The COVID-19 pandemic has had a far-reaching impact on nursing and midwifery education and subsequently, the academics that provide teaching and learning. As a result of lockdowns being enforced in many cities worldwide, university campuses were required to close for academics and students, causing disruption to teaching and learning (Carolan et al, 2020). Globally, many nursing and midwifery academics embraced online theoretical teaching and learning from home in what had been a traditionally face-to-face learning environment (Haslam, 2021). Nursing and midwifery academics had previously worked from home for some days during their working week, primarily for research-based activities. However, there was a sudden shift to only working from home for extended periods of time because of the lockdowns. This involved learning about new technology and a major pivot in pedagogical approaches from face-to-face to distance learning, which are very differently constructed approaches, when delivering distance education in nursing and midwifery curriculums (Leigh et al, 2020).
Recent research suggests that blended pedagogical foundations provided flexibility to successfully transition to remote/hybrid teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (Dutta, 2022). New demands placed upon nursing and midwifery academics as a result of the changes in their working environments have been associated with increased stress and impacts on emotional and physical wellbeing (Van der Lippe and Lippényi, 2020; Idris et al, 2021). In different working disciplines, employees from previous research studies have identified that working from home led to an increase in performance from working more minutes per hour, taking fewer breaks and sick days (Bloom et al, 2015), spending fewer hours travelling/commuting to and from work sites (Wheatley, 2017), finding it easier to balance family/childcare responsibilities (Del Boca et al, 2020), and having personal comfort in the home environment (Hampton, 2017).
From previous studies, the disadvantages associated with working from home were a reduced promotional rate that was conditional on performance, which appeared to be lower when working from home (Bloom et al, 2015), having to embrace new/unfamiliar technology to deliver nursing and midwifery theoretical curriculums (Leigh et al, 2020; Haslam, 2021) and being isolated from colleagues (Pekyavas and Pekyavas, 2020).
Working from home has not always been an acceptable form of working within the nursing and midwifery academic environment, because of accusations of ‘shirking’ instead of working (Bloom et al, 2015) and there is minimal research published on the benefits and disadvantages of such a working arrangement. The pandemic has changed the way nursing and midwifery academics teach, moving from face-to-face teaching to online teaching from home, but their experiences and how this has impacted their ability to fulfil their academic roles are unrevealed. Therefore, this study aimed to address the knowledge gap and contribute to the body of knowledge by examining the experiences of academics working from home and how working from home impacted their ability to fulfil their academic roles.
Methods
A qualitative approach was taken, using demographics and open-ended qualitative questions to collect data. The use of qualitative data enhanced the description and understanding of nursing and midwifery academics' teaching and learning experiences while working from home during the pandemic. The study was conducted online through the Qualtrics™ platform, as it enables researchers to conduct surveys using a variety of distribution means. Results from Qualtrics can be viewed in reports and downloaded for easy use. Social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, WeNurses, WeMidwives) were used to recruit participants through private nursing and midwifery forums and closed groups. Questionnaire completion time was estimated as approximately 20 minutes, and an in-depth information sheet was provided to help motivate participants.
Participants
The participants were nursing and midwifery academics who spoke and read English and experienced working from home during the pandemic lockdowns. Recruitment was conducted using social media, which has merit for being cost effective and successful in recruiting participants (Gelinas et al, 2017). Sharing posts via social media can encourage a widespread distribution of the recruitment advert and capture a variety of participants internationally as well as nationally (Arigo et al, 2018).
Questionnaire
The questionnaire was devised by the researchers and piloted among two of their colleagues for validity. The online anonymous questionnaire contained a total of 18 questions on demographics and open-ended queries, such as ‘can you tell us something about your working days, are they longer or shorter when working from home?’, ‘are you able to separate your working environment from your home environment, and how do you accomplish this?’ and ‘can you identify any disadvantages or challenges when working from home?’
Data collection
Data were collected between October and December 2021, via the anonymous online questionnaire using Qualtrics. The questionnaire was open for 10 weeks, and 91 respondents completed it either fully or in part.
Data analysis
Analysis was conducted by three researchers, using thematic analysis, which emphasises identifying, analysing and interpreting patterns of meaning throughout the analytical process (Nowell et al, 2017). The coding process involved identifying important factors from the participants' experiences and then formulating statements of meaning. The next level of coding involved extracting themes from the statements of meaning and organising them into clusters before forming the main themes. The overall working from home experience of the participants was defined by commonalities identified from the data. This interpretation enabled a deeper understanding of the participants' experiences.
Ethical considerations
The University of Notre Dame Australia Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study (No 2021-123F). An information letter was provided on the first page of the online questionnaire, outlining the purpose of the study. Participants were made aware that their participation was voluntary and anonymous, and they had the right to withdraw at any time without the need for justification. A consent box was located at the bottom of the information letter. Participants could commence the online questionnaire only if they chose to tick the consent box.
Results
The participants' age bracket was 30–70 years old, and the largest proportion were 50–59 years old (38.5%). Most participants were female (89.0%), while 1% preferred not to give their gender, and the majority were Australian (61.9%). Over half (53.3%) held a PhD, and 78.0% worked full time. Table 1 provides a detailed exploration of the participants' demographic characteristics.
Table 1. Participants' demographic characteristics
| Variable | Category | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | Total | 91 (mean: 2.63, standard deviation: 0.92) |
| 20–29 | 0 (0.0) | |
| 30–39 | 19 (20.9) | |
| 40–49 | 28 (30.8) | |
| 50–59 | 35 (38.5) | |
| 60–70 | 9 (9.9) | |
| Gender | Total | 91 (mean: 1.92, standard deviation: 0.37) |
| Female | 81 (89.0) | |
| Male | 9 (9.9) | |
| Non-binary/third gender | 0 (0.0) | |
| Prefer not to say | 1 (1.1) | |
| Nationality | Total | 84 (mean: 10.5, standard deviation: 17.41) |
| Irish | 9 (10.6) | |
| Australian | 52 (61.9) | |
| British | 14 (16.7) | |
| New Zealand | 4 (4.8) | |
| Luxembourg | 1 (1.2) | |
| American | 2 (2.3) | |
| Scottish | 1 (1.2) | |
| Spanish | 1 (1.2) | |
| Highest qualification | Total | 90 (mean: 6.67, standard deviation: 0.87) |
| PhD | 48 (53.3) | |
| Masters | 29 (32.2) | |
| Degree | 9 (10.0) | |
| Postgraduate diploma | 3 (3.3) | |
| Certificate | 1 (1.1) | |
| Full or part time | Total | 91 (mean: 1.2, standard deviation: 0.41) |
| Full time | 71 (78.0) | |
| Part time | 20 (22.0) |
Six themes emerged from the analysis: isolation, loneliness, work rituals, productivity, blurred boundaries and health and wellbeing.
Isolation
Participants were asked if they felt isolated while working from home, and out of 91 responses to this question, 47.3% did not, 30.8% had and 22.0% sometimes felt isolated. The reasons given for not feeling isolated varied.
‘No not at all. The absolute opposite. I love being able to see my family. I barely see them now that I am back on campus full time.’
(P14)
‘I find I enjoy being away from the office dramas and my tolerance for social chit-chat has decreased.’
(P47)
Many participants who said they had felt isolated (n=28) stated that it was isolation from colleagues that was the main concern.
‘I have felt isolated from some colleagues, but not from those that I collaborate virtually with on a regular basis.’
(P78)
‘I started a new role in a new university at the start of the pandemic. It has been extremely difficult to begin developing collaboration and professional relationships remotely.’
(P10)
The participants who had felt isolated sometimes (n=20) stated this was for a variety of reasons.
‘Sometimes I have felt isolated, but not lonely, as my husband is also an academic and works from home. We live in a rural town where the main employer is the university, so most of our friends and connections work there too. During home schooling, we had five at home, as we have three children with chronic health conditions. This was very stressful due to their high educational needs and learning disorders. So sometimes isolated – but not lonely.’
(P64)
‘Sometimes I have felt isolated, although I realise, I am quite an introvert, and actually prefer not interacting with colleagues face to face. I like being able to turn my camera off.’
(P12)
Loneliness
Some participants alluded to loneliness as opposed to isolation when working from home and missed the collegiality of colleagues.
‘There is an absence of collegiality and conversation when off campus.’
(P33)
‘I miss casual conversations that happen in the workplace.’
(P82)
‘Working from home is more flexible, but it is lonely and lacks socialisation and connectedness.’
(P16)
‘I miss face-to-face teaching with full interaction with students.’
(P10)
‘I enjoy working from home and I like the flexibility, but it is lonely. I cannot build relationships in the same way as I usually would.’
(P46)
‘The lack of “corridor conversations” is soul destroying.’
(P2)
Work rituals
Participants described how they had adopted certain rituals when adapting to working from home.
‘I utilise my electronic calendar quite systematically to guide my working day. When my working day is finished, I turn off my screen, change my clothes, and make myself a drink to signal I have clocked off for the day.’
(P48)
‘I have strict rules on start and finish times, and I shower and prepare for work as normal.’
(P4)
‘I stick to a fairly regimented routine: wake up, work out, breakfast, work for 3 plus hours, lunch and a walk, 3 plus more hours work, then done. I find that this routine helps me stay focused on work even when at home.’
(P85)
Productivity
Productivity is usually a business measure, yet many participants described their productivity as being boosted while working from home. Productivity was not only related to work, but also to work–life balance issues, including housework, commuting and childcare.
‘Less disruptions means I am better able to keep on top of my workload.’
(P14)
‘I find I have less travel time getting to work therefore, I am more productive and do not feel rushed.’
(P28)
‘I save 3 hours travel per day working from home, and it is family friendly, as I have a child with additional needs. I can put washing on and catch up with domestic duties, which makes me much more productive doing actual work.’
(P55)
‘No travel time means more productivity.’
(P19)
‘Working from home improves my work–life balance due to having a 5-minute break to put the washing out, which is a nice opportunity to have a stretch from my desk, or any other boring household jobs that need doing, and after finishing work not having it all to come home to.’
(P72)
Blurred boundaries
Participants described how boundaries between work and family time became blurred.
‘Working from home is more disjointed, for example, I spend an hour or so clearing emails and actioning things between 7–8 o'clock, then get the children off to school and creche, then straight back into work again. I often work at night to allow me afternoons with the children.’
(P17)
Many participants tried to separate their working environment from their home environment by establishing a dedicated work/office space in their homes.
‘We have moved to a three-bedroom house for just the two of us, so we can have a separate room each to work in, as working in a living room was too hard to separate work from home life.’
(P63)
Participants described how they tried to separate work time from home time.
‘I close my computer down at the end of my working day, which signifies that my work-day is complete for that day. I work in a room that I otherwise do not spend time in.’
(P31)
‘I do have an office area at home, which is separated partially from the family with a bookcase, but I also work on my iPad or laptop in other parts of the house, including the bathroom. It is very hard to separate the two.’
(P24)
‘There is not the ability to physically separate my work and home environments. I have to try to maintain distinct times of work to balance home life. It is a juggle and a balance. Learning what balls I can juggle are like glass versus rubber: therefore, which ones I can drop and catch on the bounce and which I cannot drop, like for example, my children, family and my important values.’
(P71)
Health and wellbeing
Participants identified challenges to their overall health and fitness since working from home, some positive and some negative.
‘I find I am eating more and have less physical activity.’
(P4)
‘I find I am not moving as much, as all my work is at the computer. This is impacting on my physical health.’
(P67)
‘Lack of incidental movement has negatively affected my fitness.’
(P31)
‘I have put weight on – I eat more! I'm not as physically active – I tend to be behind a screen most of the day.’
(P49)
‘Now that I am back to working from my place of employment every day, I am experiencing higher levels of exhaustion and I am not sleeping well.’
(P88)
However, some felt that they were healthier working from home, as it removed the temptation to snack at cafes and other shops near their place of work.
‘I feel healthier since working from home. Less temptation for cakes and sweets from morning teas and university cafes.’
(P3)
‘I feel more energised, more productive and I have a better work–life balance working from home. I have time to exercise and self-care. Now that I am back on campus, my physical, mental and emotional health are suffering.’
(P54)
One participant reported that although they initially struggled with fitness when working from home, they had been able to make positive changes to their routine.
‘I haven't exercised as much since working from home. I bought a ‘Fitbit’ after 10 months and now get up and walk outside every hour, which fits in nicely with working from home.’
(P17)
Several participants noted lower levels of stress and anxiety when they were working from home, particularly around their exposure to COVID-19.
‘My anxiety levels have decreased now I'm working from home as I'm less exposed to COVID-19.’
(P8)
‘I feel less stressed about COVID-19 now I'm working from home.’
(P36)
‘I feel a lot more in control now I'm working from home and not exposed to so many people.’
(P77)
‘Now I'm not commuting to work every day I feel a lot better, and really enjoy working from home knowing I'm at less risk of COVID-19.’
(P20)
‘It is so much more relaxed working from home, as you aren't around so many potential people who have COVID-19.’
(P61)
Discussion
There were six main themes: isolation, loneliness, work rituals, productivity, blurred boundaries and health and wellbeing. Studies conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic suggested that traditional workplace social interactions were a central component of the workplace social life and shaped employees' experiences of their jobs (Lal et al, 2021). However, many midwifery and nursing academics in the present study said they did not feel isolated working from home, stating that regular online meetings decreased feelings of isolation. The positive benefits of not working face-to-face with colleagues included being more productive and managing time better at home, as not interacting face-to-face decreased social chit-chat, and some preferred the option of turning off the camera during online meetings to further decrease interaction. This was a newly reported aspect of working from home, as a previous study highlighted difficulty maintaining social interactions via technology because of the absence of cues and emotional intelligence (Lal et al, 2021). Social disconnection associated with working from home has been identified as an obstacle for some workers (Collins et al, 2016); however, the present study suggests that academics who are more introverted may experience apprehension when adapting to working in an office environment. Casual conversations, random catchups and corridor conversations were reported not to occur when working from home.
Academics who did identify that they had felt isolated while working from home cited that the lack of face-to-face interactions made some of them miss the camaraderie they had previously enjoyed with colleagues. Others stated that they had taken new roles prior to the pandemic, and it had been challenging to develop collaborations and build professional relationships. This has been identified in other studies conducted since the COVID-19 pandemic, where workers did not have enough experience in a job before working from home, and lack of face-to-face interaction with a manager or colleagues reflected on their happiness and satisfaction with the new role (Nakrošiene et al, 2019; Raišienė et al, 2020). None of the participants identified using social media as a way of interacting with colleagues or for feeling isolated. Social media has been promoted as a way to feel less isolated from colleagues (Rimmer, 2020) and is a more relaxed and informal way to virtually socialise.
One of the challenges of working from home was differentiating the working environment from the home/living environment and blurring boundaries between work and family time. Literature in this area suggests that working hours (Thompson et al, 2015), work–family conflict (Van der Lippe and Lippényi, 2020), navigating space (Kniffin et al, 2021) and routines (Petriglieri et al, 2019) heavily influence the separation of the work/home environments. The present study found that midwifery and nursing academics described strict scheduling, planning, juggling and balancing helped them attempt to separate their working and living environments, but most stated they only achieved full separation by having closed off separate rooms. Having a separate room was not always feasible, because of a lack of available rooms or space. Many academics worked in kitchen/dining areas or had a partner/spouse who also was working from home and required space to work. ‘Make-do’ home working spaces have been associated with bodily discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders from poor static postures, as a result of poorly constructed ergonomic home-working environments (Gerding et al, 2021).
Most academics were more productive at home because they saved time by not having to travel to work or prepare lunches, being able to wear casual, comfortable clothes, having flexible start/finish times, avoiding office politics or toxicity in the work environment and being available for children, grandchildren and pets. Some participants said they were more productive and able to focus better from home, as they were in shared offices at their places of employment. Studies on the benefits and disadvantages of shared office spaces have reported that noise, distraction and loss of privacy are significant factors affecting employees' productivity (Haynes et al, 2017; Candido et al, 2019).
Generally, nursing and midwifery academics suggested that working from home made their work more organised, focused and efficient, as they observed rituals to organise their work schedules. They were aware of the natural tendency to complete tasks such as meetings and student consultations in the middle of the day, with marking, data entry and research- or writing-focused tasks appearing to be better accomplished later in the day or evening. This suggests that nursing and midwifery academics working from home can manage and use their time effectively by focusing on task priorities. Studies examining academics working from home from different disciplines suggest that behavioural, interpersonal and intrapersonal priorities affect coping strategies for work-life balance, including gender (Ren and Caudle, 2016; Sutherland, 2018). Many female academics working from home reported that being able to complete simple household tasks and taking children to and from school helped them better prioritise their working day. This may indicate that academics were not as time-poor working from home as opposed to in the office environment. Çevik (2022) reported that women working from home were disadvantaged because they incorporated housework duties when prioritising their daily work schedules, suggesting that their time was well used, but they worked harder. In the present study, the benefits of time spent working from home included more time with children and pets, as they could attend online meetings or teaching sessions, then immediately remove themselves from that space and commence another task, without the need to spend time travelling.
Five academics cited working from home reduced the stress of exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Published research on the stress of contracting COVID-19 has reported that there is substantial workplace anxiety for academics and that working from home helps reduce anxiety and stress (Rodriguez et al, 2020; Tan et al, 2020).
Health and wellbeing were also impacted by working from home. Some academics stated that they had experienced weight gain and reduced physical activity, but others were more positive and had built exercise into their working regimes. Studies that have explored academic wellbeing while working from home have reported that exercise factors are related to a work–life merge (Fetherston et al, 2021; Widar et al, 2021) and that reduced physical activity adversely affects psychological and physical health. Academics in the present study highlighted dietary changes, both positive and negative, and studies have reported that food choices are generally good, but more snacking occurs when working from home (Sato et al, 2020). This study did not explore psychological or physical health or dietary changes, but academics did identify some of these factors as being one of the challenges of working from home.
This study explored the overall experiences of nursing and midwifery academics who were working from home during the lockdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The results show that the academics worked long hours and were more dedicated to work as a result of less commuting time, more flexibility and being organised by implementing rituals in their home working routines.
Limitations
The questionnaire contained qualitative comments from participants, many of which were quite detailed; however, some comments were minimal. The participants were from various countries and were heterogeneous in terms of educational experience and age, but some may have been working from home for different lengths of time because of different political management of lockdowns. For example, academics in the UK, Ireland and Melbourne in Australia experienced significantly longer lockdown periods and therefore worked from home over a longer timeframe, which may have meant their experiences were different to the wider academic population.
Most respondents were women in the age range for having children, which may have led to bias. Future research could consider whether female respondents in particular had or lived with children when working from home, as this may influence the findings around isolation.
Conclusions
Nursing and midwifery academics' working life has changed significantly since the pandemic, which led academics to work from home during lockdowns. Working life has become system and process heavy, as working from home added a layer of digital communication; however, there appeared to be more benefits and advantages than disadvantages and challenges. The benefits included less travel, being more family/pet friendly and having the ability to structure the day to fit with family life and commitments. The challenges included the temptation to snack and remain by a computer screen rather than being more active, as they would in the workplace environment. In contrast, some implemented strict start and finish times that appeared to address some of the negatives others reported.
A balance of both working from home and at an institution would appear to combine the benefits of both approaches. A lack of distractions and higher productivity would suggest a hybrid form of working is a way forward for nursing and midwifery academics. This is also a consideration when limiting the viral spread of pandemics and future variants/mutations of the COVID-19 virus among the working population.
Key points
- Working from home has been one of the most important changes during the COVID-19 pandemic and more people have started working from because of lockdowns.
- Globally, many nursing and midwifery academics have had to embrace online theoretical teaching and learning from home in what was a traditionally face-to-face learning environment.
- This study's findings could be used in negotiating boundaries and providing helpful insights for midwifery and nursing academics working from home
- One of the challenges of working from home was differentiating the working environment from the home/living environment and the blurring of boundaries between work and family time.