PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES ON THE BULLYING OF MINORITIES: RESEARCH FROM IRELAND
DR STEPHEN JAMES MINTON! SCHOOL OF EDUCATION! TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN!
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS ● Thank you for inviting me to this conference.! ● In terms of minorities, the Republic of Ireland is and has been a
largely homogenous culture:! ● At the 2011 Census, 87.4% was Irish, and 7.5% ’other white’! ● 86.6% was Roman Catholic, and 4.4% other Christian
denominations! ● There are very few non-national or minority populations. ! ● In this presentation, I wish to discuss some of my own very
recent contributions, and what I feel might hopefully be of use or interest to this audience.! ● I will focus on three main areas of research on the bullying of
minorities - Travellers, young LGBT people, and ’alternative’ subcultures – and the implications that such research has for anti-bullying action.
TOPICS OF DISCUSSION ● Bullying and the Travelling Community! ● About the Travelling Community! ● Anti-Traveller Prejudice and Education! ● Travellers and Bullying!
● Homophobic Bullying! ● Importance and Incidence! ● Anti-Homophobic Bullying Action in Ireland ! ● Recommendations!
● Alterophobic Bullying! ● What is ’Alterophobia’?! ● Recent Findings in Ireland! ● Implications of Alterophobia for Anti-Bullying Action!
● Limitations of Traditional Anti-Bullying Approaches! ● Conceptualisation Solely as a Sub-Set of Aggressive Behaviour! ! ● Development of an Atheoretical Approach! ● Effectiveness and Efficacy!
● The Whole School Community Development Approach! ● The Erris Anti-Bullying Initiative (2009 – Present)! ● Moving Forward!
● Final Comments
BULLYING AND THE TRAVELLING COMMUNITY
ABOUT THE TRAVELLING COMMUNITY ● There were 29, 573 Travellers living in the Republic of Ireland at the last
Census of population (2011). ! ● There were 7, 300 Traveller children enrolled in Irish primary schools in 2006. ! ● Travellers have only been formally recognised as a minority in Irish law
since 1989 (under the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious and National Hatred Act). ! ● Traveller representative organisations have argued that the State has failed to
adequately recognise their ethnic minority status (Irish Traveller Movement, 2012). ! ● Travellers are indigenous, and share the same nationality, race, religion and
language as the bulk of the settled community.!
● Travellers are distinct by virtue of their (historically) nomadic lifestyle, and
common history, ancestry and traditions.! ● DNA evidence points to Travellers having been distinct for around 1000 years,
although not all Traveller families date back to the same point in time! ● Some members of the Travelling community speak Irish Traveller cants.
ANTI-TRAVELLER PREJUDICE AND EDUCATION ● Unfortunately, in Ireland nomadism has tended to be viewed as vagrancy,
rather than a way of life (Gmelch, 1986).! ● Travellers are ‘frequently the victims of prejudice and discrimination in Ireland’ (Carlson & Casavant, 1995).! ● There has been an attitude amongst educators as education being ‘an act of
charity, and not a right’, and worse yet, a ‘taming and civilising force’ in dealing with Travellers (MacAongusa, 1990). ! ● Some schools have refused to enrol Traveller children (Noonan, 1994). ! ● Whilst most Traveller parents have favoured their children attending ‘mixed’
schools (Noonan, 1994), Traveller children were traditionally segregated into special Traveller-only schools, where facilities were all-too often inadequate (McMahon, 1993; Noonan, 1994).! ● There also exists a low expectation of attainment amongst those teaching Travellers, producing negative expectancy effects (Carlson & Casavant, 1995). ! ● Absenteeism amongst Traveller children remains high (O’Connell, 1989), whilst scholastic attainment remains low (Noonan, 1994); early school-leaving and not making primary-secondary transition are also common in Traveller children.
TRAVELLERS AND BULLYING (I) ● Traveller children - boys in particular - have a reputation
for fighting and classroom indiscipline. ! ● Crawford and Gmelch (1974) found that ‘aggression is
part of Traveller culture and is frequently rewarded in boys because it is felt that life is brutal and children must learn to fight to survive’.! ● Traveller family feuding, and its traditional resolution by
bare kunckle boxing, is heavily focussed upon by the Irish and UK media. ! ● Carlson & Casavant (1995) reported that ‘because of
their nomadic lifestyle, and the extreme prejudice of settled people, Traveller children are often intimidated by settled classmates’ (p. 103).
TRAVELLERS AND BULLYING (II) ● No significant research on bullying and the Travelling
community has yet been conducted in Ireland.!
● This will hopefully change soon!! ● A small study was presented recently by the Irish Traveller
Movement (2012) on Traveller parents’ perspectives on bullying.! ● A DVD for Travellers of primary school children (‘Pavee Parents, Primary Concerns’ was produced by Pavee Point (a Travelling community NGO) in 2005 which contained advice on bullying (amongst other things). ! ● Such research would be interesting; Travellers are certainly
marginalized, and specific aspects of specific features of the relationship between the Travelling and ’settled’ communities could be illuminated. ! ● An international comparative project on bullying, prejudice and indigenous / traditionally nomadic cultures would be more interesting still!
HOMOPHOBIC BULLYING
IMPORTANCE AND INCIDENCE (I) ● ‘The preponderance of bullying research does not address sexual ●
● ●
●
orientation as a possible factor’ (Mishna et al., 2009)! ‘Even though homophobia is a prominent feature of schoolyard bullying, it is also one of the most unchallenged forms of bullying’ (Walton, 2006, p. 13).! In Ireland, male homosexuality was decriminalised only in 1993. ! Study of 1,100 LGBT people in Ireland (Mayock et al., 2009): 58 per cent reported the existence of homophobic bullying in their schools; five per cent had actually left school early because of homophobic bullying. ! Studies of the experiences of young LGBT people in Northern Ireland (Carolan & Redmond, 2003) and in the Republic of Ireland (Minton et al., 2008): 44.0 per cent and 50.0 respectively reported having been bullied at school in the last three months because of their sexual orientation. ! ● In general, one in six secondary school students in a nationwide study
reported having been bullied (see O’ Moore et al., 1997).! ● Therefore, LGBT students can be considered to be ‘at risk’ of being bullied (Minton et al., 2008).
IMPORTANCE AND INCIDENCE (II) ● In 2010, 824 fifth-year (age ca. 16 – 17 years) students at nine
secondary schools in Ireland, completed an English language translation of a questionnaire used in Norway (Roland & Auestad, 2009). ! ● 32.9 per cent of heterosexual males and 20.1 per cent of heterosexual
females reported having been bullied in the last couple of months, and 9.9 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively reported having been ‘frequently’ (that is to say, once a week or more often) so. ! ● 62.5 per cent of non-heterosexual males and 66.7 per cent of nonheterosexual females reported having been bullied in the last couple of months, and 37.5 per cent and 20.8 per cent respectively reported having been frequently so (Minton, 2011). ! ● In short, research evidence does not support the position that in
addressing bullying behaviour in general, that one is simultaneously addressing the issue of homophobic bullying.! ● Non-targeted anti-bullying interventions in schools may be hampered by deficits of homophobia, heterosexism and heteronormativity (Walton, 2006).! ●
ANTI-HOMOPHOBIC BULLYING ACTION IN IRELAND ● In 2010, BeLonG To (national youth services for lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender for those aged 14 – 23 years) launched its first annual ‘Stand Up! LGBT Awareness Week’ – has a focus on homophobic and transphobic bullying.! ● Stand Up! has been recognised as a model of international good practice by UNESCO (2012). ! ● Stand Up! 2010 took place mainly in youth services around Ireland.! ● The film made for Stand Up! 2011 has been viewed over one million times
on You Tube.! ! ! ● In the 2012 Stand Up! Week (launched by the Minister for Education), a pack (DVD and printed materials) was sent to every post-primary school in Ireland.! ● IDAHO (International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia
(17th May) 2012: theme was ‘combating homophobia and transphobia in schools’. ! ● UNESCO’s recent ‘Global Good Practice and Policy Manual on Education Sector Responses to Homophobic Bullying’ (launched 16th May, 2012) has been much informed and driven by activists and NGOs in Ireland (e.g., BeLonG To).
RECOMMENDATIONS ● I would advocate two courses of action:! ● ! ● (i) Future ‘general’ anti-bullying programmes that are
developed for use in schools should meaningfully address homophobic bullying as a specific issue. This should be reflected in the design, implementation (including resources and work with policies, management and teaching staff, parents and community members and especially young people) and professional evaluation of such programmes. !
! ● (ii) In Ireland, the efforts of the ‘Stand Up!’ campaign should
be centrally supported, including the development of an evaluated, evidence-based whole-school or whole-school community development programme specific to antihomophobic bullying, to be implemented on a nationwide basis.
ALTEROPHOBIC BULLYING
WHAT IS ‘ALTEROPHOBIA’? ● ‘Alterophobia’ has been defined as ‘prejudice directed towards
members of alternative sub-cultures’ (Minton, 2011, 2012).! ● The Alterophobia Blogspot (2011) asserts that:! ● ‘Members of alternative subcultures [which the blog lists as including
‘....a wide range of groups, such as goths, punks, emos, skaters and fans of heavy metal] and those who listen to any type of alternative music, frequently face intolerance and even physical attacks all over the world....This intolerance is based on the way they look and that their musical and other interests differ from the mainstream. Media distortion and inaccurate descriptions of subcultures usually intensify and support this prejudice’.! ● Research in this area was inspired by the murder of 20 year-old
Sophie Lancaster in Lancashire, England, in August 2007, who was kicked and beaten to death by a large group of teenagers. ! ● It was widely reported at the time that Ms. Lancaster and her boyfriend,
Robert Maltby, were attacked due to their ’gothic’ style of dress.! ● www.sophielancasterfoundation.com
RESEARCH FINDINGS IN IRELAND ● Alterophobia is evident in patterns of school bullying behaviour in
Ireland (Minton, 2012).!
● 820 fifth-year students (16 – 17 years old; 339 male (41.3 per cent), 481
female (58.7 per cent)), at nine secondary schools in Ireland, were asked to respond to a short, specifically constructed questionnaire (concerning membership of groups and sub-cultures, and bullying behaviour). ! ● Self-identified members of sub-cultures reported having been bullied more frequently than did members of the general sample.! ● Participants expressed that members of ‘alternative’ sub-cultures (‘moshers / rockers’, ‘goths’, and ‘emos’) were more likely to be bullied, and that members of ‘non-alternative’ sub-cultures (‘chavs’ and ‘D4s’) were more likely to bully others. ! ● Schools were officially instructed to specifically reference
homophobic bullying in their anti-bullying policies in 2010 (O’ Higgins-Norman et al., 2010). ! ● As members of ‘alternative’ sub-cultures can also be considered to be ‘at risk’ of bullying, making specific reference to alterophobia in school anti-bullying policies is recommended.
IMPLICATIONS OF ALTEROPHOBIA FOR ANTIBULLYING ACTION ● It is worth reflecting upon two of the most psychologically chilling aspects
of the attack on Ms. Lancaster and her boyfriend. ! ● After the attack, the attackers boasted that they had ‘done summat [something] good....there's two moshers nearly dead up Bacup park - you wanna see them - they're a right mess’ (Wainwright, 2008). ! ● One of the two teenagers eventually sentenced to life imprisonment for Ms. Lancaster’s murder, laughed and joked with his mother about what he had done during initial police interviews (Garnham, 2008). ! ● A contributory factor to such incidents may be the aggressors’ tendencies to ‘justify’ their actions, to themselves and others, on the basis of the characteristics of their targets - in other words, to hold the target of an aggressive incident responsible for his or her being attacked – proconformist aggression (Minton, 2012). ! ● Pro-conformist aggression has interesting applications to ethnocentrism,
prejudice and cultural and physical genocide. !
● Can such ‘reasoning’ can be effectively challenged by the ’behavioural
management’ approach that is typical of most anti-bullying actions to date?
LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL
ANTI-BULLYING APPROACHES
CONCEPTUALISATION SOLELY AS A FORM OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR ● ‘Careful accounts of the incidence, prevalence and typology of
bullying behaviour [exist] and a great deal of attention [has been] given to the design of anti-bullying programmes’; however, ’[researchers] have comparatively less to say in response to the question most frequently posed to them by the layman – ”Why do people bully?”’ (Minton, 2007, p. 1).! ● I might make precisely the same point today! !
● When this question has been approached at all, experts have usually
made reference to why people engage in aggressive behaviour in general. ! ● Bullying behaviour itself has been consistently conceptualised as a sub-type of aggressive behaviour (Olweus, 1999; Roland & Idsøe, 2001), differentiated from other types of aggressive behaviour on the basis of repetition and the existence of some form of power imbalance, e.g.:! ●
‘Bullying is a sub-category of aggressive behaviour, which in turn is generally defined as “behaviour that is intended to inflict injury or discomfort upon another individual”….Bullying is thus aggressive behaviour with certain special characteristics such as repetitiveness and an asymmetric power relationship’ (Olweus, 1999, p. 24).
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATHEORETICAL APPROACH (I) ● It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of Professor Dan Olweus’
many contributions to anti-bullying!
!
● First systematic empirical research into the area of bullying behaviour
!
(Olweus, 1973). ● First evidence-based practitioner texts on the subject (Olweus, 1978, 1993). ● Design and development of a much-used questionnaire (the Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire) (1989). ● Design and implementation of the first nationwide anti-bullying programmes for schools (Olweus & Roland, 1983).
!
!
!
● Olweus himself has continued to develop and refine his models, correctly
insisting on the prioritisation of evidence-based programmes (Olweus, 2011).
!
● This has had a huge influence on researchers and practitioners world-
wide.
!
● Alternative methods have been developed, characterised by different
models of training and intervention (e.g. in Norway, ’Zero’, ’Respekt’, ’Connect Oslo’; In Ireland, the Donegal Schools ABP, and ’ABC’).! ● The fundamentals of whole-school emphasis, awareness-raising, and behavioural management, and outcome study evaluation methodologies evident in Olweus’ first intervention programmes have remained.
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATHEORETICAL APPROACH (II) ● One of the negative outcomes of:! ● (i) Conceptualising bullying purely as a sub-category of aggressive
behaviour; and,! ● (ii) Approaching the prevention and countering of bullying behaviour purely through the techniques of awareness-raising and behaviour management! ● .....is that very little in the way of new theoretical positions have
emerged (Minton, 2012). ! ● There are, of course, notable exceptions: !
● The attempt to identify psychological characteristics of those involved in
bully / victim problems (Olweus, 1999, 2003; Roland & Idsøe, 2001; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002)! ● Salmivalli’s fruitful ‘participant roles’ approach in understanding the group dynamics of situations of bullying behaviour (Salmivalli et al., from 1996)! ● The establishment of the link between poor student self-esteem and involvement in bullying behaviour in schools (O’ Moore & Kirkham, 2001).
EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICACY (I) ● Most seriously of all, attempts to reduce bullying behaviour
made by experts world-wide have at best been only partially successful (see Farrington & Ttofi, 2010; Smith et al., 1999; Smith, 2003; Smith, Pepler & Rigby, 2004, for reviews). ! ● In terms of moving forward, I would suggest engaging with what seems to lie immediately behind school bullying behaviour.! ● To me, some patterns of bullying behaviour emerge from broader
attitudes of individual and societal prejudice. ! ● As we have seen, specific attention to the bullying of minorities has demonstrated that certain groups are more ‘at risk’ than others.! ● Therefore, the ’broad sweep’ strategy – i.e., the idea that by
taking a ’general’ approach, one is simultaneously addressing minority needs - is fallacious. ! ● Dr Hansen’s PhD research shows that there is a high incidence rate ofbeing the target of bullying amongst Sami people than amongst non-Samis. ! ● To me, this is sad but predictable, given the traditional
marginalization of the Sami.
EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICACY (II) ● Recently, there has been a strong focus on
implementation in Norwegian programmes such as the ’Olweus ABP’, ’Zero’ and ’Respekt’). ! ● This is necessary, of course, to ensure (i) proper
evaluation, and (ii) that the work is being done, especially in broad-scale programmes.! ● To me, taken to excess, the focus on implementation gives an idea that the programme principles are never wrong!! ● This is attempting to fit the population to the programme, and NOT the other way around (fitting the programme to the population, which is where I am comfortable working – i.e., with consultation and collaboration).
THE WHOLE SCHOOL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
THE ERRIS ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVE (2009 – PRESENT) (I) ● Almost all existing broad-scale whole-school anti-bullying
programmes have ignored the social context of bullying. ! ● An exception in Ireland has been the recently and successfully implemented ‘Erris Anti-Bullying Initiative’ (2009 to date) - the first to be designed and implemented according to both whole-school and community development principles.! ● Erris has large Gaeltacht areas, and is an area of rural disdavantage; it has a distinct regional identity. ! ● In August 2009, the staff of the Iorras Le Chéile Community Development Project (headed by Rose Conway-Walsh) began work on a strategic plan to create a zero tolerance towards bullying in the entire Erris community, and engaged my services.
THE ERRIS ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVE (2009 – PRESENT) (II) ● A local Steering Committee met for the first time in
September, 2009, and met regularly; the practical antibullying plan was finalised in March, 2010, based on: ! ● The general desire to work in a way that is inclusive of the
whole community; ! ● Community consultation; and, ! ● Best practice findings regarding anti-bullying intervention programmes, locally, nationally and internationally.! ● The Erris Anti-Bullying Initiative ran in the participating
schools (19 primary, 3 secondary), community groups (initially, 35) and broader Erris community from October 2010. ! ● By a simultaneous involvement of schools, community groups and community members, young people should receive a consistent message regarding the unacceptability of bullying behaviour.
THE ERRIS ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVE (2009 – PRESENT) (III) ● A comparison of pre- (May 2010) and post- (May 2011)
programme modified Olweus Bully / Victim Questionnaires completed by students in participating schools showed that amongst primary and secondary school students, following the implementation of the programme, there were (Minton, 2011; Minton, O’ Mahoney & Conway-Walsh, submitted):! ● Reductions in frequencies of reports of having been involved
in all categories of bully / victim problems; ! ● Increases in frequencies of reports in all categories of their estimations of their teachers, peers and own positive responses in situations of bullying at school; and, ! ● Increases in frequencies of students’ reports in most categories of feelings about bullying consistent with an antibullying ethos.
MOVING FORWARD (I) ● There are plans to implement a programme based
on the Erris model in eight primary schools in Skopje, Macedonia. ! ● We have submitted the Erris Anti-Bullying Initiative (the whole school community development approach) as a model to the Irish government’s Department of Education and Skills, seeking its approval as a national model, with a view to it being applied in other communities. ! ● I do not know whether I will be successful!! ● I am curious as to whether this model would be of interest here. ! ● Is it possible for me, as a foreigner, to speculate concerning an anti-bullying approach that might suit the needs of Sami communities?
MOVING FORWARD (II) ● In Erris, we started with three things, which could
be relevant here, too:!
● An idea of the scale of the problem (here, incidences
in Dr Hansen’s PhD).! ● Models of national and international best practice (surely available in the Nordic countries – we in Ireland have learnt much from our Nordic colleagues).! ● What are the specific community needs and resources, as understood and expressed by that community – in other word, genuine inclusion and community development.! ● So I am looking forward to the presentation on
‘Perspectives on Bullying from the Perspective of the Sami Parliament’), to see if any of our thinking is complementary.
FINAL COMMENTS
FINAL COMMENTS ● I truly hope that Sami children will enjoy
their right to psychosocial health. ! ● I wish the audience members the very best
of luck in their work on this important issue. ! ● Please remember that if I, even as a
foreigner, can be of any help as a collaborator in your work, I will be very happy to do my best. ! ● Thank you for listening!
● ● ● ●
Dr Stephen James Minton! School of Education! Trinity College Dublin! Ireland! !
● ●
Tel: 00 353 1 896 2216!
[email protected]
