Psychological support is key to PhD students’ well-being

The high prevalence of mental health problems among PhD students has led to growing concern within the academic community, raising questions about how to best support PhD students. Although universities are aware of the issue, many lack clear guidance on how to stop this worrying trend.

While research has come up with a list of factors contributing to PhD students’ well-being, and lack thereof, studies tend to focus on a few specific variables at a time (for example, the supervisory relationship), which provide only snippets of information rather than a comprehensive picture.

Addressing this issue, a recent study from the Netherlands examined how various work and non-work factors relate to PhD students’ well-being, allowing for a more complete picture.

Specifically, the authors used a novel network approach to examine how specific job demands, such as publication pressure and work-home conflict, and job resources, such as autonomy, role clarity, development opportunities, career control and supervisor support, influence PhD students’ burnout, work engagement and sickness absenteeism.

Additionally, the authors examined how psychological capital – a psychological resource reflecting people’s confidence in and persistence at goal attainment – relates to PhD students’ well-being. Using a network approach, the authors were able to examine predictors and outcomes as part of an interconnected network, allowing them to better see which predictors are the most central in the network, considering all the others.

The impact of publication pressure

Analysing data from more than 600 PhD students, the study found that both job demands – pressure to publish and struggles to combine work and private life – contributed to PhD students’ poor well-being.

Notably, publication pressure was a stronger predictor of burnout than work-home conflict, whereas only work-home conflict was related to higher reported sickness absenteeism.

These findings suggest that publication pressure is particularly impactful on PhD students’ subjective sense of well-being, whereas struggles to combine work and private life not only affect subjective well-being but also lead to higher sickness absenteeism, a more objective measure of PhD students’ health status.

Regarding resources, the study found that organisational resources, such as development opportunities and career control – having opportunities to learn and develop oneself in one’s current position and having sufficient information to plan one’s career, respectively – are important drivers of PhD students’ well-being.

These resources were more important to PhD students’ well-being than task characteristics, such as autonomy and role clarity – knowing what to do and being autonomous in deciding how to do it – and even supervisory support.

The finding that supervisory support did not emerge as one of the most important predictors of PhD students’ well-being is particularly interesting given that supervisory support is usually considered one of the most – if not the most – important factors for a successful PhD.

The importance of psychological capital

Finally, one of the most striking findings was that psychological capital (PsyCap) – often referred to as ‘the HERO within’, given that it comprises the psychological resources of ‘Hope, Efficacy, Resilience and Optimism’ – was the only resource related to all well-being outcomes.

PhD students with higher levels of PsyCap reported higher work engagement and lower burnout and sickness absenteeism. Although it is not surprising that PsyCap is beneficial for PhD students, as much research has confirmed the importance of PsyCap for employee well-being and performance in the past, it is striking that a psychological resource is seemingly more important than the tangible support PhD students receive from their supervisors.

This might be due to the fact that PsyCap is readily accessible from within and may, therefore, help PhD students deal with challenges as they arise, including deficient supervision. In contrast, PhD students with lower levels of PsyCap may face self-doubt or insecurity, which may be challenging to overcome, even with external support from supervisors.

Although the study revealed the prominent role of PsyCap for PhD students’ well-being, the authors emphasise that PhD students’ well-being is the product of multiple interacting factors, including task related, leadership and organisational factors. Therefore, interventions should ideally target multiple factors rather than a single factor.

However, acknowledging the budgetary and resource constraints universities may face, universities may need to focus interventions on a select few high-impact factors. In these instances, the authors suggest focusing on developing PsyCap to improve PhD students’ well-being.

PsyCap and self-compassion

Based on these results, in another study published in Higher Education earlier this year, the authors developed and evaluated two interventions: one focused on helping PhD students develop PsyCap alone and a second one focused on helping PhD students develop PsyCap and self-compassion. The authors expected that the combination of two resources together would benefit PhD students’ well-being more than one resource alone.

The authors argued that PsyCap, in combination with self-compassion, should enable PhD students to not only reach their professional goals but should be particularly valuable when confronted with difficulty or failure – a common part of the PhD experience.

The study revealed that both interventions led to positive well-being changes over time. However, PhD students who received training in both PsyCap and self-compassion – that is, treating yourself the same way you would treat a good friend – were even better off.

Taken together, findings from both studies showed that psychological capital and self-compassion are important for PhD students’ well-being and can be developed through training. By emphasising the importance of these psychological resources, the findings of these studies suggest that fostering PhD students’ internal resources plays a vital role in enhancing their well-being.

Luisa Solms is a PhD student in the department of work and organisational psychology at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. In her research, she investigates factors that contribute to the well-being of academics and explores interventions to improve it, with a specific focus on early career researchers.

Machteld (Maggie) van den Heuvel is an assistant professor in the department of work and organisational psychology at the University of Amsterdam. Her research focus is on positive occupational health psychology, particularly work-related well-being interventions, (team) job crafting, personal resources and adaptation to change. Van den Heuvel also works as a leadership coach and trainer.

Barbara Nevicka is an associate professor in the department of work and organisational psychology at the University of Amsterdam. Her research focus is on leadership, with a specific focus on leader narcissism and consequences of such leadership for employee functioning and team performance.

Astrid C Homan is a professor in the department of work and organisational psychology at the University of Amsterdam, who focuses on social interactions in organisations. She has a special interest in diversity in organisations and how it affects individuals, teams, leaders and the organisation as a whole.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.