11

Week 11 Reading 1: What limits the effectiveness of antibullying programs? A thematic analysis of the perspective of students

Summary

In this study, Cunningham et al., wanted to understand, from the perspective of students, why antibullying programs were ineffective in Canada. They chose to focus on the design and implementation factors as a major factor in their efficacy, explicitly noting the study took place within the confines of a provincially mandated (governmental) antibullying strategy (2016).

They made use of past research they had conducted on the teachers' perpectives to expand their theory and analyze what students didn’t like about these programs and how negative student participation affected the perception of program (Cunningham et al., 2016).

Methods

In this qualitative study, Cunningham et al.,  used purposeful sampling to recruit 97 students from 5th through 8th from 12 demographically stratified schools in a Canadian of more than 520,000 residents. They stratified schools into sociodemographically diverse quadrants so that the sample would represent schools they classified as low, medium, and high-risk areas (2016).

Their interview team then conducted thirteen 45-minute focus groups where audio recordings were transcribed and coded thematically. They utilized an inductive approach to make sure codes represented the data and organized them using psychological reactance theory. The interview team was comprised of five experienced school social workers who asked a series of questions (Cunningham et al., 2016).

Focus groups allowed them to create an in-depth analysis of design and implementation processes that might influence outcome. They explain that focus groups allowed for a wider range of topics to be discussed, encouraging them to explore areas that might not come up in one-on-one settings. They addressed three major questions from the results:

· What components of school-based antibullying activities do students believe to be ineffective or counterproductive?

· How do students respond to these dimensions of antibullying programs?

· Via what mechanisms might their responses limit the effectiveness of antibullying initiatives?

Findings

Some key findings by Cunningham et al., were that three major factors influenced their sample: presentations, activities, and assets were just not engaging or appealing to them. Many of them were poorly done, overly negative, or pushed by people who lacked credibility. There was also a massive failure on the past of adults in antibullying programs. Teachers were oblivious when bullying was happening, slow to react to it, did not respond with appropriate measures, or responded in a way the students felt was biased or disrespectful. Finally, some students were actively hostile to the program and pushed back on it, skipping presentations, continuing to bully and victimize others (and lying about their participation in it), being disruptive, and discrediting the overall program or presenters (2016).

They presented some statistics (below) on how many students agreed with the statement.

· Presentations and Posters Often Fail to Engage Students

· Boring presentations are of limited effectiveness (69%)

· Repetitive messages lose their influence (38%)

· Students dislike negatively worded antibullying messages (54%)

· Individuals lacking credibility compromise antibullying activities (62%)

· The Organization of Monitoring and Supervision Limits Detection of Bullying

· Teachers fail to detect bullying (54%)

· Delayed responses compromise adult interventions (77%)

· Consequences for perpetrators are ineffective (62%)

· Unfair or disrespectful processes undermine antibullying interventions (62%)

· Some Students Undermine Programs by Disengaging and Pushing Back

· Antibullying activities sometimes elicited student responses which limited the effectiveness of these initiatives (100%)

· Students fail to attend to antibullying activities (77%)

· Denial elicited by antibullying presentations insulates students from their message (31%)

· Students discredit antibullying programs and presenters (54%)

· Students disrupt antibullying activities (38%)

· Some students victimize peers during or immediately after antibullying activities (62%)

Assessment

The study made good use of the literature review, showcasing data about why effective bullying prevention programs were needed. It also devoted significant time to discussing multiple meta-analyses that had previously been published regarding their efficacy and what those findings were.

The study methods seem sound, and Cunningham et al., even address why those chose to do a qualitative study over quantitative. Stratified, purposeful sampling is highly effective, and choosing a larger population representing a more diverse area allowed for them to better generalize their results (as much as you can with a qualitative study). Their use of focus groups and coding protocols also seem to be in line with scientific standards.

The findings are presented clearly, and the graphs are supplemental to the actual statistics. They do also appear to reflect their conclusions that schools need to do better at engaging students, monitoring bullying, and responding appropriately to it.

The largest issue I have with the study is reflected within the limitations. School social workers might not have been the best interviewers, as they could have introduced bias (Cunningham et al., 2016). The study was also done under the auspices of a government mandated antibullying push. They also did not screen out known bullies, who could have actively been working to sabotage the study as their own study results note they work to sabotage antibullying programs within the school.

Reference

Cunningham, C. E., Mapp, C., Rimas, H., Cunningham, L., Mielko, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Marcus, M. (2016). What limits the effectiveness of antibullying programs? A thematic analysis of the perspective of students. Psychology of Violence, 6(4), 596.

Questions

Respond to two of the questions below, citing at least one example in each from the study. Reply to at least two of your classmates throughout the week.

1. The authors chose to ask their questions as a focus group to facilitate a discussion instead of conducting one-on-one interviews. Because bullying such a personal and emotional experience, was this the right decision? Could it have limited in-depth responses and created an echo chamber among peers?

2. Now that Cunningham et al., have created qualitative studies on both the perspectives of teachers (cited multiple times throughout this study) and students, what do you logically expect the design of the next study to look like?

3. The authors chose a sociodemographically diverse population for their sample, but do not appear to have collected any data on race, gender, ethnicity, or family income. Should this have been a part of the study? How do you think it would have an impact on the data?