2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This theory/methods full paper presents a qualitative comparative case study design for examining how advising structures influence students’ sense of belonging in STEM-focused institutions. While academic advising is often cited as a driver of student persistence, few studies have systematically explored the mechanisms through which specific advising models shape belonging and retention. This paper introduces a methodological framework for studying advising culture using constructivist and interpretive qualitative methods, emphasizing their value in uncovering the social and relational dimensions of student success.

Guided by Strayhorn’s framework for sense of belonging, the study conceptualizes belonging as a dynamic and co-constructed experience formed through students’ interactions with institutional agents. The research focuses on a tandem advising model implemented at a small STEM university in which first-year students were supported by both a professional advisor, who emphasized academic and personal development, and a faculty advisor, who provided discipline-specific mentorship. After the first year, students transitioned to a faculty-only advising model. The study employed an embedded comparative case study design to examine how this tandem structure influenced belonging among two subgroups: persisters (students who continued to a second year) and non-persisters (students who left after the first year).

Data collection included semi-structured interviews with faculty and professional advisors, focus groups with persisting students, and follow-up interviews with students who departed the institution. These complementary perspectives enabled triangulation across participant groups, revealing differences between intended and experienced advising cultures. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis. The process emphasized iterative coding, reflexive memoing, and team-based interpretation to ensure dependability and reduce bias.
Preliminary findings suggest that the tandem model enhanced belonging by increasing the number of relational “touchpoints” in students’ first year. Students who persisted described a stronger sense of being “known” and supported through consistent engagement with both advisors. Conversely, students who left the institution frequently characterized advising as fragmented or confusing, particularly after the transition to faculty-only advising. Misalignment between faculty and professional advisors’ understandings of their roles also emerged as a key cultural factor shaping student experience. Faculty emphasized disciplinary mentorship and academic rigor, while professional advisors focused on holistic support and early intervention. The study found that when these advising perspectives aligned, belonging flourished; when they diverged, students experienced uncertainty and disengagement.

Methodologically, this paper contributes to engineering education research by demonstrating how comparative qualitative design can illuminate institutional processes that are not easily captured through quantitative persistence data. It offers a model for examining advising culture as an ecosystem, emphasizing meaning-making, reflexivity, and the interplay between institutional structures and individual experiences. Practically, the study underscores the need for greater coordination and continuity across advising roles in STEM programs. Sustaining relational density beyond the first year may help institutions strengthen belonging and persistence, particularly for students from underrepresented backgrounds.