Mentoring International Students in Social Work Doctoral Programs

ABSTRACT

Objective

This study aims to fill the research gap pertaining to the unique mentoring needs of international doctoral students.

Method

Based on data from a survey conducted by GADE, this study examined doctoral students’ perspectives on academic and non-academic needs and stress as well as diversity and inclusion issues.

Findings

International students have specific mentoring needs and higher levels of stress related to coursework, deciding on research area, scholarly writing, epistemology/theory, and teaching skills while reported less stress related to candidacy and dissertation with higher overall satisfaction with their mentoring experience.

Conclusions

Findings from this study highlight specific academic and non-academic mentoring needs of international doctoral students, the importance of relational-based mentoring, and areas needing additional attention in future research.

The international student population continues to grow at all levels of higher education, including doctoral programs. The 2018–19 school year showed the highest number of international students in higher education, with over a million students total, representing 5.5% of the U.S. higher education population (Open Doors, 2020). An increase in international students is also being seen in social work doctoral education. Based on the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) statistics of the 2018–19 academic year, there were 254 international research doctoral students and three international practice doctoral students enrolled in universities in the United States. Of the 294 doctoral degrees conferred in 2018–19, 48 (16.3%) were international students (CSWE, 2020).

Challenges encountered by international students

While there is an overall lack of research focusing on the specific challenges encountered by international doctoral social work students, the existing literature does indicate some specific barriers and needs of international students compared to their domestic counterparts. Difficulty in transitioning to a new life abroad is a significant stressor for these students, with the first 6 months after arrival reported as the most difficult (Hirai et al., 2015). Students reported feeling depressed and paranoid (Doutrich, 2001), sad due to missing family members (DeLuca, 2005), and anxious about their uncertain future (Ali Zeilani et al., 2011). While students in general face challenges in the transition to doctoral education (Adorno et al., 2015), international students face the additional stress of moving to a new and unknown country, potentially compounding the strain on their mental health and well-being.

Asian international students make up around 18% (CSWE, 2020) of all doctoral social work students in the United States and face specific challenges compared to other international groups. Asian students struggle with feelings of not belonging (Mittal & Wieling, 2006), difficulty in adapting to a different language and culture (Li & Stodolska, 2006), and differences in social norms (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006). These factors lead Asian international students to have increased difficulties in adjustment compared to other international student groups (Bista, 2015). Asian international students also have greater difficulty in developing friendships with domestic students (Williams & Johnson, 2011) and are less likely to access counseling services due to cultural norms (Komiya et al., 2000), leading to less overall support in their new country. These differences could be caused by overall acculturation stress due to differences in cultural norms between the individualistic values in Western society and the more collectivist norms of their home cultures (Ma et al., 2020). Along with finding ways to increase social support among this group (Ra & Trusty, 2017), specific targeted mentoring for Asian international students may assist in their adjustment (Park-Saltzman et al., 2012).

A lack of English proficiency among some international students is another major barrier for their integration and success (Khanal & Gaulee, 2019). Language barriers cause additional stress to these students in both academic and nonacademic situations. Most current social work pedagogical theory is based on Westernized standards and cultural norms, leaving students from outside cultures confused or a step behind their domestic counterparts (Beecher et al., 2012). A lack of confidence and ability in English could also prevent international students from fully participating in class discussion or asking for help from professors when needed (Hellsten & Prescott, 2004). International students tend to spend more time preparing for class and overcoming academic challenges, causing them less time to socialize and adjust to their new life (Dipeolu et al., 2007). Wei et al. (2015) found that perceived language discrimination among a group of Chinese international students was associated with an increase in mental health symptoms. Additional challenges for doctoral students include the pressure of dissemination of research through publications and presentations, especially when English is not their first language (Schneider et al., 2020).

Language barriers can also pose challenges for international students in nonacademic settings. Research shows that having a social support network including academic peers, friends, and family members is associated with lower levels of stress among doctoral students and may increase the likelihood of graduation (Jairam & Kahl, 2012). However, international doctoral students often relocate to new cities to begin their programs, and cultural and linguistic barriers may impede building new relationships and a local support system in the new environment.

When compared to their domestic counterparts, international students experience increased levels of discrimination, which in turn leads to higher levels of homesickness (Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007). However, this discrimination seems to be dependent on the region from which the students are from, with European international students experiencing less discrimination (Hanassab, 2006; Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007). The COVID-19 pandemic has increased discrimination among immigrants in the United States, especially among Chinese immigrants. Cheah et al. (2020) found that over half of Chinese American families had experienced racial discrimination online or in person since the beginning of the pandemic. An increase in discrimination toward international students is also likely and could increase negative mental health outcomes for international students.

While international students might encounter different challenges, they are a resilient group and offer extensive benefits to a social work doctoral program. Research has shown that international students have similar levels of scholarly productivity compared to their domestic counterparts (Cunningham-Williams et al., 2018). In addition, international students showed higher internal motivation compared to local students (Chue & Nie, 2012), implying that they are a group of strong and accomplished students despite challenges posed by language or cultural differences. U.S.-born students receive enormous value from interacting with international colleagues in higher education. International students provide valuable perspectives into other cultures, systems, and experiences (Lord, 2011; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2013) as well as an opportunity for domestic students to build global professional networks (Rai, 2002).

Mentoring international students

Mentoring is considered a key aspect of doctoral students’ experience that significantly contributes to their success as an emerging scholar (McMillin, 2012; Mor Barak & Brekke, 2014; Powers & Swick, 2012). Strategic mentoring helps doctoral students navigate the complexities of doctoral education and develop confidence in their work as emerging professionals in their field of study. For doctoral students in social work, mentorship provides students with the academic and professional support they need throughout their program, as well as support related to the difficult balance of a student’s professional and personal life (McMillin, 2012). This parallel relationship is especially important for students from nondominant groups, including students of color, who are simultaneously dealing with the academic stress of doctoral education while also overcoming the nonacademic challenges related to being part of a minoritized population (Allen et al., 2018; Ross-Sheriff et al., 2017).

Mentoring can provide international doctoral students with needed support in both academic and nonacademic domains and provide for a smooth transition to life in the United States (Schneider et al., 2020; Song & Petracchi, 2015). A shared understanding of mentoring relationships is essential for both students and mentors, as cultural differences may cause misunderstanding that may lead to frustration on both sides of the relationship (Cree, 2012; Kim, 2007). Culturally sensitive mentoring for international students, in which the mentor has developed a better understanding of the unique cultural needs and strengths of their mentee, may help facilitate better relationships between mentors and international students (Park-Saltzman et al., 2012). Mentoring relationships between students in the form of peer mentorship among doctoral students has also been helpful for international students (Mason & Hickman, 2019). This helps international students form relationships to help them navigate cultural concerns in both academic and nonacademic settings. A support group specifically for international doctoral students to explore unique challenges in and out of academia may also be beneficial to provide an increased level of support (Ku et al., 2008).

Existing literature exploring mentoring relationships or lived experience of international students highlights the significant barriers to their academic success and overall well-being, as well as their unique contributions to education in the United States (e.g., Hellsten & Prescott, 2004; Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Khanal & Gaulee, 2019; Song & Petracchi, 2015). However, very little research has been conducted that is specific to mentoring international students in social work doctoral programs. The limited literature specific to social work international students indicates the importance of adapting the mentoring framework to provide the kind of mentoring support international doctoral students need, with needed support extending beyond the academic aspects of doctoral education (Cree, 2012; Song & Petracchi, 2015). Further research is needed regarding the perspectives of international social work students on their experiences in doctoral programs and mentoring best practices to support them. The present study seeks to fill this knowledge gap by exploring the unique perspectives and experiences of international students in social work PhD programs in comparison to noninternational students, which should have helpful implications for effective mentoring practices with this student population.

Method

This was a cross-sectional survey that sought to understand international PhD students’ perspectives on academic and nonacademic needs and stress, diversity and inclusion issues, and helpful practices and challenges related to doctoral mentoring in social work. The responses of international students were compared to domestic students to highlight similar and unique needs and perspectives between the two groups. This is part of a larger study conducted by the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work (GADE) on students’ and faculty’s perspectives on holistic mentoring practices. The survey was sent to doctoral program directors of all GADE member institutions via the GADE electronic mailing list who were requested to invite their doctoral students to participate in this survey. We sent two personalized reminders to doctoral program directors as an attempt to increase the response rate. This study was approved by a university Institutional Review Board and participants gave online consent to participate in the study.

Procedures

An online survey was developed and sent to students enrolled in social work doctoral programs via their doctoral directors. The student survey included up to 87 questions, with up to 33 questions on demographics, background, or program information, and up to 54 questions exploring perceptions on academic and nonacademic needs and stress, diversity and inclusion issues, and mentoring needs and advice. Due to skip patterns, not all respondents were asked all questions. Students rated their perceptions on the assessed dimensions using a 5-point Likert-type scale. This study used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences to conduct analyses on quantitative data. First, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on respondents’ demographics, background, and program characteristics. Independent samples t-tests were then conducted to compare international and domestic students’ perceptions of academic and nonacademic stressors, mentoring needs, diversity issues, and mentoring practices. The study also calculated Cohen’s d effect sizes for all differences that were statistically significant. Pearson’s chi-square, Fisher’s exact test, and z-tests were used to compare international and domestic students’ responses on categorical questions.

Results

A total of 30 international students and 149 domestic students in PhD programs responded to the GADE Survey on Mentoring. Of these, 179 students from PhD programs, 64.8% (116) ranked research, 6.7% (12) ranked teaching, and 23.5% (42) ranked practice as the top emphasis of their programs. For international students, 60.7% (17) ranked research, 10.7% (3) ranked teaching, and 28.6% (8) ranked practice as the top emphasis of their programs. As for domestic students, 69.7% (99) ranked research, 6.3% (9) ranked teaching, and 24.0% (34) ranked practice as the top emphasis of their programs. No differences were found between international students and domestic students in terms of their reported program characteristics.

Respondents

Table 1 describes the demographic information for the 30 international students who responded to the GADE survey. The majority identified as female (n = 21, 70.0%) and straight/heterosexual (n = 25, 83.3%), with a mean age of 32.64 years. Most international students identified as Asian (n = 22, 75.9%), with a smaller number of students identifying as White (n = 5, 17.2%), Black or African American (n = 1, 3.4%), or Latinx (n = 1, 3.4%). No students identified themselves as multiracial. Regarding country of origin, almost half of international students were from the People’s Republic of China (46.4%), 14.3% from South Korea, 7.1% from Taiwan, 3.6% from other Asian countries, 7.1% from Europe, 7.1% from the Middle East, 3.6% from South America, 7.1% from Africa, and 3.6% from Canada. The vast majority of respondents (n28, 93.3%) stated that English was not their first language. No statistical difference was found between international and domestic students regarding age (p = .070), gender (p = .068), or sexual identity (p = .403), while race/ethnicity (<.001) and English as a first language (<.001) were found to be statistically different. While 5.4% of domestic students self-identified as Asian, 75.9% of international students self-identified as Asian.

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.

The survey also collected background information regarding circumstances that might affect mentoring experiences. Student participants were asked about being first-generation students, relationship and caregiving responsibilities, enrollment, and progress through the program, and post–Master of Social Work (MSW) social work experience. Table 2 shows student background information. The majority of international students were pursuing a higher level of education than anyone in their family by pursuing a doctoral degree (80%). Most participants were either married (43.3%) or in a serious relationship (20.0%), but most international students were not caregivers (80%). All international students reported being enrolled as full-time students, with the average of 2.16 years of doctoral work completed so far. To note, there were no significant differences between international and domestic students on the assessed dimensions except for post-MSW practice experience. International students had statistically fewer (p = .001) years of post-MSW practice experience (M = 2.91, SD = 3.40) compared to domestic students (M = 5.74, SD = 5.58). The relatively fewer years of post-MSW practice experience could have implications for mentorship, especially related to practice-informed research agendas and the academic job search.

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.

Academic stress and needed support

For the various academic components of a doctoral program, students were asked to rate the stress caused by each component (see Table 3) and the extent to which they need mentoring support in those areas (see Table 4). International students’ highest average stressors were deciding on their research area and methods (M = 3.67), coursework (M = 3.55), preparing for and entering the job market (M = 3.55), developing scholarly writing skills (M = 3.54), and scholarly activity (M = 3.38). Four academic components were found to be more stressful for international students than domestic students: coursework (d = 1.01, p = .022), deciding on their research area and methods (p = .003), developing scholarly writing skills (d = 1.19, p = .039), and learning and deciding on theory/epistemology to support research (d = 1.27, p = .019). Preparing for and completing the candidacy exam (d = 1.35, p = .005) and dissertation (d = 1.37, p = .030) were significantly less stressful for international students than domestic students. International students reported 64.1% of their overall stress coming from academic components of their program, which did not differ statistically from domestic students. Based on these findings, international students appeared to be more stressed by academic components at the beginning of their doctoral education than at the candidacy or dissertation phase compared to domestic students. Preparing and entering the job market was equally stressful for both international and domestic students.

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.

International students reported that their top five needs in mentoring included scholarly activity (M = 4.17), developing scholarly writing skills (M = 4.00), deciding on their research area and methods (M = 3.88), preparing and successfully completing their dissertation (M = 3.84), and preparing for and entering the job market (M = 3.74). Additionally, three academic components were found to be of significantly higher need for international students: coursework (d = 1.00, p = .001), deciding on research area and methods (d = 1.10, p = .008), and learning and deciding on theory/epistemology to support research (d = 1.21, p = .045). As such, international doctoral students appeared to have higher mentoring needs than domestic students to navigate higher-level academic components such as deciding on methods, theories, or developing writing skills.

Table 5 shows students’ responses regarding career aspirations and interdisciplinary opportunities. With respect to interdisciplinary mentorship, all but one international student reported having some sort of opportunity available, with the most common response of “some opportunities available” (41.4%). Regarding the types of opportunities available, 17 indicated they had opportunities to engage in interdisciplinary research projects (56.7%), 16 had curriculum opportunities to engage with other disciplines (53.3%), 15 had networking support for interdisciplinary collaboration (50.0%), and 12 had workshops/training on interdisciplinary scholarship (40.0%). There were no statistically significant differences between international and domestic students regarding interdisciplinary opportunities. In terms of future career aspirations, the majority of international students indicated planning to apply for faculty positions with high research expectations (83.3%), and fewer international students reported interest in applying for universities focusing on teaching (26.7%). Significantly fewer international students planned to pursue nonacademic research positions (13.3%) than domestic students (p<.001).

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.

Nonacademic stress and support

Participants were asked about stress related to nonacademic stressors (see Table 6), with the following areas significantly more stressful from international students compared to domestic students: memories triggered by coursework (d=1.25, p = .022), feeling unsafe (d = 1.15, p<.001), and moving to a new place (d = 1.44, p<.001). In contrast, imposter syndrome/feelings of inadequacy (d = 1.38, p = .006) and managing competing demands on time (d = 1.12, p = .010) were found to be significantly more stressful for domestic students compared to international students. Based on these findings, it appeared that international students, when compared to domestic students, might feel more competent about their abilities but were more stressed by challenges related to moving to a new place and engaging in a new academic system. Regarding mentoring support, the majority of international students reported they talked to their mentor about nonacademic stressors “some” (55.6%), with others stating they did not talk about it at all (7.4%), talked about it “often” (14.8%), or their advisor actively provided support (22.2%). For just over half of participants, mentoring support in nonacademic areas met their needs and expectations (n = 15, 57.7%), while the rest wished they had received more support from their mentor on nonacademic issues (n = 11, 42%), with no statistically significant difference compared to domestic students (see Table 7).

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%

Program climate

Tables 8 and 9 show participants’ responses regarding the climate, safety, and inclusiveness of their doctoral programs. International students overall reported feeling their program was welcoming and accepting of those from all backgrounds and sexually safe without fear of sexual harassment or misconduct. In fact, the mean scores of international students feeling welcome (4.48 vs. 3.82, d = 1.19, p = .012) and sexually safe (4.56 vs. 4.06, d = 1.16, p = .009) were significantly higher than the scores of domestic students. In addition, international students reported statistically higher averages when asked if their advisor brought up issues regarding diversity and inclusion (d = 1.30, p = .013).

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.

Diversity and inclusion

While international students in general felt welcome and safe and that their advisors and mentors would bring up issues related to diversity and inclusion, 36% reported having experienced or witnessed discrimination in their program. This did not differ significantly from the proportion of domestic students reporting discrimination (42.1%, p = .733). However, there were differences between international and domestic students regarding perceptions of marginalization (p<.001), with one-third of international students identifying membership in traditionally marginalized groups compared to more than half of domestic students; almost half of international students (48%) felt that they “maybe” belonged to marginalized group(s). Among respondents who replied “yes” or “maybe” to being a member of a marginalized group, international students indicated significantly higher agreement that their advisor made insensitive comments to the group(s) they identified with (2.05 vs. 1.31, d = 1.43, p = .017). Furthermore, compared with non-White/marginalized domestic students, international students still reported significantly higher levels of their advisor making insensitive comments (2.05 vs. 1.38, d = 0.97, p = .04). Insensitive comments made by peers also rated higher among international students, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance (p = .074). The significantly higher levels of their advisor making insensitive comments reported by international students warrants attention to address this phenomenon. With respect to whether mentoring should be tailored to the needs of specific groups, domestic students indicated higher levels of support for tailoring mentoring to the needs of specific groups compared to international students (p = .007). This finding could indicate that international students might prefer receiving mentorship similar to other domestic students instead of receiving differential treatment, although findings of the current study did not allow us to understand the reason for these preferences.

Helpful mentoring practices

Table 10 shows respondents’ ratings for the helpfulness of different mentoring practices. The mean scores for international students for all listed practices were at least moderately helpful. The three most helpful mentoring practices were: being available and responsive to communication (M = 4.48); coaching and providing feedback on research, writing, and public-speaking skills (M = 4.40); and helping students understand the culture and expectations of academia (M = 4.32). Showing that the mentor cares about the student and providing emotional support was the only mentoring practice reported as statistically more important for international students compared to domestic students (d = 1.13, p = .047).

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.

Mentoring outcomes and satisfaction

Overall, international students reported a significantly greater level of satisfaction (see Table 11) with their doctoral mentoring compared to domestic students (4.24 vs. 3.58, d = 1.22, p<.001). They were more satisfied with mentoring on academic concerns (M = 4.13), nonacademic concerns (M = 3.71), and diversity and inclusion (M = 4.00), with all differences reaching statistical significance except for nonacademic concerns. Regarding mentoring outcomes, international students reported a high level of self-efficacy that closely matched the scores of domestic students. Finally, regarding indicators of scholarly productivity, international students reported fewer oral conference presentations than domestic students (1.41 vs. 3.07, d = 3.67, p = .042). There were no significant differences between international and domestic students in the number of peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, poster presentations, or external grant awards.

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).

Discussion

This study sought to understand the perceptions and experience of mentoring pertaining to academic, nonacademic, and diversity and inclusion issues among international social work students in research-focused doctoral programs. Overall, international social work doctoral students felt supported and welcomed by mentors. They reported a high level of satisfaction with mentoring that was significantly higher than their domestic counterparts for overall satisfaction, mentoring for academic concerns, and mentoring around diversity and inclusion issues. In addition, international students showed similar levels of self-efficacy and productivity compared to their domestic counterparts, with the sole exception of oral conference presentations, which could be attributed to the lower English language competency among international students (Schneider et al., 2020). However, the findings also indicated several areas in which international students need targeted mentoring support. Table 12 summarizes recommendations for mentoring international students to address the challenges identified in this study.

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.

Academic mentoring

International students reported more stress regarding their coursework, deciding on their research area and methods, developing scholarly writing skills, and learning and deciding on theory/epistemology to support their research. Notably, these academic components occur earlier in a doctoral program when international students may be adjusting to a new culture and academic environment. These components also tend to require a high level of English proficiency, which may make these components more stressful to some international students (Khanal & Gaulee, 2019). In addition to language barriers, cultural differences may add to the stress experienced by international students. Coursework, theory, and epistemological approaches are often deeply rooted in the history, values, and priorities of the host country and may not be as familiar to international students. In addition, international students may encounter different teaching styles and expectations around coursework, especially for students accustomed to a more authoritarian pedagogical style with less classroom interaction (Johnston et al., 2013). Existing literature supports the importance of mentoring support in the early stages of a doctoral program, with international students experiencing the first 6 months after arrival as the most stressful (Hirai et al., 2015). After this initial adjustment period, the high internal motivation needed to move internationally may help counteract the effects of stress (Lee et al., 2017); in fact, the findings showed that by the candidacy and dissertation phases international students reported less stress than their domestic counterparts.

Targeted mentoring support can help international students adjust to the American doctoral education system. For example, mentors might provide references on the history and development of American social welfare policy for international students to read prior to beginning the doctoral program, in addition to support and feedback on academic writing. Offering the option of an MSW–PhD joint program could also be helpful for international doctoral students, even if they have already received a master’s degree in their home country. The 2-year MSW coursework could provide opportunities for international students to comprehensively understand the U.S. social welfare system, clinical treatment models, and service delivery systems. Also, despite demonstrating a satisfactory level of English proficiency on the Test of English as a Foreign Language or other tests, many international students may still struggle with advanced communication in English, especially in their first year. To encourage international students to actively engage in the classroom, instructors should consider allowing more time to organize their thoughts in classroom discussions, while also fostering a respectful and supportive environment to forestall embarrassment about their accent or the moment of “silence” before responding to questions. Mentors of international doctoral students should also be aware of the explicit and implicit bias in their own assessment of their mentees’ academic potential and capability. International students’ accent, lack of fluency, unfamiliarity with idioms, and awkward sentence structures in writing could all be misjudged by mentors as a lack of academic competence and could impede mentor–mentee bonding and even limit the opportunities that mentors provide to their international mentees. Mentoring international students requires mentors to conduct mindful observation regarding their personal bias and their mentees’ strengths so they can create a safe holding environment for their mentees to grow.

Nonacademic mentoring

Overall, the reported levels of stress and mentoring needs for nonacademic issues were similar between international and domestic students on most assessed nonacademic components, with a few important exceptions. International students actually reported less stress related to feelings of inadequacy or imposter syndrome and competing demands on time. Because international students are mostly in the United States on their own and not with their family and are not permitted to work outside the university, it is understandable that they would have less distraction and fewer competing demands on their time compared to their domestic counterparts. While international students in social work doctoral programs might struggle with language barriers or acculturation issues, they are also likely to be the “cream of the crop” in their home country to come to the United States for a PhD in social work, which might explain their lower level of feelings of inadequacy despite their struggles.

However, international students reported more effect from moving to a new place, feeling unsafe, and memories triggered by coursework or research. The effect of moving and feeling less safe compared to domestic students is understandable, as many international students are on their own in an unfamiliar environment, at least at the beginning of their study. However, further research should explore the extent to which feeling unsafe may be related to antiimmigrant rhetoric, xenophobia, and racism in students’ new communities. Practical support and orientation for international students, such as advice on housing arrangements or connecting international students with domestic students to build a sense of community may help mitigate feeling unsafe due to social isolation and dealing with an unfamiliar environment. Regarding memories triggered by coursework or research, international students may have mental health concerns, including posttraumatic stress disorder, which may cause them to be more triggered by memories of negative past events (Hyun et al., 2007). These students may also have been more directly affected by events they are researching—such as war, violence, or famine—compared to their domestic counterparts. Trauma-informed mentoring, such as being knowledgeable about the likelihood of retraumatization and providing appropriate precautions, may help students who select potentially triggering research topics. Also, mentors and advisors play a vital role in supporting international students when distressing events are actively occurring in the students’ home country (Dessoff, 2011). Evidence suggests that graduate students with a stronger relationship with their advisor or mentor are less likely to report mental health concerns and more likely to seek counseling (Hyun et al., 2007).

Diversity and inclusion

International students overall reported positive mentoring experiences pertaining to diversity and inclusion. They perceived their doctoral programs as welcoming and accepting toward students and faculty from all backgrounds, felt sexually safe without fear of sexual harassment or misconduct, and reported that their advisor/mentor brought up issues regarding diversity and inclusion in social work academia. Compared to domestic students, international students were somewhat more likely to indicate that the same mentoring experience should be provided to all students, rather than tailoring mentoring to the needs of their group(s), indicating that they might not prefer differential treatment based on their status as international students. Despite their overall positive mentoring experiences, 36% of international students did report witnessing or experiencing discrimination in their programs. Also, significantly more international students than domestic students in general and domestic students reporting marginalized status in particular perceived that their mentor made insensitive or belittling comments toward the group(s) with whom they identified, which suggests intentional or unintentional microaggressions coming from mentors and advisors.

Perceived discrimination and a lack of feeling safe have negative consequences for international students. Ramos et al. (2016) found that international students in the United Kingdom who perceived discrimination experienced a perceived lack of permeability into the mainstream culture, resulting in avoidance of the host society and culture. Further, Xiong et al. (2020) found that the majority of international students experienced race-based victimization due to their ethnic origin. Although mentoring could mediate the negative effect of microaggressions on poor mental health outcomes for certain doctoral student populations (Vaishnav, 2020), the potential for students to experience microaggressions directly from their advisor/mentor must be proactively addressed within the doctoral program. One helpful strategy is for the doctoral program to provide implicit bias training for faculty to both increase cultural awareness and avoid unintentional harm.

Mentoring needs

The mentoring needs and helpful mentoring practices reported by international students were very similar to those of domestic students. However, international students indicated greater importance for mentors to show they care for students and provide emotional support. This finding could be related to international students coming from more collectivistic cultures with an increased focus on relationships, as well as a life context that may include living on their own in an unfamiliar country. As such, a relational-based mentoring style may be especially beneficial for international students.

Both international and domestic students ranked “preparing for and entering the job market” as a high stress and high need area for mentoring support. However, the challenges encountered by international students are likely to differ from domestic students. First, nonresident students will need hiring institutions to sponsor them for a H1-B working visa for them to be legally employed in the United States. In addition to this legal requirement, international students had significantly fewer years of post-MSW experience compared to their domestic counterparts (2.91 years vs. 5.89 years), which may put them at a disadvantage in the academic job market. Lightfoot and Zheng (2020) found that 79% of tenure-track social work positions included post-MSW practice experience as a requirement for applying for the position. It may be beneficial for international students to gain practice experience during their PhD program (Lightfoot et al., 2019), although it must be acknowledged that this may be difficult alongside the research and teaching demands of a doctoral program and given the limits on outside employment for international students. The financial effect of COVID-19 on academic institutions is also likely to have a negative effect on the already tightening job market (Lightfoot & Zheng, 2020). As such, providing mentoring support to international students on navigating the job market is of crucial importance.

Limitations

Limitations of this study need to be acknowledged. First, findings of this study only represent mentoring experiences and perceptions of international students in PhD programs and not Doctor of Social Work programs. Second, the response rate of the current study was around 10% of the total doctoral student population in PhD programs (180 from 1,885 PhD students) and 11.8% of international students (30 from 254 international students; CSWE, 2020), which is relatively low. Because the study reached out to doctoral students via their program directors and the study did not have contact information for students, we could not adopt procedures including personalized, repeated contact using multiple modes or incentives to increase the response rates (Millar & Dillman, 2011). However, student demographics of the current study are comparable to the PhD student demographics collected by the CSWE Annual Survey (CSWE, 2020). Third, the majority of international students of this study were from Asia (71.4%), so their perceptions and experiences might not represent mentoring trends among other groups of international students. Fourth, the data of the study are based on respondents’ self-report. While self-report is a widely used and valid data collection method, it is important to acknowledge the potential effect of acquiescence bias on the results of this study. Acquiescence bias can be an issue in cross-cultural research, with some respondents being more likely to state agreement rather than disagreement for a variety of reasons (Johnson et al., 2005). The majority of the international students in this study come from Asian countries that may place greater importance on maintaining harmony and not disagreeing with authority figures; this is often referred to as “courtesy bias” among Asian populations and could have influenced the findings regarding higher satisfaction with mentoring for international students compared to domestic students. Finally, while findings of the current survey describe perceptions and experiences with mentoring among international students, the findings did not allow us to explain the underlying factors influencing their perceptions or experience.

Considering the limitations of the current study, future research should (a) use a larger, representative sample of international students from different regions of the world; (b) adopt established methods to increase the response rate; (c) build in steps to address social desirability bias (Jones, 1993) or conduct subgroup analyses to separate experiences and perceptions of different groups; and (d) conduct follow-up using qualitative methods to further explore the underlying factors influencing international students’ perceptions and experiences with mentoring.

Conclusion

While international students make up a substantial percentage of social work doctoral students, there is a significant gap in the current literature regarding their specific concerns and mentoring needs. International students bring diverse perspectives and experience to strengthen social work knowledge and research. They may also take social work knowledge and skills back to their home countries after graduation and contribute to the development of social work around the globe. Findings from this study affirm the mentoring efforts of most social work doctoral programs as international students reported high satisfaction regarding their mentoring experiences and showed a similar level of productivity as domestic students. However, the study also highlights specific stressors and academic and nonacademic mentoring needs among international students, including a desire for a more relational-based mentoring approach. Despite overall positive ratings related to diversity and inclusion, instances of microaggressions and insensitive comments from mentors and advisors should be actively addressed by doctoral programs. We hope the findings of this study will generate useful dialog and reflection among social work doctoral programs pertaining to beneficial mentoring practices to ensure the success and well-being of international students.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mo Yee Lee

Mo Yee Lee is Professor and PhD Program Director at Ohio State University. Xiafei Wang is Assistant Professor at Syracuse University. Jaclyn Kirsch is PhD Candidate at Ohio State University. Ray Eads is Assistant Professor at University of Illinois Chicago.

Xiafei Wang

Mo Yee Lee is Professor and PhD Program Director at Ohio State University. Xiafei Wang is Assistant Professor at Syracuse University. Jaclyn Kirsch is PhD Candidate at Ohio State University. Ray Eads is Assistant Professor at University of Illinois Chicago.

Jaclyn Kirsch

Mo Yee Lee is Professor and PhD Program Director at Ohio State University. Xiafei Wang is Assistant Professor at Syracuse University. Jaclyn Kirsch is PhD Candidate at Ohio State University. Ray Eads is Assistant Professor at University of Illinois Chicago.

Ray Eads

Mo Yee Lee is Professor and PhD Program Director at Ohio State University. Xiafei Wang is Assistant Professor at Syracuse University. Jaclyn Kirsch is PhD Candidate at Ohio State University. Ray Eads is Assistant Professor at University of Illinois Chicago.