THE SECRET ACADEMIA

THE SYSTEMIC AND CULTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICES OF ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

CALL FOR CHAPTERS FOR EDITED BOOK

The volume editors:

Mariusz Finkielsztein (University of Gdańsk, Poland)

mariusz.finkielsztein@gmail.com

Izabela Wagner (Université Paris Cité, France)

izabela.wagner@u-paris.fr

The academic field is a competitive job market in developed countries, forming part of a social and intellectual elite where prestige and position within an internal hierarchy determine access to key resources and power. This hierarchical system, often referred to as the “Ivory Tower,” shapes the socialization within the academic community (Bourdieu, 1984). Although meritocracy is officially promoted, it is not always the primary criterion for selecting newcomers (Lewis, 1997). As in other professional and educational environments, participants’ actions are not limited to the stated goals of transmitting and producing knowledge. These actions also include practices perceived as “misconduct” by participants. Socially constructed, this term refers to any practice that contradicts the stated ideology, such as when meritocracy is supposed to be the key selection element, but powerful scholars exploit their younger collaborators. For years the major “transgression” considered by scholars as the sin or specific misconduct particular to their work was “plagiarism,” copying the publications of others without acknowledging their authorship. Other practices, referred to by Julie Hansen and Ingela Nilsson (2022) as “power abuse,” were until recently (with the wave of #MeToo campaigns) rarely the subject of research in social sciences.

According to Hansen and Nilsson (2022), the editors of the recent book Critical Storytelling: Experiences of Power Abuse in Academia, the narratives about power abuse in academia “comprise a necessary first step toward change” (p. 1), challenging the academic culture of silence. The aim of the proposed book is to take the inevitable second step—i.e., we are collecting analyses of practices and processes of academic misconduct. We would like to go further than the enumeration of various case studies and we propose a new discussion with the hope of better understanding systemic and cultural aspects of power abuses.

Although for centuries, silence has surrounded power abuse practices, in recent years we have witnessed an increasing number of confessions and cases of first-hand documentation of ‘academic misconduct’ of various kinds. The occurrences of bullying (Mahmoudi, 2020; Täuber and Mahmoudi (2022), sexual harassment (Karami et al., 2020; Pritchard & Edwards, 2023; Tenbrunsel, Rees & Diekmann, 2019), discrimination (e.g. sexism and racism, Bourabain, 2021), and other forms of power abuse in academic workplaces, defined as “using one’s position of power to take advantage of a person in an inferior position for personal gain or to harm said person” (UNESCO, 2020 in Lasser et al., 2021, p. 50), are not the problem of particular institutions but a collective issue of the whole academic field. Yet, “an open conversation about [and analysis of] why they [instances of power abuse] occur so frequently at universities is sorely missing” (Schier, 2022, p. 80).  This call is the response to that statement—we are inviting an open conversation about power abuses in academia.

The ‘academic misconduct’ practices are frequently interpreted as cases of accidental “bad apples” that spoil the academic tree. Rarely do the insiders of the academic world interpret such situations in terms of a consequence of the ordinary functioning of the academic system(s) and the unspoken (invisible while well-incorporated) pattern of an academic culture(s)?  We claim that the problem lies deeper—that it is not a perfunctory problem that can be solved by normative and bureaucratic means involving making effective complaints (Ahmed, 2021), or a personal problem of some academics with psychological issues, but that it constitutes the direct or indirect outcome of the structural qualities of the academic system that create circumstances conducive to power abuse.

The aim of the proposed book is to look for similarities between various university environments (states) — to study structural, institutional, and cultural parallels providing evidence that will show the invisible processes and mechanisms. We also hope that this study will help to understand how it works and will enable to propose some systemic, and institutional solutions.

We wish to collect chapters analyzing cases and mechanisms of power abuse in academia, and the analysis of power relationships and of systemic, institutional, cultural and any other factors that provide opportunities and enable abusers to flourish in academia—to pursue their professional life as if nothing happened and suffering no consequences for their misconduct and misbehaviour and sometimes even continuing behaving in a predatory way.

We are inviting chapters that might address, among other topics, the following areas:

• The systemic, institutional and cultural analysis of mechanisms and cases of power abuse in its various forms (bullying, mobbing, sexual harassment, discrimination due to race/ethnicity, class or sex, such as systemic misogyny, see Creedon, 2022). The elements of the academic system and academic culture that facilitate power abuse. Could include/focus on the analysis of famous abusers in the past.
• The complicity or even collaboration of bystanders with abusers. How it happens that those abusers despite their misconducting activity pursue their careers and even flourish in academia? Which kinds of processes and elements of academic culture and academic systems are responsible for that? Normalization of abuse (Amienne, 2017), naturalization, and neutralization (making it neutral) of power abuse. How is it possible that there are no open, internal, environmental courts and/or discussions regarding such cases—how did it happen that they are tolerated, hidden, or patched up—as if maintaining the idyllic (and therefore unrealistic) image of the academic milieu is the most important goal?
• Autocensura (Wagner, 2022), self-censorship, the culture of silence as a regular element of scientific work and an ordinary practice, which constitutes a means of prevention of and protection from power abuses.
• The tensions between the pressure generated by neoliberal academic capitalism and academic feudalism. The extreme power imbalance between tenured and junior staff (Karami et al., 2020) making the latter “dependent on the goodwill of your liege lord” (Ekbom, 2022, p. 32), on the one hand, and an overcompetitive academic job market, on the other; both lead to cases of power abuse. The former provides opportunity and possibility and the latter provides incentive to engage in harassment and bullying due to the threat of competition, as shown by Blomberg (2016 in Hansen & Nilsson, 2022). The analysis of the systemic hardships of living amidst the cronyism and favouritism of collegial leadership and the competitiveness of the performative management approach that was implemented in academia to counteract the former.
• Power games and power relationships in the academic field. Power abuse and academic networks. Competition among professors and people holding power within academic institutions. Systemic mechanisms, cultural traits, and institutional analysis of everyday fights over influence, power, and hegemony. Academic “feudalism” or, as we would be inclined to interpret it, clientelism—the rivalries between barons (cf. i baroni universitari in Italy, mandarins in France and professors-stars in the US) and their informal courts (Bourdieu, 1984; Lebaron, 2012).
• Vampirization as a systemic issue. The practices of exploitation of junior staff, women, and spouses to make a career at the cost of others (the contribution of collaborators is minimized or totally hidden; Wagner, 2011, Wagner, Finkielsztein & Czarnacka, 2017; Finkielsztein, 2021). Intentional or semi-conscious appropriation of somebody else’s ideas, concepts, or texts. The exploitation of the energy and ideas of academic newcomers and candidates by the mediocre and/or burnouts: the theft of texts by supervisors, adding their names to the list of authors of publications, etc. Vampirization (Wagner, 2011) is an example of a process of making a career in academia thanks to power abuse, misconduct, and dubious or openly unethical behaviours.
• The ideal vision of academics and academia versus its empirical evidence. Rotten professorship: as probably many of us have observed “there is no direct correlation between intellectual refinement and treating others well” (Hansen, 2022, p. 11) and “being a brilliant scholar or a good teacher doesn’t mean someone is a great person. It doesn’t mean they are kind, or altruistic, or honest” (Schier, 2022, p. 79). The myth that academia is a selective place for people of high standards (scientific, moral, and personal) shared by lay people as shown by the high prestige of the university professor in the national surveys in some countries.
• The negative selection to high positions in academia—the specific set of personal traits and auxiliary characteristics (Hughes, 1945) that make it more possible for some individuals to succeed in the academic system that is highly competitive and feudal in the same time. Power abuse as a career progress tool. For instance, as suggested by Täuber and Mahmoudi (2022) “bullying is a means for mediocre scientists to rise to the top. Some star academics reached their position because they are bullies, not in spite of it. (…) mediocre academics in particular resort to bullying, to remove their competition.”
• Path dependence and cultural patterns of socialization into power abuse. The long-durée perspective on abusive academic cultures, the inter-generational transmission of abusive tradition within academic institutions (“I was abused and survived, so now when I have a position I can take my revenge.”). The tradition of power games as a way for mediocre academics to gain a position and make a career.
• The invisible power of academic and institutional culture. As Byung-Chul Han (2019) observed, “The power of power consists precisely in its capacity to influence decisions and actions without the use of explicit ‘orders’” (p. 7), and also, “the power of culture is ‘a dictatorship of what goes without saying’” (p. 38). Rarely consciously noticed traits of academic culture that enable and/or facilitate power abuse in academia.
• Calling as a tool of (self-)exploitation. “Academic culture encourages self-exploitation ‘as a meritorious form of conduct’ (Coin, 2017, p. 711), manifest on the individual level in feelings of inadequacy and failure, as well as the belief that the solution lies in working ever harder and longer” (Nilsson, 2022, p. 140). The devotion to work treated as a “labor of love” (Coin, 2017) making academics vulnerable to various power abuse techniques.

The above list of issues is for guidance only—we are open to all suggestions within the broad title’s thematic scope.

Submission guidelines:

The abstract of the proposed chapter (between 250-500 words) along with a short bio (up to 150 words) and contact information should be sent to editors via e-mail before. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, we will accept texts written by authors who wish to publish anonymously. The comments and decisions on the proposed manuscript will be provided before the end of January 2025. Then, the proposal for the book will be sent to Wiley (and subsequently to other selected international publishers, if needed). In case of a positive answer from a publisher, the authors will be asked to prepare the chapter, with a minimum of 5,000 words including footnotes and references. Technical information will be provided after the publisher accepts the proposal and will depend on the publisher’s style. In case of any doubts and/or questions, we encourage prospective authors to consult the editors directly.

Biographies of editors:

Mariusz Finkielsztein – assistant professor at the Institute of Sociology, University of Gdańsk, Poland. Boredom researcher, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Boredom Studies, the author of Boredom and Academic Work (Routledge, 2021) and The Sociology of Boredom (Wiley, 2025). A qualitative sociologist interested in boredom, sociology of emotions, work, higher education, and creative occupations (ballroom dancers). The list of selected relevant publications: “The sense of meaninglessness in bureaucratized science” (Social Studies of Science, 2022 with Izabela Wagner), “From Passionate Engagement to Chronic Boredom in Polish Academia: An Overview of Early-Career Motivation and Systemic Contributory Factors” (Early Career Teachers: International Narratives of Transitions within Higher Education, 2021), “Being Polish scientists and women – between glorious past and difficult present: The ‘reverse dynamic of equality construction’” (European Educational Research Journal, 2017 with Izabela Wagner and Agata Czarnacka). See more in: https://mariuszfinkielsztein.com/

Izabela Wagner – professor of anthropology and sociology of migration at the University Paris-Cité in Paris and Fellow at The French Collaborative Institute of Migration (ICM). Based on ethnographic studies, her research examines the social worlds of artists and intellectuals, with an emphasis on careers, collaborations, creative work and discrimination in the context of high-skilled professional migration. Recently, she extended her research to the history of sociology and antisemitism. Since 2016, her work has also focused on the phenomena of forced migration and the situation of the refugees in Europe. Since 2021 she is working on autocensura (self=censorship) in scientific work. The author of Becoming Transnational Professional (Scholar, 2011), Producing Excellence: Making of a Virtuoso (Rutgers University Press, 2015), Bauman: A Biography (Polity, 2020). See more in: www.izabelawagner.com

References:

Ahmed, S. (2021). Complaint!. Duke University Press.

Amienne, K. (2017, November 2). Abusers and Enablers in Faculty Culture. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/abusers-and-enablers-in-faculty-culture/?sra=true 

Blomberg, S. (2016). Mobbning på jobbet: Uttryck och åtgärder. Studentlitteratur.

Bourabain, D. (2021). Everyday Sexism and Racism in the Ivory Tower: The Experiences of Early Career Researchers on the Intersection of Gender and Ethnicity in the Academic Workplace. Gender, Work and Organization, 28(1), 248–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12549

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press.

Coin, F. (2017). On quitting. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 17(3), 705–719.

Creedon, P., Wackwitz, L., & Andsager, J. (2022). Misogyny in Academia: The Irreparable Harm of Institutional Abuse. In P. Creedon & L. Wackwitz (Eds.), Women in Mass Communication_ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (pp. 53-71). Routledge.

Ekbom, M. (2022). Phantom Libraries: Unspoken Words, Untold Stories and Unwritten Texts. In J. Hansen & I. Nilsson (Eds.), Critical Storytelling: Experiences of Power Abuse in Academia (pp. 31-34). Brill.

Finkielsztein, M. (2021). From Passionate Engagement to Chronic Boredom in Polish Academia: An Overview of Early-Career Motivation and Systemic Contributory Factors. In: J. Crutchley, Z. Nahaboo & N. Rao (Eds.), Early Career Teachers: International Narratives of Transitions within Higher Education (pp. 123-134). Bloomsbury.

Han, B.-Ch. (2019). What is Power?. Polity Press.

Hansen, J., & Nilsson, I. (Eds.).(2022). Critical Storytelling: Experiences of Power Abuse in Academia. Brill.

Hansen, J. (2022). What My CV Doesn’t Tell You. In J. Hansen & I. Nilsson (Eds.), Critical Storytelling: Experiences of Power Abuse in Academia (pp. 10-14). Brill.

Hansen, J. (2022). Epilogue: Gathering Voices for a Better Academic Workplace. In J. Hansen & I. Nilsson (Eds.), Critical Storytelling: Experiences of Power Abuse in Academia (pp. 137-145). Brill.

Hughes, E. C. (1945). Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status. American Journal of Sociology, 50(5), 353–359. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2771188  

Karami, A., White, C., Ford, K., Swan, S., & Spinel, M. (2020). Karami et al. (2020) Unwanted advances in higher education. Uncovering sexual harassment experiences in academia with text mining. Information Processing and Management, 57(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102167

Lebaron, F. (2012). Homo academicus: enjeux et actualité d’un “livre à brûler” [Homo academicus: what’s at stake in a “book to burn”?]. Syndicat national de l’enseignement supérieur. https://www.snesup.fr/homo-academicus-enjeux-et-actualite-d-un-livre-a-bruler

Lewis, L. (1997). Scaling the Ivory Tower. Merit and Its Limits in Academic Careers. Routledge.

Mahmoudi (2020). A survivor’s guide to academic bullying. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 1091. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00937-1

Nilsson, I. (2022). Panic Button. In J. Hansen & I. Nilsson (Eds.), Critical Storytelling: Experiences of Power Abuse in Academia (pp. 111-116). Brill.

Pritchard, E., & Edward, D. (2023). Sexual Misconduct in Academia: Informing an Ethics of Care in the University. Routledge.

Schier, R. (2022). Lessons I Learned at University. In J. Hansen & I. Nilsson (Eds.), Critical Storytelling: Experiences of Power Abuse in Academia (pp. 78-80). Brill.

Täuber, S., & Mahmoudi, M. (2022). How bullying becomes a career tool. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 475.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01311-z

Tenbrunsel, A., Rees, M., & Diekmann, K. (2019). Sexual Harassment in Academia: Ethical Climates and Bounded Ethicality. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 245-270. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102945

Wagner, I. (2012). Geniusz czy businessman? Sprzężenie karier drogą sukcesu w nauce [Genius or businessman? Career Coupling as a success strategy in sciences]. Stan Rzeczy, 1(2), 12-76.

Wagner, I. (2014). Works and Career Aspects of Ghetto Laboratories. In K. Pripic, I. van der Weijden, & N. Ashuelova (Eds.), Re-searching Scientific Careers (pp. 145-170). Russian Academy of Science.

Wagner, I., Finkielsztein, M., & Czarnacka, A. (2017). Being Polish scientists and women – between glorious past and difficult present: The ‘reverse dynamic of equality construction’. European Educational Research Journal, 16, 2-3, 141-165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116688023

Wagner, I. (2022). Auto-censura (self-censorship) – an ordinary and integral part of research life(?) Work in Progress in a form of an essay. Zoon Politikon, 13, 130-174. https://doi.org/10.4467/2543408XZOP.22.005.16308