Incivility in the Academy: Using the I3 Model to Investigate Aggression in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests that workplace bullying and workplace incivility occur among academics and may threaten professional status, lead to social isolation, and may involve negative interpersonal exchanges and reduced morale in the workplace.Through autoethnography, duoethnography, and interviews, we examined the experiences of five female faculty in Higher Education in a Canadian university for factors that could lead to workplace bullying and workplace incivility.Thematic analysis using the I 3 Model as our theoretical framework identified eight factors that may contribute to workplace bullying and incivility.Results suggested that highly departmentalized colleges may lead to aggressive competition, which heightens workplace bullying and workplace incivility.Additionally, as workloads increase and funding opportunities have decreased, the competition for scarce external funding has created incivility between faculty members.To mitigate instances of workplace bullying and workplace incivility, faculty members cited the importance of cultivating collaboration and peersupport networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".