oa Dehumanised and objectified

References

1. Adams, S., Bekker, S., Fan, Y., Gordon, T., Shepherd, L.J., Slavich, E., & Waters, D. (2022). Gender bias in student evaluations of teaching: ‘Punish[ing] those who fail to do their gender right’. Higher Education, 83, 787–807.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Ahmed, S. (2017). Living a feminist life. Durham: Duke University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Ahmed, S. (2021). Complaint!Durham: Duke University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Al-Amoudi, I. (2022). Are post-human technologies dehumanising? Human enhancement and artificial intelligence in contemporary societies. Journal of Critical Realism, 21(5), 516–538.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Airoldi, M. (2022). Machine habitus: Toward a sociology of algorithms. John Wiley & Sons.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Arthur, L. (2009). From performativity to professionalism: Lecturers’ responses to student feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 441–454.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Blair, A., & McGinty, S. (2013). Feedback-dialogues: Exploring the student perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 466–476.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Binderkrantz, A.S., & Bisgaard, M. (2023). A gender affinity effect: The role of gender in teaching evaluations at a Danish university. Higher Education, 1–20.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Burch, P., & Miglani, N. (2018). Technocentrism and social fields in the Indian EdTech movement: Formation, reproduction and resistance. Journal of Education Policy, 33(5), 590–616.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Crossroads Antiracism Organising and Training. (no date). Racial identity caucusing: A strategy for building anti-racist collectives. Retrieved from https://massnonprofitnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Racial-Identiy-Caucusing-Strategy.pdf (accessed 12February2024)
11. Cunningham, S., Laundon, M., Cathcart, A., Bashar, M.A., & Nayak, R. (2023). First, do no harm: Automated detection of abusive comments in student evaluation of teaching surveys. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 377–389.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Davies, A.W., & Neustifter, R. (2023). Heteroprofessionalism in the academy: The surveillance and regulation of queer faculty in higher education. Journal of Homosexuality, 70(6), 1030–1054.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Dews, S., Kaplan, J., &Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes, 19(3), 347–367.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Doerer, K. (2019). Colleges are getting smarter about student evaluations. Here’s how. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 65(18), A8.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Dunn, A.H. (2023). Teacher self-care mandates as institutional gaslighting in a neoliberal system. Educational Researcher, 52(8), 491–499.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Ellingson, L.L. (2014). ‘The truth must dazzle gradually’. Enriching relationship research using a crystallisation framework. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 31(4), 442–450.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Fan, Y., Shepherd, L.J., Slavich, E., Waters, D., Stone, M., Abel, R., & Johnston, E.L. (2019). Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters. PLoS One, 14(2), e0209749.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Fanon, F. (2016). Black skin, white masks. In W.Longhofer & d.Winchester (Eds.) Social theory re-wired – New connections to classical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 394–401). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Farr, M. (2018, August). Arbitration decision on student evaluations of teaching applauded by faculty. University Affairs, 28August2018. Retrieved from https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/arbitration-decision-on-student-evaluations-of-teaching-applauded-by-faculty/
    [Google Scholar]
20. Gabriel, Y. (2004). Narratives, stories, and texts. In C.H.D.Grant, C.Oswick, N.Phillips, & L.Putnam (Eds.), Sage handbook oforganisational discourse (pp. 61–77). London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gatwiri, K., Anderson, L., & Townsend-Cross, M. (2021). ‘Teaching shouldn’t feel like a combat sport’: How teaching evaluations are weaponised against minoritised academics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Gilliam, C.A., Grow, H.M., Yeboah, D., Seimears, T.L., & Rooholamini, S.N. (2023). Building safe spaces through race-based affinity groups in microaggressions trainings. Academic Pediatrics.
    [Google Scholar]
23. González-Calvo, G., & Arias-Carballal, M. (2018). Effects from audit culture and neoliberalism on university teaching: An autoethnographic perspective. Ethnography and Education, 13(4), 413–427.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Guilbault, M. (2016). Students as customers in higher education: Reframing the debate. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(2), 132–142.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Gurrieri, L., & Finn, F. (2023). Gender transformative advertising pedagogy: Promoting gender justice through marketing education. Journal of Marketing Management, 39(1–2), 108–133.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanisation: An integrative review. Personality and social psychology review, 10(3), 252–264.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C. (2008). Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Social cognition, 26(2), 248–258.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Heffernan, T. (2022). Sexism, racism, prejudice, and bias: A literature review and synthesis of research surrounding student evaluations of courses and teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 144–154.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Heffernan, T. (2023). Abusive comments in student evaluations of courses and teaching: The attacks women and marginalised academics endure. Higher Education, 85(1), 225–239.
    [Google Scholar]
30. hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hou, Y. W., Lee, C. W., & Gunzenhauser, M.G. (2017). Student evaluation of teaching as a disciplinary mechanism: A Foucauldian analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 40(3), 325–352.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kozinets, R.V. (2018). Netnography for management and business research. In C.Cassell, A.Cunliffe, & G.Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 384–397). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Lund, R. (2018). The social organisation of boasting in the neoliberal university. Gender and Education, 32(4), 466–485.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Lund, R., & Tienari, J. (2019). Passion, care, and eros in the gendered neoliberal university. Organisation, 26(1), 98–121.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Macfadyen, L.P., Dawson, S., Prest, S., & Gašević, D. (2016). Whose feedback? A multilevel analysis of student completion of end-of-term teaching evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 821–839.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Morley, L., & S.Aynsley. (2007). Employers, quality and standards in higher education: Shared values and vocabularies or elitism and inequalities?Higher Education Quarterly, 61(3), 229–249.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Mosneaga, A., & Agergaard, J. (2012). Agents of internationalisation? Danish universities’ practices for attracting international students. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(4), 519–538.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Papert, S. (1987). Information technology and education: Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Plotnikof, M., & Utoft, E.H. (2022). The ‘new normal’ of academia in pandemic times: Resisting toxicity through care. Gender, Work & Organisation, 29(4), 1259–1271.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and modernity/rationality. Cultural studies, 21(2–3), 168–178.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Ronksley-Pavia, M. (2023). Bias against women academics in student evaluations of teaching tarring and feathering in academia. In M.Ronksley-Pavia, M.M.Neumann, J.Manakil, & K.Pickard-Smith (Eds.), Academic women: Voicing narratives of gendered experiences (pp. 85–97). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Said, E.W. (1977). Orientalism. The Georgia Review, 31(1), 162–206.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Schultz, C. (2022). Leading with feminist care ethics in higher education: Experiences, practices, and possibilities. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Skewes, L. (2023). Men run academic track; women jump sexist hurdles. In M.Lundquist, A.Simonsson, & K.Widegren (Eds.), Re-imagining sexual harassment: Perspectives from the Nordic region (pp. 92–116). Bristol: Bristol University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Sweet, P.L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Taylor, E., Guy-Walls, P., Wilkerson, P., & Addae, R. (2019). The historical perspectives of stereotypes on African-American males. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 4, 213–225.
    [Google Scholar]
47. University of Oregon. (no date). Revising UO’s Teaching Evaluations. Retrieved from https://provost.uoregon.edu/revising-uos-teaching-evaluations (accessed 26February2024)
48. Utoft, E.H., & Kongerslev, M. (2023). The caring coven: Sensing in- and out-of-placeness in masculinist, neoliberal academia. In M.Ronksley-Pavia, M.M.Neumann, J.F.Manakil, & K.Pickard-Smith (Eds.), Academic women: Voicing narratives of gendered experiences (pp.23–36). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]