Exploring Mental Health and Well-Being Among University Faculty Members: A Qualitative Study

The paper situates mental health as a critical issue within academia, noting high prevalence and impacts on functioning and workplace outcomes. Stressors are exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and by systemic features of post-secondary institutions, including high workloads, corporatization, competitiveness, and individualism. Despite high levels of psychological distress among academics, help-seeking is often limited due to stigma, self-stigma, and concerns about productivity and reputation. Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems perspective, the study aims to understand: (1) how academics describe the interplay of environmental factors (e.g., stigma, workplace culture), social interactions, and personal experiences in relation to their mental health; and (2) what academics describe as barriers to and facilitators of promoting mental health and well-being within their institution, including help-seeking and accessing resources.

The authors review evidence on the social determinants of mental health and workplace stress, highlighting that academics experience higher rates of psychological distress than other public sector employees. Literature documents corporatization in universities fostering productivity pressures, competitiveness, long hours, and work-life imbalance, contributing to stress, burnout, and mental health concerns. Stigma—public, self, and structural—impedes disclosure and help-seeking in academic contexts. Prior work emphasizes the need for organizational as well as individual interventions, mental health literacy, mentorship, peer support, and holistic campus approaches to mental health, while noting a relative paucity of supports for faculty compared to students. The ecological framework is proposed to capture interactions across micro-, meso-, macro-, and exosystem levels, particularly regarding stigma.

Design: Exploratory qualitative study employing in-depth, semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework. Setting: A medical-doctoral university in Western Canada with a campus mental health strategy. Participants: Nine university faculty members who self-identified as having mental illness-related concerns. Data collection: Individual semi-structured interviews; some conducted before COVID-19 and others during the pandemic. Interview guide covered experiences of mental health issues in the university context, disclosure, formal/informal help-seeking, perceived supports and barriers, and suggestions for institutional improvements. Data analysis: Thematic analysis (per Braun & Clarke) guided by the ecological framework. Codes and themes were organized into macrosystem (academic culture), mesosystem (leadership and interpersonal dynamics), microsystem (individual experiences and coping), and exosystem (stigma across levels). Demographics: N=9; years of experience—0–5 (22.2%), 5–10 (33.3%), ≥10 (44.4%); interview timing—before COVID-19 (33.3%), during COVID-19 (66.7%); sex—male (66.7%), female (33.3%).

• Four ecological domains emerged: (1) Macrosystem—academic culture characterized by corporatization, competitiveness, individualism, and isolation; (2) Mesosystem—leadership and interpersonal dynamics could either hinder (lack of compassion/support, unclear expectations) or facilitate (mentorship, collegiality, peer support) mental health and help-seeking; (3) Microsystem—individual coping, self-awareness, and vulnerability in disclosure influenced experiences; (4) Exosystem—pervasive stigma operating across structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels discouraged disclosure, time off, and help-seeking.
• Macrosystem: Competitive merit systems and precarious employment reinforced productivity norms and isolation, intensified by COVID-19. Institutional emphasis on student mental health contrasted with limited attention to faculty well-being. Facilitators included collegiality, community-building, and improved communication (e.g., increased check-ins during COVID-19); suggested solutions included orientations that normalize mental health and provide clear resource navigation.
• Mesosystem: Unsupportive leadership and unclear expectations exacerbated distress and deterred disclosure. Conversely, mentorship and peer support provided vocational and psychosocial assistance, normalized help-seeking, and improved navigation of resources.
• Microsystem: Limited coping skills and tendencies to withdraw under stress impeded help-seeking; mistrust deterred disclosure. Self-awareness and preparation (e.g., understanding tenure stressors) facilitated adaptive coping and help-seeking.
• Exosystem (stigma): Taking mental health days perceived as illegitimate; the invisible nature of many conditions contributed to fear of being discredited; self-stigma and fear of judgment or reputational harm hindered disclosure and support use. Relevant data points: N=9 faculty; male 66.7%, female 33.3%; experience: 0–5 years 22.2%, 5–10 years 33.3%, ≥10 years 44.4%; interview timing: before COVID-19 33.3%, during COVID-19 66.7%.

Findings address the research questions by demonstrating that faculty mental health is shaped by intersecting cultural (macrosystem), relational (mesosystem), individual (microsystem), and stigmatic (exosystem) forces. Corporatized, competitive academic cultures foster isolation and silence, reinforcing stigma and hindering help-seeking. Supportive leadership, mentorship, and peer networks counteract these forces, normalize mental health conversations, and help faculty navigate resources. Individual self-awareness and effective coping practices can mitigate stress but are insufficient without organizational change. The results underscore the need for holistic, multilevel interventions that include policy review, leadership development, mental health literacy, mentorship structures, and community-building, especially in the context of pandemic-related stressors. These approaches can reduce stigma, enhance psychological safety, and improve access to timely and appropriate supports.

This study contributes ecological, qualitative insights into how university faculty experience and navigate mental health and help-seeking within corporatized academic environments, highlighting multilevel barriers and facilitators. It underscores the importance of addressing stigma and fostering supportive leadership, mentorship, and collegiality. Future research directions proposed include: (a) examining institutional responsibility in acknowledging mental health concerns as inherent to academia; (b) disentangling mental health and mental illness constructs in policies and programs; and (c) developing and evaluating strategies to normalize mental health conversations, improve mental health literacy, and provide timely, relevant resources that promote work-life balance and well-being among academics.

Exploratory design with a small, self-selected sample (N=9) limits representativeness and generalizability beyond the study’s university context. Stigma and vulnerability associated with disclosure may have constrained recruitment and responses. Data were collected both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially influencing experiences and reported stressors.