Perceived Unfairness in University Settings: Findings from a Qualitative Study among Students in Germany

Abstract

In universities, perceived unfairness is associated with negative outcomes, such as dissatisfaction, lower engagement, higher drop-out and stress, and poorer mental health. It is, however, still unclear which aspects constitute perceived unfairness in students. Therefore, this qualitative study explored students’ perceptions of unfairness with twenty semi-structured interviews. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed following Mayring’s qualitative content analysis. A set of main codes and subcodes was developed and refined. The identified sources of unfairness can be summarized as organizational aspects, such as the registration and administration processes, the treatment of students, including the behavioural patterns of lecturers and university staff, and the individual situation of students. This study identified different sources of perceived unfairness in the university setting, potentially related to less engagement, higher drop-out rates, and worse mental health of the students. To keep students engaged and healthy, it seems beneficial to address the sources of unfairness.

1. Introduction

The beginning of a university course is a crucial transition in young people’s lives. The transition from school to university is accompanied by social, structural, and behavioural changes [1]. Universities are generally viewed as places of education, science, openness, and equality. However, such a notion might lead to an underestimation of disadvantageous behaviour. In universities, power structures, pronounced hierarchies, and personal dependencies exist and can encourage discriminatory and disparaging behaviours [2,3]. For example, in a sample of German university students, 45% reported that they had personally experienced and about 55% had observed discrimination or unfair treatment [2,4]. In another study, 60% of the students surveyed experienced at least one unfair treatment during their studies. The most frequent form was a depreciation of their achievements, reported by 19% [2]. Such unfair behaviour was more often experienced by women, students with a migration background, or those who are LGBTQ+ members. Unfair depreciation was associated with great dissatisfaction with the atmosphere in their study programme and higher stress levels [2]. Additionally, negative unfairness perceptions were related to lower self-efficacy and learning outcomes of students [5,6].

An unfair or discriminating treatment of students might have sustainable and serious negative effects on these by inhibiting personal development and goal attainment [7]. One reason might be that such behaviour creates a feeling of a high degree of uncertainty, which might also be related to mental health [8]. Accordingly, a study among Spanish university students showed that perceived unfairness was related to higher burnout levels [9]. In addition, students who perceived university procedures as fair were more engaged and less likely to intend to drop out [9,10].

In the field of organizational justice (unfairness in the workplace) research, several theoretical explanations exist for why unfairness is stressful and has possible negative effects. The injustice stress theory, for example, argues that unfairness is stressful to people because it indicates a gap between one’s capabilities and the demands from the environment [11]. Accordingly, students might interpret unfairness at university as a stressful sign that they are not able to meet the demands of the course or that it exceeds their individual coping resources [12]. According to the deontic model of justice, perceived injustice provokes negative emotions because it represents a violation of the social fairness norm [13,14]. Ample empirical findings emphasize the stressful aspect by injustice by showing its relationship with psychological and physiological stress, as well as with mental health conditions [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22].

In organizational justice research, (at least) three dimensions of unfairness are described. The first dimension, distributive justice, refers to the fair allocation of outcomes [23]. The second dimension is procedural justice, describing the organization of fair decision-making procedures [24]. The third dimension, interactional justice, refers to fair treatment in interpersonal interaction [25]. It is, however, unclear yet to what extent these unfairness dimensions are transferable to the university setting.

Several aspects may conceivably influence the perception of unfairness and its consequences. Students do not represent such a homogenous group, as is often assumed [1]. For example, students start from different situations, as some come from families with lower educational backgrounds, whereas others come from families with higher educational backgrounds [26]. This educational background also determines students’ funding and monthly expenses, for example, whether they receive financial support offered by the government for students (BAföG) or whether they are forced to conduct part-time jobs to cover their living expenses [26]. The socioeconomic background of students has been reported to moderate the effects of unfairness perception and contribute to health inequalities [27,28].

This qualitative study aimed to explore the perceived unfairness of students in the university setting in Germany. In Germany, different university types exist. Most students study at universities or universities of applied sciences. In addition, universities of art/music exist. The duration of study often depends on the subject studied. Most subjects follow a two-tier study system with first- and second-level degree programme (Bachelor’s and Master’s). However, there are some subject areas in which courses lead to state-certified exams, for example, Medicine, Law, and the training of teachers.

Our findings may help understand the potential sources of perceived unfairness among students and serve as basis for the development of a valid and comprehensive questionnaire to capture perceived unfairness in universities [29]. In addition, the findings may inform future research and persons in charge at universities, who may help to create structures and guidelines that aim to prevent structural unfairness.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

Within the framework of the University Fairness Questionnaire (UFair) Project [29], we conducted an explorative qualitative study among students studying at different German universities and universities of applied sciences. To account for the heterogenous university system in Germany described above and reach a balanced sample, we used a quota sampling approach. We included female and male students, students of different ages, fields of study, semesters, and university types. Quota sampling was based on data from the Federal Statistical Office regarding the distribution of students in the 2018/19 winter semester by gender and subject [30]. In addition, we aimed to represent the distribution of students studying at universities (65%) and universities of applied sciences (35%) [30].

The sample was obtained via fliers, social media, and snowballing. Initial contact with the participants took place via e-mail or face-to-face. Three students were excluded because the quota of our sample was already met. We included students who were currently enrolled and who had sufficient German language skills to participate in the interviews. There was one exception where the interview was partially conducted in English because the participant felt more comfortable expressing themselves in English.

After Interview 15, the interviewers felt that no new insights were being obtained and no additional themes were being raised. Therefore, we stopped the data collection after 20 interviews. The sample size (n = 20) corresponds to that of previous studies [31].

Prior to the interviews, all participants were informed of the procedure and data protection by the interviewers. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants. As reimbursements for their time, each participant received a EUR 20 gift voucher. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of of the Medical Faculty Mannheim of Heidelberg University (2019-1123N; 31 January 2019). The manuscript was written based on the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) [32].

2.2. Interviews

We conducted semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions using Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc., San José, CA, USA). The participants chose a room at home where they felt comfortable and were alone. A semi-structured interview guide was developed for the current study and used in all 20 interviews. It included open-ended questions on their understanding of injustice and unfairness, situations at university where they or others perceived unfairness, and the domains of the concept of organizational justice. Sociodemographic questions on the background of the participants (i.e., age, sex, study semester, type of university, and study subject) were asked during recruitment to ensure a heterogenic sample.

All interviews were conducted between 11 October and 28 November 2022 by two of the authors (R.M.H., male, Ph.D. in Psychology, and V.M.D., female, B.Sc. in Sociology). Both were experienced interviewers. The first interview was conducted by both interviewers to pretest the interview guide. As no changes to the interview guide were necessary, this interview was included in the analysis.

Prior to the interview, the interviewers informed the participants that the interviews were part of a third-party-funded, mixed-method project [29]. The interviews lasted between 25 and 71 min (mean: 42 min). The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim by three independent persons (R.M.H., V.M.D., and T.K.). The transcripts were cross-checked by one of the other transcribing persons. All audio files were deleted after the completion of verbatim transcription.

2.3. Analysis

To analyze the 20 transcripts, we used qualitative content analysis following Mayring [33]. First, we thoroughly read all the transcripts. Based on this reading and the semi-structured interview guide, a set of main codes and subcodes, including a description for each code, was developed. During the coding process, the set of main codes and subcodes was further refined and complemented. For coding, we used the programme MAXQDA (VERBI GmbH, Berlin, Germany, Version 2022). The interviews were independently coded by two authors (R.M.H. and V.M.D.). Disagreements were resolved by consensus in each case.

Since we cannot use statistical methods for quality assurance (e.g., validity), we have chosen a transparent approach regarding data collection, evaluation, and presentation. First, we describe our procedure in as much detail as possible following the COREQ statement [32]. Second, we followed the concept of theoretical saturation regarding our sample size. Third, we transparently describe our recruitment procedure and the sample. For instance, the sociodemographic data of our participants are reported. Fourth, we used a semi-structured interview guide that allows us to compare between the different interviews. Fifth, all interviews were coded by two independent coders and compared and discussed afterwards. Sixth, in the reporting of our findings, we include the verbatim responses of the participants to support the interpretation of the results.

3. Results

Twenty students participated in this study. They were 24.4 years old (SD = 2.82, min = 20, max = 29). Sixty percent were females. On average, the students were in their sixth semester (5.9 semesters). The majority of them were studying at universities (75%), and the rest (25%) were at universities of applied sciences (

Table 1. Characteristics of study participants.

ID	Age	Sex	Subject Area	No. of Semesters (Total)	Kind of University
01	21	male	Law, Economics, and Social Sciences	5	University
02	23	female	Human Medicine/Health Sciences	7	University of Applied Sciences
03	28	female	Human Medicine/Health Sciences	3	University of Applied Sciences
04	28	female	Human Medicine/Health Sciences	5	University of Applied Sciences
05	29	female	Human Medicine/Health Sciences	20	University
06	23	female	Human Medicine/Health Sciences	7	University of Applied Sciences
07	24	female	Law, Economics, and Social Sciences	13	University
08	25	female	Law, Economics, and Social Sciences	2	University
09	21	female	Law, Economics, and Social Sciences	4	University
10	26	male	Engineering	6	University
11	22	female	Human Medicine/Health Sciences	3	University
12	25	male	Arts	2	University of Applied Sciences
13	21	male	Engineering	7	University
14	26	male	Mathematics/Natural Sciences	9	University
15	26	female	Humanities	4	University
16	20	female	Human Medicine/Health Sciences	3	University
17	27	male	Human Medicine/Health Sciences	2	University
18	22	male	Law, Economics and Social Sciences	3	University
19	22	female	Humanities	5	University
20	29	male	Mathematics/Natural Sciences	8	University

).

In the following, we present the findings of the interviews, starting with the students’ general understanding of unfairness (

Table 2. Main themes and subthemes extracted from the interviews.

Main Themes	Subthemes
General understanding of unfairness (see Section 3.1)	Understanding of injustice Understanding of unfairness
Organizational aspects (see Section 3.2)	Access and registration Possibility for participation Availability of staff Support systems Comparability between universities
Treatment of students (see Section 3.3)	Behaviour of lecturers Consideration of students Examination Receiving information
Individual situation of students (see Section 3.4)	Socioeconomic background of students International students

). Afterwards, we focus on organizational aspects, the treatment of students, and the individual situation of students, which could be extracted from the interviews as the three main sources of perceived unfairness.

3.1. General Understanding of Unfairness

First, we talked with the students about their understanding of the term “injustice” and whether they see differences to the term “unfairness”. Most of the students held similar views regarding the concept of injustice. They associated the term injustice mostly with unfair treatment (P14, P16, P19, P08, P07, P04), i.e., “if a person is treated differently from another even if there is no indication for it” (P16), or unequal allocation of opportunities (P12, P18, P11, P05, P04, P03). Seven respondents used unfairness as a synonym for injustice (P20, P18, P08, P07, P05, P02, P10), while five associated unfairness mostly with games, sports, or competitions (P12, P13, P11, P01, P09): “Unfair refers more to sports, meaning the person played unfairly. That is, with not quite legitimate means, and injustice is more of a structural problem” (P09).

3.2. Organizational Aspects

The students mentioned several aspects of unfairness resulting from organizational processes. First, respondents referred to complications regarding registration processes, both for the application for certain seminars or lectures (P17, P08, P03) and access to the degree programme itself (P07, P12). They also complained about a lack of standardized registration procedures (P19) and the recognition of prior qualifications (P15), as well as a first-come, first-served policy in terms of the enrolment for seminars with a limited number of participants (P03). Concerning administration, the students mentioned that they felt they were treated unfairly because of their lack of say when it comes to important decisions (P19): “Certain things are simply decided over the heads of the students, for example, [the] website […] where you register for exams and so on has just been updated, […] and that was simply updated without […] really informing the students” (P19). Additionally, organizational structures were perceived to be non-transparent (P18), and variations regarding the individual engagement of the university staff responsible for administrative procedures (P01) and the availability of university staff (P18, P04, P01, P03) were found to result in time-consuming bureaucratic procedures (P02): “I planned a semester abroad for my fifth semester, but the person I had to contact […], did not get in touch with me for months and I think that is very unfair, because I informed myself about it months beforehand, wrote emails, tried to call her and nothing happened” (P18). Respondents also criticized the fact that, in some cases, the quality of teaching was perceived as deficient due to a lack of structure (P14, P04) and lecturers’ skills (P06, P20).

The lack of information regarding organizational topics was also frequently mentioned as a source of unfairness. Most students referred to it in connection with organizational procedures, such as a lack of insight into organizational processes (P13, P18, P19, P09, P06, P03). However, this also occurred in terms of course-specific processes (P07), for example, in the cancellation of lectures without notice in advance (P09, P06). In addition, limited capacities regarding seminar places were criticized (P05, P11, P17, P20).

A lack of support services for financial difficulties (P09), mental health problems (P04), or experienced unfairness (P18) was named. The opportunities for funding and scholarships were perceived differently among students; while some complained that these were only limited to high-achieving students (P10), others criticized the existence of gender-specific treatments and variations between degree programmes (P05, P07).

Some students perceived it as unfair that their experience at university was not comparable to that of others. For example, different requirements and procedures regarding admission between universities (P15, P07) and differences in the demands placed on students and the amount of work between degrees and universities (P04) were mentioned. Overall, the students experienced feelings of anger (P07, P08), disappointment (P08), sadness (P07), and helplessness (P07) when facing these kinds of perceived unfairness. They found it especially helpful to talk about their experience with fellow students, as well as with lecturers and study coordinators (P04, P07, P08): “I always find it helpful to simply see that you are not alone in the situation”. (P08).

3.3. Treatment of Students

As previously mentioned, the treatment of students was determined as one of the four main sources of perceived unfairness. Students referred, for instance, to situations in which they felt treated disrespectfully by lecturers (P09, P11, P17). Two students talked about experiences of exploitation with regard to working as a student assistant or working on their final thesis (P07, P04): “We are encouraged to write our Master’s thesis in research projects, but in the end, we are cheap labour for lecturers who want to push their research […] I find that problematic” (P07). The students were also often faced with certain prejudices (P04, P03), such as that they “are just kind of lazy” (P03) especially when they complained about a high workload. Three students also criticized the lack of consideration of their burdens or obligations besides their studies regarding the scheduling of appointments, exams, or exam reviews (P09, P13, P14): “I don’t think there is any consideration for personal issues. It just does not matter, you have to be there, no matter how you feel” (P09).

In terms of communication, students named the lack of information they received from lecturers, either with regard to certain decisions (P16, P05) or the course structure (P08). They also mentioned difficulties in reaching their lecturers: “We also have lecturers who just ignore emails”. (P03). Furthermore, two students complained about the sudden change in or lack of clarity of assignments (P04, P15): “Suddenly new appointments and new work assignments were added and you think to yourself, well, that was not communicated that way at the beginning” (P15). In addition, the way lecturers dealt with feedback was viewed as unfair by students (P08, P14, P18, P19). Students indicated that on the one hand, lecturers did not take their feedback and complaints regarding the course seriously (P02, P05, P14, P15, P20), and students perceived a lack of opportunities to voice their complaints (P09, P19). On the other hand, they had to wait a long time for feedback regarding their grades, or explanations in terms of grading were completely missing (P08, P18). Six students observed that lecturers made inappropriate comments towards students (P01, P03, P04, P05, P11, P16): “They have received sexist comments or stares that are not really appropriate in examination situations” (P16).

Several students had complaints in terms of examination and grading systems at their university. They mentioned that some exams had very high requirements and, therefore, high failure rates (P03, P06, P14, P16, P20). Furthermore, they criticized the fact that the grading criteria were not comprehensible (P07, P09, P16, P17), for instance, in oral examinations: “A fair examination would be for me […], one with a written protocol or some kind of protocol, where it is comprehensible, why this grading is made. And that’s what I miss sometimes” (P17). Additionally, students also shared their perception that grades sometimes neither reflected their actual level of knowledge (P15) nor the effort that was put into examination preparation (P01).

In addition to disrespectful treatment, some students also observed discriminatory behaviour. For example, three respondents mentioned preferential treatment based on gender (P05, P15, P19): “There are lecturers where always the girls are somehow better off, and with others […] the male fraction […] can get away with everything and directly possess a position of power” (P15). Five other students stated that they either observed or experienced some kind of preferential behaviour based on sympathies (P01, P10, P12), interpersonal connections (P13), or because some students generated more attention (P04). When asked about how the respondents felt when they had either been treated disrespectfully or observed such behaviour, their emotions ranged from helplessness (P09, P15), surprise (P10, P16), and insecurity (P20) to feelings of anger, frustration, and annoyance (P01, P02, P09, P13, P16, P20). Similar to coping with unfairness regarding organizational procedures, exchange with fellow students was stated as especially helpful regarding the perception of unfair treatment (P02, P03, P06, P09, P20). Additionally, some students complained about it either to their lecturer (P02, P13), cohort spokesperson (P06), or even filed an official complain to the chair of their department (P14, P20).

3.4. Individual Situation of Students

The interviews showed that, in addition to the sources of unfairness described above, the individual situation of the students contributed significantly to the perceived extent of unfairness. In particular, differences in financial conditions seemed important. For instance, three respondents shared that they could not afford the necessary equipment to successfully complete their studies due to financial difficulties or that they had observed this problem among fellow students (P17, P09, P03). Three students perceived the regulations regarding the granting of financial support offered by the government for students (BAföG) as unfair (P04, P12, P15). Due to financial difficulties, many students were forced to pursue a side job to be able to afford their living expenses (P12, P15, P18, P04): “I know people who have to work two to three jobs alongside their studies in order to be able to finance their studies at all” (P12). The financial situation of students was strongly linked to their families’ socioeconomic background and their parents’ financial support. Five students were exposed to financial burdens due to their socioeconomic background (P12, P18, P04, P17, P03). Three of them mentioned that this results in a lack of capacity to focus on their studies (P03, P17, P18): “Some people can simply be strongly supported by their family, […] and others have to go to work in addition to their studies, and that is unfair, […] because one person is exposed to a double burden and cannot invest so much time in their studies” (P17).

In addition to financial disadvantages, students stated that differences in social background can lead to other aspects of unfairness. For instance, students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds mentioned that they had not received similar opportunities regarding access to studies (P02) compared to students with more privileged, higher socioeconomic backgrounds. These inequalities can occur due to different life courses and challenges connected to certain social backgrounds (P15). In addition, opportunities can differ because of variations in prior knowledge the families can share with the students regarding academic experiences: “My parents are not academics and I generally have few academics in my family […]. There are just a lot of experiences, especially regarding organizational processes at university, that you have to make on your own […] and for fellow students it was totally clear, they already knew that, because they could fall back on other people who already experienced it”. (P11).

Apart from the financial conditions and the socioeconomic status of the students, being an international student was also identified as a source of unfairness. Thus, four students talked about language barriers that complicated everyday life and communication at university and about the limited offer of English-language lectures (P03, P06, P13, P17): “If you simply have language barriers, it is still more difficult in our university context to simply follow the lectures or that you simply need longer to study because you cannot attend all the lectures” (P03). In addition, two students perceived the lack of courses in English in a multilingual degree programme as unfair (P04, P08): “I think the module description [of the course] even calls for knowledge in English, but everything is in German and international students in particular have extreme problems” (P04). Additionally, admission to the degree programme was described by four students as complicated and often delayed for international students because of a higher bureaucratic effort due to the translation and verification of language and degree certificates (P06, P07, P12, P13). Furthermore, two students mentioned difficulties in receiving information for international students, such as on funding programme (P03, P04). Three students also talked about prejudices towards international students they had either experienced themselves or observed (P06, P07, P17): “If you try to express yourself in this foreign language, people may directly label you as not very intelligent because you do not have a large vocabulary” (P17). If the students themselves were affected by unfairness due to their individual situation, they felt excluded (P11) and “neither seen nor heard” (P15). If they observed these kinds of unfairness, they had sympathy for those affected (P12), but at the same time felt disappointed (P12). In addition, there were students who actively supported fellow foreign students, whether by lending a sympathetic ear or assisting with bureaucratic issues (P07, P12).

4. Discussion

We identified different sources for unfairness perceived by students in the university setting. These comprise organizational aspects, the treatment of students, and the individual situation of students. Organizational aspects refer to all kinds of registration and administration processes, whereas the treatment of students describes the behavioural patterns of lecturers and university staff. Regarding individual situations as a source of unfairness, students with lower socioeconomic background and international students were identified as particularly exposed to unfairness.

The identified aspects can be partially assigned to the dimensions of the model of perceived justice at work (organizational justice): distributive justice (i.e., fair distribution of benefits and outcomes), procedural justice (i.e., fairness in general processes and procedures), and interactional justice (i.e., fair treatment in interpersonal interactions [34]). The theme “treatment of students” appears related to interactional justice. Interactional justice concerns open and honest communication, providing adequate explanations, and candid and respectful treatment without prejudicial statements or improper questions [25]. In this study, the students indicated that the behaviours of lecturers should be free of prejudice and discrimination or sexist comments or behaviours, that the needs of students should be considered, and that they should be informed, for instance, about organizational procedures and about decisions made by the lecturers. Thus, there is a fairly strong correspondence between the aspects found here and the organizational interactional justice component. However, the aspect of examinations seems to fit the distributive justice dimension better, as grading should be transparent, equal, and fair [23]. The explored aspects that have been summarized under the topic of organizational aspects correspond to procedural justice principles. These principles refer to the fairness of the decision-making process leading to the allocation of outcomes, such as consistency across time and employees, absence of personal bias and favouritism, decisions based on good information and on as much information as possible, reversibility of decisions, consideration of the interests of those affected, and compatibility with ethical standards [24]. While there might be some overlap with the “treatment of students” theme, for example, with regard to providing adequate information and the consideration of the students’ needs, fair procedures at the university cover access and registration, possibility for participation, availability of staff and support systems. One aspect that goes beyond the dimension of organizational procedural justice is the comparability of processes between universities.

Studies from a related area of research come from the literature on classroom justice. In this research area, the focus is especially on the role of fairness in classroom assessments, and the findings might only have limited applicability to the university setting in Germany [35,36]. While these studies mainly refer to another educational system and to a classroom situation instead of seminar and lecture conditions as in German universities, some similarities can be identified. For example, in a qualitative study from the US, Horan and colleagues [37] reported that unfair distributions of the instructor were grades, opportunities to improve grades, instructor affect, and punishments. The identified procedural justice categories were grading procedures, make-up/late policies, scheduling/workload, information on exams, feedback, instructor error, not following through, class procedures, and not enforcing policies. In their study, interactional justice refers to the following categories: insensitivity/rudeness, implication/statement about students’ stupidity, sexism/racism/prejudice, singling out students, accusing students of wrongdoing, and instructor affect. While there is some agreement with the concepts found here, our focus was much broader, as we did not only look at the distribution, processes, and interactions within one (class)room, but we also included organizational aspects (i.e., access and registration, possibility for participation, availability of staff, support systems, comparability between universities) and the individual situation of students (i.e., socioeconomic background of students, international students).

Our study followed an exploratory approach to identify—as freely as possible—the most complete picture of the possible sources of perceived unfairness among university students. This qualitative approach allowed us to not only examine the extent of unfairness in university students, which has been investigated before [2,3,4], but also to uncover the potential root of the causes. Consequently, the insights found can help establish a fair learning environment for university students. It has to be considered, however, that the German education system is very different from that of other countries (e.g., from the US), so some of the sources identified may not be applicable to all countries. We tried to include a very heterogenous group of students in our sample, but we cannot assume the completeness of the potential sources, nor are our findings generalizable due to the qualitative nature of our approach. In the next step, surveys are needed to quantify the individual sources for perceived unfairness to derive starting points for support systems in the setting university. In addition, it must be considered that this study is based solely on students’ perspectives. These perceptions are subjective and can be influenced by past events and other individual factors such as academic history, learning paths, and achievements.

The findings of this study will serve as basis for the development of a questionnaire capturing perceived unfairness at university: the University Fairness (UFair) Questionnaire [15]. The UFair Questionnaire is aimed to be an instrument to investigate the relationship of perceived unfairness with stress levels and with mental and physical health in students [15]. This questionnaire provides a foundation to measure the amount of perceived unfairness in universities in all relevant aspects, and to develop preventive approaches and interventions in the university to create a healthy and encouraging environment for students, as well as to identify and eliminate potential sources of risk at an early stage.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the unfairness perceived by students in the university setting is diverse. While the “university” as an organization itself seems to have many sources leading to students feeling like they are being treated unfairly, interpersonal dealings and each individual student represent other potential sources. Investigations in employed persons show that perceived (organizational) unfairness can result in (mental) health problems [22]. Therefore, perceived unfairness is a relevant topic for the promotion and maintenance of health among university students. The identified sources of unfairness in the university setting can be used to counteract unfair university structures and thus contribute to the development of health-promoting universities, which ensure healthy and encouraging academic performance in students. This can, firstly, be achieved by sensitizing lecturers to the topic, especially with regard to the potential effects of their treatment of students, and, secondly, by the development of more transparent communication structures that reduce uncertainties and misunderstandings and thus provide fairer university settings. Thirdly, an expansion of support services for groups particularly affected by perceived unfairness, such as students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and international students, may contribute to a fairer learning environment. Our qualitative findings may serve as a first step towards exploring perceived unfairness and the development of the UFair questionnaire. Future studies may be based on our results, further explore the details of the identified main themes, and quantify the prevalence of perceived unfairness among university students also in different cultures. In addition, our findings may serve as a basis for research on the potential correlations between unfairness and perceived racial discrimination, psychological safety, depression, and anxiety among students in Germany. Further investigations exploring the impact of perceived unfairness in different cultural and institutional contexts allowing for international comparisons will be insightful.