Expectations Versus Reality: Understanding Women STEM Doctoral Students' Perceptions and Experiences on Doctoral Mentoring Relationships

Abstract Mentoring has been found to support students' success in the STEM field. However, research has also found that women doctoral students differ from men in terms of their career goals and challenges (Cidlinská, 2019; Miller & Wai, 2015). For example, Cidlinská (2019) found there were differences in their overall career path and attitudes within the two fields (natural and technical sciences—STEM—and the social sciences and humanities—SSH), thus providing a rationale that women in STEM may have unique challenges. STEM doctoral students had less "gender sensitivity", meaning "they (STEM mentees) tended to be less sensitive towards gender aspects of formal research career criteria" than their SSH counterparts (p. 378). By recognizing that there are differences in the priorities and respective goals between men and women, there is a need to examine how women's mentorship experiences may differ and be influenced by these gendered characteristics. The purpose of this research study is to better understand the mentoring experiences of women Ph.D. students in STEM by answering the following research questions: (a) How do women students perceive their mentoring experience within a Ph.D. STEM program? (b) How does gender influence the mentoring experience of women in STEM? This research was drawn from a larger multiple embedded case study that sought to understand the nature and quality of STEM doctoral mentorships, and this subgroup analysis is focused on women's mentoring experiences. These participating institutions were all located in the Southeastern part of the United States. In total, there were 15 focus group sessions (including 65 STEM doctoral students–39 women). The transcripts were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Upon completion of the preliminary data analysis for the first round of transcripts, four preliminary themes emerged: (a) Mentor as a supporter, (b) Emotional hardships, (c) Mentor responsivity, and (d) Long-term expectations. By examining the focus group transcripts, there seemed to be a few structural components contributing to the identified themes. First, the participants noted the STEM field competitiveness alongside the faculty feeling pressure of publications. Faculty turnover was another factor seen to be contributing to the responsive issues or the lack of sustainability within the mentorship. Faculty were mentioned to leave universities with little to no notice, and this contributed to the challenges of meeting with mentors face-to-face or simply getting a response. Through these challenges, there was tension in the mentee-mentor relationship (instead of a positive and supportive relationship). Highlighting these lived experiences helps us understand how STEM departments can effectively support women doctoral students through mentoring.