Imagine that two PhD students are similar intelligence, motivationand ambition. One is pursuing a Ph.D. The latter have children in graduate school, have control difficulties, fall behind, and eventually develop serious mental health problems.
Years later, the first colleagues will probably remember one as “hopeful” and the other as “difficult in character.”
But what if these descriptions ignore the most important part of the story?
Psychologists have long recognized this key attribute error: our tendency to explain people’s behavior in terms of their behavior personality underestimating their circumstances and environmental impact. Most of us are quick to jump to the conclusion that a learner is disorganized, struggling, or lacking enduranceeven if their behavior may be an understandable response to a very difficult environment. Ironically, despite teaching this principle, academia is no exception.
Graduate students occupy an unusual position. They are expected to produce original, high-quality research, but often do not have many of the employment protections available to academic staff. Depending on the institution and their funding arrangements, being a parent during a PhD can mean limited maternity leave, financial insecurity, interruptions in research and, most importantly, the lack of access to back-to-work buffering support provided to staff and support for initiatives to attend conferences or continue research during leave.
These challenges do not occur in isolation. A supportive supervisory relationship can overcome many difficulties. Conversely, when control itself becomes a resource stressespecially when leaders attribute difficulties to the individual student’s character and see them as failing, while ignoring the systemic barriers around them, the cumulative burden can be exacerbated. And again, when careers diverge later, the explanation often focuses on the individual rather than the system.
Here, another psychological concept becomes relevant: epistemic injustice, which refers to the fact that the personal experience of others is considered unreliable for their own knowledge. It is often used to describe situations where people’s knowledge or testimony is given less credence than it deserves. Individuals who have experienced systemic disadvantage, whether racial, genderor parental status, often find themselves in this exact position. When they describe how institutional conditions contributed to their struggles, their accounts can be dismissed as excuses, a lack of understanding of how academia works, or an externalization of responsibility. In other words, those who experience early disadvantage are not only disadvantaged by the system, but they may not even be believed in describing this disadvantage. This reinforces the label of “difficult” assigned by those indifferent to systemic effects.
Looking back on my academic journey, my mental health challenges are often seen as the beginning of my struggles rather than one, overwhelming consequence of systemic imbalances and difficulties in control. When someone has a reputation for being “difficult” or “difficult,” that label can become significantly more sticky. Subsequent events are interpreted through this lens, while the institutional conditions that preceded these struggles, if they were first visible to senior academics and institutions, gradually disappear from view.
The story becomes one of individual weaknesses rather than accumulated flaws. This is important because reputation affects opportunities. Supervisors, coworkers, hiring committees, and promotion boards all make judgments about people’s potential. If the effects of structural barriers are misaligned with stable character traits, the discomfort will perpetuate itself. And on a very practical level, this label means that executives can no longer be relied upon for reference letters or future collaborations, and may no longer feel comfortable in public spaces.
The psychological irony is amazing. Fundamental attribution error causes observers to underestimate the role of institutional conditions. Epistemic injustice then makes it difficult for those affected to correct the narrative. Together, they create a powerful mechanism by which systemic inequality is personalized and difficult to change.
None of this is to deny that people differ in terms of resilience, coping, or mental health. Rather, it asks us to recognize that people do not develop in a vacuum. Behavior, well-being and career trajectories emerge as a result of interactions between individuals and their environments.
Perhaps a better question is “Why was this person so difficult or not?” but “What happened to them?” This shift in perspective means more than an increase in compassion. This gives more accurate explanations. And if we truly want academia and other professions to become more inclusive and diverse places, clarity is important. What sometimes appears as an individual’s weakness is actually a lingering imprint of an institution’s or sector’s blind spots.
