Recently, I have been reflecting on university student mentoring programs and the ways peer relationships underpin educational access and participation. The last two decades have witnessed an explosion in peer mentoring across higher education (HE) but potential shortcomings exist that require addressing. I have condensed these reflections into the 5 Ms of Mentoring for anyone contemplating introducing a mentoring program or those already coordinating peer initiatives.
1) Meaning
Even a cursory analysis of university webpages highlights how the term ‘mentoring’ is often loosely applied to any formal ‘student to student’ peer interaction. Part of the reason for this may be that there is no one universally accepted definition of what mentoring constitutes across the HE environment. This is both good and bad. On a positive note, it allows for a certain fluidity around the mentoring role, to best address the unique contexts of institutions and their student cohort. More negatively however, it can be the case that overuse of the term dilutes impact and causes confusion. One possible solution is to proactively create a definition of what mentoring constitutes in the context of each institution; removing unintentional ambiguity can only improve mentoring outcomes.
2) Matching
A question that may arise at the planning stages of programs is whether mentees should be deliberately matched with mentors based on similar background, demographics, interests, or discipline. Some universities invest a lot of time and effort in such matching exercises. From an equity perspective, there are arguments both for and against intentional matching. On the one hand, having someone who has had similar life experiences as a potential mentee can be extremely validating and lessen ‘imposter syndrome’. However, equally, pairing ‘like with like’ may reduce the potential for both mentors and mentees to experience alternative perspectives or biographies, perhaps even limiting the learning potential of these relationships. Above all, any choices about matching should consider the objectives of the program, including whether the overarching aim of the program is traditional, transitional or transformational (detailed in Kochan and Pascarelli, 2012).
3) Mapping
Given the maturity and multiplicity of peer offerings across universities, institutional audits of all programs may be needed that pay particular attention to which phase of the student life cycle the program addresses. Collectively, while the sector has embraced the potential of peer mentoring, there has been unintentional focus on particular points of the student journey, generally the commencement of study. One stage that is largely underserved by peer mentoring is the transition-out phase of university, where peer connections with alumni could have important and enduring equity implications (O’Shea, 2023)
4) Mandating
Back in the early 2000’s when I first became involved in university peer mentoring, student involvement was largely voluntary, both mentees and mentors ‘opting in’ to programs. However, the growth and beneficial impact of these peer relationships has led to many programs adopting a more formalised approach, with new students often automatically placed in programs at commencement. Some universities even include mentoring as a credit bearing subject with compulsory attendance. More research is needed on the repercussions of such mandating, particularly how compulsory peer connections impact the nature and outcomes of these relationships.
5) Monetary Reward
Finally, the question often arises as to whether monetary reward for mentor participation is needed. The voluntary nature of some programs is justified on the basis that participation provides transferable employability skills. Instead of financial incentives, universities often offer alternative rewards such as expert advice on creating professional profiles, the opportunity to attend additional professional development workshops or priority application for paid roles on-campus. All of these are commendable incentives, but applying an equity lens to programs suggests that actual financial payments are the only way to ensure mentors are recruited from a diversity of backgrounds. Volunteering is a luxury that students from under-represented groups are generally unable to contemplate.
Mentoring has become commonplace at university campuses and, in the aftermath of COVID, is undoubtedly even more crucial now for creating connections. Yet Egege and Kutlieleh (2015) warn there is an emerging ‘dark side’ to mentoring, largely resulting from its ill-defined and ‘border-less’ nature. Whilst this ambiguity has allowed freedom for this intervention to develop organically, there is a real need to better communicate the equity principles of peer mentoring. Such deliberate articulation would ensure that emerging mentoring programs do not involuntarily contribute to educational inequity, particularly on the eve of the post-Accord HE environment.
Professor Sarah O’Shea is the Dean, Graduate Research at Charles Sturt University.