Role of Mentorship in Science as an Element of Scientific and Technological Development

Introduction. In Russia, 2023 has been declared the Year of the Educator and Mentor, emphasizing the need for systematic measures in the field of personnel development for the research and development sector, primarily through postgraduate education. The necessity to ensure the stability of the research and development sector arises due to new objectives of the government policy on scientific and technological development, including training personnel in priority fields and enhancing science management. Over the past decade, scientific periodicals have extensively discussed ways to improve the effectiveness of postgraduate studies, given the decline in researcher numbers and dissertation defense rates, stricter requirements for dissertation councils, and their evolving operational forms. This article attempts to explore the role of mentorship in science within the context of the scientific and technological development objectives set by the country's leadership. The study highlights trends in scientific mentorship development and defines its functions based on survey data from research advisors working in Russian universities and research organizations. The study identifies contradictions that need to be addressed and proposes ways to improve the work and status of research advisors. Methods. The empirical foundation of this study is based on a sociological survey of postgraduate students and applicants' research advisors with a candidate or doctoral degree — academic, scientific, and administrative and managerial personnel of universities and research organizations (N = 3000). The survey included representatives from all broad scientific fields (natural, technical, humanities, social, medical, agricultural). The survey was conducted in 2023. Results and Discussion. The study results reveal that the main challenges research advisors face when working with applicants for academic degrees are organizational and competence-related, tied to the high level of bureaucratization in scientific personnel training, lack of flexibility, insufficient time allocation, and poor competencies of the participants in this process, especially those responsible for scientific and technological development. The study notes an increase in the complexity of the functional roles of research advisors due to an outdated workload distribution system that hinders full participation in scientific personnel training to meet current demands. Research advisors believe they require specialized training and describe the current state of scientific personnel training as being in crisis, necessitating significant changes. The study identifies several directions for modernizing higher qualification personnel training to address scientific and technological development challenges: aligning postgraduate training with practical experience (transitioning to professional and industrial postgraduate education in experimental mode for certain fields); creating individualized tracks for dissertation preparation (implementing individual programs); conducting internships at enterprises oriented at knowledge-driven economy and academic mobility improvement; appointing consultants from companies alongside research advisors, etc. The study results are discussed in terms of gender, age, job differences, and affiliation to a specific field of science. Conclusion. The study suggests that adopting a hybrid model of scientific mentorship, which combines elements of the traditional model (the research advisor being the sole mentor) and other models (developmental mentorship, multiple mentors, supportive mentorship) prevalent in international practice, could help address certain organizational and competence-related issues.