“Recovery is Complicated”: A Qualitative Exploration of Canadian University Students’ Diverse Recovery Experiences

ABSTRACT

While the field of recovery science has burgeoned over the past two decades, little research has considered the experiences of university students in recovery from addiction, particularly in Canada. Addressing this gap, using a recovery capital framework, 16 qualitative interviews were conducted to explore students’ meanings, experiences, and barriers/facilitators to recovery from problematic substance use and/or behaviors. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed three main themes: 1. multiple recovery pathways and identities; 2. stigma and disclosure; and 3. proximity to campus community and resources. Recommendations to create more recovery-friendly campuses are provided.

KEYWORDS:

• Addiction
• recovery pathways
• post-secondary students
• recovery capital
• collegiate recovery

Introduction

Substance use disorders (SUDs) have become a critical concern across universities and colleges in several Western nations, including Canada and the United States of America (USA) (SAMHSA, 2021). While global prevalence rates of SUDs are difficult to obtain due to varying definitions, cultural differences, and availability of data (Köck et al., 2022), college aged adults (18–25) years are more at risk for SUDs than any other age group (Bava & Tapert, 2010; Han et al., 2019; Pearson et al., 2013; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2018; World Health Organization, 2018).

Canadian data from 2013 to 2019 revealed that the number of postsecondary students with formal mental illness diagnoses, including SUDs, rose from 22% to 37% in women and 12% to 21% in men (Linden et al., 2021). Recent nationwide data from the USA shows that 28% of college-aged adults (18 to 25 years) experienced a SUD (SAMHSA, 2022). Similarly, a USA study found that approximately two in five (40%) of college students had experienced at least one SUD in the past 12 months and that the majority did not receive treatment (Arterberry et al., 2020).

Students in or seeking recovery from addiction are an equity-deserving group who face unique challenges in colleges and universities that create barriers to seeking and maintaining recovery (Burns et al., 2021; Hennessy et al., 2022; Park et al., 2023). Specific barriers to recovery include few on-campus supports, isolation, and significant pressure to use drugs and party (Burns, 2021; Cleveland et al., 2007; Vest et al., 2021). Fueled by stigma, students in or seeking recovery are less likely to seek help, disclose, and/or accept their recovery status, which has been shown to compromise student mental health and the quality of their recovery (Burns, 2021).

To address the needs of students in or seeking recovery, the first collegiate recovery program (CRP) was introduced in 1977 (Brown University), and recent estimates suggest there are at least 138 CRPs across the USA (Association of Recovery in Higher Education, 2021). While no two CRPs are the same, best practices include paid staff, peer support, dedicated drop – in spaces, substance-free events and housing, and scholarships (Vest et al., 2021). CRPs have expanded significantly over the past 10 years in the USA (Vest et al., 2021), yet the movement has been much slower to gain traction in Canada. The first Canadian CRP was established in 2019 (University of British Columbia), and approximately six more were introduced shortly after (Park et al., 2023).

Research in the USA shows that students who participate in CRPs have higher GPAs, retention, and graduation rates than the general student body (Ashford et al., 2018; Cleveland et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2008; Laudet et al., 2015). However, research on students in recovery who are not CRP members, particularly in a Canadian context, is scarce. To address this gap in the literature, a study was conducted to explore the experiences, meanings, barriers/facilitators to recovery from the perspective of students enrolled in a large public university in Western Canada with an emerging CRP. By presenting a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of student recovery experiences, this study aims to give voice to a largely invisible population. Additionally, the recommendations provided by this research can help ensure that campus programming better meets the needs of recovering students.

Theoretical framework

Recovery Capital (RC) was used as a guiding framework to explore students’ recovery experiences. Since its inception over 20 years ago (Granfield & Cloud, 1999), RC has become a guiding policy and research framework in Canada and the USA, and recently applied to understand students’ recovery experiences (Hennessy et al., 2022; Park et al., 2023). The RC framework is based on a broader socio-ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) that has also been applied in the CRP context (Vest et al., 2023). This strength-based framework is conceptualized across four interconnected dimensions (Cloud & Granfield, 2008), providing a comprehensive approach to understanding the recovery experiences of students:

1. personal (e.g., individual attributes, improved coping skills)

2. physical (e.g., economic, and financial resources)

3. social (e.g., family/friends, peer support, therapeutic relationships)

4. community/cultural (e.g., culturally appropriate supports, inclusive policies, and cultural norms)

RC is a useful lens to understand student recovery experiences in a post-secondary context, as it allows for analysis beyond the dominant disease model of addiction, that often does not consider the person’s broader context, and can reinforce stigma (Wiens & Walker, 2015). This study also extends research that highlights RC’s vital role in supporting students’ recovery journeys. For instance, following Hennessy et al. (2022), who highlight the significance of personal, social, and community resources in CRPs, our study acknowledges these dimensions as crucial in understanding and nurturing recovery. Park et al. (2023) Canadian study further illustrates the importance of RC, revealing how peer support and inclusive recovery environments contribute to student wellbeing. By situating this research within a RC framework, this study emphasizes the necessity for a supportive ecosystem within higher education, that fosters resilience and reduces stigma for students in recovery (Vest et al., 2023). This comprehensive approach is essential for designing interventions and campus policies that address the complex realities of students navigating recovery post-secondary contexts that are known to be recovery threatening (Burns, 2021). Ultimately, by employing a RC lens to understand student experiences of recovery, this paper recognizes that recovery is a holistic, individualized process, that extends beyond change exclusively at the level of problematic substance use and/or behaviors.

Methodology and methods

Constructivist community-based participatory research

This study is part of a larger community-based participatory research (CBPR) initiative exploring transdisciplinary community-based approaches to addiction recovery (see Recovering in Place Lab). CBPR methodologies are action-oriented geared toward social change, involving community members in the co-production of knowledge to ensure that policies and programs represent their needs and promote greater social justice (Burns et al., 2020; Kwan & Walsh, 2018; Minkler, 2004). A constructivist approach involves the subjective co-construction of meaning between the researcher and participants (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 2016). Recognizing reality as a social construction, through reflexivity, constructivism explicitly considers the socio-political context, accounting for the social and cultural standpoints of the researchers as active participants in the research process (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 2016). It acknowledges that the researcher is the primary research tool; that their a priori knowledge and experience will shape each step of the research process – rather than viewed as a limitation, this process of subjective reflexivity is part of ensuring trustworthiness of the study (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

Following this approach, over the course of the study, the team members continually questioned their positionality, assumptions, and biases by engaging in reflexivity. All four authors had diverse professional and/or personal recovery experiences (e.g., abstinence, harm reduction services, and/or allies supporting people in recovery), which enriched the study’s depth, nuance, and credibility (Pettersen et al., 2019). Specifically, as described in Burns (2021), the first author’s (VB) experiences navigating stigma as a student in active addiction and a faculty member in recovery, catalyzed the co-creation of a CRP with an associated community-based program of research. At the time of the study, the CRP was in the very early stages of development with limited programming, that included one (poorly attended) weekly virtual peer-support meeting, and outreach activities (e.g., coffee carts). The CRP did not yet have other essential CRP best practices, including paid full-time staff, formal membership/intake, or a dedicated physical space (Vest et al., 2021). Furthermore, some of the authors were associated with an emerging CRP – a closeness to the data typical of CBPR (Burns et al., 2020; Kwan & Walsh, 2018). Specifically, VB was the CRP director, NH was research assistant, IS was a student volunteer, and TS had no affiliation with the CRP.

To mitigate potential bias from these roles, and promote trustworthiness of the study, the authors stayed close to the data and had frequent collaborative discussions with the analysis team (as described in greater detail in the analysis section below). The varied viewpoints and active involvement in the analysis from several team members played an important role in preventing any single author from biasing the data in one direction or another. Rather than presenting a limitation, the subjectivity and varying degrees of familiarity with the topic among team members contributed to the study’s trustworthiness, credibility, relevance (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Kwan), in addition to CBPRs action-oriented social justice agenda (Kwan & Walsh, 2018). Finally, as has been previously argued (Burns, 2021; Burns et al., 2021; Revier, 2022; Stull et al., 2022), the authors support more open disclosure and involvement of addiction researchers with addiction as a means to, “access insights and understandings that are unavailable to addiction researchers without similar experiences, and also reduce stigma, and ultimately bring greater awareness to the human-ness and heterogeneity of addiction” (Stull et al., p. 1).

Data collection

After receiving approval from the first author’s institution’ ethics committee, undergraduate and graduate students from a large public university in Western Canada were recruited. Initially, participants were selected from a larger mixed-method study, during which they were given the option to participate in a follow-up interview. To increase the sample size, in a second step, additional participants were recruited through social media, student newsletters, and snowball sampling techniques, which are known to be effective for hard-to-reach, stigmatized populations (Sadler et al., 2010). Semi-structured interviews were conducted virtually by authors TS and IS, and audio-recorded using Zoom software (version 5.15). Participants were given two weeks to review and revise their interview transcripts before analysis; this technique, known as member checking, enhances the trustworthiness and overall rigor of the study (Birt et al., 2016). Following the interview, participants were compensated $25 through an e-gift card for their participation and time.

Analysis

The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and then uploaded to NVivo (Lumivero, 2023), a software tool used for organizing data during analysis. Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) was used to analyze the interviews, which requires researchers to account for their biases and positionality throughout the data collection, analysis, and writing stages (Braun & Clarke, 2021)——thus a particularly fitting method of analysis for a constructivist approach. As per RTA’s guidelines, in a first step, the research team familiarized themselves with the data by reading transcripts, listening to recorded interviews, and taking reflexive field notes immediately after the interviews, The field notes included critically examining biases tied to their varied identities (e.g., personal experiences with recovery), initial impressions, what stood out, and why. The analysis employed both inductive and deductive approaches to identifying themes to generate an understanding of student recovery experiences. In a second step, authors TS, IS, and NH independently open-coded the transcripts using an inductive approach that stayed close to the data to create initial themes, and avoided forcing themes into pre-defined categories. The four dimensions of recovery capital (personal, physical, social, community/cultural (Cloud & Granfield, 2008) were then employed in a round of deductive coding. In a third step, the four authors met several times to review themes in collaborative and reflexive dialogue to determine the quality, depth, coherence, and meaningfulness of the dataset. Finally, themes were collectively refined, and discussed until consensus was reached. After analyzing 16 interviews, data saturation was reached, and no additional participants were sought.

Results

Demographics

Participants (n = 16) included eight females, seven males, and one non-binary person. Ages ranged from 18–50 years (M = 31.6, SD = 8.7). Nine (56%) were graduate students, 11 (68%) were enrolled in a professional faculty (e.g., nursing, social work), six (37%) identified as part of 2SLGBTQIA+ community, and four (25%) self-identified as belonging to a racialized group. Ten participants were enrolled in face-to-face programs, and six in blended face-to-face and online learning. All participants lived off-campus (i.e., alone, with family/partner, or with roommates). Nine (56%) were recovering from substance use; alcohol was identified as the most common problematic substance (50%). Seven (44%) were recovering from behavioral addictions, including self-harm, eating disorders, video games, and sex. Drawing on a RC framework, students’ meanings, experiences, and barriers/facilitators to recovery were analyzed and three main themes were identified:

1. multiple recovery pathways and identities

2. stigma and disclosure

3. proximity to campus community and resources

Theme 1: multiple recovery pathways and identities

Although this study required participants to self-identify as “being in recovery,” the interviews conducted during the study revealed that the recovery identity is a more complex and nuanced concept. The students who identified more strongly with the recovery identity tended to have been in recovery for longer periods of time and practiced abstinence from all substances and/or problematic behaviors. This was expressed by the following three students:

I use the term recovery. Recovery for me allows me to live a healthier life that is free of substance use, free of alcohol, free of maladaptive and deviant sexual behavior. -Student 3

The word recovery fits, it works for me. Recovered looks like not ingesting in or partaking in any kind of behaviors or substances, or anything of that nature that would alter my mind or my mood. -Student 15

I feel proud to say I am in recovery. I have worked so hard and done all this stuff with my life. -Student 12

Conversely, Student 8, who was recovering from self-harm, sex addiction, cannabis, and gambling, had difficulty embracing the recovery identity, because of their understanding of recovery being abstinence-based (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous [AA]):

To be honest, there is a negative connotation with recovery because it’s usually associated only with substance use. Or addiction to alcohol and AA.

Along similar lines, Student 7 was unsure if they were in recovery because they were addicted to video games and not drugs.

I’m not even sure why I’m here [at this interview], because for [with regards to recovery] for substances, none.

Some students were curious about the various aspects of their identity beyond recovery. Recovery was seen as a building block in their identities rather than the foundation. For instance, Student 12 described how they needed to have their recovery as the primary component of their identity in early recovery, but that it has expanded more recently:

Who am I outside of this identity? This [question] is much more recent for me. I almost exclusively think of myself as a person in recovery. -Student 12

It is worth noting that Student 12 expressed feeling more stable in their recovery. As part of this process, they have been exploring their spiritual identity to discover who they are outside of the recovery identity. The same participant has had extended periods of abstinence, followed by a return to use. This involved a shift from viewing themselves as a problem (e.g., “I am an addict”) to seeing themselves as a recovering person (e.g., “I am a recovering addict”), which highlights the importance of having a more flexible approach to recovery, rather than a fixed perception of recovery that can lead to feelings of shame:

I have said, “I am an addict. I am an alcoholic.” I have also said “I am a recovering addict.” I switched my language about 3 or 4 years ago. I realized recovery is an ongoing thing. I wanted to give myself flexibility rather than shaming myself.

Along similar lines, Student 16 expressed discomfort with the recovery identity as an absolute, i.e., “I am recovered,” because recovery was not a fixed, an all-or-nothing experience (you are either sober and in recovery, or using, and not in recovery):

Recovery, for me, is a long-term process and journey that goes through my entire life, and there is no end point to it. It’s recovery. It’s not perfection. I cope by slipping up. I mess up. I use porn; I hook up with people from time to time.

Although there was a general agreement on the idea that recovery is a personalized and continuous process, some of the participants were hesitant to accept the label of “being in recovery.” This shows that the understanding of the recovery concept is varied and does not conform to a one-size-fits-all formula.

Theme 2: stigma and disclosure

Interviews revealed that multiple forms of stigma affected students’ recovery experience, particularly concerning disclosure. It became clear, that several students have internalized negative stereotypes about addiction and/or recovery, and actively concealed their recovery identities, as student quotes describe:

Recovery is not something I want to advertise because it could make me seem unstable, flaky, or change how people think of you and look at you. -Student 11

I just don’t see a reason to [disclose]. I don’t see how it’s meant to help. I don’t think it’s going to make people think higher of me. In fact, probably the opposite. Why would I bring it up? There’s no reason to. -Student 7

Decisions to disclose were also affected by the stigma associated with certain substances (e.g., licit vs illicit), and behaviors (e.g., sex addiction) as the following three students aptly described:

I just recently told my boss and a few people I work with that I was in recovery, but it’s one of those things that I don’t know how everyone’s going to react. Some people may be okay if you’re an alcoholic, but for someone who says they’re an addict, people think it’s synonymous with meth. There’s a stigma attached to it, that at any point you could relapse. -Student 10

Saying, “Oh, I had really problematic alcohol use,” feels so much safer to me than being like, “I was also doing tons of Adderall and cocaine.” There seems to be totally a difference in the respectability or the severity of the substance use. -Student 1

I feel that they are more inclined to be a little bit more supportive of me being in recovery from alcohol and drugs than, say, than sexual behavior. Yeah, there is more stigma attached to sexual behavior. -Student 3

It was also recognized that being abstinent from alcohol carried a form of paradoxical stigma because drinking, often to excess, was identified as encouraged in the university context, as the following four students shared:

Alcohol is such a part of our university culture. It is so normalized. I get met with resistance from people who don’t understand or respect it was an issue for me. They see it as a loss, like “it’s so sad you won’t drink anymore.” This makes me question it. -Student 13

I don’t want to be judged and I don’t want to change the dynamic whatsoever by not drinking. I don’t want anybody else to feel uncomfortable. -Student 4

I’d say the university experience really kind of reinforced the perceived need to have alcohol in your life to be close-knit within the community. -Student 2

Being a student in school and being in recovery is complicated in a lot of ways. It is really stressful, and it is really hard. So much of how we would cope is related to alcohol, so it has been a real challenge and real test to maintain sobriety in this environment. -Student 13

In contrast, a few participants, who appeared to view recovery as more of a core part of their identity, managed stigma by asserting a positive identity and chose to disclose when they thought that it might help someone who is struggling, as Student 3 explained:

If it’ll be helpful for me to share my story, that’s a big factor. If someone is curious and asking in a genuine way that I think would gain some benefit from, [I disclose]. At the end of the day, it’s not about me because I’ve shared my story enough times now, it’s really about the other person. If I can share something to enlighten them, to give them some knowledge, that’s what it’s about.

These examples highlight the role of stigma in shaping students’ perception of recovery and comfort level disclosing. Various factors contributed to addiction and recovery stigma related to social norms, internalizing negative stereotypes, type of drugs used/behaviors deemed more taboo than others. While most students chose to conceal their recovery identity, a few managed the stigma by modeling a positive recovery identity and disclosing when they felt it would help others.

Theme 3: proximity to campus community and resources

It became evident through the interviews that proximity to campus played a complex role in students’ recovery experiences. Several students expressed that distance learning and/or living far away from campus was a barrier to accessing RC in terms of campus-based supports and community building:

No, I have not used any on-campus supports, which I’m sure is something true for other folks in distance programs. -Student 13

I looked at accessing on-campus supports, however, partly due to where I live, I’m not super close to campus. It just didn’t necessarily make sense. Student 2.

However, some students found that while distance did create barriers to social connections, they were grateful for it, as it acted as a protective factor in their recovery journey, as they experienced less pressure to drink and party, as the following two students expressed:

Distance [learning] is a double-edged sword. I don’t experience the same pressure, but also don’t know what is out there in terms of support because I am just at home doing my studies. I feel disconnected. -Student 13

Being online means I do not have to worry about seeing people drink or go to parties. -Student 12

Student 2, who studied exclusively on campus, expressed feeling out of place because there were few safe social spaces for them:

I haven’t been to the campus bar in a long time; they need more non-alcoholic options.

Several distance learners expressed that more community-building supports were needed, as Student 11 highlighted:

We need more awareness and support groups in more central hubs in the regions, groups that can get together in various locations. It feels disconnected with the virtual programs.

Several students recommended having a dedicated space on campus for students in or seeking recovery. Student 1 pointed out that a dedicated space may be a draw to come on campus more:

When I’m on campus, I don’t want to be there. I don’t like the experience. But maybe if there was a nice space, that would be different.

Student 10 highlighted the importance of funding collegiate recovery programs and making it a campus priority.

I believe a program that has a designated space and funding for a collegiate recovery program would be helpful.

Student 9 was craving connection with like-minded students in recovery around the same age, who were going through similar experiences and struggles:

I think it would be probably beneficial if it’s just like a drop-in like the women’s centre, […] finding a group of people on campus who are also in recovery would be nice, honestly, cause sharing the stresses or school and stuff isn’t always possible with other groups in recovery.

Thus, the physical distance from campus paradoxically affected students’ recovery experiences. The physical space reduced pressure to engage in drinking and partying but simultaneously created a desire for common ground with other students in or seeking recovery.

Discussion

Theme 1: multiple recovery pathways and identities

Using a socio-ecological, RC lens (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Vest et al., 2023), this qualitative study explored the meanings, experiences, and barriers/facilitators to recovery for students at a large public university in Western, Canada. Participants described complex and multifaceted recovery pathways and identities reflective of their unique perspectives, journeys, and goals. Some students identified strongly with recovery as an ongoing part of their identity, while others were unsure or uncomfortable with the label, emphasizing personal growth or healing as a preferred or sufficient identity marker. Moreover, definitions of recovery provided by participants included both abstinence (Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel, 2007) and non-abstinence-based approaches (Witkiewitz & Tucker, 2020), emphasizing that recovery is a process with many pathways that go beyond abstaining from substance use, to increasing RC domains, particularly around improving functioning by setting individual goals. Understanding the intricacies of recovery within a fluid and evolving individualized framework shows that recovery is rarely a straightforward, linear route (Reith & Dobbie, 2012). This finding supports the idea that students can resolve their substance and/or behavior problems without taking on a “recovery” identity as has been previously discussed in recovery science literature (Kelly et al., 2017). Our findings also align with recent research on young adults with substance use disorders who reported not wanting recovery from substance use to be a dominant defining characteristic of their identities (Schoenberger et al., 2022).

Embracing multiple recovery pathways and identities has implications for program delivery by CRPs and other support services on campus. It is important for service providers to honor the preferred language and terminology of each person, as it promotes dignity and respect for the diversity of recovery pathways as well as supports an individuals’ right to determine how others describe them (Pivovarova & Stein, 2019).

While some CRPs have abstinence as a requirement for participation, in recent years, there has been a shift toward broader, more inclusive approaches, such as harm reduction, that emphasize RC (Ashford et al., 2019, Association of Recovery in Higher Education, 2021; Park et al., 2023). Building RC among students requires not only bolstering individual capital (e.g., improving coping skills, empowerment), but increasing community capital by shifting social norms and making recovery more inclusive of all pathways. For instance, CRPs could provide a variety of mutual aid meetings that include abstinence and non-abstinence goals, including 12-step, All People All Pathways, or SMART recovery (Alcoholics Anonymous, n.d.; CAPSA, n.d.; SMART Recovery, n.d.). When marketing mutual aid meetings, explicitly including a statement around “abstinence is not a requirement” could provide an opening for students to attend who are recovery curious. Relatedly, ensuring campuses include substance-free social events and housing helps to ensure that students practicing abstinence feel safe in social situations, while also helping to build RC, by normalizing the idea that it is possible to have a safe and enjoyable university experience, without substances, thus reducing harm for the campus community at large.

Embracing an all-pathways approach also requires consideration for multiple measures of recovery “success.” While practices like counting days of abstinence are an important metric, finding new metrics that capture personalized RC and harm reduction goals are also needed in program design. Additional metrics may include tracking reduced use (e.g. six beers per day to two) and utilizing RC scales (e.g. BARC-10) (Vilsaint et al., 2017) that capture more holistic dimensions of wellness related to the physical and social environment (e.g., questions such as “I get a lot of support from my friends,” and “my living space has helped to drive my recovery journey”).

By incorporating a multiple pathways of recovery approach to campus programming, institutions can ensure that as many students as possible have the opportunity to begin accruing and strengthening their RC. Increasing students’ comfort accessing CRPs by making space for multiple pathways of recovery can have a positive influence not only on individual recovery, but to the campus as a whole.

Theme 2: stigma and disclosure

Stigmatizing attitudes about substance use, problematic behaviors, and recovery were identified by participants as barriers to recovery. Students expressed that certain substances/and or behaviors carried more stigma than others (e.g. sex addiction and meth more stigmatizing than alcohol). These findings echo previous research suggesting that it is more acceptable to disclose legal drug use (e.g., alcohol), than illegal drug use, such as heroin (Roche et al., 2019). Half of the participants (8/16) identified alcohol as their primary drug of choice. Many students in this group experienced what Burns (2021) refers to as the “sober paradox” (p. 223), as they negotiated the stigma of abstaining from alcohol in a post-secondary environment where “everything is telling you to drink” (Hill et al., 2018, p. 457). It is not surprising that most participants concealed their recovery identity, as previous research has shown that non-drinking students were referred to as “losers, freaks, pussies, and nerds” (Herman-Kinney & Kinney, 2013, p. 71). Former problem drinkers must manage the double stigma of no longer drinking with a problem drinking past (Romo et al., 2016). Students also encountered a disclosure paradox (Harris et al., 2010), as on the one hand, their decision to conceal their recovery identity protected them, but on the other hand, it also led to increased peer pressure to drink alcohol.

Echoing previous research focusing on disclosing substance use, and recovery identities in higher education (Burns, 2021; Burns et al., 2021; Revier, 2022; Ross et al., 2020), in this study, students in professional faculties (e.g., nursing, social work, medicine) concealed their recovery identity because a record of harmful substance use could affect professional licensure. In this way, students’ recovery experiences were affected by structural stigma, which in the context of substance use refers to rules, policies, and practices of social institutions that restrict the rights and opportunities of individuals (Corrigan & Matthews, 2003; Livingston, 2013). For instance, some police services continue to disclose mental health-related information (e.g., suicide attempts) on standard criminal records checks, even though it is known that this practice can limit employment opportunities (Livingston, 2013).

In contrast, similar to Romo et al. (2016), some students chose to disclose when they felt it would potentially help someone. This theme was particularly evident amongst students who were part of 12-step mutual aid programs, where there is a tradition of service, and sharing vulnerable stories with peers who are also struggling (Kelly et al., 2020). As being of service to others can also be seen as an element of personal RC (Best & Hennessy, 2022), students engaged in 12-step mutual aid programs may have access to more personal and social RC that increased their willingness to disclose. Despite their willingness to disclose, participants noted that they put in substantial effort in their decision to disclose to determine that the person(s) they were disclosing to were safe, non-judgmental, and genuine in their desire to hear their story.

This constant “calculus of disclosure” (Black & Miles, 2002, p. 688), and stigma-fueled duality, can not only be exhausting but can have negative effects of a person’s recovery (V. F. Burns, 2021). Navigating the double-edged sword of disclosure may be influenced by an individual’s existing access to personal, physical, social, and community RC as they assess the risks to disclosure and evaluate their readiness to disclose. Having more RC (e.g. social networks, self-esteem) may help mitigate the risks of disclosure. However, social norms, particularly around alcohol, must also shift so that individual RC can be more easily accrued.

Clearly, the stigma connected to addiction-recovery affects students’ recovery experiences. The location in which addiction-recovery takes place (or not) demonstrates an ongoing negotiation between risking being stigmatized and a desire for community connections and support. Students along the addiction-recovery spectrum may benefit from having more role models, including faculty and staff (Burns, 2021; Revier, 2022; Stull et al., 2022), who demonstrate that recovery is a positive identity claim. For instance, establishing mentorship between undergraduate/graduate students, and graduate students and faculty/staff in recovery could be helpful in assisting students with navigating the realities of studying and working in a recovery-threatening environment. Such mentorship opportunities and connections have the potential to positively influence students’ RC by enhancing their social (e.g. peer support) and community capital (e.g., increased sense of belonging, influencing social norms, pushing for inclusive policies). Additionally, it can be hypothesized that increased access to positive role models, particularly between students and faculty/staff, may encourage students in their studies, resulting in long-term increases in physical RC (e.g., better academic outcomes, lower dropout rates, and ultimately positive career influences).

Finally, it is encouraging to see a shift in recent years toward the rise in the Sober Curious and positive sobriety movement in the Gen-Z generation, born between 1997 and 2012 (Carnegie, 2022). However, as the adverse effects associated with alcohol are commonly experienced on post-secondary campuses (Government of Canada, 2021), in order to help student garner cultural RC, there is also a need for comprehensive public health approaches to destabilize alcohol culture. This could include implementing systemic initiatives, such as alcohol warning labels and more robust campus alcohol marketing policies, that reveal the reality of alcohol-related harms (Jernigan et al., 2017).

Theme 3: proximity to campus community and resources

Students’ recovery experiences were affected by their proximity to campus and program delivery model (face-to-face vs online). Several students were enrolled in online programs and expressed a double-edged sword regarding their proximity to campus. On the one hand, they felt online learning increased safety of being in recovery by creating physical distance from a recovery-hostile university environment, particularly among students recovering from alcohol use. On the other hand, students felt that online learning led to disconnection from campus community and resources, resulting in increased feelings of isolation and barriers to accessing supports. This double-edged sword is significant considering positive mental health and social connection contribute to university student academic achievement (Akgun & Ciarrochi, 2003; Eisenberg et al., 2009; Mattanah et al., 2012; Owens et al., 2012) and retention rates (Bowles & Brindle, 2017; Eisenberg et al., 2009; Hjorth et al., 2016; Ramsdal et al., 2018; Nicpon et al., 2006).

Decisions on where to spend time and energy are more complicated when commuting long distances. Students who attended face-to-face classes still tended to commute long distances and noted that the distance led to more access of off-campus supports. Students in recovery were juggling competing demands for their time between studies, work, and relationships, which led to preferring to seek supports closer to home.

Students who attended in-person classes indicated a need for expanded services, including a physical space dedicated to students in or seeking recovery. This space would allow them to build and strengthen social RC by connecting with peers, sharing experiences, and engaging in substance-free events. This finding echoes Park et al. (2023) study examining student and staff experiences who are participating in Canadian collegiate recovery programs, finding that a physical space facilitates recovery. Having a safe place on campus where students have the opportunity to build personal and social RC, can allow for the creation of positive social networks used to challenge negative stereotypes, reduce stigmatization, and contribute to positive community development (Best & Ivers, 2021). Creating a physical space where recovery can take place is a tangible step that university campuses can take in ensuring students have a safe place to work, play, study, and accrue RC that supports long-term recovery.

In addition to physical space, students in recovery expressed that dedicated recovery-orientated programs would be helpful in meeting their unique needs. Participants in this study noted that it was often difficult to find support, either off-campus or on-campus, where the intersection of the unique stressors of academia and seeking recovery support were adequately met. Some participants stated that while they did access mutual aid groups, such as 12-step programs off-campus, the age group of others within the groups was substantially older, thus creating barriers to creating social networks (Labbe et al., 2013). For this reason, participants noted that peer-led groups on campus and/or virtual groups, whether they be 12-step based programs or a multiple pathways approach, are needed to meet the unique needs of students seeking recovery supports (Terrion, 2013).

This study took place at a post-secondary institution with a developing collegiate recovery program, and these findings will no doubt be helpful in shaping how RC frameworks will be useful in its future directions. Across Canada, CRPs are in their infancy and can benefit from the findings of this study that have included a socio-ecological RC lens (Vest et al., 2023) to understand student meanings, experiences, and barriers to recovery. For example, this study suggests that a dedicated physical campus space for recovery is beneficial, considerations of student proximity to campus are needed, particularly as program models have changed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and online learning is more common (Boutros & Marchak, 2021; Conrad et al., 2022). Further, there is a need to intervene on a structural level to disrupt alcohol culture and facilitate safer disclosures in order to bolster long-term recovery and overall campus wellness. All of these elements reflected within a RC framework highlight how planning with RC in mind can support more holistic CRP development.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that are common in qualitative research. The use of a single site to recruit participants may limit the transferability of the study findings to other Canadian post-secondary campuses. Additionally, since participants did not reside on campus at the time of the study, leading to limited insights on recovery within a residence housing environment. Further, participation required self-identifying as a student in recovery – some students may have chosen to self-exclude, as they did not identify as “being in recovery,” although they may have been on wellness journeys involving improved relationships with substances and/or behaviors. Although the participants in this study had diverse backgrounds and recovery pathways into recovery, they shared several identity markers (e.g., most were white and cis-gendered). Thus, their experiences may not be applicable to subgroups of students who may face added discrimination and stigma.

This study took place in an institution with a developing collegiate recovery program. Most participants were unfamiliar with the concept of collegiate recovery and had not yet used any of the program’s services. As such, the recommendations provided by these students to enhance campus recovery support may have not fully considered current and future program offerings. The findings of this study are presented with the acknowledgment that they represent an interpretation of the data, shaped by the methods employed and the lenses through which the researchers have viewed the participants’ narratives. Despite these limitations, understanding diverse recovery pathways among Canadian university students provides a meaningful contribution to the recovery science literature, and many useful jumping-off points for future research.

Future directions

To gain a deeper understanding of the experiences of students in recovery, future research should aim to recruit students from different post-secondary institutions across Canada. This will help assess any similarities and differences based on geographical location and individual campus culture. Additionally, there is a need for greater study of how housing arrangements (on or off-campus), and identity markers (e.g., gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religion, and disability) may intersect with students’ experiences of recovery. Examining these intersections can provide insight into specific challenges and successes students face in their journey toward recovery.

Further investigating students who identify more strongly with the recovery identity are worthy of pursuit (e.g., understanding why abstinent students hold onto the term recovery more tightly, if that is the case). Additionally, using longitudinal measures to determine changes and trends in the recovery processes, including identity changes over time, and whether the recovery identification is specific to certain substances, are questions worth exploring. Future research may also consider using more expansive terminology to describe recovery, such as “healing journey” or “wellness journey” which may better capture a broader range of experiences.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study sheds light on the unique experiences of Canadian post-secondary students and their varied paths to recovery. It recognizes that recovery is a fluid process and has different meanings for different individuals. The research findings highlight the importance of personalized support at various stages of recovery, both on and off-campus. By providing a diverse range of resources and support systems, post-secondary institutions can better address the complex challenges faced by students in or seeking recovery. This will contribute to more inclusive and recovery-friendly campus environments for all.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Calgary Student Union Quality Money Program, and the Ministry of Mental Health and Addiction, Government of Alberta.