Youth Mentoring as a Means of Supporting Mental Health for Minoritized Youth: A Reflection on Three Theoretical Frameworks 20 Years Later
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt should be considered the importance labelling has in social processes. This is key in the distinction between mentoring and therapy, but is equally important in the distinction between formal and informal mentoring mentioned in the discussion as they imply both status and power in the relationships. As I used to supervise a teacher training program, an aspect that hit me is the importance of personality and style in the mentor/mentee relationship. I do not like standardization as it forces people into a single mode that might not fit their personality or style, and hence does not come naturally or reflexively, which will lower effectiveness. A relationship such as mentoring has to be organic and develop as a process in which growth is mutual and matching. Traits such as empathy and companionship point to this, but may not provide enough focus without contextual fit such as the surrounding social relationships. That may affect the importance of matching, as a close match can increase immediate empathy and mutual understanding/acceptance, but not matching can provide wider and more diverse perspectives that can have value of their own. A lot may depend on what the subject and mentor both expect to get out of the relationship and how they see it growing and developing to begin with. Are the expectations of each being taken into account?
Author Response
Comment 1: It should be considered the importance labelling has in social processes. This is key in the distinction between mentoring and therapy, but is equally important in the distinction between formal and informal mentoring mentioned in the discussion as they imply both status and power in the relationships.
Response 1: Thank you for this perspective. We do believe that labeling is an important part of mentoring, and chose to focus on formal mentoring over informal mentoring in part for this reason. Jean Rhodes also discusses this distinction, starting on line 456.
Comment 2: As I used to supervise a teacher training program, an aspect that hit me is the importance of personality and style in the mentor/mentee relationship. I do not like standardization as it forces people into a single mode that might not fit their personality or style, and hence does not come naturally or reflexively, which will lower effectiveness. A relationship such as mentoring has to be organic and develop as a process in which growth is mutual and matching. Traits such as empathy and companionship point to this, but may not provide enough focus without contextual fit such as the surrounding social relationships. That may affect the importance of matching, as a close match can increase immediate empathy and mutual understanding/acceptance, but not matching can provide wider and more diverse perspectives that can have value of their own. A lot may depend on what the subject and mentor both expect to get out of the relationship and how they see it growing and developing to begin with. Are the expectations of each being taken into account?
Response 2: Thank you for your interest in a model that includes these important aspects (e.g., expectations, personality/style). We are happy to report that we have a paper currently under review and referenced as endnote 45, that does exactly this. We look forward to your reading it!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my view, the article is tailored to meet the objectives of the special issue of this journal. If that is indeed the case, then the article has succeeded in its goal of providing information on the reviewed theoretical frameworks or models. However, as a reader, I am interested in understanding the advantages and disadvantages, as well as the strengths and weaknesses, of each framework or model. I would also like to see how these frameworks can be used complementarily to advance research in the field.
Additionally, I would appreciate details on the process of analyzing interview data, including aspects such as coding, categorization, generating initial themes and sub-themes, finalizing overarching themes, and checking for validity and reliability. Nonetheless, it seems these elements may be less relevant if the primary goal of the article is to align with the special issue's focus.
Author Response
Comment 1: In my view, the article is tailored to meet the objectives of the special issue of this journal. If that is indeed the case, then the article has succeeded in its goal of providing information on the reviewed theoretical frameworks or models. However, as a reader, I am interested in understanding the advantages and disadvantages, as well as the strengths and weaknesses, of each framework or model.
Response 1: We believe that the original authors offer strengths, weakness, advantages, disadvantages of their authored model, and present many of these in our results section.
Comment 2: I would also like to see how these frameworks can be used complementarily to advance research in the field.
Response 2: Thank you for your interest! We have another paper currently under review, and referenced as endnote 45, that does exactly this. We look forward to your reading it!
Comment 3: Additionally, I would appreciate details on the process of analyzing interview data, including aspects such as coding, categorization, generating initial themes and sub-themes, finalizing overarching themes, and checking for validity and reliability.
Response 3: We thank you for this note. We try to frame the paper as one reporting from conversations as opposed to interviews, as these were informal conversations with mentors of ours. IRB was not consulted. We do discuss notes taken during these conversations, and the “member checking” of sorts we did by sending the paper back to the original three authors for edits.
- Nonetheless, it seems these elements may be less relevant if the primary goal of the article is to align with the special issue's focus.
