Exploring Advisor-Advisee Relationship Among International and Domestic Doctoral Students

Abstract

This study explored the advisor-advisee relationship among doctoral students in the United States, focusing on comparing the experiences of international and domestic doctoral students. The quality of the advisor-advisee relationship has been shown to significantly influence doctoral students’ academic success, research productivity, satisfaction, and overall well-being. While a growing body of research has examined graduate advising dynamics, few studies have directly compared the experiences of international and domestic doctoral students. This study aimed to fill that gap using Social Exchange Theory (SET) as the guiding theoretical framework. This study adopted a multi-phase research design, combining quantitative survey analysis with thematic examination of open-ended responses to explore the measurable dimensions and personal experiences of doctoral advising. Quantitative data were collected from 87 participants (41 international and 46 domestic doctoral students) through an online survey comprising the Advisory Working Alliance Inventory (AWAI) and a satisfaction scale. The survey used in this study assessed four core constructs: satisfaction, rapport, apprenticeship, and identification-individuation. A one-way MANOVA compared international and domestic doctoral students on four subscales. The multivariate test was significant (Pillai’s Trace = 0.141, F(4, 82) = 3.38, p = 0.013, partial η² = 0.14). Follow-up analyses showed domestic students reported moderately higher rapport (d = 0.63) and identification-individuation (d = 0.52), while no group differences emerged for apprenticeship or overall satisfaction. Qualitative data were collected through open-ended questions designed to capture students’ personal experiences and expectations in advising. Thematic analysis revealed four key themes: 1) academic and professional support; 2) emotional and psychological challenges in advising; 3) alignment and compatibility; 4) structural challenges. Guided by SET, this study highlighted how doctoral students weighed the academic, emotional, and structural dimensions of their advising relationships regarding perceived costs and benefits. These findings underscore the need for faculty to adopt culturally responsive advising practices and for institutions to address structural challenges like a shortage of faculty advisors and support resources. By attending to relational and institutional factors, universities can better support diverse doctoral students and foster more efficient advising environments.