Mental health, supervisory issues ‘taboo’ for PhD students

Mental health is the most sensitive of the “taboo” areas that doctoral candidates struggle with but avoid discussing openly, an Australian study has found. And problems with supervisors – including exploitation, abuse, incompetence, obstruction, ethical violations and blurred personal boundaries – are the most prevalent.

Australian researchers have analysed social media posts to unpack the “survival strategies” PhD students use to navigate the “unspeakable” topics that threaten their future.

The study, published in the journal Higher Education Quarterly, compared anonymous and attributed posts to uncover the subjects considered most “taboo” – “widely recognised” issues that were rarely acknowledged publicly, because it seemed inappropriate or “risky”.

The researchers analysed almost 8,000 PhD-related questions on a platform called “Academia Stack Exchange”, along with queries republished on “PhD Voice” – an X account that amassed almost 130,000 followers before it lapsed into inactivity in late 2024.

The analysis revealed 32 “clusters” of questions around “practical concerns” such as admissions, funding and career paths. These queries were rarely posted anonymously, suggesting the topics were perceived as “safe” and “openly discussable” within academic communities.

But anonymous questions proliferated in another 17 clusters of questions involving “personal and professional vulnerability”. Queries about mental health were particularly likely to be posted incognito, as the authors asked whether and how to disclose their struggles with depression or anxiety.

“Students [worried that] admitting mental health issues would damage their academic standing or be interpreted as a sign of weakness,” the paper reports. “Many [posts] express fears of being seen as unfit or not suited for academia.”

Meanwhile, supervision was the most widely discussed of the 17 “sensitive” areas, as students requested advice on situations ranging from disagreements about research methods to bullying, gaslighting, unpaid labour, emotional abuse, withholding of research data and requests to fabricate papers.

One student sought guidance on what to do following the sudden death of a supervisor. Another said, “I don’t want to kill any more mice but my adviser insists that I must”. A third recounted a “compromising” personal entanglement: “I slept with my adviser’s daughter and she is blackmailing me. What can I do?”

The findings do not suggest that doctoral students are unwilling to seek help or unable to communicate their needs, the researchers say. Rather, silence is often a “rational response to environments in which disclosure carries social, professional or relational risk”.

“Students seem to learn very quickly what is safe to say, what is risky and who is allowed to hear it,” the paper says.

Lead author Saule Bekova said it was “pretty scary” that fledgling academics, training for an environment in which people were supposed to be free to discuss difficult subjects, were being inculcated in a culture of secrecy.

“That’s not how academia should work,” said Bekova, a University of Western Australia sociologist who researches doctoral education, student experience and well-being. “That should be a warning sign.”

She said the findings raised doubts about universities’ positive ratings in student satisfaction surveys. “If students don’t feel safe, they will not report anything,” she said. “I’m not saying that surveys are not valid…but are we covering all of the court?”

The findings suggest that supervisors should not be PhD students’ sole source of academic, ethical and emotional support, the paper says. Doctoral training programmes should also “acknowledge” taboo topics and help students “navigate them more explicitly”.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com