Search for: All records

Research has shown that mentorship provided to undergraduate researchers affects the extent of research outcomes. Although a large body of literature focuses on the faculty–undergraduate dyad mentorship structure, little is known about mentoring triads (i.e., interaction among undergraduate students, faculty, and graduate students or postdoctoral associates) or the support provided to early-year undergraduate researchers. Mentors provide various types of support (e.g., intellectual, personal, emotional, and professional support) to undergraduate researchers to increase their engagement in a discipline. This qualitative exploratory study aims to investigate undergraduate researchers’ perspectives on mentoring structures and the support provided to them in their first and sophomore years. The majority of participants described the mentorship they received as having a triad structure, indicating interaction with both faculty and postgraduates. Participants also reported receiving different types of support from faculty and postgraduates depending on their mentoring structures and the amount of research experience they gained. Given the potential benefits to undergraduate researchers, undergraduate research programs should be designed to provide clear roles, responsibilities, and expectations to maximize the support provided to undergraduate students. 

Faculty and peer interactions play a key role in shaping graduate student socialization. Yet, within the literature on graduate student socialization, researchers have primarily focused on understanding the nature and impact of faculty alone, and much less is known about how peer interactions also contribute to graduate student outcomes. Using a national sample of first-year biology doctoral students, this study reveals distinct categories that classify patterns of faculty and peer interaction. Further, we document inequities such that certain groups (e.g., underrepresented minority students) report constrained types of interactions with faculty and peers. Finally, we connect faculty and peer interaction patterns to student outcomes. Our findings reveal that, while the classification of faculty and peer interactions predicted affective and experiential outcomes (e.g., sense of belonging, satisfaction with academic development), it was not a consistent predictor of more central outcomes of the doctoral socialization process (e.g., research skills, commitment to degree). These and other findings are discussed, focusing on implications for future research, theory, and practice related to graduate training.