Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Akademik Örgütlerde Dedikodu ve Söylentilere Yönelik Algılar

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 111 - 122, 03.05.2021

Ümit Atabek Pınar Özşarlak Gülseren Atabek

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.20.514008
Cited By: 2

Abstract

Literatürde akademik örgütlerde gayriresmi iletişim türü olarak dedikodu ve söylentiler konusu oldukça az çalışılmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Türk üniversitelerinde akademisyenlerin dedikodu ve söylentiler hakkındaki algıları ile dedikodu ve söylentilerin konuları ve çeşitli örgüt kültürü unsurlarıyla ilişkisi incelenmektedir. Bu amaçla web tabanlı bir soru kağıdı 356 iletişim alanı akademisyenine uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, akademik örgütlerde dedikodu ve söylentilerin oldukça yaygın olduğunu göstermektedir. Örgüt içi dedikodu ve söylentiler örgüt dışı dedikodu ve söylentilere göre daha yoğun algılanmakta ve yönetim ve özlük hakları konularındaki dedikodu ve söylentiler ön sıralarda yer almaktadır. Öte yandan, akademisyenlerin dedikodu ve söylentiler hakkındaki kanaatleri genellikle olumsuzdur. Ancak, akademik örgütlerde algılanan örgüt demokrasi düzeyi ve örgüt içi iletişim arttıkça dedikodu ve söylentiler hakkındaki olumsuz kanaatlerin azaldığı bulgulanmıştır. Akademik yöneticilerin kurumlarındaki demokratik katılımı ve iç iletişimi iyileştirmedikçe dedikodu ve söylentilerle baş edebilmelerinin zor olacağı görülmektedir.

Keywords

Akademik örgütler dedikodu gayriresmi iletişim söylenti

References

  • Adkins, K. C. (2014). The erasure of empowered gossip in academia. Nouvelle Revue Synergies Canada, 7, 1–10.
  • Akıncı Vural, Z. B. (2010). Kurum kültürü (3. basım). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • Altuntaş, S., Şahin Altun, Ö., & Çevik Akyıl, R. (2017). “Gossip” in organizational communication between nurse, doctor and dentist academicians. Journal of Health and Nursing Management, 4(3), 107–116.
  • Applbaum, R. L., & Anatol, K. W. E. (1979). The relationships among job satisfaction, organizational norms, and communicational climate among employees in an academic organization. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7(2), 83–90.
  • Arabacı, İ. B., Sünkür, M. & Şimşek, F. Z. (2012). Öğretmenlerin dedikodu ve söylenti mekanizmasına ilişkin görüşleri: Nitel bir çalışma. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18(2), 171-190.
  • Arnold, J., & Feldman, C. (1986). Organizational behavior. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book.
  • Atabek, Ü. (1991). Örgüt ve iletişim: Bir örgütsel iletişim aracı olarak telsiz. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1994). The vindication of gossip. In Goodman, R. F. & Ben-Ze’ev, A. (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 11–24). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
  • Bennett, R. (1994). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Singapore: M&E Handbook Series.
  • Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 345–365.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32, 1–17.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Cengiz, A. K. (2017). Bir yerli olma bağlamında dedikodu, söylentiler ve Antakyalılık. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(51), 311–327.
  • Clegg, S. R., & van Iterson, A. (2009). Dishing the dirt: Gossiping in organizations. Culture and Organization, 15(3–4), 275–289.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer.
  • Çeğin, G., & Göker, E. (2012). Tözcülüğün tasfiyesi: İlişkisel sosyolojide temel yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Notabene Yayınları.
  • Danış, M. S. (2015). Dedikodunun sosyolojisi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Konya.
  • Darmon, D. J. (2018). Researching the mechanisms of gossip in organizations: From fly on the wall to fly in the soup. The Qualitative Report, 23(7), 1736–1751.
  • Davis, K. (1953). A method of studying communication patterns in organizations. Personnel Psychology, 6(3), 301–312.
  • Davis, K. (1981). Human behavior at work (6th ed.). New Delhi: McGraw- Hill Inc.
  • DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2000). How top PR professionals handle hearsay: Corporate rumors, their effects and strategies to manage them. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 173–190.
  • DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2002). Corporate rumor activity, belief and accuracy. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 1–18.
  • DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor, gossip and urban legends. Diogenes, 213, 19–35.
  • DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational Dynamics, 23(1), 47–62.
  • Ellwardt, L. (2011). Gossip in organizations: A social network study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Heymans Institute (Psychology), Groningen, Holland.
  • Esposito, J. L., & Rosnow, R. L. (1983). Corporate rumors: How they start and how to stop them. Management Review, 72, 44–49.
  • Eşkin, F. (2010). Dedikodu ve söylenti: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması ve hemşirelikte bir uygulama. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Gizir, S., & Şimşek, H. (2005). Communication in an academic context. Higher Education, 50(2), 197–221.
  • Gouveia, C. M., Vuuren, L. J., & Crafford, A. (2005). Towards a typology of gossip in the workplace. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(2), 56–68.
  • Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010) A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 177–212.
  • Haukland, L. (2017). The Bologna process: The democracy–bureaucracy dilemma. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(3), 261–272.
  • Hickson, M. (1974). Participation-observation technique in organizational communication research. Journal of Business Communication, 11(3), 37–42.
  • Kapferer, J. N. (1992). Dünyanın en eski medyası: Dedikodu ve söylenti. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • Kerr, A. (2004). The limits of organizational democracy. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 81–97.
  • Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 317–357.
  • Kurland, B. N., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25(2). 428–438.
  • Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 16(3), 356–377.
  • Lane, J.-E. (1985). Academic profession in academic organization. Higher Education, 14(3), 241–268.
  • Leblebici, N. D., Yıldız, H. H., & Karasoy, A. (2009). Örgütsel yaşamda dedikodunun araçsallığı ve algılanışı. Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 18(9), 561–574.
  • Luthans, F. (1989). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). Singapore: McGraw Hill International Editions.
  • Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents and consequences of rumour and gossip in organisations. Corporate Communications, 9(3), 189–201.
  • Mishra, J. (1990). Managing the grapevine. Public Personnel Management, 19(2), 213–228.
  • Nalbantoğlu, H. Ü. (2003). Üniversite A.Ş.’de bir ‘homo academicus’: “ersatz” yuppie akademisyen. Toplum ve Bilim, 97, 7–42.
  • Newstrom, J. W., Monczka, R. E., & Reiff, W. E. (1974). Perceptions of the grapevine: Its value and influence. The Journal of Business Communication, 11(3), 12–20.
  • Nikaeen, M., Zarei, R., & Matin, H. Z. (2014). Do the organizational rumors emphasize the influence of organizational silence over organizational commitment? Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, 2(1), 88–93.
  • Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hands: Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(1), 23–36.
  • Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In search of excellence, lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York, NY: Harper& Row Publishers.
  • Pheko, M. M. (2018). Rumors and gossip as tools of social undermining and social dominance in workplace bullying and mobbing practices: A closer look at perceived perpetrator motives. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 28(4), 449–465.
  • Polatoğlu, A. (1984). Örgüt kuramları ve iletişim. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 17(4), 62–76.
  • Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Rooks, G., Tazelaar, F., & Snijders, C. (2011). Gossip and reputation in business networks. European Sociological Review, 27(1), 90–106.
  • Rosnow, R. L., & Foster, E. K. (2005). Rumor and gossip research. American Psychological Association, Psychological Science Agenda. Spring, 2005. Erişim adresi http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2005/04/gossip.aspx (12 Temmuz 2016).
  • Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2015). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organisations (4th ed.), New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Solmaz, B. (2003). Söylentilerin kurumsal iletişim açısından değerlendirilmesi ve bir uygulama örneği. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Solmaz, B. (2004). Söylenti ve dedikodu yönetimi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (SUSBED), 16, 563–575.
  • Sözen, H. C. (2012). Social networks and power in organizations. Personnel Review, 41(4), 487–512.
  • Stewart, P. J., & Strathern, A. (2004). Witchcraft, sorcery, rumors, and gossip. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Suls, J. M. (1977). Gossip as social comparison. Journal of Communication, 27(1), 164–168.
  • Sutton, H., & Porter, L. W. (1968). A study of grapevine in a governmental organization. Personnel Psychology, 21, 223–230.
  • Tebbutt, M., & Marchington, M. (1997). “Look before you speak”: Gossip and the insecure workplace. Work, Employment & Society, 11(4), 713–735.
  • Temel Eğinli, A., & Bitirim, S. (2008). Kurumsal başarının önündeki engel: Zehirli (toksik) iletişim. Selçuk İletişim, 5(3), 124–140.
  • Tuire, P., & Erno, L. (2001). Exploring invisible scientific communities: Studying networking relations within an educational research community. A Finnish case. Higher Education, 42(4), 493–513.
  • Vaidyanathan, B., Khalsa, S., & Howard Ecklund, E. (2016). Gossip as social control: Informal sanctions on ethical violations in scientific workplaces. Social Problems, 63(4), 554–572.
  • Vorell, M. S., Carmack, H. J., & Scarduizo, J. A. (2014). Surviving work: Toxic organizational communication. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
  • Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Westacott, E. (2012). The virtues of our vices: A modest defense of gossip, rudeness, and other bad habits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (1998). Gossip in organizations. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 4(2), 189–204.
  • Wood, J. (1999). Establishing ınternal communication channels that work. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21(2), 135–149.
  • Yağmurlu, A. (2004). Örgüt kuramları ve iletişim. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 37(4), 31–55.
  • YÖK (2020). Yükseköğretim istatistikleri. Erişim adresi https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr (18 Mayıs 2020).
  • Zak, M. W. (1994). “It’s like a prison in there”: Organizational fragmentation in a demographically diversified workplace. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8(3), 281–298.

Perceptions about Gossip and Rumours in Academic Organizations

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 111 - 122, 03.05.2021

Ümit Atabek Pınar Özşarlak Gülseren Atabek

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.20.514008
Cited By: 2

Abstract

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

Keywords

Academic organizations gossip informal communication rumour

References

  • Adkins, K. C. (2014). The erasure of empowered gossip in academia. Nouvelle Revue Synergies Canada, 7, 1–10.
  • Akıncı Vural, Z. B. (2010). Kurum kültürü (3. basım). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • Altuntaş, S., Şahin Altun, Ö., & Çevik Akyıl, R. (2017). “Gossip” in organizational communication between nurse, doctor and dentist academicians. Journal of Health and Nursing Management, 4(3), 107–116.
  • Applbaum, R. L., & Anatol, K. W. E. (1979). The relationships among job satisfaction, organizational norms, and communicational climate among employees in an academic organization. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 7(2), 83–90.
  • Arabacı, İ. B., Sünkür, M. & Şimşek, F. Z. (2012). Öğretmenlerin dedikodu ve söylenti mekanizmasına ilişkin görüşleri: Nitel bir çalışma. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18(2), 171-190.
  • Arnold, J., & Feldman, C. (1986). Organizational behavior. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book.
  • Atabek, Ü. (1991). Örgüt ve iletişim: Bir örgütsel iletişim aracı olarak telsiz. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1994). The vindication of gossip. In Goodman, R. F. & Ben-Ze’ev, A. (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 11–24). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
  • Bennett, R. (1994). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Singapore: M&E Handbook Series.
  • Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 345–365.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1987). What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32, 1–17.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Cengiz, A. K. (2017). Bir yerli olma bağlamında dedikodu, söylentiler ve Antakyalılık. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(51), 311–327.
  • Clegg, S. R., & van Iterson, A. (2009). Dishing the dirt: Gossiping in organizations. Culture and Organization, 15(3–4), 275–289.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer.
  • Çeğin, G., & Göker, E. (2012). Tözcülüğün tasfiyesi: İlişkisel sosyolojide temel yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Notabene Yayınları.
  • Danış, M. S. (2015). Dedikodunun sosyolojisi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Konya.
  • Darmon, D. J. (2018). Researching the mechanisms of gossip in organizations: From fly on the wall to fly in the soup. The Qualitative Report, 23(7), 1736–1751.
  • Davis, K. (1953). A method of studying communication patterns in organizations. Personnel Psychology, 6(3), 301–312.
  • Davis, K. (1981). Human behavior at work (6th ed.). New Delhi: McGraw- Hill Inc.
  • DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2000). How top PR professionals handle hearsay: Corporate rumors, their effects and strategies to manage them. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 173–190.
  • DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2002). Corporate rumor activity, belief and accuracy. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 1–18.
  • DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor, gossip and urban legends. Diogenes, 213, 19–35.
  • DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational Dynamics, 23(1), 47–62.
  • Ellwardt, L. (2011). Gossip in organizations: A social network study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Heymans Institute (Psychology), Groningen, Holland.
  • Esposito, J. L., & Rosnow, R. L. (1983). Corporate rumors: How they start and how to stop them. Management Review, 72, 44–49.
  • Eşkin, F. (2010). Dedikodu ve söylenti: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması ve hemşirelikte bir uygulama. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Gizir, S., & Şimşek, H. (2005). Communication in an academic context. Higher Education, 50(2), 197–221.
  • Gouveia, C. M., Vuuren, L. J., & Crafford, A. (2005). Towards a typology of gossip in the workplace. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(2), 56–68.
  • Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010) A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 177–212.
  • Haukland, L. (2017). The Bologna process: The democracy–bureaucracy dilemma. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(3), 261–272.
  • Hickson, M. (1974). Participation-observation technique in organizational communication research. Journal of Business Communication, 11(3), 37–42.
  • Kapferer, J. N. (1992). Dünyanın en eski medyası: Dedikodu ve söylenti. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  • Kerr, A. (2004). The limits of organizational democracy. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 81–97.
  • Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 317–357.
  • Kurland, B. N., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25(2). 428–438.
  • Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 16(3), 356–377.
  • Lane, J.-E. (1985). Academic profession in academic organization. Higher Education, 14(3), 241–268.
  • Leblebici, N. D., Yıldız, H. H., & Karasoy, A. (2009). Örgütsel yaşamda dedikodunun araçsallığı ve algılanışı. Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 18(9), 561–574.
  • Luthans, F. (1989). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). Singapore: McGraw Hill International Editions.
  • Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents and consequences of rumour and gossip in organisations. Corporate Communications, 9(3), 189–201.
  • Mishra, J. (1990). Managing the grapevine. Public Personnel Management, 19(2), 213–228.
  • Nalbantoğlu, H. Ü. (2003). Üniversite A.Ş.’de bir ‘homo academicus’: “ersatz” yuppie akademisyen. Toplum ve Bilim, 97, 7–42.
  • Newstrom, J. W., Monczka, R. E., & Reiff, W. E. (1974). Perceptions of the grapevine: Its value and influence. The Journal of Business Communication, 11(3), 12–20.
  • Nikaeen, M., Zarei, R., & Matin, H. Z. (2014). Do the organizational rumors emphasize the influence of organizational silence over organizational commitment? Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, 2(1), 88–93.
  • Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hands: Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(1), 23–36.
  • Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. Jr. (1982). In search of excellence, lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York, NY: Harper& Row Publishers.
  • Pheko, M. M. (2018). Rumors and gossip as tools of social undermining and social dominance in workplace bullying and mobbing practices: A closer look at perceived perpetrator motives. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 28(4), 449–465.
  • Polatoğlu, A. (1984). Örgüt kuramları ve iletişim. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 17(4), 62–76.
  • Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Rooks, G., Tazelaar, F., & Snijders, C. (2011). Gossip and reputation in business networks. European Sociological Review, 27(1), 90–106.
  • Rosnow, R. L., & Foster, E. K. (2005). Rumor and gossip research. American Psychological Association, Psychological Science Agenda. Spring, 2005. Erişim adresi http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2005/04/gossip.aspx (12 Temmuz 2016).
  • Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2015). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organisations (4th ed.), New York, NY: Free Press.
  • Solmaz, B. (2003). Söylentilerin kurumsal iletişim açısından değerlendirilmesi ve bir uygulama örneği. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Solmaz, B. (2004). Söylenti ve dedikodu yönetimi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (SUSBED), 16, 563–575.
  • Sözen, H. C. (2012). Social networks and power in organizations. Personnel Review, 41(4), 487–512.
  • Stewart, P. J., & Strathern, A. (2004). Witchcraft, sorcery, rumors, and gossip. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Suls, J. M. (1977). Gossip as social comparison. Journal of Communication, 27(1), 164–168.
  • Sutton, H., & Porter, L. W. (1968). A study of grapevine in a governmental organization. Personnel Psychology, 21, 223–230.
  • Tebbutt, M., & Marchington, M. (1997). “Look before you speak”: Gossip and the insecure workplace. Work, Employment & Society, 11(4), 713–735.
  • Temel Eğinli, A., & Bitirim, S. (2008). Kurumsal başarının önündeki engel: Zehirli (toksik) iletişim. Selçuk İletişim, 5(3), 124–140.
  • Tuire, P., & Erno, L. (2001). Exploring invisible scientific communities: Studying networking relations within an educational research community. A Finnish case. Higher Education, 42(4), 493–513.
  • Vaidyanathan, B., Khalsa, S., & Howard Ecklund, E. (2016). Gossip as social control: Informal sanctions on ethical violations in scientific workplaces. Social Problems, 63(4), 554–572.
  • Vorell, M. S., Carmack, H. J., & Scarduizo, J. A. (2014). Surviving work: Toxic organizational communication. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
  • Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Westacott, E. (2012). The virtues of our vices: A modest defense of gossip, rudeness, and other bad habits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (1998). Gossip in organizations. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 4(2), 189–204.
  • Wood, J. (1999). Establishing ınternal communication channels that work. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21(2), 135–149.
  • Yağmurlu, A. (2004). Örgüt kuramları ve iletişim. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 37(4), 31–55.
  • YÖK (2020). Yükseköğretim istatistikleri. Erişim adresi https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr (18 Mayıs 2020).
  • Zak, M. W. (1994). “It’s like a prison in there”: Organizational fragmentation in a demographically diversified workplace. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8(3), 281–298.
There are 72 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Original Empirical Research
Authors

Ümit Atabek 0000-0002-7573-0839

Pınar Özşarlak 0000-0001-8859-3979

Gülseren Atabek 0000-0001-9118-2329

Publication Date May 3, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 11 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Atabek, Ü., Özşarlak, P., & Atabek, G. (2021). Akademik Örgütlerde Dedikodu ve Söylentilere Yönelik Algılar. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 11(1), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.20.514008

Cited By

COVID-19 Pandemisi Döneminde Sinema Salonlarının Sosyal Medya Kullanımı: Beyoğlu Sineması Örneği
Türkiye İletişim Araştırmaları Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.17829/turcom.934664
Exploring the relationship between alienation from academic profession and organizational deviance: The mediation role of job satisfaction
Pedagogical Research
https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/12341

Yükseköğretim Dergisi/TÜBA Higher Education Research/Review (TÜBA-HER) does not officially agree with the ideas of manuscripts published in the journal and does not guarantee for any product or service advertisements on both printed and online versions of the journal. Scientific and legal responsibilities of published manuscripts belong to their authors. Materials such as pictures, figures, tables etc. sent with manuscripts should be original or written approval of copyright holder should be sent with manuscript for publishing in both printed and online versions if they were published before. Authors agree that they transfer all publishing rights to the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA), the publisher of the journal. Copyrights of all published contents (text and visual materials) belong to the journal. No payment is done for manuscripts under the name of copyright or others approved for publishing in the journal and no publication cost is charged; however, reprints are at authors' cost.

To promote the development of global open access to scientific information and research, TÜBA provides copyrights of all online published papers (except where otherwise noted) for free use of readers, scientists, and institutions (such as link to the content or permission for its download, distribution, printing, copying, and reproduction in any medium, without any changing and except the commercial purpose), under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND3.0) License, provided the original work is cited. To get permission for commercial purpose please contact the publisher.