INTS 3300 Final Research Paper

Running head: Final Research Paper – Campus Carry
Final Research Paper – Campus Carry
Franklin Agnew
INTS 3300 – [section 2]
Dr. Gail Bentley
Texas Tech University

Final Research Paper
Abstract
This paper explores the passing of Senate Bill 11 using an interdisciplinary approach.
This approach uses prospectives from the areas of Human Resource Development and
Organizational Leadership to address the fact that campus carry will be implemented in August
2016. The paper reports on results from articles found from conducting research. The articles
varied in opinion as to what is the best way to go about implementing the new Bill. Keller,
Hughes and Hertz (2011) suggest that threats and violence on campus are increasing because of
the increase in students with significant mental health issues who are now about to attend college
due to increases in pharmacological treatment and therapy. Therefore, a treat assessment model
that, through training, focuses on identifying behaviors, actions and statements, in advance of
physical confrontations and then managing relevant factors to reduce the likelihood of physical
violence is assumed to be the most practical way to maintain a safe culture on campus. Other
articles, particularly Sulkowski and Lazarus (2011) suggest that prevention techniques such as
increased availability of crime data to students and parents, utilize security technologies on
campus, use criminal or potential shooter profiling, employee threat assessment techniques, and
implement emergency response plans to address attacks is the best course of remaining safe.
Through research of several articles, safety was consistently viewed as the top priority. This
paper will further analyze articles relating to this topic using Rekpo’s 10-step process and
propose new insights.

Senate Bill 11 comes into effect on August 1, 2016 which will allow students who are 21 years
or older and possess a concealed handgun license to carry on campus. With mass school
shootings including Virginia Tech and Columbine that killed a total of 45 people, and more
recently the shooting at Umpqua Community College on October 1, 2015 that killed 9, injured 9,
and resulted in the gunman committing suicide, the topic of gun control has become very
popular. This is the controversial topic that will be researched. The perspective of multiple
disciplines will be used to examine how campus will implement this new Bill safely and what
measures will be taken to enhance safety. The disciplines that will be used to answer these
questions are Human Resource Development and Organizational Leadership. These areas will
help to examine what additional rolls, responsibilities, or obligations must take place on campus
in order to implement this new bill safely.
STEP 1: State the Focus of Your Paper
With mass school shootings including Virginia Tech and Columbine that killed a total of
45 people, and more recently the shooting at Umpqua Community College on October 1, 2015
that killed 9, injured 9, and resulted in the gunman committing suicide, the topic of gun control
has become very popular. More specifically, the topic I am researching is on campus carry. I will
use my three disciplines of Organizational Leadership, Human Resource Development, and
Personal Finance, as well as the discipline of Political Science, which I believe is relevant to the
topic, to address the issue of on campus carry.
With the Senate Bill 11 set to begin in August of 2016 which will allow students who are
21 years or older and possess a concealed handgun license to carry on campus, the question is no

longer weather or not guns should be permitted on campus, but how can this be implemented
safely?
STEP 2: Justifying Using an Interdisciplinary Approach
The use of multiple disciplines is necessary in solving the question at hand. This is
because the problem is complex, important insights or theories of the problem are offered by two
or more disciplines, no single discipline has been able to address the problem comprehensively
or resolve it, and the problem is an unresolved societal need or issue. (Rekpo, 2012) The answer
to campus safety through campus carry is not clear. The reality is that this issue affects several
people including students, faculty, staff, and members of the community. By taking into account
the relation between multiple disciples and the stated problem, we can gain a more complete
understanding by providing a dynamic, holistic view of the problem.
STEP 3: Identify Relevant Disciplines
“Disciplinary perspective is each discipline’s unique view of reality in a general sense.
The first to assert that disciplines have distinct perspectives or world views that are pertinent to
interdisciplinary understanding.” (Repko, 2012, pp. 96) Raymond C. Miller (1982) states that
perspective should be “the primary means of distinguishing one discipline from another” (p.7).
There are several disciplines that have potential to be used in this study. Some of which are:
Communications, Political Science, Organizational Leadership, Criminal Justice, Sociology, and
Human Resource Development. Once there are a number of potentially relevant disciplines, it’s

then time to find the disciplines that are most relevant. Rekpo (2012) says that the disciplines
that are most relevant are those that “are most directly connected to the problem, have generated
the most important research on it, and have advanced the most compelling theories to explain it.”
(pp.159). In identifying disciplines that are most relevant to the topic, Organizational Leadership
and Human Resource Development are both used. Each of these perspectives helps in addressing
the topic.
STEP 4: Conduct a Literature Search
The literature search is “the process of gathering scholarly information on a given topic.”
(Rekpo, 2012, pp.176) This is particularly challenging because of the diverse nature of the
disciplines. When conducting this literature search, it’s important to analyze literature from each
discipline in how it relates to the topic and how it illuminates some aspect of the problem. The
perspective of Organizational Leadership stated in terms of an overarching question about on-
campus carry is “What additional rolls, responsibilities, or obligations must campus leaders take
on regarding on campus carry?” The perspective of Human Resource Development stated in
terms of an overarching question about on-campus carry is “What additional training should
students and staffs take on to increase safety during campus carry?” Each of these disciplines is
useful to the study in that they address the focus question of “How can Senate Bill 11 be
implemented safety?”
STEP 5: Develop Adequacy in Each Relevant Discipline

Step 5 of Rekpos 10-step interdisciplinary process involves developing adequacy in each
relevant discipline. “By adequacy Interdisciplinarians mean knowing enough about the discipline
to have a basic understanding of how it approaches, as well as illuminates and characterizes, the
problem.” (Rekpo, 2012, pp.193) He says that a thorough understanding is not needed, instead,
“comprehending enough of each relevant discipline to decide which of its defining elements
bears on the problem.” Once there is adequacy in each discipline, insights provided by
disciplinary perspectives are compared. The Overall perspectives of the most relevant disciplines
regarding on-campus carry are stated below:
 Human Resource Development is the integrated use of training, organizational
development, and career development efforts to improve effectiveness in individuals,
groups, and the organization as a whole. It is inevitable that disparities in wealth,
education, employment, health, technology, infrastructures, safety, and other factors that
contribute to one’s sense of well being will occur. Especially in the case of on-campus
carry, one’s health and safety is a measure for concern. “Human resource development
may be an effective, systematic approach to assisting in reducing these disparities.”
(McLean, 2006) Human Resource Development approaches this problem seeking to find
how training, organizational development, and career development efforts can improve
one’s health and safety through the implementation of Senate Bill 11.
 Organizational Leadership views the world as an institution where goals are sought after
and achieved through leadership. In regards to on-campus carry, the goal is to implement
this change safely and efficiently through leadership techniques. In this sense, the
organizational leaders are the University’s administration and those who can speak to the
legislative issues associated with on-campus carry.

Overall, the disciplinary perspectives most relevant to an analysis of the implementation of
on-campus carry hew closer to the humanities than to the social sciences. Each of these
disciplines shows research primarily through textual analysis from the literature of the discipline.
Research, then, consists primarily of an analysis of the literature rather than an analysis of
empirical data.
STEP 6: Analyze the Problem and Evaluate Insight Into It
Step 6 in Repko’s 10-step process is analyzing the problem and evaluating insights. In
this step we look at the problem from each discipline’s prospective and move from the general to
the particular; “From each discipline’s perspective on the problem in a general sense to its
particular insights into the problem.” (Repko, pg.225) This step is important as it prepares for
integration of insights.
The Insights of Organizational Leadership
Organizational Leadership typically sees on-campus carry as an obstacle that needs to be
dealt with through leadership to reach its primary goal of organizational well-being and safety.
This discipline is relevant to the problem at hand because as more students begin to carry guns
on campus, the general population on campus will look to administration and staff to implement
safety measures. The well being of the students is perceived to be the responsibility of the staff.
This is especially true for freshmen entering campus that are as young as 17 years old. The
perception of Organizational Leadership will be used to address the question; what additional
rolls, responsibilities, or obligations must take place on campus to maintain safety.

The first article, written by the Journal of Educational Administration is A Model for
Assessment and Mitigation of Threats on the College Campus. This article is beneficial to
the research because it explains the severity of threats and violence on campus. The article
suggest that threats and violence on campus are increasing because of the “increase in
students with significant mental health issues who are now able to attend college due to
increases in pharmacological treatment and therapy, the issue of returning veterans on
campuses attempting to reintegrate in to society, and the increased pressures resulting
form the difficult economic conditions being experienced by students and their families
along with the host of everyday pressures normally experienced by this age demographic.”
(Pg. 76-77) The authors then use a qualitative research method to create a threat
assessment model that, through training, focuses on identifying behaviors, actions and
statements, in advance of physical confrontations that cause concern about the safety of
specific persons and then managing relevant factors to reduce the likelihood of physical
violence, intimidation or emotional distress on those that have been targeted.
The second article written by the Journal of School Violence is Contemporary Responses
to Violent Attacks on Campus. This article discusses safety on campus through prevention
techniques such as: “increased availability of crime data to students and parents, utilize security
technologies on campus, allow members of campus communities to carry concealed weapons,
use criminal or potential shooter profiling, employee threat assessment techniques, and
implement emergency response plans to address attacks. (Pg. 338) This information will help in
determining what measures the staff and administration should approach in increasing safety
after concealed campus carry is in effect.

The third article, written by Academic Questions is Concealed Carry: The only way to
discourage mass school shootings. This article aims at how to reduce mass shootings. It first
discusses how “gun free zones” have not been effective, as a crazed gunman does not have any
regard for these signs. The article then discusses techniques to incorporate safety to survive the
possibility of an armed madman roaming the halls or to try to stop him from entering a
classroom. It is inevitable that another school shooting will eventually take place. A safety
program such as the one in this article that advises to (1) flee if possible, (2) hide in a locked
room, and (3) distract and try to disarm the assailant, can be very effective training for staff and
students to remain safe as possible and save lives in the event of a school shooting.
In the topic of concealed campus carry, Organizational Leadership can play a major roll
in a smooth transition to guns on campus while keeping the staff and students safe. These three
articles all provide insight to the focus question of “How can on-campus carry be implemented
safely?”
The Insights of Human Resource Development
The perspective of Human Resource Development stated in terms of an overarching
question about on-campus carry is “What additional training should students and staffs take on to
increase safety during campus carry?” Human Resource Development approaches this problem
seeking to find how training, organizational development, and career development efforts can
improve one’s health and safety through the implementation of Senate Bill 11. This is an
important concept because training is almost unanimously view as necessary in incorporating
this Bill.
The first article, written by Sage Journals is National Human Resource Development: A
Focused Study in Transitioning Societies in the Developing World assumes that “the world

continues to be one that is marked by incredible disparities in wealth, education, employment,
health, technology, infrastructure’s, safety, and other factors that contribute to one’s sense of
well-being.” Human Resource Development is viewed as the entity that assists in “reducing these
disparities”. This article is important because it lays out the foundation of why Human Resource
Development is necessary in solving this “problem” of on-campus carry. According to the
article, Human Resource Development will assist in reducing disparities, particularly education,
health and safety.
The second article, written by the Journal of Student Affairs is The Up and Down Battle
for Concealed Carry at Public Universities. This article acknowledges that there are both
proponents and opponents of on-campus carry, which both have opposing views as to weather or
not on-campus carry will aid in reducing violence on campuses. However, both points of view
share the goal of creating a safe campus environment by minimizing acts of violence. “The
ultimate goal of any higher education community is to foster a safe learning environment. To
accomplish this, Joblonski (2008) recommended student affairs professionals focus on a variety
of initiatives including attention to campus climate and culture, organization and promotion of
training and awareness opportunities, and infrastructure and policy change.” (pp.19) The article
went on to say a “caring community is less likely to experience such violence and is better able
to respond and recover from an incident of violence should one occur.” (pp.19) Student affairs
professionals can have a positive impact on campus culture through their knowledge of
theoretical viewpoints and ability to introduce and implement campus-wide programming. One
of these programs described is through gatekeeper training. Gatekeepers can be thought of as
anyone who has direct contact with students, such as resident advisors, work-study supervisors,

and faculty members. Thus, gatekeeper training is a prevention technique utilized by those who
reach students on the lowest possible level.
The third article written by ProQuestI is Revealing the Concealed: An examination of
College Students’ Perceptions of Personal and Campus Safety Regarding Concealed Handguns
on Campus. This article explores how the presence of concealed handguns on public higher
education campuses impacts students’ perceptions and behaviors. Purposive and convenience
sampling was used to select student participants. For this study, a total of 2,060 surveys were
completed and used for analysis from students at a large public university. Overall, a majority of
students (65%) indicated that they would feel unsafe if students were permitted to carry
concealed handguns on campus. However, in contrast to students feeling unsafe if students or
visitors were permitted to carry concealed handguns on campus, 59% of the students in this study
indicated they would feel safe if faculty or staff carried concealed handguns on campus.
“Students were twice as likely to feel very safe if faculty and staff were permitted to carry
concealed handguns as compared to feeling very safe if students carried and were four times as
likely to feel very safe as compared to feeling very safe if visitors carried concealed handguns on
campus.” (Spratt, 2015)
In the topic of on-campus carry, Human Resource Development can play a major roll in
assuring that the proper steps have been taken (legislation, training, etc.) to create a more safe
campus once on-campus carry is in effect. From the three articles, we know that disparities are
inevitable but Human Resource Development can help in preventing these, there are conflicting
sides regarding on-campus carry but it is generally accepted that both sides share the goal of
creating a safe campus environment, and that student’s views are tied to their behaviors and
attitudes towards regarding on-campus carry.

STEP 7: Identify Conflict Between Insights and Their Sources
The immediate challenge for Interdisciplinarian is to identify conflicts between
disciplinary insights concerning the problem. “One cannot integrate two things that are exactly
alike or that have identical properties. Integration can be achieved only between things that are
different, whether those differences are seemingly small or seem impossibly large. In other
words, integration arises out of conflict, controversy, and difference.” (Repko, 2012, pp.294) The
differences in disciplinary assumptions provide greater likelihood for conflicts between, rather
than within, disciplines. The scholarly insights of Human Resource Development and
Organizational Leadership are explored in Step 7.
Interdisciplinarians work with assumptions when they find that concepts are not the
fundamental source of conflict between all of the relevant insights. “These assumptions include
what constitutes truth, what counts as evidence or proof, how problems should be formulated,
and what the general ideals of the discipline are.” (Repko, 2012, pp.298) In the case of the
disciplines, Human Resource Management and Organizational Leadership, I have found that
both are similar in nature and often times result in common points. There are, however, some
conflicting assumptions. In A Model for Assessment and Mitigation of Threats on the college
campus, Keller (2011) says “There has been a surge of violent events of college campuses in
recent years despite efforts to incorporate more aggressive risk mitigation techniques such as
background checks, the hiring of additional campus police, and emergency notification tools…
these tools have done little to reduce the volume of disruptive or potentially alarming behavior
being reported to campus administrators.” This assumption conflicts with The Up and Down

Battle for Concealed Carry at Public Universities, when LaPoint (2009) says “Jablonski (2008)
argued a ‘caring community is less likely to experience such violence and is better able to
respond and recover from an incident of violence should one occur’ (pp.9). Student affairs
professionals can have a positive impact on campus culture through their knowledge of
theoretical viewpoints and ability to introduce and implement campus-wide programming.”
(pp.19). This is referred to as Value-laden, as there is a direct question of value. These two
assumptions clearly differ regarding the fact weather or not these initiatives help in reducing the
volume or disruptive or potentially alarming behavior being reported to campus administrators.
STEP 8: Create Common Ground
Step 8 of Repko’s 10-step disciplinary process calls for creating common ground between
conflicting concepts or theories. “Weather one is focusing on concepts or theories, common
ground is created by modifying them directly or via their underlying assumptions.” (Repko,
2012, pp.321) Thus, the main objective in creating common ground is to reconcile and
subsequently integrate conflicting assumptions enabling collaborative communication between
disciplines. In Step 7, conflicting assumptions were found regarding weather or not “programs”
or “mitigation techniques” such as background checks, the hiring of additional campus police,
emergency notification tools, and etc. have aided in reducing the volume of disruptive or
potentially alarming behavior being reported.
“Four techniques are used for creating common ground: redefinition, extension,
transformation, and organization. (Rekpo, 2012, pp.336) Fist, to gain a better understanding of
the conflicting assumptions, we have to use the technique of redefinition, which involves

“modifying or redefining concepts in different texts and contexts to bring out a common
meaning.” (Repko, 2012, pp336) In each of the articles, different terminology is used,
“programs” and “mitigation techniques” to describe initiatives attempting to reduce the volume
of disruptive or potentially alarming behavior being reported to campus administrators. “As
noted earlier, each discipline has developed its own technical vocabulary to describe the
phenomena it prefers to study. Since every discipline has its own vocabulary expressed as
concepts, it is necessary for the Interdisciplinarian to create a common vocabulary to facilitate
communication between disciplines.” (Repko, 2012, pp.336) Therefore, we will use textual
integration and replace both words with “Mitigation Initiatives”, allowing them to flow
interchangeably.
Furthermore, there is a value-laden conflict between the two assumptions. Keller (2011)
believes that these mitigation initiatives “have done little to reduce the volume of disruptive or
potentially alarming behavior being reported to campus administrators,” while in The Up and
Down Battle for Concealed Carry at Public Universities, LaPoint says “Jablonski (2008) argued
a ‘caring community is less likely to experience such violence and is better able to respond and
recover from an incident of violence should one occur’ (p.9). Student affairs professionals can
have a positive impact on campus culture through their knowledge of theoretical viewpoints and
ability to introduce and implement campus-wide programs (mitigation initiatives).” (pp.19) This
can be addressed using the technique of Extension. “Extension in an interdisciplinary sense
refers to increasing the scope of the “something” that we are talking about. Whereas the focus of
redefinition is linguistic, the focus of extension is conceptual. It involves addressing differences
or oppositions in disciplinary concepts and/or assumptions by extending their meaning beyond
the domain of the discipline that originated them into the domain(s) of the other relevant

discipline(s) (Newell, 2007a, p.258) In The Up and Down Battle for Concealed Carry at Public
Universities, the desired outcome of the mitigation initiatives was a “caring community” which
in turn led to the “positive impact on campus culture through their knowledge of theoretical
viewpoints” (Keller, pp.19) through a variety of initiatives including attention to campus climate
and culture, organization and promotion of training and awareness opportunities, and
infrastructure and policy change. If we extend the concept of mitigation initiatives to include a
“caring community” as a desired result, which in turn reduces the volume of disruptive or
potentially alarming behavior being reported to campus administrators, the different disciplinary
insights are now able to communicate as common ground has been found.
STEP 9: Construct a More Comprehensive Understanding
During this step of the interdisciplinary research process, the process of
integration by constructing understanding or theory is completed. Rekpo (2012) says, “Only after
concepts and theories are modified can we turn out attention to the possibilities for constructing a
more comprehensive understanding that is opened up as a result” (382) The integration that will
occur during this step is the result of insights from the two disciplines of organizational
leadership and human resource development. The question to be answered is how do these new
insights, relating each discipline to the topic, contribute to a better understanding of the focus
question: what additional rolls, responsibilities, or obligations must take place on campus in
order to implement this new bill safely. The organizational leadership prospective of this issue
discusses how leaders on campus, such as faculty, staff, and student body leaders will maintain a
safe community on campus throughout the implementation of on campus carry. Human resource

development on the other hand, is the integrated use of training, organizational development, and
career development efforts to improve individual, group, and organizational effectiveness.
Pertaining to the issue of on campus carry, human resource development works through using
this training and development to achieve organizational effectiveness once on campus carry is
implemented. Implementing perspectives from each discipline will expose the most effective was
to prepare and implement on campus carry through offering the most efficient training and
development techniques as well as how leaders on campus will carry out and adopt certain
training and development procedures in effort to gain a better understanding of gun safety
throughout campus.
STEP 10: Communicating the Results
Step 10 of the interdisciplinary research process involves reflection, testing, and
communication of the understanding. Through reflection of this research process, several
conflicting views and opinions have surfaced. However, one constant that always seemed to be a
priority of discussions regarding this topic is that safety is priority number one in implementing
Senate Bill 11. Both disciplines used in this research process stress that safety is the desired
outcome. Initially, articles relating on campus carry to each discipline were hard to come by.
Through expanding the search criteria, new information surfaced regarding how each discipline
was able to promote safety and integration then occurred leading to a better understanding of
how to implement safety through on campus carry coming into effect. First and foremost, safety
can be achieved through a better understanding of the problem at hand. Students, faculty, staff,
and administration as a whole need to understand gun control etiquette, safety measures, and

protocol on how to respond if a shooting were to occur. This can be done through training and
development from human resource development and guidance and implementation from
organizational leadership. Campuses anticipating on campus carry can achieve this through
seminars and classes where those involved on campus are able and possibly required to attend
and become educated in gun control etiquette, safety measures, and protocol on how to respond
if a shooting were to occur. This will lead to a safer campus once on campus carry is
implemented.

References
Jablonski, M. (2008). In search of safer communities: Emerging practices for student affairs in
addressing campus violence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Keller, E. Hughes, S. Hertz, G. (2011), A model for assessment and mitigation of threats
on the college campus, Journal of Educational Administration, 49.1 pp. 76-94.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231111102072
LaPoint, L. (2009), The up and down battle for concealed carry at public universities. Journal of
Student Affairs, 19, pp. 16-21 Retrieved from
http://digitool.library.colostate.edu/webclient/DeliveryManager/digitool_items/csu01_sto
rage/2015/03/27/file_1/444097#page=18
McLean, G. (2006), National human resource development: a focused study in transitioning
societies in the developing world, Sage Journals, 8.1 pp. 3-11.
Nedzel, N. (2014). Concealed Carry: The Only Way to Discourage Mass School
Shootings. Academic Questions, 27(4), 429-435. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.lib-
e2.lib.ttu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=99852868&site=ehost-live
Miller, R. C. (1982). Varieties of interdisciplinary approaches in the social sciences. Issues in
Integrative Studies, 1, 1-37.
Newell, W. H. (2007a). Decision making in interdisciplinary studies. In G. MorCol (Ed.),
Handbook of decision making (pp.245-264). New York: Marcel-Dekker.
Repko, A. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Spratt, J. (2015). Revealing the concencealed: an examination of college students’ perceptions of
personal and campus safety regarding concealed handguns on campus. ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses – Gradeworks, Retrieved from
http://gradworks.umi.com/37/00/3700681.html
Sulkowski, M. s., & Lazarus, P. J. (2011). Contemporary responses to violent attacks
on college campuses. Journal Of School Violence,10.4, 338-354. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.lib-
e2.lib.ttu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=66438315&site=ehost-live

INTS 3300 Final Research Paper

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to INTS 3300 Final Research Paper

More from Alex Agnew

INTS 3300 Final Research Paper