An interpretative phenomenological
study of young people who bully and
their counsellors
by
Christine Tapson
Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Clinical Practice (DCP)
Faculty of Health & Medical Sciences
University of Surrey
June 2014
© Christine Tapson 2014
This thesis is dedicated to my parents Mutti and Dad, with
love.
i
ABSTRACT
Despite
abundant
literature
about
bullying,
previous
research
has
predominantly focussed upon the characteristics of those who bully, peer
influences
in
bullying
and
anti-bullying
interventions,
with
little
acknowledgement of how young people who bully and their counsellors
experience counselling. This research seeks to address the gap by asking; how
well young people who bully feel able to express themselves to their
counsellor, and what facilitates or inhibits the therapeutic relationship for both
counsellors and young people who bully? These research questions derive both
from existing literature and my profession as a counsellor of young people who
bully.
Using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), data were gathered using
focus groups and semi-structured interviews with a sample consisting of six
participants representing four young people and two counsellors. In IPA, the
researcher’s use of self is equally implicated in the collection and analysis of
data (Smith & Osborn, 2003); consequently, my dual identity as counsellor and
researcher has asserted differing perspectives.
The three superordinate themes identified in the current study focus upon
attachment states (Bowlby, 1977, 1988), the therapeutic relationship, and the
influence of emotional management upon counsellors. Trust and risk emerged
as pervading concerns for the young people and have been integrated into
discussion of the superordinate themes. The research received favourable
ethical opinion from the Faculty of Health and Medical Science (FHMS) ethics
committee.
ii
Findings suggest that young people who bully experience insecurities which
manifest as mistrust, inhibiting the relationship with their counsellor. It also
appears that a counsellor’s life experiences and occupational identity variously
affect the therapeutic relationship. Individual counselling may not be a
panacea but I recommend that if undertaken expertly, it has potential.
Future research could focus upon confidentiality where equivocal standards
are confusing for young people who bully.
iii
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and overview........................................................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………7
2.2 The bully character…………………………………………………………………………………………………9
2.3 Group influences on bullying………………………………………………………….………………….…12
2.4 Peer group intervention schemes………………………………………………………..…………….…14
2.5 A non-punitive strategy: Shared concern or No Blame approach……………………...….20
2.6 A punitive strategy: Bully courts………………………………………………….………………………..23
2.7 Moral disengagement………………………………………………………………………..……….………..26
2.8 The helpful aspects of counselling………………………………………………………………………..29
2.9 The unhelpful aspects of counselling……………………………………………………………..….….31
2.10 Attachment theory……………………………………………………………….………………………….…33
2.11 Intergenerational influences…………………………………………………………………….……..….38
2.12 Bully/victim traits…………………………………………………………………………….………….……...41
2.13 Core pain…………………………………………………………….………………………..………………….…45
2.14 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………….………………..….46
3. METHODOLOGY AND METHODS………………………………………………………………….……..50
3.1 Research questions……………………………………………………………………..………..…………....50
3.2 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..…….……………………….….….51
3.3 Why interpretative phenomenological analysis is selected over grounded theory.52
3.4 Interpretative phenomenological analysis…………………………….…………………….……….53
3.4.1 The epistemological position of interpretative phenomenological analysis…..…57
3.4.1.1 Underlying assumptions of interpretative phenomenological analysis……...60
3.5 Symbolic interactionism……………………………………………………………………….……….……..66
3.6 Criticism of interpretative phenomenological analysis………………………………………….69
3.6.1 Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in the research…….……………...70
3.7 Ethical considerations………………………………………………………………………..………………...71
3.8 Sampling an access…………………………………………………….…………….…………………….…...76
3.9 The methods………………………….………………………………………….…………………………………83
3.9.1 Observing the young people……………………………………………………………………..….…84
3.9.2 The focus groups…………………………………………………….……………………………………...93
3.9.2.1 Stimulus materials used in the young people’s focus group…………………….…97
3.9.2.2 Story stems: Original templates…………………………………………………………….…102
3.9.2.3 Original version of the parent conflict story……………………………………….…...103
3.9.3 The focus group for the counsellors………………………………………….……………….….105
3.9.4 Individual in-depth interviews………………………………………………….……………….....106
3.10 Critical section: An evaluation of the methods…………………………………….….……….111
3.11 Data analysis………………………………….……………………………….……………………………....123
3.12 An evaluation of quantitative research…………………………………………………….……...130
3.13 Summary………………………………………………………………….………………….…………………..133
iv
4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………...137
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………........………..………………….....137
4.1.1 Terms used in this chapter………………………………………………………………….…….…..140
4.2 Findings theme: Attachment states………………………………………………………….…….....140
4.2.1 Andy……………………………………………………………………………………………..………………140
4.2.2 Courtney………………………………………………………………………………..……………………..148
4.2.3 Jason………………………………………………………………………….…….……………………..……155
4.2.4 Lucy……………………………….…………………………………………………………….……………….161
4.2.5 Attachment in relation to counsellors A and B…………………………………………..….165
4.2.6 Summary in relation to attachment……………………………………………….……….…….168
4.3 The therapeutic relationship…………………………………………………….……………….……….174
4.3.1 Trust……………………………………………….………………………………………….…………………174
4.3.2 Confidentiality………………………………………………………………………….……………….….178
4.3.3 The counsellor as stranger…………………………………………………………………………....184
4.3.4 Referral as opposed to self-referral……………………………………………………..………..186
4.3.5 The struggle to articulate emotions……………………………………………………………...190
4.3.6 Summary in relation to the therapeutic relationship……………………………..………201
4.4 Emotion management…………………………….……………………………………………..…………..213
4.4.1 Counsellors A and B…………………………………………………………….………….…………….213
4.4.2 Emotion management for the researcher………………………………….…….……………224
4.4.3 Summary in relationship to emotion management…………….…………………….…..231
4.5 Final summary……………….………………………………………………….……………………………….239
5 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………….……..244
5.1 Introduction…………………………………………….…………………………………………………….…..244
5.2 The reflective practitioner…………………………………….……………………………………….…..245
5.3 Reflecting upon the methodology and methods……………………………….……………....249
5.4 Reflecting upon attachment……………………………………….…………………….…………….….261
5.5 Reflecting upon the therapeutic relationship………………………………….………….……...272
5.6 Reflecting upon emotion management………………………………………….…….………….…279
5.7 Recommendations and implications…………………………………………….…….……………...288
5.8 Concluding comments………………………………………………………….……………….…………...294
APPENDICES…………………………………………………….………….……………………….………………298
REFERRENCES………………………………………….…………………..……………………………………….327
RESEARCH JOURNAL……………………………….……………………………………………..……..……..372
RESEARCH LOG……………………………….……………………..………………………………..…………..379
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly I am indebted to all the young people and the counsellors participating
in this study without whom, this research would not have been possible. They
welcomed me, were interested and supportive. They shared with me their
vulnerabilities and I have learnt much about facing uncertainty with humour
and perseverance.
I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Helen Allan and Professor Ann
Gallagher for their unflagging support and commitment. They challenged my
ideas in a way that nurtured growth and were endlessly patient and kind.
Lastly, I would like to thank my lovely daughters Helen, Alice and Rachael for
their love and unending support. They have listened to me moan, encouraged
me when the chips were down and poured me wine at times of crisis.
1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The topic of bullying informs significant extant literature and has been well
researched for many years. This body of research has largely taken an
objective stance to consider, the tendency for bullying behaviour to transfer
from one generation to the next, anti-bullying interventions and the
characteristics of those who bully. However, qualitative research seeking
understanding as to how young people who bully respond to counselling or
how their counsellors experience the therapeutic relationship with them was
limited.
The superordinate themes identified in the current study focus upon how
secure and insecure attachment states (Bowlby, 1977, 1988) manifest in the
therapeutic relationship both in relation to young people who bully and their
counsellors. As data analysis progressed, it emerged that a counsellor’s role
appears mediated by emotional management. Feeling this strand of data to
be of importance to the research question, emotional management for
counsellors represents a superordinate theme. Trust and risk emerged as a
pervading concern which resonated throughout the data consequently, the
relevance of these issues has been reflected by integrating trust and risk within
discussion of the superordinate themes.
As researcher, I seek to authentically represent the counsellor’s perspective in
relation t o young people who bully. Motivation is likewise personal for, as a
counsellor, I believe that promoting understanding of what inhibits and
facilitates the therapeutic relationship with young people who bully would
extend understanding for practice. Using my position as researcher/counsellor, I
2
am able to reflect on the data analytically and move the questioning on in the
focus groups and individual interviews (4)
The research questions informing the thesis ask how young people who bully
experience counselling and specifically, how well they feel able to express
themselves to a counsellor and the conditions which enable or impede this
process. They derive both from extant literature and my profession as a
counsellor of young people who bully where I find their tough exteriors are a
fragile shell protecting their vulnerabilities; such thought evolving to underpin
the current study.
The study highlights the myriad psychological difficulties and vulnerabilities
young people who bully experience and how these mediate their behaviour
and relationships. The research also identifies how a counsellor’s lived
experience influences the therapeutic relationship, for better or for worse.
The research is conducted using IPA, which assumes a critical realist position,
meaning there are stable and enduring features of reality that exist
independently of human conceptualisation (Smith, 2004, 2008). However, the
meaning of reality is subject to the varying evaluative and self-reflective
capacities of human beings, meaning reality varies according to how individuals
experience it (Ackroyd, 2004). Accordingly, intentionality links the perceiver
with the perceived (Smith, 1996), describing a mutual and inseparable
connection between the body, consciousness and reality. This premise was
realised through my dual identity as researcher and counsellor, influencing
interpretation and, at times, introducing tension.
discussion (5) I evaluate such conflict.
In
the concluding
3
Based upon the notion that human speech and behaviour reflects these
different meanings, interpretative methodologies such as IPA are suited to
analysis of the diverse concepts of reality (Fade, 2004).
Chapter 2 opens with a literature review introducing the concept of the bully
character (2.2), group influences upon bullying (2.3) and anti-bullying
interventions (2.4, 2.5, 2.6). It moves on to provide a perspective of how young
people experience counselling (2.8), both the helpful and unhelpful aspects
(2.8, 2.9), culminating by focussing upon two key elements of the study,
attachment (2.10) and intergenerational continuity of aggressive tendencies
(2.11).
Chapter 3 introduces the research questions (3.1), then compares and contrasts
epistemological attitudes to phenomenology, elaborating upon IPA and
where this sits in the debate (3.3, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.1.1), including in relation to
symbolic interactionism (3.5). Following a critique of IPA (3.6, 3.6.1),
discussion turns to ethical considerations, sampling and data collection,
including how the condition attention deficit disorder impacts the experience of
the young participants in this study (3.7, 3.8,). Thereafter, the methods are
evaluated, including deliberation as to their use in conjunction with IPA (3.9
to 3.9.4). Following on, section 3.10 evaluates the methods used in this study,
with data analysis discussed in section 3.11. In section 3.12 an appraisal of
qualitative and quantitative approaches to research is offered.
In chapter 4 the study moves to the findings, integrating discussion of the
superordinate themes, where I draw upon significant theories to analyse the
data in relation to; attachment, the therapeutic relationship and emotional
management (4.2, 4.3, 4.4), these being of overriding concern for the
4
participants. Quotes from the participants’ narratives are used to contextualise
their concerns and evaluate thei r experiences from multiple perspectives, as
this is considered the intention of IPA (Smith, 1996).
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1977) (2.10) describes two primary forms of
relationship connection between a child and their primary carer. The findings
suggest that young people who bully seem profoundly affected by negative
developmental experiences, which can manifest as a self/other divide
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)
(2.10),
leaving
them
insecure
and
distrustful in relationships ( 4 . 2 ) . Secondly, the therapeutic relationship (4.3)
represents the quality of the alliance between a client and counsellor which
then effects how the work between them is undertaken (Polat & Jenkins,
2005; Bedi & Duff, 2010). Data suggests that the subjective experiences of
young people who bully and their counsellors variously influences the
counselling dynamic. Lastly, emotional management (Hochschild, 1998),
represents how social values and expectations modulate feeling and which the
findings suggest both enables and, at other times, inhibits the therapeutic
alliance (4.4). However, the basic tenets of caring and genuineness (5.5)
represent a secure foundation from which young people who bully can effect
healing.
In chapter 5, I evaluate the contents of the thesis and suggest that group antibullying intervention schemes may not adequately address the complex
problems experienced by young people who bully, who may require
intervention from highly skilled professionals. Furthermore, I suggest that
students of counselling are given the opportunity to reflect upon their attitudes
towards bullying, in a non-polarised environment that enables
5
greater
understanding, before engaging with clients who bully. In light of the trust
issues articulated by the young participants, I recommend future research
exploring how confidentiality is conceptualised by young people who bully and
their counsellors.
The following chapter now provides a review of the literature in relation to
bullying, and how this links with related fields of research.
6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The intention of the following review is, as Brocki and Weardon (2006)
suggest, to provide “awareness of the current literature and issues surrounding
the area” (p. 92). Opinions are divided as to whether a literature review gives
focus to the research, or, by preceding data collection, introduces a potential
for bias (Streubert, 1999).
This literature review preceded data collection and highlighted a dearth in
qualitative research exploring the experiences of young people who bully
which gave voice to their concerns. Key examples include confidentiality (2.8),
the negative physical and psychological impact of bullying behavior (2.10, 2.12,
and 2.13) and the opportunity for young people to articulate their opinions
about bullying (3.9.2). In addition, previous studies evaluating how clients
experience counselling predominantly sought the opinion of adults, rather than
young people or their counsellors, a consideration I redressed by including both.
My initial search focussed upon social science data bases, most specifically,
PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, and Science Direct, using the following search
terms; bullying, the bully character, the psychological and
physiological
impact of bullying, and counselling and bullying. The search spanned from
1980 to 2013 as I wanted to reflect the influence upon research of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Alderson, 2001) regarding their
inclusion. The review included both empirical and theoretical research.
7
Empirical research describes a way of obtaining knowledge through direct or
indirect observation and analysing data either qualitatively, quantitatively, or
both so as to answer a clearly defined question (Goodwin, 2 0 0 5 ).
Theoretical research aims to prove or disprove an hypothesised truth,
which is predicted by theory but not yet adequately tested by observation or
experiment (Goodwin, 2005). The literature reviewed was too vast to display
in its entirety, so in appendix 2, I provide a summary table. These examples
were selected to reflect the essence of the current research by including the
characteristics of those who bully, anti-bullying interventions and young
peoples’ attitudes to counselling.
As the literature grew, I used reference lists at the bottom of academic papers
to extend my reading. Although this proved a fruitful exercise, the references
directed me to similar literature. To broaden my search to include, for
example, chapters in books, I typed specific phrases into the search engine
Google. This enabled access to related academic articles and authors.
Moreover, when pursuing specific themes, such as access to mental health, I
contacted related organisations, for example, the Children and Mental Health
Services, who kindly allowed me to take part in their team meetings and
answered my questions regarding process and policy. Notably, none of the
children’s cases were discussed and therefore no ethical guidelines were
breached. From this, I learnt that funding severely restricts service provision,
a consideration receiving little attention in the literature reviewed. Broadening
the inquiry this way is an approach Barrientos (1998) refers to as a literature
study. He suggests that drawing upon the information of stakeholders in
8
Addition to more traditional literary sources, augments the scope of the review.
I begin the literature review by introducing the key themes associated with
bullying, including the bully character (2.2), the group effect upon bullying
(2.3), anti-bullying intervention schemes (2.4, 2.5, 2.6), the effect of moral
disengagement (2.7) and how counselling is perceived by clients (2.8, 2.9).
Consistent throughout the literature about bullying are two main themes:
attachment styles (e.g. Bowlby, 1988) (2.10) and intergenerational influences
(e.g. Sedikes et al., 2004) (2.11). These themes are significant as young people
who bully are known to predominantly occupy insecure attachment states
(Sedikes et al. 2004) (2.10) which moderate their relationships with others into
adulthood,
perpetuating
bullying
behaviour
to
future
generations
(Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991) (2.11). In this chapter, I explore these key
themes in detail.
In this literature review, I conclude that insecure attachment states influence
how an individual interacts with others and how others interact with them.
This is significant as maladaptive relationship representations are internalised
and re-enacted in future alliances. If such negative experiences remain
unexpressed, they may form a core pain which undermines development and
can propel bullying behaviour. I suggest that finding the method most suited
to combat the problem of bullying (most specifically in schools), is of
importance both to stem its increase and address the damage incurred by
victims and perpetrators alike. I present a profile of the anti-bullying schemes
later in this chapter and develop my concerns (2.4, 2.5, and 2.6).
9
2.2 The bully character
According to Olweus (1978), the bully profile is characterised by aggression,
lack of empathy, a strong need to dominate others and a positive attitude
towards violence. Baldry (2004) divides bullying into two categories: direct,
(physical and verbal such as hitting, kicking and name calling, and indirect
(subtle denigration such as deliberate exclusion and spreading rumours).
Menesini et al., (2003) add that bullying is also characterised by a systematic
approach directed at an individual.
Baldry (1998) considers boys as most prone to direct bullying because of their
physical advantage over a victim. However, a more psychological motive is
suggested by Batmanghelidjh (2006) who considers the propensity for physical
violence emanates from a primal attachment instinct, as boys abandoned by
their fathers and who have never felt protected, use aggression to defend
against others.
Unlike boys, girls bully in more verbal and indirect ways (Baldry, 1998). Pepler
et al., (2006) attribute this disparity to language skills, as boys, especially from
dysfunctional families, experience significant language impairment (20-30%
higher) compared to girls their own age, and may not be capable of using
verbal aggression effectively (Choudhury & Benasich, 2003). Notably, indirect
bullying is found to most affect physical and mental ill health (Baldry, 2004).
Although boys are more likely to bully than girls, they are also more
frequently victimised by their peers (Kumpulainen et al., 1998). This tendency
may evolve from a combination of aggressive and restrictive parental discipline,
as
the
hostile
and
withdrawn
characteristics
associated
with
such
10
conflicting parenting is thought most predictive of bully/victim behaviour
(Schwartz et al., 1997; Forero et al., 1999), a subject elaborated upon in section
2.12.
Alongside the technological evolution, cyberbullying has emerged as a growing
concern (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). As with traditional forms of bullying,
cyberbullying is intentional and repeated, causing the victims psychological
and emotional pain. Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying is inflicted using
various electronic devices, for example, through text messages and malicious
threats via social networking sites, although, the intention, as with
traditional bullying is to spread rumours, threaten and exclude the victim
(Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Notably, the nature of cyberbullying can afford the
perpetrator anonymity, partly as it can be perpetuated beyond the purview of
authority figures. Researchers (Diener, 1979; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006) suggest
that it is such anonymity which enables the offender to distance themselves
from relevant morals and rules. As with other forms of bullying, cyberbullying is
also linked with low self-esteem. Whether this is cause or effect is uncertain
(Twenge & Campbell, 2001). Hence it is significant for educators, since low
self-esteem is linked to poor health, absenteeism and poor academic
performance (Twenge & Campbell, 2001) with far reaching implications
regarding criminal behaviour amongst young people (Hansford & Hattie, 1982;
Davies & Brember, 1999).
A tendency to bully is thought to be mainly derived from dysfunctional
parent-child relationships, which themselves are highly stressful and related
to poorer health and emotional dis-regulation.
11
Consequently, bullying and
dysfunctional parenting both affects and effects ill health (Rigby, 1999).
Positive role modelling helps reduce the likelihood of developing negative
consequences as this is representative of secure attachment where a
dependable primary carer reduces a child’s anxiety (Rigby, 2000). The concept
of secure attachment is developed later in this chapter (2.10).
The concept of emotional dis-regulation was first postulated by Winnicott (1949,
1960) as far back as 1949. He believed it resulted from conflict between a
‘true’ and ‘false self’ where emotional signals allowing an individual both to
love and be loved, were somehow excluded. Hence, cognitive processes
located in a false self, created dissociation from emotional experience. This
made it difficult for the individual to reconcile intellect with emotion and
thereby make balanced decisions regarding all aspects of their life (Crittenden,
1992; Winnicott, 1949, 1960). Although the false self acted as a dominating
force, internal conflict arose when the true self clamoured for expression
causing conflict between the two identities and threatening the false self. Jones
(1985) thinks this threat to be closely allied to the internalised fear of
abandonment, developed during childhood attachment, and which the false
self was originally constructed to defend against. Self-hatred, often expressed
as aggression, is then used by individuals as a means of suppressing the true
self (Jones, 1985). Like Jellema (2000), I consider this a complex problem that
would require expert attention to resolve in a young person who bullied.
Bullying is described as “collective in its nature, based on social relationships
in the group.” (Lagerspetz et al., 1982, p.97). Understanding the characteristics
12
that define those who bully is important not just from an individual
standpoint therefore, but also from a group perspective. In the following
section I discuss these implications with relation to the group effect upon
bullying.
2.3 Group influences upon bullying
Although research into the personality of the bully (Olweus, 1991) is essential
to advance understanding, it is not sufficient to consider the bully in isolation,
as peers are found present during 85% of bullying episodes (Pepler & Criag,
1995), whereby emphasising the influence of bystanders. For example, in a
study by Whitney and Smith, (1993) one fifth reported that they might join in.
In addition, a common motivator for bullying are “feelings of
power
or
looking cool” (Zeigler & Rosenstein- Manner, 1991, cited in Sutton & Smith,
1999, p.98), implying that bystanders may inadvertently boost the bully’s selfesteem (Sutton & Smith, 1999); an intoxicating effect since bullies are known
to have unstable levels of self-esteem (Kernis et al., 1989). Individuals with
unstable high self-esteem may have their anger aroused because of a
perceived threat to their concept of self (Kernis et al., 1989). Enhanced
sensitivity about one’s self-view also creates problems with evaluating
feedback (Kugle et al., 1983; Turner, 1968), a volatile cocktail in a group I
suggest. In section 4.2, provide an example of when a focus group member
may unwittingly have provoked further bullying.
Given the social, peer oriented nature of bullying, O’Connell et al., (1999)
13
propose that any intervention scheme would function most effectively if all
those involved felt empowered by working together. I outline such
schemes in sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6. Hoffman (2000) supports this view,
pointing out that because peer group intervention is aimed at improving
relationships and nurturing
friendship,
such
measures
provide
an
awareness of moral values and enhanced empathy that supports victims
whilst at the same time reducing bullying.
Following extensive research into the topic of bullying in groups, Salmivalli
(1999) identified three core roles instrumental in the group process. The first,
‘reinforcers’, described those participants, who by coming to witness bullying,
provide an audience. Although they do not directly engage in bullying, 23% of
these children report being amused by it (Boulton & Flemington, 1996),
inflating the bully’s self-esteem by providing positive feedback (Sutton &
Smith, 1999). The second, known as ‘outsiders’, are representative of students
who distance themselves from the whole process, refraining from taking sides.
However, because no overt protest is made, this allows bullying to continue
such that, in their own way, outsiders remain implicated. Thirdly come
‘defenders’ who are manifestly anti-bullying, who comfort the victim and who
initiate attempts to stop it (Salmivalli, 1999).
The reason why individuals adopt certain parts is thought to originate from the
concept of social roles (1996) described as “clusters of socially defined
expectancies that individuals in a given situation are expected to fulfil”
(Franzoi, 1996, p. 52). Considered thus, participant roles derive from both
behavioural disposition and expectation; in other words, who they are and
14
who
they
could
become.
Salmivalli
(1999)
considers
the
two as
interchangeable as an individual’s behaviour determines future expectations
of others; others’ expectations determine individual behaviour and how this
manifests in social situations. Therefore, although most children are against
bullying, they are inclined to behaviour that encourages rather than dissipates
it (Whitney & Smith, 1993), due partly to a pressure to conform which is
exerted within the group environment in accordance with expectation.
Salmivalli (1999) believes these roles become fixed as pressure to maintain
them, rather than deviating from expectation, produces a self-fulfilling
prophecy where participants involved in group bullying believe themselves
incapable of change. Thus, the question is raised as to how group anti-bullying
intervention can respond to such challenges, a topic to which the following
section now turns.
2.4 Peer group intervention schemes
The relevance of bullying as a group phenomenon, the psychological and
physiological responses of all those involved, attracts much interest in empirical
research (Salmivalli,
1999).
Acknowledgment that other children and
adolescents are involved in the bullying process has prompted research into
participant roles and intervention methods to target the entire peer group.
Most peer group support relies upon a whole school approach; a written
document setting out aims, supported by schemes and procedures thought
likely to affect positive change (Cowie, 1999). Such schemes include: peer
support systems, school tribunals, playground improvement and community
conferencing as transformative justice (Smith et al., 2003).
The
15
overall
emphasis is aimed at improving relationships within schools, raising awareness
as to the problems associated with bullying and implementing programmes for
change which include all parties involved (Smith et al., 2003).
Programmes designed to combat bullying have more success at primary than
secondary school level (Smith et al., 2003). Opinions vary as to why this might
be. Smith et al., (2003) suggest that younger children are more likely than
young people to accept the authority underpinning such schemes. Whereas,
Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996) point out that children are thought unlikely to
establish stable victim roles before ages 8-9, with attitudes towards victims
becoming more negative in adolescence (Smith et al., 2003). Evidence
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) suggests that once behavioural roles have
been adopted it is more difficult to effect positive change. Thus, by
adolescence there has been more time to identify with recognisable roles. I
discuss this further in section 2.10. In addition, emergent capacities such as
language skills and physical growth are believed to enhance “perspective
taking abilities” and the propensity for aggression, (Pepler et al., 2006, p.379).
Therefore, for interventions to be as effective as possible, it seems they are
better introduced at a younger age.
One of the first peer group intervention schemes to be launched by Olweus
(1983) claimed considerable success in reducing the number of victims by 48%
for more than a year. However, when this study was later repeated by
Roland (1989), the results were less favourable, with victimisation increasing
16
by 44% for boys and only decreasing for girls. Such divergence has been
attributed (Eslea & Smith, 1998) to differences in the times for measurement
(one and three years after implementation of the intervention programme for
Roland as opposed to one and two years for Olweus), leading Roland, (1989)
to conclude that effect diminished over time. A second intervention
programme run by Roland and Munthe (1997), over a four year period,
reported a decrease of 57% in victimisation, supporting the suggestion that the
duration of a programme produces significantly improved results. However,
O’Moore and Minton (2005) contest that many intervention programmes are
only effective in the short-term whilst effort and attention are focussed on
them, with concurrent increases in negative behaviour once researchers
withdraw.
Given such uncertainty, the question arises as to the purpose of intervention
schemes within schools. Pepler and Craig (2000) point out that, for bullies and
victims alike, the myriad psychosocial difficulties affecting both bullies and
victims when young, can develop into serious problems in adulthood.
Adolescents who bully are also five times more likely to abuse alcohol and
seven times more likely to use drugs than their peers (Pepler et al., 2001). In
addition, there are intergenerational risks. O’Connell et al., (1999) assert that
the progression from adolescent bullying to adult interpersonal relationships
can develop into such problems as sexual harassment, marital violence and
child abuse. Hence the call for interventions to address bullying is important.
Research (Olweus & Endresen, 1998; Smith et al., 2003) indicates that girls are
17
more active participants in bully prevention; prone both to overtly support
victims and as volunteers in intervention programmes (80% of volunteers are
female). Such results suggest personal investment as an effective deterrent.
Nonetheless, there is concern that those supporters recruited to implement
preventative measures in anti-bullying intervention may be inadequately
resourced to deal with bullies, and that effective intervention aimed at
behavioural change should include professional counselling aimed at
individuals (Hodgins, 2008; Jackson et al., 2005). This highlights a move from
group to individual approaches. Later in this section (2.8, 2.9), I discuss how
clients respond to individual counselling.
Critics of counselling based approaches contest they may create a ‘them and us’
situation which alienates rather than incorporates all players (O’Moore &
Minton, 2005). Additionally, counselling is expensive partly because it
necessitates a more structured approach, rather than building on existing peer
group relationships (Menesini et al., 2003). Smith et al., (2003) argue however,
that establishing and evaluating peer group interventions is also costly.
I suggest that whilst peer group intervention programmes provide a
supportive environment for the victims of bullying, they may be unable to
respond to the complex psychological problems experienced by many young
people who bully. Menesini et al., (2003) add that anti-bullying interventions,
“[…] have limited impact while we neglect such factors as the quality of
parenting, parent training, support for parents and the
conditions of families […]” (p.23).
socioeconomic
18
According to Timmons-Mitchell et al., (2006), Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)
is designed to address complex psychological and behavioural problems by
using a family and home-based approach to engage with the systems which
combine to promote anti-social behaviour amongst young people. Emphasis is
upon changing how such adolescents function within their natural setting
(home, school and neighbourhood). The central tenet is to promote positive
social behaviour whilst reducing anti-social behaviour. In pursuit of this
outcome, an MST therapist is assigned to a family, setting treatment goals and
assigning the tasks necessary to accomplish these (Henggeler et al., 2006). In
addition, through collaboration, the MST therapist empowers parent’s
strengths, facilitating development of natural support systems (e.g. friends,
extended family, and church) needed to facilitate effective parenting whilst
also promoting an interconnected system to support the young person.
Results are so far promising with families receiving MST reporting significantly
more cohesion than non MST families and with follow up studies (conducted
four years after intervention) reporting long-term effectiveness (Henggeler et
al., 2002). Importantly, MST is found equally effective with young people from
families with divergent socioeconomic and racial backgrounds (TimmonsMitchell et al., 2006). According to Jansen et al., (2013), MST has been
proposed as a promising cost-effective intervention, calculated at one fifth
that of institutional placements but which can be easily embedded within usual
mental health care and welfare services.
Although MST is aimed at young people with extreme behavioural and
psychological disturbances I would suggest its applicability to adolescents who
19
bully since the literature reviewed in this thesis (2.2, 2.12) and the findings (4)
likewise testify to the numerous and complex behavioural and psychological
disturbances consistent with young people who bully.
An additional intervention which places families at the centre (Herbert, 1985)
focusses upon behavioural parent training (BPT). Research from as early as
1967 (Baumrind, 1967; Dumas et al., 1992; Dumar & Whaler, 1985) identifies
that the parents of anti- social youth oscillate between lax and powerassertive disciplinary styles depending upon whether or not their child
responds with compliance. This inconsistency means that disruptive behaviour
receives both positive and negative attention such that aversive behaviour is
maintained (Serketich & Dumas, 1996).
BPT counters such contradictory
disciplinary styles using a programme where pro-social behaviour receives
positive affirmation and aversive behaviour receives negative reinforcement.
BPT has been used as a correction programme for aggressive behaviour in the
USA since 1974, (Atkeson & Forehand, 1978; Dumas, 1989; Kazdin, 1987;
Webster-Stratton, 1991) with apparent success. More recently, Scott et al.,
(2001) extended the principles of positive and negative reinforcement espoused
by BPT to four adolescent mental health services in the United Kingdom where
young people receive attention for anti-social behaviour. Results showed a
significant reduction in the antisocial behaviour of the adolescents whose
parents underwent training: Comparatively, the behaviour of those whose
parents were in a control group remained unchanged.
Scott and colleagues (2001) identify the parenting styles responsible for
20
anti-social behaviour as harsh, inconsistent parenting, bearing resemblance I
suggest, to the parenting styles associated with insecure attachment and
implicated in bullying behaviour (2.2, 2 . 1 0 ). Consequently, I consider BPT is
an intervention worthy of consideration with young people who bully. There
has been insufficient space within the confines of this thesis to explore the
effectiveness of other approaches such as cognitive behavioural therapy, but
this could form the focus of future research.
Many theories have been proposed as to what constitutes the most effective
anti- bullying interventions. Having discussed peer intervention schemes in
schools and family-based intervention, focus now turns to two specific
interventions with different assumptions; a non-punitive approach and a
punitive approach. By presenting these approaches, the intention is to
introduce the notion of moral disengagement and how this influences the way
young people who bully evaluate their victims.
2.5 A Non-Punitive Strategy: Shared Concern or the No Blame Approach
The move to non-punitive approaches to tackle bullying in schools is partly
attributable to work by Smith and Sharp (1994) who found that, although the
bully personality
suggested
such
individuals
were
socially
confident,
dominant within their peer group and saw aggression as an acceptable
expression
of their social
position, such characteristics were equally
determined by familial development (Smith and Sharp, 1994). The children of
aggressive families often perceived their family in terms of power
relationships where bullying behaviour was regarded as normal practice.
21
Once extrapolated to the school setting, such conditioned behaviour ensured
hierarchical dominance, making victimisation for the bully less likely. Hence,
their familiar relationships were maintained, with the psychological reward of
validating self-image over time (Smith & Sharp, 1994).
Based upon this concept of the bully as victim to parental influence rather than
intentionally malevolent, Pikas (2002) formulated the Shared Concern Theory
as an approach to anti-bullying in schools. Pikas (2002) proposed that a
non-judgmental approach which avoided incriminating and shaming those who
bullied would model an antithesis needed to reduce bullying. As such, within
the Shared Concern approach, perpetrators are not accused but regarded as
‘suspected bullies’ (Rigby, 2005b).
Shared Concern describes a means of working with all those involved in a
bullying incident, (perpetrators, victims and bystanders) to provide an
acceptable solution to the problem raised by their behaviour. The group
dynamic is central to its success, taking into account that those involved may
be motivated by conditioned family behaviour, anger, and collusion with other
aggressors lest they become victims themselves (Rigby, 2005a).
Some researchers (Pepler & Craig, 1995; Rigby & Johnson, 2004; Salmivalli et al.,
1996) criticise Shared Concern for its assumption of bullying as a group
activity. They consider that, although bystanders are known to exert an active
influence, often providing motivation to continue bullying, more generally
there is a sole perpetrator (Rigby, 2005a). Further censure (Pepler & Craig,
1995; Smith & Sharp, 1994; Whitney & Smith, 1993) derives from the approach
22
used to ascertain the nature and extent of the bullying incident. This is done by
asking both victims and bullies to provide a written account of the incident
however, critics feel such a delayed response possibly elicits a falsified account.
Pikas (2002) countered that a written account of the incident would ensure
neither victim nor bully could be identified by direct observation, adding that
few bullying incidents are observed by staff in a position to give a nonpolarised view of the event (Pepler & Craig, 1995). So, direct observation is only
as valid as a teacher's perception of the problem (Smith & Sharp, 1994; Whitney
& Smith, 1993). Also, many victims of bullying never tell a teacher; hence
staff may only be aware of a small proportion of incidents taking place.
Following the pioneering work of Pikas, (2002), Robinson and Maines (2008)
implemented the method of Shared Concern into English schools, re-naming it
the No Blame approach. It was founded upon the principles of equality
recognised by most schools regarding group processes and therefore
considered compatible with whole- school approaches to combat bullying
(Robinson & Maines, 1997). Previous non- punitive approaches had applied
generic methods to tackle bullying, such as behaviour rules defined by pupils
(Robinson & Maines, 1997). No Blame however invited victims to write an
account of their feelings relating to the incident. These were then revealed to
the bully and other pupils so that a sense of the victim’s unhappiness could
be shared. No blame is attributed to the perpetrators as it is hoped their
genuine concern over the victim’s distress motivates pro-social behaviour
towards the victim (Robinson & Maines, 1997). I suggest however, that the
23
notion of morality for those who bully may deviate considerably from those
who do not and that an appeal to such scruples may be unachievable by them.
Later in this section (2.7), I relate the concept of pro- social behaviour to
morality and discuss how this is perceived by people who bully.
Like Robinson and Maines, Rigby (1996) also suggested that punishment for
bullies, blaming and shaming, was potentially inflammatory and likely to
engender feelings of injustice and indignation. Moreover, such vilification
would likely be projected onto the victims who stood to be blamed by the
bully, not only for ‘telling’ but for the punishment as well.
Non punitive approaches for young people who bully meet with considerable
resistance from the English charity for children, Kidscape (1990, 2011) who
contest that bullies need not take responsibility for their actions and that
victims risk being blamed for provoking incidents. Kidscape’s scepticism as to
the No Blame Approach also centres upon the assumption that young
people who bully want to change their behaviour (Kidscape, 2011), a
supposition they dispute. Hence, they support a more punitive measure known
as Bully Courts believing judgement and punishment to be appropriate
redress for the problem of bullying in schools (Kidscape, 2011).
2.6 A punitive strategy: Bully Courts
Punitive anti-bullying interventions originated with Laslett (1980, 1982), who
established a children’s court for maladjusted children (Mahdavi & Smith,
2002), claiming the approach raised awareness of bullying in schools, reduced
24
incidents of bullying and improved the self-esteem of those serving on the
court (Laslett, 1982).
Bully courts are chaired by pupil representatives known as council and
mediated by a
senior member of staff. The victim first faces the council,
presenting a written account of the bullying incident. Once the victim leaves,
the bully is called and the letter’s
content discussed by council, the
perpetrators, and a year 12 peer counsellor allocated to protect the victim.
There follows a decision as to whether or not witnesses should be called. The
individual accused of bullying then leaves. Following case discussion, a verdict
is reached and punishment decided. All parties are informed of the outcome.
Punishment is set according to the severity of the crime, ranging from a
lunchtime detention of varying length to a recommended suspension from
school for a period of time (Mahdavi & Smith, 2002).
Few schools have initiated the Bully Court system as staff conceive that punitive
approaches to bullying might result in the bullies themselves becoming the
target of victimisation and excluding behaviour (Mahdavi & Smith, 2002),
hence, more evidence is needed before a thorough evaluation can be made.
Some (Cowie & Olafsson, 2000; Laslett, 1980) claim a positive response,
positing that the fear of facing the court may deter bullying, mobilise peer
attitudes against it and empower self-efficacy, such that pupils take charge of
a situation they do not like. It is argued such an outlook may foster an
attitude of ‘telling’ as acceptable (Laslett, 1980), hence, critics feel the system
susceptible to abuse of power, only containable provided a staff member is
25
available to sanction the court’s decision (Mahdavi & Smith, 2002). This view is
disputed by Laslett, (1980b) who observed mature behaviour from bully court
representatives. Smith and Myron-Wilson (1998), add however that, although
the year 12 counsellors (who exert considerable influence over the court’s
decisions), receive adequate training to support victims, few have an
understanding of the bully profile. Additionally, year 12 counsellors may never
have experienced being bullied. Nonetheless, of the 28 bully participants in the
case study conducted by Mahdavi and Smith, (2002), 20 stated that the Bully
Court would deter them from re-offending. Notably, intervention is less
successful amongst older pupils because of their more subversive bullying
tactics (Olweus & Endressen’s, 1998).
The literature in relation to both non-punitive and punitive approaches to antibullying intervention highlights the complex makeup of the perpetrators. My
own findings (4) using focus groups, demonstrate how inflammatory group
processes with those who bully can be. I argue that without enhanced
understanding such schemes are unlikely to facilitate change. For example,
Rigby (2005a) attributes lack of success to an assumption that those who bully
are able to empathise, or have the desire to respond positively out of concern
for their victim. Empathy plays a major role in behavioural regulation, with
guilt as the mediator (Baumeister et al., 1994; Tagney, 1991). Hence, empathy
is intrinsically linked to moral development (Arsenio and Lemerise, 2 0 0 1 ;
Nucci, 2001; Smetana, 1995) and I elaborate such thinking in the ensuing section.
26
2.7 Moral disengagement
The concept of moral judgement as a lever to initiate a favourable response by
a bully towards a victim can be understood by different schools of thought.
According to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory of the Moral Self (1986, 1990,
1991), “in the course of socialization, moral standards are adopted that serve
as guides and deterrents for conduct” (p.2). Once this moral framework has
been internalised, individuals “self-sanction” (p.2) to keep their behaviour in
line with internal standards. Bandura (1990) considers moral reasoning is linked
to moral action by self-regulatory moral agency. In other words, an individual
will usually act in a way that gives them satisfaction and self-worth. Bandura
(1990) considers this moral cycle important, as it is in this way that individuals
avoid self-condemnatory behaviour. Consequently, the way an individual
monitors their behaviour is allied to their personal competence and selfesteem. Importantly, such self-sanctioning can lead to a distorted evaluation
of
behaviour that fits with their internal conduct framework (Bandura, 1991).
Although Bandura (1991) does not directly relate his social cognition theory
of the moral self to those who bully, I suggest it is applicable. For example,
Bandura notes that when evaluating harm towards others, individuals may:
(a)
Compare the act with other worse conduct.
(b)
Displace responsibility for the harm caused to others; reducing selfagency.
(c)
Strip the victim of identifiable human qualities, whereby, distancing
the need for empathy.
27
Caravita and Ginni (2010) argue that Bandura’s (1991) concept of evaluating
harm towards others is oversimplified, and propose two dimensions of
morality which regulate this in relation to bullying behaviour: moral
disengagement and rule comprehension. Findings from their study conclude
that anti-social behaviour is based on a skewed perception of a moral rule as
changeable with transgression dependent upon an adult’s
or
other’s
authority. This allows perpetrators flexible concepts of rules, and consequently
less guilt. Caravita and Ginni (2010) attribute this to defective social skills
caused by inconsistent social learning from significant others, but most
notably,
primary
carers,
introducing
the
notion of
intergenerational
transmission (Conger et al., 2003). This is of consequence with relation to
bullying, as guilt is known to mediate aggression (Harpur et al., 1988: Quiles &
Bybee, 1997). Accordingly, children less prone to feeling guilty may more
readily enable aggressive behaviour, ultimately inuring them against it (Gini,
2006).
For example, the Social Skills Deficit Model, formulated by Dodge and colleagues
(Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge, 1980) proposes that aggressive children tend
to interpret ambiguous situations in an aggressive way, more than their nonaggressive peers; a tendency known as hostile attributional bias. They contest
that a limited range of non- aggressive responses to social situations compared
to their peers, means bullies are more likely to default to aggressive behaviour,
especially during interpersonal conflict (Dodge, 1980; Dodge, Bates & Petit, 1990;
Dodge & Newman, 1981). Therefore, rather than perceiving aggressive
children as motivated by deliberate intent to impose harm, Dodge (1980) implies
28
that the bully’s cognitive and emotional intelligence is too underdeveloped to
reason an approach other than aggression.
Criticism (Hazler, 1996; Randall, 1997; Sutton et al., 1999) of Dodge’s model
focuses on its negation of guilt and shame as central mediators of behaviour.
Consequently, few studies confirm Dodge’s model as suited to both aggressive
children and bullies (Hazler, 1996; Randall, 1997). Indeed, Sutton et al.,
(1999) contest that as aggressive behaviour may be an inappropriate way to
achieve socially effective goals (such as leadership within a group), bullies
would be unlikely to use aggression as their only tactic. This view implies
reason and possibly links to the inference of Smith and Sharp (1994) (2.5)
that hierarchical dominance is learned as a survival tactic in aggressive
families. For example, in a study of bullies aged 7-10 years, Sutton et al., (1999)
found bullies outperformed their classmates in social cognition tasks requiring
the understanding of mental states and emotions of the main characters of a
story. Consequently, they suggested that bullies possessed significant cognitive
and emotional acumen, taking advantage of such competence to attain goals
such as interpersonal dominance. It would therefore seem that the role of
moral emotions is a flexible concept.
Evidently, young people who bully enact complicated group relationships.
Central to understanding these phenomena are the values driving their
conduct (Arsenio & Lemerisi, 2001). Jellema (2000) recommends counselling as
an intervention best suited to this task. Therefore, a question of significance
in this thesis is how young people who bully experience counselling. The
following sections explore this subject although, despite an extensive search, I
29
found no discernible literature explicitly focusing on how young people who
bully and their counsellors experience one to one counselling; a gap this thesis
seeks to address. It has been necessary to refer to similar examples so as to
enlarge the discussion.
2.8 The helpful aspects of counselling
Researchers struggle to identify the consistent likes and dislikes of clients
attending counselling due to the variety of therapeutic interventions available
(Bedi & Duff, 2010). Existing data shows clients to be motivated and reflective
agents in resolving their own problems (Bohart & Tallman, 1999; Rennie, 2004).
In a study conducted by Manthei (2007) about clients’ and their counsellors’
experiences of counselling, findings suggested that the client’s perception of
the therapeutic relationship is central to the success of counselling, since the
way client rates this is a more reliable predictor of outcome than the
counsellor’s predictions (Bachelor & Horvarth, 1999).
Evidence suggests (Hill et al., 1993; Camic et al., 1990), that clients’ opinions
of the therapeutic relationship are primarily based on how well the counsellor
meets their needs or demonstrates a similarity to them in some notable way. In
other words, counselling appears to be a process of mutual appraisal.
Key amongst such needs was being actively listened to, as clients described
how seeing the
attention of their counsellor
focussed upon them
communicated interest and commitment which inspired trust (Farber, 2003).
Clients described how their counsellor endorsed such sentiments through the
30
genuineness and warmth transferred by them (Bohart & Tallman, 1999). In
chapter 4, I provide participant quotes which support these findings.
A method known as pre-therapy change (Lawson, 1994; Weiner-Davis et al.,
1987) suggests that approximately two thirds of people attending their first
counselling session have already begun to resolve their problems, a
phenomenon attributed to self-agency. Such self-healing can then be
supplemented by the counsellor nurturing the client’s self-agency (Bohart &
Tallman, 1999). This view is confirmed by clients who stipulate that what they
do themselves plays a significant part in their improvement (Manthei, 2007).
Knowing how clients face problems and cope with them between sessions may
therefore provide counsellors with helpful information as to a n individual’s
coping mechanisms (Manthei, 2007). Studies (Bowman & Fine, 2000; Paulson
et al., 1999) exploring how clients experience counselling find that a client’s
self-agency is facilitated by feeling their counsellor respects and understands
them as an intelligent person. This is significant as it encourages self-reliance
which equips clients to deal with future problems once they have finished
counselling and has been identified by clients as a long- term goal (Manthei,
2007).
The helpful aspects of counselling for clients can therefore be summarised
as
the
quality
of
the
therapeutic
relationship
(including warmth,
understanding, trust), being listened to, being able to make independent
decisions about their counselling and actively contributing to resolving their
own problems. Notably, the participants in the studies quoted were adults.
Consequently, the findings are limited in relation to the young participants in
31
the current study.
2.9 The unhelpful aspects of counselling
Literature relating to the unhelpful aspects of counselling is less extensive than
for the positive factors (Bowman & Fine, 2000); a possible explanation
being clients’ reluctance to criticise
their
counsellors,
especially
whilst
receiving on-going care (Farber, 2003; Hill et al., 1993).
Nonetheless, Manthei (2007) identifies counsellors’ excessive use of selfdisclosure as a particular barrier to effective counselling. Hearing too much
about their counsellor’s life leaves clients feeling vulnerable as they imagine
it is their own disclosures that have triggered the need for their counsellor to
unburden. This often has the effect of closing clients down and sometimes
results in them quitting counselling altogether (Manthei, 2007).
Another unhelpful process occurs when counsellors forget what the client has
said, or simply do not listen. Clients seeking counselling are vulnerable and
such inattention can trigger feelings of inadequacy, reinforcing the client’s
perceptions of themselves as unworthy (Farber, 2003). Clients describe how
feeling un-listened to severs the existing trust they feel for their counsellor
such that they no longer risk self-disclosure (Farber, 2003; Farber & Hall, 2002).
Nonetheless, evidence (Farber et al., 2004) suggests there are some topics that
many clients choose not to talk about. Most notably, given the current study,
these topics include aggression and physical abuse of others (Farber, 2003;
Farber & Hall, 2002). The reason given by clients for not wanting to disclose
these subjects includes; shame, fear and concern as to how the counsellor will
32
react. In section 4.2, I provide examples of how the participants in this study
were affected.
The key unhelpful aspects of counselling for clients can be summarised as,
forgetting what the client says, not actively listening, excessive self-disclosure
on the counsellor’s behalf, and fear as to how counsellor’s will react
if
certain topics are disclosed by clients.
Even though counsellors’ perspectives of the therapeutic relationship can differ
significantly from their clients’ (Bachelor & Salamé, 2000; Fitzpatrick et al.,
2005), how the alliance is conceptualised is seldom founded upon a client’s
perspective of it (Bedi & Duff, 2010). When the therapeutic style is matched
with the client’s preferences, a
stronger client/counsellor relationship
develops (Duncan, Miller & Sparks, 2003; Lambert et al., 1998; Lazarus, 1993).
This suggests that when trying to establish initial rapport, an immediate
challenge for the counsellor is incorporating the client’s perspective into their
approach. Evidence (Miller et al., 2005) suggests that routinely eliciting the
client’s perspective of the therapeutic relationship improves its quality,
increasing positive outcome. An additional challenge faced by counsellors is
in
balancing their approach to their clients. For example, even though
validation, conveying understanding, and communicating positive regard are
viewed favourably
by most clients (Hovarth & Bedi, 2002; Hovarth &
Symonds, 1991), others reason repetition of these behaviours by counsellors
as embarrassing (Ackerman & Hilsenroth, 2003; Bachelor & Hovarth, 1999;
Vasquez, 2007). Subsequently, what one client perceives as facilitating the
alliance, another will consider debilitates it (Bedi & Duff, 2010).
33
That the majority of research regarding clients’ experiences of counselling
focusses upon the perspective of adults rather than young people, highlights
the existing gap in knowledge. In the next section I therefore turn to the
developmental period of a child’s life, by considering the attachment patterns
that mediate individual behaviour, and formation of the internal working
model.
2.10 Attachment theory
Bowlby’s (1988) theory of attachment is based upon an exploration of
biology (e.g. evolution and ethnology), cognitive psychology, psychoanalysis
and control systems theory (Simpson, 1999). Bowlby (1977) hypothesises
attachment theory as “the propensity of human beings to make affectional
bonds to particular others” (p. 201). Attachment evolves from a child’s need
to remain in physical and psychological contact with their carer during
threatening circumstances. Bowlby (1977) proposes that from the age of 6
months to two years, infants establish a bond to attachment figures. Without
this, normal development cannot occur, but with it, a secure attachment state
provides a safe base for a child to explore their environment and other
relationships, returning when needed.
By the 1960s, Ainsworth (1965), a student of Bowlby, became influenced by
Bowlby’s conception of attachment as affecting the entire life cycle.
Accordingly, she went on to develop a procedure known as Strange Situation
(SS) which describes a behavioural test used to observe attachment
relationships between a child and their caregiver ( Main & Goldwyn, 1985).
34
In the procedure, a child is left to play whilst carers and strangers enter and exit
the room. This is done to simulate both the familiar and unfamiliar occurrences
of a child’s life. The child’s response to the varying levels of stress is then
measured whereupon the child is categorised into one of three groups:
1. Secure – when reunited following separation a child welcomes the return
of their carer and is quickly pacified by them.
2. Insecure – Anxious (resistant) – following separation infants remain
ambivalent towards their carer and are not comforted upon reunion
3. Insecure - Avoidant (dismissive) – Upon reunion, infants actively avoid
contact and proximity with their carer
Ainsworth (1965) hypothesises that these three attachment relationships are
then internalised by a child to form a representative internal working model
against which future relationships will be compared. Crittenden
(1992)
describes the internal working model as, “An easily accessible, formulated
model of relationship experience that reduces the time and effort needed by
an individual to constantly re-evaluate
explanations
and
respond
appropriately” (p.230).
Significantly, the working model will then be used when a child reproduces, to
define their own parenting style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Thus, a
significant intergenerational dimension is introduced. Working closely with
Ainsworth, Bowlby (1988) identified the working model as comprising two
35
main components concerning the child’s conception of others and of
themselves;
a) Whether or not the attachment figure is dependable and responsive when
needed, or
b) Whether or not the self is worthy of response from others, particularly the
carer.
This division is appreciable as trust and stable self-esteem are thought to
provide the foundations for secure relationships (Sedikes et al., 2004). Notably,
it is individuals who bully who most commonly display insecure attachment
states (Sedikes et al.
2004). Therefore, the concept of worthiness versus
unworthiness is most relevant in this study.
The influence of attachment upon intergenerational continuity (Ainsworth &
Bowlby, 1965) has stimulated theorists to devise models capable of measuring
attachment status in adults. For example, Main and Goldwyn (1985)
developed the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). This is designed to
differentiate internal working models of attachment in parents whose children
undergo SS (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). During AAI, parents describe
their own attachment experiences in childhood; how their relationship to
their parents has since changed; and the effect of their upbringing upon them.
Using AAI, Main and Goldwyn (1985) were able to categorise mothers into the
attachment group they considered predictive of the mother’s subsequent
attachment to her child. Similarly, they were able to make the same prediction
with respect to the children’s attachment patterns (Jellema, 2000) further
36
supporting the intergenerational hypothesis.
Jellema (2000) and Rutter (1995) express doubt as to this theory, arguing
that the cognitive ability to define emotion (refined by development),
coupled with the retrospective influences effecting memory over time, could
significantly alter the perception of the original experience. Additional
limitations are imposed as, during AAI, attachment states are derived solely
from evidence about the subject’s attachment to their parents and are
deduced by analysis of transcripts. Thus, the reciprocal relationship between
parent and child are not considered when selecting an attachment category,
casting doubt as to the 70-80% concordance in attachment states between
adults and their offspring (Jellema, 2000).
According to Hasan and Shavers (1987) self-report provides a more authentic
profile of attachment states. For example, results using AAI indicate that
adults classified as avoidant, refute experiencing subjective distress and
minimise the importance of attachment needs. Conversely, self-report subjects
report subjective distress and anxiety about forming close relationships
thereby challenging existing definitions of avoidance.
In
response
to
such
variations,
Bartholomew
and
Horowitz
(1991)
conceptualised four new categories that introduced more subtle variation to
existing attachment categories.
(a)
Secure – Love worthiness plus an expectation of others as responsive.
(b)
Preoccupied – Unworthiness plus a positive evaluation of others.
37
(c)
Avoidant –Love unworthiness plus a negative disposition towards
others.
(d)
Dismissive-avoidant – Love worthiness plus a negative disposition
towards others.
The positive versus negative perception of self and others when describing
dismissive-avoidant individuals (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), is of
particular significance to this study. It is such individuals who consistently
display aggression (Rosenstein & Horowitz, 1996), thought attributable to
parental rejection during childhood, such that rejection by others later in life
reactivates rage (Kernberg, 1975). Interestingly, more adolescents identified
as aggressive/withdrawn receive negative criticism from their mothers and
these children are assessed as being less socially competent than their peers
(Beaudet & Schwartsman, 1987).
Bowlby’s attachment theory, linking the sensitivity of early care to levels of
security, remains the dominant approach to understanding early social
development and informs much of the research into intergenerational
processes (Goldberg et al., 2000).
Nonetheless, Goldberg et al., (2000) uphold that parents can develop
awareness as to how preoccupation with their own negative experiences has
blocked understanding of their children’s needs. Such concerns about their
parenting ability can trigger address of subjective negativity preventing an
inevitable prediction of dysfunctional parenting. This is important, as a
tendency towards bullying largely derives from dysfunctional parent/child
relationships (Rigby, 1999). For example, Sroufe (1983) finds children of
avoidant parenting un-empathic, enabling them to delight in another child’s
38
misery, for example, “calling a sobbing child who has fallen, a crybaby” (p.479).
Sroufe (1983) observes that children rated avoidant according to Bartholomew
and Horowitz’s (1991) typology, seek attention in negative ways. Ironically, this
elicits an angry response, serving only to perpetuate and confirm the child’s
belief about rejection (Sroufe, 1983).
Attachment states are relevant not only to parents in relationship with their
children but likewise as to how children subsequently relate to their own
offspring. Thus there is a direct intergenerational correlation. Much of the
research into intergenerational hostility supports the theory of transferable
aggression “with the concordant psychosocial penalties in adulthood” (Serbin
& Stack, 1998, p.31), and this subject is debated more fully in the following
section.
2.11 Intergenerational influences.
During the 20th century, longitudinal studies following the lives of children into
adulthood
have
explored
intergenerational
processes
including
the
characteristic determinants that place them at continued risk of developing
health, behavioural and cognitive problems (Rutter, 1998; Serbin et al., 1998).
The intergenerational continuity of
parenting
behaviours,
particularly
aggression and bullying, have attracted attention not only because of the
anxiety and potentially devastating effects imposed upon victims but also
because of ongoing social maladjustment and the increased propensity for
future psychotic disorders and physical health problems for those who bully
(Rutter, 1998; Serbin et al., 1998). Therefore, there is considerable interest in
understanding the negative life cycle associated with intergenerational
39
processes which may affect bullying tendencies in the next generation.
The most conclusive evidence to date in support of the intergenerational
hypothesis arises from longitudinal research conducted by Huesmann et al.,
(1984) studying Generation 1(G1) children who were aggressively parented.
Twenty two years later Huesmann et al., studied G1’s offspring (Generation
2: G2) and found a significant correlation between aggression in the two
generations.
Until
recently
many
longitudinal
studies researching
intergenerational
aggression have focussed on low income families. This is informative from a
socioeconomic viewpoint, affording a perspective of disadvantages observed
across generations (Rutter, 1998; Serbin et al., 1998). However, cross
generational socioeconomic disadvantage can also be mediated by replicable
contextual and environmental risks (Furstenberg et al., 1992), such as
smoking, or alcohol use (Serbin et al., 2007, p.139).
For
example, Conger
et
al., (2003)
challenged the
concept of
intergenerational aggression as specifically relating to low-income families.
Based instead around single mother participants from middle class families,
Conger and colleagues conducted four studies testing the hypothesis that
aggressive parenting by G1 leads to angry/hostile offspring (G2) who become
aggressive
parents
themselves,
producing
a
further generation
of
angry/hostile children (Generation 3: G3).
Previous longitudinal research studying intergenerational continuity between
generations, has been criticised for using retrospective reporting as a means to
gather data (Chen & Kaplan, 2001; Putallez & Bierman, 2004) as memories as
to how a child was treated by their parents were found susceptible to
40
distortion over time. Conger et al., (2003) overcame such methodological
limitations by using measures based on prospective reporting; assessments
that were equally spaced across the three generations and tested with
multiple informants, reducing the likelihood that intergenerational continuity
resulted from method effects. Critics of Conger and colleague’s (2003) work
(Dubow et al., 2001) found fault for using only single mothers. Although Conger
et al. defended their choice as representing both mother-headed and dual
parent families, studies which include both G1 mothers and fathers record
differing results (Dubow et al., 2001).
Serbin and colleagues (2007) argue that research into intergenerational effect
is known to benefit from a longitudinal approach to afford regular
measurement. To acquire reliable results, aggressive behaviours of both first
generation (G1) and second generation (G2) participants are best assessed
during childhood and adolescence and linkage established at the same age.
Thus, to ensure longitudinal validity, researchers
must identify the most
informative measurement intervals (see Nesselroade & Boker, 1994). For
example, Thornberry et al., (2003) measured G1 parenting four times over a
year and a half and G2 delinquency seven times over three and a half years.
Their regular and consistent approach enabled them to calculate means across
each set of measurements (Dubow et al., 2001).
Opinions vary as to the inevitable transmission of aggression from one
generation to the next (Cohen et al., 1998). Caspi and Elder (1988) propose
that problems in parenting by G1 may not be solely predictive of problem
parenting in G2, as other negative influences during G2’s adolescence could
41
equally mediate their parenting capabilities. I would add, that as a counsellor,
I have observed that although the offspring of aggressive parents may learn
the aggressive tendencies modelled by their parents, they are sometimes too
scared to manifest these until the authority associated with becoming
parents themselves provides an opportunity for their expression.
If, as Conger et al., (2003) suggest, hostility is communicated from one
generation to the next (irrespective of income), reducing the numbers of those
who bully largely depends upon breaking the intergenerational trend.
Goldberg and colleague’s (2000) belief of a parent’s desire for change and
Roger’s (1951) belief about psychotherapy as enabling this, arguably support
the concept of counselling as a means to
address
intergenerational
continuity. Jackson et al., (2005, cited in Hodgins, 2008,) concur, feeling that
effective
intervention
aimed at
behavioural
change
should
include,
“counselling and life skill training […]” (p.21). Jellema (2000) adds that of those
considered most in need of therapeutic intervention, it is bully/victims,
whose complex attachment problems and core pain call for professional
support. The following section therefore addresses this topic in more detail.
2.12 Bully/victims
Studies (Brown et al., 2005; Kumpulainen et al., 1998; Wolke, Woods,
Bloomfield & Karstadt, 2000) recognise that in addition to bullies and victims,
another group of children exists, namely bully/victims, larger in number than
bullies or victims (Wolke et al., 2000). Sutton et al., (1999) attribute
development of the personality traits common to bully/victims to a lack
42
of socialisation during parenting which causes problems such as underdeveloped
empathic
skills
and
emotional
d i s -regulation.
Defining
characteristics of the bully/victim indicate that they have high levels of both
depression and aggression (Veenstra et al., 2005; Wolke et al., 2000). Evidence
suggests that because of their prevalence for behavioural disturbance and
hyperactivity (Kumpulainen et al., 1998), other children perceive bully/victims
as irritating (Gutman & Brown, 2008), in fact, they are least popular amongst
their peers (Schwartz, 2000; Wolke & Stanford, 1999). This is important as it
reinforces social alienation thereby perpetuating the bully/victim sequence
(Crick and Dodge, 1999; Veenstra et al., 2005). In addition, bully/victims
recognise fewer social cues to gauge other pupils’ actions and may therefore
interpret their peer’s behaviour as hostile, responding with aggression (Dodge
& Crick, 1980). Hence, their anti-social behaviour provokes victimisation by their
peers and their poor social cognition causes them to respond by bullying.
A study of friendship groups amongst primary school children, found more
boys fell into the bully/victim category than girls, (Gutman & Feinstein, 2008)
and this was attributed to the type of friendships formed (Wolke et al.,
2000). For example, girls, who more generally internalise their feelings, tend
to make close, long lasting bonds with other girls, whereas boys, who
externalise their feelings, form shorter, more unpredictable relationships with
other boys (Gutman & Feinstein, 2008). Bully/victims are also distinguished
from their peers by their generally low levels of well-being and achievement,
having poorer mental health, lower school achievement and enjoyment of
43
school than bullies or victims (Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000). Additionally,
they gravitate towards friends with anti-social tendencies leading to
significantly higher levels of involvement in antisocial activities and rendering
this group at risk of later delinquency (Gutman & Brown, 2008).
Griffin and Bartholomew (1994) propose that the bully/victim character
develops during infancy. According to the internal working model hypothesis,
perception of self as positive and others as negative correlates to a dismissive
style of attachment (Sedikes et al., 2004) where the combined traits of love
worthiness and an adverse disposition towards others cause both distrust
and control (Davidof & Morf, 2004, cited in Sedikes et al., 2004). Such
traits are thought to emanate from dominant parenting styles where in
addition to learning dominance, children also develop submissive traits to
avoid confrontation, whereby enabling the role of bully/victim (Troy & Sroufe,
1987). Those individuals falling into the bully/victim category are most
susceptible to depression, somatic complaints, anxiety and internalising
problems (Forero et al., 1999; Junger et al., 2001). Consequently, bully/victims
are regularly absent from school and more frequently referred
for
psychiatric intervention; subsequently damaging their education (Kumpulainen
et al., 1998). Thus a self- fulfilling cycle occurs as social, emotional and
cognitive deficits are thought a possible trigger to bully in order to divert
attention from social inadequacy (Serbin & Stack, 1998).
Bully/victims combine complex personal and psychiatric traits since they are
both confrontational to and intolerant of threats to their ego (Baumeister et
al., 1996). The bully/victim may manifest as extrovert, egotistical and selfish
44
(Baumeister et al., 1996), however, the need to protect wavering self-esteem
(Rhodewalt et al., 1998; Kernis, 2001) can inflame protective hostility
(Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995). The ability to maintain conceptions of their loveworthiness is highly dependent upon favourable feedback, with threats to self
provoking angry, (Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995), and aggressive reactions.
(Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Stucke & Sporer, 2002).
Accordingly, I suggest that the conflicting duality between the bully/victim’s
dominant and submissive personality raise concerns as to the effect upon them
of group anti- bullying intervention. For example, maintaining an inflated selfimage may prompt threatening or belligerent behaviour. Research (Dishion,
2004) regarding group counselling for young people who bully would support
this view, for as Dishion (2004) found “[…] group treatment for anti-social
behavior often results in participants learning to more effectively engage in
negative behaviors, since interactions between participants allow for new
negative learning experiences” (p.8). Thus, rather than using peer group
sessions as an opportunity to empathise with their victims and to ameliorate
peer relationships, these could unwittingly provide a stage for hostility.
However, I consider that using group interventions, the core vulnerability of
such individuals may be overlooked. Such concerns are shared by Bradlee &
Emmons (1992) and Raskin et al., (1991) who consider that models designed to
address bully/victim behaviour must recognise the opportunity such individuals
take to manifest the dominant characteristics peculiar to it, whilst being
sensitive to their susceptibilities.
It is the fusion of unstable self-esteem, love unworthiness and negative
45
attachment experiences, which, if left unexpressed, are considered by Jellema
to represent a “core pain” (Jellema, 2000, p. 144), and it is to this topic that the
next section now turns.
2.13 Core pain
Core pain is representative of dissociated patterns of thinking, feeling and
behaviour. This includes “disturbances in the integration of consciousness”
leading to a loss of personal identity and sense of self, and disrupted
memory, “accompanied by a sense of absence” (Jellema, 2000, p.142). The
concept of core pain evolved from Jellema’s (1999, 2000) work in providing
cognitive analytic therapy (CAT)1 where she hypothesises that, if an individual
internalises distressing life experiences, such as the negative effects of
dysfunctional
parenting,
without
expression
of
their
anguish,
such
psychological trauma sits within them as a core pain.
Core pain is closely allied to attachment in that results from AAI suggest that
dismissing or pre-occupied attachment patterns negatively affect reciprocal
roles in relationship with others. Reciprocal roles in this instance are a CAT
specific term describing “generalized procedures governing a person’s
interaction with others” (Jellema, 2000: 139). CAT focusses upon the patient’s
description of behaviours and relationships and how these impact negatively
upon them, helping them to vent their core pain. Unlike AAI however, in CAT,
1
CAT derives from cognitive behavioural methods of counselling and focusses upon
reformulating the client’s problems. The counsellor works to develop accurate
descriptions of the client’s difficulties, which are conceptualised as patterns of thought
and behaviour, in particular, how these are maintained. How to revise and reform
maladaptive processes forms the basis of counselling and is used thereafter by the client
for self-monitoring (Ryle, 1990)
46
subjective experience is ascertained via analysis of reciprocal roles in
relationships. This provides a profile of the core pains which combine during
development to generate dysfunctional behaviour (Ryle, 1995, 1997). Children
are known to form independent attachment relationships to either parent,
such that, attachment is also conceptualised in terms of reciprocal roles
between mother and child, and father and child, rather than collectively as
parents and child (Fonagy et al., 1994; Main & Weston, 1981). This is important
as the development of a submissive role in childhood is thought only to
require a dominant role from a significant other. Thus, the role of the
counsellor when treating disordered patients is considered of intrinsic
importance, in case maladaptive reciprocal roles are maintained by the
counsellor (Jellema, 2000). Accordingly, the impact of reciprocal roles is
relevant to this thesis and in section 4.5, I highlight their impact upon the
counselling relationship.
Jellema’s work is of importance in relation to the current study, for, as
previously articulated (2.10), those who bully fall predominantly into
dismissive and avoidant insecure attachment states (Sedikes et al. 2004),
which are thought to result primarily from dysfunctional parenting, and may
well harbour core pain as a result (Jellema, 2000).
Following a comprehensive literature search, Jellema’s (1999, 2000) research
appeared the only approach to adopt a therapeutic stance aimed at redress
of an individual’s core pain.
2.14 Summary
Despite attempts to address the problem of bullying in schools, success is
47
limited (Menesini et al., 2003) and possibly confined to when attention is
focussed upon bullying (Roland & Munthe, 1997; O’Moore & Minton, 2005).
Many existing anti- bullying interventions are founded upon the premise of
group involvement. Given that bullying is considered a collective activity
(O’Connel et al., 1999), peer-oriented schemes seem a viable solution and are
seen as contributing to the apparent success of ‘Shared Concern’ approaches
(Smith, et al., 2004; Duncan, 1996). Alternate views attest to the limitations
of group approaches. For example, the Shared Concern scheme is founded
upon a notion of morality whereas, young people who bully may disengage
from such ethical principles, threatening to undermine the premise of shame
and guilt upon which they rest. Nonetheless, group intervention schemes are
thought particularly effective for females who bully and who fall into the preoccupied attachment state, where acceptance by others helps maintain
their sense of well- being (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In addition, for
bully/victims, where maintenance of fragile self-esteem is dependent upon
favourable feed-back, the ethos of acceptance espoused by Shared Concern is
thought less likely to challenge their self-worth and to provoke aggression
(Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Stucke & Sporer, 2002).
Conversely, Whitney and Smith (1993) argued that peer led intervention
possibly perpetuated bully behaviour in accordance with expectation, meaning
bullies believed
themselves incapable of change (Salmivalli, 1999). This
response is perhaps compounded by children rated avoidant who seek
attention in negative ways (Troy & Stroufe, 1987). Thus, I suggested that group
intervention may unwittingly cultivate a fertile environment for such
developments.
48
In the methodology chapter, (3) (3.9.2) I discuss how such concerns relate to
my choice to use focus groups as a method to gather data.
I concluded that Bully Courts could perpetuate rather than ameliorate
aggressive incidents as the nominated peers who administer punishments risk
representing the critical and dominant parent (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991), provoking a re- enactment of anger amongst young people who bully.
However, I suggested more evidence was needed before a thorough evaluation
could occur.
Central to the development of aggressive children are insecure attachment
states
(Bowlby,
1988) and like
other researchers (Ainsworth,
1978;
Bartholemew & Horowitz, 1991; Bowlby, 1977; Jellema, 2000), I believe such
insecurity leads to a perception of self in relation to others that is mediated
by complex representations of worthiness and unworthiness in interpersonal
relationships (Henderson et al., 1997). This propensity is of concern as
dysfunctional behaviours such as aggression can be transmitted by parents to
next generation children (Serbin et al., 2007; Huesmann et al., 1984),
predisposing their offspring to bullying tendencies (Rutter, 1998; Conger et al.,
2003). Therefore intergenerational transmission is a relentless catalyst that
perpetuates bullying. With insecure attachment states at the root of bullying
behaviour, I suggest that studies designed to combat bullying cannot afford to
neglect this issue. In section 3.9 of the methodology, I discuss measures
introduced to evaluate whether the young participants have been influenced
by their attachment experiences.
49
Another contributing factor arises from emotional dis-regulation (Kosak et al.,0
2005), as the clamouring forces between the true and false self are believed
to underpin the bully/victim character (Kosak et al., 2005), known to cause
the most severe psychological and physiological conditions (Schwartz et al.,
1997; Forero et al., 1999). This is significant as the psychological disorders and
somatic problems emotional dis- regulation causes have profound short-term
and long-term affects upon individual sufferers. It is such conditions, which, if
left unexpressed form a core state or core pain, describing subjective
experiences which severely undermine young people’s development (Ryle,
1995). The combination of mental, physical, social and attachment disorders
held within the bully as a core pain propel hostile behaviours and I believe It
is only by accessing these that the bully cycle can be effectively
interrupted.
Research that progresses understanding, especially if incorporated into
successful practice, may improve outcome for young people who bully and
therefore provides the rationale for this study. Accordingly, in the following
chapter, I introduce the methodology and methods used in the current
research, and discuss how effective these were at enabling the young
people and their counsellors to authentically articulate their concerns.
I begin with the research questions which were partly derived to explore
the gaps identified in the thesis; primarily the paucity of understanding as to
the experiences of young people who bully and their counsellors and what
aided or inhibited their expression in the therapeutic relationship.
50
0
3. METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
3.1 Research questions
According to Willig (2001), qualitative researchers are “concerned with the
quality and texture of experience, rather than with the identification of cause–
effect relationships” (p.9). Unlike quantitative research therefore, qualitative
studies do not test an hypothesis (i.e. a suggested explanation or theoretical
assumption defined then tested by the researcher). Rather than predicting, a
qualitative research question seeks to make sense of the phenomenon under
investigation through the meanings participants themselves attribute, by asking
open ended questions which explore “process” (p.9).
The research objectives for this study were derived from the existing literature
discussed in chapter 2 and gaps in the research, but were also informed by my
own personal and professional interest working as a counsellor with young
people who bully (3.8). They sought greater understanding of how young
people who bully and their counsellors experienced counselling.
Specifically, the questions guiding this study are:
For the young people
a) What are the lived experiences of young people who bully and who
receive individual counselling?
b) How well do young people who bully feel able to express themselves to their
counsellor in one to one counselling?
c) In what ways is the therapeutic relationship either facilitated or inhibited?
51
For the counsellors
(a) What are the lived experiences of counsellors who counsel young
people who bully?
(b) In what ways is the therapeutic relationship either facilitated or inhibited?
Willig (2001) highlights that qualitative methods are used by researchers with
differing epistemological positions and that the wording chosen for the
research questions should reflect this. Consequently, the research questions
for this study ask ‘how’ and ‘in what ways’ to reflect the interpretative
philosophy of IPA, an approach also reflected in the interview guide (For
interview guides see appendices 9 and 10). In section 3.9, I discuss the
methods used to convey the research questions.
3.2 Introduction
By facilitating the exploration of participants’ main concerns, IPA offered a
methodological approach consistent with the research aims (e.g. Smith,
2004). This choice is justified later in the current chapter (3.6.1). The study is
presented in the first person as, like Webb (1992), I believe “the use of the first
person is required in keeping with the epistemologies of the research and in the
pursuit of reflexivity” (p.747). I offer a personal interpretation of the data and
therefore consider a first person account to be consistent with the
assumptions of IPA which I discuss later.
I begin by justifying my choice of IPA over grounded theory (3.3). In the
52
ensuing sections (3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.1.1), exploration moves to the theoretical
concepts underpinning IPA, and IPA in relation to symbolic interactionism
(3.5). In section 3.6, I offer my criticism of IPA and consider its application in
research (3.6.1). Chapter 3 continues with discussion of ethical considerations
(3.7), gaining access and theoretical sampling (3.8) before moving to the
methods used (3.9). In section 3.10, I offer an evaluation of the methods used in
this study which is followed by a discussion of data analysis (3.11), I continue by
reflecting upon qualitative research (3.12) and how rigour was achieved in the
current study.
3.3 Why interpretative phenomenological analysis is selected over grounded
theory
Grounded theory shares much in common with IPA (Willig, 2001), both using
different levels of coding. In the initial phase, the participants’ underlying
concerns are conceptualised using codes to represent issues of importance or
interest to the research (Allan 2003), then moving towards higher level coding
that explores the meaning and sense making participants afford their
experiences (Willig, 2001). This offers an organised, but at the same time,
imaginative analysis of qualitative data. A process known as theoretical
sampling describes how analysis influences further sampling until no further
insights can be gleaned and data saturation is achieved. Thus, data analysis
shares much in common with IPA although neither saturation nor theoretical
sampling applies.
Grounded theory is not founded upon a preconceived hypothesis. This reduces
53
the potential for predefined ideas to be forced upon the data by looking
for
evidence
to
support such concepts (Allan, 2003). However, the
rejection of pre-existing knowledge is where grounded theory and IPA part
company, for the double hermeneutic in IPA recognises the researcher as a
social being whose preconceptions cannot and should not be bracketed as
these make a rich contribution to analysis of the data (Larkin, 2004). As a
researcher, I felt that the energy needed to suspend my ontological and
epistemological self would inhibit immersing myself in the data (5.2) and elected
to use IPA rather than grounded theory for this reason.
3.4 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
When writing of IPA, Larkin et al., (2006, p.120) describe it as comprising two
complimentary commitments: a phenomenological obligation to give voice to
the participants’ concerns and the interpretative requirement to make sense
of these concerns and contextualise them from a psychological perspective.
This epistemological stance offers an attitude which corresponds to my own,
an essential requisite when undertaking qualitative research (Patton, 1990).
IPA is primarily interested in lived experience and how people make sense of
that experience (Smith, 2010). Smith (2010) acknowledges that there is “no
direct route to experience” and that IPA is about being “experience close”
rather than “experience far” (p.10). In other words, it requires a process of
engrossment and interpretation on behalf of the researcher which allies IPA
to a hermeneutic approach. The subject of hermeneutics presents a
complicated discussion concerned with making sense of people’s lives (Jones,
54
2001). I discuss the concept of hermeneutics in more detail below relating this
to the Heideggerian conception only as this is used by Larkin and colleagues
(2006) when debating IPA.
Although IPA affords a methodological approach, Smith and Osborn (2003)
propose there is “no single, definitive way to do IPA” (p.52). In fact, it offers a
“stance” rather than a “distinct ‘method’” that leaves room for manoeuvre
within its parameters (Odelius, 2008), if thought necessary or advantageous by
the researcher (Smith, 2004). Consequently, it seemed an ideal frame that
fitted with my personal philosophy and research objectives.
IPA requires the researcher be committed to deep engagement with the data in
order to produce a coherent third person account of the participant’s view that
is as authentic as possible, for access to experience is both partial and
complex (Smith, 1996). Surprisingly, IPA is considered by some an easy
approach (Larkin et al., 2006). My own experiences of using IPA concurs with
those of Larkin et al., (2006) when they write that “IPA can be easy to do badly,
and difficult to do well” (p.103) as although its accessibility and flexibility
afforded a creative arena, the lack of methodological prescription led to
uncertainty as to whether I was doing it ‘right’. Providing a balanced account of
the
participants’
experiences
demands
that
the
researcher
weighs
representation, interpretation and context, and it was only after I had
revisited the literature that I felt I had sufficient understanding of IPA and its
philosophical grounding to interpret these in a meaningful way.
In using IPA, “the researcher is the primary analytical instrument” (Fade, 2004
p.648), the overall aim being to move beyond the descriptive to the interpretive
55
and explore the participant’s perceptions of the phenomenon in question
rather than the
phenomenon itself.
When
analysing
data,
IPA firstly
involves a “face level” or descriptive reading (Larkin, 2004; Smith & Eatough,
2006
p.339),
interpretation or
that
subsequently
conceptual level,
develops
to
a
more
in-depth
ultimately taking the data
into
consideration as a whole (Larkin, 2004). Although emphasis is upon the
idiographic (individual persons or events) (Larkin et al., 2006), the exploration of
patterns and relationships within and between conceptual groups should
reveal something about the life world of the particular participants but also
about generic themes (Fade, 2004). I discuss how I analysed the data later in
the chapter (3.11).
Although IPA is informed by a “general psychological interest” (Smith, 2004,
p.45) my concern as a counsellor was of superimposing existing theories that
overwhelmed the essence of the participants’ narrative. To resist this meant
remaining grounded in the participants’ words, or as Smith (2004, p.45) puts
it, undertaking a “close reading of what is already in the passage helped by
analysis of what the participant said elsewhere”.
IPA is most closely allied to cognitive psychology because of its emphasis on
sense- making and the connection between people’s cognitive and emotional
states (Smith et al., 1999). Hence it is suited to clinical settings (National
Institute for Health Research, 2008). However, although both cognitive
psychology and IPA are interested in how people make sense of their lived
experience, they diverge as to the methodologies used to achieve this goal,
with IPA employing in-depth qualitative analysis (Smith et al., 1995).
56
According to Smith (2004), it is the personal analytic work done by the
researcher that “determines the quality of the outcome” (p.40) whereby a
two stage interpretation process takes
place
in which the
researcher
attempts to interpret the participant’s sense making ability (Pringle et al.,
2011). This twofold sense-making is described as a double hermeneutic, a
subject I develop later in section 3.4.1. Consequently, in IPA, the researcher
is inextricably implicated in the interpretative process such that their ontology
(beliefs about the world) and epistemology (knowledge of the world) will
inevitably shape the analysis. Being able to identify the self in the interpretative
process demands reflexivity, something I achieved through both writing a
research journal, and inserting my reflections within the transcripts (4.2, 4.3)
(Also, see research journal at end of thesis). Then, when analysing the data,
I cross referenced entries from the journal and the transcripts to the
discussion. Through this reflective development, I felt ever present, and
unable to avoid my part in the interpretative process. Annells (1996) and
LeVasseur (2003) likewise advise that preconceptions are made explicit and
their use made clear in the inquiry. Like Halling et al., (2006), I go further, by
suggesting that having awareness of pre-existing beliefs benefitted me as
these could be re-evaluated in the light of emerging data and their influence
over the phenomenon itself assessed. In addition, reflexivity enables the
researcher to use their knowledge and personal assumptions to help gain
perspective of participants’ experiences in a way that nurtures empathy
(Finlay, 2009). This view is consistent with the questioning hermeneutic and
empathic hermeneutic espoused by IPA (Smith & Osborn, 2003), however, I
57
consider that such reflective processes demand a level of self-awareness that
may not be available to all.
Wilson (1983, p.x) contends that our ontological and epistemological world
views are central assumptions when theorising about social life as they
contribute to our understanding of social reality and “ how reliable
knowledge of that reality is obtained”. By acknowledging that individuals can
experience reality in different ways, IPA recognises truth as a matter of
perspective, which defines its epistemological stance.
3.4.1 The epistemological position of interpretative phenomenological analysis
Qualitative research is established upon a continuum describing two divergent
concepts: On the one hand, naïve realism and on the other, radical relativism.
These positions are not mutually exclusive but offer different positions for
viewing the world. Naïve realism describes an objective attitude, claiming
objects as real entities that exist regardless of whether or not they are
perceived (Banister et al, 1994). Conversely, radical relativism accentuates the
socially constructed nature of what is real, offering a subjective attitude that
questions factual truth (McEvoy & Richards, 2003). In research terms, the
continuum represents the researcher’s involvement as the closer they are
to relative realism, the more implicated they become in fashioning the
results, rather than describing the facts (Odelius, 2008).
Critical realism accepts that there are “stable and enduring features of reality
that exist independently of human conceptualisation” (Fade, 2004, p.647).
58
However, the meaning individuals attach to reality can differ, dependent upon
which part of it they access (Fiske & Taylor, 1991), hence, the importance of
the life-world or lived experience shaping IPA. Importantly, critical realism is
founded on the assumption that interpretation is often influenced by socially
accepted ways of viewing reality.
IPA is situated in the middle of the qualitative continuum and is theoretically
rooted in critical realism and the social cognition paradigm (Fig. 1). I
considered this highly relevant to the participants in this study as socially
accepted worldviews commonly reflect the values of privileged individuals
(Lopez & Willis, 2004), and as bullying is frequently misunderstood, impacts
negatively
upon
the
young
participant’s
self-perception.
Moreover,
interpretative research with marginalised individuals is of vital importance, as
giving voice to personal experience enables them to begin liberating
themselves from oppression (Stevens & Hall, 1992), e m p h a s i s i n g , I a r g u e ,
the importance of using IPA.
The concept of reality as contextual corresponds with Putman’s (1981) (cited in
Bem & Looren de Jong, 1997) pragmatic realism that describes knowledge of
the world as an interactive process and I consider it is the interplay between
the subjective and the objective which links critical realism to IPA. The social
cognition paradigm recognises that such diverse meanings of reality are
communicated through human speech and behaviour, and are dynamic and
provisional, reflecting, I suggest, the double hermeneutic consistent with
IPA. Onus is upon the researcher to illuminate both the structure and the
experience, as communicated by both mind and body as these are considered
inseparable.
59
Figure 1: Epistemological Positions
Naïve realist
Radical relativist
Grounded Theory
(Realist version)
Grounded Theory
(Social constructionist
version)
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
(Based upon Willig, 2001)
So, although participants are seen as constructing reality, they are also
influenced by it, and it is this relationship between the self and the external
that situates IPA in the context of critical realism.
60
3.4.1.1 Underlying assumptions of interpretative phenomenological analysis
According to Larkin et al., (2006), novice researchers such as myself, may find
IPA a less safe option than other qualitative methodologies because of its
uncircumscribed territories. However, it is precisely this “epistemological
openness” (Larkin, 2004, p.5) which facilitates exploration, understanding and
communication of the participants’ opinions and experiences (Larkin et al.,
2006).
IPA is chiefly informed by phenomenology, hermeneutics and symbolic
interactionism (Smith, 2004). These represent significant philosophical debates
and considerable ambiguity. For example, Heideggerian phenomenology, which
informs IPA, is also known as interpretative phenomenology, hermeneutic
phenomenology and Heideggerian hermeneutics (Cohen et al., 2000). Although
divergence is reflected primarily in the titles (Cohen et al., 2000), uncertainty
surfaces
as
to
whether
researchers
should
declare
a
specific
phenomenological stance that avoids merging irreconcilable philosophies, as
this leads to a lack of rigour (Finlay, 2009; Giorgi, 2008b). Others (Derbyshire
et al., 2005) argue that combined methodological approaches broaden depth
of understanding which enhances trustworthiness by capturing t h e f u l l
richness of description more effectively than a single method.
There are diverse interpretations as to the central issues of phenomenology
(Dahlberg et al., 2008; van Manen, 1990; Halling et al., 2006; Todres, 2005),
consequently, much debate as to what counts as phenomenological (Finlay,
61
2009). For proponents of phenomenological approaches, discord centres on
whether a researcher’s world views should be bracketed when seeking the
essence of a phenomenon (Giorgi, 2008b), or whether, if un-bracketed, these
help contextualise the phenomenon in both a personal and social setting
(Ashworth, 2006; King et al., 2008). The debate is not new, dating back to
the seminal phenomenological authors Husserl and Heidegger. To situate this
study within a methodological framework, I shall discuss the contribution of
these philosophers; however I start by introducing the evolution of
phenomenological thinking.
st
By the turn of the 21 century, three key questions relating to phenomenology
had emerged: (Berrios, 1989).
1.
How consciousness relates to the external world
2.
How to differentiate physical from mental phenomena and
3.
How to distinguish mental phenomena from each other
Bretano (1874) believed that every mental phenomenon was intentionally
directed at an object and that this psychological act alone brought meaning to
the object; a link I would suggest to critical realism. By contrast, physical
phenomena lacked the ability to generate intentionality and could only
facilitate this second-hand (Berrios, 1989). This represented a fundamental
shift in established thinking as Bretano had introduced the notion that human
beings brought meaning to the external world through their psychological
intention, whilst empiricists maintained that mental experience derived solely
62
from the external world (Berrios, 1989). However, the theory of the world as the
one source of knowledge was unable to account for objectless mental
experiences such as hallucinations (Frege, 1892).
Frege (1892) suggested that rather than deriving knowledge solely from the
external world, an individual’s psychological experiences and cognition could
determine their behaviour, their actions, and their language, thereby
introducing the phenomenological framework that was to underpin later
thinking. The relationship between the cognitive and language is of relevance
to the current study since language development is intimately connected to
feelings (Bloom, 1998). Bloom (1998) states that, “Language has to be learned
when what the child has in mind differs from what someone else has in mind
and must be expressed to be shared” (p. 1273). As the child develops and their
emotions become more complex, the primary carer can no longer exploit
contextual clues when the child’s feelings are not in evidence. Hence feelings
are interconnected with personal and social development (Bloom, 1998). With
feelings as the precursor to language, the poor language skills experienced by
the young people who bully in this study might imply a twofold effect: that
their poor linguistic skills compromise emotional expression but also, attest to
emotional under-development. In section 3.5, I elaborate on the significance of
language for the young participants.
Frege (1892) had introduced a paradigm shift of considerable significance as his
suggestion that knowledge derived from experience rather than of one truth
provided by the external world, suggested that the truth of all statements
depended upon empirical testing. In other words, if empirical statements could
63
be true or false, then so could logical principles. Unsurprisingly, this met with
considerable resistance (Berrios, 1989).
It was from Frege’s early thinking that Husserl (1970) went on to develop his
phenomenological model. Reluctant to abandon the idea of an external truth,
Husserl integrated it into his model in the form of phenomenological bracketing
of the external influences thought likely to contaminate pure subjectivity.
Husserl characterised phenomenology as a philosophical movement aimed at
epistemological enquiry of experiential happenings (Todres & Holloway, 2004); in
other words, a verbal account of individual experience prior to critique,
reflection or interpretation (van Manen, 1990). Husserl (1983) defined this as
“natural attitude” (p.51). His key epistemological strategy referred to
phenomenological reduction, or bracketing of the natural attitude (Walters,
1994) so as to cleanse individual experience of judgement and
be
led
instead to the origins of phenomena (Cohen & Omery, 1994), or universal
essences (Giorgi, 1989). For the researcher, determining the essence of a
phenomenon necessitates asking whether it could or would exist without
added influences; that is, without making assumptions (Koch, 1999).
Husserl’s concept of phenomenology introduced significant change to
established thinking which had hitherto recognised a positivist approach to
scientific enquiry (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2008).The attempt to capture
experiential essences by bracketing assumptions characterised Husserl’s
phenomenological method as descriptive (Bradbury-Jones et al., 2008);
measuring techniques were discouraged and replaced with observation,
intuition and empathy (Berrios, 1989). Using qualitative approaches as
64
opposed to quantitative, phenomenological research sought to illuminate
specific phenomenon and represent these from the perspective of the research
participants (Lester, 1999).The fundamental difference between descriptive and
interpretative phenomenology is
how
findings
are
generated
and
subsequently used to augment knowledge (Lopez & Willis, 2004).
For example, Heidegger, a student and critic of Husserl’s (Ray, 1994), was
cautious as to the ability to suspend preconceptions. Although likewise
concerned with lived experience, Heideggar considered primary experience to
be the meaning of ‘being’, referring to the way humans exist and act (van
Manen, 1990). His ontological focus (Cohen & Omery, 1994; Ray, 1994)
described a process of being in the world rather than of the world (Ray,
1994), a concept he saw as knowable only through interpretation according
to the interpreter’s own lived experience (Walters, 1994).
Heidegger conceived of Husserl’s attempts
to bracket as
misguided
(Polkinghorne, 1983), proposing instead, interpretive phenomenology, that
presumes some prior understanding, for example, everything we seek as
guided by what is sought (Heidegger, 1962). Hence, a central tenet of
Heidegger’s thought was the relation between the individual and their lifeworld; a connection he described as a hermeneutic circle, implying the impact
of culture, society and politics as consequential upon the individual’s freedom
to choose (Lopez & Willis, 2004). In IPA, Larkin et al., (2006) relate the
hermeneutic circle to the researcher/participant relationship describing the
“knower and the known as fundamentally interrelated” (p. 116), and implying
that any interpretation necessitates balanced and iterative work. In other words,
65
the researcher avoids preconceptions but is sensitive and responsive both to the
participants and the data generated whilst also acknowledging that they are
affected by living in the world.
Heidegger (Ray, 1994) asserted that social and developmental entrenchment
meant that, although individuals were free to make choices, such freedom was
circumscribed
by specific life conditions. In relation to the current study,
Leonard (1999) points out that young people who bully are not merely passive
recipients of ideologies, but also inexorable victims of their own social and
developmental experiences; introducing I suggest,
a connection between
experience, feelings and the life world.
It is the concept of individual freedom of choice and the hermeneutic circle
proposed by Heidegger that informs my choice of methodology, as I suggest
that IPA resonates with the classical hermeneutics of Heidegger which
complements the objectives of the current study. Consequently, the
hermeneutic circle is both intrinsic to IPA and to the work being done, as
balancing the “hermeneutics of empathy” with the “hermeneutics of suspicion”
reveals the “meaning of experience” (Larkin et al., 2006: 115 based on
Ricoeur 1970) and is the primary aim of this study. According to Larkin et al.,
(2006), by offering the two perspectives of empathy and suspicion, analysis of
the data benefits from both an understanding and a critical approach to
interpretation. This allows the researcher to go beyond description and reveal
things of which the participants may be unaware, “warts and all” (Smith &
Osborn, 2003, p.51), which I consider as characterising IPA. The hermeneutic
circle is reflected in the analytical process in IPA, which progresses from initial
66
coding through to critical interpretation which, aided by the researcher’s own
understanding, represents the participants’ main concerns.
3.5 Symbolic interactionism
Of equal importance to IPA is symbolic interactionism, which according to Burr
(2001), illuminates “the nature of the socially constructed person” (p.11) and
which, like IPA focusses upon how meaning is derived through interaction and
interpretation.
The term symbolic interactionism was first introduced by Mead (1934).
Although his concepts have since been elaborated (see Bloomer, 1962), it is to
Meads original theories that I refer. Unlike his predecessors in social
psychology, Mead disputed the existence of the self as independent of social
forces, proposing instead an interdependent relationship between self and
other that emphasised a social symbiosis. Hence, the self is reflective in that it
develops through social interaction. This implies a dynamic that is perpetual
and flexible in keeping with historical, cultural and language developments but
only ever contextual. In other words, meaning and identity evolves,
influencing personal experience and it is this developmental process in its
entirety that I consider IPA is committed to explore by affording the researcher
insight to contextual information about the person.
Symbolic interactionism has been criticised as reductionist as its theory
regarding development of the self depends upon social interaction; in other
words, the self could not develop without interfacing and communicating with
others (Burr, 2001).
67
However, Hochschild (1983) believes that Mead introduced the concept of “I”
and “me”, where, as a reflective being, the ‘I’ becomes integrated as a
“more generalized” other, representative of society as a whole (Mead, 1934:
154). For example, Hochschild proposes that although emotions are social
(me), they are also cognitive (I). Social contexts help an individual assess
whether an emotion is appropriate in the here and now, but also, according to
personal expectation as to how that emotion will be expressed. “If feeling is
the spontaneous outburst, emotion is the social label of i t”; (Andersson,
2005, p.54) for example, sadness and tears (Hochschild, 1983). In section 4.4, I
provide examples of how emotional management manifested in the current
study.
According to Burr (2001), the importance of language is paramount in
symbolic interactionism for “[w]e cannot think about or reflect upon our
experience […] until we are able to symbolically represent events to ourselves
through language. And we cannot acquire language without engaging in social
interaction” (p.15). Burr’s emphasis upon the connectedness between thought,
feelings and language is of significance for the young participants in
the
current study, since their ability to form interpersonal relationships has been
undermined by poor developmental experiences, in turn compromising their
language skills and hence their ability for self-reflection. Consequently, I
suggest their language deficiency is a serious loss.
Cooley (1964) places further emphasis upon the self/other dyad suggesting that
how a person perceives themselves is so dependent upon how they are
perceived as to represent a reflection in a mirror; a theory named the looking
68
8
glass self. This theory is of particular relevance as the self/other divide
represents a consistent theme in my data. For example, in section 4.3, I discuss
how, when looking in the mirror, one participant saw only a reflection of
himself, possibly given his perception of the ‘other’ as untrustworthy. I relate
this to the looking glass theory.
Although I agree with the interdependence between the self and society that
symbolic interactionism espouses, it is the inference of shared meaning that
provokes uneasiness for me. For example, Mead (1934) represents the
meaning of symbols (words) as the same for different individuals engaged in
communication, a suggestion with vast implications as it infers mutually
recognisable codes which facilitate shared meaning, (taking “the role of the
other” , Mead, 1934, p.254), or, as I see it, the basis for empathy. Mead
substantiates his thinking by describing the development of language amongst
children, explaining how adults respond to a baby as if its actions were
meaningful using a ‘conversation of gestures’ (Burr, 2001) and how, through
the socialisation process, the gestures are replaced by words with reciprocal
social meaning. However, my experience with young people who bully and
extant literature (see for example, Bloom, 2000, 3.9.1) suggests that
maltreatment and poor socialisation, for instance, amongst young people who
bully, inhibits language and cognitive development to an extent that
seriously undermines communication. This in turn creates an isolated self that
I would describe as pitched against others. It cannot be said with certainty that
this experience or pattern of communication never occurs in non-harmful
contexts such as functioning families however the literature in relation to secure
attachment does imply this as less likely (2.10, 4.2).
69
3.6 Criticism of interpretative phenomenological analysis
IPA is a methodological approach that is gaining in popularity (Smith, 2010).
Although students are attracted because of the emphasis upon
lived
experience, with little prior training in other qualitative methods, IPA appears
an easy option (Hefferon & Gil- Rodriguez, 2011) as it is suggested, little
theoretical knowledge is needed to use this methodology (Madill
et
al.,
2005). Hefferon and Gil-Rodriguez (2011) attribute this opinion to a lack of
understanding of IPA as an interpretative approach rather than merely
descriptive, resulting in a lack of depth that is sometimes confused with
insufficient rigour (Larkin et al., 2006).
Further censure is levelled at IPA for the idiographic nature of the analysis
(Pringle et al., 2011) as although this offers insight into the “wholeness and
uniqueness of the individual” it precludes generalising such that IPA studies
are criticised as potentially “subjective, intuitive and impressionistic”(Malim
et al., 1992, cited in Pringle et al., 2011, p.21). Reid et al., (2005) point out
that generalisability was never the goal of IPA although commonalities within
and between groups can lead to useful insights which influence and contribute
to theory in a broader sense. For example, in section 4.3, I show how the
young participants were united as to the significance of being referred for
counselling rather than self-referral and how the counsellors likewise
recognised the implications.
70
3.6. 1 Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in the research
With a few notable exceptions (Ambert, 1994; Paquette & Underwood,
1999), the extant literature about bullying is largely quantitative and, rather
than analysing whole people and their interactions, focuses upon statistics and
processes (see for example, Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Olweus, 1993, Rigby &
Slee, 1999) ). Although this is useful in identifying where and how frequently
bullying takes place, a report by the Department of Health (DoH, 2008)
recognises that young people would like their opinions about bullying to be
heard (DoH, 2008), and I suggest qualitative research as most suited to this
task. In section 3.9, I develop how the methods used in the current study
address this requirement.
There is legal recognition that children’s opinions should be sought in matters
that affect them and also, ethical acknowledgement that research exploring the
experiences of young people should be sensitive to the impact of the process
(Morrow, 2001). I suggest that the interpretative stance of IPA ratifies both
of these requirements as it seeks in-depth understanding of lived experience
however, it applies a non-threatening, open ended approach to gathering
data.
This study explores the previously underdeveloped topic of how young
people who bully, and their counsellors, experience counselling. It therefore
contributes
to
existing qualitative
research
by
adding
context
and
understanding. Such clarification is considered by Smith (2004) one of the main
purposes of IPA and therefore seems a most appropriate methodology to
meet the current research objectives.
71
3.7 Ethical considerations
Ethical issues are of overriding importance in work involving young people,
particularly when this is of a sensitive nature, with potential to cause harm
or distress to the research participants. Later (3.9) I discuss how the methods
used in this research respected such principles. Seiber (1993) relates ethics in
research with children to “the application of a system of moral principles to
prevent harming or wronging others” (p.14). Favourable ethical opinion (see
appendix 3) for this study was granted by the Faculty of Health and Medical
Science Ethics Committee and Criminal Records Bureau clearance processed
for every staff member involved in the process before data collection
started.
Neither Centre A nor Centre B (the two research venues) had their own ethical
protocol but agreed to participate guided by the Faculty of Health and Medical
Science ethical principles. Key issues included; consent, confidentiality,
potential distress and researcher safety.
Prior to the onset of the study, I spent one year observing the young people at
Centre A. The benefit of pre-engagement between the researcher and
participants is well documented (Erlandson et al., 1993; Guba & Lincoln, 1994;
Hill, 2006). For example, in a study by Hill (2006) into the emotional well-being
of children, he found that familiarising himself with participants prior to
embarking upon research helped alleviate their anxieties and engender trust.
Likewise, upon first meeting the young people at Centre A, they were
extremely suspicious of me but as the weeks passed they became more
72
confident in my presence. However, Silverman (2000) has noted that prolonged
engagement is not problem-free since immersion in the organisation may affect
the professional judgement of the researcher. Indeed, at Centre A, whilst
observing the young people, maintaining my professional boundaries was
challenging when too few staff struggled to control the class and I would have
liked to help. As part of the curriculum at Centre A, the last lesson of a series
aimed at personal development was dedicated to the topic of bullying when
staff explained the research and distributed participant information sheets
(PIS) (See appendix 4 for a copy of PIS). These were dispersed to the
counsellors at an alternative venue. As the participants lived within driving
distance, the transcripts could be delivered by hand, negating ethical concerns
regarding posting them.
I clearly explained the study, discussed what participants would be
consenting to, adding that anonymity would be protected by affording
participants a code. This proved unexpectedly challenging as central to IPA is
“getting the sense of the person themselves” (Smith & Osborn, 2003, p.67)
and I struggled to identify with the participants and their experiences when
using pseudonyms. Ultimately, I only applied these at the interpretative stage
to enable objectivity.
An important consideration was explaining to the young people my obligation to
break confidentiality if I needed to report a risk of significant harm or child
protection issue (Barter et al., 2004). I made it clear in relation to the focus
group that I could only guarantee personal confidentiality, not that of other
groups.
73
Designing personal information sheets (PIS) that were appropriately gauged
to the target audience proved problematic as these were needed for the
young people, their parents, and the counsellors. Following the first ethics
application the PISs were rejected and subsequently reworked, ultimately
receiving approval. Focussing the young people’s attention upon the PIS
proved demanding as they were constantly distracted (due to their
behavioural and learning problems) and I had to be more directive than
anticipated to ensure that they understood the information.
Parents of young people 16 and under were sent an information pack and a
consent form via their child. This leaflet explained the selection procedure by
which their child was asked to participate, what was involved (see appendix 5
for risk assessment) and the limits of confidentiality (for consent forms see
appendix 6). Signed parental consent was sought for all young people 16 and
under, without which, their child was unable to participate. In the case of
single parent families, the consent of one parent is normally sufficient however
if both parents declined, their child would not be included in the research.
Parents were asked that the consent forms be returned the following week.
This interval was suggested by the staff at Centre A who considered the young
people needed a week to consolidate the contents of their own PIS. Nine of the
twelve pupils at Centre A expressed interest in participating, of these however,
only four returned signed consent forms from their parents, excluding the
remainder from participation. After a further week had elapsed, I telephoned
those parents yet to sign consent forms with a gentle reminder, however no
74
more consent forms were returned, which disappointed the young people who
were eager to commit but unable to without parental permission.
Despite concentrated effort to communicate the content of the study, the one
week interval proved too long for the young people to retain information and
prior to consent being obtained, an additional explanation was necessary. Each
question had a box requiring the participant’s signature. Only when I was sure
that the young people (and the counsellors) understood what they were
consenting to and that they were willing to participate, were they asked to
sign a consent form. Informed consent was sought from each young person
and each counsellor. All forms were signed, dated and duplicated so that both
the participants and I had a copy. Places on the study were awarded on a
first come, first served basis.
Included in the PIS was an invitation offering participants the opportunity to
read and comment on the transcript of their focus groups and interviews. The
decision was fuelled by a desire to authentically represent the participants
and therefore, to promote rigour and trustworthiness. Once data collection
started and I realised the full impact of the young people’s behavioural and
learning difficulties, I recognised that reading the transcripts could present
ethical issues concerning my beneficence as a researcher. For instance, in
the focus group, the young people were defensive and constantly refuted
what they had said. Secondly, self-disclosing evidently represented a huge risk
for them that caused considerable anxiety. I feared that reading their transcripts
may cause the young people emotional harm and was unsure of its
advisability. Nonetheless, not reading their transcripts raised concerns about
75
the extent to which the young people were represented in the research and
I questioned whether I would honour my ethical commitment as a researcher
by offering to either read or discuss them separately. In section 4.3, I discuss
the repercussions of reading the transcripts to the young people. The same
offer was made to the participant counsellors who declined the opportunity.
Retrospectively, I understood that the methodological implication of reading
the transcripts to the participants was inconsistent with the interpretative
stance of IPA, as the participant’s original accounts were contextual, hence any
prospective response would represent new data.
To ratify the ethical requirements of undertaking research with young people,
the ethics committee asserted that two support workers must sit in upon the
focus groups and individual interviews to offer support for both the young
participants and myself. Staff at Centre A supported this decision, confirming
that the young people frequently responded to animated debate with
defensiveness, sometimes leaving the room and occasionally erupting into
physically aggressive behaviour. The support team was compiled of staff from
Centre A with academic qualifications relevant to their position and many years
of experience working with young people who bully. Given the learning
environment at Centre A, where staff freely circulate amongst the young
people, I felt the focus group would closely replicate this setting, such that
the support workers would not be unusually conspicuous. However, I was
uncomfortable
that
the
participants
may
feel
their
confidentiality
compromised by having so many observers present in the room, whereby
inhibiting self-disclosure.
76
I believe researchers should weigh the participant’s right to confidentiality
against the demands of research as it would be equally unethical to provide
an account of the participants which compromised authenticity. In section 4.4,
I describe the implications of having support workers present and the ethical
dilemma this instigated.
Once data collection started, I used my discretion to determine if discussion
was becoming too stressful for the young participants or their counsellors.
When this happened, I asked whether they would like to move to a less
sensitive area, use a vignette (3.9) or take a temporary or permanent break
(Barter et al., 2004). I further guarded against distress using my counselling
skills.
A contact telephone number was provided to each participant lest they
become distressed or terminate an interview or focus group prematurely.
Moreover, the participants were reassured that they were under no obligation
to complete, a consideration known to promote involvement (Faulkner, 2004).
In keeping with the Lone Worker Policy (NHS, 2008), researcher safety issues
were addressed by ensuring that a diary of interviews and their location was
held by an administrator and that a colleague was contacted before and
following each focus group and interview.
3.8 Sampling and Access
As the sampling for studies using IPA is purposive, I chose to recruit young people
aged 11 to 18 years, who were identified as having a tendency to bully
77
and who had received no less than three one-to-one counselling sessions with
a professional c o u n s e l l o r . I considered that fewer than three sessions may
not be long enough for individuals to acquaint themselves with the process of
counselling. I thought that those young people who both bullied and received
one to one counselling would represent a minority group, meaning sample
numbers could be small. Given the small sample size, it could be argued that
the demand on individual focus group participants to contribute would be
greater (Morgan, 1988).
Conversely, Krueger (1994) proposes that, for
discussion of more complex topics, smaller groups yield more sensitive and
richer conversation.
I chose young people as opposed to children because my experience as a
counsellor of young people who bully had awakened an interest in their
subjective world (1). I also sought greater understanding of the personal
experiences of the counsellors providing counselling to young people who
bully, as without them, a comprehensive picture would not be possible.
Although it was not anticipated that access to counsellors would prove
problematic, only one counsellor might provide counselling to all of the
participants. Smith and Osborn (2003) encourage researchers to adapt “the
method to […] the particular topic [they] are investigating” (p. 55).
Consequently I had sought previous approval from the ethics committee to
revert to a case study approach should too few participants materialise,
whereby enabling an idiographic analysis that Smith and Eatough (2006)
considers to yield rich data.
IPA is committed to small samples (Smith, 2004) and for novice researchers,
78
three participants are considered optimal with no more than ten for the more
experienced, as this facilitates both engagement with individual cases but also
exploration of convergence and divergence; similarity and difference (Smith,
2010). Reservations as to larger sample sizes trigger concern as to
unmanageable quantities of data (Smith & Osborn, 2003). Consequently, the
six participants taking part in this study concurred with the recommendations.
Even so, there were times when I found the data unwieldy; a topic developed
when I discuss data analysis (3.11).
A concern when using purposive sampling is that findings from such a
homogenous group cannot be used to generalise to the greater population. This
dilemma is arguably accentuated as both Centre A and Centre B are located
in south-east England (The Survivors Club, 2014). However, as previously
iterated, the concept of extrapolating statistical findings in IPA does not apply
(Smith, 2004). The aim is to gain greater depth and insight of the phenomena
being studied, although I suggest that this results in an analysis that also
illuminates the commonalities and variances within and between groups.
Moreover, to establish external validity, the study makes extensive use of
participant quotes to illustrate findings so that readers can determine the
potential transferability to other situations. As Smith and Osborn explain,
shedding light on the “broader context” (p. 54) can be done once similar studies
using IPA have been completed. Nonetheless, a potential limitation of IPA
remains its lack of certainty (Willig, 2001), for it represents the
79
experiences of few individuals; although, I would argue that experience itself
lacks certainty.
Access to participants was ultimately negotiated through two, part charitable
and part council run projects offering learning support and counselling to
young people in the district. Gaining access represented the culmination of
extensive and time consuming correspondence with other organisations. For
example, five youth organisations were contacted before Centres A and B, with
a research proposal sent to each. The negotiation process necessitated
consistent follow up by telephone, email, and on several occasions, visiting
organisations. Staff from the charities explained that insufficient funding
resulted in too few staff who could not be spared for research. As Smith and
Osborn (2003) warn “one’s sample will in part be defined by who is prepared
to be included in it” (p.54).
Nonetheless, to verify that lack of commitment was not due to my approach, I
consulted with colleagues whose studies were similar to my own. They too
were experiencing recruitment problems and this allayed fears that any
reluctance was specifically attributable to my approach. Difficulty recruiting
was exacerbated as finding organisations where young people both bullied and
received counselling for this were limited. Centre A however met the
recruitment criteria. Centre A provides educational support to young people
excluded from mainstream education. Pupils are often referred to Centre A
because of aggressive and bullying behaviour and are offered counselling in
support of such issues. Upon contacting staff at Centre A, they confirmed that
all of their current pupils had bullied others and were likewise receiving
80
counselling. Centre A expressed their enthusiasm for research into young
people who bullied and having recently received an extended grant to continue
their work, felt able to commit to the study.
Conversely, Centre B, was beset by funding issues. Centre B is located in a
deprived
area and
offers
counselling
to young
people experiencing
behavioural problems, including those at Centre A. They are predominantly
staffed by fully qualified, volunteer counsellors, a necessity given the limited
resources at their disposal. Centre B were contacted via a board member to
whom I posted a research proposal and who communicated with the
counsellors at this organisation. Despite their commitment, Centre B
temporarily withdrew as financial uncertainty threatened their future and
several months elapsed before they felt able to commit. Prior to finalising
participation the two research venues agreed to display a poster approved by
the ethics committee advertising the research (see appendix 7 for poster).
These efforts culminated in the recruitment of four young people (Jason, Andy,
Courtney and Lucy) from Centre A and their two counsellors (Counsellor A and
Counsellor B) from Centre B. To minimise disruption to either of the research
venues and mindful of their problems, I travelled to each, ensuring that
participation would not involve costly or time-consuming commitment.
Many of the young people at Centre A suffer with attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), a condition that I reasoned would impact data gathering. Later
(3.10), I describe the influence of their symptoms upon the data. ADHD is a
chronic mental health disorder characterised by diverse behavioural expressions
throughout the life span (Barkley, 2006; Barkley et al., 2002), the core symptoms
81
manifesting as inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness. During adolescence,
these core symptoms typically translate as difficulty focussing upon study,
particularly subjects demanding concentrated attention such as mathematics
(Barbaresi et al., 2007), the inability to reason a response and thus, a tendency to
interrupt and to respond with aggression (Barkley et al., 2006), trouble remaining
seated, with the propensity to roam around the classroom and problems with
forming interpersonal relationships (Bagwell et al., 2001). Consequently, young
people with ADHD are prone to poor academic success (Barbaresi et al., 2007),
family conflict (Edwards et al., 2001) delinquency and dropping out of school
(Sibley et al., 2011) and are generally unpopular with their peers (Bagwell, et al.,
2001), making adolescence for those with ADHD a challenging life period.
Of the young participants in this study, Jason and Andy both experience ADHD.
During the observation period prior to gathering data, I noted in my journal that
for Jason, concentrating on his lessons posed significant challenges. He struggled
to grasp the meaning of written work, sometimes panicking and asking frequent
questions as to what was expected of him, but more usually, disengaging from the
task and wandering around the room, often goading his peers by throwing pencils
at them or flicking paper. He was easily distracted by other stimuli, frequently
using the laptop computers intended as an aid for learning, to access
online wrestling, when he would distract those of his peers who were working by
either, raising the volume of his computer or pushing this under the nose of
his neighbours. If this failed to garner attention, he would flout the school rules,
rising from the table to play snooker at the table in the adjoining leisure
area. This action had a disruptive affect upon the other students who then
resisted their own work in preference for a game of snooker.
82
Andy made few attempts to even begin school work, claiming a lack of interest in
the subjects taught and coercing the support workers to complete the
assignments necessary for him to gain his qualifications. On the surface, he was
seemingly authoritative with his demands however, I noticed that, when subjects
were taught that did capture his attention, he struggled to communicate his
thoughts and, particularly to concentrate for sufficient time to write these down.
Then, he reverted to cool and detached behaviour, distancing himself from both
his tutors and peers, behaviour that I interpreted as bravado to disguise a more
vulnerable self. Andy seemed to delight in causing disruption and this too may
have been a tactic designed to distract attention from attempts to get close to
him. He seemed almost determined to create a negative profile of himself, a
characteristic consistent with ADHD, where the actions of sufferers are commonly
mistaken as deliberate bad behaviour but are, in fact, associated with their
inability to verbalise their emotions (Evans et al., 2007). For example, during a sex
education programme, Andy took a bundle of condoms to the leisure area and set
fire to these whilst the lesson was in place, a struggle for the staff who, from my
observations, seemed torn between empathy, irritation and the practical need to
abandon their lessons and respond.
Young people are referred to Centre A when their behaviour can no longer
be accommodated within mainstream education. They are referred from the
local secondary school, however, staff from this secondary school come to
Centre A to teach certain lessons to ensure continuity. The purpose of Centre A
is to provide a structured but nurturing environment for the young people to
continue their learning, to engender social skills, and to encourage working
83
towards goal orientated tasks that will ultimately result in further education or
employment.
Their approach to learning is multi-systemic, in that they
encourage a close relationship with family members, with the community, the
police and local organisations, facilitating the lives of the young people by
engaging with the multi- dimensional aspects of their development.
This is achieved by holding numerous social events such as barbeques, sporting
events and clubs throughout the year and by fostering relationships with parents
by holding open days and through regular communication. The number of pupils
at Centre A is low (approximately 15-20), with staff averaging 5 per lesson, this
ratio allowing for much individual attention. Adolescents referred to Centre A
experience diverse emotional and behavioural problems. Typically these include;
bi-polar disorder, anxiety, depression, emotional and behavioural disorders and
ADHD. Lessons are structured around twenty minute sessions to accommodate
the young peoples’ short attention spans and learning difficulties and are aimed at
achieving simple goals. The ethos is of positive reward, with the environment
divided between a study area and leisure area, where pupils who have
accomplished the tasks set them can unwind.
Hence, I considered it important that the structure of the methods to be used in
the current study were responsive to the needs of the young people, and these
are discussed in the ensuing section.
3.9 The methods
In this study, focus groups and semi-structured interviews were used to
84
gather data. These were preceded by an observation period, which although
not used as data, has brought insight to the research process. Ultimately, two
focus groups were conducted with the young people, two with the participant
counsellors and two semi-structured interviews were run with the participant
counsellors. The young people declined the opportunity to participate in semistructured interviews. The following section now develops the period of
observation conducted at Centre A prior to the study onset.
3.9.1 Observing the young people
The intention of running individual interviews in this study was to supplement
and develop the concerns articulated by the young people during their focus
groups. In section 4.3 I develop the events which contributed to the young
peoples’ decision to forego their interviews. Since these were declined, notes
from the reflective journal compiled during the observation period with the
young people prior to the study onset have been used to contextualise data. Such
reflection bears relation to the research questions since it focusses upon bullying
and aids understanding of the counselling setting. My reflections draw on the
roots of humanistic counselling where I consider, as a counsellor, it is important
to examine the thoughts and ideas that dictate how I feel and what I do.
According to Irving and Williams (1995), such perspective is of significance as it is
challenging for counsellors to evaluate assumptions from their own knowledge of
emotions, as beliefs can manifest as self-evident truths with the risk that
understanding of clients is structured by implicit sense-making. For me, the
reflections based on the observation of the young people, has helped me step
85
beyond the framework, to identify the conception of my thoughts and feelings,
facilitating an unfettered view of the young peoples’ reality that has
provided clarity.
Through discussion with the staff at Centre A, it was concluded that observing the
young people would be undertaken on a casual basis since official observation
may unsettle their behaviour, which was easily disrupted by changes to routine.
They therefore suggested that I was as unobtrusive as possible, allowing the
young people time to acclimatise to my being there. As such, I assumed a
detached role, sitting at the end of, or behind their desks, so as to maintain the
young people’s equilibrium. At this point, the young people knew nothing of my
research, a request again directed by the staff who were keen to gauge their
students’ reactions to me before committing to the research process.
Each period of observation, lasting 2-3 hours, was undertaken weekly over twelve
months. These were located at Centre A, whilst the young people were
undertaking their lessons and leisure activities. Observation notes were logged in
a reflective journal. The learning from this experience is too vast to list in its
entirety, so below, I develop three key events which enhanced my awareness of
young people who bully and their counsellors.
From, the literature in relation to researching vulnerable young people, I
concluded that observing them prior to undertaking the study would facilitate the
formation of trust, an important antecedent given the attested difficulties in
forming trusting relationships for young people who bully (Baldwin et al., 1993;
McLeod & McLeod, 2011; Mearns & Thorne, 2013). Given that my research was
aimed at counselling, an additional rationale was that observation would inform
86
the realities of current practice by illustrating examples of the interpersonal
difficulties experienced by the young people and which may inform future
counselling or anti-bullying interventions.
However, as time elapsed and the young people became more familiar with my
presence, I experienced problems in maintaining a detached role. Firstly, the
young people started asking me questions such as what job I did, whether or not I
had children and where I lived. Knowing how much personal information to
disclose caused concern, as to nurture their trust I could not remain aloof and yet,
to forge a more meaningful relationship with them would be inconsiderate given
that many had experienced rejection and I could only dedicate myself within the
duration of the research. In addition, there were many occasions when the
limited number of staff at Centre A were stretched beyond capacity and my help
could have been put to good use. Lastly, some staff took the opportunity to use
me in my professional role as a counsellor with approaches such as, “Whilst
you’re here, would it be possible to…?”, requests that were very difficult to ignore
given the pressure on staff, and I concur with Pretzlik (1994) when she suggests
that planning the extent of an observer’s participation is almost impossible.
Ultimately, I explained to staff at Centre A that without ethical approval any
intervention I offered would be construed as unacceptable. Thereafter, I kept
interaction to a minimum whilst maintaining social etiquette however, I was
saddened at the restraints my decision imposed as there were several young
people who approached me with overtures at friendship which I felt
compromised to develop.
I was careful not to wear clothes, such as suits that may be associated with power
87
dressing, opting instead for outfits that helped me blend with the environment.
Initially the young people stared at me and were stilted, but, as time elapsed, I
interpreted their disinterest as inurement, enabling observation of the everyday
activities of the group. My notes were taken on an ad hoc basis, adding focus
later by theming them in the observational journal.
For example, I noticed that the behaviour of the young people when in groups
appeared markedly different than when alone, particularly their approach to
learning. Each morning the lead tutor would introduce the topic for study, often
using visual stimuli such as magazine cuttings to support her objectives. One such
was a picture of a famous celebrity whose profile had been air-brushed to appear
slimmer, the intention being to highlight the effect on the actor’s self-esteem at
her change of image. Knowledge of the celebrity, particularly her wealth,
provoked a battery of aggressive insults from the boys and threatening retort
from the girls, the lesson quickly descending to chaos. Hereafter, each student
was issued two sheets to complete, with questions relating to self-esteem and
given the choice as to which they preferred to complete. Being offered choice
seemed to pacify the young people and I noticed them discussing the questions.
Slowly, the atmosphere changed and as the support workers circulated, giving
each young person one-to-one attention, I over-heard sensitive and insightful
comments as to the damaging effects they had incurred through personal
experience. Despite this, in the ensuing group discussion, when the tutor asked
the young people to imagine how others felt in similar situations, the young
people struggled to empathise, falling back on insults.
Subsequent lessons followed a similar pattern and I reflected that when together,
88
the young people defaulted to aggression as if pre-programmed. I felt parallels
evident with bullying where, although considered as an anti-social act,
bullies demonstrated adaptive social skills, which they manipulated to fit
differing contexts. According to Randall (1997, p. 23), bullies struggle to
process social information accurately, their “social blindness” limiting an
awareness as to how they are perceived,
meaning, I suggest, that
idiosyncrasies represent risk amongst this vulnerable group. It was only when
alone that the young people exhibited markedly changed personalities,
implying that they were not homogenous but that their bullying rested on the
context in which it occurred.
Given the inner turmoil the young people’s behaviour caused them, it is hard to
imagine, as Olweus (1993) suggests, that people who bully, knowingly and
accurately manipulate skills to their advantage. I suggest this distinction as
important since attitudes about bullies may inform anti-bullying strategies.
When the staff drank coffee during the young people’s break, there was time to
chat to them about running Centre A. I noted in my observational journal that the
centre lead, Carrie, seemed dedicated to her pupils, a commitment which
transcended her educational responsibilities, embracing genuine caring for their
well-being. Carrie explained, that to satisfy the curriculum, she devoted much
unpaid time at home planning how the syllabus could be delivered in an engaging
and informative way. In addition, I noticed that she modelled heightened
empathy towards the young people, communicating an understanding of their
troubled lives so that, when distressed, the young people turned to her for
support.
During one period of observation, the topic of the day was sex education. Carrie
89
had designed creative information sheets to communicate the essence of the
work without embarrassing the young people or over-stretching their learning
capacity. After several minutes, contraceptive devices, including condoms, were
distributed amongst the young people, the intention being, to discuss the
alternatives
available
to
them.
Despite
Carrie’s
efforts
to
counter
awkwardness, the girls shouted to the boys that contraception would never be
needed by them if the boys in the room were the only available choice and the
boys blew up the condoms, setting them free around the room. As the lesson
degenerated, Carrie suggested a short break may defuse tension however, the
boys took their condoms to the leisure area, piling them on the table and
setting fire to them. Once the fire had been put out, the usually unflappable
Carrie spoke disparagingly to the young people, voicing disappointment and
frustration. I noticed that in the lesson following the break, she was
withdrawn and quiet, hardly surprising, as not only had her effort gone
unrecognised, but she daily absorbed the trauma of the young people’s
behaviour, a repercussion which I consider must impact her resilience.
Despite their reliance upon Carrie’s kindness the young people were seemingly
inconsiderate of her sensibilities and in my reflective journal, I conjectured that
their behaviour may stem from what is known to counsellors as projective
identification, when a client projects their painful experiences (abandonment,
anger, impotence) onto the counsellor as an unconscious quest for understanding
(Aiyegbusi, 2004). It seemed possible that a parallel process may be occurring
between the students and Carrie. According to Cox (1996), for teachers working
with young people experiencing such emotional and behavioural problems,
90
ongoing supervision is essential in managing the personal impact. However,
Fullan (2001) points out that the pressures of dealing with student misbehaviour
limits opportunities for reflection such that teachers become depleted as they
struggle with their anxieties (Fullan 2001; Chang and Davis 2009), leading to
burnout (Olivier & Venter 2003), a symptom of emotional depletion and a loss of
motivation (Maslach et al. 2001). Between her conscientious lesson planning
at home and her dedication at work, it was certainly hard to imagine when
Carrie would find time for self-compassion.
Carrie’s experience highlighted that the work with young people who bully is
endlessly challenging and sometimes frustrating, since they may resist or battle
all attempts at help. Resilience and perseverance are needed that may come at a
personal cost and as a positive outcome can never be predicted, the work may
become unfulfilling, with cynicism replacing hopefulness.
Having witnessed Carrie’s difficulties, I feared that my limited expertise in
facilitating groups may ill equip me to cope with the young people’s behaviour. A
worry when gathering data was that the focus group would descend to chaos or
that the young people would resist disclosure in their individual interviews,
yielding limited data. In sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of the findings, I provide
examples of the young peoples’ adverse reactions during the focus groups and
the emotional impact this occasioned.
I also felt vulnerable at the prospect of facing the young people as, when reacting
collectively, they were a formidable force. My experience in counselling has been
to facilitate my clients, particularly as a humanistic counsellor where the
emphasis is upon non-directiveness (Owen, 1997). I was however aware, that the
91
young people I had counselled were often repressed and oppressed by the
authority figures in their lives and that bullying was partly a wordless response. As
such I faced a dilemma as to gather data, some control of the young people was
necessary and yet I did not want to overpower them, a balancing act I
would suggest as worthy of consideration by any researcher when working
with vulnerable participants. In chapter 4, I describe how the dynamic
between the young people and myself was enacted.
.
One event which shook my beliefs about young people who bully occurred during
my first morning of observation at Centre A. As a counsellor, I am highly attuned to
non-verbal language and noticed tension in the bodies of two boys who,
superficially, appeared to be sparring words.
One (Andy), had squared his
shoulders, clenching and unclenching his fists, and the other (Jason) leant slightly
backward in his chair. The other staff appeared oblivious to this interaction and
responded only to the verbal retorts being exchanged between the two boys, but
as a newcomer, and non-participant observer, I felt powerless to intervene.
Suddenly, the tables separating the two boys were overturned by Andy who fell
upon Jason, beating him savagely, knocking out two teeth and breaking his nose.
Having physically separated the aggressors, staff attempted to diffuse Andy and
Jason’s fury using recognised anger management techniques, without success. I
noticed that the two boys were both heaving with rage and panting. Despite the
immediate necessity to control the situation, attempting to regulate such violent
emotions this way felt like a futile attempt at corking a fizzing bottle, which, given
the boys struggle to resume their fight, seemed to inflame, rather than diminish
92
their anger. In chapter 4, I describe how the legacy of this conflict between the
two boys influenced their relationship later on.
In the face of Andy’s savagery, it was challenging for me to justify his behaviour. I
had witnessed him beating another person, as if possessed by a ferocious and
mindless aggression. When reflecting upon the fight later that day, I was shocked
and disappointed to realise that I had abandoned the more empathic rationale of
his damaged development, and was thinking of Andy as a ‘thug’.
This realisation made me question the foundations of my trustworthiness for, by
using IPA, how I co-constructed my participants’ phenomena was victim to
personal prejudices. So as to ground my footing, I consulted what is known in the
world of counselling as the ‘internal supervisor’, a “friendly super-ego that can be
consulted at times when formal supervision is unavailable” (Rickard, 2012).
Rogers (1951) spoke of the internal supervisor as an inner locus of evaluation
where, by absorbing the external supervisor’s thinking, a counsellor developed
faith in their judgment, reaching a stage of autonomous functioning. Consulting
my internal supervisor this way, I recalled what staff at Centre A had told me of
Andy’s childhood, how he had been provoked and beaten by his parents. He was,
as I had observed, possessed, not by a pointless aggression, but overwhelmed by
an impotent anger that was greater than the sum of his being. I realised that
conceiving of Andy as a thug had been a statement of my fear, affording me a
temporary but blind alignment with the safety of shared societal values, a
collective response so similar to that of young people who bully when under
threat.
In the next section attention is turned to the focus groups used in the current
study, with discussion of their potential for use with vulnerable young people.
93
3.9.2 Focus groups
As discussed in the literature review (2), the majority of studies to date used
large scale surveys to:
a) Determine prevalence rates for bullying (2.2),
b) Describe peer involvement in bullying and anti-bullying interventions,
generally focussing on repercussions for victims (Salmivalli et al., 1996;
Franzoi, 1996) (2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6),
c) Describe a profile of the bully character (2.2).
Focussing on these areas has meant, that with few notable exceptions
(Baumeister et al., 2003), the experiences of young people who bully, their
views and agency have been neglected (James et al, 1998; Mullender at al.,
2002). As previously iterated (3.8) young people have clearly articulated a
desire for their opinions about bullying to be taken seriously and/or
incorporated into service delivery (DoH, 2008). Whether ‘young people’
includes those who actually bully was not made explicit in the Department of
Health report.
When considering the methodology, I therefore chose to address this gap and
others identified in the literature review (2) by recruiting both counsellors and
young people who bully, using IPA to facilitate study of their lived experience.
The intention was that close analysis of the participants’ scripts, would enable
as authentic account of their subjective world as possible, hence contributing
to knowledge.
Darbyshire et al., (2005) consider that using a single method with young
people does not
capture
the
full
riches
of
their
experiences
94
and
recommends a combination of several methods in pursuit of this goal.
Gathering multiple data also complements current policy initiatives where
appreciation of the ethical need for broad research techniques by which to
improve understanding of young peoples’ wellbeing surfaces as a legal and
philosophical imperative (Lansdown, 1994). Later in this chapter (3.9), I
discuss how plans to use individual interviews with the young participants were
thwarted.
There is debate as to whether focus groups can yield data compatible with the
idiographic philosophy of IPA (Smith, 2008; Bradbury-Jones et al., 2008). This
view is endorsed by Webb and Kevern (2001), who argue that group
participants can influence interaction whereas IPA seeks the essential and
“uncontaminated” (p.666) characteristics of phenomena.
Other researchers (Kooken et al., 2007; Jasper, 1996; Côté-Arsenault &
Morrison- Beedy, 2001) have combined the use of IPA and focus groups,
justifying their choice as allowing participants to share the issues raised,
thereby enabling interaction and reducing the anxiety aroused by discussion of
sensitive topics. Arguably however, such values could be attributed to
qualitative research in general and the question remained as to how focus
groups specifically fitted with IPA.
According to Sorrell and Redmond (1995), a focus group provides space for
participants to hear other’s stories, allowing time to reflect on their own
perspectives prior to contributing an opinion (Jasper, 1996). I therefore
95
considered, that using focus groups would allow participants to unfold their
story both in a group context and as a single narrative such that individual
perspectives could be preserved (Spiegelberg, 1975; Halling et al., 1994).
Young people like focus groups because of the discussion they generate,
consequently they perceive them as enjoyable and inclusive (Punch, 2002), thus
enabling confidence (Lester, 1999). Given the language difficulties experienced
by the young participants (3.8, 4.3), I suggest that the focus group setting may
also afford them a supported voice through which to express their feelings.
Morgan (1998, 1996) adds that it is the researcher’s attention to such
interaction which sets focus groups apart from other group interviews as it
enhances understanding when analysing data (Kitzinger, 1994; Agar &
MacDonald, 1995). With experience facilitating counselling groups, I felt I could
transfer these skills to conduct the focus groups. If I were too overwhelmed
by the focus group process to notice group dynamics, a volunteer observer
from amongst university colleagues was appointed to note them. Although
these annotations did not represent data, they were most insightful.
A potential weakness using focus groups was that quieter members might speak
infrequently, undermining the opportunity for an idiographic account of their
experiences (Carey & Smith, 1994; Crabtree et al., 1993). I realised that as the
young participants both studied and socialised together, their relationship had
an historical context where quieter members assumed a less prominent
hierarchical place than the more assertive. I intuited that this scenario may be
replicated in the focus group and when analysing the data, I noted that
96
absence of diverse opinion did not necessarily indicate consensus. I also
referred to notes the observer had taken regarding consensus to assess which
participants had consistently contributed and which not.
Additionally, I took care to identify group opinion from individual opinion and in
section 4.2, provide an example of where these two influences caused some
conflict.
I was concerned that, as with peer group anti-bullying interventions, the focus
group may provide a stage for those who bully (2.12). Dishion and colleagues
(1999) researched the development of adolescent problem behaviour and
found such conduct embedded within the peer group. Hence, I was particularly
apprehensive as the young participants were a pre-established group.
Additionally, when running a focus group with boys exhibiting anti-social
tendencies, Dishion et al., (1999) noted a radical increase in problem behaviour
after only 25 minutes. I conjectured that similar difficulties might affect the
focus group, (or indeed, group counselling) with young people who bully. Such
misgivings were realised and in section 4.3, I discuss how I felt intimidated
by the participants.
Methodological concern (Pringle et al., 2011) regarding focus groups arises as
the purposive sampling espoused by IPA results in group homogeny,
potentially too specific or unique for transferability. However, Smith et al.,
(2009) do not espouse generalisability. Instead, they advocate theoretical
transferability, where, provided the research account is sufficiently rich and
transparent, readers should be able to assess transferability to other contexts
(Pringle et al., 2011), with wider implications.
97
3.9.2.1 Stimulus materials used in the young peoples’ focus group
Staff at Centre A highlighted that the young people experienced learning
difficulties, and challenging psychological problems such as ADHD (3.8) and I
was concerned that these may jeopardise articulation of the participants’
feelings and therefore understanding of their experiences of counselling.
Importantly, less representative data would also compromise the quality of
analysis. A significant factor influencing how effectively the voice of young
people is heard is the extent to which the method encapsulates their world
(Garbarino et al., 1992). Consequently, a key consideration was the need for
adaptations to the focus groups which would complement the participant’s
perspectives and capabilities. Smith (2004) himself considers how IPA can be
developed so as to expand horizons for its use and recognises this necessity
when working with young people with learning difficulties.
Whilst observing the young people at Centre A, I noticed how their attention
was more ably concentrated when stimulus materials were used. For example,
when discussing self-worth, their teacher read the beginning of a story about
a famous actress whose image had been air-brushed to appear slimmer. The
young people were asked to complete the exercise by discussing how she may
have felt. I considered that the use of vignettes might enable the participants
to respond to sensitive issues from a third person perspective, ultimately
relating from an “I” perspective. Research (Barter et al., 2004; Finch, 1987; Hill,
2006; Punch, 2002) testifies to such techniques as making young people
more comfortable talking about themselves such that they expand their
98
responses.
Punch (2002) explored the use of various stimulus materials with
adolescents experiencing emotional and behavioural problems, as well as
learning difficulties, the similarities between her work and my own, enabling
insight. Punch (2002) showed participants three short video vignettes
depicting subject material related to her research topic with prompts to guide
discussion. She found this method triggered memories amongst the
participants similar to the video content. I was tempted by the short video clips
as the young participant’s struggled with long-term concentration. Moreover,
as the study topics were sensitive, talking from a third person perspective
might allay anxiety. I rejected this idea however as I had observed that the
young people were distracted by the characters in popular media videos at the
expense of the content. Also, as the young peoples’ focus groups would be
divided into two twenty minute sessions to accommodate participants with
attention deficit disorder, three short videos were too time-consuming in a
programme already constrained for time.
Hazel (1996) suggests using problem page letters from teenage magazines as
stimulus materials as these explore young people’s problems from an
adolescent perspective that stimulates conversation. Although tempted by this
method, the varying competency levels of the adolescents at Centre A meant
the majority lacked fluency and literacy skills or the concentration necessary to
have a whole letter read to them.
However, I considered Hazel’s (1996) approach had potential and adapted it
using single sentences about bullying from Twitter that would engage the
99
young people’s interest without taxing their capabilities. I reasoned that
Twitter was a popular and familiar medium, but without defined characters to
distract participants from the focus group purpose. Additionally, sentences
from Twitter would allow the adolescents to decide whether to talk about
young peoples’ problems in general or their own personal experiences.
I chose two phrases that I thought represented a diverse attitude to bullying
and that may trigger conversation from differing perspectives.
Bullying is a hate crime.
Some bullies have serious problems of their own and suffer too.
I hoped the stimulus material would generate trust and enable discussion
(Faulkner, 2004) to form the basis for prompts during follow-up individual
interviews (Punch, 2002). Nonetheless, I considered such emotive statements
could elicit an angry response and was reassured that the support staff would
offer a personal safety element for the observer and me. I was also prepared to
use my experience of counselling aggressive clients as an additional measure.
Following discussion of the Twitter phrases, the young participants would
then be asked how they would
feel disclosing
their
responses to
a
counsellor. An interesting observation would be if a question evoked a
particular response from one participant as opposed to another as this might
highlight whether difficulty speaking of aggression (2.9) was confined to the
100
client/counsellor relationship or common to other relationships such as that
between the participants and I.
My concern was that asking the young participants to describe their life-worlds
may be beyond their expressive capabilities. The effects of trauma
(abusive/neglectful childhoods) upon young people changes the brain’s
architecture during development, stunting growth of the neurons responsible
for expressing emotion (Bloom, 2000). Bloom (2000) recommends overcoming
such challenges by introducing creative techniques allowing lived experiences
to be explored without causing unnecessary anxiety. Consequently, I opted to
use story stems, whereby moving IPA “from
its philosophical roots through to a more user friendly approach” (Smith in
Pringle et al., 2011, p. 22). Furthermore, van Manen (2007, p. 17) urges
phenomenologists to “direct their gaze towards the regions where meaning
originates” and I suggest that by using story stems, the present study extends
the use of IPA as a developing methodology.
Given the relationship between insecure attachment and aggressive behaviour
(Sedikes et al., 2004) (2.2, 2.10), understanding how the attachment
experiences of young people who bully manifest in counselling is significant to
this study. Story Stem Technique has been piloted to assess how attachment
experiences manifest in relationship to others and is hence relevant to the
young research participants (Buchsbaum & Emde, 1990).
Based upon previous developmental, psycholinguistic and play therapy (Nelson,
1985; Nelson & Gruendel, 1981; Watson & Fischer, 1980; Winnicott, 1971;
Wolfe & Grollman, 1982), Buchsbaum and Emde (1990) used child narrative
101
to construct story stems. These represented the beginnings of stories that a
child then completed. The Story Stem Technique revealed that by 36
months old, an infant was able to tell a story about themselves and others
that included; reference to the social expectations defining their own and
other’s behaviour (Emde, 1992; Kinnert et al., 1983), showing empathy (ZahnWaxler et al., 1979), and an understanding of
conflict reduction by
balancing self-interest with cooperation (Dunn, 1988). Consequently the child’s
ability to tell a story about themselves and others served distinct and
important purposes (Buchsbaum & Emde, 1990): It allowed them to make
sense of their world; it provided children with the opportunity to relate their
experiences autonomously and, afforded researchers insight into early
internalisation modes, most specifically, the child’s moral development and
attachment relationships.
Emde (1992) supported this opinion and identified that, because the majority
of maltreated children experienced insecure attachment and emotional
dysregulation (Carlson et al., 1989), Story Stem Technique was ideally suited
to explore their inner worlds (Emde, 1992), causing little anxiety for the
children during research as completing stories was a concept familiar to
them. Consequently, it facilitated data collection.
As many of the young people at Centre A experienced severe learning
difficulties that caused anxiety, I decided that telling stories would minimise
their distress during the study. As story stems introduce a preconceived topic,
they could be conceived as directive however, Smith (2008) states, that
102
when using IPA with groups such as young people with learning difficulties,
researchers may need to take a stronger role to guide them than is usual. He
suggests that existing protocols “will need to be adapted” (p.49) to become
more interventionist when collecting data.
The Story Stems to be used included; The Exclusion Story (Buchsbaum and Emde,
1990) and the Parent Conflict Story (Bretherton et al., 1990) as these were
specific to family relationships and attachment, hence consonant with the
research objectives. Tailoring these to appropriately target the study
participants did necessitate modification of the original templates as these
were currently designed for much younger children and I present the
modifications to the original templates in appendix 8.
3.9.2.2 Story Stems: Original templates: The Exclusion Story: (Buchsbaum & Emde (1990)
Exclusion Story
Characters: Mother, Father, Dick
Props: Couch, toy box
Father: I’m home from work honey
Mother: Hi Dear! (Mom and Dad hug whilst Dick watches)
Father: Hi Dick. Mom and I want some time alone in the living room right
now. You go in there and play with your toys
Experimenter: (Mom and Dad walk to the living room and sit on the couch.
Dick is put by toy box behind the couch in a “different” room). Show me
what happens now
[If Dick goes to his parents] I thought Mom and Dad said they wanted to be
alone
[If Dick plays alone] Does Dick wish he could be with Mom and Dad?
103
3.9.2.3 Original version of the Parent Conflict Story (Bretherton et al., 1990)
Parent Conflict Story
Characters: Mother, Father, Dick, George
Mother and Father are facing each other in glare positions: sibling is observing
Experimenter: Dick comes into the room and sees Mother and Father looking at
each other like this. Look at my face
Mom: (Angrily). You lost my car keys!
Dad (Angrily). No I did not!
Experimenter (hands Dick to child subject) Show me what happens now
Prompt: What’s going to happen about Mom and Dad’s argument? How did Dick
feel when Mom and Dad were arguing?
Gathering data using the focus groups proved far more challenging than I had
anticipated. Firstly, although the initial focus groups had been scheduled, a
period of heavy snow necessitated constant cancellations. As the counsellors
work schedule was hectic and the young people adhered to a strict curriculum,
finding a convenient time to re-schedule took several months and much
negotiation.
I predicted that the young people’s behaviour could cause problems during
the focus group, and considered that my training in anger management and
as a counsellor of aggressive youth would prove useful. However, I was
unprepared for the enormity of the young people’s distrust which resulted in
twenty minutes virtual silence at the beginning of the first focus group
when I feared no data would be gathered. My observer, who has extensive
104
experience working with young people, advised me during the break to
temporarily abandon the schedule I had prepared and ask the participants
general questions instead. Smith and Osborn (2003) likewise recommend this
strategy in IPA when they write of ‘funneling’, by introducing general
questions to assuage anxiety before progressing to more specific issues. When
the focus group resumed, I simply asked the participants to describe
themselves, my change of stance triggering conversation. Sim (1998)
recognises that the personal skills and attributes of the focus group moderator
are crucial elements when collecting qualitative data. However, the young
people’s silence was itself a statement of their distrust.
A particular challenge lay in striking the balance between taking an active and a
passive role as researcher as, despite Smith’s (2004)previous advise about a
more directive stance when researching young people with learning
difficulties, I wanted neither to dominate (Goldman, 1962) nor
to
be
submissive. Consequently, when in the second focus group the young people
once again lapsed into prolonged silence, I decided to abandon the tape
recorder and take notes instead. This choice was based upon research by
Schroeder and Neil, (1992) who found anxious participants particularly
suspicious of tape recorders, questioning them as the optimum data collection
method. Upon their return, the participants were noticeably relieved and the
second half of the second focus group did yield some very interesting data.
A final quandary arose from having support workers in the room. Although
their presence seemed to facilitate trust, enabling the young people to respond
to my questions, on one occasion a support worker re-worded my question,
105
his re-phrasing altering the original meaning. Ultimately, this support
worker’s presence created an ethical dilemma which I describe in section 4.4
Each focus group for the young people took place in a room delegated by
Centre A where participants could not be overheard. The area was arranged
to create a casual atmosphere non-resonant of school. Research with young
people which neglects such environmental factors can negatively impact data
collection (Barker & Weller, 2003). Times were agreed with staff at Centre A
that ensured the participants would miss as little schooling as possible. Due to
their learning difficulties staff advised that the young people would be unable
to concentrate for more than 20 minutes at a time. Consequently, each
focus group was divided into two twenty minute sessions separated by a
twenty minute break. I provided a small buffet for the participants during
this interlude as a show of my appreciation.
3.9.3 The focus group for the counsellors
The focus groups for the counsellors took place at Counsellor A’s home,
agreed by them as the most convenient location. Each focus group lasted
between 60 to 90 minutes. Although neither counsellor had special needs,
their sensitivities were respected and ethical protocol adhered to at all times.
An independent observer was present during the focus groups as I considered
that to take notes would detract from my concentration.
I decided that using interviews would complement the use of focus groups
in this study. Interviews are considered consistent with the spirit of IPA
106
(Brocki & Weardon, 2006) and I reasoned that they would both provide an
opportunity for quieter participants to be heard, and distinguish individual
opinions from those of the group
(Boyce & Neale, 2006). The following
section therefore considers interviews as a phenomenological method of
inquiry.
3.9.4
Individual in-depth interviews
IPA is ideally suited to individual in-depth interviews (Smith, 2008), for “delving
deeper into the particular also takes us closer to the universal” (Warnock,
1987, p. 314). Smith and Osborn (2003) describe how a semi-structured
approach to interviewing allows the researcher to “[…] engage in dialogue
whereby initial questions are modified in the light of
the
participants’
responses and the investigator is able to probe interesting and important areas
which arise” (p. 57). This provides flexibility, for although the interview is based
upon a number of pre-prepared questions, these are intended only as
guidance, freeing the researcher to pose questions in any order whilst also
recognising the participant as “experiential expert” (Smith & Osborn, p.59). In
other words, areas considered important by the participant, but which were
not predicted by the researcher can surface, facilitating rich description and
yielding in-depth accounts of participants’ lived experiences (Di-Cicco-Bloom
& Crabtree, 2006; Lambert & Loiselle, 2008). Giorgi and Giorgi (2003) consider
that it is such flexible interplay between researcher and participant that enables
individual detail and shared humanity to merge, linking IPA’s idiographic tenet
to the hermeneutic circle (3.4.1.1).
107
When using IPA, Smith and Osborn (2003) advise as little prompting
from the interviewer as possible to avoid leading the participant. However, I felt
that, in certain IPA
transcripts
I
read,
communicated an aloofness compared
contribution.
the
interviewer’s
distance
to the interviewee’s generous
Just how actively the researcher engages is open to debate
(Finlay, 2009). Finlay (2009) questions whether the researcher positions
themselves in the background or the forefront, fearing the extent to which
the researcher’s proximity affects the gathering of data. Giorgi (1994)
proposes it is “how the [researcher] is present that matters as objectivity itself
is an achievement of subjectivity” (p.205). Conversely, Heidegger (1962) does
not consider the researcher’s presence as an “additional pleasure” but as
constituting
an
inevitable
and
basic
structure of their “being-in the-
world” (p. 37); such diverse opinions leaving me a little confused. Ultimately, I
reasoned that the poor communication skills and trust issues experienced by
the participants necessitated I take a more directive
and
involved
approach. Researchers (Etherington, 1996; Finch, 1984; Lofland & Lofland,
1995; Oakley, 1981) recognise how such dilemmas cause considerable
unease for some researchers whose predicament regarding data gathering
overwhelms
the ethical considerations
regarding
the
‘people’.
This
quandary is recognised by Larkin and colleagues (2006) who refer to interviews
using IPA as “complex social events” (p.115). Smith (1995) recommends a set
of open-ended questions are prepared that are appropriately adapted to
individual participants as this encourages spontaneity (Ryan et al., 2009),
facilitating participant’s descriptions of their lived experiences (Steubert &
Carpenter, 1995) as opposed to researcher led discussion (Baumbusch, 2012).
108
In addition, the interview guide focusses the researcher’s attention upon what it
is hoped the interview may cover and, provided the researcher is sufficiently
familiar with these questions, frees them to concentrate upon the participant
during the interview itself. More specifically, it alerts the researcher to
potential complications arising from sensitive areas, allowing forethought as
to how these could best be managed (Smith, 1995).
Interviewing in IPA is firmly grounded in rapport, consequently Smith and
Osborn (2003) advise that more sensitive questions are posed later in the
interview process after an empathic relationship has developed with
participants. Further support can be offered in the form of prompts, although
these should involve only a “gentle nudge” (Smith & Osborn, 2003, p.61)
rather than anything suggestive. Rubin and Rubin (2005) point out however
that leaving in-depth questions to last carries the risk that participants will
leave the interview upset.
They advise allowing time at the end of the
interview to chat to interviewees so as to ground them in their own world.
The semi-structured interview guides used in this study (see appendices 9 and
10) were based upon Smith and Osborn’s (2003) guidelines which I have
previously outlined. Questions for the interview guide originally derived from
the research objectives although, I decided not to include the word ‘bully’ in
the young people’s schedule, partly to avoid stigmatism but also because I
thought it would be interesting to see if the young participants described
themselves as victims or bullies. I considered it very important to see how
discourse shaped, or did not shape, their perception of their behaviours.
Lastly, I considered that the catch phrases from Twitter used in the focus
109
groups that overtly mentioned bullying would stimulate conversation around the
topic.
Following the focus groups with both the young people and their counsellors,
specific concerns surfaced that I felt it important to include. The first addition
evolved from an inconsistent account of how the counsellors were affected by
counselling young people who bully. When asked in the first focus group
Counsellors A and B professed little impact however, later in the same focus
group and again in the second, they spoke of exhaustion and the techniques
used to overcome this. When revisiting the transcript I noticed how Counsellor
A in particular spoke of her debt to society and I wondered if the counsellors’
roles were in any way defined by societal expectation. Attempting to make
sense of this notion, I probed the concept of calmness during the
counsellors’ interviews and this unearthed unanticipated data relating to
emotional management (4.4) and professionalism, since used to expand the
findings and discussion as well forming the basis for an academic paper.
With relation to the young people, a second addition to the interview guide
related to confidentiality as this surfaced as an area of particular concern. The
theme was recurrent throughout both focus groups and was central to the
distrust the young people experienced in relation to others. The desire to
pursue this topic partly stemmed from my profession, for as a counsellor I
was concerned as to why young people who received regular counselling
seemed so unclear about confidentiality.
When expanding the interview
110
questions, I was mindful that my academic knowledge of counselling young
people could influence questions. Straying from grounded IPA (Smith, 2008)
towards a more psychological perspective could mean that interpretation of
data came from two different epistemological perspectives, which might
compromise validity. Ultimately, these concerns were not realised as when I
asked the young people following the last focus group if they still agreed to
participate in interviews, they all declined. Following sensitive enquiry, the
young people made it clear that they had had enough, but I felt immense
gratitude towards them for allowing me into their lives. Upon reflection I
thought that manually transcribing the focus group data had aided the
analytic flow and illuminated the subtle nuances of their narrative.
In
sections 5.4 and 5.5, I write about how the young people’s conception of
confidentiality contributed to this thesis.
Counsellor A invited me to her home to conduct her interview. Before
commencing, she made a pot of tea and we chatted in her conservatory. This
helped “set the scene” (Smith, 1995, p. 16) and to establish a relaxed
atmosphere. When transcribing the data, I carried an image of the setting
which helped contextualise the data. Counsellor B had intended likewise to be
interviewed at Counsellor A’s home however a change to her work schedule
necessitated I visit her at work (Centre B) where the interview was conducted
in one of the counselling rooms. Although Counsellor B had done her best to
ensure we were not interrupted, the temperature on the day demanded the
windows were opened and I found the noise of the traffic and passers-by
111
intruded upon my concentration. These can be heard in the background of the
recording.
Counsellor B strongly vocalised her disappointment regarding her professional
status and although this had not been included on the interview schedule, I
deviated from the original as the concern was important to the participant and
therefore, the overall aim of the study. Smith (1995) advises that researchers
retain awareness as to the interviewee’s well-being and as Counsellor B
seemed extremely angered by the topic of professionalism, I started to wind
down the interview, chatting of inconsequential things to ground her before
she returned to work.
The counsellor’s interviews were tape recorded by me and lasted approximately
60 minutes each. Although they had signed consent forms at the outset
agreeing to participate in both focus groups and interviews, Counsellors A and
B were re-consulted before interviewing took place.
Despite such careful planning, the methods used in this study did not always run
smoothly and in the section below, I discuss the learning derived from my
experiences. In addition, I consider the young people’s potential responsiveness
to counselling.
3.10 Critical Section: An evaluation of the methods
Over the duration of both focus groups, a particular difficulty for me, was in
maintaining the attention of the young people, primarily as their learning
difficulties and ADHD (3.8) made protracted concentration of great difficulty to
them. Subsequently, their interest in the research process periodically waxed and
112
waned. Certain questions ignited their interest, triggering conversation and
animated engagement with the topic of bullying, between them and with
myself, and although the young people appeared derisive of the stimuli
material, when used, they were noticeably incentivised. However, their
response to these prompts was sometimes volatile, triggering hostile retort
parried between them, but also aimed at the support worker, there to
preserve their emotional well- being. Knowing how best to contain these
upsurges was challenging as having witnessed the potential for aggression
when observing the young people, I was mindful how quickly tempers could
flare and yet, I was reluctant to suppress participants whose development
had already been curbed through punitive parenting.
When reflecting how the stimuli material had nurtured debate, I wondered if
these had represented a form of play therapy for the young people which,
particularly for individuals with ADHD, facilitates effective communication and
interactional skills (Naderi et al., 2010). Naderi et al., (2010) highlight how,
play therapy is used in counselling for young people with ADHD, as resolving
their problems through play enables creative solutions, improves self-efficacy
and enhances empathy. Consequently, I suggest that introducing play therapy
to the focus group, modified for the young people, may have maintained
their responsiveness, also providing a conduit for the expression of their emotion.
There were many times during the focus group when the young people’s
commitment appeared diminished, and when they would play on their mobile
phones, or relapsed to goading each other. Sometimes, I intuited the questions to
have violated their privacy, when the distraction of their mobile phones was, in
113
reality, a defence mechanism erected to blockade intrusion. I suggest the young
people’s reactivity to imposition was amplified since they had already built
barriers having been referred for counselling by the authority figures in their lives.
At others, ADHD limited their ability to remain focused and they fidgeted,
getting up and down from their seats and detaching from the focus group
process. Additionally, participants who are posed questions about sensitive
topics are
notoriously discomforted, often provoking defensiveness and
sometimes, disengagement (Helweg-Larsen et al., 2002).
Watson et al., (2001) have found that when posed sensitive questions online,
young people are more forthcoming as they experience enhanced privacy and
guaranteed anonymity (Michaud, 1999). For young people who bully, and who
are pre-programmed to defensiveness, I suggest that online research questions
may have facilitated their responsiveness to sensitive questions. Nonetheless, as
Watson et al., point out, when using online research, replies may be limited by
the restriction of linear questions and participants struggling to read could feel
marginalised.
I suggest that the conditions in which the focus groups with the young people
were conducted were far from ideal, possibly adding to the difficulties of the
research. Such challenges primarily emanated from the extreme distrust the young
people experienced, which not only deterred them from self-disclosing in their
focus groups but also l e d t h e m to engage in disruptive behaviour to avoid
the risk of so doing (See 4.2 as an example). This sometimes caused the focus
group to fragment, and on one occasion, to altogether stop (4.4.2), a situation
that demanded advanced sensitivity to manage and which triggered considerable
114
anxiety for me. An additional difficulty I faced, was the proximity of the focus
group room to the classroom in Centre A, which threatened the young
peoples’ confidentiality, exacerbating mistrust and heightening their perceived
risk in contributing to discussion.
For example, the ethics committee had stipulated that to ensure the young
people’s safety, the focus group sessions took place in a room with a window.
In Centre A, the only room meeting these criteria was next to the main
classroom and leisure area, meaning that the young participants were in full
view of the other students when they entered the room. As the participants
walked across their classroom to enter the focus group room, they were jibed
by their peers who called out sarcastically, “In you go for your counselling
then” and “Tell her (the researcher) all your secrets”. Jason and Andy
demonstrated obvious embarrassment in response to such ridicule, retaliating
with insults, and, once in the focus group room, demonstrated their lack of
commitment to the research by disengaging.
Similar patterns of behaviour can be witnessed in counselling, since insecure
attachment is characterised by a fluctuating self- image (APA, 1994), such that
safeguarding the delicate identity of such clients in counselling is a cornerstone of
trust. For example, Andy displayed defensive behaviour throughout the focus
group, his sensitivity to anticipated rejection manifest as a self-destructive barrier
against intimacy that kept others at bay. As a counsellor, I suggest he
would present as resistant. Such behaviour is described by counsellors in
research as overwhelming and disempowering and frequently jeopardises the
sustainability of the therapeutic relationship, since change requires commitment
115
From the client (Langley & Klopper, 2005). However, given Andy’s expectation of
rejection,
establishing trust
with him would represent
an essential
requirement for the maintenance of any relationship and was affirmed as a vital
anchor by Counsellors A and B. According to Langley and Kooper (2005), to
facilitate trust with doubting clients such as Andy, consistency is key, since
the counsellor must counter expectation by being accessible, reliable and
honest in order for the client to feel emotionally and physically safe. In
addition, maintaining strict confidentiality helps contain risk and it is only once
satisfied that the counsellor is empathic and trustworthy that a foundation for
the therapeutic contract can be laid (Langley & Klopper, 2005). Concerns about
the stigma and humiliation young people experience entering counselling
rooms situated within sight of other students, have been identified in previous
research (Vogel et al., 2007) where the practical consideration of location when
providing counselling is emphasised. I suggest that trust formation starts by
respecting the privacy of clients, and recognising their needs beyond the
immediacy of the counselling room, by providing a secluded location that can
be accessed discretely and that may encourage responsiveness to counselling.
In addition, towards the end of the second focus group with the young people, a
student burst into the room asking for money for the pool table. As a pot
with coins, intended for this use, was located in the staff room outside, but
mainly as the intruder was the same student who had chided the young
people when entering the focus group room, I considered the student’s
interruption to primarily be that of a mole, to report back the findings to his
remaining peers. This threatened the young people as not only had they been
caught engaging in discussion, whereby compromising their street credibility,
116
but also as their confidentiality had been violated. Following the interruption
the participants’ behaviour noticeably changed, a shift evident through their
pretended nonchalance, marked by playing with their mobile phones and
disengaging from the research process. Equilibrium was never regained and it
was shortly after this event that Jason declared the focus group at an end. In
section 4.3 the subject of confidentiality is more fully developed.
These occurrences reinforced the fragility of the young people’s trust,
which seemingly teetered on a knife’s edge, only stable when their
confidentiality was safeguarded but quickly abandoned when it was not. Given
the precariousness of the young peoples’ trust, I question the repercussions for
counselling, since, as a counsellor, I have witnessed that re-engagement with
the challenging familial relationships the young people encounter once
counselling ends may denature their flimsy confidence. Although, like Rogers
(1973), I too see trust as a key component of the therapeutic relationship, I
would argue that for this to be sustainable, existing as a viable element of
autonomy, the aim for counsellors is to enable trust propensity in their clients,
as a stable characteristic, that can be transferred to other relationships.
This introduces significant challenges for counsellors since a disinclination to
trust is implicit with insecure attachment. However, with trust propensity
considered to be the most relevant trust antecedent, particularly when
forming relationships with unfamiliar others (Bigley
& Pearce, 1998), I argue that meeting their prospective counsellors in advance of
their treatment may reduce perceptions of the self/other divide and establish the
foundations for trust on which to base the therapeutic dyad, a suggestion
117
concurred by three of the four young participants (4.3). In addition,
counsellors must ensure that they are consistently reliable throughout
treatment so that clients’ perceptions of them as trustworthy are maximised.
The issue of trust propensity was exemplified by Jason whose distrust of his
counsellors was amplified by his perception of them as occupying an
elevated social class which he conceived as distancing their ability to
empathise with his world. He imagined that counsellors would toy with his
emotions, using his disclosures to spice their lives by telling others his secrets.
However, his distrust was pitted against his desire for proximity and
attention,
causing
him considerable confusion.
In the focus group, he
oscillated between childlike attention gaining and resistance. Neither seemed
to afford him satisfaction as I noticed he was always anxious, and after
displaying either of these behaviours, checked to gauge the reaction he had had
upon both the participants and myself. His desperation to please seemed to
cause him to emulate the stronger participants, for example, if Andy
spoke derisively, so did Jason, whereas, if Courtney was insightful, again,
Jason would follow suit. I consider his self-worth was only ever as strong as those
around him.
I suggest that for Jason, a stable relationship with his counsellor may be the single
most important factor for positive change. The supportive model this dyad
afforded could foster a constructive representation for Jason of himself in
relation to others. To enable responsiveness would mean accurately
identifying Jason’s internal emotions such that a counsellor could communicate
with him more effectively. Additionally, identifying how Jason attributed the
intent of others’
118
behaviour, exploring over controlled and under controlled reactions to events
and individuals, ultimately developing more balanced emotion regulation.
For counsellors, Jason’s inconsistent identity could cause confusion and
frustration, such that a deeper awareness of their own representations of
insecurely attached clients may profit the therapeutic relationship. Setting
achievable goals would be paramount as unrealistic expectations may reinforce
Jason’s frail self-worth and associated maladaptive behaviours (Howes & Ritchie,
1999).
Further compromise occurred as the proximity to the classroom of the focus
group room meant that some noises from outside could be heard. For instance,
the pool table was positioned next to the focus group room so that, during break
time, the clatter of balls was discernable by the participants, signalling leisure
time. It seemed more than coincidental that Jason’s declaration that the
focus group had come to an end concurred with the clank of balls from outside
and may even have contributed to the decision to forego the ensuing interviews.
The formation of trust was further tested, where, at the behest of the ethics
committee, the presence of a support worker was requested throughout the
focus groups with the young people to safeguard their emotional well-being.
Since the young people and the support worker shared a pre- established
relationship from the classroom spanning several years, this was imported to the
focus group so that when I asked questions of the young people, they sometimes
deferred to the support worker for understanding rather than to me, potentially
influencing data. Given what I had observed as the young peoples’ likely
insecure attachment such deference is unsurprising as their historical relationship
with the support worker represented a secure attachment that I could only
119
aspire to in the time frame available.
Although I agree that beneficence is a paramount consideration for any
participant, as a novice researcher I unquestioningly acquiesced to the expertise
of the ethics committee, even though I foresaw that the presence of the support
worker may introduce challenges. Finding the confidence to contest such
authority is daunting and yet, I suggest that the pre-existing knowledge of
researchers is of equal relevance and should not be surrendered if thought
appropriate. With worthiness as a central tenet of all attachment states
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), I suggest reconsideration is needed as to
how the ethical commitment to safety can be maintained without
compromising the credibility of insecurely attached participants for whom
confidentiality is a crucial element of research.
Before conducting the focus groups and individual interviews with
the counsellors, I firstly spent time researching the organisation where they
worked to gain some understanding of the social and contextual factors
that may influence the counsellors’ lives. In addition, I met with the counsellors
on an informal basis, so as to familiarise myself with how they looked and
sounded and vice versa. I believe that acquainting ourselves this way
contributed to an initial rapport which aided the data gathering process
throughout.
Having counselled young people who bully, I was already aware of the
therapeutic dynamics this relationship could generate and our shared
understanding created a further affinity which I suggest fashioned a bridge
between the theory of research and practice. Nonetheless, I was mindful that our
120
shared professions may create tension, since our presumed knowledge may
imbalance the power dynamic. For example, I was concerned that the counsellors
may feel intimidated being facilitated by a fellow counsellor and constrained
to give a ‘right’ answer. In fact, there were several occasions when counsellor
A, in particular, questioned the validity of her opinions and asked me if she was
making sense.
Rapport was aided as counsellors A and B worked and occasionally
socialised together, their familiarity introducing a less inhibited dynamic.
Because of this pre-existing relationship, I was sometimes able to tap into
fragments of their interaction in a way that introduced a working reality to
the data. For example, when asking the counsellors how they discerned their
client’s perceptions of counselling, Counsellor A produced a measurement
scale used daily during her sessions, which contextualised the question being
asked. In this way, I was also able to relate actual incidents in their shared
daily lives that further enhanced empathy between us.
Having prepared a question guide, I had landmarks to guide the discourse
however, these were barely needed as the counsellors quickly and
enthusiastically developed each question and the conversation seemed naturally
to expand. At the start I was overwhelmed by the discussion and struggled to
pick the key points to reflect back. In addition, I was watching the clock and
aware that both counsellors had only an hour and a half before appointment
deadlines. Thus, I agree with Dilley (2000) when he states that, “Interviewing
is a complex process that involves multiple, simultaneous patterns of thought
on the part of the researcher” (p.134).
121
To enhance clarification of the counsellor’s narrative, it was occasionally
necessary to probe deeper and I suggest that the participants felt comfortable
and confident in expanding their replies. For example, they often challenged each
other about their beliefs, pointing out discrepancies or proposing connections,
such as their differing approaches to setting boundaries (4). However, my
interest was not confined to how the counsellors thought but why and I suggest
that the differences they verbalised provided a live script which showed how
diverse identities might impact young people who bully.
Facilitating the counsellor’s focus group was not entirely unproblematic however
since their language and frameworks for understanding were radically different.
For example, Counsellor B expressed her views quite forcibly and I struggled to
acclimatise. I suggest that her use of language was far from irrelevant but vividly
demonstrated the challenges posed by her client group, whereby enhancing
insight as to the lived experiences of counsellors when facing young people who
bully. Occasionally there was disagreement between the two counsellors. When
such inconsistencies occurred, it was down to me to progress debate beyond the
stage it might otherwise have ended and encourage discussion that developed
their thinking. This was not always easy, but by verbally formulating their ideas
the counsellor’s challenged even their own realities. For example, on
several occasions, Counsellor A observed that she had not considered certain
perspectives prior to developing these during the focus group. I suggest this
highlights the collective element of the focus group in revealing dimensions of
understanding that may otherwise have remained untapped.
When preparing to conduct the individual interviews, I was aware that the
122
dynamic between the counsellors and myself felt initially more formal. For
example, whilst waiting to start the tape recorder, I noticed that Counsellor A
was sitting upright and attentive in her chair whereas, during the focus group
she had appeared more relaxed. I suggested we chat over a cup of tea before
initiating the interview proper and this successfully defused any tension.
Nonetheless, during her interview, Counsellor A was reflective, pausing often
to think before developing her ideas. For example, it was only once alone
that counsellor A articulated the fatigue she experienced from working with
aggressive young people. I reflected that whilst together, she and counsellor
B had upheld their initial claims of inconsequential effect, but once apart, they
could risk shedding the shared emotional veneer of their professions to peak
honestly of individual feelings. For example, in her interview, counsellor B
spoke heatedly about how Centre B compromised her professionalism, a
subject she may have felt inhibited to develop in the presence of counsellor A,
who served as a senior board member at Centre B. In this, the interviews
provided a forum for the expression of deviant opinions. Such disclosures
highlighted that any one group is never entirely homogenous and that the
individual interviews had allowed me to access the counsellor’s individual
biographies. Additionally, from the discrepancies emergent from the interviews, I
derived invaluable data for comparison within and between the counsellors.
In the following section, I describe how such data, derived from both the
counsellors and the young people, was managed within the guidelines
afforded by IPA.
123
3.11 Data analysis
Palmer (1969) considers that the quality of the research outcome is determined
by the personal analytic work done. To this end, I recorded and transcribed
the focus groups and interviews verbatim with interview notes and
reflections from my observation diary used to supplement data, but not
represent it. The narratives were then transcribed manually and read many
times, a process that left me feeling I had got “the sense of the person
themselves” (Smith & Osborn, 2003, p.67). When one focus group and two
interviews had taken place, I had intended to review the questions and
participant’s responses with my supervisors in case moderations were needed.
However, in reality this did not work, partly as the participant’s responses
determined ensuing questions, rather than the questions determining the
format, a response consistent with the tenets of IPA (Smith, 2004). For
example,
as
data
gathering
progressed,
the
impact
of
emotional
management and the influence of society upon the counsellors’ responses to
their clients emerged as an important concern in the counsellors’ interviews,
so the questions were expanded to reflect this. In addition, reviewing the
first transcript with the young participants caused them anxiety, so the idea
was abandoned and evaluation of the questions took place with the academic
supervisors, their extensive experience guiding me through the refining
process.
When
disagreement
took
place,
discussion
continued
until
collaboration was reached enabling insight and reflection (Rabiee, 2004).
Whilst perusing the text, initial comments were placed in a left hand margin,
noting preliminary associations and interpretations. Following on, the text was
124
revisited and scrutinised more closely to identify a first list of themes (see
table 1) guided by the research questions and objectives (Yin, 2008).
Table 1 Extract from the focus group with the young people showing a sample of
preliminary themes from my analysis of the transcript
Initial theme: Transcription of researcher’s questions and participant’s answer
Researcher: What could a counsellor do to help you not see
them as a stranger?
Familiarity facilitates
communication and trust
Courtney: Having a few sessions with them before, just
chatting so you could get to know them. They could
take you out for coffee
Continued mistrust does
not negate the risk of
counsellor as stranger
Jason: That wouldn’t make a difference. They’re still a stranger
Researcher: So, if you had a choice between meeting them at
say McDonalds or their office, how would it make
a difference Jason?
Setting does not mitigate
risk. Parental resistance?
Jason: It wouldn’t. They’re still strangers. I wouldn’t go up to a
stranger in the street and tell them my business.
Indoctrination
Courtney: You should never trust strangers. We’re always told
not to speak to strangers.
Risk associated with
breaking confidentiality.
Sees the world as against
him (self/other divide)
Jason: You can’t risk telling your counsellor certain things as
they would have to tell other people. Counsellors are
faggots. They might have really boring lives and need
something to talk about. They sit there with their
husbands and a glass of wine talking about you behind
your back.
125
Smith and Osborn (2003) recommend these are placed in a right hand margin,
but like Fade (2004), I felt more connected to the themes by writing them
under the transcripts.
At this stage, it was sometimes tempting to interpret the data according to
extant literature; however in IPA, emphasis is upon being grounded in the data
in order to represent the descriptive and interpretative phases to which
Larkin et al., (2006) refer. Therefore, psychological theories were used in
support of, not to define the narrative (Flowers et al., 1997), with the gap
between text and interpretation clearly denoted. In section 4.3 I show how
this was done. Hereafter, the “analytical or theoretical ordering” (Smith &
Osborn, 2003, p.71) began, where the themes were gathered into groups
considered representative of the participant’s concerns.
Each group of themes was allocated a code, and these codes given an
identifier, and then placed under the transcript excerpt relating to the code
(see Table 2). At this point, the codes felt cumbersome as there appeared an
unmanageable quantity. For example, the first focus group with the young
people generated 16 codes and the second, 10 different codes. Smith and
Osborn (2003) warn of this dilemma, especially for first-time users of IPA such
as me, recognising that they may feel overwhelmed by data. Although the
solution was to jettison those codes incongruent with emerging themes, this
was difficult as all the data felt important and I had formed an attachment
to it through continued immersion. An example of rejected codes arose from
the use of mobile phones during the young participants’ focus groups.
126
Table 2 Extract from the interview with counsellor A regarding emotional
management. The researcher’s coding is shown in Italics, the researcher’s
analysis of the transcript in bold, and the identifier in capital letters
Transcription of interviewer’s questions and interviewee’s answers
Researcher: The first question I’d like to ask is about remaining calm because you frequently
alluded to remaining calm as an essential component of your counselling, with relation to
stabilising your clients. But what effect, if any, does remaining calm have upon your clients?
Counsellor A: What effect does it have upon my performance? I think being calm allows me to
calmly assess the client, assess the situation, think about what they’re saying. And, if I wasn’t
calm, I wouldn’t be able to process that much information all at the same time (Staying
calm/emotional grounding).
And, actually, on the whole, I’m a very calm person. So…um…yeah, I think that’s the effect it
has on my work.
Clears the counsellor’s mind so that she is able to see things clearly, whereby enabling
assessment.
IDENTIFIER: 3C STAYING CALM/EMOTIONAL GROUNDING
Researcher: I mean, I guess the angle that I’m coming from is…um…do you need to stay calm to
provide yourself with some sort of framework so that you don’t get overwhelmed with the
work?
Counsellor A: No. I don’t ever feel overwhelmed in the room. I might do afterwards sometimes,
but not in the room. Well, maybe then, the answer is yes, because that’s why I don’t get
overwhelmed in the room, because I…I am able to stay calm in the room (Emotional response).
And it’s almost like a natural, instinctive thing that happens in the room. Um…not to say that I
don’t get emotional in the room. I do, often, but I’m still emotionally calm. If that makes sense.
Staying calm is a necessary framework that allows the counsellor to assimilate and assess.
IDENTIFIER: 7G EMOTIONAL RESPONSE
Researcher: It does. Completely. Would you say that staying calm is something that you have to
work at?
Counsellor A: I haven’t, no. Because as I have gone through my training and personal therapy,
(Training and therapy as an emotional aid) I have calmed down as a person. Because, in myself,
in my head, I don’t have lots of wer, wer, wer, going on. Um…and it’s helped me deal with my
life in a calm way. I very, very rarely lose it.
Personal therapy is important as it allows the counsellor to clear down so that the client’s,
rather than their own issues, take centre stage. Almost like turning off machinery (wer, wer,
wer).
IDENTIFIER: 4D TRAINING AND THERAPY AS AN EMOTIONAL AID
127
Throughout the first and second focus groups I noticed how the young people
became engrossed with their mobile phones, (playing games, texting), when
conversation became either contentious or anxious. I considered their mobile
phones may offer a virtual reality that was less threatening than reality and
originally intended to relate this to critical realism as a stand-alone code.
However, as data amassed, the 26 codes generated by the focus groups with
the young people felt unmanageable. It became clear that the mobile phone
issue would need to be subsumed within a generic code. The flow chart below
details the reduction process.
Flow chart showing how an original code was reduced to represent final coding
(2.1) Influence of mobile phones:
distraction or defence mechanism?
Original intention for superordinate
theme
(2.11) Defense mechanisms.
Revision of ideas. The use of mobile
phones as an emotional barrier
(2.2) Attachment & relationships.
Mobile phones as virtual defense
against challenging and internalised
feelings
128
Other themes were similarly reduced, for example, ‘childlike behaviour’ became
‘attachment’. I was reluctant to abandon such rich data entirely, and some
of the rejected codes were used to augment discussion within broader contexts.
Others, such as those codes relating to professionalism ultimately formed the
topic of an academic paper.
Researchers (Burnard, 1997; Kohler Reissman, 1993; Lucas, 1997) debate the
capacity for themes reduced in this way to meaningfully capture the essence
of phenomena because of the fragmentation of the data. Such concern
resonated with me as even small pieces of text could encapsulate both
participant’s diverse experiences, and, different ways of interpreting these.
However, Smith (2004) argues qualitative
research
is
“a
cost-benefit
analysis” (p.50) rather than a sacrifice, a dilemma I attempted to resolve by
using the same quote in different contexts in the findings and discussion
chapter of this thesis.
Following this, a decision was made to drop the codes that did not represent
the participant’s specific concerns. I was particularly sorry to reject the code
‘focus group mechanisms’ as I felt the group dynamic may afford
understanding as to how groups of young people who bully appear to and
are assessed by society. However interesting, I judged the topic to diverge
from key themes and let it go. The ability to prioritise cleared space for the
groups of codes to be gathered into what are known as superordinate themes,
and then labelled to encapsulate the key elements of the participant’s
experiences.
129
Smith and Osborn (2003) do not dictate the order in which the transcripts are
analysed, provided there is structure, but also sufficient flexibility to respond
to fluctuations in the data. Abiding by these principles, I decided to analyse
the transcripts chronologically. However, although it is possible to use themes
from one transcript to work with another, I decided to observe the flexibility
Smith and Osborn (2003) advise by creating new themes for each transcript.
This decision was made as I feared that by using established themes to work
with subsequent transcripts, I may have
unconsciously sought data in
support of these themes rather than analysing each transcript with a fresh
eye.
Ultimately
the
subordinate
themes
were
gathered
into
common
superordinate themes. The choice allowed me an overview of convergences
and differences between the individual transcripts, for example, the disparity
between group influences and idiographic effect. It is only once the transcripts
have been explored in-depth that cross analysis can be attempted (Smith et
al., 1995). Given the unpredictability of the young participants, the decision
to take an orderly approach to transcribing was also predicated upon the
possibility that several may withdraw from the research process. In this
eventuality, I would revert to a case study approach (3.8), which, according to
Smith and Osborn (2003) enables a thorough and in-depth analysis.2
2
When feeling overcome by the quantity of data, a software package such as NVivo was
contemplated as an alternative to manual analysis. Opinions vary as to the compatibility of
analytical programmes and the philosophies consistent with phenomenological methodologies
(Banner & Albarran, 2009), as “the central analytical task in qualitative research […] cannot be
computerized” (Kelle, 1995, p.3) Others (Chi-Jung, 2008; Evers et al., 2011), propose that
qualitative analysis is founded upon systematic data management, so that, although computer
programmes may enhance those abilities, they will never replace them. For me however, as
with Kelle (1995), the grounded nature of data analysis consistent with IPA felt incompatible
with computerised data analysis and the option to transcribe manually was upheld.
130
The ensuing section provides an evaluation of qualitative research, discussing
how rigour was obtained, most significantly, in relation to IPA.
3.12 An Evaluation of qualitative research
In chapter 3, I have presented a discussion about the ontological and
epistemological philosophy underpinning IPA and how this relates to the
current study. Justifying my decisions feels incomplete without an evaluation
of qualitative research.
Ballinger (2006, p.235) questions the reliability and validity of qualitative
research, criticising it as a “‘merely subjective assertion supported by
unscientific method”. I argue however that the more positivist criteria of
reliability, validity and generalisability guiding quantitative research are
generally less applicable to the qualitative paradigm. For example, and in
relation to reliability, IPA does not seek consistency or measurability, but
rather, the subjective experiences of participants. Moreover, these are
contingent
upon
the
researcher/participant
relationship
and
context.
Consequently, different conditions may elicit an alternative account.
Qualitative research, particularly IPA, seeks theoretical generalisability (Smith,
2004), where the concept of extrapolating statistical findings does not apply. In
fact, it is argued that obtaining a “large randomised sample misses [the] point
entirely” (Finlay, 2006, p. 39) as I consider qualitative research explores
richness and depth, often of a single participant, which may bear
131
relevance if transferred to other contexts.
Most significantly, validity represents how well research reflects the reality it
claims to represent and yet, the critical realist stance of IPA (3.4.1, 3.4.1.1)
disputes the notion of one unequivocal reality, proposing instead, a subjective
interpretation.
Rejecting such quantitative criteria however means qualitative analysis may only
be viewed as a “tentative statement opening upon a limitless field of
possible interpretations” (Churchill, 2000, p.164) behoving its own set of criteria
so as to ensure quality (Finlay, 2006) and be taken seriously. Such criteria must
be responsive to the epistemological ideals concurrent with individual
methodologies (Smith, 2010) which highlight the strengths or limitations of
the research under discussion. Finlay (2003) urges researchers to “engage their
research criteria explicitly and reflexively” (p.18) as this aids transparency. In
the findings and discussion (4), I demonstrate allegiance to Smith’s criteria
which are discussed later in this chapter (3.12). The issues of qualitative
criteria is “not well resolved” (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.114), the divergence
mirroring the differing opinions of researchers (Willig, 2001). However,
general consensus agrees the need for trustworthiness in place of validity,
which may imply both rigour and relevance (Finlay, 2006).
In relation to IPA, Smith (2003), in his earlier literature, commended Yardley’s
guidelines (2000) as sufficiently flexible to respond to the differing
qualitative methodologies. Yardley advocates three key criteria. Sensitivity to
context demands that researchers show awareness of relevant extant
132
literature as this situates their study in a theoretical framework. They should
likewise demonstrate an extensive grounding in the philosophy of the approach
they choose as this knowledge supports a more profound and far-reaching
analysis.
In
addition,
sensitivity
to
context
relates the researcher’s
interpretative ability, their understanding of the data and the authenticity of
their analysis.
Commitment, Rigour, Transparency and Coherence describes the researcher’s
engagement with the topic, the skill in applying their methods and immersion
in the data. Rigour refers to the completeness of the data both in terms of
collection and analysis. Transparency and coherence speak of the clarity
outlining the research process and how persuasive an account it offers. Lastly,
impact and importance refers to the theoretical practical and socio-cultural
impact of the research; in other words, its contribution to knowledge and its
applicability.
More recently, Smith (2010) has expressed reservations as to Yardley’s
guidelines as despite his affirmation of their quality, he considers the criteria
insufficiently specific for assessing the quality of IPA studies. Instead, he
recommends guidelines derived from his own inductive work. Given that IPA
is a relatively new approach compared to long established methodologies
(Chapman
&
Smith,
2002),
Smith
describes
the
guidelines
as a
“developmental process” (p. 16), to be adapted as IPA matures. According to
him, (Smith, 2010, p. 17), an IPA study is acceptably trustworthy when it
conforms to four key criteria:
133
1. Clearly subscribes to the theoretical principles of IPA: It is
phenomenological, hermeneutic and idiographic.
2. Sufficiently transparent so the reader can see what was done.
3. Coherent, plausible and interesting analysis.
4. Sufficient sampling from corpus to show density from each theme.
To elevate the research to ‘good’ three further caveats are added:
1. The work must be well focussed offering an in-depth analysis of a specific
topic.
2. Data and interpretation are strong; and
3. The reader is engaged and finds it particularly enlightening.
Moreover, Smith (2003) recommends an “independent audit” (p. 234) where
interpretation is checked against the transcripts to gauge its feasibility. This
was done by my academic supervisors, one of whom is experienced in
qualitative methodologies and the other in philosophical analysis and
together providing a practicable evaluation of my interpretation. By using
Smith’s evaluation criteria I have also linked the epistemology of IPA to
provide what I intended as an authentic account of my participants.
3.13 Summary
In this chapter I have discussed the philosophical and methodological
implications of using IPA to locate this study in a theoretical framework. In
addition, I have debated my ethical commitments in undertaking the study
134
and described the methods used, how data were collected and analysed, and
how I have attended to rigour.
Phenomenology is defined according to two viewpoints; one based upon the
premise of bracketing, an attempt to cleanse lived experience of judgement
(Husserlian phenomenology); the other (Heideggerian phenomenology), on the
lived experience as knowable only if deduced according to personal
interpretation. It is to the latter that I defer as IPA facilitates an uncensored,
in-depth exploration of participants’ lived experiences which complemented
the research aims of the current study.
Smith (1996, 2003, 2008), recognises the significance of both researcher and
participant in a double hermeneutic, acknowledging that their subjective
world influences interpretation. I have articulated concern however that my
profession as counsellor may have brought a psychological reading of the data
that in-authentically represented what was said, and highlighted how I used
reflection to raise awareness of this problem.
Young people’s attitudes to the methods used to gather data vary. In this, the
observation period undertaken prior to the study onset paid dividends, since,
once the young people had become inured to my presence, I was able to witness
their natural behaviour. From this insightful experience, my personal reflections
have afforded a richer understanding of the data. In addition, attention has been
drawn to the challenges facing researchers who undertake studies with
vulnerable, and at times, volatile young people.
General consensus identifies focus groups as encouraging participation
135
because sharing the experience with peers facilitates self-confidence and
general discussion. Additionally, the presence of others allows group members
to deliberate before offering their perspective, hence affording a perception of
both the group dynamics and individual contribution. Nonetheless, I have
suggested that attention must be paid to quieter members in case their view
is eclipsed by more forceful participants and the idiographic emphasis of IPA
overlooked. Based upon this, I used creative stimulus material, intended to
prompt conversation from a first person perspective whilst enabling
participants should they experience anxiety. Such approaches were proven
effective when undertaking research with vulnerable groups. Additional
concern emanates from the potential for the young participants to influence
each other during the focus group causing problem behaviour to escalate. I
suggested that a one to one approach such as individual interviews may be
better suited when gathering data with participants experiencing behavioural
problems.
Collecting data using individual interviews is a method consistent with IPA
(Smith, Harré & Van Langenhove, 1995; Smith et al., 2009). I considered that by
using interviews, I was providing an environment conducive to personal
exploration and that would benefit quieter members, differentiating their
opinions from those of the group. In order to develop the participants’
concerns, I also intended to use the interviews to pursue the topics emergent
from the focus groups, however, the young people declined to take part
meaning I was unable to explore their concerns as hoped.
136
IPA represents an epistemological position, aiming for detailed exploration of
lived experience and how that experience is made sense of by the individual. It
is the researcher’s central role as an interpreter of participant’s personal
experience that connects IPA to an interpretative or hermeneutic tradition
(Palmer, 1969). In this light, the following chapter of this thesis presents the
findings and discussion.
137
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The findings and discussion for this thesis present three superordinate themes
related to the data with regard to; attachment states, the therapeutic
relationship, and emotional management, in relation to both young people
who bully and their counsellors. The data has been analysed as a whole; in
other words, how it relates to the lived experiences of counsellors and young
people when placed in counselling for bullying and is likewise integrated in the
findings and discussion. Data is presented to represent both the individualised
responses of the young people and the counsellors, the group response, and
how the therapeutic relationship may respond to the concerns of young people
who bully.
Trust and risk were pervasive throughout the data and therefore represent
significant concerns that are uppermost in the participants’ minds. The topic
of trust and risk is therefore integrated within discussion of the superordinate
themes. As Willig (2001) advises, anything affecting the collection and
interpretation of data in IPA needs to be brought into the open by the
researcher. Hence, by integrating discussion of trust and risk within the
superordinate themes, I have aimed to move data analysis from descriptive to
interpretative (Larkin, 2004; Smith & Eatough, 2006 p.339), ultimately revealing
generic themes which represented the participants’ life world (Fade, 2004).
Table 3 (below) provides an overview of the superordinate themes and the
subordinate themes that informed them.
138
Table 3 showing the subordinate themes representing the superordinate themes
Attachment
Therapeutic relationship
Emotion management
Trust
Risk
YOUNG PEOPLE
Denial/defence
mechanisms
Responding as children:
Delayed development
Research “on” rather than
“with”
Core pain/insecure
attachment
The focus group
process/confrontational
behaviour
Young people’s
perceptions of bullying
Trust v risk (backstabbing
and confidentiality)
The contract and first
meeting/trust
Young people’s
perceptions of
counselling
The counsellor as
stranger
Getting to know a
counsellor: Trust v risk
COUNSELLORS
Personal development,
psychological damage,
experiences
Counsellors barriers
Tone of voice and
language used
Tone of voice and
language used
Body language
(particularly calmness
and submissiveness)
Qualities setting them
aside from others
Core pain
Empathy, transference
Breaking through the
client’s emotional
barriers
How the counsellors
evaluate themselves
Supervision and
emotional grounding
Professionalism
Client’s body language
Confidentiality and trust
Bullying and aggression
Facilitators and inhibitors to
the client/counsellor
alliance
Bullying and aggression
139
It is difficult to say how much my identity as counsellor, as opposed to
researcher influenced the themes (Table 3, 4.1). Despite heightened
awareness when gathering data, I realised that through interpretation, my self
as counsellor had asserted its presence, for, in any interaction, I seek to
understand the meaning which underlies behaviour, and this provokes a
particular response. I consider the inevitability of such ingrained behaviour
supports the Heideggerian (1962) notion of phenomenology regarding
bracketing (3.4.1.1). In addition, having counselled young people who bully,
certain theories, such as insecure attachment, are prevalent amongst
counsellors. Consequently, some subordinate themes undoubtedly reflect my
professional experiences. Nonetheless, some of the themes emerged
unexpectedly, for example, I did not anticipate how significantly professional
identity would influence the participant counsellors’ work and suggest it is the
unanticipated subordinate themes which are essentially “’uncontaminated’”
(Webb & Kevern, 2001, p. 666), and therefore rooted in impartial researcher.
In ensuing sections, I present the findings in relation to attachment states
(4.2), the therapeutic relationship (4.3) and emotional management (4.4),
which are discussed in the light of relevant literature. Discussion and
excerpts from the transcripts are included within the text, a decision intended
to reflect the sense- making which motivates IPA (Smith et al., 2009). Some
of the quotations contain strong language and this is reported as transcribed.
By including participants’ narrative, I aim to authentically represent the voice
of those taking part and thereby, to deepen understanding (Corden & Sainsbury,
2006).
140
4.1.1 Terms used in this chapter
The term ‘therapeutic relationship’ refers to the model conceived by Clarkson
(2003) where she identifies five phases representing the relationship between
client and counsellor (see appendix 11 for the five phases).
4.2 Findings theme: Attachment
4.2.1 Andy
By the unperturbed tone of his voice and his unruffled demeanor, Andy
appeared indifferent towards his parents. Comparatively there seemed to me
an incompatible bitterness in his last sentence where he blamed his lack of
concern upon his parents for being “[…] dicks […]”.
Andy: Wouldn’t really matter would it? [Being told off by your parents]
(The participants all laugh)
Researcher: Why wouldn’t it matter?
Andy: It’s just someone telling you to go in to your room. Init?
Courtney: Your Mum and Dad (said with mock gravity)
Andy: But they’re dicks so their opinion doesn’t really count
Transcript 1, Focus group 1, Young people, Line 150-155, P.6
Andy seemed un-phased by the prospect of his parent’s reprimands, suggesting
they would not impact upon him. By referring to his parents as “[…] just
someone […]”, he appeared to seamlessly denigrate his filial link, an unfaltering
conviction that established their unworthiness, and yet I intuited that through
his derogatory term, Andy had unwittingly leaked negative emotion
141
about the relationship with his parents.
This pattern repeated later and when responding to the Twitter phrase, ‘some
people who bully have problems of their own’, when Andy attributed his bullying
to the victim, blaming them for provoking his aggression:
Andy: Ee’s a right twat. He needs bullying
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 293-310. P.11
Without evaluating whether or how his own behaviour may have contributed to
the outcome, Andy implied that his victim, like his parents, deserved what they
got, once again identifying his victim as the worthless recipient of his behaviour.
This trend continued to Andy’s evaluation of his counsellor:
Andy: Well, it’s a waste of time isn’t it? : I just sit there. I bin a couple of times. I
just sit there and say like stupid things like to make them happy. Then they say
I’m good
Transcript1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 59-60. P.3
A phenomenological reading (Smith, 1996) of Andy’s experience of counselling
suggested he was not committed to the process; it was “[…] a waste of
time […]”. He was there for the counsellor’s benefit; “[…] to make them
happy […]”whereas, his ‘worthless’ counsellors must profit where they could;
hinting at his own self-worth. However, conflict appeared in this sentence as it
had in previous disclosures, as it seemed the personal gain he acknowledged,
came not from subjective change, but, the accolade afforded him by his
counsellors; “[…] they say I’m good […]”.
142
Later, when asked his opinion of how counselling influenced his life, Andy was
insistent that he experienced no effect:
Researcher: What sort of things do they [his counsellor] ask you that make you
feel like that [counselling as a waste of time]?
Andy: I don’t know. I don’t remember. Put your phones away […]
Andy has leaked something personal. Although he has been playing on his
phone, I think his order to ‘put your phones away’ is used to deflect attention
onto the other participants
Researcher: Would you say that having counselling affects your life in any
way? (They [participants] all shuffle around in their chairs and shake their
heads.
Andy: Nope
Researcher: Not in any way at all?
Andy: Not in any way at all. No
Researcher: So you don’t think about it in the week or anything.
Andy: No
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 70-75. P.3
From a hermeneutic perspective (Smith, 1996), by refusing to commit to an
evaluation of his counselling, Andy seemed to make sense of his disclosure
by refuting the effect of this experience upon his life, This may of course be
true, although his previous comment regarding counselling as a waste of
time suggests he had an opinion, albeit disdainful. However, I reflected, that
his disparaging attitude towards his parents, peers and counsellor set him alone,
isolated and dependent upon his own strengths. And yet, given Andy’s unmoved
demeanor, his command that the other participants put their phones away was
143
seemingly incongruent and I wondered if it was a ploy to deflect attention from a
momentary need.
Superficially however, Andy exhibited little fallibility, for when I asked Lucy to
describe her character, Andy interjected:
Andy: Mate. I’m the nicest person you will ever meet
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Line 390. P.14
Even Courtney’s sarcastic rejoinder, “You should be a comedian”, was
interpreted by Andy as affirmation of his worthiness:
Andy: You see that is me. She just said I was nice
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Line 398. P.14
Observing Andy’s body language to assess the authenticity of his delivery, I
noticed it was expansive and unusually, he maintained eye contact, suggesting
his confidence. Nonetheless, I questioned why, if Andy was so convinced of his
likeability, he felt the need to bully others, especially so given the fight (3.9.1)
between he and Jason observed at Centre A, which provided a glimpse of
Andy’s internalised anger. Such inconsistency in Andy’s behaviour and his
disclosures suggested fragility as to claims of his congeniality, since his
revelations inferred vulnerability, most notably in relationship with his parents.
Reflecting upon Andy’s interactional style, a pattern seemed to be emerging of
his own self-worth compared to that of others. As I reflected in the text:
144
Researcher: He (Andy) says this [being the nicest person]earnestly but there
is conflict here as Andy has described his parents as dicks and his counsellor
as a waste of time…i.e. he is ok but others aren’t
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Lines 391-392. P.14
Given his susceptibility, I sensed that Andy may have been working hard at his
seeming ambivalence, using it as a shield, where disclosing, or even engaging, with
his tender self presented a risk. Amongst the focus group participants, the coating
erected by Andy effectively prevented him from being known. When he
communicated, Andy was assertive, even to the point of complacency and,
suggested his need to be liked, and yet he was variously distant and withdrawn. I
noticed that the other participants were unsure and cautious in their behaviour
towards him, unwittingly affording Andy considerable power. On all but one
occasion, Jason deferred to Andy’s opinions during the focus group. For example,
when questioned as to the morality of bullying, Jason’s disapproving censure of
bullying changed in the face of Andy’s avowal:
Jason: I just think they’re [bullies] fucking arseholes to be honest
Everyone laughs
Researcher: You think bullies are fucking arseholes?
Jason: Yeah Courtney (accusingly)
Courtney: You’re the one who’s bullying this boy Andy (Not Andy from the FG)
Andy: Ee’s a right twat. He needs bullying
Jason: Ee is seriously asking for it ain’t he
Transcript 1, Focus group Young people, p. 11, Lines 295-305
145
Notably, Jason’s acquiescence may well have been a legacy of the supremacy
exerted by Andy over Jason in the fight between the two boys (3.9.1) as it testified
to Andy’s potential for anger. Even the support worker, Phil, was provoked to
comment on Andy’s aloofness (4.4.2).
According to research on insecure attachment (Allen et al., 1998; Kobak et al.,
1993) externalising behaviours such as Andy’s may originate from a call for
help and intervention by the parent on behalf of the adolescent; a moving appeal
for attention, be it good or bad. Certainly, from my observations, I witnessed that
Andy’s influence extended to his class peers where his dismissive attitude to
education seemed to inspire a perception of Andy as ‘cool’ and, which, the other
students emulated. Whether Andy knowingly used reserve to assert his superiority
is difficult to say, as his habit of casting his eyes to the floor made me question the
robustness of his confidence. Perhaps for Andy, his apparent disinterest was an
expression of his struggle between autonomy and dependence (Hazan & Shavers,
1987). According to Cassidy and Shaver, 1999, individuals isolate themselves
when they anticipate that forming relationships will result in rejection, hence,
relationships are perceived as a threat. It is such mistrust and interpersonal risk
that subsequently creates the need to blame (Baldwin et al., 1993).
Andy’s reserve sometimes impinged on data gathering, since his reluctance to
participate interrupted the flow of conversation. On these occasions, the
frustration his behaviour caused tempted me to view Andy as deliberately
obstructive:
Andy: Bullying’s well out of order init
146
Researcher: Why is that then?
Andy: I don’t know. Just is
Transcript 1, Focus group 1, p. 7 Lines 236-238
Researcher: So, why do you think bullying is well out of order then Andy?
Andy: What! (Said with annoyance implying that he does not want to be asked
more questions)
Researcher: Why do you think bullying is well out of order?
Andy: Cos it is
Researcher: In your opinion, what does it do to other people?
Andy: I dunno. I’ve not been bullied. I don’t know
Researcher: Would you be able to talk to somebody else if you had been bullied?
Andy: Well I’ve not so I don’t know do I
Transcription 1, Focus group1, Young people, P.10, Lines 280-289
No matter how I re-phrased the questions to Andy, he seemed unwilling to
commit. Mukilincer (1998) postulates that insecurely
attached
individuals,
whose obsessive search for security (Hazan & Shaver, 1994) means they exert
control as a trust-related goal, only self-disclose when t h e risk to self is
acceptable.
Reflecting upon my difficulties in engaging Andy in the research process, I
wondered how his behaviour may replay during counselling, where, from
experience, I have found initiating change to be challenging in the face of a
client’s resistance. Faced with this dilemma, I have used my analytical skills to
identify the client’s concerns so as to make progress (1). When posing this
question to Counsellor A, she suggested assertive tactics:
Researcher: So, my experiences working with troubled young people is that some
of them are so damaged, you ask them something, or try and access their core
pain and they just go, I don’t know. I don’t know and then
Transcript 3, Counsellor Focus group 2, P.12, 393-395
147
Counsellor A: I don’t buy it. That’s what I say to them. You know something.
You’ll…you’ll feel something somewhere. It’s impossible not to. So even if it’s your
big toe twitching, you would have something […]. […] You’re here because you
want some counselling. I would imagine want to change something. That’s why
you’re here. And you can stay where you are if you want to. That’s your choice.
Um…but I’m hoping that you’re…you’re willing to put some effort in because
that’s why we’re both sat here
Transcript 3, Counsellor Focus group 2, P.12, 400-402 and 404-407
Counsellor A’s assertive reply suggested her lack of conviction that a client would
experience nothing. She offered her clients the choice to contribute to their
sessions and initiate change, possibly empowering their autonomy. She suggested
that, even in the absence of words, a manifestation of their concerns would be
expressed through their bodies, even as inconsequential as a twitching big toe.
Counsellor B likewise asserted clear boundaries, likening these to her recent
experiences counselling a disengaged client:
Counsellor B: She’s a tough cookie, but she doesn’t know, she doesn’t know all the
time. Round about session 6, I said to her, if you really don’t know, that’s
absolutely fine. But if you think you might know, it might be now is a good time to
say so. Because we can’t keep doing this. And that is really confrontational
Counsellor A: Mmmm. It is
Counsellor B: It’s really full on. And she said, well, I really don’t know what you
want to know. And I said, well I want to know what you’re going to tell me, so
what are you going to tell me? And, it…it shifted, it shifted. She worked incredibly
hard. We still get the occasional, I dunno. And I say well, that’s ok. That’s fine.
What do you know? And it’s now almost a joke. And she’s ok with that. She’ll say,
well you’re gonna tell me I can’t say I don’t know aren’t you. And I say, yep!
Transcription 3, Counsellor focus group, Pp. 13-14, Lines 434-443
When reflecting upon Counsellor A and B’s narrative, I was reminded of Egans’
(1993) advice to counsellors in the Skilled Helper. Egan proposes that between
148
the counsellor and the client exist seven categories of love, progressing from the
least to most challenging. At number seven Egan suggests there are times when a
client will be so distanced from themselves that they are incapable of motivation,
a lack of commitment which, I suggest, translates to Andy’s not knowing. At this
point, Egan considers that a counsellor may need to show their own strength to
the client by taking control and assuming a more assertive and directive role.
Egan’s perspective brings an alternative slant to traditional concepts of
beneficence where the client’s autonomy is considered paramount (BACP, 2014).
However, I would argue, that by providing a temporary scaffold to support the
client, Egan's seventh rule of love is fundamentally aimed at facilitating an
individual.
4.2.2 Courtney
Whether the experiences of young people who bully are the same, is unclear to
me. An interesting question is therefore how the experiences of young people
who bully with insecure attachment differ from those with secure attachment.
For instance, Courtney’s behaviour, both in the classroom and the focus group
appeared less volatile than the other participants. She was generally jovial and
forthcoming, contributing willingly to her lessons and likewise to the focus
group discussion. Courtney’s peers were seemingly attracted to her amenable
character and she appeared popular amongst them. Given her seeming
stability, I considered she may be more securely attached, an opinion
supported by her apparent trust in her parents:
Researcher: Are there any things you wouldn’t be able to tell a counsellor
149
Lucy? Are there any particular topics?
Lucy: Drugs. Sex life
Courtney: Oh. That would be so awful talking about your sex life.
God
Andy: Fuck that
Courtney: No. I’d talk to my Mum and Dad about it
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 762-770. P.27
Unlike the other participants, Courtney implied that she was sufficiently trusting
of her parents to speak to them about her sex life; of significance given the
risk implied by such subjects. Other securely attached young people share her
view, finding it easy to talk to their parents (Fox & Butler, 2007). Notably, this
appears more challenging if, as this study found, it is commonly parents who
are perceived as undependable (Fox & Butler, 2007). Courtney’s security also
appeared to make her more resilient to being bullied:
Researcher: Do you think you’ve learnt anything from your counsellor that you’ve
taken into your life?
Courtney: Yeah. She told me to keep calm
Jason: Fuck off you cunt
Researcher: That sounds important
Courtney: Yeah. Do you know how…Lucy, didn’t I used to get annoyed really
quickly?
Lucy: Still do
Andy: You get annoyed. Yeah you do
Researcher: Has it really helped you?
Courtney: Yeah. It was worse when I first started
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 704-715. P.25
150
Courtney spoke of her counsellor’s advice for calm; guidance she felt had
informed her life after counselling ended. This provoked an unexpected group
response, as one by one, the participants rounded on her, attempting to
undermine her using insults and defamation, refuting the long-term effects of
her counsellor’s advice. However, Courtney remained calm, and without being
defensive, was able to reason the other member’s responses.
Previously, Courtney had made assertive and astute comments which
sometimes questioned the motives of her fellow team members. For example,
when Jason contested that bullying was “[…] out of order […]”, Courtney
retaliated with “You’re the one who’s bullying this boy Andy” (Not Andy from
the FG). Possibly, her comments had been perceived as confrontational and,
as Kernis et al. (1989) pointed out (2.3) considered by the other member’s
a threat to their self- esteem. Equally, bullying others may have become the
young people’s reality, thus, they no longer identified themselves this way. So,
when Courtney spoke of and modelled her calmness, the other members
instinctively rounded on her, using rough language to put her down; an example
perhaps of the skewed perception of moral rules to which Caravita and Gini
(2010) allude (2.7).
Either way, Courtney had seemingly broken the mold, as through her assertions
she had temporarily challenged the established group hierarchy, unwittingly
provoking the other young people to bully her. I questioned whether their
vehement and collective retaliation represented a united defence against not
only Courtney’s words, but her embodied calm, since this defined her as
different from them in some way. With his extreme vitriol, I intuited it was
Jason who felt most threatened by Courtney’s disclosure, for his use of
151
language seemed to me misogynistic and intended as defamation of Courtney’s
womanhood. Possibly this emanated from a deeper place and reflected
negativity towards the female sex.
Despite the extreme provocation and verbal bullying from the other
participants, Courtney remained calm; testament perhaps to the effects of the
counselling to which she alluded. She appeared un-phased by the insults even
finishing with a positive evaluation of her progress, “[…] It was worse when I
started […]”. Although her level-headedness may have been due to her
maturation, Sedikes et al., (2008) support the concept of rationality in light
of secure attachment. They find those with secure patterns of attachment show
a more optimistic style regarding judgment of others and improved problemsolving skills in resolving interpersonal conflict. Hence, within the group, her
rationality manifest as lower levels of aggression and higher levels of trust
(Constantino et al., 2006; Cummings-Robeau et al., 2009; Leenaars et al.,
2008) possibly explaining why Courtney felt sufficiently confident to speak
about bullying others:
Courtney: […] I used to bully teachers. I used to bully my head teacher. I was
really horrible to her and a lot of students (inaudible] though
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 246-247. P.9
Courtney openly admitted to bullying her teachers and “[…] a lot of students
[…]”, her revelation also implied a level of trust both in me and the group that
seemed
acceptable to her.
Possibly then, she did not risk the personal
repercussions insecurely attached individuals
152
anticipate. Conversely, it
appeared that Courtney defied the stereotype as despite her seemingly
secure disposition, she nonetheless bullied others. Farber (2003) suggests that
the desire to unburden secrets is mediated against the anticipated and negative
consequences of revealing something ‘bad’, thus regulated by individual
tolerance for shame. Possibly then, Courtney’s ability to speak of bullying
others inferred, her moral attitude towards it. Nonetheless, when disclosing
her bullying behaviour to her counsellor, Courtney recalled feeling “[…] well
bad afterwards […]”:
Researcher: Do you think you’d be able to tell your counsellor that you’d been a
bully.
Courtney: My counsellor knows that I was a bully
Researcher: What did it feel like talking to her about that?
Courtney: I felt well bad afterwards. But, your parents must have made you do
something wrong to make you bully them. I wouldn’t just bully no one for no
reason.
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 255-259. P.9
Courtney acknowledged the repercussions of her actions; interestingly
evaluation of her actions was retrospective. She attributed responsibility to
‘your’ parents and it is hard to say whether her statement was generic or
specific. However, the fact that she could admit to negative feelings resulting
from her behaviour suggested she was not silenced by shame as previously
proposed by Farber (2003) (2.9). However, as Caravita and Gini (2010) proposed
that those who bully can morally disengage (2.7), shame would not necessarily
feature on the bully’s moral landscape, suggesting an incongruity between their
153
theory and Farber’s. As Courtney was both able to bully and to feel shame, she
seemingly oscillated between the moral positions of Farber and Caravita and Gini,
suggesting that those who bully are not anchored to either theory but may be
capable of enabling change.
Courtney’s propensity for trust was possibly founded upon positive past
experience with her parents (Kee & Knox, 1970), an important antecedent with
regard to forming a trusting relationship with her counsellor (Bigley & Pierce,
1998; Rotter, 1967):
Researcher: What was their reaction when you told them?
Courtney: They said, ‘do you want a conversation about it?’ And I was like
yeah. And then we had this sheet about bullying. Then we had to fill it out.
Then we had a conversation. Then we made a brick house and how it feels to be
a bully
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 264-267. P.10
According to Courtney, her counsellor did not overreact to her disclosure as to
bullying, neither was she judgmental. This may have confirmed, rather than
violated Courtney’s expectation regarding trust in counselling (Lewicki et al.,
1998), for, provided trust forms along a continuum and is not infringed, such
dependability facilitates further disclosure (Lewicki et al., 1998). It is in this
way that Lewecki and Tomlinson (2003) believe a counsellor likewise develops
a deeper understanding of their client’s interpersonal world, facilitating a
bond. As Courtney commented:
Researcher: What is it about getting to know them [the counsellor] that makes
it easier?
Courtney: Because then you trust them and can tell them everything
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 615-616. P.22
Courtney came across as capable of reasoning and trusting.
154
Her trust
manifested as greater personal investment in the focus group process and
towards me. For example:
Researcher: […] Were there certain things that you found it hard to tell
your counsellor?
Courtney: We didn’t really talk. I…we…cos I was so young, they had like
games and cards and stuff, so I didn’t get to talk
Researcher: They had games and cards and things. Did that change your
experience?
Courtney: Yeah. And I did it in [my home town]
Researcher: How did it help having games and cards?
Courtney: Because it was like fun explaining your theories
Researcher: Would it have made a difference if she…your counsellor hadn’t had
games?
Courtney: Yeah. Cos I wouldn’t know what to do cos I was so little. And they
used to come to my house sometimes and do like fun sheets with me
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 175-185. P.7
Courtney was forthcoming, providing a full and illuminating account of her
counselling. Her attitude appeared to inspire trust, triggering conversation
between her and the focus group members and suggesting that positive
behaviour may be as contagious as problem behaviour in a group setting. She
seemed unconscious of the trust she generated, but as Smith (2004) states,
research using IPA may illuminate traits of which the participants themselves
are unaware.
In addition, Courtney’s ability and willingness to deliver an elaborated response
provided a full and insightful account of how her counselling experience had
155
been facilitated through play. In light of the other participants’ reticence, it was
tempting to take advantage of Courtney’s enthusiasm as a buoyancy aid. In
other words, her interest gave me hope that the focus group would not
altogether fail. However, following extended focus upon her, Courtney was
quick to register her discontent with my reliance upon her:
Researcher: Let’s try another story stem then. Alright then. You’re very quiet you
two (looking at Jason and Lucy with concern to make sure they’re not upset)
Courtney: Yeah, ask Jason some questions (Said with annoyance)
Transcript 1, Young people’s focus group, P.4, Lines 111-113
According to Mauthner (1997), “the researcher needs to maintain a balance
between too many and too few questions” (p.24). I would argue this equilibrium a
challenge when researching defensive and therefore, resistant participants,
where the temporary relief at gathering some data, afforded by an articulate
participant, is seductive. Also, by facilitating Courtney’s disclosures, she set her
own agenda, talking about her life and views. In addition, by challenging my
dependence upon her, Courtney demonstrated that her sense of autonomy
extended to individual relationships as well as those in the group, suggesting the
power balance between us as equal.
4.2.3 Jason
For anxious-ambivalent individuals, their need for self-validation, coupled with
dread of rejection is represented as both a need for love and fear of being
unloved and can manifest as a negative disposition towards others (Griffin &
Bartholomew,
1994). Consequently,
the
negative
experience
of
the
156
insecurely attached is considered predictive of mistrust (Mikulincer, 1998).
Certainly this was true of Jason whose behaviour oscillated between amenable
and intractable. For example, unlike Andy, Jason displayed a need to be
liked, throughout both focus groups, appearing to adjust his behaviour to
maximise his popularity. As, when asked by me to describe his character,
Jason replied:
Jason: Funny cunt to be honest
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Line 402. P.14
This caused uproarious laughter amongst the other participants. Superficially,
Jason seemed delighted at his handy-work, leaning back in his chair and
smiling. However, his two words ‘funny’ and ‘cunt’ sat incongruously together,
possibly implying the paradoxes of his self-perception. Despite his apparent good
humour, the other group members were noticeably unsettled by Jason’s
interjection, gathering to check their mobile phones, messing around together as
if, by huddling, they kept Jason at bay. Possibly, this was unintended, his
derisible retort effectively serving to distance rather than befriend him, and
attributable more to Jason’s lack of social skills, observed at Centre A (3.9.1).
Through his language, Jason nonetheless communicated contempt and
disrespect. Despite his need to be liked, he appeared concurrently and
deliberately to goad the other members into rebuffing him, and I wondered if
Jason’s behvaiour served to ratify his expectations concerning rejection. Equally,
his unsuitable language may have been his attempt to disrupt the focus group,
whereby deflecting intrusion. Either way, Jason’s tactics were effective as, by
splintering the focus group, data gathering was temporarily suspended whilst
157
attempts to settle the participants took place.
Jason has a disruptive effect on the FG. He uses the most derogatory terms,
especially as ‘cunt’ is gender specific and there are girls present. Does he hope to
alienate them or distance himself? I suspect the other participants would risk
saying more if they didn’t fear his derision, so his behaviour is powerful
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 403-407. Pp.14-15
For example, I judged that the quietest participant, Lucy, who appeared
cowed by Jason’s bullying comments, needed a space created for her in which
to speak and I attempted to draw her into conversation:
Researcher: So, if you went for counselling, how do you think you would come
across to your counsellor?
Jason: I don’t know
Courtney: Shy
They speak over each other
Lucy: Blank
Researcher: Blank Lucy?
Lucy: Yeah
Researcher: Why is that?
Jason: Because she’s a twat
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 411-423. P.15
Lucy was instantly quelled by Jason’s affront, looking out of the window,
perhaps signalling her disengagement. As the quietest of the young
participants, I felt keenly that Lucy should be equally represented in the data. I
was mindful of the need to include and encourage her contribution. By
successfully shutting Lucy down, Jason both prevented the conversation from
158
developing and re-focussed the spotlight upon him, whereby satisfying his
need to be liked and his need for distance. Once again, data gathering was
halted and I reflected that Jason’s effect upon the group dynamic and by
default, the data, was impactful, highlighting the effect of one powerful
member upon the others. Notably, Jason’s tactics were so successful, that it
was only when I noticed him kicking the girls under the table and playing
games on his mobile phone so loudly as to interrupt, that I recognised his
behaviour as attention seeking. It seemed possible that attracting attention,
even by ‘being bad’ (Sroufe, 1983), may have been a tactic developed from
childhood, still used by Jason, as a way to be noticed.
Later however, an interpretation of Jason’s behaviour as deliberately intended
was challenged when I was deeply moved by his vulnerability. When
questioning the group as to the topics young people who bully felt
comfortable disclosing to their counsellor, Jason responded with:
Researcher: Are there certain things that you think, ’No way! I’m not going to
tell a counsellor that?
Jason: I wouldn’t tell em [his counsellor] nuffink, even if I cut my finger
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 734-736. P.26
Despite the myriad other problems Jason could have used to withhold from his
counsellor, he chose a cut finger. Such a childlike ailment seemed to hint at
arrested development, an icon of his need to be nurtured that anchored him to
his childhood. So, although Jason suggested his counsellors were an unwelcome
intrusion, he was unconsciously reaching out as an appeal for care. Possibly he
159
was caught off guard, his distrust once again rearing its head, as with his next
response, Jason appeared to retreat:
Researcher: You wouldn’t tell them anything? Why is that then Jason?
Jason: Because it’s not their problems to worry about. My problems is my
problems
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 739-740. P.26
Jason seemed to be pushing away again, retreating to a safer place by distancing
himself, and I conjectured that he experienced complex issues:
Jason is a complicated person, going from child to adult in two sentences
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 742-743. P.26
His remark “My problems is my problems” suggested something adult, a
parental influence perhaps stemming from suspicion regarding counselling,
(Baruch, 2001) (2.8) but nonetheless serving as a familiar holding pen for his
emotions. As I noted under the transcript:
It seems to be important that Jason prevents conversation from developing. This
seems to happen when emotional topics are being developed. I wonder if this is
associated with personal risk.
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 424-426. P.15
Given Jason’s need to be liked, his fear of rejection and his vulnerability, I was
particularly stirred, and surprised by his bravery in challenging Andy’s views that
160
some victims […] need[ed] bullying[…].
Jason: I just think they’re [people who bully] fucking arseholes to be honest
Everyone laughs
Researcher: You think bullies are fucking arseholes?
Jason: Yeah Courtney (accusingly, the suggestion being she is key amongst them)
Courtney: You’re the one who’s bullying this boy Andy (Not Andy from the FG)
Andy: Ee’s a right twat. He needs bullying
Jason: Ee is seriously asking for it ain’t he
Everyone talks at once. Words are temporarily indiscernible
Researcher: Tell me a little bit more about it Jason. (I ask this as I feel Jason
isn’t committed to this statement as he makes it looking down and is suddenly
withdrawn)
Jason: Well hitting people is just well out of order. I can’t go into it anymore
because I don’t know
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 293-310. P.11
With his hostile opinion of bullies as “[…] fucking arseholes […]”, Jason’s
opening sentence staked a claim, of bullies as unworthy. The judgment, as with
others he had made throughout the focus group, procured laughter possibly
by using coercion as previously. When Andy declared that another boy
deserved to be bullied, Jason fleetingly concurred, possibly swayed by the
collusion afforded him, particularly amongst group members known to bully.
However, from Jason’s body language, I sensed his unease, and when asked to
articulate his feelings further, Jason revealed polarised, or possibly, his true
sentiments towards bullying as “[…] well out of order […]”. His body language
suggested to me that the risk associated with his disclosure was immense. He
was neither playing the fool, nor colluding with Andy, but had put his head
161
above the parapet to risk his authentic self. His anxiety was palpable; his last
statement “[…] I can’t go into it anymore because I don’t know […]” suggesting
a need for closure. It was difficult to conjecture why, given the risk to Jason in
professing an alternative opinion, he had felt sufficiently facilitated on this
occasion to self-disclose. Possibly, he was motivated by my obvious interest in his
views. This event caused me considerable reflection, as I conjectured that whilst
Jason’s disruptive behaviour may attract attention both at school and in social
settings, given the opportunity, he had a contribution to make, his right to be
heard stifled by his cry for help.
4.2.4 Lucy
According to Calamari and Pini (2003), an attachment style seldom referred to is
insecure-disorganised-disorientated. Clear links between infant attachment
strategies and disorganised-dissociated behaviour did not emerge until after Main
and Solomon (1990) had categorised the characteristics of this psychopathology
(Lyons-Ruth, 2003).
When first observing Lucy at Centre A, I was struck by her disconnected
behaviour, writing in my reflective journal that she appeared ‘vague’. Lucy seldom
made an overt contribution to either her lessons or her relationships, infrequently
directing her gaze towards a fixed location, but seeming remote. Despite her
withdrawn disposition, she appeared, nonetheless to share a connection with
Courtney, the two continually seated together, however, I noticed that Lucy
rarely spoke to Courtney but doggedly followed where Courtney led. For example,
if the two went to the kitchen to prepare their lunch, Courtney would be centre
stage, whilst Lucy lingered quietly in a corner. Thus it was unusual and
162
unexpected on one occasion, to hear Lucy angrily screaming at Courtney.
Although staff at centre A intervened to resolve the dispute, for several days,
Courtney refused to speak with Lucy, who quickly became dispirited and after
several days, inconsolably disclosed her fears that her explosive anger had
breached the friendship with Courtney. It was confusing to witness Lucy’s
diverse reactions.
On the one hand, her broken friendship caused her
considerable distress, but on the other, she appeared ambivalent as to forming
bonds with her peers.
When categorising the features typifying disorganised-dissociated attachment,
Main and Solomon (1990) refer to a simultaneous display of contradictory
behaviours, for example strong avoidance coupled with strong contact-seeking;
that I considered representational of Lucy’s behaviour.
Similarly, during the focus group, Lucy spoke only occasionally and then, in
response to a direct question. She appeared overwhelmed by the stronger
participants, particularly Jason, whose stringent retorts worked effectively in
quelling Lucy. Because of her reserve, I was concerned that Lucy would make
only a ghostly impact upon the data. Keen to include her, I asked directly
how she would describe her character:
Researcher: How would you describe yourself Lucy?
Lucy: Blank
Researcher:Blank
Lucy? Lucy: Yeah
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 411-423. P.15
163
Although Jason quickly intervened to quash development of the conversation with
Lucy (p. 157), as she spoke, her gaze wandered around the room and her voice was
expressionless giving her a disorientated appearance.
Apart from this brief communication, Lucy contributed infrequently throughout
both focus groups. However, she did appear roused by the Twitter statement
‘Bullying is a hate crime’:
Lucy: It doesn’t make sense
Researcher: It doesn’t make sense?
Lucy: No
Researcher: Why don’t you think it makes sense?
Lucy: It just doesn’t sound right
Researcher: What is it about it that sounds wrong then?
Long pause
Lucy: You can’t put hate and crime next to each other. Bullying is a hate crime. It
just doesn’t sound right
Jason swivels round in his chair and kicks the girls. They laugh and it’s chaotic
Researcher: Tell me more about it. Why can’t you put hate and crime together?
Lucy: I dunno
Transcript 1, Focus group1 Young people, p. 8, Lines 212-225
Although Lucy claimed the incongruity of putting hate and crime in the same
sentence, when asked to develop her thoughts, she receded, becoming once
again unresponsive. Even when attempting to draw her out, she appeared
reluctant to be involved, responding to further questions with ‘I dunno’. Her
withdrawal may of course have been hastened by Jason’s behaviour, which
frustrated me as I felt, given time to develop her thinking, Lucy may have been on
the cusp of a disclosure.
164
According to Lyons-Ruth (2003), Lucy’s behaviour typifies defence formation
which occurs at the interface between infant distress and the response of
the primary carer. This most commonly occurs in response to fear (Jacobvitz
et al., 1997; Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999; Mains & Hesse, 1990; Schuengel et al.,
1999).
If the parent herself arouses the infant’s fear, the parent
becomes both the source of the infant’s fear and the haven
of safety. This places the infant in an unresolvable paradox
regarding whether to approach the parent for comfort
(Lyons-Ruth et al., 2003, p.902).
Thereafter, dissociation is used as a coping style. Amongst her peers at Centre A,
Lucy generally enacted disconnected behaviour, however, I suggest her need for
closeness was evident through her silent, but dogged attachment to Courtney. She
nonetheless owned a deep anger which it was not always possible for her repress,
but when released, caused her considerable regret. For individuals facing
dissociated attachment, the experience of intense anger further threatens
coherence of the self, activating additional defence mechanisms (Singer, 1995), to
protect against fear and helplessness (Chu, 1996; Marcy, 1998; Putnam, 1991;
Spiegel, 1993) . According to Sanders et al., (1989) dissociative experiences in
response to repressed anger are more common in adolescence since this is a
developmental phase when interpersonal relationships become increasingly
important and where emotional dysregulation activates defence reactions
165
(Calamari & Pini, 2003). Whatever the cause, Lucy was marginalised by, or
marginalised herself from, her peers.
In the focus group, this historical dynamic was amplified amongst fewer people,
particularly Jason for whom Lucy provided a perfect outlet for his own
attachment needs, but unwittingly perhaps, preventing development of
Lucy’s opinions. For myself, I reflected that, given Lucy’s particular
vulnerability in a group, the opportunity for her voice to be heard may better
have been realised in a one-to-one environment.
Judging by the young peoples’ interaction in their focus groups, there appears
an inexorable connection between the internalisation of negative life
experience and the forming of interpersonal relationships. However, the
findings would suggest that there is an inexorable connection between
the internalization of negative life experience and the forming of interpersonal
relationships for counsellors, as much as for the young people I observed and
interviewed. This topic is developed in the following section.
4.2.5 Attachment in relation to counsellors A and B
My training as a counsellor has highlighted the significance not only of the
words used by clients but also, the language behind them, for example tone of
voice, intonation and non-verbal delivery. Consequently, I was alerted to some
of the words used by Counsellor B when discussing the aggressive young
people she counselled:
Counsellor B: …They don’t think about it. They just slap people, or bully people…
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 481-48216
166
I was surprised to hear counsellor B use the word […]slap[…] possibly because my
training in counselling tutored the use of language sensibility which the word
‘slap’ seemed somehow to breach. As this adjective came early in the first focus
group, I questioned whether it was a power word, to impress Counsellor B’s
knowledge of young people who bully by using their street-wise language. Later,
when describing another client, the term was used again:
Counsellor B: She’d [the client] straightened her hair, she’d put her slap [colloquial
term for make-up] on
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 728-729. P.24
The word “[…] slap […]” was at variance with the sensibility previously
demonstrated by Counsellor B when speaking of her clients. She was noticeably
changed when using such words, her voice and expression more grim, lending her
sentences an unforgiving feel and communicating what I sensed as fear or
anger. For example, when Counsellor B went on to describe how she established
boundaries when confronting her clients’ aggressive behaviour I questioned if
her language signified personal threat:
Counsellor B: […] You’re [the client] not bullying me. I’m not impressed
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Line 97. P.3
Counsellor B spoke authoritatively, conveying control in the first person “You’re
not bullying me”. She was quick to establish authority, “I’m not impressed”.
Possibly for Counsellor B, her constant exposure to aggression necessitated such
inurement or even control. However, her two commands combined
167
caused me to question whether she perceived her clients’ aggression as a
personal attack; herself as victim and where her response was seemingly a
defence. This interpretation was supported by my own reaction to Counsellor B
since, feeling slightly intimidated by her authority my confidence was somewhat
undermined. I reflected that Counsellor B, like the young people, may need to
push away, to avoid engaging.
According to Ekamparan (2008) individuals may be attracted to counsel as an
unconscious attempt to self-heal. Certainly, the counsellors I have spoken with
acknowledge this as a competing motivation. Importantly, given the
psychological vulnerabilities affecting young people who bully, providing a
safe base as counsellors denotes a significant condition for effective
counselling (Bowlby, 1988; Epstein, 1995; Osofsky, 1988; Osofsky, 1980
Parish, 1999; Parish & Eagle, 2003; Pistole, 1989). Ekamparan (2008) intimates
that if a counsellor is insecurely attached this may adversely influence the
therapeutic relationship. Thus, the notion of the counsellor’s personal
experiences shaping the client/counsellor relationship introduces a double
hermeneutic, similar to that identified between researcher and researched in
IPA (Smith, 2004) where the counsellor is considered an active participant
(Gelso & Hayes, 1998, cited in Gelso, Hill et al., 1999) and suggesting that a
counsellor’s negative life experiences may influence the alliance. Nonetheless,
such effect seemed also to enhance the therapeutic relationship, in a way
that I suggest benefited effective work with vulnerable young people, as
voiced by Counsellor A:
168
Counsellor A: […] I think what I’m saying is, we all experience pain and I
believe that that pain that we experience through life, is not the same for us all
but it’s very similar for all of us. Pain is pain. Fear is fear. Joy is joy. Anger is
anger. You know…they’re…they’re…those four basic emotions we all experience
them […]
Transcript 3. Focus group 3. Counsellors A and B. Lines 31050-105. P.33
Counsellor A advocated “[…] basic emotions […]” such as “pain […]”, “[…] fear
[…]” and “[…] joy […]” as collective in nature; conditions that enabled effective
work:
Researcher: And if you didn’t have that experience, would you be able to work
as effectively? […]
Counsellor B: Probably not
Counsellor A: I don’t think so. I really don’t. Not for me anyway. If I’d never
had all those experiences I don’t think I’d be doing this […] very well
Transcript 3. Focus group 3. Counsellors A and B. Lines 747-753. P.23
Possibly, in this way, a counsellor’s internalised pain could be interpreted as
facilitating an understanding of the client’s perspective. Notably, understanding
of the counsellor’s negative life experiences derived from my perspective as
a counsellor, hence their portrait rests solely with the precariousness of my
interpretation.
4.2.6 Summary in relation to attachment
The young participants in this study were all considered vulnerable, by staff at
Centre A, due largely to their experience of dysfunctional parenting. Whether
or not their attachment status had been professionally classified was unknown,
yet it seemed possible to me, that consistent with the mistrust I
169
had witnessed whilst observing the young people (3.9.1), coupled with the data,
that they may predominantly have been insecurely attached.
Jason displayed contrasting behaviour, as his comments caused laughter
through the use of insult, suggesting to me that he both sought affirmation of
his likeability and alienated others. A possible explanation derives from
Mikulincer (1998), who writes that for insecurely attached individuals, whose
needs are insufficiently met, the primary concern for an infant is in maintaining
proximity to the primary caregiver. Therefore, in the face of uncertainty, the
safest response to any threat is for the child to devote all attention and
energy to re-establishing proximity, using good or bad behaviour. Ironically,
since attachment is thus established upon precarious footings, proximity to the
caregiver at these times is associated by the infant with fear and distress; in
this case, ably reflected in Jason’s anxiety.
Reflecting upon the transcripts, I realised the effect of Jason’s alternating needs
upon the focus group process as a confusing cocktail that intermittently
both pushed him away from and pulled him into the forum, depending upon
his most prevalent need at the time. For example, according to Jellema (2000),
dismissing individuals have been consistently punished during childhood by
maternal/paternal inattention, rejection, or unresponsiveness;
ultimately
repressing or even extinguishing emotional distress. In interpersonal
relationships they defer instead to cognitive processing, using a think, rather
than feel pattern to make sense of the world, unable also to entrust their
emotions to others. Individuals rated as avoidant “cannot trust or rely on what
people tell them”, their strategy is therefore “to coerce people to stay or
170
attend to them by intensifying displays of feeling” (Jellema, p.144).
Schwartz et al., (1997) and Forero and colleagues (1999) describe such push/pull
tendencies as Jason’s as consistent with the hostile/withdrawn characteristics
common to bully/victims, as their need for love, and rejection of it, positions
them in both camps (2.12). I suggest that for young people who bully, their
interpretation of reality is influenced by whether they enter at push or pull,
which I consider to be a symptom of the inconsistent development characterising
their development. Such sentiments are supported by Wilson (1983) who
proposes that a reliable knowledge of reality depends upon how it is obtained,
reinforcing the need to consider lived experience when researching young
people who bully, and consequently, the use of IPA in this study.
Conceptualising insecure attachment in terms of trust and risk provides some
understanding of how this mediates interpersonal relationships, the primary
agenda being to help young people who bully cope with developmental
problems and initiate change. I have argued that the provision of expert
counselling may offer crucial support. By support, I mean ready access to
counsellors who are specifically trained to understand the complex
psychological and developmental problems experienced by young people who
bully.
Seemingly, by letting nothing in, Jason could maintain a fragile boundary around
his self-esteem and his need for estrangement was evident through his hostility
towards the other focus group members. According to Elliot, and Reis (2003) the
insecurely attached seldom progress to form secure relationships as their
171
sense of unworthiness more usually predominates, influencing future alliances.
I consider that the interaction with Jason represented a rich source of data
(Catterall & MaClaran, 1996) that demonstrated how group influence marries
with the idiographic tents of IPA (Côté-Arsenault & Morrison-Beedy, 2001;
Jasper, 1996; Kooken et al., 2007) (3.4).
The complicated nuances of relationship building in relation to insecure
attachment are well known. For example, Mikulincer (1998) explains that
avoidant attachment, characterised by insecurity as to others’ intentions and a
consequent preference for distance, is categorised as a fear of intimacy and
reluctance to depend on others.
This was seemingly evident in Andy’s behaviour where I intuited he distanced
himself as a safety mechanism. However, when he communicated, Andy was
assertive, even to the point of self-satisfaction. The uncertainty his behaviour
aroused in the other participants served to distance them from him. Similarly,
Andy professed an apparent lack of concern for his counsellors however, I have
suggested his behaviour was aimed at preservation of his self-worth. Possibly
he isolated himself as protection since he anticipated that forming relationships
would result in rejection and were hence perceived by him as a threat
(Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). On the other hand, the support worker attributed
Andy’s withdrawal to him being “[…] an independent person. Keeps himself to
himself”. However Crittendon (1995) considers such detachment as an
attempt to avoid confronting one’s emotions. Had Andy been comfortable with
his solitude, I question whether he would have constantly cast his eyes to the
floor, as I observed, or would have been more confident in engaging eye contact.
In addition, being told he was “[…] good […]”seemingly resonated with Andy,
172
demonstrating his need for affirmation. Hence, I intuited that Andy had erected
a veneer which effectively prevented him from being known and yet this
represented an internalised mistrust towards others.
Within the group, Courtney alone stood out as a participant who could reason.
This was evident through her willingness and ability to contribute to discussion.
Courtney injected positivity to the group, her buoyant demeanour and overt
challenges, galvanising the other members to respond. Hazan and Shavers
(1994) explain that, unlike insecure attachment where a child’s needs either
went unmet or were unpredictable (Hazan & Shaver, 1994), for securely
attached individuals such as Courtney, their need for safety when threatened
was responded to, generating trust (Hazan & Shaver, 1994). As trust bestowed
(Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Feeney & Noller, 1990) generated trust received
(Collins & Read, 1990), securely attachment individuals inspired trust in others
(Bowlby, 1988; Mikulincer, 1998) possibly triggering a reciprocal response from
the other focus group members. Given the close bond observed between the
young people at Centre A (3.9.1) and the consistency and dependability,
modelled by Courtney in the focus group, I consider it possible that she may
have represented a trustworthy attachment figure, enabling even Andy to
relate with less risk.
In contesting her fellow members, Courtney demonstrated a courageous
attitude, since collectively she had been victim to their formidable force. I
suggested her non-reactive attitude emanated from a sense of self-confidence
which made it unnecessary for Courtney to defend her position, possibly
attributable to a sense of “felt security” eminent from the secure attachment
173
with her parents (Sroufe & Waters, 1977, p.102). For example, although during
infancy a child will start to explore their world, periodic checking of the
attachment figure’s availability continues to occur. Crucially, it is the carer’s
dependability that establishes the level of safety a child experiences, whereby
differentiating secure from insecure attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1994).
Courtney’s apparent security not only affected the relationship with her peers
but also that with her counsellor and myself, as she was able to disclose to us
both that she had bullied. Since secure attachment (2.10), i s characterised by
confidence in others’ love and comfort with closeness (Ainsworth et al., 1978;
Hazan & Shavers, 1987) Courtney may have felt empowered to risk a trusting
relationship with me.
Whether insecure attachment can be identified in an interview or focus group is
beyond the limits of my understanding but the findings suggested that
counsellors may also be susceptible to the internalisation of negative life
experience. Researchers (Fossell & Bonney, 1990; Birsch, 1999; Mar, 2000)
suggest that counsellors may be drawn to a helping profession because of
experiences such as childhood trauma and emotional deprivation, and
therefore, as an attempt to self-heal (Ekamparan’s, 2008). Like Osofsky
(1988), I argue that the counsellor’s history of receiving negative care may
occasionally interrupt their ability to create feelings of security within the
therapeutic relationship. Given that clients generally seek counselling when
facing concerns they feel unable to handle alone, the therapist’s attachment
state is consequently of importance (Birsch, 1999).
174
The following section therefore discusses how, under such circumstances,
establishment of a trusting relationship can be founded in counselling.
4.3 The therapeutic relationship
4.3.1 Trust
Whilst observing the young people at Centre A (3.9.1), I had witnessed the
extreme mistrust and suspicion afforded visitors and new-comers. For example,
the company funding Centre A, had arranged for two visitors to take a short
promotional video of the young people. Following discussion with her staff, Carrie
decided that, given their mistrust, the young people may react adversely to the
impending visit. To minimise alarm, it was agreed that they would be casually
informed as to the visitor’s intentions if and when needed. Although the guests
to Centre A attempted to circulate as unobtrusively as possible, the young people
were noticeably flustered, unable to focus upon their lessons, and nervously
speculating the reason for the intrusion. Anxiety quickly rippled through the
classroom, and when Carrie offered an explanation, several of the young people
walked out, declaring they would not participate, a female student burst into
tears, and another called a taxi and went home. I suggest this extreme reaction
was a measure of their vulnerability.
When gathering data, evidence of the young peoples’ propensity for mistrust
became apparent with the opening question, posed them during the first focus
group:
Researcher: So, one of the first questions I’d like to ask you is, when you
went for counselling, what made you decide to go for counselling?
175
Jason: Shit
Andy: No idea
Everyone laughs
Researcher: No idea?
Courtney:(Indiscernible)
The participants look nervously at each other
Researcher: So what sort of things would make you decide to go for counselling
do you think?
Andy: I dunno
Transcription 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 1-10. P 1
Jason’s opening comment “Shit” communicated a sense of alarm; unpreparedness perhaps, as the question either took him by surprise, or was
too searching as an opening gambit. Although it was Jason who actually
verbalised apprehension, I suggest he acted as spokesperson for the group’s
unease as Courtney mumbled indiscernibly and Andy was non-committal. Also,
I sensed edginess, communicated by the collective laughter and the exchange
of nervous glances.
As an opening question, the inquiry ran contrary to Smith and Osborn’s (2003)
advice where they recommend leaving sensitive questions until later to allow
participants to become relaxed and ready to speak. Upon reflection, I realised
that, rather than nurturing trust, I tried to establish some control by using the
opening questions to determine a schedule. This could have been the
erection of my own emotional boundaries as I was daunted by the
propensity for emotional outburst among the young people that I had
witnessed when the fight erupted between Jason and Andy ( 3.9.1) . However,
rather than ameliorating my anxieties, the result of the overly intrusive question,
176
as Smith & Osborn, (2003) predict, was costly; the young people’s
embarrassment evident through their non-responsiveness to subsequent
questions.
Given my existing knowledge of the young people’s distrust at Centre A, and the
reaction triggered by my first question, trust surfaced as a pressing concern and I
decided to deviate from the question guide to develop it, trying to understand
how such extreme mistrust would influence the therapeutic relationship, by
asking the participants what would make them most wary in counselling. The
young participants considered back-stabbing (Focus group 1. Young people. Line
532. P.19) a very real risk:
Courtney: That’s one thing I hate about like…I’m paranoid about other people
like…if they go and tell other people
Jason: And they see yer They all laugh
Jason: Well wind it back then…if they chat to somebody else….
Courtney: No cos if they go to someone else about me I’m like… and tell her to
stuff it and all…. this other person like…
Phil [The support worker]: Who would they go to? Do you mean the counsellor
when they’re talking about you?
Courtney: Yeah
Phil: They’re not allowed to. Who would they tell? Their friends?
Courtney: Yeah. They’d be like…Oh, I had this person today. She was really weird.
Had some really horrible problems
Jason: She was a freak […] They all laugh
Phil: So they thought you were a freak
Courtney: Well they obviously wouldn’t be doing their job if they said that.
But you never know. Some people…you can’t trust them
Transcript 1.Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 449-467. Pp. 16-17
177
Although Courtney’s mistrust was confined to “[…] some […]” as opposed to
all, the subject of ‘ backstabbing’ was nonetheless animate, for although the
participants joked as to their counsellor’s exposure of them, they had actually
conceptualised what would be said for example, “[…] she was a freak […]”.
Interestingly, when united in their views, they did seem more enabled in
developing their concerns. Possibly, the participants’ perception of their
counsellors was, to some degree, an extension of other interpersonal
relationships, where I observed the mistrust between them, and the dialect to
communicate this, as common.
Unlike Courtney, the other participants articulated a distrust of counsellors and
people in general, even Lucy contributing to the debate, her mistrust going
some way towards understanding her reticence to self-disclose:
Lucy: Yeah. You can’t trust anyone
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Line 515. P.18
Researcher: Are there certain things in people that you find difficult to trust?
Andy: I think they’re all dick heads
Researcher: All people that you don’t trust are dick heads?
[…] Researcher: Do you think counsellors are dicks?
Andy: Some of them yeah.
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 578-589. P. 20-21
Lucy and Andy articulated a lack of trust for everyone, something they again
attributed to back-stabbing; a relationship expectation as far as they were
concerned. Interestingly, I observed that the participants perpetuated that
which they defined as a source of mistrust. For example, when developing this
178
topic during the focus group, Courtney was describing the subjects most
challenging to speak of to a counsellor, when Andy interjected:
Andy: Yeah. You [Courtney] tell us. We’re going to be broadcasting it all year
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Line 520. P.18
Seemingly, mistrust was endemic, and rooted in the core behaviour of some of
the young people. By using collective terminology, “[…] us […]” and “[…] we
[…]” Andy implied that together, he and the other participants would delight in
betraying Courtney’s secrets. This confused me, as a few sentences later they
identified such backstabbing as the source of their own mistrust. Perhaps,
the young participants were unable to extrapolate their own feelings to others,
a theory consistent with the lack of empathy young people who bully display
(Olweus, 1978). Courtney stood alone with her challenge of this concept,
questioning the assumption that all people would inevitably “[…] backstab […]”:
Courtney: That’s just saying, don’t trust anyone because anyone can backstab
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Line 532. P.19
Courtney reasoned that trust could not be predicated upon such an
assumption, a possible indication of her propensity for trust. However, the other
three were apparently predisposed to mistrust which, in the therapeutic
relationship interpreted as concerns in relation to confidentiality.
4.3.2 Confidentiality
Jason considered it a foregone conclusion that counsellors would break
179
confidentiality, not just for ethical purposes but because, with little else to
do, they delighted in backstabbing:
Jason: You can’t risk telling your counsellor certain things as they would have
to tell other people. Counsellors are faggots. They might have really boring
lives and need something to talk about. They sit there with their husbands and a
glass of wine, talking about you behind your back
Transcript 3. Focus group 3. Young people. Lines 157-159. P. 6.
Jason was unequivocal.
He articulated little conception of the process of
breaking confidentiality, understanding this as telling “[…] other people […]” as
opposed to the relevant counselling team members such disclosures dictate.
Instead, he attributed the desire to tell, to a counsellor’s disposition;
they were “[…] faggots […]” using his personal disclosures to fill their
time. The word ‘faggot’ implied a derisive attitude towards counsellors
revealing what I interpreted as Jason’s contempt; hatred even, towards
them. His words also suggested a personal vendetta and I considered this
may be a relic of his past, where Jason felt he was out to be ‘got’. His notion
of this as inevitable spoke to me of powerlessness.
This was amplified by Jason’s vision of the counsellor sitting back with a glass of
wine chatting to her husband and I sensed he was attempting to articulate a
dissonance between the counsellor and himself. Bloomfield and Kory (1980)
write how “Displaced and projected responses to anger inhibit communication,
create distance and feelings of isolation, intensify bitter feelings, expose one’s
lack of self-control, all of which can further weaken self- esteem” (p.472).
Importantly, I considered that for Jason, hatred appeared a core developmental
180
pain which he should not be compromised in venting.
It is also possible that the nuances of breaking confidentiality had not been
clearly explained to Jason, or perhaps the other young people. However, when
developing how to empower their confidence regarding confidentiality in
counselling, views were mixed.
Researcher: What would a counsellor have to do to make you trust them
more?
Lucy: Dunno
Researcher: What about if at the start they say, “It’s going to be confidential and
we won’t be telling anybody outside of the team”. Would that make a
difference?
Courtney: It would make me feel better
This should be said when the client/counsellor contract is made but perhaps it
needs emphasising for this particularly untrustworthy group
Andy: No. I don’t care
Courtney: Please explain that to us further Andy
Researcher: Yes, please do
Phil: You’ve got a lot to say mate but you just don’t want to say it
Courtney: We really want to hear
Andy: Yeah. I just don’t have anything I want to talk about
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 536-548. P. 19
Courtney’s opinion was at variance with the other participants. For her, hearing
that her self-disclosures would not be shared with anyone outside the team
would make a difference. She showed extreme maturity, trying to develop the
debate by asking Andy to “[…] explain [things] to [them] further […]” however
Andy would not budge and was seemingly determined not to contribute. It
appeared that his extreme caution also communicated to the focus group where,
181
despite the emphasis upon confidentiality relayed both verbally and through
the PIS, even this was not sufficient to hold him safe. It was also possible that,
like 13% of other boys asked, he preferred to keep things to himself (Fox &
Butler, 2007). As often appeared the case however, when developing the topic
of confidentiality later in the focus group, Andy, emboldened by Courtney’s
non-confrontational attitude, lowered his defences and contributed to the
discussion:
Researcher: Do you think that, say you took drugs or something, that you’d be
able to tell your counsellor about that?
Andy: No
Researcher: What would stop you?
Andy: Nothin’. I just wouldn’t tell ‘em. They don’t need to know about anythin’
like that do they
Researcher: They don’t need to know?
Courtney: Yeah but I swear that when it’s serious stuff like drugs they need to
go and tell someone anyway
Andy: Cos if it like concerns your health or personal safety Courtney: They have
to tell other people
Andy: Yeah they do
Courtney: Cos I got told that when I was doing my counselling
Andy: If like something like concerns you, like is a risk to you or somebody else,
they have to tell someone. So if you told them about drugs or somethin’ they
would have to get involved
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 801-820. Pp. 28-29
With his opening avowal, Andy implied that there were certain taboo subjects not
suitable for a counsellor to hear. This statement echoed with Jason’s prior claim
that […] his business was his business […], both declarations implying an outdated
attitude towards a public display of emotion that in counselling, was enacted as
182
censored self-disclosure. Equally, Andy’s initial insistence on “[telling] em nuthin
[…]”, resonated with the risk involved should he disclose something ‘bad’ about
himself, supporting the notion of such topics as deterring clients from selfdisclosure (Farber & Hall, 2002) (4.2). For me however, a more apt
description of Andy was of a person petrified in both senses of the word and I was
saddened that the knowledge and life within him was seemingly regulated
by overwhelming risk, whatever the source.
Hence, it was the more surprising to note how, under the influence of Courtney,
Andy developed his account, contributing more willingly than he had at any other
time. As on previous occasions, it appeared that Andy did have an opinion after
all, he and Courtney voicing awareness as to the ethical boundaries surrounding
confidentiality; principles Courtney was “[…] told when [she] was doing [her]
counselling […]”. Andy also understood that breaking confidentiality represented
risk to self or other. Courtney “[…] sw[ore] […]” this was so, a word suggesting
she saw it as legal and binding.
Since confidentiality in counselling is inextricably linked with the concept of harm
to self or other, and the alleged inhibition of disclosing certain topics to a
counsellor (2.9), I was interested to hear which particular subjects the young
people perceived as most threatening to confidentiality:
Jason concluded the debate about confidentiality by delivering a thoughtful
challenge:
Jason: You’re a counsellor right. What would you do if someone told you they
were going to kill someone?
Researcher: Well…if one of my clients told me they intended to murder someone,
I would feel duty bound to disclose that to my supervisor.
Jason: Well, there’s the answer then. It’s our break time now.
183
Jason just stood up and got ready to leave. I could hear the snooker balls
clattering in the other room and realised this acted as an alarm, but also, I
felt the final statement was like a victory
Transcript 3.Focus group 3. Young people. Lines 249-255. P.9
I recalled Jason’s statement as something of a victory, as immediately
following the encounter, he stood, taking charge of the focus group by
declaring it break time. I was concerned that his abrupt closure left little
opportunity for me to ground the participants’ emotions at the end of the last
focus group (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
In addition, my intention, as decided (3), had been to discuss the themes
emergent from the focus groups, with two representative young participants,
so they could verify the authenticity of their accounts. However, the sudden
conclusion to the focus group unsettled the remaining young people, whose
anxious interaction suggested their emotional unease, and which may
accordingly, have contributed to their refute of previously recorded comments.
Perhaps, seeing their words on paper represented too large a threat,
undermining their trust. I considered that this, coupled with the heightened
emotional state Jason’s abrupt ending had occasioned, may have contributed
to the young peoples’ decision to both forego their individual interviews and
the opportunity to read their transcripts. Smith (2008) stipulates that there is
no “cookbook” (p.40) approach to IPA, so, although I was disappointed at
the lost opportunity to develop the young peoples’ concerns, I adapted to the
unanticipated (Smith, 2008) using data derived solely from the young people’s
focus groups and the reflective notes from my observations, to inform analysis.
184
4.3.3 The counsellor as stranger
It appeared that the extreme vulnerability of the young people left them exposed
and threatened, compromising the fabric of their lives. In counselling, their
suspicion and mistrust was amplified at their conception of the counsellor as a
stranger. For instance, when asked what made it difficult for her to trust a
counsellor, Lucy expressed a link between mistrust and not knowing her
counsellor:
Lucy: Talking to someone I don’t know […] About stuff
Researcher: Would you find it quite difficult?
Lucy: Not difficult. Just a bit weird. If it was someone I know I probably would
Researcher: What difference would it make if you were telling someone you know?
Lucy: If I know you better then I know what you’re like. But it could be….the
counsellor could be bitchy or sommit. Go to her friends and be like…yeah
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 428-444. pp15-16
Lucy thought it “[…] a bit weird […]” to tell things to someone she did not
know, suggesting that Beaudet & Schwartsman, with a counsellor would allow
her to gauge their trustworthiness. It seemed her concerns resonated with
previous themes about backstabbing, for “[…] the counsellor could be bitchy or
sommit [...]”; and “[...] go to her friends […]”.Courtney and Andy were once
again united in the view that knowing a counsellor helped facilitate trust:
Andy: If you get to know somebody you can trust ‘em
There is a resounding ‘Yeah’
Courtney: She’s [the current counsellor] really nice. I got really close to her at
[the school club]
Andy: It’s different if you just start seeing ‘em [the counsellor] straight away init
Transcript 1.Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 604-607. P.21
185
Barring Jason, there was agreement that “[…] seeing ‘em [the counsellor]
straight away […]” inhibited formation of a close bond and development of
trust, affording a “[…] different […]” experience. I was confused, as this view
was shared by Andy, representing a significant jump from previous claims. It
seemed possible that his support worker Phil may have ‘hit something on
the head’ when stating that Andy had “[…] a lot to say but just [did not] want
to say it […]”. Lewicki and Tomlinson (2003:3) point out, that “trust will only be
extended to the other […] over time”, and I wondered if Andy was
emboldened to self-disclose as the focus group progressed and his trust in me
grew. Jason however, remained un-swayed:
Jason: Yeah, but why would I talk to some stranger that I don’t even know? Oh
yeah, my dog died last night. I’m well sad (He pulls a mock sad face). Fuck that.
They’re not going to make it better for you are they.
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 745-747. P.26
Jason remained sceptical. He did not consider an unknown counsellor as able
to meet his needs. Interestingly, his comment “[…] They’re not going to make it
better […]” suggested he saw healing as his counsellor’s, not his own
responsibility. Perhaps, as Counsellors A and B suggested, facilitating his selfagency might empower Jason to enable change.
When debating how to resolve the problem of the ‘unknown’ counsellor the
previous accord dissolved as the young participants were divided in their
opinions:
Researcher: What could a counsellor do to help you not see them as a stranger?
Courtney: Having a few sessions with them before, just chatting so you could
get to know them. They could take you out for coffee.
Jason: That wouldn’t make a difference. They’re still a stranger
186
Researcher: So if you had a choice between meeting them at say McDonalds
or their office, how would it make a difference Jason?
Jason: It wouldn’t. They’re still strangers. I wouldn’t go up to a stranger in the
street and tell them my business
Transcript 3. Focus group 3. Young people. Lines 143-150. P.5
Unlike Courtney who considered meeting over a coffee would help her get to
know her counsellor, Jason was immovable, a “[…] stranger [was] a stranger
[…]”. Jason compared his counsellor with a person on the street, suggesting to
me a learned resistance hailing from intergenerational negativity regarding
counselling (Baruch, 2001). Courtney challenged my opinion however,
reconfiguring Jason’s words from an alternate perspective:
Courtney: You should never trust strangers. We’re always told not to speak to
strangers
Transcript 3. Focus group 3. Young people Line 154 P.6
Courtney’s logic was infallible, for it was quite possible that the young
people had been indoctrinated to avoid strangers and that this societal rule
influenced Jason’s view.
4.3.4 Referral as opposed to self-referral
Further unease was articulated by the young participants regarding referral as
opposed to self-referral, a problem Counsellor B called the “[…] they sent me
[…]” syndrome. Although the topic of referral was articulated by Courtney, I
noted in my journal how the other participants engaged; suggesting referral
was a subject about which they all had an opinion:
187
Very interesting and unusual to observe the unity between the young people
when self-referral is being discussed. They nod and their body language changes
Courtney explained how she was referred for counselling by her school
and her mother to help address her behaviour issues:
Courtney: […] my teachers told me I needed it (she laughs)
Researcher: Pardon
Courtney: I got told I needed it
Researcher: Did you? Who by?
Courtney: By the school and my Mum
Researcher: So, what was it like being referred by somebody else?
Courtney: Stupid. Because I didn’t need it
Transcription 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 34-40. Page 2
Courtney’s words, “[…] I got told I needed it […]”, suggested a lack of
autonomy and self-agency; conditions acknowledged by clients (Bohart &
Tallman, 1999) as vital if a personal investment into counselling is to be
made. This is important as self-agency correlates to improved outcome
(Manthei, 2007; Bohart & Tallman, 1999) (2.8).
Courtney hinted at how self-referral had jaundiced her view of counselling, her
words “Stupid. Because I didn’t need it”, signifying resentment. Her
disillusionment appeared to manifest as reluctance to contribute to the
client/counsellor relationship:
Researcher: So how would that [being referred] make a difference to the
things you told them? [The counsellor]
Courtney: Yeah like, I probably wouldn’t tell them….well, when I had my
counsellor; I didn’t really tell her a lot [...]
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 478-481. P.17
188
For Courtney, the loss of control imparted by being referred, stifled selfdisclosure, and I intuited that, through her decision to withhold, Courtney
possibly regained an element of control, her lack of autonomy amplified at
having been referred by her school:
Courtney: […] She (the counsellor) was at [the] school. I didn’t really trust her. I
don’t like anyone at [the] School
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 480-481. P.17
Throughout the focus groups, Courtney clearly articulated dislike for her school,
blaming them for the problems she underwent. Since, in her sentence, she
linked mistrust for her counsellor with […] ‘anyone at the school’ […], I
sensed that her doubt for both, was inexorably connected to what Courtney
perceived as enforced decisions. Such mistrust prejudiced the therapeutic
relationship:
Researcher: So if you’d trusted the counsellor at [her school], do you think you
would have been able to tell her a little bit more?
Courtney: No. I didn’t like her because she worked at [the school]
Researcher: So, it was all about [your school] (We laugh)
Courtney: Yeah. I didn’t like [the school]. They sent me downhill. I blame them
for my problems
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 619-624. P.22
Despite her sense of injustice, it was interesting that Courtney blamed her school
for sending her “[…] downhill […]”, as in a previous extract she also blamed
one’s parents for a child becoming a bully. This suggested to me a possible block
189
which prevented her from evaluating a situation with herself as an intrinsic
player. This may have been an attempt to distance herself; a surprise given that
previously, Courtney had admitted to being a bully.
When faced with resistant clients, Counsellor A described how she empowered
the client through offering them choice and the permission to express feelings,
whether positive or negative, in a safe and trusting environment:
Counsellor A: … And some that have been sent, even when you say, well, you
don’t even have to be here. I’m giving you the permission to say no. Then,
that’s enough for them to start engaging. It’s like, Ooooh, well, I’m choosing
this then. I haven’t actually been sent here. I can walk out now if I want to
Transcript 1. Focus group. Lines 1596-599. Pp.19-20
Arguably, the authority Counsellor A inferred by giving “[…] permission […]”
was at variance with the empowerment such choice implied. Counsellor A
however, considered that enabling clients through choice offered an
opportunity to explore the underlying reasons which motivated their behaviour,
encouraging clients to voice even the negative feelings they may have toward
her:
Counsellor A: I encourage them to say, I don’t like what you just said to me. If
they don’t like what I’ve said, I encourage them to tell me because that means
we can explore it…
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 626-628. p.20
Counsellors B agreed, adding that the strength and safety of the therapeutic
alliance was paramount in such circumstances as, provided it was sufficiently
robust, clients could experiment with asserting themselves in a safe and
trusting environment, “[…] in ways they may previously not have experienced
190
[…]”. Counsellor B also pointed out that, “[…] allowing them as much say in
what happen[ed] [as possible] [was] really important in restoring a bit of the
power differential”.
Counsellor B, inferred, that for clients, having the choice and the ability to
express negativity, even towards their counsellor restored a sense of equality to
the therapeutic relationship, implying that this was not merely a dyad, but also, a
partnership, where the voice of the client was of equivalent importance to that
of the counsellor.
4.3.5 The struggle to articulate emotions
Nonetheless, according to Counsellor A, articulating their feelings was
sometimes a challenge. Her view was supported by findings from this study,
where the young participants demonstrated diverse abilities for putting their
feelings into words. Courtney highlighted how such difficulties affected the
therapeutic relationship:
Courtney: When I was young, counselling was fun…like…we played games and I
didn’t have to speak. Talking is difficult.
Transcript 3. Focus group 3. Young people. Lines 240-241. P.8
For Courtney, playing games provided an outlet for expression in the therapeutic
relationship that negated a need for talking. Counsellors A and B likewise
acknowledged such limitations:
Sometimes, they don’t know the words […]
Transcript 4. Focus group 4. Counsellors A and B. Lines 297-299. P.9
191
For Counsellor B, when faced with this wordless dilemma, she used play therapy
to facilitate the body as a creative tool and to aid unity between the physical
and the psychological (Malchiodi, 2005).
Counsellor B: […] And very often, um, the kids who find language quite
difficult, it’s useful at that point I find, to get a load of pens and paper out.
They draw charts, they draw flow diagrams, they draw spider diagrams, they
label things, they scribble things, and we end up with a spider diagram the
size of this table. But actually, that’s them processing…
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 513-517. P.17
By using creative outlets Counsellor B considered she provided a place for her
clients that supplemented a need for words, freeing them to “[…] process […]”
their concepts using an expressive medium that had few boundaries. Despite
her enthusiasm, Counsellor B was not blind to the risks involved when
working creatively with vulnerable young people:
Counsellor B: […] anything that involves writing or drawing or sand therapy
or play acting gets right to the emotional depth very fast. You know,
because you’re dispensing with all the words and psychobabble and going
straight to how they feel about something and for them that’s very new. So,
I’m very aware that if it’s not sensitively managed, it could go wrong.
Researcher: Sounds very risky for them
Counsellor B: It is very risky for them, but for some of them, they’re never going
to get there because they’re far too fragile, distressed, emotionally fraught, to
attempt anything like that and what you’re trying to do is build them a safe
place to look a little bit at how they feel first.
Transcription 6. Interview Counsellor B. Lines 423-433. P.12
Counsellor B described how creative counselling, by bypassing words, could go
directly to the core of her client’s emotions, an experience that was risky for
192
them, but one she considered provided a safe pathway en-route to more
detailed exploration. Like Counsellor B, Malchiodi (2005) also acknowledges the
risks involved, but considers that for young people without words, creativity
may represent the primary form of communication in counselling.
Further benefits come from creativity as an assessment tool (Feder & Feder,
1998), as exemplified by Counsellor A, when working with a client with severely
compromised speech:
Counsellor A: […] I have a very angry client at the moment who doesn’t
have the vocabulary to describe feelings [...]
Transcript 5. Interview Counsellor A. Lines 191-192. P.6
Counsellor A continued by describing the benefits of persuading her client to put
his feelings down on paper:
Counsellor A: […]with that anger on a piece of paper, which is usually a diagram
I have pre-drawn for them and then they would colour it or paint it, write on it
or stamp on it, or stick knives in it, or whatever they want to do with it. And
then they will say usually, crumbs, I feel so much better now. I didn’t realise I
could get my anger out that way. Um…and then they are much more
comfortable sitting with that….actually, it was a square. It was a black, solid
square this particular client has as his anger
Transcript 5. Interview Counsellor A. Lines 197-203. P. 6-7
Despite her client’s inability to provide a verbal presentation of himself, by
using creative outlets, Counsellor A, now knew that her client’s anger was black
and
square,
important
information
for
assessing
the
psychological
representation of his feelings. Having expressed his feelings through a
drawing, Counsellor A’s client felt “[…] so much better […]”. She helped him
move on where talk therapy may have been less effective (Gladding &
Newsome, 2003).
193
Importantly, Counsellor’s A and B suggested that not only did their vulnerable
clients not have the words, they sometimes did not know them, and the
findings suggested that for Andy, this may have been the case. Verbalising, or
even inhabiting his emotions appeared both threatening and risky, and in the
focus group, I looked to his body language as a physical barometer of his
feelings.
For instance, laid back in the chair, with his legs draped over a foot stool, Andy
was seemingly unperturbed however other non-verbal clues communicated an
alternate and more anxious demeanor:
Researcher: Andy seldom takes his eyes from the ground or fully
engages with the other participants
For Andy, being on “[…] high alert […]” gave rise to conflicting body
language, since his unruffled pose contrasted sharply with his apprehensive
and downcast gaze, such disparity inferring a conscious attempt to define his
disposition. Consequently, evaluating Andy’s complex non-verbal clues
demanded advanced awareness, and I wondered if the confusion of ‘not
knowing’ (“[…] I dunno […]”) was echoed in his chaotic body language. Phil,
his support worker voiced his suspicions:
Phil: You’ve got a lot you [Andy] want to say mate but you just don’t want to say it
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Line 546. P.19
When faced with such complicated clients, Counsellors A and B concurred,
that the client’s body language was of equal importance to their words, in trying
to compile an holistic picture of them:
194
Researcher: So, how people look, is as big a clue to you as what they say?
Counsellor B and Counsellor A together: A huge clue
Counsellor B: Absolutely huge
Counsellor B: She’d [a client] done her hair
Counsellor A: Make up on…
Transcript 2.Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 725-728 and 739-741. Pp.23-24
Counsellors A and B considered the way a client looked “[…] A huge clue […]”
as to their overall well-being, describing a mind body connection, with the latter
a vessel for internalised and unexpressed emotion, where the client’s body
language served as a conduit for the expression of unconscious feelings:
Counsellor B: Mmm, you don’t need words to read another person. And anyone
that’s on high alert, like somebody who’s aggressive normally is, is very in
tune with your chemistry, or your aura […] So, without you even saying
anything, they are going to pick up non-verbal…
Counsellor A: You see it before they see it sometimes and then you can explore
if you want to, if it’s appropriate to talk about the change in the body. That’s
when they can make that connection. […] I will point that out and then
explore…. What happened then? What was that about? What were you
feeling when your body did, you know, this movement or that movement? […]
Researcher: What does that tell you then?
Counsellor B: It’s something to do with the body remembering and storing […]
And it needing somewhere to go, it needs to be processed. And they don’t
realise that they’re sitting their shoulders up and their fists clenched and their
faces strained and their legs twitching and their….They really don’t know that
that’s what they’re doing. You say, ‘how do you feel?’ Oh. Alright. You’re not
though, are you? And…and…working with that kind of feels really important….
Counsellor B: …at times, to make them aware of what’s happening physically to
them […] It’s a really useful way for the kids who can’t necessarily articulate
what’s happening to work with the body…
Counsellor A:I don’t think…I don’t think people see the mind and the body
together, as completely entwined, and I think it’s common for people to
see, there’s the body, there’s the mind […] one thing cannot cohabit
without the other. It just can’t. So everything that’s happened to you from
the womb to this very present moment is stored somewhere in your body. And
that’s why I use the body so much.
Transcript 4. Focus group 4. Counsellors A and B. Lines 299-302. Pp. 9-10, 439-447. P.14,
453-460. P. 15
195
Interestingly, when speaking to Counsellor A about writing her reports once the
sessions with her clients were over, she observed:
Counsellor A: I was thinking…um…I think a lot happens in the room and you
know yourself when you want to write your notes, you can’t actually write it
down. There aren’t words, and I think a lot of those, when there’s no words,
happen during the week. And I’d like to know what the words are, because
I’d like to be able to write them down, but I can’t and I don’t know what those
words are[…]
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 1209-1213. P. 40
Possibly the power of wordlessness had communicated itself to Counsellor A,
so that she, like her clients, could not always put voice to her work.
Alternatively, her inability may tell of a protective instinct, whereby the words
of her clients had been suppressed by her to prevent anxiety.
With Counsellor A’s intimate disclosure of her wordlessness, it was nonetheless
apparent, that as the focus groups progressed, the relationship between the
counsellors and myself had grown, facilitating conversation and more expansive
evaluation. I intuited that here too, even amongst mature adults, it was the trust
built over time that had played its part in enabling self-disclosure. Counsellors A
and B recognised the equal importance of establishing trust with young clients
who bully:
Counsellor B: […] And actually, that’s quite an important thing to get through,
isn’t it. To get through that emotional barrier […]
Researcher: So when you’ve broken down that barrier, do you think…um…
that it provides a better space for them to disclose things to you?
Counsellor A: Oh definitely
Counsellor B: Yeah…yeah…
Counsellor A: Because that barrier can’t be broken without the trust. I don’t
think they’re going to tell
Transcript 2. Focus group 2.Counsellors A and B. Lines 176-186. P. 6
196
For Counsellors A and B, trust formed an essential safety blanket that buffered
risk and enabled self-disclosure. According to Counsellor A, building trust
started from the moment the therapeutic alliance formed, by establishing
equality between counsellor and client. She considered this an imperative
given the imbalance of the relationship between young people who bully and
those in authority:
Researcher: It sounds from what you’re saying, as if the way you present yourself
when you walk in the room, verbally and non-verbally, is very, very important.
Counsellor B: Absolutely.
Counsellor A: Incredibly! It’s crucial. Absolutely crucial [...]
Counsellor A: If you come in with this…I’m the, you know, counsellor […] and
you’re the client …that’s it. You’ll hit a brick wall…you’ve had it […]
Counsellor A: […] they’ve got teachers telling them off. They’ve got the
headmaster putting them in detention, they’ve got Mum and Dad shouting and
screaming, they’ve got the magistrate having a go, so nobody is listening
really. They, they say they are. But actually, they’re not. They’re, they’re doing
the wagging finger at them, all the time! Telling them off and putting them
down. Giving them all this negative about how awful they are and what
dreadful kids they are […]
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 256-266 and 327-332. Pp. 8-11
Focussing upon the client also helped engender trust, particularly for young
people who bully, as such positive attentiveness represented for them, a new
experience:
Counsellor B: …that all kids, not just bullies and the bullied, they all feel that they
really do have somebody concentrating on them […] And that’s what enables
the relationship to develop I think
Researcher: When you’re with young…young people who bully, or who are
aggressive, do you see that one to one attention as the most important part
of the therapeutic relationship?
197
Counsellor A: I would say so
Counsellor B: Yeah. Because it’s not something that they’ve had
Counsellor A: Mmmm. And from that, then they’re…the trust comes and that’s
obviously, something they’ve not often had […]
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 377-390. Pp.12-13
According to Counsellors A and B, one-to-one attention on their clients
represented the most important facet of the client/counsellor relationship as
the genuineness shown the client represented a building block for trust.
Researcher: What part of your persona as counsellors do you think it is that
allows you to really enter your client’s world?
Counsellor B: I think it’s the noticing and ‘noticing’ sounds a very weak word but
it isn’t if you think about it…it’s the noticing of other people
Counsellor B: And it is that noticing of other people and being prepared to
trust your gut instinct. You know, having faith in your...in…intuition, to trust it
and go with it
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 1117, 1139-1140, 1148-1150. P. 37
‘Noticing’, allowed Counsellors A and B to “[…] really enter the client’s world
[…]”/ As well as attending to body language, the counsellors’ focus included
actively listening to the words their clients used, and this was also helpful
when assessing change:
Counsellor B: And the incidental information. Like she said ‘Oh, I went to see
my tutor to ask him bla bla bla bla bla
Counsellor A: I asked for something for myself
Counsellor B: I asked. That’s proactive. That’s not reactive
Counsellor A: Mmmm
Counsellor B: So that’s a shift. She’s taking responsibility for things instead of
just smacking everybody because they’re pissing her off. So, it’s just the little
clues that you pick up.
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 746-752. p.24
198
By carefully listening to the words her client used, Counsellor B picked up on a
“[…] shift […]” away from her client’s habitual response using aggression.
Counsellor A considered noticing positive change as particularly important, since
previously, by “[…] wagging [the] finger […]”, young people who bullied may
only have been noticed for behaviour adjudged as wrong.
Such noticing also showed a personal investment by the counsellors,
synonymous with the caring modelled in secure attachment, and as known to
inspire trust (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller,
1990). It is consequently an important step towards empathy (Rogers, 1965) and
a building block for the therapeutic relationship.
Counsellors A and B highlighted that when providing counselling to young
people who bully, it is not just the client’s body language which is of
significance, but likewise, the counsellors, which served an important function in
the relationship:
Counsellor A: […] And actually, that’s what they’re used to when they’re
aggressive. Yeah. They’re used to somebody confronting them or, you know,
standing up to them, being big and loud and we’re doing the opposite, doing
the opposite of that. So sometimes their reaction is why isn’t the counsellor…
Counsellor B: Yeah
Counsellor A:…behaving like everyone else does in my world. You know, we’re
soft. We lower our body in the chair. We speak much more softly. It’s the
opposite to anything they’ve exp…usually may have experienced before and I
think that removes a lot of the aggression
Transcript 4. Focus group 4. Counsellors A and B. Lines 89-96.P.3
Counsellor A voiced how using her body by “[…] lowering [herself] in the chair
[…]” and her tone of voice “[…] speaking softly […]” signalled to the client an
199
alternative response than that previously experienced by them. According to
research (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Taylor & Thompson, 1982), her submissive body
posture posed less of a threat, and consequently communicated to the client
that Counsellor A could be trusted, subsequently reducing the client’s need for
an aggressive response:
Counsellor A: […] Their [the client’s] defences are then…their defences are
lowered because…Oh…I don’t have to, you know, be this big, aggressive
person because the reaction I’m getting from the counsellor is not aggressive
and is not threatening. It’s all blind or assumption. They don’t sit there
thinking about this. It does happen unconsciously
Transcript 4. Focus group 4. Counsellors A and B. Lines 98-101. P.3
According to Counsellor A, non-verbal cues appear to be a powerful
determinant in the therapeutic relationship. Researchers (Nisbett & Ross,
1980; Taylor & Thompson, 1982) emphasise the significance of body language
when interacting with individuals experiencing learning difficulties and
restricted expression, as words represent a complex construct of memory and
cognition, whereas non-verbal cues speak to a more primal source they may
find easier to interpret.
For instance, Counsellor A spoke of a client referred to her because of his
aggression, explaining how her reaction, so different from that anticipated,
broke through a protective barrier:
Counsellor A: […] I must say, when I first saw his face and the size of him, I felt
slightly…oooh…I wasn’t scared, but it was like…hmmm…ok, let’s go in. And we
were in…we had armchairs when I worked in this particular place, and I could
feel myself sinking lower and lower into this armchair as he said something
very, very aggressive…sexually aggressive towards me, which I was completely
calm about and did not react. He was trying to rile me. He was trying to get the
reaction. He was trying to scare me and it didn’t happen. And if anything,
200
when he first said this, I didn’t actually answer immediately. I sort of gave it
thought, and let him see I was thinking about what he’d said and then I
gave my reply, which was something like…I was wondering how that felt for
you to say that to me? And with that, he burst out crying.
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 155-172, p.5
It seemed the client was testing Counsellor A’s boundaries by goading her using
sexually aggressive innuendo and hoping to provoke “[…] the reaction […]”.
Counsellor A’s phraseology “[…] the […]” reaction, suggested to me she was
no stranger to such provocation. Counsellor A asserted the upper hand by
letting the client “[…] see [she] was thinking about what he’d said […]” before
replying. However, although Counsellor A stated she “[…] did not react […]”, by
“[…] sinking lower and lower into [her] armchair […]” it would appear in fact,
that she did and that the client had, after all, elicited “[…] the reaction […]” he
sought. Nonetheless, Counsellor A’s reaction seemed to undermine her client’s
boundaries freeing him to vent emotion:
Counsellor B: I see it often they end up crying. You know…if… And actually, that’s
quite an important thing to get through, isn’t it. To get through that emotional
barrier
Counsellor A: Because that barrier can’t be broken without the trust […] that
relationship is going to be different from the relationships they experience in the
world. And that’s the beginning of building the trust…
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines, 73-75, p.3, 177-178 and 187-188,
p.6
Counsellor A attributed a lack of trust in young people who bully, to negative
expectation, however, her unfamiliar response had enabled the client to trust
her, and risk emerging from behind his habitual boundary. Counsellor A hinted at
hope for the future; “[…] the beginning of building the trust”, whereby, the
client experienced a more secure attachment with his counsellor, dissimilar to
201
other relationships.
4.3.6 Summary of the therapeutic relationship
An overriding finding from the current study was that mistrust was engrained in
all the young participants, and seemingly a core element of their development.
This was evident not only from their responses in the focus group, but also, their
behaviour at Centre A. Mistrust was forcefully iterated as a collective fear of
backstabbing, in other words, the young people anticipated that they would be
maligned without their knowledge.
Beaudet and Schwartsman, (1987) a l s o consider that the notion of backstabbing
emanates from childhood attachment, where infants are criticised, particularly
by their mothers, in front of others. Consequently, I suggest that those from
vulnerable backgrounds may perceive the attachment relationship with their
counsellor no differently.
In the focus group, Jason’s mistrust manifested as a censoring of emotions,
that I considered derived from an outmoded or indoctrinated reticence as
regards the suitability for him to express emotions. It is interesting to speculate
how Jason’s behaviour may have changed had either I been a man, when
faced with a male counsellor, or, had the other focus group members have been
all males. Certainly his ‘no nonsense’ attitude impacted data gathering as
with his logical, but powerful summation of confidentiality, Jason reignited
a collective mistrust amongst his fellow members which I have suggested,
contributed to them declining individual interviews and parsing their
transcriptions. Despite his dogmatic insistence that his business was his alone,
Jason unwittingly leaked his emotions through his words, and I contest that
with the example of his dog’s death (p.185) Jason once again revealed a
202
vulnerable child. Consequently, to understand the meaning an individual
ascribes their life experience demands critical scrutiny of their transcripts as
a researcher, and of their words, as a counsellor.
For Jason, his fear of self-disclosing was amplified by the belief of a counsellor’s
desire to run their clients down. Such doubts extended to his understanding of
confidentiality and the conviction that his counsellors, from spite, would
inevitably delight in sharing his secrets. I suggested that Jason was preconditioned
to believe this as so. Equally, Jason appeared unable to recognise, or understand
the
difference
defining
backstabbing
from
breaking
confidentiality,
a
misapprehension that permeated his ability to disclose in the focus group and
counselling alike, and where a more reassuring explanation may have ameliorated
his fears.
The accepted principle of counselling as a forum for entrusting another with
one’s secrets makes counsellor trustworthiness a widely recognised and vital
component of the client/counsellor relationship (Gelso, & Carter, 1994; Merluzzi
&
Brischetto,
1983;
Robbins
&
Haase,
1985;
Tyler,
1965).
Initial
conceptualisation of the counselling alliance represents a significant scaffold
upon which the client constructs both a capability for trust and a profile of the
counsellor as trustworthy (Gelso, & Carter, 1994), thus confidentiality
represents an essential safeguard.
In counselling, an individual discloses in a relationship of trust, with the
expectation that this information will not be divulged to others without
permission (Easter et al., 2004). However, for young people who bully and
receive counselling, and whose behaviour implies harm to others, the ethical
203
boundaries guiding confidentiality appear ill equipped. For example, the British
Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy
(BACP) ethical framework
stipulates that “preventing the client causing serious harm to self or others
[…] may prevent the practitioner from seeking client consent to a breach in
confidentiality” (BACP, p.6). “Disclosure may be authorised by […] the law”
(BACP, p. 6) and since many types of bullying are now illegal (Metropolitan
Police, 2014), I suggest “an uneasy alliance” (Melton et al., 1997, p. 3)
between the law and therapeutic jurisprudence. This view is endorsed by
Jenkins (2010). Although his
research focusses upon confidentiality issues
affecting abused children, I believe it has relevance in the current context. His
concerns centre on the contemporary “’culture of reporting’” (Jenkins, p. 17)
since respecting client confidentiality renders counsellors
vulnerable to
professional censure for breaching reporting protocols. Target oriented
practice favours an evidential approach and the fear is that counsellors
respecting young people’s rights to confidentiality may consequently be
scapegoated for the “wider failings […] of judicial systems” (Jenkins, p. 17).
Jenkins believes that reporting a child also runs the risk that they will simply
retract their statement and the care they receive will be jeopardised.
In the light of such inconsistency, it seems understandable that the boundaries
guiding confidentiality have been misconstrued by young people who bully.
Thus, I interpreted, that self-disclosure as to their behaviour represents a
conundrum. If they tell, they risk the need to break confidentiality; if they do
not tell, attempts to address their behaviour are undermined. Either way,
young people who bully may be silenced.
204
Fears surrounding confidentiality resonate with other young people, so that
even when counsellors stipulate ethical commitments as to confidentiality,
there is fear that such guidelines will not be upheld; an experience described by
them as disempowering (Collins & Knowles, 1995; Fox & Butler, 2007;
Murgatroyd, 1977). My recommendations regarding confidentiality appear in
the conclusion (5.7).
Notably, Rousseau et al., (1998) point out, that for young people with
manifest insecurities such as the current participants, trusting a counsellor with
self-disclosure requires a level of confidence they seldom possess. I consider this,
compounded by a misunderstanding, or fear surrounding confidentiality may
have contributed to Jason’s reticence.
For Andy, despite an apparent knowledge of the rules guiding confidentiality, he
seemed neither able to risk self-disclosing to his counsellors, fellow focus group
members, nor me, and was so deeply suspicious that he appeared frozen. I
contemplated that not speaking, may take as much emotional effort for Andy
as speaking. As Lowenthal (1999), explains:
Maltreated youngsters tend to develop brains that are
attuned to dangers. At the slightest threat, the children
will anxiously look for any signals that indicate further
abusive attacks. […] The brain becomes organized just
for the purpose of survival. The results are that the child
victims are constantly in states of high alert that could
assist them to avoid further maltreatment but are costly
to their optimal development (p.366).
205
Andy exerted such self- control that his emotional energy seemed to bleed into
his body, manifesting as confusing and conflicting body language that was both
challenging for him to uphold and for me to interpret. The juxtaposition between
Andy’s apparent self (unruffled) and his lived self (anxious), reminded me of the
true and false self, described by Winnicott (1960) (2.2) whereby cognitive
processes located in a false self, created dissociation from emotional
experience. However, Smith warns against “being influenced by a specific preexisting
formal
theoretical
position”
(Smith,
2004).
Consequently,
a
phenomenological interpretation more consistent with IPA (Smith, 2004) that
encapsulates Andy’s predicament comes from Lhati (2002). When describing
the effects of childhood trauma upon speech, Johanna, a participant in Lhati’s
(2002) study, who has been abused by her father talks of mirror one and
mirror two, “I have a mirror. There’s a mirror around me; the emotions of
others can’t get inside me, nor can other people see me through the mirror”
(P. 199).
Perhaps Andy, like Johanna felt he too must live in parallel worlds; one, in
which he existed for the sole purpose of the feelings and needs of others
and, the other, in which he experienced profound loneliness and emptiness.
Debatably, Johanna’s words also reflect a theoretical position, but I would
argue that position as making sense of human existence, as the different views
afforded by the mirror infer to me an exploration of reality that is compatible
with IPA.
When considering dysfunctional experience and its effect upon speech, Lahti
206
(2002) refers to the absence of words as a “silent language”, describing this
as “the loss of self, the absence of something important […] the language of
trauma” (p.200).
While the patient’s words reach for the memories and
emotions about traumatic experiences the language
hidden between the words speaks about the very essence
of trauma about a bodily experience and the meaning of
trauma to the wholeness/disruption of self (p.200)
The damage described by Lahti (2002), spoke to me of a fundamental rupture
of self and manifest by, or in, the body; a threat to Andy’s essence of being.
I argued that to explore such an experience demands advanced awareness and
sensitivity on behalf of counsellors, particularly when seeing young people who
use aggression, rather than words, to defend their fragile self-esteem
(Lowenthal, 1999).
Given his extreme reluctance, when interpreting the data, Andy’s body language
provided essential cues, reinforcing the necessity for detailed reflective notes. It
was only with Courtney that Andy developed his opinions, her secure disposition
and non-confrontational attitude seemingly affording a temporary safety blanket
that enabled him to express an opinion. For example, when emboldened by
Courtney, Andy agreed that knowing a counsellor in advance of treatment would
facilitate trust. Interestingly, when I attempted to expand his thinking, he
immediately introverted, clamping his voice and offering no further explanation,
207
suggesting to me that in an individual interview he may have been
unforthcoming.
It is possible that Andy’s reluctance was attributable to what Bartholomew and
Horowitz (1991) referred to as recognisable roles (2.10), a role identity amplified
for those who bully who are under pressure not to deviate by other group
members (Franzoi, 1996) (2.3). For example, young people who bully develop
roles during childhood that are founded upon their dominance and which
represent for them a ‘normal’ way of behaving in interpersonal relationships
(Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991), and a camouflage they cannot risk shedding.
Either way, I suggest that, when counselling young people who bully, the
reciprocal relationship between client and counsellor is therefore meaningful
and insightful.
For Lucy, mistrust manifest as a sinister vein with the power to regulate her
interpersonal relationships. She believed that disclosing to a counsellor you did
not know would inevitably equal their untrustworthiness. Like Lucy, other
young people have articulated how knowing a counsellor enables an empathic
bond between them, assuaging fears surrounding self-disclosure (Fox & Butler,
2007). Given her extreme mistrust, I consider that to facilitate a bond with a
counsellor may take time for Lucy, and question the capacity of brief and
short-term approaches to meet the demands of relationship building with such
guarded clients.
In fact, Lucy trusted no-one, and I suggested that it was her overriding suspicion
that motivated her caginess. In the focus group, she barely contributed, her
reticence seemingly conceived as a weakness by Jason and Andy who frequently
208
overpowered Lucy. For example, her restraint appeared unsurprisingly
exacerbated by Andy who, using his own mistrust as a weapon, threatened to
enact his fears by spreading Courtney’s secrets once reunited with his peers. Had
Lucy participated in an individual interview, she may have felt emboldened to
develop her ideas without risk of insult or leaked confidentiality.
As previously iterated, Lucy also appeared compromised by language, words
seeming to elude her. Perry (1993), and Nash (1997) and Newberger (1997)
identified how maltreatment and neglect during infancy (similar to that
experienced by the young participants), could affect development, resulting in
malfunctioning regions of the brain responsible for the regulation of affect,
empathy and emotions. I felt this, in conjunction with the poor language skills
found common to maltreated and neglected young people (Lowenthal, 1999),
offered a plausible explanation as to the difficulty Lucy had putting her feelings
into words. In counselling, she may profit from the play therapy Counsellors A
and B described.
Despite her reasoning that not all people were untrustworthy and her advanced
knowledge of the regulations concerning confidentiality, even Courtney seemed
unable to overcome her fear that a counsellor may talk about her behind her
back. It seemed that uncertainty about confidentiality resonated with all of
the young people, demanding clearer and fuller explanation; specifically that
breaking confidentiality did not signify telling everyone, only those relevant
staff representing the clinical team.
For Courtney, her fears about
confidentiality would be improved by getting to know a counsellor in advance of
sessions.
209
Courtney’s misgivings seemed primarily to emanate from her lack of faith by
being referred for counselling by a school she did not trust, such doubt
commuted to the therapeutic relationship. According to Jenkins and Polat
(2006) some school staff may project resentment upon pupils missing lessons
to attend counselling as they may return distracted. Consequently teachers
perceive in-service counselling as an unnecessary diversion from the main
function of educating pupils. Further conflict between school and counsellors
is thought to arise from legislation regarding child protection which potentially
compromises the high levels of confidentiality offered by counsellors. Hence,
in-school counselling presents challenges in terms of managing highly sensitive
information within a multi- disciplinary context, including the level of trust a
young person feels able to invest (Baginsky, 2003).
I suggested that consulting with Courtney about receiving counselling prior to
referral may have facilitated her engagement, a sentiment that chimes with the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Alderson, 2001). In research, this
translates as research with, rather than on participants, a concept which, could
be improved by increasing young people’s contribution to method design.
In the focus group, Courtney showed little reluctance to share her views, in fact
she orchestrated many conversations, her ability to develop thoughts,
commuted to the other participants. This was most notable with Andy, and I
suggested that the maturity she displayed in coaxing him to articulate his
opinions, demonstrated genuineness and interest. Similarly, counsellors A and B
210
extolled the virtues of ‘noticing’ and this topic is discussed later in the chapter.
Interestingly, of all the participants, Courtney showed a prevalence to blame,
most notably, her school, the school counsellor, and one’s parents. Harris
(1998) suggested that young people may attribute their negative characteristics
to others to extricate themselves from taking responsibility. Perhaps then,
blaming others allowed Courtney to avoid scrutiny of her own actions.
I would argue however, that since Courtney had felt sufficiently enabled to
disclose information to a different counsellor, her comparative caution with
school counselling was not the counsellor per se, but that counselling had been
originated without her consent and that this had initiated, or amplified her
resistance. Either way, it overwhelmed her considerable ability to reason,
suggesting that referral was inexorably associated with trust.
Researchers identify that how trust is established in the therapeutic relationship
is initiated the moment the alliance begins, a matching preference resulting in a
stronger alliance (Duncan et al., 2003; Lambert et al., 1998; Lazarus, 1994;
Norcross & Beutler, 1997), and improved outcome (Bedi & Duff, 2010). The
participant counsellors concurred, suggesting that choice, getting to know a
counsellor in advance and taking time to develop the alliance between client and
counsellor may well facilitate the therapeutic alliance for vulnerable young
people.
Given the diversity of opinion expressed by the young participants, it seemed
that establishing rapport and building trust in the therapeutic relationship
represents a challenge for counsellors. It is nonetheless essential since if clients
are to experience self-worth, promoting self-agency through choice empowers
clients to unravel their internalised experiences (Bohart &
Tallman,
211
1999;
Lawson, 1994; Weiner-Davis et al., 1987) (2.8).
According to Counsellors A and B, offering choice helped equalise a power
imbalance, whilst also countering an indoctrinated presumption that others
would negatively pre-judge young people who bullied. Hence, it engendered
trust, freeing the young people to experiment with new ways of being in a safe
environment.
In addition, the counsellors encouraged the young people to express any
negative feelings towards them, and this I consider significant since many of the
existing anti-bullying interventions place responsibility upon the bully to attend
to the victim’s plight, without equal opportunity for their own concerns to be
heard. Also, by enabling young people who bully to express negativity, even
about themselves, the counsellors model the therapeutic relationship as strong
enough to withstand criticism.
The problem was exacerbated since some young people, such as Lucy, struggled to
find, or even did not know, the words to articulate their problems, whence the
counsellors were in accord that play therapy aided expression. Like Counsellor B, I
suggest that engaging with clients who struggle to find words presents challenges
for counsellors, but without it, some clients will remain custodians of
unexpressed emotions.
In the absence of words, body language served as an expressive conduit for the
counsellors. Certainly, for clients like Andy, who seemingly fought against voicing
his emotions, physical clues may supplement an understanding of his
psychological state, but the counsellors were agreed this demanded advanced
212
awareness.
A counsellor’s non-verbal cues are believed t o b e as influential for clients’
judgements of their counsellors as for counsellors’ of their clients, particularly
with relation to trustworthiness (Corrigan et al., 1980; Seay & Altekruse,
1979). The counsellors concurred that their own body language was an
important communicator, particularly when facing aggressive clients who
expected a hostile response to their behaviour. By modelling submissiveness, the
counsellors felt they broke an habitual link, causing the client to stop, reconsider,
and moderate their behaviour. On occasions, the counsellor’s unanticipated
reaction was sufficient to destabilise the client’s long erected boundaries and to
glimpse the opportunity for a trusting relationship with their counsellor. This is
significant as Rigby (2000) postulates that, given the opportunity to experience
secure relationships, a person may internalise these as a model for prospective
alliances, meaning that an insecure beginning is not inevitably predictive of an
insecure future.
Above all, counsellors A and B considered it to be noticing the client that most
aided the therapeutic relationship, primarily as, for young people who bully,
focus upon them was associated with miscreant behaviour. For the participant
counsellors, attentiveness communicated a genuine desire to empathise with
and understand their clients and was consequently essential to building trust.
From their research, Strong and Schmidt (1970) agree that trustworthiness is
established by the counsellor’s attentiveness to the client’s verbal and nonverbal clues, although non-beneficial curiosity and exhibitionism have the
adverse effect. Importantly, counsellor trustworthiness is thought to influence
the extent to which a counsellor sways a client’s thinking, and
subsequently implicated with change
(Merluzzi
&
Brischetto,
213
is
1983).
Moreover, researchers consider that client awareness contributes towards
client/counsellor attuning, facilitating the ‘matching preference’ previously
alluded to (Duncan et al., 2003; Lambert et al., 1998; Lazarus, 1993; Norcross &
Beutler, 1997) (4.4).
Hochschild (1983, 1998) ventures that such emotional management arises from
the unconscious suppression of feelings, so that an individual’s identity
correlates with that defined by their role or by societal convention. It is to this
topic that the ensuing section now turns.
4.4 Emotion management
4.4.1 Counsellors A and B
From the data, it appeared that the world for many of the young people who
bully participating in this study was one where distrust and risk dominated
their daily experience of life. For example, for young people who bully,
insecure attachment contributed to the erection of emotional boundaries
which, if un-surmounted, impeded trust propensity and perception of others
as trustworthy: a double-edged sword. To counter such insecurities, it seemed
that the young people enacted complex, often unwitting patterns of behaviour
to protect their emotional integrity. It consequently felt important to explore
how such powerful emotions influenced the counsellors.
Counsellor B recounted the intense anger she faced from one of her young
clients during sessions:
214
Counsellor B: I work in quite a small enclosed space and to have a
large…hormone filled seventeen year old sitting there saying…well watchoo
think? (Imitates a tough teenager) and all that sort of thing, and being quite
aggressive and in my face.
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 85-89. P.4
Counsellor B’s description of her client as “[…] hormone filled […] and “[…]
aggressive in [her] face […]” sounded threatening to me, a sensation
exacerbated by the “[…] enclosed space […]” in which Counsellor B provided
counselling. Yet, despite facing such challenging emotions on a daily basis,
neither counsellor expressed an apparent impact upon themselves.
Researcher: Let’s say you’ve had a…your six hour day and you’ve had those
challenging clients. How do you feel at the end of that day?
Counsellor A: Fine. Pretty good actually
Counsellor B: I’m ok
Counsellor A: Yeah. I am too
Counsellor B: I take the drive home to de-stress and get my head in a good
place. Go home. Cook supper
Counsellor A: Bit of singing. Glass of wine. Dinner
Counsellor B: That’s it
Counsellor A: Yeah. Watch something dopey on telly. Fine
Counsellor B: Do some of my daughter’s project. Bit of art therapy
Counsellor A: We sound casual don’t we? I should be doing masses of reflection
Transcript 4. Focus group 4. Counsellors A and B. Lines 485-497. P.15
Going by their post work activities, the participant counsellors suggested they
were un-phased by their encounters, “[…] watching something dopey on telly
[…]” seemingly a panacea. I questioned whether or not their evaluation was
genuine for Counsellor A’s comment as to how “[…] casual […]” the counsellors
were, suggested to me that the remark was aimed more at convincing
themselves. As I reflected in my journal:
215
The counsellor’s calm reaction to their angry clients doesn’t feel
entirely authentic. Is this being unconsciously absorbed and then
repressed?
Recalling the emotional exhaustion I had experienced as a counsellor of young
people who bully, by comparison, Counsellors A and B appeared nonchalant
about the effect of anger upon themselves. I questioned where their client’s
anger was being held and whether, if repressed by the counsellors, such negative
feelings could be retained, or would leak through other avenues.
For instance, when describing how she challenged angry clients who bully in what
she identified as a “[…] calm way […]”Counsellor B’s sentiments seemed to me at
variance with her avowal:
Counsellor B: You’re not bullying me! I’m not impressed. Let’s just calm down
and we’ll start this one again. And sometimes that’s necessary to just sort of
lower the temperature and say….you know, sit down! I can’t talk to you while
you’re pacing the room. Sit down. If I can’t hear you, why are you shouting at
me?
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 97-100. P.3
From her forceful tone and the phrases, “[…] you’re not bullying me […]” and
“[…] sit down […]”, Counsellor B appeared unaware of the anger in her voice
and I sensed a volatile emotion h a d unpredictably been vocalised without
censor from its owner. I was surprised by the vehemence of Counsellor B’s
comment, reflecting that the effect upon myself may similarly resonate with her
clients, and highlighting Jellema’s (2000) beliefs about the significance of
reciprocal relationships in the therapeutic dyad. Counsellor B was not alone, for
216
when presenting a client to her supervisor, Counsellor A seemed likewise to
have repressed some anger:
Counsellor A: I was literally, stood up in the room, walking round the room,
doing the little voice (said in a whisper), getting louder and louder and louder
(her volume increases) until I was shouting…
Researcher: How did you feel after you had re-enacted your client in that way?
Counsellor A: I could let go then. Yeah. Let go of that... Yeah
Transcript 4. Focus group 4. Counsellors A and B. Lines 842-850. P.26
Following her re-enactment of her client, counsellor A declared “That’s what
that is! Getting rid of it. It’s taking it out of my body”. Given that Counsellor A
was “[…] literally shouting […]” I reflected that the “[…] it […]” to which she
referred may signify the release of repressed anger. It is difficult to speculate
whether this was anger stored within the counsellor on the client’s behalf (the
counsellor as an emotional holding pen), or the counsellor’s own unexpressed
anger towards her client. Either way, such a response suggested to me that the
counsellors h a d repressed emotion but that this vented with or without their
control.
Contrastingly, when pursuing this theme with counsellor A in her individual
interview, she reverted to her original theme concerning her impassive
response to anger:
Researcher: Just thinking back to the way you described the way you had
presented the client…It sounded as if…um…there was a chance you had taken
on board some anger from the client and perhaps, in this space, in this
opportunity, some of your held up, pent up anger from the client was coming
out in the re-enactment of them?
Counsellor A: No. I actually feel sad. it’s …it’s sadness in me. Because anger is
such a destructive emotion, I think. Yeah…it…it brings up sadness for me, not
anger
Transcript 5. Counsellor A interview. Lines 259-260. P.8
217
Given Counsellor A’s current opinion, compared to her previous outpouring
during supervision, her “[…] sadness […]” expressed a marked emotional shift,
and I questioned whether, by replacing anger with sadness, Counsellor A had
donned a more palatable mask. In other words, by repressing anger and
expressing sympathy, Counsellor A perpetuated an ideational presentation of
herself as caring, more in keeping with her profession.
Given that Counsellors A and B seemed both to repress anger and enact an
ideational role, I argue that for a counsellor to firstly identify, and then own
negative feelings towards their client may demand heightened self-awareness
and expert supervision. However, when asked how her supervisor had
responded to the angry presentation of her client at supervision, Counsellor A
described little reaction from him:
Counsellor A: […] And the supervisor was just sat there […]
Transcript 3. Focus group 3. Counsellors A and B. Lines 844-845. P.26
Counsellor A’s description would suggest that her internalised response went
unrecognised. According to Erskine et al., (1999) this omission is attributable
to supervisors having their own blind spots which can leave them oblivious to
the repressed emotions of their supervisees. Consequently, although
supervision is acknowledged by counsellors as helpful, it is also fallible
(Erskine et al., 1999), bearing relevance as to how supervisors are trained. In
addition, questions arise as to the effect upon their clients when counsellors
repress a genuine emotion to replace it with another, for example, how,
218
thereafter, authenticity is maintained in the therapeutic dyad.
Counsellors A and B considered self-awareness as an effective way to separate
their own emotions from those of the client and to thereby combat this
problem:
Counsellor A: You’ve got to keep asking yourself questions
Researcher: What sort of questions do you ask yourself at the end of a day?
Counsellor A: Why did I feel like that?
Counsellor B: What am I doing?
Counsellor A: What was that?
Counsellor B:[…] And I think it’s really important that you have techniques or
ways that…that you can come back to all the time. Putting your stuff over there
and leaving it there. And I also think it’s important if that happens during a
session that you do take time afterwards to reflect, not only on the client’s
stuff, but on your own. Because maybe, you do need supervision or to see your
own therapist or you need to process something else about your life, which is
going back to what you were talking about. Constantly learning about yourself
as well as about your clients. But I think self-awareness and that boundary, so
that the work with the client is boundaried, keep your stuff over there, is really
important.
Transcript 3. Focus group 3. Counsellors A and B. Lines 699-702. P.22. Lines 738-745. P. 23
For Counsellors A and B, constantly asking questions about themselves in
relation to their clients, helped “[…] put [their] stuff over there […] “,
separating it from their clients’. Personal counselling and supervision also
surfaced as important outlets for enhancing self-perception and managing the
issues emergent from these processes, although, as previously iterated,
supervision may have its shortcomings. Counsellor B considered that using
these techniques allowed her to “stop […] look […] reflect […] learn from it
and work with it”.
Seemingly, successful separation was not always possible. For example, in the
current study, despite facing angry and emotive clients on a daily basis,
219
Counsellor A was apparently calm:
Researcher: …you said that keeping calm was really, really important and I was
wondering how the client knows you’re empathising if you don’t reflect back the
client’s emotions?
Counsellor A: But with words, yes you do reflect back their words but in an
empathetic voice, a sympathetic voice…um… and you know, using words
like…I’m sorry to hear that…and those type of things, to let them know that
you’re hearing what they’re saying…um… You’re hearing what they’re saying,
reflecting back their words but you’re not angry. You are calm about it
Transcript 4. Focus group 4. Counsellors A and B. Lines 3-5 and 13-17. P. 1
Counsellor A used “[…] words […]” and an “[…] empathic voice […]” as a way of
letting the client know that she really understood their anger, although she
was not angry but remained calm. Although it would undoubtedly be
inappropriate for a counsellor to rage with their client, Bloomfield and Kory
(1980) question whether a permanently kindly attitude allows clients the
freedom to express negative emotion such as hatred, or whether, by
suppressing such feelings, clients will experience a bitter and vitriolic backlash later on. This is important as, for the client, the inability to analyse the
counsellors’ negative subjectivity, may compromise the client in counselling
(Winnicott, 1994).
Possibly, remaining calm provided an important barrier that protected the
counsellors from being subsumed by their clients. Counsellor B saw it this way,
referring to calmness as necessary for containing volatile emotions. For
example, during counselling, and when managing the heated emotions of
clients who bully, an oft repeated phrase by Counsellors A and B was “[…]
lowering the emotional temperature […]”:
220
Counsellor B: […] it is a question of being very calm if you’ve got someone
aggressive, you have to give them the opposite so….um…. you have to give
them the opposite experience… it’s been a question of lowering the
emotional temperature enough for them to name their distress in an
appropriate way rather than just…Waaaah! And shouting about it
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 49-53. P.2
Compared to Winnicott’s (1994) theory regarding acknowledgment of the
client’s anger (4.5), Counsellor B experienced that offering her clients “[…] the
opposite experience […]”, (calmness as opposed to
aggression), diffused
energy, preventing aggression from escalating. This counteraction provided a
more tranquil space for clients to voice their distress. In addition Counsellor B
described how reducing the emotional temperature enabled clients to lower
their defences:
Counsellor B: …for these young people to get to a place where they can lower
the defences enough, because very often the aggression and the bullying is a
defence…um….and to get them to lower the defences you have to be very
calm and very accepting so that they feel safe enough to say…well, actually,
yeah, what this really is about is…..and you get something completely different.
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 57-61. P.2
Counsellor B inferred that unconditional acceptance facilitated the client to
explore the source of their aggression, as acceptance and non-judgmentalism
provided a safe place where the client could risk exposing their emotional
vulnerability:
Counsellor A…when they come into our counselling room, they are definitely
never met with aggression and it’s..it…could be a bit of a …wow!...what’s
going on here then? Why is she not reacting like the world reacts to me? You
know we…if anything…um, I lower myself in the seat, I’m very much more
submissive, if you like, which is something they probably don’t experience and
221
immediately, there’s a change, er, there’s something….What’s happening here?
Why is she doing that? Why is she being like that? Even if it’s unconscious, this
will be going on with them. I believe. And…so they’re already….that
relationship is going to be different from the relationships they experience in
the world. And that’s the beginning of building the trust…
Transcript 2. Focus group 2. Counsellors A and B. Lines 67-75. Pp.2-3
By modelling a positive reciprocal relationship and offering her clients an
alternate experience, Counsellor A enabled them to question “[…] why she
[was] doing that […]”. Subsequently, by lowering herself into her seat, using
her body to communicate a non- confrontational attitude, Counsellor A
showed the client an alternative way of building relationships; one predicated
upon trust.
However, as Counsellor B related, “[…] holding the emotions of a client who’s
escalating […] [took] a lot of energy […]” such that after a session, she had to
“[…] go away and put [herself] back […]”.
Counsellor B inferred that holding a client’s anger came with a personal cost as
the “[…] energy […]” this required exposed her to emotional vulnerability. Once
again, despite claims to the contrary, this suggested to me the inevitable and
potentially negative impact upon both counsellor and client from interning a
client’s anger:
Counsellor B: You’re investing a lot of yourself in holding their emotions, holding
your own stuff, keeping the process going in a productive way and for me, I need
time after that to just literally relax. To get rid of every tension, to get rid of
every thinking that might still be going on…
Transcript 6. Interview Counsellor B. Lines 13-15. P1
In order to “[…] get rid of the tension […]” Counsellor B needed time to wind
222
down. Notably, the emotional fatigue and the need for restoration she
described in her interview contrasted sharply with the apparent casualness
described by both counsellors in their focus group, when relaying how they
coped with emotional assault (p.214). In light of these findings, I reflected how
the methodological decision for one-to- one interviews had enriched the data.
Like Counsellor A, Counsellor B used her body both to communicate calmness,
but also to regulate her own emotional condition. She achieved this by “[…]
working with [her] own body processes, relaxation techniques […] and
mindfulness […]”, perfected as part of her training; remaining “[…] still […]”
to ensure […]” what [was] happening […] [did not] escalate to a dangerous
place […]”.
Christopher and Maris (2010) portray mindfulness as a way for counsellors to
attend to thoughts, emotions and sensations in the present, without judgment,
whereby cultivating awareness and acceptance of each moment, a process
thus used by Counsellor B:
Counsellor B: I do a quick body check to make sure that I am relaxed. Have I
got any tension in my shoulders, my back? I’m aware of my clothes, I’m aware
of my feet, I’m aware of my breathing. I slow my breathing down…Um…I try to
keep the client in view but I tend not to look directly at them
Transcript 6. Interview Counsellor B. Lines 56-59. P.2
Counsellor B used her body to ground herself, turning her attention to her
physical condition, whilst still maintaining awareness of the client. I was cautious
that the energy needed to attend to her self-awareness did not detract from
remaining present with her client, but Counsellor B thought differently:
Counsellor B: I’m very aware of making myself be calm and still and quiet and
223
still be very aware…and… there is that kind of peripheral soft focus until they
can come back to where they should be… you’re not adding to the emotional
drama in front of you.
Transcript 6. Interview Counsellor B. Lines 47-51. P.3
Counsellor B described a “[…] soft focus […]”, an emotional distancing that
afforded her temporary tranquility and a stillness that also pacified the client.
She considered that providing a safe environment for angry clients allowed
them to experiment with new ways of managing their own emotions:
Researcher: And how do you use that space that you’ve captured in the
moment with them?
Counsellor B: Very often, once I can get them back on a chair, we do a little bit of
micro analysis of what really happened then. With the minute steps as to what
led you to be so upset, quite that angry, quite that anxious. Talk me through it.
Um…and they can’t to start with, but after a bit..um…they…they can tell you
they felt very angry in their tummy or they felt very tense, or they wanted to
hit something. And I’ll say, ok, let’s look at that. Why was that? What…you
know…what do you usually do? If you’re not here and you feel like that, what
do you usually do? And they go and tell you that they hit somebody or they hit
something, they drink, or they…whatever. And you say, well, but you didn’t do
that in here. So that, in itself is different. So how’s that for you? How is it that
you’ve got angry and you didn’t go and hit anybody? You didn’t hit the door.
You didn’t walk out and you didn’t drink. You’ve calmed yourself down and
you’re sat in a chair. And for a lot of them that’s massive because it’s the first
time that they’ve done that.
Transcript 6. Interview Counsellor B. Lines 101-112.P.3
Counsellor B implied that her inner tranquility commuted to the client and
calmed them. The departure from habitual aggression highlighted to the client,
their ability for an alternate response. Thus, I suggest that such skilled
awareness represents a significant step towards addressing the core behaviour
of young people who bully.
Managing emotions is not peculiar to the counsellors, for I likewise struggled to
224
make sense of the myriad feelings I experienced whilst interacting with the
young people as a researcher. The following section develops this thinking,
locating my emotions in the phenomenological methodology.
4.4.2 Emotional management for the researcher
Kleinman and Copp (1993) write comprehensively about the innumerable
feelings experienced by researchers and for me, disquiet came early. From the
outset of the first of the young people’s focus groups, the two male
participants started to throw pieces of balled paper at each other, and the
female participants. They provoked the females using obscene language and
Jason furtively kicked them under the table and chided them. Within 10
minutes, this behaviour escalated, with the two females joining in and their
conduct degenerated to complete chaos. I was daunted by this process, as to
neutralise the situation meant asserting control and yet I was reluctant that
my role should be misconstrued by the participants as an authoritative one. In
addition, questions asked of the young people in the first ten minutes of their
focus group met with blank stares and fidgeting and I had a sinking feeling that,
should the participants continually resist, no data would be gathered. As I
reflected in the transcript:
Researcher: I feel I have met a brick wall. Strangely, I also feel bullied/intimidated as
they [the young participants] have ganged up and stare at me as I ask all of these
daft questions…this really affects the way I ask the next two questions
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 78-82. P.3
The impact of the participant’s behaviour was powerful. I experienced feelings
of disempowerment and ineptitude, similar perhaps to the victims of
225
bullying, and recalled the research of Dishion and colleagues (1999) as to the
potential for contagious problem behaviour within groups. Retrospectively, I
debated whether focus groups had been the most effective method to gather
data with young people who bully. Desperate to surmount the “[…] brick wall
[…]”, and nervous that without a theme, the participants would not
contribute, I decided to introduce a story stem, with the intention of
promoting discussion without causing anxiety (3.9):
Researcher: Ok, what we’ll do is, because I get the feeling that you’re finding it
quite difficult to talk about it. So what we’re going to do is…we’re going to do
some story stems. So, I’m going to start a story (They all laugh)
Jason: Oh my God
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Young people. Lines 84-87. P.3
The stuttering and inconsistency of this sentence mirrored my inner turmoil.
Rather than ameliorating my disquiet, the participant’s apprehensive reaction
to the Story Stem; “[…] Oh my God […]”, triggered unease that further
compromised my resolve:
Researcher: I remember feeling embarrassed reading the stories as the
participants were smirking
Transcript 1. Focus group 1. Line 130. P.5
This event motivated considerable personal reflection and I suggest that my
anxiety was partly an embodiment of the participant’s disquiet at intruding
upon their feelings too soon (4.2).
The need for further emotional management surfaced following the introduction
226
of a phrase from Twitter: ‘Some bullies have serious problems of their own and
suffer too’. When considering my methodological choices, I recognised that such
a comment could have an inflammatory effect upon the group, however it was
included to enable articulation of bullying from a third person perspective.
Indeed, as previously discussed (4.2, 4.4) the phrase from Twitter did unleash
very raw emotions, including some that the young people seemed at pains to
repress. According to ethical stipulations, experienced support workers were
required to sit in on the focus group process to support participants in case of
upset or anxiety. However, following the Twitter excerpt (3.9) in which Jason had
daringly declared his distaste of bullying, Jason and Andy united, rounding on the
support worker himself:
Jason: Can’t bully someone just like that. Phil (one of the support workers in the
room) don’t like it when I bloody hit ‘im. Goes ‘ome cryin’
Courtney: As the person who is bullied here…maybe you should talk to us
about your feelings [said sarcastically]
Andy: Yeah Phil
Courtney: (Looking at Phil) Come on then. Tell us a story
Phil: I don’t think you lot bully me. I don’t think you mean to be mean to me
Courtney: But we are mean to you
Phil: But I don’t think you’re mean genuinely
Jason: Well, we’re saying we are (All the participants laugh)
Transcript 1. Focus group1. Young people. Lines 314-326. Pp.11-12
Following the risk of disclosing his opinion of bullying as immoral, Jason habitually
turned to comedy; diluting the import of his statement by making it into a joke
at Phil’s expense, suggesting to me, that this unveiling was too big for him to
handle. By transferring the spotlight to Phil he passed the unwieldy package of
227
his emotions to the support worker to hold: a metaphor for his life perhaps.
Courtney and Andy ‘jumped on the band waggon’, sarcastically suggesting that
Phil“[…] should talk to [them] about [his] feelings […]”. It was revealing how, in
the face of Phil’s temporary vulnerability, the participants swiftly grouped,
swooping together upon their prey. With his opinion that the young
people’s meanness was inadvertent, Phil deftly returned play, however, the
young people’s collective assertion of their behaviour as intentional eventually
deflated the support worker’s resolve.
Looking at Phil, his body language seemingly testified to his distress, as he had
sunk in his chair and rested his chin in his hands. I was faced with a dilemma as
to how best to manage the incident. Eide and Kahn (2008) suggest that
qualitative inquiry is unpredictable, sometimes calling for safe boundaries, yet
to intervene by stopping the focus group may have identified Phil as a victim,
causing further repercussions. Conversely, commitment to my ethical
responsibilities as a researcher led me to consider stopping the group to reduce
Phil’s anxiety. Hence, I decided to introduce a new topic, hoping that
diverting attention from the support worker would alleviate tension in the
group. Although this tactic worked, managing these emotions demanded
lateral thinking.
From the young people’s lack of commitment in the second focus group, it
appeared that their anxiety had been somehow communicated to this new
session. For the first ten minutes, despite my attempts to engage their interest,
the young people played distractedly on their mobile phones. However, this
seemed to afford them little satisfaction. In fact, they appeared irritated by their
228
own activities.
Jason’s phone rings
Andy: Will you stop fucking pinging me. I swear to God…
Phil: Jason! Put your phone away please
Andy: Yeah Jason. Put your phone away. You’re pinging it at me
Jason: my phone isn’t even on
Focus group 2. Young people. Lines 58-62, Page 3
Given that they would rather argue than answer the questions posed them by
me, I wondered if the young people would go to any lengths to avoid selfdisclosing, highlighting the extreme risk this represented.
The effect of the young people’s fractious behaviour caused my fears to mount
that little data would be collected if their mood continued. In an attempt to
stabilise them and regain some control, I introduced questions about the
counsellor as a stranger, hoping to engage the young people’s interest by reintroducing a topic which had ignited their interest in the first focus group. These
I aimed at specific participants, calling them by name:
Researcher: How about you Lucy? What do you reckon? [How the problem of
counsellor as stranger could be overcome](They are all talking over the top of me
and really messing around)
Focus group 2. Young people. Lines 64-65, Page 37
Rather than galvanising a response, my directive stance had the opposite effect,
each question followed by a prolonged silence. Even Courtney, previously so
forthcoming with her responses, was disconsolate in the face of questions
229
concentrated at her, her withdrawal leaving me feeling strangely abandoned.
As noted under the transcript:
I’m not sure what is going on here. The focus group feels as if it could fall apart
even though, before it started, the participants seemed genuinely interested in
running another group. I wonder if, going through the key themes from the
previous focus group has been too much as they encountered truths about
themselves that now feel too risky to discuss
Focus group 2. Young people. Lines 68-71, Page 3
Sensing my discomfiture, Phil was roused to interject, asking Andy directly
whether, or how he considered having counselling may help an individual. Upon
Andy’s nonchalant replies that he had no idea, Phil asked with some irritation:
Phil: Why not? Can you explain why not?
Focus group 2. Young people. Line 118, Page 8
Following Phil’s interjection, I experienced mixed emotions; gratitude, at the
temporary respite from responsibility, hope that the familiar relationship Phil
shared with the young people may generate conversation, but also a surge of
annoyance, as his question had diverted the topic away from that I was
pursuing. It seemed that the ethical requirement to have support workers
present in the room had introduced contrasting dynamics; one that threatened
to distort the data, as the questions introduced by Phil diverted from my original
aims, and another that had the potential to generate data, since the young
people’s familiarity with Phil engendered more confidence, prompting
230
disclosure.
In the event, Phil’s question was met with equal reluctance, in fact, Jason and Andy
retreated yet further, declaring that they would not benefit from counselling as
they would not go. Since the young participants all received counselling at Centre A,
a fact known by both Phil and myself, their fraudulent refute bore testimony to the
strength of their resistance. Certainly, following this final declaration, the focus
group ground to a halt, all further questions eliciting little, or no response. On this
occasion, at least, I reasoned that the participants were harmonious in their intent,
and it was interesting to see how united their response could be with a shared
objective. Possibly, bullying had become such a familiar response the young people
had become inured to it.
Given the young people’s complete withdrawal by this point, and their previous
apprehension, I decided to ask outright what could be done to enable them. I
questioned whether turning off the tape recorder may inspire more confidence
and they were immediately and collectively agreed that this would help. The
change in their mood was palpable, the young people seeming instantly more
relaxed. As I wrote under the transcript:
The participants are immediately more relaxed and ironically, start discussing
the questions they were asked whilst the FG was being recorded. I rue not
being able to turn the recorder back on without saying anything as their
replies are the fullest they have ever been, but respect the participant’s
confidentiality. Trust is central to them.
Focus group 2. Young people. Lines 140-142, Page 5
Of the participants, it was Jason who changed most notably, contributing more
231
fully and more willingly in the following five minutes than he had on any other
occasion. Possibly he had, all along, felt the desire to disclose but had been
compromised by the extreme mistrust characterising insecure attachment
(2.10).
I felt the weight of responsibility in accurately remembering his words so that,
when these were committed to paper after the second focus group ended, his
voice could, after all, be authentically heard.
Unlike Jason, Andy and Lucy remained non-committal, Andy giving little beyond
his characteristic one word retorts, and Lucy, still vague and withdrawn. For
them, I suggest that gaining trust would demand extended time and in research,
as well as counselling, may flourish more ably in a one-to-one environment,
where they could possibly risk shedding their protective veneer.
4.4.3 Summary in relation to emotion management
The complexity of emotional management is reflected in its roots as
Hochschild’s (1983) social theory derives from biological, psychological and
social elements. Hochschild (1983) puts forward that “emotion […] is our
experience of the body readying for imaginary action” (p.218), thereby
introducing a biological process. Cognition is involved as this regulates how
emotion will be “signal[led]” (Hochschild, 1983, p.220). However, signalling is
both influenced by social factors (social appropriateness) and, in response to
previous and remembered experiences which have also been subject to social
effect (Theodosius, 2006). This notion of prior experience implies the
existence of a prior self, which individuals conceive of as continuous (an ongoing representation). However, Hochschild sees the self as moderated by
232
social influence both in the shaping of emotions and once these have been
expressed. In other words, how feelings are managed can both affect and
effect emotion. She refers to such influences as feeling rules (Hochschild,
1998), defined as “standards which determine what is rightly owed and owing
in the currency of feeling” (p.242).
Consequently, for Hochschild (1998), emotional management is influenced
according to the kind of emotion experienced and how that experience is
conceptualised according to the values and norms concerning feeling3. She
predicates her notion of emotion management on private life however, in
relation to the public sphere, Hochschild refers to the appropriation of
emotions for commercial purposes as ‘emotional labour’. This reflects the
management of emotion needed to “sustain an outward countenance that
produces the proper state of mind in others” (Hochschild, 1983, p.7). To
achieve this outcome, she suggests that emotional labour involves two
processes known as surface and deep acting. Surface acting describes the
suppression of one feeling (like anger) and the display of a more expected
emotion (like sympathy). Deep acting describes the internal manipulation of
a feeling, such that rather than suppression, the individual actually feels what
is supposed of them.
According to Theodosius (2006) the concept of repressed emotion was where
Freud’s ([2001] 1923) and Hochschild’s theories of emotion management
3
Hochschild does not seem to directly define the values and norms to which she
alludes but offers the example of a bride who, on her wedding day, interprets her
feelings as happiness, as feeling rules concerning weddings suggest this as the happiest
day of a bride’s life. The bride’s subsequent feelings will derive from cultural feeling
rules concerning her right to be happy on her wedding day (Hochschild in Theodosius,
2006)
233
parted ways. Rather than considering the original emotion as unconscious,
Freud ([2001] 1923) saw this as repressed by conscious interpretation of
idealised presentation according to the social context. He argued that the
conscious mind now wrongly considered the repressed emotion as unconscious
however repressed emotion was volatile and unpredictable and could
therefore emerge without being mediated by social factors.
This was apparently true of both counsellors A and B who seemingly repressed
their adverse reactions, particularly any anger they may have experienced
towards their clients. Given their initial and apparently nonchalant experience
of counselling aggressive clients, I suggest that their unwitting denial testifies to
the power of emotion management which prevented them from even accessing
internalised emotions. It was only as the focus groups progressed and
particularly, the individual interviews, that the counsellors seemed able to draw
back the curtains and release their internalised feelings. The fact that both
counsellors A and B gave a very different account of the exhaustion they
experienced when interviewed alone, suggested to me that they had indeed
inhabited a profile that befitted their profession, since this could not be
dropped whilst together. Nonetheless, authentic emotion still leaked through
their words and their body language. For example, the strength of their
competing self was most evident with Counsellor A’s declaration of getting rid
of ‘it’, the lack of noun suggesting that the source could not be named, or
perhaps even identified. Counsellors A and B replaced their more negative
feelings about their clients with calmness. Although such positive sentiments
most likely represent the counsellor’s ethics, it seemed unlikely that they
never experienced anger or disillusionment and I questioned how this conflict
234
may influence the authenticity of the therapeutic alliance. Given Jason’s
perceived divide between himself and his counsellor, such imbalance may
amplify the distance he felt and is of significance since genuineness has been
found a noteworthy determinant of a successful bond between client and
counsellor.
Given the imperfections of counselling supervision in practice, Hochschild’s,
(1983) belief that emotions are managed, and Freud’s (1923) theory of
repressed emotions, it would seem that, for counsellors, managing negative
feelings towards their clients poses considerable difficulty. On the one hand,
ownership of adverse emotions means deviating from root conception of their
role and yet repressed emotion finds a conduit for expression. Importantly,
t h e inability to analyse the counsellor’s negative subjectivity towards their
client, may compromise their clients in counselling (Winnicott, 1994).
In relation to young people who bully, Winnicott (1994) proposed that, by
muffling or repressing their authentic emotions for a client, a counsellor
may even inhibit the client’s development. Winnicott proposed that, to
analyse “antisocials”, the analyst must “sort out and study his objective
reactions to the patient” (p.351). This was important as the patient could only
appreciate in the analyst what he (the analyst) was capable of feeling
(Winnicott, 1994). So, for example, with patients experiencing love/hate
states, should the analyst show only love or hate, they were capable of
“killing the patient” (Winnicott,1994: 351). Hence, Winnicott warned that the
analyst must not deny that hate existed within them but rather, that hate,
justified in the present context, must be identified and kept available for
eventual interpretation.
235
Nonetheless, the calmness enacted by Counsellors A and B was described by
them as lowering the emotional temperature. Such respite afforded a space
where their aggressive clients could risk dropping their emotional barriers, since
they were not greeted with an habitual hostile response. The counsellors implied
that by offering their clients an opposite experience to that anticipated, they
created a safer place that facilitated the first steps towards building more
trusting relationships.
Aschuler and Aschuler (1984) support the concept of offering an opposite
experience, as to respond as expected confirms the same negative behaviour
that first angered young people who bully. The articulation of anger is
compounded, as although most young people are tutored to express anger
appropriately, young people who bully have seldom been socialized to
suppress their aggressive responses. Moreover, during adolescence, selfconsciousness and concern with their identity means young people who bully
may be angered by any assault of their self-esteem such as; unfairness,
criticism and rejection (Alschuler & Alschuler, 1984).
Nonetheless, Counsellor B inferred that the ability to evaluate her feelings whilst
counselling aggressive clients necessitated concentrated self-awareness, taking
its toll by leaving her drained of energy. Counsellor B grounded her emotions
using mindfulness, describing the practice of meditation, body scan (a type of
guided awareness), and hatha yoga, typically provided as an eight week course
(Schure et al., 2011). Mindfulness has been found to limit burnout for mental
health professionals (Baker, 2003; Kabat-Zinn & Chapman-Waldrop, 1988) and
is believed to improve a counsellor’s effectiveness, by increasing their ability
236
to concentrate and make decisions which benefit the client (Christopher &
Maris, 2010).
However, uncertainty centres around the personal awareness needed to apply
mindfulness during counselling, possibly diverting attention from the client to
the inner self (Bishop, 2002; Shapiro, Shapiro & Schwartz, 2000).
Consequently, it would seem that remaining calm is a double edged sword. For
young people who bully, the calmness consistent with the role of counsellor
may repress the expression of essential emotion. For their counsellors however,
remaining calm lowers the emotional temperature, offering them some
equanimity whilst also facilitating developmental change for their clients.
For the young people, managing their emotions seemed to involve a
complicated but essential game. For example, their mistrust was such that they
preferred to argue if this delayed self-disclosure. In this quest to protect their
vulnerabilities, they were united. For example, the extent of their suspicion and
risk was most evident at the beginning of both focus groups, when they
collectively used their mobile phones and miscreant behaviour to avoid
committing. Faced with the prospect of gathering little data, I experienced
considerable frustration and disillusionment, countering the young people’s
behaviour by assuming a directive approach. This was at variance with both my
character, and profession as a counsellor, and upon reflection, I realised I was
enacting my own repressed anger, highlighting the effect of emotion
management upon researchers.
I reflected that my disillusionment may have echoed the sense of
237
disempowerment the young participants felt, or, equally, the sense of futility
experienced by those committed to empowering such young people. Thus,
this phenomenological framework of analysis has, as Smith (2004) advocates,
provided a perspective of lived experience in relation to the participants, the
researcher, and their social worlds.
When studying vulnerable groups, Kleinman and Copp (1993) write that as
researchers, we are often reluctant to expose the negative aspects, fearing
accusations of prejudice, or deviating from our own concepts of acceptability.
Instead, they advocate challenging the egalitarian view and societal convention
by owning and expressing adverse feelings. It is this that differentiates Freudian
approaches from more humanistic attitudes, suggesting theoretical training of
authors as important.
Despite observing the distrust exhibited by the young people at Centre A, I
committed to the approaches of more knowledgeable researchers, using their
methods instead of my own intuition. Where possible, I suggest that
researchers embarking upon studies of such vulnerable young people, move
beyond the literature, discuss effective techniques with staff in the know and
embed this expertise into the appropriate methods.
For example, it was only once the tape recorder was switched off that Jason was
emboldened to self-disclose, revealing more in twenty minutes than at any
other time. However, by terminating the recording, the authenticity of the
young people’s account was reliant upon my ability to accurately recall their
words in note form once the focus group was over. However, my ethical
commitment to the participant’s beneficence overrode any threat to the data.
238
How to maintain the research stance while remaining true to the ethical
imperatives of caring, emerges as a challenge for researchers (Eide & Kahn,
2008).
I suggest such sentiments are further complicated by the notion of the double
hermeneutic in IPA (Smith, 2004). For Smith (2004) sees this as “the participants
trying to make sense of their personal and social world: [and] the researcher
trying to make sense of the participant trying to make sense of their personal
and social world” (p.40). Between the research stance, ethical imperatives of
caring and the researcher’s place in IPA, it was difficult for me to know
where to position myself. However, as Eide & Kahn (2008, p.200) point out,
“Engaging in dialog as a method of data collection is an active process that
not only instigates memories and reflection on the part of the participant,
but it can also lead to both unsettling questions and life changes for all
involved”. For example by introducing the Story Stem too early, I questioned
whether I had thwarted my attempt to hear the voice of the young people
and this aroused feelings of guilt, particularly as it had been an attempt to
quell my own anxiety.
Unlike Jason, the profound mistrust effecting Andy and Lucy remained
unchanged once the tape recording had been stopped. No amount of coaxing
prompted them to contribute further to discussion. Possibly, they had been
deterred by my attempts to introduce the stimuli material too soon.
Retrospectively, I consider that had the story stems been introduced later and
when trust had been established, Andy and Lucy may have been more receptive.
239
In this respect, the presence of the support worker had dual effect, since his
relationship with the young people both facilitated and skewed the collection of
data. In addition, since Phil fell victim to the young people’s assault upon him, I
was tasked with managing the support worker’s emotions, diverting the
emotional energy needed to manage the young people’s feelings and my own; a
demand upon my abilities I had not anticipated. I suggest such potential
complications demand advanced consideration before ethical stipulations are
agreed.
When the young people did self disclose, for example, Jason’s declaration of
bullying as unacceptable, the enormity of their revelations was too risky for them
to hold. It was then that Phil was rounded upon and I suggest that the young
people select a scapegoat to take responsibility for feelings they can make little
sense of. Historically, the scapegoat signifies the figure of one who carries
away misfortune (Zatelli, 1998), a role apparently befitting Phil and perhaps,
the victims of bullying.
In conclusion, both Freud’s and Hochschild’s theories of emotion management
engage with the tensile relationship between internal emotion, outward
behaviour and making sense. I suggest therefore that they come from the same
stable philosophy as IPA.
4.5 Final summary
The world for many of the young people who bully participating in this study
is one where distrust and risk predominates their daily experience of life. For
example, for young people who bully, insecure attachment contributes to the
240
erection of emotional boundaries which, if un-surmounted, impede trust
propensity and perception of others as trustworthy: a double-edged sword.
Such caution towards relationship building further enhances insecurity;
consequently I find it difficult to envisage when and how the cycle of trust
begins. Paradoxically, it is the defence of the complex threat to self which
commonly instigates bully behaviours, reinforcing my opinion that until insecure
attachment is addressed, bullying will remain. Whether such complicated
problems can be meaningfully explored in short-term counselling is unclear
however, like Jellema (2000), I have argued that they demand attention from
experts and professionals.
Counsellors are expected to work according to an ethical framework that
delineates the personal values
and beliefs incumbent upon
those
practice; although I have suggested there are times when their
who
beliefs
may suppress, or redefine more instinctive reactions within them, that
subsequently moderate interaction. This happens partly as admitting to
negative feelings towards a client deviates from the expectations concurrent
with that of counsellor. The therapeutic relationship is further defined
according to aspects of their personal development that sometimes
renovates and at others inhibits the client/counsellor relationship. Supervision
is not always a reliable setting for the expression or exploration of such
unconscious forces. Consequently, a counsellor’s training and reflective
capabilities surface as important mechanisms for enabling meaningful
approaches to emotional management. I have suggested that the counselling
relationship can represent secure attachment, engendering reciprocal trust
between counsellor and client, which emboldens self- disclosure, even as to
241
bullying others. Hence, nurturing secure attachment signifies a critical step for
young people who bully.
I have stressed that breaking confidentiality requires greater consideration as it
is currently an ambiguous and misleading topic for young people who bully,
whose behaviour is predicated upon threat to others. This triggers an
understandable risk to self-disclosure and a difficult decision for counsellors
whose work is founded upon empathy and trust. The participants clearly and
mutually articulated how knowing a counsellor in advance, helped allay their
fears by facilitating trust and reducing risk.
Further compromise of self-disclosure and trust originates from being referred
as opposed to self-referral, a situation inhibiting development of an enabling
relationship between counsellor and client. Such lack of agency represents a
serious impediment for young people who bully. The need for autonomy and
for the voices of this marginalised group to be heard has surfaced as an
imperative in the current study.
Interestingly, although by referring her for counselling, Courtney’s school were
theoretically observing the UN Convention for Children, I would argue, that by
omitting to discuss referral with Courtney, they fell fowl of its original
sentiments. Hence, without uniform interpretation, it would seem that the
philosophy of the convention remains open to interpretation.
The participant counsellors recognise the challenge of disempowerment
occasioned by being referred, and respond by offering choice to their clients,
242
empowering them as equals in the therapeutic relationship. This is significant,
as there were several occasions when
the
young
participants
felt
compromised by disempowerment, highlighting a similarity between how
counsellors and clients perceive this element of the therapeutic relationship.
Offering young people who bully the counsellor’s undivided attention seems
to positively influence the therapeutic relationship. Moreover, the body
language counsellors observe as a result enables meaningful
work, for
without words, it sometimes represents an invaluable outlet for expression
as well as an assessment tool for counsellors. Interpreting non-verbal cues
works both ways, for the counsellors’ body language also influences the
behaviour of young people who bully during counselling.
An unexpected theme to emerge, has been how the behaviour of young people
who bully is determined by expectation as to how others will respond, but
more so, how variously this is enacted by individuals with differing attachment
states. For example, Jason displayed a need for self-expression and a desire to
repress this, whereas for Andy, the extreme mistrust he experienced towards
others paralysed his ability to self-disclose. The participant counsellors expressed
advanced awareness of the self/other divide, responding to their clients with
kindness and compassion, whereby affording a reaction that countered
anticipated hostility. Although this helped to break down barriers, sometimes
the reverse occurred, suggesting that in counselling, young people who bully
would require an individualised approach to address their idiosyncratic concerns.
Notably, it was in response to group threat that the young people were united.
For example when Courtney broke rank testifying to the benefits of counselling,
243
and when Jason declared bully as unacceptable. Since they were equally cohesive
in their fear of backstabbing, these findings endorse risk as a primary concern for
young people who bully.
The final chapter of this thesis now concludes by presenting an overview of the
study, including my suggestions and recommendations. I start with a reflection
of my experiences as a researcher, moving on to an evaluation of the
methodology and the methods used, focusing in particular on what was learned.
Following on, consideration is given to the three superordinate themes, with a
reflective overview as to the influence of attachment, the therapeutic
relationship and emotion management for young people who bully and their
counsellors. The chapter also incorporates implications for education, research
and practice (5.7).
244
5. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This thesis is concerned with the lived experience of young people who bully
and their counsellors relative to the counselling relationship. Following data
analysis, three superordinate themes (See table 3) were identified: attachment
states, the therapeutic relationship, and emotional management. In section 5.6,
I reflect upon the epistemological relevance of emotional management in
relation to IPA. Data analysis identified trust and risk as overriding concerns
for the participants and these issues were therefore integrated within
discussion of the superordinate themes (4.2, 4.3, 4.4). In the findings chapter,
the superordinate themes were discussed in the light of relevant literature.
From my experience of counselling young people who bully, I commenced this
thesis believing one to one counselling to be an ideal intervention. However,
data does not support my optimism and these initial assumptions have been
challenged. Findings have shown the complexities of counselling young
people who bully and this was reflected in how I struggled during their
focus groups. The clash between my conviction as a counsellor and realisation
as a researcher provides a further example of the conflict between these
dual identities and thus, the interplay between the perceiver and the perceived
(1). I begin the concluding chapter by reflecting upon my position as both a
counsellor and researcher in the current study. In the ensuing sections (5.3,
5.4, 5.5, 5.6), I evaluate the superordinate themes, offering suggestions
245
for further research and recommendations based on the findings (5.7). I start
the concluding discussion however by reflecting upon my research experiences.
5.2 The reflective practitioner
When considering reflection, as a counsellor, I would concur with Irving and
Williams (1995) when they state that “counsellors are encouraged in training and
through supervision to evaluate their interventions, question their assumptions,
[and] recognise their biases and prejudices” (p. 107). Nonetheless, I suggest that
when contextualised in the Heideggerian concept of reality (3.4.1.1), reflection
takes on new meaning as the assumptions which form the totality of our being
and give sense, may manifest as incontrovertible truths and therefore as
challenging to evaluate. I would also argue that reflection is an intellectual
process since it is limited by the words available to access and explain thoughts.
In this thesis, I have given meaning through a narrative of my everyday lived
experience, a dialogue with myself that has been enhanced through a reflective
journal of working with, researching, and observing young people who bully and
their counsellors.
Schӧn (1987, p.26) notes that reflection “serves to reshape what we are doing
while we are doing it” and I suggest that this implies a constant monitoring of self
that allows the individual to reframe their learning within the shifting context to
which it is applied.
In counselling, this approach to knowledge has been likened to the internal
supervisor (3.9.1) (Casement, 1985) and describes the synergy between the self
and the setting that enables a flexible response to learning in the present
moment and a greater sensitivity to inform future practice (Johns, 1996).
246
My reflective lens is tuned to the humanistic concepts of caring, which broadly
encapsulate an altruistic model of compassion that transcends settings and
populations (Qiuting, 2013) and which enables me to live my beliefs and values
through reality. Such values were equally articulated by the participant
counsellors who spoke of a connection with their young clients that resonated
with a parent-child dyad, an empathy that appeared enhanced by their own
parenting experiences. This connection was characterised by the counsellor as
kind and caring but was limited by the work to be done. For example, although
the counsellors spoke of their sadness for young people who bully, they resisted
pity, moving their emotional energy from something negative to a positive and
motivational compassion, which enabled them to respond to the young people in
a more therapeutic way. For instance, for their clients, being listened to and
noticed made a difference in caring as they were able to tune in to a reciprocal
relationship where they were most available to the client (4.3). I consider that
being available and present is a core dimension of caring as it offers a vision of
what is needed, even if this cannot be enacted in the moment.
Despite Smyth and Holian’s (1999) claim that researchers who study their own
organisations can gain a unique perspective of history, culture and the
employees, as a counsellor myself, gathering data from participant counsellors
has not always been easy. I suggest that foreknowledge can effect data as the
presumed knowledge of the interviewer can create a power dynamic, where the
interviewee role- plays the counsellor character they consider would impress the
interviewing counsellor. Rather than a bias, I consider this introduces multiple
perspectives of reality that endorse the impact of subjectivity and which, through
247
reflection, helped me see the import of emotional management in the life of the
counsellor.
Schӧn (1983) refers to the ‘in action’ style of reflection as defining the on-going
process it denotes and it was through this developing consideration that I noticed
how the relationship between the counsellors and myself was evolving as the
focus groups and interviews progressed. Where we had started slightly stilted,
rapport grew, until, by the final interviews, a bond existed. This was measurable
not only in a sense of comradery, but also as the counsellors allowed me to
develop their previous disclosures and I intuited that through trust, the
counsellors could risk a deeper exposure. On-going reflection also aided data
gathering as carefully reviewing my techniques garnered insight into flaws such as
leading questions, which I was able to modify for subsequent interviews. This too
may have contributed to building rapport, by nurturing depth.
Reflecting upon the data, I am also able to imagine more accurately what the
experience of each young person must mean to them. Nonetheless, it is
impossible to counsel any more of a person than that which they allow us to see,
making personal reflection of great significance in nurturing empathy (Belenky et
al., 1986), and allowing me to see each young person as a unique human being. I
suggest this is of added importance when researching or counselling young
people who bully, whose manifest behaviour can appear the antithesis of their
inner fragility. Therefore, enabling a trusting counsellor/client dyad is essential in
facilitating disclosure. Through the breaches in trust experienced when gathering
data (3.9.4), I reflect that founding an environment where people can express
their feelings in safety is essential in counselling. And yet, such caring is a fragile
248
concept as it establishes a benchmark that cannot always be sustained beyond
counselling, for example when the young people return to their families.
Throughout the research process, extant theory has been assimilated within my
subjective and intuitive knowing, which, although it cannot be easily justified, has
expanded my consciousness, allowing me to deconstruct my thinking and
responses. I suggest that this transformative process (Newman, 1994) aided
interpretation of the data, as I was receptive to evolving understanding.
Nonetheless, an enduring question has been how I could trust my intuitive self to
know if my interpretation of what took place was a representative perspective,
particularly because, as a counsellor, I facilitated caring in relationship with the
young people who may have been compliant to these therapeutic dynamics.
Attempts at thoroughness have been corroborated by checking journal entries to
authenticate the narrative, through dialogue with my academic supervisors, and
self-reflection.
However, since reflection is contingent upon past experience even this process is
not free from assumptions and the principle of continuity would therefore
suggest the perpetration of certain personal assumptions, for example,
conceptualising of Andy as a thug. However, according to Atkins and Murphy
(1993), reflection is often triggered by discomfort or curiosity and in the case of
Andy, it was my uneasiness at affording him a convenient social label that
initiated critical analysis of my thoughts and feelings. Finally, the development of
a new perspective emerged, informed by my personal experience and that
provided insight as to how young people who bully may be judged, a sentiment I
described as central to humanistic reflection (3.9.1). As Teekman (2000)
proposes, self-reflection prompted receptivity to new learning, a similar practice I
249
suggest, to the mindfulness referred to by counsellor B (4.3) when connecting to
difficult feelings with her clients in the present moment.
However, since personal reflection is limited by one's own understanding and
experiences, I would argue that the different perspectives provided through
counselling supervision are essential in developing reflective skills, challenging
assumptions and broadening perspectives.
The following section continues by reflecting upon the methodology, the
thematic findings, and their relationship to the literature previously discussed.
5.3 Reflecting upon the methodology and methods
Extant literature on bullying details large, often longitudinal studies whose
focus is upon the characteristics of those who bully, anti-bullying interventions
designed
to combat
the
problems
this
issue
provokes,
and
the
intergenerational propensity for aggressive behaviours. Despite an expansive
literature search, I uncovered little academic attention to the lived
experiences of young people who bully, the reasons that may cause them to
perpetuate this behaviour and a paucity of literature relating to how they, or
their
counsellors,
experience
counselling.
Consequently,
I
sought
a
methodological approach that would enable an in-depth exploration of these
phenomena and settled for IPA as a conduit to the participants’ lived
experience.
In sections 3.4 to 3.5, I discussed the ontological and epistemological
precepts of phenomenology and how these complimented the underlying
250
assumptions of IPA, most particularly, phenomenology which occupies a
Heideggerian critical realist position and is a dominant assumption of IPA.
Critical realism was important, as the insecure attachment that so
often accompanies a tendency to bully, suggested an unstable perception
of self that advocated a fluctuating awareness of reality. As such, part of the
rationale for choosing IPA was that its critical realist principles provided the
flexibility necessary to encapsulate the young participants’ unsteadiness.
For example, a quantitative study (Olweus, 1978) characterises the bully
profile as aggressive, lacking empathy, and displaying a positive attitude
towards violence. The current study suggests however, that such tendencies
develop as a need to defend against internal threat. I advocate that such
findings have future implications for education, research and practice. They
highlight the complexities inherent in the lived experiences of those young
people who bully and subsequently how counselling and policy can
appropriately respond to such challenges. In section 5.7, I offer my
recommendations.
Using a qualitative approach such as IPA to research sensitive topics and
vulnerable participants has created some challenging situations which at
times, caused me considerable anxiety. There were times, when as a
counsellor, I would have responded differently than as a researcher. At the
outset I attempted to suppress my professional identity as I feared that
analysing data from a counselling perspective may contaminate the data,
however this was not possible. Embedding myself in the research this way has
necessitated reflexion, to
evaluate
my interrelatedness in a
dialogic
251
relationship with my participants.
Reflecting upon analysis of the data, I question how my profession as counsellor
has influenced data analysis and the impartiality of the superordinate themes.
The risk is that this may have skewed understanding of the participants’ lived
experiences and is elaborated upon in section 5.7. My interpretation is intended
to make use of the narrative as a source of insight (Yardley, 1990) and I
considered that to bracket myself
would
take
concerted emotional
energy, detracting from the vigour needed for the data. As Smith (in Finlay
2009), emphasises, a researcher cannot bracket and be hermeneutic, hence, my
reading of the data constitutes an inevitable and basic structure of “being in the
world” (Heidegger, 1962, p.37). Nonetheless, awareness has been amplified
through the use of reflective journals, which helped ground me in the data by
identifying the participants’ experiences from my own.
Advice given by an academic whilst writing this study recommended I mindfully
separate my profession from that as researcher to avoid conflicting duality
(McGinn & Bosacki, 2004). Nonetheless, it was often as counsellor that I felt I
accessed the essence of lived experience, a double hermeneutic that sat
comfortably with the phenomenological methodology of choice (Smith, 2008).
It is difficult to conjecture how interpretation would have varied had I hailed
from a profession other than counselling. Nonetheless, I recognise that the
superordinate theme relating to attachment derived from my experience of
counselling young people who bully, and was not therefore, impartial.
Such implications are complicated by the similarities Grafanaki (1996)
identifies between research and counselling. For example, he describes
252
qualitative research as “a process of systematic inquiry into the meanings
which people employ to make use of their actions” (P.2). Such ethos is
common to counselling, which also provides an opportunity to interact at a
personal level, explore sensitive information and build an alliance with either
client or participant (Grafanaki, 1996). Further similarities
arise in
that
gathering data, like entering the world of a client demands “active
listening, accurate understanding, warmth, acceptance,
genuineness and
trust” (Grafanaki, 1996:3; Barrineau & Bozarth, 1989; Mearns & McLeod,
1996, 1994) It is unsurprising therefore that separating such closely allied
processes demanded a high level of awareness on my behalf and was not
always achievable4.
Conflict between the ethical codes governing research and the study aims
demanded reflection and a flexible response to resolve them in a meaningful
way. In this, the fluidity of IPA facilitated a mutable response to the
epistemological goals (Smith et al., 1995, 1999). These were further
complimented by the creative stimuli used to encourage conversation whilst
allaying the young participants’ anxiety, a topic I develop later in this section.
The insights acquired from observing the young people in their own
environment helped inform the choice of methods, as I was afforded a first-hand
4
There were times when my “self as counsellor” (Etherington, 1996, p.3) had to be set
aside. In counselling, most sensitive and personal issues are faced once a trusting
relationship has formed, but time constraints and recognition of my role as researcher
meant pushing through boundaries in a way that felt intrusive and uncomfortable. Hence,
my profession has been a double edged sword. Without it, exploration of the participants’
lived experiences may not have yielded such depth, and yet there were times when it was
difficult to hear participants speaking of challenging topics without reverting to counsellor,
exploring their blind spots and nurturing new ways of being.
253
perspective of the young people’s tolerance levels, their capabilities, how they
responded to learning stimuli and, their interactional style and thus, the
relationship between the theory and practice of data collection. Additionally,
the observation period allowed the young people time to familiarise themselves
with my presence which I suggest was transferred to the research setting,
facilitating some trust
between us. Without this, most of the young
participants may not have felt sufficiently emboldened to challenge me as
they did. Also, from observing the young people interacting naturally, I was
provided insight into the acute challenges they faced and the difficulties
encountered by staff in their attempts to teach and nurture the young people in
their care. In relation to research, I reasoned that, when considering the
methods for use with young people who bully, researchers may need to step
beyond established designs, to fully embrace the needs of this vulnerable but
challenging group.
I realise, that the young people refer to an “[in]appropriate working model of
human interaction’ (McKeough et al., 1994p. 290), relying on schemas about
people and the environment which are predominantly hostile, so that, when
together, they are inclined to respond to social situations (their group) with
collective aggression. Their united response also speaks of a negotiated
allegiance, where the young people’s account of themselves is inextricably
related to how others perceive them.
Despite careful consideration in this respect, using focus groups to gather data
with young people who bully was not without its problems for situating a
group of participants with problem behaviour together seemed to perpetuate
misconduct that proved challenging for me to contain. In their focus groups such
254
behaviour was sometimes enacted as a collective and formidable hostility against
the less vocal member Lucy, at Courtney, for challenging group consensus, and at
the support worker Phil, the scapegoat for their anxiety. In this, the shared
environment afforded by the focus groups sometimes afforded a fertile setting
for contagious aggression. The concentration of the young people was
undoubtedly compromised because of their ADHD, and as with the unsettled
behaviour I witnessed whilst observing them, similar difficulties with
concentration replayed in the focus groups. This made it difficult for the young
people to remain focused, such that their attention periodically waned. Given
what is known about play therapy for those individuals experiencing ADHD, I
suggest that, when studying such participants, researchers introduce an agerelated element of play to their methods that facilitates data collection whilst
aiding participants. In addition, for the quietest member, the focus group
scenario did not provide a forum for articulation, her reserve seeming
exacerbated by more prominent members. Had the individual interviews gone
ahead, the one-to-one environment may have provided a space less conducive
to maladaptive behaviour and more conducive for the quieter member.
Such implications reverberate for research where I suggest that researchers who
study young people who bully anticipate reactive behaviour and use the methods
most suited to combat this eventuality. In section 5.7, I recommend how
research could advance studies into counselling young people who bully.
As regards the focus groups and individual interviews with the counsellors, I
suggest these were, by and large successful, although I would be disingenuous to
deny the influence of a power imbalance resulting from both the participants and
255
myself sharing the same profession. This manifest through the counsellors’ use of
language, where I sometimes perceived them to articulate emotions which were
seemingly at variance with the commitment they spoke of to their clients. These
incidents appear in section 4.2.5 and are reflected upon later in this chapter (5.6).
However, the values underpinning my approach to the research relationship are
essentially respect and equality and I suggest that by genuinely entering into the
relationship, any disparity thawed as the focus groups and interviews progressed.
As rapport grew, the counsellors’ trust in me appeared also to mature,
facilitating self-disclosure and enabling me to develop the personal and
professional elements of the participant counsellors’ work with young people
who bully. Overall, the methods used generated rich data which detailed a
perplexing glimpse of the lives of these young people, but also, the professional
response of Counsellors A and B.
For example, according to Counsellors A and B, the young people were their most
responsive when afforded choice, a finding supported by my observations at
Center A (3.9.1). When extrapolated to research such thinking may be realisable
through involving young people in developing methods, where, according to
Santelli et al., (2003) youth involvement also promotes development, as
communication skills are fostered, alongside problem solving and critical analysis.
Of particular importance to young people is helping to develop the research
questions, as this affirms the resonance to their lives. Nonetheless, Holland et al.,
(2010) warn caution at the assumption that inclusive research empowers or
equalises participants as, to be effective, it requires significant training in consent,
confidentiality and research methods, delivered by researchers. In addition, I
consider that for the young people in this study, the learning difficulties and
256
ADHD they experience, may put such inclusion been beyond their remit, whereby
amplifying their sense of exclusion. Consequently, any research needs to
acknowledge the psychological capabilities of its participants.
Given the importance of confidentiality to young people in research (Duncan,
2009; Santelli, 2003), and the ethical concerns articulated earlier (3.9.4) regarding
the location of their focus groups, I do feel that consulting the young people as to
the location of the research may have modelled a responsible attitude to
confidentiality. Also, demonstrating respect for their opinions may have equalised
the power balance and aided the establishment of trust between the young
people and myself.
Evident from the observations I recorded in my journal, is the impact of the young
people’s misbehaviour upon their learning and the staff who support them. When
researching staff responses to challenging behaviour, Hastings and Brown (2000)
concluded that misbehaviour intensified, or was even caused by staff who
modelled a lack of understanding, a deficiency of behavioural knowledge and
skills and negative emotional responses and attitudes. I proposed however, that
Carrie, the majority of the support staff and counsellors A and B, all demonstrated
enhanced understanding, applying a sympathetic and empathetic approach to the
young people. A possible exception was Phil’s lack of experience in knowing how
to curb the escalating victimization directed at him, and Lowe et al., (2007)
confirm that less qualified staff experience poorer self-efficacy and compromised
emotional responses. In the recommendations section of this thesis (5.7), I offer
suggestions to counter this deficiency. As for researchers, Hutchinson et al., (2014)
257
propose that a positive attitude towards challenging behaviour requires
contact and interaction with the group and it is true that the period of
observation I undertook (3.9.1) opened my eyes to the problems the young
people faced, enhancing my empathy. In addition, seeing how the staff at Centre
A used visual stimuli provided an informative model which inspired the design of
my own methods (Siperstein et al. 2007; Tracy & Iacono, 2008). For example,
following the aggression with which the young people reacted to the magazine
cutting featuring a celebrity, I resolved to use simple word stimuli such that they
would not be distracted by images, and these proved most successful in
stimulating debate about bullying.
The Story Stems were introduced to the focus group setting to enable the young
participants to move from relating from the third person perspective to the
first without causing anxiety. In pursuit of this aim, I consider they were effective,
for example, in facilitating both Courtney and Andy to relate their attachment
experiences from the third person. Allowing their voices to be heard this way
enabled idiographic analysis in keeping with IPA (Smith, 2004) and an exploration
of the young people’s experiences through a subjective lens and therefore
consistent with contemporary attitudes towards children’s rights (Hill, 2006).
Additionally, the debate the Twitter phrases triggered featured both group and
individual contributions which enabled interpretation of lived experience both
from a collective and individual perspective. Accordingly, fears expressed in the
methodology chapter (3) that the data may fail to capture the idiographic
258
interpretation espoused by IPA have not been realised. Nonetheless, from the
young people’s anxious reaction to introducing the story stem too soon, I
have learnt that method design is only half the battle. How to use these with
care and sensitivity is of equal importance.
Having observed how differently the young people behaved when working alone
at Centre A, and how quickly that group aggression reasserted itself once they
were re-united, I consider that one-to-one attention may benefit their behaviour,
and by default, the staff. From a research perspective, individual interviews may
prompt a richer response than focus groups under these conditions. However,
when posed questions requiring his individual response, Andy was at his most
threatened. Therefore, I realise, that with such insecurely attached participants,
the one to one environment may exacerbate risk. I suggest that to explore the
concerns of such guarded individuals would require a person-centred approach
such as ethnography, where participants could be observed in a nonconfrontational atmosphere. For example, it was when interacting naturally with
Courtney that Andy was at his most forthcoming.
From Carrie’s experience, I reflected that the tireless commitment to personcentred care when working with young people exhibiting behavioural difficulties,
exposed practitioners to personal damage. Like Counsellor B (4.2) I suggest that
researchers, counsellors, teachers and support staff, may need to establish their
boundaries for acceptable behaviour in advance of working with young people
who bully. In fact, Dickson-Swift et al., (2007), advise that for researchers who
study participants with problem behaviour, emotional burnout is common, thus
they recommend expert supervision and mindfulness training to help nurture
259
self-compassion.
For researchers, knowledge of techniques to manage escalating emotions may
benefit both them and data gathering. Although anger management is often
perceived as an effective intervention for managing aggressive behaviour
(Deffenbacher et al., 2002; Gerzina, & Drummond, 2000; Saini, 2009), my
concern is that it can be used as a behavioural panacea, suppressing the
expression of internalised frustration and pain, before hearing the meaning.
Given the emotional and physical abuse experienced by many young people who
bully, enabling them to voice this most basic emotion is therefore of importance
to research. In section xxx I reflected upon concerns that by remaining calm, the
participant counsellors may have unwittingly stifled the expression of anger. I
suggest that for counsellors, a priority is acknowledging that anger is present so
that the young person need not shout louder to be heard. Thereafter, new
strategies can be developed for the appropriate expression of anger.
In light of the fight observed between Jason and Andy, an aid to reflection has
been the journal kept whilst observing the young people as this brought
suppositions to a level of consciousness and awareness. For example, without
referring to the entries, my judgment of Andy may have limited my openness to
the notion of his own reality. By psychologically attuning to Andy’s plight I was
able to reason his behaviour and to realign to my existing beliefs about young
people who bully. Nonetheless, this brief exposure to my own prejudices allowed
me to see how presuppositions could lead to limited perspectives.
In addition, by cross- checking the thoughts and feelings logged in my journal
against interpretation of the data, I have gained empathy both about the young
260
people and how they may appear to others, for example, noting my own fear at
controlling the focus group, having witnessed Carrie’s struggle in the classroom.
Although the period of observation aided an insightful evaluation of young people
who bully, the staff who support them, and their counsellors, there were
undoubtedly boundary issues involved in maintaining my role, for example, in
resisting advances at friendship from the young people and opportunities to help
over-stretched staff at Centre A. As Dickson-Swift et al., (2009) comment,
“Qualitative health researchers immerse themselves in the settings that they are
studying. This immersion involves personal interaction with their participants,
with the result that the boundaries between the researcher and the group of
people under study can easily become blurred” (p.853). I have learnt that
particular challenges are introduced where sensitive topics are being researched,
as participants reveal vulnerabilities that compromise the distance between the
researcher and themselves. For example, I experienced guilt at nurturing the
emotional connection necessary to enter the lives of the young people whilst
maintaining my distance, feeling their contribution to be the greater, and possibly
exploiting them for the purpose of research.
Boundary setting is a recognised strategy to enable emotional distancing (Lonne,
2003). Since qualitative research involves both professionalism and building
rapport (Dickson-Swift et al., 2006) thought is needed as to how researchers can
maintain appropriate boundaries whilst offering support, particularly when
studying participants who experience insecure attachment. Consequently,
thought is also needed as to how to sensitively manage withdrawal once research
ends, and whether a connection will continue after the research concludes.
261
5.4 Reflecting upon attachment
The literature review discussed two key categories of attachment; secure and
insecure, outlining how these are internalised to mediate future relationships,
specifically, for young people who bully. Of particular relevance was the
self/other divide, determining four categories of inter-relatedness that
arbitrate relationship building. I summarised that for young people who bully
the repercussions of attachment were experienced not just in immediate
terms, but also from an intergenerational respect.
The considerable extant literature on the intergenerational continuity of
insecure attachment largely derives from retrospective reporting. Whilst
furnishing a profile of the attachment states of adults, this method is criticised,
as perception of the original experience (Rutter, 1995) may be affected over
time.
With the current phenomenological study, however, attachment was explored
in the immediacy of the participants’ lived experience; for example, the
differentiation between insecure and secure attachment, and how this
determines relationship dynamics with peers and counsellors. I suggest that
the highly complex make-up of insecurely attached individuals who bully
cannot be accommodated within the simplistic confines of anti-bullying
interventions for schools. Later, I recommend how different interventions
could be researched (5.7).
For example, in the literature review Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory of the
Moral Self (1986, 1990, 1991) (2.7), postulated moral reasoning as linked to
262
moral action by self-regulatory moral agency. However, for young people who
bully, defective social skills caused by inconsistent social learning, most
notably from primary carers (Caravita & Ginni, 2010), skews perception of
moral rules. This enables them to disengage from certain moral principles and
is manifest as displaced responsibility and stripping their victims of identifiable
human qualities (Bandura, 1990). Such theories are borne out by the findings,
where the young participants seemed automatically to round on both fellow
participants (4.2, 4.3) and their support worker (4.4.2), in a way that suggested
a disengaged moral framework. The literature (Rigby, 2005a, 1999; Sroufe,
1983) reviewed in this thesis supports such findings, for not only are insecurely
attached children un-empathic, but they seek attention in negative ways
which ironically elicits an angry response confirming the child’s belief about
rejection.
In this way, insecure attachment redefines a person’s role, affecting their life
choices and others around them; moreover it compounds common conflicts
and problems. For example, an unexpected finding was how an internalised
representation of relationship experiences determined the behaviour of young
people who bully. They were seemingly prepared for a negative response from
others, and this frequently shaped either a defensive or antagonistic
approach to relationship building, including with their counsellors.
The
participant counsellors expressed advanced awareness of this problem,
countering such behaviour by offering the opposite experience, for example,
remaining calm even in the face of hostility. This approach received mixed
appraisal, sometimes quelling anxiety and, at others, exacerbating it; thus
263
highlighting the significance of reciprocal roles.
Such problems increase concern regarding the effectiveness of anti-bullying
interventions; for young people who bully both struggle to empathise (Rigby,
2005a) and to build trusting relationships. The findings suggested that moral
disengagement may nullify such premises and in chapter 5.7, I present my
recommendations regarding anti-bullying interventions.
A damaging bi-product of the self/other divide was the young participants’
conviction that they would be talked about behind their backs. I suggested
their belief emanated from a sense of themselves as unworthy; in other
words, what was said could only ever be negative; a mistrust, predicated
upon a sense of others as unreliable. Such impressions emerged through an
unexpected channel of blame.
The literature suggested that young people attribute blame to their parents,
when something in their life goes wrong for which they do not wish to take
responsibility (Harris, 1998). Certainly, this seemed true for Courtney, who
blamed her school for her poor performance. Notably however, Courtney’s
general behaviour was consistent with secure attachment, so blame for her
may well have resonated with Harris’s theory (4.2).
However, Andy’s
conception of blame varied markedly, since his defence of his bullying as
deserved by the victim was more suggestive of a moral void. This resonated
with the literature attributing blame to mistrust of others’ love and mistrust of
being lovable (Baldwin et al., 1993). How Andy blamed thus seemed a
statement of uncertainty as to his own worthiness and that of others. Notably
264
however, the concept of worthiness versus unworthiness is a popular theory
within counselling circles and therefore represents an example of both the
conflicting alliance between my identity as counsellor and researcher, and also,
my partiality towards attachment theory.
Data suggested that the young participants’ uncertainty was exacerbated by a
sense of their counsellors as emanating from a social world to which they could
not and did not relate. This perception exaggerated the sense of mistrust,
causing Jason to blame his counsellor for talking behind his back. Hence the
concepts of the self/other divide and blame are inextricably linked;
unsurprisingly given that, even those authority figures who guide young
people who bully, sometimes exhibit a blaming culture towards them.
For instance, the findings showed that for those young participants who are
seemingly insecurely attached, a negative self/other divide propelled much of
their behaviour, particularly, a need to defend against risk by erecting
emotional barriers. Sadly, such barricades are sometimes misinterpreted as
anti-social behaviour, such that, even
authority figures, rather than
penetrating the characteristic complexities, resort instead to unhelpful ‘finger
wagging’. Seemingly, it is such negative judgement that propels the resistance
found common to the young participants in this study; authority figures
confirming a negative response towards them which mirrors their expectations
as to how others will react. Many of the young participants felt that this
expectation extended to their counsellors, and that no matter what the
problem, counsellors would not help. This is most likely compatible with
insecure attachment experiences, where the young people have learnt their
265
needs will not be met. I suggest it is incumbent upon such authority figures, for
example teachers to explore new ways of relating to young people who bully
and I offer recommendations towards achieving this in chapter 5.7.
As discussed in the literature review (2), young people who bully most often
fall into the insecure attachment states, where a need to defend their fragile
self-esteem can be expressed as aggression. For counsellors to get beyond
these hostile boundaries, they may need to find ways to penetrate them
without alienating their clients further. However, many of the young
participants articulated extreme resistance to counselling, hatred towards their
counsellors even, and the findings suggest these are predicated upon the fear
and risk of exposing a tender and unstable self. For instance, by
conceptualising their counsellors as strangers, the young participants justified
not self-disclosing. For Courtney, this was ideally resolved by getting to know
her counsellor prior to embarking upon intense counselling. However, I
argued that short- term counselling offered little opportunity for such luxury
and that, by affording too little time, it exacerbated young people’s felt
uncertainty. Such deficiency may offer one explanation as to why few young
people engage in counselling.
As regards the methods used in this study, I consider that the observation and
focus groups with the young people also afforded insight as to their attachment
perspectives. For example, Bowlby emphasised that secure attachment is
characterised by a safe bond to a significant other, usually a primary carer, and
which, if lacking, may manifest as distrust in later relationships. Although no
official attachment status had been designated the young people, staff at Centre
266
A told me of the young people’s dysfunctional family relationships, where many
of them had experienced either emotional and/or physical abuse, fracturing the
familial bond. When observing the young people, I noted in my journal how they
were frequently disparaging about the relationship they shared with their parents
or carers. Contrastingly, whilst at Centre A, I observed that the bond between the
young people was significant. Despite, or maybe because of their seeming
insecurity they shared fierce loyalty, for example, refusing to start their lessons so
that late comers would not miss out. The females in particular displayed unusual
protectiveness and nurturing, by for example, soothing each other (including the
males) after failed romances, advising about contraception, drug and alcohol
abuse, in what I perceived as matriarchal roles. I intuited that the relationships
between the young people may have taken on an extra-dimensional importance
due to the insecure attachment with their parents.
This sense of allegiance was communicated to the focus groups where, for
example, on one occasion, the participants would not start until Lucy arrived and I
suggest that their initial reticence in responding to questions was partly
attributable to such solidarity, where an unspoken sense of group trust could not
be violated by one single member without unspoken agreement from the others.
My original concern was that such union may be enacted as a distorted consensus
of opinion, however, as the focus groups progressed, individual members
periodically surfaced to express their opinions, ultimately progressing
to
articulate contrasting views.
Seemingly, for vulnerable and insecurely attached young people, the interpersonal relationship with their peers takes on an exaggerated importance, with
267
the trust between them, a central mediator. Given that the young people were
able to transfer their historical connection to the focus group uninterrupted, I
suggest this method as suited to insecurely attached individuals as established
trust offered a secure foundation which was strong enough to withstand the
challenges to develop later between them.
My experiences suggest that pre-established peer trust represents a vital
consideration when contemplating the methods to be used if researching
insecurely attached participants. In this, the prospective sample consistent with
IPA paid dividends as the participants shared homogenous and seemingly binding
values which anchored them.
Despite their apparent bond, I noticed whilst observing the young people that
they were extremely defensive in response to perceived threats to their ego, a
defining characteristic of insecure attachment. Their volatile, and therefore
precarious relationships often resulted in fracture and during these times, the
young people were visibly upset by the isolation they experienced, the girls crying
and the boys quiet and reclusive. Camaraderie seemed to offer safety as I suggest
it afforded vital affirmation of the young peoples’ acceptability and their identity.
Given such unstable self-esteem, it was important that the methods used to
gather data were sensitive to the young peoples’ bond and fostered self-worth.
Conversely, given the unintentional paring of two female and two male
participants, it was also essential that divergence was not stifled, particularly as
the focus group provided a shared environment where this connection could be
enacted.
268
From this perspective, introducing the phrases from Twitter in a focus group
setting proved effective stimuli, both facilitating group confidence and affording
an opportunity to articulate individual opinion by progressing from a third person
to a first person narrative. This was particularly evident when, despite their
seeming insecurity, Andy and Jason felt sufficiently trusting to express divergent
opinions as to the morality of bullying.
The self/other divide consistent with insecurely attached individuals seemed
more evident in the relationship between the participants and myself, particularly
the two males, where Andy’s ambivalence and Jason’s anxiety inhibited the
formation of a trusting rapport. The counsellors echoed how this relationship
dynamic also resonated during therapy. A more empathic connection may have
formed over time, however the twenty minute limitations imposed by the
participants’ learning difficulties and ADHD compromised the opportunity to
nurture this.
Between the delays in awaiting Lucy’s arrival, the mistrust towards the
research process exhibited by Andy and Jason, and the disruptive behaviour
consistent with the participants’ learning difficulties and ADHD, data
gathering became a central concern as I feared the twenty minute session
would run out before this began.
According to the tenets of IPA, time must ideally be taken to both nurture rapport
and to sensitively funnel questions from benign information gathering to more
probing enquiry. Although establishing a bond with a client is essential, having
counselled many young people with learning difficulties using reduced
length sessions (30-40 minutes), it is necessary to quickly précis their key concern
269
so these can be worked with in therapy, requiring a more directive
approach. I suggest that managing these conflicting demands is similar for the
researcher as for the counsellor, where body language, tone of voice and the
considerate use of language are essential ingredients for quickly establishing an
empathic bond.
When studying young people who bully I consider it essential that researchers
carefully consider whether or how their methods will be compatible with
the myriad challenges this participant group present, respectfully incorporating
their impairments whilst still providing the space to develop trust. Perhaps,
had the participants been more intimately involved in designing the methods to
be used, they may have engaged more fully in data gathering, progressing to
their individual interviews. Then, this child-centred approach would have
established the relevance of questions for the young people, maximising their
sense of ownership. Conversely, had the young people designed their own
questions, topics may not have developed of which the young people were
previously unaware, and I contest that rich data derived from the stimulus
materials used in the current study. In addition, had the young people
chosen their own pseudonyms, possibly, they would have felt more
represented in the transcript, rather than exaggerating their sense of
marginalisation.
I suggest that one of the benefits of running a focus group was in affording an
overview of how the young peoples’ differing attachment states manifest in
relationship with others.
For example from his guarded behaviour, Andy was seemingly anxious–avoidant.
He limited access to his own feelings and through his language, both rejected
and was rejecting of his fellow participants. By seldom deferring to the other
270
participants or seeking their affirmation, he demonstrated less dependence upon
their social network or emotional closeness.
From a professional perspective, I conjectured that Andy’s internal working model
had provided an affective tone (Cicchetti, et al., 1995; Main, et al., 1985) which
would cause him to struggle to form trusting relationships with others,
possibly resulting in social and emotional isolation. For Andy to benefit from
counselling, I suggest counsellors would need an essential framework for
understanding the impact of early social/emotional relationships on cognitiveaffective structures.
Jason’s behvaiour bore the hallmarks of anxious–resistant attachment (Kobak
et al., 1993). Seemingly, his internal working model guided his cognition,
language, feelings and behavior as he alternated between exaggerated
emotional reactions and social withdrawal. I noticed he was easily
overstimulated, quickly frustrated and although his impulsive, sometimes
confrontational replies sometimes alienated him from others, during times of
stress, he abandoned all social awareness seemingly through desperation to
maintain the proximity and attention of both myself and the other participants.
He appeared to have an unstable sense of self that left him precarious and
exposed amongst the other participants, and which, from his language, was
expressed through his difficulty in responding appropriately and contingently to
them.
According to Dozier et al (2001) similar behaviour is enacted in clinical settings
where, for insecurely attached clients, distrust and discomfort with interpersonal
issues, contribute to their being less responsive to therapy (Dozier et al., 2001).
271
From the contrasting behaviour demonstrated between Andy and Jason in the
focus group, I suggest that effective counselling would demand relevant
assessment and individualised intervention.
Contrastingly, Courtney, who demonstrated what I perceived as secure
attachment related more positively both to the other young participants and me,
showing greater personal resiliency, her engaging behaviour triggering
responsiveness. Even during conflict, Courtney exhibited a more flexible and
socially appropriate emotional reaction and, like Cassidy, (1994) I interpreted that
self-agency afforded her more personal control and greater trust in others, which
then enabled disclosure. Empowered by a more integrated view of self, she
enjoyed a reciprocal relationship, suggesting that by nurturing secure attachment,
counsellors enable the therapeutic dyad and their clients (Larose & Bernier,
2001).
Of all the young participants, the focus group seemed least facilitative for Lucy
who was quiet throughout, only responding if directed a question. She
appeared easily cowed by the more forceful participants, suggesting
submissiveness. Nonetheless, I consider Lucy’s silence itself as valuable data, as
to respond sensitively and appropriately to her attachment needs during
counselling would suggest a one-to-one approach, rather than a group approach
as better suited.
Like the focus groups, the year spent directly observing the young people also
provided invaluable information concerning their attachment relationships.
From their interactions, I was able to gather information concerning the young
people’s communication, degree of conflict between peers and teachers,
their perspective-taking skills, and how they resolved conflict. Classroom
observations
272
also provided clues as to the reciprocal relationship of staff towards the students,
their level of empathy and sensitivity towards the young people’s context
based behaviour. For example, recognizing that Jason’s exaggerated expression
of distress and attention seeking were in fact, a cry for proximity.
5.5 Reflecting upon the therapeutic relationship
In keeping with the literature reviewed in the current study, the therapeutic
relationship continually surfaced as a significant element, mediating whether
or how young people who bully engage with counselling.
My findings departed from established thinking (2.9) as to what inhibits the
client/counsellor relationship, whereby augmenting existing knowledge. For
example, a striking element of the client/counsellor relationship was a sense of
disempowerment, which, although never articulated by the young participants,
was implied through their words. Their sense of disempowerment was born of
many sources, for example, being referred, as opposed to self-referral. The
attitude of the young participants indicated that, the very authority figures
who considered them in need of counselling were in fact responsible for
generating that need. This was exaggerated if counselling took place within
the same environment shared by the authority figures, for example school.
One young participant described this as a double-edged sense of subjection
which she communicated as a reluctance to engage with counselling, distrust
of the counsellor and those who had originally initiated the process. Moreover,
although the participant counsellors voiced how an inflated attitude of their
authority would communicate disempowerment, their
approach
273
was
sometimes at variance with their beliefs, for example, giving their clients
“permission” as whether or not to engage with counselling and telling them to
“sit down”. Such power differential featured in many guises and highlighted a
limitation of individual counselling for young people who bully.
Both participant counsellors frequently referred to their experience of
motherhood as informing the work they did, which seemed significant. I
suggest that when providing counselling to young people, there is an unwitting
tendency for adult counsellors to assume a hierarchical position that may well
be testimony to their role as parents. Equally, it could be posited, that at
times, this same maternal experience also provided a dimension to the
counsellor’s work with young people that was inherently insightful. Enactment
of the counsellor’s role depended partly upon emotional management which
I reflect upon in a later section (5.6).
Data suggested that a lack of agency on behalf of the young participants
emanated from a power associated with the counsellor as healer. Jason
contextualised such expectations when relating his experiences of counselling
and being ‘ma[d]e better’. I consider the danger that clients will inexorably
surrender to this expertise, conceding their autonomy. This is notable, as
previous literature (Bohart & Tallman, 1999) (2.11) identifies the significance of
client autonomy as both motivating personal investment into counselling and,
by default, improving outcome (Manthei, 2007). Later in this chapter (5.7), I
suggest how the problem of power can be explored during training.
A common thread throughout the thesis was the issue of confidentiality, linked
274
to the young participants’ conviction that their counsellor, as with others in
their life would ‘back stab’. This was interesting as it was both something they
feared and perpetuated, using backstabbing as a weapon against selfdisclosure. For example, threatening to tell those students not participating
in the young people’s focus group of Courtney’s feelings in relation to
counselling. This was likewise an attitude projected onto their counsellors,
whom the young participants considered would back stab with
nothing
better to do. A tendency to backstab has previously been recognised in the
literature
(Beaudet
&
Schwartsman,
1987),
with
children
rated
as
aggressive/withdrawn in attachment terms, receiving negative criticism from
their mothers.
Therefore, I suggest that backstabbing for young people who bully, and by
default, breaking confidentiality is predicated upon a connection learnt during
development, projected
as
a
certainty
onto
their
counsellors
and
consequently perceived as a risk. This risk is exacerbated, as the behaviours
perpetuated by young people who bully are commonly associated with
harming others, an ethical guideline known by them to necessitate breaking
confidentiality. Hence they are in a situation that further compromises selfdisclosure. This failure is grounded in the equivocal standards as to breaking
confidentiality. I argue that stultifying disclosure for young people who bully
has ramifications for practice since counselling should ideally provide a setting
where they feel safe to articulate their experiences. Section 5.7 offers my
recommendations to address such issues.
275
Discussion as to attachment states pondered whether or how the counsellor’s
developmental experiences affect the therapeutic relationship and are enacted
during sessions with their client. The findings showed similarities and
differences of experiences within the participant counsellors’ group which
highlight this. A striking similarity was that both of the counsellors either
spoke of or intimated negative developmental experiences.
A notable
difference was how these were enacted within the therapeutic dyad.
For example, Counsellor A recognised her negative developmental experiences,
seeing them as an opportunity to enhance her empathic skills and to inform
her work. Conversely, Counsellor B, although demonstrating self-awareness,
seemed on occasions to struggle with separating her own concerns from that
of the client and I felt that she may have been unconsciously communicating a
personal need. As researcher, it was equally possible that the participant
counsellor had found an effective way of working with rejected clients.
Analysis of counsellor B’s narrative engendered considerable reflection for me
and I suggested that by sharing my profession with her, the participant
counsellor’s narrative may have echoed a power imbalance between us.
For example, Counsellor B may have overstated her interaction with clients
either to impress me or to mitigate a sense of participant/researcher
disempowerment. Equally, there were many examples where the counsellor
demonstrated commitment and skill in relation to her clients which have not
been included in this thesis as they do not aid the superordinate themes.
Based on this and the tendency for those with negative developmental
experiences to be drawn to counsel (Fossell & Bonney, 1990; Birsch, 1999;
276
Mar, 2000), I suggest that the connection between a counsellor’s attachment
state and its impact upon the therapeutic relationship is not sufficiently
highlighted, or effectively addressed. For although previous literature
recognises supervision as essential for counsellors to evaluate their
performance (4.4) it is not fool-proof (Erskine et al., 1999). In section 5.7 I
recommend how, through training, counsellors and tutors could more ably
address the effects of their attachment upon the therapeutic relationship.
A surprising effect upon the therapeutic relationship came through
emotional management. Hochschild, (1983) discussed how a person’s role
enactment is unconsciously massaged by them to befit an identity consistent
with their perception and society’s. In other words, for counsellors, sustaining
an outward countenance consistent with the caring their profession implies.
Although one participant counsellor expressed sadness at her client’s anger,
this contrasted with her angry re-enactment of an aggressive client during
supervision, and a forceful, albeit unconscious anger projected by the other
counsellor upon some of her clients. I argued that some of the clients’
anger had been internalised
by
the counsellors, then repressed, and
replaced with a calm response more consistent with their ideational
presentation of counsellor as caring.
I suggested that replacing a negative emotion towards a client with a more
innocuous one constituted a potentially harmful way for clients to make sense
of their feelings.
Literature (Winnicott, 1994) supported these misgivings,
277
warning that for a counsellor to deny negative feelings towards a client
inhibited the client’s understanding of themselves in relationship to another.
However, a conundrum exists, as I acknowledge that facing angry clients can be
extremely daunting, and feeding back to them any negativity can
provoke hostility, as previous literature testifies (Bushman &
indeed
Baumeister,
1998; Stucke & Sporer, 2002) (2.2, 2.4). With this in mind, it seems that a
counsellor might elect calmness as an understandable way to contain volatile
emotions. Although the participant counsellors professed to never feeling
threatened, by sinking into her chair, I intuit that Counsellor A may well have
experienced vulnerability when faced with her client’s aggression, but could
not lower her own defences by admitting this, as she must face similar clients
on a daily basis.
Ironically, it was the participant counsellor’s calm response to their client’s
aggression
represented
that
also facilitated the
therapeutic relationship,
as this
an antidote in terms of the client’s expectations. This
unanticipated counteraction appeared to destabilise the emotional and
aggressive blockades erected by the young clients who bully, enabling
exploration of alternate responses in a safe environment.
Notably, remaining calm allowed the participant counsellors to notice and
engage with their clients. I suggest that it is not calmness per se that enabled
clients to abandon the protective structures built to defend them, but the
authenticity and acceptance this alternative way of greeting such insecurely
278
attached individuals implied. Based upon this, I contend that the best
results are achieved this way. Arguably however, authenticity includes that
which is more difficult for clients to hear.
For example, it is known that the therapeutic relationship, if based upon such
principles as authenticity and acceptance, reflects the qualities of secure
attachment (Osofsky,
1980),
and
that
secure
attachment, engenders
reciprocal trust (Mikulincer, 1998), an important condition for effective
counselling (Osofsky, 1980). One of the counsellors implied, that the secure
environment she provided her client enabled them to move toward change, by
experimenting with new ways of being.
This was certainly so for one of the young participants whose self-disclosure
as to bullying others was met with a lack of judgement by her counsellor. The
ensuing trust this generated between them manifested as greater personal
investment in the counselling process that contributed towards building a
meaningful alliance. I propose that under such conditions, subjective
negativity is reversible, an outcome that challenges the inevitable prediction
of insecure attachment as inter-generationally transferred.
Whilst qualifying as a counsellor, I reflect that negative feelings towards
clients were downplayed by the tutors running the course, whilst the positive
were accentuated. I suggest that the skill lies in knowing when, and more
importantly how, to relay less positive feedback, so that this too may be used
for growth.
I concluded that an additional facilitator derived from offering clients choice, a
279
finding compatible with previous literature (Bohart & Tallman, 1999; Rennie,
2004). The participant counsellors evaluated choice as enabling, as it
recognised the client as possessing sufficient self-agency to take the necessary
steps towards their goals. I suggest that offering choice also profits clients as
they feel part of a context, acting and reacting in all manner of ways, rather
than isolated because of their problems.
5.6 Reflecting upon emotional management
A thought provoking finding was that of emotional management and I have
learnt that this concept is a highly complex area made up of contrasting
perspectives. Exploring emotional management provided greater knowledge of
the counsellors’ lived experiences in particular, as I felt it offered an
interpretation that reflected external influences such as pre-defined roles.
Smith (2004) offers IPA as a methodology that takes account of contextual
social influence. As such, reflecting upon emotional management offered a
profound understanding of such epistemological foundations and facilitated a
more open-minded appraisal of the data.
In chapter 4, I presented emotion management as a socially defined
ontology mediated according to socially contrived expectations of behaviour
in concurrence with role. For example, the position of counsellor is suggestive
of caring and therefore, to behave otherwise would not be compatible with
expectation. Social influence over emotions exerted itself both in the forming
of emotions and their expression according to feeling rules (Hochschild, 1983).
For example, in the workplace, Hochschild (1983) implied, that in order to
280
sustain a proper persona in keeping with the organisation’s profile, both
surface acting and deep acting were used by the individual to manipulate
feelings so that they reflected the homogenised values consistent with the
precepts of their occupation.
Data suggested that feeling rules were both socially and culturally defined,
hence, like Hochschild (1983), I see emotional management as a two directional
phenomenon. Moreover, I suggest that emotional management is
not
indiscriminate, for those whose emotions are managed can manage other’s
emotions in different circumstances. An example is how the counsellors used
calmness (consciously or unconsciously) to regulate expression of aggression
(4.3). As I have also posited, this view is in keeping with the epistemological
underpinnings of critical realism according to Heidegger and therefore, the
phenomenological assumptions of IPA.
Diversity between the expression of emotions concordant with role and
actual experience was also illuminated by the counsellors’ contrasting account
of how they managed the emotional fallout from their work with aggressive
clients. For instance, in their focus group, the participant counsellors professed
little impact arising from their continuous exposure to aggression. I felt
unconvinced however, as one of the counsellors qualified her remark by
saying she should be doing “[…] masses of reflection […]”. As this was
something she had previously emphasised as of significance, the inconsistency
between her preceding opinion and her avowed unconcern felt incongruent.
Notably, when being interviewed separately, both counsellors spoke of their
exhaustion when processing their feelings.
281
I argue that the “[…] casual […]” attitude declared whilst together in the focus
group represented what Hochschild (1983) described as societal regulation of
values and norms. In other words, whilst together, the counsellors were
beholden to such collective precepts, and it was only when apart, that they
could define their feelings independently.
I suggest that for counsellors to acknowledge emotional exhaustion would
narrow the gap between counsellor and client, for an element of their
profession predefines emotional resourcefulness. In reality, counsellors
experience emotional vulnerabilities similar to their clients, but denying them is
both a protective necessity and occupational stoicism. In other words, there
are dimensions of emotion that are unconsciously controlled by occupational
convention.
Nonetheless this does not mean that counsellors are powerless bystanders,
for to some extent, their emotional experience influenced situations for the
better, and, I contend, as a catalyst for attitudinal change. For instance,
although as previously noted (4.4), one of the counsellors repressed any
negative feelings towards her client and replaced these with a sadness
befitting her position, her sentiments were founded upon a need to give to
others that had originated during childhood. Whilst her actions fit with
Theodosius’ (2006) theory of giving sympathy as a reparative desire for
gratitude, I argue that no matter the original incentive, the counsellor,
through her work, perpetuated the ideational principles of caring and giving.
Consequently, I suggest that the concept of emotional management has to
282
be viewed in the greater context of the participants’ lived experience.
Nonetheless, I recommend
management
and
that the
counselling
should
relationship between
be
investigated
emotional
further,
my
recommendations appearing in section 5.7. For Ekamparan’s (2008) suggestion
of counselling as an unconscious incentive to self-heal implies motives that
may be unintentionally realised through clients. For example, although one
counsellor spoke of her empathy towards her clients, there were times when
her discourse suggested an emotional stimulus for this understanding as more
congruent with her life than her client’s. For example, she recounted how she
forcefully relayed to her clients that they should not bully her, alerting me to
potential damage incurred her as a child.
From a theoretical perspective, the counsellor’s behaviour seemed consistent
with Freud’s (1923) concept as to the volatility of repressed emotions. For
despite one of the counsellor’s attempts to replace negative feelings
towards her client with unconditional acceptance, she could not moderate
her unpredictable repressed emotions for others, according her professional
profile. Momentarily, her unguarded self superseded her client’s, affirming
that the energy needed to intensively manipulate feelings is indeed “emotional
labour” (Hochschild, 1983, p.7).
I acknowledge that my own interpretation of both the counsellors’ and
young peoples’ dialogue was equally susceptible to the emotional labelling
consistent with my profession as counsellor. This represented a dilemma for
when attempting to withhold my self as counsellor and analyse the
283
findings as purely a researcher, I felt compromised and unable to engross with
the data. Although the essence of the double hermeneutic in IPA describes
the use of self as an instrument in both the telling of the participant’s
story and interpretation of the emergent themes (Smith, 2004),
Giorgi,
(1994) questions, the extent to which the researcher is present in this
undertaking, recommending that some objectivity is needed to make sense
of subjectivity.
For example, in my role as researcher/counsellor I was constantly aware of my
responsibilities in both positions. I was continually stirred by the vulnerability of
the young participants, my instinct being to respond as a counsellor. This
desire resonated with the work of Dickson-Swift et al., (2006), when writing
of the challenges posed counsellor/researchers in differentiating between
research and therapy, a difficulty since, as researchers, particularly qualitative
researchers, we have to be ready to face human feelings (Ely et al., 1991).
However, responding with empathy and caring threatened to blur the
boundaries between the participants and myself. Managing the emotions of the
young people sometimes came at a personal cost since I was alert to the
damage they had incurred in their lives and felt a huge responsibility to
safeguard their fragility and facilitate the trust between us that would enable
them to share their stories. But, in listening to their powerful accounts, I
absorbed their voices, an emotional experience that I wore like a mantel
throughout data gathering.
In the quest for objectivity, I am aware that I may have abandoned my
counsellor identity somewhat, deferring instead to theory and protocol as
protective armour and an example of how my own emotional management
has influenced this thesis.
284
However, it was often as counsellor, rather than researcher that I could engage
with the data as intimately as Smith (2004) advises when using IPA, affirming
the Heideggerian (1962) viewpoint that lived experience is an inevitable
construct of one’s being, and therefore, impervious to bracketing. It is also
possible that there were times when my profession as counsellor may have
influenced data analysis beyond the capacity of conscious awareness. This
conundrum represents for me, a limitation of IPA, for whilst it advocates the
researcher as equally implicated, authenticity predominantly rests with the
researcher’s interpretation.
I argue that for the researcher to clearly define their presence when analysing a
transcript using IPA may not always be possible if the researcher’s presence is
beyond their conscious awareness. Accordingly, onus is upon the reader to
evaluate the content as objectively as possible.
For the young people, emotional management was pivotal to their existence.
Hochschild (1983:22) focussed on the role of emotions for understanding the
social world when she said that ‘we infer[red] other people’s viewpoints from
how they display[ed] feeling’, and yet, Andy was seemingly able to dissociate
emotions from cognition, presenting a cool exterior to the outside world.
In reality, I noted in my observational journal how, despite his apparent
unconcern, I experienced Andy as a ticking bomb, barely able to contain his anxt,
behaviour he exhibited by surreptitiously agitating his peers, flicking paper at
them during lesson time. Although his behaviour may have been exacerbated by
having ADHD, I interpreted that, rather than disengaging from emotion, Andy
285
battled his feelings. Consistent with Hochshild’s (1983) theory, such
manipulation may well have reflected his need to maintain an appearance that
was consistent and acceptable within his peer group, where communicating
his authentic feelings may have placed him at risk in such a challenging group.
Conversely, such emotional management may also have psychologically
distanced him from unpleasant, or even unmanageable inner turmoil. If, as
Denzin, (1984) suggests, emotionality lies at the intersection of the person
and society, then for Andy, finding a place amongst others in which he feels
accepted and acceptable poses a significant challenge.
Andy was not alone with such turmoil as the data suggested that the
young participants teetered on an emotional knife edge, where maintaining
their hierarchical identity within the peer group was weighted against a fragile
naivety, and where I caught glimpses of them as children. For example, I
interpreted that being goaded by their peers as they walked towards the focus
group room (3.9.4) may well have contributed to the young peoples’ initial
silence in the focus group, where they used their reluctance as a way to both
signal to me, and to self-affirm their status, and as a balance for the
humiliation
they
had
experienced.
Such
behaviour
exemplifies
the
importance of social influence upon identity and I suggest, should be a
prime consideration within anti-bullying intervention schemes.
From the data it was evident that such emotional weighting formed the template for
the young people’s interpersonal relationships that was endemic of the
self/other divide. This was evident in relationship with their counsellors, where
self-disclosure left them exposed, seeming to represent a risk where they would be
unable to claw back their protective coating. For example, Jason oscillated between
pushing others
286
away and pulling them back, behaviour that I concluded represented both his
need to be loved and his fear of being loved; and a personal confusion
that threatened his emotional equilibrium.
The counsellors were mindful of this internal struggle, recognising that
empowerment and choice were an essential counterbalance in the
therapeutic relationship and which I suggest is a crucial consideration if antibullying intervention is to have any success.
Courtney was seemingly less affected by emotional discord and I concluded
that her apparent secure attachment was manifest as a stable sense of
identity that provided a firm foundation for self-evaluation. She was able to
reason, even when criticised, rather than defaulting to an aggressive
response, confirming I believe, that insecure attachment represents an
integral part of bullying behaviour. Such findings would suggest that, for
counsellors, nurturing secure attachment would represent the cornerstone
of change and emotional sanctuary for young people who bully.
Both Counsellor A and B agreed that the young people’s aggression was
often an emotional reaction to the developmental damage they had
incurred, pressures exerted upon them, or something they did not
understand in their lives. Consequently, bullying was an expression of
distress.
A recurrent phrase throughout both the counsellors’ focus groups and
interviews was ‘lowering the emotional temperature’ which they used to
define the calmness deployed by them to counter the young people’s
escalating feelings. The counsellors advocated that to enable young people
who bully to lower their defences, meant being accepting, non-judgmental
and genuine. In other words, the three core conditions espoused by Rogers
287
(1957), to facilitate effective therapy. It was only then that the young
person would feel safe enough to name their distress. When managing
emotions, the counsellors combined words with language, Counsellor A
using passive body language to signal her lack of antagonism. This was
considered important by her as she reflected that young people who bully
were commonly confronted by authority figures which either inflamed
their behaviour or triggered resentment and defensiveness. Counsellor A
observed that her young clients were frequently disarmed by her
unexpected response to their aggression, her neutrality helping defuse
their mounting anxiety.
Counsellor B maintained that the young people also used aggression to express
their emotions, as experience had taught them that they would not otherwise
be heard. Their behaviour was sustained as the young people were seldom
challenged as to the abusive language they used, for, as intended, their
victims were submissive. Counsellor B advocated honesty as an essential
foundation of the counselling dyad, telling her clients outright when she was
uncomfortable with things they said, but then exploring new ways for them
to express themselves.
The need for emotional management also extended to the counsellor’s well-being
where it was necessary for them to establish boundaries defining what was and
was not acceptable to them, referring to protocol to endorse their actions.
For both counsellors, honesty prevailed in confrontational situations where they
were assertive about saying when a client’s behaviour was no longer tolerable.
288
5.7 Recommendations and implications
Throughout the concluding sections of this thesis, I have identified areas of
concern that might benefit from attention. I now offer my recommendations
and implications for education, research and practice.
Recommendations in relation to education
Specialised knowledge
The findings highlighted the myriad complexities associated with young people
who bully, in particular, the mistrust they experience when forming
relationships.
To
improve
understanding,
counsellors
need specialist
knowledge of, and the skills to, build trusting relationships with such clients,
delivered through additional training. These counsellors could also act as
representatives on policy boards regulating bullying in schools such that their
psychological expertise informed interventions.
Given the support workers exposure to bullying by the young participants in
the focus group, such learning could be extended to the support staff working
alongside young people who bully, whereby equipping them with the
knowledge necessary to de- escalate confrontational behaviour.
Data suggested that counsellors likewise may benefit from additional training
in their work with young people who bully, as the findings suggested they may
internalise their client’s anger and that this can be replayed during either
supervision or counselling sessions. I suggest that the emotional responses of
289
Counsellors towards aggressive clients are addressed during training, rather
than when faced with such clients during counselling, enabling assessment of
their attitude in a neutral environment. Addressing the counsellor’s emotions
this way may also redress the young participants’ concerns in relation to
disempowerment, a vital consideration for young people who bully who are
in an inherently confusing and vulnerable situation.
Recommendations in relation to further research
Extending research to differing communities
Given the homogenous sample in this study, I recommend that to extend
understanding of bullying, exploration of the experiences of young people who
bully, and their counsellors, would benefit from research with participants from
different socio-economic backgrounds.
Consideration as to alternative approaches to counselling interventions
Previous research has in general studied group anti-bullying interventions in
schools for managing the effects of bullying behaviour, and these have not
always realised sustainable outcomes (O’Moore & Minton, 2005; Menesini et
al., 2003). Contemporary therapeutic approaches describe a more holistic
approach to resolving the problem of bullying, where families are allocated one
counsellor to oversee all elements of a perpetrator’s life. Such strategies are
producing effective outcomes (Henggeler et al., 2002; Timmons-Mitchell et al.,
(2006; Webster-Stratton, 1991), suggesting other methods of counselling
intervention as deserving of more research.
Further investigation could
explore whether approaches such as MST and BPT could be delivered
effectively in family therapy with young people who bully, whereby
290
providing a framework for future practice.
Confidentiality
My study showed potential diversity in the meaning of confidentiality for young
people who bully and receive counselling, as discussed in chapter 4. Given that
bullying implies harm to others, the guidelines in relation to maintaining
confidentiality are consequently ambiguous. This is exacerbated since the
complex psychological insecurities experienced by young people who bully
predispose them to the expectation that their secrets will be revealed.
Therefore, a greater understanding as to the meaning of confidentiality is
required by them. Further research is needed to explore the concept of
confidentiality for young people who bully and how congruence can be
established by the counsellors who treat them. Findings could then be used to
evaluate whether existing guidelines are meaningful in all settings.
The methods used in research with vulnerable young people
The literature reviewed in this study made recommendations as to effective
methods for use with vulnerable young people and, when exploring sensitive
subjects. These were primarily aimed at facilitating disclosure without causing
anxiety (Punch, 2002) and were, at times, successful. However, in my study, I
found that by abruptly introducing the stimuli, the felt risk experienced by the
young participants was amplified, sometimes inhibiting self-disclosure. In
addition, for one young person in particular, the risk he faced in self-disclosing
prevented self-expression and it was only in the non-confrontational relationship
291
with another focus group member that he was able to lower his defences.
Further consideration is needed, not just of the methods to be used, but how
these can be introduced in a meaningful way that enables vulnerable
participants. Future research could focus upon more person-centred methods
that sensitively compliment the susceptibilities of young people who bully.
For practice
The impact upon staff of caring for vulnerable young people
From observing the young people at Centre A, my study showed the damaging
impact upon staff of caring for young people who bully. This was true likewise of
the participant counsellors for whom constant exposure to aggressive clients
caused exhaustion. Yet, for all of these professionals, the relentless work
continued with seemingly little support. Although one counsellor practiced
mindfulness, other emotional outlets such as supervision were sometimes
lacking. From the literature reviewed any support offered appeared corrective
rather than preventative (Christopher & Maris, 2010; Irving et al., 2009).
As person-centred work exposes employees to personal vulnerabilities, further
consideration is needed as to regular and ongoing support, for example,
weekly debriefing and supervision for those staff caring for young people who
bully.
The counsellor as stranger
A significant finding in this study has been the mistrust inherent in young people
who bully, and consequently, the level of risk experienced by them in
292
interpersonal relationships. This threat communicated to the therapeutic
relationship, jeopardising rapport and was noticeably intensified by the young
participants’ perception of the counsellor as stranger. There was general
agreement amongst the young people in this study that having the opportunity
to know their counsellor in advance would ameliorate their anxiety.
Consequently, I suggest that overcoming uncertainty for young people who
bully could be buffered by offering such clients an opportunity to meet and
greet their counsellors prior to treatment, in an informal group setting.
Interfacing with service users in this more approachable way may help break
down any barriers that enshrine counselling practice. In addition, these meetings
could provide the perfect opportunity for counsellors to explain the nuances of
confidentiality more clearly, reinforcing their narrative using posters and
literature.
Supervision for counsellors
According to the participant counsellors, supervision played an important role
in raising awareness of their clients and for themselves. Yet, this process
appeared fallible. The quality of supervision needs to respond to more
assertive counsellors and to identify and separate the personal issues
counsellors import to their work so that these are not communicated to
clients. Managing emotions towards a client sometimes resulted in these being
inappropriately vented by the counsellors, however this was not recognised
during supervision. Consequently, supervisors
could aid counsellors by
encouraging their expression of both positive and negative feelings towards
293
clients particularly when providing counselling to challenging groups such as
young people who bully. Then, emotions which deviate from the concepts of
acceptability can be explored.
Emotion management
Emotional management represented a significant finding in this thesis, with the
young people, the counsellors and I all affected. Given the unpredictability and
volatility of the feelings expressed by young people who bully and consequently,
the repercussions for counsellors, I recommend that learning could be enhanced if
counsellors attended vocational placements. By this, I mean that counsellors
observe young people who bully in their own environment (school, youth club),
noting how such individuals interact, their attachment relationships and how
they resolve conflict for example, recording their observations in a journal.
Hereafter, counsellors from different organisations could liaise to discuss their
findings, exchange their views and consider both how counselling could most
ably respond to the emotional needs of young people who bully and how
counsellors could equip themselves against the impact of such work.
Findings suggested that a counsellor’s repressed emotions towards their client
was sometimes deviant from the professional role associated with counselling.
Such disparity could be addressed through reflexivity, supervision and
orientating counselling theory. However, I would also recommend that more
rigorous screening is needed, both prior to qualifying as counsellors and
as an
on-going
assessment
of
suitability,
providing
more
definitive
boundaries to guide practice. Counselling may also benefit from the valuesbased recruitment (lately introduced by the National Health Service) which
294
assess the extent to which individual’s attitudes and motives align with the
demands of the job, the values of the organisation and the culture of the
working environment (NHS, 2014).
5.8 Concluding comments
The research objectives guiding this study are (3.1), derived primarily from a
review of the literature in relation to bullying and counselling. They were
also informed by personal experience of counselling young people who bully
and so reflect the complex underlying issues I observed in relationship with
such clients. The key objectives were:
For the young people
To explore the lived experiences of young people who bully and who
receive individual counselling.
To identify how well young people who bully feel able to express themselves
to their counsellor in one to one counselling.
To consider whether there are particular barriers or enablers which either
facilitate or inhibit the therapeutic relationship.
For the counsellors
To discover their subjective experiences of counselling young people who bully.
To consider whether there are particular barriers or enablers which either
facilitate or inhibit the therapeutic relationship.
295
Reflecting upon the findings of this study in the light of the research
objectives which informed it, I suggest that young people who bully are
dogged by insecurities stemming primarily from their development and
which render them fragile and vulnerable in interpersonal relationships. The
emergent themes from the data analysis in this thesis reveal how they seem
affected; for example, predominantly by an internalised and unstable
representation of themselves in relation to others.
Counsellors likewise appear vulnerable to unconscious processes including
their own developmental experiences and emotion management of their
professional profile. They use advanced reflective skills to evaluate such
subjectivity although complete self- awareness can be limited by both
personal and professional blocks. Consequently, individual counselling for
young people who bully does not emerge as a flawless intervention.
Counsellors may need specialist knowledge to work with such challenging
clients. However, the findings suggest that it is the simple concepts of
authenticism and unconditional acceptance which provide a secure platform
when counselling young people who bully.
I was taken aback by the extent to which the instability experienced by
young people who bully influenced their behaviour towards others and this
could often be traced to a defence of their flagging self-worth. I related such
interactional patterns to a self/other divide (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Although this relationship model has been known for some time,
296
how it is enacted by young people who bully during counselling appears
unrecognised.
Moreover, there are commonalities and differences in the way the young
people who bully relate to others. Hence it is an important finding, as
founding commonalities between counsellor and client are thought to
improve outcome. Establishing continuity in the therapeutic relationship may
be further compromised, as how young people who bully interact
appears influenced by the dimension of reality they occupy at any given
time.
An unexpected finding was the confusion surrounding breaking confidentiality,
an important discovery, since bullying is complicit with harming others.
Although most of the young participants did not articulate particular concerns
regarding confidentiality, I considered its significance as inseparable from
giving voice, as without reliable safeguards the young participants were
reluctant to disclose. Insecurity has prepared them to be ‘stabbed in the back’,
as their lives are overshadowed by uncertainty, subsequently, confidentiality
needs to represent dependability.
Equally unanticipated was how impactful internalised experiences were in
determining relationship building with young people who bully. This was
significant in relation to the therapeutic relationship where a defensive and
sometime hostile reaction not only created barriers with their counsellors but
exacerbated alienating characteristics.
I went through considerable confusion as to how my profession as
297
counsellor intervened upon aspects of the narrative and interpretation,
for there was undoubtedly a time when one of the counsellors was fed a
leading question as to her affection for a client (4.3). Upon reflection this may
well have been an expression of the researcher as counsellor, as I felt the
ethical framework defining this profession, did, at that time, conflict with what
the participant counsellor was voicing. I felt I had in some way undermined the
participant counsellor, upon whose generosity so much depended. Accordingly
I experienced some guilt and considerable unease writing of the issue in my
thesis. In this, using IPA has proven that, not only does the approach bring to
awareness those things unknown to the clients, but to the researcher likewise
(Smith, 2004).
It seems that developmental insecurities negatively influence how young
people who bully interact in relationship with others, including their
counsellors, and that this sits at the heart of their confusion. Without such
conflict, they may not have to battle the chasm between aggression and
fragility, enabling them perhaps to avail themselves of the care they so badly
need. Moreover, onus is upon the counselling fraternity to provide a level of
expertise that can inform interventions focussed upon achieving this. Perhaps
then, the words of Lhati (2002) might read:
I have a mirror around me which frees me to look
inside myself and at others, seeing them both as
trustworthy and loveable.
298
APPENDICES
1.
Glossary of terms
2.
Summary table of literature review
3.
Ethics approval letter from the Research Ethics Committee at the
University of Surrey
4.
Participant Information Sheet (PIS)
5.
Risk Assessment
6.
Consent forms
7.
Poster
8.
Modifications to the Story Stem templates
9.
Interview schedule for the young people
10.
Interview schedule for the counsellors
11.
Clarkson’s (2003)five phases of the therapeutic relationship
Appendix 1: Glossary of terms
299
00
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
1. Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) - A model that measures attachment status
in adults.
2. Anti-bullying intervention - a planned intercession to combat the effects and
repercussions of bullying, most often in schools.
3. Attachment terms:
a) Secure – when reunited following separation a child welcomes the return
of their
carer and is quickly pacified by them.
b) Insecure – Anxious (resistant) – following separation infants remain
ambivalent towards their carer and are not comforted upon reunion
c) Insecure - Avoidant (dismissive) – Upon reunion, infants actively avoid
contact and proximity with their carer.
4. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) - A mental health disorder
characterized by inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness.
5. Behaviour Parent Training (BPT) - A corrective programme for aggressive
behaviour where parents respond to prosocial behaviour with positive
affirmation, and to anti-social behaviour with negative reinforcement.
6. Bully courts - A punitive anti-bullying intervention.
7. Bully/victim - an individual who falls in the categories of both bully and victim.
8. Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT) - a cognitive behavioural method of
counselling where maladaptive behaviours are reformulated.
9. Core Pain - The unexpressed psychological disturbance internalised by an
individual following trauma.
10. Critical Realism - The acceptance that stable and enduring features of reality
exist independently of human conceptualisation.
11. Cyberbullying -a form of bullying inflicted using various electronic devices.
12. Emotion Management - the self as moderated by social influence both in
the shaping of emotions and once these have been expressed.
13. False self - A protective psychological veneer erected by an individual to
protect their inner, or true self, from harm.
14. Generation 1,2, and 3 (G1, G2, G3) - A term differentiating Parents (G1), from
children (G2), from grandchildren (G3).
15. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) - A methodology that
explores lived experience and how people make sense of that experience
16. Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) - An holistic programme where a personal
therapist is allocated to a family to consider all the issues contributing to their
child’s problematic behaviour.
17. Participant Information Sheet (PIS) - Literature that informs recruits in
advance as to the format and requirements of any research they participate in.
18. Purposive Sampling - sampling in which the researcher consciously selects
specific elements or subjects for inclusion in a study in order to ensure that
these elements will have certain characteristics relevant to the study.
19. Reciprocal Roles (RRs) - procedures governing a person’s interaction with
others.
20. Self/other Divide - Disunion between how the individual perceives
themselves in relation to others. For example:
300
00
a) Secure – Love worthiness plus an expectation of others as responsive.
b) Preoccupied – Unworthiness plus a positive evaluation of others.
c) Avoidant –Love unworthiness plus a negative disposition towards others.
d) Dismissive-avoidant – Love worthiness plus a negative disposition towards
others.
20. Shared Concern - A means of working with all those involved in a bullying
incident, (perpetrators, victims and bystanders) to provide an acceptable solution
to the problem raised by their behaviour.
21. Strange Situation - a behavioural test used to observe attachment
relationships between a child and their caregiver.
22. Superordinate Theme - A group of subthemes showing similar characteristics
which are gathered to capture a pattern in participants' embodied, emotional and
cognitive experiences.
23. Symbolic Interactionism - An interdependent relationship between self and
other that emphasises a social symbiosis.
24. Therapeutic Relationship - referring to the model conceived by Clarkson
(2003) identifying five phases representing the relationship between client and
counsellor (see appendix 11 for the five phases).
301
Appendix 2: Summary table showing examples of the literature reviewed
Source
Sample/Study description
Purpose
Results
Young people’s attitudes to counselling and mental health treatment
Fox, C.L. & Butler, I. ‘If
you don’t want to tell
anyone else you can tell
her’:
Young people’s
views
on
school
counselling.
Brit.
J.
Guidance & Couns, 35(1),
97-114.
To assess the views of
young
people
about
counselling.
Sample
comprised 415 pupils
from 5 secondary schools
using the
TEENCORE
Questionnaire and focus
group (n=9).
To identify both what
inhibited and facilitated
young people in accessing
their school counselling
provision.
Generally, young people
valued
having
a
counsellor
available,
although 21% indicated a
lack of awareness as to
service. Approximately one
third of pupils stated
they would visit the
school
counsellor,
although girls were more
likely to
than boys.
Concerns
inhibiting
uptake resonated around
confidentiality and the
counsellor as stranger.
Lebow,
J.
(1982).
Consumer
satisfaction
with
mental
health
treatment. Psych Bulletin,
91(2) 244-259.
Assessment
of
the
methods for evaluating
consumer
satisfaction
with
mental
health
services.
To
assess
the
effectiveness of different
methods designed to
elicit the opinion of
mental health patients as
to the quality of their
service. For example,
reliability, validity, sources
of distortion in patient
responses.
Researchers conducting
consumer
satisfaction
studies
have
been
insufficiently concerned
with method or validity of
data. Lack of information
about reliability (usually
internal consistency). Few
attempts to validate the
instruments used. Data
distorted
due
to
acquiescence.
Anti-bullying interventions
Mahdavi, J. & Smith, P.K.
(2002) The operation of a
bully
court
and
perceptions of its success:
A case study. School of
Psch Int. 23(3), 327-341.
An investigation of one
strategy
to
reduce
bullying in schools using
questionnaires
and
interviews. Study carried
out in a secondary school
with 1800 pupils 11-18 yrs
and 100 teaching staff.
Study focuses upon the
year 7 Bully Court.
To describe the operation
of the Bully Court and
consider how successfully
it was perceived by staff
and pupils.
Support for the Bully
Court from both staff and
pupils, including those
who had been through
the Bully Court. Approval
least consistent from
those accused of bullying.
Yr 12 mentors found their
role rewarding although
felt more time could be
allocated bullies as well as
victims.
302
Olweus, D.
(1994).
Bullying at school. Basics
facts and effects of a
school based intervention
program. J. Child Psychol.
Psychiatry 35(7), 11711190.
Review of both literature
dealing with the incidence
of bullying in schools in
Norway and Sweden and
the
results
of
a
longitudinal study of a
school
intervention
programme aimed at
bullying comprising 2500
students, aged 11-14
years (Bergen) and 7000
students aged 8-16 years
(Rogaland).
To
assess
the
effectiveness
of
the
Olweus
Anti-bullying
Programme.
Bergen study showed
(after
8
mths)
victimisation reduced by
48% for boys, 58% for
girls. After 20 mths, 52%
for boys, 62% for girls.
Bullying others (after 8
mths) reduced by 16% for
boys and 30% for girls.
After 20 mths, 35% for
boys and 74% for girls.
Rogaland
study,
victimisation increased by
44% for boys and
deceased by 12.5% for
girls. Bullying increased
by24% for boys and 14%
for girls (No separate time
frames provided).
Crothers,
L.M.
&
Levinson, E.M. (2004).
Assessment of bullying: A
review of methods and
instruments. J.Couns &
Dev, 82, 496-503
Evaluation of assessment
methods:
Observation,
sociometric procedures,
questionnaires
and
surveys, teacher ratings,
self-report,
instruments
(e.g. Olweus Bully/Victim
Questionnaire.
Discussion and review of
the multiple methods and
instruments
used
in
assessing
bullying
in
schools that
provide
counsellors
with
guidelines in choosing the
most
appropriate
measurement tool.
Bullying
assessment
should
be
carefully
planned
and
implemented by a team
of
multi-professionals.
Programmes should be
ongoing
with
data
routinely collected at set
time
intervals.
Counsellors should be
adequately
and
frequently trained to
conduct assessments. The
technical adequacy
of
each
assessment
technique
should
be
analysed prior to use.
The characteristics of those who bully and effects of bullying
Baldry, A.C. (2004). The
impact of direct and
indirect bullying on the
mental
and
physical
health
of
Italian
youngsters.
Aggressive
behaviour, 30. 343-355.
Study conducted with 661
adolescents (54.2% boys
& 45.8% girls) with
varying
socio-economic
status. Measures included
the CBCL scale for
internalising
behaviour,
the Victimisation and
Bully scale and the
Positive Relationship with
Mother and Father scale.
To determine the extent
to which direct and
indirect bullying and
victimisation at school
affects
mental
and
physical health, taking
account of the relative
buffering effect of a
positive relationship with
one or both parents.
During one year, 56.5% of
pupils
had
been
victimised but 49.5% of
these had also bullied
others. Boys are 3 times
more likely to directly
bully than girls. Girls were
more likely to experience
internalising
symptoms
than boys.
303
Hall, H.A. et al., (2008).
Genetic
and
environmental influences
on victims, bullies and
bully/victims
in
childhood. J. Childhood
Psych and Psychiatry,
49(1), 104-112
Mother
and
teacher
reports of victimisation
and bullying
collected
from 1,116 families with
10yr old twins, using
model fitting to examine
genetic
and
environmental liability to
be a victim, bully or
bully/victim
To understand the origins
of victims, bullies and
bully/victims since they
experience
elevated
emotional
and
behavioural problems
Genetic factors accounted
for 73% of variation in
victimisation, 61% in
bullying with remainder
explained
by
environmental factors not
shared by the twins. The
covariation
between
victim and bully roles
(bully/victims
was
accounted for by genetic
factors only.
304
Appendix 3
305
Appendix 4
Participant Information Sheet for Young People (Version 2, 22/04/2012)
An interpretative phenomenological study of young
people who bully and their counsellors
Invitation to participate in the study
I am a university student. You are being asked to take part in some research.
Before this can happen, I need your consent. Please take time to read the
rest of this form. If you do not understand what is being done and why,
please feel free to ask me.
Helping counsellors, having a better
understanding of young people’s
needs, what makes them happy or
unhappy, might improve things in the
future.
What is the
purpose of
the study ?
You have been invited to take
part because you have had some
counselling and are between 1118 years old.
Do I have to take
part?
Why have I
been chosen
No, you do not. If you agree, you will
be asked to sign a consent form. You
can opt out of the research at any
time, without giving a reason or
affecting what happens to you in any
way.
306
What will happen to me
if I take part?
You will take part in a focus group lasting 40
minutes with a break in the middle and an
interview lasting 20-30 minutes.
You will be asked to take part in one group
meeting and one interview.
You don’t have to talk about anything you don’t want to.
Talking with the researcher might
make you feel upset. If this
happens, staff you know will be
there to offer support.
What are the good
things about
taking part?
The group and interviews will be
recorded but no-one will
recognise you as all personal
details will be left out. Other
people will only be told if it is
thought you, or someone else,
may be at risk of significant
harm.
What are the
risks?
It is unlikely anything good will
happen straight away. The research
might make things better in the
future.
Will taking part be kept
confidential?
The results of the study will be published. No-one, apart from the researchers will
know who you are.
Who is organising and
funding the research?
The research is part of a study
programme with the University
of Surrey. It has been funded by
the researcher undertaking this
study.
307
The research has been carefully looked over and received favourable ethical
approval by the University of Surrey Ethics Committee to make sure patient
safety and rights are respected. All participating adults have been CRB checked
to ensure their suitability for work with children.
For complaints or concerns, please contact: Professor Karen Bryan, Head
of the School of Health and Social Care. Email: k.bryan@surrey.ac.uk
Phone: Work: 01483 68 2507
Dr Anne Gallagher, Reader in Nursing Ethics, Director, International
Centre for Nursing Ethics. Email: a.gallagher@surrey.ac.uk Phone: Work:
01483 68 9462
Christine Tapson. Mobile: 07900022468.
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. Principle researcher: Christine
Tapson. Research supervisors: Professor Helen Allen and Professor Ann
Gallagher
308
Appendix 4
Participant Information Sheet For Parents (Version 1, 22/04/2012)
An interpretative phenomenological study of
young people who bully and their counsellors
I am a university student. Your son/daughter is being asked to take part
in some research. Before this can happen, I need your signed consent.
Staff involved in this research will have been CRB checked to ensure
they are cleared to work with children. Please take time to read the
rest of this form. If you do not understand what is being done and
why, please feel free to ask me.
For counsellors, having a
better understanding of
young people’s needs, what
makes them happy or
unhappy, might improve
things in the future.
They have been invited
to take part because
they have had some
counselling
and
are
between 11-18 years old.
No, they do not have to take
part. If you agree, you will be
asked to sign a consent form.
Your son/daughter can opt
out of the research at any
time without giving a reason or affecting what happens to them in any way.
309
They will take part in a focus
group lasting 40 minutes with a
break in the middle and an
interview lasting 20-30 minutes.
Your son/daughter will be asked
to take part in one group meeting and one interview. They don’t have to
talk about anything they don’t want to.
Talking with the researcher might
make your son/daughter feel
upset. If this happens, staff they
know will offer them support.
There is unlikely to be any immediate
benefit in taking part but the research
may affect how bullying is dealt with
in the future
The group and interviews will be recorded. However, no-one will
recognise your son/daughter as all personal details will be left out.
Other people will only be told
if it is thought they, or
someone else, may be at risk
of significant harm.
The results of the study will
be published but no-one,
apart from the researchers,
will
know
who
your
son/daughter is.
The research is part of a
study programme with the
University of Surrey. It has
been
funded
by
the
researcher,
Ms
Christine
Tapson
310
The research has been carefully looked over and received favourable
ethical approval by the University of Surrey Ethics Committee to make
sure patient safety and rights are respected.
For complaints or concerns, please contact: Professor Karen Bryan,
Head of the School of Health and Social Care. Email:
k.bryan@surrey.ac.uk Phone: Work: 01483 68 2507
Dr Anne Gallagher, Reader in Nursing Ethics, Director, International
Centre for Nursing Ethics. Email: a.gallagher@surrey.ac.uk Phone: Work:
01483 68 9462
Christine Tapson. Mobile: 07900022468.
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. Principle researcher: Christine Tapson. Research
supervisors: Professor Helen Allen and Dr Ann Gallagher
311
Appendix 4
Participant Information Sheet for Counsellors (Version 1, 22/04/2012)
An interpretative phenomenological study of young people who bully and
their counsellors
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences
Principle researcher: Christine Tapson
Research supervisors: Professor Helen Allen and Dr Ann Gallagher
Invitation to participate in the study
I am a Doctorate of Clinical Practice (DCP) student. You are being asked
to take part in a research study. Before you decide, it is important for
you to understand why the research is being done and what it will
involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully,
and discuss it with others, if you wish. If you require help, the form can
be read to you. Ask us if anything is not clear, or you would like more
information. Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part.
The purpose of the study
This study is designed to collect information about young people and
their counsellors who are working together in a therapeutic relationship.
The findings will be used to provide a better understanding of young
people’s needs and might improve interventions in the future.
Unfortunately, the negative effect of children’s development on their
future well-being is very common, particularly when problems continue
into adulthood. If we have a greater understanding of these problems,
we may be able to develop ways of intervening effectively, the
outcome could be much better.
312
We already know some of the factors that contribute to young people’s
problems such as relationship difficulties and how they were treated as
children, but these do not fully explain why some individuals struggle
more than others. We want to investigate whether young people feel
able to discuss these problems with their counsellor and, if not, what
makes it difficult for them. For example, some individuals may have
trust issues which prevent them forming relationships with their
counsellor. Therefore, it is very important that the views of the
counsellors are included in this study.
Why have I been chosen?
We are inviting young people who have received some counselling and
their counsellors to take part in this study. We have chosen individuals
aged 11 – 18 years in order to have the best chance of representing
young people. Each young person’s counsellor is invited to ensure their
opinions help build a better overview.
Do I have to take part?
No, you do not have to take part. It is up to you to decide whether or
not you wish to. If you do decide to take part you will be able to keep
this information sheet and will be asked to sign a consent form. If you
decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time and without
giving a reason. A decision to withdraw at any time or a decision not to
take part will not affect your future prospects.
What will happen to me if I take part?
If you decide to take part, a researcher will contact you with details
about a focus group and personal interview. The focus group will be
held at a set location however the time will be arranged to suit you.
The location and the time of the personal interview will both be
arranged to suit you. You will be asked to take part in one focus group
and one interview.
A few days after the focus group, you will be asked some questions by a
researcher in a one to one interview. The questions will be similar to
those from the focus group but you will have more time to talk about
them in depth.
313
You will not be expected to talk about anything you do not want to.
After the focus group and interview have been recorded, you will have
the opportunity to read through the notes and make any changes you
think right.
What are the possible risks and disadvantages of taking part?
You will have the inconvenience of taking part in a focus group and
personal interview. You may feel emotional or upset by the research. If
this happens you will be offered support or the process will be stopped.
What are the possible benefits of taking part?
There is unlikely to be any immediate benefit to you in taking part. This
research may lead to the development of new approaches to deal with
bullying at some point in the future.
Will my taking part in the study be kept confidential?
The focus group and individual interviews in this study will be recorded
and transcribed. Anonymous quotes from the transcriptions will be
included in the final thesis and this may be published. All the
information that is collected about you during the course of the
research will be kept strictly confidential. You will be allocated an
identity code so that none of your personal details are recognisable. The
information will be stored on designated computers that are password
protected and securely stored. All data about you collected in this study
will be treated in accord with the Data Protection Act (1998).
Confidentiality will only be broken if information is shared suggesting
you, or someone else, may be at risk of significant harm. This would
usually be discussed with you first.
If you agree, your counsellor will be notified that you are taking part
in this study and relevant information about your suitability as a
participant will be given to the researcher.
314
What will happen to the results of the research study?
The results of the study will be published in International Journals and
a PhD thesis. You will not be identified in any reports or publications.
Participants may be given a summary of the results.
Who is organising and funding the research?
The DCP study is being organised and funded by Christine Tapson, in
collaboration with the University of Surrey.
Who has reviewed the study?
The research protocol has been extensively reviewed and approved by
the University of Surrey Ethics Committee to confirm that all
conditions with respect to patient safety and rights are respected.
What if something goes wrong?
Any complaint or concern about any aspect of the way you have been
dealt with during the course of the study will be addressed; please
contact:
Professor Karen Bryan, Head of the School of Health and Social Care.
Email: k.bryan@surrey.ac.uk Phone: Work: 01483 68 2507
Professor Anne Gallagher, Reader in Nursing Ethics, Director,
International Centre for Nursing Ethics. Email: a.gallagher@surrey.ac.uk
Phone: Work: 01483 68 9462
Christine Tapson. Mobile: 07900022468.
Thank you for taking time to read this information sheet
315
Appendix 5
Risk assessment
Risk
Emotional distress to participants
Solution to risk
Experienced support team in place
Researcher with advanced counselling skills
Observer has significant experience working
with disaffected youth
Researcher safety
Research to be conducted in the presence of
experienced support team
Researcher has
aggressive youth
prior
experience
with
Supervisors to be informed before and after
each interview
Special need distress
Focus group and interviews confined to 20
minute sessions
Consent form and PIS corded appropriately
Researcher and support staff to read related
information to participants
Emotional distress to researcher
Researcher to reflect on stressful events with
supervisors and colleagues
Researcher to take breaks so as to prevent
burn out
316
Appendix 6
An interpretative phenomenological study of young people who bully and
their counsellors
Consent Form For Participant Young People

I have read, or had read to me, the information sheet provided. The
study has been explained to me in full by the researcher. I have
been advised about any possible ill- effects on my health and have
had the opportunity to ask any questions about the study. I have
understood the advice and information given.

I agree to the researcher contacting my counsellor about participating
in the study and authorise my counsellor to disclose details of any
of my relevant medical or drug history, in confidence.

I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time
without needing to justify my decision and without prejudice.

Having read and understood the above, I confirm that I been given
enough time to consider participating in the study and consent to
taking part.
Name of volunteer (BLOCK CAPITALS)
Signed………………………………….
Date ………………………………………
Name of researcher/person taking consent (BLOCK CAPITALS)
Signed…………………………………
Date…………………………………..
317
Appendix 6
An interpretative phenomenological study of young people who bully and
their counsellors
Consent Form for Parents
• I have read, or had read to me, the information sheet
provided. The study has been explained to me in full by the
researcher. I have been advised about any possible ill effects
on my child’s health and have had the opportunity to ask any
questions about the study. I have understood the advice and
information given.
• I agree to any instruction being given to my child during
the study and shall inform the researcher immediately if I
my child suffers a deterioration of any kind in their health.
• I agree to the researcher contacting my child’s counsellor
about their participation in the study and I authorise their
counsellor to disclose details of any relevant medical or drug
history, in confidence.
• I consent to my child’s personal data, as outlined in the
accompanying information sheet being used for this study and
other research. I understand that their personal data is held
and processed in the strictest confidence.
• I understand that my child is free to withdraw from the
study at any time without needing to justify their decision
and without prejudice.
318

Having read and understood the above, I confirm that I been
given enough time to consider my son/daughter’s
participation in the study and consent to their taking part.
Name of volunteer (BLOCK CAPITALS)
Signed ……………………………..
Date………………………………………
Name of researcher/person taking consent (BLOCK CAPITALS)
Signed…………….....................
Date ................................
319
Appendix 6
An interpretative phenomenological study of young people who bully and
their counsellors
Consent Form for Counsellors

I have read the information sheet provided. The study has been
explained to me in full by the researcher. I have been
advised about any possible ill effects on my health and have
had the opportunity to ask any questions about the study. I
have understood the advice and information given.

I consent to my personal data, as outlined in the accompanying
information sheet being used for this study and other
research. I understand that my personal data is held and
processed in the strictest confidence

I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any
time without needing to justify my decision and without
prejudice.

Having read and understood the above, I confirm that I been
given enough time to consider my participation in the study
and consent to taking part.
Name of volunteer (BLOCK CAPITALS)
Signed ………………………………………
Date………………………………………
Name of researcher/person taking consent (BLOCK CAPITALS)
Signed …………………………………….
Date………………………………………
320
Appendix 7
321
Appendix 8 Modifications to the Exclusion Story
Characters: Mum, Dad, Will
No props
Dad: I’m home from work Babe
Mum: Hello Gorgeous.
Mum and Dad hug whilst Will watches
Dad: Hi Will. Your Mum and I want time alone. Get up to your room and go on
your laptop or something
Researcher: Mum and Dad walk to a different room and sit on the settee. They
shut the door leaving Will outside
Prompt: [If Will goes in to his parents] I thought we said we wanted to be alone
[If Will goes to his room] Does Will wish he could be with his Mum and Dad?
Why and how the modifications have been made
All the young people at Centre A are British. Therefore, the first alteration was
changing Mom to Mum consistent with the English pronunciation of the word.
The name Dick changed to Will as this is one of the top ten boy’s names in the
UK (Baby naming Dilemmas, 2012). In addition, none of the young people at
Centre A was called Will, so there was no risk of personalising the story. I did
not consider it necessary or practical to provide props for use with the
adolescent participants in this study as by 11-16 years, most adolescents can
imagine scenarios (Dunn, 1988). Rather than being sent to play with toys,
Will is directed to his laptop, this being a more likely form of
322
entertainment for an adolescent. The way Will is spoken to was altered to
reflect the speech patterns I observed as used by the young people at Centre A.
Modifications to the parent conflict story
Characters: Mum, Dad, Grace, Lily
Mum and Dad are facing each other in glare positions. Grace is observing
Researcher: Lily comes into the room and sees Mum and Dad looking at each
other in an angry way
Mum: (Angrily) You lost my car keys!
Dad (Angrily) No I did not!
Prompt: What’s going to happen about Mum and Dad’s argument? How do Lily
and Grace feel when Mum and Dad are arguing?
Why and how the modifications have been made
Modifications to the Adult Conflict story were made upon similar lines to the
Exclusion story although this time, two of the top ten girls’ names, Grace and
Lily (Baby naming Dilemmas, 2012) were chosen to replace Dick and
George. This was done so that females amongst the participants could relate
better to the story and also because Dick and George were outdated names.
When speaking of the ‘glare position’ Mum and Dad assume, I would not pull
an angry face when asking participants to look at me as some participants
have Asperger’s syndrome, whence changing expression causes anxiety (Living
with Autism, 2012). The handing over of the main child character to ‘sibling’
was also omitted as the Story Stems used in the current research were not
acted out, to avoid distraction and because of time constraints.
323
Appendix 9
Interview guide for young people
The lived experiences of young people in one to one counselling
What made you decide to come for counselling?
Could you tell me who decided you have some counselling?
How do you feel you get on with your counsellor?
How do you feel when you are having counselling? (Prompt: emotionally, mentally,
physically)
How does having counselling affect your everyday life? (Prompt: relationships, wellbeing between sessions)
Identity
How would you describe yourself as a person?
How has counselling affected how you see yourself?
What about compared to before you had counselling?
Self-disclosure
What do you think you need from your counsellor? (Prompt: practical things,
emotionally)
How able would you feel to discuss everything with your counsellor?
What sort of things make it easy or difficult? (Prompt: criticisms, feeling heard, feeling
in charge, confidentiality)
What have you learnt from counselling that you continue to use?
324
Appendix 10
Interview guide for the counsellors
The counsellor’s lived experience
What made you decide to counsel young people?
What is it like for you providing counselling to young people who bully? How
do you think young people who bully experience counselling with you? Selfdisclosure
How much do you think your clients share with you?
Could you tell me what aspects of the therapeutic relationship enable or disable selfdisclosure?
The therapeutic relationship
What processes do the young people go through in deciding to get counselling?
How do you communicate to them what is happening during a counselling session?
Could you tell me how you assess whether your viewpoint of counselling is the same
as your young clients?
How do you assess the way your clients are experiencing counselling?
What affect, if any, does counselling have upon your clients outside of their sessions?
325
Appendix 11
Clarkson’s five phases of the therapeutic relationship
(1) The working alliance:
This describes what enables both the client and the therapist to work
together and includes the contract, the presenting issues and
acknowledgement that the alliance between counsellor and client is peculiar
to the circumstances but may not exist beyond the therapeutic relationship.
Nonetheless, it facilitates a foundation, so that, if the relationship falters, both
parties can return to the contract and try to repair the therapeutic alliance
(known as a reparative phase).
(2) The transferential/ countertransferential relationship:
This describes a strong feeling towards another which is rooted in the
‘presenting past’ (also known as transference) and may occur when a client
reminds a counsellor of someone from their past. Counsellors are encouraged
to explore such feelings towards their clients to either prevent, or work with
countertransference, a reaction to a client that emanates from a past
relationship.
(3) The reparative/ developmentally needed relationship:
Many clients come to see a therapist needing a parent figure to support them
through the personal growth they hope for during therapy. In this instance,
Clarkson (2003) considered the therapist filled this nurturing role: “The
developmentally needed or reparative relationship is an intentional provision
by the psychotherapist of a corrective, reparative, or replenishing relationship
or action where the original parenting was deficient, abusive or
overprotective” (p.113).
Once the client became autonomous, the emotional support of the therapist
lessened, at which point therapy usually terminated.
(4) The person-to-person relationship:
The person-to-person relationship describes a connection with clients
established upon trust and a deep rapport between client and counsellor. The
concept of the person-to-person relationship emanates from the work of Carl
Rogers (1951) and is established upon the three core conditions of empathy,
congruence and unconditional positive regard. The emotional connection
present between counsellor and client differentiates it from other professional
alliances, for example, that between patient and doctor.
(5) The transpersonal relationship
The transpersonal relationships defines an expansion of consciousness, which
326
can be spiritual or healing and was described by Clarkson (2003) as, “the
timeless facet of the psychotherapeutic relationship, which is impossible to
describe, but refers to the spiritual dimension of the healing relationship”
(p.187).
327
REFERENCES
Acker, J., Barry, K. and Essevald, J. (1991). ‘Objectivity and Truth: Problems in
doing Feminist Research’, in M.M. Fonow and J.A. Cook (eds) Beyond
Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Ackerman, S.J., and Hilsenroth, M.J. (2003). A review of therapist characteristics
and techniques positively impacting the therapeutic alliance. Clinical Psychology
Review, 23(1), 1–33.
Ackroyd, S. (2004). Methodology for management and organisation studies:
some implications of critical realism. In Critical Realist Applications in
Organisation and Management Studies (pp. 137-163). London and New York:
Routledge.
Agar, M. and McDonald, J. (1995). Focus Groups and Ethnography. Human
Organisation, 54(1), 78-86.
Aikins, S., and Murphy, K. (1993). Reflection: A review of the literature. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 18, 1188-1192.
Ainsworth, M. S. and Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality
development. American Psychologist, 46(4), 333-341.
Ainsworth, M. S. and Bowlby, J. (1965). Child Care and the Growth of Love.
London: Penguin Books.
Ainsworth, M.D., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E. and Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ainsworth, M.S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. The American Psychologist,
34(10), 932-937.
Aiyegbusi, A. (2004). Thinking under fire: The challenge for forensic mental health
nurses working with women in secure care. In N. Jeffcote & T. Watson (Eds.),
Working therapeutically with women in secure settings. pp. 108–119. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Albrecht, T.L., Johnson, G.M. and Walther, J.B. (1993). Understanding
Communication Processes in Focus groups. In D.L. Morgan (editor). Successful
Focus groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alderson, P. (2001). Research by children: Rights and methods. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 4(2), 139-153.
Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method.
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(1), 1-10.
328
Allen, J.P. and Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P.
Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (pp. 319-335). New York: Guilford.
Allen, J.P., Moore, C.M., Kuperninc, G.P. and Bell, K.L. (1998). Attachment and
adolescent psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406-1419.
Alschuler, C.F. and Alschuler, A.S. (1984). Developing healthy response to
anger: The counselor’s role. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 26-29.
Ambert, A. (1994). A qualitative study of peer abuse and its effects: Theoretical
and empirical implications. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 119-130.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), 4th edn. Washington DC.
Andersson, T. (2005). Managers’ Identity Work. Experiences from Introspective
Management Training. Sweden: Grafikerna Livréna AB, Kungälv.
Annells, M. (1996). Hermeneutic phenomenology: Philosophical perspectives
and current use in research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23(4), 705-713.
Arsenio, W. F. and Lemerise, E. A. (2001). Varieties of Childhood Bullying:
Values, Emotion Processes and Social Competence. Social Development, 10(1),
59-73.
Asbury, J. (1995). Overview of focus group research. Qualitative Health
Research, 5(4), 414-420.
Ashforth, B. and Humphrey, R.H. (1993) ‘Emotional Labour in Service Roles: The
Influence of Identity’, Academy of Management Review 18, 88–115.
Ashworth, P.D. (1996). Presuppose nothing! The suspension of assumptions in
phenomenological psychological methodology, Journal of Phenomenological
Psychology, 27, 1–25.
Ashworth, P.D. (2006). Seeing oneself as a carer in the activity of caring.
Attending to the lifeworld of the person with Alzheimer's disease.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Health and Well-being, 1(4), 212–
225.
Atkenson, B.M. and Forehand, R. (1978). Parent behavioural training for
problem children. An examination of studies using multiple outcome measures.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 449-460.
Audit Commission. (1999). Children in Mind. London: HMSO.
Baby Naming Dilemmas. Available at: http://babynames.familyeducation.com/popular-names/boys/ [Accessed]: August, 2012.
329
Bachelor, A. and A. Horvath. (1999). 'The Therapeutic Relationship', In Hubble,
M.; B.L. Duncan and S.D. Miller, (Eds.), The Heart & Soul of Change: What
Works in Therapy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp.
133-78.
Bachelor, A. and Salamé, R. (2000). Participants’ perceptions of dimensions of
the therapeutic alliance over the course of therapy. Journal of Psychotherapy
Practice and Research, 9(1), 39-53.
Baginsky, W. (2003). Responsibility Without Power? Local Education Authorities
and child Protection. London: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children.
Baker, E. K. (2003). A therapist’s guide to personal and professional well-being.
Caring for ourselves. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Baldry, A.C. (1998). Bullying among Italian middle school students: Combining
methods to understand aggressive behaviours and victimization. School
Psychology International, 19, 155-168.
Baldry, A.C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental
and physical health of Italian youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 343-355.
Baldwin, M.W., Fehr, B., Keedian, E., Seidal, M. and Thompson, D.W. (1993). An
exploration of the relational schemata underlying attachment styles: Selfreport and lexical decision approaches. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19, 746-754.
Ballinger, C. (2006). Demonstrating rigour and quality? In L. Finlay and C.
Ballinger, (Eds.), Qualitative research for allied health professionals: Challenging
choices. Chichester, East Sussex: John Wiley.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement, in: W. Reich (Ed.),
Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind, pp.
161–191, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action, in:
W. M. Kurtinez & J. L.Gewirtz (Eds) Handbook of Moral Behavior and
Development: theory, research and applications, Vol.1, pp. 71–129, Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 1990.
Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. and Tindall, C. (Eds.). (1994).
Qualitative Methods in Psychology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Banner, Davina J. and Albarran, John W. (2009). Computer-assisted
qualitative data analysis software: A review. Canadian Journal of
Cardiovascular Nursing, 19(3), 24-27.
330
Barbour, R. and Kitzinger, J. (1998). Developing Focus Group Research: Politics,
Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Barker, J. and Weller, S. (2003). Geography of Methodological Issues in
Research with Children. Qualitative Research, 3, 207-227.
Barrientos, S. (1998). How to do a literature study. In: Thomas, A.,
Chataway, J. & Wuyts, M. (Eds.), Finding out fast. Investigative Skills for
Policy and Development. (pp. 87-106). Open University & Sage Publications.
Barrineau, P. and Bozarth, J. (1989). A person-centred research model. Personcentred Review, 4, 465-474.
Barter, C., Renold, E., Berridge, D. and Cawson, P. (2004). Peer Violence in
Children’s Residential Care. London: Palgrave.
Bartholomew, K. and Dutton, D. G. (1997). He Loves Me; He Loves Me Not:
Attachment and Separation Resolution of Abused Women. Journal of Family
Violence, 12(2), 169-191.
Bartholomew, K. and Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment states among young
adults: A test of a Four-Category Model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61(2), 226- 244.
Baruch, G. (2001). Mental health services in schools: The challenge of locating a
psychotherapy service for troubled adolescent pupils in mainstream and
special schools. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 549-570.
Batmanghelidjh, C. (2006). Shattered Lives: Children Who Live with Courage and
Dignity. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Baumbusch, J. (2012).Semi-Structured Interviewing in Practice-Close
Pediatric Nursing, 15(3), 255-258.
Research.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An
interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267.
Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L., and Boden, J.M. (1996). Relation of threatened
egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem.
Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three sessions of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88.
Beaudet, J. and Schwartsman, A.E. (1987). Parental affective attitudes and
children’s atypical social behaviors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, British Columbia.
331
Beebe, T.J., Mika, T., Harrison, P.A., Anderson, R.E. and Fulkerson, J. A. (1998).
An Evaluation of Computer Assisted Self-Interviews in a School Setting. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 62, 623-627.
Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R. and Tarule, J.M. (1985). Women’s
ways of Knowing: The Development of the Self, Voice and Mind. New York: Basic
Books.
Bem, S. and Looren de Jong, H. (1997). Theoretical Issues in Psychology.
London: Sage Publications.
Berrios, G. E. (1989). What is phenomenology? A review. Journal of the Royal
Society of Medicine, 82, 425-428.
Bhaskar, R. (1978). A Realist Theory of Science. West Sussex: Harvester Press.
Bigley, G.A. and Pearce, J.L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organisation
science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23,
405-421.
Bishop, S. (2002). What do we really know about mindfulness-based stress
reduction? Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 71–84.
Bjorkqvist, K., Ekman, K. and Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1982). Bullies and victims: Their
ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 23, 307-313.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bloom, S.L. (1998). Language development and emotional expression. Official
Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 102, 1272-1277.
Bloom, S. L. (2000). The Grief That Dare Not Speak Its Name Part III: Dealing
with the Ravages of Childhood Abuse. Psychotherapy Review 2(11), 1-22.
Bloomfield, H.H. and Kory, R.B. (1980). Inner Joy. New York: Wyden.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Bohart, A. and Tallman, K. (1999). How Clients Make Therapy Work.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Booth, T. and Booth, W. (1994). ‘The Use of Depth Interviewing with Vulnerable
Subjects’, Social Science and Medicine, 39, 415–24.
Borbasi, S., Chapman, Y., Gassner, L., Dunn, S. and Read, K. (2002). Perceptions
of the researcher: In-depth interviewing in the home. Contemporary Nurse, 14,
24-37.
332
Borland, M., Hill, M., Laybourn, A. and Stafford, A. (2001). Improving
Consultation with Children and Young People in Relevant Aspects of PolicyMaking and Legislation in Scotland, Edinburgh: The Scottish Parliament.
Boulton M. J. Flemington I. (1996). The effects of a short video intervention on
secondary school pupils’ involvement in definitions of and attitudes toward
bullying. School Psychology International, 17, 331–347.
Boulton, M. J. and Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school
children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer
acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12 (3), 315-329.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201-210.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base. Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory.
Routledge: London.
Bowman, L. and Fine, M. (2000). Client perceptions of couple’s therapy: The
helpful and unhelpful aspects. American journal of Family Therapy, 28(4), 295-3
10.
Boyce, C. and Neale, P. (2006). Conducting In-Depth Interviews: A Guide for
Designing and Conducting In-depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Monitoring
and Evaluation, 2, 2-12.
Bradbury-Jones, C., Sambrook, S. and Irvine, F. (2008). The phenomenological
focus group: an oxymoron? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(3), 663-671.
Bradlee, P.M. and Emmons, R.A. (1992). Locating narcissism within the
interpersonal circumplex and the five-factor model. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 821- 830.
Brennan, K.A. and Shaver, P.R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment,
affect regulation and romantic relationship functioning. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267-283.
Brentano, F. (1874). Phenomenology. In: Krauss, D. and McAlister, L.L.
(Eds.), Psychology from an empirical standpoint. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D. and Cassidy, J. (1990). The role of internal working
models in the attachment relationship. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, and
E.M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment During Preschool Years (pp. 3-39). Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Bristol, T. and fern, E. F. (1996). Exploring the Atmosphere created in Focus
group Interviews: Comparing Consumers’ Feelings Across Qualitative
Techniques. Journal of the Market Research Society, 38(2), 185-195.
333
British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP). (2013). Ethical
Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy. Leicestershire:
British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.
Brocki, J. M. and Wearden, A. J. 2006. A critical evaluation of the use of
interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology. Psychology
and Health, 21(1), 87 108.
Brown, E. C., Catalano, R. F., Fleming, C. B., Haggerty, K. P., & Abbott, R. D.
(2005). Adolescent substance use outcomes in the Raising Health Children
Project: A two-part latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 73, 699- 710.
Bruyn, S. J. (1986). The Human Perspective in Sociology: The Methodology of
Participant Observation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bryman, A. (1984). The Debate About Quantitative and Qualitative Research:
A Question of Method or Epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1),
75-92.
Buchsbaum, H.K. and Emde, R.N. (1990). Play narratives in 36 month-old
children: Early moral development and family relationships. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 45, 129-155.
Buchsbaum, H.K., Toth, S.L., Clyman, R.B., Cicchetti, D. and Emde, R.N. (1992).
The use of a narrative story stem technique with maltreated children:
Implications for theory and practice Development and Psychopathology, 4(4)
603-625.
Buckle, T. (2012). “It can be Life-Changing”; An Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis of the Coach and Coachee’s Experience of
Psychometrics in Coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching
and Mentoring, 6, 102-117.
Burnard, P. (1997). Qualitative data analysis: a response to Lucas's article.
Social Sciences in Health, 39(4), 254 - 258.
Burr, V. (2001). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
Bushman, B.J. and Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Why heightened self-esteem would
lead to violent protection of ego. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75(1), 219-229.
Butler, J. K., Jr. and Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory
approach to modelling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological
Reports, 55, 19–28.
Butler, S. (1996). Child protection or professional self-preservation by the baby
nurses? Public health nurses and child protection in Ireland. Social Science and
Medicine, 43, 303-314.
334
Calamari, E. and Pini, M (2003). Dissociative experiences and anger proneness in
late adolescent females with different attachment styles. Adolescence, 38(150),
287-302.
Camic, C.M., Rhodes, J.E. and Yardley, L. (1990). Qualitative research in
psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington
DC: American Psychological Association.
Caravita, S. C. S., and Gini, G. (2010). Rule Perception or Moral
Disengagement? Associations of Moral Cognition With Bullying and Defending
in adolescence. In D. Strohmeier, S. C. S. Caravita (Chairs), Moral
Development and Adolescent's Aggressive and Prosocial Behaviour Symposium
conducted at SRA 2010 Biennal Meeting, Philadelphia: U.S.A.
Carey, M.A. and Smith, M.W. (1994). Capturing the group effect in focus
groups: a special concern in analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 4, 123-127.
Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D. and Braunwald, K.G. (1989).
Disorganized/disorientated attachment relationships in maltreated infants.
Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 525.
Casement, P. (1991). Forms of interactive communication. In P. Casement, On
learning from the patient. New York: Guilford Press.
Casement, P. (1985). On Learning from the Patient. London: Routledge.
Casey, D. and Murphy, K. (2009). Issues in using methodological triangulation in
research. Nurse Researcher, 16(4), 24-34.
Caspi, A. and Elder, G.H, Jr. (1988). Emergent family patterns: The
intergenerational construction of problem behavior and relationships. In R.A.
Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: mental
influences. (pp.218-240). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cassidy, J. and Shaver, P.R. (1999). Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research
and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Catterall, M. and Maclaran, P. (1996). Computer Software for Qualitative Data
Analysis: Using Metamorph 4. Proceedings of the Marketing Education Group
Annual Conference, Glasgow.
Ceglowski, D. (2000). ‘Research as Relationship’, Qualitative Inquiry 6, 88–103.
Chang, M.L. (2009). An Appraisal Perspective of Teacher Burnout: Examining the
Emotional Work of Teachers. Education Psychological Review, 21, 193–218.
Chang, M.-L., and Davis, H. A. (2009). Understanding the role of teacher appraisals
in shaping the dynamics of their relationships with students: Deconstructing
335
teachers’ judgments of disruptive behavior/students. In P. A. Schutz & M.
Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotions research. New York: Springer.
Chapman, E. and Smith, J.A. (2002). Interpretative phenomenological analysis
and the new genetics. Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 125-130.
Charmaz, K. (1991). Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Chronic Illness and Time.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Chen, Z. and Kaplan, H.B. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of
constructive parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 17-31.
Chi-Jung, L. (2008). Rigor and flexibility in computer-based qualitative
research: Introducing the coding analysis toolkit. International Journal of
Multiple Research Approaches, 2, 105–117.
Choudhury, N., and Benasich, A. (2003). A family aggregation study: the
influence of family history and other risk factors on language development.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(2), 261.
Christopher, C.J. and Maris, J.A. (2010). Integrating mindfulness as self-care into
counselling and psychotherapy training. Counselling and Psychotherapy
Research, 10(2), 114-125.
Chu, J.A. (1996). Posttraumatic responses to childhood abuse and implications for
treatment. In L. K. Michelson and W.J. Ray (Eds.), Handbook of Dissociation:
Theoretical, Empirical and Clinical Perspectives (pp.381-397). New York: Plenum
Press.
Churchill, S. D. (2000). Phenomenological psychology. In A. D. Kazdin (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clarkson, P. (2003). The Therapeutic Relationship. London: Whurr Publishers.
Cohen, J. (2005). The Mirror as a Metaphor for the reflective practitioner, Chapter
18, Article from the Annual Review of Nursing Education.
Cohen, N.Z. and Omery, A. (1994). Schools of phenomenology: implications for
research. In Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, (Morse, J.M.,
ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.136-156.
Cohen, M. Z., Kahn, D. L. and Steeves, R. H. (2000). Hermeneutic
Phenomenological Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cohen, P., Kaser, S., Brook, J.S. and Hartmark, C. (1998). Behavior Patterns of
young children and their offspring: A two generation study. Developmental
Psychology, 34, 1202-1208.
336
Collins, N.L. and Knowles, A.D. (1995). Adolescent attitudes towards
confidentiality between the school counsellor and the adolescent client.
Australian Psychologist, 30(3), 179-182.
Collins, N.L. and Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
relationship quality in dating couples, Journal of personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Colquitt, J.A., Brent, A.C. and LePine, A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationship with risktaking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927.
Conger, R.D., Neppl, T., Kim, K.J. and Scaramella, L. (2003). Angry and
Aggressive Behavior Across Three Generations: A Prospective, Longitudinal
Study of Parents and Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(2),
143–160.
Connor, D.F. (2002). Aggression and Antisocial Behaviour in Children and
Adolescents: Research and Treatment. New York: The Guilford Press.
Constantino, J. N., Chackes, L. M., Wartner, U. G., Gross, M., Brophy, S. L.,
Vitale, J., and Heath, A. C. (2006). Mental representations of attachment in
identical female twins with and without conduct problems. Child Psychiatry
Human Development, 37, 65-72.
Cooley, C. H. (1964). Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Schocken.
Corden, A. and Sainsbury, R. (2006). Using verbatim quotes in reporting
qualitative
social
research:
Researchers’
View:
Available
from:
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/verbquotresearch.pdf
[Accessed]:
October 2013.
Corrigan, J. D., Dell, D. M., Lewis, K. N., & Schmdit, L. D. (1980). Counseling as a
social influence process: A review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 395441.
Côté-Arsenault, D. and Morrison-Beedy, D. (2001). Women’s voices reflecting
changed expectations for pregnancy after perinatal loss. Journal of Nursing
Scholarship, 33(3), 239-244.
Cowie, H. (1999). Peers helping peers: Interventions, initiatives and insights.
Journal of Adolescence, 22, 433–436.
Cowie, H. and Olafsson, R. (2000). The role of peer support in helping the
victims of bullying in a school with high levels of aggression. School Psychology
International, 21(1), 79-95.
Cox, M. (1996). A supervisor’s view. In C. Cordess & M Cox (Eds.), Forensic
psychotherapy: Crime, psychodynamics and the offender patient, Part II mainly
practice. pp 199–228. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
337
Coyle, A. and Wright, C. (1996). ‘Using the Counselling Interview to Collect Data
on Sensitive Topics’. Journal of Health Psychology, 1, 431-440.
Crabtree, B.F., Yanoshik, M.K., Miller, W.L. and O’Connor, P.J. (1993).
Selecting individual or group interviews. In D. L. Morgan, (Eds.), Successful
Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art (pp. 137-149). Newbury Park:
California.
Crick, N. R. and Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social
information processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.
Crick, N. R. and Dodge, K. A. (1999). Superiority is in the eye of the
beholder: A comment on Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham. Social Development,
8, 128–131.
Crick, N.R. and Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.
Crittenden, P. M. (1992). Quality of attachment in the pre-school years.
Development and Psychopathology, 4(2), 209-241.
Crittenden, P.M. (1995). Attachment and psychopathology. In S. Goldberg, R.
Muir, J.Kerr, (Eds.), John Bowlby's attachment theory: Historical, clinical, and
social significance (pp. 367-406). New York: The Analytic Press.
Cummings-Robeau, T. L., Lopez, F. G. and Rice, K. G. (2009). Attachmentrelated predictors of college students’ problems with interpersonal sensitivity
and aggression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 364-391.
Dalhberg, K., Dalhberg, H. Nyström, M. (2008). Reflective lifeworld research
(2nd edition), Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Darbyshire, P., MacDougall, C. and Schiller, W. (2005). Multiple methods in
qualitative research with children: More insight or just more? Qualitative
Research, 5, 417.
Davies, J. and Brember, I. (1999). Reading and mathematics attainments and selfesteem in years 2 and 6-an eight year cross-sectional study. Education Studies, 25,
145-157.
Davies, R. (1996). The inter-disciplinary network and the internal world of the
offender. In C. Cordess & M. Cox (Eds.), Forensic psychotherapy: Crime,
psychodynamics and the offender patient, Part II mainly practice. pp 133–144.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Deffenbacher, J.L., Oetting, R.E. and DiGiuseppe, R.A. (2003). Principles of
Empirically Supported Interventions Applied to Anger Management, The
Counseling Psychologist, 30, 262.
338
Denzin, N. (1984) On Understanding Emotion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Department of Education and Skills (DoES) (2011). Safeguarding Young
People. London: Department of Education and Skills.
Department of Health (DoH). (2008). Children and young people in mind: The
final report of the National CAMHS Review 2008. London: Department of
Health.
Di-Cicco-Bloom, B. and Crabtree, B.F. (2006). The qualitative research interview.
Medical Education, 40, 314-321.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E., Kippen, S. and Liamputtong, P. (2006) ‘Blurring
Boundaries in Qualitative Health Research on Sensitive Topics’, Qualitative Health
Research 16, 853–71.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E.L., Kippen, S. and Liamputtong, P. (2007). Doing
sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative
Research, 7, 327.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E.L., Kippen, S. and Liamputtong, P. (2009).Researching
sensitive topics: qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research,
9(61), 61-79.
Diener, E. (1970). Deindividuation, self-awareness and disinhibition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1160-1171.
Dilley, P. (2000). Conducting Successful Interviews: Tips for Intrepid Research,
Theory into Practice, 39(3), 131-137.
Dishion, T. J. (2004). Features of Ineffective and/or Unsafe Interventions. Paper
presented at the NIH State-of-the-Science Conference, Preventing Violence and
Related Health Risking Social Behaviors in Adolescents, Bethesda, MD.
Dodge, K. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behavior. Child
Development, 51, 162-170.
Dodge, K. A. and Coie, J.D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in
reactive and proactive aggression in children's peer groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (5), 1146-1158.
Dodge, K. and Newman, J. P. (1981). Biased decision-making processes in
aggressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90(4), 375-379.
Dodge, K., Bates, J. and Pettit, G. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence.
Science, 250, 1678-1683.
Dodge, K.A. and Crick, N.R. (1980). Social information-processing bases of
aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16,
18-22.
339
Dubow, E.F. Arnett, M. Smith, K. and Ippolito, M.F. (2001). Predictors of future
expectations of inner-city children: A 9-month prospective study. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 21(1):5-28.
Duff, C.T. and Bedi, R.P. (2010). Counsellor behaviours that predict
therapeutic alliance: From the clients’ perspective. Counseling Psychology
Quarterly, 23(1), 91-110.
Dumas, J.E. (1989). Treating anti-social behaviour in children: Child and
family approaches. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 197-222.
Dumar, J. E., LaFerniere, P. J. Beaudin, L. and Verlaan, P. (1992). Mother-child
interactions in competent and aggressive dyads. Implications of relationship
stress for behavior therapy with families. New Zealand Journal of Psychology,
21, 3-13.
Dumas, J.E. and Whaler, R.G. (1983). Indiscriminate mothering as a contextual
factor in aggressive- oppositional child behaviour: “Damned if you do and
damned if you don’t”! Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 1-17.
Duncan, B., Miller, S. and Sparks, J. (2003). Young child outcome rating scale.
Chicago: Family and Youth Services Bureau.
Duncan RE, Drew SE, Hodgson J, et al. (2009). Is my mum going to hear this?
Methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative health research with young
people. Social Science Medicine, 69, 1691–9.
Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Dunn, J., Stocker, C. and Plomin, R. (1990). Nonshared experiences within the
family: Correlates of behavioral problems in middle childhood. Development
and Psychopathology, 2(2), 113-126.
Dussault, M. and Deaudelin, C. (1999). Professional isolation and occupational
stress in teachers. Psychological Reports, 84(3), 943-946.
Easter, M.M., Davis, A.M. and Henderson, G.E. (2004). Confidentiality: more
than a linkage file and a locked drawer. International Review Board, 26(2), 1317.
Eatough, V. and Smith, J. (2006). “I was like a wild person”: Understanding
feelings of anger using interpretative phenomenological analysis. British Journal
of Psychology, 97, 483-498.
Egan, G. (1993). The Skilled Helper: A Problem Management Approach to Helping.
Fifth Edition. CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Eide, P. and Kahn, D. (2008). Ethical Issues in the Qualitative ResearcherParticipant Relationship. Nursing Ethics, 15(2), 199-207.
340
Ekamparan, G. (2008). Insecure attachment and the therapeutic relationship:
Relational dynamics between therapist and addicts in psychotherapy. Available
from:http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/808/Ekampara
mG.pdf?seq uence=4 [Accessed]: September 2013.
Ekstrom, S. R. (2004). The mind beyond our immediate awareness: Freudian,
Jungian and cognitive models of the unconscious. Journal of Analytical
Psychology, 49, 657–682.
Ellingson, L.L. (1998). ‘“Then You Know How I Feel”: Empathy, Identification and
Reflexivity in Fieldwork’, Qualitative Inquiry, 461(1): 492–532.
Elliot, A. J. and Reis, H. T.(2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317-331.
Elliott, M. (1991). Bully ``Courts''. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Bullying: a practical guide
for coping in schools (pp. 268-379) Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D. and Steinmetz, A. (1991). Doing
Qualitative Research: Circles within Circles. London: Falmer Press.
Emde, R.N. (1992). Social referencing research: Uncertainty, the self, and the
search for meaning. In S. Feinman (Ed.), Social referencing and the social
construction of reality in infancy (pp. 79-94). New York: Plenum.
Emde, R.N., Johnson, W.F. and Easterbrooks, M.A. (1988). The do’s and don’ts
of early moral development. In J. Kagan and S. Lamb (Eds.), The emergence of
morality (pp.245- 277). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Epstein, L.D. (1995). Attachment and psychotherapy: An analogue study.
(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Denver).
Erlandson, D.A. (1993). Doing naturalistic enquiry: A guide to methods. London:
Sage.
Erskine, R. G., Moursund, J. P. and Trautmann, R. L. (1999). Beyond empathy. A
therapy of contact-in-relationship. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Eslea, M. and Smith, P.K. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying
work in primary schools. Educational Research, 40, 203-218.
Etherington, K. (1996). The Counsellor as Researcher: Boundary Issues and
Critical Dilemmas. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24, 339-346.
Evans, S.W. (1999). Mental Health Services in Schools: Utilization, effectiveness
and consent. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 165-174.
Evers, J. C. (2011). From the past into the future. How technological
developments change our ways of data collection, transcription and analysis.
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,
12:1.
Available
from:
http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1636/3161 [Accessed]: October 2013.
341
Evers, W. J. G., Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (2004). Burnout among teachers.
School Psychology International, 25(2), 131–148.
Fade, S. (2004). Using interpretative phenomenological analysis for public
health nutrition and dietetic research: A practical guide. Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, 63, 647-65.
Farber, B. A. (2003). Patient self-disclosure: A review of the research. Journal of
Clinical Psychology/In Session, 59(5), 589–600.
Farber, B. A. and Hall, D. (2002). Disclosure to therapists: What is and is not
discussed in psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5(4), 359–370.
Farber, B.A., Berano, K.C., and Capobianco, J.A. (2004). Clients’ perceptions of
the process and consequences of self-disclosure in psychotherapy. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 51, 340-346.
Faulkner, A. (2004). The Ethics of Survivor Research: Guidelines for the Ethical
Conduct of Research Carried Out by Mental Health Service Users and Survivors.
Bristol: Policy Press.
Feder, B. and Feder, E. (1998). The art and science of evaluation in the arts
therapies: How do you know what’s working? Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Feeney, J.A. and Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult
romantic relationships. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281291.
Fern, E.F. (1982). The Use of Focus groups for Idea generation: The Effects of
group Size, Acquaintanceship and Moderator on response Quantity and
Quality. Journal of marketing Research, 26, 1-13.
Finch, J. (1984). It’s Great to Have Someone to Talk to: The Ethics and Politics
of Interviewing Women. In C. Bell and H. Roberts (Eds.), Social Researching:
Politics, Problems, Practice (pp.28-78). London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Finch, J. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21 (1), 25-34.
Finlay, L. (2008). A dance between the reduction and reflexivity: Explicating the
“phenomenological psychological attitude”. Journal of Phenomenological
Psychology, 39(1) 1-32.
Finlay, L. (2009). Debating Phenomenological
Phenomenology and Practice, 3(1), 6-25.
Research
Methods.
Finlay, L. (2006) Mapping methodology. In L. Finlay and C. Ballinger, (Eds)
Qualitative research for allied health professionals: Challenging choices.
Chichester, East Sussex: John Wiley.
Finlay, L. (2003). The reflexive journey: mapping multiple routes. In L. Finlay and
B. Gough (Eds.), Reflexivity: a practical guide for researchers in health and social
sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
342
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social Cognition, (2
McGraw- Hill.
nd
edition). New York:
Fite, J. P., Greening, L. and Stoppelbein, L. (2008). Relation between parenting
stress and psychopathic traits among children. Behavioral Sciences and the Law,
26, 239-248.
Fitzpatrick, M. R., Stalikas, A. and Iwakabe, S. (2001). Examining counselor
interventions and client progress in the context of the therapeutic alliance.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38, 160-170.
Flores, F., & Solomon, R. C. (1998). Creating trust. Business Ethics Quarterly,
8, 205– 232.
Flowers, P., Smith, J.A., Sheeran, P. and Beail, N. (1997). Health and romance:
understanding unprotected sex in relationships between gay men. British
Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 73-86.
Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A. and Target M. (1994). The theory
and practice of resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35, 231–
257.
Forero, R., McLellan, L., Rissel, C., and Bauman, A. (1999). Bullying behavior
and psychosocial health among school students in New South Wales, Australia:
Cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 344-348.
Fox, C.L. and Butler, I. (2007). ‘If you don’t want to tell anyone else, you can
tell her’. Young people’s views on school counselling. British Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 35:1, 98-114
Franzoi, S. (1996). Social Psychology. Dubuque, IA: Times Mirror Higher
education Group, Inc.
Frege, G. (1892). On sense and reference. In: Geach, P. and Black,
M.(Eds.),Philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp.25-50). Oxford: Blackwell.
Freud, S. ([2001]1923). The Ego and the Id. London: Vintage. In S. L.
Cavanagh, A. Failler and R. Alpha J. Hurst (Eds.), Skin, culture and
psychoanalysis (pp106-121). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College.
Furstenberg, F. F., Hughes, M. E. and Brooks-Gunn, J. (1992). The next
generation: The children of teenage mothers grow up. In M. K. Rosenheim
(Ed.), Early parenthood and coming of age in the 1990s (pp. 113–135). New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Garbarino, J., Scott, F.M. and Erikson Institute. (1992). What Children Can Tell
Us. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gelso, C. J. and Carter, J.A. (1994). Components of the psychotherapy
relationship: Their interaction and unfolding during treatment. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 41(3), 296-306.
343
Gelso, C.J. and Hayes, J.A. (1998). The Psychotherapy Relationship: Theory,
Research and Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Gelso, C. J., Hill, C. E., Mohr, J. J., Rochlen, A. B. and Zack, J. (1999). Describing
the face of transference: Psychodynamic therapists' recollections about
transference in cases of successful long-term therapy. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 46, 257-267.
Gerzina, M. A., and Drummond, P. (2000). A multimodal cognitive-behavioural
approach to anger reduction in an occupational sample. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 73, 181-194.
Gilbert, K.R. (ed.) (2001). The Emotional Nature of Qualitative Research. London:
CRC.
Gini, G. (2006). Bullying as a social process: The role of group membership in
students’perception of inter-group aggression at school. Journal of School
Psychology, 44, 51-65.
Giorgi, A. (1989) One type of analysis of descriptive data. Procedures involved
in following a scientific phenomenological method. Methods 1(3), 39-61.
Giorgi, A. (1994). A phenomenological perspective on certain qualitative
research methods. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 25, 190-220.
Giorgi, A. (2008b). Difficulties encountered in the application of the
phenomenological method in the social sciences. The Indo-Pacific Journal of
Phenomenology, 8(1), 1-9.
Giorgi, A. and Giorgi, B. (2003). Phenomenology. In Smith, J.A., (Ed.), Qualitative
psychology: a practical guide to research methods (pp.25-50). London: Sage.
Gladding, S. T. and Newsome, D. W. (2003). Art in counseling. In C. A.
Malchiodi (Ed.), Handbook of art therapy (pp. 243–253). New York: Guilford
Press.
Goldberg, S., Muir, M. and Kerr, J. (2000). Attachment Theory: Social
Development and Clinical Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
Goldman, A.E. (1962). The group depth interview. Journal of Marketing, 26, 6168.
Goodwin, C. J. (2005). Research in Psychology: Methods and Design. USA: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Goodwin, D., Pope, C., Mort, M. and Smith, A. (2003). ‘Ethics and Ethnography:
An Experiential Account’, Qualitative Health Research 13, 567–77.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Govier, T. (1994). Is it a jungle out there? Trust, distrust and construction
of social reality. Dialogue, 33(2), 237-252.
344
Grafanaki, S. (1996). How Research can Change the Researcher? The Need
for Sensitivity, Flexibility and Ethical Boundaries in Conducting Qualitative
Research in Counselling/Psychotherapy. British Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 24, 329-348.
Griffin, D.W. and Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other
fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430-445.
Guba, G. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gutman, L., and Feinstein, L. (2007). Parenting behaviours and children’s
development from infancy to early childhood: changes, continuities, and
contributions, Research report No. 22. London: Centre for Research on the
Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of Education, University of London.
Gutman, L.M. and Brown, J. (2008). Children's social worlds: Bullying,
victimization, and friendships in primary school. London: DCSF.
Halling, S., Kunz, G. and Rowe, J.O. (1994). The contributions of dialogal
psychology to phenomenological research. Journal of Humanistic Psychology.
34(1), 109-131.
Halling, S., Leifer, M. and Rowe, J.O. (2006). Emergence of the dialogal
approach: Forgiving another. In C. T. Fischer (Ed.), Qualitative Research
Methods for Psychology: Introduction through Empirical Studies (pp. 247278). New York: Academic Press.
Hansford, B.C. and Hattie, J.A. (1982). The relationship between self and
achievement/performance measures. Rev Education research. 52, 123-142.
Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R. and Hare, R. D. (1988). Factor structure of the
Psychopathy Checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 741–
747.
Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they
do. New York: Free Press.
Hastings, R. P. and Brown, T. (2000) Functional assessment and challenging
behaviors: some future directions. Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps, 25, 229–40.
Hastings, R.P. and Horne, S. (2004). Positive perceptions held by support staff
in community mental retardation services. American Journal on Mental
Retardation 109, 53–62.
Hazan, C. and Shaver, P.R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511524.
345
Hazan, C. and Shaver, P.R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework
for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1- 22.
Hazan C., and Shaver, P. R. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hazel, N. (1995) Elicitation Techniques with Young People, Social Research
Update, Issue 12, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey,
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU12.html.
Hazler, R. J. (1996). Breaking the cycle of violence: interventions for bullying and
victimization. London: Taylor & Francis.
Heferron, K. and Gil-Rodriguez, E. (2011). Implications of the rise in popularity
of IPA for both teachers and students. Archive, 24(10), 756-759.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford.
Helweg-Larsen V., Sundaram, V., Curtis, T., Larsen, H.M. (2002). The Danish Youth
Survey 2002: Asking young people about sensitive issues. International Journal of
CircumpolarHealth, 63(2).Available at:http://www.circumpolarhealthjournal.net/i
ndex.php/ijch/article/view/17880/0 [Accessed]: November, 2014.
Henggeler, S.W., Clingempeel, W.G., Brondino, M.J. and Pickrel, S.G. (2002).
Four year follow-up of multi-systemic therapy with substance abusing and
dependent juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 868-874.
Henggeler, S.W., Halliday-Boykins, C.A., Cunningham, P.B. Randall, J., Shapiro,
S.B. and Chapman, J.E. (2006). Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by
integrating evidence-based treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 74(1), 42- 54.
Herbert, M. (1985). Caring for Children. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Hill, C.E., Thompson, B.J. Cogar, M.C. and Denman, D.W. (1993). Beneath the
surface of long-term therapy: Therapist and client report of their own and each
other’s covert processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 278-287.
Hill, M. (2006). Children’s voices on ways of having a voice: Children’s and
young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation.
Childhood, 13, 69-89.
Hill, M., Laybourn, A. and Borland, M. (1996). Engaging with Primary Aged
Children about their Emotions and Well Being: Methodological Considerations.
Children and Society, 10, 129-144.
Hinduja, S, and Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard:
Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications (Corwin Press).
346
Hochschild, A.R. (1983). The Managed Heart. Berkely: University of California
Press.
Hochschild, A.R. (1998). The Sociology of Emotion as a Way of Seeing. In G.
Bendelow and S. Williams (Eds.), Emotions
Hodgins, M. (2008). Taking a health promotion approach to the problem of
bullying. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8(1),
13- 23.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for
Caring and Justice. London: Cambridge University Press.
Holland, S., Renold, E., Ross, N.J, et al. (2010). Power, agency and
participatory agendas: a critical exploration of young people's engagement
in participative qualitative research. Childhood, 17, 360–75.
Holloway, S.L. and Valentine, G. (2000). Children’s Geographics. London:
Routledge
Horvath, A. O. and Bedi, R. P. (2002). The alliance. In J.C. Norcross (Ed.),
Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapists contributions and
responsiveness to patients (pp. 37-69). New York: Oxford University Press.
Horvath, A. O. and Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance
and outcome in a meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(2),
139-149.
Huesmann, L.R., Eron, L.D., Lefkowitz, M.M., & Walder, L.O. (1984). The
stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology,
20, 1120-1134.
Husserl, E. (1970). Trans D. Carr. Logical investigations. New York: Humanities
Press.
Husserl, E. (1983). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a
Phenomenological Philosophy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Hutchinson,L.M.,Hastings,R.P.,Hunt,P.H.,Bowler,C.L.,Banks,M.E.,and Totsika, V.
( 2014). Who’s challenging who? Changing attitudes towards those whose
behavior challenges. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58(2), 99–
109.
Irving, J.A., Dobkin, B. and Jeeson, P. (2009). Cultivating mindfulness in
health care professionals: A review of empirical studies of mindfulnessbased stress reduction (MBSR). Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice
15(6), 1–66.
Irving, J.A. and Williams, D.I. (1995).Critical thinking and reflective practice in
counselling, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23(1), 107-114.
347
Jackson, S., Perkins, F. Khander, E., Cordwell, L., Hamman, S., Buasii, S. and
Chaovavanich, K. (2005). Integrated Health Promotion Strategies: A
contribution to tackling current and future health challenges. Paper presented
at the 6th Global Conference on Health Promotion, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jacobvitz, D., Hazen, N. and Riggs, S. (1997). Disorganized mental processes
in mothers, frightening/frightened caregiving, and disoriented/disorganized
behavior in infancy. Paper presented at symposium, Caregiving Correlates
and Longitudinal Outcomes of Disorganized Attachments in Infants, biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC.
James, A., Jenks, C. and Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing Children. London: Polity
Press.
Jansen, D., Karin, M.V., Schuurman-Luinge, A.H., Knorth, EJ., Buskens, E. and
Reijneveld, S.A. (2013). BMC Public Health, 2013, 13, 369 doi:10.1186/14712458-13-369.
Jasper, M. (1996). The first year as a staff nurse: The experience of the first
cohort of Project 2000 nurses in a demonstration district. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 24, 779- 790.
Jellema A. 1999. Cognitive Analytic Therapy: Developing its theory and
practice via attachment theory, Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 6 (1), 16–28.
Jellema, A. (2000). Insecure attachment states: Their relationship to
borderline and narcissistic personality disorders and treatment process in
cognitive analytic therapy. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7, 138-154.
Jenkins, P (2010).Children at risk: a confidential space? Therapy Today, 21(4),
17-48.
Jenkins, P. and Polat, F. (2004) The Children Act 2004 and implications for
Counselling in Schools in England and Wales. Pastoral Care. 24(2), 7-14.
Johns, C. (1998). Caring through a reflective lens: giving meaning to being
a reflective practitioner. Nursing Inquiry, 5, 18-24.
Johns, C. (1996). Visualizing and realizing caring in practice through guided
reflection. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24, 1135-1143.
Jones, A. (2001). A condensed history of the phenomenology: the first and
second phases from Franz Brentano to Hans-Georg Gadamer. Nurse Researcher,
8(4): 65 - 75.
Jones, D.M. (1985). Bullimia: A false self-identity. Clinical Social Work Journal,
13(4), 305-316.
Junger, M., Stroebe, W. and van der Laan, A.M. (2001). Delinquency, health
behaviour and health. British Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 103-120.
348
Kabat-Zinn, J., Wheeler, E., Light, T., Skillings, A., Scharf, M. J., Cropley, T. G.,
et al. (1998). Influence of a mindfulness meditation-based stress reduction
intervention on rates of skin clearing in patients with moderate to severe
psoriasis undergoing phototherapy (UVB) and photochemotherapy (PUVA).
Psychosomatic Medicine, 60, 625–632.
Kazdin, A.E. (1987). Treatment of anti-social behaviour in children: Current
status and future directions. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 187-203.
Kee, H. W. and Knox, R. E. (1970). Conceptual and methodological
considerations in the study of trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 14, 357–366.
Kelle, U. (1995). Introduction: An overview of computer-aided methods in
qualitative research. In U. Kelle (Ed.), Computer-aided qualitative data analysis:
Theory, methods and practice (pp.1-17). London: Sage.
Kennedy, J. H. and Kennedy, C.E. (2004). Attachment theory: Implications for
school psychology. Journal of Psychology in Schools, 41(2), 247-259.
Kernberg, D. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New
York: Jason Arouson.
Kernis, M.H. (2001). Self-esteem and psychological well-being: Implications of
fragile self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21(4), 345-361.
Kernis, M.H., Granneman, B.D., and Barclay, L.C. (1989). Stability and level of
self- esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 16(6), 1013-1022.
Kidscape. (1990). Bully Courts. London: Kidscape.
Kidscape. (2011). Preventing Bullying and Protecting Children. Available online:
http://www.kidscape.org.uk/ [Accessed]: June 2011.
King, N., Finlay, L., Ashworth, P., Smith, J.A., Langdridge, D., and Butt, T.
(2008). 'Can't really trust that, so what can I trust?’ A polyvocal, qualitative
analysis of the psychology of mistrust. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(2),
80-102.
Kleinman, S. and Copp, M.A. (1993). Emotions and Fieldwork. London: Sage.
Kleinman, S. (1991). ‘Fieldworkers’ Feelings: What We Felt, Who We Are, How
We Analyze’, in W.B. Shaffir and R.A. Stebbins (eds), Experiencing Fieldwork: An
Inside View of Qualitative Research, pp. 184–95. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Klinnert, M.D., Campos, J., Sorce, J.F., Emde, R.N. and Sveyda, M.J. (1983). Social
referencing. In R. Plutchik and H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion (pp. 57-86).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
349
Kobak, R.R., Cole, H.E., Ferenz-Gillies, R. Fleming, W.S. and Gamble, W.
(1993). Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem
solving: A control theory analysis. Child Development, 64, 231-245.
Koch, T. (1999). An interpretive research process: Revisiting phenomenological
and hermeneutic research approaches. Nurse Researcher, 6(3), 20-34.
Kochenderfer, B. J. and Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or
consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67(4), 1305-1317.
Kohler Reissman, C. 1993. Narrative analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Kooken, W.C., Haase, J.E. and Russel, K.M. (2007). Response by Kooken, Haase
and Russel. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 29(7), 927-929.
Kosak, B., Strelau, J. and Miles, J.N.V. (2005). Genetic determinants of individual
differences in coping styles. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 18, 1-15.
Krueger, R.A. (1994). Moderating Focus Groups: Focus Group Kit 4. Sage:
Thousand Oaks.
Kugle, C. l., Clements, R.O. and Powell, P.M. (1983). Level of stability and selfesteem in relation to academic behaviour in second graders. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 201-207.
Kumpulainen, K. and Rasanen, E. (2000). Children involved in bullying at
elementary school age: their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in
adolescence. An epidemiological sample. Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect,
24(12), 1567-77.
Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F., Kresanov., S.L.,
Moilanen,I., Piha,J., Puura,K. and Tamminen,T. (1998). Bully and psychiatric
symptoms among elementary school age children. Journal of Child Abuse and
Neglect, 22, 105-717.
Kvale, S. (Ed.). (1992). Psychology and postmodernism. London: Sage.
Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Bjorkqvist, K., Berts, M. and King, E. (1982). Group
aggression among school children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 23, 45-52.
Lahti, E.H.(2002). Trauma Lives in Speech: The Rhythm of Speech Breaks,
Words Disappear, A Hole Is Torn in Speech. International Forum of
Psychoanalysis, 11, 198–201.
Lambert, M. J., Okiishi, J. C., Finch, A. E. and Johnson, L. D. (1998). Outcome
assessment: From conceptualization to implementation.
Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 63-70.
Lambert, S.D. and Loiselle, C.G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and
focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228237.
350
Langley, G. C. and Klopper H. (2005) Trust as a foundation for the therapeutic
intervention for patients with borderline personality disorder Journal of
Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 12, 23–32.
Lansdown, G. (1994). Children’s Rights. In B.Mayall (Eds). Children’s Childhoods
Observed and Experienced (pp. 33-44), New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjorkqvist, K., Berts, M. and King, E.(1982) Group aggression
among school children in three schools. Scandinaviun Journal of Psychology,
23, 45-52.
Larkin, M. (2004). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis Workshop. Paper
presented at the 6th Annual IPA conference, Nottingham Trent University.
Larkin, M., Watts, S. and Clifton, E. (2006). Giving voice and making sense in
interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology
3,102- 120.
Laslett, R. (1980). Bullies: A Children’s Court in a Day School for
Maladjusted Children. Journal of Special Education, 4, 391-397.
Laslett, R. (1982) ‘A Children’s Court for Bullies’, Special Education, 9, 9–11.
Lawson, D. (1994). Identifying Pretreatment Change. Journal of Counseling &
Development 72(3), 244–248.
Lazarus, A. A. (1993). Tailoring the therapeutic relationship or being an
authentic chameleon, Psychotherapy, 30, 404-407.
Lazarus, A. A. (1994). How certain boundaries and ethics diminish
therapeutic effectiveness. Ethics and Behavior, 4, 253—261.
Lazarus, A.A. (1993). Tailoring the therapeutic relationship, or being an
authentic chameleon. Psychotherapy, 30, 404-407.
Leenaars L. S., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2008). Evolutionary perspective on
indirect victimization in adolescence: The role of attractiveness, dating, and
sexual behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 404-415.
Lehrer, J. A., Pantell, R., Tebb, K, et al. (2007). Forgone health care among U.S.
adolescents: associations between risk characteristics and confidentiality
concern. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 218–26.
Leonard, V. W. (1999). A Heideggerian phenomenological perspective on the
concept of the person. In: E.C. Polifroni and M. Welch (Eds.), Perspectives on
philosophy of science in nursing: An historical and contemporary anthology
(pp. 315-327) Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Lester, S. (1999). An introduction to phenomenological research. Taunton, UK:
Stan Lester Developments.
LeVasseur, J. J. (2003). The problem of bracketing in phenomenology.
Qualitative Health Research, 13, 408-420.
351
Lewicki, R. J. and Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in
work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations:
New York: Routledge
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J. and Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New
relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438-458.
Lewicki, R.J. and Tomlinson, E.C. (2003). "Trust and Trust Building." Beyond
Intractability. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Lewis, A. and Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching children’s perspectives.
Buckingham: University Press.
Lewis, J. D. and Weigert, A. J. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces,
63(4), 967-985.
Liamputtong, P. (2007) Researching the Vulnerable: A Guide to Sensitive
Research Methods. London: Sage
Liamputtong, P. and Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods. South
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Lightfoot, J. and P Sloper. (2002) Having a Say in Health: Guidelines for Involving
Young Patients In Health Services Development. York: Social Policy Research
Unit, University of York.
Living with Autism (2012). Available at: http://zenemu.com/2010/07/aspergersempathy-facial-expression/ [Accessed]: August 2012.
Lofland, J. and Lofland, J. (1995). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to
Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
Lonne, R. (2003). Social workers and human service practitioners. In M. Dollard,
A. H. Winefield & H. R. Winefield (Eds.), Occupational stress in the service
professions (pp. 281-309). London: Taylor and Francis.
Lopez, K.A. and Willis, D.G. (2004). Descriptive Versus Interpretive
Phenomenology: Their Contributions to Nursing Knowledge. Journal of
Qualitative Health, 14, 726-735.
Lowenstein, L.F. (1977). Who is the bully? Home and School, 11, 3-4.
Lowe, K., Jones, E., Allen, D., Davies, D., James, W., Doyle, T. et al. (2007)
Staff training in positive behaviour support: impact on attitudes and
knowledge. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 20, 30–40.
Lowenthal, B. (1999). Effects of maltreatment and ways to promote children's
resiliency. Childhood Education, 75, 204-209.
Lucas, J. (1997). Making sense of interviews: The narrative dimension. Social
Sciences in Health, 3(2), 113 – 126.
Luft, J. (1969). Of Human Interaction. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books.
352
Lupton, D. (1998). The Emotional Self. London: Sage.
Lyons-Ruth, K. Bronfman, E., and Atwood, G. (1999). A relational diathesis model
of hostile-helpless states of mind. Expressions in mother-infant interactions. In
Attachment Disorganization, ed. J. Solomon & C. George. New York: Guilford
Press, pp. 33–70.
Lyons-Ruth, K. (2003). Dissociation and the parent-infant dialogue: A
longitudinal perspective from attachment research. Journal of the American
Psychoanalytical Association, 51(3), 883-911.
MacFarlane, A. and McPherson, A. (1995). “Primary Healthcare and
Adolescence”. British Medical Journal, 311, 825-826.
Madill, A., Gough, B., Lawton, R. and Stratton, P. (2005). How should we
supervise qualitative projects? Psychologist 18(10), 616-618.
Mahdavi, J. and Smith, P. K. (2002). The operation of a bully court and
perceptions of its success: A case study. School Psychology International, 23(3),
327-341.
Mahoney, J. and Goertz, G. (2006). A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Political Analysis, 14, 227-249.
Main, M. and Goldwyn, R. (1985). An Adult Attachment Classification system.
Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Department of Psychology,
Berkeley.
Main, M. and Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences
are related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or
frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In Attachment in the
Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Intervention, ed. M. Greenberg, D.
Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 161–184.
Main, M. and Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as
disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In
Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Intervention, ed. M.
Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
pp. 121–160.
Main, M. Weston, D.R. (1981). The quality of the toddler’s relationship to
mother and to father: related to conflict behaviour and the readiness to
establish new relationships. Child Development, 52, 932–940.
Malchiodi, C.A. (2005). Expressive therapies: History, theory and practice. New
York: Guilford Press.
Malin, T., Birch, A. and Wadely, A. (1992). Perspectives in Psychology. First
edition, Hampshire: Macmillan Press.
Mann, C. and Stewart, F. (2000). Internet Communication and Qualitative
Research: A Handbook for Researching Online, London: Sage.
353
Manthei, R. J. (2007). Client-counsellor agreement on what happens in
counselling. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 35(3), 261-281.
Mar, A. (2000). Attachment style and theoretical stance: A qualitative enquiry.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Institute of Integral Studies: California.
Marcy, S.N. (1998). Childhood maltreatment and negative sequelae in
young adults: A comparison between outcomes of psychological, physical
and sexual maltreatment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(2-B), 878.
Maslach, C., and Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations
cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397.
Mauthner, M. (1997). Methodological aspects of collecting data from children:
Lessons from three research projects, Children and Society, 11, 16-28.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,
38, 24– 59.
McElroy, A., Corben, V. and McLeish, K. (1995). Developing care plan
documentation: an action research project. Journal of Nursing Management, 3,
193-199.
McEvoy, P. and Richards, D. (2003). Critical realism: A way forward for
evaluation research in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(4), 411-420.
McGinn, M.K. and Bosacki, S.L. (2004). Research ethics and practitioners.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2). Available from: http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/615/1333 [Accessed]: April, 2014.
McGurk, H. (1992). Childhood Social Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
McKeough, A., Yates, T., and Marini, A. (1994). Intentional reasoning: a
developmental study of behaviourally aggressive and normal boys. Development
and Psychopathology, 6, 285–304.
McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L. and Chervany, N.L. (1998). Trust formation
in new organizational relationships. The Academy of Management Review,
23(3), 473-490.
McLeod, J. (1998). An Introduction to Counselling (2nd Ed). Berkshire: Open
University Press.
McLeod, J. (1994). Doing Counselling Research. London: Sage.
McLeod, J. and McLeod, J. (2011) Counselling Skills: A Practical Guide for
Counsellors and Helping Professionals, Second Edition. Berkshire: Open
University press.
354
McLeod, J. (1996). Qualitative research methods in counselling, In. W. Dryden &
R. Wolfe, (Eds.), Handbook of Counselling Psychology, pp. 65-86, London:
Sage.
Mead, G. H. Mind, self and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1967.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self & Society from the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviourist. London: University of Chicago Press Ltd.
Mearns, D. and McLeod, J. (1984). A person-centred approach to research, In.
R. Levant & J. Shlien (Eds.), Client-Centred Therapy and the Person-Centred
Approach: New Directions, (pp. 370-389). New York: Praege.
Mearns, D. and Thorne, B. (2013). Person-Centred Counselling in Action, Fourth
Edition. London: Sage Publications.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., and Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological
evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and
lawyers, 2nd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.
Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B. and Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children’s
responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending
intervention on Italian middle schools. Journal of Aggressive Behaviour, 29, 114.
Mental Health Foundation. (1999). The Big Picture. London: Mental Health
Foundation.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible (A. Lingis, Trans.).
I.L.Evanston., T.V.
Merluzzi, and C.S. Brischetti. (1983). Breach of confidentiality and perceived
trustworthiness of counsellors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(2), 245-251.
Merton, R.K., Fiske, M. and Kendall, P.L. (1956). The Focussed Interview: A
Manual of Problems and Procedures. Glencoe: Free Press.
Metropolitan
Police.
(2014).
Bullying.
Available
from:
http://safe.met.police.uk/bullying/been_a_victim_and_need_some_help.html
[Accessed]: 02 April, 2014
Meyer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Michaud, P.A., Narring, F. and Ferron, C. (1999). Alternative methods in the
investigation of adolescents' sexual life. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25(1), 8490.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An
exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75(5), 1209-1224.
355
Millar, B., Maggs, C., Warner, V. and Whale, Z. (1996). Creating consensus about
nursing outcomes. 1. An exploration of focus group methodology. Journal of
Clinical Nursing, 5, 193-197.
Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Sorrell, R. and Brown, G.S. (2005). The Partners for
Change Outcome Management System. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2),
199-208.
Mills, J. (2005). A critique of relational psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic
Psychology, 22(2), 155-188.
Millstein, S.G. and Irwin, C.E. (1983). The Acceptability of Computer Acquired
Sexual Histories in Adolescent Girls. The Journal of Pediatrics, 103(5), 815-819.
Mishler, E.G. (1979). Meaning in context: is there any other kind? Harvard
Educational Review, 49(1), 2-8.
Moffitt, T.E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental
psychopathology: Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 533-554.
Morgan, D.L. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage. Morgan, D.L. (1996) Focus groups. Annual Reviews of Sociology, 22, 129152.
Morrow, V. (2001) Using qualitative methods to elicit young people’s
perspectives on their environments: Some ideas for community health
initiatives. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 16(3), 255-268.
Morrow, V. and Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with
children: An Overview. Children and Society, 10, 90-105.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. London: Sage.
Mullender, A., Hague, G. M., Imam, I., Kelly, L., Malos, E. M. and Regan, L.
(2002). Children’s Perspective on Domestic Violence. London: Sage.
Munhall, P. L. (Ed) (1994). Revisioning Phenomenology: Nursing and Health
Science Research. New York: National League for Nursing Press.
Munthe, E. and Roland, E. (1989). Bullying: An International Perspective. London:
David Fulton Publishers.
Murgatroyd, S. (1977). Pupil perceptions of counselling: a case study. British
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 5(1), 73-78.
Naderi, F., Heidarie, A., Bouron, L. and Asgari, P. (2010). The efficacy of play
therapy on ADHD, Anxiety and Social Maturity in 8 to 12 year aged clientele
children of Ahwaz Metropolitan Counseling Clinics. Journal of Applied Sciences,
10(3), 189-195.
Nash, J. M. (1997). Fertile minds. 3rd February, Time, 48-56.
356
National Health Service (NHS) (2014). Improving Access to Psychological
Therapies. Available from: http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/ [Accessed]: June, 2014.
National Health Service (NHS) (2008). Lone Worker Policy. Available from:
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/about/freedomofinformation/foipublicationschem
e/~/media/Files/FreedomOfInformationDocuments/OurPoliciesAndProcedures/
Health AndSa fetyPolicies/National_Lone_Working_Policy.ashx [Accessed]:
December, 2013.
National Health Service (NHS) (2014) Recruiting for values. NHS Employers
Values
Based
Recruitment
Project.
Available
from:
http://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/recruit/employer-ledrecruitment/recruiting-for-values [Accessed]: June, 2014.
National Institute for Health Research (2008) Transforming health care
research: the first two years, National Institute for Health Research progress
report 2006-2008. Department of Health (pp 53-54).
Nelson, K. (1985). Event knowledge and cognitive development. In K. Nelson
(Ed.), Event Knowledge (pp1-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nelson, K. and Gruendel, J. (1981). Generalized event representations. In M.E.
Lamb and A.L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in Developmental Psychology (Vol 1,
pp.131-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nesselroade, J. R. and Boker, S. M. (1994). Assessing constancy and change.
In T. Heatherton and J Weinberger (Eds.), Can Personality Change? (pp. 121147). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Newberger, J. J. (1997). New brain development research. A wonderful
window of opportunity to build public support for early childhood education.
Young Children, 52(4), 4-9.
Newman, M. (1994). Health as Expanded Consciousness. 2nd Edition, National
league for Nursing. New York.
Nisbett, R. and Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of
social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Noone, S. J. and Hastings R. P. (2009). Building psychological resilience in support
staff caring for people with intellectual disabilities: pilot evaluation of an
acceptance-based intervention. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 13, 43–53.
Norcross, J. C. and Beutler, L. E. (1997). Determining the therapeutic
relationship of choice in brief therapy. In., J.N. Butcher (Eds.), Personality
Assessment in Managed Health Care: Using the MMP1-2 in Treatment
Planning. (pp.42-53). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the Moral Domain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
O’Brian, A., Fahmy, R. and Singh, S.P. (2009). Disengagement from mental
health services. A literature review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 44, 558- 568.
357
O’Connell, P., Pepler, D.T. and Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying;
insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22(4), 437-452.
O’Connor, T.G. and Zeanah, C.H. (2003). Attachment disorders: Assessment
strategies and treatment approaches, Attachment of Human Development.
5(3):223-44.
O’Moore, A.M. and Minton, S. J. (2005). Evaluation of the effectiveness of
an anti- bullying program in primary school. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 609-622.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms. In H.
Roberts (Ed.) Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Odelius, A.M. (2008). A visit to shadowland. Stigma and other burdens in
families of severely mentally ill people. Unpublished PhD thesis. Health and
Medical Science, University of Surrey.
Office for National Statistics (1999). Interventions for young people with
mental healthproblems1999. Available from:
:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/search/index.html?newquery=Interventions+f
or+young+people+with+mental+health+problems+1999[Accessed]:09/10/2012
Olivier, M. A. J., and Venter, D. J. L. (2003). The extent and causes of stress in
teachers in the Georgia region. South African Journal of Education, 23, 186–192.
Olweus, D. and Alsaker, F.D. (1991). Assessing change in a cohort longitudinal
study with hierarchical data. In D. Magnusson, L.R. Bergman, G. Rudinger and
B. Tӧrestad (Eds.). Problems and methods in longitudinal research (pp. 107132). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger- Tas, J.,
Olweus, D., Catalano, R. & Slee, P. (Eds) The nature of school bullying: A crossnational perspective (pp. 7–27). London & New York: Routledge.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts
and effects of a school based intervention programme. In: D. Pepler. K.H.
Rubin, (Eds.),
The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411-448). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1983). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Olweus, D. and Endresen, I. M. (1998). The importance of sex of- stimulus
object: Age trends and sex differences in empathic responsiveness. Social
Development, 3, 370–388.
Olweus, D., Limber, S. P. and Mihalic, S. (1999). The Bully Prevention Program:
Blueprints for Violence Prevention, volume 10, Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence. Boulder: CO.
358
Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long term
outcomes. In K. H. Rubin and J. B. Asendorf (Eds.) Social withdrawal, inhibition
and shyness in childhood, pp. 315–341. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Osofsky, J. D. (1988). Attachment theory and research
psychoanalytic process. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 5, 159-177.
and
the
Owen, I. R. (1997). Boundaries in the practice of humanistic counselling,
British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 25(2), 163-174.
Palmer, R. (1969). Hermeneutics. Evanston: North Western University Press.
Paquette, J.A. and Underwood, M.K. (1999). Gender differences in young
adolescents’ experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 242-266.
Parish, M. (1999). The nature of the patient’s tie to the therapist. (Doctoral
dissertation, Adelphi University, 1999).
Parish, M., and Eagle, M.E. (2003). Attachment to the therapist. Psychoanalytic
Psychology, 20(2), 271-286.
Patchin, J.W. and Hinduja, S. (2006) Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A
preliminary look at cyber bullying. Youth Violence Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 148-169.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods: (2nd
Ed.).Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Patchin, J.W. and Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyber bullying and self-esteem. Journal of
School Health, 80, 614-621.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paulson, B. L., Truscott, D. and Stuart, J. (1999). Clients’ perspectives of helpful
experiences in counselling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 317-324.
Pearsall, J. (Editor). (2002). Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford; Oxford
University Press.
Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., Connolly, J.A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L. and Jiang, D.
(2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376384.
Pepler, D.T., Craig, W.M. Connolly, J., Henderson, K. (2001). Bullying, sexual
harassment, dating violence and substance use among adolescents. In: C.
Wekerle.,A. M. Wall (Eds.), The Violence and Addiction Equation: Theoretical and
clinical issues in substance abuse and relationship violence (pp. 153-168).
Philadelphia: Bruner/Mazel.
Pepler, D.T. and Craig, W.M. (1995). A peek behind the fence: Naturalistic
observations of aggressive children with remote audiovisual recording.
Developmental Psychology, 31, 548-553.
359
Pepler, D.T. and Craig, W.M. (2000). LeMarsh Research Report # 60. York
University, Toronto.
Perry, B. D. (1993). Medicine and psychotherapy: Neurodevelopment and
neurophysiology of trauma. The Advisor, 6, 13-20.
Pervin, L. and Oliver, O. (1997). Personality: Theory and research (7th Ed.). New
York: John Wiley.
Peters, D.A. (1993). Improving quality requires consumer input: Using focus
groups. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 7, 34-31.
Pfeffer, J. (1983). “Organisational Demography”. In L.L. Cummings, & B.M.O.
Staw, (Eds.), Research in Organisational behaviour, 5, 299-357.
Pikas, A. (2002). New Developments of the Shared Concern Method. School
Psychology International, 23(3), 307-326.
Pistole, C. M. (1989). Attachment: Implications for counselors. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 68(2), 190-193.
Polat, F. and Jenkins, P. (2005). Provision of Counselling Services in Secondary
Schools: A Survey of Local Education Authorities in England and Wales.
Pastoral Care in Education, 23(4), 17-24.
Polkinghorne, D. (1983). Methodology for the Human Sciences: Systems of Inquiry.
State University of New York: Albany.
Pretzlik, U. (1994). Observational methods and strategies. Nurse Researcher 2, 1321.
Pringle, J., Drummond, J., McLafferty, E. and Hendry, C. (2011). Interpretative
phenomenological analysis: a discussion and critique. Nurse Researcher, 18(3),
20-24.
Pulkkinen, L. Search for alternatives to aggression in Finland. In A. P. Goldstein
& M. Segall (Eds.), Aggression in global perspective. New York: Pergamon
Press, 1981.
Punch, S. (2002). Interviewing Strategies with Young People: the ‘Secret Box’,
Stimulus Material and Task-based Activities. Children and Society, 16, 45-56.
Putallez K. L. Bierman (Eds.), (2004). Aggression, antisocial behavior, and
violence among girls: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Putnam, F.W. (1991). Dissociative disorders in children and adolescents.
Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 14(3), 519-531.
Qiuting, C.A.O. (2013). Humanistic caring: The core of nursing. Journal of
Medical Colleges of PLA, 28, 125-128.
Quiles, Z. N., and Bybee, J. (1997). Chronic and predispositional guilt: Relations
to mental health, prosocial behavior and religiosity. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 69, 104-126.
360
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus Group Interview and Data Analysis. Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, 63, 655–660.
Rager, K.B. (2005). ‘Self-care and the Qualitative Researcher: When Collecting
Data can Break Your Heart’, Educational Researcher 34: 23–7.
Randall, P. (1997). Adult bullying: Perpetrators and victims. London: Routledge.
Raskin, R., Novacek, J. and Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissism, self-esteem, and
defensive self-enhancement. Journal of Personality, 59, 19-38.
Rauste, M.-L. Nuorison ihmis- ja maailmankuva. I. Tutkimuksen yleisesittely. Turun
yliopiston psykologian lairoksen turkimuksia (Young people’s picture of man
and the world. I. A general presentation ofthe research. Research from The
Psychological Department of the University of Turku), 1973, l l.
Rauste, M.-L. Nuorison ihmis- ja maailmankuva. 11. Tyttojen ja poikien ihmiskuva.
Turun Yliopisfon psykologian laitoksen turkimuksia (Young people’s picture of
man and the world. 11. Boys’ and girls’ picture of man. Research from rhe
Psychological Department of the University of Turku), 1974, 14.
Ray, M. A. (1994). The richness of phenomenology: philosophic, theoretic, and
methodologic concerns. In J.M. Morse (Ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative
Research Methods (pp. 117-133) Thousand Oaks: Sage
Reeves, T. (1994). Managing effectively: Developing yourself through
experience. Oxford: Butterworth.
Reid, K., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M (2005). Exploring lived experience. The
Psychologist, 18(1), 20-23.
Rennie, D. L. (2004). Reflexivity and person-centered counseling. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 44(2) 182-203.
Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1995). Self and interpersonal correlates of the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory: A review and new findings. Journal of
Research in Personality, 29, 1-23.
Rhodewalt, F., Madrian, J.C. and Cheney, S. (1998). Narcissism, selfknowledge organization, and emotional reactivity: The effect of daily
experiences on self- esteem and affect. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 75-87.
Rickard, A. (2012). The internal supervisor. Therapy today, 22(1), Available at:
http://www.therapytoday.net/article/show/2262/ [Accessed] November, 2014.
Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in Schools and What to do About It. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimization at school and the health of secondary
school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 95-104.
Rigby, K. (2000). Effects of peer victimisation in schools and perceived social
support on adolescence well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 57–68.
361
Rigby, K. (2005a). Why do some children bully at school? The contributions of
negative attitudes towards victims and the perceived expectations of friends,
parents and teachers. School Psychology International, 26(2), 147-161.
Rigby, K. (2005b). The method of Shared Concern as an intervention technique
to address bullying in schools: An overview and appraisal. Australian Journal of
Guidance and Counselling, 15(1), 27-34.
Rigby, K. and Johnson, B. (2004). Innocent bystanders? Teacher, September,
38– 40.
Rigby, K. and Slee, P.T. (1999). Australia. In P.K. Smith et al. The Nature of
School bullying, London, Routledge, pp. 324 - 339.
Riker, W. H. (1971). The nature of trust. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on
Social Power (pp. 63-81). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Robinson, G. and Maines, B. (2008). Bullying: a complete guide to the support
group method. London: Sage.
Robinson, G. and Maines, B. (1997). Crying for help: the No Blame Approach to
bullying, Bristol, Lucky Duck Publishing.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client Centred Therapy: Its Current Practice,
and Theory. London: Constable and Company.
Implications
Rogers, C. R. (1973). Client-Centered Therapy. London: Constable.
Rogers, C. R. (1965). On Becoming a Person: a Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Roland, E. (1989). Bullying: The Scandinavian research tradition. In Tattum,
D.P. Lane, D.A. (Eds.). Bullying in Schools. London: Trentham Books.
Roland, E. and Munthe, E. (1997). The 1996 Norwegian Program for preventing
and managing bullying in schools. Journal of Psychology, 18, 233- 247.
Rosenstein, D. and Horowitz, H.A. (1996). Adolescent attachment and
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 244-253.
Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: a theoretical
review. Social Development, 6 (1), 111–135.
Roth, A. and Fonagy, P. (1996). What Works for Whom? : A Critical Review of
Psychotherapy Research. New York: Guilford Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust.
Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different
after all: A cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review,
23(3), 393-404.
362
Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rudich, E.A., Gregg, A.P., Kumashiro, M. and Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal
narcissists psychologically healthy? : Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87(3), 400-416.
Rutter, M. (1995). Clinical implications of attachment concepts: Retrospect and
prospect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatric and Allied Disciplines, 36,
549- 571.
Rutter, M. (1998). Some research considerations on intergenerational
continuities and discontinuities. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1269-1273.
Ryan, F., Coughlan, M. and Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative
research: The one-to-one interview. International Journal of Therapy and
Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309- 314.
Ryle A. 1995. The ‘special needs project’ (CAT for borderline patients). ACAT
Newsletter, No. 4: 4–8.
Ryle A. 1997. Cognitive Analytic Therapy and Borderline Personality Disorder.
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Ryle, A. (1997). The structure and development of borderline personality
disorder: a proposed model. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 82-87.
Saini, M. (2009). A Meta-analysis of the Psychological Treatment of Anger:
Developing Guidelines for Evidence-Based Practice. Journal of American Academic
Psychiatry Law 37(4), 473-488.
Salmivalli, C. (1999). Participant role approach to school bullying: Implications
for interventions. Journal of Adolescents, 22, 453-459.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K.M.J., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K. and Kaukiainen, A.
(1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relation to social
status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1-15.
Sanders, D., McRoberts, G. and Tollefson, C. (1989). Childhood stress and
dissociation in a college population. Dissociation: Progress in the Dissociative
Disorders, 2(1), 17-23.
Santelli, J.S., Smith, R. A., Rosenfeld, W.D, et al. (2003). Guidelines for adolescent
health research. A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 396–409.
Sarbin, T.R. (1986) The narrative as root metaphor in psychology. In T.R.
Sarbin (ed) Narrative Psychology: The storied nature of human conduct. New
York: Praeger.
Schӧn, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Schӧn, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
363
Schroeder, C. and Neil, R.M. (1992). Focus groups: A humanistic means of
evaluating an HIV/AIDS programme based on caring theory. Journal of Clinical
Nursing, 1, 265-274.
Schuengel, C., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., and Van Ijzendoorn, M. (1999).
Frightening maternal behavior linking unresolved loss and disorganized infant
attachment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67, 54–63.
Schure, M.B., Christopher, J. and Christopher, S. (2011). Counselling students
through Yoga, meditation and Qigong. Journal of Counselling and Development,
86(1), 47-56.
Schwartz, D. (2000). Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children's peer
groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28(2), 181-192.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S. and Bates, J.E. (1997). The early
socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68, 665-675.
Scott, S., Spender, Q., Doolan, M., Jacobs, B and Aspland, H. (2001). Multicentre
controlled trial of parenting groups for childhood antisocial behaviour in
clinical practice. British Medical Journal, 323(7306): 194.
Seay, T. A., and Altekruse, M. K. (1979). Verbal and nonverbal behavior in
judgments of facilitative conditions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 108119.
Sedikes, C., Rudich, E.A., Gregg, A.P., Kumashiro, M. and Rusbult, C. (2004). Are
normal narcissists psychologically healthy? : Self-esteem matters. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 400-416.
Seiber, J. (1993). The ethics and politics of sensitive research. In
C.Renzetti, R.M. Lee. (Eds.), Researching Sensitive Topics (pp.14-26). London:
Sage.
Serbin, L. A., & Stack, D. M. (1998). Introduction to the special section: Studying
intergenerational continuity and the transfer of risk. Developmental Psychology,
34, 1159–1161.
Serbin, L.A., Cooperman, J.M., Peters, P.L., Lehoux, P., Stack, D.M. and
Schwartzman, A.E. (1998). Intergenerational transfer of psycho social risk in
women with adulthood histories of aggression, withdrawal or aggression and
withdrawal. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1246-1262.
Serbin, L.A., Stack, D.M. and Schwartzman, A.E. (2007). The impact of childhood
aggression and family violence on children’s health over time: Intergenerational
findings from the Concordia Longitudinal Risk Project. Presented at the Society
for life History research on Psychopathology. April 25- 28, 2007, Atlanta,
Georgia.
Serketich, W.A. and Dumas, J.E. (1996). The effectiveness of behavioural
parent training to modify anti-social behaviour in children: A meta-analysis.
Behavior Therapy, 27, 171-186.
364
Shaffir, W.B., Stebbins, R.A. and Turowetz, A. (eds) (1980). Fieldwork Experience:
Qualitative Approaches to Social Research. NewYork: St. Martin’s Press.
Shapiro, S., Shapiro, D. and Schwartz, G. (2000). Stress management in medical
education: A review of the literature. Academic Medicine, 75, 748-759.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook.
London: Sage.
Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing data: issues raised by the focus group.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 335-342.
Simpson, J.A. (1999). Attachment Theory in Modern Evolutionary Perspective.
In Cassidy,J., Shaver, P.R. (Eds.),Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research
and Clinical Applications (pp. 115-140). New York: Guilford Press.
Singer, J.L. (1995). Repression and dissociation: Implications for personality
theory, psychopathology and health. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Siperstein, G. N., Norins J. and Mohler, A. (2007). Social acceptance and attitude
change: fifty years of research. In: Handbook of Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities (eds J. W. Jacobson, J. A. Mulick & J. Rojahn), pp. 133–54. Springer,
NewYork.
Smetana, J.G. (1995) Morality in context: Abstractions, ambiguities, and
applications, in: R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development, Vol. 10, pp. 83130. (London, Jessica Kinglsey.
Smith, J. A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: using
interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology and
Health, 11, 261 – 271.
Smith, J. A. & Eatough, V. (2006). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In
G. M. Breakwell & S. Hammond & C. Fife-Schaw & J. A. Smith (Eds.),
Research Methods in Psychology (3rd edition) pp.322 - 341. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Smith, J.A. (2010). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative
phenomenological analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9-27.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P. and Osborn, M. (1997). Interpretative
phenomenological analysis and the psychology of health and illness. In L.
Yardley (Ed.), Material Discourses of Health and Illness. London: Routledge.
Smith, J.A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative
phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in
psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1), 39-54.
Smith, J.A. (2008). Reflecting on the development of interpretative
phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1), 39-54.
365
Smith, J.A. and Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis.
In Smith, J.A. (Ed.). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research
methods. London: Sage.
Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological
Analysis Theory, Method and Research. London: Sage.
Smith, J.A., Harré, R. and Van Langenhove, L. (1995). Idiography and the case
study. In: Smith, J.A., Harré, R. and L. Langenhove, (Eds.), Rethinking Psychology,
London: Sage.
Smith, J.A., Jarman, M. and Osborn, M. (1999). Doing interpretative
phenomenological analysis. In: Qualitative Health Psychology: Theory and
method, (pp.218-140). M. Murray and K. Chamberlain, (Eds.). London: Sage.
Smith, J. A. (2003). Validity and qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.),
Qualitative Psychology. A Practical guide to Research Methods (pp.232-235).
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Smith, P. K. and Myron-Wilson, R. (1998) ‘Parenting and School Bullying’,
Clinical Child Psychology, 3(3), 405-417.
Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J.
A. Smith& R. Harre' & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in
Psychology (pp.9– 26). London: Sage.
Smith, P. K. and Sharp, S. (1994). School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives.
Routledge: London.
Smith, P.K, Ananiadou, K. and Cowie, H. (2003). Interventions to reduce
school bullying. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 48(9), 591-599.
Smith, P.K., Pepler, D. and Rigby, K. (2004). Bullying in Schools: How Successful
Can Intervention Be? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sorrell, J.M. and Redmond, G.M. (1995). Interviews in qualitative nursing
research: differing approaches for ethnographic and phenomenological
studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 1117-1122.
Spence, D.G. (2005). Hermeneutic notions augment cultural safety education.
Journal of Nursing Education, 44(9), 409-414.
Spiegel, D. (1993). Dissociative disorders: A clinical review. Lutherville, MD:
Sidran Press.
Spiegelberg, H.(1975). Doing Phenomenology: Essays on andin Phenomenology.
The Hague: Martinus Hijhoff.
Sroufe, L.A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in
pre- school: The roots of maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter
(Eds.), Minnesota Symposium in Child Psychology (Vol 16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates. Sroufe, L.A. and Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an
organizational construct. Child Development, 48, 1184-1199.
366
Stevens, P.E. and Hall, J.M. (1992). Applying critical theories to nurses in
communities. Public Health Nursing, 9(1), 2-9.
Stewart, D.W. and Shamdasini, P.N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stewart, D.W., Shamdasini, P.N. and Rook, D.W. (2007). Focus Groups: Theory
and Practice, 2nd ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
Streubert, H.J. and Carpenter, D.R. (1995). Qualitative research in nursing:
Advancing the Humanistic imperative. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott
Company.
Streubert, H. J. (1999). The Conduct of Qualitative Research: Common Essential
Elements. In H. J. Streubert & D. R. Carpenter (Eds.), Qualitative Research in
Nursing Advancing the Humanistic Imperative, 2nd Ed. (pp. 15 –31).
Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Strong, S.R. and Schmidt, L.D. (1970). Trustworthiness and influence in
counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17(3), 197-204.
Stucke, T.S. and Sporer, S.L. (2002). When a grandiose self-image is threatened:
Narcissism and self-concept clarity as predictors of negative emotions and
aggression following ego-threat. Journal of Personality, 70, 509-532.
Sutton, J. and Smith, P.K. (1999). Bulling as a group process: An adaption of the
participant role approach. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 97-111.
Sutton, J., Smith, P.K. and Swettenham, J. (1999). Bullying and ‘Theory of Mind’: A
Critique of the ‘Social Skills Deficit’ View of Anti-Social Behaviour. Social
Development, 8(1), 117-127.
Sutton, J., Smith, P.K. and Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying:
Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation. British journal of Developmental
Psychology, 17, 435-450.
Tangney, J. P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 598–607.
Taylor, S. E. and Thompson, S C. (1982). Stalking the elusivevividness effect.
Psychological Review, 89(2), 155-181.
Teekman, B. (2000). Exploring reflective thinking in nursing practice. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 31, 1125-1135.
Theodosius, C. (2006). Recovering emotion from emotion management.
London: Sage Publications.
The Survivors Club. (2014). Counselling organisations in South East United
Kingdom. Available at: http://www.thesurvivorstrust.org/find-support/southeast-england/ [Accessed]: April 2014.
Thornberry, T.P., Freeman-Gallant, A., Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M.D. and Smith, C.A.
(2003). Linked lives: The intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 171–184.
367
Timmons-Mitchell, J., Bender, M.B., Kishna, M.A. and Mitchell, C.C. (2006). An
independent effectiveness trial of mutli-systemic therapy with juvenile justice
youth. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(2), 227- 236.
Todres, L. (2005).Clarifying the life-world: descriptive phenomenology. In I.
Holloway (Ed.) Qualitative Research in Health Care (pp 104-124). Maidenhead,
UK: Open University Press.
Todres, L. and Holloway, I. (2004). Descriptive phenomenology: Life world as
evidence. Qualitative Methodologies in Health and Social Care Research,
(Rapport., ed.) (pp. 79-98). Routledge: London.
Tracy, J. and Iacono, T. (2008). People with developmental disabilities teaching
medical students – does it make a difference? Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disability, 33, 345–8.
Treseder, P. (1997). Empowering Children and Young People: A Training
Manual for Promoting Involvement and Decision-Making. London: Save the
Children.
Troy, M. and Stroufe, L.A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of
attachment relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(2) 166-172.
Tudor, K. and Worrall, M. (2004). Freed to practice: person-centred approaches
to supervision (eds). Ross-On-Wye: PCCS Books; 2004.
Turner, C.F., Ku, L., Rogers, S.M., Lindberg, L.D., Pleck, J.H. and Sonenstein, F.L.
(1998). Adolescent Sexual Behaviour, Drug Use and Violence: Increased
Reporting with Computer Survey Technology. Science, 280(5365), 867-73.
Turner, R. H.(1968). The self-conception in social interaction. In C. Gordon
and K.J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in social interaction (pp.93-106). New York: Wiley.
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in
self- esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personal Social Psychology
Review, 5(4), 321- 344.
Tyler, E. (1965). Comment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12, 10-16.
van Hooft, S. (1995). Caring: An Essay in the Philosophy of Ethics. Colorado:
University Press of Colorado.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an
Action Sensitive Pedagogy. California: Sunny Press.
van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of Practice. Phenomenology and
Practice, 1(1), 11 – 30.
Vasquez, M.J.T. (2007). Cultural difference and the therapeutic alliance: An
evidence- based analysis. American Psychologist, 62(8), 878-885.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S. and Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus Group Interviews in
Education and Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
368
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., DeWinter, A.F., Oldehinkel, A.J., Verhust, F.C. and
Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization: A comparison of bullies, victims
and bully/victims and preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 672682.
Vogel, D. L., Wade, N. G. and Hackler, A. H. (2007). Perceived public stigma and
the willingness to seek counseling: The mediating roles of self-stigma and
attitudes toward counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(1), 40-50.
Walker, S. (2001). Consulting with Children and Young People. The
International Journal of Children’s Rights, 9, 45-46.
Walters, A. J. (1994). Phenomenology as a way of understanding in nursing.
Contemporary Nurse, 3(3), 134-141.
Warnock, M. (1987). Memory. London: Faber and Faber.
Warr, D. (2004). ‘Stories in the Flesh and Voices in the Head: Reflections on
the Context and Impact of Research with Disadvantaged Populations’,
Qualitative Health Research, 14: 578–87.
Watson, M.W. and Fischer, K.W. (1980). Development of social roles in
elicited and spontaneous behaviour during the preschool years. Developmental
Psychology, 15, 483-494.
Watson, P.D., Denny, S.J., Adair. V., Ameratunga, S.N., Clark, T.C., Crengle, S.M. et
al. (2001). Adolescents' perceptions of a health survey using multimedia
computer-assisted self-administered interview. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Public Health, 25(6), 520-524.
Webb, C. (1992). The use of the first person in academic writing: Objectivity,
language and gatekeeping. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(6), 747-752.
Webb, C. and Kevern, J. (2001). Focus groups as a research method: A critique
of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
33(6), 798-805.
Webb, P.M., Zimet, J.D., Fortenberry, J.D. and Blythe, M.J. (1999).
Comparability of a Computer Assisted versus Written Method for Collecting
Health Behaviour Information from Adolescent Patients. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 24, 383-388.
Webb, W. M., & Worchel, P. (1986). Trust and distrust. In S. Worchel & W. G.
Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 213–228).Chicago: NelsonHall.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). Annotation: Strategies for helping families with
conduct disordered children. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 32,
1047-1062.
Weiner-Davis, M., de Shazer, S., & Gingerich, W.(1987). Building on
pretreatment change to construct the therapeutic solution: An exploratory
study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 359-363.
369
Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes and J. StevensonHinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 171- 184). New
York: Basic.
Wertz, F. (2005). Phenomenological research methods for counseling
psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 167-177.
Whitney, I. and Smith, P.K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of
bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 325.
Williams, M. H. (1997). Boundary violations: Do some contended standards of
care fail to encompass commonplace procedures of humanistic, behavioral,
and eclectic psychotherapies? Psychotherapy, 34(3), 238-249.
Williams, M. H. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective
context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377–396.
Willig, C. 2001. Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology Adventures in
Theory and Method. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wilson, J. (1999). Child Focussed Practice. London: Karnac Books.
Wilson, J. (1983). Social Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Winnicot,
D.W. (1971). Playing and reality. New York: Basic Books.
Winnicott, D.W. (1949). Mind and its relation to the psychesoma. Reprinted in
Through Paediatrics to Psychoanalysis, D.W. Winnicott 1992. Kamac: London.
Winnicott, D.W. (1960). Ego distortion in terms of true and false self. In The
Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment. Karmac: London.
Winnicott, D.W. (1994) Hate in the Countertransference. Journal of
Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 3(4), 350-356.
Wolfe, D. and Grollman, S.H. (1982). Ways of playing. In D. Pepler and K.
Rubin (Eds.), The play of children (pp. 43-46). Basel: Springer Verlag.
Wolke, D. and Stanford, K. (1999). Bullying in school children. In: D. Messer, & S.
Millar (Eds.), Developmental Psychology (pp. 341-360). London: Arnold
Publisher.
Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomfield, L., and Karstadt, L. (2000). The association
between direct and relational world of the person with Alzheimer’s disease.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Health and Well-being, 1(4), 212225.
Woolfolk, H, A., Davis, H. A. and Pape, S. (2006). Teachers’ knowledge, beliefs,
and thinking. In P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 715–737). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yardley, K.M. (1990). Psychotherapy process and research: Missing persons and
missing values. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 3, 43-55.
370
Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and
Health, 15, 215 - 228.
Yin, R.K. (2008). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social
Research Methods). London: Sage.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M. and King, R.A. (1979). Child-rearing and
children’s prosocial initiations towards victims of distress. Child Development,
50, 319-330.
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 17, 229–239.
Zatelli, I. (1998). The Origin of the Biblical Scapegoat Ritual: The Evidence
of Two Eblaite Text. Vetus Testamentum, 48(2), 254–263.
Ziegler, S. and Rosenstein-Manner, M. (1991) Bullying at School: Toronto in an
International Context. Toronto: Research Services, Toronto Board of Education.
Zur, O. (2004). To Cross or Not to Cross: Do boundaries in therapy protect
or harm. Psychotherapy Bulletin, 39(3), 27-32.
371
Research Journal
Reflections on the research, participants and my personal journey
The extracts featured in this research log are taken directly from my journal,
although tenses have been changed to provide a more coherent account. I
have presented them in date order (as written), as I felt this relayed the
chronology of events and the passage of my personal journey,
31.08.2012 One of the first, and key questions I asked when embarking on
my research was whether IPA and counselling psychology were suited?
Although they share existential and phenomenological principles such as
exploration of personal identity, establishing a methodological approach that
complimented my research objectives felt very important.
01.09.2012 Having read extensive literature relating to IPA, I decided that it’s
phenomenological framework ably suited my quest to understand the lived
experiences of my participants. Of concern therefore, was the concept of
bracketing myself as a researcher, as I reasoned that my presence alone was a
statement of assumption. This proved something I struggled with throughout
the research, as there were times when my influence over the data was
unconscious. As such, despite much reflection, I was not always impartial. This
realisation came retrospectively and I have used excerpts from my
reflective journal to highlight the limitations of my self-awareness.
03.09.2012 At a conference I attended, Claire Bloom spoke of her many
years’ experience working with and researching young people with
challenging behaviour such as my participants. She said that when working
with such individuals, we use defence mechanisms to shield ourselves from
372
the impact. She asked if we can put our own needs aside and become childcentred. I considered this a particularly challenging question, as to do so
would leave us vulnerable. This took on relevance when researching young
people who bully and it was sometimes necessary to erect emotional
boundaries to keep myself safe. The conundrum as to how to shield ourselves
from emotional abuse, versus a child-centred approach represents something
I would like to explore as part of my continued professional development.
30.09.2012 The relevance of a theoretical concept known as reciprocal roles
came alive during my first focus group with the participant counsellors,
particularly, how important it is for counsellors to be aware of these in
relationship with their clients. If a counsellor is dominant, a client can
respond by being submissive. This was interesting as one of the counsellors
dominated the conversation with me and when I listened to the
transcription, I realised I had been submissive in return. It was fascinating to
hear how I had moderated my behaviour without conscious awareness. I
reflected how influential a counsellor’s persona is over their client’s and
resolved to extrapolate this experience to future practise.
20.11.2012 The young people responded encouragingly to the consent forms! All
but two were enthusiastic and earnest about the topic. They explained that
bullying was something they had both endured and perpetuated and were
therefore keen to take part. One of the boys was reticent, claiming he couldn’t
be bothered to read the forms. When I offered to read them to him he
argued about the content and from this, I intuited he was interested.
Afterwards, I reflected that his initial reluctance and defensiveness may have
been the fear of exposing his inability to read in front of his peers. Despite
the ethical stipulation to read consent forms to participants when
373
necessary, I realised that this must be undertake with sensitivity.
16.12.2012 First focus group with the participant counsellors
Today, I undertook the first focus group with the participant counsellors
who gave willingly to the focus group. However, feeling constrained by my
role as researcher, I repressed my professional identity as a counsellor and
was unable to respond as warmly as I would have liked. I sensed a
conversation power imbalance because of this. This occurrence caused me to
question my methodological choice to use IPA as the double hermeneutic
Smith (its founder) describes, emphasises the researcher’s use of self in
making sense of the participant’s experiences, and yet, to have gone into
counsellor mode would have skewed the focus group. I realised I had gone full
circle and returned to the problem of bracketing.
20.12.2012 Transcribing – I was very aware that I asked one leading question to
a participant counsellor, based upon extant literature which related to her
narrative. Smith warned of importing adjunct theories and I resolved to be
transparent about my mistake when writing up. As a counsellor, I use theory
to support my thinking, particularly during supervision. Possibly, I feel safer
when supported by theory, fearing the risk if I defer to intuition alone. This
may emanate from my childhood and is a concept I would like to explore
within personal therapy.
21.12.2012 I was aware that one of the participant counsellors interrupted
the other, taking her words and making them her own. I wondered if she
lacked confidence. However, she evaluated her counselling performance very
forcefully and when I was transcribing I wondered if she was overbearing
with her clients or allowed them to develop their own thoughts. This raised
two issues:
374
Would her clients evaluate her performance as she did her own? What was the
quality of the reciprocal relationship between them?
I would have liked to explore these two questions further by including
them in the interview guide but felt daunted by the counsellor’s apparent
anger. I questioned whether my reticence could be justified in the current
context or emanated from a personal dislike of anger. Reluctant to
misrepresent my participant, I reflected carefully about the origins of my
feelings and how these had manifest in the research. I recalled other
occasions when, as a counsellor, I had led with my own agenda and this
reinforced the need for effective supervision.
22.12.2012 – Mimicking clients – One of the counsellors mimicked how her
clients spoke when describing them during the focus group. I was shocked
by this as when clients come for counselling they trust you with their
innermost selves and to mimic them behind their backs felt like a betrayal. As
a counsellor, I believe we should completely respect our clients and that
mimicking them is a way of mocking them that can arouse feelings of
shame and worthlessness. The counsellor’s behaviour felt like bullying and I
was interested as to why such a counsellor was attracted to counsel young
people who bully. This raised three important questions which were included
in my thesis within superordinate themes:
Questions – How does our
past as counsellors
impact upon the
client/counsellor relationship and in what way?
What is our level of awareness and how effectively can we evaluate our own
performance when our problems may be unconscious to us?
375
Is the counsellor’s behaviour ethical and if not, what should I do?
The question relating to ethics posed a dilemma I was reluctant to engage with,
as the counsellor’s attitude to her clients rested with my own interpretation.
Following consultation with my academic supervisors, it was decided that no
further ethical action was necessary. I felt immense relief at this decision, as
there were numerous extracts extolling the virtues of the counsellor in
question, but which I had not included in my thesis. Thus to misrepresent her
challenged my professional commitment to authenticism.
16.01.2013 – Focus group with the young people - I anticipated that the focus
group with the young people would be challenging as I had observed their
response to questions that put them on the spot during lesson time. For
example, when they were told a film crew were coming to make a short video
of them they grew very tense and I was keen not to communicate my own
tension to the young people before the focus group started?
Even during conflict, the young people’s tutor enacted her role with warmth
and humour, attentive to, but diffusing difficult situations before they
escalated, and I was nervous that I lacked these skills. From her, I realised
that interacting with the young people was like playing a game, where to get
things wrong would plunge me into the lion’s den. For example, when the
tutor asked if those taking part in the focus group were ready to leave their
lesson, the atmosphere changed and the young people instantly became silly
and blazé. Two pupils not taking part said in a mocking way “In you go”,
whereby unsettling the focus group participants (particularly the boys) who
swaggered in as if they didn’t care.
376
This exacerbated the tension and once in the room the young people
draped their legs over each other’s chairs and swivelled around. When I
placed the tape recorder on the table, one of the participants asked what it
was. When I told him, he claimed I had not told him the group would be
recorded. I explained that it had been in the Participant Information Sheet
and that he had agreed to each point before consenting. I reassured him he
did not have to participate if he did not want to. To help sooth him I went
through the sort of things I would be asking. Even though I had observed
both male participants having counselling at their educational centre, they
denied receiving this. I realised that the focus group represented a huge risk
for the participants that far outweighed my own reservations. I reflected
that they were endowing me with their trust and felt a surge of gratitude
towards them for their bravery.
18.01.2012 From observing the young people, I realised that their body
language was often at odds with their emotions. For example, one of them,
despite seeming to be laid back, seldom took his eyes from the floor or
fully engage with the other participants and I did not think he was as relaxed
as he made out. However, there were certain topics that captured the
attention of all the participants. For example, it was very interesting and
unusual to observe the unity between the young people when self-referral
was being discussed. They nodded and their body language changed,
suggesting this was a subject they agreed upon. I reflected how, even in the
absence of words, body language could communicate a powerful message.
23.03.2013 – 2nd focus group with counsellors When the second focus
group with the counsellors started, I felt I had gained in confidence. However
as with the first focus group, one of the counsellors was more strident than
377
the other who seemed reflective, quiet and apologetic. As the focus group
progressed, I noticed that when interrupted, the quiet counsellor obdurately
continued speaking until, towards the end of the group, the more forceful
counsellor was repeating the end of her colleague’s sentences and agreeing
with her. When my supervisors asked that I challenge the more forceful
counsellor regarding her attitude, I instantly lacked self-assurance and
realised I found the counsellor quite formidable. I wondered if she had this
effect upon her clients.
28.03.2013 – 2nd focus group for the young people During the weeks when
I was transcribing the first focus group the young people regularly asked if
they would be doing the researcher’s ‘thing’ again. I reasoned that part of
their enthusiasm was definitely the prospect of missing a lesson to
participate in the second focus group. However, even though they were loath
to admit it, they were reluctantly interested in the research as, when I was
setting up the room, they asked why I was doing research and what sort of
problems I faced as a counsellor. They are complex people who would like
to liberate their enthusiasm but feel this as risky and not consistent with the
profile they have manufactured.
20.06.2013 – Analysing the transcripts One of the university academics
warned me about the hazards of contaminating the data by importing our
professions during analysis. However, I found that remaining in researcher mode
constricted and compromised my ability to engage with the participants’
narrative. It was only as a counsellor that I could surrender myself to the
data, richly explore the script and get close to the participants and their
experiences.
378
Research Log: Overview of integrated knowledge, research and practice
This research log provides a chronology of learning within the context of a
four
year Doctorate of Clinical Practice Programme. Taught modules,
discussion with professional and educational colleagues, reading, thinking
and reflection have contributed to my progress to date. Most importantly
the taught elements and the supervisory tutorials have provided an overall
direction and developed my ability to cast a critical eye, take nothing at face
value and to gain deeper understanding of phenomena through exploration and
challenge. establish myself within this learning context, I have divided my
personal characteristics and requirements into four categories which appear
in the table below.
To establish myself within this learning context, I have divided my personal
characterisitcs and requirements into four categories which appear in the
table below.
Strengths
Committed to improving clinical
care Effective professional
networks Support of family and
friends Experience of writing for
publication Determination
Integrity
Sensitivity to needs of others
Commitments
Family commitments Work
Opportunities
To carry out research
Networking Communities of
practice Peer support
Academic support Educational
development Learn new skills
Increase knowledge
Build relationships within new
organisations through research
process
Use software package to
manage data for analysis
Threats
Resources e.g. balancing work
pressures
Life events
379
The integration of knowledge: Course modules
Introduction to Doctoral Studies
This module set the scene for the four year study period both in conveying
the expectations of doctoral level study and developing the foundation of core
competencies in order to achieve these. The module was supported by an
e- learning facility enabling on-line discussion with fellow students and
lecturers. Students were encouraged to articulate their area of interest for
the research thesis at an early stage to begin to formulate ideas and
express these to colleagues in a range of healthcare disciplines. I found that
this cemented my topic of interest although narrowing this down to defined
research question demanded broad reading around the subject.
Communities of Practice
The development and synthesis of professional knowledge formed the basis of
this module, considering historical, cultural and political influences. Exploration
of the links between the philosophy of science and knowledge encouraged
me to consider my stance on how learning and understanding is best
advanced in contemporary practice. Further reading and examination of
philosophical approaches led me to consider interpretive phenomenology as
a possible way to investigate clients’ experiences in my chosen area of
interest. I found the module particularly helpful in considering ways in which
to transfer and disseminate new knowledge between disciplines and across
organisational boundaries.
Advanced research methods
This module incorporated in depth training in a range of quantitative and
380
qualitative methodologies. The assignment challenged students to defend a
methodology and design methods suited to specific research questions. It
contributed significantly to my knowledge of research approaches and sparked
interest in the design of my own study. In addition, I gained greater
knowledge of ethical issues which I could apply to my own study as it took
shape. These were particularly relevant in relation to the vulnerable young
participants in my research.
Policy Politics and Power
This module directed me to the review and analysis of mental health in an
educational setting which has major significance for my chosen area of
study. It opened my eyes to the hierarchical structure underpinning large
organisations. Contribution to my personal and professional growth included
an
enhanced awareness
of
the
critical
factors
influencing
policy
development, dissemination and implementation. I realised that to be
effective in this setting, research must be relevant to organisational goals.
Service Evaluation
This module served to increase my awareness of both quantitative and
qualitative methods since I chose to examine a service development through
a mixed methods design. This forced me to confront my fears surrounding
quantitative approaches. The area studied was concerned with young people’s
access to mental health, thus closely linked to my research topic. The module
touched on different but relevant aspects of service delivery including
economic evaluation, which I had not hitherto considered. Knowledge of the
fiscal issues underpinning mental health enabled greater understanding when
sitting as a member of the Children’s Commissioner Policy Board for young
people excluded from mainstream education.
381
Leadership in Healthcare Organisations
The leadership in healthcare organisations module came at a time of major
political and organisational change in the National Health Service thereby
providing the opportunity for lively debate amongst my peers and also,
insight into the psychological dimensions of leadership. I found this module
challenging, failing at the first attempt. Therefore, it tested my resolve, but
highlighted my determination to complete my PhD.
The integration of research: The thesis
My interest in young people who bully and their counsellors was sparked
whilst working as a counsellor in a centre for underprivileged youth. The
centre is located in a deprived area and many of the clients derived from
dysfunctional families and
presented
with
serious
developmental and
behavioural issues which manifested through bullying tendencies. Whilst
counselling such clients, I noticed that their
aggressive
exterior was
frequently a brittle veneer which covered a vulnerable and fragile self and
that they were often the victim of their circumstances.
I resolved to find out more about this group of young people, my initial
intention being to identify support organisations so that I could refer my
clients as an
additional
outlet
to
their
counselling.
Following
a
comprehensive online search however, I was surprised to uncover that
support focussed almost exclusively upon the victims of bullying, with little
attention spared for the perpetrators, and I wondered how counselling could
respond to this omission.
382
As my interest grew, I broadened my search, incorporating academic papers
and books which may shed more light upon the topic, only to find that these
likewise focussed predominantly upon the victims of bullying. It was at this
point that my desire to broaden the scope of research took shape, and I
contacted an academic tutor to air my developing ideas.
My interest lies in the relationship between young people who bully and their
counsellors. Specifically, I was interested to explore how the behavioural and
emotional problems experienced by such clients
manifested in the
therapeutic dyad and what inhibited or enabled the counselling alliance. I
decided to advance my understanding by pursuing a PhD and having
submitted a research proposal, was accepted as a student at the University of
Surrey.
At the beginning, my research was limited to the characteristic determinants
of bullying. Although this literature clearly defined the psychological and
somatic problems affecting those who bully, I sensed that a link between
such handicaps and the motivation to bully had not been identified,
concluding this as a gap in knowledge.
I reasoned that, once extrapolated to practice, a greater understanding of
the developmental problems affecting young people who bully, would also
shed light upon the relationship between them and their counsellors. My
original intention had been to incorporate parents in my study so that I could
better understand the source of their children’s’ attachment disorders.
However, my academic supervisors advised me that this alone would
represent a PhD. Ascertaining how the young people’s attachment states
influenced their relationship with others (including their
counsellors)
remained a priority and it became clear that, without their parents, I would
383
have to use a measurement tool to evaluate their attachment states instead.
It was at this point that I realised my methods section was taking shape.
Setting the methods within a methodological framework proved challenging as,
words
like
‘epistemological’
and
ontological’
seemed
daunting and
unfathomable. I spent many hours reading of their meaning, ultimately
designing a table which I pinned to my bedroom wall. It was at this point
that I benefitted greatly from supervision, for as my writing progressed, my
academic supervisors illuminated the direction of my work, pointing out
that, as I sought to explore lived experience, my work was essentially
phenomenological. Having researched this topic broadly, I too felt that a
phenomenological methodology ably suited my research objectives. Placing
my research within this context enabled me to formalise a title for my work,
providing direction and helping me funnel my ideas.
Establishing the epistemological framework for my study was a relief and
freed me to research other methods which complimented the philosophical
principles. However, if my study was to be transferable to a practice setting,
it must also be appropriate for the target audience. Therefore, it was
important to gather data using methods suited to vulnerable young people.
Having researched the approaches most suited to this task, I settled for focus
groups and individual semi- structured interviews however, I was concerned
that exploring sensitive concerns with such susceptible participants may
evoke anxiety. To overcome this problem, I modified a story stem technique
that had previously been piloted with maltreated children and which enabled
my participants to relate their experiences from a third person perspective,
whereby avoiding the stress of a first person narrative. I was pleased with
this method, feeling I had integrated both my practice experience and the
knowledge gained from the course modules to good effect.
384
Alongside the young people, I planned to run focus groups and individual
semi- structured interviews with counsellors who provided counselling to
young people who bully. Naïvely, I anticipated few concerns with this
participant group and as expected, they were competent at articulating their
experiences. Nonetheless, the attitude of one participant counsellor raised
concerns which threatened ethical action and presented me a dilemma. The
quotes from my transcript used to support my findings, presented the
counsellor in a critical light and yet there were many others which exemplified
her practice but which I had not used within my thesis.
In other words, her profile rested with my interpretation. To resolve this
problem, I revisited the ethical framework which guides my practice as a
counsellor. This was surprisingly insightful as I re-read each guideline and
evaluated its meaning afresh. Had the incident with the counsellor not
occurred, I would probably have continued my work as a counsellor with
assumed knowledge of the ethical framework I uphold. And yet, close
scrutiny of the ethical statements caused me to question these assumptions.
The exercise was a healthy one that called upon me to re-evaluate afresh
my ethical principles in practice. It also helped me appraise the precariousness
of interpretative research and the risk participants face when they take part.
Ultimately I decided that no ethical action was necessary.
The integration of practice
Undertaking my PhD has highlighted how I consider counselling practice
could change to improve the service to vulnerable young people who bully. For
example, the young participants emphasised how their concept of a
counsellor as a stranger prohibited them from self-disclosure. Remedying this
385
concern could be easily addressed by arranging regular meet and greet
sessions with young clients that both put them at ease and establish
counselling
as
accessible
support.
In addition, the notion of breaking
confidentiality in the face of harming others demands re- appraisal, since the
behaviour consistent with bullying inevitably implies this, meaning young
people are inhibited from speaking of their behaviour. I believe that regular
appraisal of this dilemma at supervision would help raise awareness amongst
counsellors. I look forward to integrating such ideas into practice.
Summary
I am often asked by my family what it will feel like to become a doctor.
At the beginning, I anticipated a reaction of seismic proportions. Instead, I am
quietly pleased to have made it this far. I realise that my PhD has been
an evolutionary process. Knowledge has not arrived in a manageable package,
but moulded as my ideas have taken shape.
Since completing my study, I have been fortunate to work as a project
administrator researching compassion awareness and I take this opportunity
to apply the learning I have gained in a practice setting. Retrospectively, I
realise the true meaning of continued professional development, for it, like the
integration of knowledge, research and practice, is an ongoing, life-long
experience.