Showing posts with label bullying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bullying. Show all posts
Saturday, 23 April 2022
Eight conceptual challenges in developing the 'online academic bullying' framework
Written for scholars interested in understanding online harassment from academic cyberbullies, plus the development of the online academic bullying routine activity theory (OABRAT) framework
In developing our 'Distinguishing online academic bullying' article, Prof Tim Noakes and I trimmed the manuscript several times. Reworking some of these cuts in this post may offer value through addressing the methodological challenges we encountered in proposing our article's OABRAT framework. Seven conceptual challenges were overcome its development, while an eighth was encountered post-publication:
1 NEW FORMS OF POWER IMBALANCE
Conventional definitions of cyber-bullying suggest a power imbalance in which one aggressor is more powerful than his or her victim (Englander, Donnerstein, Kowalski, Lin, & Parti, 2017). By contrast, an established academic may be easily be targeted by individuals of varied statuses; who can mount frequent attacks as part of cybermobs. OAB differs from the conventional definition of cyberbullying in that there need not be a one-to-one power-imbalance in favour of the bully. It can include varied power relationships between a victim and his or her attackers: a standard power-imbalance may exist in the victim being on a lower rung of an academic cultural hierarchy within a particular field than the bullies (e.g. Cardiology has greater prestige than Sports Medicine in the medical field). However, a senior scholar may still be the subject of collegial mobbing (Davenport, Elliot and Schwartz, 1999). For example, the Emeritus Professor was attacked online by junior academics and non-scholars, from within his field and from other disciplines (see Figure 1 for his university).
 |
| Figure 1. Faculties and departments in which employees persistently criticised the Emeritus Professor on social media (Travis Noakes, 2020) |
Attacking a scientific dissident as a pre-defined target seemed to provide attackers with an instant form of credibility- they did not have to prove their symbolic credentials to gain visibility. Few of the professor's blogging critics were Health Science scholars. Despite making no scholarly contribution to the debate, some academic cyberbullies seemed to achieve visibility as opinion "leaders" online. This shows how micro-celebrity hijacking can apply for Higher Education (HE) employees. Academic bloggers criticise public intellectuals for "wrongthink" thereby gaining attentional capital- blogged critiques by "independent" critical thinkers can convert into appearances on broadcast media.
Power imbalances may also result from other differences in a victim’s status versus his or her attackers. These can span inequalities in capital (Bourdieu, 1986), notably social and cultural capital- a scholar who defends an unorthodox position is at a disadvantage in terms of her social capital. She will struggle to draw support against unfair criticism by organic groups of academic cyberbullies.
Another dimension of power imbalance may lie in technical cultural capital- an OAB recipient who has less knowledge of the digital platform(s) on which she is being attacked may be at a serious disadvantage. For example, cyberbullies can use advantages in their ‘digital dimensions’ (Paino & Renzulli, 2013) of cultural capital for gaining greater visibility. They can leverage a myriad of online presences for amplifying their attacks, whilst leveraging multiple chains of digital publication that are difficult for a victim to reply to.
This suggests another imbalance whereby OAB recipients will struggle to defend themselves against asymmetrical cyber-critiques. It may be exhausting to respond to frequent criticisms, across a myriad of digital platforms and conflicting timezones.
Another dimension of power imbalance may lie in technical cultural capital- an OAB recipient who has less knowledge of the digital platform(s) on which she is being attacked may be at a serious disadvantage. For example, cyberbullies can use advantages in their ‘digital dimensions’ (Paino & Renzulli, 2013) of cultural capital for gaining greater visibility. They can leverage a myriad of online presences for amplifying their attacks, whilst leveraging multiple chains of digital publication that are difficult for a victim to reply to.
This suggests another imbalance whereby OAB recipients will struggle to defend themselves against asymmetrical cyber-critiques. It may be exhausting to respond to frequent criticisms, across a myriad of digital platforms and conflicting timezones.
2 BEYOND TROLLS: ACADEMIC CYBERBULLIES AS DECEIVERS, FLAMERS, ETC.
Definitions of cyberbullying are in themselves broad, since
they may also cover electronic bullying and internet harassment (Berne et al., 2013) . Likewise, classifications for academic cyberbullies’ roles and behaviours must be wide-ranging to address how bullies can readily draw on many repertoires for anti-social communication. A highly agentive cyberbully could draw on practices that meet several characteristics- the mocking "jokes" of a malevolent troll, the swearing attacks of a 'flamer' and a 'deceiver''s misrepresentations in their self-presentation (e.g. a self-proclaimed "philosophe(r)"/"scholar" without a PhD). We chose not make sharp distinctions between an academic bully’s and
other online deviants' roles and behaviours, since this could actually include areas that strongly overlap. At the same time, we were mindful that defining OAB as a particular form of harassment by HE employees was important to ensure OAB does not become a catchall. There is a danger that definitions of harassment that are generalised can be misused in bad faith to apply to mere criticisms or mildly unpleasant language (Jeong, 2018).
3 SCIENTIFIC SUPPRESSION VERSUS BIO-MEDICAL HERESY "JUSTIFIES" HARASSMENT
When a challenger to orthodoxy begins to attract attention from patients, the general public and the press, then those in power will take active steps to protect the reigning paradigms (Martin, 2004). Adherents to the dominant ideology will view such individuals' questioning of the central values of their CMCDD orthodoxy as performing heresy. Heresy is created by the response of the orthodoxy when its views' delineate attacks as beyond the pale (Wolpe, 1994). Defenders of CMCDD might justify their harassment in believing that only high carbohydrate/low fat diets are “healthy”. Followers of this belief have argued that pursuing any other ideas or approaches constitute a "threat to public health". Following this rationale, such critics may argue for censorship of dissidents' "dangerous" work and to limit digital publics' exposure to state-of-the-art IRMCIH science news.
Defenders of the status-quo enjoy visibility as part of dominant networks and can readily spotlight “heretics” for criticism via formal and informal channels, such as social media. Recipients must negotiate rapidly-spreading disinformation, defamation, misrepresentation-of-argument and even character assassination HE employees involved in such adverse actions typically explain their actions as being justified in maintaining 'academic standards'' (Martin, 2020). However, such actions are detrimental in silencing dissenters' and whistleblowers' free speech, thereby stifling scientific debate and potential innovations.
4 FOREGROUNDING THE VICTIM’S PERSPECTIVE
5 ACADEMIC CYBERMOBBING- SEPARATE FROM AN ACADEMIC MOB
The Emeritus Professor's case study was closely linked to a formal mobbing at his former academic institutional employer. In the initial manuscript, we foregrounded this strong overlap: His employer's neglect of rules and policies against harassment by its employees provides a fertile space for harassment (Benatar, 2021). Senior leaders followed a dominating conflict culture (DCC) approach (Desrayaud et al., 2018) in protecting the Faculty of Health Science's (FHS) CMCDD orthodoxy from criticism. Although DCC actively encourages discourse about incompatible goals and ideas, DCC does not acknowledge the validity of opposing views. In a toxic DCC workplace, dissent is ignored and support for dissenters is withheld. Explicit bullying is seen as an acceptable response to intellectual differences and overt mobbing is also condoned. In this respect, attacks on the Emeritus Professor were similar to the bullying of other senior scholars that university leadership clearly tolerated (Benatar, 2017; Coovadia, 2015; Crowe, 2017; Crowe, 2019; McCain, 2020; Plaut, 2020; Soudien, 2015; Steer, 2019; Vernac News, 2019). In 2019, his employer's institution acknowledged that bullying was a major concern amongst staff (Feris, 2019), but has yet to recognise the importance of addressing DCC in its FHS. One positive recent development is that an anti-bullying policy was passed (2021). Albeit, a very late response to its former Ombudsman's recommendation from 2012 (Makamandela-Mguqulwa, 2020).
In university workplaces, bullies can use a justification of “academic freedom” to condone actions that would be unacceptable in other workplaces (Driver, 2018). For example, an academic lecturer (who is neither a scholar nor a scientist) published thirty blog posts that criticised the Emeritus Professor's popularisation of LCHF science. Although by no means an academic peer, this junior lecturer might justify such fervent criticism of a fellow employee at the same university as a necessary part of academic freedom in an institute of higher learning. Nevertheless, such obsessive behaviour from a low-ranking, under-qualified employee seems unlikely to be acceptable at any other place of employment.
In collating the varied forms of harassment from "academic colleagues", it was unsurprising that we initially considered a recipient's OAB as being inseparable from an experience of academic mobbing in the HE context. However, the manuscript's reviewers flagged that it could be separate- especially for targets outside HE. In response, we designed the OABRAT framework to accommodate a separate phenomenon.
Such separation also addressed concerns that the private, departmental ostracisation of ‘academic mobbing’ in HE (Seguin, 2016. Khoo, 2010) is a very different negative phenomenon from the public attacks that academic cyberbullies launch. Unlike the largely concealed backstabbing of an academic mob, academic cyberbullies criticisms are public. OAB recipients can readily spot critics and their networks in digital criticisms, such as group petitions. Like others cybermobbers, public attacks fall within a spectrum that can include: i. drive-by harassment, ii. low-level mobbing, iii. sustained hounding and iv. sustained orchestration (Jeong, 2018). Professor Noakes and I are working on a manuscript that explores this spectrum for defining an ‘academic cybermobbing’'s particular characteristics.
6 GUARDIANS AGAINST VICTIMS OF ACADEMIC BULLYING
In addition to considering academic cyberbullies practices and their recipients experiences, it is also vital to address the role of guardians. RAT supports addressing the activities of both the targets of crime, plus their guardians. In academic cyberbullying, it is important to consider how the online activities of a victim could be placing him or her at added risk. It is also worthwhile considering how the lack of action from guardians of civility, whether they be at the scholar’s academic institution or moderators for social media platforms, has an impact. Prevention would seem better than cure for the negative phenomenon of persistent cyber harassment. In OAB, this emerges when a large quantum of criticism from academic cyberbullies creates an easily searchable footprint.
Policies protecting employees at HE institutes from workplace persecution have largely focused on sexual and racial harassment. The danger exists that other forms of persecution may be neglected as seeming relatively unimportant by comparison (Citron, 2007). For example, aggressive behaviours in the workplace may be considered acceptable by default (Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002). Informal expectations and norms can increase the sense of a lack of accountability online and boost the likelihood of deviant behaviours. Without deterrents or any consequences for academic cyberbullying, bullies may believe that they will not be held accountable for their actions. Worse, hegemonic leadership may actually reward those whose cyberbullying seems to maintain perceptions of consensus. In HE, such rewards are unethical in undermining academic free speech, scientific innovation and motivating academic cyberbullying.
7 ACADEMIC BULLIES MAY TARGET OUTSIDERS FROM ANYWHERE
In conceptualising OAB, we came to argue that the victims of academic cyberbullies need not be HE employees. Feedback from IRMCIH proponents in varied health professions, plus LCHF entrepreneurs, confirmed attacks from cyberbullies in HE. While our literature review produced many examples of dissenting scientists and academic whistleblowers being confronted academic mobs, there is a gap concerning cases for bullying victims outside HE. This is another area that The Noakes Foundation's Academic Free Speech and Digital Voices (AFSDV) project can address for the IRMCIH scientific issue arena.
After Professor Noakes and I submitted the article for publication, we identified another concern to explore under the AFSDV theme:
8 A COMPLEX FORM FOR AN EXTREME CASE
GRAPHIC CREDITS
Stop, academic bully! shushmoji™ graphics courtesy of Create With Cape Town.
Thursday, 18 June 2020
Combine the 'conceptual framework for bullying' with a 'typology of bullying conflict cultures' to contextualise #toxicacademia (and its #cyberbullying)
Written for cyberbullying researchers who may be interested in combining perspectives of academic bullying culture and bullying conflict cultures for framing cyberbullying in higher education. Estimated reading time = 10 minutes.
In preparing the manuscript 'Distinguishing online academic bullying: new forms of harassment' for journal submission, my father, Professor Tim Noakes, and I drafted four versions. Its first title was 'Identifying and countering online ogres on Twitter'. This change in title evidenced how far we shifted from focusing on hyperactive, microblogging trolls' activities to a broad conceptualisation of online media's use for novel forms of intellectual harassment. The final manuscript describes diverse examples that academics directed against an influential scientific leader. Based on such distinctive forms of cyber harassment, we defined online academic bullying (OAB) as an emergent threat to academic free speech, scholarship and the academe itself. OAB is a drawn-out situation in which scholars experience harassment by other academics via online media (Noakes & Noakes, forthcoming).
Figure 2. Typology of Workplace Conflict Cultures and Likelihood of Bullying Behaviours in Desrayaud et al. (2019). Figure based on Gelfland et al. (2008).
References
In preparing the manuscript 'Distinguishing online academic bullying: new forms of harassment' for journal submission, my father, Professor Tim Noakes, and I drafted four versions. Its first title was 'Identifying and countering online ogres on Twitter'. This change in title evidenced how far we shifted from focusing on hyperactive, microblogging trolls' activities to a broad conceptualisation of online media's use for novel forms of intellectual harassment. The final manuscript describes diverse examples that academics directed against an influential scientific leader. Based on such distinctive forms of cyber harassment, we defined online academic bullying (OAB) as an emergent threat to academic free speech, scholarship and the academe itself. OAB is a drawn-out situation in which scholars experience harassment by other academics via online media (Noakes & Noakes, forthcoming).
In drafting earlier versions of the manuscript we prepared a lengthy contextualisation of how academic bullying and mobbing in toxic higher education workplaces sets the stage for OAB. In the first place, we believe that if the intellectual harassment of scholars by fellow employees at their shared academic institution employer is unlikely to take place if culturally unacceptable and strongly sanctioned. By contrast, at employers where academic bullying is tolerated, cyber harassment might seem acceptable and perhaps even desirable in extreme cases.
Robust debates in a bully-free academic workplace
In an overview of empirical research into academic bullying, Professor Loraleigh Keashly describes why the higher education (HE) workplace is unusual in providing an environment in which bullying may be encouraged and rewarded (2019). She flags that researchers must address the unique HE context, since its expectations and norms for faculty conduct can be very different. Whether in the norms for other employees at the same institution, as well as for other work contexts and industry. HE norms are critical for what gets identified and experienced as bullying- for example, academic culture emphasises knowledge production by scholars. They compete for status by pointing out the flaws and holes in each others arguments (Sternberg, 2015). The rules that support such agonistic aggression are quite different from the rules by which other workers in the university, and outside, are expected to abide (Christy, 2010. Fratzl & McKay, 2013). As the context of academic debate already begins in an environment of skepticism, the challenge for researchers in incivility and cyberbullying is to differentiate between positive (pro-social) and negative (anti-social) instances. The former may be a robustly critical process that supports scientific debate, while the latter can constitute abuse online speech in deference to, and in defence of, an established paradigm.
We believe that the grave social, ethical and material ramifications of such online hostility between scholars and others in HE have been overlooked or underplayed. As a result, victims of OAB are unlikely to receive sympathetic institutional support in combating this abusive activity. Creating a sympathetic, healthy workplace in which bullying activities are not tolerated seems very difficult. It requires a combination of measures that are resource-intensive {see Table 1- compiled from the recommendations of Tracy, Alberts and Rivera (2007) and Twale and de Luca (2008)}:
| Table 1. Measures against (anti-)intellectual bullying in higher education | |
| 1 | Robust faculty policies against intellectual harassment e.g. anti-social (low value) discourse |
| 2 | Staff and student education on handling aggressive disagreements in varied forums & formats |
| 3 | Education for staff and students on what intellectual harassment is and how to report it |
| 4 | An independent, third-party reporting line for intellectual harassment and academic free speech |
| 5 | Regular reporting on academic bullying (in addition to other forms of harassment) |
| 6 | Negative, visible outcomes for academic bullies and mobs led by their academic institutional employer(s) |
{N.B. Even where such measures are in place, academic bullying and mobbing is likely to continue, as both are rooted in underlying human nature (Harper, 2013)}
In-depth literature reviews on academic bullying in HE (Henning, Zhou, Adams, Moir, Hobson, Hallet & Webster, 2017. Keashly, 2019) suggest that academic bullying is widespread. This may suggest that the application of such measures in many university workplaces is inadequate at best, non-existent at worst. For South African universities, supporting steps one to six for reducing academic bullying, mobbing and cyber harassment may indeed seem a "soft issue" versus the hard challenges they confront. These include: decolonisation (Heleta, 2016); expanded access for under-resourced students and better supporting them (Leibowitz and Bozalek, 2014); neo-liberal demands to find new sources of funding to address decreased state support (Swartz, Ivancheva, Czerniewicz & Morris, 2018) and shifting to digital pedagogy in response to COVID19.
Nevertheless, The Noakes Foundation (TNF) argues that addressing academic mobbing in HE is a hard issue that also requires prioritisation and resourcing. TNF's directors and staff all believe that combatting intellectual harassment is important for scholars' free enquiry and speech. This in turn supports scientific truth and effective research innovations that can better support public health. TNF supports 'Academic Free Speech and Digital Voices' as a key research theme. The Online Academic Bullying research project project would not have been possible without TNF’s support, since funding for non-commercial social media data analysis seems practically non-existent in South Africa.
In the OAB research project's first stage, we conceptualise OAB and academic cybermobs. Next, we plan to use grant applications and/or donations to explore the different approaches that insulin resistance experts follow in communicating state-of-the-art news via Twitter and Facebook’s contrasting affordances and ecologies. We will describe their informal academic debates, illegitimate ones and these experts' varied negotiations of cyber harassment. Our research participants will ideally be from very different contexts (national, disciplinary and institutional), but will all have been described as being formal targets of intellectual mobbing.
Precursors to toxic academic workplaces and cultures
To situate academic bullying, mobbing and OAB, we combined understandings from the ‘conceptual framework for bullying’ (CFB) (Twale & de Luca, 2008) and an organisation’s type of 'bullying conflicting culture’ (BCC) (Desrayaud, Dickson, & Webb, 2019). After describing the precedents to a toxic, bullying academic workplace using CFB, we then framed how the type of BCC contributed to the style of cyber harassment in the OAB space. We suggest that academic cyberbullying researchers should consider combining CFB and DCC perspectives for describing antecedents to academic (cyber)bullying:
Explaining precursors with a conceptual framework for bullying
In a toxic HE workplace, different forms of bullying all emerge from pre-existing circumstances, structures and processes whose academic cultures favour bullying (Twale & de Luca, 2008). Denise Salin’s ‘conceptual framework for bullying’ (2003) was expanded for addressing incivility in institutes of higher learning by Twale and de Luca (2008). CFB contains three elements (see Figure 1); motivating structures and processes (i), precipitating circumstances and enabling structures (ii) and processes (iii). Motivating structures and processes are the incentives and positive reinforcements that encourage incivility, bullying and mobbing behaviour in the workplace. The triggering processes for workplace bullying are precipitating circumstances. Bullying is allowed to continue by enabling structures and processes.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of Bullying by Twale and de Luca (2008), based on Salin (2003)
Academic bullying takes place in institutions in which each of these three elements are present and in which bullying behaviours are permitted or rewarded (Twale & De Luca, 2008).
Defining types of conflict culture
In addition to how CFB elements (i-iii) act as antecedents, researchers must also consider how an organisation's type of workplace conflict culture (Desrayaud et al., 2019) shapes bullying. At academic institutes, the type of bullying that can take place is strongly shaped by the influence of different styles of conflict culture that occur. Organisations with certain conflict cultures are more likely to tolerate and encourage workplace bullying than others (p.90):
Defining types of conflict culture
In addition to how CFB elements (i-iii) act as antecedents, researchers must also consider how an organisation's type of workplace conflict culture (Desrayaud et al., 2019) shapes bullying. At academic institutes, the type of bullying that can take place is strongly shaped by the influence of different styles of conflict culture that occur. Organisations with certain conflict cultures are more likely to tolerate and encourage workplace bullying than others (p.90):
The organisational theory of BCC proposes that conflict culture is ‘an organisation’s norms, expectations, and shared understandings about how conflict should be initiated, managed, resolved, and interpreted’ (pp.86). The typology of conflict cultures involves two conflict management dimensions: active-passive and agreeable-disagreeable (Gelfand, Leslie, & Keller, 2008) (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Typology of Workplace Conflict Cultures and Likelihood of Bullying Behaviours in Desrayaud et al. (2019). Figure based on Gelfland et al. (2008).
According to this schema, there are four types of conflict cultures; ‘collaborative-’, ‘avoidant-’, ‘dominating-’ and ‘passive-aggressive’(Gelfand, Leslie and Keller, 2008). A 'collaborative conflict culture' exhibits active and agreeable conflict norms (Desrayaud et al., 2018, p.88). Organisations with this culture expect members to collaborate or integrate while managing conflict. As organisational structures and staff do not actively support a bullying culture, bullying behaviours are unlikely.
An 'avoidant conflict culture' is passive and members are expected to keep most conflicts to themselves or use highly structured and indirect methods to express disagreement (p.88). Valuing harmony and cohesiveness, avoidant conflict cultures make bullying less likely as overt tactics are not supported by organisational structures or colleagues.
A 'passive-aggressive conflict culture' is passive and disagreeable (p.89). Competition occurs, but norms strictly regulate how to communicate that competition. This culture does not value harmony nor cohesiveness; its individuals are also expected to express disagreement via highly structured and indirect methods, but bullying here is subtle and well-hidden. For example, predatory bullying (Einarsen, 1999) and subtle mobbing is more likely to occur in this BCC than in the other types.
A 'dominating conflict culture' actively encourages discourse about incompatible goals and ideas, but DCC does not acknowledge the validity of opposing views. In a toxic DCC workplace, dissent is ignored and support for dissenters is withheld. Explicit bullying is seen as an acceptable response to intellectual differences and overt mobbing is also condoned.
Does combining CFB and BCC provide a rich framework for situating academic bullying?
We trust that other cyberbullying researchers will also find combining CFB and BCC perspectives to be helpful for their understanding. We welcome feedback and critique in the comments below or you are welcome to contact me directly.
References
Christy, S. (2010). Working with faculty (1st ed.). Berkeley, CA: University Resources Press.
Desrayaud, N., Dickson, F. C., & Webb, L. M. (2018). The theory of bullying conflict cultures: Developing a new explanation for workplace bullying. In R. West, & C. S. Beck (Eds.), The routledge handbook of communication and bullying (1st ed., pp. 81-92). New York, NY: Routledge.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 16-27.
Fratzl, J., & McKay, R. (2012). Professional staff in academia: Academic culture and the role of aggression. In J. Lester (Ed.), Workplace bullying in higher education (1st ed., pp. 60-73). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., & Keller, K. M. (2008). On the etiology of conflict cultures. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(n/a), 137-166.
Harper, J. (2016). Mobbed!: What to do when they really are out to get you (1st ed.). Tacoma, WS: Backdoor Press.
Heleta, S. (2016). Decolonisation of higher education: Dismantling epistemic violence and eurocentrism in south africa. Transformation in Higher Education, 1(1), 1-8.
Henning, M. A., Zhou, C., Adams, P., Moir, F., Hobson, J., Hallett, C., et al. (2017). Workplace harassment among staff in higher education: A systematic review. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18(4), 521-539. doi:10.1007/s12564-017-9499-0
Keashly, L. (2019). Workplace bullying, mobbing and
harassment in academe: Faculty
experience. In D’Cruz (Ed.), Special topics and particular occupations, professions and sectors, handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment 4, (1st ed., pp. 1-77). Singapore: Springer Nature.
harassment in academe: Faculty
experience. In D’Cruz (Ed.), Special topics and particular occupations, professions and sectors, handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment 4, (1st ed., pp. 1-77). Singapore: Springer Nature.
Noakes, T., & Noakes, T. (Forthcoming). Distinguishing online academic bullying: New forms of harassment.
Oravec, J. A. (2019). Online social shaming and the moralistic imagination: The emergence of internet-based performative shaming. Policy & Internet, n/a doi:10.1002/poi3.226
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213-1232.
Sternberg, R. (2015). Coping with verbal abuse. Retrieved June 18, 2020, from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Coping-With-Verbal-Abuse/231201
Swartz, R., Ivancheva, M., Czerniewicz, L., & Morris, N. P. (2019). Between a rock and a hard place: Dilemmas regarding the purpose of public universities in south africa. Higher Education, 77(4), 567-583. doi:10.1007/s10734-018-0291-9
Tracy, S. J., Alberts, J. K., & Rivera, K. D. (2007). How to bust the office bully. eight tactics for explaining workplace abuse to decision-makers. Tucson, AR: Arizona State University.
Twale, D. J., & De Luca, B. M. (2008). Faculty incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and what to do about it (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Posts
orcid.org/0000-0001-9566-8983
