Academic bullying: Desperate for data and solutions

 

Q: What is the scope of the problem?

A: We don't have robust and comprehensive data in this field, because the targets of bullying don't feel safe talking about it. There is a fear of retaliation, job loss, visa cancellation, or mobbing and ganging-up behaviors, which results in a code of silence. One survey found that the rate of people who are bullied in academia and report it is less than 2%. One leading researcher on academic bullying pulled together a meta-analysis of studies and found that the prevalence of academic bullying is roughly more than 30% across the globe. The Max Planck Institutes in Europe conducted a survey of more than 9,000 of their employees and reported in 2019 that 10% had experienced bullying in the past year. To me, the fact that Max Planck proudly published that figure means that 10% is a very low number for bullying across academia. Personally, I think the rate is much higher and is probably highly dependent on the type of institution. At highly ranked institutions, where competition for joining labs is high and where lab workers can easily be replaced by another candidate, I would guess the incidence is even higher.

Q: Why do you think bullying thrives in the academic environment?

A: There are several reasons for it, but in my opinion, we have no regulations or laws aimed at preventing academic bullying, and this is why institutions feel they cannot do anything about it. At every institution where I have worked, I have had to take mandatory sexual harassment training, but there has never been a single institution where there was training on how to handle bullying, how to report it, or what to do if you witness it. Typical university general harassment policies cover only people in protected classes from being discriminated against due to aspects such as their ethnicity, gender, age, and religion. There are no structures in place to address harassment that are based on an abuse of power by those ranked more highly in the university system—and especially by those who have already achieved tenure as professors. There's no Title IX–like office for bullying.

https://www.science.org/content/article/academic-bullying-desperate-data-and-solutions

Open and Closed Universities Redux

Here we complement the previous posting with a study of the 10 worst performing Non-Russell Group Universities.

Again, we give total number of complaints to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), as well as complaints per 1000 staff (using publicly available estimates of the total number of employees). These statistics are a proxy for the openness of the University. Fewer complaints to the ICO indicate greater propensity to disclose data, as well as better staff-management relations.

We recollect that the worst performing Russell Group university was Oxford with 99 complaints. When normalised to total employees, this is ~ 6.7 complaints per 1000 staff.

The Non-Russell Group has produced six universities worse than Oxford. The performance by St Mary’s University, Twickenham is extraordinary with 70 complaints amongst barely 1100 employees. When normalised by head count, this is by some way the worst performance of any university in the UK. The 21 Group would be interested to hear of any explanation.

The next five universities — London Metropolitan, East London, Birkbeck College, Brunel and Northampton — all generate more complaints to the ICO per 1000 staff than Oxford. This suggest a closed culture, desultory management and poor employee engagement.

We recollect that the ICO is the last resort for Freedom of Information or data protection complaints. Consensual and open universities should not be generating such large numbers of complaints.

So far, we have merely looked at total number of complaints (whether or not the complaints were upheld). In the next posting, we will look at which Universities are failing to comply with the recommendations of the ICO in the case of upheld complaints.

https://21percent.org/?p=854

Inside Claudine Gay’s resignation and the hyper scrutiny haunting Black women in higher ed

 

On Jan. 2, former Harvard University president Claudine Gay resigned from her position. She was the second woman and first person of color to serve as president in the university’s 386-year history. People called for her resignation due to accusations of plagiarism and anti-semitism.

Some individuals like conservative activist Christopher F. Rufocelebrated Gay’s resignation online. “This is the beginning of the end for DEI in America’s institutions. We will expose you. We will outmaneuver you. And we will not stop fighting until we have restored colorblind equality in our great nation,” Rufo said in a Jan. 2 tweet.

However, Black women in higher education like racial, social and gender justice educator Ericka Hart, who was previously firedfrom Columbia University in 2020 for raising concerns about a student’s comments, are calling out the discrimination and racism behind the pressures Gay had to endure.

“We (Black and non Black people of color) have to really sit with how these institutions do not give two s**** about us and will see us out expeditiously if we do not follow their white supremacist agenda,” Hart said in a Jan. 4 Instagram post. Other Black female administrators and professors in higher education as well are now posting and speaking about the extreme pressures they have also faced in these positions compared to their white counterparts.

For Cal Poly Pomona professor and former provost Dr. Jennifer Brown, Gay’s resignation made them deeply saddened about the struggles she knows she has gone through. “I really have no words to describe how it feels to get to a certain point in your career and to have it be so short lived, due to circumstances outside of your control. I could just say that I know firsthand when you are targeted for something the impact it has on your mental health or on your physical health,” Dr. Brown said.

These struggles and racial disparities in higher education can also be seen when looking at the statistics of tenure. A 2021 data setfrom The U.S. Department of Education found that tenured Black women only made up 2.8% of tenured faculty at U.S. universities.

“Black women experience institutional barriers at every stage of the academic process, starting with admission into graduate programs, yielding a small pool of credentialed graduates available for tenure-track faculty positions. Then the tenure process further culls the herd,” Boston University Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Malika Jeffries-ELsaid in a 2021 BU Today article...

From: https://www.nj.com/reckon/2024/01/black-brilliant-broken-inside-claudine-gays-resignation-and-the-double-standards-haunting-black-women-in-higher-ed.html

Fifth of UK research staff ‘bullied in past two years’...

One in five research staff in UK universities have faced bullying or harassment in the past two years, a major survey has found.

According to the latest annual Culture, Employment and Development of Academic Researchers Survey (Cedars), which collected responses from 9,351 researchers from 66 institutions, some 21 per cent of respondents said they had been bullied or harassed recently – a level that rose to 24 per cent among female researchers who identified as mid-career or senior staff, compared with 18 per cent for their male counterparts.

Women are also less likely to report incidents of bullying or harassment, with 59 per cent saying they would feel comfortable doing so compared with 70 per cent of men, according to the survey carried out by Vitae, part of the Careers Research & Advisory Centre (Crac).

Female staff are less likely to trust the investigatory process regarding bullying, with 45 per cent stating they did not trust or did not know whether to trust formal procedures on bullying compared with 37 per cent of men.

The publication of the Cedars data on 7 September comes amid increased discussion about the importance of having a healthy research culture in UK universities, with Research England and the other funding councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland intending to increase the weighting of research environment in the REF 2028 to the same level as impact – 25 per cent.

With proposals to streamline how research environment is assessed also under consultation, some have suggested the Cedars survey data or its approach to assessing research culture could even be used to compare different institutions for the purposes of awarding some £2 billion annually in block grant research funding. 

According to the latest data from Cedars, there is considerable scepticism about the fairness and transparency of hiring and promotion of research staff, with just 33 per cent of early-career researchers agreeing that promotions at their institution were made on merit. For those who identified as mid-career or senior researchers, that proportion rose to 44 per cent.

Only about half of research staff (48 per cent) said they felt valued for their contributions to their institutions, with even higher levels of established researchers saying they were not valued for peer review (73 per cent) or management duties (56 per cent). About a third (30 per cent) said they did not feel valued for their teaching.

On research integrity, 69 per cent of respondents said they believed their institutions promoted the highest level of research integrity, and less than 10 per cent said they felt pressurised into compromising research standards or integrity. Around two-thirds said they felt comfortable reporting incidents of misconduct, with female staff feeling less comfortable than male staff at all career levels.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/fifth-uk-research-staff-bullied-past-two-years

Popular posts...

Without values the academy risks anarchy...

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2016/08/blog-post.html

 

Abuse of Phd students

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2012/01/abuse-of-phd-students.html

 

Effects of Psychological Harassment

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/03/effects-of-psychological-harassment.html

 

What is Corporate/Institutional Bullying?

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-is-corporateinstitutional-bullying.html

 

The role of HR and management - older post but worth reading again

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/01/role-of-hr-and-management-older-post.html

 

Mean and Nasty Academics: Bullying, Hazing, and Mobbing

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2008/02/mean-and-nasty-academics-bullying.html

 

Bullying of a PhD Student - One Wrong Word/Death by Paper Cuts

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2013/05/bullying-of-phd-student-one-wrong.html

 

What Makes Narcissists Tick - "All con artists are thus protected by the pride of those they con..."

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-makes-narcissists-tick-all-con.html

 

The “Friends” the Narcissist Assembled Around You are Part of Their Manipulation (Sorry)

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-friends-narcissist-assembled-around.html

 

Understanding the followers of toxic leaders...

https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/2021/02/understanding-followers-of-toxic-leaders.html

UNESCO: Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel

• Institutional accountability

(h) ensuring that higher education personnel are not impeded in their work in the classroom or in their research capacity by violence, intimidation or harassment;

(k) the creation, through the collegial process and/or through negotiation with organizations representing higher-education teaching personnel, consistent with the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech, of statements or codes of ethics to guide higher education personnel in their teaching, scholarship, research and extension work;

• Rights and freedoms of higher-education teaching personnel

26. Higher-education teaching personnel, like all other groups and individuals, should enjoy those internationally recognized civil, political, social and cultural rights applicable to all citizens. Therefore, all higher-education teaching personnel should enjoy freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, assembly and association as well as the right to liberty and security of the person and liberty of movement. They should not be hindered or impeded in exercising their civil rights as citizens, including the right to contribute to social change through freely expressing their opinion of state policies and of policies affecting higher education. They should not suffer any penalties simply because of the exercise of such rights. Higher-education teaching personnel should not be subject to arbitrary arrest or detention, nor to torture, nor to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In cases of gross violation of their rights, higher-education teaching personnel should have the right to appeal to the relevant national, regional or international bodies such as the agencies of the United Nations, and organizations representing higher-education teaching personnel should extend full support in such cases.

28. Higher-education teaching personnel have the right to teach without any interference, subject to accepted professional principles including professional responsibility and intellectual rigour with regard to standards and methods of teaching. Higher-education teaching personnel should not be forced to instruct against their own best knowledge and conscience or be forced to use curricula and methods contrary to national and international human rights standards. Higher education teaching personnel should play a significant role in determining the curriculum.

29. Higher-education teaching personnel have a right to carry out research work without any interference, or any suppression, in accordance with their professional responsibility and subject to nationally and internationally recognized professional principles of intellectual rigour, scientific inquiry and research ethics. They should also have the right to publish and communicate the conclusions of the research of which they are authors or co-authors, as stated in paragraph 12 of this Recommendation.

30. Higher-education teaching personnel have a right to undertake professional activities outside of their employment, particularly those that enhance their professional skills or allow for the application of knowledge to the problems of the community, provided such activities do not interfere with their primary commitments to their home institutions in accordance with institutional policies and regulations or national laws and practice where they exist.

• Self-governance and collegiality

31. Higher-education teaching personnel should have the right and opportunity, without discrimination of any kind, according to their abilities, to take part in the governing bodies and to criticize the functioning of higher education institutions, including their own, while respecting the right of other sections of the academic community to participate, and they should also have the right to elect a majority of representatives to academic bodies within the higher education institution.

32. The principles of collegiality include academic freedom, shared responsibility, the policy of participation of all concerned in internal decision making structures and practices, and the development of consultative mechanisms. Collegial decision-making should encompass decisions regarding the administration and determination of policies of higher education, curricula, research, extension work, the allocation of resources and other related activities, in order to improve academic excellence and quality for the benefit of society at large.

• Discipline and dismissal

48. No member of the academic community should be subject to discipline, including dismissal, except for just and sufficient cause demonstrable before an independent third-party hearing of peers, and/or before an impartial body such as arbitrators or the courts.

49. All members of higher-education teaching personnel should enjoy equitable safeguards at each stage of any disciplinary procedure, including dismissal, in accordance with the international standards set out in the appendix.

50. Dismissal as a disciplinary measure should only be for just and sufficient cause related to professional conduct, for example: persistent neglect of duties, gross incompetence, fabrication or falsification of research results, serious financial irregularities, sexual or other misconduct with students, colleagues, or other members of the academic community or serious threats thereof, or corruption of the educational process such as by falsifying grades, diplomas or degrees in return for money, sexual or other favours or by demanding sexual, financial or other material favours from subordinate employees or colleagues in return for continuing employment.

51. Individuals should have the right to appeal against the decision to dismiss them before independent, external bodies such as arbitrators or the courts, with final and binding powers...

From: https://en.unesco.org/about-us/legal-affairs/recommendation-concerning-status-higher-education-teaching-personnel

The fight to end bullying in academia: UK researchers launch nationwide campaign

A group of academics and other staff members at several UK universities have launched an independent initiative to combat bullying and harassment in higher education. One of the group’s goals is to advocate for the establishment of an independent ombudsperson to which people who have been bullied can turn if they feel that their institution does not deal with a complaint adequately.

“We’ve become increasingly concerned about the prevalence of bullying in UK universities, and the fact that most universities seem to accept a very high level of bullying,” says Wyn Evans, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge, UK, and a leader of the group. It is called the 21 Group, after the reported 21% of staff members at Cambridge who described experiencing bullying or harassment in a 2018 survey.

Surveys of various UK university departments and academic disciplines indicate that roughly 30–40% of students, scholars and other members of staff experience bullying or harassment by someone in their department or field, Evans says. Bullying can have pernicious and long-lasting effects on a person’s work and mental health.

The 21 Group, which launched on 1 November, has two initial goals. One is to gather broader data on bullying at UK universities by asking people to collect and share information on the number of bullying complaints received, and investigations done, by their institutions. The second is to advocate for an independent ombudsperson’s office to be set up for the UK higher-education system, giving people someone to turn to if institutions handle complaints about bullying badly. Such a body exists for undergraduate students — the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education — but not for others within the university system.

Internal investigations by universities often exonerate the subject of the complaint, who might be a senior professor or other person in a position of power, says Evans. “Far too many UK universities prioritize limiting reputational damage to the institution over doing the right thing for their staff and students.”

More info at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03418-3

...a special circle of hell...

"There is a special circle of hell for university administrators who reduce anti-bullying to a glossy public relations exercise."

https://21percent.org/

Bullying support network launched due to universities’ ‘inaction’

UK university staff who have been the victim of bullying are being offered support by a new network amid repeated evidence that the problem is “endemic” in higher education.

Those behind the 21 Group – named after the percentage of staff members at the University of Cambridge who reported experiencing bullying in a 2020 survey – said it was needed because of a failure of universities to tackle the issue beyond “sloganising”.

It aims to conduct research to establish the true extent of bullying in UK universities and campaign for the creation of an independent ombudsman position that would take the handling of complaints away from being the sole domain of the internal processes of institutions.

Wyn Evans, professor of astrophysics at Cambridge – and one of the founders of the network – said it has its roots in a Times Higher Education article in which he claimed that bullying was “a feature of UK research universities, not a bug”, which prompted several people to come forward to share their own experiences.

The network consists of both university staff who have experienced bullying and those who have witnessed the “pain and hurt” it causes, according to Professor Evans.

He said despite ample evidence of the scale of bullying within universities – with many surveys putting the figure higher than the Cambridge poll – it is too often tolerated.

“The main obstacle is that senior management of universities come under pressure to hush things up – which clearly happens very often now,” Professor Evans said.

“Far too many UK universities prioritise limiting reputational damage to the institution over doing the right thing for their staff and students.

“This is because the bully is normally a senior professor or head of department. They are normally much more valuable to the university than the victim, who is often a student or a member of the professional services support staff.”

Professor Evans said a new body was needed to look at complaints because “organisations that investigate themselves exonerate themselves; they look for rugs enormous enough to sweep everything under”.

He pointed out that undergraduate students are able to take grievances to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education if they are unhappy with how they are dealt with internally, but there was no similar mechanism in place for staff or postgraduates.

As well as its more policy-focused work, the 21 Group aims to offer peer-to-peer support for the victims of bullying via informal advice and the chance to share experiences.

Because of the need to maintain confidentiality as bullying complaints are investigated, individuals are often left “feeling lonely, forsaken and with mental health problems” for months – or even years, Professor Evans said...

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/bullying-support-network-launched-due-universities-inaction

Challenging Bullying and Discrimination at the Open University

My name is Pilgrim Tucker. I am taking legal action against the Open University for discrimination on the basis of my disabilities, bullying associated with my gender-critical beliefs, harassment, victimisation, and breach of contract*, which has made it impossible for me to continue my PhD research at the OU. I need your support.

My Story

In 2017, I was invited to study for a PhD at the Open University by OU academic staff Professor A and Dr B following my campaigning work with residents of Grenfell Tower and the wider Lancaster West Estate before and after the 2017 fire.

I began my PhD at the OU in October 2018, researching the history of housing in North Kensington prior to the Grenfell Tower fire.

However, Dr C, the OU historian who had committed to providing input on the research project, was a leading transgender advocate within the university. He blocked me on social media, and then withdrew from working on my project. Although I was promised his expertise would be replaced, no history supervision input was provided.

From the time I started attempting to secure history supervision provision, OU staff began to construct a false narrative about my application, claiming I had never been promised history supervision input on my PhD, and that I was being unreasonable in expecting the university to provide it.

Subsequently, other administrative and pastoral aspects of my PhD provision began to go very wrong, and I started to become increasingly stressed and anxious and requested reasonable adjustments to accommodate my increasing mental health and menopause symptoms.

However rather than acknowledge and rectify any service provision failures, or put in place any adjustments to support my studies, the university attempted to conceal they had promised me history supervision and started to claim, falsely, that I had been rude to staff members, stating that the reason I had received a poor standard of provision at the university was due to illness and purported ‘problematic behavioural traits’ on my part.

The following are some of the claims which have been put to the OU in a pre-action letter, which they have not responded to:

Informing me, wrongly, that I had no entitlement to sick pay or sick leave during periods of ill health, although ESRC funding rules obliged the OU to provide it, and instead advising me to take unpaid leave and claim state benefits while unwell.

Failure to provide counselling support during the period I was undertaking interviews with victims of the Grenfell Tower fire, despite this being specified as a necessary ethical requirement on my research ethics application and OU staff promising me counselling would be provided.

Being incorrectly advised by the head of faculty and other OU staff responsible for my PhD that the only way to change supervision arrangements was by making a formal complaint.

Failing to provide any reasonable adjustments for my disabilities.

Wrongly informing OU staff that I was dyslexic.

Failing to reimburse expenses claims amounting to hundreds of pounds for almost 2 years.

Removing funding for book purchases and falsely claiming I had not had book purchase funding provided from the time I started my PhD.

Failure to apply the university’s covid tracked extension system to my PhD to cover time lost due to covid lockdowns.

Failing to provide accurate or reliable information about thesis submission deadlines, study break allowance, and extensions, and providing constantly changing and inaccurate information regarding this.

Insisting I accept a trans rights activist academic in a pastoral support role.

Seeking to take punitive action against me, based on false and unsubstantiated allegations about my conduct, following the submission of my complaint about the standard of service provided to me by the university.

Although following my complaint the Open University accepted that I had been wrongly advised by senior OU staff members and that I had experienced shortfalls in administrative provision, they minimised these, denying the majority of their failings. They have made no apology and offered no remedy or compensation.

The next step is for my barrister to draft particulars of the case in preparation for a legal hearing.

I am currently seeking to raise £11,000, in two stages, this is made up of £5230 in solicitors fees and £5670 – the cost of Barrister Alice De Coverley drafting the particulars of the case.

Thank you for any contribution you can make.

*My breach of contract claim encompasses the university’s failure to act in accordance with its own policies and procedures, and a breach of its duty to perform the service with reasonable care and skill. My contractual claim raises the same issues as a negligence claim and includes bullying associated with my gender-critical beliefs.

You can pledge at: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/pilgrim-tucker-challenging-discrimination-at-ou/