Beyond Labels – A case study

Teaching Case Study: Navigating Nomenclature at Northern University

Objective:

To explore the implications of job titling in academic environments, focusing on the perception and impact of the term “non-academic” within a university setting.

Opening Paragraph:

In the spring of 2023, Northern University, a prominent but fictional educational institution in the heart of Manchester, England, faced a seemingly minor yet pervasive challenge that echoed across its corridors. The Director of Human Resources, Elizabeth Moore, found herself at the center of an emerging debate over the use of the term “non-academic” to describe the university’s diverse staff who were not directly involved in teaching or research. This term, entrenched in the university’s formal and informal communication, had begun to stir dissatisfaction among staff, leading to a noticeable dip in morale and an uptick in departmental disputes. As tensions mounted, Elizabeth was tasked with re-evaluating this nomenclature. The overarching questions she faced were: How could the term “non-academic” be affecting staff identity and cohesion, and what alternative titles could better reflect the contributions of all university staff?

Body of the Case:

Northern University, established in the early 1900s, had grown from a modest college to a full-scale university with over 15,000 students and 3,000 staff members. The university was divided into numerous departments and units, each functioning with a degree of autonomy yet interconnected through central administration.

The issue surfaced prominently during the annual staff feedback session in March 2023, where several professional services staff expressed concerns about being labeled “non-academic.” These staff members argued that the term implicitly undervalued their contributions compared to their academic counterparts. Elizabeth initiated a series of focus groups to delve deeper into these sentiments. During one session, a technician named John commented, “Being called ‘non-academic’ makes it feel like we’re just an afterthought, despite the crucial support we provide to the academic machine of this university.”

Simultaneously, a small but vocal group of academic staff defended the traditional terminology, arguing that it was a clear and functional distinction necessary for administrative purposes. Professor Linda Smith remarked, “The term ‘non-academic’ is practical. It helps delineate clear roles within our operational structure.”

As the discussions unfolded, Elizabeth uncovered a deeper layer of institutional culture that perpetuated a division between academic and professional services staff. She realized that any change in nomenclature would need to be part of a broader strategy to enhance inclusivity and recognition across the university.

Concluding Paragraph:

The case of Northern University highlights the complex dynamics of workplace nomenclature and its impact on organizational culture. Elizabeth Moore’s proactive approach sheds light on the broader implications of seemingly benign terminologies that can subtly but significantly influence staff morale and identity. As the university community continues to debate and adapt, the question remains: Can a change in terminology truly bridge the perceived gap between academic and non-academic staff, or are there more systemic changes required?

Discussion Points:

1. How does the designation of “non-academic” influence the perceived value of staff roles within an educational institution?
2. What alternative terms could Northern University consider to foster a more inclusive and respectful workplace culture?
3. In what ways might changing job titles impact interdepartmental dynamics and overall institutional effectiveness?
4. Could the dissatisfaction with the term “non-academic” be symptomatic of deeper organizational issues at Northern University?
5. How important is terminology in shaping organizational identity and staff morale in higher education settings?