Rethinking the norm of the ‘ideal’ worker in academia

How can we make space in academia for lives that are not wholly consumed by it? What would it mean to honour both intellectual passion and care responsibilities without requiring one to eclipse the other? And how might we transform institutions that still reward undivided devotion to work – implicitly asking us to choose between scholarly success and family life?

Our article, “(Un)divided Work Devotion? Navigating the ideal worker norm in academia” draws on interviews with 92 PhD holders working both within and outside academia, and illuminates how academic careers are shaped by gendered ideals, contractual insecurity, and deeply embedded norms of what it means to ‘succeed’.

During the course of this study, a tension in academic work stood out as central: the unspoken expectation of total work devotion and the lived realities of people who seek – often urgently – to live more balanced lives.

This tension is not new, but the article helps us see it afresh by locating it in the specific context of Norwegian academia, where strong social policies supporting work-family balance coexist with an academic culture that still privileges undivided commitment. In addition to mapping this contradiction, the study shows how academics themselves navigate it and strive to think more comprehensively and sustainably about academic life.

The study reveals the comprehensive framework of meaning within which academic labour is inscribed: the sacrifices made, the strategies deployed, and the meaning derived not only from publishing or securing grants but also from family, teaching, mentorship, and even leaving academia altogether.

These are not just ‘career choices’ – they are personal negotiations with the norms and structures that shape our working lives.

Who pays the price?

The study also relates to the politics of recognition in academic spaces: who gets to be seen as committed, productive, legitimate? And at what cost? The study’s concept of divided work devotion speaks directly to this.

Rather than framing divided attention between work and care as a deficiency or limitation, we draw on expansionist theory to argue that multiple roles can be enriching – that family life, for example, can provide both emotional ballast and professional efficiency.

However, such resistance is not equally available to all. One important contribution of the article is its focus on positional power. Who can afford to decline ‘academic housework’? Who feels secure enough to prioritise family or redefine success away from journal metrics?

The study finds that both men and women challenge the ideal worker norm and argues that permanent contracts – more than gender – might be the real enablers of resistance. In this way, the article reveals how structural security breeds the freedom to live and work more sustainably.

Should I stay or should I go?

Another insight from the article is that opting out of academia is not always a sign of failure or defeat. Sometimes, it is experienced as the most honest and principled choice available.

Several respondents in the study describe leaving academia not with bitterness, but with clarity – that the costs were too high, the trade-offs too steep, and the rewards too narrowly defined. This challenges the heroism still attached to ‘staying put’ at all costs and invites us to consider exit not only as an escape or failure, but also as a critique.

Still, not everyone can or wants to leave. For those who remain, the article suggests that meaningful resistance is possible – even within the system.

Some respondents actively redefined success in their own terms, choosing to invest in teaching, public scholarship or care work. Others sought to avoid undervalued tasks, not necessarily out of selfishness, but as a form of self-preservation. These micro-strategies may not dismantle the ideal worker norm, but they can be seen as everyday acts of resistance.

In our study, what emerges is a vision of academic life that is more plural and more humane. We find an insistence among many of the PhD holders that ambition and care can coexist, and that top publications and excellence are not the only measures of worth. And that different paths – inside and outside the academy – are not only possible but valid.

In other words, the study shows not only examples of people who ‘succeed’ despite the odds – but also that many insist on redefining success altogether – who ask: What kind of academic do I want to be? What kind of life do I want to live? What is worth sacrificing, and what is not?

Such questions should not be left to individuals alone. It is the responsibility of academic institutions to create conditions where alternative academic identities can thrive – where teaching is rewarded, where care is supported, where leaving is not punished, and where staying does not require self-erasure.

In the meantime, we hope that our article can serve as an inspiration to talk openly about the costs and compromises of academic life and to validate diverse forms of success. This can contribute to making space for ambivalence and building an academia where employees do not feel they must choose between being a good academic and being a whole person.

Julia Orupabo is a research professor at the Institute for Social Research in Norway. Dr Marjan Nadim is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Social Research. Marte Mangset is associate professor of sociology at the University of Oslo and director of the Centre universitaire de Norvège à Paris. Sigtona Halrynjo is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Social Research.

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