Search results

The purpose of this qualitative, multiple-case study paper is to determine whether Irish universities have policies and procedures to address workplace bullying; to determine the views of HR leaders regarding the efficacy of such policies; to explore the experience of HR leaders in the application of such policies; and, to explore which cost-reduction strategies Irish university HR leaders utilized to manage the consequences of workplace bullying.

The participants for this multiple-case study consisted of senior manager grade staff with expertise in the area of study from all seven Irish universities. One on one interviews were conducted with participants to gain an understanding of their experience of dealing with workplace bullying. The analysis of their bullying policies and procedures provided insights about their experiences in the application of policy.

The findings of this study may offer university leaders and a wider audience of managers an understanding of the effect that workplace bullying has on employees and on their organizations.

This study may inform university and business leaders on how to address the problem of workplace bullying effectively.

The findings from this study contribute to the discourse on workplace bullying and may help leaders to understand a phenomenon that costs their institutions a substantial amount in human capital leading to positive social change in their organizations.

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

Across the United States (US), COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower in rural counties compared to urban counties, exacerbating rural health inequities. While rural communities fall short of the public health goal to vaccinate all who are eligible, most rural residents have chosen to vaccinate for COVID-19. The aim of this study was to better understand rural New Mexicans' attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines.

We conducted and analyzed 51 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with adults living in rural New Mexican counties, covering a range of topics related to the pandemic, including vaccines. These interviews were conducted in the Summer of 2021 after the vaccines were widely available to all adults over the age of 18 and youth between the ages of 12–17, but not yet available for children under 12 years.

Two major perspectives were identified: (1) the idea that COVID-19 vaccinations are a tool that individuals can use to achieve freedom and protection and (2) the view which regarded vaccines as an infringement of personal rights and one's autonomy of health. For people who viewed the vaccine as a tool for freedom, several themes emerged, including (1) a preference for vaccine manufacturers, specifically a preference for Pfizer, and (2) frustrations related to vaccine access, specifically, older adults expressed frustrations with the difficulty of scheduling vaccination appointments. However, most participants felt as though they had enough vaccination resources. For people who viewed vaccines (and vaccine mandates) as limiting their freedom, additional themes emerged: (1) overarching distrust of government and the perception that vaccines were an extension of government and (2) distrust in the vaccines themselves, including a perceived lack of research on the vaccines and a perception that the vaccine was developed in too short of a period. Some of the people who hold these beliefs are also vaccinated. We draw from social psychology theories to better understand how people who hold a rural identity come to establish different beliefs and practices compared to larger metropolitan regions. While political identity is a contributor, of our participants, the group who were most likely to report not being vaccinated were the “independent” or “unaffiliated voters.” Our findings can help craft culturally responsive vaccine initiatives for rural communities.