Such evaluations, claiming meritocratic processes, employ
performance criteria that involve ‘subjective, often ambiguous, criteria, as evident in reviews
of scholarly/intellectual contributions, department- and college-wide service, continuing growth,
and community service. Few institutions have clear standards for judging such contributions
and, instead, rely on general guidelines or descriptive criteria... Such judgments often lead to
perceptions of distributive injustice, unfair treatment associated with outcomes and procedural
injustice, and unfair treatment associated with the decision-making’
...The articulation and acceptance of the robust critique of ideas is acknowledged as an
essential aspect of academic life, but one where the managerial, monetised environment
driven by neoliberal values has raised the stakes considerably for ‘winners’ in the game
of metrics and prestige indicators. This was seen to contribute to an increasingly harsh
and punitive climate, where person-related belittlement and professional undermining
are commonplace... incivility is tacitly accepted, assessment can be weaponised, fear
can be employed in a way that can easily segue into bullying, and where ‘demonstrations of
power are seen as reasonable and warranted if an individual is to succeed’...
Indeed,
a push against anti-incivility policies was identified in the interests of open criticism
and the name of academic freedom... In this view, the critique of staff in the service
of excellence and performativity should be permitted, even if uncivil. They observe a
deliberate fuzzing of the boundaries between the vigorous criticism of output, intellectual
work, or theoretical propositions, and abrasive behaviour, mockery, and humiliation...
Hodgins, M., Kane, R., Itzkovich, Y., & Fahie, D. (2024). Workplace bullying and harassment in higher education institutions: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(9), 1173.
No comments:
Post a Comment