Kathleen Z. Young Anthropology MS 9083 Western Washington University Bellingham, WA. USA Associate Professor: War & Genocide, Religion, Trauma & Recovery, Theory, Sex & Gender [email protected]

Workplace Bullying in Higher Education: the Misunderstood Academicus ABSTRACT. Although relatively overlooked, the rates of bullying in higher education appear similar, if not higher, than workplace bullying associated with the competitive world of for-profit corporations. This paper reviews the literature on bullying in academia and the specific structural conditions that allow for bullying to persist in higher education. Possible explanations why faculty and administrators may avoid, misread, or become inadvertently complicit in bullying are discussed as well as the consequences for individuals and the University. The paper ends with discussion of practical remedies, areas that need more research, and future implications.

The bullied habitus in higher education Bullying in higher education is a process sustained over time whereby one colleague harasses another to the point of serious health issues and impaired productivity, even brain damage (Jovanovic et al., 2011). Although the rates of bullying at colleges and universities appear high compared to the general population, bullying in higher education is relatively ignored compared to the number of publications and media attention given to corporate workplace bullying (Thornton, 2004; Zabrodska & Kveton, 2013). At least one expert in human resource management calls the comparatively high rates of bullying in higher education “stunning” (Gloor 2014). Administrators, staff, and faculty may not fathom how widespread bullying is in their own backyards (Clark et al., 2013). In a 2014 study of bullying in academia, 64% of the respondents reported having been bullied (DelliFraine et al., 2014). Bullying in academia is reportedly more common than racial or sexual harassment (Lewis, 1999). Bullying by faculty is seriously harmful, systemic and hardwired into the organizational structure of higher education and yet there is a tendency for academics and administrators to overlook, ignore, or suppress the difficult ethical and ideological issues associated with this “dark side” of organizational behavior (Cassell, 2011; Linstead et al., 2014; Lutgen-Sandvik & Sypher, 2010). Ethical issues aside, the fiscal cost of workplace bullying in higher education costs a university; administrators who allow bullying drive up the cost of education and compromise the institution’s objectives (Hollis, 2015). How does one tenured faculty bully another? A key element of all bullying is its intensity, its 1

persistently ongoing nature, the power disparity between targets and perpetrators, and the damage it inflicts on targets (Taylor, 2012). Bullying goes beyond mere pernicious incivility and is characterized by seclusion, rumors, yelling or hostile language, and interference with work (Fogg, 2008). Bully generally refers to the perpetrator of negative acts carried out in a systematic and purposeful way resulting in damages to the intended target (Bartlett and Bartlett, 2011). Studies examining personality traits correlate individual bullying with sub-clinical narcissism and Machiavellianism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Psychological profiles describe bullies as competitive and insecure, motivated by extrinsic narcissistic pride and demanding of respect (Ojedokun et al., 2014). An academic narcissist, for example, would perceive a lack of obsequium, however perceived, as a personal insult deserving of disrespect (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012, p. 66). The bully’s tyrannical misconduct increases when he or she feels threatened by a colleagues’ asserted independence, social skills, or ethical whistle blowing (Bjørkelo et al., 2009). The predatory bully seeks any vulnerability to exploit and tyrannical misconduct increases if the target is in anyway personally vulnerable (Bowling et al., 2010; Sedivy-Benton et al., 2015) A bully uses hostile verbal and nonverbal stratagem, a series of seemingly inconsequential incidents that add up over time, including ridicule, psychological harassment, slander, and obstruction. Some acts are overt or “on the record” others are covert and more devious by their ambiguity, part of a repeated pattern to undermine the target causing disabling reactions such as fear, anxiety, helplessness, and depression (Duffy et al., 2002). Typically, bullies will claim to support the victim when called on their behavior but act in ways that sabotage the victim (Keim and McDermott, 2010, p. 170). Bullying falls outside of common objective argumentative discourse in academia in part because bullies have a higher tolerance for conflict than most people have and escalate incivility, valuing the rewards brought by aggression (Gunsalus, 2006, pp. 134-135). Incessant hostility directed at a target augments the bully’s social capital, a precarious and noisy burden inflicted on others.

Bullying is Gendered Bullying in higher education is gendered; it is not gender neutral (Salin, 2015; Salin and Hoel, 2013). Bullish behavior is randomly distributed throughout most institutions at one time or another and predatory bullies exist within both sexes, however, men tend to bully men or women; women bully women almost exclusively (Faucher et al., 2015), usually colleague-tocolleague (Rayner and Hoel, 1997). When it comes to bullying, “women bullies target women eighty percent of the time” (Tepper and White, 2011, p. 84). Generally, women bullies are more likely to use indirect aggression and subtle behaviors that “may in fact be more harmful to targets than explicit bullying behaviors” and have longer lasting effects (Samnani, 2013, p. 290). Women professors who were pioneers and in the numerical minority in academia in the past faced a different set of harassing behaviors, that legacy endures but with profound generational 2

differences. A 2006 study suggested that the general workplace bully might have been a target of negative acts in the past and so perpetuates the negativity at work misperceiving it as normative (Lee and Brotheridge, 2006). Women who joined the academic ranks prior to the 1980’s may equate verbal aggression with a masculine ethos and for some their seniority brings with it a sense of obligatory bullying. As Pierre Bourdieu put it, “it is not the phallus (or its absence) which is the basis of that worldview” (Bourdieu, 2001, p. 22). In this case, the bully portrays herself as the rational overseer who attenuates the formation of a masculinist tradition of a bygone era (Simpson and Cohen, 2004, p. 167). Colleagues may follow the bully, perceiving the target as different in some way, even if that difference is inconsequential (clothing, speech, background, etc.) Alterity, the state of being different, is suspect because a shared sense of belonging “is really the most authentic proof of obsequium, unconditional respect for the fundamental principles of the established order” (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 87). Incivility may be directed at a person of a different race, gender, or sexual orientation (Misawa, 2014), however, because some forms of harassment and discrimination are illegal when directed at protected classes (based on race, sex, disability, or other grounds recognized by law) academic bullies today more often choose targets with no legal or administrative recourse (Cassell, 2011; Webb, 2012). Bullying in higher education is a form of legal psychological violence (Taylor, 2012). In academia today, the female bully is usually a senior colleague or full professor with direct or informal power and the target is usually of a lower rank, from a working class background, and another female (Friedenberg, 2008, pp. 11–15). While recent literature defines women faculty targets as competent, kind, attractive, and well-liked (Dentith et al., 2015), older studies could not differentiate targets from non-targets (Glasø et al., 2007; Glasø et al., 2009), although bullies seem to target non-confrontational faculty women going through a period of vulnerability (Raineri et al., 2011; Salin and Hoel, 2013). Positionality does make a difference, with nontenured women obviously more vulnerable, but full professors also bully full professors (SedivyBenton et al., 2015). Bullying that appears horizontal in nature because it involves two women is not. If the bully were a man and the target a woman or if the woman were the bully and the target a man would bystanders perceive the situation differently? Do bystanders perceive the psychological violence of a woman bullying another woman less seriously? There is evidence that both men and women are not attuned to power differentials when the bully and the target are both female (Salin, 2011, p. 584).

Symbolic Violence In Homo Academicus, Bourdieu situated symbolic power within an asymmetry usually taken for granted, reifying the meritocracy and perpetuating the social order (Bourdieu, 1988, p. xvi). 3

Commenting on academia, Bourdieu quotes Hobbes’ Leviathan (2001, p. 10.5) on power, “There are surely few social worlds where power depends strongly on belief, where it is so true, in the words of Hobbes, ‘Reputation of power is power’” (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 91). Habitus is the internalization of the structures of social relations that distribute power unequally yet foster the impression that the origin of these unequal power relations lies in nature — instead of in social practice. Heinz Leymann elaborated on the process of psychological violence in the workplace by introducing the term mobbing, “hostile or unethical communication, which is directed in a systematic way by one or a few individuals mainly towards one individual who, due to mobbing, is pushed into a helpless and defenseless position” (Leymann, 1996, p. 186). Mobbing is a collective campaign by co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted worker. Mobbing involves “alienating, marginalizing, ostracizing, silencing, patronizing, and scapegoating others” and “involving others as allies who become complicit in these behaviors” (Twale and De Luca, 2008, p. 19). For the target, the perception that colleagues are intentionally and systematically trying to inflict psychological harm and there is no recourse almost inevitably increases the risk of serious health issues (Hansen et al., 2011; Westhues, 2004). One multi-national study of bullying in higher education concluded that “psychological consequences of mobbing could lead to economic and family problems and cause suicidal ideation among victims” (Celep & Konaklı, 2013, p. 196). Bourdieu’s discussion of symbolic violence (1991) can help explain the use of mobbing and bullying as tactics “used to position, reposition, and dispossess individuals and groups for the benefit of others, all the while never contesting the official strategies that act on the dominant and marginal alike” (Denny, 2014, p. 5). The bully or bullies affirm the esteem of rank through mob behavior designed to punish the less esteemed of lower rank; mobbing is the praxis of rank. An institution given to producing ranked asymmetrical social relations would have some difficulty recognizing or examining the consequences of those intersubjective and interdependent social relations. Symbolic violence is “one size fits all.” Academic bystanders seldom admit or acknowledge what they witness (Kennison et al., 2015). Colleagues and administrators are not oblivious to abusive behavior; they lack the will to recognize and name the bullying because of habitus, the doxic knowledge of the university that shades the forces of resistance within; they cannot name what they see and therefore it does not exist. Observing the welter of continuing incidents of bullying over time can produce something akin to cognitive dissociative amnesia. There is a negative emotional intelligence at work as a bystander witnesses the bullying without the cognitive consciousness to register what she or he has seen or heard. Department administrators may interpret the behaviors as part and parcel of a bully’s gauche 4

personality, saying, “she means well,” however, “in the parallel arena of racial and sexual harassment, intent is not included as a component element for the harassment to have occurred” (Rayner and Hoel, 1997, p. 184). Supervisors may see the target as “overly sensitive” or reactionary, turning a workplace bullying issue into a personal conflict, a strategy used to mitigate organizational responsibility for worker harm (Lewis & Orford, 2005). Dismissing bullying as a personal issue erodes the openness to facts that is the rebar of academic standards (Berryman-Fink, 1998). Faculty promoted to leadership positions may not know what to do and so they fall back on the easier explanation of personality conflict. However, trained administrators often follow the same path (Nelson & Lambert 2001). In case studies, “upper management, union representatives, or personnel administration tend to accept the prejudices produced by the offenders, thus blaming the victim for its misfortune” (Einarsen, 1999, p. 19). According to the literature, any administrator who calls it a personality conflict infringes on the target’s human rights and dignity (Khoo, 2010, p. 65). Bullying is not mere conflict; it is “an extremely hostile and devastating phenomenon” (Keashly et al., 2011, p. 440). As Pierre Bourdieu explains, “the established order, with its relation of domination, its rights and prerogatives, privileges and injustices, ultimately perpetuates itself so easily” until “the most intolerable conditions of existence can so often be perceived as acceptable and even natural” (Bourdieu, 2001, p. 1). The conditions of the production of habitus that govern management, union representatives, Human Resources, the bully, and the victim of bullying are part of the “conditions of the production of the habitus that is actively complicit in its own domination” (Emirbayer and Johnson, 2008, p. 31). Bystanders to a colleague’s bullying may practice a kind of percepticide because the personal subjectivities make it difficult to define and most people cannot designate reasons for its existence (Meriläinen et al., 2015). Regrettably, this allows the bully to claim ignorance of her own bullying and act “mystified” when called on the incivility. Misrecognition of the bullying “enables objectivity to become subjectivized by agents of power” and deflected (Cicourel, 1993, p. 103). In addition, faculty may reasonably worry that if they acknowledged the bully’s unprofessional behaviors the bully would retaliate. Perhaps, the risk of identification of bullying is low or non-existent because of the phenomena of “structural inertia” (Bourdieu, 1988). Bullying can become second nature as a bullying habitus — embodied history — encodes in the physical and mental structure of the bully whereby “schemes are able to pass directly from practice to practice without moving through discourse and consciousness” (Bourdieu 1990, p. 74), meaning that with very little expenditure of energy, the bully sabotages the victim among her peers (Bourdieu, 2001:38). In one insidious example of mobbing, the authors reference graduate students used as proxies in mobbing (Metzger et al., 2015). Gossip, rumors, and personal attacks on the target’s background and character continue without reference to the audience, including undergraduates. Students who witness bullying may also experience mental stress. Accordingly, making students bystanders to bullying infringes on their rights (Cameron et 5

al., 2004) For both targets and student bystanders, bullying disrupts the usual correspondence between habitus, expectations of civility, and professional conduct. The “psychological contract” that includes an expectation of objectivity and fairness is broken, assiduous bullying is a discrepancy at the root of a divided or even torn habitus. Belief in an evidence-based meritocracy ruptures (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, p. 127; Wacquant, 1989, p. 5).

Intercorporeal transmission No matter how resilient the target or blessed by intelligence and a sense of coherence, the bully will eventually get under the skin with negative biochemical and neurobiological effects (Cvetkovich, 2012; Lac et al., 2012; MacLaughlin et al., 2011). In clinical studies, victims had “altered hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity, altered circadian cortisol cycles resulting in disrupted sleep patterns and chronic fatigue (Lallukka et al., 2011; Niedhammer et al., 2009; Vie et al., 2011). Victims of workplace bullying had increased levels of dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate DHEA and DHEA-S followed by a reduced capacity to produce DHEA-S and lower basal DHEA-S levels resulting in biological ageing, increased risk for age-related diseases, and reduced productive capacity (Brousse et al., 2008; Lennartsson et al., 2012). Low DHEA and DHEA-S levels are biomedical markers for socio–psychological stress associated with adverse health, specifically, abdominal adiposity or belly fat, inflammation, shortened telomere length (TL), a feature of cell senescence or premature aging, and risk of mortality (Ansell et al., 2012; Kivimäki et al., 2003). Long–term exposure to bullying can result in “dysfunctions in the mechanisms of memory and in the cognitive systems” (Bjørklund, 2004: 28; Cooper et al., 2004); bullying results in smaller gray matter volume in the brain (Seo et al. 2014). Bullying disrupts “at least a dozen biochemical process related to learning and memory, resulting in long-term academic and professional handicaps” (Cozolino, 2014: 253). The target “comes down” with cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, diabetes, or other major health problems (Kivimäki et al., 2003). A defining feature of bullying is its prolonged continuance. Workplace trauma from bullying is open-ended, not post trauma or post-stress; past insults and anticipated future insults merge (Zapf and Einarsen, 2011). Trauma research has shown that multiple non-life-threatening traumas are often more psychologically harmful than a single catastrophic event which helps to explain why depression, dysthymia, and anxiety disorders, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) cooccur with as risk factors associated with workplace bullying (Bond et al., 2010; Seides, 2010). The body “does not memorize the past, it enacts the past, bringing it back to life (Bourdieu, 6

1990, p. 73). It follows that bullying impairs the target’s scholarship and social requirements for service and explains why third parties tend to blame the victim and see the bullying as justified (Björkqvist et al., 1994; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002). Impairments linked to acute stress facilitate a university’s punitive response to the target’s diminished productivity (Antze & Lambek, 1996; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996), allowing institutions of higher education to evade collective guilt through the medicalization of the target’s individual experience (Gorlewski et al., 2014; Niedhammer & Degioanni, 2006). The serious consequences for some targets include suicidal ideation (Romeo et al., 2013; Soares, 2012) and suicide (Westhues, 2002). Following the bully’s oeuvre, the symptoms of bullying would be used to explain the suicide in such a way as to blame the victim; he or she was depressed, troubled, or just not up to the job. Too often universities fail to identify bullying until it is too late. After the suicide of a union member was linked to workplace bullying in 2014 at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, a union survey found that bullying was “widespread and a serious threat to morale, health, and productivity” (Schmidt, 2014, p. A19). A passive acceptance of psychological violence by default is destructive leadership behavior (Skogstad et al., 2007, p. 80). Inaction to prevent bullying acts is complicity (Appleton, 1978, p. 136; De Luca and Twale, 2010). The American Association of University Professors warns that “efforts to obstruct the ability of colleagues to carry out their normal functions, to engage in personal attacks, or to violate ethical standards” constitute “an independently relevant matter for faculty evaluation” (AAUP, 2006, p. 40). Despite the warnings of the AAUP, the literature cautions a complainant looking for remedies. A formal grievance could make matters worse (Boswell and Olson-Buchanan, 2004) exacerbating the impact on the target (Harrington, 2010, p. 2). It may be too late for most of the bullied faculty nearing retirement, “there are no intervention studies in published literature despite 30 years of extensive international research” (Dzurec et al., 2014, p. 283). Older faculty may be particularly vulnerable to the negative health effects forcing them into early retirement at reduced pensions because of the lost productivity and foregone promotions (Zsoldos et al., 2014). Many victims of bullying remain silent and ashamed by their treatment, reluctant to draw negative attention to themselves, their university, or the bully (Baker, 2013). Lois Price Spratlen, University of Washington Ombudsman and Ombudsman for Sexual Harassment, conducted a study of workplace mistreatment in 1995 finding that it existed at all levels in institutions of higher education with substantial negative consequences for individuals and the institution. She urged administrators to “acknowledge mistreatment as a significant 7

problem deserving of a policy statement regarding its undesirable and unacceptable consequences” (Spratlen, 1995, p. 296). She recommended a statement to all employees annually to avoid inappropriate rudeness, insults, derogatory comments, invasions of privacy, etc., what others have called a mere decency (Lester, 2013). A university may find such measures in its own best interest since bullying is a health and safety issue (Yamada, 2013).

Recommendations The literature urges targets to identify bullying, label it, try to set boundaries, and employ avoidance strategies. Get medical attention, seek multiple methods of self-care, and solicit support from family and friends. There will be times when the bullying will seem to have gone into remission for whatever reason, but because bullying becomes habitual, takes very little energy, and because universities often reward bullying, it will return with vengeance. It will not end until the bully or the target retires or dies. The most effective form of resilience is leaving; develop an exit strategy because the long-term damage is too great (Maher, 2013). Even after leaving, depression and PTSD persist for years (Bonde et al., 2016; Wieland & Beitz, 2015). The situation for the tenured faculty member who does not leave when bullied is dismal. Unions can protect faculty from administrative bullies, but when faculty bully faculty, there is usually no recourse, a situation which renders the bully and the target interchangeable (Myers, 2012). According to the literature, grievances are rarely successful and usually make the situation worse (Gloor, 2014). The bully may hide behind the concepts of academic standards or academic freedom, recasting berating and belittling as scholarly in nature. The accusation of bullying may even enhance the reputation of the accused as “someone who is to be taken seriously, whether feared or admired, and as a leader with an acknowledged constituency” (Nelson & Lambert, 2001, p. 103). The target did nothing to precipitate the bullying and nothing will alter the bully’s behavior, even reacting to protect oneself from a bully may give the bully more power. Although there is nothing the target can do to change her situation, except for leaving, retiring, or dying, feeling as if there is nothing she can do, that she is stuck in the role of the victim, is also bad for her health. Targets would prefer to bury each incident after it occurs and they may lack the cognitive energy to record the situation but ignoring bullying is ineffective (Keim & McDermott, 2010). Although documenting the bullying will not change the situation, it is at least a coping strategy. Documenting increases a sense of agency and strengthens resilience (Cheng et al., 2013; van Heugten, 2013). Document, but give up hope that change will occur, recognizing that if the university hosts bullying, the university is not the best place to address the issue” (Vanhoutte, 2010). When victims lack agency to change the situation, health consequences ensue and one way to mitigate the damage is by reframing bullying as allowable structural violence. This allows the 8

target to focus on the institution and not the pathology of the bully. Accept that bullying thrives within the competitive realms of academia. Situate the academy within the context of all other American workplaces (Johnson-Bailey, 2014). According to an Italian university study, targets perceiving the abuse as part of organizational culture are less likely to develop health consequences; it is in the target’s health interest to perceive negative acts as part of the organizational culture (Giorgi, 2012). What appears to be psychological sleight of hand has merit. A recent Danish study found negative psychosocial working conditions precipitated bullying, not the inherent characteristics of targets; anyone, regardless of their sense of coherence, can become a target of workplace bullying in adverse psychosocial working situations (Francioli et al., 2015). Disengagement is a common coping strategy in adverse psychosocial working conditions (Hollis, 2015). One survival strategy that worked for the targets was detachment from their own departments and attachment to colleagues elsewhere (Sedivy-Benton et al., 2015). Three targets of workplace bullying in higher education discuss moving on from the experience by mentoring graduate students, a long-term strategic solution to change the university system from within (Metzger et al., 2015). “Changing such a culture, even with a determined cross-organisation effort, is a long-term endeavor” (Skinner et al, 2015, p. 570). Bullies endeavor long-term and benefit from it, but long-term targets of bullying suffer exponentially. Workers over 60 in a recent Italian study who reported persistent workplace bullying had significantly increased health issues including psoriasis, autoimmune arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and depressive disorders (Fattori et al., 2015). Sadly, the damages from bullying may persist after retirement. One study reported that five years later almost 70 percent of the targets still had PTSD analogue symptoms (Einarsen et al., 1999).

Summary and Implications Contextual factors specific to higher education link to the onset of aggression both theoretically and empirically, and yet vague definitions of workplace bullying in higher education limit understanding and inhibit change (Keashly & Neuman, 2010); Westhues, 2008). There is a need for rigorous definitions of workplace bullying and more structural analysis. Administrators could begin by outlining the bully’s tactics, humiliation, intimidation, isolation, demonstrating temper and hostility during individual or group confrontations and sabotage of the target’s teaching (by interfering with classes and involving students in the bullying), research (removing access to books and literature from mailboxes, gossiping with potential co-authors), and service (defamation across campus). Universities could adapt practices similar to corporate institutions, a written policy, early casual intervention, bystander awareness, and training that fosters a culture inimical to bullying (Denenberg, 2015). 9

Minimal safety measures against injurious bullying begin with department chairs. Chairs should be able to recognize bullying and have some awareness of the indications of a bullied faculty member. New faculty should be privy to conflict management and mediation skills. The University of Massachusetts implemented mandatory workplace training on bullying, similar to mandatory workplace training on issues related to sexual harassment (Schmidt, 2014). There is a dearth of information on student bystanders to bullying. Here too, the implications are disturbing. Do students join in, feeling free to bully a targeted faculty or does it instill a discomfort that is akin to harassment? Making students bystanders to delusional outbursts of bullying may result in a percentage of students leaving the university, similar to the corporate world “with 20% of witnesses deciding to leave the organization as a result of their experience” (Vickers, 2006, p. 269). Faculty to faculty bullying costs students in multiple ways. Bullying precedes health disparities that contribute to the high cost of education and increases student debt, “higher education can ill afford the cost of harboring a bully” (Hollis, 2015, p. 9). The science of epigenetics may usher in a new paradigm of civility as key to education (Dias et al., 2015). The space between the personal and the professional, sociality and biology, nature and nurture is eclipsed as we comprehend the body in the era of the epigenome (Lock, 2015). Universities may have to recognize that whether structural or psychological, social violence, aka bullying, is a workplace safety issue that has repercussions for families, communities, and future generations. Those future generations will inhabit a different habitus. They may be as mystified that academia tolerated bullying as they are by the legacy of racism at some of our Ivy League institutions in the past.

REFERENCES American Association of University Professors (2006) On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation (1999). http://www.aaup.org/report/collegiality-criterion-faculty-evaluation Ansell, E. B., Rando, K., Tuit, K., Guarnaccia, J., & Sinha, R. (2012). Cumulative adversity and smaller gray matter volume in medial prefrontal, anterior cingulate, and insula regions. Biological Psychiatry, 72(1), 57-64. Antze, P., & Lambek, M. (Eds.). (1996). Tense past: Cultural essays in trauma and memory. New York: Routledge. Appleton, J. (1978). Pieces of Eight: The Rites, Roles, and Styles of the Dean, by Eight Who Have Been There. Portland, Oregon: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Institute for Research and Development.

10

Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target's perspective. Annual review of psychology, 60, 717-741. Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47(7), 755-778. Baker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying in higher education. Contextualising Narrative Inquiry: Developing Methodological Approaches for Local Contexts. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 69-84. Berryman-Fink, C. (1998). Can we agree to disagree? Faculty-faculty conflict. Mending the cracks in the ivory tower: Strategies for conflict management in higher education, 141-163. Bjørkelo, B., Ryberg, W., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2009). 'When you talk and talk and nobody listens': A mixed method case study of whistleblowing and its consequences. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13(2), 18-40. Bjørklund, R. (2004). Experimental approach to cognitive abnormality among victims of bullying at work. The Fourth International Conference on Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, Bergen, Norway, June 28-29. Ståle Einarsen and M. Nielsen, eds. Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Hielt-Bdck, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20(3), 173-184. Bond, S. A., Tuckey, M. R., & Dollard, M. F. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate, workplace bullying, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Organization Development Journal. 28(1), 37– 56. Bonde, J. P., Gullander, M., Hansen, Å. M., Grynderup, M., Persson, R., Hogh, A., ... & Kolstad, H. A. (2016). Health correlates of workplace bullying: a 3-wave prospective follow-up study. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 42(1). Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2004). Experiencing mistreatment at work: The role of grievance filing, nature of mistreatment, and employee withdrawal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 129-139. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 11

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical Reason: On the theory of action. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine Domination. Richard Nice, trans. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Bennett, M. M., & Watson, C. P. (2010). Target personality and workplace victimization: A prospective analysis. Work & Stress, 24(2), 140-158. Breslau, N., Davis, G. C., Andreski, P., Peterson, E. L., & Schultz, L. R. (1997). Sex differences in posttraumatic stress disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54(11), 1044-1048. Brousse, G., Fontana, L., Ouchchane, L., Boisson, C., Gerbaud, L., Bourguet, D., & Chamoux, A. (2008). Psychopathological features of a patient population of targets of workplace bullying. Occupational Medicine, 58(2), 122-128. Calhoun, C. (2010). Epilogue, Remembering Pierre Bourdieu. Sociology is a martial art: Political writings by Pierre Bourdieu. G. Sapiro (Ed.). New York: New Press. Cameron, C. A., Meyers, L. E., & Olswang, S. G. (2004). Academic bills of rights: Conflict in the classroom. Journal of College & University Law, 31(2), 243-290. Cassell, M. A. (2011). Bullying in academe: Prevalent, significant, and incessant. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 4(5), 33-44. Celep, C., & Konaklı, T. (2013). Mobbing Experiences of Instructors: Causes, Results, and Solution Suggestions. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(1), 193-199.

Cheng, C., Cheung, S. F., Chio, J. H. M., & Chan, M. P. S. (2013). Cultural meaning of perceived control: a meta-analysis of locus of control and psychological symptoms across 18 cultural regions. Psychological bulletin, 139(1), 152. Cicourel, A. (1993). Structural and Processual Epistemologies. Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (Eds). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Clark, C. M., Olender, L., Kenski, D., & Cardoni, C. (2013). Exploring and addressing facultyto-faculty incivility: A national perspective and literature review. Journal of Nursing Education, 52(4), 211-218.

12

Cooper, C. L., Hoel, H., & Faragher, B. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 367-387. Cozolino, L. (2014). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain. New York: WW Norton & Company. Cvetkovich, A. (2012). Depression: A public feeling. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DelliFraine, J. L., McClelland, L. E., Erwin, C. O., & Wang, Z. (2014). Bullying In Academia: Results of a Survey of Health Administration Faculty. Journal of Health Administration Education, 31(2), 147-163. De Luca, B. M., & Twale, D. J. (2010). Mediating in the Academic Bully Culture: The Chair’s Responsibility to Faculty and Graduate Students. The Department Chair, 20(3), 1-3. Denny, H. (2014). Of Sticks and Stones, Words that Wound, and Actions Speaking Louder: When Academic Bullying Becomes Everyday Oppression. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 24, 1-8. Denenberg, T. S. (2015). Bullying: The Five Tests. Members-only Library. Dentith, A. M., Wright, R. R., & Coryell, J. (2015). Those Mean Girls and Their Friends Bullying and Mob Rule in the Academy. Adult Learning, 26(1), 28-34. Dias, B. G., Maddox, S. A., Klengel, T., & Ressler, K. J. (2015). Epigenetic mechanisms underlying learning and the inheritance of learned behaviors. Trends in Neurosciences, 38(2), 96-107. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of management Journal, 45(2), 331-351. Dzurec, L. C., Kennison, M., & Albataineh, R. (2014). Unacknowledged Threats Proffered “in a Manner of Speaking”: Recognizing Workplace Bullying as Shaming. Journal of nursing scholarship, 46(4), 281-291. Ehrenberg, A. (2009). Weariness of the Self: Diagnosing the History of Depression in the Contemporary Age. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP. Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 16-27. Einarsen, S., Matthiesen, S. B., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (1999). Tiden leger alle sår? Senvirkninger av mobbing i arbeidslivet [Does time heal all wounds? Long-term health effects of exposure to bullying at work]. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.

13

Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 5(2), 185-201. Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37(1), 1-44 Fattori, A., Neri, L., Aguglia, E., Bellomo, A., Bisogno, A., Camerino, D., ... & Di Sciascio, G. (2015). Estimating the impact of workplace bullying: humanistic and economic burden among workers with chronic medical conditions. BioMed Research International. Faucher, C., Cassidy, W., & Jackson, M. (2015). From the Sandbox to the Inbox: Comparing the Acts, Impacts, and Solutions of Bullying in K-12, Higher Education, and the Workplace. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 111-125. Fogg, P. (2008). Academic Bullies. Chronicle of higher Education, 55 (3). Fox, Suzy & Stallworth, L. E. (2009). Building a framework for two internal organizational approaches to resolving and preventing workplace bullying: Alternative dispute resolution and training. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 220. Francioli, L., Høgh, A., Conway, P. M., Costa, G., Karasek, R., & Hansen, Å. M. (2015). Do Personal Dispositions Affect the Relationship Between Psychosocial Working Conditions and Workplace Bullying? Ethics & Behavior, 1-19. Friedenberg, J. (2008). The anatomy of an academic mobbing. Lewiston. NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Gavranidou, M., & Rosner, R. (2003). The weaker sex? Gender and post‐traumatic stress disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 17(3), 130-139. Giorgi, G. (2012). Workplace Bullying In Academia Creates A Negative Work Environment. An Italian Study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24(4), 261-275. Gunsalus, C. K. (2006). The college administrator's survival guide. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Glasø, L., Matthiesen, S. B., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48(4), 313-319. Glasø, L., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Interpersonal problems among perpetrators and targets of workplace bullying. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(6), 1316-1333. Gloor, Lee J. (2014). Taking the Liberty of Incivility: Workplace Bullying in Higher Education. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(1), 121-126.

14

Gorlewski, J., Gorlewski, D., & Porfilio, B. (2014). Beyond Bullies And Victims: Using Case Story Analysis And Freirean Insight To Address Academic Mobbing. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, (24). Hansen, A. M., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A. H., & Orbaek, P. (2006). Bullying at work, health outcome, and physiological stress response. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 63–72. Hansen, Å. M., Hogh, A., & Persson, R. (2011). Frequency of bullying at work, physiological response, and mental health. Journal of psychosomatic research, 70(1), 19-27. Harrington, S. (2010). Workplace bullying through the eyes of human resource practitioners: a Bourdieusian analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Portsmouth). Hollis, L. P. (2015). Bully University? The Cost of Workplace Bullying and Employee Disengagement in American Higher Education. SAGE Open, 5(2), 2158244015589997. Holton, S. A. (1998). Mending the Cracks in the Ivory Tower: Strategies for Conflict Management in Higher Education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Jenkins, R. (1989). Language, Symbolic Power and Communication: Bourdieu's Homo Academicus. Sociology, 23(4), 639-645. Johnson-Bailey, J. (2014). Academic Incivility and Bullying as a Gendered and Racialized Phenomena. Adult Learning, 1045159514558414 Jovanovic, H., Perski, A., Berglund, H., & Savic, I. (2011). Chronic stress is linked to 5-HT 1A receptor changes and functional disintegration of the limbic networks. Neuroimage, 55(3), 11781188. Keashly, L., Nowell, B. L., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2011). Conflict, conflict resolution, and bullying. Bullying and harassment in the workplace developments in theory, research and practice, Einarsen, Stale, et al., Eds. Boca Raton, Florida: Crc Press. Keim, J., & McDermott, J. C. (2010). Mobbing: Workplace violence in the academy. In The Educational Forum, 74(2), 167-173). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. Kennison, M., Dzurec, L. C., Cary, A., & Dzurec, D. (2015). Seeking the 'Magis': A Pathway to Enhancing Civility in Higher Education. Jesuit Higher Education: A Journal, 4(1), 27-35. Khoo, S. B. (2010). Academic Mobbing: Hidden Health Hazard at Workplace. Malaysian Family Physician, 5(2): 61–67. Kivimäki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(10), 779-783. 15

Krais, Beate (1993) Gender and Symbolic Violence: Female Oppression in Light of Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Practice’, Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone (Eds). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press Kudielka, B. & M. Kern, S. (2004). Cortisol day profiles in victims of mobbing: bullying at the work place. Preliminary results of a first psychobiological field study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 56, 149–150. Lac, G., Dutheil, F., Brousse, G., Triboulet-Kelly, C., & Chamoux, A. (2012). Saliva DHEAS changes in patients suffering from psychopathological disorders arising from bullying at work. Brain and Cognition, 80(2), 277-281. Lallukka, T., Rahkonen, O., & Lahelma, E. (2011). Workplace bullying and subsequent sleep problems-the Helsinki Health Study. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 204-212. Lee, R.T., & Brotheridge, C.M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 352 377. Lennartsson AK, Kushnir MM, Bergquist J, Jonsdottir IH. (2012). DHEA and DHEA-S response to acute psychosocial stress in healthy men and women. Biological Psychology, 90(2):143-9. Lewis, D. (1999). Workplace bullying–interim findings of a study in further and higher education in Wales. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 106-119. Lewis, S. E., & Orford, J. (2005). Women's experiences of workplace bullying: changes in social relationships. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15(1), 29-47. Lester, J. (Ed.). (2013). Workplace bullying in higher education. New York: Routledge. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 5(2), 165-184. Linstead, S., Maréchal, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2014). Theorizing and researching the dark side of organization. Organization Studies, 35(2), 165-188. Lock, M. (2015). Comprehending the Body in the Era of the Epigenome. Current Anthropology, 56(2), 151-177. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Sypher, B. D. (Eds.). (2010). Destructive organizational communication: Processes, consequences, and constructive ways of organizing. New York: Routledge. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Tracy, S. J. (2012). Answering Five Key Questions About Workplace Bullying How Communication Scholarship Provides Thought Leadership for Transforming 16

Abuse at Work. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 3-47. MacLaughlin, B. W., Wang, D., Noone, et al. (2011). Stress biomarkers in medical students participating in a mind body medicine skills program. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1-8. Maher, M. A. (2013). How to Avoid Joining a Campus Bullying Culture. Women in Higher Education, 22(9), 25-26. Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: Role stress and individual differences. Violence and victims, 22(6), 735-753. Metzger, A. M., Petit, A., & Sieber, S. (2015). Mentoring as a Way to Change a Culture of Academic Bullying and Mobbing in the Humanities. Higher Education for the Future, 2(2), 139150. Meriläinen, M., Puhakka, H., & Sinkkonen, H. M. (2015). Students’ suggestions for eliminating bullying at a university. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 43(2), 202-215. Mikkelsen, E. G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 11(1), 87-111. Myers, V. (2012). Confronting Campus Bullies: How Bullying Shows up in the Halls of Academe, and What We Can Do about It. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(9), 45-48. Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014). A methodological review of research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 87(2), 225-257. Nelson, E. D., & Lambert, R. D. (2001). Sticks, Stones and Semantics: The Ivory Tower Bully's Vocabulary of Motives. Qualitative Sociology, 24(1), 83-106. Niedhammer, I., David, S., Degioanni, S., Drummond, A., & Philip, P. (2009). Workplace bullying and sleep disturbances: findings from a large scale cross-sectional survey in the French working population. Sleep, 32(9), 1211. Ojedokun, O., Oteri, I. O., & Ogungbamila, A. (2014). Which Of The Big-Five Trait Is More Predictive Of Workplace Bullying Among Academics In Nigeria? Nigerian Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, 184, 203. Okechukwu, C. A., Souza, K., Davis, K. D., & de Castro, A. B. (2014). Discrimination, harassment, abuse, and bullying in the workplace: Contribution of workplace injustice to occupational health disparities. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 57(5), 573-586.

17

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–568. Pimlott-Kubiak, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2003). Gender, victimization, and outcomes: reconceptualizing risk. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 71(3), 528. Raineri, E. M., Frear, D. F., & Edmonds, J. J. (2011). An examination of the academic reach of faculty and administrator bullying. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(12), 22-35. Rayner, C., & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7(3), 181-191. Rodríguez‐Muñoz, A., Moreno‐Jiménez, B., Sanz Vergel, A. I., & Garrosa Hernández, E. (2010). Post‐Traumatic symptoms among victims of workplace bullying: Exploring gender differences and shattered assumptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(10), 2616-2635 Romeo, L., Balducci, C., Quintarelli, E., Riolfi, A., Pelizza, L., Serpelloni, A., & Perbellini, L. (2013). MMPI-2 Personality Profiles and Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Victims of Bullying at Work: A Follow-Up Study. Violence and victims, 28(6), 1000-1014. Salin, D. (2011). The significance of gender for third parties’ perceptions of negative interpersonal behaviour: Labelling and explaining negative acts. Gender, Work and Organization, 18(5), 571-591. Salin, D. (2015). Risk factors of workplace bullying for men and women: The role of the psychosocial and physical work environment. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 56(1), 69-77.

Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2013). Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 235-251. Schmidt, P. (2014). U. of Massachusetts Pushes Back Against Bullying by Employees. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 60(31), A19. Seides, R. (2010). Should the current DSM‐IV‐TR definition for PTSD be expanded to include serial and multiple microtraumas as etiologies? Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 17(8), 725-731. Seo, D., Tsou, K. A., Ansell, E. B., Potenza, M. N., & Sinha, R. (2014). Cumulative adversity sensitizes neural response to acute stress: association with health symptoms. Neuropsychopharmacology, 39(3), 670-680. Simpson, R., & Cohen, C. (2004). Dangerous work: The gendered nature of bullying in the context of higher education. Gender, Work & Organization, 11(2), 163-186.

18

Skinner, T. C., Peetz, D., Strachan, G., Whitehouse, G., Bailey, J., & Broadbent, K. (2015). SelfReported Harassment and Bullying in Australian Universities: Explaining Differences Between Regional, Metropolitan and Elite Institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(5), 558-571. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of occupational health psychology, 12(1), 80. Soares, A. (2012). When darkness comes: Workplace bullying and suicidal ideation. Workplace bullying: Symptoms and solutions, N. Tehrani, Ed. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Spratlen, L. P. (1995). Interpersonal Conflict Which Includes Mistreatment in a University Workplace. Violence and Victims, 10(4), 285-297. Taylor, S. K. (2012). Workplace bullying in higher education: Faculty experiences and responses (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Minnesota). Tepper, R. J., & White, C. G. (2011). Workplace Harassment in the Academic Environment. Saint Louis University Law Journal, ULJ, 56, 81. Thornton, M. (2004). Corrosive Leadership (or bullying by another name): A Corollary of the Corporatised Academy. Australian Journal of Labour Law, 17(2), 161-184. Twale, D. J., & De Luca, B. M. (2008). Faculty Incivility: The Rise of The Academic Bully Culture And What To Do About It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. van Heugten, K. (2013). Resilience as an underexplored outcome of workplace bullying. Qualitative health research, 23(3), 291-301. Vanhoutte, K. K. (2010). The (Bad) Example of the University. Bullying and the Abuse of Power. Critical Issues. K. Vanhoutte & Melanie Lang, eds. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Oxford, United Kingdom. Vickers, M. H. (2006). Towards employee wellness: Rethinking bullying paradoxes and masks. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 18, 267-281. Vie, T. L., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Health outcomes and self-labeling as a victim of workplace bullying. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 70(1), 37-43. Wacquant, L. J. (1989). For a Socio-Analysis of Intellectuals: On "Homo Academicus". Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 1-29. Webb, L. M. Theiss, SL, Webb, LM, & Amason, P. (2012). Workplace bullying: Academic administrators’ intervention strategies. Western States Communication Association, Albuquerque, NM, February. 19

Westhues, K. (2002). At the mercy of the mob: a summary of research on workplace bullying. Occupational Health and Safety Canada, 18 (8), 30-36. Westhues, K. (2004). Workplace mobbing in academe: Reports from twenty universities. K. Westhues, Ed. Edwin Mellen Press. Wieland, D., & Beitz, J. M. (2015). Resilience to social bullying in academia: a phenomenological study. Nurse educator, 40(6), 289-293. Wittgenstein, L. (1975). Philosophical Remarks. Oxford: Blackwell. Yamada, D. (2013). Workplace Bullying and the Law: A Report from the United States. Workplace Bullying and Harassment, 165. Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper 13-7, 22(2) Suffolk University Law School, New Workplace Institute. Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2242945 Zabrodska, K., & Kveton, P. (2013). Prevalence and forms of workplace bullying among university employees. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25(2), 89-108. Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Individual antecedents of bullying. Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: international perspectives in research and practice. London and New York: Taylor & Francis. Zsoldos, E., Mahmood, A., & Ebmeier, K. P. (2014). Occupational stress, bullying and resilience in old age. Maturitas, 78(2), 86-90. Since faculty–on–faculty bullying is widespread, the lack of research on the possible effects on students is unfortunate.

20