Being Well in Academia: A Systematic Review on the Conceptualization and Measurement of Well-being and Well-being indicators

Abstract

Academic faculty face high rates of indicators of low well-being, such as burnout, stress, and even mental illness, making monitoring employee well-being imperative. However, well-being is a complex construct with various conceptualizations and associated measures. This lack of consensus creates difficulties in interpreting well-being findings, with consequences for practice. We have conducted a systematic review by qualitatively analyzing 161 articles from EBSCOhost, Web of Science, PsycNet, ERIC, and Scopus. Our findings provide an overview of how faculty well-being is defined and measured. Well-being is poorly defined in the current research, given that definitions are sometimes implied rather than stated or omitted altogether. Well-being conceptualizations and measures from different categories are often combined to provide a more holistic perspective. Based on these findings, we have developed a series of guiding questions to support researchers in conceptualizing and measuring well-being.

Keywords

health higher education work faculty careers qualitative research research methodology psychometrics well-being faculty academics burnout engagement stress

Burnout, work-related stress, anxiety, and depression are among the most prominent symptoms impacting the quality of faculty’s working life (Johnson & Lester, 2022; Urbina-Garcia, 2020). These symptoms have been found to affect faculty globally across countries and disciplines, although faculty members with minoritized identities are at higher risk of experiencing additional stressors (Williams, 2019). Psychological distress, for example, is exceptionally high, with rates ranging from 22% for Canadian faculty to three to four times higher than the general working population for Australian faculty (Catano et al., 2010; Winefield et al., 2003). Moreover, a systematic review of research covering publications from 2006 to 2020 (Fernández-Suárez et al., 2021) found consistently high burnout rates of around 37% among academic faculty in different disciplines and institutions. Another systematic review of research on PhD students suggested that 24% of PhDs experienced persistent depressive symptoms, and 17% were affected by anxiety (Satinsky et al., 2021). In other words, low well-being is becoming a growing concern for postsecondary teachers and researchers, or faculty members. Burnout, stress, and other symptoms of low well-being have gained visibility as occupational health risks for faculty to the extent that the current situation has been referred to as a well-being crisis (Johnson & Lester, 2022; Lau & Pretorius, 2019).

Faculty members’ psychological distress also affects universities’ and colleges’ well-being as organizations; low employee well-being is linked with attrition, especially common in early academic careers (Dorenkamp & Weiß, 2018; Kis et al., 2022), talent loss, and decreased quality of teaching and research (Jayman et al., 2022). Research on intention to leave in early academic career stages revealed that 33% percent of German postdoctoral researchers considered leaving academia (Dorenkamp & Weiß, 2018). Aggregate estimates of attrition in European, Australian, and North American PhD candidates are even higher, around 60% (Kis et al., 2022). Studies such as Catano et al.’s (2010) survey on occupational stress in Canadian universities and Shin and Jung’s (2014) cross-cultural study on job satisfaction and stress in academia linked growing well-being issues to changes in job roles, growing student numbers, higher faculty teaching loads, and the high pressure to publish and obtain grants and funding. Stigma from intersecting minority identities further exacerbates the risk of attrition due to gender differences, race, sexual orientation, national origin, and disability, reducing the diversity of perspectives in research and teaching (Williams, 2019). Minoritized employees often experience decreased well-being and higher intention to leave due to poor diversity management. The attrition of women in academia has been linked to gendered expectations of decreased productivity when forming a family and poor application of work–family policies (Ahmad, 2017).

The problem of low well-being in academia has been explored through various constructs, from burnout to stress, mental health, and low job satisfaction, which operationalize different narrow and specific aspects of well-being (Fisher, 2014). However, these variables capture differing employee experiences, making the magnitude and nature of the problem difficult to estimate and address. In some cases, universities limit themselves to complying with labor legislation under the assumption that autonomy is sufficient to promote well-being (Kinman, 2014). In others, efforts to improve communication, build trust, and manage current and future workloads are favored (Kinman, 2014). The impact of policy changes and interventions needs to be assessed using a shared understanding of well-being as the desired outcome.

Employee well-being research is highly fragmented and includes a variety of different positive and negative experiences, without a single well-established definition (Wijngaards et al., 2022). For example, Diener (1984) defined well-being as experiences of high life satisfaction, high positive affect, and low negative affect. In contrast, authors with more holistic perspectives, such as Ryff and Singer (2008), have described it as a broader sense of wellness based on positive relationships, health, purpose, and growth. The qualitative and quantitative measures stemming from these conceptualizations, and measure well-being from distinctly different perspectives, which causes difficulties in identifying trends in the literature (Urbina-Garcia, 2020).

Operationalizing well-being quantitatively presents additional challenges, given that it can be measured through dedicated scales or combinations of highly specific constructs (Fisher, 2014). This nuanced measurement issue is further complicated when linking measures with well-being definitions, as both can refer to different forms of well-being. Although the issue of misalignment, relating to scale construct validity, has been touched upon in scale development and validation literature, it remains underexplored (Cooke et al., 2016). The alignment between definitions and measures of employee well-being in the empirical research has not yet been explored, to our knowledge.

In summary, addressing the well-being of faculty¹ is complicated by the wide range of conceptualizations and measures for the desired outcome. These operationalizations are not sufficiently systematized and can lead researchers and practitioners to be less deliberate in selecting well-aligned definitions and measures that suit the study’s aims. Accurately measuring well-being is necessary to assess the efficacy of policy changes and interventions. This review aims to support practical policies and interventions and facilitate accurate measurement by classifying definitions and measures for faculty well-being and assessing how studies combine them. To this end, we have formulated the following research questions:

RQ1: How is well-being conceptualized in research on academic faculty?

RQ2: How is the well-being of faculty measured?

RQ3: To what extent are conceptualizations and measures of well-being aligned?

Theoretical Framework

The Well-Being of Academic Faculty

Postsecondary education is a high-pressure, competitive domain where faculty members are facing growing administrative and academic (specific to research and teaching) demands. Worrying trends related to waning funding and growing student numbers per teacher have been present for decades. Changes in tasks, culture, and processes throughout the past 20 years have been ill-received and linked with increased managerialism and administrative workloads (Kinman & Johnson, 2019). Jerejian et al.’s (2013) study on email volume and stress exemplifies the aspect of growing administrative tasks, where academics received an average of 48.8 emails per day from students, colleagues and research participants, detracting from attention to a myriad of other work demands.

Pressure to excel extends to various tasks ranging from pastoral care (e.g., supporting student well-being) to education, research, administration, and entrepreneurial activities, with few professional development opportunities to develop these skills (Wray & Kinman, 2021). Work pressure is exacerbated by academic gender norms, where female faculty often face higher emotional work demands in the form of service tasks that are not assigned to their male colleagues (Oliveira et al., 2024). Outcomes in academia are also highly individual, with little or no task interdependence, which has been linked with reduced social support and loneliness (Schmidt & Hansson, 2018). Employees from racialized backgrounds experience additional exclusion struggles in navigating discrimination and micro-aggressions in their everyday interactions (Oliveira et al., 2024). Globally, faculty experience increasingly few protective factors to buffer work pressure. A survey conducted by the nonprofit Education Support on faculty well-being across universities in the United Kingdom revealed lower scores than the benchmark level on health and safety indicators ranging from manager support to role clarity, except for control over their workflow (Wray & Kinman, 2021). Despite the flexible and autonomous working arrangements characteristic of academic work, increased accountability for performance and managerial interference weaken their effect. The previously mentioned conditions are conducive to stress and ill-being and pose a growing threat to faculty’s well-being at work.

Well-Being Conceptualizations: A Fragmented Research Field

Well-being can be explored through many contested conceptualizations, making addressing low employee well-being especially challenging. This construct is typically understood as wellness or satisfaction, applied to outcomes ranging from the economic to the emotional or psychological. It can be operationalized through objective constructs such as life expectancy, income, or self-assessments of one’s mental or psychological wellness. Ryff and Keyes (1995) operationalized subjective psychological well-being as a generalized feeling of happiness, while Schmutte and Ryff (1997) adopted a broader dimensional approach, including aspects such as a positive evaluation of oneself, a sense of growth and self-development, high-quality relations with others, and so forth. The latter perspective is similar to that of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2021) on individual well-being as a positive state, similar to health, which involves quality of life and the ability to contribute to the world with meaning and purpose. Well-being is closely linked with positive concepts such as happiness, perceived quality of life, and satisfaction with different life domains (Fisher, 2014). Despite its positive connotations, some streams of research operationalize it negatively as a lack of negative emotion and mental health conditions and symptoms (Huppert & Whittington, 2003).

Despite growing concerns about faculty well-being, evidence on how it is conceptualized is limited. Past research has focused on well-being combined with symptomatic approaches or graduate student well-being without offering guidelines to operationalize this construct. Systematic reviews on the mental health and well-being of academic employees (Urbina-Garcia, 2021) and PhD students (Schmidt & Hansson, 2018) have found that most of the studies in their sample focused on burnout, stress, cynicism, physical complaints, and self-protection from job demands. In Urbina-Garcia’s (2020) review, only 23% of the articles focused on the psychological well-being of academics as a positive state, while most of the literature explored ill-being, such as burnout, stress, or both combined. When exploring psychological well-being positively, a variety of other related variables were included, such as job satisfaction, work-related quality of life, work engagement, job demands and resources, life satisfaction, absenteeism, and work–life balance. In Schmidt and Hansson’s (2018) review exploring PhD student well-being, articles also frequently conceptualized the construct as ill-being (stress, burnout, cynicism, and depression), including clinical psychological constructs and physical health. However, well-being was also positively conceptualized through life satisfaction and subjective well-being (positive affect and evaluation of one’s circumstances) and through psychosocial approaches such as psychological flourishing and Sen’s (1993) capability-based well-being—as cited in Schmidt and Hansson (2018). These findings, however, were not strictly focused on the well-being of faculty members; their review focused instead on the well-being of PhDs (Schmidt & Hansson, 2018), who are often categorized as students and whose well-being is conceptualized differently than for employees. Urbina-Garcia’s (2020) review included studies on faculty mental health, which, although often conflated with well-being, is a distinct construct operationalizing ill-being and may have contributed to a greater prevalence of negative well-being conceptualizations.

Categorizing Well-Being Conceptualizations

Outside of the context of postsecondary education, there have been considerable developments in understanding the multiple conceptualizations of well-being. Authors such as Fisher (2014) and Taris and Schaufeli (2015) have outlined categories for employee well-being, observing differences in operationalizing well-being as a distinct construct or through related variables. Conceptualizations of well-being also present differences in generality or link with the work context. Additionally, most well-being research identifies a difference between philosophical perspectives that focus on affective states (hedonic) or meaning-making (eudaimonic). Finally, well-being can be conceptualized positively or negatively. Similar categorizations could be applied to studies of well-being in academia, such as Urbina-Garcia’s (2021) and Schmidt and Hansson’s (2018) reviews. However, clear categorizations of well-being in postsecondary education are missing so far. We will outline different categorizations in well-being conceptualizations based on the broader literature.

First, well-being is typically conceptualized as a distinct construct. However, various other constructs can be used to explore well-being-related experiences. These constructs, called outcomes or, more commonly, well-being indicators, act as proxies for defining and measuring well-being. Authors may use one or more proxies to construct a conceptualization for well-being, used in place of established definitions. Life satisfaction (Cooke et al., 2016) is one of the many indicators used to conceptualize well-being and consists of a state of positive emotion and cognitive assessment of one’s life. Other prominent well-being indicators include engagement, a sustained state of high absorption, vigor, and dedication towards one’s work, as well as job satisfaction and positive assessments and emotions toward one’s work and working environment (Fisher, 2014). Research on the well-being of faculty and graduate students also frequently uses indicators to conceptualize well-being, although they may not be referred to as such. Urbina-Garcia (2021) and Schmidt and Hansson (2018) found that studies frequently used constructs such as job satisfaction, work-related quality of life, work engagement, life satisfaction, absenteeism, and work–life balance. The two most frequent conceptualizations in Urbina-Garcia’s study (2021), stress and burnout, can be used to conceptualize well-being. However, these constructs may also be used as predictors or outcomes of well-being or conceptualizations for mental health. As such, the use of well-being indicators is not clearly outlined in research on faculty.

Second, well-being can also vary in specificity. It can be used to reflect wellness in a general sense across life domains or can relate to specific contexts and areas of a person’s life (Taris & Schaufeli, 2015). General well-being can be used to explore wellness in almost any domain but is less relevant when studying context-specific predictors and outcomes. One of the most prominent contexts in well-being research is the workplace, given that most of a person’s waking hours are experienced at work. When adapted to the working context, operationalizations of well-being relate more closely to workplace antecedents and outcomes and capture experiences of positive affect at work, health, and optimal functioning. An example of a work-related conceptualization is Warr’s (1990) definition of well-being as the arousal of positive and negative emotions in a work context. Well-being at work has also been operationalized as indicators such as engagement, job satisfaction, and even burnout, which conceptualize wellness-related experiences specific to work. In research on academic faculty and PhD students, some of the most common conceptualizations for well-being and mental health can be classified as general: stress, subjective well-being, satisfaction with life, and psychological well-being. This finding may be due to Schmitt and Hanssen’s (2018) review not being strictly focused on employees, while the most common conceptualization in Urbina-Garcia’s (2020) review focusing on academic employees—burnout—is work-related.

Third, the construct of well-being can vary according to its philosophical perspective. Our modern understanding of well-being stems from philosophical conceptions, based in antiquity, about what makes a life worth living: happiness (hedonia) or meaning-making (eudaimonia), leading to two distinct currents in understanding wellness. Hedonic or subjective well-being is the prevalence of positive emotions and evaluations related to different areas of one’s life (Fisher, 2014). Anshel et al. (2010) conceptualized subjective well-being as interchangeable with happiness, comprised of low negative affect, high positive affect, and increased life satisfaction. In contrast, eudaimonic or psychosocial well-being is a broader construct referring to patterns of behavior that promote meaning, health, growth, relatedness and self-actualization (Taris & Schaufeli, 2015). Webber et al. (2020) described well-being eudaimonically as a holistic sense of thriving, integrating physical and mental health, meaning, purpose, spirituality, and positive social relations. Regarding faculty well-being, the articles in Schmidt and Hansson’s (2018) review mentioned subjective well-being, or positive emotions and self-evaluations (hedonic well-being), in contrast to more holistic and behavioral approaches (eudaimonic well-being) such as psychological flourishing and Sen’s (1993) capability-based well-being. However, neither review (Schmidt & Hansson, 2018; Urbina-Garcia, 2021) explicitly distinguished conceptualizations based on these differences in perspectives.

Fourth, well-being can be conceptualized positively or negatively. Despite the positive nature of well-being and its association with happiness and growth-oriented behaviors, many studies have equated it with the absence of distress, ill-being, and mental health concerns. Studies exploring negative general well-being can operationalize it as a lack of negative affect when adopting a hedonic perspective and as a lack of mental health symptoms when viewing it eudaimonically (Taris & Schaufeli, 2015). Researchers can also use well-being indicators for negative conceptualizations, especially when addressing work-related well-being. For example, burnout, a state of cynicism, emotional exhaustion, low self-efficacy, and workaholism—a state of intense but unpleasant work involvement—are commonly used to conceptualize low work well-being (Mäkikangas et al., 2015). Stress and psychological distress are indicators used to explore negative well-being beyond the context of work. In Urbina-Garcia’s (2021) systematic review of the mental health and well-being of academics, most well-being conceptualizations used were based on negative indicators—namely, stress and burnout, which were often combined. However, this might have been due to the inclusion of articles on mental health, which is a related construct that is not strictly speaking well-being.

In sum, research on the well-being of academics and faculty can use constructs and conceptualizations from the broader employee well-being literature. However, the characteristics of these conceptualizations in postsecondary education have not been sufficiently analyzed. First, the research explores measures, conceptualizations, and antecedents but does not always distinguish between them. Furthermore, past research was not strictly focused on the workplace, studying PhD candidates who are not always employees, and studying employee mental health, a construct not strictly related to work. We aim to apply frameworks derived from broader conceptualizations of employee well-being to classify and understand how well-being is conceptualized in research on academic faculty.

Measures of Employee Well-Being

Measures for well-being have been developed based on various preexisting conceptualizations with a wide range of characteristics (i.e., generality or specificity to the work environment, hedonic or eudemonic perspectives, positive or negative valence). Consequently, well-being measures can be difficult to disentangle from these conceptualizations and are rarely analyzed independently. In postsecondary education research, authors can use well-being measures and instruments to conceptualize well-being, which is not always defined. Well-being research concerning academics and faculty members has tended to use quantitative measures. Urbina-Garcia (2021) and Schmidt and Hansson (2018) found mainly positivistic, quantitative approaches to measuring well-being and mental health in their systematic reviews. Most studies focused on measuring different variables operationalizing well-being and mental health, neglecting more experiential aspects of faculty and PhD student wellness. A few more phenomenologically oriented studies related well-being to faculty and PhDs’ relationship with aspects of their job, workplace, or community. In those cases, researchers could ask participants open-ended questions about their role in their context (Schmidt & Hansson, 2018).

It is challenging to identify trends in the literature regarding the use of quantitative measures, partly due to the use of numerous proxy measures for well-being (well-being indicator measures). Urbina-Garcia (2021) found that the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach et al., 1997), often combined with scales for other negative well-being indicators such as stress, is the most widely used measure of faculty mental health and well-being. However, the prevalence of negative measures may be due to the review’s focus on mental health, which is often operationalized as the absence of conditions for ill-being. In Schmidt and Hansson’s (2018) article, positive and negative measures for indicator variables such as perceived stress, job satisfaction, and sleeping problems were also common. However, the scales used were not specified. These indicator measures are also commonly used in employee well-being literature in general, although a combination of employee engagement instruments, such as the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2006), together with the MBI (Maslach et al., 1997), is often seen (Fisher, 2014).

Regarding well-being as a distinct positive construct, the most common scales in Schmidt and Hansson’s (2018) systematic review study were the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al., 2007), the PGI General Well-Being Measure (Verma et al., 1983, as cited in Schmidt & Hansson, 2018), and the Ryff Scale of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff, 1989), which are measures of general well-being. Most measures were developed for the general population or employees in nonspecific fields; however, there are some examples of measures specific to the academic context. For example, the Doctoral Experience Survey by Juniper et al. (2012, as cited in Schmidt & Hansson, 2018) focuses on dimensions related to well-being, such as career development, facilities, research, social, supervisor, and university.

In their review of the well-being of doctoral students, Schmidt and Hansson (2018) distinguished between measures based on a subjective or hedonic well-being framework, such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale by Diener et al. (SWLS; 1985), and psychological and psychosocial well-being scales (eudaimonic) such as the flourishing scale by Diener et al. (FS; 2010). Articles focusing on well-being as a distinct construct in Urbina-Garcia’s (2020) study conceptualized well-being as psychological well-being (eudaimonic) and used psychological well-being scales such as the WEMWBS (Tennant et al., 2007) and the Ryff Scale of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff, 1989). These scales were rarely work-related, possibly due to the focus on PhDs in a student role in Schmidt and Hansson’s (2018) review study and Urbina-Garcia’s (2021) focus on mental health and well-being, which is typically general.

In sum, the wide array of well-being measures and conceptualizations indicates a lack of consensus that can create difficulties with operationalizing the construct and interpreting the research. The use of varied combinations of well-being indicators, in particular, exacerbates the difficulties with operationalizing well-being. Furthermore, conceptualizations and measures are rarely explored individually, separately from antecedents and outcomes. To provide greater methodological clarity, we will apply categorizations derived from the general work well-being literature to conceptualizations and measures used in academia in order to facilitate the selection of instruments based on the aim of one’s study. Earlier reviews of research on faculty and PhD students (Schmidt & Hansson, 2018; Urbina-Garcia, 2021) have outlined frequently used operationalizations but lacked comprehensiveness in analyzing the characteristics of measures and conceptualizations. We will analyze conceptualizations and measures separately, which allows us to explore their alignment. To explore well-being as intended, conceptualizations and measures must align.

Methods

Literature Search Procedure

We conducted our review based on the five steps in Petticrew and Roberts’s (2006) guide for systematic literature reviews in the social sciences. First, we formulated the research questions upon which this study’s design is based. Second, we selected search terms and appropriate scientific databases. Third, inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed. Fourth, we applied predefined quality criteria to assess the articles’ scientific quality. Finally, data relevant to our research questions were extracted and analyzed.

Databases and Literature Search Terms

We performed searches for qualitative and quantitative articles in the following databases: EBSCOhost, Web of Science, PsycNet, ERIC (via EBSCO), and Scopus. These platforms have a wide selection of educational, psychological, management, and higher education journals that would enrich our sample. In the databases that allowed it, we limited our search to peer-reviewed empirical articles published in academic journals. Preprints of articles were filtered out when applying the initial exclusion criteria. We also limited ourselves to articles published in English and available in their full-text versions. We did not set date boundaries for the search, given that our research questions were not focused on new developments in operationalizing well-being, and our research could be enriched by including a historical perspective. Searches were performed using a combination of keywords including “Wellbeing” separated by the Boolean term OR “Well-being” AND “Higher Education” OR “University,” AND “Academics,” OR “Staff” OR “Faculty,” OR “Researcher,” OR “Teacher” OR “Instructor,” OR “Professor,” OR “Employee,” NOT “Student.” We included articles that contained our search terms in their abstracts, titles, or keywords when the database allowed for it. This search strategy resulted in 3223 articles, once duplicates were eliminated.

Selection Process

Once duplicates were manually eliminated, we screened articles based on their abstracts and titles, followed by their full texts and applied the following inclusion and exclusion criteria successively. After screening the titles and abstracts, we were left with 406 studies. We applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the full texts, leaving 196 remaining articles. After a final quality criteria check, we eliminated 35 articles, resulting in a sample of 161 articles.

First, we assessed whether articles were empirical studies focused on the well-being of academic faculty. Theoretical articles, literature reviews, editorials, press interviews, intervention proposals, and conference proceedings were excluded.

Second, we included studies with academic faculty in their sample, operationalized as salaried college and university employees with teaching and, or research responsibilities. To improve generalizability, we excluded studies on the well-being of PhD candidates and graduate students, given that their status as employees varies by country. Studies could include support staff and other university employees, in addition to faculty. We also excluded studies with samples of non-academic physicians, medical or nursing residents, patients in university hospitals, elderly adults, or retired faculty.

Third, studies that were not sufficiently focused on subjective or psychosocial well-being were excluded. We only included studies that mentioned well-being in the title, abstract or full text related to the study’s aims. Studies that operationalized well-being as variables such as engagement, burnout, quality of life, or happiness were included so long as the text established them as proxy variables. Studies focused on burnout, work engagement, happiness, or job satisfaction, with no mention of well-being, were excluded. Studies focusing solely on economic, physical well-being, or health behaviors were excluded, given that these variables can be framed as predictors for subjective or psychosocial well-being. Studies exploring organizational, institutional, or community well-being were excluded due to a lack of comparability in their operationalizations.

Finally, we only included studies with one or more qualitative or quantitative well-being (or proxy variable) measures. Studies that mentioned well-being in their aims but did not use a well-being or well-being proxy measure, instead measuring variables such as workplace incivility or organizational climate, were excluded. We included qualitative measures ranging from focus group and World Café prompts to semistructured interview questions.

Initial Data Extraction and Quality Check

Throughout the screening of the full-text versions of articles, we extracted relevant content to assess the scientific quality of the articles. The extracted content pertained to quality criteria guidelines developed by Gast et al. (2017), based on criteria established by Petticrew and Roberts (2006). We extracted the following data:

General information: Study title, author, year of publication, country, and research context.

Topic: Well-being conceptualized as itself, as well-being indicators and as measures for well-being and well-being indicators.

Research design: Research questions, objectives or hypotheses, description of the study, research design, research method, and data analysis method.

Research population: Number of participants, gender, age, job roles, and seniority.

Overall results: Results addressing the articles’ research questions, objectives, or hypotheses.

We applied the quality criteria to 196 articles that fit our inclusion and exclusion criteria after reading the full texts. We applied the 11 quality criteria (see Table A1 in the Appendix) developed by Gast et al. (2017), where each criterion is assessed on a 3-point Likert scale, with 0 as the lowest score and 1 as the highest. To be included in the sample, an article had to obtain a total score of 7 or higher. After performing this check, we eliminated one article, resulting in a final sample of 161. To improve reliability, a second rater independently performed the same quality check on 10% of the sample with the lowest scores. Quality criteria were discussed before and after ratings to ensure a shared understanding. In cases of misalignment on specific scores for quality criteria, we discussed our rationale with the goal of achieving consensus. We obtained a strong intraclass correlation score of 89.17% when considering the ratings for each criterion, while complete agreement was reached on which articles to eliminate (see Figure A1 in the appendix).

Sample Characteristics

Given that we performed our searches in February and March 2022, articles in our sample were published between 1992 and 2022, with most published after 2019. This finding aligns with the greater awareness of work well-being risks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic publications with an occupational health focus grew from 2019 to 2022 (Sobirin et al., 2024). This trend contributed to greater visibility of occupational hazards inherent to faculty jobs, including high work pressure, job insecurity, and managerial interference (Shamsi et al., 2021). Studies in our sample were published in journals from various disciplines, including psychology (n = 33), occupational health (n = 28), multidisciplinary journals (n = 23), higher education (n = 19), business and management (n = 14), medicine and medical education (n = 11), educational sciences (n = 10), public health (n = 9), educational management (n = 7), social sciences (n = 4), urban studies (n = 1), leisure (n = 1), and life span studies (n = 1). We aimed to center diverse voices and approaches to research. To ensure fair representation of research outside of Eurocentric cultural norms, which are disproportionately featured in high-ranking journals, we used quality criteria based on articles’ design characteristics, methodological fit, and rigor, rather than journal ranking (Nkomo, 2009). Although most of our sample was from English-speaking countries (n = 93), studies from countries across five continents were represented, indicating that faculty well-being is a problem that is being explored globally. Our sample consists of studies performed at various institutions, ranging from technical colleges to research universities. Our sample exhibited a trend toward quantitative designs to explore faculty well-being (n = 141). Fewer studies employed qualitative (n = 12) and mixed methods designs (n = 8). Regarding participants, studies explored the well-being of lecturers, teaching staff, and faculty in all their roles and functions. Some studies in our sample included support staff, students, and other employees in nonteaching and research roles while also including faculty.

Data Analysis

After extracting the information for our quality criteria check, the articles’ introduction, theoretical framework, and methods sections were analyzed in greater depth. When these sections did not provide enough information on how they conceptualized well-being (well-being definitions, establishing other constructs as equivalent to well-being, etc.), we also analyzed the articles’ discussion sections. When analyzing measures, qualitative measures (interview questions and focus group and World Café prompts) were occasionally unavailable or excessively broad. In those cases, we included the coded themes reported in the studies to support us in our analysis.

Our data analysis was rooted in a framework synthesis approach, where frameworks from employee well-being literature were used as a scaffold for categorizing findings, which were then, in turn, used to build upon existing frameworks (Brunton et al., 2020). We used inductive coding to identify categories of well-being that were not present in the theory and explore hierarchical relations between theoretical categories. We applied the following codes derived from employee well-being research: scope, or whether well-being is operationalized as a distinct construct or using related variables; context, or whether well-being is a general or work-related variable; the philosophical perspective the operationalization is based on; and valence, or whether well-being is a positive or negative variable (see Table A2). These codes were hierarchical, where a well-being conceptualization or measure had certain valence characteristics that were nested within a given philosophical perspective, nested in context, and more broadly nested in a certain scope.

Through inductive coding, we also identified a final broader category reader inference for well-being conceptualizations, or whether well-being is defined explicitly, implicitly through links with other constructs, or measured but not conceptualized.

Results

To answer our first two research questions, we analyzed conceptualizations and measures for well-being based on four categories: scope, context, philosophical perspective, and valence. The frequency of conceptualizations in each nested category is featured in Figure A2. We identified one additional category for well-being conceptualizations, reader inference, or the extent to which a reader must deduce the conceptualization of well-being from links with other variables and implicit equivalencies between these variables and well-being. Finally, to address our third research question, we analyzed the alignment between measures and conceptualizations.

Well-Being Conceptualizations (RQ1)

Reader Inference: Explicit and Implicit Well-Being Conceptualizations

The degree of explicitness with which studies conceptualized faculty well-being differed. Most studies (n = 102) explicitly conceptualized well-being using established definitions (well-being defined as a distinct construct) or stating which well-being indicators, such as burnout or engagement, would conceptualize well-being in the study. When explicit, the definition of well-being could be identified in the article’s introduction or theoretical framework and coincides with its conceptualization in the research questions and hypotheses. However, several studies conceptualized well-being only implicitly (n = 21), for example, by establishing an equivalency in the text. Well-being was mentioned and given as a justification for the research, but not clearly linked with the indicators (i.e., engagement, effort-recovery, job satisfaction, burnout, emotional exhaustion, health, and psychological distress) used in the research questions or hypotheses. Furthermore, a large portion of studies (n = 38) did not conceptualize well-being at all. These studies mentioned well-being-related variables (well-being indicators) and linked them with well-being in the text, but often as antecedents or outcomes, without establishing their equivalency to well-being. In those cases, well-being was conceptualized through mainly quantitative established well-being measures, such as the Warwick-Edinburgh Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al., 2007), although some studies used well-being indicators instead (n = 6). Three studies using qualitative measures also neglected to clearly conceptualize well-being.

Scope: Established Well-Being Definitions and Well-Being Indicators

Studies in our sample conceptualized well-being based on either an established well-being definition (n = 48), well-being indicators (n = 64), or a combination of both (n = 11). Established well-being conceptualizations referred to well-being as a construct distinct from other variables, such as “Affective well-being is broadly conceptualized as a hedonic balance; [i.e.] balance between pleasant and unpleasant affect” (Arnold et al., 2007, as cited in Ahmad et al., 2018, p. 1350).

Single well-being indicators, or proxy variables for well-being, were used less frequently to conceptualize well-being. In our sample, only 12 articles used a single indicator: quality of working life, psychological distress, health, or burnout. These constructs were more often combined with other well-being indicators or established definitions. A frequently used combination of indicators was burnout and engagement or their components (i.e., vigor and emotional exhaustion; n = 9).

Finally, some authors supplemented an established well-being definition with one or several well-being indicators (n = 11):

We present a more balanced understanding of faculty well-being by including measures of emotional and physical health, as well as traditional measures of job satisfaction. . . . Well-being can be seen as a more holistic construct encompassing work variables (i.e., job satisfaction, intent to leave) and life variables (i.e., emotional and physical health). (McCoy et al., 2013, p. 312)

Context: General Well-Being and Well-Being Rooted in the Working Context

In our sample, 49 studies used a general well-being conceptualization or established well-being definitions and well-being indicators explored across contexts and life domains, 53 articles used a work-related definition or indicator, and 21 articles combined work-related and general well-being. Most of our sample included aspects of work-specific well-being in their conceptualizations. One example is Stan’s (2022) conceptualization of well-being, where affective well-being constitutes the core aspect of subjective well-being at work.

When it comes to established well-being definitions, general well-being (n = 29) and work-related well-being (n = 19) were equally frequent, while definitions combining domains (n = 2) were less common. In our sample, Darabi et al. (2017) conceptualized subjective well-being (SWB) generally as a construct based on the experience of high levels of positive affect, low levels of negative affect, and high levels of life satisfaction, an experience independent of context.

In our sample, most well-being indicators were work-related (n = 34), while general well-being indicators or well-being related variables that are not rooted in a specific context were used less frequently. General indicators including variables such as health or psychological distress were occasionally used on their own (n = 12), or combined with other work-related indicators, such as job satisfaction (n = 11).

Articles could combine contexts, thus creating a broader conceptualization of well-being, either by using established well-being definitions from both contexts (n = 2), by combining established definitions with well-being indicators from a different context (n = 3), or by using several well-being indicators (n = 11) from different contexts. Some indicators, such as work-life balance, inherently address the general and work-related contexts.

Philosophical Perspective: Eudaimonic and Hedonic Perspectives

Our sample’s well-being conceptualizations could be categorized as eudaimonic, hedonic, or both. We classified well-being conceptualizations and well-being indicators as eudaimonic if there was a growth-oriented, meaning-related, health, or behavioral component. The eudaimonic perspective was commonly used in our sample (n = 47), exemplified in Finkelstein et al.’s (2021) conceptualization of well-being as a balance between physical, emotional, intellectual, social, occupational, financial, and spiritual aspects of human experience. Eudaimonic well-being indicators included burnout, engagement, quality of working life, physical illness, and leaving intention, and were used in 38 articles.

Hedonic well-being conceptualizations and indicators were present (n = 34). They were based on an affective balance of positive and negative emotions and on subjective assessments of one’s general circumstances or work. An example of an established hedonic well-being definition is “Subjective well-being (SWB) comes from experiencing high levels of positive affect, low levels of negative affect, and high levels of life satisfaction” (Diener et al., 1999, as cited in Darabi et al., 2017, p. 394). Our sample’s most common hedonic well-being indicators (n = 13) were job satisfaction, life satisfaction, fatigue, and stress.

Some conceptualizations combined eudaimonic and hedonic well-being (n = 38). They could be combined in one established definition (n = 6), as in Raiden et al.’s (2020) well-being conceptualization derived from a holistic perspective, outlining three core dimensions of well-being: psychological (happiness), physical (health), and social (relationships). Combinations of well-being indicators from both philosophical perspectives (n = 19) or of indicators and established definitions from both perspectives (n = 5) were also used across our sample.

Valence: Positive Well-Being or the Absence of Negative Symptoms

Well-being could be explored through positive emotional states and behavior (positive affect and growth-related behaviors), as the absence of negative affect or conditions, or as a combination of positive and negative behaviors or affect. In our sample, it was most common to explore well-being only using its positive conceptualizations (n = 66). When explored positively, established well-being definitions were used most frequently (n = 43). Nevertheless, articles also combined positive and negative well-being (n = 45), especially when using just well-being indicators (n = 34). These indicators were typically from the same (work-related) context and were most frequently eudaimonic—for example, engagement and burnout. Finally, some articles (n = 11) using well-being indicators used only negative well-being conceptualizations. These often referred to the same context and philosophical perspectives but represented distinct emotional and behavioral negative states and experiences. Some examples include psychological distress, burnout, stress, and emotional exhaustion.

Well-Being Measures (RQ2)

Most studies used only quantitative instruments to measure well-being (n = 145). Thirteen studies used only qualitative well-being measures. Only three studies combined qualitative and quantitative well-being measures. Articles in our sample used qualitative measures such as interview questions, focus group prompts and survey questions.

Scope of Well-being Measures

Well-being measures in our sample were often established well-being measures or measures operationalizing well-being as its own construct (n = 72). Some examples of established well-being instruments include the General Health Questionnaire for psychological diseases (GHQ-12; Goldberg & Williams, 1988), the Warwick-Edinburgh Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS; Tennant et al., 2007), Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988), and the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS; Van Katwyk et al., 2000).

Authors also frequently used more than one measure to capture different aspects of well-being. When using an established well-being measure, authors often included one or more well-being indicator measures (n = 21). Despite being frequently used in our sample (n = 69), single indicators were used less commonly on their own to measure well-being (n = 15). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2006) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach et al., 1997) were the most frequent measures used purely as indicators. They were usually used together (n = 12) or combined with other well-being indicators or well-being measurement scales. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) was used to measure well-being in some studies (n = 2) and as a proxy measure (n = 14) for studies operationalizing well-being as a fragmented satisfaction component of hedonic well-being.

When collecting information qualitatively, researchers did not always address well-being as a distinct construct. Interview questions were often directed at aspects of work (n = 5), such as academic publishing, the impact of workplace interventions, the impact of systemic issues, or reactions to specific work activities, such as preparing and giving feedback, or more general aspects, such as their experiences in a given time period or their “stories” (n = 2). In these cases, researchers either included sub-questions on perceived well-being linked to these aspects or coded for well-being or well-being-related themes. Other articles focused on conceptualizing well-being or well-being antecedents.

Context of Well-Being Measures

The most heavily featured measures in our sample were work-related. Seventy articles used only general well-being measures, 28 combined work-related and general measures, and 48 articles used only work-related measures. General measures were composed of items or questions that did not refer to any particular context, such as “In the past few weeks, I have been able to enjoy day-to-day activities” (GHQ-12; Goldberg & Williams, 1988). Work-related measures, in contrast, included references to the context of work with items such as “My job made me feel happy” (JAWS; Van Katwyk et al., 2000) and “I can do my job well” (WARR; Warr, 1990).

Some authors also integrated several contexts by combining measures, although in our sample, most articles used a single measure for well-being. When combining measures, authors generally used one or more well-being indicators. Quantitative studies in our sample used established well-being measures (n = 21) somewhat more frequently than well-being indicators (n = 19) when focusing on work-specific well-being.

In our sample, some qualitative measures combined the general and working contexts (n = 4). They typically included references to academic working tasks, such as “Please outline the ways that preparing and giving feedback online have impacted on your own health and well-being” (Whittet, 2021, p. 56), or aspects of higher education work roles, as in “What are current barriers to physician wellness?” (Webber et al., 2020, Suppl.), giving them even greater relevance. In addition, seven quantitative measures also focused on more specific aspects of well-being, such as the Teaching Satisfaction Scale (Ho & Au, 2006, as cited in Han, Yin, Wang, & Zhang, 2020) and the Teacher Well-Being Scale (TWBS; Collie et al., 2015, as cited in Zewude & Hercz, 2021). Finally, well-being linked with faculty working tasks globally was measured quantitatively in three instances: the academic well-being subscale in Spasovski and Pecakovska’s (2020) instrument, the Faculty Stress Index (Gmelch et al., 1983, as cited in Davidson et al., 2010), and the National Junior Faculty Survey (NJF; Signoret et al., 2019).

Philosophical Perspective of Well-Being Measures

Well-being and indicator measures from different contexts also exhibited differences in the philosophical perspective on which they were based. Articles could adopt a eudaimonic (n = 55), hedonic (n = 43), or combined perspective (n = 53). Eudaimonic perspectives were often associated with the use of well-being indicator measures (n = 21), such as the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2006) and Van Veldhoven et al.’s (2002) five-item Sleep Quality Scale (as cited in Van Hooff et al., 2007). Articles with established well-being measures used eudaimonic perspectives (n = 30) more often than those using well-being indicators and combined measures (n = 4).

Hedonic perspectives were most common among articles that used established well-being measures (e.g., JAWS; Van Katwyk et al., 2000; n = 26). Well-being indicator measures, such as job satisfaction and life satisfaction, and combinations of measures went along with a purely hedonic perspective less frequently. Measures for eudaimonic well-being were evenly distributed between work and general categories, while hedonic perspectives were most frequent among articles using general measures.

With regard to qualitative measures, it was sometimes unclear what philosophical perspective the measures (questions or prompts) were based on, which was clarified by looking into the coded themes. Here, the focus on well-being was exploratory, with a perspective emerging from the data.

Valence of Well-Being Measures

Well-being measures and indicators have a positive valence (n = 68) when well-being is measured as growth, meaning, and positive emotions. The valence of well-being is negative (n = 20) when well-being is measured as the absence of negative conditions or emotions. In our sample, a large portion of studies (n = 67) combine positive and negative measures to operationalize well-being.

Studies using positive or negative instruments exclusively tend to use established well-being measures more frequently than well-being indicators. Established well-being instruments tend to include more dimensions or aspects of well-being than well-being indicator measures, which capture more specific wellness experiences. Articles used well-being and well-being indicator measures with similar frequency when solely measuring negative well-being. The most frequently used instrument for this purpose (n = 6) was the GHQ-12 (Goldberg & Williams, 1988).

Certain scales, like the Scale of Positive and Negative Emotion (SPANE; Diener et al., 2009), measure both positive and negative well-being. However, most articles exploring positive and negative well-being use several measures, typically combinations of well-being indicators (i.e., the UWES and the MBI) or established well-being scales and indicators (i.e., the GHQ-12, the JAWS, and a single-item measure for leaving intention).

Alignment of Conceptualizations and Measures (RQ3)

In our sample, well-being measures and conceptualizations in articles were not always aligned (n = 71). Articles using established well-being definitions sometimes showed misalignments in scope, context, philosophical perspective, and valence (n = 14). For example, an article might conceptualize well-being as a distinct construct but measure an indicator such as work-life balance instead, as in Raiden et al.’s (2020) article on the perceived well-being of male academics. Another might use a work-related conceptualization but measure it using two general well-being measures, such as Hartfiel et al.’s (2011) article, which used the Profile of Mood States Bipolar (POMS-Bi; Lorr et al., 2003, as cited in Hartfiel et al., 2011) and the Inventory of Positive Psychological Attitudes (IPPA; Kass et al., 1991, as cited in Hartfiel et al., 2011). Others might use a positive well-being definition but a negative well-being measure. This was most frequent in articles using the GHQ-12 (Goldberg & Williams, 1988) as a measure, such as in Akanni et al.’s (2020) article, which had a positive well-being definition but used several positive and negative measures, including the GHQ-12, or Anshel et al.’s (2010) article, which also used a positive definition and the GHQ-12 as its only measure.

It was more difficult to determine whether the definitions and measures in qualitative and mixed-methods articles were aligned, given that the approach was often exploratory. However, we found misalignments in scope and context between definitions and measures. For example, Raiden et al.’s (2020) article used a general well-being definition and interview questions on work–life balance, a well-being indicator that is both general and work-related.

Articles conceptualizing well-being implicitly and through indicators were even more susceptible to misalignments (n = 19). These misalignments were most frequent between context, philosophical perspective, and valence. However, misalignments sometimes occurred at the level of the individual indicators—for example, Beckers et al.’s (2008) article, which used health and effort recovery to conceptualize well-being but measured fatigue, work engagement, and home engagement instead. Furthermore, articles mentioning well-being in name without defining it, included established well-being and indicator measures without providing a definition of well-being in the introduction or theoretical framework (n = 38). The established well-being measure most frequently used in articles that did not conceptualize well-being was, once more, the GHQ-12 (Goldberg & Williams, 1988).

Discussion

Operationalizing the well-being of academic faculty presents a vast degree of complexity. Not only is well-being not always explicitly conceptualized, but a wide array of definitions and conceptualizations are available, with an overwhelming variety of measures. To untangle the conceptualizations and measures for well-being and the alignment between them, we addressed the following research questions: (1) How is well-being conceptualized in research on academic faculty? (2) What are the main measures of faculty’s well-being? and (3) To what extent are conceptualizations and measures of well-being aligned? The construct of well-being was not always explicitly conceptualized but should be clearly defined to avoid confusion with other positive states and experiences. Well-being was most frequently conceptualized using combinations of indicators, sometimes including well-being definitions. This gave researchers greater freedom to construct a well-being conceptualization that suited their aims. Regarding measures, the use of one or several well-being indicator measures was most common, occasionally combined with measures for well-being as a distinct construct for a broader approach. A few measures for well-being were specific to the faculty’s working context and tasks and could be quantitative or qualitative. Finally, measures and conceptualizations did not always align in studies that define well-being. Furthermore, studies that neglected to define well-being were frequent, leading to a sizeable portion of studies in our review not aligning conceptualizations and measures. We will expand upon these five key takeaways.

First, although most studies in our sample conceptualized well-being explicitly by defining well-being or drawing clear equivalencies with related constructs, several studies in our sample did not explicitly define or conceptualize well-being. This finding implies that readers must infer the conceptualization from equivalencies with other well-being-related variables or from the instruments used for measurement. However, this requires a shared understanding of what it means to be well at work, which is currently not the case, given the lack of consensus in the literature. This ambiguity in operationalizing well-being resembles how positive emotions were studied in the past. From an evolutionary perspective, positive emotional states are seen as less distinct, with less clear adaptive functions than negative emotions (Fredrickson, 2001). This perspective can lead to different positive experiences and emotions being conflated, which occurs as well in research using well-being indicators. This conceptual confusion can lead researchers and practitioners to address aspects of wellness that might not be suited to the study or intervention’s aims.

Second, well-being was most frequently conceptualized and measured using at least one well-being indicator, such as job satisfaction, which could also be combined with operationalizations of well-being as a distinct construct. Combinations of well-being indicators were most common for conceptualizations, while established well-being measures were slightly more frequent in our sample. This finding suggests that authors relate well-being theoretically to various positive experiences to the extent that the term well-being is interchangeable with adaptive behaviors, motivation, positive emotion, and the absence of negative conditions. However, when selecting measures, authors still tend to understand well-being as a distinct construct more frequently. The use of well-being indicators allows researchers to pinpoint specific well-being-related states or experiences (Fisher, 2014). However, the distinction between indicators and established well-being operationalizations was not always clear-cut in our sample, mainly in the case of satisfaction with life, which alternated between being a component of hedonic well-being and a distinct construct used to operationalize well-being.

Some of the most prevalent conceptualizations for well-being use the indicators engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout, which were also the most frequently used ones in our sample. These indicators are integrated into certain widely used well-being models, such as the job demands-resources model (JD-R) and the circumplex model, contributing to their widespread use. The JD-R model incorporates burnout and engagement as the outcomes of well-being processes, which are typically measured using the UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2006) and the MBI (Maslach et al., 1997) scales (Schaufeli, 2017), the most frequently used scales in our sample. Job satisfaction is among the most prevalent and historically used work–well-being constructs (Fisher, 2014). In our sample, it was often measured using Warr et al.’s (1979) intrinsic job satisfaction scale and certain single-item measures (e.g., single-item measure of job satisfaction; Guidetti et al., 2020). Job satisfaction is integrated, along with burnout and engagement, into the circumplex model as one of its four well-being outcomes of different valence and intensity: job satisfaction, engagement, burnout, and workaholism (Mäkikangas et al., 2015). These models exemplify the integration of indicators from different categories, such as the positive and negative indicators of burnout and engagement in the case of the JD-R model, or hedonic and eudemonic ones, such as job satisfaction and engagement in the circumplex model. Our sample’s most commonly used combination of well-being indicators, engagement and burnout, were both eudaimonic but spanned aspects of positive and negative well-being.

Third, authors in our sample frequently combined operationalizations from different categories to broaden their perspective. Studies frequently broadened their operationalization of well-being by combining well-being indicators or using indicators that bridge several categories, such as work-life balance. This finding suggests that addressing only one aspect of well-being is not considered sufficient. Well-being definitions were also occasionally supplemented with well-being indicators, which can provide different contexts, philosophical perspectives, or valences. There is an apparent need to study well-being from a holistic perspective (Fisher, 2014). Although positive operationalizations were most common, the combination of positive and negative operationalizations was also frequent. The inclusion of some negative aspects of well-being in operationalizations was most frequent and might be a way to more accurately assess the experiences of faculty, in which positive well-being may be accompanied by mental health symptoms, burnout, and other negative conditions (Urbina-Garcia, 2020). Combining operationalizations helps bridge the differences in approaches to operationalizing well-being (Huppert & Whittington, 2003). Using combinations of established definitions and well-being indicators also allows researchers greater freedom to choose which experiences, emotions, and behaviors to target.

Fourth, we found that measures could belong to different well-being categories than conceptualizations. Misalignments could occur in articles using definitions for well-being as a distinct construct, such as Diener’s (1984) definition of well-being as high satisfaction with life, high positive affect, and low negative affect; these articles could then use a negative well-being measure such as the GHQ-12 (Goldberg & Williams, 1988). However, misalignments were most frequent in articles conceptualizing and measuring well-being as well-being indicators. These could belong to different categories or be indicators within the same categories, operationalizing different experiences (i.e., anxiety and depression). Another misalignment seen in our sample was when measures for well-being as a distinct construct were included in articles that only conceptualized well-being indicators. This misalignment suggests a need to supplement specific well-being indicators with more holistic well-being measures. Using combinations of well-being indicators or combining them with well-being as a distinct construct can result in more frequent misalignments of conceptualizations and measures. Using various constructs to conceptualize well-being may simply allow for more opportunities for misalignment. However, lack of alignment was most prevalent when well-being wasn’t conceptualized at all. Misalignments were also prevalent when well-being was conceptualized implicitly, which can lead to a lack of precision in addressing the selected well-being experiences, behaviors, and affective states.

Finally, regarding the well-being specifically of faculty members, studies typically used operationalizations developed for other working contexts. Quantitative studies occasionally used instruments focusing on the teaching role of faculty members and used instruments focusing on their broader roles and responsibilities less frequently. Faculty work is characterized by integrating research, teaching, pastoral care, procuring funding, administrative work, and many other tasks (Gwynn-Jones & Warren, 2011), which established work–well-being instruments typically do not capture. Some qualitative measures also achieved a high degree of specificity by relating their questions and prompts to the specific working tasks and demands of faculty members. However, few studies explore well-being qualitatively. The relative lack of qualitative explorations of faculty well-being suggests that the experiential aspect of wellness related to academic work is being neglected.

Development of Guiding Questions to Categorize Well-Being

Prior research has suggested that the variety of operationalizations of well-being and the lack of clear trends in the literature create challenges in assessing well-being and intervening to address it (Urbina-Garcia, 2020). In conducting our analysis of the literature, we developed a framework that can support researchers and practitioners in navigating the complexities of conceptualizing and measuring well-being. We propose several guiding questions based on our structure for classifying well-being with nested categories to help with operationalizing well-being in research and practice. First, what is the scope of well-being? Is well-being understood as a distinct construct, as one or several related variables or as a combination of both? Second, what is the context of the conceptualization of well-being? Is it context-specific, focusing on the workplace and work-related experiences? Is it general? Or a combination of both? Third, what is the philosophical perspective (behavioral and meaning-related, affective, or both) on well-being? Finally, what is the valence of well-being? Is well-being being explored as a positive state, as the absence of negative emotions and conditions, or as different positive and negative dimensions? These questions can guide researchers and practitioners through the different aspects of well-being and assist with its operationalization. In this way, we can also avoid misalignments by comparing the categories for measures and conceptualizations. These guiding questions can help to achieve greater precision in monitoring well-being and developing interventions that target relevant aspects of well-being (see Figure A3).

Limitations and Future Research

This systematic review study has a series of limitations due to the characteristics of the sample and the study’s design. Based on the limitations of our research, we also propose future directions for research.

First, regarding the selection of studies, we were limited by the search terms we selected. We included well-being in the first step of our search query but not specific well-being indicators such as engagement, job satisfaction, life satisfaction, quality of life, and burnout. These constructs are established proxies for well-being, meaning that a study could be focused on well-being without explicitly mentioning it. Not including these search terms might have limited the variety of operationalizations we could analyze. However, indicators are not always intended to be well-being operationalizations. In some cases, they are formulated as predictors of well-being and other positive outcomes, such as performance, or as distinct outcomes in their own right. In the case of one indicator, satisfaction with life, it can be considered both an aspect of well-being as a distinct construct and a well-being indicator, further complicating our categorization. Despite not including search terms for well-being indicators, they were the most frequent operationalizations for well-being in our sample. Our sample’s most prominent well-being indicators can be outcomes in certain models (JD-R, circumplex model, etc.) describing well-being promotion and depletion processes. Adoption of these frameworks might have influenced how well-being was operationalized. Future research could therefore explore the theoretical frameworks used in research on well-being and their link with conceptualizations and measures.

The dates during which we conducted our search may have also influenced our findings. Our sample spans studies from 1992 to 2022, with most articles published between 2019 and 2021. Given publication timelines, our search mainly provides an overview of well-being conceptualizations prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. This may have influenced the types of operationalizations used by researchers; we speculate that research could have trended more negatively, with more of a focus on psychological distress and mental health.

In addition, we excluded studies focused on graduate students and PhD candidates, given that their status as employees varies from country to country. We made this decision to improve the generalizability of our results and restrict our focus to well-being at work. There is a sizable stream of literature exploring the well-being of PhD candidates, which can be operationalized as work or student well-being. However, given that most studies in our sample used conceptualizations and measures not fitted to specific job characteristics or tasks, we do not expect it to change our results significantly.

Our results showed that our sample was skewed toward quantitative designs, despite including articles with qualitative and mixed-method approaches. This finding suggests that positivistic approaches to exploring faculty well-being are preferred over experiential ones. Although the well-being conceptualizations in qualitative studies are similar to those in quantitative studies, how they are measured differs. In our sample, qualitative measures ranged from highly specific questions and prompts focused on faculty work tasks and job characteristics to broader ones on experiences and life stories. A broader sample of qualitative studies would allow us to explore both the highly specific measures and the broader, more life-experience-focused prompts in greater detail. Some quantitative studies also used faculty-specific measures, although they were also uncommon. Greater specificity in measuring faculty well-being is valuable as it can relate well-being more closely to contextual, team, or even personal antecedents, which can be targeted in interventions.

Furthermore, our research was focused on identifying and classifying the different conceptualizations and measures of well-being. Although our research does not explore employees’ well-being experiences, our findings and guiding questions can support researchers in assessing well-being and its relation to job characteristics, such as tenure and job security, and personal characteristics, such as gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. This line of research could be furthered by relating the way well-being is conceptualized and measured to different types of interventions or antecedents related to employee wellness. A solid understanding of what aspect of well-being is being targeted is especially relevant for studies assessing the effectiveness of interventions and the influence of environmental factors. Effective, evidence-based interventions can contribute to addressing well-being issues in academia.

In addition, an experiential approach can provide greater detail on faculty’s lived experiences and their well-being needs. Regarding quantitative measures, although some studies used teacher-specific measures, they were infrequent in our sample. There were even fewer measures specific to the well-being of academic employees beyond their role as teachers. A more widespread use of scales to assess the work well-being of academic faculty could help achieve greater precision in research.

Finally, although based on research performed with faculty members, our guiding question for categorizing and operationalizing well-being can be used with employees from other professions. Research on academic faculty rarely uses measures and conceptualizations specific to higher education employees. This categorization could be applied in a systematic literature review on the well-being of employees regardless of discipline. Our guiding questions can also identify well-being categories in empirical qualitative research.

Practical Implications

The proposed four questions for selecting well-being definitions and measures provide a necessary structure for researchers and practitioners when selecting an appropriate definition and aligning it with the measures. In order to address the academic well-being crisis, well-being must be accurately monitored, focusing on aspects relevant to faculty’s work and stressors. In addition, assessing the efficacy of evidence-based interventions and policy changes that may be implemented is necessary. Making operationalizing well-being accessible will support research streams focused on improving working conditions in academia, making academia more equitable and preventing the loss of talent and diversity.

This study and the proposed four questions about well-being can create awareness of ways to connect its scope, context, philosophical perspective, and valence with one’s research aims or intervention target. This awareness simplifies finding an appropriate operationalization for a variable without a single accepted definition or measure. For example, a researcher might be interested in assessing well-being at work but might be unaware of the implications of assessing well-being as itself or as well-being indicators, exploring well-being eudaimonically or hedonically, or in a positive or negative context.

Thus, the results of this study can lead to better alignment between conceptualizations and measures in research. We advocate for explicitly defining or conceptualizing well-being to avoid potential misalignments with measures in order to contribute to the development of well-being research.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-rer-10.3102_00346543251380975 – Supplemental material for Being Well in Academia: A Systematic Review on the Conceptualization and Measurement of Well-being and Well-being indicators

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-rer-10.3102_00346543251380975 for Being Well in Academia: A Systematic Review on the Conceptualization and Measurement of Well-being and Well-being indicators by Aisha Miren Iqbal Ruiz, Wim Gijselaers, Simon A. J. Beausaert and Inken Gast in Review of Educational Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-rer-10.3102_00346543251380975 – Supplemental material for Being Well in Academia: A Systematic Review on the Conceptualization and Measurement of Well-being and Well-being indicators

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-rer-10.3102_00346543251380975 for Being Well in Academia: A Systematic Review on the Conceptualization and Measurement of Well-being and Well-being indicators by Aisha Miren Iqbal Ruiz, Wim Gijselaers, Simon A. J. Beausaert and Inken Gast in Review of Educational Research

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A2

Codebook for well-being operationalization categories

Well-being category	Subcodes	Description	Example fragment
Conceptualization	N/A	Specific words or fragments of text used to establish what well-being means in an article.	N/A
Measure	Qualitative	Data collection methods that gather narrative or non-numerical data, such as world café prompts, focus group prompts, semistructured interview questions.	“The introductory question was: Academic publishing is a part of academic work. What does academic publishing mean for you?” (Kubátová, 2019, p. 4)
Measure	Quantitative	Data collection methods that gather numerical data, for example, validated scales, psychophysiological measures, etc.	“The job-related affective well-being of academics was assessed with the 12 items proposed by Warr (1990) (e.g. calm, worried)” (Ahmad et al., 2018, p. 1354)
Reader inference	Explicitly conceptualized	The meaning of well-being is established through a definition or by clearly stating which proxy variables will be used to operationalize it.	“The present study has operationalized well-being in terms of job-related affective well-being, which refers to employees’ feelings about their jobs and assessment of their affective responses to the jobs” (Van Katwyk et al., 2000, as cited in Adil & Kamal, 2020, p. 739)
	Implicitly conceptualized	The meaning of well-being in the text is established by drawing parallels with proxy variables, which are implied to conceptualize well-being.	“Still, such detailed information can be crucial when the aim is to obtain insight into the overtime well-being association. The effort recovery model posits that too much effort investment, combined with too little recovery, will result in fatigued employees” (Beckers et al., 2008, p. 214)
	Not conceptualized	The meaning of well-being is not established in the text outside of its selected measures.	N/A
Scope	Well-being indicator(s)	Well-being conceptualized or measured through specific proxy constructs such as burnout, stress, mental health, and job satisfaction (Fisher, 2014).	“Five items measuring the teachers’ emotional exhaustion were selected from The Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey” (Maslach et al., 1997); “The nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006) was used to measure the teachers’ work engagement” (Han, Yin, Wang & Bai, 2020, p. 1777)
Scope	Well-being definition	Well-being is operationalized as a distinct construct, as established in prior literature.	“Well-being at work was operationalized using the Job-Related Affective Well-being scale” (originally developed by Van Katwyk et al. [2000] and a short version developed by Basińska et al., 2014, as cited in Aboobaker et al., 2019, p. 34)
Context	General well-being	Well-being is operationalized as an experience across life domains.	“Medical and professional organizations have proposed wellness models that emphasize balance among the multiple dimensions (i.e., physical, emotional, intellectual, social, occupational, financial, and spiritual) of human experience” (Finkelstein et al., 2021, p. 1076)
Context	Work well-being	Well-being is conceptualized or measured as an experience in the context of work.	“Much of the research on teacher well-being has revealed that emotional exhaustion is a negative outcome of work-related stress” (Renshaw et al., 2015, as cited in Han, Yin, Wang & Bai, 2020, p. 1774); “Work engagement is a positive indicator of well-being” (Han, Yin, Wang & Bai, 2020, p. 1774)
Philosophical perspective	Hedonic	Well-being is conceptualized or measured as experiences of high satisfaction, high positive affect, and low negative affect. (Diener, 1984)	“Affective well-being is broadly conceptualized as a hedonic balance; [i.e.] balance between pleasant and unpleasant affect” (Arnold et al., 2007, as cited in Ahmad et al., 2018, p. 1350)
Philosophical perspective	Eudaimonic	Well-being is conceptualized or measured as aspects of positive relationships, health, purpose, and growth (Ryff & Singer, 2008)	“PWB (Psychological Well-being) is . . . conceptualized as an interaction of positive effects such as happiness and optimal functioning of people in social and individual areas of life” (M. Akram, 2019, pp. 235–236)
Valence	Positive	Well-being is conceptualized as positive experiences.	“Subjective well-being is synonymous with happiness, and is comprised of the absence of negative affect, the presence of positive affect, and high levels of life satisfaction” (Anshel et al., 2010, p. 114)
	Negative	Well-being is conceptualized as the absence of negative experiences.	“Concerns regarding the well-being of academics extend back at least two decades in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia . . . studies included a finding that half the sample of 844 UK academics were experiencing a level of psychological distress that required some form of intervention” (Fetherston et al., 2021, p. 2775)

ORCID iDs

Aisha Miren Iqbal Ruiz

Wim Gijselaers

Simon A. J. Beausaert

Inken Gast

Notes

AUTHORS

AISHA MIREN IQBAL RUIZ is a PhD candidate in the Department of Educational Research and Development at the School of Business and Economics at Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; email: a.iqbalruiz@maastrichtuniversity.nl . Her research focuses on faculty and PhD student well-being, demands and resources, coping strategies, and performance sustainability.

WIM GIJSELAERS is a full professor in the Department of Educational Research and Development at the School of Business and Economics at Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; email: w.gijselaers@maastrichtuniversity.nl . His research focuses on expertise development, professional behavior, team learning, workplace learning, and problem-based learning.

SIMON A. J. BEAUSAERT is a full professor in learning and development in organizations at the Department of Educational Research and Development at the School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; email: s.beausaert@maastrichtuniversity.nl . His research focuses on strategically supporting learning and development in the workplace and student learning in higher education.

INKEN GAST is an assistant professor at the Department of Educational Research and Development at the School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; email: i.gast@maastrichtuniversity.nl . Her research focuses on the professional development and well-being of academics and students in higher education.

References

*Abbas

Khalily

M. T.

Riaz

M. N.

(2016). Mediating role of work-related attitudes between leadership styles and well-being. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 10(2), 257–273. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/188252

*Aboobaker

Manoj

Zakkariya

K. A.

(2019). Workplace spirituality, employee wellbeing and intention to stay. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-02-2018-0049

*Adil

Kamal

(2016). Impact of psychological capital and authentic leadership on work engagement and job-related affective well-being. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 31(1), 1–21. https://pjpr.scione.com/cms/abstract.php?id=208

*Adil

Kamal

(2020). Authentic leadership and psychological capital in job demands-resources model among Pakistani university teachers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(6), 734–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1580772

*Adriaenssens

De Prins

Vloeberghs

(2006). Work experience, work stress and HRM at the university. Management Revue, 17(3), 344–363. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41783526

Ahmad

(2017). Family or future in the academy? Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 204–239. https://doi-org.mu.idm.oclc.org/10.3102/0034654316631626

*Ahmad

Fazal-E-Hasan

S. M.

Kaleem

(2018). How ethical leadership stimulates academics’ retention in universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(7), 1348–1362. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-11-2017-0324

*Akanni

A. A.

Kareem

D. B.

Oduaran

C. A.

(2020). The relationship between emotional intelligence and employee wellbeing through perceived person-job fit among university academic staff: A structural equation modelling approach. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1869376. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1869376

*Akram

(2019). Psychological wellbeing of university teachers in Pakistan. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 6(2), 235–253. https://journals.iobm.edu.pk/index.php/joeed/article/view/66

10.

*Akram

M. F.

Hussain

(2020). Relationship of work-family conflict with job demands, social support and psychological well-being of university female teachers in Punjab. Bulletin of Education and Research, 42(1), 45–66. https://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/32/V42_1_2020.html

11.

*Alshahrani

Iqbal

(2021). Influence of psychological capital on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of psychological well-being. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 10(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2021.60542

12.

*Annor

(2016). Work–family enrichment among Ghanaian employees: The mediating role between social support and subjective well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11, 1155–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-015-9427-6

13.

*Anshel

M. H.

Brinthaupt

T. M.

Kang

(2010). The disconnected values model improves mental well-being and fitness in an employee wellness program. Behavioral Medicine, 36(4), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2010.489080

14.

*Arslan

Yener

Korkmaz

Alola

U. J. U.

(2022). Caught unprepared: Consequences of getting full online during a pandemic. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 77, 66–88. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.77.5

15.

*Bazemore

S. D.

Janda

L. H.

Derlega

V. J.

Paulson

J. F.

(2010). The role of rejection in mediating the effects of stigma consciousness among foreign-born university professors. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019159

16.

*Beckers

D. G.

van Hooff

M. L.

van der Linden

Kompier

M. A.

Taris

T. W.

Geurts

S. A.

(2008). A diary study to open up the black box of overtime work among university faculty members. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 34(3), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1226

17.

*Bonanomi

Facchin

Barello

Villani

(2021). Prevalence and health correlates of Onine Fatigue: A cross-sectional study on the Italian academic community during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One, 16(10), e0255181. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255181

18.

Brunton

Oliver

Thomas

(2020). Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(3), 316–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1399

19.

*Cao

Zhang

(2021). Chinese university faculty’s occupational well-being: Applying and extending the job demands–resources model. Journal of Career Development, 49(6), 1283–1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211037005

20.

*Casacchia

Cifone

M. G.

Giusti

Fabiani

Gatto

Lancia

Cinque

Petrucci

Giannoni

Ippoliti

Frattaroli

A. R.

Macchiarelli

Roncone

(2021). Distance education during COVID 19: An Italian survey on the university teachers’ perspectives and their emotional conditions. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02780-y

21.

*Catană

Ş. A.

Toma

S. G.

Barbu

(2021). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on teleworking and education in a Romanian higher education institution: An internal stakeholders perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 8180. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158180

22.

Catano

Francis

Haines

Kirpalani

Shannon

Stringer

Lozanzki

(2010). Occupational stress in Canadian universities: A national survey. International Journal of Stress Management, 17(3), 232–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018582

23.

*Charoensukmongkol

Phungsoonthorn

(2021). The effectiveness of supervisor support in lessening perceived uncertainties and emotional exhaustion of university employees during the COVID-19 crisis: The constraining role of organizational intransigence. The Journal of General Psychology, 148(4), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2020.1795613

24.

*Chierichetti

Backer

(2021). Exploring faculty perspectives during emergency remote teaching in engineering at a large public university. Education Sciences, 11(8), 419. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080419

25.

*Coll

K. M.

Niles

S. G.

Coll

K. A.

Ruch

C. P.

Stewart

R. A.

(2019). Academic deans: Perceptions of effort-reward imbalance, over-commitment, hardiness, and burnout. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(4), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n4p124

26.

*Collins

Gibson

Parkin

Parkinson

Shave

Dyer

(2012). Counselling in the workplace: How time-limited counselling can effect change in well-being. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 12(2), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2011.638080

27.

Cooke

P. J.

Melchert

T. P.

Connor

(2016). Measuring well-being: A review of instruments. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(5), 730–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016633507

28.

*Cooper

Barton

G. C.

(2016). An exploration of physical activity and wellbeing in university employees. Perspectives in Public Health, 136(3), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913915593103

29.

*Converso

Sottimano

Molinengo

Loera

(2019). The unbearable lightness of the academic work: The positive and negative sides of heavy work investment in a sample of Italian university professors and researchers. Sustainability, 11(8), 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082439

30.

*Dadfar

Lester

Sanadgol

(2020). The interpersonal mattering scale: Its reliability and validity in an Iranian sample. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 24(3), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2020.1726884

31.

*Daniels

Guppy

(1992). Control, information-seeking preferences, occupational stressors and psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 6(4), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379208259965

32.

*Darabi

Macaskill

Reidy

(2017). Stress among UK academics: Identifying who copes best. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(3), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2015.1117598

33.

*Davidson

O. B.

Eden

Westman

Cohen-Charash

Hammer

L. B.

Kluger

A. N.

Krausz

Maslach

O’Driscoll

Perrewé

P. L.

Quick

J. C.

Rosenblatt

Spector

P. E.

(2010). Sabbatical leave: Who gains and how much? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 953–964. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020068

34.

*Davis

J. C.

E. P. H.

Butterfield

M. S.

DiLabio

G. A.

Santhagunam

Marcolin

(2022). Are we failing female and racialized academics? A Canadian national survey examining the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on tenure and tenure-track faculty. Gender, Work, and Organization, 29(3), 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12811

35.

*Diedericks

J.C

Cilliers

Bezuidenhout

(2019). Resistance to change, work engagement and psychological capital of academics in an open distance learning work environment. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, a1142. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v17i0.1142

36.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

37.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

38.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

Kim-Prieto

Choi

D.W.

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2009). Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t03125-00

39.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

Kim-Prieto

Choi

D.-w.

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2010). Flourishing Scale (FS) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t03126-000

40.

Dorenkamp

Weiß

E.-E.

(2018). What makes them leave? A path model of postdocs’ intentions to leave academia. Higher Education, 75(5), 747–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0164-7

41.

*Dougall

Weick

Vasiljevic

(2021). Social class and wellbeing among staff and students in higher education settings: Mapping the problem and exploring underlying mechanisms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(10), 965–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12814

42.

*Dugas

Summers

K. H.

Harris

L. N.

Stich

A. E.

(2018). Shrinking budgets, growing demands: Neoliberalism and academic identity tension at regional public universities. AERA Open, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418757736

43.

*Dutta

Hawkes

S. L.

Kuipers

Guest

Fear

N. T.

Iversen

A. C.

(2011). One-year outcomes of a mentoring scheme for female academics: A pilot study at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London. BMC Medical Education, 11(13). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-11-13

44.

*Eardley

A. F.

Banister

Fletcher

(2021). Can academic writing retreats function as wellbeing interventions? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2020.1744542

45.

*Edwards

J. A.

Van Laar

Easton

Kinman

(2009). The Work-related Quality of Life Scale for higher education employees. Quality in Higher Education, 15(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320903343057

46.

*Eftekhari

Alipour

Aminian

Saraei

(2021). The association between job stress and metabolic syndrome among medical university staff. Journal of Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders, 20(1), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-021-00748-9

47.

*Elliott

Blithe

S. J.

(2021). Gender inequality, stress exposure, and well-being among academic faculty. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(2), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n2p240

48.

*Endrejat

P. C.

Barthauer

Kauffeld

(2018). Let’s go out for a drink after work! The relation between leisure time spent with colleagues and employees’ life satisfaction. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 33(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2018.1436444

49.

*Esdar

Gorges

Wild

(2016). The role of basic need satisfaction for junior academics’ goal conflicts and teaching motivation. Higher Education, 72(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9944-0

50.

Fernández-Suárez

García-González

M. A.

Torrano

García-González

(2021). Study of the prevalence of burnout in university professors in the period 2005–2020. Education Research International, 2021, 7810659. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7810659

51.

*Fetherston

Fetherston

Batt

Sully

Wei

(2021). Wellbeing and work-life merge in Australian and UK academics. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2774–2788. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1828326

52.

*Finkelstein

Ordway

Johnson

K. L.

(2021). Faculty wellness in academic medicine: Addressing stressors in the workplace. Work, 69(3), 1075–1081. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-213537

53.

Fisher

C. D.

(2014). Conceptualizing and measuring wellbeing at work. In Chen

P. Y.

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Work and wellbeing (pp. 9–33). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell018

54.

*Fontinha

Easton

Van Laar

(2019). Overtime and quality of working life in academics and nonacademics: The role of perceived work-life balance. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000067

55.

*Fontinha

Van Laar

Easton

(2018). Quality of working life of academics and researchers in the UK: The roles of contract type, tenure and university ranking. Studies in Higher Education, 43(4), 786–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1203890

56.

*Franco-Santos

Doherty

(2017). Performance management and well-being: A close look at the changing nature of the UK higher education workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(16), 2319–2350. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1334148

57.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

58.

*Friedman

Freier

N. G.

Kahn

P. H.

Jr. Lin

Sodeman

(2008). Office window of the future? Field-based analyses of a new use of a large display. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(6), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.12.005

59.

Gast

Schildkamp

van der Veen

J. T.

(2017). Team-based professional development interventions in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 736–767. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317704306

60.

*Giumetti

G. W.

O’Connor

S. A.

Weissner

B. N.

Keegan

N. R.

Feinn

R. S.

Bulger

C. A.

(2021). Walk your way to well-being at work: Impact of a treadmill workstation on employee occupational health outcomes. Occupational Health Science, 5(3), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-021-00091-8

61.

Goldberg

D. P.

Williams

(1988). A users’ guide to the general health questionnaire. GL Assessment.

62.

*González-Rico

Carvalho

V. S.

Chambel

M. J.

Guerrero

(2018). Be well at work, be well outside work: A study with university workers. Studies in Higher Education, 43(6), 1034–1044. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1212326

63.

*Grawitch

M. J.

Trares

Kohler

J. M.

(2007). Healthy workplace practices and employee outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(3), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.3.275

64.

*Guidetti

Viotti

Converso

(2020). The interplay between work engagement, workaholism, emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction in academics: A person-centred approach to the study of occupational well-being and its relations with job hindrances and job challenges in an Italian university. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(3), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12239

65.

*Guijarro-Ojeda

J. R.

Ruiz-Cecilia

Cardoso-Pulido

M. J.

Medina-Sánchez

(2021). Examining the interplay between queerness and teacher wellbeing: A qualitative study based on foreign language teacher trainers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 12208. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212208

66.

Gwynn-Jones

Warren

(2011). Academic strategies in a funding crisis: Research competitor, ruderal or university teacher? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(2), 56–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.11.008

67.

*Haile

Kirk

Cogan

Janssen

Gibson

A.-M.

Macdonald

(2020). Pilot testing of a nudge-based digital intervention (Welbot) to improve sedentary behaviour and wellbeing in the workplace. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5763. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165763

68.

*Hamzah

Nordin

N. S.

(2022). Perceived supervisor support and work engagement: Mediating role of job-related affective well-being. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 37(2). 149–164. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2022.37.2.10

69.

*Han

Yin

Wang

(2020). Examining the relationships between job characteristics, emotional regulation and university teachers’ well-being: The mediation of emotional regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1727. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01727

70.

*Han

Yin

Wang

Bai

(2020). Challenge job demands and job resources to university teacher well-being: The mediation of teacher efficacy. Studies in Higher Education, 45(8), 1771–1785. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1594180

71.

*Han

Yin

Wang

Zhang

(2020). Job demands and resources as antecedents of university teachers’ exhaustion, engagement and job satisfaction. Educational Psychology, 40(3), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1674249

72.

*Hartfiel

Havenhand

Khalsa

S. B.

Clarke

Krayer

(2011). The effectiveness of yoga for the improvement of well-being and resilience to stress in the workplace. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 37(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/40967889

73.

*Hassan

Ansari

Rehman

Moazzam

(2022). Understanding public service motivation, workplace spirituality and employee well-being in the public sector. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 38(1), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-06-2021-0135

74.

*Hecht

T. D.

Boies

(2009). Structure and correlates of spillover from nonwork to work: An examination of nonwork activities, well-being, and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(4), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015981

75.

*Heiden

Widar

Wiitavaara

Boman

(2021). Telework in academia: Associations with health and well-being among staff. Higher Education, 81, 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00569-4

76.

*Hill

N. T. M.

Bailey

Benson

Cully

Kirtley

O. J.

Purcell

Rice

Robinson

Walton

C. C.

(2022). Researching the researchers: Psychological distress and psychosocial stressors according to career stage in mental health researchers. BMC Psychology, 10(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00728-5

77.

*Horan

K. A.

Taylor

M. B.

(2018). Mindfulness and self-compassion as tools in health behavior change: An evaluation of a workplace intervention pilot study. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 8, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.02.003

78.

*Huang

Yin

Jin

Wang

(2022). More knowledge, more satisfaction with online teaching? Examining the mediation of teacher efficacy and moderation of engagement during COVID-19. Sustainability, 14(8), 4405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084405

79.

Huppert

F. A.

Whittington

J. E.

(2003). Evidence for the independence of positive and negative well-being: Implications for quality o assessment. British Journal of Health Psychology, 8(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910703762879246

80.

*Jacobs

P. A.

Tytherleigh

M. Y.

Webb

Cooper

C. L.

(2007). Predictors of work performance among higher education employees: An examination using the ASSET Model of Stress. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.199

81.

Jayman

Glazzard

Rose

(2022). Tipping point: The staff wellbeing crisis in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 929335. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.929335

82.

Jerejian

A. C. M.

Reid

Rees

C. S.

(2013). The contribution of email volume, email management strategies and propensity to worry in predicting email stress among academics. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 991–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.037

83.

*Jibeen

(2014). Personality traits and subjective well-being: Moderating role of optimism in university employees. Social Indicators Research, 118(1), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0416-6

84.

Johnson

A. P.

Lester

R. J.

(2022). Mental health in academia: Hacks for cultivating and sustaining wellbeing. American Journal of Human Biology, 34(S1), e23664. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23664

85.

*Judge

T. A.

Locke

E. A.

(1993). Effect of dysfunctional thought processes on subjective well-being and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.475+

86.

*Kaiser

Richardsen

A. M.

Martinussen

(2021). Burnout and engagement at the northernmost university in the world. SAGE Open, 11(3), 215824402110315. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211031552

87.

*Kearney

M. D.

Barg

F. K.

Alexis

Higginbotham

Aysola

(2022). Employee health and wellness outcomes associated with perceived discrimination in academic medicine: A qualitative analysis. JAMA Network Open, 5(1), e2145243. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45243

88.

*Kershaw

M. E.

Lupien

S. P.

Scheid

J. L.

(2021). Impact of web-based meeting platform usage on overall well-being among higher education employees. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(2), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11020028

89.

*Khan

Aslam

Asad

M. M.

Oad

Almusharraf

N. M.

(2022). Effects of WFH on educators’ wellbeing: Mediating role of institutional head’s support and moderating role of employees’ self-efficacy at university level. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 7(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-10-2021-0063

90.

Kinman

(2014). Doing more with less? Work and wellbeing in academics. Somatechnics, 4(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.3366/soma.2014.0129

91.

*Kinman

(2016). Effort–reward imbalance and overcommitment in UK academics: Implications for mental health, satisfaction and retention. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(5), 504–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2016.1181884

92.

Kinman

Johnson

(2019). Special section on well-being in academic employees. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(2), 159–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000131

93.

*Kinman

Jones

(2008). A life beyond work? Job demands, work-life balance, and wellbeing in UK academics. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17(1–2), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911350802165478

94.

*Kinman

Jones

Kinman

(2006). The well-being of the UK academy, 1998–2004. Quality in Higher Education, 12(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320600685081

95.

*Kinnunen

Mäkikangas

Mauno

De Cuyper

De Witte

(2014). Development of perceived job insecurity across two years: Associations with antecedents and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035835

96.

*Kirves

De Cuyper

Kinnunen

Nätti

(2011). Perceived job insecurity and perceived employability in relation to temporary and permanent workers’ psychological symptoms: A two samples study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 84(8), 899–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-011-0630-y

97.

*Kirves

Kinnunen

De Cuyper

Mäkikangas

(2014). Trajectories of perceived employability and their associations with well-being at work: A three-wave study. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000103

98.

Kis

Tur

E. M.

Lakens

Vaesen

Houkes

(2022). Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments. PLoS One, 17(10), e0274976. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274976

99.

*Kolomitro

Kenny

Sheffield

S. L.-M.

(2020). A call to action: Exploring and responding to educational developers’ workplace burnout and well-being in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 25(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2019.1705303

100.

*Komp

Kauffeld

Ianiro-Dahm

(2022). The concept of health-promoting collaboration-A starting point to reduce presenteeism? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 782597. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.782597

101.

*Koncz

Wolfenden

Hassed

Chambers

Cohen

Glozier

(2016). Mindfulness-based stress release program for university employees: A pilot, waitlist-controlled trial and implementation replication. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(10), 1021–1027. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000856

102.

*Kooij

D. T. A. M.

de Lange

A. H.

Jansen

P. G. W.

Dikkers

J. S. E.

(2013). Beyond chronological age. Examining perceived future time and subjective health as age-related mediators in relation to work-related motivations and well-being. Work & Stress, 27(1), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.769328

103.

*Kubátová

(2019). Does academic publishing lead to work-related stress or happiness? Publications, 7(4), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7040066

104.

*Kumar

S. P.

(2020). Workplace spirituality as an antecedent of university teachers’ subjective well-being: Mediating role of job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 33, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2020/v33i0/150082

105.

*Larson

L. M.

Seipel

M. T.

Shelley

M. C.

Gahn

S. W.

S. Y.

Schenkenfelder

Rover

D. T.

Schmittmann

Heitmann

M. M.

(2017). The academic environment and faculty well-being: The role of psychological needs. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(1), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717748667

106.

Lau

Pretorius

(2019). Intrapersonal wellbeing and the academic mental health crisis. In Pretorius

Macaulay

Cahusac

Caux de (Eds.), Wellbeing in doctoral education: Insights and guidance from the student experience (pp. 37–45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9302-0_5

107.

*Lauri

Heidmets

Virkus

(2016). The information culture of higher education institutions: The Estonian case. Information Research, 21(3), 722. http://InformationR.net/ir/21-3/paper722.html

108.

*Lemola

Gkiouleka

Read

Realo

Walasek

Tang

N. K. Y.

Elliott

M. T.

(2021). Can a ‘rewards-for-exercise app’ increase physical activity, subjective well-being and sleep quality? An open-label single-arm trial among university staff with low to moderate physical activity levels. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 782. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10794-w

109.

*Li

(2018). Building well-being among university teachers: The roles of psychological capital and meaning in life. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(5), 594–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1496909

110.

*Locke

A. B.

Fortenberry

K. T.

Sullivan

Ose

Tingey

Qeadan

Henson

Van Hala

(2020). Use of a feedback survey as a part of a wellness champions program to improve academic faculty satisfaction and burnout: Implications for burnout in academic health centers. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 9, 216495612097363. https://doi.org/10.1177/2164956120973635

111.

*Mäkikangas

Mauno

Selenko

Kinnunen

(2019). Toward an understanding of a healthy organizational change process: A three-wave longitudinal study among university employees. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(2), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000059

112.

Mäkikangas

Rantanen

Bakker

A. B.

Kinnunen

M. L.

Pulkkinen

Kokko

(2015). The circumplex model of occupational well-being: Its relation with personality. Journal for Person-Oriented Research, 1(3), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2015.13

113.

*Mäkiniemi

J.-P.

Oksanen

Mäkikangas

(2021). Loneliness and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: The moderating roles of personal, social and organizational resources on perceived stress and exhaustion among Finnish university employees. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 7146. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137146

114.

*Malik

Noreen

(2015). Perceived organizational support as a moderator of affective well-being and occupational stress. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 9(3), 865–874.

115.

*Mark

Smith

A. P.

(2012). Effects of occupational stress, job characteristics, coping, and attributional style on the mental health and job satisfaction of university employees. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 25(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.548088

116.

*Martini

Guidetti

Viotti

Loera

Converso

(2019). Sometimes it drains, sometimes it sustains: The dual role of the relationship with students for university professors. BioMed Research International, 2019(1), 9875090. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9875090

117.

*Mascherini

Catelan

Pellegrini-Giampietro

D. E.

Petri

Scaletti

Gulisano

(2021). Changes in physical activity levels, eating habits and psychological well-being during the Italian COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: Impact of socio-demographic factors on the Florentine academic population. PLoS One, 16(5), e0252395. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252395

118.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

Leiter

M. P.

(1997). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Third edition. In Zalaquett

C. P.

Wood

R. J.

(Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources (pp. 191–218). Scarecrow Education.

119.

*Mauno

De Cuyper

Tolvanen

Kinnunen

Mäkikangas

(2014). Occupational well-being as a mediator between job insecurity and turnover intention: Findings at the individual and work department levels. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.752896

120.

*McCoy

S. K.

Newell

E. E.

Gardner

S. K.

(2013). Seeking balance: The importance of environmental conditions in men and women faculty’s well-being. Innovative Higher Education, 38(4), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9242-z

121.

*McDermott

Simmons

Lock

Kenny

(2020). A World Café discussion on well-being: Considerations for life in the university. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2020.2.8337

122.

*Melin

Astvik

Bernhard-Oettel

(2014). New work demands in higher education. A study of the relationship between excessive workload, coping strategies and subsequent health among academic staff. Quality in Higher Education, 20(3), 290–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.979547

123.

*Miner-Rubino

Cortina

L. M.

(2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1254–1269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1254

124.

*Moeller

Chung-Yan

G. A.

(2013). Effects of social support on professors’ work stress. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(3), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311306431

125.

*Morris

(2002). The effects of lavender (Lavendula angustifolium) baths on psychological well-being: Two exploratory randomised control trials. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 10(4), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0965-2299(02)00086-9

126.

*Mudrak

Zabrodska

Kveton

Jelinek

Blatny

Solcova

Machovcova

(2018). Occupational well-being among university faculty: A job demands-resources model. Research in Higher Education, 59(3), 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9467-x

127.

*Myers

N. D.

Prilleltensky

McMahon

Dietz

Rubenstein

C. L.

(2017). Efficacy of the fun for wellness online intervention to promote multidimensional well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 18(8), 984–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0779-z

128.

*Nazali

M. I. M.

Razali

Ariaratnam

Ahmad

Nawawi

(2021). The 2019 Universiti teknologi MARA, Malaysia staff survey: Determining the level and predictors of quality of life. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 705018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.705018

129.

*Nel

E. C.

(2019). The impact of workplace bullying on flourishing: The moderating role of emotional intelligence. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1603

130.

Nkomo

S. M.

(2009). The seductive power of academic journal rankings: Challenges of searching for the otherwise. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 106–112. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40214576

131.

*Odle-Dusseau

H. N.

Britt

T. W.

Bobko

(2012). Work–family balance, well-being, and organizational outcomes: Investigating actual versus desired work/family time discrepancies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9246-1

132.

Oliveira

Nada

Magalhães

(2024). Navigating an academic career in marketized universities: Mapping the international literature. Review of Educational Research, 95(2), 255–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231226336

133.

*Osam

Shuck

Immekus

(2020). Happiness and healthiness: A replication study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21373

134.

*Pace

D’Urso

Zappulla

Pace

(2021). The relation between workload and personal well-being among university professors. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 40(7), 3417–3424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00294-x

135.

*Packer

(2021). Taking a break: Exploring the restorative benefits of short breaks and vacations. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights, 2(1), 100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annale.2020.100006

136.

*Paul

Jena

L. K.

(2022), Workplace spirituality, teachers’ professional well-being and mediating role of positive psychological capital: An empirical validation in the Indian context. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 38(4), 633–660. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-08-2021-0163

137.

*Pecino

Mañas-Rodríguez

M. Á.

Díaz-Fúnez

P. A.

Aguilar-Parra

J. M.

Padilla-Góngora

López-Liria

(2018). Interpersonal justice climate, extra-role performance and work family balance: A multilevel mediation model of employee well-being. PLoS One, 13(11), e0207458. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207458

138.

*Pereyra-Rojas

Gaskin

Lingham

(2017). The higher-ed organizational-scholar tension: How scholarship compatibility and the alignment of organizational and faculty skills, values and support affects scholar’s performance and well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00450

139.

Petticrew

Roberts

(2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887

140.

*Pignata

Boyd

Gillespie

Provis

Winefield

A. H.

(2016). Awareness of stress-reduction interventions: The impact on employees’ well-being and organizational attitudes. Stress and Health, 32(3), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2597

141.

*Puig-Ribera

Bort-Roig

Giné-Garriga

González-Suárez

A. M.

Martínez-Lemos

Fortuño

Martori

J. C.

Muñoz-Ortiz

Milà

Gilson

N. D.

McKenna

(2017). Impact of a workplace ‘sit less, move more’ program on efficiency-related outcomes of office employees. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 455. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4367-8

142.

*Puig-Ribera

McKenna

Gilson

Brown

W. J.

(2008). Change in work day step counts, wellbeing and job performance in Catalan university employees: A randomised controlled trial. Promotion & Education, 15(4), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1025382308097693

143.

*Rahim

N. B.

Osman

Arumugam

P. V.

(2019). Evaluating work-life balance and individual well-being with the moderating role of organisational climate. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(4), 2731–2752. http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/pjssh/browse/regular-issue?decade=2020&year=2019&journal=JSSH-27-T1

144.

*Rahim

N. B.

Osman

Arumugam

P. V.

(2020). Linking work-life balance and employee well-being: Do supervisor support and family support moderate the relationship? International Journal of Business and Society, 21(2), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.3273.2020

145.

*Raiden

Räisänen

Kinman

(2020). Behavioural ambidexterity: Effects on individual well-being and high performance work in academia. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(4), 568–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2019.1596232

146.

*Ramzan

Rana

S. A.

(2014). Expression of gratitude and subjective well-being among university teachers. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 21(5), 756–762. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.21.05.8464

147.

*Richard

Plimmer

Fam

K. S.

Campbell

(2015). Publishing success of marketing academics: Antecedents and outcomes. European Journal of Marketing, 49(12), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-06-2013-0311

148.

*Rothmann

van Rensburg

J. C.

(2020). Towards positive institutions: Positive practices and employees’ experiences in higher education institutions. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 46(1), 1–11. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-1f3d7f5e5c

149.

*Rudolph

Itangata

Tan

Kane

Thairo

(2021). ‘Bittersweet’ and ‘alienating’: An extreme comparison of collaborative autoethnographic perspectives from higher education students, non-teaching staff and faculty during the pandemic in the UK and Singapore. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 18(8), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.8.9

150.

Ryff

C. D.

(1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.57.6.1069

151.

Ryff

C. D.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

152.

Ryff

C. D.

Singer

B. H.

(2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0

153.

*Salimzadeh

Hall

N. C.

Saroyan

(2020). Stress, emotion regulation, and well-being among Canadian faculty members in research-intensive universities. Social Sciences, 9(12), 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9120227

154.

*Samad

Muchiri

Shahid

(2022). Investigating leadership and employee well-being in higher education. Personnel Review, 51(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2020-0340

155.

*Sang

Teo

S. T. T.

Cooper

C. L.

Bohle

(2013). Modelling occupational stress and employee health and wellbeing in a Chinese higher education institution. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(1), 15–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00529.x

156.

*Sarwar

Masood Qureshi

Panatik

S. A.

(2019). Work to family facilitation as a predictor of job satisfaction, affective commitment and job performance in academia. Journal of Management Info, 6(3), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.31580/jmi.v6i3.981

157.

Satinsky

E. N.

Kimura

Kiang

M. V.

Abebe

Cunningham

Lee

Lin

Liu

C. H.

Rudan

Sen

Tomlinson

Yaver

Tsai

A. C.

(2021). Systematic review and meta-analysis of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among PhD students. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 14370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93687-7

158.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2017). Applying the job demands-resources model: A ‘how to’ guide to measuring and tackling work engagement and burnout. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008\

159.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross–national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316440528247

160.

Schmidt

Hansson

(2018). Doctoral students’ well-being: A literature review. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 13(1), 1508171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2018.1508171

161.

Schmutte

P. S.

Ryff

C. D.

(1997). Personality and well-being: Reexamining methods and meanings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.549

162.

*Shamsi

Iakovleva

Olsen

Bagozzi

R. P.

(2021). Employees’ work-related well-being during COVID-19 pandemic: An integrated perspective of technology acceptance model and JD-R theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 11888. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211888

163.

*Shen

Slater

(2021). The effect of occupational stress and coping strategies on mental health and emotional well-being among university academic staff during the COVID-19 outbreak. International Education Studies, 14(3), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n3p82

164.

*Shephard

Caan

(2012). Capturing wellbeing at work. Journal of Public Mental Health, 11(1), 27–31 https://doi.org/10.1108/17465721211207284

165.

*Siddiquee

Sixsmith

Lawthom

Haworth

(2016). Paid work, life-work and leisure: A study of wellbeing in the context of academic lives in higher education. Leisure Studies, 35(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2014.967711

166.

*Signoret

Da Silva

Tack

Voss

Lidö

H. H.

Patthey

Ericsson

Hadrévi

Balachandran

(2019). Well-being of early-career researchers: Insights from a Swedish survey. Higher Education Policy, 32, 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0080-1

167.

Shin

J. C.

Jung

(2014). Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing academic environments. Higher Education, 67(5), 603–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9668-y

168.

Sobirin

Priyomarsono

N. W.

Susilo

A. J.

(2024). Bibliometrics analysis of occupational health and safety construction: Trend research during pandemic (2019-2022). Migration Letters, 21(3), 1027–1044. https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/6968

169.

*Souter-Brown

Hinckson

Duncan

(2021). Effects of a sensory garden on workplace wellbeing: A randomised control trial. Landscape and Urban Planning, 207, 103997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103997

170.

*Spasovski

Pecakovska

(2020). The academic profession in North Macedonia: A never-ending transition. European Journal of Education, 55(4), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12419

171.

*Stan

(2022). Personality traits, technology-related teaching skills, and coping mechanisms as antecedents of teachers’ job-related affective well-being and burnout in compulsory and higher education online teaching settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 792642. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.792642

172.

*Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Measuring meaningful work. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160

173.

*Suárez Martel

M. J.

Martín Santana

J. D.

(2021). The mediating effect of university teaching staff’s psychological well-being between emotional intelligence and burnout. Psicología Educativa, 27(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.5093/psed2021a12

174.

*Sutliffe

J. T.

Carnot

M. J.

Fuhrman

J. H.

Sutliffe

C. A.

Scheid

J. C.

(2018). A worksite nutrition intervention is effective at improving employee well-being: A pilot study. Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2018, 8187203. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8187203

175.

*Tamini

B. K.

Bojhd

Yazdani

(2011). Love types, psychological well-being and self-concept. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 169–178. https://jiaap.in/love-types-psychological-well-being-and-self-concept/

176.

Taris

T. W.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2015). Individual well-being and performance at work: A conceptual and theoretical overview. In van Veldhoven

Peccei

(Eds.), Well-being and performance at work: The role of context (pp. 15–34). Psychology Press.

177.

*Taufiq-Hail

G. A.-M.

Sarea

Hawaldar

I. T.

(2021). The impact of self-efficacy on feelings and task performance of academic and teaching staff in Bahrain during COVID-19: Analysis by SEM and ANN. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(4), 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7040224

178.

Tennant

Hiller

Fishwick

Platt

Joseph

Weich

Parkinson

Secker

Stewart-Brown

(2007). Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS) APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t01628-000

179.

*Thorpe

Walker

Maghalseh

(2020). A case study investigating faculty work-related quality of life (WRQoL) and the efficacy of the WRQoL scale in a medium-sized private Gulf higher education institution. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 10(6), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2020-0109

180.

*Urbanaviciute

Christina Roll

Tomas

De Witte

(2021). Proactive strategies for countering the detrimental outcomes of qualitative job insecurity in academia. Stress and Health, 37(3), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3023

181.

Urbina-Garcia

(2020). What do we know about university academics’ mental health? A systematic literature review. Stress and Health, 36(5), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2956

182.

Van den Broeck

Vansteenkiste

De Witte

Lens

(2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393672

183.

*Van Hooff

M. L. M.

Geurts

S. A. E.

Beckers

D. G. J.

Kompier

M. A. J.

(2011). Daily recovery from work: The role of activities, effort and pleasure. Work & Stress, 25(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.57094

184.

*Van Hooff

M. L. M.

Geurts

S. A. E.

Kompier

M. A. J.

Taris

T. W.

(2007). Workdays, in-between workdays and the weekend: A diary study on effort and recovery. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 80(7), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-007-0172-5

185.

Van Katwyk

P. T.

Fox

Spector

P. E.

Kelloway

E. K.

(2000). Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.5.2.219

186.

*van Niekerk

R. L.

van Gent

M. M.

(2021). Mental health and well-being of university staff during the coronavirus disease 2019 levels 4 and 5 lockdown in an Eastern Cape university, South Africa. The South African journal of Psychiatry, 27, 1589. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajpsychiatry.V27i0.1589

187.

Van Veldhoven

De Jonge

Broersen

Kompier

Meijman

(2002). Specific relationships between psychosocial job conditions and job-related stress: A three-level analytic approach. Work & Stress, 16(3), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370210166399

188.

*Vera

Salanova

Martin

(2010). University faculty and work-related well-being: The importance of the triple work profile. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(2), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v8i21.1373

189.

*Wang

(2022). The relationship between flow experience and teaching well-being of university music teachers: The sequential mediating effect of work passion and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 989386. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.989386

190.

Warr

(1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(3), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x

191.

Warr

P. B.

Cook

J. D.

Wall

T. D.

(1979). Scales for the measurements of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00448.x

192.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

193.

*Webber

Babal

J. C.

Shadman

K. A.

Coller

R. J.

Moreno

M. A.

(2020). Exploring academic pediatrician perspectives of factors impacting physician well-being. Academic Pediatrics, 20(6), 833–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2020.02.018

194.

*White

G. E.

Proulx

C. N.

Rubio

D. M.

Thakar

M. S.

Morone

N. E.

Mitchell-Miland

Althouse

A. D.

Murrell

A. J.

(2022). The impact of social unrest due to systemic racism on underrepresented post-doctoral fellows and early-career faculty. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 6(1), e112. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.445

195.

*Whittet

F. A.

(2021). Health and wellbeing of the online lecturer: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 59(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/14635240.2020.1713189

196.

Wijngaards

King

O. C.

Burger

M. J.

van Exel

(2022). Worker well-being: What it is, and how it should be measured. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(2), 795–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09930-w

197.

Williams

M. T.

(2019). Adverse racial climates in academia: Conceptualization, interventions, and call to action. New Ideas in Psychology, 55, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2019.05.002

198.

*Wilson

S. M.

Larson

J. H.

Stone

K. L.

(1993). Stress among job insecure workers and their spouses. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 42(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/584925

199.

*Winefield

H. R.

Boyd

Winefield

A. H.

(2014). Work-family conflict and well-being in university employees. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 148(6), 683–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.822343

200.

Winefield

A. H.

Gillespie

Stough

Dua

Hapuarachchi

Boyd

(2003). Occupational stress in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.10.1.51

201.

*Wood

S. J.

Michaelides

Inceoglu

Hurren

E. T.

Daniels

Niven

(2021). Homeworking, well-being and the COVID-19 pandemic: A diary Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7575. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147575

202.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Health promotion glossary of terms 2021. Author. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240038349

203.

Wray

Kinman

(2021). Supporting staff wellbeing in higher education (Project Report). Education Support, London, UK.

204.

*Xia

Zhang

M. M.

Zhu

J. C.

Fan

Samaratunge

(2020). HRM reforms and job-related well-being of academics. Personnel Review, 49(2), 597–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2018-0188

205.

*Xu

Payne

S. C.

(2020). When do job resources buffer the effect of job demands? International Journal of Stress Management, 27(3), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000146

206.

*Xu

Jiang

Hong

P. Y.

Roche

(2021). Will mindful employees benefit from positive work reflection triggered by transformational leadership? A two-study examination. International Journal of Stress Management, 28(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000222

207.

*Yalçın

Akan

Yıldırım

İ.

(2021). Investigation of the organizational commitment and psychological well-being levels of academicians. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(2), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1346

208.

*Yang

L.-Q.

Liu

Nauta

M. M.

Caughlin

D. E.

Spector

P. E.

(2016). Be mindful of what you impose on your colleagues: Implications of social burden for burdenees’ well-being, attitudes and counterproductive work behaviour. Stress and Health, 32(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2581

209.

*Zabrodska

Mudrak

Kveton

Blatný

Machovcova

Solcova

(2016). Keeping marketisation at bay: The quality of academic worklife in Czech universities. Sociologicky Casopis, 52(3), 347–374. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43920810

210.

*Zayed

K. N.

Ahmed

M. D.

Van Niekerk

R. L.

W. K. Y.

(2018). The mediating role of exercise behaviour on satisfaction with life, mental well-being and BMI among university employees. Cogent Psychology, 5(1), 1430716. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1430716

211.

*Zewude

G. T.

Hercz

(2021). Psychological capital and teacher well-being: The mediation role of coping with stress. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1227–1245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1227

212.

*Zhang

Q.-P.

(2018). How to get happiness within work–family conflict? An integrative model of subjective well-being among young faculty members in universities of mainland China. Illness, Crisis & Loss, 29(2), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054137318788650

213.

*Zhou

Parmanto

(2020). Development and validation of a comprehensive well-being scale for people in the university environment (Pitt Wellness Scale) using a crowdsourcing approach: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(4), e15075. https://doi.org/10.2196/15075

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB

0.04 MB