In the complex and demanding world of undergraduate engineering education, the hidden burden of stress often remains unspoken yet profoundly shapes the student experience. Recent groundbreaking research spearheaded by Mirabelli, Johnson, Vohra, and colleagues has thrown a spotlight on the nuanced intersections between stressors and the culture that normalizes them within engineering faculties. Their pioneering work, culminating in the Engineering Stress Culture Scale (ESCS) alongside the Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire (UESQ), marks a significant leap forward in understanding the psychological landscape of engineering education. Published in 2025 in IJ STEM Education, this study offers an intricate examination of how stress is both experienced and embedded within educational norms, revealing a layered dynamic that has critical implications for pedagogy, student wellbeing, and institutional policy.
Engineering education, renowned for its rigorous academic demands and high stakes, has long been suspected as a hotbed for student stress. However, the specific stressors and the cultural acceptance of stress as an almost mandatory rite of passage have remained underexplored. This lacuna motivated the researchers to systematically delineate and quantify the stressors endemic to engineering programs. By developing the ESCS and UESQ, the authors provide robust instruments that capture not only the presence of stress but also the socially constructed narratives that define its legitimacy and inevitability in engineering cohorts. This dual approach is innovative in integrating both psychological and sociocultural dimensions, thereby offering a comprehensive toolset for future investigations and interventions.
One of the most compelling revelations of this research is the concept of “normalized stress.” Within engineering circles, stress is often framed less as an anomaly and more as a badge of honor, signifying dedication, proficiency, and resilience. This cultural acceptance perpetuates a feedback loop, where stress is not only tolerated but expected, fostering an environment in which students internalize their mental health struggles as personal failings rather than systemic issues. The formalization of this idea via the ESCS refines our understanding of how institutional cultures shape individual experiences and underscores why conventional stress reduction programs often fail to address underlying systemic contributors.
The quantitative rigor employed in this study is notable for its methodological sophistication. Recruiting a diverse sample of undergraduate engineering students across multiple institutions, the researchers applied advanced psychometric techniques to validate their scales. Factor analysis revealed distinct dimensions of stress culture including workload expectations, peer competition, and perceptions of faculty support. The UESQ identified specific stressors ranging from academic pressure and time management challenges to social isolation and imposter syndrome. These findings not only validate anecdotal reports but provide a measurable foundation for addressing stress with targeted strategies.
Importantly, the study does not view student stress in isolation but contextualizes it within the broader culture of engineering education. This ecological perspective allows for an analysis of how departmental norms, faculty attitudes, and peer relationships collectively influence the perceived necessity of stress endurance. The authors argue convincingly that any attempt to mitigate student distress must engage with these cultural underpinnings. Simply reducing workload or offering mindfulness workshops may offer superficial relief but miss the systemic dimension that normalizes and even valorizes stress as part of the engineering identity.
The implications of normalizing stress extend beyond mental health alone. The research highlights consequential effects on academic outcomes, retention rates, and long-term professional identity formation. Students entrenched in high-stress cultures report increased cognitive fatigue, decreased motivation, and a higher prevalence of burnout syndromes. Moreover, the perpetuation of stress normalization impacts inclusivity and diversity efforts, as marginalized groups may disproportionately experience and internalize these pressures, further exacerbating inequities within STEM fields.
Mirabelli and colleagues emphasize the urgent need for engineering programs to self-reflect and critically evaluate their cultures. They advocate for institutional reforms that dismantle stress normalization practices and promote environments that recognize and support mental health as integral to scholarly and professional success. Recommended changes include revising grading practices, fostering mentorship models that prioritize wellbeing, and embedding mental health literacy into the curriculum. These systemic shifts, the authors argue, are vital for cultivating sustainable and humane engineering education ecosystems.
One striking aspect of this research is the potential applicability of the ESCS and UESQ beyond engineering disciplines. While tailored to the unique context of engineering education, the conceptual framework of normalized stress culture may resonate in other high-pressure academic environments such as medicine, law, and architecture. Future cross-disciplinary studies could leverage these tools to explore commonalities and distinctions in stress culture, potentially catalyzing broader educational reforms.
This study also opens avenues for longitudinal research to monitor changes in stress culture over time. By deploying the ESCS and UESQ longitudinally, institutions can assess the impact of implemented reforms and adapt strategies dynamically. Such real-time data can inform evidence-based policy decisions and position engineering departments as leaders in addressing academic mental health challenges proactively and thoughtfully.
Furthermore, the authors discuss the intersection of personal resilience and cultural expectations. While individual coping strategies remain important, the research cautions against placing the onus solely on students to “tough it out.” Instead, the findings advocate a balanced approach that combines institutional responsibility with personal empowerment. This nuanced perspective challenges prevailing narratives that valorize endurance at all costs and encourages a shift toward collective well-being.
The collaborative nature of this work, incorporating educational psychology, engineering pedagogy, and mental health expertise, underscores the interdisciplinary commitment necessary to tackle complex educational challenges. The integration of diverse perspectives enriches the validity and resonance of the findings, reflecting the multifaceted nature of stress culture. This collaborative model may serve as a blueprint for future explorations into academic well-being across various STEM fields.
Media reception and early academic feedback suggest that this study holds significant promise as a catalyst for change. Its innovative conceptualization and empirical grounding have sparked conversations among educators, administrators, and students alike about the urgent need to reimagine engineering education cultures. The research resonates with a growing movement advocating for holistic education reforms that prioritize mental health alongside academic excellence.
In sum, the development of the Engineering Stress Culture Scale and Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire marks a transformative moment in understanding and addressing the psychological realities of engineering education. By illuminating the intricate ways in which stress is entrenched and legitimized, Mirabelli and team challenge educators to rethink the cultural paradigms that shape student experiences. Their work not only provides new tools for assessment but calls for a paradigm shift toward more humane, supportive, and psychologically informed engineering education.
As universities worldwide grapple with rising concerns about student mental health, this study offers a timely and vital contribution. It points toward a future where engineering programs can cultivate resilience not through normalized hardship but through comprehensive support and cultural transformation. The ripples of this research promise to extend far beyond the classroom, influencing how the next generation of engineers live, learn, and innovate.
For stakeholders invested in STEM education reform, the introduction of the ESCS and UESQ presents an invaluable opportunity to diagnose and dismantle harmful stress paradigms. This research positions itself at the forefront of an urgent academic dialogue, bridging empirical research and actionable insight. It is a call to action to nurture an engineering culture that sustains both intellectual rigor and human flourishing.
Subject of Research:
Stressors and normalized stress within undergraduate engineering education culture, focusing on the development of measurement tools to assess these phenomena.
Article Title:
Stressors and normalized stress in undergraduate engineering education culture: development of the Engineering Stress Culture Scale and Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire.
Article References:
Mirabelli, J.F., Johnson, E.M., Vohra, S.R. et al. Stressors and normalized stress in undergraduate engineering education culture: development of the Engineering Stress Culture Scale and Undergraduate Engineering Stressors Questionnaire. IJ STEM Ed 12, 19 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00540-8
Image Credits:
AI Generated
