Abstract
Previously disadvantaged accounting students in South Africa on Thuthuka (meaning “to develop” in isiZulu) bursaries receive one-on-one mentoring from academic staff throughout their studies. This study gathers the perceptions of students and lecturer-mentors regarding the efficacy of the mentorship through questionnaires and focus group interviews. Respondents associated mentorship with emotional support, academic advising, accountability and monitoring, as well as role modeling. The study contributes to the literature on mentoring in higher education, specifically for bursary, first-generation, or at-risk students. It identifies mentoring as a crucial enabler of transformation and social justice in higher education, contributing to student success and retention.
Introduction
Within higher education transformation agendas, mentoring is widely positioned as a relational intervention that supports equity, a sense of belonging and wellbeing, and ultimately the success of students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds (Le et al., 2024; Stratton & Miller-Perrin, 2023; Strayhorn, 2018). From a student retention perspective, mentoring aligns closely with frameworks emphasizing academic and social integration, sustained engagement, and supportive institutional environments (Gonçalves et al., 2025; Tinto, 2012). Although mentoring is widely recognized for its positive impact on student mentees’ academic performance and motivation, the benefits for mentors are more often described in terms of relational learning, reflection, and affective demands, which may also entail substantial challenges (DeAngelo et al., 2016; Harvey et al., 2016). Mentoring programs may not always be perceived as effective by mentors and mentees alike, as they often fail to address the challenges faced by both parties adequately. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to examine the perceived effectiveness of a mentoring program in the higher education sphere from the perspectives of both mentees and mentors, explore the challenges encountered, and identify recommendations for improvement.
The study seeks to address the following research questions:
Do mentees and mentors perceive the mentoring program to be effective? How do mentees and mentors perceive the role of the mentor? What challenges do mentees and mentors experience within the program? What recommendations do mentees and mentors propose to improve the mentoring program?
To address the research questions, the lecturer-mentor program of the Thuthuka Bursary was selected. The Thuthuka Bursary Fund (TBF), named after the isiZulu word meaning “to develop,” plays a pivotal role in supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds in South Africa to pursue accounting studies. The TBF provides funding to selected students and requires participating universities to offer academic and social support, as this is beneficial for first-generation students (Stratton & Miller-Perrin, 2023). At Stellenbosch University, where this study was conducted, support includes mentorship, where students (mentees) are paired with lecturers (mentors). Lecturers volunteer and are then allocated a student, whom they mentor from the first year until the student completes their studies. The lecturer-mentor should monitor the student's academic performance, provide guidance on study and exam techniques, ascertain whether the student is adjusting to campus life and whether personal issues are impacting their wellbeing and performance. The lecturer-mentor is required to meet with the student at least quarterly, complete a report after each meeting, and alert the project managers if they identify any academic or personal problems. The student is required to schedule meetings with the lecturer-mentor and, depending on the perceived value of mentoring, may meet with them more than once per term.
The study employed a phased mixed-methods design. In phase 1, TBF students and lecturer-mentors were invited to complete a questionnaire. To gain deeper insight into the perceptions of both students and lecturers, phase 2 involved facilitating focus group discussions comprising one group of students and one group of lecturers. The study provides rare empirical evidence of the efficacy of student–lecturer mentorship in higher education, particularly in professional education in a developing nation. The findings emphasize that student–lecturer mentorship can support students’ academic and personal development, showing how comprehensive support programs, such as mentorship, can complement financial aid and contribute to student retention and success. Moreover, the findings could be helpful to professional bodies as they position mentorship as a crucial component in transformation and diversity initiatives. Finally, the study contributes to the academic support literature by offering a replicable model of student–lecturer mentorship that could be utilized to support at-risk and bursary students in other disciplines and contexts.
This article proceeds as follows. First, mentoring is situated within the literature on higher education transformation and student retention. The study methodology is then outlined, followed by an analysis of mentee and mentor experiences. The article concludes by discussing implications for mentoring design and institutional transformation initiatives.
Literature Review
Hall and Smith (2009) found that the quality of mentorship, rather than simply having a mentoring relationship, is key to achieving long-term success, especially when designing effective mentoring programs. This literature review first examines the general (or noncontextual) effects of mentoring on both students and mentors. Subsequently, the contextual literature exploring the impact of mentoring on TBF students is discussed.
Effect of Mentoring on Students
A substantial body of literature demonstrates that mentoring can positively influence student outcomes. Mentoring has been associated with improved academic performance (Dos Reis & Yu, 2018; Nora & Crisp, 2007), reduced social and academic stress, and enhanced intrinsic motivation (Gehreke et al., 2024; Nora & Crisp, 2007). Empirical evidence further indicates that students who participate in mentoring programs often achieve higher academic results than those who do not (Dos Reis & Yu, 2018). Beyond academic performance, mentoring contributes to the development of soft skills, a stronger sense of belonging, and clearer career goals (Haeger & Fresquez, 2016; Le et al., 2024; Nora & Crisp, 2007), while also fostering self-awareness, confidence, and agency (Comfort, 2024).
The relational dimension of mentoring is particularly significant. Positive student–mentor relationships are strongly associated with improved wellbeing (Khan, 2013), self-esteem, and overall mental health (Stratton & Miller-Perrin, 2023). The study by Adler and Stringer (2018), involving accounting students, highlighted that mentoring programs can effectively bridge the gap between academic and professional life. Participants gained a clearer understanding of the accounting profession and formed networks that could facilitate their transition into the workforce. These academic networks, developed during students’ educational journeys, play a crucial role by enabling students to use faculty members as connectors between academic completion and professional integration (José Sá, 2020). Moreover, students who engaged in more frequent communication with their mentors reported higher satisfaction with the mentoring process, which, in turn, positively influenced their academic outcomes (Santos & Reigadas, 2004). The act of mentors sharing personal experiences and acknowledging the challenges mentees face can also serve as a powerful motivational tool (Roy & Brown, 2016).
Regardless of the specific objectives of a mentoring initiative, its central aim is typically to nurture the mentee in a highly supportive, structured environment (Adler & Stringer, 2018). Students are more likely to develop academic competencies and disciplinary expertise when they perceive that they are valued and accepted by both peers and faculty (Lane et al., 2019). Furthermore, verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviours—such as smiling, maintaining relaxed body language, and addressing students by name—can significantly affect students’ motivational states (Christensen & Menzel, 1998). McKinsey (2016) found that, regardless of the phase of the mentoring relationship, the most basic step is connection, which occurs when mentors make themselves available and accessible for conversation. After a strong connection forms, a sense of mutual commitment develops. Students who received high-quality mentoring reported greater intellectual, spiritual, and psychological wellbeing than those who received no mentoring (Stratton & Miller-Perrin, 2023). The effectiveness of mentoring programs is therefore closely linked to the quality of interaction and connection between mentors and mentees.
Effect of Mentoring on Mentors
While mentoring is widely acknowledged for its positive impact on students’ academic performance and motivation, its value for mentors is often framed in terms of emotional intelligence. Mentors frequently experience a sense of personal fulfillment through their involvement in others’ developmental trajectories (Coates, 2012). Additionally, many academic staff naturally assumes the role of mentors, as providing academic support is often perceived as an intrinsic and expected dimension of their professional responsibilities (Lechuga, 2011).
Mentoring relationships, however, can pose several challenges for mentors. These may include imbalances in power dynamics, a single mentor's inability to meet a mentee's diverse needs adequately, and the substantial time commitment involved—often without formal recognition in institutional workload allocations (Harvey et al., 2016). Although lecturers may feel compelled to participate in mentoring initiatives to enhance student retention and success, institutional and disciplinary cultures can hinder such engagement due to existing workload pressures (DeAngelo et al., 2016). Therefore, cultivating an institutional environment that values and encourages mentoring beyond formal teaching responsibilities is essential to fostering student achievement (DeAngelo et al., 2016). Furthermore, mentors in Adler and Stringer's (2018) study noted the need for more transparent communication about student expectations and the importance of student preparedness before mentoring sessions.
Prior Studies on the Mentoring of TBF Students
Within the TBF context, prior research highlights the importance of support structures for students’ academic and personal development. De Jager (2014) identified support as one of the most crucial factors influencing student success. In her study, support was ranked as the number one factor promoting the success of first- and second-year students, while third-year and postgraduate students ranked it second. The students emphasized that the support they received was not only academic but also personal, with the lecturer-mentors providing invaluable guidance.
Similarly, Frans and Rabie (2022) further underscored the positive impact of the TBF mentorship program at Stellenbosch University, particularly in the final stages of students’ studies. They observed that mentorship from alumni and academic staff helped prepare students for the transition from university to the workplace. Graduates from previous years and faculty members played a pivotal role in guiding final-year students, offering valuable insights into the professional challenges they would face. This transition support is vital, as it bridges the gap between academic training and the demands of the profession, enhancing students’ readiness for the workforce.
Moreover, support for TBF students must extend beyond academic guidance. Frans and Rabie (2022) emphasized the importance of developing life skills and promoting mental wellbeing. The emotional and psychological challenges faced by students, particularly those dealing with the stress of rigorous academic programs, should not be underestimated. Two alumni in their study emphasized that the program's continuous support helped them overcome setbacks, including an initial failure in postgraduate studies, by fostering resilience and self-belief. This highlights that mentorship is not merely about academic achievement but also about providing emotional support and motivation, enabling students to persist despite challenges.
However, the literature also indicates variability in mentoring effectiveness within the TBF context. Barac (2015) conducted interviews with TBF students and found criticism of mentors’ commitment and involvement. Many students expressed concerns about the lack of consistency and dedication from their mentors. Barac suggested that clear guidelines for mentoring programs should be established, with formal monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the mentorship experience. This indicates that for mentorship to be genuinely beneficial, it requires not only mentors but also structured systems and accountability mechanisms.
Similarly, challenges related to the effectiveness of mentorship were also highlighted by Ontong and Smit (2023). They found mixed feedback on lecturer-mentors, with some students expressing dissatisfaction with their mentors’ approachability and relatability. Some students reported that the meetings were overly structured and focused solely on academics, leaving little room for personal discussion. In contrast, other students appreciated mentors who shared their personal experiences, creating a safe and open environment for conversation. This suggests that the success of mentorship programs depends not only on mentors’ expertise but also on their interpersonal skills and their ability to create a comfortable, supportive atmosphere.
Ontong and Smit (2023) also noted that the mentor allocation process should be more deliberate and based on the compatibility between mentors and mentees. Random allocation may result in mismatched pairs, which can create barriers to effective communication and understanding. Furthermore, mentors need specialized training to address students’ emotional and mental health challenges. Without this training, lecturers may not be equipped to provide the holistic support that students require. A focus on academic guidance alone may leave critical personal and emotional needs unmet, impeding students’ overall success. In a study on the effects of mentoring programs for at-risk students, Santos and Reigadas (2004) found that the quality of the student–mentor relationship matters most in determining student success.
These mixed findings suggest that program effectiveness is uneven and dependent on factors such as mentor commitment, relational compatibility and the scope of support provided. Importantly, prior studies have not comprehensively examined the mentoring program from the perspectives of both mentees and mentors. Frans and Rabie (2022) primarily focused on final-year students, while Ontong and Smit (2023) examined factors contributing to student underperformance. As a result, there remains a gap in understanding the overall effectiveness of the mentoring program, the challenges experienced by both parties, and potential areas for improvement. The present study addressed this gap by investigating the perceptions of students and lecturer-mentors regarding the mentorship program offered for TBF students at Stellenbosch University using a mixed-methods approach, which will be explained next.
Methodology
The research objective of the present study was to examine the perceived effectiveness of the TBF mentoring program from the perspectives of both mentees and mentors, explore the challenges encountered, and identify recommendations for improvement. The study employed a phased mixed-methods design situated within a pragmatic research paradigm. This methodology was chosen because it allows for the purposeful integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches to address the research objective (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Considering both quantitative and qualitative data would allow the researchers to examine the breadth and depth of perspectives on the mentorship program, which is considered a complex educational phenomenon. During phase 1, TBF students and lecturer-mentors were invited to complete a questionnaire. To investigate students’ and lecturers’ perceptions in greater depth, focus group discussions (one with students and one with lecturers) were conducted during phase 2. Institutional permission and ethical clearance were obtained before the commencement of data collection. The target population will be described next, followed by an explanation of the data collection and analysis procedures.
Target Population
The target population was all TBF students and lecturer-mentors at the School of Accountancy at Stellenbosch University in 2024. First-year students were excluded because they had not yet been in a mentoring relationship for at least 6 months, resulting in a total of 64 students being included in the target population. All lecturer-mentors (a total of 52) were included, as lecturers with first-year mentees could share their experiences from previous mentoring relationships.
Data Collection and Analysis
The questionnaire used in phase 1 was developed through a review of the relevant literature to specifically address the study's research questions (see Appendix A). First, some demographic information was requested (gender and whether the respondent is a mentee or mentor). Second, the questionnaire included specific questions for each research question. Respondents’ perceptions of the program's effectiveness (first research question) were addressed through closed-ended (Likert-scale) questions. The remaining research questions were addressed through open-ended questions about the mentor's role, challenges, and recommendations for improvement. These questions were tailored to whether the respondent was a mentee or a mentor. The focus group interview guide employed during phase 2 (see Appendix B) was developed from the questionnaire's open-ended questions to explore participants’ perceptions of the mentor's role, challenges, and recommendations for improvement in greater detail.
Students and lecturers were invited to participate in either phase 1 (questionnaires) or phase 2 (interviews) via a recruitment email from the TBF administrative coordinator. Those students and lecturers willing to complete the questionnaire could do so electronically, after providing informed consent. The focus group interviews were conducted in person at times that suited the participants. One researcher facilitated the focus group with the students (F1), while the other facilitated the focus group with the lecturers (F2). The focus groups were recorded and then transcribed, with individual participants’ identities protected.
The results and findings of students and lecturers were analyzed and reported separately. The closed-ended questions in the questionnaire yielded quantitative data on the program's effectiveness, which were evaluated using descriptive statistics to answer research question 1. The open-ended questions in the questionnaire and the transcriptions of the focus group discussions produced qualitative data, which were evaluated using thematic analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). One researcher analyzed the data from the open-ended questionnaire responses, while the other independently analyzed the data from the focus group discussion. Analysis began with repeated reading of the data to achieve familiarization, followed by inductive coding to identify meaningful segments (Braun & Clarke, 2006) relevant to each research question. Codes were then organized into broader themes through iterative comparison and refinement (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Coding and theming were conducted separately for each dataset and research question. Afterwards, the researchers came together to discuss the codes and themes from both datasets for each research question. It was found that the themes identified in the two datasets were substantially the same, providing triangulation and supporting the credibility of the findings. Thus, when addressing research questions 2 to 4, data from both data sources (questionnaires and focus group discussions) are presented in a combined format, with illustrative quotations to enhance transparency and trustworthiness.
Trustworthiness was enhanced through the triangulation of questionnaire and focus group data when addressing research questions 2 to 4, independent coding by two researchers, and collaborative discussion of themes. The convergence of themes across datasets supported the credibility, while dependability was strengthened through a systematic, documented coding process. Reflexive discussions took place during which the two researchers examined their assumptions and interpretations, helping to minimize potential bias. Nevertheless, the researchers acknowledge that qualitative analysis is inherently interpretive, and findings should be understood as contextually grounded rather than generalizable.
Results and Discussion
This section focuses on the perceptions of students and lecturers separately. Each section (i.e., student perceptions and lecturer-mentor perceptions) will be structured to address the four articulated research questions: the program's effectiveness, the mentor's role, the challenges experienced, and recommendations for improvement. In each subsection, the questionnaire results will be discussed and integrated with the findings from the focus group discussions. Mentees will be referred to as students (indicated by S1–S25 for questionnaire responses and F1 for focus group responses), and mentors as lecturers (indicated by L1–L18 for questionnaire responses and F2 for focus group responses). Respondents to the questionnaire will be referred to as respondents, and focus group participants as participants.
Student Perceptions
A total of 25 students (17 females and 8 males) completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 39% (25 of 64). From the gender distribution of the respondents, one could deduce that female mentees were more eager to provide feedback (which could indicate that they valued the mentoring more, an idea which will be explored in more depth later). Students from all years of study participated, with 11 second-year students, seven third-year students, and seven postgraduate students completing the questionnaire. The next section explores the first research question, namely, the perceived effectiveness of the program.
Effectiveness of the Program
Table 1 shows the students’ ratings of the program's overall effectiveness (column 2). It also shows students’ rating of specific aspects of the program: effectiveness of support in terms of academic success (column 3), personal development (column 4), and emotional wellbeing (column 5).
Students’ Rating of the Effectiveness of the Mentorship Program.
Students generally rated the mentorship program favorably, with its contribution to academic success viewed as the most effective aspect. Female students rated the program slightly more positively overall, particularly regarding personal development and emotional wellbeing (Table 2). To produce a more accessible average score by gender in Table 2, responses were coded as follows: “Very effective” (2), “Somewhat effective” (1), and “Not effective” (0). Given the small subgroup sizes, inferential testing of gender differences was not conducted.
Students’ Rating of the Effectiveness of the Programme—by Gender.
When considered alongside previous research, these findings suggest a differentiated understanding of mentoring effectiveness. Strayhorn and Saddler (2009) reported that mentoring outcomes were strongest when relationships were research-focused and formally structured, with no meaningful differences by gender. In contrast, the present findings point to perceived benefits that extend beyond academic support, with female students in particular placing greater value on personal development and emotional wellbeing. Although these gender differences are descriptive rather than inferential, they suggest that students may value aspects of mentoring that are not easily captured by common outcome measures such as satisfaction or persistence. Taken together, this contrast indicates that mentoring may operate differently across contexts, functioning not only as academic support but also as a source of relational and emotional engagement. These ideas will be further evaluated in the next section, which explores the mentor's role and the program's value.
Role of Mentor and Value of Program
When asked what the role of a lecturer-mentor should involve, students described four main expectations: emotional support, academic advising, accountability, and role modeling. These themes align to some extent with those validated by Nora and Crisp (2007), namely, “(1) psychological or emotional support, (2) goal setting and career paths, (3) academic subject knowledge support, and (4) the existence of a role model.” Although these were articulated as distinct aspects, students’ responses suggest that they experienced them as closely connected rather than separate functions. Emotional support, in particular, appeared to shape some students’ perceptions of the value and authenticity of other aspects of mentoring. This perspective moves beyond more narrowly defined accounts of mentoring in higher education that treat it primarily as academic support, highlighting the importance of its relational dimensions in fostering effective mentoring relationships. Table 3 shows the themes, subthemes, and example quotes.
Student Views on the Role of a Mentor and the Value of the Program.
As was also emphasized by Frans and Rabie (2022), many respondents mentioned that lecturer-mentors should provide them with emotional support, which includes help in adjusting to university life (to “help students feel more comfortable with the lecturers” [S1] as they enter the university space). The idea of mentorship making “a student comfortable” (S8) was reiterated by numerous students. Frans and Rabie (2022) had previously referred to the adjustment from university to work as being facilitated by mentorship; however, students in the present study mentioned that mentors supported their adjustment from school to university during the first year and that lecturer-mentors gave students “a glimpse of what to expect in a certain year” (S8), which was vital in all years of study. Additionally, some mentees referred to the emotional support provided by lecturer-mentors as contributing to stress management and their mental wellbeing (as was also mentioned by Stratton and Miller-Perrin (2023) and Khan (2013)), and that this included lecturer-mentors being “someone you can vent to” (S25). A focus group participant commented the following when asked which aspects of the program are beneficial (F1):
You know, for me, it's more the emotional support, the mental support. Especially last year, when I was really going through a tough time, she was there for me, really trying to make me see the light, and just allowing me to cry.
The mentee should be able to have any sort of conversation with the mentor, thus the mentor must create an environment where it is not too formal, and at the same time still professional, so that the mentee can feel at ease and comfortable. The mentor should not just want to tick things [off] their list when meeting with mentees, but rather really be interested in their mentee and show that they care through means of follow-up on instances where the mentee did not feel too well during a session or so.
When asked which aspects of the mentorship program they found beneficial, numerous students emphasized the value of having a “role model that understands what I am going through” (S6). The persistence of these types of comments showed that the students viewed the lecturers as vital role models, even though the lecturers did not always share their backgrounds or demographic attributes. The students valued “speak[ing] to a professional” who could “understand what [they are] going through” (S7), as well as “the pressure that [they] are facing” (S8). Although their peers could also relate to their experiences, they benefited from interacting with mentors who had already qualified and could offer a different perspective than their peers. The additional life experience of lecturer-mentors led students to ask them for career advice (“tips on how to not only pass but to be a great CA” (S10)), which Le et al. (2024) and Nora and Crisp (2007) associated with improved articulation of career goals. The lecturer-mentor also shared their experiences and helped students “have a better idea of the corporate world” (S2). The following section will consider the third research question, namely, the challenges experienced.
Challenges Experienced
Very few students (only four) had faced any challenges or difficulties in the mentorship program. These challenges were limited to having a strict mentor, changes in the assigned lecturer-mentor (e.g., when the mentor resigns from university employment) and the student forgetting to contact the lecturer-mentor for an appointment. The one student who noted that the mentorship program did not contribute to her emotional wellbeing (Table 1) indicated in open-ended comments that emotional wellbeing resources could be added to the mentorship program, as her mentor “is quite strict” and thus she struggled “with sharing certain information” with her mentor (S9). The seemingly varied emotional investment of lecturer-mentors will be explored later, in the section on lecturer perspectives. Next, the students’ recommendations for improvement will be explored.
Recommendations for Improvement
Most student respondents (15 out of 25) did not have recommendations for improvement, providing comments such as “it meets my needs so I cannot think of anything to improve it” (S4) and that it is “already a great programme” (S16). The remaining 10 respondents provided only minor recommendations regarding mentor selection, attitude, monitoring, and the mentoring process in general. In terms of the selection of mentors, one respondent expressed a desire to “be placed with someone with a similar background” (S2), while another indicated that the lecturer-mentor should not be changed during a student's academic journey (although this is not always possible, e.g., if a lecturer resigns). Ontong and Smit (2023) also suggested a more deliberate approach to assigning lecturer-mentors to students to improve compatibility. Respondents recommended that they be allowed to self-select mentors or “change lecture mentors and find someone more compatible to them” (S25). One of these respondents explained the process she would follow to do this as follows (S22):
[A]llowing the mentee to select who they would like their mentors to be (I know in first year it's a bit different since they are not familiar with the lecturers, but from second year onwards). This can be done through a social meet and greet, where all the prospective mentors and the new second years meet and the end of their first year for a lunch or just social gathering, to see who they really connect with.
Some students also believed that the process could be improved, for example, by making the mentor meeting less onerous and formalized (fewer forms to complete before the meeting). One student mentioned that it would be nice to have the mentors present at the initial meeting with their parents, while two students mentioned preferring to meet more regularly than once per term (“[m]ore regular contact with the mentor” (S25)). Other minor suggestions included providing food or snacks for mentor meetings, having a lecturer-mentor per module, and organizing more social interaction (e.g., team-building or social events) for mentors and mentees. The student focus group participants also made similar recommendations to those mentioned above. The following section will examine lecturer perspectives on the mentorship program.
Lecturer-Mentor Perceptions
A total of 18 lecturers (15 female and 3 male) completed the questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 35% (18 of 52). The gender distribution of the mentor population is skewed toward females (approximately two-thirds of the population is female); however, the much higher response rate among female lecturer-mentors might indicate that female mentors are more invested in the process. The first subsection explores lecturers’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the mentorship program.
Effectiveness of the Program
Table 4 presents the lecturers’ ratings of the program's overall effectiveness (column 2). It also shows students’ rating of specific aspects of the program: effectiveness of support in terms of academic success (column 3), personal development (column 4), and emotional wellbeing (column 5). Due to rounding, the total percentages may not add up to 100%.
Lecturers’ Rating of the Effectiveness of the Mentorship Program.
Table 4 shows that the lecturers rated the effectiveness of the mentorship program quite favorably, although less so than the students (Table 1). As with the student respondents, most lecturers believed the program supported academic success. Given the small number of male lecturer-mentor respondents, the effectiveness ratings of males and females were not compared. The next section addressed the second research question, namely, the perceived role of the mentor.
Role of Mentor and Value of Program
The lecturer-mentors’ views on the role of a mentor aligned with those of the students, as shown in Table 3, although the adjustment subtheme of emotional support did not specifically feature in the lecturer-mentors’ responses. It is possible that lecturers, as individuals who remain within the university environment, do not always realize the adjustments a student needs to make when transitioning from school to university. Moreover, the “providing accountability” theme from the student perspective was replaced by “monitoring” from the lecturer-mentor's perspective. Table 5 presents the lecturer-mentor views, in line with the themes outlined in Table 3.
Lecturer-Mentor Views on the Role of a Mentor (Based on Themes in Table 3).
No additional themes (besides those in Table 5) emerged from the thematic analysis of lecturer-mentor responses. An additional subtheme, however, arose related to both emotional support and academic advising: (re)directing students to other colleagues, resources, and professional help when mentors notice a need or a risk (“providing academic guidance where I can, and pointing them to alternative academic and wellness resources available at [the university] where I am unable to” (L7)).
The focus group discussions provided space to unpack the lecturer-mentor role in greater depth, particularly regarding emotional support, thereby illustrating how the phased mixed-methods approach facilitated a richer understanding of mentoring in this context. It became clear that a range of perceptions existed. Some lecturers described mentoring predominantly in operational terms, emphasizing accountability, and monitoring academic progress (referred to as “a monitoring view”), while others spoke of deliberately investing in the personal and emotional development of their mentees. Although all participants agreed that the program played an important role in tracking students’ academic performance and general wellbeing (as required by the program mandate), many regarded effective mentoring as involving more than these baseline responsibilities. For these lecturers, mentoring entailed building a personal connection with students and engaging with their development beyond academic performance (referred to as “a personal connection view”). As one focus group participant noted, “mentorship has different aspects. Either it's a mentor for academics or it's a mentor for life” (F2). Table 6 provides examples of a monitoring versus a personal connection view.
Examples of a Monitoring Versus a Personal Connection View.
This distinction highlights that the extent of emotional involvement was not uniformly defined within the program but was shaped by individual lecturers’ interpretations of what mentoring should entail. Whether consciously or implicitly, lecturers appeared to make choices about how much of themselves they invested in the mentoring relationship. This variation in “emotional labor”’ (Seery et al., 2021) points to an important tension between the program's formal expectations and how mentoring is enacted in practice, with implications for the consistency of students’ experiences of relational support. The challenges experienced by lecturers are explored next, followed by recommendations for improvement.
Challenges Experienced
In questionnaire responses and during the focus group discussion, lecturer-mentors identified the following difficulties that made the program less effective: cultural and gender differences between mentees and mentors, a disconnect between the needs of students and what lecturers can offer, a lack of buy-in from students, and the fact that building a mentor-mentee relationship takes time. Cultural differences between mentees and mentors are a reality in the South African context; however, they might hamper the formation of “a real emotional connection” owing to a perception that the mentor does not “really understand the background and personal circumstances of the mentees” (L9). For example, “[s]ome mentors may not fully understand certain struggles that some students are going through, so it may be hard to offer guidance” (L17). For some female mentors, it “works much better to mentor a female student” (L3). One female lecturer-mentor (L11) explained it as follows:
The female mentees are often happy and satisfied with the comfort or emotional support that I can provide and more receptive to my advice. I feel that I leave my male mentees a bit unsatisfied, and that their requests for support are generally not things within my power to do.
Sometimes the relationship feels forced since two people have been assigned together, a formality that needs to be done. It felt like the student would just reach out at the bare minimum for the quarterly meeting (and perhaps just because of risk of monetary penalty).
I believe that students get as much out of the programme as what they put in. I have had problems building rapport or winning trust with two mentees in the past. If they don’t feel comfortable with me, then the amount of sharing that they will do is limited, especially if they are going through difficult personal circumstances.
Recommendations for Improvement
The recommendations for improvement voiced by lecturer-mentors in the questionnaire and during the focus group discussion focused on four themes: the allocation of mentees, establishing a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities, the mentoring process and the additional resources required. Table 7 explains these themes and the recommendations involved.
Lecturer-Mentor Recommendations for Improvement.
Conclusions
When academic staff mentor students (especially those from minority groups), it is believed to support students’ sense of belonging, retention, and ultimately their academic success, which could aid transformation and social justice in higher education. However, mentoring programs may not always be perceived as effective by mentors and mentees. The following is employed as a case study in this article: South African students from previously disadvantaged backgrounds who receive TBF bursaries participate in a lecturer-mentorship program that provides them with individualized guidance from academic staff. The objective of this study was to examine the perceived effectiveness of the TBF mentoring program from the perspectives of both mentees and mentors, explore the challenges encountered, and identify recommendations for improvement. A phased mixed-methods design was employed, utilizing questionnaires first, followed by focus group interviews, which deepened the analysis of the reported perceptions.
Questionnaire respondents and focus group participants expressed general optimism about the mentorship program, noting its contribution to both students’ academic progress and emotional wellbeing. The findings suggest that, for many students, academic support is experienced as most meaningful when embedded in relationships characterized by emotional support, accountability, and role modeling. In this respect, the study contributes to the mentoring literature by showing that academic mentoring, especially for previously disadvantaged or minority students, should not focus solely on academic outcomes. Rather, the findings underscore the value of framing mentoring as a developmental and relational practice, especially when explaining prospective mentors’ roles and responsibilities.
In the absence of such explicit framing, the findings show that lecturers differed in their interpretations of their mentoring role. While some prioritized monitoring and academic oversight, others emphasized the importance of establishing a personal connection with mentees. This variation points to how lecturer-mentors negotiate boundaries—both with themselves and with students—and reflects the fact that emotional labor is often not clearly defined or formally acknowledged within academic roles such as mentoring. Although emotional involvement is recognized within mentoring theory, the findings suggest that it remains contingent in practice, depending on how individual lecturers understand and enact their role.
The findings have clear practical implications for the design, implementation, and refinement of mentorship programs in higher education. In particular, they suggest moving away from the random allocation of mentors and mentees towards more intentional matching processes. Clearer alignment of expectations at the outset of the mentoring relationship is essential and could be supported through structured orientation sessions and written mentoring agreements. The results further highlight the importance of enhanced and ongoing training for lecturer-mentors, particularly regarding role boundaries, communication styles, and the management of differing student needs. In addition, organized team-building activities may help to foster trust, clarify roles, and normalize dialogue around mentoring expectations.
Building on the tension around emotional engagement identified above, a key practical recommendation is that mentorship programs explicitly recognize and accommodate differing preferences regarding the nature of the mentoring relationship. Specifically, students and lecturer-mentors could be matched based on what they value in mentoring—whether a predominantly academic, monitoring-oriented relationship focused on accountability, or one that also incorporates a more personal, relational dimension. Such value-based matching has the potential to reduce mismatch-related frustration, strengthen relational quality, and enhance the overall effectiveness and sustainability of mentoring engagements.
Some limitations are noted regarding this research. It was conducted at a single university and evaluated a single mentorship program. Thus, the findings may not be representative of mentorship in other settings. Future research could examine such mentorship programs in different environments. Although both quantitative and qualitative feedback were obtained regarding the effectiveness of the mentorship program, from both student-mentees and lecturer-mentors, the direct effect of mentorship on students’ academic performance and emotional wellbeing was not established. Future studies could utilize an experimental design with a control group that does not receive mentoring.
This study contributes to the literature on mentorship in higher education by providing empirical evidence from a developing-nation context, where mentorship also has implications for social justice and transformation. It illustrates how mentorship can mitigate risks to student retention and achievement. The findings demonstrate that it is essential to integrate academic and psychosocial support within higher education to provide “wrap-around” or holistic support to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The findings may be utilized in other bursary and student support schemes, both within South Africa and globally. They could be beneficial for at-risk students or in professional education. This will contribute to a more inclusive, caring, and socially responsive higher education system. Specifically in the accounting profession, the study identifies mentorship as a key enabler of diversity in accounting education. Professional accounting bodies could utilize the findings to integrate additional mentorship programs into transformation initiatives. As Stellenbosch University, implementing the recommendations identified by the research will enhance the efficacy of the lecturer-mentorship program, leading to improved support for students.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.