|
Please forgive for cross-posting, but perhaps this bears some relevancy to
our discussion on the ethics of Review as a genre.
Kathryn LaFevers Evans
Independent Scholar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Reis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:04 AM
Subject: TP Msg. #992 Mediating in the Academic Bully Culture: The Chair's
Responsibility to Faculty and Graduate Students
Chairs should also be aware of a faculty member who makes a habit of
"secretly" informing them of departmental matters, be they manufactured or
bona fide. S The chair must recognize this for what it often is: the bully's
attempt to ingratiate him or her-self to the chair in order to continue
bullying without reprimands from the chair. It's an
I'll-take-care-of-you-but-I-expect-you-to-take-care-of-me-in-return
situation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR(sm) eMAIL NEWSLETTER
http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/postings.php
Sponsored by
Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning
http://ctl.stanford.edu
Posting comments
http://tomprofblog.mit.edu/
The posting below has some excellent advice on managing difficult
professors. It is by Barbara M. De Luca is an associate professor in the
Department of Educational Leadership, and Darla J. Twale is a clinical
professor in the Department of Counselor Education and Human Services, both
at the University of Dayton and authors of Faculty Incivility (Jossey-Bass,
2008). Email: [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask] The article appeared in The Department Chair:
A Resource for Academic Administrators, Winter 2010, Vol. 20, No. 3. For
further information on how to subscribe, as well as pricing and discount
information, please contact, Sandy Quade, Account Manager, John Wiley &
Sons, Phone: (203) 643-8066 ([log in to unmask]). or see:
http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-DCH.html
Regards,
Rick Reis
[log in to unmask]
UP NEXT: How Much Learning Is Enough?
Tomorrow's Academy
------------------------------------------ 2,038
words --------------------------------------
Mediating in the Academic Bully Culture: The Chair's Responsibility to
Faculty and Graduate Students
Faculty incivility can rear its ugly head at various levels within higher
education institutions. It can surface at any one of the many administrative
levels with administrators being the bullies, or it can be found within the
faculty ranks with faculty members bullying each other. Interestingly,
students can also be victims of uncivil behavior. Administrators, faculty,
and students can play different roles in the bully culture: perpetrator,
victim, or mediator. This article focuses on faculty incivility with the
department chair as mediator, as well as faculty incivility to students,
particularly graduate students.
The Chair as Mediator
Although chairs can be involved in bullying as the bully, as the one
bullied, or as the mediator in a departmental bullying situation, this
section will focus on the chair as a mediator between faculty members. This
job responsibility often creates consternation in department chairs. At the
same time they are trying to build camaraderie among faculty, they are also
facilitators who are responsible for carrying out the institution's mission,
liaising between the department faculty and higher administration, and
making merit and promotion and tenure recommendations. These tasks can often
be in conflict with one another.
Because chairs have a major impact on the future of individual faculty
members, they must be able to recognize when a faculty member is being
bullied and intervene to stop the bully while simultaneously respecting the
privacy, professionalism, and integrity of the faculty member involved.
Recognizing a bullying situation means chairs must be aware of the
indications of a bullied faculty member as well as the traits of a bully.
Indicators of a bully include showing disrespect toward a faculty member and
continually promoting him or herself. Chairs should also be aware of a
faculty member who makes a habit of "secretly" informing them of
departmental matters, be they manufactured or bona fide. That is, the bully
will repeatedly initiate and/or perpetuate rumors. He or she may continually
break the confidences of other faculty members and reveal highly classified
committee proceedings. The chair must recognize this for what it often is:
the bully's attempt to ingratiate him or herself to the chair in order to
continue bullying without reprimands from the chair. It's an
I'll-take-care-of-you-but-I- expect-you-to-take-care-of-me-in-return
situation. A bully is also difficult to recognize because his or her
behavior is frequently disguised as concern for the department in some way
while it is actually promoting the bully's own personal agenda. Aside from
ignoring the rumors and confidences shared by the bully, the chair must
avoid contributing to the sharing of confidences. This will essentially
"grant permission" to the bully to continue his or her inappropriate
behavior. The chair must learn to recognize such behavior and not succumb to
it. Not supporting the bully ultimately renders him or her ineffective.
The chair must learn not only to recognize bullying behavior but to discern
the indications of a bullied faculty member as well. If a faculty member
approaches the chair with assertions of being bullied, the chair must not
ignore the individual. Bullying is frequently very subtle, and bullies are
good at disguising their behavior in public settings. Often, the chair
believes that the bullied faculty member is being paranoid, when, in fact,
there is a genuine problem. If the chair is uncertain, he or she should
avoid immediately dismissing the claim, but rather carefully watch for other
indications that the faculty member is being bullied. The chair must
recognize behavioral changes in the faculty member. Bullied faculty members
frequently isolate themselves. They remain in their offices and talk with no
one during the day. Because they often feel marginalized (and, in fact, may
actually be marginalized) they rarely volunteer for service opportunities,
be they departmental committees or other activities, and seldom engage in
departmental discussions. They rarely participate in social activities with
colleagues, even when sponsored by the department or institution. The work
effort of previously productive faculty who are bullied may suffer. Research
productivity may noticeably decrease, and once above-average student
evaluations of teaching may suddenly drop. The constant pressure of being
bullied might manifest itself as aggression by the bullied. The aggressive
behavior will be misdirected, and this will be the clue for the chair that
some- thing is amiss. Bullied faculty members are likely to avoid the office
and work at home more than usual. Any one or all of these changes should be
an indication to the chair that something is wrong.
Among many other responsibilities, the chair must address bullying issues in
the department. All faculty
must be able to trust the chair, believe that their work will speak for
them, and that rewards will be allocated based solely on productive work,
evaluated both for quality and quantity. To prevent or minimize bullying,
chairs must be focused on their department, not on themselves or on matters
outside the department or institution. Chairs must be very careful not to
inadvertently reward bullying behavior. At the beginning of each academic
year the chair should establish a code of behavior encouraging courtesy and
respect and discouraging yelling and arguing and promulgating rumors. If
rumors do circulate, the chair is responsible for seeking the truth and
thwarting the gossip. The bully must be confronted and reprimanded.
The chair must be knowledgeable about internal grievance procedures and
share workplace harassment policy with new faculty. The chair's job is to
ensure that faculty work together to understand the institution's policies
and procedures and to develop departmental policies and procedures. This
cannot be done without establishing common ground within the department. If
bullies in the department are only concerned with their own welfare, the
goal of common ground or community will be impossible. The chair must
protect the tenured as well as nontenured faculty. It is a mistake to
believe that bullies go after only nontenured faculty. Faculty members who
have only their self-interests in mind and are not concerned with the
successes or accomplishments of other faculty will bully anyone they feel is
in their way, be the person tenured or not. Above all, the chair must be
cognizant of the signs of bullying and be willing to address the behavior as
a problem.
Faculty Incivility and Graduate Students
Faculty incivility does not contain itself just to faculty and
administrative ranks. It often spills over to involve graduate students and,
more often, graduate teaching and research assistants. Faculty cannot only
take advantage of their colleagues but their students as well. A power
relationship that faculty have over students makes it easy to control them
overtly and covertly for several reasons.
Graduate students are reluctant to speak up about faculty who fail to meet
minimal obligations to them in terms of teaching, job supervision, or
directing doctoral research. Power imbalances of faculty over students
coupled with the student's desire to complete the degree typically silence
the acts and the student. Furthermore, because students are in this
precarious position, they avoid complaining or confronting and instead
retreat as a coping strategy and means of survival. Meanwhile, the student's
inaction can be seen as an invitation for perhaps another encounter.
A culture of silence explains why other faculty, administrators, and student
peers tend to be unaware of or oblivious to these problems. Some are unable
or unwilling to intervene on be- half of a student based on the perception
that no one would know how to remedy the situation. Considered
unprofessional, faculty would be unlikely to criticize colleagues' judgment
regarding the oversight of graduate students or their dissertation research.
It is possible that the administration knows of certain faculty who poorly
supervise and advise their graduate students, and yet they do nothing. What
is worse, they tend to cover it up, find plausible excuses for it, and
disregard further complaining by disgruntled students. Thus, anything
untoward that faculty supervisors and advisors do becomes acceptable by
default, supports an insular, protective stratum, and perpetuates the
culture of silence.
Few departments and chairs, however, prepare themselves to sanction faculty
over this potential form of control or manipulation. If a star professor has
already been placed on such a pedestal (or placed him or herself there),the
professor may choose to further self-aggrandize to the detriment of the
student. Should the student choose to complain, the department would be
unlikely to reprimand the professor and more likely to cast dispersions on
the student. The faculty member remains above reproach and, furthermore,
regards his or her behavior as appropriate.
To overcome this culture of silence, students may benefit from an open forum
conducted periodically by a neutral party, such as an ombudsman or human
resources manager, especially if the department is unwilling to intervene.
Students would be permitted to express problems in oral or written form,
whichever is more comfortable, and know that their concerns are being heard.
Graduate students evaluate faculty teaching in the aggregate, but typically
students seldom rate faculty supervision of their assistantship or
dissertation research. This supports the realization that graduate students
are not recognized as part of a community of learners or a community of
scholars.
Furthermore, at no time is feedback from this supervisory aspect of academic
life factored into faculty promotion, tenure, or post-tenure review. Without
a feedback loop, some students will encounter or be assigned to faculty
members who exploit their student labor and/or fail to socialize and usher
them effectively into the profession. Because some students expect faculty
to initiate contact and professors rarely do, students perceive faculty as
unsupportive, intimidating, and/or uncaring. An opportunity for the
department chair to inquire into the one-on-one relationship between student
and faculty member, either separately or as a dyad during a performance
appraisal, is essential. Maintaining the sanctity of a strong
advisor/mentor/ supervisor relationship between faculty and student should
be a top priority.
Educating faculty formally in the supervision of students and academic work
and research should be considered a professional development necessity.
Discussing the expectations of the faculty/student relationship could begin
the graduate student socialization process. Consider a stated contract of
ground rules and expectations between student and supervisor, student and
dissertation chair, student and advisor, and so on, explaining the duties
and responsibilities of each party to the other, the time to be allotted,
and the outcomes to be realized, instead of relying on unstated
implications. This approach would be helpful to both parties and should be
initiated by the department chair. Colleagues seldom choose to police
boundaries with another colleague and often decline to condemn, sanction, or
remedy the situation; a contract stating expectations may avert that
uncomfortable task.
Without a clear policy statement that reaches beyond a stated or implied
ethical code of conduct, little can be done to break the silence. Policy
discussions may begin with initial research obtained from student exit
interviews, alumni interviews, and separate focus groups of current students
and faculty and proceed to subsequent drafts from a policy formulation
committee that is comprised of faculty and students. Without recognizing
that problems exist, there will be no first step toward averting them. This
undertaking may be perceived as an arduous task by the chair, but it is one
that is worth the effort.
Conclusion
Although we have discussed two different levels of incivility in this
article, the indicators of victimization and the solutions for the
prevention of bullying are the same regardless of who is being bullied and
who is doing the bullying. Victims of bullying, be they faculty members or
graduate students, generally retreat into their own world. They become
silent, fearful of repercussions or being seen as a whiner or troublemaker.
Providing an environment in which the victim feels comfortable to share what
is happening is the first step toward minimizing bullying behavior. Another
major step is to establish formal policies against bullying, including the
actions to be taken to eliminate the behavior. The policy must also include
a process by which the bullied can seek help without fear of retribution by
the bully. Finally, the policies and processes contained therein must be
made available to everyone, even discussed with new faculty and graduate
students, so they feel comfortable in the environment and confident that
someone will intervene if incivility occurs. The department chair plays a
pivotal role in facilitating this process.
* * * * * * *
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going
to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor
--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
tomorrows-professor mailing list
[log in to unmask]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor
|
