THE COLLEGIAL EFFECT : AN EXPLORATORY STU DY OF HOW FACULTY MEMBERS PERC EIVE COLLEGIALITY AN D ITS EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUALS AND DEPA RTMENTS By Raymond D. Robinson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education ÑDoctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT THE COLLEGIAL EFFECT: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF HOW FACULTY MEMBERS PERC EIVE COLLEGIALITY AN D ITS EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUALS AND DEPA RTMENTS By Raymond D. Robinson Faculty members in American higher education institutions are the stewards of their institutions (Astin & Astin, 2000 ). They practice this stewardship both by performing well as individuals and as groups . Faculty members hold one another accountable , specifically through decisions on hiring, promoting , and granting tenure to colleagues . The ir three -fold responsibility of te aching, scholarship , and citizenship requires both independence and interdependence. Furthermore, faculty members desire to work in supportive, collegial environments . They want to work with collegial people. What is less clear is how faculty members defin e collegial behavior and how that behavior affects individual and collective work . This dissertation study explored how faculty members in various disciplines define collegiality . Data were collected to address this goal through interview questions asking them to describe collegial and un -collegial peers and their behaviors . I then explored how faculty members perceived the effects of those behaviors on individual and departmental work . The results of this study help establish and strengthen definitions of faculty collegiality, and suggest that collegiality affects both individual and departmental work in a variety of ways, including productivity and efficiency. This study began with a conceptual framework of collegial attributes and behaviors that guided interview questions . Twenty -three faculty members representing many disciplines from a single research institution (RU/VH) participated in interviews. Participants described personal perceptions of collegiality and un -collegiality . They al so explained how collegial and un -collegial behaviors affected their work and the work of their department . The interview data helped ref ine the initial framework and provide d examples and stories of best practices in cultivating collegial behavior and cultur e. Collegiality was described by all participants as a variety of behaviors demonstrating care for others and their success . Collegial faculty members expand othersÕ perspectives and opportunities , work in collaborative ways , are unifying in their work, a nd are future -oriented . The effects of collegiality identified by participants i nclude increased productivity and efficiency for individuals and departments, an increased sense of community, and a positive culture . Un-collegiality was described as a variety of behaviors that could be characterized as self-centered . Un-collegial behaviors include selfishness, lack awareness of others, negative behaviors, use perceived academic superiority or institutional hierarchy to claim power, and in some circumstances, discriminate . The effects of un -collegialit y identified by participants included decreased efficiency, isolation of self and others, missed opportunities, and talent quarantine, which I defined as restricting the in stitutionÕs ability to take full advantage of an individual Õs skills and knowledge. The results of this study will provide helpful information to faculty members, department chairs , and other higher education leaders who seek to develop and encour age collegiality ; the results will also be useful to researchers and scholars who study academic work. Copyright by RAYMOND D. ROBINSON 2015 v I dedicate this dissertation to my family . You teach me in practice what caring for others means Ñand what caring for others does. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the faculty members from many disciplines who contributed to this dissertation study . I thank my advisor, Dr. Ann Austin, along with my help ful and supportive committee members, Dr. Marilyn Amey, Dr. John Dirkx, and Dr. Theodore Curry, for their substantial guidance throughout the dissertation process . Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Kim Cameron, who was instrumental in his generous guidance and support ; and Dr. David Warner, who offered significant support at work . Finally, I wish to thank my wife Julie, who carried both the physical and emotional load required to finish . vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x!CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1!Background ................................................................................................................. 1!Collegiality .............................................................................................................. 2!Collegiality among faculty .................................................................................. 2!Purpose of This Study ............................................................................................. 3!Project Overview ........................................................................................................ 3!CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 2!Collegiality .................................................................................................................. 2!Overview ................................................................................................................. 2!Organizational structure ...................................................................................... 3!Institutional climate and culture .......................................................................... 3!Individuals ........................................................................................................... 5!Focus of the Current Study ..................................................................................... 8!Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 9!Empirical Studies .................................................................................................... 9!Collegiality as engaging, generative ................................................................... 9!Collegial communications and belonging ......................................................... 12!Collegial behaviors improve department culture .............................................. 13!Collegiality and productivity ............................................................................ 14!Theoretical discussions ..................................................................................... 15!A Framework for Collegiality ............................................................................... 18!Exploring Perceptions of Collegial Behavior ........................................................... 19!Department as the Organization for Analysis ....................................................... 20!Literature Review S ummary ................................................................................. 21!CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 23!Introduction ............................................................................................................... 23!Design Overview .................................................................................................. 23!Research Questions ............................................................................................... 23!Procedures ................................................................................................................. 23!Interview ............................................................................................................... 23!Sample ............................................................................................................... 23!Instrument ......................................................................................................... 26!Analysis ............................................................................................................. 27!Ethical concerns and limitations of interviews ................................................. 30!Summary ................................................................................................................... 32!CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ...................................................................................... 33!Introduction ............................................................................................................... 33! viii Overview of Participants ........................................................................................... 33!Perceptions of Collegiality ........................................................................................ 36!Caring About Others ............................................................................................. 36!Mentoring .......................................................................................................... 37!Showing personal interest ................................................................................. 39!Showing compassion ........................................................................................ 40!Showing appreciation ........................................................................................ 41!Being trustworthy .............................................................................................. 42!Expanding OthersÕ Opportunities and Perspectives ............................................. 43!Collaborative ......................................................................................................... 44!Unifying Others .................................................................................................... 46!Including others ................................................................................................ 47!Load sharing ...................................................................................................... 47!Future -oriented ...................................................................................................... 48!Vision for the future .......................................................................................... 48!Investing in the future ....................................................................................... 49!Card Selection of Collegial Behaviors .................................................................. 50!Disciplinary Differences in Perceiving Collegiality ............................................. 51!Summary of Perceptions of Collegiality ............................................................... 52!Effects of Collegiality ............................................................................................... 52!Productivity ........................................................................................................... 53!Individual productivity ...................................................................................... 53!Departmental productivity ................................................................................ 55!Building Unity and Community ........................................................................... 56!Strengthening a Positive Culture .......................................................................... 58!Other Effects of Collegiality ................................................................................. 59!Disciplinary Differences in Perceptions of Effects of Collegiality ...................... 62!Summary of Effects of Collegiality ...................................................................... 62!Perceptions of Un -collegiality .................................................................................. 63!Self-centeredness .................................................................................................. 64!Selfishness ........................................................................................................ 64!Self-promoting .................................................................................................. 65!Lack of awareness of others .............................................................................. 66!Seeing/presenting oneself as superior ............................................................... 67!Negative Toward Others ....................................................................................... 68!Claiming Privilege Because of Hierarchical Status .............................................. 71!Discriminatory ...................................................................................................... 72!Card Selection of Un -collegial Behaviors ............................................................ 73!Disciplinary Differences in Un -collegiality .......................................................... 74!Summary ............................................................................................................... 75!Effects of Un -collegiality .......................................................................................... 75!Inefficiency ........................................................................................................... 75!Isolation ................................................................................................................. 78!Missed Opportunities ............................................................................................ 81!Talent Quarantine .................................................................................................. 83!Disciplinary Differences in the Effects of Un -collegiality ................................... 84! ix Summary ............................................................................................................... 85!Summary of Results .................................................................................................. 85!CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .................................................................................. 88!Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 88!Study Rationale ..................................................................................................... 88!Research Questions ............................................................................................... 90!Methods ................................................................................................................. 90!Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................ 91!Usefulness and Limitations of Framework and Study Design .................................. 94!Discussion of Results ................................................................................................ 96!Collegiality ............................................................................................................ 97!Effects of Collegiality ......................................................................................... 100!Un-Collegiality ................................................................................................... 102!Effects of Un -Collegiality ................................................................................... 105!Additional Observations ..................................................................................... 107!Summary of Discussion ...................................................................................... 108!Implications for Policy and Practice ....................................................................... 110!Policy .................................................................................................................. 111!Practice ................................................................................................................ 113!Departmental practices .................................................................................... 113!Individual practice .......................................................................................... 116!Further Research ..................................................................................................... 117!Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................... 120!APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 122!APPENDIX A Table A1. Interview Protocol Table ............................................... 123!APPENDIX B Interview Protocol .......................................................................... 126!APPENDIX C Dissertation Study Email Invitation ............................................... 128!APPENDIX D Research Participant Information and Informed Consent Form .... 130!REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 132! x LIST OF TABLES Table 1 . BiglanÕs Typology of Disciplinary Cultures and Example Fields of Study ........24 Table 2 . Initial Coding Scheme .........................................................................................28 Table 3 . Revised Coding Scheme ......................................................................................29 Table 4 . Participa nt Information and Disciplines ..............................................................35 Table 5. Faculty Perceptions of Collegiality and its Effects on Individual and Departmental Work .............................................................................................87 Table A1. Interview Protocol Table .................................................................................123 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 . Preliminary framework of c ollegial behaviors and attributes ............................19 Figure 2 . Refined framework of collegial behaviors and attributes ...................................95 Figure 3 . Framework for further study ............................................................................119 1 CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION Background Faculty members in American higher education institutions are the stewards of their institutions (Astin & Astin, 2000 ). They are primarily responsible for the teaching, research, and service commonly identified as the three pillars of higher education . They are the individuals who provide the public and private benefits that higher education offers, including a skilled workforce, educated citizens, advanced knowledge, and enriched culture (Zusman, 2005). As pressures from within and without higher education institutions continue to evolve and grow, the faculty continues to change in response . They face pressures to perform individually as they compete for research funding and tenure . They face pressures to perform collectively as groups in various disciplines work to establish and maintain their value to various stakeholders . They are responsible for the decisions regarding the hiring, promotion, and tenure of their colleagues . The increasing div ersity among faculty members Ñin demographics, disciplinary orientation, and life circumstances (Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007 )Ñcan generate additional pressures and challenges. Although many factors contribute to a clear understanding of faculty members and their circ umstances, the purpose of this study was to explore one particular factor that has an impact on how faculty members evaluate one an other in tenure and promotion decisions, how they perceive their working conditions, and how they judge the work generated within those conditions . The purpose of this study was to explore collegiality. 2 Collegiality Collegiality is a concept that is often used but not often clearly defined . Collegiality may refer to an organizational structure, an aspect of i nstitutional or unit climate and culture, or a set of individual attributes and behaviors . As one author expressed, ÒCollegiality . . . is like pornography ÑI know it when I see itÓ (Bloom, 2005 ). Despite the ambiguity, authors thr oughout the literature agree that collegiality is desirable in higher education. This dissertation study explored how faculty members in various disciplines define collegiality through interview questions asking them to describe collegial and un -collegial peers and their behaviors . It then explored how faculty members perceived the effects of those behaviors on their own work and on the work of their departments. The results of this study help establish and strengthen definitions of faculty collegiality, an d suggest that collegiality affects both individual and faculty work in a variety of ways, including their productivity and efficiency. Collegiality among faculty This study builds on previous work , which suggest s that collegiality is a desirable aspect o f work for faculty members specifically . The literature suggests that individuals want to work in collegial environments and that institutions want to retain collegial individuals . At least implicitly, and in many cases explicitly, collegiality is a consid eration for tenure and promotion decisions (Connell & Savage, 2001 ). Faculty members who engage in un -collegial behavior may harm the productivit y of the whole department (Riccardi, 2012 ). 3 The l iterature that address es collegiality primarily describes the culture and climate resulting from collegiality . However, the existing literature discussing collegiality as it relates to the behaviors and attributes of individual faculty members is limited . Because of the demonstra ted importance that faculty members place on working in collegial environments with collegial individuals, more knowledge would be useful concerning how individual faculty members perceive collegial behavior and attributes in their peers and how collegiali ty affects both individual and departmental work . An understanding of the practices that can strengthen collegial behavior in individuals and in faculty groups will benefit individual faculty members and university leaders . Finally, because working relatio nships and expectations of productivity differ across disciplines, explorations of collegiality require attention to disciplinary contexts. Purpose of This Study The purpose of this study was to explore faculty membersÕ perceptions of key elements of coll egiality and the impact collegiality has on faculty members individually and on their departments. If, as Bloom (2005) suggests, collegiality is recognizable, what does it look like? More specifically, what do collegial faculty members do and what are the y like, as understood by peers in a department? How do faculty members perceive that collegiality affects the work of individuals and departments? How do faculty perceptions vary across disciplinary cultures? Project Overview The intent of t his dissertat ion study was to contribute to the understanding of collegial behavior and attributes by exploring perceptions of individual faculty members and the way they understand the effects of collegiality . The term collegiality is used 4 regularly in a variety of wa ys, and authors and faculty members generally seem to perceive it as desirable; however, a more thorough understanding of collegiality may lay a foundation for further studies that could strengthen higher education institutions and offer suggestions for pr actices that may encourage collegial behaviors . This dissertation includes a review of literature , which establish ed the scope of previous work and facilitate d the development of a conceptual framework for this study . This framework provide d the foundation for the interview protocol and subsequent analysis of data, leading to a discussion addressing the following research questions: 1) How do faculty members perceive collegial behavior and attributes in their peers? 2) How do faculty members unders tand the effects of collegial behavior on their own work and the work of the department? 3) How do faculty perceptions of collegial behavior and the effects of that behavior vary across disciplines ? This study, as a qualitative exploration, did not generate data sufficient for generalizing beyond the interview participants and the represented academic units . Rather, this study provides data for discussion and suggest s directions for further research and implications for individual and institutional practice. 2 CHAPTER TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this literature review is to provide a scholarly context and rationale for the current study. First, I will discuss collegiality, providing a foundational definition of the notion, and then explore definitions or elements of collegiality in the higher education literature . This discussion reflects several ways that collegiality is defined in the literature . Collegiality is defined as an organizational structure, a feature of institutional or unit cli mate and culture , and finally as a set of individual attributes and behaviors. The final definition of collegiality Ñreferring to individual attributes and behaviors Ñis the operational definition for this dissertation. Following an overview, I will discuss the conceptual framework for this study, drawing on the literature to synthesize both what is known and what may be hypothesized about each of the research questions, and also to clarify areas of inquiry. Finally, IÕll provide a summary argument offering a rationale for this study in context of the conceptual framework. Collegiality Overview Collegiality is referred to and defined in several ways in the literature . This review will acknowledge these definitions, d iscuss how they relate to each other, and clarify the definition to be used for the purpose of this study . Collegiality has been used as a term to describe : (a) a specific type of organizational structure, (b) a description of the climate or culture of an institution or a unit, and (c) a set of behaviors and attributes belonging to individual faculty members. The following sections will discuss collegiality in each of these three ways , with particular focus on collegiality as a set of behaviors and attribut es demonstrated by individuals. 3 Organizational s tructure Collegiality, from an organizational perspective, refers to decision -making processes that rely on consensus building among members with diverse but equal position (Waters, 1989 ). In contrast to a structure suc h as a bureaucracy, typified by efficient administration and quick decision -making , collegiality values the slower processes required for diverse viewpoints to find common ground, protecting an organization against self-interest and authoritarian decisions (p. 946). Collegial structures in universities have a long tradition from medieval times, resulting in the ideal that universities are governed by the faculty members , which constitute a community of scholars (Altbach, 2005 ). A university that is primarily governed by the collective faculty is considered to have a collegial structure. Universities today most often have decision -making structures that include aspects of both administrative bureaucracy and a collegial structure . The size and complexity of modern universities have made structural collegiality less common at the university level, but still retained somewhat at the college and department level (Tapper & Palfreyman, 2002 ). This move away from collegial structures and toward bureaucratic administrations is cited as a cause for declining faculty morale and sense of community (Altbach, 2 005; B. Clark, 2001 ). Institutional climate and c ulture Collegiality also describes the climate and culture of an institution or unit . Collegiality has been described as one of five pillars making up a framework for creating environments likely to attract, retain, and support the flourishing of faculty in the future . The pillar of collegiality Òrefers to opportunities for faculty members to feel that they 4 belong to a mutually respectful community of sch olars who value each faculty memberÕs contributions to the institution and feel concern for their colleaguesÕ well being Ó (Gappa et al., 2007 ). An institution or unit with a collegial climate or culture Òbecomes integrated around a sense of joint effortÓ (Clark, 2001, p. 18). Faculty members expect to work in a place they consider collegial, and expect their peers to demonstrate collegiality. The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) study, conducted by Harvard University, measures collegiality and climate together as an institutional feature . This and other studies suggest that a collegial climate and culture is a significant factor in faculty membersÕ intent to remain at an institution (Ambrose, Huston, & Norman, 2005 ; COACHE, 2007 ). An institution or unit with a collegial climate or culture may be described as a place where prospective and current faculty members feel valued and connected to colleagues and to the in stitution (Gappa et al., 2007 ). Clark (2001) has argued that collegiality fosters institutional change and growth through shared vision and experience, as opposed to individualism, which retains institutional status quo. In other words, institutional growth requires a culture of co llegiality. The absence of a collegial climate and culture may negatively affect institutional improvement efforts . A study conducted across 20 colleges and universities regarding faculty members working together to improve undergraduate teaching indicate d that un -collegial institutional features such as fragmented communication factors, competition for scarce resources, and evaluation and reward systems impaired improvement efforts and collaboration (Massy, Wilger, & Colbeck, 1994 ). 5 A culture of collegiality is valuable to the institution and to individual members of the institution . Culture and climate at work affects psychological well being , including levels of depression and self esteem (Repetti, 1987 ). As previously stated, a colleg ial culture and climate is a major factor in faculty membersÕ intent to remain at an institution, and is an important factor to consider in recruiting new faculty members (COA CHE, 2007 ; Gappa et al., 2007 ). These studies underscore the impact that culture has on individual and institutional success. The importance of a collegial culture is emphasized by statements from depa rtment chairs suggesting that it is valuable to attempt to increase collegiality through encouraging both professional and social interaction (Taylor, Kim, Dessart, Adams, & Green, 2006 ). Individuals The line between collegiality as it refers to individuals and as it refers to culture and climate can be somewhat blurred . This is understandable, as culture and institutions are foundationally collections of individuals (Argyris & Schon, 1977 ). Culture is created by the collective interactions of individuals over time. The rela tionships among faculty members regarding both professional and personal development are key to the future of higher education (Bennett, 1998 ), and collegiality may be a key to discovering and implementing the changes in higher education required for universities and colleges to thrive und er increasingly intense public scrutiny (Massy et al., 1994 ). The literature suggests that collegial individuals help create collegial cultures which may lead to more successful institutions through faculty satisfaction, retention, and productivity . However, an examination of the literature discussing collegiality at the 6 individual level reveals a paucity of empirical research exploring how faculty members perc eive collegiality and its effects. Additionally, I have not been able to find literature that explores how this might differ across disciplinary cultures. The existing literature on collegiality as an individual phenomenon refers to the behaviors and attr ibutes of faculty members, as well as the relationships that result . A simple definition is Òthe cooperative relationship between colleaguesÓ ("Collegiality," 1999). At minimum, collegiality has been referred to as the absence of negative behaviors by individuals (Fischer, 2009 ) and peaceful coexistence among them (Bird, Rhoton, Fehr, & Larson, 2010 ). Discussing collegiality as a phenomenon dealing with individual behaviors and attributes implies a spectrum of both positive and negative examples . For the purposes of the current study, this will require an exploration of negative collegial ity, which I will refer to as un-collegiality , as well as positive collegial behaviors , which I will refer to as collegial ity. Muc h of the literature on collegiality speaks of a minimum threshold of collegiality, or an ab sence of un -collegial behaviors . Cipriano and Buller (2012) describe an instrument designed to measure collegiality for the purposes of assessing faculty behavior an d influencing it . The ir instrument listed the following as collegial behaviors: collaboration, committee service, completing professional tasks, respecting group decision -making processes, respectful communication, and relating to others in constructive, s upportive, and professional ways . These behaviors are helpful in developing an understanding of collegiality that is expected as part of faculty employment. 7 This minimal level of collegiality is in contrast to an ideal of collegiality that not only incl udes civility, but also cordiality, respect, trust, and cooperation (Hutcheon, 2006). This minimal level of collegiality or the absence of harm and behaviors such as tolerance and civility have been described as baseline collegiality, and behaviors demonstrating mutual respect as affirmative collegiality (Seigel, 2005 ; Seigel & Miner -Rubino, 2008 ). The notion of affirmative collegiality has also been described as productive relationships with colleagues, suggesting a generative aspect of collegial behavior and relationships. (Bloom, 2005 ; O'Meara & Terosky, 2010 ). The generative aspect of collegiality includes supportive relationships, shared work, and a total presence achieved when individual faculty members invest themsel ves in many opportunities to contribute to the work of the institution (Katula & Doody, 1990 ). While collegiality may have effects on others, it may also have effects on individual faculty members , by connecting them to their workplace and making the work meaningful. Faculty members are socially embedded by their length of tenure, networks, and position, and each of these are factors in determining an individualÕs capacity to complete job expectations and affecting his or her desire and ability to go beyond what is required (van Emmerik & Sanders, 2004 ). In other words, faculty members are likely to extend themselves as members of the community when they are socially connected to and invested in othersÕ and institutional success. This view is consistent with the construct of meaningful work, in which work is defined as service to self and others, and that service is part of a cohesive view of life rather than defining work as separate from other parts of life (Chalofsky, 2003 ). When faculty members are engaged in this version of meaningful 8 work, they are likely to desire to remain associated with the institution . This suggests that the relationship may go both directions , meaning that being engag ed in meaningful work, including service to others, increases satisfaction and creates a positive culture . In other words, faculty members desire to work in a collegial culture, which increases their satisfaction, and when individuals are collegial, their satisfaction also increases. As I have discussed in this section, the literature regarding collegiality is more abundant in theoretical and descriptive writing than in empirical studies . Individual experience currently contributes much of what is underst ood about collegiality, underscoring the importance of developing a deeper empirical understanding of collegiality and its effects . Whether speaking of minimal or baseline collegiality, or of affirmative, generative collegiality, the literature suggests th at individuals expect to work with collegial peers . Focus of the Current Study The three versions of collegiality previously discussed, pertaining to structure, culture, and individual experience, are intertwined. Because my own experience as a faculty member and administrator lead me to believe that significant cultural change happens at the individual level, I am primarily interested in collegiality as perceived and demonstrated by individuals . More specifically, IÕm interested in individual faculty membersÕ perspectives of collegial behavior and attributes, and in how they perceive that collegial behavior affects them and their colleagues individually and departments collectively . While I am particularly interested in the most salutary effects of coll egiality, an exploration of the range of behaviors colleagues experience in their interactions with 9 each other will contribute to greater understanding of collegiality, its effects on productivity, and how to encourage it. Conceptual Framework The previou s section includes a discussion of the intent of this study , which is to focus on faculty membersÕ perceptions of collegiality and its effects . This section offers a conceptual framework showing the current state of knowledge and perceptions about collegiality. Collegiality in higher education literature is described in theoretical articles regularly; however, empirical studies are much more scarce . This section organizes the literature around the elements that constitute collegiality, with an emphasis first on empirical studies, and then on selected theoretical writings . I will discuss articles and studies used to identify individual behaviors and attributes that were helpful in creating the framework that guide d this study. Empirical Studi es The purpose of this section is to review empirical studies involving collegiality . These studies strengthen the notion that faculty members value collegiality, and that collegial behavior by others affects them in a number of ways, including their desi res to remain at an institution, their feelings of belonging, their perceptions of departmental culture, and their perceptions of productivity . Each of these studies suggest s behaviors and characteristics that are included in the conceptual framework for this study . Collegiality as engaging, g enerative Collegial faculty members, defined as engaged colleagues , contribute strongly to faculty membersÕ desire to stay at an institution regardless of whether they actually 10 remain . Ambrose et al (2005) conducted a study involving telephone interviews of 123 former and current tenured and tenure -track faculty members at a small research university . The sets of former and current faculty members were matched across colleges, departments, rank and status, appointment dates, and where possible, gender and ethnicity . The purpose of the study was to examine faculty satisfaction and determining factors in faculty decisions to remain or stay at an institution . The interviews were semi -structured, and researchers encouraged stories from each faculty memberÕs perspective. The main findings from the study of faculty satisfaction indicated that there were multiple factors involved in faculty membersÕ decisions to remain or leave the institution . While some factors were beyond institutional control, some factors could be influenced within the institution . Collegiality was identified as such a factor . Collegiality was the most cited reason for satisfaction for both faculty members who stayed at an institution and those who left . Specifically, those faculty members who remained at the institution cited collegiality as a significant reason for staying, and those who left cited un-collegiality as a significant reason for leaving . Researchers found that while both former and current faculty members spoke positively about their colleagues, there were a number of complaints regarding collegiality, both from faculty who decided to stay, and from those who decided to leave . The complaints were in three categories : colleagues lacking time and interest, intradepartmental tensions, and incivility (Ambrose et al., 2005 ). While the r esearchers report many expressions of dissatisfaction, they also acknowledged statements of satisfaction. 11 The researchers found that examples of collegial behaviors, or the actions of those identified as engaged colleagues, emerging from faculty statements included: ¥ Showing support and interest in othersÕ work. ¥ Offering mentoring in the intellectual, professional, and political aspects of faculty life. ¥ Engaging in social interactions as well as professional relationships. ¥ Receiving open communication regard ing progress toward tenure from both department heads and peers. These collegial behaviors were in contrast to less desired and admired behaviors including: ¥ Showing a lack of interest in othersÕ work. ¥ Being suspicious of and resenting othersÕ work or accomplishments. ¥ Criticizing or devaluing othersÕ area of study. ¥ Undermining othersÕ work (i.e., backstabbing). The results of this study suggest that faculty members consider collegial behaviors those actions that strengthen and lift others through engage ment, which the authors summarize by describing ideal faculty members as engaging colleagues . While these statements describing collegial and un-collegial behaviors contribute to the framework for the current study , it is important to note that the focus of the research was on reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and therefore was not focused specifically on exploring collegial behavior and attributes, nor did it explore the effects of collegiality on individual or group productivity or difference s in the disciplines . For the purposes of this dissertation , I focused on exploring perceptions of collegial 12 behavior , and how faculty members perceive the effects of that behavior on individual and group work . Satisfaction , as suggested by this literature , may be considered among those effects. Collegial communications and be longing A 2008 dissertation study examined how faculty membersÕ perceptions of departmental support are affected by interpersonal communications (Anderson, 2008 ). This quantitative study surveyed 262 faculty members from 62 departments at the University of Arizona . The study indicated that faculty interactions affected individualsÕ sense of competence and belongingness, the perceived importance of gender in professional interactions, identification with their department, and perceived departmental support . This study suggested a typology for describing interpersonal communications, including these three dimensions: ¥ Positive relational messages, conveying that the sender values another professionally and personally, and respects and likes them. ¥ Negative competence messages, conveying that the sender sees him or herself as superior relative to another in ability or status. ¥ Negative warmth messages, conveying dislike, dissimilarity, and a negative sense of competition with another (Anderson, 2008, p. 18). While AndersonÕs study suggests that interpersonal communication affects faculty membersÕ feeling of belonging, as a quantitative study, it is not able to refine the typology (p. 140) or explain how individuals perceive different communications in context of their work an d department . 13 For the purposes of the current study , AndersonÕs (2008) study provides specific speech behaviors that may be included in an initial framework of collegial behaviors . This study will explore collegial behaviors including speech behaviors, an d explore the perceived effects of those behaviors on productivity. Collegial behaviors improve department c ulture A project conducted at Iowa State University conducted focus groups and interviews with faculty members across six STEM departments (Bird et al., 2010 ). This study explored departmental structures, practices, and culture to understand and then make recommendations for improvement . The research included focus groups, interviews, and analysis of existing documents. From these activities, the researchers identified themes that may contribute to a positive climate and enhance faculty recruitment, retent ion, and promotion. The researchers reported only themes that emerged from discussions in all six departments, and identified seven findings that were salient to all six . Collegiality was identified as one of these themes . Collegiality refers to many behav iors, including collaborating, welcoming differing opinions, socializing, supporting career achievements, mentoring, and serving in formal and informal ways. Additionally, researchers observed that collegiality among faculty influenced department dynamics . For example, faculty members who perceived themselves as vulnerable (lecturers, adjuncts, assistant professors) expressed more concern about disagreeing openly with senior faculty members, thus needing more encouragement to disagree. The researchers in th is project were looking for factors that influenced workplace climate, recruitment, retention, and promotion . Collegiality was identified as a factor 14 across several STEM departments . Their report highlights a number of collegial behaviors, and associates c ollegiality with individual and group productivity. Collegiality and p roductivity A study conducted at the University of Minnesota Medical School ÑTwin Cities examined faculty vitality (Bland, Seaquist, Pacala, Center, & Finstad, 2002 ). Their study included a survey administered to the 615 full -time faculty members at the university, with a 76% response rate . The survey was designed to identify both strong and weak vitality areas at the individual and institutional levels . While vitality is not synonymous with collegiality, some of the observed behaviors contributing to vitality may be described as collegial. This survey -based study ide ntified nine areas that predicted faculty productivity with 75% accuracy, as measured by publications . In addition to features such as being internally driven to conduct research and being an administrator (often selected because of high research productiv ity), having a network of colleagues to discuss research with and having a formal mentor were predictors of productivity . Being willing to discuss research with and mentor others may be thought of as features of individualsÕ expressions of collegiality. For the purposes of this dissertation , the research on faculty vitality suggests two specific behaviors Ñbuilding research networks and having mentor relationships Ñthat might be included in a conceptual framework of collegial behavior . Additionally, these two collegial behaviors demonstrably predicted productivity (Bland et al., 2002 ). While empirical work in the area of collegiality is limited, this discussion of previous studies contributed to conceptual foundations for exploring faculty perceptions of collegiality and its outcomes . To summarize, these studies demonstrate that when 15 asked about satisfaction, support, and culture, faculty members across several studies have included the notion of collegiality as an important factor . In context of these specific studies, I have identified some behaviors associated with colleg iality. Additionally, there is some indication that faculty productivity may be affected by collegial behaviors. In this dissertation study, my aim was to explore collegial behavior and its effects . If the previously discussed studies identify some colleg ial behaviors, what additional responses might be gained when faculty members are asked to define collegiality through the lens of their own experience, with their personal stories? What are the effects of collegial behavior , particularly on work ? Rather than beginning with a known effect, such as satisfaction or productivity, what do we learn when we begin with collegial behavior , and ask what the effects are? I was also interested in exploring how these answers may differ in different disciplines . While the studies discussed previously included a range of departments and cultures, the results did not discuss disciplinary differences . My experience and observations led me to consider the possibility that, while some behaviors may be perceived and under stood as collegial generally, faculty members in different disciplinary cultures may identify and value those behaviors differently. Theoretical d iscussions Much of what has been written about collegiality is based on individual experience and observatio n, rather than empirical research . This literature argues or advocates for acknowledging the importance of collegiality to success in higher education institutions, and suggests the inclusion of many behaviors and attributes in a conceptual framework to gu ide the current study . 16 Bennett (1998) argues that insistent individualism prevalent in universities should be replaced by collegial professionalism . He argues that collegiality is a key to achieving the mission of higher education . He compares individualism, including private interests, isolated behavior, and lack of community with collegial professionalism, where relationships create intellectual communities, strengthening institutions . This piece suggests several behaviors and characteristics associated with un -collegiality. These were included in a conceptual framework for this study . A piece by Bloom (2005), although satirical in tone, offers material for a conceptual framework for considering behaviors associated with collegiality . After an introduction defining collegiality as productive relationships with colleagues , as compared to congeniality , or friendliness , Bloom offers a board -game analogy exploring the costs and benefits of collegial behavior . Isolated effort is not punished per se; however, collegial behavior is rewarded throughout . For example, the currency suggested for the game is time, measured in hours . Attending meetings provides hours, although the meetings may cost a turn . Behaviors that are collaborative (i.e. conducting jo int research), cooperative (i.e. advising a colleagueÕs student while the colleague is on sabbatical), and community oriented (i.e. listening to othersÕ research) are rewarded. Connell & Savage (2001) discuss the concept of collegiality from a legal and practical perspective . Through a review and analysis of a series of court cases and policy papers, they conclude that collegiality is a reasonable consideration in tenure and promotion decisions, and they engage in discussion about the kinds of behavior th at may be included in a definition of collegiality and those that should not be . Behaviors they describe as collegial include collaborative and constructive cooperation, working for the 17 interest of the group, and working with a recognition that no faculty member works in isolation . They warn that collegiality does not imply that all need to agree with each other, but rather that individual faculty members should demonstrate respect for differing opinions of others . These behaviors add to a conceptual framew ork for the current study . One may argue that collegial behavior and relationships enhance, rather than suppress, discussions where faculty member s hold different views . For example, Fischer (2009) argues that compassion, appreciation, inclusiveness, and support foster a culture where a lively exchange of ideas can take place . In contrast, bullying, ridicul ing , threat ening , and isolating behaviors lead to a culture where few feel free to raise concerns or ideas . Faculty members in these settings have littl e recourse other than to isolate themselves either physically or emotionally. Others argue similarly, that a scholarly ideal is reached through the appreciation of difference, listening, trust, and imagination (Hutcheon, 2006 ). The dange rs of self -promotion, competitiveness, bullying, and dismissiveness are not only demonstrated in the loss of opportunity for the free exchange of ideas; they are also passed on to students and future faculty members. Three dimensions of collegiality Ñconflict management, social behavior, and organizational citizenship Ñhave been suggested as a beginning theoretical framework for empirical studies to understand collegiality (Hatfield, 2006 ). Each of these three dimensions accommodates both positive and negative behaviors, as follows . The confl ict management dimension includes positive behaviors of cooperating, compromising, accommodating; and negative behaviors of competing, and avoiding; the social behavior dimension includes positive behaviors of talking, listening, and being congenial; and 18 negative behaviors of bickering and harassing; and the organizational citizenship dimension includes pulling oneÕs share of administrative load, taking and filling assignments, and participating in governance . The author suggests that empirical studies base d on this framework may reveal other dimensions and be able to demonstrate the validity of these constructs. HatfieldÕs (2006) framework was useful to me as I developed a preliminary framework for this study (see Figure 1) . For simplicity, I created a fram ework that considered work -related behaviors and social behaviors . Conflict management behaviors , which occur in both work and social relationships, were divided between those two dimensions. A Framework for Collegiality Figure 1 represents a conceptual framework for collegiality . I have developed this framework by identifying individual behaviors and attributes associated with collegiality in the preceding literature . I have represented these behaviors and attributes on a continuum of negative to positiv e behaviors and attributes in two areas: work and social. For example, Collaborative is an attribute I associate with work, represented on the upper side of the framework. Compassion I categorize d as a social attribute, and is on the lower side of the fram ework. Both the empirical and theoretical literatures have suggested that collegiality may be considered in at least these two areas (work and social) . Although organizational citizenship has been offered as a third area (Hatfield, 2006 ), the factors associated with this area (e.g., participating in department governance, advis ing, etc.) may be summarized by those activities which are expected with a full -time faculty appointment . I have therefore included department citizenship in the area of work. The order (negative moving to the left, positive moving to the right) on the con tinuum is not 19 suggested by the literature; rather, I have suggested an order based on my own observations of the relative positive or negative value of these behaviors and characteristics . This order, and the contents of the framework create a hypothetical model . This dissertation study was designed to test and refine the framework by helping to identify the most impactful behaviors and attributes, as perceived by individual faculty members. Figure 1. Preliminary framework of c ollegial behaviors and attributes Exploring Perceptions of Collegial Behavior This dissertation study explored how individual faculty members perceive and understand collegial and un -collegial behaviors, and how they perceive the effects of those behaviors on individual and dep artmental productivity . While my aim was to 20 interview faculty members from diverse backgrounds to gain a broad understanding, I considered it particularly important to consider academic departments as the principle organizational unit for exploring how fac ulty members perceive and understand the effects of collegiality. Department as the Organization for Analysis There are a number of reasons for considering academic departments as appropriate for this study : first, departments serve as institutional homes for the disciplines; second, faculty members tend to associate themselves with their discipline and their department; third, department members are likely to be able to respond to questions about departmental colleagues; and fourth, performance norms are discipline specific . Perhaps most importantly, previous studies have not examined the possibility that some behaviors and attributes associated with collegiality may differ from one disciplinary culture to another. A number of scholars have pointed out that academic disciplines have distinctly different cultures. The disciplines provide the organizational base for higher education institutions (B. R. Clark, 1983 ). Biglan (1973) and Kolb (1981) have each proposed typologies describin g the disciplinary areas. Becher (1994) describes them in the categories of natural sciences, humanities and social science s, science -based professions, and social professions, reflecting BiglanÕs typology. For the purposes of this dissertation, I refer to the categories proposed by Biglan (1973) as shown in Table 1, including Hard/Pure, Hard/Applied, Soft/Pure, and Soft/Applied. While there may be continued discussion of where specific disciplines might fit in these descriptions, these groupings help us se e the epistemological differences in the 21 disciplines as well as the social differences. For example, natural science (Hard/Pure) research is expensive and subject to shifting to maintain social relevance ; science -based professions (Hard/Applied) are focuse d on pragmatic problem solving, but aiming for higher status drift toward more theoretically -driven research ; humanities and social science research (Soft/Pure) tend s toward individual work, with weak connections to outside constituencies ; and social profe ssions (Soft/Applied) research responds to external pressures because of a high value on social relevance (Becher, 1994 ). The department as disciplinary home thus serves to provide clear boundaries around a group of individuals with shared understandings and culture. While institutions have their own cultures, and institutional types may share some cultural similarities, the discipline and de partment is the central identity source for faculty members (A. E. Austin, 1990 ). Disciplinary values are taught and/or modeled throughout the academic career, and performance expectations and norms are shared and perpetu ated through interaction with colleagues in the department and in external disciplinary organizations. Literature Review Summary The key findings from this literature review include identifying attributes and behaviors that are associated with collegiality ; understanding that collegiality affects institutional culture, faculty satisfaction, and intent to stay at an institution; and indicating that collegiality may affect individual and group productivity . These findings come from empirical studies and theor etical writings . The conceptual framework emerging from the literature highlights components of collegial behavior . 22 The research questions, exploring how faculty members perceive collegial behavior in their peers, and how they perceive the effects of that behavior on individual and departmental work were explored directly with faculty members. This literature review acknowledges the established understanding of different disciplinary cultures, and this study accounts for these differences by exploring the research questions in a variety of departments representing different disciplinary cultures. Results from this study may provide helpful information to faculty members, department chairs, and other higher e ducation leaders seeking to develop and encourage collegial behavior , and will be useful to researchers and scholars who study academic work. 23 CHAPTER THREE : METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methodology used to explor e faculty membersÕ perceptions of collegial behavior in my study . Design Overview This study is a qualitative, exploratory study intended to help explain and describe the key components of collegial behavior as perceived by faculty and its effects on individual and collective work. Research Questions In this study, I addressed the following questions : (a) How do faculty members perceive collegial behavior in their peers? and (b) What are the effects of collegiality on individual and department al work? Procedures Interview This qualitative study included interviews of faculty members from many departments representing different disciplinary cultures . Prior to conducting the research, I conducted a pilot study to test and refine the interview prot ocol . The pilot study included interviews of several faculty members who were not included in the actual study . Sample The sample for this study was purposive rather than random, typical for qualitative research (Miles & Huberman, 1984 ). My intent was to gather data from individuals representing many depar tments and disciplines . This sampling approach 24 facilitate d data collection from individuals likely to provide useful information relevant to the emerging framework (Creswell, 2007 ). The sample for this study assumes that, as a qualitative study, the goal is to explor e and explain the behaviors, attributes and understanding of individuals in context of the organization . Academic disciplines have similar cultures across institutions . Therefore, this study was conducted in a single university with faculty members from many department s representing different disciplinary cultur es (A. Austin, 1994 ; A. E. Austin, 1990 , 1996; Becher, 1994 ; Biglan, 1973 ; B. R. Clark, 1983 ; Kolb, 1981 ). The purpose of selecting participants across different disciplinary cultures was to provide some opportunity to note whether respondentsÕ perceptions varied depending on their disciplines . Some participants worked extensively in more than one discipline, and their experiences were valuable as they compare d their disciplin ary experienc e. Faculty members were selected from departments representing a variety of disciplines, including from departments representing the different disciplinary cultures identified by Biglan (1973), as illustrated in Table 1 . Table 1 includes representative de partments in each Table 1 . BiglanÕs Typology of Disciplinary Cultures and Example Fields of Study Hard Soft Pure Chemistry, Botany, Physics, Zoology English, Political Science, Sociology, Communications Applied Engineering, Computer Science Education, Economics, Accounting, Finance 25 of the four disciplinary categories, although to protect participant information, these are examples and do not necessarily specify actual departments included in this dissertation study. The site for this study was a single large public RU/VH institution (very high research activity) with a large undergraduate and graduate population . The choice of specific institution was determined by my ability to obtain access and logistical ease. The recruitment period for this study lasted eight months, beginning in May 2013 . Potential participants were identified through faculty information pages found on each academic departmentÕs website. Email invitations were sent to 227 faculty members who app eared from website information to meet the study criteria, with subsequent follow -up invitations . Twenty -three faculty members were interviewed for approximately one hour, with an agreement to participate in a second interview to clarify initial responses . Participants were selected from faculty members who had served between 5 -8 years, to collect data from pre - and post - tenure experiences . Participants were selected to approximate the gender distribution of the entire university faculty, and to ensure some diversity in the sample with regard to race and ethnicity and in representation across the disciplines, including each of the four disciplinary categories described by Biglan. The analysis provided opportunities to understand more clearly how faculty members perceive and experience collegial behavior , how they perceive its effects on their own work and that of others, and to identify and explore emerging themes relevant to faculty membersÕ perceptions of collegial behavior . Additionally, the analysis was intended to provide preliminary understanding of any differences among disciplinary cultures . 26 Instrument Interview questions were developed to explore the definition of collegiality. Rather than ask participants for their definition directly , I asked them to define collegiality by requesting that they describe collegial and un -collegial people and their behaviors. This approach yielded rich descriptions of behaviors Ñboth collegial and un -collegial Ñleading to clearer understanding of what fac ulty members mean when they talk about collegiality. Interview questions (included as Appendix C) focused on participantsÕ observations, experience s, and relationships as members of university academic department s. The interview format was semi structured and open ended, which allowed participants to speak freely about themselves, their colleagues, relationships, and experiences in the department (Kvale, 1996 ). Questions were worded to avoid implying that a specific kind of response was appropriate or expected . Follow -up questions focused on eliciting details about their experiences and observations. After each participant had the opportunity to share in an open -ended way, cards listing positive and negative behaviors and attributes from the concept ual framework were presented . Participants were then asked to select cards representing behaviors and attributes they most value and then discuss how those specific behaviors affect them and their work. They were also offered blank cards to write behaviors that were not included in the card set but which they considered impactful . Then I asked additional questions probing for experiences and observations . This additional technique was very helpful to gather more focused information regarding the conceptual framework and to elicit specific examples and stories . While I am most interested in collegial behaviors, I asked 27 questions about un-collegial behavior to provide opportunity to compare and gain greater understanding of both collegial and un-collegial beha vior and its perceived effect . As described earlier, t he interview protocol was based on the two primary research questions : (a) How do faculty members perceive collegial behavior in their peers? and (b) What are the effects of collegiality on individual and departmental work? Table A1 (see Appendix A) illustrates the relationship of interview questions to research questions. The primary function of the interview was to gain a greater understanding of how collegiality and un-collegiality is perceived by faculty members and the effects of each on individuals and departments . This understanding may be gained through principles of qualitative research, and particularly naturalistic inquiry , (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). Interacting with participants through interviews, building on tacit knowledge gained through experience, and selecting interview participants using purposive sampling allow ed me to develop understandings as the interviews progress ed. Interviews were recorded on a digital recorder, transcribed, and then deleted. Immediately following each interview session, I rec orded notes from the session. When participants cho se to write additional attributes and behaviors on cards, these cards were re-written to match the formatting of the set and added to the selections for successive interviews. The data was then analyzed an d themes identified and encoded based on emerging themes. Analysis Qualitative research acknowledges multiple and context -specific realities, and part of my role is to effectively represent these realities through data collection and 28 careful analysis (Patton, 2002 ). Because this is an exploratory study, the coding scheme emerged from the data as I looked for patterns in interview transcripts and field notes . Some factors t hat I considered in the analysis include d whether information was volunteered or probed for, the order of emerging themes, and shared vocabulary among participants . Table 2. Initial Coding Scheme Research Question Topic Major Themes Collegial behaviors/a ttributes Caring about others Expanding Unifying Future oriented Collaborative Effects of collegiality Increase energy Increase productivity Personal/group resiliency Unity/community Vision Positive culture Un-collegial behaviors/attributes Self centeredness Hierarchical Negative Discriminatory Effects of un -collegiality Lack of vision Missed opportunities Talent quarantine Inefficiency Isolation Fearful I analyzed the interviews by reviewing each transcript multiple times , making notes about possible themes having to do with collegial and un -collegial behavior, and 29 the effects of each on both individual and departmental work . From this review, I created an initial coding scheme , shown as Table 2 . Table 3. Revised Coding Scheme Research Question Topic Major Themes Sub -themes Collegial behaviors/attributes Caring about others Mentoring Showing personal interest Showing compassion Showing appreciation Being trustworthy Expanding Collaborative Unifying others Including others Load sharing Future -oriented Vision Investing Effects of collegiality Productivity Individual Departmental Unity and community Positive culture Other effects Un-collegial behaviors/attributes Self-centeredness Selfishness Lack of awareness of others Superiority Inflexible Negative toward others Hierarchical Discriminatory Effects of un -collegiality Inefficiency Isolation Missed opportunities Talent quarantine 30 Table 3 shows a revised coding scheme with sub -themes used in the analysis. This scheme included both concepts that appeared consistently in interviews and those that seemed to be important considerations. I then coded sections of each interview based on the initial coding scheme. With the data in coded chunks, I reviewed each code, making notes of similar language and ideas that would become sub -themes. I also was able to rank and, in some cases, de -emphasize some of the codes in my initial scheme that di d not appear with sufficient frequency or strength to merit significant discussion . After these coding sessions, I returned to the research questions, writing notes about how the data contained in the text addressed each question . I developed the organization for the analysis and discussion presented in chapters four and five from these notes. Ethical concerns and l imitations of interviews The site selection for this study was somewhat based on personal access and travel convenien ce. My previous academic experience had provided me with some familiarity with the institution, although I had no prior experience beyond one specific department. By selecting departments I had no prior experience with, I minimize d opportunities for person al bias in my interviews or analysis . I recognize that my own outlook influences my results . I have spent my academic career as an assistant professor, associate professor with tenure, a visiting associate professor at two inst itutions, and as a department head. These experiences in many ways led me to this research . I have a personal affinity for organizational perspectives favoring an emphasis on those activities that are likely to not only produce success, but also individual and group flourishing. This 31 personal perspective certainly colored my approach, and I worked hard to mitigate my own biases toward collegiality by ensuring that questions would be balanced and would give interview participants ample opportunity to identify negative effects of collegi al behavior and positive effects of un -collegial behavior . Further, a systematic analysis of the interview data allowed me to discover themes and concepts that had not been part of my conceptual framework or preconceptions about the research questions , yet became important to the analysis and discussion. This dissertation study results in a discussion of collegiality and its effects on departments and individuals, grounded in data collected in the field . The results therefore are not generalizable to all higher education institutions . The themes generated by this study are an early step in understanding how individual faculty members perceive collegiality, and how they understand its effects on individual and departmental work. Future research is needed to test and refine the findings , and to apply them in different organizational contexts. Confidentiality of the participants was a primary concern in this study . The n ature of the interviews required the participants to discuss specific individuals , including close departmental colleagues . Each participant received a written agreement (see Appendix D) explaining the procedures, including steps to protect confidentiality and anonymity . Transcripts for each interview were accessible only to the intervie w participant for verification purposes . Once verified, to protect individuals in the analysis, pseudonyms were created . Transcripts and coded text include the pseudonyms, while references to actual institutions, departments (other than classification info rmation), and individuals were removed. 32 Summary American higher education institutions are under tremendous pressure to change . These pressures come from within and without the academy, but the pressure is for institutions to become better Ñbetter at educ ating, better at researching, and better at serving the many communities they belong to Ñand to do it for less money . The number one resource available to higher education institutions is human . Administrators, faculty members, and associated staff working with students and stakeholders within and without the institution create value through individual and collective work. If collegial behavior has a positive influence on the work of a department and university, then o ne step toward improving the effectiven ess of work in higher education is to increase our understanding of how a notion identified as a positive factor in the lives of faculty members Ñcollegial behavior Ñcan be understood and applied. This dissertation study takes an established concept, one that is well used in the academy, and examines both how faculty members understand it , with attention t o disciplinary differences, and what faculty members perceive as the effects of collegial behavior . This understanding may be us ed as a foundation for further study and practice, with implications for faculty members, department chairs, and other higher education leaders. 33 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this study was to explore faculty membersÕ perceptions of key elements of collegiality and the impact of collegiality on faculty members and their departments in various disciplines. How do faculty members perceive collegiality? More specifically, what do collegial faculty members do and what are they like, as u nderstood by peers in a department? How do faculty perceive the effects of collegiality on the work of individuals and departments? How do these faculty perceptions vary across disciplinary cultures? Strong patterns emerged from the interview data, both r egarding how faculty members perceive collegiality, and in how they perceive its effects . I will discuss variations and unique observations in detail; however, the majority of this chapter is focused on shared themes, using the participantsÕ own words to i llustrate my observations. This chapter includes a description of the participants, their perceptions of collegiality and its effects, and their perceptions of un-collegiality and its effects. Additionally, it includes descriptions of disciplinary differ ences. Overview of Participants The sample for this study consisted of 23 full -time tenured and tenure -track faculty members at a single research institution. Participants in this study represent nine different colleges and 19 departments. Each of the four disciplinary cultures described in chapter three was represented. Participants included 14 males and 9 females, each having served the institution between five and eight years. ParticipantsÕ ethnicities included Hispanic, Asian, and White (U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education 34 Sciences, 1997 ). Of the 23 interview participants, 6 were international . This provided a valuable opportunity to observe any differences in perception across nationalities . While the limitations of this study prevent drawing generalized conclusions, the responses of these four women and two men were remarkably consistent with their American peers . Protecting the identity of participants is important beca use questions asked in the interviews were intended to elicit both positive and negative descriptions of the attributes and behaviors of participantsÕ peers . Many of the participants expressed some initial reluctance to provide specific examples, but ultim ately most shared rich descriptions of their perceptions and experiences. Table 4 illustrates the range of participantsÕ backgrounds and academic fields and is organized according to disciplinary culture. For simplicity, Table 4 is organized according to each of the four disciplinary culture categories . Participants are identified by pseudonym, ethnic background (including nationality), and gender. Because of the desire to protect confidentiality, I have not included specific departmental affiliations. To explore the main research questions, I followed the interview protocol included in Appendix C. First, I asked participants to describe collegial behavior and attributes, often prompting them by suggesting that they might consider an example of someone who is particularly collegial. Then I asked them to describe the effects that those behaviors had on individual and departmental productivity . This sequence was repeated, asking for negative examples of collegiality, or un-collegial ity. After exploring with each participant their perceptions, I shared two collections of cards, listing positive and negative behaviors and attributes. Each participant selected several cards they felt were most important in their experience and shared examples and details . Finall y, I asked 35 each participant to share their observations of the level of collegiality in their department, and whether there had been any changes in that level in their experience. Table 4 . Participant Information and Disciplines The following sections include descriptions of collegial behaviors and attributes first, followed by descripti ons of un -collegial behaviors and attributes , along with observed disciplinary differences . Hard/Pure Soft/Pure Bernard: White European Male Nathan: White American Male Terry: Asian American Male Steve: White American Male Trent: White American Male Nick: White American Male Evelyn: White American Female Pete: White American Male Tara: Asian Female Hard/Applied Soft/Applied Sarah: White European Female Jared: White American Male Charles: White American Male Lily: White American Female Talia: Hispanic American Female Laura: White American Female Josh: White American Male Olivia: White American Female Sam: Asian Male Shaun: Hispanic American Male Dawn: White European Female Danna: Asian Indian Female Jack: White American Male Daniel: White American Male 36 Perceptions of Collegial ity Aside from the introduction provided in the invitation email (see Appendix D) , participants were provided with no background informati on on my definition of collegiality . Several participants responded to the first interview question, ÒHow do you describe people who are collegial?Ó with questions of their own, seeking to know what I meant by collegiality. My response to that question was to explain that the purpose of the dissertation is to gain a greater understanding of how faculty members perceived collegiality , and that however they described it would be helpful . Faculty membersÕ initial descriptions of collegiality varied, but patter ns emerged. Interview participants regularly described collegial peers as caring about others , expanding their careers and perspectives, willing and helpful collaborators, unifying influences, and focused on the future . I will discuss each of these themes in the following sections. Caring About Others Each interview participant described collegial peers as caring about others , and most participant s described multiple ways that caring about others can be demonstrated . Caring about others should not be confused with simple kindness or affability; caring behaviors included strong challenges and clear critiques, but participants appreciated those behaviors as part of collegiality. Collegial peers were described as caring for others in formal and informal ways, and in ways directly related to work and ways related to life outside of work . Paradoxically , many of the participants at some point in the interview indicated a lack of need of caring , yet also reflected that colleagues who care d about them had positively influenced both their perceptions of the quality of their faculty life, and their own and their departmentÕs productivity . While there were many descriptions of 37 behaviors that demonstrate caring about others, some were shared wi th significant frequency . Mentoring, showing personal interest, showing compassion, showing appreciation, and being trustworthy were ways that faculty participants described how colleagues care for others . I will explain each of these and share examples in the following sections. Mentor ing A common description of caring about others emerged as participants described mentors both formal and informal . Helpful mentoring activities included providing orientation in a new position, helping to navigate professorial life, providing clear and helpful feedback on work, and enhancing research efforts. Faculty members in all disciplines described mentoring as an important aspect of collegiality . Mentoring wa s important to men and women and to those on both sides of tenure review . Interview participants explained that mentoring by experienced colleagues contributed to their transition to new positions. Describing the value of mentoring, Pete said, ÒB ecause ev ery setting is different, when you step into it you don't really have a sense of the social norms or the expectations and so on, having someone who can help guide you through [your first years] who makes an investment and takes the time É it's huge.Ó Daniel , approaching his tenure review, offered , ÒIÕm always interested in senior faculty who are will ing to take me under their wing. Ó ÒIÕve had a wonderful mentor, and she took me under her wing from the very beginning,Ó Teresa said. ÒShe just really made sure that I understood everything.Ó Experienced colleagues participate in mentoring by offering helpful review and criticism of scho larly work. Tara descr ibed a mentor this way: ÒI give her my papers , and 38 she really puts a lot of comments on it and I feel so grateful because itÕs really helpful.Ó ÒSomebody whoÕs willing to be a research mentorÉtheyÕd be interested in reading first drafts,Ó was another characterization. Mentors were described as valuable at every career stage, although particularly noted as essential to early -career success . Mentors, particularly voluntary mentors, were described as helpful both in career guidance and in institutional socialization. Terry , who recently submitted his final tenure -review documents, put it this way: Ò[Having a mentor] is really key especially for junior faculty members. You don't often know all the in s and outs of a particular institution or even the field at large. Having somebody there who takes an active mentoring role Ñjust someone who takes you aside and says , ÔHow are you doing ?Õ or if you raise an issue they say , ÔMaybe I can help you with that, Õ or ÔI'd be happy to read your work, Õ or ÔI think this journal would be really great for that, Õ I think those little things really add up. Ó Josh , who had recently received tenure, described the value of mentors by offering, ÒMany mentors are needed Ñnot just one mentorÉthey review your work pri or to fundingÉ so you can get funded .Ó He continued by describing how mentors improved his teaching and included him on projects that Òbuild my capacity and my work.Ó Terry, who at the time of his interview was in the tenure -review year in a Soft/Pure dis cipline, shared one of the most poignant mentoring stories illustrating the value of caring mentors who arenÕt just kind, but push others to succeed : I was at a very low pointÉI didn't have a book contract yet, the clock was running out, and I was feeling that this was itÉthat I wasn't going to make tenure. I was ready to throw in the towel. Then I had a faculty member, just sort of on her 39 own initiative, sort of say, ÔHow are things going? Õ I told her some of my doubts and that I was ready to sort of give up. She met with me over the course of a couple of weeks where we just sort of talked out my doubts, she pushed me to send some stuff out, the book proposal to some other presses and lo and behold I got a contract by the end of the semester. That was a ke y example of someone who goes out of their way to take a mentoring role. I didn't ask for this and it basically was a lifesaver at least in terms of potential tenure. Showing p ersonal interest Participants regularly described collegiality as an attribute of those who cared about them personally . Collegial faculty members demonstrated personal interest in a variety of ways, including spending personal time, offering and giving assistance, or acknowledging important events or interests of others. Many parti cipants described experiences with colleagues who spent personal time with them . Personal time included meals, social activities, and informal conversations . ÒI think there must be some correlation with job satisfaction,Ó Jared shared. ÒI think people who have lunch occasionally, who get a drink occasionally, those are the people who , I donÕt have any statistics, but I think you generally like being at work because you have friends at work.Ó Nick described the importance of showing interest by listening : ÒTheir behaviors are a willingness to listen. I think thatÕs the biggest thing. Ó Terry described colleagues who had taken a personal interest in him this way: ÒSomeone showing interest in my work even if that person doesnÕt work in my area can be really encouraging so I know I 40 have people who I can talk to about my work . These conversations can happen in the hallways, my office, or in meetings.Ó Personal interest as a factor in collegiality goes beyond the relationship between two faculty members to incl ude the larger group in a department . As Shaun noted, ÒWe know one anotherÕs work history, we know each otherÕs capacity, each otherÕs strengthsÉcertainly those close relationships exist.Ó About one-third of the participants described personal interest as taking an interest in anotherÕs life outside of work . Collegiality in this sense was described as an interest in othersÕ family life, hobbies, and cultural events. Shaun Õs experience characterizes that of others as he described his response to his collea guesÕ expressions of personal interest . ÒMy wife and I were expecting a child and theyÕre like, this is a great momentÉis there anyth ing I can do? Just let me know,Ó he said. ÒPeople here really genuinely care about one another and they want to be helpful and they want to serve others . For me personally I think thatÕs so important.Ó Showing c ompassion Participants described how peers demonstrated the collegial behavior of caring about others by showing compassion. Participants described compassion as a wi llingness to understand unique aspects of othersÕ lives and situations. ÒCollegialityÉrevolves around the idea of compassion,Ó said Charles , notably from an applied science field . He explained that collegiality included acknowledging and honoring Òthe idea that each person comes to work every day with a different set of trials and tribulations, a different set of pressures, [and a] different set of responsibilities.Ó 41 Others offered specific examples of how colleagues demonstrated compassion . For example, Daniel talked about compassion as being considerate of bo th lifestyles and methodologies. ÒIÕm looking for people who are compassionate, who are willing to consider other lifestyles and other people and their needsÉwho see the importance of having a wide v ariety of resear ch opinions within a department, Ó he said. Compassion is a way that individuals can help one another through challenges inherent in a large institutional environment, making the experience less institutional and more personal. Shaun sum marized the value of compassion . Ò[T he academy] isnÕt necessarily a healthy environment, so to see people that are compassionate conveys some of the goodness of people within an organization that a lot of times can be the opposite of compassionate.Ó Showing a ppreciation Collegial peers demonstrate caring for others by showing a ppreciation . Nearly half of the interview participants talked about the importance of showing appreciation for others and their work as a component of collegiality. Showing appreciation for othersÕ work, their lives, their accomplishments, and their unique skills was an important demonstration of caring for others in both public and private ways . For some participants, appreciation was a fundamental part of the definition of collegiality . ÒI think collegiality is an appreciation for the performance that each person trie s to put in every day,Ó said Charles . For others, appreciation was part of a pattern of behaviors demonstrated by a collegial peer. Shaun described it this way: ÒPart of th at respect and trust is recognizing and appreciating each of the individual attributes and strengths that each person brought to the table.Ó 42 It is interesting to note that a few who shared perspectives on the value of showing appreciation expressed it as a virtue, but clarified the idea to include the possibility of the costs of insincere appreciation . Lack of sincerity in showing appreciation can be perceived as manipulative rather than collegial . For example, Evelyn said, ÒTo show appreciation to f acultyÉwe have been asked to contribute the first page of a journal article or the coverÉto tout our work . IÕm not sure that I would consider that they appreciate us as much as itÕs sort of a PR strategy.Ó This sentiment indicates that authentic appreciat ion is critical for it to be perceived as a demonstration of collegiality. Being t rust worthy Trust was an interesting concept emerging from the data . Because the term itself was often used to describe collegiality, I mention it here; however, trust was used primarily to describe the effects of un-collegial behavior , as participants explained how others lost their trust through un -collegiality . Participa nts clearly valued trust, although it seemed from interview s that trust is assumed to be a basic requirement of collegiality until something happened to undermine it . This is not to understate the positive value of trust . Describing a very highly producti ve unit, Shaun described collegiality in a research unit as having Òa high level of trust and respect among each of the primary players.Ó Lily underscored the importance of trust by describing the baseline requirements for potential col laborative partners in her work: ÒIf IÕm not sure of the [ trustworthiness of partners ], IÕm not working with themÉI have to trust people.Ó 43 Expanding OthersÕ Opportunities and P erspectives As I analyzed the interview data, one strong theme that emerged was one that I will call expanding othersÕ opportunities and perspectives, or more simply, expanding behaviors . While the term expanding was not shared by interview participants, nearly all of them shared examples of colleagues who had done things to expand their perspective on opportunities for funding, publication, networking, or other professional opportunities when asked to describe collegial behaviors and attributes . Jared described the va lue of expanding behaviors by explaining , ÒThe rising tide raises all boatsÉif thereÕs some way to help your colleagues, that somehow improves your rankings, the students you can recruitÉthe better you look and your colleagues look, the better the departme nt and the college looks.Ó I will briefly describe examples of these expanding behaviors to illustrate various contex ts. Expanding behaviors enhance collaborative opportunities . ÒYouÕre talking with people for a half an hour and then through the conversat ion you realize that you have common interestsÉ most of the collaborations happen very organically like this,Ó Jared explained . ÒYou didnÕt even necessarily know that lunch was going to effectively be your most important business meeting of the week.Ó Expanding behaviors transcend formal relationships, opening new possibilities . Danna described professors in her graduate program as going out of their way to be helpful: Ò[Faculty members] helped [graduate students] out without reservations even when they w erenÕt being formally advised by that professorÉand faculty interacting with each other irrespective of whether [they were] coauthoring with someone.Ó 44 Another expression of expanding behavior is helping to build professional and resource networks. Danna said that collegial people Òsupport my work by helping me connect with peopleÉpointing me in the right dire ction or helping me find a forum.Ó Shaun described similar behavior in a mentor who created opportunities for many scholars: Ò[HeÕd say ,] ÔIÕd like to provide and make an opportunity for your facultyÉIÕd like to provide an opportunity forÉstudents. ÕÓ Laura described expanding behavior this way: ÒThey include you in activities such as research and teachingÉgrants, [and] support in conversations.Ó Most participants shared stories of having been helped by colleagues who introduced them to new networks, publications, conferences, and grant opportunities. Expanding behaviors opened up possibilities for scholarly collaborations, professional development, and relationships . While many of the expanding behaviors were described with stories of conversations and introductions, Olivia offered an explanation for why faculty members might engage in expanding behaviors: Ò[They are] able to see the potential withi n another person that that person may not even see in themselves. So they push for the future.Ó Collaborative Regardless of discipline or time in position, nearly all int erview participants described collegiality as a willingness to collaborate . While col labo ration may be considered as simply working together, examples of collaboration help illuminate various ways that this term is perceived . Participants described the importance of collaboration as an important way to capitalize on diverse skills, to over come institutional challenges, to share limited resources, and to develop mutual accountability for successful work . 45 Collaboration was described by many as a way to maximize effectiveness by working with others who have complementary skills or expertise . The following statements were typical of this idea : Sam said, ÒIf they have need for professional support and thinking about certain kind of data and they donÕt have expertise in a certain kind of area, we can collaborate.Ó Josh shared, ÒThere is this guy I work with who has very complementary skills to mineÉthatÕs very valuable and we work on a lot of things together . In my area, collaboration is a key . You donÕt get funding without collaboration .Ó Daniel described a valuable collaborator as one Òwho is c omplementary in their expertise, yet at the same time very open to adjusting some of their research for a larger group goal.Ó The collaborative aspect of collegiality was also described as a willingness and ability to help bring people together to work . As Steve described, Ò[ ItÕs] people kind of taking an interest in your work and looking for opportunities to work together.Ó This ability is especially valuable during ti mes of conflict. Nick explained, Ò There is a real willingness, you know after we are done arguing, to let it go. There arenÕt very many people who hold grudges, or who can't turn around and work together effectivelyÉ and ask each other about your work and to listen. Ó Working together to share resources was another demonstration of collabor ation . Interview participants primarily described t his type of collabora tion in relation to scholarly work. As Nick explained, ÒI value those who read my work and have me read theirsÉtheyÕre actually interested in doing it with you rather than either domin ating the agenda or doing it all themselves.Ó Collabora tion is also valued in teaching. A s Dawn expressed, ÒSetting up teachingÉtakes a lot of time . So having [colleagues] share their 46 syllabi with me and best practicesÉitÕs just felt like IÕve had a team behind me that I can draw on as much or as little as I want to, but they are behind me and theyÕre going to support me.Ó Shaun shared an observation of collaboration in service, saying, Ò We certainly have faculty members who work in a collegial manner as f ar as developing courses and course topics, course objectives, course readings, course assignmentsÉÓ Jared offered that collegial peers ÒfundamentallyÉwant to interact with other people.Ó These interactions were described as mutually beneficial relationsh ips that increased individual motivation to accomplish work through shared accountability . Collaborative opportunities appear both by design and by serendipity . Sarah described a collaborative relationship that began when a visiting colleague Òlooked at a poster on my wall and said, ÔI donÕt know what that is but thatÕs what I want.Õ We ended up having weekly meetings and mentoring a student together, and we published a couple of papers and got fundingÉto work together.Ó Other collaborative relationships happen because someone makes a more formal invitation . Tara shared an experience when Òfaculty from [another department] approached me and talked about a project to see if I was interested.Ó Unifying O thers Unifying behavior s brin g faculty members together . Interview participants described examples of social gatherings, spontaneous service, willingness to hear othersÕ opinions, and a willingness to share the burdens and benefits of department work . This willingness took many forms, but can be organized generally in the two areas I will describe as including others and load sharing . 47 Inclu ding others Including others refers to a willingness to involve others in the work and success of the department . Terry described his department a s particularly colle gial . ÒEveryone has a stake in the well -being of the department ,Ó he said. Inclusivity was described in social and scholarly relationships, and it was described as a willingness both to include other individuals, and to adopt othersÕ ideas. ÒI might be more knowledgeable about certain issuesÉand other folks might be interested in a variety of other issues and so we work together and help each other,Ó Sam said. Laura Õs first response to the question of collegiality was, Ò Inclusion . They include you in activities such as research and teaching and they may even include you on grants.Ó Shaun described collegiality as an ability to Òget everybody on the same track moving in the same direction,Ó by including faculty members and students in successful projects . He gave an example of a colleague who demonstrated this ability , summarizing , ÒIt was an inclusive, collaborative partnership. It doesnÕt mean that they always agreed with one another, but they did know how to give way to whose expe rtise should be brought to bear.Ó Load sharing Load sharing captures the idea that, although there are many tasks and responsibilities required to fulfill the work of an academic department, collegial department members are willing to do their part, and i n some circumstances, even take on some extra responsibilities for the good of the department and others . As Steve put it, Ò I think of collegiality as being sort of a professional altruism, where we are all very busy people and itÕs very easy to get locked into focusing your energy, attention, and time on 48 what your needs areÉit is expressed by faculty members and colleagues who are devoted to seeing those around them thrive.Ó ÒI think of somebody who is highly collegialÉproactively volunteering to help oth er people,Ó Olivia shared . This helping behavior does come at a cost ; however, as Talia described, Ò I had a wonderful mentorÉand as a result I have been a mentor to four different people Ñkind of a Ôpay it forwardÕ thing .Ó Many interview participants ack nowledged this cost, but the pattern that emerged was that load sharing allowed faculty members to feel unified, receive benefit from the expertise of others, and share their own expertise with others. Jared may have put it best, saying, ÒThere Õs a sense o f spreading the work and spreading the wealth.Ó Future -oriented Faculty members described colleagues who were future oriented as having a vision for what individuals and departments could become and accomplish , and who were willing to make investments toward achieving that future . Future -oriented faculty members were described as those who had vision for the successful future of their department and for their colleagues, and as those who demonstrated an investm ent in that future. Vision for the future As participants described collegial ity, many shared examples of individuals who demonstrated vision for the future of their departments and individual department members, and who made specific investments to streng then and build toward that future. Vision is demonstrated by seeing the potential in an individual, department, or even a discipline. Olivia described future -oriented colleagues as imaginative . ÒI think a 49 person who is more imaginative is more able to see the potential within another person that that person may not even see in themselves.Ó Evelyn described colleagues in a future -oriented department as Òtalk[ing] frequently about the future of the department Ñin terms of accolades, in terms of prestige, in terms of research direction, how weÕre going to present ourselves online.Ó Individuals show they are future oriented when they are Òthinking aboutÉhow the departmentÕs goals can be met along with their own personal goals,Ó explained Trent . Future oriented individuals and departments may have reach outside of the institution, to the discipline as a whole. Shaun said of his department, Ò We want to take [doctoral students], build a good culture, and have them take that out to where theyÕre going to go work.Ó Investing in the future Participants also described future -oriented individuals as willing to invest in the future . These investments come from senior faculty members mentoring and accepting additional service or teaching assignments and from department leaders organizing to allow faculty m embers additional research time . Investing in the future also includes involving students in meaningful research and teaching opportunities . Talia described how senior faculty members had influenced her experience, and suggested that she wanted to follow suit , saying , ÒI have since been a mentor to four different people Ñkind of a Ôpay it forwardÕ thing.Ó Invest ing in the future of faculty members was cited as an example of collegiality . ÒTwo of my junior colleagues are going to be teaching something like one semester in the next two years,Ó explained Steve , Òbecause they have applied for all these fellowships Ñboth internal and external Ñand 50 everybody is supportive of that . The feeling is t hat everyone else will pick up the slack to allow them to have that opportunity.Ó Faculty members shared a sense that a future orientation helped prepare individuals and departments by enabling good decision -making efforts. Jared expressed the value he had observed in future -oriented colleagues: ÒFundamentally, if you believe that through the actions that you do today, that the university, the department could be better in the futureÉ you tend to make good decisions for the department in terms of hiring and student recruiting.Ó Card Selection of Collegial Behaviors As I described in chapter three, each interview included providing participants collections of cards identifying various behaviors . When presented with the collection of cards listing collegial be haviors, faculty members selected those they felt represented the behaviors that were the most impactful in their personal experience . The results of these responses are reflected throughout the analysis and discussion; however, I will share here the most often selected behaviors . The cards welcoming differing o pinions and department citizenship were selected by five participants, followed by showing support for othersÕ work, respectful, trusting, and collaborative, with four selections each . Interestingly, each behavior listed on a card was selected by at least one faculty member . In each interview, the discussions following the card selection were very helpful in further exploring faculty perceptions of collegiality and its effects on work . As I analyzed these results to refine the conceptual framework, I coded responses without regard to which interview question elicited the response . Then I examined responses to the cards to determine whether some themes should be considered more 51 strongly in the analysi s. For example, trusting and collaborative were not only often selected from cards, they were also strong themes throughout interviews . These themes are prominent in the analysis and the refined framework . Alternatively, department citizenship was selected regularly from among the cards, but the descriptions of department citizenship varied widely, so the concept was not precisely descriptive enough to be useful as its own theme. Disciplinary Differences in Perceiving Collegiality As faculty members across disciplinary cultures described collegiality, they did it with remarkable similarity . For example, the themes car ing about others and collaborative were distributed quite evenly across disciplines . However, faculty members in the Hard/Applied and Soft/Applied disciplines described expanding behaviors and attributes twice as often as those in the Hard/Pure and Soft/Pure disci plines . While the sample in this study is small, it may be that the behaviors associated with expanding othe rs perspectives and opportunities are valued and expressed more often in disciplines where collaborative scholarly efforts are the norm, compared to the individual scholarly efforts found in Hard/Pure and Soft/Pure disciplines . Other differences were in the specific examples shared . For example, faculty members in the Hard/Pure and Hard/Applied disciplines shared examples of equipment and technology sharing and of collaborations that were principally strategic; faculty members in Soft/Pure , and Soft/Appli ed disciplines shared more examples of casual conversations and personal relationships. 52 Summary of Perceptions of Collegiality Interview participants perceive d and describe d collegial behavior and attributes in many ways, but the strongest themes to emerge from interviews suggest that collegial faculty members care about others, help expand othersÕ careers and perspectives, are willing and helpful collaborators, serve as unif ying influences, and are focused on the future . Effects of Collegiality After asking faculty members for their definitions and examples of collegiality, I asked them what they observed to be the impact of collegiality on their work and on the work of the department generally . All but one participant responded that collegiality increased both their personal productivity and department productivity . The one exception was Talia, who stated a paradoxical belief she held with others , saying, ÒI rarely see any negatives that happen as a result of [someone] not being a good colleague for me personally .Ó While Talia held to this perspective throughout the interview, her experiences were consistent with others in demonstrating that in one or more of the a reas of faculty responsibility, collegiality is understood to a ffect the work . As faculty members discussed their experiences , a picture of the significant impact that collegiality has on faculty work emerged . I will share that picture in this section. The strongest themes from interviews about the effects of collegiality include d an increase in productivity for individuals and departments , a feeling of a unified community, and a sense of being involved in building a positive culture . Less strong, but still consistent themes included increased resiliency, energy, and vision . In this section, I will share details and examples of each of these themes. 53 Productivity Faculty members offered many examples of how collegiality influences productivity . They include d examples of increased or enhanced productivity in service, teaching, and research . I will discuss these examples by the type of effect that collegiality has on individuals, such as motivating and helping; and on departments, such as making work efficient and utilizing diverse faculty talents . Individual productivity Faculty members described experiences when peers motivated them as being occasions when collegiality was expressed . For example, Daniel shared how his department chair helped to motivate him through her own collegial behavior : ÒIÕm willing to bend over backwards to do anything she wants me to doÉbecause she is paying attention to whatÕs going on in my life . IÕm not just on an island doing my own thing, but weÕre working toward similar goals.Ó Terry described the motivating effects of collegiality by saying , ÒHaving other faculty members in the department show support for your work, know what you do, what youÕre working on, a willingness to read your stuff, I think that really makes you feel li ke you are part of some kind of collective enterprise.Ó Others talked about how collegiality in collaborative efforts increased motivation to complete work well . Jared expressed a kind of positive peer pressure from collegial relationships : ÒYouÑin a sens eÑpressure each other and itÕs less likely that things fall through the cracks.Ó He described how he had completed more work than he might otherwise have : ÒIf I werenÕt collaborating with them, I would have picked one [project] to sacrificeÉbut I felt an o bligation because those three had already done their part .Ó 54 Shaun described a similar experience where he filled an assignment for a collegial peer, saying, ÒI just didnÕt want to drop the ball, or to beÉthe one who doesnÕt pull their weight.Ó Sarah share d a story of a collegial relationship that had strengthened her productivity by helping her set and meet goals and deadlines . She said, Ò It was set up so we wouldnÕt string each other along or waste each otherÕs timeÉit was very businesslike, but also frie ndly at the same time.Ó Faculty members also shared experiences when colleagues offered help that made them more productive . The help came in many forms, including expertise, equipment, advice, feedback, and funding . The following interview excerpts provid e examples . ÒA colleague of mine was walking down the hall,Ó said Pete, Òwalked in hereÉand told me about a project . It resonated with something that I was working onÉand my colleague came back and said, ÔYou know what? WeÕre going to write a grant, do som e publications, Õ and it formed a new line of research for me.Ó Terry described how colleagues had helped him become productive quickly in a new position: ÒThey give you sort of a heads up about what to expect in terms of how long it takes to have an articl e work through the review processÉsteer you to different kinds of journalsÉthereÕs a direct connection with how productive you can be and whether you can get started running rather than the startup costs of getting used to a new institution orÉthe scholarl y community.Ó Faculty members shared experiences of colleagues shortening their learning time , both in the institution and in academic publishing . Danna said, Ò[ Collegial peers] support my work by helping me connect with people whom I can work withÉpointing me to 55 resourcesÉ [it] is a big support to me.Ó Tara shared the benefits of genero us feedback prior to submission : ÒI like [colleagues] to show support by giving me good critiques .Ó Another way of increasing learning is to share teaching reso urces . Daniel explained that to him, collegiality means Òto share lecture notesÉhaving a colleague or two work with you is very important, and more importantly, you can avoid making the same mistakes . You can learn from what theyÕve learned.Ó Nathan expre ssed that sharing examples of assignments is a way that collegiality impacts and enhances teaching. Faculty members explained that receiving helpful feedback from others enhanc ed productivity in every area of their work . Trent described colleagues helping others by reviewing papers . ÒIÕve seen papers get accepted that maybe would not have otherwise ,Ó he said. Jack gave an example of a collegial co-author : ÒOrdinarily, when you co -author, the most you get are editorial comments and not very substantial . Jeff adds value . The books are stronger, and there have been an article or two as well that are actually better work products as a result of collaboration.Ó Daniel described how colleagues helped him through the grant -writing process. ÒI know my area of research , but they know how grants work, Ó he said. Departmental productivity While many examples of the effects of individual productivity were shared, and it may be assumed that productive individuals make up productive units, there were some additional insights shared when participants talked specifically of the effects of colleg iality on departmental productivity . The theme s that emerged most strongly were that collegiality benefits departmental productivity by increasing department efficiency and encouraging synergy among department members . 56 ÒI think collegiality is the thing that can differentiate a department from being functioning and from being great,Ó Dawn explained . Lily said that she observed that Ò[collegial peers] help the department accomplish the goals of the department.Ó Charles described a synergistic effect when h e said, Ò The whole is greater than the sum of its partsÉthe well -oiled machine mentality helps you function and youÕve got my back, IÕve got yours, we all get stuff done, we go home at the end of the day and say Ôwow, we really accomplished something.ÕÓ Sarah described this efficiency and synergy wh en she described her department. ÒI f you have an interesting project peopl e are willing to come and help,Ó she said. Faculty members described the increased efficiency in a department when collegiality is prese nt. Jared shared this example: ÒWhen someone goes to you and says, ÔI have a question,Õ and itÕs going to take you 10 minutesÉbut might cost me hours . It increases the overall productivity of the group, it just costs one person 10 minutes but it frees up a nother person for two hours then youÕve just increased your overall efficiency.Ó Daniel described the change heÕd seen in his own department when he said, Ò ItÕs critical that you act as a teamÉand not just take the [grant] money and divide it up . We are getting there, weÕre starting to think along those lines, and itÕs a big opportunity for us to grow the department . It also helps us to attract larger funding.Ó Building Unity and Community When asked about the effects of collegiality on department work, faculty members responded with examples of how collegiality helped create unity and a sense of community in departments . They also explained that collegial behaviors helped create a feeling t hat department members were working for a common cause . ÒIÕm happy to say 57 IÕm in a department where people are colleagues first and [scholars] second,Ó said Steve . Collegiality in the department Òmakes us feel like a team,Ó described Daniel . ÒWe have diffe rent opinions, we have different approaches to scholarship, which in other departments has led to fractious relationships . There are no factions . People respect each other.Ó Terry also said that collegiality can Òmake you feel more a part of the department .Ó Many faculty members talked about how collegiality helped build unity within a department. Olivia described her observations this way: ÒWe are going to get farther by opening our arms than by sharpening our elbows.Ó Dawn said of her experience in her department community, ÒI had people around me who made it very clear to me that they would do whateverÉin terms of being supportive.Ó ÒIf you start to grow collegiality,Ó she explained further, Òit can build a positive spiral that can be a little bit cont agiousÉyou can nudge [others] to get involved again to make a positive contribution.Ó Faculty members do expend energy when they are involved in department work and activities, and several interview particip ants noted this . However, while they described the effort involved, they also perceived that the effort helped them feel more integrated with the department. Sarah described an experience she had with a very complex research project: Ò[It was] spontaneous, a lot of people have jumped on because itÕs fu n and there are a lot of little interesting problems to solveÉwe do it all together .Ó Tara also talked about how collegiality helped her feel part of her department : ÒThe first year I wanted to leaveÉthis doesnÕt feel like homeÉbut after some collaborations I have a lot of faculty friends and that is a personal aspect about staying here.Ó 58 Strengthening a Positive Culture Faculty members explained that collegiality helps cultivate a positive culture in a department . ÒI think it makes a more plea sant work environment,Ó Nathan said, ÒIt helps to create a more positive atmosphere, more positive attitudeÉand gives you a sense of belonging.Ó Those faculty members who talked about culture shared how the positive culture contributed to departmental suc cess. Olivia shared, ÒIf there are more people who are energizing and interactive and collaborative, that encourages a culture of, Ô Hey, I had this great idea, did you think of this?ÕÓ Steve explained that in his department, he had observed Òpeople kind of taking an interest in your work and looking for opportunities to work together.Ó Several faculty members talked about the importance of a positive culture as an effect of collegiality by describing how their respective departments engaged in specific effo rts to identify candidates who could contribute to a department culture. For example, Trent talked of how faculty searches in his department were designed to perpetuate a positive culture. He said, ÒWe look for people who we can help flourish . We think tha t makes us a better department and makes all of us betterÉthereÕs a culture of helping people do better work.Ó Department members who exhibit a variety of collegial behaviors create a positive culture in a department . Interview participants who talked of t heir experiences in highly collegial departments noted that when the culture is collegial, the behaviors associated with collegiality happen naturally. A positive culture, said Jared , Ò[is] organic . The giving of friendly advice, you didnÕt schedule a meet ing so they can give you formal advice, itÕs just part of the conversation.Ó A collegial culture influences more th an just 59 those who work directly with each other . Danna shared how collegiality in her department affects her outlook . Ò[Collegiality] makes the environment of the department very friendly, so that has a positive effect on mental well being . I feel happy if I see a very cordial person around even if IÕm not working per se with that person.Ó The effects of collegiality on culture include a reduc tion of silos, Lily explained. ÒYou donÕt have a mo at and fortress around this thing . You may have little towns, but people donÕt say Ô Go away,Õ they say Ô Come on in .Õ ItÕs friendly, not hostile, not defensive.Ó A positive culture helps faculty members co nserve energy for productive work . Dawn said, Ò I Õve had people around me who were incredibly supportiveÉ . theyÕve been good about saving my time physically, but also emotional and psychological time in terms of knowing that I donÕt have to worry and spend a lot of time questioning, strategerizing [sic], just to place myself politically in the department.Ó Students benefit when collegiality contributes to a positive culture . Daniel shared, ÒIf this is a more collegial environment, it affects the students, and they get more out of it.Ó Jack explained that in his department, Òt he doctoral students kind of tie us together.Ó As the students are socialized in a culture of collegiality, Ò[doctoral students] have the same good feelings, they socialize, they are su pportive of one another.Ó Other Effects of Collegiality While the most common descriptions of the effects of collegiality by faculty members included increased productivity, unity, and a positive culture, other effects were described as well . These less -frequently described effects include d increased energy , contagion of collegiality, and personal and group resiliency . 60 A few faculty participants described how collegiality influenced their productive energy . ÒThe benefits of collegiality are that you get more ideas, youÕre more productive, youÕre more effective,Ó explained Josh . Jared said, ÒYou're destined to have your total number of publications and total number of students go up it has to go that way, it c an't work any other way.Ó Others described how collegiality helped generate energy among colleagues . Sarah described her experience in a collegial project, saying, Ò The whole thing is generativeÉand it attracts the ideas and people, and then grows outward. Ó Shaun spoke of a colleague who generated energy as he built a research center. ÒHe just did an outstanding job working across disciplinesÉthe number of doctoral students that have come on, graduated, gone on to research one institutions, that have garner ed a number of publications, have achieved tenure, published and presented at national and international conferences, I look at that [as a] model.Ó Faculty members also described how collegiality increased their own ability and the ability of their departm ent to be resilient. In many situations, Faculty members spoke of many examples when collegiality helped generate a positive response to individual or institutional stress . For example, Pete explained that collegiality was demonstrated when a conflict aros e. Ò[WeÕre] remarkably able to weather major debates. This departmentÕs pretty remarkable for that. I think itÕs just a long -standing historical aspect of the department.Ó He continued to describe a challenging hiring process where some faculty members fe lt overrun by the process . Despite the challenges, t he department remained unified . ÒYou wonder if thereÕs some animosity, and then youÕll see people walk off and go get a coffee together,Ó he concluded. 61 Pete described collegial ity as a contributing factor in overcoming debates in his department . ÒWeÕve had some pretty major debatesÉover areas of emphasis in the department,Ó he said . ÒItÕs been fascinating to be in these meetings and watch people get into these debatesÉthen walk off and go get a coffee together . This departmentÕs pretty remarkable for that.Ó Similarly, Nick shared, Ò There arenÕt many people who hold grudges Éit shows the ability of the department to value the long -term.Ó Shaun shared that collegiality didnÕt prevent disagreements, but did help mediate them . He said, Ò They were able to disagree in and do it in a respectful manner, and were able to put some of their own stuff aside and say let's go .Ó Tara described how collegial peers adjust their thinking and even projects to accommodate others, saying, ÒI have experience working with people who are flexible, willing to adjust, and who all are willing to adjust their original ideas and even changing the project as we go.Ó It is i mportant to note that no faculty member claimed that collegiality prevented challenges, but rather helped departments overcome the challenges . As Laura shared, ÒI think collegial people keep the morale highÉI suppose if it got too ÔPollyannaÕ it might not work, but they keep it highÉand it sort of dampens the gossip.Ó Several faculty members shared feelings of how collegiality could be contagious in a department, with many suggesting that there may be a critical mass required to make a positive difference . For example, Danna explained, Ò LetÕs say we are a group of ten faculty members and three of them are very collegialÉit enhances the welfare of the department.Ó Lily talked about the importance of having a group of collegial peers to influence a department . She described having enough collegial peers as creating a tipping point, saying, ÒIf you have a faculty group that the majority is [collegial], thatÕs 62 the tone.Ó Olivia said, ÒI think we can cope with up to 30% of people who are low on a collegiality sc ale. But higher than that, I think would be very detrimental for the success of this unit.Ó Disciplinary Differences in Perceptions of Effects of Collegiality As faculty members described the effects of collegiality, there were some differences among the disciplinary cultures . For example, while faculty members in all disciplinary cultures described how collegiality increased unity and community, faculty members in Hard/Pure and Soft/Applied disciplines described it more often than those in Hard/Applied and Soft/Pure disciplines . One surprising response was from Daniel , from a Hard/Pure discipline , who described the perceived need in his department for more of a sense of unity and community to respond to increasing funding pressures that seemed to be mov ing the research agendas in the department toward more collaborative and applied research than had been typical . It is unsurprising that faculty members in the Soft/Applied disciplines talked about unity and community, since many of the se disciplines inclu de collaborative work in various community settings . Unsurprisingly , Soft/Applied faculty members described collegiality as helping to develop a positive culture nearly twice as often as any other disciplinary culture . Summary of Effects of Collegiality The research question addressed in this section was, ÒHow do faculty members perceive the effects of collegiality on their work, and on the work of their department?Ó The responses were strong, and clear themes emerged from interviews . Faculty members per ceive d that personal productivity is enhanced, departmental productivity is strengthened, and personal and group energy increased as a result of othersÕ collegiality . 63 Additionally, they stated that collegiality can help a department be resilient during stressful or challenging times, that collegiality may be contagious, and that with enough collegial members of a department, the whole department may be strengthened. Perceptions of Un-collegiality While faculty members understood and described collegiality in a number of ways , they also perceived and vividly described un-collegiality in many ways . As explained in earlier chapters, I will consistently refer to positive behaviors and attributes as collegiality, and negative behaviors and attributes as un -colle giality . This approach simplifies the writing, and also reflects the responses of those who participated in interviews. Un-collegiality was described as generally either unhelpful or harmful . While most of the faculty participants described their own depa rtment as collegial, all had observed either current or past examples of un -collegiality. Participants acknowledged that there were some forms of un -collegiality that would be devastating, although most had experienced little of the most challenging behavi ors and attributes, such as backstabbing, bullying, and harassing; rather, they described their experiences with un-collegiality primarily as an unwillingness to engage, help, or participate . As Talia stated, ÒWhat I keep coming back to is all the stuff th at they donÕt do.Ó I will include in this section major themes interview participants identified as they described un -collegiality . The strongest themes that emerged from the respondents concerning the characteristics of un -collegiality were being self-centered, negative, and hierarchical . I will also describe how interview participants used discriminatory as a way to describe un -collegial peers . Although only a few participants described experiences 64 with discrimination , the effects described are so detrim ental to faculty work that it is important to acknowledge. Self -centered ness Most participants described un -collegial behavior as fundamentally self -centered , and they shared many examples . Nick shared the most colorful description of self -centered behavior , saying , ÒThereÕs a sense that if they donÕt actually piss on that tree it doesnÕt count as being marked .Ó Self-centered colleagues were also described as uncompromising, particularly in matters of department decisions and governance. ÒIÕve been i n meetings where people dig in and donÕt back down,Ó Pete said. Shaun explained, ÒEach of us are so steeped in our own particular area, no one wants to give up anything.Ó Faculty members described four sub -themes associated with self-centeredness : Selfish ness , self-promot ion , lack of awareness of oth ers, and acting with a sense of superiority . Selfishness Selfishness was described as an interest in taking care of oneÕs own desires without regard for others or concern for the department . Ò[Un -collegiality] is sort of a selfishness,Ó Steve explained . While participants who cited selfishness as a feature of un -collegiality acknowledged a need for faculty members to take care of their own work and interests, they also suggested that un-collegiality included many selfish behaviors. Sam said, Ò Sometimes you donÕt have enough time for social gatheringsÉit seems to be that we are quite busy .Ó This lack of time for others extends into an unwillingness to help . Olivia said, Ò You might ask [ people] to do things and they donÕtÑeven if they are within the realm of normal things that people do.Ó 65 Selfishness describes faculty members who, whether in academic or administrative roles perceive that their own desires and needs come before the needs of others . Talia spoke of colleagues in a divided department . ÒIf the only thing youÕre aware of is your own thing youÕre not going to be able to exist in a larger setting ,Ó she said. Dawn described a similar observation of those who are Ònot thinking abou t the larger collective, or the individuals who serve on behalf of the department.Ó ÒThere are certain duties that must be done,Ó said Jared , Òand ultimately we all have to take turns volunteering for these things.Ó Josh described selfishness in a lab se tting as Òsomeone who wonÕt share their equipment, or be on the grant . For example, if I have a study on the whole knee where IÕm studying walking, running, and walking up stairs, and I know that someone has an instrumented stair stepper . I call themÉand i f they say Ô No,Õ I either have to buy my own, or miss out on that part of the study.Ó Charles explained that selfishness could be demonstrated under the guise of protecting time for personal work . ÒPeople who come in with their own best interestÉhave ex cuses as to why they cannot meet, why they cannot interact, and why they cannot perform their [responsibilities].Ó ÒI think thereÕs a real lack of empathy among scholars,Ó said Evelyn , Òin terms of Ômy workloadÕs bigger than your workload. ÕÓ Self -promot ing Self-promotion was related to selfishness, but included an element of comparison . Self-promotion meant that an individual was trying to achieve their agenda at the expense of othersÕ interests. 66 ÒSelf -promoting becomes a problemÉif the only thing youÕ re aware of is your own thing, youÕre not going to be able to exist in a larger setting,Ó Talia said, describing how self -promotion assumes that one individualÕs needs are more important than anotherÕs . ÒSelf -promotion is at the core,Ó said Nick, suggestin g that the biggest barrier to effective working relationships is Òsomeone who is just most interested in showing him or herself.Ó Self-promotion takes advantage of others Òat the cost of no win to anybody else,Ó explained Dawn as she shared an example of colleagues who had gone around the normal processes to get raises , ultimately costing the department the opportunity to hire new faculty members at competitive salaries. When self -promotion is followed to its natural end, it is expressed as faculty members see only themselves as an authority . For example, Òself -promotion produces proudly independent individuals who can only base success upon their own accomplishments because thatÕs the only metric theyÕre provided withÉyou see this in the growing amount ofÉself citation, Ó explained Charles . Lack of awareness of others Participants described self -centered colleagues as having a lack of awareness of others. ÒIt doesnÕt mean they are not working hard,Ó Olivia said. ÒThey are not aware of what other people in the organization are doing . I see this as a big weakness.Ó Charles suggested that some faculty members become so focused on their own agendas that they are not able to acknowledge others or their work. Ò[They] silo themselves ,Ó he explained, Òfor the sake of getting done what they want to get done, [and] forsake team play, forsake their relationshipsÉand have excuses as to why they cannot perform.Ó 67 Terry described self -centered colleagues as, Ò people who donÕt really know you r nameÉthey always seem to be doing their own work in their own world.Ó ÒIÕve seen cases whereÉitÕs hard to find them in their office, they work from home a lot,Ó said Jared . Shaun said, ÒNobody inquires about what youÕre doingÉnobody really talks about one anotherÕs workÉnobody invites you to come in and speak on your work.Ó This lack of awareness is not always demonstrated by lack of acknowledgement . Sometimes, lack of awareness is demonstrated by insisting on talking over others , not allowing for full conversation . Sarah described one such colleague. ÒHe will dominate the conversation like he has all the time in the world.Ó Nick explained that talking over others doesnÕt just happen in meetings, it also can happen electronically. ÒAn exampleÉis people w ho arenÕt listening to other people or talking over them, the other [example] is emailÉjust another way of shouting.Ó Seeing/presenting oneself as s uperior Participants described self -centered colleagues as feeling that their own scholarly perspectives were superior, manifesting itself in a variety of ways . ÒHe thinks that the way I do [my work] is simplistic and brings the whole field down,Ó said Olivia . Nathan shared, ÒYou must see things my way, thatÕs the only valid way.Ó Steve said, ÒItÕs not uncom mon to have someone judge [someone elseÕs] work whoÕsÉclearly on the other side of the department dismissivelyÉdevaluing the whole [scholarly] exercise that theyÕre engaged in.Ó These colleagues, explained Daniel , are Òdismissive of different approaches t han [their own ].Ó 68 Negative Toward O thers While all un -collegial behaviors may be characterized as negative, for the purposes of the current analysis, I will refer to negative behavi ors as those that demonstrate antagonism of one faculty member against a nother . For example, I have just discussed self -centeredness as primarily focused on self with little concern for others . Negative beh aviors as shared by faculty participants are focused toward others . These behaviors include bickering, yelling, rudeness, undermining, backstabbing, bullying, and being duplicitous. Most interview participants talked about the importance of group members having differing opinions . However, while some shared experiences of differing opinions strengthening relationships and sc holarly dialogue, others shared experiences of having dialogue stifled by negative communications . Sam shared, ÒIt is a surprise that people are really passionate about these things to the extent that they are not using the most appropriate wordsÉitÕs very important to discuss professional issues, but you donÕt want to personalize them, or the debate.Ó ÒBickering,Ó explained Charles , Òis the most consuming for me as a senior faculty to mentor junior faculty who are worried about why people are attacking th em or why people are interested in their work for the wrong reasons.Ó Another expression of negativity is in the affective part of communication . For example, Evelyn shared her experiences in faculty meetings this way: ÒSome of the longtime faculty are re ally fed up with everything, they just seem like theyÕre very cranky all the time and that really is coming to faculty meetings.Ó Lily shared how negative communications happens when Ò[department members] are very forceful in their 69 communication styleÉthe y can sometimes back people into corners.Ó ÒWeÕve had department meetings,Ó said Nathan , Òwhere weÕve witnessed colleagues yell at each other, not value another personÕs perspective, demonstrate controlling behaviorÉit feels like an inability to care abou t someone elseÉitÕs like fourth grade playground behavior . ItÕs stunning to me that educated people are behaving in that sort of way.Ó Negative communication can happen in person, but also through email . Nick said, Ò[Un-collegial people] tend to be loud, self-centered, and shout . These are people who have extraordinarily bad personas on email . WeÕve had a colleague whoÉwould broadcast individual emails to the whole department and Ôreply allÕ in moments that I thought it was inappropriateÉsimple, simple rud eness.Ó Many faculty members described having observed or experienced faculty members speaking negatively about othersÕ work and undermining that work in various ways . For example, Steve described colleagues who denigrated the research of candidates for faculty positions . He said that this dismissiveness is Òdevaluing the whole [academic] exercise that [candidates are] engaged in Ñthey use language that suggests that [the candidatesÕ] arguments arenÕt up to snuffÉso youÕre basically doing that to a whole style of [research] even though people who do it may be in the room with you.Ó Pete suggested that undermining included some kinds of competitiveness: ÒPeople are competing internally and measuring themselves against each other in kind of a negative, dest ructive way.Ó Another negative response to competitiveness is talking badly about othersÕ scholarly approaches . As Trent described, ÒItÕs hard to do groundbreaking work [in our field], so there can be a real resistanceÉand [faculty members can] be dismissi ve of different approaches.Ó Others shared similar perspectives . Danna said, 70 ÒJust because you work in another area doesnÕt mean you should dismiss or be suspicious about the validity of that kind of work.Ó Backstabbing is a significant form of underminin g, which may be demonstrated as a personal attack, or an attack on anotherÕs work . Daniel shared his experie nce with backstabbing, saying, ÒI earned a major teaching awardÉand other professors whoÕd been there for several decades had never won a teaching a ward, and I caught flak for that, in backbiting, stabbing, talking behind [my] backÉÓ Evelyn described a colleague who participated in backstabbing, saying, ÒHeÕs sly and he makes shady deals and has been called out by senior faculty...Ó Another negative b ehavior shared was bullying . Talia shared an experience during a faculty search: ÒEvery one of [the junior faculty members] were bullied . Everyone of them had a senior person come to them and twist their armÉI ended up in a situation where I tried to get o ut of my office and this person literally wouldnÕt let me out.Ó Shirking responsibilities and being generally disengaged were also perceived as negative behaviors . Describing a colleague who had been unsuccessful in his bid for an endowed chair, Dawn said, ÒSince then heÕs boycotted every department meeting, refused to talk to the person that we hired as the endowed chair, and has basically been sulking and avoiding any responsibility.Ó Faculty members who shirked responsibility required others to do more of the department work. Interview participants also described un -collegial behaviors associated with duplicitousness . ÒWhen peopleÉtreat you nicely but talk behind your backÉif they act in a duplicitous way that really is poisonous,Ó said Terry . 71 Claiming Privilege Because of Hierarchical Status Having shared participantsÕ examples of negative behaviors, I will now share perspectives on a particular kind of negative behavior that I have described as claiming privilege because of hierarchical status . Hierarc hical behaviors are those in which one individual or group tries to establish power or privilege based on perceived or actual position . Hierarchical behaviors were described in two different contexts : Senior faculty members against junior faculty members, and faculty members who behaved hierarchically because of perceived prestige in research approaches and methodology. Senior faculty members demonstrate hierarchical behaviors when they try to assert their will because of their seniority . Daniel shared this example: ÒIÕve found that one faculty member speaks over me and cuts me off constantlyÉthe higher up they are the easier it is for them to talk over people.Ó Talia shared, Ò When youÕre a junior faculty itÕs a tricky time to figure out how to n ot make [a senior faculty member] upset.Ó Even when senior faculty members are not actively hierarchical, they can be perceived as behaving hierarchically . Terry observed a lack of investment by senior faculty: ÒMore senior members of the departmentÉdonÕt really know your nameÉyou feel like youÕre just sort of a disposable member of the department. Faculty members also described hierarchical behaviors of department leaders. These leaders act unilaterally or in ways that are neither transparent nor inclusi ve. Dawn said of her department chair, Ò We feel that heÕs going to make whatever decision heÕs going to make anywayÉit seems we have no impact on decision making.Ó Scholarly differences were also described as opportunities for hierarchical behavior . For ex ample, Laura described her experience in her department, in a 72 Hard/Applied discipline : ÒWe have people that do bench research, and some people do clinical researchÉwhen [bench researchers] write in the [promotion] review they say things like, Ôwell, you kn ow, I donÕt know what this [clinical] research is about.Ó Talia shared a similar perspective as a Soft/Applied scholar in a department that also has faculty members in a Soft/Pure discipline , saying, ÒIn [my school] there are both the academic side and the [practical] side of things, and thereÕs often a very real divide there.Ó Discriminatory The interview participants did not share many examples of discriminatory behavior . However, because discrimin ation is especially troublesome, I will share a few examples that illustrate how discrimination was described as un -collegial. Lily said as she described her perception of her ability to progress in her career, ÒIf you look at [ Hard/Applied ] schools, you look at salary levels of womenÉÓ Dawn shared a similar experience in her Soft/Applied department . She discovered that substantial raises had been sought after and given outside of the normal merit increase process, and information about the raises were subsequently covered up: ÒThese are white men giving raises to white men . There have been other professors whoÕve come up for promotion, and got like $3000 raises, which is the standard contribution from central administration . No money from the dean, no mon ey from the chair, no advocacy on their behalf by the chair to get raises.Ó Dawn shared another example of the same chair, who had responded to a request for a recommendation for an on -campus leadership program by saying, ÒYou are not the kind of person t heyÕre looking forÉI donÕt want to lower the standard.Ó She explained that the chair had made a similar statement in a hiring situation, 73 expressing that he ÒdidnÕt want to lower the standard to let women or minorities into academia.Ó Charles shared a dis criminatory experience where there was a Òsexual harassment accusation of one tenured faculty over a junior untenured faculty Éthe junior faculty left the university without tenure because they felt that their tenure case was so biasedÉthey would never get it under the circumstances.Ó When presented with cards, participants acknowledged that discrimination would be particularly damaging, but most of faculty members expressed that they had not experienced or observed examples of discrimination. However, bec ause the negative consequences of discrimination are strong, the discussion of un -collegial behavior would be incomplete without addressing it. Card Selection of Un -collegial Behaviors When presented with cards listing un -collegial behaviors and attribut es, many participants noted that they had not been subjected to some of the most negative behaviors, and expressed gratitude for that fact . As they considered those they had experienced, these four were selected most often : Resentful of othersÕ accomplishments was selected by seven participants , undermining by six , and five participants selected the cards self-promoting and dismissive . As with the cards listing collegial behaviors and attributes, the stories and examples emerging from this exercise were valuable in understanding and refining th e behaviors and attributes and their effects that were the most important to faculty members . Four different participants at some point during the activity of selecting cards and discussing un -collegiality as represented by those cards suggested that we were spending 74 too much time on negative behaviors . This is interesting for at least two reasons . First, the interview protocol is exactly even in terms of positive v. negative questions . Second, I observed that when faculty members spoke of un -collegiality, the discussion itself seemed to affect them negatively . This observation is unsurprising in some ways, because it should be expected that when a participant is describing negative experiences wi th colleagues, they would be uncomfortable . However, interview participantsÕ feelings that the interview questions were negatively weighted seemed to go beyond a discomfort of talking about colleagues; rather, the discomfort seemed to be focused on recalli ng their own feelings related to the negative behaviors, and that recollection for some made the interview seem weighted toward un -collegiality. Disciplinary Differences in Un -collegiality As faculty members described un -collegiality, there were some diff erences among the disciplinary cultures . For example, faculty members in Hard/Applied and Soft/Applied disciplines described un -collegiality as self-centered much more than those in Hard/Pure and Soft/Pure disciplines . This may be because the nature of work in the more collaborative disciplines (Hard/Applied and Soft/Applied ) provides more opportunities to see the costs of self -centered behaviors than researchers who conduct independent research or oversee their own labs. Faculty members in Soft/Applied disciplines were more likely than those in any other group to describe un -collegiality in a way that matched the negative theme . This may be related to the observations made by many participants from the Soft/Applied disciplines of the value of positive sp ontaneous interactions leading to productive opportunities , and the missed opportunities when not having positive spontaneous interactions . 75 Summary Faculty perceptions of un -collegiality were strongest in the behaviors that were self-centered, negative, a nd hierarchical . During interviews, some participants perceived the interviews as being weighted heavily toward un -collegiality, although the questions were balanced evenly. As interview participants shared examples, they shared the effects of un-collegial behaviors on their lives, work, and the work of their departments. Effects of Un-collegiality The final research question explored faculty membersÕ perceptions of the effects of un -collegial behaviors and attributes . In this se ction, I will share how int erview participants described the effects of un -collegiality on their own work and on the work of the department . These themes emerged from the interviews as strong effects of un -collegia lity: Inefficiency , isolation , missed opportunities , and talent quarantine . I will further define each of these themes and share examples from participants. Inefficiency One of the most frequent responses to the question, ÒWhat are the effects of un -collegial behavior on your work and the work of the department?Ó was that un-collegial behavior introduced inefficiencies, it was energy draining, and in many cases, exhausting . Inefficiencies were described in many ways, but faculty members regularly described spending unnecessary time and effort trying to overcome the cha llenges posed by un-collegial ity. NickÕs initial response to the question of how un -collegiality affected him and his department captures the idea that un -collegiality causes unnecessary time and energy . He 76 said, ÒI donÕt know if it affects the department at all, or me, except it makes me annoyed, or want to check out . So IÕm not as fully there as I think I should be . In terms of the work of the department, it prolongs it, it makes it unnecessarily time consuming and energy consuming . ThatÕs probably the s ingle thing to focus on ÑitÕs more time and energy spent on things that could be dispensed with more quickly. Ó Jared , describing his perspective from a Hard/Applied discipline said, ÒIf you have ten people, and of those ten people, three are sort of un-col legial , then youÕre running at something close to 70% of what you could be running at . ThereÕs no way to run 100%. You can hire new peopleÉso you can increase your percentage, but you can never shake the inefficiency.Ó Charles described inefficiency as a result of un -collegiality similarly, saying, ÒAll of the sudden youÕve got this fancy luxury car running on three cylindersÉit moves forward, but it moves forward with lurches and inefficienciesÉitÕs far less pleasant to work under those conditions, even as a person who is a third -party distance from the problem.Ó ÒYouÕre just kind of always running in place,Ó explained Shaun . ÒYouÕre movingÉbut things just arenÕt getting done, arenÕt getting accomplished. Ó Several participants described how, when working with un -collegial peers, they spent time and energy considering how to counteract un -collegial behaviors, thus reducing the time and energy available for productive efforts. Pete explained , ÒAm I thinking ab out researchÉam I thinking about a way for me to get ideas to students, or am I thinking about what he or she meant by that, orÉIÕm going to be at this meeting and am 77 I going to have to deal with so -and -so. If IÕm sitting around worried about that, then it Õs less time doing the intellectual work that IÕm supposed to be doing.Ó Lily described how efforts required to set up collaborative relationships were less efficient because of lack of trust. She said, ÒWhen we wrote the grant, I [had] to say to the indi vidual, Ôif we are funded, are you saying that IÕll be funded on this grant?Õ To be honest, IÕve just decided noÉso I have my own team, I get all my own money.Ó Sarah began a collaborative relationship with a colleague because of related areas of research in a Hard/Applied discipline . She described how she contributed to the research relationship, including providing a research assistant, and found that her partner didnÕt follow through with the project, nor communicate effectively . Three years later, she decided to discontinue the project. She said of the results, ÒIt just became a time sink, and I donÕt talk to [my former research partner] about it any more.Ó Describing the time wasted in faculty meetings with un -collegial peers, Sarah said, ÒOne person will talk the hind legs off a donkey ÉheÕs very senior so nobody will interrupt him.Ó Evelyn shared a similar observation in her department meetings, ÒItÕs affecting the dynamics in the meeting where itÕs difficult to get to productive conversations [and] itÕs really difficult to make decisionsÉit ends up being this spiral down the drain sort of thing.Ó When faculty meetings are inefficient because of un -collegiality, Òit can become a real problem,Ó said Daniel . ÒThe whole faculty meeting can go south . The majority of people are quiet, but they are waiting for people to say something so they can jump onto it. There are big debates.Ó Daniel suggested that debates are a valuable part of academic 78 work, but that they should result in decisions that are support ed by all . He concluded that when they donÕt , ÒItÕs really a lot of lost energy and time.Ó Inefficiency is one area of the impact of un -collegiality described by participants . Faculty members described inefficient meetings and department efforts, as well as personal efforts and energy expended on activities to overcome or avoid un -collegial peers, at the cost of remaining focused on their primary faculty responsibilities . Isolation Faculty members described a number of ways isolation is an impact of and response to un -collegial peers . Charles shared a good description of isolation, saying, Ò[Isolation ] is personal avoidance in a social situation . You avoid the individual because youÕre irritated with them and theyÕre not fulfilling what you think their jo b responsibilities should be with you, theyÕre not fulfilling what you think their social responsibilities are with you, and therefore somehow the workplace environment is somehow compromised for you, and the easiest way I think most people deal with that is just avoidance.Ó Charles also shared a specific example that he observed regularly in his Hard/Applied discipline , from his perspective as a department head . He explained that a competitive environment often develops, where faculty members become fear ful that others will take their original ideas . He said, ÒOftentimes, they donÕt want to divulge their work to othersÉIÕve had faculty who donÕt want to write a grant because they have a great idea, but if they write it down someoneÕs going to take it.Ó Danna described isolation as being divided because of research differences . She shared an experience of faculty members being suspicious of others because of research 79 differences, with this effect : ÒIf IÕm teaching, and I show my disregard for certain fie lds of study, my students can be influenced by that, and then they become dismissive of certainÉmethods of study.Ó Tara Õs department experienced a change in focus, which divided the faculty . She said, ÒWhen I came, [the department] was one entity, but now itÕs divided . Because ofÉideology, weÕre fully divided, and a lot of people donÕt really talk to each other.Ó She continued to explain that some faculty members refused to attend department meetings because of the division. Shaun was being reviewed for t enure and promotion . His department developed a new policy, and gave him the option of being reviewed under the policy he had been hired under , or the new policy . When he opted for the policy he had been hired under , he felt isolated because of pressure fr om senior faculty members . ÒThose thingsÉminimized what I thought and how I thought they perceived meÉit kind of creates this Ôme against them, Õ this mistrustÉI didnÕt feel like I had anyone to go to communicate on a range of different things.Ó Shaun also shared his perspective on isolation generally in his department, saying , ÒNobody really talks about one anotherÕs work, nobody invites you to come in and speak on your work.Ó Others who had experienced personal isolation shared similar stories . Evelyn said, ÒI have felt very isolated in this department.Ó She shared a personal experience where a change in doctoral committee assignments resulted in a colleague who Òwill literally not acknowledge my presenceÉitÕs severely affecting my morale.Ó Terry shar ed a similar perspective, saying Ò You feel like you have to do everything on your own, youÕre not sure which journals to send your stuff [to]Éyou canÕt get any 80 feedback from your colleaguesÉyou can totally feel like you are slipping through the cracksÉit m agnifies all the doubts you may have.Ó This sense of isolation can cause faculty members to feel like they have to protect themselves . Nathan expressed a loss of community within his department, saying, ÒAt some point you have to protect yourself, because no one else is going to do itÉthereÕs no sense of appreciation, no sense of compensation . IÕm not talking about monetary [compensation], but even some adjustments that would lead to a feeling of, Ôokay, I can continue to do this.Ó There are other reasons to be protective, as Pete explained : ÒIf I walk from here to the coffee room and IÕm afraid that I have to get my defenses up and have a riposte to something that someone says, maybe I keep my door closed, maybe I huddle in here.Ó Un-collegial interactio ns in d epartment meetings can lead to division and isolation among faculty . Several participants described department decisions on curriculum, hiring, student admissions, and strategic directions as having an isolating effect . Some described large coalitio ns overpowering smaller groups of faculty, while others described individual faculty members holding u p the decision -making process . Shaun said, ÒLarge groups can make decisions over the small groupÉor one person may not abide by a group decision.Ó Laura described her observations, saying, Ò[Un -collegial individuals] dominate, and the other individuals just retreat and go do their jobÉthey donÕt become team players, and they donÕt want to talk about improving the department.Ó Similarly, Steve observed, ÒIf you keep tipping the balance in favor of one group, youÕre essentially ostracizing the other group.Ó Describing her observations of departmental division, Dawn said, ÒYou end up with factions that feel dissatisfied that they never get heard and 81 never get consideredÉand then they stop participating . Or even worse, they might form their own factions and try to actively subvert or undermine where the department as a whole is trying to go.Ó Olivia spoke of the productivity costs of isolation, saying, ÒI feel like if the proportion of the people within an organizational unit who are insular versus collaborative or collegial is high, I think that organizational unit is in the end going to be less successfulÉindividual people may be highly successful, but if they Õre not working together towards common goals, andÉthereÕs an external threat or external challenge, it would be very poorly equipped to meet it as an organizational unit.Ó Isolation as a result of un -collegial behavior happens to both individuals and groups within departments . As individuals feel dismissed or attacked, they respond by isolating or dividing. This effect is not easily overcome . Participants described their observations that people who experience being dismissed or attacked can withdraw. Jared explained the consequences of un -collegiality and the resulting isolation in his department : ÒThey work from home a lot, and after so many years they decide this job isnÕt for them and they go get another job or something.Ó Missed Opportunities As interview participants considered the impacts of un -collegiality on their work and on the work of the department, many expressed that individual faculty members remained productive in their environment . I anticipated this response , as the study was cond ucted at a research institution . However, many participants suggested that there is a real cost in productivity, but that cost is difficult to identify, because it is measured by missed opportunities. 82 Some missed opportunities, as described by participant s, were simply the result of colleagues not being available for chance meetings and discussions because of un -collegial behavior . Jared said, ÒThereÕs never a moment to go get a cup of coffee or go get lunch, have a conversation that could lead to future c ollaborationsÉpeople who are isolated tend not to benefit from those interactions . Also, that deprives other people of those same interactions.Ó Similarly, Shaun described what happens when faculty are not engaged with each other informally, saying, ÒI th ink thereÕs just an opportunity to utilize the capital we already have in our respective organization, and we just donÕt Ñit just doesnÕt seem to be fully utilized.Ó ÒYou may have a great idea and not have anyone to share that idea with,Ó said Olivia . ÒSo, instead of turning into something that gets written on the whiteboard, it just goes away.Ó Other opportunities are missed because faculty members choose to avoid working with un -collegial peers . Tara shared this perspective from her observations of her department : ÒWe lose communication, lose participation in faculty meetings and in decision -making, so some of the cost of that is we donÕt get the value of everybodyÕs talents and gifts.Ó While some collaboration among department members is necessary for department work, individual researchers can often choose whom they will collaborate with, and avoid those they consider un -collegial . Charles said that faculty members Òavoid [un -collegial peers] because theyÕre not fulfilling what you think their social res ponsibilities are with you, and therefore somehow the workplace environment is somehow compromised for you and the easiest way I think most people deal with that is just avoidance.Ó Talia shared this experience of having been asked to serve on a search com mittee with someone who had bullied her: Ò[The chair] asked me to be on [the 83 committee], and I said I will not be on it if so -and -soÕs on itÉI took myself out of the situation.Ó Finally, missed opportunities occur when individuals are un -collegial and withhold opportunities from others . I previously shared an example of Olivia Õs department chair who withheld h is recommendation for a leadership training program , explaining to her that Òshe wasnÕt what [those selecting participants] were looking for,Ó despite the fact that Olivia had already been offered a position in the program. Those with leadership positions are not the only individuals capable of withholding opportunities. Faculty members can refus e to share equipment with others , an experience described by both Bernard and Josh . An example described in a previous section is also appropriately repeated here . Missed opportunities include opportunities that rep resent a loss of knowledge that could have been gained by collegial interactions . As Josh said, of colleagues who could share equipment but donÕt, Ò I either have to buy my own, or miss out on that part of the study . IÕm still going to get it done, but of c ourse, the value of the study could go down.Ó Talent Quarantine Faculty members explained that they and others avoided un -collegial peers . Additionally, un -collegial peers often avoided working with others . When this happens, the talents and skills of the un-collegial faculty member become quarantined , thus described talent quarantine . Un-collegial faculty members can be functional and productive, but their skills and perspectives are not available to benefit other department members. 84 Jared explained that un-collegial faculty members Òbecome a placeholder in your department, especially with the tenure systemÉthat makes the department less than it could be and thatÕs essentially for the duration of their time in the departmentÉit locks down a skill set . You Õre unlikely to hire another person with that skill set because you already have someone, and so youÕre sort of doomed to have one skill set that lives in your department being a skill set thatÕs difficult to incorporate into a collaborative project.Ó Another version of talent quarantine is the inability to retain talent ed faculty members as a result of un -collegiality . Charles described his department as having several un -collegial senior members, and explained that the loss was not only an inability to take advantage of those senior faculty membersÕ skill s, but also in being unable to retain talented junior faculty . Trent shared an experience of a faculty member who experienced un -collegial treatment and left the institution, taking with her a very specialized, hard -to-replace skill set out of the department . He said, Ò They Õve never been able to fill that spot and cover that area.Ó This talent loss can extend to future faculty members when students see an entire field as un -collegial beca use of the faculty members . ÒWe end up losing good people,Ó said Trent , Òwho would otherwise go into the profession . We see them going to professions that are friendlier.Ó Disciplinary Differences in the Effects of Un -collegiality As faculty members descr ibed the effects of un -collegiality, there were few differences among the disciplinary cultures . However, faculty members in the Hard/Applied and Soft/Applied disciplines described the effects of un -collegiality as 85 inefficiency and isolation more often tha n those in Hard/Pure and Soft/Pure disciplines , perhaps because collaborative research is more commonly practiced in these disciplines . Additionally, faculty members in the Hard/Applied disciplines often shared examples of ineff iciency using machine analogies . For example, Charles , whose department is in a Hard/Applied discipline , described a collegial department as a Òwell -oiled machine,Ó where individual faculty members appreciated the value of their own and othersÕ unique strengths and areas . Facul ty members in the Soft/Applied disciplines described inefficiency by describing the value of spontaneous collaborative relationships and informal conversations . These faculty members often told stories of hallway meetings, chance encounters, and other soci al interactions as opportunities for creative and collaborative partnerships to emerge. Summary Faculty members shared many examples of the effects of un -collegiality on their work and on the work of their departments . Individuals and departments become m ore inefficient, individuals and groups become isolated, many productive opportunities are missed, and when a faculty member is un -collegial, their skills and talents may be quarantined and unavailable to benefit or receive benefits from others. Summary of Results My primary research questions were: (a) How do faculty members perceive collegial behavior in their peers, and (b) What are the effects of collegiality on individual and departmental work? To address these questions, I explored four main questions through interviews : (a) How do faculty members perceive collegial behavior in their peers? (b) What are the effects of collegiality on individual and departmental work? (c) 86 How do faculty members perceive un -collegial behavior in their peers? and (d) What are the effects of un -collegiality on individual and departmental work? As faculty members described their perceptions and experiences, strong themes and sub -themes emerged. The themes, drawn from interviews of a diverse collection of faculty m embers from many departments, demonstrate a pattern of shared experience and understanding among faculty members . Not only do they, as Bloom (2005) might suggest, know collegiality when they see it, they can also describe it, and they did so in remarkably similar ways . Collegial faculty members care about others, help expand othersÕ opportunities and perspectives, seek for and accept collabo rative opportunities, are a unifying influence, and are future oriented . Alternatively, un -collegial faculty members are self -centered, negative, focused on hierarchical relationships, and in some cases are discriminatory . Table 5 summarizes these themes and sub -themes. In addition to describing collegiality and un -collegiality, interview participants also described benef its of collegiality and costs of un -collegiality. Benefits were not typically described as simply being about morale and positive culture; rather, they were described by most as increasing both individual and departmental productivity. Costs of un-collegia lity were also shared, with a clear pattern of lost efficiency, missed opportunities, and isolation. This chapter included the findings of my primary research questions based on the responses of 23 faculty participants. I began with an overview of the pa rticipants. Then I reported results of each question in four sections. I concluded the chapter with a summary of results. Next, I will discuss the study, findings, and implications in the final chapter. 87 Table 5. Faculty Perceptions of Collegiality and its Effects on Individual and Departmental Work Descriptions of collegiality and un -collegiality Collegiality : Collegial faculty members É Un-Collegiality : Un-collegial faculty membersÉ 1. Care about others ¥ Mentoring ¥ Personal interest ¥ Compassion ¥ Appreciation ¥ Trust ¥ Friendly 1. Are self -centered ¥ Selfishness ¥ Lack of awareness of others ¥ Superiority ¥ Unflexible 2. Expand my and othersÕ perspectives and opportunities 2. Demonstrate negative behaviors 3. Are collaborative 3. Use hierarchical relationships to claim power 4. Are unifying ¥ Inclusion ¥ Load sharing 4. Are discriminatory 5. Are future -oriented ¥ Vision ¥ Investing Effects of collegiality and un -collegiality on individual and departmental work Collegiality: Collegial faculty membersÉ Un-Collegiality: Un-collegial faculty membersÉ 1. Increase or enhance productivity for individuals and departments 1. Decrease efficiency 2. Cultivate unity and a sense of community 2. Isolate themselves and others 3. Create and build a positive cultur e 3. Cause missed opportunities 4. Create a talent quarantine 88 CHAPTER FIVE : DISCUSSION In this final chapter, I present an overview of this dissertation study and a summary of key findings . Next, I review the study design with its usefulness and limitations. Then I present a discussion of the results, including potential implications for policy and practice, and suggestions for future research. Overview of the Study Study Rationale Faculty members represent the key resource for higher education institutions, and carry the primary responsibility for teaching, research, and service . They provide the public and private good offered by higher education . They train students to become skilled workers and educated citi zens, they advance knowle dge, and they enrich culture (Zusman, 2005 ). As with key resources in any effort, exploring the questions related to how to maximize the value and productivity of thes e resources can be considered a worthwhile endeavor . While pressures from within and without the academy grow, the faculty continues to evolve . Diversity among faculty members in demographics, disciplinary orientation, and life circumstances contribute s to growing pressures and challenges as increasingly heterogeneous faculty members work together (Gappa et al., 2007). Regardless of discipline, faculty members reside in departments, and in one or more of the responsibilities of teaching, scholarship, and service, they must work tog ether . The quality of th ese working relationships, in both faculty satisfaction and productivity, was a major focus of this study. While there are many factors that may affect faculty members Õ satisfaction and productivity, the purpose of the current stu dy was to explore one factor Ñcollegiality Ñ 89 that may influence how faculty members evaluate each other in tenure and promotion decisions, how they work together on committees and in research, and with whom they seek to work . Additionally, this study was intended to explore how faculty members perceived collegiality as members of departments, and how their own and their department al productivity was impacted by collegiality. Literature addressing collegiality primarily describ es the culture and climate resulting from collegiality . However, the existing literature discussing collegiality as it relates to the behaviors and attributes of individual faculty members is limited . Because of the demonstrated importance faculty members place on working in collegial environments with collegial individuals, more knowledge is useful concerning how individual faculty members perceive collegial behavior and attributes in their peers and how collegiality affects both individual and departmenta l work . Understanding practices that encourage collegial behavior in individuals and in faculty groups will benefit individual faculty members and university leaders. Finally, because working relationships and expectations of productivity differ across dis ciplines, explorations of collegiality require attention to disciplinary contexts. Departments are institutional homes for disciplines, and faculty members associate themselves with their discipline s and department s. Disciplines and departments are the c entral identity source for faculty members (A. E. Austin, 1990 ). As faculty members work in departments, they share responsibilities for service, teaching, and research . These shared responsibilities include many interact ions that define departmental culture . For example, natural science research is expensive and funding is often related to perceptions of social relevance and usefulness ; science -based professions are focused on 90 pragmatic problem solving, but tend to move toward more theoretically -driven research when researchers aim for higher perceived status; humanitie s and social science research tend s toward individual work, and often has weak connections to outside constituencies ; and social professions resea rch tends to respond to external pressures because of a high value on social relevance (Becher, 1994 ). The department as disciplinary home thus serves to provide clear boundaries around and guidelines to a group of individuals with shared understandings and culture. The rationale for this study is that , while faculty members represent the key value -producing resource in universities, and while how they relate to each other may influence their work as teachers and researchers, little research has been done to understand how individual faculty membersÕ collegial and un -collegial behavior s impact the work of individuals and departments . Research Question s My purpose in conducting this study was to explore how faculty members understood collegiality and its impact on their work and the work of the department. The study began with these research questions: (a) How do faculty members perceive collegial behavior in their peers ? and (b) What are the effects of collegiality on individual and departmental work? Additionally, I explored disciplinary differences in perception s of collegiality. Methods This was a qualitative study based on 23 faculty members w ho had served in various departments between 5 -8 years at a single research university (RU/VH) . The participants were identified through a search of each ac ademic department Õs faculty 91 pages. The r ecruitment period lasted eight months, beginning in May 2013 . During this time, an email with the IRB -approved invitation (see Appendix D) was sent to 227 faculty members who appeared to fit the study criteria, with subsequent follow -up invitations. Those who agreed to participate were interviewed in person for 45 -70 minutes . Participants also filled out a basic demographic questionnaire . During the recorded interview s, I asked participants to respond to questions based on their experiences in their current and former appointments . Twenty -seven participants were int erviewed; however, four of the participants did not meet the study criteria; therefore, the analysis includes the responses from 23 participants. I describe the methods in detail in chapter three. My research questions were developed to explore faculty me mbersÕ definitions of collegial and un -collegial behavior, and how they perceived the effects of those behaviors on their work and the work of their departments. Rather than asking participants for definitions directly, I asked them to describe people who were collegial, and those who were un -collegial. This approach yielded rich descriptions and observations based on participantsÕ experiences. Summary of Key Findings I presented the findings of this study in great detail in chapter f our. My results were shared in four sections . Section one focused on faculty perceptions of collegiality . Section two focused on faculty perceptions of the effects of collegiality on their work and on the work of their department s. Section three focused on facu lty membersÕ perceptions of un -collegiality . Section four focused on faculty membersÕ perceptions of the effects of un-collegiality on their work and on the work of their department . Please see Table 5, located at the end of chapter four , for a visual summ ary of the main themes and sub - 92 themes for each of the sections . Below, I briefly summarize the central findings of this study, beginning with faculty perceptions of collegiality. Faculty participants described collegiality in many ways, but the majority sh ared the following perceptions . Collegial peers care about others . This was the strongest theme, and one that was apparent across all the sub -themes in the data. Caring for others was not simply being nice; rather, it reflected behaviors that were truly he lpful, including behaviors that involved correcting others in various ways. Sub -themes of caring for others included helping expand othersÕ opportunities and vision, being collaborative, engaging in behavior that helped unify others, and taking a future -oriented approach . Each participant talked about one or more of these sub -themes. Participants described behaviors that were anticipated through the preliminary framework represented in Figure 1 (see Chapter Three), but added some that were not anticipated, most notably the theme of expanding others Õ opportunities and vision . Most participants shared stories of being helped by colleagues who introduced them to new networks, publications, confe rences, and grant opportunities, illustrating the concept of expanding. The effects of collegiality described by participants included increased productivity for individuals and departments, increased sense of unity and co mmunity, and posit ive department culture . Importantly, all participants described increased productivity as an effect of collegiality . They talked about this increase in productivity for themselves and their departments in various ways, including increased opportunities for research funding, additional publications through collaboration, increased m otivation, and less energy wasted on protecting themselves intellectually and psychologically . Participants also described effects of collegiality in terms of efficient department 93 governance, more succ essful student recruitment, and greater participation i n learning activities by faculty and students. Un-collegial peers are self centered , the strongest theme throughout the interviews, and this theme was apparent across all sub -themes . Un-collegial faculty members demonstrate a variety of negative behaviors, which I define as behaviors that one individual inflicts upon others (i.e. undermining, backstabbing, bullying, duplicitousness), hierarchical behaviors, which are defined as behaviors that oppress others based on seniority, and discriminatory behaviors . While many un -collegial behaviors are actively har mful to others, it became clear as participants described un -collegiality that passive behaviors such as lack of awareness of others and selfishness were also perceived as harmful. Un-collegiality has multiple effects on both un -collegial individuals and their departme ntal peers . These effects include personal and departmental inefficiency , isolation , missed opportunities, and a loss of talents and skills, which I have labeled talent quarantine . Talent quarantine was an unanticipated effect, but was described as particularly important, especially in the Hard/Pure and Hard/Applied disciplines . Un-collegial faculty members may have unique skills, expertise, or equipment that are essentially unavailable to others in the department, including other facu lty members and students . Talent quarantine can happen when the un -collegial faculty member refuses to interact with or help others; however, it can also happen when faculty members and students choose to avoid un-collegial faculty members unless they are compelled to interact with them . 94 Before presenting a discussion of these results, I will discuss the usefulness and limitations of the conceptual framework and design of this study . The findings were dependent on the framework and design, and the limitations impact the interpretation of the results . First, I will discuss the usefulness and limitations of the conceptual framework, followed by a discussion of the study design. Usefulness and Limitations of Framewo rk and Study Design The literature directly addressing faculty collegiality includes many theoretical pieces but few empirical studies . Most studies that include collegiality include it as a descriptor of climate and culture of a department, college, or institution, rather than as a set of individual behaviors and attributes . Other studies focused on exploring a variety of factors influencing faculty vitality or productivity and found that behaviors that could be seen as collegiality were factors in those effects (Bland et al., 2002 ). To my knowledge, there is not an existing framework for exploring collegiality. Therefore, I found it necessary to develop a conceptual framework . The literature was useful in developing the conceptual framework . While much of the literature is theoretical, authors described many behaviors and attributes associated with collegiality . The limited empirical research touching collegiality was also useful, as the research offered strength to the argument that collegiality may be associated with not only department culture (Bird et al., 2010 ), but also with productivity (Bland et al., 2002 ). Through the literature, I was able to develop a preliminary framework ( see Figure 1, chapter three) to highlight many behavior s and attributes that faculty members may associate with collegiality, and to suggest the extent to which those behaviors could be considered positive or negative in relation to others . This framework informed the 95 interview protocol and subsequent intervie w discussions . The limitation of the framework was that, since it relied so heavily on theoretical pieces, the behaviors and attributes contained in the framework had little empirical basis for considering how faculty members across a campus perceived coll egiality in their peers, nor how collegiality impacts work and productivity. Figure 2. Refined framework of collegial behaviors and attributes Figure 2 is a refined framework based on the results of this study . The work and social dimensions remain from the preliminary framework, and the themes and subthemes from the research are shown horizontally, with the main themes of caring for others and being self centered shown to encompass the others . The horizontal relationship of the themes roughly represents the most collegial on the right and the most un-collegial on the left, although those relationships and categories were not tested or 96 explored in this study . I have included the remaining behaviors from the preliminary framework as secondary themes on d iagonals . These behaviors are consistent with the results of this study , and remain consistent with the framework suggested by the literature . In the following sections, I will discuss the results of this study, which are reflected in this refined framewor k. Discussion of Results This study included open -ended interview questions, allowing participants to offer their own perspectives and definitions unencumbered by questions specifically about behaviors and attributes identified in the preliminary framework . Additionally, the conceptual framework developed through the literature review offered a springboard for discussing collegiality with faculty members by suggesting concepts for interview probes, and providing the list of behaviors I included on cards off ered to participants, which they used to explore the behaviors they found most influential. Participants discussed what collegiality means to them and what its effects are on individual and department al work . The focus of chapter four was to analyze the in terview data relative to the research questions . The focus of this section is to make sense of those results, observ e possible connections between the primary research questions , and to present foundational arguments for policy, practice, and future resear ch. I will discuss each of the primary research questions by addressing what was expected in the research and what was surprising based on the literature and my hypothesizing. For each question, I will then summarize significant findings . Finally, I will d iscuss implications for practice, policy, and further research. 97 Collegiality I began this dissertation by citing Bloom (2005), who suggested, ÒCollegialityÉis like pornography ÑI know it when I see it.Ó While I understood and agree with BloomÕs assertion, I also argue that defining collegiality more specifically could reduce the ambiguity of the notion, and thus serve to clarify how the term is used and understood . My intent was to explore more deeply how faculty members perceive collegiality a nd its effects . Collegiality is an expectation of employment, and although not often specifically identified in hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions, it is a consideration in each . Finding ways to describe the most important aspects of collegiality and wa ys to de fine its impact on faculty work is a worthwhile effort towards improving collegiality, and thus contribute s to higher education. The prelim inary framework ( see Figure 1, c hapter three ) details what was anticipated . Limited empirical research and abundant the oretical literature suggested many positive and negative behaviors associated with collegiality . Behaviors identified in the literature included those directly connected with working interactions (i.e. collaborating, mentoring) and social (i.e. showing compassion, trusting) interactions. Research on climate and culture suggested that collegiality contributes to environments that allow faculty members to flourish and feel a sense of belonging (Gappa et al., 2007 ; van Emmerik & Sanders, 2004 ). Other literature suggested that faculty members value and expect collegiality from peers (Bird et al., 2010 ), and that collegiality enhances scholarly discourse (Hutcheon, 2006 ). While much of the literature suggested that collegiality could be considered as a threshold of civility, or as an absence of negative behaviors (Cipriano & Buller, 2012 ), 98 there were pieces in the literature that suggested collegiality should be considered as more positive, affirming, and generative (B. Clark, 2001 ; Hutcheon, 2006 ; Seigel, 2005 ; Seigel & Miner -Rubino, 2008 ). I was surprised through the interviews that when I asked specif ically about faculty membersÕ perceptions of collegiality, each participant responded with a description of collegiality as more than a baseline or minimum threshold of civil behaviors. Of the themes that emerged from the data, each participant spoke of ca ring about others and expanding others Õ opportunities and vision as aspects of collegiality: 18 of 23 described collegial behavior as enhancing unity; 17 described collegial peers as having a future orientation; and 15 described collegiality specifically a s a willingness to collaborate in scholarly ways . It should be noted that I coded collaboration as an activity specifically connected to research. I f the coding structure were altered to define collaboration as working together on department matters rather than scholarly collaboration only , all 23 participants could be considered to have included willingness to collaborate as an important aspect of collegiality. Those faculty members in disciplines where research is typically an individual pursuit ( i.e. Sof t/Pure ) were far less likely to talk about collaboration as an aspect of collegiality, although they talked about the importance of working together in department matters. ÒI think of collegiality as being a s ort of a professional altruismÉcolleagues who are devoted to seeing [others] thrive.Ó This statement from Steve was shared in chapter four , and captures the strongest theme of how faculty members perceive collegiality . While there are individual and disci plinary differences, the theme of caring for others was expressed by every faculty member interviewed . While this study is qualitative in 99 nature, and conducted at one institution, it is remarkable that across many disciplines, departments, and colleges, ea ch participant descr ibed collegiality in this way . Each participant described in multiple ways how peers showed professional and personal caring . This caring expressed itself in positive ways, although this shouldnÕt be confused with empty affirmation or e ncouragement. Many participants described mentors who challenged them, colleagues who pushed them to succeed, and peers who added value to research by providing clear evaluative feedback. TaraÕs comment reflects those shared by several participants, ÒI li keÉsomeone who can really give me true comments and really point out what I need to be. I appreciate honest critiques.Ó The sub -themes of expanding others Õ opportunities and vision , unifying groups by including others and sharing the work , investing in o thersÕ success , being helpful in collaborative work , and taking actions that are future oriented can each be described as ways of caring about others, or as expressions of that care. Collegial faculty members act as generous and honest mentors, interested in others Õ success es professionally and personally . They show compassion, understanding that every person has their own set of challenges . They are appreciative, recognizing others Õ strengths and contributions to the department and to the field . They trust that others hold in mind the best interests of their colleagues as well as of the department . They are helpful and friendly, and are aware of and take opportunities to expand othersÕ careers as well as their own . They are valuable collaborators, seeing and creating opportunities to increase the worth and impact of teaching, service, and research projects through partnerships and group work . They see value in including others in decisions, and in sharing the load that is inherent in academic work . They envision and work toward 100 a successful future in a variety of ways, including investing in students, in colleagues , and in the department. This picture of collegiality is at once a summary of my findings and a portrait of an ideal . What would a depar tment be like if the preceding paragraph could describe each faculty member in a department? While the nature of this dissertation study is insufficient to answer this question, interview participants readily expressed their perceptions of the positive ef fects that collegial behaviors had on their work and on the work of the department. The next few paragraphs discuss those effects . Effects of Collegiality The effects of collegiality have not been addressed extensively in the literature . Some effects are implied to be the results of collegiality , such as faculty satisfaction and intent to remain at an institution (Ambrose et al., 2005 ; COACHE, 2007 ), institutional growth (B. Clark, 2001 ), and psychological well -being (Repetti, 1987 ). However, I could find no literature directly exploring the effects of collegial behavior on faculty work individually or collectively in a department . I could find no literature linking collegiality with effects other tha n desirable culture and climate . However, I anticipated that faculty members would respond that collegiality affects not only the climate and culture, but also the ir productivity . As Dawn noted, when collegiality is demonstrated, Ò it can differentiate a de partment from being functioning and being great .Ó Physical and intellectual resources are strengthened through positive emotional experiences (Fredrickson, 2001 ). Most of the responses to the effects of collegiality were consistent with this concept . Nearly all faculty members reported that collegiality contributed to an increased sense of community and a positive 101 culture, a nd about two -thirds of the participants suggested that both personal and departmental energy were increased because of collegiality. I had anticipated that most responses in defining collegiality would focus on a minimum threshold of collegiality after which behavior could not be considered collegial , or perhaps as an absence of un-collegial behaviors (Cipriano & Buller, 2012 ). While some participants did describe a minimum, nearly all described collegiality as more of an ideal set of behaviors that were affirmative (Seigel, 2005 ; Seigel & Miner -Rubino, 2008 ) and generative (Bloom, 2005 ; O'Meara & Terosky, 2010 ). I was interested in the effects of collegiality on productivity, and was surprised that all but one of the faculty participants volunteered that collegiality had a positive effect on individual and dep artmental productivity . What this means is that when I asked what the effects of collegiality on individual and departmental work were, participants shared stories of publications coming faster and more often, service work done efficiently and effectively, and teaching enhanced through sharing. Several of the participants came to epiphanies as they would share their stories . For example, Danna asked me how I was going to identify productivity, suggesting that she didnÕt think collegiality and productivity could be connected . Then as she told her own stories about how experienced researchers mentored junior faculty toward greater success, she realized that productivity was impacted deeply by collegial behavior. Similarly, Josh responded to the question about the effects of collegiality by saying, ÒThankfully, no effect.Ó However, as he described several colleagues who had expanded his career, he said in summary, Ò Without good mentoring you wonÕt succeed professionally.Ó 102 Collegiality, as described by each faculty member interviewed, enhances productivity . The literature connects collegiality with culture and climate, and could be understood to infer that work results can be strengthened through collegial behavio r. The respons es of these participants suggest that collegiality is indeed an important contributor to productivity in scholarship, teaching, and service . Scholarly productivity, as described by faculty members, is strengthened as peers mentor them, helping them identif y opportunities and guiding them through challenges, and as other faculty members give helpful fee dback and reviews of their work and contribute to that work through collaboration . Teaching productivity is enhanced as colleagues share best practices and course outlines, and service is strengthened as faculty members look for and take opportunities to share the administrative load, promote colleagues for opportunities, and work to find and realize a shared vision for the department. There may be a number of reasons that collegiality enhances productivity . For example, s ocial support at work has been shown to strengthen productivity in hospital settings (Kyoung -Ok, Wilson, & Myung Sun, 2004 ). For individuals, positive emotional experiences build physical, intellectual, social, and psychological resources (Fredrickson, 2001), and the quality of work relationships are related to mental and physical well -being, in addition to job satisfaction (Yang, Che, & Spector, 2008 ). Un-Collegiality Un-collegiality in previous literature was usually described as the absence of civility, or as a ctively harming others. As represented in Figure 1, un -collegial behavior includes both negative work behaviors and negative social behaviors . While most study participants were reasonably happy with the levels of collegiality they were currently 103 experienc ing, as the interviews progressed, their examples of un -collegial behavior and its effects on them and the department were sometimes disheartening to them . One of my observations was that simply discussing un -collegiality caused faculty members to have neg ative feelings . For this reason, I shifted my inter view strategies to both begin and end interviews with stories of collegiality. Having earned tenure as a faculty member, and having served as a department head, I anticipated hearing stories of un -collegi al behavior, particularly regarding tenure and promotion situations . I also anticipated stories of un -collegial behaviors during faculty meetings and other service activities . Because of the literature, I expected to hear many stories of undermining and ba ckbiting activities (Ambrose et al., 2005 ). The ide a that un -collegiality is prevalent was unsurprising, as I expected that some participants would be motivated to agree to an interview by having had recent experiences with un -collegial behavior. However, the results did bring surprises . Some of the part icipants seemed, by their own definitions, to be somewhat un -collegial. Finding faculty members willing to reflect on their own shortcomings was surprising. Jack, a senior faculty member in a Hard/Applied discipline , described how being critical of othersÕ areas of study was un -collegial, then proceeded to describe how he himself looked down on several others in the department for their methodological differences, concluding, ÒIÕve probably been a little critical of [others].Ó I was similarly unprepared fo r the immediate emotional effect that discussing collegiality would have on faculty members, although in retrospect I should not have been . As participants described collegiality, they were open in their body language, 104 generous in their descriptions, and a bout two -thirds of the participants chose to begin the interview with office doors open. However, when asked about un -collegiality, not only were doors closed, but participants became physically closed, folding their arms, crossing their legs, shifting mor e often . Although the interview questions were exactly equal in terms of collegiality and un -collegiality, three participants wondered aloud why the interview was so focused on un -collegiality, and asked whether we could explore collegiality further. The two strongest themes emerging from the interviews regarding un -collegiality were negative and self-centered behaviors . Negative behaviors were coded as those behaviors actively harming others, such as backbiting, bullying, and harassing. Self-centered beh aviors were often described explicitly, for example, Òtakes no interest [in others],Ó Òself promoting,Ó Ò takes advantage of colleagues,Ó and Ò[doesnÕt value] different approaches,Ó but they were also described through stories of faculty members who respond ed to perceived injustices by withholding support for others or by actively seeking benefits at the expense of other department members . Such was the case in DawnÕs department, as mentioned in chapter four, where a faculty member negotiated a significant raise outside the established merit pay process, reducing the entire departmentÕs capacity to extend raises due to a fixed budget for increases . It should be noted that negotiating for pay increases was not ever listed as an un -collegial behavior; rather, those who shared these examples identified as un -collegial the act of pursuing pay increases at the (presumably known) expense of other department members. 105 Effects of Un -Collegiality Faculty members descr ibed the effects of un -collegiality as a decrease in efficiency, a sense of isolation (in how they perceived themselves or how they perceived others ), missed opportunities , and an inability to leverage othersÕ talent s and skills, which I have called talent quarantine. These effects were the main themes emerging from interviews, and were described by nearly all participants, with the exception of talent quarantine . Although this theme was identified by only about half of the participants Ñmostly those in the Hard/Applied and Soft/Applied disciplines Ñthe effect on faculty work was described as so strong that I have included it as a main theme . It is important for faculty members and campus leaders interested in how to improve productivity to understand and reduce the effects of un -collegial behavior. From the literature, I anticipated that faculty members experiencing un -collegial behavior would have less of a desire to remain at an institution (Ambrose et al., 2005 ), that they would feel less of a sense of belonging (Anderson, 2008 ), and that they would be less willing to participate in the work of the department (Fischer, 2009 ). My own experience led me to anticipate that productivity would be impacted by un -collegiality, and alsoÑparadoxically Ñthat faculty members would not r eadily acknowledge this because of a strong orientation toward productivity as a measure of success . Said another way, I expected that because the promotion and tenure process is heavily weighted toward research productivity, research participants would se e themselves and others who achieved promotion and tenure as successful, and therefore unaffected by others. Faculty members are expected to be productive, and many interview participants noted that in their responses; however, I found it surprising that 19 of the 23 participants 106 suggested that un -collegial behavior negatively influenced personal and department efficiency, and each shared this idea in multiple ways, including reporting the cost of time spent overcoming un -collegial behavior in department work, redundant or inefficient scholarly efforts, and political maneuvering in all areas of faculty work. Talia was the first interview, and was the most insistent that her work and the work of the department were not impacted by collegiality, although she described in detail how collegiality impacted the culture . As she shared a story about a faculty search in which she had refused to participate because of previous un-collegial behavior by a member of the search committee , I asked whether she thought the outcome of the hire was impacted by her lack of participation . She nodded affirmatively, and then realized that she had given a strong example of how faculty work and the future of the department had been influenced by un -collegiality . While TaliaÕs interview provides a clear example, many participants held similar views . In other words, faculty members may generally perceive that because they are finding success in promotion and tenure, that collegi ality has little effect; however, when examined more carefully through their experiences , most discover ed that relationships with colleagues influence the work of individuals and departments. The effects of un -collegial behavior extend well beyond climate and culture . These effects reach deeply into the basic expectations of faculty work . There is a decrease in efficiency and energy at a personal level as well as at a group level, an isolating effect that prevents faculty members from seeing and taking adva ntage of growth and productive opportunities, and when faculty members are isolated, their talents and skills become unavailable to enhance the academic work of their peers and the 107 department . Faculty members exposed to un -collegial behavior become physica lly or emotionally isolated (Fischer), and the perpetrators isolate themselves as peers avoid them except when necessary . Faculty participants were asked to describe both collegiality and un -collegiality . As I coded the responses, there were many more responses describing collegiality than un-collegiality . However , as I described earlier , three faculty members commented during the interview that they felt I had focused heavily on the negative at the expense o f positive examples . Therefore, I decided after the first several interviews to end with their observations of the most impactful collegial behaviors, because I observed that when participants described un -collegial behaviors , there was a noticeable dampen ing of their mood, which recovered as they spoke of collegial behaviors . While this phenomenon is consistent with other literature that suggests our emotions are affected by how we speak and interact with others (Cappella, 1995 ), it may be useful in future studies to examine the effects of talking about coll egiality and un -collegiality . Additional Observations I only conducted one interview with a faculty member in a Hard/Pure discipline . His stories indicated that, at least in his department, the ability to do pure research was diminish ing because funding organizations were increasingly rewarding applied research. This had pushed him to engage in more collaborative research work and to acknowledge a deeper need for relationships with department peers as well as members of his own lab . If this shift toward collaboration is common in the Hard/Pure disciplines , more research could be done to learn how to help faculty members navigate the shift in scholarly effort toward a more collaborative approach. 108 Summary of Discussion In this section, I have discussed both those results that were anticipated and those that were surprising in collegiality, un -collegiality, and the effects of each . Importantly, I have discussed key implications emerging from my study of collegiality and un -collegiality . Prior to summarizing this discussion, I will discuss some observations that are not easily situated within my individual research questions in an effort to synthesize the ideas around collegiality. There is a connection between collegiality and productivity, and un -collegiality and a loss of productivity . Collegiality connects faculty members to each other with a social bond based upon mutual caring . Caring for others is expressed in social and work behaviors, and creates both enhanced feelings o f belonging and satisfaction, and opportunities for increased productivity . Caring for others certainly includes, but is not limited to , behaviors typically associated with affirming others. Rather, it is doing what is best for others to help them succee d, including criticizing them or challenging them when motivated by genuine interest and care. Un-collegiality, in contrast, is characterized by self -centeredness, and has a tendency to encourage isolation as faculty members try to avoid negative interacti ons or build their own suppor t structures . Un-collegiality creates inefficiencies as faculty members spend time and energy trying to protect themse lves from negative interactions and overcoming selfish behaviors of others . Perhaps most importantly, un -coll egiality causes missed opportunities as faculty members isolate themselves from others and from opportunities that interactions provide . Scholars have described a minimum threshold or baseline collegiality , referring to the absence of harm, tolerance, and civility as compared to affirmative collegiality, which 109 has a productive, generative effect (Bloom, 2005 ; Cipriano & Buller, 2012 ; O'Meara & Terosky, 2010 ; Seigel, 2005 ; Seigel & Miner -Rubino, 2008 ). The results of this study strengthen the argument that affirmative collegiality has a positive impact on many aspects o f faculty work and life, including productivity. Additionally these results suggest that baseline collegiality has a neutral effect on faculty work and life, while un -collegiality has a negative impact. Collegial behaviors and attributes are passed on as cultural artifacts to students and future faculty members, as are un -col legial behaviors and attributes . That is , interaction behaviors among faculty and students provide cues as to what kind of behavior is acceptable and expected in a particular culture . The behaviors are evidences, or artifacts, of the culture, and are perpetuated . Each faculty member interviewed was readily able to recognize and define collegiality and un -collegiality, and the themes across the disciplines were remarkably consistent . As I interviewed faculty members, a few described changes in department collegiality over time . They described how new facu lty members changed the culture by introducing new perspectives and practices, and in some cases , how it took a number of new faculty m embers to influence a culture . Some discussed how department heads impacted c ollegiality for better or worse, indicating that department heads have a crucial role in establishing and cultivating collegial behaviors and cultures . Finally, they explained tha t cultural change is not easy to implement in established departmental cultures, despite concerted efforts by individuals . In the following sections, I will discuss some possible considerations for policy and practice related to improving collegiality and diminishing un -collegiality. 110 Implications for Policy and Practice The results of this study, although explorative in nature, suggest that leaders in higher education may be wise to invest in collegiality as a distinct and desirable set of behaviors and attributes in individuals, and as a cultural dimension of academic units and institutions . In this section, I will discuss possible implications for policy at institutional, college, and department levels, and then suggest possible practices that could be considered to encourage collegial behaviors . While it is possible to create policy and practice to discourage, or even punish, un -collegial behavior, for the purposes of this dissertation, I will focus primarily on encouraging the most desirable behaviors. Before discussing policy and practice, I acknowledge concerns and challenges associated with considering collegiality as part of both policy and practice . As I discussed in chapter two , some faculty members who have failed to achieve tenure or had other negative reviews because of a lack of collegiality have turned to the courts, claiming a violation of rights and discrimination (Connell & Savage, 2 001). The American Association of University Professors ( AAUP) has published a statement discouraging departments and institutions from using collegiality as a fourth dimension of evaluation (AAUP, 2006 ). The AAUP statement suggests that doing so may encourage homogeneity and discourage academic freedom . This statement conclude s by encouraging in stitutions to develop clear definitions of teaching, scholarship, and service that mention the strengths associated with collegiality . While the lawsuits reviewed by Connell and Savage were decided in favor of the institutions, thus suggesting that collegi ality may be a determining factor in faculty review, I recognize the importance of the concerns raised by the AAUP . Departments and institutions can and should, as the AAUP statement 111 suggests, define collegial behaviors that have salutary effects on teachi ng, scholarship, and service. Therefore, as I discuss potential policies and practices associated with encouraging collegiality, I offer the framework suggested by this study as an aid to help faculty and administrators define behaviors associated with col legiality. Policy Institutions have an interest in generating knowledge, educating students, and serving society at large . If, as I argued initially, institutions are a reflection of individual members, policies that encourage and support the highest levels of performance from individuals could have significant institutional impact . Higher education institutions always have policies that encourage excellence in research, teaching, and service, but they could also include policies that require or encour age collegiality, and some that help prevent or discourage un -collegiality. At the institutional level , policies could be implemented that encourage colleges and departments to include collegial behavior as part of their hiring, promotion, and tenure evalu ation . It is important to acknowledge concerns about including collegiality as a component of evaluation, including concerns that individuals could be unfairly judged. Therefore, institutional policies should encourage colleges and departments to define guidelines that address collegiality in contexts that allow for specific behaviors to be identified and encouraged. University awards could be established that recognize excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service that have been enhanced or facilitated by collegial practices . Also, existing university awards could include as part of their criteria evidence of or descriptions of how collegiality has contributed to excellence . 112 At the college level, in addition to awards and faculty review processes, colle giality could be considered as a component of merit pay decisions . Academic deans can encourage collegiality by integrating policies and practices to send clear messages that collegial behavior is expected, encouraged, and rewarded . Because collegiality ca n positively influence departmental productivity, collegiality could be made part of department evaluation processes . While the results of this study suggest that collegiality has its own rewards and un -collegiality its own costs, policies may help establi sh and strengthen a desired culture of collegiality. At the department level, department bylaws and review guidelines may include expectations of collegiality, with clear examples of what constitutes baseline expectations, and what constitutes excellence, as well as examples of undesirable and unacceptable behaviors . These behaviors may be connected with the three primary responsibilities of faculty work, teaching, research, and service . Departments may establish collegiality as a requirement for promotion , tenure, and post -tenure reviews, as well as for merit pay evaluation . Criteria for evaluation could include behaviors that constitute a minimum threshold of collegiality as well as behaviors that constitute high levels of collegiality. I again recognize the danger of ambiguous requirements in faculty review processes . However, this and future studies of collegiality can provide eviden ce of the value of collegiality and the costs of un -collegiality, and can establish the relative value of different behavio rs to departments. Departments can make their evaluation and reward structures clearly understood (Massy et al., 1994 ), and more transparent by having open d ialogue and shared decision making regarding curriculum, teaching assignments, leaves and sabbaticals, and other 113 elements of faculty work . These efforts help establish or reaffirm that department governance is a collegial endeavor, in this case referring t o collegiality as an organizational structure, with governance shared by a collection of diverse, equal members. Practice The results of this study suggest some preliminary practices that could be implemented in departments to increase collegial behavior among faculty members. Two of the faculty participants in this study were currently serving as department heads . Their interest throughout the ir interview s was in how collegiality could be spread, or established in their respective departments . Two other f aculty members, both from the same department, spoke of their department head as par ticularly adept at cultivating culture s of collegial behavior . Most participants shared stories or comments regarding how department leadership contributed to collegiality or un-collegiality at the department level . Department al practices My experience in this study suggests that faculty members can define the collegial and un -collegial behaviors that effect their work individually , and the work of the department. Departmen ts can engage in discussions to identify and come to consensus on these behaviors. Once identified, departments can determine how those behaviors are identified and evaluated as part of performance reviews, or can encourage collegial behaviors through othe r activities among current and potential faculty members. Collegiality creates an opportunity for the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. I shared in chapter four JaredÕs observation that when faculty member s are 114 collegial, their expertise can b e shared with others. He explained that helping another might cost the helper ten minutes, but save another two hours . This and other examples demonstrate that collegiality is not only beneficial for individuals, but for departments. Department leaders wishing to cultivate collegiality can engage in efforts to encourage collegial behaviors . Cultures can be influenced by institutional stories, and departments can publicly share stories of the effort to improve collegiality (Clark, 2001) . Collegiality is expected and valued by faculty members, and indeed is valuable . Covert efforts to improve collegiality may have some usefulness, but making a stated department project of establishing or improving collegiality may yield positive results , with every departm ent member invited to participate . Cultural practices are established through stories (Hatch & Schultz, 1997 ; Martin, Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983 ), and shared stories of faculty members demonstrating various ways of caring for each other may become curated evidence of a growing culture of collegiality. Departments can develop and implement ways to demonstrate the value of each department member as a way to increase collegiality . About one -third of the faculty participants when describing collegiality talked of being rec ognized for the value they brought to the department. Evelyn and Pete, who serve in the same department, both described a department practice of displaying current faculty work prominently as visitors entered their department office area . Pete described th e practice as evidence of appreciation, while Evelyn described the same practice as more of a public relations effort . While the scope of this research is not able to offer explanation for these different perspectives, it is important for campus members and leaders to understand that efforts to increase collegiality are likely to be interpreted in individual ways. 115 Encouraging professional and social interaction (Taylor et al., 2006 ) is another way that departments can cultivate collegiality among faculty members . Most of the interview participants in this study described collegial and un -collegial behaviors in ways related to both work and social interactions, and most also talked about the importance of social events as part of building collegiality among faculty members . While the importance of working with friends is uncertain, as about half of the participants s hared examples of collegial behavior from peers they didnÕt consider friends, all talked about the importance of pleasant professional interactions. Hiring practices could include efforts to identify candidates who are likely to be collegial . That said, on e of the implications of this study is that collegiality is not synonymous with sameness, nor of Òliking another.Ó Rather, specific types of behaviors that can be observed and evaluated define collegiality . Efforts to create diversity in departments could be undermined by unclear expectations and definitions of collegiality . However, clear definitions of expected collegial behavior could be valuable in evaluating potential candidates . With a clear understanding of what constitutes collegial and un -collegia l behavior in a department, interviews and other hiring activities could be designed to include opportunities for candidates to demonstrate those behaviors; at a very simple level, indications of whether a candidate demonstrates care for others or self -centeredness could provide helpful insight to a hiring committee, and search committee chairs could ask specific questions of references to gain some understanding of a candidateÕs previous collegial behaviors . Hiring committees are typically making long -term decisions, and while a successful hire strengthens the department, hiring someone who is un -collegial may be a liability for decades . Those who train or orient hiring 116 committees could lead discussions about the risks of hiring individuals who demonstrate or are known to demonstrate un -collegial behaviors , and the value of hiring those who demonstrate defined collegial behaviors . Collegiality could be monitored periodically to maintain positive psychological wellbeing among department members (Repetti, 1987 ). This could be accomplished through regularly scheduled interviews with department heads, or through periodic surveys. This would help enable departments to respond proactively to changes through time, particularly when departments may be vulnerable because of external pressures and changes, or to internal changes, such as when department leadership changes or new faculty are hired . These suggestions are consistent with others, including those recommended by Gappa et al (2007), that faculty members be incl uded in governance, that they are offered opportunities to participate in roles appropriate to their experience and appointment, that institutions find ways to involve faculty members in the institutional community, that gathering spaces be provided for in formal interactions, and that formal academic sharing opportunities be widely available. Individual practice The simplicity of the model resulting from this research suggests several approaches for individual practice . Faculty members have significant a utonomy in how they approach their work . If improving collegiality were an individual goal, then a personal inventory of how an individual both cares for others and also demonstrates such care would be an appropriate beginning . Faculty members could then m ake efforts, either systematically or spontaneously, to increase their collegial behaviors . 117 My own observations and experiences lead me to believe that individual efforts would prove fruitful in promoting collegiality in a department . For example, a facu lty member could choose to focus on the work -related collegial behaviors of showing personal interest in other sÕ work in a variety of ways such as acknowledging a recent publication, attending a lecture or research presentation, or noting a possible collab orative partnership and facilitating an introduction . Individual faculty members could also practice collegiality in social behaviors by noting important events or relationships in othersÕ lives and acknowledging them . Importantly, there is evidence that emotions are contagious, and individuals may productively engage in collegial behaviors specifically as a way to influence department al collegiality (Barsade, 2002 ; Borgatti & Foster, 2003 ; Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005 ). Further Research Since there are few empirical studies of collegial behavior, and the effects of collegiality on productivity is largely unexplored, there are many potential research directions. This study is an exploratory stu dy, and as such does not offer information that can be generalized to all faculty members. However, the results of this study help refine what is known about collegiality and offers a framework for further study . In this section, I will offer possible oppo rtunities for further research, along with practical rationale for pursuing this research . Researchers may wish to examine collegiality in these ways : (a) research designed to test and further develop the framework of colle giality presented in this study; (b) research designed to test the relationships between collegial beh aviors and faculty productivity; (c) research designed to identify collegiality in individuals ; and (d) research designed to understand how faculty members and campus leaders may affect 118 collegiality . Many of these studies could be done with larger sample sizes, increasing opportunities for generalization. This dissertation study explored in part the definitions of collegiality. In order to understand how participants defined collegiality, I asked them about their experiences with people rather than about their definition of the concept itself. This approach allowed their definitions to emerge from their experiences, and provided rich data. I then offered participants cards containing behavi ors and asked them to identify those behaviors that had been most influential in their faculty experience. This approach provided additional insight as participants selected and then explained their selections. This approach to interviews facilitated the e xploration of working definitions of collegiality, based on faculty membersÕ experiences, and generated connections from behaviors to productivity. The results of this study suggest a framework for considering collegiality . This framework could be tested and developed in at least the following ways : (a) researchers could examine whether the main themes of self-centeredness and caring for others are consistent with a larger sample size, and (b) whether the sub -themes are consistent and generalizable . Additionally, the results of this study suggest possible additions to collegiality assessments like the Collegiality Assessment Matrix developed by Cipriano & Buller (2012) to include behaviors that are not only representative of baseline collegiality (i. e. civility , respectfulness) but other collegial behaviors that may be associated with strengthening individual and departmental productivity, such as expanding behaviors (i.e. introducing others to new opportunities and resources), unifying behaviors (i.e . including others in conversations, willingness to hear othersÕ opinions), or showing appreciation. Such additions would facilitate not only a recognition 119 of baseline collegiality, but also of affirmative collegiality (Seigel, 2005; Seigel & Miner -Rubino, 2008). The framework could be used to test the relationships between collegial behaviors and faculty productivity . While the findings of this study suggest that faculty members see a relationship between collegiality and productivity, additional studies with larger sample sizes and clear definitions of productivity would be useful in establishing the value of collegial behaviors . Figure 3. Framework for further study Using the prel iminary framework introduced in chapter three, then refined in chapter four, I offer a Figure 3 as a framework for future research of collegiality in relation to individual and departmental outcomes. Collegial and un -collegial behaviors and attributes appe ar to contribute to faculty members feeling either more connected or 120 more isolated, which can lead to a range of outcomes . Both work -related behaviors and social behaviors were included in this study and deserve further research . Research that would resul t in an ability to identify levels of collegiality in individuals would be particularly helpful to hiring committees. This research could be conducted to develop and test assessment tools that could reliably identify individuals who demonstrate collegial b ehaviors and attributes. Finally, the results of this study suggest that campus leaders may wish to find ways to increase collegiality in departments . Further research could be conducted to understand more about how department or college leaders can impact collegiality through various activities . For example, Laura and Charles participated in interviews, and both were serving as department heads at the time of the interview . Both were strongly of the opinion that collegiality had an impact on department al productivity. Laura had taken an active role in trying to increase collegiality through department retreats and social activities, while Charles felt that his best strategy was to manage around some difficult faculty members until their retirement and bui ld a collegial faculty through hiring . Research that could test strategies for successfully influencing collegiality from a leaderÕs perspective would be valuable. Concluding Remarks Increasing the effectiveness of higher education in the areas of teachin g, scholarship, and service is an aim of many stakeholders . While there are many ways to study and address this aim, the purpose of this dissertation study was to explore collegiality, an area that may have significant impact on individual and depart ment al productivity . The main objective was to explore how faculty members underst ood 121 behaviors and attributes that may be described as collegial or un -collegial, and to explore how faculty members perceived the effects of those behaviors on individual and depar tmental productivity . The results of this study suggest that faculty members recognize what constitutes collegial and un -collegial behavior, and that they recognize that these behaviors have an impact on individual and departmental work. The results helps strengthen the argument that collegiality matters, not only by making the workplace more pleasant, but also by making it more productive. Collegiality may be an important strategic intervention that contributes to the effectiveness of individuals, departm ents, colleges, and institutions. An important finding was that faculty members from many disciplines understood both collegial and un -collegial behaviors similarly, and that each participant was able to share stories of how those behaviors impacted indi vidual and department al work . A number of practices and policies could be implemented as a result of this study; however, much remains to be examined to generate deep understanding of the value of collegiality and the costs of un -collegiality . Similarly, a dditional empirical studies are needed to develop practices and policies that will lead to collegial, productive individuals, departments, and institutions. 122 APPENDICES 123 APPENDIX A Table A1 . Interview Protocol Table Research Questions Interview Questions How do faculty members perceive collegial behavior in their peers? ¥ How would you describe people who are collegial? o What are the most important aspects of collegial behavior? o What makes you say that these are the most important aspects? o Will you tell about someone who exemplifies collegial behavior? o What does this person do that is especially collegial? ¥ How would you describe people who are un -collegial? o What are the most significant un -collegial behaviors or attributes ? o What makes you say that these are the most significant? o Will you tell about someone who is especially un -collegial? o What does this person do that is especially un-collegial? 124 Table A1 (contÕ d) What are the effects of collegiality on individual and departmental work? ¥ How does collegiality affect your work? ¥ How does collegiality affect the work in this department (and other departments you are working in) ? ¥ You shared examples of colleague(s) who are highly collegial. o How does their collegiality af fect your work? o How does an interaction with them affect you? o How do their behaviors and actions affect others in your department (or group)? ¥ You shared examples of colleague(s) who are un-collegial . o How do they affect your work? o How does an interaction with them affect you? o How do their behaviors and actions affect others in your department (or group)? ¥ Here is a collection of cards listing various faculty behaviors . o Please select three cards that you think express behaviors that have the most positive impact on your work and the work of your colleagues. For each card, explain how that behavior has such positive impact. 125 Table A1 (contÕd) o Second, please select three cards that you think express behaviors that have the most negative impact on your work and the work of your colleagues . For each card, explain why and how that behavior has such negative impact. o If there are behaviors not listed, will you please write them on these blank cards? ¥ Please describe the extent to which you think your departme nt is collegial. o What does collegiality mean in your department? o How has your department changed in terms of collegiality (either more negative or more positive) over the last five years? o Why did that change occur? How did that change affect your work an d life within the department? 126 APPENDIX B Interview Protocol Collegiality Interview Protocol Introduction To facilitate our note taking, we would like to record our conversation today. Please sign the consent form. For your information, only researchers involved in this project will have access the recording . The recording will be eventually destroyed after it is transcribed. Essentially, this document states that: (1) all information will be held confidential, (2) your participation is volunt ary and you may stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do not intend to inflict any harm. Thank you for your agreeing to participate. We have planned this interview to last no longer than one hour. During this time, we have several questio ns that we would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to interrupt you in order to push ahead and complete this line of questioning. The research project concerns how faculty members perceive and understand collegial behavior . This study does not concern your level of collegiality . Rather, we are trying to learn about how faculty attributes and behaviors express collegiality, and how such behaviors impact other faculty members and departments. A. Interviewee Background How long have you beenÉ _______ in your present position? _______ at this institution? Disciplinary characteristics and department work : What is your field of study? ____________________________________________ Do you work extensively in an interdisciplinary unit, or have a joint appointment? 127 B. Interview Questions 1. There are many ways to think of collegiality ÑweÕre exploring collegiality as a way of describing individuals . How would you describe people who are collegial? ( additional prompts for most important aspects, specific individuals, descriptions of typical interactions, and specific attributes and behaviors) 2. How does collegiality affect your work? You shared examples of colleague(s) who are especially collegial . How does their collegiality affect your work? How do they affect the work of others in your department (or group)? 3. On the other side, how would you describe people who are un -collegial? ( Additional prompts for most important aspects, specific individ uals, descriptions of typical interactions, and specific attributes and behaviors) 4. You shared an example of someone who is un -collegial Ñhow does this person affect your work? The work of others in the department (or group)? 5. Here is a collection of cards listing various faculty behaviors . Please select three cards that you think express behaviors that have the most positive impact on your work and the work of your colleagues . For each card, explain how that behavior has such positive impact. If there are behaviors not listed, will you please write them on these blank cards? 6. Second, please select three cards that you think express behaviors that have the most negative impact on your work and the work of your colleagues . For each card, explain why a nd how that behavior has such negative impact. If there are behaviors not listed, will you please write them on these blank cards? 7. Please describe the extent to which you think your department is collegial . What does collegiality mean in your departmen t? How has your department changed in terms of collegiality (either more negative or more positive) over the last five years? Why did that change occur? How did that change affect your work and life within the department? If negative, what could have bee n done differently? 128 APPENDIX C Dissertation Study Email Invitation Email Header: Participate in a Qualitative Study Body of the Email: CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS The collegial effect : An exploratory study of how faculty members perceive collegiality and its effects on individuals and departments. (Ph.D. Dissertation) Purpose of the Study: The purpose of the proposed study is to explore and explain what collegial behavior means to faculty members in various disciplines, and how they perceive it to affect faculty work in dividually and in departments. Selection Criteria: Participants who are interested in the study must: 1. Be a tenured or tenure -track faculty member. 2. Have served between 5 -8 years at the institution. To Participate in the Study : Please contact Ray Robinson, visiting scholar from Michigan State University to arrange a formal, in -person interview at robin625@msu.edu . Should you have any questions relative to your participation in the study , you may contact Dr. Ann E. Austin Professor in Educational Administ ration, 419A Erickson Hall, 129 Michigan State University, by phone: (517) 355-6757, or email address: aaustin@msu.edu . Additionally, i f you have ques tions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research Protection Program at 517 -355-2180, Fax 517 -432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. Sincerely, Ray Robinson, Doctoral Candidate Higher , Adult , & Lifelong Education 130 APPENDIX D Research Participant Information and Informed Consent Form Study Title: The collegial effect : An exploratory study of how faculty members perceive collegiality and its effects on individuals and departments. Principal Investigator: Dr. Ann E. Austin, Professor in Educational Administration Michigan State University 419A Erickson Hall East Lansing, MI 48823 *517 -355-6757* aaustin@msu.edu Additional Researcher: Raymond Robinson , Doct oral Candidate Michigan State University 630 Pheasant Circle Bountiful, UT 84010 *801 -361-4277* robin625@msu.edu PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: ¥ The visiting scholar/researcher from Michigan State University, Raymond Robinson, is conduct ing a qualitative research st udy about perceptions of collegiality and its effects on individual and department work. The r esults of the study will be presented in the researcherÕs doctoral dissertation, at scholarly conferences, and in publications. 131 PROCEDURES: ¥ You will be asked to answer semi -struct ured, open -ended questions regarding your perceptions and experiences with collegiality and its effects on your work and the work of your department. ¥ The interview will be audio recorded . ¥ You will have access to the final report upon request. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION: ¥ You are under no obligatio n to participate in this study . Participation in this study is strictly voluntary . No compensation of any kind is offered. ¥ You may withdraw your participation at any time without prejudice . Your information will be discarded at the time of withdrawal. ¥ You have the option to not answer any question you feel is not applicable or inappropriate. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: ¥ Should you have any questions about anything rela tive to your par ticipation in this project, you may contact Dr. Ann E. Austin, Profess or in Educational Administration, 419A Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, by ph one: (517) 355-6757, or email address: aausti n@msu.edu . ¥ If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymous ly if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517 -432-4503, or e-mail ir b@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824 INFORMED CONSENT AGREEMENT: ¥ You are indicating your voluntary agreement to participate in this study by beginning this interview and signing this consent form. _______________________________________ ________________________ Signature and Please Print Name Date 132 REFERENCES 133 REFERENCES AAUP. (2006). On collegiality as a criterion for faculty evaluation AAUP policy documents and reports (10th ed.). Altbach, P. G. (2005). Harsh realities: The professoriate faces a new century. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gump ort (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty -first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for assessing faculty satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46 (7), 803-830. Anderson, J. L. (2008). The influence of collegial communication on faculty perceptions of departmental climate. (PhD Dissertation), The University of Arizona, Tucson. (UMI 3303752) Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1977). What is an organization that it can learn? In C. Argyris & D. A. Schon (Eds.), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (pp. 8-29). Reading, MA: Addison -Wesley. Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leaders hip reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change : W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Austin, A. (1994). Understanding and assessing faculty cultures and climates. New Directions for Institutional Research (84), 47-63. Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultu res, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional Research (68), 61-74. Austin, A. E. (1996). Institutional and departmental cultures: The relationship between teaching and research. New Directions for Institutional Research (90). Barsade, S. G. (2002) . The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 47 (4), 644-675. Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester -on-Thames), 19 (2), 151. Bennett, J. B. (1998). Collegial professionalism: The academy, individualism, and the common good . Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university depart ments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (3), 204-213. 134 Bird, S. R., Rhoton, L., Fehr, C., & Larson, L. (2010). ISU ADVANCE collaborative transformation project: Rounds 1 and 2 - Focal department synthesis report Iowa State University ADVANCE Program : Iowa State University. Bland, C. J., Seaquist, E., Pacala, J. T., Center, B., & Finstad, D. (2002). One school's strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty. Academic Medicine, 77(5), 368-376. Bloom, L. (2005). Collegiality, the game. Symploke, 13(1/2), 207 -218. Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29 (6), 991-1013. Cappella, J. N. (1995). Inoculating against emotional contagion. Contemporary Psychology, 40 (7), 2. Chalofsky, N. (2003). An emerging construct for meaningful work. Human Resource Development International, 6 (1), 69-83. Cipriano, R. E., & Buller, J. L. (2012). Rating faculty collegiality. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44 (2), 45-48. Clark, B. (2001). The entrepreneurial university: New foundations for collegiality, autonomy, and achievement. Higher Education Management, 13 (2), 9-24. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross -national p erspective . Berkely, CA: University of California Press. COACHE. (2007). COACHE Highlights Report Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education [COACHE] . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Collegiality. (1999) (10th ed.). Merriam -Webster, Incorpo rated. Connell, M. A., & Savage, F. G. (2001). Does collegiality count? Academe, 87 (6), 4. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fischer, M. (2009) . Defending collegiality. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(3), 20-25. Fredrickson, B. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden -and -build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 218-226. Gappa , J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work . San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. 135 Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5/6), 356 -365. Hatfield, R. D. (2006). Collegiality in higher education: Toward an understanding of the factors involved in collegiality. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conflict, 10 (1), 11-19. Hutcheon, L. (2006). Saving collegiality. Profession, 2006 (1), 60-64. Katula, R. A., & Doody, A. (1990). The collegiality model: An alternative for evaluating faculty productivity. Association for Communication Administration Bulletin (74), 74-82. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society (pp. 232-255). San Francisco, CA: Jossey -Bass Inc. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Kyoung -Ok, P., Wilson, M. G., & Myung Sun, L. (2004). Effects of social support at work on depression and organizational productivity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28 (5), 444-455. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Adm inistrative Science Quarterly, 28 (3), 438-453. Massy, W. F., Wilger, A. K., & Colbeck, C. (1994). Overcoming "hollowed" collegiality. Change, 26 (4), 10-20. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods . Beverly Hills: Sage Publicaions. O'Meara, K. A., & Terosky, A. L. P. (2010). Engendering faculty professional growth. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42 (6), 44-51. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousan d Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Repetti, R. L. (1987). Individual and common components of the social environment at work and psychological well -being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (4), 710-720. Riccardi, R. L. (2012). Researching co llegiality: Can we all get along? Academic Leader: The Newsletter for Academic Deans and Department Chairs, 28 (8), 1-6. 136 Seigel, M. L. (2005). On collegiality. Legal Education Digest, 14 (2), 406-441. Seigel, M. L., & Miner -Rubino, K. (2008). Collegiality III: An analysis of data pertaining to collegiality among law professors University of Florida Legal Studies Research Paper (pp. 2): University of Florida Levin College of Law. Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the l eader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (2), 295-305. Tapper, T., & Palfreyman, D. (2002). Understanding collegiality: The changing Oxbridge model. Tertiary Education and Mana gement, 8 (1), 47-63. Taylor, S. B., Kim, S., Dessart, J., Adams, T. D., & Green, J. W. (2006). Collegiality: Statements from chairs. Profession, 2006 (1), 95-99. U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, N. C. E. S. (1997). Definition s for new race and ethnicity categories. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/definitions.asp van Emmerik, H., & Sanders, K. (2004). Social embeddedness and job performance of tenured and non -tenured professionals. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(1), 40-54. Waters, M. (1989). Collegiality, bureaucratization, and professionalization: A Weberian analysis. The A merican Journal of Sociology, 94 (5), 945-972. Yang, L. -Q., Che, H., & Spector, P. E. (2008). Job stress and well -being: An examination from the view of person -environment fit. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81 (3), 567-587. Zusman, A. (2005). Challenges facing higher education in the twenty -first century. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty -first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 115-160). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.