Respondent Characteristics
The online survey was completed by 315 respondents (Fig 1). Biology (30.2%) and Health Medical Sciences (19.4%) were the most commonly reported respondent area of research (Fig 1a). Eight provinces were represented, the majority from Ontario (34.9%) and Quebec (17.1%) (Fig 1b). Most respondents lived with at least one other person while working from home, with only 17.6% of respondents living alone (Fig 1c). Slightly less than half of respondents lived with a partner or spouse (44.1%) and 23.9% reported living with parents (Fig 1c). Half of the respondents were female, 18.4% male, and 1.2% were non-binary or genderfluid (Fig 1d), with just over a quarter of respondents (27.9%) not disclosing their gender. PhD students made up 37.5% of respondents, with Master’s students representing 21.6%, postdoctoral fellows representing 14.9%, and 26% not disclosing their position (Fig 1e). There was a fairly even distribution of graduate student respondents with regards to degree progress, with fewer students in the process of defending their thesis (Fig 1f). Postdoctoral fellow respondents ranged in experience from less than 12 months to greater than 48 months in their current position (Fig 1g).
A slight majority of respondents (59.6%) had previously published research articles (S2 Table). Postdoctoral fellows were more likely than graduate students to be looking for their next academic position, with 57% of postdoctoral fellows seeking a new position compared to 28% of Master’s and 23% of PhD students (S2 Table).
The 18 interview participants reflected general overall demographic characteristics to that of survey respondents (S3 Table). Most interviewees were female (66.6%), PhD students (72.2%), conducting biology (38.9), or health and medical science research (33.3%) (S3 Table). Four Canadian provinces were represented, with the majority of interviewees being from Ontario- (50.0%) or Quebec (38.9)-based research institutions (S3 Table). Similar trends were seen in degree progress, the number of months in a postdoctoral position, and those seeking new academic positions (S3 Table).
The Transition from Research to Social Distancing
We asked survey respondents who made the decision to pause experiments or close down laboratories. Seventeen percent reported they personally made the decision to stop experiments before their laboratory was closed (Fig 2a). Twenty percent had supervisors who closed their laboratories prior to an official shutdown (Fig 2a). Of the remaining respondents, 45.6% experienced closures decided by their department, research institute, faculty, or university (Fig 2a). The majority of respondents last completed experiments in March 2020, with 68.4% ending in between March 8, 2020 and March 21, 2020 (Fig 2b). Only 13.4% came from laboratories with standard operating procedures (SOPs) for quickly shutting down the laboratory created prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with an additional 18.1% laboratories creating a shutdown SOP in response to the pandemic (Fig 2c).
Respondents referenced a lack of clear and consistent communication between supervisors, administration, and trainees leading to a chaotic and confusing shutdown experience. Changes in protocol happened quite suddenly, as two respondents explained:
“One day, we were told that we could continue recruiting human subjects; the next, everything was to be shut down” (Survey ID 770)
“After a week of emails saying like, ‘We're open. We're open. We're open.’ [...] And then that night around 6:30 PM, after getting an email at 3 p.m. saying ‘We're open’, we got an email saying ‘Gotcha. Campus is closed’.” (Interviewee 6)
There were also discrepancies among people in positions of power in how they reacted to the impending shutdown. This led to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows discussing the situation amongst themselves, increasing their anxiety as many did not have the positional power to enact change at the laboratory or institutional level:
“Some people in charge were behaving like this was a minor inconvenience and others were behaving like this was an apocalypse, you know? So I think having those kinds of contradictory messages from people in charge was difficult.” (Interviewee 4)
“There was discussion and there was lots and lots of uncertainty and anxiety, I would say, from myself and my peers. Looking towards our supervisor was not very helpful, as I felt that we were more informed about what other institutions were doing than they were.” (Interviewee 11)
Concerning the logistics of laboratory and project shutdown, respondents reported multiple steps to pause projects including: backing up data, setting up remote servers to access data, discontinuing ongoing experiments, freezing samples for indefinite storage, culling animal colonies to reduce numbers or sacrificing animals early to obtain data, discarding samples that couldn’t be stored long-term, securing equipment and biohazards safely, rescheduling or cancelling in person meetings with human participants, cleaning laboratory space, testing that back-up power supplies to key equipment (such as freezers) were functional, turning off non-essential equipment, and the physically locking up the laboratory. Twenty-nine percent of respondents helped shut down others’ projects in addition to their own (Fig 2d). A respondent’s academic position did not significantly impact the likelihood of assisting in other shutdown activities outside of their project (S4 Table, P=0.2896).
When asked if, in hindsight, they would change anything about the shutdown procedure, respondents discussed three main things they would do differently. First, they would stop experiments sooner out of their own volition rather than being abruptly cut off by the university. Second, they would want “more clear communications from everyone involved” (Survey ID 704). Third, they would have brought more things with them from the lab, including personal belongings, data, technology, and print resources. Many did not initially take these items as they “did not think [they] would be locked out so long” (Survey ID 156). This also included setting up remote access to data and laboratory information.
A slight majority (63.7%) of laboratories had a uniform closure, meaning all students and fellows stopped experiments at approximately the same time (Fig 2e). A similar trend was also reported at the departmental level, with most (70.1%) laboratories closing in unison (Fig 2e). A frequent reason cited for an staggered closure of laboratory experiments was differences in ease of pausing experiments. For example, many respondents were understanding that animal model research might take longer to pause:
“Those who had to finish animal data collection went into lab while others started working at home. It made a lot of sense.” (Survey ID 158)
“My colleague was in the middle of an animal experiment and had she terminated the experiment early, she would have had to sacrifice animals without collecting any data, rendering those animals a waste. I am glad she continued the experiment until the planned end-point, thereby not having to use any additional animals.” (Survey ID 188)
On the whole though, respondents who started to work from home while their colleagues continued working in the lab had a mix of responses to the situation. Many wished they could have continued working for longer, feeling “Frustrated and angry that [colleagues] would complete their research while I had to start over” (Survey ID 183) or that “It felt unfair and I was a little jealous” (Survey ID 253). This mainly stemmed from the thought that they were falling behind compared to their peers who had stayed behind. Others were upset specifically that they had been the ones told to go home first, as this was interpreted to mean their project had “lower apparent priority (Survey ID 117) compared to others in the laboratory. There was also feeling of concern for colleagues who continued working, as one respondent explained:
“It was also worrying to see others still complete work and putting themselves in harm’s way during a pandemic to ensure they could actively finish their experiment.” (Survey ID 18)
On the other side, respondents who continued working longer than their colleagues reported feelings of anxiety and guilt. Some felt “guilty that I was putting others at risk” (Survey ID 22) by continuing to work in the lab and that the concern of their colleagues made them feel more anxious. As summarized by one respondent, “I was the one working. And felt like I was doing something wrong” (Survey ID 325).
Respondents who experienced more uniform laboratory closures had different sets of reactions to the research shutdown. Similar to those who had uneven closure, many felt “anxious because it was really starting to show the reality and seriousness of the situation” (Survey ID 284). However, this anxiety stemmed from realizations that COVID-19 was significant enough to warrant large scale closures, rather than concern about their safety or the safety of colleagues. There were also conflicting feelings of isolation and unity. On one hand, respondents reported feeling “Lonely and sad. I really miss being around my peers” (Survey ID 425). This stemmed largely from losing in- person social interactions. On the other hand, respondents said “it created a sense of solidarity for me. Everyone was working together to try and keep people safe” (Survey ID 533). Others cited a uniform closure as bringing an end to the confusion and mixed messages they experienced prior to the shutdown, “I think I felt a bit relieved when all the labs finally shut and I knew that everyone was at home. It just meant that all the uncertainty of when the labs were going to close was over and everyone was now on the same page” (Survey ID 767)
We asked respondents to identify if they received any pressure to continue experiments prior to receiving an official shutdown directive from their research institution, and if yes, the source of this pressure. The majority of respondents indicated that they received no pressure to continue from their supervisor (65.6%), peers within the laboratory (74.4%), and peers external to the laboratory (84.0%) (Fig 2f). Those who were pressured to continue experiments were more likely to be pressured by persons in their laboratory group, with one third being pressured by supervisors and one quarter by peers within the laboratory (Fig 2f).
Some respondents who experienced external pressure said their supervisor “does not believe COVID is a very serious issue and that responses have been an over-reaction” (Survey ID 265) or that they “kept saying things like ‘you can't just STOP research’” (Survey ID 364). For others who had peers who “suggested that we were overreacting ” (Survey ID 255) or who “felt like the pandemic wasn't super serious” (Survey ID 515), these respondents would question whether shutting down laboratory experiments was the best decision.
A much different trend emerged when respondents were asked about pressure they put on themselves to continue research: 70.7% of respondents reported some level of internal pressure to continue working (Fig. 2F). This is consistent with well known levels of stress caused by the publish-or-perish research environment and the activities students and fellows undertake to do well in such environments [15–18]. Respondents described fear of losing research time and data, often tied to a fear of not being able to graduate or submit a manuscript:
“My thesis is due at the end of the summer. I was scared because even if research were to have started up again, I lost my window of time where I could have continued research. At this point, I just have to write a thesis with the data I have. ” (Survey ID 73)
“I am losing a lot of valuable data collection time and am concerned I won't finish on time to graduate.” (Survey ID 417)
“The days prior to the shutdown were filled with some pressure because I was trying to finish experiments that would provide data for an upcoming manuscript. My hope was that I'd get the data I needed and then go home and start writing the paper. ” (Survey ID 71)
Others explained they felt self-conscious stopping work when peers were working, worried that they would be perceived as less hard working or lazy.
Following laboratory closures, a majority of respondents (79.2%) remained in the same city in which their laboratory is located (Table 1), with the most common explanation that it is the location of their full time residence. Other reasons to remain included “not wanting to do unnecessary flying” (Survey ID 99), international flights being cancelled, and not wanting to put family or friends at risk by traveling from an area with a high incidence of COVID-19. For the fifth of respondents who relocated to another city, most cited moving to be with family as a primary factor, many because they lived by themselves and did not want to be alone or because they wanted to move to “an area with fewer cases and less dense population” (Survey ID 739). A minority of respondents did not initially plan on moving, but due to how quickly shutdowns occurred, they chose to stay where they were when they were informed of laboratory closures:
“I had gone home to visit my parents for a weekend, and they live in another city, and I thought it was just going to be for a weekend, but then the conversation [concerning laboratory closures] shifted over the course of the weekend. So instead of coming back to the big city and the densely populated area, I stayed behind.” (Interviewee 2)
Working from Home during Social Distancing
Following the closure of the laboratory work space, 48.6% of respondents had individual workspaces in their homes, while 31.0% shared workspace with others in their household (Table 2). 20.4% of respondents did not have a dedicated space in their home to do work (Table 2). 21.9% of respondents were taking one or more courses as part planned studies which were transitioned online (Table 2). Approximately a third of respondents had one or more projects in the process of peer review (Table 2).
Respondents completed a number of activities while working from home, which we classified as being directly related to COVID-19, self-care, research, or household maintenance (Fig 3). More respondents reported participating in COVID-19-related activities that directly impacted their family or friends as opposed to the public at large. For example, 76% of respondents indicated sharing accurate information about COVID-19 with family and friends, compared to 19% sharing the same information with the general public (Fig 3). Other COVID-19-related activities included donation of personal protective equipment (10%), volunteering to support COVID-19 research (11%), and supporting others in quarantine (45%) (Fig 3).
Respondents reported high levels of self-care activities while working from home (Fig 3). Many prioritized connecting with family and friends virtually, with 84% connecting by video chat, 86% using a text-based medium such as email or texting, and 80% using phone calls (Fig 3). Exercising either indoors or outdoors was also frequently reported (85%) (Fig 3). While 74% respondents returned to previous hobbies or skills, 43% of respondents said they began developing a new hobby or skill while working from home (Fig 3). Other self-care activities with lower levels of reporting included establishing a new routine (48%), meditation or mindfulness (30%), and attending virtual religious or spiritual services (9%) (Fig 3).
Despite being away from the laboratory environment, respondents continued to participate in a number of research-related activities, the most common being reading the literature (85%), virtual lab meetings (82%), and analyzing data gathered prior to shutdown (61%) (Fig 3). Writing-related activities such as drafting manuscripts (53%), designing scientific figures (42%), and writing thesis chapters (33%) were reported (Fig 3). Slightly less than half (45%) of respondents attended virtual scientific meetings, conferences, or seminars from home (Fig 3). Other respondents did activities to help prepare for after the pandemic, such as creating strategic plans for future experiments (44%) or updating their curriculum vitae and/or LinkedIn profile (43%) (Fig 3).
There were high levels of reported household maintenance activities, including cleaning tasks (94%), cooking meals for self (89%), cooking for others (70%), and completing necessary excursions such as grocery shopping (80%) (Fig 3). In terms of caregiving, 10% of respondents reported caring for children, while 3% reported caring for dependent adults (Fig 3). 39% of respondents reported caring for pets (Fig 3). Overall, more than half of respondents thought there was an even distribution of labour in their household (66.1%) (Table 3). Slightly more men than women reported that household labour was evenly distributed (76.6% vs 63.2%), however this trend was non-significant (Table 3, P=0.11). Many respondents described “dividing tasks so that everyone plays a role and contributes to household chores” (Survey ID 87).
Others reported one or more members of the household intentionally took on more household responsibilities from others:
“My partner isn't employed right now so he does more than half the chores because he has more time than me.” (Survey ID 29)
“Some household members have chronic health issues and aren't able to do as much.” (Survey ID 462)
However, some respondents had an uneven distribution of household labour that they were dissatisfied with, describing a continuation or amplification of an imbalance which existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic:
“Some gender roles are hard to escape and I find myself, now that I am always home, picking up even more of the slack than before.” (Survey ID 248)
“Though my partner and I both work from home, I still feel like a lot of home duties fall on me. I do 80% of the cleaning and cooking--though this is not much different prior to COVID.” (Survey ID 741)
Respondents were asked to rank how frequently they experience, if at all, a variety of symptoms of distress while working from home (Fig 4). We used a modified list of distress symptoms (Items 1-8, S4 Tale) previously developed by the National College Health Assessment Survey II (NCHA II) [19]. Additional items (Items 9-16, S5 Table) were included as there was frequent anecdotal reporting of these symptoms by graduate students through social media. The most commonly reported symptoms related to attention, including lowered productivity and difficulty focusing on tasks (Fig 4). Other symptoms with high incidence included difficulty getting out of bed, exhaustion not from physical activity, and feeling overwhelmed (Fig 4).
A greater proportion of female respondents reported symptoms of distress than male respondents (S5 Table). However, only two distress items had significant differences between men and women; feeling overwhelming anxiety (P=0.0067), and being easily annoyed or irritable (P=0.0029) (S5 Table). This trend is consistent with past findings and literature showing women are more likely to report symptoms of distress [20–22].
Respondents were asked to identify their three biggest barriers to getting work done at home, to which four main barriers were identified. The first barrier was technical issues, which primarily stemmed from lack of access to stable, high speed internet. Other issues in this category included not having enough computer processing power to run analyses and access to software. The second barrier was distractions in the home, such as noise, other household members, and household chores that are not present in the laboratory:
“So if I just get up to go grab a glass of water, then I'll see something and I'll fix it. Or oh, there's a little bit of dishes. I'll start doing them and I'll start doing other things, and I'll never go back to work. So when I work in the lab and in my office at the desk, there's nothing else.” (Interviewee 14)
Respondents with children also cited child care as another distracting factor, as one respondent put it “[My daughter] is only 15 months so she requires a lot of hands on attention, so my husband and I take turns watching her so we only work for 2-2.5 hours/day” (Survey ID 137).
The third barrier identified was motivation, or lack thereof. Respondents had difficulty starting tasks, focusing on tasks, and finished activities. Some attributed this to lack of impending deadline, as “nothing seems pressing and I sometimes genuinely do not feel like working” (Survey ID 129). Others felt that their “research is less relevant now” (Survey ID 52), and since they were unable to do experiments they lacked motivation to do other activities.
The fourth barrier was mental health, with either new anxiety or depression developing or previous conditions worsening with the pandemic shutdown. As one respondent explained “managing my anxiety and depression during this uncertainty has left very little energy to focus on work ” (Survey ID 311), thus their main activity during this period was taking care of themselves. Oftentimes, lack of motivation and mental health barriers compounded with one another, as described by one respondent:
“My brain seems to just shut down all the time, and I have a hard time controlling and coming out of it. I just feel so overwhelmed thinking I have so much to do that I don't do anything and then I get anxious because I'm afraid that I didn't do enough work.” (Survey ID 562)
Next we asked respondents to list three supports they received while working at home, to which five main categories of support were identified. The first support was financial, with respondents citing the “financial security of my stipend” (Survey ID 311), the Canada Emergency Student Benefit, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, and other sources of monetary support in order to cover costs and “prevent financial anxieties” (Survey ID 48). The second support was social connections, which was described as coming from a number of sources, including family, friends, a partner or spouse, children, laboratory peers, and pets. As summarized by one respondent, these social connections made them “feel supported and validated in my feelings, and knowing that we're all struggling. Support from friends and peers makes me feel less alone and I know I'm not the only one having trouble with this” (Survey ID 493).
The third support was establishing and maintaining routines during social distancing. Respondents said having routines, either self-imposed or from external sources such as a weekly laboratory meeting, helped with finding motivation, as well as “feeling that there is a rhythm and purpose to my daily life again” (Survey ID 133). Dog-owning respondents cited their pet, in addition to emotional support, also served as an external source to gently force them to maintain healthy routines:
“Having a dog has helped me stay in a normal routine of getting up at a decent time to take her outside and getting out for a walk every day.” (Survey ID 515) “My dog insists on thrice daily walks, which gets me up and moving. And I find that I get back from walks and I can focus a lot better.” (Interviewee 6)
The fourth support respondents identified was relating to mental health, which mirrors the previously identified barrier. This included professional support, including counselling, therapy, and remote telemedicine services. Other supports included meditation and exercise as means to maintain mental health. As explained by one respondent, “running removes all the excess anxiety and improves my mood” (Survey ID 116).
The fifth type of support came from the respondent’s supervisor or other administrative figure. This included virtual laboratory meetings to implement routine as well as keeping respondents socially “connected to my work and my co-workers” (Survey ID 255). However, most respondents identified supervisors’ and administrators’ understanding, transparency emotional support as what they valued the most:
“My supervisor is very supportive not only of my research but also my well-being. He listens and encourages me to take care of my mental health and understands that this social distancing thing is having a pretty big impact on me.” (Survey ID 562)
“[My] supervisor telling the group during lab meeting to focus on health and family and not expecting any productivity at this time.” (Survey ID 87)
“My department chair has been very transparent which has provided clarity and some ease of anxiety.” (Survey ID 195)
“I'd say my supervisor genuinely, she has been incredibly supportive during this time of understanding what it's like to go through this, but also keeping us very aware of decisions that are being made and very realistic.” (Interviewee 3)
Concerns and Supports for Returning to the Laboratory
Respondents had a number of concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic could impact them going forward (Fig 5). These worries tended to fall into three categories: personal, impacting research activities, and impacting career. A minority of respondents also said they were not very worried that they would be impacted by the ramifications COVID-19.
As personal concerns, respondents were worried friends or family members would get sick or die from COVID-19, especially persons who had underlying health conditions or were essential workers. Interestingly, respondents were more worried about others contracting COVID-19 than themselves (Fig 5). Respondents were more concerned about “the impact COVID-19 will have on my long term physical and mental health” (Survey ID 516). Thus, the concern came from the impact of social distancing and working from home in response to COVID-19, rather than concern of contracting the virus.
Related to the concern of mental health were concerns surrounding decreased social interaction while working from home, which left them “feeling lonely and isolated” (Survey ID 394). Some did not know when they would be able to see their family face-to-face again. Others were concerned that this would negatively impact their ability to make connections with people going forward as “spending so much time in social isolation will just exacerbate” (Survey ID 513) their natural awkwardness or introversion. Maintaining current social connections was also a challenge, as one respondent put it:
“Not being able to physically see people makes it harder to maintain connections. I had a ‘COVID’ birthday and it felt like I was forgotten by most people, even though a birthday is not a priority in times like these.” (Survey ID 37)
A section of respondents were concerned that they would need to delay key life milestones such as getting married, beginning a new job, or starting a family. Often these events were pushed back due to a respondents’ graduation date or end of postdoctoral fellowship getting extended due to laboratory closures. One respondent summarized the impact of COVID-19 as follows:
“This situation has screwed up my whole life plan, I just want to scream, I feel like I have no control.” (Survey ID 377)
Despite financial help being identified previously as a support by some respondents, 56.6% worried that COVID-19 would impact their personal finances. Some were struggling even with governmental support, others were worried about the security of their research funding. Increased financial uncertainty was cited as a reason some respondents were choosing to delay life milestones. Others were frustrated that they needed to continue to pay tuition fees, despite not being able to conduct research:
“I am still paying full tuition to sit on my couch and not be allowed into my lab, when that tuition I'm paying is to be a part of a research program, a research program I currently cannot take part in.” (Interviewee 17)
Respondents listed a number of concerns related to their current research activities. Many were worried “that funding for basic research will become scarce”(Survey ID 80) due to the focus on COVID-19 research and the state of the economy. Others were concerned about going overtime on their degree or fellowship caused by COVID-19 would impact their eligibility for funding in the future. Traditionally, this would result in reduction or stoppage of stipend money. Although many institutions and funding agencies have announced accommodation for students and fellows for this fall, respondents were more concerned about the “availability of funds next year and the coming years, [as] that may actually be an issue” (Interviewee 8). This worry of going overtime or delaying graduation due to decreased research productivity was intertwined in a number of responses throughout the survey. Some respondents had “cancelled [their] current research topic and forced [them] to have to change it” (Survey ID 664) in response to the laboratory shutdown, modifying their thesis in a way that would forever be impacted by COVID-19. Others lamented canceled travel opportunities for networking and “missed opportunity for international collaboration” (Survey ID 742). As one respondent explained:
“I'm in that crucial new investigator period of my career. COVID represents a year of no conferences, no networking, no data collection... it’s setting everything back.” (Survey ID 203)
Many concerns regarding current research activities connected with concerns about how COVID- 19 might impact their careers: 86.4% of respondents were worried about their competitiveness as a researcher, with 36.6% describing themselves as ‘extremely worried’ (Fig 5). Many respondents were concerned that their lack of productivity during the laboratory closure period and decreased publications would make them less desirable candidates for future positions. As summarized by one respondent,
“My goal is to become a tenure-track faculty member at a research-intensive university, which is a difficult enough task as is. But I worry that because of this situation, I will either not be productive enough to secure a position, or I will have to prolong my postdoc experience in order to gain enough productivity to be a viable candidate. I also worry that universities will have decreased hiring in the next few years, which coincides with my entry into the academic job market.” (Survey ID 255)
Many respondents were concerned about the availability of employment both within and outside academia in the post-COVID-19 era . Some hope “there are still jobs in academia (or any kind of research) after all the economic fallout” (Survey ID 99). Postdoctoral fellows, in particular, were concerned about universities freezing hiring for faculty positions. Some respondents had already made the decision to alter their career goals in response to COVID-19:
“I am convinced about leaving Academia.” (Survey ID 113)
“Before COVID, I was gaining momentum in my project. I was deciding between transferring from MSc to PhD, but after COVID I lost this motivation entirely. I now have decided to finish with an MSc and hopefully find a job afterwards.” (Survey ID 763)
“I feel like the time away from [the lab], whether this is good or bad has maybe made me cooled off a little bit and like feeling more, I don't know, further from science and thinking that maybe that's not bad.” (Interviewee 4)
Respondents had a number of ideas when asked about what supports would help them transition back to laboratory work post COVID-19 which we’ve categorized into five groups: personal protective equipment and protocols, understanding and empathy, guidance and direction, timeline support, and financial support.
The minimum support respondents asked from both supervisors and administration was adequate personal protective equipment and protocols on how to reopen and work in laboratory space. The emphasis was placed on clearly communicating safety procedures and protocols that are put in place, as respondents did not want a similar confusion and anxiety that took place during laboratory shutdowns to repeat themselves.
What respondents wanted most from their supervisors was the first two groupings of support: (i) understanding and empathy and (ii) guidance and direction. First, respondents wanted “understanding I won't be as productive as before COVID for a long time” (Survey ID 458), “reassurance that delays are acceptable” (Survey ID 739), and “emotional support and encouragement” (Survey ID 769). Respondents described wanting their supervisors to be explicit that they do not expect pre-COVID-19 levels of productivity and that they will not be made to feel guilty over lost time. They also wanted “moral support getting back on track with experiments” (Survey ID 123), as many respondents are still reeling from the emotional and stressful toll of the shutdown experience. Respondents described hesitancy and fear at returning to laboratory situation where this flexibility was unlikely to be found:
“My supervisor has zero empathy or tolerance and I’m extremely worried about going back to work with him” (Survey ID 69)
Second, respondents were hoping to receive explicit guidance and direction from supervisors as to where to go with projects once they returned to work. There were frequent descriptions of wanting “clear goals for me to finish my program” (Survey ID 93), “a detailed plan of how to be most efficient with research efforts” (Survey ID 347), and “clear communication” (survey ID 248). Respondents encouraged the development of a research plan that would limit the potential negative impacts of the laboratory shutdown, get experiments back up and running efficiently, and keep respondents on time in their degree progression. Respondents also wanted supervisors to “acknowledge that the PhD or the master's degree that students had originally set out to accomplish may not be feasible within our current time frames” (Interviewee 11) and that adjustments would be required.
The supports requested from administration, including departments, faculties, and the university itself, focused more on structural supports including degree timeline and financial supports. Timeline support focused mainly on flexibility. Some students explicitly asked for “flexibility for certain milestones (comprehensive exams, graduation timeline, funding timeline) that allows us to get back to our research without feeling like we need to compress everything into the time that we lost” (Survey ID 92). Others wanted expectations for key requirements to change as extending time in their degree “is something I really don’t want to do” (Survey ID 651) and wanted “assurance that I will graduate on time” (Survey ID 583). Respondents had a variety of suggestions for financial support, including increasing fundable periods for all students and fellows, ensuring students who go overtime due to COVID-19 are not penalized financially, lowering the cost of tuition, and increasing financial support for students to purchase software and technology to work partially from home. Respondents also asked that specific guidelines for timeline and financial support be developed for international students and fellows. This was due to international trainees having a unique set of concerns regarding these two items related to Canada’s immigration and visa policies, which could potentially change in response to COVID-19.
Grief Response to COVID-19 Laboratory Closure
There was an underlying feeling of grief that permeated throughout survey and interview responses. Respondents lamented the data that was lost, the conferences that might have been, and how this new reality of social distancing and working from home was not something they ever expected. We used the Kübler-Ross model of grief as a lens to view respondents’ reactions to the laboratory closures.
The Kübler-Ross grief construct is one of the most well known models to describe the process of grief [23]. Although initially developed to describe how people process the grief that results from terminal illness and death, it has also been used to describe grief from a variety of sources including job loss, educational reforms, and organizational change [24–27]. The Kübler-Ross model outlines five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. The stages described by Kübler-Ross are not a linear process, but can occur simultaneously and in any order [23].
Denial is the disbelief following unexpected and shocking news, which Kübler-Ross and others posit gives individuals time to process [23,28]. Anger is when frustration boils over, often due to perceived unfairness of the situation [23]. Bargaining focuses on what could have been done differently to change what is happening, even if nothing could have been done to prevent the situation [23]. Kübler-Ross described bargaining as the temporary belief that “there is a slim chance that [the person experiencing the change] may be rewarded for good behavior and be granted a wish for special services”, that they will be ‘rewarded’ for this behaviour and the situation will be better than anticipated [23]. Depression is the sense of loss that occurs when the person acknowledges the situation can not be ‘fixed’ or glossed over, replaced by a sadness that is often very private [23]. Acceptance is learning how to live with the new reality the person finds themselves with, finding a new equilibrium that does not have the same emotional highs and lows of the previous four stages [23]. Some scholars suggest ‘hope’ could be a sixth stage to the Kübler- Ross model, however, Kübler-Ross suggests hope is present throughout all stages of grief and simply reasserts itself during acceptance [23].
Respondents were provided with a list of 37 randomized feeling words, each of which has been previously attributed to a stage of the Kübler-Ross model [29]. They were asked if they had experienced any of these feelings during the laboratory shutdown period, while working from home, and when they thought about the future (Fig 6). Respondents could also include other emotions they felt during these periods, which were then classified into Kübler-Ross stages based on categorization by Kearney and Clapper [29,30].
Anxiousness was highly reported across all three timepoints, mirroring the symptoms of distress reported in Figure 4 (Fig 6a). The trend of anxiousness reflects most feeling words in the bargaining stage, showing a decrease in reporting at the second time point and increasing in the third (Fig 6a). Conversely, depression stage feelings like “lonely”, “discouraged”, “depressed”, or “apathetic” had higher levels of reporting while respondents were working at home compared to other time points (Fig 6a). A similar trend was found with “calm”, “contented”, and “easy-going”, three acceptance stage feelings (Fig 6a). More subtle trends included the reporting levels of “disbelieving” decreasing at each subsequent time point (Fig 6a). Two feeling words with the opposite trend were anger, bitterness, and “afraid” both of which saw the highest levels of reporting when respondents were asked to think of the future (Fig 6a).
When observing Kübler-Ross stages as a whole, rather than individual feeling words, more respondents report bargaining-associated feelings across all three timepoints (Fig 6b). The second most-reported feeling category was depression, which saw an increase in self-reported feelings during the work from home period (Fig 6b). The three remaining Kübler-Ross stages have more subtle variations, with overall denial decreasing, anger increasing, and acceptance having a similar trend to depression (Fig 6b).
Although the majority of respondent feedback focused on negative feelings deriving from being in a pandemic, there were small undercurrents of optimism for the future. With time and distance from the laboratory shutdown, these may grow further. As succinctly pointed out by one respondent: “I really hope it's all going to be okay” (Survey ID 265).