Vol. 27 No. 1 (2013)
Research Articles

Dissertations at a Distance: Students’ Perceptions of Online Mentoring in a Doctoral Program

Swapna Kumar
University of Florida
Melissa Johnson
University of Florida
Truly Hardemon
University of Florida

Published 2013-08-09


  • Online Mentoring,
  • Distance Education,
  • Online Education,
  • E-Mentoring,
  • educational technology,
  • e-learning,
  • Doctoral Education
  • ...More

How to Cite

Kumar, S., Johnson, M., & Hardemon, T. (2013). Dissertations at a Distance: Students’ Perceptions of Online Mentoring in a Doctoral Program. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 27(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/835


The purpose of this research was to identify best practices in online mentoring used in an online doctoral program to mentor doctoral students through their dissertation. During semi-structured interviews, students (n=9) reflected on the challenges faced communicating with their mentors, and the online technologies, online mentoring strategies, and their own best practices that had been instrumental in the successful completion of their dissertations. Themes in the findings that are specific to the online mentoring of dissertations are discussed in the context of prior research on best practices in dissertation supervision in traditional environments.


  1. Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the United
  2. States, 2011. Sloan Consortium.
  3. Bell-Ellison, B. A., & Dedrick, R. F. (2008). What do Doctoral Students Value in their Ideal Mentor? Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 555–567. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9085-8
  4. Bierema, L. L. & Merriam, S. B. (2002). E-mentoring: Using computer mediated communication to enhance the mentoring process. Innovative Higher Education, 26 (3), 211-227.
  5. Burnett, P. C. (1999). The supervision of doctoral dissertations using a collaborative cohort model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39(1), 46–52.
  6. Cilesiz, S. (2011). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: Current state, promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 487-510.
  7. Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring College Students: A Critical Review of the Literature Between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 525–545. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9130-2
  8. Gaffney, N. (Ed.). (1995). A Conversation about Mentoring: Trends and Models. Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, D.C.
  9. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
  10. qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Pub. Co.
  11. Griffiths, M. D. & Miller, H. M. (2005). E-mentoring in schools. A brief review. Education and Health, 23, 6-8.
  12. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  13. Hayes, S., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2011). Dialogic Exchanges and the Negotiation of Differences: Female Graduate Students’ Experiences of Obstacles Related to Academic Mentoring. The Qualitative Report, 16(3), 682–710.
  14. Ives, G. & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph.D. students progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 535-555.
  15. Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B. (2000). The PhD and the Autonomous Self: Gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 135–147.
  16. Lechuga, V. M. (2011). Faculty-graduate student mentoring relationships: mentors’
  17. perceived roles and responsibilities. Higher Education, 62(6), 757–771. doi:10.1007/s10734-011-9416-0.
  18. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281.
  19. Loureiro-Koechlin, C., & Allan, B. (2010). Time, space and structure in an e-learning and e-mentoring project. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 721–735. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00975.x
  20. Lyons, W., Scroggins, D., & Rule, P. B. (1990). The mentor in graduate education. Studies in Higher Education, 15(3), 277–285.
  21. Maher, M. A., Ford, M. E., & Thompson, C. M. (2004). Degree Progress of Women Doctoral Students: Factors that Constrain, Facilitate, and Differentiate. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 385–408. doi:10.1353/rhe.2004.0003
  22. Moore, M. G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching.
  23. Journal of Higher Education, (44), 661-679
  24. Mueller, S. (2004). Electronic Mentoring as an Example for the Information and
  25. Communications Technology in Engineering Education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1), 53-63.
  26. Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A
  27. longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451–476. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-9003-2
  28. Rose, G. L. (2003). Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 473–494.
  29. Schichtel, M. (2010). Core-competence skills in e-mentoring for medical educators:
  30. A conceptual exploration. Medical Teacher, 32(7), e248–e262.
  31. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press.
  32. Warner, M., & Witzel, M. (2004). Managing in Virtual Organizations. London:
  33. Thomson Learning.
  34. Welch, O. M. (1996). An Examination of Effective Mentoring Models in the Academy (pp. 1–24). Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.