Unpacking Engineering Faculty's Discrepant Views of Mentoring through the Lens of Attachment Theory

The term mentorship can be interpreted in a variety of ways. This research paper examines the interpretation and individual mentoring experiences of three engineering faculty across ranks to capture their discrepant views toward faculty support relationships. In the context of a larger qualitative study to identify and compare perceptions of effective engineering faculty-to-faculty mentorship from the perspectives of both mentors and mentees, three engineering faculty stood out as markedly different from their fellow interviewees. Specifically, these three stood out because, while they each actively provide mentor-like support to other faculty or students, they expressed reluctance or aversion toward labeling these relationships as mentorship. This seemingly contradictory set of attributes motivated a closer examination of their stories. Data for this work are semi-structured interviews collected during the larger study. We frame our analysis using Attachment Theory, which describes how and when humans seek out support through "safe haven" and "secure base" functions. Safe Haven support is sought when an individual is in distress, and Secure Base support provides an anchor for independent exploration. The attachment system produces differing states of security related to underlying anxiety and avoidance dimensions. Differences in attachment states influence responses to social interactions and willingness to participate in close relationships such as mentoring. Our findings highlight the characteristics, causes, and consequences of three attachment states as they relate to faculty support interactions. By considering outlier cases of faculty support relationships, this work provides new ways of thinking about faculty mentorship and offers an approach to potentially remediate negative mentoring experiences.