The DOI matches its Crossref record.
From tall poppies to squashed weeds*: why don’t nurses pull together more?
Open accessAbstract
From tall poppies to squashed weeds: why don’t nurses pull together more? Aims. To develop a conceptual framework to account for interpersonal conflict in nursing. To extend the boundaries of debate on the causes of interpersonal conflict in nursing. Background/Rationale. In nursing, attempts to offer an explanation for staff conflict or, as it is traditionally referred to, horizontal violence, have, nearly always, been influenced by oppression and feminist theories. Such macrolevel analyses avoid discussing the details of individual acts of aggression in favour of considering nurses’ alleged disempowerment in relation to other perceived dominant groups, especially male doctors, and the violence these groups inflict in terms of the denial of power, control, and access to rewards – material or otherwise. Methodology. A critical analysis of an extended literature review adapted from a doctoral dissertation. Discussion. While the oppression and feminist perspectives can be insightful they are also limiting in that they omit the finer grained‐analysis necessary for a fuller understanding of staff conflict. At least three levels of explanation can be offered to account for poor staff relationships – a macrolevel, which focuses on nurses’ relationships vis‐à‐vis dominant groups, a mesolevel analysis, which concentrates on organizational structures, including workplace practices – many of which are controlled by nurses themselves, and a microlevel analysis, which emphasizes the interactional nature of interpersonal conflict. Conclusions. It is contented that it is not only the alleged misogyny intrinsic to oppression theory that shackles and impedes nurses, but nurses themselves, who in their everyday work and interpersonal interactions, act as insidious gatekeepers to an iniquitous status quo.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Violence Toward Nurses, the Work Environment, and Patient Outcomes
Roche, M., Diers, D., Duffield, C., & Catling‐Paull, C. (2010) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01321.x · Cited by 431
ROSS, C. A., & GOLDNER, E. M. (2009) · Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2009.01399.x · Cited by 405
Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. (2014) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839214538636 · Cited by 379
New graduate nurses’ experiences of bullying and burnout in hospital settings
Laschinger, H. K. S., Grau, A. L., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2010) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05420.x · Cited by 349
Workplace violence in Alberta and British Columbia hospitals
Hesketh, K. L., Duncan, S. M., Estabrooks, C. A., Reimer, M. A., Giovannetti, P., Hyndman, K., & Acorn, S. (2003) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(02)00142-2 · Cited by 289
Metadata
- Authors
- Farrell, G. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-07
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-33
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2136130593
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From tall poppies to squashed weeds*: why don’t nurses pull together more? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01802.x
- The paper
- Farrell, G. A. (2001). From tall poppies to squashed weeds*: why don’t nurses pull together more? Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01802.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.