The Ethics of Mentoring
Sandra L. Borden
Several research ethics programs and articles have addressed the ethical issues that arise
within mentoring relationships between faculty and graduate students (cites). Analyses
typically have focused on abuse of power by the faculty member, illustrated by excesses
ranging from sexual harassment to stealing the student’s work. The case studies included
in this module address such concerns. However, the purpose of this essay is to
conceptualize the morally significant aspects of mentoring and suggest ethical values that
should guide faculty and students.
Mentoring by Choice or by Chance?
What if one party perceives the relationship as a mentoring one, while the other party
does not? Is this mismatched perception morally significant? For example, the student
may see the faculty member’s attention to her broader professional development as an
indication that the faculty member is not “just” her dissertation director, but also her
mentor. Meanwhile, the faculty member thinks she is just “doing her job.”
Mentoring usually is seen as being concerned with more than program completion or
scholarly competence (King, xxx). In other words, it is seen as going above and beyond
minimal expectations for a research adviser. This extra commitment implies a voluntary
and conscious choice on the faculty member’s part to take on the extra responsibilities
associated with mentoring. If the faculty member does not, in fact, choose to take on
these extra duties, is she morally bound to do so? What moral weight do the student’s
expectations carry? If the faculty member knows the student has these expectations –
promised or not – does this de facto obligate the faculty member? Does it matter if the
subject is never explicitly discussed between the two parties? Is an unwilling mentor
obligated to disabuse a student of his mistake?
Even if the faculty member willingly takes on the role of mentor, are the expectations
associated with this relationship optional? If so, are they of relatively low priority
compared with the faculty member’s non-optional academic and disciplinary
responsibilities? Should he communicate this to the student to make sure he does not
expect too much?
A One-Sided Commitment?
Most commentators place the ethical onus on the faculty member. This is as it should be,
given the professor’s fiduciary responsibility and pedagogical role. Graduate students
have much less power and are directly dependent on faculty members for career advice,
research opportunities, professional guidance, academic progress and job references.
Because of this power inequity, and students’ extreme dependence, faculty members
must use their position, experience and knowledge to act in students’ best interests, not
their own.
In addition, faculty members have additional responsibilities in their instructional role. At
a minimum, these include providing accurate and timely feedback on the quality of
academic work, nurturing students’ growth as scholars, providing effective supervision,
and keeping students on track to graduate in a timely manner.
Even though the faculty member bears the brunt of ethical responsibility in a mentoring
relationship, the student is not without obligation herself. Indeed, in the ideal mentoring
relationship, the mentor equips the mentee to become independent in the field and to
develop into a peer. This implies that the mentee contributes more and more to the
relationship as she develops confidence, expertise and experience. This is not only a
matter of the mentee contributing her fair share, but also a matter of respecting the
mentor/colleague. Respecting one’s mentor includes using the mentor’s time well, for
example, by making timely progress on projects and being responsive to the mentor’s
feedback. It also means respecting the commitments the mentor has outside the
mentoring relationship. Of course, these same obligations are incumbent upon the mentor
herself, in addition to her fiduciary and instructional responsibilities.
Where Is the Line?
Some people equate mentoring with a higher level of intimacy than the typical
supervisory relationship between teacher and student. In other words, there often is an
expectation that a mentor will not just be a professor or research supervisor, but a friend,
maybe even a parental figure. However enriching this kind of closeness can be, it also
carries the potential for ethical quagmires.
Besides the dangers posed by romantic bonds, there also is the possibility that both
parties might exceed appropriate limits on the time they can devote to the mentoring
relationship, as well as the kind of help they offer each other. For example, the mentor
may unwittingly give personal advice best handled by a professional counselor (King,
xxx). And, given the inherent power inequality of mentoring relationships, the mentor
risks becoming paternalistic to the point of interfering with the mentee’s development.
Because of these dangers, the nature of the relationship must be clear to both parties.
Especially at the beginning, when the power asymmetry is greatest, prudence suggests
that the relationship should be primarily professional.
The Right Fit
Mentoring relationships often develop between scholars who are “like” each other. They
share similar interests (professional and recreational), they look at the world in the same
way, they have the same take on their academic field. This kind of compatibility makes
for easy communication, quick camaraderie and smooth collaborations. Therefore, it is
highly desirable. Both parties should discuss relevant compatibility factors (such as
research interests, work habits, etc.) to realistically assess their prospects for a fruitful
partnership.
However, graduate students often are not “like” their prospective mentors. They may be
from a different racial or social background, for example. Or perhaps they simply are not
“traditional” graduate students – perhaps they are older, with family obligations (King,
xxx). Or maybe the intellectual tide in a department is turning, and the graduate students
coming in adhere to a different research paradigm than the majority of the faculty. These
students, if anything, may require more nurturing than those who can easily network with
possible mentors. Faculty cannot ethically turn their backs on students who are
“different.”
The mentor may not initially see the potential benefit to himself in such partnerships. But
interacting meaningfully with someone from another background enriches both parties,
sometimes in unexpected ways. There are campus resources available to bridge certain
gaps and assist with special accommodations. In short, difference should not preclude a
successful pairing, but both parties should take extra care to discuss expectations, given
their potentially divergent perspectives.
Just Between Me and You?
Other faculty members besides the student’s mentor have pedagogical responsibilities
toward the student. These responsibilities are less extensive because they do not involve
the supererogatory obligations of mentoring and because they do not occur in the context
of a special one-on-one relationship. Nevertheless, the entire faculty of a department
should help graduate students succeed academically. This may mean, for example,
coming to the aid of a student in a dysfunctional mentoring relationship by intervening
with their colleague or even taking over mentoring responsibilities if necessary.
Some Guiding Values
This essay suggests several values for enhancing the moral quality of mentoring
relationships: candid communication, reciprocity, respect for each other’s interests,
mutual accountability, empathy, and the promotion of each other’s well being.

Candid communication calls on the parties to forthrightly express goals,
expectations, and concerns so that they can make commitments to each other
based on realistic assessments regarding risks and benefits. Candid
communication may preclude “accidental” mentors, which is in the best
interest of both parties. Candor about boundaries also can ward off some of
the worst difficulties associated with personal distance. Candor establishes
trust, but also implies that constructive criticism of professional standards is to
be expected.

Reciprocity requires give-and-take between the parties, so that both are “in”
the relationship together. This helps avoid the one-sided mentoring
relationship in which expectations are unwittingly dashed and no one’s needs
are met. This value is not just “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.” It
is about both parties giving to each other and taking risks together with the
assurance that such actions take place within the context of mutual
commitment and caring.

Respect for each other’s interests calls on both parties to appreciate the
worth of the other’s goals, not just their own. This value draws attention to the
fact that interests can be complementary even when they are “different.” It
also recognizes that mentees deserve help developing their own research
agendas and they should not merely be expected to adopt those of their
mentors. Finally, it recognizes that mentors have discretion about how to
allocate their multiple academic commitments.

Mutual accountability suggests that both parties must do their part to make
sure the relationship works well. Inevitable differences in power, expertise
and status place a fiduciary responsibility upon the faculty member. However,
both parties owe each other their best efforts and consideration.

Empathy is especially pertinent in the graduate school context, where
students face a great deal of stress and uncertainty. They also are extremely
dependent on their faculty supervisors to make their degree programs
worthwhile. It can be easy to forget what it is like to walk in those shoes, but
faculty should strive to remember and to respond with concern and
encouragement. Students, as well, should make an effort to understand things
from the perspective of their mentors, who face many conflicting demands on
their time and energies. Not only does empathy foster respect between mentor
and mentee, it has the potential to provide a broader perspective on what it
means to be a faculty member. For those who want to follow in their mentor’s
footsteps, empathy gives them a chance to see down the road ahead.

Promoting each other’s well being should be the animating impulse behind
the mentoring relationship. At a minimum, both parties should refrain from
exploiting each other. Mentors, due to their expertise and experience in the
field, also should alert mentees to the professional consequences of their
actions and ensure that they have appropriate opportunities for development in
the field.
Conclusion
Mentoring relationships can be the most rewarding aspect of graduate education for both
faculty and graduate students. The best relationships outlast the student’s program and
blossom into collegial collaborations and even friendships that last entire careers.
Mentoring relationships are both necessary and desirable for the development of both
parties. As such, they should be encouraged. But they also should be initiated and
managed with great care. The stakes are high – professionally, personally and ethically.