Using Mentoring Enactment Theory to Explore the Doctoral Student–Advisor Mentoring Relationship

Abstract

The purposes of this study were (a) to develop a new measure to assess doctoral advisees' use of relational maintenance behaviors with their advisors, and (b) to examine both advisees' (n = 636) and advisors' (n = 141) perceptions of their mentoring relationship using mentoring enactment theory (MET; Kalbfleisch, 2002). The results of principal-component analyses, confirmatory factor analyses, Pearson correlations, and a MANOVA indicate that advisees and advisors have similar perceptions of what behaviors advisees engage in to maintain their mentoring relationships. These behaviors are appreciation, tasks, protection, courtesy, humor, and goals. In support of MET, positive relationships were generally found between advisees' use of relational maintenance behaviors and advisors' provision of career support and psychosocial support in both the advisee and the advisor samples. However, these relationships were generally not found when conducting dyadic data analyses. Moreover, advisees' use of relational maintenance behaviors was not dependent on their biological sex.

Keywords:

• mentoring
• relational maintenance
• mentoring enactment theory
• advisors
• advisees

Notes

1. Because it is possible that doctoral students are involved in a variety of mentoring relationships (other than with their advisors), and because faculty members may offer mentoring support to several doctoral students (other than their advisees), the words “advisor” and “advisee” were used in all instructions provided to both the doctoral students and the faculty mentors to ensure that they completed the questionnaires in reference to their advisor–advisee mentoring relationships.

2. Of the doctoral students, 95.6% pursued a Ph.D., 3.3% pursued an Ed.D., and 39.8% indicated that they currently held ABD status. The majority (90.9%) received funding (i.e., academic fellowship, teaching assistantship, research assistantship, or other), and 59.5% were interested primarily in research whereas 36.2% were interested primarily in teaching. Their current advisor–advisee mentoring relationships ranged in duration from one to 144 months (M = 28.26, SD = 20.59), and the relationships were initiated by the students (66.7%), the departments (17.8%), and by the advisors (14.8%). The students' advisors were full professors (50.3%), associate professors (30.5%), and assistant professors (17.5%). The faculty advisors reported that they had between one and 42 years (M = 13.75, SD=10.66) of experience advising doctoral students, and their number of previous advisees ranged from one to 108 (M = 12.05, SD=14.32). Of the faculty advisors, 69.5% indicated that they were interested primarily in research, whereas 22.7% indicated that they were interested primarily in teaching.

3. Phase One participants represented four academic departments: Communication Studies (n = 47), Advertising (n = 1), Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation (n = 1), and Justice and Social Inquiry (n = 1). Thus, 94.0% of the participants in this phase were enrolled in Communication Studies programs.

4. Phase Two participants represented six academic departments: Communication Studies (n = 141), Psychology (n = 32), Sociology (n = 14), Counseling (n = 11), Education (n = 4), and Public Health (n = 1). Thus, 67.79% of the participants in this phase were enrolled in Communication Studies programs.

5. Phase Three participants represented 47 academic departments: Communication (n = 72), Psychology (n = 38), Leadership and Educational Leadership (n = 30), English (n = 24), Engineering (n = 19), Biology (n =14), Anthropology (n = 11), Geography & Geology (n = 9), Nursing (n = 9), Social Work (n = 9), Forestry (n = 8), Agriculture (n = 8), Political Science (n = 7), Medicine (n = 7), Pharmacy & Pharmacology (n = 6), History (n = 6), Education (n = 6), Linguistics (n = 6), Horticulture (n = 5), Sociology (n = 5), Speech & Hearing (n = 4), Chemistry (n = 4), Computer Science (n = 4), Animal Science (n = 4), Comparative Studies (n = 4), Natural Resources (n = 4), Math (n = 4), Human Resource Education (n = 3), Journalism (n = 3), Wildlife & Fishery (n = 3), Physics (n = 3), Zoology (n = 3), Nutrition (n = 3), Business & Economics (n = 3), Women's Studies (n = 2), Slavic Languages (n = 2), Genetics (n = 2), Neuroscience (n = 2), Physical Education (n = 2), Advertising & Public Relations (n = 2), Music (n = 2), German (n = 2), Kinesiology (n = 1), Romance Languages (n = 1), TV, Film, & Radio (n = 1), Environmental Science (n = 1), and Philosophy (n = 1). Thus, 19.0% of the participants in this phase were enrolled in Communication Studies programs.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Daniel H. Mansson

Daniel H. Mansson (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2011) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Arts & Sciences at Penn State Hazleton, 76 University Dr., Hazleton, PA, 18202, [phone] office, [phone] fax

Scott A. Myers

Scott A. Myers (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1995) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26506–6293, (304) 293–3905 office, (304) 293–8667 fax. This study was based on the first author's doctoral dissertation, which was directed by Dr. Scott A. Myers. A previous version of this study was presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association