Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Why Work with Undergraduate Researchers? Differences in Research Advisors’ Motivations and Outcomes by Career Stage

Why Work with Undergraduate Researchers? Differences in Research Advisors’ Motivations and... ARTICLE Why Work with Undergraduate Researchers? Differences in Research Advisors’ Motivations and Outcomes by Career Stage Charles N. Hayward,* Sandra L. Laursen, and Heather Thiry Ethnography & Evaluation Research, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309-0580 ABSTRACT Undergraduate research is often hailed as a solution to increasing the number and quality of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates needed to fill the high- tech jobs of the future. Student benefits of research are well documented but the emerg - ing literature on advisors’ perspectives is incomplete: only a few studies have included the graduate students and postdocs who often serve as research advisors, and not much is known about why research advisors choose to work with undergraduate researchers. We report the motivations for advising undergraduate researchers, and the related costs and benefits of doing so, from 30 interviews with research advisors at various career stag - es. Many advisors stated intrinsic motivations, but a small group of early-career advisors expressed only instrumental motivations. We explore what this means for how advisors work with student researchers, the benefits students may or may not gain from the expe - rience, and the implications for training and retaining research advisors who can provide high-quality research experiences for undergraduate students. INTRODUCTION The benefits of undergraduate research for students are well documented and include personal and professional gains, research skills, career clarification, enhanced prepa - ration for careers and graduate school, and the ability to think and work like a scientist (Osborn and Karukstis, 2009; Laursen et al., 2010; Lopatto and Tobias, 2010; Linn et al., 2015). Other researchers have linked participation in undergraduate research with intention to continue in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related graduate programs, particularly for students otherwise underrepre- Erin L. Dolan, Monitoring Editor sented in these fields (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineer - Submitted July 21, 2016; Revised December 12, ing, and Institute of Medicine, 2011; Eagan et al., 2013). One study even reported that 2016; Accepted December 12, 2016 undergraduate researchers reported increased productivity and satisfaction when they CBE Life Sci Educ March 1, 2017 16:ar13 advanced and in turn became advisors for undergraduate research projects during DOI:10.1187/cbe.16-07-0229 their graduate studies (Lunsford, 2012). *Address correspondence to: Charles N. Hayward (chuck.hayward@colorado.edu). Because of these benefits, undergraduate research opportunities have been, and © 2017 C. N. Hayward et al. CBE—Life Sciences continue to be, an important aspect of federal plans to help improve STEM education Education © 2017 The American Society for Cell and train qualified students for the STEM workforce of the future (Boyer Commission Biology. This article is distributed by The on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998; National Science and American Society for Cell Biology under license Technology Council, 2013). While these plans advocate for increasing access to under- from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share graduate research opportunities, this goal presents challenges. Either we must find Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License ways to increase the number of students each research advisor can sponsor, or we (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ must increase the number of advisors who work with undergraduates in appren- by-nc-sa/3.0). tice-style research. Increasing the number of students each advisor works with pres- “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell ents challenges, as advisors may be pressured to take on less-prepared students who Biology®” are registered trademarks of The require more time to train or to take on too many students to provide meaningful American Society for Cell Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, 1–11, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 1 C. N. Hayward et al. The fifth type of influence, dispositional factors, is still rela - personal interactions with all of them (Laursen et al., 2010). tively unexplored. Morales et al. (2016) identified only one dis - Course-based research experiences are another possible way to positional factor in their model, “organizational citizenship increase the number of students working with each research behavior,” which they described as exerting more effort than is advisor (Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Corwin-Auchincloss required by one’s formal role. They measured it using three sur- et al., 2014; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and vey items. They asked respondents to rate how strongly they Medicine, 2015). This approach is currently being tested and agreed or disagreed with statements about increasing diversity studied. through undergraduate research, enjoying teaching students The other tactic for increasing the number of potential about research, and helping prepare students for graduate stud- research advisors who engage undergraduates in appren- ies. Moreover, only one of these items, “I value the opportunity tice-style research experiences presents its own challenges. to increase diversity in the academy through mentorship of Proper training may be necessary to ensure that new advisors underrepresented minority undergraduates,” was significantly are prepared to provide high-quality research experiences for correlated with participation in undergraduate research advis- undergraduates (Pfund et al., 2006). In fact, in a large-scale ing. There is still much to learn about undergraduate research survey of both advisors and students involved in research expe- advisors’ motivations, especially in the area of dispositional riences, students’ most commonly suggested improvement was factors. more frequent and better quality guidance from their advisors In this paper, we expand this modest literature to address (Russell et al., 2007). research advisors’ motivations to work with undergraduates in Another challenge of increasing the number of advisors is a research-focused institution. The present study builds on our motivation, or whether or not potential advisors want to work prior work about students’ perspectives and outcomes from with undergraduate researchers. Morales et al. (2016) offer a undergraduate research (Thiry and Laursen, 2011). In that model of advisor motivation that takes into account five types study, students cited important types of professional, intellec- of influences: 1) expected costs and benefits, 2) previous men - tual, and personal support that their advisors provided as they toring experience, 3) situational factors, 4) demographic fac- interacted over the course of the research project. To examine tors, and 5) dispositional factors. the other side of these interactions, we conducted a comple- There is some research available on how each of these fac- mentary interview study designed to explore advisors’ perspec- tors affects advisors’ motivations. Benefits for advisors are tives about their students’ experiences and outcomes (Hayward associated with higher participation in undergraduate research et al., 2013). While we began with a focus on advisors’ observa- and include advancing the advisor’s own research agenda tions about their students, in conducting and analyzing these (Adedokun et al., 2010; Laursen et al., 2010), while the time interviews, we found that advisors’ motivations for engaging in for training undergraduate researchers is a cost that deters undergraduate research emerged as important in their own advisors (Adedokun et al., 2010; Baker et al., 2015). Situa- right. In this qualitative analysis, we explore the phenomenon tional factors are also influential. Some advisors are deterred of advisor motivation, including some motivating factors that by institutional practices that do not formally recognize and are not currently addressed in the literature. We use interview reward engagement in undergraduate research in their tenure data to examine the range of motivations that novice and expe- and evaluation processes; conversely, available funding to sup- rienced research advisors reported, identify possible relation- port undergraduate researchers can help encourage advisors to ships between advisors’ career stages and motivations, and sug- participate (Laursen et al., 2010; Eagan et al., 2011; Baker gest ways in which advisor motivations may shift over the et al., 2015). course of an academic career. In addition to the influence of situational factors and antici - pated costs and benefits, both individual and institutional Types of Motivation demographics are associated with varying participation rates of Because motivations emerged as a central topic in our inter- research advisors. Among individual demographic factors, fac- view data, we start by offering some insight from the avail- ulty of color (Webber et al. 2013), midcareer faculty (Morales able research literature on motivations, which we then use to et al. 2016), and faculty in the life sciences (Eagan et al., 2011) interpret and frame the discussion of our results. Previous are more likely to advise undergraduate researchers. Among research on motivation in various fields has found that the institutional variables, Eagan et al. (2011) report that faculty type of motivation affects outcomes. Motivations generally members were more likely to engage undergraduates in their fall into two main types. Somebody who is intrinsically moti- research if they worked at liberal arts colleges, historically vated to engage in an activity will do so even in the absence Black colleges or universities, or more selective schools. Baker of external reward (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Extrinsically moti- et al. (2015) reported that faculty at one liberal arts institution vated individuals, on the other hand, are driven by outcomes were motivated to engage in undergraduate research because and forces separate from the activity itself, such as rewards, doing so aligned with the goals of a liberal arts education; at recognition, or social pressure (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The another institution, the strategic plan included goals that moti- names and definitions of different types of motivations vary vated faculty to participate. Yet, at many institutions, faculty slightly from source to source and field to field. Some research - often report feeling a tension between focusing on teaching ver- ers have argued for different terms because intrinsic and sus research (Brownell and Tanner, 2012). Even at teaching-fo- extrinsic are ambiguous about whether they refer to the per- cused undergraduate institutions, publications may be import- son or the activity and because intrinsic seems to imply an ant for tenure and promotion, and the slower pace of research inherent pleasure in the activity (Wrzesniewski et al., 2014). involving undergraduates can cause publication rates to dip We choose to use intrinsic to refer to motivations inherent to (Laursen et al., 2010). 16:ar13, 2 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage The term “mentor” may also imply experience and expertise. the activity itself and instrumental to describe motivations Indeed, many past studies on mentoring have focused only on that serve as a means to an end that is outside of the activity faculty members as research mentors. However, at research of research advising. These choices help to alleviate some of universities, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and the common misconceptions and are consistent with the other scientists also serve as advisors to undergraduate labeling in the few other available studies that discuss research researchers (Dolan and Johnson, 2009). These people impor- advisor motivations (e.g., Dolan and Johnson, 2009; Prunuske tantly expand the capacity for labs to take on undergraduates, et al., 2013). and their experience as research advisors may be formative in When people with different motivations are compared, preparing them for future mentoring and supervisory roles in those with intrinsic motivations tend to have better perfor- academic and industry settings. Only a few studies about mance and outcomes in various settings, including high school research mentoring have included graduate students and post- completion (Vallerand et al., 1997), workplace performance doctoral researchers in their samples (e.g., Dolan and Johnson, (Grant et al., 2011), and retention and promotion in the mili- 2009; Prunuske et al., 2013). tary (Wrzesniewski et al., 2014). Moreover, offering instrumen- For these reasons, we use the term “research advisor” tal motivations for an activity that one already finds intrinsi - throughout this paper instead of the more common “mentor.” cally motivating can be detrimental, rather than additive. Deci This term applies to all individuals who engage with under- and Ryan’s (1985) seminal work includes a review of multiple graduate researchers, including faculty, graduate students, examples in laboratory settings in which introducing instru- postdocs, and technicians, who guide and train undergraduate mental motivations (e.g., a reward) for doing activities that research students, while not assuming a depth of relationship were already intrinsically motivating resulted in decreased that may or may not be present. This approach is consistent enjoyment of those activities. There are also real-life, nonlabo- with other authors’ views that not all advising is mentoring and ratory examples of the detrimental effects of mixed motiva- that more work is needed to understand the role of individual tions. Among West Point cadets, those who expressed both identities and the relational aspects of undergraduate research intrinsic and instrumental motivations tended to fall midrange advising (Palmer et al., 2015). on long-term outcome measures such as graduation rates, early promotion, and retention beyond mandatory service periods; METHODS they underperformed cadets with mainly intrinsic motivations Context for the Study but surpassed those with mainly instrumental motivations In this study, we draw upon interview data from advisors in (Wrzesniewski et al., 2014). In another study, when volunteers one undergraduate research program at a large, PhD-granting held multiple motivations, they found the act of volunteering to research university in the Western United States. In the pro- be more stressful, more costly, less fulfilling, and less satisfying gram, students worked with advisors to develop a research pro- than volunteers who expressed only a single motivation posal. Students accepted into the program were then placed in (Kiviniemi et al., 2002), suggesting that with more motivations the labs of those advisors and supported through small grants come more, perhaps conflicting, expectations. to fund their research experiences. The program supported both summer and academic-year research opportunities. While Advisor or Mentor? the content and scope of students’ research experiences varied Before describing our study design and results, we also discuss depending on the labs they were in and the projects they were our choice to use the term “research advisor,” instead of the working on, all students in the program attended a few semi- more common term “mentor.” Much of the available literature nars together in order to develop commonly needed skills. For uses the term “mentor” to refer to those individuals who work example, students attended a seminar to learn how to prepare with undergraduate researchers. However, “mentor” is not a research poster and then another later seminar to help cri- always an appropriate term. Kram (1985) identified two func - tique one another’s posters before presenting them at the end- tions of mentors: providing career support and providing psy- of-program poster session. chosocial support. In fact, being a research mentor may involve an even greater variety of functions, including advisor, sup- Participants and Data Collection porter, tutor, master, sponsor, or model of identity (Guberman Data were collected through retrospective interviews with et al., 2006). In practice, these functions may be variously filled research advisors. All advisors had supervised undergraduates by different individuals (e.g., Windham et al., 2004; Pandya during summer or academic-year research as part of the same et al., 2007). A recent literature review identified 10 evi - program. We had previously conducted interviews with stu- dence-based practices of high-quality mentoring in undergradu- dents in the program (Thiry and Laursen, 2011) and then ate research, which included technical or expertise functions designed the current study to learn more about those students’ such as skill training, careful project management, and career activities and scientific development from the perspective of development, as well as interpersonal functions such as building their research advisors. Due to a gap in funding, advisors were community, providing emotional support, and showing personal interviewed approximately 2 years after they had participated interest in students (Shanahan et al., 2015). Yet not all research in the program, though some advisors had continued to work advisors follow all of these exemplary mentoring practices or fill with other undergraduate researchers. all of these mentoring functions (De Welde and Laursen, 2008; Each student in the program may have worked with multi- Linn et al., 2015). This body of literature shows that the term ple individuals in a lab, but only one was identified as the “mentor” generally implies “psychosocial support,” or a close- advisor of record. The sponsoring program provided us lists of ness and trust in a personal relationship that is not always pres- these advisors of record, and we drew a stratified sample in ent in research advisor–undergraduate researcher interactions. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 3 C. N. Hayward et al. terms of discipline, gender, and years of experience. Invita- multiple times. We started with a coding scheme developed by tions were sent to 52 research advisors. Thirty (58%) partici- the second and third authors from their previous work with pated in individual interviews and were included in our sam- undergraduate researchers (Laursen et al., 2010, 2012; Thiry ple. In total, 21 separate research labs were represented in our et al., 2012). Before beginning, all three authors discussed the sample. We interviewed more than one advisor from seven of existing coding scheme for student interviews. Coding of the these labs because there were multiple student/advisor pairs advisor interviews was then conducted by the first author and in those labs. spot-checked by the second and third authors. Consistent with Of the 30 advisors interviewed, 50% (n = 15) were men and the goal of this exploratory study, we used the process of con- 50% (n = 15) were women. Most research advisors were grad- stant comparative coding (Glaser, 1965) to reveal emergent uate students (n = 13, 43%) or faculty (n = 11, 37%). Postdoc- themes from the interview data. That is, with each interview, toral researchers (n = 5, 17%) and one technician made up the we compared the data with our existing codes. New insights remainder. Some were working with their first undergraduate sometimes warranted the development of new or more specific and some had been doing so for more than 40 years. We classi- codes (e.g., “advisor motivations”), which were then reapplied fied those with less than 5 years experience as “early-career” to earlier coded interviews. Discrepancies were resolved and advisors (n = 17, 57% of the sample), which included all grad- new codes were developed through consultations among all uate students, the technician, and some of the postdoctoral three authors. If groups of codes shared similar themes, they researchers. Advisors with five or more years of experience were organized into domains (Spradley, 1980). advising undergraduate researchers were classified as “experi - We report results as both the number of interview partici- enced.” This group (n = 13, 43%) included all faculty members pants who mentioned a topic (“number of advisors”) and the and some of the postdoctoral researchers. Advisors were all number of comments they made about that topic (“number of from different departments throughout the life sciences. We do comments”). Comparisons of the relative frequencies of specific not break out participants by department or other demographic codes give an estimate of the relative importance of the topics variables in this paper, as small group sizes may make individ- to the participants. These frequencies are not a generalizable or ual identification possible. statistical measure. The interviews were semistructured so that participants could share their own insights and reflections as well as respond RESULTS to questions posed by researchers. The order of questions was In this analysis, we focus on advisors’ comments on a range of not the same in every interview. Some topics arose sponta- topics, including their motivations for engaging in research neously, and some were not represented in every interview. For advising, the costs and benefits of doing so, and the benefits example, the interview protocol did not directly address advi- they thought students gained by doing undergraduate research. sors’ motivations to work with undergraduates. However, this Advisors’ motivations help to shed light on why they chose to topic arose in almost every interview (28 of 30, 93%), signaling work with undergraduate researchers, and what their expecta- the importance of motivation to research advisors. tions may have been. We compare these expectations with the The interview protocol covered a broad range of topics to reported outcomes in terms of perceived costs and benefits, as help advisors reflect on their undergraduates’ research experi - alignment between expectations and reality may influence ences, including their prior research advisor experiences and advisor retention. Finally, we analyze how advisors’ motiva- training, the nature of their students’ research work, student tions may influence how they work with undergraduate gains from research, descriptions of lab interactions, and the researchers, and how that may affect student outcomes. costs and benefits of advising undergraduate research. (The full protocol is available in the Supplemental Material.) References Motivations: Why Do Advisors Engage in Advising to both instructor and student gains are self-reported gains Undergraduate Researchers? described in comments during interviews; they are not derived During the interviews, many participants spoke about why they from external, standardized measurements. Before any data chose to advise undergraduate researchers. First, we identified collection, all interview protocols were reviewed and approved the different types of “advisor motivations.” Upon review of the by our Institutional Review Board at the University of Colo- entire set of coded motivations, two distinct categories emerged. rado–Boulder. The interviews were audio-recorded, and then We categorized them as “intrinsic” and “instrumental.” Intrinsic transcribed verbatim and entered into NVivo v. 9 (QSR Interna- motivations are those that can only be achieved through the tional, 2010). activity of undergraduate research advising, whereas instru- mental motivations can also be achieved in other ways. For Data Analysis example, the intrinsic motivation of wanting to be a mentor for Our general approach to analysis was observational in nature, undergraduates is only possible through mentoring undergrad- treating the interviews as revealing motivations as they occurred uates, while it is possible to be productive, an instrumental in a real-world setting. Rather than testing a hypothesis about motivation, through other means. advisor motivations or aiming to confirm a preexisting theory, Advisors made many comments about intrinsic motivations we took note of themes that emerged as we analyzed the inter- (20 advisors, 41 comments), and most of these were about how view data. During the analysis, sections of transcripts that advising undergraduates is essential to the development of the related to specific topics were assigned codes to identify those scientific workforce (18 advisors, 31 comments). For example, topics. For passages of the transcript that addressed multiple one advisor stated, “Training the undergrads and the grad stu- topics, we assigned multiple codes. Additionally, codes were dents is part of my duty. People trained me, so I will do it too” used multiple times throughout a transcript if the topic came up (Male faculty advisor, #14). The motivation, fulfilling a “duty” 16:ar13, 4 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage TABLE 1. Reported advisor motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers Intrinsic Instrumental category Example category Example Development of the Education is important … I feel strongly Increased lab The most important thing is that they just get scientific work - about being part of a university productivity experiments done, or they help. It’s a lot of force (18 advisors, community.… I think it’s an important (11 advisors, the labor that no one wants to do.—Male 31 comments) contribution.—Female postdoc, #22 18 comments) faculty, #13 Wanting to serve as a I was really excited to start mentoring an Requirement of PI [My PI] basically will assign like grad students mentor (7 undergraduate because I really enjoy it (6 advisors, in the lab to mentor them.—Male graduate advisors, 9 … helping them learn all these different 8 comments) student, #24 comments) aspects.—Female graduate student, #7 Undergraduates make It’s fun…. You need that.… You can’t be Requirement of job or In my lab, the technician oversees all of the lab work more fun just 9 to 5 talking about mutations. position (3 advisors, undergraduate researchers, so it was part of (1 advisor, 1 —Female faculty, #21 3 comments) my job.—Female technician, #26 comment) Helps check work I had a massive amount of things that needed to (1 advisor, be checked again.… She can learn and help 1 comment) [me] out by checking [my] own work. —Male graduate student, #4 to train future research scientists, is inherent in the activity of presented in Table 2. About a third of early-career advisors training undergraduate researchers. Most other intrinsic moti- were classified as instrumentally motivated. No experienced vations addressed wanting to serve as a mentor (7 advisors, 9 advisors were classified as instrumentally motivated. comments), and one participant included undergraduates in her lab because their approach to lab work, which can get “frus- Benefits: What Do Advisors Gain from Advising trating and boring,” helped to “increase the fun ratio” (Female Undergraduate Researchers? faculty advisor, #21). In addition to motivations (why the advisors worked with Other motivations were more instrumental (16 advisors, 30 undergraduate researchers), we also coded for advisor benefits : comments) in nature. That is, they were externally directed or the positive outcomes they reported experiencing through serv- served as a means to an end outside of research advising. These ing as undergraduate research advisors. The two are related, included increased lab productivity (11 advisors, 18 com- yet distinct. When advisors talked about expected benefits they ments), requirement of the principal investigator (PI) of the lab hoped to achieve by working with undergraduate researchers, (6 advisors, 8 comments), and requirement of the individual’s we considered those as motivations. However, because inter- specific job or position (3 advisors, 3 comments). While these views were conducted after the conclusion of the undergradu- requirements might also be seen as “duties,” we classified them ate research program, we coded as benefits only those outcomes as instrumental, because the goal, such as satisfying one’s PI, advisors reported actually experiencing. The same topic was can also be achieved in ways other than supervising undergrad- coded as both a motivation and a benefit only if the outcome uate researchers. Examples of both types of motivation com- was both expected and realized. For example, an advisor may ments are presented in Table 1. have been motivated by the enjoyment of working with under- In addition to the individually coded intrinsic and instru- graduates, but enjoyment would only also be coded as a benefit mental motivations, we also classified each interview holisti - if the advisor reported actually enjoying the experience. cally, based on the main themes in each interviewee’s com- The benefits also fit into the same two categories as motiva - ments about motivations. While most advisors expressed both, tions, instrumental and intrinsic. Intrinsic benefits are those five advisors described only instrumental motivations such as inherent to the activity of supervising undergraduate research- external requirements or increased productivity; these were ers. Because they are inherent to working together with under- classified as “instrumentally motivated” to supervise under - graduate researchers, there are often mutual benefits for both graduate researchers. Of the remaining advisors, 23 were clas- advisors and students. When comments were about benefits sified as “intrinsically motivated” to supervise undergraduate that could be gained in ways other than working with under- researchers. While many of these mentioned increased produc- graduate researchers, we classified them as instrumental. tivity, they also described intrinsic motivations like wanting to help students, wanting to “pay back” the scientific community TABLE 2. Research advisor experience level and holistic by mentoring others as they had themselves been mentored, classification of advisor’s motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers and enjoying mentoring. No advisors expressed solely intrinsic motivations. Two advisors did not comment on their motiva- Intrinsic Instrumental tions for advising and were not classified. Career stage motivation motivation Unassigned We compared each advisor’s career stage, expressed in years Early career 11 5 1 of advising undergraduate researchers, with his or her moti- Experienced 12 0 1 vation for engaging in undergraduate research. Results are CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 5 C. N. Hayward et al. TABLE 3. Reported benefits of supervising undergraduate researchers Category Example Intrinsic Improved teaching and mentoring skills [Data got messed up because] I didn’t come talk to her. We didn’t have a weekly (22 advisors, 49 comments) meeting.… As an undergrad, there isn’t necessarily that [ability to do it yourself] … The professor and I agreed that it was our responsibility to make sure we were more involved with the project.—Female postdoc, #12 Personal rewards (i.e., friendship, feeling of doing My career goal is to actually work at a primarily undergraduate institution so that I can work something good) (22 advisors, 30 comments) with undergrads, because I do find it to be one of the most rewarding parts of my research—Female graduate student, #16 Deeper understanding of scientific concepts for He constantly raised my game.… Working with these bright young people, they ask advisor through teaching undergraduates questions that constantly keep you on your toes.—Male postdoc, #23 (16 advisors, 23 comments) Contributions to preparing future scientists It’s like [we] had a hand in training these people. Maybe they’ll come back [here], maybe (14 advisors, 19 comments) not, but either way, they have their own experience [here] that they can say was a major impetus for them going on in science.—Female faculty, #8 Increased energy and enthusiasm in the lab group They bring a fresh and fun perspective.… It’s just really, really fun, and I really, really enjoy (11 advisors, 12 comments) that enthusiasm.— Female faculty, #6 Instrumental Increased productivity (20 advisors, 31 comments) I like to have undergrads. One good undergrad can get you a paper.—Male faculty, #14 Career preparation for advisor (résumé building It definitely helps to be able to explain what you’re doing.… I’ll have people who will work and mentoring experience) (22 advisors, 29 for me [in the future]. Being able to explain to people is always a good communication comments) skill.—Female graduate student, #1 Long-term benefits to the research group through Many of the undergrads that are going through our program want to go to graduate students who continue with the same lab for school.… All of my new graduate students in the fall have done undergraduate research graduate school or career (10 advisors, in our labs.—Male faculty, #3 15 comments) Prestige for the university or lab (7 advisors, We had a couple of students go out to [an undergraduate research conference] and when 7 comments) they present well, it looks really well [for] the program.—Male postdoc, #18 Help in recruiting future students (3 advisors, Undergraduate research is an opportunity that plays a big role in this environment, and 5 comments) [it’s] not available in other college environments.—Male faculty, #3 Because these are not inherent to working together with stu- productivity and described the student as a means to that end, dents, they are often about how a student worked for, and as in this example: served as a means to, the advisor’s benefit. The benefits advi - sors mentioned are included in Table 3. All of them are working on portions of my dissertation, which While all advisors described benefits that they received, it clearly is beneficial. Even though it takes time to train them, advisors with intrinsic motivations tended to discuss mutual in the big scheme of things, [on] large tasks, the hours they put in are crucial. They save me a lot of time and help with benefits for themselves that co-occurred with those for their general productivity in the lab.… We get a lot out of having students. They also tended to discuss richer, layered views of undergrads—if we didn’t, then we wouldn’t have them.—Male the multiple benefits of undergraduate research. For example, graduate student advisor, #15 one faculty member described how research advising helped all researchers in the faculty–graduate student–undergraduate Because we classified motivations separately from benefits triad common at graduate institutions (Dolan and Johnson, and classified advisors holistically based on their expressed 2009); he described both increased productivity and deeper motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers, we are understanding of the scientific concepts: able to assess this alignment by directly comparing their moti- vations with the benefits they reported. Results are presented in One is the obvious: [the graduate students] get helped. The Table 4. On average, advisors with intrinsic motivations made other is, it’s very easy to forget that you, [faculty], were in that roughly twice as many comments about intrinsic benefits as state at one point. I think you learn so much more by teaching they did about instrumental benefits. Advisors with instrumen - than you do even by doing. I think it’s really good for the grad- uate students to be explaining things to the undergraduates tal motivations made about the same number of comments and so forth, because they suddenly realize, just like [faculty] about intrinsic benefits as they did about instrumental benefits. do when we’re teaching, that “I don’t really understand These relative frequencies may give an indication of the relative this.”—Male faculty advisor, #10 importance of those topics for advisors. Upon comparison, both groups reported roughly equivalent total benefits, but intrinsi - On the other hand, advisors with mainly instrumental moti- cally motivated advisors tended to report more intrinsic bene- vations tended to focus solely on their own benefit of increased fits and slightly fewer instrumental benefits. This suggests that 16:ar13, 6 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage TABLE 4. Advisor benefits reported by holistic classification of gories as well, as shown in Table 5. The student benefits that advisor’s motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers advisors noted may shed some light on how they worked with undergraduate students: instrumentally motivated advisors Advisors tended to describe instrumental student benefits of undergrad - Intrinsically Instrumentally uate research experience. In the following example, the advisor Advisor motivated motivated Unassigned described research experiences as a one-way ticket to graduate benefits (n = 23) (n = 5) (n = 2) school, rather than as a space for exploring one option out of a Intrinsic 73 comments 11 comments 12 comments variety of career possibilities: 3.2 per advisor 2.2 per advisor 6 per advisor Instrumental 41 comments 11 comments 6 comments There is always the self-recruitment for academic types, once 1.8 per advisor 2.2 per advisor 3 per advisor you’re in that setting. But I think all these people also knew that doing just chemistry, or biology, with just a bachelor’s advisors may be more alert to benefits that match their initial degree doesn’t get you far.… The mentality inside the lab [is] to keep going to school, and to keep bettering yourself.—Male motivations. graduate student advisor, #4 Practices: How Do Motivations and Costs/Benefits Shape How Advisors Work with Undergraduate Researchers? Here, the advisor focuses on a goal (i.e., graduate school Research advisors had different motivations for working with admission) that is not necessarily inherent in the research expe- undergraduate researchers and experienced benefits that rience itself. On the other hand, Laursen et al. (2010) found tended to match their motivations. These differences in motiva- that some students used undergraduate research experiences as tions may also have influenced their expectations about the out - a chance to determine their own interest in and suitability for a comes research experiences could provide for students. Prior career as a research scientist; the goal (i.e., experiencing research has shown links between advisor preparation and research) was inherent in the activity itself. expectations, the way they work with students, and student Interestingly, of the four instrumentally motivated advisors outcomes (Pfund et al., 2006). To explore this link between (out of five total) who commented on career clarification , two advisor motivations and perceived student outcomes, we classi- compared their students’ experiences with their own experi- fied advisor comments about student gains from research using ences deciding on a future career path in academia. These advi- six categories established in previous studies (Laursen et al., sors were both early in their careers, so these decisions were 2010), including the following: more recent for them. In contrast, advisors with intrinsic moti- vations spoke about career clarification more broadly, acknowl - 1. thinking and working like a scientist: intellectual gains in edging that research experience is not just preparation for grad- application of scientific knowledge and skills, understanding uate school, and that, for some students, it does the opposite by the process of research, and increased disciplinary making it clear that a career in scientific research is not actually knowledge; what they want. 2. becoming a scientist: behaviors and attitudes necessary to In addition to differences in the student benefits empha - become a scientist; sized, differences in advisor motivations may also have influ - 3. personal/professional gains: confidence and comfort with enced how they worked with students. Many advisors com- ability to do well in scientific pursuits; mented on how they selected projects for students. Advisors 4. skills: lab, field, and communication skills essential to with instrumental motivations tended to involve undergradu- research scientists; ates on aspects of their projects that served to help the advisor. 5. clarification of educational and career aspirations ; and This usually meant carrying out predesigned data-collection 6. enhanced career and graduate school preparation. procedures and, in some cases, replicating studies that had Overall, advisors with intrinsic motivations observed slightly already been done. For example, one instrumentally motivated more student benefits (19.4 comments per interview) than did advisor explained how he selected a project where the student advisors with instrumental motivations (16.0 comments per worked mainly on data collection to verify work he had already interview). This trend held separately for most of the six cate- done himself: TABLE 5. Student gains reported by advisors by holistic classification of advisor’s motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers Average number of comments per advisor interview Intrinsically motivated advisors Instrumentally motivated advisors Category (n = 23) (n = 5) Thinking and working like a scientist (intellectual gains) 5.4 4.2 Enhanced career preparation 4.3 3.6 Becoming a scientist 3.8 3.6 Skills 2.1 1.0 Career clarification 2.0 2.4 Personal/professional gains 1.7 1.2 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 7 C. N. Hayward et al. I had a massive amount of things that needed to be checked I will typically assign those entry-level students to a graduate again, and it was a good opportunity to do the scientific pro - student who can get them doing something that will help them cess and get familiar with the instruments…. So it was kind of in, I don’t want to say the word menial, but something that, if like she can learn and help [me] out by checking [my] own it backfires, it’s not going to set us back too much. So, sort of a work…. It was something I was very familiar with, which is low-risk, but hopefully a fun, first way to get engaged.… The good, I think, [when] mentoring someone on something. other thing is that I will make sure that everybody comes to [Mentoring on] something that you’re not familiar with is a our weekly lab meetings, during which a grad student, or disaster.—Male graduate student advisor, #5 myself, or postdocs, will present, or even undergrads will pres- ent research, or talk about a paper. I like to give them the fla - vor of things.… Then, if they’re super gung-ho, maybe the On the other hand, advisors with intrinsic motivations semester following that, I’ll ask for an independent study.— tended to focus on how the student would benefit from the Female faculty advisor, #6 particular project, rather than how it would benefit the advisor. For example, one advisor noted how he specifically picked proj - In general, instrumentally motivated advisors tended to pick ects that were good learning opportunities for students but not projects emphasizing data collection through replicating known central to his own research agenda, or, in his words, “a project studies or procedures. Student work on such projects largely that I would like to get to work but isn’t very high priority, and focused on developing skills in data collection and lab tech- something I could give [the student] direction for but not nec- niques. Intrinsically motivated advisors tended to pick projects essarily count on having it work” (Male graduate student, #24). with a larger scope, and some involved students in all stages of While many intrinsically motivated advisors did select proj- the scientific process, including the design, analysis, and report - ects that involved mastering routine lab skills or replicating ing of results, in addition to data collection. known results, these advisors also included more broad and authentic scientific work in the projects they picked for stu - DISCUSSION dents. Some authors define “authentic scientific work” by its Our results reveal some interesting findings about advisor moti - product—answering novel questions to make new scientific dis - vations. Two different kinds of motivations, instrumental and coveries. However, in this context, we use the more broadly intrinsic, shaped advisors’ choices to work with undergraduate held definition based on engaging students in the processes of researchers. Moreover, it seems that there is a relationship authentic scientific work such as forming hypotheses, designing between types of motivations and career stage, as the small studies, and collecting and analyzing data about questions that number of advisors who only expressed instrumental motiva- are novel to the students but not necessarily the entire scientific tions were all early in their careers. The rest of the advisors, community (Spell et al., 2014). (For an in-depth discussion of across various career stages, expressed a blend of intrinsic and the definition of “authenticity,” see Rowland et al., 2016.) One instrumental motivations. When considering the interviews advisor explained, “They understand why the experiment was holistically, these advisors’ intrinsic motivations seemed stron- done.… They get to work on [experimental design]. They get ger than their instrumental motivations, so we classified them the whole picture of how science is done” (Male faculty advisor, as intrinsically motivated. #10). Another intrinsically motivated faculty advisor described No advisors in this sample expressed only intrinsic motiva- offering two different tracks: tions. Because expected benefits can also be motivations, this may just be the nature of research advising: all advisors may One track is if they basically want to help out in the lab, and expect that adding another person to a research lab most likely usually what they wind up doing in that case, is on the lab side will increase productivity. In this exploratory interview study, of things, like routine [lab procedures]. On the computational we did not have a way to measure the strengths of the motiva- side, it’s typically something like … implementation of a par- tions. So, we cannot tell whether increased productivity was ticular mathematical routine [that’s] in a recently published just a benefit most advisors knew they would likely experience paper and that kind of thing. The other track [is] if they want or a motivation that caused them to participate. This is analo- to do a larger scale [and time] load project like an honors gous to a career choice in which the work is intrinsically moti- thesis project or an independent study.… So in that case what vating, but we still expect that it will help to pay the bills. Given makes it successful is that this project … can be completed in the research on mixed motivations and how they relate to long- the time available, so it’s got to be reasonable. And then addi- tionally there has to be one specific postdoc or grad student term outcomes, experimental work is needed in order to sys- from the lab who is excited [to] let that student on that proj- tematically test the relative strengths of different motivations. ect, because otherwise it’s very easy for the students to drift or The advisors in our study have reported motivations that go in unproductive directions.—Male faculty advisor, #27 differ from those in the existing literature. Morales et al.’s (2016) model includes various demographic and situational Other intrinsically motivated advisors also described pick- factors, yet only includes one dispositional factor, which they ing projects like this speaker’s “second track”—broader proj- termed “organizational citizenship behavior.” These research- ects that accommodated students’ individual interests and ers considered three types of organizational citizenship behav- that would help students develop as scientists, again focus- ior: 1) increasing diversity through mentorship of underrepre- ing on helping students learn rather than solely advancing sented minority students, 2) enjoyment of teaching students the advisor’s own research. One advisor described doing this about research, and 3) being able to help prepare students for by increasing the scope of a project over time and by includ- graduate studies. For our sample, advisors’ dispositional factors ing undergraduates in lab activities beyond routine data were different from those assessed by Morales and colleagues. collection: In particular, the advisors in our study did not talk about 16:ar13, 8 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage minority groups specifically when they commented on motiva - primarily instrumental motivations may stop advising later in tions to develop the scientific workforce. their careers, once they have the ability to decide for them- Morales and colleagues did not find a link between teaching selves; or 2) motivations may be dynamic, and intrinsic motiva- or graduate preparation and participation in undergraduate tions may develop over time for some individuals. Owing to the research, yet both topics emerged from our interviews. Although cross-sectional nature of our interview data, we cannot track “I enjoy teaching students about research” was not linked with changes in motivation over time, but there is some evidence serving as a research advisor in their results, seven of our advi- about this, primarily from retrospective remarks in the sors (23%) reported that they enjoyed mentoring and the desire interviews. to serve as a mentor was a motivating factor for them. Simi- In particular, some of the evidence from our interviews sug- larly, their third item, “I am able to help students be better pre- gests that advisors with instrumental motivations only engage pared for graduate studies,” was also not found to correlate in research advising early in their careers when they are with participation in undergraduate research. However, in our required to do so by more senior colleagues, but then stop study, developing the scientific workforce was the most fre - advising once they gain more autonomy. Twelve advisors quently mentioned motivation. This difference may be partially reported being required to supervise undergraduate research- related to the wording of their survey item, as some respon- ers. Only one of these was an experienced advisor, and he was dents may have interpreted the phrase, “I am able,” as a situa- required to supervise more students than he felt he had time for tional factor (i.e., access) or as a measure of success rather than as a postdoc. No other experienced advisors mentioned being a dispositional factor. required to advise undergraduates, while 11 of the 17 early- Our qualitative study also found some additional instrumen- career advisors (65%) did. tal motivations not included in Morales and colleagues’ model: Other research supports the idea that advisors with instru- PIs’ requirements of senior lab members to advise undergradu- mental motivations may stop advising as their careers advance. ates as part of their laboratory duties. These requirements were Our instrumentally motivated advisors were driven largely by particularly salient for graduate students who served as advi- increased productivity and also focused on it more as a benefit. sors. Although graduate students often work closely with However, undergraduate research has been described as posing undergraduate researchers, few studies have included graduate a “fundamental tension” between producing research results students in their samples of research advisors. Indeed, Morales and helping students learn and develop, which often occurs et al. (2016) tested their model using a survey of only faculty through cycles of trial, error, and retrial (Laursen et al., 2012). members. Dolan and Johnson (2009), in one of only two other Motivations driven mainly by increased productivity may cause studies about motivation that include graduate students, found these advisors to be less tolerant of the slow pace at which that “graduate/postdoctoral students … primarily saw mentor- undergraduates learn and develop. Therefore, they may see ing undergraduates as a means to two ends: improving their fewer benefits and fewer reasons to continue advising students research productivity and meeting the implicit or explicit expec- as their careers advance. tations of the research group” (p. 491). That study included However, it may also be that intrinsic motivations develop seven graduate and postdoctoral students from a single research over time and layer onto initial instrumental motivations as group, so it is limited in its generalizability. Our study includes advisors gain experience and a deeper understanding of advis- 30 advisors in 21 different research groups, with faculty mem- ing. There is evidence to support this, too, as intrinsically moti- bers in addition to graduate and postdoctoral students. vated advisors still expressed some instrumental motivations. Together, these two studies suggest that early-career scientists Indeed, some advisors’ comments describe how their intrinsic have motivations for supervising undergraduates that tend to motivations developed over time: be more instrumental than those of experienced faculty. As we have shown, these differences in advisor motivations It’s closer to home, in terms of mentoring the next genera- for supervising undergraduate researchers may shape the way tion of scientists.… This is not something that I felt strongly advisors work with students. Instrumental motivations may about initially, when I was younger. It’s something that grad- lead advisors to select projects that focus more on producing ually develops as I age, and now at this stage of my career, I think it’s so important to try to keep the pipeline going, and data and in the process help develop students as technicians, maintain that flow of the young scientists.—Female faculty leading to gains for students in areas such as lab skills and advisor, #17 data-collection techniques. Advisors with intrinsic motivations, on the other hand, focused more on developing students as research scientists by engaging them throughout the entire pro- As advisors gain more experience and reflect back on their cess of scientific inquiry. Other research has found that faculty career paths, they may develop more intrinsic motivations, advisors engaged undergraduates in more high-level activities especially the desire to “pay it forward” and shape young stu- such as exploring and articulating learning, while graduate stu- dents in the same way that mentors had shaped their own dent advisors tended to focus on the technical aspects of careers. research (Feldman et al., 2013). Given the relationships in our For intrinsically motivated advisors, advising meant working data, it seems that differences in types of motivation may be a with students beyond just equipping them with lab skills. They moderating or mediating factor between career stage and how described research experiences as a chance for a student to advisors work with undergraduates. explore whether or not a career in scientific research is actually If there is a relationship between motivations and career what he or she wants. By contrast, the instrumentally moti- stage, what explains it? We suggest two possible explanations: vated early-career advisors described research experience as a 1) motivations may be static for individuals, and advisors with one-way ticket to graduate school. Many commented on how CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 9 C. N. Hayward et al. research experiences had helped them advance their own et al., 2015), but they are often externally directed strategies careers in scientific research. This may indicate that early-ca - such as removing obstacles or creating incentives for advisors. reer advisors have yet to develop a broad understanding of Research in other fields suggests that creating instrumental advising beyond their own experiences, and do not yet see all motivation through offering external rewards for participation the multifaceted benefits of undergraduate research that intrin - can actually be detrimental to performance and outcomes (Deci sically motivated advisors reported. and Ryan, 1985). Our findings suggest that the focus should Experience is not necessarily the only source for intrinsic instead be on increasing intrinsic motivations. motivations, though, as most early-career advisors (11 of 17, For example, one area that could easily be leveraged is 65%) were classified as intrinsically motivated. Some individu - advisors’ enjoyment of working with undergraduate research- als may already have intrinsic motivations before becoming ers. Only one advisor reported being motivated by the enjoy- advisors, and such motivations may develop more quickly for ment expected from working with students, yet 22 advisors some advisors than others. Future longitudinal research should (73%) reported experiencing personal rewards such as friend- explore how advisor motivations evolve throughout their ship, and 11 advisors (37%) reported that working with careers. undergraduates had increased the energy and enthusiasm in Our findings suggest that instrumentally motivated advisors their labs. Enjoyment seems to be a common, yet less antici- tend to focus on advancing their own research, whereas intrin- pated benefit that could be particularly useful to increase ear - sically motivated advisors are aware of the “fundamental ten- ly-career advisors’ intrinsic motivations, since they are often sion” between student learning and research productivity and close in age to undergraduates and may especially enjoy these work to find a balance that benefits both students and them - near-peer relationships. selves. By involving students in discovery and working to It may also be relatively easy for senior colleagues to influ - achieve a broader range of educational outcomes, intrinsically ence less-experienced colleagues’ intrinsic motivations. One motivated advisors may in fact be more effective in helping stu- graduate student explained that his PI’s beliefs shaped his own dents succeed and advance in the profession (Russell et al., thoughts about working with students: 2007). Future research should explore more deeply how advi- sors’ motivations affect student gains from undergraduate Our advisor is also very supportive of undergraduate research. research, their long-term pursuit of advanced degrees, and She never says, “You’re working with this person,” but she’ll entry into STEM careers. often say, “Hey, if you have time, I’d really like supporting Earlier, we discussed our reasons for using the term “research undergraduate students.” That helped me think about it as an idea.—Male graduate student advisor, #20 advisor” rather than “mentor.” The evidence presented here suggests that not all advisors engage in all of the functions of a mentor. Instrumentally motivated advisors tended to discuss If senior colleagues can help junior colleagues develop only a few of the functions of mentoring and mostly focused on intrinsic motivations simply by discussing their own intrinsic technical training. On the other hand, intrinsically motivated motivations and rewards, this could be an easy, effective way advisors engaged in more of the functions of mentors, including to get more potential advisors motivated to work with interpersonal functions like providing emotional support or undergraduates. friendship and taking a personal interest in students by tailor- ing projects to their needs. Therefore, using the term “mentor” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS may assume certain functions or a close relationship that is not The evaluation and research was supported by a grant from the always present and may obscure differences in motivations that Howard Hughes Medical Initiative (HHMI) through the Biolog- have consequences for what students gain from research ical Sciences Initiative (BSI) at the University of Colorado– experiences. Boulder. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommen - Undergraduate research experiences can be powerful in dations expressed in this material are those of the authors and bringing about positive outcomes for students, and improving do not necessarily reflect the views of HHMI or the BSI. We access to these experiences is a commonly recommended strat- thank all of the study participants. egy for improving undergraduate education. To achieve this, we cannot assume that all advisors want to fulfill all of the roles associated with mentors. We should take into account advisor REFERENCES motivations and whether or not they shift over time. If advisor Adedokun OA, Dyehouse M, Bessenbacher A, Burgess WD (2010). Exploring faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of mentoring under - motivations are static, and instrumentally motivated advisors graduate research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American just stop working with undergraduates as their careers prog- Educational Research Association, held April 30 to May 4, 2010, in Denver, ress, efforts to improve student outcomes and access to research CO. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509729 (accessed 10 November 2015). experiences should focus on making sure the right kind of peo- Baker VL, Pifer MJ, Lunsford LG, Greer J, Ihas D (2015). Faculty as mentors in ple are hired and retained to provide high-quality research undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative work: motivating and inhibiting factors. Mentor Tutor 23, 394–410. advising to undergraduate students. Bangera G, Brownell SE (2014). Course-based undergraduate research expe- However, if motivations develop over time, the focus should riences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, be on creating structures and programs that help research sci- 602–606. entists to develop these intrinsic motivations and learn how to Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University involve undergraduates in research in ways that support stu- (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s dents’ learning and pursuit of scientific interests. Various prac - Research Universities, Stony Brook: State University of New York at Stony tices have been suggested for how best to do this (e.g., Johnson Brook. 16:ar13, 10 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage Brownell SE, Tanner K (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015). Integrat- training, time, incentives, and... tensions with professional identity? CBE ing Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum: Re- Life Sci Educ 11, 339–346. port of a Convocation, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Corwin-Auchincloss L, Laursen SL, Branchaw JL, Eagan K, Graham M, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Insti- Hanauer DI, Lawrie G, McLinn CM, Pelaez N, Rowland S, et  al. (2014). tute of Medicine (2011). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participa- Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a tion, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. meeting report. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 29–40. National Science and Technology Council (2013). Federal Science, Technol- Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in ogy, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 5-Year Strategic Human Behavior, New York: Plenum. Plan, Washington, DC. De Welde K, Laursen SL (2008). The “ideal type” advisor: how advisors help Osborn JM, Karukstis KK (2009). The benefits of undergraduate research, STEM graduate students find their “scientific feet.” Open Educ J 7, scholarship, and creative activity. In: Broadening Participation in Under- 49–61. graduate Research: Fostering Excellence and Enhancing the Impact, ed. M Boyd and J Wesemann, Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Dolan E, Johnson D (2009). Toward a holistic view of undergraduate re- Research, 41–53. search experiences: an exploratory study of impact on graduate/post- doctoral mentors. J Sci Educ Technol 18, 487–500. Palmer RJ, Hunt AN, Neal M, Wuetherick B (2015). Mentoring, undergraduate research, and identity development: a conceptual review and research Eagan MK, Hurtado S, Chang MJ, Garcia GA, Herrera FA, Garibay JC (2013). agenda. Mentor Tutor 23, 411–426. Making a difference in science education: the impact of undergraduate research programs. Am Educ Res Journal 50, 683–713. Pandya RE, Henderson S, Anthes RA, Johnson RM (2007). BEST practices for broadening participation in the geosciences: strategies from the UCAR Eagan MK, Sharkness J, Hurtado S, Mosqueda CM, Chang MJ (2011). Engag- Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS ) ing undergraduates in science research: not just about faculty willing- Program. J Geosci Educ 55, 500–506. ness. Res High Educ 52, 151–177. Pfund C, Pribbenow CM, Branchaw J, Lauffer SM, Handelsman J (2006). The Feldman A, Divoll KA, Rogan-Klyve A (2013). Becoming researchers: the par- merits of training mentors. Science 311, 473–474. ticipation of undergraduate and graduate students in scientific research groups. Sci Educ 97, 218–243. Prunuske AJ, Wilson J, Walls M, Clarke B (2013). Experiences of mentors training underrepresented undergraduates in the research laboratory. Glaser BG (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 403–409. Soc Problems 12, 436–445. QSR International (2010). NVivo qualitative data analysis software, version 9. Grant AM, Nurmohamed S, Ashford SJ, Dekas K (2011). The performance www.qsrinternational.com/. implications of ambivalent initiative: the interplay of autonomous and controlled motivations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 116, 241–251. Rowland S, Pedwell R, Lawrie G, Lovie-Toon J, Hung Y (2016). Do we need to design course-based undergraduate research experiences for au- Guberman J, Saks J, Shapiro B, Torchia M (2006). Making the Right Moves: A thenticity? CBE Life Sci Educ 15, ar79. Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty, Research Triangle Park, NC/Chevy Chase, MD: Burroughs Welcome Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J (2007). Benefits of undergraduate Fund/Howard Hughes Medical Institute. research experiences. Science 316, 548–549. Hayward CN, Thiry H, Laursen SL (2013). Evaluation of the Undergraduate Re- Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic defini - search Programs of the Biological Sciences Initiative: Advisors’ Perspec- tions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25, 54–67. tives, Boulder, CO: Ethnography & Evaluation Research. www.colorado Shanahan JO, Ackley-Holbrook E, Hall E, Stewart K, Walkington H (2015). Ten .edu/eer (accessed 4 November 2016). salient practices of undergraduate research mentors: a review of the lit- Johnson WB, Behling LL, Miller P, Vandermaas-Peeler M (2015). Undergrad- erature. Mentor Tutor 23, 359–376. uate research mentoring: obstacles and opportunities. Mentor Tutor 23, Spell RM, Guinan JA, Miller KR, Beck CW (2014). Redefining authentic re - 441–453. search experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to Kiviniemi MT, Snyder M, Omoto AM (2002). Too many of a good thing? The their implementation. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 102–110. effects of multiple motivations on stress, cost, fulfillment, and satisfac - Spradley J (1980). Participant Observation, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and tion. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28, 732–743. Winston. Kram KE (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organi- Thiry H, Laursen SL (2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in ap- zational Life, Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. prenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of Laursen SL, Hunter A-B, Seymour E, Thiry H, Melton G (2010). Undergraduate practice. J Sci Educ Tech 20, 771–784. Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science, San Thiry H, Weston TJ, Laursen SL, Hunter A-B (2012). The benefits of multi-year Francisco: Jossey-Bass. research experiences: Differences in novice and experienced students’ Laursen SL, Seymour E, Hunter A-B (2012). Learning, teaching and scholarship: reported gains from undergraduate research. CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 260– fundamental tensions of undergraduate research. Change 44, 30–37. 272. Linn MC, Palmer E, Baranger A, Gerard E, Stone E (2015). Undergraduate re- Vallerand RJ, Fortier MS, Guay F (1997). Self-determination and persistence search experiences: impacts and opportunities. Science 347, 1261757. in a real-life setting: toward a motivational model of high school drop- out. J Pers Soc Psychol 72, 1161–175. Lopatto D, Tobias S (2010). Science in Solution: The Impact of Undergradu- ate Research on Student Learning, Washington, DC: Council on Under- Webber KL, Laird TFN, BrckaLorenz AM (2013). Student and faculty member graduate Research. engagement in undergraduate research. Res High Educ 54, 227–249. Lunsford L (2012). Doctoral advising or mentoring? Eects ff on student out - Windham TL, Stevermer AJ, Anthes RA (2004). SOARS . Bull Am Meteorol comes. Mentor Tutor 20, 251–270. Soc 85, 42. Morales DX, Grineski SE, Collins TW (2016). Faculty motivation to mentor stu- Wrzesniewski A, Schwartz B, Cong X, Kane M, Omar A, Kolditz T (2014). Mul- dents through undergraduate research programs: a study of enabling and tiple types of motives don’t multiply the motivation of West Point cadets. constraining factors. Res High Educ, doi:10.1007/s11162-016-9435-x. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 10990–10995. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 11 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png CBE—Life Sciences Education Pubmed Central

Why Work with Undergraduate Researchers? Differences in Research Advisors’ Motivations and Outcomes by Career Stage

Hayward, Charles N.; Laursen, Sandra L.; Thiry, Heather
CBE—Life Sciences Education , Volume 16 (1) – Jan 1, 169
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/pubmed-central/why-work-with-undergraduate-researchers-differences-in-research-dV9oDiiNVU

References (50)

Publisher
Pubmed Central
Copyright
© 2017 C. N. Hayward et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2017 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).
ISSN
1931-7913
eISSN
1931-7913
DOI
10.1187/cbe.16-07-0229
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ARTICLE Why Work with Undergraduate Researchers? Differences in Research Advisors’ Motivations and Outcomes by Career Stage Charles N. Hayward,* Sandra L. Laursen, and Heather Thiry Ethnography & Evaluation Research, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309-0580 ABSTRACT Undergraduate research is often hailed as a solution to increasing the number and quality of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates needed to fill the high- tech jobs of the future. Student benefits of research are well documented but the emerg - ing literature on advisors’ perspectives is incomplete: only a few studies have included the graduate students and postdocs who often serve as research advisors, and not much is known about why research advisors choose to work with undergraduate researchers. We report the motivations for advising undergraduate researchers, and the related costs and benefits of doing so, from 30 interviews with research advisors at various career stag - es. Many advisors stated intrinsic motivations, but a small group of early-career advisors expressed only instrumental motivations. We explore what this means for how advisors work with student researchers, the benefits students may or may not gain from the expe - rience, and the implications for training and retaining research advisors who can provide high-quality research experiences for undergraduate students. INTRODUCTION The benefits of undergraduate research for students are well documented and include personal and professional gains, research skills, career clarification, enhanced prepa - ration for careers and graduate school, and the ability to think and work like a scientist (Osborn and Karukstis, 2009; Laursen et al., 2010; Lopatto and Tobias, 2010; Linn et al., 2015). Other researchers have linked participation in undergraduate research with intention to continue in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related graduate programs, particularly for students otherwise underrepre- Erin L. Dolan, Monitoring Editor sented in these fields (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineer - Submitted July 21, 2016; Revised December 12, ing, and Institute of Medicine, 2011; Eagan et al., 2013). One study even reported that 2016; Accepted December 12, 2016 undergraduate researchers reported increased productivity and satisfaction when they CBE Life Sci Educ March 1, 2017 16:ar13 advanced and in turn became advisors for undergraduate research projects during DOI:10.1187/cbe.16-07-0229 their graduate studies (Lunsford, 2012). *Address correspondence to: Charles N. Hayward (chuck.hayward@colorado.edu). Because of these benefits, undergraduate research opportunities have been, and © 2017 C. N. Hayward et al. CBE—Life Sciences continue to be, an important aspect of federal plans to help improve STEM education Education © 2017 The American Society for Cell and train qualified students for the STEM workforce of the future (Boyer Commission Biology. This article is distributed by The on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998; National Science and American Society for Cell Biology under license Technology Council, 2013). While these plans advocate for increasing access to under- from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share graduate research opportunities, this goal presents challenges. Either we must find Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License ways to increase the number of students each research advisor can sponsor, or we (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ must increase the number of advisors who work with undergraduates in appren- by-nc-sa/3.0). tice-style research. Increasing the number of students each advisor works with pres- “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell ents challenges, as advisors may be pressured to take on less-prepared students who Biology®” are registered trademarks of The require more time to train or to take on too many students to provide meaningful American Society for Cell Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, 1–11, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 1 C. N. Hayward et al. The fifth type of influence, dispositional factors, is still rela - personal interactions with all of them (Laursen et al., 2010). tively unexplored. Morales et al. (2016) identified only one dis - Course-based research experiences are another possible way to positional factor in their model, “organizational citizenship increase the number of students working with each research behavior,” which they described as exerting more effort than is advisor (Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Corwin-Auchincloss required by one’s formal role. They measured it using three sur- et al., 2014; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and vey items. They asked respondents to rate how strongly they Medicine, 2015). This approach is currently being tested and agreed or disagreed with statements about increasing diversity studied. through undergraduate research, enjoying teaching students The other tactic for increasing the number of potential about research, and helping prepare students for graduate stud- research advisors who engage undergraduates in appren- ies. Moreover, only one of these items, “I value the opportunity tice-style research experiences presents its own challenges. to increase diversity in the academy through mentorship of Proper training may be necessary to ensure that new advisors underrepresented minority undergraduates,” was significantly are prepared to provide high-quality research experiences for correlated with participation in undergraduate research advis- undergraduates (Pfund et al., 2006). In fact, in a large-scale ing. There is still much to learn about undergraduate research survey of both advisors and students involved in research expe- advisors’ motivations, especially in the area of dispositional riences, students’ most commonly suggested improvement was factors. more frequent and better quality guidance from their advisors In this paper, we expand this modest literature to address (Russell et al., 2007). research advisors’ motivations to work with undergraduates in Another challenge of increasing the number of advisors is a research-focused institution. The present study builds on our motivation, or whether or not potential advisors want to work prior work about students’ perspectives and outcomes from with undergraduate researchers. Morales et al. (2016) offer a undergraduate research (Thiry and Laursen, 2011). In that model of advisor motivation that takes into account five types study, students cited important types of professional, intellec- of influences: 1) expected costs and benefits, 2) previous men - tual, and personal support that their advisors provided as they toring experience, 3) situational factors, 4) demographic fac- interacted over the course of the research project. To examine tors, and 5) dispositional factors. the other side of these interactions, we conducted a comple- There is some research available on how each of these fac- mentary interview study designed to explore advisors’ perspec- tors affects advisors’ motivations. Benefits for advisors are tives about their students’ experiences and outcomes (Hayward associated with higher participation in undergraduate research et al., 2013). While we began with a focus on advisors’ observa- and include advancing the advisor’s own research agenda tions about their students, in conducting and analyzing these (Adedokun et al., 2010; Laursen et al., 2010), while the time interviews, we found that advisors’ motivations for engaging in for training undergraduate researchers is a cost that deters undergraduate research emerged as important in their own advisors (Adedokun et al., 2010; Baker et al., 2015). Situa- right. In this qualitative analysis, we explore the phenomenon tional factors are also influential. Some advisors are deterred of advisor motivation, including some motivating factors that by institutional practices that do not formally recognize and are not currently addressed in the literature. We use interview reward engagement in undergraduate research in their tenure data to examine the range of motivations that novice and expe- and evaluation processes; conversely, available funding to sup- rienced research advisors reported, identify possible relation- port undergraduate researchers can help encourage advisors to ships between advisors’ career stages and motivations, and sug- participate (Laursen et al., 2010; Eagan et al., 2011; Baker gest ways in which advisor motivations may shift over the et al., 2015). course of an academic career. In addition to the influence of situational factors and antici - pated costs and benefits, both individual and institutional Types of Motivation demographics are associated with varying participation rates of Because motivations emerged as a central topic in our inter- research advisors. Among individual demographic factors, fac- view data, we start by offering some insight from the avail- ulty of color (Webber et al. 2013), midcareer faculty (Morales able research literature on motivations, which we then use to et al. 2016), and faculty in the life sciences (Eagan et al., 2011) interpret and frame the discussion of our results. Previous are more likely to advise undergraduate researchers. Among research on motivation in various fields has found that the institutional variables, Eagan et al. (2011) report that faculty type of motivation affects outcomes. Motivations generally members were more likely to engage undergraduates in their fall into two main types. Somebody who is intrinsically moti- research if they worked at liberal arts colleges, historically vated to engage in an activity will do so even in the absence Black colleges or universities, or more selective schools. Baker of external reward (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Extrinsically moti- et al. (2015) reported that faculty at one liberal arts institution vated individuals, on the other hand, are driven by outcomes were motivated to engage in undergraduate research because and forces separate from the activity itself, such as rewards, doing so aligned with the goals of a liberal arts education; at recognition, or social pressure (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The another institution, the strategic plan included goals that moti- names and definitions of different types of motivations vary vated faculty to participate. Yet, at many institutions, faculty slightly from source to source and field to field. Some research - often report feeling a tension between focusing on teaching ver- ers have argued for different terms because intrinsic and sus research (Brownell and Tanner, 2012). Even at teaching-fo- extrinsic are ambiguous about whether they refer to the per- cused undergraduate institutions, publications may be import- son or the activity and because intrinsic seems to imply an ant for tenure and promotion, and the slower pace of research inherent pleasure in the activity (Wrzesniewski et al., 2014). involving undergraduates can cause publication rates to dip We choose to use intrinsic to refer to motivations inherent to (Laursen et al., 2010). 16:ar13, 2 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage The term “mentor” may also imply experience and expertise. the activity itself and instrumental to describe motivations Indeed, many past studies on mentoring have focused only on that serve as a means to an end that is outside of the activity faculty members as research mentors. However, at research of research advising. These choices help to alleviate some of universities, graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and the common misconceptions and are consistent with the other scientists also serve as advisors to undergraduate labeling in the few other available studies that discuss research researchers (Dolan and Johnson, 2009). These people impor- advisor motivations (e.g., Dolan and Johnson, 2009; Prunuske tantly expand the capacity for labs to take on undergraduates, et al., 2013). and their experience as research advisors may be formative in When people with different motivations are compared, preparing them for future mentoring and supervisory roles in those with intrinsic motivations tend to have better perfor- academic and industry settings. Only a few studies about mance and outcomes in various settings, including high school research mentoring have included graduate students and post- completion (Vallerand et al., 1997), workplace performance doctoral researchers in their samples (e.g., Dolan and Johnson, (Grant et al., 2011), and retention and promotion in the mili- 2009; Prunuske et al., 2013). tary (Wrzesniewski et al., 2014). Moreover, offering instrumen- For these reasons, we use the term “research advisor” tal motivations for an activity that one already finds intrinsi - throughout this paper instead of the more common “mentor.” cally motivating can be detrimental, rather than additive. Deci This term applies to all individuals who engage with under- and Ryan’s (1985) seminal work includes a review of multiple graduate researchers, including faculty, graduate students, examples in laboratory settings in which introducing instru- postdocs, and technicians, who guide and train undergraduate mental motivations (e.g., a reward) for doing activities that research students, while not assuming a depth of relationship were already intrinsically motivating resulted in decreased that may or may not be present. This approach is consistent enjoyment of those activities. There are also real-life, nonlabo- with other authors’ views that not all advising is mentoring and ratory examples of the detrimental effects of mixed motiva- that more work is needed to understand the role of individual tions. Among West Point cadets, those who expressed both identities and the relational aspects of undergraduate research intrinsic and instrumental motivations tended to fall midrange advising (Palmer et al., 2015). on long-term outcome measures such as graduation rates, early promotion, and retention beyond mandatory service periods; METHODS they underperformed cadets with mainly intrinsic motivations Context for the Study but surpassed those with mainly instrumental motivations In this study, we draw upon interview data from advisors in (Wrzesniewski et al., 2014). In another study, when volunteers one undergraduate research program at a large, PhD-granting held multiple motivations, they found the act of volunteering to research university in the Western United States. In the pro- be more stressful, more costly, less fulfilling, and less satisfying gram, students worked with advisors to develop a research pro- than volunteers who expressed only a single motivation posal. Students accepted into the program were then placed in (Kiviniemi et al., 2002), suggesting that with more motivations the labs of those advisors and supported through small grants come more, perhaps conflicting, expectations. to fund their research experiences. The program supported both summer and academic-year research opportunities. While Advisor or Mentor? the content and scope of students’ research experiences varied Before describing our study design and results, we also discuss depending on the labs they were in and the projects they were our choice to use the term “research advisor,” instead of the working on, all students in the program attended a few semi- more common term “mentor.” Much of the available literature nars together in order to develop commonly needed skills. For uses the term “mentor” to refer to those individuals who work example, students attended a seminar to learn how to prepare with undergraduate researchers. However, “mentor” is not a research poster and then another later seminar to help cri- always an appropriate term. Kram (1985) identified two func - tique one another’s posters before presenting them at the end- tions of mentors: providing career support and providing psy- of-program poster session. chosocial support. In fact, being a research mentor may involve an even greater variety of functions, including advisor, sup- Participants and Data Collection porter, tutor, master, sponsor, or model of identity (Guberman Data were collected through retrospective interviews with et al., 2006). In practice, these functions may be variously filled research advisors. All advisors had supervised undergraduates by different individuals (e.g., Windham et al., 2004; Pandya during summer or academic-year research as part of the same et al., 2007). A recent literature review identified 10 evi - program. We had previously conducted interviews with stu- dence-based practices of high-quality mentoring in undergradu- dents in the program (Thiry and Laursen, 2011) and then ate research, which included technical or expertise functions designed the current study to learn more about those students’ such as skill training, careful project management, and career activities and scientific development from the perspective of development, as well as interpersonal functions such as building their research advisors. Due to a gap in funding, advisors were community, providing emotional support, and showing personal interviewed approximately 2 years after they had participated interest in students (Shanahan et al., 2015). Yet not all research in the program, though some advisors had continued to work advisors follow all of these exemplary mentoring practices or fill with other undergraduate researchers. all of these mentoring functions (De Welde and Laursen, 2008; Each student in the program may have worked with multi- Linn et al., 2015). This body of literature shows that the term ple individuals in a lab, but only one was identified as the “mentor” generally implies “psychosocial support,” or a close- advisor of record. The sponsoring program provided us lists of ness and trust in a personal relationship that is not always pres- these advisors of record, and we drew a stratified sample in ent in research advisor–undergraduate researcher interactions. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 3 C. N. Hayward et al. terms of discipline, gender, and years of experience. Invita- multiple times. We started with a coding scheme developed by tions were sent to 52 research advisors. Thirty (58%) partici- the second and third authors from their previous work with pated in individual interviews and were included in our sam- undergraduate researchers (Laursen et al., 2010, 2012; Thiry ple. In total, 21 separate research labs were represented in our et al., 2012). Before beginning, all three authors discussed the sample. We interviewed more than one advisor from seven of existing coding scheme for student interviews. Coding of the these labs because there were multiple student/advisor pairs advisor interviews was then conducted by the first author and in those labs. spot-checked by the second and third authors. Consistent with Of the 30 advisors interviewed, 50% (n = 15) were men and the goal of this exploratory study, we used the process of con- 50% (n = 15) were women. Most research advisors were grad- stant comparative coding (Glaser, 1965) to reveal emergent uate students (n = 13, 43%) or faculty (n = 11, 37%). Postdoc- themes from the interview data. That is, with each interview, toral researchers (n = 5, 17%) and one technician made up the we compared the data with our existing codes. New insights remainder. Some were working with their first undergraduate sometimes warranted the development of new or more specific and some had been doing so for more than 40 years. We classi- codes (e.g., “advisor motivations”), which were then reapplied fied those with less than 5 years experience as “early-career” to earlier coded interviews. Discrepancies were resolved and advisors (n = 17, 57% of the sample), which included all grad- new codes were developed through consultations among all uate students, the technician, and some of the postdoctoral three authors. If groups of codes shared similar themes, they researchers. Advisors with five or more years of experience were organized into domains (Spradley, 1980). advising undergraduate researchers were classified as “experi - We report results as both the number of interview partici- enced.” This group (n = 13, 43%) included all faculty members pants who mentioned a topic (“number of advisors”) and the and some of the postdoctoral researchers. Advisors were all number of comments they made about that topic (“number of from different departments throughout the life sciences. We do comments”). Comparisons of the relative frequencies of specific not break out participants by department or other demographic codes give an estimate of the relative importance of the topics variables in this paper, as small group sizes may make individ- to the participants. These frequencies are not a generalizable or ual identification possible. statistical measure. The interviews were semistructured so that participants could share their own insights and reflections as well as respond RESULTS to questions posed by researchers. The order of questions was In this analysis, we focus on advisors’ comments on a range of not the same in every interview. Some topics arose sponta- topics, including their motivations for engaging in research neously, and some were not represented in every interview. For advising, the costs and benefits of doing so, and the benefits example, the interview protocol did not directly address advi- they thought students gained by doing undergraduate research. sors’ motivations to work with undergraduates. However, this Advisors’ motivations help to shed light on why they chose to topic arose in almost every interview (28 of 30, 93%), signaling work with undergraduate researchers, and what their expecta- the importance of motivation to research advisors. tions may have been. We compare these expectations with the The interview protocol covered a broad range of topics to reported outcomes in terms of perceived costs and benefits, as help advisors reflect on their undergraduates’ research experi - alignment between expectations and reality may influence ences, including their prior research advisor experiences and advisor retention. Finally, we analyze how advisors’ motiva- training, the nature of their students’ research work, student tions may influence how they work with undergraduate gains from research, descriptions of lab interactions, and the researchers, and how that may affect student outcomes. costs and benefits of advising undergraduate research. (The full protocol is available in the Supplemental Material.) References Motivations: Why Do Advisors Engage in Advising to both instructor and student gains are self-reported gains Undergraduate Researchers? described in comments during interviews; they are not derived During the interviews, many participants spoke about why they from external, standardized measurements. Before any data chose to advise undergraduate researchers. First, we identified collection, all interview protocols were reviewed and approved the different types of “advisor motivations.” Upon review of the by our Institutional Review Board at the University of Colo- entire set of coded motivations, two distinct categories emerged. rado–Boulder. The interviews were audio-recorded, and then We categorized them as “intrinsic” and “instrumental.” Intrinsic transcribed verbatim and entered into NVivo v. 9 (QSR Interna- motivations are those that can only be achieved through the tional, 2010). activity of undergraduate research advising, whereas instru- mental motivations can also be achieved in other ways. For Data Analysis example, the intrinsic motivation of wanting to be a mentor for Our general approach to analysis was observational in nature, undergraduates is only possible through mentoring undergrad- treating the interviews as revealing motivations as they occurred uates, while it is possible to be productive, an instrumental in a real-world setting. Rather than testing a hypothesis about motivation, through other means. advisor motivations or aiming to confirm a preexisting theory, Advisors made many comments about intrinsic motivations we took note of themes that emerged as we analyzed the inter- (20 advisors, 41 comments), and most of these were about how view data. During the analysis, sections of transcripts that advising undergraduates is essential to the development of the related to specific topics were assigned codes to identify those scientific workforce (18 advisors, 31 comments). For example, topics. For passages of the transcript that addressed multiple one advisor stated, “Training the undergrads and the grad stu- topics, we assigned multiple codes. Additionally, codes were dents is part of my duty. People trained me, so I will do it too” used multiple times throughout a transcript if the topic came up (Male faculty advisor, #14). The motivation, fulfilling a “duty” 16:ar13, 4 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage TABLE 1. Reported advisor motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers Intrinsic Instrumental category Example category Example Development of the Education is important … I feel strongly Increased lab The most important thing is that they just get scientific work - about being part of a university productivity experiments done, or they help. It’s a lot of force (18 advisors, community.… I think it’s an important (11 advisors, the labor that no one wants to do.—Male 31 comments) contribution.—Female postdoc, #22 18 comments) faculty, #13 Wanting to serve as a I was really excited to start mentoring an Requirement of PI [My PI] basically will assign like grad students mentor (7 undergraduate because I really enjoy it (6 advisors, in the lab to mentor them.—Male graduate advisors, 9 … helping them learn all these different 8 comments) student, #24 comments) aspects.—Female graduate student, #7 Undergraduates make It’s fun…. You need that.… You can’t be Requirement of job or In my lab, the technician oversees all of the lab work more fun just 9 to 5 talking about mutations. position (3 advisors, undergraduate researchers, so it was part of (1 advisor, 1 —Female faculty, #21 3 comments) my job.—Female technician, #26 comment) Helps check work I had a massive amount of things that needed to (1 advisor, be checked again.… She can learn and help 1 comment) [me] out by checking [my] own work. —Male graduate student, #4 to train future research scientists, is inherent in the activity of presented in Table 2. About a third of early-career advisors training undergraduate researchers. Most other intrinsic moti- were classified as instrumentally motivated. No experienced vations addressed wanting to serve as a mentor (7 advisors, 9 advisors were classified as instrumentally motivated. comments), and one participant included undergraduates in her lab because their approach to lab work, which can get “frus- Benefits: What Do Advisors Gain from Advising trating and boring,” helped to “increase the fun ratio” (Female Undergraduate Researchers? faculty advisor, #21). In addition to motivations (why the advisors worked with Other motivations were more instrumental (16 advisors, 30 undergraduate researchers), we also coded for advisor benefits : comments) in nature. That is, they were externally directed or the positive outcomes they reported experiencing through serv- served as a means to an end outside of research advising. These ing as undergraduate research advisors. The two are related, included increased lab productivity (11 advisors, 18 com- yet distinct. When advisors talked about expected benefits they ments), requirement of the principal investigator (PI) of the lab hoped to achieve by working with undergraduate researchers, (6 advisors, 8 comments), and requirement of the individual’s we considered those as motivations. However, because inter- specific job or position (3 advisors, 3 comments). While these views were conducted after the conclusion of the undergradu- requirements might also be seen as “duties,” we classified them ate research program, we coded as benefits only those outcomes as instrumental, because the goal, such as satisfying one’s PI, advisors reported actually experiencing. The same topic was can also be achieved in ways other than supervising undergrad- coded as both a motivation and a benefit only if the outcome uate researchers. Examples of both types of motivation com- was both expected and realized. For example, an advisor may ments are presented in Table 1. have been motivated by the enjoyment of working with under- In addition to the individually coded intrinsic and instru- graduates, but enjoyment would only also be coded as a benefit mental motivations, we also classified each interview holisti - if the advisor reported actually enjoying the experience. cally, based on the main themes in each interviewee’s com- The benefits also fit into the same two categories as motiva - ments about motivations. While most advisors expressed both, tions, instrumental and intrinsic. Intrinsic benefits are those five advisors described only instrumental motivations such as inherent to the activity of supervising undergraduate research- external requirements or increased productivity; these were ers. Because they are inherent to working together with under- classified as “instrumentally motivated” to supervise under - graduate researchers, there are often mutual benefits for both graduate researchers. Of the remaining advisors, 23 were clas- advisors and students. When comments were about benefits sified as “intrinsically motivated” to supervise undergraduate that could be gained in ways other than working with under- researchers. While many of these mentioned increased produc- graduate researchers, we classified them as instrumental. tivity, they also described intrinsic motivations like wanting to help students, wanting to “pay back” the scientific community TABLE 2. Research advisor experience level and holistic by mentoring others as they had themselves been mentored, classification of advisor’s motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers and enjoying mentoring. No advisors expressed solely intrinsic motivations. Two advisors did not comment on their motiva- Intrinsic Instrumental tions for advising and were not classified. Career stage motivation motivation Unassigned We compared each advisor’s career stage, expressed in years Early career 11 5 1 of advising undergraduate researchers, with his or her moti- Experienced 12 0 1 vation for engaging in undergraduate research. Results are CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 5 C. N. Hayward et al. TABLE 3. Reported benefits of supervising undergraduate researchers Category Example Intrinsic Improved teaching and mentoring skills [Data got messed up because] I didn’t come talk to her. We didn’t have a weekly (22 advisors, 49 comments) meeting.… As an undergrad, there isn’t necessarily that [ability to do it yourself] … The professor and I agreed that it was our responsibility to make sure we were more involved with the project.—Female postdoc, #12 Personal rewards (i.e., friendship, feeling of doing My career goal is to actually work at a primarily undergraduate institution so that I can work something good) (22 advisors, 30 comments) with undergrads, because I do find it to be one of the most rewarding parts of my research—Female graduate student, #16 Deeper understanding of scientific concepts for He constantly raised my game.… Working with these bright young people, they ask advisor through teaching undergraduates questions that constantly keep you on your toes.—Male postdoc, #23 (16 advisors, 23 comments) Contributions to preparing future scientists It’s like [we] had a hand in training these people. Maybe they’ll come back [here], maybe (14 advisors, 19 comments) not, but either way, they have their own experience [here] that they can say was a major impetus for them going on in science.—Female faculty, #8 Increased energy and enthusiasm in the lab group They bring a fresh and fun perspective.… It’s just really, really fun, and I really, really enjoy (11 advisors, 12 comments) that enthusiasm.— Female faculty, #6 Instrumental Increased productivity (20 advisors, 31 comments) I like to have undergrads. One good undergrad can get you a paper.—Male faculty, #14 Career preparation for advisor (résumé building It definitely helps to be able to explain what you’re doing.… I’ll have people who will work and mentoring experience) (22 advisors, 29 for me [in the future]. Being able to explain to people is always a good communication comments) skill.—Female graduate student, #1 Long-term benefits to the research group through Many of the undergrads that are going through our program want to go to graduate students who continue with the same lab for school.… All of my new graduate students in the fall have done undergraduate research graduate school or career (10 advisors, in our labs.—Male faculty, #3 15 comments) Prestige for the university or lab (7 advisors, We had a couple of students go out to [an undergraduate research conference] and when 7 comments) they present well, it looks really well [for] the program.—Male postdoc, #18 Help in recruiting future students (3 advisors, Undergraduate research is an opportunity that plays a big role in this environment, and 5 comments) [it’s] not available in other college environments.—Male faculty, #3 Because these are not inherent to working together with stu- productivity and described the student as a means to that end, dents, they are often about how a student worked for, and as in this example: served as a means to, the advisor’s benefit. The benefits advi - sors mentioned are included in Table 3. All of them are working on portions of my dissertation, which While all advisors described benefits that they received, it clearly is beneficial. Even though it takes time to train them, advisors with intrinsic motivations tended to discuss mutual in the big scheme of things, [on] large tasks, the hours they put in are crucial. They save me a lot of time and help with benefits for themselves that co-occurred with those for their general productivity in the lab.… We get a lot out of having students. They also tended to discuss richer, layered views of undergrads—if we didn’t, then we wouldn’t have them.—Male the multiple benefits of undergraduate research. For example, graduate student advisor, #15 one faculty member described how research advising helped all researchers in the faculty–graduate student–undergraduate Because we classified motivations separately from benefits triad common at graduate institutions (Dolan and Johnson, and classified advisors holistically based on their expressed 2009); he described both increased productivity and deeper motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers, we are understanding of the scientific concepts: able to assess this alignment by directly comparing their moti- vations with the benefits they reported. Results are presented in One is the obvious: [the graduate students] get helped. The Table 4. On average, advisors with intrinsic motivations made other is, it’s very easy to forget that you, [faculty], were in that roughly twice as many comments about intrinsic benefits as state at one point. I think you learn so much more by teaching they did about instrumental benefits. Advisors with instrumen - than you do even by doing. I think it’s really good for the grad- uate students to be explaining things to the undergraduates tal motivations made about the same number of comments and so forth, because they suddenly realize, just like [faculty] about intrinsic benefits as they did about instrumental benefits. do when we’re teaching, that “I don’t really understand These relative frequencies may give an indication of the relative this.”—Male faculty advisor, #10 importance of those topics for advisors. Upon comparison, both groups reported roughly equivalent total benefits, but intrinsi - On the other hand, advisors with mainly instrumental moti- cally motivated advisors tended to report more intrinsic bene- vations tended to focus solely on their own benefit of increased fits and slightly fewer instrumental benefits. This suggests that 16:ar13, 6 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage TABLE 4. Advisor benefits reported by holistic classification of gories as well, as shown in Table 5. The student benefits that advisor’s motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers advisors noted may shed some light on how they worked with undergraduate students: instrumentally motivated advisors Advisors tended to describe instrumental student benefits of undergrad - Intrinsically Instrumentally uate research experience. In the following example, the advisor Advisor motivated motivated Unassigned described research experiences as a one-way ticket to graduate benefits (n = 23) (n = 5) (n = 2) school, rather than as a space for exploring one option out of a Intrinsic 73 comments 11 comments 12 comments variety of career possibilities: 3.2 per advisor 2.2 per advisor 6 per advisor Instrumental 41 comments 11 comments 6 comments There is always the self-recruitment for academic types, once 1.8 per advisor 2.2 per advisor 3 per advisor you’re in that setting. But I think all these people also knew that doing just chemistry, or biology, with just a bachelor’s advisors may be more alert to benefits that match their initial degree doesn’t get you far.… The mentality inside the lab [is] to keep going to school, and to keep bettering yourself.—Male motivations. graduate student advisor, #4 Practices: How Do Motivations and Costs/Benefits Shape How Advisors Work with Undergraduate Researchers? Here, the advisor focuses on a goal (i.e., graduate school Research advisors had different motivations for working with admission) that is not necessarily inherent in the research expe- undergraduate researchers and experienced benefits that rience itself. On the other hand, Laursen et al. (2010) found tended to match their motivations. These differences in motiva- that some students used undergraduate research experiences as tions may also have influenced their expectations about the out - a chance to determine their own interest in and suitability for a comes research experiences could provide for students. Prior career as a research scientist; the goal (i.e., experiencing research has shown links between advisor preparation and research) was inherent in the activity itself. expectations, the way they work with students, and student Interestingly, of the four instrumentally motivated advisors outcomes (Pfund et al., 2006). To explore this link between (out of five total) who commented on career clarification , two advisor motivations and perceived student outcomes, we classi- compared their students’ experiences with their own experi- fied advisor comments about student gains from research using ences deciding on a future career path in academia. These advi- six categories established in previous studies (Laursen et al., sors were both early in their careers, so these decisions were 2010), including the following: more recent for them. In contrast, advisors with intrinsic moti- vations spoke about career clarification more broadly, acknowl - 1. thinking and working like a scientist: intellectual gains in edging that research experience is not just preparation for grad- application of scientific knowledge and skills, understanding uate school, and that, for some students, it does the opposite by the process of research, and increased disciplinary making it clear that a career in scientific research is not actually knowledge; what they want. 2. becoming a scientist: behaviors and attitudes necessary to In addition to differences in the student benefits empha - become a scientist; sized, differences in advisor motivations may also have influ - 3. personal/professional gains: confidence and comfort with enced how they worked with students. Many advisors com- ability to do well in scientific pursuits; mented on how they selected projects for students. Advisors 4. skills: lab, field, and communication skills essential to with instrumental motivations tended to involve undergradu- research scientists; ates on aspects of their projects that served to help the advisor. 5. clarification of educational and career aspirations ; and This usually meant carrying out predesigned data-collection 6. enhanced career and graduate school preparation. procedures and, in some cases, replicating studies that had Overall, advisors with intrinsic motivations observed slightly already been done. For example, one instrumentally motivated more student benefits (19.4 comments per interview) than did advisor explained how he selected a project where the student advisors with instrumental motivations (16.0 comments per worked mainly on data collection to verify work he had already interview). This trend held separately for most of the six cate- done himself: TABLE 5. Student gains reported by advisors by holistic classification of advisor’s motivations for supervising undergraduate researchers Average number of comments per advisor interview Intrinsically motivated advisors Instrumentally motivated advisors Category (n = 23) (n = 5) Thinking and working like a scientist (intellectual gains) 5.4 4.2 Enhanced career preparation 4.3 3.6 Becoming a scientist 3.8 3.6 Skills 2.1 1.0 Career clarification 2.0 2.4 Personal/professional gains 1.7 1.2 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 7 C. N. Hayward et al. I had a massive amount of things that needed to be checked I will typically assign those entry-level students to a graduate again, and it was a good opportunity to do the scientific pro - student who can get them doing something that will help them cess and get familiar with the instruments…. So it was kind of in, I don’t want to say the word menial, but something that, if like she can learn and help [me] out by checking [my] own it backfires, it’s not going to set us back too much. So, sort of a work…. It was something I was very familiar with, which is low-risk, but hopefully a fun, first way to get engaged.… The good, I think, [when] mentoring someone on something. other thing is that I will make sure that everybody comes to [Mentoring on] something that you’re not familiar with is a our weekly lab meetings, during which a grad student, or disaster.—Male graduate student advisor, #5 myself, or postdocs, will present, or even undergrads will pres- ent research, or talk about a paper. I like to give them the fla - vor of things.… Then, if they’re super gung-ho, maybe the On the other hand, advisors with intrinsic motivations semester following that, I’ll ask for an independent study.— tended to focus on how the student would benefit from the Female faculty advisor, #6 particular project, rather than how it would benefit the advisor. For example, one advisor noted how he specifically picked proj - In general, instrumentally motivated advisors tended to pick ects that were good learning opportunities for students but not projects emphasizing data collection through replicating known central to his own research agenda, or, in his words, “a project studies or procedures. Student work on such projects largely that I would like to get to work but isn’t very high priority, and focused on developing skills in data collection and lab tech- something I could give [the student] direction for but not nec- niques. Intrinsically motivated advisors tended to pick projects essarily count on having it work” (Male graduate student, #24). with a larger scope, and some involved students in all stages of While many intrinsically motivated advisors did select proj- the scientific process, including the design, analysis, and report - ects that involved mastering routine lab skills or replicating ing of results, in addition to data collection. known results, these advisors also included more broad and authentic scientific work in the projects they picked for stu - DISCUSSION dents. Some authors define “authentic scientific work” by its Our results reveal some interesting findings about advisor moti - product—answering novel questions to make new scientific dis - vations. Two different kinds of motivations, instrumental and coveries. However, in this context, we use the more broadly intrinsic, shaped advisors’ choices to work with undergraduate held definition based on engaging students in the processes of researchers. Moreover, it seems that there is a relationship authentic scientific work such as forming hypotheses, designing between types of motivations and career stage, as the small studies, and collecting and analyzing data about questions that number of advisors who only expressed instrumental motiva- are novel to the students but not necessarily the entire scientific tions were all early in their careers. The rest of the advisors, community (Spell et al., 2014). (For an in-depth discussion of across various career stages, expressed a blend of intrinsic and the definition of “authenticity,” see Rowland et al., 2016.) One instrumental motivations. When considering the interviews advisor explained, “They understand why the experiment was holistically, these advisors’ intrinsic motivations seemed stron- done.… They get to work on [experimental design]. They get ger than their instrumental motivations, so we classified them the whole picture of how science is done” (Male faculty advisor, as intrinsically motivated. #10). Another intrinsically motivated faculty advisor described No advisors in this sample expressed only intrinsic motiva- offering two different tracks: tions. Because expected benefits can also be motivations, this may just be the nature of research advising: all advisors may One track is if they basically want to help out in the lab, and expect that adding another person to a research lab most likely usually what they wind up doing in that case, is on the lab side will increase productivity. In this exploratory interview study, of things, like routine [lab procedures]. On the computational we did not have a way to measure the strengths of the motiva- side, it’s typically something like … implementation of a par- tions. So, we cannot tell whether increased productivity was ticular mathematical routine [that’s] in a recently published just a benefit most advisors knew they would likely experience paper and that kind of thing. The other track [is] if they want or a motivation that caused them to participate. This is analo- to do a larger scale [and time] load project like an honors gous to a career choice in which the work is intrinsically moti- thesis project or an independent study.… So in that case what vating, but we still expect that it will help to pay the bills. Given makes it successful is that this project … can be completed in the research on mixed motivations and how they relate to long- the time available, so it’s got to be reasonable. And then addi- tionally there has to be one specific postdoc or grad student term outcomes, experimental work is needed in order to sys- from the lab who is excited [to] let that student on that proj- tematically test the relative strengths of different motivations. ect, because otherwise it’s very easy for the students to drift or The advisors in our study have reported motivations that go in unproductive directions.—Male faculty advisor, #27 differ from those in the existing literature. Morales et al.’s (2016) model includes various demographic and situational Other intrinsically motivated advisors also described pick- factors, yet only includes one dispositional factor, which they ing projects like this speaker’s “second track”—broader proj- termed “organizational citizenship behavior.” These research- ects that accommodated students’ individual interests and ers considered three types of organizational citizenship behav- that would help students develop as scientists, again focus- ior: 1) increasing diversity through mentorship of underrepre- ing on helping students learn rather than solely advancing sented minority students, 2) enjoyment of teaching students the advisor’s own research. One advisor described doing this about research, and 3) being able to help prepare students for by increasing the scope of a project over time and by includ- graduate studies. For our sample, advisors’ dispositional factors ing undergraduates in lab activities beyond routine data were different from those assessed by Morales and colleagues. collection: In particular, the advisors in our study did not talk about 16:ar13, 8 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage minority groups specifically when they commented on motiva - primarily instrumental motivations may stop advising later in tions to develop the scientific workforce. their careers, once they have the ability to decide for them- Morales and colleagues did not find a link between teaching selves; or 2) motivations may be dynamic, and intrinsic motiva- or graduate preparation and participation in undergraduate tions may develop over time for some individuals. Owing to the research, yet both topics emerged from our interviews. Although cross-sectional nature of our interview data, we cannot track “I enjoy teaching students about research” was not linked with changes in motivation over time, but there is some evidence serving as a research advisor in their results, seven of our advi- about this, primarily from retrospective remarks in the sors (23%) reported that they enjoyed mentoring and the desire interviews. to serve as a mentor was a motivating factor for them. Simi- In particular, some of the evidence from our interviews sug- larly, their third item, “I am able to help students be better pre- gests that advisors with instrumental motivations only engage pared for graduate studies,” was also not found to correlate in research advising early in their careers when they are with participation in undergraduate research. However, in our required to do so by more senior colleagues, but then stop study, developing the scientific workforce was the most fre - advising once they gain more autonomy. Twelve advisors quently mentioned motivation. This difference may be partially reported being required to supervise undergraduate research- related to the wording of their survey item, as some respon- ers. Only one of these was an experienced advisor, and he was dents may have interpreted the phrase, “I am able,” as a situa- required to supervise more students than he felt he had time for tional factor (i.e., access) or as a measure of success rather than as a postdoc. No other experienced advisors mentioned being a dispositional factor. required to advise undergraduates, while 11 of the 17 early- Our qualitative study also found some additional instrumen- career advisors (65%) did. tal motivations not included in Morales and colleagues’ model: Other research supports the idea that advisors with instru- PIs’ requirements of senior lab members to advise undergradu- mental motivations may stop advising as their careers advance. ates as part of their laboratory duties. These requirements were Our instrumentally motivated advisors were driven largely by particularly salient for graduate students who served as advi- increased productivity and also focused on it more as a benefit. sors. Although graduate students often work closely with However, undergraduate research has been described as posing undergraduate researchers, few studies have included graduate a “fundamental tension” between producing research results students in their samples of research advisors. Indeed, Morales and helping students learn and develop, which often occurs et al. (2016) tested their model using a survey of only faculty through cycles of trial, error, and retrial (Laursen et al., 2012). members. Dolan and Johnson (2009), in one of only two other Motivations driven mainly by increased productivity may cause studies about motivation that include graduate students, found these advisors to be less tolerant of the slow pace at which that “graduate/postdoctoral students … primarily saw mentor- undergraduates learn and develop. Therefore, they may see ing undergraduates as a means to two ends: improving their fewer benefits and fewer reasons to continue advising students research productivity and meeting the implicit or explicit expec- as their careers advance. tations of the research group” (p. 491). That study included However, it may also be that intrinsic motivations develop seven graduate and postdoctoral students from a single research over time and layer onto initial instrumental motivations as group, so it is limited in its generalizability. Our study includes advisors gain experience and a deeper understanding of advis- 30 advisors in 21 different research groups, with faculty mem- ing. There is evidence to support this, too, as intrinsically moti- bers in addition to graduate and postdoctoral students. vated advisors still expressed some instrumental motivations. Together, these two studies suggest that early-career scientists Indeed, some advisors’ comments describe how their intrinsic have motivations for supervising undergraduates that tend to motivations developed over time: be more instrumental than those of experienced faculty. As we have shown, these differences in advisor motivations It’s closer to home, in terms of mentoring the next genera- for supervising undergraduate researchers may shape the way tion of scientists.… This is not something that I felt strongly advisors work with students. Instrumental motivations may about initially, when I was younger. It’s something that grad- lead advisors to select projects that focus more on producing ually develops as I age, and now at this stage of my career, I think it’s so important to try to keep the pipeline going, and data and in the process help develop students as technicians, maintain that flow of the young scientists.—Female faculty leading to gains for students in areas such as lab skills and advisor, #17 data-collection techniques. Advisors with intrinsic motivations, on the other hand, focused more on developing students as research scientists by engaging them throughout the entire pro- As advisors gain more experience and reflect back on their cess of scientific inquiry. Other research has found that faculty career paths, they may develop more intrinsic motivations, advisors engaged undergraduates in more high-level activities especially the desire to “pay it forward” and shape young stu- such as exploring and articulating learning, while graduate stu- dents in the same way that mentors had shaped their own dent advisors tended to focus on the technical aspects of careers. research (Feldman et al., 2013). Given the relationships in our For intrinsically motivated advisors, advising meant working data, it seems that differences in types of motivation may be a with students beyond just equipping them with lab skills. They moderating or mediating factor between career stage and how described research experiences as a chance for a student to advisors work with undergraduates. explore whether or not a career in scientific research is actually If there is a relationship between motivations and career what he or she wants. By contrast, the instrumentally moti- stage, what explains it? We suggest two possible explanations: vated early-career advisors described research experience as a 1) motivations may be static for individuals, and advisors with one-way ticket to graduate school. Many commented on how CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 9 C. N. Hayward et al. research experiences had helped them advance their own et al., 2015), but they are often externally directed strategies careers in scientific research. This may indicate that early-ca - such as removing obstacles or creating incentives for advisors. reer advisors have yet to develop a broad understanding of Research in other fields suggests that creating instrumental advising beyond their own experiences, and do not yet see all motivation through offering external rewards for participation the multifaceted benefits of undergraduate research that intrin - can actually be detrimental to performance and outcomes (Deci sically motivated advisors reported. and Ryan, 1985). Our findings suggest that the focus should Experience is not necessarily the only source for intrinsic instead be on increasing intrinsic motivations. motivations, though, as most early-career advisors (11 of 17, For example, one area that could easily be leveraged is 65%) were classified as intrinsically motivated. Some individu - advisors’ enjoyment of working with undergraduate research- als may already have intrinsic motivations before becoming ers. Only one advisor reported being motivated by the enjoy- advisors, and such motivations may develop more quickly for ment expected from working with students, yet 22 advisors some advisors than others. Future longitudinal research should (73%) reported experiencing personal rewards such as friend- explore how advisor motivations evolve throughout their ship, and 11 advisors (37%) reported that working with careers. undergraduates had increased the energy and enthusiasm in Our findings suggest that instrumentally motivated advisors their labs. Enjoyment seems to be a common, yet less antici- tend to focus on advancing their own research, whereas intrin- pated benefit that could be particularly useful to increase ear - sically motivated advisors are aware of the “fundamental ten- ly-career advisors’ intrinsic motivations, since they are often sion” between student learning and research productivity and close in age to undergraduates and may especially enjoy these work to find a balance that benefits both students and them - near-peer relationships. selves. By involving students in discovery and working to It may also be relatively easy for senior colleagues to influ - achieve a broader range of educational outcomes, intrinsically ence less-experienced colleagues’ intrinsic motivations. One motivated advisors may in fact be more effective in helping stu- graduate student explained that his PI’s beliefs shaped his own dents succeed and advance in the profession (Russell et al., thoughts about working with students: 2007). Future research should explore more deeply how advi- sors’ motivations affect student gains from undergraduate Our advisor is also very supportive of undergraduate research. research, their long-term pursuit of advanced degrees, and She never says, “You’re working with this person,” but she’ll entry into STEM careers. often say, “Hey, if you have time, I’d really like supporting Earlier, we discussed our reasons for using the term “research undergraduate students.” That helped me think about it as an idea.—Male graduate student advisor, #20 advisor” rather than “mentor.” The evidence presented here suggests that not all advisors engage in all of the functions of a mentor. Instrumentally motivated advisors tended to discuss If senior colleagues can help junior colleagues develop only a few of the functions of mentoring and mostly focused on intrinsic motivations simply by discussing their own intrinsic technical training. On the other hand, intrinsically motivated motivations and rewards, this could be an easy, effective way advisors engaged in more of the functions of mentors, including to get more potential advisors motivated to work with interpersonal functions like providing emotional support or undergraduates. friendship and taking a personal interest in students by tailor- ing projects to their needs. Therefore, using the term “mentor” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS may assume certain functions or a close relationship that is not The evaluation and research was supported by a grant from the always present and may obscure differences in motivations that Howard Hughes Medical Initiative (HHMI) through the Biolog- have consequences for what students gain from research ical Sciences Initiative (BSI) at the University of Colorado– experiences. Boulder. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommen - Undergraduate research experiences can be powerful in dations expressed in this material are those of the authors and bringing about positive outcomes for students, and improving do not necessarily reflect the views of HHMI or the BSI. We access to these experiences is a commonly recommended strat- thank all of the study participants. egy for improving undergraduate education. To achieve this, we cannot assume that all advisors want to fulfill all of the roles associated with mentors. We should take into account advisor REFERENCES motivations and whether or not they shift over time. If advisor Adedokun OA, Dyehouse M, Bessenbacher A, Burgess WD (2010). Exploring faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of mentoring under - motivations are static, and instrumentally motivated advisors graduate research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American just stop working with undergraduates as their careers prog- Educational Research Association, held April 30 to May 4, 2010, in Denver, ress, efforts to improve student outcomes and access to research CO. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509729 (accessed 10 November 2015). experiences should focus on making sure the right kind of peo- Baker VL, Pifer MJ, Lunsford LG, Greer J, Ihas D (2015). Faculty as mentors in ple are hired and retained to provide high-quality research undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative work: motivating and inhibiting factors. Mentor Tutor 23, 394–410. advising to undergraduate students. Bangera G, Brownell SE (2014). Course-based undergraduate research expe- However, if motivations develop over time, the focus should riences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, be on creating structures and programs that help research sci- 602–606. entists to develop these intrinsic motivations and learn how to Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University involve undergraduates in research in ways that support stu- (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s dents’ learning and pursuit of scientific interests. Various prac - Research Universities, Stony Brook: State University of New York at Stony tices have been suggested for how best to do this (e.g., Johnson Brook. 16:ar13, 10 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 UR Advisor Differences by Career Stage Brownell SE, Tanner K (2012). Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: lack of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015). Integrat- training, time, incentives, and... tensions with professional identity? CBE ing Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum: Re- Life Sci Educ 11, 339–346. port of a Convocation, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Corwin-Auchincloss L, Laursen SL, Branchaw JL, Eagan K, Graham M, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Insti- Hanauer DI, Lawrie G, McLinn CM, Pelaez N, Rowland S, et  al. (2014). tute of Medicine (2011). Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participa- Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a tion, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. meeting report. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 29–40. National Science and Technology Council (2013). Federal Science, Technol- Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in ogy, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 5-Year Strategic Human Behavior, New York: Plenum. Plan, Washington, DC. De Welde K, Laursen SL (2008). The “ideal type” advisor: how advisors help Osborn JM, Karukstis KK (2009). The benefits of undergraduate research, STEM graduate students find their “scientific feet.” Open Educ J 7, scholarship, and creative activity. In: Broadening Participation in Under- 49–61. graduate Research: Fostering Excellence and Enhancing the Impact, ed. M Boyd and J Wesemann, Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Dolan E, Johnson D (2009). Toward a holistic view of undergraduate re- Research, 41–53. search experiences: an exploratory study of impact on graduate/post- doctoral mentors. J Sci Educ Technol 18, 487–500. Palmer RJ, Hunt AN, Neal M, Wuetherick B (2015). Mentoring, undergraduate research, and identity development: a conceptual review and research Eagan MK, Hurtado S, Chang MJ, Garcia GA, Herrera FA, Garibay JC (2013). agenda. Mentor Tutor 23, 411–426. Making a difference in science education: the impact of undergraduate research programs. Am Educ Res Journal 50, 683–713. Pandya RE, Henderson S, Anthes RA, Johnson RM (2007). BEST practices for broadening participation in the geosciences: strategies from the UCAR Eagan MK, Sharkness J, Hurtado S, Mosqueda CM, Chang MJ (2011). Engag- Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS ) ing undergraduates in science research: not just about faculty willing- Program. J Geosci Educ 55, 500–506. ness. Res High Educ 52, 151–177. Pfund C, Pribbenow CM, Branchaw J, Lauffer SM, Handelsman J (2006). The Feldman A, Divoll KA, Rogan-Klyve A (2013). Becoming researchers: the par- merits of training mentors. Science 311, 473–474. ticipation of undergraduate and graduate students in scientific research groups. Sci Educ 97, 218–243. Prunuske AJ, Wilson J, Walls M, Clarke B (2013). Experiences of mentors training underrepresented undergraduates in the research laboratory. Glaser BG (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 403–409. Soc Problems 12, 436–445. QSR International (2010). NVivo qualitative data analysis software, version 9. Grant AM, Nurmohamed S, Ashford SJ, Dekas K (2011). The performance www.qsrinternational.com/. implications of ambivalent initiative: the interplay of autonomous and controlled motivations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 116, 241–251. Rowland S, Pedwell R, Lawrie G, Lovie-Toon J, Hung Y (2016). Do we need to design course-based undergraduate research experiences for au- Guberman J, Saks J, Shapiro B, Torchia M (2006). Making the Right Moves: A thenticity? CBE Life Sci Educ 15, ar79. Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty, Research Triangle Park, NC/Chevy Chase, MD: Burroughs Welcome Russell SH, Hancock MP, McCullough J (2007). Benefits of undergraduate Fund/Howard Hughes Medical Institute. research experiences. Science 316, 548–549. Hayward CN, Thiry H, Laursen SL (2013). Evaluation of the Undergraduate Re- Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic defini - search Programs of the Biological Sciences Initiative: Advisors’ Perspec- tions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol 25, 54–67. tives, Boulder, CO: Ethnography & Evaluation Research. www.colorado Shanahan JO, Ackley-Holbrook E, Hall E, Stewart K, Walkington H (2015). Ten .edu/eer (accessed 4 November 2016). salient practices of undergraduate research mentors: a review of the lit- Johnson WB, Behling LL, Miller P, Vandermaas-Peeler M (2015). Undergrad- erature. Mentor Tutor 23, 359–376. uate research mentoring: obstacles and opportunities. Mentor Tutor 23, Spell RM, Guinan JA, Miller KR, Beck CW (2014). Redefining authentic re - 441–453. search experiences in introductory biology laboratories and barriers to Kiviniemi MT, Snyder M, Omoto AM (2002). Too many of a good thing? The their implementation. CBE Life Sci Educ 13, 102–110. effects of multiple motivations on stress, cost, fulfillment, and satisfac - Spradley J (1980). Participant Observation, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and tion. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28, 732–743. Winston. Kram KE (1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organi- Thiry H, Laursen SL (2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in ap- zational Life, Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. prenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of Laursen SL, Hunter A-B, Seymour E, Thiry H, Melton G (2010). Undergraduate practice. J Sci Educ Tech 20, 771–784. Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real Science, San Thiry H, Weston TJ, Laursen SL, Hunter A-B (2012). The benefits of multi-year Francisco: Jossey-Bass. research experiences: Differences in novice and experienced students’ Laursen SL, Seymour E, Hunter A-B (2012). Learning, teaching and scholarship: reported gains from undergraduate research. CBE Life Sci Educ 11, 260– fundamental tensions of undergraduate research. Change 44, 30–37. 272. Linn MC, Palmer E, Baranger A, Gerard E, Stone E (2015). Undergraduate re- Vallerand RJ, Fortier MS, Guay F (1997). Self-determination and persistence search experiences: impacts and opportunities. Science 347, 1261757. in a real-life setting: toward a motivational model of high school drop- out. J Pers Soc Psychol 72, 1161–175. Lopatto D, Tobias S (2010). Science in Solution: The Impact of Undergradu- ate Research on Student Learning, Washington, DC: Council on Under- Webber KL, Laird TFN, BrckaLorenz AM (2013). Student and faculty member graduate Research. engagement in undergraduate research. Res High Educ 54, 227–249. Lunsford L (2012). Doctoral advising or mentoring? Eects ff on student out - Windham TL, Stevermer AJ, Anthes RA (2004). SOARS . Bull Am Meteorol comes. Mentor Tutor 20, 251–270. Soc 85, 42. Morales DX, Grineski SE, Collins TW (2016). Faculty motivation to mentor stu- Wrzesniewski A, Schwartz B, Cong X, Kane M, Omar A, Kolditz T (2014). Mul- dents through undergraduate research programs: a study of enabling and tiple types of motives don’t multiply the motivation of West Point cadets. constraining factors. Res High Educ, doi:10.1007/s11162-016-9435-x. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 10990–10995. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 16:ar13, Spring 2017 16:ar13, 11

Journal

CBE—Life Sciences Education – Pubmed Central

Published: Jan 1, 169

There are no references for this article.