Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253 DOI 10.1007/s10755-011-9203-y
The Challenges of Designing and Implementing a Doctoral Student Mentoring Program Karri A. Holley & Mary Lee Caldwell
Published online: 12 November 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract The relationship between doctoral students and faculty members has been identified as a key component of a successful graduate school experience. In this article, we consider the challenges inherent in designing and implementing a formal doctoral student mentoring program. By bringing together students, peer mentors, and faculty mentors, the program sought to introduce a team-based platform to facilitate student success. We specifically consider how program components might be scaled up across the institution, providing both a personal and supportive relationship for participants as well as an information resource for the broader student population. Key words Doctoral students . Retention . Programming
The high student attrition rate from doctoral degree programs in the United States remains a troubling aspect of higher education. Half of the students who begin a doctoral program ultimately fail to complete their degree (Bair and Haworth 2004; Gardner 2008). Efforts to improve degree completion generally focus on financial support, academic preparation, professional development, and mentoring relationships (Bair and Haworth 2004). Davidson and Foster-Johnson (2001, p. 549) emphasized the significance of mentoring, explaining, “The cultivation of developmental or mentoring relationships between graduate students and their professors is a critical factor in determining the successful completion of graduate programs.”
Karri A. Holley is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Alabama. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Southern California. Her research interests include interdisciplinarity, graduate education, and qualitative inquiry. Mary Lee Caldwell is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Alabama. She received her B.A. and M.S. from Troy University. Her research interests include organizational change, leadership development, and civic engagement. K. A. Holley (*) : M. L. Caldwell University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA e-mail:
[email protected] M. L. Caldwell e-mail:
[email protected]
244
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
Mentoring is a cornerstone of the most effective and promising practices recognized by the Council of Graduate Schools’ Ph.D. Completion Project (2010), and a wealth of research supports the influence of mentoring relationships on successful student outcomes (i.e., Baird 1995; Golde and Dore 2001; Paglis et al. 2006). Anderson and Shannon (1988, p. 40) defined mentoring as “a nurturing process in which a more skilled or experienced person, serving as a role model, teaches, sponsors, encourages, counsels and befriends a less skilled or less experienced person for the purpose of promoting the latter’s professional and/or personal development.” While doctoral students typically work with an advisor during the dissertation process, a mentoring relationship provides personal and professional support that extends beyond the traditional advising affiliation. In this article we discuss findings from a qualitative case study of a doctoral mentoring program at the University of Alabama, a public, four-year, flagship research university. The Graduate School developed the “Tide Together Mentoring Program” in an effort to support the development of doctoral students across the institution. Originally sponsored as part of the University’s “Opening the Schoolhouse Door Initiative,” the program received the 2008 Award for Innovation in Promoting an Inclusive Graduate Community from the Council of Graduate Schools/Peterson’s. The Council of Graduate Schools annually recognizes one program which draws on best practices to promote diversity and degree completion in doctoral education. The program’s goal is to develop the personal and professional skills needed for success in doctoral education. It targets underrepresented students, including individuals from minority backgrounds, women in STEM disciplines, and first-generation college graduates. At the core of the Tide Together program is team-based mentoring. Each student participant is paired with a faculty mentor as well as a student peer-mentor, and participants are required to meet with their mentors on a regular basis. The program also involves a variety of participant activities, including academic lectures, social gatherings, professional development events, and brown bag lunches. In reviewing the data we considered how faculty mentors, peer mentors, academic support, and social engagement impact the doctoral student experience. The study focused on three questions. 1) What kinds of motivation do students express for program participation? 2) What outcomes do students identify as arising from the program? 3) How can program components be “scaled up” across the University? The data we collected emphasize the challenging and frequently elusive nature of beneficial mentoring relationships as well as the financial costs associated with such institutional efforts. Since these costs can be prohibitive, we sought to identify elements which could be duplicated without a large financial commitment by the institution or academic departments. The initial “Tide Together” program originated with a three-year Council of Graduate Schools award although the University’s Graduate School sought ways to make the program permanent. We first review relevant literature regarding doctoral student success and effective mentoring practices. We then summarize the data collection methods utilized in the study before outlining the findings. In the conclusion, we consider how other universities might develop institutional initiatives related to doctoral student mentoring and also offer implications for practice and program development.
Background of the Problem The decision to pursue a doctoral degree is a highly complex and individual one. One challenge for researchers interested in the doctoral student experience is the variety of
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
245
factors that influence student enrollment, progress towards the degree, and degree completion. A consistent factor across academic disciplines, institutions, and individual demographics is the interaction between the individual student and faculty member. Doctoral students are more likely to persist to graduation and report higher degrees of satisfaction with their program when they engage in a meaningful relationship with a faculty mentor or advisor (Bair and Haworth 2004). The Ph.D. Completion Project, sponsored by the Council of Graduate Schools, emphasized the significance of this contact for doctoral students, particularly in terms of effective mentoring and advising. The Project concluded that having more frequent interaction between students and program faculty, as well as ensuring that those interactions are available to all students, would increase doctoral completion (Council of Graduate Schools 2010). These interactions may develop through a student’s curriculum, research training, or dissertation work. Other relationships emerge through contacts with individuals across the campus, professional associations, or industry. Regardless of their origin, engagement with a mentor offers the opportunity for doctoral students to interact with role models and garner support for their professional development and socialization experiences.
Understanding Mentoring Davidson and Foster-Johnson (2001) outlined important elements of mentoring, including the significance of achievement or knowledge acquisition between the mentor and student, an emphasis on long-term professional development, the production of reciprocal benefits for the mentor and student, a highly personal relationship between the mentor and student, and a focus on the expertise that the mentor brings into the relationship. These elements are used to develop mentoring relationships at academic institutions across the country. For example, at the University of Missouri-Columbia, the Graduate School supports the Griffiths Leadership Society, which connects female doctoral students to professional women in the community. Howard University offers ongoing training to support faculty members interested in mentoring relationships while Arizona State University promotes research communities that facilitate interaction within an interdisciplinary group of faculty and doctoral students. While doctoral students in general desire mentors who serve as role models, value the student, are generous with their time, and provide support for research (Bell-Ellison and Dedrick 2008), successful institutional efforts towards doctoral student mentoring are influenced by multiple demographic and cultural factors. Older students, for example, are less likely to find mentoring an important aspect of their doctoral experience (Rose 2005). Women desire both professional and personal insights as part of such relationships and seek acceptance and conformation from mentors to a greater extent than do their male peers (Rose 2005). The role and structure of the academic disciplines also impacts the mentoring process. Doctoral students in the natural and laboratory sciences are more likely to have frequent interactions with faculty mentors and advisors than are their peers in the arts and sciences and humanities (Nerad and Cerny 1993). International students in particular find mentoring support to be invaluable. For these students, the social interaction and relationships gained through mentoring provides an important coping strategy towards cultural adjustment (Rose 2005). The challenges of developing successful relationships can be particularly acute for minority or underrepresented students, who sometimes struggle to find faculty mentors and professional guidance (Johnson-Bailey 2004). Not only do minority doctoral students encounter many of the same obstacles as their majority-race
246
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
peers, they also face feelings of isolation and a lack of minority role models (Davidson and Foster-Johnson 2001).
Institutional and Program Context The “Tide Together” mentoring program is coordinated by the University of Alabama’s Graduate School. The program’s mission statement emphasizes a focus on personal and professional development, particularly as related to the academic and social skills necessary for degree completion. Eligible students include those in the first two years of a doctoral program although master’s students are qualified to apply if they intend to pursue a doctoral degree. In addition, the program targets students from underrepresented minorities (African American, Hispanic, or Native American), female students enrolled in STEM disciplines, and first-generation college graduates. The program activities occur over a two-semester period and include seminars, brown bag luncheons, writing workshops, and social events. Faculty members from across the campus are invited to serve as mentors. Students are also paired with peer mentors. The faculty and peer mentors meet with the student on a regular basis although neither is directly compensated for their participation. While the program touts the professional benefits and campus connections as the primary advantages for student participation, participants are eligible for a $300 travel and research grant from the Graduate School. Minority students first enrolled at the University of Alabama in 1963. Since that time, the University has sought to recruit, retain, and graduate students of color as well as increase the diversity of the faculty. Approximately 4,000 graduate students are enrolled at the institution. Sixteen percent of the graduate student enrollment represents students of color while non-white faculty (including Black, Asian, Hispanic, and American Indian) comprise 13% of the total faculty. In the first year of the mentoring program (2009–2010), 22 student participants worked with faculty and peer mentors. Of these 22 first-year participants, 18 were female; and 19 were African-American.
The Study and Research Methods The study sought to understand student motivation and experiences associated with participation in a formal mentoring program. In addition, the researchers focused on what aspects of the program might be scaled up across the institution. A qualitative case study allowed for an in-depth understanding of a bounded system (the mentoring program) through multiple sources of data (Creswell 1998). In accord with the methodological tradition, the researchers employed several points of data collection as part of the case study. The data included 10 individual interviews with students and faculty members, observation of program events, and extensive document analysis. The single-site case study ensured an intensive analysis of a unique context and recognized the broad network of relationships through which doctoral students participated in the mentoring program. Researchers conducted ten individual interviews with student and faculty participants in the mentoring program. These semi-structured, individual interviews were audiotaped with the participant’s consent and later transcribed verbatim. Participants reviewed their individual transcripts as a form of member checking, and the feedback received provided an additional data source. Two groups participated in the interviews. First, six student participants (“mentees”) volunteered to be part of the study and to discuss their motivation
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
247
for program involvement, their expectations of the program, and their perceptions of program experiences. We had contacted all 22 student mentees by email to invite participation, and additional contacts were made at social events. The six student interviews were primarily conducted in the on-campus office of the first author and lasted between 35 and 60 minutes. Researchers also conducted individual interviews with two faculty mentors (one assistant professor, one associate professor, both female) and two peer mentors (both female, one African-American, one White). Mentors had been contacted by email to determine their interest in participation. However, the researchers sought participation from the student participant and the respective mentoring team (both peer and faculty), which impacted the total number of interviews conducted with this population. This approach allowed for unique insight into individual cases. These interviews were conducted either in the faculty mentor’s office or that of the primary researcher. The mentor interviews also followed a semi-structured protocol and lasted between 45 minutes to one and a half hours. The participants are identified by pseudonym in this article in order to ensure confidentiality. We sought and received Institutional Review Board approval before the beginning of data collection. The researchers participated in 20 hours of program events over the course of two semesters. These events included the program orientation, advisory board meetings, the writing workshop, academic seminars, and social events. The research team compiled fieldnotes and comments from participant discussions at the end of each event. An analysis of program documents, such as meeting minutes, agendas, and mission statements enhanced the observation field notes. Data analysis originated in a “continuous dialogue” with the transcripts (Becker 1998, p. 109), guided by the analytic approach outlined by Corbin and Strauss (2008). This “continuous dialogue” requires an ongoing assessment of emergent data and themes with the theory and method guiding the study. While the interview transcripts received primary emphasis, the researchers considered these transcripts, fieldnotes, and program documents as similar forms of data for the purpose of analysis. The multiple sources of data allowed for triangulation of information. Researchers first assigned conceptual codes across the multiple data forms as a means of identifying important or recurrent issues. Doing so allowed for a classification of common ideas across the multiple sets and the development of categories which spanned the multiple participants. Subsequent axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, p. 195) related the concepts and categories to each other while comparative analysis facilitated a focus on emerging similarities within the data.
Findings We structure the data by the primary components of the mentoring program: student interactions with faculty mentors, relationships with peer mentors and other participants, and social/academic events. Although these areas provide distinct units for analysis, significant overlap exists between and among them. In addition, we emphasize those data linked to student motivation for participation as well as how the program influenced student experiences within their academic department. Relationships between Doctoral Students and Faculty Mentors The data suggest the importance of careful and deliberate selection of faculty members to serve as mentors for doctoral students. The recruitment of faculty members occurred across
248
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
multiple academic departments and colleges. Participants could request a faculty mentor of the same race, gender, or academic discipline; and the program coordinators sought to fulfill the students’ requests when possible. Teresa, a doctoral student in health, particularly sought connections with faculty in her discipline: “I want to get as much experience in public health as I can…get to know some of the professors, and they can give me a letter of recommendation.” Other students did not seek a disciplinary-specific relationship. In terms of his request, Allan, a doctoral student in the sciences, explained, “I pretty much wanted someone who could help me get a firm direction…a better understanding of what is expected of me in grad school.” For students like Allan, program participation allowed for conversations with faculty members who were different from his primary advisor. While the advisor offered insight into degree requirements, dissertation expectations, and professional socialization, the mentor facilitated a more encompassing understanding of the academic experience. Discipline-specific norms complicated some mentoring relationships, as explained by Dr. Shelley, who said, “It’s been hard to work with my student [in another discipline.] I can talk about writing for journals, but I don’t know the specific journals in her area.” A few students expressed reluctance to show uncertainty or confusion to a professor from their own departments, while others felt that only faculty members from a similar disciplinary background could provide mentoring support. However, in general, regardless of disciplinary affiliation, participants desired mentors who were available to meet and open to questions. As Allan explained, “I know when you get into the Ph.D. program, the expectation rises, and the way you need to approach things changes, so I needed that direction just to have it.” Jennifer sought professional guidance from her faculty mentor, noting that “just getting information in regards to how it is to be a tenured faculty member on a large research campus” was of value. Individual characteristics such as race, gender, age, or family relationships also strongly influenced the relationship between students and faculty mentors. This influence was difficult to define at the beginning of the program and impacted each student differently. Arranging a particular match by race, gender, or discipline did not guarantee a positive outcome. An ongoing effort to monitor the mentoring relationships (from both the student and faculty perspective) enabled administrators to identify problems and re-assign individuals if needed. Although the program administrators were responsive to student desires for particular mentors, the ability to meet their requests was limited by the racial and gender diversity of the faculty mentor volunteers. Melanie’s faculty mentor was an African-American woman, which Melanie found to be of benefit to their relationship. “The fact that she was able to go to school and navigate her way through industry and then come back to academia and tell me exactly what is involved [was helpful],” she concluded. Yet matching similar personal characteristics did not ensure a successful mentoring outcome. As Marie explained, “I was more concerned about finding someone who could relate to what I was going through instead of someone who is the same skin color as I am because, if I have someone the same skin color but they are single, they don’t have family, they are totally at opposite ends.” Relationships between Doctoral Students and Peer Mentors Interactions between students and their peers comprised an important aspect of the program. Not only did these interactions occur through formal peer mentoring relationships with more advanced doctoral students, but the program also offered numerous occasions for participants to learn from each other. Melanie explained, “The opportunity to socialize in some ways with other people who are not in nursing and hear some of the things that they have to do…we talked about all different aspects of the school journey itself.” Marie also
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
249
noted that the ability to connect with peers outside her academic department provided additional incentive for her participation. “I’m meeting people I would not have met otherwise…I definitely appreciate the connection because it’s too easy to get closed off in just [my own] department,” she said. Program administrators took a similar approach to assigning peer mentors as they did with faculty mentors. Participants could express a preference for peers of the same race, gender, or discipline. Ultimately, however, the most productive relationships were those where the participant and the peer mentor became friends. This outcome proved to be a difficult, if not impossible, one for administrators to anticipate. Jennifer was enrolled in the same college as her peer mentor. “It’s a good relationship,” she offered, “because we are in the same program, so we have classes together. But we go beyond that. We spend time together. We might go to things together.” Marie also shared a disciplinary background with her peer mentor, which resulted in a productive relationship. “We are in the same department and as far as developing a professional mentorship relationship, it has really just been a continuation of a friendship that we started before the program,” she concluded. Those doctoral students who agreed to serve as peer mentors for the program received productive benefits from their involvement. Pamela, a doctoral student in education who serves as a peer mentor, recalled: “I wanted to build a sense of community. We have always talked about it in class, about how we need that good cohort for the dissertation…the mentoring program built that kind of community, one that I was able to be a part of.” The intellectual and social network fostered by connections with doctoral students from multiple disciplines extended across campus and proved significant. Pamela added, “I think it is really important that they know what is going on and with conferences…. and we have a good sense of together[ness] and support.” Teresa emphasized the ability to learn not only from faculty mentors, but also from peer mentors and other participants. “I wanted to build positive peer relationships as an additional means of support and learning, and [be able] to access different perspectives on professional and academic matters,” she concluded. An unanticipated benefit of the program was the extent to which program participants and peer mentors shared information with doctoral students in their home departments. Melanie, who is a doctoral student in nursing, offered one example. After a recent workshop with the director of the writing center, she stated, “I have thoroughly encouraged [my classmates] to use the center and to start early in terms of their writing.” She also participated in a session on submitting research protocols for IRB approval. “I was ahead of my classmates on this,” she explained. “Having gone through that workshop and having talked to the people there…the staff said to just call them, and they will make sure that ours is ok. I’ll do that before I even give it to my advisor.” The Significance of Academic and Social Networks Several events were offered over a two-semester period including bi-weekly brown bag sessions on such topics as writing a literature review, working with the IRB, developing a research poster, securing an academic position, and delivering an oral presentation. Other events involved social or community activities, such as Friday night salsa dancing at a local Mexican restaurant. While participants found the social events to be enjoyable, they were not considered as significant to their experience as more academically-oriented sessions. Often students reflected not on the topic of the sessions, but rather the opportunity to openly discuss the challenges of graduate school with their peers. Melanie reflected, “When the students are all together, they have really interesting questions; and for the most part,
250
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
there is collaboration and camaraderie… it is a really diverse group as well as diversity of different schools that are a part of it.” She offered the example of how students shared advice and insight in regards to the dissertation process. “The students who have to do some review or something, they were finding out for the first time [what] they had to do… people are sharing what has to be done, and those that don’t already know are learning from others,” Melanie concluded. Other students noted that the topics were of broad interest and appeal. Jennifer recounted a session on “Imposter Syndrome” as being influential in her development. She explained, “Because sometimes you sit back in class and wonder, why isn’t it seeping into my brain. Now I feel more comfortable about that, but last semester I put all of these expectations on myself.” The understanding gained through such sessions translated into enhanced professional behavior and increased confidence related to academic performance. Teresa explained how her attendance at a session on poster presentations fulfilled a requirement in her academic program. “I had a chance to put that in my learning contract because we have certain criteria, just knowledge of human subjects or professional development or something like that, so I can put poster presentation next to that requirement,” she explained. Program participants were required to make a presentation during the annual graduate student research conference at the end of the academic year, giving additional importance to research and communication skills. While the disciplinary diversity of program participants benefited collaboration and networking, this diversity did negatively impact the students’ perception of particular events. For example, students in STEM disciplines expressed concern over the adequacy of the writing workshops for their particular needs. “I write in a totally different style than the majority of people. Like chemistry we write in the ACS style. So most people write in like Chicago or MLA or things like that, and I don't write in those anymore. I hope that they don't forget about me,” explained Stephanie.
Implications We return to the research questions that guided this study in order to present conclusions and offer implications for the practice of doctoral student mentoring at other academic institutions. The Council of Graduate Schools/Peterson’s Award not only seeks to institutionalize efforts to increase diversity and degree completion in doctoral education, but also to disseminate best practices among all graduate programs. First, what kinds of motivation do students express for program participation? While contact with faculty members was an important element of the program, the team-based mentoring approach offered participants compelling insight into academic norms. This balance ensured that participants could not only approach faculty mentors with questions or concerns but also engage in conversation with peers about those same issues. By enabling a peer network, both with a peer mentor as well as among the participants, the program created a more inclusive community for doctoral students (Weidman et al. 2001). Students desired this inclusiveness as part of their participation, noting that creating a community was challenging on a large campus. In addition, students desired a mentoring relationship with faculty members that reflected particular demographics, such as race, gender, or discipline. These personal characteristics present challenges to the development of effective mentoring relationships. While the “Tide Together” program sought to be proactive in terms of these challenges by offering students the opportunity to request mentors of a specific race or gender, the diversity of the volunteer faculty mentors limited this effort.
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
251
Second, what outcomes did students believe they gained from the program? Beneficial outcomes included contacts on campus between faculty members and students for those mentoring relationships perceived to be productive. In particular, this relationship provided students with contacts outside of their academic department. Perhaps even more so than a faculty mentor, program participants noted the advantages gained from developing peer networks. Among advanced doctoral students as well as those beginning their degree program, the mentoring experience offered the opportunity to share information and develop a sense of camaraderie. At a large research university where such a communal environment is often lacking outside the home department, this outcome was significant. The ability to engage in relationships with peers and faculty provided the opportunity for interdisciplinary conversation and development of an emotional support system. While doctoral students in particular experience their degree program in a highly disciplinespecific context, we should not underestimate the impact of belonging to the broader institutional community. Given the highly structured and isolated nature of the academic departments, this sense of belonging must be actively cultivated by the institution. Finally, how can program components be “scaled up” across the university? The data presented here outline the challenges and opportunities inherent to a doctoral student mentoring initiative. Perhaps even more than developing and administering a program is the challenge of funding such an initiative over an extended period of time. (Although the initial Council of Graduate Schools/Peterson’s funding covered a three-year period, the Graduate School will support the “Tide Together” program in perpetuity through application fee income.) The “Tide Together” mentoring program used the best practices inherent to doctoral student socialization and development for its design: assignment to faculty and peer mentors; academic workshops; social events; and financial support (Brown et al. 1999; Council of Graduate Schools 2010; Davidson and Foster-Johnson 2001). Several of these practices require a financial investment on behalf of the institution. For example, the program hired a doctoral student to work as coordinator. This individual kept in contact with students, scheduled the multiple events, and sought to share information among all program participants. Faculty and peer mentors could apply for a small travel grant to present research conducted with the student mentee. In addition, the program provided lunch at selected events to encourage attendance and involvement. While faculty and peer mentors volunteered their time for the project, the program recognized their involvement with certificates and acknowledgements on the program’s website. Beyond these investments, however, the data suggest possibilities for duplication at other institutions without burdensome or otherwise restrictive costs including 1) the potential of peer networks as a normative communication forum, 2) the opportunity for technological innovation to convey information, and 3) the platform for self-assessment and data collection. First, peer networks offer the capacity to convey crucial information about the doctoral student experience. By implementing a mentoring program such as the one outlined here, institutions proactively seek to manage and develop this network. The data reflected numerous ways in which informal discussions offered insight into academic processes. Students noted that they shared information gained through their participation with their academic peers not involved in the program. In this study, the advanced doctoral students who served as peer mentors expressed satisfaction in terms of their relationship with participants, but they also felt empowered as to their degree experience and general academic knowledge. Beyond the peer mentors, however, participants shared information widely with other doctoral students in the home department. Accordingly, while a relatively small number of students formally participated in the mentoring program, others received indirect benefits.
252
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
A strategic effort would encourage knowledge to be communicated extensively across campus through these multiple networks. As part of their participation, for example, students might be required to host a brown bag lunch in their college. Others might summarize notes and information from monthly seminars to share on their program’s website or in first-year required courses. In effect, a doctoral mentoring program for a small number of participants could foster a community of practice for all doctoral students on campus. Second, the program discussed here only reached a small fraction of the graduate student enrollment on campus. Beyond the development of multiple communication networks, technological resources could provide a more structured way to disseminate the knowledge generated from the program. The monthly seminars could be videotaped and posted online for greater access, for example, or faculty volunteers might lead webinars about topics specific to the graduate school experience. This approach recognizes that the advantages of mentoring are accrued through personal, one-on-one relationships with both faculty members and peers, yet also seeks to share valuable knowledge with all graduate students. By taking advantage of multiple social media platforms, blog formats, university websites, and other communication outlets, the program could enhance its reach and impact. Finally, programs could gather valuable assessment data and self-study reports through the involvement of student participants. Such efforts could enhance a student’s burgeoning research skills. In addition to refining a program for future participants, assessment data provides an opportunity for individual student reflection. We conclude with specific implications for the design of mentoring programs for doctoral programs. A successful mentoring program should present clear guidelines and expectations for all participants. While faculty members might be willing to serve as mentors for doctoral students, they might also benefit from training with effective mentoring practices. This professional development effort could prove advantageous to the faculty member’s role in their academic department and discipline. The guidelines for effective mentoring could be widely shared across campus and reach individuals who are not direct participants in the program. Students would also benefit from structured guidelines related to contact with faculty and peer mentors. In the program outlined here, participants submitted weekly journals which detailed their interaction with mentors. This feedback could provide helpful data for administrators for ongoing evaluation efforts. Administrators should also recognize that, despite honest efforts to match student and faculty mentors, not all mentoring relationships will be successful. Having a program coordinator who monitors participants throughout the year is beneficial in mitigating a potentially negative outcome. Finally, the benefits for program participants should be clearly promoted. For the student participants, these benefits include professional networking, academic development, and enhanced campus opportunities. In this program the student participants presented at the graduate student research conference on campus; administrators should seek to promote those interactions that allow for students and their mentors to collaborate on research projects and present those results to the larger campus community. Other benefits could be financial, such as the travel and research grant offered to participants in the “Tide Together” program. While few faculty members or students identified the grant as the primary motivation for their involvement, several individuals remarked on its significance. Viewed from an organizational perspective, this financial acknowledgment served as evidence of the institution’s investment in the program’s success. Even if the institution is unable to provide financial benefits, other ways of providing recognition options should be considered.
Innov High Educ (2012) 37:243–253
253
Conclusion The design and implementation of a successful doctoral mentoring program is dependent on several factors including the ability of faculty members and students to serve as mentors, the interest of doctoral student participants, and the administrative willingness to coordinate the initiative. Institutional efforts should balance the student’s immersion into the academic department with the ultimate goal of enhancing the student’s academic and professional development. In this way, the institution seeks a more prominent role in doctoral student socialization than has historically been the case.
References Anderson, E., & Shannon, A. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 38–42. Bair, C., & Haworth, J. G. (2004). Research on doctoral student attrition and retention: A meta synthesis. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research XIX (pp. 481–534). New York, NY: Agathon. Baird, L. (1995). Helping graduate students: A graduate advisor’s view. In A. Pruitt-Logan and P. Isaac (Eds.), Student services for the changing graduate student population (pp. 25–32). New Directions for Student Services, 72. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Becker, H. (1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you’re doing it. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bell-Ellison, B., & Dedrick, R. F. (2008). What do graduate students value in their ideal mentor? Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 555–567. Brown, M., Davis, G., & McClendon, S. (1999). Mentoring graduate students of color: Myths, models, and modes. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 105–118. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Policies and practices to promote student success. Ph.D. Completion Project. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davidson, M., & Foster-Johnson, L. (2001). Mentoring in the preparation of graduate researchers of color. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 549–574. Gardner, S. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little?” The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326–350. Golde, C., & Dore, T. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of today’s doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts. Johnson-Bailey, J. (2004). Hitting and climbing the proverbial wall: Participation and retention issues for Black graduate women. Race, Ethnicity, & Education, 7(4), 331–349. Nerad, M., & Cerny, J. (1993). From facts to action: Expanding the graduate division’s educational role. In L. Baird (Ed.), Increasing Graduate Student Retention and Degree Attainment (pp. 27–39). New Directions for Institutional Research, 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Paglis, L., Green, S., & Bauer, T. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451–476. Rose, G. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ concepts of the ideal mentor. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 53–80. Weidman, P., Twale, D., & Stein, E. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC higher education report, 28. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
