This article reports on a collaboration to develop, implement, and evaluate a domestic violence prevention program for 900 employees in a garment factory. The authors discuss issues in collaboration between researchers and advocates as well as employers, employees, and the employer's foundation. Although more complicated, this fivefold partnering process eventually led to an outcome that satisfied participants and yielded positive results. Drawing on both literature and the evaluators' experiences, the authors describe important components of collaborative research in the workplace, using examples from the workplace prevention program's evaluation activities to highlight their importance. Last, they consider the significance of a collaborative program evaluation in light of the reduced methodological rigor necessitated by the collaborative process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alliger, G. M. (1992). The theory and structure of industrial/organizational psychology. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 3-27). New York: North-Holland, Elsevier.
2.
Amberson, I. (1991). Family violence and the workplace. EAPA Exchange, 21(6), 28-29.
3.
Aron, M. W. , & DeAgazio, R. M. (1995). The four-headed monster: ADA, FMLA, OSHA, and workers' compensation. Labor Law Journal, 1, 48-57.
4.
Avis, J. M. (1994). Advocates versus researchers—a false dichotomy? A feminist, social constructionist response to Jacobson. Family Process, 33, 87-92.
5.
Balgopal, P. R. , & Patchner, M. A. (1988). Evaluating employee assistance programs: Obstacles, issues and strategies. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 3, 95-105.
6.
Bryant, V. , Eliach, J., & Green, S. L. (1990). Adapting the traditional EAP model to effectively serve battered women in the workplace. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 6, 1-10.
7.
Building and maintaining community coalitions on behalf of children, youth and families: Parts one, two and three [On-line]. (1997, December). East Lansing, MI: Community Coalitions in Action, Institute for Children, Youth and Families, Michigan State University. Available: NNCOINFO@extension.umn.edu
8.
Community based collaboration: Community wellness multiplied [On-line]. (1997, December). Corvallis, OR: The Chandler Center for Community Leadership, Oregon State University and Central Oregon Community College. Available: NNCOINFO@extension.umn.edu
9.
Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence . (1996). Synergy `96 symposium report: Strategy for the corporate alliance to end partner violence. Chicago: Author.
10.
Engelken, C. (1987). Employee assistance: Fighting the costs of spouse abuse. Personnel Journal, 66, 31-34.
11.
Family Violence Prevention Fund. (1998). Work to end domestic violence organizer's kit. (Available from the National Workplace Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Family Violence Prevention Fund, 383 Rhode Island St., Suite 304, San Francisco, CA94103-5133)
12.
Gelles, R. J. (1994). Research and advocacy: Can one wear two hats?Family Process, 33, 93-96.
13.
Gondolf, E. W. , Yllo, K., & Campbell, J. (1997). Collaboration between researchers and advocates. In G. K. Kantor & J. L. Jasinski (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 255-267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Hoshmand, L. T. , & O'Byrne, K. (1996). Reconsidering action research as a guiding metaphor for professional psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 185-200.
15.
Isaacs, N. (1997). Corporate sector response to domestic violence (NCJ Document No. 166617). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Injury Control Center, Harvard School of Public Health and the National Institute of Justice.
16.
Kraut, A. I. (1992). Organizational research on work and family issues. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.), Work, families and organizations (pp. 208-235). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Levin, L. (1995). When domestic violence shows up at work: Employers can play a role in assisting victims. National Business Women, 76, 11-13.
18.
McTaggart, R. (Ed.). (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
19.
Oja, S. N. , & Smulyan, L. (1989). Collaborative action research: A developmental approach. New York: Falmer.
20.
Rapoport, R. N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research. Human Relations, 23, 499-513.
21.
Saunders, D. G. , Lynch, A. B., Grayson, M., & Linz, D. (1987). The Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs and attitudes. Violence and Victims, 2, 39-55.
22.
Solomon, C. M. (1995). Talking frankly about domestic violence. Personnel Journal, 74, 62-72.
23.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics . (1994). Selected findings on violence between intimates: Domestic violence (NCJ 149259). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
24.
Whyte, W. F. (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Witwer, M. B. , & Crawford, C. A. (1995). A coordinated approach to reducing family violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
26.
Yamatani, H. (1988). Client assessment in an industrial setting: A cross-sectional method. Social Work, 33, 34-37.
