A framework for doctoral education in developing students’ mental well-being by integrating the demand and resources of the program: An integrative review

2.1 The Job Demands-Resources model

JD-R model is a leading stress-coping model that explains the well-being of an employee (Demerouti et al., 2001). This model highlights that the demands and resources stem from the job, and its imbalance causes burnout and ill-being. Although the JD-R model is designed to study employees’ well-being in the work environment, it has also been applied to the learning environment. In the doctoral education context, job demands refer to the demands appraised by the researchers in their doctoral studies and roles that may influence their mental health (Levecque et al., 2017). Job resources refer to “support from the institution, supervisors, peers, and family that may foster students’ motivation and reduce health impairment by buffering against the negative impact of job demands”. Doctoral programs’ demands and resources are originated from various sources during the program journey, that influence the students’ well-being (Pyhältö et al., 2012). These research demands and resources are appraised differently by doctoral researchers, institutions, and supervisors (Ellis et al., 2015). Prior studies used the JD-R model to explain the intensified strain in the doctoral journey is due to high program demands and limited resources. However, these studies fail to predict its impact on mental health of the students (Haven et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2021; Sufyan & Ali Ghouri, 2020). Therefore, we reviewed all the prior studies to understand the doctoral programs’ demands and resources that influence doctoral students’ well-being at three levels (i.e., institutions, supervisor and personal).

2.2 Differentiated demands

Individuals appraise a stressful situation or work environment either as a challenge or hindrance demands. These demands are conceptualized as “two factor stress model” or ‘differentiated demands model’ (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; LePine et al., 2005). Challenge demands promote the desirable outcomes such as learning, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. In contrast, hindrance demands lead to destructive outcomes, such as withdrawal behavior, burnout, and turnover intentions (LePine et al., 2005). Individuals experience burnout due to hindrance demands, whereas challenge demands can be overcome by acquiring an essential resource (Ellis et al., 2015). Hindrance demands include role conflict, organizational politics, role ambiguity, administrative hassles, and interpersonal conflict. Challenge demands include time pressure, workload, and responsibility (Lepine et al., 2005). This dual-process framework of job demands has been examined in the working environment, but limited studies are reported in the doctoral education environment (McCauley & Hinojosa, 2020). In summary, it is vital to examine the influence of dual role of doctoral program demands of the doctoral journey that impacts the mental health of doctoral students.

2.3 Doctoral Program’s contextual resources

Job resources positively affect a worker’s accomplishment, learning, growth, and psychological and physical well-being (Demerouti et al., 2001). The Conservation of Resources (COR) theory separates job resources into contextual and personal resources. Contextual resources are those located outside the individual and are related to work or social environment (Hobfoll, 2001). In doctoral education, contextual resources include supervisory support, the social environment in which the doctoral student is situated, and the institution’s research training (Sufyan & Ali Ghouri, 2020). During doctoral studies, contextual resources may be obtained from outside (e.g., from family or friends) or within the institution (e.g., from the institution, supervisor, or peers) (Skopek et al., 2020; Waight & Giordano, 2018). A study by Dericks et al. (2019) empirically analyzed the combination of peer, supervisor, and department support as a contextual resource in predicting doctoral students’ satisfaction. Critical resources from the institutions and transparency in the program requirements enhanced the Ph.D. completion rates (Skopek et al., 2020). Despite the moderating role of contextual resources in the stressful environment, there is a dearth of studies that underpin its influence on doctoral students’ mental health.

2.4 Personal resources

Personal resources refer to individual characteristics that contribute to goal achievements by lessening the negative influence of job demands and positively influencing their well-being (Ellis et al., 2015; Hobfoll, 2001). Significant personal resources include self-efficacy, optimism, intrinsic motivation, and resilience (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Personal resources of the doctoral student are more critical than contextual resources in fostering program completion (Pyhältö et al., 2012). Many theories reflect the robustness of personal resources in the doctoral journey. One such theory is Self-Determination Theory (SDT), conceptualized based on intrinsic motivation, which is critical personal resource of the doctoral students. Intrinsic motivation refers to doctoral students’ innate interest, enjoyment, and excitement in pursuing a Ph.D. (Litalien & Guay, 2015). A student with high intrinsic motivation devotes time for research, and contributing to knowledge (Shin et al., 2018). Existing studies have reported a strong link between intrinsic motivation and doctoral students’ well-being (De Clercq et al., 2021). However, there is lag of studies on doctoral programs that insight the moderating role of intrinsic motivation between the mental health well-being and demands.

2.5 Mental well-being of doctoral students

The well-being of a doctoral student refers to the state of mind of the researcher that is primarily influenced by the demands of their role and the support provided by the program (Juniper et al., 2012). The empirical findings confirm a positive association between employees’ mental well-being and favorable individual and organizational-level outcomes (Sverdlik & Hall, 2019). The previous studies have examined various antecedents of the well-being of doctoral students, including domain-specific expertise, inadequate social support, unclear expectations from supervisors, access to financial resources, relationships mismatch with supervisors, and the scholarly community networks (Barry et al., 2018; Juniper et al., 2012; Marais et al., 2018).

The previous literature has enumerated different factors of mental well-being of doctoral students, but there is limited evidence that theorized the distinct nature of dual role of demands and contextual-personal resources. There is a lack of clarity in the past studies on how the demands of doctoral programs are categorised in determining its positive and negative impact on well-being. Also there exists a paucity of the literature that examines the multiple and inter-connected resources that enhance the well-being of the students. The doctoral education is inextricably associated with a stressful journey, and we suggest that the intrinsic motivation of the student moderates the program’s high demands on the mental health of the students. However, little is known about the significance of intrinsic motivation in the framework of JD-R model.

To address the above-mentioned gap in the literature, the present study adopted the integrative review method. We adopted Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework, which recognizes that multiple and inter-connected demands and resources impact students’ well-being status. Thus, this study classifies the cause of the mental health problems among doctoral students as either challenge or hindrance demands, and we illustrate the utility of the contextual-personal resources in shaping the well-being of the doctoral students. The current review offers opportunities for university advisors and institutions to comprehend and design the policy structure of doctoral education fully. We propose theory-driven recommendations for doctoral educators to maximize the challenge demands of the program rather than a hindrance and offer supportive contextual resources in the program journey.

3.1 Problem formulation

Compared to the general population, doctoral students are at increased risk of experiencing stress and mental health problems, including anxiety and depression (Hazell et al., 2020; Levecque et al., 2017). The existing studies on doctoral education recommended the integration of JD-R and differentiated demands for assessing the mental well-being of doctoral students. Three review questions were framed by integrating the JD-R and differentiated demands. (1) What are the challenge-hindrance demands of the doctoral program that impact the mental health of doctoral students? (2) What contextual and personal resources moderate doctoral students’ stress? (3) What relevant guiding theories strengthen doctoral students’ well-being? These questions aided in synthesizing our research results, which enabled us to review the prior work and formulate an integrated framework for doctoral education. The proposed framework can be validated further by a quantitative approach.

3.2 Search method

The literature search was conducted using two databases, namely Scopus, and Web of Science, using the Boolean operators as keywords. The following were the keywords used as search strategy: “doctoral program” OR “doctoral education” OR “doctoral scholar” OR “doctoral student” AND “differentiated demands” AND “challenge and hindrance”, AND “JD-R” AND “motivation” AND “well-being” AND “mental health” AND “stressors”. A similar Boolean operation was done for the “doctoral candidates”, “Ph.D. scholar” and “Ph.D. students”. The author performed the manual search by reviewing the cited articles from the selected list to include the relevant articles.

3.2.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies undertaken in an “academic setting” were considered for inclusion, which had been determined by the criteria that include studies on the JD-R model, motivation studies, differentiated job demands, and well-being among doctoral students. Also, quantitative, qualitative, conceptual, and mixed methods studies published in the English language from 2000 onwards were included because of the significant transformation in structured doctoral education across different countries starting from the 20th century onward (Kot & Hendel, 2012). The reviewers excluded the studies beyond the scope of the above inclusion search criteria. The articles focusing on institutional or individual outcomes were excluded from the study, for example, program satisfaction, Ph.D. dropout rate, and students’ performance. Based on the quality scores allotted by the reviewers as per JBI, the articles not meeting the quality requirement were excluded. The articles were chosen based on whether the selected final articles had been empirically tested, and theoretically supported. Finally, 45 studies were included in the review (see Figure 1). We followed the PRISMA integrative review checklist to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies.

Figure 1. Flow chart of the integrative review selection process.

3.3 Critical quality appraisal

Quality appraisal of the selected articles was performed using the JBI quality appraisal checklist. This tool estimates the article’s methodological quality, the possibility of bias in the design, analysis, reliability, and validity measure used in the selected article. Two review authors independently assessed the selected articles’ quality assessment. The third author helped to resolve discrepancies that arose during the process. This method helped to overcome the bias during the assessment phase. In Annexures A to E in the extended data (Acharya et al., 2023a), a collated quality assessment checklist is given for reference. Based on JBI critical appraisal checklist, we have exacted a total of 26 cross-sectional design studies: two articles on the randomized experiment, one observational study, four conceptual papers, and 12 qualitative studies for the data analysis.

3.4 Data analysis and presentation

The selected articles were screened based on methodological process, antecedents, consequences, theoretical articulation, and facilitators of mental well-being of doctoral students. From the final 45 articles, the associated variables were identified, iteratively compared, coded, categorized, and summarized for an integrated conclusion (see Table 1).

3.4.1.1 Differentiated demands and doctoral students’ well-being

Doctoral students are required to work for long hours, present the findings of their work regularly, learn rigorous methodologies and analysis skills, obtain tangible research outcomes in terms of high-quality publications, and balance the student-supervisor relationship (Litalien & Guay, 2015; Sufyan & Ali Ghouri, 2020). To meet these bounded requirements, complexity, study responsibility and workload of the doctoral program have increased and are considered as challenge demands (Pervez et al., 2021). The doctoral program also confined with a lack of transparency in the program, communication gap between the supervisor-student, low quality mandatory coursework, lack of infrastructures, which hinder the progress of doctoral studies. (Levecque et al., 2017; Sin et al., 2021). These hindrance demands summarize the ambiguity in the doctoral program, poor relationship with the supervisor, family, and advisory members, and resource inadequacy that threatens the students’ mental health (McCauley & Hinojosa, 2020). The students appraise challenge demands of the doctoral program as an opportunity to advance and hindrance demands as a threat to their learning (McCauley & Hinojosa, 2020). In summary, challenge demands positively influence the well-being of the student, and hindrance demands adversely influence.

3.4.1.2 Contextual resources of doctoral programs

Job resources support doctoral students in achieving their goals, research growth, and development. A recent integrative review of the JD-R model postulated the significance of resources at three levels: the institution level, the team level (supervisor style and co-workers), and the individual level (personal resources) (Kwon & Kim, 2020). Similarly, empirical works on doctoral programs examined the primary resources from the institution, supervisor, and personnel is essential in maintaining doctoral students’ well-being (Ryan et al., 2021; Waight & Giordano, 2018). Access to research learning infrastructure, financial assistance in the form of scholarship, transparency in the policy structure, and valuable guidance from the scholarly community are referred to as contextual resources provided by the institutions that enhance the intrinsic motivation of doctoral students (Janssen et al., 2021). Emotional support from family, online mentoring groups, face-to-face support from peers and faculty members, are the social resources that assist the doctoral student in dealing with stress (Boone et al., 2020). Supervisors’ open and honest communication, emotional and technical support, flexible supervision, patience, insightfulness, and the propensity to honour the research students’ self-reflection and listening skills are significant supervisor resources that facilitate the students’ well-being (Dericks et al., 2019). Contextual resources such as supervisors and social support buffer the negative relationship between hindrance demands and work engagement. Job resources also boost the positive association of challenge demands and work engagement (Tadić et al., 2015).

3.4.1.3 Intrinsic motivation as a personal resource in the doctoral study

Unlike other personal resources, the intrinsic motivation is a significant internal resource of doctoral students that has been witnessed in literature. Intrinsic motivation is the internal desire to study, that is critical in achieving program completion (Dericks et al., 2019; Matheka et al., 2020). Intrinsic motivation of the doctoral student is often associated with their positive personal experience and its influence on improving their performance and academic engagement (Litalien & Guay, 2015). Intrinsic motivation limits the influence of hindrance demands on the strain and, in turn, improves the mental health of the doctoral student (McCauley & Hinojosa, 2020). Intrinsically motivated doctoral students undertake doctoral education due to their inherent interest in acquiring knowledge in their domain area and are capable of withstanding hindrance demands (Matheka et al., 2020). Intrinsic motivation with contextual resources supports doctoral learning outcomes and reduces the effect of burnout (van den Broeck et al., 2011). Empirical studies have highlighted the moderating role of intrinsic motivation in strengthening job resources and basic psychological needs (van den Broeck et al., 2011).

3.4.1.4 Significance of well-being in JD-R model

Existing evidence recommend that adoption of JD-R model in doctoral education setting would allow to examine the influence of challenges on two different levels of outcomes i.e., organisation and individual level. (McAlpine et al., 2022). Also, studies to date have focused mainly on mental health problems or mental distress rather than the positive side of the construct. Therefore, the current study sheds light on the mental well-being of doctoral students by considering both positive and negative perspectives of doctoral program demands and resources.

3.4.2 Guiding and contributing theories

In explaining the challenge-hindrance demands, the current review evolved from Folkman and Lazarus’s (1985) Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (TMSC). The theory argues that doctoral student appraises the program demands depending on their subjective environment as challenge or hindrance demands. The theory also contends that hindrance demands can be a source of stress, and challenge demands support the personal resources to lessen the individual strain (Pervez et al., 2021). A limited number of studies analyzed the challenge-hindrance demands of a doctoral program that are theoretically articulated based on the TMSC model (McCauley & Hinojosa, 2020). Nevertheless, this study did not report the influence of differentiated program demands on the well-being of students. In this connection, one may concur that there is a need for an empirical study on the magnitude of doctoral students’ appraisal of their program demands.

Using insights from the Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, we explain the doctoral program is bound with resources along with the demands. Indeed, from the COR theory, doctoral students are always required and willing to develop the resources to manage stressful demands. Absence of these resources creates a stressful situation for the student and results in burnout. Adequate contextual and personal resources help students to mitigate work demands and maintain individual well-being. Under the COR theory, institution, supervisor, and social support are viewed as contextual resources, and intrinsic motivation is a personal resource that improves the mental health of doctoral students (Sufyan & Ali Ghouri, 2020). Drawing on COR theory, resources gained from peer support, supervisor mentoring, learning support from institutions, and emotional support from the family will enhance an individual’s intrinsic motivation by protecting against resource loss (Boone et al., 2020). Sufyan and Ali Ghouri (2020) adopted the COR theory and JD-R model to study doctoral students’ stress. The study results conveyed that high demand and lack of resources will impact their academic journey. Thus, their findings suggest that the scope for inclusion of COR and JD-R has a significant role in determining the mental health of students.

Intrinsic motivation derives its theoretical underpinning from Causality Orientations Theory (COT), a sub-theory under SDT, stating how individuals acquaint themselves with autonomous, controlled, and impersonal external environments. COT theory drives that doctoral students to act out of their desire during the autonomous orientation. In contrast, in controlled orientation, students focuse on their gain and rewards, and they experience anxiety in impersonal orientation (Deci et al., 2001). COT suggests that the higher the degree of self-determination and self-esteem among doctoral students, the greater the autonomous orientation and the intrinsic motivation that reduce burnout levels, helping them to achieve a higher level of engagement (Lynch et al., 2018). The contrary is expected when controlled, and impersonal orientations are more predominant among doctoral students (Litalien & Guay, 2015). The intrinsic motivation fostered by the intervention or motivational program that facilitates the researcher’s autonomous orientation instead of promoting the controlled orientation, such as reward policy, schemes, and programs.

The mental well-being of the present framework is underpinned by Basic Psychological Need Theory (BPNT), a mini theory under SDT that makes it novel in doctoral program research. BPNT suggests that individuals experience mental health and higher quality behavior when their social environment supports (contextual resources) their basic psychological needs (Deci et al., 2001). The social settings that boost individual well-being are termed autonomy-supportive resources (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy-supportive resources include supervisors, faculty members, and peers that increase the doctoral students’ basic psychological needs (Devos et al., 2015; Sverdlik & Hall, 2019). In line with the BPNT, it is believed that the autonomy-supportive doctoral program setting strengthens doctoral students’ autonomy orientation (Van Rooij et al., 2021). Hence, doctoral students’ work autonomy and challenge demands induce the mental health of the researcher during the doctoral program journey. The findings of differentiated demands, resources, and mental well-being are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. A nomological network of mental well-being of doctoral students.

TMSC=Transactional model of stress and coping; COR=Conservation of Resources; COT=Causality orientations theory; BPNT=Basic Psychological Needs Theory.

4.1 Scope for future

Prior studies on JD-R model have limited their analysis to explain the influence of demands and resources on organization outcomes such as service quality and organizational commitment. Also, its impact on individual outcomes includes in-role and extra-role behaviours, creativity, and job satisfaction. There are limited studies that examined the effect of demands-resources on well-being of the individuals using JD-R model. However, future research could empirically test the influence of demands-resources on the mental health of the students in a learning context. Second, future studies can explore the effect of the demands and resources on physical health in a highly demanding environment as it reported sleep disturbance, gastrointestinal problems, frequent headaches, and eyestrain among individuals. Third, future studies can develop the framework for doctoral students’ well-being by considering the job crafting technique (Demerouti, 2014). Here researchers are “proactive crafters” of their studies by initiating the changes in demands and resources so that they can engage themselves in their study. In line with job crafting, researchers can improve their interpersonal relationships with supervisors, peers, and scholarly communities, and learn various methodologies and academic writing skills through online collaborations.

Fourth, the mental health of doctoral researchers has considered only two factors of Ryff’s six-factor psychological well-being model, i.e., autonomy and positive relationships (Ryff, 1989). Researchers are mandated with a high degree of autonomy, aware of the core domain knowledge, and develop a research identity. Thus, future studies might consider adopting a holistic definition of Ryff’s model to explain the mental health of the researchers.

4.2 Implications for higher education institutions

The proposed framework on doctoral students’ mental health serves as an implication for institutions, doctoral educators, and practitioners by incorporating the challenge demands in their doctoral education. Institutions are suggested to frame the workload of the doctoral program at the beginning of the journey that a student needs to complete and inform the students about the rationale behind the rigorous journey. Here institutions are expected to be reasonable towards students while allocating the teaching workload, providing research training, engaging administrative work, number and quality of journal publications. Doctoral programs are bound with many responsibilities that ensure the students to learn varied competencies and skills requirements throughout the journey. This research complexity is addressed by providing professional development training such as advanced statistics workshops, sessions on writing for high-impact journal publications, substantial research methodologies, and dealing with the cumbersome publication process. At the beginning of the doctoral journey the institutions need to communicate precisely with the students about the accomplishment of program responsibilities that include presenting research output at the conference, managing the research fund, and personal expenses, developing required research competencies, learning, and adopting new methodologies of the research.

Doctoral educators could assist the students in delivering the resources at three levels: institutions, supervisors, and peers. Institutions could provide funding for doctoral students to participate in professional conferences, doctoral research colloquiums, and statistical analysis workshops. Offering a research infrastructure such as separate workspaces, essential research tools, software, and databases boosts the students’ morale. Interventions such as mindfulness, stress and time management workshops, and workshops that are designed to build research resilience would assist students’ emotional and psychological development. Supervisors should assist in accumulating the supporting resources by scheduling a weekly meeting with students to discuss their research progress, providing extensive, specific, and constructive feedback, and collaborating with experts in the student’s domain. Supervisors also can act as mentors by providing the student with emotional support, respecting the student’s both personal and academic commitments such as time for family, household chores, and exercise. Supervisors also can provide authorship credits to the students by involving them in other research projects, and being friendly with students helps to preserve and protect resources for the future. Sharing research ideas with peers, networking with peers from other institutions in the same domain, participating in various research groups, and socio-emotional support from the peers, motivates the student.

Institutions and supervisors are urged to promote doctoral students’ autonomous motivation to reduce mental distress. They recommend designing an intervention that creates and promotes interest for the doctoral students in their study topic. Supervisors could be trained to encourage the students’ psychological needs, which goes beyond the research project supervision.