3. IHEs grow arena for acts of violence (Hughes, 2008)
Of the 80% of 1000 schools that report Clery crime
data, 37% report correctly (Karjane, H. M., Fisher,
B., & Cullen, F.T., 2005),
38% college student don't know how to get help
58% college student don’t know how to help
someone else if victimized.
4. The purpose of this study was to
provide a preliminary
effectiveness assessment of
Westside Southwestern
Community College’s (WSCC)
CampusViolence Response
Preparedness Planning through
exploration ofWSCC students’
perceptions of safety and
preparedness in responding to
perceived threats and exposures
of violence on the community
college campus.
5. Two Questions Guide this study:
What factors impact Westside
Southwestern Community
College students/staff
perceptions of campus safety?
What areWSCC students’
perceived level of preparedness
for responding to threats,
exposure, and experiences of
campus violence?
6. 2-year colleges don’t have the responsibility to
address the problem of violence because they do
not have residence halls on campus (Gottlieb,
2008).
Colleges are knowingly or unknowingly
underreporting victimization
(Payne, 2008; Pappas, 2008; Hughes, 2008).
Culture of silence regarding CV
(Gage, 2008, Pappas, 2010)
Lack in CV response policy,CV response
training (Brown, 2013; Seo et al, 2011)
Students unaware of reporting protocols
and channels (Seo,Torabi, Sa, & Blair, 2011)
7. Two sampling methods employed in this study:
Quota Sampling
Convenience Sampling
8. Two qualitative instruments employed in the study:
Focus Group
Document Analysis
9. FOCUS GROUPS
L1: Preliminary data
L2: Concentrated
understanding in short
time span
L3: Explore topic difficult to
observe
L4 Less threatening to
participants (Krueger &
Casey,2000) .
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
L1:Triangulation
L2:Background and
Context of CV measures
from Exec Admin
L3: Understand CV
Response/Communication
L4: Acquire additional
areas of phenomena that
requires exploration
10. GroundedTheory, Glaser and Strauss
(1967)
Generate theories on social phenomenon
Iterative Process.
Constant Comparative/Continual Analysis
11. Focus Group
Solicited participants via convenience sampling
Videotaped and audio recorded interview
Solicited third-party transcription
Reviewed and coded transcription
Documented codes that emerged from data
Categorized initial codes into larger thematic
groupings
DocumentAnalysis
Acquired CC district Chancellor and college
president memorandums via district and campus-
wide email communication regarding the Umpqua
Community College mass shooting.
12. Outsourced transcription to third-party.
Reviewed and corrected indiscernible
content
Acquired target documents for analysis.
Uploaded all documents in Dedoose
Applied initial codes via open coding (Strauss
& Corbin, 1990),
Focused emerging codes to create categories
Axial coding concluded the process to find
greater meaning to the categories.
13. Primary Themes
Trusting the system
Attunement
Secondary Categories
Needed Safety Measures
Victimizations concerns
ViolenceTraining Experience
Quality of Staff
Reporting Discretion
Perpetrator Power Dynamics
14. Participant One
“Cause I know a lot of resources on campus, cause I’m attuned”
ParticipantTwo
“ Compared to others, I think all those different experiences make me more comfortable and
confident. I think because of the exposure, once again, nationally, people know that they
should report, people know that there’s resources out there but they might not necessarily
know step 1, step 2, step 3, go to this office, go to that office.
Participant Four
“ I have actually done my research and it shows, statistics show that out of all the types of
harassment, bullying, etc., sexual harassment is probable the top one.
ParticipantTwo
“If you have students who appear to be struggling with this news, or any other matter, I hope
you will suggest that they visit the on-campus Student Health Center next to the ASO Office in
A-9. “
15. ParticipantTwo
“I guess I trust in the system that if I get a text message and if I’m on campus, that if I’m in that
particular building … I trust that if I’m walking towards an area, campus safety would deter
students from going there.”
ParticapantOne
“ I would know where to go, like, cause I kinda know about this system.”
Doc Analysis (Chancellor)
“Westside Southwest County Sheriff Jim McDonnell, the committee is assisting the WSCCD to
take proactive stances on campus safety and emergency preparedness by reviewing our plans,
compliance and performance data, and recommending strategies for improvement. A final
report is expected this semester.”
Doc Analysis (Chancellor)
If you have students who appear to be struggling with this news, or any other matter, I hope
you will suggest that they visit the on-campus Student Health Center next to the ASO Office in
A-9.
17. Findings suggest attunement and trust in
system is important to participants perception
of safety and response preparedness.
Effectiveness ofWSCC campus violence
response efforts is dependent on access
Negative themes influence level attunement
with the campus experience as highly impactful
to the perception of safety several factors have
impact on student perceptions of safety.
18. Additional focus groups with more student
participants
One-on-one interviews with administrative
personnel regarding
Document Analysis of campus and district
website for campus violence messaging and
communication.
InterviewTitle IX Coordinator.
Consider a survey for future research.
Good Afternon, my name is Elliott Coney, a 2017 Edd candidate at San Diego State University in Education Leadership and today I will be discussing the topic of campus violence response preparedness through the exploration of experiences, exposure, and perceptions of 4 community college participants.
This presentation will follow the following outline:
1. A Brief Background
2. Purpose Statement
3. Guiding Questions
4. Conceptual Framework
6. Findings
7. Limitations
8. Conclusions
And conclude with
9. Future Research Implications
So to provide some brief context to the issue of effective violence response preparedness based on some of the existing literature, we find that
Institutions of Higher Education are growing arenas for acts of violence (Hughes 2009)
More specifically, little is know about violence preparedness and experiences of violence in the community college
Community Colleges have received considerable attention regarding safety measures since the 2015 Umpqua CC mass shooting and more locally related Santa Monica College shootings in 2013.
There are cited and suggested reporting issues.
Of the 80% of 1000 schools that report Clery crime data, 37% report correctly (Karjane, H. M., Fisher, B., & Cullen, F. T., 2005),
Such oversight has led to 2015 Federal Title IX investigation targeting 106 IHEs including community colleges mishandling of investigations of victimization.
Existing data suggest disconnects in distribution/delivery and consequent receipt or knowledge of violence response resources and protocols to by students. According to College dating and abuse poll (2011) 38% don't know how to get help if they were victimized, and 58% college student don’t know what to do if someone else is a victim of college dating violence.
The purpose of this study was to provide a preliminary effectiveness assessment of Westside Southwestern Community College’s (WSCC) Campus Violence Response Preparedness Planning through exploration of WSCC students’ perceptions of safety and preparedness in responding to perceived threats and exposures of violence on the community college campus.
. Specifically, this study serves as a trial instrumentation for dissertation and intends to explore the role of administrative perceptions of student violence on the effectiveness of violence response behaviors and perceived safety in students and staff.
During this exploratory process, I sought to acquire insight to two important questions for my study;
What factors impact Westside Southwestern Community College students/staff perceptions of campus safety?
What are WSCC students’ perceived level of preparedness for responding to threats, exposure, and experiences of campus violence?
Some of the assumptions within the discourse on campus violence are that:
2-year colleges don’t have the responsibility to address the problem of violence because they do not have residence halls on campus (Gottlieb, 2008).
Colleges are knowingly or unknowingly underreporting victimization (Payne, 2008; Pappas, 2008; Hughes, 2008).
Culture of silence regarding CV (Gage, 2008, Pappas, 2010)
Lack in CV response policy, CV response training (Brown, 2013; Seo et al, 2011)
Students unaware of reporting protocols and channels (Seo, Torabi, Sa, & Blair, 2011)
Regarding the framework sampling, the study employed an integrated sampling approach coupling quota and convenience sampling due to the time and scope limitation and desire for perspective representative of the diversity of Westside Southwestern Community College. This study desired an even distribution of gender, ethnicity, and participants with a student-worker background for deeper context and perspective through their position and participation within the student and employee cultures. The focus group also provided diverse cultural representation within the perspective of violence perceptions and preparedness across participating ethnic and gender groupings.
The study exploration utilized focus groups to gain a broader understanding of the general perceptions of campus violence measures and sense of preparedness of participants to respond to experiences or exposure to threats and occurrences of campus violence.
Document analysis was also employed to gain an understanding of campus communication supporting the Campus Violence Response efforts and better triangulate congruence between violence response preparedness expectations and the subsequent student knowledge and facilitated preparation resulting from campus measures. Two documents were analyzed from the institution under study sent by the chancellor and president informing district wide student, faculty, and staff of the threat and response to national coverage of the active shooter ordeal that occurred at Umpqua Community College. Both documents were coded in alignment with the focus group transcription for emerging codes and greater understanding of the student experience and perception.
Logic behind selection of Focus Group and Document Analaysis were to to obtain preliminary data and a broader range of understanding regarding student experiences and perceptions as it relates to the guiding research questions to inform and aid in the development of a final dissertation instrument.
Focus groups also allowed for concentrated understanding in a short time span. Using four participants provided access to interactions that allowed comparison of experiences to the greater context of community college violence exposure coupled with subsequent concerns and perspectives. Resulting diversity and consensus provided greater understanding of participant lived experience and topic under study.
Focus groups also allowed me to explore a topic difficult to observe through the lens of student themselves. With the perceived culture of silence surrounding campus violence, perspectives provide rich data to tailor instruments, understand greater implications, and basis for recommendations to future inquiry.
Doc Analysis was employed to acquire greater voice and meaning around the topic of violence perception and awareness of resources. Analyzing documents incorporated coding content into themes similar to the focus group coding process. Specifically the method was used to provide greater background and context to triangulate focus grup findings. documents can be analysed as a way to verify findings or corroborate Evidencef rom othersources. Sociologists, inparticular, typically use document analysis to verify theirfindings (Angrosino & Mays de Pérez, 2000). If the documentary evidence is contradictory rather than corroboratory, the researcher is expected to investigate further.
Also, Doc analysis was used to understand other emerging themes or phenomena not observable within the context of the employed focus group. The selected items for analysis related to institutional response and actions in response to an event of violence whether locally or nationally. Employing grounded theory analysis the analysis was inductive and interprative developing meaning and value from the two coded communications from district chancellor and college president
Glaser and Strauss (1967) conceptualized grounded theory to generate theories regarding social phenomenon (Scott, 2004; Lingard, Albert, & Levinson, 2008). Often referred to as the constant comparative method, it is a qualitative tradition built on compared concepts (Scott, 2004). Similar data are grouped, labeled, concepts are categorized, categories are then linked and organized by relationship, conditions, and dimensions are developed, and in sum, a theory emerges (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The caveat of grounded theory is to develop a higher level understanding resulted from continual analysis or “iterative” process of data neither developing nor testing hypotheses.
Read from slide
After audio and video recording the focus group interview, I sent the audio file to a third-party transcriber I have previous experience with via Freelancer and online website for freelance contractors of different professions and varied pricing.
Upon completion of transcription, the transcript was sent back by the third-partry transcriber. The audio file and video were rewatched and listened to twice for accuracy and corrections to sections of the document labeled indiscernible content. Further viewing of the video provided greater understanding of group dynamics and nonverbal expressions to responses and topics not completely observed during the FG interview.
Following the review of both audio and video data sources I preceded to begin coding the acquired District and College document from the Chancellor and President in Dedoose. My sense making process produced the thought that the document analysis would have been ideal prior to collection of focus group interview to better inform questions and key messaging of district and institutional value and concern.
After uploading the documents into dedoose I coded each document using the initial, focused, and axial coding (Charmaz. 2014). Applied initial codes to all three documents using open coding process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990),
Followed with focused coding approach for categories
Axial coding concluded the process from which the en vivo code “trusting in the system” emerged as the primary theme underpinning the interaction within the findings and guiding questions.
18 codes emerged from the data analysis process and 6 of the 18 codes were merged to create 3 codes based on similarity within operational definitions and redundant usage within excerpts. The remaining code count after the merger within the initial coding phase resulted in 15 initials codes. Across the 3 document sources there were 126 code applications among 74 total coded excerpts. These codes were then upcoded in deduced in a more focused categorization of subcategories through constant comparison. From this point the final stage of coding sought to understand meaning of categories and subcategories . Through the continued analysis two themes emerged that aligned with terms used by focus group participants ‘trust in the system,” and “attunement”
Axial coding concluded the process from which meaning continually centered on en vivo codes used by participants One and Two—”Attunement” and “Trusting in the system” emerged as the primary theme underpinning the interaction within the findings.
When addressing the guiding questions of
What factors impact Westside Southwestern Community College students/staff perceptions of campus safety?
and
What are WSCC students’ perceived preparedness for responding to threats, exposure, and experiences of campus violence?
Attunement with campus and trusting in the system were the themes that emerged from the data. These two themes were also in vivo codes used by Participant one and two. The constant comparison process between categories and sub categories created the presented listing.
Trusting the system
Commitment to preparedness and safety
Student Experiences of Violence
Perceived Barriers to Violence and Response
Attunement
Important student campus violence resources
Bystander Awareness
Needed safety measures
The qual analysis produced Atunement as the primary emerging theme which the study defined as the awareness and knowledge of safety measures, protocols, operations, resources. and culture.
When asked about WSCC students’ perceived preparedness for responding to threats, exposure, and experiences of campus violence? Several participants related their confidence to their level of attunement with campus experiences and past violence initiatives. P1 and P2 cited trusting an d knowing the system . The thematic categories also generated noteworthy subcategories.
Other findings emerged from the data which are noteworthy. Participants highlight the importance of safety measures that were not existent at the institution under study. Understanding the important student campus violence resources contributed to the bystander behavioral confidence in helping self or other third-party persons in the even or threat of violence. Attunement was also positive and negative. Participants were attuned to negative aspects of campus preparedness such as the perceived barriers to preparedness and victimization concerns. P3 and P4 both expressed stories of concern and vulnerability within the community college domain.
Those categories are as follows.
Commitment to preparedness and safety
Student Experiences of Violence
Perceived Barriers to Violence and Response
Important student campus violence resources
Bystander Awareness
Needed safety measures
Additionally the analysis of both the chancellor and president’s memorandum regarding the Umpqua Community College shooting provided greater context to the values of the district and college institution. The coded communication produced similar thematic sources as well targeted to address the threat of campus violence and highlight existing resources and behavior active shooter violence and solicit support for trust in the system through acknowledgement of all the measures and steps in place to ensure the safety of all students. soliciting greater trust, awareness, that represent them.
When considering students perception of safety and preparedness the common theme seemed to emanate from whether their was trust in the system. The system was referenced as the measures in place to protect students from harm and ensure safety. These systems consisted of alerts, campus safety personnel, and commitment to violence preparation and safety. Also, Victiimization concerns also played a role in diminishing perceptions of trust in the system. P3 explained of prior experiences of victimization and resulting change . Student that had trust in the system depended on students experiences of violence. with and an attunement to with campus measures and resources.
Due to completion deadlines, there are some limitations of note that must be addressed to consider the findings and conclusions in this study.
First, the role of the research is a limitation that should be considered in evaluation of this studies findings. As the principal researcher in the study works at the institution under study , I recognize that my extensive background as a present employee in counseling and adjunct teaching faculty, my familiarity with students, campus policy, and knowledge of previous issues may lead to me to specific perception and experiences that can potentially raise biases that can compromise the trustworthiness and validity of the study. Moreover it is imperative to address this limitation, as an important component of the interview process the bracketing or suspension of assumption (Tufford, L. & Newman, P. 2013; Dale, 1996). Biases and preconceptions were monitored via analytic memo and the constant comparative method regarding emerging themes and categories.
Time and Scope was also a limitation. The required deadline for the assignment submission provided a limitation in scope of study. Multiple focus groups would have been ideal with different targeted quotas of participants to gain a richer context of perception of violence, effectiveness of preparedness measures, and confidence in preparation to respond to exposure to or experienced acts of violence. Also this study focused on a single academic institution and used non-probability sampling.
Participants also present a limitation for consideration. The number of research participants were limited to four due to a number of factors such as willingness to participate. However, again, the participants were self selected and were primarly a sample of convenience.
Findings suggest attunement with the campus experience has positive influence on perceptions of safety on the community college campus. Students that stated they were confident in navigating threats and exposures to campus violent situations communicated direct and indirect trust in the campus violence response efforts. Participants with higher perceptions of safety and preparedness cited greater knowledge to existing campus violence measures and protocols coupled with greater positive violence experiences while on campus . needed information and correspondence regraarding pactful to the perception of safety by community college students. Students were generally attuned with the measures and protocols of
I would like to acquire additional focus group to explore the prominent themes of Trust in system and attunement. Also, I would like to gain administrative decision making input. I am thinking Title IX coordinator, faculty, and administrative personnel. In addition further document analysis is necessary to acquire richer understanding to inform my instrument and future questions.
