“Each little pocket of support:” factors that influence master’s student sense of belonging in academic programs

Master’s education is on the rise across the globe (OECD, 2025) but especially in the USA where the data from this study are drawn. In the USA, more than 13,000 programs have been created since 2005 (Kelchen and Barrett, 2024), and degrees conferred grew more than 90% between 1998 and 2018, with most growth in professional fields, such as engineering, education, business and health (Nguyen, 2022). Arguments about why master’s degrees have grown vary but usually center institutional needs – from industry-driven demand for employees with in-depth, applied (versus research) training (Cassuto, 2015) to needs for tertiary institutions to build revenue (Kelchen and Barrett, 2024). Despite the growth, historically, there is “no agreement […] about the meaning of the master’s degree” (Cassuto, 2015, p. 24), with varied purposes ranging from industry-specific training, to doctoral preparation, to teaching certification (Cassuto, 2015). Further, national-level data about master’s programs is lacking (Nguyen, 2022; Schuster, 2024). Alarmingly, data that are available suggest up to 25% of master’s students fail to graduate (Hackett, 2017), with inequitable burdens of attrition and high degree costs on students (Webber and Burns, 2022).

Despite master’s growth, scholars have argued student sense of belonging may be a critical missing component of these often-short graduate programs (Austin, 2022; Nguyen, 2022; Sablan and Mahoney, 2022). The condensed timing of programs often create “challenges for faculty in cultivating and sustaining authentic and meaningful relationships with learners” (Schuster, 2024, p. 224). Additionally, despite growing diversification of students, many fields “perpetuate male dominance” in master’s degrees (Nguyen, 2022). Minoritized students especially may experience imposter syndrome and isolation (Austin, 2022; Collier and Blanchard, 2023). Such arguments expose potential limitations in master’s programs’ ability to sustain typical factors that support belonging, such as building communities with positive peer interactions and faculty relationships (Cohen, 2012).

Further, while belonging seems critical to examine in the unique context of master’s programs, most belonging research focuses on undergraduates (Strayhorn, 2019); doctoral students (Curtin et al., 2013; White and Nonnamaker, 2008); or mixed groups of students across graduate levels (Pascale, 2018) despite their vastly disparate graduate program experiences; little research explores master’s students (Spray et al., 2023; Venit, 2021). For populations studied, belonging is linked to important student outcomes, such as academic performance (Mattanah et al., 2012), equitable outcomes across populations (Walton and Cohen, 2007), student mental health (Walton and Cohen, 2011) and career satisfaction and involvement after college (Brady et al., 2020). Thus, belonging seems critical for student outcomes and equity, especially considering the influx of master’s students coupled with program structures that may thwart belonging, yet little of the research explores the concept for master’s students specifically.

This study, therefore, explores master’s student belonging, specifically examining the factors that influence belonging for master’s students. While disciplines certainly influence student experiences (Cassuto, 2015), this study purposefully seeks to examine common belonging factors for master’s students across disciplines at one institution, seeking to illuminate insights institutions might use to deploy often-limited resources across programs to support equitable learning environments for an understudied population.

Belonging can be differently understood, such as whether it concerns a trait or a state (Allen et al., 2024) or fitting in or safety (Vaccaro and Newman, 2016); it can vary across contexts, such as in the classroom or on campus (as we describe further below) (Ovink et al., 2024); and, it is measured in different ways (Polmear et al., 2024; Strayhorn, 2023). In this study, therefore, we purposefully selected a broad theoretical conceptualization of belonging common in higher education literature, meaning one’s feeling valued, connected and supported within learning environments (Strayhorn, 2019); the conceptualization provided infrastructure for study design (influencing interview questions and coding processes focused on support and connection) while allowing for emergent findings specific to master’s students.

This study centered students’ experiences within academic programs, which serve as master’s students’ primary interaction point with an institution and field. We examined experiences across disciplinary programs at one institution, using Lattuca and Stark’s (2009) categorization of “academic fields” (p. 91) as a secondary framework, with four main categories of humanities, social sciences, sciences, and professional fields, to help identify students from across fields whose collective experiences could inform findings that might apply across fields.

As foundation for the study, we review master’s education in the USA, graduate student experiences and literature on belonging.

Higher education in the USA is decentralized, with significant control resting within individual institutions (CGS, 2019), influencing study design to center students within one institution. Centralization may come through discipline-based requirements, but those also vary, with professional fields often having more centralized requirements. For example, programs such as counseling (CACREP, 2024) or engineering (ABET, 2025) have disciplinary accreditation requirements; other programs, such as student affairs, have optional, recommended standards (Wells and Henry-Darwish, 2019). Finally, some master’s programs, such as English or History, must meet an institution’s regional accreditation standards but have limited discipline-specific requirements. Such decentralization, coupled with differential growth across fields (Kelchen and Barrett, 2024), suggests student experience may vary across discipline, though students often have common experiences across institutions where admissions, enrollment processes and student policies often rest with an institutional graduate school/office (Cassuto, 2015). Further, student experience differs across enrollment type, with recent growth in online versus face-to-face (F2F) programs (Kelchen and Barrett, 2024). Thus, master’s experiences vary across many contexts, which influenced purposeful participant recruitment across these contexts at one institution to most fully identify common factors of master’s student belonging at an institution.

Research shows ways in which graduate experiences and demographics differ from undergraduate experiences, likely influencing different experiences of belonging, and some findings related to belonging for graduate students.

Student type, enrollment patterns and educational purpose differ across levels of higher education. Though both populations are majority White and women, compared to undergraduates, graduate students are older and more likely to attend part time (NCES, 2023). Further, while most undergraduates seek a broad education (Freeman et al., 2024), graduate students often seek programs with relevance or preparation for specific interests (Pascale’s, 2018). Research on master’s student experiences, especially in the USA, is sparse, with existing work showing challenges of being a first-generation master’s student (Portnoi and Kwong, 2011), importance of student services (Milton, 2023) and student experiences/attitudes (Jackson, 2007). International studies on master’s students focus on student experience of research (Drennan and Clark, 2009; Australia), broad student experience (Conneeley, 2005; Britian), impact of efficacy on outcome expectations (Ward and Dixon, 2014; New Zealand), academic identity building (Jung, 2019; Hong Kong), student drop out (Rotem et al., 2020; Israel) and isolation for online learners (Ross and Sheail, 2017; Scotland). Broadly, the research suggests the need to more fully examine belonging for master’s students, especially in the USA where the population is growing swiftly.

While limited, some research explores master’s belonging specifically; outside the USA, studies showcase the importance of pedagogy (Matheson and Sutcliffe, 2017; Wales), such as experiential instructional strategies, and sense of familiarity, recognition and relevance (Särkelä et al., 2025; Nordic nations) for master’s students. Within the USA, scholars have found the importance of consistent communication and engagement opportunities that fit within complex schedules (McCarthy, 2024), importance of many identities especially for undocumented students (Valdez and Golash-Boza, 2020) and faculty support coupled with network of others with similar identities for international students (Burke, 2023). Existing studies importantly narrowed exploration to an individual program or type of master’s student (e.g. undocumented), informing the design in this study to examine holistic student experience across one institution.

More work has examined doctoral students or aggregated graduate student experiences (i.e. master’s, doctoral and postdoctoral) in the US. Faculty relationships often seem critical for student experience; for example, O’Meara et al. (2017), examining 1,500 graduate students, found professional relationships related the most to graduate students’ belonging, even more than microaggressions or affirmations. Similarly, advisor support influences doctoral students’ belonging (Curtin et al., 2013), and mentorship may be key especially for minoritized students (Holloway-Friesen, 2021). Many scholars highlight the important role of climate for minoritized students within graduate education. For example, Ostrove et al. (2011) showed social-class factors influenced doctoral students’ belonging and aspirations as scholars. Jaeger et al. (2016) in a mixed-method study of STEM doctoral students found that racial and ethnic dynamics could influence, often limiting, minoritized students’ sense of agency and career aspirations. Many scholars highlight differential experiences across racial and ethnic identities, including Asian American, Hispanic (Holloway–Friesen, 2021), and African American (Burton and Vicente, 2021) students. These studies suggest the need to better understand factors that support belonging for graduate students considering potential negative climates. Overall, research on aggregated graduate students suggests the importance of examining belonging to ensure equitable learning environments, providing groundwork for this study.

At the same time, most scholarship on belonging considers undergraduates, showing its associations with positive outcomes, such as student performance (Stephens et al., 2012) motivation and self-efficacy (Freeman et al., 2007), mental health (Gopalan and Brady, 2020), and persistence (Gilani et al., 2024). At the same time, students experience differential belonging, with students of color, first-generation and low-income students often experiencing lower belonging at four-year institutions (Gopalan and Brady, 2020). Scholars have also shown lower belonging for women (especially in STEM) (Pietri et al., 2019), queer students (Duran and Jones, 2020) and students who have disabilities (Vaccaro et al., 2015) in varied contexts. In turn, lower belonging can impact students’ academics and psychosocial experiences (Stephens et al., 2012), creating inequities. At the same time, Hausmann et al. (2007) found a belonging intervention increased desire to persist across students from different racial backgrounds, suggesting the benefit that can arise from understanding and then fostering belonging.

Scholars also examine different types of belonging, such as campus belonging and academic belonging, which is likely the most salient type of belonging for master’s students given their focused, academic purpose. Undergraduate populations demographically similar to master’s students – online adult students (Delaney and Brown, 2018) and commuter students (Giacalone and Perrelli, 2022) – find that campus supports designed for full-time, in-person students diminish campus belonging, suggesting campus belonging may be lower and/or less important for master’s students than other types of belonging, such as academic belonging. In turn, academic belonging for undergraduates is bolstered by supports like outreach programs (Rethman et al., 2021), research opportunities (Burton and Vicente, 2021) and peer interactions (Buckley et al., 2023), suggesting such factors may also benefit master’s students. This project extends existing scholarship on belonging by examining it within the unique master’s context while also providing insights on the understudied master’s student experience.

We adopted a basic interpretive methodology (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016), given its primary goal to “uncover and interpret […] meanings” and “how people make sense of their lives and world” (p. 25). We review recruitment, data collection, analytical procedures, our positionality and study limitations.

The study is based at a public, research-intensive, doctoral-granting institution in the Southeast USA, selected because public research institutions have historically offered the most master’s programs (Kelchen and Barrett, 2024), likely having established institutional systems for master’s students. The institution provided demographic information for master’s students enrolled in Spring of 2023 (n > 3,000). To ensure broad representation of student experience, we purposefully sampled (Polkinghorne, 2005) students in multiple disciplines, from diverse identities, and across course delivery types (online or F2F). The institution hosts over 70-degree programs; while requirements can vary across programs (e.g. thesis or research requirements, internship requirements and program credit hours) – especially given accreditation and licensure variability –all programs require a six-year maximum time to complete the degree, a minimum of 30 credits hours and at least 24 credit hours taken at the institution. Using Lattuca and Stark’s (2009) disciplinary delineation, we coded disciplinary majors. Almost 90% of graduate students were within professional fields; thus, we selected a subset of professional-field majors from which to recruit. Within fields related to sciences, we recruited across two majors that had multiple delivery options (online and F2F), and within fields related to social sciences, we recruited across select majors given their variability across schools. We recruited participants across all humanities, science and social science majors.

Recruitment included e-mail outreach to students, offering a gift card for participation. To aid in diversifying the sample, we used responses to a pre-interview consent alongside institutional demographic data to purposefully invite select respondents to interview. We continuously recruited students to ensure diverse participants across disciplines, programs, identities and delivery options. We also asked students to complete a brief questionnaire post interview to self-describe identities. The final sample included 24 graduate students (see Table 1). Two students identified as transitioning into PhD programs (Valerie and James), and we included their responses given they were a subset of master’s experiences. Students ranged in their desires for graduate work – from general interest in learning, to earning a credential, to career-specific goals or a combination – with some exploring and others feeling already strongly tied to the discipline. Some entered graduate work immediately and others worked after undergraduate programs. We sought commonalities across these varied student experiences.

Using the adopted definition of belonging, we developed an interview protocol asking students to reflect on support and connection they found in their programs. Examples of interview questions included: “Broadly, how would you describe your sense of belonging in your program?” “Where do you find support in pursuit of your graduate degree?” Given extensive research tying belonging to climate and identity, we also asked students about their identities and belonging, for example: “In what ways do your identities relate to [support and connection] you have in the academic program?” The sampling and interviewing process occurred between June and October of 2023. Using a semi-structured protocol, all authors conducted virtual interviews, which lasted about one hour. The project was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

We collaboratively reviewed three interviews – selected for their depth and variability – to draft a codebook with descriptive codes. Then, using Dedoose data management software, each author used the (evolving) codebook for inductive first-round, incident-by-incident descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2016) of separate interviews, allowing for emergent codes related to factors students described as supporting and detracting from belonging. We crafted memos and regularly discussed coding decisions for clarity and consistency. In a second round of analysis, each author reviewed quotes within specific codes to understand student experiences and application of the code, summarizing key ideas within each code. Finally, we met for a third-round of analysis to narrow findings as presented.

Secules et al. (2021) proposed six major areas of positionality, though we focus on two, research topic and researcher-as-instrument, given their relevance for our design and analysis. First, our motivation to study the topic stems from our collective desire and professional roles in supporting students across academic journeys. Second, we acknowledge identities shape power dynamics in the research process and can inform participant willingness to share as well as researcher interpretations of data. Therefore, we note our identities here, worked to build rapport within interviews and journaled and discussed the role of identities as we interpreted data. Collectively, we are cisgender women with graduate degrees in education, though we have educational experiences and professional roles across all disciplinary areas. Our team includes three professional staff members (at the time of data collection: one doctorate, one pursuing a doctorate and one master’s degree) and one faculty member. Racially, our team consists of three White women and one woman of color. We attuned to our professional identities when interviewing students (e.g. advisor, instructor), ensuring faculty/staff working in a specific field were not interviewing students in that field so that interviews maintained a sense of inquiry rather than oversight or evaluation.

One limitation of the study is it includes a point-in-time interview, and scholarship suggests one’s academic belonging changes over time (Hausmann et al., 2007) and can be a developmental capacity (Buckley et al., 2025). Though the interview often included reflection on development of belonging over time, gathering data over a longer period for each student might provide richer data. In addition, this study purposefully considers belonging across the breadth of master’s student experiences to inform implications that might apply across multiple program or disciplinary areas, identities and enrollment types, informing the purposeful design to diversify the sample. While such sampling informs a holistic review inclusive of multiple perspectives to inform institutional efforts that can apply across master’s programs, such variability limits in-depth focus on specific aspects of belonging related to disciplinary student experience. Despite these limitations, this study provides insight into influences of belonging for master’s students and can inform future work addressing limitations.

Findings show six factors influenced belonging for master’s students: faculty behavior, course design and curriculum, peer experiences, identity cues, psychological and individual factors and factors external to the program.

Students described faculty behavior as critical for master’s belonging – especially developing professional relationships through communication outside of class and feedback. Bailey shared as a master’s student “she felt so much more connected to the faculty […] They start wanting you to call them just by their name,” which differed from a sometimes “demeaning interaction” in undergraduate experiences. Matt added, “you get more of a sense of belonging that not only, they’re trying to help us, but they’re putting more effort into it.” Specifically, faculty supported belonging through communication style, targeted outreach, and attention to feedback. Connie described that being able to “shoot back and forth emails and even calls with professors and go into detail on topics” contributed to her belonging. Molly, in social sciences, added the ways faculty supported all students almost like colleagues, giving the example of a research project in class, and “a teacher that wasn’t even my teacher was like, ‘Hey I have these great resources. Can I send them to you? I heard that you were working on this, if you ever wanna talk about it.’” students described professional relationships where faculty offered trust and support across both research (such as Molly) and practice-based projects, such as Sophia’s work with a social sciences team to support a community project for her department; Sophia noted that faculty “see our expertise […] that definitely cements those relationships.” Further, students described the role of authentic feedback designed for student growth. Amil noted a faculty member’s support: his “feedback is exactly what helps me grow, develop, and pinpoint where my mistakes are.” Faculty time and care in feedback supported Amil’s belonging, and generally, feedback often showed the ways faculty valued students’ growing professional opinions and thinking.

On the other hand, when faculty did not offer professional relationships, belonging suffered. Liza, in the sciences, noted experience of limited faculty feedback: “For our department research, […] one professor [is] assigned to everyone […] and the only feedback she gave when we defended [final projects] was a list of all of the words I said incorrectly.” Connie shared times when her humanities faculty were hard to reach if not in their classes: “It feels like a lot of work to get in contact with a certain professor. Emails are delayed a lot […] there’s definitely a lack of communication.” Similarly, Dianne, in a professional field, experienced dismissive e-mails: “You start to feel disconnected [if you] don’t get an answer to a question or you don’t really know what’s going on […] Then you don’t wanna reach out again.” Limited faculty availability, antithetical to growing professional relationships, diminished belonging, especially as students sought feedback for their work and felt responses did not further their professional growth.

Students also described the ways course design and curriculum influenced belonging, especially ways pedagogy in class fostered (dis)connection among students and/or between students and their interests. Amil noted, “When teachers make interactive classes or […] an environment that allow all of us to contribute no matter we are right or wrong, this is something really makes me feel like I belong to the class.” Andrea agreed that “how [faculty teach the class,” with interaction and group projects, was important to “create a really good sense of community.” Even in online classes, Justin described the importance of “group study calls” with open discussion among students and the instructor, and Matt noted interactive online features, that ensured “You’re working together, so you have that community there.”

Students further described the importance of curriculum attentive to their own needs for advanced learning. For example, Liza chose her sciences program because its curriculum “had exactly what [she] needed, and it provided that kind of consideration of, “You may have done something else. Here’s something that we can do to help you get where you need to go.”’ Justin added a similar sentiment; while, at first, he felt limited belonging, the curriculum was set up to teach “the foundations of [critical parts of the discipline]; [students] were also learning how to use [software] […] That helped [him] get comfortable.” Therefore, design and relevance of learning, especially related to students’ specific needs and learning, contributed to belonging.

Yet, course design could diminish belonging when unorganized or irrelevant. Bailey admitted disconnect with required courses in her social sciences curriculum that did not align with her interests: “I didn’t belong in those classes […] I had to try to find ways to input my knowledge into that space.” Similarly, Brian described unreasonable expectations in a “needlessly complicated [humanities class] with an overabundance of assignments;” the perceived irrelevance of the work was a contrast to courses where he was invited to high-quality, purposeful work with a community organization. Many students also described organization of online courses that diminished belonging, primarily through limited connection to the content, peers, and learning. While James encountered a “scrambled mess” and a “free-for-all” in sciences courses online, Clive noted online experiences that felt like a “waste of time” with instructions to “read this and this, and then […] post this” in social sciences. He reflected: “It does not help any sense of belonging […] I’m just checkin’ the box.”

Peers were also influential for belonging, especially being able to learn from one another and make mistakes together. Connie reflected, “Just being able to read each other’s work, asking for feedback. That’s also the way we stay connected.” Similarly, Molly shared, “Finding somebody after class and being like, ‘Hey what do you think about what she said earlier?’”. That gives us an opportunity for us to engage with the subject matter both in and out of class.” Peers created a safe environment where students could exchange without fear of judgement. “I don’t feel stupid for not knowing how to do these molecular techniques,” Valerie stated; “Everyone is just like, […] ‘We’ll just go do it again and hang out, and I”ll just show you what I do.’” Study groups or partners helped several participants persist; Justin connected with peers through discussion boards online, and attributed his success to an in-person classmate:

Peer connection supported learning and belonging, even in moments of isolation.

A few peer interactions diminished belonging. Students, like Valerie in sciences, found they were one of few people in their disciplinary sub fields (“there’s this big disconnect between the molecular people and the ecology people”); such disconnects seemed more prominent in research-oriented programs where students sought simultaneously to learn common disciplinary tools while differentiating their research interests. Erin in sciences, who was soon entering the institution’s PhD program, noted “the opposing forces” forces of “independence and intellectual exploration” alongside “form[ing] community.” On the one hand, she experienced isolation given “once you move into working on an independent research project […] you’re supposed to be the expert on it;” at the same time, “support, especially from other grad students, even if they don’t know the ins and outs of my particular subset, it’s nice to feel like other people have your back.” Further, some students mentioned limited structured events could thwart belonging (Harley); though Brian in humanities, echoing others’ thoughts, described planned social events as less critical in graduate school: “I didn’t really go to a lot of social events […] it just it wasn’t convenient for me as a commuting graduate student.” Overall, findings suggest that positive peer experiences, usually tied to learning and academic work, provided social fulfillment rooted in academic engagement.

In addition to peer interactions, participants discussed the roles varied identities – from professional to social identities – influenced belonging in their programs. Several participants reflected on growing academic identities as scholars, intellectuals, scientists and lifelong learners. James shared his passion for science helped him connect to other students: “I have a big passion for physics and I’m a big nerd for stuff […] We all have that same kind of feeling of passion for the science.” students also described social identities, like age, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality and sexual orientation, which related to positive influences on belonging when they found a critical mass of others with shared identities (meaning adequate representation of others with similar salient identities so one does not feel isolated) and support from faculty around identities. Riley compared being one of a few women in engineering in their undergraduate program to having more women in their graduate program: “Once you find the people that are similar to you, it’s almost a more instant connection, […] because you are that minority group […] it makes those connections stronger.” Similarly, Connie valued “women talking about what it’s like in the art world […] given there’s a ton of powerful men in art.” Valerie and Sophia both noted the importance of shared communities with disabilities; Sophia shared, “Having people that have other disabilities[…] We could talk about our struggles […] all that really helps.”

Beyond having a critical mass of students, overt support from the program and institution for identity contributed to belonging. Reflecting on support for queer identities, Andrea stated, “The program is very supportive of the person and where they’re at, whether that’s academically or personally.” Similarly, Dianne appreciated when the institution acknowledged veteran students at sporting events, African American and Black history and LGBT + needs. Graduate students identified identity-related support from the institution as a source of campus belonging that served as a protective factor for academic belonging within the program. Further, some students, like Matt, Ryan and Riley who recognized elements of privileged identities (identities usually in the majority) were aware of the ways their commonly-shared identities made it easier to find belonging. At the same time, some described identity as less salient than it had been in an undergraduate program; compared to undergraduate experience, Riley shared that graduate peers had “broad” interests, with fewer who were “close-minded about people with differing identities from them.”

A few students also noted aspects of identity that limited belonging, mostly around feeling excluded or isolated. Bailey noted a lack of “queer people” and Harley a lack of queer content in social sciences departments where they might have expected it. Amil described sometimes stilted experiences as an international student in humanities, posing that “faculties can have better ideas about other cultures” to “empathize with students more.” Sophia described being a “Latina in STEM […] was really hard.” She continued, “I don’t feel people understand us in a way. That’s always difficult to navigate,” especially when “layered with imposterism.” Molly described a rare but “jarring” experience in social sciences where one instructor noted only having “one Black woman author in his reading list and the rest were White men.” The instructor commented alarmingly, “If this class had no women in it, I wouldn’t have assigned the Black woman text because they wouldn’t have read it anyway.” Thus, while identity had potentially shifting salience, it could diminish belonging if students found a limited critical mass of others with a similar identity or curriculum and climate inattentive to identity.

Study participants also reported psychological and individual factors beyond identity cues: positive factors included mindsets of resilience and perseverance through setbacks, growing confidence in their field and recognizing their academic competence. James described his perseverance in sciences: “Every time you get that kind of failure – there’s always something to learn from it […] I always gotta try to remind myself that it might not have worked, but there’s something you still can gain.” He recognized that continuing to practice and learn despite setbacks were a part of belonging in a program. Growing competence and “becoming more confident” in graduate work were also contributing factors to Justin’s belonging, helping to combat isolation and self-doubt.

Individual factors that detracted from participants’ experiences included feelings of incompetence and imposter syndrome as well as rejected research proposals and academic loneliness, especially once moving into thesis phase. Justin, in sciences, described going from a “know-it-all” in undergrad to the one “asking all the questions” in graduate school and feeling like an “outcast” at a perceived lack of understanding in comparison to program peers. Participants also identified many areas within research experiences that contributed to doubt in their abilities and disconnection to the program including proposal rejections, doubting research direction and uncertainty at the path forward due to the novel nature of their research. Speaking on self-doubt related to research and use of outside funding, James noted:

Belonging could be tied to one’s feeling accomplished and productive. Therefore, factors such as one’s perceived competence and aspects of one’s mindset could influence one’s belonging.

Finally, students described ways in which factors external to the program were protective/risk factors for their academic belonging, such as family, external mentors and administrative supports or structures. Jeremy described the support he received from his family as key: “Without [family support], it would be very difficult to find the time or the resources or, I guess, maybe even like the headspace to get stuff like that done.” Brian described the role a supervisor had in facilitating his master’s studies: “My direct supervisor […] [has] been nothing but supportive. Whenever I had to just complain about everybody [at work questioning my absence], he would listen.” Sophia described mentor relationships that formed both with a university-level administrator who supported graduate student success as well as a mentor she met within the Hispanic community, noting: “Mentors within that community would check in on me […] They were like, “How’s your experience going? Do you need any help from us? Can we advocate for you in any way?”” Sophia also mentioned specific university supports, such as a center supporting students with disabilities, saying “they have been advocating for me and checking in on me. Everything that they do and how they’re able to get me even more appointments at the writing center.”

A few external factors such as, administrative complications and uncertainties, were risk factors for students’ academic belonging. Connie described “shifts of positions” in the university that altered availability of faculty. Matt described “communication with other parts of the university, i.e. the registrar’s office, the financial aid,” saying that their style would “really deter some of the students in the program, and they really put a bad taste in their mouth, and that attitude comes into the program.” Sophia added issues with limited communication decreasing belonging, such as “not knowing where to go – where do I find the support? […] There’s no magical page that says, “Hey grad students, these are all the things we have for you.”” Experiences with external forces could influence, therefore, students’ belonging broadly as master’s students within their academic programs.

Overall, six main factors influenced student belonging within academic programs:

1. professional relationships with faculty;

2. course design and curriculum supporting relevant learning;

3. peer communities of learning;

4. critical mass in communities and curriculum;

5. mindset and competence in learning; and

6. external supports.

Figure 1 shows each of these factors, with most having direct influences on belonging (shaded arrows) and two having indirect influences that provided protective support or risk of belonging (patterned arrows). The indirect, protective features included finding a critical mass of peers and mentors on campus, especially when not present in their academic fields, and external factors (e.g. family, work, institutional supports) that afforded support necessary to most fully build belonging in their master’s program.

Broadly, findings from the research bolster evidence showing the benefit of faculty for graduate student experience (Curtin et al., 2013; Pascale, 2018; O’Meara et al., 2014); highlighting especially the importance of faculty building professional relationships and providing feedback toward learning. While such relationships may not be as individualized as in a doctoral program, master’s students shared that faculty engaging as colleagues and providing authentic feedback on research and/or class projects supported belonging. Similarly, findings uniquely showcase ways in which instructional strategies in a master’s classroom and relevant coursework in a master’s curriculum bolster belonging, especially as students’ purpose in learning became more tailored and specific in master’s programs compared to undergraduate. Findings further extend scholarship showing academic importance of peers from undergraduate into master’s work, especially the importance of informal peer communities for learning. Overall, professional communities, comprised of both faculty who build professional relationships with students and peers who join in learning together, seemed especially critical for master’s students. Given many master’s students have competing demands on their time and limited capacity to attend social events or campus-wide gathering, discipline-based, learning-oriented professional communities helped simultaneously build belonging and further their learning.

Our study also shows ways some master’s students perceive the role of identity and climate in graduate education. While critical mass of instructors, peers and curricular representation was important, much like for undergraduates (Hurtado et al., 2012), students also described moments when such critical mass may be less salient, such as for women dismissing the salience of being one of few women in the field. Findings may provide qualitative explanation for why O’Meara et al.’s (2017) found study professional relationships related the most to graduate student belonging, even more than micro- aggressions or affirmations. These findings suggest graduate students may experience heightened salience of academic identity, have already-honed strategies for navigating limited critical mass (McGee, 2025), or perhaps have strong meaning-making systems for belonging (Buckley et al., 2025). Similarly, students who did not find critical mass within programs turned to resources, networks and mentors at the institutional level, suggesting that much like for undergraduates (Gonzalez et al., 2020), campus supports may be critical for belonging especially for minoritized students. At the same time, campus resources may need to adapt to meet needs of graduate students who seek support toward professional and academic development and engage primarily through their academic programs, sometimes online and on part-time bases.

Finally, findings on the importance of competence for belonging provides additional support for growing research suggesting the need to incorporate the element of competence when conceptualizing belonging in academic settings (Buckley et al., 2025). While undergraduates might find a new major or other in-roads to belonging on campus broadly if competence is low, such a shift may be more difficult in a short master’s experience. Given learning is developmental with mastery building over time, some incompetence and self-doubt may be important elements of learning. Thus, learning environments that support belonging for master’s students likely need to facilitate authentic learning beyond “box checking” (Clive) and eschew evaluation with minimal or demeaning feedback (Liza).

Our findings suggest potential research, practice and theoretical implications for supporting master’s students. Given the importance of competence and learning for master’s belonging, practical implications include building learning environments that welcome mistakes, normalize self-doubt, balance high standards with acceptance of imperfection and acknowledge the developmental nature of disciplinary mastery. At an institutional level, campuses might reward and train faculty for building learning environments that support master’s belonging across both F2F and online learning. Reward could entail institutional recognition for master’s advising and teaching or faculty evaluation tools, such as rubrics supporting graduate-level instructional design and curricular relevance. Training could address providing professional feedback to students, using instructional design to foster student engagement for advanced learners, using asset-based course facilitation, incorporating diverse perspectives in curriculum across the disciplines, attuning to critical mass within the program and/or the university and even managing time to support students amid multiple responsibilities. Such work could attune to differential ways to support belonging online and in F2F environments, such as a heightened need to build systems and platforms for informal student collaboration online when organic peer interaction is more difficult (Buckley et al., 2023).

Findings also hold research implications. Considering the role of professional relationships with faculty and the role of instructional strategies and course design, continued research might examine best ways to provide differential feedback to support both learning and belonging in different contexts and types of disciplinary work; specific actions of instructors in courses that foster students’ willingness to make mistakes; and differential modes of course organization (e.g. visual syllabi, use of differing frameworks for course content) that support belonging. Related to the importance of peer learning communities, research could explore best ways to build peer networks for student belonging and outcomes, such as structures that promote student peer learning and ways to connect students in isolated subfields to similar peers. Further, given the unique finding that identity may be less salient for belonging for master’s students than undergraduates, additional scholarship could more fully explore the role of identity for master’s students, such as whether how, and why, it differs for undergraduates and master’s students. Such scholarship might adopt a critical perspective to examine power systems in departments and ways to integrate liberation strategies/designs into programs to reduce oppression that harms belonging. Finally, related to psychological and personal factors, additional scholarship could examine aspects of learning environments that most support students’ ability to overcome self-doubt, such as the relative impact of faculty and other institutional levers (e.g., marketing, campus cultural features) on building strong mindsets for student learning. Together, the six factors can inform a new rubric and/or scale to support evaluation and measurement of learning environments that support academic belonging specifically in master’s programs, alongside use of such tools to measure impacts of belonging-informed environments on equitable student outcomes.

The study also holds theoretical implications. First, while elements of belonging are similar across educational levels, such as faculty and peer interactions, findings here suggest the experiences of such elements likely differ and evolve based on student level; for example, master’s students note the specific importance of growing professional relationships with faculty. These findings provide theoretical possibilities for conceptualizing academic belonging as a developmental concept, requiring evolving, scaffolded support over time (e.g. faculty as welcoming in undergraduate, faculty as near colleagues in master’s, faculty as individualized mentors in doctoral programs). Second, our study shows the importance of considering factors that not only directly but also indirectly support belonging; for example, students might compensate for limited critical mass within a program by finding networks across an institution or region. Such a finding reveals the importance of allowing for emergent, contextual influences when examining belonging or for purposefully studying the varied layers of influences that can support belonging in a specific context.

Overall, the study showed the importance of academic programs as a belongingness context for master’s students, with six main factors influencing master’s students belonging. While undergraduate scholarship often showcases the importance of belonging in social or campus contexts, master’s students find academic-related belonging factors most salient for their experiences. With growing national emphasis on master’s programs and lagging student completion of such programs, this study provides one example of ways institutions can support equitable, belonging-centered experiences and outcomes for a growing higher education population.