‘There’s only so much an individual can do’: an ecological systems perspective on mental health and wellbeing in the early stages of doctoral research

ABSTRACT

Calls to address concerning evidence surrounding mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers have grown internationally in recent years. Adopting an ecological systems approach, this article explores doctoral researchers’ perspectives on what influences mental health and wellbeing in early-stage doctoral research. Forty-seven doctoral researchers took part in focus groups exploring mental health and wellbeing in the first year of doctoral study. The framework generated through our thematic and connecting analyses emphasises the interdependency of the various layers of the environment surrounding early-stage doctoral researchers. In line with our theoretical perspective, we describe the influence of: individual factors; the microsystem; the mesosystem; the exosystem; and the macrosystem. Participants highlighted the impact of the broader working culture in academia on their mental health and wellbeing, which permeated other, more proximal layers within their environment. This article contributes knowledge that can aid the development of interventions seeking to support mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers. Furthermore, our findings suggest that without the adoption of a whole-systems approach, efforts to improve mental health and wellbeing in these researchers could be difficult.

KEYWORDS:

• Postgraduate researcher
• doctoral education
• PhD
• academic culture
• supervision

Introduction

Recently, concerns with mental health and wellbeing in doctoral students have become an increasingly visible issue in the higher education (HE) sector internationally. Substantial evidence has developed regarding mental health and wellbeing in doctoral students (Hazell et al. 2020; Jackman et al. 2021a), with many studies identifying serious concerns. Levecque et al. (2017), for example, found that based on symptoms reported, 51% of doctoral students in Belgium were at risk of experiencing psychological distress, with 32% considered at risk of experiencing a psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, a sample of graduate students (90% PhD students) in the USA were found to be six times more likely to experience depression and anxiety when compared to the general population (Evans et al. 2018).

To address these concerns, calls have been advanced for HE institutions to develop prevention and early intervention strategies and policies to promote mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers (Metcalfe, Wilson, and Levecque 2018). Such calls acknowledge that reactive approaches to supporting doctoral researchers are less likely to be effective. Preventative strategies could help protect against the onset of poor mental health and wellbeing, while robust early intervention strategies could aid with the identification of doctoral researchers needing support, and/or enable doctoral researchers to access this support promptly if concerns arise. The implementation of these strategies is paramount as poor mental health and wellbeing are contributing factors to doctoral student attrition (Maher et al. 2020), which some figures suggest could be as high as 30–50% (McAlpine and Norton 2006). As doctoral researchers represent the future of academic research and leadership, understanding why mental health and wellbeing are impacted in this population is important to inform the development of policies and/or practices that address the unique challenges they face.

From a public health perspective, health-promoting initiatives can be categorised as downstream or upstream. Downstream approaches to health promotion focus on individual-level behaviour change, whereas upstream approaches focus on policy and social determinants of health (Braveman, Egerter, and Williams 2011). Published studies that have examined the effects of interventions on mental health and wellbeing in doctoral students appear to have adopted downstream approaches. Researchers have, for example, examined the effects of: strength-based writing support groups (Russell-Pinson and Harris 2019); mindfulness (Barry et al. 2019); a positive psychology intervention (Marais et al. 2018); and a time-limited counselling intervention (Wright 2006). However, mental health and wellbeing are not only influenced by individual attributes but are also shaped by the multi-layered environments surrounding individuals (WHO 2012). Therefore, interventions designed to promote mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers should seek to tackle the many aspects of the doctoral education environment that can be detrimental to mental health and wellbeing in doctoral students (Mackie and Bates 2019). In turn, this highlights the need for studies on doctoral researchers’ mental health and wellbeing to move beyond fragmenting the doctoral education environment, to draw on a more comprehensive, whole-systems approach, to understand the complex interplay between different elements of the doctoral education environment and doctoral researcher behaviours.

Consideration for the wider environment is important, as much of the doctoral education literature appears to place responsibility for poor mental health and wellbeing on doctoral researchers, thus individualising the issue, rather than considering how such trends might be influenced by organisational culture across the HE sector (Deem 2020). Shifting to a wider perspective is needed to account for radical cultural shifts in HE, where performance management now dominates, as exemplified by the omnipresence of metrics (Sang et al. 2015). Within this neoliberalist landscape, the intensification of performativity in HE and the emphasis placed on the achievement of ‘excellence’ within the academy have created heavier workloads (Morrish 2019) and a long-hours culture (Sang et al. 2015). This working culture has also permeated the doctoral education environment, with doctoral researchers citing difficulties with maintaining a work-life balance and often feeling pressured to work longer hours, issues that can, in turn, create fertile conditions for poor mental health and wellbeing (Metcalfe, Wilson, and Levecque 2018).

Within this context, this article provides a novel contribution to the doctoral education literature by adopting an ecological systems approach to understand mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers. The next section presents the theoretical framework, which is then followed by the results of an empirical study, and a detailed discussion.

Theoretical framework

Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979) proposes that individuals exist concurrently within a variety of contexts and are shaped through a process of interactions between themselves and these contexts. Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed that individuals interact with four layers in their environment – microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem – which impact on their general development. The micro-system (Level 1) refers to the activities and interpersonal relationships experienced by an individual within their immediate surroundings (e.g. peers). The meso-system (Level 2) constitutes the interrelations between two or more settings in which the individual is participating (e.g. academic contexts and the home environment). The exosystem (Level 3) describes links between a context in which an individual does not have an active role and immediate contact (e.g. HE institution). The macrosystem (Level 4) is the outermost layer and constitutes the wider culture, including the attitudes, and prevailing norms that permeate the other systems. Furthermore, these systems are influenced by the chronosystem (Level 5), which consists of transitions and life events that occur over time throughout the course of a person’s life, therefore providing opportunities to utilise this framework to understand specific educational stages.

Since its introduction, ecological systems theory has been used to understand university students’ experiences (McLinden 2017) and applied to public mental health research (Eriksson, Ghazinour, and Hammarstrom 2018). To date, however, no instances of its application specifically to mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers were found. From an ecological systems perspective, a person and their environmental systems are reciprocal and interdependent rather than independent. Furthermore, when approached from this perspective, mental health and wellbeing are positioned as properties of the entire system and an individual’s behaviours, a point often overlooked within the doctoral education literature (Deem 2020). In response to calls for researchers to address the complex interplay of factors influencing mental health and wellbeing in doctoral students (Mackie and Bates 2019), we undertook an exploratory study that adopted an ecological systems approach to address this research lacuna. Specifically, we considered the influence of the chronosystem within ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979) by focusing on the first year of doctoral research to address our key research question: what factors influence mental health and wellbeing during the first year of doctoral study?

Methodology

Research approach and positionality

This exploratory study adopted a qualitative research design. The dataset was part of a larger study on developing inductions to promote mental health and wellbeing of doctoral researchers, the findings of which are reported elsewhere (Jackman et al. 2021b). To help understand how our researcher positionality shaped the research, we describe our backgrounds. PJ is a female, White-Irish, early career researcher, and doctoral supervisor, who became interested in the area following her doctoral study experience. RS is a female, White-British doctoral researcher, whose interest in the topic arose from her own experience of the challenges of returning to study as a mature student, balancing work, study and caring responsibilities. JA-C is a White-British, female, ‘late entry’ academic, with over 30 years’ experience of researching and supervising doctoral students. LJ is a female, White-British doctoral researcher, whose lived experience of doctoral study and balancing part-time work led to her interest in the topic. While we were aware that our researcher and professional backgrounds gave us valuable ‘insider’ knowledge on the doctoral education environment, which aided the research process, we consistently challenged our own assumptions while collecting, analysing, and interpreting the data.

Participants

After obtaining ethical approval from our university ethics committee, 47 participants from 24 institutions were recruited for the study via advertisements posted on social media and circulated via emails at five UK institutions (Table 1). The eligibility criteria required participants to be in the first two years of full-time doctoral research degrees or the first four years of part-time doctoral research degrees. Seventeen participants reported a history of poor mental health before commencing their PhD. Participants were given a £10 voucher as an inconvenience allowance.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Demographic characteristic	Grouping	n
Gender	Female	30
	Male	17
Enrolment status	Part-time
	Year 1	9
	Year 2	6
	Full-time
	Year 1	18
	Year 2	14
Domiciliary status	Domestic	42
	International	5
Discipline	Social sciences	22
	Medical sciences	13
	Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)	7
	Arts and humanities	5
Age	20–29	31
	30–39	8
	40–65	8
Institution location	United Kingdom	37
	Ireland	3
	Mainland Europe	2
	Canada	2
	Australia	2
	China	1

Data collection

Twelve online focus groups were conducted in January-February 2021 by PJ and LJ (average length = 94 minutes). All participants provided informed consent to take part in focus groups, which were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Prior to taking part in the focus group, participants completed a brief online demographic questionnaire. The focus group discussion topics¹ were open-ended and the conversations focused on understanding the participants’ experiences in terms of their: background to their PhD; perceptions of the transition to doctoral study (‘Can you describe how you found the experience of transitioning into doctoral study?’); and perceptions of factors impacting mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers in the early stages of the doctorate (‘What factors influence mental health and psychological wellbeing in doctoral students in the early stages?’). Further probing questions were employed to elaborate on points raised, although participants were also reminded throughout that they were not required to answer any specific questions, or contribute to any discussions, and could withdraw at any point.

Data analysis

Our analysis combined deductive and inductive approaches, whereby we considered our existing knowledge of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems approach in framing our analysis, especially in the final stages. Data were analysed following guidelines for thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2019), using a team approach led by PJ. After reading and re-reading transcripts to enhance familiarisation, PJ, RS, and LJ adopted an inductive approach to generate initial codes, which represented participants’ perceptions of protective and risk factors for mental health and wellbeing in early-stage doctoral researchers. After critical discussions between these three authors, PJ combined similar codes to form preliminary higher-order themes, which were subsequently reviewed by RS and LJ. After reaching general agreement on the higher-order themes, PJ adopted a deductive orientation to categorise these higher-order themes into preliminary themes, drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory as an analytical lens (Braun and Clarke 2021). These preliminary themes were subsequently reviewed by RS and LJ. In reviewing and refining our final themes and preparing our written report, we examined interrelations between the different layers of the ecological systems through a connecting analysis (Maxwell 2012), while also considering how the protective and risk factors could be reconciled. Throughout the analysis process, we engaged in detailed discussions, including JA-C as a ‘critical friend’; a colleague who had long experience of working with, and undertaking research on, doctoral students (e.g. Allen-Collinson 2005). As Smith and McGannon (2018) identify, the role of critical friends is not to achieve complete consensus amongst the research team members, but rather to encourage reflexivity. Importantly, too, as these authors note, such dialogue with a critical friend acknowledges that other plausible interpretations are possible and defensible. As a research team, therefore, we sought to scrutinise and critically review our analytical interpretations, and arrived at shared understandings with regard to data interpretations, and our findings, which are portrayed below.

Findings

Consistent with the ecological systems approach (Bronfenbrenner 1979), participants delineated a complex interplay between different systems surrounding their early-stage doctoral journeys, with mental health and wellbeing embedded at the heart of these interactions (Figure 1). In the following sections, we present themes organised according to the different systems within Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory.

Figure 1. Visual summary of the analysis.

Individual factors and mental health and wellbeing

Individual-level characteristics consisted of aspects residing within the individual, many of which were simultaneously influenced by other, outer systems. Problem-focused coping strategies (e.g. planning) were reported as key to managing the demands of doctoral study and protecting mental health and wellbeing, as exemplified through this discussion:

I set my to-do list at the start of the day and if something else comes up and I do it, I’ll retrospectively go back in and add it to my to-do list after I’ve done it, just so I can tick it off. (Social sciences 9, female)

(Laughs) Yeah! (Medical sciences 10, female)

Yeah, it’s that real, ‘I need to see myself ticking stuff off and doing stuff’. (Social sciences 9, female)

Yeah, I find it helpful to do the bullet diary where I have different sections. Let’s say I have the to-do list on one section, then when I read something or I find a good way of expressing something, I write that down on another page, and I have everything in order. Structuring it a bit has been also helpful in giving that feeling of accomplishment. (Social sciences 6, male)

However, some struggled to enact problem-focused coping strategies without direction, and felt they could have benefited from more support:

For me, what would’ve been really helpful was just to be really clear about the really short-term expectations when you first start. My supervisors, they just want me to settle in, but I really didn’t know what I was supposed to be filling my time with. (Medical sciences 3, female)

The importance of self-care was widely discussed. Common self-care strategies noted were physical activity, hobbies, and rest periods, as several participants highlighted:

If I’m having a struggle and a bad day, it’s thinking ‘let’s take a couple of hours away from the screen, away from it all and stick a podcast in and go for a walk’. (STEM 2, female)

They [institution staff] drum that into you at the start, ‘make sure you keep doing your hobbies’. That was something that kept coming up and kept coming up and I was like, ’I don’t have that many hobbies,’ at that point. I’ve probably taken up more since I’ve been doing my PhD to cope. (Social sciences 22, female)

Dedicating time to self-care was, however, often difficult, with participants feeling time away from their studies could compromise progress. Two participants explained:

There’s quite a lot of pressure to do quite a lot and show your competence, but I think that can be quite a strain on mental health, not being able to take a step away. (Social sciences 7, female)

It’s trying to find that balance between ‘is that helpful for my mental wellbeing or mental health?’, because I’m making progress and that may make me feel better, but I’m still not switching off. (Social sciences 17, female)

The desire to make progress was often connected to worries surrounding capabilities, with feelings of self-deprecation described by many:

I know that I probably wouldn’t feel as isolated if I didn’t have anxieties and feelings of imposter syndrome, because I wouldn’t feel like I’m totally alone and not good enough to do a PhD. (Medical sciences 1, female)

I’ve always got this feeling that I’m not good enough, that I don’t deserve to be on this course. (Social sciences 1, female)

While some individualised characteristics, such as perfectionism, were deemed unhelpful and often amplified perceived pressure, others, such as emotional stability, were considered protective. One researcher said, ‘I don’t feel that myself I’ve been like impacted or my mental health has really changed since starting, but I’m always told I’m a very calm person that doesn’t get worked up about things’ (Medical sciences 12, female). Feeling connected to peers (microsystem) helped to combat isolation, but many viewed isolation as a phenomenon that was particularly challenging, given the solitary nature of doctoral research, as one remarked: ‘With the undergraduate and Master’s, you start with all these other people, there’s a big cohort of you and you’re in the same boat, you’ve got the same deadlines, everything, you’re going to lectures. Whereas with the PhD it’s you and your topic and you’re the only one working on it’ (STEM 1, female). The financial support from universities (exosystem) was, for many, insufficient. Even participants who received stipends felt adversely affected by financial worries. Two participants commented:

I have three children, house, mortgage, everything, was in a full-time PE position, and going from having that wage and then having to think about dropping that wage in half was a real struggle. (Social sciences 17, male)

The second thing which is tough on your mental health is financially, because a PhD stipend is less than the minimum wage. That’s why I have to work as well. (Medical sciences 8, female)

Finally, for some, managing pre-existing physical and/or mental health difficulties made the already demanding nature of doctoral study even more difficult: ‘Transitioning back in was hard, especially having to manage the physical and the mental difficulties that I now have’ (Social sciences 1, female). Another participant explained that the transition to doctoral study was difficult for her mental health:

It [transition] triggered a previous mental health condition that I’d recovered from when I was younger and I didn’t really tell the university probably until like after a few months of me receiving treatment again, and as soon as I told the university, they were really, really supportive. My supervisors went above and beyond. (Social sciences 14, female).

Similar to the above extract, others discussed the benefits of supervisory support and communication (microsystem): ‘One thing I found that was really good … was something that we worked on as a supervisory team, which was identifying signs that I can recognise and signs that they can recognise if your mental health is starting to slip’ (Medical sciences 1, female). Based on our analysis, a variety of independent and interdependent individual factors were identified as influencing the mental health and wellbeing of early-stage doctoral researchers. This emphasises the importance of considering the whole system surrounding doctoral researchers and the interrelatedness between these systems.

Microsystem impact on mental health and wellbeing

A salient pattern was the importance of support networks surrounding doctoral researchers: ‘I would definitely say social support; so, support from your colleagues, fellow PhD students, friends, family, also supervisors, I think that’s a huge factor which can positively influence your experience over time’ (STEM 5, female). Respectful, caring, and reassuring were deemed the most desired supervisor characteristics. Supervisors who defied what doctoral researchers perceived as a broader culture of long working hours in academia (macro-system) helped to encourage self-care (individual) and management of the work-life intersection (mesosystem):

At the start, I was almost doing reading, writing, or training, almost seven days a week. There was no such thing as a weekend. I [was] going at it because I was really excited to do it, until my supervisory told me, ‘weekends, take them off, for the love of God’. (Social sciences 4, male)

My supervisors are the ones who are saying ‘make sure you take time off over Christmas’. I think having people who are supporting you in keeping your work/life balance is really important because there can be the pressure. (Social sciences 14, female)

Conversely, some felt their supervisors, while still being supportive, were not always the best role models for work-life balance:

I think that my environment, it’s not a negative environment at all, it’s very supportive, but my main supervisor, I’m teaching her about work-life balance (laughs). (Social sciences 12, female)

Oh, are you? (Facilitator)

She’s working around the clock. She has grown-up kids, and she’s not really expecting me to do the same, but when she does it, I feel, maybe I should. I think it is the guilt of not progressing. (Social sciences 12, female)

Feeling integrated within a department and supported by administrative staff were valued. Participants explained the importance of peer networks that provided social support and created a sense of belonging. Commonality of situation helped to ‘normalise’ experiences and generate empathy: ‘The most helpful thing was the fact that you could walk into the office in the morning and you know that at least five other people in the room can totally empathise with what you’re going through’ (Social sciences 6, male). Occasionally, however, peer interactions could have a negative impact: ‘Often you talk to a lot of students at the moment and all you ask is, “How are you getting on?” and it’s all, “I’m so stressed. I’m doing this and that”, and it would stress you out a bit’ (Social sciences 4, female). Beyond the academic community, support from family and friends was noted as helpful. These support-providers offered an outlet for emotional support:

Whenever I’ve been stressed, I just call a friend and talk about it. It’s helpful to go out somewhere and sit and talk with friends. (STEM 6, male)

It also helps to have someone at home, a partner, if you have a partner that is supportive, and I think it also helps if they understand the academic world. (Social sciences 11, male)

Echoing the view within this latter quotation, some felt family and friends without academic backgrounds might struggle to understand sufficiently to provide support:

I still have friends and family, but they aren’t people who really understand what you’re doing. If it’s not someone else who has done a PhD or doing a PhD, they find it really hard to understand what you’re talking about and the challenges you face. (Medical sciences 8, female)

Many participants had moved locations, which presented some challenges as they began to integrate into a new community: ‘There was quite a large impact, because I left behind a support network and a place that I was familiar with, and was suddenly in a new city, not knowing people’ (Medical sciences 1, female). Collectively, individuals and groups within the micro-system surrounding doctoral researchers are key for supporting mental health and wellbeing. However, it was clear that simply having a support network was not sufficient; people within the micro-system could have a negative impact.

Mesosystem impact on mental health and wellbeing

This theme captured perceptions of the interrelationships and intersections within and/or between micro-systems. No participant referred to direct relationships between their personal (e.g. family) and academic (e.g. supervisors) networks, but instead discussed the intersection between these personal and academic realms. Participants alluded to the disintegration of work-life boundaries, with the temptation to continue working (individual), exacerbated by the long-hours work culture perceived by participants within academia (macrosystem). This permeation of work into personal life was explained by one researcher, who contrasted it to their previous, non-academic job:

In a work experience, you’ve got a work phone, you’ve got a work laptop. When you finish your work, you turn them off and they’re just switched off, whereas now I feel like 24/7, I need to be reading, 24/7 I need to be replying to emails, and I almost don’t feel like there’s a switch off. (STEM 3, female)

Unsurprisingly, participants with childcare responsibilities found it difficult to secure sufficient time to work on their research. A part-time researcher discussed the challenges:

I expected to be like the others and dedicate every spare minute to this project, and I beat myself up when I can’t because I’ve still got to stop to do the school run. I’ve got to stop to cook tea. I’ve got to do the washing, I’m running a house, and I’ve also got two grown-up kids who have their own issues, and I can’t see them because they’re in another town. It is a struggle. (Social sciences 1, female)

For some, however, not having children could increase the temptation to overwork. Indeed, difficulties with resisting the urge to work were amplified by intense competition between peers and other academics, as one participant articulated:

We’re a very performance-oriented group and so there’s a high expectation of you performing or finishing up projects and preparing publications, getting things published. The overall expectation is quite high and that can have quite a negative influence on your mental wellbeing. (STEM 5, female)

Overall, our findings suggested that the domains of work and life intersected in ways that often negatively impacted doctoral researchers.

Exosystem impact on mental health and wellbeing

This theme reflected the institutional context perceived to impact on mental health and wellbeing. There was widespread acknowledgement that institutional support was integral for helping researchers facing the challenges of doctoral study. Individual coping resources alone (individual) would not always suffice, as one researcher portrayed:

For me, the biggest help comes from the top, from that organisational support. You have that individual shield and they help you build that igloo around you, that infrastructure that allows you to feel more shielded against inevitable stresses from the environment that will be thrown your way. There’s only so much an individual can do to build up a resilience without support from the environment around them. (Social sciences 13, male)

The types of institutional support for researchers were wide-ranging. Access to practical support mechanisms for research (e.g. ethics, software, library) and physical spaces conducive to productivity were paramount:

Basic stuff, like enough desk space, air conditioning, two screens. I think if those things aren’t there, it’s not going to be impossible, but it’s much harder to get any work done. (Arts and humanities 1, male)

Some of the training sessions that have been put on by the university through the doctoral school have been helpful. It’s helping me plug some of the gaps … Having that input has helped build my confidence. (Medical sciences 11, female)

Supervisors could also provide important support (micro-system), but the significant pressures placed on their time by other work-demands could make it difficult for some to give extensive support:

I know other PhD students and they see their supervisor once a month or have very little interaction with them because they’re so busy with their own teaching hours and they have other PhD students. Then when they get to them, they say it’s like, ‘bang, bang, bang, bang, [this is] what you need to do’ and that’s it. You’re gone from them again and you’re on your own. I think that can be a very insecure and vulnerable place to be. (Social sciences 3, male)

Funding support for doctoral researchers led to concerns about financial stability for some (individual). Participants valued access to support services, such as a doctoral school, and mental health and wellbeing support. However, some considered this support had been inadequate:

There are a certain amount of resources in our university in terms of mental health and support, but I don’t think that there’s enough available. I think you might get one session with somebody, a counsellor, but I think if someone is really struggling, I don’t think one session is really going to help. It’s like putting a plaster over a gunshot wound. (Medical sciences 8, female)

Some participants who accessed student wellbeing services outlined that the bureaucratic processes involved could, somewhat ironically, heighten stress:

All the bureaucratic things that are important to many students who have mental health difficulties in maintaining positive mental health can be a very draining factor. Trying to get all the documentation and getting in contact with student support, and all of these bureaucratic hoops that you have to jump through, it can be quite a stressful experience. (Medical sciences 1, female)

Finally, doctoral researchers needed clarity about university policies and regulations. While acknowledging that deadlines were an inescapable element of academic life, they intensified perceived pressure:

You’ve got those deadlines that you’ve got to meet, you have got work that you’ve got to do, but my time is being spread between so many other things at the moment that mentally, in a wellbeing sense, it is having quite a significant impact. (Medical sciences 10, female)

Overall, it appeared that institutional structures could impact the mental health and wellbeing of doctoral researchers, while also permeating other systems.

Macrosystem impact on mental health and wellbeing

A culture of long working hours, and a perceived lack of consideration of mental health and wellbeing, were widely discussed characteristics of academia recognised by participants, even in the early stages of their doctoral degrees. Many felt that as university management mainly rewards researchers for their outputs rather than their lifestyle, health and wellbeing were deprioritised. As one researcher said, ‘The research system is only oriented towards your success rate, indexes, number of publications. Nobody gives you an award because you’re taking time for yourself or you’re having a balanced lifestyle’ (STEM 5, female). This competitive environment appeared to perpetuate, and, in many instances, valorise, a culture of long working hours, which, in turn, could lead to the belief that such behaviours were requisite or difficult to avoid:

I’ve seen it online, almost a glamorisation of overworking, that I very much don’t agree with. I don’t know if glamorisation is the right word, but almost bragging about how little sleep you got and how late you stayed up … There are some almost unhealthy working habits that people have internalised as healthy, which I think can have a real detrimental impact on people’s wellbeing. (Medical sciences 1, female)

I feel like I always should be doing more, and I know that that’s not necessarily a healthy thing, but it is there and I don’t really know how to shake it, if I’m honest”. (Medical sciences 12, female)

These attitudes towards working practices permeated through other systems; for example, they could be perpetuated by supervisor behaviours (micro-system), as one added: ‘I think academics tend to be workaholics and if you go into a situation where your supervisor doesn’t take any time off, works every weekend, it does put, perhaps, an indirect pressure on you’ (Medical sciences 8, female). The doctoral researchers also described how they had come to expect that their PhD would induce stress and, therefore, be detrimental to their mental health and wellbeing: ‘I think there’s this common perception that doing a PhD is going to be stressful … I was constantly stressing, just because I was doing a PhD, not because there were any components that were stressing me out’ (Medical sciences 3, female). These expectations and norms concerning poor mental health and wellbeing could be compounded by the researcher environment (micro-system), as this participant continued:

I think the environment around you, like fellow researchers that have been through it, it would be really good if they were conscious of not asking questions like, ‘Oh, are you stressed yet?’ Like people kind of planting seeds in your head that it is going to be a stressful process. I think that stigma needs to be taken away. (Medical sciences 3, female)

Overall, participants’ accounts suggested that current cultural attitudes and norms in the macro-system surrounding doctoral researchers are unhelpful, thus emphasising the need for systemic changes to promote mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers.

Discussion

By adopting an ecological systems approach (Bronfenbrenner 1979), currently under-utilised in investigating mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers, this novel study examined the complex interplay between doctoral researchers and their surrounding systems. Our findings indicate that efforts to address calls for prevention and early intervention strategies (Metcalfe, Wilson, and Levecque 2018) should consider upstream interventions that encourage systematic changes, to better protect the mental health and wellbeing of doctoral researchers. While the development of individual coping strategies has benefits, without changes in wider systems, the implementation of downstream interventions shifts the responsibility for mental health and wellbeing on to doctoral researchers individually, rather than acknowledging and/or addressing the impact of the wider environmental context, including the academic culture of the institution and wider HE sector.

Findings suggest widespread attitudes in academia can position doctoral research as a crucible for poor mental health and wellbeing. Stress has been identified as widespread in doctoral researchers (Hazell et al. 2020). Participants recounted expectations of stress in anticipation of commencing doctoral research, with such expectations considered deleterious by some. An occupational culture of long working hours appeared to generate expectations for doctoral researchers to engage in behaviours, such as overworking or not taking sufficient rest, that were not conducive to positive mental health and wellbeing. Long working hours have been acknowledged as a salient issue in academia generally, often resulting from pressures to subscribe to and embody behaviours of the ‘ideal academic’ (Sang et al. 2015). These broader macrosystem attitudes often appeared to be perpetuated by different micro-systems surrounding the doctoral researchers. Therefore, without systemic change in macrosystem norms regarding working practices, such attitudes towards long working hours may continue to permeate other, more proximal systems.

Support from supervisors has often been associated with positive indicators of mental health and wellbeing in doctoral students (Byrom et al. 2020; Cornér, Löfström, and Pyhältö 2017). While our findings concur with this literature, interestingly, our data also suggest that even when supervisors were considered supportive, it was still possible for them unintentionally to promote behaviours detrimental to the mental health and wellbeing of their supervisees. Some participants explained that their supervisors – as well as other people in academia – could intensify feelings of pressure to work beyond their contracted hours (e.g. weekend working). The salience of role-modelling (intentional and unintentional) is therefore worthy of consideration. Indeed, it appeared that when doctoral researchers viewed their supervisors as role models, the latter could inadvertently undermine efforts to promote healthier working behaviours (e.g. encouraging supervisees to take time off) by working longer hours. The intensification and fragmentation of academic labour and increasing emphasis on productivity (do Mar Pereira 2016) exacerbate this culture of over-work. Further research might investigate role-modelling in doctoral researchers and how the working practices of supervisors influence the behaviours of supervisees, alongside potential impacts on their mental health and wellbeing.

The extent to which support mechanisms were resourced to support doctoral researchers appeared to be important. Without adequate institutional-level support for doctoral researchers, substantial difficulties were likely in the early doctoral stages. Based on the types of support participants sought, it is important for institutions to ensure that academic and non-academic support services are resourced, and also rendered visible to doctoral researchers from the commencement of their studies. Findings in the current study support previous work (Waight and Giordano 2018) in suggesting that even in the early stage of their studies, doctoral students can face challenges when seeking non-academic support for mental health concerns. The processes through which doctoral researchers can access support should, therefore, be carefully considered, to minimise accessibility issues.

Our findings reinforce the importance of peer support and developing a sense of belonging within the academic community (Schmidt and Umans 2014). Some small-scale studies have demonstrated the potential utility of peer-support schemes (Buissink-Smith, Hart, and van der Meer 2013; Homer et al. 2021), but further, larger-scale studies affording longitudinal insights into the effects of peer-support schemes are required. While peer connections were reported to help reduce feelings of isolation and create feelings of connectedness and empathy, some aspects of the peer micro-system, such as conversations reinforcing macrosystem attitudes about stress, were not always conducive to promoting mental health and wellbeing. Again, this underscores the need to instigate macrosystemic change to instigate positive changes within research ecologies.

Implications for policy and practice

Findings of the current study suggest a whole-systems approach to improving doctoral researchers’ mental health and wellbeing is needed, thus aligning with recent perspectives across the HE sector (e.g. Universities UK 2017). Such an approach could usefully focus on the development and implementation of upstream interventions that simultaneously target various layers of the ecological system surrounding doctoral researchers, to maximise the benefits of future interventions. Changing the culture surrounding working attitudes in academia will require comprehensive and collaborative efforts across the HE sector. At institutional level, academic leaders should ensure that support services and working environments are in place and adequately resourced to support doctoral researchers. Furthermore, institutions must ensure that supervisors have sufficient time allocated to support students, by implementing a limit on numbers of supervisees if necessary (Taylor 2021), and offering training programmes to educate supervisors and other staff on ways to protect doctoral researchers’ mental health and wellbeing. Helping doctoral researchers to feel a sense of belonging and forge positive connections with peers from the outset of their studies should also be a priority.

Alongside these upstream approaches, interventions that encourage the development of potentially protective individual behaviours could be considered. Doctoral researchers could be educated on self-care practices, overcoming self-deprecation, and practical strategies that strengthen their coping resources to manage the demands of doctoral study over time. While changes in individual behaviours could be beneficial, without the implementation of robust, upstream approaches that place a strong emphasis on the wider macrosystem, exosystem, mesosystem, and microsystem levels, interventions focused on individual behaviours will struggle to make the large-scale – and much needed – impact necessary to improve mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers. Therefore, a cultural shift is needed: away from interventions that target solely individual behaviours, towards addressing the social and societal factors influencing mental (ill) health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers. Accordingly, we suggest that future interventions should, in line with recommendations for public mental health interventions (Eriksson, Ghazinour, and Hammarstrom 2018), consider how different ecological systems interact, and implement strategies that focus concurrently on personal and environmental factors influencing mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers.

Finally, at the individual-level, our findings provide further evidence of the importance of self-care for doctoral researchers. Participants widely acknowledged the benefits of self-care, but engagement in such behaviours was often limited by intense workloads and worries about the repercussions of taking time-out for productivity. The lack of engagement in self-care practices also appeared to be closely linked to the blurring (even disintegration) of work-life boundaries, which made it difficult for participants to avoid a situation in which their studies became all-consuming. These challenges to engaging in self-care confront not only doctoral researchers, but should be acknowledged and addressed in the HE sector more widely, especially at a time of increased academic pressures and workloads (Morrish 2019).

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations should be noted when considering the findings. The sample consisted of doctoral researchers in the early and middle stages of their studies, with the data collected focusing on the early stage; issues more pertinent to later doctoral stages were not therefore identified. Furthermore, the findings may not resonate with the experience of students on other doctoral programmes (e.g. professional or practice-based doctorates). A key factor is that data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is possible, therefore, that some findings might have been affected by the specific circumstances prevailing, although many findings resonate with past research (e.g. Hazell et al. 2020; Metcalfe, Wilson, and Levecque 2018; Morrish 2019). As with all research based on participant self-selection, it is possible the views of participants are not representative (in a qualitative sense) of the wider population of doctoral researchers. Indeed, although our findings may resonate with other doctoral researchers and thus could achieve a degree of naturalistic generalisability (Smith 2018), we acknowledge under-representation from doctoral researchers who did not identify as female, are enrolled as international students, come from ethnic minorities, and are conducting research in STEM, arts, or humanities subjects.

We suggest that based on our findings, certain avenues for future research could prove fruitful. Findings reported offer potential hypotheses regarding correlates of mental health and wellbeing that could be quantitatively tested. As detailed previously, the findings offer ideas for interventions that could be tested in future. Although there is value in investigating the effects of individual interventions targeting a single system-level, researchers are encouraged to test the efficacy of larger-scale approaches that focus simultaneously on multiple ecological systems to improve mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers, and to give further consideration to the role of academic culture on the health and experiences of this group. Given calls for prevention and early intervention strategies (Metcalfe, Wilson, and Levecque 2018), such interventions could be implemented when doctoral researchers commence their degree, to help support them more effectively from the outset.

Conclusions

Employing Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems framework enabled us to provide insights into the interlinkages between various environmental layers surrounding doctoral researchers. In doing so, the findings highlight the potential limitations of downstream interventions targeting mental health and wellbeing in this population. We have provided several suggestions for policy and practice. Our data support recent work (Metcalfe, Wilson, and Levecque 2018; Morrish 2019) in suggesting a widespread change in attitudes towards working practices and the apparent normalisation of stress in doctoral studies is needed as part of a whole-systems approach. This is highlighted most ostensibly by the view amongst participants that the academic community rewards individuals primarily for productivity and outputs, while directing less attention to mental health and wellbeing. Developing a sustainable approach to supporting the mental health and wellbeing of doctoral researchers across the HE sector will necessitate fundamental cultural changes, moving beyond deficit discourses of individual resilience, and considering the relationships both within and between the ecological systems surrounding this academic community.

Acknowlegments

SMaRteN is funded by UK Research and Innovation and their support is gratefully acknowledged (Grant reference: ES/S00324X/1). Any views expressed here are those of the project investigators and do not necessarily represent the views of the SMaRteN network or UKRI.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This project has been funded by the Student Mental Health Research network (SMaRteN).

Notes on contributors

Patricia C. Jackman

Patricia C. Jackman is a Senior Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychology at the University of Lincoln, UK. Her research interests in higher education include mental health, psychological wellbeing, and professional development in doctoral and early career researchers.

Rebecca Sanderson

Rebecca Sanderson is a researcher in the Lincoln Higher Education Research Institute and PhD student at the University of Lincoln. Her research interests include widening participation in higher education, social justice in education, student engagement and student mental health.

Jacquelyn Allen-Collinson

Jacquelyn Allen-Collinson is a Professor Emerita in Sociology & Physical Cultures in the School of Sport & Exercise Science, and former Director of the Health Advancement Research Team (HART) at University of Lincoln, UK. Currently pursuing her interest in combining sociology and phenomenology, her research interests in higher education include doctoral education and research environments.

Lisa Jacobs

Lisa Jacobs is a Research Assistant and PhD student at the University of Lincoln. Her research interests in higher education include mental health and wellbeing, the learning experiences of undergraduates and postgraduates with dyslexia, and how students can engage in peer support to support each other academically and with their well-being.

Notes

1. The discussion guide included a question exploring participants’ views on content that should be included in inductions to support mental health and wellbeing in doctoral researchers, the findings of which are reported elsewhere (Jackman, Sanderson, and Jacobs 2021b).