Contemporary resilience science, particularly from a developmental systems perspective, conceptualizes resilience as a dynamic, adaptive capacity. It is not a static individual trait, but rather a capability distributed across multiple interacting systems (Fullerton et al., 2021; Ungar and Theron, 2020). Resilience is defined as “the ability of a dynamic system to successfully adapt to challenges that threaten its function, survival, or development through multi-system processes” (Panter-Brick and Eggerman, 2011). This process-oriented perspective emphasizes that an individual's adaptability is inextricably linked to the resources, relationships, and structures within their environment. While current research on resilience primarily focuses on responses to specific stressors, challenges, or traumas, researchers have pointed out that individuals are not limited to experiencing a single traumatic event in their lifetime, and experiencing the same event does not guarantee similar outcomes across individuals (Ungar et al., 2012).

The “multi-system” nature of this framework integrates multiple domains—such as traits, protective factors, psychological attributes, and external social and community structures—by conceptualizing resilience as a continuously evolving capacity. MSMR maps these domains to sources of resilience across three systems (Liu et al., 2020). MSMR outlines three interdependent core systems as follows.

First, individual characteristics (internal resilience) represent the innermost layer of resilience, comprising relatively stable resources nested within the individual (Liu et al., 2017). This system forms the foundation of adaptability and encompasses a range of internal factors, including not only psychological attributes but also physiological stress-response systems (the autonomic nervous system and the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis), health behaviors (sleep, exercise, diet), and other key biological indicators such as epigenetics and telomeres (Obradović, 2012). In studies of lecturers in higher education settings, internal resilience often includes optimism, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving abilities, and the physiological capacity to manage stress (Bento et al., 2021). It typically comprises three types of “resilience acquisition nodes”: (1) “emotional nodes,” through which individuals find solutions to problems and learn to cope with change through positive experiences (García-Rivera et al., 2022); (2) “social nodes,” related to belonging, interpersonal relationships, and support from close friends, students, and family (Riquelme et al., 2023); and (3) “school nodes,” through which individuals develop problem-solving abilities via cooperation with their affiliated educational institutions (Galindo-Domínguez et al., 2020).

Second, development and coping processes (coping and pursuit) act as a dynamic and transactional bridge between the individual's internal world and the external environment. This represents the “process” dimension of resilience, reflecting individuals' orientations and responses to their living environments and encompassing the proactive ways in which they cope with challenges, pursue goals, and adapt over time (Stainton et al., 2018). For lecturers and researchers, this system is inherently developmental and consists of factors that can be gradually cultivated through interpersonal interactions and experience, including strategies for dealing with manuscript rejection, career goal-setting behaviors, learning and skill acquisition, and the ability to find meaning and purpose in work under institutional pressure (Métais et al., 2022).

Third, environmental and socio-ecological influences (external resilience) constitute the outermost system, including background factors and socio-ecological resources that contribute to or constrain individual resilience (Pi Ferrer et al., 2025). Kinchin (2021) argues that, based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, this layer can be understood by applying its nested structure to the HEI environment. The microsystem, as the direct professional environment, includes relationships with departmental colleagues, mentors, students, and direct supervisors, the quality of which provides crucial social support. The exosystem comprises broader institutional structures and policies that indirectly influence academics, such as promotion and tenure standards, funding allocation patterns, and the availability of faculty development programs. Ultimately, the macrosystem encompasses the cultural values and ideologies of academia and society, such as the “publish or perish” culture, the emphasis on research over teaching, and government policies regarding higher education funding. These contextual layers provide tangible and intangible resources, such as social support, access to information, financial stability, and a sense of belonging, that are essential for successful adaptation.

In short, the overall goal of MSMR is to capture intra-individual differences, inter-individual factors, and broader socio-political influences that shape the dynamics and outcomes of resilience (Ungar et al., 2021). Luthar et al. (2000) argue that resilience is often associated with anomalous markers or events within an individual and is therefore frequently measured at a specific point in time, despite the fact that it may not remain constant over time. This implies that the internal system is not entirely fixed; while it may show stability similar to other traits, it is also subject to long-term influences from other systems through processes such as neuroplasticity (Denckla et al., 2020). Therefore, MSMR is not trauma-based; rather, it conceptualizes resilience as holistic and comprehensive, unconstrained by any single event or outcome. This enables the development of a broad and multidimensional resilience model as part of daily functioning while accounting for dynamic system-level factors (Chmitorz et al., 2018).

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) is a higher-order construct originating from Positive Organizational Behavior (POB). It is defined as “an individual's positive psychological state of development” (Luthans et al., 2010; Luthans and Youssef-Morgan, 2017). PsyCap consists of four positive psychological resources, collectively referred to as HERO: (1) confidence (self-efficacy), defined as the ability to mobilize the necessary effort to successfully complete challenging tasks; (2) optimism, reflected in positive attributions about present and future success; (3) hope, characterized by persistent goal pursuit and flexible pathway thinking; and (4) resilience, defined as the ability to persevere, bounce back, and overcome adversity, ultimately achieving success. These components share a common theme of positive appraisal and goal attainment through effort and perseverance. Evidence suggests that their synergistic combination has a greater impact than the sum of its parts. A key characteristic of PsyCap is its “state-like” nature, which differs from more fixed “trait-like” personality characteristics. This malleability implies that PsyCap can be cultivated and enhanced through targeted interventions and supportive environments. Zhang et al. (2024), based on an analysis of 412 journal articles in the Web of Science database, indicate that current research primarily focuses on several established areas, such as the relationships between PsyCap and academic achievement, student well-being, engagement, and faculty performance and burnout. However, research on PsyCap among university faculty, particularly novice teacher educators, remains relatively scarce compared with studies focusing on students. For example, empirical evidence on how institutional support (mentoring and resource allocation) translates into sustained teacher motivation remains limited.

While mainstream PsyCap research methods are generally considered practical, they also have limitations. As a higher-order construct, the relationships and distinctions among the four components of PsyCap (HERO), namely hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism, are sometimes questioned, potentially reflecting a “jingle–jangle fallacy,” in which different terms describe the same phenomenon. In higher education research, this can lead to measurement redundancy and theoretical ambiguity regarding whether the four components function independently or synergistically (Altgassen et al., 2023; Marsh et al., 2019). van Zyl et al. (2023) argue that because such models often detach from context and focus excessively on the individual, the operationalization of psychological resources, while measurable, may remain linear and fail to capture the dynamic interaction between individuals and their environments. Although PsyCap (including hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism) is often defined as a “state-like” resource, meaning it is variable and developable, in empirical research it is frequently treated as a static “trait-like” variable measured at a single time point and then used to predict outcomes.

This implies that research on positive psychological resources aimed at alleviating the persistent and multifaceted nature of academic stress requires a more complex, multi-system theoretical perspective that supports a process-oriented definition. Such a definition would clarify the “psychological resource activation process” and its triggering factors arising from interactions between university lecturers' individual capacities and their systemic contexts, which may be domain-specific or time-limited, and even achieved at the expense of other functional domains (Quinlan et al., 2015).

To ensure a rigorous and systematic selection process, this study developed strict eligibility criteria structured around the PICOS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design), as recommended by the PRISMA guidelines (Methley et al., 2014; Page et al., 2021). Specifically, the population (P) was defined as academic staff within higher education institutions (lecturers, researchers, professors), explicitly excluding K−12 teachers and students to focus on the unique pressures of academia. The intervention/exposure (I) examined was the academic work environment, particularly contexts characterized by neoliberal pressures, crisis events (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), or specific institutional challenges. As this is a meta-ethnographic synthesis of qualitative experiences, a comparator (C) group was not applicable. The primary outcome (O) of interest was the development, maintenance, or erosion of psychological capital (PsyCap) and its core components (hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism). Finally, regarding study design (S), the review was restricted to qualitative (phenomenology, grounded theory) and mixed-methods studies that provided rich, descriptive data suitable for synthesis.

Based on this framework, the authors' search terms focused on the antecedents, processes, and contexts of academics' psychological capital, and Boolean operators were applied (Bramer et al., 2018). The databases were selected based on disciplinary relevance to ensure optimal retrieval of educational and organizational psychology literature (Bramer et al., 2018). Specifically, ERIC and Scopus were chosen for their comprehensive coverage of the social sciences, whereas clinical databases (MEDLINE) were excluded because their biomedical focus did not align with the study's scope. To identify research related to academics' psychological capital, the authors constructed a comprehensive multi-string search strategy using AND and OR operators. Search strings were tailored to the syntax of each database (Scopus, ERIC, ProQuest, and Google Scholar) by combining keywords across three core concepts (see Table 1) to maximize the accuracy and relevance of retrieval.

Following the search, the authors applied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2) to select the final studies. The search scope was limited to English-language literature published between 2020 and 2024. This timeframe (2020–2024) was selected to capture the “dual disruption” facing higher education: the immediate systemic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic (Krsmanovic et al., 2024; Watermeyer et al., 2021) and intensified neoliberal pressures—such as casualization and the “audit culture”—that have fundamentally altered the academic work environment in recent years (Bone, 2021; Bosetti and Heffernan, 2021).

The study population was limited to academics in higher education institutions (including professors, lecturers, and researchers), explicitly excluding studies with primary samples of K−12 teachers, administrators, or students. Regarding research phenomena and context, this study focused on psychological capital and its core dimensions (resilience, self-efficacy, hope, and optimism) within higher education. Studies conducted in clinical nursing or other non-academic organizational settings were excluded. Methodologically, only qualitative research (phenomenological, narrative inquiry, grounded theory) and mixed-methods research containing rich substantive data were included. Purely quantitative studies, literature reviews, editorials, and theoretical articles lacking empirical data were excluded. Furthermore, to ensure corpus consistency, only peer-reviewed English-language journal articles were included.

Figure 1 illustrates the process by which the research team systematically searched four major databases, namely Google Scholar, ERIC, Scopus, and ProQuest, based on the above criteria. This study initially identified 2,968 relevant articles. After removing 873 duplicates using literature management software, the remaining 2,095 articles entered the initial screening stage. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 1,737 articles were excluded due to mismatched research subjects (mainly students, n = 685), purely quantitative designs (n = 602), or clinical nursing backgrounds (n = 450). Subsequently, full-text screening and in-depth assessment were conducted on the remaining 358 articles. At this stage, another 339 articles were excluded, primarily due to a lack of qualitative depth in the research design (n = 145), a lack of focus on psychological capital theory (n = 112), indistinguishable sample pools (n = 60), and a lack of empirical data (n = 22). Ultimately, 19 studies met all inclusion criteria, forming the basis for this meta-ethnographic synthesis.

To ensure the reliability and validity of the synthesis results, this study used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative research checklist to assess the quality of the 19 included articles (see Supplementary Table 1). The CASP tool comprises 10 appraisal dimensions, covering clarity of research objectives, appropriateness of methodology, rigor of research design, adequacy of data collection and analysis, and the value of the findings (Long et al., 2020). To provide a quantifiable overview of methodological rigor, a scoring system was applied to the CASP checklist (Yes = 1, Can't tell = 0.5, No = 0), resulting in a total possible score of 10. The authors evaluated each study and discussed score discrepancies until consensus was reached. Based on this appraisal, all 19 studies were classified as high quality (scores ranging from 8.0 to 10.0).

The results indicated that most included studies demonstrated rigorous research designs and clearly elucidated academics' psychological experiences. While most criteria were met, minor deductions were primarily due to Question 6 (reflexivity), where some authors did not explicitly articulate the influence of the researcher–participant relationship. However, given that the core of meta-ethnography lies in the interpretive potential of concepts rather than methodological perfection, these studies were retained. Their inclusion was justified by their rich “second-order constructs”—that is, the original authors' interpretations of academics' psychological capital experiences—which were essential for ensuring the integrity and diversity of the theoretical synthesis.

The initial data extraction was performed by the first author used a standardized form. To ensure reliability and minimize bias, the corresponding author acted as a second reviewer, independently cross-checking the extracted codes and themes against the original texts. Consistent with the meta-ethnographic approach, the authors extracted both “first-order constructs” (participants' direct quotes) and “second-order constructs” (the original authors' interpretations). Any discrepancies regarding data extraction or interpretation were resolved through discussion between the two authors until consensus was reached.

Following this extraction process, the study adhered to the meta-ethnographic framework proposed by Noblit and Hare (1988) to synthesize the data. The analysis began by confirming the research objective and identifying the 19 core articles through the screening process described in Section 3.1. The authors then engaged in immersive and repeated readings of the full texts to identify core metaphors and concepts embedded within the narratives. This progressed to determining relationships between studies by juxtaposing their core themes (see Table 3). The synthesis revealed primarily “reciprocal” relationships, where different scholars used varying terms (“professional resilience” and “academic buoyancy”) to describe similar processes of psychological resource development. Simultaneously, “refutational” viewpoints were identified, such as debates over whether stress acts as an inhibitor or an activator of psychological capital, providing an opportunity to examine the dialectical nature of the phenomenon.

In the fifth stage, “reciprocal translation,” the authors followed relevant qualitative coding guidelines (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015), using the core concepts of one study as a frame of reference to compare and translate corresponding concepts in another study. For example, the description of “self-efficacy” in one study was translated and mapped onto the narrative of “teaching confidence” in another study, thereby extracting common themes across studies while maintaining the original meaning. This process is not a simple merging of findings, but rather an identification of shared psychological mechanisms across different educational and cultural contexts through constant comparison.

In the subsequent sixth stage (“synthetic translation”) and seventh stage (“expressive synthesis”), the authors moved beyond individual studies to construct higher-level “third-order constructs” by integrating the translation results. The synthesis was ultimately expressed through a “multi-system psychological capital model,” which integrates individual-level psychological resources (hope and optimism) with meso-level organizational support and macro-level socio-cultural conditions. Through a “line-of-argument” synthesis, the study presents an integrated account of how academics reconstruct psychological capital through dynamic adaptation across multiple systems.

The 19 research articles included in this analysis collectively constitute a rich international evidence base on the psychological states and professional experiences of contemporary higher education academics (including lecturers, professors, deans, and researchers, as well as specific groups such as medical, STEM, and female scholars). These studies show substantial convergence in themes, contexts, and methodologies (see Table 4).

At the thematic level, although these studies focus primarily on the elements of psychological capital (PsyCap) among academics under both longstanding and emerging stressors, particularly resilience, self-efficacy, hope, and optimism, they also commonly examine work–life balance and mental health concerns as related outcomes associated with PsyCap and its components. A prominent shared feature of these stressors is that the studies are almost universally situated within a context of “crisis.” This crisis takes two forms. First, chronic stressors refer to systemic pressures driven by neoliberal ideology, manifested in precarious employment, managerialism, a “publish or perish” performance culture, educational reforms, and increasing complexity (Bone, 2021; Bosetti and Heffernan, 2021; Kekäle and Pinheiro, 2024; Ross et al., 2022; Yin and Mu, 2023). Second, acute shocks primarily refer to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a sudden and global disruption, this event comprehensively tested the resilience of the academic system (Bento et al., 2021; Cerbin-Koczorowska et al., 2023; Krsmanovic et al., 2024; Millican et al., 2023; Shaik et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2023).

Across the 19 included studies, researchers employed diverse methodological approaches to explore psychological capital, resilience, and occupational stress among academics. The methodologies primarily included phenomenology (Cerbin-Koczorowska et al., 2023; Ramachandaran et al., 2024; Shaik et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2023), case studies (Krsmanovic et al., 2024; Millican et al., 2023; Ross et al., 2022) and multi-case studies (Bone, 2021), narrative inquiry and self-socioanalysis (Yin and Mu, 2023), and various descriptive and exploratory qualitative designs (Augustus et al., 2023; Bento et al., 2021; Bosetti and Heffernan, 2021; Chan et al., 2020; Kekäle and Pinheiro, 2024; Veletsianos and Johnson, 2022). A notable feature is the use of mixed-methods sequential explanatory designs in several studies (Cadete and Ruggunan, 2024; Matahela and van Rensburg, 2024; Millican et al., 2023; Pentang and Domingo, 2024), which typically involve collecting quantitative questionnaire data followed by qualitative interviews to interpret the statistical results.

Regarding data collection, the vast majority of studies (18 out of 19) relied on semi-structured interviews (Augustus et al., 2023; Bosetti and Heffernan, 2021; Chan et al., 2020; Kekäle and Pinheiro, 2024; Myyry et al., 2021; Ross et al., 2022). Among these, individual interviews (Cerbin-Koczorowska et al., 2023; Veletsianos and Johnson, 2022) and focus group discussions (Matahela and van Rensburg, 2024; Pentang and Domingo, 2024; Shaik et al., 2022) accounted for the largest proportion. To supplement interview data, studies also incorporated online questionnaires (Millican et al., 2023), chronicle workshops, document analysis (Krsmanovic et al., 2024), and social media communication records (Yin and Mu, 2023), consistent with their epistemological approaches.

Most studies employed thematic analysis (Augustus et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2020; Bone, 2021; Pentang and Domingo, 2024; Ramachandaran et al., 2024) as the primary data analysis strategy. Other analytical approaches included interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) (Cerbin-Koczorowska et al., 2023; Tan et al., 2023), inductive content analysis (Myyry et al., 2021; Shaik et al., 2022), the constant comparative approach (Veletsianos and Johnson, 2022), narrative analysis (Yin and Mu, 2023), and coding guided by specific theoretical frameworks (the DIMOR or socio-technical framework) (Krsmanovic et al., 2024; Millican et al., 2023; Ross et al., 2022).

This strong preference for qualitative inquiry and mixed-methods designs further reflects researchers' recognition that simply measuring individual-level indicators (self-efficacy scores) is insufficient for understanding academics' psychological capital. Researchers generally need to examine the processes and underlying mechanisms that promote the development of psychological capital (and its core elements such as resilience). By incorporating inductive (Chan et al., 2020; Ross et al., 2022) or exploratory (Bento et al., 2021; Matahela and van Rensburg, 2024) approaches, these studies move beyond simple causal relationships to capture complex and dynamic interactions. Specifically, phenomenological (Ramachandaran et al., 2024) and narrative inquiry (Yin and Mu, 2023) approaches allow research to reveal more nuanced aspects of psychological capital—such as hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and resilience—and their multi-system formation processes, as described in the Multi-System Resilience Model (MSMR). For example, in-depth interviews not only confirmed the presence of “self-efficacy” at the individual level but also revealed how it is negotiated, constructed, or eroded through interactions with microsystems (peer support) (Cerbin-Koczorowska et al., 2023) and the exosystem (institutional policies) (Pentang and Domingo, 2024). Therefore, these qualitatively driven designs are necessary for capturing the crucial context and process dimensions in the PPCT model, thereby supporting an ecological understanding of resilience.

It is noteworthy that several studies included in the analysis explicitly adopted ecological systems perspectives. For example, Ross et al. (2022) used Bronfenbrenner's socio-ecological model, while Millican et al. (2023) used the Dynamic Interaction Model of Resilience (DIMOR). This makes it theoretically appropriate to synthesize PsyCap-related findings across the 19 studies using the Multi-System Resilience Model (MSMR) and the PPCT (Process–Person–Context–Time) framework (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2007; Tong and An, 2024). By integrating these frameworks, the findings of this study support a core argument: academics' psychological capital is not an isolated, static personal trait, but rather a product of continuous negotiation, depletion, and regeneration across multiple ecological systems (micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-level contexts) through dynamic “process” and “time” dimensions. Collectively, the studies reveal a central tension between academics' individual agency and psychological resources (self-efficacy, reflection, and coping strategies) and substantial institutional barriers (workload, lack of support, bureaucracy, and unfair evaluation systems).

The “Person” component of the PPCT framework forms the basis of psychological capital. These studies depict academics' internal resource pools (primarily resilience, self-efficacy, and hope) as well as their vulnerabilities (neuroticism and anxiety). Self-efficacy is a critical internal PsyCap resource for academics. It has been identified as a core component of resilience (Cadete and Ruggunan, 2024) and a key predictor of productivity (Pentang and Domingo, 2024). This sense of efficacy is highly situation-specific. For example, in teaching evaluations, academics' self-efficacy often stems from prior “mastery experiences”:

However, this self-efficacy can become fragile during crises. In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical educators experienced a sharp decline in self-efficacy. One interviewee described the collective fear:

Another participant reported:

Hope and optimism, as two PsyCap resources, exhibit a contradictory duality. On the one hand, academics may hold hope for the future of higher education, while simultaneously experiencing anxiety about the system (Veletsianos and Johnson, 2022). On the other hand, under unstable employment conditions, optimism may evolve into “cruel optimism,” leading scholars to endure an unsustainable “crisis normalcy” (Bone, 2021). A young scholar on an insecure contract captured this contradictory mentality:

Finally, individual-level factors also include vulnerabilities. Neuroticism has been identified as a negative factor for resilience, amplifying negative emotional responses to adversity in academic work environments (Cadete and Ruggunan, 2024). Furthermore, fear, anxiety, and mental health concerns are pervasive personal states that directly deplete psychological capital (Millican et al., 2023; Ramachandaran et al., 2024).

The “process” component in the PPCT framework reveals how psychological capital is actively constructed or eroded over time. Several studies move beyond static trait descriptions by demonstrating the agency scholars exercise to maintain psychological balance. Specifically, protective processes suggest that scholars do not respond passively; rather, they actively build resilience through a series of cognitive and behavioral processes, which can be summarized in three characteristics:

Conversely, certain processes systematically deplete psychological capital, namely risk processes. This can manifest as emotional labor, and when role boundaries are unclear (in personal academic mentorship), scholars may fall into a “drama triangle” of role ambiguity, assuming the role of a “savior” and ultimately experiencing emotional exhaustion (Augustus et al., 2023). This emotional drain is particularly significant for university lecturers who simultaneously bear the roles of academic leader and mentor. One dean nearly broke down when describing the pressure of his role:

The “Context” component in the PPCT framework is central to this analysis. It maps onto the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-level systems through which psychological capital is constructed within a multi-system model. The microsystem, as the most immediate layer of social relationships and a “first line of defense” for individual resilience, relies heavily on supportive collegial relationships. A medical educator, describing team support during the pandemic, stated:

However, when these social connections are disrupted, feelings of isolation can exacerbate vulnerability and trigger risk processes. One scholar, describing remote work during the pandemic, noted:

The exosystem highlights the role of institutional structures (university management, policies, and resources) in shaping academics' resilience experiences. Scholars do not operate in a vacuum; institutional actions directly influence their psychological capital. Across the included literature, universities are frequently portrayed as sources of risk, particularly due to a lack of support, rather than as protective buffers:

This suggests that when universities act as protective systems and provide active support, particularly through top-down leadership and coordinated management, such interventions are generally perceived as effective (Krsmanovic et al., 2024).

The macrosystem represents chronic neoliberal pressures that function as “atmospheric pressure” on institutions and individuals. Neoliberalism and increasing complexity constitute major macro-level stressors. Scholars note that the pursuit of “social relevance” (Kekäle and Pinheiro, 2024) and the “publish or perish” culture (Yin and Mu, 2023) push them into a logic of “capital accumulation”:

The macrosystem is also reflected in discipline-specific cultures. In STEM contexts, education-focused scholars may face pressure that devalues their work. A senior scholar relayed a common view about educational research:

The “Time” dimension in the PPCT framework reveals the trajectory of resilience development, distinguishing between acute shocks and chronic stressors. Regarding acute shocks, the COVID-19 pandemic provides a clear example. As a sudden and disruptive event, it caused immediate disruption to the academic system. The literature depicts this temporal process, moving from an initial “decline in self-efficacy” (Cerbin-Koczorowska et al., 2023), to an intermediate phase of “adaptive processes” (Bento et al., 2021; Millican et al., 2023), and then to later “reflection and learning” (Krsmanovic et al., 2024).

In contrast, chronic stressors represent long-term and persistent pressures. Neoliberalism (Bosetti and Heffernan, 2021) and unstable employment (Bone, 2021) are examples of such chronic stressors. They contribute to a “normalization of crisis” (Bone, 2021), in which time is not experienced as a discrete event but as an “impasse” or a “stretched present” that gradually erodes scholars' hope and optimism.

Career stages also function as temporal markers in the development of psychological capital, as experience becomes a key time-related resource. Senior scholars can draw on accumulated “mastery experiences” (Myyry et al., 2021) and long-established “beliefs and values” (Chan et al., 2020). Over time, these resources contribute to resilience. One senior scholar, reflecting on early experiences, stated:

In conclusion, the above analysis suggests that academic psychological capital (PsyCap) is a deeply ecological and relational construct. It is not a static trait “possessed” by individual scholars, but rather the result of continuous negotiation within challenging multi-system contexts (colleagues, institutions, and culture). Across the 19 studies, contemporary academics, especially women and early-career scholars, face substantial pressure from both the exosystem (institutional management) and the macrosystem (neoliberalism and precarious employment). However, institutional responses often emphasize individual coping with systemic problems through processes such as self-care and time management. This individualized approach, in which scholars are expected to “be resilient on their own” (Shaik et al., 2022), is ultimately unsustainable.

Self-efficacy, a key driver of PsyCap, has been shown to be highly experience-dependent in its development. The evidence synthesized in this study indicates that self-efficacy is not a static trait but a dynamic process shaped by experience. It may undergo a decline–rebuild cycle in the face of acute shocks (COVID-19) (Cerbin-Koczorowska et al., 2023), while its longer-term development relies on the accumulation of successful mastery experiences (Myyry et al., 2021). Conversely, limited research experience has been identified as a direct contributor to low self-efficacy (Pentang and Domingo, 2024). For example, Myyry et al. (2021), in examining how experienced university faculty's self-efficacy beliefs relate to assessment practices, found that mastery experience was the most common source of efficacy. This was reflected in one faculty member's assessment system, which received high praise from students and had been extensively modified over the years based on student feedback.

However, the PsyCap paradox is evident in that efficacy accumulated through personal effort remains experience-dependent and therefore vulnerable to disruption and systemic constraints. Whether facing acute shocks such as COVID-19, reflected in the decline in self-efficacy at the onset of crisis reported by Cerbin-Koczorowska et al. (2023), or chronic stressors such as limited research experience and insufficient guidance, as described by Pentang and Domingo (2024), academic self-efficacy may deteriorate substantially. When the institution (exosystem) fails to provide necessary support or resources, the mechanism through which individuals build self-efficacy via mastery experiences is undermined.

The development of resilience reflects a maturation process from passive to active coping, evolving from initial emotional responses to adversity, such as research rejection (Chan et al., 2020), to proactive cognitive reframing and agency. Early in their careers, scholars often experience emotionally devastating reactions to rejection. However, with accumulated experience, they may transform stress into manageable challenges through behavioral strategies such as “connecting with oneself” (Shaik et al., 2022) and “self-leadership” (Matahela and van Rensburg, 2024). Over time, this response can develop into proactive cognitive reframing. Chan et al. (2020), in examining resilience factors among scholars facing research criticism and rejection, illustrated this “battle-hardened” trajectory: scholars gradually learn to view rejection as a “learning opportunity” rather than an “evaluation of their abilities.”

The PsyCap paradox is particularly evident here. This mature resilience process, including the adoption of “self-leadership” strategies (Matahela and van Rensburg, 2024) or “radical self-care” (Shaik et al., 2022), does not occur in a vacuum. Rather, these are defensive processes that individuals are compelled to adopt when faced with neoliberal “symbolic violence” (Yin and Mu, 2023) and institutional abandonment (being “left to be resilient by themselves,” as described by Shaik et al., 2022). Resilience is thus reframed into a management tool: systemic failures within higher education institutions (the exosystem), such as excessive workload and bureaucracy, are shifted into individualized problems of insufficient “self-care.”

Unlike traditional organizational psychology perspectives that often treat PsyCap as a stable, context-free asset to be measured (Luthans et al., 2007), this synthesis highlights its processual and vulnerable nature. This shift in perspective is not contradictory but complementary: it suggests that what quantitative scales capture as “resilience” may involve a hidden and labor-intensive process of emotional negotiation.

Hope and optimism most clearly reveal the context-dependent nature of the PsyCap paradox. As a duality shaped by context, the development of these resources reflects the coexistence of adaptation and maladaptation. On the one hand, scholars' hope often coexists with anxiety arising from systemic uncertainty. For example, Veletsianos and Johnson (2022) examined the “hope and anxiety” of Canadian faculty regarding the near future of higher education and found that their hopes were constrained by limited resources and support, while they felt anxious about factors “beyond their control.”

On the other hand, under unstable employment conditions and chronic neoliberal pressures (macrosystem), these positive resources may become “weaponized” or “alienated.” Bone (2021), in a study of early-career scholars under insecure employment systems, proposed the concept of “cruel optimism.” Scholars' attachment to “ideals of a better life” (stable employment) ironically becomes an obstacle, trapping them in “crisis ordinariness.” As one interviewee stated, “I somewhat hope that short-term jobs will give me a better chance of getting long-term employment, but I'm really not sure.” Here, the PsyCap paradox manifests as the higher education system (macrosystem) exploiting individuals' positive resources (hope and optimism) and transforming them into mechanisms that sustain a dysfunctional status quo. The pursuit of “ideals of a better life” may thus constrain scholars' capacity to develop strategies for changing their predicament, leaving them suspended in “crisis ordinariness.” This pressure is also evident among academic leaders. For example, Bosetti and Heffernan (2021) found that deans' “critical hope” gradually diminishes in the face of persistent institutional resistance.

This contrast highlights a critical divergence in the literature. While prior quantitative research typically depicts a linear, positive relationship between PsyCap and performance (Luthans et al., 2007), this meta-ethnographic synthesis reveals a more complex and sometimes paradoxical dynamic, captured here as “cruel optimism.” This discrepancy may stem from methodological differences: whereas quantitative scales measure the level of hope, qualitative evidence reveals the psychological and relational costs of sustaining that hope. This synthesis further suggests that hope and resilience, when leveraged by institutions to mask systemic failures, may paradoxically contribute to self-exploitation, an important nuance that trait-based statistical measures often overlook.

The analysis of social capital further pinpoints the core of the PsyCap paradox. This study confirms that the development of PsyCap, particularly self-efficacy and resilience, is not an isolated individual process but is highly dependent on social relationships within the microsystem. However, these microsystems operate under substantial structural pressure. Our findings on the erosion of PsyCap through excessive workload and institutional demands align with previous research (Kinman, 2014; Rusdi et al., 2023). This consistency may be attributed to the global prevalence of neoliberal management practices. Across national contexts, the pervasive “audit culture” creates a broadly similar high-pressure environment that depletes psychological resources, forcing academics to “do more with less” (Kinman, 2019). Within this demanding context, collegial support and “vicarious experiences” serve as key catalysts. For instance, Cerbin-Koczorowska et al. (2023), in a study of medical faculty during the pandemic, found that peer support was crucial for enhancing self-efficacy; one respondent noted, “We all learn from each other … we all support each other.” Krsmanovic et al. (2024) similarly emphasized “solidarity” as a best practice for organizational resilience. Conversely, a lack of mentorship and community has been identified as a key process barrier hindering PsyCap development. Pentang and Domingo (2024) highlight this issue: a STEM scholar, comparing their situation with that of research colleagues, described a “lack of community,” noting that while researchers often operate within rich ecosystems of postdoctoral fellows and students, academics in education-focused roles may lack connected support networks.

The paradox culminates here. When the exosystem (institutions) fails to provide support (as in Shaik et al., 2022), scholars are forced to rely on microsystems (colleagues and teams) as their primary buffer. However, macro-level pressures, such as the competitive logic of “capital accumulation” described by Yin and Mu (2023) and the denigration of educational research within STEM disciplinary cultures reported by Ross et al. (2022), simultaneously and systematically erode these microsystems. This ultimately isolates scholars, pushing them back into a condition of “solo perseverance,” thereby reinforcing the closed loop of the PsyCap paradox.

The core finding of this study, the “PsyCap Paradox”, has significant practical implications for administrators, deans, human resources departments, and policymakers in higher education institutions (HEIs). If academics' psychological capital is depleted within the system, it must also be repaired within the system. Interventions that place responsibility primarily on individuals (personal well-being workshops) are insufficient because they fail to address underlying structural causes. Therefore, HEIs must shift their intervention focus from the “person” to the “context.”

First, universities should invest in microsystems as a protective buffer. Since PsyCap relies heavily on social capital, HEIs must move from passive reliance to active cultivation. University administrators should systematically invest in cultures of collegiality and mentorship. To address the “lack of mentorship” and “lack of community” identified by Pentang and Domingo (2024) and Ross et al. (2022), universities should provide dedicated funding to support interdepartmental collaborative workshops and establish formal, recognized, and rewarded mentorship programs for early career academics (ECAs).

Second, institutions should avoid functioning as “pressure transmitters” by reforming draining practices within the exosystem. Administrators need to critically examine institutional mechanisms that systematically deplete PsyCap. For example, in response to the “overwork” concerns raised by Ramachandaran et al. (2024) and the “publish or perish” culture described by Yin and Mu (2023), HEIs should reform assessment standards and workload models. Reforming the exosystem means buffering chronic pressures from the macrosystem (neoliberalism), rather than amplifying them.

Finally, higher education leaders need to move beyond the performance-based myth of “individual resilience.” This study highlights the paradox of “resilience by oneself” (Shaik et al., 2022), suggesting that widely promoted self-compassion-based coping strategies are often only stopgap measures. Human resources departments must recognize that demanding greater resilience from individuals while the system remains dysfunctional risks becoming a form of managerial responsibility shifting. In contrast, true organizational resilience (Krsmanovic et al., 2024) is developed through tangible institutional support, fair evaluation systems, and a supportive academic culture, rather than being continuously “extracted” from individuals.

This meta-ethnography contributes to the existing literature in three critical ways. First, theoretically, by integrating the MSMR and PPCT frameworks, this research moves beyond the traditional trait-based view of PsyCap and reframes it as a dynamic, multi-systemic process. This theoretical realignment addresses the “black box” of how academic resilience is negotiated through real-time interactions, offering a more ecological understanding than static measurement scales. Second, methodologically, the use of meta-ethnography enabled the synthesis of deep qualitative insights (third-order constructs) that quantitative meta-analyses often overlook, such as the nuanced emotional labor behind “staying positive” and the paradoxical nature of “cruel optimism.” Third, contextually, by focusing on the 2020–2024 timeframe, this study captures the specific impact of the “dual disruption” (the COVID-19 pandemic and intensified neoliberalism), providing timely implications for post-crisis higher education management.

These findings, however, should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the search was restricted to English-language publications. While this ensured the inclusion of peer-reviewed studies, it may have excluded relevant non-Western perspectives published in local languages. Second, although the inclusion of diverse geographical contexts (Asia, Europe, and Australia) enhances the global relevance of the synthesis, specific cultural nuances of PsyCap, such as differences between Western “individual agency” and Eastern “collective resilience”, could not be fully differentiated due to the aggregated nature of the analysis. Third, as this study relies on secondary qualitative data, the findings remain subject to the interpretations of the original authors. To mitigate this potential bias, strict quality appraisal (CASP) and investigator triangulation were employed during data extraction to enhance the reliability of the synthesized themes.

Finally, regarding the macrosystem, while this synthesis identified the overarching pressure of neoliberal ideology, the heterogeneity of the included studies limited our ability to conduct a more granular analysis of how specific disciplinary cultures (STEM vs. Humanities) or distinct forms of precarious employment (adjunct vs. tenure-track) differentially shape PsyCap. This remains an important gap for future empirical inquiry.

While these 19 articles provide a solid foundation for understanding the psychological capital of academics, five key research gaps remain to be addressed from a multi-system perspective.

First, regarding the shift from individual coping to collective action, existing literature (Chan et al., 2020; Shaik et al., 2022; Ramachandaran et al., 2024) largely focuses on individual and largely reactive coping mechanisms (self-care and cognitive reframing) when examining the “process” dimension. There remains a paucity of research on collective, proactive, and transformative processes, as well as limited clarity on how academics, within microsystems, develop “collective psychological capital” (collective efficacy or collective hope) to influence the exosystem (university policies). Future research should move beyond “how individuals survive” to “how the collective acts,” exploring how academics reshape their work environment through collective negotiation, peer alliances, or coordinated action (Ross et al., 2022; Shaik et al., 2022).

Second, the internal dynamics among PsyCap elements remain underexplored. Existing studies (Bone, 2021; Pentang and Domingo, 2024) often examine the four elements (hope, efficacy, optimism, and resilience) as relatively independent resources, leaving limited understanding of the synergistic or potentially antagonistic relationships among them. For example, under conditions of unstable employment, it remains unclear whether high self-efficacy may inadvertently intensify “cruel optimism,” leading scholars to persist in unsustainable roles for longer. Future research should move beyond isolated element-level analyses and examine how PsyCap functions as a dynamic constellation.

Third, mediating and moderating mechanisms within the multi-system framework require further empirical validation. While current evidence suggests that contextual factors (lack of support) are associated with negative outcomes and individual factors (high self-efficacy) with positive outcomes, boundary conditions remain unclear. For instance, does peer support in the microsystem mediate the relationship between self-efficacy and resilience (Cadete and Ruggunan, 2024)? Can self-leadership (Matahela and van Rensburg, 2024) moderate the negative impact of high workload within the exosystem on mental health? Future research should further unpack this “black box” to clarify these pathways.

Fourth, regarding the chronosystem, the longitudinal development and erosion of PsyCap requires deeper investigation. The literature synthesized in this study relies largely on cross-sectional designs (Myyry et al., 2021), retrospective interviews (Chan et al., 2020), or immediate responses to acute disruptions (COVID-19). As one participant in Chan et al. (2020) noted, “This is a process I've been involved in for many years…”. While retrospective approaches provide valuable insight, they cannot fully capture real-time trajectories of PsyCap development and depletion. Longer-term longitudinal designs are therefore needed to examine how PsyCap accumulates, changes, or erodes across academic career stages, from doctoral training to early career academics (ECAs) and senior professors.

Finally, future research should examine macrosystemic determinants of PsyCap in greater depth. Although this synthesis highlights the influence of “audit culture,” more targeted investigations are needed to explore how neoliberal ideology intersects with disciplinary cultures. For example, does “publish or perish” pressure shape the PsyCap of STEM academics differently from that of humanities academics? In addition, given the rise of the “gig academy,” researchers should examine how precarious employment shapes the erosion of hope and resilience, comparing experiences across employment categories (adjunct vs. tenure-track) to inform more equitable higher education policies.