Perceptions about Gossip and Rumours in Academic Organizations

Objective & Hypothesis:Gossip and rumour, as forms of informal communication in academic organization have attracted little research attention in the literature.

📊

Key Findings & Data:A web-based questionnaire was sent to 356 academics working in the communications field.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed that gossip and rumours are quite common in academic organizations.

🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Gossip and rumour, as forms of informal communication in academic organization have attracted little research attention in the literature. This paper examines the perceptions of Turkish academics of gossip and rumours, gossip topics and their relationship with certain organizational cultural issues. A web-based questionnaire was sent to 356 academics working in the communications field. The findings revealed that gossip and rumours are quite common in academic organizations. Internal gossip and rumours are perceived to be more common than the external gossip and rumours. Gossips and rumours about the management and the personnel rights are among the top topics. On the other hand, academics generally have negative opinions about gossip and rumours. However, such negative opinions about gossip and rumours were found to decrease when the perceived organizational democracy and internal communication levels increase. It is clear that academic administrators may not cope with gossip and rumours successfully unless they improve democratic participation and internal communication.

Özet

Literatürde akademik örgütlerde gayriresmi iletiflim türü olarak dedikodu ve söylentiler konusu oldukça az çal›fl›lm›flt›r. Bu çal›flmada, Türk üniversitelerinde akademisyenlerin dedikodu ve söylentiler hakk›ndaki alg›lar› ile dedikodu ve söylentilerin konular› ve çeflitli örgüt kültürü unsurlar›yla iliflkisi incelenmektedir. Bu amaçla web tabanl› bir soru ka¤›d› 356 iletiflim alan› akademisyenine uygulanm›flt›r. Bulgular, akademik örgütlerde dedikodu ve söylentilerin oldukça yayg›n oldu¤unu göstermektedir. Örgüt içi dedikodu ve söylentiler örgüt d›fl› dedikodu ve söylentilere göre daha yo¤un alg›- lanmakta ve yönetim ve özlük haklar› konular›ndaki dedikodu ve söylentiler ön s›ralarda yer almaktad›r. Öte yandan, akademisyenlerin dedikodu ve söylentiler hakk›ndaki kanaatleri genellikle olumsuzdur. Ancak, akademik örgütlerde alg›lanan örgüt demokrasi düzeyi ve örgüt içi iletiflim artt›kça dedikodu ve söylentiler hakk›ndaki olumsuz kanaatlerin azald›¤› bulgulanm›flt›r. Akademik yöneticilerin kurumlar›ndaki demokratik kat›l›m› ve iç iletiflimi iyilefltirmedikçe dedikodu ve söylentilerle bafl edebilmelerinin zor olaca- ¤› görülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATABEK, Ü., ÖZŞARLAK, P., ATABEK, G. Ş. (2021). Perceptions about Gossip and Rumours in Academic Organizations. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 111–122. https://ajindex.com/articles/401403

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

Adkins, K. C. (2014). The erasure of empowered gossip in academia. Nouvelle Revue Synergies Canada, 7, 1–10. Ak›nc› Vural, Z. B. (2010). Kurum kültürü (3. bas›m). ‹stanbul: ‹letiflim Yay›nlar›. Altuntafl, S., fiahin Altun, Ö., & Çevik Aky›l, R. (2017). “Gossip” in organizational communication between nurse, doctor and dentist academicians. Journal of Health and Nursing Management, 4(3), 107–116.
Applbaum, R. L., & Anatol, K. W. E. (1979). The relationships among job satisfaction, organizational norms, and communicational climate among employees in an academic organization. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7(2), 83–90. Arabac›, ‹. B., Sünkür, M. & fiimflek, F. Z. (2012). Ö¤retmenlerin dedikodu ve söylenti mekanizmas›na iliflkin görüflleri: Nitel bir çal›flma. Kuram ve Uygulamada E¤itim Yönetimi, 18(2), 171-190.
Arnold, J., & Feldman, C. (1986).
Organizational behavior. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book. Atabek, Ü. (1991). Örgüt ve iletiflim: Bir örgütsel iletiflim arac› olarak telsiz. Yay›mlanmam›fl doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1994). The vindication of gossip. In Goodman, R. F. & BenZe’ev, A. (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 11–24).
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Bennett, R. (1994). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Singapore: M&E Handbook Series. Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 345–365.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32, 1–17.
Bourdieu, P. (1988).
Homo academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cengiz, A. K. (2017). Bir yerli olma ba¤lam›nda dedikodu, söylentiler ve Antakyal›l›k. Akademik Sosyal Araflt›rmalar Dergisi, 5(51), 311–327.
Clegg, S. R., & van Iterson, A. (2009). Dishing the dirt: Gossiping in organizations. Culture and Organization, 15(3–4), 275–289.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer. Çe¤in, G., & Göker, E. (2012). Tözcülü¤ün tasfiyesi: ‹liflkisel sosyolojide temel yaklafl›mlar. Ankara: Notabene Yay›nlar›. Dan›fl, M. S. (2015). Dedikodunun sosyolojisi. Yay›mlanmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sosyoloji Anabilim Dal›, Konya. Darmon, D. J. (2018). Researching the mechanisms of gossip in org