What does it mean to be “effective” to stop bullying?
Bullying is a serious social issue especially among children and teenagers, often involving verbal, social, and physical abuse, causing severe damage to both the mental and physical wellbeing of victims. There have been numerous studies targeting the root causes behind bullying; government and school authorities have too implemented measures and policies to deter such phenomena from happening. However, the question now is, how effective are these policies to stop the bullies? Or, shall we dig deeper to ask, what truly makes an intervention effective in deterring bullying in general?
This article will review the experimental findings of a case study research done by scholars and researchers from Georgia State University in Atlanta. The literature itself is titled “A Case Study with an Identified Bully: Policy and Practice Implications,” authored by Huddleston et al. In their study, the researchers conducted detailed and in-depth interviews and data collection about a middle school bully from Grade 7. After implementing an intervention specifically designed for this student based on his background, the researchers again investigated the acceptability, integrity, and efficacy of their intervention.
To understand the situation of the bully (hereby referred to as the target student), the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with both the target students and the people around him. Gathering a variety of perspectives on the target student’s behaviour from his counsellors, teachers, and parents, the researchers formally began their intervention. Rather than the traditional method implemented by most schools, such as straightforward detention or suspension from school, the intervention for this target student is specifically tailored to his unique cultural background. From clinical interviews that explored the student’s personal traits and characteristics, to empathy, anger-management, and problem-solving sessions for the student, these innovative intervention methods encouraged this target student to better recognize his source of negative emotions and to find a prosocial and acceptable way to release such negativity.
At the end of the research and treatment period, David, the target student, has improved significantly, as reported by those around him. For example, the teachers told the researchers that rather than engaging in disruptive activities, David now chooses to read after finishing his schoolwork. David’s parents now receive a decreased number of phone calls informing them of the disciplinary violations by their child. Reports from these third-party perspectives are significantly different from the results of interviews before the experiment; all evidence suggests that David is starting to improve.
What can be taken away from understanding this research? That bullying behaviours are reversible through proper intervention; that specific treatments and an in-depth understanding of the personal circumstances of bullies are vital. More importantly, this research seems to suggest potential directions for future policymakers who wish to reduce the problem of bullying. Perhaps such treatments require notable public commitment and extensive public health resources to conduct such interviews and design specific treatment plans. Despite the high potential cost of implementing the treatments used in this research, this article argues for the responsibility of public health facilities from the government to pay more serious attention to issues of bullying. Current solutions such as bullying helplines seem to offer minimal help. Because of this, authorities’ reformations and innovations in methods to treat bullying are now vitally essential for the well-being of our future generations.
Source:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3117608/