“I Might Bother My Mentor”: New Study Shows Why Peer Mentoring Needs Structure, Not Just Goodwill

Surti, A., Arain, F., Akbar, R., & Rehman, R. (2026). Learning from each other: A qualitative exploration of students’ experience in peer mentoring. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 42(10), 2776–2781. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.42.10.14862

Introduction

Aga Khan University’s MPhil in Biological and Biomedical Sciences admits students from medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, and many science degrees. It spends two semesters bringing them to a shared baseline before research and thesis work begin. In 2021, the department launched a structured peer mentorship program in which second-year students guide incoming students (Surti et al., 2026). Each pair signs an agreement that sets out shared responsibilities, and mentors record their meetings. When a problem is beyond a mentor’s ability, it goes to the program director. According to Surti and colleagues (2026), formal peer mentoring remains rare in Pakistani graduate programs, where most mentoring is informal and supervisor-led.

Methods

Between December 2024 and September 2025, the researchers held two face-to-face focus groups. One included six mentors from the 2024–25 cohort, and the other included five mentees from the 2025–26 cohort, drawn from 30 enrolled students. Every participant had attended at least three mentoring meetings. A neutral faculty member moderated each 45- to 60-minute session using a piloted, semi-structured guide, and researchers took field notes on group dynamics. The team analyzed transcripts using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis, with two independent coders, member checking, and an audit trail.

Results

Three themes emerged. Mentees credited their mentors with study strategies for a difficult cell and molecular biology course, help with synopsis writing, lower anxiety, and the comfort of having someone to rely on. One mentor, recalling her own cohort’s struggles with that course, said she tried her best to help. Mentors said the role sharpened their listening and time management, and one described referring a mentee’s serious concerns to the program office. The friction centered on access. Mentees hesitated to contact busy mentors for fear of being a bother. Mentors had less time once thesis deadlines arrived, and trust took time to build. Students also had to arrange meetings without help from the program office. Peer mentoring worked for these students, but goodwill alone did not sustain it. Structure determined how often pairs actually met.

Discussion

The authors connect their findings to reviews linking peer mentoring with belonging, academic integration, and emotional support. They also cite a review of nursing programs that found gains in self-efficacy and confidence. They describe a trust gap: mentors waited for mentees to approach them, while mentees feared imposing on their mentors. Participants proposed meetings scheduled by the program, possibly twice a month. They also suggested matching by academic background, orientation workshops, informal gatherings such as day trips, and an added alumni tier. The authors acknowledge two limits. Pairings were assigned rather than voluntary, and mentors received only one training workshop.

Implications for mentoring programs

Programs should not assume mentees will reach out on their own. They should put meetings on the calendar, ask research supervisors to protect mentoring time, and train mentors before pairing them. A clear route to program leadership gives peer mentors a backstop for problems beyond their reach. Matching by background matters most in mixed-discipline cohorts. One mentee said a mentor trained as a physician could not fully understand the mentee’s problems.

Read the full article here