This study focuses on mentoring relationships between experienced HR professionals and small groups of students (2–3 individuals) in an undergraduate bachelor’s HR program at a university in western Sweden. The university has approximately 13,500 students, of whom 5600 are full-time, with 60–80 students enrolling in the HR program each fall. The university offers mentoring opportunities during the second year of the HR program as a noncredit activity. The HR program spans three years and covers topics such as work psychology, learning and competence development, work environment, recruitment and talent management, labor law, and research methods. Upon completion, students receive a bachelor’s degree in either psychology or the educational sciences.

A mentoring activity has been offered at the university since 2009. The aim is to connect students with professionals who can inspire them to enhance their knowledge and support WIL. Mentors who have extensive work experience, but no formal mentor training participate voluntarily without financial compensation. Students are usually assigned a mentor by the university, although some may share a mentor or recruit their own. Student–mentor meetings, held either in person or online, take place 4–6 times per academic year and focus on topics chosen by the students related to their courses, education, HR work, or the profession. Students receive a certificate on graduation, acknowledging their participation in the mentoring activity.

The mentoring activity concludes with an individual, noncredit written assignment of 1200–1800 words, in which students reflect on mentoring as a learning experience. Students are asked to reflect on the relationship between mentoring and their understanding of future professional areas, how mentoring introduces them to and helps them identify with various HR roles, and the integration of learning from their education and practice-oriented mentoring discussions. The empirical basis for this study consisted of a complete population sample of 82 assignments collected from three student-mentoring cohorts between 2021 and 2024. These cohorts were chosen because the assignments were available digitally via the university’s educational platform, starting with the assignment submission for students participating in the activity during the 2021/2022 academic year. It should be noted that no changes were made to the structure and procedure of the mentoring activity during these years.

Among students enrolled in the HR program during the period, 33% (n = 34) in 2021/2022, 36% (n = 28) in 2022/2023, and 33% (n = 20) in 2023/2024 participated in this extracurricular activity, and all participants submitted a written assignment. However, three assignments were excluded from this study: one student declined participation in the research, and two students who had submitted assignments did not complete the mentoring program and thus submitted incomplete assignments. This resulted in a final sample of 79 assignments for analysis. Assignments were retrieved from the educational platform used for course delivery, where students submitted examinations and assignments.

The division of assignments into cohorts, both in this section and in the results, was solely for practical reasons and to keep the assignments separate. The intention was not to compare the different cohorts but rather to explore HR students’ experiences of the mentoring activity in general, regardless of the year in which they participated. This is particularly relevant, given that there were no changes in the design of the activity during these years, and the assignment followed the same structure throughout the period.

As the empirical material consisted of individual written reflections (n = 79), no prior processing was needed before the analysis. A thematic inductive analysis inspired by Braun and Clarke (2006) was conducted to address the study’s purpose and research questions. The inductive approach meant that the theoretical perspectives of Kram (1983) and Mezirow (1981, 1997) were introduced in later stages of interpreting the results. The first step involved the authors individually reading all the texts to familiarize themselves with and understand their content, accompanied by occasional joint discussions to share impressions without influencing each other’s understanding. During this phase, notes were taken on content relevant to the study’s aim as well as potential interpretations and connections in the data. Subsequently, a joint discussion was held to review initial thoughts, identify emerging patterns, and explore similarities and differences in interpretation.

In the next step, the material was coded inductively, organizing and reducing data by merging excerpts from the empirical material into initial codes reflecting patterns relevant to the study’s aim. Each author conducted this separately, leading to three tables with coded excerpts and proposed code names. Subsequently, we collaboratively compared the tables to identify similarities and differences in patterns, which were largely consistent across analyses. The individual analyses were compiled into a common document, and further analysis was conducted jointly. Codes were reexamined and reworked where needed to ensure their relevance to the study aim. Coded segments were adjusted where necessary, with some codes removed and others added. To further reduce and organize the empirical material, codes with mutual relevance were grouped into initial themes. This work led to insights into the varying levels of the initially created themes, and further analysis resulted in the identification of both themes and subthemes and further refinement and organization of the results. Themes were refined and renamed to accurately reflect the content and meaning of the data and to ensure coherence, accuracy, and alignment with overall findings (see Table 1). The final step of the analysis involved interpreting the findings through the study’s theoretical perspectives and in relation to relevant previous research, supporting the discussion of the results and their implications. The combination of individual and collaborative analyses, along with the authors’ prior experience in qualitative analysis, strengthened the trustworthiness of the results.

This study adheres to ethical guidelines in accordance with the Swedish Research Council (2024). Before the study commenced, a representative for the Ethics Review Board with experience in both national and local ethical review processes was consulted, and the representative concluded orally that formal ethical approval was not required. The assignment included information stating that the text would not be assessed or commented on but that it might be used for

research purposes. Upon submission of the assignment, students were asked to indicate whether they agreed to having their text used in the research. By affirming, they were considered to have provided informed written consent.

Assignments were retrieved from the educational platform on which they had been submitted. After the files were downloaded, they were saved and anonymized by assigning each text a number. These files were used for the analysis. Given that the aim of the study was not to assess students’ texts or performance in the activity but rather to explore their experiences with it, it was not relevant to focus in more detail on who the students were. Instead, the focus was on their reflections on the activity as such.

The empirical material was stored in a protected folder accessible only to the research group and the course manager. In reporting the results, names, grades, mentor identities, and workplaces are not disclosed, in line with confidentiality principles. The study focuses on students’ experiences of mentoring as a learning activity, emphasizing content and nature of the mentoring activity and its perceived contribution to learning, as well as to understanding their education and future professional fields, rather than the specific workplace context.

The analysis indicates that discussing theoretical knowledge and concepts with a mentor can improve students’ understanding of theoretical knowledge and make it more accessible. A significant part of the mentoring activity contributed to contextualizing, complementing, conflicting, and exchanging knowledge, which was essential for students in developing perspectives on academic knowledge.

Within this theme, two subthemes were identified concerning students’ perceptions of their future profession: ideas of professional roles, referring to attitudes toward and understandings of the HR profession, and insight into the complexity of HR, reflecting perceived challenges that are less emphasized in coursework and highlighting students’ perceptions of the complexity of HR work.

The final theme comprises two sub-themes, the journey of becoming and motivation, illustrating how mentoring supports students in reflecting on themselves in relation to both their educational experiences and their future professional lives. These findings also broaden the understanding of mentoring by showing that it contributes not only to students’ understanding of educational content and the HR profession but also to their ongoing professional identity formation.

Regarding perspectives on education, the findings indicate that mentoring supports the contextualization of theoretical knowledge acquired through academic courses. Opportunities for students to reflect on their academic knowledge in relation to mentors’ experiences facilitated a deeper understanding of both educational content and the HR field, which aligns with the findings of previous WIL research (e.g., Billett, 2024; Jackson, 2015). The mentoring activity highlighted the gap between academic and practical knowledge (e.g., Billett, 2024; Jackson, 2015) and offered benefits, such as discussing insights and concerns about the future and engaging with case-based education, which helped students prepare for possible challenges, thus easing the transition. In this way, this study suggests that mentoring can serve as a form of WIL activity without necessarily involving traditional workplace placements.

Drawing on Kram’s (1983) conceptual framework, the analysis identified both career-related functions of mentoring, such as discussions on HR challenges and guidance on navigating the field, helping bridge the gap between academic study and professional practice. This resonates with previous research highlighting how mentoring strengthens the practical applicability of academic knowledge and facilitates its integration into professional contexts (Billett, 2024; Jackson, 2015). Furthermore, the analysis indicated that mentors functioned as role models and facilitators of industry-specific knowledge, providing insights not readily accessible through academic studies (cf. Patterson, 2024).

Such insights are particularly relevant, given that mentoring is more commonly integrated into professional education programs, while its role and potential in theoretical or interdisciplinary programs, such as the HR program, remain less explored (e.g., Arnesson & Albinsson, 2017). The impact of mentoring extends beyond immediate career prospects, as it can motivate students and enhance their engagement and satisfaction with their studies (Lunsford et al., 2017; Palmer et al., 2015). Therefore, mentoring may also be relevant in the design of interdisciplinary higher education programs, where career trajectories are less clearly defined than in professional programs (e.g., Patterson, 2024).

However, certain aspects challenged the learning process enabled by the mentoring activity. These primarily pertained to students’ preparation and expectations. Another challenge was the encouragement to focus on course-related questions, which sometimes restricted the discussions, as students struggled to formulate questions. Moreover, being assigned a mentor with a narrowly defined HR role (e.g., recruitment) was perceived by some students as limiting the breadth of the mentoring experience. This may be understood as a form of mentor–mentee mismatch, a challenge identified in previous research (e.g., Al-Aqeel & Alhumiad, 2024). Given that mentors’ professional experience and role-model function are considered central to successful mentoring (Harris, 2002; Nuis et al., 2023), such mismatches may contribute to frustration and a perceived lack of relevant feedback. These findings underscore the importance of a deliberate matching process, where mentors’ backgrounds and areas of expertise are aligned with students’ interests and expectations. Providing access to a broader range of professional expertise may strengthen reciprocal relationships and support positive experiences for both mentors and mentees (e.g. Andrews & Chilton, 2000; Saranya et al., 2022), consistent with Kram’s (1983) conceptualization of mentoring as a reciprocal developmental relationship.

Apart from providing complementary knowledge, the results also reveal situations of conflicting knowledge from the students’ perspectives. Mentoring sometimes exposed different or unexpected views on professional practice. A central concern involved the value of different forms of knowledge, where practical knowledge was often perceived as superior to the theoretical knowledge acquired through education. This suggests that students may often implicitly construct a distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge, where workplace experience is regarded as more authentic or legitimate than knowledge acquired through formal education. Such perceptions may influence how students understand and value educational knowledge. Although mentoring is intended to bridge theory and practice, there is a risk that it may reinforce this divide by positioning workplace experience as the primary source of legitimate knowledge (Ferm, 2021; Schaap et al., 2012). This may help explain students’ positive experiences of mentoring: mentors were seen as helping students make sense of knowledge from their education, conveying practice-related skills, professional values, and networking opportunities, which are directly linked to employability and are therefore especially attractive to students (Palmer et al., 2015). However, this finding suggests that mentoring may, at times, accentuate rather than integrate diverse forms of knowledge, thereby underscoring the responsibility of educational institutions to equip students with the capacity to interpret and navigate such encounters. This gap reflects what Billett (2024) noted can create tensions by reinforcing a perceived divide between theory and practice. The tendency to view practice as “superior” to theory may be interpreted against the backdrop of HR work as a situationally embedded and often weakly formalized knowledge domain (Örestig Kling, 2024; Wallo & Coetzer, 2023).

Another notable finding was the apparent knowledge exchange between mentor and mentee, as reported by the students. While it might be assumed that learning flows primarily from mentor to mentee, the results and prior research indicate that mentoring often involves mutual benefits and that both parties contribute their own knowledge and interests (e.g., Saranya et al., 2022). Students contribute insights into theoretical perspectives and educational content, while mentors offer practical HR experience, creating a relationship that fosters learning and challenges the notion of mentors as simply “passing on” knowledge to mentees (e.g., Arnesson & Albinsson, 2017). A notable aspect of this experience is that the more experienced person in the mentoring relationship both acknowledges the value of others’ perspectives and demonstrates humility while maintaining confidence in their professional role (cf. Harris, 2002; Kumar & Prieto-Flores, 2025). The findings thus suggest that voluntary participation and continuity in mentoring activities throughout the second year of studies, rather than the number of meetings, may be key factors to consider in future mentoring initiatives.

Regarding perspectives on the HR profession, the results indicate that mentoring improves students’ understanding of HR work and of the variety of opportunities within the field. Students gained knowledge about organizational life and essential professional skills, which aligns with Kram’s (1983) career functions and supports previous research emphasizing the value of mentoring activities (e.g., Billett, 2024). Given the many opportunities provided by the HR profession, as well as its continuously evolving nature (Ferm et al., 2024; Häll, 2024), it can be challenging for the education program to provide students with sufficient and diverse insights into post-graduation realities. This is especially true if lecturers have limited practical experience, combined with the fact that programs such as HR are not strictly professional education (e.g., Palmer et al., 2015; Patterson, 2024). Engaging students in this process promotes learning both inside and outside the classroom, aligning with Harrison et al.’s (2023) description of learning as a dynamic and adaptable process in both the present and the future.

Increased insight into HR work also revealed its complexity and occasional challenges. This aligns with Kram’s (1983) notion that individuals seek relationships to help solve dilemmas. Previous research has similarly emphasized the role of mentoring in integrating knowledge and supporting professional development during the transition from education to practice (Gershenfeld, 2014; Lunsford et al., 2017).

In addition to the career-related function of mentoring, the results also reflected its psychosocial function (Kram, 1983), particularly through the emphasis on relational components that appeared to support students’ confidence and identity formation. These findings support the idea that effective learning environments rely not only on cognitive input but also on emotional and interpersonal dimensions (e.g., Billett, 2024; Palmer et al., 2015). The relational aspect further highlights learning and knowledge development as socially and situationally embedded processes shaped through interaction in personal and cultural contexts (Palmer et al., 2015). In this way, mentoring appears to contribute not only to pragmatic and work-related learning but also to broader social and personal development. Such processes of “becoming,” both as individuals and future professionals, align with Kram’s (1983) dual functions of mentoring. The psychosocial function, in this regard, can foster personal development, a sense of safety, and mutual trust, while also benefiting the mentor through the development of meaningful and purposeful relationships. However, these outcomes seem to depend on the establishment of trust and the mentee’s capacity for self-reflection.

Building on this psychosocial dimension (Kram, 1983), mentoring may be especially relevant in educational contexts where learners are still forming their professional identities and encountering challenging or uncertain situations. Such experiences can prompt shifts in their frames of reference (Mezirow, 1981; 1997). The prominence of this function in the results may be related to the students’ position in their second year of education, a stage at which questions about future careers become more salient. Mentoring, in this sense, may support students in navigating the uncertainties associated with entering a new professional field, including feelings of doubt and lack of confidence. It can thus facilitate a gradual transformation of uncertainty into acceptance, enabling students to recognize the breadth of the field while beginning to shape their own professional trajectory (Gale & Parker, 2014; MacFarlane, 2018). Furthermore, mentoring may enhance students’ understanding of how knowledge is applied across contexts, where transformation depends less on knowledge itself and more on the ability to interpret and apply it through active engagement (cf. Mezirow, 1997).

The results also illustrate how mentoring supports students in defining their lifeworld, where “disturbing dilemmas” emerge from navigating a theoretical, interdisciplinary education combined with an uncertain future and multiple career possibilities (cf. Feng et al., 2025; MacFarlane, 2018). In this process, the mentor’s guidance can help students manage these challenges and facilitate shifts in their frames of reference that might otherwise be difficult to achieve (Mezirow, 1981; 1997).

Finally, it is worth noting that despite the relatively limited scope of the mentoring activity in terms of duration, number of meetings, and range of activities, the findings portray mentoring as positive and beneficial. The activity was relatively informal and largely shaped by students’ own questions and interests, which may have contributed to its perceived value. Previous research has shown that the commitment and engagement of academia, mentors, and mentees are central to the success of mentoring programs (Wang et al., 2023). Accordingly, the voluntary participation of both mentors and mentees may be considered a favorable condition for mentoring success.

This study has several limitations that must be addressed. First, it was conducted at a single university, within one HR program, and with a single time-point design, which limits the transferability of the findings to other programs and contexts, as well as the ability to identify changes over time. However, the aim was to explore students’ experiences of a mentoring activity rather than to examine changes over time. Nevertheless, due to the number of assignments included in the empirical material, the study provides valuable insights into the research topic and offers results that may inform future studies in different educational contexts. A possible risk with this kind of assignment is, naturally, response bias due to social desirability. Students may have formulated responses based on what they believed was expected by the university or the course instructor, or to convey a particular impression of their mentoring experience, rather than reflecting their actual perspectives. However, the fact that assignments were not graded for credit and that mentors did not have access to them may have reduced the risk that students provided answers that were not aligned with their actual experiences. A second limitation concerns the potential impact of the assignment design on students. The assignments included were predetermined, which may have limited how students responded and reflected. However, the authors’ awareness of this limitation encouraged a critical approach to the assignments and to the conclusions drawn from them, contributing to the study’s trustworthiness. It is also important to note that the students in the mentoring program had completed only the second year of a three-year bachelor’s program, meaning that the knowledge gaps and uncertainties they expressed, as well as their perceptions of HR work, could further evolve during their final year. A third limitation concerns the mentors, who were both self-selected and assigned to students. This may have contributed to variations in students’ experiences of the mentoring activity, as the mentors’ specific fields of work could either facilitate or hinder these experiences, depending on the students’ individual interests. Nonetheless, the transparency and reflection evident in the students’ assignments were considered to have contributed to nuanced reporting of their experiences, thereby supporting the trustworthiness and relevance of the results.