12 Undergraduate Mentorship: Creating a Sense of Belonging for Faculty
Jeff Spears; Amanda Deliman; Hannah Lewis; Jim LaMuth; and Michael Christiansen
Introduction
Faculty mentorship programs pair faculty mentors with student mentees to enhance undergraduate students’ academic, psychosocial, research (graduate and undergraduate), and career exploration (DeAngelo et al., 2016; Thiry & Laursen, 2011). The professional relationship, however, between a student and faculty is reciprocal in nature. That is, faculty identify areas of professional satisfaction, career development, and belonging to the university. This chapter will explore a mixed methods approach to a faculty mentorship program designed as a retention effort at Utah State University. While the program is effective in providing services to students, the chapter will mainly focus on the perspectives of faculty mentors.
Literature Review
Sense of Belonging
Belonging is rooted in close, stable social connections as a faculty member regarding the university, colleagues, and students (K. A. Allen et al., 2022). Furthermore, Goodenow and Grady’s definition of belonging in higher education is not just about being seen; it is about feeling “accepted, respected, included, and supported by others” (Goodenow & Grady, 1993). For faculty members, belonging affects self-esteem, resilience, and the intrinsic value of teaching (Pedler et al., 2022).
Research on faculty mentoring suggests that faculty members derive a sense of personal/professional satisfaction and leadership from supporting students outside the classroom (Kalpazidou Schmidt & Faber, 2016; McConnell et al., 2019). This would include development of communication and interpersonal skills, job satisfaction, and a sense of purpose at the institution (Kalpazidou Schmidt & Faber, 2016). In most cases, junior faculty leverage these mentorship opportunities for promotion and to support research outcomes for promotion and tenure (Booth et al., 2016; McConnell et al., 2019). The literature also alludes to the sense of belonging for faculty members to not only supporting students, but also the university (Hagler, 2018).
Hurtado et al. (2007) explained that “sense of belonging in college . . . is associated with persistence in the first year of college and is influenced by successful management of the college transition as well as student perceptions of campus racial climate and peer interactions” (p. 845). For faculty members, mentorship offers career fulfillment, an extension of classroom experiences for students, job satisfaction, and belonging to the institution (Kaplan & Millis, 1995). The old adage of “pay it forward” is one of the main reasons why faculty engage in student mentorship (Gürtunca, 2024). The sense of belonging is manifested in multiple ways for a faculty member, and a combination of the factors creates a willingness to work with students.
Impact on Students
Undergraduate mentorship provides a professional relationship with a faculty member that can fundamentally shape a lifetime of personal and professional outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Supportive relationships in college have been identified as promoting personal development outside of the classroom, a sense of community, and navigating college life (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Studies have shown that faculty mentorship tends to elicit greater social integration into the college setting (Kuh et al., 2006), providing support to marginalized student populations (Sarna et al., 2021), and referrals to university staff and community partners (AuCoin & Wright, 2021).
The reasons for the impact on student belonging are plentiful. First, supportive academic relationships predict attachment to the university and foundational trust with faculty mentors (Hagler, 2018). This is even more important for first-generation, low-income, and ethnic minority students with little to no formal community support (Stephens et al., 2015; Wallace et al., 2000). Second, mentorship can lead to extracurricular activities, study groups, and faculty-related research outside the classroom (Raposa et al., 2025). Lastly, the size of the university impacts the ability for both the student and the faculty mentor to develop a professional relationship. At smaller institutions, faculty members often have fewer students in class, which results in more time for mentorship (Beattie & Thiele, 2016).
Risks of Lack of Belonging
The lack of a sense of belonging can be detrimental to the career trajectory of faculty members. The lack of belonging can lead to an increased desire to leave the institution and disconnect from the community (Blau et al., 2023; Clark et al., 2024). This is especially true for faculty members with research requirements within the community. The feeling of belongingness can also impact burnout: a state of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion (Bishop & High, 2023), which could impact familial relationships and poor work-life balance (Zábrodská et al., 2018). The ability to engage in mentorship that is recognized in role statements creates a sense of motivation and satisfaction with teaching (Pedler et al, 2022).
Moreover, faculty experiencing a higher sense of belonging to their respective institution contribute to a positive work environment, tend to be more productive, and report greater satisfaction with their jobs, suggesting that faculty belonging bolsters professional success (Boden et al., 2024). The time faculty spend at work also contributes to the need to be productive and to engage at the department level (Filstad et al., 2019).
Taken together, the literature suggests that undergraduate mentoring sits at the intersection of belonging, professional fulfillment, and institutional engagement for faculty. When mentoring is supported and valued, it strengthens faculty connection to students and the institution, which in turn supports sustained participation in mentoring programs.
Purpose of the Qualitative Study for the Faculty-to-Student Mentoring
In 2019, the Statewide Enterprises at Utah State University piloted a faculty mentorship program in the Uintah Basin to bolster retention and graduation rates. Since then, the mentorship program has been expanded to all statewide campuses throughout the State of Utah. In previous articles, we have discussed the importance of the mentoring program for retention rates and graduate rates in the statewide system (Law et al., 2021), yet a qualitative study as to “why” the program is beneficial has not been punished. This study is an attempt to explain the success of our program through the lens of our faculty mentors.
Methods
The mixed-method study incorporated data collected from the Faculty-to-Student Mentoring Program from 2021 to 2024, and the qualitative study was completed in 2025. A formal, qualitative evaluation was conducted to provide a deeper understanding of the Faculty-to-Student Mentoring Program at Utah State University to supplement the findings in previous quantitative articles. Specifically, focus groups were conducted to provide an in-depth view of faculty experiences and insight regarding the mentoring program. This type of feedback was an attempt to review the positive and negative aspects of the mentoring program.
Two focus groups (N=5, N=4) of faculty mentors were included in this study. The faculty mentors represented four of the six statewide campuses on which the faculty mentorship was offered since 2020. The faculty represented various disciplines within the statewide system, with six PhD degrees and three faculty members with master’s degrees. Each of the faculty members has served as a faculty mentor for at least one semester in the Faculty-to-Student Mentoring Program. Each focus group included the same IRB-approved questionnaire to elicit feedback regarding the program. The reason for the two fs groups was due to the inability to schedule the eight faculty members for a single meeting.
Focus group and interview scripts were structured to elicit participants’ experiences, benefits for faculty and students, and suggestions for opportunities regarding the mentoring program. The questions were intentionally broad to elicit discussion among the faculty mentors and to limit bias in the prospective answers. For example, questions included “What are the benefits of the mentorship for your mentee? What are the benefits for you as a mentor?” The investigators inquired about challenges and ways to improve the program. The results and discussion section include direct quotes from mentors regarding their experiences in the mentorship program.
The two focus groups were recorded via Zoom with the participants’ consent and transcribed by the principal investigator. Based on the responses to each question, the research team was guided by thematic coding to identify key themes within the transcriptions of the focus groups (Lochmiller, 2021). Saturation of the key themes was the goal of the qualitative study, with two independent researchers identifying coded themes upon review of the transcriptions. Any discrepancies in coding were discussed until consensus was reached, and themes were refined through iterative review of the transcripts.
For quantitative measures, the research team compared findings from the qualitative study to data collected in another IRB study (#11217), Evaluating the Effectiveness of a USU Statewide Faculty-to-Student Mentoring Program on Student Persistence and Success. In this study, researchers tracked and compared the graduation rates of students enrolled in the mentoring program to a statewide comparison group with similar demographic markers. Additionally, scales were implemented each semester to measure the sense of belonging and job satisfaction for the faculty mentors.
Results
Several themes were identified from the data, highlighting the strengths of the faculty mentorship program and recommending several improvements to enhance service delivery. Prior to the discussion of the program, several faculty members reflected on their reasons for serving as a mentor. Faculty mentors discussed the desire to serve as a mentor based on similar professional relationships throughout their college career. As one mentor stated, “I remembered the role that my mentor in college played, and how important that was for me . . . I remembered what mentoring did for me and I could similarly provide that mentorship to students.” In fact, most of the faculty mentors included a personal story of an instructor and/or coach who played a very impactful role in their decision to participate in the mentoring program. Similarly, new faculty members expressed interest in the program to acclimate to the university and engage with students during COVID. A first-year faculty commented,
I was starting at USU kind of around the time this was starting to be implemented at Eastern [one of USU’s satellite campuses]. It made sense to me, because I hadn’t necessarily been around the students for very long, but had so many in my classes.
Additionally, the faculty mentors tended to be in similar places to their students during their college journey. Another faculty mentor noted,
Statewide students are considered non-traditional students, and I, myself, had similar experiences, so it’s nice to see representation as a student, like . . . You know, my teacher, my mentor, my professor has had a similar experience, and they can meet me where I’m at.
This common theme was mentioned by seven of the eight faculty mentors in the two focus groups. In some cases, the experiences were positive with faculty mentorship or negative based on the program. There was an interesting discussion of Ph.D. programs not providing training to students on becoming mentors at a future institution. This will be explored a bit more in the discussion section.
Strengths
There were multiple benefits discussed regarding the faculty mentorship program by faculty members. First, faculty recounted the benefits for the students related to academics, social support, and connection to their major. There were several anecdotal stories shared about research projects and extra help outside of the classroom. Since the program matches by discipline, faculty mentors are considered a “good fit” if the faculty is from the same or similar department as the student mentee. The interdisciplinary connections between faculty and students were intentional to allow for professional relationships to develop during undergraduate work.
Retention was another theme with students “becoming more involved around campus and remaining in the program for three years.” Other faculty outlined the benefits of “getting to know” the students early in their college career to potentially matriculate into master’s programs. The retention rate discussion corroborated the quantitative data for the last three years. Results from year 1 (2020-2021) showed a fall-to-fall persistence rate of 78.57%, compared to 61.36% for the propensity-matched group. Mentored students for year 2 (2021-2022) had a fall-to-fall persistence rate of 84.75%, compared to 75.47 for the propensity-matched group. For year 3 (2022-2023), mentored students had a persistence rate of 97.43%, compared to 74.46% for the propensity-matched group (Law et al., 2024).
Moreover, the mentors discussed the benefits of faculty involvement in the mentoring program. One faculty member answered immediately upon being asked this question,
[the mentoring program] has filled that niche a little bit, that it, it still helps me kind of maintain or build rapport with my students. I can share my knowledge, you know, with a student, to maybe make their life slightly easier, to help them make some decision.
Another faculty member added,
I think that interpersonal relationship you can build with mentoring is a big benefit for both. I also think that some of the benefits are . . . just getting out of your routine and your comfort zone is important to engage in professional relationships.
Over the last three academic years, the sense of belonging and job satisfaction for faculty members were rated high.
Faculty members who participated in the program were asked about their experience with five-point Likert-scale questions. For the construct of mentoring benefits for mentors, we were looking at the dimension of rewarding experience, based on the work of Ragins and Scandura (1999). The following were accordingly assessed:
- I get a sense of fulfillment by passing my wisdom on to others.
- Serving as a mentor is one of the most positive experiences of my career.
- Mentoring makes me feel better about myself.
- The rewards that come from being a mentor more than compensate for the costs.
- I gain a sense of satisfaction by passing my insight on to others.
- The advantages of being a mentor far outweigh the drawbacks.
- My creativity increases when mentoring others.
Overall, mentors report that they agree that mentoring is a rewarding experience in all four assessment periods, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Average Faculty Responses to Likert-Scale Questions on Benefits of Mentoring to Faculty
|
Fall 2020 (n=22) |
Spring 2021 (n=34) |
Fall 2021 (n=57) |
Spring 2022 (n=42) |
Fall 2022 (n=29) |
Spring 2023 (n=34) |
Fall 2023 (n=25) |
Spring 2024 (n=22) |
Mean of Meansa (n=55)* |
|
4.10 |
4.19 |
4.00 |
4.05 |
4.08 |
3.98 |
4.11 |
4.08 |
4.00 |
aWhen calculating the mean of means, respondents needed to complete at least two post-assessments to be included.
For the construct of mentor satisfaction with the mentoring program, we were looking at three indicators that are in agreement with the following statements based on the work of T. D. Allen et al. (2006):
- I am very satisfied with USU’s statewide mentoring program.
- I am not very happy with USU’s statewide mentoring program.
- I believe there is a good fit between my mentor and me.
Table 2
Average Faculty Responses to Likert-Scale Questions on Faculty Satisfaction with Mentoring
|
Fall 2020 (n=21) |
Spring 2021 (n=34) |
Fall 2021 (n=57) |
Spring 2022 (n=42) |
Fall 2022 (n=29) |
Spring 2023 (n=33) |
Fall 2023 (n=26) |
Spring 2024 (n=22) |
Mean of Meansa (n=56)* |
|
4.09 |
4.17 |
3.91 |
3.85 |
3.97 |
3.93 |
3.67 |
3.59 |
3.79 |
aWhen calculating the mean of means, respondents needed to complete at least two post-assessments to be included.
Challenges
The challenges of the undergraduate mentoring program were also considered by the faculty mentors. The faculty mentors discussed students leaving them “unread” or “ghosting” without replying to their email and texts. As a program, the administrators ask the students how they would like to be contacted by the faculty mentor. Once the mentor/mentee pairings are assigned, the faculty mentor is expected to contact the student. During the meetings of the faculty chairs for all the campuses, this has been a topic of discussion for years.
If a student fails to respond to the faculty mentor, the campus chair is responsible for reaching out to the student to make a connection. Unfortunately, if there is still no response, the student is removed from the mentoring program, and the faculty mentor will be notified. There have been instances where faculty mentors have not received a student mentee due to a lack of mentees in the discipline area. The administrative team makes every effort to keep students in the program, especially those who are statistically less likely to persist, such as first-generation students, who comprise a significant percentage of USU’s enrollment. For example, about 40% of students at USU Eastern and 20% at USU’s other statewide campuses are first-generation.
Lastly, several faculty members recommended an end-of-the-year reception. This would allow the faculty mentors to socialize with their mentees prior to graduation. This is a testament to the rapport built between the faculty mentors and student mentees and an appropriate way to celebrate graduation. As mentioned in the focus groups, faculty members still receive phone calls and emails, and they continue to mentor their students far past graduation. In most cases, the students have become colleagues in a similar field of study.
Discussion
Mentorship is not an easy task for faculty members. Universities tend to focus on research as a main goal when working with PhD students for grant purposes and the rigor of the profession (Burford et al., 2025). As a PhD student, there is an expectation of output in the form of research for articles (Mantai & Marrone, 2022), grants, paper dissemination at conferences (Horta & Li, 2023), and job preparation (Xia et al., 2025). In the current political climate, the marketization of education is redefining academics from educators to producers of research. Simply stated, during times of funding uncertainty, PhDs are encouraged even more to seek funding from a limited number of grants (Xia et al., 2025).
Most universities lack formal mentoring for PhD students in the areas of student development, undergraduate mentorship, and institutional resource delivery (Lambert et al., 2025). As one faculty member pointed out, “I never received any formal training in mentoring . . . I feel like I kind of must rely on the mentoring roles, or the mentoring relationships that I’ve had, and the things that I like about my experiences.” In fact, the faculty members with PhDs (6) and masters (3) degrees all discussed the lack of formal training regarding student development and mentorship.
The question remains, if professors do not receive training in mentorship, what guides their mentoring relationship with students? Undergraduate mentorship is based on the experiences of the faculty at their respective institution–the good, the bad, and the ugly (Bice et al., 2022). This would include student development theory, research skills, and professional identity. Most faculty “do what they know” and navigate mentoring with very little direction from their institution. One faculty member recounted, “In my program, the faculty taught by just showing us. I did have a lot of professors who would reach out to us, and we also had a lot of casual department meetings.”
Next, faculty mentors reflected on the positive experiences in the faculty mentorship program. This ranged from supporting students to improving pedagogical approaches as a professor. “I guess for me, it’s part of my pedagogy to build relationships with students. This program (faculty mentoring) allows for and encourages relationship and trust building, and I think that’s so important, as an educator,” added one faculty member. The “paying it forward mentality” was also considered in both focus groups. One mentor suggested,
It’s also about sharing knowledge, and it’s so gratifying to me to be able to pass on . . . really good advice that will help them reach their potential or make good career choices based on my experiences and the mistakes I’ve made, you know?
Importantly, these findings suggest that faculty sense of belonging is not merely a secondary benefit of undergraduate mentoring, but a central outcome that sustains engagement in the work itself. Faculty described mentoring as affirming their professional identity, strengthening relational connections to students and colleagues, and reinforcing their purpose within the institution. In this way, mentoring functions as both an outcome and a mechanism of belonging: faculty who feel connected to students and whose mentoring work is valued are more likely to remain engaged, invested, and satisfied in their roles. This reciprocal relationship underscores the importance of institutional mentoring programs not only for student success but also for fostering faculty belonging in teaching-focused statewide contexts.
This sense of belonging resonated among faculty members as one more reason for staying involved as a mentor. For example, many former mentees in USU’s program have become colleagues, due in part to recommendation letters for jobs and graduate school written by their mentors. For example, several stories were shared of continual contact via text and lunch outings with students after graduation. As discussed in the literature, faculty mentors join the program for a sense of belonging outside the classroom and to mentor students.
Lastly, the benefits for the students were plentiful. Mentees gained knowledge in a specific content area, one-on-one access to professors, and ethical mentoring practice (Evans et al., 2022). These benefits were reciprocal with faculty members. For example, multiple faculty members now work with their students in some capacity as a colleague in their field of study or in education. The mentoring relationship “does not end at graduation.” For many faculty, this is a lifelong commitment and the very reason why they continue to mentor students.
Although this study is situated within Utah State University’s statewide system, the findings have relevance for other teaching-focused, regional, and multi-campus institutions. Faculty-to-student mentoring programs that are intentionally supported, coordinated, and recognized can foster faculty belonging and student persistence across a variety of institutional contexts.
Recommendations/Conclusion
The biggest request from the faculty mentors was a request for more interaction with student mentees. The suggestions for an end-of-the-year banquet and a beginning social were mentioned in each focus group. As one mentor described, “It would be great to have closure with our students and recognize all of their accomplishments throughout the program.” As found in the literature, intentional mentorship encourages a sense of belonging for students and faculty members (Carter et al., 2023). The mentors reflected on stories from their previous mentees that span across the last five years of the program. Closure is an important step in mentoring, and the suggestion of an end-of-the-year gathering will be shared with administrators at USU.
Lastly, as an institution, we owe it to our faculty mentors to provide training on undergraduate mentorship. Most of the faculty mentors indicated that their experiences with mentorship in their careers were a main reason for joining the program. Although the mentors described their experience as “off the cuff” and “informal at best” regarding their mentorship, faculty can gain inspiration and insight into mentoring through institutional training (Stillmaker et al., 2025). The ability to mentor is not an innate skill; it benefits from training and a structured approach to guide students through the challenges of their graduate journey. Studies suggest that mentors who receive formal training are more adept at fostering their students’ critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and career development (Johnson et al., 2016).
References
Allen, K. A., Gray, D. L., Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (2022). The need to belong: A deep dive into the origins, implications, and future of a foundational construct. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 1133–1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09633-6
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: closing the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.567
AuCoin, D. J., & Wright, L. A. (2021). Student perceptions in online higher education toward faculty mentoring. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(6), 599-615.
Beattie, I. R., & Thiele, M. T. (2016). Connecting in class? College class size and inequality in academic social capital. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(3), 332–362.
Bice, M. R., Hollman, A., Ball, J., & Hollman, T. (2022). Mentorship: An assessment of faculty scholarly production, mode of doctoral work, and mentorship. American Journal of Distance Education, 36(3), 208–226.
Bishop, R. E., & High, A. C. (2023). Caregiving in academia: Examining educator well‐being and burnout during prolonged stressors. Personal Relationships, 30(4), 1274–1292. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12513
Blau, G., Goldberg, D., & Kyser, D. (2023). Organizational belonging–proposing a new scale and its relationship to demographic, organization, and outcome variables. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 38(3), 226–253.
Boden, C. J., Benton, A., & Pomery, K. (2024). Faculty belonging at work: Individual and institutional factors. In International Forum of Teaching and Studies (Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 5–17). American Scholars Press, Inc.
Booth, S. R., Merga, M. K., & Mat Roni, S. (2016). Peer-mentors reflect on the benefits of mentoring: An autoethography. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 383–402. https://doi.org/10.28945/3603
Burford, J., Kier-Byfield, S., Dangeni, Henderson, E. F., & Akkad, A. (2025). Pre-application doctoral communications: A missing dimension in research on doctoral admissions. Educational Review, 77(5), 1627–1648. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2024.2306950
Carter, B. M., Sumpter, D. F., & Thruston, W. (2023). Overcoming marginalization by creating a sense of belonging. Creative Nursing, 29(4), 320–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/10784535231216464
Clark, J. A., Engelman, M., Schultz, A. A., Bersch, A. J., & Malecki, K. (2024). Sense of neighborhood belonging and health: Geographic, racial, and socioeconomic variation in Wisconsin. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1376672.
DeAngelo, L., Mason, J., & Winters, D. (2016). Faculty engagement in mentoring undergraduate students: How institutional environments regulate and promote extra-role behavior. Innovative Higher Education, 41(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9350-7
Evans, M. E., Taylor, R. M., McCloud, L., & Burr, K. (2022). Exploring the role of faculty and staff mentors in fostering ethical leadership among undergraduate students: “We have to narrow the distance”. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 11(2), 137–152.
Filstad, C., Traavik, L. E., & Gorli, M. (2019). Belonging at work: the experiences, representations and meanings of belonging. Journal of Workplace Learning, 31(2), 116–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-06-2018-0081
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1993.9943831
Gürtunca, B. (2024). The role and the effectiveness of the mentorship in education: The effect and the importance of the mentors in forming the careers and psychosocial functions of teachers. Journal of Innovation Transformation and Development Research, 1(1).
Hagler, M. (2018). Processes of natural mentoring that promote underrepresented students’ educational attainment: A theoretical model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62(1-2), 150–162.
Horta, H., & Li, H. (2023). Nothing but publishing: The overriding goal of PhD students in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. Studies in Higher Education, 48(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2131764
Hurtado, S., Han, J. C., Sáenz, V. B., Espinosa, L. L., Cabrera, N. L., & Cerna, O. S. (2007). Predicting transition and adjustment to college: Biomedical and behavioral science aspirants’ and minority students’ first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 841–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11162-007-9051-x
Johnson, W. B., Rose, G., & Schlosser, L. Z. (2016). Theoretical and ethical foundations of mentoring relationships in academia. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 49–72). SAGE Publications.
Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., & Faber, S. T. (2016). Benefits of peer mentoring to mentors, female mentees and higher education institutions. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(2), 137–157.
Kaplan, B. B., & Millis, B. J. (1995). No sticks, just carrots: Soliciting teaching portfolios from teaching excellence award nominees. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6(1).
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. L., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature (Vol. 8). National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Lambert, W. M., Nana, N., Afonja, S., Saeed, A., Amado, A. C., & Golightly, L. M. (2025). Addressing structural mentoring barriers in postdoctoral training: A qualitative study. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-04-2023-0033
Law, D. D., Busenbark, D., Hales, K. K., Taylor, J. Y., Spears, J., Harris, A., & Lewis, H. M. (2021). Designing and implementing a land-grant faculty-to-student mentoring program: Addressing shortcomings in academic mentoring. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 5(2), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.26077/320a-9d71
Law, D., LaMuth, J., & Spears, J. (2024). Third summative evaluation of the Utah State University Statewide Faculty-to-Student Mentoring Program for academic years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023. https://statewide.usu.edu/mentor/_files/usu-mentoring-summative-evaluation.pdf
Lochmiller, C. R. (2021). Conducting thematic analysis with qualitative data. The Qualitative Report, 26(6), 2029–2044.
Mantai, L., & Marrone, M. (2022). Identifying skills, qualifications, and attributes expected to do a PhD. Studies in higher education, 47(11), 2273–2286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2061444
McConnell, K., Geesa, R. L., & Lowery, K. (2019). Self-reflective mentoring: Perspectives of peer mentors in an education doctoral program. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(2), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-07-2018-0043
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Volume 2. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.
Pedler, M. L., Willis, R., & Nieuwoudt, J. E. (2022). A sense of belonging at university: Student retention, motivation and enjoyment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(3), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1955844
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1999). Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199907)20:4<493::aid-job894>3.0.co;2-t
Raposa, E. B., Bartolotta, K., Forbes, N., Monjaras-Gaytan, L. Y., Garcia, Y., Ulerio, G., Perron, G., & Salusky, I. (2025). Emotional distress and access to mental healthcare among first-generation college students during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Journal of Higher Education, 96(4), 539–567.
Sarna, V., Dentato, M. P., DiClemente, C. M., & Richards, M. H. (2021). The importance of mentors and mentoring programs for LGBT+ undergraduate students. College Student Affairs Journal, 39(2), 180–199.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43(3), 1066-1109.
Stephens, N. M., Brannon, T. N., Markus, H. R., & Nelson, J. E. (2015). Feeling at home in college: Fortifying school‐relevant selves to reduce social class disparities in higher education. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 1–24.
Stillmaker, K., Maldonado, H., & Yerrick, R. (2025). Mentoring as a means for addressing Latina/o/x first generation undergraduate engineering student success. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2025.2579230
Thiry, H., & Laursen, S. L. (2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 771–784.
Wallace, D., Abel, R., & Ropers-Huilman, B. (2000). Clearing a path for success: Deconstructing borders through undergraduate mentoring. The Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 87–102.
Xia, J., Sun, S., & Gao, X. (2025). The other side of PhD education: A systematic review of research on PhD students’ development as university teachers. Review of Education, 13(1), e70024.
Zábrodská, K., Mudrák, J., Šolcová, I., Květon, P., Blatný, M., & Machovcová, K. (2018). Burnout among university faculty: The central role of work–family conflict. Educational Psychology, 38(6), 800–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1340590
