Constraints in implementing a mentoring program in a higher education institution

Abstract

Introduction: This study was developed within the scope of the Summer School “Mentors in Action”, of a higher education institution, an activity financed by the Foundation for Science and Technology, which had the purpose of creating a Mentoring Plan to be implemented in a higher education institution, from September 2020, following the mentoring pilot project carried out in the academic year 2019-2020, in only two organic units of this higher education institution.

Objectives: To systematize the main restrictions on mentoring; and to understand the main constraints resulting from the mentoring experience. Recognizing the enormous importance and responsibility of higher education institutions for welcoming new students, the Mentoring Program has the main objective of promoting the sharing of mentoring experiences and providing a supportive and healthy living environment in HEIs, contributing for the inclusion of all students. We want to build and implement a Mentoring Plan in all organic units of a higher education institution, from the beginning of the academic year 2020-2021.

Methods: Descriptive and exploratory study, of qualitative nature. Analysis of the data collected in the pilot project “Inclusive Practices of a higher education institution: Perceptions on the implementation of a Mentoring Program”, carried out using the portfolio method and focused on 2 groups of the represented universe: mentors and mentors. Bibliographic review on the topic “Mentoring in Higher Education and its main constraints”, in order to identify which constraints and difficulties were identified in similar experiences.

Results: The constraints identified in the study were classified into nineteen subcategories: “no definition of a healthy contact limit”; “Too paternalistic relationship”; “Separation issue”; “Unavailability for program activities”; “Lack of motivation to perform the role”; “Personality incompatibility”; “Shyness”; “Not responding to the type of support that mentors seek”; “Blockade and initial panic on the part of the mentee”; “Lack of availability to train mentors within the curriculum”; “Lack of institutional disclosure and non-recognition”; “Overlapping curricular and mentoring activities”; “Lack of timely and efficient organization of actions”; “There are no institutional policies of compromise”, “excessive bureaucracy”, “Not correct management of time and space”; “Lack of training of stakeholders”; “Little proximity” and “reduced overall program duration”.

Conclusion: This research work provided another approach to mentoring in terms of form and style. However, there should be no doubt that mentoring is always an instrument for the inclusion of all students, regardless of their individual characteristics, and the mentor must be supportive, a source of support, a support, not assuming protagonism, since the centre of the Mentoring Program are students and their full inclusion in the institutional and academic universe.