Introduction
Academics are increasingly voicing dissatisfaction with their working conditions in the public domain (e.g., Sawrikar, Reference Sawrikar2022; Schneiders, Reference Schneiders2023) including in their research (e.g., Christian, Larkins & Doran, Reference Christian, Larkins and Doran2022) and some have unionised and are striking (UCU, 2023). New professionals are especially vulnerable to silence and silencing (Brown & Coupland, Reference Brown and Coupland2005; Donovan, O’Sullivan, Doyle, & Garvey, Reference Donovan, O’Sullivan, Doyle and Garvey2016). In academia, new professionals – described here as early career academics (ECAs) – are sessional, casual, or tenure-track academics within their first 5 years of service and/or higher degree by research (HDR) students undertaking Master or Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees (Sanders et al., Reference Sanders, Kraimer, Greco, Morgeson, Budhwar, Sun and Sang2022) in universities under employment-like conditions (Hughes & Tight, Reference Hughes and Tight2013). The rise in dissatisfaction (Bajaj, Sugimura, & Rahman, Reference Bajaj, Sugimura and Rahman2023) expressed by ECAs suggests their concerns are not being heard in the workplace or they are unwilling or unable to raise them and are left with no alternative but to take ‘actions and protests … to mobilise public opinion’ (Hirschman, Reference Hirschman1970, p. 30). ECAs also express that they struggle with their mental health (Evans, Bira, Gastelum, Weiss, & Vanderford, Reference Evans, Bira, Gastelum, Weiss and Vanderford2018). Given new professionals are vulnerable to silence and silencing and employee voice and wellbeing are linked (Brooks & Wilkinson, Reference Brooks, Wilkinson, Brough, Gardiner and Daniels2021), this further suggests silence could be a norm in the ECA population.
To discover if this was the case, this research aimed to understand what is known about ECA voice and silence in the literature on this theme. It commenced by examining the literature in the management discipline, where research on voice and silence originated with Hirschman (Reference Hirschman1970) and Morrison and Milliken (Reference Morrison and Milliken2000) respectively. Here, ‘voice’ is employee voice and has been defined as ‘all of the ways and means through which employees attempt to have a say about, and influence, their work and the functioning of their organisation’ (Wilkinson, Barry & Morrison, Reference Wilkinson, Barry and Morrison2020, p. 1). Employee silence refers to situations in which employees individually or collectively ‘withhold ideas, information about problems, or opinions on work-related issues’ of interest to them or their organisation (Morrison, Reference Morrison2023, p. 81).
The research specifically aimed to add to knowledge of the effects of different work contexts on voice and silence. Studies on this topic are rare: few examine the impact of contextual forces other than leader behaviour on voice and silence (Morrison, Reference Morrison2023). This research sought to understand how ECAs’ employment conditions impact the ways in which they voice or are silent. Relatedly, it also aimed to understand the nature of the employment relationship that underpins their employment conditions, and thus also contributes to ECA voice and silence.
To investigate these topics, the scoping review method (Arksey & O’Malley, Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005) was selected. Scoping reviews are useful for conducting reviews across diverse literature (Peters et al., Reference Peters, Godfrey, Khalil, McInerney, Parker and Soares2015), capturing what is known about a particular area and identifying key concepts (Arksey & O’Malley, Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005) as well as knowledge gaps (Tricco et al., Reference Tricco, Lillie, Zarin, O’Brien, Colquhoun, Kastner and Straus2016). They also bring a narrative dimension to the review process (Dijkers, Reference Dijkers2015), a feature would allow the story of ECA voice and silence (as it is currently understood) to be told.
The scoping review revealed there was very little research on ECAs in the extant voice and silence literature – only two articles were located. This confirmed Morrison’s (Reference Morrison2023) assessment of the paucity of management research that examines the role of specific work contexts on voice and silence. As a result, and as will be outlined in the methods section, the review search terms were both broadened (to include other disciplines in which ECAs’ expression at work, working conditions and employment relationships were discussed); and narrowed (to focus on silence rather than voice to account for the likelihood that, as new professionals, ECAs would be inclined to suppress their views). This search proved fruitful. Although not couched in terms of management definitions of voice and silence, numerous studies in the higher education (HE) discipline yielded insights into how ECAs experience silence, and how suppression of their voices might be overcome.
Literature review
Speaking ‘up’ and silence at work
It has been noted that ‘allowing workers to speak out can bring relevant issues to light and thus contribute to problem-solving, organisational growth and performance improvement’ (Mori, Cavaliere, Sassetti, & Caputo, Reference Mori, Cavaliere, Sassetti and Caputo2022, p. 1) as well as address concerns related to their wellbeing (Brooks & Wilkinson, Reference Brooks, Wilkinson, Brough, Gardiner and Daniels2021). Yet employees find it difficult to do so, a phenomenon that has received a great deal of attention in management research on employee silence since Morrison and Milliken (Reference Morrison and Milliken2000). An explanation for this reluctance to voice can be found in Hirschman’s (Reference Hirschman1970) seminal definition of consumer voice, from which the employee voice concept was derived (Freeman & Medoff, Reference Freeman and Medoff1984). It positions voice as speaking up rather than speaking ‘out’ (Mori et al., Reference Mori, Cavaliere, Sassetti and Caputo2022). That is, if an individual or group wishes to change an ‘objectionable state of affairs’, an appeal to a ‘higher authority’ (Hirschman, Reference Hirschman1970, p. 30) – an individual or body with the power to bring about the desired change – is required. In the workplace, although the employment relationship is a cooperative and mutually beneficial ‘team form of production’ it is ‘co-ordinated by a top-down authority structure’ (Kaufman, Reference Kaufman, Wilkinson, Donaghey, Dundon and Freeman2020, p. 20). This means power in the employer–employee relationship is asymmetrical, and that the employment relationship is a site of tension in which voice is not guaranteed. This is because those with the power to affect change are the superordinates to whom employees report: the supervisors, line managers, and senior managers who represent one-half of the employee-employer (employment) relationship. This suggests employees will choose silence if they fear their livelihoods are at stake (Brooks & Wilkinson, Reference Brooks, Wilkinson, Brough, Gardiner and Daniels2021).
In the case of new professionals in elite professions such as academia and medicine, this fear is heightened via subtle messages imparted during the professionalisation process (Cruess, Cruess, Boudreau, Snell, & Steinert, Reference Cruess, Cruess, Boudreau, Snell and Steinert2015). These communicate their place in the hierarchy and let them know their reputation, workplace relationships and career prospects could be damaged if they challenge the status quo (Lister & Spaeth, Reference Lister, Spaeth, Edwards, Martin and Ashkanasy2024). In environments in which competition for social and other forms of capital is rife (Kalfa, Wilkinson, & Gollan, Reference Kalfa, Wilkinson and Gollan2018), new professionals quickly learn what can and cannot be voiced. For example, new accounting professionals were able to voice only on topics that suited or did not threaten the agenda of their superordinates (Donovan et al., Reference Donovan, O’Sullivan, Doyle and Garvey2016).
Motives for silence
Management scholars have identified numerous types of silence (see Prouska & Psychogios, Reference Prouska and Psychogios2018 for an overview), many of which are informed by employees’ motives for silence (Brinsfield, Reference Brinsfield2013). Several silence constructs considered relevant to the aims of this research were identified. Defensive silence, motivated by self-interest based on fear (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Botero2003), is a likely response to the power imbalance experienced by new professionals. For instance, junior doctors frequently fail to speak up about supervising doctors’ poor hand hygiene practices due to entrenched hierarchies and intimidatory behaviours that let them know they are to be seen and not heard (Dendle et al., Reference Dendle, Paul, Scott, Gillespie, Kotsanas and Stuart2013). Acquiescent silence, a disengaged behaviour (Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Botero2003), is based on the individual’s belief that speaking up is futile and that nothing will change even if one does (Pinder & Harlos, Reference Pinder and Harlos2001). Female soldiers, for example, withheld their experiences of workplace sexual harassment and assault from those capable of addressing the problem because of ‘organisational norms and practices that block disclosures of abuse’ (Pinder & Harlos, Reference Pinder and Harlos2001, p. 332). Experience had shown them there was little recourse available to low-ranking victims of workplace injustices. Their decision to suffer in silence despite their awareness of alternatives was further described as quiescent silence (Pinder & Harlos, Reference Pinder and Harlos2001), or the unwillingness to explore the potential to voice. Suffering in silence can also be linked to an individual’s belief that they lack self-efficacy to voice (Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Botero2003), and to occupational ideologies that position suffering in silence as a sign of commitment to calling (Dean & Greene, Reference Dean and Greene2017). Organisational silence refers to situations in which employees collectively believe that ‘speaking up about problems or issues is futile and/or dangerous’, leading to group-level ‘climates of silence’ in which withholding voice is the norm (Morrison & Milliken, Reference Morrison and Milliken2000, p. 708).
Conversely, prosocial silence – in which work-related opinions or ideas are withheld to protect colleagues or the organisation – is proactive, altruistic, and motivated by cooperation (Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Botero2003). In the academic context, this could include maintaining confidentiality about intellectual property generated by a research centre, supervisor or colleague. Another form of socially motivated silence is relational silence (Brinsfield, Reference Brinsfield2013; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, Reference Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin2003). Unlike prosocial silence, however, relational silence is based on the fear of harming workplace relationships and subsequent loss of social capital and thus opportunities for advancement (Milliken et al., Reference Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin2003). For example, junior doctors maintain relational silence for fear of damaging their relationships with their senior doctor supervisors (Jamshaid & Arshad, Reference Jamshaid and Arshad2020), on whom they depend for career progression. Relational silence can also be used to avoid bullying by supervisors by maintaining physical and psychological distance from them to ensure the relationship continues to function without aggravation (Rai & Agarwal, Reference Rai and Agarwal2018).
Work context as a determinant of voice and silence
Although management studies have identified an array of factors that enhance or inhibit voice, a review of voice and silence research in the last decade (Morrison, Reference Morrison2023) located only two that explicitly examined contextual factors. One investigated the impact of voice content and identification with profession on voice (Burris, Rockmann, & Kimmons, Reference Burris, Rockmann and Kimmons2017); the other how occupational ideologies effect voice (Dean & Greene, Reference Dean and Greene2017). Indeed the majority of voice and silence studies focus on proximal factors at the individual, group, or organisational level of analysis (see Bashur & Oc, Reference Bashshur and Oc2015; Brinsfield, Reference Brinsfield2013; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith & Kamdar, Reference Morrison, Wheeler-Smith and Kamdar2011), although some nominate distal factors such as economic forces (Prouska & Psychogios, Reference Prouska and Psychogios2018). A multi-level model of the elements and processes that lead to individual and collective voice and silence (Knoll, Wegge, Unterrainer, Silva, & Jønsson, Reference Knoll, Wegge, Unterrainer, Silva and Jønsson2016) provides another example of how management scholars think about the factors that lead to voice or silence, and how they consider those related to work context. The authors nominate organisational, team, individual, intra-individual (e.g., mood states) as proximal effects that lead to workplace voice and silence. Elements in the distal category include the political, economic and legal environments, the zeitgeist and national culture. Professional culture, the sole factor related to work context, was listed as a distal element but not described – a pattern noticed elsewhere (e.g., Nechanska, Hughes, & Dundon, Reference Nechanska, Hughes and Dundon2020; Wilkinson, Townsend, Graham, & Muurlink, Reference Wilkinson, Townsend, Graham and Muurlink2015). This sidelining of contextual factors means little is known about how they shape voice and silence.
The ECA work context
Other contextual factors that are omitted in considerations of voice and silence are those related to employees’ work arrangements. As Oyetunde, Prouska and McKearney (Reference Oyetunde, Prouska and McKearney2022)observed, voice and silence research assumes a homogeneity of traditional workers (those in standard employment) but gives little consideration to non-traditional employees (in alternative work arrangements) and their differences. Early career academia provides rich territory in which to explore this theme as ECAs are subject to a range of atypical and hierarchical work arrangements and relationships, noting these vary from country to country (Zacher, Rudolph, Todorovic, & Ammann, Reference Zacher, Rudolph, Todorovic and Ammann2019). The example of Australia, where this research was conducted, illustrates the idiosyncratic nature of ECA work. ECAs who are tenure-track academics, post-doctorate researchers and research fellows are more or less ‘regular’ employees on fixed-term, full or part-time contracts with a single supervisor (manager). The work of permanent staff is supplemented by casual academics who constitute a significant proportion of the academic workforce (Norton, Cherastidtham, & Mackey, Reference Norton, Cherastidtham and Mackey2018) and who are often also ECAs. Relative to permanent staff, casual staff are excluded from decision-making processes, are offered few research opportunities, and face uncertainty (Bassett & Marshall, Reference Bassett and Marshall1998; Meissner et al., Reference Meissner, Radford, Schweinsberg, Sheldon, Holder, King, Kasputtis, Edwards, Martin and Ashkanasy2024).
ECAs who are HDR students are not employees but are subject to employment-like arrangements and their activities can be conceived as work (Hughes & Tight, Reference Hughes and Tight2013). HDRs who are full-time doctoral students with a scholarship receive a government stipend via the university payroll system, are subject to the terms of their scholarship contract, and work with (rather than report to) supervisors who are not managers but more experienced and senior academics who act as advisors. Other, predominately domestic students are part-time and not in receipt of a stipend. In some countries, HDR supervision typically occurs in student-supervisor dyads; in others, including Australia, HDR students are often co-supervised by teams of two or more academics (Guerin & Green, Reference Guerin and Green2015). Some ECAs occupy dual roles and are both student and staff. This can lead to situations in which ECAs have multiple supervisors, one of whom might be their manager and advisor. Additionally, in Australia, many HDR students are international students on a visa and are potentially subject to different conditions. For example – accepting policies and procedures differ between universities – although domestic and international students on a PhD scholarship are subject to the same timeframes, different scholarship rules for international students can result in them having less time to complete than their domestic counterparts.
The atypical nature of ECAs’ work arrangements, the often complex nature of the ECA-supervisor relationship and their vulnerabilities as new professionals suggests they will experience challenges voicing at work. To understand if this is the case, the overarching research question How do ECAs experience voice and silence at work? was formulated along with the sub-questions What are the barriers to and enablers of ECA voice?, What are the outcomes of ECA silence?, and How might ECA voice be enhanced?. How the research was conducted is described next, followed by a discussion of the findings, consideration of limitations, and suggestions for future research.
Methods
The study utilised the five-stage scoping review process devised by Arksey and O’Malley (Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005). Stage 1 involves the formulation of research questions (shown above). Stage 2 involves the identification of relevant studies; Stage 3 addresses study selection; Stage 4 charts the data; and Stage 5 collates, summarises, and reports results. This section describes Stages 2–5.
Search strategy and search term selection
A search strategy was devised with the aid of two librarians expert in scoping literature reviews. An initial search conducted in Google Scholar checked for peer-reviewed publications on employee voice and silence and ECAs in the management discipline. This yielded only two results (Fernando & Prasad, Reference Fernando and Prasad2019; Kalfa et al., Reference Kalfa, Wilkinson and Gollan2018), suggesting there is a paucity of management research on this topic and that the search would need to be transdisciplinary. To expand the search, the terms ‘employee voice’, ‘speak* up’, and ‘employee silenc*’ were tested in discipline-specific databases hosted in Scopus (social sciences, psychology, and business/management/accounting) and ERIC (education), using ‘employee voice’, ‘speak* up’, and ‘employee silenc*’.
These searches either yielded too few results, or too many of little relevance. Too many irrelevant results reflected the volume of employee voice and silence research overall. That few results emerged was congruent with the dearth of research on ECA voice and silence in the management discipline, and the likelihood that few studies in other disciplines use employee voice and silence theory. Initial search terms were therefore refined by combining them with synonyms to articulate the ECA context (‘higher education’; university; academi*; ‘early career academic’; doctora*; PhD) and produce more relevant results. The term supervis* was also tested in conjunction with the voice/silence and ECA terms. The search string that yielded the most relevant results (silence AND universit* AND academi* AND ‘early career’ AND supervis*) was used for the full search.
The salience of the silence term (rather than the employee voice term) can be explained in two ways. First, ‘employee voice’ is a specific construct and is not used in research that does not draw on employee voice and silence theory. Research that touches on these themes but is unaware of the voice and silence literature often uses the terms ‘speaking up’ or simply ‘voice’. The latter term is generic to the degree that results can have little to do with voice at work and yield imprecise results. Second, congruent with the voice experiences of other kinds of early career professionals (Brown & Coupland, Reference Brown and Coupland2005), it is likely that ECAs experience difficulties voicing due to their low status in the academic hierarchy and that silence is the norm. As a result, articles that examine their experiences in terms of silence rather than voice were expected to be more common, and relevant.
Database selection and screening
The serendipitous discovery (Greenhalgh & Peacock, Reference Greenhalgh and Peacock2005) of an article on ECAs in a biology pre-print server (Christian et al., Reference Christian, Larkins and Doran2022) demonstrated research on ECAs occurs across disciplines and that researchers interested in this topic will discuss ECA voice and silence in other ways. Thus, rather than survey discipline-specific databases, the search string was ultimately applied in multidisciplinary databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) with the modifiers ‘all databases’, ‘journal articles and scholarly literature’, ‘all fields’, ‘English’, ‘article’, or equivalents. As a result, 713 articles were retrieved and stored in an EndNote X9 (The EndNote Team, 2013) reference management library (500 from Google Scholar; 161 from Scopus; 52 from Web of Science). As items from Google Scholar cannot be imported directly into EndNote, the citation analysis tool Publish or Perish (Harzing, Reference Harzing2007) was used to perform the search. This requires limits to search finds and this was set at 500 items, considered sufficient for this review. All articles were imported from EndNote into the Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, 2023) collaborative review management software where screening and review took place. The two articles located in the initial scan of the employee voice and silence literature (Fernando & Prasad, Reference Fernando and Prasad2019; Kalfa et al., Reference Kalfa, Wilkinson and Gollan2018) were added, bringing the total to 715 articles. Sixty-two duplicates were automatically removed leaving 653 articles for initial review.
Three of the authors were involved in the review process. First, one author completed title and abstract screening which resulted in 572 exclusions and 71 articles for full text screening. Next, two full-text reviews were conducted. The first assessed the 71 articles for quality in line with the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (Hong et al., Reference Hong, Pluye, Fabregues and Bartlett2018), which can be used for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods articles. In qualitative studies (the majority of the identified works), the MMAT screens for items such as clarity of research questions; whether the data answered the research questions; appropriateness of method; adequacy of findings and their interpretation; and overall coherence between these items. Similar criteria are applied to other types of studies. The second full-text review process screened for relevance in line with exclusion criteria (see Figure 1). Excluded studies were those that were not peer reviewed journal articles (e.g., theses, books or book chapters); were about clinical rather than academic or managerial supervision; were similar to already included studies by the same author/s; or were not significantly about voice, silence, work arrangements, or work relationships.
The PRISMA report of the scoping review process performed in Covidence.
In both instances, search results were reviewed independently by two of the authors, and consensus was reached on inclusion or exclusion. This step was repeated when the research team examined the results of the dual independent review. Quality appraisal and relevance screening were therefore blind as both processes were reviewed by at least two authors before achieving a consensus. The full-text review process resulted in 36 exclusions and a total of 35 studies for further analysis (listed in Table A1). As Covidence operates in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Page, McKenzie, & Bossuyt et al., Reference Page, McKenzie, Bossuyt, Boutron, Hoffmann, Mulrow, Shamseer, Tetzlaff, Akl, Brennan, Chou, Glanville, Grimshaw, Hróbjartsson, Lalu, Li, Loder, Mayo-Wilson, McDonald, McGuinness, Stewart, Thomas, Tricco, Welch, Whiting and Moher2021), it can generate PRISMA reports. The report for this review is shown in Figure 1, noting the MMAT process is not shown in it.
Charting the data and collating, summarising, and reporting results
The 35 papers selected for analysis were read and assessed by the main author. Rather than aggregate data, scoping reviews facilitate the identification, documentation, and iterative synthesis of relevant information to form holistic, rich narratives (Arskey & O’Malley, Reference Arksey and O’Malley2005; Pickering & Byrne, Reference Pickering and Byrne2014). Data that summarised each article in line with the areas of interest were therefore extracted. Focusing on ECA rather than supervisor participants, the following fields captured the information in Covidence: title, author/s and year, journal, country, research aim/s, research design, number of participants, sample population, underpinning theories, work relationship, approach to voice and silence, themes, silence types (organisational, acquiescent, quiescent, defensive, prosocial, relational), voice barriers, voice enablers, negative outcomes, and strategies for improvement. The choice of fields related to voice and silence was guided by the literature review and research questions. The key outcomes of this process are shown in Table A2.
Of the 35 articles, 32 used qualitative research methods and 3 used mixed methods. One of the qualitative papers used a longitudinal design. Data were primarily collected in interviews. Open-ended survey questions, focus groups, and self-studies were also utilised. Sample sizes ranged from 2 to 595 participants; however, most studies sampled between 3 and 30 ECAs. The majority of the data was collected in Australia, Canada, Europe, NZ, UK, and the USA. One study was conducted in Malaysia and two in South Africa. That the studies emerged mostly from developed nations possibly reflects their long histories as providers of HE research and services to local and international markets.
Doctoral students were the ECA cohort of interest in 24 of the 35 studies. Three studies sampled both PhD and Master-level students. Of all the HDR student studies, many occurred in internationalised university environments and two explicitly sought to understand the views of international students. One captured data on students who had not completed their degree as well as those who had. Two studies examined the experiences of dual-status ECAs (employed academics undertaking a PhD) and two studies concerned tenured-only ECAs. One study one examined the case of doctoral students who were also research assistants. All studies included information on the nature of the employment/work (ECA-supervisor) relationship. Many involving HDRs focused on student-supervisor dyads although some focused on dyads and teams of co-supervisors.
Findings
Several findings emerged from the scoping review in line with the research questions and guided by the data in Table A2. First, the data revealed insights about ECAs’ experiences of their work arrangements, including their supervisory relationships, highlighting conditions that explicitly or would likely lead to silence. These are described in the first sub-section on barriers to ECA voice. Second, the data described the outcomes of ECAs’ silences, most of which were negative. Third, and on a positive note, enablers of ECA voice were also identified. Fourth, the data yielded strategies for improvement.
Barriers to ECA voice
ECAs are immersed in a complex world (Olmos-López & Sunderland, Reference Olmos-López and Sunderland2017) that can make work challenging, interpersonal relationships difficult, and voice unlikely. The scoping review found many ECAs are acutely aware of the power imbalance in the supervisory relationship (Richards & Shiver, Reference Richards and Shiver2020; Woolderink, Putnik, Boom, & Klabbers, Reference Woolderink, Putnik, Boom and Klabbers2015) and that they lack cultural capital (Olmos-López & Sunderland, Reference Olmos-López and Sunderland2017). This can lead them to feel controlled (Brodin, Reference Brodin2018) and unable to assert themselves (Rambe & Mkono, Reference Rambe and Mkono2019), a situation discussed in terms of the master-apprentice model of supervision (Schulze, Reference Schulze2012). Conversely, some ECAs reproduce traditional hierarchies to maintain the status quo, or to avoid reprisal (Schmidt & Hansson, Reference Schmidt and Hansson2022) or feeling insecure (Rambe & Mkono, Reference Rambe and Mkono2019).
Cultural and personal factors influence the degree to which ECAs feel empowered. Female ECAs, along with doctoral students from countries in which individuals in positions of authority are held in high esteem, can face additional constraints (Baydarova, Reference Baydarova2022; Schulze, Reference Schulze2015). In a collaborative self-study (Richards & Shiver, Reference Richards and Shiver2020), an ECA supervisor and doctoral student describe times when traditional power structures undermined their relationship and led them to engage in superficial interactions and self-censoring – the latter response indicating silence was a feature of the relationship. International students can conform to supervisor expectations of obedience (Baydarova, Reference Baydarova2022) and beliefs about authority ensure some develop dependencies on their supervisors (Jones & Blass, Reference Jones and Blass2019). A study of international doctoral students identified ‘cultures of silence’ (Cotterall, Reference Cotterall2013, p. 184) that suppress voice and stifle change.
The often solitary nature of ECAs’ work can exacerbate feelings of isolation and disempowerment. HDR students in particular are often ‘ghettoised’ (Bettinson & Haven-Tang, Reference Bettinson and Haven-Tang2021) – separated from senior academics (Ryan, Baik, & Larcombe, Reference Ryan, Baik and Larcombe2022) and unable to find their place in an academic community of practice (Niemczyk, Reference Niemczyk2019). International students are especially at risk (Bettinson & Haven-Tang, Reference Bettinson and Haven-Tang2021). Competition between academics creates further division and environments in which collaboration and cooperation are rejected (Bettinson & Haven-Tang, Reference Bettinson and Haven-Tang2021; Löfström & Kirsi Pyhältö, Reference Löfström and Pyhältö2017; Schulze, Reference Schulze2015). Doctoral students frequently perceive there is no one to turn to for support when things go wrong and guidelines for institutional support are often unclear (Falk, Augustin, Torén, & Magnusson, Reference Falk, Augustin, Torén and Magnusson2019; Schulze, Reference Schulze2015). Many are not equipped to cope with the challenges of their program and experience poor, inadequate, or inexperienced supervision (Hunter & Devine, Reference Hunter and Devine2016).
ECAs in dual roles worry about ‘mixing money and marks’ (Skorobohacz, Reference Skorobohacz, Kompf and Denicolo2013, p. 210) and about exploitation and reputational harm, also perceiving they have little agency. This leads them to accept unfair practices and bullying by supervisors (Niemczyk, Reference Niemczyk2019), which can have a silencing effect (Rai & Agarwal, Reference Rai and Agarwal2018). Dual-role ECAs with supervisors who manage their paid work and advise their doctoral work experience supervisor role conflict, and struggle with complex power differentials and the potential for loss of face as professional academics (Billot, King, Smith, & Clouder, Reference Billot, King, Smith and Clouder2021). Dual-role ECAs who are female can face additional challenges that threaten their self-efficacy, such as a lack of support for professional development and elimination of barriers to participation (Schulze, Reference Schulze2015) – and, presumably, threaten their propensity to voice.
Similarly, tenure-track ECAs found their gender-based harassment concerns were minimised by their supervisors and managers and that ‘(a) people can challenge the system only if their issue is uncommon and significant; (b) one should trust the system to accord justice; and (c) negative consequences follow those who challenge the system’ (Fernando & Prasad, Reference Fernando and Prasad2019, p. 1573).
Outcomes of silence
Issues related to work contexts and conditions in academia have been associated with a myriad of negative outcomes for ECAs, rendering the voicing of ideas, concerns, or suggestions for improvement unlikely. Consequences of speaking up identified in this review include the experience of not being noticed, facing backlash or encountering negative consequences. Research has shown that such experiences create a hostile environment within academic institutions, which in turn discourages open dialogue and collaboration among individuals (Acker & Haque, Reference Acker and Haque2015; Billiot et al., Reference Billot, King, Smith and Clouder2021; Denicolo, Reference Denicolo2004; Fernando & Prasad, Reference Fernando and Prasad2019; Guerin & Green, Reference Guerin and Green2015; Jazcac-Martek, Reference Jazvac‐Martek2009; Jones & Blass, Reference Jones and Blass2019; Löftström & Pyhältö, Reference Löfström and Pyhältö2017; Niemczyk, Reference Niemczyk2019; Schulze, Reference Schulze2012). Hostile environments can be detrimental, as they foster atmospheres of fear and reticence, impeding the free exchange of ideas and knowledge sharing. As a result, academic progress is hindered, and opportunities for mentorship and advancement become limited (Olmos-López & Sunderland, Reference Olmos-López and Sunderland2017; Robertson, Reference Robertson2017). Furthermore, the perpetuation of stereotypes and biases are additional ramifications of these voice and silence issues. When individuals are discouraged from voicing their diverse perspectives and experiences, existing biases in academia are reinforced, hindering participation and representation of marginalised groups (Acker & Haque, Reference Acker and Haque2015).
In addition to the hostile environment and perpetuation of biases, voice and silence issues also have a profound impact on the emotional wellbeing and career prospects of individuals in academia (Makhamreh & Stockley, Reference Makhamreh and Stockley2020). The potential for dissatisfaction, anxiety, and stress is a prevalent consequence, as graduate students and ECAs often find themselves silenced or unable to challenge the status quo (Cotterall, Reference Cotterall2013; Falk et al., Reference Falk, Augustin, Torén and Magnusson2019; Gunasekera, Liyanagamage & Fernando, Reference Gunasekera, Liyanagamage and Fernando2021; Hunter & Devine, Reference Hunter and Devine2016; Ryan et al., Reference Ryan, Baik and Larcombe2022) or in some instances prefer to suffer, as was identified in one study (Makhamreh & Stockley, Reference Makhamreh and Stockley2020).
Moreover, failure to complete and the loss of data and years of work are not uncommon outcomes for ECAs who are doctoral students (Brodin, Reference Brodin2018; Schulze, Reference Schulze2015). The inability to voice concerns or the fear of backlash can lead individuals to abandon research projects or academic pursuits altogether, resulting in significant setbacks (Devos et al., Reference Devos, Van der Linden, Boudrenghien, Azzi, Frenay, Galand and Klein2015). Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding career prospects due to the lack of supervisory endorsement is a pervasive concern. When individuals are not allowed to challenge supervisors, or experience misaligned expectations, they may struggle to gain the necessary support and mentorship to advance their careers, resulting in uncertain career trajectories within academia (Audardottir, Reference Audardottir, Tietgen and Olafsdottir2021; Falk et al., Reference Falk, Augustin, Torén and Magnusson2019; Jazvac-Martek, Reference Jazvac‐Martek2009).
Enablers of ECA voice
All the articles in the review spoke to the ‘problematic and embedded power imbalance within the supervisory relationship’ (Riva, Gracia, & Limb, Reference Riva, Gracia and Limb2022, p. 922; see also Morris, Reference Morris2011). However many also identified working conditions that ECAs had experienced as (or believed would be) supportive (see Table A2) – conditions that are likely to reduce power differences and thus support voice. For example, ECAs were keen to experience work relationships characterised by empathic leadership, support, professional respect (Hunter & Devine, Reference Hunter and Devine2016), equality (Cotterall, Reference Cotterall2013), and caring (Devos et al., Reference Devos, Van der Linden, Boudrenghien, Azzi, Frenay, Galand and Klein2015). Trust in the supervisory relationship was also nominated as important (Billot et al., Reference Billot, King, Smith and Clouder2021; Denis, Colet, & Lison, Reference Denis, Colet and Lison2019; Devos et al., Reference Devos, Van der Linden, Boudrenghien, Azzi, Frenay, Galand and Klein2015; Robertson, Reference Robertson2017).
Clear, constructive and frequent communication (Denis et al., Reference Denis, Colet and Lison2019) and the ability to facilitate genuine dialogue (Baydarova, Reference Baydarova2023, Richards & Shiver, Reference Richards and Shiver2020) were also considered critical, especially where doctoral supervision is delivered in teams of two or more supervisors (Guerin & Green, Reference Guerin and Green2015). Shared environments that lead to opportunities for coffee catch-ups and informal conversation (Riva et al., Reference Riva, Gracia and Limb2022) were suggested as strategies to increase connection and communication between ECAs and more senior academics. One study investigated the use of technology-mediated communication (Rambe & Mkono, Reference Rambe and Mkono2019). It found use of the instant messaging service What’s App facilitated doctoral student voice in the supervisory relationship. The informal nature of the mechanism flattened the student-supervisor hierarchy and increased doctoral students’ and supervisor authenticity, enabling students to express themselves in a way that accommodated rather than exposed their vulnerabilities.
Supervision that allows for divergent thought and the development of personal agency (Richards & Shiver, Reference Richards and Shiver2020), academic identity (Jazvac‐Martek, Reference Jazvac‐Martek2009), and creativity in scholarship (Brodin, Reference Brodin2018) were considered important, as were relationships that encouraged growth, positivity, and confidence (Makhamreh & Stockley, Reference Makhamreh and Stockley2020). Qualities ECAs looked for in supervisors included emotional intelligence (Gunasekera et al., (Reference Gunasekera, Liyanagamage and Fernando2021) and the ability to see HDR students as people first (Schulze, Reference Schulze2012). Conversely, some studies highlighted the need for increased agency in doctoral students in particular (Hunter & Devine, Reference Hunter and Devine2016) – to take an active role in their supervision (Nguyet Nguyen & Robertson, Reference Nguyet Nguyen and Robertson2022; Schulze, Reference Schulze2012) and reduce their dependency on their supervisor/s (Falk et al., Reference Falk, Augustin, Torén and Magnusson2019).
Several studies advocated for structural and institutional support and or change to support ECAs, such as clear guidelines for doctoral students experiencing difficulties (Nguyet Nguyen & Robertson, Reference Nguyet Nguyen and Robertson2022; Schmidt & Hansson, Reference Schmidt and Hansson2022); increased time for doctoral supervision and guidance on milestones, progress, and direction (Ryan et al., Reference Ryan, Baik and Larcombe2022); and structures to support students who believe that their working conditions are unreasonable, that they are not receiving the support they need, or that their supervisory team needs to change (Falk et al., Reference Falk, Augustin, Torén and Magnusson2019). What is less clear is what voice support might be available for ECAs who are tenure-track academics. HDR students have the option to change supervisors (Falk et al., Reference Falk, Augustin, Torén and Magnusson2019; Schmidt and Hansson (Reference Schmidt and Hansson2022), a process not available to regular ECAs. Conversely, it has been pointed out that union support is not available to HDR students (Falk et al., Reference Falk, Augustin, Torén and Magnusson2019).
The capacity to envisage the ECA supervisory relationship as a partnership was considered key to doctoral relationship optimisation in two studies (Denis et al., Reference Denis, Colet and Lison2019; Richards & Shiver, Reference Richards and Shiver2020). In their analysis of their doctoral supervisory relationship, Richards and Shiver (Reference Richards and Shiver2020) suggest using the self-study of teacher education practices (S-STEP) method that underpinned their research as a doctoral student supervision pedagogy. S-STEP facilitates shared understanding, the challenging of assumptions and confrontation of difficult realities, and insights into how doctoral students develop their practice and are socialised into their profession (Richards & Shiver, Reference Richards and Shiver2020). Although a self-study process, engagement with others as a ‘critical friend’ – a ‘trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers a critique of a person’s work as a friend’ (Costa & Kallick, Reference Costa and Kallick1993, p. 50) – is encouraged. The study found although power will always be present in the supervisory relationship, it can be minimised if named and discussed, and need not be something with which students strategically comply (Richards & Shiver, Reference Richards and Shiver2020). As the study’s authors note, ‘engaging in a critical friendship … provided us with the space and encouragement to critique traditional power structures and develop a more honest relationship …’ (Richards & Shiver, Reference Richards and Shiver2020, p. 247) – an outcome that demonstrates how ECA-supervisor relationships can be approached to minimise silence and enhance voice.
Strategies for improvement
Improving the work and voice and silence experiences of ECAs requires a multifaceted approach that involves institutions, supervisors, and ECAs themselves. A number of the reviewed studies suggested institutions can adopt strategies that view doctoral students in particular as capable, creative agents in their own right, and permit creativity in their education (Brodin, Reference Brodin2018; Olmos-López & Sunderland, Reference Olmos-López and Sunderland2017; Riva et al., Reference Riva, Gracia and Limb2022; Robertson, Reference Robertson2017; Schulze, Reference Schulze2015). It was believed these shifts of perspective would empower students to take more active roles in their research and develop their own ‘voice’ within the academic community. Whilst this reference to voice was not consistent with the employee voice construct, it is possible the development of a robust academic identity would activate ECA voice. Additionally, it was suggested that institutional support could include recognising the role of emotions in shaping the doctoral experience. Acknowledging and addressing the emotional aspects of research and academia can help students navigate challenges related to confidence and resilience (Baydarova, 2023; Devos et al., Reference Devos, Van der Linden, Boudrenghien, Azzi, Frenay, Galand and Klein2015; Jazbac-Martek, Reference Jazvac‐Martek2009; Roberston, Reference Robertson2017) – and enhance wellbeing and voice (Brooks & Wilkinson, Reference Brooks, Wilkinson, Brough, Gardiner and Daniels2021).
Moreover, institutions can aim to promote clear, constructive, and frequent communication, treating doctoral training as a partnership. This approach would reduce the hierarchical differences inherent in the ECA-supervisor relationships, and foster trust between the two parties, allowing for more open dialogue and reducing the likelihood of negative consequences for speaking up (e.g., backlash or isolation) (Robertson, Reference Robertson2017; see also Holland, Cooper, & Sheehan, Reference Holland, Cooper and Sheehan2017 on the role of trust in enhancing voice). Establishing structures to support students who feel they are not receiving the assistance they need or who encounter unreasonable working conditions is crucial for their overall wellbeing and progress, and would be especially helpful where communication in the supervisory relationship is absent or suppressed. This includes mechanisms for changing supervisors when necessary (Ryan et al., Reference Ryan, Baik and Larcombe2022), venues for sharing and verbalising work (Riva et al., Reference Riva, Gracia and Limb2022), and providing mental health training for supervisors (Richards & Shiver, Reference Richards and Shiver2020) to better support the emotional needs of their students (e.g., leadership and mental health training for supervisors; continuous education in coaching and supervision).
Furthermore, institutions can implement clear procedures for dealing with diverse feedback, involving students in discussions about feedback to create a safe and inclusive environment (Guerin & Green, Reference Guerin and Green2015). Encouraging student and supervisor self-awareness, along with a focus on the fit between students and supervisors, can help address challenges related to misaligned expectations and difficult supervisory relationships. Supervisor training in the development of high-quality relationships and feedback, coupled with faculty workload policies that protect doctoral students’ interests, can create more supportive environments (Hunter & Devine, Reference Hunter and Devine2016; Nguyet Nguyen & Robertson, Reference Nguyet Nguyen and Robertson2022). Additionally, increasing supervisor awareness of students’ shifting agency and their quest for legitimisation could help address issues related to voice and silence. Institutions can improve ECAs’ working conditions and thus the likelihood of voice by conducting periodic reviews of supervision practices, student-supervisor matching and external supervision, as well as implementing mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating supervision practices.
To promote a culture of open dialogue and inclusivity, institutions can also aim to create avenues for voice that challenge managerial prerogatives within academia, ensuring that the concerns and perspectives of ECAs are heard and valued (Kalfa et al., Reference Kalfa, Wilkinson and Gollan2018). This may require organisational sanctions for non-compliance, proactive prevention measures at the institutional level, and the establishment of clear mechanisms for reporting concerns. Additionally, fostering an understanding of students’ experiences and providing comprehensive support, including career development and intercultural competence, can empower ECAs to voice their concerns and navigate the academic landscape more effectively (Nguyet Nguyen & Robertson, Reference Nguyet Nguyen and Robertson2022). Finally, promoting shared environments and informal conversations between students and supervisors can facilitate collaboration and break down hierarchical barriers and power imbalances (Riva et al., Reference Riva, Gracia and Limb2022). These strategies collectively aim to create a supportive and inclusive academic environment that empowers ECAs to find their voice and overcome challenges related to silence and lack of agency.
Discussion
The purpose of this scoping review was to uncover what is known about ECA voice and silence. The first search, described in the methods section, revealed only two management studies on ECAs (Fernando & Prasad, Reference Fernando and Prasad2019; Kalfa et al., Reference Kalfa, Wilkinson and Gollan2018), highlighting a gap in the extant voice and silence literature. This lead to the gathering of information from similarly themed HE research. Yet this review calls for more than voice and silence studies that focus on a neglected cohorts. Following Morrison (Reference Morrison2023), it strengthens the case for research that examines how different work contexts create the conditions for voice or silence. Although the majority of the studies were HE or HE-informed, they demonstrated scholars in these disciplines have noticed the impacts of challenging work environments and relationships on ECAs and that silence is a feature of their work experiences. They also confirmed what was noted in the literature review: ECAs’ work arrangements are atypical, asymmetrical, and complex and are connected to their disenfranchisement at work.
The review also found silence rather than voice is the norm in early career academia. All studies yielded data that could be linked to different types of silence, organisational silence (Morrison & Milliken, Reference Morrison and Milliken2000) being the most prevalent. That is, ECAs are immersed in institutional environments in which it is apparent that it is not safe to speak up or it is futile to do so, creating climates of silence in which individuals collectively believe speaking up is not welcome to the extent silence is an organisational norm (Morrison & Milliken, Reference Morrison and Milliken2000). At the individual level, ECAs predominately experience defensive or fear-based silence (Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Botero2003). For example, it was noted some ECAs perceive the supervisory relationship to be inherently unequal (e.g., Richards & Shiver), a state that leads those who feel especially powerless to choose quiescent silence (Pinder & Harlos, Reference Pinder and Harlos2001) in which there is little will to change the status quo. The data also revealed the possibility of diffident silence (Brinsfield, Reference Brinsfield2013), an inward-focused silence that is the product of insecurities, a lack of confidence, and fear of embarrassment and aims to avoid negative outcomes. Although diffident silence was not identified as a key concept in the literature review, it describes ECA experiences in several of the included studies (e.g., Hunter & Devine, Reference Hunter and Devine2016; Niemczyk, Reference Niemczyk2019). For example, isolation and not knowing where to turn for help was a common theme among doctoral students, especially international students, suggesting some ECAs will lack self-efficacy to voice (Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Botero2003).
The ‘cultures of silence’ identified by the international students in Cotterall’s (Reference Cotterall2013) study were reminiscent of the aforementioned climates of silence (Morrison & Milliken, Reference Morrison and Milliken2000). Cotterall was referring to the cultural norms and values that prevent some doctoral students from speaking up. However, she also challenged the perception that international students are less adept at voicing concerns than their domestic counterparts, stating their silences ‘may have less to do with culture than power’ (Cotterall, Reference Cotterall2013, p. 184). This implies cultures of silence will prevail among doctoral students regardless of country of origin. It also aligns with management scholars (e.g., Kaufman, Reference Kaufman, Wilkinson, Donaghey, Dundon and Freeman2020) who posit that the employment relationship is inherently unequal and that power asymmetry is a characteristic of employee silence. However, where Hirschman (Reference Hirschman1970) states voice has the power to remedy dissatisfaction with the status quo, Cotterall is less sure, proposing in academia, the ‘prevailing culture of silence militates against systemic change’ (Cotterall, Reference Cotterall2013, p. 174). Her assessment of the ECA environment is echoed in Fernando and Prasad’s (Reference Fernando and Prasad2019)study on the organisational silencing of ECAs, which resulted in their reluctant, acquiescent silence (Pinder & Harlos, Reference Pinder and Harlos2001).
Kalfa et al. (2017) uncovered a similar phenomenon, in which their ECA participants believed vocal resistance was useless in the face of managerial imperatives. However, as the authors suggest, their silences were not only acquiescent but defensive (Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Botero2003), driven by the desire for career progression and the fear of unemployment. Neglect of less important duties and exiting the university were other reported options. The concept of exit as an alternative to voice was first advanced in Hirschman’s (Reference Hirschman1970) seminal exit-voice-loyalty framework, devised in the context of consumers rather than employees. Neglect was added to the model by Farrell (Reference Farrell1983) and, in the workplace context, refers to the propensity to signal discontent by disregarding duties or similar rather than speaking up. Hirschman’s concept of loyalty was somewhat synonymous with silence. It referred to the individual’s decision to remain loyal and hope circumstances will change, rather than voice dissatisfaction or exit.
The loyalty concept has further salience in the employment context. Dean and Greene’s (Reference Dean and Greene2017) study – one of the two work context studies identified by Morrison (Reference Morrison2023) – found members of some occupations embrace occupational ideologies that lead them to tolerate poor working conditions. This propensity to ‘suffer in silence’ for one’s vocation could be mirrored in academia, driven by competition for resources, publications, and recognition and the desire to prove oneself competent. This in turn suggests relational silence (Brinsfield, Reference Brinsfield2013; Milliken & Morrison, Reference Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin2003), in which individuals avoid speaking up to ensure they are able to progress in their careers, could flourish among ECAs. This is a phenomenon that has been observed among new professionals in medicine, a similarly competitive and stratified field (Lister & Spaeth, Reference Lister, Spaeth, Edwards, Martin and Ashkanasy2024).
The silence experiences of the tenure-track ECAs in Kalfa et al. (Reference Kalfa, Wilkinson and Gollan2018) study were reminiscent of other types of silence. Cynical silence refers to employee silence born of the belief that superiors are ‘selfish and dishonest’ (Prouska & Psychogios, Reference Prouska and Psychogios2018, pp. 627–8) in the way they use external circumstances, such as economic crises, to justify internal decision-making. Additionally, managerial silencing (Donaghey et al., Reference Donaghey, Dundon, Cullinane, Dobbins and Hickland2019) describes ways in which managers ostensibly endorse employees’ right to speak up whilst organising them out of the voice process, ensuring the asymmetry inherent in the employment relationship (Kaufman, Reference Kaufman, Wilkinson, Donaghey, Dundon and Freeman2020) remains intact. Such activities undermine trust, a quality that has been identified as a voice enabler in studies of employee voice and silence (e.g., Holland et al., Reference Holland, Cooper and Sheehan2017). As Kalfa et al. (Reference Kalfa, Wilkinson and Gollan2018) observed, there were few genuine mechanisms for individual ECA voice as the flow of information was one-way. They also noted that collective voice in the form of union action might not be enough to overcome managerialist logic.
Limitations and future research
As this scoping review revealed, employee voice and silence researchers in the management discipline have paid scant attention to ECAs and how their work arrangements and supervisory relationships impact their ability to speak up. Yet the two management studies that were identified (Fernando & Prasad, Reference Fernando and Prasad2019; Kalfa et al., Reference Kalfa, Wilkinson and Gollan2018) enriched much of the discussion in the previous section, suggesting a need for more research on ECA voice and silence by voice and silence scholars. This is especially the case regarding the impact of contextual factors on voice. As the review demonstrated, with its employment and employment-like arrangements, the idiosyncratic nature of the ECA world provides a complex and intriguing milieu worthy of further examination.
This is not to diminish the quality of the evidence extracted from the HE studies identified in this review. Although absent of voice and silence nomenclature, they paint vivid pictures of the power dynamics inherent in the ECA-supervisor relationship and the difficulties ECAs face that make speaking up about their concerns and ideas challenging if not unlikely. These studies indeed ‘tell us how it is’, suggesting transdisciplinary approaches to this topic are also warranted.
The limitations of this scoping review are acknowledged. One is that most of included studies involved doctoral students, presenting an incomplete picture of the ECA cohort. As a result, less is known about employed ECAs’ voice and silence, particularly sessional ECAs not undertaking a HDR, and post-doctoral researchers and research fellows in non-tenure-track roles. Another is whilst the use of the MMAT assessment process enhanced the overall quality of the review, it could have led to the exclusion of relevant data.
Overall, the review has made a step towards understanding the nature of ECA voice and silence, predominately by examining the work of scholars unacquainted with employee voice and silence theory or whose focus was not ECA voice and silence. To gain a deeper understanding of this topic, exploratory empirical research on ECA voice and silence grounded in management theories of employee voice and silence is indicated.
Conclusion
This scoping review found that ECAs’ accounts of their experiences are characterised by negative perceptions and that ECAs are immersed in cultures in which hierarchical norms prevail, creating collective-level climates of silence in which speaking up is unlikely (Morrison & Milliken, Reference Morrison and Milliken2000). These and other barriers related to their work arrangements and supervisory relationships motivate ECAs’ silence at the individual level, with fear (Van Dyne et al., Reference Van Dyne, Ang and Botero2003) being the most common reason for silence. Several of the studies explicitly highlight these barriers and their impact on ECAs’ upward voice about their workplace-related (relational and professional) concerns and ideas for improvement. Discussion on how future research can best expand understanding of voice and silence in the ECA context, and tie voice and silence theory to the study of different work contexts, is required. As employee wellbeing is in part contingent on the ability to speak up at work, suggestions on how to optimise future research to influence policy and practice in the context of ECA wellbeing at work and HDR student supervision are also sought.
Appendix
Selected studies by author, year and title
Silence types and voice barriers and enablers extracted from the articles selected for review
Open access
