Al makhamreh stockley mentorship well being 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-6854.htm

Mentorship and well-being

Mentorship
and well-being

Examining doctoral students’ lived experiences
in doctoral supervision context
Maha Al Makhamreh and Denise Stockley
Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how doctoral students experienced mentorship in their
supervision context and how the mentorship they received impacted their well-being.
Design/methodology/approach – An interpretive phenomenological methodology was selected to frame
the research design. This research approach seeks to study the individual lived experience by exploring,
describing and analyzing its meaning.
Findings – The findings revealed three different quality levels of mentorship in this context authentic
mentorship, average mentorship and below average/toxic mentorship. Doctoral students who enjoyed
authentic mentorship experiences were more motivated and satisfied, students who reported average
mentorships needed more attention and time from their supervisors, and students who had below average/
toxic mentorships were stressed out and depleted.
Research limitations/implications – A limitation of this study is the lack of generalizability owing to the
small sample size typical in qualitative studies. Another limitation is that this research did not include
students who quit their programs because of dysfunctional supervision experiences.
Practical implications – Students and supervisors can use the findings to reflect on their beliefs and
practices to evaluate and improve their performances. Also, authentic mentors can benefit from the findings
to create a positive culture for all students to receive support. Finally, current supervisory policies can be
reviewed in light of this paper’s findings.
Social implications – The findings show the nature of mentorship in an authoritative context, and how it

can be toxic when power is misused.
Originality/value – This study provides new knowledge in relation to the different types of mentorship
experiences that exist in doctoral supervision, and how each type can influence students’ well-being
differently. Additionally, it reveals that doctoral students can graduate, even in the face of toxic mentorship,
but at the expense of their well-being.
Keywords Doctoral education, Higher education, Mentorship of doctoral students,
Mentoring and coaching in HE
Paper type Research paper

A recent study on mental health problems of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) students revealed an
alarming finding: one-third of PhD students have developed or are at risk of developing
psychological distress, with an especially high risk of depression (Levecque et al., 2017).
Transferable across geographical contexts, this study also demonstrated that the supervisory
style exhibited in the supervisory relationship was one of the main organizational factors
correlated with students’ mental health challenges. The time-to-completion rate in a doctoral
program is a major source of pressure for students. Among the 15 research-intensive
Canadian universities (U15) and among students who entered PhD programs in 2001,
70.6 percent of students, across disciplines, took nine years to complete their programs
(Tamburri, 2013). Almost a decade spent in a doctoral program is a long period of time that
prevents students from being functioning members of society, advancing their careers
and contributing to their families and communities, which leaves them fatigued, depleted
and at risk of dropping out. One factor that contributes to the completion time is the
student–supervisor relationship.
Researchers have argued that the quality of the supervisory relationship is significant to
the success of a doctoral journey (Golde, 2000; Ives and Rowley, 2005; Pyhältö and Keskinen,

Received 12 February 2019
Revised 30 April 2019
14 July 2019
15 August 2019

Accepted 19 August 2019

International Journal of Mentoring
and Coaching in Education
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-6854
DOI 10.1108/IJMCE-02-2019-0013


IJMCE

2012; Sambrook et al., 2008; Zhao et al., 2007), particularly because doctoral programs are
inherently challenging. They differ from other programs that students may have experienced;
lengthy and stressful, they can result in emotional issues and social isolation (Ali et al., 2007).
This lengthy and difficult process can provide plentiful reasons for discouragement and may
tempt even “the most positive student” (Baird, 1995, p. 30) to leave the program. On top of that,
supervision sets up an inherently hierarchical power relationship between supervisor and
student, and this power dynamic is “perceived to be unequal, with a good relationship
between a student and supervisor important for a doctoral [student’s] success” (Morris, 2011,
p. 547). The power dynamic can add more challenges to the relationship because it may affect
students’ willingness to express their feelings or perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the
supervision they receive.
Effective supervisors acknowledge mentorship to be part of their jobs (Pearson, 2001;
Pearson and Brew, 2002; Price and Money, 2002). Effective academic supervision is defined
as a positive working relationship between the supervisor and the student. This relationship
takes the form of mentoring (Brockbank and McGill, 1998) and requires that the supervisor
help the student develop into an autonomous researcher, critical thinker and innovator
(Brockbank and McGill, 1998; Lin and Cranton, 2005; Manathunga, 2005; Millar, 2007;
Wendler et al., 2010; Wisker, 2007).
Building a positive doctoral supervisory relationship is important to students’ wellbeing and performance. Positive relationships in organizations, in general, have a

significant influence on individuals, enhancing their feelings of inclusion and sense of
importance (Blatt and Camden, 2007), motivation and level of energy (Cross et al., 2003),
engagement (Bakker et al., 2008), resilience (Luthar, 2006), wellness (Kutsyuruba et al.,
2019), mental health (Dutton and Heaphy, 2003), performance and productivity (Losada,
1999), career development (Kram and Isabella, 1985) and quality of information shared
and commitment to the organization (Sias, 2005).
It is noteworthy that the outcomes of negative work relationships are “more consistently
and are more strongly related to well-being than were positive social outcomes” (Rook, 1984,
p. 1097). It is thus important to avoid a negative supervisory relationship and create a positive
and healthy work environment. Ragins and Verbos (2007) proposed that mentorship “can be
an exemplar of a positive work relationship” (p. 93). To that end, this paper argues that
mentorship is a powerful approach that is embedded in a doctoral supervisor’s role. Relational
mentoring, which serves as a lens in this research, functions as a “developmental relationship
that involves mutual growth, learning, and development in personal, professional, and career
domains” (Ragins and Verbos, 2007, p. 92).
The purpose of this phenomenological research was to examine the nature of mentorship
in the doctoral supervision context along with its impact on the doctoral students’ well-being
and performance. Two research questions guided this study:
RQ1. What was the nature of the mentorship embedded in the doctoral supervisors’
duties that helped their students succeed in their programs and complete them in a
timely manner?
RQ2. To what extent did the supervisor’s mentorship approach influence the doctoral
student’s well-being?
To better understand the phenomenon of mentorship, the researchers aimed to
examine it across all disciplines, including the social sciences and humanities, the natural
sciences and engineering and health sciences. This paper presents findings from
semi-structured interviews with 19 doctoral students in different programs in
Canadian universities.
The authors begin with a review of selected literature on mentorship and well-being.
A description of the methodology follows, along with findings from the students’ responses

and a discussion of said findings. The conclusion highlights key points and limitations of
the study and its implications for practice, policy and research both within and beyond the
sphere of doctoral supervision.
Literature review
This section presents a review of selected literature on mentorship in doctoral supervision
and well-being in doctoral programs.
Mentorship in doctoral supervision
Allen et al. (2011) suggested that the focus of mentoring should be the growth and
development of the protégé – the less-experienced person. They added that mentoring
relationships are dynamic as the relational processes and outcomes linked with mentoring
change over time. The current paper argues that the supervisor’s goal should thus be to help
students’ growth and development. In doing so, supervisors listen, support, motivate,
engage and share knowledge and experience with students. The students’ needs, and the
competencies of both students and supervisors, change over time based on students’
progressions in their programs; therefore, the supervisor’s involvement changes as well
(Pole, 1998). In this paper, the researchers discuss that this dynamic condition means
supervisors need to be present so that they can evaluate their students’ changing needs and
offer them guidance and support as needed.
The role of mentoring has a positive influence on students, not only during the program
itself but also in the years after completion. A longitudinal study on mentoring and doctoral
student outcomes revealed that mentoring influences students’ research self-efficacy.
Moreover, having a mentor during the first two years of the program predicted students’
research productivity four years later (Paglis et al., 2006). Professional growth seems to be
one of the most important aims for doctoral students (Austin, 2003), which means that
mentorship matters. The professional growth of graduate students as a result of mentoring
was evident in Godden et al.’s (2014) study exploring graduate students’ teaching
assistantship experiences. They also found that a commitment to mentoring enhanced the
working environment for mentees, which was critical for students’ well-being and

performance. Based on these findings on mentorship and working environment, this paper
argues that the creation of a positive working environment depends to some extent on the
quality of the mentorship that supervisors display.
Students greatly “appreciated faculty who took their advising and mentoring roles and
responsibilities seriously” (Bair et al., 2004, p. 716). This is understandable as graduate
students go through different stages and challenges in their programs, and thus having their
supervisors as reliable mentors could help them overcome these obstacles. For instance,
Ahern and Manathunga (2004) highlighted how graduate students could “stall” in the
program; this cessation of progress happens for cognitive, emotional or social reasons, or
simply as a consequence of the demanding tasks of conducting research. The scholars
suggested that supervisors should act as what they called “clutch starters” for their stalled
students by being alert to the signals of stalling, identifying the cause of the stall, and offering
appropriate support to strengthen their students and help them restart their progress.
Developing students, mentoring them, coaching their research projects and sponsoring their
participation in “academic/professional practice” are all effective and facilitative supervision
practices (Pearson and Kayrooz, 2004, p. 99). Lee (2008) identified how the mentorship approach
can lead to personal growth and strengthens students’ abilities to cope with challenges as they
occur. However, doctoral supervision is an authoritative context, which according to Lee means
that the power could be misused and change the mentorship into something toxic. One major
finding in the literature is that supervisors’ styles are influenced by the way they themselves
were supervised as PhD students (Delamont et al., 2000; Fillery-Travis et al., 2017; Lee, 2008).

Mentorship
and well-being


IJMCE

Grant (2003), for example, shared how when she worked with supervisors in supervision skills
workshops, she asked them to reflect on their experiences as former PhD students. The stories

they shared with her were negative, “painful,” and full of unfortunate moments in which they
felt lonely and unsupported; they further stated that “people [had] so much power over [their]
life” (p. 167). These findings imply that supervisors should remain mindful of their own
previous experiences, whether positive or negative, so that they can mentor, coach and sponsor
their students to help them succeed while maintaining their well-being.
Well-being in doctoral programs
Well-being is “an overarching term that encapsulates an individual’s quality of life,
happiness, satisfaction with life and experience of good mental and physical health” (Noble
and McGrath, 2012, p. 32). It allows individuals “to develop their potential, work
productively and creatively, build strong and positive relationships with others, and
contribute to their community” (Foresight Mental Capital and Well-Being Project, 2008,
p. 10). In doctoral programs, Parsloe (1993) suggested that the phase of formulating research
questions leaves students with feelings of frustration, confusion and anxiety, which affects
their well-being. Parsloe added that the whole process, from starting the research to
submitting a thesis, is an emotional experience for students and their families, as well as an
intellectual process. It is normal for doctoral students to experience strong emotions when
conducting research. Varying emotional states are part of the process, and Coffey (1999)
explained how researchers should acknowledge these emotions, whether positive or
negative, and further argued that these emotions are “fundamental feature[s] of wellexecuted research” (p. 158).
Morrison Saunders et al. (2010) proposed that all doctoral students experience “emotional
swings […] [and] even those for whom the doctoral process is overall a very positive
experience, some negative emotions are encountered” (p. 24). These positive and negative
emotions occur in the early, middle and final stages of the program. The scholars argued
that positive emotions do not cause problems, and students “need to be aware of those
negative emotions that deactivate from the task and long-term goal of the PhD” (p. 19). At
the same time, offering quality supervision regardless of the power difference in this context
means that students should remain actively engaged in the supervision process (Grant and
Graham, 1999), which also means that supervisors should provide a safe space for their
students to offer their input and express their feelings regarding the effectiveness of the
supervision they receive. As such, this current paper argues that mentorship in doctoral

programs is a vital process that has the power to influence students’ well-being either
positively or negatively.
Research methodology
An interpretive phenomenological methodology was selected to frame the research design.
This research approach seeks to study the individual lived experience by exploring, describing
and analyzing its meaning (Marshall and Rossman, 2011). Bentz and Shapiro (1998) explained
how the lived experiences of human beings include “the whole system of interactions with
others […] in an environment that is fused with meaning and language” (p. 171).
Data collection and analysis
The researchers applied a purposive sampling strategy (Creswell, 2005; Neuman and
Neuman, 2006) to invite doctoral students to participate in the study. The criteria specified
that participants could be any student, current or former, in a Canadian university
doctoral program in any discipline, including social sciences and humanities, the natural
sciences and engineering and health sciences. The students were e-mailed directly through


their profiles, which were publicly available on their university websites. The study also
applied a snowball strategy, asking current participants to recruit future participants
from their connections.
The interviews were conducted in the Summer and Fall of 2018, and the interview
questions were: What does mentorship mean in the doctoral supervisor–student
relationship, and how does it exist in this context? and; As a doctoral student, you might
have experienced different emotional states throughout your program: Is there a significant
story or are there particular moments in your program in which you felt strong emotions?
How do you describe these emotional situations? How did your supervisor respond during
these times?
The interviews included students (N ¼ 19) from different disciplines and from three
provinces in Canada: Ontario (n ¼ 16), Manitoba (n ¼ 1) and Alberta (n ¼ 2). The interviews
were semi-structured, took place via Skype, Zoom and telephone, and averaged 55 min in
length (Table I).

The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, with all proper names and
identifiers removed and changed to pseudonyms. Prior to conducting this research, ethics
approval was obtained, ensuring that the study adhered to ethical guidelines.
A thematic analysis approach was applied, which is a “method for identifying, analyzing
and reporting patterns within data” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 79). The aim was to be
attentive and tentative – “attentive to the data, and tentative in [the] conceptualizations of
them” (Dey, 2003, p. 108). To do so, the researchers employed a close reading strategy
focused on the contents before generalizing the findings. The themes were verified through
constant review of transcripts and memos and by comparing, reflecting, reading, rereading,
coding and recoding (Boeije, 2002).

Mentorship
and well-being

Findings
This research draws on the experiences of 19 doctoral students who joined their programs
with a sense of excitement and a vision to complete them successfully. They joined the
program either as professionals with life experience and expertise in their fields or as young
students, a few of whom had been continuously pursuing education since high school. These
Pseudonyms

Disciplines

Laura
Daisy
Natasha
Tiffany
Sara
Stephanie
Heather

Michael
Nora
Nicholas
Ronald
Chris
Reginald
Adam
Leslie
Nancy
Lamar
Randy
Nelly

Social sciences and humanities
Social sciences and humanities
Social sciences and humanities
Social sciences and humanities
Social sciences and humanities
Social sciences and humanities
Social sciences and humanities
Social sciences and humanities
Social sciences and humanities
Natural sciences and engineering
Natural sciences and engineering
Natural sciences and engineering
Natural sciences and engineering
Natural sciences and engineering
Health sciences
Health sciences
Health sciences

Health sciences
Health sciences

Age
28
26
28
26
29
30
50
38
53
26
29
33
27
27
41
27
48
26
28

Stage in the program
Finishing 2nd year
Finishing 2nd year
Finishing 2nd year
In 3rd year
In 5th year (ABD)

Graduated in 2018
Graduated in 2018
Graduated in 2017
Graduated in 2013
In 5th year
In 5th year
Graduated in 2015
Graduated in 2010
Graduated in 2008
In 3rd year
Graduated in 2013
Graduated in 2005
Graduated in 2004
Graduated in 1997

Table I.
Participants’ program/
demographics


IJMCE

students wanted to earn a doctoral degree for different reasons. Several students wanted to
advance their professional careers, others wanted to work in academia, and still others
wanted to gain more knowledge in their research areas of interest. They ranged in age from
their mid-20s to their early 50s. Regardless of their various reasons for joining their
programs and their different life stages, they were all equal in their desire to learn, progress
and graduate on time.
In the interviews, the doctoral students were invited to provide their perspectives on and
recount their experiences with both mentorship and well-being. Based on the level of

authenticity of the support students received from their supervisors and their level of
satisfaction with that support, the data revealed three types of mentorship experiences:
authentic mentorship, average mentorship and below average/toxic mentorship.
Many students experienced both positive and negative aspects in all types of mentorship
(which is normal in human interactions), but with different levels (minor/major), and different
consequences. What Chris noted about his positive experience explains the perspectives of
many participants about that positive and the negative aspects in their supervision
experiences: “There’s no relationship [that] is all rosy […] maybe I’m sounding very positive
here. Right? But it’s that we’re always learning from those negatives.” These findings are
detailed in the following two main sections: mentorship and well-being.
Mentorship
This section responds to RQ1.
All participants expressed the importance of being committed to their roles and
responsibilities as doctoral students. They further reported how they were heavily invested
in their programs by dedicating countless hours and paying vigorous efforts. Regardless of
their commitments, they received different quality levels of mentorship.
Authentic mentorship. The findings for this high quality mentorship yielded five
subthemes. These subthemes were the five characteristics that when combined identify an
authentic mentor: presence and engagement, sincere interests, confidence and mindfulness,
space for growth and positivity.
Presence and engagement. Students appreciated supervisors who were present – coaching,
facilitating, sponsoring and helping them navigate the system – especially in their early stages,
when they started “a little blind,” as Heather described it. Whether supervisors were physically
or virtually accessible did not matter; what really mattered to students was that their
supervisors were friendly, “very respectful” (Nora), approachable, not “grumpy” (Nancy), and
psychologically present.
Heather, for example, had to switch supervisors because her first supervisor was mostly
absent and was not engaged in the learning process. She described her excellent supervision
experience after she switched supervisors: “[My supervisor] was really guiding and
facilitating, mentoring, and encouraging me along the way.” Concurring, Nelly suggested

that supervisors were expected to be “rock[s] in support,” especially since they are busy
fulfilling other responsibilities as well. Nora shared her view of mentors as supervisors who
are present to support their people in “good times” as well as in “challenging times.” Being
present means that supervisors are engaged and psychologically engrossed, which allows
them to offer support as needed.
Sincere interests. Supervisors who had their students’ best interest at heart fostered
trustworthy supervisory relationships, which students admired and regarded. Nelly, for
example, described mentorship as “having a second pair of parents”; her supervisor
provided her with both academic and personal guidance, which she valued and respected.
Michael confirmed Nelly’s insight and appreciation about the “parental” relationship his
supervisor had with him.


Among others, Randy, Nancy and Tiffany valued the way their supervisors mentored
them academically while teaching them lifelong matters. Randy, for example, shared how
mentorship for her was about “taking an active personal interest in a student and in their
future, and you want to help them succeed.” Randy explained how her supervisor cared
about her career and future: “I knew […] that I wanted to go into research and continuing
research […] We spoke about it, and he was very supportive.” All of these students trusted
their supervisors’ advice, opinions and decisions. Believing that their supervisors had their
best interest at heart offered the peace of mind of being in safe hands.
Confidence and mindfulness. Participants found it significant to their success to have a
confident supervisor (who is the main decision-maker in this context) who knows how and
where to guide and who knows the tools a student needs. If a supervisor simply “doesn’t
know what those tools are, or if the supervisor is struggling in their own lab, then they’re
going to have a hard time giving the right tools to their own students” (Nancy); this shortage
might lead their students to struggle, get stuck, or even drift away with their research.
However, students reported that their supervisors were mindful of their own limits and were
willing to show their “vulnerabilities” since they do not “have all the answers” to students’
queries (Michael). These supervisors tended to be open-minded about learning new things

and connecting their students with other valuable resources to support their students.
Furthermore, students benefited from having supervisors who motivated them by
sharing their own experiences as former doctoral students. Nelly, Chris and Tiffany, among
others, expressed appreciation for their supervisors’ willingness to share experiences. Nelly
highlighted how supervisors “have been through it, and I always appreciated the fact that
my mentor shared her experiences with me […] and the other students as well, because it
gives some insight.”
Whether these supervisors had positive or negative experiences during their own time as
doctoral students, it seems that they were mindful of those experiences, and they learned
both what to do (Chris’s supervisor) and what not to do (Tiffany’s supervisor) when they
mentored their students.
Space for growth. Students benefited considerably from supervisors who provided them
with sufficient autonomy. Their supervisors developed their research identities by offering
both hands-on and hands-off approaches as needed. Nora, among others, treasured the way
her supervisor engaged her in the supervision process, and how he provided her with “the
freedom to contribute to the process.” Chris valued the way his supervisor cared about his
growth without directing it. Leslie reported how her supervisor was not trying to make her
another version of herself, which was important to her as an emerging scholar developing
her own identity:
They’re not trying to make me […] into mini-them, because they know it’s not what I am. They sort of
support whatever direction I want to go in and help me decide if I don’t know what that direction is.

The students described their supervisors as very affirming and very supportive. Their
hands-on and hands-off approaches, based on the students’ individual needs, along with
their demonstrated belief in their students’ capabilities, were all listed as positive practices
that supported students’ progression and scholarly development.
Positivity. Supervisors with positive behaviors and attitudes were found to be “very
optimistic […] very empathetic” (Heather), “very positive and upbeat” (Nelly) and could help
transform problems into opportunities (Chris). Additionally, these supervisors were respectful,
kind, confident and patient (Tiffany, Leslie, Nancy, Randy), and were somewhat humble.

They demonstrated acceptance and valued their students’ rights to agree or disagree with
them. These positive behaviors and attitudes made their students feel respected, listened to,
hopeful, resilient, assured and confident in sharing their thoughts and moving beyond
their comfort zones.

Mentorship
and well-being


IJMCE

Egotism was found to be a threat to positivity: Heather, for example, explained how
supervisors should leave their egos out of the supervision equation to help their students
feel comfortable around them. She added:
So, you know, I love bell hooks – you know, leaving the ego at the door, so that you can fulfill the
needs of others; and so emptying ourselves, walking through that doorway, so that it’s not about
our ego – it’s about the students and facilitating their learning.

Nelly echoed Heather’s idea and emphasized the importance for her of having a supervisor
as a facilitator “not [to] be above the student, but [to] be beside them,” so that students can
express themselves and their ideas without fear of judgment or ignorance.
Average mentorship. This section presents the findings of two students, Daisy and
Reginald, who described average mentorship, neither negative nor positive mentorship
experiences. Daisy had a very negative and noninclusive supervision experience
while earning her master’s degree; however, she described her PhD supervisor as
“great” and “caring.” She respected how her PhD supervisor helped her navigate the
system, especially given that Daisy is a shy person who, during her first year,
was still “trying to learn how to swim.” Her main challenge was that her supervisor
was more of a seasonal mentor, which resulted in Daisy being delayed in taking her
candidacy exam.

Reginald started his program with co-supervisors. He had a better experience after he
decided to choose a single supervisor to work with. He suggested that mentorship for him
meant “redirecting a problem or deciding when it’s time to divest.” He shared how he spent
18 months on a project that was not getting him anywhere, which encouraged him to make
the decision to work with one supervisor only. Clearly, both Daisy and Reginald needed
more time and attention from their supervisors.
Below average/toxic mentorship. The data sets disclosed three subthemes that clearly
pointed toward what may be called “below average/toxic mentorship.” Lamar reported
what summarized the other students’ perspectives: “Your supervisor will make or
break your experience.” These subthemes include absenteeism, over-authoritarian and
negative attitudes.
Absenteeism. Absenteeism refers to supervisors who were physically/virtually absent or
psychologically absent, which means they were not engaged or were not sensitive enough to
respond appropriately to their students’ needs. The category of absenteeism also includes
passive supervisors who did not check in to see how their students were doing, to the extent
that their students were debilitated.
Sara, for instance, did not deny a number of positive mentorship aspects she got from her
supervisor; but for her, mentorship “is not only helping me through the topics or the
methodology of a research project, but it’s also building me as a future academic.” Sara, who
portrayed her supervisor as supportive but “easygoing,” lacked motivation because of
multiple difficult personal problems she faced. Because Sara was not progressing well, she
“avoided the hallways” that her supervisor might use and stopped going to the lab. Sara felt
as if she were invisible, and her absence went unnoticed by her supervisor, which
demotivated her even more.
Nicholas explained feeling that his supervisor ignored his needs to discuss his research
with him, and that he lacked feedback, guidance and support, causing him to waste a lot of
time following the wrong track. Natasha and Laura did not have bad supervision
experiences in general; however, they did not receive much mentoring from their
supervisors and thus relied on other professors for guidance. Laura explained that she
relied on another professor that she called her “unofficial supervisor” because her own

supervisor devoted time and attention to more “needy” students. Laura, who expects a


supervisor to be a mentor for all students, rather than only some of them, sometimes
questioned this in her mind:
I guess I kind of felt like, “Oh, should I be having a breakdown in her office?” You know, it does
make you think, should I, should I be more open or more, I don’t know, more needy or something
with them to get more attention.

Lamar managed to graduate, regardless of lack of support and guidance from her
supervisor, but she felt stuck at some point, and she was delayed in her program. Not only
Lamar, all of these students with absentee supervisors felt stuck, and their energies were
drained. They did not know how to confront their challenges and were unable to move
forward. Having little ability to control their situations, exhausted them and left them
feeling helpless and hopeless.
Over-authoritarian. Over-authoritarian mentorship was the opposite of absentee
mentorship. The supervisors here were heavily involved but in an undesirable way.
Ronald reported that he had “too much mentoring,” which he did not appreciate: “I think
really […] the whole experience, the whole supervisor experience. There’s mentorship
everywhere […] I mean, there is really a lot of advice coming from your supervisor.” Ronald
explained how he felt that his supervisor valued his own interests over his students’
interests. Having his supervisor misusing his power and delaying his graduation “to publish
a paper in a deadline” was not fair, according to him, and it stressed him out.
Stephanie, who graduated just before the interview, explained how she received a lot of
feedback but that it was all negative, and in different cases, “mean” and “threatening.” She
developed depression throughout her program, from which she was still working hard to
recover: “I really wish he would have been able to give me positive feedback a lot more, and I
wish he would have been more self-reflective around his own inability to help me.” She
added how her supervisor had reflected on his experience when he was a PhD student: “He
talks about a lot of his challenges, which you would think he would then make it be less

challenging with me, but he always compared [me] to his own challenges and, like, what he
faced was worse.”
Stephanie wished that her supervisor were mindful of what he had learned from his
negative supervision experience to provide her with more positive feedback, support and
guidance, especially considering that he knew the bitter feelings of being unsupported.
Stephanie now works as a consultant in leadership and coaching. She hopes that no doctoral
student has to suffer as she did, which is why she participated in the research, regardless of
her emotional state; she was still recovering from her depression at the time of the interview.
These supervisory behaviors and practices did not appear to include any aspect of
sincere interest, mindfulness, space for growth or positivity. The opposite was true; there
was selfishness, lack of mindfulness, ignorance and bullying (threatening and excessive
feedback). The phrase “below average” may better be described as toxic. For this reason, the
researchers have used “below average/toxic” as an umbrella category for supervision that
was neglectful, actively abusive or negative.
Negative attitudes. Supervisors with negative attitudes seemed careless, apathetic
impatient and disrespectful, and even exhibited uncontrolled ego, which affected their
students adversely. Among others, Nicolas did not find his supervisor respectful, Lamar
found her supervisor careless and Ronald suffered from his supervisor’s impatience.
Stephanie, who had an apathetic supervisor, got sick of her supervisor’s uncontrolled ego.
She did not see her supervisor at any point as a role model because he made her feel small
and disengaged.
These students who had to deal with negativity or ego issues were thereby disadvantaged,
which affected their progress and performance. In many cases, the students who had to deal
with absent supervisors, over-authorized mentorship or negative supervisors suppressed their

Mentorship
and well-being


IJMCE

struggles and preferred to suffer in silence. Ronald, for example, reported that he kept his
challenges to himself as he did not want to complicate his tough situation more. Ultimately,
their doctoral experiences became deleterious and did not meet their hopes or expectations.
Student well-being and mentorship
This section addresses RQ2.
There is no doubt that doctoral programs are rewarding; but they are also demanding to
these committed students, who heavily invested in these programs. The findings suggest
that two kinds of challenges impacted the students’ well-being: program-related challenges
and non-program-related challenges. The different quality levels of mentorship the students
experienced played active roles in their well-being and performance.
Program-related challenges. These kinds of challenges included technical/process
pressures, timeline pressures and pressures arising from supervision style.
Technical/process pressures. Students had to deal with different issues related to
research and experiment-related activities and techniques, including their struggles and
frustrations in the lab, and to scuffles surrounding publication. Other kinds of pressure were
related to the process of completing program requirements, such as comprehensive exams.
The process also included the students’ needs to take breaks and deal with fluctuations
in motivation.
Tiffany and Leslie reported different kinds of pressures that demonstrated their
supervisors’ positivity. Tiffany shared that things were stressful for her, that “sometimes
there’s things going wrong in our lab. It might not be specific to my research” and how she
found her supervisor “really understanding,” always there with a positive attitude, saying,
“Let’s figure this out.” Leslie reported that when she was getting ready to take her
comprehensive exams, she had panic attacks. Leslie highlighted her supervisor’s role: “[My
supervisor] sat down with me and […] we went through it […] so they would help me go
through that […] were just very supportive and reassuring that it [was] going to be fine.
‘You can do this.’ ”
Adam and Nancy shared their difficult times and lab-related frustrations when their
experiments did not work. Adam explained how his supervisor “was very supportive.”

Nancy explained how her supervisor noticed her struggle and how she “burst into tears” in
front of him, and how he assisted her: “He was actually really good and helping with those
emotions and just tell[ing] me that I don’t have to do everything myself, and that we do have
a team so that other people can be managing that kind of stuff.”
Chris and Randy both spoke about their frustrations when they submitted papers to
journals, and they were rejected. Chris noted that although he was frustrated, his supervisor
responded, “‘This is a good review.’ I think that would probably be the first words that came
out, and then we [went] through [it].” He added how he and his supervisor went over the
paper, and “it was a coaching through the process.” Randy shared how aggravated she felt:
“It seemed like nothing was going to be published.” She even started to think,
“Maybe I should do something else, finish the PhD, but then I should go into something
else.” Randy emphasized how “those papers were eventually published, and things worked
out.” She stated proudly “here I am today,” and she gave credit to her supervisor, who was
“very supportive.”
When Reginald, who experienced average mentorship, decided to work with only a
single supervisor, he decided to take a short break “to have a chance of beginning a new
thing with any momentum.” His supervisor did not sense his needs at the time and did not
encourage him to take the break. Reginald took the break anyway and traveled because he
thought that it was better for his well-being. He is in academia now and believes that
students should be encouraged to take breaks.


Laura and Lamar, who had both experienced below average/toxic mentorship, spoke
about how they felt like imposters. Laura did not get much support from her supervisor to
deal with her imposter syndrome: “I have a meeting with her that I leave feeling confused, it
doesn’t feel great […] I guess you do start asking questions like, ‘Oh, what am I doing [in this
program]?’ ” Lamar reported that her supervisor’s “negative feedback” contributed to her
imposter syndrome; however, her resiliency helped her deal with her imposter syndrome
and her supervisor’s negativity.
Such technical/process pressures are part of any doctoral program, and the students did

not expect these normal features to go away. Nevertheless, they all needed the kind of
attentiveness, assurance and positive attitudes that authentic mentors offer.
Timeline pressures. Meeting program milestones provided students with confidence and
satisfaction and fueled their momentum. None of the participants described the doctoral
path as an easy one; they all, even those who enjoyed authentic mentorship, acknowledged
the ups and downs of their demanding “roller coaster” programs. They all felt worried and
emotionally strong at different points in their programs. Students who experienced
authentic mentorship were able to achieve their goals with the support of their supervisors
and felt satisfied and appreciative.
By contrast, being behind in the program or delayed and not graduating on time are
severe sources of pressure that leave students anxious and worried. Daisy, who experienced
average mentorship, had “never stopped [formal education] since high school,” and this
added a lot of stressors for her. She explained how “managing my emotions […] has
definitely taken a toll,” especially because “the doctoral path is very isolating and it’s very
lonely.” She acknowledged that her supervisor helped her navigate the system when she
started the program. However, she had not done her candidacy exams yet, and this made her
nervous. Daisy needed more time and attention from her supervisor to guide her through the
candidacy process, which she did not get.
Nicholas and Lamar, who experienced below average/toxic mentorships, spoke about the
ups and down in their programs, and how their supervisors never noticed their struggles.
Lamar further added that people asked her why it was taking her so long to finish the program,
which caused additional pressure. No one knew that she lacked constructive feedback and clear
guidance, which caused her progress to be delayed. Under these circumstances, she felt “anger,
self-doubt, [that] you’re no good […] I don’t think I felt fear. I felt unsupported.”
Ronald, whose supervisor’s mentorship style was below average/toxic, explained how
his main conflict with his supervisor – delaying his graduation – made him feel like he was
“held hostage,” which caused him stress:
Delaying my graduation […] was putting a lot of stress in my life because of not being able to
graduate at the time that I wanted, and I thought I have already completed […] all the milestones.
So why am I being held here? Held hostage?

Even though students reported that they worked hard to manage their programs, they all
shared that meeting deadlines and timeline pressures were challenging, especially when
motivation was not that high. Students who reported being behind in their programs or
delayed because of lack of guidance and support, felt strained and exasperated.
Pressures arising from supervision style. Many students enjoyed an authentic
mentorship style, which motivated them and influenced their well-being and performance in
a positive way. Unfortunately for others, their supervisors’ negative attitudes and their
styles were a source of stress. Whether from easygoing supervisors who provided little
guidance (complete autonomy) to overcontrolling or demanding supervisors, students were
left anxious and fatigued, and a few developed depression. Nicholas’s, Sara’s, Lamar’s and
Stephanie’s stories, among others, showed the harmful consequences of below average/toxic
mentorship on students’ well-being and performances.

Mentorship
and well-being


IJMCE

While being on the wrong track as a result of being completely autonomous and not
getting feedback was a tough and embarrassing experience that affected Nicholas’s
well-being, Sara detailed how she was worried about being behind. Her supervisor was
“easygoing” with her, which did not help her very much: “I need someone to just say, hey […]
get your stuff together, you have to do this, no more wasting time, no more procrastinating.”
She needed her supervisor to “guide the process, set clear deadlines, and check in” with her.
She found herself unable to start writing her dissertation, and she developed depression: “I
actually went on antidepressants at the end of January.”
Lamar’s supervisor’s mentorship style stressed her to the extent that she considered
quitting the program. However, Lamar received what she called “wonderful advice” from

her friend, which touched her profoundly and contributed to her resiliency: “[My] friend
would say to me: ‘You’re not allowed to quit in a valley. You can’t quit in a valley.’ ”
Stephanie, whose elevated stress levels and depression reached the point where she broke
down in front of her “demanding” supervisor, stated how “ambiguity” was “a big frustration”
that caused her “a lot of stress.” One source of her struggles was that her supervisor “did not
believe in giving positive feedback.” She elaborated on both her frustration and her resilience:
“I considered leaving the program because I was getting depressed and very frustrated. Did I
ever seriously consider it? No, I’m not a quitter. I was going to finish no matter what.”
Stephanie’s determination helped her complete the program.
Of the three kinds of program-related challenges that the data disclosed (technical/
process pressures, timeline pressures, and pressures arising from supervision style), the
pressures associated with the supervisor’s style were the most problematic issues to
confront. Although these pressures were all tiring, the fact that students were unable to
influence or control their supervisors’ styles of mentorship suggests that these pressures
were serious, leaving students feeling helpless and hopeless that things could get better,
which is a real issue for well-being.
Non-program-related challenges. These challenges include the students’ lives outside
campus, their personal circumstances. The participants shared two kinds of personal
occurrences: exciting personal circumstances, and difficult personal circumstances.
Exciting personal circumstances. The dilemma of enjoying life with all its delightful
events while studying in a demanding program is not always easy for students. These
events, although cheerful, can be overwhelming. Nelly underlined what other students
reported: “Even though we’re in the lab every day […] life is still happening, [so] it’s hard to
leave the personal life at home sometimes.” Nancy, Nelly and Michael experienced positive
personal events that left them dealing with strong emotions.
Nancy got married during the first year of her PhD program, while Nelly got married
near the end of her degree. They both needed to make program arrangements to take time
off for their new lives, and they both found their supervisors helpful. Nelly described her
supervisor as “great” and “wonderful […] she was like that second parent.” Their
supervisors’ understanding allowed them to fully enjoy the excitements of starting a new

family without worrying about their PhD programs.
For Michael, becoming a father brought a lot of enjoyment to his life, and he considered
quitting the program to fully enjoy fatherhood, even though his child was born not long
before his defence. He started “filling out the forms to drop out of the program” without
telling his supervisor, because he knew that she would not be happy about it. He stopped the
quitting process when he realized that he needed “the signature of the chair, and that year
she was serving as the department chair,” so he “couldn’t drop out.” He realized that his
excitement had prevented him from making good decisions. Knowing that his supervisor
had invested in him and wanted him to graduate was a major turning point in his life; he
summarized it: “I got lucky.”


Difficult personal circumstances. These circumstances ranged from minor events
(having a cold, not getting enough sleep) that required students to stay home to recover or
rest, to more devastating events that did not have quick resolutions. These major events
included financial struggles, losing loved ones and other significant life events. Stephanie’s
husband “got laid off,” so she had to take a job to support her family. She noted that her
supervisor was “not super sympathetic.” He failed to recognize her personal struggles,
discouraged her from getting a job and even tried to force her to publish articles instead.
Regardless, Stephanie got the job and managed to graduate in a timely manner.
Both Nora and Heather, like Michael, considered quitting their programs, though for
different personal reasons. Their supervisors took a hand in their staying and completing
the programs. They both experienced depressing challenges when their mothers passed
away during the programs, and they both received a lot of support from their supervisors.
Nora spoke about how her supervisor was “100% supportive” during these times. Her
supervisor’s full assistance also played a dynamic role in her staying in the program and
graduating. Heather shared how having her mother pass away and defending her
dissertation, in addition to several financial issues, challenged her and her family. Heather
emphasized how her supervisor assisted her during these times and encouraged her not to
quit by “supporting, trying to find pathways for me and encouraging me to continue on […]

very empathetic and very understanding and very considerate.”
Natasha was also confronted with a similar devastating challenge: “Right before I was
starting my PhD and my father passed away.” Her supervisor did not know about it
because, as she said, “I’ll be honest in that I rarely see my supervisor.” Natasha’s supervisor,
who was mostly absent, was different from Nora’s and Heather’s supervisors. Although
Natasha faced her devastating situation with resilience, it would have made her feel better if
her supervisor had known about it and perhaps, at least, sent her a letter of condolence to
make her feel supported.
To conclude, it was evident in this research that both doctoral programs and students’
personal lives are demanding. The skill of juggling work–life balance becomes a necessary
ability for students to progress well. However, supervision is a crucial element in doctoral
journeys, which means that the quality of mentorship that students received from their
supervisors can impact their well-being and performance. Through the range of high,
average, to poor quality mentorship, students felt motivated and satisfied, felt in need of
more understanding and guidance, or unfortunately felt strained and exhausted.
Discussion
The findings of this study confirm what previous studies have reported, as highlighted in
the literature review. Through the experiences of this study’s participants, it is evident
that the quality of mentorship doctoral students receive from supervisors impacts their
well-being and performance.
Mentoring – whether it be called coaching, sponsoring or facilitating – is an approach
that is embedded in the role of the doctoral supervisor. At the same time, doctoral
supervision is an authoritative context in which supervisors have power over their students.
They are the main decision-makers in the doctoral process, which could be an advantage
when the relationship is a positive one and a disadvantage if misused. Therefore, this paper
argues that in authoritative contexts, such as the doctoral supervision context, mentorship
can be toxic. This study highlighted three different quality levels of mentorship that may
characterize the doctoral supervisory relationship: authentic mentorship, average
mentorship and below average/toxic mentorship.
Students who had authentic mentorship experiences were more likely to feel motivated

and satisfied; their supervisors were more likely to play active roles in enhancing their

Mentorship
and well-being


IJMCE

well-being and performance. Such students found their supervisors positive and uplifting,
enforcing their confidence, hope and resiliency, whether the challenges that they faced were
program-related or not. These students valued, enjoyed and benefited from the positive
environments that their supervisors created, which confirms what Luthans et al. (2015)
proposed about the advantage of creating a “positive climate and culture that is supportive
of well-being.” These scholars explained that such leadership, positivity and authenticity
“can reduce injury rates, stress, burnout, turnover, absenteeism, and disengagement” (p. 62).
These supervisors were present throughout the entire learning journey. They created
an acceptance climate for their students to be themselves and were friendly, engaged and
knew their students well enough to adjust their roles as needed. They cared about their
students’ well-being and about their success and future plans, just as a family member
would. They provided genuine guidance, both academically and professionally. Younger
students, for example, who needed advice on lifelong matters, found their supervisors
generous enough to help them out. In other words, these supervisors cared about what
their students needed them to care about. They exhibited genuine interest in their
students’ performance and well-being, which aligned well with findings of a number of
studies (Engebretson et al., 2008; Hockey, 1995; Pearson and Brew, 2002; Pearson and
Kayrooz, 2004).
The supervisors were confident and yet mindful of their own limits. Additionally, as
former doctoral students themselves, these supervisors were keen to motivate their students
by letting them remember that they had been in the same position. They reflected and
shared experiences that offered insights and wisdom. Sharing these experiences did not

mean that they wanted to mold their students into versions of themselves or to relive their
experiences – quite the opposite. They wanted to develop their students’ research identities
while remaining aware of the doctoral environment. Both Tiffany (who had an authentic
mentorship) and Stephanie (who had a toxic mentorship) reported that their supervisors had
negative supervision experiences when they themselves were doctoral students. It seems
that Tiffany’s supervisor learned what not to do as a supervisor, whereas Stephanie’s
supervisor transferred his negative experience to her; he kept telling her that “his own
challenges” when he was a doctoral student were worse than what Stephanie faced. Such
behavior is problematic and confirms that supervisors’ styles are influenced by their
supervision experiences when they themselves were doctoral students (Delamont et al., 2000;
Fillery-Travis et al., 2017; Lee, 2008).
Authentic mentors allow their students to contribute to the process of supervision, and it
is evident that the students who functioned with the perfect balance of support and
autonomy were motivated and satisfied. The importance of autonomy to student motivation
is consistent with Mason’s (2012) findings of a positive correlation between students’
feelings of autonomy and their motivation to complete their programs. Their supervisors
were keen to motivate them and keep them going while identifying their individual
differences, which allowed them to facilitate the process for and with their students.
They were humble and made sure that they placed themselves beside their students, by
keeping their egos in check. Demonstrating genuineness is a fundamental requirement for
authentic mentorship (Marie Taylor and Neimeyer, 2009), and the participants explained the
true meaning of genuineness in doctoral supervision.
The two doctoral students who had average mentorship experiences did not get the kind
of attention or support they needed. Although supervisors in this average mentorship
context were not negative or toxic in the sense of actively harming students’ well-being,
leaving students alone in the process or failing to sense their needs does not foster an
encouraging environment.
Doctoral students who had below average/toxic mentorship were more likely to be
stressed out and depressed. Their supervisors were either absent – physically/virtually or

psychologically – or over-authoritarian, providing “a lot of mentoring” without taking into
consideration the students’ learning needs. These below average/toxic supervisors also
exhibited negative attitudes, and a few of them were seen as bullies. The students
consequently lacked support, guidance and constructive feedback. Moreover, students
tended to hide their negative feelings, such as frustration and embarrassment, which was
problematic for their well-being. Lewis (2004) reported that “exposing one’s experiences of
bullying within an organization with a bullying culture might lead to feelings of
inadequacy, deviance or even social exclusion” (p. 286). These findings suggest that not
only can the supervisor’s toxicity affect students’ well-being, but so can the entire
departmental negative culture that exists and forces bullied students to suppress and
bottle up their frustrations.
These negative supervisors valued their own interests over those of their students,
hurting both their students’ well-being and performance. The toxic mentorship styles did
not encourage progress or learning, and the students were less motivated and less engaged
than their peers, which corresponds to Vinales’s (2015) findings. The students experienced
delays in their progress, and their supervisors did not display that they understood the
importance of ensuring that their students reached their milestones and completed their
degrees on time. McWilliam (2004) emphasized that a good supervisor is “attentive to the
changing needs of the students as they progress through the programme. S/he understands
the importance of timely completion and the special needs of each milestone” (p. 12). These
qualities were clearly absent from this below average/toxic mentorship.
Furthermore, the students who received excessive negative feedback considered quitting
the program, which is consistent with the findings of other studies (Burgess et al., 1994;
Grant and Graham, 1994; Hockey, 1994; McMichael, 1992; Phillips and Pugh, 2010); personal
determination and resiliency helped these students survive.
It is evident that the determined and resilient students managed to complete their doctoral
programs successfully and graduate, even in the face of a toxic mentorship. However, the
negative impact of toxic supervisors on student well-being can do real harm from which the
student will recover only with time and effort. Washington and Cox (2016) found that toxicity

and negative outcomes may result from the mentor’s own motives or lack of emotional
intelligence. Therefore, this paper proposes that understanding, empathy, compassion and
being mindful of an individual’s limits and weaknesses could help avoid these negative
processes and outcomes. Additionally, being mindful of one’s own experiences as a former
doctoral student was critical to effective mentorship for a supervisor.
Conclusions
Authentic membership is part of the services to be offered to a doctoral student. Doctoral
students need high quality mentorship that is customized to meet their needs, based on their
individual characteristics and on their progress in the program. To this end, helping
students complete their doctoral programs successfully, while enhancing their well-being,
was achievable when supervisors offered authentic mentorship. This style required
supervisors to be present (physically/virtually and psychologically), especially when
needed, and to be approachable; to exhibit their sympathetic behaviors; to be confident, and
also mindful of their own limits, and their experiences as former doctoral students; to
provide their students with enough space for professional growth; and to exhibit and
nurture positivity.
Finally, any dyadic workplace relationship story has two versions. Therefore, to fully
understand the complete mentorship and well-being picture in the doctoral supervision
context, it is necessary to also explore mentorship and well-being based on the lived
experiences of supervisors, who are on the other side of the desk. Considering the
supervisors’ workload and the different pressures imposed on them, research has raised

Mentorship
and well-being


IJMCE

valid questions about the feasibility of expecting supervisors to meet all of the extensive
demands placed on them (Deem and Brehony, 2000; Pole et al., 1997). As such, a follow-up

study seeks to examine mentorship and well-being based on the lived experiences of
doctoral supervisors.
Limitations
As with any study, there are limitations in this research. Although the rich data collected
allowed for deep understanding of mentorship and well-being in doctoral supervision, the
study shares the limitations of all qualitative research: lack of generalizability owing to the
small sample size typical in these kinds of studies. As such, conducting a quantitative
research, and designing a tool to test the findings, is necessary.
Another limitation is that this research did not include students who quit the programs
because of dysfunctional supervision experiences. Is it possible that they quit because they
were less resilient? Or is it possible that their well-being was harmed so severely that
quitting the program was their only option? These important queries suggest that there are
still unexplored areas that need investigation.
Implications for practice, policy and research
These findings can be used to inform practice and policy at the individual, group and
departmental or institutional levels. At the individual level, both students and supervisors
can reflect on their beliefs and practices to evaluate and improve their performances. At the
group level, authentic mentors can use these findings to create a positive culture in each
department and a safe space for all students to express their situations and get support. At
the departmental/institutional level, the current supervisory policies can be reviewed in light
of this paper’s findings.
For research purposes, because doctoral supervision challenges are universal (despite
cultural differences), this study was built on previous research conducted on doctoral
supervision in different countries. Therefore, it is an important contribution to higher
education literature, not only in Canada, but in other countries as well.
Implications beyond the sphere of doctoral supervision
This research explored mentorship and well-being specifically in the doctoral supervision
context, which is an authoritative environment that may be similar to other organizational
and workplace settings. Hence, the proposed characteristics of authentic mentorship are
applicable to many workplaces, and these findings can inform policy and practice in private

and public organizations alike.
References
Ahern, K. and Manathunga, C. (2004), “Clutch-starting stalled research students”, Innovative Higher
Education, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 237-254.
Ali, A., Kohun, F. and Levy, Y. (2007), “Dealing with social isolation to minimize doctoral attrition – a
four-stage framework”, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 33-49.
Allen, T.D., Finkelstein, L.M. and Poteet, M.L. (2011), Designing Workplace Mentoring Programs: An
Evidence-Based Approach, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.
Austin, A.E. (2003), “Creating a bridge to the future: preparing new faculty to face changing
expectations in a shifting context”, The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 119-144.
Bair, C.R., Grant Haworth, J. and Sandfort, M. (2004), “Doctoral student learning and development: a
shared responsibility”, NASPA Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 709-727.
Baird, L.L. (1995), “Helping graduate students: a graduate adviser’s view”, New Directions for Student
Services, Vol. 1995 No. 72, pp. 25-32.


Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008), “Work engagement: an emerging
concept in occupational health psychology”, Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 187-200.
Bentz, V.M. and Shapiro, J.J. (1998), Mindful Inquiry in Social Research, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Blatt, R. and Camden, C.T. (2007), “Positive relationships and cultivating community”, in Dutton, J.E.
and Ragins, B.R. (Eds), Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and
Research Foundation, Routledge, London, pp. 243-264.
Boeije, H. (2002), “A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of
qualitative interviews”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 391-409.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (1998), Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education, SRHE & Open
University Press, Buckingham.
Burgess, R.G., Pole, C.J. and Hockey, J. (1994), “Strategies for managing and supervising the social

science PhD”, in Burgess, R.G. (Ed.), Postgraduate Education and Training in the Social Sciences:
Processes and Products, Kingsley, London, pp. 13-33.
Coffey, A. (1999), The Ethnographic Self, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Creswell, J.W. (2005), Educational Research, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cross, R., Baker, W. and Parker, A. (2003), “What creates energy in organizations?”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 51-56.
Deem, R. and Brehony, K.J. (2000), “Doctoral students’ access to research cultures – are some more
unequal than others?”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. and Parry, O. (2000), The Doctoral Experience. Success and Failure in
Graduate School, Falmer Press, London.
Dey, I. (2003), Qualitative Data Analysis: A User Friendly Guide for Social Scientists, Routledge, London.
Dutton, J.E. and Heaphy, E.D. (2003), “The power of high-quality connections”, in Camerson, K. and
Dutton, J. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 263-278.
Engebretson, K., Smith, K., McLaughlin, D., Seibold, C., Terrett, G. and Ryan, E. (2008), “The changing
reality of research education in Australia and implications for supervision: a review of the
literature”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Fillery-Travis, A., Maguire, K., Pizzolatti, N., Robinson, L., Lowley, A., Stel, N., Mans, P., van Wijk, J.,
Prodi, E., Sprerotti, F. and Dobrinski, C. (2017), Insights from Practice: A Handbook for
Supervisors of Modern Doctorate Candidates, available at: />(accessed January 15, 2019).
Foresight Mental Capital and Well-being Project (2008), “Final project report”, Government Office for
Science, London, available at: />system/uploads/attachment_data/file/292450/mental-capital-wellbeing-report.pdf (accessed
June 30, 2019).
Godden, L., Tregunna, L. and Kutsyuruba, B. (2014), “Collaborative application of the adaptive
mentorship model: the professional and personal growth within a research triad”, International
Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 125-140.
Golde, C.M. (2000), “Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process”,
The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 199-227.
Grant, B. (2003), “Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision”, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 175-190.

Grant, B. and Graham, A. (1994), “Guidelines for discussion: a tool for managing postgraduate
supervision”, in Zuber-Skerritt, O. and Ryan, Y. (Eds), Quality in Postgraduate Education, Kogan
Page, London, pp. 165-177.

Mentorship
and well-being


IJMCE

Grant, B. and Graham, A. (1999), “Naming the game: reconstructing graduate supervision”, Teaching in
Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 77-89.
Hockey, J. (1994), “Establishing boundaries: problems and solutions in managing the PhD supervisor’s
role”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 293-305.
Hockey, J. (1995), “Getting too close: a problem and possible solution in social science PhD supervision”,
British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 199-210.
Ives, G. and Rowley, G. (2005), “Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD
students’ progress and outcomes”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 535-555.
Kram, K.E. and Isabella, L.A. (1985), “Mentoring alternatives: the role of peer relationships in career
development”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 110-132.
Kutsyuruba, B., Walker, K., Stasel, R.S. and Al Makhamreh, M. (2019), “Developing resilience and
promoting well-being in early career teaching”, Canadian Journal of Education/Revue
canadienne de l’éducation, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 285-321.
Lee, A. (2008), “How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision”,
Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 267-281.
Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J. and Gisle, L. (2017), “Work organization
and mental health problems in PhD students”, Research Policy, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 868-879.
Lewis, D. (2004), “Bullying at work: the impact of shame among university and college lecturers”,
British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 281-299.
Lin, L. and Cranton, P. (2005), “From scholarship student to responsible scholar: a transformative

process”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 447-459.
Losada, M. (1999), “The complex dynamics of high performance teams”, Mathematical and Computer
Modelling, Vol. 30 Nos 9–10, pp. 179-192.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2015), Psychological Capital and Beyond, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Luthar, S.S. (2006), “Resilience in development: a synthesis of research across five decades”, in
Cicchetti, D.E. and Cohen, D.J. (Eds), Developmental Psychopathology: Risk, Disorder, and
Adaptation, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 739-795.
McMichael, P. (1992), “Tales of the unexpected: supervisors’ and students’ perspectives on short-term
projects and dissertations”, Educational Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 299-310.
McWilliam, E.L. (2004), “On being accountable: risk-consciousness and the doctoral supervisor”, Paper
submitted for full refereeing for the Australian Association for Research in Education
Conference, Melbourne, 28 November-2 December, available at: />mcw04267.pdf (accessed November 10, 2018).
Manathunga, C. (2005), “Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: a different approach
to ensuring timely completions”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-233.
Marie Taylor, J. and Neimeyer, G.J. (2009), “Graduate school mentoring in clinical, counselling, and
experimental academic training programs: an exploratory study”, Counselling Psychology
Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 257-266.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2011), “Managing, analyzing, and interpreting data”, in Marshall, C.
and Rossman, G.B. (Eds), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 205-227.
Mason, M.M. (2012), “Motivation, satisfaction, and innate psychological needs”, International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 259-277, available at: />Mason0345.pdf (accessed January 15, 2019).
Millar, A. (2007), “Encouragement and other Es”, Therapy Today, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 40-42.
Morris, S.E. (2011), “Doctoral students’ experiences of supervisory bullying”, Pertanika Journal of
Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 547-555.


Morrison Saunders, A., Moore, S., Hughes, M. and Newsome, D. (2010), “Coming to terms with research
practice: riding the emotional rollercoaster of doctoral research studies”, in Walker, M. and

Thomson, P. (Eds), The Routledge Doctoral Supervisor’s Companion: Supporting Effective
Research in Education and the Social Sciences, Routledge, London, pp. 206-218.
Neuman, W.L. and Neuman, L.W. (2006), Workbook for Neumann Social Research Methods: Qualitative
and Quantitative Approaches, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Noble, T. and McGrath, H. (2012), “Wellbeing and resilience in young people and the role of positive
relationships”, in Roffey, S. (Ed.), Positive Relationships, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 17-33.
Paglis, L.L., Green, S.G. and Bauer, T.N. (2006), “Does advisor mentoring add value? A longitudinal
study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 451-476.
Parsloe, P. (1993), “Supervising students for higher degrees by research in a social work department”,
Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 49-60.
Pearson, M. (2001), “Research supervision – mystery and mastery”, in Higgs, J. and Titchen, A. (Eds),
Practice Knowledge and Expertise in the Health Professions, Oxford Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, pp. 192-198.
Pearson, M. and Brew, A. (2002), “Research training and supervision development”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 135-150.
Pearson, M. and Kayrooz, C. (2004), “Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice”,
International Journal for Academic Development, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 99-116.
Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (2010), How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors,
McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead.
Pole, C. (1998), “Joint supervision and the PhD: safety net or panacea?”, Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 259-271.
Pole, C.J., Sprokkereef, A., Burgess, R.G. and Lakin, E. (1997), “Supervision of doctoral students in the
natural sciences: expectations and experiences”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Price, D.C. and Money, A.H. (2002), “Alternative models for doctoral mentor organisation and research
supervision”, Mentoring and Tutoring, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 127-135.
Pyhältö, K. and Keskinen, J. (2012), “Exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’
perceptions of resources and challenges vis-à-vis the doctoral journey”, International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 395-414.

Ragins, B.R. and Verbos, A.K. (2007), “Positive relationships in action: relational mentoring and
mentoring schemas in the workplace”, in Dutton, J.E. and Ragins, B.R. (Eds), Exploring Positive
Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation, Routledge, London,
pp. 91-116.
Rook, K.S. (1984), “The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-being”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 1097-1108.
Sambrook, S., Stewart, J. and Roberts, C. (2008), “Doctoral supervision … a view from above, below and
the middle!”, Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Sias, P.M. (2005), “Workplace relationship quality and employee information experiences”,
Communication Studies, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 375-395.
Tamburri, R. (2013), “The PhD is in need of revision”, University Affairs, Vol. 3 No. 54, p. 12,
available at: www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/the-phd-is-in-need-of-revision/
(accessed January 16, 2017).
Vinales, J.J. (2015), “Mentorship part 1: the role in the learning environment”, British Journal of Nursing,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 50-53.
Washington, R. and Cox, E. (2016), “How an evolution view of workplace mentoring relationships helps
avoid negative experiences: the developmental relationship mentoring model in action”,
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 318-340.

Mentorship
and well-being


IJMCE

Wendler, C., Bridgeman, B., Cline, F., Millett, C., Rock, J., Bell, N. and McAllister, P. (2010), The Path
Forward: The Future of Graduate Education in the United States, Educational Testing Service,
Princeton, NJ.
Wisker, G. (2007), The Postgraduate Research Handbook: Succeed with Your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD,
Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Zhao, C.M., Golde, C.M. and McCormick, A.C. (2007), “More than a signature: how advisor choice and
advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction”, Journal of Further and Higher
Education, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 263-281.

Corresponding author
Maha Al Makhamreh can be contacted at:

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: