It can be an incredibly stimulating career - but the “high highs” of academia can be matched by equally low lows for some in the sector, leading to poor mental health and work life balance.
At this year’s Connecting Research Culture Conference, hosted by the Earlham Institute, representatives of groups across bioscience research examined what we can collectively do to improve research culture and shared the challenges of a rewarding but demanding sector.
Academics face pressures including short term employment linked to grant funding, balancing teaching alongside research, publishing work, and competing with equally skilled peers for limited resources.
And the difference between healthy competition that drives us and unhealthy competition that impacts our mental health and wellbeing is not always recognised.
At the conference session on wellbeing and mental health challenges in the research environment we learnt that burnout and chronic stress within academia can be at a rate six times higher than the general population.
The primary cause cited was overloading of academics by administration and management. Burnout leads to a vicious cycle - burned-out people don’t perform well, which means they feel pressure to work harder. Working harder means more burnout. Stopping, pausing, and recovering becomes more and more difficult.
These issues interplay with inequalities and discrimination from factors such as neurodivergence, race, and gender. This is on top of any mental health challenges we may have outside work.
Many organisations have improved compared to the research environment a decade ago.
At the Earlham Institute we have many initiatives to support our staff: mental health first aiders, social activities, and networks including an LGBTQ+ group, the Parent and Carer Group, the Neurodiversity Network, Researcher's Forum and Earlham Student Body.
We encourage a good work-life balance and are keen to support the wider sector in systemic changes to improve the mental health of researchers now and in generations to come.
We have seen real evidence the funders want to help too, demonstrated through strategic objectives, policy and focused funding.
The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)’s Connecting Culture funding call funded the Connecting Research Culture Conference, and the three other projects supported with this funding were showcased there.
These were: a cross-institute mentoring programme led by Harriet Keep at the Pirbright Institute; a project to understand, value and celebrate neurodiversity, led by Dr Clare Stevenson and Leah Milner-Campbell at the John Innes Centre; and a study to assess and develop mechanisms for reporting and evidencing research culture and EDI, led by Professor Jayne Hope and Dorotea Deshishku at the Roslin Institute.
The vital importance of mental health and wellbeing in our sector has never been more apparent, and it is something we are constantly trying hard to support at the Earlham Institute.
Dr Dave Wright, Mental Health First Aider and EI Champion
In the afternoon of the conference’s first day, more than 200 attendees split into cohort groups for discussion sessions on peer support, best practice, and challenges in their roles.
Groups ranged from PhD students at the very start of their careers to senior researchers, with discussions also focusing on technicians, postdocs, and research funders.
Topics cutting across groups included the need for more recognition for skilled careers beyond the Principal Investigator (PI) model.
Most PhD students don't end up as PIs, and those that don't continue with academic research careers often move into support roles, diverse roles in industry or leave the academic sector altogether.
Career post-docs and research technical professionals voiced concerns around a lack of recognition, and a lack of promotion or career development opportunities. The conference attendees also recognised that research culture was improving.
Funders such as the Wellcome and BBSRC are already rewarding collaborative research culture and withdrawing funding from PIs who have been found to have bullied or harassed other, to discourage the sector away from the potentially negative culture of the lone PI.
Suggestions from the discussions on what could improve culture included formalising expansion of how contributions are valued.
Inclusive career paths should be developed for all roles. Anticipating that not everyone will want to be a PI and all work should be valued, whatever the job title of the contributor.
Groups suggested that the moves to defund poor lab culture were a good start but could be built on further.
The current system can have a detrimental effect on the mental health of its members, as well as the sustainability and integrity of research. Thankfully, awareness of this has improved and research institutions and funders are working together to improve the research environment for everyone.
We spoke to Dr Dave Wright, EI Mental Health Champion and Mental Health First Aider.
“It was wonderful to see the spotlight on mental health and wellbeing at the Connecting Research Culture conference and to be part of the discussions,” he said.
“The vital importance of mental health and wellbeing in our sector has never been more apparent, and it is something we are constantly trying hard to support at the Earlham Institute.
“I think workplace mental wellbeing is best supported through fostering an open, safe and communicative environment where we are able to share how we’re feeling, the challenges we face, what works in our workplace and what could change for the better.
“The key to this supportive environment lies in a combination of things - proactive approaches such as trained MHFAs, EDI initiatives and regular social groups, considerate and flexible work policies and, ultimately, the support and encouragement from the directorate that we are fortunate to have here at Earlham Institute.
