1. L8 !1
Campus Carry: The Interdisciplinary Edition
Oggha Htut
Texas Tech University

2. L8 !2
Abstract
In this interdisciplinary research paper, the issue of campus carry will be addressed. Primary concerns for
those against this idea typically stems the fear of the unknown while supporter of this issue argue that it is
within their right to carry. The research process was conducted through Repko’s Interdisciplinary
Research Process and the literature search was approached from an interdisciplinary perspective. After
narrowing the disciplines down to two, conflict within the insights is discovered and from there, common
ground between the two disciplines is established. After establishing common ground, a further
comprehension of the disciplines in regards to the issue is expanded upon. The conclusion reached after
conduction this research is that proper training and education is necessary to address the concerns of the
students and faculty members. By Fall of 2016, the Senate Bill No. 11 will be in effect and the right to
conceal carry on campus cannot be prohibited. Future research can focus on the lingering effects of how
this bill has affected campus life along with the effects it may have had on the local communities around
the campus.

3. L8 !3
INTRODUCTION
In Texas Penal Code 46.03(a) and 46.03(f), it states the following:
Individuals are prohibited from intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possessing
or going with a firearm on the physical premises of a school or educational
institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or
educational institutional is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation
vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational
institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written
authorization of the institution (Laws Concerning Carrying Concealed Firearms
on Campus in Texas, 2015).
However, with the passing of Texas State Legislature Senate Bill Number 11 (S.B. No.11), all of that
changes August 1, 2016 for all state 4-year colleges and universities. This new law will allow individuals
with a license to carry (LTC) to conceal on campus. S.B. No. 11 defines a campus as all encompassing
land and buildings owned or leased by an institution of higher education. In Section 411.2031.c of S.B.
No.11, said institution may not adopt any policies that prohibit LTC holders from carrying on campus
with exception to those listed in subsection (d), (d-1), or (e). Campuses will be allowed to establish rules
and regulations where weapons will continue to be prohibited such as sponsored sporting events or club
activities. Provisions concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or residential halls may also be
implemented. As stated before, a general prohibition of handguns may not be implemented. Therefore,
only after taking into account the nature of the student population and uniqueness of the campus, can
campuses enact policies that are necessary for campus safety. After consulting with the students, staff, and
faculty of the campus, the President or presiding officer will submit these policies to the Board of Regents
which must gardner a two-thirds majority vote in order to be implemented.
STEP 1: Stating the Focus Question
This topic of campus carry has brought to light numerous safety and ethical concerns that not
only affects the campus but also the surrounding local communities. How will campuses justify
prohibiting a gun-free one without causing an unnecessary inconvenience for LTC holders? Will the fact
that a student has a LTC license and is carrying be known the professor? If so, how can campuses ensure

4. L8 !4
that the student will not be singled-out because he/she is carrying? Will this create a form of segregation
amongst the student body and faculty? An interdisciplinary approach to this topic of campus carry is
required because no single discipline can address this complex situation. The interdisciplinary research
process offers an effective method to consider different discipline’s perspective in finding common
ground between conflicting insights to integrate these concepts, and apply the results to better understand
broader issues related to campus carry. As stated previously, S.B. No. 11 (2015) defines a campus as “all
land and buildings owned or leased by an institution of higher education or private or independent
institution of higher education” (p. 1). In regards to this issue, the focus question can be stated as the
following: How can campuses effectively educate and inform students and faculty members on proper
safety precautions associated with campus carry?
STEP 2: Justify an Interdisciplinary Approach
While every problem may be complex, not every problem meets the requirement for an
interdisciplinary inquiry. According to Repko (2012), there are four common criteria that a topic must
achieve in order to justify an interdisciplinary approach. First, the topic at hand must be complex. Second,
relevant insights of said topic are offered by two or more disciplines. Third, a single discipline is not
enough to fully address the topic. Last and certainly not least, the topic being addressing must be an
unresolved societal issue.
In terms of complexity, campus carry deals with the interaction amongst multiple variables. The
most obvious being safety issues. What safety precautions must said firearm be able to achieve? What are
the mandatory features that LTC holders must have on their firearm in order to carry on campus? This
perspective can be further broadened. What areas will prohibit firearms and how will campuses go about
enforcing these rules? Let’s take it one step further. How will campuses implementing campus carry affect
the city as a whole? How will it affect local businesses specifically those stationed near the campus? A
topic is considered complex when it is composed of components which are connected through both linear
and nonlinear relationships. When it comes to discovering relevant insight from two or more disciplines
involving campus carry, there are plenty of activist groups nationwide conducting research that can offer
valuable insight from their perspective. As previously stated, no single discipline can single-handedly
comprehend this complex situation. It is only when multiple disciplines pool their resources that valuable

5. L8 !5
information can be referred backed to. Finally, the elephant in the room asks, “Is campus carry an
unresolved societal issue?” There may be many who are uncomfortable with firearms especially with a
record of infamous shootings on school campuses. Some would argue that this will lead to more
shootings. Others might be scared of accidental discharges leading to fatal incidents. On the opposite on
the of spectrum, several might argue that campus carry would decrease the chances of a mass shooting on
campus. Despite this happening all across the nation, a compromise has yet to come forth so until one
comes forward, it remains an unresolved societal issue.
STEP 3: Identify Relevant Disciplines
“A potentially relevant discipline is one whose research domain includes at least one phenomenon
involved in the question or problem at hand, whether or not its community of scholars has recognized the
problem and published its research” (Repko, 2012, Kindle Location (KL): 3844). The nature of
interdisciplinarians is to focus on complex problems that stray outside traditional disciplinary boundaries.
By skimming through various literatures, an attempt is made to narrow the topic down to address the
issue of campus carry. As an interdisciplinarian, one should identify potentially relevant disciplines before
conducting a full-scale search. “Disciplinarians usually emphasize conducting the full-scale literature
search at the very outset of the research process because they are concerned not to duplicate previous
scholarship” (Repko, 2012, KL: 3852). On the other hand, an interdisciplinarian’s concerns lie elsewhere.
Their uneasiness lies more along the lines of finding research done in the discipline on the phenomenon.
Potentially relevant disciplines will be defined in the Table 1.
Table 1
RELEVANT DISCIPLINE, INTERDISCIPLINE,
OR APPLIED FIELD
OVERARCHING QUESTION ABOUT CAMPUS
CARRY
Engineering What can be designed to address the general safety
concerns involved with having guns on campus such as
accidental discharges or proper securement of weapons?
Organizational Leadership What can both the student body and faculty members of
campuses do to ensure that the needs and safety of its
population are being met in regards to campus carry?
Personal Financial Planning In what ways will campus carry affect student’s
monetary assets?
RELEVANT DISCIPLINE, INTERDISCIPLINE,
OR APPLIED FIELD

6. L8 !6
Out of all of the potentially relevant disciplines defined in Table 1, this focus question will be
addressed from the perspective of Engineering and Organizational Leadership (OL). While the other three
disciplines have a higher affinity with OL in terms of research, they do not match the requirement set by
the focus question. The discipline of Personal Financial Planning (PFP) is geared towards individuality
rather than the community as a whole. While OL holds the power to reach out to the community, PFP
does not hold the knowledge to properly address the safety mechanics of a firearms. There is a thin line
between OL, Political Science, and Education. While Political Science and Education contains the
capability to reinforcement OL’s standpoint, boundaries between the three disciplines become so blurred
that there is a possibility that the issue will be addressed from the same perspective rather than different
perspectives. This approach cannot fully address the focus question as it does not take into consideration
the in-depth safety mechanics of firearms required to effectively inform the masses. Therefore,
Engineering and OL are the appropriate disciplines that will be used to address the issue of campus carry.
STEP 4: Conduct a Literature Search
In order to conduct this literature search, Repko (2012) states that it is important to take the
following into consideration: Author’s disciplinary perspective, insights/thesis in the disciplinary
literature, assumptions of the author, theories used to explain the data presented, key concepts, research
method, phenomena addressed, and the author’s bias (KL: 4753-4762). This literature search was
conducted through an interdisciplinary approach. The sources gathered through this process is framed
from the two disciplines discussed in the previous step. An in-depth breakdown of the sources will be
discussed in STEP 6.
Political Science What role will the Federal Government play in regards
to policies implemented by campuses to address
campus carry?
Education What are some ways that the issue of campus carry
could be addressed in the classroom to help keep
students safe?
OVERARCHING QUESTION ABOUT CAMPUS
CARRY
RELEVANT DISCIPLINE, INTERDISCIPLINE,
OR APPLIED FIELD

7. L8 !7
STEP 5: Develop Adequacy in Each Relevant Discipline
Repko (2012) states that “developing adequacy calls for comprehending enough basic
information about each discipline to decide which of its defining elements bear on the problem most
directly” (p. 193). This leads to what researchers call the burden of comprehension which is defined as
having a minimum understanding of a discipline’s cognitive map. Achieving adequacy is an important
preparation needed for integrating disciplinary insights and theories. By taking into consideration the
applicable insights, theories, concepts, and even assumptions of each relevant discipline, the knowledge
obtained can later be applied to the subject of campus carry.
The first discipline that will be discuss is Engineering. Engineering is a process of trail and error.
Engineers observes the world through the lens of logic which sees the world as black or white. There are
numerous incorrect ways of completing a task. Engineers know this because they are the first ones to
know when something does not go as planned. When an idea does not work out as planned, engineers
move onto the next idea and repeat this process until satisfaction is achieved or they run out of resources.
Learning from past mistakes is a key characteristic of an engineer as this leads to progress and progress
leads to new innovations. This logic can be applied to all types of engineering. The topic of campus carry
will be addressed through the eyes of a computer engineer. Computer engineering, like many engineering
disciplines, has no clearly stated theory. Courses in computer engineering focus more on application of
the discipline rather than learning the theory behind it. For example, the Number Theory, which is the
foundation of mathematics, serves as a platform for the logic behind coding. By implementing higher
level arithmetic into a processor, a language for computers is created. From there, it is once again trail and
error as engineers learn which arithmetic does what or accomplishes nothing. While the grammar within
the code is correct, the arithmetic may not be. It could be as something as simple as mixing up the “+” for
addition and “-” for subtraction or forgetting to put in a line of code for the output. Engineers, in general,
care more about the end results rather than why it works the way it does. In terms of campus carry, the
perspective of a computer engineer takes into account the current situation/safety concerns of the campus
and creates software/programs to address these uneasy notions.
The second discipline that will be discussed is Organizational Leadership (OL).
BusinessDictionary.com (2016) defines it as a “management staff that provides inspiration, objectives,

8. L8 !8
operational oversight, and other administrative services to a business”. A business is an establishment that
provides goods and services in exchange for monetary assets. For all intents and purposes, colleges are a
business. In exchange for money, colleges provide an opportunity to earn a degree in any field of study
that one wishes to study in. Behind every successful business is a leader(s) who knows how to inspire and
support his/her team in reaching their goals. For any business to thrive, they have to cater to the needs of
not only the consumer but also its employees. Satisfied employees plus happy consumers equals a
productive and thriving business. How leadership is conducted ultimately decides the future of a business.
There have been multiple arguments on what exactly it means to be a good leader. To expand on this,
studies in OL have developed multiple theories about different leadership styles. Functional Theory
promotes the idea of a leader’s primary responsibility being to assess what their followers need and
ensure that those needs are met. This theory states that a leader must perform five primary functions:
monitor the environment, organize subordinate activities, train and coach subordinates, motivates
followers, and participate in the group’s work (Guzman, 2016). The ideal leader that Functional Theory
dictates is typically one that a majority of people would want to follow. While this type of leadership
might be ideal for everyday situations, it may not be the best in times of crisis. Situational Contingency
Theory argues that “the desired traits and behaviors exhibited by a leader depend largely on the situation,
and that there is not best way to lead” (Guzman, 2016). For example, an authoritarian leadership style is
effective during times of crisis but not for everyday operations. A democratic leadership style is effective
when a consensus needs to be built and a laissez-faire leadership style is ideal when employees are
experienced individuals who appreciate the freedom provided. However, one aspect that all leaders have
in common is that success in their field of operations. In terms of campus carry, the objective of OL is to
create an ideal environment where the concerns of its population are being addressed.
STEP 6: Analyzing the Problem and Evaluating Insights
According to Repko (2012), “analyzing the problem from each disciplinary perspective involves
moving from one discipline to another and shifting from one perspective to another” (Ch. 8). The
perspective primarily consist of insights and theories of each respective discipline. The overarching
question asked by each discipline is to be stated in terms of “what” or “how” which brings about several
benefits in framing each perspective. The question can provide a deeper understanding of an existing

9. L8 !9
inquiry or create a new line of inquiry which can assist in mapping the interrelationships among
phenomena. The idea of “telescoping down” presented by Repko forces the researcher to think
deductively in order to move from general to specific. This requires a mapping of the problem to
understand how its parts interact with one another as well as identify gaps between disciplinary
perspectives. Focusing this intensely on each perspective also enables the researcher to verify whether or
not the disciplines are as relevant to the problem as initially thought to be. Restating the question
addressed earlier in this paper: From the perspective of Organizational Leadership, what can both the
student body and faculty members of campuses do to ensure that the needs and safety of its population are
being met in regards to campus carry? From an Engineer’s point of view, what can be designed to address
the general safety concerns involved with having guns on campus such as accidental discharges or proper
securement of weapons?
The Insights of Engineering
Wintermute (2013) conducted series of Firearms Licensee Surveys (FLS) to evaluate the support
among the federally licensed firearms retailers for an extensive background check on all firearm transfers
and the power to deny the purchase of handguns based on criminal conviction, alcohol abuse, and serious
mental illness. This insight may provide campuses a means of implementing policies to police the legality
of a Conceal Handgun License (LTC) holder’s license. In the state of Texas, a LTC license is typically
valid for about four for the initial license and five years after renewal, assuming no crime or incident
occurs during the duration of the license (Texas LTC: FAQs). The survey was conducted by mail on a
random sample of 1,601 licensed dealers and pawnbrokers in 43 states who on annual basis sell at least 50
firearms. The response rate was roughly 37%. Out of the 37%, about half of them were in favor of a more
comprehensive background check and an estimate of 38% strongly advised it. In this study, there was a
link between the degree of respondents’ concern over the ease with which criminals acquire firearms and
negatively to their concern over the extent of existing firearms regulations. Support in both areas was
associated with measures of the respondents’ exposure to illegal activities and their estimates of the
prevalence of participation in illegal sales by other licensees. The link suggests that the respondents’ are
well aware of the situation and are concerned that someone who shouldn’t have a firearm, someone who
has a criminal intent, or someone who is at high risk of committing crimes can readily acquire firearms

10. L8 !10
under current conditions. The data that this article provides opens new windows of opportunities to
properly address the issue of campus carry.
In regards to the firearms itself, Bures, Kurkin, Sekulova, & Simon (2015) provides valuable
insights on the engineering of handguns. Due to various differences between different populations (Asians
and Europeans or Americans), it is important to use an anthropometric* database to design concrete
products. An anthropometric database allows for usage of the physical dimensions of different
populations so that the final product may be tailored to a specific group of users. In this study, digital
human models (DHM) are used. Customization of DHMs include gender, nationality, percentile or
specific body measurements. This allows the researchers to find our how users from different populations
perform any given task and analyze the risk of injury, needed power, reach, grips, plus many other factors.
Ergonomic analysis of these firearms pertains to the location of the controls and the way of the weapon
grip. The aim was to ensure maximum comfort during weapon usage and the elimination of adverse
effects on the user which in the end, relates to a safety use. For this study, three populations were chosen
for analysis. The database ANSUR ANSUR (U.S. Army Anthropometry Survey) represents the American
population, GERMAN represents the European population, and KOREAN represents the Asian
population. Each population analyses were carried out for three different sizes of statures, namely for 5th,
50th and 95th percentile. LTC holder will, or at least should, know how to properly handle a handgun
because to the education required to get that license. The idea of using this article is to provide a crash
course on weapon safety for the general campus body because despite the fact that campus carry is legal,
not everyone will be carrying. The goal of any policy is to implement a form of risk-prevention. The
reasoning behind this is that the more people know, the less likely an incident is going to occur. More
importantly, the more that people are willing to learn, the easier the transition will be.
Continuing on this tangent of firearms, Renegar, Soons, Thompson, Vorburger, & Zheng (2013)
delves into surface metrology which offers an opportunity to vastly improve forensic toolmark
identification. Fired bullets and cartridge cases are commonly marked by this toolmark which can be used
by examiners to link bullet casings to specific firearm. However, the objectivity of the visual toolmark
identification by examiners has been called into question by the National Academics. It was suggested by
National Academics that an objective toolmark identification criteria and confidence limits are developed.
*Latin for “Measurement of the Individual”

11. L8 !11
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) sought out to do this by developing the
Standard Reference Material (SRM) 2460 standard bullet and SRM 2461 standard cartridge to “facilitate
quality control and traceability of identifications performed in crime laboratories” (Renegar, Soons,
Thompson, Vorburger, & Zheng, 2013, p. 3). Part of this study used cartridge cases from another study by
Fadul, Hernandez, Stoiloff, & Galati (2011) which involves ten consecutively manufactured pistol slides.
Each slide was used to fire two cartridge cases to create a set of 20 known cases. The slides were
randomized afterwards and were used to fire 15 unknown cases. After 400 firings, a total of 20 unknown
cartridges were identified. To evaluate the application for objective identification, NIST “measured the
topography for the breech face impression of every test fire with a disc scanning confocal
microscope” (Renegar et al, p. 8). Based on their criterion, no false identification or exclusions were
present in the known comparisons. This application yielded positive for 40 matching comparisons and for
all 360 non-matching comparisons. The idea behind using this particular article is to provide campuses a
means of registering firearms to their respective LTC owners. With a system similar to that implemented,
it might encourage the LTC owners to be even more responsible when securing their firearms because the
firearm can be traced back to them if an incident were to occur.
From firearm safety to firearm injuries, Thompson, Price, Khubchandani, Bryant, Reindl, &
Hogue (2012) looks at the content of firearm injury prevention training in the curriculum of physical
assistant were explored. The primary idea of using this information is not to have the average student or
faculty member act in place of a trained, medical personnel but to have instilled into them an immediate
basic knowledge to deal with firearm injury until proper help arrives. Since this study was conducted
through a survey, 24-item questionnaires were sent to a population of 145 physician assistant program
directors in which 77% of them responded. Out of that 77%, 82% of the directors had not seriously
thought about providing a training course that pertains to firearm injuries. Three common barriers that
prevented the directors from doing so are as follows: lack of time, lack of faculty expertise on the topic,
and lack of standardized teaching materials yet 77% though that firearm injuries is a vital issue that needs
to be addressed to the health and welling being of the United States population. It is evident there is a
serious need for programs to incorporate firearm injury prevention topics into professional preparation

12. L8 !12
programs in order for future clinical uses as well as those in faculty positions to incorporate this into their
curriculum. The same can be said in terms of campus carry.
Engineering offers a unique perspective on this topic as it is not the first discipline that comes to
mind when one is dealing with such an opinionated issue. When the insights of these articles are broken
down and processed in the mind of an engineer, the results provide a solid testing ground for more trail
and error which is what engineering does best. Next, the focus will shift from the perspective of an
engineer to that of organization leadership.
Insights of Organizational Leadership
LaPoint (2010) presents the ideals of the proponents and opponents of campus carry. Mass
shootings on college campuses have sparked interest in creating policies that will ensure a safe and secure
campus. “Proponents believe the presence of concealed carry increases campus safety, while opponents
believe the absence of concealed carry increases campus carry” (LaPoint, 2010, p. 16). The Students for
Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) was created shortly after the Virginia Tech shooting in order to rally
like-minded people to this cause. Members of the SCCC filed a complaint against the campuses’ regents,
chancellors, and police chiefs to the state court. The students “claimed they have the right to defend
themselves and that the university’s policy is unconstitutional by denying them their Second Amendment
rights” (LaPoint, 2010, p. 18). In response to the forming of SCCC, the Students for Gun Free Schools
(SGFS) believe that “colleges and universities are safe sanctuaries for learning, and… would be
endangered by the presence of concealed handguns” (SGFS, n.d., para. 5). SGFS’s suspect that students
who are stressed from rigors of college life are prone to inappropriately handle firearms. The idea is that
“prevention instead of reaction by campus administration as means to deter violence is a far better course
of action to reduce the violence, injury, or possible death by gun violence” (LaPoint, 2010, p. 18). The
primary use of this article is to showcase the concerns of those against the idea of having firearms on
campus and the wishes of those who believe that self-defense is something they are entitled to.
Cavanaugh, Bouffard, Wells, and Nobles (2012) conducted a survey which examined student
support for a policy that would allow those with a LTC to conceal on campus. The participants consisted
of student from two public universities, one is southeast Texas and one in east Washington. 16 classes
were randomly selected from each of the five academic buildings of both campuses and out of those, a

13. L8 !13
total of 39 classes in Texas and 9 in Washington decided to participate. The survey is designed to measure
several attitudes and individual characteristics that correlate with the varying opinions about the topic of
carrying on campus. “With respect to the question about comfort with guns on campus, students in
Washington sample were more than 3 times as likely to report that they were not at all comfortable with
concealed handguns on campus as they were to report that they were very comfortable with
guns” (Cavanugh, Bouffard, Wells, Nobles, 2012, p. 4). The results in Texas was similar as it was greater
than 2:1. Ratios concerning the comfort with guns in the community were closer to 1:1. This suggests that
students regard the campus “as a unique environment in terms of concealed handgun carrying” (Cavanugh
et al, 2012, p. 4).
While a student’s concerns need to be properly addressed, it is important to take into
consideration the backlash officials face when they support or oppose any issue. Bartula and Bowen
(2015) records the responses of university officials and campus police in regards to carrying on campus.
Both groups are then categorized according to gender, race, age, years at the institution, and years as
officer or top official respectively. The dependent variable defined in this study was the approval/
disapproval of campus carry and out of the 115 surveys sent out, a total of 47 responded (N = 47). Bartula
and Bowen also looked into past research conducted on the topic which included, but not limited to,
perceptions of students and faculty members. They found that in a majority of those studies, a majority of
university personnel and students were not comfortable with people carrying a concealed handgun on
campus. Out of the 47, 44 of the participants are not in favor of campus carry. Out of the 3, only 1 was in
favor of campus carry and the other 2 were uncertain. The majority ruled that this law would only
increase the fear of crime and victimization amongst the students, faculty, and staff. They concluded that
even though the sampling size was only that of Texas universities, many officials in charge are opposed to
the idea of carrying on campus.
Continuing this tangent, the purpose of Hosking’s dissertation is to dissect the perspective of
campus security director concerning concealed carry firearms on campus. The study was conducted
through interviews with the seven security directors for each of the Wyoming community college districts
and Smith’s interpretative phenomenological analysis qualitative method of inquiry served as a beacon for
this inquiry. The analysis of this data was later examine for patterns, trends, or common themes taken

14. L8 !14
from the campus security directors’ responses. This involved personal and in-depth process of the
individual interviews to describe the perceptions, attitudes, and understandings of the participant which
was divided into fifteen subthemes. The end result of Hosking’s research that if the carry of concealed
firearms was unrestricted, this would likely harm the overall safety of Wyoming community colleges.
However, if a proper training of carrying concealed firearms were to implemented, it would create a safer
environment for campuses. Campus security directors stated that possession of firearms by a victim
would not have prevented any violent campus crime. They also indicated that concealed carry firearms
may be irrelevant to the safety of Wyoming community college districts. The interview data yielded
information and considerations for campus security directors, college administrators and anyone else who
might be interested in firearm safety at Wyoming community colleges.
STEP 7: Identifying Conflicts Between Insights
According to Repko (2012), “the immediate challenge for interdisciplinarian is to identify
conflicts between disciplinary insights concerning the problem” (Ch. 10). Conflict is the wall that
prevents the two different insights from integrating with one another. Conflicts between insights typically
stems from concepts, assumptions, and theories.
Conflict within Organizational Leadership
A primary source of conflict that is seen within the discipline is the conflict of interest between
the proponents and opponents of campus carry. To take it a step further, conflict stems from assumptions
within the group and about the other. Proponents of campus carry believe that firearms on campus will
create a safer environment because it will deter gun violence. On the other side of the spectrum,
opponents believe that firearms on campus will only invite more gun-related violence due to firearms
being more accessible. The problem is that these assumptions are based on the values of the individuals
thus creating biases. The idea that firearms will either deter or invite violence is a value-laden assumption
with little to no concrete evidence to support either claim. Community leaders must not let their
judgement be influenced by a biased mindset. A good leader looks for an outcome that will please the
majority. However, an excellent leader takes into account the concerns of both factions involved in the
issue and work towards an ideal solution without having to compromise one another. Despite neither side
willing to concede, both do share the idea of creating a safe campus environment. Student affair

15. L8 !15
professionals should look for ways to bring the attention to key areas of concerns regarding campus carry.
LaPoint talks about developing training programs and awareness opportunities to better educate students,
families, and faculties.
STEP 8: Create Common Ground
Repko (2012) states that “interdisciplinary common ground is one or more concepts or
assumptions through which conflicting insights or theories can be largely reconciled and subsequently
integrated, thus enabling collaborative communication between disciplines” (Ch. 8). While common
ground is not the same as integration, it is an integral part of the process. The technique of organization
will be utilize to create the bridge between Organizational leadership and Engineering in Table 2.
Table 2

16. L8 !16
STEP 9: Construct a More Comprehensive Understanding
“The integration of concepts or theories is an objective in service of the goal of integrating
disciplinary insights, a means to the end of integrating insights” (Repko, 2012, Ch. 13). In the previous,
common ground was established from the various conflicting insights and in this step, the door of
possibilities for constructing a more comprehensive understanding is opened up as a result. During this
process, going back and forth between “the overall observable pattern of the behavior of the phenomenon
as a whole and the contributing disciplinary theories” is used to construct a more comprehensive theory or
interdisciplinary theory (Repko, 2012, Ch. 13). According to Repko (2012), “the best theory is the one
that jointly maximizes its fit with the overall pattern on the one hand, and with the disciplinary theories on
the other hand” (Ch. 13).
In most of the literary sources used for this research, no theory is clearly stated but insights were
clearly identified in previous steps. The general consensus amongst the research is that firearms are a
wildcard. It should be obvious that handling a firearm in an unsafe manner can have a disastrous outcome
so unless one has gone through the proper training procedure, that might very well be the end result. At
the same time, the presence of a concealed firearm may increase safety on college campuses in the
presence of appropriate training. One of the primary concerns of all university officials is the safety of its
student body and faculty members. The more familiar one is with handling a firearm, the odds of
inflicting accidentally harming oneself or others decrease. When addressing the issue of campus carry,
policies will be implemented with those concerns in mind. S.B. No. 11 already has made it so that college
campuses can no longer outright ban the act of concealed carry but they may limit areas where it is not
permitted. However, this “generally indicate(s) that the projected impact of changes to state statutes and/
or university policies regarding concealed handguns are complex and nuanced and that estimates of the
likely increase in obtaining LTCs and legal concealed carry on campus vary widely depending on which
building was surveyed and which outcome measure was used” (Bouffard, Nobles, Wells, & Cavanugh,
2012, p. 337).
STEP 10: Communicating the Results
The conclusion reached from the findings of this research coincides with the focus question: How
can campuses effectively educate and inform students and faculty members on proper safety precautions

17. L8 !17
associated with campus carry? It is safe to conclude that firearms, for the most part, are not dangerous
when in the hands of an informed individual. While it is effective to educate the student body and faculty
members through training sessions, it is more efficient to conduct lessons by means of electronic learning.
The lessons can be divided into two separate categories. The first category is for LTC holders and the
second is for non-LTC holders (i.e. everybody else). Lessons for LTC holders are primarily to reinforce
what they already know about firearm safety from their LTC classes and proper securement of firearms in
accordance to university policy. It should also include designated areas where one can carry or prohibited
to carry along with suggestions on what to keep in mind one is about to enter an area a gun free zone.
Lessons for non-LTC holders include ways of properly dealing with situations in which firearm(s) is
involved like a roommate who forgot to put away his firearm, dealing with situations where firearms not
secured properly, and even what to do when handling a firearm themselves. Tips can be as simple as
making sure the safety is on. Both parties will also be educated on dealing with everyday situations and
abiding by the university’s campus carry policies. A personal preference that the insights have inspired to
be implemented is a form of mandatory first-aid procedure in the event of an accidental discharge or a
campus crime that involves firearms. The average response time for EMS in a “high priority” medical call
is rough five to six minutes. Unfortunately, those five to six minutes may mean the difference between life
or death to someone who has been injured by a firearm. The purpose is not to train every student and
faculty member to the level required of a certified professional but instead to have just enough knowledge
to alleviate the pain until EMS arrives. Students and faculty will be considered a concerned citizen rather
than being certified therefore avoiding liability.
By Fall of 2016, campus carry policies are to be implemented and it will be something that cannot
be contested unless it is officially repealed by the Federal government. Suggestions for future research
might be to look into the outcomes of campus carry along with the effects it may or may not have had on
the campus. Crime statistics on campus and around the community will have to take into account that a
LTC holder may be involved, whether they were the perpetrator or someone who stopped the perpetrator.
How will local and campus police be trained to react in situations where multiple people involved are
potentially carrying firearms? Future research should expand upon these topics.

18. L8 !18
References
Bartula, B., Bowen, K. (2015). University and college official’s perception of open carry on
collect campus. Justice Policy Journal, 12(2), 1-17.
Bouffard, J. A., Nobles, M. R., Wells, W., & Cavanaugh, M. R. (2012). Student attitudes
toward 4 concealed handguns on campus at 2 universities. American Journal of Public
Health, 102(12), 2245-2247.
Bures, M. Kurkin O., Sekulova K., Simon, M. (2015). Ergonomic analysis of a firearm according to the
anthropometric dimension. Procedia Engineering, 100, 609-616.
Fadul, T., Hernandez, G., Stoiloff, S., and Gulati, S. (2011). An empirical study to improve the
scientific foundation of forensic firearm and tool mark identification utilizing 10
consecutively manufactured slides. NCJRS Grant Final Report.
Guzman, O. (2016). Organizational Leadership Theories. Retrieved May 08, 2016, from http://
smallbusiness.chron.com/organizational-leadership-theories-284.html
Hosking, J. (2014). Campus security director perceptions concerning the influence of concealed
carry firearms on safety of Wyoming public committee colleges: A phenomenological
study. 2014 - Colorado State University theses and dissertations.
LaPoint, L. (2010). The up and own battle for concealed carry at public universities. Journal of
Student Affairs, 19, 16-21.
Laws concerning concealed firearms on Texas' campuses. (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2016,
from http://www.armedcampuses.org/texas/
Repko, A. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Los Angeles, Sage.
Renegar, T. Song, J. Soons, J. Thompson R., Vorburger T.V., Zheng X. (2013). Applications of
surface metrology in firearm identification. Surface topography, metrology and
properties. Gaithersburg, Maryland. Institute of Physics.
Students for Gun Free Schools. (n.d.) Why our campuses are safer without concealed handguns.
Retrieved from http://www.studentsforgunfreeschools.org/aboutus.htm
Texas Legislative Online (TLO). (n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2016, from http://
www.capitol.state.tx.us/

19. L8 !19
Thompson, A., Price, J. H., Khubchandani, J., Bryant, M., Reindl, D., & Hogue, P. (2012).
Medical education: Physician assistants training on firearm injury prevention. Patient
Education and Counseling, 86(3), 348-353.
What is organizational leadership? definition and meaning. (n.d.). Retrieved May 08, 2016, from http://
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organizational-leadership.html
Wintermute, G. J. (2013). Support for a comprehensive background check requirement and
expanded denial criteria for firearm transfers: Findings from the firearms licensee survey.
Journal of Urban Heath, 91(2). 303-319.