Everyone who works with others has colleagues. In the academic world, the term “colleague” usually refers to the members of one’s own department, whether friend or foe. To describe someone as “collegial,” however, is an entirely different matter.

“Collegiality” refers to those qualities that make someone a “good” colleague… though, especially in academia, the adjective “collegial” often takes on a more nuanced force, sometimes including whatever those qualities are that make one “likable” within a department.  Often the characteristics of what makes someone collegial (or not) are vague, implied, or intentionally obscured… which frequently makes discussions of “collegiality” a sticking point in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions. 

Most definitions of collegiality stipulate that the good colleague contributes positively to the work of their team, department, or company. However, there are negative aspects to this term and concept, as well: for example, women who speak frequently and powerfully at meetings are often deemed “uncollegial.” Collegiality can come to mean something like “is one of us,” thus making those who are critical of “us” uncollegial.  And when collegiality comes up in discussions of promotion or tenure, it often turns out to be an amorphous, vaguely defined term. 

With all these problems, it brings one to wonder: should the use of “collegiality” as a meaningful criterion for judgment be abandoned?

In this episode, we discuss the following thinkers/ideas/texts/etc.:

• Fury, Resurrection (Album, 1989)
• #Hobama fan fic
• American Association of University Professors (AAUP), “On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation” (2016)

——————-
If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe and submit a rating/review! Better yet, you can support this podcast by signing up to be one of our Patrons at patreon.com/hotebarsessions!

Follow us on Twitter/X @hotelbarpodcast, on Facebook, on TikTok, and subscribe to our YouTube channel!