Doctoral education is a transformative journey, characterized by intellectual rigor and the pursuit of specialized knowledge. However, this journey also entails significant challenges that impact students' well-being. Research indicate that doctoral students experience heightened levels of stress, anxiety, and depression compared to the general population, with contributing factors including academic workloads, financial pressures, and interpersonal conflicts with supervisors (Acharya et al., 2023; Levecque et al., 2017; Pappa et al., 2020). Despite growing awareness of these issues, limited research has examined how the hidden curriculum shapes doctoral students' well-being. This study addresses this gap by exploring the implicit expectations and social dynamics that influence doctoral students' mental health and academic experiences.

The hidden curriculum refers to the implicit lessons embedded within educational settings, communicated through norms, values, and behaviors that are neither explicitly taught nor formally acknowledged (Jackson, 1968). Originally conceived in primary and secondary education, the concept has expanded to higher education, where it operates through institutional practices, social interactions, and cultural norms (Eisner, 1992; 2002; Sambell & McDowell, 1998). The hidden curriculum extends beyond academic content to encompass societal ideologies, power structures, and social expectations, influencing not only what students learn but also how they perceive their place within institutional and societal hierarchies. Implicit messages about productivity, competition, and identity formation can exacerbate feelings of inadequacy and isolation among doctoral students (Foot, 2017). Moreover, doctoral students must navigate institutional hierarchies and social dynamics, often without explicit guidance, making the hidden curriculum a significant influence on their well-being (Giray et al., 2023; McCauley & Hinojosa, 2020; Baker & Pifer, 2011).

In doctoral programs, the hidden curriculum manifests in various forms, including supervisory relationships, program structures, and peer interactions. Supervisors, for instance, hold substantial power in defining norms and expectations, often unconsciously transmitting values that reflect broader institutional ideologies (Acker, 2001; Hall & Burns, 2009). This dynamic can either support or hinder students’ academic success and well-being. Moreover, the hidden curriculum often perpetuates systemic inequities. Doctoral students from underrepresented groups, such as women or students of color, may encounter implicit messages that devalue their contributions or pressure them to conform to dominant cultural norms (Margolis & Romero, 1998). Such experiences not only undermine their sense of belonging but also affect their mental health and academic outcomes. At the same time, successfully navigating these implicit norms can foster resilience and skill development, enhancing students’ capacity for independent scholarship and collaboration (Cotton et al., 2013; Foot, 2017).

This study explores the hidden curriculum’s impact on doctoral students, particularly its influence on their well-being. The research aims to understand how doctoral students experience and respond to the implicit messages embedded in their academic environments, with a focus on advisor-student dynamics, peer relationships, and institutional structures. The study is guided by the following research question:

1. How does the hidden curriculum shape doctoral students' experiences and well-being?

Using the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) framework (Demerouti et al., 2001), this study examines how implicit institutional expectations (e.g., unwritten academic norms, advisor dynamics) function as ‘demands,’ while available support systems (e.g., mentorship, institutional policies) act as ‘resources.’ This framework helps illuminate how the imbalance between these factors impacts doctoral students’ well-being.

By uncovering the implicit pressures and expectations embedded in doctoral education, this study provides insights into how institutions can foster healthier academic environments. Understanding the hidden curriculum’s role in student well-being is crucial for designing interventions that support doctoral students’ mental health, academic success, and long-term career development. The findings will contribute to discussions on doctoral education reform, with implications for policy, supervision practices, and institutional support systems.

The current research was designed as a qualitative study. The participants were 15 doctoral students from various doctoral programs in universities in Turkey. Participants were selected using criterion sampling, ensuring they had successfully completed their doctoral qualification exams and were in the dissertation stage of their programs. This criterion was established to ensure that participants had substantial experience with doctoral education and could provide in-depth insights into the hidden curriculum’s influence on their well-being. Additionally, snowball sampling was employed to reach participants from different departments and universities, allowing for a more diverse range of perspectives. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, developed based on a thorough review of the literature and the study’s research aims. To enhance validity, expert opinions were sought, and a pilot study was conducted to refine the interview guide. The guide included open-ended questions exploring participants’ perceptions of the hidden curriculum, its presence in their doctoral education, and its impact on their well-being, motivation, advisor-student relationships, peer interactions, social dynamics, and institutional structures (e.g., program policies, academic culture). Additionally, the study examined structural (e.g., program design, institutional policies) and cultural (e.g., academic norms, expectations) influences on doctoral students’ experiences.

Given the existing literature on doctoral education and the hidden curriculum, this study is expected to uncover implicit expectations, norms, and social dynamics that influence doctoral students’ well-being. The anticipated findings will likely reveal how doctoral students navigate unwritten academic expectations, the role of advisor-student relationships, and the impact of peer interactions and institutional culture on their well-being and motivation. Specifically, the preliminary findings highlight the emotional and psychological toll of hidden curriculum elements, such as pressure to publish, competitiveness, and implicit norms around productivity. Findings also underscore the challenges faced by diverse groups (e.g. working in/out university context, marital status) and the effects of systemic biases, especially in a country with the effect of collectivist culture and the “toxic triangle of diversity” (Baykut et al., 2021). Additionally, it is expected that doctoral students will report both negative and positive aspects of the hidden curriculum. While some implicit messages may contribute to stress, isolation, and imposter syndrome, others may facilitate resilience, professional identity development, and academic socialization. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) framework will provide insight into how these experiences shape doctoral students’ well-being, depending on the balance between institutional demands and available support.

Acharya, V., Rajendran, A., and Shenoy, S. (2023). A framework for doctoral education in developing students’ mental well-being by integrating the demand and resources of the program: An integrative review. Acker, S. (2001). The hidden curriculum of dissertation advising. Baker, V. L., & Pifer, M. J. (2011). The role of relationships in the transition from doctoral student to independent scholar. Baykut, S., Erbil, C., Ozbilgin, M., Kamasak, R., & Bağlama, S. H. (2021). The impact of the hidden curriculum on international students in the context of a country with a toxic triangle of diversity. Cotton, D. R. E., Winter, J., & Bailey, I. (2013). Researching the hidden curriculum: Intentional and unintended messages. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Eisner, E. W. (1992, August). The role of education in the cultural and artistic development of the individual. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. Foot, R. E. (2017). “It’s not always what it seems”: Exploring the hidden curriculum within a doctoral program. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Giray, L., Asuncion, Ma. K. C., Edem, J., Gumalin, D. L., Jacob, J., & Lucero, S. M. (2023). Positive and negative lessons from hidden curriculum at a Philippine State University. Hall, L. A., & Burns, L. D. (2009). Identity development and mentoring in doctoral education. Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Margolis, E., & Romero, M. (1998). The department is very male, very white, very old, and very conservative: The functioning of the hidden curriculum in graduate sociology departments. McCauley, K. D., & Hinojosa, A. S. (2020). Applying the challenge-hindrance stressor framework to doctoral education. Pappa, S., Elomaa, M., & Perälä-Littunen, S. (2020). Sources of stress and scholarly identity: The case of international doctoral students of education in Finland Sambell, K., & McDowell, L. (1998). The construction of the hidden curriculum: Messages and meanings in the assessment of student learning.