Creative Work as a Remedy for Burnout

© iStock

The creative, supportive atmosphere and innovative methods at the Centre for Sociocultural Research make it appealing to early-career scholars. Over years of working at HSE University, they grow into researchers and lecturers recognised both in Russia and abroad. Chief Research Fellow Zarina Lepshokova and Leading Research Fellow Ekaterina Bushina spoke about their journey at the centre and at HSE, their research, and the role of mentors in their academic success.

— When did you join the centre?

Zarina Lepshokova

Zarina Lepshokova: I joined in 2008. Before that, I had met with Alexander Tatarko, who taught at the State Academic University for the Humanities, where I had been studying at the time. He had been delivering lectures on ethnic psychology and spoke engagingly about interethnic relations, the psychology of ethnic majorities and minorities, acculturation psychology, values, and social axioms.

I realised that my own experiences as a young woman from the North Caucasus who had come to Moscow to study had scientific definitions and that these phenomena could—and should—be studied. Under Alexander Tatarko’s supervision, I wrote my graduation thesis on intercultural attitudes and the psychological adaptation of migrants in Moscow. After graduating, I decided to follow both my academic supervisor and the research topic that was dear to me by enrolling in postgraduate studies at HSE.

Ekaterina Bushina

Ekaterina Bushina: In 2008, I was graduating from the Faculty of Psychology at the State Academic University for the Humanities. After graduation, I planned to continue to postgraduate studies there, but I was advised to choose Nadezhda Lebedeva as my academic supervisor. She suggested a research topic devoted to health-preserving behaviour in Russia and Canada. I cannot say that I was a particularly diligent postgraduate student, since I was working as a school psychologist at the time and was even included in the top ten of Moscow’s ‘Teacher of the Year’ competition. During my pre-defence review, Nadezhda Lebedeva asked me to choose between academic research and school work, and I chose the former.

I immediately became deeply involved in the work. I greatly appreciated both the team and the new field of work, including cross-cultural psychology, as well as preparing research studies and articles in foreign languages

— What attracted you to the laboratory’s work?

Zarina Lepshokova: After successfully defending my Candidate of Sciences dissertation, I became particularly interested in studying the psychology of intercultural relations through the lens of John Berry’s acculturation theory, and I continued working on the topic that fascinated me most. I was delighted by the opportunity to communicate with him personally during his visit to HSE.

Nadezhda Lebedeva and Alexander Tatarko translated the international questionnaire of the MIRIPS project (Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies) into Russian, which enabled us to study both universal and culture-specific patterns of intercultural interaction among citizens of different countries and representatives of Russia’s peoples.

Using this instrument, I conducted a mirror study in Moscow and the North Caucasus, examining the mutual attitudes of ethnic majorities and minorities in two regions: Moscow and the North Caucasus, where Russians and local populations occupy opposite roles.

Later, John invited me—and I in turn invited my colleague Dmitry Grigoryev—to prepare a meta-analysis of data collected by the project over several decades. This large-scale work resulted in the article ‘How Shall We All Live Together?: Meta-Analytical Review of the Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies Project’ published in Applied Psychology: An International Review in 2022, which became his most cited article in 2023.

Being part of large-scale projects devoted to a subject you truly care about is a great joy for a researcher

Ekaterina Bushina: I became interested in the fields of cross-cultural psychology, contemporary research methods, and the opportunity to study and teach simultaneously within the master’s programme. Finally, I was included in the working group of a grant project focused on the study of creativity and attitudes towards innovation.

I was also very impressed by the atmosphere in the laboratory—it was enjoyable and intellectually stimulating to interact with people from a variety of backgrounds, including anthropology. They always emphasised that without fieldwork and a genuine understanding of respondents, research largely remains little more than juggling figures. This resonates with me deeply: I visit schools and observe the processes taking place there myself, which allows me to analyse them more thoroughly.

— How would you describe the atmosphere at the centre?

Zarina Lepshokova: It encourages personal growth. We are not constrained; instead, we are given the freedom to develop our own research topics while also participating in shared projects. We have a close-knit team. During both formal and informal meetings, we discuss everything, exchange methodologies, and support one another. Each of us has our own area of focus, and we complement one another effectively in data collection and analysis.

The atmosphere at the centre is inseparable from that of HSE University, which I love very much. Everything here is aimed at helping us grow as researchers, lecturers, and leaders. The environment fosters creativity. I design courses based on my own research and receive lively feedback from students, which is incredibly valuable.

All of this—and especially the people working at HSE—creates an atmosphere of energy and inspiration that makes you want to create and achieve

For example, together with my colleague and friend Ekaterina Kodja, we launched Russia’s first course on ‘Psychology of the Collective Past and Future,’ where we examine the influence of collective memory, trauma, and nostalgia on intergroup relations and perceptions of the collective future.

© iStock

Ekaterina Bushina: The atmosphere at the university is highly supportive and reflects a strong level of trust.

From the very beginning, one of the centre’s defining features has been the collective discussion of projects and the joint preparation of grant applications. We regularly debate promising research topics. We value our internal expertise. When we prepare a research report or write an article, a colleague reads it as a reviewer, comments on it, and we respond. This is wonderful because it allows us to see progress and development, which improves the quality of our work and increases the likelihood of publication.

— You now supervise students and doctoral researchers yourselves. How do they differ?

Zarina Lepshokova: They burn out more quickly and are not always prepared for difficulties. Many are unwilling to sacrifice their personal lives for science and want financial wellbeing immediately, so they take on part-time jobs and often lose focus as a result: research demands complete dedication. That is disappointing, because HSE selects the very best students. They are intelligent, speak foreign languages, and are capable of processing enormous amounts of data. Bearing this in mind, I expect commitment from them and invest a great deal myself: I help with conceptualisation, sampling, calculations, and editing. I involve them in my articles so that they can learn how to write academically and respond to reviewers’ comments. I value my students and doctoral researchers greatly, and I remain friends and collaborators with many of them after they graduate from HSE.

Ekaterina Bushina: Many students begin working while still in their undergraduate studies. Some of those balancing work and study fail to meet deadlines and postpone too much until later. I have also noticed that previously students would first get in touch with an academic supervisor and then choose their topic, whereas now the process often happens the other way round.

There is also a sense that many students are satisfied with grades in the range of 6–7 and are not always motivated to improve them.

— What are the key areas of your current research?

Zarina Lepshokova: The central theme of my work is intercultural relations in the post-Soviet republics, which is also the subject of my doctoral dissertation.

I am interested in the contribution of individual personality traits, socio-psychological factors, and contextual conditions to the mutual intercultural preferences of ethnic minorities and the majority population, as well as to their psychological wellbeing.

I also actively study social fears and their impact on psychological health. Together with Nadezhda Lebedeva, we wrote the article ‘The Relationship Between Fear of War and the Psychological Health of Russians: The Role of Civic Identity and Social Optimism’. We found that the synergy between civic identity and social optimism can reduce the negative impact of fear of war on psychological wellbeing.

Within a Russian Science Foundation project on creativity, I study its relationship with self-realisation and prosocial proactivity. Creativity is discussed a great deal nowadays, but its purpose is often overlooked.

A person may be as creative as possible, but without determination, persistence, and a noble goal, they may fail to achieve self-realisation, especially in socially significant projects

Together with a student from Israel, we are studying the reproductive attitudes of Russian and Israeli women, the role of individual values, perceptions of fatherhood, and the social context in which mothers and families with children live.

© iStock

Alongside a doctoral researcher, I am investigating the influence of digitalisation on romantic relationships. We have found both positive aspects—such as meeting people through social media—and negative ones: digital dependency often interferes with harmony in relationships and can even reduce the desire for intimacy.

Finally, I am also drawn to the topic of artificial intelligence. One of my doctoral students is studying the strategies and factors behind students’ use of AI and its impact on academic performance and self-esteem. Such diversity of topics allows us to broaden our scientific horizons.

Ekaterina Bushina: I would highlight the digitalisation of education and multiculturalism in schools. So far, we have not yet included parents in our research, and it would be very interesting to speak with them and learn how they perceive these issues.

Another important topic is the personality of the teacher and their role in education. At conferences devoted to school education, one often hears that the teacher’s role is changing and that more rights and responsibilities are being delegated to pupils.

I have also been considering research into students at teacher-training universities and their attitudes. This idea came to me while working in the regions. It would be interesting to examine who our future teachers are, how they view schools, and what place they see for themselves within them. Everyone wants teachers to be creative and communicatively competent, but it is equally important that they maintain psychological resilience. Therefore, we should study the attitudes, personal values, and professional outlooks of students at teacher-training universities and colleges.

Another area of interest concerns young people’s perceptions of Russia, civic engagement, and patriotism.

We are also participating in work connected with the creativity grant project. My own contribution focuses on the intersection between creativity and multiculturalism in schools.