Psychiatric health care providers have high rates of work place violence victimization, but yet little is known about the strategies used by them and their facilities to manage, reduce, and prevent violence (Peek-Asa, et al, 2009).
Their presence in stressful situations such as incidents (violent incidents), suicide attempts, waiting to visit a doctor, or transfer of patients to another ward or another hospital exposes them to more abuse or harsh behaviour from patients, families, relatives and friends than other hospital staff (Kwak et al., 2006).
And further, and as is noted in Gender & Development’s own issue on research methods (quoted at the start of this review), ‘[t]here is not one way of doing feminist research nor one method attributed to it; both quantitative and qualitative methods can be pro-feminist or non-feminist depending on the ways in which they are theorised and practised’ (Undurraga 2010, 278).
A case-in-point is articulated by Diane Crocker in Chapter 7 where she argues that, in the case of measuring violence against women, popular quantitative surveys used to measure violence do so in a way that the focus is placed on ‘incidents in isolation from context or effects’ (p.
84), to the detriment of understanding the socio-political forces that perpetuate gender-based violence.
Indeed, from my perspective and experience – on measuring gender-based violence and women’s empowerment in the international setting – it is the continued emphasis on the quantitative that remains a serious impediment to capturing the multifaceted nature of women’s (and men’s) lives, not the predominance of qualitative research.The diversity of methods explored in that issue showed that ‘there is not one method …that necessarily makes research feminist’, rather a feminist ‘research approach, or framework, is critical’ (Beetham and Demetriades 2007, 199–200).The authors of Feminism Counts: Quantitative Methods and Researching Gender, however, contend that quantitative methods have been, and continue to be, avoided by feminist researchers to the detriment both of particular disciplines and gender research goals more broadly.first appeared as a special edition of the International Journal of Social Research Methodology, and contains all but one of the original essays, seven in total (more on the missing essay later).It is important to point out, as the editors and the authors of Chapter 6 (Marianne Hester, Catherine Donovan, and Elidin Fahmy) do, that the feminist qualitative/quantitative ‘paradigm wars’ have deep historical roots.During what is commonly referred to as the ‘second wave’ of feminism (in the global North), feminist researchers decried the positivistic nature (that is to say, the emphasis put on a strictly ‘scientific’ approach) of the majority of academic research of the time, arguing that it did not capture the realities of women’s lives – and, in many cases, did not seek to gather information on women whatsoever.Gender, in all of its nuances and intersections with race and class and sexuality, cannot be assessed through quantitative – or qualitative – methods alone.Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student.The motivation of this paper stemmed from a recently news in the media reporting the increased incidents of violence and aggression faced by nurses in Jordanian hospitals.The media news prompted the author to reflect on current knowledge and understanding of these events in both in Jordan and around the world to make recommendations for managing reducing, and prevention of these events in the future.