The enigma of collegiality: collegiality frames and institutional logics in US higher education.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The enigma of collegiality: collegiality frames and institutional logics in US higher education.
Authors: Yamamoto, Ryoko1 (AUTHOR) yamamotor@oldwestbury.edu
Source: Higher Education (00181560). Jun2025, Vol. 89 Issue 6, p1569-1586. 18p.
Subject Terms: *Content analysis, Social skills, Coworker relationships, Employment policy, Frames (Social sciences), Institutional logic
Abstract: The principle of collegiality is one of the philosophical backbones of academic tradition. However, in the USA, institutional policies that aim to enforce collegiality have met strong opposition. This paper examines the framings of collegiality in American higher education and underlying institutional logics through qualitative content analysis of the Chronicle of Higher Education articles published between 2013 and 2022. The analysis identified six collegiality frames: Communal Ties, Collective Responsibilities, Likability/Interpersonal Skills, Cultural Fit, Willingness to Serve, and Coerced Conformity. Most typically, collegiality is portrayed as a characteristic of the faculty community marked by collaborative interactions. The framing of collegiality as communal ties is often accompanied by a "narrative of loss" (Kligyte & Barrie, 2014). Career advice articles targeting academic job seekers and faculty review candidates frame collegiality as a desirable individual quality and an implicit yet crucial criterion in peer evaluation. In contrast, articles discussing institutional policies and employment disputes offer a more critical framing, presenting a view of collegiality as an euphemism for coerced conformity and an instrument for managerial control. This paper contends that the divergent collegiality framings reflect the interplay of competing institutional logics and logic casting within the higher education landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Higher Education (00181560) is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Description
Abstract:The principle of collegiality is one of the philosophical backbones of academic tradition. However, in the USA, institutional policies that aim to enforce collegiality have met strong opposition. This paper examines the framings of collegiality in American higher education and underlying institutional logics through qualitative content analysis of the Chronicle of Higher Education articles published between 2013 and 2022. The analysis identified six collegiality frames: Communal Ties, Collective Responsibilities, Likability/Interpersonal Skills, Cultural Fit, Willingness to Serve, and Coerced Conformity. Most typically, collegiality is portrayed as a characteristic of the faculty community marked by collaborative interactions. The framing of collegiality as communal ties is often accompanied by a "narrative of loss" (Kligyte & Barrie, 2014). Career advice articles targeting academic job seekers and faculty review candidates frame collegiality as a desirable individual quality and an implicit yet crucial criterion in peer evaluation. In contrast, articles discussing institutional policies and employment disputes offer a more critical framing, presenting a view of collegiality as an euphemism for coerced conformity and an instrument for managerial control. This paper contends that the divergent collegiality framings reflect the interplay of competing institutional logics and logic casting within the higher education landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00181560
DOI:10.1007/s10734-024-01290-2