Conference Agenda

GBV in academia is a problem with far-reaching consequences for individuals, organizations, and society. Despite decades of policy development and preventive measures, European research shows that victimization persists (Humbert et al., 2022; Rudolfsson et al., 2022). While research of sexual harassment in academia is well established internationally (see, for example, Pilinkaite Sotirovic et al., 2024; Lipinsky et al., 2022; Fedina et al., 2018), an international research overview shows that doctoral students are very rarely extracted as a separate sample in studies on sexual harassment in academia (Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020). Previous studies indicate that female doctoral students are at a significantly higher risk of sexual harassment than their male counterparts (Teng, 2025; Rudolfsson et al., 2022). A Danish study reports that 14% of female doctoral students experienced unwanted sexual physical contact and 22% unwanted sexual comments (Lesner et al., 2024). There is thus a gap in research on GBV in doctoral education.

Doctoral students have a special position at higher education institutions (HEIs), and their conditions vary internationally. The demographic composition, working conditions, and position of doctoral students in Swedish HEIs are also heterogeneous. Doctoral education varies between HEIs and within different subject disciplines. However, doctoral students often share a precarious and highly dependent position, particularly on supervisors and senior researchers, for their continued academic careers. Similar structural conditions constitute the immediate context for doctoral students in European HEIs.

Quantitatively studying and measuring GBV in academia is associated with methodological challenges (Schredl et al., 2025; Bondestam & Lundqvist, 2020), such as defining and delimiting what the concept GBV should encompass, response bias linked to this, and, how measurement can include contextual factors. There is a risk that large-scale quantitative studies may exclude structural conditions and reinforce individualized perceptions of GBV (Schredl et al., 2025).

This study lies at the intersection of empirical questions about the prevalence of GBV in Swedish doctoral education, methodological questions about what can be learned about GBV in this context, and issues concerning the potential for knowledge-based change in HEI policy and practice. Alongside examining prevalence, we examine the epistemological challenges of measuring GBV in academia and how these relate to research ethics and opportunities for change. The study draws on existing survey data from a large-scale study of GBV in Swedish academia (Rudolfsson et al., 2022), from which doctoral student responses have been extracted to address two overarching, parallel, and interrelated research questions:

(1) What is the prevalence of GBV in doctoral education in Sweden?

(2) How does the survey data (questions, our own analyses, and reporting of results) shape perceptions and knowledge about Swedish doctoral education and GBV?

The aim is both to examine what the existing survey data reveal about the prevalence of GBV among doctoral students in Sweden, including patterns related to socio-demographic markers, and to use our statistical analyses and presentation of results to problematise the presence and absence of contextual factors. We discuss the implications of this in terms of the risk of reproducing both individualised and incident-focused understandings of GBV, and limiting understandings of the structural and relational nature of doctoral education.

The project adopts a broad definition of GBV as a system of violence (Strid et al., 2021), conceptualizing GBV in academia as an organizational and relational phenomenon shaped by academic structures, power relations, and cultural norms (Hearn et al., 2025; Hershcovis et al., 2021; Phipps, 2020).

Compared with the mid-2000s, by the late 2010s a greater number of adolescents and young adults were experiencing higher levels of depression, suicidal ideation, and increased rates of suicide attempts and deaths by suicide. Given that this trend is weak or absent among individuals aged 26 years and older, these data suggest a generational shift in the incidence of mood disorders and suicide-related problems, rather than a generalised increase affecting all age groups equally (Twenge et al., 2019). The decline in mental wellbeing is of particular concern among higher education students. In 2018, one in three first-year undergraduate students met the diagnostic criteria for at least one common mental disorder according to the DSM-IV, based on surveys conducted across nineteen universities in eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Germany, Northern Ireland, South Africa, Mexico, the United States, and Spain) (Auerbach et al., 2018).

Higher education represents a key agent in the promotion of wellbeing during emerging adulthood, as it provides unique access to this population and offers a privileged developmental context in which to address mental health promotion in a comprehensive manner (Conley et al., 2013). Furthermore, the transitional nature of higher education, and university education in particular, constitutes an opportunity for students to acquire strengths and skills that may support them in coping with new developmental challenges (Schulenberg et al., 2004).

Especially following the publication of the Okanagan Charter (2015), an international charter on health-promoting universities and higher education institutions, universities and education professionals have shown increasing interest in offering learning experiences that foster and support student wellbeing (Stanton et al., 2016). This international charter emerged from the 2015 International Conference on Health Promoting Universities and Colleges, which involved health professionals, academic staff, administrative staff, health and education policy developers, and students from universities in 45 countries.

Over the past five years in particular, the mental health of emerging adults has become, both in Europe and worldwide, a central concern for education professionals, a major focus of academic research, and a source of social and political debate. Although no single or rapid solution to this problem exists, initiatives aimed at improving wellbeing must seek pathways capable of generating a meaningful positive impact on young people’s lives.

This study seeks to explore how university education can contribute to improving students’ mental health. Specifically, it is guided by the following research questions: (1) What are students’ experiences of wellbeing in university learning processes and learning environments? and (2) What are students’ perceptions of the development of wellbeing components within these learning processes and environments?

The research focuses on the population group with the highest prevalence of mental health difficulties; namely emerging adults aged between 18 and 29 years, who are enrolled at the Complutense University of Madrid.

Health is conceptualised in this study in accordance with the Complete State Model of Health (Keyes, 2005), which regards health as a dimension distinct from illness, with its own characteristics and developmental factors. From this perspective, all individuals, regardless of whether they experience a mental disorder, may benefit from the promotion of mental health. In addition, the study attends to the specific characteristics of this developmental stage by drawing on the synthesis of components for the promotion of wellbeing in emerging adulthood proposed by Martínez-García et al. (2024), which integrates the emotional, psychological, and social dimensions of wellbeing.

Employment during studies has become a defining feature of student life (Carnevale & Smith, 2018; Mandl & Menz, 2024), yet existing research is largely quantitative and offers limited insight into working students’ lived experiences. As Zhong et al. (2025) note, student employment remains a “black box,” with little known about the types of work students undertake or how earning while learning shapes their identities. Moreover, the work experiences of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds remain underexplored (Moreau & Leathwood, 2006; Hordósy et al., 2018).

This study draws on interviews with 88 low-income students in Israeli HE to explore the experiential and interpretive dimensions of these students’ engagement with work. Our analysis draws on a sensemaking perspective, which conceptualizes meaning-making as an ongoing process through which individuals interpret their experiences and orient their actions (Weick, 1995). Sensemaking involves the interplay between action and retrospective reflection (Weick et al., 2005) and, from a critical perspective, is shaped by broader discourses, power relations, and organizational rules (Mills et al., 2010).

Our study addresses two research questions: (1) How do low-income students experience work and navigate work and studies? (2) How do low-income students construct and understand work?

Four sensemaking narratives emerge from the analysis: The first, ‘work as part of life’, corresponds to the question “Who am I?”, centres on narratives of work as a defining and inseparable part of life, from adolescence to the present. The second, ‘work as motivation and aspiration’, is linked to the question “Why am I here?”, captures students’ motives for enrolment and their future visions after graduation, reflecting broader socio-cultural narratives of HE as a route to social mobility. The third, ‘work as precarious experience’, is related to the question “How do I manage?”, encompasses accounts of precarious work and the ongoing struggle to balance employment with study. The fourth, ‘work as a marker of difference’, is tied to the question “Where am I in comparison to others?”, involves students positioning themselves against higher-income peers who do not have to work, often expressing feelings of difference and alienation.

From these sensemaking narratives, we arrive at two overarching arguments. The first concerns low-income students’ identities, and the second relates to structural inequalities within HE that emerge when considering students’ employment.

(1) A precarious working student identity: Work emerged as a formative and identity-shaping dimension in low-income students’ lives. Participants described continuous employment in precarious jobs as natural, unavoidable, and central to their sense of self. Through retrospective sensemaking (Weick, 1995), students constructed work not as supplementary to HE but as constitutive of their student experience and identity. Work also functioned as a key marker of class distinction from other students. Together, these experiences produced a class-shaped identity as precarious working students—a dual identity as workers and learners, marked by financial strain and tensions between work and study. This identity reflects embodied precariousness (Taylor, 2022) within both the labor market and HE, characterized by self-reliance, pragmatism, economic caution, and a strong work ethic, alongside the internalization of neoliberal discourses of individual responsibility and resilience (Moreau & Leathwood, 2006; Webster & Rivers, 2019).

(2) Work as an invisible disadvantage in HE: Students’ experiences of combining work and study prompted sensemaking about structural inequalities in the academic environment. Low-income students recognized that the necessity of employment undermines their academic success and reproduces disparities between those who must work and those who do not. One student described work as an “invisible spoke in the wheel,” capturing how class operates as a hidden axis of inequality in HE and how term-time employment perpetuates class-based disadvantage and privilege (Duffy, 2007; Walkerdine, 2021).

Sense of belonging, a core human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), is pursued after fulfilling physiological and safety needs (Maslow, 1954). This need for connection and being part of stable social networks (Allen et al., 2021) plays a significant role in educational contexts. Developing a sense of belonging is linked to positive student outcomes, such as well-being, increased motivation, academic success, and persistence (Suhlmann et al., 2018; Yildirim et al., 2021). However, seeking a sense of belonging can also deplete valuable resources in educational settings (Strayhorn, 2019). In higher education, fostering belonging is vital for both academic and social integration (Tinto, 2012) and can influence retention decisions (Suhlmann et al., 2018). Marginalized groups face particular challenges concerning their sense of belonging (Allen et al., 2021), and their experiences of social and academic integration may differ across various axes of inequality. Exploring these differential experiences of belonging and integration in higher education is increasingly important, especially considering recent concerns about low student retention rates at German universities. Factors affecting retention include both individual and institutional elements, such as motivation, satisfaction with studies, financial concerns, prior education, parental education, and other demographic factors (Behr et al., 2020). Therefore, understanding the role of belonging in relation to these factors carries utmost importance.

Belonging in higher education refers to students’ sense of social support on campus, including feelings of connectedness and being valued or cared for by the campus community, such as faculty, staff, and peers, while being closely linked to social identities (Strayhorn, 2019; Vaccaro & Newman, 2022). Different identities may lead to diverse experiences. However, the connection between belonging and social identities has been scarcely explored in the context of educational inequality.

Ostrove and Long (2007) emphasize that exploring the concept of belonging is crucial for understanding how social class influences education. Class, along with gender, race, and ability markers, significantly shapes who gets to belong in institutions of higher education institutions, both explicitly and implicitly (Ostrove & Long, 2007). This involves which types of cultural capital are recognized by privileged groups, often aligned with middle-class standards. Therefore, adopting a broad view of cultural capital is vital for understanding marginalized students' experiences, acknowledging forms such as linguistic, social, aspirational, resistant, familial, and navigational capital (Yosso, 2005). Additionally, the sense of cultural fit (Kramer & Helsper, 2010), referring to the match between students’ habitus and university culture, affects their higher education experiences. Existing research highlights differences in cultural fit (Lange-Vester & Sander, 2016; Grunau, 2017; Lange-Vester & Bremer, 2020; Hild, 2019) and underscores the importance of institutional habitus (Byrd, 2025).

Experiences of conflicts between individual habitus and university structure can cause students to feel alienation and shame (Schmitt, 2010; Lange-Vester & Bremer, 2020). Therefore, habitus and cultural fit are crucial for social and academic integration, as well as influencing differences in goal-based and institutional commitment (Grunau & Petzold, 2021) at higher education institutions. In Austria, Weiß (2025) explored the sense of belonging among working-class students through a Bourdieusian lens, emphasizing that belonging develops as a relational process and highlighting the importance of peers, cultural fit, and perceived barriers. Accordingly, addressing the gap in empirical research on the intersection of belonging, social identities, and cultural fit, this study examines, within the German higher-education context, how undergraduates construct meanings of university belonging and systematically compares the experiences of sense of university belonging among first- and continuing-generation students.