Faculty Views on College Student Mental Health: Implications for Retention and Student Success

Abstract

Faculty members play key roles in successful college student retention and degree completion. In recent years, investigators in a variety of higher education disciplines identified numerous factors associated with improving retention and graduation rates, including college student mental health. Faculty members play vital roles in supporting college student mental health, including recognizing and referring students to resources. In this phenomenological study, researchers investigated the lived experiences of faculty members who had active lived experiences with supporting college student mental health. A structural description included five emergent themes, which support and extend the extant literature surrounding the utility of faculty members for supporting college student mental health and retention.

Keywords

college or student affairs consultation faculty mental health retention college student

College student retention and degree completion rates have received critical attention in the higher education literature for many years (Millea, Wills, Elder, & Molina, 2018). College student retention and completion rates have remained constant, and in some cases, declined (Bound, Lovenheim, Turner, & Bound, 2010; Kena et al., 2016). The National Center for Educational Statistics estimates a national retention rate of 80% (percentage of first-time, full-time students who return in the fall) and a 6-year graduate rate of 60% among full-time students enrolled in 4-year universities (see Kena et al., 2016). A myriad of past investigators uncovered several factors that contribute to college student retention and academic success, including campus engagement, academic preparation, social connections, cost of tuition, and availability of financial aid (Eisenberg, Lipson, & Posselt, 2016; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; Leary & DeRosier, 2012). College student mental health has also been identified as a crucial contributing factor to students’ retention, degree completion, and personal well-being (Eisenberg et al., 2016; Schwitzer, Pribesh, Ellis-O’Quinn, Huber, & Wilmer, 2016).

The growing incidence and complexity of mental health disorders (MHDs) among the college student population are well documented in the literature (Auerbach et al., 2016; Gallagher, 2015). Approximately 30% of college students report some form of mental distress (American College Health Association, 2015), which puts them at an increased risk for academic impairment, attrition, psychological impairment, and interpersonal dysfunction (Hunt & Eisenberg, 2010; Schwitzer et al., 2016, 2018). Students who utilize counseling services report fewer academic difficulties and lower symptoms of overall mental health distress than students who do not access services (Schwitzer et al., 2018). Despite the documented benefits of counseling services (Schwitzer et al., 2018), approximately 60% to 80% of college students who might be in need of mental health support do not seek services (Eisenberg, Hunt, & Speer, 2012; Lipson, Gaddis, Heinze, Beck, & Eisenberg, 2015).

To address the widespread and pervasive nature of mental health issues, higher education professionals in a variety of disciplines are working collaboratively with college counseling and health centers. Such collaboration aims to promote mental health referral networks and training for students, faculty, and staff to identify students experiencing mental distress, consult with a mental health professional, and refer them to mental health services (Brunner, Wallace, Reyman, Sellers, & McCabe, 2014; Eisenberg et al., 2016; Hodges, Shelton, & King Lyn, 2017; Kalkbrenner, 2016; Reynolds, 2013). More specifically, faculty members are often students’ first institutional points of contact (Hubbard & Stage, 2009) and can play vital roles in supporting their retention (Zerquera, Ziskin, & Torres, 2018) as well as their mental health (Kalkbrenner & Carlisle, 2019). Faculty members’ perceptions, knowledge, and awareness of barriers to student retention and the quality of working relationships that they forge with students can play key roles in students’ academic success (Zerquera et al., 2018).

Promoting College Student Mental Health and Academic Success

In consideration of the association between college student mental health and retention (Eisenberg et al., 2016), a growing number of systems-level collaborations are emerging to promote students’ mental wellness and academic success (Brunner et al., 2014; Eisenberg et al., 2016). For example, student affairs officials and college counselors prepare and support referral agents or university community members (faculty, students, and staff) to recognize and refer students to mental health support services (Kalkbrenner & Carlisle, 2019). In a series of psychometric analyses, Kalkbrenner (2020) identified that supporting college student mental health is defined mental health support as any active effort to provide aid to a student who appeared to be in mental distress, including but not limited to talking to them about one’s concern, taking the student to the counseling or health center on campus, consulting with a mental health professional, or consulting with a colleague or supervisor.

It is increasingly common for university staff, including faculty members who frequently interact with students, to recognize and refer those who might be showing signs of mental distress to support services (Kalkbrenner, 2016; Margrove, Gustowska, & Grove, 2014; McAllister et al., 2014). However, results of a national survey of faculty members and staff (N = 14,548) indicated that 63% were not actively engaged in recognizing and referring students to mental health support services, although 87% believed that supporting college student mental health was part of the faculty member role (Albright & Schwartz, 2017). Thus, additional research is needed to understand faculty members’ knowledge and attitudes regarding MHDs and if their knowledge and attitudes might coincide with faculty-to-student referrals to mental health support resources.

Quantitative findings related to faculty members’ awareness of MHDs in college students and their willingness to refer them to resources date back almost 20 years and indicate that faculty members are knowledgeable of the negative impacts that MHDs might have on their students (Albright & Schwartz, 2017; Backels & Wheeler, 2001; Becker, Martin, Wajeeh, Ward, & Shern, 2002; Brockelman, Chadsey, & Loeb, 2006). However, studies exploring faculty members' receptivity towards allowing academic accommodations for students who are living with MHDs produced varied findings (Becker et al., 2002; Backels & Wheeler, 2001; Brockelman et al., 2006; Sniatecki, Perry, & Snell, 2015). Specifically, some investigators (i.e., Backels & Wheeler, 2001; Brockelman et al., 2006) reported that faculty members were unlikely to provide students with MHD-related academic accommodations that were not mandated by the university, while Becker et al. (2002) found that the majority of faculty members were willing to extend academic accommodations to students who were living with MHDs. In a more recent study, Sniatecki et al. (2015) noted that faculty members reported attitudes that were more positive toward providing accommodations for students with physical disabilities when compared with students with mental health concerns.

Given the mixed findings of previous quantitative research, qualitative research can help extend this line of inquiry by exploring more in-depth how faculty members conceptualize and recognize MHDs, along with factors that influence the degree to which they provide accommodations. Kalkbrenner (2016) identified faculty members as valuable resources for recognizing and referring students to mental health support services. Quantitative investigations (e.g., Margrove et al., 2014) revealed that faculty members tend to report positive attitudes about supporting college student mental health; however, a significant proportion (63% according to Albright & Schwartz, 2017) are not actively providing such support. Considering the significant proportion of faculty members not actively supporting student’s mental wellness (see Albright & Schwartz, 2017), and despite the perception that that this was part of their role, there is a need for qualitative research to uncover the perceptions and attitudes of faculty members with direct experience supporting college student mental health. Furthermore, the connection between college student mental health and retention (Eisenberg et al., 2016) coupled with the important roles that faculty members play in these areas (Zerquera et al., 2018) creates a need for research that investigates the lived experiences of faculty members with experience supporting college student mental health. This information has potential to advance college counselors’ and student affairs officials’ engagement and outreach efforts geared toward promoting faculty-to-student mental health support. The purpose of the present phenomenological study was to examine the perceptions of faculty members across a variety of disciplinary orientations in higher education who have active lived experiences working with and supporting students living with MHDs. The following research questions were addressed: (a) How do faculty members who have lived experiences with supporting college student mental health conceptualize MHDs among college students? and (b) What contextual variables relate to their likelihood to refer students with mental health symptoms to university resources?

Conceptual Framework

We conceptualized this study using Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory, which provides a framework for understanding how interactions within and between systems influence individual development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Bronfenbrenner proposed a theory in which a series of interdependent systems (micro, meso, exo, and macro) interact and account for one’s social location. The Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model is a contemporary iteration of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory, which posits that an individual’s well-being and development is largely influenced by the strength and function of the relationships in the system (Erikson, Ghazinour, & Hammarstrӧm, 2018; Rosa & Tudge, 2013). These relationships, in turn, are influenced by individual characteristics and the context (i.e., interdependent systems, ranging from the microsystem to the macrosystem) in which they occur.

According to the PPCT model, individual development relies heavily on the strengths of proximal processes, or interactions with other individuals, objects, and symbols in their environment. Within the context of this study, the relationship between faculty members and students on campus is paramount to promoting their mental health and academic success (Margrove et al., 2014; Zerquera et al., 2018). In this present study, our interest lies primarily with the context, and the factors that may influence a faculty member’s ability to support and refer students experiencing MHDs to mental health support resources. The PPCT model coincides with a phenomenological perspective, as its emphasis is on how individuals perceive the setting and its different contexts (Rosa & Tudge, 2013). Based on the PPCT model, the present investigators are seeking to uncover the lived experiences of faculty members who are active in supporting college student mental health in the context of their unique academic environments. Results have the potential to provide insights into how faculty members successfully support their students’ mental wellness and thereby their retention and academic success.

Method

Phenomenological research allowed for exploration of the phenomenon of interest from the perspective of faculty members who had direct, immediate experience with students living with MHDs. Specifically, the researchers investigated the life-world of participants and aimed to describe the essence of faculty members’ lived experiences to yield recommendations for facilitating support of college students living with MHDs. This phenomenological study collected data from one institution to describe the bounds of the case (i.e., infrastructure) and mental health-related resources at that institution.

Institutional Context

Data were collected from faculty members who were employed at a Mid-Atlantic public research-intensive institution, which has approximately 25,000 students and a student-to-faculty ratio of 18 to 1. This university contains nine colleges and offers a variety of mental health support services to students, including college counseling services (up to 10 counseling sessions at no cost), women’s center with crisis intervention and advocacy services, student health services, ombudsperson, university police department, office of disability services, and access to a threat assessment team. These unique institutional features provided an environment conducive for participants to share thick descriptions of their lived experience with the construct under investigation.

Participants and Procedures

The researchers used criterion and snowball sampling methods to identify faculty members (N = 10; 5 males and 5 females) who had direct experiences with the phenomenon of interest. The sample size for the present study was selected based on the recommendations for phenomenology (see Creswell & Poth, 2017). Eligibility criteria included a faculty member who (a) were teaching at least one course at the time of data collection and (b) had direct lived experience working with and supporting at least one student who was struggling with a mental health issue. To access initial participants who had direct experience with students who were living with MHDs, the corresponding author sent a recruitment e-mail to one randomly selected faculty member from every college at the university. The first participant replied to the recruitment e-mail, confirmed they met the eligibility criteria, and arranged a time to meet with the lead researcher for the interview. The remaining participants (n = 9) were recruited via snowball sampling; at the completion of each interview, participants were asked who else might be a good fit for the study. The majority of participants identified as White or European American (n = 6), followed by African American (n = 2), Hispanic (n = 1), and multiethnic (n = 1) identities. Participants ranged in age from 29 to 53 years (M = 43, SD = 9). For highest degree completed, seven had PhD degrees, and three had master’s degrees. Participants represented a variety of academic ranks, including assistant professor (n = 5), adjunct professor (n = 3), and associate professor (n = 2). Participants taught in a variety of departments, including Counseling and Human Services, (n = 3), Foundations of Educational Leadership (n = 1), Computer Science (n = 1), English (n = 1), Theatre (n = 1), Engineering (n = 1), Instructional Design and Technology (n = 1), and Recreation and Leisure Studies (n = 1). Pseudonyms were used to protect participants’ identities. Participants’ pseudonyms and demographic information are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant Demographic Profile.

Pseudonym	Gender	Ethnicity	Degree	Academic rank
Serena	Female	African American	PhD	Assistant professor
Bill	Male	White	MA or MS	Adjunct professor
Philip	Male	White	PhD	Assistant professor
Mary	Female	White	PhD	Associate professor
Sam	Male	White	PhD	Assistant professor
Pamela	Female	White	PhD	Assistant professor
Sheldon	Male	Hispanic	MA or MS	Adjunct professor
Ronald	Male	African American	PhD	Associate professor
Cherie	Female	White	MA or MS	Adjunct professor
Betty	Female	Multiethnic	PhD	Assistant professor

Researcher Reflexivity

Moustakas (1994) emphasized the importance of bracketing, or setting aside researcher perspectives on a phenomenon to emphasize participant description. As such, the first and second authors bracketed their assumptions prior to and following data collection and data analysis through reflexive journaling. Furthermore, they reflected upon their professional experiences and training regarding college student mental health. The third author served as a methodological and editorial consultant given her expertise and publication record in qualitative inquiry.

The first author has a PhD in counseling and master’s degree in mental health counseling. He has consulted with faculty members on college student mental health and provided direct mental health counseling services to the college student population. The second researcher has a PhD in counseling and a master’s degree in clinical mental health counseling. She is currently employed in a university mental health center on an urban campus and frequently consults with faculty members who are concerned about their students’ mental health. The authors’ clinical experience has informed their belief that faculty members have a reasonable responsibility to recognize and refer a student to resources if they are showing signs or symptoms of a MHD and sometimes require additional support in knowing when and how to refer students.

Data Sources

Demographic questionnaire

Upon providing informed consent statement, participants completed a demographic questionnaire that solicited information about their age, gender, ethnicity, academic department, job title, and highest degree completed.

Semistructured interviews

The first author conducted one semistructured interview with each participant. The interview duration ranged from 40 to 70 min. All participants shared multiple examples of their direct experiences working with students living with MHDs. Ten semistructured interview questions guided the data collection process, and sample interview questions were as follows: (a) How might you know if a student was living with a MHD; (b) How might your understanding of MHDs changed over time; and (c) What resources, if any, would you suggest for students living with MHDs? The interview protocol is available in the Appendix.

Data Analysis

The researchers used descriptive phenomenological methods (i.e., Coliazzi, 1978; Moustakas, 1994) to analyze data and provide a thick description of the findings and audit trail. Prior to data collection, the researchers bracketed their assumptions about the research topic. Immediately following each interview, the first author transcribed verbatim and member checked the transcripts with participants to enhance trustworthiness. All participants (N = 10) participated in member checking by confirming the accuracy of their transcription. The researchers independently read and demarcated invariant meaning units via horizontalization; horizontalization involved identifying words and phrases that seemed related to describing a participant’s perception of MHDs. Next, the researchers clustered invariant meaning units to develop a textural description of the phenomenon. Individual codebooks were developed from seven consensus coding meetings; the researchers then collapsed analyses into a final codebook as they identified a structural description that yielded a comprehensive description that is, phenomenological essence.

Findings

The authors identified five emergent themes that addressed the research questions. These included: knowledge of MHD definition, knowledge of warning signs, comfort and willingness to recognize and refer (subtheme: stigma in the college environment), limited knowledge about resources for mental health issues (subthemes: disorganization of campus resources and lack of unity and support from university leaders), and the faculty–student relationship. Descriptions of each theme with supporting participant quotes are presented in the following sections. Pseudonyms are used to protect participants’ identities.

Knowledge of MHD Definition

All participants described their understanding of the etiologies for MHDs as combinations of genetic and environmental factors. Participants discussed their perceptions of the severe impacts that the symptomology of MHDs can have on a student’s ability to function. For example, Pamela defined MHDs as: “a condition that person has that impairs their ability to function fully in our society in their societal roles because I think that changes from culture to culture.” Other participants focused on the impact of MHDs on one’s daily functioning. Mary shared: “mental health disorder would be some issue whether it’s cognitive or emotional that interferes with an individual’s daily functioning in all modalities in their social, career, education, personal” Similarly, Betty defined an MHD as “a disorder that interferes with life.”

Knowledge of Warning Signs

All participants described at least one observable warning sign indicating that a student might be struggling with a MHD, including sudden changes in a student’s behaviors, missing class, or behaviors that are extreme responses to classroom topics. Sheldon discussed the importance of monitoring changes in behaviors: “I look at changes in behavior if I suddenly have a student that was performing [well] and then is not, if a student has been coming to class and they start missing a lot of classes.” Cherie further discussed warning signs of MHDs in the context of sudden changes in a student’s behavior: “Sudden absences is another if you have a student who is there every day for the first four weeks and missed the next three that’s clearly indicator that there is a problem.”

Comfort and Willingness to Recognize and Refer

All participants indicated that they felt accepting of students with MHDs and were comfortable referring them to resources. For example, Mary described:

I’ll talk to them, you know, I’m open in my class about my experiences, and to feel free to come talk to me, and also more along the lines of trying to get them connected with maybe the counseling center or something like that.

Participants described their willingness to recognize and refer students to resources or consult with a mental health professional. For example, Philip described their role as “to guide them towards the appropriate help.” Similarly, Mary noted: “I think their role is to get them connected with resources.” Three participants described the challenge of establishing a delicate balance between being supportive of students with MHDs while also maintaining appropriate boundaries between instructor and student. For example, Pamela discussed the importance of providing support within the role of a professor: “I don’t necessarily think an instructor should offer any type of counseling support or extra support that’s not within the context of the class.”

A subtheme of stigma in the college environment was identified from the data as a barrier to students accessing resources. Sheldon noted, “I think it’s [referring to mental disorders] discounted. I don’t think instructors or students realize the impact it may have on not only them themselves, but also the people around them,” while Bill noted, “I do think it is still a stigma attached to someone who consider who is ill.” Similarly, Cherie shared:

you have some professors who are very helpful, they work with students they understand … . because they have experience … there are others who for one reason or another simply refuse to even recognize that most MHDs and won’t allow accommodations or be helpful to the students.

Philip spoke of their lived experience in more detail by sharing an instance where a student disclosed struggling with serious depression:

I instantly referred him out … one of the people that I talked to here at the university about it said to do nothing, and one of them told whatever you do, because the student was an athlete, don’t tell the athletic department.

The subtheme, impact of personal experiences, was also noted. Participants described how their previous personal and professional experiences with MHDs affected the extent to which they were willing to support students with MHDs. Those (n = 8) who had family, friends, or co-workers living with MHDs seemed to be more comfortable working with students who had displayed symptoms of MHDs. Betty described:

as far back as I can remember I’ve always been accepting and empathetic and more understanding than most people in society and umm just having umm children with anxiety disorder that has also given me a lot of experience with that particular MHD.

Limited Knowledge About Resources for Mental Health Issues

The majority of participants (n = 9) discussed limited knowledge about mental health support services that are available to students. All participants (N = 10) were aware of and recommended the college counseling center as a resource for students who were struggling with MHDs. However, none of the participants were specifically aware of services provided or philosophies held by their college counseling center, nor were most familiar with off-campus counseling resources. For example, Pamela stated, “well I mean there’s the counseling center here on campus. I’ve never had a lot of experience with them so I don’t know how good they are I don’t really know if they are effective or helpful.”

Similarly, Serena shared, “I mean I think everyone knows that students can go to the counseling center but umm I not even sure what their, what their sort of philosophy of counseling is over there.” Participants who had previous experience in the mental health field (n = 4) seemed to have more knowledge about off-campus resources including 12-step programs or specific community agencies. Mary stated, “I know a lot of clinicians. I know a lot of practices. I’m not here full time, so the counseling center isn’t always my first thought.” Participants also discussed a limited understanding of resources that might extend beyond counseling services. Subthemes of disorganization of campus resources and lack of unity and support from university leaders also were identified. Specifically, participants (n = 4) described how the university seemed to be lacking a central directory or an accessible list of resources for faculty members to use when referring students. For example, Sam described, “it seems kind of fragmented like there is no common … one-stop shop or one program that everybody knows they can access.”

Faculty members also shared their perceptions regarding a lack of unity and support from university leaders. Specifically, faculty members noted how there were no education sessions or workshops that clarified their roles and responsibilities for working with students with MHDs. Cherie shared “as far as I know there’s no official program that exists that helps teach instructors how to recognize [MHDs] which I think would be very beneficial.” Pamela added:

I think it’s an overarching issue with this university that I don’t think that from the leadership down there is a coordination where all the departments are working together or working similarly. I think every department does their own thing.

Faculty–Student Relationship

Participants gave rich descriptions about how the quality of their relationship with a student influenced their level of comfort with reaching out to the student about MHDs. For example, Pamela described:

I think if students feel a connection with instructors and since you’re teaching you probably know there are certain students that want to talk to you all the time hang around after class they are the last to leave and want to tell you their stories and that kind of stuff and I get a couple of these each semester all instructors do so I think you know when you start seeing a student kind of trying to connect with you or paying attention.

Similarly, Bill described the importance of “the dynamic of the relationship” for supporting college student mental health. Further, the relationship was mediated by classroom context (i.e., class size, subject matter, course assignments, and responsibilities).

Classroom context was identified as a subtheme that influenced participants’ perceptions of MHDs on college campuses. In particular, class size and subject matter of the course appeared to have an impact on faculty members’ abilities to recognize and support students with MHDs. For example, Pamela and Bill described how it was more difficult to recognize students who were struggling with MHDs in a large lecture hall compared with a small classroom setting. Bill shared:

I have a class here and have 10 students in it or 15, I can really recognize differences in their behavior or difference in their personality or difference in their dress, umm, you know I, I can see them go through changes.

Mary also discussed the challenge of identifying individual students in large lecture classes: “when you’ve got 150 in a lecture hall you can’t expect a faculty member to necessarily know these things.”

Betty discussed how the topic of a course and course environment could influence a faculty member’s experience with college student mental health:

I think part of it is just the topic of the class and because I’m talking about it in a way where it’s an open dialogue, and you know, we talk about that in class and how you shouldn’t judge, you know, when people start to learn about other people that have some kind of MHD and even the first day when I say put your heads down and raise your hand and I see that 50% of the class is going through what you are going through that, that alone lets people open us a little because they know they are not alone.

Betty added how warning signs of MHDs can be observed through a student’s written work:

within their journals I can pull out things about their own lives, umm, some of them were very personal, so I was able to see through their journaling that they opened up to me that way, or when they talked about a story that was important to them so you really there are obvious cues, umm, you know, within the class it really kind of opened my eyes to a lot of people who have MHDs.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate and describe the essence of the lived experiences among a group of faculty members’ who have experience with supporting college student mental health. Our use of an ecological conceptual framework allowed for a multidimensional examination of factors that may influence faculty members’ conceptualization of MHDs in college students and the contextual factors that might influence their ability and willingness to refer students to resources. The results will be discussed in two subsections as they correspond to the research questions.

Conceptualization of Student MHDs

The following themes provided insight into how faculty members conceptualize MHDs (Research Question 1): knowledge of MHD definition, knowledge of warning signs, and comfort and willingness to recognize and refer (subthemes: impact of personal experiences and stigma in the college environment). The themes knowledge of MHD definition and knowledge of warning signs suggests that faculty members believed MHDs have potentially negative consequences on students’ well-being with multiple participants noting that MHDs could impair an individual’s ability to function. Knowledge of warning signs seems to extend this notion as faculty members identified several behavioral indicators that are consistent with past investigations on observable warning signs of mental distress in college students (Kalkbrenner, 2016), including sudden changes in attendance or strong reactions to class topics, for recognizing students who may be experiencing an MHD. This finding potentially underlines the importance of utilizing faculty members as resources to identify students with MHDs who might not otherwise seek out services.

The theme of comfort and willingness to recognize and refer in the present study offers potential insight into faculty members’ perception of their personal role in supporting college student mental health. Consistent with the findings of past investigators (e.g., Albright & Schwartz, 2017), faculty in the present study delineated their role as connecting students to the appropriate resources and providing support within the context of the class. Consistent with the findings of Brockelman et al. (2006), participants in the present study reported being open and willing to recognize students with MHDs and refer them to resources for support.

Contextual Variables and Student Referrals

The themes limited knowledge about resources for mental health issues (subthemes: disorganization of campus resources and lack of unity or support from university leaders), comfort and willingness to recognize and refer (subthemes: stigma in the college environment and impact of personal experiences), and the faculty–student relationship (subtheme: classroom context) relate to contextual variables and student referrals (Research Question 2). Limited knowledge about resources for mental health issues suggests that faculty members have an adequate awareness of the general availability of university resources; however, many did not have knowledge about specific services. This was further highlighted in the subthemes disorganization of campus resources and lack of unity or support from university leaders, which suggests that some universities might be lacking a clear procedure and associated training for responding to students who are experiencing mental health concerns. Similarly, Margrove et al. (2014) found that 64% of faculty members in their sample had not received training on how to recognize potential warning signs of MHDs in their students, which is possibly a barrier to faculty-to-student referrals to mental health support services.

The theme comfort and willingness to recognize and refer suggests that participants’ lived experiences included fluctuations in the degree to which college student mental health was embraced by others in academic settings. Although participants generally reported acceptance of MHDs, they discussed encountering colleagues who were not considerate of the impact of MHDs on student functioning. The inconsistency of support in the university culture might be related to the subtheme lack of unity or support from university leaders. A lack of a university-wide policy may make individual faculty members’ roles for responding to MHDs unclear. Similarly, McAllister et al. (2014) found that organizational challenges could influence faculty members’ attitudes about supporting college student mental health. The lack of unity or support from university leaders might contribute to the emergent subtheme of stigma in the college environment or faculty members’ perception of a stigma in the larger university culture that makes some faculty members reluctant to refer to counseling and some students reluctant to seek counseling.

Findings suggest that personal and situational factors were associated with participants’ perceptions and willingness to refer students to university resources. Specifically, the faculty–student relationship theme suggests that the quality of the relationship between a faculty member and student, impacted by classroom context, appeared to increase faculty members’ willingness to support students with MHDs. In particular, the subtheme classroom context suggests that the class size and course content influenced the extent to which faculty members recognized and supported college student mental health. Specifically, small class sizes and self-reflective course content (e.g., creative writing) might be associated with increases in faculty members’ ability to identify a student who is struggling with mental distress. Faculty members who had forged close-working relationships with their students appeared to be more comfortable approaching students who were living with MHDs.

Consistent with the findings of Becker et al. (2002) and Brockelman et al. (2006) participants in the present study who had personal and professional relationships with others living with MHDs seem to be more comfortable working with students with MHDs. Also consistent with Kalkbrenner and Carlisle (2019), the findings of the present study highlight the potential utility of training faculty members on the policies regarding identifying students with MHDs and referring them to the necessary resources. While a number of quantitative investigations (e.g., Kalkbrenner & Carlisle, 2019; Margrove et al., 2014) revealed that faculty members are typically open to supporting college student mental health (e.g., recognize and refer), Albright and Schwartz (2017) found that a relatively small proportion of faculty members (37%) are actively supporting college student mental health. The findings of the present study have started to address a gap in the literature by uncovering some of the attitudes, values, and perceptions of a group of faculty members who are active in supporting college student mental health. In particular, the findings of the present study have several implications for advancing the practice of student affairs officials, college counselors, and their constituents, who are largely called upon to provide outreach and prevention and to educate the campus-wide community about MHDs and mental wellness (Brunner et al., 2014; Kraft, 2009; Reynolds, 2013). Understanding the experiences and perceptions of a group of faculty members who actively support college student mental health might provide important information about how to further engage and assist faculty in supporting student mental health on campus. Outreach and prevention efforts geared toward promoting faculty-to-student mental health support might contribute to improvements in students’ mental health, retention, and academic success (Eisenberg et al., 2016).

Implications

Considering the debilitative social, personal, and academic consequences of MHDs for college students (Hunt & Eisenberg, 2010; Keyes et al., 2012), college counselors, and their affiliates have a responsibility to support college student mental health (e.g., recognize and refer students to resources, Bishop, 2016; Schwitzer et al., 2018). In this section, the researchers provide four recommendations for how institutional agents can foster greater knowledge and more adaptive attitudes and actions to support students living with MHDs.

Recommendation 1: Awareness and Education About the College Counseling Center

All participants reported being aware of the counseling center on campus and that they would consider referring a student to the counseling center. However, they were unsure of specific services that were available to students at the counseling center. Institutional agents can take on leadership roles in educating faculty members about mental health support services. In particular, campus constituents can communicate electronically, via e-mail or webinars, and in person at department meetings to discuss counseling center services, what constitutes an appropriate referral, and invite faculty members to consult with the counseling center if they suspect a student might be struggling with an MHD. There might also be utility in designating specific counseling or health center staff as the consultant for particular academic departments. This designation would provide department chairs and faculty members with a connection to a specific liaison for consultation and for spreading awareness about the mental health support resources that are available to students.

Recommendation 2: Unification of Campus Resources and Policy

The theme of limited knowledge about resources for mental health issues suggests that faculty members might be unclear about the mental health support services that are offered on campus. Institutional agents can create a central directory of campus mental health resources that are available to students, which outlines where to refer students or who to contact for specific issues (i.e., behavioral concerns, emotional or psychological concerns, and academic and learning disabilities). Kalkbrenner (2016) provides a free customizable resource list that can serve as a central directory of mental health support resources. Resource lists can be posted in the following locations on campus “student union, health center, student living quarters, bulletin boards in academic buildings, and on campus websites” (Kalkbrenner, 2016, p. 10). Consistent with previous research (Margrove et al., 2014; Sniatecki et al., 2015), faculty members in this study appeared to be interested in receiving training that addresses recognizing students displaying symptoms of MHDs and referring them to appropriate resources. We, therefore, recommended that institutional agents organize educational sessions for faculty members and other laypersons on how to recognize at-risk students and refer them to resources for mental health issues.

The subthemes disorganization of campus resources and lack of unity or support from university leaders suggest that faculty members might be unclear and apprehensive about their roles and responsibilities for supporting college student mental health, particularly when a procedure for doing so was not provided. This underlines the importance of having a streamlined reporting and communication system and clear protocol for faculty members to utilize if they suspect a student is struggling with MHDs. Unified university guidelines that outline faculty members’ roles in supporting college student mental health might provide faculty members with clarity about the appropriate steps to take if they suspect a student is struggling with a MHD. Clarified protocol might assist with early detection and intervention for students struggling with MHDs. Student affairs professionals are encouraged to work collaboratively with academic departments to outline appropriate steps for faculty members to follow including who to consult with if they suspect a student might be showing signs of mental distress.

Recommendation 3: Structuring the Academic Environment

Outreach and consultation are key components in the practice of student affairs officials, college counselors, and their constituents as these indirect services can support college student mental health and retention on a larger systems level (Eisenberg et al., 2016; Hodges et al., 2017; Reynolds, 2013). The theme faculty–student relationship and subtheme classroom context suggest that situational factors might influence the extent to which faculty members are capable of recognizing and supporting students with MHDs. Similarly, Beattie and Thiele (2016) found that student-to-faculty connectedness was associated with positive academic student outcomes. In particular, small class sizes and students’ utilization of office hours have been found to promote connectedness between students and faculty members (Beattie & Thiele, 2016; Guerrero & Rod, 2013). We recommend that college counselors and student affairs professionals consult with faculty members, program coordinators, and academic advisors to structure academic environments that are conducive to faculty members forging trusting relationships with students. Specifically, academic advisors might recommend that students take at least one course each semester with a small class size (approximately 25 students or fewer) which may encourage more frequent faculty–student interactions. Institutions and academic programs might also require that students take at least one seminar course in their sequencing to promote more interactions with faculty members.

Recommendation 4: Advocacy for College Counseling Centers

College counseling centers are generally the only locations on campus where comprehensive mental health services are provided by trained professionals (Brack, Runco, Cadwallader, & Kelley, 2012). The three previous recommendations highlight the need to allocate additional funding to university and college counseling centers as college counseling centers are increasingly called upon to provide outreach and training in addition to mental health services for students, oftentimes with limited resources and staff (Kraft, 2009). Institutional agents might advocate for an increase in allocation of resources for the college counseling center to fund additional training programs and new staff positions. Advocates are encouraged to educate university administrators about the well-documented benefits that college counseling can have on students’ overall wellness, retention, and academic success. Advocacy efforts can be aimed at clearly articulating the benefits that are attached to allocating resources to the college counseling center. Specifically, students who attended counseling demonstrated significantly higher grades, higher academic retention rates, lower incidence of substance abuse, and higher levels of general well-being (Schwitzer et al., 2018).

Limitations and Future Research

The findings of the current study should be considered within the context of the methodological limitations. Although generalizability is not the aim of qualitative research, it is still important to note that the results of the current study might not be generalizable beyond faculty members who participated in the study. Consistent with a phenomenological research tradition, every participant in the present study had direct experiences with the phenomenon of inquiry (worked with a student with an MHD), however, three participants taught in a Department of Counseling and Human Services. These participants’ training in mental-health-related fields might have influenced their perceptions of MHDs among college students. Future quantitative researchers can extend this line of inquiry by investigating the generalizability of our findings. Undergoing the tenure and promotion process is one of the most significant milestones in one’s career path in academia (Skewes et al., 2018). Faculty members’ academic ranks were not specific in the eligibility criteria for this study; however, two participants in the present study were tenured at the time of data collection. It is possible that the security that comes along with tenure and promotion might have influenced these faculty members’ comfort with supporting college student mental health. Future researchers on faculty-to-student mental health support should include faculty members’ academic ranks as demographic variable.

Self-selection bias was another potential limitation in the present study as participants who agreed to be in the study had previous lived experiences working with students who were living with MHDs and may have been more readily aware of MHDs or interested in the topic. In addition, the snowball sampling procedure was another potential limitation as it may result in recruiting participants from similar academic departments or backgrounds. The themes in the current study have the potential to represent latent variables that could be quantitatively measured and confirmed by future psychometric researchers. Specifically, future researchers could conduct exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to test the extent to which the descriptions of the latent themes in the current study maintain construct validity among large samples of faculty members at a variety of different universities. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the lived experiences of faculty members who were active in supporting college student mental health. Thus, the emergent themes represent the perceptions and attitudes of faculty members who have experience (and potential expertise) in this area. Future investigators should investigate the experience of faculty members without prior involvement in supporting college student mental health.

In the present study, all participants discussed the college counseling center as a resource for supporting college student mental health. Not all universities, however, provide on-site counseling services for students. The literature appears to be lacking research on the types of resources, in addition to the counseling center, that faculty members are willing to make student referrals. Future researchers should investigate faculty members’ awareness and willingness to refer students to a variety of different resources for MHDs.

Conclusion

Our findings and recommendations fit nicely within the growing body of literature (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2016; Schwitzer et al., 2016) that highlights the utility of faculty members for supporting college student mental health and retention. The results of the present study have extended the extant literature by uncovering some of the attitudes, values, and perceptions of a group of faculty members who are active in supporting college student mental health. These results provide rich descriptions of how a group of faculty members at one institution conceptualize and experience MHDs on college campuses. In particular, findings provide insight into faculty members’ unique perceptions about the impacts of MHDs on their students. Faculty members appear to be open and willing to participate in recognizing and referring at-risk students to additional resources for MHDs. Findings suggest that faculty members might be a viable resource for early identification and prevention of MHDs in college students which has implications for improving students’ mental health, retention, and academic success.

Footnotes

Appendix

Interview Protocol

Thank you for your participation in this research.

Review the informed consent.

Review member checking procedures.

The purpose of this interview is to discuss your views of mental health disorders on college campuses.

Before we begin, fill out demographic questionnaire.

Thank you again for you participation. Do you have any questions before we begin?

Ok, let’s get started,

What comes to mind when you hear the term “mental health disorder”?

How would you define a mental health disorder?

How might your understanding of mental health disorders have changed over time?

What experiences, if any, have you had working with students who were living with a metal health disorder?

How do you think mental health disorders are perceived on this campus?

What resources, if any, would you suggest for students who are living with mental health disorders?

How might you know if a student was living with a mental health disorder?

How would you know when someone’s actions or behaviors are symptoms of stress or a mental health disorder?

Did I miss anything?

Is there anything that you would like to add?

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Michael T. Kalkbrenner is an assistant professor of Counseling and Educational Psychology at New Mexico State University. Dr. Kalkbrenner’s research agenda is centered around the development and validation of psychometrically sound latent variables that appraise theoretical constructs related to promoting mental health support on a systems (macro) level. His interests include college student mental health, reducing barriers to help seeking behaviors, interprofessional collaboration, and holistic approaches to physical and mental wellness. He has training in quantitative and qualitative research paradigms, with an emphasis on quantitative methodology in psychometrics and multivariate statistics.

Amber L. Jolley is a staff counselor at Morgan State University. She completed her Ph.D. in Counselor Education and Supervision at Old Dominion University in 2017 and her M.A. in in clinical mental health counseling at Wake Forest University in 2014. Her research centers on college student mental health and development, trauma-related stressors affecting student adjustment and development, and resilience in young adults.

Danica G. Hays PhD, is professor of Counselor Education and Executive Associate Dean of the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She earned a doctorate in Counselor Education and Supervision, with an emphasis in multicultural research, from Georgia State University. Her research interests include qualitative methodology, assessment and diagnosis, trauma and gender issues, and multicultural and social justice concerns in counselor preparation and community health. She has published approximately 110 refereed journal articles and book chapters and 10 books in these areas. She has extensive leadership history in the Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling and the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision. The American Counseling Association has recognized her nationally for her research and advocacy as a counselor educator.

References

Albright

Schwartz

(2017). Are campuses ready to support students in distress: Higher education survey white paper. Kognito Co-authored with the Jed Foundation (JED). Retrieved from https://www.jedfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Kognito-JED-Are-Campuses-Ready-to-Support-Students-in-Distress.pdf

American College Health Association. (2015). American college health association-national college health assessment II: Undergraduate students reference group executive summary spring 2015. Hanover, MD: American College Health Association.

Auerbach

R. P.

Alonso

Axinn

W. G.

Cuijpers

Ebert

D. D.

Green

J. G.

Bruffaerts

(2016). Mental disorders among college students in the world health organization world mental health surveys. Psychological Medicine, 46(14), 2955–2970. doi:10.1017/S0033291716001665

Backels

Wheeler

(2001). Faculty perceptions of mental health issues among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 173–176.

Beattie

I. I.

Thiele

M. M.

(2016). Connecting in class? College class size and inequality in academic social capital. Journal of Higher Education, 87, 332–362.

Becker

Martin

Wajeeh

Ward

Shern

(2002). Students with mental illnesses in a university setting: Faculty and student attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and experiences. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 25, 359–368. doi:10.1037/h0095001

Bishop

K. K.

(2016). The relationship between retention and college counseling for high-risk students. Journal of College Counseling, 19, 205–217. doi:10.1002/jocc.12044

Bound

Lovenheim

Turner

Bound

(2010). Why have college completion rates declined? An analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources. American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, 2(3), 129–157. doi:10.1257/app.2.3.129

Brack

A. B.

Runco

D. V.

Cadwallader

L. A.

Kelley

(2012). An exploratory study of undergraduate students' referral preferences. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 26, 155–162.

10.

Brockelman

K. F.

Chadsey

J. G.

Loeb

J. W.

(2006). Faculty perceptions of university students with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 30(1), 23–30. doi:10.2975/30.2006.23.30

11.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513

12.

Brunner

J. L.

Wallace

D. L.

Reymann

L. S.

Sellers

J. J.

McCabe

A. G.

(2014). College counseling today: Contemporary students and how counseling centers meet their needs. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 28, 257–324. doi:10.1080/87568225.2014.948770

13.

Coliazzi

(1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist’s view it. In Vale

King

(Eds.), Existential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48–71). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Eisenberg

Hunt

Speer

(2012). Help-seeking for mental health on college campuses: Review of evidence and next steps for research and practice. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20, 222–232. doi:10.3109/10673229.2012.712839

16.

Eisenberg

Lipson

Posselt

(2016). Promoting resilience, retention, and mental health. New Directions for Student Services, 156, 87–95. doi:10.1002/ss.20194

17.

Erikson

Ghazinour

Hammarstrӧm

(2018). Different use of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: What is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice? Social Theory and Health, 16, 414–433.

18.

Gallagher

R. P.

(2015). National survey of college counseling centers: 2014. Retrieved from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/id/eprint/28178

19.

Guerrero

Rod

A. B.

(2013). Engaging in office hours: A study of student-faculty interaction and academic performance. Journal of Political Science Education, 9, 403–416. doi:10.1080/15512169.2013.835554

20.

Hodges

S. J.

Shelton

King Lyn

M. M.

(2017). The college and university counseling manual : Integrating essential services across the campus. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

21.

Hubbard

Stage

(2009). Attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of faculty at Hispanic serving and predominantly black institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(3), 270–289. doi:10.1080/00221546.2009.11779013

22.

Hunt

J. H.

Eisenberg

(2010). Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior among college students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 3–10.

23.

Kalkbrenner

M. T.

(2016). Recognizing and supporting students with mental disorders: The REDFLAGS Model. Journal of Education and Training, 3(1), 1–13. doi:10.5296/jet.v3i1.8141

24.

Kalkbrenner

M. T.

(2020). Peer-to-peer mental health support on community college campuses: Examining the factorial invariance of the Mental Distress Response Scale. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 44(10-12), 757–770. doi:10.1080/10668926.2019.1645056

25.

Kalkbrenner

M. T.

Carlisle

(2019). Faculty members and college counseling: Utility of The REDFLAGS Model. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy. doi:10.1080/87568225.2019.1621230

26.

Kena

Hussar

McFarland

de Brey

Musu-Gillette

Wang

, … Dunlop Velez

(2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). Washington, DC: US Department of Education IES, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016144.pdf

27.

Keyes

C. M.

Eisenberg

Perry

G. S.

Dube

S. R.

Kroenke

Dhingra

S. S.

(2012). The relationship of level of positive mental health with current mental disorders in predicting suicidal behavior and academic impairment in college students. Journal of American College Health, 60, 126–133.

28.

Kraft

D. P.

(2009). Mens sana: The growth of mental health in the American college health association. Journal of American College Health, 58, 267–275.

29.

Kuh

Cruce

Shoup

Kinzie

Gonyea

(2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0019

30.

Leary

K. A.

DeRosier

M. E.

(2012). Factors promoting positive adaptation and resilience during the transition to college. Psychology, 3, 1215–1222. doi:10.4236/psych.2012.312A180

31.

Lipson

S. K.

Gaddis

S. M.

Heinze

Beck

Eisenberg

(2015). Variations in student mental health and treatment utilization across U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of American College Health, 63, 388–396. doi:10.1080/07448481.2015.1040411

32.

Margrove

K. L.

Gustowska

Grove

L. S.

(2014). Provision of support for psychological distress by university staff, and receptiveness to mental health training. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38, 90–106.

33.

Mcallister

Wynaden

Happell

Flynn

Walters

Duggan

, … Gaskin

(2014). Staff experiences of providing support to students who are managing mental health challenges: A qualitative study from two Australian universities. Advances in Mental Health, 12, 192–201. doi:10.1080/18374905.2014.1108189

34.

Millea

Wills

Elder

Molina

(2018). What matters in college student success? Determinants of college retention and graduation rates. Education, 138(4), 309–322.

35.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Reynolds

A. L.

(2013). College student concerns: Perceptions of student affairs practitioners. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 98–104. doi:10.1353/csd.2013.0001

37.

Rosa

E. M.

Tudge

(2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 243–258.

38.

Schwitzer

Pribesh

Ellis-O’Quinn

Huber

Wilmer

(2016). Community college counseling: Why are research outcomes so elusive? Journal of College Counseling, 19, 76–95. doi:10.1002/jocc.12032

39.

Schwitzer

A. M.

Moss

C. B.

Pribesh

S. L.

St. John

D. J.

Burnett

D. D.

Thompson

L. H.

Foss

J. J.

(2018). Students with mental health needs: College counseling experiences and academic success. Journal of College Student Development, 59, 3–20.

40.

Skewes

M. C.

Shanahan

E. A.

Smith

J. L.

Honea

J. C.

Belou

Rushing

, … Handley

I. M.

(2018). Absent autonomy: Relational competence and gendered paths to faculty self-determination in the promotion and tenure process. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(3), 366–383. doi:10.1037/dhe0000064

41.

Sniatecki

J. L.

Perry

H. B.

Snell

L. H.

(2015). Faculty attitudes and knowledge regarding college students with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 28, 259–275.

42.

Zerquera

D. D.

Ziskin

Torres

(2018). Faculty views of “nontraditional” students: Aligning perspectives for student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 20, 29–46. doi:10.1177/1521025116645109