Building Solidarity Scale for Academic Institutions

Building Solidarity Scale for Academic Institutions

Josefina C. Ochoa, PhD, Rpm, Bernadette P. Yalong, J.D, MPA, Sherwin M. Parinas, PhD

Department of Psychology, Bulacan State University, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8120353

Received: 21 December 2024; Accepted: 27 December 2024; Published: 23 January 2025

ABSTRACT

Solidarity is a construct that is worthy to measure and uphold by each mentor. Its helpfulness in the workplace is indispensable as educators have to dispense responsibilities with love and concern for others. The psychological construct refers to the value of agreeing, uniting, and harmonizing with others and yield attainment of actualized state of being. The study employed mixed methods of qualitative and quantitative data analysis in the construction and validation of solidarity scale particularly embedded design. The qualitative data were taken from seven (7) selected department heads, where transcripts underwent transcriptions, coding and thematic analysis. The quantitative data came from a survey of pooled items referring to solidarity and with the integration of the themes confirming the facets affectual, associational and functional from 279 adult participants who are academicians where items were subjected to factor analysis. Qualitative data revolved around the themes: shared decision making, clarity of direction, openness to change, and timeliness. From the quantitative data, distinct facets of solidarity as affectual – 15 items, associational – 12 items and functional – 9 items were confirmed. Findings strengthen the claim that solidarity arise from individual’s mindfulness, relational-cultural values that must function in the workplace as well as visioning  intergenerational solidarity. The study implies that solidarity as a value must be assessed and reflected in the academic workforce who should express mutual concern, appreciation and mindfully acting on cohesive endeavors in programs and undertakings. Further implications for human resource development are forwarded.

Keywords: affectual, associational, functional solidarity, factor analysis, solidarity scale

INTRODUCTION

Solidarity is a construct that is worthy to expound and apply in workplaces to yield a more cohesive workforce guided by common values and mutual concern (Frega, 2019). Extant literature would forward the need for values to resolve tensions and conflict in the workplace (Adarves-Yorno, et.al, 2020; Carpenter, et.al, 2019) but not a single paper put in straight the value and affect known as ‘solidarity’. There is therefore a need to develop and validate a solidarity scale to be utilized in institutions of teams working together.

As an affect, solidarity refers to the finest value of caring for others and doing what is best in order to present oneself as responsible, concerned and visioning a better social environment (DeMiranda & Snower, 2020). All institutions would benefit from having this value on its people or workforce. Moreso, the whole nation would see this as a personal discipline that yields productivity and utmost concern for others in the workplace (Ferrera & Burelli, 2019). However, to date, there is a dearth of literature that has expounded this worthy construct that yields benefits, solutions to conflicts and tensions thus  warranting exploration and design of a solidarity scale that can be technologically accessible when perfected.

Solidarity refers to the value of agreeing, uniting, harmonizing with others and yielding one’s actualized state of being as one with others in worthwhile toil and values (Taylor-Gooby, 2011). An individual would exemplify this value of concern and sympathizing with others, cooperating where needed and rendering the support that is sought in any undertaking.  Eventually, wellness, sustenance and satisfaction are attained and these may be passed on to others, as if paying forward favors granted upon (Frega, 2019).

Solidarity refers to the willingness of the members of a group, association, or organization to cooperate and be bound together due to commonality of interest, goals, and objectives (Sangiovanni &  Viehoff, 2023). Numerous studies disclosed that Solidarity depends on the context of application as well as the complexities embodied in it due to its practice. It is significant to everyone, not to mention the need for social cohesion in the institutional workforce (Adarves-Yorno, et.al, 2020; Carpenter, et.al, 2019). Moreover, studies revealed that there are interdependencies between the individual, group, and state tiers of solidarity that bring insights that promote practices and applications relevant to this (Sangiovanni &  Viehoff, 2023)..

Likewise, solidarity is a multi-layered concept in different areas and fields. Its meaning and use have ethical, philosophical, social, and political dimensions (Hangel, et.al, 2022). It is  a commitment to carry on the costs (financial, social, emotional or otherwise) in assisting others recognizing similarity in relevant respect (Prainsack & Buyx, 2017)  They identify interpersonal, group, and contractual or state tiers at which solidarity is practiced. Individuals, groups, or societies support others with whom they have no preexisting relation based on recognizing similarity in a relevant respect, such as a common interest, a shared threat or a shared experience (Prainsack & Buyx, 2017).

There needs to be mindfulness about one’s self, family, community and culture as well as minding the impact of such behavior onto others (Adarves-Yorno, 2020). Mindfulness theory posits such a need for reflection about the delivery of oneself to others whether positively or otherwise (Merkes, 2010). With mindful individuals, cooperation and productivity is ensured as well as the finest value of productivity (Donald, et.al 2019).

Series of behaviors reflecting the need for belongingness, emotional closeness and communal tasks are mirrored across generations (Kneuer,2016). These needs go above and beyond human being’s basic or biological needs and the higher needs for self-actualization (Krems, Kenrick & Neel, 2017; McLeod, 2020). Appropriately, Intergenerational solidarity theory frames both specific behavior and the feeling of belonging and close bonds among generations (Szydlik, 2012) which is deemed lacking in the workplace.

Intergenerational solidarity theory involves a series of facets that can be classified into three dimensions as: Affectual solidarity referring to emotional bonds and caring for others feelings, associational solidarity which refers to common activities shared by a group of people and functional solidarity that entails giving and taking of resources kindly and considerably of other’s welfare (Hwang, Yoon, Silverstein & Brown, 2019; Kneuer, 2016).

Hangel, et al (2022) put in solidarity as a shared goal, interests or experiences promoting social cohesion or commonality, enabling individuals to connect to others’ needs across cultural and individual boundaries. Molm et al. (2007) defined social solidarity as interpersonal and between persons and social units for their theory of direct and indirect or generalized reciprocity. In this endeavor the three facets affectual, associational and functional are carried out as these are values relating to individuals at work who are expected to carry on the institution’s vision and mission statements.

Solidarity signifies consensus at the same time unifying endeavors for common objectives and purposes among groups of persons or teams. There are factors that impede solidarity such as illness, poverty and discrimination. Literature sees solidarity as a tool for social cohesion but which is not achieved as it is not well considered and thus measured (The Reader, 2010). There is thus a need to explore the construct and find how it would fit and apply in institutions of learning and other locales.

Researchers have credited successful solutions to these problems to shared decision-making because of its success in empowering teachers and therefore other professional works who should exemplify utmost values (Balyer, Ozcan, & Yildiz, 2017; Bogler & Nir, 2012; Williamson & Blackburn, 2019). Shared decision-making is taking place as school leaders strive to utilize practices and improve leadership styles in order to meet the needs of the 21st-century learners and other beneficiaries of professional endeavor (DeWitt, 2017; Jennings, 2019; Williamson & Blackburn, 2019). The study achieved the purpose of  building a solidarity scale for academicians.

The study aimed to construct or build a solidarity scale that puts in the values of social cohesiveness thematically analyzed from the perspectives of  academic personnel and therein establish the psychometric properties of this solidarity scale quantitatively and integrating qualitative data.

METHODS

The study employed mixed methods of qualitative and quantitative data analysis in the construction of solidarity scale, particularly embedded design where the quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously, the qualitative data is embedded within the quantitative data. The focus is on the quantitative data but attempt to understand how the qualitative data further explains it was a focus.

The qualitative data gathered from seven (7) selected department heads were coded and thematically analyzed. The quantitative data came from a survey of pooled items with the integration of the themes to compose the facets of solidarity as affectual, associational and functional solidarity from 279 academic workforce. Descriptive statistics were employed for the survey data gathered. The participants for the data were the workforce of an academic institution and are randomly sampled.

RESULTS

Qualitative Data

The themes that transpired from the perspectives of academicians are shared decision making, clarity of direction, openness to change, and timeliness. The first theme shared decision making is manifested in words such as, “There needs to be sharing of opinions and ideas when it comes to making important decisions for the institution” which is a salient feature of solidarity.

Another is clarity of direction, “There needs to be well stated vision, mission goals and objectives of the institution” that speaks for solid thus obedient workforce that manifest oneness and yielding towards same direction. Another theme is openness to change which is against rigidity, “Solidarity is doing your best and not minding your weaknesses and hindrances, it is trying one’s level best in every way”. This must be a value to each employee that they be dynamic and accommodating of changes in the workplace. Lastly is timeliness, not backward looking and not delaying tasks at hand. A department head stated, “use timely knowledge in building new perspectives”.

Quantitative Data

The main concern of the present study is the construction and building of a solidarity scale for use in academic institutions. The following are the items considered in the survey constructed.

Table 1. Factor Analysis of the Solidarity scale from the perspectives of the participants academicians

Component Loadings from the Principal Components Analysis

The forty-five items depict solidarity from the perspectives of the sampled academicians. The significant mean values ranging from 2.84 to 4.15 means that items posited are really the perspective affect, associate and functionality of solidarity. The standard deviation that is more or less 1 means that the scores are more or less 1 step dispersed from the mean.

Solidarity is manifested in being connected with self, family, friends, teams in the workplace. One who possess the affect would appreciate, gives and receives, shares time and space as called for, establishing deep interpersonal relationships, has the democratic attitude, strong ethical and moral standards, respects privacy, courageous and honest in every way.

To further establish the psychometric property of the scale in its facets affectual, associational and functional, principal component analyses were conducted yielding to the following loadings: appreciating basic life experiences, concerned about the welfare of humanity, establishing deep satisfying interpersonal relationships, accepting others as they are, giving the space that others ask, taking full responsibility for tasks on hand, identifying and admitting defenses, maintaining strong moral and ethical standards, seeing the need for privacy, providing the time to those who need, would not expect returns for favors granted, does not seek popularity, maintaining democratic views, listening to self talk and maintains honesty at all cost.

Table 2. Component Loadings of affectual solidarity

Table 2 presents the component loading for affectual solidarity yielding fifteen (15) items as: appreciating basic life experiences, concerned about the welfare of humanity, establishing deep satisfying interpersonal relationships, accepting others as they are, giving the space that others ask, taking full responsibility for tasks on hand, identifying and admitting defenses, maintaining strong moral and ethical standards, seeing the need for privacy, providing the time to those who need, would not expect returns for favors granted, does not seek popularity, maintaining democratic views, listening to self talk and maintains honesty at all cost.

 Table 3 – Component Loadings for Associational Solidarity

Varimax Rotation

Component loadings for associational solidarity yielded twelve (12), cross-loaded items deleted or rephrased to fit the operational definition of the variable. The items for associational solidarity are: playing and finding time for recreation,   performing based on standards, sharing feelings with others, doing tasks  as competently as can, feeling close with all family members, providing money to dependents, connected with the entire family, working hard based on institution’s expectations and standards, as productively as should, giving presents on all occasions, spontaneous in the expression of thoughts and feelings and is trying new things to avoid routines.

Table 4 – Functional Solidarity

Table 4 presents component loadings for functional solidarity yielding nine (9) items such as: accepting donations, tolerating uncertainties, adhering to problem-focused coping ways, maintaining unusual sense of humor, experiencing life’s up’s and down’s, managing tasks willingly and independently, performing tasks creatively, maintaining good terms with everyone on the joy and accepting criticisms perhaps when useful.

Notice more items on affectual solidarity, as this construct is a personal value and resource when developed internally. This would be manifestation of mindfulness about the self and the environment and an exemplification of concern towards the welfare of others aside from the self. This is a product of a culture that would exemplify finest relations downloaded from past geenration and to be forwarded in more finetuned way to the next generation such that finest workmanship and values may be modelled to the next generation.

Solidarity is manifested in shared decision making, clarity of direction, openness to change, and timeliness. From the UNESCO (1998) viewpoint, these values must be exemplified and facilitated by the academe and all sectors of the government. Traditionally and internationally, standards of maintaining solidarity are centered on eliminating all forms of discrimination; protection of human rights and democracy; equitable, balanced, human and sustainable development; protection of the environment; and integration of contemporary and traditional humanistic values. These are broad and complex measures that has to be qualified in simplier and attainable ways, thus, looking at one’s affect, association or relating with others as well as functional ways of behaving in the workplace (Carpenter, et.al, 2019).

Solidarity is best expressed in one’s affective state, when expressed and practiced it may decolonize workforce in higher institutions of learning. Zembylas, (2022) has it with his idea of Affective decolonization highlighting it should happen at affective level as this may equally conquer one’s intellect. A  solid and public pedagogy may be envisioned to make this at work.

DISCUSSION

The themes from the qualitative data need to be passed on and understood by subordinates and these should be concerns of those in the immediate higher post to assimilate and exemplify. Many researchers have credited successful solutions to these problems to shared decision-making because of its success in empowering teachers (Balyer, Ozcan, & Yildiz, 2017; Bogler & Nir, 2012; Williamson & Blackburn, 2019. Shared decision-making is still taking place as school leaders strive to utilize practices and improve leadership styles in order to meet the needs of the 21st-century learners (DeWitt, 2017; Jennings, 2019; Williamson & Blackburn, 2019).

There is a need to place individual need above national need, as when individuals are fulfilled their affect would extend to others in mutual concern and for the welfare of the immediate environment (Morrison, 2006).  Solidarity is at stake when an individual have not fully satisfy his immediate need and concern. Thus, looking at the facets of solidarity should really consider affect first before relations and that of functionality.

Associational solidarity is relational that may yield environmental or social justice geared towards transformations and sustainable communities. These are attained from one’s reflections and wholehearted contribution to the toil that is multidisciplinary, which means modeled by a leader to its constituents (Pereira, & Erwin, 2023) .

In academic institutions, as these are institutions of learning who must work on building cohesive and productive learners who would be future leaders, noteworthy is rethinking of the academe’s strategy and apply solidarity practices envisioned by national and international institutions, local government units and related organizations. If there can be digitization of processes which may  enhance social communication in the community that would be great (Spivakovsky, Omelchuk, Malchykova, Tsapiv, Lemeshchuk, 2023).

Implications

The findings of the study are helpful in utilizing the solidarity scale in academic institutions. When this be utilized, the affect or the value of academicians will be described. This description will aid administration in screening applicants and maintaining mindful and value laden mentors. Also, trainings may be designed to uplift the state of solidarity among academicians. This scale may be converted into google form and made into an application on Androids to make it more accessible and thus measure this affect in the entire population. 

Limitations

The study may be limited in terms of drawing from diverse population, meaning to teachers, non-teaching personnel or the rank and file. Nevertheless it was able to produce a robust measure of solidarity in any institution of learning.  

REFERENCES

1. Adarves-Yorno, I; Mahdon, M.; Schueltke, L; Koschate-Reis, M; &  Tarrant, M. (2020). Mindfulness and social identity: Predicting well-being in a high-stress environment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12708
2. Beaujot R & Ravanera Z (2008). Family Change and Implications for Family Solidarity and Social Cohesion. Canadian Studies in Population vol 35.1 pp. 73-101.
3. Carpenter, J. K., Conroy, K., Gomez, A. F., Curren, L. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2019). The relationship between trait mindfulness and affective symptoms: A meta-analysis of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Clinical psychology review, 74, 101785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101785.
4. Creswell, J. D., Lindsay, E. K., Villalba, D. K., & Chin, B. (2019). Mindfulness Training and Physical Health: Mechanisms and Outcomes. Psychosomatic medicine, 81(3), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000675
5. Donald, J. N., Sahdra, B. K., Van Zanden, B., Duineveld, J. J., Atkins, P. W. B., Marshall, S. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2019). Does your mindfulness benefit others? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the link between mindfulness and prosocial behaviour. British Journal of Psychology, 110(1), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12338.
6. De Miranda, KL & Snower, DJ (2020). Recoupling Economic and Social Prosperity. Global Perspectives.1 (1): 11867. https://doi.org/10.1525/001c.11867.
7. UNESCO 1998. Learning to Live Together in Peace and Harmony. UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok 10110. Thailand.
8. Ferrera & Burelli (2019). Cross-National Solidarity and Political Sustainability in the EU after the Crisis. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12812.
9. Fleming, T.P. Jr. (2021). Increasing Spiritual Leadership: An Analysis of the “and then some” Components of an Effective Mentoring Program for Lay Principals in the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. Duquesne University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 28646691.
10. Frega, R. (2019). “Solidarity as Social Involvement ” Moral Philosophy and Politics, vol. 8, no. 2, 2021, pp. 179-208. https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-0008.
11. Hangel, N; Schoawatz, F; McLeonnan, S; Fiske, A; Zimmermann BT; Buyx A (2022). Solidaristic Behavior and its limits: A Qualitative Study about German and Swiss residents’ behaviors towards public health measures during COVID 19 lockdown. journals.elsevier.com/ssm-qualitative research in health 2 100051.
12. Hwang, W; Yoon, J; Silverstein, M & Brown, MT (2019). Intergenerational Affectual Solidarity in Biological and Step Relations: The Moderating Role of Religious Similarity.https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12397.
13. Kneuer, M. (2016). E-democracy: A new challenge for measuring democracy. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 666-678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116657677
14. Kozlowski, SWJ & Ilgen, DR; (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Sage Journals. Volume 7, Issue 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
15. Krems, J.A.; Kenrick, D,T. & Neel, R. (2017). Individual Perceptions of Self-Actualization: What Functional Motives Are Linked to Fulfilling One’s Full Potential? Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc Sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0146167217713191 pspb.sagepub.com.
16. Liu, W. (2017). Intergenerational emotion and solidarity in transitional China: comparisons of two kinds of “ken lao” families in Shanghai. J. Chin. Sociol. 4, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-017-0058-1.
17. Llorito, D. (2020). Philippines: Social Assistance to Poor Households, Support for Small Enterprises Key to Broad-Based Recovery. The World Bank IBRD-IDA.
18. McLeod, S. A. (2020). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
19. Merkes, M. (2010). Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction for People with Chronic Diseases. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects: Quality-Assessed Reviews. In https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK80061/.
20. Molm, LD; Collet JL & Schaefer, DR (2007).Building Solidarity through Generalized Exchange: A Theory of Reciprocity. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 113, No. 1. pp. 205-242.
21. Neilsen F (1985). Toward a Theory of Ethnic Solidarity in Modern Societies. American Sociological Review vol 50, no 2, pp 133-149. https://doi.org/10.2307/209.5405.
22. Pereira, T & Erwin, K (2023). Surfacing solidarity praxis in transdisciplinary research for blue justice. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 2260502 https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2023.2260502.
23. Prainsack, B & Buyx (2017). A Solidarity in Biomedicine and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, Hardback, 231 pp., £85.00, ISBN
24. Sangiovanni, A. & Viehoff, J. (2023). Solidarity in Social and Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/solidarity/.
25. Shogren, K.A.; Singh, N. Niemiec, R., and Wehmeyer, M.L. (2017). Character Strengths and Mindfulness. Oxford Handbook Online. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935291.013.77.
26. Spivakovsky, O; Omelchuk, S; Malchykova, D; Tsapiv, A;Lemeshchuk, O (2023). Academic solidarity and digitization: Management of a displaced university. Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2023.
27. Szydlik, M (2012). Generations: Connections across the life course. Advances in Life Course Research. 17(3):100-111. DOI:10-1016/j.alcr.2012.03.002.
28. Taylor-Gooby, P. (2011). Opportunity and Solidarity.  Journal of Social Policy· DOI: 10.1017/S0047279410000681.
29. The Reader 2010. “Social and Solidarity Economy: Building a Common Understanding”. ITC ILO Turin, Italy. International Training. Centre of the International Labour Organization.
30. Vansteenkiste M, Ryan RM, Soenens B (2020). Basic Psychological Need Theory: Advancements, Critical Themes and Future Directions. Motiv Emot 144, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1.
31. Zembylas, M (2022). Toward affective decolonization: Nurturing decolonizing solidarity in higher education.  Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 20(4), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2022.2034684.