Identification of knowledge anxiety factors among researchers based on grounded theory

Abstract

Based on a grounded theoretical analysis of interviews and open data, this study develops a model delineating the factors influencing Knowledge Anxiety, encompassing 5 primary categories and 20 subcategories. These categories encompass Academic Characteristics (knowledge quantity, knowledge quality, and knowledge content), Outer Environment (paid marketing, negative feedback, intense competition, and evaluation mechanism), and Cognitive Environment (work stress, scientific research funding, interpersonal relationships, Time limitation, and Cause difficult) which have been identified as external drivers influencing researchers' Knowledge Anxiety. Conversely, Ability Characteristics (scientific literacy, personality traits, English proficiency, and self-expectations) and Emotional Cognition (inertia thinking, negative self-concept, perceived risks, self-efficacy, and knowledge demand) have been recognized as internal drivers impacting researchers' Knowledge Anxiety. Findings reveal that external factors such as Academic Characteristics, Outer Environment, and Cognitive Environment directly impact researchers' susceptibility to Knowledge Anxiety. Internal factors, represented by Individual Competencies and Emotional Perception, also wield significant influence. Furthermore, external forces can affect Knowledge Anxiety either directly or indirectly by interfacing with internal determinants. This study underscores that researchers' Knowledge Anxiety emerges from intricate interactions among diverse factors, rather than stemming from a solitary cause. These insights furnish valuable comprehension and prospective strategies for mitigating Knowledge Anxiety among researchers, ultimately contributing to the advancement of research in this domain.

1. Introduction

The evolution and intricate dimensions of Knowledge Anxiety within the academic milieu, stemming from the transformation of the information society into a knowledge-driven one. Initially focusing on the transition from ‘information anxiety,’ various perspectives and manifestations of Knowledge Anxiety have emerged across psychological, sociological, and information science paradigms.

Initially, ‘information anxiety’ was described by Wurman as the tension arising from the disparity between acquired information and the necessary comprehension, creating a void between data and knowledge [1]. From a sociological standpoint, Liu Ming et al. articulated information anxiety as a disquietude due to the populace's struggle to adapt to the internet era and its rapid technological advancements [2]. Girard, within information science, characterized it as a psychological unease linked to information overload, quality, and assessment [3]. Li Yuling, Cao Jindan, and others further expanded on this multifaceted emotional state experienced during information utilization [[4], [5]].

The emergence of Knowledge Anxiety coincides with the ascension of the knowledge economy, gradually supplanting the information society. Kuang Wenbo's psychological perspective ties Knowledge Anxiety to its roots in information anxiety, while Zheng Liyuan and others define it as a precarious state arising from inadequate knowledge reserves, fearing the inability to keep pace with societal demands [6,7].

Expanding this discussion, Sun Jinhua et al. and Li Wu et al. emphasize Knowledge Anxiety's dimensions, encompassing concerns over knowledge quality, overload, and deficiency [8,9]. He Ping et al. delved into the manifestation of Knowledge Anxiety among doctoral students, linking it to practical dilemmas associated with knowledge acquisition and utilization [10]. Additionally, the concept of research data anxiety, as introduced by Ref. [11], described the emotional complexities researchers encounter during scientific data processing and utilization, considering factors like the information environment and personal readiness.

In synthesizing these viewpoints from information science and social psychology, this study emphasizes Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers. It probes into the emotional experiences during knowledge assimilation amidst rapidly evolving scientific realms, involving internal facets such as scientific literacy and external factors like evaluation mechanisms.

The ramifications of Knowledge Anxiety extend to substantial consequences among sustainability researchers, potentially impacting their enthusiasm, motivation, and even questioning the value of their academic contributions. It can precipitate academic burnout and hinder career progression, undermining the overall worth of their scholarly pursuits.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Research methods

Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology developed by Glaser and Strauss with the objective of generating novel theories. It advocates the extraction of fundamental concepts from unprocessed textual data and the construction of theories through iterative processes that include induction, coding, and comparative analysis, aiming to elucidate the interconnections between these concepts. This method adheres to a bottom-up approach in the development of theories [12].

From the standpoint of Grounded Theory's conceptual framework, it is most applicable to theoretical research endeavors where the underlying connotations and extensions remain ambiguous. Currently, there is a dearth of research on Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers, both domestically and internationally, and a lack of an established conceptual framework or understanding. Existing theories are ill-suited to expound upon the cutting-edge phenomenon of Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers. Hence, this study is well-suited to employ Grounded Theory for conducting exploratory research, with the primary goal of elucidating the structural dimensions and mechanisms underlying the formation of Knowledge Anxiety among researchers. Moreover, it seeks to establish a theoretical foundation to develop and validate Knowledge Anxiety scales specifically tailored to sustainability researchers.

This study adheres to the procedural paradigm of Grounded Theory, which encompasses three key phases of data processing: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Its principal advantage lies in the ongoing deduction, analysis, and induction of raw data, ensuring a high degree of coherence between theoretical construction and empirical research. In essence, the resulting theory should be reflective of social reality [13].

2.2. Data sources

To ensure the comprehensiveness of the research data, the author procured original data from a variety of sources, including open literature, online data, and in-depth interviews, in order to complement each other. This approach was adopted to mitigate the potential bias that could arise from relying solely on one type of data source. For the acquisition of existing data, the author conducted thematic searches on websites and databases such as XiaoMuChong, Zhihu, Bilibili, Baidu News, and CNKI using keywords like “researchers” and “Knowledge Anxiety.” Relevant comments, discussions, and other content pertaining to Knowledge Anxiety were aggregated. Subsequently, the original textual data were organized and processed using the Z1-N to Z5-N indexing method.

Furthermore, group interviews were conducted to collect interview data. Ten research professionals from various levels were invited to participate in discussions and knowledge exchanges. The interview outline, as presented in Table 1, was employed, and the conversations were recorded using audio recording devices. The recordings were manually transcribed and transformed into interview transcripts. The same method of sequential organization was applied to the interview data.

Table 1.

Semi-structured interview outline.

Number	Interview question
P1	In the course of your research and academic research, have you ever felt confused or anxious?
P2	What do you think is the main source of this anxiety?
P3	What factors do you feel contribute to your academic anxiety?
P4	Are you anxious about academic research and research these days? Talk about how you behave when you are anxious.
P5	When you are anxious, are you more likely to feel negative emotions such as frustration, annoyance, or impatience?
P6	When you are anxious about academic knowledge, do you worry more than usual? Do you think more?
P7	When you are anxious, do you have a noticeable physical reaction such as sweating, a racing heart, or an upset stomach?

Following manual screening, elimination of duplicates, and the removal of irrelevant content from the raw data, a total of 450 valid data points were obtained. Four-fifths (4/5) of the data were randomly selected for analysis, while the remaining one-fifth (1/5) was set aside to assess theoretical saturation. To uphold the rigor and objectivity of the coding results, two professional coders were commissioned to perform three-level coding of the textual data using NVivo 12 Plus software. These coders operated independently, and coding results were incorporated only when they demonstrated agreement.

2.3. Research process

2.3.1. Open coding

Open coding constitutes the initial phase in the data analysis process within the framework of grounded theory. This phase encompasses the meticulous deconstruction of textual data, line-by-line coding, the assignment of conceptual labels, and the subsequent reassembly of collected data. The primary objective is to continually scrutinize and analyze the data in order to unearth fundamental concepts and discern the logical relationships inherent in the raw material [14]. During the coding process, a trio of guiding principles is rigorously adhered to in order to ensure precision and objectivity. These principles are as follows:

Firstly, an earnest effort is made to employ terminology derived directly from the original data as labels, preserving the utmost authenticity of thoughts and perspectives.

Secondly, a comprehensive analysis is conducted to forestall the inadvertent oversight of any invaluable information.

Finally, a resolute commitment to maintaining an impartial, open-minded stance is upheld throughout the entire analytical process.

In the coding procedure, the NVivo 12 Plus software serves as the indispensable tool for encoding and extracting initial concepts from the unprocessed textual data. As an illustrative example, the phrase “However, faced with a vast amount of information and knowledge, one often feels immense pressure and inefficiency” is succinctly distilled into the overarching concept of “knowledge abundance,” which is represented by the label “An.” Exemplars of initial concept extraction during open coding are elucidated in Table 2. Subsequent to the extraction of initial concepts, redundant concepts are amalgamated, insignificant ones are discarded, and closely interrelated initial concepts are methodically synthesized and refined into categories. For instance, “knowledge abundance,” “rapid knowledge updates,” and “knowledge overload” coalesce under the overarching category of “knowledge quantity.” Ultimately, the outcome of the open coding phase yields 66 initial concepts and 24 categories, with categories designated by the label “An.” The outcomes of the open coding process are meticulously detailed in Table 3.

Table 2.

Open coding examples (part).

Initial concept	Examples of Interview Text	References Source
a01 Massive knowledge	However, in the face of vast amounts of information and knowledge, I often feel great pressure and feel powerless	Z1-68
a02 Knowledge update faster	What is even more anxiety-inducing is that our research area is constantly evolving with emerging hot topics. Every time we refresh the database query results page, there is a possibility that new publications will have been published the very next second.	Z1-44
a03 Knowledge overload	People's desire to incorporate more external knowledge into their personal knowledge systems, coupled with their eagerness to engage in learning as if they were parched with thirst, inadvertently triggers Knowledge Anxiety.	Z4-25
a04 Knowledge homogeneity	These seemingly massive amounts of information every day, in fact, many are dominated by algorithms and social circles, and are always in the category of homogeneity and the same circle.	Z2-15
a05 Knowledge usefulness	Spent two months faster after reading a nearly 500,000 - word book, found it simply introduces the theories of a certain area, similar to the introductory textbooks, writing is too shallow, basic use.	Z3-6
a06 Knowledge authenticity	Some secondary production and dissemination on the network will also affect the authenticity of primary information, making the whole information environment mixed with true and false	Z4-41
a07 Profound knowledge	It's too deep to read the article	Z1-62
a08 Knowledge fragmentation	What we acquire now is more fragmented knowledge, because we absorb fragmented knowledge that can only be processed in the present moment	Z2-34
a09 Curriculum quality	The quality of online paid courses is uneven, and the quality of some online courses is difficult to guarantee	Z6-2
a10 Exaggerated propaganda	Now a lot of paid knowledge, with an exaggerated title and the so-called “experts”, attract people to sign up, advocating that is to acquire the most effective knowledge in a short time, but the real content is often only superficial and empty words.	Z4-8
a11 Content deception	Are you exposed to information that doesn't really matter, but you can't help looking at it	Z2-27
a12 Intellectual sophisticate	Then, a bunch of so-called knowledge big V is present, you are like a feed chicks, finally caught straws, what they give you, what you learn. And the more I learn, the more anxious I get	Z4-83
a13 Superior evaluation	But my boss always thought I didn't do enough, and said I was confused and almost had no intention of graduating	Z1-7
a14 other-negation	I was named and criticized last night, there is no depth of thought, there is no knowledge in the belly, and only when I open my mouth to communicate can I know that it is difficult to move forward, and it is not at the same level at all … So anxious!	Z1-63
a15 AI Iterative upgrade	Worried that after graduation, Chat GPT iteration upgraded to become more intelligent to take their place	Z6-31

Table 3.

Initial concepts and categories.

categories	Initial concepts
A01 knowledge quantity	a01 Massive knowledge/a02 Knowledge update faster/a03 Knowledge overload
A02 knowledge quality	a04a04 Knowledge homogeneity/a05 Knowledge usefulness/a06 Knowledge authenticity
A03 knowledge content	a07 Profound knowledge/a08 Knowledge fragmentation
A04 Paid marketing	a09 Curriculum quality/a10 Exaggerated propaganda/a11 Content deception/a12 Intellectual sophisticates
A05 negative feedback	a13 Superior evaluation/a14 other-negation
A06 intense competition	a15AI AI Iterative upgrade/a16 Internal winding pressure/a17 Peer pressure
A07 evaluation mechanism	a18 academic achievement evaluation/a19 academic evaluation standard
A08 work stress	a20 Heavy work/a21 Heavy task
A09 scientific research funding	a22 Material purchase fee/a23Expert consultation fee
A10 interpersonal relationship	a24 Tutor absence/a25 Circle limitation/a26 knowledge service a27 knowledge sharing
A11 time limitation	a28 time fragmentation/a29 time finite
A12 cause difficulty	a30Personal future/a31Career development
A13 scientific literacy	a32 searching skills/a33 knowledge reserve/a34 knowledge structure
A14 personality trait	a35 Impetuous psychology/a36 character traits
A15 english level	a37 English learning/a38 English reading
A16 self-expectation	a39 Future Expectations/a40 knowledge to monetize
A17 inert thinking	a41 Fear of failure/a42Laziness and procrastination /a43Phone addiction/a44Avoidance behaviour
A18 Negative ego	a45Self-denial/a46 Self-doubt/
A19 perceived risk	a48 knowledge gap/a49 Ego gap
A20 self-efficacy	a50 Lack of confidence/a51Easy to forget/a52self-comfort
A21 knowledge demand	a53 Content cognition a54 Intellectual curiosity/a55 Knowledge hoarding/a56 Lack of knowledge
A22 Knowledge acquisition anxiety	a57 Acquisition difficulty/a58Retrieval difficulty/a59Differential difficulty/a60 Blind conformity
A23 Knowledge internalizes anxiety	a61 Understanding barriers/a62 shallow absorption/a63 learning style
A24 Knowledge output anxiety	a64 Poor research/a65 essay writing published/a66 research direction

2.3.2. Axial coding

Axial coding represents a crucial component within the three-level coding process, with the primary objective of advancing the classification, synthesis, and generalization of categories initially derived from open coding. It seeks to extract integrated, higher-level core categories. Axial coding plays a pivotal role in establishing interconnections among subcategories, sub-subcategories, and elucidating the relationships that underlie them. Throughout this process, researchers are tasked with developing more focused and consistent codes for the categories, typically concentrating their attention on a select few. Subsequently, they proceed to dimensionally delineate these categories, thereby identifying the diverse conditions, processes, and outcomes that these categories encapsulate. This is followed by an exhaustive analysis of the correlations among various genera [15].

In the context of this study, a process of clustering and summarization was employed to distill and synthesize the 24 categories that had emerged from open coding. For instance, categories such as “knowledge quantity,” “knowledge quality,” and “knowledge content” were amalgamated and consolidated into the overarching core category of “Academic Characteristics.” Consequently, a total of six core categories were meticulously delineated: Academic Characteristics, Outer Environment, Cognitive Environment, Competence Characteristics, Emotional Cognition, and Knowledge Anxiety. These core categories are designated as “Bn.” The process of axial coding and the associated connotations of the categories are meticulously presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Axial coding.

Principal category	Title 2	Title 3
Academic Characteristics	A01 knowledge quantity	Whether knowledge quantity, scale, absorption in the scientific research personnel acceptable range
	A02 knowledge quality	Scientific research personnel contact the homogeneity, usefulness, authenticity, and so on
	A03 knowledge content	Depth, intelligibility and systematization of knowledge content
B2 Outer Environment	A04 Paid marketing	The extent to which researchers are influenced by commercial marketing in the field of knowledge payment.
	A05 negative feedback	Negative comments received by researchers from superiors or others.
	A06 intense competition	The competitive environment in which researchers operate includes peers and AI.
	A07 evaluation mechanism	Evaluation system of academic achievements and academic life value of scientific researchers.
B3 Cognitive Environment	A08 work stress	The daily work stress of the position of a scientific researcher.
	A09 scientific research funds	Expenses for scientific research provided by the unit to which the researcher belongs.
	A10 interpersonal relationship	The position of researchers in the social network and the help available to them.
	A11 Time limitation	The adequacy and availability of knowledge learning time for scientific researchers.
	A12 Cause difficulties	Researchers are confused about career development planning and doubt about personal value.
B4 Ability Characteristics	A13 scientific literacy	The knowledge retrieval skills, knowledge reserve, knowledge structure and so on.
	A14 personality traits	Personality characteristics and personality characteristics of scientific researchers.
	A15 english level	Researchers' foreign language learning ability, comprehension ability, reading level, etc.
	A16 self-expectation	Researchers' expectations about the consequences of their knowledge acquisition.
B5 Emotional Cognition	A17 inert thinking	Researchers' lazy procrastination, mobile phone addiction and other escape behaviours.
	A18 Negative ego	Self-denial, self-doubt, self-loathing and other negative emotions of researchers.
	A19 perceived risk	The psychological gap between researchers and others.
	A20 self-efficacy	The ability of researchers to regulate their own behaviour and habits.
	A21 knowledge demand	The ability of researchers to understand and judge what they really need to know.
B6 Knowledge Anxiety	A22 Knowledge acquisition anxiety	Difficulties encountered by researchers in knowledge retrieval, acquisition and identification.
	A23 Knowledge internalizes anxiety	Researchers have difficulties in understanding, learning and absorbing knowledge.
	A24 Knowledge output anxiety	Researchers encounter difficulties in the process of knowledge production and achievement output.

2.3.3. Selective coding

Selective coding constitutes the systematic examination of the logical connections existing between core categories. It involves the meticulous linking of these categories through repeated reflection and inference, ultimately culminating in the delineation of causal pathways among these core categories. The overarching objective of selective coding is to construct a coherent narrative that objectively presents the potential associations between research questions [16]. In the context of this study, an extensive reorganization of textual data was undertaken, coupled with a comprehensive comparison of the interrelationships among core categories. This process led to the systematic exploration of causal linkages among these core categories, ultimately culminating in the identification of their intricate interconnections. A portrayal of the typical relationships among the core categories is thoughtfully presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Selective coding.

Action path	Relational structure	Meaning of path
Emotional Cognition→Knowledge Anxiety	causality	Emotional Cognition is the main factor of researchers' Knowledge Anxiety behaviour, and the negative Emotional Cognition induces them to produce Knowledge Anxiety behaviour.
Academic Characteristics→ Emotional Cognition	causality	Academic Characteristics can affect users' Emotional Cognition and induce researchers' Knowledge Anxiety behaviour.
Outer Environment→ Emotional Cognition	causality	External situation will affect the user's Emotional Cognition, and then induce the researchers to produce Knowledge Anxiety behaviour.
Cognitive Environment→ Emotional Cognition	causality	Cognitive Environment will affect the user's Emotional Cognition, and then induce the researchers to produce Knowledge Anxiety behaviour.
Ability Characteristics→Academic Characteristics→ Emotional Cognition	adjusting relationship	Ability Characteristics of researchers affect the processing effect of knowledge attributes, and then promote the different Emotional Cognition of researchers.
Ability Characteristics→Outer Environment→ Emotional Cognition	adjusting relationship	The Ability Characteristics of researchers affect the adaptation to the Outer Environment, and then promote the different Emotional Cognition of researchers.
Ability Characteristics→ Cognitive Environment→ Emotional Cognition	adjusting relationship	Ability Characteristics of researchers affect the adaptation to the constructed situation, and then promote the different Emotional Cognition of researchers.

2.3.4. Theoretical saturation test

Theory saturation is the juncture at which no novel conceptual attributes can be distilled from the amassed data, and the formation of additional theoretical categories becomes unattainable. In the context of this study, an evaluation of theory saturation was executed using the reserved one-fifth portion of the original textual data. This analysis discerned that the six core categories—namely, Academic Characteristics, Outer Environment, Cognitive Environment, Ability Characteristics, Emotional Cognition, and Knowledge Anxiety—had attained a state of saturation. No fresh categories or relationships emerged, and no additional constituent elements were identified within these six core categories. Consequently, it is a plausible inference that this study substantiates the achievement of theoretical saturation in elucidating the contributing factors to Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers.

3. Research analysis and results

The structural dimensions of Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers were investigated through the integration of research findings pertaining to general Knowledge Anxiety, research data anxiety, and Knowledge Anxiety among doctoral students. Additionally, these findings were informed by the conceptualization and categorization grounded in a three-level encoding theory. Zhang Hui et al. [16] corroborated in their study that situational anxiety encompasses three constituents: emotional arousal, cognitive interference, and somatic behaviour. Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers can be construed as a manifestation of situational anxiety, more specifically, the anxiety experienced by researchers during the processes of knowledge acquisition, internalization, and production. Consequently, this study draws upon this theoretical framework to dissect the structural dimensions of Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers. Based on the open data and interview data concerning Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers, specific dimensions of Knowledge Anxiety were subjected to meticulous analysis, ultimately culminating in the identification of three facets: cognitive anxiety, emotional anxiety, and behavioral anxiety. This discovery, in conjunction with the conclusions of Zhang Hui et al. [17], further substantiates the effectiveness of the division into structural dimensions and presents the deconstruction process of Knowledge Anxiety manifestation and its dimensions in Table 6.

Table 6.

The deconstruction process of the structural dimension of Knowledge Anxiety of researchers.

dimension	expression	Raw text data (partial)	Reference source
Emotional anxiety	Impetuous and restless	The task is so heavy and busy, but the time I can use now is only during the day, and I can't see anything at night, the more anxious I am.	Z1-27
	Doubt and fear	Doubt yourself, feel that everything is hopeless, every day is very unhappy.	Z2-50
	Bitter loss	I feel that I don't know anything, and I don't know where to start, there is no direction, and I have not changed from passive acceptance of knowledge to independent idea generation, and there is a sense of loss and anxiety in my heart.	Z1-88
	Helpless and confused	What do you have to do to not be anxious, please this feeling of powerlessness, regardless of the mentor, no friends to talk to, feeling that the social circle is closed.	Z1-40
Cognitive anxiety	Difficulty understanding	Now I can't understand many formulas in the literature, and I am very anxious every day.	Z1-48
	Thinking disorder	After reading a lot of literature, I can only think of very superficial things, which are rejected every time they are proposed, and the content of the current research lacks innovation or originality.	Z6-7
	Poor knowledge	At present, I have learned a little knowledge of organic chemistry, but I basically know nothing about various algorithms, and there are a lot of these algorithms. I don't know where to start, where to start, and find my own breakthrough point, which is so sad!	Z1-55
Behavioral anxiety	Sleep disorder	Those complex electromagnetic wave theory, polarization scattering mechanism and ground information knowledge, others are doing very well, compared with him, I was simply in the same day to carry out scientific research … I began to become anxious, bored, cannot read the paper during the day, and cannot sleep at night, thinking.	Z1-110
	Avoidance behaviour	In fact, I want to think about things, anxiety and fear, and then indulge myself to do everything that has nothing to do with writing papers, and I will deceive myself with a beautiful excuse: to increase knowledge!	Z1-102
	Knowledge hoarding	Searching for all kinds of 30-min or so history and philosophy videos and listening to them constantly, I can't even sit quietly for a while without filling my brain with information … It's kind of like trying to hedge your anxious thoughts with a lot of information	Z3-52
	Comfort oneself	Every day with knowledge paid products to learn a little more, you can comfort yourself “and work hard”, as if life is not so unsatisfactory, the future is more in control.	Z4-62

The definitions of these dimensions are elucidated as follows:

Cognitive anxiety pertains to the perplexity and apprehension experienced by researchers in relation to the absorption, internalization, and transformation of academic knowledge. It encompasses challenges in comprehension, knowledge deficiency, and cognitive impediments. Challenges in comprehension commonly manifest as researchers' difficulties in grasping intricate formulas or concepts present in academic literature, leading to feelings of anxiety and unease. For example, some respondents expressed, “I experience extreme anxiety daily, and I'm unable to comprehend many formulas in the literature.” Researchers' struggles in comprehending knowledge can be attributed to insufficient expertise in the field. As one respondent noted, “Another factor is the project. I feel that I lack a strong grasp of the foundational knowledge pertaining to this project, and my understanding remains superficial.” This underscores the incomplete reservoir of knowledge and the structure of knowledge systems among sustainability researchers, which, in turn, leads to difficulties in comprehending academic knowledge. Moreover, research work necessitates creative thinking and problem-solving abilities. Consequently, challenges in comprehension and knowledge scarcity impede the assimilation and transformation of academic knowledge, hampering the generation of new ideas or the pursuit of knowledge innovation. This, in turn, engenders feelings of disappointment and doubt.

Emotional anxiety denotes the autonomous neural arousal and discomfort experienced by researchers during activities linked to the acquisition, internalization, and production of academic knowledge. It manifests as restlessness, doubt, fear, pain, and loss, among other sensations. For instance, some researchers express their distress when it comes to writing papers, stating, “I feel extremely frustrated and anxious about writing papers, but I must do it. It's truly exasperating. I cry every day. Is there any solution?” This highlights the emotional distress researchers undergo when confronted with the pressure associated with knowledge production. Likewise, statements like “I feel stressed and helpless due to constraints in funding, manpower, and research project deadlines. How can I alleviate anxiety and overcome this sense of helplessness? My advisor isn't concerned, and I lack confidants among my peers. It feels as though my social circle is closing in … " underscore researchers' feelings of helplessness and bewilderment in the face of Knowledge Anxiety, underscoring the necessity of addressing Knowledge Anxiety among researchers. Emotional anxiety among researchers further contributes to the manifestation of behavioral symptoms of Knowledge Anxiety.

Behavioral anxiety encompasses a series of maladaptive behaviors or reactions exhibited by researchers when confronting Knowledge Anxiety situations. These typically include sleep disturbances, avoidance behaviour, knowledge hoarding, and self-soothing behaviors, all aimed at alleviating Knowledge Anxiety or evading uncomfortable emotional experiences. Behavioral anxiety primarily emanates from cognitive and emotional anxiety. For example, sleep disturbances result from cognitive anxiety, as researchers who grapple with cognitive anxiety find it difficult to sleep, as expressed by statements like, “I have trouble sleeping due to the complex theories on electromagnetic waves, polarization scattering mechanisms, and geospatial knowledge … Others are excelling, and compared to them, I feel as though I'm merely drifting in my research … I've grown anxious, frustrated, unable to concentrate on reading papers during the day, and unable to sleep at night, lost in my thoughts.” This exemplifies researchers' sleep disturbances stemming from cognitive anxiety. Similarly, statements like “I keep getting distracted, feeling anxious and afraid. I engage in unrelated activities out of boredom, and I delude myself with a comforting excuse: expanding my knowledge!” reflect researchers' avoidance behaviors that arise from their inability to mitigate Knowledge Anxiety. They seek to sidestep their own anxieties and worries by deferring work and shifting their focus elsewhere. Additionally, researchers exhibit behavioral anxiety through knowledge hoarding and self-soothing. Researchers dedicate considerable time and effort to accumulating and organizing knowledge to mask and conceal their own knowledge deficiencies. For instance, “I have several gigabytes of study materials in my cloud storage, and I've amassed a long list of books that I haven't had time to read. I'm gradually transitioning from Knowledge Anxiety to knowledge hoarding, and then to knowledge paralysis.” Furthermore, researchers resort to self-soothing behaviors to alleviate the burden of Knowledge Anxiety. For example, “Each day, Tong confronts the same scenario: carrying books back to the dormitory and subsequently returning them to the library, untouched.” This behaviour creates the illusion of diligent study but merely offers temporary relief without addressing the underlying issue of Knowledge Anxiety.

3.1. Model explanation and research findings

Utilizing the three-level coding methodology of Grounded Theory, twenty initial categories were meticulously derived. These categories encompassed aspects such as knowledge quantity, knowledge quality, and knowledge content, in addition to five overarching categories: Academic Characteristics, Outer Environment, and Cognitive Environment. Guided by the insights gleaned from selective coding, these factors were further stratified into two primary domains for analysis: external driving factors, which encompassed Academic Characteristics, Cognitive Environment, and Outer Environment; and internal driving factors, which comprised individual Ability Characteristics and Emotional Cognition. It is through the combined influence of these internal and external factors that Knowledge Anxiety is induced among sustainability researchers. Temporally, Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers manifests as anxiety during knowledge acquisition, knowledge internalization, and knowledge output. In terms of its internal structure, Knowledge Anxiety is manifested in cognitive anxiety, emotional anxiety, and behavioral anxiety. Drawing upon this analysis, a model illustrating the inducing and driving factors of Knowledge Anxiety among sustainability researchers was meticulously constructed, as depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

The Triggering Factors of Knowledge Anxiety Among sustainability researchers.

Academic Characteristics: A Distinct Aspect of Knowledge in the Information Era, evident primarily in three dimensions: quantity, quality, and content. Firstly, the constant expansion of academic knowledge and rapid growth can overwhelm researchers. The ever-increasing number of knowledge creators and streamlined publication processes contribute to this information surge. New research, theories, and methods continually emerge. As some respondents noted, “Our field is ever-changing. Each database refresh yields new publications instantly.” Researchers must stay updated, but facing a deluge of information, they often feel stressed and helpless. They must sift, integrate, and digest knowledge to meet academic demands.

Secondly, researchers seek high-quality research and papers as their primary knowledge sources. However, academic knowledge varies widely in quality. For example, “After two months speed-reading a 500,000-word monograph, I found it shallow and useless for papers.” Specific evaluation criteria and feedback mechanisms are lacking, leading to waning motivation and mental fatigue when dealing with low-quality knowledge.

Lastly, complex academic content can induce Knowledge Anxiety. Different disciplines require deep understanding and mastery of specialized knowledge and skills. Sustainability researchers, for instance, must expand their interdisciplinary knowledge to stay innovative. When faced with new or complex areas, they may struggle to understand fragmented knowledge, triggering anxiety.

Cognitive Environment refers to the specific contexts and conditions in which researchers engage in knowledge creation and acquisition. This environment encompasses factors such as work stress, Scientific Research Funds, interpersonal relationships, Time limitation, and Cause difficult. On one hand, sustainability researchers face significant work stress in their knowledge construction process. They need to conduct scientific research, write papers, and engage in teaching within limited time frames. As some respondents expressed, “There are too many projects in the group. One person has to juggle research and reports for several projects, and the content of these projects may vary greatly, unrelated to my own field. Moreover, I have to handle miscellaneous tasks and other chores.” This indicates that researchers are under high-intensity work stress, and they may feel anxious about not being able to complete tasks on time or achieve desirable research outcomes. On the other hand,

Scientific Research Funds is a necessary resource for conducting research activities, and its insufficiency may hinder researchers' knowledge acquisition. For example, “I inquired about the quotation online, and as a student, I simply can't afford it. I feel anxious every day until three or four in the morning before I can fall asleep.” This illustrates that for researchers relying on Scientific Research Funds, the scarcity of funds can also increase their anxiety. Thirdly, sustainability researchers exist within a certain social network, and collaboration and communication with mentors, colleagues, and review experts are essential parts of their knowledge construction and production processes. Negative interpersonal relationships can hinder knowledge sharing. For instance, “I hardly understand his experimental plan, so I asked him, but he seemed indifferent, as if he was guarded against me.” Stress, competition, and conflicts in interpersonal relationships increase researchers' anxiety and unease. Fourthly, time is a precious resource for researchers, and they need to complete research tasks and paper writing within limited time frames. However, the multitude of daily tasks may lead to fragmented disposable time for researchers. Improper time management or unreasonable scheduling can cause feelings of uncertainty and incompleteness, leading to Knowledge Anxiety. Lastly, an important source of researchers' Knowledge Anxiety is the close relationship between knowledge output and their personal career prospects in this era of specialized research. Researchers face pressure, difficulty in making choices, and uncertainty about career goals, which may lead to Cause difficult—confusion and a sense of loss—during their career development. They may feel perplexed and dissatisfied with their current career status and worry that their career advancement is limited. This Cause difficult can increase researchers' sense of anxiety and impact their knowledge construction and research motivation.

Outer Environment in which sustainability researchers operate includes factors such as knowledge marketing, negative feedback from others, intense competition among colleagues or in the scientific community, and academic evaluation mechanisms. In the realm of knowledge marketing, academic new media, such as academic WeChat public accounts and virtual academic communities, may utilize unethical methods like the “influence effect” and “selling anxiety” to exaggerate and promote knowledge products for sale. As a result, researchers are lured into paying for such products. However, the quality of online knowledge courses varies significantly. For instance, “Many paid knowledge courses now use exaggerated headlines and so-called 'experts' to attract people to sign up, advocating for acquiring the most effective knowledge in a short time. But the actual content often remains superficial and filled with empty words.” This indicates that the exaggerated promotion of paid knowledge products fails to fill the knowledge gaps for researchers and instead exacerbates their Knowledge Anxiety. Furthermore, negative feedback from others is also an external pressure that researchers have to face. Researchers may encounter negative feedback from peer experts, reviewers, and the academic community while conducting research and publishing papers. Such feedback could include paper rejections and criticism of research outcomes. For example, “I was directly criticized last night, saying my ideas lack depth, and my knowledge is inadequate. It made me realize my incompetence and how far behind I am … It's really anxiety-inducing.” These negative feedbacks have a detrimental effect on researchers' self-confidence and motivation, increasing their doubts about their abilities and anxiety about knowledge output. Moreover, the iterative upgrades of AI models like Chat GPT and the commercialization of research work have intensified academic competition in the research field. Some respondents have begun to question their academic value, saying, “I'm worried that after graduation, Chat GPT's further iterations will become smarter and replace my position.” The fierce competition increases researchers' professional pressure and anxiety, making them concerned about their research results and knowledge output. Lastly, the current academic evaluation mechanisms have led researchers to prioritize research output and knowledge innovation, leading to a prolonged period of overwork and exhaustion. Some respondents mentioned, “The self-doubt when the paper is rejected multiple times, the joy and temporary relief when the paper is accepted … It's as if the paper has become the sole criterion for evaluation.” The existence of independent academic evaluation mechanisms may cause a disconnect between the research community and academic knowledge, resulting in adverse emotional states and the formation of Knowledge Anxiety driven by utilitarian-oriented research behaviours.

Ability Characteristics consist of four categories: scientific literacy, personality traits, english level, and self-expectations. These internal driving factors contribute to the development of Knowledge Anxiety among researchers. Scientific literacy refers to the comprehensive ability to discover, understand, and apply knowledge in social knowledge production [17]. It includes skills such as information retrieval, knowledge accumulation, and knowledge organization. Researchers with solid scientific literacy, proficient in research methods and tools, tend to be more confident and composed during knowledge acquisition and research, reducing the likelihood of Knowledge Anxiety. On the other hand, a lack of scientific literacy or perceived inadequacy in research capabilities may increase Knowledge Anxiety, as expressed by a respondent: “I can use Aspen software a bit, but when it comes to most of the mechanisms and chemical thermodynamics knowledge, I feel clueless and like an outsider. It increases my anxiety about knowledge,” indicating that insufficient knowledge accumulation and structure contribute to Knowledge Anxiety. Personality traits also significantly influence the formation of Knowledge Anxiety among researchers. Traits such as anxiety tendencies, impatience, and excessive perfectionism may lead researchers to be more susceptible to Knowledge Anxiety emotions. For example, “Every day, I try to learn different things, but I feel restless, and I end up staying at the surface level without making much progress,” suggests that certain personality traits can lead to Knowledge Anxiety. English Level plays a crucial role in researchers' knowledge acquisition and literature reading. Researchers need to read and comprehend a significant amount of foreign literature and engage in communication and collaboration with international peers. Higher level allows researchers to navigate knowledge acquisition and academic exchanges more smoothly, reducing language barriers that could trigger Knowledge Anxiety. Conversely, low level may result in reading and comprehension obstacles, increasing Knowledge Anxiety, as illustrated by a respondent's comment: “Everything I see is incomprehensible, words like battery, easement, I don't know what they mean, not to mention those unheard-of Latin phrases. Lastly, researchers' self-expectations and aspirations can also contribute to the formation of Knowledge Anxiety. Setting excessively high or unrealistic expectations for oneself can lead to heavy pressure and fear of not meeting desired outcomes. Some respondents expressed: “I really hope that what I enjoy doing can develop towards my ideal goals. If not, I will feel anxious.” Such high self-expectations can trigger Knowledge Anxiety.

Emotional Cognition refers to the emotional experiences and cognitive attitudes of researchers regarding knowledge acquisition, internalization, and production. Emotional Cognition directly affects researchers' Knowledge Anxiety and belongs to the category of internal driving factors. In this study, through qualitative research methods such as grounded theory research, interviews with sustainable researchers, and open data analysis, five categories of factors influencing Knowledge Anxiety were mainly analysed. The first category is “inert thinking,” which refers to the negative emotions of laziness and fear of failure that arise when researchers face difficulties in knowledge acquisition, internalization, and production. This category is manifested in behaviours such as relying on smartphones and self-relaxation as a way to escape, as some interviewees expressed, “I indulge myself in various unrelated activities, under the guise of seeking knowledge, just to deceive myself.” Inert thinking leads researchers to deceive themselves and neglect the effort to study, which ultimately intensifies their Knowledge Anxiety. The second category is “negative self-perception,” which refers to researchers' negative evaluations of their own abilities. For example, some researchers expressed, “I feel lost and don't know the meaning of life. The experiments and papers I'm doing have no meaning for society or the country; they're just for graduation or assessment.” This perception may lead researchers to doubt and distrust their own abilities, consequently affecting their enthusiasm in knowledge acquisition and production, thus exacerbating their Knowledge Anxiety. The third category is “perceived risks,” which stem from the knowledge gap leading to a crisis in knowledge acquisition, where individuals with higher social status can obtain knowledge faster than those with lower social status. Additionally, researchers may experience a sense of self-diminishment when faced with professionals and academic authorities. This perceived risk stimulates researchers to pursue knowledge, aspire for progress, and change their current situation, further increasing their Knowledge Anxiety [18]. The fourth category is “self-efficacy,” which refers to researchers' confidence and ability assessment in completing specific tasks. When researchers have low self-efficacy, they tend to focus on their own shortcomings and exaggerate potential difficulties, as expressed by some interviewees: “I lack confidence and assurance in the progress and outcomes of my research work, feeling unable to complete the assigned tasks and objectives.” A decrease in self-efficacy increases uncertainty during knowledge acquisition and internalization, leading to the emergence of anxiety among researchers. The fifth category is “knowledge demand,” which originates from researchers' strong desire for knowledge and their insufficient knowledge reserve [19]. Researchers often cannot determine the specific knowledge they need, leading to blind knowledge accumulation, such as excessive bookmarking or storing vast amounts of data without revisiting them, as exemplified by some researchers: “My bookmarks and Baidu cloud storage are full of materials, but I rarely go back to review them.” The mismatch between researchers' knowledge demand and the actual knowledge supply is a significant contradiction that contributes to Knowledge Anxiety among researchers.

4. Conclusions

4.1. Theoretical framework of knowledge anxiety behaviour in sustainability researchers

There exists a complex and diverse interaction between individuals and their environment. In 1974, psychologists Mehrabian and Russell proposed the SOR (Stimuli-Organism-Response) affective theory model from the perspective of information psychology. This theory suggests that human behaviour is not a mechanical and direct “stimulus-response” relationship but rather a mechanism influenced by conscious intervention, emphasizing the internalization process within individuals. When individuals are stimulated by external factors such as the Outer Environment, their internal psychological cognition processes the stimuli, leading to behavioral responses [20]. Currently, the SOR theory model has been widely applied to analyze behavioral outcomes resulting from external and internal stimuli, and existing research has confirmed its effectiveness as a paradigm for studying behavioral mechanisms [21].

In this study, a theoretical model for the formation of Knowledge Anxiety in researchers was constructed by combining the SOR theory model with the selective encoding results of Grounded Theory. This model is illustrated in Fig. 2 Academic Characteristics, Outer Environment, and Cognitive Environment are external stimulus factors (S) that researchers receive during the processes of knowledge acquisition, internalization, and output. Competence characteristics and Emotional Cognition are internal judgment factors (O) generated by researchers in response to environmental stimuli. Knowledge Anxiety behaviour represents the internalized reactions and behaviours (R) of researchers after processing. Academic Characteristics, Outer Environment, and Cognitive Environment have a significant impact on Emotional Cognition. Additionally, researchers' competence characteristics play an important regulatory role in their reception of academic knowledge, Outer Environment, and Cognitive Environment. If researchers lack the necessary competence, they are more likely to develop negative Emotional Cognition when facing external stimuli, further triggering various types and degrees of Knowledge Anxiety behaviour in researchers.

Fig. 2.

Theoretical model diagram of the formation mechanism of Knowledge Anxiety induced by scientific researchers.

4.2. Mechanisms for inducing knowledge anxiety behaviour in sustainability researchers

Based on the selective encoding results of Grounded Theory and the theoretical model constructed using the SOR theory, the following three main pathways for inducing Knowledge Anxiety in researchers can be identified.

Pathway 1

Academic Characteristics → Emotional Cognition → Knowledge Anxiety

Academic Characteristics in the context of numerical intelligence include the quantity of academic knowledge, the varying quality of academic knowledge, and the increasing specialization of knowledge content. In the face of a vast academic knowledge system and profound academic resources, the competence characteristics of researchers become particularly important. Competence characteristics encompass individuals' abilities and qualities in cognition, skills, and psychology, and they serve as a crucial moderating factor for Academic Characteristics. Researchers with higher scientific literacy, personality traits, and learning abilities are more likely to absorb new knowledge from complex and profound academic resources, allowing them to integrate and apply knowledge from different fields to their research work. Conversely, researchers with lower scientific literacy may struggle to understand and absorb academic knowledge effectively, leading to doubts about their own abilities, negative Emotional Cognition, and subsequent knowledge internalization anxiety.

Pathway 2

Outer Environment → Emotional Cognition → Knowledge Anxiety

Outer Environmental factors can induce stress and anxiety in researchers. For example, negative feedback and a single academic evaluation mechanism from the Outer Environment may trigger negative self-emotions such as self-doubt and self-denial in researchers. The chaotic knowledge payment market and intense competitive environment lead researchers to blindly expand their knowledge demands and perceive risks, thereby triggering knowledge acquisition anxiety. Competence characteristics of researchers can regulate the influence of the Outer Environment through self-regulation and emotional management. Researchers with higher emotional intelligence and emotion regulation abilities may be more effective at managing negative feedback and pressure from the Outer Environment, thereby suppressing the occurrence of knowledge acquisition anxiety.

Pathway 3

Cognitive Environment → Emotional Cognition → Knowledge Anxiety

The Cognitive Environment encompasses elements such as work stress, Scientific Research Funds, interpersonal relationships, Time limitation, and Cause difficult, which significantly influence the work and psychological state of researchers. Research work often involves high work stress, including project deadlines, publication pressure, and outcome evaluations, often with Time limitation. Work stress and the urgency of time influence the Emotional Cognition of researchers, affecting their learning and application of knowledge. The limitations of research funding may restrict researchers' access to research resources and experimental conditions, leaving them feeling confused and powerless. Interpersonal factors such as collaboration, competition, and relationships with supervisors and students also influence the Emotional Cognition of researchers. Poor interpersonal relationships can lead to tension and anxiety, causing researchers to feel lost and stagnated in their career development. In such a Cognitive Environment, researchers' self-efficacy decreases, leading to avoidance behaviours influenced by inert thinking. This, in turn, results in self-doubt regarding the academic value of their work, leading to an overall decrease in researchers' self-efficacy and the onset of knowledge output anxiety. Therefore, researchers need to possess good scientific literacy and stress resistance while also developing effective time management and interpersonal communication skills to cope with challenges and pressures and promote healthy research work and psychological well-being.

In summary, competence characteristics, Academic Characteristics, Outer Environment, and Cognitive Environment interact with each other and influence the Emotional Cognition of researchers through three main pathways. This, in turn, induces the formation of knowledge acquisition, knowledge internalization, and knowledge output anxiety behaviours in researchers.

The limitations of this study revolve around its focused context within the domain of researchers' knowledge anxiety. Primarily, the study is limited in its generalizability and applicability to broader contexts or diverse backgrounds, as it concentrates solely on a specific scenario. Additionally, the utilization of grounded theory as the research approach may introduce subjective preferences and preconceived notions, potentially affecting data interpretation and analysis, thereby affecting the objectivity of the study.

Moreover, the data gathered from online sources represent transient moments captured during the study period rather than long-term or consistently monitored observations. This temporal aspect could constrain the comprehensive representation of the evolving nature of knowledge anxiety.

Given these limitations, the study might face challenges in extending findings to other research domains or wider societal groups, restricting its overall generalizability and broader applicability.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Yu Zhenlei: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Software, Resources, Investigation, Data curation. Ma Boyuan: Software, Methodology, Investigation. Guo Chunxia: Visualization, Validation, Software, Resources, Project administration, Methodology. He Qiang: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:HE QIANG reports financial support was provided by Tianjin Medical University General Hospital. Yu zhenlei reports a relationship with Qilu University of Technology that includes: board membership, consulting or advisory, employment, funding grants, and paid expert testimony. He qiang has patent licensed to He qiang. Yu is employed by Qilu University of Technology If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article.