Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

From tall poppies to squashed weeds*: why don’t nurses pull together more?

Open access
Farrell, Gerald A.·2001·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01802.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 227

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.