Adolescents’ Views on the Power of Violence in a Rural School in South Africa

Abstract

This study aims to explain how adolescents in a rural high school conceptualise school violence. Qualitative data were collected over two two-day periods (24 hours) through child-centred tasks like drawing and the completion of open-ended sentences, informal conversations regarding the given activities, observations documented as visual data (photographs), a research journal, and focus group discussions. In total, four boys and five girls participated in the study. Results of the study indicate that the adolescents (aged 15–17 years) view school violence both as negative, in that it causes harm, and positive, in that it serves as a strategy to ensure order and protection. The adolescents conceptualise violence as interweaving constructs of power, discipline and aggression. Future adolescent-focused interventions regarding violence must include conversations about these nuanced understandings.

Keywords

Adolescents power rural school violence violence

Background

Rising levels of school violence among children and adolescents globally has, over the past decade, sparked serious concern and an urgent call to action (Burton, 2008; De Wet, 2007).

The ever-growing body of international and South African academic literature, as well as media coverage of school violence, provides a dynamic platform for discussion and policy engagement (Booi, 2009; Bruce, 2007; De Wet, 2007; Jefthas and Artz, 2007; Thaw, 2009).

School violence is a complex phenomenon. Its causes are multidimensional and its consequences have ramifications far beyond immediate perpetrators and victims (Dahlberg and Krug, 2002; Gilbert, 1996). There is a dearth of literature on violence in rural schools. Kannapel and Young (1999), in their review of rural school problems in the USA, found that rural schools contribute significantly to the strength of their rural settings. This view is corroborated by Mulkeen (2006), as a study conducted in five African countries (Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda) confirmed that the majority of rural children are not in schools as the curriculum followed ignores the cultural and contextual needs of the community, while perpetuating cultural practices, which are perceived as being alien and rigid by parents.

The topic of school violence has been explored extensively in literature and discussions over the past decades (Braun, 2007; Burton, 2008; Jefthas and Artz, 2007; Lawson, 2005; Steyn and Naicker, 2007 citing Vogel, 2002). What stands out among the plethora of literature outlining the prevalence, nature and experiences of school violence is the apparent dichotomy, or divergence, between child-reported incidents of violence or crime, and their attachments to a particular environment (Burton, 2008; Neser, 2005; Smit, 2010). Various studies conclude that, despite children reporting a high incidence of school violence, they also stated feeling safe at school (Burton, 2008; Lubbe and Mampane, 2008; Neser, 2005). This contradiction underscores the belief that children’s constant exposure to criminal and violent acts in their homes and schools have led to the normalisation of such acts in their socialising contexts. This fuels the idea that crime and violence are part of the normal order of things (Burton, 2008; Lawson, 2005; Leoschut and Bonora, 2007).

Yet the phenomenon of school violence still cripples many communities in South Africa and worldwide. The scope and nature of violent crime in South Africa (CSVR, 2010) illustrate the notion that, 19 years into the country’s transition to democracy, South Africa’s legacy of apartheid and colonialism continues to affect the social and economic fabric of the country. This has created a culture in which people accept violence as a normal part of life (CSVR, 2007, 2010). A multitude of causes and contributing factors have been identified. These are inextricably linked to the lingering effects of oppression in South Africa (Barker and Ricardo, 2005; CSVR, 2010; Jefthas and Artz, 2007). Various conditions, specifically linked to South Africa’s past, have contributed to the nurturing of ‘a culture of violence that has reproduced itself’ (CSVR, 2009: 6).

Understanding the lived experiences and needs of children is crucial to advocating for their needs at policy and programme level (Freeman and Mathison, 2009). Despite the scramble to gather relevant data to inform intervention programmes, little attention has been given to how children themselves make sense of, and interpret, experiences of violence in schools (Burton, 2008; Parkes, 2007). Therefore, this study attempts to contribute to knowledge creation in the field of education, and inform policy implementation. The majority of surveys that have shed light on the problem of school violence, grounded in quantitative approaches (Neser, 2005; Steyn and Naicker, 2007), are structured according to adult views and assumptions. For this reason, we cannot know which events or variables cause children to feel more or less safe in schools unless we ask them to define the variables themselves (Skiba et al., 2004).

This article outlines some of the findings from an ongoing partnership since 2005 between education scholars, teachers and children in a remote South African school (Ebersöhn, 2010). We undertake this qualitative study to explore the adolescent understanding of violence as contextualised in a remote school. The inquiry is directed by the following question: how do Grade 9 adolescents in a remote school conceptualise school violence?

School Violence in a Remote School

It is difficult to define the concept of ‘rural’ because there is no common definition (Saloojee, 2009). ‘Definitions of “rural” tend to emphasise a particular feature of rurality: settlement or demographic patterns; spatial or environmental characteristics; political or economic factors; and socio-cultural or historical factors’ (DoE, 2005: 8). In South Africa, the definition of rural has to be expanded to include areas of dense settlement created by apartheid-driven land resettlement policies (DoE, 2005). The research is conducted in a rural school situated in a community described as rural due to its remote location, relatively poor infrastructure and little access to social amenities in the immediate vicinity.

In some community contexts in South Africa, the opportunities for violence are greater than others (Dahlberg and Krug, 2002). Therefore, the rurality of our case played an important role in the study. A multitude of causes and contributing factors that are inextricably linked to the lingering effects of oppression in the country, have been identified (Jefthas and Artz, 2007). These include high levels of poverty or physical deterioration, and a lack of access to institutional support services (CSVR, 2010; Dahlberg and Krug, 2002). A report on inequality and exclusion by the CSVR (2008: 4) argues that the inequalities present in South Africa are ‘deeply connected to structural processes that exclude large sections of the population from meaningful participation in the economy’. This feeds into the dynamics that contribute to violent crime, especially in rural communities.

The location of the study was further motivated by the assertion that rural schools in South Africa are more vulnerable to acts of violence, due to the high number of illiterate parents, a lack of parental involvement, the belief in witchcraft, unsafe school buildings and vague perceptions about the need for school safety (Netshitahame and Van Vollenhoven, 2002). According to the Ministerial Committee on Rural Education (DoE, 2005), the challenges facing rural schooling are complex, intractable and interdependent – conceding that even after several years of democracy, rural schooling has shown little improvement. Such comments serve to highlight the importance of placing the current study on school violence contextually, taking into account multiple systems (neighbourhood, community and country), as well as beliefs and attitudes (historical, cultural and political).

School: A Context for Socialising Violence

There is often a high correlation between problems in a school, and characteristics of the school population and the community context (Baker, 1998; Burton, 2008; De Wet, 2007; Harber, 2004; Lubbe and Mampane, 2008; Reppucci et al., 2002). The assumption is, therefore, that children are products of complex interactions occurring within the different environments to which they are exposed, and in which they live. It is through social interaction that children gain experience, receive reinforcement or punishment for their behaviour, and are exposed to various role models that all profoundly influence their successes and failures in life (Mampane, 2004).

A systemic look at school violence further asserts that South African schools have become unsafe places for young people – modelling and encouraging violence rather than proactive social behaviours (Harber, 2004; Morrell, 2001; Ward, 2007). Additionally, an overly controlling and restrictive approach to learning and discipline within the school can often promote aggression and violence (Mayer, 2010).

In this article, school violence refers to any negative actions experienced by children, teachers and other school staff, occurring during the course of carrying out school-related activities (Baker, 1998; Burton, 2008; Du Plessis, 2008 citing Osborne, 2004; Fong et al., 2008; Greene, 2005). It further considers the perspective of school violence as ‘any behaviour that violates a school’s educational mission or climate of respect’ (Van Jaarsveld, 2008: 176). This includes the subtle manipulation and intimidation that takes place in the classroom between children and between staff and children.

It is also about the dark sarcasm in the classroom, about the threats, about leaving the student ignored in the corner for months on end, about getting rid of a student, hounding him or her until he or she leaves or is suspended, about insults, put-downs and spite, and about classifying a young person as a ‘troublemaker’ or a ‘no-hoper’, knowing that the student is being harmed. (De Wet, 2007: 676 citing Sercombe, 2003)

Theoretical Frameworks

Ward (2007) emphasises that to understand the ways in which children acquire violent repertoires, it is necessary to explore the ecology of the contexts in which they grow. Many theories on violent behaviour contend that it occurs as a result of a complex interaction between many different types of causal mechanisms, including individual vulnerabilities, problems in the rearing environment and stressors in the larger social ecology (Allen, 2005).

In 1995, Urie Bronfenbrenner took what he termed a ‘risky course’ by proposing an ‘untried’ theoretical perspective on current ecological models (Bronfenbrenner, 1995: 619). In essence, the theory places the individual as an active agent existing within multiple social systems that are interconnected, interrelated and interactive (Mampane, 2010; Swart and Pettifer, 2005). The Bioecological Theory also presents the child as a dynamic entity that structures his or her living environment and, as a result, brings meaning to his or her development as he or she actively interacts with the environment (Mampane, 2010 citing Bronfenbrenner, 1979). One such influential environment relevant to this study is the school context, which provides the learner with opportunities for regular interactions in an attempt to ensure the optimal experience of development (Mampane, 2010).

Research Design and Methods

Setting

This study was conducted as part of the Flourishing Learning Youth (FLY) programme at a rural high school in Mpumalanga, South Africa. The school is located in a remote rural area, approximately 160 km from the nearest town. The participants live in close proximity to the school. There is no public transportation available and children walk to school. The school experienced problems with a shortage of furniture and equipment for laboratories and a limited number of books in the library.

The FLY programme forms part of academic service learning in a postgraduate Educational Psychology programme of the University of Pretoria. The school is involved in a longitudinal study being conducted by the University. In FLY, students in training provide psychological services to youths in this remote school. Through the programme, students are afforded the opportunity to develop competencies related to their scope of practice. FLY constitutes two two-day site visits (six hours per day, 24 hours in total) to the remote high school. During the first visit, students conducted group-based assessments, while group-based therapy (intervention) based on the results of the assessment was conducted during the second visit. A registered educational psychologist supervised the engagement onsite.

Participants

Adolescents in Grade 9 (aged 15–17 years) in the rural high school participate in the FLY programme undertaken by the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Pretoria. Convenience sampling occurred with participants (n = 9) in this particular focus of the study. The participant selection in this instance differed somewhat from the norm as the group of Grade 9 learners were asked to choose their facilitator and organise a group. Therefore, the researchers had no control over the exact characteristics of the group. Merriam (2002) suggests that, since qualitative enquiry seeks to understand the meaning of the experiences of participants’ perspectives, it is important that a sample is selected from which the most can be learnt. Nine children formed part of the group; four boys and five girls. It is important to note that, while English is the language of instruction at the school, it is not the home language of the participants. Most of the participants speak siSwati at home. All participants provided written informed consent, and their parents or caregivers also provided written informed consent.

Data collection

Data were collected through child-centred tasks like drawing and the completion of open-ended sentences, informal conversations regarding the activities, observations documented as visual data (photographs) and a research journal, as well as a focus group discussion. Child-centred tasks in the form of paper-based activities provided a means of gaining entry into the group, creating familiarity and seeing how the children construct meaning of various concepts, such as school violence, safety and their connection to the school (Suzuki et al., 2007).

In order to engage with participants in a way that builds familiarity and allowed us to enter into their life-world to a certain extent, we decided to be what Corbin and Buckle (2009 citing Adler and Adler, 1987) term active member researchers or observer-as-participants (Angrosino and Mays de Perez, 2000). These observations were documented as notes in a research journal and formed part of the analysis, as well as visually (as photographs of the setting and processes) to provide for rich descriptions of the case (Ebersöhn and Eloff, 2007). Therefore, while the focus group discussion helped us to understand how participants make sense of events and experiences, the participant observations were useful in understanding how events take shape and affect participants in ways the group members might not even be aware of (Freeman and Mathison, 2009). To explore the process underlying adolescents’ internalisations of their experiences of school violence, it was important to provide them with a platform from which they could speak and explain. To access and capture diverse perceptions held by participants, researchers engaged with them in a one-hour focus group discussion (Leoschut and Bonora, 2007 citing Schurink et al., 1998), which revolved around the primary research question.

Data analysis

As we interacted with the participants through data collection, we started to learn how they made sense of their experiences, and began the process of making analytic sense of their meanings and actions (Charmaz, 2006). The focus group was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by a co-researcher. Focus group transcriptions, child-centred tasks, photographs and the research journal were hand-coded and compared for consistency by repeated observations. Analysis was guided by constructivist grounded theory principles (Charmaz, 2006) and thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Recurrent themes were identified and coding differences were resolved through debate and discussion when required. Relevant quotes were selected to depict central themes or categories.

Ethical considerations

The study observed ethical guidelines pertaining to how participants are treated (informed consent), how information is preserved to ensure confidentially, and the nature of the researcher–participant relationship (protection from harm) (Davis, 1998; Neill, 2005). Participant study numbers were used on all documentation to conceal the identities of participants. The FLY programme has the ethical approval of the Ethics Committee of the University of Pretoria’s Faculty of Education and the Department of Education.

Research Findings

Violence and power

A significant theme emerging from the study was that of violence as a form of ‘power and authority’. Adolescents highlighted instances where violence is used at school by people who wield a form of power or authority over another person, or where violence is used for the purpose of punishment, discipline or protection. Participants seemed to clearly associate violence with authority, as demonstrated by the following response to why people hit others: ‘They think they’re the boss’ (15-year-old male). This theme includes consideration of school discipline and corporal punishment, violence used by authority figures to protect and maintain order, and violence as play.

Violence as punishment

Participants in the study spoke not only of bullying and fighting among peers, but also (and more extensively) of forms of corporal punishment (physical and verbal) by teachers. Adolescents discussed ‘violence’ or ‘abuse’ by teachers as a form of discipline or punishment. They spoke of corporal punishment being meted out with sticks and sjamboks (traditional leather whips), hitting with the hands, slapping and pinching, as well as hitting children’s fingertips or knuckles with board dusters or belt buckles. During the discussion, one female participant pinched her upper arm and that of the girl next to her to demonstrate a teacher’s action. A boy made whipping motions on his back and others animated hitting (slapping) with an open hand, and made sounds (‘whack’, ‘pow’) to accompany the actions.

Violence to protect

Adolescents indicated that punishment and discipline are sometimes necessary and appropriate and should be enforced by certain members of the community. It seems that adolescents conceptualised violence by those in authority (such as the headmaster and police) as appropriate and acceptable when used to correct bad behaviour or to protect others. In this regard, adolescents expressed the fact that police violence is appropriate to enforce discipline on school grounds for the purpose of protection and maintaining order. Below we present a vignette of two older boys fighting on the school grounds during school time to illustrate participants’ view that violence (such as beating) is an appropriate resolution when meted out by adults in society who are vested with the power and authority to discipline and bring about order.

Participant:

One of the boys called the police.(15-year-old male)

Researcher:

And then the police came? [all nodding] And they took him away?

Participant:

… and they beat him [demonstrating hitting actions with fists]

Researcher:

Oh, I see. Where? Here or at the police station? [the boys motion towards the next building]

Participant:

… there … staffroom.

Researcher:

And then they beat up this boy? What did they beat him with? [the boys start demonstrating motions of hitting, kicking and punching]

Researcher:

And what happened to the other boy? The one that called the police?

Participant:

No, nothing.

Researcher:

[the boy that was beaten] … and he had to carry on being in school until he went home?

Participant:

Yes.

Researcher:

Did he stop beating other people afterwards?

Participant:

He was better…

Researcher:

So, you think it worked that the police came and hit him?

Participant:

Yes! [the others nod in agreement]

We’re just playing

Our conversations about school violence uncovered other instances where behaviour is not deemed violent. While engaging with the group, we observed that their communication included strong physical and verbal gestures, such as hitting one another, pushing someone away or calling each other names and laughing. The adolescents explained their understanding of violent behaviour in terms of intent and consequence. According to them, when the act of hitting or teasing is done by a friend and the people involved are laughing and smiling, then it is not considered violence but ‘just playing’. At one point during the focus group, a girl hit a boy on the head, and another girl pointed this out to the researcher giggling. A discussion ensued. It followed that the difference between an act of violence and ‘play fighting’ lies in the person’s emotional response during and after the incident, as illustrated in the vignette below. Therefore, when ‘play-hitting’ takes place, both parties are happy; whereas when unacceptable ‘real’ violence has been inflicted, a person will feel sad or angry.

Participant:

She’s beating him!

Researcher:

I see, hey! … you just hit him …

Participant:

[who had been hit] Yes!

Researcher:

Is that not violence?

Participant doing the hitting:

[smiles].

Participant:

She hit him like this on the head [demonstrates on fellow participant’s head]

Researcher:

Why do you hit other people?

Participant:

But sometimes you are playing, you see… [she ‘gently’ hits the boy next to her and they both laugh and wriggle].

Researcher:

Oh, I see. So is that also violence or not violence when you are just play-hitting?

Participant:

No it’s not violence.

Researcher:

How would I know the difference?

Participant:

When they are playing… you see that they are happy.

Researcher:

And if it is violence, what would I see?

Participant:

The person is sad.

Discussion

Although illegal in South African schools, corporal punishment is very much in use around the country, occurring in both rural (De Wet, 2007; Morrell, 2001) and urban schools (Smit, 2010; Steyn and Naicker, 2007). According to Morrell (2001), although the practice has been mostly phased out of middle-income former white schools, corporal punishment is still very evident in township and rural schools, and is inflicted on African boys and girls equally. Various studies have highlighted that corporal punishment and harsh discipline in schools perpetuate a culture of violence among children (Burnett, 1998; Harber, 2004; Steyn and Naicker, 2007) and leave an ‘invisible scar’ that affects many aspects of the child’s life (Harber, 2002). ‘This consistent exposure to violence – along with poor role-modelling, and parenting and teaching styles that are punitive – allows the child to develop a repertoire of behaviours that include aggression as a way of dealing with conflict and difficult life situations’ (Khan, 2008: 2).

This was evident in our study with adolescents demonstrating reliance on physical and verbal aggressive behaviour to cope with violence in their school environment.

The issue of punishment and discipline in schools is not only controversial, but also raises several contradictions within literature, as well as in the current study. Condoning the appropriateness of violence is not synonymous with sanctioning it. It seems that, on the one hand, participants deem acts of discipline and punishment necessary to maintain discipline and order in the school. On the other hand, they want the violence at school to stop, describing it as a negative experience and expressing the desire for an alternative school climate where teachers and children can sit and talk openly about problems. They state: ‘I feel painful. Me… I want it to… stop!’ and we must ‘sit and talk… solve the problem’. This sentiment is in line with other studies that often show children feeling angry, hurt, sad and powerless in relation to corporal punishment, and expressing the desire for more consultative forms of discipline (Morrell, 2001; Parkes, 2007).

This paradox is also evident in other studies conducted in South Africa (Morrell, 2001; Parkes, 2007; Smit, 2010) and Botswana (Tafa, 2002), with respondents claiming that, although corporal punishment is unlawful and ‘not right’, it is the only way to make sure that children listen and respect their teachers and elders. Although conducted 10 years apart, our study yielded almost identical findings to Morrell’s study (2001: 296) on how the use of corporal punishment is perceived by children. ‘With the exception of Indian and white females, most groups, but especially African and white males, and African females, continue to regard beating as the most effective punishment’ (Morrell, 2001). Burnett (1998) explains this phenomenon in a different way, stating that children’s relative powerlessness against harsh disciplinary measures, together with the overriding ideological justification within the community that punishment is essential for ensuring conformity, establishes a cycle of violence where such punishment is sanctioned as sound educational practice.

Perhaps the issue to consider then is not the actual act of punishment that constitutes violence, but the intent and attitude of the act as perceived by the child. Many teachers believe that corporal punishment that is administered justly (with love) and in an environment of mutual trust is necessary, right and acceptable (Morrell, 2001). Although the question remains: how often do both child and teacher come into a disciplinary situation with the same frame of reference and understanding? This question highlights another interesting observation in the study – whether children demonstrated a normalisation of violence at school.

Carter (2002: 29) also found that children frequently engaged in a banter of hostile and abusive comments among themselves, but claimed: ‘It’s only a laugh, Miss’; ‘He’s my mate, Miss’; or ‘We’re only playing’. In an extensive study of masculinity and crime, Messerschmidt (Morrell, 2002 citing Messerschmidt, 1993) argued that violence is part of a vocabulary used by young men to express their masculinity. While rough-and-tumble play is mostly ignored in early childhood, it can re-emerge in adolescence, resulting in serious fighting, as physical prowess becomes a way to stake a claim to dominance within the group. Lawson (2005) asserts that such aggressive rivalry is more commonly seen in communities where the social order is in flux, as adolescents are frustrated by feelings of resignation, fatalism and hopelessness. The CSVR (2008) also states that, although violence does not always generate material rewards for perpetrators, it does offer some important psychosocial consequences to counteract feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, as well as frustration, hopelessness and anger. Findings in the current study thus add to literature highlighting that there is a blurred line between how adolescents define playfighting, and bullying or aggression. This begs the question of whether those involved in incidents of school violence (children and teachers) share such understandings and definitions.

The growing violent nature of communities in South Africa has become a widespread characteristic and many researchers believe that this has led to an apparent immunity among children to the violence that surrounds them (Burton, 2008; Lawson, 2005; Leoschut and Bonora, 2007; Neser, 2005). Normalisation is explained when children become habituated to the violence to which they are frequently exposed and gradually come to accept it as the norm, leading to an indifferent or nonchalant attitude towards violent events (Latess, 2008; Lawson, 2005). Lincoln and Guba (1985) discuss this in terms of Kelly’s notion of ‘constructive alternativism’, which they explain as a personal construct that attempts to do justice to the internal world of the person. It is used when an individual comes to an understanding of the view of the world held by those people involved in a situation, rather than adopting a different perspective or ascribing structural function to external aspects (stimuli) of the environment. Leoschut and Bonora (2007) support this view by observing that children exposed to criminal and violent acts in their homes and schools are often socialised into developing the perception that crime and violence are part of the normal order of things.

We did not observe this ambivalence in the participants of the current study. In fact, as in the case of other studies like those of Morrell (2001) and Parkes (2007), participants were very much aware of violence occurring in their schools and voiced concerns about wanting it to stop. Therefore, when considering participants’ conceptualisations of, and reactions to school violence, we posit that it is not violence itself that adolescents normalise, but rather the reasons or motivations provided to use violence. This might shed light on participants’ opinions of the acceptability of violence when used by people in authority for inappropriate behaviour.

Bronfenbrenner (1995), and Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) refer to meaning-making in terms of frequent exposure to proximal processes in the child’s environment. Our findings indicate that adolescents are being socialised to accept violence as a ‘functional tool’ to obtain social control and order, as well as being an effective instrument in the hands of adults who have a relatively high ranking in the social hierarchy. Therefore, we add our voices to the claims that, by observing adults in positions of power and authority engaging in violent behaviour, adolescents internalise the idea that violence constitutes a justifiable means to dominate others and control a situation for the purpose of bringing order and obedience.

Limitations of the Study

The remote school from which the adolescents in this study were selected is predominantly siSwati and, for this reason, results may not be generalised to other populations. In this qualitative study, we did not obtain data on violent behaviour nor did we ask participants to disclose information on, for example, violent experiences. Studies that incorporate an analysis of demographic information and data on violent behaviour may likely paint a more comprehensive picture of conceptualisations of violence in this population. To truly gain insight into children’s life-worlds requires time and engagement. Therefore, we encourage future ethnographic studies with prolonged engagement and the use of a variety of child-centred strategies (Freeman and Mathison, 2009; Punch, 2002).

Conclusion

This study focused on the important role that contexts and societal attitudes play in adolescents’ conceptualisations of their experiences of school violence. We have come to the conclusion that violence – and in this case, school violence – is invariably bound up with issues of power. Children learn that violence is a means to enforce power, to shift power and to resist power. Therefore, when used by someone in a position of authority to enforce order, violence is acceptable. It is speculated that high rates of economic and social disintegration in many South African communities have led to a brittle masculinity with a sense of powerlessness. This leads to children and adolescents with an increasing propensity towards using violence to regain a sense of power and control over their lives.

Schools are the key site where young people negotiate their understanding of the world. However, schools can also be viewed as important contexts for indoctrination and systemic violence. An important finding of this study is that a school climate, and values of fairness and justice regarding disciplinary practices influence violence within the school. School environments are interwoven with their surrounding communities. Therefore, values and social attitudes within the school are often reflected in the community.

Adolescents in this study remarked that it was difficult for them to speak to their families or teachers, and that they preferred to call the police for help. This shows how school violence, together with perceptions of unfairness and vulnerability, can likely cause children to lose trust in the school system, which seemingly fails to protect them from threats or attacks by others.

There is a widespread belief that violence in schools is caused by societal cultures that encourage, tolerate and demand violence. The so-called culture of violence is reflected in our study, with participants claiming that violence is necessary to maintain order and discipline. Our findings are supported by various other studies that concluded that violence is often perceived as an acceptable way of handling differences and conflict.

This study contributes towards understanding the complexities of violence in South African schools by giving a voice to children in a rural school. By engaging participants in open and extended dialogue, we hope to have opened spaces or avenues for their meaning-making, and perhaps even given rise to reconstructions and contemplations. As no adult-created definitions were presented to participants, we believe this study provides insight into the life-worlds of South African children. The themes emerging from this study highlight the need for further discussion and insight regarding the ways in which school violence influences children’s social constructions of masculinity and femininity, especially taking note of the power dynamics underscored in this study.

Footnotes

Funding

The study received funding from the National Research Foundation Grant: 82620 CEC 12091412827.

Author biographies

Ruth Mampane is a senior lecture at the University of Pretoria department of Educational Psychology, South Africa. She is on the board of South African Journal of Education. Her current research focuses include, child development (mostly middle-adolescence), adversity (vulnerability) and context of development (mostly black townships). Her scholarly contributions within the discipline of Educational Psychology and education is centered on resilience (building and supporting resilience in youths and school environment), mitigation of risk (encouraging support for youths, awareness and identification of risk factors) and encouraging preventative programs through early identification of risk. She was awarded the University of Michigan African Presidential Scholar award (UMAPS 2010) and the SANPAD RCI award in 2005. Regarding research funding, she was awarded Thuthuka NRF Rating Track (2013-2015) on Determinants of family resilience and NRF RDP funding for (2012-2014) which focuses on Grandparents as carers of orphaned children.

Liesel Ebersöhn heads the Unit for Education Research in AIDS, University of Pretoria, where she is also a full professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education. As a National Research Foundation-rated researcher she interrogates resilience as collective and sustained transactional-ecological processes within resource-scarce education environments.

Avivit Cherrington holds a masters’ degree in Educational Psychology and is pursuing doctoral studies in the field of Hope Interventions with children made vulnerable due to HIV&AIDS. She has consulted to various NGOs and a South African government committee on the development of psycho-social support programmes to orphans and vulnerable children in the context of HIV&AIDS.

Melanie Moen holds a masters’ degree in Educational Psychology and is a registered psychologist. She is a researcher for the University of Pretoria. She has been part of the development of the University’s Distance Education curriculum. She develops and facilitates various short courses for corporate companies.

References

Adler

(1987) Membership Roles in Field Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allen

(2005) Cognitive perspective to violence expression. In: Sexton-Radek

(ed.) Violence in Schools: Issues, Consequences, and Expressions. Westport: Praeger, pp.49–67.

Angrosino

Mays de Perez

(2000) Rethinking observation. From methods to context. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications, pp.673–702.

Baker

(1998) Are we missing the forest for the trees? Considering the social context of school violence. Journal of School Psychology 36(1): 29–44.

Barker

Ricardo

(2005) Young men and the construction of masculinity in sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for HIV/AIDS, conflict, and violence. The World Bank Social Development Papers: Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction, Paper No. 26. Available at: www.worldbank.org/conflict (accessed 30 May 2010).

Booi

(2009) Security tightened after school stabbing. Eye Witness News 11 February 2009.

Braun

(2007) School violence. Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference – Parliamentary Liaison Office. Available at: www.cplo.co.za/site/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=43&Itemid=54&limitstart=10

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979) The Ecology of Human Development. London: Harvard University Press.

10.

Bronfenbrenner

(1995) Development ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In: Moen

Elder

Jr Luscher

(eds) Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp.619–647.

11.

Bronfebrenner

Ceci

(1994) Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review 101(4): 568–586.

12.

Bruce

(2007) To be someone: Status insecurity and violence in South Africa. In Burton

(ed.) Someone Stole My Smile. An Exploration into the Causes of Youth Violence in South Africa. CJCP Monograph 3: Cape Town, Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention.

13.

Burnett

(1998) School violence in an impoverished South African community. Child Abuse and Neglect 22(8): 789–795.

14.

Burton

(2008) Merchants, Skollies and Stones. Experiences of School Violence in South Africa. CJCP Monograph 4. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention.

15.

Carter

(2002) Schools ethos and the construction of masculine identity: Do schools create, condone and sustain aggression? Educational Review 54(1): 27–36.

16.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE Publications.

17.

Corbin

Buckle

(2009) The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(1): 54–63.

18.

CSVR (Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation) (2007) The Violent Nature of Crime in South Africa. A concept paper for the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security Cluster. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention.

19.

CSVR (Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation) (2008) Adding injury to insult. How exclusion and inequality drive South Africa’s problem of violence. Report on Component 4 of a study conducted by the CSVR for the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cluster. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention.

20.

CSVR (Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation) (2009) Why does South Africa have such high rates of violent crime? Supplement to the final report of the study on the violent nature of crime in South Africa. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention.

21.

CSVR (Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation) (2010) Tackling Armed Violence. Key Findings and Recommendations of the Study on the Violent Nature of Crime in South Africa. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention.

22.

Dahlberg

Krug

(2002) Violence – a global public health problem. In: Krug

Dahlberg

Mercy

Zwi

Lozano

(eds) World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva, World Health Organization, pp.1–21. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545615_chap1_eng.pdf (accessed 24 September 2009).

23.

Davis

(1998) Understanding the meanings of children: A reflexive process. Children & Society, 12(5): 325–335. Available at: http://0-www.wiley.com.innopac.up.ac.za/WileyCDA/ (accessed 11 August 2010).

24.

DoE (Department of Education) (2005) Report of the Ministerial Committee on Rural Education. A New Vision for Rural Schooling. Pretoria: Department of Education. Available at: http://www.education.gov.za (accessed 21 August 2010).

25.

De Wet

(2007) School violence in Lesotho: The perceptions, experiences and observations of a group of children. South African Journal of Education 27: 673–689.

26.

Du Plessis

(2008) Exploring secondary school educator’s experiences of school violence. Uunpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

27.

Ebersöhn

(2010) School-based Community Engagement (Section E). Study Guide – Education Psychology Practice (OPR800). Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

28.

Ebersöhn

Eloff

(2007) Lessons from postgraduate studies employing photographic methodology. In: de Langa

Mitchell

Stuart

(eds) Putting People in the Picture: Visual Methodologies for Social Change. Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp.203–220.

29.

Fong

Vogel

(2008) The correlates of school violence: An examination of factors linked to assaultive behaviour in a rural middle school with a large migrant population. Journal of School Violence 7(3): 24–47.

30.

Freeman

Mathison

(2009) Researching Children’s Experiences. NewYork: The Guilford Press.

31.

Gilbert

(1996) Violence and health – South Africa 1995. Social Science Medical 43(5): 873–886.

32.

Greene

(2005) Reducing violence and aggression in schools. Trauma Violence Abuse 6: 236–253.

33.

Harber

(2002) Schooling as violence: An exploratory overview. Educational Review 54(1): 7–16.

34.

Harber

(2004) Schooling as Violence: How Schools Harm Pupils and Societies. UK: Routledge Falmer.

35.

Jefthas

Artz

(2007) Youth violence. A gendered perspective. In: Burton

(ed.) Someone Stole My Smile. An Exploration into the Causes of Youth Violence in South Africa. CJCP Monograph 3. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention.

36.

Kannapel

Young

(1999) The rural school problem in 1999: A review and critique of the literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education 15(2): 67–79.

37.

Khan

(2008) Building school safety: The Hlayiseka Project – A whole school approach. CJCP Issue Paper No 6. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention. Available at: www.cjcp.org.za (accessed 25 July 2010).

38.

Latess

(2008) Focus-group Research for School Improvement. What are They Thinking? USA: Rowan & Littlefield Education.

39.

Lawson

(2005) Theoretical foundations. In: Sexton-Radek

(ed.) Violence in Schools: Issues, Consequences, and Expressions. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp.3–34.

40.

Leoschut

Bonora

(2007) Offender perspectives on violent crime. In: Burton

(ed.) Someone Stole My Smile. An Exploration into the Causes of Youth Violence in South Africa. CJCP Monograph 3. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention.

41.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage Publications.

42.

Lubbe

Mampane

(2008) Voicing children’s perceptions of safety and unsafety in their life-worlds. In: Ebersöhn

(ed.) From Microscope To Kaleidoscope: Reconsidering Educational Aspects Related to Children in the HIV & AIDS Pandemic. Netherlands: Sense Publishers, pp.129–145.

43.

Mampane

(2004) The identification of resilient and non-resilient middle adolescent learners in a South African township school. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

44.

Mampane

(2010) The relationship between resilience and school: A case study of middle-adolescents in township schools. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

45.

Mayer

(2010) Structural analysis of the 1995–2005 School Crime Supplement datasets: Factors influencing students’ fear, anxiety and avoidant behaviours. Journal of School Violence 9: 37–55.

46.

Merriam

(2002) Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

47.

Messerschmidt

(1993) Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualisation of Theory (Lanham, Rowman and Little. eld).

48.

Morrell

(2001) Corporal punishment in South African schools: A neglected explanation for its persistence. South African Journal of Education 21(4): 292–299.

49.

Morrell

(2002) A calm after the storm? Beyond schooling as violence. Educational Review 54(1): 37–46.

50.

Mulkeen

(2006) Teachers and Rural Schools: A Challenge for Africa. Gabon: Libreville.

51.

Neill

(2005) Research with children: A critical review of the guidelines. Journal of Child Health Care 9(1): 46–58.

52.

Neser

(2005) An exploration of learners’ views on certain aspects of school safety. Acta Criminologica 18(3): 61–81.

53.

Netshitahame

Van Vollenhoven

(2002) School safety in rural schools: Are they as safe as we think they are? South African Journal of Education 22(4): 313–318.

54.

Osborne

(2004) Identification with academics and violence in schools. In: Gerler

(ed.) Handbook of School Violence. NY: The Haworth Reference Press, Inc.

55.

Parkes

(2007) The multiple meanings of violence: Children’s talk about life in a South African neighbourhood. Childhood 14: 401–414.

56.

Punch

(2002) Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood 9: 321–341.

57.

Reppucci

Fried

Schmidt

(2002) Youth violence: Risk and protective factors. In: Corrado

Roesch

Hart

Gierowski

(eds.) Multi-problem Violent Youth. A Foundation for Comparative Research on Needs, Interventions and Outcomes Amsterdam: ISO Press. pp.3–23.

58.

Saloojee

(2009) Portraits of rural schooling: What does it mean to be a teacher in a rural school? Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

59.

Schurink

Poggenpoel

(1998) Focus group interviewing and audiovisual methodology in qualitative research. In: De Vos

(ed.) Research at Grass Roots: A Primer for the Caring Professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers. pp.313–333.

60.

Sercombe

(2003) Reflections on youth violence. Youth Studies Australia 22, pp.25–30.

61.

Skiba

Simmons

Peterson

McKelvey

Forde

Gallini

(2004) Beyond guns, drugs and gangs: The structure of student perceptions of school safety. In: Furlong

Morrison

Skiba

Cornell

(eds) Issues in School Violence Research. NY: The Haworth Press, pp.149–171.

62.

Smit

(2010) The role of school discipline in combating violence in schools in the East London region. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Fort Hare, South Africa.

63.

Steyn

Naicker

(2007) Child, educator and community views on school safety at Strelitzia Secondary School. Acta Criminologica 20(3): 1–20.

64.

Suzuki

Ahluwalia

Kwong Arora

Mattis

(2007) The pond you fish in determines the fish you catch: Exploring strategies for qualitative data collection. The Counseling Psychologist 35(2): 295–327.

65.

Swart

Pettipher

(2005) A framework for understanding inclusion. In: Landsberg

Kruger

Nel

(eds) Addressing Barriers to Learning. A South African Perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers pp.3–23.

66.

Tafa

(2002) Corporal punishment: The brutal face of Botswana’s authoritarian schools. Educational Review 54(1): 17–26.

67.

Thaw

(2009) Youth violence spirals out of control. Eye Witness News, 20 September 2009.

68.

Van Jaarsveld

(2008) Violence in schools: A security problem? Acta Criminologica CRIMSA Conference Special Edition 2: 175–188.

69.

Vogel

(2002) Youth violence: Strategies for effective prevention and intervention. Acta Criminologica 15(1): 1–8.

70.

Ward

(2007) Young people’s violent behaviour: Social learning in context. In: Burton

(ed.) Someone Stole My Smile. An Exploration into the Causes of Youth Violence in South Africa. CJCP Monograph 3. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention, pp.9–37.