In recent years, the mental health issues of doctoral students have continuously attracted significant attention from the global academic community. Research indicated that doctoral students faced a 2.43 times higher risk of mental distress compared to the control group with higher education (Levecque et al., 2017), and meta-analyses have confirmed that approximately 24% and 17% of doctoral students exhibited significant depressive and anxious symptoms respectively (Hazell et al., 2021). This finding has been continuously verified in various countries over the years, and it shows universality across different disciplines and cultural backgrounds (Bergvall et al., 2025).

    Regarding this phenomenon, existing literature has accumulated a large amount of empirical research, mainly identifying three key factors that affect the mental health of doctoral students. Firstly, individual psychological resources. Regarding psychological capital such as self-efficacy and perfectionism tendencies, researchers focus on how they act as moderating variables to buffer the negative effects of academic pressure (Cao et al., 2024; Moate et al., 2019). Secondly, interpersonal and mentor relationships. A large number of studies have confirmed that the support style of the supervisor and the sense of belonging to the academic community are the most significant variables predicting the mental health of doctoral students, while an inappropriate mentoring relationship directly leads to psychological burnout (Ringo, 2025). Finally, structural and environmental factors. Scholars have pointed out that the uncertain career prospects in the academic field, unstable financial support, and the cultural atmosphere of high-performance pressure cause continuous structural stress on students (Estupiñá et al., 2024; Byrom et al., 2022).

    Although existing research has widely identified these risk factors, the current academic discussion still has obvious limitations. First, existing research mostly adopts cross-sectional designs, focusing on measuring the static correlation between stressors and psychological symptoms, and lack research on the dynamic process of the occurrence and evolution of psychological predicaments in doctoral students. Second, regarding doctoral students as active individuals, what specific coping strategies they adopt to maintain psychological balance when facing multiple pressures in academia and life, and the effectiveness of these strategies in actual academic contexts, the current micro-level exploration is still lacking.

    Therefore, this study aims to adopt qualitative research methods, not limited to verifying known stress factors, but dedicated to revealing the specific process of the generation of doctoral students' psychological distress and deeply analyzing the actual coping strategies they adopt when facing pressure. Based on the above purposes, this study proposes two specific research questions. First, how do doctoral students describe the origin and evolution process of their psychological distress during their doctoral studies? Second, when facing academic pressure, what specific behavioral or cognitive coping strategies do doctoral students adopt, and how do they evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies?

1. Research Design and Methods This study adopts a qualitative research paradigm. To capture both individual experiences and group interactions simultaneously, we draw on the pioneering work of Love et al. (2020) and Palmer et al. (2010), and apply the analysis principles of IPA to the focus group data. Addressing the challenge of traditional IPA's focus on individuals (Smith et al., 2021) and its difficulty in handling group dynamics (Tomkins & Eatough, 2010), this study adopts an adaptive IPA approach. We utilize group interactions to stimulate discussions (Kitzinger, 1995) and compare group themes with individual narratives through additional iterative cycles. While adhering to the commitment of IPA's individual orientation (Love et al., 2020), this study effectively reveals the unique psychological dilemma generation mechanism of doctoral students. 2. Participants and Sampling This study employs purposive maximum variation sampling. We recruited 34 current doctoral students from a comprehensive university in China. Following the recommendation of Love et al. (2020) and Morgan (1997), we assigned participants to 6 small, homogeneous focus groups. This grouping method helps promote in-depth interaction among participants and also facilitates clear tracking of individual narrative threads in subsequent analyses. During the sampling process, we focused on three key variables: gender, academic field, and training stage, to ensure that the sample could cover diverse academic survival experiences. 3. Data Collection and Analysis Data were collected through semi-structured focus group interviews. Each group interview lasted 90-120 minutes, and was video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The design of the interview outline was based on the framework principles proposed by Kvale (1996), starting with relatively relaxed topics and gradually delving into core issues such as specific stress events, and finally exploring coping strategies. The moderator facilitated participants' mutual responses to utilize group dynamics to stimulate richer personal narratives (Love et al., 2020). Data analysis followed the core steps of Smith et al. (2021) and was integrated with the adaptive strategies for focus group design (Love et al., 2020; Palmer et al., 2010). 4. Research Rigor and Ethics In terms of rigor, following the standards of Lincoln and Guba (1985), we employed triangulation and reflexivity logs to monitor the researchers' subjective biases. In terms of ethics, we strictly adhere to the principle of non-harm. All participants signed informed consent forms, and personal information was strictly de-identified. After the interviews, we provided each participant with a list of psychological support resources to address possible emotional discomfort.

This study's data analysis has revealed a core theme, suggesting that the imbalance between expectations and reality is the main cause of psychological distress among doctoral students. This imbalance is manifested in five aspects. Firstly, in the relationship between teachers and students, doctoral students long for professional guidance but are treated “instrumentally”, and even situations where the mentor's guidance is absent occur. In terms of academic requirements, doctoral students' longing for pure academic exploration is often replaced by high-level academic demands and high-performance pressure, leading to widespread anxiety about graduation delays. In terms of employment prospects, scarce job opportunities and the depreciation of academic qualifications result in widespread panic about the decline in doctoral competitiveness. In terms of economic conditions, “meager” allowances make it difficult for doctoral students to achieve independence, and even feelings of guilt towards their families arise. Finally, in social relationships, the intense research work takes up time, causing the original social circles to become distant and difficult to expand. In response to these disparities, doctoral students have adopted various coping mechanisms. Although some students can adapt by establishing peer support networks and redefining their life boundaries, the study shows that a significant proportion of students tend to adopt non-adaptive strategies, such as avoiding their mentors, delaying work, or self-isolation. These strategies may provide short-term relief from anxiety, but in the long run, they often exacerbate psychological exhaustion. Based on the Work Requirements-Resources Model (JD-R), this series of disparities is essentially a mismatch between resources and requirements, that is, the existing supportive resources are far from sufficient to buffer work requirements and pressures. Therefore, to solve this psychological predicament, it is necessary to rationalize the system requirements while increasing the supply of key resources, fundamentally repairing the imbalance between expectations and reality.

Bergvall, S., Fernström, C., Ranehill, E., & Sandberg, A. (2025). The impact of PhD studies on mental health—a longitudinal population study. Journal of Health Economics, 103070. Byrom, N. C., Dinu, L., Kirkman, A., & Hughes, G. (2022). Predicting stress and mental wellbeing among doctoral researchers. Journal of Mental Health, 31(6), 783-791. Cao, F., Zhang, L. F., Li, M., & Xie, Z. (2024). Subjective well-being among PhD students in mainland China: the roles of psychological capital and academic engagement. Frontiers in psychology, 15, 1354451. Estupiñá, F. J., Santalla, Á., Prieto-Vila, M., Sanz, A., & Larroy, C. (2024). Mental health in doctoral students: Individual, academic, and organizational predictors. Psicothema, 36(2), 123-132. Hazell, C. M., Niven, J. E., Chapman, L., Roberts, P. E., Cartwright-Hatton, S., Valeix, S., & Berry, C. (2021). Nationwide assessment of the mental health of UK Doctoral Researchers. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-9. 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. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage master, peter (1999) editorial. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 102-4. Love, B., Vetere, A., & Davis, P. (2020). Should interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) be used with focus groups? Navigating the bumpy road of “iterative loops,” idiographic journeys, and “phenomenological bridges”. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920921600. Moate, R. M., Gnilka, P. B., West, E. M., & Rice, K. G. (2019). Doctoral student perfectionism and emotional well-being. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 52(3), 145-155. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). Sage. Palmer, M., Larkin, M., De Visser, R., & Fadden, G. (2010). Developing an interpretative phenomenological approach to focus group data. Qualitative research in psychology, 7(2), 99-121. Ringo, D. S. (2025). When relationships make a difference! Supervisor support and PhD students’ academic performance in the journey: the moderating effect of supervisor-student relationship quality. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2479403. Smith, J. A., Larkin, M., & Flowers, P. (2021). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. Bmj, 311(7000), 299-302. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: an introduction to qualitive research interviewing. Sage. Tomkins, L., & Eatough, V. (2010). Reflecting on the use of IPA with focus groups: Pitfalls and potentials. Qualitative research in psychology, 7(3), 244-262.