To understand how academics manage their WLB, there is a need for a combination of theories that may represent the multilevel characteristics of modern HE. Four theories were used to provide a solid basis for understanding the WLB issues for academics. The first is the work–life conflict theory (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), the second is Clark’s (2000) Border Theory, the third is the work–family relationship models developed by Zedeck and Mosier (1990) and extended by Guest (2002), and the fourth is Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources (COR) theory.

These theories were selected based on their ability to explain the structural, psychological and resource-based aspects of WLB, which are particularly relevant to academics. Additional theories such as the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) and work–family enrichment theory (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) were also considered, although the latter two theories basically deal with the positive outcomes associated with participating in multiple roles and the design of jobs. Therefore, do not specifically address the boundary dynamics and resource conflicts identified in the reviewed literature.

In recent years, the study of work–family interface has expanded beyond a focus on the negative nexus between work and family roles towards a more comprehensive work–life orientation (Tavassoli & Sunyer, 2025). This development in work-family research has resulted from several theoretical criticisms made of the early work–family conflict models, such as those by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985). Initially, work-family conflict models viewed the work and family domains as mutually exclusive and therefore assumed that they were inherently incompatible. The early studies about work–family roles focused on the negative side of the work and family interface, particularly in terms of the conflict associated with working and being a family member. This proposition was represented most clearly by Greenhaus and Beutel’s (1985) seminal work on work–family conflict. There is an increasing recognition among researchers that conflict represents only one possible outcome for individuals who are actively engaging in work and family roles. Building upon this growing body of research, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) suggested that while conflict may occur as a result of participating in multiple roles, it is not the only outcome. They proposed the concept of enrichment or positive outcomes between work and family roles. They also provided evidence that the transfer of resources, skills and positive emotions from one role to another can contribute to enhance functioning in both domains. Since then, the positive perspective has been widely accepted, and researchers have continued to investigate how the resources, skills and positive affect that develop through participation in one role, can be transferred to positively impact the other role. Conversely, although research on conflict has been active for decades and continues to thrive, contemporary conflict research has begun to focus on specific dimensions of conflict, including its bidirectionality. For example, work-to-family versus family-to-work. Whether conflict occurs based on strain, that is, psychological exhaustion or based on time, that is, lack of time available for one domain. In addition to how the forms and consequences of conflict vary by gender and the composition of the household (Kobayashi et al., 2025).

The acceptance of the limitations of conflict models led to the expansion of the work-family domain to include a more inclusive concept, WLB. This development acknowledges that employees may have multiple roles outside of family. For example, leisure activities, volunteer service, personal development and caregiving responsibilities for non-family members (Guest, 2002; Kelliher et al., 2019). Research on boundary management styles has expanded Clark’s (2000) Border Theory. Ashforth et al. (2000) introduced an important distinction between individuals who prefer to segment versus integrate work and non-work domains. Kreiner (2006) furthered this distinction by providing measures of boundary management preference and boundary management. In recent years, the literature has established that boundary management results are affected by an employee’s preferences alignment with a company’s support for managing the work–life boundary (Chen et al., 2009). The literature also establishes that employees use different strategies for managing work–life boundary as they experience it (Kreiner et al., 2009). As individuals manage the ever-increasing boundary permeability of digital technologies, individual differences in boundary management style influence the degree to which technological permeability impacts well-being outcomes.

A more recent framework that has received considerable empirical support in occupational health psychology is the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). The JD-R model posits that job demands, that is, components of work that require significant effort, deplete employees’ resources. Whereas job resources, that is, components of work that facilitate goal attainment and personal growth, promote employee engagement. In the academic context, the JD-R model suggests that job demands, for example, heavy teaching load, high expectations for publication output and administrative load contribute to employee burnout. Whereas job resources, such as collegial support and autonomy, moderate against burnout. Although the JD-R model has advantages related to saving resources, it is less analytically particular about the boundary aspects through which work invades non-work domains, a central theme of this review, compared to the integrated framework proposed here.

Enrichment processes are a key component of Work–family enrichment theory (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), a shift from deficit-based to growth-based conceptualisations of being involved in multiple roles. Resource transfer is the process by which employees generate new resources, skills, perspectives, flexibility and social networks in one role that enhance performance or affects in another role. Wayne et al. (2007) extended this framework by distinguishing between enrichment, that is, resource transfer that directly improves performance and facilitation, that is resource transfer that facilitates system functioning more broadly. Carlson et al. (2009) provided an important extension to the body of knowledge regarding work-family balance by establishing that work–family balance is a distinct theoretical construct both conceptually and empirically from the constructs of work–family conflict and work–family enrichment. Utilising a conceptualisation of balance that was theoretically based using Grzywacz and Carlson’s (2007) definition they demonstrated that balance accounted for unique variance in job satisfaction, organisational commitment, family satisfaction, family performance and family functioning over and above the variance that was explained by conflict and enrichment. These findings indicate that balance is a separate component of the work–family interface, which should be separately studied in both research and practice.

Overall, the movement from conflict to enrichment perspectives in WLB research represents a larger transition in WLB research. Early research on WLB implicitly positioned work as the source of the problem and family as the source of the solution, work invaded family, and family was invaded. Ten Brummelhuis (2024) views the work–home interface as a system, which includes positive and negative work–family experiences. This is why there is an imperative for researchers to consider the variety of roles and conditions that are now present in today’s workforce. This transformation is especially important for understanding academic work, as academics invest identity and motivation in their work, creating the potential for work to be both demanding and highly fulfilling. Recent reviews of WLB research demonstrate that the field has matured significantly over the last 20 years. The article develops an integrative theoretical framework for understanding WLB in academia. This analysis is situated within the broader theoretical context of work–life research that has undergone significant changes since the foundational studies.

The progression in definitions from conflict and segmentation to integration and to a more holistic perspective of well-being is reflective of broader societal, technological and workplace changes and will be important in understanding the unique challenges academics experience.

The first era, from the 1980s to the 1990s, was primarily focused on managing conflict and segmenting roles. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) and Kossek and Ozeki (1998) both define WLB as an individual’s ability to manage or balance competing demands, thus viewing work and family as two distinct areas of one’s life competing for finite resources. These authors were reflecting the then-dominant conflict theory of the time and the industrial era views of work with clear time-based and spatial boundaries, an era that was fast becoming out of date for academics.

In the current era, post-2010, the definitions continue to evolve further and include more of the elements of well-being, resilience and digital integration. For example, Maertz et al. (2019) and Brough et al. (2020) have all included physical and mental health, resilience, flexibility and autonomy as examples of the desired outcomes of WLB. Furthermore, Malik (2023) emphasises the need for stable resource allocations, that is, time, energy and attention across all aspects of one’s life. These developments reflect a response to the increasing pressure of work in the knowledge economy (Abraham, 2017). In addition, the growth of wellness discourse and the ubiquity of digital tools in all aspects of daily life are trends that are particularly pronounced in the always-on environment of academia, as observed by Malik (2023).

Thus, for this systematic review, we employ an integrated operational definition: Work–life balance in higher education refers to the sustainable and value-congruent integration of academic work with other life aspects, through the utilisation of individual boundary management strategies and institutional support to promote overall well-being. This revised definition is directly used to inform the analysis in the review and guides the synthesis of empirical research findings regarding how WLB is measured, experienced and sought to be improved within the increasingly complex and changing environment of higher education (HE). After establishing the development and implications of definitions for WLB, the next section outlines the systematic methodology employed to identify, select and synthesise empirical literature that addresses these issues.

The systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA, 2020) statement (Page et al., 2021), so that methodological rigour, transparency and replicability were assured (see Figure 1).

The following review protocol, before searching, was prepared to outline objectives, eligibility criteria and an analytic framework for the search, as is recommended to limit potential researcher bias in the search process.

Criteria were defined to identify the most applicable and rigorous studies that investigated the review’s objectives and, therefore, are relevant.

We included the studies that satisfied the following criteria:

The following studies were excluded:

Systematic searches using a broad search strategy were conducted in six main electronic databases in the last week of March 2026. The multiterm, multifield method utilised here was intended to address the concern that studies focused on aspects such as workload, burnout, time pressure or faculty stress but did not use the phrase ‘work–life balance’ would inadvertently be left out of the analysis. For example, include studies that analyse the relationship between a lecturer’s workload and their level of emotional exhaustion, which are also related to WLB and could have been found using the component term(s), regardless of whether or not the study itself utilises the WLB phrase. The inclusion of burnout, emotional exhaustion, job stress and well-being provides an adequate measure of the extent to which research regarding the psychological effects of work–life imbalance has been addressed. While workload, working hours and time pressure provide an adequate means to identify studies addressing the antecedent conditions of WLB. A sensitivity check was performed using a test group of 20 previously identified relevant studies utilising prior knowledge and recommendations from subject matter experts to determine if the search strategy was effective in retrieving these studies. The results showed that each of the 20 studies was correctly identified using the search strategy and thus demonstrates that the strategy was effective in identifying the relevant literature.

Database-specific search modifications were recorded to allow future reproduction. For the Scopus database, the TITLE-ABS-KEY field code was used; the Web of Science database used the TS field code (which searches title, abstract, author keywords, and Keywords Plus); the Science Direct database made use of title-abstract-keywords, but searches were also made of the full text of articles for each of the component terms as the platform allows; for the Directories of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) database, searches were made of article abstracts and keywords. A standard search in ERIC searches all fields for title, authors, sources, descriptors, and abstracts. Controlled terms from the ERIC Thesaurus are used within the descriptor field as well to describe the content of each record. It is the ‘descriptor’ field in particular, because the descriptors are terms from the ERIC Thesaurus that are used to describe the content of an ERIC record. The search field options for the PsycINFO database were used and can vary depending on the search platform, that is, Ovid and EBSCOhost. However, the most common search criteria include the title, abstract and key concepts.

In addition to database searching, complementary search methods were used to minimise the possibility of missing relevant studies. Backward citation searching, also known as snowballing, was used to identify references cited in the bibliographies of the studies selected after full-text screening. Forward citation searching was completed utilising both Scopus and Google Scholar to identify studies that cite the included articles. Finally, consultation with three subject matter experts was completed to determine if there were any additional studies that met the inclusion criteria. The combined use of a broad database search and supplemental search methods to maximise sensitivity while limiting specificity represents a best practice for conducting systematic reviews, as observed in the PRISMA 2020 statement (Page et al., 2021) and to address observed limitations in searching for complex, multifaceted constructs such as WLB.

The methodology to select the study was carefully developed so as to eliminate bias and to allow for reproducible identification of relevant research literature. After conducting the database searches, all search results were exported into Zotero reference management software to merge and remove duplicates. From a total of 3847 references identified across all databases, a total of 2563 references remained after removing duplicates and were screened for inclusion in the study. Blinded screening of the title and abstract of each reference was completed using the Rayyan platform. The screening process had two stages:

To establish an inclusive and systematic assessment of evidence from existing literature, the following 6 electronic databases were accessed:

These six databases were selected because they offer complementary coverage of relevant disciplines. Together they allow for a comprehensive search of the literature. For example, while Scopus and Web of Science provide broad multidisciplinary coverage, ERIC provides a specialist focus on the literature of education and educational technology. Similarly, DOAJ provides access to a wider body of research usually not available on commercial databases, particularly in respect of research from countries of the Global South. Finally, PsycINFO provides a wealth of information about the psychological dimensions of WLB and how academic work can affect well-being.

All six databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and March 2025. This decision to include studies from 25 years was made for several reasons. Firstly, it allowed the inclusion of some of the first studies of academic work conditions and the first studies of the application of Border theory (Clark, 2000) in the context of WLB. Secondly, it allowed for an analysis of how the WLB debate has evolved, including the influence of the emergence of new technologies (Kinman & Jones, 2008), and of the introduction of market-based reforms into HE systems (see Marginson & Rhoades, 2002). Finally, it ensured that studies that had been produced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic could be included in the review.

Each of the six databases was searched using a unique combination of keywords and Boolean operators. The search strategies were developed iteratively, initially using a small number of databases and then refining them based on the results obtained.

We recognised that studies on WLB in academia may not always use ‘work–life balance’ terms explicitly. Therefore, we devised a search strategy that is able to identify literature on related constructs from different disciplines. In order to conduct the search, we used all three of the database fields for Title, Abstract and Keywords and also performed subject heading searches using databases with controlled vocabularies (ERIC Thesaurus, PsycINFO Thesaurus, and MeSH headings as appropriate). We iteratively tested and refined our Boolean search strings throughout the pilot testing process. We organised the search into three conceptual blocks:

Database-Specific Search Strings:

Scopus (Title-Abs-Key):

TITLE-ABS-KEY((‘work-life balance’ OR ‘work-family balance’ OR ‘work-family conflict’ OR ‘work-life integration’ OR ‘work-nonwork balance’ OR ‘work-home conflict’ OR ‘work-family spillover’ OR ‘work-family enrichment’) OR ((‘workload’ OR ‘job demand’ OR ‘time pressure’ OR ‘working hour’ OR ‘burnout’ OR ‘emotional exhaustion’ OR ‘job stress’ OR ‘faculty stress’ OR ‘well-being’) AND (‘academ’ OR ‘faculty’ OR ‘higher education’))) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY((‘higher education’ OR universit OR academ* OR college) AND (faculty OR lecturer OR professor* OR ‘academic staff’ OR instructor*))

Web of Science (Topic field, searches Title, Abstract, Author Keywords, Keywords Plus):

TS=((‘work-life balance’ OR ‘work-family balance’ OR ‘work-family conflict’ OR ‘work-life integration’ OR ‘work-nonwork balance’ OR ‘work-home conflict’ OR ‘work-family spillover’ OR ‘work-family enrichment’) OR ((‘workload’ OR ‘job demand’ OR ‘time pressure’ OR ‘working hour’ OR ‘burnout’ OR ‘emotional exhaustion’ OR ‘job stress’ OR ‘faculty stress’ OR ‘well-being’) AND (academ* OR faculty OR ‘higher education’))) AND TS=(‘higher education’ OR universit* OR academ* OR college) AND TS=(faculty OR lecturer OR professor* OR ‘academic staff’ OR instructor*)

ERIC (via EBSCOhost):

(DE ‘Work Life Balance’ OR DE ‘Family Work Relationship’ OR TI (‘work-life balance’ OR ‘work-family balance’ OR ‘work-family conflict’) OR AB (‘work-life balance’ OR ‘work-family balance’ OR ‘work-family conflict’)) OR (TI (workload* OR burnout OR ‘job stress’) AND AB (faculty OR academic OR university)) AND (DE ‘College Faculty’ OR DE ‘Teacher Burnout’ OR DE ‘Faculty Workload’ OR TI (faculty OR lecturer* OR professor) OR AB (faculty OR lecturer OR professor*))

PsycINFO (via Ovid):

exp Work-Life Balance/ OR exp Family Work Conflict/ OR exp Occupational Stress/ OR exp Teacher Burnout/ OR ((‘work-life balance’ OR ‘work-family conflict’ OR workload* OR burnout).ti,ab.) AND (exp Higher Education/ OR (universit* OR academ* OR college).ti,ab.) AND (exp College Teachers/ OR (faculty OR lecturer OR professor*).ti,ab.)

ScienceDirect:

Title, abstract, keywords: (‘work-life balance’ OR ‘work-family conflict’ OR ‘faculty workload’ OR ‘academic burnout’) AND (university OR higher education) AND (faculty OR academic staff)

DOAJ:

(‘work-life balance’ OR ‘work-family conflict’ OR workload OR burnout) AND (‘higher education’ OR university) AND (faculty OR ‘academic staff’)

A reason for the success of the search strategy employed in this study is that it utilised a variety of search fields in each database. Each database searched in this study uses a variety of search fields, including titles, abstracts and keywords. In addition, each database employed controlled vocabularies to categorise the subjects covered by the literature in each database. As a result, the search strategy employed in this study was able to utilise these controlled vocabularies to capture literature that was indexed under broader categories of subject matter, such as occupation, employment, work, and narrower categories of subject matter, such as WLB, workload, burnout and stress. Therefore, overall, the search strategy employed in this study was comprehensive and was capable of capturing the vast majority of the literature relevant to WLB in HE that exists in the literature.

A variety of supplementary search techniques were used to reduce the possibility of omitting important research findings as much as possible:

A pilot-tested, standardised and Microsoft Excel-based data extraction form was created to provide an effective way to obtain complete and accurate data from all of the included studies. The form was tested with five randomly chosen studies that were part of the studies included within this systematic review. Based upon the testing of these five studies, it was revised for clarity before the extraction of data from the remaining 107 studies. Data extraction from all 112 studies was completed by one reviewer. A second reviewer cross-checked the extraction of data from each study to verify its accuracy and completeness. Any discrepancies regarding the extracted data were resolved through joint re-examination of the source articles.

Data were extracted from each of the 112 studies included within this systematic review as follows:

A formal critical appraisal of all studies that contributed to the synthesis was completed to enhance the validity of the synthesis. Due to its reliability and applicability to the appraisal of qualitative, quantitative studies, both randomised and non-randomised; both descriptive and analytical, and mixed-methods studies as part of a single review, the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 was used (Hong et al., 2018). Each of the two reviewers independently rated each study using the five relevant methodological quality criteria for each study’s design.

A summary of these ratings is provided in narrative form in the results section. The MMAT ratings were not used to exclude studies from inclusion in the synthesis; rather, they were used to provide a critical perspective to inform the thematic synthesis regarding the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base it drew upon. This has allowed for a more focused discussion of the findings which have been informed by the quality of the underlying studies.

A thematic synthesis methodology was selected for this systematic review to facilitate the generation of new interpretive understandings from the data gathered (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009). An inductive thematic synthesis process was performed, utilising NVivo 14 as the data management tool to provide an audit trail for the synthesis. The synthesis process took place over three iterative stages:

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Research Ethics Committee (Ref. No. 2025_FBMSREC_ST07).

Excessive workloads: Figure 3 shows that academics have identified three roles of research, teaching and administration (Lestari & Rahardianto, 2021), and many now experience a fourth burden of generating income and adding value in order to satisfy the Entrepreneurial University Model (Grisard, 2023). This new demand has created a number of hours of work, and exemplifies the compensatory pressures described in Zedeck and Mosier’s (1990) models. Because the current academic environment equates prestige and job security with quantifiable productivity, academics will be compelled to invest huge amounts of their time and energy into their work to compensate for the pressures they experience from the system, thereby creating time-based, strain-based and inter-role conflicts (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).

Technological permeability and blurred boundaries: The digital workplace has created a boundary-less environment for academic workers. In addition to being expected to be connected at all times, there is a blurring of boundaries between work and non-work time (Guest, 2002; Onyema et al., 2024). This represents one of the clearest illustrations of Clark’s (2000) Border theory in the contemporary world. Thus, the synthesis supports that the permeability and malleability of borders have been radically changed through technology, and that while this increased permeability may simply be a way for the transfer of stress from work to the non-work sphere, it also represents an invasion of the worker’s personal space and time, and therefore, a challenge to segmentation.

Lack of institutional support: One common thread running through this study is the lack of institutional support for WLB and the actual policy, resource and/or culture-based changes which are needed to support it (Zishiri et al., 2024). Haar and Harris (2025) submit that when no support is offered by the organisation for employees to achieve WLB, then balance will be seen as an individual choice. Therefore, the organisation’s focus on achieving balance would not exist. This is also one of the contextual moderating factors within the proposed model. Institutional support for WLB does little to mitigate the effect of the other factors that contribute to employee burnout. If viewed from a COR theory angle, the organisation would become a source of resource drain, time and energy, as opposed to a source of support for gaining or conserving resources leading to increased burnout.

These antecedents lead to a series of adverse effects that confirm the suggested pathways in the theoretical model.

Psychological stress: A significant relationship is found between work–life conflict and stress, anxiety, burnout and job dissatisfaction (Ismal et al., 2022; Xavier, 2023), which represent the immediate individual-level effect of the continued conflict at the border and subsequent spillover.

Strain caused by conflicting role demands will ultimately cause depletion of both emotional and cognitive resources, resulting in burnout based on exhausted resources. This is consistent with COR theory, which states that continuous and persistent imbalance is an ongoing threat or reduction to one’s available resources, energy and positive affect (Holmgreen et al., 2017). This ultimately leads to burnout when resources can no longer be conserved. Reduced job satisfaction further illustrates a breakdown in the positive psychological contract between the academic and their institution.

Turnover intentions: The most significant organisational impact of work–life imbalance identified in this literature review is the direct relationship between poor WLB and an employee’s intentions to either leave their institution or leave academia as a whole. As Mamun and Hasan (2017) observed, an employee’s intention to leave is a clear behavioural outcome from chronic stress associated with poor WLB. The intention to leave can also be viewed through a social exchange lens (Chênevert et al., 2022) as well as a COR perspective (Holmgreen et al., 2017). For example, if an individual perceives that they are making excessive investments into their job, that is, time, energy, etc., but receiving little or no reward in terms of support. Further still, if the job is consistently draining an individual’s personal resources, that is, emotional, mental and physical, without providing sufficient resources to replace those depleted, it is rational for the individual to disengage psychologically, followed by physically. Thus, WLB is a central factor that affects the financial costs to institutions, the loss of knowledge and skills and the overall stability of an institution.

Studies have proposed multilevel interventions; however, they show the many effects of implementing these multilevel interventions.

Flexible work arrangements: Telecommuting and flexible hours are used as ways to promote autonomy (Shanker, 2022). The findings in this synthesis show that FWAs can be a double-edged sword; while promoting autonomy, if there are no clear border-keeping guidelines for employees to follow, then FWAs may increase the same type of boundary blurring that FWAs were intended to decrease. This key finding has the potential to inform both the theoretical and practical application of interventions. Thus, for an intervention to be successful, the design of that intervention must take into account border theory. Therefore, policies need to consider not only where and when work is completed but also how digital borders are managed.

Wellness and support programmes: Support for workers’ mental health, time-management and mentoring are all valuable initiatives (Wei & Li, 2024). The effectiveness of these interventions depends heavily on how much they are supported by institutions and accepted within cultures. These types of interventions provide opportunities to replenish depleted emotional and cognitive resources or to build resilience to help reduce the effects of stressors, according to the COR model. If the effect of such interventions is to be maximised, they cannot simply be implemented as individual programmes. For example, time-management workshops, without first addressing systemic antecedents, such as excessive workload.

Building supportive communication: Leaders who use transparent, empathetic communication to foster an environment of psychological safety and perceived organisational support (POS) have been found to promote supportive communication (Bucata & Rizescu, 2017; Eisenberger et al., 1986). Supporting communication helps to create the foundation of the social exchange relationship. As defined by Eisenberger et al. (1986), POS is employees’ perception that the organisation values their contributions and has concern for their welfare. A high level of POS acts as a significant moderator, reducing the impact of stressors. By modelling and supporting the concept of setting boundaries, this practice becomes culturally acceptable and counters the always-on culture, providing a critical contextual resource.

Context was the most important thematic area identified to arise significantly throughout the synthesis of the literature reviewed.

Geographic disparity: Over 70% of the studies reviewed were conducted within the United States, the United Kingdom or Western European nations. Therefore, this imbalance in geography is directly reflected in the disproportionate influence the findings of those studies have on the evidence-based findings that make up the synthesised body of knowledge of the literature reviewed. Therefore, this imbalance also impacts the integrated conceptual framework developed in the study. As observed by Fatima et al. (2022), the unique challenges faced by HEIs in the Global South, that is, infrastructure shortages, political instability and large class sizes, are grossly under-represented in the literature. Thus, the integrated conceptual framework may provide a useful framework for application. But it should be used with caution because it does not account for differences in contexts, such as the lack of institutional support found at an underfunded public university in Africa compared to that found at a well-funded private institution in the West. This further supports the review’s critique of the literature as being too narrow geographically and emphasises the need for research and policy development that is sensitive to context.

The limitations in methodology limit the causal understanding of the field: The large number of cross-sectional designs gives the field a great deal of information regarding correlations between digital permeability and burnout. However, it does very little to establish causal processes or trends for an extended period of time. Thus, limiting our ability to conclude anything based upon this research. Therefore, the field will have to develop longitudinal and intervention-based research as its next steps.

In addition to synthesising all the existing research into one document, a rigorous systematic review should also critique how the research was created. The purpose of this section is to provide a meta-analysis of the methodological and contextual characteristics of the 112 research studies that were included in the review. Through this analysis, it was clear that there are several issues affecting the body of evidence, the extent to which the evidence base is capable of informing theory and practice, including many of the same methodological shortcomings, similar to those identified in other reviews of the literature, and a lack of geographic diversity across the world. These challenges affect the potential for the field to advance theoretically and practically.

A dominant group of design in a particular field shows that the field is reliant upon cross-sectional data, while there are few long-term studies. The distribution of the types of methods used to investigate the field (Table 1) is an important diagnostic of the field’s epistemological orientation.

The largest proportion of surveys was conducted with cross-sectional surveys (40%), which present researchers with a paradigm that is static and correlational by nature. Cross-sectional surveys are very useful for providing a snapshot of how widespread WLB issues are, and provide valuable information about the correlations between issues such as workload and burnout. Nevertheless, these surveys treat WLB as a static issue to be measured, rather than a dynamic process to be understood. While qualitative studies provided important insight into the breadth and complexity of the experiences of academics, they could not overcome the basic design constraint of correlational and static designs.

The biggest concern, however, was the low number of longitudinal studies (4%). The fact that longitudinal studies are so rare is a significant obstacle to advancing science on this subject. Longitudinal studies would help answer critical questions, including: Does implementing a flexible work policy lead to improved well-being in the long run or are flexible policies implemented by already stressed departments? How do major transitions in life, such as becoming a parent or moving into a senior faculty role, impact the way that academics manage the boundaries of their work and personal lives? Without longitudinal data, our understanding of WLB will remain fixed in time, and we will have no empirical basis to support the causal pathways suggested by the integrated conceptual framework, or to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of interventions designed to improve WLB.

Evaluating the methodological quality of the studies included in this systematic review provides insights into the degree of confidence we can place in the evidence produced by the studies. The overall higher credibility of the qualitative studies is a strength because their rich descriptions of the lived experiences of academics provide a strong grounding for the development of theoretical models of WLB. A notable weakness of many qualitative studies of WLB is the lack of attention to the issue of researcher positionality. Because studies of WLB are necessarily value-laden and rich in experience, failing to examine how the researcher’s own perspectives and biases influence their interpretation of data compromises the reflexivity that is foundational to establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research (Gurr et al., 2024).

In addition to the qualitative weaknesses, there are several quantitative cross-sectional study weaknesses that are structural and collectively contribute to undermining the reliability of the large body of widely cited correlational studies. The overwhelming reliance on convenience sampling in quantitative cross-sectional studies produces a body of evidence-based on voluntary participation. Therefore, this reliance tends to over-represent individuals who are in a high level of conflict, that is, those who respond to surveys on academic stress, and under-represent individuals who are in a stable balance. As a result, the literature may consistently overestimate the extent to which people are experiencing a crisis when reporting WLB issues.

Finally, the fact that all quantitative studies rely solely on self-report measures for all variables creates a mono-method bias and thereby leads to a common method variance effect, which artificially inflates the magnitude of the correlations reported between the variables of interest. When respondents report both their workload and their burnout on the same survey instrument, the relationship between the two variables is influenced by their current affective state and cognitive perspective at the time of completing the survey. Therefore, the methodology used in the studies reviewed here raises doubts about the precision of the correlations that provide the foundation for quantitative knowledge in the field of WLB (Verma et al., 2024). In addition, the field has largely relied upon generic WLB surveys that have not been validated specifically for academics, and therefore likely measure the construct of WLB imprecisely. That is, there is a need for measurement tools that are sensitive to the unique threefold burden experienced by academics.

The methodological profiles described earlier, combined with the previously identified geographic bias, have serious implications, both individually and collectively, that define the evidence base of the academia:

Thus, this analysis illustrates that the existing evidence concerning WLB in HE is substantial but is constructed under considerable methodological and geographical constraints. These constraints mean that the literature provides a detailed, although possibly exaggerated, portrait of the problem in particular regions. However, it may offer less stable guidance regarding the causal pathways of the integrated conceptual framework or effective interventions for the global academic community. Understanding these foundations is required to correctly interpret the thematic results of this review and to establish a more rigorous and inclusive course of action for the field.

Because this review was completed using the PRISMA guidelines, the results of the review are also limited by the body of literature reviewed. Because the conclusions of the review reflect limitations within the body of literature reviewed, they are also reflective of the limitations within the methods used to conduct those studies, that is, primarily the geographic limitations of most primary studies and the lack of longitudinal designs, which limit our ability to understand causal pathways.

Therefore, going forward, to create a comprehensive knowledge base of WLB that is both inclusive and actionable, researchers must focus on the following areas:

This study identifies theoretical implications as it demonstrates the necessity to update classic WLB theory to remain applicable. Border theory needs to incorporate digital technology’s influence in creating continuous and unavoidable border crossings. Zedeck and Mosier’s models need to be used to provide an explanation of the particular compensatory and spillover processes at play in the audit-intensive culture of the entrepreneurial university. The proposed integrated framework represents the first steps towards this more focused and context-aware theoretical development.

The study presents the following practical and managerial implications for HEI leaders. The findings strongly suggest that there will be no single solution, which works across all contexts. Therefore, HEI leaders must develop a multifaceted approach: