Pamela Martínez Oquendo ✉ (School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska Lincoln, and University of Nebraska Omaha STEM Teaching, Research, and Inquiry-based Learning Center) Morgan D. Vogel (Center for Public Affairs Research, University of Nebraska Omaha)
A plethora of research captures undergraduate students' perceptions of faculty mentorship in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). However, more research is necessary to capture the perceptions of STEM faculty about the mentor-mentee relationship. This study aimed to capture the perspectives of STEM faculty toward undergraduate mentorship. We used a case study methodology with six STEM faculty members to answer our research questions. We used the theoretical framework proposed by Crisp and Cruz (2009). We found that the STEM faculty-student mentoring relationship involves strong psychological support.
faculty, undergraduates, STEM, qualitative, perspectives
Accepted for publication: 03 January 2025 Published online: 03 February 2025
© the Author(s) Published by Oxford Brookes University
Faculty-student mentorship is essential for the development of undergraduate students in STEM. The role of faculty often extends beyond providing lectures to students, as we increasingly see faculty provide support to students in terms of mental health and well-being, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic (Flaherty, 2021). Positive faculty-student relationships are vital for increasing retention rates in STEM fields (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2017; 2018). Broadly, positive faculty-student mentorship relationships are crucial for increasing the retention rates of students in the STEM fields.
There is debate about using the word “mentorship” in higher education environments, since faculty mentors may not fulfill the mentorship responsibilities depicted in the literature (e.g., Johnson, 2003; Olson & Nayar-Bhalerao, 2020). Some faculty avoid being role models (Olson & Nayar-Bhalerao, 2020), while others may feel responsible for guiding new scientists. Mentorship requires significant time with no direct impact on tenure, yet faculty may be intrinsically motivated to support students' success (Revelo & Loui, 2016; Schwartz, 2012; Pautz & Vogel, 2020).
Effective mentorship includes psychological and career functions (Kram, 1983; Jacobi, 1991). Multiple studies have shown mentorship has many ramifications (e.g., Crisp & Cruz, 2009; Johnson, 2003), suggesting mentors fulfill multiple roles when engaging with students. The support of faculty can directly impact the university experience of students. Research shows mentorship activities like listening, communication, and career guidance are crucial for providing a positive mentorship experience (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2010; Galbraith & Cohen, 1996; Chan, 2008; Stelter et al., 2020; Johnson, 2002). Faculty mentors often unintentionally influence students' perceived support, ultimately impacting graduation and retention rates in STEM (Olson & Nayar-Bhalerao, 2020), as well as the STEM pipeline.
There are several definitions of mentorship available in the literature (e.g., Galbraith & Cohen,1996; NASEM, 2019); however, we chose to focus on the definition described by Roberts’ (2000) because it emphasizes the developmental growth of mentees. Ultimately, Roberts (2000) defined mentorship as “a formalized process whereby a more knowledgeable and experienced person actuates a supportive role of overseeing and encouraging reflection and learning within a less experienced and knowledgeable person to facilitate that person’s career and personal development” (p. 162).
A plethora of research captures students' perceptions of STEM faculty mentorship (e.g., Aikens et al., 2016; Ceyhan & Tillotson, 2020), but more research is needed on faculty perspectives on mentoring. It is essential to capture and understand why STEM faculty invest in mentorship, despite its time-consuming nature and lack of impact on tenure.
Our study aims to address the following research questions: 1) How do STEM faculty mentor undergraduate students? and 2) Why are STEM faculty motivated to provide mentorship? This study seeks to capture the perspectives of STEM faculty on undergraduate mentorship to support the retention of both students and faculty in higher education.
Faculty mentorship can enhance students’ critical thinking skills (Joshi et al., 2019). Findings from Aikens et al. (2016) showed that faculty can help students interpret the importance of STEM in society, contributing to undergraduates' understanding of their role within humanity. Additionally, students gain knowledge about the unwritten rules of the field through mentorship (Johnson, 2003; Moghe et al., 2021), enabling them to better navigate challenges within STEM.
Davis and Jones (2017) demonstrated that mentorship impacts students' perceived research competence, which can boost mentees' self-confidence to become future STEM professionals. Developing a faculty-student mentorship relationship allows students to have a greater sense of belonging and see themselves as researchers (Davis & Jones, 2020; Moghe et al., 2021). However, the success and retention rates of undergraduates in STEM may depend on the quality of the mentorship (Behar‐Horenstein et al., 2010). The success of these mentorship relationships can rely on various factors, including the personal connection between faculty and students. Faculty-student interactions often extend beyond academics, as students need holistic well-being to succeed in life, not just academic excellence.
Findings from Allen et al. (1997) showed that mentors perceive more benefits than costs when engaging with mentees, such as taking on leadership roles, increased confidence and interpersonal skills, and a sense of fulfillment. However, some faculty get frustrated with undergraduates because of their limited experience, particularly in research settings where students’ inexperience hinders the productivity of the lab group (Dolan & Johnson, 2010). While the limited lab experience of mentees is a direct result of being students, faculty dissatisfaction with mentee performance in the lab may exacerbate a lack of motivation to serve as mentors (Davis et al., 2020).
Faculty feel pressured by institutions to secure grants, as research funding is often necessary for promotions in STEM fields (McKinsey, 2016). Institutions should implement efforts to incentivize faculty mentorship (Davis et al., 2015). A reward system may include financial compensation as an incentive for taking part in mentorship. Institutions may also provide accolades and recognition awards to faculty as a form of appreciation for providing mentorship. Furthermore, institutions can consider granting tenure status to faculty who excel in mentorship. Faculty manage multiple responsibilities, including research and teaching, and institutions should recognize the positive impacts of mentorship by formally adopting structures to incentivize faculty participation in mentoring.
We used the theoretical framework proposed by Crisp and Cruz (2009) to guide our study. To our knowledge, Crisp and Cruz (2009) provide the most up-to-date framework specifically tailored for mentorship within the STEM fields. The framework has been explored in prior mentorship research. (e.g., Crisp, 2008; Crisp, 2009; Nora & Crisp, 2007). Crisp and Cruz (2009) present four mentoring constructs: 1) psychological and emotional support, 2) support for setting goals and choosing a career path, 3) academic subject knowledge support aimed at advancing a student’s knowledge relevant to their chosen field, and (4) specification of a role model (Figure 1).
Psychological and emotional support involves offering moral encouragement, actively listening, problem-solving, and offering assistance. In addition, mentors aim to support the self-confidence of mentees (Estrada et al., 2018; Robnett et al., 2018). As shown by Kram’s 1988 pioneering findings on mentorship, mentors strive to foster a mutually beneficial relationship by receiving feedback from mentees. Mentors and mentees also thrive in scenarios where both parties share the same beliefs, values, and backgrounds (Aikens et al., 2017; Eby et al., 2008; Kricorian et al., 2020).
Support for setting goals and choosing a career path involves helping students navigate careers by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of mentees, to promote the development and professional growth of undergraduates (Montgomery et al., 2014; Montgomery, 2015).
Academic subject knowledge support aims to enhance the mentees’ knowledge about their chosen field (NASEM, 2019), as well as skills to integrate students in STEM (Robnett et al., 2018) and intellectually challenge undergraduates (Freeman et al., 2015; Theobald et al., 2019).
The specification of a role model involves mentors sharing their life experiences to support the development and decision-making processes of mentees about their careers. However, role modeling can also extend to learning from the mentor’s actions and behaviors, which may include problem-solving and maintaining a healthy work-life balance (Bahrami et al., 2022).
Olson and Nayar-Bhalerao (2020) suggested STEM faculty may not fulfill the four constructs proposed by Crisp and Cruz (2009). Higgins and Kram (2001) argue that mentees should avoid worshiping mentors, as this action may have dire consequences on students. It is important for students to develop and eventually gain independence to the point where mentees don’t need mentors anymore to guide them in every step of the way in their personal and professional lives. We argue that STEM faculty can support the four constructs proposed by Crisp and Cruz (2009), since mentors may fulfill many roles. Our argument is based on the intrinsic motivation of STEM faculty to go beyond their research and academic responsibilities to support the development of students.
Based on the theoretical framework constructs proposed by Crisp and Cruz (2009), we propose that STEM faculty who mentor undergraduate students will exhibit the four key mentoring constructs identified by Crisp and Cruz, since faculty aim to provide a holistic mentorship experience to students.
We answered our research questions by using the case study methodology proposed by Yin (2018). A case study is a qualitative method involving the in-depth investigation of a phenomenon. Case studies establish analytical generalizations instead of statistical generalities. The findings of case studies are generalized to theoretical propositions by making argumentative claims. The theoretical proposition for this study was rooted on the purpose of the study, research questions, and literature review. Our theoretical proposition was that STEM faculty will fulfill the four constructs suggested by Crisp and Cruz (2009).
We used a case study approach because we wanted to focus on the “how” and “why” of a social phenomenon. We also recognized that we cannot control the behavior of study participants (Yin, 2003; 2018), and aimed to conduct a study bound by a definition and context related to a phenomenon (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003).
We used the three major phases of case study research design proposed by Yin (2018), including 1) defining and designing the study; 2) preparing, collecting, and analyzing individual data; and 3) analyzing data as a group and concluding. Figure 2 shows the research design for the study.
Our study is bound by the collection of perspectives of STEM faculty mentors in the College of Arts and Sciences from a university in the United States's Midwest region. The selected university is classified as a high research activity institution (R2) by the Carnegie Classifications of Higher Education Institutions. We chose to invite faculty who had a reputation for providing good mentorship to undergraduates. We refrained from inviting faculty that have a reputation for neglecting to provide a good mentorship experience to students. We also abstained from inviting faculty members to participate in the study whom we lacked sufficient information about. We sent a questionnaire via email to the pre-selected faculty asking for basic demographic information. We included the demographic information of participants in Table 1. We used pseudonyms to protect the identity of the participants.
We developed an interview protocol representing the study’s line of inquiry. Interview questions were based on the findings and recommendations for future research from Olson and Nayar-Bhalerao (2020) (see Table 2). The first author conducted semi-structured interviews with participants and transcribed the audio recordings verbatim using a combination of transcription programs and revisions. The average length for interviews was 45 minutes.
Our data analysis was guided by integrating the theoretical framework proposed by Crisp and Cruz (2009) and deductive reasoning. This unified approach was used to develop a unified analytical structure for the study, where both components were implemented in synchrony (Figure 3). This strategy enabled us to perform a comprehensive analysis about the perspectives of STEM faculty on mentorship.
We used the theoretical framework proposed by Crisp and Cruz (2009) and deductive reasoning to guide our analysis. Deductive reasoning was used because our study aimed to trace a theoretical proposition. As O’Leary (2007) explains, “Deductive reasoning moves from general theory down to particular examples” (p. 7). This approach allowed us to examine the data and identify the existence of credible evidence to support our theoretical proposition (Beighton, 2021).
We started with a predefined list of codes derived from the theoretical framework. These codes were used to classify and analyze the data, which was then classified into the following themes:
We analyzed the data by using a constructivist approach (Charmaz, 2014). This approach captures participants' perspectives by co-constructing knowledge and explaining the meaning behind responses (Charmaz, 2006). Ultimately, we aimed to understand the phenomenon of STEM mentorship by interpreting the perspectives of participants.
We assessed the quality of our research by using three criteria: internal validity, internal validity, and reliability. Internal validity involves ensuring that the process and rationale behind how events relate to outcomes are clear and logical. We documented the steps taken and decisions made throughout our analysis process to provide transparency about how our findings were derived from the data. External validity refers to identifying theoretical frameworks that align with the research questions. We ensured that our study aligned with relevant theoretical frameworks to ensure that our findings could be generalized to broader contexts within STEM mentorship. Reliability entails establishing protocols that can enable replicating the study. While case studies are challenging to replicate, we provided detailed instructions about our methodology to enhance the study's replicability, including our coding process, data collection, and analysis.
These steps ultimately allowed us to ensure the credibility of the study's findings, with the purpose of supporting the theoretical proposition that STEM faculty fulfill the four mentoring constructs proposed by Crisp and Cruz (2009).
We triangulated our findings by implementing inter-coder reliability. Inter-coder reliability examines “the degree to which different raters or judges make consistent estimates of the same phenomenon” (Multon & Coleman, 2018, p. 863).We aimed “to assess the extent of agreement between two coders who independently code the same materials using the same coding scheme” (Yan, 2020, p. 2). We used the joint probability method to establish the percent agreement. The percent agreement “is measured by the percent of times two coders agree with each other on their coding decision” (Yan, 2020, p. 3). We used a minimum of 80% agreement as acceptable inter-coder reliability. After solving disagreements through discussion, we reached 96% percent agreement.
The experiences of scholars impact the research process (Peshkin, 2000). We examined how the study influenced us as researchers (Medved & Turner, 2011). Before starting the data collection and analysis, we examined our professional and life experiences. The first author (PMO) reflected on their professional trajectory as an undergraduate student in biology and a Ph.D. candidate in discipline-based education research. As a doctoral student, PMO focused on the faculty-student mentorship relationship in STEM disciplines. PMO collected and analyzed the data being informed by scientific literature focused on mentorship, as well as using their mentorship experience with STEM faculty.
The second author (MDV) reflected on their professional journey as a research faculty member in the social sciences. As a faculty member who oversees graduate research assistants and, therefore, engages in the mentor-student relationship, MDV was intentional to bracket their experiences of being a mentor while coding and reviewing the interview transcripts for this study. Nonetheless, MDV’s professional and life experiences of being a mentor and mentee influenced their understanding and interpretation of the study findings.
Our study was reviewed and determined to be exempt by the Institutional Review Board at the researchers’ university. PMO interviewed the participants after obtaining their informed consent. PMO informed the participants that they could withdraw from the study without impacting the relationship with the researchers or the university. PMO was the only researcher who had access to the demographic information of participants. MDV only had access to the clean and de-identified transcripts.
We used the four mentoring constructs described by Crisp and Cruz (2009) to guide our study, which resulted in four themes: 1) Providing psychological support to students, 2) Elevating the professional independence of students, 3) Supporting the professional path of students, and 4) Learning from the behaviors and actions of faculty. We found that the STEM mentorship involves strong psychological support. The faculty in our sample possessed an inherent motivation to mentor students, which reinforces their commitment to fostering the professional independence of mentees. Faculty perceived it was their responsibility to initiate students in the STEM fields by supporting the chosen career of the mentees, even if the chosen professional path of undergraduates differed from their own. Faculty engaged with students at the personal level. Faculty sought to set an example for students by being true to themselves, inside and outside the university. We use the theoretical framework to identify quotes in the transcripts. The codes evolved during our coding sessions since our participants believed the psychological support of students was intertwined with academic performance. Our findings show the intersection for providing psychological and academic support. We provide a detailed description of the themes below.
Mentorship engagement transcends the academic support faculty provide to students, since mentorship involves providing psychological support (Jacobi, 1991; Kram, 1983). Anastasia expressed that good communication was key for showing students that she cared for their well-being: “I am a good listener. And even though I am busy, I hope that they also find that I am trying to make time for them.” Our participants demonstrated this phenomenon by describing their interactions with mentees. For example, Eric’s statement below suggests that connecting with students on a personal level is crucial in addressing their needs, particularly in times of crisis. It underscores the importance of a human-centered approach to education, which recognizes the complexity and nuance of individuals’ lives and experiences.
Personal life gets in the way. It pops up. It bubbles up. Regardless of how much you want to stay focused... I work with kids [students] that have crises and when they do, they come to me, or I notice it. I try to give them some advice. Usually, it’s in the form of listening to them and living our feelings and our fears and asking them if they need help. (Eric)
After listening to the problems presented by the undergraduates, STEM faculty may decide that the needs of the mentees transcend their expertise. Depending on the severity of the situation exposed by the mentees, faculty can advise undergraduates to seek alternative resources, via university psychological services. Mentors acted as intermediaries between students and the university. For some students, faculty intervention is often essential in encouraging students to seek the psychological aid needed to complete a bachelor’s degree.
I almost universally refer them to the psychological services on campus. I keep a brochure in my office for their facility and I let them take a picture of it, so they have the contact information. I had one student whom I felt needed immediate help, and I called the psychological services on campus while they [the student] were sitting in my office. I told the psychological services on campus, ‘You need to talk to this student.’ I left my office so the student could have a private conversation with that facility. I feel like I helped them [the student] personally because if their personal needs are not met, nothing else is going to matter to them. (Adam)
STEM faculty empowered the psychological support of students by being selfless. Faculty felt that good mentors prioritize the student’s best interests over their own career ambitions. Mentors may consider themselves part of the student’s family since the faculty-student relationship may go beyond academics. For example, Phillip’s statement suggests that mentorship can serve to provide emotional support and a sense of community:
A professor goes in line with the job function, which is to go to class, teach, and grade the student, and at the end of the semester, you get your attendance and absences. A mentor goes beyond that. A mentor tries to understand each of their students. That’s the difference between a professor and a mentor. A mentor guides you through your academics and what’s going on in your life. A professor goes in line with the job description of teaching and grading, and that’s it. A mentor is like a friend or a family member you have around campus. (Phillip)
Our findings show that the faculty-student interaction has expanded from merely providing instructional support to undergraduates, to offering advice on personal matters, too.
Faculty who possessed an internal desire to mentor would tailor the mentoring experience for each student. Mentors would also avoid using a “cookie-cutter” mentoring approach. Faculty also wanted students to be independent, by avoiding depending on the mentor to make career choices and/or engage in specialized experiences.
I just gave them the inspiration. I encourage them. I supported them here and there, but quickly they took off. When they did this presentation at this conference, I literally did nothing. My name is not even on it. It’s great! They have done things with this I don’t even know. I hear about them later, like, ‘Yeah, we went to this elementary school and did this presentation.’ That’s the pinnacle for me. When I have become redundant. I’ve done a good job. (Eric)
Our findings show that the professional independence of students may be related to the psychological support received by faculty, as the success of students may be dependent on the perceived level of care exhibited by mentors. Limiting the mentoring experience to the academic or professional responsibilities of students restricts the mentorship faculty can provide to mentees. Faculty need to see the “whole” student to provide the mentorship students’ need to excel. For example, Phillip perceived a personal sense of responsibility and desire to make a difference in the lives of the students.
As a mentor, you want to make sure that you are there when they [the students] need you. You have to be patient. As a mentor, I see those skills in myself. I’m understanding. I’m patient. Time is important for a mentor, and I try to listen to every student. It takes extra dedication. It’s extra time you need to put into these. Once you are committed to doing this, you see through. I see myself as a mentor. I serve as a mentor. (Phillip)
Faculty in STEM were motivated to train and provide professional advice to students. Participants provided feedback on the student’s advanced schooling essays and resumes/CVs to enter the workforce. Faculty believed the students needed someone to guide them through their professional journey, which indicates a sense of purpose and motivation to make a positive impact on the lives of mentees. Overall, Phillip realized the importance of personalized guidance, career development, and a deep commitment to the success of students:
But you want them to graduate and pick a job or enroll in a job position in their field. I want to see a computer science graduate that I mentor take up the role of a software engineer when they graduate. I want to see an information systems student take up a role as a data analyst or data scientist when they graduate... It’s my goal to see students succeed and pick up a job role in their field of study. (Phillip)
The goal of STEM faculty was to foresee the success of students after college graduation. The mentorship faculty provided to students went beyond academic and professional preparation; rather, faculty wanted to prepare students for the struggles they will likely face in life.
Faculty believed that it was their responsibility to aid in the initiation of students in STEM, as professors may be the first contact person mentees have with a professional in STEM. The support faculty provided to students could take many forms, as the professional needs of students vary. Mentors provided guidance and recommendations to students about how to approach professionals and resources in STEM, with the purpose of setting mentees up for success, as the quote below illustrates.
I get a lot of requests from students asking if they can join my lab to do research. I don’t have room for them. I send them a message saying, ‘I’m not recruiting actively, but I’m always willing to have a conversation with you about how to get into doing research.’ The vast majority of them take me up on that offer. They come to my office or in the past, I just ask them what it is they’re looking for? What are they trying to accomplish? … I make suggestions on how to go search, how to find them, how to approach them, how to write emails, and how to look at what they’re trying to do and get themselves into that position. (Adam)
Faculty provide STEM students with the perceived necessary guidance for mentees to make their own choices. Faculty believed students make their own path. Faculty strive to endorse the professional route that students had selected, even if it differed from their own. Faculty acknowledged the undergraduates had their own autonomy and motivations for the choices they were making.
I want my students to do what they want to do to succeed in the way they want to succeed... My path is not necessarily the path that they need to take... My purpose is not to create 2,000 duplicates of me. (Anastasia)
Our findings showed that the actions of equipping students for challenges and personal decisions they would likely face during their lives were intertwined. For example, Adam expressed the following statement during his interview: “I feel like I help them [the students] personally because if their personal needs are not met, nothing else is going to matter to them.” In this statement, Adam described how students who struggle in their personal lives also tend to struggle with academics. Ultimately, it may not be possible to separate the personal and professional lives of students, since one construct can greatly influence the other.
Faculty also aimed to encourage students to persevere even when faced with adversity, even if it meant shifting their career trajectory later in life. For instance, Adam encouraged mentees to view decision-making as a journey of personal growth and self-discovery, acknowledging that decisions themselves are not inherently right or wrong.
But most of life is filled with right and left decisions. Not right or wrong decisions. You cannot get it wrong, it’s just a decision. You make a decision, and you move ahead wherever it takes you. If you need to reconsider, you make another right or left decision. But you never get it wrong. You cannot get it wrong. Whom I marry? What job do I take? What major do I do? Where do I go? None of those decisions are wrong… It’s just a decision and once you’ve made it, don’t look back. (Adam)
Faculty believed that their purpose was to serve as facilitators for the success of undergraduates. For example, Anastasia expressed that she already had a great career; therefore, her success was secondary to the success of her students: “It should not be to make my career better… it should be about helping them.” Faculty never sought recognition for the impact they had on mentees. For example, Adam expressed that he doesn’t expect anything in exchange for supporting the development of students: “I see their success as my success. I don't need (personal) successes anymore to make myself feel good.”
STEM faculty surpassed their professional responsibilities by engaging at a personal level with students outside regular work hours. Faculty believe that their interactions with students were not limited to academic engagement. Faculty aimed to inspire students to overcome obstacles.
I’ve had students whose car gets totaled, and I have driven to their house and picked them up for work because they couldn’t show up. If a student has to go to the doctor, I encourage them to get the help they need as opposed to giving them grief for not being in the lab, which I’ve seen other investigators do... Sometimes I share challenges that I’ve had in my life and career... I tend to be pretty transparent about challenges I’ve had. (Adam)
Faculty in our sample were honored to serve as role models to students. Faculty aimed to inspire students to become successful STEM professionals, by setting vivid examples; thus, demonstrating to students that they could achieve STEM career ambitions, regardless of background, including race or socio-economic status. For example, Florian shared insights about the significance of representation and its potential to dismantle societal barriers while fostering diversity and inclusion.
Students see me... It’s like, ‘I have this black man in front of me who’s accomplished, who’s been there, done that’ type thing’. I like being like that because I know it helps dispel a lot of prejudices. It dispels a lot of uncertainties. It dispels a lot of ignorance... I can’t tell you the number of parents… They [the parents] were shocked that their children told the truth. That they [the students] have a black man that’s an engineer. (Florian)
Transparency and sincerity were key for setting positive examples within the faculty-student relationship. Mentors believed in being their true selves with undergraduates, inside and outside the university. Faculty aimed to reveal their authentic selves to students, by sharing their personalities and experiences with mentees.
I’m an open book... This is who I am. If they [the students] were sitting in my den with me watching a football game, it’s like, ‘That’s Dr. Florian from class.’ It’s still the same person because I’m still holding you to the expectations that I have in the course... I’m going to hold you to the expectations I have for you in your own life. (Florian)
Faculty also encouraged mentees to reveal their true selves to them without fear of judgment. For example, Anastasia expressed she is well-aware of the struggles her mentees are undergoing in their personal lives:
Amongst all the students that I have mentored, I know personal things about them. I had people cry in my office because of a breakup and parent issues. Some even shared LGBTQ identity issues. (Anastasia)
STEM faculty were pleased that mentees sought their advice, as it enabled them to guide students toward success. Faculty sought to show students that they could be successful, while remaining true to their authentic selves.
This study shows that STEM faculty consistently exhibited the four constructs of effective mentorship emphasized by Crisp and Cruz (2009): psychological support, professional independence, support for career paths, and role modeling through faculty behaviors. Faculty members in STEM go beyond the responsibilities found in their job description to provide psychological support to students. Despite not having the expertise in dealing with the personal issues of students, faculty actively listen to the problems of mentees (Galbraith & Cohen, 1996). Findings from Chan (2008) showed that communication is key for supporting a good mentor-mentee relationship. The advice given by faculty to students went beyond what is expected of them academically.
STEM faculty strongly believed that it was their duty to support students at the personal level. Our study suggests the existence of a different type of faculty, one who prioritizes the success of their students over their own professional achievements. Faculty aimed to elevate students regardless of their level of experience. Students require individualized approaches for success.
Our findings differ from those published by scholars such as Olson and Nayar-Bhalerao (2020) because our participants prioritized the development of their mentees over professional achievements. Mentorship encompasses both psychological and career constructs. Our findings are consistent with those discussed by Kram (1983) and Fuesting and Diekman (2017), which show that mentors can support the personal needs of students via psychological development. This is also true for professional support because an abundance or lack thereof will directly impact the psychological support perceived by students. Therefore, STEM faculty recognized that being a mentor extends beyond encouraging students to be productive in the lab.
As such, the retention of both students and faculty at institutions could rely on the ability of professors in identifying themselves as mentors over their roles as researchers. STEM faculty had an intrinsic motivation to mentor students. We argue institutions should prioritize hiring faculty who embrace their role of mentors and researchers. Likewise, institutions should examine systemic and institutional barriers that encourage faculty to prioritize research over teaching and service and begin to incentivize faculty to actively participate in mentorship. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of institutions to ensure faculty receive support and compensation for providing a good mentorship experience to students. The primary findings of the study demonstrate that psychological support is the most essential construct for supporting student development.
We captured the perspectives of STEM faculty toward undergraduate mentorship. While Olson and Nayar-Bhalerao (2020) observed that STEM faculty were inadvertently becoming role models for undergraduates despite their resistance towards this role, our research revealed that faculty embraced the opportunity to serve as role models. Participants in our study expressed a commitment to providing psychological and emotional support to students that went beyond traditional mentorship roles focused solely on academic subject knowledge and career guidance. For the faculty in our sample, excelling in academics was secondary to ensuring the emotional well-being of students. Ultimately, the final proposition and conclusion of this study is that psychological support is the most essential construct for supporting the development of students.
The findings of this study have revealed several implications for both higher education institutions and the broader STEM fields. The study highlights the critical role of psychological support in faculty-student mentorship relations. Prioritizing the emotional and psychological well-being of students is crucial for maintaining and supporting mentorship relationships. These actions have the potential to influence policies and mentorship practices across STEM disciplines. For example, institutions of higher education could develop and implement mentoring training programs to equip faculty with the skills needed to provide psychological support to students, in addition to providing traditional academic mentorship strategies. Institutions may also offer mentorship incentives, such as financial compensation and/or tenure consideration, to reward faculty who implement approaches that support the psychological well-being of mentees.
This study also touches on the importance of mentorship in the broader STEM fields. Prioritizing the psychological well-being of students may also lead to higher retention and graduation rates at colleges and universities, since students are more likely to persist in an environment where they feel supported. This study may also set the stage for developing newer mentorship models and frameworks that may consider integrating psychological support as their main component.
We limited our data collection to STEM faculty members from a single institution, classified as a high research activity institution (R2) by the Carnegie Classifications of Higher Education Institutions.
Our project combined the perspectives of faculty from the four STEM fields. Future studies should depict the opinions of faculty from each of the STEM fields in more detail. Our study was constrained by the inclusion of STEM faculty known for their providing a positive mentorship experience to students, as well as possessing an intrinsic desire to mentor.
Using a theoretical framework created by other researchers, such as the four mentoring constructs, proposed by Crisp and Cruz to guide the data analysis presents a limitation to the current qualitative study. While the approach provides the means to conduct a structured analysis, it may not capture the diverse perspectives and experiences of the STEM faculty in relation to the phenomenon under study. In addition, relying on a predefined list of codes derived from the theoretical framework may result in overlooking alternative interpretations of the data.
A future study should focus on capturing the perspectives of STEM faculty from multiple institutions with different Carnegie Classifications.
A future study should focus on capturing the viewpoints of STEM faculty who adhere
strictly to the roles and responsibilities defined in the job description of a professor. Such a study could illuminate the viewpoints of faculty who may be hesitant to offer psychological and emotional support to undergraduates, as they may perceive this as beyond the scope of their job duties.
A future study could focus on applying deductive reasoning to the data, with the purpose of drawing observations and conclusions without the influence of a predefined theoretical framework.
Disclaimer: The information presented is solely that of the authors and does not reflect any opinions or influence from the universities.
Pamela Martínez Oquendo, Ph.D. is a Research Assistant at the University of Nebraska Omaha STEM Teaching, Research, and Inquiry-based Learning Center
Morgan D. Vogel, Ph.D. is a Research Associate at the University of Nebraska Omaha Center for Public Affairs Research