No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Introduction and historical review
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
This paper adopts a joint-autoethnographic approach to explore our lived experiences of working in academia whilst living with chronic illness, specifically Ankylosing Spondylitis, at two ‘new’ public universities in the North of England, UK. Use of the novel methodological approach of joint-autoethnography enables us to provide a snapshot into what it means to be ‘othered’ in contemporary neoliberal academia. We contribute to existing debates which seek to disrupt perceptions of academia as an elitist, ablest and privileged ivory tower. Through data captured in personal research diaries, we shed light on the emotional and embodied experiences of living with chronic illness whilst navigating academia, and how we perform our (un)spoiled academic identities. This is important because women with chronic illnesses and disabilities are significantly under-represented in senior roles within universities. This paper will interest an international readership because chronic illnesses are widespread in the workforce and these individuals offer a unique perspective within higher education, and have an awareness of the barriers faced by other academics and students with chronic illnesses
Research policy observers are increasingly concerned about the impact of the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic on university research. Yet we know little about the effect of this disruption, specifically on PhD students, their mental health, and their research progress. This study drew from survey responses of UK PhD students during the Covid-19 pandemic. We explored evidence of depression and coping behaviour (N = 1780), and assessed factors relating to demographics, PhD characteristics, Covid-19-associated personal circumstances, and significant life events that could explain PhD student depression during the research disruption (N = 1433). The majority of the study population (86%) reported a negative effect on their research progress during the pandemic. Results based on eight mental health symptoms (PHQ-8) showed that three in four PhD students experienced significant depression. Live-in children and lack of funding were among the most significant factors associated with developing depression. Engaging in approach coping behaviours (i.e., those alleviating the problem directly) related to lower levels of depression. By assessing the impact of research disruption on the UK PhD researcher community, our findings indicate policies to manage short-term risks but also build resilience in academic communities against current and future disruptions.
This book examines how the higher education sector has approached marginalised student and staff populations. The author highlights how universities were historically, and largely remain, the domain of the privileged, and demonstrates how institutions have implemented systems to enhance access for people marginalised because of their gender, race, sexual identity, disability and/or social class. These efforts have resulted in a numerical ‘marginalised majority’, but have not transferred to equity in terms of student grades, course completions and graduations, or marginalised academics’ chance of gaining continuing/tenured positions, streaming into a research rather than teaching-focused role, and the likelihood of reaching the professoriate or being selected for leadership positions. This examination is carried out through a Bourdieusian lens, which provides the ideal tool to illustrate how privilege manifests in higher education, and essentially taxes the efforts of those from marginalised backgrounds hoping to achieve equitable successes with their privileged peers. The book will be of interest to students and scholars in the fields of higher education administration and policy, and social justice in education.
In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of mental health concerns in academia, with stress, burnout, anxiety, and depression being reported among faculty members. The demanding work environment, the need to balance personal and professional duties, and the constant pressure of productivity while navigating multiple tasks of teaching, research, mentorship, professional development, and service all impact the mental health and overall well-being of faculty. Higher education institutions have structurally changed as has the research landscape. These changes as well as faculty-specific and student-specific factors coupled to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic have led to profound effects on the mental health of academics. This paper is a narrative review of the pertinent literature describing faculty mental health and well-being. It summarizes the available evidence on factors influencing faculty mental health and shows the prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress, and burnout among faculty from various academic fields and along the whole academic ladder. Using a suggested framework that collates the efforts of leaders and faculty, the paper concludes by exploring strategies that promote work–life balance among academics and suggesting effective interventions to improve their mental health outcomes.
Mental health issues among Ph.D. students are prevalent and on the rise, with multiple studies showing that Ph.D. students are more likely to experience symptoms of mental health-related issues than the general population. However, the data is still sparse. This study aims to investigate the mental health of 589 Ph.D. students at a public university in Germany using a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach. We administered a web-based self-report questionnaire to gather data on the mental health status, investigated mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, and potential areas for improvement of the mental health and well-being of Ph.D. students. Our results revealed that one-third of the participants were above the cut-off for depression and that factors such as perceived stress and self-doubt were prominent predictors of the mental health status of Ph.D. students. Additionally, we found job insecurity and low job satisfaction to be predictors of stress and anxiety. Many participants in our study reported working more than full-time while being employed part-time. Importantly, deficient supervision was found to have a negative effect on Ph.D. students’ mental health. The study’s results are in line with those of earlier investigations of mental health in academia, which likewise reveal significant levels of depression and anxiety among Ph.D. students. Overall, the findings provide a greater knowledge of the underlying reasons and potential interventions required for advancing the mental health problems experienced by Ph.D. students. The results of this research can guide the development of effective strategies to support the mental health of Ph.D. students.
Introduction
Psychological tests are necessary to assess the mental state of individuals. Mental health is one of the important psychological indicators and is increasingly considered as having various aspects of well-being. The Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) is a 14-item instrument that assesses mental health, focusing on emotional, psychological, and social well-being. The present study, the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the MHC-SF were examined in relation to its factor structure, internal consistency, construct validity, and gender measurement invariance among adolescents.
Methods
The population of this study was Iranian adolescents between 11-and 18-year-old who were enrolled in the seventh to twelfth grades. A convenience sample of 822 Adolescents from four large cities in the Iran (Tehran, Zanjan, Hamedan and Ghazvin) participated in the present study. Questionnaires were completed online. Statistical analyses to evaluate the factor structure, internal consistency, construct validity, gender and age factorial invariance were performed in SPSS and LISREL.
Results
According to the results of confirmatory factor analysis, the MHC-SF is composed of three factors: emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Reliability was confirmed by Cronbach’s alpha method and composite reliability (>0.7). Measurement invariance were confirmed among girls and boys. Convergent and divergent validity were also evaluated and confirmed by correlating the test score with similar and different tests.
Conclusion
This study confirmed the psychometric properties of MHC-SF in the Iranian adolescent community. This instrument can be used in psychological research and diagnostic evaluations.
Academia has been facing a mental health crisis particularly affecting early career researchers (ECRs). Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic posed an unprecedented burden on the mental health of many individuals. Therefore, we cross-sectionally investigated how doctoral researchers (N = 222) evaluate their mental health status and satisfaction with their PhD training before and during the pandemic. As compared to self-reported, retrospective evaluations about the pre-pandemic state, we found decreased satisfaction with PhD training and overall well-being. The whole sample exhibited high levels of personal and work-related burnout, a fifth indicated clinically meaningful levels of depressive symptoms and almost 25% experienced severe loneliness. When exploring predictors of depression, anxiety, and burnout, we identified low satisfaction with PhD training as the most prominent predictor for poor mental health, suggesting a link between the doctoral work and their mental health status. Females vs. males and doctoral researchers in individual doctorate vs. structured PhD programs reported higher symptoms of burnout. Our study replicates previous findings of poor mental health in doctoral researchers and indicates further decreases of mental wellbeing under the influence of the pandemic. Systematic adjustments in academia are required to improve the mental health of ECRs.
In 2019 we surveyed Australian early career researchers (ECRs) working in STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine). ECRs almost unanimously declared a love of research , however, many reported frequent bullying and questionable research practices (QRPs), and that they intended to leave because of poor career stability. We replicated the survey in 2022 to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and sought more information on bullying and QRPs. Here, we compare data from 2019 (658 respondents) and 2022 (530 respondents), and detail poor professional and research conditions experienced by ECRs. Job satisfaction declined (62% versus 57%), workload concerns increased (48.6% versus 60.6%), more indicated now is a poor time to commence a research career (65% versus 76%) from 2019 to 2022, and roughly half reported experiencing bullying. Perhaps conditions could be tolerable if the ecosystem were yielding well-trained scientists and high-quality science. Unfortunately, there are signs of poor supervision and high rates of QRPs. ECRs detailed problems likely worthy of investigation, but few (22.4%) felt that their institute would act on a complaint. We conclude by suggesting strategies for ECR mentorship, training, and workforce considerations intended to maintain research excellence in Australia and improve ECR career stability.
Early research on the impact of COVID-19 on academic scientists suggests that disruptions to research, teaching, and daily work life are not experienced equally. However, this work has overwhelmingly focused on experiences of women and parents, with limited attention to the disproportionate impact on academic work by race, disability status, sexual identity, first-generation status, and academic career stage. Using a stratified random survey sample of early-career academics in four science disciplines (N = 3,277), we investigated socio-demographic and career stage differences in the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic along seven work outcomes: changes in four work areas (research progress, workload, concern about career advancement, support from mentors) and work disruptions due to three COVID-19 related life challenges (physical health, mental health, and caretaking). Our analyses examined patterns across career stages as well as separately for doctoral students and for postdocs/assistant professors. Overall, our results indicate that scientists from marginalized (i.e., devalued) and minoritized (i.e., underrepresented) groups across early career stages reported more negative work outcomes as a result of COVID-19. However, there were notable patterns of differences depending on the socio-demographic identities examined. Those with a physical or mental disability were negatively impacted on all seven work outcomes. Women, primary caregivers, underrepresented racial minorities, sexual minorities, and first-generation scholars reported more negative experiences across several outcomes such as increased disruptions due to physical health symptoms and additional caretaking compared to more privileged counterparts. Doctoral students reported more work disruptions from life challenges than other early-career scholars, especially those related to health problems, while assistant professors reported more negative changes in areas such as decreased research progress and increased workload. These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately harmed work outcomes for minoritized and marginalized early-career scholars. Institutional interventions are required to address these inequalities in an effort to retain diverse cohorts in academic science.
Objective: Researchers sought to examine experiences of stress, mental health, and work outcomes for those in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants: Graduate students and professors completed an online survey in June 2020 (N= 1,794). Methods: Participants completed measures of stress, depression, and anxiety as well as items related to work quality, productivity, and fulfillment. Results: 70% of graduate students reported higher than normal levels of anxiety, depression, and stress according to the DASS-21. Nearly half of professors reported higher than normal levels of anxiety, depression, and stress. Multiple linear regression analyses found that higher levels of work fulfillment predicted greater productivity (f2grad = .15; f2prof = .08)and quality of work (f2grad = .10; f2
prof = .12). Conclusions: Individuals in higher education are struggling with their mental health and considerations need to be made to help this group. Additionally, we discuss the implications of self-determination theory on work fulfillment.
In the interest of advocating for the postdoctoral community in the United States (US), we compared the results of surveys of postdocs carried out in 2019 and in late 2020. We found that respondents' mental health and wellness were significantly impacted by the pandemic irrespective of their gender, race, citizenship, or other identities. Career trajectories and progression were also affected, as respondents reported being less confident about achieving career goals, and having more negative perceptions of the job market compared to before the pandemic. Postdocs working in the US on temporary visas reported experiencing increased stress levels due to changes in immigration policy. Access to institutional Postdoctoral Offices or Associations positively impacted well-being and helped mitigate some of the personal and professional stresses caused by the pandemic.
Extant literature has established the effectiveness of various mental health promotion and prevention strategies, including novel interventions. However, comprehensive literature encompassing all these aspects and challenges and opportunities in implementing such interventions in different settings is still lacking. Therefore, in the current review, we aimed to synthesize existing literature on various mental health promotion and prevention interventions and their effectiveness. Additionally, we intend to highlight various novel approaches to mental health care and their implications across different resource settings and provide future directions. The review highlights the (1) concept of preventive psychiatry, including various mental health promotions and prevention approaches, (2) current level of evidence of various mental health preventive interventions, including the novel interventions, and (3) challenges and opportunities in implementing concepts of preventive psychiatry and related interventions across the settings. Although preventive psychiatry is a well-known concept, it is a poorly utilized public health strategy to address the population's mental health needs. It has wide-ranging implications for the wellbeing of society and individuals, including those suffering from chronic medical problems. The researchers and policymakers are increasingly realizing the potential of preventive psychiatry; however, its implementation is poor in low-resource settings. Utilizing novel interventions, such as mobile-and-internet-based interventions and blended and stepped-care models of care can address the vast mental health need of the population. Additionally, it provides mental health services in a less-stigmatizing and easily accessible, and flexible manner. Furthermore, employing decision support systems/algorithms for patient management and personalized care and utilizing the digital platform for the non-specialists' training in mental health care are valuable additions to the existing mental health support system. However, more research concerning this is required worldwide, especially in the low-and-middle-income countries.
Objective
To understand how researchers experience working in academia and the effects these experiences have on their mental health and well-being, through synthesizing published qualitative data.
Method
A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis was conducted to gain a comprehensive overview of what is currently known about academic researchers’ mental health and well-being. Relevant papers were identified through searching electronic databases, Google Scholar, and citation tracking. The quality of the included studies was assessed and the data was synthesised using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results
26 papers were identified and included in this review. Academic researchers’ experiences were captured under seven key themes. Job insecurity coupled with the high expectations set by the academic system left researchers at risk of poor mental health and well-being. Access to peer support networks, opportunities for career progression, and mentorship can help mitigate the stress associated with the academic job role, however, under-represented groups in academia are at risk of unequal access to resources, support, and opportunities.
Conclusion
To improve researchers’ well-being at work, scientific/academic practice and the system’s concept of what a successful researcher should look like, needs to change. Further high-quality qualitative research is needed to better understand how systemic change, including tackling inequality and introducing better support systems, can be brought about more immediately and effectively. Further research is also needed to better understand the experiences and support needs of post-doctoral and more senior researchers, as there is a paucity of literature in this area.
Trial registration
The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021232480).
Faculty and staff with disabilities are significantly underrepresented within academia and experience alarming rates of discrimination, social exclusion and marginalization. This review aimed to understand the experiences and impact of disability discrimination (ableism) among faculty and staff. We conducted a systematic review while searching six international databases that identified 33 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Of the 33 studies that were included in our review, they involved 1996 participants across six countries, over a 25-year period. The studies highlighted faculty and staff experiences of ableism in academia, which focused on disclosure (i.e., choosing to disclose or not), accommodations (i.e., lack of workplace accommodations and the difficult process for obtaining them) and negative attitudes (i.e., stigma, ableism and exclusion). Twenty-one studies explained the impact of ableism in academia, including a negative effect on physical and mental health, and career development. Coping mechanisms and strategies to address ableism in academia were also described. There is a critical need for more research and attention to the lived experiences of ableism among faculty and staff in academia and the impact that ableism has on their health and well-being.
Black women faculty and administrators in the United States are tackling a force of socioeconomic and racial disparities, emotional tolls and invisible burdens within academia, political turmoil, social unrest, and public health crises. COVID-19 has added an additional layer related to work responsibilities, the overall well-being of Black women faculty and administrators and the diverse students they encounter, and management of work and home responsibilities. This paper discusses perspectives and evidence-based strategies regarding Black women faculty and administrators who navigate academia and teach during times of COVID-19 and social unrest. We also outline strategies for university leaders to mitigate cultural and racial gaps in the classroom or workplace and foster diversity and inclusion in academia.
Research has shown that work-life conflicts exist among all kinds of workers, including academics, and these conflicts are a key contributor to workers’ reports of poor well-being. Very little research has been done on work-life conflict among post-baccalaureate PhD trainees (e.g., graduate students and postdoctoral trainees) who reside in an important liminal stage in the professoriate pipeline. In this study, we examine the degree to which postdocs believe they suffer from conflicts between their work responsibilities and their home responsibility and the relationship between those conflicts and postdoc’s mental health. We argue that, like other workers, postdocs suffer (in numerical terms and its relationship to health) more from the work-to-life imbalances than from life-to-work imbalances; life matters more than work, ultimately. Our results, based on a survey of 215 STEM postdoctoral trainees, reveal that a majority of postdocs say they have work-life conflicts and these work-life conflicts are associated with negative mental health outcomes. We discuss the potential impact of these findings on attempts to broaden participation in STEM careers and diversify the professoriate.
There has been a focus on autistic-led and participatory research in autism research, but minimal discussion about whether the field is hospitable to autistic involvement. While the focus on participatory and/or autistic-led research is abundantly welcome, a wider conversation should also happen about how autistic people are treated in the process of knowledge creation. As such, I present a critical reflection on my experiences of academia as an autistic autism researcher. I open by questioning whether I am an academic, an activist, or an advocate before discussing my journey through academia, and my exposure to dehumanizing, objectifying, and violent accounts of autism. I highlight how the construction of objectivity has resulted in a failure to question the validity of these dehumanizing accounts of autism, which are regarded as “scientifically-sound” by virtue of their perceived “objectivity.” Furthermore, I discuss how the idea of objectivity is used to side-line autistic expertise in disingenuous ways, especially when this knowledge challenges the status-quo. Despite claiming to be value-free, these dehumanizing accounts of autism embody social and cultural values, with a complete lack of transparency or acknowledgment. I then discuss how these dehumanizing accounts and theories—entangled in values—reverberate into autistic people's lives and come to be ways of constituting us. Following this, I discuss the rationality of the anger autistic people feel when encountering these accounts, and instead of urging people to distance themselves from these emotions, I discuss the value of “leaning-in” as a radical act of dissent in the face of research-based violence. I then make a call to action urging all those who write or speak about autism to engage reflexively with how their values shape their understanding and construction of autistic people. Lastly, I conclude by answering my opening question: I have emerged as an advocate, activist, and academic. For me, belonging to the autistic community, acknowledging our marginalization, and recognizing our suffering within society means that hope for a better and just future has always, and will always underpin my work.
Graduate students are more than six times as likely to experience depression compared with the general population. However, few studies have examined how graduate school specifically affects depression. In this qualitative interview study of 50 life sciences PhD students from 28 institutions, we examined how research and teaching affect depression in PhD students and how depression in turn affects students' experiences teaching and researching. Using inductive coding, we identified factors that either positively or negatively affected student depression. Graduate students more commonly mentioned factors related to research that negatively affected their depression and factors related to teaching that positively affected their depression. We identified four overarching aspects of graduate school that influenced student depression: the amount of structure in teaching and research, positive and negative reinforcement, success and failure, and social support and isolation. Graduate students reported that depression had an exclusively negative effect on their research, primarily hindering their motivation and self-confidence, but that it helped them to be more compassionate teachers. This work pinpoints specific aspects of graduate school that PhD programs can target to improve mental health among life sciences graduate students.
To understand the experiences of the disabled in academia, a fully accessible and inclusive workshop conference was held in March 2018. Grounded in critical disability studies within a constructivist inquiry analytical approach, this article provides a contextualisation of ableism in academia garnered through creative data generation. The nuanced experiences of disabled academics in higher education as well as their collective understandings of these experiences as constructed through normalisation and able-bodiedness are presented. We show that disabled academics are marginalised and othered in academic institutions; that the neoliberalisation of higher education has created productivity expectations, which contribute to the silencing of the disabled academics’ perspectives and experiences due to constructions of normality and stigmatisation; and that it is important to enact policies, procedures, and practices that value disabled academics and bring about cultural and institutional changes in favour of equality and inclusion.
University administrators and mental health clinicians have raised concerns about depression and anxiety among Ph.D. students, yet no study has systematically synthesized the available evidence in this area. After searching the literature for studies reporting on depression, anxiety, and/or suicidal ideation among Ph.D. students, we included 32 articles. Among 16 studies reporting the prevalence of clinically significant symptoms of depression across 23,469 Ph.D. students, the pooled estimate of the proportion of students with depression was 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–0.31; I ² = 98.75%). In a meta-analysis of the nine studies reporting the prevalence of clinically significant symptoms of anxiety across 15,626 students, the estimated proportion of students with anxiety was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.12–0.23; I ² = 98.05%). We conclude that depression and anxiety are highly prevalent among Ph.D. students. Data limitations precluded our ability to obtain a pooled estimate of suicidal ideation prevalence. Programs that systematically monitor and promote the mental health of Ph.D. students are urgently needed.
As concerns about poor mental health and psychological wellbeing (wellbeing) in doctoral students grow, the early stage of doctoral study could be a prime opportunity for early intervention and prevention strategies. To inform the development of such strategies, it is important and timely to understand what is known about doctoral student mental health and wellbeing in the early stages. The aim of this systematic mixed studies review was to synthesise published research on mental health and wellbeing in early-stage doctoral students (ESDS). After conducting electronic searches on 10 databases and manual searches, 26 studies matching the eligibility criteria were identified. Thematic synthesis revealed there is limited evidence regarding the prevalence of mental health and wellbeing concerns and the effects of the transition to doctoral study on mental health and wellbeing. More promisingly, the synthesis generated understanding of factors related to mental health and wellbeing in ESDS. Finally, a single mental health and/or wellbeing intervention in ESDS was identified. The review underscores the need for more high-quality research to allow more robust conclusions to be drawn about mental health and wellbeing in ESDS.
The COVID-19 outbreak has simultaneously increased the need for mental health services and decreased their availability. Brief online self-help interventions that can be completed in a single session could be especially helpful in improving access to care during the crisis. However, little is known about the uptake, acceptability, and perceived utility of these interventions outside of clinical trials in which participants are compensated. Here, we describe the development, deployment, acceptability ratings, and pre–post effects of a single-session intervention, the Common Elements Toolbox (COMET), adapted for the COVID-19 crisis to support graduate and professional students. Participants (n = 263), who were not compensated, were randomly assigned to two of three modules: behavioral activation, cognitive restructuring, and gratitude. Over 1 week, 263 individuals began and 189 individuals (72%) completed the intervention. Participants reported that the intervention modules were acceptable (93% endorsing), helpful (88%), engaging (86%), applicable to their lives (87%), and could help them manage COVID-related challenges (88%). Participants reported pre- to post-program improvements in secondary control (i.e., the belief that one can control their reactions to objective events; dav = 0.36, dz = 0.50, p < 0.001) and in the perceived negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on their quality of life (dav = 0.22, dz = 0.25, p < 0.001). On average, differences in their perceived ability to handle lifestyle changes resulting from the pandemic were positive, but small and at the level of a non-significant trend (dav = 0.13, dz = 0.14, p = 0.066). Our results highlight the acceptability and utility of an online intervention for supporting individuals through the COVID-19 crisis.
This article maps the major changes taking place in academic work within the broader context of the neoliberalisation of universities. Recognising the great variability in the form and pace of neoliberalisation across institutions and national contexts, the article identifies a set of features and indicators to aid in the comparative assessment of the extent and effect of neoliberal processes at different institutions. The authors use conceptual tools from labour process theory to highlight the ways that neoliberalisation has resulted in academic work that is fragmented, deskilled, intensified, and made subject to greater levels of surveillance, hierarchy, and precarity. In doing so, the authors also demonstrate the importance of combining political economy and Foucauldian approaches to neoliberalism, to highlight the way that external structural conditions and subjective processes combine to create new labour processes to which participants find themselves consenting and actively reproducing.
JEL Codes: J5, L2
Crisis requires society to renew itself, albeit in a disruptive way. The current Covid-19 pandemic is transforming ways of working, living, and relating to each other on a global level, suddenly and dramatically. This paper focuses on the field of education to show how higher education institutions are undergoing radical transformations driven by the need to digitalize education and training processes in record time with academics who lack innate technological capabilities for online teaching. The university system must strive to overcome this situation to be competitive and provide high-quality education in a scenario of digital transformation, disruptive technological innovations, and accelerated change. To achieve these goals, this paper explains some barriers and challenges that universities encounter, as well as technological resources and methodologies they have used in the current scenario to transform higher education to face Covid-19 disruption. The discussion and conclusion synthesize significant insights that can be applied to the digitalization of education in the foreseeable future.
Objective
Graduate students report high levels of distress, levels that professionals are calling a mental health crisis. Researchers have identified several factors that may exacerbate student distress, but our objective was to assess positive aspects that may attenuate distress. Methods: Over 3600 graduate students from 10 campuses responded to questionnaires assessing depressive symptoms as well as both positive and negative aspects of their current lives. Results: Both negative factors (financial concerns, poor mentorship, and perceived institutional discrimination) and positive factors (social support, departmental social climate, and optimism about their career prospects) are related to depressive symptoms in the expected directions, although the positive factors have stronger effects. Further, positive factors buffer the effects of the negative aspects on depressive symptoms. Conclusion: Although findings are correlational and do not imply causation, results suggest potentially modifiable factors that universities should consider when considering graduate student well-being.
Aim/Purpose: Research on doctoral students’ well-being suggests that an interplay of social and psychological factors, such as integration into the scholarly community and perceptions of self-worth, shape students’ experiences. The present research examined the role of these factors in the well-being of doctoral students. Background: Imposter syndrome has long been discussed both formally and informally as a prevalent experience of doctoral students. Existing research provides empirical support for the role of perceived belongingness to one’s scholarly community in maladaptive self-perceptions (i.e., imposter syndrome), as well as the role of imposter syndrome in doctoral students’ well-being. However, no studies to date have directly explored the extent to which imposter syndrome mediates the relationship between perceived belongingness and well-being in a single model. Methodology: The present research sought to evaluate perceived belongingness as a predictor of imposter syndrome and how imposter syndrome, in turn, predicts well-being (i.e., depression, stress, and illness symptoms) in doctoral students. Depression, stress, and illness symptoms were identified in the literature as the most prevalent well-being concerns reported by doctoral students and therefore were evaluated as the outcome variables in the present research. In line with previous research, we expected perceived belongingness to negatively predict imposter syndrome, and imposter syndrome, in turn, to positively predict depression, stress, and illness symptoms. Two studies evaluated the proposed model. Data for both studies was collected simultaneously (i.e., one large sample) with 25% of the sample randomly selected for Study 1 (cross-sectional) and the remainder included in Study 2 (longitudinal). In Study 1, we tested this hypothesis with a cross-sectional design and explored whether imposter syndrome was a significant mediator between perceived belongingness and well-being. In Study 2, we aimed to replicate and extend the results of Study 1 with a prospective design to further assess the directionality of the relationship from perceived belongingness to imposter syndrome and, in turn, the role of imposter syndrome in changes in depression, stress, and illness symptoms over a five-month period. Contribution: The present results represent evidence of the process by which doctoral students develop imposter syndrome and some of the consequences of imposter syndrome on doctoral well-being. Additionally, the present study includes a large-scale sample of international doctoral students across the disciplines, thus revealing the prevalence of imposter syndrome in the doctoral experience. Findings: Overall, the results of the present research provided support for our hypotheses. In Study 1, perceived belongingness was found to be a negative predictor of imposter syndrome that, in turn, predicted higher levels of depression, stress, and illness symptoms. Additionally, imposter syndrome was found to significantly mediate the relationship between perceived scholarly belongingness and the three outcome variables assessing psychological well-being. Study 2 further revealed perceived scholarly belongingness to negatively predict imposter syndrome five months later, with imposter syndrome, in turn, predicting increases in depression, stress, and illness symptoms in our doctoral student sample. Recommendations for Practitioners: Several recommendations are made for practitioner based on the present findings: First, by acknowledging the critical role of perceived social belongingness in students’ well-being, faculty and administrators can establish structures to better integrate students into their scholarly communities, and departments can foster a supportive social atmosphere for their doctoral students that emphasizes the quality of interactions and consultation with faculty. Second, information sessions for first-year doctoral students could highlight the prevalence and remedies of feeling like an impostor to normalize these otherwise deleterious feelings of inadequacy. Finally, professional development seminars that are typically taught in graduate programs could incorporate an explicit discussion of well-being topics and the prevalence of imposter syndrome, alongside other pragmatic topics (e.g., publishing protocols), to ensure that students perceive their departmental climate as supportive and, in turn, feel less like an imposter and better psychologically adjusted. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should continue exploring the various antecedents and consequences of imposter syndrome, specifically focusing on at-risk students, as well as the role of imposter syndrome in doctoral-level dropout. Impact on Society: Imposter syndrome is a harmful experience that can lead to a variety of life-altering outcomes, such as developing or intensifying a mental illness. Doctoral students, as society’s future researchers and high-skilled professionals, have a great impact on society as a whole, and efforts should be extended into maintaining doctoral students’ well-being in order for them to perform at an optimal level. The present research sheds light on one aspect of the doctoral experience that is detrimental to the well-being of doctoral students, thus informing doctoral students, advisors, and departments of one area where more resources can be allocated in order to facilitate the health, both physical and psychological, of their students. Future Research: Future research should explore additional outcomes to fully understand the impact of perceived belongingness and imposter syndrome on doctoral students. Some such outcomes may include academic performance (e.g., presentation/publication rates), motivation (e.g., perseverance vs. intention to quit), and more general psychological adjustment measures (e.g., satisfaction with life). Such research, in combination with the present findings, can help the understanding of the full impact of imposter syndrome on the academic and personal experiences of doctoral students and can contribute to psychologically healthier and more academically productive experiences for doctoral students as they navigate the myriad challenges of doctoral education.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had its impact on research and researchers, and hence potentially on the future of academia. Yet, empirical evidence on the impact of COVID-19 on PhD candidates is limited. This study explores the influences of the pandemic on PhD candidates’ progress and wellbeing. In addition, the aim is to identify potentially particularly vulnerable candidate groups. In total, 768 PhD candidates from a Finnish research-intensive multidisciplinary university participated in the mixed method study in spring 2021. The data were collected with the doctoral experience survey. In general, the PhD candidates estimated that the COVID-19 pandemic had hindered their progress and decreased their study wellbeing. The negative impact boiled down to the reduced access to data or participants, erosion of scholarly support networks, reduced access to the institutional resources, poor work–life balance and mental health problems. Results further implied that the international candidates, those studying at the university full-time, engaging in research teams, candidates from natural sciences and those at the mid-phase of their studies employed increased risk of suffering from negative COVID-19 pandemic influences. Results can be used in building well-fitted re-creative actions in supporting the PhD candidates to overcome challenges set by the pandemic.
Doctoral students often struggle with depression, anxiety, loneliness, and physical concerns, that are directly associated with their programs. Supporting doctoral students’ well-being becomes critical during a global pandemic, when students become further isolated, uncertain, and struggle academically. The present study examined students’ top challenges and coping strategies during the COVID-19 crisis, as well as gender differences in academic progress and well-being. Students’ top challenges included: inability to see family/friends, being home-bound, blurring of work/family time, isolation, and inability to access campus. Students’ top coping strategies included: seeking social support, working, exercising, watching television, and creating a comfortable routine. The COVID-19 outbreak has disrupted female students’ research progress more than males’, and female doctoral students reported feeling anxious, upset, and irritable when engaging in academic work, while males felt enthusiastic. Finally, general anxiety and stress was higher in females than males during the COVID-19 outbreak. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Myriad research examines benefits and drawbacks of working from home, both pre- and post-pandemic. Our research looks at how work from home mandates due to the COVID-19 pandemic were implemented, primarily by those who also had caregiver roles to fulfill. We used a convenience sample, drawing from full-time college faculty at a mid-sized state college in Florida, gathering information from caregivers and non-caregivers for comparative purposes. As we analyzed our data, we considered two additional concepts: Elmore’s backward mapping, which asks us to consider how employer mandates are implemented and will assist us in making policy recommendations, and Smith’s Standpoint, which allowed us to consider our own different gendered experiences as we analyzed survey responses. Our findings reveal that there are some employees well suited to working from home, while others are less enthusiastic about this initiative, and that a significant factor is household caregiving responsibilities, often considered to be the domain of women. Our insights shed light on differences in caregiver-employee statuses; we hope to help guide effective institutional policy should there be a need for workplaces to shut down again and to encourage administrators to consider faculty who may be a good work from home fit should it be considered for everyday work. Understanding where the strengths and weaknesses were/are for workers who work from home will benefit employers.
We study the mental health of graduate students at eight top-ranked economics PhD programs in the United States using clinically validated surveys. We find that 24.8 percent experience moderate or severe symptoms of depression or anxiety—more than two times the population average. Though our response rate was 45.1 percent and sample selection concerns exist, conservative lower bounds nonetheless suggest higher prevalence rates of such symptoms than in the general population. Mental health issues are especially prevalent at the end of the PhD program: 36.7 percent of students in years 6+ of their program experience moderate or severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, versus 21.2 percent of first-year students. Of economics students with these symptoms, 25.2 percent are in treatment, compared to 41.4 percent of graduate students in other programs. A similar percentage of economics students (40–50 percent) say they cannot honestly discuss mental health with advisers as say they cannot easily discuss nonacademic career options with them. Only 26 percent find their work to be useful always or most of the time, compared to 70 percent of economics faculty and 63 percent of the working age population. We provide recommendations for students, faculty, and administrators on ways to improve graduate student mental health. (JEL A23, I12, I18, I23)
Bias and discrimination are rife in master’s and PhD programmes worldwide, a Nature survey finds. Bias and discrimination are rife in master’s and PhD programmes worldwide, a Nature survey finds.
My academic mental health advocacy at my local campus has led me to meet students and staff from all academic levels who feel that they have to hide who they really are. To raise mental health and stigma awareness and support others, I started a personal blog to share my story and co-founded Flourish Maastricht to promote mental health at my own institution.
Most scientists love what they do, but job satisfaction levels hit a new low, Nature’s survey finds. Most scientists love what they do, but job satisfaction levels hit a new low, Nature’s survey finds.
In response to the rapidly deteriorating pandemic situation, a national lockdown was imposed in March 2020 which had profound effects for students across the UK higher education sector. Given their precarious and isolated position in UK higher education, understanding how the pandemic has affected postgraduate research (PGR) students, relating to their mental wellbeing, social lives, and study experiences is very timely. This article explores the experiences of PGR students during the COVID-19 pandemic and potential policy solutions, drawing on a national online survey on the “Impact of COVID-19 on Doctoral and Early Career Researchers” (N = 3,432), and qualitative data collected from students during the initiation of public lockdown in the United Kingdom (N = 882). Specifically, this article investigates student experiences in five indicators using multilevel modelling: (1) mental wellbeing, (2) loneliness, (3) access to research resources, (4) social connection, and (5) training availability. Primary qualitative data is then used to draw policy solutions from students, who were offered an opportunity to suggest how they might best be supported during the pandemic. In doing so, student-led policy suggestions at both national and institutional levels are provided drawing on the lived experiences and voice of PGR students. The findings demonstrate the need for generalised and specific support combining financial assistance, mental health and pastoral support, communication, and academic study support.
Neurodivergence is currently underrepresented among staff in higher education. Acknowledging such underrepresentation, this narrative review critically explores the experiences of neurodivergent academics as reported within the scholarly literature. This review of the literature, which utilised Scopus, ProQuest Central and Education Source via Ebsco databases, identified 34 relevant articles after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Findings from this review challenge universities to acknowledge and redress the negative experiences of neurodivergent staff across issue-areas of disclosure, stigma and discrimination. Moreover, in recognising the positive experiences of accommodated neurodivergence in the academy, medical model supported views of the ‘disabled’ scholar are undermined. Universities that value diversity and inclusion need to be open to the content of this narrative review along with the suggestions for future research directions.
• Points of interest
• This paper discusses the lived experiences of neurodivergent staff (people who have brains that work differently to most others) in higher education.
• It reveals what published articles have reported on this matter.
• Neurodivergent staff can enjoy positive experiences in higher education. For example, they describe receiving accommodations and applying their abilities.
• These staff can also have negative experiences after telling people that they are neurodivergent. They can be seen and treated in bad ways.
• This review is useful because it shows that universities need to do more to include neurodivergent staff.
In this piece, I share my thoughts about how the field of public health can better understand the impact of intersectionality in disability, higher education and health care. Intersectionality can create a compounded burden that is only exacerbated in the midst of this pandemic. I begin by describing how my life changed at the onset of the pandemic in terms of my daily life, including the impact of shifting to online classes and rising racial tensions within our country. Next, I offer advice to those who are newly diagnosed with long term disabilities in self-acceptance and grieving. To conclude, I call for a shift in public health with holistic approaches and reducing the achievement gap while enhancing support provided by university offices for Disabled students. Being disabled is a part of who I am, not just a list of conditions on my medical chart.
Converging forces have led to an increase in precarious work, which threatens the health and well-being of workers globally and in the United States. Scholars in many fields are studying the implications of precarious work, and work psychologists have contributed to this literature by studying constructs such as job insecurity, underemployment, and decent work. In this article, we summarize the literature on precarious work and offer a psychological framework of work precarity to connect this psychological research with the existing precarious work literature. In the work precarity framework, social and economic marginalization and economic conditions and policies influence who has precarious work, which subsequently leads to three psychological states of work precarity: precarity of work (i.e., uncertainty related to the continuity of one's work), precarity at work (i.e., unpredictability in work due to discrimination, harassment, and unsafe working conditions), and precarity from work (i.e., uncertainty from holding a job that does not meet one's basic needs). These psychological states then result in poorer job attitudes, poorer mental health, and disrupted identity. We also provide future directions for research in this area and identify areas where work psychologists can contribute and advance the literature.
Kevin Boehnke and Richard E. Harris introduced a course in meditation, yoga and mindfulness to the neuroscience programme at their institution. Kevin Boehnke and Richard E. Harris introduced a course in meditation, yoga and mindfulness to the neuroscience programme at their institution.
An important component of PhD students’ educational experiences is the understanding they develop of their academic identity. In this study, we explore PhD students’ expectations and lived realities during their studies through the lens of Bourdieu’s theory of practice. We show that doctoral students perceive the PhD as an all-consuming endeavor and, at the same time, a degree of competing demands. Importantly, several doctoral students’ academic identities were laden with conceptions of marginalization, which evoked feelings of disempowerment and lead to a lack of agency. Therefore, this study advocates for a doctoral environment where different forms of human capital are valued and the voices of PhD students are respected within the academy. This will ensure that future scholars are able to enter the academy with a strong sense of who they are and where they fit within their field.
The second article in a series on Nature’s inaugural survey of postdocs in academia worldwide uncovers a sense of instability among the research precariat. The second article in a series on Nature’s inaugural survey of postdocs in academia worldwide uncovers a sense of instability among the research precariat.
This article deals with my experience of struggling with mental health while trying to succeed in a management department. I will explore the realities of working as an academic in a business school, my experience as a new faculty member with mental health issues, the stigma I encountered, and how mental illness has challenged my opportunity for advancement. Finally, I will discuss some ideas on how to create a better environment for all and especially for people who struggle with mental health issues as well as the benefits of that environment for both universities and students.