Mentoring in Higher Education

Full text

20
Mentoring in Higher Education
Laura Gail Lunsford, Gloria Crisp,
Erin L. Dolan and Brad Wuetherick
INTRODUCTION
Mentoring relationships are embedded in the
educational process in higher education. This
chapter reviews scholarly work on mentoring
in higher education for undergraduates,
graduate students, and faculty members. We
consider the purposes, types, and outcomes
of mentoring in each context. The informal
focus on mentoring has given way to a prolif-
eration of formal mentoring programs at
universities around the world (González,
2001). Thus, we explore mentoring in edu-
cational contexts in the United States (USA),
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South
Africa, and the United Kingdom (UK).
Our approach is to synthesize findings
from the past ten years about mentoring that
provide evidence as to what works for special
populations/program types. The databases
searched were: Academic Search Complete,
Ebscohost, Psychology and Behavioral
Sciences, SOCI Index, Education Full-Text
(Wilson Web) full-text and peer-reviewed
journals (excluding non-US and non-British
work).
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Purpose of mentoring
undergraduate students
The term mentoring describes a range of
faculty–student, staff–student or student–
student relationships (Crisp and Cruz, 2009;
Gershenfeld, 2014; Jacobi, 1991). In descrip-
tive reports and empirical studies of under-
graduate mentoring these relationships are
often defined at a programmatic or adminis-
trative level rather than from the perspective
of the undergraduate, his or her mentor, or
their relationship. Despite this focus, mentor-
ing continues to be widely accepted as an
effective mechanism for positively influenc-
ing undergraduate students (Eby and Dolan,
2015), including improving their academic
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 316 16/01/17 7:57 PM

Mentoring in HigHer education 317
performance (e.g. Fox etal., 2010), ensuring
their persistence in university or in specific
disciplines – such as science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (e.g.
Bettinger and Baker, 2011) – or easing their
transition into new institutional or discipli-
nary cultures (e.g. Bordes and Arredondo,
2005). Some undergraduate mentoring pro-
grams aim to help students be successful in
challenging experiences, such as a capstone
projects (Pembridge, 2011), research experi-
ences (e.g. Horowitz and Christopher, 2012),
work-integrated learning (Ralph and Walker,
2010, 2013), or courses in which high levels
of attrition are observed (e.g. Hryciw etal.,
2013). Other programs aim to support under-
represented students, including: students
from ethnic and racial backgrounds in STEM
disciplines, women in physical sciences,
mathematics, and engineering, and students
who are first in their families to go to univer-
sity (e.g. Wilson etal., 2012).
Types of undergraduate
mentorship
Mentoring builds relationships with students,
locates spaces where they get disconnected,
and helps them reconnect when needed
(Drake, 2011). Relationships may take a
variety of forms and be distinguished by
their duration, function, and source(s) of
mentoring. Most research focuses on formal
mentoring programs on university campuses
(Erickson etal., 2009). However, mentoring
may be informal and develop spontaneously
and naturally (Eby and Allen, 2008). The
amount of contact provided to students and
the duration of informal and formal relation-
ships also differs, with some relationships
being limited to one meeting and others last-
ing over a decade (Crisp and Cruz, 2009).
Formal program components vary in terms
of mentor training, activity type, and the mode
of interaction between student and mentor
(Larose etal., 2009). For instance, although
traditionally mentoring has been provided in
person, an increasing number of e-mentoring
programs are being implemented across uni-
versities and include a combination of tech-
nology mediated (e.g. discussion boards),
and face-to-face interactions with students
(Shrestha etal., 2009).
While mentoring relationships are preva-
lent between faculty and undergraduate
students, student relationships with univer-
sity staff, peers, graduate students, family,
friends, community members, and religious
leaders have been shown to contribute to the
educational success of students (Erickson
et al., 2009). Further, mentoring may be
experienced between a student and one indi-
vidual or in small groups of two or more stu-
dents and/or mentors (Crisp and Cruz, 2009).
It is notable that the functions and roles of
mentoring may differ by source and that stu-
dents may benefit from having more than
one mentor who provides different forms of
support. For example, findings by D’Abate
(2009) indicate that faculty regard their role
to include teaching, sharing information, pro-
viding advice and feedback, and academic
goal-setting tracking, whereas roles such as
introducing, affirming and befriending may
be better provided by peer-mentors.
Mentoring outcomes for
undergraduates
Mentoring research and practice continues to
develop through the work of a multidiscipli-
nary and international group of scholars,
each focusing on a specific educational con-
text and/or target population (Eby and Allen,
2008). In recent years, researchers’ attention
has focused on mentoring outcomes for spe-
cific student groups, resulting in a growing
knowledge base regarding how, and under
what conditions, mentoring can be effective
in supporting the development and success of
undergraduate students. Overall, findings
point to mentoring as a means of directly or
indirectly improving academic outcomes,
such as grade point average and persistence
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 317 16/01/17 7:57 PM

The SAGe hAndbook of MenTorinG
318
in higher education (Bordes-Edgar et al.,
2011; Campbell and Campbell, 2007; Crisp,
2011).
Mentoring improves students’ transi-
tion to university, by either helping them to
attend university or once they are there, to
be retained through to degree completion.
A controlled evaluation of peer mentoring,
designed to provide psychological support
and academic advice to undergraduate stu-
dents at universities in the UK, found that
non-mentored students were four times
as likely to consider leaving the univer-
sity when compared to mentored students.
Mentoring positively influences student out-
comes such as:
• sense of belonging (O’Brien etal., 2012),
• capacity for socially responsible leadership
(Campbell etal., 2012),
• deep and strategic learning approaches (Chester
etal., 2013), and
• self-confidence in professional skills and abilities
(Thiry etal., 2011).
There is further evidence that mentors may
benefit from relationships with undergradu-
ate students, including improved cognitive
and socio-emotional growth, teaching, and
communication skills (Dolan and Johnson,
2009).
There is a new line of work focused on
students who are enrolled in community or
technical colleges. For example, Khazanov
(2011) used a quasi-experimental design to
evaluate a peer-mentoring program for com-
munity college students enrolled in remedial
or developmental classes. Findings revealed
mentored students earned similar grades
and were more likely to persist in college
when compared to non-mentored students.
Further, work by Barnett (2011) and Crisp
(2010) suggested that mentoring may play
an important role in helping community
college students integrate, develop friends,
and be satisfied with their academic expe-
riences during college. Moreover, results
from Barnett (2011) demonstrated the
importance and value of community college
students receiving validating interactions
with faculty.
Although findings converge to suggest that
mentoring is beneficial to undergraduate stu-
dents, mentoring is not always effective, or
may be less effective for certain groups or
in certain contexts. The following subsec-
tions summarize recent findings that explain
which mentoring outcomes may be influ-
enced by mentor and student characteristics
(e.g. at-risk, minority) and/or program type
(e.g. STEM, undergraduate research).
Targeted undergraduate
mentoring programs
Most undergraduate mentoring programs fit
into three categories: undergraduate research
mentoring, peer mentoring, or comprehen-
sive mentoring. Each category is discussed
separately below. There is a focus on science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) because STEM has been better
funded (and thus more studied) relative to
research on undergraduate mentoring in
other disciplines.
Undergraduate research
mentoring programs
Undergraduate research experiences (UREs)
provide opportunities for students to gain
authentic experience in their discipline of
interest, develop as young professionals,
strengthen their personal and professional
(academic) identity development, and realize
a variety of other cognitive, psychosocial,
and behavioral outcomes (Laursen et al.,
2010; Linn etal., 2015; Lopatto and Tobias,
2010; Palmer et al., 2015). Undergraduates
who participate in research were typically
apprenticed to more experienced individuals,
such as faculty members, graduate or post-
doctoral researchers, or upper-division
undergraduates, who were considered to be
their mentors (Burg et al., 2015; Feldman
etal., 2013; Linn etal., 2015). Mentoring has
been proposed as an important factor in
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 318 16/01/17 7:57 PM

Mentoring in HigHer education 319
maximizing student benefits of participating
in research (Linn et al., 2015; Taraban and
Logue, 2012; Thiry and Laursen, 2011). For
the most part, however, UREs are loosely
defined (Balster etal., 2010), and published
descriptions of URE programs have not
articulated how mentoring relationships are
established, structured, or supported.
Undergraduate research offices and
programs are increasingly prevalent on
university campuses, and some match under-
graduates with research mentors. For exam-
ple, Burg and colleagues (2015) described
a ‘vertically integrated’ mentoring structure
for their STEM Incubator Course and two
similar programs, the Freshman Research
Initiative at The University of Texas at
Austin and the Vertically-Integrated Projects
Program at Georgia Tech. These programs
engaged introductory-level undergraduates in
research with guidance from graduate stu-
dents and faculty. Undergraduates then
had the option to continue research as peer
mentors for the next cohort of students with
coordination and guidance from a designated
mentor coordinator.
Outside these structured programs,
undergraduates find and establish infor-
mal relationships with research mentors,
who normally receive little preparation or
guidance on how to mentor undergradu-
ate researchers. As a result, there has been
a growth of local mechanisms (e.g. campus
workshops and websites) and more for-
mal curricula (e.g. Balster et al., 2010) for
undergraduates to learn how to establish and
navigate relationships with research mentors
and to build the capacity of graduate stu-
dents, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty
to mentor undergraduates effectively (Pfund
etal., 2006; Pfund et al., 2014). For exam-
ple, Entering Mentoring (Handelsman, 2005)
offers guidance to STEM research mentors
on how to structure UREs, such as by defin-
ing goals and expectations for both protégés
and mentors. Entering Mentoring and other
mentor professional development curricula
(see http://www.researchmentortraining.org/;
http://mentor.unm.edu/online-resources
[accessed September 22, 2015]) highlight
common topics that arise when mentoring
undergraduate researchers.
Few studies disaggregated the effects for
undergraduates of participating in research
from the effects of their relationships with
research mentors. Russell, Hancock and
McCullough (2007) surveyed 4,500 under-
graduate students and 3,600 faculty members,
graduate student and postdoctoral mentors
and found that mentorship characteristics,
such as involvement in decision-making and
adequacy of mentor guidance, did not have
a statistically significant impact on positive
outcomes of undergraduate research. They
argued, however, that:
By far the most common suggestions that students
made about how to improve undergraduate
research programs concerned increased or more
effective faculty guidance. We suspect that the
absence of strong relationships on the structured
questions reflects the complexity of the mentor’s
role rather than its unimportance. (Russell et al.,
2007, 549)
Schultz and colleagues (2011) conducted one
of the first empirical studies to delineate the
outcomes of engaging in research versus
being mentored. Their longitudinal study of
STEM students, who were racial or ethnic
minorities, examined the effects of partici-
pating in an undergraduate training program
on students’ persistence in their intentions to
pursue science-related research careers, as
compared to a propensity score matched con-
trol group. Undergraduates who reported
participating in research were significantly
more likely to continue in their intentions to
pursue science-related research careers than
matched control students, but there was not a
similar effect for undergraduates who
reported having a scientific mentor (i.e. fac-
ulty member, program staff member, gradu-
ate student, postdoctoral fellow, or scientific
professional outside the university whom
they considered to be a mentor). In contrast,
in their longitudinal study of aspiring STEM
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 319 16/01/17 7:57 PM

The SAGe hAndbook of MenTorinG
320
majors with propensity score matched con-
trol students, Eagan and colleagues (2013)
found that participating in research, mentor-
ing by faculty, and interacting with graduate
students/teaching assistants had distinct, sig-
nificant, positive effects on undergraduates’
intentions to pursue STEM graduate degrees.
Contradictory results about the influence of
mentoring in UREs are likely due to the lim-
ited methods used to measure mentoring,
which generally do not take into account the
quality or functions of mentoring relation-
ships or mentors’ levels of experience or
preparation in mentoring (Johnson and
Kaslow, 2014). The use of measures of men-
toring competence (e.g. Fleming etal., 2013;
Pfund etal., 2014) and mentoring functions
(e.g. Schlosser and Gelso, 2001, 2005) may
be useful for a more nuanced approach to
studying the influence of mentoring in UREs.
Peer mentoring programs
Most peer mentoring programs aim to
enhance students’ sense of belonging at uni-
versity and their academic persistence and
success (Jacobi, 1991; Hill and Reddy, 2007;
Nora and Crisp, 2007). Peer mentors func-
tion in ways that were reflective of other
mentors, for example, by serving as role
models and offering psychosocial and aca-
demic subject knowledge support (Colvin
and Ashman, 2010; Terrion and Leonard,
2007; Terrion, 2012). Peer mentors con-
nected their protégés to key resources by
providing information about opportunities,
helping protégés navigate their university,
and acting as liaisons to faculty and other
influential people. Peer mentoring programs
achieved many of the same outcomes as
other types of mentoring programs, including
academic integration, retention, and success
(e.g. Chester etal., 2013; Collings, Swanson,
and Watkins, 2014; Hryciw etal., 2013).
Peer mentoring programs commonly target
first-year undergraduates as protégés because
the transition to university is an important
time in students’ decisions to continue in
higher education and in particular disciplines
(e.g. STEM; see Seymour and Hewitt, 1997).
Further, upper-level undergraduates have
recent, salient experience they can draw from
in advising first-year students. Mentoring
by peers can be particularly critical to early
university students since students who do not
connect to a peer group, or who have nega-
tive peer interactions, are more likely to be
lost to attrition (Bean and Metzner, 1985;
Tinto, 1975). Peer mentors afford advantages
over faculty and staff mentors because they
are more readily available and are perceived
as more approachable, thus encouraging
disclosure and trust formation. Peer men-
tors also face challenges unique to being
a peer, including how to balance their own
academic, personal, and professional priori-
ties with those of their protégés, and how to
establish and maintain contact with their pro-
tégés (Colvin and Ashman, 2010; Terrion and
Leonard, 2007).
In contrast to programs that involve fac-
ulty or other professionals as mentors, peer
mentoring programs often use a formal pro-
cess for selecting mentors. Mentors may be
selected according to criteria such as high
level of academic achievement, interpersonal
and communication skills, and conscientious-
ness, as well as a sincere interest in serving
as a mentor, although the relative importance
of these factors for the establishment of suc-
cessful peer mentoring relationships has
not been delineated (Terrion and Leonard,
2007). Some programs make efforts to match
undergraduates and peer mentors based on
socio-demographic characteristics, although
research on the importance of matching based
on race, ethnicity, or gender versus matching
according to deep-level similarity or even dis-
similarity (e.g. Sosik and Godshalk, 2005) is
equivocal (Eby etal., 2013; Eby and Dolan,
2014; Terrion and Leonard, 2007).
Peer mentoring relationships are typically
more structured than mentoring relationships
observed in UREs. For example, many such
programs start with formal opportunities for
mentors and protégés to get acquainted, such
as during a welcome event or a first-year
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 320 16/01/17 7:57 PM

Mentoring in HigHer education 321
seminar course (e.g. Holt and Berwise, 2012).
There are often established expectations for
mentor–protégé interactions at regular inter-
vals, such as during a tutorial session or on
an ad hoc basis, or at key time points (e.g.
exam periods). Program administrators also
expect more regular and systematic reporting
about mentor–protégé interactions than in
UREs. Peer mentors may meet with protégés
one-on-one or in small groups (e.g. Collings
etal., 2014), and can be volunteers or earn
credit or pay. Some may even live in close
proximity to their protégés to facilitate daily
interactions (e.g. Kiyama and Luca, 2013).
Most programs end formal relationships at
natural points of closure, such as the end of
a course, the end of the protégé’s first year in
college, or at graduation, although peer men-
toring relationships may persist informally
after the end of the formal program. Peer
mentoring programs were more likely than
other mentoring scenarios to provide formal
mentor training in the form of workshops and
regular meetings throughout the mentoring
experience (e.g. Hryciw etal., 2012). These
sessions aimed to build mentors’ knowledge
about how to engage with and support their
protégés, and enhance mentors’ awareness
of issues that they and their protégés may
face, and strategies for mitigating or resolv-
ing them.
Comprehensive mentoring
programs
Keen interest in increasing diversity of uni-
versity graduates and the STEM workforce
has driven the establishment of multi-faceted
mentoring programs that offer academic,
social, and professional opportunities to stu-
dents who are traditionally underserved,
including underrepresented minority stu-
dents, women in physics, mathematics, and
engineering, and students who are first in
their families to go to university. These
efforts are grounded in research showing that
underrepresented students leave university
and STEM disciplines for reasons other than
their capabilities (Ferrare and Lee, 2014;
Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). We refer to
these programs as comprehensive mentoring
programs, which are responsive to theoreti-
cal (Pascarella, 1980; Tinto, 1975, 1993) and
empirical work (e.g. Chemers et al., 2011;
Gazley et al., 2014; Hurtado et al., 2009;
Merolla and Serpe, 2013) on student sociali-
zation into academic and disciplinary
cultures.
Comprehensive mentoring programs
acknowledge that while cross-racial mentor-
ing can be effective (Reddick and Pritchett,
2015) there are benefits to matching stu-
dents with mentors of similar demographic
characteristics. For instance, Campbell
and Campbell (2007) found that ethnically
matched pairs remained enrolled for more
semesters and accumulated more units than
did pairs who were not matched by ethnic-
ity. Evidence suggests that students who were
the first to attend college in their family, typi-
cally termed first generation, may approach
and experience mentoring from more of a
utilitarian perspective when compared to
students with university-educated parents,
who held a broader view of the relationship
and were more likely to capitalize on social
networking opportunities (Mekolichick and
Gibbs, 2012). There is evidence from a well-
designed experiment by Bettinger and Baker
(2011) that mentoring may be more benefi-
cial for male compared to female undergrad-
uate students.
The Meyerhoff Scholars Program at
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
(Maton etal., 2000; Maton and Hrabowski,
2004) couples financial support in the form of
scholarships and structured academic oppor-
tunities (e.g. summer bridge programming,
undergraduate research opportunities, study
groups, tutoring and being tutored) with men-
toring by peers, academic advisors, faculty,
and other professionals. Qualitative study
of this program indicated that peer and fac-
ulty mentoring promoted a sense of belong-
ing to the institution and the discipline and
increased students’ levels of self-efficacy and
identity (Maton etal., 2000; Stolle-McAllister
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 321 16/01/17 7:57 PM

The SAGe hAndbook of MenTorinG
322
etal., 2011), all of which have been shown
to improve students’ academic engagement
and achievement (Liang etal., 2002; Martin
and Dowson, 2009). Peers and faculty serve
as ‘institutional agents’ (Stanton-Salazar,
2011), which has been shown to be important
for helping students find key information and
opportunities and make connections within
their institutions and disciplines (Crisp and
Cruz, 2009; Eagan etal., 2013; Fuentes etal.,
2014). Studies of the Meyerhoff Scholars
Program and similar initiatives show that
participating students have greater odds
than non-participating students of persist-
ing and succeeding in introductory science
and math courses, earning higher GPAs,
graduating with a STEM major, and pursu-
ing STEM-related education or career paths
after graduation, after controlling for gender,
race/ethnicity, and high school achievement
(Barlow and Villarejo, 2004; Slovaceketal.,
2012; Villarejo and Barlow, 2007).
When considered holistically, these pro-
grams offer a full complement of mentor-
ing functions, including the provision of
psychosocial, role model, academic, and
career-related support (Crisp, 2009; Nora
and Crisp, 2007). Our review of scholar-
ship on undergraduate mentoring identified
an increasing number of mentoring pro-
grams and empirical work focused toward
groups that have been traditionally under-
represented and underserved in higher edu-
cation systems. Overall, evidence suggests
that mentoring relationships may have ben-
efits for underrepresented groups and may
help reduce inequities in persistence and
degree completion between Anglo/white
and racial/ethnic minority groups (e.g.
Bordes-Edgar et al., 2011). For instance,
Hu and Ma (2010) found that having an
assigned university mentor was positively
related to the probability that minority stu-
dents would persist at university. Further,
Shotton, Oosahwe, and Cintron (2007)
found peer mentors helped indigenous
students overcome potential barriers by
providing support and guidance, and by
connecting them to the indigenous com-
munity on campus.
Mentoring similarities/differences
across contexts
Research on mentoring outcomes in Canada,
Australia, and the UK align with findings in
US-focused studies. There is, however, a dif-
ference in the language used across these
contexts. In the UK, Australia, and New
Zealand, the research at both undergraduate
and graduate student levels focuses on formal
supervision, even though the characteristics
of supervision they describe are what US
scholars term mentorship (Grant and
Manathunga, 2011; Lee, 2011; Manathunga
and Goozée, 2007; Wisker, 2012[2005]). For
example, Wisker’s (2012[2005]) summary of
the supervision literature in the UK articu-
lated the characteristics of good research
supervision as including supportive practices
that nurtured the students’ research skills
development and development as an individ-
ual. These findings align with mentorship
literature in the USA.
In Canada, the terms supervision and
mentorship have been used interchangeably
by scholars, however there is a recent move
towards distinguishing between mentorship
and supervision. The tension between super-
vision and mentorship is one of the funda-
mental differences in mentoring constructs.
For example, Ralph (1998) first used the
term supervision, through a model described
as contextual supervision, to refer to how
mentors adapt to student needs. Later, Ralph
and Walker (2010, 2013) proferred the term
‘adaptive mentorship’ in their exploration
of mentoring in the context of professional,
work-integrated learning. These researchers
argued that students in mentoring relation-
ships may be located along two continua
– confidence and competence. Further, men-
torship provided to students must respond
to student needs by adapting the mentor’s
stance between a task or support orientation
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 322 16/01/17 7:57 PM

Mentoring in HigHer education 323
for better outcomes from the mentorship
experience (ibid.).
There is a dearth of research published
in English beyond the primarily English-
speaking contexts mentioned above on how
the nature and outcomes of mentoring expe-
riences vary across cultures (Buyukgoze-
Kavas et al., 2010). Notably, Manathunga
(2014) and Grant and Manathunga (2011)
have explored how supervisory practices in
doctoral education might need to change or
evolve as a result of increasing student diver-
sity within English-speaking institutions.
GRADUATE EDUCATION
Purposes of graduate student
mentoring
As noted above, the terms mentoring and
supervision are used interchangeably in
non-US contexts and both terms are used
here. The purposes of graduate student men-
torship are to enhance the academic develop-
ment (including development of research
skills and a disciplinary identity), profes-
sional (career) development, and personal
(psychosocial) development of graduate stu-
dents. Mentors of graduate students may be
formal advisors or supervisors, other faculty
or research staff in the discipline or beyond,
postdoctoral fellows, more senior graduate
students, and peers. Mentoring by each of
whom might manifest in different mentoring
relationship dynamics. These mentoring
relationships are important as ‘graduate stu-
dents experience lofty academic demands,
high levels of stress and anxiety and con-
flicts between various responsibilities’
(Hadjioannou etal., 2007: 160).
The quality of mentoring relationships
may be important for particular groups of
graduate students. For example, studies of
international graduate students at US uni-
versities have reported different educational
experiences than American students, in part
because they have an added challenge of try-
ing to adjust to a new environment and culture
(Rose, 2005). Further, the reported graduate
experiences of women, and of students from
underrepresented, historically oppressed and
diverse groups, suggest that mentoring rela-
tionships are critical in helping these stu-
dents navigate an increasingly complex and
difficult educational and career path through
and beyond graduate school (Williams-
Nickelson, 2009). Lechuga (2011) found
that faculty–graduate student relationships,
within the context of a STEM program with
Latina/o faculty mentors, can be described
by three broad descriptors that character-
ize faculty members’ perceived roles and
responsibilities as Allies, Ambassadors, and
Master-Teachers.
Types of graduate mentorship
Researchers surveyed graduate students at
21 US universities and found that students
experienced mentoring relationships in a
variety of forms, including formal, informal,
professional, and peer mentoring (Watson
etal., 2009). There is a continuing tradition
of a formal mentoring or master–apprentice
model, where a supervisor works individu-
ally with a graduate student, which remains
the archetype for graduate training. It is a
model where the perceptions of both gradu-
ate students and leaders of graduate pro-
grams are positive (Rose, 2005).
Graduate supervision, in the inclusive sense
in which supervision is used in the UK and
Australian contexts, has been regarded pri-
marily as an extension of research rather than
as a form of teaching. Thus, it is considered
a type of mentoring, where students gradu-
ally master appropriate disciplinary research
knowledge over the course of their graduate
education (Manathunga and Goozée, 2007).
How individuals perceived their supervi-
sion and mentorship (Manathunga, 2005)
influenced greatly their overall graduate
experiences.
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 323 16/01/17 7:57 PM

The SAGe hAndbook of MenTorinG
324
Unfortunately, faculty mentors and super-
visors may assume that even new graduate
students are ‘always/already’ autonomous
scholars (Thomas, Lunsford, and Rodrigues,
2015). Further, university administrators
similarly assume supervisors are ‘always/
already’ effective at supervising and men-
toring graduate students because they had
completed (or ‘endured’) the process of
conducting graduate research themselves
(Manathunga and Goozée, 2007). It is possi-
ble that a faculty member might be an excel-
lent supervisor (or mentor) but a poor mentor
(or supervisor). Indeed,
few supervisors are selected on, let alone trained
in, advanced methods of supervision (and mentor-
ship). Appointed supervisors therefore seldom
have a conceptual map of what constitutes accept-
able supervision (and mentorship). Supervisors
themselves are often the products of poor supervi-
sion (and mentorship), and do not therefore hold
experience of what constitutes competent supervi-
sion (and mentorship). (Dietz et al., 2006, 11)
Yob and Crawford (2012) have offered a
conceptual model of the behaviors and skills
needed to mentor doctoral students. The two
domains of mentor behaviors and character-
istics were academic and psychosocial. In the
academic domain, four attributes were iden-
tified: competence, availability, induction,
and challenge. In the psychosocial domain,
three attributes were identified: the faculty
member’s personal qualities, communica-
tion, and emotional support.
Mentoring outcomes for
graduate students
Overall, research demonstrates the impor-
tance of mentoring relationships in effective
graduate education (Baker, Pifer and
Flemion, 2013) and indicates that most grad-
uate students perceive mentoring as impor-
tant. In addition, findings demonstrate that
the majority of graduate students receive
mentoring support, typically from their fac-
ulty advisor but also from peers and other
sources (e.g. Lunsford, 2012). Across disci-
plines and university contexts, mentoring
relationships with faculty and peers are ben-
eficial for graduate students. More specifi-
cally, mentoring has the potential to
contribute to graduate students’ socialization
and academic support (Hadjioannou et al.,
2007), and satisfaction with the program and/
or advisor (McAllister etal., 2009). Further,
there is a growing body of evidence demon-
strating the relationship between mentoring
and graduate students’ research and writing
productivity (e.g. Lunsford, 2012; Watson
etal., 2009) including longitudinal research
by Paglis, Green, and Bauer (2006) who
studied doctoral students in the hard sciences
over five and a half years and found mentor-
ing to be related to students’ research pro-
ductivity and self-efficacy.
Despite the numerous positive outcomes,
there is evidence that mentoring may not
always benefit students and in some cases
may serve to hinder graduate students’ suc-
cess. For instance, recent work found that
female graduate students experienced feel-
ings of self-doubt as a result of negative
experiences with advising and mentoring,
including difficulties engaging with a quality
mentor (Welton, Mansfield and Lee, 2014).
As such, it is important to recognize how
mentoring may be experienced similarly or
differently by different groups of students.
Research by Rose (2005) identifies several
notable differences in how mentoring may
be influenced by both individual and socio-
cultural differences, including gender, age,
and culture. In particular, findings revealed
that female doctoral students at US univer-
sities considered a mentor’s integrity to be
more important to their definition of the ideal
mentor when compared to male students.
Findings also revealed an inverse relationship
between the age of students and the perceived
importance of the personal relationship
aspect of mentoring. Similarly, international
students considered a mentor’s willingness to
develop a personal relationship with them to
be more important than domestic students.
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 324 16/01/17 7:57 PM

Mentoring in HigHer education 325
Researchers have also been increasingly
engaged in work to understand how mentor-
ing is experienced among targeted groups
of graduate students, in particular for those
who have been traditionally underserved in
higher education. For instance, Rudolph and
colleagues (2015) sought to understand the
mentoring experiences of Latina/o gradu-
ate students attending a US Hispanic serv-
ing institution, highlighting the importance
of mentor openness, trust, commitment,
availability, and grant assistance. Similarly,
Pidgeon, Achibald and Hawkey (2014) stud-
ied Aboriginal graduate students in Canada
who participated in a culturally relevant
peer and mentoring program called SAGE.
Findings showed that relationships between
Aboriginal graduate students and faculty cre-
ated networking opportunities and a sense of
belonging. The program was also shown to
foster self-accountability for students’ aca-
demic studies. An evaluation of a mentor-
ing program for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBTQ) graduate students in
social work education found students were
looking for specific types of instrumental and
psychosocial support from mentors as well
as more mentor initiation of the relationship
(McAllister etal., 2009).
A review of recent mentoring programs
also revealed the importance of understand-
ing the underlying conditions that promote
success or impede successful graduate stu-
dent mentoring relationships. For instance,
findings by Rudolph and colleagues (2015)
reveal that work obligations had a nega-
tive impact on mentoring for Latino males.
Additionally, work by Hadjioannou and col-
leagues (2007) suggested that student-led
mentoring groups may enhance the develop-
ment of doctoral students’ into scholars by
providing mentors with the opportunity to
support students in different ways and on dif-
ferent levels (e.g. peer review). Findings by
Ortiz-Walters and Gilson (2005) indicated
that African-American, Hispanic and indig-
enous graduate students may be more satis-
fied with, and receive more, psychosocial and
instrumental support from mentors who are
non-white. It appears that students’ interper-
sonal comfort and commitment may mediate
relationships between outcomes and superfi-
cial and deeper levels of similarity between
mentors and graduate students. In cases
where ethnic minority graduate students were
mentored by white faculty or staff, qualita-
tive findings by Chan, Yeh, and Krumboltz
(2015) highlighted the importance of provid-
ing career support and guidance tailored for
minorities, such as discussing career possi-
bilities and building confidence. In addition,
results of interviews with faculty mentors
and doctoral students attending a research-
intensive university in Australia suggested
that students benefit from having a mentor
who was adept at adapting to multiple cultural
approaches (e.g. Australian and Chinese) to
supervision (Manathunga, 2011).
ACADEMIC/FACULTY MENTORING
Purpose of academic mentoring
Academic mentoring refers to informal and
formal efforts to mentor faculty members in
higher education. Mentoring has been
assumed to take place informally because of
the tiered progression of academic careers
(De Janasz and Sullivan, 2004). As such,
formal mentoring is a recent phenomena that
has been promoted in the USA through fund-
ing efforts such as the National Science
Foundation Advance Program (http://www.
nsf.gov/crssprgm/advance [accessed September
22, 2015]).
Research on informal mentoring efforts sug-
gests that mentors support faculty in achieving
a work/life balance as well as providing career
guidance (Hagemeier et al., 2013; Metzger
etal., 2013; Thomas etal., 2015). It has been
viewed as the responsibility of senior faculty
to mentor new faculty members.
Recent studies suggest that informal men-
toring is available to about half of faculty
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 325 16/01/17 7:57 PM

The SAGe hAndbook of MenTorinG
326
members in academic medicine and that
mentoring needs were more likely to be met
for early and mid career individuals in tenure-
track or tenured positions (Blood et al.,
2012) than for individuals in instructor or full
professor positions. Yet, 75 percent of fac-
ulty members without mentors desired one.
Similarly, a study of faculty in pharmacy
found that about 60 percent reported having
an influential mentor and that 20 percent of
these would not have pursued a faculty posi-
tion without their mentor’s encouragement
(Hagemeier etal., 2013). A survey of law fac-
ulty in 44 institutions found that just over half
reported having informal mentors (Haynes
and Petrosko, 2009) and only three percent
reported participation in a formal mentoring
program.
Formal mentoring programs appear to be
established because of requirements of pro-
fessional bodies or because of priorities of
university administrators. For example, the
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business requires mentoring of faculty as
part of their accreditation process (Raymond
and Kannon, 2014). University administra-
tors support formal mentoring initiatives to
mitigate problems related to job satisfaction
and retention (Law et al., 2014), to address
perceived shortages in the workforce –
particularly in nursing (Sawatzky and Enns,
2009), and to help underrepresented academ-
ics attain experience in professional areas
of grant writing and publishing (Mayer
etal., 2009).
Types of academic mentoring
This section focuses on formal mentoring
programs, most of which may be categorized
by their focus on career stage (early career
versus across ranks) and by their mentoring
model (one-on-one versus networks).
Career stage
Formal mentoring programs for early career
faculty focus on teaching and research
responsibilities as well as achieving work–
life balance and developing a career plan
(Fleming et al., 2015; Law et al., 2014;
Metzger etal., 2013; Thomas et al., 2015).
These formal mentoring programs usually
involve a series of workshops (e.g. Thomas
etal., 2015) or a curriculum to achieve the
program goals (e.g. Fleming etal., 2015).
There is an overwhelming focus on the
needs of early career faculty. Over 90 percent
of pharmacy departments offered a formal
mentoring program targeted at early career
faculty (Metzger etal., 2013). A task force
convened by the American Association of
Colleges in Pharmacy called for more atten-
tion to formal mentoring of mid career fac-
ulty. Their work suggested that early career
faculty members need mentors from their
institution while mid career faculty members
need mentors from outside (Law etal., 2014).
A study of faculty in liberal arts colleges also
reported a lack of access to mentors at mid
and late career (Baker etal., 2016).
Mentoring models
Over a decade ago mentoring scholars called
for a broader understanding of mentoring
relationships to extend beyond the traditional
one-on-one relationships (Higgins and Kram,
2001). This work is beginning to make its
way into academic mentoring programs as
evidenced by a recent focus on supporting
group and peer mentoring and professional
learning communities (Pellegrino et al.,
2014).
Group mentoring has been adopted by
some faculties in medicine and appears to
efficiently provide mentoring experiences.
Most academic physicians in emergency
medicine (98 per cent) listed lack of access
to mentoring as an obstacle to their career
progress (Yeung, Nuth, and Stiell, 2010).
These researchers reported an increase in the
career satisfaction and promotion rates of
mentored faculty members who participated
in a group telementoring program. A face-
to-face group mentoring program for faculty
in academic medicine also incorporated peer
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 326 16/01/17 7:57 PM

Mentoring in HigHer education 327
mentoring and increased the retention rate
of mentored faculty members. Participants
in this program reported higher knowledge,
skills, and abilities as well as interconnect-
edness in the field than non-participants
(Fleming et al., 2015). A pilot mentoring
program for new faculty in science, agricul-
ture, and the humanities in the United States
purposely connected faculty with institu-
tional mentors and advocated mentees to
develop a mentoring network of four to five
mentors within and external to their insti-
tution. Participants reported an increase in
knowledge about their career and the institu-
tion (Thomas etal., 2015).
Interestingly, researchers suggest that race/
ethnicity does not influence access to men-
toring or mentoring outcomes (Eby et al.,
2013; O’Brien et al., 2008), yet qualitative
researchers rebut this claim (see Chapters 23
and 24 in this volume). This line of work sug-
gests underrepresented faculty members may
not be well served by what is perceived as
a hierarchal, traditional model of mentoring.
Mentoring outcomes for faculty
members
Scholars find that mentoring is associated
with career and psychosocial benefits for fac-
ulty members. Early career faculty who are
mentored are twice as likely to be promoted,
more likely to report greater career satisfac-
tion (Thomas etal., 2014; Yeung etal., 2010),
and are more likely to stay in their jobs
(Fleming etal., 2015). Further, junior faculty
members with mentors report an increase in
their skills and abilities (Jackevicius et al.,
2014). It appears that mentees who focus on
the skills needed for faculty work, such as
writing and grant skills, gain confidence and
productivity that lead to promotion and reten-
tion. Indeed, some faculty members report
they would not have become faculty members
without their mentors’ encouragement and
support (Hagemeier etal., 2013). There is less
work on the benefits to faculty members in
mid and late career, which is an avenue future
researchers might explore.
CONCLUSION
The recent work on mentoring in higher edu-
cation suggests that informal and formal
mentoring is ubiquitous in the English-
speaking countries examined here. Formal
mentoring appears to be more frequent for
undergraduate students than for graduate
students or faculty members. Mentoring is
presumed to be built into the advising/super-
vision function for graduate students. At the
Table 20.1 Purpose, types, and outcomes of mentoring for undergraduates, graduate
students, and faculty members
Purpose Types of Mentoring Outcomes
Undergraduates Increase degree persistence
Ease academic transitions
Prepare for challenging experiences
(graduate school, research, advanced
courses)
Support underrepresented students
Comprehensive
E-mentoring
Peer
Research
Natural/Informal
Grade point average
Persistence in higher education
Leadership skills
Cognitive and socio-emotional
growth (learning, sense of
belonging)
Graduate
students
Academic development
Career development
Personal development
Professional
Peer
Informal
Socialization
Academic support
Program/advisor satisfaction
Scholarly productivity
Faculty Increase job knowledge and satisfaction
Increase retention
Early career
Peer
Networks
Career satisfaction
Promotion and retention
Job knowledge/skills
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 327 16/01/17 7:57 PM

The SAGe hAndbook of MenTorinG
328
faculty level it is much less frequent, even
when professional accrediting bodies require
formal mentoring. This chapter highlighted
the types of formal mentoring programs that
have been well studied. For undergraduate
students these programs focus on underrep-
resented groups or research mentoring, while
professional and peer mentoring character-
izes graduate student mentorship. In the fac-
ulty context mentoring usually focuses on the
needs of early career faculty. Table 20.1 sum-
marizes the purpose and type of mentoring
and outcomes associated with each context.
Scholars report benefits of mentoring for
those who participate in it. These outcomes
relate to specific academic or job needs,
depending on the population participating in
mentoring. As researchers examine the nuances
of mentoring, and what groups might benefit
most from what types of mentoring, we may
begin to find larger effect sizes. Future research
might focus on understanding equivocal results
related to different approachees to mentor-
protege (or mentee) matching, on more clearly
delineating what occurs during mentoring rela-
tionships and how this affects specific groups,
and on studying the effects of mentoring at
career stages currently under-represented in the
literature (e.g., mid and late career faculty).
REFERENCES
Baker, V.L., Pifer, M.J., and Flemion, B. (2013).
Process challenges and learning-based interac-
tion in stage 2 of doctoral education: implica-
tions from two applied social science fields. The
Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 449–76.
Baker, V.L., Pifer, M.J., and Lunsford, L.G. (2016).
Faculty challenges across rank in liberal arts
colleges: A human resources perspective. The
Journal of Faculty Development, 30(1), 23–30.
Balster, N., Pfund, C., Rediske, R., and Bran-
chaw, J. (2010). Entering research: A course
that creates community and structure for
beginning undergraduate researchers in the
STEM disciplines. CBE – Life Sciences Educa-
tion, 9, 108–18.
Barlow, A.E.L., and Villarejo, M. (2004). Making
a difference for minorities: Evaluation of an
educational enrichment program. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 41, 861–81.
Barnett, E.A. (2011). Validation experiences
and persistence among community college
students. The Review of Higher Education,
34(2), 193–230.
Bean, J.P., and Metzner, B.S. (1985). A concep-
tual model of nontraditional undergraduate
student attrition. Review of Educational
Research, 55, 485–540.
Bettinger, E., and Baker, R. (2011). The effects
of student coaching in college: An evalua-
tion of a randomized experiment in student
mentoring. National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper 16881. Retrieved
from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16881
[accessed 15 September, 2015].
Blood, E.A., Ullrich, N.J., Hirshfeld-Becker, D.R.,
Seely, E.W., Connelly, M.T., Warfield, C.A.,
and Emans, S.J. (2012). Academic women fac-
ulty: are they finding the mentoring they need?
Journal of Women’s Health, 21(11), 1201–08.
Bordes, V., and Arredondo, P. (2005). Mentor-
ing and 1st-year Latina/o college students.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(2),
114–33.
Bordes-Edgar, V., Arredondo, P., Kurpius, S.R.,
and Rund, J. (2011). A longitudinal analysis
of Latina/o students’ academic persistence.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(4),
358–68. doi: 10.1177/1538192711423318
Burg, J., Pauca, V.P., Turkett, W., Fulp, E., Cho,
S.S., Santago, P., Cañas, D., and Gage, H.D.
(2015). Engaging non-traditional students in
computer science through socially-inspired
learning and sustained mentoring. In Proceed-
ings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium
on Computer Science Education, New York:
ACM, pp. 639–44.
Buyukgoze-Kavas, A., Taylor, J.M., Neimeyer,
G.J., and Güneri, O.Y. (2010). The mentoring
relationship: A comparison of counselling
students in the United States of America and
Turkey. Counselling Psychology Quarterly,
23(4), 387–98.
Campbell, C.M., Smith, M., Dugan, J.P., and
Komives, S.R. (2012). Mentors and college
student leadership outcomes: The impor-
tance of position and process. The Review of
Higher Education, 35(4), 595–625.
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 328 16/01/17 7:57 PM

Mentoring in HigHer education 329
Campbell, T.A., and Campbell, D.E. (2007).
Outcomes of mentoring at-risk college students:
Gender and ethnic matching effects. Men-
toring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,
15(2), 135–48.
Chan, A.W., Yeh, C.J., and Krumboltz, J.D.
(2015, June 8). Mentoring ethnic minority
counseling and clinical psychology students:
A multicultural, ecological, and relational
model. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
Advance online publication http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/cou0000079
Chemers, M.M., Zurbriggen, E.L., Syed, M.,
Goza, B.K., and Bearman, S. (2011). The role
of efficacy and identity in science career
commitment among underrepresented
minority students. Journal of Social Issues,
67, 469–91.
Chester, A., Burton, L.J., Xenos, S., and Elgar,
K. (2013). Peer mentoring: Supporting suc-
cessful transition for first year undergraduate
psychology students. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 2013(65), 30–37. doi: 10.1111/
ajpy.12006
Collings, R., Swanson, V., and Watkins, R.
(2014). The impact of peer mentoring on
levels of student wellbeing, integration and
retention: a controlled comparative evalua-
tion of residential students in UK. Higher
Education, 68, 927–42.
Colvin, J.W., and Ashman, M. (2010). Roles,
risks, and benefits of peer mentoring relation-
ships in higher education. Mentoring & Tutor-
ing: Partnership in Learning, 18, 121–34.
Crisp, G. (2009). Conceptualization and initial
validation of the College Student Mentoring
Scale (CSMS). Journal of College Student
Development, 50, 177–94.
Crisp, G. (2010). The impact of mentoring on
the success of community college students.
The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 39–60.
doi: 10.1353/rhe.2010.0003
Crisp, G. (2011). The role of mentoring on the
persistence decisions of undergraduate stu-
dents attending a Hispanic serving institu-
tions. Enrollment Management Journal:
Student Access, Finance and Success in
Higher Education, 5(1), 32–57.
Crisp, G., and Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring col-
lege students: A critical review of the litera-
ture between 1990 and 2007. Research in
Higher Education, 50(6), 525–45.
D’Abate, C.P. (2009). Defining mentoring in
the first-year experience: One institution’s
approach to clarifying the meaning of men-
toring first-year students. Journal of The
First-Year Experience and Students in Transi-
tion, 21(1), 65–91.
De Janasz, S.C., & Sullivan, S.E. (2004). Multi-
ple mentoring in academe: Developing the
professorial network. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 64(2), 263–83.
Dietz, A.J., Jansen, J.D., and Wadee, A.A.
(2006). Effective PhD supervision and
mentorship: A workbook based on experi-
ences from South Africa and Netherlands.
South Africa-Netherlands research Pro-
gramme on Alternatives in Development
(SANPAD).
Dolan, E., and Johnson, D. (2009). Toward a
holistic view of holistic undergraduate
research experiences: An exploratory study
of impact on graduate/postdoctoral men-
tors. Journal of Science Education Technol-
ogy, 2009(18), 487–500.
Drake, J.K. (2011). The role of academic advis-
ing in student retention and persistence.
About Campus, 16(3), 8–12.
Eagan, M.K., Hurtado, S., Chang, M.J., Garcia,
G.A., Herrera, F.A., and Garibay, J.C. (2013).
Making a difference in science education the
impact of undergraduate research programs.
American Educational Research Journal, 50,
683–713.
Eby, L.T., and Allen, T.D. (2008). Moving toward
interdisciplinary dialogue in mentoring schol-
arship: An introduction to the special issue.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2008),
159–67.
Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Hoffman, B.J., Baranik,
L.E., Sauer, J.B., Baldwin, S., Morrison, M.A.,
Kinkade, K.M., Maher, C.P., Curtis, S., and
Evans, S.C. (2013). An interdisciplinary meta-
analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of protégé perceptions of
mentoring. Psychological Bulletin, 139,
441–76.
Eby, L.T., and Dolan, E.L. (2015). Mentoring in
postsecondary education and organizational
settings. In APA Handbook of Career Inter-
vention, Volume 2: Applications, P.J. Hartung,
M.L. Savickas, and W.B. Walsh, eds., Washington,
DC, USA: American Psychological Associa-
tion, pp. 383–95.
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 329 16/01/17 7:57 PM

The SAGe hAndbook of MenTorinG
330
Erickson, L.D., McDonald, S., and Elder, G.H.
(2009). Informal mentors and education:
Complementary or compensatory resources?
Sociology of Education, 82(4), 344–67.
Feldman, A., Divoll, K.A., and Rogan-Klyve, A.
(2013). Becoming Researchers: The Participa-
tion of Undergraduate and Graduate Stu-
dents in Scientific Research Groups. Science
Education, 97, 218–43.
Ferrare, J.J., and Lee, Y.G. (2014). Should We
Still be Talking About Leaving? A Compara-
tive Examination of Social Inequality in
Undergraduates’ Major Switching Patterns
(WCER Working Paper No. 2014-5). Retrieved
from University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wiscon-
sin Center for Education Research website: http://
www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/
papers.php (accessed on 9/22/2015)
Fleming, M., House, S., Hanson, V.S., Yu, L.,
Garbutt, J., McGee, R., Kroenke, K., Abedin, Z.,
and Rubio, D.M. (2013). The Mentoring
Competency Assessment: Validation of a
new instrument to evaluate skills of research
mentors. Academic Medicine, 88, 1002–8.
Fleming, G.M., Simmons, J.H., Xu, M., Gesell,
S.B., Brown, R.F., Cutrer, W.B., … and
Cooper, W. O. (2015). A facilitated peer
mentoring program for junior faculty to pro-
mote professional development and peer
networking. Academic Medicine: Journal of
the Association of American Medical Col-
leges, 90(6), 819–26.
Fox, A., Stevenson, L., Connelly, P., Duff, A.,
and Dunlop, A. (2010). Peer-mentoring
undergraduate accounting students: The
influence on approaches to learning and
academic performance. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 11, 145–56.
Fuentes, M.V., Alvarado, A.R., Berdan, J., and
DeAngelo, L. (2014). Mentorship Matters:
Does Early Faculty Contact Lead to Quality
Faculty Interaction? Research in Higher Edu-
cation, 55, 288–307.
Gazley, J.L., Remich, R., Naffziger-Hirsch, M.E.,
Keller, J., Campbell, P.B., and McGee, R.
(2014). Beyond preparation: Identity, cultural
capital, and readiness for graduate school in
the biomedical sciences. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 51, 1021–48.
Gershenfeld, S. (2014). A review of under-
graduate mentoring programs. Review of
Educational Research, 84, 365–91.
González, C. (2001). Undergraduate research,
graduate mentoring, and the university’s
mission. Science, 293(5535), 1624–26.
Grant, B., and Manathunga, C. (2011). Supervi-
sion and cultural difference: rethinking insti-
tutional pedagogies. Innovations in Education
and Teaching International, 48(4), 351–54.
Hadjioannou, X., Shelton, N.R., Fu, D., and
Dhanarattigannon, J. (2007). The road to a
doctoral degree: Co-travelers through a per-
ilous passage. College Student Journal,
41(1), 160–77.
Hagemeier, N.E., Murawski, M.M., and Popo-
vich, N.G. (2013). The influence of faculty
mentors on junior pharmacy faculty mem-
bers’ career decisions. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 77(3).
Handelsman, J. (2005). Entering Mentoring : A
seminar to train a new generation of scien-
tists (Madison, Wis.: Board of Regents of the
University of Wisconsin System).
Haynes, R.K., and Petrosko, J.M. (2009). An
investigation of mentoring and socialization
among law faculty. Mentoring and Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 17(1), 41–52.
Higgins, M.C., and Kram, K.E. (2001). Recon-
ceptualizing mentoring at work: A develop-
mental network perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 26(2), 264–88.
Hill, R., and Reddy, P. (2007). Undergraduate
peer mentoring: An investigation into pro-
cesses, activities and outcomes. Psychology
Learning and Teaching, 6, 98–103.
Holt, L., and Berwise, C. (2012). Illuminating
the process of peer mentoring: An examina-
tion and comparison of peer mentors’ and
first-year students’ experiences. Journal of
The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition, 24, 19–43.
Horowitz, J., and Christopher, K.B. (2012). The
research mentoring program: Serving the needs
of graduate and undergraduate researchers.
Innovative Higher Education, 38, 105–16.
Hryciw, D.H., Tangalakis, K., Supple, B., and
Best, G. (2013). Evaluation of a peer mentor-
ing program for a mature cohort of first-year
undergraduate paramedic students.
Advances in Physiology Education, 37, 80–4.
Hu, S., and Ma, Y. (2010). Mentoring and stu-
dent persistence in college: A study of the
Washington State Achievers Program. Inno-
vative Higher Education, 35(5), 329–41.
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 330 16/01/17 7:57 PM

Mentoring in HigHer education 331
Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N.L., Lin, M.H., Arellano, L.,
and Espinosa, L.L. (2009). Diversifying sci-
ence: Underrepresented student experiences
in structured research programs. Research in
Higher Education, 50(2), 189–214.
Jackevicius, C.A., Le, J., Nazer, L., Hess, K.,
Wang, J., and Law, Anandi V. (2014). A
formal mentorship program for faculty
development. American Journal of Pharma-
ceutical Education, 78(5), Article 100.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergradu-
ate academic success: A literature review.
Review of Educational Research, 61,
505–32.
Johnson, W.B., and Kaslow, N. (2014). The
Oxford handbook of education and training
in professional psychology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Khazanov, L. (2011). Mentoring at-risk stu-
dents in a remedial mathematics course.
Mathematics and Computer Education,
106–18.
Kiyama, J.M., and Luca, S.G. (2013). Structured
opportunities: Exploring the social and aca-
demic benefits for peer mentors in retention
programs. Journal of College Student Reten-
tion: Research, Theory and Practice, 15,
489–514.
Larose, S., Cyrenne, D., Garceau, O., Harvey,
M., Guay, F., and Deschenes, C. (2009). Per-
sonal and social support factors involved in
students’ decision to participate in formal
academic mentoring. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74(2009), 108–16.
Laursen, S., Hunter, A.-B., Seymour, E., Thiry,
H., and Melton, G. (2010). Undergraduate
Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students
in Real Science. San Francisco, CA: Wiley &
Sons.
Law, A.V., Bottenberg, M.M., Brozick, A.H.,
Currie, J.D., DiVall, M.V., Haines, S.T., and
Yablonski, E. (2014). A checklist for the
development of faculty mentorship pro-
grams. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 78(5), 98.
Lechuga, V.M. (2011). Faculty-graduate stu-
dent mentoring relationships: Mentors’ per-
ceived roles and responsibilities. Higher
Education, 62(6), 757–71.
Lee, A. (2011) Successful research supervision:
Advising students doing research. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Liang, B., Tracy, A.J., Taylor, C.A., and Williams,
L.M. (2002). Mentoring college-age women:
A relational approach. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 30, 271–88.
Linn, M.C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E.,
and Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate
research experiences: Impacts and opportu-
nities. Science, 347, 1261757.
Lopatto, D., and Tobias, S. (2010). Science in
solution: The impact of undergraduate
research on student learning. Washington,
DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Lunsford, L.G. (2012). Doctoral advising or
mentoring? Effects on student outcomes.
Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 20(2), 251–70.
Manathunga, C. (2014). Intercultural post-
graduate supervision: Reimagining time,
place and knowledge. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Manathunga, C. (2011). Moments of transcul-
turation and assimilation: Post-colonial
exploration of supervision and culture. Inno-
vations in Education and Teaching Interna-
tional, 48(4), 367–76.
Manathunga, C. (2005). The development of
research supervision: ‘Turning the light on a
private space’. International Journal for Aca-
demic Development, 10(1), 17–30.
Manathunga, C., and Goozée, J. (2007). Chal-
lenging the dual assumption of the ‘always/
already’autonomous student and effective
supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education,
12(3), 309–22.
Martin, A.J., and Dowson, M. (2009). Interper-
sonal relationships, motivation, engagement,
and achievement: Yields for theory, current
issues, and educational practice. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 327–65.
Maton, K.I., and Hrabowski III, F.A. (2004).
Increasing the number of African American
PhDs in the sciences and engineering: A
strengths-based approach. American Psy-
chologist, 59, 547–56.
Maton, K.I., Hrabowski, F.A.I., and Schmitt,
C.L. (2000). African American college stu-
dents excelling in the sciences: College and
postcollege outcomes in the Meyerhoff
Scholars Program. Journal of Research in Sci-
ence Teaching, 37, 629–54.
Mayer, A.P., Files, J.A., Ko, M.G., and Blair, J.E.
(2009). The academic quilting bee. Journal
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 331 16/01/17 7:57 PM

The SAGe hAndbook of MenTorinG
332
of General Internal Medicine, 24(3),
427–9.
McAllister, C.A., Ahmedani, B.K., Harold, R.D.,
and Cramer, E.P. (2009). Targeted mentoring:
Evaluation of a program. Journal of Social
Work Education, 45(1), 89–104.
Mekolichick, J., and Gibbs, K. (2012). Under-
standing college generational status in the
undergraduate research mentored relation-
ship. Council on Undergraduate Research
Quarterly, 33(2), 40–6.
Merolla, D.M., and Serpe, R.T. (2013). STEM
enrichment programs and graduate school
matriculation: the role of science identity
salience. Social Psychology of Education, 16,
575–97.
Metzger, A.H., Hardy, Y.M., Jarvis, C., Stoner,
S.C., Pitlick, M., Hilaire, M.L., and Lodise, N.M.
(2013). Essential elements for a pharmacy
practice mentoring program. American Journal
of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(2), 23.
Nora, A., and Crisp, G. (2007). Mentoring
students: Conceptualizing and validating the
multi-dimensions of a support system. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory and Practice, 9, 337–56.
O’Brien, K.E., Biga, A., Kessler, S.R., and Allen,
T.D. (2008). A meta-analytic investigation of
gender differences in mentoring. Journal of
Management, 36(2), 537–54.
O’Brien, M., Llamas, M., and Stevens, E.
(2012). Lessons learned from four years of
peer mentoring in a tiered group program
within education, Journal of the Australia
and New Zealand Student Services Association,
40, 7–15.
Ortiz-Walters, R., and Gilson, L.L. (2005).
Mentoring in academia: An examination of
the experiences of protégés of color. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2005),
459–75.
Paglis, L.L., Green, S.G., and Bauer, T.N. (2006).
Does adviser mentoring add value? A longi-
tudinal study of mentoring and doctoral
student outcomes. Research in Higher Edu-
cation, 47(4), 451–76.
Palmer, R., Hunt, A.N., Neal, M., and Wuetherick,
B. (2015). Mentoring, undergraduate
research, and identity development: A con-
ceptual review and research agenda, Men-
toring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,
23(5), 411–26.
Pascarella, E.T. (1980). Student-faculty informal
contact and college outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 50, 545–95.
Pellegrino, K., Sweet, B., Kastner, J.D., Russell,
H.A., and Reese, J. (2014). Becoming music
teacher educators: Learning from and with
each other in a professional development
community. International Journal of Music
Education, 32(4), 462–77.
Pembridge, J.J. (2011). Mentoring in engineer-
ing capstone design courses: Beliefs and
practices across disciplines (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University).
Pfund, C., Pribbenow, C.M., Branchaw, J.,
Lauffer, S.M., and Handelsman, J. (2006).
The merits of training mentors. Science, 311,
473–4.
Pfund, C., House, S.C., Asquith, P., Fleming,
M.F., Buhr, K.A., Burnham, E.L., Gilmore,
J.M.E., Huskins, W.C., McGee, R., Schurr, K.,
Shapiro, E.D., Spencer, K.C., and Sorkness,
C.A. (2014). Training mentors of clinical and
translational research scholars: A randomized
controlled trial. Academic Medicine, 89, 774–82.
Pidgeon, M., Archibald, J., and Hawkey, C.
(2014). Relationships matter: Supporting
Aboriginal graduate students in British
Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Higher Education, 44(1), 1–21.
Ralph, E. (1998). Developing practitioners: A
handbook of contextual supervision. Stillwa-
ter, Oklahoma: New Forums Press.
Ralph, E., and Walker, K. (2010). Rising with
the tide: Applying Adaptive Mentorship© in
the professional practicum. In A. Wright,
M. Wilson, and D. MacIsaac (Eds.), Collection
of essays on learning and teaching: Between
the tides, Volume III (pp. 3–8). Hamilton, ON:
McMaster University, Society for Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education. Available
from http://apps.medialab.uwindsor.ca/ ctl/
CELT/vol3/CELTVOL3.pdf [accessed 15 Sep-
tember 2015]
Ralph, E., and Walker, K. (2013). The promise
of adaptive mentorship: What is the evi-
dence?, International Journal of Higher Edu-
cation, 2(2), p. 76–85.
Raymond, B.C., and Kannan, V.R. (2014). A
survey of faculty mentoring programs in
AACSB Schools of Business. Journal of Man-
agement Education, 38(6), 818–42.
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 332 16/01/17 7:57 PM

Mentoring in HigHer education 333
Reddick, R.J., and Pritchett, K.O. (2015). ‘I
don’t want to work in a world of Whiteness:’
White faculty and their mentoring relation-
ships with Black students. The Journal of the
Professoriate, 54–84.
Rose, G.L. (2005). Group differences in gradu-
ate students’ concepts of the ideal mentor.
Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 53–80.
Rudolph, B.A., Castillo, C.P., Garcia, V.G., Mar-
tinez, A., and Navarro, F. (2015). Hispanic
graduate students’ mentoring themes:
Gender roles in a bicultural context. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 14(3), 191–206.
Russell, S.H., Hancock, M.P., and McCullough, J.
(2007). The benefits of undergraduate
research experiences. Science, 316, 548–9.
Sawatzky, J.A.V., and Enns, C.L. (2009). A men-
toring needs assessment: Validating mentor-
ship in nursing education. Journal of
Professional Nursing, 25(3), 145–50.
Schlosser, L.Z., and Gelso, C.J. (2001). Measur-
ing the working alliance in advisor–advisee
relationships in graduate school. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 48, 157–67.
Schlosser, L.Z., and Gelso, C.J. (2005). The
Advisory Working Alliance Inventory –
advisor version: Scale development and vali-
dation. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
52, 650–4.
Schultz, P.W., Hernandez, P.R., Woodcock, A.,
Estrada, M., Chance, R.C., Aguilar, M., and
Serpe, R.T. (2011). Patching the pipeline
reducing educational disparities in the sci-
ences through minority training programs.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
33, 95–114.
Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N.M. (1997). Talking
about leaving: Why undergraduates leave
the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Shotton, H.J., Oosahwe, S.L., and Cintron, R.
(2007). Stories of success: Experiences of
American Indian students in a peer-mentoring
retention program. The Review of Higher
Education, 31(1), 81–107.
Shrestha, C.H., May, S., Edirisingha, P., Burke, L.,
and Linsey, T. (2009). From face-to-face to
e-Mentoring: Does the ‘e’ add any value for
mentors? International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2),
116–24.
Slovacek, S., Whittinghill, J., Flenoury, L., and
Wiseman, D. (2012). Promoting minority
success in the sciences: The minority oppor-
tunities in research programs at CSULA.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
49(2), 199–217.
Sosik, J.J., and Godshalk, V.M. (2005). Examin-
ing gender similarity and mentor’s supervi-
sory status in mentoring relationships.
Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 13, 39–52.
Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2011). A social capital
framework for the study of institutional
agents and their role in the empowerment of
low-status students and youth. Youth
Society, 43, 1066–109.
Stolle-McAllister, K., Domingo, M.R.S., and
Carrillo, A. (2011). The Meyerhoff Way: How
the Meyerhoff Scholarship Program helps
Black students succeed in the sciences, Jour-
nal of Science Education and Technology, 20,
5–16.
Taraban, R., and Logue, E. (2012). Academic
factors that affect undergraduate research
experiences. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 104, 499–514.
Terrion, J.L. (2012). Student peer mentors as a
navigational resource in higher education. In
Fletcher, S., and Mullen, C.A., (Eds.), The
SAGE Handbook of Mentoring and Coach-
ing in Education, (pp. 383–96), Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Terrion, J.L., and Leonard, D. (2007). A taxon-
omy of the characteristics of student peer
mentors in higher education: findings from a
literature review. Mentoring and Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 15, 149–64.
Thiry, H., and Laursen, S.L. (2011). The role of
student-advisor interactions in apprenticing
undergraduate researchers into a scientific
community of practice. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 20, 771–84.
Thiry, H., Laursen, S.L., and Hunter, A-B.
(2011). What experiences help students
become scientists?: A comparative study of
research and other sources of personal and
professional gains for STEM undergradu-
ates? The Journal of Higher Education,
82(4), 357–88.
Thomas, D., Lunsford, L.G., and Rodrigues, H.
(2015). Early career academic staff support:
evaluating mentoring networks. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management,
37(3), 320–9.
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 333 16/01/17 7:57 PM

The SAGe hAndbook of MenTorinG
334
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher educa-
tion: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research,
45, 89–125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Building Community. Liberal
Education, 79, 16–21.
Villarejo, M., and Barlow, A.E. (2007). Evolu-
tion and evaluation of a biology enrichment
program for minorities. Journal of Women
and Minorities in Science and Engineering,
13(2), 119–44.
Watson II, J.C., Clement, D., Blom, L., and
Grindley, E. (2009). Mentoring: Processes
and perceptions of sport and exercise psy-
chology graduate students. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 231–46.
Welton, A.D., Mansfield, K.C., and Lee, P-L.
(2014). Mentoring matters: An exploratory
survey of educational leadership doctoral
students’ perspectives. Mentoring and Tutor-
ing: Partnership in Learning, 22(5),
481–509.
Williams-Nickelson, C. (2009). Mentoring
women graduate students: A model for pro-
fessional psychology. Professional Psychol-
ogy: Research and Practice, 40(3), 284–91.
Wilson, Z.S., Holmes, L., deGravelles, K., Syl-
vain, M.R., Batiste, L., Johnson, M., McGuire,
S.Y., Pang, S.S., and Warner, I.M. (2012).
Hierarchical mentoring: A transformative
strategy for improving diversity and retention
in undergraduate STEM disciplines. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 21,
148–56.
Wisker, G. (2005[2012]). The good supervisor.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yeung, M., Nuth, J., and Stiell, I. G. (2010).
Mentoring in emergency medicine: the art
and the evidence. Canadian Journal of Emer-
gency Medicine, 12(2), 143–9.
Yob, I., and Crawford, L. (2012). Conceptual
framework for mentoring doctoral students.
Higher Learning Research Communications,
2(2), 34.
BK-SAGE-CLUTTERBUCK-160405-Chp20.indd 334 16/01/17 7:57 PM