SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 629

Mobbing in Universities: An Exploratory Study on Research Assistants and Assistant Professors

Üniversitelerde Psikolojik Taciz: Araştırma Görevlisi ve Yardımcı Doçentlere Yönelik Bir Araştırma

Tutku SEÇKİN-ÇELİK
Jale MİNİBAS-POUSSARD
Pages
103–119
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results of the survey on 481 research assistants and assistant professors working in three different cities in Turkey, up to 26% of participants are victims of mobbing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this empirical study on academicians, we aim to identify the most prevalent mobbing behaviors and perpetrators and to reveal the differences on the prevalence of mobbing considering some demographic variables.
📊
Key Findings & Data:According to the results of the survey on 481 research assistants and assistant professors working in three different cities in Turkey, up to 26% of participants are victims of mobbing.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although we see that the more the years spent in the organization, the more the prevalence of mobbing; mobbing is less prevalent in those groups who worked more than 10 years in the same organization
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this empirical study on academicians, we aim to identify the most prevalent mobbing behaviors and perpetrators and to reveal the differences on the prevalence of mobbing considering some demographic variables. According to the results of the survey on 481 research assistants and assistant professors working in three different cities in Turkey, up to 26% of participants are victims of mobbing. The most frequent aggressive behaviors are work-related behaviors that are aimed to deteriorate the victims’ personal and occupational reputation; and the perpetrators are mostly the superiors. We have found that age, gender, and title are not significantly related to mobbing, but academicians who work for state universities are significantly more exposed to mobbing. Although we see that the more the years spent in the organization, the more the prevalence of mobbing; mobbing is less prevalent in those groups who worked more than 10 years in the same organization

Özet

Akademisyenler üzerinde gerçekleştirilen bu ampirik çalışmada, çalışanların hangi tip psikolojik taciz davranışları ile karşılaştıklarını, bu olumsuz davranışların en çok kimler tarafından gösterildiklerini belirlemek ve demografik değişkenlerin psikolojik taciz üzerindeki etkisini saptamak amaçlanmıştır. Üç ilde farklı üniversitelerde çalışan 481 araştırma görevlisi ve yardımcı doçente uygulanan anket sonucunda %26'ya varan psikolojik taciz sıklığı tespit edilmiştir. En sık karşılaşılan davranışların mağdurun bireysel ve mesleki saygınlığını zedelemeye yönelik işle ilgili davranışlar olduğu ve en çok üstler tarafından tacizin gerçekleştirildiği görülmüştür. Yaş, cinsiyet ve unvanın psikolojik taciz üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisi olmadığı, devlet üniversitelerinde çalışanların ise anlamlı bir şekilde daha fazla tacize uğradığı tespit edilmiştir. Kurumda çalışma süresi arttıkça psikolojik taciz sıklığı artsa da 10 yıl ve üzeri çalışanlarda diğer gruplara göre daha az taciz yaşanmaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

SEÇKİN-ÇELİK, T., MİNİBAS-POUSSARD, J. (2017). Mobbing in Universities: An Exploratory Study on Research Assistants and Assistant Professors. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar Dergisi, Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 629, 103–119. https://ajindex.com/articles/162515

References (12)

  1. AGERVOLD, Mogens ve Eva G. MIKKELSEN (2004), “Relationships between Bullying, Psychosocial Work Environment and Individual Stress Reactions”, Work & Stress, 18(4), ss. 336-351.
  2. AHMAD, Saima, Rukhsana KALIM ve Ahmad KALEEM (2017), “Academics’ Perceptions of Bullying at Work: Insights from Pakistan”, International Journal of Educational Management, 31(2), ss. 204-220.
  3. APAYDIN, Çiğdem (2012), “Relationship between Workplace Bullying and Organizational Cynicism in Turkish Public Universities”, African Journal of Business Management, 6, ss. 9649- 9657. ASHFORTH, Blake (1994), “Petty Tyranny in Organizations”, Human Relations, 47, ss. 755-778.
  4. BAILLIEN, Elfi, Inge NEYENS ve Hans DE WITTE (2008), “Organizational, Team Related and Job Related Risk Factors for Workplace Bullying, Voilence and Sexual Harassment in The Workplace: A Qualitative Study”, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13(2), ss. 132-146.
  5. BARON, Robert A. ve Joel H. NEUMAN (1996), “Workplace Violence and Workplace Aggression: Evidence on their Relative Frequency and Potential Causes”, Aggressive Behavior, 22, ss. 161-173.
  6. BAYRAK-KÖK, Sabahat (2006), “İş Yaşamında Psiko-şiddet Sarmalı Olarak Yıldırma Olgusu ve Nedenleri”, iç. Dursun BİNGÖL (Ed.), 14. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, Erzurum, ss. 433-448.
  7. BİLGEL, Nazan, Serpil AYTAC ve Nuran BAYRAM (2006), “Bullying in Turkish White-collar Workers”, Occupational MedicineOxford, 56(4), ss. 226-231.
  8. BOWLING, Nathan A., Terry A. BEEHR, Misty M. BENNETT ve Connie P. WATSON (2010), “Target Personality and Workplace Victimization: A Prospective Analysis”, Work & Stress, 24(2), ss. 140-158.
  9. CASSITO, Maria G., Emanuela FATTORINI, Renato GILIOLI ve Chiara RENGO (2003), Raising awareness of psychological harassment at work: Advice to health professionals, decision makers, managers, human resources directors, legal community, unions and workers, World Health Organization, Geneva, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42649/1/9241590521. pdf, 03.05.2017.
  10. CAVERLEY, Natasha, J. Barton CUNNINGHAM ve James N. MACGREGOR (2007), “Sickness Presenteeism, Sickness Absenteeism, and Health Following Restructuring in a Public Service Organization”, Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), ss. 304-319.
  11. CELEP, Cevat ve Tuğba KONAKLI (2013), “Mobbing Experiences of Instructors: Causes, Results, and Solution Suggestions”, Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(1), ss. 193-199.
  12. CEMALOĞLU, Necati ve Gülsün ŞAHAN (2013), “Akademisyenleri