Chair Perceptions of Trust between Mentor and Mentee in Online Doctoral Dissertation Mentoring
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i1.605Keywords:
Doctoral dissertation mentoring, mentor/mentee relationships, online higher educationAbstract
We explored online dissertation chairs’ perceptions of trust in the mentor—mentee relationship, as trust was identified as a crucial factor in the success of doctoral students. Through the implementation of a multiple-case study, and a qualitative, online questionnaire, and through qualitative data analysis, we discovered 16 chairs’ perceptions of trust and that student vulnerability is an important part of the relationship that chairs consistently work to alleviate. Findings point to the importance for chairs to establish trust through feedback, consistency, and personal connections with students. Second, chairs perceived student vulnerability to include both students’ discussion of their academic skills (or lack thereof) and their willingness to share personal information. Chairs were very resourceful in enacting strategies to alleviate all types of student vulnerability, including recognizing student strengths and pointing to the positives of vulnerability and by offering scholarly resources for students to develop their academic strengths.References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2012). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States, 2013. Babson Survey Research Group.
Burner, K. (2014). From candidate to colleague: Mentoring online doctoral students. The Journal of Online Doctoral Education, 1, 101–111.
Chan, A. W. (2008). Mentoring ethnic minority, pre-doctoral students: An analysis of key mentor practices. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(3), 263–277.
Crawford, L. M., Randolph, J. J., & Yob, I. M. (2014). Theoretical development, factorial validity, and reliability of the Online Graduate Mentoring Scale. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(1), 20–37. doi:10.1080/13611267.2014.882603
Darley, J. M., Zanna, M. P., & Roediger, H. I. (2004). The compleat academic: A career guide (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Eller, L. S., Lev, E. L., & Feurer, A. (2014). Key components of an effective mentoring relationship: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 34(5), 815–820. doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.07.020
Erdem, F., & Aytemur, J. Ö. (2008). Mentoring—a relationship based on trust: Qualitative research. Public Personnel Management, 37(1), 55–65.
Erwee, R., Albion, P., van Rensburg, H., & Malan, R. (2011). Dealing with doctoral students: Tips from the trenches. South African Journal of Higher Education, 25(5), 889–901.
de Janasz, S. C., & Godshalk, V. M. (2013). The role of e-mentoring in protégés’ learning and satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 38(6), 743–774. doi:10.1177/1059601113511296
Harding-DeKam, J. L., Hamilton, B., & Loyd, S. (2012). The hidden curriculum of doctoral advising. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 5–16.
Hunt, K., Brimble, M., & Freudenberg, B. (2011). Determinants of client-professional relationship quality in the financial planning setting. Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal, 5, 69–99.
Jairam, D., & Kahl, D. H., Jr. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 311–329.
Kritsonis, W. A. (2011). Functions of the doctoral dissertation advisor. FOCUS On Colleges, Universities & Schools, 6, 1–5.
Krot, K., & Lewicka, D. (2012). The importance of trust in manager-employee relationships. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 10(3), 224–233.
Leck, J., & Orser, B. (2013). Fostering trust in mentoring relationships: An exploratory study. Equality, Diversity & Inclusion, 32(4), 410–425. doi:10.1108/EDI-01-2010-0007
Leners, D. W., & Sitzman, K. (2006). Graduate student perceptions: Feeling the passion of CARING online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 27(6), 315–319.
Lunsford, L. (2012). Doctoral advising or mentoring? Effects on student outcomes. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(2), 251–270. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2012.678974
Melrose, S. (2006). Mentoring online graduate students: Partners in scholarship. Education for Primary Care, 17, 57–62.
Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, A. (2011). The digital revolution and higher education: College presidents, public differ on value of online learning. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org).
Saldaña, J. (2014). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354. doi:10.1177/1059601111428449
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Stadtlander, L. M., & Giles, M. J. (2010). Virtual instruction: A qualitative research laboratory Course. Teaching of Psychology, 37(4), 281–286. doi:10.1080/00986283.2010.510971
Strauss, J., & Corbin, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Trinkner, R. (2014). Procedural justice and the advisor-advisee relationship in graduate education. The Journal of Online Doctoral Education, 1, 23–40.
Tzafrir, S. S., & Dolan, S. L. (2004). Trust Me: A scale for measuring manager–employee trust. Management Research, 2(2), 115–132. doi:10.1108/15365430480000505
Tzafrir, S. S., & Gur, A. A. (2007). HRM practices and perceived service quality: The role of trust as a mediator. Research & Practice in Human Resource Management, 15, 1–16.
Williams, S., Sunderman, J., & Kim, J. (2012). E-mentoring in an online course: Benefits and challenges to e-mentors. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 10(1), 109–123.
Yob, I., & Crawford, L. (2012). Conceptual framework for mentoring doctoral students. Higher Learning Research Communications, 2(2), 34–47.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
