Advisor–Student Relationships and Caseload Size: A Qualitative Study of Perceptions and Policy Recommendations

Abstract

This qualitative phenomenological case study examined academic advisors’ perceptions of their relationships with students and the extent to which caseload size impacts the quality of academic advising. As retention and graduation rates increasingly influence institutional funding (Cate & Miller, 2015a; Erickson & Kelchen, 2020), academic advising has become central to student success initiatives (Sanders & Killion, 2017; Uddin & Johnson, 2019). This study aims to contribute to existing research on academic advising, especially relating to caseload sizes and to influence institutional policies in best practices regarding advising caseload sizes.

The individual responses from eighteen professional, full-time, undergraduate academic advisors were collected through a survey and subsequently analyzed. The analysis was guided by frameworks and theories from NACADA, Schlossberg’s Transition Theory, and Chickering’s Seven Vectors of Development. These models were selected because they emphasize the importance of student development, transitional support, and meaningful advisor-student relationships, core themes in the study.

The three main research questions that guided this study were what are the perceptions of advisors’ connections with students; how does caseload size impact advisors’ connections with students; and to what extent are there shared solutions to institutional policies related to the size of caseload? Nine main themes surfaced when analyzing the responses from the participants along with relevant subthemes. For the first research question, the three main themes regarding perceptions of connections with students were: a) Many roles of Academic Advisors, b) Relationship Building as Foundational, and c) Support System. The second research question examined advisors’ perceptions of how caseload size impacts their ability to build connections with students. Three key themes emerged from the analysis: a) Caseload size Impacts Relationship Depth, b) Manageable Caseloads, and c) Advisors feeling Overwhelmed. For research question three, the three main themes for shared solutions to institutional policies related to the size for caseload were a) Optimal Caseloads, b) Workload-Based Approach when Determining Caseload size, and c) Restructured Institutional Organization.

The findings showed that large caseloads, along with added responsibilities, reduce advisors’ ability to build strong connections and offer individualized support. Advisors identified 150–250 students as an ideal range, depending on program complexity. These findings contribute to the growing body of research that positions academic advising as a student-centered profession requiring intentional structure, policy clarity, and sustained institutional support.