Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
111
2016 CELT Vol IX
celt.uwindsor.ca
www.stlhe.ca
Examining the Role of Friendship in
Mentoring Relationships between
Graduate Students and Faculty Advisors
Jacqueline L. Beres, Brock University
Jess C. Dixon, University of Windsor
Although previous studies have offered empirical and anecdotal support for academic mentoring,
there are still considerable gaps in understanding the specific actions or components that are present
in these relationships. Research has shown that academic faculty mentors provide all of Kram’s
(1988) mentoring functions to their graduate student protégés. Despite numerous claims to the
presence of “friendship” in graduate student-faculty advisor mentoring relationships, others question
if friendship is even possible within this context. Thus, there is ambiguity about the role of this
particular function in academic mentoring. In our attempt to reconcile results from a previous study
on graduate student-faculty advisor mentoring and better understand the potential role and
temporal development of friendship within this domain, we sought clarification in the existing
literature. To our surprise, the literature lacks consensus on the topic and requires additional
scholarly attention. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to share insights from our previous
study examining mentoring in academia, summarize empirical findings and conceptual
advancements on the topic of friendship in graduate student-faculty advisor mentoring relationships,
and propose directions for further inquiry in this area, in the hope of strengthening academic
mentoring relationships.
Introduction
t’s nice to have such a great friend. Somebody I can
turn to, somebody I respect and I trust, and I know
will always be there for me.
- Graduate student protégé
Having doctoral students has enriched my personal
life; you know, I’m friends with many of them.
-Faculty mentor
Mentoring relationships typically exist between
experienced individuals (mentors) and their less
experienced counterparts (protégés). Through their
interactions, mentors provide protégés with
disciplinary and career guidance, and also assist with
personal development. Within academia, graduate
students and faculty members in mentoring
relationships often experience positive outcomes. For
example, in their longitudinal study, Paglis, Green,
and Bauer (2006) determined that faculty advisors
had a positive impact on their students’ research
productivity and research self-efficacy. Others have
found that protégés report greater publications and
higher levels of satisfaction when compared with their
non-mentored peers (Cronan-Hillix, Gensheimer,
Cronan-Hillix, & Davidson, 1986). Similarly, faculty
advisors who serve as mentors to their students are
viewed as capable of fostering talent and may develop
I
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
112
increased publication records because of their
collaborative work with students (Kanter, 1977).
Given the many benefits of these relationships,
mentoring in higher education is an important topic
worthy of investigation.
Despite empirical evidence and anecdotal
support for mentoring (e.g., Allen, Eby, Poteet,
Lentz, & Lima, 2004; De Four-Babb, Pegg, & Beck,
2015; Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008), there
are still considerable gaps in understanding the
specific actions or components that are present in
various mentoring relationships. The most frequently
used conceptualization of mentoring functions is
Kram’s (1988) framework, which is comprised of
nine functions divided into two primary groupings:
career functions and psychosocial functions. Research
has shown that, collectively, academic faculty advisors
provided all of Kram’s (1988) mentoring functions to
their graduate student protégés (e.g., Beres & Dixon,
2014; Clark, Harden, & Johnson, 2000). Despite
numerous claims to the presence of “friendship” in
these graduate student-faculty advisor mentoring
relationships (Gardiner, 1998, 2008; Young,
Alvermann, Kaste, Henderson, & Many, 2004),
others question if friendship is even possible within
this context (Johnson, 2008). Thus, there is
considerable ambiguity surrounding the role of this
particular function in academic mentoring.
In our attempt to reconcile results from a
previous study on graduate student-faculty advisor
mentoring and better understand the potential role of
friendship and its temporal development within this
domain, we sought clarification in the existing
literature. To our surprise, the literature lacks
consensus on the topic and requires additional
scholarly attention. For example, we found a limited
number of studies that explicitly examined the role of
friendship in academic mentoring relationships.
Within studies that do explore friendship, some
acknowledge its central importance (e.g., Young et
al., 2004), yet others report that friendship is the least
prevalent mentoring function (Clark et al., 2000).
Conceptual advancements, such as those proposed by
Gardiner (1998, 2008), draw much-needed attention
to the issue of friendship in mentoring relationships,
but fail to provide sufficiently delineated definitions
or clear models. Possible role conflict or
incompatibility when advisors and students develop
friendship relationships has also been considered
(e.g., Johnson, 2008; Johnson & Huwe, 2003).
Finally, because of the retrospective nature of most
findings, for those who report having friendships, it is
not possible to determine precisely when during the
mentoring relationship that friendship developed.
Given this confusion and lack of unified insight, the
purpose of this article is threefold. First, we share
insights from our previous study examining
mentoring in academia. Second, we describe
definitional issues that may prevent a clear
understanding of the boundaries between friendship
and related concepts, summarize empirical findings
and conceptual advancements on the topic of
friendship in graduate student-faculty advisor
mentoring relationships, and provide a description of
the possible role conflict and incompatibility when
advisors and students develop friendships. Last, we
propose directions for further inquiry in this area with
the hope that previous, disparate findings could
eventually be reconciled and academic mentoring
relationships would be strengthened.
Mentoring: A Brief Introduction
The most widely cited aspect of mentoring research is
Kram’s (1988) conceptualization of mentoring
functions (Allen et al., 2004), which refer to the
specific actions that are provided in mentoring
relationships. Kram classified these functions into two
categories: career functions, which enhance a
protégé’s career development, and psychosocial
functions, which help to build a protégé’s competence
and identity. Career functions are comprised of
sponsorship, exposure and visibility, protection,
coaching, and challenging assignments. Psychosocial
functions include acceptance and confirmation, role
modelling, counselling, and friendship. Although
Kram’s mentoring functions were developed in a
business setting, they have been widely, and often
uncritically, adopted in academia. This phenomenon
is noteworthy, as some have suggested the crossover
Examining Friendship in Academic Mentoring
113
of mentoring concepts between disciplinary silos is
rare (e.g., Bearman, Blake-Beard, Hunt, & Crosby,
2010; Eby et al., 2008), and it is unclear whether
adopting mentoring functions across various contexts
is appropriate.
Mentoring in academia can take many
forms, including peer mentoring among
undergraduate or graduate students (e.g., Dorsey &
Baker, 2004), between more experienced and less
experienced faculty members (e.g., Ciuffetelli Parker
& McQuirter Scott, 2010; Griffin & Beatty, 2012)
and most commonly, between graduate students and
faculty members (e.g., Tenenbaum, Crosby, &
Gliner, 2001). The mentoring relationships that
develop between graduate students and faculty
members have been found to play a critical role in
graduate students’ success, and not having an advisor
or experiencing mismatches in these critical
relationships impacts doctoral student attrition
(Golde, 2005; Lovitts, 2001). Moreover, given that
roughly half of all doctoral students do not complete
their degrees (Lovitts, 2001), graduate student-faculty
advisor mentoring relationships warrant continued
examination.
Friendship in Graduate Student-
Faculty Advisor Mentoring: A
Case Study
Using matched pairs of mentors and protégés, we
previously sought to determine what mentoring
functions select doctoral dissertation advisors
provided for their doctoral students within the field
of sport management (Beres & Dixon, 2014). We
used a descriptive case study approach (Yin, 2009),
bounded by academic discipline (sport management),
geographical region (North America), employment
status (limited to those employed as faculty members
in North American post-secondary institutions), and
contact information (valid university contact
information obtained through public records). A
descriptive approach was appropriate as we sought an
in-depth understanding of a phenomenon with
critical contextual conditions (Yin, 2009).
Our use of purposive sampling is further
aligned with a descriptive case study approach. We
selected five faculty advisors (two males and three
females) who demonstrated high levels of scholarly
productivity, coupled with previous experience
advising large numbers of doctoral students.
Purposive sampling was appropriate as we felt these
individuals represented unique cases and, given their
previous experiences advising many students, could
likely offer insight into mentoring relationships
(Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). We then used
stratified random sampling to select one male and one
female doctoral student for each advisor. Information
pertaining to participants’ ages, ethnicities, and class
backgrounds was not collected, as we deemed that it
was not pertinent to the research questions being
examined in that study.
After receiving ethical clearance and testing
our interview protocol via pilot interviews, we
conducted one semi-structured telephone interview
with each participant. Interviews were conducted at
participants’ convenience and ranged from 27 to 55
minutes in duration. As an example of sample
interview questions, mentors were asked if they could
“please describe how you helped your doctoral
students’ personal development,” while protégés were
asked if they could “please describe how your advisor
helped your personal development.” All interviews
were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Data analysis followed an iterative process that
included both deductive and inductive approaches
using open and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin,
1998). Participants’ responses were initially
categorized deductively using Kram’s (1988)
framework, with these functions then adapted
inductively to capture the nuances of academia.
Although we found varying levels of support for all of
Kram’s career and psychosocial functions, the topic of
friendship was identified repeatedly by participants in
our study.
In an effort to avoid influencing participants’
answers to fit Kram’s (1988) mentoring functions, we
refrained from specifically asking questions about the
individual functions; that is, participants were not
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
114
explicitly asked about friendship in their mentoring
relationships. Instead, protégés were asked to describe
the guidance, counselling, or advice they received
from their mentors, along with the ways their
mentors helped to advance their careers and personal
development. Similarly, mentors were asked
questions phrased to elicit descriptions of the actions
they took on behalf of their protégés. For a more
detailed description of the methods employed and the
results found in this earlier study, please refer to Beres
and Dixon (2014).
Of particular interest to the present article is
that all of the mentors in our previous study noted
that they were friends with at least some of their
former doctoral students. Selected quotes
substantiating this claim include “I’ve now become
friends with some of my doctoral students” and “I
would describe the relationships with most of my
former doctoral students as very, very good; many of
them I count as friends.” One mentor added, “I’ve
developed some wonderful friendships from former
students” while another mentor echoed, “I’m friends
with many of them; I remain friends with many of
them.” In addition to the mentors’ specific
acknowledgments of their friendships, two thirds of
the protégés in our study explicitly used the word
“friend” or some variation thereof when describing
their relationships with their mentors. Protégés were
very clear about their feelings, saying, “I consider her
a friend,” “it’s nice to have such a great friend,” “we’ve
just developed a great friendship,” and my mentor
“also became a friend in the department.” Another
protégé added, “I think she called it a peer
relationship, but I call it a friendship. She’s one of my
better friends.”
Based on the evidence presented above,
participants often used the term “friendship” to
describe the close interpersonal relationships that they
developed and maintained with their former faculty
advisors. However, we must note that we did not
provide participants with an operational definition of
friendship. In some instances, mentors and protégés
considered activities such as playing sports and
enjoying dinners together, joined by their respective
families, to be examples of friendship. In other
instances, participants did not provide definitions of
friendship, but simply referred to having a “friend,”
“friendships,” “someone I think of often,” and
“somebody I can turn to, somebody I respect and I
trust, and I know will always be there for me.” The
lack of an explicit definition means we were unsure of
whether these descriptions were consistent with what
has been reported in existing literature, or if true
friendship is even possible within this context. It was
at this point that we turned to the literature in hopes
of reconciling our results. What we found, as shared
in the following sections, was both inconsistent and
perplexing.
Exploring the Role of Friendship
in the Mentoring Literature
Friendship in mentoring relationships is a complex
concept, and the literature exploring this domain is
fraught with definitional inconsistencies. Like the
topic of mentoring itself, the notion of friendship
could mean different things to different people.
Broadly, mentoring has been criticized for lacking a
clear and consistent definition (e.g., Bozeman &
Feeney, 2007); these same criticisms can be applied
to friendship within mentoring relationships.
Although Wrightsman (1981) discusses mentoring in
general, there is a parallel between his comment that
“there is a false sense of consensus, because at a
superficial level everyone ‘knows’ what mentoring is”
(p. 3) and the specific role of friendship in mentoring
relationships. We believe this implicit understanding
of friendship may have contributed to an unnecessary
complication in the literature. Having a clear(er)
definition of what friendship entails within graduate
student-faculty advisor mentoring relationships
would allow researchers to better understand the role
and extent of this particular mentoring function, with
an aim to improve these critical relationships and
their associated outcomes.
According to Kram (1988), the psychosocial
function of friendship is “characterized by social
interaction that results in mutual liking and
understanding and enjoyable informal exchanges
about work and outside work experiences” (p. 38). It
Examining Friendship in Academic Mentoring
115
also involves “sharing personal experiences” (p. 38)
and allows protégés to develop peer-like relationships
with more experienced individuals. Unfortunately,
Kram does not provide additional parameters on what
constitutes friendship interactions within mentoring
relationships. It is certainly reasonable to expect that
the specific actions and engagements within
individual mentoring relationships would vary based
on personal preferences and interests; however, the
sweeping description that friendship in mentoring
“combines elements of a teacher, a parent, and a good
friend” (p. 38) does not offer any clarity. Although
Kram suggests that there are limits to friendship in
mentoring relationships, stating that many
individuals restrict their social interactions to work
contexts, she complicates matters by intertwining
“increasing mutuality,” “colleagueship,” and
“informality” (p. 38) in her discussion of friendship,
without elaboration. While Kram’s functions offer an
important framework of the behaviours taking place
within mentoring relationships, further clarification,
especially in an academic context, is required.
While Kram (1988) has had an undeniable
impact on the field of mentoring research, many
others have also contributed informatively on the
topic. When examining some of these authors’ use of
“friend,” “friends,” “friendship,” and related terms
(see Table 1), similar definitional challenges emerge.
Clutterbuck (2001) and Gardiner (2008) both use a
wide variety of terms to describe these relationships;
regrettably, sufficient definitions are not provided in
either publication, further muddying the concept.
Empirical Findings
The idea of friendship in academic mentoring
relationships is not new, nor is the contested nature
of this phenomenon. When asked to describe whether
or not they socialized with their academic mentors,
doctoral students in one study reported an even split;
half of the students said they rarely or never socialized
with their mentors, while the other half noted that
they socialized with their mentors once or twice per
term (Cronan-Hillix et al., 1986). If socializing can
be used as a proxy measurement for friendship, half
of the students surveyed were friends with their
Table 1
Terminology Used in Various Academic Publications to Describe Friendship and
Similar Concepts Between Graduate Students and Faculty Advisors
Clutterbuck (2001)
Gardiner (2008)
Johnson (2008)
Critical friend
Personal friendship
Collegiality
Close friend
Professional friendship
Mutuality
Mutual respect
Friendship relationship
Professional friendship
Friends in low places
Special form of friendship
Key friendship
Professional friend mentor
Befriend
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
116
mentors, while the remaining half were not. In a
similar study, Clark et al. (2000) surveyed 787
doctoral students in clinical psychology and found
that on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree), the mean score for “My mentor served as a
friend” was 3.36 (SD = 1.23). This was the lowest
rated function for all of Kram’s (1988) nine
functions. However, the mean score is above a
neutral value of 2.50, which suggests friendship was
still present in a number of these mentoring
relationships. When explaining their results, Clark
et al. noted that the mentoring functions often
associated with graduate education, such as direct
training or instruction, support and acceptance,
and role modelling, were the highest rated items.
They suggested that these functions were consistent
with roles often expected of faculty members, and
functions such as friendship or protection, which
are not as customary, were rated lower.
Young et al. (2004) discuss two case studies
where faculty members and graduate students
experienced “being simultaneously friends, mentors
and mentees” (p. 23). This is an explicit
acknowledgement of friendship occurring while
still engaged in student and advisor roles. Studying
their own experiences as three female doctoral
students and two female professors, the group
noted the interdependence of their relationships,
which served to lessen some of the traditional
mentor and protégé expectations; members were
excited to learn from the others. Prior to
recognizing these interdependences, one mentoring
dyad wrote about how they intended to keep their
friendship and mentoring relationships separate.
Returning to their data after an absence of many
years allowed them to see that they had analyzed
only the professional aspects of their relationship,
perhaps believing that there was an incompatibility
when friendship was present in their mentoring
relationship. It becomes clear that despite their
initial intention to keep their personal and
professional lives separate, these facets became
intertwined as the individuals interacted with each
other.
Despite the empirical evidence from Clark
et al. (2000), Cronan-Hillix et al. (1986), Kram
(1988), Young et al. (2004), and our own previous
work (Beres & Dixon, 2014), it is not possible to
pinpoint exactly when friendship develops in these
mentoring relationships (assuming that it does
indeed exist). Some students noted the
simultaneous occurrence of friendship and
mentoring (Clark et al., 2000; Young et al., 2004),
while others described their current relationship
with their former mentor as a friendship, but did
not explicitly share when this process unfolded
(Beres & Dixon, 2014).
Kram’s (1983, 1988) seminal study may
offer some potential clues into this temporal
development, but additional research is needed.
Kram (1983) explained that most mentoring
relationships pass through a predictable set of
relationship phases. The first phase, initiation, lasts
between six and twelve months and includes the
start of the relationship. It is also when both parties
replace any unrealistic fantasies with more concrete,
realistic expectations. In the cultivation phase,
which spans a period of two to five years, the
mentor and protégé increase their interactions and
their bond may deepen. The next six months to two
years are marked by a period of separation, which
generally includes a change in the physical or
emotional structure of the relationship as the
protégé becomes more autonomous. Finally, the
mentor and protégé enter an indefinite period of
time during which their relationship undergoes a
redefinition. Although two-thirds of protégés in
our study made explicit reference to a friendship
component within their mentoring relationships,
the retrospective nature of our study design means
that most of the data were likely obtained while
mentors and protégés were in the redefinition phase
(Beres & Dixon, 2014). Thus, definitive
conclusions about when friendship emerges within
these relationships remain elusive.
It is possible that, in some relationships, as
the interactions and emotions increase throughout
the cultivation phase (Kram, 1983), the mentor and
protégé shift from a hierarchical relationship to
something more like one between peers. It is also
possible that a mentor and protégé would consider
each other to have collegial but formal relations
Examining Friendship in Academic Mentoring
117
until the redefinition period. At this time, the
relationship moves beyond an active mentoring
relationship and both parties establish a friendlier,
more personal relationship. We found evidence for
this transition in our study, as one mentor
specifically described the shift in her relationship,
saying “we’ve moved away from the mentor-
protégé relationship and we are friends.” Like the
mentors, a number of protégés also described how
their relationships had evolved over time, noting, “I
still look at [my advisor] as a mentor today, but I
would say that, while I occasionally lean on her for
mentoring, I think that the relationship has evolved
to one of a collegial or friendship relationship as
much as a mentoring relationship.”
However, establishing that a friendship
exists in the redefinition phase does not indicate
whether the graduate students or their faculty
advisors would have labelled their relationships as
such prior to that transition. Given the many
possible combinations of friendship development,
and the unique nature of each individual
relationship, it may be quite difficult to establish a
uniform or consistent point at which friendship
emerges. Regardless, additional research is required
in order to provide greater understanding of the
development of friendship in graduate student-
faculty advisor mentoring relationships.
Conceptual Advancements
At first glance, Gardiner’s (1998, 2008) model of
professional friendship may appear to offer a
conceptual understanding of how the potentially
incompatible roles of friendship and mentoring
may co-exist. However, Gardiner’s model does not
depict what a successful professional friendship
ought to include, nor does it explain how a
professional friendship could develop with
sufficient attention to both personal and
professional aspects. Instead, Gardiner (1998)
provides a listing of 26 features or processes that she
suggests are integral to quality mentoring.
Although features such as reliability, openness,
honour, and empathy are highly valued, it is not
clear how the successful application of these
features “represents success in a friendship
mentoring relationship” (Gardiner, 1998, p. 82).
Furthermore, a lack of operational
definitions and discrepancies in original source
materials cited by Gardiner (1998) prevent us from
obtaining clarification on the topic of friendship in
academic mentoring relationships. For example,
she claims that “mentoring provides individuals
with a relationship which builds from a foundation
of friendship” (1998, p. 77). Unfortunately, she
does not provide any empirical support for her
claim, nor does she provide any discussion of how
one would build this required friendship base if the
26 features were not present in a relationship. Of
paramount concern, Gardiner does not define what
she means by professional friendship, which makes
it very difficult to understand the model and how it
may apply to future analyses. For example,
Gardiner lists “challenging” as a process involved in
her model of professional friendship. We found
evidence that the entire doctoral degree could be
classified as a challenging assignment, and that
within these programs, mentors set challenging
expectations with regard to protégés’ publishing
outcomes (Beres & Dixon, 2014). One mentor
within our study even noted that her protégé once
asked “whose side are you on?” and she replied,
“I’m on your side but you know I have to push you
a little bit too.” Using Kram’s (1988) functions as
the framework for our analysis, we did not classify
this aspect of their relationship as friendship, but
rather under the career function of challenging
assignments. The lack of detail in Gardiner’s model
prevents us from fully understanding
“challenging,” or many of the other elements of her
model. Such definitional issues would need to be
resolved before we could consider reclassifying our
results using Gardiner’s approach.
In her subsequent dissertation, Gardiner
(2008) outlined her development of professional
friendships and tested its utility in K-12
educational settings in the United Kingdom. Using
a mixed-method approach, she sought to
understand the extent to which professional
friendship is a core component of mentoring and
how her model of professional friendship could be
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
118
improved. She claims that most learning mentors
acted as professional friends and that her model
helped to identify successful mentoring
relationships. Based on the results of her evaluation,
she was able to make improvements to her model,
which included updating aspects of the 26 features
of professional friendship advanced earlier
(Gardiner, 1998).
Although Gardiner’s (2008) study was
conducted in an educational setting, contextual
factors may reduce the transferability of her
findings. She studied learning mentors, who are
educational practitioners assigned to support
underserviced, inner-city primary school children
and their families. Based on Gardiner’s description,
learning mentors strive to increase social cohesion,
self-esteem, and learning opportunities inside and
outside of schools, while decreasing bullying,
truancy, and disruptive behaviour. Given possible
differences in the mentoring actions of learning
mentors and graduate-level faculty advisors,
applying Gardiner’s findings to graduate student-
faculty advisor mentoring relationships may be
inappropriate. While the idea of developing a
model of professional friendship is noteworthy and
could address a significant gap in the literature,
further study and refinement must be undertaken
before Gardiner’s (1998, 2008) model of
professional friendship can be applied to graduate
student-faculty advisor mentoring relationships.
Possible Incompatibility of Friendship
and Mentoring
In contrast to the support for friendship in graduate
student-faculty advisor mentoring relationships
demonstrated by the aforementioned empirical and
conceptual publications, Johnson (2008; Johnson
& Huwe, 2003) has concerns about the possible
incompatibility of roles when students and advisors
develop friendship-like relationships. He notes that
as the relationships between graduate students and
faculty members deepen, faculty mentors become
“increasingly partisan advocates” (2008, p. 31) for
their students, which may impede the mentors’
abilities to provide objective evaluations of
students’ strengths and weaknesses. This is
especially problematic when faculty mentors are
responsible for determining students’ competence
to practice in professional fields including
medicine, clinical psychology, engineering, or law,
among others. We searched our data but
unfortunately were unable to find any support that
matched Johnson’s concerns noted here (or in the
paragraph below). Given the contextual aspects of
our study (faculty members within sport
management), this is perhaps not surprising. We
wonder what we might find if we were to speak
with faculty in the abovementioned professional
fields. Perhaps faculty in these areas would express
concerns about the incompatibility of friendship
and mentoring. Regardless, the notion of role
incompatibility offers many potential directions for
future study.
Johnson (2008) asserts that few scholars
have addressed the possible negative consequences
that may arise when students and advisors engage
in friendship or similar interpersonal functions,
such as advocacy and mutuality. He offers
suggestions to reduce the strain and negative
outcomes that stem from these incompatible roles.
For example, he reminds faculty members of their
ethical imperative to remain as gatekeepers of their
professions. He cites empirical evidence for a strong
correlation between disciplinary action by medical
boards and documented cases of unprofessional
behaviour during medical school. Given their roles
in evaluating performance and determining
competence, faculty advisors must remain
objective. While not explicitly stated, the
implication is that friendship and mentoring
should not mix. This contrasts with the positive
inferences about friendship revealed by Young et al.
(2004) and within our own previous research (Beres
& Dixon, 2014). As described above, we were
unable to find data within our study that would
provide adequate support for the idea of
gatekeeping.
A number of other authors make more
implicit claims about the possible incompatibility
of friendship and mentoring. By subtly shifting
Examining Friendship in Academic Mentoring
119
from using the words “friendship” and “friend” to
terms such as “mutuality,” “collegiality,” and other
related terms found in the literature, or adding a
qualifying word like “professional” to the
description of friendship (Gardiner, 2008;
Johnson, 2008), the implication is that the
relational experiences found in academic
mentorships are not the same as friendship between
two individuals connected through a non-
mentoring relationship.
A Call for Future Research
As we have noted above, there is support for the
presence of friendship in graduate student-faculty
advisor mentoring relationships. However, this
support is varied, and clarification cannot be found
in the existing literature. At present, issues of
semantics and conceptual differences, perceived
incompatibilities, and contextual differences
remain unresolved. We recommend that additional
research be conducted on the aforementioned
aspects of friendship in academic mentoring
relationships, and specifically graduate student-
faculty advisor relationships, with the hope of
strengthening these important interpersonal
interactions.
Exploring Semantics and Conceptual
Differences
One challenge in conducting research on the topic
of mentoring is that individuals must describe their
relationships using a common language. However,
specific terms may have different meanings for
different individuals. For example, the very notion
of friendship may vary from one individual to the
next. What one person expects from a friend may
differ dramatically from what another individual
would consider to be friendship. Furthermore, it is
possible that people may use the same term (e.g.,
friendship) to describe a wide variety of
relationships in their own lives. Personal and
cultural values or academic disciplinary differences
may further complicate individuals’ use of similar
terms. Although adjectives such as “professional” or
“personal” may be added to provide additional
description, individuals may still be categorizing
many different types of interpersonal relationships
with the same term. It is possible that the English
language does not contain a word that adequately
captures the nuances of mentoring relationships
involving graduate students and their faculty
advisors, while still differentiating from similar yet
distinct relationships that may occur in their
personal lives or in other contexts. Perhaps
friendship is the closest English word, and thus, is
the term that individuals use when trying to
communicate the complexities of these
relationships.
In addition, because authors have often
failed to provide operational definitions of
friendship, participants are left to interpret what is
meant by friendship and how this may (or may not)
apply in their own mentoring relationships. This
lack of clarity means the literature on friendship
continues to be poorly defined, and becomes
increasingly difficult to interpret. It also means that
it may not be possible to clearly determine whether
scholars are trying to disentangle conceptually
distinct aspects of mentoring, or whether
individuals are struggling with personal semantic
interpretations.
One example of this potential confusion
can be found in a summary of a panel presentation
on mentoring minority doctoral students
(Lederman, 2008). Two panelists appeared to
support the fundamental idea that mentoring
relationships should involve more than simply
providing career guidance, and should include
elements of a personal relationship. One panelist
described his recent realization that “friendship is
an essential component of being a true mentor”
(para. 2). In response, another panelist noted that
it was essential to have an “emotional connection”
and “a level of caring” (para. 3) in a mentoring
relationship, “but that friendship is not the correct
term” (para. 3) to describe this interpersonal
relationship. Further discussion on the topic
revealed individual differences in the meaning of
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
120
friendship; the individual who insisted that
friendship should be present in mentoring
relationships disclosed that he did not envision
having the sort of “personal entanglements” (para.
11) that others were alluding to in their
descriptions of friendship.
Much like the stories shared in Lederman’s
(2008) article, one mentor from our study
expressed potentially contradictory remarks about
his involvement with students’ personal lives.
Although he explicitly called his former doctoral
students his “life friends,” he also suggested that he
intentionally distances himself from aspects of their
personal lives while actively serving as their
dissertation advisor. Based on the exchange in the
aforementioned panel presentation and some of the
findings from our study, it is not clear whether
individuals are struggling with different
interpretations of the same concept, or whether
there are significant conceptual differences in
understanding the role of friendship in graduate
student-faculty advisor mentoring relationships.
Consequently, we recommend that individuals
conducting research in the area of mentoring
provide greater clarification regarding their
conceptualization of the friendship function. We
recognize that scholars may want to avoid
providing an exacting definition of friendship so
they may gather participants’ own descriptions. In
these cases, we ask that scholars explicitly note this
methodological choice, and we recommend that
participants be asked to describe friendship from
their own perspectives, with scholars subsequently
sharing these descriptions with their audiences.
Confirming Perceived
Incompatibilities
As previously noted, Johnson (2008; Johnson &
Huwe, 2003) has expressed concerns about the
possible incompatibility of friendship in graduate
student-faculty advisor mentoring relationships.
This possible incompatibility represents a
potentially significant risk or disadvantage of
developing friendship in mentoring relationships,
which has otherwise been generally described as a
positive feature of mentoring relationships.
Therefore, we recommend that future research
empirically test whether graduate students, faculty
advisors, and others, such as those serving on
professional regulatory bodies, perceive friendship
in mentoring relationships to be incompatible.
Incorporating Kram’s (1983) redefinition phase
suggests that friendship may not develop until the
active mentoring phases of the relationship have
been completed. In this case, mentors may be able
to offer non-partisan and objective evaluations of
their protégés’ competence and then transition into
more collegial interactions. Conducting a
comparative study of students’ licensing exam
scores as completed by mentors and non-mentors
may offer insight into whether friendship and
mentoring are incompatible. If mentors’
judgements are found to be biased, one potential
solution may be to require that critical competency
evaluations be conducted by neutral, objective
individuals. This would allow graduate students
and faculty advisors to develop and benefit from
interpersonal relationships without risking public
safety.
Examining Contextual Differences
In contrast to the aforementioned suggestion that
friendship may form during a certain point in time,
it is also possible that friendship does not form in a
predictable or constant phase of the mentoring
relationship. Each mentoring relationship is unique
and individual differences may influence friendship
development. For example, graduate students’ and
faculty advisors’ personal values and cultural beliefs
will figure prominently in individual interpersonal
relationships. Similarly, accepted differences in
academic disciplines, such as the nature of the work
undertaken in the mentoring relationships or the
length of time to degree completion (Lovitts, 2001)
may influence the mentoring relationships in such
detail that it may not be possible to develop a
universal representation of friendship in graduate
student-faculty advisor mentoring relationships.
Other relationships may be affected when graduate
Examining Friendship in Academic Mentoring
121
students express a desire to change their current
academic paths or future career trajectories, with a
resulting impact on the development, or lack
thereof, of friendship. For example, if students wish
to pursue a career outside of academia, the current
relationship between graduate students and faculty
advisors may be impacted—either positively or
negatively—and this may, in turn, strengthen or
impede elements of friendship. We recommend
conducting longitudinal studies using matched
pairs of graduate students and faculty advisors, as
this would allow for real-time evaluation of when,
if at all, friendship developed and specifically how
it affects academic outcomes. As McCarron (2006)
has noted, despite Kram’s (1988) exploration of
both mentors’ and protégés’ perspectives, many
studies (e.g., Clark et al., 2000; Cronan-Hillix et
al., 1986; Schlosser & Gelso, 2001; Tenenbaum et
al., 2001) on mentoring relationships are routinely
conducted by examining the perspectives of only
one member (i.e., mentors or protégés). By
conducting studies with matched mentor-protégé
pairs, researchers could also compare perceptions of
both members, further adding to the knowledge
base about graduate student-faculty advisor
mentoring relationships.
Conclusions
Previous research has shown that friendship can
develop within mentoring relationships (Kram,
1988). As demonstrated above, two quantitative
studies (Clark et al., 2000; Cronan-Hillix et al.,
1986) and two qualitative studies (Beres & Dixon,
2014; Young et al., 2004) provide support for the
presence of friendship relationships between
graduate students and their faculty advisors.
However, having a friendship relationship during
the redefinition phase of a mentoring relationship
does not mean that friendship was present during
any of the three previous phases (Kram, 1983).
These insights, and the lack of clarity in the existing
literature, provide support for future studies that
examine what role, if any, friendship plays in
academic mentoring relationships between
graduate students and their faculty advisors.
The insights gleaned from this paper could
be useful for a number of individuals. For example,
faculty members who are engaged in mentoring
relationships can reflect upon the possible role of
friendship in their own relationships, and decide
what, if any, future actions they may wish to pursue
in order to develop possible friendship
relationships. Educational developers, who support
faculty members and graduate students, may also be
interested in these findings as the information
could be shared through professional development
workshops. In addition, current and prospective
graduate students can benefit from this discussion
of friendship, especially if they are mentored—or
wish to be mentored—by a faculty advisor
throughout their graduate education. Finally, if the
research areas discussed above are addressed
through empirical studies, it might be possible that
the lack of consensus about friendship in graduate
student-faculty advisor mentoring relationships
could be ameliorated, and in time, academic
mentoring relationships could be strengthened.
References
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E.,
& Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits
associated with mentoring for protégés: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 127–136. https://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127 VIEW
ITEM
Bearman, S., Blake-Beard, S., Hunt, L., & Crosby,
F. J. (2010). New directions in mentoring.
In T. D. Allen, & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The
Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A
multiple perspectives approach (pp. 375–
395). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Beres, J. L., & Dixon, J. C. (2014). Exploring
mentoring functions within the sport
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
122
management academy: Perspectives of
mentors and protégés. Sport Management
Education Journal, 8, 14–26. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1123/SMEJ.2012-0007 VIEW
ITEM
Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2007). Toward a
useful theory of mentoring: A conceptual
analysis and critique. Administration &
Society, 39, 719–739. https://dx.doi.org
/10.1177/0095399707304119 VIEW
ITEM
Ciuffetelli Parker, D., & McQuirter Scott, R.
(2010). From mentorship to tenureship: A
storied inquiry of two academic careers in
education. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 18, 405–425.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.20
10.511849 VIEW ITEM
Clark, R. A., Harden, S. L., & Johnson, W. B.
(2000). Mentor relationships in clinical
psychology doctoral training: Results of a
national survey. Teaching of Psychology, 27,
262–268. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15
328023TOP2704_04 VIEW ITEM
Clutterbuck, D. (2001). Everyone needs a mentor:
Fostering talent at work (3rd ed.). London,
UK: Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development.
Cronan-Hillix, T., Gensheimer, L. K., Cronan-
Hillix, W. A., & Davidson, W. S. (1986).
Students’ views of mentors in psychology
graduate training. Teaching of Psychology,
13, 123–127. https://dx.doi.org/10.1207
/s15328023top1303_5 VIEW ITEM
De Four-Babb, J., Pegg, J., & Beck, M. (2015).
Reducing intellectual poverty of outsiders
within academic spaces through informal
peer mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnerships in Learning, 23, 76–93.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.20
15.1011038 VIEW ITEM
Dorsey, L. E., & Baker, C. M. (2004). Mentoring
undergraduate nursing students: Assessing
the state of science. Nurse Educator, 29,
260–265.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., &
DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does mentoring
matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis
comparing mentored and non-mentored
individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
72, 254–267. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jvb.2007.04.005 VIEW ITEM
Gardiner, C. (1998). Mentoring: Towards a
professional friendship. Mentoring &
Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 6, 77–
84. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0968465
980060107 VIEW ITEM
Gardiner, C. E. (2008). Mentoring: Towards an
improved professional friendship
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/187/ VIEW
ITEM
Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department
and discipline in doctoral student attrition:
Lessons from four departments. Journal of
Higher Education, 76, 669–700. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/383
8782 VIEW ITEM
Griffin, S. M., & Beatty, R. J. (2012). Hitting the
trail running: Roadmaps and reflections on
informal faculty mentorship experiences.
In M. S. Barrett & S. L. Stauffer (Eds.),
Narrative surroundings: An anthology of
narrative inquiry in music education (pp.
251–273). Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Springer Science + Business Media.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-
0699-6_14 VIEW ITEM
Examining Friendship in Academic Mentoring
123
Johnson, W. B. (2008). Are advocacy, mutuality,
and evaluation incompatible mentoring
functions? Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 16, 31–44.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611260701
800942 VIEW ITEM
Johnson, W. B., & Huwe, J. M. (2003). Getting
mentored in graduate school. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the
corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor
relationship. Academy of Management
Journal, 26, 608–625. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/255910
VIEW ITEM
Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work:
Developmental relationships in
organizational life. Boston, MA: University
Press of America.
Lederman, D. (2008, October 28). Mentor, friend
— or both? Inside Higher Education.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehigher
ed.com/news/2008/10/28/mentor VIEW
ITEM
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The
causes and consequences of departure from
doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
McCarron, M. C. E. (2006). The experiences of
mentoring and being mentored in academia:
Perspectives of mentors and protégées
(Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. MR18902)
Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006).
Does adviser mentoring add value? A
longitudinal study of mentoring and
doctoral student outcomes. Research in
Higher Education, 47, 451–476.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-
9003-2 VIEW ITEM
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013).
Qualitative research: The essential guide to
theory and practice. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Schlosser, L. Z., & Gelso, C. J. (2001). Measuring
the working alliance in advisor-advisee
relationships in graduate school. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 48(2), 157–167.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48
.2.157 VIEW ITEM
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of
qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tenenbaum, H. R., Crosby, F. J., & Gliner, M. D.
(2001). Mentoring relationships in
graduate school. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 59, 326–341. https://dx.
doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1804 VIEW
ITEM
Wrightsman, L. S. (1981, August). Research
methodologies for assessing mentoring.
Presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Psychological Association, Los
Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 209 339).
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and
method (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Young, J. P., Alvermann, D., Kaste, J., Henderson,
S., & Many, J. (2004). Being a friend and
a mentor at the same time: A pooled case
comparison. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 12, 23–36.
Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, Vol. IX
124
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611260420
00183066 VIEW ITEM
Biographies
Jacqueline Beres is a PhD student in Social,
Cultural, and Political Contexts of Education at
Brock University, with a focus on higher education.
Her interests include mentoring and socialization,
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL),
and research methodologies.
Jess Dixon is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Kinesiology at the University of
Windsor, and is associate editor of Case Studies in
Sport Management, a peer-reviewed journal
dedicated to publishing teaching cases in the field
of sport management. His interests include case
pedagogy, student mentoring, and peer
observation.
