# Invisible conflicts: the impact of covert academic bullying among “Double First-Class” young medical teachers on academic output—a qualitative study

## TL;DR

This study explores how hidden academic bullying affects young medical teachers in Chinese universities and impacts their academic work.

## Contribution

The study introduces a new framework for understanding covert academic bullying and its full-chain impact on academic output in medical disciplines.

## Key findings

- Covert bullying follows a chain of entry restriction, process constraint, and endpoint undermining.
- Gender and career stage intersections worsen the impact of bullying on academic output.
- Centralized management and relationship-based culture sustain the bullying phenomenon.

## Abstract

China’s “Double First-Class” initiative has significantly reshaped higher education resources. While medical disciplines benefit from concentrated funding and platforms, they also face heightened competition and pressure. This study investigates the manifestations and mechanisms of covert academic bullying in these universities and its full-chain impact on young medical teachers’ academic output.

Using phenomenological and social constructivist approaches, 21 teachers from 12 universities were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling for semi-structured interviews. Data were transcribed, anonymized, and thematically analyzed with NVivo, yielding six core themes.

Covert academic bullying follows an “entry restriction–process constraint–endpoint undermining” chain, involving information withholding, institutional marginalization, resource deprivation, heavy workload, unfair authorship, and reputation manipulation. Gender and career stage intersections intensify disadvantages, while core teams’ monopolization of resources restricts peripheral teachers’ opportunities in collaboration, project access, and platform utilization.

The phenomenon is persistent and linked to centralized management and relationship-based culture. Recommended interventions include improving information transparency, ensuring review fairness, securing independent budgets and priority resources, and protecting authorship and reputation, supported by cross-institutional cooperation and online platforms to sustain research productivity and career resilience.