This section presents the findings from our review of work-nonwork boundaries in academia discussing how the nature of academic work shapes the blurring of work-nonwork boundaries.
Dissolved boundaries during COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered the nature of academic work, with teaching and research activities abruptly transitioning to home environments (Adisa et al., 2022; Docka-Filipek & Stone, 2021; Kossek et al., 2021). This shift redefined work-nonwork boundaries for many academics, as working from home (WFH) became mandatory, and all members shared household spaces for work, study, and daily life (Adisa et al., 2022).
A study by Adisa et al. (2022) offers insights into how UK academics experienced these changes during the first lockdown. Their multi-method qualitative research revealed that while WFH is typically seen as a flexible arrangement, its compulsory implementation during the pandemic diminished this perceived flexibility. Academics reported a lack of instrumental and emotional support, such as reduced access to childcare and social interactions, along with increased workloads and employer surveillance. These challenges led to blurred boundaries between work and personal life, particularly for those who previously preferred to maintain a clear distinction between the two. In response, many academics employed strategies like ‘micro boundaries’ and time-based techniques to create ‘controlled integration.’
Exploring the gendered dimensions of academic work, Docka-Filipek & Stone (2021) investigated the impact of gender disparities in academic labour on faculty mental health during the initial COVID-19 lockdown. Surveying 345 faculty members, their research highlighted that women faced heightened risks of depression and anxiety, driven by increased teaching loads, caregiving responsibilities, and financial concerns. Crucially, these mental health risks were not solely linked to these external pressures but also to the often-overlooked service burdens within academia and the home. This underscores the broader issue of gendered care work and academic precarity, posing significant challenges to women’s well-being and career advancement during the pandemic.
Building on these findings, Kossek et al. (2021) examined how women in STEM navigated disrupted work-nonwork boundaries during the pandemic. Their research showed that women employed a variety of strategies, such as concealing or revealing their nonwork roles (e.g., adjusting webcam angles to hide personal spaces) and making sacrifices in both work (e.g., stepping back from major projects) and nonwork roles (e.g., reducing personal activities). Notably, structural support—such as flexible work arrangements—and social support at work were critical in helping women manage these challenges effectively.
Academic work context shaping the blurred boundaries
The individual struggles with blurred boundaries, as discussed earlier, highlight the tensions inherent in academics' daily experiences. A growing body of research examines how the academic work environment intensifies work-nonwork challenges, with key factors including flexible yet unbounded work arrangements (Beigi et al., 2018; Johnston et al., 2022), gendered academic roles (Berheide et al., 2022; Docka-Filipek & Stone, 2021), neoliberal management practices (Rosa, 2022; Ylijoki, 2013), and the global demands of academia (Haley et al., 2024). However, specific aspects of the academic context shaping these boundaries remain insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we integrate insights from critical management and educational studies with work-nonwork interface research, offering a more nuanced understanding of how flexible work, gendered expectations, managerialism, and global demands shape boundary dynamics in academia.
Flexible work and unbounded work in academia. While flexible work arrangements are often seen as beneficial for academics, they can complicate boundary management, exacerbating work-nonwork conflicts and diminishing work-life balance (Beigi et al., 2018; Johnston et al., 2022). Beigi et al. (2018), in their review of 45 qualitative studies on the work-family interface in academia, found that although academics valued the flexibility of their roles, which helped them manage work-family demands, they still experienced significant levels of work-family conflict. Johnston et al. (2022) similarly found that while flexibility in working hours, combined with organizational support, positively influenced work-life balance, it remained insufficient to offset the effects of unbounded work in academia.
The lack of clear boundaries within academic roles - spanning teaching, research, funding applications, and administrative tasks - continues to significantly undermine work-life balance for many academics (Johnston et al., 2022). Griffin (2022, p. 2190) introduces the concept of "work-work balance" to describe the challenge academics face in managing multiple, often conflicting, work demands. Griffin outlines four scenarios of imbalance: splitting time between different jobs, managing multiple projects, juggling various roles, and dealing with conflicting expectations within a single role. This imbalance not only affects academics' ability to meet work and personal life responsibilities but also reflects structural issues within higher education institutions and funding frameworks (Griffin, 2022).
Gendered boundary work. Gender inequalities further complicate the work-life balance landscape in academia. Research consistently identifies work-life balance as a major barrier to women’s career advancement within higher education institutions (HEIs) (Beddoes & Pawley, 2014; Westoby et al., 2021). Beddoes and Pawley (2014) found that STEM faculty often framed work-life balance challenges, long work hours, and unequal childcare responsibilities as personal choices rather than systemic issues, effectively “de-problematizing” structural inequalities and shifting responsibility away from institutions. Similarly, Westoby et al. (2021) identified six key themes in their review of gender inequalities in HEIs, including exclusion from networks, work-home balance difficulties, and everyday sexism. Both studies emphasize the persistence of biases and barriers for women in academia, calling for institutional reforms and cultural shifts to address these entrenched inequities.
Gendered divisions of labour at home are often mirrored in the workplace, where women disproportionately shoulder the burden of academic "care work"—both physical and emotional (Berheide et al., 2022; Docka-Filipek & Stone, 2021; Guarino & Borden, 2017). These patterns intensified during the pandemic, as women engaged in more service work at the expense of research productivity and career progression, activities that are typically more highly valued by institutions (Berheide et al., 2022; Docka-Filipek & Stone, 2021). Female faculty were also more likely to undertake relational service work, such as mentoring or responding to students' needs, compared to their male counterparts (Berheide et al., 2022). This type of emotional labour, though often invisible, diverts valuable time away from research—an activity central to promotion and tenure decisions—while also draining personal resources.
These gendered divisions extend to the management of work-family boundaries. Beigi et al. (2018), in their review of 45 qualitative studies on the work-family interface in academia, found distinct gendered patterns in boundary management. Beigi et al.’s (2018) review suggests that men generally preferred and were more successful in maintaining clear separations between work and family life (e.g., Damaske et al., 2014; Reddick et al., 2012, as cited in Beigi et al., 2018). In contrast, women - particularly those with young children—were more likely to experience boundary-crossing, whether by choice or necessity (e.g., Heijstra & Rafnsdóttir, 2010, as cited in Beigi et al., 2018). This reflects broader gendered differences in the strategies employed to navigate work-family roles, with women more frequently struggling to separate professional and personal demands in academic settings.
Neoliberal management principles and work-nonwork boundaries. In addition to gender inequalities, the rise of neoliberal management practices within academia has exacerbated challenges in managing work-nonwork boundaries. Universities are increasingly adopting neoliberal principles, resulting in heightened managerialism and careerism (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016; Billsberry et al., 2023; Clarke & Knights, 2015; Fleming, 2023), alongside job instability, especially among early-career scholars (Bozzon et al., 2017; Bristow et al., 2017). This shift, coupled with the growing emphasis on ‘performance’ metrics and career progression, has blurred the boundaries between work and personal life, with academics compelled to prioritize work-related activities and achievements over well-being (Ylijoki, 2013). The persistent pressure to secure funding and meet performance guidelines often leads to longer work hours, encroaching on personal time and complicating efforts to establish sustainable work-life boundaries (Hogan et al., 2014).
Furthermore, the adoption of neoliberal principles in academia challenges core scholarly values such as intellectual freedom and collegiality (Fleming & Harley, 2024). Collegiality, once valued for fostering a supportive academic environment, has become a mechanism for control, pressuring academics into performing unrecognized and uncompensated work to comply with institutional demands (Fleming & Harley, 2024). Internalized pressures, particularly around publishing and securing research funding, contribute to growing insecurity, eroding both academic identity and research quality while complicating the work-nonwork interface (Clarke & Knights, 2015; Knights & Clarke, 2014; Ylijoki, 2013).
The clash between traditional academic values and neoliberal principles has led to significant tension, alienation, and a sense of detachment from professional identity, prompting efforts to establish clearer boundaries in order to mitigate value dissonance (Alvesson & Szkudlarek, 2021). In response to the intensified stress and alienation, some academics have engaged in various forms of resistance (Contu, 2020; Kalfa et al., 2018; Rintamäki & Alvesson, 2023). One notable example is the use of autoethnographic accounts, where researchers articulate their experiences of work-related stress within the fast-paced university environment and its impact on their personal lives (e.g., Cohen et al., 2009; Izak et al., 2023; Lupu, 2021). These accounts often reveal personal and sometimes difficult experiences related to mental, emotional, and physical health within academia (e.g., Boncori & Smith, 2019).
Such personal narratives offer insights into the intersection of personal hardship and professional life, underscoring the often unseen challenges academics experience (Boncori & Smith, 2019; Contu, 2020; Kalfa et al., 2018; Lupu, 2021). These accounts challenge existing taboos surrounding open discussions of mental health, well-being and loss in academia, as a way to preserve academic freedom as a core value but also to establish new standards of transparency and accountability concerning academic misconduct (Boncori & Smith, 2019; Bunds, 2021; Smith & Ulus, 2020). By integrating discussions of work-nonwork boundaries into this discourse, these academics strive to maintain a coherent sense of identity and integrity amid the neoliberal landscape of higher education (Clarke & Knights, 2015; Fitzmaurice, 2013; Kallio et al., 2016).
Additionally, these narratives reflect a growing dissatisfaction with neoliberal management control models (Billsberry et al., 2023). By openly discussing physical and mental health issues (Boncori & Smith, 2019; Contu, 2020; Kalfa et al., 2018; Lupu, 2021), academics seek to reclaim autonomy over their work and personal lives. The blending of personal/private and professional/public experiences in academic literature represents an effort to establish more sustainable and coherent delineations between these realms.
Internationalization and digitalization in academic research. The internationalization of academic research, coupled with the impacts of digitalization, has significantly transformed the landscape of academic work, leading to a profound blurring of boundaries between professional and personal life (Collins et al., 2022). With constant connectivity, academics can engage in work-related activities from virtually any location—be it at home, during travel, or elsewhere (Pluut & Wonders, 2020). This flexibility means that traditional geographical and temporal constraints are no longer applicable; academics can attend conferences, teach students, and collaborate with colleagues globally at any time. However, this shift has also led to the erosion of established boundaries, making the distinction between work and non-work increasingly nebulous. Consequently, maintaining a balanced and sustainable work-life boundary has become a significant challenge for many scholars.
As research becomes more internationalized (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Dachs et al., 2024; Haley et al., 2024), the conventional image of university academics as independent scholars with the autonomy to direct their own research (Parker & Jary, 1995) appears increasingly misleading. In reality, academics are required to navigate heightened standards and expectations that arise not only from institutional hierarchies but also from global market demands (Dachs et al., 2024).
In this competitive global environment, research is increasingly regarded as a vital asset, driving economic growth and promoting human development (Barrera, 2022). As a result, professors find themselves competing not just within their universities but against scholars from around the world. This competition is influenced by metrics such as university rankings and citation counts, often necessitating sacrifices of personal time in pursuit of academic success (Johnston et al., 2022).
While digitalization may offer the promise of increased flexibility in work arrangements (Tims et al., 2022), it simultaneously intensifies the pressure to produce research and engage with global colleagues. This expanded scope of responsibilities often intrudes upon personal time, complicating the work-life balance further (Pasamar et al., 2020). Additionally, geographic and economic disparities exacerbate these challenges, as working conditions for academics can vary significantly across different countries (Bentley & Kyvik, 2012). For example, in nations where academic wages are lower, scholars may be compelled to hold multiple positions to sustain their livelihoods (Griffin, 2022).
