Case study of a pilot mentoring program in transdisciplinary sciences

ABSTRACT

We conducted a case study on the implementation of an adult mentoring program designed to connect land-grant university graduate students who participated in a transdisciplinary and multi-institutional research project withindustry professionals for the purpose of exposing students to industry practices. Seven mentees and six mentors participated in the study. We employed the theory of planned behavior to inform findings regarding participants’ behavioral, normative, and control beliefs surrounding professional performance and goal attainment. Program outcomes were positive for student career development, for example expanding graduate students’ professional networks and sharing research findings with industry professionals. However, the COVID-19 pandemic hindered the mentoring program’s success by adding stress and travel restrictions that prevented full engagement in the program by all parties. Recommendations for improving the program’s success include providing participants with better support mechanisms for initiatingmentoring relationships and encouraging mentees to develop coping mechanisms when faced with cognitive overload and communication apprehension.

KEYWORDS:

• Early career mentoring
• case study
• theory of planned behavior
• communication apprehension
• cognitive overload
• COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

As professional organizations evolve in a rapidly changing environment, there is an increasing need for more effective approaches to enhance employees’ interpersonal communication, technical skill development, and professionalism (Marabesi & Kelsey, 2020; Othman & Senom, 2019). Mentoring relationships hold the potential to address employees’ professional development and should be emphasized to increase the success of early career professionals (Ferguson & Ellis, 2022; Marabesi & Kelsey, 2020; Sneyers & De Witte, 2018). Higher education and work-place mentoring programs are framed as a structure for providing guidance and constructive feedback to support professional development and career enhancement for both mentors and mentees (Ferguson & Ellis, 2022; Kumar & Johnson, 2017; Macrina, 2014; Menges, 2016).

Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) states that one’s behavior is guided by one’s beliefs about the likely consequences of a determined behavior (behavioral beliefs), the expectations of others (normative beliefs), and factors that may facilitate or hinder performance of the behavior (control beliefs). Behavior is guided by one’s intention, which can be predictable, deliberative, and planned (Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, a mentee’s motivation and desire to learn stimulate the formation of a belief system which projects their intentions, and ultimately their behavior towards career development and professional obligations.

Given the benefits of mentoring relationships, we (the evaluation team) created a formal mentoring program in 2020 to support the professional growth and development of graduate students involved in a transdisciplinary and multi-institutional research project. We paired seven graduate students with six high achieving industry professionals in the horticultural industry and established the need for the program based on previous research suggesting that students did not have adequate exposure to industry-related experiences, thereby gaining employment competencies for non-academic jobs. The research reported here is a case study of the mentoring program from inception to implementation.

Review of literature

The essence of professional mentoring is the transfer of knowledge, experience, and wisdom from mentors to mentees to positively influence their careers (Janssen, Tahitu, Vuuren, & de Jong, 2016; Johnson, 2016; Macrina, 2014). Adult mentoring involves directed efforts of an experienced mentor who invests time and knowledge to provide early career support to mentees to improve their knowledge, skills, and facilitate professional growth (Johnson, 2016; Macrina, 2014; Menges, 2016). Regardless of discipline, mentoring is important to the success and productivity of early career professionals (Curtin, Malley, & Stewart, 2016; Ferguson & Ellis, 2022; Marabesi & Kelsey, 2020).

DuBois and Silverthorn (2005) and Rhodes and DuBois (2008) posited that there was a significant association between mentoring relationships and positive developmental outcomes between mentors and young adults. These outcomes were found in the context of academic improvement, emotional and psychological well-being, physical health, employment, and career development (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002). Similarly, Ferguson and Ellis (2022) echoed the associated significant improvement of mentees’ academic performance and scholastic efficacy. Mentors and mentees who engaged in a mentoring program with realistic goals were likely to be involved in collaborative sharing of knowledge and learning centered on the mentee’s career development goals (Macrina, 2014; Marabesi & Kelsey, 2020; Sneyers & De Witte, 2018). Additional benefits of mentoring include creating a link between academic and professional environments to enhance professional collaborations, facilitating communication and openness, developing new skills, and sharing experiences (Allen & O’Brien, 2006; Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006a, 2006b; Curtin, Malley, & Stewart, 2016; Law et al., 2019; Macrina, 2014; Menges, 2016). However, there are some challenges associated with mentoring, especially in formal environments, including relational problems, mismatch of personalities, loss of interest in work or association, and depression (Katz, Elsaesser, Klodnik, & Khare, 2019; Law et al., 2019; Menges, 2016).

Career readiness encompasses the different abilities and attributes required by students to successfully navigate the labor market and contemporary working environment (Campbell & Price, 2016; Jackson, 2018). Achieving career readiness often stimulates the need for mentoring. Mentees enter mentoring programs to gain understanding and skills necessary to navigate through their chosen career paths. Hence, mentees generally choose their mentors based on the similarities they possess in terms of profession, area of specialization, academic background, personality, and beliefs (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006b; Menges, 2016; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003). Career readiness is often revealed in mentees’ preparedness and willingness to learn and their commitment to achieving their career goals, factors that attune the mentor’s commitment in favor of such individuals (Allen & Eby, 2003). However, it is important for both mentors and mentees to collectively balance their mentoring activities to prevent cognitive overload, which occurs when one’s cognitive processing ability is overwhelmed (Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Sorden, 2013).

Theoretical framework

The study was underpinned by Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior, which explains one’s intention to act. Internal and external factors hinder or facilitate performance of a given behavior. These factors encompass one’s behavioral beliefs (physical or emotional outcomes), normative beliefs (social support systems), and control beliefs (presence or absence of performance enhancing or impeding factors). One’s behavioral beliefs give rise to an attitude towards the behavior (positive or negative), one’s normative beliefs lead to perceived social pressure (subjective norms), while self-efficacy is the perceived product of control beliefs. Perceived behavioral control moderates the impact of one’s attitude towards a behavior and the subjective norm on intention to act. For example, if a person has a positive attitude, realistic subjective norms, and perceived control of a situation, they are more likely engage in the intended behavior. Thus, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and attitude towards a behavior can serve as predictors for a given behavior, such as engaging in a mentoring program (Ajzen, 1991, 2012, 2019; Huart et al., 2022; Nabi, Walmsley, & Akhtar, 2021).

Mentoring programs are designed to enhance and encourage positive attitudes, norms, and control in the workplace, leading to greater productivity among entry-level employees (Ajzen, 2019; Huart et al., 2022). For example, mentors might provide mentees with insider information including the expected ethics and conduct required within the industry, advice on how to prioritize their resources to satisfy the requirements of industry, and follow-up feedback on assigned tasks. In addition, mentees might consider their career goal and aspirations, align their time and resources to synchronize with the mentors’ schedules, and be willing to carry out instructions and delegated duties from the mentors (Macrina, 2014). However, not all mentees will execute their newly formed intentions. If any of the beliefs, which are premised on available information, does not project the likelihood of a positive change nor provide the mentees with adequate control over their behavior, such may be abandoned mid-way or rejected outright (Ajzen, 2019; Huart et al., 2022).

The derivable knowledge from the mentoring program was expected to help students make well informed decisions about their careers and establish quality networks with senior professionals. By applying the theory of planned behavior to the mentoring program, we aimed at understanding behavioral, normative, and control beliefs of the mentees. These factors were reported to influence participants’ intentions and behaviors within mentoring programs as well as their goal attainment and performance (Curtin, Malley, & Stewart, 2016; Huart et al., 2022; Nabi, Walmsley, & Akhtar, 2021).

Purpose of the study

The need for the study stemmed from previous research that identified a lack of interaction between graduate students and industry professionals within a transdisciplinary and multi-institutional research project (Marabesi & Kelsey, 2020). Graduate students reported feeling unprepared when applying for industry jobs, therefore the mentoring program was established in 2020 to address these gaps. After the program was established and had been in operation for two semesters, we conducted a formative evaluation using case study methods. We asked: a) was the mentoring program designed and implemented effectively, b) what were the outcomes of the mentoring program, and c) how did the COVID-19 pandemic impact the program implementation and outcomes?

Methods

Research design

Single intrinsic case study method (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Stake, 1995) was used to complete the study. Case studies are best suited to examine ‘real-life, contemporary bounded systems’ (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 96). Some of the metrics to be considered while evaluating mentoring program effectiveness include program process outcomes, participants’ experiences and perceptions outcomes, and organizational effect outcomes (Gilbreath, Rose, & Dietrich, 2008; Kirchmeyer, 2005; Raposa et al., 2019). We employed participant observations, personal narratives, and descriptive data to develop assertions and report the outcomes and impacts of the mentoring program.

We also employed analytic autoethnography (Hughes & Pennington, 2017; Maréchal, 2010; Poerwandari, 2021), a form of qualitative research that captures the author’s experiences as a participant in the program. Analytic autoethnography entails self-observation and reflexive journaling in the context of doing field work. I (lead author) was a member of the mentoring program as well as a member of the evaluation team. I engaged in analytic reflexivity by creating space for my narrative within the context of the study. My role went beyond participant observation, as I was entwined as an insider in the cultural and social context of the study.

Description of the case

The case was bound by: a) a single mentoring program offered through a land-grant university academic department, b) time, commencing fall 2020 when the program was implemented and concluding fall 2021 after one year of implementation, and c) subjects, participants of the case included seven graduate students and six industry professionals that were paired in a mentoring relationship. The goals of the program were to: a) help graduate students make professional connections, b) understand the industry better, and c) prepare them for roles in industry.

Pairs were assigned based on research interests of the participants and was facilitated by the evaluation team. Both mentors and mentees were given a short booklet explaining positive steps to take to build the professional relationship. Mentors were instructed to meet with their mentees regularly and to guide them through identifying their career goals and building a professional development plan to achieve those goals. Due to COVID-19 restrictions imposed by the university, the majority of interactions between the pairs occurred virtually.

Population and sample

We invited all graduate students (N = 22) and industry professionals (N = 11) associated with the project to participate in the mentoring program as well as the study (census sampling). Seven students (n = 7) volunteered for the mentoring program and were matched with six (n = 6) industry representatives (one mentor worked with two mentees). Six mentees and three mentors agreed to participate in an interview for the study.

Four graduate students who did not participate in the program agreed to be interviewed regarding their reasons for not joining the program to serve as negative case examples. Participants’ pseudonyms, professional roles, degree status, and major are presented in Table 1. The matched pairs are listed on the same line. John mentored two students, Pam and Leo.

Table 1. Mentors’ professional role, mentees’ degree status and major, and matched pairs.

Mentee	Major	Mentor	Profession
Joe	Ph.D. student in Horticulture	Maya	Science and research programs director at horticultural institution
Bob	Ph.D. student in Horticulture	Chris	Grower and greenhouse owner
Eva	Ph.D. student in Horticulture	Scott	Retired faculty, consultant
Dan	Ph.D. student in Horticulture	Jose	Senior technical and research manager at horticultural company
Pam	M.S. student in Horticulture	John	Chief science officer at horticultural company
Leo	Ph.D. student in Horticulture	John	Chief science officer at horticultural company
Sam	M.S. student in Horticulture	Cara	Grower and greenhouse owner
Mary	Nonparticipant: M.S. student in Electrical Engineering
Noah	Nonparticipant: Ph.D. student in Horticulture
Kate	Nonparticipant: Ph.D. student in Horticulture
Anna	Nonparticipant: Ph.D. student in Horticulture

Data collection

Participants were made aware of the program through monthly team meetings. They were then recruited into the mentoring program by email. After agreeing to participate in the program, participants were then invited to participate in the case study by email. Institutional Review Board approval was granted for the exempt study prior to contact with study participants. Informed consent was ensured by sending a consent letter via email prior to data collection and verbally affirming consent prior to conducting the interviews. Participants’ involvement in the study consisted of an online (Zoom Video Communications, Inc.) or telephone interview with the lead author to learn more about their experiences in the mentoring program. The interviews took place in summer 2021 and lasted approximately one hour each.

The interviews were guided by an interview protocol that was developed by the authors to address the research questions. The interview questions were developed based on the goals of the study and by the literature regarding early career aspirations. The interview protocol was validated by the research team for face and content validity. Sample questions included, among others: a) please describe your experiences participating in the mentoring program, b) how did the mentoring program contribute to your research agenda? c) reflecting your experiences as a participant, what were some highlights of this program? d) please describe any challenges you experienced while participating in the mentoring program.

The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim utilizing Otter.ai (Lang, 2020). The interview transcripts were cleaned by reviewing the oral recordings with the written transcripts and identifiers were eliminated. The transcripts were then sent back to participants for member checking (Tracy, 2010). After participants reviewed the transcripts, they were uploaded into ATLAS.ti (version 8.0), a qualitative data analysis software (Friese, 2019) for analysis.

Data were analyzed by first generating a code book reflecting identifying statements that addressed the research questions. Codes were employed to reduce the verbatim transcripts into clusters of significant statements through horizontalization (Table 2) (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Further refinement of significant statements generated themes that were triangulated with participant observations and descriptive data to form conclusions (Saldaña, 2016).

Table 2. Themes and respective code clusters.

Themes	Codes
What you get out of the program depends on what you put into it	Beneficial experiences for mentors and mentees
	Expanding social networks
	Unique experiences
	Students need to put in the effort
	Time commitment
Mentoring amidst a pandemic	The program started during a pandemic
	Travel restrictions and lack of funding
	Anxiety and cognitive overload
Connecting mentors and mentees	Mentees pick mentors
	Support material for mentors
	Seasonality of horticultural production

Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness was enhanced by long term engagement in the field by the authors (three years), by visiting with project faculty, staff, and participants, providing thick descriptions of participants’ experiences in the findings, and closeness of the authors to participants allowing for ‘probing to obtain detailed meanings’ (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 253). We corroborated evidence through triangulation of multiple forms of data, including participant observation, personal narratives, and documents associated with the project. We clarified research bias and engaged in reflexivity by practicing peer debriefing and bracketing throughout the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

To ensure that the study was also viewed through participants’ lenses, we shared the interview transcripts and a draft of the study manuscript for member checking to enhance the validity of our conclusions. We also engaged in prolonged observations in the field (three years) as founding members of the project. We collaborated with participants as members of the project, classmates, and colleagues (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Tracy, 2010).

Findings

Autoethnography: an insider’s view of the mentoring program

The mentoring program was an important aspect of my (first author) professional development. Over the last year, I was mentored by Dr. Scott, a retired university horticultural professor who worked as a consultant with the floriculture industry. He was a remarkable mentor as he fully engaged in his mentoring role. For example, Dr. Scott invited me to visit two ornamental plant nurseries and one cannabis growing operation where he consulted. As a former university professor, Dr. Scott was skilled at teaching and ensured I received educational and technical skills from each site visit and worked to grow my professional skills.

During the site visits, I was able to meet and interact with company owners and managers. I was exposed to new ideas and processes such as the work routine within a big company and the management of a horticultural business. I experienced the professional world outside of academia and appreciated seeing the practical implications of research developed by university faculty and students. For instance, during a visit to an ornamental plant nursery, the company’s owners asked Dr. Scott some questions regarding what light fixtures to purchase for specific planned lighting situations. Dr. Scott said we could benefit from other team members’ input on the matter and asked me to reach out to the researchers to get their recommendations. This was an important experience because I was able to initiate a discussion about the company’s needs. Once consensus was reached, Dr. Scott proposed an adequate lighting strategy to the company’s owner. Furthermore, I met many industry professionals and expanded my social network. These experiences contributed to the development of my Ph.D. dissertation as I was able to discuss my ideas with industry professionals and get their feedback during the site visits.

The mentoring program was not only about gaining scientific knowledge, but the experiences also enabled me to better understand the pragmatic application of my academic lessons. Indeed, these experiences gave me an appreciation for the work done at universities and exposed me to many job possibilities that exist outside of academia. I still do not know what path I will take after graduation, but I feel more confident and able to succeed professionally, either in industry or academia. My successful experiences with the mentoring program align with Theme 1 (what you get out of the program depends on what you put into it). It should be noted that I self-funded all travel as COVID-19 restrictions disallowed university sponsored travel.

Theme 1: what you get out of the program depends on what you put into it

The mentoring program started off in good form. When the idea was initially suggested by an advisory board member during the annual project meeting, students and industry professionals were supportive and excited about the idea. It was received as a good opportunity for graduate students and a positive addition for industry professionals. However, when it came time for students to select a mentor and engage in mentoring experiences, their interest waned. Dr. Jose, a senior technical and research manager at a horticultural company, suggested the development of the program and volunteered to be a mentor. When asked about the low student involvement, he said, ‘We thought this was going to be spontaneous.’

Meeting new people and developing a relationship with them is challenging, especially during a pandemic. However, expanded social networks have a direct correlation to one’s social capital and is seen as an ‘investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace’ (Lin, 2001, p. 19). Team members from many states won a $5 M federal grant due to their social capital, which had been developed through social networks. Therefore, providing graduate students with similar networking opportunities to interact with industry professionals could have a positive impact on their career path (Marabesi & Kelsey, 2020). Besides the scientific knowledge acquired through being exposed to different types of growing operations, Dr. Jose said, ‘My deep motivated belief in the mentoring program is that it allows students to learn a very important skill set, which is how you develop a relationship with someone you don’t know.’

For some mentors and their respective mentees, building rapport happened easily. Pam, a second-year master student, and her mentor Dr. John had a positive experience working together. Dr. John said the relationship was ‘30% beneficial to me and 70% beneficial to the mentee through the program.’ Dr. John held the position of chief science officer at a horticultural company. He invited Pam to present her master’s research virtually to his employees, around 50 senior scientists. Her presentation was well received, and she was engaged in meaningful dialog surrounding her ideas. Dr. John said, ‘It was a good deal.’ They met weekly via Zoom to talk about her professional development plan, which she created with his guidance.

Dr. John also served as Leo’s mentor, a first-year Ph.D. student. Establishing rapport with Leo was impeded because he would not reply to Dr. John’s emails. Dr. John said Leo should reach out and take initiative. In the same matter, Dr. Scott said,

People that were selected to be a part of this project serving as advisory committee members [i.e., industry professionals] were selected because of their professional accomplishments. They are busy people. They are willing to help out. The student needs to take the initiative, even if they get turned down once or twice, they need to keep going at it.

Eventually, after several promptings during team meetings, Leo engaged with Dr. John and they met on a weekly basis. Leo reported feeling confused about his career plans. Dr. John helped him to think about his professional goals and to create a professional development plan. Leo said, ‘I have a direction that I can follow now, which is great.’ He also recognized the importance of connecting with industry members, so they can inform students about industry needs and what future academic research should focus on.

Overall, mentors reported enjoying sharing their decades of experience with the students and learning from them as well. Nevertheless, mentors agreed that students needed to take charge of the mentoring relationship. Dr. Jose said, ‘There is a certain responsibility of the mentee to engage. Otherwise, it’s not really a mentoring situation, it’s a supervision situation.’

Sam, a second-year master student, was matched with Cara, a grower and greenhouse owner. They met once virtually. When asked why, Sam said, ‘It was that lower priority thing and it just kept getting pushed to the side.’ Dan, a third year Ph.D. student, reported being aware that the mentoring program was an extracurricular activity that would benefit him; however, he did not believe that the mentoring program would facilitate his progress in the graduate program.

Anna was interviewed regarding her choice not to participate in the mentoring program. She mentioned having a lot of coursework to complete over the previous year and not being able to spend additional time with the mentoring program. At the time of the interview, she had just finished her coursework and requested to be matched with an industry professional. She reported not knowing whether she wanted to work in academia or industry, therefore, connecting with industry leaders sounded like a great idea. Noah was also interviewed regarding his nonparticipation in the program. He said, ‘Initially, I did not have time, time is a big limitation, because I am a graduate student plus full-time employee, so I have limited time to do other stuff.’ Because Noah wanted to pursue an industry position after he graduated, he decided to participate in the mentoring program only during the final year of his graduate program. Regarding graduate students’ career planning, Dr. Jose said, ‘No one thinks about the next step until they are at the end [of their graduate programs], basically standing on the edge of the cliff. And now they have to decide.’

Indeed, most of the students reported having a heavy workload and reported that cognitive overload hindered their participation in the mentoring program. Although all of them said that the program was a good resource, most could not fit one more commitment into their schedules. Mary, a second-year master student, talked about her reasons for not joining the mentoring program and the strategies she adopted to expand her professional network. She said,

I think it is a little time consuming. I like to have relationships other than in academia but I prefer to handle those relationships and the time myself. I do not like to be in a program that says, you have to meet with your mentor, you have to set a time to do that. Now that I am looking for jobs, I do networking in [social media] and I think it is really helpful. I have met a lot of people in industry and talked to them. I prefer to build this relationship on my own rather than participating in a specific program just because of time and because it would not be flexible.

Dr. Jose emphasized the importance of developing time management skills during a graduate program, as ‘time is the only asset that you personally can manage.’ Regarding the low engagement of graduate students in the program, he said, ‘Time has a value proposition attached to it. If [students] do not perceive that investing their time in this activity is going to return them value, they are not going to do it.’

In summary, this theme stressed the value of time for participants and non-participants alike. While some students invested their time in the mentoring program, others decided against it so they could prioritize their academic responsibilities. Those who did engage in the mentoring program benefited by receiving support to clarify their career aspirations and learned more about the horticultural industry from insiders’ perspectives.

Theme 2: mentoring amidst a pandemic

The mentoring program was recognized as a valuable resource by students and industry professionals who engaged in the program. Nevertheless, some external factors influenced the program’s efficacy. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent university policy restricting travel and face-to-face meetings negatively impacted the program outcomes. In fact, the mentoring program was rolled out at the same time as most states established lockdowns (March 2020). Therefore, the entire program was delivered during a pandemic (fall 2020 to fall 2021). Although universities reopened in various stages throughout the year, students were faced with travel restrictions, changes in course formats, delays in research, and a number of other burdensome circumstances that added to their ambient stress, defined as undesirable physical environmental need that requires an individual to alter their habitual patterns of behavior (Carr & Umberson, 2013). Students in this case study reported being at full cognitive load, defined as a substantial cognitive processing of information during learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2003), thus, having little capacity to undertake additional activities.

It has been well documented that the COVID-19 pandemic increased people’s level of anxiety and depression (Santomauro et al., 2021). We found that Sam and Kate were anxious and suffered from cognitive overload. They reported not having enough ‘energy’ to engage with people they did not know. Sam said that if it was not for the pandemic, he and his assigned mentor would have had a productive set of conversations but he felt overwhelmed by having too many virtual meetings and was unwilling to invest in a new relationship. Kate reported experiencing communication apprehension. She said it was emotionally difficult and intimidating to connect with someone who had a different professional background, especially because she was not sure how she could benefit from the mentoring program. Communication anxiety, which is defined as discomfort associated with communicating with an individual, could lead to communication apprehension, defined as one’s reluctance to converse or shorten such conversations as a type of avoidance (Booth-Butterfield, Chory, & Beynon, 1997; Zhao, Segalowitz, Voloshyn, Chamoux, & Ryder, 2021).

In our case, the COVID-19 pandemic circumstances prevented students from meeting with their mentors face-to-face. As the project was a multi-institutional team, project members were spread out across the U.S. Dr. Scott said, ‘If you’re trying to tie the student with someone in the industry, they need to be able to get to know the industry and to get to the location,’ emphasizing the importance of having practical and applied experiences outside the university. Sam said he would have liked to be in geographic proximity with his mentor so they could meet in person and to avoid the cost of travel. Dr. Scott suggested that there should be a university-supplied budget to help students with travel costs after travel restrictions are lifted.

In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic interfered with the successful implementation of the mentoring program by adding ambient stress and cognitive overload to students’ lives, leading to their lack of desire to initiate new professional relationships. In addition, the university travel ban prohibited students from traveling to meet with their mentors. It was suggested that funding should be provided to students to meet with their mentors at least once during the year.

Theme 3: connecting mentors and mentees

Connecting mentors and mentees was aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic and inhibited the development of professional relationships. Most students were only able to talk with their mentors via e-mail and/or video calls. For many, this situation was discouraging and, along with other factors, hindered their participation in the program. Establishing rapport can be challenging, especially when the only means of interaction is virtual. Several studies have addressed virtual mentoring and found it to be effective when face-to-face meetings are disallowed; however, this mode was found to be less than ideal (Ensher, Heun, & Blanchard, 2003; Kumar & Johnson, 2017).

Furthermore, according to Dr. John, allowing mentees to select their mentors may better facilitate the process as students would be more invested in building a relationship with someone they had selected. The mentoring program was implemented by the project evaluation team, who worked with the principal investigator to match students with industry representatives based on students’ research interests and availability. Hence, students did not choose their mentors. For instance, Bob, a third-year Ph.D. student, reported that his mentor worked in a sector that was not closely related to his research interests. Although his mentor provided him with helpful feedback on his research, their different interests hindered engagement.

Another issue regarding successful mentoring relationships was brought up by Dr. Scott. He said, ‘Not everyone that is in industry is good at mentoring. It would make sense to draw up a list of expectations of the industry individuals.’ The evaluation team distributed a document to participants containing information regarding expectations of mentors and mentees and a suggested protocol for interaction at the beginning of the mentoring program. Nevertheless, mentoring skills take time and practice to develop. Additionally, the seasonality of the horticultural sector likely impacted communication between mentors and mentees according to Dr. Scott. There are specific times in the year that industry professionals are busier, therefore, they may have been unavailable to meet with mentees. Nevertheless, Dr. Scott reported benefiting from the mentoring program by helping the next generation of scientists.

In summary, connecting mentors and mentees was stymied by the COVID-19 pandemic and created a disconnect between students and their assigned mentors, who also may have had limited mentoring skills that led to a communication breakdown among several pairs. The seasonality of horticultural production also served as a barrier to communication as growers were required to attend to their crops.

Conclusions, discussion, and recommendations

In conclusion, all participants reported having positive experiences in their mentoring relationships. Four nonparticipating students were interviewed as negative case examples and reported that a lack of time to dedicate to extracurricular activities was the primary barrier to participation. All the participants and nonparticipants in the mentoring program reported experiencing ambient stress and cognitive overload, leading to a lack of time and desire to initiate new professional relationships.

Furthermore, the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic presented many challenges to academics and industry professionals. For instance, the pandemic forced in-person activities to become virtual as social distancing was required by employers and university policy to prevent the spread of the virus, thereby impeding in-person mentoring activities. The COVID-19 pandemic is attributed to a global increase in anxiety and depression, likely affecting the quality of all human interactions (Santomauro et al., 2021).

Positive outcomes of the mentoring program included: a) engaging graduate students with industry professionals, b) creating professional development plans for graduate students, c) sharing academic research with industry professionals and receiving feedback, d) visiting plant nurseries and growing operations, d) expanding graduate students’ professional networks, and f) mentors’ personal satisfaction by helping students to achieve their professional goals.

The findings aligned well with Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior. Positive outcomes resulted from graduate students’ effort toward building professional relationships with their mentors, which was determined by their attitude towards the behavior, their perceived behavior control, and the subjective norms in place (Ajzen, 1991). For example, participants’ attitudes towards the behavior were influenced by the belief that the mentoring program would facilitate career readiness. Their subjective norms were also influenced by their academic advisors, who did or did not encourage students to participate in the mentoring program. Those who were encouraged to engage did so.

Graduate students’ perceived behavior control was influenced by their research schedules, leading them to forgo the program entirely (nonparticipants) or prevented them from putting more effort into building the mentoring relationship (participants). Moreover, anxiety and ambient stress from the COVID-19 pandemic compromised students’ perceived behavior control and hindered their willingness to connect and engage with industry professionals.

The mentees involved in the mentoring program exhibited attributes asserted by Ajzen (1991, 2012, 2019). Some of them saw the need to fully participate in the program while others had reasons not to engage. Since engagement in the program was voluntary, it took concerted efforts and planning on both the mentor’s and mentee’s sides to connect considering geographic limitations, time constraints, and demands associated with their individual situations. Our findings also agreed with Ajzen’s (2012) and Bandura and Adams (1977) theories in that mentees who believed they were capable and had a high sense of perceived control over their time and other resources tended to have higher levels of motivation, self-efficacy, and drive for participating in the mentoring program than nonparticipating peers.

The research reported here provides insights into the dynamics of creating mentoring relationships between graduate students and industry representatives within a transdisciplinary and multi-institutional research team. Recommendations for improving the program’s success include: a) allowing graduate students to choose their mentors so they can take into consideration factors that might enhance their engagement in the mentoring program, such as the mentor’s profession, location, and line of work (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006b; Ensher, Heun, & Blanchard, 2003; Kumar & Johnson, 2017; Macrina, 2014; Menges, 2016; Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003), b) providing mentors with better resources on adult mentoring skills (Macrina, 2014), c) providing mentees with support tools for initiating the mentoring relationships so they can better understand their role and responsibilities as a mentee, d) providing mentees with time management skills, and e) providing mentees with coping mechanisms when faced with cognitive overload, ambient stress, and communication apprehension. Some of these features could be built into a pre-mentoring workshop before matching mentors with mentees, followed by a matching party where all participants could meet socially to get acquainted and self-select their partners.

Stemming from findings of the present and former studies, there is a need for further research focused on examining the internal and external factors that hinder graduate students’ career readiness (Curtin, Malley, & Stewart, 2016) and how the COVID-19 pandemic affected graduated students’ professional lives over time. Means for gauging graduate students’ cognitive load and determining the cognitive demands of virtual mentoring programs should be further explored as well (Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Ribeiro, Ferragi, Trivinho-Strixino, & Cardoso, 2020). The practice of allowing mentors and mentees to choose each other should also be further explored as other studies have reported that mutually selected pairs were more successful than assigned pairs (Jones, Kelsey, & Brown, 2014).

Limitations of the study

Findings from the present research are not generalizable as the case study focused on a small sample of participants from one program. Autoethnography methods are inherently prone to bias as the lead author was also one of the participants in the mentoring program. Nevertheless, we minimized bias by including findings from interviews with other participants and nonparticipants and by practicing intersubjectivity and reflexivity (Poerwandari, 2021).

Acknowledgements

This study was approved by the University of Georgia Institutional Review Board (ID: PROJECT00003197). We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Our work was funded by the USDA, National Institute of Food and Agriculture under the project titled Lighting Approaches to Maximizing Profits Award #2018-51181-28365.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.