A mixed‐methods approach to understanding trajectories of mentoring relationship growth

Abstract

The proposed study integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine mentors with different relationship trajectories reflect on their relationships. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, mentor reports of relationship quality are plotted over time and different growth patterns identified: (1) progressive, (2) stable‐high, (3) dip and recovery, (4) stable‐low, and (5) regressive. Qualitative coding was used to identify patterns in mentors' descriptions of their relationship experiences—including both what mentors wrote about and how they wrote about it.

Going the distance: A longitudinal qualitative study of formal youth mentoring relationship development

“…Through the construction and close examination of developmental trajectories for each mentoring relationship, we were able to identify five distinct relationship trajectories: (a) continued growth, (b) initial growth that plateaued, (c) initial growth followed by decline and then recovery, (d) initial growth followed by decline with no recovery, and (e) little to no growth or connection. These trajectories aligned closely with those identified in previous research on school‐based mentoring relationships (Pryce & Keller, 2012; Spiekermann et al, 2021) and on relationships between youth and adult leaders in an out‐of‐school time program (Griffith, 2016). This indicates that there appears to be some commonalities in how adult‐youth relationships develop over time in these various settings.…”

“…Committing to sticking it out with the youth, even in the face of difficulties, and being able to be sensitive to accommodating of the youth's and family's needs in the face of these challenges helped some mentors stay in the relationship long enough for a meaningful connection to take hold and for the mentor's investment in the youth to deepen. Also, being able to shift their expectations from what often starts out as rather idealized ideas about what mentoring will be like to more realistic ones that better align with the actual experience of it was observed here as it has now been in several studies of mentoring relationship quality (Spencer, 2006, 2007; Spiekermann et al, 2021).…”

“…That said, as in previous studies of adult-youth relationship development (Griffith, 2016;Pryce & Keller, 2012;Spiekermann et al, 2021), a sizeable number of these relationships encountered challenges from which they were unable to recover. In the present study, it was most often the mentors who struggled or felt challenged in some way, and the relationship began to deteriorate.…”

“…Limitations and directions for future researchAlthough the relationship trajectories identified within this sample of community-based mentoring relationships show similarities to those previously identified within school-based samples(Pryce & Keller, 2012;Spiekermann et al, 2021), it is important to acknowledge that these relationship trajectories may not represent all types of SPENCER ET AL.| 3099 community-based matches. One notable limitation of the study is the relatively small sample size.…”

“…Four patterns of relationship development were identified: (a) progressive, marked by a gradual deepening and progression of the relationship, (b) plateaued, which started off well but then level‐off or even deteriorated, (c) stagnant, distinguished by a more challenging start and continued difficulty connecting, and (d) breakthrough, which were relationships that had a “turning point” moment that shifted the relationship in a positive direction. Building on this work, a more recent study examined mentoring relationship growth in the context of a school‐based, hybrid group and individual mentoring program between college women and girls (Spiekermann et al, 2021). Here five groups were identified, based on mentor report of relationship strength: (a) progressive, (b) stable high, (c) dip and recovery, (d) stable low, and (e) regressive.…”