Talk:Workplace bullying in academia

Comment

This article is 100% distinct from school bullying. There is no overlap.

1. It is to do with adults and not children. Adult bullying and child bullying is very different.
2. The research cited here relates specifically to adult education (aka further education, university etc). Nothing here relates to school education for children.
3. None of the material (or similar) appears in school bullying.
4. Bullying in academia is commonly to do with bullying of the staff by management rather than the bullying of students. This relates to workplace bullying. Three of the citations used refer specifically to "workplace bullying". Also a fourth citation refers to "workplace mobbing" which has a similar meaning to workplace bullying.

--Penbat (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Bullying parties

needs to explain the different possible parties involved such as:

• principal bullies lecturer
• lecturer bullies lecturer
• student bullies lecturer
• lecturer bullies student
• student bullies student.

--Penbat (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't non-academic staff get bullied too?!!! I've had personal experience of this, which is why I'm remaining anonymous (plus I've forgotten my password). The woolly nature of academic structures (and lack of management training of senior staff in particular), means that they are conducive to - and supportive - of workplace bullying at ALL levels... (A member of professional services staff of a London university, 1 May 2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.7 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The list above would get very complex if i added non academic staff to it with all possible permutations. It didnt claim to be complete. Text about this could be added to the article if supported by a reliable source.--Penbat (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fight?

There's no organization/person/institution/law dedicated to fighting this type of bullying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.50.180 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Also the bullying can continue once the job has finished too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.213.103 (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

?

I'm not sure how to address this - seems there is a claim of bullying here taken almost as fact, without any sense of the subjectivity. For example, one of the outside links itself has a link to a physics professor's being dismissed because he automatically gave everyone A+'s. I agree that is a controversial issue, but you could certainly question whether it's bullying. Anyone with a gripe to bear can be called a bully. 206.116.243.76 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well is there any opposition to the bullying of acedemic students or not if so then it needs to be stated in the article. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitions

Definitions have been removed repeatedly, making this article more difficult for our readers. Definitions, rather than hyperlinks, would be better here. Can we get a consensus before somebody violates WP:3RR? Bearian (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

We usually don't do this in wikipedia. Also, in case you didn't notice, I also removal a section that belongs to a more general article. We don't repeat large chunks of "Human rights" article in pages such as Human rights in Poland, and so on. A definition may be repeated if it defines something people don't usually know (as you suggest, for ease of reading). But I highly doubt that people don't have an idea what is "bullying". Do you want to add the definition of "academia" as well? What about other blue links? Wikipedia is not paper. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are considered atomic units, complete into themselves. They can be copied outside of this website and printed in a book, copied to other websites, etc.. leaving the rest of the website behind. It should never be assumed that someone is reading the content just here, or with hyperlinks working. There is some practical limits to this, but Bearian is correct that this article - which is about bullying - should at least define what bullying means. -- GreenC 22:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. Period. Even in a book about all kinds of bullying the basic definition is not repeated in every section. Books are generally not written for people with short attention span. And we should not care if someone rips off an incomplete wikipedia with missing links. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No one ever claimed it was just paper, that's a strawman. Articles are treated as whole units which are be copied elsewhere in many media formats, paper included. But assuming other articles will be copied along with this one, that this article is not complete without other articles, makes little logical or practical sense. Each article is treated as a standalone essay, ideally, though in practice usually only at GA/FA level do they achieve that. -- GreenC 02:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "wikipedia is not paper <encyclopedia>" means that wikipedia does not have the same rules and limitations the paper books have. In particular, unlike paper articles, they don't have to be self-contained and define everything from 'a' to 'z'. Yes, article is standalone, but not essay and not supposed to be self-contained. Blue links are on purpose. Imagine how the article will be blown in size if we give definitions to all blue links. Wikipedia should not care if somebody rips off an article out of it without bothering to copy the linked pieces. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the issue closer, I see that the concept of "bullying in academia" requires its own, separate definition, not just a sum of definitions "bullying" + "academia". The random definition added by a newcomer is both incomplete and partially inapplicable to bullying in academia. In particular, we hardly speak of "physical violence" in academia. At the same time, e.g., denying of promotion is neither physical nor psychological, nor violence. At the same time, the article "bullying" itself is sloppy, controversial and confusing. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, it's all about context. Bullying in a high security prison for violent offenders is a lot different from bullying at Yale and Harvard. The definition of what bulling means, within the context of academia, is a central part of the article. Typically this can be handled with archetypal (or famous) case studies that illustrate common forms of bullying in the context of academia. -- GreenC 02:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The definition added by the new editor does not apply to bullying in academia, as I believe I explained in my previous post. So, where is the disagreement? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In adult education

Bullying in adult education redirects here, but is not covered in the article. -- Beland (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge w/ Bullying in Higher Education

I am very confused that there is a separate article called Bullying in Higher Education, especially since Bullying in higher education (without capitalization) redirects here. Is there a difference, and if not, could somebody with more experience dealing with such matters please fix this? --XndrK (talk | contribs) 18:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The two articles seem different enough to me to keep separate, but titles need improvement. Thanks XndrK for noting counter-intuitive redirect that has been in place since 2011; I have just fixed it to redirect to Bullying in Higher Education. Also in the lede of both articles I just inserted mention, with link, to the other.

Currently we have Bullying in Higher Education which focuses on bullying of students, by students, faculty and others. This seems to me to be a major topic of interest to a different readership. Bullying in academia focuses on bullying of faculty and staff, as an example of workplace bullying but addressing factors specific to academia, including conflict between faculty systems vs. administrative systems, perhaps both within and across universities. That seems not of interest to a student subject to bullying, or to their friend/family/others. So I say keep separate. However the titles should describe the topics. How about Bullying of students in higher education vs. Bullying in academia? "Academia" to me connotes the workplace. About bullying of Ph.D. students who work as teaching or research assistants, that seems to me to belong to the latter. Any comments? Speak up. Otherwise, I may soon just boldly make the one move needed to implement that, and remove the merger proposal tags. --doncram 20:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There were merger proposal tags in place since October 2014. I just removed those, after moving both articles to titles that are more clear: "Workplace bullying in academia" and "Bullying of students in higher education". The merger discussion is hereby closed, IMO. --doncram 03:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation

Footnote 4 is to a Clute Institute publication. The Clute Institute is considered to be a predatory publisher (see http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/) Thus, I think it would be better for find a more authoritative source. --Derek Pyne2 (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Workplace bullying in academia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521050439/http://www.medico-legalsociety.org.uk/articles/dishonesty_in_medical_research.pdf to http://www.medico-legalsociety.org.uk/articles/dishonesty_in_medical_research.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Examples?

Should we add examples from reliable third-party sources to illustrate this?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free if you can.--Penbat (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Penbat: How would we include examples? In a separate subsection? How many example do we need?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There have been high profile cases in my field at both ETH Zurich and MPA Garching. Google either of those + bullying and you'll find articles in reliable third-party sources (e.g. Times Higher Education, Nature). Robminchin (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Would we add examples in the "Incidence" section?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Good sources to use

I have started adding some sources but I'm no expert in the field and have little knowledge, if someone would like to further expand or update the article, here are some good sources to exploit further: PMID 30487619, [1], [2], Workplace Bullying in Academia: Long-Term Victim Impact and Moral Disengagement (PhD thesis), PMID 24289666, Why Relentless Administrative Turnover Makes It Hard for Us to Do Our Jobs --Signimu (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)