MENTORING OR COACHING IMPACTS DOCTORAL STUDENTS

How Does Mentoring or Coaching Impact Doctoral Students

How Does Mentoring or Coaching Impact Doctoral Students

Chapter 3

Methodology

Research Design

This study was conducted at a large state university classified by the Carnegie Foundation (2006) as a “Research University (very high research activity)”. After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board, the first author contacted faculty teaching doctoral level classes to describe the study and request permission to distribute the questionnaires in their classes. Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the sample by gender.

Setting of the Project

Students also were recruited by placing copies of the survey and a cover letter in student campus mailboxes. In view of the limited research on what students view as important qualities in a mentor, the present study addressed two questions.

1. How well does the three-factor (Integrity, Guidance, and Relationship) theoretical model underlying the Ideal Mentor Scale fit the data obtained from doctoral students at a Research University?

Population and Sample

Two hundred and twenty-four doctoral students participated in the study. Participants came from colleges throughout the university (Education, Public Health, Nursing, Arts and Sciences, Engineering, and Business) with most entering the study as a result of classroom presentations conducted by the first author. Sixty-six percent of the sample was female with ages of the sample ranging from 21 to 64 years (M = 36.21, SD = 10.13). Fifty-three percent of the sample indicated they currently had a mentor in their doctoral program; the average number of years enrolled in their doctoral program was 1.96 (range = 0.25-9.0).

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the sample by gender

Variable

Total %

Male %

Female %

Program (n = 221)

    Education

69.7

65.8

71.7

    Public Health/Nursing

10.4

5.3

13.1

    Engineering/Chemistry/Physics

9.0

17.1

4.8

    Psychology/Communication

8.6

6.6

9.7

    Business

2.3

5.3

0.7

Mentor (n = 222)

    No

46.8

46.7

46.9

    Yes

53.2

53.3

53.1

Student Status (n = 224)

    Full-time

67.0

68.8

66.0

    Part-time

33.0

31.2

34.0

Work Status (n = 208)

    Do not work

4.3

4.2

4.4

    Part-time ( < 40 h)

49.5

45.8

51.5

    Full-time ( = 40 h)

46.2

50.0

44.1

Age (n = 221)

M = 36.21

M = 36.84

M = 35.88

SD = 10.13

SD = 9.97

SD = 10.23

Range = 21-64

Range = 22-59

Range = 21-64

Years in graduate school (n = 219)

M = 1.96

M = 1.94

M = 1.97

SD = 1.40

SD = 1.27

SD = 1.47

Range = 0.25-9.0

Range = 0 25-5.5

Range = 0.25-9.0

Data Collection

Students completed a Demographic Information Sheet and the Ideal Mentor Scale. Variables on the demographic sheet included age, gender, academic program, years in doctoral program, full-time/part-time student status, work status, and presence of a mentor. In completing the IMS, students were instructed to: Please do not rate an actual person in your life (if you currently have a mentor). Rather, please indicate how important each attribute or function is to your definition of the ideal mentor. Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Not at all important) to 5 (Extremely important).

Data Collection

Based on exploratory factor analyses using two different samples, Rose (2003) identified three factors underlying the IMS: Integrity, consisting of 14 items (e.g., Give proper credit to graduate students), Guidance, consisting of 10 items (e.g., Show me how to employ relevant research techniques), and Relationship, consisting of 10 items (e.g., Have coffee or lunch with me on occasion). Rose's (2003) first sample consisted of 250 Ph.D. students from 54 departments at a Midwestern Research I University and her second sample included 380 Ph.D. students from 45 departments at a different Midwestern Research I University.

Analysis of the Data

Responses to the 34-item Ideal Mentor Scale were treated as ordinal data, and therefore, confirmatory factor analysis of ...