Using Mentoring Enactment Theory to Explore the Doctoral Student-Faculty Member Mentoring Relationship

Abstract

The purpose of this dissertation was threefold. The first purpose was to examine the advisoradvisee mentoring relationship using Mentoring Enactment Theory (Kalbfleisch, 2002). The second purpose was to examine the relationship between advisees' use of relational maintenance behaviors and their own and their advisors' reports of relational characteristics (i.e., liking, communication satisfaction, relational satisfaction, trust, work commitment, and control mutuality). The third purpose was to examine the extent to which advisees' relational uncertainty with their advisors was related to their use of relational maintenance behaviors and their advisors' provision of career support and psychosocial support. The results of Principal Component Analyses, Pearson correlations, and MANOVAs indicate that advisors and advisees have similar perceptions of what behaviors advisees engage in to maintain their advisor-advisee mentoring relationships. These behaviors are: appreciation, courtesy (advisees only), tasks, goals, protection (advisors only), and humor. Advisees' use of these relational maintenance behaviors generally is related positively their own reports of relational characteristics and received mentoring support from their advisors, but advisees' use of relational maintenance behaviors is not related negatively to their relational uncertainty. Similarly, advisors' reports of their advisees' use of relational maintenance behaviors generally are related positively to their own reports of relational characteristics. The results indicate further that the sex composition of the advisor-advisee dyad has minimal impact on advisees' use of relational maintenance behaviors and advisors' provision of career support and psychosocial support for their advisees.

Doctoral Students' Relational Communication with their Advisors: A Dyadic Examination using Chickering's Theory of Psychosocial Development

“…Two conclusions can be drawn from these findings and related research on student-advisor satisfaction. First, like other interpersonal relationships, these results demonstrate that both students and advisors actively contribute to the perceived satisfaction of each other through specific communication behaviors (Mansson, 2011).…”

“…Due to these one-sided benefits and the hierarchical differences found within the relationship, the responsibility of initiating and preserving the relationship falls almost exclusively on the students (Hawkins, 1991). Specifically, many doctoral students are expected to engage in certain behaviors in order to maintain the desired status of the relationship (Mansson, 2011).…”

“…It is unsurprising, then, that communication and relational satisfaction are commonly studied variables in the student-advisor relationship (e.g., Mansson, 2011;Waldeck et al, 1997;Zhao et al, 2007). Waldeck et al (1997) found that perceived mentoring was related positively to graduate students' relational satisfaction.…”

“…Cavendish (2007) extended these findings as she discovered that receiving both career and psychosocial support uniquely predicted students' satisfaction with their advisor. Mansson (2011) found that doctoral students also play an active role in determining the perceived satisfaction of the student-advisor relationship through their own relational maintenance behaviors (i.e., by engaging in courtesy and appreciation). From their qualitative data, Knox et al (2006) concluded that they ways in which students handle conflict (i.e., strategies) appear to influence advisors' communication and relational satisfaction.…”

“…Third, relational maintenance behaviors and conflict strategies were chosen for this study because they are both salient communication behaviors that affect students and advisors (e.g., Knox et al, 2006;Mansson, 2011;Schlosser et al, 2003). In her review of mentoring-related research, Chao (1998) urged scholars to "move beyond collecting data from only one mentoring partner and to examine the relationship from both sides" (p. 337).…”