In recent years, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic and following my return from maternity leave, I have found myself reflecting more often on the nature of academic life. For me, teaching, research and scholarship are closely tied to personal identity and values. This close connection between who I am and what I do is deeply rewarding, but it may also make the experience of academic strain more personal when the demands of the role begin to feel overwhelming. Trying to make sense of these feelings led me back to the literature on burnout, a concept that captures more than tiredness. Burnout is commonly described as the result of chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed and is characterised by emotional exhaustion, a growing distance from one’s work and a reduced sense of professional effectiveness (World Health Organization, n.d.). Research suggests that burnout often develops when the demands of the job begin to exceed the time, energy and support available to the individual (Schaufeli, Leiter and Maslach, 2009; Maslach and Leiter, 2016). In academic settings, where work is often closely linked to purpose and intellectual engagement, this mismatch may be experienced not only as fatigue but also as a gradual sense that the work no longer reflects the reasons one entered the profession.
Nowadays academic staff are expected to teach, publish, supervise, apply for funding, complete administrative tasks and contribute to institutional governance, often simultaneously. A systematic review of burnout in university teaching staff identified workload, time pressure and role conflict as some of the most frequently reported contributors to stress and emotional exhaustion (Watts and Robertson, 2011). These pressures are not only quantitative but also structural, as academic work requires constant movement between different responsibilities. The digital transformation of academic life has intensified this pattern, particularly following the rapid shift to online and hybrid working during the COVID-19 pandemic (Watermeyer et al., 2021). Email, chat-based applications, virtual learning platforms, online meetings and emerging tools such as generative AI have increased efficiency in many areas, but they have also created forms of workload that are continuous rather than clearly bounded. Research on technostress shows that constant connectivity, information overload and expectations of rapid response can increase role stress and reduce productivity (Tarafdar et al., 2007). Technological demands may also blur the boundaries between work and personal life, making it difficult to disengage from professional responsibilities (Ayyagari, Grover and Purvis, 2011). In academia, where autonomy is often assumed, technology can paradoxically reduce the sense of control over one’s time, as administrative and communication tasks expand into every available space. The result is a form of acceleration in which academic work becomes fragmented into short, disconnected activities. A day may move quickly from answering emails to preparing lectures, from completing online forms to attending meetings, leaving little time for sustained thinking or intellectual work. Over time, this can make academic work feel less like a space for reflection and more like a series of demands to be managed. In this context burnout may arise not only from workload, but from working in ways that reduce autonomy, coherence and a sense of purpose.
Addressing burnout requires more than encouraging individuals to cope better. It also requires recognising how the structure of modern academic work contributes to chronic stress. Research on technostress shows that high technological demands, constant connectivity and limited control over digital workload are associated with increased strain and reduced productivity (Tarafdar et al., 2007; Ayyagari, Grover and Purvis, 2011). In practical terms, this suggests that both individuals and institutions need strategies to protect time for meaningful work and to limit the constant expansion of administrative and digital communication tasks. At an individual level, one useful approach is to establish clear boundaries around digital availability, for example by protecting periods for uninterrupted teaching preparation, reading or writing. Even small reductions in constant connectivity can help restore a sense of control over one’s work. A second strategy is to reconnect with the aspects of academia that originally provided meaning, such as mentoring students, developing new ideas or collaborating with colleagues. Research suggests that engagement with personally valued activities can help counterbalance emotional exhaustion and support recovery (Maslach and Leiter, 2016). A third approach is to seek collegial support, as informal discussion with peers often reduces the sense of isolation that accompanies chronic stress. Institutional actions are equally important with workload models that recognise administrative and pastoral responsibilities, realistic expectations regarding productivity and protected time for teaching and scholarship all helping to reduce the risk of burnout. Higher education institutions that recognise the impact of digital overload and streamline communication demands may also help staff maintain focus on core academic work. Research consistently shows that organisational change, rather than individual resilience alone, is essential for sustainable wellbeing (Schaufeli, Leiter and Maslach, 2009; Watts and Robertson, 2011).
Burnout in academia is not inevitable, but it becomes more likely when the pace of work accelerates while the space for reflection decreases. At the same time, technological innovations offer many opportunities, yet they also require careful attention to how academic work is organised and experienced. Protecting time for thinking, teaching and genuine intellectual engagement is not only a matter of personal wellbeing but is essential for the quality of higher education itself. When academic work remains connected to meaning and purpose, vocation can continue to be a source of motivation rather than exhaustion.
Dr Ourania Varsou
Senior Lecturer in Anatomy
School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing
College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences
University of Glasgow
References
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V. and Purvis, R., 2011. Technostress: Technological Antecedents and Implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), pp.831-858. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963
Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P., 2016. Understanding the burnout experience: recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), pp.103-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311
Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Maslach, C., 2009. Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career Development International, 14(3), pp.204-220. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966406
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B.S. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S., 2007. The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), pp.301-328. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109
Watts, J. and Robertson, N., 2011. Burnout in university teaching staff: A systematic literature review. Educational Research, 53(1), pp.33-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.552235
Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C. and Goodall, J., 2021. COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education, 81(3), pp.623-641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y World Health Organization (n.d.) Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon” International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11). Available at: https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon