Following on from my IP unit, I would like to explore the idea of a mentoring-inspired Action Research Project. The project will likely involve multiple explorations of different methodologies and experiments.

When I was initially considering ways to gain the necessary insights to develop a mentoring guide for graduates, I thought a questionnaire would be the best approach. I believed using questionnaires would allow me to gather valuable insights from colleagues directly involved in mentoring programmes. These colleagues had far more knowledge on the topic than I did. I created what I thought was a well-thought-out and detailed questionnaire. It touched on several areas of the mentoring process (found in the participant documents section).

However, my colleagues felt the questionnaire was too detailed. Some even mentioned that if they received this document, they might view it as an assessment of their programme or a judgement on how it was being conducted. This was the opposite of the atmosphere I wanted to create. My goal was to learn from their expertise, not critique them. As a result, I decided to move away from a written questionnaire or even an interview style. Instead, I arranged informal conversations with individuals.

Conversation as Method

I felt this approach would create a more relaxed environment (Swain and King, 2022). It would allow my colleagues to speak freely and openly. My main aim was to gather insights on students and graduates who don’t participate in mentoring programmes. I also wanted to avoid appearing as though I was critiquing their approach. Instead, I wanted to position myself as a colleague eager to learn and gather information.

The conversations took place over Teams and were conducted over two weeks. They varied in length and tone. This, I believe, was due to my varied professional relationships with the participants, their personality types, and likely other factors. The discussions were insightful and felt similar to my usual interactions with them.

However, once I finished the conversations, I was faced with around 35,600 words worth of transcripts. Many sections were transcribed incorrectly (Harris, 2020) due to the limitations of Teams. I was also unfamiliar with Thematic Analysis and realised too late that I had not sent out consent forms. As a result, I felt overwhelmed about what to do next. I essentially became stuck. To avoid making mistakes, I decided to focus on secondary research instead. I read countless articles and listened to podcasts on mentoring, race, and inclusivity (mainly in the context of higher education).

It wasn’t until the third workshop that I was introduced to an alternative method: Data Poetry. This led me to explore autoethnography. These methods allowed me to engage with the text in a way I was more familiar with, given my background in Literature.

Once I discovered this approach, creating the resource became rewarding and surprisingly simple. I used a mix of what I had learnt from my secondary research and the conversations (which were now transformed into poems).

I chose to use a Canva template instead of Word or PowerPoint to create the resource. I wanted the final version to feel polished and professional. While this likely took me longer due to my unfamiliarity with the platform, it was worth it.

I also made a conscious decision to include only photographs of Black professionals in the imagery. I second guessed this due to some of the articles I had come across Pippert,(2013). That details how this can at times be misused by Higher Education institutions, but decided the risk of being misinterpreted was outweighed by the potential positive impact of black graduates feeling seen Walkington, (2017). Although the resource is not solely for Black students and graduates, I wanted them to feel seen and thought about during its creation Stori(n.d) .

Lastly, I asked for written feedback (Brinko, 1993) from my colleagues. I sent them an email asking for input on any area they wished. This was done for a few reasons. The time of year I was contacting them (Christmas). It also gave them distance, so they could give more critical feedback if they wanted to, without having an awkward conversation. Lastly it would increase accuracy, as I didn’t need to rely on a transcribed document when reviewing the feedback later. I also deliberately avoided setting a time frame, as I didn’t want them to feel rushed. This approach led to some very insightful feedback, which I implemented immediately. As a result, the blog now contains version 2 of the document.

I feel the mixed methods I explored helped the document become much more nuanced and meaningful than it would have been if I had relied on just one method.

• Brinko, K.T., 1993. The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), pp.574–593. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2959994 [Accessed 16 December 2024]

• Harris, R., 2020. The tyranny of the transcript. The Tyranny of the Transcript [online] Available at: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tyranny-of-the-transcript/id1525419615?i=1000499094942
• Pippert, T.D., Essenburg, L.J., and Matchett, E.J. (2013) ‘We’ve got minorities, yes we do: visual representations of racial and ethnic diversity in college recruitment materials’, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(2), pp. 258–282. DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2013.867920

• Swain, J. and King, B. (2022) ‘Using informal conversations in qualitative research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, pp. 1–10. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq [Accessed: 15 December 2024]. DOI: 10.1177/16094069221085056.
• Walkington, L. (2017) ‘How Far Have We Really Come? Black Women Faculty and Graduate Students’ Experiences in Higher Education’, Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39(Special Issue 39: Diversity & Social Justice in Higher Education), pp. 51–65