Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39959815›Full record

ReviewOpen research Europe2024

Work-Nonwork boundaries in academia: A problematizing review.

Jūratė Čingienė, Aleksandra Batuchina

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open research Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jūratė ČingienėSMK University of Applied Social Sciences, Klaipėda, Klaipėda County, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2710-923X
Aleksandra BatuchinaSMK University of Applied Social Sciences, Klaipėda, Klaipėda County, Lithuania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0012-9421

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The interplay between work and non-work in academic settings has been the subject of extensive research, particularly in relation to work-life balance and work-nonwork conflict. However, much of this literature has tended to overlook the specific dynamics of work-nonwork boundaries. Moreover, while prior research has explored general patterns of conflict and balance, it has not sufficiently addressed the unique pressures that academics face, such as high autonomy, irregular working hours, and competing demands. This review critically examines how the specific nature of academic work shapes the boundaries between work and non-work, advancing the conversation beyond traditional approaches. The central research question guiding this review is: How do the aspects of academic work shape the blurring of work-nonwork boundaries? Through a problematizing approach, this review relies on 41 articles to broaden and enhance our understanding of the boundary challenges academics encounter. Findings reveal that blurred work-nonwork boundaries in academia are driven by work-life demand overload, work-family conflicts, and a lack of organizational support, compounded by digitalisation and neoliberal practices. Heightened managerialism, careerism, and precarity exacerbate the blurring of these boundaries, affecting academics' well-being and identity work. By addressing these gaps, this review offers a nuanced understanding of how academics construct, navigate, and negotiate boundaries within a complex environment shaped by these pressures. The review challenges the limitations of conventional approaches to work-nonwork interface advocating for a more context-sensitive, experiential perspective.

Indexed as

Academic workProblematizing reviewWork-nonwork boundaries

Identifiers

PMID39959815
PMCPMC11826078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.