Reflexivity can help PhD students manage their mental health

It is well documented that mental ill-health and low levels of well-being among doctoral students are ongoing concerns that require greater attention through institution-wide interventions. However, recent research suggests that an ‘in-programme’ approach would be more beneficial and allow for a candidate-centric focus on mental health and well-being.

This approach acknowledges that the doctorate is a subjective experience demanding the re-evaluation of ways of thinking, the navigation of intense emotions and the adaptation of behaviours by the candidate to achieve new learning goals, transforming the candidate from a consumer to a creator of knowledge.

Candidates often face uncertainty and enter a state of liminality during this process, feeling caught between old beliefs and new insights, which can lead to discomfort and feeling ‘stuck’. To navigate this liminal space, candidates benefit from a change in perspective supported by transformative learning.

While much of the focus in doctoral support is on the candidate avoiding negative experiences during this process, there is limited attention given to the candidate’s role of self-awareness and self-management.

Reflexivity provides one such option to consider.

Reflexivity is a cognitive, or thinking, process that enables individuals to move beyond simple reflection, fostering self-awareness and exploring different options for progress. While candidates have demonstrated its usefulness in understanding their doctoral journeys, further research is needed on initiating and sustaining this process independently.

This ability to learn and develop autonomously is essential, as doctoral programmes require candidates to show evidence of becoming independent researchers. Reflexivity has been demonstrated to enhance information processing, helping employees understand the what, why and how of learning and change. It enables adjustments in both task execution and a personal approach.

Moreover, team psychological safety has been demonstrated to be crucial for effective team reflexivity. However, variations in terminology and definitions related to psychological safety limit the extension of this construct beyond the organisational context.

Beyond the organisational context

Building on an earlier research phase involving a Theoretical Integrated Review (TIR), I propose a broader conceptualisation that provides opportunities for investigation beyond the organisational context.

This broader understanding of psychological safety recognises it as an internal process that helps individuals manage distress, influencing their thoughts, feelings and actions. Its presence has a crucial role to play in growth and development as it enables a connection to be made between motivation and goal-directed behaviour.

This provides the opportunity for a generalised definition of psychological safety as a dynamic intrapsychic construct drawn on by individuals to mitigate actual or foreseen distress. This sees the presence or absence of psychological safety as influenced by context, the individual’s existing psychological frames of reference and current and future motives relating to an endeavour.

This understanding allows the absence or presence of psychological safety to be considered in broader contexts, including independent learning settings like doctoral programmes. To explore this potential, a body of qualitative research was conducted using the vignette methodology technique, with six volunteer PhD candidates enrolled at a regional Australian university awaiting feedback on their theses.

Experiences of knowledge uncertainty

Interviewees were encouraged to discuss their experiences without the pressure of direct questions, facilitating open discussions about managing uncertainty.

All six interviewees described experiences with knowledge uncertainty and agreed that the conceptual research findings on psychological safety could improve opportunities for candidate support and warranted further investigation.

The analysis of the interviews revealed that the interviewees’ experiences of uncertainty stemmed from intrapersonal, interpersonal and university governance-level interactions. While similarities existed based on stages in the doctoral programme, no strong recurring theme of uncertainty emerged. Notably, the differences lay in how the interviewees discussed their experiences of uncertainty.

Some interviewees emphasised the importance of interpersonal support to help them progress.

“… The confirmation panel chairperson insisted that I rework my research question … I found it confusing. I felt that I must have grossly mistaken something …. My supervisor just said, okay, well, rebuild methodology … I felt uncertain. But she was very encouraging and supportive … I got through the second time, no questions asked …” – Interviewee Steve

“… My methodology was underdeveloped… I was asked to resubmit this section to the confirmation panel … I was stressed about it having to be perfect because I thought failing would be the worst thing in the world … I remember that being a big thing … I was embarrassed …an extra hurdle because no one else I knew needed to resubmit … my supervisors were empowering … they both said, redo what you need to … You’ll get through. You’re going to be okay.” – Interviewee Amy

Other interviewees’ narratives shifted from reflection to reflexivity, demonstrating self-awareness and developing metacognitive strategies to navigate their uncertainties.

“So yeah, it was an unhappy period. It was a couple of months of really hating what I was, what I’d done to myself in choosing this particular topic … I just had to ride that wave, you know, think it through, think, really think, about what I was doing and why I was doing it, what the product was, what the process was and what the result needed to be in the end.” – Interviewee Julie

“… A big part of my uncertainty was about paradigms … I couldn’t write my methodology … I was just not convinced … if I can’t believe in these views about knowledge and reality, I can’t write about this stuff. So that was a hurdle … I was sometimes reading without knowing what would come of it … then it felt like, oh, this is it … what had been a major period of uncertainty had also been a cognitively shifting one that changed my perception of the world.” – Interviewee Jack

Psychological safety in the doctoral context

The above extracts illustrate how interviewees navigated uncertainties and liminal spaces, utilising various strategies to move forward. Some narratives show less use of self-awareness, relying on interpersonal support, while others reflect and use reflexivity as a proactive, independent approach to managing uncertainty.

Understanding psychological safety as a multi-dimensional construct and appreciating its demonstrated moderating effect on reflexivity in the workplace provides an opportunity for further investigation.

The differences in interviewees’ narratives offer valuable insights regarding reflexivity and the doctoral experience of uncertainty. Collectively, they establish a basis for exploring psychological safety in the doctoral context.

Jayne Carruthers is a PhD candidate at the School of Education, University of Newcastle, Australia.

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