How do school pressures and stress experienced by young people cause school shootings?
Section I: Problem Statement, Theoretical Framework, and Research Questions
1. Problem Statement
Young people react to school pressures and stress differently. The rising number of school shootings and worsening of cases of school shootings could be an extreme reaction to pressures and stress from the school environment. Although not as common when considering the entire country, this constitutes a threat. There is need to investigate the nature and extent of the school pressures and stress that young people experience today and determine whether there is a link between these and school shootings, together with the particular pressure and stress factors that lead to school shootings. Doing so would establish how school pressures and stress among young people link to school shootings as well as determine the extent that these pressures and stress drive young people to shoot fellow students and teachers in their school together with the intervening factors that trigger school shootings.
2. Theoretical Framework
Young people are the focus of the study. Young people refer to individuals between the ages of 12 and 17 encompassing middle school or junior high and high school students. This is the case object of the study because students involved in school shootings fall under this age group. There are two variables involved in the study. One is school pressures or stress among young people and the other is school shootings. School pressures or stress could refer to a number of factors such as peer pressure and other factors, especially those that negatively affect their attitudes and behavior, arising from the relationship of students with fellow students, peer groups, teachers, and administrators. Another variable is school shootings referring to the use of firearms in schools directed towards people in the school. Apart from these two variables investigated to show the nature and extent of relationship, the study also looks into the intervening factors that translate school pressures and stress into school shootings. This finds basis on the assumption that although many if not all middle school, junior high, or high school students experience pressures and stress from the school environment, school shootings are not common, although the cases continue to rise causing public concern.
3. Research Questions
The investigation of the link between pressures and stress from the school environment and school shootings would answer the following questions:
1. What are the pressure and stress factors in the contemporary school environment that young people experience?
2. How do these pressures and stress differ between schools?
3. How do these pressure and stress factors cause school shootings?
4. Which pressure and stress factors highly influence school shootings?
5. What are the intervening factors that facilitate school shootings?
Section II: Literature Review Outline
The literature review has two general parts, the theoretical part and the empirical part. The theoretical part discuss the concepts involved in the study while the empirical part considers the results of various studies made on school shooting and other related issues.
1. Theories and Concepts
O’Toole (2000) described school shootings based on the threat assessment perspective and identified precipitating factors and pre-disposing factors as the considerations in understanding school shootings and school shooter as a threat. Precipitating factors comprise the circumstances and incidents triggering the threat. These factors could seem insignificant and irrelevant but facilitate the actualization of the threat. Common arguments between school peers or reprimand from a teacher may be insignificant when considered singly but in relation to school shootings, these could be trigger factors. Precipitating factors encompass the pressures and stress that young people can experience at school. Pre-disposing factors comprise events on which the threat or its actualization depends, such as the personality characteristics of individuals, the degree of temperament, the vulnerability to depression, and the predisposition towards violent behavior such as school shootings. These factors when considered in the context of school shootings could explain the reason for the threat and the actualization of the threat. The pre-disposing factors constitute the intervening factors that could provide an underlying explanation for school shootings.
O’Toole (2000) also explained that school dynamics is yet to be established empirically in terms of the degree of relationship in increasing or decreasing the threat of school shooting. This means the need to consider school environment as context-based differing from school to school. School dynamics pertain to the behavioral patterns, belief system, cultural roles, and norms or values existing in the school. These then also constitute the school environment. The patterns could be easily discernible or not making it important to look into these to find a link with school shootings. The attitudes and behaviors that receive rewards or aversion influence the nature and extent of social relationships arising in the school environment and the reason for the different treatment of individuals. This could also provide explanations for the role played by students in social relationships in the school and the degree of perception of individuals on whether they fit in the school culture. However, students and the school personnel may have different perceptions of the school culture making this an important consideration in studying school shootings.
2. Empirical Data
The National Threat Assessment Center (2002) of the U.S. Secret Service explained a number of things about school shootings based on facts and observations of actual cases of school shootings. First is that school violence is mostly planned since students shooting at the school are not compulsive in their action. This implies that there are always signs of the threat recognized only after the event has already occurred. This supports the importance of the current study in determining the pressure and stress factors in the school environment that comprise signs of the threat. It is common for school shooters to plan the incident and even communicate it to other people, giving rise to the importance of vigilance to these signs and communications. Second is the lack of accurate profile of school shooters since a consideration of the personality and socio-cultural and economic background of students involved in school shootings varied. This supports the intention of the current study to shift the focus from the profiling of school shooters to the determination of school pressure and stress factors that could cause school shooting. Since there is no common profile for school shooters, efforts should focus on external factors that facilitate school shootings. Third is the access of students involved in school shootings to guns from members of the family or as gifts and from peers or neighbors. Majority of school shooters used guns from their homes in shooting at people in the school. This means that young people’s exposure to guns could be an intervening factor explaining school shootings. Fourth is the involvement of other students in the incident so that peer factors such as influence or common motivations could lead to school shootings. This means that groups experiencing similar pressures and stress and developing a common perception of the pressure and stress factors could perpetuate school shooting as a group, albeit with different roles. Fifth is bullying as a pressure factor or stressor that could cause school shootings. Many of the documented cases experienced severe bullying for a period before the incident. This is a school-based factor that could lead to school shootings. Palinkas et al. (2003) affirmed this in explaining the case of a student involved in school shooting who experienced severe bullying over a period and wanted to stop this through the violence act. Sixth are expressions of stress before the actual incident that concerned other people noticing these since majority of the people involved in school shootings tried to obtain guns, exhibited suicidal tendencies, or actually attempted suicide.
Skiba, Peterson and Williams (1997) also found that disciplinary action or chastisement from teachers and school personnel could be a stressor that may lead to school shootings especially when this leads to negative treatment from the other students or the disciplinary action is perceived as unfair or unjustified. Leone et al. (2000) added that disciplinary practices in schools could create pressure and stress that in turn could foster school shootings. These stressors are attributed as a part of the reasons for actual shootings especially those directed against school personnel.
Section III: Selected Methodology
1. Sample Criteria
The sample criteria involve the age and school level of the respondents together with the selection of the school. The students involved in actual cases of school shooting are those in middle school, junior high, or high school students so that these fall under the ages of 12 to 17. Since the unique culture of schools constitutes the context for pressures and stress in the school environment, at least two schools with different school cultures or dynamics is necessary to support comparison. School selection is based on distinguishing culture so that the schools should be located in different communities since the distinguishing characteristics of schools also affect school dynamics and environment.
2. Sampling Procedure
The primary sampling procedure is probability when compared to non-probability sampling. Probability sampling employs the random selection of respondents to ensure that the general population receives representation. Non-probability sampling deviates from the random selection of respondents and utilizes particular selection criteria to derive representation for the targeted segment of the population. (Patton, 1990) The targeted respondents are students in the middle school, junior high, and high school in the two schools selected. Since the sample respondents do not comprise a specific or special segment of the student population, probability sampling is the appropriate method to ensure sufficient representation of the student population.
Under probability sampling are sub-types including stratified random sampling, stratified random sampling, cluster random sampling, systematic random sampling, and multi-stage sampling. Stratified sampling ensures proportional representation of different sub-groups identified from the population. Cluster random sampling applies when the respondents are located in different geographic locations. Systematic random sampling identifies a number used to select the sample of respondents such as every fifth person in the general population list. Multi-stage sampling uses two or all of the sampling methods in different stages of respondent selection such as using systematic random sampling followed by stratified random sampling to obtain the sample needed. (Patton, 1990) Stratified random sampling is the appropriate sample selection method in order to ensure proportional representation for students in the middle school, junior high, and high school since this could support differences in experiences of school pressure and stress.
3. Sample Size
The degree of representation is the primary consideration in determining the sample size so that the process involves the approximation of the number of people needed to represent the population (Robson, 2002). The sample size in the study depends on the number of students belonging to middle school, junior high, or high school in the two schools. After acquiring the list of students belonging to these categories, the representative proportional sample is determined depending on the population. Around thirty students selected via stratified random sampling representing the learning level categories for each school would comprise the respondents to support representation of perspectives while at the same time falling within the period for data collection. The intention is to derive in-depth data so that the ability to derive rich data is much an important consideration as the sample size.
4. Phenomena or Focal Points
The study investigates the relationship between the pressures and stress in the school environment and school shootings by obtaining data from the sample population. One focal point is the determination of rich data from the respondents to support the other focal point of being able to establish a link between these two variables and provide substantial discussions of the reasons or justifications for the nature and extent of link. Another focal point is the selection and justification of appropriate data collection and analysis tools.
5. Definition of Constructs
v School pressures and stress—refer to various factors arising from the relationships among students and between students and school personnel in the context of the school culture
v School shootings—refer to actions or situations using firearms in the school targeting particular students or school personnel or targeting everybody in general
v Intervening factors—pertain to all the factors that facilitate the link between school pressures and stress and school shootings such as access to guns, etc. (O’Toole, 2000)
6. Data Collection and Management Plan
Observation and in-depth interviews are the methods of data collection. Observation involves the role of the researcher as the source of data as witness to the behavior of people comprising the case object of the study. In-depth interviews draw data from respondents by posting questions requiring rich accounts and explanations. (Rubin & Rubin, 2006) Observations commence as the researchers enter to school premises and continues to the interview proper. Observations allow the researcher to gain knowledge of the school culture. The in-depth interview is a one-on-one process made in a closed room or space to ensure privacy and make the respondent at ease in providing truthful answers and providing details. The documentation of the interview is through a video recorder with the knowledge and acquiescence of the students. This provides the researcher with room to focus on posting questions as well as follow-up questions and confirmatory questions. The researcher would make notes right after each interview to prevent loss of important highlights.
After the data collection process, transcription of interview questions and observations follows. The next process is data analysis that commences with the classification of the answers according to themes based on the research questions. After which, a comparison of the answers follow before determining the nature and extent of link between school pressures and stress and school shootings together with the factors that facilitate the commission of the act. Results of the analysis support conclusions on the research questions as well as generalization if applicable.
An issue that could emerge is reliability, which is the extent that the instrument or method of data collection support consistency of results. The sampling method ensures objectivity of the research process to ensure consistency. Observation and in-depth interview apply by using criteria for the observation and a set of predetermined questions for the in-depth interview to ensure reliability. In addition, the analysis process and conclusions consider only the transcribed observations and answers of the respondents to support reliability.
7. Budgetary Plan
Expenses
Phase of the Research Process
Amount
Transportation to the Schools
Data Collection (2 months)
0
Internet & Computer Use
Data Collection & Research Write-Up
5
Paper & Printing
Research Write-Up
0
Incidental Expenditures
Entire Period of Research
$ 50
Total
5
Section IV: Analysis and Justification of the Qualitative Design
The study utilizes the qualitative design as opposed to the quantitative design. On one hand, qualitative research involves the derivation of rich data from the accounts and descriptions provided by the respondents (Rubin & Rubin, 2006). Qualitative research design applies in studies requiring in-depth data on a particular group, relationship, situation or phenomenon. On the other hand, quantitative research involves the derivation of measurable data on the subject of the research (Blaxter, Hughes & Tight, 1998). Quantitative research applies in studies involving measurable and statistical data. The difference between these two research designs rests on the nature of data these intend to derive. Since the current study to derive in-depth or rich data instead of measurable or statistical data, the appropriate method is qualitative research. The research questions call for the determination of the link between school pressures and stress and school shootings together with the factors that facilitate this relationship and the manner that intervening factors influence the relationship. While statistical data could also determine the link between variables, the constructs involved in the study are difficult to measure or quantify, making the quantitative design inapplicable. In addition, investigating the link and providing explanations for the link in the context of school culture require in-depth data from the accounts of the respondents, which makes qualitative design the appropriate research method.
References
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1998). How to research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Palinkas, L. A., Prussing, E., Landsverk, J., & Reznik, V. (2003). Youth-violence prevention in the aftermath of the San Diego East County School shootings: a qualitative assessment of community explanatory models. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 3(5), 246-252.
Leone, P. E., Mayer, M. J., Malmgren, K., & Meisel, S. M. (2000). School violence and disruption: Rhetoric, reality, and reasonable balance. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33, 1-20.
O’Toole, M. E. (2000). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Quantico, Virginia: National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2006). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 295-315.
U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center. (2002). Preventing school shootings: A summary of a U.S. Secret Service safe school initiative report. National Institute of Justice Journal, no. 248. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:I1hwB1sG-IwJ:www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000248c.pdf+school+shootings&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ph&client=firefox-a
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment