The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to understand the key constructs and processes underlying the mentoring relationships between doctoral students and their mentors. First, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to evaluate the measurement structure underlying the 34-item Ideal Mentor Scale (IMS; Rose, 2003), followed by an examination of factorial invariance and differences in latent means between graduate students differing by gender, age, and Master's vs. Doctoral status. The IMS was administered to 1,187 graduate students from various departments across the university at Arizona State University (ASU); this sample was split into two independent samples. Exploratory factory analysis on Sample 1 (N = 607) suggested a new four-factor mentoring model consisting of Affective Advocacy, Academic Guidance, Scholarly Example, and Personal Relationship. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis on Sample 2 (N = 580) found that this four-factor solution was superior to the fit of a previously hypothesized three-factor model including Integrity, Guidance, and Relationship factors (Rose, 2003). Latent mean differences were evaluated for the four-factor model using structured means modeling. Results showed that females placed more value on factors relating to Affective Advocacy, Academic Guidance, and Scholarly Example, and less value on Personal Relationship than males. Students 30 and older placed less value on Scholarly Example and Personal Relationship than students under 30. There were no significant differences in means for graduate students pursuing a Master's versus a Doctoral degree. iii Further study qualitatively examined mentoring relationships between doctoral students and their faculty mentor using the Questionnaire on Supervisor Doctoral Student Interaction (QSDI) coupled with semi-structured interviews. Graduate support staff were interviewed to gather data on program characteristics and to provide additional context. Data were analyzed using Erickson's Modified Analytical Inductive method (Erickson, 1986). Findings showed that the doctoral students valued guidance, advocacy and constructive, timely feedback but realized the need to practice self-reliance to complete. Peer mentoring was important. Most of the participants valued a mentor's advocacy and longed to co-publish with their advisor. All students valued intellectual freedom, but wished for more direction to facilitate timelier completion of the degree. Development of the scholarly identity received little or no overt attention.

This study examined the enactment of a high school district's college-going mission. Treating mission enactment as a case of policy implementation, this study used the lens of complexity theory to understand how system actors and contexts influenced variation and adaptation. Data collection methods included observations, interviews, focus groups, and surveys of various system actors including district staff, principals, counselors, teachers, and students. This study used a mixed methods analytic inductive technique and Social Network Analysis to describe the mission's implementation. Findings reflect that the mission was a vaguely defined value statement; school staff reacted to the mission with limited buy-in and confusion about what it really meant in practice. The mission lacked clear boundaries of what constituted related programs or policies. Consequently, in this site-based district, schools unevenly implemented related programs and policies. School staff wanted more guidance from district staff and clear expectations for mission-related actions. To help meet this need, the district was moving to a more centralized, hierarchical approach. Though they were providing information about the mission, district staff were not providing specific, responsive support to organize school staff's efforts around implementation. District staff were trying to find an approach that both supported schools towards a common vision and provided flexibility for school-level adaptations. Yet, the district had not yet fully formed its position as a facilitator of implementation. Further, as the district lacked a cohesive measurement system, the effectiveness of this initiative was unknown. This study sought to present policy implementation as varied phenomenon, influenced by system actors and conditions. Findings suggest that while policy cannot determine actions, district staff could help create conditions that would support implementation.