Part III Reader — The Framework¶

About this essay: This is a companion page for Part III of The Record and the Wound, published on Substack. The essay introduces conceptual frameworks from organizational and social psychology literature. This hub page provides context; the primary evidence remains on the main site.

Disclaimer¶

About Part III¶

Part III of The Record and the Wound introduces two conceptual tools:

1. A stage map — Phases commonly observed in documented cases of institutional conflict
2. A chronological timeline — Events mapped against documentary evidence

The essay draws on literature from organizational psychology, workplace conflict studies, and higher education research to provide context for understanding patterns in institutional processes.

Key Themes¶

Institutional Dynamics¶

Institutional decision-making often involves:

• Multiple stakeholders with different priorities
• Information asymmetries between administrators and subjects
• Procedural constraints that may not align with individual circumstances
• Reputational considerations that can influence process

These dynamics are well-documented in organizational research and are not unique to any single institution.

The Role of Public Commentary¶

When individuals with institutional affiliations engage in public commentary:

• Institutions may face pressure to respond
• Standard procedures may be applied in non-standard contexts
• The relationship between public speech and institutional processes can become unclear

The essay explores these tensions without asserting specific conclusions about motivation.

Documentation as Protection¶

A recurring theme across Parts I–III is the value of comprehensive documentation:

• Contemporaneous records establish what occurred
• Public records requests surface institutional communications
• Preservation notices protect against spoliation
• Transparent archives enable independent verification

The Academic Mobbing Framework¶

In the organizational psychology literature, "academic mobbing" refers to a pattern where:

• An individual becomes isolated within an institution
• Multiple actors contribute to adverse outcomes
• Normal institutional processes produce disproportionate effects
• The target experiences cumulative harm over time

Key researchers in this area include Kenneth Westhues, Noa Davenport, and others who have documented these patterns in higher education settings.

This framework is used here as an organizing lens, not as a factual determination. Whether any particular case fits this pattern requires careful analysis of specific evidence by qualified observers.

What This Framework Does NOT Claim¶

This site explicitly does not claim:

• That any individual at TTUHSC acted with malice
• That specific actions were coordinated
• That the framework definitively applies to this case
• That any legal or clinical definition of "mobbing" is met

Why Include It At All?¶

The framework is included because:

• It appears in the Substack essay that many readers will have encountered
• It provides vocabulary for discussing patterns observed in institutional conflicts
• Readers may find it useful for organizing their understanding
• The site's purpose is to document, not to advocate for particular conclusions

Two Guides Promised¶

Part III promises two "living guides":

1. A Stage Map¶

The essay outlines phases observed in documented institutional conflicts. These are descriptive patterns from literature, not predictions about any specific case.

The Case Hub maps documented events to these phases—but as reference points, not conclusions.

2. A Chronological Timeline¶

The Case Arc Timeline provides dated events with documentary links. This is the primary evidence-based resource.

What This Page Does NOT Do¶

• Assert that TTUHSC engaged in "mobbing" — That would be a conclusion requiring evidence this site does not claim to have established
• Name private individuals — Only individuals already disclosed in official records per site policy
• Make allegations beyond the documents — The Substack essay contains personal narrative; this hub focuses on verifiable evidence

For Independent Review¶

An independent reviewer seeking to evaluate the applicability of any framework should:

1. Start with the Executive Summary for the factual backbone
2. Review the Record vs. Reality page for documented discrepancies
3. Examine primary documents in the Documents Index
4. Draw their own conclusions about patterns and applicability

Read the Full Essay¶

The complete Part III essay is available on Substack:

Read Part III on Substack

Part IV — Coming Next¶

Part IV of The Record and the Wound is in preparation. It will address:

• Institutional responses to documentation
• The role of public records in accountability
• Next steps in the ongoing process

This page will be updated when Part IV is published.

Related Pages¶

• Part I — The Record
• Part II — The Motivation
• Executive Summary
• Case Arc Timeline