and discuss these as a (OPGM) basis for developing the lesson to be observed. Based on observations of the lesson, the groups continue the session with open, supportive and reflective discussions on how to further develop teaching strategies. The model is based on a rotating system safeguarding symmetry and equality in the group. 1. Problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM)

question are problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM) and observation-­based peer group mentoring (OPGM), which are described in Table 1.1. A clear distinction between the above models is that PPGM is purely based on presented cases discussed by peers, while observation-based peer group mentoring (OPGM) is based on observations of teaching. A similarity is that they both encourage and support reflective discussion and that these discussions are deeply rooted in symmetric relationships among the group members. In general, such symmetric dispositions of peer group mentoring are not without its challenges, such as potentially unclear mentor and mentee roles, shifting or unfocused discussions, conversational derailment and dominating personalities (Huizing,

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

5

2012). Given these potential shortcomings, peer group mentoring is often, as in our case, supplemented by clear collaborative structures and guidelines embedded in the models that help guide the conversations among its participants. These structuring resources need to be understood and their use learned by the participants; moreover, they need to be scrutinised and analysed empirically to make sound judgements regarding their strengths and weaknesses in supporting peer learning. Thus, the focus of this volume is to empirically explore and document the participants’ actual involvement in and experiences with the two given peer mentoring models and the role these play in reflection on educational practices among individual faculty members and the wider faculty community at large. A key message in the book, and a thread that connects all the chapters, is that the field of peer group mentoring and CFD in a wider sense needs to be further developed conceptually and documented through empirical research. In our opinion, this is an important next step in developing supportive collegiality as a measure to enhance educational quality at higher education institutions. A major shortcoming is that most of today’s peer mentoring projects are based on local initiatives, with limited or partial grounding in systematic and research-based insights. To address this issue, local initiatives must be encouraged to draw on more systematic work in the field, utilise both empirical and conceptual insights and, based on these premises, document their own practice more systematically. If the findings and reflections from this book can inspire others to introduce such initiatives in their own educational settings, we would consider this publication to have fulfilled its main purpose. Finally, it is also important to remember that the reason for embarking on this venture was not solely to foster a supportive collegial atmosphere for faculty staff, but also to aid the wider objective of developing productive learning environments for our students, thereby contributing to the general educational quality at our universities. Based on this foundation, the book aims to address the following three overarching questions: 1. How does PGM condition collective knowledge-sharing and development? 2. What obstacles may emerge related to the implementation of PGM? 3. How can these findings inform further conceptualisation and implementation of PGM practices? Although these questions serve as a guide for reading the following presentations of results, we also will return to these in the final chapter in our summary of findings.

 esearch on Peer Group Mentoring in Relation R to Pedagogical Practices Before discussing the specifics of the project and documentation of peer group mentoring processes presented in the subsequent chapters of this book, it is relevant to provide a brief overview of research on peer group mentoring approaches and

6

T. de Lange et al.

practices in higher education internationally. The review that follows is a systematic approach to the transnational literature on documented peer mentoring implementation and practices. As noted, our focus is not on the traditional dyadic relationship that is often used in traditional mentoring but rather on the mutual exchange and knowledge-sharing that occurs in collegial groups, with rotating roles and democratic rules for dialogue and discussion. In addition to presenting this research, our aim is to critically examine this literature on the grounds of our own extensive experience as academic developers and our previous research on interactional dynamics in group mentoring in higher education settings. Our approach to the literature review is based on searches in 12 databases,1 which provided us with an extensive overview of published work on peer mentoring approaches internationally. We emphasised formative and supportive features that were similar to the models we implemented in the PeTS project and report on in the current book. Based on our background in this field, our review specifically addresses three features that we consider vital for effective peer mentoring. This concerns the contextual surroundings in which peer mentoring is implemented, how peer mentoring models and approaches influence the mentoring processes and conversations and, finally, the significance of individual background factors, such as experience, teaching and learning beliefs, and the need for initial instruction and training related to peer-based mentoring initiatives.

 ontextual Factors: How and Why Peer Group Mentoring Is C Initiated and Implemented Peer group mentoring as related to teaching and pedagogical practices is often initiated by institutions; however, grassroots initiatives are also common, particularly when new teaching demands are implemented (Bell & Mladenovic, 2008; Bulman et al., 2016; Mager et al., 2014). The findings from these studies indicate that initiatives that are a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches appear to be most successful in the long term and that the participants consider mandatory initiatives to be more problematic than activities in which they have more influence on the process and its implementation (Bell & Cooper, 2013; Bell & Mladenovic, 2015; Nash & Collier, 2016). Furthermore, the success of peer group mentoring is also related to institutional cultures that create an open and reflective atmosphere for discussing teaching and pedagogy as opposed to institutional cultures with more directive leadership traditions (Wingrove et al., 2018). Regardless of the institutional features and conventions, it is perceived as problematic when faculty staff are forced to participate in peer group mentoring  (1) ERIC, (2) ISI Web of Science, (3) ERC, (4) IBSS, (5) PsycINFO, (6) Idunn (the Scandinavian University Press database), (7) Scopus, (8) ProQuest Sociological Abstracts, (9) Medline, (10) British library ETHOS (UK theses), (11) EBSCO Open Dissertations and (12) the Australian library TROVE. 1

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

7

activities because this is often seen as a limitation of their academic freedom (Ambler et al., 2014; Shortland, 2004). Studies have also indicated that long-term implementation of peer group mentoring is difficult to sustain if it is not well integrated into an overarching institutional strategy, and the mentoring is then often regarded as adding to the workload (Claveirole & Mathers, 2003). These studies have emphasised the importance of being clear and transparent regarding expectations and that the supportive positive focus is emphasised (Kohut et al., 2007). A clear positive aspect of peer group mentoring is the opportunity to improve a teacher’s pedagogical development and reflection (Nash & Collier, 2016; Shousha, 2015). Thus, research on this topic has suggested a decoupling of peer group mentoring from formal staff evaluation procedures that tend to limit the participants’ willingness to engage in constructive feedback (Chamberlain et al., 2011; Iqbal, 2014). Although several studies show that peer group mentoring, particularly in relation to teaching, appears to be beneficial for colleagues working within similar disciplines (Buchanan & Parry, 2019; Mager et al., 2014), cross-disciplinary mentoring also has its advantages (de Lange & Wittek, 2018; Vian & Ashigbie, 2015). The former appears to foster a discussion that focuses more on disciplinary content and bottlenecks, while the latter challenges the participants to be more explicit about teaching conventions, pedagogical perspectives and student learning (Hammersley-­ Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004; Yiend et al., 2014). In this sense, peer group mentoring appears to be beneficial within both purely disciplinary and interdisciplinary groups for different reasons; plausibly, a combination of the two approaches would be productive (Bell & Mladenovic, 2008; Davis, 2011; de Lange & Wittek, 2018). In terms of how to organise peer group mentoring, most approaches apply guidelines on what the participants are expected to do and how they should interact or give feedback; thus, guidelines in ways of establishing a common group focus are considered important (Torres et  al., 2017). Typical aspects include the different roles participants play throughout the process, the preparatory work to ensure that the rules and roles are understood by all and maintaining focus and ensuring efficiency during the group conversations (de Lange & Lauvås, 2018; de Lange & Wittek, 2018; Kenny et al., 2014; Kohut et al., 2007). In general, while guidelines for observation and feedback appear to be useful, they need to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate different styles and working cultures to create a sense of community (Kohut et al., 2007; Mager et al., 2014). Other beneficial aspects of organising PGM include attaching various forms of documentation, such as written reports or reflective summaries, which appear to contribute to the participants’ ability to reflect on their experiences and apply conceptual depth to the discussions and group mentoring conversations (Bell & Mladenovic, 2015). However, this has its limits because extensive reporting may be counterproductive if it is perceived as adding ‘a managerial layer to the peer dialogues’ (Lomas & Kinchin, 2006, p. 210). Another feature that is important in the arrangement of peer group mentoring is a temporal dimension – such as the sequencing of meetings, temporal intervals and the timing of different obligations (de Lange & Wittek, 2018)  – which appears to be crucial for debriefing, discussing and

8

T. de Lange et al.

digesting discussions and sufficiently contemplating the group sessions (Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker, 2006). Furthermore, mentoring sessions held early in the academic year are often considered to be different from those held at a later point in the year, which reminds us of the different pressures that faculty staff experience and effect the participants’ capacity to reflect on and utilise feedback from the group conversations (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005).

 elational Factors: How Participants Collaborate, Interact R and Develop Trust Regarding the relational outcomes, studies on peer group mentoring have generally referred to the developing of positive relationships within existing teaching communities. This relational feature appears to emerge from group sessions bringing members together in creating professional unity and supportive collegiality (Ambler et al., 2014; Bell & Cooper, 2013; Costello et al., 2001). This sense of community is often described as a sanctuary, in which teachers and faculty staff can keep an open mind and explore pedagogical issues in an environment that is not formally judged or evaluated, thereby easing the pressure they might experience when discussing delicate issues or situations that may make them feel vulnerable (Bulman et al., 2016). Another factor documented in successful peer group mentoring is the significance of trust, given that it represents a process in which colleagues expose themselves and their pedagogical practices to each other (de Lange & Wittek, 2022; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005; Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker, 2006; Wingrove et al., 2015). The essence of group mentoring with peers is to create a space where colleagues are given the opportunity to expose vulnerability and where this openness represents an opportunity to learn and develop as a teacher and professional academic. A premise for developing this kind of trust is that group members feel sufficiently safe to open up, allowing themselves and their colleagues to discuss their struggles. Thus, explicit awareness of how to build trust is an essential part of successful peer group mentoring. Several strategies for developing trust are suggested in the literature on peer group mentoring, such as allowing participants to influence the choice of peers explicitly when discussing interactional and relational rules, which are important in establishing and maintaining trust (Costello et al., 2001; Mager et al., 2014). This is important because trust commonly is established implicitly in everyday settings, while in peer group mentoring, it needs to be nurtured through common interest and collectively accepted. Consequently, practical measures are often necessary, such as discussing rules of conduct and ensuring that all agree on conversational rules and that the group revisits rules if the process goes astray (Stillwell, 2009; Sullivan et al., 2012). It is important to note here that peer mentoring in groups is widely reported as very beneficial, especially when organised symmetrically with circularly allocated mentor and mentee roles. This suggests that trust is built throughout

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

9

oscillating sessions. With members assuming all roles in the group, all members are given opportunities to sympathise and identify challenges from different angles in a relatively nonthreatening manner (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005). Because there are numerous ways of organising symmetric peer group mentoring, participants start these sessions with no more in common than being colleagues at the same institution. When inviting other colleagues into what is often considered a private space for teaching or supervision, it is essential to establish an atmosphere in which the participants are open and feel safe in being vulnerable. However, not all faculty members feel that they are sufficiently qualified to accomplish this. This fragility is regularly handled by professional faculty developers introducing the participants to the peer group arrangement and providing guidance and advice to ensure a constructive process (Atkinson & Bolt, 2010; Buchanan & Parry, 2019). However, this does not suggest an asymmetric relationship; rather, the experts may facilitate symmetric conversations and how to achieve reflective depth during the dialogue, especially concerning values related to teaching and pedagogy (Yiend et al., 2014). At certain stages, experts may also prevent negative group dynamics from emerging, such as being attentive to passive members or some participants assuming roles that may be less productive for the group (Atkinson & Bolt, 2010; Buchanan & Parry, 2019; Costello et al., 2001; Lomas & Kinchin, 2006).

I ndividual Factors: Significance of Pedagogical Experience and Preconceptions As previously mentioned, the participants in group mentoring have a range of different backgrounds when it comes to teaching and pedagogical experience. Because of this possible diversity, it is important for each mentoring group to individually establish a set of mutual expectations and needs in the initial stage of their collaboration (Toth & McKey, 2010). Given that experienced teachers may wish to address slightly different aspects of their professional practice compared with novice teachers, this clarification of expectations is important to ensure that all participants contribute to the best of their abilities and that this is negotiated in each group (Ambler et al., 2014; Lomas & Kinchin, 2006). From previous empirical documentation, it is also interesting to note that, when this is an established routine, inexperienced teachers contribute just as much to the conversations as experienced teachers; on the other hand, in groups in which the participants are less attentive to asymmetric tendencies regarding experience, more junior members of peer groups may take a more passive role and contribute less to the conversations than they potentially could have (Hendry et  al., 2014). This becomes particularly apparent when the participants realise that there are similarities in teaching practices and challenges regardless of the length of a participant’s career, and novice participants often bring perspectives to the table that their experienced colleagues may have overlooked (Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker, 2006).

10

T. de Lange et al.

One way of creating alignment between junior and senior members in peer mentoring groups is to prepare the participants by providing organised training for faculty peer mentoring. This enables the participants to become acquainted with each other in a safe and guided environment where, generally, they can reflect on their roles and needs prior to handing over full responsibility to peer groups (Kohut et al., 2007; Shortland, 2010; Sullivan et al., 2012). Although there is broad agreement regarding the need to support peer groups, both in the initial phase and when organising reflective seminars or sessions at a later point in time or as a final discussion, there is little indication in the literature that peer group mentoring requires comprehensive pedagogical training (Martin & Double, 1998). Nevertheless, what is significant in peer group mentoring is that the participants have strong personal opinions, values and beliefs regarding the choices they make in their pedagogical work, such as in supervision and teaching (Deni & Malakolunthu, 2013). In this context, an element of risk is that the participants’ basic perceptions of teaching and learning are not sufficiently addressed to create changes or reflect on richer explanations because the conversations may not delve sufficiently into these issues (Kinchin, 2005). As several studies indicate, inattentiveness to principles and deep explanations related to learning and teaching suggests that conversations are less significant in terms of enabling the participants to reconsider or change their pedagogical practices (Ambler et al., 2014; Martin & Double, 1998). In addition, attitudes according to which teaching is regarded as a private matter and the idea of improvement is perceived as a sign of a flaw or weakness prevent critical and reflective discussions in which the participants may see beyond pre-established notions prior to peer mentoring (Schultz & Latif, 2006). To handle these tendencies, emphasising explicitness on pedagogical principles and values, highlighting open-­ mindedness and allowing respectful critical discussions constitute a prime catalyst for change in organising peer group mentoring activity for the benefit of deeper learning. In collecting the above findings from the research on peer mentoring in groups as part of CFD, a few main factors emerge that are important to summarise before we continue our introduction of the project and findings presented in this book. As noted above, implementing and organising peer group mentoring in higher education varies considerably, ranging from leadership to grassroots initiatives; however, to sustain these practices over time, some kind of institutional or leadership support is recommended. It is also the prerogative of each initiator to choose whether or not to organise this in a cross-disciplinary manner or within disciplinary confines, as long as the participants and initiators are aware of the somewhat different conversational foci within the given frameworks. Thus, establishing clear guidelines for working together in peer mentoring groups is recommended, and these guidelines must have the clear purpose of establishing and maintaining conversational focus and progress. Regarding the relational aspects of peer group mentoring, dialogue on rules and regulations is important, particularly when discussing the meaning of a given framework. Moreover, being flexible and adjusting these rules according to the group’s needs appear to be a good way to establish a well-functioning collaborative

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

11

atmosphere. Finally, the diversity of the participants’ experiences and awareness in relation to the issues being discussed in peer mentoring groups is considered to be an asset because they facilitate a variety of perspectives. However, some initial training and support is recommended to provide the groups with an awareness of how to remain open to different perspectives and deeper principles and to be reflective in a respectful manner. What is also striking from this literature review is the scarcity of empirical research within this field and lack of rigour in the research that does exist, including scattered conceptual notions. Few studies have analysed specific peer group mentoring methods over time and the effects these have on the community settings in which they are implemented (Esterhazy et al., 2021).

 tudying Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Four Specific S University Settings An interesting note from the review above is that, on the one hand, it reveals how vital guiding models are and, on the other hand, what little systematic knowledge we have on how models influence the unfolding of peer-based mentoring practices. Inspired by the limitations we identified in this field and our own experience as academic developers, we decided to apply for funding for a longitudinal project to study the implementation of peer group mentoring approaches at a specific higher education institution. By implementing the two peer group mentoring models of PPGM and OPGM in our empirical design, we aimed to thoroughly document how CFD provides opportunities for dealing with educational challenges and developing teaching. Empirically, this book draws on the results of the above project aimed at developing educational and teacher collaboration in four different educational settings at a Nordic research-intensive university: A. The first educational setting was a national research school for PhD candidates in municipal health care research (Muni-Health-Care). PPGM was implemented to develop a collaborative and supportive community among faculty members to discuss, share and address challenges in doctoral supervision. B. The second setting involved all master’s supervisors in the Faculty of Humanities. PPGM was introduced as a five-year plan at the faculty aimed at establishing a supportive community for supervising master’s students. This was achieved by establishing collaborative faculty groups across departments and based on an introductory course at the beginning of each semester. C. The third setting involved an educational programme in pharmacy in the faculty of mathematics and natural sciences. OPGM was introduced over a period of two semesters, where pharmacy teachers were invited to collaborate in peer mentoring groups to further develop their teaching in problem-based learning groups (PBL) and update the implementation of this teaching method in the programme.

12

T. de Lange et al.

D. The fourth setting was a programme in religious education in the faculty of theology. OPGM was introduced to provide a collaborative space for teachers to deal with a transitional process by merging two previously separate programmes with different teaching traditions by aligning their thematic and disciplinary foci in a newly merged faculty teacher community. These four settings were actively involved in the funding application for testing faculty peer mentoring approaches with a view to addressing particular issues in each setting. The aim was to develop a supportive collegiality for improving teaching and supervision practices in the respective educational communities. These four communities volunteered to participate in this project in collaboration with the project leader team. Specifically, the aim was to apply faculty peer mentoring over a period of 2–3 years and, during this period, to help further develop the applied peer mentoring approaches based on empirical data and analysis. This development was achieved by maintaining close contact through regular meetings, collaborative seminars and workshops in which experiences were presented and refinements were suggested throughout the implementation stages of the project. The first two educational settings – the doctoral school in Muni-Health-Care and the programme for the supervision of master’s students – implemented PPGM. The latter two educational settings – pharmacy and religion – implemented OPGM. Project planning began with the exploration of previous experiences using both methods, which were implemented as part of a formal FD programme (Lauvås & Handal, 2014; Lauvås et al., 2016). This work was foundational in the sense that it outlined the practical aspects of faculty peer mentoring and reflected on the impact of these approaches on developing collaborative communities and supportive pedagogical collegiality among faculty staff. Variations of the PPGM and OPGM models have been applied in a range of settings in Scandinavia and internationally for over 30 years, generally reporting positive experiences (Lauvås & Handal, 2014; Lauvås et al., 2016). However, during our preparational work and mapping of the field, we were again struck by the lack of rigorous empirical documentation on the development and implementation of faculty peer group mentoring practices. Although longitudinal studies across disciplines in higher education settings do exist, the PPGM and OPGM models we applied in this project have received minimal attention. This strengthens the relevance of sharing the findings from this project with an international audience. From the outset, the project was based on three important premises. First, the intervention in the four educational settings predominantly focused on collaborative and collective strategies to develop teaching and pedagogical practices. Second, it presupposed a research-based analysis for identifying those challenges related to implementing the peer mentoring models and required the participants’ involvement in refining and adjusting these models according to local pedagogical needs and interests. Third, the intervention had a longitudinal focus that aimed at documenting the long-term impacts of peer mentoring within the collaborative groups and in the teaching communities at the organisational level.

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

13

Conceptually, the project was based on sociocultural approaches in a broad sense and cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT). In particular, the CHAT perspective can help accentuate the notion of how faculty staff learn and develop by engaging in social practices (Daniels, 2016; de Lange & Wittek, 2014). In this sense, the coconstructive and interactional focus previously defined as core in PGM is with this theoretical framework analytically connected to what in CHAT is considered as a basic understanding of learning within social practices (Cole, 1996; Roth & Lee, 2007). Activity theory (CHAT) also provides a grounding for analysing the PGM models as knowledge artefacts. Artefacts are considered to be resources shaping how we relate to each other in our social surroundings that shape and regulate our actions. In the perspective of PGM, the notion of artefact allows us to analytically unpack how the models and guidelines contribute to regulating interactional mechanisms (Daniels, 2016; Wertsch, 1991). It has simultaneously allowed us to follow how the participants make sense of these models throughout the PGM conversations, including the tensions that will inevitably emerge (Lauvås et al., 2016). In pulling together the findings throughout this book in the final chapter, we hope that this CHAT-based notion provides an opportunity for a synthesising analysis of the PGM practices in the whole PeTS project. The empirical design applied in our analysis of PPGM and OPGM implementation and refinements is also rooted in a five-phase experimental cycle derived from CHAT (de Lange, 2011; Engeström, 2005). This approach was part of how the four case partners in the project implemented and experimented with PGM in their respective settings. A five-phased process was designed to follow this progression from the initial stages of discussing local needs to gradually embedding peer group mentoring into local practices (Fig. 1.2).

Fig. 1.2  The cyclic process of innovation the activities involved

14

T. de Lange et al.

In addition to providing an activity theoretical methodology for the four interventions, the CHAT basis also underlines an analytic focus on relational processes and mechanisms unfolding in PGM. In this sense, we consider PGM practices as primarily collective processes in which activity theoretical thinking and methodology serve as a relevant analytic lens (Engeström & Sannino, 2011). The empirical data were collected and analysed during the different phases of the project, as depicted in Fig. 1.2. This entailed practical implementation, reflections from participants and the implemented activities and experiments with refinements of the PPGM and OPGM models. The data were collected from a variety of empirical sources, ranging from participant interviews reflecting on experiences from peer mentoring sessions, video-recorded observations of peer mentoring conversations, survey-based evaluations and written logs on issues discussed in the groups and on productive and challenging aspects experienced during the mentoring sessions. The main data of the project drew on the video recordings of sessions, thereby allowing us to study the progression in peer mentoring conversations in detail. Permission to conduct this research was granted by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data,2 which defines the ethical guidelines for preserving the anonymity of the informants. On the upside, this methodology has enabled us to study in detail how PGM sessions evolve, thereby constructing a deeper understanding of why participants experience these activities as being so productive. This approach is rarely applied in research on peer group mentoring processes, which we reviewed in relation to and as a part of our project. On the other hand, a limitation of this empirical approach is that we confine our scope to qualitative analysis, which reduces the possibility for cross-contextual generalisations. However, given the limitations in previous research in this field, we believe that our empirical grounding for exploring and analysing peer group mentoring processes in detail is solid and provides a potent foundation for the further development of these practices to enhance pedagogical collegiality.

The Chapters of the Book Chapter 1 (the current chapter) provides the conceptual foundation of the book and describes the project upon which the edited volume is based. The definition of PGM presented in this chapter is a baseline for the following empirical chapter contributions, as well as providing an overview of international research that provides the foundation for the presented findings. It also aids in developing the overarching discussion of our findings and their significance in the final chapter of the book. Chapter 2 follows with a theoretical contribution questioning how feedback dialogues are established in practice and which aspects of feedback dialogues are crucial for successful feedback relevant to peer group mentoring. Here, four

 Norsk Senter for Forskningsdata: https://www.nsd.no/en.

2

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

15

aspects of how feedback practices are established are highlighted: relational aspects, interactional aspects, frameworks and structures and the substantial content of the dialogues. This conceptual chapter is important in its affiliation with a very relevant topic adjoining peer group mentoring activities, by extending the scope of peer group mentoring to related fields of research. Chapter 3 presents an empirical analysis that explores how the implementation of peer group mentoring interacts with the broader organisational surroundings of the institution. The chapter provides a valuable first-hand insight into a specific aspect of the project – where experiences with the interplay between peer group mentoring and institutional practices are highlighted. The chapter discusses how institutional surroundings can be considered both affordances and restraints for succeeding with the implementation of PGM. The chapter is also conceptually interesting because it illustrates an interrelatedness of PGM within its larger cultural and organisational surroundings, which is often emphasised in activity theoretical analysis. Chapter 4 reports on the results from OPGM to improve teacher collaboration and empirically analyses how the groups developed each other’s insights through observing each other’s teaching and through reflective conversations. This chapter also presents findings on how to provide suitable working environments that allow such groups to optimise interactional dynamics among the participants, thereby underscoring the epistemically collective grounding in the peer group mentoring activity. Chapter 5 highlights how specific collaborative artefacts are developed to support peer mentoring in problem-based learning (PBL), which is a specific student-­ centred teaching method commonly applied in professional education. This chapter reports from the context of pharmacy education and empirically illustrates how peer-based collaboration contributes to the collective development of teaching practices in the pharmacy educational programme. Also, this chapter underlines the coconstructive and collaborative features characteristic of PGM activities. Chapter 6 presents empirical findings from the PPGM presented within the context of a research school programme, with a focus on PhD supervisors discussing problems and topics related to doctoral supervision. Here, the implemented PPGM approach is analysed from different angles, with the findings suggesting a range of productive outcomes for its participants while also pinpointing the need for additional measures such as meta-discussions on more overarching issues related to research and theory on supervision. This chapter raises some of the shortcomings in PGM arrangements in reaching beyond and across contexts, thereby introducing interesting questions on how to flexibly adjust PGM as a working environment to fit the participants’ particular needs and interests, as well as serving institutional purposes. Chapter 7 presents the findings and analysis of PPGM but in the context of supervising master’s students in a Faculty of Humanities, with the overarching aim of establishing a culture of collaboration among teachers at the faculty level. Although this chapter illustrates a range of beneficial outcomes of PPGM, the

16

T. de Lange et al.

authors also critically assess the extent to which PGM activities alone respond to the long-term ambition of changing institutional practices and suggest more commitment to implementing the knowledge gained in PPGM sessions at the organisational level. Based on their analysis, the authors argue that bringing in the macro level (faculty management and administration) is an important factor in this context for succeeding with more long-term changes driven by peer group mentoring activities. Chapter 8 presents a more incremental analysis of PPGM sessions and how the participants engage in and develop deeper insights into the case being discussed in different groups. This chapter draws on empirical data from the humanities faculty setting, in which supervisors of master’s students discuss the challenges in guiding students in dissertation writing. The main findings and analysis concern how feedback practices are established and what role the PPGM framework plays in sustaining conversations and supporting dialogue. In this sense, the chapter presents an interesting documentation of how PGM processes are interactionally and coconstructively achieved, but also how progress can be prevented and restrained. This chapter is of epistemic interest because it illustrates how PGM is collectively achieved. Chapter 9 turns the focus towards the significance of trust in making peer mentoring sessions work for the benefit of the participants. Beginning with a theoretical definition of relational trust, the chapter places peer mentoring within the realm of professional trust, which is a relationship that needs to be established and maintained actively by its participants through social interaction. An important basis of the chapter is illustrating how the former findings presented in the book simultaneously exemplify how trust or distrust is dialogically accomplished through the participants’ interactional contributions. Based on three examples previously presented in the book, this reanalysis thereby demonstrates that trust is interactionally constituted in the PGM setting. Hence, this reanalysis is thereby an extension of previous findings illustrating how trust in PGM is created, nurtured and broken down. Concerning the activity theoretical grounding of the PeTS project, this chapter addresses the importance of being attentive to the significance of how the participants are collectively responsible for realising PGM as a learning context for each other as members of a group. Chapter 10 provides an overview of all the contributions of the editors of the volume to the book and discusses these findings and experiences in relation to research on peer mentoring. The chapter underlines the epistemic demarcation defined in the introduction chapter and extends these notions based on the totality of findings in the book. In addition, it reflects on the value and implications of these results for related higher education institutions and practices and how PGM can serve wider purposes than previous research has demonstrated. The concluding reflections of the book also point towards current knowledge gaps and unresolved issues surfacing in our own project that require further research and practical exploration. Chapters 11 and 12 are commentary chapters attempting to address some of the overarching issues and relevance to the sector emerging from the previous chap-

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

17

ter contributions. The authors of these chapters were specifically invited based on their wide-ranging experience as researchers and practitioners within higher education and FD.

Concluding Comments Before embarking on the rest of this publication, we wish to comment on the origins of the book. A significant contribution of this collection of chapters is founded on the fact that four different disciplinary communities at one institution have pulled together the project towards one overarching direction. This has given us a golden opportunity to follow four different PGM practices in detail over several years. This was no small achievement, considering how scattered such initiatives often turn out to be. More importantly, this collaborative achievement simultaneously underlined the value in cross-disciplinary collegiality that has arisen through this work, which aligns in spirit with foundational PGM principles. As editors, we cannot express greatly enough our gratitude for this collaborative endeavour, carried by each contributing author in the book. This collective spirit will hopefully affect the reader, whom we hope to inspire to similar initiatives in experimenting with and conducting research on PGM.

References Ambler, T., Chavan, M., Clarke, J., & Matthews, N. (2014). Climates of communication: Collegiality, affect, spaces and attitudes in peer review. In J.  Sachs & M.  Parsell (Eds.), Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 67–84). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­7639-­5_5 Atkinson, D.  J., & Bolt, S.  J. (2010). Using teaching observations to reflect upon and improve teaching practice in higher education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3), 1–19. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ906466.pdf Bell, M. E., & Cooper, P. (2013). Peer observation of teaching in university departments: A framework for implementation. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.633753 Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development. Higher Education, 55, 735–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-­007-­9093-­1 Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2015). Situated learning, reflective practice and conceptual expansion: Effective peer observation for tutor development. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.945163 Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2007). Toward a useful theory of mentoring: A conceptual analysis and critique. Administration & Society, 39(6), 719–739. Buchanan, J. A. G., & Parry, D. (2019). Engagement with peer observation of teaching by a dental school faculty in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Dental Education, 23(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12391 Bulman, C., Forde-Johnson, C., Griffiths, A., Hallworth, S., Kerry, A., Khan, S., & Sharp, P. (2016). The development of peer reflective supervision amongst nurse educator colleagues: An action

18

T. de Lange et al.

research project. Nurse Education Today, 45(October), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nedt.2016.07.010 Chamberlain, J.  M., D’Artrey, M., & Rowe, D.-A. (2011). Peer observation of teaching: A decoupled process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 189–201. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469787411415083 Claveirole, A., & Mathers, M. (2003). Peer supervision: An experimental scheme for nurse lecturers. Nurse Education Today, 23(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-­6917(02)00162-­4 Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press. Colvin, J.  W. (2014). Peer mentoring and tutoring in higher education. In L.  Mang & Z.  Yong (Eds.), Exploring learning & teaching in higher education. Springer. Costello, J., Pateman, B., Pusey, H., & Longshaw, K. (2001). Peer review of classroom teaching: An interim report. Nurse Education Today, 21(6), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1054/ nedt.2001.0571 Daniels, H. (2016). Vygotsky and pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge. Darwin, A., & Palmer, E. (2009). Mentoring circles in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360902725017 Davis, T.  S. (2011). Peer observation: A faculty initiative. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 3(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2011.01.009 de Lange, T. (2011). Formal and non-formal digital practices: Institutionalizing transactional learning spaces in a media classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(3), 251–275. https://doi. org/10.1080/17439884.2011.549827 de Lange, T., & Lauvås, P. (2018). Kollegaveiledning I høyere utdanning—En empirisk analyse av veiledningssamtaler [Peer Mentoring in Higher Education – An empirical analysis of mentoring conversations]. UNIPED, 41(3), 259–274. de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (2014). Research genres as knowledge practices: Experiences in writing doctoral dissertations in different formats. Journal of Educational Public Relations, 35(3), 383–401. https://doi.org/10.3138/jspr.35.3.383 de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (2018). Creating shared spaces: Developing teaching through peer supervision groups. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 25(4), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10749039.2018.1544645 de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (2022). Analysing the constitution of trust in peer-based teacher mentoring groups – A sociocultural perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(3), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1724936 DeCastro, R., Sambuco, D., Ubrel, P. A., Stewart, A., & Jagsi, R. (2013). Mentor networks in academic medicine: Moving beyond a dyadic conception of mentoring for junior faculty researchers. Academic Medicine, 88(4), 488–496. Deni, A. R., & Malakolunthu, S. (2013). Teacher collaborative inquiry as a professional development intervention: Benefits and challenges. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(4), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-­013-­9280-­y Driscoll, L. G., Parkes, K. A., Tilley-Lubbs, G. A., Brill, J. M., & Pitts Bannister, V. R. (2009). Navigating the lonely sea: Peer mentoring and collaboration among aspiring women scholars. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(1), 5–21. https://doi. org/10.1080/13611260802699532 Edwards, A., & Downes, P. (2013). Alliances for inclusion: Developing cross-sector synergies and inter-professional collaboration in and around education. European Commission, Directorate General, Education and Culture. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Lehmanns Media. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132758

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

19

Esterhazy, R., de Lange, T., Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, A. L. (2021). Moving beyond peer review of teaching: A conceptual framework for collegial faculty development. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990721 Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative peer-supported review of teaching. In J.  Sachs & M.  Parsell (Eds.), Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education. Professional learning and development in schools and higher education (Vol. 9). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­7639-­5_2 Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2004). Evaluating our peers: Is peer observation a meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 489–503. https://doi. org/10.1080/0307507042000236380 Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2005). Reflecting on reflective practices within peer observation. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 213–224. https://doi. org/10.1080/03075070500043358 Hatzipanagos, S., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2006). Teaching observations: Promoting development through critical reflection. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(4), 421–431. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03098770600965425 Heikkinen, H., Jokinen, H., & Tynjälä, P. (2012). Teacher education and development as lifelong and lifewide learning. In H. Heikkinen, H. Jokinen, & P. Tynjälä (Eds.), Peer-group mentoring for teacher development (pp. 3–40). Routledge. Hendry, G., Bell, A., & Thomson, K. (2014). Learning by observing a peer’s teaching situation. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1360144X.2013.848806 Huizing, R.  L. (2012). Mentoring together: A literature review of group mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361126 7.2012.645599 Iqbal, I. A. (2014). Don’t tell it like it is: Preserving collegiality in the summative peer review of teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.47678/ cjhe.v44i1.183625 Kenny, A., Mitchell, E., Chróinín, D.  N., Vaughan, E., & Murtagh, E. (2014). ‘In their shoes’: Exploring a modified approach to peer observation of teaching in a university setting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14703297.2013.771971 Kinchin, I. M. (2005). Evolving diversity within a model of peer observation at a UK university. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, Wales, 14–17 September. Kohut, G.  F., Burnap, C., & Yon, M.  G. (2007). Peer observation of teaching: Perceptions of the observer and the observed. College Teaching, 55(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3200/ CTCH.55.1.19-­25 Kroll, J. (2016). What is meant by the term group mentoring? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(1), 44–58. Lauvås, P., & Handal, G. (2014). Veiledning og Praktisk yrkesteori. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Lauvås, P., Lycke, K. H., & Handal, G. (2016). Kollegaveileding med kritiske venner. Cappelen Damm Academisk. Lomas, L., & Kinchin, I. (2006). Developing a peer observation program with university teachers. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(3), 204–214. Lumpkin, A. (2011). A model for mentoring university faculty. The Educational Forum, 75(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2011.602466 Mager, D.  R., Kazer, M.  W., Conelius, J., Shea, J., Lippman, D.  T., Torosyan, R., & Nantz, K. (2014). Development, implementation and evaluation of a peer review of teaching (PRoT) initiative in nursing education. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 11(1), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-­2013-­0019

20

T. de Lange et al.

Mårtensson, K., & Roxå, T. (2016). Leadership at a local level—Enhancing educational development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 247–262. https://doi. org/10.1177/1741143214549977 Martin, G. A., & Double, J. M. (1998). Developing higher education teaching skills through peer observation and collaborative reflection. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800980350210 Meirink, J. A., Meijer, C. P., Verloop, N., & Bergen, T. C. M. (2009). How do teachers learn in the workplace? An examination of teacher learning activities. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760802624096 Moss, J., Teshima, J., & Leszcz, M. (2008). Peer group mentoring of junior faculty. Academic Psychiatry, 32, 230–235. Nash, A., & Collier, C. (2016). The alternative peer group. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 27(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/JAN.0000000000000122 Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). ‘Vygotsky’s neglected legacy’: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654306298273 Sachs, J., & Parsell, M. (Eds.). (2014). Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education. Professional learning and development in schools and higher education (Vol. 9). Springer. Schultz, K.  K., & Latif, D. (2006). The planning and implementation of a faculty peer review teaching project. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(2), 32. https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1636927/ Shortland, S. (2004). Peer observation: A tool for staff development or compliance? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877042000206778 Shortland, S. (2010). Feedback within peer observation: Continuing professional development and unexpected consequences. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.498181 Shousha, A. I. (2015). Peer observation of teaching and professional development: Teachers’ perspectives at the English Language Institute, King Abdulaziz University. Arab World English Journal, 6(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol6no2.10 Skaniakos, T., & Piirainen, A. (2019). The meaning of peer group mentoring in the university context. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 17(1), 19–33. https:// doi.org/10.24384/EKNZ-­S730 Stillwell, C. (2009). The collaborative development of teacher training skills. ELT Journal, 63(4), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn068 Sugrue, C., Englund, T., Solbrekke, T. D., & Fossland, T. (2018). Trends in the practices of academic developers: Trajectories of higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2336–2353. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1326026 Sullivan, P. B., Buckle, A., Nicky, G., & Atkinson, S. H. (2012). Peer observation of teaching as a faculty development tool. BMC Medical Education, 12(26), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/ 1472-­6920-­12-­26 Sutherland, K.  A. (2018). Teaching, research, and service activities, and preferences in the work lives of New Zealand early career academics. In Early career academics in New Zealand: Challenges and prospects in comparative perspective. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­61830-­2_4 Thomas, S., Chie, Q. T., Abraham, M., Jalarajan, R. S., & Beh, L.-S. (2014). A qualitative review of literature on peer review of teaching in higher education: An application of the SWOT framework. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 112–159. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499617 Torres, A. C., Lopes, A., Valente, J. M. S., & Mouraz, A. (2017). What catches the eye in class observation? Observers’ perspectives in a multidisciplinary peer observation of teaching program. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 822–838. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251 7.2017.1301907 Toth, K. E., & McKey, C. A. (2010). Differences in faculty development needs: Implications for educational peer review program design. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 40(1), 53–68.

1  Peer Group Mentoring Among Faculty Staff in Higher Education

21

Vian, T., & Ashigbie, P. G. (2015). Accelerating educational innovation in the MPH degree program: What is the role of peer review of teaching? Journal of Health Education Teaching, 6(1), 43–56. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1085276 Wertsch, J.  V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L.  B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-­004 Wingrove, D., Clarke, A., & Chester, A. (2015). Distributing leadership for sustainable peer feedback on tertiary teaching. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 12(3), Article 8. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085096.pdf Wingrove, D., Hammersley-Fletcher, L., Clarke, A., & Chester, A. (2018). Leading developmental peer observation of teaching in higher education: Perspectives from Australia and England. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(3), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/0007100 5.2017.1336201 Winstone, N. E., & Boud, D. (2020). The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020. 1779687 Yiend, J., Weller, S., & Kinchin, I. (2014). Peer observation of teaching: The interaction between peer review and developmental models of practice. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.726967

Chapter 2

Feedback in the Context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective Line Wittek

Abstract  As a theoretical contribution, this chapter focuses on feedback in the context of peer group mentoring. Core questions include how feedback dialogues are established in practice and which aspects of feedback dialogues are crucial for successful feedback. These questions are discussed in relation to research and theory within the field of feedback – a research field marked by a distinct shift in recent years. Although the traditional focus has been on how feedback is presented, this has now shifted towards how the recipient of the feedback (1) interprets and conceptualises what is said and (2) how they apply the feedback in ways that change their knowledge, self-understanding and/or practice. Here, a theoretical model is suggested, including four crucial dimensions of how feedback practices are established: relational aspects, interactional aspects, frames and structure and the substantial content of the dialogues. The model is developed to reveal the complexity of feedback in peer relationships, proposing a number of categories for further research on peer group mentoring. One can also use the model as a conversational tool when participants meet to clarify the expectations and procedures for peer mentoring in their own individual contexts.

Introduction In this chapter, I highlight feedback, which is one of the key aspects of peer group mentoring. Giving someone feedback is not always easy. We may have prepared well for what we want to say and how to present it, but nevertheless discover that we have failed to get our point across. Why is that so? There is little previous research that elucidates feedback in peer-mentoring processes in particular; however, in recent years, a number of interesting contributions L. Wittek (*) Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_2

23

24

L. Wittek

have been made regarding feedback between students and teachers, a literature that also is relevant to understand feedback among colleagues as addressed in the current chapter. The primary aim of this chapter is to suggest a theoretical perspective that can help us understand which dimensions facilitate the establishment of feedback dialogues and what is required for these dialogues to be perceived as productive and useful in the context of peer group mentoring. Previous feedback research has largely focused on how feedback is formulated and presented (Ajjawi & Boud, 2017). Thus, the attention has been devoted to only one of the parties involved in this practice. In light of this, the challenges involved in feedback have been formulated as a problem of delivery (Telio et  al., 2016), often followed by advice on how the mentor should formulate and organise their message to render the feedback as ‘effective’ as possible (p.  934). From an educational perspective, such advice may be rather beneficial. The substantial content of feedback messages is obviously rather important, and the manner in which it is presented is also important. However, this one-sided focus on the delivery of feedback has been criticised in recent years (Telio et al., 2016, p. 934). In particular, there has been a call for research on the impact of contextual and relational issues (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018; Esterhazy, 2018). There has also been criticism against the monological understanding of feedback that dominates current research (Steen-­Utheim & Wittek, 2017), and it has been claimed that a dialogical understanding is better suited to capture the complexity of feedback practices. A fundamental assumption in a dialogical approach is that the creation of meaning always includes two voices that are in dialogue (Bakhtin, 1981; Linell, 1998, 2009), and that meaning-making is created in the dialogue between people. In the wake of this criticism, new research contributions have, in different ways, focused on feedback as relational and contextual acts, which will be highlighted in this chapter. In this text, feedback is defined as a social act that includes the content of the communication, the colleagues involved, contextual aspects, the tasks ahead and the relationships as they evolve through the course of the process (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018). Here, the objective of feedback is understood as a deliberate contribution to change in knowledge, self-understanding or practice for teachers who participate in peer-­mentoring groups.

What Establishes Feedback Dialogues? Here, I present four different perspectives on feedback dialogues with relevance for peer group mentoring: 1 . Feedback as interaction 2. Relational trust 3. Learning potentialities 4. Shared understanding of the purposes of and actions in peer group mentoring

2  Feedback in the Context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective

25

In a distinct manner, each of these perspectives thematises what shapes feedback dialogues and what is crucial for them to help achieve change in knowledge, self-­ understanding or practice for teachers in higher education.

Feedback as Interaction Interpretation by the person who receives feedback is, by necessity, crucial for learning and change to take place. The effect of feedback primarily depends on how the person who receives it interprets and accepts what is being said (Telio et al., 2015, p. 609). Therefore, the recipient must be able to link what is being said to the needs that they have for feedback. Furthermore, it is essential that the recipient links the information being provided to their existing knowledge and experience (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018). In light of this, it is the participants themselves who must define the areas in which they wish to receive feedback (Wittek & de Lange, 2021). Decoding the content of feedback can present problems when those who give and receive feedback belong to widely differing contexts. Research on feedback between teachers and students has often thematised decoding as a major challenge because of the wide gap in the knowledge base of the parties involved and also because the relationship between the two parties is, by definition, asymmetric. A few researchers have likened the decoding as having to learn a new language (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018). The relationship between the parties in peer group mentoring is, in principle, symmetric and, thus, different from the one where professors meet their bachelor’s (BA) or master’s (MA) students for a feedback dialogue. It is also different in the sense that it is group based rather than the more traditional dyadic way of organising peer mentoring in higher education. However, even though the colleagues are formally at the same ‘level’ in terms of position and knowledge base, we have seen a number of examples of inequalities that come to the fore in peer group mentoring (Wittek et al., this volume). A good example from the PeTS project in this respect is the composition of mentors attending the research school associated with the municipal health and care services, where supervisors across the Norwegian country participate in peer-­ mentoring groups to engage in in-depth discussions of realistic supervisory challenges (Kirkevold & de Lange, this volume). The mentors are recruited from well-established academic communities, as well as from smaller and more fragmented ones. One of the objectives of the research school has been to establish an arena for networking by providing collegial support and involvement of mentors. The groups have been symmetrical in the sense that the mentors are employed as professors or associate professors in higher education institutions in Nordic countries. Nevertheless, we have observed that the relationships that evolved among the mentors reflected certain differences, including in terms of the amount of mentoring experience they possess and whether the participants came from a robust research community.

26

L. Wittek

Another example of inequality can be found in the peer-mentoring programme in the Faculty of Theology, where the groups observed each other’s teaching, subsequently giving each other feedback1 (Wittek et al., this volume). One of the groups comprised three teachers: one had been recently appointed, while two were experienced teachers who taught the same course. The novice was teaching the course for the first time; in the sessions, the novice showed the utmost respect for his more seasoned colleagues. He listened attentively and repeatedly stated that he had not yet found his own teaching style but that he learned a lot from observing his colleagues and participating in the discussions (post-supervision). Moreover, his mode of participation indicated that he regarded himself as the novice in the group, but his questions and input were nevertheless highly relevant. In the examples from the research school at the faculty of medicine, the participants came from different institutions and barely knew each other from before; however, they all supervised one or more PhD candidates who had the municipal health service as their research field. In the example from the Faculty of Theology, the teachers all came from the same department and even taught the same course, and they had adjacent research specialties. However, both examples indicate that the symmetry that, in principle, must characterise the relationships in a peer group mentoring group can be challenged by various issues, such as experience, reputation as a supervisor/teacher or internal positioning between people or organisations. These differences can have a large or small bearing on the roles that participants assume in a group and how the peer-mentoring practice is designed. Although, in principle, peer mentoring is based on equality and symmetry, there are still a few differences that are important to clarify (Boschman et al., 2021). In a study of peer group mentoring in interfaculty groups conducted by Thomas de Lange and me (de Lange & Wittek, 2018), we found that it could be an advantage not to belong to the same discipline in discussions on teaching or supervision because this makes it easier to ‘liberate’ the attention from details of the academic content and concentrate on the educational aspects. However, there are other studies concluding that peer group mentoring is particularly beneficial for colleagues working in similar disciplines (Buchanan & Parry, 2019; Mager et al., 2014). The former appears to foster discussion that focuses more on disciplinary content and bottlenecks, while the latter challenges the participants to be more explicit regarding teaching conventions, pedagogical perspectives and student learning (de Lange et  al., 2022). Therefore, peer mentoring can be beneficial within both purely disciplinary and interdisciplinary groups. A combination of the two approaches is often productive (Bell & Mladenovic, 2008; Davis, 2011; de Lange & Wittek, 2018). In other words, there are no grounds for arguing that one is better than the other, and my point is rather to emphasise that proximity or distance between the participants; here, the discipline and context involved has an impact on how the peer

 This model is labelled OPGM (observation-based peer group mentoring) at other places in this volume. 1

2  Feedback in the Context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective

27

group mentoring establishes itself and the opportunities that it opens up (or precludes). Ajjawi and Boud (2017) adopt a dialogical position when they define feedback as a social process in which experience, ‘position’, emotions and contextual conditions influence the manner in which feedback is given and interpreted and the practical implications that it may entail. In a study of clinical supervision between experienced clinicians and medical students in the final phase of their training, Ajjawi and Boud (2018) conclude that the following three key aspects were crucial for the manner in which feedback established itself through interaction. First, the manner in which the substantial content was thematised; second, socio-affective aspects; and third, structural aspects (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018, pp.  1108–1110). Below, I comment on these three key aspects with an emphasis on their relevance for peer group mentoring. The first key aspect implies that it is the person who is receiving the feedback who should define what the substantial content must address. Second, it is crucial that the recipients of the feedback are invited to elaborate, explain or comment during the process. Third, this key aspect concerns invitations to reformulate ideas, rethink the problem and encourage critical assessment of mindsets or actions or invitations to explore the transferability to new teaching or supervision situations. Furthermore, it appears beneficial that the teacher who is being mentored has chosen what their colleagues should observe or the supervision setting to be discussed (de Lange et  al., 2022). Substantial content has primarily been directed towards the teacher’s actions, successes and failures, and the colleagues’ questions and advice have focused on how to overcome challenging situations and develop as a teacher or supervisor. The essence of peer group mentoring is to create a space in which colleagues are given an opportunity to make themselves vulnerable and where this openness represents an opportunity to learn and develop further as a teacher and professional academic in conjunction with one’s colleagues (Pleschová et al., 2021): it is a premise for developing this kind of trust that the group members feel sufficiently safe to open up and allow colleagues to discuss their struggles. The second key aspect (the socio-affective) refers to the interactional pattern as it develops internally in the group. First, the manner in which feedback is presented is important. Does it take the form of pure assessments, or are these more inviting and inquiring? According to Ajjawi and Boud (2018), an invitation to a dialogue on what has been noticed through observation or discussion must be presented in the latter way if learning and development are the objective. Second, expressions of support, empathy and emotional responses are essential. An indicator of this could be, for example, whether the discussion is marked by interruptions or whether the person speaking is given the time needed to express themselves. Another indicator could be that emotional responses are given. Emotional responses are often expressed by the other participants, and it is important to pay careful attention to what is said, which is often followed by minimal responses such as eye contact, nodding or a confirmative ‘yes’ or ‘m-hm’. Third, an important factor associated with the socio-affective aspect is that opportunities are established for a continued dialogue on the topics that are discussed, in that the same topics are picked up and

28

L. Wittek

elaborated on within the framework of the same group session or across sessions when the groups work together over an extended period of time. The third key aspect is structural aspects and refers to the manner in which the activity is organised; in this case, the method chosen for peer group mentoring will have a considerable impact. Ajjawi and Boud (2018) emphasise that the recipient of feedback needs to assume the role of an active partner. Hence, the recipient should not merely listen to the feedback given but also participate actively in the discussion. This could also include presenting possibly diverging viewpoints, explaining how the feedback given is interpreted or requesting clarifications. Furthermore, the importance of giving the teacher who is at the centre of the mentoring session the opportunity to think aloud about how the points that emerge in the discussion can be applied in the teacher’s own practice can have a great impact on the learning outcome from peer mentoring (Wittek & de Lange, 2021). When this in turn forms a new starting point for expanding the shared exploration, a good basis for learning and change of practice is created. Obviously, other structural aspects also have an impact. For example, it is essential to have suitable premises where confidential discussions can be held without interruption by noise or people dropping by. Additional structural aspects include sufficient time for the sessions or provisions/ instructions that are defined by the institutional or local level in the organisation. The substantial content and the socio-affective and structural aspects interact dynamically, and it must be emphasised that the opportunities for learning and change are established by their joint presence and the dynamics between them (Ajjawi & Boud, 2018, p.  1108). As I have shown in the above account, power relationships, emotions and contextual conditions may create tension and asymmetry in such dynamics but along somewhat different dimensions than those seen in feedback dialogues between teachers and students.

Relational Trust Telio et al. (2016) have conducted a study focusing on how the recipients of feedback assessed the credibility of the feedback they received. This assessment was crucial for whether and in what ways the students accepted feedback. The analyses reveal that three aspects particularly influenced their assessment of whether the statements could be trusted (Telio et  al., 2016, pp.  937–938). The case involved medical students who were at the final stage of their training, and the supervisors were experienced clinicians. One might think that the students’ assessment of credibility would be primarily associated with professional skill and academic reputation, but these proved to be of little significance. The medical students highlighted three completely different aspects. First, they emphasised the supervisor’s involvement in the matter. Second, they highlighted whether the giver of the feedback took a genuine interest in them as people. Third, it was crucial for the students to feel that the supervisor related to them in a friendly and forthcoming manner and that the supervisor liked them as people. There are obvious differences between clinical

2  Feedback in the Context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective

29

supervision between experienced doctors and medical students on the one hand, and between colleagues who engage in peer group mentoring on the other. However, although peer-mentoring groups, in principle, are based on equality, asymmetry will likely reveal itself in the ways that I have referred to above. Thus, there is reason to assume that colleagues also make assessments of whether they can trust what is being said and that this is associated with the perception that the giver of feedback has the recipient’s best interests at heart. Throughout the group process, the feedback recipient will more or less automatically ask themselves the following types of questions (Telio et al., 2015, p. 612): Do my peers care about me? Am I present in their ideas? Do they care about the objectives that apply to the situation at hand? Does the attempt to understand my starting point and the direction I am aiming for? Do they intend to help me, or are there any other agendas involved? These types of questions are linked to intuitive and persistent assessments of whether the feedback given can be trusted, and these assessments are involved in all feedback dialogues, irrespective of whether we are aware of them. The assessment of whether we can trust the person who is giving us feedback has a crucial bearing on the kinds of learning and change that can emerge from the feedback dialogue, not only at the time when it takes place, but also based on how we are subsequently open (or closed) to feedback (Telio et al. 2015). Trust also results in ‘open, frequent and collaborative patterns of communication in which parties exchange even sensitive information, do not hesitate to ask for help, and coordinate actions’ (Simon & Pleschová, 2021, p. 281). Further, Molloy and Bearman (2018)2 address trust as a crucial aspect of feedback. In their article, they thematise the complicated relationship between making oneself vulnerable, on the one hand, and appearing professional and competent, on the other. In mentoring situations, individuals intuitively seek a balance between showing vulnerability and appearing competent or, in other words, striking a balance between admitting to what one struggles with and, thus, welcoming input and advice and not losing face (Pleschová et al., 2021). Molloy and Bearman claim that, in order to learn, one must step into this sphere of vulnerability: In order to learn, we have to open ourselves up to the possibility of imagining things differently; this is more than the incremental learning of adding new facts to old ones. (…). Rather, this is learning as transformation: different ways of knowing or being; profound epistemic or ontic changes in how we make sense of the world. (2018, p. 3)

Colleagues can play a crucial role in helping us reflect on our role as teachers or supervisors and develop ourselves in these roles. When others learn about our frustrations, slip-ups and worries, we put our colleagues in a position to help us and guide us forward. Another key point here is that by putting our dilemmas and uncertainties into words, we enable ourselves to learn. We show others and ourselves that we are receptive to new perspectives and new ways of creating meaning (Molloy & Bearman, 2018). However, in doing so, we are making ourselves vulnerable in  This is a conceptual contribution, in which the authors cite examples from both peer mentoring and student–supervisor relationships. 2

30

L. Wittek

ways that may conflict with our need to appear competent, as we do when describe our successes as teachers or how we resolved challenging situations. Molloy and Bearman (2018) refer to the relationship between revealing our vulnerability, on the one hand, and appearing competent, on the other hand, as ‘intellectual candour’; this continuous balancing act constitutes a key point of tension in mentoring, including among peers. These tensions may perhaps have an even greater influence than we imagine on how we enter into feedback dialogues with colleagues. In most situations where feedback is given, we will seek to strike a balance between appearing competent and rendering ourselves vulnerable. The appropriate balance will obviously depend on a number of relational and contextual factors  – for example, whether the participants in the peer-mentoring group know each other from before, belong to the same discipline and are familiar with each other’s academic cultures and the teaching and supervision practices in which they are involved. A relatively recent study focuses on how trust develops in peer-mentoring groups (de Lange & Wittek, 2020). The empirical context of our study was a peer-mentoring group consisting of four teachers from different faculties at the same university. One such group was followed closely through one semester. Based on our analysis, we concluded that the participants gradually developed trust in each other, but this took time. This trust manifested itself, for example, in how the participants used this opportunity to try out unfinished thoughts, how they showed their vulnerability by describing dilemmas or difficult situations or in how challenging questions provided an angle from which to try out new perspectives. One of the conclusions in this study was that trust internally within the group was a precondition for the participants to benefit optimally from the process. Trust evolved gradually, and the empirical indicators referred to above were more frequently present in the latter half of the six-month period that the collaboration lasted. It is evident from the above discussion that trust develops relationally in context and depends on the persons involved, as well as their interpersonal dynamics. In groups where individual participants have chosen to dive deeply into personal challenges – and perhaps even thematised the emotional issues attached to these  – we have typically seen that the group has followed up with a high degree of presence and attentiveness and given the problem owner both time and space to express themselves (de Lange & Wittek, 2018; de Lange et  al., 2022). In these situations, support tended to be expressed by using minimal responses and also by explicitly expressing understanding and recognition of what was being described. However, trust may also obviously fail to develop. In the PeTS project, we also observed a few such processes, and the participants in these groups expressed their frustration in various ways. When it comes to trusting what is being said in feedback dialogues, the above discussion can be summarised in the following points: • The credibility of the feedback-giver may perhaps be intuitively assessed without any conscious reflection on our part. Aspects that have been shown to be especially crucial in such considerations include the following: (a) engagement with the substantial content of the discussion,

2  Feedback in the Context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective

31

( b) interest in the person receiving feedback and (c) a perception of goodwill in the givers of feedback and an impression that your peers have your best interest at heart. • The recipient actively asks questions and seeks to verify their interpretations of what is said. • Development of trust, which includes allocating sufficient time and striking a sensible balance between showing one’s vulnerability and appearing competent.

Learning Potentialities From a dialogical perspective, feedback is understood as something created through dialogue in situ (Carless, 2013; Säljö, 2001; Steen-Utheim & Wittek, 2017; Telio et al., 2015). This perspective contrasts with the traditional understanding of feedback, which focuses on the communication of a prepared message. In a dialogical perspective, the manner in which the interaction pattern in a peer-­mentoring group develops through practice is crucial for the potential that feedback represents for learning and change. Based on a comprehensive review of dialogically oriented research literature on learning, Steen-Utheim and Wittek (2017) suggest four aspects of feedback dialogues that have a decisive impact on learning. By ‘potential for learning’, we mean a potential that is realised through the actions of the participants and the dynamic between them. The following four aspects are important for the kinds of learning potentials that develop (Ajjawi & Boud, 2017): • emotional and relational support, which refers to support, empathy, attention and trust as a part of the interaction; • the opportunity for each participant to express themselves, which refers to the attentiveness of the group, sufficient time to express what is on one’s mind, questions and a continuation of the topics of discussion; • continuation of the topics raised, which refers to patterns for participation and taking turns, following up topics over time, types of initiatives and development of relevant topics; and • shared development of new insight, which refers to how different types of feedback (supportive, argumentative or challenging) contribute to a shared development of new ideas or perspectives.

 hared Understanding of the Purposes of and Actions in Peer S Group Mentoring Fear of or reluctance to accept criticism and negative comments can occasionally overshadow the receptivity to feedback. Telio et al. (2015, p. 610) use the concept of ‘educational alliance’ to elucidate the alliance that is relationally established

32

L. Wittek

between those involved in feedback dialogues. In their conceptual contribution, the authors argue that the value of feedback depends primarily on the following three elements: first, what the recipient of feedback perceives and interprets; second, in what ways they consider what is being said as useful for their own learning and development in their role as a university teacher; and third, the relational aspects. Relational aspects of particular importance are the following: 1. that there is a mutual understanding of the purpose and objective of the feedback dialogue, 2. that there is agreement on how the purpose and objective can be achieved and 3. that the mentee trusts the giver of feedback and appreciates and respects this person. The items above and the association between them represent the quality of the relationship between those who engage in the feedback dialogue. According to Telio et al., the combination of these three items constitutes a very robust indicator of whether feedback can help achieve change in understanding or practice (p. 612).

 ialogues Between Colleagues as Contextual D and Relational Acts In this part of the chapter, I summarise the four perspectives above by proposing a model that I have developed to reveal the complexity of feedback in the context of peer group mentoring. The model provides various aspects that impact how peer-­ mentoring groups establish themselves and what the participants stand to gain from such collaboration. The relative importance of the aspects will vary from one group to another. However, feedback dialogues are created through a continuous, dynamic interplay between people, their contextual, structural and relational conditions and the substantial content discussed. In this context, it is important to emphasise that the value of feedback is established through these aspects and is seen as a unitary whole. In other words, these aspects are intricately interrelated. It is these complex dynamics that establish feedback and turn them into productive practices (Esterhazy, 2018; Pleschová et al., 2021). Many of the theoretical approaches that are included in this text have been developed based on empirical studies. All of them are written in the context of higher education, but the feedback practices that have been studied range from clinical supervision to feedback from teachers to students and feedback in peer-mentoring groups. As mentioned earlier, there are considerable differences between peer relationships and more asymmetrical supervision relationships in educational contexts; however, even in peer relationships, feedback dialogues are constituted in the interplay among a number of different aspects, as I have shown above. The ‘effect’ of feedback is shaped by power relationships, emotions, contextual conditions and the dynamics between the parties involved; this also applies in clinical supervision,

2  Feedback in the Context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective

33

when university teachers give feedback to their students and when peers give feedback to each other in the context of peer group mentoring. The four aspects in model 1 are partially overlapping and can be difficult to distinguish from each other in practice. However, the model highlights the aspects that (to a greater or lesser extent) impact how feedback is created through interplay and what potential is established for change in knowledge, self-understanding or practice. In the model, the person receiving responses is referred to as the teacher. Here, I reiterate that the four dimensions in Table 2.1 are closely intertwined. For example, we can barely imagine that the mentee would dare to show vulnerability (first row) unless the other participants demonstrate genuine attention and responsiveness throughout (second row) when the mentee takes the floor. The table presents the various dimensions that interact and impinge on how feedback dialogues take place in practice and, in turn, how learning potentials can be activated from the practice of peer group mentoring. According to the research referred to in this chapter, the relational aspects are particularly decisive if feedback is to help ensure change and learning. Trust in the other members of the peer-mentoring group is a precondition for the individual participant to be in a position to learn (Boschman et  al., 2021). In other words, daring to show vulnerability, put concerns into words and share something that one struggles with facilitates thinking aloud together with colleagues regarding the real nature of the challenges, how to proceed further in understanding them and how to identify approaches that can be tried out. However, trust in the other group members is a precondition for showing vulnerability in this manner. Trust requires that the participants experience a balance between being recognised as competent in their role as university teachers while daring to say what they struggle with or are uncertain about. When people are placed in groups to give each other feedback, they will more or less automatically make up their minds regarding whether the feedback is credible. When assessing this, they must be convinced that the persons giving feedback has their best interests at heart, is genuinely concerned with helping them with their problems and respects them both as a teacher and as a person. Good feedback techniques can be useful but should primarily be used as a toolbox from which ideas and suggestions can be selected to support the establishment and further development of communicative practice, where the feedback is understood in a meaningful manner by all parties involved (Telio et al., 2015, p. 612). The ‘ground rules’ refer to the interactional pattern that develops through interaction. Discipline-related or professional ways of acting and thinking will, by necessity, be part of these processes (Esterhazy, 2018). In addition, important factors also include the manner in which the institution caters for peer mentoring in the form of resources and organisation, the kinds of goals and functions that are defined at the institutional level and how these are translated into practice. The model selected for peer group mentoring will impose rules of different degrees of strictness on the discussions. Teachers in higher education are often subject to time constraints, and it can be difficult to set aside time for peer mentoring and feedback (de Lange et al., 2022). For feedback between colleagues to succeed, the participants will need

The substantial content of the feedback dialogues

What the colleagues have on their minds

Model/framework How feedback dialogues are facilitated for peer mentoring

The ‘ground rules’ Features of the group’s discussion pattern as they are formed through interaction

Dimension Refers to Relational aspects How the group dynamic develops through the process, including development of trust, balancing exposure of vulnerability and and appearing competent

Examples/questions indicating how the aspect manifests itself in practice The group repeatedly holds meta-discussions on the purpose and objective of the peer mentoring and jointly assesses whether these targets are being met Does the teacher dare to show uncertainty/put emotional reactions into words? Previously introduced topics are readdressed/followed up over time and elaborated upon Balance between emotional and relational support, on the one hand, and challenging support, on the other hand Genuine attention and responsiveness are demonstrated Mutual respect and recognition are shown. Types of initiatives (supportive/argumentative/ challenging)? Is the teacher active in responding to questions, reflecting back their interpretations and asking follow-up questions? How are initiatives followed up? What drives the discussion forward? Does the teacher define the focus for the feedback? Is there an open or closed structure to the peer group mentoring? How are instructions in the model be translated into practice? A shared understanding of how the peer mentoring should be performed What time frames are planned and how are these followed up on? What is thematised, and how are these topics further elaborated? Are invitations being extended to add supplementary information/further detail? Are alternative perspectives being introduced? Does a more nuanced understanding/new insight develop during the discussion? Are the implications for teaching/supervision being explicitly discussed? Are there any discussions regarding relevance beyond the situation at hand?

Table 2.1  Feedback dialogues between colleagues in higher education: crucial dimensions

34 L. Wittek

2  Feedback in the Context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective

35

to agree on the structural aspects. This is a case of setting aside sufficient time, booking suitable rooms, establishing procedures and structures for the sessions and that the group members participate actively and with commitment. A key argument in this text has been that the traditional focus on how feedback is delivered limits the possibilities for understanding what makes feedback effective, on the one hand, and for finding ways to give feedback in ways that optimally benefit the ‘recipient’, on the other hand. Based on recent research, I have emphasised how feedback dialogues are contextually and interactionally created. The more substantial content has been placed last in the model not because it is unimportant, but rather to underscore that this is not the only decisive factor, as we have traditionally tended to assume when it comes to assessing what is required to provide effective feedback.

Concluding Comments This chapter has focused on the importance of placing the ‘recipient’ of feedback in an active role in which they can ask questions and test out interpretations of what is said to optimise the potential for learning and change. In other words, feedback is effective when it is organised as a dialogue in which all parties are active participants (Telio et al., 2015). Feedback in peer relationships are interactive actions, where those who receive feedback are the main actors. Moreover, feedback ‘demands active engagement from the learner to seek, interpret and judge information. All intend learning, growth and improving the quality of work’ (Ajjawi & Regehr, 2018, p. 1). Further, the present paper has emphasised that feedback is created relationally and contextually through a dynamic exchange between the persons who give feedback and the persons who receive it. Productive feedback is created by the dynamic between the parties involved, the manner in which the feedback is organised and how the available resources are combined in productive ways (Esterhazy, 2018). Therefore, feedback cannot be planned in detail for the very reason that it is constituted through interaction. Hopefully, the four aspects in model 1 can serve as a useful analytical tool for further research on feedback between colleagues. The model can also function as a communication tool for groups that aim to undertake peer group mentoring to create a shared understanding and awareness of what is needed to make feedback in a peer context useful for the participants. In addition, the model can also help raise awareness of what needs to be considered when selecting a pretested peer group mentoring model, adapting an existing model for one’s own purposes or establishing completely new structures for feedback in a collegial context. However, most crucially, the participants need to have a unitary understanding of the purpose of the peer group mentoring that is being undertaken and how they should proceed to achieve this purpose. Peer group mentoring can contribute building spaces to build courage and support for each other in higher education contexts and to exchange ideas about effective practices in new conditions

36

L. Wittek

(Pleschová et al., 2021, p. 206). However, more research is needed to fill out the knowledge gap regarding how feedback dialogues are constituted relationally and what it is that stands out as the crucial aspects to make peer mentoring work as intended.

References Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2017). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional analysis approach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252–265. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/02602938.2015.1102863 Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback-dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293 8.2018.1434128 Ajjawi, R., & Regehr, G. (2018). When I say … feedback. Medical Education, 1–3, 652. https:// doi.org/10.1111/medu.13746 Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Four essays. University of Texas Press. Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development. Higher Education, 55, 735–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-­007-­9093-­1 Boschman, S., Craig-Morton, H., McGlashan, A., Schachtsneider, C., Steele, J., Weaver, A., & Wilson, M. (2021). Starting conversations and building connections: Fostering a community of practice across disciplinary boundaries at a college of applied arts and technology. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1360144X.2021.1954932 Buchanan, J. A. G., & Parry, D. (2019). Engagement with peer observation of teaching by a dental school faculty in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Dental Education, 23(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12391 Carless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In I. D. Boud & L. Molly (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 90–103). Routledge. Davis, T.  S. (2011). Peer observation: A faculty initiative. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 3(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2011.01.009 de Lange, T., & Wittek, A. L. (2018). Creating shared spaces: Developing teaching through peer supervision. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 25(4), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/1074903 9.2018.1544645 de Lange, T., & Wittek, A. L. (2020). Analysing the constitution of trust in peer-based teacher mentoring groups – A sociocultural perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–15, 337. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1724936 de Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Chapter 1: Peer mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In T. de Lange, & L.  Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer Esterhazy, R. (2018). Productive feedback practices in higher education. Investigating social and epistemic relations in two undergraduate courses. Theses submitted for the degree of Pd.D. Department of Education. Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo. Kirkevold, M., & de Lange, T. (this volume). Chapter 6: Developing research supervision capacity in clinical health professions: Structured peer mentoring as collegial support in research school context. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

2  Feedback in the Context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective

37

Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. IAP-information. Age Publishing Inc. Mager, D.  R., Kazer, M.  W., Conelius, J., Shea, J., Lippman, D.  T., Torosyan, R., & Nantz, K. (2014). Development, implementation and evaluation of a peer review of teaching (ProT) initiative in nursing education. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 11(1), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-­2013-­0019 Molloy, E., & Bearman, M. (2018). Embracing the tension between vulnerability and credibility: “Intellectual candour” in health professions education. Medical Education, 1–10, 32. https:// doi.org/10.1111/medu.13649 Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. E., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446 Säljö, R. (2001). Learning as the use of tools. A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. In K.  Littleton & P.  Light (Eds.), Learning with computers. Analysing productive interaction (pp. 144–161). Routledge. Simon, E., & Pleschová, G. (2021). PhD students, significant other, and pedagogical conversations. The importance of trusting relationships for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1949324 Steen-Utheim, A.  T., & Wittek, A.  L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 15, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lcsi.2017.06.002 Telio, S., Ajjawi, R., & Regehr, G. (2015). The ‘educational Alliance’ as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education. Academic Medicine, 90(5), 609–614. Telio, S., Regehr, G., & Ajjawi, R. (2016). Feedback and the educational alliance: Examining credibility judgements and their consequences. Medical Education, 50, 933–942. Wittek, L., & de Lange, T. (2021). Kollegaveiledning i høyere utdanning [Peer mentoring in the context of higher education]. Universitetsforlaget. Wittek, L., Kartzow, M. B., & Hermansen, H. Y. (this volume). Chapter 4: Interactional dynamics in peer mentoring. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer.

Chapter 3

Peer Group Mentoring: Exploring the Interplay with Institutional Practices Hege Hermansen, Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, Kirsten Hofgaard Lycke, and Alf Rasmussen

Abstract  This chapter examines how observation-based peer group mentoring (OPGM) is shaped by the institutional practices of higher education institutions. In research, little attention has been paid to how peer group mentoring processes are informed by their organisational, epistemic and political contexts. We examine the interplay between peer group mentoring and institutional practices as they emerge within two professional education programmes: theology and pharmacy. Through our analysis, we demonstrate that institutional practices are important in two ways: as a distinct object of change and development for the participants and as a key factor informing the peer group mentoring process. This chapter provides a critique of policy discourses that position peer group mentoring as a generic problem-solving measure, illustrating how institutional practices can support and hinder the goals and potential of peer group mentoring.

 eer Group Mentoring in Context: Development Processes P in a Complex Landscape This chapter addresses the role that institutional practices play in peer group mentoring processes, both in defining the premises for the peer group mentoring and as an object of change for the participants. Peer group mentoring processes include both agentic and structural dimensions that unfold in close interaction. Structural factors include the organisational frameworks for the peer group mentoring and H. Hermansen (*) Centre for the Study of Professions, OsloMet, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] M. B. Kartzow The Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway K. H. Lycke · A. Rasmussen University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_3

39

40

H. Hermansen et al.

teaching activities, the established conventions for teaching and learning in particular disciplines and the relationships between educational programmes and their respective professional fields. A generic term for such structural conditions is institutional practices (Edwards, 2017; Hedegaard, 2014). In this chapter, we specifically focus on two ways in which institutional practices can shape peer group mentoring processes. First, institutional practices can be understood as an object of change, in which changing established structures that influence learning and teaching is an explicit objective of peer group mentoring. Typical examples could be a desire to challenge established pedagogical practices or the organisational framework of an education programme. Second, institutional practices can be understood as informing the peer group mentoring in that peer group mentoring processes are influenced by their social and organisational contexts. For example, a peer group mentoring dialogue can be shaped by established patterns of interaction among peers or by discipline-specific ideas about teaching and learning. Our theoretical point of departure is that the relationship between peer group mentoring processes and the institutional practices of higher education institutions are mutually constitutive. An additional assumption is that these relationships are not linear but characterised by a complex interplay and, occasionally, counterplay. However, a recent review of the literature in the area of teaching-oriented peer group mentoring (Esterhazy et al., 2021; see also chapter 1) shows that little attention has been paid to the institutional aspects of peer group mentoring. Therefore, how this relationship unfolds – and with what consequences – is the focus of this chapter. By concentrating on this aspect of peer group mentoring, we wish to elucidate the diversity of factors that may drive peer group mentoring processes in different directions. In the past decade, we have seen an increasing emphasis on peer group mentoring as a tool for enhancing educational quality in higher education (Esterhazy et al., 2021; O’Keeffe et al., 2021; Wingrove et al., 2018). In the Norwegian context, this view is reflected in, for example, Report no. 16 (2016–2017) to the Storting, Culture for Quality in Higher Education, which states that ‘the Government expects peer review and peer group mentoring of education and teaching to be used to a greater extent than today’ (p. 22). Furthermore, this document states that peer group mentoring shall become ‘a natural part of the work to enhance quality’ (p. 24) in the higher education sector. However, peer group mentoring cannot be understood as a generic practice that can simply be inserted into existing ways of working because peer group mentoring processes are shaped by their respective contexts. Increasing our knowledge regarding the interaction between peer group mentoring processes and institutional practices can strengthen our understanding of how OPGM should be facilitated to better support educational development. More generally, the education sector is currently characterised by a political discourse that posits collaboration and collective development processes as a response to educational challenges (Eddy, 2010). Therefore, it is important to develop an empirically based understanding of how peer group mentoring can promote or constrain development processes in higher education (Pleschová et al., 2021). The potential of peer group mentoring

3  Peer Group Mentoring: Exploring the Interplay with Institutional Practices

41

should not be taken for granted but explored from an empirical and contextual perspective. In this chapter, we make a conceptual contribution by examining how the interplay between peer group mentoring and institutional practices manifests itself in two processes of OPGM. The focus is on two programmes: one in theology and one in pharmacy. We address the following two research questions: 1. How are institutional practices expressed as objects of change and as contextual factors for peer group mentoring? 2. What implications follow from this interplay – and counterplay – for the potential of peer group mentoring to support educational development?

 he Interplay of Peer Group Mentoring with Institutional T Practices: Theoretical Perspectives We draw upon a cultural–historical perspective on peer collaboration and development processes. A key assumption in cultural–historical theory is that human and institutional development processes unfold in complex interplay (Hedegaard, 2014; Vygotsky, 1978). Hedegaard (2014) has developed a conceptual framework for analyses of this interplay, which has been adapted to studies of development processes in higher education (Hermansen, 2020). Table 3.1 illustrates the analytical levels in this model and exemplifies them with reference to peer group mentoring. In this chapter, we focus on the interplay between the peer group mentoring process and institutional practices that characterise universities – that is, the two levels in the middle of the model. On the one hand, the objective of peer group mentoring processes will often be to change institutional practices. This includes objectives such as further developing teaching methods, establishing new norms for peer collaboration or reorganising the structure of an education programme. From this perspective, institutional practices function as an object of change for the participants in the peer group mentoring process.

Table 3.1  Levels of analysis Levels of analysis Society

Institutions Social situation Person

Structures Political, social and cultural traditions

Empirical example Political and social frameworks for higher education, such as educational policy or societal expectations for higher education Institutional practices Organisational, epistemic, educational and political cultures of higher education institutions Activities The peer group mentoring process Actions

Individuals’ participation in peer group mentoring

42

H. Hermansen et al.

On the other hand, institutional practices also shape the peer group mentoring process, providing the constraints and affordances for the intended innovations. Some examples of these constraints could be that organisational procedures and systems fail to support new ways of working, that established norms for collegiality are characterised by individual autonomy and ‘privatised’ teaching or that employees feel pressured into prioritising research above teaching. From this perspective, institutional practices function as constitutive factors that shape both the peer group mentoring process itself and the realisation of its objectives. Universities are complex, so institutional practices may follow different kinds of logic. In the analyses, we focus on four dimensions that are well documented in the research literature: educational, organisational, epistemic and political practices (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Blackmore, 2007; Knorr Cetina, 1999; Maassen et al., 2017; Mårtensson et al., 2014). Pedagogical practices refer to established norms for teaching and learning in higher education. Organisational practices refer to procedures and processes that regulate universities as organisational units. Epistemic practices regulate knowledge production within academic disciplines and professional education programmes, and they include established conventions for socialising students into a given field of study. Political practices are characterised by the relatively horizontal norms of governance of universities, where, to some extent, change emerges through inclusive and consensus-driven processes. Here, we delineate these practices for analytical purposes, but empirically, they are closely intertwined. As they interact, they may be mutually constitutive, but they also generate tensions and conflicts. A theoretical assumption in this chapter is that this complexity is a key contributor to the formation of development processes in higher education. Therefore, it is of empirical interest to investigate how this interplay – or counterplay – unfolds in peer group mentoring and how it can be handled within the framework of concrete development projects. Our contribution in this chapter is to advance our conceptual understanding of this complexity, which we illustrate below with empirical examples from peer group mentoring processes carried out in two professional education programmes: theology and pharmacy at the University of Oslo.

Empirical Context and Analytical Approach To exemplify our theoretical argument, we draw on empirical material from the professional education programmes in pharmacy and theology. These two peer group mentoring processes share the features of OPGM, in which group conversations are oriented towards planning, observing and reflecting upon practical teaching (de Lange et al., this volume). In both education programmes, the OPGM was guided by the general objective of developing more collective approaches to teaching. The background for the introduction of peer group mentoring in the Faculty of Theology was that there was a need to improve teacher  collaboration in the

3  Peer Group Mentoring: Exploring the Interplay with Institutional Practices

43

professional programme. Historically, some significant changes have been made to the programme, where new institutional frameworks and a closer integration of theoretical and practical subjects have challenged traditional distinctions between the disciplinary and professional knowledge domains. The current challenge involved establishing consistency and coherence across the programme, despite the differences in institutional affiliations, disciplines and teaching cultures. Historically, the programme had close connections to the Lutheran state church in Norway through its education of government officials to serve as clergy. However, in recent years, in a context of religious diversity, a new academic field of university theology has been in the making. This has created institutional and organisational challenges for the theology programme, particularly regarding the integration of its practical and theoretical components. One of the key purposes of introducing peer group mentoring was to develop a good framework for collaboration that could provide more coherence to the programme. Therefore, focusing on institutional practices was part of the innovation process. The OPGM process at the Faculty of Theology is described in greater detail in Wittek et al. (this volume). The background for the introduction of OPGM at the Department of Pharmacy was the objective to strengthen problem-based learning (PBL) as a teaching approach. In PBL, students explore a patient case study in smaller groups, with support from a teacher (PBL supervisor). PBL requires significant student activity; therefore, facilitating constructive group dynamics is an important responsibility for teachers. However, the department had identified considerable variations in how principles of PBL were implemented in the classroom. Peer group mentoring emerged as a suitable tool for addressing this challenge. The OPGM process at the Department of Pharmacy is described in greater detail in Damşa et al. (this volume). In both educational programmes, peer group mentoring processes were documented through observations, interviews and the collection of relevant documents. In this chapter, we do not conduct an in-depth analysis of this material. Rather, we have strategically selected two sections of the data material that bring to the fore the complex interactions between peer group mentoring initiatives and institutional practices. The first section consists of observations of the kick-off meeting for the peer group mentoring project. The meeting was attended by participants from four faculties at the University of Oslo, all of whom participated in the project. The kick-off meeting was interesting because the participants from the respective academic communities were tasked with discussing the general objective of and approach to peer group mentoring. This spurred a number of comments and reflections on the role of peer group mentoring in a broader context and how the peer group mentoring initiative might interact with institutional practices. More specifically, we analysed a conversation between a project leader at the Faculty of Theology and a project leader at the Department of Pharmacy. In this conversation, they presented and elaborated on ideas of how OPGM could be undertaken in their respective education programmes and for which purposes. These discussions were held prior to the peer group mentoring process itself. Therefore, they may not accurately describe the OPGM processes that were actually implemented.

44

H. Hermansen et al.

Table 3.2  Data material Time Before the beginning of the peer group mentoring process

Setting Project kick-off meeting: observation of a discussion where the innovation is planned

After completion of the peer group mentoring process

One individual interview One group interview

Participants Project leader from the Faculty of Theology Project leader from the Department of Pharmacy Project leader from the Department of Pharmacy Project leader and four project participants from the Faculty of Theology

The second section of the data material consists of two concluding interviews held towards the end of the project period, one in the Department of Pharmacy and one in the Faculty of Theology. The two project leaders also participated in these interviews. At the Department of Theology, a few of the teachers involved in the peer group mentoring process also participated. In these interviews, the informants were asked about their experiences with the peer group mentoring process. The concluding interviews are analytically interesting because the peer group mentoring processes were, to a significant extent, discussed within its broader organisational, academic and collegial contexts. As such, this section also represents a part of the data material in which the dynamic interplay between peer group mentoring processes and institutional practices come to the fore (Table 3.2). The transcriptions from the kick-off meeting and interviews were coded thematically in several rounds. First, we identified the various institutional practices that came to light in the discussions based on the categories outlined above (pedagogical, epistemic, organisational and political). Then, we explored how these practices manifested themselves as objects of change. Our focus was how the peer group mentoring process was referred to as an opportunity to change established practices. Finally, we explored how these practices came to the fore as contextual factors that informed the peer group mentoring process and its objectives. Here, we were particularly interested in the opportunities and limitations that institutional practices represented for peer group mentoring. The analyses below are presented in line with these perspectives. The quotation marks indicate direct quotes from the data material.

I nstitutional Practices in the Planning of the Peer Group Mentoring Process The analyses of the kick-off meeting reveal that the two participants from the Faculty of Theology and Department of Pharmacy made numerous references to institutional practices, both as an object of inquiry and as setting the premises for the innovation. In this section, we first address institutional practices as an object of change and then as contextual factors informing the peer group mentoring process.

3  Peer Group Mentoring: Exploring the Interplay with Institutional Practices

45

Institutional Practices as an Object of Change In their conversation, both project leaders were naturally concerned with pedagogical practices as an object of change because developing the existing forms of teaching was the main objective of the peer group mentoring. In the theology programme, discipline-based teaching practices and lack of collegial cooperation were presented as an intended object of change. One of the main challenges was that the students perceive the professional education programme as fragmented. This is elaborated in the conversation, in that teaching staff base their activity on their respective disciplines, with their own ‘methods, standards, goals, theories, and preferences’ and bring with them their own ‘disciplinary habitus’ into the theology programme. As stated by the project leader, ‘It’s also the intention that we should all work within the framework of the theology programme’ to make the discipline-based teaching relevant for students training to become clergy. Here, established pedagogical practices are related to epistemic practices, in which a tension arises between discipline-specific approaches to teaching and learning and a desire for more coherence in the theology programme through teaching practices framed by the context and needs of the profession. Therefore, an objective of the peer group mentoring initiative was to help unite different epistemic cultures around the common goal of training theologians. The project leader from the Faculty of Theology positioned peer group mentoring as a potential tool for achieving this goal by making existing teaching practices more transparent to colleagues. With the aid of systematic observation, including pre- and post-mentoring sessions, the teaching staff could reveal their respective areas of knowledge and see ‘what other teachers do and how they think’. Thus, increased transparency among teaching staff around disciplinary, epistemic practices was held up as a key approach to establishing coherence across the components that constitute the educational programme. Finally, the project leader from the Faculty of Theology suggested that the peer group mentoring could also further develop established practices for peer collaboration ‘so that we can have a more thoroughly considered pedagogy and that we collaborate not only on the content of the programme, but also on how we teach’. This entailed an expanded focus on what should be included as a natural component in the collegial collaboration on the education, as well as a shift from individual to collective development processes around the pedagogical design of the programme. Established pedagogical practices were an intended object of inquiry in the pharmacy programme as well. Here, peer group mentoring was linked to the further development of problem-based learning (PBL), with a focus on challenges associated with creating favourable group dynamics. PBL is a form of teaching that relies heavily on active student participation, and the role of PBL supervisors in facilitating constructive group discussions is a key factor. Therefore, the supervisors’ skill in facilitating active student participation in the PBL teaching was  an intended object of change.

46

H. Hermansen et al.

The project leader described the peer group mentoring as an opportunity for the PBL supervisors to explore those challenges related to the PBL method and to create a good framework for the students’ group discussions. More specifically, reference was made to the importance of strengthening the initial steps in the PBL process, which includes exploration of a clinical case. These steps were considered important preconditions for facilitating student learning in the PBL process. In addition, the importance of more collective approaches to ensuring student activity in the seminars was emphasised. Thus, ensuring active participation by all students and supporting exploration of the academic field were highlighted as key aspects of the students’ learning environment that must be strengthened by the innovation. Another intended object of change that came to the fore in both programmes was the norms and roles associated with peer collaboration. Both project leaders used the term ‘fear’ to describe how teaching staff may feel about having colleagues present in their own teaching sessions (de Lange & Wittek, this volume). ‘I think you have touched upon a major problem in academia’, said one project leader, ‘which is that in fact we are afraid of each other. And that’s a real challenge’. Interdisciplinarity also played a role in this context. ‘For example, if the students come to my class and have just had (a specific topic), I can feel a little uncertain, because after all, I don’t remember very much of that (topic)’. Furthermore, both project leaders described individualised teaching practices in which it is uncommon to have colleagues present during classes. Thus, an underlying culture in which academic and peer collaboration in teaching is associated with uncertainty was also made an aspect of change for the intervention. Therefore, peer group mentoring was ascribed with a potential for supporting the development of new cultures for collaboration. To summarise, the conversation indicated three intended objects of change. First, established teaching practices were highlighted as an object of change. The key issues here included coherence across academic disciplines (the theology programme) and teaching practices that promote student activity and favourable group dynamics (the pharmacy programme). Second, emphasis was placed on epistemic practices as an object of change in the theology programme. More specifically, discipline-­specific approaches to teaching were posited as a challenge to the pedagogical objective of increased coherence across the study programme. Third, there was a wish to develop more collaborative cultures around teaching.

I nstitutional Practices as Factors Informing Peer Group Mentoring At the kick-off meeting, institutional practices were also discussed as contextual factors for the development work. In the project leaders’ descriptions of these practices, the organisational dimension and  – to a certain extent  – the political

3  Peer Group Mentoring: Exploring the Interplay with Institutional Practices

47

dimension featured prominently in addition to existing conventions for collegial collaboration. Peer collaboration was discussed from two main perspectives: the manner in which conflicts and academic disagreements are handled and the challenges faced regarding motivating colleagues to participate in development projects. One project participant linked challenges surrounding disagreements to a ‘negative culture’ in parts of academia: ‘We often hear about colleagues who are in conflict with each other and even about professors who speak disparagingly about each other in front of their students’. These challenges were linked to an academic culture characterised by competition, in which academic staff fight for their disciplines in terms of research funds, appointments and representation in educational programmes. One of the project participants highlighted how tension arises between these practices and the societal mandate of the higher education: ‘If the students see that the experts fight only for themselves, what kind of experts are we training for society?’ In the context of the peer group mentoring processes, it was emphasised that such dynamics may hinder interdisciplinary collaboration and integration of disciplines in an education programme. Furthermore, challenges linked to peer interaction were also discussed through the concept of ‘killjoys’, describing academic staff members who have a generally negative attitude to development work. Here, political practices in universities came into focus: an academic culture characterised by individual freedom can be difficult to reconcile with collective initiatives whose results depend on universal endorsement. Both project leaders emphasised the importance of including academic staff in development work in ways that the teachers themselves perceive as meaningful. Organisational practices were also discussed by both project participants as institutionally conditioned frameworks affecting the manner in which the development work can be realised. Lack of time and established arenas for collaboration are examples of this. The project participant from the theology programme also commented that the students spent limited time in class; this made it difficult to find space for more interdisciplinary teaching sessions because all the teaching staff feel responsible for covering ‘their’ disciplines in the time they have available. A recurring topic is that the project leaders do not want to burden the teaching staff with unnecessary additional work by challenging existing teaching practices. This raised the question of how to facilitate change processes without upsetting established schedules or involving too many actors – ‘because people get irritated; they have already made their plans, and then, somebody comes and tells them that they need to do extra work’ [Project leader, theology]. Thus, a challenge emerged in uniting organisational frameworks and pedagogical innovation processes. Finally, the organisation of the two education programmes was discussed. For example, in one of the most challenging semesters of the theology programme, the students took a number of different discipline-based subjects in addition to a practicum, which was described as demanding. One organisational challenge linked to the PBL teaching in the pharmacy programme is that the teachers change relatively often because many of the seminar leaders were PhD candidates. On the one hand, the PhD candidates brought valuable teaching resources and new energy into the

48

H. Hermansen et al.

academic community. On the other hand, the frequent turnover may constitute a challenge to sustaining collective practices over time. Finally, the systems for organisation and registration of the staff’s working hours were highlighted as an aspect that governs the attitudes of the academic staff to the peer group mentoring process. It was emphasised that a successful innovation process depends on whether the hours spent on peer group mentoring were counted as part of the total number of hours assigned to teaching duties. To summarise, this part of the analysis illustrated how collectively based development projects can come into conflict with organisational practices, including time management systems, recruitment practices and the organisation of study programmes. Furthermore, this has illustrated how political practices give rise to tensions between individual and collective ways of working. Historically, academic freedom and individual management of one’s own working time have had a strong position in universities. However, the type of innovation that the peer group mentoring project represents required a more collective approach to development work.

Institutional Practices: Looking Back at the Intervention We now turn to the analysis of the concluding interviews. In this part of the data material, the participants examined the intervention in retrospect and reflected on their experiences with peer group mentoring. In these discussions, the distinction between institutional practices as an object of change and as the factors informing the peer group mentoring process is somewhat blurred because the discussion focused more on concrete experiences. Therefore, in this section, we deal with both aspects jointly. One explicit objective for both educational programmes was to change established pedagogical practices. At the time of the interviews, it was too early to draw any conclusions regarding whether long-term changes to pedagogical practices had been achieved. However, the teaching staff who participated in the project expressed that they had benefited from the peer group mentoring process. They cited examples of specific changes they made to their teaching practices and strategies or approaches they acquired from receiving feedback or from observing their colleagues. Many of them also described a sense of having received trustworthy and constructive support. In the theology programme, many reported an ‘increased awareness’ by observing their colleagues and being ‘up close’ to what was happening in other parts of the educational programme. In the pharmacy programme, the project leader reported that the objective of establishing a shared approach to improving the group dynamic in the PBL teaching had been partially achieved. In both programmes, numerous participants expressed that they would like to continue with peer group mentoring, provided they receive the required organisational support. Therefore, organisational practices emerged as important for any further peer group mentoring. Moreover, the importance of leadership endorsement and allocation of sufficient time and resources was emphasised: ‘If we know that the

3  Peer Group Mentoring: Exploring the Interplay with Institutional Practices

49

management appreciates it [the peer group mentoring] and supports it, then we can go to that meeting with a clear conscience’ (the theology programme). In addition, the project leader from the pharmacy programme pointed to practices linked to recruitment and scheduling as important for further development work. For example, certain academics may be instructed to teach a course because they have hours available in their schedule but may not have a strong motivation to teach that specific subject. The project leader from the pharmacy programme also discussed how existing governance practices can challenge development work. She described the distinction between the course and programme levels as somewhat blurred in higher education, resulting in a lack of clarity in how development projects should be organised. Because the norms for governance are characterised by a relatively flat structure, who has the authority to state that somebody’s teaching is not ‘good enough’, and how can teachers be held accountable for their lack of commitment to teaching? How can we best deal with the fact that teachers may have a fundamentally different understanding of how to teach? These issues were discussed in both concluding interviews. The importance of epistemic practices was emphasised among the participants in the theology programme based on the degree of interdisciplinarity in the mentoring groups. One teacher clearly distinguished between engaging in peer group mentoring with colleagues ‘where the knowledge culture is not controversial’ and with colleagues with whom there was disagreement on basic academic issues and perspectives. The teacher highlighted the benefits of having a shared academic basis. This can lead to ‘a good understanding of the feedback’ because the criteria for academic standards are shared. According to the teacher, this shared perspective can also facilitate more in-depth discussions regarding the pedagogical aspects of the teaching. Situations in which the participants have more diverse perspectives were described as potentially conflictual and more challenging to deal with relationally. However, diversity was also described as an opportunity for academic and relational development: ‘I haven’t always agreed with [name of teacher], but then we were in his office and it was actually a really good process – that is, to see each other in a constructive way across such differences’. This comment led to a discussion on which criteria should be applied to create a peer mentoring group. Although one teacher argued that affiliation with a specific subject area would be the most appropriate criterion, another argued that the organisation of the educational programme should be the decisive factor. ‘I feel that the optimal solution would not be to put such groups together on the basis of disciplines or academic standards or methods and theories internal to the discipline, but rather to create groups based on the pedagogical challenges experienced by students’. In other words, a distinction was made between the organisation of peer group mentoring groups based on epistemic or pedagogical practices, with implications for what kind of discussions are enabled. Finally, the relationship between the peer group mentoring and other development projects in the academic communities were addressed by the participants in both educational programmes. The pharmacy programme was in the middle of a

50

H. Hermansen et al.

comprehensive revision of the five-year programme. The project leader from the Department of Pharmacy stated that it was challenging to handle the peer group mentoring project during a major reform because ‘people are extremely busy, and we can now see that many are tired’. In the theology programme, the participants discussed potential synergy effects between the peer group mentoring and a project aimed at developing collective approaches to the supervision of master’s degree students. During the concluding interview, the participants from the theology programme discussed how these initiatives, which had been uncoordinated, could mutually support each other. More specifically, increased collaboration and a deprivatisation of teaching and supervision were highlighted as overarching objectives for both initiatives. In summary, the participants reported tensions but also potential synergies between the peer group mentoring initiative and other development projects.

 evelopment Work and Institutional Practices: Interplay D and Counterplay In this chapter, we have placed the analytical focus on the interrelationship between peer group mentoring processes and the institutional practices in which they are embedded. We end the chapter by discussing how these mutually constitutive relationships can be understood both in terms of interplay and counterplay. By interplay, we refer to relationships through which the peer group mentoring processes and institutional practices positively reinforce each other. By counterplay, we refer to relationships through which the peer group mentoring processes and institutional practices were characterised by tensions and conflicts. We conclude by highlighting some implications for the role of peer group mentoring as a tool for developing teaching practices in higher education.

Pedagogical Practices We see examples of interplay with pedagogical practices in the participants’ reported experiences that peer group mentoring can expand upon and further develop supportive collegial relationships. The participants in both educational programmes called for a deprivatisation of and a more coherent approach to teaching. From this perspective, the peer group mentoring process can offer a structure providing a systematic approach to the sharing and further development of existing pedagogical practices. In the concluding interviews in both programmes, the participants pointed to an increased openness and collective awareness as results of the peer group mentoring. This part of the data material points towards a constructive interplay between the innovation and established norms for pedagogical practices

3  Peer Group Mentoring: Exploring the Interplay with Institutional Practices

51

and peer collaboration. In both educational programmes, the participants also expressed that the pedagogical objectives of the project were partially achieved. In the theology programme, potential synergies between the innovation and another development project targeted at research supervision were also highlighted. However, examples of counterplay between established practices and peer group mentoring also came to light. More specifically, individual forms of working and the opportunity to opt out of development projects have been contrasted with the collective collaborative effort that the innovation requires. Conflicts also came to light through ‘competing’ pedagogical development projects. From the pharmacy programme, potential tensions between the innovation and an ongoing reform of the programme description were reported, where two parallel projects could be perceived as arduous for the academic staff.

Organisational Practices In the descriptions of organisational practices, we also saw both interplay and counterplay. The peer group mentoring process can be understood as an intervention in the organisational framework for the teaching activity, in that new arenas for interaction were established in both education programmes. Simultaneously, organisational scaffolding was frequently highlighted as essential for peer group mentoring to succeed. Examples include that the teachers were provided with adequate time for development work, that educational leaders actively supported the initiative and that there were clear linkages between educational leadership at the programme and course levels. This was particularly important from a long-term perspective because it is difficult to transform historically established practices by way of isolated development projects that do not have clear organisational support. The lack of such explicit commitments made it unclear whether the peer group mentoring would continue at these educational programmes and shaped whether the participants perceived the continuation of this initiative as viable.

Epistemic Practices The importance of epistemic, discipline-specific practices became particularly evident in the theology programme, where many academic disciplines coexist. Here, too, we could see both interplay and counterplay between these practices and the peer group mentoring initiative. On the one hand, some participants felt that this interdisciplinarity provided an opportunity to focus on the pedagogical aspects of the teaching more than on subject-specific discussions. Through this shift in focus, peer group mentoring provided fertile ground for discussing shared questions related to student learning that had relevance beyond specific knowledge domains. On the other hand, this epistemic diversity also gave rise to some uncertainty among

52

H. Hermansen et al.

the participants in their meetings with colleagues. Some participants related this uncertainty to the general competitiveness of academia, where many felt that they needed to struggle to obtain resources and visibility for their own discipline. This conflict underscores the importance of establishing trust between the participants in peer group mentoring processes (de Lange & Wittek, 2020; de Lange & Wittek, this volume) and facilitating mentoring procedures that can strike a constructive balance between supportive and challenging feedback.

Governance Practices Governance practices in Norwegian universities are characterised by norms that emphasise a relatively flat structure, in which change is brought about by consensus-­ driven processes. Combined with a historical backdrop in which ‘private practice’ teaching has been widespread, collective development projects may challenge established norms. For example, the project leaders pointed out that having colleagues attend one’s own teaching sessions can be viewed as intimidating. They also highlighted how it could be difficult to argue that all teaching staff in an educational programme should apply specific pedagogical approaches and motivate all faculty members to participate in development projects. In the data material, a general finding was that collectively oriented innovations can challenge established traditions for making decisions related to teaching at the individual level. Another question that emerged was the boundary between the decision-making authority of programme and course leaders. In these situations, established practice functioned both as an object of change and a constitutive factor for development work. The challenge for project leaders in particular was navigating these two different dynamics simultaneously. It was perceived as challenging to ensure the sense of ownership, freedom and latitude of individual participants while the collective project goals were also being pursued.

Concluding Comments An experience of counterplay as an aspect of innovation is not necessarily negative in and of itself. Because most development projects in higher education will specifically seek to change established practices, tensions between interplay and counterplay ought to be regarded as an integrated element of pedagogical development work. The point we would like to make is rather that this relationship has to be actively attended to and managed. One practical implication of this is that situationally specific analyses should be made of how this interplay unfolds in the context of concrete development projects and with what consequences. The approach to such analyses must be adapted to the specific context, but some generally relevant questions are as follows:

3  Peer Group Mentoring: Exploring the Interplay with Institutional Practices

53

• How do existing pedagogical practices support the development project, and how are they being challenged? • Does the peer group mentoring involve interdisciplinarity, and in what ways is this likely to strengthen or challenge the interaction in peer group mentoring groups? • Are there organisational routines that can underpin the peer group mentoring project (credit for time used, arenas for collaboration, incentives for participation and collective work)? If not, how is this to be addressed? • How can the project balance individual preferences and collective objectives and processes? Finally, these analyses illustrate how normative ideals in education policy discourses on peer collaboration do not represent a simple solution to the challenges associated with teaching in higher education. For peer group mentoring to become ‘a natural component of quality work’, as promoted by policy makers (The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017, p. 24), it must first become a natural component of those institutional practices that set the direction for teaching at higher education institutions. As illustrated in this chapter, this is no easy task, and it cannot be solved simply by ‘more management’. The project leaders in the two education programmes worked continuously to address a double challenge: to facilitate implementation of the peer group mentoring process itself and to relate the peer group mentoring process in various ways to institutional practices. Therefore, the conditions for project management will also be the key to maintaining a constructive relationship between interplay and counterplay. To what extent will a project leader have latitude to influence the institutional framework, for example, by making organisational provisions or by mobilising actors at a ‘higher’ level of the organisational hierarchy? To what extent is such a latitude person dependent? Is it institutionalised through organisational procedures and structures? What mechanisms are available to ease the transition from pilot projects to long-term, sustainable efforts? The analyses in this chapter indicate that such factors may have a significant impact on the implementation of peer group mentoring, not least for ensuring the sustainability of such initiatives over time.

References Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Society for Research in Higher Education. Blackmore, P. (2007). Disciplinary difference in academic leadership and management and its development: A significant factor. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 12(2), 225–239. Damşa, C., Toft Henriksen, L., & Christiansen, H. (this volume). Chapter 5: Dialogue and artefacts as instruments for peer group mentoring among PBL supervisors in pharmacy education. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer.

54

H. Hermansen et al.

de Lange, T., & Wittek, A.  L. (2020). Analysing the constitution of trust in peer-based teacher mentoring groups – A sociocultural perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–15. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1724936 de Lange, T., & Wittek, A. L. (this volume). Chapter 10: Tracing the emergence of relational trust in peer mentoring. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. de Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Chapter 1: Peer group mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Eddy, P. L. (2010). Partnerships and collaboration in higher education. AEHE Higher Education Report, 6(2), 3. Edwards, A. (2017). The dialectic of person and practice: How cultural-historical accounts of agency can inform teacher education. In I. J. Clandinin & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 169–285). Sage. Esterhazy, R., de Lange, T., Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, A. L. (2021). Moving beyond peer review of teaching: A conceptual framework for collegial faculty development. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 237. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990721 Hedegaard, M. (2014). The significance of demands and motives across practices in children’s learning and development: An analysis of learning in home and school. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(3), 188–194. Hermansen, H. (2020). In pursuit of coherence: Aligning program development in teacher education with institutional practices. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 936–952. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press. Maassen, P., Gornitzka, Å., & Fumasoli, T. (2017). University reform and institutional autonomy: A framework for analysing the living autonomy. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3), 239–250. Mårtensson, K., Roxå, T., & Stensaker, B. (2014). From quality assurance to quality practices: An investigation of strong microcultures in teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 534–545. O’Keeffe, M., Crehan, M., Munro, M., Logan, A., Farrell, A. M., Clarke, E., Flood, M., Ward, M., Andreeva, T., Van Egeraat, C., Heaney, F., Curran, D., & Clinton, E. (2021). Exploring the role of peer observation of teaching in facilitating cross-institutional professional conversations about teaching and learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1954524 Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. E., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446 The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Kultur for kvalitet i høyere utdanning [A culture for quality in higher education] (St.meld. nr. 16 2016–2017). The Ministry. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wingrove, D., Hammersley-Fletcher, L., Clarke, A., & Chester, A. (2018). Leading developmental peer observation of teaching in higher education: Perspectives from Australia and England. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(3), 365–381. Wittek, L., Kartzow, M. B., & Hermansen, H. (this volume). Chapter 4: Interactional dynamics in peer mentoring. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer.

Chapter 4

Interactional Dynamics in Observation-­Based Peer Group Mentoring Line Wittek

, Marianne Bjelland Kartzow, and Hege Hermansen

Abstract  This chapter reports on the results of observation-based peer group mentoring (OPGM) at the Faculty of Theology. Groups of three to four teachers worked together for one semester, observing each other’s teaching styles and participating in presupervision and postsupervision sessions. The aim of the OPGM was to improve collaboration among the teachers and increase students’ awareness of the connections between the different components of the study programme. The topics that were discussed often were (1) teaching design, (2) the connection between theory and practice in teaching, (3) the communication between teachers and students and (4) the dissemination of teaching. Based on a dialogical approach to learning, we analysed the learning potential of the mentoring sessions. Members of all groups developed conversation patterns characterised by emotional and relational support, opportunities to express themselves, continuation of initiatives and joint development of new insights. However, the manner in which conversational dynamics were established and developed emerged differently in each group. We conclude that the learning opportunities provided through OPGM are uniquely created in each group. Therefore, to allow trust to be established across OPGM groups, it is crucial to set aside sufficient time and a suitable working space to have confidential conversations with minimal interruptions.

L. Wittek (*) Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] M. B. Kartzow The Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway H. Hermansen Centre for the Study of Professions, OsloMet, Oslo, Norway © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_4

55

56

L. Wittek et al.

Introduction This chapter presents the observation-based peer group mentoring (OPGM) that was conducted at the Faculty of Theology, with a particular focus on the potential for learning for the teachers involved. Our focus is directed at how these patterns appear more symmetric and less reliant on expert knowledge compared with conventional mentoring (Colvin, 2014). A basic assumption for peer mentoring in groups is that constructive dialogue contributes to the participants’ learning and growth. However, a ‘constructive dialogue’ does not arise in a vacuum but is established through the conversational dynamics that develop within the context (Steen-Utheim & Wittek, 2017). More concretely, it is a matter of how the participants respond to each other’s statements, use body language, challenge each other and offer emotional and relational support, as well as how statements are followed up and developed (Linell, 1998, 2009). Past studies have indicated that it is precisely the details of these interactional patterns as they develop internally in the group that are of particular importance. The manner in which feedback is presented is important. Does it take the form of pure assessments, or are these more inviting and inquiring? According to Ajjawi and Boud (2018), an invitation to a dialogue on what has been noticed through observation or discussion must be presented in the latter manner if learning and development are the objective. The interactional patterns that develop play a critical role in how opportunities for learning arise in dialogues (Steen-Utheim & Wittek, 2017). Here, we present our in-depth analysis, which is based on dialogical theories, in which we focus on the interaction and the learning potential in peer groups. The remainder of the text is organised as follows: In the next section, we present the programme of professional study in theology as the context, the reason why peer mentoring was introduced and how it was organised. Then, we discuss the dialogical approach that we have applied and how we have analysed the material. Finally, we present analyses of two empirical examples of mentoring processes and will conclude by discussing the analyses and what we can learn from these.

 hallenges Associated with the Programme of Professional C Study in Theology Systematic peer group mentoring was introduced at the Faculty of Theology in the autumn of 2018. The project was based on the need to improve collaboration between teachers on the programme and create opportunities for learning and development among teachers. Like many other programmes of professional education, studies at the faculty are typically organised so that experts teach within their own field of specialisation. However, student evaluations have shown that students are not always sure how the different components within the programme or

4  Interactional Dynamics in Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring

57

course are linked to each other. A key solution is to improve the dialogue between the teachers at the programme. Theology is one of the oldest study programmes at the University of Oslo (UiO). The programme qualifies students for church ministry or other relevant jobs outside the churches. It takes 6  years and covers different disciplines and knowledge domains, including integrated practical courses. The programme has undergone several major changes, historically and institutionally, and is revised occasionally. One of the main challenges has been to create cohesion while spanning differences in collaboration ideals, disciplines and teaching cultures. Some of the teachers primarily focus on their own discipline, without relating to the programme as a whole. Thus, it has been difficult to find a form of collaboration based on mutual trust and respect, hence allowing for a discussion of pedagogical issues. Therefore, a key objective of the OPGM was to improve collaboration and find new forms of cooperation among teachers, where different knowledge domains can be viewed in conjunction with each other. However, creating a cohesive approach encompassing the different disciplines was particularly challenging. Each discipline has an international portfolio of subjects, with its comprehensive knowledge base that teachers seek to share with their students. However, discourses within disciplines cannot always be translated into issues relevant to the professional practice or the overall programme. Therefore, the programme may appear to be fragmented. Disagreements and competition have occasionally arisen between the different disciplines and teachers as a result of constant pressure to increase the interdisciplinarity, reduce the length of the programme and adapt to a new era. An example of this is the distribution of study credits: Which discipline gets to teach most courses when the programme is revised? Occasionally, dialogue and collaboration among teachers have become difficult, which, in turn, has had a negative impact on the programme as a whole, particularly when teachers disagree over course amount or content. Thus, one of the main reasons for introducing OPGM was to develop a good framework for collaboration between teachers, who would later be able to improve the cohesiveness of the programme of study for the students.

 he Peer Group Mentoring Process T and Analytical Approaches Over a period of three semesters, three groups of three to four teachers were created to implement OPGM.  The composition of the first two groups was based on academic diversity, and the members represented different disciplines and practical courses. The third group consisted of teachers who taught the same course: a comprehensive foundation course offered to students from different study programmes at several faculties at UiO. The composition of the groups was adjusted slightly during the process because of the time pressure experienced by a few

58

L. Wittek et al.

teachers and unforeseen events like illness. Two of the teachers belonged to two groups, and only 20% of the teachers were women. The participants followed a peer group mentoring model that included presupervision, observation and postsupervision (Lauvås et  al., 2016; Martin, 2019). These phases have been described below in Table 4.1.

OPGM Founded on Dialogical Interaction Our theoretical perspective is based on a dialogical approach to learning (Bakhtin, 1981; Vološinov, 1929), where we focus on ‘interaction through language between two or several individuals who are copresent’ (Linell, 1998, p. 13). In selecting this approach, we have focused on the actual interaction because we understand learning as something that takes place in and between people (Wittek, 2012), as well as where the internal and interpersonal learning processes are closely linked. Selecting such a perspective implies applying the basic assumption that learning in a peer mentoring context is inextricably interwoven with the pattern of interaction that establishes itself in the group (Carless, 2013a, b; de Lage & Wittek, this volume). A prerequisite for peer mentoring processes being able to contribute to learning is that everyone genuinely participates in the conversation and supports the pattern of interaction that develops contextually (Boschman et  al., 2021; Mercer & Howe, 2012; Wittek, this volume). It is also essential that trust is established within the groups (de Lange & Wittek, 2020). The learning that we discuss refers to learning and development among teachers in higher education, and the learning potential we look for in this context is centred around four dimensions that are critical to learning in dialogical theory (Steen-­ Utheim & Wittek, 2017). The four categories are emotional and relational support, continuation of initiatives, opportunities to express oneself and joint development of new insights. We use these categories as our analytical lens to examine the empirical material to understand what happens in the dialogues and potential they represent for learning. The left column in Table 4.2 presents the four dimensions, while the right column shows how we operationalise them (which empirical indicators we have attempted to identify in the analysis).

Table 4.1  Procedure, observation-based peer grout mentoring (OPGM) Phase 1 Prementoring Phase 2 Observation Phase 3 Mentoring postobservation

Each participant writes a brief mentoring note on (1) who the students are; (2) what will happen and why; (3) what feedback they are particularly looking for. The teachers select a teaching session, which is observed by the rest of the group. The teacher defines what feedback they are looking for. The entire group meets immediately after the teaching session to give feedback – first the main supervisor and then the rest of the group.

4  Interactional Dynamics in Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring

59

Table 4.2  Four dimensions for the learning potential in peer group mentoring (based on Steen-­ Utheim & Wittek, 2017) The extent to which participants are genuinely present, give positive and supportive responses to the input, show empathy, are willing to listen to what is said, are encouraging and provide supportive recognition through statements or minimal responses, such as nods or sounds like ‘Mmm’. Development of trust within the group is shown empirically by the mentee taking advantage of opportunities to test unfinished thoughts or by showing their own vulnerability. Opportunities to The extent to which the participants take new initiatives by asking questions express oneself and introducing new perspectives. How the mentee expresses themselves and how the group helps develop what is said. Continuation of How patterns of turn-taking and participation develop through verbal and initiatives nonverbal conversations; the initiatives that are taken; and how they are followed up, elaborated upon and explored. Joint Characteristics of the feedback provided and information regarding whether development of the utterances in the dialogue are supportive, argumentative or challenging. new insights The group’s dialogue as joint exploration of the theme (or challenge) discussed. Emotional and relational support

Methodological Approach Our empirical material primarily consists of video recordings of OPGM sessions at the Faculty of Theology. It also includes the mentoring notes and interviews with participants and a representative of the management. All the material has been transcribed in full. Our analytical approach to the data was twofold. First, we conducted a thematic analysis of the material as a whole, attempting to identify patterns and recurring themes in the content of the conversations (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79). This resulted in four categories of content, which are described below. Following the thematic analysis, we chose two cases of peer mentoring and conducted a close analysis of them. The first one was for ‘Tom’, who participated in one of the groups with academic diversity, which consisted of a 20-minute presupervision session and 45-minute postsupervision session. The group was present between the two sessions and observed a seminar-like double lesson for a small group of students. The second group (comprising people within similar disciplines) was for ‘Sondre’ and consisted of a 40-minute presupervision session and 60-minute postsupervision session. The observation between these mentoring sessions was a two-hour lecture to a large group of students. The two processes were selected because the conversational dynamics included interesting patterns. In the next paragraph, the close analyses reveal that the theoretical categories in Table 4.2 were at play in different ways. The conversations were also typical of the data in the sense that they represented a thematic discussion of issues that recurred in most of the mentoring processes covered in our material. We used interaction analysis to investigate the conversational dynamics and specifically focused on the characteristics of the interaction itself (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). We conducted a closer examination of how initiatives are introduced, how

60

L. Wittek et al.

other people in the group respond and how specific topics recur over different periods of time (Wittek, 2007, p. 127). Because the PeTS project was organised as an intervention project, the authors were involved in initiating and conducting the OPGM in slightly different roles. To ensure a critical distance from the material, we invited external readers to ask questions and provide criticism during several phases. The guidelines for research ethics were operationalised in several ways, including obtaining informed consent from all participants and assigning fictitious names to the informants when presenting the material. For reasons of anonymity, we also omitted details from the observed teaching session that were not necessary to understand the context. Because this type of in-depth analysis nonetheless goes into certain matters directly and in detail, we asked people who were particularly exposed in the text to read these sequences, thereby providing them the opportunity to correct direct citations of their statements. The primary objective of this read-through was to prevent the informants from being presented in a manner they did not wish while also validating the content (Kvale, 2001, p. 147). We did not receive any requests for correction. The relevant individuals voluntarily stated that the citations were fully consistent with their experience and understanding. Based on the general thematic analysis, we identified four themes that were addressed in the different mentoring processes: 1. Design of a teaching session as a whole, including the balance between teacher presentations and student activity. 2. How teachers can help students link theory and practice. 3. Communication between the teacher and students. 4. How teachers function as disseminators, including in their communication with students. One of the main areas of exploration in all of the mentoring processes was the collective examination of the four points in terms of their concrete role in the teaching and how this can support students’ learning processes. The two OPGM sessions we have presented discussed all these themes. Sondre’s mentoring process particularly focused on how the intention of the lecture compares with that of other forms of teaching and how it impacts students’ further work and learning. The main focus of Tom’s process was the communication between the teacher and students and the design of the teaching session as a whole.

Two Mentoring Processes Our analyses of Tom’s and Sondre’s mentoring processes are presented below. We give a chronological description of the processes (see Table  4.1), inserting our analytical remarks as we go along. We did not intend to compare the two cases but

4  Interactional Dynamics in Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring

61

to show how different conversational dynamics develop contextually and how the learning potential for the teachers involved has been established in different ways. It must be noted that both mentoring processes encompassed substantially more elements than we have included in this chapter, both in terms of the topics that were addressed and the patterns of interaction. However, we had to make certain choices regarding the length of the text and for the sake of clarity in the presentation. However, the elements selected reveal a few of the general characteristics of the conversational dynamics that were established in the OPGM at the faculty as a whole, such as different forms of support and encouragement; the participants being given space to express themselves; and themes being elaborated upon, explored and developed collectively.

Case 1: Tom’s Mentoring Process Tom’s group consisted of four people who together teach a core course in the theology programme. Presupervision  Anna led the presupervision session, where they reviewed the mentoring notes of all four participants. The four specific teaching sessions were spread out through the semester, but they still reviewed the plans for each one at this presupervision session. The participants who would be undertaking OPGM sessions soon already had fairly concrete plans. Understandably, the teachers whose sessions were scheduled for a later date had fewer details in place. Tom was last, and there were approximately 20  minutes left of the time allocated to discuss his teaching session. Tom described the content of his session and what he planned to do. The others listened attentively, looking at Tom the whole time. They all gave frequent but minimal responses, which characterised the dialogue throughout the process, which was an indicator of genuine presence from all of the participants. Tom’s teaching design was generally based on student activity. He had already agreed with several students that they would present their interpretation of a selected text from the syllabus. After each presentation, Tom planned to allow ‘the students to ask questions and provide input’. He said that his role was to ‘steer the progress of the session’. Tom said that he would like feedback on how he treated the students when the relevance of their input varied. Moreover, Tom was given plenty of time to speak and was only interrupted by Anna, who asked a few questions for clarification. During the presupervision session, the group’s mood was light and cheerful. The talk flowed easily, and there was a great deal of laughter, particularly towards the end of the session, as if they needed time to warm up and develop a shared understanding of how to act during the peer mentoring. The excerpt below exemplifies the cheerful mood. This mood was triggered by Anna asking whether Tom’s assignment for the students, was a coursework requirement.

62

L. Wittek et al.

Excerpt 4.1 1. Anna: But what are they doing in that presentation? They have to read a text and present [their interpretation] to the class? 2. Tom: Yes. 3. Anna: Is it a coursework requirement? 4. Tom: I said it was, but it isn’t. (They all burst into laughter) 5. Anna: I don’t recognise this [from the course description], you know … (They all laugh) … So it isn’t compulsory? (laughs) 6. Tom: Yes, they have to attend, we can call it a collective effort … 7. Anna: I’m fascinated by the fact that you just did it … the students tend to protest … 8. Per: … Yes, they protest if it doesn’t appear in the course description. 9. Tom: Do they? Hmm. I didn’t say it was a coursework requirement, just that it was a necessary part of the work. (They all burst into laughter again.) This is something you just have to do. The content of Excerpt 4.1 refers to the merger between the seminary and faculty mentioned earlier, and the laughter may be an indicator that they have yet to agree on what constitutes coursework requirements and the associated formalities. It is reasonable to interpret the laughter as recognition of the lack of clarification and of Tom’s uncertainty regarding the formal requirements. The presupervision session ended slightly later than planned. Again, Tom emphasised that he particularly wanted input on his ‘interaction with the students’: how he managed to get them to talk, how he managed to engage them and how he treated them. Postsupervision  The postsupervision session took place right after the teaching, and Tom was invited to begin the conversation. He took time to explain that the session had evolved very differently than he had envisaged. Only one of the students made a presentation, and it was not suitable as an introduction to an academic discussion. Therefore, Tom had to improvise and find other ways of initiating the exploratory dialogue. He asked for feedback from his colleagues on how this had worked. Tom also commented on his emotional reactions to the students’ lack of preparation and used words like indignant and angry to describe his reaction. In doing so, Tom showed his vulnerability, which is a sign that the group members had come to trust each other. Anna (the main supervisor) used the term ‘extreme case of a teacher during interaction’ when describing her observations, a statement that made the group laugh heartily. Anna’s feedback on Tom’s reaction in terms of feeling indignation, disappointment and anger was primarily supportive. She articulated this by saying, among other things, that she experienced these feelings herself, even in her role as observer. In doing so, she expressed empathy. She also acknowledged that the situation was challenging and concluded by inviting Tom to say something about how he handles his emotional reactions. Tom took up her invitation by explaining

4  Interactional Dynamics in Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring

63

that his reaction was based on a broader context than the one session his colleagues observed. Tom took the opportunity to follow through on unfinished thoughts by expressing his reflections on the difficult situation he found himself in, which also indicated trust. The other people in the group mostly sat and listened. They paid full attention to Tom’s words, and they showed that they understood and supported his reflections by nodding and uttering low ‘Mmms’ and ‘Yeses’. Tom received sufficient time to explain himself, but after a few minutes, the others provided more concrete feedback  – specific input Tom had requested during the presupervision session. Some of this input was supportive, while some of it was argumentative or challenging. Excerpt 4.2 illustrates the latter. Excerpt 4.2 1. Anders: But I was wondering … is it fair to criticise students in that way? Is this a relevant thing to discuss during the lesson? Um, because it wasn’t the content of what was said, but more the way it was said … 2. Tom: … Yes … 3. Anders: Because I think that what they are expressing is general uncertainty … 4. Tom: Yes. 5. Anders: And the students got confirmation that their interpretation had been poor. 6. Tom: Mmm, yes … 7. Anders: And I noted what one of the students said at the end of the last lesson, about the fear of not being good enough. 8. Tom: Yes, that’s true. 9. Per: (Inhales between his teeth, laughs as he exhales). 10. Anders: Which was put to one side. 11. Anders: At the end of the second lesson, you had a different kind of … mmm … objective. I think this worked really well! And it was completely natural for you to ask a different type of question there, where things were much more … symmetrical in the dialogue between you and the students. 12. Tom and Anders: Mmm. 13. Anna: Just to put my oar in, it was also here that I think …. the last 15 minutes of traditional classroom teaching … the dialogue there … I think it’s one of the best things I’ve ever heard at the Faculty of Theology. Seriously! I think it worked really well! In the above excerpt, Anders’ initiative was critical and challenging. He had already expressed support for Tom’s reaction to the challenging teaching by providing minimal responses but now presented a new approach to the situation, where he confronted Tom about whether it was right to criticise the manner in which a student makes a presentation, asking how this affects the learning environment in the class. The student’s remark about not being good enough was also mentioned. Anders felt that this had not been followed up but ‘put to one side’ (lines 16 and 19).

64

L. Wittek et al.

Anders also said that the situation reflects the dilemma of offering teaching of a satisfactory academic level while also meeting the student’s need for learning and confidence. Anna joined the conversation at this point and agreed that the academic focus highlighted by Tom when he switched to ‘traditional classroom teaching’ was very good (line 22). The dialogue became more dynamic and academically oriented when he assumed the role of ‘expert’ and the students’ input to this dialogue maintained a higher academic level. Tom made many minimal responses during the postsupervision session. He listened to what the others said and his body language and low affirmative utterances signalled that he was absorbing what was being said; yet, beyond that he did not elaborate on how he interpreted the feedback or how he planned to use it. However, towards the end of the postsupervision session, Tom reflected at some length on the feedback he had received. He concluded by saying that the feedback had given him much to think about and that the conversation would help him plan his next teaching session differently. Tom was not explicit about these changes or how the input had given him food for thought. In light of the previously defined dimensions for learning, it was very evident that the others were genuinely present and that they expressed support and empathy throughout the process. Tom was given space to express himself, particularly during the presupervision session. The other participants used different approaches that helped elucidate and nuance the topics of discussion. However, occasionally, Tom was more of a recipient than an active participant in the conversation. His minimal responses confirmed that he heard what was being said, but he did not ask many follow-up questions and said little about how he could use the feedback he received. The interaction in this group was also characterised by relatively fast-paced snappy dialogue and laughter.

Case 2: Sondre’s Mentoring Process Sondre’s group consisted of three teachers who teach the same comprehensive foundation course. They covered different parts of the syllabus but belonged to the same discipline. Presupervision  Like Case 1, this group had a presupervision session in which they discussed all of the teaching sessions that would be observed during the semester. Sondre’s session lasted for 40 minutes. He was to give a lecture to the students that covered fairly extensive material. He considered lectures to be a ‘boring’ format, and it was very important to him to engage the students and create a dialogue. He wanted to ‘bring the material to life’. One of the ways he planned to do this was to find material in the syllabus that generates conflict. During the actual teaching session, he wanted to identify dilemmas and conflicts within the academic discourse and ‘find out what was at stake’. He emphasised that he wanted to illustrate different

4  Interactional Dynamics in Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring

65

understandings of causal relations, as well as different perspectives on the subject matter for the students. In relation to feedback from his colleagues, he particularly wanted them to consider whether his attempts to get the students to speak up were too confrontational. He emphasised that he was primarily interested in generating interest, which he considered to be the whole point of lectures. Sondre was given plenty of time to describe what he planned to do, what was troubling him and what he wanted to achieve with the lecture. Gunnar and Truls listened attentively to Sondre talking, continually giving him supportive looks, nodding and uttering low ‘Yeses’ and ‘Mmms’. Eventually, Gunnar mentioned a challenge related to how the students would use the content of the lecture: Excerpt 4.3 1. Gunnar: I taught the same material 2 years ago [the same topic that Sondre has now]. And I saw that none of the students, or at least very few of them, used my lectures in their papers. What they used was the texts on the syllabus, so that was pretty disappointing, but … it makes me wonder about the value of lectures. You want to get them asking questions and thinking, maybe more than presenting a full story, it might be … 2. Sondre: That isn’t so easy, you know … We set a few learning objectives for them, and then we need to test them by having them write papers. But the papers also need to be written in accordance with academic standards, which means that they need to learn about referencing. 3. Gunnar: (laughs) Yes. To the syllabus. 4. Sondre: To the syllabus. 5. Gunnar: Right? It’s a requirement! (Everyone laughs) A notable aspect of this group’s form of interaction was the slow pace of the conversation, which entailed all three participants taking the time to express themselves and included frequent pauses, which, in practice, created gaps in the conversation which the others filled with words. Excerpt 4.3 provides an example of this. In line 1, Gunnar introduced a new perspective, and it appeared as if Gunnar and Sondre were formulating the line of reasoning together during the conversation. In this process, we can find several examples of the group jointly developing new insights. Gunnar asked several challenging questions as the conversation progressed. For example, are university lectures subject to different requirements than lectures in other contexts? Should students be presented with an objective view of key historical figures, events and documentary evidence, or should interest be generated through more narrative presentations and anecdotes? How did Sondre select his stories? The conversation examined these choices and related issues in increasingly greater depth. In principle, Gunnar supported a different approach to the role of the lecturer. He believed that his job was to paint the big picture and present the material

66

L. Wittek et al.

as objectively as possible. The pattern of ‘slowness’ in the conversation mentioned earlier and the somewhat probing approach to providing feedback, including many pauses that the others filled with words, continued throughout the conversation. They contrasted their opinions, challenged each other by asking questions, provided examples and asked challenging questions related to the course objectives in general and their lectures in particular. This reveals a high level of engagement among all the participants, and it is interesting to see how Sondre seized opportunities to test and refine unfinished thoughts. We have previously defined this as a sign of trust. The continuation of themes introduced earlier is another general aspect of the interaction here. One example is when they explored the relationship between the syllabus and what Sondre called ‘bringing the material to life’. This explored the student’s ability to relate to the material at such an advanced level, and one of the comments was that it was unreasonable to expect the same of students at every stage of their studies. Postsupervision  The postsupervision session took place a few days after Sondre’s teaching. The entire group was present, and the session lasted for 45  minutes. Gunnar was the main supervisor, and he had jotted down many points during the observation. He took out his notes and began at the top of the page. First, he pointed out the positives. He said that Sondre managed to engage and challenge the students to think independently. It was good that he had told them at the beginning that there would be a discussion at the end of the lecture and that he encouraged the students to plan some input. However, there was no discussion. Sondre explained that there had been no time left at the end of the lecture. While Gunnar talked, his gaze shifted between his notes and Sondre. He talked slowly, taking many breaks, which gave Sondre many opportunities to remark on what was said, and Sondre took full advantage of these opportunities. Excerpt 4.4 1. Gunnar: [Your lecture] is easy to listen to. It flowed well, you spoke clearly, you didn’t hesitate … which I know I do, for example … I can begin a sentence without completing it, but you don’t – you’re very clear. 2. Sondre: Really? That's very good to hear, mmm. I think I need to take my jacket off … (Takes off his jacket, there is a pause, everyone laughs.) 3. Gunnar: If I was going to be a bit critical, I think that at times it was a bit populistic. I mean, is there any difference between a lecture and a talk, sort of … 4. Sondre: Sort of being too naive? 5. Gunnar: Well … there wasn’t enough interpretation … 6. Sondre: Interpretation is a bit implicit, though. I’m pretty clear about interpretation … could you say that? 7. Gunnar: Well the interpretations came in between, so … you had a narrative, then there were interpretations here and there, and they were very good. 8. Sondre: Thanks, yes …

4  Interactional Dynamics in Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring

67

9. Gunnar: Well, they were very good, they weren’t absent, the interpretations, but I don’t know, if someone wasn’t paying close attention, I don’t know if they would notice that you were presenting more than narratives … The critical feedback that was presented in line 3 triggered another continuation of a theme that was introduced and discussed earlier (the function of the lecture). The way that the participants expanded on each other’s input to arrive at a shared understanding was a manifestation of how new insights were developed as a group. In lines 2 and 6, we see how Sondre engaged actively to get to the heart of what Gunnar was saying. The relationship between interpretation, narrative and how a university lecture compares to more populistic contributions was discussed for 12 minutes. This topic had also been previously discussed but was now backed up with examples from the observation of Sondre’s teaching. Truls was enthusiastic about Sondre’s lecture style and suggested that this method creates interest and engagement among students. He believed it inspires them to read the texts on the syllabus on their own. The next excerpt examines a new initiative from Gunnar, where he indicated that Sondre occasionally gets slightly personal during the lecture, using the term ‘subjectivistic’. Truls took advantage of the pause here to invite inquiry. Excerpt 4.5 1. Gunnar: Sometimes you were … not direct, not personal, maybe … but subjective. 2. Sondre: Yes … 3. Gunnar: I remember that you said, ‘I think it's incredible that’. […] And then you’re suddenly … you’re still a teacher, but suddenly you’re also … 4. Sondre: Nods, mmm. 5. Gunnar: … a bit personal. 6. Sondre: Mmm. 7. Gunnar: And … there’s nothing wrong with that? I think it’s refreshing that you show that side and … you become a bit subjectivist. 8. Sondre: Yes, hmm … (thinks). 9. Truls: Could you give an example of the opposite of subjectivistic? 10. Gunnar: Yes, you just step back a bit … 11. Truls: Yes, but at Sondre’s lecture? Do you think there was a tendency? 12. Gunnar: No, you were generally more objective. You told a story objectively. Naturally quite a bit of it is subjective, but … 13. Sondre: Mmm. 14. Gunnar: But you didn't say that. You gave some explicit feedback where you were subjective. In lines 2–13, Sondre listened more to what Gunnar said than we have seen in the other excerpts. He did not fill in the pauses with words like before. Truls, on the other hand, did. In lines 45 and 47, he discussed Gunnar’s input and asked him to

68

L. Wittek et al.

explain what he meant. Again, we see an example of how the group continued to develop themes in depth by discussing what was said and exploring the issues. At the end of the postsupervision session, Sondre thanked the others for their good tips, as evident in the following excerpt: Excerpt 4.6 1. Sondre: I really think this is fun … It’s easy to absorb, I get something to build on … what you say is useful and practical, it’s easy to keep working on, I can build on … what wasn’t finished is fun to do here [give the same lecture] again. In the context of the previously defined dimensions for establishing learning potential in a conversation, there was a very clear genuine presence from the others throughout the process. Support and empathy were expressed in different ways. The others listened attentively at the presupervision session when Sondre voiced what he wanted to try to achieve. Both during the presupervision session and the postsupervision session, the pattern of conversation was characterised by speakers taking their time. This ‘slowness’ gradually developed into a conversational dynamic in which the group formulated opinions together. Another characteristic of this process is how Sondre remained an active interlocutor when the others were providing their input. He did this by asking follow-up questions, presenting alternative views or by describing how he interpreted what the others said or how he could use this in practice. The initiatives from all the participants were, thus, developed and elaborated upon by the group as a whole.

Discussion The starting point for this chapter was conversational dynamics as an important foundation for learning within peer mentoring groups. Below, we discuss how opportunities for learning manifested themselves in different ways in the two mentoring processes presented in this chapter. We also examine the implications of these conversational dynamics for the overarching purposes of the intervention, showing how they can be relevant outside the context of the programme of professional study at the Faculty of Theology.

Forms of Interaction and Potential for Learning In Table 4.2, we have made reference to learning potential associated with OPGM in the form of four different aspects of how opportunities for learning are generated through collaboration. However, the extent to which this potential is activated is

4  Interactional Dynamics in Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring

69

defined contextually by those who participate in the conversations. In other words, the potential can only be realised through the interaction established and developed in each group. We have shown two different examples that illustrate how conversational dynamics are established by different constellations of participants, taking whatever form is natural for that particular group. Thus, the learning potential was recognisable in different ways. To put differently, patterns of interaction are established contextually and opportunities for learning can both be opened and closed through conversational dynamics. However, learning is not something that can be observed as such. To analyse this specifically, we need an analytical approach that allows us to identify aspects of what it is that facilitates or constrains learning. In the analyses we have presented here, we have used four categories of learning potential that are derived from a dialogical approach to learning. We call the first of the four categories emotional and relational support, something that was developed in depth in both groups. We have defined participation as genuine presence, where the objective is a shared understanding. Indicators of this were the participants looking at the speaker, as well as frequent minimal responses such as nods, smiles, friendly laughter and uttering low ‘Yeses’ or ‘Mmms’. None of the participants in Tom and Sondre’s groups paid attention to their phones or laptops: they were all completely focused on what was being said. In addition, the conversational dynamics were also characterised by empathy in both groups. This was expressed through supportive statements (e.g. see Excerpts 4.2 and 4.5), as well as through presence and minimal responses. The participants in both groups were dared to show their vulnerability and explore unfinished thoughts, even though they did so in very different ways, as we have shown above. These are indicators of trust. We call the second category opportunities for each person to express themselves. In both the cases presented in this chapter, the participants were given space to speak their minds, but the tempo and progress of the conversations differed greatly. Supportive, argumentative and challenging feedback was given in both groups. In Sondre’s group, the input was explored through extended sequences in which possible ways of understanding the topic of discussion were collectively expressed. The slow conversation constituted important learning potential in this dynamic through tempo and the manner in which the numerous pauses were used as an arena to explore matters together. Tom’s group was generally faster paced; the dialogue flowed quickly, and the dynamic was characterised by laughter. This was natural behaviour for this constellation of people, offering a different form of learning potential than that in Sondre’s group. One aspect that was clearly different was time. Sondre’s group had allocated more time for the OPGM, and there are clear indications that the time impacted the depth of discussion on different topics. The third category is continuation of initiatives, and the fourth is joint development of new insights. Our in-depth analyses reveal that these appear to be closely interwoven. During Tom’s mentoring process, for example, Anna invited him to discuss the disappointment and irritation she believed she had observed in him (Excerpt 4.2), an invitation he responded to by agreeing with her while adding contextual information. This is only one of several examples of a pattern that we found in both peer mentoring groups: supportive, argumentative and challenging

70

L. Wittek et al.

questions were asked and helped other members of the group to add nuance, present new or divergent viewpoints and, thus, develop new understanding. Sondre’s mentoring process contained several sequences in which the participants practically formulated statements together (e.g. Excerpt 4.4). As we have already seen, this group allocated more time for both the presupervision and postsupervision sessions compared with Tom’s group. The conversations in this group were also characterised by people taking the time they needed. All three took time to express themselves, often using a probing approach. These conversational dynamics created a rich space for the participants to explore issues and complete arguments together. The conversation constantly alternated between the lecture observed, questions of principle regarding the role of the lecture, academic aspects of the topic in question and aspects discussed previously by the group. The input was characterised by discussion, examples and questions. The conversations where often challenging, which allowed the participants to get to the heart of the topics. They gave each other considerable time to complete their arguments and the slow tempo and frequent pauses created a dynamic characterised by collective exploration. Both the teaching context and discipline were far more limited than those in Tom’s group, which may have made it easier to delimit the discussions and focus on certain topics in greater depth. The teachers in Tom’s group came from different disciplines, and it is natural that the topics being discussed were more complex. One of the hallmarks of these conversations was the manner in which they alternated between different topics. The conversation pattern that developed in this group was characterised by rapid dialogue, and for most of the postsupervision session, each person took turns giving feedback on matters Tom had requested feedback on. Therefore, the form of feedback was more traditional, with Tom listening to other people’s assessments. Occasionally, they expanded on each other’s input in the course of the conversation (e.g. Excerpt 4.2). However, Tom, the main person, primarily used minimal responses (‘Yes’, ‘Mmm’, nod), even though there are examples of him accepting invitations to elaborate and reflect on questions and comments (e.g. Excerpt 4.2).

What Can We Learn? All four types of learning potential could be seen in both of the peer mentoring groups. The analyses were presented in a detailed and fairly thorough manner, and we hope that this will help others who want to take a closer look at conversational dynamics and investigate the learning potential in mutual peer mentoring contexts in higher education. ‘A constructive dialogue that promotes learning’ does not arise on its own but instead is established through the conversational dynamics that develop within the context. This is linked to a number of aspects, such as the homogeneity or diversity of knowledge domains, how much time is allocated for the sessions and how the actual communication is shaped within the groups. The OPGM model used here is fairly open and gave each group plenty of space to devise their own rules and frame the sessions in the manner that suited them best.

4  Interactional Dynamics in Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring

71

However, from a dialogical perspective, we argue that the four dimensions in Table 4.2 are critical for OPGM to facilitate learning for those involved: emotional and relational support, opportunities to express oneself, elaboration of input and joint development of new insights. This potential can be realised in different ways and must take shape through the specific conversational dynamics between the participants constituting the OPGM group. When people participate and collaborate with others on something they would tend to do separately, tensions and contradictions are likely to surface. When differences arise, people may decide to ‘protect themselves’ by refraining from further participation; however, by doing so, they also shut the door to the learning opportunities associated with this process. On the other hand, by letting the differences surface and exploring them, it is possible to examine the tensions that arise and to learn by viewing the matter from different angles, exploring new opportunities and finding new solutions. This is what the participants did in Tom’s and Sondre’s mentoring processes. However, this requires trust, which is something we have seen empirical indicators of in both processes (De Lange et al., this volume). When tensions are triggered and discussed within the framework of trust in mentoring groups, this generates considerable potential for learning and development at the individual and collective levels (Jensen & Lund, 2014, p. 290). It can take time to find a form that is suitable for participants in a peer mentoring group (de Lange & Wittek, 2018; Edwards, 2011). Based on our analyses of the data from the Faculty of Theology (as well as from other interventions in the project), we recommend that OPGM be conducted over a longer period of time than a single semester and with more than one observation per participant. This would enable participants to capitalise on the fact that conversational dynamics develop as part of a process and that time is needed to develop a suitable form for the individual group and stimulate cooperation within this form. Several studies have concluded that peer mentoring is more successful when groups jointly develop a shared view of the intention of the initiative and of how they can work most effectively to achieve this (Boschman et al., 2021; De Lange et al., this volume; Pleschová et al., 2021). This is yet another argument for OPGM to take place over a longer period of time. The interview with the management of the Faculty of Theology showed that they generally viewed collaboration as an important factor in development and quality assurance work. Even though they were not familiar with the details of this particular peer group mentoring project, they were very positive about the initiative, which ensured that a certain amount of time was allocated for each participant. However, there was no conscious link between the peer group mentoring and the overarching quality assurance work at the faculty. The analyses of this new approach did not provide an empirical basis for conclusions to be drawn. However, other research shows that the management’s attitude to, support for and facilitation of systematic peer mentoring may have a considerable impact on the success of the initiatives (e.g. Bell & Mladenovic, 2015; Chamberlain et al., 2011). Establishing systematic peer group mentoring in a unified community of peers and ensuring continuity and change beyond the micro level analysed in this chapter can be a challenge. Collaborating on developing teaching is a complex process, and

72

L. Wittek et al.

it is important not to underestimate how time-consuming it can be (Lomas & Nicholls, 2005). Scheduling sufficient time for meetings is critical for peer group mentoring to contribute to learning and development as intended. However, it is difficult to find solutions for this in the already busy everyday life of academia.

Concluding Comments An important measure of whether peer group mentoring has stimulated learning and collective development is whether it leads to actual change. Changes in collaboration between teachers, on the one hand, and teaching, on the other hand, include both institutional and structural factors. The study presented here has focused on the micro level. We have presented an in-depth analysis of two mentoring processes and shown how two different conversational dynamics established learning potential for the participants in their own way  – dynamics that developed in context through interaction. More studies that examine the relationship between peer group mentoring and practice at the course, study programme and institutional levels are needed. More structured and systematic documentation of research that focuses on peer mentoring in higher education will allow us to learn from each other across academic environments and national contexts. Such documentation can provide a better foundation for targeted peer group mentoring, in turn enabling us to develop and refine more robust criteria for achieving optimum quality improvement in teaching through peer group mentoring. In addition, more systematic documentation could also help educational institutions to assess and understand change at the organisational level as a result of peer group mentoring.

References Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback-dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293 8.2018.1434128 Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M.  Bakhtin. University of Texas Press. Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2015). Situated learning, reflective practice and conceptual expansion: Effective peer observation for tutor development. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.945163 Boschman, S., Craig-Morton, H., McGlashan, A., Schachtsneider, C., Steele, J., Weaver, A., & Wilson, M. (2021). Starting conversations and building connections: Fostering a community of practice across disciplinary boundaries at a college of applied arts and technology. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1360144X.2021.1954932 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

4  Interactional Dynamics in Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring

73

Carless, D. (2013a). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In D. Boud & L. Molly (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 90–103). Routledge. Carless, D. (2013b). Sustainable feedback and the development of student self-evaluative capacities. In S.  Merry, M.  Price, D.  Carless, & M.  Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education. Developing dialogue with students (pp. 113–122). Routledge. Chamberlain, J. M., D’Artrey, M., & Rowe, D.-A. (2011). Peer observation of teaching: A decoupled process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 189–201. Colvin, J.  W. (2014). Peer mentoring and tutoring in higher education. In L.  Mang & Z.  Yong (Eds.), Exploring learning and teaching in higher education. Springer. de Lange, T., & Wittek, A.  L. (2018). Creating shared spaces: Developing teaching through peer supervision. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039. 2018.1544645 de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (2020). Analysing the constitution of trust in peer-based teacher mentoring groups – A sociocultural perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13562517.2020.1724936Wittek de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Analysing the emergence of trust in peer group mentoring. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. De Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Peer mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 33–39. Jensen, R., & Lund, A. (2014). Horizontal dynamics in an interprofessional school improvement team. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17(3), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13603124.2013.794302 Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401 Kvale, S. (2001). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. Gyldendal Norsk Forlag. Lauvås, P., Lycke, H.  K., & Handal, G. (2016). Kollegaveiledning—Med Kritiske Venner [Peer mentoring with critical friends]. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspective. John Benjamins. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. IAP-Information. Age Publishing Inc. Lomas, L., & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 11(2), 137–149. Martin, B. H. (2019). The artistry of innovation: Increasing teachers’ artistic quotient for innovative efficacy. Canadian Journal of Education, 42(2), 576–604. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic process of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21. Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. E., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446 Steen-Utheim, A.  T., & Wittek, A.  L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. Learning, Culture, and Social Interaction, 15, 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lcsi.2017.06.002 Vološinov, V. N. (1929). Marxism and the philosophy of language. In P. Morris (Ed.), The Bakhtin Reader: Selected writings of Bakhtin (pp. 26–38, 50–74). Oxford University Press. Wittek, A. L. (2007). Mappe som redskap for læring i høyere utdanning. Strukturer, kulturell praksis og deltakelsesbaner. Doktoravhandling [Portfolio as a tool for learning in higher education.

74

L. Wittek et al.

Structures, cultural practice and participatory trajectories]. (PhD thesis) University of Oslo, Faculty of Educational Sciences. Wittek, A. L. (2012). Læring i og mellom mennesker: en innføring i sosiokulturelle perspektiver [Learning in and between people]. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Wittek, L. (this volume). Feedback in the context of peer group mentoring: A theoretical perspective. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer.

Chapter 5

Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision of Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education Crina Damşa, Lise Toft Henriksen, and Hege Christensen Abstract  Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical model that requires student collaboration for solving complex problems, such as a diagnosis and treatment plan for a patient. Competence in PBL supervision is critical for the successful implementation of the PBL model and for students’ learning. In this chapter, we examine how dialogue and supervision-related artefacts used in peer group mentoring (PGM) sessions contribute to raising PBL supervisors’ awareness of their supervision practices and developing supervision competence. We analyse PGM meetings, interviews and reflection notes collected in a research and development project in pharmacy education. PGM is employed to support both novice and experienced PBL supervisors in facilitating PBL.  We examine in depth how a set of statements about group work norms generate reflections and hands-on work of both experienced and novice PBL supervisors during sessions. The findings show that dialogue and the examined artefact help supervisors identify and understand the challenges regarding the implementation of the PBL method and handle difficult group dynamics during PBL sessions. Concurrently, the use and discussion of artefacts generate ideas for engaging these challenges and for the transformation of supervision practices.

Introduction Currently, in higher education, student-active teaching methods are more popular than ever. Numerous pedagogical models include activities that require students’ active participation, as well as extensive reflection and critical application of specialist knowledge. Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that C. Damşa (*) · L. T. Henriksen · H. Christensen University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_5

75

76

C. Damşa et al.

includes several factors that make learning activities student centred. It is highly popular in higher education, particularly in medical and related fields (Moallem et al., 2019; Pedaste et al., 2015); the method relies on the ability to critically analyse academic problems and collaborate with other students to find solutions to authentic problems. A PBL approach provides students with the opportunity to work in depth with disciplinary knowledge while developing and training generic skills, such as process organisation and collaboration and communication skills (Hung et al., 2019; Savery, 2019; Wijnia et al., 2019). The challenge of students’ productive participation during PBL sessions, which can generate good learning outcomes, is multifaceted. The combined learning of disciplinary content and discipline-specific methods, as well as the collaborative effort, can lead to significant learning outcomes; however, it can also lead to inadequate group dynamics (or even breakdowns) or difficulties with advancing the task (Bédard, 2019; Galvao et  al., 2014; Kolmos et  al., 2019; Lycke et  al., 2006). Students’ participation and collaborative abilities play an important role with respect to student group dynamics and the quality of explorative discussions, which determine what the students will gain from the topic (Fonteijn & Dolmans, 2019). Problem-solving often involves idea and solution brainstorming, which is difficult to realise and sustain (Blumberg, 2019; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2019). Research on PBL sessions, especially in groups in which students do not know each other well, have insufficient disciplinary knowledge or possibly underdeveloped collaboration skills, has shown difficulties in the dynamics of group work and the quality of interactional encounters and more limited disciplinary learning outcomes – that is, how much students have learned about the problem or topic at stake (Dabbagh, 2019; Moallem, 2019; Rotgans & Schmidt, 2019). There is consensus among researchers and teaching staff that, although PBL group meetings require active student participation, they also need competent supervision to ensure productive learning processes and robust learning outcomes (Moallem, 2019; Savery, 2019). A PBL supervisor’s task is to provide guidance on how to use the method correctly and to ensure that the group functions to its best potential in terms of joint effort and group dynamics. It is also important that supervisors are knowledgeable about PBL topic assignments. This enables them to ask questions and provide guidance to ensure that students benefit from the best possible learning experience in the specialist area (van Berkel & Dolmans, 2006). In their role as PBL supervisors, teachers encounter challenges regarding group dynamics, as well as frequent challenges with respect to the correct application of the PBL method. Research on the application of this approach in medical and pharmacy education shows challenges in terms of the productive involvement of students and correct application of the method (Christensen, 1995; Dolmans & Gijbels, 2013; Lycke et al., 2006; Pedaste et al., 2015). These challenges are attributed to inexperience with group supervision, particularly PBL groups (Damşa & Wittek, 2020), diverse academic backgrounds or extreme privatisation of the educational practice (Hermansen et al., this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, this volume). Competent PBL supervision significantly impacts how much students benefit from PBL group

5  Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision…

77

meetings, and PBL supervisors are required to possess not only academic, but also pedagogical expertise. Various strategies have been identified as contributing to improving supervising practices, such as supervision in groups, collaboration between novice and experienced supervisors (de Lange & Wittek, 2018), peer group mentoring (de Lange & Wittek, 2020) and supervision, where artefacts are used as part of the supervision process (Eriksson & Mäkitalo, 2015). The practice of supervisors can be developed collectively by sharing experiences, engaging in professional dialogues around challenges and using different artefacts that support reflection and learning. However, little research has demonstrated how PGM is adapted to a PBL context, how teachers perceive this approach to competence development and how tools that are developed or used in the process contribute to resolving the challenges associated with PBL supervision. This chapter draws on the empirical findings obtained from an innovation introduced in a pharmacy university education programme. Through a PGM approach applied in a pedagogical innovation, this chapter describes how both group dynamics and PBL supervisor competence can be the focus when implementing a PBL design (Bastiansen & Wittek, this volume; Wittek & de Lange, 2021). The project includes both the implementation of observation-based peer group mentoring (OPGM) (Wittek et  al., this volume) and large-group peer mentoring in plenary workshops, where supervisors collectively develop teaching material (Christensen et al., 2021). This chapter explores the supervisors’ discussions registered over the course of these sessions and phases and their reflections after the innovation is completed. We draw out the following themes from these conversations: (i) supervisors’ dialogue about supervision of PBL groups, (ii) their perceptions of PBL supervision and (iii) the use and added value of various instruments developed and used in PBL sessions with student groups. Our analyses focus on two tools in particular: patient case reports, which are authentic problems that students must learn how to analyse and find solutions to, and a PBL-statement form, which is used in the start phase for new PBL groups to balance group work expectations. Through this exploration, we answer the following two research questions: 1. What type of dialogue dynamics do patient case reports and statement forms facilitate in peer group mentoring sessions of PBL supervisors? 2. What are the implications in terms of developing PBL supervision competence? Based on these research questions, we analyse how PBL supervisors discuss various knowledge tools that they use for support when facing the challenges associated with group dynamics and PBL methodology. We show how these tools also provide opportunities for discussion and reflection on the supervisor’s role and the PBL method and, finally, how this impacts the way PBL is practised. Before getting into the detail about the PGM implementation, datasets, analysis and conclusions, we first describe how the PBL method is used in practice, the role of the PBL supervisor and the challenges associated with supervising PBL group meetings that are identified in various academic contexts.

78

C. Damşa et al.

Research Insights  ialogue as an Instrument for Innovation D in Supervision Practices In the research on collaborative work by teachers, dialogue has been shown to be an invaluable mechanism for solving complex problems or building innovations (Gomez et al., 2018). Research has provided examples of pedagogical innovation projects in which academic teachers work together to solve teaching problems or develop and implement shared pedagogical innovation. These studies indicate that productive dialogue is required to identify and clarify the problem in itself, identify and negotiate ideas and disagreements, overcome tensions, achieve a shared ground for developing and implementing innovation and examine the benefits and pitfalls of the innovation (Damşa, 2022; Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017). One major reason why this is important is that dialogue renders possible the emergence of new ideas, insights or knowledge useful for possible solutions, in addition to identifying and examining problems. Solving a complex, shared problem, such as the issues involved in PBL supervision, requires individual acknowledgement and understanding, which is, negotiated, analysed, criticised and developed collectively. Active participation involves coexploring or coconstructing solutions (Damşa, 2022; Wittek et al., this volume). Searching for a shared solution that can work for everyone also involves coordinating with others about common goals and interests (Matusov, 2001). An intermediate stage involves creating a common ground for engagement based on explicit communication among the participants. This involves a shared understanding and requires preparing for the final stage of joint activity/knowledge construction. Shared solutions are realised through dialogue, where communication with others is most important. Individuals can monitor each other’s orientations and actions, modify their own intentions and act accordingly.

Textual Artefacts as Tools for Productive Dialogue Although dialogue is important for teacher teams who engage in innovations, the decisions made and knowledge constructed through dialogue might often get lost or remain unused. Knowledge artefacts embody the type of activity they mediate, where the most general type includes digital-material artefacts (e.g. a pen, a digital device and a software programme) and abstract/intangible or intellectual artefacts (e.g. a theory, a report and a form) (Paavola et  al., 2004). Teaching uses many knowledge artefacts, such as scientific articles for literature discussions, tasks and assignments; forms for feedback and assessment; and collaboration guidelines. These artefacts are sometimes provided institutionally but are most often created by teachers because they are the ones recognising the needs emerging in various

5  Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision…

79

teaching situations and the needs to support and guide learners. Artefacts are considered an ideal means to capitalise on the productive aspect of dialogue (Damşa, 2014, 2022). From a theoretical perspective, artefacts are carriers of knowledge and routines and ‘capture experiences, ideas, thoughts and goals’ (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017, p. 200). They embody knowledge created in time by various contributors and can reflect the way knowledge and teaching practices, for example, appear when the artefacts are created. Depending on the stage and purpose of the activity, artefacts can be the focus of the dialogue as they are being created (i.e. epistemic artefacts), or once developed, they become instruments and support another activity (i.e. technical artefacts). Miettinen and Virkkunen (2005) consider that the use of these artefacts in learning and work leads to a continuous process of transforming the artefact from its current state into a required end state. This means that, once created, artefacts can be used, reused or revised to meet the changing needs or demands according to the situation. In teaching, the reuse of teaching materials, instruments and assignments is common, as is reviewing and revising these artefacts, depending on what the teacher might want to emphasise, on what the students might be needing to learn or based on the evaluations that indicate a need for change or adjustments (see also Hermansen et al., this volume).

PBL as a Pedagogical Model and Group Dynamics in PBL The PBL method usually involves students working in groups of six to eight. Each group has a supervisor present during the group meetings. The PBL method involves numerous steps, which can be customised depending on the discipline. The PBL method is presented in Table 5.1, where the pedagogical objective of the method’s various steps and PBL supervisor’s role in the process are described. During the first group meeting on any given topic, the group brainstorms to identify problems before developing several hypotheses and eventually formulating what they need to learn about the topic. In the interval between group meetings, specialist knowledge is obtained, and in the second group meeting, this knowledge is coordinated and solutions to the problems are presented. The learning process is based on authentic problems (in medicine and pharmacy, these tend to be patient case reports) that the students must learn to analyse and to which they must find solutions. A case report (problem) is presented during the first group meeting and is often reviewed by one or more students reading it aloud. The literature has shown there to be challenges regarding productive student involvement and correct method application (Hung et al., 2019; Lycke et al., 2006). Teamwork abilities play a particularly important part in groupwork dynamics and the quality of explorative discussions. In some groups, all participants contribute equally to the group work, while in other groups, some members are quite passive and contribute so little that the collaborative processes are hampered and the PBL process is insufficiently productive.

80

C. Damşa et al.

Table 5.1  PBL model, supervisor role and pedagogical objective (based on Lycke et al., 2006; Savery, 2019; Wood, 2003)

First meeting

Steps 1 Take in the situation described in the patient case report and clarify terminology

Supervisor’s role Encourage all group members to participate

Keep track of time

2 Define the problems raised by the patient case report 3 Suggest what may have caused the problems 4 Attempt to explain connections 5 Formulate learning needs

Independently 6 Search for information Second 7 Apply knowledge/ meeting share and discuss everyone’s individual findings

Ensure that the whiteboard captures everything Keep track of the steps

Pedagogical objective Collaboration Active listening Mobilise and formulate existing knowledge Oral presentation Learn academic reasoning

Keep discussions on track

Ensure that the learning needs are focused, achievable, comprehensive and in line with the learning objectives for the topic

Check the understanding level by encouraging students to ask open-ended questions and ask each other to explain topics in their own words

In-depth study and acquisition of new knowledge Critical assessment of the literature Self-controlled learning and the use of resources Understand and apply new knowledge in specific situations Presentation skills

In the literature on collaborative learning, three interaction dimensions are identified as being significant for achieving productive group collaboration: (i) an epistemic or knowledge dimension – this is associated with the knowledge and ideas that group members bring to discussions, their grounding or their ways of discussing and using knowledge and its sources in group assignments (Damşa & Wittek, 2020); (ii) a regulative dimension – this concerns the group’s efforts in planning,

5  Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision…

81

coordinating, monitoring or assessing their collaboration and communication; and (iii) a socio-relational dimension – where a good relationship among group members, combined with confidence and an ability to engage in group work, is considered important. The two latter dimensions comprise the so-called group dynamics (van den Bossche et al., 2006). Several studies have shown that the ability to collaborate, participate and contribute to group assignments should be acquired through modelling and supervision and by gradually increasing the task complexity. Although group dynamics cannot be separated from or learned independently of collaborative work to solve problems, favourable group dynamics are a premise for achieving productive groupwork and better learning outcomes (Damşa & Wittek, 2020; Hung et al., 2019; Savery, 2019). Whenever PBL is used, it is important to be aware that group dynamics are often unstable and that there are many difficulties associated with understanding the various PBL steps. PBL group meetings, therefore, rely on good supervision to produce good learning processes and student learning outcomes. In the pharmacy education’s PGM project, the challenge associated with active student participation during PBL group meetings formed the starting point for creating learning arenas for PBL supervisors.

 n Empirical Case: Peer Group Mentoring and PBL A Supervision in a Pharmacy Programme In this section, we describe the context in which the PBL-related project was organised and conducted in a university-based pharmacy programme: Faculty Peer tutoring in Teaching and Supervision: Innovation Teacher Collaboration Practices in Norwegian Higher Education (PeTS). Historically, PBL has been used in higher education, particularly with high-frequency medical education and related disciplines (biology, physiology and pharmacology) (Lycke et al., 2006; Moallem et al., 2019). In the current programme, the PBL methodology was primarily used for teaching pharmacotherapy. PBL is well suited for discussing and learning from patient case reports, where the focus is on the pathophysiology of various illnesses and their treatment with or without medication. The project involved a pedagogical innovation following identified challenges connected to the PBL method in the programme. The project aimed to address a particular challenge identified in PBL implementation: teachers’ diverse ways of applying the PBL method, especially enabling brainstorming, and challenges when it came to improving and sustaining group dynamics. The participants from the pharmacy programme had varying profiles; some had many years of experience in teaching and PBL supervision, while others had recently joined the faculty and had limited experience with PBL supervision work.

82

C. Damşa et al.

 eer Group Mentoring in the Pharmacy Education Programme: P An Innovation in Two Parts The innovation in the pharmacy education programme included two subprojects that addressed the aforementioned challenges at two levels: (1) challenges with the student group dynamics in the PBL sessions and (2) challenges with applying the PBL method in a thorough manner for novice supervisors. Subproject 1: Addressing Group Dynamics in PBL The first subproject concerns large-group peer mentoring for experienced PBL supervisors, here comprising two plenary seminar workshops and two PBL sessions. The emphasis was on challenges related to student group dynamics in PBL teaching in the pharmacy programme. Fourteen experienced PBL supervisors participated in this first subproject, which focused on developing a supervision tool – a questionnaire that all supervisors could use in their first PBL session with their student groups. The questionnaire aimed to structure conversations with the students regarding groupwork. By prompting the students to reflect on different questions and share their opinions and understandings with each other, the questionnaire aimed at helping to create a common understanding of individual and group expectations for PBL sessions. Following the seminar workshop, all the experienced supervisors implemented the questionnaire in their respective PBL student groups. As a last step, the supervisors participated in a joint meeting to share and discuss their experiences with using the questionnaire and to discuss further ideas (see visualisation of steps in the subproject below): Pre PBL session seminar ➔ Implementation of questionnaire in PBL sessions ➔ Post PBL session seminar.  ubproject 2: Observation-Based Peer Group Mentoring (OPGM) S Meetings for Novice Supervisors The second subproject was directed at novice PBL supervisors involved in observation-­based peer group mentoring (OPGM). This subproject comprised an introductory workshop for the new supervisors in conducting PBL sessions and how to engage in OPGM. Five novice PBL supervisors participated in this subproject, in addition to one experienced supervisor. The OPGM model was implemented to explore and find solutions to the challenges identified during the novice supervisors PBL sessions, as shown in Table 5.2. Some of the artefacts discussed in subproject 1 were also used and discussed in this second subproject (i.e. case descriptions and statement form). The teachers’ experiences and reflections on the conducted sessions, together with ideas for

5  Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision…

83

Table 5.2  OPGM model implemented in subproject 2 Phase 1 prementoring

Phase 2 observation Phase 3 mentoring postobservation

Each participant writes a brief mentoring note on (1) who the students are, (2) what will happen and why and (3) what feedback the participant is particularly looking for The teachers select a teaching session, which is observed by the rest of the group. The teacher defines what feedback they are looking for The entire group meets immediately after the teaching session to give feedback – first the main supervisor, then the rest of the group

improvements, were documented in reflection reports (see the visualisation of steps in the subproject below): Workshop ➔ Implementation of questionnaire in PBL sessions ➔ Observation-­based peer group mentoring (OPGM) meetings.

 nowledge Tools Used in PBL Group Meetings K and in the Subprojects Several artefacts were discussed and used in both subprojects as tools during the PBL group meetings with students: patient case reports, a statement form regarding norms for group-based discussion and collaboration (Fig.  5.1), PBL methods, ‘whiteboards’ and reflective notes. The statement form was particularly focused for discussions in subproject 1, while the patient case report was debated in both subprojects. Our analyses results showed that discussing and using the various tools helped the supervisors reflect on their own PBL practice in various ways. The patients’ pharmacology records formed the basis for the PBL case the student group worked with during the PBL sessions. This artefact was introduced to the students when they were presented with the PBL task, and this formed the basis for their discussions. The statement form featured nine statements about group collaboration: (1) supervisor’s role; (2) fair division of talking time among members; (3) justifying positions in the dialogue; (4) being prepared for the discussion; (5) admitting lack of knowledge, if the case; (6) responsibility for own learning process during the PBL group work; (7) all input must be discussed; (8) openness to discuss problems leads to better learning; and (9) use of digital devices disturbs groupwork. Responses to statements were given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘agree’ to ‘disagree’. The form originated from the pharmacy education programme at Uppsala University, where it was devised during a course in PBL supervision held in the 1990s. It was introduced during the first seminar in subproject 1 by the person who led the seminar (an experienced PBL supervisor). The form was discussed and revised during the seminar and tested when new PBL groups were established, with students discussing among themselves whether they agreed or disagreed with the statements before they participated in any PBL activity.

84

C. Damşa et al.

Statements about collaboration

Agree 1

1

Supervisor’s task is to direct the group, sum up and, if needed, interrupt unnecessary discussion

2

Members who talk much should moderate themselves and those the passive ones should become more active

3

Group members learn more from each other if they justify their views and stances

4

Discussing patient situations unprepared is a waste of time and leads to confusion

5

It is better to admit that one doe not understand, rather than not being involved in the discussion

6

Each group member has a responsibility for own learning gains, and for the others’

7

Each group member’s opinion (about work strategy, for example) must be discussed

8

Group members learn most about group work when they discus openly the way group functioning

9

Use of OC/tablet/mobile phone has a negative impact on the group interaction

Disagree 2

3

4

5

Fig. 5.1  Statement form about PBL group work

Dataset and Analysis Both subprojects generated rich datasets (de Lange et al., this volume), collected by a team of researchers who had obtained consent from all participants: 1. Data used for context and background – understanding the timeline and progression of the two subprojects. This included (i) observation notes from the seminar, (ii) observation notes from the workshop, (iii) researcher field notes of the questionnaire’s implementation and (iv) a report written for the faculty leadership on the initiatives. 2. Data used for the analysis of the supervisors’ dialogues and reflections of their PBL supervisor practices. This included (1) transcribed audio from the workshop seminars regarding the statement form, (2) transcribed audio from a focus group interview regarding the questionnaire, (3) reflection notes written by novice supervisors about their practices and experiences with OPGM, (4) transcribed audio from the pre- and postmeetings with novice supervisors involved in OPGM and (5) transcribed audio from focus group interviews with supervisors engaged in OPGM.

5  Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision…

85

In this chapter, we analyse a selection of data relevant to the phenomenon we examined. The data were analysed by applying qualitative content analysis techniques and were guided by thematic analysis principles (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and a combination of deductive (driven by predefined themes from the literature or previous observation) and inductive (shown by this dataset) approaches in identifying and clustering the coded data. Systematic colour coding was used to mark statements from discussions and interviews and sections of reflections and of observation protocols that contained input thematically relevant to the aims of the chapter. The analytic strategy followed three phases: open reading through the entire dataset, qualitative content coding and clustering and selection and interpretation of coded data for illustrating the main findings. Based on the first two phases, we created thick descriptions that provide an overview of the analysed situations, contextualise participants’ statements and actions and offer a background for detailed interpretations and illustrations.

Findings The findings are presented as (a) a ‘thick description’ (Hammersley, 2008) of the topics discussed during PBL seminars and OPGM sessions and (b) a detailed interpretation and illustration.

 ialogue and Artefacts Mediating Discussion of Challenges D and Solutions The analysis of the data from subproject 1 generated an understanding of three primary findings: First, the work with developing, implementing and discussing the statement form (a textual artefact) highlights other challenges related to PBL supervision than those identified initially. Through dialogue, the supervisors developed a shared understanding of issues and could create common solutions for the entire team of supervisors. Second, the dialogue indicated that (a) different common challenges surface in the dialogue and were recognised as being equally relevant and, to some extent, intertwined and (b) the artefact’s purpose was transformed through the dialogue (from a ‘start tool for discussion’ to a ‘rule-of-conduct’) to meet needs that have surfaced while working with the form in the PBL sessions. The artefact was suggested as a direct solution to other challenges in the PBL supervision practice, such as ‘students having bad habits’ and not applying the PBL method rigorously. Altogether, the dialogue resulted in a concrete supervision solution, namely that the statement form would be implemented in the upcoming semester. In what follows, we illustrate how the dialogue around textual artefacts unfolded and led to identifying challenges and solutions.

86

C. Damşa et al.

Identifying PBL Supervision Challenges Through Dialogue Implementing and discussing the statement form brought to the fore challenges with applying the PBL method rigorously, especially the brainstorming step. This is expressed as ‘students’ bad habits’. Shared understanding is built through the discussion: students who have been through semesters with PBL previously have developed ‘bad habits’, and they sometimes intentionally skip steps in the PBL method. The statement form was suggested as a possible solution to the challenge: I think maybe what would have been exciting would have been to see how it works with that form in someone who has had PBL before. Who have gotten into a routine and – that is, when they eventually come out, they have done it so many times that they start to get it – they know exactly what to look for. They can easily skip that brainstorming if they want to say in a way. So how do they look at exactly the same issues. (S1, group meeting)

A supervisor pointed out how multiple issues were raised while discussing the form: No, I only hear many times that people say that they [students] somehow forget the time in the PBL once they have started and then you quickly skip [different steps]. (S5, group meeting)

Instead of seeing the form as a solution to challenges with applying the PBL method, the supervisor reflected on whether another tool could be useful: Had there been an opportunity to make some rules and put them on the table. Like […] they’re lying there. So if one is wondering ‘Where were we now somehow?’ so that they are available then, to check. So maybe you do not fall out of the system so quickly along the way, because I think that may have worked. (S5, group meeting)

Supervisor 2 shared from their practice that they previously printed out the seven PBL steps (Table 5.1) to visualise the PBL method for the students: I printed the seven steps and gave it to all the students in the first meeting and asked them to bring to each – especially meeting 1. And they have done, […] But of course, the points [steps] slip a bit about each other, do it, but at least they are observant of [the steps]. So that if they have forgotten it then I bring out ‘Here are the seven steps, please’. (S2, group meeting)

In this statement, another tool (the visualisation of the seven steps) was suggested as a solution to the common issue of applying the PBL method rigorously. The following interaction shows how the dialogue indicates both artefacts (form and seven-­ step method) to be a direct solution to challenges in the PBL supervision practice, such as ‘students’ bad habits’, applying the PBL method rigorously: Supervisor 3: No, but we probably agree that it is important to focus on both group dynamics and the PBL method. That’s what it’s about, it’s not just free movement, it [PBL] is a structured scheme and trying to do the best you can has an effect. Supervisor 4: But I think we need to [unclear speech] the seven steps. Because here is really not – has nothing to do with the seven steps, this form [questionnaire]. So there are two different things. Supervisor 6: And this presupposes a bit that the seven steps are practiced.

5  Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision…

87

Finally, the supervisors decide on implementing the form in the upcoming semester to see what effect the questionnaire will have on ‘experienced PBL students’. The goal is to compare the impact of the questionnaire across different semesters. As for using the form as a code of conduct, the possibility of doing this in one’s own practice is mentioned again at the end of the meeting. Artefact Is Transformed Through Dialogue Sharing experiences with implementing the questionnaire gave one of the supervisors the opportunity to share relevant but unrelated experiences from their practice. They had previously decided to make ‘rules of conduct with [student]. (S1: group meeting)’. They explained how they, in the middle of the semester, used the code of conduct that the students helped formulate as a reminder. Another supervisor applied similar strategies in their practice. They had previously worked with a questionnaire resembling the questionnaire in question: So I asked ‘Now we are halfway through, how do you think it has gone? Especially considering what you ticked on the form’. Also there was [...] someone who took up […] it then that he thought we should maybe get better at. (S2, group meeting)

A third supervisor expressed how poor group dynamics result from student shyness. They explained this as follows: I think it [the form] could have worked if […] everyone in a way had contributed – [then we could] put up a cross on the board – so got a longer discussion, introduction maybe around it […] but they have become known now I think and then it has gotten better, much better now. (S4, group meeting)

However, using the form in the first group meeting was also challenging for another reason: for us [supervisors] it’s easy to discuss [the questions], but for those who may not have really taken a stand on it at all – they just ‘It’s mandatory and we’ll just show up. We’ll also learn about how we do it’. […] But once they have experienced it a few rounds at least, then it is much easier to discuss. (S4, group meeting)

The fact that the students were familiar with neither the PBL method nor each other made it difficult to facilitate a lively discussion. Inspired by colleagues’ experiences in creating a code of conduct with the students, they reflected on using the form as a ‘refresher’ when the students could become more familiar with each other. Then, the students will be reminded of the discussion they had regarding the group setting and will more likely be engaged in the discussion: So the way we have done it now, I think that – I have not taken it up again, but I agree that it would have been a good idea. […] Now that we took it at the first meeting, I think maybe some of them also forget a little then – right, because there was so much at the first meeting. We took it up, but then there is not much more talk about it like that if we do not take it up properly again then. (S4, group meeting)

88

C. Damşa et al.

Through the dialogue, this supervisor was offered the opportunity to reflect and relate different challenges to each other while drawing on the experiences from their colleagues. The result is a transformation of the artefact to meet needs in the PBL supervisor practice.

Dialogue as Instrument for Shared Exploration and Reflection In subproject 2, the analysis focused on the dialogue and collaborative reflection of PBL supervisors before and after the PBL sessions with students. In addition, in this subproject, common challenges in the group of supervisors had different expressions in different practices, and with OPGM, the supervisors had the opportunity to individually explore and adapt to solutions suitable for their own specific practice. In addition, OPGM was valuable for everyone involved, as well as the supervisors who did not receive direct feedback. In the preobservation meeting among a novice, observed supervisor (mentee) and observing supervisor (mentor), the former identified dilemmas and specific situations from their own practice that they wanted to explore. An example of a specific focus for one supervisor is provided as follows: I especially want feedback on how I manage to include the students who are not very active, as well as how I handle the situation with the student who is very active but not so academically skilled. (S6, reflection notes: needs for feedback)

These challenges and topics were discussed, and supervisor 6 was inspired to try out new efforts or change certain things in the next PBL session with the students. During these PBL sessions, the mentor observes activities from the side line, using an app (MOSO) that video-records small sequences of the PBL session to capture moments of interaction related to the identified dilemma or challenges. The mentor primarily focused on the things discussed in the preobservation meeting but could note down other situations or topics found interesting during the observation. In the postobservation meeting, the mentor and mentee analyse and discuss the selected clips, focusing on constructive feedback for the mentee. All the supervisors who participated in OPGM wrote reflection notes – summing up challenges, discussions, new interventions attempted in practice and thoughts on their own learning gains. One mentee’s reflections indicated their initial focus in the preobservation meeting: I find it a challenge to get them to discuss with each other and not just read out the facts from the ark (steps 3 and 4). Looks like they’re skipping step 4 completely. How can you stimulate students to brainstorm about a pharmacology case that they do not know much about in the first place? (S7, reflection notes: challenges)

Supervisor 7 focused on the students’ awareness of the PBL method and how to support them in engaging with each other. They specifically pointed to the brainstorming step as challenging. In the preobservation meeting, the supervisor and peer group discussed these challenges, based on which S7 decided that ‘students should be encouraged to take brainstorming (step 3) on the board before handing out the case study’. (S7, reflection notes).

5  Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision…

89

In the next PBL group meeting with their group of students, S7 implemented the change. In the postobservation meeting, S7 explained how they experienced implementing this change in their practice: introduction of stage 3 ‘Brainstorming’ before the distribution of the case statistics helped to create a more natural discussion about the disease in question. (S7, reflection notes)

Supervisor 7 received feedback on the specific challenges that they defined at the outset, and the excerpt above shows how they were supported in exploring challenges, finding solutions and implementing change by the OPGM process. From S7’s reflection notes, we further see how feedback from a peer also led to different aspects of change in their practice: Furthermore, dialogue in the OPGM prompted me to reflect more on my own body language and behaviour, which I did not think was so important before. […] I was pointed at the postobservation meeting that this type of behaviour could actually be interpreted the other way around. So in the future, I will try to be more aware of my body language, give more positive feedback to students and will sit down with them and assess whether it leads to an improvement. (S7, reflection notes)

The reflection note indicates how the feedback made the supervisor aware of their involvement in the group dynamics and led to a change in how they perceived their role. Helping the students engage and openly discuss with each other was first linked with how the PBL method was practised. In the postobservation meeting, the challenge of the student group dynamics was further coupled with the perspectives on the supervisor role and how the supervisor could adopt more suitable ways of engaging with the students. Engaging in OPGM dialogue appeared useful from individuals’ perspectives: It’s a bit nice, if you – you have probably encountered a little different problems on PBL and it may be that the observer may have another suggestion on how to solve it then; then, you can get a bit like that tips and input. (S7, interview) It was also – there were issues that you [S7] came across, that I have not encountered yet and that I may come across eventually and now I have in a way seen a little how to handle it. Especially in that tutorial class we discussed. Was not only the observer who came up with suggestions, but they discussed solutions together. Then you learned a lot from it yourself as well. (S3, interview)

The mentors found meaningful strategies and learned new ways of facilitating the PBL group meeting that suited their own practices. From a focus group interview with the same mentee, we found that the dialogue around challenges and solutions was useful not only for the supervisor in question, but also for the mentors.

 eflection on the Role of Dialogue and Textual Artefacts R in PBL Supervisory Practice This chapter has discussed how PBL supervision competence can be improved through dialogue among supervisors about their supervisory practices and about their perception of the supervision they provide, here by using various tools in PBL

90

C. Damşa et al.

group meetings. Analyses of dialogues and reflections during the pharmacy project have provided deeper insights into the PBL supervisors’ challenges and ideas and have brought out proposals for how to improve PBL supervisory practice.

 rtefacts as Tools for Supporting Group Dynamics A in PBL Groups The PBL supervision challenges observed in this chapter reflect the general challenges associated with PBL supervision, as described in the literature (Dolmans & Gijbels, 2013; Hung et al., 2019; Lycke et al., 2006). A frequent challenge is how to create and retain the group dynamics that are favourable to constructive dialogue and learning. The analyses showed that the PBL supervisors used the seminars and OPGM to discuss this challenge and find solutions for how supervisors can encourage students to participate more actively in group discussions by using textual artefacts developed and revised during the meetings. The analyses also showed how such artefacts can support dialogue and reflection, in addition to providing support for the work of individual students in PBL group meetings. The empirical illustrations showed that the statement form was highly useful during the supervisors’ discussions, as well as PBL sessions. In subproject 1, the use of the statement form during the first meeting of each PBL group led to it being considered an instrument that helped raise awareness among group members with respect to group responsibilities (Miettinen & Virkkunen, 2005; Paavola et al., 2004). Additionally, this strategy (of using statement forms as a mediating tool) allowed students to become better acquainted with each other and to establish good socio-relational connections (van den Bossche et  al., 2006). It is important for group members to feel secure within the group to generate productive dialogue and collaboration (Damşa & Wittek, 2020), and tools that promote dialogue and openness about divergent views on the process and establish ‘ground rules’ can support both supervisors and students in finding solutions. In addition, the form was an artefact that triggered academic discussions, acting as a ‘shared object’ forming a basis for dialogue and negotiation within the group (Damşa, 2014; Galvao et al., 2014).

 ialogue and Artefacts as a Strategy for Developing D Supervisor Competence Large-group peer mentoring, as described for subproject 1, and structured OPGM sessions, as described in subproject 2, offered PBL supervisors an arena for sharing their experiences. Individual supervisors received useful feedback and advice about possible solutions to challenges.

5  Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision…

91

During the first subproject with two plenary sessions with experienced PBL supervisors, the supervisors summarised their PBL meeting experiences and drew up a list of discussion points related to the wording of the case report and the group dynamics. The feedback was considered constructive and provided insights into how PBL supervising practices can be changed to address challenges that can disrupt or prevent groupwork. In subproject 2, the participants sought feedback on their role as novice PBL supervisors through OPGM sessions. These participants reported that being observed in the role of a supervisor and then attending a review meeting was useful and enlightening. It was also a source of inspiration and innovation, particularly in relation to handling difficult situations. The PBL supervisors in this second subproject felt it was rewarding not to be alone in the role of supervisor. The review meeting focused on being positive and providing specific advice regarding matters that their peers had identified as problematic. This meant that the individual supervisors perceived the feedback and advice to be constructive rather than upsetting or judgemental. The comments provided insights into the potential for improvement, and specific suggestions and ideas were proposed for potential adjustments, particularly concerning group dynamics and how to apply the PBL method. Therefore, the OPGM dialogue functioned as quality assurance of the teaching plan and raised awareness of how they functioned as a supervisor and developed the individual PBL supervisor’s relationship (de Lange & Wittek, 2018, 2020). The analyses in this chapter have also shown how different tools helped achieve in-depth discussions and ideas for improving PBL supervision. The empirical examples from the supervisors’ discussions, as well as reflections on their personal supervising practices, were chosen to demonstrate different ways of discussing challenges, while also showing how specific shared artefacts can generate productive conversations and collaboration (Damşa, 2014; Wittek et  al., this volume). Amending the statement form and producing considered proposals to adjust the patient case reports gave the supervisors an opportunity to be more focused in their reflections and suggest or formulate specific solutions to the various challenges. For example, using the statement form was suggested as a partial solution to challenges with respect to group dynamics on a regulatory and socio-relational level. Improvements and potential adjustments to patient case reports are considered as forming a concrete starting point for group discussions and for work on academic content and are, therefore, solutions in the epistemic dimension (Damşa, 2014; Damşa & Wittek, 2020). The literature has also reported that the use and production/processing of shared artefacts can contribute to considerable interaction in which ideas, suggestions and digital/material objects are shared, as well as experiences of the value of their application. Such ‘multilayered’ interactions offer a more robust basis for generating a mutual understanding that results in involvement and increases intersubjectivity. The latter is considered an important part of joint development and improvement in practice (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017; Matusov, 2001).

92

C. Damşa et al.

Concluding Comments Both projects saw challenges being discussed in an open and constructive fashion, and the dialogue brought out several solutions that some supervisors had used in their PBL supervisory practice, in addition to joint solutions generated through discussions. The findings have shown that the PBL supervisors gained increased awareness of how they functioned in the role of supervisor, and the peer group mentoring provided them with valuable feedback on how to handle challenges associated with group dynamics and how to use the PBL method. These findings, combined with the experiences shared and discussions held during the peer group mentoring project’s PBL seminars, generated several practical ideas and proposals for improvement in PBL supervising practices. Because the current project focused on group dynamics, many recommendations addressed how to create a reassuring environment within the PBL groups, where students felt encouraged to participate and contribute to the dialogue and brainstorming, increasing the chances of better learning outcomes. Practical recommendations for implementation in PBL group meetings and supervision indicate a need to do the following: • discuss and establish expectations associated with group dynamics (e.g. using a statement form as a starting point for discussions); • draw up group-specific ground rules for the group’s discussion practices; • actively use patient case reports while allowing for discussion of specialist aspects without getting stuck on case report details; • set assignments that encourage group members to work actively with knowledge and present their ideas and solutions to the group; and, • draw up summaries and evaluation points that align with established expectations. Furthermore, this chapter’s analyses have demonstrated the value of dialogue and of using knowledge tools for large-group peer mentoring and OPGM sessions that offer opportunities for supervisors to further develop their competence and raise the quality of PBL teaching. There is an ongoing dialogue among supervisors about successful approaches and solutions to challenges in the PBL supervision process.

References Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Chapter 8: Peer-Group mentoring: A tool for faculty development. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Bédard, D. (2019). PBL in medical education. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 459–482). Wiley. Blumberg, P. (2019). Designing for effective group process in PBL using a learner-centered teaching approach. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-­ based learning (pp. 343–365). Wiley.

5  Dialogue and Artefacts as Instruments in Peer Group Mentoring and Supervision…

93

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Christensen, H. (1995). A critical discussion of the application of problem-based learning to undergraduate pharmacotherapeutic teaching. UNIPED, 2, 13–27. Christensen, H. S., Damşa, C., & Toft Henriksen, L. (2021). Kollegaveiledning for PBL-veiledere I farmasiutdanning. In L. Wittek & T. De Lange (Eds.), Kollegaveiledning i høyere utdanning (pp. 103–121). Universitetsforlaget. Dabbagh, N. (2019). Effects of PBL on critical thinking skills. In M.  Moallem, W.  Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 135–156). Wiley. Damşa, C.  I. (2014). The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 247–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-­014-­9193-­8 Damşa, C. (2022). Knowledge construction in teacher teams. In E. Kyndt, C. Harteis, & D. Gijbels (Eds.), Research approaches on workplace learning (pp.  257–279). Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Damşa, C., & Wittek, A.  L. (2020). Group work in higher education. Pedagogical designs for fostering student engagement. In M. Elken, B. Stensaker, P. Maasen, M. Nerland, & T. Proitz (Eds.), Quality work. The political, organizational and pedagogical dimensions affecting teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 115–134). Springer. de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (2018). Creating shared spaces: Developing teaching through peer supervision groups. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 25(4), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10749039.2018.1544645 de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (2020). Analysing the constitution of trust in peer-based teacher mentoring groups: A sociocultural perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13562517.2020.1724936 de Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Chapter 1: Peer group mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Dolmans, D., & Gijbels, D. (2013). Research on problem-based learning: Future challenges. Medical Education, 47, 214–221. Eriksson, A. M., & Mäkitalo, Å. (2015). Supervision at the outline stage: Introducing and encountering issues of sustainable development through academic writing assignments. Text & Talk, 35(2), 123–153. Fonteijn, H. T. H., & Dolmans, D. H. J. M. (2019). Group work and group dynamics in PBL. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 199–220). Wiley. Galvao, T. F., Silva, M. T., Neiva, C. S., Ribeiro, L. M., & Pereira, M. G. (2014). Problem-based learning in pharmaceutical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Scientific World Journal. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/578382 Gomez, K., Kyza, E., & Mancevice, N. (2018). Participatory design and the learning sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 401–410). Routledge, Taylor & Francis. Hammersley, M. (2008). On thick description: Interpreting Clifford Geertz. Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays. Sage. Hermansen, H., Bjelland Kartzow, M., Rasmussen, A., & Lycke, K. H. (this volume). Chapter 3: Peer group mentoring: Exploring the interplay with institutional practices. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Hmelo-Silver, C., Bridges, S. M., & McKeown, J. M. (2019). Facilitating problem-based learning. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 297–319). Wiley. Hung, M., Moallem, M., & Dabbagh, N. (Eds.) (2019). Social foundations of problem-based learning. In The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 51–81). Wiley

94

C. Damşa et al.

Kali, Y., Mckenney, S., & Sagy, O. (2011). Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning. Instructional Science, 43(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-­014-­9343-­4 Kolmos, A., Bøgelund, P., & Spliid, C. M. (2019). Learning and assessing problem-based learning at Aalborg university. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 437–458). Wiley. Lycke, K. H., Grøttum, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Tracing tutor roles in problem-based learning online. In M. Savin-Baden & K. Wilkie (Eds.), Problem-based learning online (pp. 45–69). Open University Press. Maasø, A., & Simonsen, H.  G. (this volume). Chapter 7: Problem-based peer group mentoring and organisational learning. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic fluency and professional education: Innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Springer. Matusov, E. (2001). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(1), 25–45. Miettinen, R., & Virkkunen, J. (2005). Epistemic objects, artifacts and organizational change. Organization, 12(3), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405051279 Moallem, M. (2019). Effects of PBL on learning outcomes, knowledge acquisition, and higher-­ order thinking skills. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 107–133). Wiley. Moallem, M., Hung, M., & Dabbagh, N. (Eds.). (2019). The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning. Wiley. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zachariac, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. edurev.2015.02.003 Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2019). Effects of problem-based learning on motivation, interest, and learning. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-­ based learning (pp. 157–179). Wiley. Savery, J.  R. (2019). Comparative pedagogical models of problem-based learning. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 81–104). Wiley. van Berkel, H.  J. M., & Dolmans, D. (2006). The influence of tutoring competencies on problems, group functioning and achievement in problem-based learning. Medical Education, 40, 730–736. van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., Segers, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490–521. Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M. M., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2019). The problem-based learning process. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of problem-based learning (pp. 273–295). Wiley. Wittek, L., & de Lange, T. (Eds.). (2021). Kollegaveiledning i høyere utdanning. Universitetsforlaget. Wittek, L., Bjelland Kartzow, M., & Hermansen, H. (this volume). Chapter 4: Interactional dynamics in observation-based peer group mentoring. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Wood D. F. (2003). Problem based learning. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328

Chapter 6

Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions: Structured Peer Group Mentoring as Collegial Support in a Research School Context Marit Kirkevold and Thomas de Lange Abstract  This chapter reports on the interactional patterns and topics addressed in problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM) with PhD supervisors affiliated with a national research school in health and social sciences. The textual data comprised video-recorded observations of the interactions in PPGM groups over the course of 1 year, which were supplemented by an analysis of written case descriptions submitted prior to meetings and meta-discussions after the sessions. The analysis revealed a broad range of problems and topics of concern for the participating PhD supervisors. The interactions, framed by the PPGM model, allowed the participants to analyse the problems raised by their colleagues in depth from different angles. These discussions frequently resulted in radically new understandings of the discussed cases. The meta-discussions following the PPGM sessions suggest that the structured interactional patterns supported by the PPGM model provide the supervisors with new insights that help open up new avenues for action and interaction between supervisors and their PhD students. The outcome of the PPGM activity is here pointing towards a reconceptualisation of how supervisors defined their roles and relations to their students. PPGM proved to be particularly useful in addressing specific problems presented as concrete cases, while participants presenting principal and overarching issues related to PhD supervision tended to end up with less useful input and more vague discussions.

M. Kirkevold (*) · T. de Lange Oslo Metropolitan University, Olso, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_6

95

96

M. Kirkevold and T. de Lange

Introduction The supervision of PhD students is an important task for academics who work in higher education. However, major challenges with respect to PhD supervision practices have been identified, such as difficulties in establishing aligned expectations and establishing a well-functioning relationship between supervisor and supervisee. These challenges tend to put student progression at risk (Brill et  al., 2014). Accordingly, many universities and university colleges have made efforts to address these and similar problems by offering courses to prepare supervisors to handle their tasks. An overarching challenge concerning PhD supervision is that these practices are still considered as a ‘private’ matter between supervisor and the PhD student (Brill et al., 2014; de Lange et al., this volume; Lindén et al., 2013). This chapter addresses this ‘privacy problem’ by using peer group mentoring to open up collegial discussions about PhD supervision within a national research school for clinical health disciplines (Brill et al., 2014; de Lange et al., this volume; Lindén et al., 2013). The research school was initiated in order to enhance the national research capacity directed towards the municipal health care services, particularly within nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, etc., and create a stronger and more robust research environment for PhD students conducting research into the municipal services. Many university colleges around the country participated in the program, which is funded by the Norwegian Research Council. Given the shortage of teaching staff with research expertise within the area of community-based research, many of the supervisors had only limited experiences with PhD supervision. Against this backdrop, the National Research School for Municipal Healthcare Services (MUNI-HEALTH-CARE) took the initiative to develop and offer structured peer group mentoring for PhD supervisors involved in the program to support them in following up their students. Working with the research community in the Department of Education at the University of Oslo (UiO) and within the framework of the PeTS project, we specifically tailored a problem-based peer group mentoring programme (PPGM) fitting the schedule of the research school (de Lange et  al., this volume). The implemented PPGM model was introduced as a supportive collegial arrangement to discuss various academic and practical challenges emerging in supervision, based on symmetric group principles as described in Chap. 1 (de Lange et al., this volume). In the current chapter, we discuss the experiences of implementing and adjusting this PPGM model within the research school setting, focusing on the type of problems the supervisors raised, what the supervisors considered as beneficial, but also shortcomings of the PPGM model. We also examine how the meta-reflections after peer group mentoring sessions where particularly useful to develop the PPGM further in the research school. Finally, this chapter discusses possible implications of our findings for similar contexts. The focus in the current chapter is specified in the following two research questions:

6  Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions…

97

• What topics dominated the peer group mentoring conversations? • What problems were well or less well suited for this type of mentoring, and what types of supplementary measures might enhance the programme?

The Context The MUNI-HEALTH-CARE research school was established in 2016 thanks to funding made available by the Research Council of Norway. The school involves a consortium of seven academic partner institutions, all of which conduct research on primary health and care services and offer doctoral programmes for the health and social care professions. However, relatively little research has been conducted in this field (KSF, 2019 [the strategic research body for Norway’s local authorities]) and, with a couple of exceptions, the research communities at these institutions are small and in their infancy. They tend to consist of a handful of established researchers and a limited number of PhD students who work specifically in this field. The communities are dispersed among numerous universities and university colleges within and outside of the consortium, but not all the institutions offer a doctoral programme in the health professions. The primary health and care service, unlike the specialist health service, has no longstanding tradition of research or well-established research communities. Very few municipalities employ staff with research competence, and there is little or no infrastructure in place that can support research directed at these municipal services (KSF, 2019). Meanwhile, these services are facing major challenges because of a series of changes. These include a shift in the balance of responsibility between specialist and primary health services because of increasing numbers of patients with complex needs who have a right to access services within their own municipalities. Furthermore, early discharge after acute treatment in hospital leads to greater numbers of ill and vulnerable patients in the municipalities. The growing proportion of elderly people with multimorbidity who live longer at home need more complex follow-up compared with patients in earlier eras. These challenges are not unique to Norway. Similar trends are seen across the world as populations are ageing and long-term health conditions across the lifespan are increasingly dominating health and social care services (Kingston et al., 2018; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2016). This implies that more knowledge is required regarding the patients’ characteristics and their need for assistance, what measures are effective, how the service is best organised and run and what knowledge and training is required to make staff able to provide relevant high-quality services (the HelseOmsorg21 Strategy for Health and Care Services, 2014). It was against this background that the Research Council of Norway in 2015 provided an eight-year grant for establishing a research school specifically aimed at fostering research competence in these services and contributing to their need for knowledge.

98

M. Kirkevold and T. de Lange

The research school has the following objectives: 1. train a critical mass of researchers whose expertise and interests lie in improving the quality of primary health and care services; 2. boost national and international mobility among PhD students; 3. boost the competence of supervisors; 4. help build a research culture in the municipal health and care sector by working closely with local authorities, the specialist health service, universities and university colleges; 5. boost the number of research programmes that foster knowledge and innovation in the primary health and care sector; 6. help develop sound scientific evidence to provide better preventive and health-­ promoting health and care services, rehabilitation and habilitation services and care for the elderly by municipal authorities; and, 7. develop a network of researchers who can contribute to research partnerships and development across Norway’s municipalities. The most important job of the research school is to offer relevant courses, seminars and other learning activities (e.g. support international stays at universities abroad). The overall aim is to create an arena for network building, the exchange of knowledge and experiences and collegial support and collaboration. The research school also encourages students to reflect critically on their own research project and emphasise quality criteria and requirements to safeguard a high standard of research and research reporting. The research school also emphasises knowledge translation and implementation to increase the evidence base for primary health and care services provided by municipalities. To achieve these goals, the school has an annual intake of PhD students. Each cohort comes together for mandatory sessions over a two-year period: a three-day induction course in the first autumn term, a two-day course in the second autumn term and a final course in the third autumn term. Between each of these sessions, the students are split into groups of approximately eight. These groups attend four webinars every year, each of them focusing on a specific topic such as research ethics, service user involvement in research, theoretical and methodological challenges, academic traditions and genres of academic writing, all based on the students’ own projects. Using relevant research literature as their starting point, each student writes a two-page paper prior to each webinar. During the webinar, two or three students make their own paper available for discussion by the group. The students swap roles and act as a ‘critical friend’ or ‘opponent’ to one another. This fosters learning among students as well as teachers. It is an important element of the work of the research school that not only PhD students, but also their supervisors, are involved in research school activities. This implies that we invite one supervisor per student to attend the autumn sessions, and they are welcome to participate in the courses offered by the research school. MUNI-HEALTH-CARE has also established the peer group mentoring programme presented in this chapter. It was the ambition of the research school for this programme to create a platform for collegial network building, mentoring and

6  Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions…

99

learning. We considered this to be of particular importance for this research school because it is a new field of research with few well-established research communities in Norway. When researchers find themselves in small, fragmented communities, both supervisors and supervisees have to work alone without access to groups of colleagues who are working in the same field. Moreover, the supervisors are important contributors to the work of safeguarding high standards and developing a relevant body of knowledge in this new field of research. Therefore, acting on recommendations from earlier studies, the research school wanted to create an arena for network building and peer support for supervisors to ensure that the research school will be able to achieve its goals of building research capacity and quality in the field (Brill et al., 2014). This chapter focuses on the participants’ perceptions of PPGM and how their reflections along the way contributed to developing a community capacity with the peer group mentoring programme.

Perspectives on Academic Supervision In this chapter, the idea and relevance of introducing peer group mentoring for doctoral supervisors is inspired by an increasing interest of opening up hidden features of supervision practices (Bound & Lee, 2009; Carter & Laurs, 2014). In this respect, a range of research has suggested that PhD supervision practices are largely privatised and that supervisors more or less consciously fulfil their supervisory role based on the style of supervision that they personally received (Lindén et  al., 2013; Whittington et al., 2021). There is now a considerable body of literature on academic supervision with focus on supervisor and students expectations (GonzálezOcampo & Badia, 2019; Robertson, 2017a, b, c). An interesting example is Olga Dysthe’s (2006) three distinct supervisory models: the teaching model with the supervisor as the teacher, the partnership model that emphasises collaboration between supervisor(s) and student and the apprenticeship model where students learn partially by observing the expert and partially by collaborating with the supervisor(s) in an apprentice-like role. Based on interviews with supervisors and students at both masters and PhD levels in various disciplines (the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences), Dysthe (2006) shows how the various models can work as alternative approaches depending on discipline and traditions and as supplementary models used by the same supervisor depending on the situation and the needs of the student. Dysthe’s research covers one-on-one supervision, as well as team supervision but does not directly address how the different models work in different supervision constellations. Applying Dysthe’s framework in a recent study, Harwood and Petrić (2020) demonstrate the relevance of these diverse supervisory models in understanding how supervisory practices are negotiated and change among supervisors and supervisees over the course of a supervisory relationship. Robertson (2017a, b, c) studies team supervision in particular, which is a highly relevant topic, given that team supervision is more or less the rule of conduct in our research school context (Universities Norway [UHR], 2018). Robertson (2017a)

100

M. Kirkevold and T. de Lange

identifies four different ways to approach the distribution of roles and responsibilities among the members of a supervisory team. She discusses ‘the de facto dyad’ in which the principal supervisor dictates the premises for the relationships within the supervisory team and in which an ‘administrative’ cosupervisor plays a peripheral and sporadic role with weak links to the student and the main supervisor. This can be expressed through alliances in which a dominant principal supervisor collaborates with a loyal cosupervisor who supports this profile, while others’ contributions are more marginal. Robertson also refers to ‘segmented supervision’, which again involves one clearly dominant principal supervisor. However, in this model, one or more cosupervisors are occasionally allowed a more central role, and there is a wider distribution of responsibilities. This can apply to specific thematic or methodological aspects of work on the thesis or specific phases – for example, in the final phase of the work or associated with specific segments. Both these models involve a principal supervisor who generally defines the supervision process and therefore coordinates the team’s joint scope of action. Compared with the previous two models, where the supervision is clearly dominated by one party, the ‘partnership model’ involves a greater degree of shared influence on the planning and structuring of the supervision. All parties, including the student, participate in negotiating their own scope of action within the team. Although the principal supervisor still carries a formal responsibility, this relationship is more open for negotiating a shared understanding of their roles. Nevertheless, Robertson (2017a) shows that the distribution of work also in these constellations tends to settle into permanent patterns. Finally, ‘horizontal collaboration’ is closely linked to the previous model, in which negotiations are more flexible. This model includes renegotiation of roles and responsibilities as a basic premise. Everyone presumes and expects regular discussions and conversations regarding the success of the selected forms of collaboration whenever there is a need for adjustments and new approaches. Therefore, one of the main differences between the horizontal collaboration and partnership model in that the former presumes a continuous open and inclusive communication with all participants, including the students, in a way that prevent misunderstandings and conflicts. This collaborative notion on doctoral supervision is relevant also in the PPGM setting, as it opens a discursive space to reflect on issues in the supervisors’ own practices based on a collective and collaborative model. In the following section, we present the PPGM model that was implemented in the research school and reflect on the experiences that our participants reported with respect to their own academic supervision, and how they reflect on supervision in teams. It is important to note that the peer group mentoring was based on real cases from actual supervision, thereby enabling discussions and reflections directly addressing the participants’ own professional practices (Erlandsen & de Lange, 2017; Lycke, 2006). The PPGM model contributes to challenge the participants to keep focus on the raised topics and understanding each case in-depth.

6  Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions…

101

 eveloping a Peer Group Mentoring Model D for the Research School We have chosen an action-oriented approach for the development of the research school’s peer group mentoring programme. Action research is grounded on the idea that the participants in a particular practice are active contributors to both the research and development of the practice and its context (Ary et al., 2010). In our case, this implies that each group of supervisors who had participated in the supervisory programme on multiple occasions were involved with its evaluation and redesign. This was a natural choice of method because there was no well-established and tested peer group mentoring process for PhD supervision in the programme. When the research school began planning the peer group mentoring programme, work was first based on the case-based, problem-oriented method that was originally described by Lauvås et al. (2016) and that has previously been analysed by de Lange and Lauvås (2018) (see also de Lange et al., this volume). Working in collaboration with the University of Oslo’s Department of Education, we suggested a specific programme of peer group mentoring sessions that was presented to the supervisors of the first cohort of students. The supervisors gave highly positive feedback to the proposals, and many were keen to participate. The programme is briefly presented below. Because the supervisors are dispersed across institutions all over Norway, including the partner institutions of UiT  – the Arctic University of Norway, Nord University, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, the University of Bergen, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University and the University of Oslo, we planned two-day on-site sessions once or twice per semester. The first sessions generally involved problem-based group mentoring during which participants shared supervision situations that they found to be challenging. All participants prepared by submitting a one-page case description ahead of each session. The actual mentoring took place in groups of six to eight supervisors, and their form of working sought to promote a democratic process among peers. We used a structured approach to the mentoring sessions involving the phases shown in Table 6.1. The dialogues are chaired by a moderator who ensures that the group sticks to the outlined method. Following brief presentations of each case, there is a vote to decide which is favoured as the first topic for discussion. The case with the largest number of votes is selected. The problem owner elaborates on details and the challenges perceived to be most important in that case. The group then proceeds to the problem clarification phase, which may last for over an hour. In this phase, the situation is explored in greater detail where each participant consecutively poses queries to the point where everyone runs out of questions. At the end of this phase, all the participants, including the problem owner, write down their own thoughts on what they now think is the core problem in the case. These notes are read aloud one at a time. Moving into the problem-solving phase, the problem owner first explains how he or she will try to solve the (reconceptualised) problem at hand. All participants

102

M. Kirkevold and T. de Lange

Table 6.1  Guidelines, problem-based peer group mentoring model (PPGM) Phase 1: Presentation Phase 2: Selecting a problem Phase 3: Explanation Phase 4: Clarification

Each participant briefly presents a specific problem from their own practice as a supervisor Participants take turns to specify which problem from phase 1 they would like to focus on in the current session The owner of the selected problem explains the issues in greater detail

Questions and answers allow the participants to better understand the nature of the problem. Each group member asks one question at a time, one member after the other. This process is repeated until the situation/problem has been made clear Phase 5: Owner’s The problem owner explains what s/he currently consider doing about the suggested solutions situation/problem. Suggested solutions are written down Phase 6: Advice Each group member is given an opportunity to give one piece of advice at a time. These are written down. This process is repeated until no more suggestions arise Phase 7: The problem owner reviews the list of advice, highlighting items Evaluation of considered to be relevant. The problem owner concludes by saying what advice advice s/he intend to follow and how

then present their advice in several rounds, one advice each time. In the last phase, the problem owner considers each piece of advice out load in terms of relevance and priority to act on or not. After this final phase, the group proceed to a meta-­ conversation reflecting on the PPGM round and what they benefitted from it. The PPGM is repeated as needed until all relevant cases are discussed. In the following section, we focus on the data we obtained from these sessions.

Materials and Methods The empirical material was collected from four of these gatherings, which included 27 informants in the period between 2017 and 2019. The participants’ consent was obtained to observe a series of two-day sessions for which they all prepared in advance by submitting case descriptions to be discussed in the groups. The empirical data for this chapter is a combination of these case descriptions, video recordings of the mentoring sessions and meta-conversations regarding the group discussions after the PPGM sessions. The video material was first transcribed verbatim with emphasis on the dialogue (who said what and when). All these transcriptions are anonymised. The findings we present are based on case descriptions and video recordings from selected mentoring sessions, as well as summaries drawn up from the evaluation of each gathering. We chose to approach the data from two different angles. We began by conducting a simple content analysis of the participants’ case descriptions, which gave us an overview of the problems discussed by the groups (Bryman, 2012; Ringdal,

6  Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions…

103

2013). The purpose of this content analysis was primarily to provide an overview of the topics that dominated the group conversations. This also allowed us to address how perceptions of these problems tended to change through the course of the mentoring sessions. In the second part of the analysis, we applied interaction analysis of the video material with particular emphasis on the meta-conversations held after the peer group mentoring sessions. The meta-conversations show how the groups openly reflect on their discussions during the sessions and share impressions regarding the relevance of these discussions to their own supervision. This material was analysed by using Kvale’s interpretive method (Kvale, 2001; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The transcripts of the meta-conversations were repeatedly reread, coded and condensed to identify how participants reflected on what had happened during the problem-based group mentoring sessions. In-depth reading of the material highlighted how the participants experienced using the method to dive deeper into the cases and how this allowed the complexity of the cases to emerge. This led to the identification of new relevant problems, which the participants previously had been unaware of. In the results section, we have selected a dialogue that we found to be representative across the observed groups because the themes of the selected meta-­ conversation recurred among several groups. The selected conversation has been taken from a phase of the project when participants had become familiar with the peer group mentoring methodology, which by then had become well established.

Results Below, we begin by examining the written cases the supervisors described in the outset, followed by the participants’ experiences from discussing these cases in the peer group mentoring sessions.

 he Types of PhD Supervision Issues That Were Raised During T Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring Sessions Table 6.2 presents a structured overview of all the 27 written cases of our corpus, which were submitted by the participants ahead of the peer group mentoring meetings. As seen from the table, ‘problems’ concerning student behaviour in the left column emerge as a dominating category, followed by ‘ambiguous supervisor role’, while a somewhat smaller segment addresses the supervisor–supervisee ‘relationship’. In the last column to the right, a few participants raise what we have termed as ‘system-related challenges’. As the interaction analyses of the PPGM conversations proceeded, we found that the cases tended to change and progressed in a thematically overlapping manner.

104

M. Kirkevold and T. de Lange

Table 6.2  Types of problems discussed during peer group mentoring 2017–2019 (n = 27) Students with specific problems Low self-esteem/ insufficiently independent (4)

Limited insight/ competence, methodologically, theoretically and/ or writing academically (4) Long-term illness affects the student or a close relative (2)

Ambiguous supervisor role Lack of clarity with respect to how far the supervisor can go in contributing to the analysis/writing (3) Insufficient coordination/ conflicting advice from different supervisors (2)

Problematic supervisory relationship The student wants to work alone and refuses to meet the supervisor (1) The student is frightened of the supervisor (1)

Balance between support The student involves and criticism (1) an informal supervisor from another academic community (1) Procedure/structure Uncertainty regarding The student sets in academic work (2) supervisor’s role in supervisors against writing the thesis (1) one another (2) Physical distance (1) Total: 13 Total: 7 Total: 5

System-related challenges Vague institutional guidelines regarding data management (1)

Different institutions have different expectations/ requirements of supervisors (1)

Total: 2

This implies for example that cases where the problem owners initially described the case to be about a problem with a student or a cosupervisor, repeatedly turned out to be a case about a relational problem as the PPGM progressed. The PPGM conversations also demonstrated that challenges associated with problematic relationships were often associated with inadequate formal frameworks and unclear expectations at the institutional level. Therefore, closer analysis reveals that virtually all in-depth discussions with cases carried within them issues of more general relevance. This tendency can be more clearly illustrated if we examine the participants’ own reflections after the peer group mentoring conversations. Below, we follow a meta-conversation in which a participant reflects on her own experiences of a peer group mentoring session where the problem owner’s case description involved a student affected by long-term illness. The case description and the initial phase of the peer group mentoring session revolved around the problem that publication in the project had stopped because of the student’s illness. The supervisor experienced here a dilemma between giving the student time to recover, while simultaneously being pressured to deliver on the demands set by the Research Council as a funder. During the problem-based Q&A rounds, the participants gradually identified the contradictive roles of being a supervisor as well as being the project manager. This conflicting role again raised more overarching principal debate in the meta-discussion on how to establish clearer guidelines at the institutional level.

6  Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions…

105

 erceived Relevance and Shortcomings P of Problem-Based Mentoring As illustrated above, the reflective meta-conversations following the PPGM sessions gradually developed in a direction in which the cases became a part of a larger context. The participants also expressed that the problem-based method to some extent prevented them from looking in greater detail  into  problems related tothe institutional surroundings. We can illustrate this twofold tendency by presenting a conversational string form a meta-conversation where Sally shared her thoughts: Excerpt 6.1 Sally: I think it’s really useful because, as many have mentioned, we managed to deal with aspects that I thought were quite obvious, before we started discussing … [the case], and then, it gradually became less and less obvious, before it became more and more obvious again. So I think the session increased my understanding of the complexities, as well as the opportunities.

Sally experienced that the PPGM tend to explore the raised topics in great detail. This level of detail results in better understanding of the essence of the problem, what might be causing it and how these challenges may be handled. Sally’s statement was clearly representative of our material and suggests that this conversation format is well suited for exploring solutions based on unpacking deeper features of the problem. Simultaneously, other informants are critical of the PPGM in not enabling them to unearth more, a point Hanna made in her response below: Excerpt 6.2 Hanna: … it strikes me that it’s rather a recurring feature of the problems, this one and many of the earlier problems, that at the heart of it all is not daring to be direct, because there is a fear that this could ‘hurt’ the other party (…). I mean, that we make up some sort of idea that we get stuck in, that hampers us (…) I really think that’s a recurring theme.

Hanna indicated what she has found to be an overarching trend in the ways of handling supervisory challenges, a trend that she has noted could have been discussed at a more general level in relation to peer group mentoring. This train of thought triggered other similar reflections within the group: Excerpt 6.3 Ingrid: I sort of feel that this method tends to bring us to the brink of going beyond (the problem), and then I think: Why is that? And I can’t stop wondering (…). So I was thinking that, in my head, in virtually every single case, we have discussed more general questions, and then they often remain unresolved, in a way, they stay personified.

106

M. Kirkevold and T. de Lange

Ingrid referred to, among other things, Hanna’s statement in which overarching themes could be related to the methodology of peer group mentoring. She began by pointing out that in the mentoring session, they touched on general issues, yet this rarely led to more principal discussions. In a sense the problem owner takes his or her impressions back home, while, for the rest of the group, the discussion is abandoned without exploring more overarching issues. However, Ingrid’s view was countered by another group member: Excerpt 6.4 Anne Kristin: Yeah, but like yesterday, with Sally’s case, we were on the ball and said, ‘You, as a university, need to clarify your expectations’. Here (in today’s case), we could also say that you, as an institution, need to clarify, what are your values? What comes before what, in a field as complicated as this? I mean, we never covered that level today, but we did yesterday, and in other sessions and ultimately, it’s at the core of virtually every case.

Anne Kristin challenged Ingrid’s statement that overarching questions remain unattended to, and she pointed to a number of examples. Although Anne Kristin countered Ingrid’s objection, she also admitted that Ingrid had a point, in that general issues are less explicitly addressed. In the following extract, Ingrid adds a more nuanced observation that we found to recur frequently in our material: Excerpt 6.5 Ingrid: Yes, because I think that on the one hand, the fact that we’re in the case, is important. I recognise that. At the same time, I keep thinking, and I’m talking about my own supervising practice here, that, at the moment, a lot of it is done on instinct, and it’s not necessarily well thought through. I mean, is this all about knowledge, or is it about something else …? I mean, like an awareness of what this is really about. (…) So it’s there, like, that balance between going from what is specific to an awareness of the more general issue at the institutional level.

The above conversation highlights the importance of being rooted in the case to explore its complexities, simultaneously as the discussions hold a potential for deeper principal reflections. Our material suggests that, as the problem-based mentoring progresses, peer group mentoring sessions stimulate a capacity to explore the problems in depth, often resulting in changing the character of the problem. Therefore, the categories in Table 6.1 can tell us a lot about the journey the cases are going through with the PPGM sessions. The excerpts from the meta-conversation thereby reveal that the methodology both take the cases in new directions as well as they trigger discussions of overarching themes across the cases, even though they did not always succeed in connecting the cases to principal issues. This last point was emphasised by Ingrid’s statement regarding the importance of and wish for a more conscious approach to lifting the discussions to a more overarching level. In summary, it appears that discussing one’s own supervisory practices and challenges with colleagues contributes to critical reflection, to clarify and explain

6  Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions…

107

problems and promote constructive solutions. Furthermore, our findings suggest a growing awareness among the participants regarding their own role as supervisors. This is a consistent and strong finding emerging from our analysis. It is also interesting to note that these developments took place over time in the whole community of peers at the research school. However, our findings also revealed that peer group mentoring has its limitations, as it tends to tie the cases to a single situation and therefore often remain on an individual-relational level. The awareness-raising process reported by the participants need therefore to be nuanced against how the problems can be connected to more overarching notions of supervision. These strengths and shortcomings in the PPGM model form the starting point for our discussion below and proposals to further developments.

Discussion One of the objectives for our analysis was to identify problems experienced by PhD supervisors attending the research school. It emerged from our content analysis and our analysis of the meta-conversations that many of these problems are associated with the supervisor’s role and responsibility and the interaction with the PhD student and other people on the supervisory team. In line with both Dysthe’s (2006) and Robertson’s (2017a) analyses of academic supervision, we found that our supervisors experienced different types of roles and that different expectations among students and supervisors gave rise to challenges in their supervisory relationship. In our material, team supervision was the rule, and we see that insufficient clarity in terms of role definition often gave rise to problems for the supervisors. Like Robertson (2017a), our analysis confirms the unilateral de facto dyad model in our material, as well as segmented supervision and the hierarchical collaborative model. However, we found less evidence of horizontal collaboration. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that, as a consequence of the systematic conversation about individual cases, proposals for measures aligning with a horizontal collaboration model originated from several peer group mentoring discussions. The participants indicated a general absence of meta-communication regarding supervision practices, including their own supervisory role and responsibilities, the nature of interactions between supervisor and supervisee or among the various supervisors on the team. Our analysis revealed that, although this peer group mentoring model’s case discussions have the potential to highlight and reflect on these general and overarching issues, they nevertheless tend to remain unresolved. Therefore, our results indicate that the problem-based peer group mentoring model is very well suited to gaining a more nuanced understanding of the core aspects of problems outlined in a case. This is clearly evidenced by a comparison of the original problem as formulated in writing prior to discussions, with the problem as it emerged after discussions in the peer group mentoring groups. This process often transformed the case from revolving around issues that students bring to the

108

M. Kirkevold and T. de Lange

supervision to focusing on problems that the supervisor group and supervisee jointly needed to resolve, e.g., by clarifying roles and negotiating forms of collaboration and the distribution of responsibilities in the supervisory relationship and/or within the supervisory team. This brings us to this chapter’s second problem, which addresses the suitability of this peer group mentoring model for the purposes of the research school and whether we see a need for supplementary measures. Our analysis reveals that the cases presented during the first rounds of problem-based peer group mentoring involved more structural and fundamental aspects than we were able to fully address within the framework of this methodology. The supervisors emphasised the importance of discussing these structural and fundamental aspects because they had found that they significantly impacted on many of the challenges discussed, for example, in relation to PhD progression. Examples of such aspects include topics such as the organisation of the PhD programme, the procedure for assigning supervisors, the roles and responsibilities of the supervisor and the supervisory team. These types of problems align with the results presented in Chap. 4 (Wittek, this volume) and Chap. 7 (Maasø & Simonsen, this volume) on peer group mentoring as part of organisational development, where the problem-based method also uncovered structural problems that needed solving at different levels of the university because the issues were beyond the control of individual supervisors. Because it was difficult, within the bounds of the selected methodology, to address identified overarching themes that involved structural aspects or principle issues, we decided (in collaboration with the supervisors) to set aside time for discussion of these issues after concluding the problem-based mentoring. It was also agreed that the participants would make a note of any general or principle issues that emerged during the case review for subsequent discussion. In the peer group mentoring sessions that followed, we tested this procedure, but it proved difficult to execute. The supervisors found it difficult to discuss general matters and issues of principle within the constraints of the phased conversation structure. But equally, conversations regarding principle issues flowing from the case conversations repeatedly veered towards the specific case problems. It is evident from the analysis of PPGM in other parts of the PeTS project that it can be difficult to find good ways of addressing overarching problems uncovered during case-based mentoring. Clear support from the management is required, as well as a systematic approach where issues of principle are not only reported to the person in charge but where the management takes responsibility for following up on them. Another suggestion to develop the peer group mentoring programme was to incorporate existing research findings about PhD supervision. The supervisors were asking for presentations of key topics associated with doctoral supervision and asked for theory and research on supervision at this level. To retain the positive experiences of the problem-based group mentoring method while also introducing a greater number of academic elements, a more structured approach was designed in 2018 when the peer group mentoring programme was retuned with supplementary reflection-based conversations in preparation for problem-based group mentoring. For example, we gave a presentation on how the supervisor role is differently shaped

6  Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions…

109

in different supervision models, such as the teaching model, partnership model and apprenticeship model (Dysthe, 2006). The introduction of these perspectives gave the supervisors access to analytical concepts that supported the meta-discussions that followed their case-specific conversations. For example, they were able to debate pros and cons by adopting different types of supervisor roles and by using different supervision models. This facilitated discussions at a more general level and led to increased understanding of the importance of being conscious of factors that characterise one’s supervisory relationships and of moving towards a more horizontal type of collaboration among supervisors and students, which is similar to the partnership model described by Dysthe (2006). In this context, it is interesting to note how the peer group mentoring programme in itself, as developed in close partnership with the supervisors, can be said to emulate the partnership model described by Dysthe (2006) and the horizontal collaboration model presented by Robertson (2017a). We have seen that meta-­ conversations enable participants to reflect on what they learn in the peer group mentoring community, what the systematic case-based method contributes, and what it is less well suited for. The result is that new measures are proposed, tested and adjusted. Through the different phases of the problem-based mentoring process and in supervisors’ meta-reflections, we have witnessed how the supervisors together clarify, negotiate and renegotiate expectations, roles and responsibilities. Because everyone participates in the conversation regarding the specific case and in the following meta-communication, they reveal how this form of collaboration works and whether there is a need for other initiatives and approaches. This process has been documented over time and forms a shared empirical basis for the supervisors to continue to draw on in their supervisory work and for future cohorts of supervisors at the research school to benefit from.

Concluding Comments The peer group mentoring programme presented in this chapter was situated in a research school and offered to PhD supervisors who had PhD students admitted to the research school. Unlike the programme run by the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Oslo (Bastiansen & Wittek, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, this volume), this was a voluntary programme rather than a mandatory activity. We believe that this led to strong motivation for participation and that it formed an important basis on which to build trust (de Lange & Wittek, this volume) while avoiding suspicion of monitoring or control (de Lange et al., this volume). As in the project run by the Faculty of Humanities, our groups of supervisors comprise academics from a variety of disciplines rather than colleagues who work together on a daily basis. In our case, the supervisors did not come from the same department or institution but from institutions across Norway (and Denmark). This enabled the participants to be open with each other without needing to worry about anonymity and potential repercussions for future collaboration. It also facilitated learning

110

M. Kirkevold and T. de Lange

across disciplines and institutions. In turn, this gave us access to a wide range of experiences and increased our insight into different organisational and academic practices in use in PhD programmes, including supervisory practices across academic traditions and institutions. In our opinion, the results are also relevant beyond the research school that is the context for this study. It is evident that problem-based peer group mentoring of PhD supervisors was seen as useful. The participants emphasised how the method had increased their awareness of the complexity of various supervisory situations and that specific cases had been made clearer. The PPGM model also contributed to identifying new perspectives and possibilities. Nevertheless, it was found that the peer group mentoring of individuals needed to be supplemented with other content and methods to facilitate discussions regarding principle issues and structural challenges. The research literature gives reason to assume that this applies in equal measure to many other PhD supervisors (Brill et al., 2014; Lindén et al., 2013). Our results also indicate a need for different types of approaches to address the wide range of problems that supervisors encounter in their PhD supervision practice and that peer group mentoring can provide a means of exploring horizontal partnership models for supervision teams.

References Ary, D., Jacobs, L.  C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Problem-based peer group mentoring: A tool for faculty development. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Boud, D., & Lee, A. (Eds.). (2009). Changing practices of doctoral education. Routledge. Brill, J. L., Balcanoff, K. K., Land, D., Gogarty, M. M., & Turner, F. (2014). Best practices in doctoral retention: Mentoring. Higher Learning Research Communications, 4(2), 26–37. https:// doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v2i2.66 Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (Vol. 4). Oxford University Press. Carter, S., & Laurs, D. (2014). Developing generic support for doctoral students. Practice and pedagogy. Routledge. de Lange, T., & Lauvås, P. (2018). Kollegaveiledning i høyere utdanning. UNIPED, 3, 259–274. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-­8981-­2018-­03-­07 de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Chapter 9: Tracing the emergence of relational trust in peer group mentoring. In T. de Lange, & L.  Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. De Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Chapter 1: Peer group mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Dysthe, O. (2006). Rettleiaren som lærar, partnar eller meister? [The supervisor as teacher, partner or master?]. In O. Dysthe & A. Samara (Eds.), Forskningsveiledning på master- og doktorgradsnivå (pp. 228–248). Abstrakt forlag. Erlandsen, L., & de Lange, T. (2017). Studenten som veileder – erfaringer fra Krigsskolens lederutdanning. UNIPED, 40(2), 109–128.

6  Developing Research Supervision Capacity in Clinical Health Professions…

111

González-Ocampo, G., & Badia, M. C. (2019). Research on doctoral supervision: What we have learnt in the last 10 years. In T. Machin, M. Clarà, & P. Danaher (Eds.), Traversing the doctorate. Palgrave studies in education research methods (pp. 117–141). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­23731-­8_7 Harwood, N., & Petrić, B. (2020). Adaptive master’s dissertation supervision: A longitudinal case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251 7.2018.1541881 Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. (2014). HelseOmsorg21. Et kunnskapssystem for bedre folkehelse. [HealthCare21. A knowledge system for better public health]. Rapport. Nasjonal forsknings- og innovasjonsstrategi for helse og omsorg. Kingston, A., Robinson, L., Booth, H., Knapp, M., Jagger, C., & the MODEM Project. (2018). Projections of multi-morbidity in the older population in England to 2035: Estimates from the population ageing and care simulation (PACSim) model. Age and Ageing, 47(3), 374–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx201 Kommunenes strategiske forskningsorgan (KSF). (2019). Sluttrapport til HelseOmsorg21-rådet. The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS). Kvale, S. (2001). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. [The qualitative research interview]. Gyldendal Akademisk. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews – Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage. Lauvås, P., Lycke, K. H., & Handal, G. (2016). Kollegaveiledning med kritiske venner [Peer mentoring with critical friends]. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Lindén, J., Ohlin, M., & Brodin, E. M. (2013). Mentorship, supervision, and learning experience in PhD education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 639–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507 9.2011.596526 Lycke, K. H. (2006). Erfaringsbasert læring – caseundervisning, problembasert læring og prosjektarbeid. In I. H. I. Strømsø, P. Lauvås, & K. H. Lycke (Eds.), Når læring er det viktigste (pp. 157–176). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Maasø, A., & Simonsen, H.  G. (this volume). Chapter 7: Problem-based peer group mentoring and organisational learning. In T. de Lange, & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2016). Strengthening primary care systems. Health at a glance: Europe 2016: State of health in the EU cycle Paris, France. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/state/docs/health_glance_2016_rep_en.pdf. Ringdal, K. (2013). Enhet og mangfold. Samfunnsvitenskapelig forskning og kvantitativ metode [Unity and diversity. Social science research and quantitative method]. Fagbokforlaget. Robertson, M.  J. (2017a). Team modes and power: Supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436 0.2016.1208157 Robertson, M.  J. (2017b). Aspects of mentorship in team supervision of doctoral students in Australia. Australian Educational Researcher, 44(4–5), 409–424. Robertson, M. J. (2017c). Trust: The power that binds in team supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(7), 1463–1475. UHR (Universities Norway). (2018). Guidelines for philosophie doctor (Ph.D.). Approved by the UHR board on 9th April 2018. Document retrieved from official webiste: https://view.officeapps. live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uhr.no%2F_f%2Fp1%2Fi8073335f-­ a 0 c d -­4 d d 3 -­b 9 b d -­d 7 d b 9 4 c 5 b 3 5 1 % 2 F ve i l e d n i n g -­f o r-­b e d o m m e l s e -­av -­n o r s k e -­ doktorgrader-­2022_eng.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK Whittington, K., Barnes, S., & Lee, A. (2021). What influences how we supervise? In A.  Lee & R.  Bongaardt (Eds.), The future of doctoral research: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 209–223). Routledge.

Chapter 7

Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning Arnt Maasø and Hanne Gram Simonsen

Abstract  This chapter demonstrates how problem-based peer group mentoring in groups can facilitate change and learning in an organisation. This is exemplified by a 5-year project at a humanities faculty at a large, research-based university, where the supervisors of master’s students discussed their supervision-related problems in groups following a strictly structured method, termed as problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM). Throughout the course, it became evident that the problems were related to the role of supervision not only at an individual (micro) level but, to a large extent, at an organisational (macro) level. The goal of the project was to encourage a culture of collaboration among the teachers. This goal seemed to be fulfilled during the semester of the PPGM course, though few long-term changes in supervision practices were evident. However, we found that interesting changes took place at an organisational level, although this was not the initial goal of the project. We argue that in addition to the peer group mentoring model, bringing participants together from different departments encouraged knowledge-sharing across the institution and contributed to organisational learning. To know if lasting organisational learning takes place, we suggest that structural components must be taken into consideration in the design of PPGM initiatives and that measures are taken to document and evaluate change—for example, in routines and practices. Previous research on organisational learning supports this conclusion (Argote, Organizational learning: creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer, New York, 2012).

A. Maasø (*) · H. G. Simonsen Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_7

113

114

A. Maasø and H. G. Simonsen

Introduction This study was conducted at the Faculty of Humanities at a large, research-based university in Norway. The faculty is large and heterogeneous with seven departments encompassing rather different disciplines and traditions. This diversity is reflected in both the teaching and research and in the different supervision practices at the faculty. The faculty decided to launch a project focusing on problem-based peer group mentoring in groups for all supervisors of master’s students ‘to improve the follow-up of master’s students, [...] prioritise supervision and the role of the supervisor [and] impart good practices through a culture of sharing’ (Faculty of Humanities, 2016, p. 5). We have discovered a number of interesting issues related to supervision through our experience with five PPGM courses encompassing 156 supervisors at the faculty (one of which was given in English, designed for new employees from other academic cultures). To our surprise, many of the issues were not related to the actual one-on-one relationship between the supervisor and student; they ranged from ethical dilemmas associated with specific themes in certain master’s theses and difficulty motivating certain students to what we call structural challenges; in other words, challenges related to roles, responsibilities, frameworks and decision-­making processes locally among a group of professionals, in a department or to the organisational structure at the faculty and university levels. This chapter reviews structural challenges in the organisation that have been revealed through the problem PPGM model. Bastiansen and Wittek (Chap. 7, this volume)—as part of the same overarching project—describe and discuss the use of this model more comprehensively, addressing the problems revealed at the individual level, as well as the interaction between supervisors involved in the PPGM sessions. They also present the rationale for the strictly structured procedure and different phases of the PPGM model we used (see below). Our primary objective is to attempt to ascertain what is required for a large and complex organisation to learn from the structural challenges revealed through PPGM. We discuss this by asking the following research questions: 1 . What types of structural challenges did this model detect? 2. What role did the model itself play in relation to the course as a whole, including the composition of members in the mentoring groups? 3. To what extent does the project appear to have contributed to long-term change in the organisation?

Background and Previous Research Peer group mentoring as a method consists of different approaches that also have certain similarities; it has been the subject of a great deal of previous international research under terms such as peer observation of teaching, peer review of teaching, cooperative learning and collaborative learning (see Esterhazy et  al., 2021; Hermansen et al., Chap. 3, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume).

7  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning

115

To address how peer group mentoring has been applied and has worked at an organisational level, useful perspectives can be obtained from research in areas such as organisational learning (Argote, 2012; Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011) and information and knowledge management (Deja, 2019; Hislop et al., 2018). These are interdisciplinary fields that the last few decades have drawn on insights from cognitive and social psychology, organisational behaviour, sociology, economics, strategic management and information systems (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011). Insights from these branches of research add to our understanding of how some organisations seem better at learning than others; provide a framework for understanding how information and knowledge are created, transferred and retained in an organisation over time; address the potential for knowledge changing behaviour; and supplement our understanding of the role that strong and weak network ties play in distributing knowledge between different parts of a large organisation, like the faculty we address here (Burt, 2004; Boland et al., 1994; McFayden et al., 2009). Several authors within higher education research have noted the relationship between individual and institutional dimensions of academic development, practices and structures. Cranton and Carusetta (2002) emphasise how individual development depends on the broader, institutional context, and Wegner’s notion of communities of practice stresses that individual and informal practices are neither independent of nor reducible to institutional structures (Wegner, 2010). Dorner and Belic (2021) go on to explore how conversations among university teachers may lead to institutional development, finding that ‘the path of change within institutions starts from individual development of university teachers but moves to broader cultural and institutional transformations’ (2021, p. 220). The aspects that have been highlighted in research on how peer group mentoring (PGM) works include the importance of whether the PGM is a top-down or bottom­up initiative (see Esterhazy et al., 2021 for a review of studies on peer group mentoring). For PGM to succeed, it must be associated with an institutional culture that values reflective teaching (Wingrove et al., 2015). One study implies that employees may be less engaged when there is no follow-up by the institution and PGM is not linked to competence development processes (Chamberlain et al., 2011). PGM further appears to work better in the long term when the initiative is both top-down and bottom-up when compared with when it is initiated and conducted solely based on grassroots initiatives (Bell & Mladenovic, 2014; Bell & Cooper, 2013; Nash et al., 2014). Peer mentoring processes are typically initiated by the institution’s management, as was the case at the organisation we studied. The initiative by the faculty management can be seen as an attempt to make good supervision a shared responsibility within the institution, not just the sole responsibility of the individual supervisor. Thus, it can be seen as an effort to establish ‘relational agency’, a shared expanded understanding of the task (Edwards, 2005, 2011). Problembased peer group mentoring offered hope that experiences could be shared, which, in the long term, could improve the quality of supervision across disciplines. At the same time, the faculty expected all academic employees with responsibility for supervising master’s students to have participated in the PPGM course by 2021 (Faculty of Humanities, 2016).

116

A. Maasø and H. G. Simonsen

Previous studies have shown that peer group mentoring can be seen as a form of ‘surveillance’ of employees (Napier et al., 2014) and, as such, may be at odds with PPGM that stems from a desire for colleagues to share and evolve, without being linked to any formal rewards. In our case, PPGM has not been linked to such rewards (e.g. in the form of an increase in salary), even though there may be a small element of this, with participation being compensated by being credited to the employees’ academic timesheet. Further, we have not found specific discussions on what we have termed ‘structural problems’—related to the organisation, procedures and guidelines—in the literature, that is, how they are discussed and processed in PGM models.1 Nor has there been any discussion on whether this type of problem places different demands on PGM than the type of problem that focuses more on individuals and the relationships between them (e.g. between the student and supervisor). The structural challenges examined in the chapter are linked to a discussion on learning in the organisation at the micro and macro levels. In our case, the micro level refers to challenges at the individual level in the supervision situation, such as between a supervisor and student or between colleagues, while the macro level refers to challenges at the organisational level—that is, the department and faculty levels. Our discussion of peer mentoring is specifically linked to the type of peer group mentoring conducted as part of the project at the humanities faculty mentioned above, namely problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM). Throughout one semester, groups of four to six supervisors, deliberately composed across different departments and disciplines, discussed problems related to supervision following a strict, structured procedure. Importantly, the group discussions were conducted in accordance with the Chatham House Rule (Wikipedia, 2021), with discussions within the group designed to increase openness while also respecting strict privacy regulations, as well as securing the anonymity of students or colleagues mentioned in relation to cases. Each group meeting contained different phases, as shown in Table 7.1. As indicated above, in the first meeting, all members presented a problem related to their supervision (phase 1) and decided in turn which problem to explore and in which order (phase 2). Then, they followed the phases adhered to in all group meetings throughout the semester: (3) explanation of the problem by the ‘problem owner’;2 (4) clarification of the problem through questions and answers, ending with a reformulation of the problem by all participants; (5) the problem owner’s own suggestions for solutions of the problem; and (6) the group members’ advice, one piece at a time in several rounds. Finally, the problem owner reviewed the list of advice and concluded on which ones they would use (phase 7).

 The literature review by Esterhazy et al. (2021) finds that there has been little systematic focus on the institutional aspects of peer group mentoring in research on teaching-oriented mentoring. 2  Using the terminology of the problem-based peer mentoring model, the ‘problem-owner’ is the person who presents the problem that the remaining peers discuss and solve. For a thorough description of the model and its terminology, see Bastiansen and Wittek (Chap. 7, this volume). 1

7  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning

117

Table 7.1  Procedure of the problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM) Phase 1: Presentation Phase 2: Selecting a problem Phase 3: Explanation Phase 4: Clarification

Phase 5: Owner’s suggested solutions Phase 6: Advice Phase 7: Evaluation of advice

The group’s participants briefly present a specific problem from their own work as a supervisor All participants take turns to say which problem from phase 1 they want to explore. The problem with the most ‘votes’ will be the focus of the current session’s conversation The owner of the selected problem explains their case in more detail Through questions and answers, the participants further explore the nature of the problem. Each group member takes turns to ask one question at a time, and the problem owner responds. After several rounds, and when the participants have no further questions, the situation/problem is clarified. This phase ends with the problem being redefined by each participant The problem owner explains what they might do about the situation/problem without interruption. The suggested solutions are noted

Each group member takes turns to offer one piece of advice. The advice is noted. There may be several rounds The problem owner reviews the list of advice and selects what advice may be relevant. The problem owner concludes by stating what advice they will follow up on and how

Bastiansen and Wittek (Chap. 7, this volume)

The peer groups remained together throughout one semester, with as many group meetings as were needed for all members to present their own problems. In this manner, the members got to know each other well and had the opportunity to establish trust in each other (de Lange and Wittek, this volume). Each group was deliberately composed of supervisors from different disciplines and departments to share experiences across the entire faculty. The course as a whole included a start-up seminar at the beginning of the semester, with an introduction to the PPGM model, as well as plenary discussions on supervision and administrative support services at the faculty. At the end of the semester, a final half-day seminar summarised the groups’ experiences with the PPGM model. The course was organised by two members from the faculty administration, in cooperation with the authors (who are part of the faculty academic staff) and two members from the academic development group at the university. At the final seminar at the end of semester, representatives from the faculty management were also present.

Material The material is primarily based on field notes and observation from 18 PPGM sessions that the authors were involved in throughout the five semesters the project lasted, along with subsequent analyses of logs, notes and photos of flip charts from the mentoring sessions from other groups where we were not present in

118

A. Maasø and H. G. Simonsen

the discussions ourselves. Overall, the data from 26 groups over 104 meetings were analysed. This material documents the problems that were addressed, how they were redefined and what advice was given. During the review of the material, we focused on problems where one or more of the phases had a structural component. Furthermore, we looked at evaluations from participants on the different courses and plenary discussions regarding the organisation and structural challenges. Because neither the project nor the faculty had planned for any systematic documentation of such problems, we also interviewed the former and current management at the faculty regarding the background for the project, as well as their perspectives on lessons learned, organised a focus group interview with course participants and conducted in-depth interviews with four additional participants. Furthermore, we also studied governance documents from the institution in question (annual plans, annual reports and strategy documents). Based on this material, we examine the extent to which the PPGM model and course design as a whole are suitable as a means of revealing structural problems, along with how this can lead to solutions and change in the organisation.

What Types of Structural Problems Were Revealed? The structural problems that we present here to answer the first research question adopt a bottom-up approach based on the type of problems highlighted by the participants in the group discussions. They are problems that not (only) relate to a single student or a situation linked to a single supervisor but that cover the broader framework and structures surrounding the supervision situation. However, in several cases, the description of the problem began as something the problem owner originally experienced to varying degrees as a problem at the ‘micro level’—that is, which related to this supervisor and a specific supervision situation. However, after the Q&A round, the reformulations of the problem and suggestions for solutions, it became evident that there was also a structural component that generally concerned the broader framework of the supervision at the ‘macro level’. Our discussion below focuses on the structural problems that recurred in several groups and cohorts of supervisors and, thus, that appeared to be particularly relevant to the discussion on the organisation’s role and structural frames. This also implies that the solution to these problems can be found at the institutional level. The following problems were identified: 1 . Challenges associated with the practice of assigning supervisors 2. The relationship between academic and administrative staff and its impact on supervision 3. Special challenges associated with new employees from other academic cultures As course instructors, we were surprised by the extent of the ‘structural problems’. However, they were mentioned repeatedly in four out of six of the groups that met

7  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning

119

during the autumn of 2017, which was the first round of PPGM at the faculty (the other two groups did not want us to use their logs in our research project). We also found that the course design afforded good opportunities for providing information and clarifying frameworks, formal guidelines at the faculty and the different conventions and traditions that had evolved at the course participants’ departments (thereby helping to identify solutions to common problems). The course design further offered participants and instructors a new channel for sharing uncertainty and unwanted issues with decision-makers at the seven departments and faculty. When the course was repeated for new groups, we were better prepared for the fact that participants would bring up structural challenges and, thus, also explicitly asked for feedback on this in the evaluations we received from the groups during the process. We documented issues related to structural challenges in the organisation in all five courses that formed part of the research project.

Supervisor Assignment Practice It soon became apparent in the groups that the guidelines for assigning supervisors varied considerably between the different departments, as well as within departments covering several academic fields. Many people were surprised by the great variation in practices throughout the organisation; therefore, insights into this framework were also mentioned as one of the main benefits of peer group mentoring. One of the informants said during an interview, ‘[...] I had no idea that the supervision culture or practice at different departments was so different. I assumed that everyone did pretty much the same as us’. The supervisor was assigned by the study administration at certain departments in accordance with established regulations. Other units assigned supervisors in a more informal and ‘private’ manner, with the students themselves being able to contact the supervisor they wanted and then applying to the administration for approval. There was often a tension between formal and informal procedures and a lack of clarity regarding the rules—for example, a professor on leave could shift supervision responsibility onto a younger new employee who did not feel that they could decline, even though the rules across the faculty stated that supervision must continue when a person is on leave. In this case, the problem was initially expressed in the following manner: ‘I’m unable to provide proper supervision. How do I guide the student through the process?’ In the subsequent expansion of the problem, this was reformulated as ‘Conducting supervision with several supervisors [who switch in the middle of the supervision process]’. After the Q&A round (phase 4), one of the participants rephrased it as follows: ‘The problem is unclear management of the expectations towards the role of supervisor and the administration of this, thereby leading to unfortunate consequences for the supervisor and student’. The problem owner commented that they ‘hadn’t understood until now’ how their original frustration was linked to unclear procedures and practices for assigning supervisors, which had

120

A. Maasø and H. G. Simonsen

resulted in them (as a young and inexperienced supervisor) being given a responsibility they should not have had in the first place. This example illustrates how a problem that supervisors experienced personally appeared to have clear structural components. In several cases, it was clear that young new employees were assigned ‘difficult’ students whose progress had come to a halt for some reason or the other and who needed a new supervisor to move on. Several recently hired supervisors told their groups that this was something they found difficult to master. They felt inadequate but often considered the situation to be something they were expected to manage on their own. They did not want to show that they were unable to do their job. However, during the PPGM process, this was identified as an area in which the academic community needed to stand united so that the focus shifted from being the individual supervisor’s responsibility to a problem that had to be solved together (assigning problem students to novices might not be the best solution). Another challenge many people identified in connection with assigning supervisors was the supervision of students in disciplines that were far outside their area of specialisation. For certain supervisors, this entailed both additional work, such as having to familiarise oneself with completely new areas and a great deal of uncertainty regarding whether they offered adequate supervision. This challenge is partially linked to the overarching practice at several departments, whereby students must be able to freely choose the topic of their master’s thesis, regardless of the expertise in the department. Thus, this practice, which has been established at the macro level, has major consequences for supervisors. During the plenary discussions on these challenges, only a few participants advocated for a complete harmonisation of the principles for assigning supervisors at the faculty, and there was uncertainty regarding whether a single cure-all solution existed. However, it is evident that such decisions are very important for supervisors. The interdisciplinary PPGM provided an arena for discussing this matter and revealed that these decisions must be discussed at several levels of the organisation.

Barriers to Communication Between Groups of Employees A problem regularly observed in the groups we participated in, the logs written by the other groups and subsequent interviews with participants were obstacles to communication and collaboration across groups of employees and levels of the organisation which could have helped solve the supervisors’ problems. Barely any of the participants who mentioned problems that they had experienced during supervision and told the group what action they had taken to solve them had discussed the problem with the management or the administration. Those who had sought help had gone to another member of the academic staff. Any discussions with the administration about supervision mostly revolved around procedures such as health leave or deadlines.

7  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning

121

An example from one of the logs was a supervision situation which deteriorated over time, without the problem owner truly understanding the nature of the problem or how much of it was because of personal issues the student was experiencing beyond their studies. The advice that was given and logged—which was to contact the head of studies or the occupational health service—was interesting in that the supervisor had not considered this a natural or possible solution. This also became evident during the part of the course that dealt with support services for students with special needs—barely any of the participants were aware of the existence of such services or where to seek help. When we discussed the relationship between academic and administrative staff during interviews, several participants stated that it was neither an option nor appropriate to involve the management and administration, even when dealing with matters that were related to structural issues and where they would have liked help to solve a problem or to seek advice. When we asked about communication with the administration regarding supervision, one of the informants responded in the following manner: To be honest, it is my experience that the administration has very little knowledge about what supervision is about and how it is practised and that they see it as a very abstract job that is performed by academic employees and must be organised in the least inconvenient manner possible from a bureaucratic perspective.

This view was not held by all. A few of the participants stated that they collaborated well with the study administration and felt that they received good help. However, they often felt that the administrative systems impeded their work. Moreover, several participants reported that they found it frustrating that they, as supervisors, did not receive important background information on the students from the study advisers, for example, details of personal matters or their medical history, which would be useful for the supervisor, but which could not be shared because of data protection and other legislation. Although it is obvious that supervisors and (for example) study advisers must not do each other’s jobs, it can be difficult to solve problems when the knowledge that can be shared between these groups is limited and when many supervisors are reluctant to involve or consult with the academic management. This is particularly apparent in relation to the challenges we noted among new employees from other academic cultures, a matter we return to below.

New Employees from Other Academic Cultures The importance of structures and organisation for supervision at the micro level was starkly highlighted when talking to novice supervisors, particularly those from a different academic culture to that in Norway. This was mentioned in several groups with recently hired teachers from abroad, particularly during the semester when the course was taught in English and most of the participants were foreigners.

122

A. Maasø and H. G. Simonsen

The course in English revealed considerable failings in the faculty’s onboarding of and communication with foreign employees, which prevented basic information related to supervision—among other matters—from getting through. Academic cultures vary considerably between countries, for example, in relation to supervisory practice and form of feedback. Employees from other countries often found Norwegian feedback to be much less direct than they were used to and felt that the way they expressed themselves could create problems and even lead to complaints from students. The following example of cultural differences is taken from an evaluation by a supervisor who has worked in several countries: When evaluating students’ thesis drafts in Scandinavia it is highly recommended to use the following general scale and formulation: a) ‘What is good, positive about your text/thesis is..’.; b) ‘What is less positive about your text/thesis is...’; c) ‘What is slightly problematic about your text/thesis is...’ which corresponds to, in general, the following […] American supervising practices: a) ‘ACCEPTABLE’; b) ‘BAD or REALLY BAD WORK DONE IN YOUR THESIS’; and c) ‘YOUR TEXT/THESIS STINKS, CLEAN IT BY CORRECTING THE MISTAKES MARKED IN YOUR DRAFT.’

We found that several of the new employees in our study lacked basic knowledge regarding the Norwegian university system and its practical application at the faculty. For example, the admission’s process for master’s students and framework and criteria for the master’s programmes are, to a large extent, set by the Ministry of Education and/or NOKUT (The Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education) or the top administrative level at the university. This concerns admissions criteria, number of students, types of exams, numbers and choice of examiners, anonymity concerning exam papers and grades and so forth, which entails that individual employees or subgroups are not free to decide which applicants are admitted or how many. It also limits the ability of teachers to grade students based on their activity in class and whether to allow them to continue with a less than promising master’s project or not. In addition, there is also uncertainty among the employees about what prior knowledge (including language skills) students can be expected to have. A considerable number of participants felt that many of the students’ prior knowledge was inadequate, both academically and linguistically, and wanted mechanisms that would allow them to reject such students (also after they had been admitted). Simultaneously, they had little knowledge regarding which decisions were made where in the system and the distribution of roles between administrative and academic employees and about the different levels and the relationship between them (faculty, department, academic groups, academic management and administration). They were often unsure of their own role in this respect and of what was expected and required of them in relation to supervision and follow-up. Even though the supervisor in the example quoted above did not think that the American supervisory practice was something to emulate, this illustrates how foreign supervisors are required to navigate nonapparent cultural codes and practices. In addition, we found that many participants felt that their experience, which formed part of the background for their employment, was not valued. They also indicated that there were few arenas in which to share experiences and discuss problems regarding supervision.

7  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning

123

Views of the Model Compared with the Course as a Whole The participants’ opinions regarding the specific model of problem-based peer group mentoring were divided in our study. The evaluations revealed that some people thought it was too rigid and, therefore, prevented good discussions. Others, by far the majority, believed that it was precisely the rigid framework for when to ask questions and offer advice that played a critical role in getting to the heart of a problem. In addition, the method neutralised the informal power structures that allow some people to talk more than others. The model itself, with its strict rules, countered inappropriate power constellations, whereby people from different levels of a ‘hierarchy of power’ (e.g. an experienced male professor vs. a young recently hired female lecturer) were able to—and actually had to—contribute to the discussion. It cannot be assumed that PPGM will necessarily counter the dynamics that often arise in discussions within an organisation. In one study, the ‘novices’ played the role of listeners instead of proactive participants (Deni & Malakolunthu, 2013, p. 562). The form of mentoring that was practised in that study had no strict rules for turn-taking and questions (who can ask what and when), unlike the way our PPGM model was designed. We believe that a strict method is better suited to improving knowledge-sharing across formal and hierarchical information structures and roles than a looser structure. As mentioned, the logs revealed that what was initially presented as an individual and more personally oriented supervision problem was often redefined during the long and important Q&A round as a structural problem that should not or could not be resolved by individual supervisors on their own. In the interviews, the participants noted that it was difficult to distinguish between the role the PPGM model offered compared with the design of the course as a whole (including the group formation and seminars at the beginning and the end). However, all of the interviewees asserted that the model itself was a very important component because it prevented people from ‘becoming passive participants’, everyone got a chance to speak and the rigid structure also helped bring the structural problems to the surface. Furthermore, several participants also mentioned that having sessions over a period of time helped them become acquainted with not just the model but each other, enabling them to feel more secure and dive deeper into the problems. For many people, this sense of security stemmed from the fact that they were not talking to their closest colleagues but to people from other disciplines and departments and by confidentiality secured by rules governing the group discussions mentioned earlier. Thus, the design of the course, which included a great deal of group work, always across departments and disciplines, helped identify the structural aspects of supervision issues. The vast majority of the participants indicated that meeting colleagues from the whole faculty was an important element of the course. This showed them that problems could be solved in different ways than they were used to within their discipline because they learned about differences in supervisory practices and

124

A. Maasø and H. G. Simonsen

cultures at the faculty. It appears that it was the combination of the PPGM model and context in which it was used that led many people to consider the course a success.

Changes to Individual and Organisational Practice There were no plans for a systematic evaluation of the project3 at the faculty level when the project was initiated, nor were supervisors surveyed before or after they took the course. Therefore, our discussion here is based on interviews with supervisors from the first three semesters because some time had passed since they took the course, as well as with people from the faculty management and the administration of teaching and studies regarding any changes they may have observed in supervisory practice and the structural conditions that interested us. None of the informants reported that they had continued to use the PPGM model for group discussions after the course ended, nor had any of them continued to meet each other in the groups once they returned to the pressure of everyday work. However, several people stated that the model increased their awareness, particularly in terms of the model’s focus on illuminating the issue by asking the problem owner questions before discussing proposed solutions. Even though some people believed that their supervisory practice had not changed much, they also indicated that the model had ‘considerably increased their awareness’ and had an ‘integrating’ effect through knowledge-sharing across the faculty and that it had revealed ‘certain unwritten rules about how things are done at a department’. Several people also offered supervision in groups because participating in the course and, as one of the informants put it, ‘deprivatisation has filtered through from many directions’. Interestingly, the course also resulted in certain changes to structural conditions and frameworks impacting on supervision. At two of the departments, the practice and procedures for assigning supervisors have changed as a direct result of people participating in working groups and local decision-making processes after the course. At one programme, it has become much easier for students to change their supervisor when there are problems with the student–supervisor relationship; this is a result of the insight gained on the course into practices and solutions in other programmes. However, the changes generally appear to be local for certain programmes and departments, ranging from major changes (like the structure of a master’s programme or the practice for assigning supervisors) to minor or no changes.

 Even though this was defined as a ‘project’ in the faculty’s annual plan (Faculty of Humanities, 2016), with a clear end date and key roles, many of the elements usually associated with a project and project methodology were missing (see, e.g., Briner et al., 2000), such as a project plan, risk analysis, project manager, clarification of roles, meeting points and interfaces with project participants, clear definition of objectives and milestones, status reports and evaluation. 3

7  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning

125

The project appears to have led to two changes at the faculty level. One is a change to the supervision contracts between all students and supervisors. Even though this cannot solely be linked to the PPGM course, the need for change was highlighted in the feedback from supervisors on the contract and discussions during the course regarding ‘the first supervision session’, as well as clarifications of expectations between the student and supervisor. The dean of studies and administrative head of studies at the faculty used this information in the contract revisions. In addition, the reactions from recently hired foreign employees, as described above, turned out to be real eye-openers for the faculty administration and management. The participants’ experiences highlighted the need for better communication not only concerning supervision but across all aspects of being a new employee in an institution with a different language and culture; these were considered when the faculty initiated a new project for onboarding of staff from other academic cultures than the Norwegian one.

Discussion Currently, 56% of all supervisors (37–69% of supervisors at its seven departments) participated in the faculty’s PPGM project for supervisors of master’s students. The primary intention of the course was to facilitate knowledge-sharing and problem-­ solving related to supervision at the micro level, but it also revealed problems that were primarily linked to structural challenges at the macro level. Numerous participants reported these problems, which were associated with practices for assigning supervisors, communication problems and a lack of contact between academic employees and administration and management, as well as a lack of knowledge of procedures, rules and the distribution of roles in connection with supervision, which was particularly evident in new employees from other academic cultures. The interviews and evaluations reveal that the objective of facilitating a sharing culture between individuals through PPGM was generally successful. Many people were surprised by the supervisory practices at other units within the same faculty, which also helped reveal tacit knowledge of own practices, as well as within the organisation (Polanyi & Sen, 2009). This corresponds well with Dorner and Belic (2021), who find that similar conversations in their material ‘may open a path to institutional transformation […] by virtue of teachers recognising that they are not alone’ (p. 220). The original aim of the project was to facilitate knowledge-sharing within academic groups, programmes or departments, while the participants themselves emphasised the importance of meeting others as opposed to the people they shared a corridor with on a daily basis. Physical presence and ‘corridor talk’ may play an important role in knowledge-sharing within a unit, such as within a department at a faculty (Hurdley, 2010). Yet working in the same unit may also become an obstacle to admitting weaknesses and discussing problems openly. Within research on organisational learning, it is well known that ties that bridge ‘structural holes’ or

126

A. Maasø and H. G. Simonsen

otherwise unconnected parts of a network have been found to increase creativity, as well as knowledge-sharing and institutional learning (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011; Burt, 2004). Therefore, one of the key findings is that the interdepartmental meeting structure helped the participants discuss difficulties and problems in supervision while simultaneously contributing to knowledge-sharing. This illuminated differences and similarities, thus leading the participants to reflect on their own supervisory practices. As we have seen, several participants indicated that this made it easier to open up and be vulnerable about their own perceived inadequacies and made it possible to discuss problems related to (anonymised) colleagues or students, without having to worry that what they may have said would follow them in their everyday lives at work. The importance of ‘distance’ to achieve ‘closeness’ is not something built into the model’s design. The participants were intuitively assigned to interdepartmental groups from the very beginning, which turned out to be important. Experiences and feedback led us to believe that it is unlikely that the model would have been as successful if the groups had consisted of people who already worked closely together. In addition, bringing together supervisors who worked in different academic fields and departments also made it easier to bring structural problems—and ‘structural holes’ as Burt (2004) terms it—to the surface as structural problems. This enabled participants to see that the resource allocation, some of the governance principles and the responsibilities of administrative and academic staff and the guidelines for issues like the practice of assigning students to supervisors were different elsewhere. Participants also encountered colleagues who did not have the exact same framework within the same work unit or had found different solutions to limitations and challenges. This also implied that we, as course instructors and group leaders, gained a greater awareness of the importance of the macro perspective and constantly saw how the micro and macro aspects were interwoven. By adjusting the course design, the project slightly shifted its focus from problems and knowledge-sharing at the micro level to recognition that problems at the macro level may have a major impact on the micro level. Another consequence of the structural problems that came to the surface—and the increased awareness of this—was that it gave us the opportunity to involve decision-­ makers at a higher level of the organisation. This enabled them to help solve problems that were (originally) perceived as being personal (for the individual supervisor) at the overarching or structural level. Even though the faculty’s management did not plan to participate actively in the PPGM project and primarily considered their role to be that of an initiator, they were brought into the final evaluations and panel discussions with participants as early as the first semester of the course. This gave the management the opportunity to hear what structural (and other) problems arose; moreover, it also appeared important to the participants in the sense that they were given an opportunity to directly report back to management on matters that concerned them. To what extent did the project contribute to changes to the supervision culture and structural framework? The project’s original aims did not express any expectations or objectives in terms of permanent changes for each supervisor, nor was anything said about how to evaluate these. Having a better understanding of structural

7  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning

127

components and a ‘baseline’ for supervision practices across the faculty would have made documentation of changes possible and would be advised if the focus of the project was on understanding organisational learning. Hence, we have only been able to touch upon changes indirectly via interviews and interpretations of plans, logs and documents. In an old legacy organisation, such as that in our case, there are several factors that may impede change and development of a sharing culture and communication across and between different levels of the organisation. Part of the reason could be that this academic institution is a large, old and diverse organisation with strong and wide-ranging academic environments that are used to having a large degree of autonomy. There has also been a large gap between the academic and the administrative lines and among the three levels of the organisation (department, faculty and university) that might look different at another institution. Furthermore, the planning documents and strategies we reviewed generally do not mention a sharing culture, knowledge-sharing or internal communication. For example, internal communication was explicitly excluded from the new strategy for use of digital media at the university implemented the spring of 2020 (UiO, 2020). The university in question has a long history of considerable disparities in power and hierarchy between academic and administrative employees, which is not unlike other universities with a long tradition. Research on knowledge-sharing and learning in organisations reveals that differences in power and status can have a negative influence on the manner in which an organisation learns and lead to less experimentation and development of shared objectives (Argote, 2012). Because the institution in our case is mainly a hierarchical and line-managed organisation, the lines of communication are more rigid than in a matrix organisation or project-based organisation. This was also cited as a problem by one of the participants we interviewed. Therefore, the meeting points and cooperation between different groups of employees and different levels are more fixed over time than in numerous other organisations. In other words, the type of communication arenas that were available to participants over time in the PPGM project is rare at the faculty in our case study. Further, even though collaboration between academic and administrative employees has improved during the past couple of decades, knowledge remains sparse within both groups regarding the competence each group possesses and the challenges they face at work. Numerous administrative employees have little knowledge of how supervision takes place in practice, what challenges supervisors encounter and how they can help. Similarly, many academic employees have little knowledge regarding how the administration can help them solve problems or improve working conditions for both supervisors and students. Many academic employees also lack knowledge about the legislation and guidelines that the administration is bound by and which prevent the sharing of information on, for example, students’ illnesses or the grade a student receives on a master’s thesis which an academic employee has spent a great deal of time supervising. In addition, we asked about change in interviews, and the feedback indicates that numerous people have gained a greater awareness of the role of the supervisor, how it is practised elsewhere and a better understanding of other supervision procedures.

128

A. Maasø and H. G. Simonsen

However, relatively few changes appear to have been made to the individual supervisors’ practices, which vary from one person to the next. In research on organisational learning, it is often emphasised that change depends on some form of documentation or establishment of knowledge through, for example, procedures or practice: For organizational learning to occur, the individual would have to embed the knowledge in a repository such as a database, routine or transactive memory system. By embedding the knowledge in a supra-individual routine, the knowledge would persist even if the member who acquired the knowledge left the organization and other members could access the knowledge. (Argote, 2012, p. 20)

It has not been possible to perform a systematic evaluation of this type of procedure or practice. This makes it difficult to comment on whether individual changes have also resulted in any other broad and permanent changes in the organisation at a macro level, beyond the examples that came to light in the interviews—such as some changes to programme structure, local practices for assigning supervisors and changes to supervision contracts at the faculty. Nevertheless, an interesting and largely unintentional change sparked by the project was the development of a new programme for onboarding new employees from other academic cultures. To a large extent, this was made possible because the two administrative co-organisers of the PPGM course in discussions with the course instructors were able to quickly pick up on the issues that came to the surface during the PPGM sessions and functioned as ‘structural bridges’ both between the different hierarchical levels in the organisation and between the perspectives and roles of academic and administrative staff. The onboarding programme for international employees was implemented more quickly because of this knowledge transfer. Thus, we realise that, even though no evaluation of the project was planned at an individual level, nor were there any ambitions for institutional learning at the faculty level, important changes also did take place at the macro level.

Concluding Comments This chapter has revealed that the sharing of experiences between different levels of the organisation and the micro and macro levels must be incorporated into supervision practices to a greater extent than is currently the case. It should also guide the use and development of peer group mentoring as a model in this context. If an organisation is to learn and change as a result of this type of project, this cannot only be linked to individuals at the micro level but should also be linked more clearly to objectives for the organisation itself and for sharing and storing knowledge generated by the project. From this perspective, PPGM can be considered an important part of an organisation’s internal communication and development and not only something that is associated with individual development.

7  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring and Organisational Learning

129

Individuals are better at capturing and transferring nuances and tacit knowledge, while procedures, guidelines, written advice, help menus and so forth are less sensitive to nuances. However, they are also less likely to be forgotten when people leave or their responsibilities change. When attempting to create a better culture of sharing, it is important to bear in mind these prerequisites for knowledge-sharing among individuals and in organisations, as well as the design of physical meeting places and premises (Ambler et al., 2014). We believe that any further work on PPGM as a method should, at the outset, establish whether the objective is development and change at the micro and/or macro level(s). It is a bit of a paradox that the ‘deprivatisation’ of supervision was largely intended to take place ‘privately’ (for each supervisor). By bringing in the macro level and involving faculty management and administration in the course design during the process—which the literature shows to be an important success factor for peer group mentoring—and by exploring this in greater detail in this chapter, we have attempted to ensure that learning at the macro level within the organisation is also part of the postproject discussions and development of institutional knowledge.

References Ambler, T., Chavan, M., Clarke, J., & Matthews, N. (2014). Climates of communication: Collegiality, affect, spaces and attitudes in peer review. In J. Sachs & M. Parsell (Eds.), Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 67–84). Springer. Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer. Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0621 Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Problem-based peer group mentoring – A tool for faculty development. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education. Springer. Bell, M., & Cooper, P. (2013). Peer observation of teaching in university departments: A framework for implementation. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.633753 Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2014). Situated learning, reflective peer observation for tutor development. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562517.2014.945163 Boland, R. J., Jr., Tenkasi, R. V., & Te'Eni, D. (1994). Designing information technology to support distributed cognition. Organization Science, 5(3), 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.5.3.456 Briner, W., Hastings, C., Geddes, M., Esnault, M., & Hagerup, E. 2000. Prosjektledelse [Project management]. Gyldendal Akademisk. Burt, R.  S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787 Chamberlain, J.  M., D’Artrey, M., & Rowe, D.-A. (2011). Peer observation of teaching: A decoupled process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 189–201. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469787411415083 Cranton, P., & Carusetta, E. (2002). Reflecting on teaching: The influence of context. International Journal for Academic Development, 7(2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1360144032000071288

130

A. Maasø and H. G. Simonsen

de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Chapter 9: Analysing the emergence of trust in peer group mentoring. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education. Springer. Deja, M. (2019). Information and knowledge management in higher education institutions: The Polish case. Online Information Review (ahead-of-print), 217–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/ OIR-­03-­2018-­0085 Deni, A. R. M., & Malakolunthu, S. (2013). Teacher collaborative inquiry as a professional development intervention: Benefits and challenges. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(4), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-­013-­9280-­y Dorner, H., & Belic, J. (2021). From an individual to an institution: Observations about the evolutionary nature of conversations. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2021.1947295 Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182. Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 33–39. Esterhazy, R., de Lange, T., Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, A. L. (2021). Moving beyond peer review of teaching: A conceptual framework for collegial faculty development. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990721 Faculty of Humanities. 2016. Årsplan for Det humanistiske fakultet 2017–2019 [Annual plan for The Faculty of Humanities 2017–2019]. University of Oslo. https://www.HF.uio.no/om/ strategi/arsplaner-­rapporter/arsplan-­20172019-­endeligversjon.pdf Hermansen, H., Kartzow, M. B., Rasmussen, A., & Lycke, K. H. (this volume). Peer group mentoring: Exploring the interplay with institutional practices. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education. Springer. Hislop, D., Bosua, R., & Helms, R. (2018). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction. Oxford University Press. Hurdley, R. (2010). The power of corridors: Connecting doors, mobilising materials, plotting openness. Sociological Review, 58(1), 45–64. McFadyen, M. A., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (2009). Value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organization Science, 20(3), 552–564. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0388 Napier, J., Riazi, M., & Jacenyik-Trawoger, C. (2014). Leadership: A cultural perspective on review as quality assurance versus quality enhancement. In J. Sachs & M. Parsell (Eds.), Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 53–66). Springer. Nash, R., Barnard, A., Bolt, S., Shannon, S., & McEvoy, K. (2014). Developing a culture of peer review of teaching through a distributive leadership approach: Final report 2014. Office for Learning and Teaching, Department of Education. Polanyi, M., & Sen, A. (2009). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press. UiO. (2020). Digital kanalstrategi for Universitetet i Oslo [Digital communication strategy of University of Oslo]. https://www.uio.no/om/strategi/dokumenter/uio-­kanalstrategi-­med-­ vedlegg.pdf Wenger, E. (2010). Conceptual tools for CoPs as social learning systems: Boundaries, identity, trajectories and participation. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 125–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­84996-­133-­2_8 Wikipedia. (2021). Chatham house rule. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_ House_Rule Wingrove, D., Clarke, A., & Chester, A. (2015). Distributing leadership for sustainable peer feedback on tertiary teaching. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 12(3) https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol12/iss3/8 Wittek, L., Kartzow, M. B., & Hermansen, H. (this volume). Interactional dynamics in peer group mentoring. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education. Springer.

Chapter 8

Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development Sofie Bastiansen and Line Wittek

Abstract  This chapter presents results from the application of a problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM) model at the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Oslo in Norway. As part of the PPGM, groups of four to six supervisors at the master’s level met regularly for one semester to discuss specific cases based on situations from their supervision practice that the participants experienced as challenging. The peer group mentoring was initiated as a five-year project by the faculty management with the intention of creating an attitude of shared responsibility towards supervision and to increase the quality of the master’s programmes. Most of the groups reported considerable benefits from working together in this manner, while also encountering a few examples in which groups did not progress as intended. Based on these findings, the chapter presents an in-depth analysis of three selected PPGM sessions, demonstrating nuances of how peer group mentoring can support peer development and knowledge-sharing, as well as how resistance to and misinterpretation of the instructions can be a barrier to fruitful peer learning.

Introduction There has been a change in focus regarding activities for professional development in higher education, from the individual teacher to teams working together (Gast et al., 2017). This change has inspired a growing field of research on collaborative or team-based methods used for both professional development and the well-being of the teaching staff (Heikkinen et al., 2012). Well-defined programme structures S. Bastiansen (*) Department of Education, NØtterØy, Norway e-mail: [email protected] L. Wittek Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_8

131

132

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

and a clearly presented focus are important before embarking on an initiative to mentor faculty (Lumpkin, 2011; Reid, 2008). When successfully implemented, peer group mentoring has the potential for creative problem-solving and facilitating significant conversations (Pleschová et  al., 2021) in which groups are collectively engaged, provide emotional support and share ideas on how to solve work-related problems (de Lange & Wittek, 2018; Hontvedt et al., 2021). However, individuals need time to participate appropriately in a peer-mentoring model and become comfortable with the ground rules of such a model. Extensive reviews of collegial faculty development encourage future researchers to engage with empirical questions regarding how conversations evolve in terms of the interplay between participants in peer group mentoring and the contextual factors and cultural tools involved therein (Esterhazy et al., 2021; de Lang et al., Chap. 1, this volume). In this chapter, we analyse group conversations at a Norwegian university in which the participants were engaged in ‘problem-based peer group mentoring’ during the course of one semester. The groups were a part of a five-year project initiated by the faculty management to engage all supervisors of master’s students in peer group mentoring. The aim was to establish the idea of supervision as a shared responsibility that must not lie solely with the individual supervisor. The conversations were guided by a structuring model that provided the roles and conversational rules (herein referred to as ‘the model’) and were focused on selected work-related challenges presented by a mentee each time. The roles included a group leader and problem owner, and these rotated among the participants for each session. Analytically, we have approached the peer-mentoring conversations based on a sociocultural perspective on learning: ‘Sociocultural research is not a unified field, but those within it treat communication, thinking and learning as related processes which are shaped by culture’ (Mercer, 2000, p. 158). From this perspective, people engage with both physical and psychological tools as mediators to communicate, think and organise and structure their interactions (Wertsch, 1998). One basic assumption that we use as a point of departure is that people are in the best position to learn and develop as professionals when they are members of teams that ‘think together through dialogue’ (Mercer, 2000). When the supervisors of master’s students in the current study interact to develop new insights, they must first make their thoughts known to each other through words, actions and gestures (Littleton & Mercer, 2013). Consequently, a set of new thoughts and ideas were made available to everyone, and a common frame of reference was established that makes it possible to assess, examine, challenge and further develop constructive conversations (Carlile, 2004). In particular, what we have investigated is how such interthinking developed in different groups using the model for problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM) at the Faculty of Humanities. The following research questions are posed: –– How does the mediated activity of peer group mentoring unfold in three different groups? –– In what ways does the peer group mentoring model mediate interthinking? We begin by explaining the empirical context and applied mentoring model. Thereafter, we describe in greater detail the theoretical frames that guided our

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

133

analytical work and explain how we conducted our analysis. Then, three selected mentoring cases are presented to illustrate different tendencies with respect to how groups adopted the model across our data corpus. We conclude the chapter by discussing the potential and limitations of the model, as well as the necessary factors to consider before arranging peer-mentoring schemes.

Context and Peer-Mentoring Model In the autumn of 2016, systematic peer group mentoring was introduced at one of the departments in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Oslo in Norway. The experiences from this ‘pilot’ were rather positive; after several discussions between faculty management and representatives of the university’s pedagogical community, the faculty board decided to initiate a five-year project. The intention to increase throughput at the MA level was heavily emphasised in the strategy documents associated with this decision. The goal was to involve all supervisors of master’s students at the faculty (approximately 300 people). Hours were credited to the participants’ timesheets for the relevant semester.1 Below, we describe the main features of the course; the course was led and jointly managed by a team comprising two members of the faculty’s academic staff, two members of its administrative staff and one or two people from the academic development group2 (the aim of which was to help strengthen the quality of education at the university). Each course semester was divided into three parts, as displayed in Table 8.1—an initial workshop, peer group mentoring sessions and a closing seminar. The initial workshop lasted for two days and was held at a conference hotel3 early in the semester. On the first day, a few key topics within supervision were presented—for example, the supervisor’s role and the expectations of the student and supervisor, respectively. In this context, short introductions were given, and discussions were held both in small groups and in the larger group as a whole. Table 8.1  Organisation of the course Activity Duration

Initial workshop 2 days

Participants The full group: approximately 30 supervisors

Peer group mentoring sessions 1.5–2 h, repeated 4, 5 or 6 times during the semester (depending on the number of participants in the group) Smaller groups: each group consisting of 4–6 participants

Closing seminar Half a day

The full group: approximately 30 supervisors

 To begin with, the participants had 25 h credited and the group leaders had 30 h. This was eventually increased to 30 and 35 h, respectively. 2  Centre for Learning, Innovation, and Academic Development at the University of Oslo. 3  In 2020, the workshop was held online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 1

134

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

Furthermore, as part of the preparation before the workshop, participants were asked to write a brief case description based on their own experiences from supervising master’s students. They received the following assignment in writing: Difficult Supervision Please write a short text (1–1 ½ pages) in which you identify and describe a situation during your master’s supervision that you experience as being problematic or challenging. Select a situation that you experience as being an actual problem and not a situation that you have already solved in a brilliant manner that you would like to tell us about.

In addition to the written assignment, the supervisors were orally instructed to select a case referring to a specific situation, preferably an ongoing problem that they are currently facing and that has not yet been resolved. Then, the supervisors were introduced to the peer-mentoring model, which was demonstrated through role-play before they applied the method in groups of four to six people in two or three practice sessions. Each session lasted for approximately 90 minutes and was led by one of the participants. Only one of the problems described in advance was to be discussed in each session. Table 8.2 presents a simplified version of the seven steps in the model. Each phase is carefully structured in terms of whose turn it is to speak and the type of input that must be provided in the various phases. The purpose of this strict arrangement is to keep the focus on the problem owner’s experiences and challenges, ensure that everyone participates and help elucidate the problem from different perspectives. Because of the detailed structure of the model, it takes some time for the participants to become familiarised with it. The initial practice sessions are also intended to habituate the groups with the ‘ground rules’ of the model and build trust among the participants, which is essential for getting the most out of peer Table 8.2  Procedure for problem-based mentoring groups Phase 1: Presentation Phase 2: Selecting a problem Phase 3: Explanation Phase 4: Clarification

The group’s participants briefly present a specific problem from their own work as a supervisor All participants take turns to say which problem from phase 1 they would like to explore. The problem with the most ‘votes’ will be the focus of the current session’s conversation The owner of the selected problem explains their case in more detail

Through questions and answers, the participants further explore the nature of the problem. Each group member takes turns to ask one question at a time and the problem owner responds. After several rounds, and when the participants have no further questions, the situation/problem is clarified. This phase ends with the problem being redefined by each participant Phase 5: Problem The problem owner explains what they might do about the situation/ owner’s suggested problem without interruption. The suggested solutions are noted by the solutions group leader Phase 6: Advice Each group member takes turns to offer one piece of advice. The advice is noted. There may be several such rounds. Phase 7: The problem owner reviews the advice and selects which advice may be Evaluation of relevant. The problem owner concludes by stating which advice they will advice follow and how

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

135

group mentoring. It is emphasised from the beginning of the peer-mentoring course that all problems that are raised and discussed are confidential. Trust is an essential condition for pedagogical conversations, such as peer group mentoring (de Lange & Wittek, 2018; Pleschová et al., 2021). In our experience, maintaining the confidentiality of discussions helps create a sense of security and trust. Furthermore, one participant from each group received training before the initial workshop. In practice, this implied that one person from each group was asked to take on the role of group leader for the first two practice sessions (when conducting peer group mentoring at a later time in the same semester, the roles of both the leader and problem owner rotated among all the participants). Before attending the peer-mentoring course, these group leaders participated in a half-day seminar in which they practised using the method and learned about the responsibilities of a group leader. Before the participants went home from the two-day workshop, they agreed on two participants who would take on the roles of the problem owner and group leader, respectively, for each of the sessions that they were to conduct during the semester, and they found the time and place to meet. At the end of the semester, a half-day session was held in which all groups participated. Here, the groups were asked to share a few experiences without discussing the content of any of the cases. Furthermore, representatives from the management were present, for which the groups presented institutional challenges that had come to the fore during the peer group mentoring sessions. This proved to be a good starting point for discussions between institution managers and supervisors from the academic communities involved (Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume). The discussions often led to explicit suggestions on how to address the challenges presented.

Methods Data collection at the Faculty of Humanities was initiated in the autumn of 2017. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the project was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data in autumn 2017. The data were collected by the main author in 2018 and 2019. Our empirical material primarily consists of video recordings of conversations in problem-based mentoring groups, amounting to 27 h of video data from 18 sessions distributed among 4 groups. We also collected field notes from observations, logs written by the groups after each session, and we conducted video-recorded interviews with a few of the groups after they completed the course. The informants were assigned pseudonyms in the excerpts presented in the analysis as one measure to ensure their anonymity. Three empirical examples were selected for the purpose of this book chapter; the first two of these illustrate the tendencies found across the data corpus and the third illustrates a notable exception. The three cases provide interesting and rather different information regarding how the model was interpreted and adopted, on the one

136

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

hand, and how it supported interthinking among the participants (or not), on the other hand. The content of the discussions is only partially reproduced in the analysis subsequently in this text, but we suggest a few main themes to create meaning and context in the examples. The topics we cover (in general terms) were discussed in most of the groups. However, we have not included details regarding the context and specific circumstances of the challenging situation as a second measure to prevent revealing the identity of the group participants. In addition to omitting specific information, we also paraphrased a few portions of the content to maintain the participants’ anonymity and for the purpose of clarity. However, these steps do not affect the analytical aspects that we want to highlight—that is, to reveal the model’s potential and limitations for mediating collective learning processes in peer-­ mentoring groups. Our main analytical approach is interaction analysis, which is defined as ‘an interdisciplinary method for the empirical investigation of the interaction of human beings with other and with objects in their environment’ (Jordan & Henderson, 1995, p. 39). We have used this approach for the purpose of investigating how the mediated activity of peer group mentoring unfolded in the three different groups, as well as in what ways the peer group mentoring model mediates interthinking. After accounting for the conceptual framework that guided our analysis in the following section, we further explain our analytical approach and how the mediated activity and characteristics of interthinking were observable to the analysts.

Our Theoretical View: Mediated Action and ‘Interthinking’ In light of a sociocultural perspective on learning, we frame the PPGM conversations as a mediated action with two central elements: the ‘agents’ (supervisors) and ‘cultural tools’ (the model for peer group mentoring). When people engage in mediated activities, they draw on knowledge and experience that have been developed over time and have become embedded in the given tools. Mediated activities cannot be reduced to either tool or agent without running the risk of undermining the phenomenon of investigation. Rather, it is the interplay between the two (tool and agent) that creates the foundation for the investigation. Wertsch (1998) uses the Olympic game of pole-vaulting to illustrate the irreducible tension between the agent and tool. To analyse this activity in terms of the pole (the mediational means) or athlete (the agent) in isolation would likely impair our understanding of the activity. In a similar manner, when we investigate PPGM, we need to consider both the participants and conversational model to make sense of the activity. However, there are analytical advantages to zooming in on moments of interaction or aspects of the cultural tool as a part of the analytical strategy. When we do isolate elements in our analysis, we bear in mind that these elements are parts of a phenomenon that does not exist independently. The groups in the present study were generally unfamiliar with the PPGM model when they first attended the course. When new tools are introduced, people barely

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

137

ever adopted them ‘smoothly and without friction’ (Wertsch, 1998, p. 55). When we are presented with a new tool, we must accept a set of existing linguistic terms and categories that are based on a set of underlying values, metaphors and traditions. Disagreement and resistance can arise and, in certain cases, make it impossible for participants to perform the mediated action at all. In our analyses, we have looked for indicators of tension or resistance towards the model as a mediating tool. Although the model was presented to the participants beforehand and the process was led by a competent person, it was the peer group mentoring group that had to ‘negotiate’ its way to a meaningful interpretation of the activity through interactions (Littelton & Mercer, 2013). PPGM has the potential to support exploratory and constructive conversations (Hontvedt et al., 2021). However, for the mentoring to be a productive process for the participants, they must help each other develop a shared understanding of the presented problem. Thus, a collective awareness is established and developed when the group participants jointly interpret, understand and remember each other’s input, which requires active participation from all group members throughout the process (Littleton & Mercer, 2013). ‘Interthinking’ is a concept developed while studying group work and problem-­ solving and outlines how people can think creatively and effectively together through the spoken language. In PPGM, this entails that participants draw on insights offered by group members and that they work towards a common goal—to find solutions to work-related challenges by engaging in joint exploration (Littleton & Mercer, 2013). In both the past and present, people have seldom tackled problems in total isolation; they work with others to find new ways of understanding phenomena and create new knowledge motivated by common goals or concerns. Nevertheless, learning has frequently been treated as an individual process by educators and psychologists (Littleton & Mercer, 2013). This also applies to the field of professional improvement in teaching and supervision, which has often taken the form of measures aimed at qualifying the individual teacher and increasing their awareness and ability to reflect on their role (Wittek, Chap. 2, this volume). However, in today’s higher education institutions, there is a growing need for collaboration so that resources and competence can be distributed across people and communities (Stensaker, Chap. 12, this volume). The peer group mentoring initiated by the Faculty of Humanities can be understood as an initiative inspired by a collaborative approach to professional development. Instead of giving traditional courses and lectures, supervisors are placed in groups to help each other solve work-related challenges; in doing so, they develop their competencies as supervisors. The intended benefit is not only learning and development for the individual but also capitalisation of each other’s resources and learning as a group. In Table 8.3, we summarise our theoretically informed analytical approach. In the left column, we present two units of analysis, both of which are relevant for the mediated activity of peer group mentoring. In the right column, a few specific examples are given for the observable indicators that we identified in our data.

138

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

Table 8.3  Analytical approach Mediated activity as a unit of analysis Utterances and follow-ups

The use of the model

Examples of observable empirical indicators The manner in which speakers build on previous utterances The reactions and responses to other’s contributions The characteristics of the conversation (consensus, respect and attentiveness vs. tensions, disputations and indifference) The manner in which information is shared (generously, modestly, scarcely) How groups progress through the mentoring’s phases (thoroughly, hastily, superficially) The ground rules being followed, refused or neglected New information about the problem being followed up or disregarded People giving explicit or implicit expression to how they understand the model and its intentions The moderation of turn-taking The maintenance of a clear focus on the raised problem throughout the session Suggestions for how the problem can be solved

The analytical approach opened up for focusing on certain specific utterances and episodes in our material, but it also provided opportunity to zoom out and consider the conversational sequences in relation to the peer-mentoring model and the overall activity.

Three Cases In the following section, we analyse three group sessions to demonstrate the different ways in which peer group mentoring played out in practice. The groups consisted of four or five supervisors from different departments within the Faculty of Humanities. The variety of cases selected for the in-depth analysis aimed at illustrating the different nuances that characterise the same mediated activity across our data material. All sessions were from the first or second time the groups conducted peer group mentoring after the initial workshop. The three cases reveal different patterns regarding how the model is interpreted and used and the different ways in which the model mediates interaction in the groups. Although the first and second cases demonstrate frequently observed tendencies from the data corpus on how groups engage in interthinking, the third example indicates an exception by revealing how interactions can be characterised by insecurity and tension because of resistance towards practising the model.

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

139

Case 1: Genuine Interthinking The group leader begins by asking Mary, who is the problem owner of that day, to summarise a title that represents the core of the problem. After giving the matter some thought, Mary replies in the following manner: Excerpt 8.1 1. Mary: Mm, what can I say? Mm, let me just think for a second. So there’s a student who’s 2. a little intense. [Asks the others if the choice of problem is okay, brief laughter.] 3. L: 4 Yes, it’s fine. 4. Mary: A student who is eager to the point that she makes herself unpopular. 5. L: Yes [stands up and writes what is being said on the white board]. Mary then elaborates on the challenging situation, and the group is given more information regarding the student and the nature of the problem. Phase 4 begins with the group leader reminding the group that they will now take turns to speak, that they can only ask one question at a time and that they must avoid questions that are actually ‘covert advice’. Covert advice can be to ask whether the problem owner has considered taking certain measures to deal with the problem. Such a question is usually suggestive rather than exploratory and, therefore, is discouraged in this phase. By the third question, it is evident that Mary is actually rather worried about the student: Excerpt 8.2 1. P1:5 What was it that made you think there was a problem … the fact that she was overeager? 2. Mary: If I disregard the problems she has created with this? 3. P1: Yes, her attitude: What is it that makes you regard it as a problem that she … 4. Mary: For herself? She’s not doing herself any favours … by making herself so unpopular … 5. P1: Yes, but if we disregard the fact that she’s making herself unpopular … 6. P2: What is it that you find difficult? Mary stops to think before answering this question and then explains what she means when she says that the student is not doing herself any favours. This does not only relate to the student’s behaviour; Mary is also concerned about the student’s health because she constantly studies through the night at the library. The following questions shed light on the problem from different angles, and other associated challenges come to light. For example, questions are asked about whether the student may be lacking in social skills. Mary is reluctant to give details about the student, but after a reminder from the group leader about the duty of maintaining  L stands for leader.  P stands for participant.

4 5

140

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

confidentiality within the group, she answers the questions that are put to her. After a few more questions, several new dimensions of the problem are revealed, which we will not go into here, as it would be difficult to maintain anonymity. Excerpt 8.3 is part of a longer conversation in which Mary presents a lot of new information. P2 introduces a new perspective—that is, the question of who is responsible for the dynamic of the conversations between supervisor and student. Excerpt 8.3 1. P2: Do you feel responsible for ensuring that the personal dynamics work well when 2. supervising students? 3. Mary: Well, both people are responsible for the relationship working well, right? But I think 4. it’s ... 5. P1: Mm, have you found other students to be challenging in this way? 6. Mary: Not like this, no. I’ve seen it before with mature students … they sort of challenged 7. me … that they couldn’t accept that I might be able to teach them something. 8. P1: Mm … 9. Mary: I find it a bit disturbing. If you come to the university as a student, regardless of 10. whether you’re older than me, then … you may have more life experiences and such but 11. this is my field of expertise, right? 12. Everyone: Mm ... (nodding). 13. P1: Is it easier to get angry or show authority when dealing with someone older as 14. opposed to a young student? 15. Mary: No, their age has nothing to do with whether or not I get angry. It has to do with 16. whether I feel … if I think they’re being disrespectful to me. In phases 5 and 6, it is the problem owner who presents her suggested solution first. She wants to address one or more specific incidents with the student and avoid discussing her behaviour in general terms. The group leader notes this on the whiteboard and poses the following question: Excerpt 8.4 1. L: Is there anything else? 2. Mary: There is a possibility, of course … that this also has to do with a feeling of not fitting 3. in. For example, I could try to talk to her about it … not in an accusatory way, but as a sort of 4. conversation between peers.

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

141

Here, Mary suggests adopting a ‘we’ perspective and adds that many PhD students can feel slightly ‘excluded’ at times. As the conversation continues into phase 6, the other participants are allowed to give advice, and much of this builds on the words of the problem owner. One of the participants refers to what Mary herself mentioned and believes that the challenge is related to her own perceived lack of authority. He says that Mary must be clear in her own mind about whether this is about the student’s challenges or Mary’s own personal challenges. Finally, in phase 7, Mary reviews all the advice listed on the whiteboard and puts a plus or minus sign against each of them indicating the advice she will take advantage of and the ones she will not. She gives a plus for most. The conversation now turns to how to be authoritative in the role of supervisor and in academia in general. Several participants say that they have experienced similar challenges and that respect is not something that just happens but has to be earned. The discussion on this topic continues for some time. Mary then makes the following statements: Excerpt 8.5 1. Mary: I hadn’t thought about the authority factor being part of the problem. But I can see it 2. now, I find that asserting authority over students is a challenge. Mary concludes by saying that the peer group mentoring session was useful. The discussion regarding authority and respect for supervisors in higher education is highlighted as a particularly relevant and interesting discussion, both by Mary and several other participants in the group.

Analytical Comments: Example 1 The group quickly begins using the model, and the leader constantly looks down at the instructions and everyone in the group appears comfortable following the steps described in the model. This continues throughout the session; when they are unsure of what to do, they look to the group leader, who checks the instructions and what she says appears to be accepted by all participants. In this group, there appears to be an established consensus regarding the intention and use of the model, and the participants adapt their input in accordance to this interpretation. The activity is clearly mediated through the model’s different phases, which contributes to a thorough description of the problematic situation, before advancing to the questioning and reflection that leads to the revealing of new aspects of the problem. These aspects were unfamiliar to not only the group but also to the problem owner, as Mary expresses in Excerpt 8.5. Finally, solutions and then advice are offered based on the foregoing discussion. The conversation progresses seamlessly throughout the session, and few tensions or conflicts arise, apart from those that stem from critical or challenging questions. Mary answers all questions fully but occasionally has to stop

142

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

and think a little before responding. Everyone in the group is fully focused on the conversation, and they signal support and understanding through frequent nodding or by saying ‘mm’ or ‘yes’ in a low voice, as evident in Excerpt 8.3 (lines 8 and 12). This support is not only seen in response to Mary’s statements—the conversational structure is maintained irrespective of whose turn it is to speak. The excerpt reveals that this conversation is characterised by mutual respect. This is reflected in the attention being paid to Mary, the low-key supportive statements made by the others and the fact that Mary, in Excerpt 8.3, develops her reasoning by talking honestly about her challenges and emotions in relation to what she perceives as her lack of authority. The suggested solutions (phases 5 and 6) are almost a summary of their 90-minute conversation. The advice from the others is specific and indicates that they collectively respect and remember what has been said throughout the process. A continual two-way movement between responsiveness to the joint exploration of Mary’s problem and adaptation of input regulated by the model to progress permeates the interaction in this session that summarises the mediated activity of this peer group mentoring session. The development of interthinking was identified in this group in various ways. First, the participants appeared to be engaged and took the task seriously, in that they were fully focused, followed the structure of the model and helped progressing the conversation with their formulations. This is particularly apparent in phase 4. Occasionally, progress was maintained by a participant building on something the previous person introduced during their turn. We see an example of this in Excerpt 8.2, where P1 begins with a fairly open-ended line of questioning. Mary asks two clarifying questions (lines 2 and 4) to obtain clarity on what is actually being asked. This may imply that she needs to buy herself some time because the invitation requires her to explore new and developing thoughts regarding the situation. In line 6, P2 uses ‘their turn’ to ask a question that is clearly aimed at encouraging Mary to continue with her reflections. Another feature of the conversation that ensures progress is that certain topics resurface over time, particularly in relation to matters concerning the relationship between the supervisor and student and the challenges of being the expert in the relationship (‘having authority’, see Excerpts 8.3 and 8.5). In Excerpt 8.4, Mary herself picks up on a topic that was raised in an earlier question from one of the others, and we can see how she almost thinks aloud and how the others contribute to the ‘thinking out loud’, thereby aiding the joint exploration.

Case 2: Lack of Attention The group leader begins by asking the group to try to follow the rules; then, he asks Kevin to introduce his problem and requests that the other participants to avoid interrupting Kevin. Before he explains further, Kevin states that his is an ongoing problem:

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

143

Excerpt 8.6 1. Kevin: I have a student. Quite a dedicated one. He is working [P2 gets up and checks her 2. phone before sitting down again] on a theoretical approach. And he is very- very- very 3. interested, very focused on that [explains the topic of the dissertation]. After several 4. conversations, I’ve discovered that his perspective is mainly focusing on theory and that he 5. also needs to work with the practical analysis. Not only theory. After this introduction to the problem, the group leader asks Kevin to summarise the problem in one sentence, which is then to be written on the whiteboard. After briefly discussing how to formulate the problem, Kevin and the leader agrees on ‘student is avoiding practical part of analysis’. Kevin continues to talk about the student while the leader begins writing on the whiteboard. The marker is not working, and the other participants begin handing over other markers while whispering things like ‘here, try this one’. However, none of the markers works and eventually one participant steps outside to fetch more markers. Kevin finishes talking and the leader suggests that they move over to phase 4, taking turns to ask clarifying questions. Phase 4 begins with a short introduction from the leader. He reminds the group to only ask clarifying questions and to refrain from discussions in this phase. The participants take turns asking questions, before one of them eventually questions one of the rules: Excerpt 8.7 1. P2: I am not allowed follow-up questions? 2. P1: [M2 says, ‘no’] No, you have to wait. 3. Kevin: Yeah, you need to wait the until the end … 4. P3: [unclear] because I have a question to understand … After this short exchange, the group moves on with phase 4. After several questions, the problem appears to become clearer for the group. Kevin provides lengthy and informative answers. It becomes evident that Kevin worries that the student will postpone working on the practical analysis towards the deadline, even if there is still time. However, Kevin does not want to pressurise the student too much because the student has been going through a few personal issues. Excerpt 8.8 1. P2: So the worst-case scenario as I see it is that he doesn’t do that part [the practical analysis], 2. he gives the thesis to the committee, the committee returns and says ‘You need to work on 3. the analytical part’, right? Is that the worst case?

144

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

4. Kevin: Yeah, that’s it I guess. Because I don’t think he is not going to work before the 5. deadline. Yeah, of course there are the personal problems. 6. P1: Pass. I think I have asked my questions. 7. P2: So I just have one more question, is it terrible for him if that happens? If they return the thesis for more work because it means it is not a big deal, you are just going to … 8. Kevin: No, I don’t think so. I think—yeah he will work more on that … 9. P2: It’s not like they will kick him out of the country or something? 10. Kevin: No- no- no. Briefly after this exchange, the group ends phase 4 and moves on to the next stage. Several times, participants stop to ask clarifying questions regarding the model, and the leader answers. In phase 5, Kevin presents a potential solution. He wants to ask the student to write a brief and practical analysis as soon as possible. He adds that he can give the student a few clear examples of similar analyses as inspiration. In phase 6, all members present their solutions one by one. The advice includes having the student write a topical list of potential applications of the theory, divide the analysis into components and give the student specific tasks to prepare for each meeting. Another suggestion is to work out an application plan and execution schedule and, thereafter, to hold him responsible to that. After the last participant has given his advice, the leader moves on to the final phase and asks Kevin to comment on the advice. Kevin comments on each person’s advice and expresses gratitude for the advice and communicates that he finds all the advice rather useful. Then, all of a sudden, the group enters a new round of giving advice when one of the participants shares new ideas on how to solve the problem: Excerpt 8.9 1. P2: I was just thinking about a different advice. I thought you and him could do the 2. application plan together in the sense that you really force him to think by asking 3. questions. And maybe you can suggest examples, but let him do the job. And one 4. more thing, give them deadlines [other participants nod their head and say ‘yeah’]. 5. To give them deadlines helps a great deal. Like, ‘Next week you are going to bring 6. me that’ […]. I know it helps me having a deadline! If I don’t … [people start 7. laughing], I don’t write anything! A brief discussion follows where others, including Kevin, agree that providing students with clear deadlines is important. Before concluding the session, other solutions do also come up in this discussion. They express that they are happy with what they have achieved: Excerpt 8.10 1. P2: Together we are stronger. [everyone laughs] 2. P1: Together we are stronger, and we have made our way through the whole model!

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

145

3. P2: And it is not even 5 p.m.! In the exchange above, the group conveys a sense of accomplishment after giving advice and for getting through the session in accordance with the model. Through the session, the group occasionally treated the PPGM as a chore, like something to check off a list so that they could go back to work. An example in addition to the excerpt above is in the manner in which they moved on between phases. For example, after the previous phase, each participant gave advice, and then, they continued to the next step without taking the time to go one more round around the table to see if someone wanted to add something. In this example, we have seen that the group followed the basic steps of the model, occasionally deviating from the rules by entering discussions or moving back and forth between phases.

Analytical Comments: Example 2 From the beginning, the participants show willingness to follow the model (even if a few deviations were detected), and the leader introduces each phase in advance. In addition, she reminds the group of the rules, such as avoiding interrupting and asking follow-up questions (see Excerpts 8.6 and 8.7). However, the rules are occasionally the object for negotiation (see Excerpt 8.7). After the leader declines the question of deviating from the rules, the negotiation ends without leading to conflict, and the group continues with the phase as intended. This indicates that the group respects the assigned roles, particularly that of the group leader. Furthermore, all the supervisors participate in both questioning and advising, and the outcome of the session includes several concrete solutions. This group faces a few challenges worth observing. First, they have the tendency to rush through the phases. After approximately 1 h, the session is over, while most groups take between 1.5 and 2 h to complete a session (which is also what the model suggests). This haste appears to have had a strong impact on the conversation. One illustrative example is that, when Kevin mentioned several times that the student is dealing with some kind of personal issue (Extract 8.8), which makes him unsure of how to deal with the student, none of the other participants takes the opportunity to pursue this topic through their questioning. The haste might explain why the group did not take the opportunity to explore certain aspects of the problem in-depth, which likely compromised the quality of the solutions offered in the final phases. Another example of this hastiness is when the group leader concludes phase 6 (in which the participants offer their advice) prematurely. A few moments later, the group deviates from the scripted rules by revisiting the phase. This time they do not consider the turn-taking procedures of the model (Excerpt 8.8) and initiate a less formal structure that allows certain participants to dominate the conversation. Second, there is an absence of attention directed towards Kevin and his problem, which can be identified in different ways. The conversation is occasionally chaotic as participants were getting up to check their phones, sending emails from their computers, turning their back towards Kevin while he elaborated on the problem

146

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

and even leaving the room in the middle of the procedure (shortly after Excerpt 8.6). This lack of attentiveness hinders the in-depth collective reflections required to enter a creative and exploratory ‘interthinking mode’ as intended by the model. Furthermore, the unfortunate development of progressively offensive questioning only allows the group to accumulate trivial information, which does not encourage reflection. Despite the lack of focus detected in this session, the group participants (including Kevin) express that they are pleased with the outcome. Third, a few of the participants displayed a tendency to downplay the significance of the problem. In Excerpt 8.8, tension arises when several closed-ended and offensive questions are presented. The first questions pertain to whether the worst-­ case scenario is that the student does not deliver what is expected of him to the committee. The second question pertains to whether it would be ‘terrible’ for the student if the committee turns down his paper. A comment about how it is not really a big deal is added, further trivialising Kevin’s problem. The final question in this exchange takes it to the extreme in terms of disparaging the problem by comparing the student’s situation to one of deportation (the student is not a Norwegian citizen). The questioning is highly offensive, forcing Kevin to answer mainly yes or no in his defence. The offensive behaviour is not addressed, and the group moves on to the next stage without further ado. As we have seen through the analysis, the group runs in to a few challenges. Nevertheless, they do succeed in entering a social mode of thinking in their problem-­ solving activity, which—according to the problem owner—resulted in concrete and applicable solutions. Interactional characteristics in this interthinking process involved collective accumulation of information regarding the problem and complying with a set of ground rules concerning roles and turn-taking rules facilitated by the model. However, the group appears to be unable to reach deep exploration, creative interthinking and, thus, the full potential of the peer group mentoring.

Case 3: Resistance Towards the Model During the practice rounds prior to this session, Charlotte (the problem owner) makes various critical statements regarding the model. Several of the participants agree with her criticisms. One such criticism is that the model does not allow follow-­up questions and that several aspects of the model appear contrived. The problem that is introduced concerns a challenging collaboration between two supervisors who jointly supervise a particular student: Excerpt 8.11 1. Charlotte: When a student has more than one supervisor. And you are one of them … and 2. the student’s other supervisor wants to have joint sessions [with both supervisors and the 3. student], which I don’t want!

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

147

4. P1, P2, and P3: Laughter. 5. Charlotte: And on top of that, you’re the junior, and the other person is senior. […] So the 6. problem is how do you tell the other supervisor diplomatically that you don’t want joint 7. sessions? 8. Everyone: Laughter. This is followed by a brief discussion on whether the explanation was sufficient. In this discussion, it appears that the problem was real, but that it is now in the past. Subsequently, we also learn that the issue is a ‘merger’ of three problematic situations, Charlotte explains, adding that she will try her best to pretend that all three problems are ongoing ‘for the sake of the peer group mentoring’. Phase 4 begins with a discussion on what step of the model they have reached. The group leader clarifies this and reminds the participants of the ‘rules’. Charlotte is asked several questions, one of which is why the other supervisor wants to have joint sessions with Charlotte; her response is given below: Excerpt 8.12 1. Charlotte: I don’t know. Partly because I never asked and partly because I don’t remember. 2. One of the supervisors said something about why she wanted joint sessions, but I don’t 3. remember the details. When asked why Charlotte does not want joint sessions, she replies that she and the other supervisor fundamentally disagree regarding several aspects and that she does not want to discuss them in the student’s presence. However, a few minutes later, she has difficulty answering a question and provides the following explanation: Excerpt 8.13 1. Charlotte: I’m starting to get some past-present trouble now. So, all of this has already 2. happened. So ... okay, what about this: What if we imagine that one of the problems is from 3. the past and that the other is current? After a discussion, the group agrees to begin again, as it is too difficult to distinguish between present and past, on the one hand, and between three different problems, on the other hand. Charlotte suggests that she select a new problem. The others agree, and Charlotte begins to explain again the nature of the new problem before the other participants resume phase 4 and continue to ask questions. The leader interrupts the conversation occasionally to remind the group to ask open-­ ended questions and not to give advice. The problem owner now gives only brief

148

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

responses to the questions, often with a simple ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘both yes and no’ without any further explanation. Because the method does not allow for follow-up questions, the person who asked the question must, therefore, wait until their next turn to ask for more information. This dynamic gradually becomes rather clear and causes a great deal of hilarity, but very little progress is made in exploring the problem. Occasionally, the groups deviate from the method’s conversation rules to clear up ambiguities pertaining to what has been said: Excerpt 8.14 1. P1: How sure are you that you are right that this person [the cosupervisor] that 2. works on this topic is wrong? 3. Charlotte: One always thinks one is right. 4. P1: One can assign how confident someone is. 5. Charlotte: Quite confident […] 6. P3: So since this is your coprofessor’s field that he or she is working on, he or she 7. is going at it from a different perspective? 8. Charlotte: No. 9. P1: You said that you disagreed about the topic. 10. Charlotte: No, I did not disagree on that. That was the not question, right? 11. P3: The angle. 12. Charlotte: P3 asked if I thought that it was a problem that the cosupervisors had a different 13. perspective. 14. P3: That’s not what I meant to say. I was asking if … to see if you think that his [the 15. cosupervisor’s] perspective is wrong? 16. Charlotte: Yes. 17. P3: So he is going at it from the wrong perspective? 18. Charlotte: Yes. 19. P3: Okay. After this exchange, Charlotte goes on to say that the student would probably have fared better if she was her sole supervisor. One of the participants follows up by asking whether that is not a slightly arrogant thing to say—a comment that triggers more laughter in the group. In phases 5 and 6, Charlotte first presents two possible solutions. One is that the student continues with only one supervisor (herself). The second is that the two supervisors sit down together (without the student) and discuss how the supervision should take place. The group leader then initiates phase 6. He reminds the group that they can only give one piece of advice at a time and that he will write the advice on the whiteboard. Much of the advice is based on the solutions presented by Charlotte. Finally, Charlotte reviews the advice and puts a ‘plus’ sign beside the advice she wants to follow and a ‘minus’ sign against the advice she wishes to ignore. Because the problem is no longer ongoing, the problem owner concludes by commenting on

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

149

how she ended up dealing with the problem. She also adds new information regarding the problem. For example, she makes the following comment when one of the others advises her to divide the work tasks between the two supervisors: Excerpt 8.15 1. Charlotte: I just realised that I actually asked the other supervisor to distribute the 2. work tasks before we began the joint supervision sessions, but he thought it was a 3. bad idea. The ‘game’ that characterised the previous conversation (where the model was almost demonstratively opposed and ridiculed) is not played out in the meta-­ conversation that took place after the peer group mentoring sessions. The group talks together in a normal fashion, and the conversation has a more supportive and well-meaning tone than that previously displayed. It transpires that Charlotte felt that it was too general to discuss three different cases simultaneously. The other participants nod in agreement, and one participant adds that, although the three problems have certain aspects in common, the root cause is likely to differ. Another adds that it was challenging to ask open-ended questions, and a third mentions that the problem owner’s terse responses were problematic. Charlotte explains that she wanted to focus on what was actually being asked.

Analytical Comments: Example 3 This conversation begins with Charlotte showing resistance towards the peer group mentoring process by criticising the model. Several of the group participants indicate that they share this negative view, but there are also a few who want to give the method a chance. Thus, the interpretation of the model is marked by tension in relation to views, motives and an understanding of what peer group mentoring must entail. Resistance to the course in general and the model in particular dominates the entire session. Charlotte does not want to follow the instructions in the model. Thus, the case illustrates how the tool can impede or even hinder purposeful peer-­ mentoring conversations when participants’ expectations and interpretations are not aligned. This was already apparent in phase 1, in which she merged three cases from the past and explained that she would ‘pretend’ that the problems were current. The brief that the participants received prior to the course emphasises that they are to write about an actual problem that they are personally experiencing in their supervision of students, not something that has already been ‘resolved’. However, in this group, several of the participants say that this was not communicated sufficiently clearly. When Charlotte chooses not to follow these instructions, it is natural to view this as an expression of resistance. There is a lot of laughter in the group from the very beginning. It appears like nervous laughter, as if the group does not quite know in what they have gotten themselves involved in or what is expected of them. The hilarity can be interpreted as recognition

150

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

of the resistance that Charlotte expresses, but it can also be a manifestation of the comical situation of Charlotte almost demonstratively opposing all the principles of the model. Regardless of what caused the laughter, it distracts the group from focusing on the understanding the problem to offer constructive advice. The group leader, for his part, attempts to stick to the instructions for each phase, and it is naturally challenging to be faced with a problem owner who chooses to do things differently from what the model intends. The lack of a shared interpretation of the group’s ‘ground rules’ remains throughout the session. The mood in the group appears tense and uneasy, which is partially expressed in the form of nervous laughter and frequent comments on the model’s contrived phases and rules. Tension and resistance dominate the conversation. In addition to the resistance towards the model, tensions also develop within the group. This must be viewed in conjunction with their lack of clarity on what problem they are actually discussing and the absence of an agreed understanding regarding the activity they are participating in. There is little progress in the discussion, and a sense of frustration is evident among a few participants because Charlotte does not appear to take the peer group mentoring seriously. However, the group leader takes his task seriously throughout the session. Occasionally, the participants attempt to adopt this ‘serious’ approach to the method, while, at other times, they copy Charlotte’s resistant behaviour. In phase 4, Charlotte responds to many of the questions with a ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘yes and no’, instead of providing in-depth information as the model suggests. Excerpt 8.14 is an interesting example in this respect. Prior to this excerpt, Charlotte was engaged in a long exchange in which she mostly responds with different combinations of ‘yes’ and ‘no’. She is challenged by P1, who points out that the answers she is giving now do not correspond with her previous responses (see Excerpt 8.14). However, her answer does not make things any clearer. This happens again when P3 attempts to get clarity on something else that Charlotte has said, but this answer also does not provide clarification or help progress the exploration that P1 and P3 are attempting to undertake. The exchange ends with P3 saying ‘Okay’ in a resigned tone, which indicates that he does not want to continue discussing the topic and the conversation comes to a halt. The entire conversation session lasts for 90 minutes, but none of the topics raised in phase 4 are actually examined in depth as the model intends. The fact that a few participants follow the rules of the method while others use the session to demonstrate that the model is not practicable also creates an absence of respect for the input provided, thereby making it difficult to see any indication of interthinking. The frustration in this group has also been triggered by what they perceive to be unclear instructions in advance of the session. In the focus group interview, it emerges that they thought that the title of the course was misleading and that it was not properly explained how they should prepare by writing down an example from their personal experience. After they have completed all the phases and moved on to a meta-conversation, the conversation flows much easier than before. We interpret this as an indicator of resistance to the model as a mediator of action—a resistance that becomes so strong that it prevents both the problem owner and the remainder of the group from using peer group mentoring as an arena for developing in the role of supervisor.

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

151

Discussion In this chapter, we have examined the mediated activity of peer group mentoring in three problem-based mentoring groups. We specifically looked at how the model is interpreted by participants, how the model influenced on the interaction that was established in each group and how certain group dynamics appeared to support or hinder the development of interthinking throughout the sessions. We analysed interactions in three different cases that revealed a broad variation in how groups engage in peer group mentoring. We concentrated on the interplay between the participants and the model to grasp how the mediated activity was performed. In the following account, we address the first research questions regarding how the mediated activity of peer group mentoring unfold in three different groups. Appropriate facilitation is a requisite for peer group mentoring conversations to be productive (O’Neil & Marsick, 2009). However, in our empirical material, we found great variation in the manner in which groups interpreted and adopted the same model intended to facilitate the conversation. This variation occurred even if the mediating tool and the training the groups received were practically the same. In all three cases, the groups engaged actively with the phases, roles and rules for interaction of the peer-mentoring model. The model sets out clear guidelines that noticeably facilitated the conversations. All groups had a dedicated problem owner and group leader, and they alternated between explaining, questioning and attempting to find solutions to a challenging situation, as intended by the model. Simultaneously, the mediated activity evolved differently in each of the three group sessions. In the first case, focus was sustained on the problem throughout the session, and the participation was characterised by deep concentration, a willingness within the group to fulfil their roles as intended by the model and the participants taking the task seriously. In the second group, the participants also complied with the basic rules and roles of the model and the session led to several practical solutions applicable for the problem owner. However, new information that emerged during the conversation was not identified by the group and examined further. Moreover, the interactions were characterised by a lack of focus on the task. In the third group, a clear resistance from participants towards the model emerged early in the session and caused tension to build up between the participants and the model. The tension was observable in the interactions in terms of participants ridiculing the model, withholding information regarding the problem and the presentation of a problem consisting of three merged challenging situations that were no longer relevant for the problem owner. Although the two first cases present tendencies that can be found across the data corpus, the latter presents a notable exception. In response to our second research question, we now consider the ways in which the peer group mentoring model mediates interthinking. Creative interthinking occurs when people pursue a common goal and combine intellectual resources through jointly interpreting, understanding and remembering each other’s input (Littleton & Mercer, 2013). To achieve such a dynamic, the participants must accept and agree upon the conversation’s ground rules, remain focused on the task and share a common

152

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

goal for peer group mentoring. In approximately half of the observed peer-mentoring sessions, the participants shared their knowledge and experiences, as well as challenged and supported each other in a constructive manner. When tension arose, it was resolved without hindering the progression of the activity. Furthermore, we found that the responsiveness to the dynamics that develop must be finely tuned for groups to function well. Our analysis illustrated how each of the groups developed their own interpretation and use of the model, as well as their own pattern in terms of group dynamics and conversational style. In groups where the state of interthinking was achieved, focus was shared to a large extent, and there were various indicators that the participants—mediated by the structuring model—engaged with in-depth exploration of the presented problem. The advice was concrete and specific and often built on topics raised earlier in the conversation. Our analysis has revealed how questions were asked to help the problem owner to see the situation from new perspectives (see, e.g. Excerpt 8.2, line 6) and that participants followed up on what the previous speaker said by delving deeper into the same topic (see Excerpt 8.3). Perhaps the most important characteristic is that the groups agreed on their interpretation of the model in use and respect the distributed roles. In a few sessions, conversational characteristics included a lack of focus on the challenging situation, thereby derailing from the scripted model. Even though our analysis suggests that a few sessions were characterised by multiple distractions and other unpredicted incidents (such as the undermining of the problem illustrated in the second case; see Excerpt 8.8), the groups expressed satisfaction with the peer group mentoring and applicable and concrete advice was provided. The observed disturbance in case 3 was provoked by the chaotic organization in the group, with people moving around and not being attentive to the person talking and was also evident when participants questioned the model. However, when the model was questioned, the group negotiated the rules without further confrontations (see Excerpt 8.12). Thus, our findings indicate that going through the model’s phases is not necessarily sufficient to achieve creative interthinking; the groups must also adopt the underlying values of the tool, including attentiveness, trust and respect. Despite one group’s tendency to get derailed from the intended procedure, not taking advantage of the full potential that the peer group mentoring offers, concrete advice and solutions were produced. Thus, it is likely that even groups that do not manage to achieve deeper exploration and reflection can still benefit greatly from mentoring. Furthermore, an issue raised in this chapter’s theoretical section was that newly introduced tools can occasionally cause tension within groups and, in severe cases, hinder participants from going through with the mediated activity (Wertsch, 1998). Such instances were rarely detected in our material; however, we wanted to include the third case in to illustrate how tension can evolve in groups and overthrow the focus of the conversation and the participants’ opportunity to engage in interthinking. ‘Pressurising’ someone into using a strictly structured model when they do not wish to do so can have a very unfortunate consequence. Complex processes of dynamics and mediated actions determine what can be learned from peer group mentoring; the third example in our analysis reveals a dynamic that developed into

8  Problem-Based Peer Group Mentoring: A Tool for Faculty Development

153

a rather unconstructive conversation. It is reasonable to assume that those who participated did not get much out of the process, despite investing both time and energy in this throughout an entire semester. The peer-mentoring initiative was introduced by the management at the faculty, and the course is now mandatory for all supervisors of master’s students. This may have been a contributing factor to the resistance shown by a few participants.

Concluding Comments This chapter has investigated how peer-mentoring conversations developed as a mediated activity. Specifically, we studied how the peer group mentoring model as a mediational tool promoted or hindered the development of interthinking. Experiences from the Faculty of Humanities have shown that problem-based mentoring groups as a mediating tool have great potential for supporting learning and development in supervisors of master’s students, both at individual and collective levels, by engaging in interthinking. However, it requires participants to understand and accept the defined rules of play. Most groups in this project accepted the guidelines of the model and the associated connotations without any notable resistance. Most groups also reported that this manner of working together was highly beneficial. Our analysis demonstrated the importance of the participants having an agreed upon understanding of what they are involved in, thereby arriving at a unified interpretation of the ground rules and showing respect for each other and the peer group mentoring process as a common learning arena. Pressurising unwilling parties to participate in such a process can be destructive for everyone involved, and providing clear and unambiguous information prior to beginning the peer group mentoring process is crucial. The empirical examples that we have highlighted also show that the groups need time to coordinate their interpretation of the model. Finally, it was evident that teachers in higher education can learn a lot from each other through such a collaboration. However, it demands that the entire group engage in a committed manner and that they fully accept and respect the interactional ‘rules’ that their peer group mentoring is organised in accordance with. Based on our analysis, we recommend an initial phase to allow group members within a group to discuss and come to an agreement regarding the purposes of their collaboration, as well as how they can achieve these purposes in the best possible manner. No peer-mentoring model must be regarded as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ measure. On the contrary, a process of justifying and identifying a structure for the dialogue might prevent destructive communication patterns, as illustrated by case 3 in our study, and it could support creative interthinking in peer mentoring groups.

154

S. Bastiansen and L. Wittek

References Carlile, P.  R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. De Lange, T., & Wittek, A. L. (2018). Creating shared spaces: Developing teaching through peer supervision. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 25(4), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/1074903 9.2018.1544645 de Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Peer group mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Esterhazy, R., de Lange, T., Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, A. L. (2021). Moving beyond peer review of teaching: A conceptual framework for collegial faculty development. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990721 Gast, I., Schildkamp, K., & van der Veen, J.  T. (2017). Team-based professional development interventions in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 736–767. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317704306 Heikkinen, H., Jokinen, H., & Tynjälä, P. (Eds.). (2012). Peer-group mentoring for teacher development. Routledge. Hontvedt, M., Silseth, K., & Wittek, L. (2021). Professional collaboration in teacher support teams-A study of teacher and nurse educators’ creative problem-solving in a shared space for professional development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(2), 240–257. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401 Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically. Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making (482 p.). Information Age. ISBN 978-1-5931-1996-6 (hbk) Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking. Putting talk to work. Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203809433 Lumpkin, A. (2011). A model for mentoring university faculty. The Educational Forum, 75(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2011.602466 Maasø, A., & Simonsen, H. G. (this volume). Problem-based peer group mentoring and organisational learning. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203464984 O’Neil, J., & Marsick, V. J. (2009). Peer group mentoring and action learning. Adult Learning, 20(1–2), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/104515950902000105 Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. E., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446 Reid, E.  S. (2008). Mentoring peer mentors: Mentor education and support in the composition program. Composition Studies, 36(2), 51–79. Stensaker, B. (this volume). Re-building collegiality? In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Wertsch, J.  V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780195117530.001.0001 Wittek, A. L. (this volume). Feedback in the context of peer group mentoring—A theoretical perspective. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer.

Chapter 9

Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring Thomas de Lange

and Line Wittek

Abstract  This chapter focuses on how relational trust evolves within the context of peer group mentoring (PGM). Drawing on data from previous empirical contributions presented in the book, the chapter presents a reanalysis of how trust emerges through the participant’s interactional contributions and how this interaction provides a basis on which future supportiveness, openness and respect among the group members are based. The empirical illustrations in this chapter present how these trust relations are established and evolve in both problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM) and observational-based peer group mentoring (OPGM). Conceptually, the chapter draws on sociocultural perspectives of trust and how this emerges interactionally over time in professional settings. The findings from the empirical reanalysis are discussed in relation to this theoretical basis and compared with previous research on PGM in higher education. The implications drawn from the chapter relate to how trust that emerges in peer mentoring is decisive for its outcome and that the significance of knowing how to create trust in this setting is highly relevant for both implementation organisers and participants of PGM.

Introduction Peer group mentoring (PGM) for academic staff is based on the idea of arranging group discussions where colleagues can feel sufficiently safe to open up to each other (Sutherland, 2018; Thomson & Trigwell, 2018). Although PGM can be implemented differently and for different purposes, the principle of openness and trust is

T. de Lange (*) Department of Education, University of South-Eastern Norway, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] L. Wittek Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_9

155

156

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

fundamental (Benbow & Lee, 2019; Erlandsen & de Lange, 2017 Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016). In other words, for PGM to be successful, it is essential that participants establish trusted relationships (de Lange & Wittek, 2018; de Lange et  al., 2022; Lauvås et al., 2016). Although this establishment of trust is strongly underscored in the literature, only a few studies explore how these relationships emerge during concrete peer conversations (Ajjawi & Bound, 2015; Bearman & Molloy, 2017; Carless, 2013; de Lange & Wittek, 2020; Simon & Pleschová, 2021). In this chapter, we illustrate how trust emerges conversationally by following discussions in three different PGM sessions. Theoretically, the chapter draws on sociocultural perspectives, which we consider as particularly relevant in grasping relational characteristics of social interaction. Here, PGM activities are achieved through the participants’ rather strictly modelled PGM discussions (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume). Relational trust is crucial here because the participants in these settings often expose personal and sensitive aspects about themselves (Simon & Pleschová, 2021). The purpose of this analysis is to identify the formation of trust in these situations. To achieve this insight into the formation of trust, we have chosen to reanalyse three previous cases from the current book for the following reasons: First, analysing instantiations of trust is complex and presupposes a firm and rich contextual grounding. Doing this from scratch with three new cases is comprehensive and time-consuming. Second, drawing on previous cases allows us to accentuate how trust is naturally intertwined into PGM conversations. Separating this analysis can, therefore, come about as artificially missed on how it emerges intrinsically in PGM discussions. Finally, a reanalysis allows us to connect findings across chapters of the book. Based on these reasons, we consider a reanalysis both practically and principally valuable. Based on this grounding, we pose the following questions: –– What is trust, and how can it be defined in a way that is relevant to peer group mentoring practices? –– How does trust manifest itself in peer group mentoring conversations, and what bearing does this have on the participants’ contributions? After this introduction, the chapter goes on to clarify sociocultural concepts of relational trust relevant to PGM.  We use this conceptual basis to examine three selected cases, where we display how trust manifests itself in specific conversations, with particular emphasis on how this impacts the PGM outcome. At the end of the chapter, we discuss these findings in terms of the benefits to participants and implications for organisers in evaluating and reflecting on PGM practices.

Why Talk About Trust in Peer Group Mentoring? The purpose of PGM is to reflect on and further develop professional work and practices with help from colleagues. It is intended as a forum for discussing experiences, working strategies, formal knowledge and ethical considerations to how we

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

157

perform and operate as professionals. PGM is also intended to challenge established perspectives and provide a space for collegial refection, without necessarily prescribing correct answers (Sugrue et al., 2018). There is, however, no getting away from the fact that challenging and questioning established thoughts and practices make people feel exposed and vulnerable. In such situations, openness and trust are essential in peer discussions. It is in these situations that trust is pivotal to PGM, an aspect that has been documented in similar international research on academic development: To create the possibility of a ‘win zone’ we need to help teachers see academic development as a space of worthwhile work within a trusting and trusted community of colleagues. This echoes recent scholarship that demonstrates the importance of academic development focusing on meaningful questions and practices, holistic understandings of our colleagues and our work conditions that foster care, trust, and agency. (Pleschová et al., 2021, p. 202)

According to Pleschová et al., trust needs to be considered holistically in ways that contribute to the totality of our working conditions. This is very relevant in PGM, where we expose ourselves in the most revealing ways to a tightly knit community of colleagues (O’Keeffe et al., 2021) and where care and trust appear as inseparable elements (Iqbal & Vigna, 2021; Simon & Pleschová, 2021). What we see from this internationally rooted research on trust in academic development is that trusting relationships is something the participants need to build together and actively through conversations. The question is as follows: How can we conceptualise this conversational trust building in professional development settings such as PGM? How do we empirically analyse its formation? Below, we begin encircling this landscape by introducing a sociocultural perspective on relational trust.

Theoretical Perspectives on Trust In public discourse, trust is often regarded as a reflection of how well a society or organisation functions. However, as Trygve Gulbrandsen aptly argues, ‘It is at the level of action that trust is formed’ (2019).1 Thus, while trust is often regarded in a large-scale societal perspective, such as nations and social institutions, it is at the relational level that we can actually observe how trust is established and how it evolves. Here, trust is largely a question of how we relate to each other. One way of defining relational trust is the willingness to expose ourselves, such as putting ourselves in vulnerable situations where we run the risk of losing credibility (Kramer et al., 1996; Stensaker & Maassen, 2015). A relationship of trust will also involve a search for validation—for example, by others engaging with our own doubts and insecurities (Molloy & Bearman, 2019). In this dynamic between

 https://sosiologen.no/essay/essay/hva-er-tillit/

1

158

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

vulnerability and validation, reciprocity is key in understanding the emergence of trust in peer relations (see Wittek, Chap. 2, this volume). This dynamic is also at the centre of attention in Markova et al.’s book on Trust and Distrust (2008). The authors of this book maintain that trust is complex, with different contextual shadings. What they also offer is a conceptual demarcation into four dimensions that is helpful for empirical analysis: (a) primary trust, which concerns close care-­ relationships; (b) secondary trust, typical for closely knit communities  and friendship-­relations; (c) context-specific trust, which we typically see in professional settings; and (d) reflexive trust, which regards theoretical notions and discursive reflection. In our study of relational trust in peer mentoring, it is the dimension of context-specific trust (c) that is of particular interest. Here, context-specific trust is related to organisational practices and professional settings with a division of labour in which we must trust others to a certain extent in order to perform in the roles we are given. This professional form of trust is not primarily based on emotional ties but in a reliance on others to perform collectively. This form of trust also tends to engender a certain degree of vocabulary within the organisation that enables us to address interpersonal trust (Gillespie, 2008; Markova et al., 2008).

Trust in Peer Relations The above notion of trust in professional settings is directly relevant in higher education, where institutions rely on a complex allocation of roles and responsibilities. For example, this matters for teaching staff relying on admin services, management depending on academic staff qualifications and relational competencies to engage in collaboration and so on. A certain degree of contextual trust is, therefore, a precondition to enable universities, departments or educational programmes to function purposefully. If we extend this notion of trust to peer mentoring, we have to narrow our scope even further to the relational level—that is, how people interact (Markova et al., 2008). In PGM, the concept of contextual trust is an aspect we may explore empirically in how participants engage in dialogue. In this sense, our focus is on how contextual trust is achieved relationally through ongoing interactions. Hence, this relational trust is something that each peer group creates on its own as an internal group history of trust. An illustration of this is when a participant during a meeting shares an uncertainty or a controversial thought and how other group members deal with this initiative. The initial exposure is an ‘opening-up initiative’ that represents the first building block in the formation of relational trust (Seemann, 2009). Second, the groups response or ‘uptake’ is the second building block, which can take numerous forms and shapes (Saivolainen & Ikonen, 2016). Third, the initiators response to the ‘uptake’ determines the extent of common understanding that the group manages to create during the interactional sequence, also termed as ‘intersubjective connections’ (Markova et al., 2008) ‘Intersubjective connections’ signal how groups manage to establish a common sphere of understanding (Markova et  al., 2008).

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

159

How such connections evolve indicate the extent to which the groups engage in shared exploration and meaning negotiations. This form of conversation can waver and change thematically, but a core characteristic of ‘intersubjective connections’ is that the participants are able to keep the conversation open to a variety of inputs and build on each other’s opinions, insights and ideas, which is also critical. If the initiator feels that the essence of the input is not captured or that the response is not pertinent, the conversation will either come to a halt or will continue in a manner that the initiator does not agree with. In the latter case, several attempts will often be made to close the topic down, and if this is not successful, friction may arise (de Lange & Wittek, 2020). In both cases, the outcome is often that the initiator takes a step back, which can challenge the relationship of trust within the group over time. In cases of intersubjective connections, contrary outcomes may surface as confirmations or approvals from the initiator. Based on the conceptions above, we must be able to empirically identify how trust evolves in PGM discussions based on the following analytic elements: –– Opening-up initiative: Begins with one or more participant(s) exposing themselves (insight, opinion, description of events, reflections/thoughts on future choices, etc.). –– Uptake: Other group members respond to the initiative (i.e. identify the content of interactional response). –– Intersubjective connection: Trust building depends here on how the other actors react to the initiative and whether this response is something the initiator can identify with (exploring/questioning further vs. drawing conclusions, making judgements, etc.). –– Outcome: This concerns what the response leads to (i.e. the result or effect of the interactional episode is confirmed, or subsequent utterances, as a sign of a trust). Here, the outcome of the trust building can be further followed based on what the response leads to. A misinterpreted or conclusive approach will often recede or close down the theme, while an exploratory uptake more likely leads to further exploratory conversations (also critical), thereby encouraging the participants to adjust their considerations or future actions. This conceptual and analytic grounding also allows us to answer the first research question from the introduction of what is trust, and how can it be defined in a way that is relevant to peer mentoring? Based on the above conceptual grounding, the answer to this question is that trust in this context has a strong relational bearing that is progressively manifested through the participant’s interactions. In the following sections, this conceptual basis will provide us with an analytic lens to identify how relational trust is formed in specific peer mentoring session. In the following section, the analysis of how trust is empirically instantiated will be situated within two specific peer mentoring models—observation-based peer mentoring (OPGM) and problem-based peer mentoring (PPGM). These models bind the participants to specific conversational rules in ways that influence how the conversations progress. Therefore, it is important to be transparent with regard to the models prior to the three empirical examples we analyse below.

160

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

 nalysing Evolving Trust in Peer Group Mentoring: Two A Models and Three Examples The peer mentoring models that we have used in the PeTS project represent two different ways in which the participants collaborate and, thereby, have an impact on how trust develops in the dialogue. We explain each model in detail in this section and thereafter examine excerpts from peer mentoring conversations. We begin by explaining the OPGM model, followed by one empirical illustration and then a description of the PPGM model, followed by two empirical examples.

Material Three empirical examples were selected for analysing trust in this chapter. The first example illustrates a tendency we found in several observation-based mentoring situations, while the second and third examples represent a typical and a-typical development in PPGM conversations. Some of the discrepancies in these cases are of particular interest and is the reason for their selection for this analysis. The material from the three examples comes, respectively, from the Faculty of Theology (example 1), documenting OPGM sessions (see Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume) and the Faculty of Humanities (examples 2 and 3), presenting two PPGM sessions. In the first example, we see how trust is unveiled in discussions on teaching, while the second and third examples present dialogues discussing challenges related to master’s and PhD supervision. This reanalysis allows us to follow how differently relational trust evolved in different PGM settings. The data from the examples draw from a larger corpus of video data that have been transcribed verbatim, anonymised and analysed with a focus on conversational progress in PGM discussions. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the project was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data in autumn 2017 and data collected between 2018 and 2019. The selected excerpts are approached through a combination of thematic analysis and close-up interactional analysis. What is important to note in the following analysis is that the conversations below are from peer mentoring groups where the participants are not close colleagues. However, all the participants had met earlier during an introduction seminar in which the participants had been made familiar with the peer mentoring models. These premeetings created a foundational relationship among the participants before our observations, which is important to keep in mind when analysing how relational trust emerges.

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

161

 xample 1: Sequential Trust in Observation-Based Peer Group E Mentoring (OPGM) The first example deals with a dialogue in which the participants draw on a model aimed at discussion and reflection on practical teaching based on observation-based peer group mentoring (OPGM), as presented by Wittek et al. (Chap. 4, this volume). In Table 9.1, we can see the collaborative structure the participants in this group followed during their mentoring sessions. The model is based on mutual observation and feedback, where the participants begin by discussing teaching plans, examine each other’s teaching style and discuss and reflect on each other’s teaching by exploring opportunities for development. The peer group mentoring presented in Table 9.1 was conducted within the discipline of theology education. The participants were from the same faculty. The educational programme in question has also recently been reorganised; therefore, the group was particularly interested in discussing opportunities to create more coherence across subjects and teaching approaches at the faculty. In one of the mentoring processes, the participant called ‘Tom’ was asked to test out a teaching method in his subject, where the intention was to involve students more actively in the lessons. During the presupervision session, some uncertainty arose regarding the premise of Tom’s approach to his lesson: Excerpt 9.1 –– Anna: But what is it they’re doing with the presentation? They need to read a text and then present [their interpretation] to the class? –– Tom: Yes. –– Anna: Is it a coursework requirement? –– Tom: I said it was, but it isn’t. (They all burst into laughter.) –– Anna. I don’t recognise this [from the course description], you know … (They all laugh) … So it isn’t compulsory? (laughs) –– Tom: Yes, they have to attend, we can call it a collective effort … –– Anna: I’m fascinated by the fact that you just did it … the students tend to protest … Table 9.1  Procedure, observation-based peer group mentoring (OPGM) Prior to the session: Each participant writes a brief memo about (1) who the student is, (2) what will take place and why and (3) what they want feedback on. During the session, the participants discuss each other’s teaching based on memos Phase 2: Observation Each participant selects a teaching session in which the other group members join as observers. The observed teacher defines the focus of the feedback The entire group meets immediately after the teaching session to provide Phase feedback—first the main mentor and then the remainder of the group 3:Postsupervision session Phase 1:Presupervision session

Wittek et al. (Chap. 4, this volume)

162

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

–– Per: … Yes, they protest if it doesn’t appear in the course description. –– Tom: Do they? Hmm. I didn’t actually say it was a coursework requirement, just that it was a necessary part of the work. (They all burst into laughter again.) This is something you just have to do. As evident from the above excerpt, Tom planned to use an unusual teaching approach that was beyond the established norms at the faculty. The dialogue also shows Tom being upfront about pushing the boundaries but considered this as legitimate, given his good intentions of involving students actively in the lesson. The opening-up initiative stemmed from Tom’s choice to tell his colleagues about a teaching session that he knew included a problematic coursework requirement. The uptake to this initiative comes from Anna, who responded by questioning the coursework requirement. Per joined in with an uptake that confirms Anna’s questioning. In this uptake, Anna and Per identified the content and meaning of the initiative through questioning but without making ethical or moral judgements of Tom’s choices. It is also interesting to see how Tom dealt with this uptake based on pedagogical reasoning to achieve the desired student learning. However, Tom also admitted to pushing formal coursework boundaries. Although Tom’s opening initiative shows that he dared to put himself in a vulnerable position with his colleagues, the uptake from both his colleagues displays a critical and questioning openness without being repellent. Here, the intersubjective connection may be considered a situation in which Anna and Per were questioning but not depriving Tom of his own opening initiative. Below, we follow this conversation into the postsupervision session, in which the other participants in the group provided input after observing the teaching session: Excerpt 9.2 –– Anders: But I was wondering … is it fair to criticise students in that way? Is this a relevant thing to discuss during the lesson? Um, because it wasn’t the content of what was said, but more the way it was said … Because I think that what they really expressed was general uncertainty … –– Tom: Yes. –– Anders: And the students got this confirmed based on the feedback that their interpretation had been poor. –– Tom: Mmm, yes … –– Anders: And I noted what one of the students said at the end of the last lesson, about the fear of not being good enough … –– Tom: Yes, that’s true. –– Anders: … but this was not followed up. (short pause). –– Anders: But at the end of the second lesson, you had although a different kind of … mmm … altered objective. I think this worked really well! And it was completely natural for you to ask a different type of question here, where things were much more … symmetrical in the dialogue between you and the students.

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

163

–– Anna: Just to add my opinion, it was also here that I think … the last 15 minutes of the lesson … the dialogue there … I think it’s one of the best things I’ve ever heard at our faculty. Seriously! I think it worked really well! In Excerpt 9.2, the opening-up initiative of Anders’ was a response to Tom’s prior critique of the students’ presentations in the teaching session, which Tom considered as being below standard. Then, Anders initiated a discussion of the legitimacy of Tom’s criticism of the students. Anders continued to describe something he overheard during the observation, thereby drawing attention to a different perspective from Tom’s critique. Anders then invited a reflection on alternative experiences and possible consequences of the observed situation. This critical response was more probing than conclusive or judgemental. The input was very specific, making the situation recognisable and possible to recapitulate for Tom and the group. In the last portion of the excerpt, the thematic direction of the conversation changed, with Anders contrasting his foregoing critical question with clear acknowledgement of how Tom facilitated a good dialogue in the second part of the teaching session. This last acknowledgement was also confirmed by Anna. This initiative to Tom’s observed teaching can be seen as twofold: the content was both critically probing and positively affirmative. The opening-up initiative was also sufficiently specifically formulated to be recognisable for Tom; the critical questioning from Anders also avoided a direct conclusion, which was up to Tom, as the mentee, to consider himself. Nevertheless, Anders’ critical probing was still confrontational and runs the risk of Tom becoming defensive or withdrawing from the conversation. It is important to note that Anders also added another trust-oriented opening-up initiative at the end of the excerpt, which provided an opportunity for Tom to mirror the critique of the teaching method against the more successful sides of his lesson. Throughout the dialogue, Tom made various affirmative statements in response to Anders’ input, which signals uptake, but there were no explicit confirmations that affirmed intersubjective connection. To find a clearer indication of such a connection, we have to move to a later stage in the conversation: Excerpt 9.3 –– Tom: I find this is very intriguing because … the background is that … ehm … I agree with the point you make that it is pedagogically tricky (…). I mean, there have been presentations that have been so incredibly below par … and where I haven’t been clear in my response that ‘This is actually not good enough, listen now, you have to read the text, you can’t say these things’. So it was probably a pent-up desire for me to be clear on this after the presentations. But, but yes, I may have crossed a boundary. So I agree that I need to think this through. So ‘Lesson learned’ (…), especially when it isn’t a coursework requirement. In the excerpt above, several minutes later, Tom explicitly commented on Anders’ previous questioning of the observed teaching session. In this response, it is evident that Tom reacted by both acknowledging the opening initiative and further exploring and questioning this incident himself. In this utterance, Tom acknowledged the

164

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

previously critical questioning of his teaching, thereby establishing an intersubjective connection. In this sense, the dialogue above indicates an accomplished relational trust. Furthermore, we see that the root of this relational trust can be traced all the way back to the presupervision session, in which the other participants in the group problematised Tom’s teaching plan. We also see that the critical input Tom received has initiated a deeper reflection on the demands that Tom placed on the students and how this impacts the way the students experienced the lesson. The analysis above identifies what is at stake in terms of trust. Opening-up initiatives, such as in the above dialogue, run the risk of being rejected. Those who play the role of opening-up initiators in a dialogue usually know this. Creating trust rests here, on the one hand, on Tom exposing himself by opening up a problematic side of his teaching to his colleagues. There are countless ways of avoiding such a risk, something we often see in peer mentoring when participants select safe teaching sessions to be observed. On the other hand, Anders, Per and Anna also took risks by confronting Tom with critical questions related to his teaching plan and lesson performance. In terms of trust, an interesting dynamic unfolded through these risks. Taking the second excerpt as an example, a trust-building initiative by Anders was to refer to Tom’s own actions as a possible solution to the identified lesson imbalance. In doing so, Anders expressed trust in Tom himself having the capacity to handle situations appropriately, based on his own judgement. We can also consider this as preparation for intersubjective connectivity, which is an important part of the trust-building process. In summary, the conversation from Tom’s first opening-up initiative to his final confirmative recapitulations demonstrates how trust has evolved dynamically through sequences of interactions among the involved parties in the group. In this sense, the outcome of this conversation was based on a cyclic negotiation between initiatives and confirmations forming mutual validations in the group. We also see that mutual confirmations are temporally scattered in discussions within singular peer-mentoring meetings with several thematic shifts along the way and across preand postsupervision meetings. These temporal leaps occur naturally but are decisive in analysing and understanding how trust is formed and negotiated. An important element in this is that various inputs and thematic sequences at any point in mentoring discussions can establish themselves as underlying assumptions that may pop up at any subsequent point in the conversation. Therefore, the illustrated balance in which Tom not only received criticism but was also shown trust was important for preventing the mentee from becoming overly pressurised. Furthermore, the mentoring model in this example had a bearing on the conversation by facilitating a discussion that was open for shaping by the participants themselves. This open form does require participants to consider how their opening-up initiatives and uptakes provide opportunities for further intersubjective connectivity by their colleagues. This implies that each participant has the responsibility to balance their input in a manner that is perceived as honest, constructive and supportive.

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

165

 xample 2: Cumulative Trust in Problem-Based Peer Group E Mentoring (PPGM) The second example deals with two dialogues that take place within the problem-­ based peer mentoring model (PPGM) presented by Bastiansen and Wittek (Chap. 7, this volume). These mentoring discussions focused on challenges the participants experience in supervision. The PPGM approach involved groups of four to six participants, where the participants prepared for the sessions by writing memos describing the situation they wanted to discuss. The group then met to discuss each individual situation, with the participants following a strict set of conversational rules, as presented in Table 9.2. Compared with the OPGM model in the first example, the PPGM model sets a firmer framework for the discussions by indicating whose turn it is to speak and type input (questions, answers, clarification and advice). In this manner, the participants are expected to follow a systematic scheme through the conversation. The purpose of the firm structure is to extract underlying information in each case, thus providing a richer foundation for each peer to understand the presented challenge and give advice. Therefore, the PPGM model is more about understanding underlying complexities rather than facilitating reflective conversations (Cho & Marshall, 2009; Lauvås et al., 2016). Below, we take a closer look at two dialogues that follow this model and, through analysis, unveil the formation of trust in this setting. In the excerpt below, the data present a conversational episode in phase 4 (clarification), in which the group members were taking turns in asking clarifying questions to Mari, the problem owner (PO). Mari’s problem was that she struggled with establishing a functional relationship with the PhD student she was currently supervising. We enter the conversation about halfway through phase 4: Table 9.2  Procedure, problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM) Phase 1: Presentation Phase 2: Selecting a problem Phase 3: Explanation

Each participant presents their case Participants choose which case they want to discuss

The owner of the selected problem explains the issue in greater detail Phase 4: Clarification Each group member takes turns to ask questions with a view to clarifying the case Phase 5: Owner’s suggested The problem owner explains their own solution proposal solutions Phase 6: Advice Each group member takes turns to offer advice Phase 7: Evaluation of The problem owner reviews the list of advice and considers which advice advice should be followed up Bastiansen and Wittek (Chap. 7, this volume)

166

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

Excerpt 9.4 –– Doris: Do you feel responsible for ensuring that the personal dynamics work well when supervising your students? –– Mari/PO: Well, both parties are responsible for the relationship to work well, right? But I think it’s— –– Tina: Mm, have you found other students to be challenging in this way? –– Mari/PO: … not like this, no. At least not here [current institution]. I’ve seen it before with older students … that they sort of challenged me … and couldn’t accept that I as a younger person might be able to teach them something. –– Tina: Mm. –– Mari/PO: It makes me a little frustrated. If you come to the university and are a student … you may have more life experience, but I am a specialist in the field, right? –– Everyone: Mm … [nodding] –– P2: Is it easier to get frustrated or show authority … when dealing with someone older … compared with a younger PhD student? –– Mari/PO: No, their age has nothing to do with this. It has to do with whether I feel … if I experience them [being] disrespectful to me. As evident from the excerpt above, ‘Doris’ began with a question regarding responsibility in the supervisor relationship, which Mari answered and elaborated upon. Then, we see that the other participants in the group took turns to ask questions that build further on previous questions and Mari’s responses. If we look at this excerpt in light of the concept of trust, the opening-up initiative can be seen as Mari’s uncertainty about her role as a supervisor and how she should handle the relationship with one of her students. The following uptake of the group members is the structured questioning, which gradually revealed elaborate information about Mari’s case. If we look at the content of these responses, this questioning approach drove the conversation further with a firm focus on the problem owner. The questioning was not evaluative, thereby giving Mari the opportunity to elaborate with minimal pressure. This gave the entire conversation a cumulative character while simultaneously enabling Mari to maintain a degree of control. In this manner, the conversation developed a gradual and cumulative intersubjectivity. However, at the point in the conversation where Excerpt 9.5 takes place, we do not know the outcome of the conversation or the extent to which Mari experienced that the discussion has provided her with new and actionable perspectives of the situation. To show this outcome, we need to make a leap to the end of the mentoring session, where Mari reflected on her experience from the questioning of her peers: Excerpt 9.5 –– Leader: Is there anything else? –– Mari: There is a possibility … that this case also has to do with a feeling of not fitting in. For example, I could try to talk to her (the student) about it … not in an accusatory way, but as a gentle sort of conversation between peers. –– (…)

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

167

–– Mari: I hadn’t thought about the factor of authority as being a part of the problem. But I realise it now, I actually find it challenging to assert authority over the students that I supervise. As evident from Excerpt 9.5, Mari reflected on the accumulated input she has received over a period of approximately 45 min of questioning. A number of interesting aspects come to light at this end stage, which point us towards an outcome of the mentoring conversation. First, she explained that she now thought more about the student’s point of view and her own role in the relationship with the student. She also said that the mentoring session gave her a more nuanced view of the challenges she was experiencing related to her authority as a supervisor, something she was enabled to identify based on her peers’ open-ended questioning. In summary, trust in the above conversation developed from Mari’s initiative, through collectively exploratory questions, which at the end of the session again led her to open up a previously unrealised factor that may explain her uncertainties as a supervisor. Consequently, the entire group was provided an opportunity to gain insights into Mari’s insecurity and how this insecurity can be addressed in the future. In doing so, the group jointly built trust all the way to the final outcome of this conversation cycle. Furthermore, compared with the first example of OPGM, the current case displayed no disruptive thematic shifts such as we saw in example 1. In this respect, the strict conversational rules of the PPGM moderated the peers’ opportunity in voicing their opinions in the same critical and challenging manner as in the first example. In this sense, the participants’ trust in the conversational rules of the PPGM model was a primary condition for this accumulative trust to evolve. However, not all PPGM groups may be comfortable with the model used in example 2. Hence, Mari and her group can use this model successfully because they accept the structure as a guiding premise, even though the participants feel an urge to intervene with both concluding remarks and advice during the questioning phase. This restraining structure is often regarded as unnatural and even oppressive, which brings us to the third example in which yet another group struggled with developing a relationship of trust.

 xample 3: Disrupted Trust in Problem-Based Peer Group E Mentoring (PPGM) In this example, we look at a group that used the same conversation structure as that in example 2. Examining the selected excerpts more closely, we can see that this conversation does not have the cumulative effect that was apparent in the previous example. In the extract below, Charlotte (PO) expressed an unwillingness to collaborate with her cosupervisor. During the first rounds of questioning, it became unclear whether this was a current problem or an imaginary case. Below, we enter this conversation at a point at which the mentee was explicitly expressing this lack of clarity to the group:

168

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

Excerpt 9.6 –– Charlotte/PO: I’m starting to get some past-present trouble now. So all of this has already happened. So ... okay, what about this: What if we imagine that one of the problems is from the past, and that the other is current? At this point in the conversation, the questioning in phase 4 has begun. But the way the mentee responded to the other participants’ questions made it unclear if the presented case is, in fact, an opening-up initiative by Charlotte. On the one hand, this may indicate that Charlotte did not want to open up to the group, but it may also be an indication that she did not consider previous discussions in the group as productive or relevant. Thus, the relationship of trust between the mentee and other participants was put to the test. In the next excerpt, we follow how this relationship evolved further by looking more thoroughly into the interactional exchanges of the questioning phase. Prior to this excerpt, Charlotte described a situation in which she and her cosupervisor disagreed about how to supervise a candidate. She has also expressed high confidence that her approach was preferable. The episode below displays how the other group members attempt to clarify this disagreement: Excerpt 9.7 –– Mark: Because the student’s topic is a bit outside both supervisors’ field of research, is it the case that you have different approaches to the student’s challenges? –– Charlotte/PO: No. –– Laura: You said that you disagreed about the approach the student had chosen. –– Charlotte: No, we don’t disagree about the student’s approach. That was the question, right? –– Mark: Do you have different approaches? –– Charlotte/PO: Mark asked if we as supervisors have different approaches. –– Mark: That’s not what I meant, but do you think the other supervisor’s approach is wrong? –– Charlotte: Yes. –– Mark: So the other supervisor has a different approach? –– Charlotte: Yes. –– Mark: Okay. As evident from Excerpt 9.7, other group members were making an uptake effort in responding to the problem owner’s case description and answers, hereby attempting to identify the content of previous questions and answers. However, the mentee’s answers were confusing and appear to be contradictive. This provided few opportunities for the others in the group to think up relevant follow-up questions, which made it difficult to establish cumulative intersubjective connections. Because the structure of the PPGM model required the initiator to be open to further elaborations, building trust in this disruptive conversation appeared difficult, given that the flow of information is continuously interrupted. Regarding the outcome, the group failed to progress with a deeper insight into the problem.

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

169

In the excerpt above, the dialogue was on the verge of breaking down. During this conversation, Charlotte appeared to not accept the premises of the PPGM guiding the conversation, making it difficult to develop trust between her and the other group members, thereby making it almost impossible to gain anything of value from the mentoring session. If we turn the spotlight towards the structure and framework of the last peer mentoring conversation, the participants did not follow the set structure very closely. However, the participants did raise several critical questions regarding the mentoring model both before and during the conversation. Clearly, Charlotte did not want to follow the modelled instructions, and others also expressed scepticism. In contrast to the development in example 2, where the conversation structure was accepted, the last example indicates a distrust of the model, which led to a lack of opening-up initiatives, adequate uptakes and intersubjective connections to accumulate an in-depth understanding of the problem being discussed. There may be several reasons for this dialogue breakdown, but either way, it makes little sense to continue such a conversation in peer mentoring without being able to establish relational trust.

Why These Variations in Trust Development? If we compare the three examples above in terms of building trust, the three dialogues assume rather different directions. In the first example, Tom and his group accepted the premise of mentoring both by initiating an openness about problematic aspects of teaching and through other group participants taking the opportunity to challenge Tom on his choices. An important aspect of how the relationship of trust develops in this group rested on a balance between critical probing and supportive statements on qualities that are worthy of preserving. Here, the input was specific and clearly referred to earlier events in the mentoring sessions. Furthermore, the first mentoring model requires the participants themselves to be aware of how they formulate their input to avoid pushing the mentee too hard. In the second example, we see how Mari, in the role of initiator, opened up to her group from the outset and how the other participants in turn responded with open-­ ended questions. Together with Mari’s answers, this created a cumulative development of gradually increasing the insights into the issue raised. We see that all the participants accepted the premise of both the problem owner and rest of the group, hence trusting each other, and that the model will help to keep the conversation on a constructive and supportive path. Furthermore, we see that the responsibility of each participant in example 1 to provide a balanced response was, to a greater extent, dictated by the rules of the conversation structure in the second example, where the participants were expected to ask open-ended and exploratory questions. In the third example, we see the opposite outcome, in which several members of the group did not accept the premise of the mentoring model. Charlotte did not open up as the initiator in a manner that allowed the group to jointly explore the issue, and

170

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

several of the participants also did not accept that the conversation structure should override free dialogue. Thus, the trust building in the group broke down, and Charlotte benefited little from the peer mentoring. In this latter case, we see a mismatch between ‘initiative’ and ‘response’, here rooted in the participants’ unwillingness to accept the expectations embedded in the mentoring model. This latter outcome also has clear consequences for the development of trust because it is less cumulative compared with the outcomes of the two first examples.

Discussion Based on the examples, we can attempt to answer the second question posed in the introduction: How does trust manifest itself in peer mentoring conversations, and what bearing does this have on the participants’ interactional contributions? It is relevant to also revisit the theoretical perspectives of Markova et al. (2008) to shed light on how our analysis can be connected to more overarching notions of trust. The first interesting feature we registered in our study of PGM is that none of our data suggest that any of the participants refused to establish a relationship of trust because they did not accept the other participants’ ability to provide constructive input. This implies that, even in groups where individual members are critical to participation, no one states that this is because they believe that others do not understand the mentee’s role or function as a teacher or supervisor. Thus, an important overarching premise of trust in which colleagues have faith in each other’s judgement in this peer mentoring context is generally apparent. Here, it is important to note that the participants were not close colleagues, which may have contributed to the participants opening up more easily to each other when talking about the shortcomings in their own supervision. How this relative unrelatedness influenced the development of trust in peer group mentoring settings is underexplored and must be studied further to provide answers on how such activities may be improved. Second, if we take a step closer to the specific conversation sequences from the analysis in this chapter, several features become apparent in terms of how trust evolves and establishes itself in the groups. An important prerequisite for building trust in the dialogue is based on the participants’ agreement of how to engage with the PGM models. This can emerge implicitly but is also often explicitly negotiated, where the conversational model is adapted to the group’s own needs and interests. Moreover, where agreement is not reached, we see that the dialogues are marked by ambiguity, uncertainty and even frustration. It is crucial that the models constitute an important starting point for the PGM conversations. Here, trust in the conversations depends on how these agreements are established. We can describe this as an overarching foundation for developing trust in the groups. A third and vital aspect is how trust is built through conversational episodes in the mentoring sessions. This is basically concerned with how the participants act towards each other and the extent to which they dare to open up and reveal their

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

171

insecurities and vulnerabilities in relation to their own professional practice. How trust develops depends on how the other participants react to the openness of the mentee and whether they adopt a probing and nonjudgemental approach. In no way does this exclude a critical probing approach, provided that it is rooted in specific events that are identifiable by the participants. However, each individual participant has a responsibility to continuously ensure that critical input is formulated and balanced in a manner that validates the recipient of the criticism. This balance between criticism and validation is not easy to prescribe but will depend on the character of the individual participants and conversational climate that develops internally in the groups. When coupled with a probing approach, input that refers to specific events will stimulate joint exploration of issues and build trust in the mentoring conversation. In addition, a clear feature in almost all chapters is the value of a probing approach in which the participants systematically elaborate on the issue being discussed. Each question, therefore, provides an opportunity for the group to clarify their own understanding of the case, thereby ensuring further insight into the situations commented upon. In numerous work settings—particularly in contexts where colleagues guide or mentor each other—this question-based exploration is something that more time should be spent on to avoid input based on a limited information basis, which is often the case in everyday conversations. Finally, it is important to note how trust in PGM develops over time. As seen in the empirical examples, individual thematic episodes play a large role in how we build relational trust at a more detailed level in the conversations. This is particularly interesting when addressing cumulative trust, which develops during conversations in singular sessions but also across meetings. In this sense, it is evident that individual episodes do not disappear but regularly reappear, with participants referring to them as previous events of significance. This is done continuously, partially to give meaning to a participant’s statements, but also to confirm, clarify and justify their input. An important aspect of trust here is that the participants actively refer to and use each other’s earlier statements to progress the conversations. Although this is also common in everyday conversations, it is interesting to see how it is given a more systematic and focused quality in the PGM conversations, which—to a large extent—rest on the models structuring the conversations. Consequently, we see a pattern of interaction in which the conversations systematically progress with a clear focus addressing the mentees’ interests and perspectives. Furthermore, we also see how the group participants cumulatively build on each other’s input in a more systematic manner, which helps deepen each participant’s insight into the issues under scrutiny. This insight does not in any manner need to be based on agreement. On the contrary, legitimate disagreement often provides opportunities to examine each other’s views, contribute to fruitful reflection and pave the way for discussions regarding alternative solutions. What is important is that there is room for reasoned disagreement and that the mentee does not feel pressured into making professional choices based on the recommendations of others.

172

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

Revisiting the theoretical perspectives introduced at the beginning of the chapter, we recall that we placed PGM within the domain of context-specific trust (Markova, 2008). This typically concerns how trust is constituted in professional settings in which we must rely on our colleagues to function in their given roles. We also emphasised the importance of how trust evolves relationally, thereby emphasising the significance of social interaction in such settings (Markova et  al., 2008; Saivolainen & Ikonen, 2016; Seemann, 2009). Based on our empirical analysis, it is now interesting to place our observations of the PGM conversations within this conceptual domain. In our analysis, we have shown how trust in the peer mentoring context is manifested in different ways based on (1) the PGM models’ roles and the application of these, (2) how thematic individual episodes unfold and (3) how the conversations build across thematic episodes. Here, PGM is an activity in which colleagues create a shared space discussing professional challenges and situations. Mirrored against Markova et al. (2008), this activity emerges as an interface between mentoring and professional practice, where trust must be interactionally achieved. This interface also represents a free space that is partially beyond the participant’s actual professional activity, while still focusing on how to handle their professional life. In this sense, trust is only partially preestablished and will, therefore, always have to be created and maintained in each PGM session to function as a supportive setting for its participants. In this sense, PGM is a boundary zone activity characterised by dialogue across established communities (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011), where explicit awareness of relational trust is particularly useful. What, then, does this mean in terms of introducing and implementing PGM in practice? First, we focus on the importance of the various mentoring models used. We know from the current study that active discussion among participants on how they interpret the intent behind the PGM model and on how they can achieve the objective of the structure is important for establishing trust. PGM usually works well in groups that have reached such an agreement, while in cases where this has not been achieved, it can lead to conversation breakdowns. We also see that the experiences with the mentoring models differ among groups and that the different models require slightly different approaches. For example, a more open and reflective approach (example 1) is often easier to gain acceptance for, while a strict and structured framework (example 2) may require more preparation and clarification of expectations. As these examples have shown, the models help to set clear guidelines on conversations and ensure that each group takes time to discuss what this entails prior to initiating the process. It is important to be aware that the groups’ experiences with these models are also linked to their implementation at the organisational level. PGM tends to be a measure that is initiated with an overarching perspective, and participation may not always be strictly voluntary. Regardless of whether or not participation is voluntary, we believe that it is important to be sensitive to the participants’ needs and give the freedom to adapt the group mentoring based on justified desires because this will be a determining factor in how trust emerges.

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

173

Concluding Comments Based on the empirical research in this book and analysis, trust emerges as both a vital part in making PGM work but also as something that must be actively constructed and nurtured in the peer groups. Given these dynamics, the emergence of trust is not something that can be planned in detail and completely controlled in advance. Rather, as touched upon in the introduction, this requires an attentiveness to how trust arises and develops in a way that cannot be taken for granted. As we have seen from research in similar settings, trust stands out as a cultivating factor in professional conversations (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Esterhazy et al., 2021; Gosling, 2014; O’Keeffe et al., 2021). In this sense, developing systematic insight into the emergence of trust in PGM can help us be attentive to how this may be further supported and grow more firmly into modelled strategies that support the collegial conversations (Iqbal & Vigna, 2021; Pleschová et al., 2021). This chapter is an attempt to do this by extending our insights into this issue and, in doing so, hopefully foster future discussions and developments that contribute to prevent— rather than repair—broken peer group relations.

References Ajjawi, R., & Bound, D. (2015). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional analysis approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252–265. Akkerman, S., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Problem-based peer group mentoring: A tool for faculty development. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Bearman, M., & Molloy, E. (2017). Intellectual streaking: The value of teachers exposing minds (and hearts). Medical Teacher, 39(12), 1284–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0142159X.2017.1308475 Benbow, R.  J., & Lee, C. (2019). Teaching-focused social networks among college faculty: Exploring conditions for the development of social capital. Higher Education, 78, 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-­018-­0331-­5 Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. Routledge. Carless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In I. D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well (pp. 9–103). Routledge. Cho, Y., & Marshall, T. E. (2009). Action learning research: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), 431–462. de Lange, T., & Lauvås, P. (2018). Kollegaveiledning I høyere utdanning. UNIPED, 41(3), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-­8981-­2018-­03-­07 de Lange, T., & Wittek, A.  L. (2018). Creating shared spaces: Developing teaching through peer supervision. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039. 2018.1544645

174

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

de Lange, T., & Wittek, A.  L. (2020). Analysing the constitution of trust in peer-based teacher mentoring groups: A sociocultural perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(3), 337–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1724936 de Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Peer mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. de Lange, T., Wittek, A.  L., & Bjerknes, A. (2022). Trust in peers: Conditions of trust in faculty-­based peer review of teaching in Norway. Higher Education Dynamics, 57, 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­87037-­9_8 Esterhazy, R., de Lange, T., Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, L. (2021). Moving beyond peer review of teaching: A conceptual framework for collegial faculty development. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990721 Gillespie, A. (2008). Trust in everyday interaction. In I. Markova & A. Gillespie (Eds.), Trust and distrust: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 121–127). Information Age Publishing. Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative peer-supported review of teaching. In J.  Sachs & M.  Parsell (Eds.), Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 13–31). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­7639-­5_2 Gulbrandsen, T. (2019). Hva er tillit? [What is trust?]. Sosiologen. https://sosiologen.no/essay/ essay/hva-­er-­tillit/ Erlandsen, L., & de Lange, T. (2017). Studenten som veileder—erfaringer fra Krigsskolens lederutdanning. UNIPED, 40(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-­8981-­2017-­02-­02 Ikonen, M. 2013. Trust development and dynamics at dyadic level. A narrative approach to studying processes of interpersonal trust in leader–Follower relationships. PhD thesis, University of Eastern Finland. Iqbal, I., & Vigna, J. (2021). Care in collaborations: Opening up conversations about teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 383–387. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1360144X.2021.1937183 Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. In I. R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 357–389). Sage. Lauvås, P., Lycke, K.  H., & Handal, G. (2016). Kollegaveiledning med kritiske venner. Cappelen Damm. Maasø, A., & Simonsen, H. G. (Eds.). (this volume). Problem-based peer mentoring and organisational learning. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Markova, I., & Gillespie, A. (2008). Trust and distrust: Sociocultural perspectives. Information Age Publishing. Markova, I., Linell, P., & Gillespie, A. (2008). Trust and distrust in society. In I.  Markova & A. Gillespie (Eds.), Trust and distrust: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 3–27). Information Age Publishing. Molloy, E., & Bearman, M. (2019). Embracing the tension between vulnerability and credibility: ‘Intellectual candour’ in health professions education. Medical Education, 53(12), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13649 Mårtensson, K., & Roxå, T. (2016). Leadership at a local level: Enhancing educational development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 247–262. https://doi. org/10.1177/1741143214549977 O’Keeffe, M., Crehan, M., Munro, M., Logan, A., Farrell, A. M., Clarke, E., Flood, M., Ward, M., Andreeva, T., Van Egeraat, C., Heaney, F., Curran, D., & Clinton, E. (2021). Exploring the role of peer observation of teaching in facilitating cross-institutional professional conversations about teaching and learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1954524

9  Analysing the Emergence of Trust in Peer Group Mentoring

175

Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. E., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446 Saivolainen, T. I., & Ikonen, M. (2016). Process dynamics of trust development: Exploring and illustrating emergence in the team context. In I. S. Jagd & L. Fuglsang (Eds.), Trust, organizations and interaction: Studying trust as process (pp. 231–256). Edward Elgar Publishing. Seemann, A. (2009). Joint agency: Intersubjectivity, sense of control, and the feeling of trust. Inquiry, 52(5), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201740903302634 Simon, E., & Pleschová, G. (2021). PhD students, significant others, and pedagogical conversations. The importance of trusting relationships for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1949324 Stensaker, B., & Maassen, P. 2015. A conceptualisation of available trust-building mechanisms for international quality assurance of higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy Management, 19(1), 30–40. DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2014.991538 Sugrue, C., Englund, T., Solbrekke, T. D., & Fossland, T. (2018). Trends in the practices of academic developers: Trajectories of higher education? Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2336–2353. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1326026 Sutherland, K. A. (2018). Teaching, research, and service activities and preferences in the work lives of New Zealand early career academics. In Early career academics in New Zealand: Challenges and prospects in comparative perspective (Vol. 20). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­61830-­2_4 Thomson, K.  E., & Trigwell, K.  R. (2018). The role of informal conversations in developing university teaching? Studies in Higher Education, 43(9), 1536–1547. https://doi.org/10.108 0/03075079.2016.1265498 Wittek, L. (this volume). Feedback in the context of peer group mentoring: A theoretical perspective. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Wittek, L., Kartzow, M. B., & Hermansen, H. (this volume). Interactional dynamics in peer mentoring. In Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer.

Chapter 10

Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How Should We Proceed? Thomas de Lange

and Line Wittek

Abstract In this chapter, the editors summarise the general experiences gained from launching the research conducted within the PeTS project and what peer group mentoring (PGM) may be offered in developing supportive collegial spaces in the experimented university settings. In particular, the editors address the flexibility PGM provides with opportunities stretching from interdisciplinary and cross-­ contextual measures to context-sensitive and discipline-specific approaches, but also for addressing organisational and institutional challenges and needs. In reflecting on this flexibility and applicability, the editors discuss the significance these findings have in relation to broader implementation in higher education and for the purpose of faculty development. The chapter also underlines the challenges associated with PGM and the need for further research and coherent conceptualisations to develop the field further, as illustrated through activity theoretical notions. Finally, the editors present some selected recommendations for further research and recommendations for PGM practitioners.

Introduction Overarchingly, this book has revealed how peer group mentoring (PGM) has been implemented and experimented within four different higher education academic communities. Most of the chapters have demonstrated how teachers and supervisors have participated in and experienced peer group mentoring as a basis for developing their own teaching and supervising. From the outset, the aims of the PeTS project T. de Lange (*) Department of Education, University of South-Eastern Norway, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] L. Wittek Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_10

177

178

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

were to collaboratively develop these practices and document how this unfolded across these disciplinary settings. Based on this foundation, the book has aimed to address the following three overarching questions: 1 . How does PGM condition collective knowledge-sharing and development? 2. What obstacles may emerge related to the implementation of PGM? 3. How can these findings inform further conceptualisation and implementation of PGM practices? In addressing these questions, it is important to connect these summarising notions to international research. A particularly relevant source in this respect is the special issue ‘Conversations that Make Meaningful Change in Teaching, Teachers, and Academic Development’ (Pleschová et al., 2021). In this special issue, the editors argue that repeated coteaching and intensive collaboration result in collegial support and care and a willingness to experiment, as well as contributing to the development of insight into teaching and learning (p. 207). The editors also state that care and trust are core conditions in altering productive conversations about teaching practices within these settings. Interestingly, the current book throughout all the chapters draws similar conclusions as Pleschová et al. (2021). However, although the mentioned special issue of Pleschová et al. brings forward a range of interesting nuances with rather different mentoring methods and presents findings from rather differentiated contexts, the current book provides a more coherent implantation with more detailed in-depth analysis of specific peer group mentoring models. Hence, the current book allows us to elaborate further on the topics raised by Pleschová et al.’s special issue, but within a more framed PGM environment and how this evolves as an arena for potential collegial learning, knowledge-sharing, care and trust. An additional and core premise in the current book and the PeTS project is also that these documented PGM activities are based on two approaches that specifically aim at establishing symmetric relations and a democratic dialogue. This gives the whole project a distinctive formative grounding for collegial learning and discussion. Drawing on an extensive empirical basis of how these PGM approaches have been implemented, the project and current book provide a unique glimpse into this kind of mentoring practice in a higher education context. To achieve this, the PeTS project has been firmly organised around four specific academic communities that have been involved as close collaborative partners with clear responsibilities in implementing peer group mentoring in their own environments, adjusting these implementations based on local experiences as well as contributing to the data collection, analysis and publishing results. This close involvement of project partners has been vital to deeply explore how the implementation of PGM has evolved and impacted on the involved participants and their organisational surroundings. To gain this kind of insight is one of the main motivations of the project but also an important premise for uncovering the hindrances and obstacles emerging along the way. Our analysis of these PGM processes is also based on an overarching activity theoretical and methodological grounding, which, to the best of our knowledge, is

10  Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How…

179

rather exceptional in the research on peer group mentoring in higher education. This theoretical and methodological consistency has also made it possible to bring together our research findings in a way that may bring this research field a step further. This concerns insights about how collegial support emerges and how relations are established and nurtured, but also what obstacles we see in connecting collegial mentoring conversations to actual developments in teaching and supervision. This strong local foundation of our analysis of PGM practices is also founded on a clear partner autonomy, giving the involved communities a decision-making role in the implementation and experimentation phases. This autonomy is illustrated both in the partners involvement in developing the PGM approaches, but also the rich documentation of these developing initiatives documented in a range of chapters written by the same stakeholders in this book. While the whole book is a collaboration with educational researchers, the tandem between these parties has been synthesised in this edited publication. Based on this collaborative relationship, we did our best to build on the spirit of partnership when writing about all the peer group mentoring experiences in the PeTS project. This approach of including local voices is, in our view, necessary to give readers from different disciplines a realistic idea of how this way of working is perceived and approached differently. This resonates with the study conducted by O’Keeffe et  al. (2021), who conclude that cross-institutional efforts provide stimulation opportunities for professional conversation and the development of teaching, learning and supervision. The collaborative analysis and copublishing thereby emphasise a core value where diversity opens doors for further exploration— by asking questions, identifying problems and discussing interconnected ideas (Healey et al., 2014). Reflecting on these experiences across all the chapters in this book, this final part allows us to point out some overarching ideas related to symmetrically based peer group mentoring in higher education with global relevance. Let us begin by presenting a brief overview of the two PGM models chosen for the PeTS project.

 eer Group Mentoring Models in PeTS: Principles P and Practical Implementation PGM initiatives in higher education are generally meant to create useful collegial conversations about pedagogy, teaching and supervision (de Lange & Lauvås, 2018; Gosling, 2014). Although there are good reasons for professionalising collegial conversations around teaching and supervision in the sector, there are strong tendencies in both the literature and our data that such spaces for sharing and discussing are rather scarce and often difficult to organise and maintain (Erlandsen & de Lange, 2017; Esterhazy et  al., 2021). This implies that collegial mentoring conversations are far from straightforward and something one does not simply

180

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

Table 10.1  Archetypes of peer group mentoring (Kroll, 2016) Typology One-to-many/ many-to-one Many-to-many

Characteristics Facilitated group mentoring

Peer group mentoring

Group-directed and group-­ managed mentoring

Team mentoring approach

Roles Selected mentor based on experience, formal position or knowledge Participants serve in distinct roles (mentor or mentee) Each participant serves as mentor and mentee to their mentoring collaborators

achieve by letting faculty staff carry on as usual in their everyday work. On the contrary, such conversations need support. This is also a main reason why conversational models are developed and implemented as part of peer group mentoring processes (Gosling, 2014; Hendry et  al., 2014; Huizing, 2012). There are, however, a variety of approaches to group mentoring, usually categorised into the following archetypes (Table 10.1). As also referred to in the introductory chapter (de Lange et  al., Chap. 1, this volume), peer review and traditional mentoring, including one-to-many and many-­ to-­one mentoring models, are based on mentor relationships drawing on some sort of qualification that contributes to an asymmetric relation in the group. PGM, on the other hand, is defined as a group-directed approach rooted in symmetric notions (Kroll, 2016). Even if research on PGM report on benefits such as openness, collaborative input and personal support related to professional needs, there are also downsides to this approach such as groups easily going off track without the guidance of a facilitator (Huizing, 2012). Although the formal position of a facilitator easily challenges the symmetric relations, providing supportive and facilitation guidelines has been considered as an alternative solution (Huizing, 2012). Such frameworks generally establish conversational rules and group guidelines, helping the participants to maintain focus and preserve equal relations (Torres et al., 2017). PGM models are implemented as a guiding artefact to enable the members to reflect and collaborate openly, as well as minimising derailment and undesirable group constellations (de Lange & Lauvås, 2018; de Lange & Wittek, 2018; Kenny et al., 2014; Kohut et al., 2007). In the PeTS project, these guiding artefacts are embedded in the two PGM models implemented by the project partners (Table 10.2). The first model, PPGM, provides a basis for in-depth discussion of work-related cases and challenges concerning teaching and supervision. The second model, OPGM, affords a framework for discussing teaching and observing and reflecting on teaching practices. Both models are based on a rotating system, where all participants take on all roles in the group consecutively. The models thereby build on a set of predefined procedures and guidelines that participants are introduced to and practise before they begin group mentoring activities on their own (Lauvås et al., 2016). Both the models are based on a democratic foundation, which is the overarching focus in the PeTS project. The models provide for symmetry, ensuring the mentees’ influence on the conversation, as well as regulating the conversational flow by not

10  Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How…

181

Table 10.2  The two PGM models in the PeTS project (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume) 1. Problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM)

Structuring guidelines that help participants to focus the conversation on a specific pedagogical challenge they experience in their professional work. The participants describe and submit a case describing the problem. The cases are approached during the sessions on the basis of stepwise phases, starting with information retrieval and open questioning in the starting phases and gradually leading to practical solutions and coping strategies towards the end. The model is based on a conversational framework and rotating system safeguarding symmetry and equality in the group 2. Observation-­ Structuring guidelines that help participants through the three main phases based peer group from planning to observing and final reflection on practical teaching. The mentoring participants submit lesson plans prior to the sessions and discuss these as the (OPGM) basis for developing the lesson to be observed. Based on observations of the lesson, the groups continue the session with open, supportive and reflective discussions on how to further develop teaching strategies. The model is based on a rotating system safeguarding symmetry and equality in the group

Directive/ hands-on

Trust low

Aloof

Reciprocality

Sponser

Loyalty/gratitude

Advisor

Self-esteem

Counsellor

Self-fulfilment intellectual stimulation Mutual acceptance/ kinship

Friend Non-directive/ hands-off

Trust high

Close

Fig. 10.1  Characteristics of mentor positions. (Based on Clutterbuck, 2004, p. 24)

letting the discussion run its own course. If implemented appropriately, this ensures a questioning focus on the mentee’s situation, avoids or minimises derailment and prevents dominating participants from taking over the process. The models are, however, intrusive by diverging the conversational flow away from natural talk. This can be experienced as disrupting and rigid if not familiarised with. Therefore, the participants are introduced to the models before operating on their own. This presupposes that the groups test out and discuss the conversational norms and rules. It is also recommended that the participants be well aware of the reasons for structuring the PGM conversations and take ownership of the guidelines throughout the PGM process. It is here also interesting to address what function these models have concerning mentor and mentee roles. If we consider these roles from an analytic position, a typical classification is the mentor as a sponsor, adviser, counsellor or critical friend (Clutterbuck, 2004). Figure 10.1 draws out the differences in mentoring in the span between being a sponsor to acting as a critical friend. Though sponsorship is mostly related to a

182

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

Table 10.3  PGM models related to group behaviour and key role characteristics Models Description of group behaviour Model OPGM 1: Critical friend: The group challenges the mentee’s reflections on own work and development in their teaching Model PPGM 2: Listening counsellor: The group helps the mentee analyse and understand a challenging work-related situation

Key role characteristics A mild directive role: The primary objective is to observe, discuss through questioning and mildly challenge the mentee’s thinking Reciprocity: Mutual acceptance, intellectual stimulation A nondirective role: The primary objective is to listen, pose open questions and support the mentee’s reflective thinking Reciprocity: Mutual acceptance and self-fulfilment

directive approach, giving advice is considered as playing a more supportive and open role. Being a counsellor has its similarities to advising but is also more likely to be open to mentee perspectives and mobilising their own considerations and reflections. Finally, the role of critical friend is the least directive role and is the most similar to the two PGM models implemented in the PeTS project (Table 10.3). Accordingly, in the OPGM (model 1), the mentoring participants act as a critical friends group by carefully observing and mildly questioning, discussing and exploring alternatives. This means that OPGM members do not take the role of experts, but through the model’s guidelines, they safeguard the mentee’s freedom of choice and respectful discussion. There are several illustrations of these discursive dynamics unfolding in the current book, where peers problematised views and choices while avoiding directiveness through dialogic probing and questioning guided by the PGM model. The PPGM approach (model 2) is characterised by a ‘listening’ behaviour, hence putting the group in a nondirective position. While this model paradoxically is based on strict conversational guidelines, the framework encourages more openness for the mentee’s considerations and reflections. Simultaneously, the questioning manner supports a strong and collectively driven exploration to unearth new angles that are difficult to achieve individually. Both models provide the mentees with sufficient space to articulate their own perspectives and views, mainly in that the guidelines reinforce the group to adopt a listening and probing role. We also see that the models prevent dominant positions from emerging. The models, therefore, have an important disciplining function to maintain focus, to challenge as well as avoiding pressure and to ensure progress. Both models are at the end of the session followed by meta-conversations where the groups openly discuss how the PGM models have worked for them. A risk with these models is that the conversations can evolve into a noncommitting dialogue. Because no model is perfect, having the opportunity for open meta-­ conversations is important, especially in cases where guidelines may appear contriving or rigid. This is also an important part of the PeTS project, where keeping an open and exploratory approach to the models is an important part of developing and moderating the PGM practices further within the partnership communities.

10  Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How…

183

The meta-conversations revealed themselves as very important in this respect, creating the space for respectful reflection and disagreement (Healey et al., 2014). This combination between the structured conversations within the PGM models, combined with open meta-conversations, created a productive synergy that has been an important part of the developments in the PeTS project. Below, we present where these two PGM models were situated in the four partner communities: As seen in Table 10.4, OPGM was related to developing teaching, while PPGM was related to discussing supervision practices. All the partner communities were continuously engaged in expanding and adjusting the PGM activities in terms of local needs and requirements. This entailed the opportunity to both influence their own teaching/supervision and be involved in developing and adjusting the implementation of PGM as part of the PeTS project (Engeström & Sannino, 2011). This coinvolvement incorporates an ownership that is decisive in both group-based mentoring and in the activity theoretical notions guiding the project research (Daniels, 2016; Engeström, 1987, 1999, 2005). This is particularly evident in the cases of PPGM in master’s and PhD supervision, where we see a transfer of experiences across situations and organisational sites. This suggests a notion of

Table 10.4  Overview of the peer group mentoring implementation in four communities of the PeTS project Peer group mentoring duration 2018–2022

Academic setting/ community PhD supervisors, national research school in municipal health care research Master’s supervisors, Faculty of Humanities

Peer group mentoring model Problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM) Problem-based peer group mentoring (PPGM)

2018–2022

Religious/clergy education, Faculty of Theology

Observation-based peer group mentoring (OPGM)

2018–2021

Pharmacy PBL teachers, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences

Observation-based peer group mentoring (OPGM)

2018–2020

Practical developments of PGM practices Local adjustment of PPGM model Continuation of PPGM after project termination Local adjustment of PPGM model Implementing experiences from PPGM in other parts of organisation after project termination Local adjustments to OPGM model Substantial impact on teaching/programme coordination Unorganised continuation of OPGM after project termination Local adjustments to OPGM model Substantial learning of PBL supervision, junior staff No continuation of OPGM after project termination

184

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

‘academic community of practice’ based on collegial inquiry to jointly develop new working strategies (Brew, 2003). Although our book and the PeTS project mainly provide situated accounts of these experiments, we need to be cautious not to overstate the generalisability of these findings. What we can do, however, is accentuate what potential we see from the documented experiences and developments and their significance for the local pedagogical practices in the partnership communities. We will in this context also identify practical obstacles and knowledge gaps surfacing from these experiences.

 iscussing Peer Group Mentoring Outcomes Across D Academic Boundaries In this final part, we bring together our collection of documented experiences across the chapters of the book and discuss the significance of these findings. As the implementation of PGM is well documented in the four disciplinary settings of the project, this final discussion aims to bring together these findings by charting a route across the chapters and tracing possible synergies and discrepancies. We connect this discussion of findings directly to the research questions posed in the beginning of the current chapter and the introductory chapter of this book (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume). 1. How does PGM condition collective knowledge-sharing and development? In the literature review in Chap. 1, we reported from previous studies that PGM is experienced as an activity that gives the opportunity to develop professionally in a motivating way through critical, formative and creative reflection (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume). Throughout the chapters in this book, we find tendencies consistent with this research in gaining deeper and more nuanced understandings of pedagogical challenges (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; Damşa et al., Chap. 5, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume). The deepening and nuancing processes described in almost all chapters is particular evident in discussions based on prepared cases and where the PGM framework is implemented in accordance with the open, democratic and symmetric intentions of the mentoring models. The outcomes from the PGM sessions recurringly point to the process starting from descriptive entrances that evolve into alterations that end up as transformational experiences for the problem owners (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume). The findings from the chapters do, however, underscore the necessity of a gradual process of awareness arising through the group-based discussion. This partially concerns how the groups familiarise themselves with the PGM guidelines for how to carry out the conversations. Clear guidelines are here throughout considered as

10  Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How…

185

beneficial but with a certain degree of flexibility to accommodate group conversations as long as such adjustments do not undermine the democratic principles of the activity. Making adjustments within these limits can even contribute to creating a sense of community (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume). Hence, original perception thereby undergoes a collectively driven development that often changes the characteristics of the problem completely, before culminating in concrete, manageable solutions (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume). An important finding is also that having sessions over a longer period was important not just to become acquainted with the model and each other, but that maturation within the group enabled members to feel more secure and dive deeper into the problems (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume). For many participants, this sense of security needed to emerge gradually, given that they mainly collaborated with colleagues unknown to them prior to the PGM sessions. Simultaneously, this ‘clean record’ also allowed the participants to build up close confidentiality within the group setting (Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume). In continuation of the above, further findings suggest that discussing with colleagues outside their immediate professional community appeared to increase the participants’ opportunity to ask open questions to illuminate on issues that may be tacit or taken for granted by colleagues socialised into the same community (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; de Lange & Wittek, Chaps. 9 and 10, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume). On the other hand, the findings from OPGM, in particular, suggest that challenges experienced in one’s own practice contributed to a process of reflection on more detailed, structural issues, which the participants had deeper familiarity with and which helped the participants to not only promote constructive solutions but also take actual steps to change practices (Damşa et al., Chap. 5, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume). Overarchingly, the findings throughout the book from the observed PGM settings document a variety of beneficial outcomes. These encounter professional unity and supportive collegiality, stimulating reflective discussions around teaching and supervision, as well as their own mentoring discussions, which are slightly differentiated depending on the PGM framework that was applied. A characteristic that is particularly underscored in this matter is that the PGMs in general evolved into a community sanctuary for the participants to explore pedagogical issues in a nonjudgemental manner (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Hermansen et al., Chap. 3, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume). Productive dialogues are here essential to identify and clarify the problems that are raised in the discussions, with the creating of a common ground for group engagement and explicating a shared understanding of how to carry out the discussions at a vital intermediate stage. This common ground is decisive for

186

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

dialogue to excavate and saturate additional and often tacit notions of the problems. The mature evolvement of dialogue also tends to involve the exploration of values, opinions and epistemic assumptions that contribute to a deeper resonance of the matter before pointing at possible solutions at the end stage of discussions. These cyclic and even intimate features of the dialogues surface as a trademark in our findings, as fundamentally collective driven knowledge developments in the PGM settings (Damşa et al., Chap. 5, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume; Wittek et  al., Chap. 4, this volume). It is important to note that none of the data suggest that any of the participants refused to establish a relationship of trust by not approving other participants’ ability to provide constructive input. This implies that disciplinary expertise was not a prerequisite to develop collective knowledge and insights into the practical cases raised in the PGM settings. In fact, a key finding suggests that interdepartmental and interdisciplinary group constellations helped the participants discuss fundamental pedagogical difficulties, while disciplinary homogenous constellations appeared as helpful in addressing specificities of the discipline, each of which are considered productive. Cross-disciplinary or homogenous PGM constellations thereby trigger slightly different reflections on teaching and supervisory practices (Damşa et al., Chap. 5, this volume; de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume; Wittek, Chap. 2, this volume; Wittek et  al., Chap. 4, this volume). A part of the explanation for these findings is that discussions in PGM are guided by interactional guidelines, modelling discourse towards deepening the raised issues. There are also strong indications that the democratic, nondominant and exploratory manner of these interactional regulations are decisive in this respect (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; Damşa et al., Chap. 5, this volume; de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Hermansen et al., Chap. 3, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume). This structured discursive framework in PGM proved pivotal in achieving productive outcomes that range from incremental adjustments of practice to fundamentally reconfiguring their pedagogical standing and, in some cases, setting off more overarching organisational change. An illustration of the significance of the frameworks is that discussions are kept on track over time through gentle interrogation, frequently revealing tacit and obscure features of the working environment as a result. Our analysis has repeatedly documented the uncovering of structural and organisational problems during peer group mentoring. Interestingly, awareness of these structural problems was minimal in the beginning and gradually unearthed through PGM discussions. It is important to note that partly obscured obstacles in the surrounding organisation were often a source of frustration in the sense that the problems often appeared to lack a clear addressee. Consequently, the unveiling of such issues in PGM discussions entailed considerable relief for the problem owner (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this

10  Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How…

187

volume; de Lange & Wittek, Chaps. 9 and 10, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume). A final note on the conditions of collective knowledge-sharing is that the identification of structural problems increases all the participants’ awareness of more overarching challenges and the consequences such aspects have for faculty staff to perform as professionals. Discussing structural issues in PGM thereby probed a valuable learning opportunity contributing to institutional awareness, which is directly triggered by the knowledge-sharing focus of this activity. This raised awareness frequently gave rise to confronting decision-makers at a higher level in the organisational hierarchy, opening opportunities for organisational change (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; Damşa et al., Chap. 5, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume). 2. What obstacles may emerge related to the implementation of PGM? Embarking on a large project such as PeTS also requires one to address obstacles, partly to understand the limits of the activity but also to avoid speculations in overstating these limitations (Quinn, 2012). An obstacle surfacing in our material is that few PGM participants continued with meetings after the organised arrangement had finished (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; Hermansen et  al., Chap. 3, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume). This seems to be a running pattern that we also found in the introductory literature review (de Lange et  al., Chap. 1, this volume; Esterhazy et  al., 2021). One explanation for this tendency is that PGM may be too demanding to fit into the pressures of daily work. Our qualitative material suggests here that while collegial spaces in PGM are considered as deeply productive, a lack of institutional accommodation and compensations makes it difficult to carry on and maintain (Hermansen et al., Chap. 3, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume). This is particularly the case when PGM is privately initiated. An additional explanation for reduced activity is that PGM is perceived as intense and, therefore, preferred as a more sporadic rather than an ongoing engagement. This suggests that faculty staff probably should not be overexposed to such a measure. As previously underscored, a common agreement and trust in PGM must be worked out collectively in each group. Although the egalitarian organisation of PGM is considered an important success factor in providing this kind of open and collective agreement, there are instances where individuals simply do not accept this egalitarian premise. The reasons for this stretch from pure lack of interest to perceiving this kind of exposure as uncomfortable. Although there are few examples of such incidents in our material, these findings uncovered a vulnerability where single participants can undermine the PGM process at the expense of the group. An important finding from our research is, therefore, both how to reach a common ground concerning rules of conduct but also to discuss how to handle opposing

188

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

notions (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; de Lange & Wittek, Chaps. 9 and 10, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume). Another limitation that we already have touched upon above concerns how PGM is rooted in the organisation. A premise for succeeding with PGM frequently points to how leadership and the strategic level of the institution commits to this endeavour. Here, several chapters point to lacking interplay between institutional and organisational leadership with PGM initiatives. This lack of connection often leads to a looser commitment, unclear areas of responsibility and uncertainty around resource allocation and principal support to professional development (Damşa et al., Chap. 5, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume). This contradictive tendency is illustrated in a contrast between voluntariness and participants’ safeness, on the one hand, and institutional commitment, on the other (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; de Lange & Wittek, Chaps. 9 and 10, this volume; de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume). The question is as follows: Is it realistic to expect institutional commitment to something that primarily remains as a supportive individual measure for faculty staff, without a clear warranty of the output at the institutional level? How legitimate are resource allocations for such supportive initiatives if effects for the benefit of the institution are only vaguely documented? These questions are vital for any leadership and will, therefore, have to be addressed directly, rather than simply pointing at a lack of commitment from local participants and leaders. One way of resolving this tension is to formalise PGM in ways where documented output is demanded by leadership. This approach is although widely criticised in the literature for undermining the formative and privatised values of PGM (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Esterhazy et al., 2021). The question, therefore, is how to fence about the formative qualities of PGM without losing sight of institutional goals and obligations. The above-mentioned obstacles also surface in other ways in our material. Especially in the context of the national research school, but also in other settings, conversations also about institutional challenges tended to remain individualised in the sense of providing solutions. Hence, althoug outcomes from the discussions efficiently served to identify institutional problems, the way of handling these still resided in the participants’ own prerogative. So, while the discussions helped clear up many fallacies on how to handle and negotiate around institutional conventions and practices, equivalent discussions of initiating organisational change were rather scarce. It is, therefore, relevant to consider how PGM conversations can be made more relevant to institutional self-reflection and contribute more deeply to pedagogical knowledge development within the larger scope of the surrounding academic communities.

10  Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How…

189

 oving from Teaching and Supervision as a Private Matter M to Teaching as a Collegial Responsibility The overall results from the PeTS project show that peer group mentoring drives an open and sharing approach to knowledge development, which encourages peer learning. The mentoring methods in PeTS also demonstrate how democratic conversational arrangements contribute to open and respectful critical reflection, creating a supportive discursive environment contributing to both personal and group-based collective growth (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; de Lange & Wittek, Chaps. 9 and 10, this volume; de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Hermansen et al., Chap. 3, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume; Wittek, Chap. 2, this volume; Wittek et al., Chap. 4, this volume). A core condition for creating these learning environments is rooted in the fact that the individual participants’ practical experiences are directly exposed to peer discussions in ways that aggregate shared knowledge and collective understanding (de Lange et  al., Chap. 1, this volume; Hermansen et  al., Chap. 3, this volume; Wittek et  al., Chap. 4, this volume). Working under such conditions over time contributes to an exponential collegial openness around the participants’ daily work as teachers and supervisors (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; Damşa et al., Chap. 5, this volume; de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume; Hermansen et al., Chap. 3, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen, Chap. 7, this volume; Wittek et  al., Chap. 4, this volume). The PeTS project, as documented though the current book chapters, demonstrates a striking relationship between peer group mentoring and developing supportive collegiality. The various chapters in the book reveal great potential in PGM for developing a collaborative culture in academia. Peer group mentoring is, however, always conditioned by its organisational and institutional conditions, routines and governance arrangements—where individual and group measures also need to be aligned with institutional goals and ambitions—a relationship that remains open for debate based on the findings in this book. Although clear institutional endorsements are recommended, a challenge for future research remains how to better balance the analytic scale between individual and collegial values of PGM with more overarching institutional interest, which is no less important for acknowledging the formative value of PGM for policy makers. The findings presented in and across the chapters of this book have both documented preservationworthy aspects of peer mentoring in groups but also obstacles to making these beneficial features even more valuable on a larger scale. The latter will, in our opinion, need both conceptual attention in addition to further empirical experimentation. 3. How can these findings inform further conceptualisation and implementation of PGM practices? The question of further conceptualisation calls for a revisit to the introductory chapter. Here, we point at a set of characteristics and qualities in PGM and what these characteristics explicitly contribute to the process:

190

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

The group aspect in mentoring (…) assumes an even distribution of authority and responsibility between peers, regardless of prior experience or formal position (Kroll, 2016; Thomas et al., 2015). This principal equality is reflected in how this activity is organised, with rotating roles and democratic rules for dialogue and discussion (Skaniakos & Piirainen, 2019). These symmetric characteristics also carry along epistemic notions of interactional and collective knowledge construction which are in contrast with traditional dyadic mentoring (...). Hence, the book places itself clearly in the collective notion of peer group mentoring, a field we consider to be conceptually and empirically underreported in the higher education literature. (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume)

In addition to the above practical demarcation of PGM, we have also introduced cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) as our epistemic grounding in operationalising and analysing the unfolding of this activity (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume). The reasons for choosing CHAT as our theoretical grounding are twofold. First, the basic notions of mediating artefacts symbolise what Vygotsky terms an incorporation of how we act together within our social surroundings, such as in PGM settings (Wertsch, 1985). Artefacts are considered as material features shaping our participation in such goal-directed action and help us analytically pinpoint the significance of artefacts in the enactment of such activities (Cole, 1996, pp.  117–118). This epistemic notion also specifically allows us to unpack the coconstructive nature that is so vital in PGM. The concept of artefact allows us to identify the significance of particular artefacts as tools, which, in our case, are conversational rules and regulations of OPGM and PPGM, and what significance these have in the way the mentoring sessions are played out. What we do see from the condensed findings presented above is that the conversational artefacts of both PGM frameworks are crucial in the shaping of the peer conversations. Simultaneously, we have seen that conversational rules have to be uniquely reactivated in each group to create ownership and develop trust. While the general artefact of rules is helpful in doing so, the work of making the group marks the difference where PGM is transformed from an ideal state to making meaning to the participants. Understanding this underpinning principle as part of PGM also reminds us of the egalitarian ideas inscribed into PGM, which means that artefact and human enactment simultaneously shape and reshape each other. As we have seen from the findings throughout the book, these processes are constantly happening in the groups’ engagement. At the same time, we see that these enactments both entail tensions within groups and in embedding PGM as part of its institutional surroundings. In CHAT, these tensions are termed contradictions, which means that what is perceived as a main purpose of the activity is being challenged (de Lange, 2014; Engeström, 1999). Hence, different values are presented in the discussions that may create discrepancies and even cause conflict. Although we have empirically witnessed such a breakdown in situ of one of the PPGM conversations (Bastiansen & Wittek, Chap. 8, this volume; de Lange & Wittek, Chaps. 9 and 10, this volume), the underlying conflicting nature between PGM and the institutional level appears more subtle, as a lack of commitment, discontinuation or disconnectedness to everyday activity (Hermansen et al., Chap. 3, this volume; Kirkevold & de Lange, Chap. 6, this volume; Maasø & Simonsen,

10  Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How…

191

Chap. 7, this volume). This concerns a deeper set of conflicting interests between the usefulness of PGM at an individual and relational level versus its usefulness for the institution. Whereas improved collegial well-being might be considered as beneficial for both parties, the contradiction is here more a question of conflicting forces between short-term benefits and long-term overarching systemic structures, where the latter probably has few decisive incentives and measuring strategies concerning collegiality and individual well-being. This has recently been documented in numerous studies concerning academics’ working environments in higher education (Healey et al., 2014; Esterhazy et al., 2021). The question is how this contradictive nature can be resolved. Again, drawing on CHAT, disentangling this opposing situation implies a need for redefining institutional priorities and regulations to incorporate PGM as part of the core purpose: to facilitate collegiality for professional growth, pedagogical quality enhancement and improvement of students’ learning environment. While these purposes are not necessarily contradictive in nature, the deeply formative claims on ownership embedded in PGM generally are. This is probably also why so many efforts in peer review of teaching based in formal qualification assessment appear to fail because they are in direct contradiction to its formative purpose, that is, a supportive measure turned into an artefact of institutional control. The question of how to make these two ends meet is, in our view, one of the main issues both for further research and practical experimentation and implementation. Our recommendation is here to take the above-described contradictive nature seriously, both in designing the PGM methods implemented and also in addressing the institutional needs surrounding it. This is not an issue of good versus evil, but rather about different needs and purposes finding reconciliation. As we have reviewed quite a few studies in this field, it is our impression that leaving this issue unresolved will eventually result in the falling out of PGM in the long run, with missed opportunities of growth in collegiality being the main victim.

Concluding Comments When we look ahead from the vantage point of all the contributions made in this book, the obvious first step is a recommendation for more communities to begin experimenting with peer group mentoring and for as many aspects of these experiments as possible to be empirically documented. Although there is much literature available that sheds light on interesting aspects of peer group mentoring, we have found few examples of systematic analysis, particularly of the conversation dynamics that play out during peer sessions. Instead, much of the literature sticks to providing general surveys of satisfaction rates and perceived outcomes. Although such surveys are important and useful to educational practice, such evaluations contribute little to progress the field by generating insight across contexts and institutional practices. The current book is an attempt to address this void by following specific peer group mentoring approaches across different but comparable

192

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

organisational and disciplinary settings. This research has revealed new complexities and questions that illustrate that we are still only scratching the surface of this field. This also concerns the conceptual grounding and consistency related to PGM research. Given the above-mentioned conceptual scatteredness, we also encourage further theoretical exploration of peer group mentoring as a possible separate discipline with its own coherent conceptual empirical grounding. Apart from analysing group-­ based peer mentoring conversations, which many scholars have already done in the fields of supervision and professional mentoring (Healey et  al., 2014; Lunsford et al., 2018), we are keen to see clearer analytical descriptions of the qualities that are the hallmark of PGM.  It is important to examine the significance of various mentoring models, as prompted by this book. Furthermore, we need to further examine the dynamics and characteristics of how professional talk about teaching and supervision develops in organised peer mentoring groups, exploring those aspects that hinder or enhance professional development and collegiality in this regard. Although such analyses have been conducted in the past, there is still a lack of cross-disciplinary studies that are sufficiently interlinked to broaden the development of knowledge within the field. We need more systematic studies that identify the organisational impact of peer group mentoring and how these practices influence organisational development and student learning environments. It is relevant here to note that this book both draws on an empirical design and involves academic circles in a way that directly complements and extends other recent international research on similar issues (Cook-Sather et al., 2021; Iqbal & Vigna, 2021; O’Keeffe et al., 2021; Pleschová et al., 2021; Sachs & Parsell, 2014; Simon & Pleschová, 2021). Standing on the shoulders of these previous research contributions, our hope is that the current book may take the field a step further in understanding the significance of PGM, how these practices can be embedded and realised longitudinally and motivate further systematic analysis with global relevance. A final comment concerns what has made the writing of such an integrated book possible. One of the hallmarks with this publication is that it is both cross-­ disciplinary but simultaneously rooted in a profound and close collaboration across these boundaries. A core element in this conjoined process is a mutual interest in and involvement with the specific PGM models embedded in the PeTS project. This joint approach has led to a common ground for all the contributing chapters. It is important here to mention that this dedication has also involved a wide range of PGM participants from all the four involved communities who are not listed as authors but whose involvement in the core of these initiatives together have made it possible to carry out this extensive and deeply integrated project. This deserves sincere gratitude that can hardly be overstated. This also mirrors what we have witnessed throughout these processes, among all our partners and the participants in the peer group mentoring sessions, that collaborative achievements are immensely valuable and a necessity to both the research conducted and developments achieved in refining the PGM practices and implementations. It is, therefore, a strong recommendation for future research to consider analysis and inclusion of such cross-disciplinary efforts as an explicit part

10  Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How…

193

of the research design. Although we have not included this as part of our data, an understanding also of how such project-based collaborations evolve, not just as part of the PGM practices among peers, but also how this evolves internally as part of how such projects progress, would be very valuable for our understanding of academic and joint professional development processes and learning in higher education. We are, in this respect, also obliged to ask critical questions regarding how such developments evolve and how this provides or hinders opportunities to develop supportive and nurturing professional working environments for educators, teachers and supervisors throughout the entire span of their careers. It is our hope that this book can be an inspiration to further experimentation along these paths and that peer group mentoring can be an inspiring and valuable contribution in this respect.

References Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Problem-based peer group mentoring: A tool for faculty development. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-­ based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 3–16. Clutterbuck, D. (2004). Everyone needs a mentor: Fostering talent in your organisation (4th ed.). Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. Cook-Sather, A., Hong, E., Moss, T., & Williamson, A. (2021). Developing new faculty voice and agency through trustful, overlapping, faculty-faculty and student-faculty conversations. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1360144X.2021.1947296 Damşa, C., Toft Henriksen, L., & Christiansen, H. (this volume). Dialogue and artefacts as instruments for peer group mentoring among PBL supervisors in pharmacy education. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Daniels, H. (2016). Vygotsky and pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge. de Lange, T. (2014). Aktivitetsteori og læring. In L. Wittek & J. H. Stray (Eds.), Pedagogikk – en grunnbok (pp. 162–177). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. de Lange, T., & Lauvås, P. (2018). Kollegaveiledning i høyere utdanning [Faculty peer mentoring in higher education– An analysis of peer conversations]. UNIPED, 41, (3), 259–274. https:// doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-­8981-­2018-­03-­07 de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (2018). Creating shared spaces: Developing teaching through peer supervision groups. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 25(4), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10749039.2018.1544645 de Lange, T., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Tracing the emergence of relational trust in peer group mentoring. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. de Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Peer mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer.

194

T. de Lange and L. Wittek

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on Activity Theory, 19(38), 19–30. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Lehmanns Media. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132758 Erlandsen, L., & de Lange, T. (2017). Studenten som veileder – erfaringer fra Krigsskolens lederutdanning. UNIPED, 40(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-­8981-­2017-­02-­02 Esterhazy, R., de Lange, T., Basiansen, S. E., & Wittek, L. (2021). Moving beyond peer review of teaching: A conceptual framework for collegial faculty development. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990721 Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative peer-supported review of teaching. In J.  Sachs & M.  Parsell (Eds.), Review of learning and teaching in higher education. Professional learning and development in schools and higher education (Vol. 9, pp.  13–31). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­7639-­5_2 Healey, M., Ambler, T., Irhammar, M., Kilfoil, W., & Lyons, J. (2014). International perspectives on peer review as quality enhancement. In Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 201–219). Springer. Hendry, G., Bell, A., & Thomson, K. (2014). Learning by observing a peer’s teaching situation. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1360144X.2013.848806 Hermansen, H., Kartzow, M. B., Rasmussen, A., & Lycke, K. H. (this volume). Peer group mentoring: Exploring the interplay with institutional practices. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Huizing, R.  L. (2012). Mentoring together: A literature review of group mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267. 2012.645599 Iqbal, I., & Vigna, J. (2021). Care in collaborations: Opening up conversations about teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1360144X.2021.1937183 Kenny, A., Mitchell, E., Chróinín, D.  N., Vaughan, E., & Murtagh, E. (2014). ‘In their shoes’: Exploring a modified approach to peer observation of teaching in a university setting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14703297.2013.771971 Kirkevold, M., & de Lange, T. (this volume). Developing research supervision capacity in clinical health professions: Structured peer mentoring as collegial support in research school context. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Kohut, G.  F., Burnap, C., & Yon, M.  G. (2007). Peer observation of teaching: Perceptions of the observer and the observed. College Teaching, 55(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3200/ CTCH.55.1.19-­25 Kroll, J. (2016). What is meant by the term group mentoring? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(1), 44–58. Lauvås, P., Handal, G., & Lycke, K. H. (2016). Kollegaveiledning med kritiske venner. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Lunsford, L., Baker, V., & Pifer, M. (2018). Faculty mentoring faculty: Career stages, relationship quality, and job satisfaction. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 7(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-­08-­2017-­0055

10  Experiences from the PeTS Project: What Lessons Have We Learned, and How…

195

Maasø, A., & Simonsen, H. G. (this volume). Problem-based peer mentoring and organisational learning. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. O’Keeffe, M., Crehan, M., Munro, M., Logan, A., Farrell, A. M., Clarke, E., & Clinton, E. (2021). Exploring the role of peer observation of teaching in facilitating cross-institutional professional conversations about teaching and learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 266–278. Quinn, L. (Ed.). (2012). Re-Imagining academic staff development: Space for disruption. Stellenbosch: Sun Press. Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. T., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446 Sachs, J., & Parsell, M. (Eds.). (2014). Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education: International perspectives (Vol. 9). Springer. Simon, E., & Pleschová, G. (2021). PhD students, significant others, and pedagogical conversations. The importance of trusting relationships for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1949324 Skaniakos, T., & Piirainen, A. (2019). The meaning of peer group mentoring in the university context. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 17(1), 19–33. https:// doi.org/10.24384/EKNZ-­S730 Thomas, N., Bystydzienski, J., & Desai, A. (2015). Changing institutional culture through peer mentoring of women STEM faculty. Innovation in Higher Education, 40, 143–157. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10755-­014-­9300-­9 Torres, A. C., Lopes, A., Valente, J. M. S., & Mouraz, A. (2017). What catches the eye in class observation? Observers’ perspectives in a multidisciplinary peer observation of teaching program. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 822–838. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251 7.2017.1301907 Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press. Wittek, L. (this volume). Feedback in collegial contexts. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Wittek, L., Kartzow, M. B., & Hermansen, H. (this volume). Interactional dynamics in peer mentoring. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer.

Chapter 11

The Power of Collegiality in Developing Higher Education Katarina Mårtensson

Abstract  This chapter is a commentary on the book as a whole. Based on the overall PeTS project, the empirical findings from the four educational settings and the conceptual portions of the book, this chapter focuses on three specific aspects of peer group mentoring: the move from teaching as a private matter to teaching as a collegial responsibility, the relationship between collegiality and peer group mentoring and the relationship between collegiality and teaching and learning cultures. Previous research shows that these aspects are considered vital in supporting the professional development of university teachers in their local disciplinary/departmental context and in promoting the development of teaching and learning in the academic organisation. Some considerations for future research are also noted, including the need for and role of documentation of learning through peer group mentoring and role of multilevel leadership in it.

The Private Nature of Teaching In the name of academic freedom, teaching in higher education has, in general, long remained a relatively private matter, a process that unfolds between each individual teacher and the students, with no direct access for others—for example, colleagues (Åkerlind & Kayrooz, 2003). Handal (1999) describes a case in which a university teacher who is asked whether he discusses teaching with his colleagues answers in a shocked voice: ‘No, that would be tantamount to discussing their personal hygiene’ (p. 3). Schultz and Latif along the same lines describe a general ‘perception of an established right to teach behind closed doors’ (2006, p. 3). Thus, in this respect, university teaching is radically different from the characteristics of transparency and collegial inquiry that prevail in research, a situation that Handal (1999) and K. Mårtensson (*) Department of Educational Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_11

197

198

K. Mårtensson

Dahlgren et al. (2006) argue could be changed with the aid of ‘critical friends’. The combination of ‘critical’ and ‘friend’ is essential: a critical friend is someone whom one trust, to whom one can reveal my uncertainties and who can give the individual feedback in a manner that helps one develop. Internationally, the phenomenon of ‘peer review’ of teaching has gained ground—occasionally mandated in promotion processes—to gain insights into academic teaching. It is often reported as a process of visiting and observing someone’s teaching, live in the classroom (see, e.g., Iqbal & Vigna, 2021; O’Keeffe et al., 2021). The notion of peer review has also largely been connected to control and compliance mechanisms, as indicated by Fileborn et al. (2020), who acknowledge a lack of research in relation to ‘generative and life-giving’ aspects of teaching through peer review and claim that performing peer review of teaching as ‘an exercise in appreciative inquiry, rather than as a performance-based measurement exercise, can improve workplace practices through increasing collaboration, mutual support, and collegiality’ (p.  104). Likewise, Wennerberg and McGrath (2022), in a Swedish context, explore the potential of collegial peer review (CPR), based on a critical friend model, with the explicit purpose of ‘engaging academic staff in collective and formative collegial peer review’ (p.  11). Therefore, it is not a coincidence that a similar stance is adopted in this project and this volume. The term peer group mentoring (PGM) is deliberately selected to indicate exactly such a generative, collegial perspective on the processes supported and studied. In my view, peer group mentoring can be understood as a systematic and deliberate means to engage critical friends in an academic environment. The situation in higher education, with the hitherto largely private nature of its teaching practices, nevertheless appears to be changing if I am to judge from my discussions with academics in my own (Swedish) context and with colleagues in other universities in Sweden and in other countries in Europe, North America and Australia. In certain places, institutional and/or national reward systems are being established to encourage teachers to ‘go public’ (Ashwin et al., 2020; Fanghanel et al., 2016). In my own institution, academic teachers are incentivised and supported to create and share knowledge regarding teaching and learning at the ‘local level’ (Ashwin & Trigwell, 2004; Mårtensson et al., 2011). Peer group mentoring, as well as the results of the project reported in this book, helps drive forward this opening up of teaching practices. In Sweden, the importance of learning environments for students and for those who teach in academia has recently been highlighted (The Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions [SUHF], 2016). The same goes for the effects of peer group mentoring—its effects depend largely on the collegial, institutional context in which it takes place. In the following text, I take this transition as my starting point: the shift of teaching from something private to more collegial, and I portray this as a desirable trend. I make this choice explicitly because, in my more than 20-year period of engagement with educational development and a decade of research in this area in a traditional, research-intensive university in Sweden, I have seen many advantages of turning teaching into a more collective and collegial endeavour. In my opinion, the advantages are partially associated with the university teachers’ professional development over time, which is influenced both by their practical teaching experience

11  The Power of Collegiality in Developing Higher Education

199

and the local teaching culture, norms and traditions of which they are a part (Mårtensson, 2014). Moreover, in my view, it is an advantage for teaching to become more collegial, in a broad sense because it becomes more sustainable and ‘inheritable’ in the long term and, thus, less burdensome for the individuals concerned. For example, new teachers will find it easier to become confident in their teaching role if they can experience collegial support and engagement (Trigwell & Prosser, 2020). Finally, more collegially oriented teaching may help enhance the importance, role and status of teaching in the university culture, thus changing the institutional teaching culture (Mårtensson, 2014).

Peer Group Mentoring and Collegiality Peer group mentoring is part of collegiality, but collegiality does not invariably include peer group mentoring. Collegiality has an informal as well as a more formal character. The former may be a matter of informal and spontaneous discussions in corridors and lunch rooms (Thomson, 2015), private and confidential conversations with those who are included in one’s significant networks (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009) or socialising with colleagues outside the workplace. The formal aspects involve more organised forms, such as peer group mentoring or other organised groups of teachers and chaired meetings. In an empirical study of academic microcultures that developed, such formally organised collegial discussions appeared to be one crucial factor (Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016). I will return to this. Collegiality as a concept and phenomenon in higher education has attracted increasing attention in recent years. This may be because of the introduction of other forms of governance in higher education—forms drawn from the private sector. Sahlin and Eriksson-Zetterquist (2016) argue that collegiality is required to ground decisions, activities and development in knowledge: collegiality implies colleagues who trust each other, who are experts in their respective fields and who meet and make decisions on important issues through a process characterised by critical discussions. Thus, one important aspect is that collegiality implies a trust that is required to have critical discussions, including discussions regarding teaching. This is the same foundation as expressed in the word combination ‘critical friend’. The importance of feeling sufficiently confident to dare to be open, describe problematic teaching situations and even let a colleague observe one’s own teaching practices all require courage. This importance of trust is admirably described in other parts of this book, including a few project participants who use the word ‘fear’ to describe the feeling of having a colleague present in the teaching situation. Peer group mentoring, with its explicit and consistent formative and developmental purpose and ‘structuring resources’ provides a good opportunity to overcome such fears. As indicated in the introduction of this volume, peer group mentoring is ‘the term for an activity providing collaborative spaces for academic staff to discuss their teaching and supervision practices for the purpose of professional development’ (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume).

200

K. Mårtensson

It is important to point out that the power of collegiality can be both positive (supportive, developing) and negative (obstructive, resistant). In teaching communities characterised by intense competition, or a lack of interest in or commitment to teaching, collegiality risks becoming an obstacle to the teachers’ professional development, or else the teaching becomes a completely individual project (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2015). As emphasised in the PeTS project and throughout this book, peer group mentoring has a great potential to contribute to a culture of collaboration; as such, culture is highlighted as important to succeed with peer group mentoring. Thus, one might ask what is the cause and what is the effect? Is it a matter of the classical hen and egg problem? (which of them comes first?) The purpose of this text is not to attempt to reveal any causal relationships; the main issue is to ascertain that collegiality can be both a precondition for and a result of peer group mentoring. In this text, I will primarily highlight collegiality as a positive force for development in higher education. Furthermore, I support the view that peer group mentoring as it is described and analysed in the PeTS project—with its clearly formative and developmental orientation—is a path, one path, to changing collegial interaction patterns and collegiality in various institutional and discipline-based cultures. In this case, peer group mentoring takes place in a planned, deliberate and systematic manner, which is endorsed by the individuals concerned and by leaders and institutional structures. Like collegiality, peer group mentoring is a complex mixture of institutional, structural, cultural, relational and individual factors. The project is based on the premise that peer group mentoring has the potential to open up and ‘deprivatise’ teaching. This can take different forms, and in this project, two main models have been used: (1) problem-based peer group mentoring, where participants share and discuss—in a structured manner—problems related to their teaching and students’ learning, and (2) observation-based peer group mentoring, where colleagues actually observe each other’s teaching and reflect upon it together. Both these models appear equally useful but with different prerequisites, procedures, outcomes and challenges. As the different projects studied and reported in this volume have demonstrated, peer group mentoring can also have different objectives: to unite different teaching cultures within an education programme, to build collegial knowledge around a shared teaching method, to establish a (national) arena for networking and collegial support in research supervision, to promote organisational development and to develop as a supervisor with reference to specific problems in teaching/supervision. The level of ambition in the approach and the amount of material that has been collected and analysed in the PeTS1 project are impressive and—to the best of my knowledge—unsurpassed in previous international research. The empirical material consists of many, many hours of transcribed video recordings and interviews with individuals and focus groups and steering documents, flip-over charts, notes, logs and field observations. All this empirical material is framed by in-depth, detailed theoretical reasoning on the importance of trust, dialogue, feedback and

 Faculty peer mentoring in teaching and supervision.

1

11  The Power of Collegiality in Developing Higher Education

201

institutional endorsement, as well as clear conclusions and recommendations for others who are interested in peer group mentoring. The content of the book as a whole elucidates the individual, group and organisation levels; in other words, it spans the organisation’s micro, meso and macro levels (Hannah & Lester, 2009). Although peer group mentoring is practised internationally—albeit with different objectives, as pointed out earlier—in my view, the Norwegian national context also appears to stand out. What I have in mind here is that peer group mentoring has attracted national attention in Norway, including at the political level: the white paper, Kultur for kvalitet i høyere utdanning [Ministry of Education and Research (2016-2017), Quality Culture in Higher Education, translation by government.no], states that ‘the Government expects that peer review and peer mentoring of teaching and education to be used to a greater extent than is currently the case’ (p. 22) and that ‘peer mentoring become a normal part of quality work’ (p. 25) in universities and university colleges. It also acknowledges, as its first heading in the introduction, that ‘Knowledge is formed in academic environments’—something which again underscores the role of the learning environment. Nothing similar to this political expression of ambition in relation to peer group mentoring is found in Sweden, nor, as far as I am aware, in other countries internationally, other than perhaps at the institutional (institute) level. Obviously, this provides an incentive to work with peer group mentoring, but also a great need for the research results in this book. Here, we have a clear pointer to important considerations of the risks and advantages involved to obtain the best results, short and long term, from peer group mentoring. These considerations, in sum, concern endorsement at the institutional level, coordination with other development initiatives and good conditions for the teachers who participate (including allocation of time), in order to achieve individual effects such as increased reflection on the teaching role, improved self-confidence and less feelings of being isolated.

Teaching Cultures and Collegiality My own research interest revolves around teaching cultures and collegiality and their importance for the professional development of university teachers. In the following account, I highlight a few aspects from this research and relate them to the content of this book. My idea is that this deals with the same phenomenon but with varying degrees of organisation. There is a substantial amount of research that reveals that, in their teaching role, university teachers are influenced by the collegial, academic environment of which they are a part. For example, Trowler and Cooper (2002) describe the so-called teaching and learning regimes (TLRs) that consist of the norms, traditions and other factors that are taken for granted when it comes to teaching and learning, power relationships and interaction patterns that emerge over time in various local, discipline-based academic communities. These aspects are most clearly visible to those who are newly employed (Fanghanel, 2009). The same phenomenon appeared

202

K. Mårtensson

in one of the projects reported on in this book. Newly recruited supervisors, from academic educational contexts outside of Norway, discovered numerous differences at the micro level of supervision relating to structure and organisation. Another example in this volume analyses what happens when two different teaching cultures are part of teaching in the same programme. It is fair to say that the different teaching cultures (in the theology programme) have different teaching and learning regimes. In fact, Trowler’s work on teaching and learning regimes is based on his study of the merger of two South African universities and what happened when disciplinary cultures were expected to integrate. Peer group mentoring, as reported in this volume, becomes a way to begin integrating such disciplinary cultures. In a recently published book, Trowler (2020) draws attention to the importance of context for the development of different TLRs. He introduces the concept of ‘practice sensibility’—a sensibility for and attention to teaching practice—as a key ingredient to be able to identify blind spots and factors that are taken for granted and look beyond ‘what works’ (p. 2). Such a ‘practice sensibility’ could perhaps also be directed at those institutional practices that characterise our organisations, both as a change object and as a set of premises. Among others, Jawitz (2009) has similarly studied different local academic educational communities in South Africa, with a focus on examination and assessment practices. He shows that, within a single university, with the same regulations and local statutes, widely varying practices prevail regarding how teachers are socialised into examining and assessing their students in their respective subject areas. Further, with reference to Bourdieu, Jawitz (2009) describes how a harmonisation takes place between an individual and a collective habitus, and this harmonisation occurs through collegial interaction. In studies at Lund University, we2 have explored such collective norms and practices. Based on a sociocultural perspective, we chose to call them microcultures. A microculture may consist of a group of teachers who collaborate on a course or an education programme—it could be a small department within an institution or a unit within a department. The groups we studied consisted of 10–60 persons. Strong microcultures, in terms of both teaching and research, are characterised by a high degree of internal trust, frequent and active interaction within the group, a strong shared commitment to teaching (irrespective of the form of teaching in question) and an active leadership (Mårtensson, 2014; Roxå, 2014; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2011, 2015). The teaching was not private, but open and collegially shared. As indicated previously, peer group mentoring does not necessarily include observation (of teaching) but can also consist of discussions of relevant issues related to teaching, supervision and learning. In strong microcultures, there are instances of spontaneous, nonorganised peer group mentoring as a natural element of the teaching culture. Furthermore, we have seen that microcultures that evolve— that is, change their culture, often do so through a higher degree of organising or  I want to emphasise and acknowledge that much of my research has been undertaken in collaboration with my colleague, Torgny Roxå, Associate Professor at Lund University, Faculty of Engineering. 2

11  The Power of Collegiality in Developing Higher Education

203

changing their internal collegial interaction patterns and discussions on teaching (Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016). The changes can relate to who is discussing/interacting, what is discussed and/or how the discussions are held—that is, the norms for the conversations and interactions. Examples of this could be to appoint new leaders who initiate change; to organise internal quality groups charged with exchange of teaching experience across disciplinary boundaries (but with shared responsibilities for specific semesters within a programme); or to arrange regularly occurring pedagogic seminars and mentorships for new teachers (Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016). Therefore, peer group mentoring is a means to organise a potential change within a microculture or among the different microcultures that are involved in the same education programme, for example. In a recent study on collegiality that has not yet been published, based on almost 70  h of participatory observations in teachers’ meetings and interviews with key personnel in a large department at Lund University, a number of similarities with the results presented in this book emerge. The teachers’ meetings were organised by approximate subject and course affiliations, with around ten people in each group, most of whom had a teaching assignment but with varying degrees of seniority. To a certain extent, it could be said that this serves as a kind of peer group mentoring but in a less strict format than in the examples described in this book. The teachers’ groups had an appointed, elected leader and a written agenda, and minutes were taken and sent to the department management after each meeting (around three per semester). The topics discussed included course schedules, progression between courses and principles of supervision; moreover, reading lists were decided, course plans revised and course evaluations analysed. In general, we can see a high degree of trust; the participants examined such issues as course evaluations from many viewpoints and discussed implications and changes that can apply beyond the course in question and the specific teacher responsible. Student representatives and PhD candidates also participated in these discussions. However, there was a hierarchy between PhD candidates and professors, between newly appointed and senior teachers and between the administrative and academic staff. Beyond the agenda and the minutes, there was little documentation of the discussions. In the interviews, one person reported to be very careful about speaking out, to avoid the risk that their words will be featured in the minutes, particularly when speaking about specific students. In other words, there seemed to be an inherent, complex balancing act between developing a collective approach to teaching in the discussion and interaction in the group and documenting it. Another aspect that emerged in our material is how, relatively speaking, close interaction unfolded within the groups, but relatively less so between the groups and in relation to the department’s management. This leads to the fact that peer group mentoring produces different effects depending on whether it takes place across disciplinary boundaries, through what Granovetter (1973) in classic network research refers to as weak ties, or within collegial disciplinary groups, that is, strong ties. This book contains examples of both, where the advantages of the former are that the teachers can obtain new ideas, inspiration and perspectives from peers in another field (with a certain risk that the

204

K. Mårtensson

differences between the disciplines can be so great that it makes it difficult for them to understand each other’s teaching). The other approach—that is, more homogenous groups in terms of disciplines—has the advantage that the participants understand each other’s subjects and can engage in in-depth discussions, though perhaps risking ending in a debate on the disciplinary content of the teaching in question rather than on the pedagogical aspects or not paying attention to their own taken-for-granted aspects. A completely similar parallel discussion is unfolding internationally in relation to courses in pedagogy and competence enhancement for university teaching staff: Should these be discipline oriented, or should they be more generic when they have the aim of providing teachers with an opportunity to learn across disciplinary boundaries (for an overview, see, e.g. Stes et al., 2010)? In courses on university pedagogy, as in peer group mentoring, the objectives need to be clarified before the process begins.

Roads Ahead and Future Research When reading this entire volume, with all its empirical and theoretical contributions, I notice two aspects in particular that I would like to see more research on: documentation and leadership. The former aspect concerns the need for and importance of documentation in peer group mentoring. For example, previously in this book, it is pointed out that ‘such a systematic approach also ought to be part of the strategic thinking at the institutional level (in the university leadership), so that systematic documentation from different faculties could be made visible and shared across the faculties. In the long term, this could contribute to organisational development while enabling the faculties to learn from each other’ (de Lange et al., Chap. 1, this volume). Thus, it appears that, generally, the majority of those who engage in organised peer group mentoring develop in their teaching role. However, less learning seems to take place across boundaries, within an organisation and outside and beyond separate peer groups. Consistent with the results in our study of collegiality, summarised above, there appears to be a need for strengthening ‘the weak ties’. This could be made possible through various kinds of documentation; artefacts that can be shared, distributed and used in the organisation, possibly through the establishment of new interdisciplinary arenas for such knowledge-sharing (Mårtensson, 2014). On the other hand, it is well known that many university teachers perceive today’s demands for documentation as burdensome, viewing them as taking time away from the ‘core activities’ of teaching and research. If learning is the contribution made by collegiality, how can this value be transferred to those who are not there? How can constructive ways to document experience from within this peer mentor-originated collegiality be developed for it to play a more featured role in organisational development? Another area that could merit further research is the leadership perspective in relation to peer group mentoring and collegiality. In the Norwegian language (and

11  The Power of Collegiality in Developing Higher Education

205

in similar Scandinavian languages, such as Swedish and Danish), the word for peer group mentoring—kollegaveiledning—includes the last part ‘-ledning’, which indicates leading. This is lost in translation to English, but leadership is implicitly inherent in the concept of ‘peer group mentoring’, as well as central to some of its procedural features. The book, in various parts, highlights the importance of leadership endorsement and the importance of the group leader, but it would be intriguing to explore in more detail how such endorsement might look and in what ways it can produce results, particularly in terms of long-term institutional effects. What is the role of formal versus informal leadership? What kinds of leadership qualities and behaviours are important and why? What does the relationship between leaders and colleagues look like? Leadership in higher education generally appears to be torn between line management and academic culture, between structure and room for manoeuvre (e.g. see Bratseth Johansen (2020) for an analysis in the Norwegian context and Scott et al. (2008) for an Australian context). Leadership in education may perhaps represent a particular challenge, exactly because until now, teaching has largely been regarded as the concern of the individual teacher. Is peer group mentoring applied at the leadership level, among educational/institutional leaders, for them to develop in their leadership role? If so, how is this done and with what results and consequences? In conclusion, I would like to point out that I am excited and inspired to see the genesis of this book and its content. It is a significant contribution for all of us who strive to understand and support the development of education and teaching in higher education organisations. Moreover, it elucidates the great value and key importance of collegiality in this development. Perhaps, we are indeed experiencing a much-needed move away from the private nature of teaching in higher education.

References Åkerlind, G., & Kayrooz, C. (2003). Understanding academic freedom: The views of social scientists. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(3), 327–344. Ashwin, P., & Trigwell, K. (2004). Investigating staff and educational development. In D. Baume & P. Kahn (Eds.), Enhancing staff and educational development (pp. 117–131). Routledge Falmer. Ashwin, P., Boud, D., Calkins, S., Coate, K., Hallett, F., Light, G., Luckett, K., MacLaren, I., Mårtensson, K., McArthur, J., McCune, V., McLean, M., & Tooher, M. (2020). Reflective teaching in higher education (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. Dahlgren, L. O., Eriksson, B. E., Gyllenhammar, H., Korkeila, M., Sääf-Rothoff, A., Wernerson, A., & Seeberger, A. (2006). To be and to have a critical friend in medical teaching. Medical Education, 40(1), 72–78. de Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Peer group mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Fanghanel, J. (2009). Exploring teaching and learning regimes in higher education settings. In I. C. Kreber (Ed.), The university and its disciplines—Within and beyond disciplinary boundaries (pp. 196–208). Routledge.

206

K. Mårtensson

Fanghanel, J., Prithard, J., Potter, J., & Wisker, G. (2016). Defining and supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): A sector-wide study. Literature review (Report number: HEA-RT05). Higher Education Academy. Fileborn, B., Wood, M., & Loughnan, C. (2020). Peer reviews of teaching as appreciative inquiry: Learning from ‘the best’ of our colleagues. Higher Education, 83, 103–117. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Handal, G. (1999). Consultation using critical friends. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 79, 59–70. Hannah, S., & Lester, P. (2009). A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 34–48. Iqbal, I., & Vigna, J. (2021). Care in collaborations: Opening up conversations about teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 383–387. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1360144X.2021.1937183 Jawitz, J. (2009). Learning in the academic workplace: The harmonization of the collective and the individual habitus. Studies in Higher Education, 34(6), 601–614. https://doi. org/10.1080/03075070802556149 Johansen, M. B. (2020). Studieprogramledelse i høyere utdanning—i spenningsfelt mellom struktur og handlingsrom (p. 14). Doktorsavhandling vid NTNU. Mårtensson, K. (2014). Influencing teaching and learning microcultures. Academic development in a research-intensive university (PhD thesis). Lund University Press. Mårtensson, K., & Roxå, T. (2016). Peer engagement for teaching and learning: Competence, autonomy and social solidarity in academic microcultures. UNIPED, 39(2), 131–143. Mårtensson, K., Roxå, T., & Olsson, T. (2011). Developing a quality culture through the scholarship of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(1), 51–62. Ministry of Education and Research. (2016–2017). Quality culture in higher education. Meld. St. 16. Report to the storting (White paper). Norwegian Government. https://www.regjeringen.no/ en/dokumenter/meld.-­st.-­16-­20162017/id2536007/ O’Keeffe, M., Crehan, M., Munro, M., Logan, A., Farrell, A. M., Clarke, E., Flood, M., Ward, M., Andreeva, T., Van Egeraat, C., Heaney, F., Curran, D., & Clinton, E. (2021). Exploring the role of peer observation of teaching in facilitating cross-institutional professional conversations about teaching and learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1954524 Roxå, T. (2014). Microcultures in the meso level of higher education organisations—The commons, the Club, the market and the square (PhD thesis). Department of Design Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University. Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks—Exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 547–559. Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. 2011. Understanding strong Academic Microcultures. An Exploratory study. Report from a pilot-project, Lund University.. https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/sv/publications/understanding-­strong-­academic-­microcultures—an-­exploratorystudy(246cf361-­3a33 -­47df-­8fad-­c21ec704fb4d).html. Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2015). Microcultures and informal learning: A heuristic guiding analysis of conditions for informal learning in  local higher education workplaces. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(2), 193–205. Sahlin, K., & Eriksson-Zetterquist, U. (2016). Collegiality in modern universities – The composition of governance ideals and practices. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2–3, 33640. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v2.33640 Schultz, K. & Latif, D. (2006). The planning and implementation of a faculty peer review teaching project. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(2). Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (2008). Learning leadership in times of change: Academic leadership capabilities for Australian higher education. Australian Council for Education Research. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/33804

11  The Power of Collegiality in Developing Higher Education

207

Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact of instructional development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research. Educational Research Review, 5, 25–49. Sveriges Universitets-och Högskoleförbund (SUHF). (2016). Framtidens lärandemiljöer. Rapport från arbetsgruppen [The future learning environments. Report from the workgroup]. SUHF Thomson, K. (2015). Informal conversations about teaching and their relationship to a formal development program: Learning opportunities for novice and mid-career academics. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1360144X.2015.1028066 Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2020). Exploring university teaching and learning: Experience and context. Palgrave Pivot. Trowler, P. (2020). Accomplishing change in teaching and learning regimes. Higher education and the practice sensibility. Oxford University Press. Trowler, P., & Cooper, A. (2002). Teaching and learning regimes: Implicit theories and recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational development programmes. Higher Education Research and Development, 21(3), 221–240. Wennerberg, J., & McGrath, C. (2022). Breaking the isolation: A study of university teachers’ collective development. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 4(1), 7–27.

Chapter 12

Rebuilding Collegiality? Bjørn Stensaker

Abstract  This chapter offers a meta-reflection on peer group mentoring and why more collegial approaches seem to be in demand in higher education. It is argued that collegial approaches are a reaction against a range of top-down reforms and policy initiatives in the sector, that they may have benefits for handling the complexities of change and coordination and that they are a rational response to the demand overload facing the sector. However, peer group mentoring and related forms of collegial approaches are conditioned by organisational structures, routines and governance arrangements—making it crucial that there is alignment between collegial processes and organisational structures. The chapter highlights examples of areas in which peer group mentoring and related collegial approaches could be relevant.

Introduction As the authors state in the introduction (de Lange et al., this volume), a book on peer group mentoring is ‘very timely’. The reason why peer group mentoring is such a hot topic can be attributed to several factors. One important reason is that many people who work in higher education are tired of reforms, the pace of reform, new procedures to follow, rules to be adhered to, ‘boxes to be ticked’ and what can easily be seen as time-wasting activities that steal valuable time from teaching and research (Bacon, 2014). People want alternatives. Another reason is that national and international authorities and university management have begun to acknowledge that, even though universities can be reorganised, better managed and developed in terms of professionalisation, there is still something about the basic characteristics of the research and educational processes that make them difficult to control, where new measures and attempts at structural B. Stensaker (*) University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 T. de Lange, L. Wittek (eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education, Higher Education Dynamics 61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37458-6_12

209

210

B. Stensaker

coordination often create new problems and complexities (Maassen & Stensaker, 2019). There is renewed interest in the more historical aspects of higher education institutions—not least aspects of the academic culture—as coordination mechanisms that improve the working environment and offer fairly effective ways of running an organisation. A third reason is that many academic employees are calling for stronger collegiality—not least in their teaching activities. Developments in recent decades have actually boosted the number of collegial forms of working in research—with a dramatic increase in research collaborations and copublished research. However, in many contexts, education and teaching—including supervision—remains a fairly individual activity. Following the general demands for more holistic educational programmes with clearer internal coherence between different disciplines and subjects, academic employees have recognised the need for collaboration and more collegial approaches to quality development (Bacon, 2014; Burnes et  al., 2014; Harvey, 1995). The emphasis on collegiality is also reflected in how Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) criteria are applied in connection with promotion to senior positions and the recognition of teaching excellence where ‘a collegial attitude and practice’ appears to be increasingly important. Recent work on stimulating meaningful conversations that form the basis for inclusive change and development in teaching and learning has related to this renewed interest in collegiality (Pleschová et al., 2021). Considering these developments, should not the conditions be ripe for a new age of peer group mentoring? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not unambiguously positive. As several of the chapters in this book demonstrate, it is recommended that peer group mentoring is organised and executed within unsuitable structures and conditions. As underlined by Pleschová et al. (2021), there are several critical factors that condition meaningful conversations within such settings, including having trustful relationships between those engaging in the dialogue. Moreover, the organisational context in which peer group mentoring is offered should also be considered a key factor in its success. At the same time, if one is aware of the procedural approach and the methodological steps that are discussed in detail in this book, peer group mentoring has the potential to be an activity with many different forms of application. The goal of this reflective chapter is to discuss the conditions in which peer group mentoring—and new collegiality—may be achieved more systematically as a forward-looking development activity.

 eer Group Mentoring, Collegiality and a Systematic P Development Processes Framework In the introduction, the book’s editors explain why peer group mentoring is important and why a peer group mentoring project is necessary. They argue that peer group mentoring promotes a collaborative culture around different teaching and supervisory practices. It is hard to disagree with this ambition. However, it is somewhat paradoxical that the term ‘mentoring’ perhaps does not express this type of

12  Rebuilding Collegiality?

211

collaborative relationship clearly. The term ‘mentoring’ implies that the dialogue may contain elements of power relations, uncertainty, hierarchy and an asymmetry between the participants. In many ways, ‘peer group mentoring’ is a term that many people intuitively recognise, but it can also limit areas of application, as well as who can participate in these discussions.

The Need to Raise Awareness of ‘Collegiality’ Compared with the term ‘mentoring’, the more established term ‘collegiality’ appears to be more neutral in many ways and better equipped to juggle issues relating to power, uncertainty and asymmetry in terms of the dialogues taking place. Many of the chapters in this book also stress that good dialogue depends precisely on trust, the clarification of frameworks and the participants’ roles in the discussions. However, one of the book’s main contributions is showing that, although ‘collegiality’ may be taken for granted (and particularly historical) as something academic staff virtually carry as a basic value (Harvey, 1995), good peer group mentoring is based on methodology, a process that is strictly and systematically organised. Here, the book is in line with other studies of similar practices where practical dimensions in education are considered as equally important as organisational factors, management, governance and culture (Elken & Stensaker, 2018; Elken et al., 2020). However, if one allows peer group mentoring to be understood as actual collegial processes, one might also perceive this activity as being relevant in many collegial contexts—not only linked to one’s own teaching and supervision. Hence, discussions of ‘collegiality’ should cover more than just employees in academic positions. A development which we have observed over a long period of time in higher education is that teaching is an activity that also involves administrative staff and with a need to collaborate across positions, a notion that challenges distinctions between ‘academic’ or ‘administrative’ tasks (Whitchurch, 2012). In a period in which the digitalisation of teaching and supervision has accelerated, it quickly becomes clear that many ‘administrative’ decisions are linked to the design and organisation of digital learning processes that are actually pedagogical and didactic and where the importance of discussing the digital learning environment should be open, dialogical and inclusive. However, facilitating such an organised discursive culture is not only the responsibility of academic employees—it is a responsibility that must be shared with management (Stensaker et al., 2017).

The Need to Decontextualise the Methodology Peer group mentoring can take many forms. This is apparent in the current book, and it is easy to see how different disciplinary contexts and characteristics, as well as different objectives for the mentoring process, impact on the outcome. This form

212

B. Stensaker

of customisation is natural, but it can also interfere with the more basic methodological steps for good peer group mentoring. It is something that must be learned, and it takes time to establish good relationships. There are good reasons to structure these dialogues in specific ways. One of the strengths of peer group mentoring is that, as a concept, it is rather apparent and intuitive. However, this intuitiveness may simultaneously turn out as a fragility because it may make it easier to ignore the procedural designs embedded in the applied models, which, in turn, can result in more trivial and incremental outcomes. Peer group mentoring has, however, been a familiar phenomenon in academic development programmes and competence development measures that have existed at universities for many years—a fact that many sources, including this book, have pointed out in several respects. Peer group mentoring as a work form is, nonetheless, not very extensively implemented in academia, given that the reward structures in higher education generally are rather individually based, where competence development is often tailored to individual needs and where developmental projects in teaching often have a strategic and institutional anchorage (Brew, 2009; Gibbs, 2013; Knapper, 2016). The methodology of peer group mentoring can still provide a starting point for widening competence development activities—where established practices can inspire a restructuring of developmental work in academia (see also Quinn, 2012). In today’s universities, which are characterised by project organisation, professionalisation and a matrix organisational structure, some of the methodological steps and insights from peer group mentoring could add considerable value. However, this would also require a more decontextualised approach, which, to a greater extent, decouples the specific cases from the surroundings that often appear to frame them. Even though there is a certain risk that the substance of peer group mentoring may be eroded through this decontextualisation, there are, nevertheless, good reasons to claim that these mentoring practices can be further developed as a research field. This book naturally plays an important role in the development of such knowledge; more comparative studies are needed that refine and further develop the methodology.

The Need to Expand the Area of Application A more decontextualised methodology may here pave the way for expanding the area of application for peer group mentoring as a practice, both in education and in relation to other activities at the institutional level. Universities and university colleges in many countries have been subjected to radical reforms in recent decades, such as merging into larger and more complex organisations, along with rationalisations and other processes associated with increased expectations and changing responsibilities (Elken et al., 2020). For academic staff, everyday professional life has also changed over the years. In the past and today, academics tend to work far beyond ordinary working hours, but they have increased their research output. Although academic

12  Rebuilding Collegiality?

213

staff continue to spend a large proportion of their time on teaching, they also express an increasing pressure and amount of time spent on administrative tasks (Gunnes, 2018; Whitchurch, 2012). The tendency here is that growing demands on universities and university colleges to increase efficiency often results in rationalisation and streamlining processes, which create additional work for employees. In reality, many rationalisation processes often have unintended consequences, such as greater complexity, lack of coordination and conflict (Maassen & Stensaker, 2019). It is somewhat paradoxical that some of these effects could have been avoided if a decision-making dialogue had been implemented. However, at the same time, employees generally express that they do not have time for this. As mentioned in several of the chapters in this book, peer group mentoring is a process that requires time—time that is necessary to invest to make ongoing dialogues and conversations work well (Pleschová et al., 2021). It takes time to establish trust and find good forms of dialogue and to meet and listen to perspectives presented by other participants. Time also needs to be allocated to making decisions about what action to take as a consequence of the mentoring processes. The question is whether time is actually saved when discussions are cut short and brief, consultations are rapid and decisions are made quickly (Stensaker & Vabø, 2013). In which areas and settings could peer group mentoring be implemented? Of course, there are many possibilities. For example, a common complaint in today’s academia is that much of the educational activity is so rule-governed and tied up by regulations that the freedom to organise teaching is seriously reduced. It is at the same time important to note that many of these rules and regulations that we surround ourselves with in academia are self-imposed as local specifications and concretisations of general standards and rules at the national or institutional level (Elken et al., 2020). These regulations are developed for the purposes of clarification but are in educational practice often perceived as disruptive and unintelligible. In these cases, peer group mentoring can serve as a valuable approach and tool to create constructive dialogue across areas of responsibility and professional boundaries.

Final Reflections Over the past few decades, and especially in the UK, a lot has been said, written and published about the need to revive collegial forms of work in academia (Bacon, 2014; Burnes et al., 2014; Harvey, 1995). The situation that is described relates to the erosion of trust and how increased national and international competition has also trickled into universities and corrupted academics’ working environment and collegiality. It is difficult to determine whether collegial cohesion in academia was rosier in the past than it is in the present context. There are many indications that collaboration between employees on education can be further improved (Elken

214

B. Stensaker

et al., 2020). It is often asserted that such collaborations can be improved through concepts and procedures such as quality management, quality assurance or a quality culture. However, an important point in this debate is the importance of quality work on the ground—what we actually do in everyday life within the structures, frameworks and rules in which we operate (Elken & Stensaker, 2018) and the conversations and interactions we have as part of this work (Pleschová et al., 2021). Here, peer group mentoring may be an important approach to counterbalance the tendencies we see in a digital age with increasing pressure on how knowledge is wrapped and delivered, rather than how it is understood, assessed and further developed.

References Bacon, E. (2014). Neo-collegiality: Restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Brew, A. (2009). Academic development in a global context. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(2), 95–97. Burnes, B., Wend, P., & By, R. T. (2014). The changing face of English universities: Reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 305–326. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.754858 de Lange, T., Esterhazy, R., & Wittek, L. (this volume). Peer group mentoring among faculty staff in higher education. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty peer group mentoring in higher education: Developing collegiality through organised supportive collaboration. Springer. Elken, M., & Stensaker, B. (2018). Conceptualising ‘quality work’ in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 24(3), 189–202. Elken, M., Maassen, P., Nerland, M., Prøitz, T., Stensaker, B., & Vabø, A. (Eds.). (2020). Quality work in higher education: Organisational and pedagogical dimensions. Springer. Gibbs, G. (2013). Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 4–14. Gunnes, H. (2018). Tidsbruksundersøkelse for universiteter og høyskoler. En tidsbruksundersøkelse blant vitenskapelig og faglignsate I 2016. NIFU. Harvey, L. (1995). The new collegialism: Improvement with accountability. Tertiary Education and Management, 1(2), 153–160. Knapper, C. (2016). Does educational development matter? International Journal for Academic Development, 21(2), 105–115. Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2019). From organized anarchy to de-coupled bureaucracy: The transformation of university organization. Higher Education Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/ hequ.12229 Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. E., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209. Quinn, L. (Ed.). (2012). Re-imagining academic staff development: Space for disruption. Sun Press. Stensaker, B., & Vabø, A. (2013). Re-inventing shared governance: Implications for the academic leadership. Higher Education Quarterly, 56(3), 256–274. Stensaker, B., Bilbow, G., Breslow, L., & van der Vaart, R. (2017). Strengthening teaching and learning in research universities. Strategies and initiatives for institutional change. Palgrave Macmillan. Whitchurch, C. (2012). Reconstructing identities in higher education: The rise of ‘third space’ professionals. Routledge.