Fears Unmasked: International Doctoral Student Mothers’ Academic Stressors and Coping Strategies During the Pandemic

International Graduate and Doctoral Student Mothers’ Dilemma

Life itself is full of challenges and stressors. Mothers in academia face several challenges, barriers, and stressors as they juggle multiple roles, including the demands of their professional responsibilities, the expectations of motherhood, and the pressures of sustaining a work-life balance and navigating work-family conflict (Sadaf et al., 2022). Scholars have documented the tension of balancing the demands of a rigorous academic career with the responsibilities of motherhood (Castaneda & Isgro, 2013; Connelly & Ghodsee, 2011; Evans & Grant, 2008; Fulweiler et al., 2021; Hicks-Roof, 2020; Lynch, 2008; Massé & Bauer-Maglin, 2017; Trepal et al., 2014). Additionally, a burgeoning number of studies explore the challenges graduate student mothers face and the support they need to overcome their stressors (Albrecht & Tabone, 2015; Meehan & Howells, 2019; Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2017; Simard-Gagnon, 2016). Few research studies focus on the experiences of IDSMs (Alhajjuj, 2016; Chung, 2015; Lobnibe, 2013; Zhang, 2021). IDSMs already face unique challenges balancing academic demands with family responsibilities. They struggle with mental health issues, including depression and guilt (Koo & Nyunt, 2022), and experience role-juggling, emotional overwhelm, and social isolation (Evans et al., 2024). These mothers often grapple with conflicting ideologies of intensive mothering and being a good student (Sears, 2001). IDSMs also face prolonged completion times and lower publication rates compared to their peers (Velander et al., 2022). Moreover, many mothers choose to delay or forgo parenthood due to anticipated challenges in achieving a work-life balance and the demands of academia (Velander et al., 2022).

Over the last decade, scholars have described the experiences of international student mothers in their host countries. Many have explored the experience of only one nationality. For example, Lobnibe (2013), who drew on the experiences of 23 African doctoral student mothers from a predominantly white Midwestern university, found that policies and arrangements that place the distribution of material, social, and academic resources on students’ ability to network in unequal social environments place an extra burden on the students. Several scholars have described the systemic and personal factors that Asian graduate and doctoral student mothers experience. For example, in her autoethnographic study, Chung (2015) documented her cross-cultural adaptation experience as a Korean doctoral student mother from a Confucian heritage culture. Her status significantly influenced her decision about the timing of motherhood as an international student. She could not help but worry about the difficulties of becoming a mother while pursuing graduate studies in a different culture. After giving birth in the United States, Chung played dual roles as a student and a mother. Striking a balance between her family and school responsibilities was a burden for her. Likewise, Zhang’s (2021) 4-year ethnographic study of 11 Chinese international doctoral and master’s student mothers who negotiated multicultural discourses in and beyond their academic experiences revealed that they were hesitant and concerned about announcing their pregnancy to their major professors/advisers. Many did not feel supported, particularly as they needed to change their work and study responsibilities.

Alhajjuj (2016) qualitatively examined how 14 Saudi doctoral student mothers managed their roles as mothers and academics while pursuing their studies in the United States. Their challenges included a lack of institutional support, a lack of Saudi Cultural Mission support, academic difficulties, feelings of guilt, discrimination, and family adjustment problems. They reported that Saudi mothers developed some strategies to manage their roles and responsibilities, such as limiting social activities to online and on weekends, setting priorities and doing urgent tasks, using reminders, planning ahead of time, using daycare and housekeepers, delaying having babies, seeking help from friends, seeking help from older kids, keeping their kids busy, and rejecting help from others.

Challenges That the Students Faced Worldwide Due to the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on all students in higher education. Some students experienced a decrease in financial resources, facing unprecedented stress (Buffel et al., 2024; Jiang et al., 2022; Reyes-Portillo et al., 2022). While online instruction offered a way to continue education, it could not fully compensate for the loss of in-person interaction (Bao, 2020; Chang & Fang, 2020; Coman et al., 2020; Dong, 2024; Ramírez-Hurtado et al., 2021). The abrupt shift to remote learning also highlighted disparities in access to technology and a suitable learning environment, further worsening the challenges faced by students during this period. Additionally, some students experienced profound grief and multifaceted losses. These losses include the heartbreaking deaths of loved ones (Hampton et al., 2023; Lee & Neimeyer, 2022; Scheffert & Parrish, 2023; Weaver et al., 2022). Students also experienced “non-death losses” (Sirrine et al., 2023), including the erosion of social connections and a decline in social well-being (Weaver et al., 2022). International students faced these issues even more severely when the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected their mobility (Mason, 2021), making return migration extremely challenging. Students also felt unwelcome in the United States due to visa restrictions (Liu & Peng, 2024). The mobility flow of international students during the pandemic intensified inequalities across different higher education systems. These inequalities were particularly evident in institutions where international students had less support and access to resources. The disruption caused by travel restrictions and lockdowns worsened challenges such as limited financial aid, inadequate access to technology, and reduced opportunities for cultural and academic integration (Mok et al., 2021). The situation for students in different doctoral programs was not much better.

International Doctoral Student Mothers During the Pandemic

COVID-19 worsened the mental, social, and physical concerns that are directly associated with doctoral programs for all doctoral students, especially female students. Sverdlik et al. (2023) surveyed 708 doctoral students and found that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the research progress of female students more than that of males. While there is an abundance of studies that examine academic (Doyle et al., 2018; Eisenbach, 2013; Schriever, 2021) mental/emotional wellness (Abetz, 2019; Box, 2009; Schwab, 2020) and social interaction (LeBlanc et al., 2022; Mallo, 2021; Phu, 2020; Shomotova & Karabchuk, 2022) of mothers working on their doctorate before the pandemic, there is limited research that describes IDSMs’ experiences during the pandemic (Fridani et al., 2020; Koo & Nyunt, 2022; Lamichhane, 2023; Murad, 2021; Phan, 2022; Yip & Maestre, 2023).

IDSMs’ Stressors During the Pandemic

Studies conducted over the last few years confirm that IDSMs faced many challenges during the pandemic. Several scholars used a qualitative approach to describe these challenges. For example, Murad (2021) used in-depth qualitative interviews to explore “the triumphs and trials” of 10 IDSMs who were from Asia. Murad (2021) explained that in addition to the linguistic, cultural, and learning barriers, IDSMs experienced stressors related to the pandemic, which made it much harder for them to study, especially when they were away from their loved ones—they were “forced to stay in the U.S. due to the borders being closed” or long-distance parenting “with the pandemic changing travel plans.” In their autoethnography, Yip and Maestre (2023) described how navigating multiple roles as Ph.D. student mothers of adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic shaped their socialization experience in graduate school. The pandemic disrupted different aspects of their personal and professional life priorities, including transitioning to online supervision meetings, the solitude of doing research from home, juggling family and children’s needs, study and work commitments, and physical and mental health concerns, and overlapping roles they described as “non-negotiable, 24/7 roles” (p. 219).

Koo and Nyunt (2022), who interviewed seven Asian international students pursuing doctoral degrees while raising children, noted a similar trend. Their participants described a lack of familial support, support from friends from home, and relationships with peers in their programs or mothers in their neighborhood. They also described “struggles with depression and mood swings, ongoing battles to manage both academic progress and mothering, constant conflict with their spouses, feelings of guilt, thoughts of dropping out, and concerns about their children” (p. 414). They worried that their inability to take advantage of professional development opportunities and networking would negatively influence their job prospects after graduation. These fears may come from “… recognition of how US immigration laws limit the career opportunities of international students and Asian international students in particular, and the model minority myth” (p. 427).

Several scholars described the emotional and financial stressors that affected IDSMs’ performance. Phan (2022) described the emotional experiences of a Vietnamese doctoral student mother stranded in the United States when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, experiencing displacement, nostalgia, mother guilt, and a diasporic feeling of separation from her children. Phan transformed her feelings upon returning to Vietnam into a state of in-betweenness, characterized by juggling roles. In addition to difficulties focusing on their studies and worries about family conditions, Indonesian IDSMs faced significant financial stressors. Fridani et al. (2020) employed a qualitative approach to investigate the experiences of mothers pursuing doctoral degrees in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their participants reported that they struggled with limited resources, which worsened the challenges and stressors they faced. These financial pressures added to their overall burden, making it difficult for them to manage both their academic responsibilities and personal lives effectively. Similarly, Yip and Maestre (2023) noted the financial stress of paying their son’s Year 12 tuition fees.

Additionally, Koo and Nyunt (2022) and Phan (2022) discussed the stressors related to immigration status for IDSMs, who were unable to switch from full-time to part-time status to take courses online or even return to their universities. This increased their stressors and complicated their ability to balance motherhood and doctoral studies. Lamichhane (2023) used an intersectional feminist approach to qualitatively explore the experiences of 20 international postgraduate student-mothers from the global South. Lamichhane found that stressors were related to loss of socioeconomic status privilege and navigating long-distance mothering. Additionally, some of the stressors IDSMs experienced during the pandemic were related to the distinction between domestic and international students, as institutions applied different rules and policies for these two groups, such as allowing domestic students to study part-time.

IDSMS’ Coping With Stressors During the Pandemic

There is limited research that describes how IGSMs and IDSMs coped during the pandemic. Several studies have documented how academic mothers coped with their stressors during the pandemic (Bowyer et al., 2022; Guy & Arthur, 2020; Wagner et al., 2022). Others document how IDSMs coped with multiple roles (Alhajjuj, 2016; Appling et al., 2018; Chung, 2015; Lobnibe, 2013; Myers-Walls et al., 2011; Zhang, 2021). Fewer studies described how IDSMs coped with multiple roles during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Fridani et al. (2020) described how an IDSM with young children negotiated the completion of studies during the COVID-19 pandemic by strengthening ties with family and community to cope. Yip and Maestre (2023) described family life and research endeavors as complementing each other, and how sharing their research with family members renewed their sense of confidence. They also described various strategies for coping with these stressors, including compartmentalization, keeping structured schedules, and journaling. One said, “I also journaled my challenges and triumphs as a mother and a PhD student. My journal helped me release my feelings and frustrations during the lockdown” (p. 221). Even though Phan’s (2022) participant, Hoa, was stuck in Vietnam away from her children, she found in her children a source of solace and strength to be able to face challenges, so she wanted to be strong for them; she also wanted to break the stereotypical image and cultural demands of a Vietnamese woman who would be “required to prioritize her family rather than her professional career.” Lamichhane’s (2023) participants used several coping strategies, including self-reflexivity and spiritual practices. Lamichhane noted that most of these strategies were not part of the institutional care offered to these minority students.

Gaps in Literature

Earlier studies explored ethnically homogenous groups. The participants in these studies were often from a single nationality, settled in their host country with their families, and at an intermediate stage in their doctoral programs. Earlier studies did not delve deeply into coping strategies used by IDSMs. Instead, they focused primarily on naming and examining stressors, only briefly addressing how IDSMs coped with these. None of the earlier studies focused specifically on academic stressors and how IDSMs coped with them. We addressed these gaps with a study that included IDSMs from different regions at various stages of the doctoral journey. Rather than focusing on their experiences at a single point in time during the pandemic, these studies explored their academic, social, and firsthand experiences from the spring of 2020 to the fall of 2021. Some of these IDSMs were transitioning from their home countries to the United States, and others were already in the United States when the pandemic began.

Theoretical Underpinning

Members who occupy a particular role define the roles they play as “role obligations” (Koenig & Eagly, 2014). For IDSMs, the role set includes being a student, a wife, a mother, a sister, and a daughter while navigating cultural differences and ensuring that their dependents can adapt and adjust smoothly to the new culture. The IDSMs, in addition to their cultural stressors, then have expectations of the individuals in each of the role sets mentioned above. For example, children expect their mothers to handle cooking for them and help with homework, while husbands expect their wives to fulfill specific responsibilities. Similarly, parents may expect their daughters to undertake particular tasks. Role strain arises when an individual struggles to fulfill the diverse obligations linked with multiple roles.

We used Goode’s Theory of Role Strain (Goode, 1960) to guide the design of the interview protocol and the analysis of the data. According to Goode, multiple role obligations can be a source of strain (role strain), a condition in social life that all people face. There have been several terms used to describe role strain: anxiety, tension, frustration, and stress. From Goode’s perspective, role strain refers to the difficulty in meeting role demands, and it is normal for most people to experience some degree of role strain. He believed that an individual faces many role demands and cannot meet all of them. Goode (1960) named two techniques for managing role strain. The first technique focuses on manipulating role structure. It includes compartmentalizing, delegation, elimination of role relationships, extension, obstacles against the indefinite explanation of the ego’s role system, and barriers against intrusion. The second technique involves setting or carrying out the terms of role relationships by viewing them as a transaction or “bargain” (Goode, 1960, pp. 483–496). We chose to use Goode’s first technique, with minor modifications, to gain a deeper understanding of how IDSMs coped while navigating their roles as students, wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and employees, along with their dependents, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research Question

We analyzed a cross-section of data to answer the following questions:

Sampling Method

We employed a purposive sampling method (Edmonson & Irby, 2007) to include participants with the most relevant experiences. To diversify the sample and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, we included individuals from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. We selected participants based on clearly defined and transparent inclusion and exclusion criteria that aligned with the research objectives. The sample included participants who:

Although many scholars recommend continuing participant selection until data saturation is reached (Fusch & Ness, 2015), others argue that saturation is inconsistent with the values and assumptions of interpretive analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Guided by the ontological and epistemological beliefs that informed this study’s research design, we limited our sample to six IDSMs. We did this for several reasons. Firstly, we were cautious about the fact that this population is vulnerable. Given that we were interviewing each participant twice during a pandemic, which was already stressful, we decided not to put this added pressure on more IDSMs than needed. Finally, we kept the sample size small due to time and budget constraints. To ensure that the study represents the broadest range of perspectives, we successfully recruited participants from diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds. There was variability in terms of these IDSMs’ marital status, the number of children they had, and location of the spouses and caregivers who helped them parents. Additionally, the IDSMs were at various stages of their programs and employed in different capacities when we interviewed them.

Participants

The six participants hailed from six countries in four regions: Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. They were enrolled at a university in the United States, in different doctoral programs, and at various stages of candidature. We intentionally masked the name of the university and used pseudonyms throughout the paper to ensure confidentiality. Naledi, Shapla, and Anastasia’s ages ranged from 31 to 40 years; Farah, Marium, and Fatima’s ages ranged from 40 to 50 (see Table 1). There was variability in their children’s ages, location, and spousal location. Both Anastasia and Fatima had been living with their spouses for several years before the pandemic began. Anastasia gave birth to her second child during the pandemic. Marium was parenting her three tweens in the United States with the help of her husband, who visited the United States for short periods. Conversely, some were parenting their children from afar. Naledi, who had been living in the United States prior to the pandemic, and Shapla were parenting their children with the help of their mothers in their home country. Shapla’s spouse, who lived with their daughter, helped too. Farah, a single mother, also parented her adult children from a distance.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographics of IDSM and Their Families.

Participant	Region	Age	Children	Age (s) of child (ren)	Children’s residence	Coparent’s residence
Naledi	Africa	31–40	2	Tweens (6–18)	Home country	Consistent—home country
Farah	Asia	41–50	3	Adult (19 and above)	Home country	Not applicable
Marium	Middle East	41–50	3	Tweens (6–18)	USA	Transient
Fatima	Middle East	41–50	5	Tweens (6–18)	USA	Consistent—United States
Shapla	Asia	31–40	1	Tweens (6–18)	Home country	Consistent home
Anastasia	Eastern Europe	31–40	2	Early childhood (0–5)	USA	Consistent—United States

Instrumentation

We used Goode’s Theory of Role Strain (1960) to guide the design of the interview protocol. We employed multiple steps to establish face and content validity (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). We began by collaboratively developing questions aligned with each research question. Next, Author 2, an international faculty member with over 15 years of experience in qualitative research, developed the interview protocol. We revised the protocol based on feedback from an IDSM and two international faculty members who raised young children during the pandemic (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). The feedback from these experts helped us refine the interview protocol and enhance its face validity. Based on Machado's use of the interview protocol with Hassan, who was also a participant-researcher, we decided to conduct follow-up interviews with each participant. The final version of the semi-structured interview protocol included a warm-up section and 14 open-ended questions, organized into three sections: Getting to Know You, Pandemic Experience, and Transition and Strain. We based the follow-up interview, scheduled a week or two later, on preliminary data analysis and questions that bridged identified gaps.

Positionality

The research conundrum is first shaped and deepened by researchers’ experiences and backgrounds (Connelly & Clandinin, 2012). We recognize the importance of placing oneself within our research; this is crucial because qualitative research is an iterative process influenced by the researcher (Reich, 2021). Both authors shared marginalized identities with the participants. Together, the authors brought both perspectives: emic (insiderness) and etic (outsiderness; Beals et al., 2020). The benefits of an emic-etic approach in qualitative research are well-documented in the scholarly literature (Galperin et al., 2022; Markee, 2012). As a participant researcher, Author 1’s experiences mirror those of the other participants. Her emic perspective as an IDSM was an asset. It made it easier for her to build a rapport with participants. Participants were more vulnerable because they connected with her on many levels. Author 2, who was previously an international student for 5 years, is now a U.S. citizen and a full professor. Her etic perspective, gained through mentoring many IDSMs over a period of 14 years, was advantageous. She mentored Author 1 through the data collection, analysis, and manuscript development process. This departure from “classical dichotomies of researcher/researched” (Taylor, 2011) enhanced the trustworthiness of data collection and transferability of findings.

Data Quality

We used several approaches to minimize research bias and enhance the trustworthiness of the data. Author 1 addressed this issue by using bracketing to “minimize the damaging effects of assumptions that might taint the research process” (Habibullah et al., 2023, p. 849). Gearing (2004) describes bracketing as a ‘scientific process in which a researcher suspends or holds in abeyance his or her presuppositions, biases, assumptions, theories, or previous experiences to see and describe the phenomenon’ (p. 1430). Author 1 consciously tried to “be honest and vigilant about her perspective, pre-existing thoughts, and beliefs” (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007, p.1376). We also met often for peer debriefing (Gardner, 2013). Additionally, we wrote memos throughout data collection and analysis to examine and reflect upon our engagement with the data (Cutcliffe, 2003). We consistently used Facebook Messenger to share detailed, descriptive, theoretical, and analytical memos and diagrams about the dataset. Author 2 used a restoring table while listening to the audio recording of each interview to summarize data and identify gaps. She wrote analytic memos and questions to guide the second interview.

During the coding phases, Author 1 utilized NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software, and a codebook to code the data. Author 1 also identified key quotations in each transcript that helped us understand the world through the participants’ eyes. During this stage, both authors used document reflection memos to reflect vertically on participants’ experiences, employing a wide-angle lens (Razaghi et al., 2015). These memos yielded a condensed, yet comprehensive account of the narrative trajectory of each participant’s pivotal moments, takeaways, and governing perspectives reflected in the transcript as a whole. This approach also captured the authors’ thoughts about the participants’ assumptions evident in the transcripts, their way of speaking or thinking, repetitions, and patterns that emerged in each interview (Razaghi et al., 2015).

Data Collection and Analytic Procedure

Author 2 interviewed Author 1to demonstrate how the protocol should be used. The data became part of the dataset. Author 1, the participant-researcher, twice conducted two Zoom interviews with four of the five participants. Naledi did not participate in the follow-up interview due to time constraints. At the start of each interview, Author 1 welcomed the participants, requested permission to record the session, and obtained verbal informed consent. Participants did not report experiencing any risks during the interviews; rather, many described the process as cathartic and emotionally beneficial. Author 1 used the interview protocol to conduct the semi-structured interview. She edited the Zoom-generated transcript after every interview. After that, Author 2 conducted a preliminary analysis of the transcript and video recording using a re-storying table. She compiled a list of follow-up questions for each participant based on the gaps she found. Except for Naledi, Author 1 interviewed each participant again, using the re-storying table and follow-up questions. Naledi responded to the follow up questions by email. We sent the participants a $30 gift card after they had participated in the second interview. We analyzed data from the 13 interviews and email collectively. Together, they provided richness and depth specific to each participant’s circumstances. We used NVivo version 12, a software program often used to support qualitative data analysis, to code the data. We began with the deductive approach, also known as a top-down approach, to pre-identify a priori codes based on existing literature and the research questions. Next, we employed inductive coding, also known as bottom-up coding, to extract codes directly from the data. We used a codebook to guide the identification of distinguishing, standard features, and unique cases. We also used it to engage in typological and interpretive coding (Hatch, 2023) and continuous comparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Author 2 utilized the tools provided by NVivo 12 to annotate the data.

Finally, we advanced to more abstract levels of analysis by utilizing NVivo’s attributes, coding, and query features. We asked questions as part of this data interrogation process (Silver & Lewins, 2014). We also queried the coded dataset to examine the potential relationships and patterns between IDSMs’ key attributes (e.g., age, marital status, number and location of children and spouse, time in the United States) and the coding outcomes.

IDSMs’ Academic Stressors During the Pandemic

Research question one investigated the academic stressors of IDSMs during the pandemic. Our analysis revealed a notable difference in how IDSMs described their academic stress based on their time spent in the United States, funding, and support. The six participants made numerous references to academic stressors during the pandemic (n = 61). The experience of being an IDSM during a global pandemic was much more intense for some. Farah, Shapla, and Marium, who began their doctoral programs in their respective countries, made proportionately more references to academic stressors (n = 17, 12, 12, respectively) than their counterparts, Fatima, Naledi, and Anastasia, who resided in the United States (n = 8, 6, 6, respectively).

We attributed this difference to several factors. Fatima, Naledi, and Anastasia had acculturated to the educational system and life in the United States, having completed their master’s degrees before the pandemic began in the spring of 2020 (see Table 2). Fatima and Anastasia also had the added benefit of a spouse to share the role of parent, as well as their mothers, who visited during the pandemic. Nevertheless, both groups experienced a feeling of being overwhelmed. Marium, Shapla, and Farah had to salvage shattered dreams by starting their doctoral programs in their home countries. Uncertainty about the future, technology overload, and time zone fatigue intensified their stress levels. Fatima and Anastasia, who were in the dissertation phase of their respective programs, were challenged by life events—birth and death. Furthermore, they all experienced different stressors as they adjusted to the new normal.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

IDSMs’ Coping Strategies With Illustrative Quotes.

Coping strategies	References	Illustrative quotes
Compartmentalizing	13	I think I prioritize whatever is, you know, most important. I try to tackle it first and go down the list of whatever I need to do next. But if it’s something beyond me, you know, influence. I cannot really change things. I don’t know; I just sit and wait. I guess I don’t know (Anastasia, personal communication, 06-06-2022).
Delegating	7	My mom was really a great helper, especially with the house chores, cooking, and cleaning, I mean, she was helping me a lot. This might be kind of a release from the housework (Fatima, personal communication, 01-28-2021).
Giving up a role	4	The only thing that I gave up was my dissertation. I think at that time because, as I told you, it was really hard to teach and work on your dissertation. That’s the only thing. Yeah. But regarding other things, no, I mean, yeah, I try to make a balance between all the duties that I have (Fatima, personal communication, 01-28-2021).

How IDSMs Coped With Academic Stressors

Research question two explores how IDSMs coped with academic stressors. We used Goode’s (1960) first technique to analyze data related to coping. According to Goode, managing role strain involves manipulating role structures. It includes compartmentalizing, delegation, elimination of role relationships, extension, overcoming obstacles to the indefinite explanation of the ego’s role system, and barriers against intrusion. Although IDSMs made numerous references to coping strategies during the pandemic (n = 59), they only referenced three of the five strategies described by Goode. We list these in Table 2, along with illustrative quotes.

The majority (n = 13) referenced compartmentalizing as a coping strategy. Farah (n = 5) and Fatima (n = 3) referred to compartmentalizing more than Marium (n = 2), Naledi, Shapla, and Anastasia (n = 1, respectively). The IDSMs compartmentalized their time differently when they joined the doctoral program, as all were managing full-time jobs. When Naledi began the doctoral program in the spring of 2021, she started juggling multiple tasks. Similarly, when Farah joined the doctoral program in the spring of 2021 while working full-time in the UAE, she completed coursework on weekends. Fatima lived with her family in the U.S., so she organized her schedule after seeing her children’s schedules. She said she focused on her studies at different times of the day, depending on when her children were home or in school. Conversely, Marium, who was raising children of similar ages, managed her overthinking and fears about the future by focusing on the present to cope with her stressors. Anastasia and Naledi, on the other hand, compartmentalized by listing tasks and tackling them one at a time.

Five out of six participants referenced the delegating strategy (n = 8). Farah referenced delegation more than the others (n = 5). She had delegated some of her job-related tasks before coming to the United States. After coming to the United States, Shapla delegated tasks to her mother, who was caring for her child in her home country. Fatima delegated housework mainly to her husband and children. In the Spring of 2021, she had her mother and mother-in-law over, so she delegated housework to them. Anastasia delegated her household chores to her mother and husband after giving birth to her son. When Farah, Marium, and Shapla arrived in the United States, they had no one to whom they could delegate work. In Marium’s case, her workload increased. She could no longer afford a housekeeper. Naledi said she had developed the habit of delegation over the years and was always willing to delegate some of her tasks when she felt overwhelmed.

Only three of the six IDSMs said that they gave up roles to cope with their stress (n = 5). While Shapla and Naledi relinquished their parenting responsibilities to pursue their academic dreams, Fatima abandoned her dissertation work to devote more time to other tasks related to her job and family. IDSMs used five additional coping strategies to deal with academic and employment stressors: counseling, physical activity, connecting with friends, spiritual practices, and diversions.

Limitations

This study has certain inherent limitations, just like any other that uses qualitative methods. The lead author’s role as participant researcher, her opinion, and the resources at hand may have unavoidably influenced her interpretation and data analysis. We mitigated research bias using the procedures outlined in the data quality section of this paper. We conducted this study in a unique setting, which may make it challenging to replicate the findings in other contexts. Furthermore, the sample of IDSMs involved in this study may not be representative of those enrolled in other programs or institutions; therefore, readers should apply the findings with caution. Author 1 used the screen-sharing option via Zoom with some participants but not others; this could have affected participants’ recall of strategies, especially those related to Goode’s Role Strain Theory. Finally, although each participant, except for Naledi, was interviewed twice, we did not have enough time to delve as deeply as we had hoped. In retrospect, we would have been able to collect significantly more data had we used Seidman’s three-interview protocol (Seidman, 1998). We recommend that scholars consider using this approach with minoritized populations, such as ours.

Implications for Future Research

The findings of this study underscore several directions for future research on IDSMs. First, while this study captured a snapshot of experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, future research should examine how stressors and coping strategies evolve in post-pandemic contexts, where hybrid and digital practices are likely to persist. Longitudinal studies could show how coping mechanisms shift as IDSMs navigate changing academic landscapes, family dynamics, and mobility policies. Second, comparative research across institutional types (e.g., public vs. private, research-intensive vs. teaching-focused) and national contexts would identify structural supports most effective for IDSMs. Such studies could also highlight inequities and reveal best practices transferable across contexts. Third, as this study primarily applied Goode’s role strain framework, future scholarship could apply intersectional, feminist, or transnational lenses to capture the interplay of gender, race, class, nationality, and motherhood in shaping IDSMs’ experiences. Expanding theoretical frameworks would enrich understanding of the systemic forces influencing their academic and personal lives. Finally, researchers should investigate institutional and community-based interventions. Studies could test how practices such as peer mentorship, culturally responsive counseling, and family-inclusive initiatives affect IDSMs’ persistence, well-being, and academic success. Evaluating these can guide evidence-based recommendations for HEIs to create more inclusive and equitable environments.