An Examination of the Status of Communicative Action among Faculty Members and the Factors Influencing It (Case Study: Yasouj University)

Abstract
In many societies, particularly Iran, faculty members are recognized as a group capable of influencing social dynamics. The presence of phenomena such as perceived coercion and injustice, university bullying, scientific corruption, lack of motivation, impaired argumentation and communication, and limited participation suggests that this group has sustained injuries that may undermine its status as a reference community. Accordingly, this study aims to examine the communicative action status of faculty members through Habermas’s theory of communicative action. This research adopts a quantitative, survey-based design, with a sample of 122 Yasouj University faculty members (including contractual, probationary, temporary official, and formal staff) selected by simple random sampling. Variance-based structural equation modeling was employed via Smart PLS to analyze the data. Findings indicate that the level of communicative action among faculty members is below the mid-range average. Structural factors—namely, the university’s structure, including lack of institutional independence, ideologization of the university environment, and Ministry of Science policies—significantly predict higher levels of non-communicative action, with ethnic nationalism emerging as a salient contextual factor. At the micro level, self-centeredness exerts the strongest negative effect on faculty communicative action. The model explains 47% of the variance in communicative action (R² = 0.472). Given that current Iranian university structures push faculty toward self-centered individualism, these conditions foster pursuit of personal interests over collective, understanding-based action. Until such structural conditions are changed, it is unlikely that faculty interactions will align with the standards of communicative action. 
Keywords: Communicative Action, Faculty Members, University Structure, Self-Centeredness, Tribalism, Yasouj.
 
1. Introduction
The university is a leading institution in modern society, pursuing two core aims: educating its members to facilitate socialization and contributing to the holistic development of communities and global peace, while also building culture and civilization through production, explanation, and deepening of science and culture. With two subsystems—scientific-professional and management-staff—it must fulfill organizational and social roles simultaneously. Achieving this requires an appropriate mechanism; without it, disorders and inefficiencies emerge, including insecure, unreceptive environments, misaligned power relations, and the rise of a self-righteous class, culminating in dissatisfaction among students and faculty.
This inefficiency manifests across multiple dimensions. Although explicit data are limited, researchers’ experiences and related studies indicate the relative fragility of the academic environment. Issues include ideological drift and loss of independence, hierarchical and power-centered relations, discrimination by gender, ethnicity, and culture, unclear criteria for distinguishing research fields, pressure to publish with a quantity-over-quality emphasis, homogenization and over-standardization of educational procedures, and a lack of structures safeguarding academic freedom. The result is erosion of individuality and agency, suppression of talents, and weakened cultural-communication ties among academics, undermining the internalization and transmission of educational values. A shift toward documentary and monetary orientations, along with incidents of academic bullying, further characterizes the landscape.
While external factors matter, individual faculty activism and ethics are crucial. Strengthening ethical conduct, as emphasized by Rezink, can have wide-ranging positive effects on university and society. This study adopts a self-critical lens to examine how faculty actions contribute to disorders and what harms ensue. By incorporating social relations into analysis and applying Habermas’s theory of communicative action, it investigates the extent to which faculty behavior aligns with communicative criteria and what factors influence it. Yasuj University serves as a case study, reflecting broader Iranian conditions and a local culture of ethnocentrism and clan-like dynamics.
 
2. Materials and Methods
This study adopts a quantitative methodology and employs a survey design. The statistical population comprises all faculty members at Yasuj University (including contractual, official, experimental, and adjunct staff), totaling 249 individuals according to data from the Administrative and Financial Vice-Chancellor. The sample size is estimated at 122 participants, determined to maximize variance. Participants were selected from four faculties of Yasuj University using simple random sampling.
The data collection instrument is a researcher-developed questionnaire, validated for face and construct validity. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency metrics, specifically Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. The questionnaire collects respondents’ background characteristics through 9 items, while the dependent variable (level of communicative action) comprises 74 items. All constructs are measured on a five-point Likert scale. To test the hypotheses and generalize the findings to the population, variance-based structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed using Smart PLS software.
 
 3. Data 
The sample included 122 faculty members with an average age of 44 years (ranging from 34 to 66, standard deviation 6.57). Average work experience was 15 years (ranging from 1 to 33, standard deviation 7.79). Most were men (88%), married (85%), and from Lor (47%) or Fars (46%) ethnic groups. About half were local to the province, half from the Humanities faculty, two-thirds permanently employed, and one-quarter held administrative roles.
Faculty reported below-average communicative action overall (average non-communicative score: 78 out of a possible 72 midpoint, meaning weaker dialogue than expected).
Specifically: They felt high pressure and coercion (average 10 vs. expected 9). Low honesty and transparency (average 12 vs. 9). Little ethical behavior (average 15 vs. 12). Weak reasoning in discussions (average 10 vs. 9). Cooperation was near average (18 vs. 18).
This pattern held across all groups—no meaningful differences by gender, ethnicity, rank, faculty, employment type, marital status, or administrative role.
The statistical model showed: Self-centeredness had the strongest negative impact on dialogue (direct effect 0.52). University structure (lack of independence, ideological control, ministry policies) had a clear negative effect (direct 0.28, plus indirect through self-centeredness). Tribalism affected dialogue only indirectly (0.16), by increasing self-centered behavior. The model explained 47% of why communicative action is low. Fit was good (SRMR 0.09), and predictions were reliable. Correlations confirmed ideological control (0.50) and lack of independence (0.43) strongly link to poor dialogue.
 
4. Discussion 
Communicative action denotes collective behavior and rational deliberation in communal affairs. Given the university’s role as a high standard exemplar for examining these phenomena, it is plausible that the institution, on average, reflects the best ethical, behavioral, and scientific practices, or that mechanisms exist to ensure them. Many respondents displayed clear ethical orientations and social concern, yet structural factors shape observed behaviors and processes. Systemic deficiencies can erode individual awareness and voluntary action, though awareness alone does not absolve responsibility; agency is required.
Habermas’s communicative action—characterized by mutual respect, rational discourse, lack of coercion, ethical conduct, honesty, independence, cooperation, participation, and the absence of domination—serves as the ideal mode of academic activity. Both formal and informal evidence show frequent violations of these components.
Although the study anticipated average levels of communicative action, findings indicate below average levels across the sample. Statistical tests reveal that this deficit is widespread and not significantly moderated by context variables such as ethnicity, faculty type, academic rank, employment status, marital status, gender, or executive position.
All model variables significantly influence faculty communicative action, with self centeredness showing the strongest negative effect. The university’s ideological orientation, Ministry of Science policies, and perceived lack of institutional independence emerge as salient predictors of non communicative actions among faculty.
 
5. Conclusion 
Communicative action denotes collective behavior and coherent rationality in communal affairs. As a leading societal exemplar, the university should, on average, reflect the best ethical, behavioral, and scientific practices or have mechanisms to ensure them. Although many respondents showed ethical orientations and social concern, structural factors shape observed behaviors and processes. Systemic deficiencies can undermine individual awareness and voluntary action, though awareness alone does not absolve responsibility; agency and intentionality are essential.
Habermas’s communicative action—mutual respect, rational discourse, absence of coercion, ethical conduct, honesty, independence, cooperation, participation, and absence of domination—defines the ideal academic activity. Both formal and informal evidence reveal frequent violations of these components.
Contrary to expectations, findings show below-average levels of communicative action, with deficits that are widespread and not significantly moderated by variables such as ethnicity, faculty type, academic rank, employment, marital status, gender, or executive position.
All model variables significantly influence faculty communicative action, with self-centeredness showing the strongest negative effect. The university’s ideological orientation, Ministry of Science policies, and perceived lack of institutional independence emerge as salient predictors of non-communicative actions.
Recommended measures to improve communicative action:
• Combating egocentrism and ethnocentrism: foster collective interests, strengthen academic freedom protections, and empower university unions.
• Enhancing institutional independence: minimize external interference to allow free scientific and cultural activity.
• Preventing ideological capture: maintain a knowledge-centered university with open, critical ideological processes among members.
• Reforming Ministry policies: prioritize scientific freedom and qualitative assessments over rigid quantitative constraints.
• Emphasizing participatory ethics: curb strategic behaviors and promote genuine, ethics-based collaboration.
These conditions guide toward collective action but do not guarantee it; realizing communicative action requires individual agency and will. The study concludes that current university conditions—especially limited independence and pervasive ideological policies—encourage non-communicative actions and reinforce flawed structures. Addressing these factors is essential for meaningful reform.