The Australian Library Journal
volume 50 issue 1

Evaluation of the ALIA (SA) Mentoring Group 1999: a grounded theory approach

An evaluation of the inaugural ALIA (SA) Mentoring Group was carried out in August 1999. The evaluation was qualitative in nature, using grounded theory methods. Focus group discussions were held, using a set of discussion guidelines, which consisted of open-ended questions about participants' expectations, and experiences of the group-mentoring program. The main findings were that employment (or lack of it) remained a major pre-occupation of members, that the group was very effective in providing social support, career development and a sense of professional identity, and that the group did not provide specific skill development. Recommendations for future groups included considering whether to provide skill development opportunities, providing a greater variety of meeting topics and allowing for more socialisation time.

Manuscript received March 2000

This is a refereed article

ALIA Library Mentoring
ALIA has provided both individual and group mentoring to newer members of the library profession for nearly ten years. ALIA (WA) implemented the first mentoring program in 1991 as a means of facilitating one-to-one mentoring partnerships for new members of the profession. Similar schemes were instigated in Victoria in 1993, and in Brisbane in 1996 (McSwiney, McAllister & Ritchie, 1998; Ritchie, McSwiney, McAllister & Genoni, 1999). Ann Ritchie and Paul Genoni also initiated the first group-mentoring program in Western Australia. It was devised to meet the needs of new library graduates and was run as a trial in 1996 (Ritchie & Genoni, 1999b). This was followed by a similar scheme in Victoria in 1998 and more recently it provided the model and incentive for the development of a group-mentoring scheme within South Australia at the end of 1998.

ALIA (SA) Mentoring Group
The ALIA (SA Branch) Mentoring Group was established in December 1998, by Irene Doskatsch, Christine Cother and Eleanor Whelan from the University of South Australia Library. This was in response to expressions of interest from finishing students and recent graduates attending the ALIA Fringe conference in Adelaide where Ann Ritchie presented a paper describing the success of the Western Australian group.

Twenty-six graduating students formulated guidelines for the group's operation attended the initial meeting. They agreed on the general meeting format, and settled the agenda for the first three meetings. The fourth meeting was set aside for taking stock and organising the rest of the year's program. Following the Victorian and Western Australian model, ALIA membership was a prerequisite for involvement in the group (McKnight, Fisch & Donkin, 1996; Ritchie & Genoni, 1999a). Membership was also limited to graduates. Other guidelines were that the group should be self-driven and self-funded; that membership would be for one year only; and that no new members would be accepted during the year.

Membership settled at seventeen members, of which fifteen were first-year graduates. Of these, eight completed the three-year Bachelor of Arts (Library and Information Management) in 1998 and seven completed the Graduate Diploma in Information Studies. Two members graduated in 1997 and had completed a year within the workforce.

The meetings were held monthly for two hours and were chaired and run by the group members. The format adopted for meetings was similar to that adopted in Western Australia (Ritchie & Genoni, 1999b). Each meeting had a theme. In the first hour guests were invited to speak to this theme. The second hour was reserved for the discussion of employment issues, exchange of information about upcoming events and other issues arising from the running of the group. The role of the mentors was chiefly to facilitate the agenda-setting, provide information about and at times approach potential speakers, provide information about ALIA events and other opportunities for professional development, and give informal professional advice and emotional support.

Methodology
The evaluation of the Mentoring Group was carried out in August 1999. While the program was not completed at that point, the timing of the evaluation allowed for the collection, analysis and writing-up of findings for presentation at the State conference in October 1999. Three members of the Mentoring Group undertook the evaluation. In contrast to the evaluations of mentoring programs undertaken in Victoria and in Western Australia (Fisch, Donkin & McKnight, 1996; McSwiney, McAllister & Ritchie, 1998; Ritchie & Genoni, 1999a; Ritchie, McSwiney, McAllister & Genoni, 1999), qualitative methods were used.

The methodology of choice was grounded theory. Grounded theory as originally developed by Glaser and Strauss (1968) seeks to ground theory within the data collected rather than using the research process to test existing theoretical propositions (Abercrombie, Hill & Turner, 1984). As such, the researchers are presumed to enter research without preconceived notions of what they will find but rather, are expected to allow themes to emerge from the data. This can lead to the advancement of theory as new, previously untheorised concepts can emerge.

Focus groups were chosen for data collection as they allowed for the collection of in-depth data on the motivations and attitudes of participants in a non-threatening environment (Morgan & Krueger, 1993). Morgan & Krueger also note that focus groups provide a respectful and non-condescending manner of collecting data when there is a power differential between the participants and decision makers, as is the case in this setting. Further, the group dynamics can lead to further self-disclosure as members can bounce ideas off one another.

Following Knodel (1993), a set of discussion guidelines was produced as a prompt for group moderators. These consisted of a series of open-ended questions about participants' expectations and experiences of the Mentoring Group program (see Appendix ). Knodel (1993, p 37) argues that the use of discussion guidelines allows the moderator to lay out the set of issues for the group to discuss without asking specific questions of individuals. A list of the topics covered over the year to date was also provided on a whiteboard as a prompt for group members. Two focus groups of six and seven members respectively were held in the second half of the August meeting. Each group lasted from 30 to 40 minutes. Time constraints unfortunately resulted in some issues not being explored in the depth they deserved. Both groups were taped and were coded by all three researchers at a later date, to improve inter-rater reliability.

Results
The grounded theory approach proved worthwhile as the major theme discovered was poorly developed in the literature. In this group, the theme of gaining employment permeates every facet of its operation. Many individual stories emerged. They included stories of hopeful expectations of gaining a good job not being met after many years of study; of menial work, of underemployment, and of the realisation that voluntary work was not likely to turn into paid employment. 'You study for years and years and you'd think you'd get a good job but you don't'. Nearly all members had some voluntary or casual work, some gained fixed term casual contracts and one lucky person had five casual job offers in one week and was able to accept four of them. However, there was general recognition of the lack of job opportunities for graduates and of the requirement by employers for skills and experience that new graduates have not yet developed. Some members supported the question of whether the group should provide opportunities to develop specific job skills.

The Mentoring Group seems to serve an important function in providing social support to the members. It is seen as a safe place to relieve frustration, to receive moral support after knock backs. 'We're all in the same boat' was one theme and people felt that their peers would understand them. Comments included 'We all speak the same language', and 'It's nice to know that everybody else is depressed!'. At the same time members felt that the group renewed their enthusiasm for the job hunt and prevented them drifting away from the profession. The social aspects of the group, informal discussion, and post-meeting drinks were seen as vitally important in fulfilling the social support function. Indeed, many believed that informal discussion and socialisation were the most valuable aspects of the group, and there has been some discussion about the group continuing on a social basis in the year 2000. In contradiction to this expressed function of the group, is the observation by some that we did not all know each others' names. This may be due to lack of interaction time and the pre-existence of friendship groups, which do not adequately interact within the Mentoring Group.

Following on from the themes of employment and social support, is the theme of networking. The group has provided good opportunities in this area. Several people found opportunities for voluntary work through guest speakers, and others found paid employment through a facilitator or other mentorees. There was also a lively exchange of information about job opportunities and interview experiences during meetings.

The guest speakers spoke about topics identified by the group as relevant and interesting, and feedback was generally very positive. However, some members considered that some presentations were not relevant or useful. One person commented that while 'half the time, half of the people are not interested in the speakers', they nevertheless provided a structure and a purpose for people to get together. Some also noted an over-emphasis on academic libraries at the expense of special or public libraries. These comments may point to a diversity of interests and career directions among group members, which may be impossible for a speaker to address while talking on a single topic. Suggestions for different types of sessions included one where employment professionals could provide advice on individuals' resumes, and another where skills such as communication skills could be practised in an interactive way.

There was an enthusiastic desire to make us more employable and many saw that professional development was achieved through group membership. For example, organising the meetings gave members an opportunity to develop skills in public speaking, running meetings and liaising with guest speakers, thereby making new contacts. 'It gives us opportunities to organise and run meetings that we don't get at work due to low level jobs'. Further, some noted that it provided an opportunity to increase their profile in the profession, through publishing in InterALIA, and through conference presentations. There was a greater identification with ALIA since the group's inception, and some people have attended ALIA section meetings as a result of their Mentoring Group membership. One member stated 'I now feel I have a right to be part of ALIA'. Also mentioned was the perceived relevance of the group to ALIA's Continuing Professional Development Program and membership subcategory.

Group members were very appreciative of the input the three facilitators have given to the group in their free time and noted several instances in which they 'came through for us' in assisting with contacting guest speakers. The facilitators were seen as very approachable and generous in contributing ideas, information and advice. One member said 'I wouldn't have spoken to them before', but now felt comfortable with them. Some members felt, however that the facilitators could 'step back a bit' and allow the development of initiative by group members.

Discussion
The focus on gaining employment that characterised this group supports a developing link between existing mentoring theory and its social context. While mentoring has a history reaching back into antiquity, the last ten years has seen an explosion of interest in the topic. Russell and Adams (1997, p 4) note, for example, an increase from 2.4 to 16 articles per month on mentoring by Proquest Direct in the years 1992-1996. This coincides with and may have come about because of the downsizing and restructuring of organisations and the massive retrenchments which characterised the 'nervous nineties'. There are at present very few formal opportunities for new library graduates, and the finding that the need to gain employment colours every facet of the group's operation supports Harris' suggestion that mentoring is being used as a compensatory mechanism (Harris 1993).

Nearly all of the literature on mentoring centers on the individual mentoring of an inexperienced person by a more experienced person, often within an organisation. There is general agreement among researchers of the subject that this type of mentoring has many benefits for the people mentored. Kram (1983) in a seminal work cited in Russell and Adams (1997, p 2) identified the two primary benefits of mentoring as career enhancement and psychosocial support. A mentor serves to facilitate the career advancement of the protégé by providing 'sponsorship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection and challenging assignments'. The psychosocial function covers enhancement by the mentor of the protégé's 'sense of competence, identity and work role effectiveness ... [by] role modeling, acceptance and confirmation, counseling and friendship'. Clearly there are many benefits in being mentored in the early stages of one's career and this study has supported the finding that mentoring can perform these functions. Russell and Adams also point out the benefits of mentoring to both mentors and organisations. These range from mentors' satisfaction and fulfilment to lower levels of staff turnover and enhanced organisational commitment.

Despite these perceived benefits one solitary article is highly critical of mentoring as a way of promoting individuals' career development. Harris claims that 'by encouraging the mentoring system, library managers may run the risk of supporting a process through which the establishment of special relationships is a means of overcoming difficulties within the organisation as a whole ... there could be some critical element missing for which mentors are a convenient but potentially hazardous compensatory mechanism' (Harris 1993, p 38). Harris discusses the necessity of evaluating whether there are sufficient resources for staff training and development, whether staff are encouraged to use these opportunities, and what mechanisms are in place through which promising employees are noticed, encouraged, supported and educated.

Organisational changes such as downsizing and restructuring are acknowledged in the literature with the development of alternate forms of mentoring. Eby (1997) argues that the traditional form of mentoring, with its focus on developing skills and strategies which will benefit the protégé within the workplace, needs to be replaced by a system which develops a wide repertoire of career related skills, cross-disciplinary experiences, networking outside the organisation and external marketability.

Eby describes peer mentoring as one variant that could fulfill this purpose. Peer mentoring is a system whereby peers, either inside an organisation or in different organisations, mentor each other. The concept of peer mentoring is also described by Holbeche (1996). Holbeche sees the need for peer mentoring as arising from the flatter management structures of today and the need for support arising from the increased pressures, sense of isolation and insecurities in today's workforce. In peer mentoring two, three or more individuals enter into a developmental relationship, which is beyond the requirements of networking, with the aim of supporting each other in achieving their job objectives. This also seems to be happening in the mentoring group with enthusiastic sharing of experiences, opportunities and networks.

The development of different forms of mentoring has benefited from the exploration of related literature from organisational psychology and vocational behaviour (McManus and Russell, 1997). Dansky (1996) has used this literature to make connections between the benefits associated with one to one mentoring, which she sees as having Instrumental Functions (career development) and Psychosocial Functions (counselling, role modelling and friendship), and the function of groups.

Dansky argues that group membership provides all of the benefits of mentoring including the exchange of information, the development of a group identity - which leads to higher self esteem and self confidence - and the development of group norms which enhance role modelling. Dansky proposes that 'the relationship between group membership and positive psychological outcomes, which has been established empirically, leads to the proposition that professional organisations, when perceived as psychological groups, can fulfill psychological mentoring functions' (Dansky, 1996, p 8).

Eby (1997) draws on and develops Dansky's work, arguing that group mentoring through a professional association provides a means of developing contacts and transportable and marketable expertise. She points out that professional associations can serve as a source of role modelling, socialisation, recognition, feedback and evaluation for members. They can also increase the exposure and visibility of members and provide challenging assignments and opportunities for professional development. These observations are supported by the results of this evaluation. Significant, however was the finding by Dansky in her study of a group of home care professionals attending a conference run by their professional organisation, that professional group membership did not lead to practical skill development. Her study showed that skill development for participants took place in the work place and was not a big part of the role of a professional organisation. This observation has also proven true of this Mentoring Group. While our organisational skills have been developed, our practical skills, particularly in relation to automated library systems, have not. The Mentoring Group has not to date incorporated skill development beyond discussion and this may be relevant in future development of mentoring groups by ALIA.

Conclusion
The most notable finding of this study is the expressed need by group members for support in a period of high unemployment and casualisation in the library profession. The group has as a result evolved into a support group for new graduates with an emphasis on networking to seek out employment possibilities, opportunities for professional development in order to make oneself more marketable and emotional support and encouragement to keep trying. This emphasis on finding employment is not noted in the literature, however it is supported by Holbeche's (1996) observation that peer mentoring has arisen from the increased pressures and insecurities in today's workforce. Also relevant are Harris' (1993) comments regarding mentoring as a compensatory mechanism for the lack of opportunities and procedures for the advancement of individuals within the existing system.

The participants are generally very positive about their experience and would recommend it to others. The psychosocial support they have received and the career development and networking opportunities they have been exposed to, mirror Kram's (1983) identification of psychosocial support and career enhancement as the two main benefits of mentoring, and have led to increased employment opportunities, higher self-esteem and a greater identification with the library profession.

References
Abercrombie, N, Hill, S & Turner, B 1984, The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd ed, Penguin, London.

Dansky, K 1996, 'The effects of group mentoring on career outcomes', Group and Organisational Management, 21 [1] pp 5-21.

Eby, L 1997, 'Alternative forms of mentoring in changing organizational environments: A conceptual extension of the mentoring literature', Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 51 [1] pp 125-144.

Fisch, E, Donkin, B & McKnight, S 1996, 'Evaluation of the mentoring scheme 1993-94', Education for Library and Information Services, 13 [2] pp 35-41.

Glaser, B & Strauss, A 1968, The Discovery Of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago.

Harris, R 1993, 'The mentoring trap', Library Journal, 15th Oct 118 [17] pp 37-39.

Holbeche, L 1996, 'Peer mentoring: The challenges and opportunities', Career Development International 1 [7] pp 24-27.

Knodel, J 1993, 'The design and analysis of focus group studies: A practical approach', in Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, ed D Morgan, SAGE, Newbury Park, California.

Kram, K 1983, 'Phases of the mentor relationship', Academy of Management Journal, 26 [4] pp 608-625.

McManus, S & Russell, J 1997, 'New directions for mentoring research: An examination of related constructs', Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 51 [1] pp 45-161.

McSwiney, C, McAllister, M & Ritchie, A 1999, 'Professionalism through ALIA: A study of the contribution of mentoring programs on both sides of the continent', Adelaide 98: Pathways to Knowledge: Australian Library and Information Association 5th Biennial conference and exhibition, Adelaide, 25-28 October 1998, conference proceedings, ALIA, Canberra.

McKnight, S, Fisch, E & Donkin, B 1996, 'Professional mentoring in Victoria', The Australian Library Journal, 45 [2] pp 149-156.

Morgan, D & Krueger, R 1993, 'When to use focus groups and why', in Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, ed. D. Morgan, SAGE, Newbury Park, California.

Ritchie, A & Genoni, P 1999a, 'How to set up a facilitated group mentoring program', Adelaide 98: Pathways to Knowledge: Australian Library and Information Association 5th Biennial conference and exhibition, Adelaide, 25-28 October 1998, conference proceedings, ALIA, Canberra.

Ritchie, A & Genoni, P 1999b, 'Mentoring as continuing professional development: the ALIA(WA) group mentoring program - Part two' [Online], Available: http://archive.alia.org.au/branches/wa/mentoring.b.html [Accessed 20th June 1999].

Ritchie, A, McSwiney, C, McAllister, M & Genoni, P 1999, 'Professionalism through ALIA: Outcomes from group mentoring programs', Australian Library Journal,. 48 [2] pp 160-178.

Russell, J & Adams, D 1997, 'The changing nature of mentoring in organizations: An introduction to the special issue on mentoring in organizations', The Journal of Vocational Behaviour 51 [1] pp 1-14.

Appendix
Focus group discussion guidelines

1. What were your expectations of the ALIA Mentoring Group?
   
   
2. Has the group met your expectations?
   
   
3. What specifically have you gained from the group? (Prompts below to be used if necessary)
   • Job skills/knowledge
   • Career development eg jobs, networking, role modelling from leaders/peers
   • Psychosocial support eg self esteem, belonging/inclusion, sense of identity, socialisation
   
   
4. How do you see the role of the leaders, and how effective have they been in that role?
   
   
5. What do you think of the meetings' structure? Can you suggest any changes?
   
   
6. Has your view of ALIA changed through belonging to the group? If so, how?
   
   
7. Overall, what works? What doesn't? How can things be changed for the better?
   
   
8. Any other comments?