“It is Essentially About Treating Each Other Well”: Insights from Faculty on Incivility in Nursing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY BACKGROUND: Incivility in nursing educational institutions, which may be perpetrated by both students and faculty, is troubling given that such institutions have a mandate to prepare students for caring, relational nursing practice. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to contribute to understanding nursing academic incivility through an examination of nursing faculty's perspectives on student and faculty incivility. METHODS: The study was conducted using a mixed methods, descriptive, survey design with collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. The sample consisted of 52 faculty members. RESULTS: A large majority of faculty thought that incivility in the nursing academic environment is a problem, with most considering it to be a mild or moderate problem. Students acted unprofessionally by showing disrespect, displaying superiority, engaging in disruptive behaviors, or not taking responsibility for their role in their learning. Faculty acted unprofessionally by showing disrespect, displaying superiority, or not being supportive. Faculty perceived that stress, personality, failure to deal with incivility, and an attitude of entitlement contributed to incivility. They thought that educational interventions, policies, and an academic environment that is conducive to civility are needed to address the problem. CONCLUSION: Until evidence is available to support the effectiveness of interventions for academic incivility, nursing educational institutions are encouraged to implement strategies suggested by faculty in this study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".