Workplace Violence Memo

The purpose of this memo is to discuss two scholarly journal articles selected from two separate volumes of the Journal of Clinical Psychology, information that is specific to my field of studies, Clinical Psychology and to determine the authors’ intended audiences, and convey that information to my primary audience, Professor Loubser. The professor’s current occupation as Professor and my student status were mitigating factors in selecting the style of the prose and the vocabulary.

Description of the Text:

The first article entitled “Correlation and Consequences of Workplace Violence” is a well- documented work of research and statistics chalked with graphs and charts to clearly and simply address issues of workplace violence based on statistical

Within the article, acts of bodily harm or intent to cause bodily harm are classified as “acts of violence” while acts of property damage or emotional confrontations are considered “acts of aggression” statistical data highlight how acts of workplace violence like homicides, stabbings and physical assaults are less common than workplace aggression. According to the research data and grafts provided, bullying, threats, thief of property or verbal confrontations are more likely to occur within the workplace. Race, age and gender are the criteria used to identify the individuals more likely to experience violence in the workplace. The writers openly disclose that limited research had been completed on this topic at the time of this article and consistently reiterates the need for more research. Surveys were used by the research coordinators to obtain statistic for this article. Random, fulltime, employees with verifiable work history and at least eight months of continuous work experience for the year, were called and questioned about their experience with workplace violence and their feeling and or

The fact that neither of these individuals are in the field of Psychology, explains why the information is less clinically based. The degree of technical knowledge compared to the reader appears balanced. The writers, both, appear educated but not clinically vested. The article’s readers may have education and knowledge but not that of the clinical Psychologist. Their objective, as authors, was to provide statical information to the public in a clear understandable format and that was accomplished with the submitted