This paper presents a service learning project and research study focused on workplace violence prevention at a large tertiary care hospital in North Philadelphia. Using Participatory Action Research (PAR) as its guiding methodology, the study engaged hospital employees — including administrative staff and nurses — to identify threats to violence prevention, assess existing strategies, and explore potential improvements. The paper outlines the PAR procedure, data collection methods, sampling approach, and validity considerations, then presents interview results across five structured questions. The discussion addresses underreporting of violent incidents, risk factors for nurses, security gaps, definitional ambiguities surrounding workplace violence, and recommendations for systemic organizational change.
The service learning project planned to address the issue of workplace violence is a Workplace Violence Prevention initiative to take place at a large tertiary care hospital in North Philadelphia. After reviewing current policies and procedures regarding workplace violence, and interviewing and collaborating with those responsible for the implementation of those policies and procedures — including administration, security, and human resource staff — a poster presentation and an employee questionnaire will be designed, titled "Preventing Workplace Violence."
This project will include the following components:
Defining the types of workplace violence; presenting statistics regarding the incidences of workplace violence; identifying jobs or locations with the greatest risk of violence, as well as processes and procedures that put employees at risk of assault. A screening tool will also be used to gather employees' ideas on the potential for violent incidents, to help identify or confirm the need for improved security measures.
The goal of the service learning project is to reduce or eliminate worker exposure to circumstances that lead to death or injury from violence. For broader context on the scope of this problem, see the CDC's overview of workplace violence, which outlines risk factors across healthcare and other sectors.
The primary objective was to make use of a methodology that would involve employees, recognizing that engagement advances control and continuing commitment even after the particular project is finished. The methodology chosen for this project is Participatory Action Research (PAR). Kemmis and McTaggart (1990) state that two essential ideas are exclusive attributes of action research: the idea of group decision-making and dedication to advancement.
Participatory action research is a dynamic procedure in which understanding is built through collaboration between the researcher and the participants. PAR subjects are viewed as co-researchers within the venture of knowledge building. Participatory action research is a powerful methodology for reaching outcomes that are acceptable to the subjects. In researching problems of interest in this distinctive way, PAR group members will not only produce transformation methods but will additionally be critical in applying change. This makes it a suitable methodology to discover problems of employee safety and to create new approaches for addressing those problems.
PAR creates the opportunity for subjects to engage in decision-making within their own setting and practice (Robinson 1995; Street 1995). Therefore, when undertaking research regarding client-initiated violence towards community nurses and other employees, PAR is the methodology of preference. Its usage has established new understanding that has been utilized to develop a more informed awareness throughout the organization, as well as to implement a change regime within an occupational safety and health framework.
There are a number of approaches to PAR, but researchers share a standard commitment to two aspects of the procedure: participation and action. The method selected here was guided by the work of Street (1995), and it is therefore important to summarize her approach. Other authors were also influential in the selection of PAR, and their contributions shaped the foundations of the research procedure.
Street (1995) based her strategy on Kemmis and McTaggart's (1990) model of PAR, which understands PAR as an action research spiral. This spiral — sometimes referred to as a "switchback" or "corkscrew" — calls for continuous reflection and revision of the research strategy when required, while maintaining momentum toward the final objective. The planning, action, and assessment steps of PAR are spiral by nature and are supported by the group structure. The spiral includes numerous phases.
In this procedure, the first two phases of the spiral involve the collection and review of relevant literature, serving as a precursor and guide to preparing further analysis. It is after these two phases that standard research diverges from PAR. Standard research determines that a hypothesis requires testing (Street 1995), whereas PAR is concerned with exploring the problems that the researcher and the subjects consider essential. Street (1995) recommends PAR as the methodology of preference, as it has the potential to give individuals an awareness of their specific situation as a precursor to creating change. Subjects join the research process anticipating transformation; PAR allows the researcher to modify the study questionnaire and thereby restructure the analysis.
Within this study, two types of PAR data collection methods are employed: (1) quantitative, which involves numeric representation and breakdown of factual data; and (2) qualitative, which entails intangible measurements and may include photographs, videos, sound recordings, and similar materials. The qualitative approach is more prevalent than the quantitative in this context. Accordingly, the researcher employed the qualitative method.
Most studies, whether qualitative or quantitative, make use of one or a combination of the following methodologies to collect data:
A. Survey — which may include questionnaires as well as interviews; B. Structured interview; C. Semi-structured interview; D. Unstructured interview; E. Questionnaire (Trochim, 2006).
To accomplish the goals of this study, the researcher utilized interviews as the primary data collection method.
The fully structured style of interview was utilized in the study along with a standardized format, since these two types of interview allow for in-depth examination and produce data in a structured, easily interpretable form. The interviews were also divided into sub-sections, which allowed the extraction of statistical information so that the analysis could be interpreted clearly. The sub-sections were gathered together following the completion of each interview.
Prior to each interview, subjects were presented with the relevant materials and asked to familiarize themselves with them, as doing so would likely help them respond to the questions more readily. Subjects were permitted to express their views without restriction, and their answers could lead to the emergence of new questions. Where a subject was comfortable having their thoughts recorded, audio recording was used for more complete and accurate findings. This remained optional, as not every participant was comfortable with having their views recorded.
"Bias, validity concerns, and sampling strategy"
"Interview findings across five research questions"
"Underreporting, risk patterns, and policy recommendations"
You’re 30% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.