‘Out of goodwill’: Supervisors’ Support for PGR Mental Health and Well-being 

By Dely Lazarte Elliot, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, University of Glasgow

When it comes to understanding doctoral mental health and well-being, we can learn a great deal from PGR supervisors. Our close and regular working proximity with doctoral researchers affords us a different, but equally insightful perspective in understanding doctoral mental health and well-being concerns, which have been in the spotlight for several years now.  

Drawing from our research into how supervisors support stressed postgraduate researchers, one UK-based supervisor reported that they had noted some visible signs, which tend to raise a red flag pointing to undisclosed issues affecting doctoral researchers’ communication and engagement, and subsequently, their academic performance. 

“… [C]lassic signs [of wellbeing concerns] are that the communication goes down […] deadlines aren’t being met, and […] the silence becomes quite […] weighted […] yes, reduction of communication is a big sign […] you just see that they are […] not managing […] they just look pretty grim […] stressed out [and] tired […] you can just tell physically that they are not in a great place. “

Such an observation will resonate with the experience of many supervisors, who are likely to agree – ‘Yes, we have all been there!’ There are instances when supervisors can feel that something is amiss, but they can’t put their finger on it. Perhaps, a bubbly doctoral scholar whom they have been supervising has gradually gone quiet.  

Of course, doctoral researchers are not obliged to keep supervisors updated with all of their activities, particularly personal and non-doctoral related matters that take place outside academia. Nevertheless, there may be a nagging doubt prompting supervisors to ‘investigate’ what might be the underlying reason for such unexpected ‘silence’.  

Often, supervisors’ action is driven by goodwill to ascertain if there is anything they can possibly do to intervene or support a particular doctoral researcher. Supervisors taking action out of goodwill is certainly positive and altruistic and is likely to lead to positive outcomes. Yet, it is worth asking – is goodwill sufficient? Are there perhaps other points worth considering? 

More than a feeling: Evidence-based approaches

Let’s take a look at several evidence-based scenarios – informed by differing factors – as we reflect on what might be the best course of action for each of them. 

The PhD genre. Time and again, doctoral researchers have expressed being caught unprepared for multiple levels of isolation typically encountered by those undertaking a doctorate. These may include cognitive isolation (e.g. for investigating a niche topic), physical isolation (i.e. working alone), social and emotional isolation (due to the time-demanding doctoral genre), cultural isolation (for those who are studying away from the norms and practices they are familiar with) and even imposed isolation (during emergency situations such as pandemic lockdown). Arguably, such accumulated levels of isolation should not be dismissed nor underestimated as they can affect doctoral researchers in different ways, particularly their well-being. 

Cognitive dissonance. Doctoral supervisors may encounter ‘cognitive dissonance’. While on one hand they may think that they have a duty of care to their supervisees, some of them also argue that on the other hand “if it’s a mental health issue, it is not part of their remit” and therefore, they cannot do it. They view their role as one where they could capably signpost their supervisees to ‘appropriate sources of support’, e.g. counselling services.  

Cultural, familial or scholarship expectations. As, for example, with international researchers, a change in culture could add an extra layer of complexity to understanding mental health. One supervisor in our study suggested: “…for overseas students, [there are] things we don’t know fully about, the conditions of their scholarship and the conditions of their culture. Failure is not permitted [emphasis added].” 

Supervisors’ dual role. When it comes to supervisors encouraging their supervisees, they notably play a dual, at times opposing, but interlinked role, i.e. to offer encouragement when doctoral researchers go through a difficult period (e.g. a stressful pregnancy, illness or even bereavement) while also gently encouraging progression and completion, particularly when they notice either reduced productivity or targets and deadlines being constantly pushed back. 

Inadequate institutional support. Expecting supervisors to support their doctoral researchers might be a tall order if they themselves do not receive the support they need. For example, supervisors have a lot on their plate in terms of workload. This may imply that the allocated supervisory hours are notional and do not adequately cover their efforts to support their supervisees. Second, they may feel that they are ‘not given the time’ to undertake training in the areas of mental health and well-being. The aeroplane metaphor comes to mind, as recalled by this supervisor in our study: “what they say is that in case of a lack of oxygen put the mask on yourself first … what we do as supervisors is out of goodwill … extra time, and not actually included in the workload, so it is an unsustainable way of doing things.”

While mental health and well-being among doctoral researchers is recognised as a crucial issue, the scenarios above highlight examples of the numerous tensions experienced by those who work closely with and support these doctoral researchers. With the best of intentions, supervisors’ efforts to help nurture their supervisees’ well-being and mental health can be influenced by several factors, many of which are outwith their control (e.g. the nature of the doctorate, insufficient workload hours allocation, lack of specialised training or other institutional support, and pressure from the institution). As a case in point, the typically limited supervision hours, often divided among supervisors, are generally taken up by their remit of being solely focused on the academic progress of their supervisees.  

Beyond goodwill: Advocating for new approaches

Taken together, we can see how supervisors’ goodwill is an excellent starting point, but whether or not it is sufficient and fair to rely simply on supervisors’ goodwill is questionable. Recognising the finite nature of doctoral supervision, it is worth exploring what is within supervisors’ gift to promote their supervisees’ well-being. Equally, it is important to remember that this endeavour of cultivating doctoral researchers’ mental health and well-being requires joint effort. Our research has advocated a few considerations for the way forward, including: 

With these considerations in mind, it is worth reflecting on the practical initiatives that could be put in place by any doctoral supporter (e.g. doctoral researcher peers, doctoral supervisors; researcher developers; institutional leaders) to realise the things that contribute to this significant endeavour, and in turn, improve research culture for PGRs. After all, fostering a positive research culture entails changing doctoral processes and experiences for the better.  

The final and crucial question to raise is – what types of support can Higher Education Institutions offer to realise these differing initiatives?  

Note: If you would like to read further about this research, it is in Chapter 7 of the Research Handbook of Academic Mental Health.