Mentoring International Students in Social Work Doctoral Programs

Figures & data

Table 1. Student demographics.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	p-value
Age	28	32.64	6.20	139	35.27	7.55	.086
Gender	30			147			.079
Male (cisgender)	9	30.0%		18	12.2%
Female (cisgender)	21	70.0%		124	84.4%
Nonbinary	0	0%		4	2.7%
Prefer to self-identify	0	0%		1	0.7%
Sexual identity	30			147			.730
Straight/heterosexual	25	83.3%		109	74.1%
Gay or lesbian	2	6.7%		12	8.2%
Bisexual	3	10.0%		14	9.5%
Other: Pansexual, asexual, demisexual, heteroflexible, did not specify	0	0.0%		12	8.2%
Race/ethnicity	29			147			<.001
American Indian or Alaska Native	0	0%		2	1.4%
Asian	22	75.9%		8	5.4%
Black or African American	1	3.4%		18	12.2%
Hispanic or Latinx	1	3.4%		12	8.2%
White	5	17.2%		99	67.3%
Other/multiple races	0	0.0%		8	5.4%
English first language	30			148			<.001
Yes	2	6.7%		134	90.5%
No	28	93.3%		14	9.5%

Note. p-values from Pearson chi-square or Fisher’s exact test.

Table 2. Students’ background and experience.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	p-value
First person in family to*:	30			148
Attend college	9	30.0%		36	24.3%		.615
Complete 4-year degree	5	16.7%		22	14.8%
Complete master’s degree	1	3.3%		19	12.8%
Pursue a doctorate	9	30.0%		39	26.4%
None of the above	6	20.0%		32	21.6%
Married or in relationship	30			148			.658
Yes, married	13	43.3%		79	53.4%
Yes, serious relationship other than marriage	6	20.0%		29	19.6%
No, divorced, separated, or widowed	1	3.3%		6	4.1%
No, never married	10	33.3%		34	23.0%
Caring for others	30			152			.071
Yes	6	20%		55	37.2%
No	24	80%		93	62.8%
Persons under your care	5	3.20	2.17	54	1.85	.86	.238
Years of post–Master of Social Work experience	23	2.91	3.40	117	5.74	5.58	.002
Enrollment status	29			143			.106
Full time	29	100%		131	91.6%
Part time	0	0%		12	8.4%
Total years working on doctorate so far	28	2.16	1.48	143	2.78	1.94	.111

Note. p-values from Pearson chi-square, Fisher’s exact test, or independent samples t-test. *First person in their family to achieve this level of education or higher.

Table 3. Student stress caused by academic program components.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	p-value
Coursework	29	3.55	.94	147	3.05	1.10	.022
Deciding on research area and methods	30	3.67	1.09	148	2.95	1.20	.003
Learning statistical techniques/advanced research methods	30	3.23	1.04	148	3.52	1.31	.195
Developing scholarly writing skills	28	3.54	1.07	148	3.03	1.19	.039
Reading the literature base and managing references in topic area	28	2.89	1.13	148	2.52	1.13	.113
Learning and deciding on theory/epistemology to support research	28	3.29	1.18	147	2.73	1.12	.019
Scholarly activity	29	3.38	1.43	147	3.52	1.16	.555
Developing pedagogical skills and teaching courses	29	2.93	1.07	147	2.59	1.23	.134
Preparing and completing candidacy or comprehensive exam	28	3.00	1.47	146	3.78	1.32	.005
Preparing and successfully completing dissertation	29	3.07	1.71	146	3.83	1.29	.030
Preparing for and entering the job market	29	3.55	1.67	145	3.59	1.49	.911
Becoming a junior faculty	27	3.22	1.99	141	3.08	1.71	.696
Overall stress	27	3.67	0.68	138	3.93	0.79	.110
Percent of stress due to:
Academic stressors	28	64.10	17.38	140	64.90	19.40	.841
Nonacademic stressors	28	38.39	18.51	144	35.31	19.77	.448

Note. Students and faculty rated how much stress or worry each component causes students, from 1 (little to no stress), 2 (some stress), 3 (moderate stress), 4 (high stress), to 5 (extreme stress). p-values from independent samples t-tests.

Table 4. Mentoring support needed for academic program components.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	p-value
Coursework	25	2.76	1.23	140	2.02	.95	.001
Deciding on research area and methods	26	3.88	.95	140	3.26	1.13	.008
Learning statistical techniques/advanced research methods	26	3.46	1.03	140	3.71	1.24	.330
Developing scholarly writing skills	25	4.00	1.04	140	3.51	1.19	.054
Reading the literature base and managing references in topic area	25	2.80	1.08	140	2.47	1.13	.181
Learning and deciding on theory/epistemology to support research	25	3.48	1.12	140	2.96	1.18	.045
Scholarly activity	27	4.19	1.00	140	3.89	1.11	.182
Developing pedagogical skills and teaching courses	26	3.27	1.15	140	2.92	1.21	.176
Preparing and completing candidacy or comprehensive exam	25	3.16	1.31	140	3.51	1.31	.225
Preparing and successfully completing dissertation	25	3.84	1.46	140	4.34	.87	.107
Preparing for and entering the job market	27	3.74	1.70	140	4.09	1.17	.321
Becoming junior faculty	24	3.63	1.91	138	3.65	1.52	.938

Note. Students and faculty rated how much students need support through mentoring to succeed in each area, from 1 (little to no need), 2 (some need), 3 (moderate need), 4 (high need), to 5 (extreme need). p-values from independent samples t-tests.

Table 5. Career aspirations and interdisciplinary opportunities.

	International Student N	Percent	Noninternational Student N	Percent	p-value
Types of positions students plan to apply for	30		148
Faculty positions with high research expectations	25	83.3%	97	65.5%	.056
Faculty positions focused primarily on teaching	8	26.7%	68	45.9%	.052
Nonacademic research positions	4	13.3%	72	48.6%	<.001
Nonacademic clinical positions	4	13.3%	19	12.8%	.941
Availability of interdisciplinary mentorship or scholarship	29		142		.271
Not at all available	1	3.4%	20	14.1%
Some opportunities available	12	41.4%	39	27.5%
Moderate amount of opportunities available	4	13.8%	23	16.2%
Quite a few opportunities available	3	10.3%	30	21.1%
Very many opportunities available	4	13.8%	14	9.9%
Not sure	5	17.2%	16	11.3%
Types of interdisciplinary opportunities	30		148
Opportunities to engage in interdisciplinary research projects	17	56.7%	66	44.6%	.227
Curriculum opportunities to engage with other disciplines	16	53.3%	60	40.5%	.196
Networking support	15	50.0%	50	33.8%	.093
Workshops/training on interdisciplinary scholarship	12	40.0%	53	35.8%	.664
Other	1	3.3%	19	12.8%	.133

Note. p-values from Pearson chi-square or z-test. For types of positions and opportunities, students and faculty were asked to select all that apply, so the percentage represents the proportion of respondents who selected each option out of the total student or faculty respondents.

Table 6. Student stress caused by nonacademic stressors.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	p-value
Responsibilities related to life transitions	28	2.93	1.41	135	2.53	1.48	.197
Financial stress	29	3.14	1.27	136	3.32	1.35	.515
Feeling unsafe	28	2.43	1.40	136	1.35	1.09	<.001
Moving to a new place	27	2.89	1.22	136	1.79	1.48	<.001
Physical health concerns	28	2.36	1.45	136	1.90	1.35	.112
Mental health concerns	27	2.41	1.50	135	2.18	1.46	.459
Imposter syndrome/feelings of inadequacy	27	2.67	1.52	139	3.47	1.35	.006
Memories triggered by coursework or research	27	2.19	1.36	136	1.55	1.23	.017
Issues related to personal/ intimate relationships	27	2.44	1.50	136	2.14	1.43	.316
Grief/loss of loved one	27	1.85	1.43	133	1.56	1.44	.333
Poor work–life balance	26	2.81	1.39	139	3.05	1.44	.428
Feeling overwhelmed by program expectations	27	3.07	1.36	138	3.25	1.35	.529
Experiencing/witnessing sexual misconduct, harassment, or assault	27	1.04	.81	134	.96	.92	.667
Experiencing/witnessing racism, discrimination, or microaggressions	27	2.30	1.44	137	2.10	1.58	.555
Excessive stress due to pressure to succeed	28	2.89	1.42	139	3.32	1.27	.110
Managing competing demands on time	29	3.38	1.21	139	3.97	1.10	.010
Mentor involvement in top stressors	27			137			.305
None/didn’t talk about it	2	7.4%		30	21.9%
We talked about it some	15	55.6%		71	51.8%
We talked about it often	4	14.8%		17	12.4%
Advisor actively provided support in those areas	6	22.2%		19	13.9%

Note. For each item that was applicable, students and faculty were asked to rate how much it negatively impacts students’ well-being, functioning, and ability to make progress in the program, from 1 (little to no impact), 2 (some impact), 3 (moderate impact), 4 (high impact), to 5 (major or severe impact). Students and faculty also rated the level of mentor involvement in the nonacademic stressors they had rated highest. p-values from independent samples t-test.

Table 7. Nonacademic needs and support.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	p-value
How did mentor support match your needs and expectations?	26		137		0.630
I wish I had received more support from my advisor in those areas	11	42.3%	65	47.4%
The support I received was about right, or I was glad that my advisor was not involved in my nonacademic issues	15	57.7%	72	52.6%
My advisor was too involved in my nonacademic issues or I wish they hadn’t asked about them	0	0.0%	0	0.0%

Table 8. Program climate and safety.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	p-value
Do you identify with one or more groups that have traditionally been marginalized in academic settings?	27			140			<.001
Yes	9	33.3%		80	57.1%
Maybe	13	48.1%		18	12.9%
No	5	18.5%		42	30.0%
Doctoral program is*:
Welcoming and accepting toward students and faculty from all backgrounds and groups	25	4.48	.823	140	3.82	1.24	.012
Sexually safe for all students, without sexual harassment or misconduct of any kind	25	4.56	.768	144	4.06	1.21	.009
Have you experienced or witnessed discrimination in the program?^	25			140			.733
Yes	9	36.0%		59	42.1%
No	10	40.0%		56	40.0%
Not sure	6	24.0%		25	17.9%
Have you experienced or witnessed sexual misconduct in the program?^	25			140			.331
Yes	0	0%		11	7.9%
No	23	92.0%		116	82.9%
Not sure	2	8.0%		13	9.3%

*Students were asked to rate their agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (somewhat disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (somewhat agree), to 5 (strongly agree).

Table 9. Mentoring for students from marginalized groups.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	p-value
My advisor/mentor makes insensitive or belittling comments toward the group(s) I identify with*	20	2.05	1.23	98	1.31	.78	.017
My peers in the program make insensitive or belittling comments toward the group(s) I identify with*	19	2.37	1.46	98	1.70	1.13	.074
My advisor/mentor actively supports me in overcoming the challenges I face (or might face) in academia due to marginalization, discrimination, or microaggressions*	20	3.95	.89	98	3.49	1.29	.060
I feel safe and welcome in my doctoral program	25	3.92	1.04	140	4.01	1.15	.723
My advisor/mentor brings up issues regarding diversity and inclusion in social work academia	25	4.28	1.06	140	3.66	1.34	.013
My peers or faculty make statements about groups of people without realizing that it could be offensive or insensitive	25	2.96	1.27	139	2.91	1.46	.882
Should mentoring to students from specific groups be specifically tailored to their needs or attempt to provide the same mentoring experience to all students?	24			138			.007
Definitely same experience	2	8.3%		4	2.9%
Probably same experience	3	12.5%		2	1.4%
Possibly same experience	4	16.7%		8	5.8%
Possibly tailored to needs	4	16.7%		18	13.0%
Probably tailored to needs	5	20.8%		50	36.2%
Definitely tailored to needs	6	25.0%		56	40.6%

*Questions asked only if student replied “yes” or “maybe” to belonging to a marginalized group. Students were asked to rate their agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (somewhat disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (somewhat agree), to 5 (strongly agree). p-value from Pearson chi-square.

Table 10. Helpful mentoring practices.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	p-value
Be available and responsive to communication	25	4.48	.65	137	4.52	.84	.799
Help student understand the culture and expectations of academia	25	4.32	.69	137	4.28	.98	.863
Discuss student’s long-term life and career goals	25	4.04	.84	137	4.20	1.00	.438
Ask about student’s mental health, well-being, and self-care	24	3.67	1.05	137	3.58	1.22	.755
Check in about student’s work–life balance	24	3.83	1.05	137	3.61	1.20	.399
Coach and provide feedback on research, writing, and public-speaking skills	25	4.40	.71	136	4.21	1.09	.390
Show that mentor cares about student and provide emotional support	25	4.24	.78	136	3.86	1.18	.047
Create opportunities for scholarly productivity and professional networking	25	4.24	.88	137	4.27	1.05	.893
Help student believe in themselves and their ability to succeed	24	4.00	.89	137	4.12	1.04	.606

Note. Students and faculty rated how helpful each mentoring practice is for students, from 1 (not at all helpful), 2 (slightly helpful), 3 (moderately helpful), 4 (very helpful), to 5 (extremely helpful). p-values from independent samples t-tests.

Table 11. Mentoring satisfaction and outcomes.

	International Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	Noninternational Student N	Mean/ Percent	SD	p-value
Students’ satisfaction with mentoring for:^1
Academic concerns	24	4.13	.80	137	3.72	1.25	.041
Nonacademic concerns	25	3.71	1.01	137	3.37	1.28	.152
Diversity and inclusion	25	4.00	.82	137	3.44	1.27	.006
Overall	25	4.24	.60	137	3.58	1.30	<.001
Students’ self-efficacy^2
I am comfortable that I am moving in the right direction in my academic/professional career	25	4.00	.91	137	4.01	.97	.972
I feel confident that I will be well-prepared when I enter the job market	25	3.68	1.07	137	3.68	1.19	.996
I am building the skills I need to be a successful junior faculty/researcher	25	3.96	.98	137	3.93	1.11	.914
I have grown both personally and professionally during my doctoral studies	25	4.40	.58	137	4.45	.87	.771
Students’ scholarly productivity
Peer-reviewed journal articles	28	1.21	1.83	132	1.68	2.15	.286
Book chapters	28	.18	.48	122	.35	1.08	.3408
Conference presentations (oral)	27	1.41	2.36	131	3.07	4.06	.042
Conference presentations (poster)	28	1.68	2.53	130	2.28	3.86	.435
External grants, fellowships, or research awards	27	.33	.73	122	.89	1.44	.051

Note. p-value from independent samples t-test comparing students’ overall satisfaction with mentoring with faculty members’ satisfaction with the mentoring they received as doctoral students.

¹Respondents were asked to rate mentoring satisfaction from 1 (extremely dissatisfied), 2 (somewhat dissatisfied), 3 (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), 4 (somewhat satisfied), to 5 (extremely satisfied).

²Students were asked to rate their agreement with each statement from 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (somewhat disagree), 3 (neither agree nor disagree), 4 (somewhat agree), to 5 (strongly agree).

Table 12. Recommendations for mentoring international doctoral students.

Challenges	Recommendations
Stress related to coursework, theory, and epistemological approaches	Providing references on history and development of American social work policy and welfare prior to start of program. Offer option of MSW–PhD joint program regardless of previous educational experience in home country.
English language proficiency	Encourage students to expand their social circles beyond people from similar cultural backgrounds. Provide writing support either at the program or university level. Increased time given by and patience from instructors to facilitate student’s class engagement. Awareness of instructor biases in their assessment of mentees’ academic potential and capability.
Feeling unsafe and perceived discrimination	Orientation on housing arrangement by university staff. Connection of international students to domestic students to build sense of community.
Memories triggered by coursework or research	Trauma-informed mentoring. Supportive relationship with advisor who is aware of events occurring in home country of student.
Insensitive or belittling comments toward student’s identified group by mentor	Implicit bias training for doctoral faculty.
Need for mentors to show they care for students and provide emotional support	Use of a relational-based mentoring style.
Stress related to preparing for and entering the job market	Support students to develop a well-rounded profile on practice and teaching in addition to research. Mentoring support on navigating the job market. Knowledge of specific legal requirements and policies regarding employment and immigration.
Fewer years of post-MSW experience	Gain practice experience during their PhD program. Linkage with university’s field office to gain practice experience. Encouragement of time off between MSW and PhD to gain experience.

Note. MSW = Master of Social Work.