Participants from student support teams “central services” (n = 13) and academic staff (n = 10) were recruited; the former work across the institution, which enabled us to gain a broader picture, and the latter were all from one faculty, which provided us with more detailed insight (Blaikie, 2014). The inclusion criteria to participate in the study was purely to be an employee at the university in either an academic role or a central service role and to have had experience of the pandemic while in role. Participants were recruited via dissemination of information packs including consent forms and through staff events where details of the study were delivered to encourage participation.

We used convenience and snowball sampling (Cohen et al., 2011) to identify potential participants as both groups had knowledge and experience of Covid-19, pre, mid and post in HE. Initially, we planned for convenience sampling due to the proximity of the researchers and the potential participants, but we quickly realized that participants could lead us to others; we asked participants if they could think of anyone else that we should speak to. Recruitment of participants among staff proved to be easier than we had anticipated, confirming our feeling that staff were keen to speak about their experiences and to share their experiences and knowledge.

We quickly found that there was an appetite to take part demonstrating the strength of feeling around the topics explored. Interviews and focus groups took place either online or in person depending on the participants’ preference (Braun and Clarke, 2013). It was found that the wider student support teams felt more comfortable and indeed found it more convenient to take part in focus groups, whereas the academics all opted for individual one-to-one interviews either online or in-person. Interviews took approximately 40–60 min depending on whether they were individual or focus group. There was scope to interview more staff, but we preferred narrow and intense data over wide and surface. Tight (2019) suggests a sample size of between 20–30 participants for a phenomenological study to be viable and practicable and our study comfortably met this criteria. This was also used as a guide for data saturation in conjunction with the constraints of the time limitation of the study and manageability of the data set for the research investigators.

Academics were able to provide richness of data in terms of their individual experiences while the support service teams were able to provide anecdotal insight into student issues bringing further expertise. The semi-structured interview was piloted prior to the main data collection to check for understanding, accuracy, flow, and fluency, and “…to reduce ambiguity and identify questions that produce the most useful spread of information…” (Somekh and Lewin, 2011, p. 62). Interview protocols were adapted to meet the differing expertise of the two participant groups (academics and central services staff). Using semi-structured interview protocols aided the coherence of the interview responses aligned to the research intention (Daniel and Harland, 2018).

Two investigators, one senior academic and one support member of staff from differing programmes were responsible for collecting the data and they balanced this around their workloads across the academic year of 2023–24, following a research schedule that was established at the outset, which took into account the need for contingency time around assessment and marking times. This research schedule also aided the development of a planned audit trail of the research and subsequent documentation (Braun and Clarke, 2013). The two investigators had not worked together prior to this study which further adds to the authenticity, validity, and transparency of the research processes adopted as we continually questioned our methods and processes and thus the results (see Figure 1).

Our data were transcribed verbatim using transcription software and then read closely by both research investigators. Thereafter the data went through a series of successive refinement and coding techniques based on qualitative content analysis (Flick, 2018). This led to the final set of themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006) for further analysis and discussion. These themes emerged during the iterative data analysis process and were driven by participant responses leading to the four themes reported on in the results section. Using this technique provided a robust structure for handling large amounts of data. While time consuming, these techniques proved valuable in the reporting and, we believe, contributes to transparency in the data collection and analysis process strengthening the validity and credibility of the analysis (Hennink et al., 2020). Each transcript was analysed independently by each investigator to minimise potential bias and to affirm key themes and to identify significant threading themes.

Full ethical approval was obtained for the study (no. ID55391V4) which complied with the Data Protection Act (2018) and BERA (2024) and the study took place across the academic year 2023–24 (see Figure 1). To support this a detailed timetabled plan was also included in the ethics application, with extra time factored in for capturing interviews across the academic year and time to analyse data (Braun and Clarke, 2013). Participants were presented with an information sheet, which detailed the study and a consent form prior and additionally at the start of each interview participants were asked again if they had any questions about these two documents and their contents (Cohen et al., 2011), with any queries answered individually before proceeding. Participants were anonymised by being given a code and identifying names were removed from transcripts and digital folders where possible. Access to the digital folders was only available to the two investigators and documents were secured safely in accordance with GDPR and the Data Protection Act (2018) and institutional digital requirements. No personal data was transferred digitally or otherwise during the data collection, and data analysis processes. In addition, social characteristics of participants are not reported in this paper specifically to further maintain anonymity (Braun and Clarke, 2013). Furthermore, the job roles of those who took part have also been removed to prevent participant identification. To protect the participants’ anonymity, findings or quotations are attributed simply to either CSS (central support services) or FAS (faculty academic staff).

Faculty academic staff (FAS) communicated intensely and powerfully about the effects of marketisation and neoliberal policies in HE, which they felt have been exacerbated by the pandemic.

Academic staff felt that the Covid-19 era had increased the pressure on HE, leading to an intensification of the effects of neoliberal practices (Manville et al., 2021). An example is performance monitoring through measurement tools such as NSS and TEF (O’Leary et al., 2019): A participant described these as the “growing menace around…being constantly monitored.” Others description of life in the neoliberal university echoed Troiani and Dutson’s (2021) concept of the “edufactory”:

This reflects Troiani and Dutson’s (2021) assertion that neoliberal practices need to be resisted and rethought to reclaim the liberal spaces and protect university values as a space of learning, thinking, and working and it would appear our participants would agree. Similarly, Leach (2019 cited in Bell, 2022, p. 492) “argues that HE should be about enabling people to become empowered, rounded citizens with self-confidence, self-worth, enhanced social capital and agency.” Instead, as our participant above points out, “the soul of academic labour is becoming lost in performativity” (Sutton, 2017, p. 625). Participants also commented on the tension produced by the “tangible pressure” of often competing aims:

This comment on the ways in which academics feel unable to effectively juggle the many growing tasks that fall under their remit reflects the notion that academic identity is being systematically “unbundled” (Skea, 2021, p. 401) and provides anecdotal support for the idea that “neoliberal ideologies and management practices […] have profoundly altered the academic work environment” (Whitsed et al., 2024, p. 2). We argue that these work practices are also having a serious impact on the mental health, motivation, engagement and wellbeing of staff (Whitsed et al., 2024; Boncori et al., 2020; McIntosh et al., 2022).

Academic staff were clear about the importance of relationship-building in supporting students and encouraging engagement, particularly for students with mental health and wellbeing difficulties (Bell, 2022; Snijders et al., 2020). But they were also clear that it affected their own job satisfaction; academic staff put student relationships at the forefront as they find it especially rewarding supporting students to grow throughout their programmes of study (Whitsed et al., 2024). One participant explained:

Our data highlights the significant impact neoliberal and marketisation practices are having on academic staff who are juggling multiple and increasing roles.

Relational pedagogy can be defined as “an intentional practice whereby classroom learning builds connections and positive relationships for learning purposes” (Su and Wood, 2023, p. 231), and stresses the “importance of relationships, of connections and of care, within learning and teaching” (Gravett et al., 2021, p. 388). Relational pedagogies are curiously positioned in that they can be thought of as a kind of antidote to the student-as-consumer culture of neoliberalism, but they are also increasingly being used as a tool to achieve the neoliberal-derived end of “customer satisfaction.” Relational pedagogies are considered central to the approach to learning and teaching at many universities.

Our academic participants discussed the pressures they feel in relation to making sure that students are having a positive university experience (Boncori et al., 2020), and mention that the weight of that expectation has become more intense since Covid-19. Many academic staff clearly feel pressure to “go above and beyond to make sure that they [students] are having a good learning experience” (FAS) when they might not have done previously because of the Covid-19 interruptions. They also reported the pressures of having higher levels of empathy towards students post-Covid, by.

Another participant noted additional unknowns in dealing with students which might affect relationship building, such as “mak[ing] up for the student’s negative experiences from either school or college or previous to university.” (FAS).

However, the challenge for academic staff in attempting to provide enhanced support for students has risen over time (Boncori et al., 2020). Our participants talked about wanting to meet with student’s face-to-face despite, for example, difficulties of getting a room booked or finding a confidential space in which to meet (Whitsed et al., 2024, p. 1). They also reported feeling uncomfortable with inviting students in for a face-to-face meeting outside of their timetabled seminars/lectures, because they recognise that students are increasingly time-poor. They feel that the bigger changes within HE resulting from Covid-19 have made meeting students more regularly for personal tutoring or pastoral support more difficult (Boncori et al., 2020). They also reported feeling that more personal tutor time should be timetabled to develop relational pedagogy and early intervention support strategies (Whitsed et al., 2024, p. 1) especially for those students who are “feeling more anxious about talking in class or participating as they are not as confident post pandemic” (FAS).

Our academic participants recognise that meeting online, while convenient, is not conducive to building trust and relational pedagogy (Jones, 2021). They felt strongly that the relational gains provided by face-to-face personal tutoring is beneficial, in agreement with Jones (2021, p. 163), who highlights that “regular academic and personal tutorials, face-to-face feedback sessions are beneficial when supporting students from widening participation backgrounds and those students exposed to traumatic experiences.” Academic staff highlighted the difficulty of “knowing that face to face support is really, really important but I’m not sure how this fits now. (FAS).

Furthermore, academic staff felt relationship building with students is crucial for teaching, student engagement, attendance, and early intervention (Bell, 2022; Bovill, 2020). Snijders et al. (2020) found that positive relationships between staff and students can lead to improvements in student retention, academic performance, and sense of belonging (Leach, 2016). Whitsed et al. (2024, p. 9) report that the academic/student dynamic can bring “great joy” to staff, demonstrating the reciprocal benefits of relationship building for both staff and student. Our participants agreed:

Participants from central student services (CSS) acknowledge the importance of the role of the personal tutor that is usually undertaken by the academics embedded within the programme, and also appeared aware that good quality relationships required adequate resources: “academics need time and commitment and understanding about what the [personal tutor] role is” (CSS).

In addition, academic staff talked about engaging with students both professionally and academically, but also communally and interpersonally (Snijders et al., 2020; Whitsed et al., 2024). They mentioned the importance of the incidental conversations with students that can happen when they see them around the building for example. They acknowledged that time pressure generally reduced their ability to invest, implement and maintain relational pedagogy (Bell, 2022; Bovill, 2020).

One participant commented pertinently on the nature of “trust,” and the difficulty of developing truly trusting relationships given the pressures of time:

Academic participants stressed the importance of relationship building with students to help progression (Bell, 2022; Bovill, 2020; Whitsed et al., 2024). However, some felt that since Covid-19 they are unsure of when to “push” or “stretch” students in the classroom, or about what expectations might be reasonable: one mentioned feeling as if “I’m in a period of treading quite carefully about assessments, about classroom dynamics” (FAS). However, this appears to depend somewhat on pre-existing relationships: the same academic colleague talked about feeling more confident with those students who they went through Covid-19 with, and less sure about students who have arrived at university post-pandemic. Participants from central services added that work needed to be done to ensure that academics.

These findings confirm that academics need help and support to equip them with the skills to manage complex student situations and to reduce the pressure that students (and the staff themselves) are encountering post-pandemic.

Several academic participants reported the limitations of large group teaching (Bell, 2022; Bovill, 2020). They explained that having smaller group sizes helps the development of good conversations with teaching staff and classroom peers. They also felt that large group sizes are impacting on student’s enjoyment of their degree (Bovill, 2020), adding that students are “fazed being part of such big groups [and] not as likely to speak up or have conversations, interrupting relationship building” (FAS). Staff members discussed the knock-on effect of teaching large groups in terms of increased marking expectations and how this has become overwhelming.

Participants from central services talked about how to compassionately and effectively support students with increased mental health and wellbeing needs post-pandemic (Jones and Bell, 2024). Several wanted to see a much more integrated personal tutoring model implemented between personal tutors, academics, and wider student support services. One drew a picture of the complex reasons why intended outcomes can fail to appear:

This powerfully demonstrates the importance of the role of the academic in wider university systems and student support, particularly relational pedagogy. This amounts to a considerable increase in pressure on academics in terms of their required skills and their expanding duties because of the increase in the number of students with higher levels of mental health and wellbeing difficulties (Jones and Bell, 2024).

Staff across both participant groups talked about the effects of the pandemic on their health because of the increased pressure in their jobs during and post-pandemic. Several participants made it clear that this additional pressure is due to the rise in student mental health and wellbeing needs and neoliberal working practices. Academia is known as “a high-stress occupation resulting in significant levels of ill health” (Ashencaen Crabtree et al., 2021, p. 1179), one in which “excessive workloads and workload models which frequently under-count time necessary for fulfilling tasks, and many tasks prove invisible to the workload assessors” are a contributing factor (Morrish, 2019, p. 9). This was also evident in contributions from staff providing cross-university support: one noted that they had “never worked so hard in my entire life as I worked during Covid-19 and the year after… We were all on our knees, everybody was, but nobody talks about it” (CSS), “I do not know how [name] is still standing. We do not talk about this in the sense of reliving the trauma cause all of us have gone through it.” (CSS).

Certainly, during Covid-19 staff found it quite difficult to manage their own needs when having to respond to the effects of the pandemic, learn new teaching methods and try to maintain student engagement and satisfaction (Ashencaen Crabtree et al., 2021; Heffernan and Smithers, 2024). Both CSS and FAS groups reported that some of their own needs were not taken fully into account by the university at the time, particularly when returning to campus following lockdown and coping with safety measures (e.g., masks, social distancing) which were not always fully enforced or enforceable. Some staff found this negatively affected their own anxiety levels quite severely (Bodenheimer and Shuster, 2019).

Other members of staff talked about the trauma of the pandemic and the emotional burdens placed on staff during this period (Rickett and Morris, 2021; Nyanjom and Naylor, 2021; Morrish, 2019). One commented explicitly on the load of “unseen labour,” noting that “some staff [take on] more emotional labour than others… I know that I do [more] and […] doing it exhausts me” (FAS). The emotional labour has not ceased post-pandemic, as staff deal with ongoing after-effects.

Academic staff explained how this additional emotional labour affects their own work-life balance as they work long into the evenings or at weekends to support students (Ashencaen Crabtree et al., 2021; Rickett and Morris, 2021; Nyanjom and Naylor, 2021), often without workloaded time for this extra effort (Morrish, 2019; Heffernan and Smithers, 2024).

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the unpredictable scale of the Covid-19 outbreak, the sheer scale of this extra work does not appear to have been catered for within workloads (Rickett and Morris, 2021; Nyanjom and Naylor, 2021; Heffernan and Smithers, 2024). Emotional labour was a feature of academic life before the pandemic but inevitably increased significantly during and after it (McKendrick-Calder and Choate, 2024). The responsibilities that fall on academics who are not trained counsellors, but who feel an overriding sense of responsibility to support students, is likely to increase the chance of staff burnout (Bodenheimer and Shuster, 2019; Troiani and Dutson, 2021).