Aishee Bhattacharya - Applied Linguistics, Kehan Mei - Psychology, Siyu Wang - Applied Linguistics, Dr Yanyan Li - Student Opportunity
The project: Breaking Down Barriers: An Exploration Study of Cultural Differences in Mental Health Communication among Non-Native English-Speaking Research Students in Higher Education
This project was designed to investigate how language and culture shape the ways international postgraduate researchers engage with wellbeing communication. The activity was motivated by the recognition that mental health support in universities is not simply a matter of availability. For many international students, particularly those navigating new linguistic and cultural environments, the ability to recognise, interpret, and act upon wellbeing information is deeply influenced by communication practices. The project therefore sought to understand barriers to engagement and to co‑create practical solutions with students themselves.
The intended outcomes were both analytical and applied. Analytically, the project aimed to generate insight into the relationship between language, culture, trust, and access to support. Applied outcomes focused on developing student‑informed recommendations for improving wellbeing communication in higher education. By positioning students as contributors rather than passive recipients, the project emphasised participatory design and co‑creation.
The research design centred on three workshops, each lasting between 75 and 105 minutes. The first workshop concentrated on identifying barriers, including isolation, unclear terminology, cultural stigma, and difficulties with emotional expression in English. The second workshop moved towards drafting solutions, encouraging participants to propose alternative communication formats, clearer language, and culturally responsive approaches. The third workshop focused on collaborative refinement, producing practical examples of communication strategies that could be implemented within university contexts. This progression from diagnosis to design ensured that findings were grounded in lived experience while also oriented towards actionable change.
Participants were international postgraduate research students who use English as an additional language. Their contributions highlighted five interconnected themes: isolation and the importance of peer support, clarity and accessibility of wellbeing communication, cultural mismatch and stigma, language proficiency and emotional expression, and pathways to support, trust, and confidence. These themes revealed that barriers are not simply individual deficits but are often created or reinforced by institutional communication practices. For example, vague terminology or abstract labels can make services appear inaccessible even when they are available, while cultural assumptions about openness may alienate students from diverse backgrounds.
The co‑creation process produced several practical recommendations. These included simplifying wellbeing terminology, developing multilingual resources, increasing the use of visual communication, establishing structured peer‑support initiatives, recognising cultural and community networks, strengthening multilingual access, making confidentiality explicit, using anonymised peer narratives and introducing follow‑up mechanisms. Each recommendation reflects the principle that relatively small changes in communication can have significant effects on students’ willingness and ability to seek support.
The intended outcomes extend beyond individual messages. The project demonstrates that wellbeing communication should be understood as part of a broader inclusion agenda, requiring attention to linguistic accessibility, cultural responsiveness, and trust‑building. It also shows that internationalisation in higher education must involve more than recruitment; it must ensure that communication systems are genuinely accessible to students from diverse backgrounds. By embedding student participation in the design of wellbeing communication, universities can create systems that are clearer, more inclusive, and more effective in supporting mental health.
In summary, the project activity combined participatory workshops, thematic analysis and collaborative solution development to explore how language and culture shape mental health communication. Its outcomes include both a deeper understanding of barriers and a set of practical, student‑informed recommendations. This project contributes to the wider goal of building inclusive, trustworthy, and culturally responsive wellbeing communication within higher education.
Summary of project outcomes
We successfully completed a series of participatory workshops designed to explore how language and culture shape wellbeing communication. The main activities included three structured workshops, thematic analysis of participant contributions, and collaborative development of practical recommendations. Each stage was carefully designed to move from identifying barriers to co‑creating solutions, ensuring that international postgraduate researchers were positioned as active contributors rather than passive recipients.
The workshops revealed five interconnected themes. First, isolation and the importance of peer support emerged as a central concern. Students described postgraduate research as solitary and emphasised the value of structured community‑building to reduce reliance on informal networks. Second, clarity and accessibility of wellbeing communication were highlighted. Participants noted that vague terminology and abstract institutional labels often made services appear inaccessible, recommending simpler language and visual formats such as infographics and pathway diagrams. Third, cultural mismatch and stigma were identified as barriers. Students explained that expectations of openness and disclosure may not align with cultural norms, and that confidentiality must be communicated explicitly to build trust. Fourth, language proficiency and emotional expression were discussed. Even highly proficient students reported difficulty expressing nuanced feelings in English, suggesting the need for multilingual staff, translation technologies, and culturally sensitive resources. Finally, pathways to support, trust, and confidence were emphasised. Students described the initial step towards formal support as particularly daunting, underscoring the importance of peer narratives, follow‑up mechanisms, and transparent communication.
Key outcomes achieved include a set of student‑informed recommendations for universities. These recommendations call for simplifying wellbeing terminology, developing multilingual glossaries, increasing the use of visual communication, establishing structured peer‑support initiatives, recognising cultural and community networks, strengthening multilingual access, making confidentiality explicit, using anonymised peer narratives, and introducing follow‑up mechanisms. Together, these outcomes demonstrate that relatively small changes in communication can significantly improve accessibility and trust.
The project also achieved broader conceptual outcomes. It showed that wellbeing communication should be understood as part of the university’s inclusion agenda, requiring attention to linguistic accessibility and cultural responsiveness. It highlighted that internationalisation must involve more than recruitment, extending to communication systems that are genuinely accessible to diverse student populations. Finally, it demonstrated the value of embedding student participation in the design of wellbeing communication, ensuring that institutional practices reflect lived experiences.
The only major changes from the original plan took place when all the activities had to be shifted online, which initially, was planned as offline workshops. This happened due to very small number of students registering for the workshops and willing to attend offline workshops. Other than this, the project followed its intended trajectory of workshops, thematic analysis, and co‑creation. The emphasis on participatory design proved effective, producing outcomes that are both analytically rich and practically applicable. Overall, the project achieved its aim of identifying barriers and developing actionable recommendations, contributing to the wider goal of inclusive and culturally responsive wellbeing communication in higher education.
Has the project supported further interdisciplinary work
From this project, the lead and the co-lead was inspired to apply for the ECRF Fund 2026 where they aim to work on the topic of psychology of belonging and intercultural communication.
The project lead Aishee Bhattacharya and the project co-lead Kehan Mei presented the findings at the Health Communication and Behaviour Change in the Evolving Digital Landscape: Language, Discourse and Interaction held at the University of Warwick on 16 July 2026.
"I know exactly how I feel in my own language, but I cannot fully express that in English. Something important gets lost in translation, and that makes seeking help more stressful."
“The PhD journey is very alone. At the beginning it was difficult to cope, but peer support, even small conversations, made a huge difference.”
“In my culture, mental health is not spoken about openly. Coming here, I was surprised by how often the university talks about wellbeing. It is good, but also overwhelming at first.”