Called to speak up: BIPOC women academics’ sense of power,calling and constructive voice

Abstract

Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) women academics face a paradox in higher education – tasked with championing diversity and critical inquiry, yet their voices are often silenced and their labour undervalued. This Interchanges piece examines how intersecting oppressions shape BIPOC women's sense of power, calling and capacity for constructive voice. Drawing from empirical and theoretical scholarship, we illustrate that despite systemic barriers, BIPOC women's calling motivates their intellectual activism to resist their collective marginalisation. However, this calling is frequently instrumentalised by institutions, where their services, particularly in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, mentorship and care work, are undervalued or unrecognised. We call for institutional reforms to acknowledge and redistribute this labour, ensuring that calling is sustained as empowerment rather than exploitation.

While universities are recognised as critical sites for challenging the status quo, Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) women academics face a fraught reality when speaking up or when engaging in what is referred to as constructive voice behaviour (Morrison, 2011). Kimberlé Crenshaw's (1989: 140) seminal work argued that ‘the intersectional experience is greater than the sum of racism and sexism’, a reality that has led to the systemic undervaluation and silencing of BIPOC women within academic power institutions. This paradox lies at the heart of academia, described as a space that, as Freire (1970: 28) observed, is founded on pedagogical inquiry and critical discourse, which he describes as a form of ‘permanent liberation’, that is achieved through ‘action in depth through which the culture of domination is culturally confronted’, yet one that often replicates the very hierarchies it seeks to challenge. Thus, while institutions may demand the visible presence of BIPOC women for diversity optics, they simultaneously suppress their voices and limit authentic participation. The constructive voice disparities experienced by BIPOC women, rooted in systemic and historic exclusion and disempowerment, call for what Abdellatif (2021) describes as not only amplifying marginalised voices but also meaningfully transforming structures that perpetuate their marginalisation. In line with her position, this article contends that efforts to dismantle social inequities must involve a collective voice to address marginalisation and inequity.

This piece examines how BIPOC women's sense of power, shaped by intersecting oppressions, influences their capacity for constructive voice, which Morrison (2011: 375) defined as ‘the discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organisational or unit functioning’. Despite these barriers, we argue that BIPOC women academics’ profound sense of calling – work ‘viewed as a duty and destiny, a source of fulfillment that is important to one's identity’ (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997: 22) – will drive resistance, enabling BIPOC women to speak up despite the risks. Yet, without meaningful institutional support for collective resistance and systemic reform, this calling risks becoming an isolating burden rather than a catalyst for sustainable, transformative change. This underscores the need to examine the deeper theoretical and empirical foundations of power, voice and calling in academia. Power is defined as an individual's capacity to influence the states of others by providing or withholding resources or administering consequences. This capacity is inherently relational and contextual, highlighting the importance of influence within social dynamics. In contrast, the sense of power, as described by Anderson et al. (2012: 314), refers to the ‘perception of one's capacity to influence others’. Thus, sense of power refers to the perception of one's ability to influence others, regardless of actual authority or resources. According to the approach/inhibition theory by Keltner et al. (2003), ‘elevated power […] activates approach-related tendencies’, including hope, elation and risk taking, while ‘reduced power […] activates inhibition-related tendencies’, including anxiety and risk aversion. Consequently, individuals who feel more powerful are more likely to speak up, while those who feel less so are likely to remain silent. While universities are commonly viewed as progressive spaces that challenge entrenched power structures and held ideas, academia remains deeply tied to identity, with majority groups retaining significant influence.

This ongoing imbalance within academia underscores how institutional structures often mirror broader societal hierarchies, rather than disrupt them. Thus, academic environments commonly reinforce existing patterns of privilege and exclusion, leading to prevailing obstacles which disrupt marginalised groups’ ability towards progress. For BIPOC women, this reality is navigating spaces where their presence is both unwelcome and scrutinised, their contributions undervalued and dismissed and their voices routinely cast aside. Thus, many turn to silence as a strategy for survival in the face of professional repercussions. These constraints on their constructive voice are not merely psychological but are rooted in the structural realities of their intersectional oppression. Challenging the status quo in organisations constitutes voice behaviour, as framed by Hirschman (1970), which includes expressing concerns or suggestions to improve the organisation (voice), rather than leaving (exit) or remaining silent (loyalty). Voice, as defined by Van Dyne et al. (1995: 266), describes ‘proactively challenging the status quo and making constructive suggestions’, emphasizing its role as discretionary citizenship behaviour that enhances organisational effectiveness. We focus on constructive voice, defined by Morrison (2011) as the ‘discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organisational or unit functioning' (375), Van Dyne et al. (1995), given its well-documented impact on organisational performance and alignment with prosocial citizenship. However, because it can disrupt power structures, those who speak up may be perceived as troublemakers, which can lead to negative repercussions for BIPOC women academics. Contrastingly, defensive silence, which refers to intentionally withholding work-related ideas and opinions, is especially prevalent among those with less power in hierarchical organisations, serving as a protective strategy.

Power is viewed in academia as fundamentally shaped by White, male-dominated value systems, mirroring the broader patriarchal structures of society. The reality for those who define themselves as outside of these parameters is the need to contend with cultures and structures that reproduce what Du Bois (1935: 700) called the ‘public and psychological wage’ of whiteness. As Hall et al. (2022: 1–16) explain:

the methodological University, defined against the universe of value, objectifies all of life, including the materiality of social identities. Queer, feminist, Black, disabled, social identities exist as beings in themselves but are judged against the methodological power of whiteness, such that they cannot be for themselves.

While gender equity has seen some progress, advances in intersectional representation have been more limited. Crenshaw's (1989) framework demonstrates how individuals face multiple forms of discrimination through converging stereotyped identities (i.e. race, class, gender), highlighting how BIPOC women face compounded forms of discrimination. Moreover, intersecting stereotypes of race and gender deeply shape BIPOC women's experiences in leadership, resulting in ongoing marginalisation and disempowerment. Microaggressions function as a persistent channel for these dynamics, subjecting BIPOC women to what Wilkins-Yel et al. (2019) describe as ‘hypervisible invisibility’. This paradoxical phenomenon renders BIPOC women as both overlooked and intensely scrutinised, delegitimising them as leaders and exacerbating their exclusion within university settings. Academia's culture of fear creates a ‘chilly climate’ for women scholars, due to the enduring ‘superhero’ prototype of academic excellence, cultivating a psychological lack of fit for women academics. These challenges are worsened for BIPOC women, who have been historically marginalised in higher education. For example, Black women face prevailing experiences of tokenism, gaslighting and isolation, which reinforces the ‘hypervisible invisiblility’ leading to simultaneous scrutinisation and systemic exclusion, undermining both their sense of belonging and their power to exercise voice.

For BIPOC women in academia, the decision to speak up in the face of risk is often rooted in a profound sense of calling – notably defined by Duffy and Dik (2013: 429) as ‘an approach to work that reflects the belief that one's career is a central part of a broader sense of purpose and meaning in life and is used to help others or advance the greater good in some fashion’. As Contu (2020: 737) puts it, intellectual activism ‘calls you to focus not only on knowledge production as an abstract process but as part of an actual academic praxis’. As Contu (2020) contends, the academy represents a vocation that embodies a critical moral obligation towards reclaiming power, which we contend is a critical calling for BIPOC women academics. This calling manifests in two primary ways: self-realization (personal fulfilment and authenticity) and unification (others-orientated). According to Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned behaviour, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control shape intentions to act. We argue that calling strengthens these psychological factors, motivating BIPOC women to engage in constructive voice despite their reduced sense of power in the academy. Specifically, this psychological foundation enables BIPOC women to voice critique despite systemic marginalisation, transforming individual purpose into collective resistance.

Research shows that a sense of calling predicts greater engagement in voice behaviour, elicited by a felt responsibility for constructive change and increased optimism about institutional reform. For BIPOC women, this sense of calling not only motivates their propensity to speak up but also serves as a buffer against the psychological toll of systemic marginalisation. This phenomenon is exemplified in BIPOC women's historical engagement in intellectual activism – a form of constructive voice aimed at addressing systemic inequities through scholarship, mentorship and institutional advocacy. Recent scholarship highlights the multifaceted ways that BIPOC women academics engage in intellectual activism as a form of constructive voice. Intersectional collaborations are particularly significant, fostering solidarity and collective resistance among marginalised scholars. These networks serve as crucial support systems, enabling BIPOC women to navigate and challenge institutional barriers. Other work has analysed the concept of ‘noncooperative spaces’ within academia, recognised as contexts where Black women intellectual activists persistently assert their voice despite systemic racism and institutional indifference. This work emphasizes the resilience and strategic navigation required to maintain voice in these challenging environments. Research has also emphasized how BIPOC women critique dominant knowledge systems and advance knowledge-based justice, often through a decolonial feminist perspective. These findings illuminate that BIPOC women's intellectual activism represents both a source of resilience and a critical mechanism towards disrupting inequities embedded within academia. Thus, BIPOC women academics draw from their commitment to purpose and their status, which Collins (1986) refers to as ‘outsiders within’, to challenge norms, counter microaggressions, build unified networks and engage in collective efforts to disrupt the status quo towards counteracting their marginalisation.

While calling can empower BIPOC women to employ constructive voice, it is often instrumentalized by the academy. BIPOC women's intellectual activism is used to extract unpaid labour, reinforcing existing power asymmetries. They are expected to take on a disproportionate share of academic care work and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)-related service – a phenomenon that Joseph and Hirshfield (2011) call ‘cultural taxation’. These tasks, including diversity committees, mentoring, outreach and visible representation, require significant emotional labour and are rarely recognised in tenure and promotion, creating invisible labour that detracts from research and career advancement. These expectations heighten burnout and reinforce structural inequities, keeping BIPOC women at the margins of academic power. The all-consuming nature of calling, alone, can lead to psychological burnout. However, when institutions nurture calling through supportive policies, including workload reduction, equitable compensation and formal and targeted mentorship, calling becomes a source of sustainable resistance and collective power, rather than exploitation. Recognizing and redistributing the labour associated with calling is thus essential for transforming the academy into a space where BIPOC women's voices are valued and sustained.

Thus, the paradox of BIPOC women's voice in academia – called to speak up yet often silenced – demands transformative change. Addressing this requires moving beyond individual resilience to collective resistance. Drawing on hooks’ (1990: 23) framework, which views BIPOC women's intersectional identities as spaces for building a ‘community of resistance’, we first call for the recognition and redistribution of the labour of calling. Given the preponderance of DEI tasks disproportionately assigned to BIPOC women and other marginalised scholars, institutions must formally acknowledge and reward this invisible work in addition to other critical undertakings such as mentorship and community-engaged scholarship – DEI labour should be weighted equally in tenure and promotion, recognised as intellectual leadership rather than ad-hoc service. This call must also address the broader gendered division of academic labour, which places greater service expectations on women, especially in roles that remain largely unrewarded, which we contend exacerbates the cognitive labour endured by BIPOC women academics. Second, we propose a global consortium to amplify collective calling and to transform isolated resistance into power. This consortium would centralise strategies for navigating the paradox of voice, support self-care and connect scholars through mentorship that frames calling as a shared resource. Crucially, it would generate actionable pathways for change, such as developing research outputs that reframe dissent as vital to innovation, creating decolonial frameworks for tenure review and establishing cross-institutional accountability networks. By embedding critique into structures like that of the university, where dissent is not merely tolerated but recognised as an essential element of collegiality, academic spaces can institutionalise transformation. Finally, as a last call to action, it is vital to recognise that academic institutions bear a profound historical and ethical responsibility, one rooted in the Socratic tradition of inquiry and critical dialogue. This legacy obligates us all to speak out against marginalisation and to uphold the values of justice, equity and humanity. The responsibility for transformation and progress within academia cannot rest solely on the shoulders of BIPOC women academics and other marginalised members. Indeed, this is a collective duty that belongs to every member of the academic community.

Although many academics hold these values close to heart, institutional priorities, including the relentless focus on publication metrics and narrowly defined research standards, too often relegate crucial conversations surrounding justice and equity to the margins. Therefore, we must reframe our academic calling as one that prioritises constructive voice in our scholarship, teaching and service. Let us create spaces and incentives that empower all members of the academy, which is not limited to colleagues but importantly also includes the students entrusted to our care, who according to Freire (1970) are ‘no longer docile listeners—are now critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher’, alongside the broader society we serve. The collective undertaking of calling relies on our willingness to engage authentically and courageously and, as we move forward, lets us ensure that academic spaces remain true arbiters of this non-negotiable commitment, placing the pursuit of justice and transformation at the very core of what we write, teach and contribute. The paradox of voice in academia, where BIPOC women are simultaneously called upon to represent diversity and silenced when they challenge the status quo, demands urgent attention. By building structures that honour calling as a form of expertise and redistribute power to sustain it, we can disassemble the paradox and create an academy where voice is not a risk but a right. By centring the experiences, insights and leadership of BIPOC women, we can transform the academy into an institution that meaningfully embodies the values of inquiry, innovation and social transformation.