Abstract
This study examined how professional identity (PI) shapes ethical resistance to corruption within Kazakhstan’s higher education sector, addressing the persistent gap between formal anti-corruption reforms and everyday academic practice. Using a mixed-method design, the research demonstrated that PI functions primarily as an internal ethical anchor rather than as a trigger for overt confrontation. Quantitative findings showed that faculty members exhibit significantly higher levels of ethical awareness, transparency commitment, and accountability orientation than students, reflecting the cumulative effects of professional socialisation. However, these gains do not translate into greater public advocacy, as no significant difference was found between faculty and students in integrity advocacy. This apparent paradox is resolved through qualitative analysis, which revealed the prevalence of “silent resistance.” Academics with strong PI routinely uphold their ethical standards through discreet actions—such as refusing to participate in unethical practices or selectively complying with flawed procedures—while avoiding visible confrontation that could jeopardise their professional standing. In this context, silence should not be interpreted as ethical disengagement but as a rational and adaptive response to institutional environments characterised by hierarchical power, informal governance, and limited psychological safety. The study also broadens the understanding of corruption by identifying structural rigidity as a form of institutional corruption. Inflexible administrative and research governance systems compel academics to compromise professional judgement even in the absence of personal gain, thereby eroding integrity at the systemic level. Crucially, the findings show that strong PI alone is insufficient to enable overt resistance when resource barriers and fear of retaliation persist. Overall, the study contributes to corruption and higher education research by foregrounding PI as a key mechanism of ethical resilience and by reframing resistance as a spectrum of practices shaped by institutional risk. Sustainable anti-corruption strategies must therefore move beyond compliance and punishment toward creating identity-safe environments that support ethical action.