Using social exchange and equity theory to explore postgraduate student mentoring initiatives and academic faculty participation

Abstract

Purpose

Student welfare and wellbeing is crucial to successful postgraduate study, regardless of the global location in which the study is taking place, making it an international issue. This study sought to add to the conversations occurring globally on this topic, focusing particularly on exploring academic faculty participation in higher education postgraduate taught (PGT) student mentoring initiatives.

Design/methodology/approach

By applying two theories, social exchange theory (SET) and equity theory (ET), faculty participation in postgraduate mentoring was explored and examined. A qualitative methodology, comprising 19 semi-structured interviews with faculty participating as mentors, was conducted. Data was analysed using template analysis, with SET and ET used to create thematic templates.

Findings

The application of SET and ET enabled faculty participation to be understood in terms of the perceived equity, costs and rewards of mentoring. Costs can be significant, sometimes outweighing the benefits, thus endangering the viability and sustainability of the PGT mentoring initiative. Analysis suggested two distinct types of “mentor mindsets” exist, which influence the perception of investments, equity, costs and rewards.

Originality/value

As higher education institutions face increasing pressure to support student welfare, it is imperative that personalised support is put under scrutiny so management practices can be established that support and encourage academic faculty participation in these support initiatives. This paper recommends how institutions can allay the costs of mentoring by considering mentor recruitment, selection, training and other supportive measures.

Citation

Bordogna, C.M. (2023), "Using social exchange and equity theory to explore postgraduate student mentoring initiatives and academic faculty participation", International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 128-144. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-04-2022-0031