EMERALD IJMCE IJMCE634183 1 20 Mentorship and well being Examining doctoral students’ lived experiences in doctoral supervision context Maha Al Makhamreh and Denise Stockley Queen’s University, Kingst.EMERALD IJMCE IJMCE634183 1 20 Mentorship and well being Examining doctoral students’ lived experiences in doctoral supervision context Maha Al Makhamreh and Denise Stockley Queen’s University, Kingst.
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 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 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 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 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 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 (Chris’s supervisor) and what not to (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 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 everything myself, and that we 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: http://superprofdoc.eu/?page_id=71 (accessed January 15, 2019) Foresight Mental Capital and Well-being Project (2008), “Final project report”, Government Office for Science, London, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ 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 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 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: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/981/1/ 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 No 1, pp 259-277, available at: http://ijds.org/Volume7/IJDSv7p259-277 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 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 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: 12mam17@queensu.ca 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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com ... 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... 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... engineering Natural sciences and engineering Natural sciences and engineering Natural sciences and engineering Health sciences Health sciences Health sciences Health sciences Health sciences Age