By Carol Garcia
The mental health of academics across the country in recent decades has been in decline. From undergraduate students to early career researchers, concern is being expressed about the heavy toll that academic pressures put on mental health. In a study about the prevalence of anxiety and depression amongst graduate students, it was found that 20-50% of graduate students report symptoms during their training. Attending graduate school in any field is stressful, but due to the nature of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) research, mental health issues can be particularly prevalent among graduate students in the sciences. Across the country, many seek solutions from their own institutions and come to understand that often, these very institutions do not have the resources necessary to handle a mental health crisis.
Particularly, graduate students in STEM fields have reported being overworked, underpaid, and even bullied, plunging them to mental health struggles. These concerns have been raised by scientists in recent years, even before the COVID-19 pandemic which for many caused their mental health to deteriorate further. Recent studies have surveyed thousands of scientists worldwide and concluded that these mental health struggles emanate from toxic workplace culture. The excessive workload and intense competition, coupled with inadequate financial support results in poor working conditions across laboratories and programs. Additionally, many students describe the lack of emotional support given by those in charge such as their research advisor. The problem is that these advisors themselves may also be experiencing mental health struggles as they are in incredibly competitive fields and were most likely trained in a toxic environment thus perpetuating a toxic cycle. The outcome of a toxic research workplace and no support from advisors is that graduate students develop high levels of anxiety, depression and in the worst cases, suicidal ideation.
A crucial point in bettering the mental health of graduate students is changing the toxic workplace culture. It is true that STEM fields are one of the most competitive and with larger workload amongst academic fields. However, this does not mean that it must come at the expense of their graduate students. Advisors and mentors have considerable influence on graduate students and while the relationship between a graduate student and their advisor is complex, many advisors lack the tools needed. A radical didactic change in the methods used to become a research advisor and mentors must be implemented. What’s more, universities should be held accountable in training advisors to successfully mitigate a mental health crisis by providing information on counseling available on campus. In a 2023 study about implementing positive interventions in research culture in the biosciences, researchers proposed the idea that PhD training should be offered in a student-centered way. By having graduate students, academic staff and professional services staff polled during their research, the study focused on identifying good supervisory practice and emphasizing mental health. The study found that staff and mentors were willing to change traditional supervisory styles to promote mental health for their students. Further, the directors of these training programs indicated that removing those advisors known for bullying or who were described as ‘narcissistic’ was key for improving the workplace culture. Indeed, a zero-tolerance policy on abuse is a way in which the workplace culture can become healthier.
Within the graduate student community, these pressures are exacerbated for people of color (POC) and LGBTQ+ professionals who experience 30% more harassment, discrimination, and belittlement in the workplace. Women in STEM are also known to experience gender-based microaggressions and harassment leading to mental distress. There are reports of women experiencing more isolation in an environment that questions their abilities leading them to want to discontinue their studies altogether. Additionally, women in these roles start developing feelings of inadequacy and not belonging. Because many STEM disciplines are still male-dominated, women must try thrice as hard to establish themselves as scientific professionals. These victimizations in the workplace are leading women to develop bouts of depression and heightened anxiety.
While there are established mental health counseling services in many universities in the United States, research has shown many students are still reluctant in exploring these services. A study in 2018 revealed that students who have not had any counseling before are more reticent to attend than those who experience it firsthand. The study also showed that students are likely to recommend counseling to their peers after attendance. This reticence to attend in the first place may have to do with the social stigma that bearing any mental health illness holds prejudice and discrimination. Additionally, graduate students report heightened isolation and imposter syndrome during their studies, which may further lead them to not seek counseling. In the case of college students, many would rather speak to a peer than a mental health counselor due to the mental illness stigma, with 36% reporting that they felt more comfortable turning to a friend or romantic partner if faced with a serious mental health issue. To this end, many universities have implemented peer-to-peer support groups. These support groups allow students to feel at ease when sharing their struggles but it ultimately is not the best approach to handling a mental health crisis.
A better approach is the organization of mental health task forces which some schools at the K-12 level have adopted. These institutions have adopted a mental health training program and suicide risk referral protocol. Further, an example of a successful collaboration between mental health scientists and the National Alliance on Mental Illness New Jersey (NAMI-NJ) is that of the ASPEN project at Rutgers University. This project hopes to “ensure policymakers at all levels (local, state and national) have access to the best available research when considering policy solutions to public health problems.” The ASPEN project is working towards legislating the improvement of screening for adolescent depression. This example showcases the importance of such legislation and why such organizations are needed for students of all ages, not just our youth. As it is the case for graduate students, there is a 2021 guideline implemented by the Council of Graduate Schools and The Jed Foundation that gathered perspectives from graduate students, deans and student affair professionals to develop recommendations to navigate student mental health crisis. Titled “Supporting Graduate Student Mental Health and Well-being: Evidence-Informed Recommendations for the Graduate Community”, this set of guidelines has been endorsed by 150 universities in the US and Canada as of 2021. There are currently close to 4000 universities in the United States and while more of these institutions might have adopted these guidelines in recent years, there is no found update as to just how many universities have currently endorsed the guidelines.
Both the stigma of mental illness, and the lack of mental health resources that prevent students from seeking help suggest that new forms of support must be implemented to aid students in need. While there are many forms of mental support that can be given to students, a much larger change at the policy level might be necessary. To start, many scientists believe that mental health must become a mainstream topic of conversation. Indeed, there are already many programs in several institutions out there that openly talk about mental illnesses and mental health available for students. In recent years, more and more conferences and workshops have been held about the issue, as is the case for the American Physiology Summit held every year which has created a session titled “Mental Health for Graduate Students”. But this might still not be enough. While at the federal level major pieces of legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects people with disabilities from discrimination by universities, community colleges and vocational schools and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that provides essential health benefits like ambulatory patient and emergency services in universities; these programs do not focus on mental illness solely. Moreover, the political climate of each state plays a huge role in what forms of aid students may have. What’s more pressing is the divide between Republicans and Democrats on mental health issues. While 82% of Democrats who voted in the midterms stated that it was very important for schools to provide mental health services, only 44% of Republicans voted for this initiative. Additionally, some Republicans have called for restrictions on school counselors. Another layer of complexity is the importance of highlighting the distinction between mental health initiatives and programs that are resources for students with mental illness. There are some students that have mental health struggles during their graduate program who don’t meet the criteria for mental illness. The difference between these two populations underlines the current problems with resources as long-term care for those with mental illnesses is often not available in universities while brief care for those experiencing an acute episode might be more readily available.
Another obstacle that many graduate students encounter when it comes to mental health services is insurance blocks. While most universities offer graduate students health insurance through their Teaching Assistant (TA) contracts, there still exists inadequate mental health provider networks. A 2019 report discovered that a behavioral health office visit is over five times more likely to be out-of-network for many insurances. Additionally, many students find that their insurance simply does not cover or only partially covers mental health services leading them to lose motivation towards seeking help as their financial support is plainly not enough. Expanding the insurance coverage that graduate schools provide can help incentivize students to seek counseling. Moreover, another stigma when it comes to mental health is the use of medication. Many suffering from mental illnesses believe that these medications will make them seem “weak”. What’s worse, many suffering from mental illnesses cannot afford to start taking medication that can potentially be life changing for the better. Costs should not be a barrier. Creating policies that make psychiatric medication more affordable should be at the forefront of mental health initiatives. Reworking the way insurance policies work is a cross-agency collaboration. This means that departments such as the Department of Health, Department of Education and Department of Human Services must collaborate to integrate effective policies and procedures.
Currently in the US, mental health policymaking seems to not be aptly prepared to produce policies that directly help graduate students. In a 2023 study addressing evidence-informed policymaking, it was found that a “substantial gap remains between the production of research evidence and the inclusion of evidence in policymaking”. The study remarked there is a large gap from the moment research is published to fitting it into policy stating that there is a “lack of (general) policymaker capacity to independently gather and apply scientific findings to policy, and political influences on what knowledge to prioritize”. So where does this leave us? There must be the capacity to integrate evidence-informed policymaking with the local needs of graduate students. Furthermore, for governments to increase creative and powerfully informed mental health policies, evoking the voices of those undergoing these struggles in scientific research faster is pivotal. In this way, research-based policy can directly benefit the struggling graduate students, including those marginalized. At the university level, institutions can adopt strategies such as engaging graduate students in community-based educational outreach programs that can help mitigate stress, anxiety and depression. Such is the case of a study where PhD students were involved in tutoring high school students resulting in an 82% positive response indicating that this program improved the PhD students’ resiliency and stress levels.
Graduate school is a time where many students will experience heightened levels of stress. Particularly in the STEM fields, this stress leads many students into depression and other serious mental illnesses. Restructuring our framework might just mitigate the feelings of depression, anxiety, and other mental stressors. From establishing mental health task forces in universities to forming evidence-informed policymaking and bettering the workplace culture, these changes can considerably create in its place institutions that safeguards the mental health of all their STEM graduate students.