Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study investigated workplace incivility (WI) among Canadian post-secondary teaching faculty using a two-study multiple methods approach. Grounded in equity theory (Adams, 1963) and stress and coping theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), the research aimed to (1) assess the psychometric properties and relevance of the Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS, Cortina & Magley, 2003) within a sample of Canadian Post-Secondary teaching faculty; and (2) determine how common WI is and its psychological effects on Canadian post-secondary instructors. The first study involved 92 instructors from across Canada completing a comprehensive survey package that included the WIS, the Big Five Inventory-10 (BFI-10), the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21), and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, along with open-ended questions about their experiences with WI. The second study involved a content validity study based on expert review of the WIS by four academics. Results showed significant positive correlations between WI and symptoms of depression (r = .275), anxiety (r = .289), and stress (r = .324). A modest positive correlation was found between years of employment and WI experiences (r = .227). Qualitative findings identified issues with the WIS response scale and highlighted forms of incivility not covered by current measures, including covert exclusion, identity-based microaggressions, and power dynamics within institutions. The study enhances understanding of WI in academic settings and offers suggestions for improving measurement tools and institutional responses.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".