“A Mentor for Academics or a Mentor for Life?” New Research on Faculty-Student Mentoring
Fortuin, G., & Steenkamp, G. (2026). Mentoring of bursary students by academic staff: An empirical mixed-methods analysis of student and lecturer-mentor perspectives. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/17418305261459811
Introduction
Mentoring is widely framed as a tool for equity and belonging in higher education, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Fortuin & Steenkamp, 2026). At Stellenbosch University, students on Thuthuka Bursary Fund (TBF) awards—accounting students from previously disadvantaged South African backgrounds—are paired with faculty mentors from first year through graduation. While mentoring’s benefits for students are well documented, its costs for mentors, including time burden and emotional labor, are less studied. Fortuin & Steenkamp (2026) set out to examine both sides: whether mentees and mentors perceive the program as effective, how each understands the mentor’s role, what challenges each faces, and what improvements they recommend.
Methods
The study used a phased mixed-methods design. In phase 1, TBF students (excluding first-years) and lecturer-mentors completed questionnaires combining Likert-scale ratings with open-ended questions. In phase 2, separate focus groups with students and lecturers explored these themes further. Twenty-five students (39% response rate) and 18 lecturers (35% response rate) completed questionnaires; responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, with two researchers coding independently before comparing themes.
Results
Students rated the program favorably overall (56% “very effective,” 36% “somewhat effective”), with academic success rated most positively; female students rated personal development and emotional wellbeing notably higher than male students did (Fortuin & Steenkamp, 2026). Lecturers were also positive but consistently less enthusiastic than students across every dimension, with only 28% rating overall effectiveness as “very effective.” Both groups identified the same four mentor functions—emotional support, academic advising, accountability, and role modeling—but described them differently: students emphasized adjustment and comfort, while lecturers framed the same activities in more operational, monitoring-oriented terms. The most notable finding was a split among lecturers themselves between a “monitoring view” (tracking academic progress, flagging risks) and a “personal connection view” (holistic, relational investment in the student’s wellbeing). As one lecturer put it, “mentorship has different aspects. Either it’s a mentor for academics or it’s a mentor for life.” Students reported few real challenges, while lecturers cited cultural and gender mismatches, inconsistent student buy-in, and the time required to build trust. The program works, but its depth is inconsistent, since which of two very different mentoring philosophies a student receives currently comes down to chance rather than deliberate matching.
Discussion
The central challenge the authors highlight is that mentoring, as formally mandated by the TBF program, requires only baseline monitoring, such as through quarterly meetings and progress reports. However, some lecturers described their role as more transactional, while others described being personally invested in the student’s success. The authors argue this unspoken variation in emotional investment creates inconsistent student experiences depending on which “type” of mentor they’re assigned, since matching is currently random rather than intentional. The data suggest that mismatches between what a student wants or needs and what a given lecturer is prepared to offer is a significant source of dissatisfaction. A mentoring relationship’s success appears contingent on alignment between two people’s implicit models of what mentoring is for, a variable this program’s structure did not oversee or manage.
Implications for Mentoring Programs
The authors emphasized the need to move away from random mentor-mentee allocation toward intentional, value-based matching. Because the data show lecturers operating from at least two distinct models—monitoring-oriented versus personal-connection-oriented—the authors suggest that programs could ask both mentors and mentees to indicate their preferred mentoring style up front, then pair people accordingly. The authors also called for structured orientation and written mentoring agreements at the start of each relationship, so that role boundaries and expectations are made explicit rather than assumed. Several lecturers reported feeling pressure to serve as informal “emotional support counsellors,” a role many did not feel qualified to fill, while some students entered the relationship expecting exactly that kind of support. A written agreement, clarifying what a lecturer-mentor can and cannot reasonably provide, would let both parties understand the expectations for the relationship. Because the core tension identified here—undefined emotional labor within a formally academic role—is a structural feature of most faculty mentoring arrangements, professional bodies and institutions running similar bursary, first-generation, or at-risk student support schemes could apply the same value-based matching and role-clarification principles to strengthen retention and support across disciplines and national contexts.
Read the full article here
