Being a scientist is one of the few careers that can be considered a calling and, more than any other, requires comprehensive and continuous professional development. Building a sustainable career path while maintaining a work-life balance is challenging, particularly for early-career researchers (Vukelić & Cahill, 2024), and those living in turbulent socio-political contexts, with Serbia being one such example. Relying on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (1992), besides broader social values and norms (macrosystem) and respective ministries and higher education institution policies (exosystem), various factors from the immediate work environment influence researchers' efficacy and engagement (Simić et al., 2019). As Rahal et al., 2023 pointed out, high-quality research requires proper working conditions instead of relying on short-term employment contracts, biased selection procedures and misaligned incentives. As they further noticed, particular support needs to be directed toward early and mid-career researchers, and researchers from underrepresented and marginalized groups. One study in the Serbian context showed that besides the issues of salary and working conditions, lack of professional improvement opportunities, and old and rigid institutional structures and  procedures that obstruct innovative and transformative projects negatively impact efficacy and productivity in science (Simić et al., 2019). 

Academic context, as a work environment, is characterized by absorbing, insecure, open-ended, taking work home, and working on weekends culture (Osmanović et al., 2024). In such a way, the topic of well-being and burnout in academia has fairly recently caught scientific attention. The Nature PhD survey (Lauchlan, 2019) that has covered more than 6000 doctoral researchers from different countries has shown that 36% of the doctoral researchers sought help for anxiety or depression. The survey that included roughly 1000 doctoral researchers from different institutes of the Leibniz Association showed that nearly half of them reported high anxiety (46%) (Beadle et al., 2020). In the research that has covered more than 3000 doctoral researchers from the UK and a control group extracted from the general population, Hazell and Berry (2022) showed that doctoral researchers were more likely to meet the criteria for a depression or anxiety diagnosis and have more severe symptoms. High workload, lack of recognition and appreciation, dysfunctional relationships with colleagues and superiors and pathologies in the workplace such as nepotism and academic corruption negatively impact academic researchers’ well-being and job satisfaction (Simić et al., 2019; Szromek & Wolniak, 2020).

In this study we sought to investigate Serbian researchers’ perceptions of different aspects of work and wellbeing and to determine if certain work characteristics predict their well-being. In addition, we have explored researchers’ ideas and practices aimed at improving their immediate environment and working conditions, which can be used for planning strategies and actions in their institution, as well as for the entire scientific community in the country.

After obtaining permission from the institutional review board, and informed consent from participants, this study was conducted with researchers employed at the Faculty of Philosophy University of Belgrade, the oldest faculty in Serbia, which comprises ten departments dedicated to the study of social sciences and humanities. Out of 192 researchers, a total of 42 participated, with age range 25-43, 66.7% being female, and 50% holding a PhD. More than half were affiliated with the departments of psychology, philosophy, and history of art, while a smaller proportion came from the departments of history, sociology, andragogy, pedagogy, and archaeology. For a better understanding of the context in which these individuals work, it is important to note that researchers' work is regulated by different laws and rulebooks, assessed by different bodies using different criteria, and funded by different ministries than the higher education teachers they work alongside within the same institution. Their rights and institutional expectations also differ. This creates a divide between "pure" researchers, and higher education teachers, sometimes leading to tensions, particularly regarding financial and power-related issues. Based on different theoretical standpoints and research (e.g. Bakker et al., 2023; Levecque et al., 2017) covering the issue of working conditions in academia, we have created an online questionnaire in which we asked our participants to assess the extent to which certain job characteristics are present in their workplace (e.g. goals clarity, autonomy in decision-making, superior’s support, etc.). Each characteristic was rated on a 10-point Likert type scale with 1 referring - not present at all, and 10 - fully present. Through an open-ended question, we asked participants about possible ways to improve their work experience related to these characteristics. To assess job satisfaction, we inquired about how often they had considered changing their job. We operationalized well-being through satisfaction with life, stress levels, work-life balance, and professional self-efficacy, each measured using a single-item, 10-point Likert-type scale. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis were performed. Multiple regression analysis was used to test if work characteristics (i.e. role clarity, work-life balance, job security, organizational belonging, and superior support) predict participants' ratings of stress, motivation, life satisfaction, and self-efficacy. For the answers to the open-ended question about possible ways of improving work conditions we applied thematic analysis, combining both inductive and deductive approaches (Boyatzis, 1998).

Researchers at the Faculty perceive their workplace as providing high autonomy in decision-making (M = 7.40, SD = 2.90) but rate other aspects less favorably, including superiors’ support (M = 6.76, SD = 2.98), availability of relevant information (M = 5.73, SD = 2.54), goal clarity (M = 5.71, SD = 2.12), sense of belonging (M = 5.19, SD = 3.00), job security (M = 5.05, SD = 2.12), and conditions for research quality (M = 5.06, SD = 2.87). Despite these challenges, they report high motivation for scientific work (M = 8.24) and relatively high self-efficacy (M = 7.10, SD = 2.44). In the past year, 35.7% never considered changing jobs, while 19% think about it often or very often. Seven key areas for improvement emerged: higher salary and job security, more research resources, better workspace conditions, improved transparency, enhanced collaboration, clearer status and expectations, and increased recognition in decision-making. The last two reflect the institution’s specific challenges. Participants reported relatively high life satisfaction (M = 8.12, SD = 1.17), but work-life balance (M = 6.45, SD = 2.52) and stress levels (M = 7.4, SD = 2.13) raise concerns. Multiple regression analysis showed that none of the work conditions significantly predicted stress, motivation, or life satisfaction. However, goal clarity was the only significant predictor of self-efficacy (R² = .41, F(5,36) = 5.11, p < .01; β = .60, p < .01). The results align with trends indicating the significant pressures researchers face, particularly the need to maintain clarity and excellence in their work. However, this study has a specific contextual aspect. When interpreting these findings, Bronfenbrenner’s chronosystem—the specific period in which individuals develop their careers—should be considered. In Serbia, this period is marked by mass student protests and a global struggle for a healthier political landscape, with researchers expected to actively support the rights of students, teachers, and other protesting stakeholders.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2023). Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187–249). Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Beadle, B., Do, S., El Youssoufi, D., Felder, D., Gorenflos López, J., Jahn, A., Pérez-Bosch Quesada, E., Rottleb, T., Rüter, F., Schanze, J.-L., Stroppe, A.-K., Thater, S., Verrière, A., & Weltin, M. (2020). Being a doctoral researcher in the Leibniz Association: 2019 Leibniz PhD network survey report (p. 168). https://www. ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/69403 Lauchlan, E. (2019). Nature PhD survey 2019. Shift Learning Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008 Osmanovic, S., Pajic, S., Petrovic, I. B., & Portoghese, I. (2024). Workaholism, work engagement, and burnout among academics in Montenegro: A psychometric network approach. Work, 78(4), 1081-1092. Rahal, R. M., Fiedler, S., Adetula, A., Berntsson, R. P. A., Dirnagl, U., Feld, G. B., ... & Azevedo, F. (2023). Quality research needs good working conditions. Nature human behaviour, 7(2), 164-167. Simić, N., Toković, M., & Đorđević, V. (2019). Zadovolјstvo poslom naučnica u kontekstu postsocijalističke transformacije Srbije [Work satisfaction of female scientists in the context of post-socialist transformation in Serbia]. Etnoantropološki problemi, 14(1), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v14i1.12 Vukelić, M., & Cahill, B. (2024). International perspectives on the mental health of doctoral researchers. Prioritising the Mental Health and Wellbeing of Doctoral Researchers, 16–31. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003403210-2