Suchergebnisse

The variable incivility is an indicator used to describe violations of communication norms. These norms can be social norms established within a society, a culture or parts of a society (e.g. a social class, milieu or group) or democratic norms established within a democratic society. In this sense incivility is associated with behaviors that threaten a collective face or a democratic society, deny people their personal freedoms, and stereotype individuals or social groups. Furthermore, some scholars include impoliteness into the concept of incivility and argue that the two concepts have no clear boundaries (e.g. Seely, 2017). They therefore describe incivility as aggressive, offensive or derogatory communication expressed directly or indirectly to other individuals or parties. In many studies a message is classified as uncivil if the message contains at least one instance of incivility (e.g. one violent threat). The direction of an uncivil statement is coded as 'interpersonal'/'personal' or 'other-oriented'/'impersonal' or sometimes also as 'neutral', meaning it is not directed at any group or individual. Field of application/theoretical foundation: One unifying element to communication that is labelled as incivility is that it has to be a violation of an existing norm. Which norms are seen as violated depends on the theoretical tradition. Incivility research is related to theories on social norms of communication and conversation: conversational-maxims (Grice, 1975), face-saving concepts (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1989) or conversational-contract theories (Fraser, 1990). Further, incivility research has ties to theories that view public communication as part of democratic opinion formation and decision-making processes, e.g. theories on deliberative democracy and deliberation (Dryzek, 2000; Gutmann & Thompson, 1996; Habermas, 1994). References/combination with other methods of data collection: Incivility is examined through content analysis and sometimes combined with comparative designs (e.g., ...

Incivility is considered a significant challenge for democratic discourse and has been the subject of many studies in a variety of contexts. Although political incivility has a long research tradition, and scholarly attention toward the phenomenon has increased with the advance of social media, there is academic controversy regarding the concept and normative implications of incivility in political contexts. This chapter provides an overview of different incivility approaches in the extant literature, discusses key challenges in incivility research, and outlines normative implications. Further, we suggest future directions for incivility research and argue why an integrative, multidimensional concept of incivility offers great potential for incivility research in the field of political (online) communication.

State attempts to legislate for civility, such as the UK's Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance, are usually challenged on libertarian grounds. This article develops a novel democratic challenge to such legislation, arguing that un-civil behaviours sometimes constitute masked expressions of dissent. It first elaborates a conceptual analysis, linking the forms of annoying behaviour targeted by legislation with the practice of incivility. It then articulates a structural association between incivility and dissent and develops on that basis a substantive normative case for the democratic value of incivility. In this way, the article highlights the role of bad behaviour in sustaining liberal democratic institutions and the ways in which the tradition of political thought about civil disobedience can obscure the possibilities of democratic dissent. It thereby informs public debates about the 'crisis of civility' in modern society and offers a new perspective on scholarly debates about the ethics of resistance.

Civility in political discourse is often thought to be necessary for deliberation and a healthy democracy. However, incivility is on the rise in political discourse in the United States—even from members of Congress—suggesting that political incivility may in fact be a tool to be used strategically. When and why, then, do members of Congress use incivility in their rhetoric? We develop and test expectations for the usage of political incivility by members of Congress on Twitter, using every tweet sent by a member of Congress from 2009–2020 coded for the presence of uncivil rhetoric via a novel application of transformer models for natural language processing. We find that more ideologically extreme members, those in safer electoral situations, and those who are in a position of political opposition are more likely to use incivility in their tweets, and that uncivil tweets increase engagement with members' messages.

Many have decried the lack of civility in Congress. However, to this point, few have attempted to isolate individual level explanations for the lack of comity. This research attempts to rectify this lapse. Through matched pair analysis using quota sampling with replacement, the significant predictors of uncivil behaviors are isolated in a Logistic regression. Initially, a sample is established using the New York Times and Washington Post, 1933-2005, inclusive. This time period begins with the 73rd Congress and ends with the 109th. Incidents of incivility were catalogued and the details concerning the individuals involved were gathered. In the end, the research finds several significant predictors of incivility; tenure, ideological extremism, electoral safety, and previous state legislative experience are all significantly associated with the likelihood of engaging in uncivil acts. By isolating the factors that likely contribute to incivility, it may be possible to make recommendations concerning the recruitment of future candidates; recommendations that may lead to a more productive legislature. ; 2008-05-01 ; M.A. ; Sciences, Department of Political Science ; Masters ; This record was generated from author submitted information.

The Flemish painter, Pieter Bruegel, portrayed in his artwork men relieving themselves, cripples begging, and peasants toiling – as well as butchery and the gallows. In his masterful work, The Civilizing Process, Norbert Elias showed how the "late medieval upper class" had not yet demanded, as later generations would, that "everything vulgar should be suppressed from life and therefore from pictures." For centuries now, defining incivility has been intimately connected with social rank, class status, political hierarchy, and relations of power. The ability to identify and sanction incivility has been associated with positions of political privilege – and simultaneously has constituted and reinforced political power. This, I fear, remains true today: Defining incivility in political discourse continues to be apolitical strategy that is deeply embedded in relations of power. In the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, there have been renewed calls for greater civility in our political discourse. Although at a personal level I favor civil discourse as the wiser path in politics, I recognize that it is inevitably a political strategy that comes more easily to those who already have an audience or a professional position that affords them greater access to the media and the public. This suggests, at least to me, that we should be cautious about telling others how civilly they should speak.

The Flemish painter, Pieter Bruegel, portrayed in his artwork men relieving themselves, cripples begging, and peasants toiling – as well as butchery and the gallows. In his masterful work, The Civilizing Process, Norbert Elias revealed how the "late medieval upper class" had not yet demanded, as later generations would, that "everything vulgar should be suppressed from life and therefore from pictures." For centuries now, defining incivility has been intimately connected with social rank, class status, political hierarchy, and relations of power. The ability to identify and sanction incivility has been associated with positions of political privilege – and simultaneously has constituted and reinforced political power. This remains true today: defining incivility in political discourse continues to be a political strategy that is deeply embedded in relations of power. In the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, there have been renewed calls for greater civility in our political discourse. Although I view civil discourse generally as the wiser course of action, I recognize that it is inevitably a political strategy that comes more easily to those who already have an audience that is listening or a professional position that affords them greater access to the media and to listeners. I personally prefer an ethic of civility and truth-telling, but am deeply conscious that this may reflect a certain privilege, and that same privilege chastens me from urging others to be more civil in their discourse. It suggests that we should be cautious about telling others how they should speak.

The variable hate speech is an indicator used to describe communication that expresses and/or promotes hatred towards others (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Ziegele, Koehler, & Weber, 2018). A second element is that hate speech is directed against others on the basis of their ethnic or national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or political conviction (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Waseem & Hovy, 2016) and typically uses terms to denigrate, degrade and threaten others (Döring & Mohseni, 2020; Gagliardone, Gal, Alves, & Martínez, 2015). Hate speech and incivility are often used synonymously as hateful speech is considered part of incivility (Ziegele et al., 2018). Field of application/theoretical foundation: Hate speech (see also incivility) has become an issue of growing concern both in public and academic discourses on user-generated online communication. References/combination with other methods of data collection: Hate speech is examined through content analysis and can be combined with comparative or experimental designs (Muddiman, 2017; Oz, Zheng, & Chen, 2017; Rowe, 2015). In addition, content analyses can be accompanied by interviews or surveys, for example to validate the results of the content analysis (Erjavec & Kovačič, 2012). Example studies: Research question/research interest: Previous studies have been interested in the extent of hate speech in online communication (e.g. in one specific online discussion, in discussions on a specific topic or discussions on a specific platform or different platforms in comparatively) (Döring & Mohseni, 2020; Poole, Giraud, & Quincey, 2020; Waseem & Hovy, 2016). Object of analysis: Previous studies have investigated hate speech in user comments for example on news websites, social media platforms (e.g. Twitter) and social live streaming services (e.g. YouTube, YouNow). Level of analysis: Most manual content analysis studies measure hate speech on the level of a message, for ...

PurposeDrawing upon theories of modern discrimination, the present study focuses on cyber incivility and interpersonal incivility as mechanisms through which race leads to perceived discrimination. Participants included 408 full-time working adults who responded to an online survey. The results indicate that Non-White employees experience subtle forms of discrimination through the use of e-mail, which accentuate the need for organizations to eradicate workplace mistreatment so that their employees can avoid the adverse outcomes associated with experiencing cyber incivility. The purpose of this paper is to extend the understanding of selective incivility and concludes with directions for future research and practical implications.Design/methodology/approachParticipants included 408 full-time working adults who responded to the survey online.FindingsThe results indicate that race was indirectly associated with discrimination through cyber incivility. The results indicate that Non-White employees experience subtle forms of discrimination through the use of technology and cyber space which accentuate the need for organizations to eradicate workplace incivility so that their employees can evade the adverse outcomes associated with experiencing incivility at work.Research limitations/implicationsThis study extends the understanding of selective incivility and concludes with directions for future research and practical implications.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to explore the relationship between race, cyber incivility and discrimination.

Guided by a framework for multilevel construct validation, this study identified incivility climate as a new facet-specific climate construct. Referring to shared perceptions about the uncivil behaviors, practices, and norms that exist within a team, the construct of incivility climate is fundamental for future research investigating and estimating the effect of workplace incivility at the team level. Data from three separate samples totaling 1,110 employees and 50 work teams were used to test the internal consistency, confirm factor structure, and assess convergent and incremental validity of a new measure at both the individual and team level. The results support the construct validity of incivility climate along with the utility of the Team Incivility Climate Scale. Theoretical implications and practical applications of the construct and measure are described.

Purpose
Overall, the purpose of this paper is to define and delineate the meaning of the concept of Organizational Incivility (OI) by examining its features, scope and implications. Furthermore, it depicts a set of research propositions aiming to guide future research.


Design/methodology/approach
Toward this end, this paper draws upon the literature of workplace incivility, unethical behavior, organizational dark side behavior and corporate social irresponsibility, which have been examined through distinct theoretical streams and frames them under the lens of OI concept. The ensuing analysis focuses on some well-known business-cases and their tragic consequences. In doing so, it also argues that the OI concept provides a solid theoretically based framework about how uncivil mindset have been specifically shaped at the organizational level.


Findings
Overall, it is proposed that OI is a by-product of conscious (bad) decisions in which the organizational leaderships are allured, at some point and for distinct reasons, to embrace moral disengagement and unethical choices. In doing so, the organizations overlook or neglect their commitments to society's well-being and environmental preservation. As a result, the organizations start to play a dirty game without any sense of respect for those that rely on them (i.e. consumers and citizens).


Practical implications
The implementation of strict ethical codes and governance measures have proved not to be enough to contain the OI practices. In this regard, organizational leaderships should question themselves if their companies are truly aligned with a civilized conduct. In turn, government agencies, federal laws and institutions dedicated to preserve people's well-being should play a more incisive role by identifying and stifling the organizational dark side.


Originality/value
On the face of it, it is argued that a myriad of demonstrations of organizational dark side that are identified worldwide can be theoretically explored through the lens of OI and therein lies the major contribution of this work. More specifically, it demonstrates that incivility can go, in fact, beyond organization frontiers spilling over the stakeholders in a negative manner and damaging the interactions. Further, it also contributes to theory by suggesting that OI is a process carefully designed by the organizational leaderships to achieve obscure goals and/or darker purposes.

A review of the literature was conducted on student incivility in higher education, with an eye toward implications for instructors in business. The incivility construct is defined in the context of numerous associated concepts that have been studied in the higher education literature. Evidence is shared about the prevalence of student incivility and its causes, both student- and instructor-related, with a targeted focus on establishing what is known (and not known) based on prior empirical research. Ultimately, practical strategies for instructors as well as meaningful, theoretically grounded directions for future research are outlined.

Reader's comment columns on online political news pages are locations where political discussions between citizens can emerge and develop. The reader comment column is a standard feature of almost all media sites because of its ability to initiate discussion and promote a particular article or issues within the news site. Unfortunately, in its development, the online comment column's discussion process is often filled by incivility and disrespectful expressions, such as sentences containing insults, condemnation, or expressions full of anger. Such sentences have the potential to undermine the discussion process and encourage pointless arguments, especially in articles that discuss political polarity. This study aims to determine the extent to which incivility and disrespectful expressions appear in readers' comments columns of online news sites, especially on polarized political issues. This study uses content analysis techniques on 403 comments in political news on Detik.com, one of Indonesia's main news portals. The results show that although the incivility expression shows a small number, the form of disrespectful shows a high number in the readers' comments. The highest form of the expression of disrespectful is the expression tat contains name-calling (23%), followed by hyperbole (15.6%) and the use of sarcasm (6.2%). The high number of disrespectful expressions seems to be related to the comment column service feature that allows users to use anonymous identities.