Rethinking Academic Work–Life Balance: Three Persistent Myths

Many in academia struggle to balance work and life due to long hours, administrative tasks, and competitive pressures that undermine well-being, particularly for early-career researchers (ECRs). The emphasis on publishing and securing funding often takes precedence over training and mental health, leading to burnout, lower satisfaction, and higher dropout rates. 

These challenges formed the basis of one of our mentorship discussions I attended at Monash University, where we examined work–life balance and reviewed "Ten simple rules to improve academic work–life balance," authored by Bartlett et al. (2021). We discussed work-life balance, the challenges, how to overcome them, and ways to achieve a balanced work-life. It is a concise yet precise set of 10 awesome rules to improve our work-life balance. In reality, most of us believe myths and convince ourselves that this is the only way to success. Bartlett et al. (2021) referred to these as “10 rules”; however, I synthesised them into three overarching “myths.” Let's take a look at the consolidated and reframed myths. 

(1) The myth of equating long hours with higher or equal productive hours.

A common cause of work–life imbalance is feeling behind because of academia's competitive nature, leading to overwork driven by peer or self-pressure, which harms our mental health. The authors reiterate that a healthy balance boosts productivity, creativity, and satisfaction. We can't achieve everything in a single day; it takes time, and recognising that research and career development do too is instrumental. 

Taking guilt-free time off maintains health, energy, and motivation, and can increase productivity. I think this should be a slogan: "excessive work doesn't proportionally boost output, and neglecting rest leads to errors, fatigue, stress, and illness." No doubt, long hours may be necessary at times; however, persistent overwork damages our long-term health. Flexibility in hours and location helps manage tasks and balance. I use this flexibility a lot, especially in location. To be candid, my supervisor does not micromanage and allows me to set my own work schedule as long as I meet the set expectations.

(2) The myth that progress requires sacrificing personal and family life, with no clear limits on work.

If success is a 3 × 3 grid of Health, Wealth, and Relationships, many people aim for a 10/10 in Wealth but end up with a 0/10 in the other areas. Is a total score of 10 better than a balanced score of 7 across all categories? Is that truly the definition of success? There is no universal answer; we all have different opinions. 

Bartlett et al. (2021) suggest reviewing work relationships and considering flexible schedules, such as remote work, to gain flexibility, reduce travel, and simplify scheduling. Not all tasks can be done remotely, so check workplace policies and ask about flexible options during interviews. Greater control over hours and location reduces stress. While some offers, such as salary, may be non-negotiable, maintaining communication helps prevent overwork and balance work–life. Setting boundaries is key.

Setting boundaries around work helps you focus and prevents work from intruding on your personal life. At work, use quiet areas or communicate your needs; consider designated spaces. When at home, disconnect from screens, set clear boundaries to avoid burnout, and ask coworkers not to demand attention after hours. Turn off email notifications outside work. Separating work and relaxation spaces reduces stress; even a dedicated workspace on a table can help. Diligence, routines, prioritising tasks, and saying no are key to productivity.

(3) The myth that seeking help is a sign of weakness or inadequate competence

Support systems are crucial for success; building multiple networks increases your chances and overall balance. At work, collaborate with colleagues to cover for each other during family conflicts. At home, rely on trusted friends and loved ones for childcare or household tasks when working overtime or travelling. Seek support from academic communities focused on mental health, such as PhD Balance, a space for sharing experiences, discussing challenges, and creating resources. Dragonfly Mental Health works to improve access to care and address negative academic culture. Everyone may need help at times; if overwhelmed, talk to a professional or use employer assistance programs. Joining support groups, such as Slack communities for graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, faculty, or working parents, offers a chance to vent and strategise with understanding peers. These steps help improve work–life balance for researchers.

Way Forward

Achieving work–life balance requires managing responsibilities to sustain health and happiness despite technological and cultural obstacles. Systems should promote flexible working arrangements and improve institutional policies, as current conditions often limit ECRs' control, particularly for underrepresented groups. To enhance well-being, individuals can adopt strategies, while institutions need to foster supportive environments and address systemic challenges to ensure sustainable progress.

Conclusion

Promoting work–life balance is essential to moving away from an “excellence at any cost” culture. While large-scale change requires action across institutions and funders, small local initiatives can improve academic environments. Supporting ECR-led well-being communities, seminars, and workshops can help drive this shift. Family-friendly activities and policies, such as childcare or pet-friendly spaces, help reduce work–life conflicts. Institutional support for family leave across genders is associated with better work-life balance. Although cultural change takes time, sustained policy reform can foster healthier, more supportive research environments.

References

Bartlett, M. J., Arslan, F. N., Bankston, A., & Sarabipour, S. (2021). Ten simple rules to improve academic work-life balance. PLoS computational biology, 17(7), e1009124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009124