Quiet Strategies: Gender, Agency, and Sustainable Academia in China

3.1 Methodological Framework

Grounded theory, originally formulated by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s (Glaser and Strauss 1967), has been widely regarded as “one of the more scientific qualitative research methods” (Ke et al. 2023, p. 8). Subsequent developments include Strauss and Corbin’s proceduralised version (Corbin and Strauss 1990) and Charmaz’s constructivist version (Charmaz 2006). This study deliberately adopts the proceduralised approach to build a structured explanatory model of workplace silence among women faculty in Chinese universities – an area that remains fragmented and under-theorised.

Proceduralised grounded theory offers an explicit sequence of open, axial, and selective coding that links conditions–actions/interactions–consequences, integrating dispersed evidence into a coherent framework (Corbin and Strauss 1990). This iterative coding sequence converts raw information into coherent concepts and categories, empowering researchers to detect underlying patterns and construct theories (Huang and Nie 2021, p. 23). The method’s “discovery logic” (Li et al. 2019, p. 7) is pertinent for examining the nuanced, context-sensitive phenomenon of silence among women faculty in Chinese universities – an often implicit behavior that demands in-depth qualitative inquiry to reveal its hidden dynamics. Given the scarcity of integrated theory in this domain, a bottom-up design with transparent, auditable procedures enhances traceability, credibility, and transferability. While acknowledging constructivist enhancements to grounded theory, the present study prioritises rigorous model-building over researcher–participant co-construction; hence, the proceduralised variant aligns more closely with the study’s aims and context.

3.2 Data Triangulation Strategy

To ensure methodological rigor and richness, this study employed a data triangulation strategy, constructing a multi-modal dataset from three distinct sources. The primary data source consists of semi-structured interviews with 28 women faculty members. These participants were recruited from a purposively selected sample of 15 Chinese universities. The universities were chosen to represent diverse academic environments, including both top-tier, research-intensive institutions (referred to as “Double First-Class universities” in China) and non-designated comprehensive universities. The selection of the 28 interviewees was guided by purposive sampling and variational sampling to ensure maximum variation across key demographic and professional characteristics, including age, rank, discipline and so forth. The sample included assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors. Inclusion criteria required that interviewees held a tenure-track or tenured appointment and had at least one year of service at their current institution; non-tenure contract staff and administrative personnel were excluded. Furthermore, participants were drawn from both STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and SSH (Social Sciences and Humanities) to capture potential differences in disciplinary cultures. Interviews explored lived experiences of workplace silence (e.g. triggers, functions, consequences) and coping strategies. Demographic and professional details are summarized in Table 1.

The second data source involved 30 sessions of naturalistic observation (totaling about 40 h), conducted at the same universities where interviews took place. These observational settings were purposively selected to include contexts highly relevant to academic discourse and power dynamics, such as faculty meetings, departmental discussions, and mentorship interactions. Fieldnotes and recordings focused on paralinguistic features (e.g. prolonged pauses, avoidance of eye contact) and contextual factors (e.g. power differentials, gender composition of committees).

The third source comprised nearly 50 textual artifacts, which were also purposively sampled to provide cultural, institutional, and societal context. These included institutional documents (e.g. promotion criteria, gender equality reports), policy white papers, peer-reviewed articles, scholarly monographs, news reports, and work diaries. Across all three data streams, theoretical sampling guided the overall data collection process, focusing on cases that maximized conceptual variation until theoretical saturation was achieved. The robustness of the emerging analytical categories was confirmed through constant comparative analysis, with approximately 20 % of the data (6 interviews, 6 observation sessions, and 10 texts) reserved for this validation step.

3.3 Analytic Procedure

The analysis followed three iterative stages: (1) Open Coding: Line-by-line deconstruction of 108 primary data units (interview transcripts, observation logs, textual materials) to identify in vivo codes reflecting participants’ authentic language. Initial codes were grouped into 32 conceptual concepts. (2) Axial Coding: Relational mapping of codes into four axial categories through paradigm models: Motivations, Manifestations, Contexts, and Consequences of Silence. (3) Selective Coding: Theoretical integration of categories into a conceptual framework explaining silence as a negotiated performance balancing cultural compliance and strategic resistance. NVivo 14 facilitated codebook development and saturation tracking, with intercoder reliability validated through consensus sessions (Kappa = 0.85). Reflexive journals documented researcher positionality, particularly biases regarding gender equality in academia.

3.4 Ethical and Validity Considerations

Rigorous protocols ensured ethical integrity and validity: (1) Anonymization: All participants and institutions were assigned pseudonyms. Sensitive data (e.g. promotion records) were anonymized prior to analysis. (2) Member Checking: 20 % of interviewees (n = 6) reviewed preliminary findings to verify interpretive accuracy. (3) Negative Case Analysis: Examined outlier instances (e.g. women who consistently vocalized dissent) to refine theoretical boundaries. (4) Audit Trail: Detailed memos tracked procedural decisions, theoretical shifts, and analytical reflections, ensuring transparency.

4.1 Open Coding

According to Li et al. (2019, p. 9), open coding is the initial phase of grounded theory analysis, devoted to breaking down raw data into discrete labels, uncovering initial concepts, and articulating emergent categories. In this study, we applied open coding to a rich, multi-source qualitative dataset comprising 28 semi-structured interviews, 30 naturalistic observations in settings such as academic meetings, departmental discussions, and mentorship interactions, and 50 textual artifacts (including literature, policy documents, news reports, and working diaries). We conducted line-by-line coding across interview transcripts, fieldnotes, and text excerpts to surface in vivo codes – participants’ own words – alongside descriptive codes for observed behavioral indicators of silence. Employing constant comparative analysis, we iteratively clustered raw codes into higher-order conceptual groupings. This inductive process generated 32 distinct concepts, which were further synthesized into 12 thematic categories that informed the subsequent axial coding. Relevant open-coding results are shown in Table 2.

4.2 Axial Coding

As stated by Asakura (2015), axial coding, constituting the second stage of grounded theory analysis, systematically probes and organizes the relationships among the categories uncovered in open coding to build an integrated explanatory schema. Rather than simply grouping data, this phase adopts a dialectical lens to reveal the causal conditions, contextual contingencies, and strategic consequences that interlink discrete phenomena into dynamic, relational networks. Such a rigorous inquiry enables the identification of overarching patterns, intercategory relationships, and thematic consistencies essential for theory formation. In the present study, examining the intrinsic connections among the initial 12 categories yielded four higher-order categories, the specifics of which are detailed in Table 3.

4.3 Selective Coding

As the culminating phase of grounded theory analysis, selective coding aims to integrate the varied categories produced during open and axial coding into one or more overarching core categories that encapsulate the phenomenon under investigation (Li et al. 2019, p. 13; Huang and Nie 2021, p. 287). In so doing, it transforms disparate analytical insights into a cohesive theoretical framework capable of addressing the phenomenon’s inherent complexities. In this study, the process of selective coding revealed the core category “Gendered Silence Ecosystem of Women Faculty in Chinese Universities”, which functions as the conceptual hub around which all related subcategories and concepts are systematically arranged. This core category deftly captures the dynamic, multifaceted nature of silence as enacted by women faculty within Chinese academic settings. To illuminate the core category further, we present a “storyline”: The four main categories – Motivations for Silence, Contexts of Silence, Manifestations of Silence, and Consequences of Silence – form a dynamic, reciprocal logical chain that explains how gendered silence is embedded in academic ecosystems. Motivations for Silence (internal drivers like gender norms, emotional regulation, and self-protection) and Contexts of Silence (external structures such as institutional hierarchies, male-dominated dynamics, and cultural dissonance) interact to shape Manifestations of Silence – strategic behaviors like active withholding, passive compliance, or strategic silence – that women faculty employ to navigate their dual pressures of professionalism and cultural conformity. These manifestations, in turn, give rise to Consequences of Silence, including individual burnout, organizational innovation deficits, and societal gender reinforcement, which paradoxically reinforce the original motivations and contexts by normalizing silence as a rational response to inequitable structures. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle: Cultural imperatives (motivations) and structural inequalities (contexts) produce adaptive silent strategies (manifestations), whose negative outcomes (consequences) legitimize the status quo, ensuring silence remains a normalized survival tactic in hierarchical academia. Together, the categories reveal silence not as a static behavior but as a relational phenomenon where power, gender, and agency co-construct a system where silence both resists and reproduces institutionalized inequities that hinder the academic sustainable development. The theoretical model is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

A model of gendered silence ecosystem of women faculty in Chinese universities.

4.4 Theoretical Saturation Test

To ensure that the theoretical model of Gendered Silence Ecosystem of Women Faculty in Chinese Universities achieved full saturation, we integrated NVivo 14-facilitated analysis with both triangulation and member validation. NVivo 14 enabled systematic monitoring of saturation by quantifying code frequency, density, and coherence throughout successive coding iterations, thereby highlighting when incoming data no longer yielded new concepts or categories. Triangulation validation reinforced the robustness and credibility of our findings by juxtaposing diverse data sources, methodological approaches, and researcher perspectives. Simultaneously, member validation – through soliciting feedback from interview participants and the analysis team – verified the model’s completeness and accuracy. In line with Cao et al. (2019, p. 288), we deemed saturation reached when further data collection failed to produce additional themes, categories, or logical relationships. The absence of any emergent elements in our final round of analysis confirmed that the theoretical framework had indeed attained saturation.

5.1 Motivations for Silence

Motivations for silence constitute the internal drivers prompting women faculty to choose silence in academic settings. Unpacking these motivations not only illuminates the ingrained value-based orientations and psychological underpinnings of women faculty’s silence, but also provides a nuanced understanding of their agency within constrained environments. This analysis explicates three core dimensions: Gender Role Expectations, Emotional Regulation, and Self-protection – which explain why women faculty opt for silence.

Confucian-influenced gender norms have long been used to sustain regime legitimacy and discipline citizens, limiting Chinese women’s status from feudal times to the present (Mak 2013; Li 2021). Under Confucianist discourse, women were bound by the “three obediences” (sancong) – to fathers before marriage, husbands after marriage, and sons after a husband’s death – and excluded from education (Gao 2003). Traditional sayings such as “a woman without talent is a virtue” (nvzi wucai bianshide) and “only women and small-minded men are hard to feed” (wei nvzi yu xiaoren nanyangye) reflected deep-rooted gender biases that restricted women’s roles in education, public affairs, and leadership (Yuan and Tian 2023). Although China’s socialist market reforms and the one-child policy of the 1970s–80s improved urban girls’ educational opportunities (Liu 2014; Cai and Feng 2021), prevailing discourses nonetheless continue to valorize “men focusing on careers while women focus on family” (nanzhuwai nvzhunei) (Yuan and Tian 2023). In contemporary academia, women faculty are thus expected simultaneously to fulfill traditional virtues of “good wife and good mother” and to serve as exemplars of a “new life model” balancing scholarship and domestic responsibilities (Liu 2017, p. 5). Society’s stereotype of women being “modest and tolerant” makes it difficult for women to speak out against or question others’ opinions in public, for fear of being labeled “assertive” or “unsociable” which may be valued in men, but are considered ‘unseemly’ in women. Such gender norms and popular discourses lead women faculty to internalize modesty and deference as professionally appropriate, curbing their willingness to challenge dominant views or engage in overt scholarly debate.

To preserve team harmony and meet these gendered expectations, women faculty often suppress negative emotions, fearing that overt displays of anger or dissent could exacerbate interpersonal tensions and jeopardize future collaboration opportunities. Emotional regulation thus becomes a crucial, though often invisible, part of their silence motivations. As one interviewee (I3) explains, “I refrain from pointing out errors in my colleagues’ slides during meetings. It’s easier to keep the peace than to risk alienating someone whose support I might need later.” Such self-imposed emotional control – smiling through frustration and withholding critique – serves as a strategy to maintain positive working relationships, but reinforces silence as the safer option when confronting colleagues or authority figures. Studies have found that women who do display anger or assertiveness at work often face social backlash and a drop in perceived status, whereas men’s anger is more likely to be excused or even seen as a sign of leadership (Brescoll and Uhlmann 2008). In other words, women’s public expressions of anger run counter to social expectations and tend to decrease how competent or likable others perceive them, unlike for men. They disproportionately carry an “affective burden” of smoothing over conflicts and negativity in competitive academic workplaces (Morley and Crossouard 2015), absorbing frustrations internally to keep the peace.

According to Zhu and Yu (2015, p. 181), the patriarchal ideas such as “men are strong and women are weak” are deeply ingrained and hard to erase from the subconscious of most female college teachers. Likewise, female scientists in Latin America admit that they often “convince themselves they’re not good enough,” needing more reassurance of their competence than men do (Gould 2024). Such internalized doubt amplifies the perceived danger of voicing opinions, and partially eliminates the recognition of their own value, thus leading to their low self-evaluation, lack of self-confidence, collapse of enterprising spirit, weak or even indifferent development consciousness. Consequently, women faculty will be more likely to worry that challenging authority will lead to career risks and negative evaluation, tending to retreat into self-protection mode at critical moments, including choosing to remain silent rather than taking the risk of speaking out. One interviewee’s (I15) experience perfectly illustrates this: “I once drafted a detailed email pointing out flaws in the department’s grant allocation, but deleted it before sending – too risky for my career development if word got back to leadership”. Another faculty member (I2) similarly notes, “I never challenged my dean’s proposal – I’m afraid he’d label me a troublemaker”. In this way, silence functions as a protective buffer – a form of agency exercised to avoid threats to one’s career security and well-being.

Together, these three dimensions shape a cognitive calculus in which the perceived risks of expression outweigh its benefits. Far from mere passivity, women’s silence in the academic workplace emerges as a self-protection mechanism – one that reflects the interlocking influence of gender norms, emotion regulation, and career-related anxieties.

The patterns above are not isolated to Chinese academia; they resonate across other parts of the Global South. For instance, assertive networking that would be unremarkable for men can brand female leaders in Bangladesh or Latin America as overly ambitious and pushy (Morley and Crossouard 2015; Gould 2024). Across many African universities, women scholars still shoulder the bulk of domestic responsibilities alongside their jobs, a burden that directly hinders their professional participation (Kigotho 2025). In environments where authority structures are male-dominated, many women calculate that dissent could invite personal risk – a Nigerian survey found that 43 % of female lecturers had faced workplace discrimination, yet only about 10 % formally reported it, largely to avoid retaliation – largely due to fear of retaliation (Kigotho 2025). Whether due to internalized modesty or very real fears of retribution, the impetus for women to hold their tongue is a partially common thread in universities in the Global South.

5.2 Contexts of Silence

Contexts of silence refer to the external catalysts that trigger or produce silent behavior among women faculty. In the academic workplace, Institutional Settings, Interpersonal Dynamics, and Cultural Dissonance jointly construct the field where silence occurs, forming a “silence-inducing environment” – which answers the question of when and where to choose silence.

Institutional Settings characterized by authoritarian leadership style, bureaucratic decision-making process, and unclear promotion criteria create an atmosphere of uncertainty, exposing female teachers to a higher risk of information asymmetry and power suppression when attempting to voice dissenting opinions. Such top-down, patriarchal structures are not unique to China – across many countries, entrenched hierarchies in universities similarly discourage women’s dissent and participation (Gallant and Agarwala 2021). As Wang (2011, p. 31) notes, the organizational structure of Chinese universities resembles a pyramid, comprising principals, departments, colleges, and teaching and research offices. This hierarchy operates through linear command and strict hierarchical authorization. People-oriented teaching management mostly remains in theory or discourse, and the people-oriented idea has not been implemented in the actual teaching management practice (Xing 2009, p. 21). Leadership within this framework is frequently associated with patriarchal traits and is often dominated by male members of the academic community (Hannum et al. 2015), creating additional barriers to the advancement of women faculty. Moreover, the phenomenon of the “glass ceiling” – where women face systemic barriers to ascending to higher leadership positions and experience discrepancies in promotion opportunities and financial incentives – further limits women faculty’s influence within institutional decision-making processes (Khan and Hollingworth 2025, p. 4). An interviewee (I25) highlighted the ambiguity of this system, stating, “I don’t really know what matters more in promotion – research, teaching, or just being on good terms with the dean. No one tells you clearly”. These structural obstacles collectively restrict women’s participation and reinforce a culture of silence among them.

Interpersonal Dynamics within academia also reinforce silence among women faculty members. The male-dominated nature of the academic environment, power asymmetries in collaborations, and pervasive collegial competition place women at a systematic disadvantage during team-based work and academic discussions. Eagly and Karau (2002) proposed the role congruity theory of prejudice. They argue that in educational leadership, there may be a perceived mismatch between traditional gender stereotypes and the characteristics of effective leaders. This leads to two forms of prejudice: (1) women are seen as less suitable for leadership roles than men; (2) it is harder for women to become leaders and succeed in such roles (Khan and Hollingworth 2025, p. 5). In terms of both academic status and technical positions, male faculty members in Chinese universities maintain a pronounced advantage, consistently occupying central and dominant roles (Kohtamäki et al. 2024). Conversely, women faculty are often relegated to the margins, excluded from the “inner circles” of academic institutions (Zhu and Yu 2015, p. 181). This marginalization fosters a sense of alienation among women scholars, who frequently perceive themselves as “outsiders” constrained by both the existing structure of academia and outside responsibilities (Gibson 2006, p. 63). Moreover, women who do attain positions within academic teams often face heavier scrutiny and bias – the few women “pushing academic frontiers” are frequently held to higher standards, constantly monitored, and receive less recognition or reward compared to their male counterparts (Waruru 2023). One interviewee (I28) described the competitive climate, stating, “It’s hard to speak up in this environment. Everything you say is judged – not just by the department chair, but by colleagues who see you as competition”. Such dynamics further erode their willingness or perceived ability to voice opinions in academic settings.

Chinese culture was discussed generally as a hierarchical, top-down culture that prioritizes respect for authority and social harmony (Aiston and Fo 2021, p. 6). In such an environment, open disagreement or assertive self-expression can be seen as disruptive. However, the pressure to conform is not experienced uniformly and is further complicated by intersecting identities such as educational background and age, which create distinct layers of cultural dissonance. Female academics are influenced by traditional Asian culture that places a premium on women as dutiful wives, mothers, and homemakers; women’s public conduct is expected to be “subdued”, “quiet” and “withdrawn” (Luke 2015). This expectation creates a particularly acute challenge for scholars returning from abroad (hai gui). These women often experience clashes between Western academic norms – such as critical debate and open dialogue – and local expectations of deference. Misinterpretations of healthy intellectual debate as challenges to authority compel many to assimilate by adopting a quieter, more conformist stance, thereby reinforcing silent behavior to avoid being perceived as arrogant or disruptive. Generational value gaps, which often intersect with academic rank, further exacerbate this phenomenon. Younger women faculty frequently find themselves navigating a power imbalance where their contributions are dismissed based on age-related stereotypes. As evidenced by one younger interviewee (I21), “I sometimes hold back in meetings because I know the senior faculty see my generation as too emotional or impulsive.” Such perceptions, rooted in a generational hierarchy, systematically marginalize younger women’s voices and limit their opportunities for open expression, compelling them into a strategic silence as they seek mentorship and career support from the very colleagues who may hold these biases.

Together, these institutional, interpersonal, and cultural factors create a breeding ground for silence, characterized by an “authority monopoly–gender imbalance–normative conflict” dynamic. This dynamic reveals how implicit gender segregation within academic institutions systematically constructs a “space of silence” through institutional exclusion, interpersonal marginalization, and cultural suppression.

Women faculty in regions such as Africa and South Asia commonly navigate analogous contexts of silence shaped by similar power imbalances. For instance, African higher education institutions often mirror the same pyramid-like gender structure seen in China: women remain grossly underrepresented in senior academic positions, with fewer than 25 % of universities in even the most advanced African countries led by women (Waruru 2023). Similarly, in South Asian, institutional cultures and selection procedures continue to marginalize women. A Sri Lankan female professor noted that despite less patriarchy than other South Asian nations, male dominance persists, with key roles (e.g. vice-chancellors) appointed by the president, relying heavily on networking from which women are largely excluded (Morley and Crossouard 2015). An Indian dean echoed this, arguing that universities’ selection procedures are exclusionary and discriminatory toward women, as most selection committees consist solely of men, with very few having any women (Morley and Crossouard 2015). Across these regions, it is not a lack of competence but rather gendered institutional climates that suppress women’s voices and hinder their academic advancement.

5.3 Manifestations of Silence

Under the combined influence of internal and external factors, the silence of women faculty members manifests through a range of distinct behavioral patterns. These patterns – namely Active Withholding, Passive Compliance, and Strategic Silence – offer insights into the specific ways in which silence is enacted, addressing the question of how silent behavior is operationalized in practice.

Active Withholding refers to deliberate suppression of information, voluntary withdrawal from expressing opinions, and selective avoidance of discussion. This form of silence is proactive in nature. For example, one interviewee (I23) stated, “Sometimes I know the answer or have critical information, but I keep things to myself on purpose – I don’t want to seem like I’m overstepping or showing off”. A naturalistic observation (O4) also captured this, where a female associate professor “repeatedly glanced at her notes but never voiced her concerns about workload disparities, later confiding: ‘My objections would be dismissed as I am ‘over-reacting’”. By consciously withholding their contributions, they seek to shield themselves from negative consequences and external threats. Thus, Active Withholding serves as a self-protective strategy to maintain personal and professional security within potentially unsupportive environments.

Passive Compliance is characterized by the acceptance of unreasonable decisions, conformity to majority opinions, and the relinquishment of opportunities to voice dissent in group decision-making processes. Rather than emerging from a deliberate strategic choice, this form of silence often develops as a reactive response to accumulated experiences of marginalization and exclusion. When women faculty members repeatedly encounter a lack of responsiveness, acknowledgment, or support from managers and institutional leaders after attempting to share their insights or raise concerns, they may gradually internalize the belief that their input is either ineffective or unwelcome. As one interviewee (I18) described, “Our dean often decides things unilaterally. I disagreed with how the funding was distributed this year, but I didn’t say anything – what’s the point? It won’t change anything.” Over time, this perception fosters a sense of futility, leading them to engage in acquiescent silence behavior – remaining silent not out of choice but out of resignation (Özdemir 2024, p. 32). Passive Compliance thus reflects a reactive form of silence, rooted in feelings of powerlessness and learned helplessness.

Strategic Silence encompasses a more calculated and dynamic approach to silence. It involves temporarily withholding opinions for purposes of observation, shifting communication to less formal channels, employing vague or ambiguous language, and engaging in self-censorship. One interviewee (I4) explained their method, “Sometimes I just wait and listen to see how others react first. If no one else speaks up, I won’t either”. Observations showed a similar pattern, with one faculty member (O23) “shared her thoughts with others through WeChat instead of directly raising her opinion” in a staff meeting. Another (I6) described using vague language to share concerns: “I just said, ‘some things could be improved,’ without naming anyone. It felt safer that way”. Studies on organizational communication have similarly found that women tend to self-censor more than men, largely due to social norms (Adamska et al. 2022). As one participant (I27) poignantly put it, “We’ve become self-censoring gatekeepers – editing our thoughts before they escape our lips”. These behaviors demonstrate that silence is not the absence of speech, but a strategic and situational response to complex interpersonal and institutional dynamics. Strategic Silence allows women faculty to navigate precarious environments by balancing self-protection with the need for cautious engagement. It underscores the agency embedded within silent behaviors, revealing that silence can be an active, intentional, and adaptive strategy rather than a single-dimensional “loss of speech”.

These behavioral manifestations – Active Withholding, Passive Compliance, and Strategic Silence – highlight the nuanced strategies and action patterns adopted by women faculty in response to internal and external pressures. They reflect the dynamic, context-sensitive nature of silent behavior, illustrating that silence is not a passive state but a complex set of choices shaped by the interplay of risk assessment, perceived efficacy, and survival within hierarchical academic environments.

Notably, the manifestations of silence are symptoms of a broader global issue. Aiston (2019) indicates that academic women in various countries strategically stay silent amid discrimination to safeguard their careers. Tackling it is not only a matter of justice and rights, but also of sustainability: only when women faculty can fully share their knowledge and leadership will universities truly become engines of sustainable development and innovation. Each of the silent strategies identified thus also points toward actionable areas where intervention can help transform silence into voice, both locally and globally, in pursuit of a more inclusive and sustainable academic future.

5.4 Consequences of Silence

Consequences of silence reveal its far-reaching and multi-layered negative impacts across individual, organizational, and societal dimensions. This section addresses the question of “What are the impacts of silence?” and underscores the systemic, cumulative nature of its effects, highlighting how individual experiences of silence aggregate into broader structural issues.

At the individual level, prolonged self-suppression exacts a profound psychological and professional toll. Continuous inhibition of self-expression contributes to escalating mental health crises, including heightened anxiety, chronic stress, emotional exhaustion, and insomnia. Beyond psychological distress, the absence of opportunities to voice opinions, showcase expertise, and assert visibility within academic settings leads to missed critical junctures for career advancement and academic development. Women faculty who remain silent are less likely to access leadership roles, research opportunities, and professional networks crucial for their growth. Additionally, persistent silence erodes job satisfaction, diminishes self-efficacy, and undermines the quality of interpersonal relationships within the workplace, further isolating individuals and reinforcing feelings of marginalization and disempowerment. From the perspective of international feminist scholarship, this sustained self-suppression also represents a denial of fundamental human capabilities. Under Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s capability approach, true development is defined by expanding what people are able to do and be; however, a culture of silence effectively strips women faculty of the freedom to express themselves and to fully participate in academic life (Nussbaum 2000). In other words, they are denied basic capabilities such as freedom of expression, affiliation, and control over their professional environment – critical freedoms that underpin one’s ability to achieve valued goals.

At the organizational level, women faculty’s marginalization undermines innovation, human capital, decision-making, and long-term institutional sustainability. Sustainable development of any knowledge-based organization (and economy) depends on women’s full participation and adequate use of their skills and qualifications (Abd Elkhalek 2017). Excluding women’s voices fosters groupthink, reduces creativity, and creates strategic blind spots, weakening their adaptability and capabilities in a knowledge-driven economy. Moreover, institutions that fail to address women’s concerns or value their contributions often struggle with retention of talented faculty, as institutional silence backfires by fostering disengagement and prompting exits (especially among women and historically underrepresented groups), leading to loss of expertise, disrupted academic programs, and damaged morale (Sotto 2025). From a social sustainability perspective, institutions that foster open dialogue are more resilient and innovative (Bresman and Edmondson 2022). In this light, women’s constrained participation threatens the institution’s sustainability – its capacity to grow inclusively and competitively over time. When half the talent pool is unheard and eventually pushed out, the institution cannot truly attain sustainable growth or competitiveness.

On a broader societal level, the persistence of silence among women in academia perpetuates existing gender stereotypes and reinforces traditional power structures. One textual source (T11) concluded that “Women faculty members are not seen as valued, leading to silence and neglect, which reinforces gender inequalities in academic leadership and decision-making”. Silence becomes a mechanism through which traditional norms of authority, deference, and exclusion are reproduced within the academic field and disseminated into the broader public sphere. The normalization of women’s silence hampers efforts to advance gender equality, social diversity, and the democratization of knowledge production. It narrows the range of scholarly inquiry, limits the visibility of alternative epistemologies, and constrains the transformative potential of higher education institutions as engines of social progress. In a global context increasingly demanding inclusive and sustainable development, women scholars’ limited voice represents a significant obstacle to achieving social justice and equitable innovation.

The consequences of silence across the three interconnected levels of “individual-organizational-and societal” create a vicious cycle of systemic harm, making silence an unsustainable response to gender injustice. Specifically, silence impedes the sustainable development of female academic staff – hindering well-being, career progression, institutional retention, and institutional innovation – while also undermining gender-just sustainability. This dynamic underscores the deep entrenchment of gendered power structures within academic systems, highlighting the urgent need to dismantle cultures of silence. Addressing these consequences is critical not only for advancing individual well-being and organizational innovation but also for progressing broader social goals of gender justice and sustainable development. As a UNESCO report bluntly stated, avoiding or ignoring discussions about gender inequities “does not make them disappear; instead, it is essential to confront these issues head-on to foster meaningful change” (Menendez 2025). In other words, the onus should not fall solely on women to navigate unsupportive environments through silence; there is a pressing need for academic institutions to listen and respond. Breaking the pattern of women’s silence in academia will require concerted efforts – policy reforms, leadership dedication, mentorship and support networks, and a cultural shift that values gender equality as integral to scholarly excellence.

6.1 Summary of Research Findings on the Gendered Silence Ecosystem

This grounded theory study uncovers the intricate “gendered silence ecosystem” among women faculty in Chinese universities, revealing silence as a dynamic, strategically negotiated response to intersecting cultural, institutional, and interpersonal pressures. Through the interlinked categories of motivations, contexts, manifestations, and consequences, the research demonstrates that silence is neither passive withdrawal nor uniform cultural trait, but a nuanced strategy through which women navigate the “double bind” of professional assertion and gendered modesty. Confucian-inspired gender norms and hierarchical academic structures drive internal motivations for silence, which interact with external contexts to shape behaviors like strategic silence or passive compliance. These practices, while serving as survival tactics in inequitable environments, perpetuate a self-reinforcing cycle of individual marginalization, organizational innovation deficits, and societal gender inequality in academia.

Engaging with international feminist and sustainability scholarship reveals that the silence of women academics is not just a localized issue but a matter of global (especially the Global South) concern for sustainable development. Gender equality in academia is a global sustainability concern: the SDG 5 calls for women’s full participation in leadership and decision-making – including in academia. Yet many women scholars remain unheard, and their untapped ideas are lost opportunities for social progress and innovation. Empowering these voices leads to more inclusive research and better solutions to global challenges, whereas continued silence undermines the sustainability of academic institutions.

While this study details the systemic pressures that foster silence, it is crucial to recognize that women faculty are not merely passive recipients of gendered inequality, but represent forms of resilient coping and creative adaptation. Their silence, particularly strategic silence, is itself a form of agency – a calculated “weapon of the weak” deployed to navigate unsupportive environments. For instance, our findings hint at such “counter-conducts,” like shifting critical conversations to informal digital channels (e.g. WeChat), building solidarity networks with trusted female peers, and using allegorical or vague language in public forums to signal dissent without triggering direct confrontation. These subtle acts of resistance and community-building are vital for survival and represent a form of “strategic transcendence.” To break the cycle of silence, institutions should not only dismantle structural barriers but also formally recognize and amplify these alternative channels. Feasible strategies could include: (1) Establishing protected dialogue platforms: Creating confidential ombudsman offices or anonymous feedback systems where women can voice concerns without fear of retaliation; (2) Fostering female-led mentorship networks: Supporting formal and informal networks that allow senior and junior women faculty to share strategies, build solidarity, and collectively address systemic issues; (3) Reforming meeting protocols: Implementing structured protocols, such as round-robin speaking turns or pre-submitted agendas with designated comment periods, to ensure dominant voices do not monopolize discussions. By acknowledging and legitimizing these resilient practices, universities can transform them from covert survival tactics into powerful tools for institutional change.

6.2 Implications for Gender-Responsive Academic Sustainability in the Global South

This study advances understanding of workplace silence by integrating macro-level cultural norms with micro-level agency, reframing silence as a contextually negotiated behavior rather than passive disengagement. The grounded theory approach in a Global South context and through the lens of SDGs also revealed hidden aspects of academic life, underscoring the value of inductive, context-sensitive research. Practically, the findings call for institutions to foster more gender-inclusive and transparent academic cultures by disrupting entrenched dynamics of silence through measures such as transparent decision-making and promotion processes, mentorship programs, and safe channels for open dialogue. When women’s perspectives are amplified, they strengthen knowledge resilience, boosted by diverse epistemic inputs to avoid “knowledge monocultures” and equip scholars to address complex social and environmental challenges; improved human-capital retention, via transparent promotion, participatory decision-making, and protected whistle-blowing channels that curb talent loss and preserve institutional memory; and expanded legitimacy and social license, as visible progress toward SDG 5 signals ethical stewardship and attracts funding and partnerships. These changes align with global calls for women’s leadership and feminist collective action for sustainable development (Leach et al. 2016).

Although this study is rooted in the Chinese context, its findings offer a comparative lens for understanding the experiences of academic women across the Global South. The uniqueness of the Chinese case lies in the specific intersection of a Confucian cultural legacy that valorizes female modesty with a hierarchical, top-down academic system. However, the core dynamics of the “gendered silence ecosystem” resonate strongly with challenges documented elsewhere. For instance, the “double burden” of professional and domestic duties, male-dominated leadership structures, and the marginalization of women in institutional decision-making are pervasive issues in universities across Africa and South Asia. Studies show that women in South Asian academia are often excluded from informal male networks crucial for advancement, while African universities struggle with severe underrepresentation of women in senior roles, creating similar pressures for silence or self-censorship as a protective measure. Therefore, while the cultural flavor of silence may differ, the underlying structural drivers – power asymmetry and male-dominated institutional culture – are remarkably similar. This suggests that our model developed here can serve as a valuable analytical framework, or at least a set of transferable hypotheses, for investigating gendered academic silence in other Global South contexts, thereby contributing to a global conversation that recognizes the constraints on women’s participation as a significant obstacle to achieving social justice and equitable innovation, and underscores that meaningful progress requires systemic rather than merely individual change.

6.3 Limitations of Research Scope and Proposed Future Research

While this study illuminates the dynamics of silence, its focus on this phenomenon means that other forms of agency and resistance were not the central object of inquiry. As the findings suggest gendered power asymmetries in academia, a crucial follow-up study should focus on how women faculty survive and thrive within this challenging infrastructure. Future research should delve deeper into the resilient coping strategies and creative innovations women employ to sustain themselves and strategically make their voices heard. This could include examining the role of informal networks, peer mentoring, digital backchannels, collaborative research with international partners, and other innovations that allow them to bypass traditional hierarchical structures.

Since this study focused on Chinese universities, its findings may not capture women’s experiences in other environments, such as non-elite institutions or disciplines with stark gender imbalances. While our purposive sampling included faculty from both STEM and SSH disciplines, no significant thematic differences were found based on this distinction. Comparative research across different cultural, positional authority, and institutional – including other Global South countries – would test how far this silence ecosystem applies and might reveal new patterns. As our data provide only a snapshot in time, longitudinal studies should examine how women’s silence strategies evolve as gender norms shift or as universities enact reforms. Future research could also design interventions (such as leadership training, policy changes, or collective empowerment programs) to break the silence cycle and assess their impact. Ultimately, addressing women academics’ silence requires systemic change, not just individual empowerment. Universities should create conditions where women can speak up without fear, unlocking untapped intellectual capital. This study contributes to global conversations on gender equality by demonstrating that coupling women’s agency with institutional reform is crucial for building inclusive, sustainable academic institutions.