NCJ Number
190255
Journal
British Journal of Criminology Volume: 41 Issue: 3 Dated: Summer 2001 Pages: 460-471
Editor(s)
Geoffrey Pearson
Date Published
2001
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This study illustrated the value of a multi-method approach (quantitative and qualitative) for studying the extent and impact of violence against professionals in the community and the response of professional agencies and organizations to violence and risk of violence in general and to specific incidents.
Abstract
This paper discussed the value of a multi-method approach for studying violence against professionals and argued that both quantitative and qualitative methods are necessary to understand fully individual professionals’ experiences of violence against them. The study was an ongoing investigation of violence by members of the British public against three types of professional workers based in community rather than large institutional settings: National Health Service (NHS) general practitioners, probation officers, and Anglican clergy. The goals of the study were to assess the extent and impact of violence on these professionals and the response of professional agencies and organizations to violence and risk of violence in general and to specific incidents. The main objective at the beginning of the research was the construction of three survey instruments containing a standard set of questions regarding the extent and nature of violence experienced by members of all three professions in the course of their work. In-depth interviews were conducted with approximately 25 professionals from each of the three professions. Study findings showed that the survey method was adept at capturing the incidence of violence and its transgressive aspects. In addition, consequential and situational aspects of violence could also be measured in a limited way, but qualitative methods were needed to capture the complex meanings violence in general and in specific instances had for individual professionals. In-depth interviews provided the opportunity to explore with respondents the nature of their understanding of violence as transgressive and the role of situational factors in interpreting how to respond to such acts. It was recommended that the qualitative analysis be extended to encompass both probation officers and clergy to see whether the discursive strategies characteristic of general practitioners were replicated in comparable forms in the other two groups. It was also recommended that the understanding of how professionals experience and understand violence be fed back into the contextualized analysis of the inter-relations between the situational, transgressive, and consequential aspects of violence against professionals. References